Byzantium — The Church, the New Testament, and Holy Tradition

So, the next few posts in this series are going to focus a little more on understanding the structure of the Orthodox church and its core beliefs and practices because understanding them is kind of important to understanding why Roman civilization continued and flourished up to the fifteenth century in Byzantium but floundered and collapsed in Rome and points West.

Previously, I warned the Catholics not to come at me over the fact that our two communities haven’t seen eye-to-eye on a lot of things for the better part of over 1500 years. This week, it’s the Protestants’ turn to get their feathers ruffled.

Now, I’m going to say this again: this is the Orthodox point of view. I’m not asking you to take it for your own or to even like it. I’m asking you to accept it as the Orthodox and Eastern view, a view that is very decidedly not Romanocentric. If you can do that, then we can do that “agreeing to disagree” thing. But if you think you’re going to come at me with how the Holy Spirit departed the church in the early centuries because the Pope was bad (it didn’t and the Pope wasn’t always a bad guy), how Christ “shrouded” the Real Truth until Luther/Calvin/Williams/Smith/Henry VIII/Parham/whoever your Modern Prophet Who Talks To Jesus On The Two-Way Radio is was born (go join the Gnostics and talk about how super Magickal and Spiritual you are and how you’re the Mostest Spechulist Widdle Snowflake in the Universe), or how Holy Tradition is wrong and obscures the truth of the New Testament (where in the name of God do you think the New Testament came from, you bloody-minded, squirrel-brained imbeciles?!), then I make you the same offer I made the Catholics last time:


I’ll throw the Golden Gate and the Brooklyn Bridge in free for you fine folks!

Sorry if that seems harsh but if I have to suffer through Yet Another Conspiracy Theory about how there wasn’t a “real, true church” from about 50 AD until Whenever The Great Restorer You Like Was Born AD, then I might start stabbing people with wet noodles. The true, universal and complete (that’s what “catholic” means), and Apostolic church existed in the entire Roman Empire, East and West, from 33 AD without a breach. Even the Roman Catholic Church is an off-shoot of the ancient church — just a section that went off to do its own thing due to political realities and is no longer in agreement with the Synod of the other ancient churches and the newer churches that arose from them (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Russia, Bulgaria, Armenia, Ukraine, Japan, the Orthodox Church in America, etc). Some Protestant churches are off-shoots of the Roman branch but most of them… well… no offense, but y’all are a little nuts, okay? It’s like you forgot how to read the New Testament sometimes even though you seem to worship the words in it more than the Word it speaks of.

Conspiracy Guy
I love y’all. Really I do. But the phrase “nuttier than a whole sack of squirrel sh*t” has been heard leaving my mouth when discussing Protestants.

Why is that, I wonder?

Oh yeah, because of the lack of respect for the ancient traditions we call “Holy Tradition!”

Now, before you start up with your Sola Scriptura arguments, I want you to ask yourself one very, very simple question. I want you to be honest with yourself about it, too. The question is this:

When and how was the New Testament written and compiled and how did the church continue to spread the message of salvation and teach the faith before then?

Now, I answered part of this a few entries back when I said that the books that would come to comprise the New Testament were written between about 35 AD and 95 AD. That’s the “when” part. The “how” part is “they were written with quill or pen on parchment or papyrus.” Remember, the printing press is still about 1,400 years from existing in Europe (and about 850 years from existing in China). The New Testament did not get delivered, already leather-and-cardboard bound and printed in columns with the chapters and verses numbered and words of Christ in red in modern English on Pentecost 33 AD. I mean, the Holy Spirit brings a lot of gifts, but that wasn’t one of them. 😉

Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost
Please don’t smite me…

Copies of the various gospels, books of instruction (like The Didache), the epistles, and other important documents had to be copied by hand and then delivered by individual human carriers (telegraph, telephone, and email being quite some time in the future). Any given church might have two, maybe three of the Gospels and a handful of some of the epistles alongside some books of local instruction, letters and writings that were not later made canon, and letters and writings that would later be held to be heretical (in error).

So then, how did the Church as a whole continue to ensure that it was teaching things correctly when the New Testament was still being gathered?

The answer is two words that some of you are gonna hate: Holy Tradition.

Holy Tradition Haters Gonna Hate
Some of you are making this face right now

Remember, the people who founded the early churches were the Apostles or the Equal-to-the-Apostles (like Mary Magdalene). They had been taught by Christ Himself and had witnessed His earthly ministry. They could teach from memory and, guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit, they did not change the teachings that had been given to them. They made use of writing when it could be useful. They also wrote the first ikons (to the Orthodox, ikons are not paintings, they are writings). These could be very useful in instructing and inducting new Christians since the Romans would see only “pretty artwork” but the message contained in the ikon could be understood by Christians who had not learned to read. The Apostles would lay their hands on those who were to take over the teaching and administration of a given church and would ask that the Holy Spirit guide and guard the new deacon/priest/bishop the same way He had guided and guarded the Apostles. Then the Apostles would go off to found another community.

That laying-on-of-hands is important. That’s how tonsuring and ordination is done. Every single deacon, priest, bishop, metropolitan, and patriarch of the current Orthodox Churches can trace their lineage through the direct laying-on-of-hands all the way back to Pentecost. It’s an unbroken line that, in the West, only the Pope can match. It was also one of the first sacraments. Others were baptism by full immersion in water, the Eucharist at the shared meal at the “love feasts,” the anointing with holy oil the newly consecrated and the sick, the blessing of matrimony, and the practice of confessing ones sins before God.

“But, those are all mentioned in the New Testament!”

Holy Facepalm
Dude, is it just in one ear and out the other?

Yes, they would be mentioned in it. Once it was written. Once it had been compiled. Once every church had a copy of it. But what about the churches in the first few centuries who had only oral teachings and a handful of notes to work off of? They were somehow able to follow the teachings without needing a copy of any of the written Gospels or the Epistles. Indeed, it would be because of the importance of Holy Tradition that the physical written texts were preserved, copied, and shared between the communities! The New Testament itself is one of the fruits, one of the products, of Holy Tradition!

Holy Tradition itself arose out of Judaism, one of the few “early” religions to place importance on written Scripture as well as oral traditions and observing annual celebrations (like the Passover). Most religions from early history did not have a strong literary component and did not require literacy to achieve rank within them. So, the emphasis on keeping records of the actual teachings in writing and preserving and copying those writings came to Christianity straight from the faith of the Jewish fathers. Remember, almost every last Apostle was Jewish. The first council in Jerusalem actually dealt with the question of “did Christians need to convert to Judaism first?”

