by on

How many of you remember the movie Jackie from 2016? It was well-received at the time, but like everything in our age of ephemera, it didn’t make any lasting impression. As the national motto says, “don’t ask questions, just consoom product, then get excited for next product.”

Despite my best efforts (i.e. writing long-winded, rambling reviews) it didn’t even manage to garner Natalie Portman the second Oscar she deserved. It’s too bad, because if it had, it would have made the 2017 Best Picture announcement even more screwed up, since presumably Faye Dunaway would have announced Jackie as the winner when it wasn’t nominated.

On the other hand, more people probably remember Jackie than have read Daniel J. Boorstin’s The Image. Which is also too bad, because, as I said in my review, it basically predicted our current society.

If you don’t want to read (or reread) my review, the executive summary of Boorstin’s book is that ours is increasingly a world of what he termed “pseudo-events”. Pseudo-events being artificial creations of publicists and propagandists to generate news items, or what we today call “content.”

Careful readers will notice I’ve referenced one pseudo-event already: the Oscars, which is a ceremony based around people giving themselves awards for pretending to do things and creating elaborate illusions. It is a pseudo-event based on pseudo-events. Naturally, it is one of the biggest news events of the year, every year. Somewhere, Boorstin’s ghost mutters, “Q.E.D.”

And Jackie is a film about the construction of pseudo-events, images, and narratives. As the widow says towards the end of the film, “I believe the characters we read on the page become more real than the men who stand beside us.” Indeed.

Of course, the central precipitating event of the film is anything but pseudo, as it involves the real death of a real man. But from there, after a whirlwind of emotional agony, Mrs. Kennedy sets to work crafting the funeral for her husband, planning it with the same care she put into her renovations of the White House; with an eye to how the public will perceive it.

The film is framed as a conversation with a strangely disrespectful journalist, who strikes a decidedly abrasive tone with Mrs. Kennedy that seems impossible to imagine happening in real life. My interpretation is that this is meant to represent her impressions of the Press as a whole, rather than any single real event. Again: images!

Over the course of the film, the journalist develops a grudging respect for how skillfully she crafted political theater to convey her message, never more so than when she says the whole thing can be summarized by the last lines of the musical Camelot.

To be frank with you, it was the use of Camelot in the soundtrack of Jackie that inspired me to do this post. Let us peel back the layers of this pseudo-event onion: here we have a film about how people used a play based on a legend to craft a fictional narrative that then shapes reality. When you listen to the voice of Richard Burton portraying King Arthur singing about Camelot (which would have been the actual performance Kennedy would have heard) set to footage of Natalie Portman playing Jackie Kennedy spinning the whole thing for a magazine interview—well, it really does start to blur the line between reality and fiction.

Speaking of the footage of Portman-as-Kennedy: the film includes scenes where archival film of the real Jackie Kennedy is intercut with scenes of Portman mimicking her. Many a film reviewer noted how it was impossible to tell which was which. (I can tell which is which—but then, I had a poster of Ms. Portman in my room when I was 12.) Still, there’s no denying that the imitation is expertly done, and that an actress in a movie reenacting the words and mannerisms of a woman who was already putting on a performance for the television cameras just adds another layer to this kaleidoscope of unreality.

Boorstin, writing in 1962, already had plenty of material for his thesis from the Kennedy administration, not least of which was the famous observation that Kennedy’s appearance in a televised debate helped sway voters to him.  Jackie is practically The Image: The Movie, since it’s not only the same theme but even the same time period. (By the way, how excellent of a title is The Image: The Movie? They should have made that the subtitle.)

A lot of the advance press, including interviews from Portman herself, emphasized the “Female Power” aspect of the film. (This was late 2016, remember.) Frankly, this is something I’ve never really gotten from this movie. Jackie isn’t empowered, she’s a slave to public opinion, just like everyone else in Washington. She’s good at dealing with it, perhaps, but ultimately, the nature of the image-based world requires her to sacrifice what should be an intimate, private act of mourning her murdered husband to appease the all-seeing eye of mass media.

