Blog Posts

What about those political polls...are they useless or?

11/5/2020

What about those political polls?

Are they worthless? Can they predict the election outcome? Why are the results of this year’s election not like the outcome as the polls were showing before the election tallies?
This same scenario happened in 2016 – the polls pre-election said one thing and the actual voting came out differently – what is going on?

Well, to begin with – you have to consider what a poll is and is not.
A poll, done right, is simply a measure of the present time. It is a record of who they were talking to at the time that they were talking to them. That’s it. Nothing else.
Imagine taking your temperature today at noon. Now, does that have any predictive value?

Well, it might. You could say that IF nothing significantly changes for you then your temperature at noon will be a prediction of your temperature for 6 pm that same day. However, does that tell you anything about your temperature at noon the next day? Or noon the next week? The next month?

You should by now be getting the idea.

A poll, just like taking your temperature, is only telling you accurately about the present and only is useful to predict the future in a short window of time and it is only useful IF nothing significant changes.

Change and the possibility of change is one of the keys for the failure of prediction.
A poll could get it right…for the population that it did poll. But, it won’t tell you much about the people who didn’t respond to the poll. They are significant because you have to ask who were they and why didn’t they respond? As well as ask who did respond and why did they?

The poll only tells you who responded and what they were thinking at that moment in time. It’s predictive value dimensions over time – since people have free will! They can change their minds and make new decisions.

That’s a good thing. People are not Newtonian billiard balls. 100% determinism is not possible with people – they can change and make changes over time.

A poll is a useful tool if you understand what it is.

It tells you that x group of people, within that specific demographic of people who did respond, how they were willing to tell a pollster about their thinking at that moment in time. That’s all it can tell you. It may, assuming it was done as accurately as possible, tell you accurately about that moment in time for that specific group of people.

It is useful if you want to reach that group of people and persuade them. If the poll is going your candidate’s way, then what you are doing in reaching them is working. If the poll is not going your candidate’s way, then what you are doing is not working and guess what? You had better do something differently! That change that you make on behalf of the candidate will not invalidate that poll. Since the poll’s accuracy was in the past. It doesn’t guarantee any future event. You can hope it will convince those people to choose for your candidate. The only way you can tell if it is working is… with another poll! That is the actual use of a poll.

Casting your ballot is the ultimate and the final poll! It is a measure of what you were thinking and feeling at the time you cast that ballot. Casting and counting those votes is just like taking a huge poll! It accurately measures the people who voted. It doesn’t measure much of anything about all the people who didn’t vote. So even the election results are a sample poll of only the opinion of those who voted on the day they voted.

You must have heard of the idea of ‘buyer’s remorse’, right? Tell me, have you ever cast your vote and then regretted that decision months or years later? See, even your own vote doesn’t predicate with 100% accuracy how you will think and feel years later.

A poll is an act of taking the temperature of a specific demographic group at a specific moment in time.

It has little value to tell you the outcome for even that exact group of people in the first poll about their decision tomorrow, or next week, or next month. Things don’t stay the same – things change and thus people can change. The good news is – they have free will and they do indeed utilize that free will. Even if you don’t like it or don’t think they do. If you don’t plan on their ability to change and choose – the mistake is yours and not theirs.
So, polls give you a rough idea of a very specific demographic’s temperature at the time of the taking of the poll. If you use it to judge the future outcome of an event months later, well then, the fault is with you. Not the poll.

Remember your temperature today doesn’t tell you much about what your temperature will be in three months.

0 Comments

Mill's libertarian philosophy as stated in his essay On Liberty and the issues of wearing a mask in these times.

10/21/2020

0 Comments

John Stuart Mill and the origins of the Libertarian philosophy
Today in this time of Covid the question of wearing masks has arisen. For many the response is ‘You can’t make me wear a mask. That infringes my liberty!’

Where does this idea of the individual as sovereign over her own self come from? What is the source of this basic Libertarian philosophical principle?

