The Calvin and Hobbes comic strip ended 25 years ago, so let’s celebrate a New Years treat by analyzing it! Awhile back I had a students annotate structures in every C&H strip, so we have data on the whole thing. As Calvin says: let’s go exploring! 1/ https://t.co/GAm45Ni1m5

Inequality requires narrative stabilizers. When you have too little and someone else has more than they can possibly use, simple logic dictates that you should take what they have.

1/

The forbearance exercised by the many when it comes to the wealth of the few isn't down to guards or laws - rather, the laws and the guards are effective because of the STORY, the story of why this is fair, even inevitable.

2/

Think of the story of monarchy and its relationship to the Church: the Church affirms that the monarch (and the aristocracy) was chosen by God ("dieu et mon droit") and the monarchy reciprocates by giving the Church moral and economic power within the kingdom.

3/

Capitalism replaced the story of divine will with a story of a self-correcting complex system: humans are born and raised with a variety of aptitudes and tastes, and at any moment, historical exigencies dictate that some individuals are better suited than others to do well.

4/

When it's railroad time, there are people who were born to oversee the laying of track and the coordination of rail networks: markets find those people, allocate capital to them, and allow them to mobilize that capital to produce shared prosperity for all of us.

5/

jm watching as jk, part of the mafia, storms his house and jk being totally confused as to why the man looks so unbothered by it, standing at the top of the stairs with an unfazed expression.
+

and when jm approaches jk with a walk resembling the grace of an elegant snake, jk feels immediately bewitched by him, watching him come closer with his breath stuck in his throat, unable to move, the weapon in his hand slowly sliding out of his grip when jm pushes him down

by his shoulders to make him sit down on the couch behind him.
"w-who are you," jk can't help but stutter out with wide eyes.
to his bewilderment, the man doesn't move to sit next to him on the couch. feeling the pressure of the mysterious man's hands on his shoulder,

jk gasps as he straddles him instead, the man raising one hand to graze a finger over jk's sensitve neck, making jk shiver in surprise. jk wonders if the soft touch was only an illusion, because the seductive expression falls from the man's face from one second to the other,

and suddenly he's grasping jk's chin between two fingers to harshly tip his head up toward his, pushing their faces dangerously close. jk doesn't dare move a single muscle when he locks eyes with the most beautiful man he's ever seen, even forgetting to breathe. the man fixes him

So I was talking to @gewt about Job: A Comedy of Justice and I came up with a theory that I think explains why Heinlein's late-period work is so kinda-terrible and why I still enjoy it so much

So Heinlein had always been very interesting in the short parts of his novels, like the little snippets inside chapters. He had a very fun writing style, and wrote some fun dialogue with fun characters, right?>
It probably comes from how much of his early stuff was short fiction

And I think what happened with a lot of his longer works is that he'd just start writing fun bits and hope it would end up going somewhere or having a bigger plot by the end. like eventually he'd figure out where this was going, then go back and rewrite it into a cohesive whole

and I'm sure he had editors that'd help this process. No editor would let you publish something as rambly and changing-gears-every-other-chapter as The Number Of The Beast, for example... unless you were God-King Of Science Fiction 1980s Robert Heinlein.

so basically I think what happened is that by the 80s (when he was in his seventies!!) he lost the drive to go back and rewrite and he was too Untouchable for editors to make him.

Justice in the Wilderness

Some have asked for my review of the book. Follow the thread only if you are interested

I dont want to bore anyone unnecessarily 😊

As in many memoirs its content can be categorised into 2. Statement of facts & opinions. Where facts are concerned, I believe his recounts are true & fair with no malice or bias intended. Opinions are, well just that & it can be interpreted in many ways

I thought of writing a long one but on 2nd thoughts ill keep it as concise as i can

Truth can be uncomfortable but we need to hear it in order to move forward

And i believe TT has been very frank in his book & to truly appreciate it, one has to put aside sensitivities & listen

Key takeaways from the book; Deterioration of meritocracy & impartiality & the desecration of the judiciary by the powers that be. He has pinpointed to the events that have led to this

If we truly care for our country it is critical that we give it serious considerations

TT is a world class lawyer. Very adept, consistently exercising due care & dilligence. His commitment in following thru is impeccable, driven by his desire to deliver best results in his clients interest (Malaysia as AG) eg. his relentless pursuit of Goldman Sachs, Equanimity