Any discussion of Clay Men is similarly circumscribed. One can debate about whether they should be extended civil and economic rights, but one cannot talk about why there are Clay Men in the first place. That is to say, one cannot talk about the King of a Hundred Hearts, what the Masters did to him, and the promises the Bazaar made. All debate and all energy is narrowly focused on the aftereffects of these momentous decisions and events, decisions and events engineered in secret, to serve secret ends.
[quote=Kaigen][quote=Anne Auclair]Snip[/quote]Snip
But I ask supporters of the Contrarian: What evidence or assurances can you offer that the Contrarian will do anything good for anyone as mayor? I have been called upon to prognosticate for Jenny multiple times now, so I think it’s only fair to ask you to look into your tea mugs and show me the leaves that lead you to think he will accomplish anything positive.[/quote]
Isn’t this somewhat silly? There’s no evidence that anyone will accomplish anything positive, in either the contextualized or meta game. That there can be no evidence of results is clear from your "tea leaves" remark and all we are left with is the words of rhetors to divine their intentions.
That’s no different then every person you meet in real life.
All we can do is look at what people said, compare that to what we know they have done, and hope our analysis doesn’t leave out too many relevant bits. Asking which of these people will accomplish something positive is then less useful then asking which has verifiable characteristics that support their message.
The Bishop (to me) reads as sincere, but too filled with survivor’s guilt to be trusted to make good judgements.
Jenny (again: to me) is warm and affable, but her sincerity is less relevant then the limits of her power to betray her claims. This, I will grant, implies nothing about her ability to achieve them.
And the Contrarian’s (I won’t bother saying it again) appeal to moderation through variously conceptualized complexities is at least not something that can be stopped. Unlike the others, the Contrarian makes no (meaningful) claims to change things. He just shows that he recognizes how layered and interlocking the world is. Anyone voting for him isn’t likely to be doing so because of what he will accomplish; it will be because, in a strange way, they trust his judgement. Even if not his words.
None of these are statements about which I would choose, necessarily, but I hope they elucidate the difference in appeal.
One has to remember that London is not remotely a free society. It’s rather a decentered authoritarian system. There is no rule of law, no democratic accountability, no true freedom of speech or press, no guaranteed freedom of association. The real government, such as it is, is a Gordian Knot of administration, intrigue, crime and commerce, supported by secrecy, corruption and violence. But London’s circumstances are not unique, they were merely a particularly intense reflection of how things are done in the High Wilderness. It serves the regimes interests to have a public discourse where the inner workings and motivations of the secret government are passed over in unnoticed silence, so that everyone interacts with the government as a private person, i.e. an atomized intriguer. In treating the public discourse as ultimately inconsequential, the Contrarian invites the public to look deeper.
Sinning Jenny’s campaign is how the election is supposed to go. She has her surface issues: exclusion of the poor, the marginal, and the sinful, along with the vague implication of modest reforms which may or may not materialize. But she accepts the limits on thought and debate. Which makes sense - the establishment and its intrigues have always been good for her and she would no doubt like to become a player herself.
The Bishop, say what you will about him, has taken concrete action against the devils and Hell in the past, and it would be absurd to claim that we have no evidence of his sincerity. The Contrarian has achieved very real goals in The Affluent Photographer story and the revolutionaries card. When both cases are considered one can argue that The Contrarian is unreliable, that his allegiances shift like sand, that he cannot be trusted and so on. One can also argue that this shows the nuance of his ideals and his ability to consider both sides of an issue. Either way, one cannot deny that The Contrarian’s involvement in politics far predates the elections. While Sinning Jenny has done…what, exactly? Like I said, there have been explanations made as to why we have no evidence of her good intentions, but they don’t change the fact that we don’t have any evidence of her good intentions. Other than her melodramatic rhetoric, that is.