One of the major sources is John Stuart Mill’s book On Liberty, published in 1859. Here are some key quotes from that book and the key doctrine it lays out.
(From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle)
The belief "that no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others" has become one of the basic principles of libertarian politics.[2]

The harm principle was first fully articulated by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) in the first chapter of On Liberty (1859),[1] where he argued that:

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. — John Stuart Mill[3]
Even if a self-regarding action results in harm to oneself, it is still beyond the sphere of justifiable state coercion. Harm itself is not a non-moral concept. The infliction of harm upon another person is what makes an action wrong.[4]

Harm can also result from a failure to meet an obligation. Morality generates obligations. Duty may be exacted from a person in the same way as a debt, and it is part of the notion of duty that a person may be rightfully compelled to fulfill it.[3][4]
In the same essay, Mill further explains the principle as a function of two maxims:
The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people, if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection. (From On Liberty Chapter V, 2nd paragraph)

The second of these maxims has become known as the social authority principle.[5]

However, the second maxim also opens the question of broader definitions of harm, up to and including harm to the society. The concept of harm is not limited to harm to another individual but can be harm to individuals plurally, without specific definition of those individuals.

This is an important principle for the purpose of determining harm that only manifests gradually over time—such that the resulting harm can be anticipated, but does not yet exist at the time that the action causing harm was taken. It also applies to other issues—which range from the right of an entity to discharge broadly polluting waste on private property, to broad questions of licensing, and to the right of sedition.
Note Sources:
2) Hamowy, Ronald, ed. (2008). The Encyclopaedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. p. xxi. ISBN 978-1412965804.
3) Mill, John Stuart (1859). On Liberty. Oxford, England: Oxford University. pp. 21–22. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
4) Menezes Oliveira, Jorge (2012). "Harm and Offence in Mill's Conception of Liberty". Oxford, England: University of Oxford. p. 13.
5) Rossi, Philip J. (2012). The Social Authority of Reason. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. p. 60. ISBN 978-0791483367.

To sum up Mill’s philosophy of Libertarianism succinctly : One’ individual liberty to act ends when it impinges on someone else’s liberty to act to their detriment. Or even more simply: I must not act if my actions harm another. In the case of such possible harm a society has the right to intervene according to Mill.
Now at the time Mill was writing the general principles of physics and thus of actions and reactions was basically modeled on the Newtonian mechanistic model. The Newtonian model is easily conceived of as actions and reactions between solid objects such as billiard balls.

However that model is not sophisticated enough to describe the interactions of human beings in the context of reality. For example, it is seemingly okay for a person to smoke cigarettes under the Mill principle and not to expect any societal or governmental interference in the liberty of the individual to so choose to smoke. However, that doesn’t account for the verifiable and document harm that is created by the phenomenon of second hand smoke. Which Mill at his time and under the simple Newtonian physics model of biology would not have dreamed of. Hence, the act does come under Mill’s idea of the liberty of others is being harmed by an act of the individual and thus can be curtailed.
Mill’s initial laying out of Libertarianism thus can deal with a world more complex than the simple view of the world as conceived of in 1880’s.

Now, let us consider the issue of the individual claiming his right not to wear a mask in these times within the context of Covid.
It has been verified that Covid is transmissible via contaminated water droplets expelled by a person’s mouth or nostrils. It has also been verified that such transmission can be contained and prevented by having a person wear a mask.

Therefor the failure to wear a mask impinges on and threatens the liberty and life of other people. Thus, according to Mill’s Libertarian philosophy society and the government has the right and the duty to enforce people to wear masks to prevent harm to life and liberty of the societies citizens.

Thus, there is no libertarian doctrine that permits a person not to wear a mask.
Failure to wear a mask is not only selfish but it is dangerous.

0 Comments

A recurring Lucid Dream from Childhood.

7/16/2019

0 Comments

An example of an extra ordinary recurring dream, a Lucid Dream

I had as a teenager memories of my childhood growing up in Levittown Long Island in New York. Playing in my back yard or reading books under the weeping willow tree that was back there, before it was knocked down in a hurricane.

These were common enough memories filled with sensory information and the simple and ordinary sense of everyday being in the world.

However, I had amongst these childhood memories another sort of memory. It was one that I would have repeatedly, sometimes asleep and sometimes as I awoke from sleep. It was of going with some friends to play in the back yard of the house behind my own. There was this tree that had fallen and it was chopped back so only the lower portion of the main trunk remained. In this memory we would run up along it and then jump off of it and land a few feet beyond it. But, here is where things get a bit, well odd. You see I had a vivid recall of floating. We would leap up and then stay suspended in the air for minutes at a time, hovering there above the ground, till we would gently settle back onto the solidity of the ground. In this memory it all seemed as simple and normal as walking back to my yard. Yet, I knew that this memory of floating, which was as real as any other childhood memory, was a memory of a Lucid Dream and a recurring one at that. In this dream I and my friends could float and hover in the air, which violates the rules of physics of the waking world.