At least, I’m certain Boorstin would see it that way. The state of the “Graphic Revolution” as it existed in the early 1960s, and that Boorstin exhaustively documented in his book, is captured vividly in the film, to the point where you can see why Boorstin felt like he needed to sound some alarms.

However, there is one part of the film where the widow relinquishes control of her carefully-managed appearance and bares her soul. These are the scenes where she speaks to a priest, and they are some of the most interesting in the entire picture, so they are worth exploring in detail.

The Priest, played by legendary actor John Hurt in one of his final performances, is even more unlike a priest than The Journalist is unlike a journalist. Mostly in the sense that his attitude towards God seems distinctly atypical, as when he says, by way of consoling the widow:

There comes a time in man’s search for meaning when one realises that there are no answers. And when you come to that horrible, unavoidable realization, you accept it or you kill yourself. Or you simply stop searching… I have lived a blessed life. And yet every night, when I climb into bed, turn off the lights, and stare in to the dark, I wonder… Is this all there is?

I don’t think they’ll be printing that on sympathy cards anytime soon.

In these scenes, Mrs. Kennedy seems to be confessing to a terrible spiritual emptiness, which she has tried to fill by creating the image of an idyllic “Camelot.” But she has not succeeded, and dreams of surrendering, finally, to the void. The film ends with a strong implication that Jackie’s—and by extension, Jack’s—lasting legacy to the world is in the images they created. But for the people themselves, there is no true peace, no true meaning.

This is probably why the movie feels so disturbing and not completely satisfying. The bitter notes are all on a human level, while the notes of triumph and overcoming are all in the range of images and projections. The sacrificial fire casts beautiful shadows on the wall of the cave.

As a drama, it succeeds only intermittently. As a warning about pseudo-reality overtaking actual reality, it succeeds nearly as well as Boorstin’s magnum opus. Which is to say, (a) incredibly well and (b) not well enough. Because every trend Boorstin identified and every facet of political theater that Jackie exposes have grown exponentially since the 1960s. The only parts of Boorstin’s book that haven’t aged well are the ones where he says things like, “this cascade of pseudo-events reached a climax when…”

Buddy, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

This all leaves us with the question of whether it’s even possible to make a film, or any work of fiction, that warns about everything being fake. Since fiction is by definition fake, isn’t that just contributing to the problem?

I hope you aren’t expecting me to answer that, because the truth is, I don’t know. Or perhaps I suspect I do know, but I don’t like the answer I am coming up with. If it’s correct, it implies you should immediately log off and touch grass. In fact, you should never have come here to begin with when you got thinking about pseudo-events. If documenting the problem itself contributes to the problem… well, we have landed ourselves squarely back in one of those hyperstitional situations, as discussed last week.

The only vague shape of something resembling a solution that suggests itself to me are in the words of Ursula K. Le Guin in The Left Hand of Darkness:

“To oppose something is to maintain it. They say here ‘all roads lead to Mishnory.’ To be sure, if you turn your back on Mishnory and walk away from it, you are still on the Mishnory road. To oppose vulgarity is inevitably to be vulgar. You must go somewhere else; you must have another goal; then you walk a different road…”

by on

Ah, my friends; my loyal, loyal readers! We review a lot of strange books on this blog, don’t we? Old books, forgotten books, books possibly no one else has even read.

And yet I daresay this might be the strangest one we’ve ever done. Is it fiction? Is it philosophy? Is it from Heaven or is it from Hell? Well, maybe a bit of both. Let us, as my unwanted AI assistant is fond of saying, “dive in” and “discover” and “explore” this exceedingly bizarre volume together.