It is true that choosing a candidate is to some extent a leap of faith, but that does not mean all choices are exactly the same. I’m not a Bishop voter, but those who vote for The Bishop know with a reasonable degree of certainty what they’ll get. A vote for The Contrarian is a greater leap of faith, as his political actions don’t follow a simple ideology like the Bishop’s, and it is difficult for any one voter to know whether the Contrarian shares his convictions on any particular point, but we do at least have a political track record to look at. A political track record that shows, despite constant claims to the contrary, that The Contrarian is in fact capable of taking real actions. Sinning Jenny, as was said, is a complete unknown, and a vote for her is a much greater gamble than the other two candidates.
edited by Angus Turner on 7/10/2016
[quote=Angus Turner]The Contrarian has achieved very real goals in The Affluent Photographer story and the revolutionaries card.[/quote] "One time he talked me out of beating up a poet, and another time he took advantage of my good name to put an agent in the Ministry! Vote Contrarian!"
Stopping a disruptive and ineffective revolutionary and infiltrating one of the most corrupt and evil institutions in London’s government is significant enough to draw conclusions from, my opinion. Certainly in contrast with Sinning Jenny’s political track record, which is nonexistent.
Stopping a disruptive and ineffective revolutionary and infiltrating one of the most corrupt and evil institutions in London’s government is significant enough to draw conclusions from, my opinion. Certainly in contrast with Sinning Jenny’s political track record, which is nonexistent.[/quote]So he will hinder, and he will gather information, and he will advance nothing. I’d rather the chance for positive change than to content myself with damage control.
Stopping a disruptive and ineffective revolutionary and infiltrating one of the most corrupt and evil institutions in London’s government is significant enough to draw conclusions from, my opinion. Certainly in contrast with Sinning Jenny’s political track record, which is nonexistent.[/quote]So he will hinder, and he will gather information, and he will advance nothing. I’d rather the chance for positive change than to content myself with damage control.[/quote]
Isn’t hindering harmful elements an example of positive change? Would you say that removing the Vake is an example of hindering, and therefore not positive change? You think The Contrarian will not take a active role because his actions were not active enough for your tastes, but think Jenny will because her non-actions are? Why?
edited by Angus Turner on 7/10/2016
Isn’t hindering harmful elements an example of positive change? Would you say that removing the Vake is an example of hindering, and therefore not positive change? You think The Contrarian will not take a active role because his actions were not active enough for your tastes, but think Jenny will because her non-actions are? Why?[/quote]Preventing damage and removing bad actors are two different things. The Contrarian argues against the fall of night but takes no substantive action against those who promote it. He fights a delaying action only. And as I said above, he can do that just as easily now as he could as mayor. Fighting the Vake, in contrast, is not a delaying action, it seeks the permanent removal of a threat. There is a need for both damage control and positive change, but I would rather see the latter from the new mayoral office.
Your reservations about The Contrarian I mostly understand, though I don’t share them. One claim I do find somewhat perplexing: that what he does now he can do just as well without being mayor. Isn’t it a bit strange to expect a candidate to take actions requiring mayoral power…before being elected mayor? But what I still can’t wrap my head around is your faith in Jenny. You keep mentioning positive change - what makes you think she will enact such change? She has, as I said, no track record to speak of, and has proven herself rather untrustworthy. Is it just a case of considering the other candidates so inept that you’ll rather roll the dice?
London though is also a society that is being imperialistically exploited by outside powers. The greatest of these imperial powers is Hell. Hell has built itself upon/around/through the predation of cities brought down into the Neath by the Bazaar (Hell, like Irem, borders Parabola and like Irem resides outside of time and is able to interact with the past, present, and future, a world in which it is very possible to build the past with future materials, not merely the present with present day materials).
Owing to Hell’s military superiority, London has been forced to grant the infernal’s diplomatic privileges and legalize the trade in souls. This situation is not unlike the aftermath of the Opium Wars in Qing China, where the Chinese Empire was forced to concede to the Europeans various diplomatic privileges and the legalization of the opium trade. In theory the soul trade is regulated, but this doesn’t make it any less horrible (best symbolized by the devilless who constantly seeks the souls of urchin children and gets very angry if you interfere). Alongside this morally questionable legal trade there operates an insidious illegal trade, with the drugging of marks and the robbing of the infirm being regular occurrences. Many of the souls the devils acquire are tortured horrifically. [color=rgb(194, 194, 194)][/color](In last month’s exceptional story, you see a soul roasting in one of the Embassy’s fireplaces.)[color=rgb(194, 194, 194)][/color]
From the Brass Embassy, Hell’s representatives work assiduously to acquire souls, increase their insidious influence, and normalize perceptions of their presence and activities. London’s elite have given up all hope of actively opposing the devils and instead focuses on limiting the damage of the soul trade through enforcement of existing regulations and covert support for the Committee of Vital Restitution.