I had many dream memories of flying / floating around.

I knew these memories were of dreams because I knew that in the ordinary waking world you cannot do such things, despite the fact that these were memories of activities as ordinary and real as of any other activity of childhood.

0 Comments

Citing chapter and verse

6/19/2019

0 Comments

I can’t recall when I heard that phrase, ‘citing chapter and verse’, whenever someone referred to a line of scripture. It definitely was when I was young, at least as old as my early days of attending religious school at the reform Jewish synagogue I went to in Massapequa in Long Island.

It is the basic key phrase to scholarship and honest recounting of a quotation. The cornerstone of facts and what is true.

If you are discussing the phrase ‘An eye for an eye’, for example then you would say Exodus 21: 24. Then anyone interested in what you are talking about could check it out.

It is obviously, at least to me, useless to say “The phrase ‘an eye for an eye’ is in the Bible.” That doesn’t tell me if you meant the Hebrew Scriptures, in Christian circles this is the so-called ‘Old Testament’, or the New Testament. Either way you are talking about somewhere in around 1000 to 2000 pages! How in heavens name is anyone going to find out the context of what you are talking about without the minimum of a citation, ie. Chapter and verse.

Another useless thing to do is to write something like: ‘A rose by any other name will smell as sweet, Shakespeare.” The man has written millions of words in hundreds of plays and sonnets, how on earth is anyone going to know what you mean, or if you quoted the phrase correctly if all you give is the author’s name?

Useless!

A quotation without a proper citation is merely something that is supposedly attributed to some author, and it may or may not be true or accurate.

For some bizarre and foolish reason it has been the habit for American publishers, authors, and websites to have this anti-scholarship, anti-education, reverse snobbery. As if it taints you if you at all admit that you can think and read a book. It annoys me no end to see books or any kind, fiction or nonfiction, or websites that just give a quotation without any proper citation. As if the author and or editor is afraid of looking intelligent or implying that the reader is illiterate and embarrassed that they can’t read and can’t look something up in a book!

The whole reason we have Trumpisms and his fake news is because intelligent people are afraid to look intelligent and literate by refusing to present proper citations. Without proper citations as to the source of your facts then they can never be checked. Which is exactly what con men want to have happen!

So stop promoting ignorance and illiteracy!

Stop being afraid of scholars, scholarship, and education.

Put a citation for your quotations!

Be proud of your literacy and your education!

Otherwise all you have is a bunch of useless words on a page.

A great website to help promote literacy and clear thinking: quoteinvestigator.com/

0 Comments

Who is Mary Russell and why should we care?

6/8/2019

0 Comments

https://laurierking.com/books/russell-holmes/

In 1994, we were greeted with something new and different.

Laurie R. King introduced to the world the life and times of Mary Russell.

I imagine it began with a ‘What if’ thought in the mind of Ms. King, when she was contemplating sticking her literary toe into the waters of Holmesian fiction. She clearly wanted to do something new and untried. Hence my ‘what if’. “What if, Holmes did retire, and what if he encountered during this time of a retirement someone who could become his protégé and apprentice?” Interesting. But there is more. “What if that person was younger than Holmes?” Interesting. “What if that person was much younger?” More intriguing. “What if that person was 3 times as young as Holmes at that first meeting?” Very daring! “What if that person was a young woman?”

Audacious!

Ambitious!

Daring!

(I believe her what if was more like: ‘What if Sherlock Holmes was a Victorian Woman….’)

But, would it work?

In the hands of Ms. King it did and it does. Thus, we were given a look in 1994 at Mary Russell who was to become ‘The Bee Keepers Apprentice’, in the first novel concerning the life and times of Russell and Holmes.

For some this may sound like heresy.

For some this may read like heresy.

But I have been following Ms. King’s chronicles of Ms. Russell and they are to me…canonical.

Ms. King has Russell being born on January 2, 1900, probably to make it easy to determine her age. Ms. King then audaciously moves the established age and birth of Holmes from the ‘canonical’, via the scholarship of William Stuart Baring-Gould who had placed Holmes birth in January 6, 1854, from that year to the year 1861. Claiming that Watson and Doyle both agreed that an older Holmes would appeal and be more acceptable to the readers of the published fictionalized accounts of Holmes’s life.

This would make Russell 15 and Holmes 54.

