NaNo 2015

It’s that time of year again, and your humble correspondent squares his shoulders, cracks his knuckles, does that thing with his neck that they do in action films where they make all the bones crunch, takes a deep breath and once more prepares for the National Novel Writing Month.  I’ve started doing typing on the spot to warm up.

Last year’s attempt ended in bitter defeat, with less than half the required 50,000 words down.  What seemed like a good idea at the time soon fizzled out, and my muse abandoned me, leaving me de-mused, be-mused and not at all a-mused.  My muse isn’t all to blame of course.  The idea I had for last year was a departure from the usual swashbuckling adventure story word-churners I put out for NaNo, and far harder to sustain.

I have learnt my lesson, and returned to my more usual fare.  This year’s novel will actually be a complete reworking of my attempt from 2011, which was also unsuccessful, a steampunky story of airships and empire, set in my Anno Geometrica alternative history.  The previous attempt focused on two separate crews of independent aeronauts.  I got to about 30,000 words before the end, but couldn’t sustain it for various reasons.  I’ll be keeping the same rough plot (originally developed for a roleplay game I ran, with results that I can only describe as ‘mixed’), but this time, and largely as a result of reading lots of Hornblower, The Seafort Saga, and the Honor Harrington novels, I’m making the focus a naval ship of the Royal Air Fleet (India Squadron) and its captain.

I’ll also be writing in my accustomed first person, unlike the previous version of this story.  Hopefully my hero won’t be quite as morose as the eponymous lead of the Seafort Saga (who, due to the lantern-jawed illustrations of the covers, I fondly refer to as Captain Gloomy McSpacechin), or as smugly competent as Honor Harrington (AKA Mrs Space Hornblower), but somewhere in between.

It is tradition that the titles of such naval adventures (and their space and aerial equivalents) should contain or be a play on the name of the main character, and so the (slightly pulpy) working title of this year’s opus is going to be Squadron’s Zenith. 

Here’s the brief synopsis I’ve already posted on the NaNo website:

“It's 1879, and with war in Afghanistan, the continuing expansion of the Russian Empire and increasingly frequent and voracious pirate attacks along the lucrative trade routes between Delhi and Constantinople, the Royal Air Fleet's already overstretched India Squadron has its work cut out for it.

Edmund Zenith, newly appointed commander of the sky-sloop Hippolyta is tasked with escorting a supply ship to the front lines, and thereafter to support Her Majesty's ground forces in quelling the fractious Pathan tribes.  Instead, he finds himself drawn into the intrigues and plots of the Great Game as Russia sets its sights on the tiny but strategically vital kingdom of Rhuristan.”

Wish me luck!

Rights, Responsiblities and Privileges

I’ve made asides to my views on the concept of rights before, and occasionally promised that I would one day expand on them.  That day has finally arrived.

Very simply put, I do not believe in rights.  I do not believe in human rights, fundamental rights, playwrights (no, wait…) or inalienable rights (even for aliens).  People very glibly talk about ‘human rights’ and what they are, especially their own and especially when they think that they ought to have something that they’re not getting.

We have written charters of human rights, right to a home, right to family, right to freedom of expression and freedom of religious and freedom of assembly, to clean water and food, clothing, education etc. etc. etc. and so on and so forth; a bill of interminable rights.  And to have these charters and bills is extremely praiseworthy, a laudable attempt to make sure that everyone has a good standard of life.  If you accept the concept as a given, then it all makes perfect sense.

However, I do not accept the base premise.  Why do we have any rights at all?  Where do they come from?  What are ‘rights’?  The dictionary tells us that a right is “A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.”  The definition given by Wikipedia is better; “Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.”

Perhaps I should restate my position slightly.  I do not object to the concept of rights per se, but to the conception of rights as it seems to be in the minds of many people.  People seem to think that rights are fundamental, built into the laws of physics, objective, self-evident and absolute.  I think that they are far more important than that.

I’ve seen a placard in a picture of a protest bearing the slogan ‘Education is a right, not a privilege’.  I disagree.  Education is a privilege, and being so, is much more important than a right.  Freedom is a privilege, family is a privilege, even food and water and life are privileges, and not everyone has them.  Now, please don’t think for a moment that I’m suggesting that some people ought not to have them; quite the opposite.  However, I think that if you assume that these things are inalienable rights that people ought to have ‘just because’, it’s far too easy to undervalue them.

Living in the UK, I am fortunate to live in a society that permits me these privileges.  I could very easily have been born in a place or a time period in which I do not have access to all or any of these privileges, and I am extremely grateful for the fact that I have been.  I’m not suggesting that we should live in a state of grovelling gratitude to our governments for supplying and enforcing these privileges, rather we should very carefully watch them to ensure that they continue to do so. 

But why should I care whether others have these privileges, as long as I do?  Well, ultimately it’s a case of ‘Do as you would be done by’.  I consider them to be a Good Thing, and it is right that all people should share these privileges; I continue to contend that this is not the same as them being ‘rights’.  Indeed, because it is right that people should have them, they stop being privileges, and become more important still; they become responsibilities.  I do not have the right to be free; I have the responsibility to use my freedom well, and to ensure the freedom of others.  I do not have the right to free speech; I have the responsibility to use my speech for good, and for ensuring that others can do so as well.  I do not have the right to life or happiness; I am responsible for my own, and for the life and happiness of everyone else, and they are responsible for mine.

The Conservative party has stated that they wish to scrap the EU Declaration of Human Rights.  I can't say that this strikes me as a wholly good idea, but if they do, I think that they could do worse than to replace it with a Declaration of Human Responsibilities.  If we held people accountable when they failed in their responsibilities, rather than simply allowing people to appeal when they feel they have not been accorded their rights, I think the world would be a much better place.

We seem to think very highly of our rights.  It would be a much better world if instead we thought as highly about our responsibilities, and were as grateful for our privileges.  It seems to me that we would be less eager to give them up, and less likely to abuse them or take them for granted.

But of course, you have every right to disagree, if you want to.