Tag Archives: Merit

storycraft – grounding sci-fi tales of wagon trains to other worlds

10-23-2026 [draft essay]

The entertainment paradox

I am struggling with the entertainment paradox. A contrast of two narrative engines. It’s like spitting into the wind.

In tales where hope is fragile and desperation abounds, do we celebrate individual exceptionalism—witty, charming heros (reluctant or rogue) outwitting a bad guy; or communal exceptionalism—meritorious, dedicated collectives overcoming villainy?

When crafting sci-fi stories of trailblazing salvation—wagon trains to other worlds, whether that be to haven, heaven, or the stars—do we, in effect, say “goodbye” to physics, “hello” to a genie, or “thank you” for relationality?

Is salvation merely a change of venue—a lucky ticket into a safe harbor, or a low-stakes relocation offer? If so, hope rests entirely in a locality. But if the journey itself is the prize, our hope shifts toward ongoing transformation and the relationality discovered while underway.

This tension is starkly apparent when contrasting the magical mechanisms of Alan Dean Foster’s Lost on Paradise with the slow pilgrimage between stars in my own Calliope’s Reach. Foster’s tease functions like an alien race suddenly presenting a read-only feed akin to an interplanetary Zillow advert: “Check out the listings, we’ll take care of all the details, what have you got to lose?” It is an invitation by a genie.

Advocating an alternative narrative engine is a heavy lift, facing the embedded strengths of a longstanding, mainstream engine (no matter how repetitive its outputs have become).

Continue reading storycraft – grounding sci-fi tales of wagon trains to other worlds →

Balancing of the books – just deserts

[Draft 4-12-2026]

Moral inferences & influencers

The other day at my gym, I got into a conversation about a media influencer who talked about how some contemporary despots did really bad things, but also improved the lot of others. Or how famous, honored activists (or celebrities) did some really good things, but kept secret some really bad things. Is such moral duplicity anything new under the sun? Like the “pitchfork effect.” Or “halo effect” (especially for priests).

The implication was some sort of tally of debits & credits. So that moral worthiness depends on a good enough moral “batting” average. Or that there’s adequate majority merit, like 51% good and 49% evil.

This struck me as “moral accounting,” which historically the Church rejected. Such accounting encouraged some to literally try to buy their way into heaven (indulgences) – much like compensatory carbon credits. Or, even trade or transfer (loan) merit (to get around that “eye of a needle” thing). And perpetuated the notion that great wealth is a sign of social superiority and spiritual merit.

Continue reading Balancing of the books – just deserts →