u/Fando1234

I'm reading a sci fi book right now where there is A LOT of exposition and it's getting very boring.

Which is odd, because I do actually quite enjoy the ideas being explored, but in this context I just can't wait to get to the next chapter (or if I'm honest, to just finish the book).

I've been trying to put my finger on why exposition sometimes works and why it doesn't, and the best answer I can come up with is - good exposition still feels in character for the person expositing, bad exposition is when someone just monologues information the author wants you to know.

Morpheus in the Matrix still speaks in his voice and with his own trademark mystique when he tells Neo what the Matrix is. In Jurassic park, the lengthy descriptions of the science make sense as they're told by a cartoon strand of DNA in the context of a 'ride' for children. Inception still sounds like Leo's character when he explains the dream world, he uses idioms and mannerisms only he would use. Basil Exposition, ironically, is always Basil Exposition when he explains the next plot point to Austin Powers. I could go on...

Exposition is important for any high concept piece, to help being the reader or viewer up to speed.

But in a dull book, characters switch, and suddenly feel like they're just reading an essay penned by the author on their own big ideas or rules of their world. I think this is very easy to slip into, and something I'm trying to be increasingly conscious of when writing in this genre.

Anyway, be keen to hear other people's thoughts on exposition and if you agree.

Would you just be another 81 years further back in time than WW2?

Are there any outlandish theories that say we could somehow teleport instantly, and watch past events?

Are powerful enough telescopes to see battles on earth's surface theoretically possible?

Would we have any way of affecting those events if we hypothetically could watch them unfold?

Totally random question after I saw an old video about the Costa Concordia being refloated. Made me think, is it even feasible to do this with the Titanic's wreck, given it's depth.

Assume the aim is to keep it mostly intact. Also assume whoever is doing it has a vast sum of money and doesn't care about the lack of return on their investment. They're just hell bent on getting it to the surface.

Ideally you can get both. But realistically, how many get success from using tools like mass emails and sequences. Hitting hundreds of contacts in an hour or two. But running the risk of being (perhaps rightly) labelled as spam.

And how many spend 10-20 minutes researching a single contact and contacting them with a bespoke message? But running the risk of only hitting a few dozen contacts in a day and none of them responding.

Edit: before someone chimes in to say 'call them', I am assuming outreach encompasses everything at your disposal. Whether that's calls, linkedin, social media, email etc.

No spoilers here.

I saw the film last night. Definitely recommend watching at the cinema. There were good points and bad imo, but overall well worth going to see.

As usual, however, the political wing of the internet has divided itself into two camps, who are now trying to claim every element of pop culture should conform to their confused and narrow world views.

I'd love to know what others takes are on this and if any side has merit that I'm missing.

Being a man in his thirties social media algorithms have been desperately trying to get me to be angry that the new Nolan film has a diverse cast. It's another eye roll moment for this terminally outraged group who see everything as some liberal conspiracy. There are many counter arguments to this stupid point, not least that the Odyssey is a myth, not a historical epic like Dunkirk was. The second is, are they really arguing we should only have Greek actors? I couldn't even name 5 Greek A list actors, let alone ones that fit the parts.

Whilst I appreciate there has been a lot of shoehorned diversity in recent films, I actually thought the casting was one of the Odyssey's films strong points.

The next, which my gf told me about this morning, is the moral outrage on her social media algorithms about not enough 'strong female characters.' Firstly, take it up with Homer, not Nolan, he wrote the damn thing. I think their argument extends to all Nolan films, which generally have a male protagonist. But once again, why politicised everything? It makes as much sense as saying Greta Gerwig often has too many central female characters. Nolan is a bloke, who tends to write films with blokes as the main characters. Big whoop.

Ironically, it's this push for diversity and representation in order to force political points on the audience, that energises the former camp of morally outraged conservatives.

Anyway, these arguments just strike me as interminably stupid and my view is that both sides can get in the bin.

That being said, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps this was miscast in a pandering and virtue signalling way. Or maybe there is some substance to the argument Nolan should have more gender based diversity?