Ms. King clearly adores her Ms. Russell and lovingly and skillfully brings her to life on the pages of the chronicles of Ms. Russell’s life as presented by Ms. King. In the hands of someone with less skill and talents, this could have been a disaster.

Ms. King manages to pull it off and the books just keep on getting better and better.

You should care of about Ms. Russell if you care about Holmes.

0 Comments

Thoughts on the new English Translation of Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex.

4/21/2019

0 Comments

Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex announcing the new English translation
Bibliography:
1) H. M. Parshley’s edition and translation of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex, 1953, Knopf, a division of Random House.
2) ‘While We Wait: The English Translation of The Second Sex’ by Toril Moi, Signs, v. 27 #4, (Summer 2002). Pp 1005-1035
3) Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier, the 2009 translators of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex with an introduction by Judith Thurman, 2010, Vintage Books a division of Random House.
4) ‘The Adulteress Wife: a review’ by Toril Moi, London Review of Books, v. 32 #3, February 11, 2010
5) ‘The Grand Rectification: a review’ by Meryl Altman, The Women’s Review of Books, v. 27 # 5 (September/October 2010) pp 3-6
6) ‘Review’, by Dorothy Z. Baker, Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature, v. 31 #1/2, (Spring/Fall 2012), pp 248-250
7) ‘The Impact of the New Translation of The Second Sex: Rediscovering Beauvoir’ by Christine Daigle, The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, v. 27 #3, (2013) pp 336-347

When I was married for the first time in my twenties I had bought a copy of Beauvoir’s book for my wife. She had read many other feminist texts but had never read this one. I knew of Beauvoir as being the companion and founder of the Existential philosophic movement with Sartre. I had not read anything by her, but only some essays and plays of his.

Eventually my curiosity got the better of me and I borrowed the book from my wife and started to read it.

It was huge. An encyclopedic work on the topic of the nature and status of the human being that is female. It seemed odd to me. I had expected some more direct references to the philosophic concepts of Existentialism and didn’t really find that. In the introduction and opening chapter there was some philosophic material but overall it was just bereft of philosophy. I was puzzled.

Now after reading about this new translation it all makes sense.
H. M. Parshley who did the first English translation was a retired professor of zoology and not a philosopher nor was he familiar with French literature in general, and not familiar with Sartre or anything else of Beauvoir. It shows. Alfred Knopf the publisher I read in the introduction to the new edition was asking Parshley to ‘condense the text, noting, without undue masculine gallantry, that Beauvoir “certainly suffers from verbal diarrhea,”’ [pg xiii, of the 2010 Vintage book edition] according to Knopf. Parshley mistranslated the whole work by inadvertently removing the technical terms specific to Existentialism by treating them as ordinary words and translating them out of the philosophic terms that Beauvoir used and intended. Hence Parshley’s text was not an accurate translation of Beauvoir’s book – more a paraphrase of the text. As much as 15% of the original text was removed by Parshley.

Thus I was emotionally correct in my reading the prior edition of the book. It was not a philosophic work – all the philosophy and deep thought was stripped out of the prose that Parshley rendered.
Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier the front pages describes them as ‘They are both graduates of Rutgers University and were faculty members of Institut d’Etudes Politiques of France. They have been translating books and articles on social science, art, and feminist literature for many years and have jointly authored numerous books in English and in French on subjects ranging from grammar to politics…’
They were given the commission by Random House to create the new English Translation. They are not academics and do not have their mindset as they were not expected to, nor could they, render an annotated and academic edition of this important philosophic text as was done for Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophic texts.

Toril Moi’s review of the new translation rightly complains long and loudly about this mistreatment of Beauvoir’s important work. Moi s notes many issues with the new translation, as she did with Parshley’s. Though Moi does appreciate the fact that the new version does finally give us a complete and unabridged version of Beauvoir’s work. Moi is not satisfied with the new version and wishes for a proper academic text. ‘Whenever I try to read Borde and Malovany-Chevallier’s translation like an ordinary reader, without constantly checking against the French, I feel as if I were reading underwater. Beauvoir’s French is lucid, powerful and elegantly phrased. Even in Parshley’s translation young women would devour The Second Sex, reading it night and day. It’s hard to imagine anyone doing that with this version.’ This is how Moi ends her review.