Much of the formality of Orthodox liturgy and the Catholic mass likewise arises out of Judaism. Jewish practices at the synagogues and Temple formed the basis for how worship services were carried on in Christianity. Like the first century Jews, our worship services consist of:

  1. An opening blessing
  2. Prayer
  3. Readings from the Law (Judaism)/Readings from the New Testament (Christianity)
  4. Readings from the Prophets (Judaism)/Readings from the Gospels (Christianity)
  5. Sermon
  6. The Eighteen Blessings (Judaism)/The prayers to prepare for the Eucharist (Christianity)
  7. The Dismissal

(Taken from The Historic Church, pages 26 – 27, by Archpriest John Morris)

The other things that make some Protestants twitch also come out of the first few centuries following Pentecost. By the time that the New Testament canon was set (sometime in the fourth and fifth centuries), the Church already had a rich support in Holy Tradition to keep it from falling into error and worse. It also had a structure that protected it from being overly influenced by the government — a structure that worked well in the East but was discarded in the West.

But we’ll get to that next time.

— G.K.

Byzantium — What is Christian and What is Crap?

So, this is going to be one of those posts where the Catholics aren’t going to like what I have to say. Therefore, I’m going to make a deal with them: if y’all are willing to understand that this is the Orthodox point-of-view and that I’m not asking you to accept it, like it, or agree with it beyond saying “that is what the Orthodox think, we think differently,” then we can do this thing called “agreeing to disagree.” If you’re going to come at me thinking that you can ignore Acts of the Apostles (you can’t), that Rome was the only church Peter founded (it wasn’t), and that letters recognizing the bishop of Rome as first among equals because of Rome’s political importance are somehow saying that he’s Super Bishop and King of All Creation (he’s not), and that I’m going to suddenly change my mind well…


I’ll throw the Golden Gate Bridge in free.

So, as I mentioned last time, Old Rome did not much cotton to this “New Rome” being given the same prominence it had once held now that the seat of government had moved east. When Constantine argued that the bishop of Constantinople should be granted the title of “Patriarch” since he now led the church in the Imperial Capitol, well, that didn’t sit well with Rome. However, it went through because the process of allowing the expansion of the church was not subject to much centralized control (how could it be — this was way before telegraphs, the postal service, steamships, railroads, or anything resembling fast transit). It helped that the church of Constantinople had been founded by one of the Apostles (Andrew) in the first century so it wasn’t like it hadn’t been part of the ancient community.

Now, as I’ve mentioned before, Constantine converted to Christianity. However, back in this era, there wasn’t any solid definition of what it was to be Christian and which teachings from which churches were authentic and correct. There was a lot of heresy and heterodoxy in this era and the Gnostic garbage is probably the most well-known of the lot.

“But what were the Gnostics? Weren’t they the ones with the Real Truth(TM)?”

Well, Timmy, do you know how there are about ten dozen different flavors of Baptist (First Baptist, Southern Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Methodist-Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Evangelical Baptist, Billy Bob’s Baptist BBQ and Casserole…) but there is at least one Baptist church that insists that only its members are doing things correctly and that only its members are going to heaven and that you had to attend it every Sunday and listen only to the sermons of its current pastor and definitely had to pay a certain amount to the church? That Baptist church would be the modern-day version of the Gnostics.

Fuck the Gnostics
Eff the Gnostics and their elitist “I’m the mostest spechulist” crap. Woodlawn would have welcomed them.

Look, if you doubt me, go read the garbage for yourself. You can find it all for free here. You’ll find that every last one of the so-called Gnostic gospels is some version of “yeah, Jesus told everyone the stuff you read in Matthew, Mark, or Luke but He totally told me the Real Magic and how to become Greater Than God and have Superpower and all you have to do is listen to the guy who says I taught him these secrets and you can be one of the Real Christians.” The handful that aren’t are just personal prophecy that didn’t have jack to do with the church or the people (yeah, a book that says that Anna had a dream that her daughter would marry a king isn’t exactly going to be as useful as the Pauline Epistles when it comes to teaching about Jesus).

I’ll be here with the whiskey and the eye bleach when you get done torturing yourselves.

Eye Bleach
By the blep, you are blessed.

Back so soon?

Well, settling the teachings of the church into those which were correct (orthodox) and those which were incorrect (heterodox) was part of why there was the First Great Ecumenical Council held in Nicaea in 325 AD. Hosius of Cordoba presided with Emperor Constantine attending just to keep things from getting out of hand (and yes, these councils could and did turn into actual, fist-to-the-face, fights at times). The main issue of contention in the First Council was to settle the issue of Arianism. Now, Arianism wasn’t some tiny disagreement over trifling details like “do we sing the processions in C major or G major?”

Ikon of the First Council
Chances are there was a lot more drinking and fisticuffs than this ikon depicts

Arianism was a Big Deal. Arians argued that Jesus was not co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father and instead was just the highest creation. This went against what Christ Himself had said and against the teachings from the Apostles that God the Father and God the Son were one and were co-eternal and co-equal. If you argued that Jesus was just a human who God possessed, then why worship Him since Jesus wouldn’t have had much to do with the salvation of humanity? The fights over whether or not Jesus was God (He is) or was just Some Guy got pretty contentious and the First Council tried to resolve the issue (but Arianism would keep cropping up for a while — heck even today there are some Protestant denominations that hold Jesus as the First Creation). Part of this was to say that Arianism (and a lot of the Gnostic writings that supported it) was crap and to establish the Christian Creed (called the Nicaean Creed) to establish what the church actually did believe and teach.

The final list of which books were canonical was not fixed at this Council but most of the Gnostic writings were chucked out as heretical or useless.

How to handle Gnostic texts
A bit of wisdom from the Internet concerning how to deal with heresy…

So, what was the Nicaean Creed? Well, just about any Christian will recognize the first part of it. The original creed, as set at the First Council of Nicaea said this:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father;
Of the substance of the Father, God of God, and Light of light, very God of very God;
Begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both in heaven and in earth;
Who for us men, and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate, and was made man.
He suffered and the third day, He rose again and ascended into the heavens.
And He shall come again to judge the quick and the dead.
And we believe in the Holy Ghost.
And whosoever shall say that there was time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature or is subject to change or conversion, all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

Other matters were settled at this council as well such as how to calculate the date for Pascha (Easter) and about how to welcome lapsed Christians back into the church and what steps of repentance they had to take. You can read more about the First Council at Wikipedia, Britannica, or by getting a copy of The Historic Church by Archpriest John Morris.