I'm open to having my view changed by a strong argument that this kind of mainstream, blockbuster film should be politicised (I suppose one could argue all major pieces of cinema make an inherent political statement).

Wondering how far people will extend the principle of free speech to their political opponents.

Is there anything you profoundly disagree with, but feel should be protected, that is currently under threat?

And would you defend their right to make their arguements?

An example for me is gender critical feminists, I don't agree with a lot of what they say, but I do believe they have the right to make their case on topics like safe spaces, bathrooms, sports etc.

I was at the pub recently with a very knowledgeable bloke, who, when it came to the topic of politics immediately said (as though it were obvious), we're living through the last days of Western civilization.

This is continuously echoed online, and by many smart people. It seems to be a pessimistic view of both the left and the right. One side arguing we are descending into fascism, retreating from global trade systems (that favour us) and giving up in the face of rising global temperatures and extreme weather.

The other claim we have allowed our borders to be eroded and have become culturally diluted to the point where even any minor expression of patriotism of nationalism is deemed 'offensive'.

There are many depressing graphs that back up both claims, stagnant growth, the rise of other military powers, suppressed wages and a cost of living crisis.

Whilst neither case is completely without merit, and none of us have a crystal ball, I would make the case that the West's decline is far from inevitable.

Firstly, we are already on the front foot on everything, with the best education systems, the best infrastructure, the most powerful armies and the most developed civil systems (justice, healthcare, transport). Even the fastest growing competitors - for example china - are a long way from a remotely equitable society. With many still languishing in the kind of poverty all but eradicated in the West.

The global financial system is already tipped in our favour, having been fundamentally designed by the West.

We still have strong trade links and ties (as much as some politicians try to damage them) with each other and with other nations. Even if the US leaves NATO, they would still remain a close ally, meaning we still represent a monopoly on hard power.

The climate may be changing, but it's changing for everyone. And much of the west sits on latitudes that are often the least affected by shifts in weather - a large part of the reason we could come to dominance in the first place.

We're nowhere near as divided as politicians and some factions on social media like to make out. There are some small changes already being discussed that could have a big impact on social cohesion (for example I believe those on the right and left have already got better at discussing complex issues and calling out excesses on their own side). Also, once again, other countries face far worse division or apathy.

Point being, we still hold many of the most important cards. We've played worse these past few years but we're still 2-nil up, and to surpass us would involve coming from behind and making some significant gains.

Edit: sorry forgot to add some important points.

1. That the economic conditions and cost of living crisis (in the UK anyway) is comparable to the seventies. Which were still proceeded by the 80s and 90s boom, leading to a period in the noughties when Britain had an even higher standard of living than even America.

2. That many civilisations of similar scale and power (for their time) like the Roman empire, took centuries to die. Civilizations rarer end within a generation.

I'm trying to get into substack more, really like Hannah Ritchie who writes a blog on climate science (in a very bipartisan way - often calling out issues with how the media reports on climate science without context).

Who else would you recommend?

Also, anyone non political but interesting would be good to know about.

I'm particularly interested in films pre 60s that are renowned for being well written. I've been watching some Bill Wilder films, as well as movies like 'the sweet smell of success' with Lehman and Odet's famous 'whiplash' dialogue.

I'm looking for more classic films in this vein. Bonus points if you can tell me where I can stream it in the UK.

B2b sales. AOV around 50k. Sales cycles of about 3-6 months.

Any thoughts on what to do with opps where you've had multiple meetings, genuine interest and shared a proposal, but they've ghosted for a few months.

Temptation is to let them sit in pipeline. And in fact it is not uncommon for them to re engage with chasers and move forward on proposal. But the downside is many don't, and it really distorts forecasting.

I found one place in Scotland between Fort Williams and Glencoe in 2023. But given I live south of London it's a touch far.

Anyone know anywhere that still sells a Knickerbocker glory? Or any other classic 80s/90s foods?

Sometimes it's necessary to have scenes with characters who only show up once. They're in for long enough that not having a noun or proper noun for them seems clunky.

But at the same time, I don't want the reader to think these characters need to be remembered after this scene.

