The Darth Vader/Dr. Doom Builder Book List

[Khatti]

Damn... both of us deal with anecdotal evidence. What about catching a sample of fledging academics, assign them by random to pay lip service to different ideologies and see how their careers would develop? ;)

I'm sure that finding test volunteers won't be a problem.

 

[Khatti]

Honestly speaking I think that unfortunately that in making scientific career one of the factors is having proper ("proper" can actually be varied pending on field, my impression was that sociology related stuff attracted much more left wing people than economics) views. I think about Sokal Hoax or the way in which green establishment tried to destroy Bjorn Lomborg.

The reason why this unpleasant question came to me is because of something I see on C-Span/BookTV. One of the best-seller lists quoted mentioned a book called The Sixth Extinction. The heart of this book is that the author believes that there is going to be another onslaught of extinctions in the coming decades. Anyone care to guess what the author believes will be responsible for this wave of extinction?

I fret a great deal about global warming, yet I can't help but wonder how much of the activism surrounding global warming has to do with averting a crises, and how much has to do with making the bastards do the right thing for once in their ill-gotten lives.

 

[Czcibor]

The reason why this unpleasant question came to me is because of something I see on C-Span/BookTV. One of the best-seller lists quoted mentioned a book called The Sixth Extinction. The heart of this book is that the author believes that there is going to be another onslaught of extinctions in the coming decades. Anyone care to guess what the author believes will be responsible for this wave of extinction?

I fret a great deal about global warming, yet I can't help but wonder how much of the activism surrounding global warming has to do with averting a crises, and how much has to do with making the bastards do the right thing for once in their ill-gotten lives.

My English section of my secondary school library was tiny and books were generally old gifts from abroad. It caused that the first book in English that I've read was "The Limits to Growth". It was so scary to read such so respectable academics describing impending doom caused by resource scarcities. Especially that in the moment of reading there was supposed to be practically no ores nor natural gas/oil for over a decade. Doom books sell well for centuries just nowadays one have for brighter readers at least make some semblance for science, don't put the doom day too soon (it can made you a subject of mockery) and to avoid boredom change the imminent threat from time to time.

 

[Khatti]

Doom books sell well for centuries just nowadays one have for brighter readers at least make some semblance for science, don't put the doom day too soon (it can made you a subject of mockery) and to avoid boredom change the imminent threat from time to time.

Writing books may not be the way to go; the real money is made when you form your own religion and assure your flock that the end is nigh, but anyone who hangs out with you (being a messiah and all that) will live through the coming crises. It's also a great way to pick up chicks.

 

[Drakkith]

Scientists make up only a percentage of all academics.

Then I change my statement to "Most academics are not misanthropes".

I remember paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould gave an interview some time in the past where the stupidity and immorality of his fellow human beings played a part. What I'm talking about is not so much the distasteful personal attribute of anyone scholar as it seems to be an intellectual fashion of many scholars. It may the the frame of the picture thing: it's hard to see the picture when you're standing within the frame.

Stupidity and immorality are always more popular topics than the smart and the moral.

 

[DarthMatter]

Darth Vader is history.

 

[GTOM]

Back to the evil scientist trope, realistically what could help a scientist to become evil (he should be one of my characters)?
I had ideas like other people took most credits for his work, or earned more publications with lesser results because they were better comrades. Add this to his fathers strict maximalism, he always felt he is too small, until the ultimate plan to overtake Earth with the alien technology.

 

[Khatti]

Back to the evil scientist trope, realistically what could help a scientist to become evil (he should be one of my characters)?
I had ideas like other people took most credits for his work, or earned more publications with lesser results because they were better comrades. Add this to his fathers strict maximalism, he always felt he is too small, until the ultimate plan to overtake Earth with the alien technology.

One of my heavies became what he was because of the politics of his academic parents, and because he saw said parents being shamed by a cop at a demonstration. My heavy was four or five at the time. The cop was actually threatening to take the kid away, and his parents weren't sure the cop couldn't do it. The whole experience rocked my heavy's world for the rest of his life. It filled him with a sense of outrage that could never be sated. The evil he does in the world is part of a grand, social solution for a wholly personal problem. Finally, my heavy discovers that he's a sexual sadist in the course of his adventures, and the need for gratification becomes harder and harder to give up.