So, things would rock on for the next few centuries but Rome was getting more and more irked by the loss of their prerogatives and that did not spell peace for the Empire… but we’ll deal with that a lot over the coming posts.

— G.K.

Byzantium — We Built This City…

…On Christianity and trade routes.

You didn’t actually think the answer was going to be “rock ‘n’ roll,” did you?

Yeah, no Constantinople was founded by our boy Constantine because he was paying attention to the times. That’s right, I’m talking about the actual city now that I promised I would get to last time.

Silk Road
Going around the African Cape was just Not A Thing back then…

Now, don’t get me wrong — Rome had been a powerhouse for a long time and definitely had a good position on the Tiber and the Mediterranean. It had been ideally situated to challenge and later beat the tar out of Carthage. It was accessible by the Greeks and the Macedonians and had the ability and the materials necessary to build some really good ships. But once Carthage had been stomped into the ground, well, there really wasn’t much in the way of trade west of Rome. Now, sure, there were silver and tin mines in Spain and tin mines up in Britannia but it was easier, in some ways, to transport those goods overland instead of on ships. Trade shifted back eastward towards Greece and Asia Minor since that is where one could find spices coming up from India and China and other points Oriental as well as stuff coming up from more-central-Africa via the Nile.

Rivers in Europe That Are Navigable
Notice how most of the rivers empty into the Black Sea?
Mississippi River System
The Mississippi River system is part of why the United States had such strong internal trade compared to Europe.

Something that Americans especially seem to have a hard time understanding is that Europe lacks any kind of river system akin to the Mississippi (where transport from a lot of different branches is feasible which is why cities like St. Louis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans were so important). The “biggest” river system is probably the Loire and that pretty much gets you across France. It doesn’t get you from France down to Rome. It doesn’t get you from Berlin to Rome. Now, rivers and coasts were vital for trade in the era before the internal combustion engine was invented. Yes, yes, Rome had good roads for people using actual horses for horsepower but that still doesn’t mean that it’s cheap or easy to travel from Rome up to Paris or over to Madrid. Europe had a lot of forests, a lot of floodplains, and a lot of mountains that made travel overland difficult and expensive.

It's Constantinople and I will die mad about the other name
It’s Constantinople and I will die mad about the other name

But Asia Minor (which is where the Byzantines were) had fewer of these problems. The Silk Roads were fairly well-established with plenty of stops for food and water. Coasting along India and Arabia was easy enough. Constantinople, founded on top of Byzantium, was located on the European side of the Bosporus which is the strait linking the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. This put it in the best possible position to control trade between Asia and Europe. It also had the benefit of not having been a major settlement until Constantine decided to move there so it didn’t have loads of pagan temples. Constantine wanted to weaken the political power of the pagan families who still had a lot of influence in Rome and he wanted to assure that Christianity would be ascendant.

After all, he owed the Biggest C for giving him victory at Milvian Bridge.

So, based on the fact that Rome the City had been pagan far longer than it had tolerated Christians and that most of the major trade routes were in the East, Constantine decided it was time to move the capitol to his new city. It helped that there was already a good colony there with enough infrastructure and secure walls (Byzantium). Add in the fact that Constantine was the one and only Emperor now and that he was consolidating political control into his own hands and one capitol and moving from Rome made a lot of sense. It also put him much closer to three of the four ancient churches (Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch). Once the city had been consecrated on May 11, 330, it was considered the New Rome.

Constantine could still kick your ass
So great he had a city re-named after him

However, Old Rome wasn’t quite ready to give up its power and influence so easily. But we’ll deal with that next time.

— G.K.

Byzantium — Signs, Co-Emperors, and Confusion

So, when we last met, I said that we would get to our boy Constantine.

And boy howdy, we are!

First, a little bit of housekeeping. We’re dealing with an era where everyone had the same few names it seems. So, the cast of characters is this:

Flavy-Flav — Flavius Valerius Constantinus the Father of Constantine the Great
Dio — Diocletian the Douchecanoe, Emperor of Rome
Max-Man — Maximian, Dio’s junior co-Emperor
Gal — Galerius, Flavy-Flav’s co-junior Emperor
Sev — Valerius Severus, a junior Emperor once Max-Man and Flavy-Flav became Senior Emperors
Minmax — Maximinus Daza, a junior Emperor with Sev
Max-T — Maxentius, son of Max-Man, who didn’t like Sev at all
The Big C — Constantine the Great
Licey — Licinius, a co-Emperor with The Big C for a time and the guy who wrote the Edict of Milan with him

Roman Names Are Weird
Why did everyone need to have the same few names? I’ll bet everyone having the same name had something to do with all the wars that broke out.

The Big C was born to a Greek Christian mother (Helena) and a Roman father who had been part of the Tetrarchy. The Tetrarchy was an attempt to make the very large, very complex, very gi-freaking-normous Empire a little less of an unwieldy kludge. And, it worked okay for a little while. Basically, there was a Senior Emperor who ruled the Eastern section of the Empire (Dio the Douchecanoe being the first) and a Junior Emperor who ruled the West (Max-Man). The Emperors appointed their own successors. Dio and Max appointed Gal and Flavy-Flav (Constantine’s dad) to Junior Emperors. When they Dio and Max retired, Gal and Flavy-Flav became Senior Emperors and appointed Sev and Minmax to be junior Emperors.

However, when Flavy-Flav died and The Big C was proclaimed to be both Senior and Junior Emperor by his dad’s army, things got dicey. It didn’t help at all that Minmax’s own son, Max-T disliked his dad’s co-Emperor Sev. When Minmax retired, he named Max-T to be junior Emperor. Sev bowed out in 307 and Max-T and The Big C were proclaimed to be Seniors by Max-Man. Meanwhile, Gal, who was just chilling out, appointed Licey to be the Senior in the West and Minmax to be Senior in the East.

A Not Inaccurate Depiction of What Happens When You Have Four Emperors
A Not Inaccurate Depiction of What Happens When You Have Four Emperors

Four Senior Emperors does not a stable government make. That’s way too many chiefs and not enough Indians. So, the four Emperors did what men with armies have done — they sat down and discussed their differences rationally and then came to an agreement.