So first off, you might ask, “what is CCRU? Is it an acronym?” Well, yes and no. It might stand for “Cybernetic Culture Research Unit.” The “About the Author” listing on Amazon for this book states:

Cybernetic Culture Research Unit was a name on a door in the Philosophy Department of Warwick University, UK, during the late 1990s. It was a rogue unit, blurring the borders between traditional scholarship, cyberpunk sci-fi, and music journalism. Its frenzied interdisciplinary activity, including the Virtual Futures and Virotechnology conferences and the journal Abstract Culture, disturbed Warwick’s Philosophy Department, resulting in the termination of the unit.

On the other hand, one of the… well, let’s call them “stories” in the book itself alleges that CCRU is not an acronym at all, but the name of a Polynesian Demon of Apocalypse. But since this appears to be entirely made up by the authors of the text, there is no reason to assume this is the case.

Finally, the text on the back of the book states that “CCRU does not, has not, and will never exist.”

So, no one will acknowledge what the title of the book means or who wrote it. If this seems confusing and strange to you, just wait.

The contents of the book are organized into chapters, some of which read like prose poems in what can only be described as a techno-Lovecraftian mode. There are many references to worms, fish, ancient gods and the like, but in conjunction with turn-of-the-millennium computer jargon.

Perhaps most notable are the repeated references to lemurs. “Lemur” being a word both for the ring-tailed primates native to Madagascar as well as a derivation from the Latin word for ghost, lemurēs. In the context of the CCRU, the word seems to mean both at once, since lemurs are understood to be transcendent beings, pursuing some sort of unknown objective across vast gulfs of space and especially time. This is explained (using a very loose definition of the word “explained”) in the section “Lemurian Time War,” which describes how a man named William S. Burroughs wrote a book called Ghost Lemurs of Madagascar.

William S. Burroughs was real, and did write a book about lemurs in Madagascar, although it was called Ghost of Chance. The text described by the CCRU is supposedly sent backward from the future in order to allow it to be written.

Which brings me to the first of several notable concepts introduced in the CCRU’s corpus: the concept of hyperstition.

An amalgam of “hype” and “superstition”, a hyperstition is an idea which brings itself into being. A famous example of this is Roko’s Basilisk, a thought-experiment which suggests that if a super-intelligent AI exists in the future, it may punish those who tried to prevent its creation. Therefore, it is wise to do everything in one’s power to help create the super-intelligent AI.

You see the diabolical logic? By believing in this theory of a super-intelligent AI, we make it more likely that it will exist. Thus, with a lot of literary license, it can be seen as a type of time-travel; the AI reaching back from the future to instill beliefs that will lead to the creation of itself.

This is, in my opinion, interesting. Admittedly, it might be viewed as just a variant on Pascal’s Wager, but it’s an intriguing concept nonetheless.

It’s also a good illustration of CCRU’s cavalier approach to fiction vs. what we plebs call “reality.” As far as CCRU is concerned, there is no difference. If a fictional idea “exists”, what’s to say it’s less real than something that’s actually, you know, real?

Which is why, in addition to the references to the works of William S. Burroughs which are only loosely connected to the actual man by that name, we get references to writings by people like “Echidna Stillwell” and “Peter Vysparov”, who exchange letters on various cosmic horror abominations which they are assiduously researching. None of this stuff is “real” in the sense you or I understand the term, but it contributes to the overall CCRU philosophy.

What is the overall CCRU philosophy, you wonder?  Well, we’re getting there. It’s not really a thing that lends itself to easy summary, but rather emerges slowly, almost like an organic or chemical process, from the sulfurous stew of bizarre technogothery that foams and bubbles incoherently across the different chapters.

Basically, the picture that gradually emerges is not that different, in broad outlines, from the one painted by Paul Kingsnorth in the book I reviewed last week. Capitalism, far from being a mere system of economics, can be viewed as a kind of inhuman xeno-intelligence which operates according to its own logic, quite apart from anything the humans who make it run intend. Artificial Intelligence is simply the most evolved form of this fundamentally alien entity.

And like Kingsnorth, the CCRU views the thing in apocalyptic metaphysical terms. In this view, AI is not being developed by humans. Rather, it is a force coming from somewhere entirely separate from the everyday realm of human perception—a place sometimes ominously referred to, in the fine Lovecraftian tradition, as “The Outside.”