 

[GTOM]

GTOM;

You know another woman you may want to look at, if you are creating a mercantile dictatorship, is Ayn Rand. After all, the Intelligentsia play as much of a role in ruling as politicians. The question that intrigues me with public intellectuals is to what extent they are trying to create grand, social solutions to what could be wholly personal problems. As a young girl in the Soviet Union of the Revolution Bolsheviks raided the drug store of her father and threw the family out into the street. She always felt an intense sense of outrage over that, and it fueled the creation of her philosophy. I always wonder to what extent Karl Marx has a similar bio.

Reminds to me Andrew Ryan from Bioshock.
"Does man has the right to his own wealth? No! In America it belongs to the poor. In Vatican, it belongs to God. In Soviet Union, it belongs to everyone. So i choosed Rupture."

(My female governor otherwise has nothing against collectivism, and support families, poor ones, although the economy is clearly capitalist. Her main sin is fear.)

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Look at how real life monsters came to be who they were. Did Hitler create WWII? Or Did the treatment of Germany after WWI create Hitler? Look at how North Korea came to be what it is, or the Iranian revolution:
People turn to idiological fundamentalists when they feel as a whole that their current system is working against them.

 

[Czcibor]

Back to the evil scientist trope, realistically what could help a scientist to become evil (he should be one of my characters)?
I had ideas like other people took most credits for his work, or earned more publications with lesser results because they were better comrades. Add this to his fathers strict maximalism, he always felt he is too small, until the ultimate plan to overtake Earth with the alien technology.

Ideas:
1) Huge grant for really unethical project (hint: don't try it on this forum, don't lead us to temptation ;) )
2) Let masses forbid her reasonable pet project because of some phobia (like nowadays is being treated GMO or nuclear power). (not only revenge, one may also doubt the whole system as such...)
3) Snowballed... Did not really wanted much at start, just when some conflict were starting were winning them, and each victory was making her stronger but with more enemies, what was leading to arms race and preemtive strikes.
4) Problem with being too rational. Is shooting one innocent guy by over eager police a fair price to have more effective police and save two people from being murdered? If you say "yes", then you:
-just trashed all official ideology that we're expected to believe;
-technically speaking gave an answer which is in accordance with economic theories;
-justified having a police state.

 

[GTOM]

Look at how real life monsters came to be who they were. Did Hitler create WWII? Or Did the treatment of Germany after WWI create Hitler? Look at how North Korea came to be what it is, or the Iranian revolution:
People turn to idiological fundamentalists when they feel as a whole that their current system is working against them.

Masses support the revolution if they feel the system takes away everything from them, but i think Hitler for example gained his ambitions from personal problems (no success, no women, what those rich jews have that i dont...)

 

[GTOM]

Ideas:
1) Huge grant for really unethical project (hint: don't try it on this forum, don't lead us to temptation ;) )
2) Let masses forbid her reasonable pet project because of some phobia (like nowadays is being treated GMO or nuclear power). (not only revenge, one may also doubt the whole system as such...)
3) Snowballed... Did not really wanted much at start, just when some conflict were starting were winning them, and each victory was making her stronger but with more enemies, what was leading to arms race and preemtive strikes.
4) Problem with being too rational. Is shooting one innocent guy by over eager police a fair price to have more effective police and save two people from being murdered? If you say "yes", then you:
-just trashed all official ideology that we're expected to believe;
-technically speaking gave an answer which is in accordance with economic theories;
-justified having a police state.

Thanks, although i called the scientist (G) he, the governor of other planet is the she (A). The first one (G) should really look like a good guy at start (snowballed yes, that is a good idea, it could start with killing people for achieving a strategic goal), the second one (A) should look like entirely evil, later grayed, that will be a challenge.
Too rational part is good :) However i expect the other, (probably even more) rational scientist (B) not to support the villain's (G) final plan, saying that creating a controlled hive mind of Earth's population is unethical experiment, also kills individuality, maybe Earth is corrupt, but the only place in solar system not too much collectivist.