If you believe that... well, here's this bridge for sale...
If you believe that… well, here’s this bridge for sale…

Yeah. Right. No, they went to war. The Big C was fighting Max-T for control over the Western Empire while Licey chilled and ruled in the East after Minmax died. The Big C and his armies were gathering to throw down with Max-T and his armies near the Tiber at a bridge called the Milvian Bridge. It was late October. The armies were preparing for battle. The Big C has a vision from The Biggest C (Christ) that tells him if he fights under The Biggest C’s sign, he’ll win.

So The Big C does what anyone would do if The Biggest C told them that: he ordered his men to paint this on their shields and to know that the Christian God was on their side.

Guess who won the battle of Milvian Bridge? 😉

Constantine could still kick your ass
Duh. Who did you think won?

So, with Max-T out of the picture, The Big C rules the Western half of the Roman Empire exclusively, with no co-Emperor in the West, from 312 to 324. The Big C and Licey wrote the Edict of Milan in 313, which ended the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire and granted them official toleration. However, that was probably the last time the two agreed on anything. In 314, The Big C went after Licey because he thought that Licey was hiding Senecio (who wanted to overthrow the Big C). The Big C won that war and he and Licey tired very hard not to piss each other off. However, Licey had to go and appoint a co-Emperor for himself: Valerius Valens.

That did not sit well with The Big C. We’re talking it flew like a lead balloon (and not the cool one that Mythbusters made). The Big C invaded the Balkans and wiped the floor with Licey at the Battle of Cibalae. Licey fled south all the way to Adrianople and then tried to smooth things over with The Big C. However, our boy Constantine wasn’t about to surrender victory to the jaws of defeat and told Licey to get bent and marched on him, resulting in the Battle of Mardia. The Big C let anger get the better of him and this battle was kind of a stalemate. Licey and The Big C came to terms where Licey agreed that The Big C was the boss of all of Rome and of him and The Big C agreed to let Licey keep Thrace to rule. Licey also agreed to put a cap in Valens.

Things settled down for about seven years until the Sarmatians started causing problems. Licey had been dealing with them for a while but they crossed the Danube into The Big C’s turf and started wrecking stuff. Of course, our boy Constantine got ticked off and went after them. He crossed the Danube chasing them which meant that, technically, he had invaded Licey’s turf. Again.

Oops! My bad!
Oops! My bad!

Oh well.

The Big C followed this up with another invasion, sending the Goths into Thrace. Licey pointed out that The Big C had broken their agreement and war broke out again in 323. The Big C proceeded to roll up Licey’s forces at the Battle of Adrianople, forcing Licey to flee to Byzantium and hide behind its walls. Our boy Constantine then proceeded to beat the tar out of Licey’s fleet, which was supposed to be a really good fleet, at the Battle of the Hellespont. The final fight of this war was the Battle of Chrysopolis where Licey got his rear end handed to him. The Big C’s sister, who was married to Licey, begged her big bro to spare her husband so into exile Licey went with Constantine being the Sole Boss of All of Rome.

It's Good to Be The Big C
It’s Good to Be The Big C

But the Big C didn’t just chill and rest on his laurels. No, he had a city to build.

It's Constantinople and I will die on this hill
It’s Constantinople and I will die on this hill

But we’ll get to that next time.

— G.K.

Byzantium — The Pre-Founding

Okay, so, pretty much everyone knows what Rome was, that it was originally a Republic and then Caesar took control and got stabbed on March 15 and there was a war and Augustus took over and then it was an Empire. We all know that Rome dominated much of the known world at that era, having taken control of most of the Mediterranean, north Africa, the Iberian peninsula, and the Hellenic world of Greece and the Holy Lands in Asia Minor. We all know about Augustus or Tiberias doing a census, Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem, Jesus being born, His growing up in Judea, His earthly ministry, and His death and resurrection followed by His ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit.

I founded a whole entire empire and this is how I'm remembered...
I founded a whole entire empire and this is how I’m remembered…

Still with me? Good.

We all pretty much know that after Pentecost, the Apostles went around evangelizing and founding churches. Peter founded the churches in Alexandria, Antioch (with Paul), and Rome. Jerusalem had a church from the beginning and it was run by James the Less. Paul went to the Gentiles and spread word of the Word around Greece founding churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Colossae, and Hieropolis — among others. Andrew went to the Scythians, James the Greater headed out to Spain, Philip and Bartholomew hung around in Greece with Paul for the most part, Thomas went to Babylon and then on to Persia and India, Matthew headed out to Egypt and Ethiopia, Jude went to Syria and to Armenia with Matthias, and Simon the Zealot headed out towards Carthage and then up to Britain. From the mid-30s to the mid-90s of the first century, the Gospels and Epistles were written with Revelation being the last one in the 90s.

Country Roads... take me home...
Country Roads… take me home…

During the first century, Christianity was just assumed to be another branch of Judaism by the Romans and since the Romans had finally come to terms with the Jews following a whole lot of revolts and riots and bloodshed1, Christianity at first just kind of slid by under the Roman radar. When the Romans realized that Christians were not some subsect of Judaism, well… Bad Times Started.

So, much of the first, second, and third centuries AD saw periodic persecutions of Christians (some Emperors were more chill than others). These centuries also saw a lot of Christian writings being penned. Out of these years we get things like The Didache, Polycarp’s letters, Ignatius of Antioch’s letters, Irenaeus’s writings like Against Heresy, and Tertullian’s Apologies. However, we also get a lot of garbage out of these centuries like the Gnostic gospels (“ooh, lookit me, I have spechul, sekret knowledge and you have to do what I say before God will whisper it to you” make up the vast majority of this dreck which I had to read while working on my MA. It doesn’t even rise to the level of good fanfiction like what Milton and Dante would later write). We also get a lot of heresies out of this era like Arianism.

I hate Gnostic bs
If I ever have to read Gnostic writings again, I’m going to compare them to the “spechul magickal” crap from the Mists of Avalon and start a drinking game.

As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and to parts beyond, it started to be a movement to be reckoned with. The emphasis on charity and helping the community wasn’t something found in the Roman (pagan) religion. I mean, Jupiter the Best and the Greatest at everything but keeping his libido under control didn’t exactly tell his followers “hey, build some hospitals and schools.” 😉 Even Apollo seems to have been too busy chasing random nymphs to have told his followers to build the odd doctor’s office (and he was the god of healing… among other things). But Christians built schools and taught the beginnings of literacy. They donated to help the poor. They tried to help heal the sick through prayer and through providing spaces for people to be nursed through their ailments. So, eventually Christianity caught the eye of this one guy. I mean, he wasn’t anyone super important. He was just an army dude.