Daigle ends her review this way: ‘Am I saying that the shape and form in which we receive her [Beauvoir’s] work do not matter? No. They do matter, I am not preaching for inaccuracy or careless translation work. But what I find most important is for the work to exist in such a shape and form that it can appeal to us. The Parshley translation allowed for some appeal to the reader. The new translation, as flawed as it is, has reinvigorated the appeal by putting the work on the map again, so to speak. It provides the English-speaking reader with a complete edition of the work for the first time. That is really important. It corrects mistakes that have hidden the philosophical and phenomenological import of the work. That is also very important. The new translation, even though it may not be the one we were hoping for, is an improvement over Parhley’s. ..People are paying attention again to what Beauvoir had to offer and are beginning to respond to it anew. The appeal is operating again. For this we must be thankful for the new translation of The Second Sex…As scholars, we need to criticize the new translation and point to its flaws. As scholars, we need to continue to push for a scholarly annotated edition of the work in French and then in English. But, as philosopher, we must carry on and think with and beyond Beauvoir. The world is there in need of changing. Beauvoir is appealing to us to see that and commit to act. We need to respond and not let ourselves be bogged down by what the Nouvel observateur has coined a venomous debate about the translation, as this would only serve to murder Beauvoir and annihilate her appeal.’ (pp 344-45)
I, and some others in the same issue of the London Review of Books, as well as the other academic reviews cited above, all disagree with Moi. I have begun to read the translation and find if fluid, accessible, thought provoking and highly readable. For the first time I feel I am hearing Beauvoir the existential philosopher. Though I agree that the text The Second Sex deserves to be treated as an academic and philosophic masterwork, thus fully annotated, I am not holding my breath. The editorial board of Random House, consciously or unconsciously, I believe will never let this happen. They are not interested in academic tradition and are not interested in seeing that this text be treated as it deserves.

‘The first English edition of The Second Sex was published in 1953. Blanche Knopf, the wife of Alfred Knopf, Beauvoir’s American publisher, had heard of the book on a scouting trip to Paris. Thinking that this sensational literary property was a highbrow sex manual, she had asked an academic who knew about the birds and bees, H. M. Parshley, a retired professor of zoology at Smith College, for a reader’s report. His enthusiasm for the work (“intelligent, learned, and well-balanced …not feminist in any doctrinaire sense”) won his the commission to translate it.‘ (p xiii, 2010 edition) The editorial board of Random House still have no respect for this ‘highbrow sex manual’, nor of its author, that they acquired. The fate of The Second Sex is ironic and a testament to all that Beauvoir was trying to tell us: Women, and the work of a woman, is still being treated as property.

0 Comments

Bond, James Bond & his movie future

3/22/2019

0 Comments

I became a James Bond fan when I first saw Dr. No when it came to our local theater back in May of 1963. I was nine years old and hooked! (That was 56 years ago as of 2019)

Of course, the Bond that I was imprinted with was Sean Connery and he is the touchstone of my image of Bond.

As we all know the conceit behind the film franchise is that though the actors may change they are always playing the ‘same person’. This goes for James Bond, M, Moneypenny, Felix Leiter, etc.

However with the release of Casino Royale in 2006 the franchise took a new turn. They decided to Retcon [1] the whole ‘history’ of James Bond and being it all anew with Daniel Craig and the year 2006. Each of the following films was built upon the premise that this actor is the ‘birth’ of James Bond as a license to kill 00 agent.

Throughout the Craig films MI6 is constantly under scrutiny by the British Government, especially the parliament, and the 00 agents in particularly are threaten with being shut down. Each movie shows the triumph and the continually need for the 00 agents and MI6 due to the activities of Bond, Q , Moneypenny and M.

We and the franchise are now at a cross roads. Craig is due to retire as the current actor playing Bond. All the effort that has gone in to portraying a ‘realistic’ history for the characters is about to be challenged by the insertion of a new actor into the role of Bond. The usual and obvious move for the Franchise is to simply continue the way it has and keep up the pretense that the fact that new actors play the character we are to pretend that this is still the same man, Bond.

I want to speculate on something radically new and different. Something a bit heretical.

It would violate the conceit that the movie franchise is following the books of Ian Fleming. This is of course a true leap of faith and a true fiction. But, hey, who can truly say that the Roger Moore era of Bond films was an accurate portrayal of the Fleming stories that had those titles?

Why not embrace the fact that the movies are based on and inspired by Fleming’s books but they are not to be confused with an attempt to bring the books to the screen.

My radical new tact would be the following, now remember what I am about to suggest is not how the movie franchise has been run. It is not a re-reading of what had gone before; it is creating a new Retcon of the whole franchise.