 

[Khatti]

Masses support the revolution if they feel the system takes away everything from them, but i think Hitler for example gained his ambitions from personal problems (no success, no women, what those rich jews have that i dont...)

But Hitler happened to have those personal problems at the right time and in the right place. If things had been going swimmingly in Germany Hitler would have been giggled into the shadows. Perhaps under those circumstances he would have become a school shooter.

 

[Khatti]

1) Huge grant for really unethical project (hint: don't try it on this forum, don't lead us to temptation ;)

Oh no. Tempt me Tempt me!

 

[Hornbein]

Masses support the revolution if they feel the system takes away everything from them, but i think Hitler for example gained his ambitions from personal problems (no success, no women, what those rich jews have that i dont...)

I'd recommend Charles Bracelen Flood's book on Hitler. In short, Hitler was largely motivated by love of country.

 

[Artribution]

I don't have any suggestions for villain how-to books. But a line from Legend of the Galactic Heroes comes to mind:

"There are few wars between good and evil; most are between one good and another good."

I'd recommend Charles Bracelen Flood's book on Hitler. In short, Hitler was largely motivated by love of country.

He was also motivated by anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. 11 million Germans served in the First World war, of which 7 million became casualties. Hitler, like many others, was radicalized in the years after, in the insanity of the German right wing as it latched onto any conspiracy theory it could find to explain the collapse of the German Empire, the most common ones involving communists and Jews.

 

[Khatti]

"There are few wars between good and evil; most are between one good and another good."

"Good" being very much in the eye of the beholder.

In short, Hitler was largely motivated by love of country.

So was George Washington, but we have a very different view of Washington than we do of Hitler. Few people are as ardently Deutschephile as I am, but even I have a hard time believing that nothing was going on with Hitler but an ardent love of Germany. Hitler, incidentally, was an Austrian.

 

[Hornbein]

I don't have any suggestions for villain how-to books. But a line from Legend of the Galactic Heroes comes to mind:

"There are few wars between good and evil; most are between one good and another good."

I would say that most wars are fought in pursuit of self interest. Whether that is good or evil I will leave up to you.

According to Albert Einstein, Germans were largely motivated to fight World War I in pursuit of wealth. The previous war with France had enriched many Germans, and the new generation wanted to do the same.

 

[GTOM]

Oh no. Tempt me Tempt me!

In my setting, masses won't stop a scientist from pursuiting even an unethical project.
Killer AIs, go to technocratic regime. Hard drug pushers/biotech megacorp would support him creating crops that deliberately destroys other crops. (Then after a new superpest destroys monoculture, they have to buy the new breed.)

 

[Czcibor]

I would say that most wars are fought in pursuit of self interest. Whether that is good or evil I will leave up to you.

According to Albert Einstein, Germans were largely motivated to fight World War I in pursuit of wealth. The previous war with France had enriched many Germans, and the new generation wanted to do the same.

I'm not fully convinced about this explanation, I'm more think in line of mixture of overconfidence, game of chicken bad luck (yes, the same kind of secret diplomacy and power play helped to diffuse Fashoda incident, who nowadays remembers about it?). In case of Germans they joined from the same reason as most of players - because of following their alliance obligation.

GTOM:

To make everything a bit more sinister beneath... Make everything fully scientific... show some small sample of population different propaganda to asses their impression... Make clear that those in power take care about wellbeing of population and are serious about it... Secret opinion polls, focus groups, medical documentation concerning mental health... Make clear that someone analyses that and adjust policy accordingly... Show a discussion what to show in official media... Making list what extra can be expressed by licensed opposition...

To avoid cheap conspiracy story:
-not almighty;
-instead of mysterious accidents, a few trouble makers are going to be reprimanded, if that fails - sacked;
-not all big lie, but plenty of manipulations here and there;
-no one needs to convince all, actually quite a few people read independent news... but they can't do much;
-the biggest problem is not the truth, but more lies spread by hostile corps.