Constantine could still kick your ass
Don’t make Constantine come down and smack a b*tch

His name? Constantine. Flavius Valerius Constantinus. And he was getting ready to throw down with Maxentius at a little place known as “Milvian Bridge.”

But we’ll get to him next time.

— G.K.


[1] With the Jews, the Romans finally stumbled across a people who they couldn’t subsume their gods into the Roman pantheon with the whole “oh, yeah, that god? Totally Jupiter,” shtick. So, when the Jews wouldn’t make sacrifices to Jupiter the Best and the Greatest (at everything except being faithful to his wife) for the Emperor, the Romans assumed they were rebelling and Bad Times Ensued until they and the Jews settled for sacrifices being made on behalf of the Emperor to the Jewish God (who was not Jupiter the Best and the Greatest at everything except keeping it in his pants).

Jupiter, the original douchecanoe
Jupiter, the original douchecanoe

World Building 101: Human Universals

World Building 101: Human Universals

Yes, Virginia, there are some common universal traits that go across every culture, every religion, and every civilization in human history. These are things that are so ingrained into us that we will tend to obey them without thought whether our skin is as pale as an alba blossom or dark as pitch, whether Dr. House would call us danglers or say that our genitals are aesthetically pleasing, or even which particular deity we do or do not pray to when we’re in the foxhole with a grenade sans pin.

Some of these are taboos that we don’t even really have to think about: don’t have sex with your kids, your parents, or your siblings (and stfu about the pharaohs because that’s the sole exception I can find that was practiced with regularity). Don’t kill your immediate family. There is a mystical being watching you so nothing you do is perfectly hidden and if you make this being mad, things will go bad for you. Other universals have to do strictly with the fact that, on average, males and females are different in a biochemical sense. Social differentiation tends to follow this biochemical lines where men in tribal to late-Industrial societies tackle jobs that require use of their raw strength while women tend to go for jobs that maximize their dexterity and are within their (somewhat lesser) raw strength (and believe me, it takes some serious strength to be a farm wife. Most of those ladies could probably bench-press and dead-lift more than an Army Ranger today!) You don’t see a lot of women in African tribes running out on the savanna chucking spears at antelope and you don’t see a lot of men sewing altar cloths or weaving rugs.

So, those are the general universals. That doesn’t mean you have to use them in your story. Instead, look at them. What are they? Two of them are “don’t screw with your family” and one is “there is something beyond you.” Finally, the physical differences simply say “if there are differences, society will tend to do its best to find a way to make maximum use of it; if you want everyone to be identical and interchangeable, society will treat them as such but you had better be prepared for real equality in this case and not the cobbled-together crap we have right now.”

I’ve seen the last one turned on its head. Probably the most well-known example is the society on Angel I in Star Trek: The Next Generation. This is a world where women evolved to be larger and stronger and men were shorter and more dexterous. Another example is from the Wheel of Time where, since men who channel go insane, women have generally played a larger role in both channeling societies (the Wise Ones, the Windfinders, sul’dam and damane, the Ayyad, and the Aes Sedai) and in ruling in general (Randland runs heavily towards queens since there’s always a risk that any given man could turn out to be a channeler — especially if he’s from a bloodline that has practiced cousin-marriage). This works out to the entire civilization tending to trust women before men.

In economics, there are also some universals. I have yet to find a religion that says “ya know what, if your neighbor has something, it’s cool to beat the shite out of him and take it.” Since religion tends to be the first highly-developed aspect of human culture (even government tends to stem from religion early on), yes, religious views of trade and ownership are important. We can see that there are several religions that out-right forbid things like interest on loans or that regulate, quite strictly, who can be charged interest and how much can be levied. Religions also develop and under-gird most early tax systems (tithing, for instance). However, every religion that I have been able to find has established that trade has to be somewhat voluntary and that equal value has to be exchanged. Yes, yes, religions also teach that a bounty is to be spread around and that the poor should be given charity — usually that stuff comes from the institution itself using the wealth it has taxed (or tithed) from its followers. This giving is generally voluntary (meaning that there’s no punishment beyond shunning for failure to do so). So, when setting up an economy that is more advanced than bartering, you might want to consider what particular universals you’re going to have and where they’ll stem from.


Don’t you dare judge me over the kinds of things I store in my brain.

Economics is one place where gaming things out can either be an eye-opener or can drive you stark-raving mad. For me, I usually do myself a favor and just use one from history. Trust me, when you’ve had three different systems with three different underlying assumptions turn into “Geez, this makes Stalin look like a Boy Scout,” you start to appreciate how great a job history has done of bug-testing and shaking the major problems out of economics for us (not to say it’s perfect yet but the systems we have now are fairly robust).


Yes, you will have to handle these situations in any system. You cannot ignore them if you want to write characters that people might actually understand. If you want to write about perfect angels, may I suggest LSD and starting your own religion?

Next week we’ll go into a bit more detail about workable ways to come up with different social institutions (things like marriage, the family, religious institutions, and basic local government) and the kinds of questions you need to consider in order to determine if something is going to work out the way you want or if you’re going to wind up with one of the aforementioned “Good Lord, even Stalin would consider this a bad idea” kind of situations.

— G.K.

Throwback Thursday: A Cold War Vocabulary Lesson

I was scanning around for a topic to write about this Thursday and wondering if I was going to do something historical like “how to make daggers” or “the first fanfic G ever wrote” when the most Evil of Space Princesses posted this on her blog.


Really? Seriously? This level of ignorance is the product of an advanced educational system?

Suddenly, I knew what today’s entry had to be about. So, let’s all hop in our time machines — be they TARDISes, telephone booths, funky-looking steampunk chairs, or DeLoreans — and set the dial for August 27, 1980. We’ll avoid my neck of the woods since this trip puts me in my own time-line (I’ll be 24 hours old) and instead go hang out someplace cool. I’ll supply the chameleon circuits so we can waltz into the HQ of USPACOM without being noticed. Just remember — don’t muck about.

Things seem kinda tense, don’t they? Hear that chatter from EUCOM over in Stuttgart, Germany? And the calls from RDJTF — which will soon become CENTCOM — about the problems in Iran?

Oh, man, if only the poor bastards knew…

Notice how all the focus is on Europe and the Pacific, though? Now, guys, I know it’s been a while. Keep listening. Yep. There it is. I notice some of you look a little confused. West Germany? East Germany? What the hell?