The Bishop’s campaign is all about countering this normalization by sharpening/renewing the divide between London and Hell, with the ultimate aim of laying the groundwork for removing the infernal occupation altogether:
[quote=Bishop]“You shall stand at my side when we send the devils packing." An elderly Knight-Harbinger whispers something in his ear. "Eh? Not politic?" He sighs. "We shall raise some very pointed questions regarding the domiciliary status of the Brass Embassy and its favoured exemptions vis a vis the comparable status of the other embassies in London."’
…
"It’s the devils. Can’t have religion without the blighters, but that doesn’t mean we should have to put up with them in our tea-shops and haberdasheries." He raises a calloused finger to forestall your interruption. "Conventional theology has its limits, and London lies outside of them, I know. But d__n it all: devils? Really?"[/quote]
Though it’s doubtful that “sharp questions” will really hinder the Embassy, this is somewhat beside the point. The goal is not so much to impede the Embassy’s activities (these are far beyond the power of the Mayor to really impact in any case, being the purview of the Masters and autonomous departments), but rather to increase public hostility towards its existence. In the long run, the Bishop hopes to stop people from perceiving the devils as just another part of London and once again see them as a malevolent, alien and predatory presence, one that should be sent packing.
Some have argued that London cannot hope to conquer the brass arsenals of Hell, that the infernal power is now and forever invincible, and so the Bishops plans can only end in disaster. If you believe this, then you should probably vote for the Contrarian. Perhaps, though, the devils aren’t as mighty as they present themselves to be and, with a good enough plan, we could turn the tables on them. There’s only one way to find out.
There would be benefits beyond an end to the soul trade. The wealth and industry of Hell would be London’s to claim and Hell itself could become a refuge from the appetite of the Bazaar/the fall of the Sixth City, much as the Salt Steppes became a refuge for surviving Khanagians.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/10/2016
Could you point me at the storylets where the Contrarian tries for positive change himself, beyond performance art smearing? Has he proved himself capable of deeds that aren’t just moving his mouth, or getting entangled with the Calendar Council?
A single annotation about the possibility of a third option gives me no confidence in his ability to extricate himself from his backers, unlike Jenny - tt’s a wonder that his campaign can expand "need not necessarily" into an active role of any sort.
[li]
Could you point me at the storylets where the Contrarian tries for positive change himself, beyond performance art smearing? Has he proved himself capable of deeds that aren’t just moving his mouth, or getting entangled with the Calendar Council?
A single annotation about the possibility of a third option gives me no confidence in his ability to extricate himself from his backers, unlike Jenny - tt’s a wonder that his campaign can expand "need not necessarily" into an active role of any sort.[/quote]
I’ve mentioned several times now The Affluent Photographer story and the revolutionaries card. Maybe you think those are small, insignificant things, barely more than "moving his mouth," but as I’ve already said, s[color=rgb(194, 194, 194)]topping a disruptive and ineffective revolutionary and infiltrating one of the most corrupt and evil institutions in London’s government is significant enough to draw conclusions from, in my opinion. Or are you saying that because those events entail ‘getting entagled with the Calendar Council’ they should be dismissed? Why?[/color]
Could you point me at the storylets where the Contrarian tries for positive change himself, beyond performance art smearing? Has he proved himself capable of deeds that aren’t just moving his mouth, or getting entangled with the Calendar Council?