 

[Khatti]

In my setting, masses won't stop a scientist from pursuiting even an unethical project.
Killer AIs, go to technocratic regime. Hard drug pushers/biotech megacorp would support him creating crops that deliberately destroys other crops. (Then after a new superpest destroys monoculture, they have to buy the new breed.)

I got to thinking this morning about the classic mad scientist; Frankenstein. It occurred to me that a better label for Frankenstein is Obsessed Technologist. Frankenstein came across a technique rather than a body of data. I can't imagine Frankenstein posting hourly reports on an experiment under way any more than I can imagine Einstein retreating to his lab at the top of his keep and trying to build a time machine or create a black hole(cackling madly the whole time of course.). Frankenstein is like guy who can't stop thinking about spanking his nubile secretary; the guy who is staring up at the forbidden fruit and is, sooner or later, going to grab one and take a bite. Like Mary Shelley, the public is terrified what is going to happen if the guy gives into his obsessions. The public is also--irrationally--concerned that all scientists are Frankenstein, and any moment now they are going to give into their deadly obsessions and ruin everything.

What you seem to have going on is the pissed-off scientist. This guy is more likely to become a workplace shooter than the guy who gives in and spanks his secretary. I don't know if this gives you any helpful perspective, but I thought I would add it to the discussion.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

An author can create a specific model for the interior mental attitudes of a character, but I think characters created in this fashion tend to be unrealistic. When we encounter people in real life, we often find ourselves at a loss when it comes to understanding what is going on in their minds.

Of course, it is possible to write fiction from an "omniscient" point of view where the author specifies what a character thinks - e.g. "Murland thought to himself , "if I pick up that paper, he will know I am interested in this".

If we write only from the viewpoint a single character or an "outsider" who is merely observing the behavior of characters then we don't need to create characters by forming them out of the clay of psychological states; we only need to describe their behaviors. For example, the experience of dealing with real people involves observing how they eat meals. A person with iconoclastic views may follow very conventional rules of etiquitte.

 

[Khatti]

An author can create a specific model for the interior mental attitudes of a character, but I think characters created in this fashion tend to be unrealistic. When we encounter people in real life, we often find ourselves at a loss when it comes to understanding what is going on in their minds.

Of course, it is possible to write fiction from an "omniscient" point of view where the author specifies what a character thinks - e.g. "Murland thought to himself , "if I pick up that paper, he will know I am interested in this".

If we write only from the viewpoint a single character or an "outsider" who is merely observing the behavior of characters then we don't need to create characters by forming them out of the clay of psychological states; we only need to describe their behaviors. For example, the experience of dealing with real people involves observing how they eat meals. A person with iconoclastic views may follow very conventional rules of etiquitte.

The two main, must-read fiction writers outside of science fiction I always advise science fiction writers to read are John D. MacDonald and Georges Simenon. MacDonald's, Travis McGee series is the classic series for the suspenseful, first-person private eye books. They surpass even Chandler. Far more important to an aspiring writer are the stand alone books he wrote in the Fifties. Even thought they are obviously dated now they are still perfect studies of how characters are created and delineated. To name three titles that I go back to again and again: The Crossroads, Contrary Pleasures, and Cry Hard, Cry Fast. In the Travis McGee series I'm particularly fond of The Turquoise Lament, Bright Orange for the Shroud, Pale Gray for Guilt, and The Girl in the Plain Brown Wrapper. If you want to see how to portray bad people effectively, read these. I'm reading Salmon Rushdie's latest book at the moment, and Rushdie still hasn't done anything in it that MacDonald does better.

In Simenon's case too I would stay away from the Maigret series, which has never really done anything for me, and go with Simenon's non-Maigret books: The Widow, and The Truth About Bebe Donge come immediately to mind. Simenon (in the English translations I have) learned to convey a lot of information in just a few words. And, again, if you want to learn how to portray complicated badness you cannot go wrong with Simenon.