Back during the 1980s, I often wondered where North and South Germany were. My excuse was that I was under the age of ten. I’m uncertain what someone who was born in 1969 would have to offer as a similar excuse for such breath-taking ignorance.

It’s 1980. The Cold War is still on, guys. There’s still a USSR in this time with missiles pointed at the US. There are tanks all over the Eastern Bloc nations. We have our own bases and our own forces in Europe to keep the Warsaw Pact from invading. NATO is a big deal instead of the joke we all know it will become. Article V of the NATO Charter is the life-line that Western Europe has clung to and the reason our boys are still there even though the Nazis were defeated well-nigh on forty years ago. It’s also the reason we have bases in Japan and the Japanese are praying we’ll keep the Chicoms from invading them and the Taiwanese (the Republic of China) is counting on us to help them keep the Chicoms from crossing the Strait and subjecting them to the good Chairman Mao’s Great Leap Forward that left millions dead.

Chicom? I see some of you looking confused again. Chinese Communist. It means “a person who is loyal to the People’s Republic of China — a communist government that uses repressive means including (but not limited to) censorship, state control of the media, re-education camps, imprisonment, torture, secret police, internal and interior-focused spy organizations, centralized control of the food supply, and centralized control of the economy in order to completely dominate the people it governs.” The PRC at this time does not allow people to practice religion, the press to report anything unfavorable to the government or to the Communist ideology, or the people to communicate freely with citizens of other countries. Chicoms are, by and large, ethnically Chinese but may also be Caucasian, Russian, Serbian, Arabian, Persian, Iberian, Hispanic, Chicano, Latino, African, Korean, Japanese, Amerindian, Indian, Vietnamese, or any other ethnic group or sub-group. Their primary identity is their loyalty to a political body — the PRC.


And, like these guys, they’ll kneel to whoever orders them. Unfortunately, there are no real-world Captain Americas, Thors, and Tony Starks to save them and those who wind up as collateral damage from their own raging stupidity.

They were not good guys. They were not sweet, cuddly kittens. They were brutal, murderous, power-hungry asshats who enriched themselves at the expense of their people. They gorged themselves on power and wealth while the average Chinese citizen went hungry. Their so-called noble ideology (which doesn’t scale at all beyond devoted communities such as monasteries where there are methods of population control and a larger community that isn’t bound by that ideology to support them — just look at places like Mount Atheos) led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Calling them “Chicoms” isn’t an insult. It isn’t a racial or ethnic slur. Anyone who thinks that is either 1) too young to have lived through the Cold War at all, 2) too stupid to use Google and therefore too stupid to be referenced as an expert on anything, 3) looking for a reason to be offended, or 4) some combo of the above.


Brought to you by…someone educated by hard-working teachers in the Poorest State in the Union™.

So, there go you. A new vocabulary word for you! Now, let’s go back to 2015. I need to see a man about a flying car…

— G.K.

The State of Fandom and the Hugos: Category Error

The State of Fandom and the Hugos: Category Error

I mentioned this monster post in a comment at Sarah Hoyt’s this weekend. Here it is. Grab something to drink because this one’s a doozy, mes amis.

So, the Hugo voting period ended and the winners will be announced soon. There’s been the predictable resurgence in Puppy-related topics recently with the mainstream press parroting the press releases from Tor et alia to the effect that the Puppies and those of us who think they have a point are evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, hateful people who want to build new Dachaus and gulags in order to ensure that only white heterosexual men can own property while the rest of the world is enslaved to them. Those of us who know better, of course, just roll our eyes and wonder why we’re always the ones being accused of planning to build the concentration camps and gulags while the ideologues the Puppy-kickers uphold as being morally superior seem to be the ones who manage to actually have such things turn up in their back yards.

…but I digress.

For decades, there have been award ceremonies that attempt to showcase “the best” works in a genre. The Hugos, once upon a time, (arguably) were the premiere award for science fiction works. However, back in the days when the Hugo was a worthwhile award, the voting pool for the award was much larger, making it much less susceptible to industry or pool capture. WorldCon attendance would have been much higher as well and overall membership (even non-attending) would have been higher. But, over time, the publishing industry captured WorldCon and the Hugos which turned them from a fan award into a marketing stunt.

Don’t get me wrong — the bylaws and the rules are clear. No, what happened is very subtle. It probably started back in the late 1970s to mid 1980s at the earliest, early 1990s at the latest. The houses themselves were being taken over by liberal art majors who, having grown up steeped in the mythos of “the men who took down Nixon,” came into the publishing world with the same zeal to change the world instead of to help find great stories that people wanted to buy. Factor in the rage many of them had felt throughout the 1980s over Reagan’s cowboy diplomacy, his Brandenburg Gate speech where he had the audacity to demand that the morally superior USSR tear down the Berlin Wall, the cognitive dissonance that they felt when the Eastern Bloc collapsed and the USSR voted itself out of existence…and these were hammers desperately in search of a nail. The publishing world was just that nail.

They honed in on science fiction and fantasy specifically because it was future-oriented. Also, because it didn’t require a lot of experience in scholarship or other fields already (try getting into biographies or academic publishing with just a degree in English). Ideologically, they’d already begun taking over a lot of other places — schools, colleges, the art world, film, television, music — so publishing was just the next step.

Now, this wasn’t some organized take over with a great conspiracy where a secret cabal issued diktats — I’m not a tin-foil hatter. It was a long-term underlying trend that was baked into socialism and progressive philosophy.

So, once they’d gotten into the top spots of the big houses like Tor and the fantasy/sci-fi imprints of the other big six, they started making it difficult for anyone outside of their social circles to work there which slowly ensured that agents pushing authors whose politics differed would go nowhere. The stories became homogenized as well, following a set formula with characters that were uniform, uni-dimensional, predictable, and uninteresting. Readers revolted and stopped attending the conventions. But the publishers kept going to the conventions and kept sending their star authors (which dragged out some fans) which led to…the conventions being captured.

Which is what happened to WorldCon and the Hugos. The Hugos aren’t a fan award these days. They haven’t been for the better part of nearly thirty years now. They’re a publisher award because it’s been the publishers who were controlling the voter pool because the voter pool was less than 1000 people. Of course they were in political lockstep and of course they were pissed off when Correia and the rest of us Puppies came in and proved it.

But now on to the real problem. That’s right everyone — 700 words to get to the point of the post. We’ve been accused of destroying the Hugos and we’ve accused the others of destroying them. However, the real problem is CATEGORY ERROR — we’ve never really defined what the problem is. Oh, we think we have. We’ve intuitively got a grasp of what it is. We agree that there is a problem. But have we defined it? No. Not so much.