A single annotation about the possibility of a third option gives me no confidence in his ability to extricate himself from his backers, unlike Jenny - tt’s a wonder that his campaign can expand "need not necessarily" into an active role of any sort.[/quote]
I’ve mentioned several times now The Affluent Photographer story and the revolutionaries card. Maybe you think those are small, insignificant things, barely more than "moving his mouth," but as I’ve already said, stopping a disruptive and ineffective revolutionary and infiltrating one of the most corrupt and evil institutions in London’s government is significant enough to draw conclusions from, in my opinion. Or are you saying that because those events entail ‘getting entagled with the Calendar Council’ they should be dismissed? Why?[/quote]
In all fairness, the skill set of a moderate revolutionary intriguer is not quite the skill set of a government official. Neither Jenny nor the Contrarian have any experience in public administration. The one candidate who does have administrative experience is the Bishop, as he’s in charge of a large ecclesiastical bureaucracy. The Bishop definitely knows how to get things done, whether its managing the Church finances, seeing to the spiritual needs of worshipers, reorganizing the Church along military lines, or running that crazy beast breeding operation in the Labyrinth of Tigers. If it were a contest of administrative experience, the Bishop would win hands down. You see that experience at work in the military precision of the Clemantis League and the large number of candles burning in Southwark Cathedral.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/11/2016
[quote=Anne Auclair]In all fairness, the skill set of a moderate revolutionary intriguer is not quite the skill set of a government official. Neither Jenny nor the Contrarian have any experience in public administration. The one candidate who does have administrative experience is the Bishop, as he’s in charge a large ecclesiastical bureaucracy. The Bishop definitely knows how to get things done, whether its managing the Church finances, seeing to the spiritual needs of worshipers, reorganizing the Church along military lines, or running that crazy beast breeding operation in the Labyrinth of Tigers. If it were a contest of administrative experience, the Bishop would win hands down. You see that experience at work in the military precision of the Clemantis League and the large number of candles burning in Southwark Cathedral.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/11/2016[/quote]
I mean to look at those actions as evidence to his true intents and his desire to affect change in the city, not as evidence of his administrative experience. But I’ll certainly grant you that The Bishop is the only one who has actually shown leadership before the elections. It remains to be seen if his is the type of leadership our city desires. I’m also not sure how The Bishop will handle his ecclesiastical duties as mayor - I can scarcely imagine him stepping down as Bishop, and to be the head of two bodies is a difficult burden. Though I suppose The Bishop will wrestle with that problem when the time comes.
St Fiacre’s better known for its candle budget… though I admit, they don’t -burn- them… but, there’s one hole in your argument. Jenny’s been running one of the Masters’ major public organisations for years!
That’s a private for profit business that sells services to a discerning, well heeled clientele (and then blackmails them…). It’s totally different from public administration. Only the Bishop has run anything comparable to a city government.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/11/2016
I agree that it would be unreasonable to expect a candidate to exercise the powers of an elected position without being elected. What I mean is that, taking what I interpret the Contrarian’s objectives to be, that is, constraining the more radical elements of the Revolutionaries and promoting independent thought and free expression, I do not believe that becoming Mayor will help him achieve those objectives more readily. I doubt the Calendar Council would respect whatever political clout the Mayor of London might have, and arguably he would do a better job of promoting open discourse by publishing a newspaper than occupying public office (though I will not discount that campaigning for public office, regardless of the outcome, makes sense in light of his objectives).
And yes, it does essentially come down to being more willing to roll the dice, though "inept" is perhaps not the word I would use. The Bishop is a formidable individual with whom I have worked with on multiple occasions, but I do not think he has the requisite subtlety to build hostility against the Brass Embassy without taking overt actions that the Devils will be able to capitalize on to their advantage. And as I have said, I see the the Contrarian as operating more in the sphere of blocking negative action than in changing the status quo into something better, which strikes me as being only a way to lose more slowly. Given that, I would rather gamble on a relative unknown who is at least willing to associate herself with the groups in London that need help the most.
It is worth noting that while Jenny has completely cut ties with the Bazaar–firing all associated staff, returning all funds, and accepting the consequences of such constrained resources–the Contrarian is still associating with his mysterious January donor. He may not have cashed the most recent cheque, but he has not returned previous funds. Their dispute is temporary and their association remains intact, to whatever ends that may lead.
I feel this point bears clarification: Do not make your own Judgements. It has not worked out for the Admiralty. It will not work out for you. Put the wrench down.[/quote]
But that’s the problem! We let the Admiralty make their Judgement for us, instead of making our own, independant Judgements. Now where’s that sodding wrench…
Southwark 1894: Because Clerical Skills Aren’t Called That For Nothing.