I can sometimes get away with calling them 'the teacher' or 'the police officer' but I do have scenes this won't work.

Would you just give them names? Find an identifiable feature etc?

Especially compounded by the fact the MC in the scene would know their names.

Any help is welcome!

Generally speaking, I'm a massive proponent of free speech. Whilst not a purist, I go further than most, and pride myself in defending speech across the political spectrum (usually getting me in trouble with one group or another).

Perhaps that's why I'm open to having my view changed here.

I've seen a great deal of people extremely irate at being censored or banned from specific subreddits. I appreciate it's annoying, especially when a sub on an apolitical topic shows a clear political leaning in it's moderation.

But at the end of the day, Reddit only functions because subreddits are self policing. Moderators donate their time and effort to make it happen.

Each sub is unique, with it's own set of rules and conventions. We've all seen how, particular topics have a tendency to derail otherwise good conversation. And like moths to flames, redditors can't resist giving their hot takes on these flashpoint topics.

To use a banal one, if a sub about meteorology had someone say they thought Prince was a shit guitarist and song writer, a lot of people might have an opinion. But the moderators need the freedom to remove those comments as the purpose of the sub is meteorology. There are many other subs available for criticisms and defences of musicians.

Fundamentally, the only way to stop censorship on a subreddit level, is to have overarching rules that prevent moderators from excersizing their own discretion. Not only would this be unfeasible, it's a free speech issue in itself. Subs can easily be brigaded by groups, to the point they become unusable.

Consider this example, imagine you're a conservative who feels they have unfairly had a comment removed from a supposedly bi-partisan subreddit. To combat this, you convince Reddit to introduce a policy that stops moderators from removing political biased comments in their sub. Next thing you know r/conservatives is being brigaded by hundreds of angry liberal subredditors, who's objective is to make the sub unusable. And now there is nothing you or the mods can do to stop them.

Free speech matters. Having topics banned from all of Reddit matters. Being arrested for non violent speech certainly matters. But being censored on particular subs, does not.

CMV.

Socialism is a broad church no doubt, and even the term itself seems to mean different things to different people. On one side it certainly has some public popularity, but still lacks momentum.

How would you suggest socialists change their messaging if they want to win people over? Or at least reduce people's objections.

I imagine there is some cross over between the people calling for a 'global intifada' and the people who pride themselves on being hyper aware of 'micro aggressions' towards minorities.

Micro aggressions are defined as "a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial minority)".

Examples include mispronouncing someone's name, or asking 'where they are from' in an assumptive way. These aren't necessarily deliberate, but supposedly convey a subtle, subconscious racism if not an overt one.

If this is true, I would argue that calling for a 'global intifada' and calling people 'zionists' is at minimum a microaggression against Jewish people.

If the same logic and hyper awareness that has historically been applied to microagressions against, is applied to this case. I can't see how this could not be seen as one.

I would argue that to remain logically and morally consistent, someone would have to either:

i) agree with this label.

Or

ii) abandon the idea of microaggressions as a barometer for anti racism.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. CMV.

Just popped it on as was on Netflix and it's really well put together as a film.

I think it performed alright commercially when it came out, but it's rarely thought off as a Burton classic.

Compared to a lot of his other films, although the idea isnt as original as Nightmare Before Christmas or Edward Scissor Hands, it's actually a really good adaption of a children's tale that must have been pretty challenging to conceive.

Plot wise I love the whole murder mystery element interwoven with the kind of hokey (but in a good way) horror.

Depp's character is great, I totally get his motivations and his arc. He seems really fleshed out, and well played. Christina Ricci's not half bad either.

Everything design wise, from the clothes to the set are really on point, everything has that twisted Tim Burton style that works perfectly for the adaption of sleepy hollow. Sort of stylised just enough to sit half way between a cartoonish depiction and a live action horror.

If you're a script/creative writing nerd then goddamn is that script efficient. Nothing seems clunky, everything said has a purpose but also seems to flow naturally.

All in all, I think it should be thought off as one of Burton's best, and it's a shame it's a little bit forgotten these days.