Category Error — having stated or defined a problem so poorly that it becomes impossible to solve that problem, through dialectic or any other means. Also, not quite as cool as Loki’s Wager but still a good excuse to run a graphic with Tom Hiddleston, yo

So, what is the actual problem? The actual problem is that what the Hugos were created to recognize no longer exists. Back when the Hugos and WorldCon first started, an avid reader could go through every sci-fi book published in a year. But these days, “science fiction” is a massive genre that has spawned dozens of child/sub genres. It’s the same story in the fantasy world. And the publishers and the folks who captured the Hugos over the past few decades represent a tiny sliver of the fanbase and readership — the sliver that aspire more towards the once academic, avant-garde literary-chic style of writing. This group is also incredibly active and activist which is why they have a tendency to take over many other conventions and force out groups they dislike (which is why the Honey Badger Brigade got shut out and nearly arrested for showing up at Calgary Comic Con).

The WorldCon/Hugo by-laws make it very difficult to change and recognize the new reality and…well…doing so would cost the publishers and the lit-chic folks their powerbase. Therefore, if those of us on the Puppy-side want to really fix this and have an award that is meaningful, durable, not subject to capture by one group or another, and represents the best works without showing the divide between works that sell well and works that win awards that the Hugos have shown in recent years, then we have our work cut out for us. The first thing we have to do is actually start defining stuff. I’ll expand on this further in later entries but for now, here are some of the child-genres I’ve noticed in science fiction and fantasy that we should consider:

Science Fiction:
Space Opera
Dystopian
Cyber
Military
Zombie Apocalypse
Superhero
Hard sci-fi
-Physics
-Chemistry
-Biology
-Astronomy
-Space Exploration
Post-Apocalyptic
Medical
Literary
Expanded Canon
-Star Trek novels
-Star Wars novels
-Halo book
-StarCraft books
-Halflife books
-Dune novels
-Doctor Who novles
-The X-Files books
-Batman comics
-Marvel: The Avengers comics

Fantasy:
High Fantasy
Epic Fantasy
Swords-and-Sorcery
Nordic
Shamanistic
Native American
Medieval
Urban
Dark
Surreal
Dystopian
Superhero
Romance
Literary
Expanded Canon
-Warcraft novels
-World of Warcraft novels
-Diablo novels
-Legend of Zelda comics
-Thor: The Dark World comics
-Doctor Who novels

Look, the simple fact of the matter is that our genres are growing and this is a good thing. We need to define the child/sub genres and start expanding awards to include them. And, we may need to give up on the idea of there ever being a single “best science fiction for the year” award ever again. It’s become a bit like trying to decide which vehicle is the best for a given year these days. Yes, some are objectively better than others but when you’ve got so many doing so many different things… it’s difficult to say “this is the best OVERALL” without actually defining what in the name of Issac Asimov you’re talking about.

Category error, guys. Let’s start fixing it, shall we?

— G.K.

The Vicious Hamster Wheel of Credentialing

The Vicious Hamster Wheel of Credentialing

…and how it impacts the publishing industry, the economy, and the rest of the world in general.

Okay, I swear, I am so not cyberstalking Cedar even though whenever I see that she’s posted something I drop whatever I’m doing and go read it because I’m beginning to wonder if she and I get messages from the same s00per s3kr3t radio station or something. We’re both evil unicorns (which is cool) and we’re both writers (though I think she’s more experienced than I am since I’ve only been in the game a few years) and we’re both nerds so there’s going to be some overlap. But when I read her post on the topic of credentialing, I had the strangest physical reaction (think full-body shiver and skin crawling) because I was thinking about this exact topic last night.

Eerie.

So, without further ado…

We live in interesting times. Really interesting times. In the past two hundred years, the world has flipped around in a lot of ways and some groups haven’t quite had a chance to catch up. The rate of change isn’t going to slow down anytime soon (if anything, the rate of acceleration is increasing) and it’s created rather a lot of chaos that makes it difficult for everyone. This started back with the Industrial Revolution but has really kicked into high gear with the Digital Revolution. However, for now, I want to focus in on one particular trend that’s been a particular nuisance in recent years and that’s the vicious hamster wheel of the credential chase.

Long ago, a young man would purchase an apprenticeship, serve a set number of years under a master craftsman, become a journeyman, then prove his skill as a master and be free to set up his own shop and take on apprentices himself. Credentials were reserved for things like the clergy (and thus controlled by the Church) or the universities (which meant they were for the aristocrats’ second or third sons). Very few people had them or needed them and thus, they were quite valuable. Then along came the Industrial Revolution and the modern education system with its assembly-line cookie-cutter approach and, for a short time, a high school diploma was sufficient for entry into the modern work force and could get a person a job at a factory or as a teacher, secretary, bank teller, or other office worker. College was for those who were going into more advanced fields.

But when everyone could get a high school diploma easily, the value of having one was lower and the credential was less valuable. Factor in that unions with their work rules, refusal to consider the impact of their demands on the business’s bottom line, and refusal to police their members and maintain high standards in work ethic to justify wage and benefit increases helped drive manufacturing jobs overseas; that globalization came in and cut out a lot of the protectionism the Industrial Era institutions relied on; and that things like the G.I. Bill started a very perverse incentive for colleges, lenders, and the government to feed off each other (and the taxpayer) and the credentialing hamster wheel started spinning. Suddenly jobs that once barely needed a high school diploma to be done now require a Bachelor’s degree. There are hundreds of professions that people used to freelance out of their homes that now require expensive (and extensive) licenses to perform (hairstylist, barber, masseuse, babysitting, tutoring, music lessons…) I’ve worked in the tech world for over a decade now and credentialing there is getting insane. Techies like to pride themselves on valuing knowledge over shiny badges but it is very hard to break into different fields without certain credentials these days and it’s very hard to obtain those credentials without already being in those fields because the certification tests are expensive.

I’m waiting for the day when the Bachelor’s degree I worked my butt off to get (I did a four-year in three) is as worthless as a high school diploma because everyone is required to have one. I’ve looked into getting a Masters degree but can’t afford one. And, to be honest, none of the jobs I’ve ever held have required me to use any of the crap I learned in college. I’m not saying that college was useless for me; I enjoyed it and learned a lot of valuable research information. I’ve just never really used any of it professionally. No, all of the skills I’ve used professionally are things I’ve either taught myself, learned on the job, or learned in high school and built upon in college.