MY NEW RETCON

My idea would be that M explains to Bond, portrayed by the actor Daniel Craig, the following:

M explains that to keep MI6 going they needed to make a deal with the Parliament and the Government. The deal is that MI6 will be able to keep one and only one active field agent with a 00 license to kill designation. All other agents will be downgraded and no longer have the 00 license to kill. M further explains that Bond is getting old and needs to be retired from activity duty. The job calls for a younger man to be in the field. Bond will be taken off active duty and given a new code name and identity. He will henceforth be called ‘Daniel Craig’ and a new identity will be given to him. He will be put in charge of the training and running of the new 00 agent. The sole 00 agent of the agency. The deal is that henceforth there will only be one active agent, he will be 007 with the code name of ‘James Bond’.

At this time it is revealed that since 1960 the agency has had a long series of 007 agents who have been in the field and have retired. These are now known as Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan. [In doing this with this new Retcon, all the prior movies become part of the current timeline and history of 007.]

Now, this Retcon means that Bond will always be an agent/actor who is in their late 20’s and active till his mid 40’s. The agent/actor is always replaceable. Each agent/actor is a variation on the theme. Each has their own personal history and bio before taking on the identity of ‘James Bond 007’. Each new movie story can make use of this baggage to add depth and newness to the portrayal of the agent.

Also this means that there is real danger and real threats to the agent 007. He can be killed. He can be critically injured. The agent can be replaced with a new person taking up the identity of 007.

This gives us and the franchise a chance to redo the plot line of Her Majesty’s Secret Service, going into the plot line of You Only Live Twice and flowing into the beginning of The Man with the Golden Gun. Bond can confront a Blofeld who has never seen his face. This new agent Bond can fall in love, marry and have his wife killed by Blofeld. Then the events of You Only Live Twice can play out with this Bond sent on that suicide mission to kill Blofeld and seek revenge. This Bond can be captured and brainwash to return to try an assassinate M. Now, either they stop the attempt by capturing Bond or they kill that agent in the act, either is a possibility since the agent/actor is always replaceable.

I doubt that the movie franchise will take this tact. But I wish it would. It would bring a whole new depth and level of ‘reality’ to the ongoing films.
Long live James Bond 007!

[1] The Origin of the idea and word: RETCON
The first published use of the phrase "retroactive continuity" is found in theologian E. Frank Tupper's 1973 book The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg: "Pannenberg's conception of retroactive continuity ultimately means that history flows fundamentally from the future into the past, that the future is not basically a product of the past."

The first known printed use of "retroactive continuity" referring to the altering of history within a fictional work is in All-Star Squadron #18 (February 1983) from DC Comics. The series was set on DC's Earth-Two, an alternate universe in which Golden Age comic characters age in real time. All-Star Squadron was set during World War II on Earth-Two; as it was in the past of an alternate universe, all its events had repercussions on the contemporary continuity of the DC multiverse. Each issue changed the history of the fictional world in which it was set. In the letters column, a reader remarked that the comic "must make you [the creators] feel at times as if you're painting yourself into a corner", and, "Your matching of Golden Age comics history with new plotlines has been an artistic (and I hope financial!) success." Writer Roy Thomas responded, "we like to think that an enthusiastic ALL-STAR booster at one of Adam Malin's Creation Conventions in San Diego came up with the best name for it a few months back: 'Retroactive Continuity'. Has kind of a ring to it, don't you think?" The term then took firm root in the consciousness of fans of American superhero comics.

At some point, "retroactive continuity" was shortened to "retcon", reportedly by Damian Cugley in 1988 on Usenet. Hard evidence of Cugley's abbreviation has yet to surface, though in a Usenet posting on August 18, 1990, Cugley posted a reply in which he identified himself as "the originator of the word retcon". Cugley used the neologism to describe a development in the comic book Saga of the Swamp Thing, which reinterprets the events of the title character's origin by revealing facts that previously were not part of the narrative and were not intended by earlier writers. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity ]

0 Comments

Forward>>

Mutterings & musings

What about those political polls...are they useless or?

Mill's libertarian philosophy as stated in his essay On Liberty and the issues of wearing a mask in these times.

A recurring Lucid Dream from Childhood.

Citing chapter and verse

Who is Mary Russell and why should we care?

Thoughts on the new English Translation of Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex.

Bond, James Bond & his movie future

Gary Jaron's musings.

Archives

Categories