Frankly, in the constant chase after credentials, the only ones coming out ahead are those who grant the credentials. Employers can’t be happy with it because the greater a credential they require for a job, the more they’re going to have to pay that person (and that’s another vicious cycle all its own). Regular folks aren’t happy with it because it gets tiring having to chase credential after credential just so we can check off boxes from an HR flunky who doesn’t know what she’s doing (really — I filled out an application a week ago that had listed as a requirement for the job “10+ years experience in PHP5 and HTML5” when PHP5 just celebrated a decade this year and HTML5 isn’t even a year old. Topping that, I’ve seen requirements for “At least 10+ years development in Ruby on Rails” when the framework is only nine years old!)

So, what is to be done about it? Well, first of all, fire all the HR departments. Then fire all of the politicians. Maybe consider setting them on fire while firing them? Or fire them into an orbital trajectory or something. Regardless — fire them a lot. Then shut down the entire education system, redesign it so that it actually creates a literate society instead of turning out factory workers, re-instate vo-tech-like schools for skilled trades and quit looking down on people who do that work because they’re cool people and smart as hell. They’re just smart in a different way like we’re smart in a different way, okay? To them, I’m as dumb as a box of rocks because I can’t unstop a toilet and I’m weird because I remember a particular cardio-arrhythmia that I read about and was able to deduce someone’s wife had based on a conversation they were having with the check-out clerk when they were at the grocery store the line ahead of me.

Not everyone needs to go to college. Not everyone is smart the way I’m smart and that’s okay. But we’ve really got to end the constant credential chase because, if we don’t, eventually Ph.D.s are going to be required to work the drive-thru at McDonalds. Unless, of course, we’ve replaced the entirety of the McDonalds staff with a robotic restaurant and the drive-thru is a voice-activated kiosk with a debit/credit card reader which is a distinct possibility.

— G.K.

Politics and Television

Politics and Television

Or “Why G.K. Didn’t Watch The Debate.”

Oh dear Lord, we’re going into another active phase of the perpetual election cycle, aren’t we? Last week we got to see the spectacle that was the GOP debate and, while I didn’t watch it live because I knew that, even with it being on Fox with supposedly “friendly” moderators, the talking-heads weren’t going to be able to resist their chance to ham it up for the cameras and that the entire thing was going to be more about ginning up the ratings for the sponsors than it was going to be about the candidates actually, you know, talking about the issues and debating different approaches following set logical rules and avoiding logical fallacies such as strawman, reductio ad absurdum, tu quoque, ad hominem, appeals to (false) authority, special pleading, No True Scotsman, post hoc, and more while presenting actual evidence and solid reasoning for their beliefs or policy.

Can you tell I’m a bit of a throwback and a cynic? Television has ruined a lot of things and debate, argumentation, and critical thinking are among those things. It’s a great medium for entertainment and it can be used for education, yes, and story-telling. Don’t get me wrong — I’m not one of those who thinks that television is completely evil and has no redeeming qualities. I enjoy it — I have an active Netflix account and I’ve got Criminal Minds playing in the background. But, when it comes to journalism, television is the worst medium that could be used. It doesn’t allow for truly in-depth coverage, cross-referencing, citation of sources, or deep thought. Newspapers are the best medium for daily coverage and bi-weekly or monthly magazines are great for bigger events or more thorough coverage of events or technical issues. Radio can be a passable medium so long as the moderators and the debate format are agreed to in advance and the topics are adhered to. Television, however, will never make a good medium for political debates or journalism.

Why? Because it’s commercial. And, that’s good for entertainment. Hell, it’s great. It means that businesses and consumers are free to reward shows and sponsors and channels that entertain them or tell stories they like or support or whatever without having to directly own the studios or airwaves or whatever. There’s no real need for government intervention, censorship, or anything like that other than “truth in advertising” laws (you can’t advertise that your wooden spoon is actually made out of marble) and possibly some kind of daytime/child-safety advertising laws (you can’t run alcohol ads or other adult ads during certain hours or on channels aimed at children — not that most marketers would sell or buy there anyway because it’d be stupid). However, it’s an undeniable fact that you don’t piss off your sponsors and you don’t piss off your core audience. Just look at GamerGate. Intel pulled their ads from Gawker when Gawker’s articles pissed off a sizable portion of the GamerGate audience and they threatened to boycott Intel. And that kind of pressure is fine for entertainment shows and even educational shows. But it is not fine for journalism. It leads to worries about offending the corporate sponsors or the consumers which leads to spin, blacking-out of stories, and a focus on feel-good stories or the promotion of news items in a way that is guaranteed to keep the money-spigot opened.

Another reason television is a terrible medium for journalism is because it’s a visual format which leads to people judging based on appearances instead of based on the actual argument. Have you ever noticed that all of the news anchors are good-looking? And that none of them are terribly intelligent or creative? If they were trapped in the middle of a desert, they’d be screwed. Hell, if they were knee-deep in a river, they’d die of thirst. They went to fancy universities, yes, but that means nothing. Unless they graduated from CalTech, Standford (with a degree in hard sciences), or MIT, it’s worthless. These people were hired for their ability to look good on camera and read from a teleprompter or from cuecards. They were not hired for their ability to think critically, reason, ask difficult questions, or for their finely-tuned bullshit detectors.

A final reason television is the worst medium for journalism is because of its shallowness. Television is a very shallow, very short-form medium. Since it’s so visual and auditory, it’s easy to get overstimulated which makes it difficult for long-term memory to be engaged (which is why visual tricks and cut-aways can be used to deceive so easily — see below). The set-time format makes it impossible for any topic to be covered in real depth and the inability for there to be hard, permanent reference points for citations or notes makes cross-referencing difficult, if not impossible. Add in the general passivity it requires of the audience and it’s just a terrible medium for something as serious as news journalism and political debates.

There are other reasons television is a terrible medium for serious topics — it’s untrustworthy because it can be deceptively edited without the viewer being aware of it at all and, unless there are other recordings made, there’s no way to prove it (and there are never other recordings because of technical and legal reasons — no sound studio is going to let an interview subject bring in his own film crew and sound crew because not only will that cause phase cancellation issues, energy, and temperature issues but it sets them up for liability and insurance nightmares. The studio and journalists also won’t go for it because then they won’t have the sole copyright, there will be a plethora of distribution issues, and it would force them to be too damned honest).

Television — great for entertainment but a terrible way to receive information and select our leaders. Just FYI.

— G.K.