What is The Outside, and how do things get in from it? Well, Kingsnorth used the metaphor of the internet as a worldwide Ouija board, and this intuitively seems like an analogy of which the CCRU would approve. But they have an even more bizarre and esoteric method for consorting with the dark powers, called the Numogram.

The Numogram, which is the odd diagram you see on the cover, is CCRU’s qabbalistic calling card. It’s impossible to understand the philosophy of Lemurian Time-Sorcery without understanding the Numogram. Unfortunately, (or perhaps fortunately) it is also impossible to understand the Numogram. Quoting directly from Part 8, “Pandemonium”:

“The Numogram, or decimal labyrinth, is composed of ten zones (numbered 0-9) and their interconnections. These zones are grouped into five pairs (syzygies) by nine-sum twinning (zygonovism). The arithmetical difference of each syzygy defines a current (or connection to a tractor zone). Currents constitute the primary flows of the Numogram.”

This is the part of the story where I’m most inclined to wonder if the whole thing is just an Andy Kaufman routine for eccentric philosophers. You can never be sure that the entirety of CCRU’s output is not some elaborate academic practical joke which is not terribly funny.

Except of course for one stark fact: viz., that to the extent anything can be gleaned from the CCRU writings, it is a prediction that AI will relentlessly conquer the world. And indeed, this prediction appears to be coming true. After all, AI is ubiquitous in cyberspace. Just in the course of writing this blog post, I keep getting irritating pop-ups telling me how I could write it “better”. I thought these were merely repetitive and annoying, but perhaps the CCRU is correct, and they are in fact intrusions from dark spiritual forces that lurk in the heart of internet, buried deep in the undersea cables that connect the Earth like monstrous worms. “Great holes secretly are digged where earth’s pores ought to suffice, and things have learnt to walk that ought to crawl.”

Again and again, Kingsnorth and the CCRU align in ironic ways. Where Kingsnorth says “let ‘the West’ die”, CCRU writes cryptically, “America is nothing but the West, and that’s the Land of the Dead.” (“Going west” is archaic slang for dying, presumably because the sun “dies” in that direction at the end of every day.)

The one point on which CCRU differs significantly from Kingsnorth is that their view seems to be that the replacement of humanity by demonic machine intelligence is a good thing. Since I reviewed Kingsnorth’s book, it’s only right to consider the counter-point. We here at Ruined Chapel still follow the Fairness Doctrine, after all. And according to CCRU, humans are basically just an evolutionary mistake. There’s a whole section in here dedicated to explaining why bipeds are an aberration, and your really S-tier lifeforms should be quadrupeds, or better still, cephalopods.

I docked points from Kingsnorth’s book for failing to provide an adequate solution to what he persuasively described as a great spiritual void at the heart of modernity. Well, CCRU claims the void has already been filled—not by anything human, but by dread monsters that haunt the blackness between the stars. Where Kingsnorth would say we should try to remedy this, CCRU favors accelerationism: continuing the process of shredding all trappings of humanity in favor of becoming something else.

It all sounds a bit crazy. But, perhaps the craziest part is that it sounds a little less crazy now than it did at the turn of the millennium. Implausible, yes, but not wholly impossible…

Speaking of the turn of the millennium, Y2K has immense spiritual significance in the CCRU philosophy. Besides the infamous glitch being a kind of “digital hyperstition”, it also marks the dawn of a new era.

Of all the weird vignettes in this book, none stuck with me as much as “The Excruciation of Hummpa-Taddum”. “Hummpa-Taddum” being supposedly some union of mythic gods that gave birth to the Age of Pisces, and even more supposedly, thinly disguised by Lewis Carroll as “Humpty Dumpty”. (To be clear, I can find no evidence that anything called “Hummpa-Taddum” exists in any folklore outside of this volume. Again, the casual mixing of fact and fiction till the lines blur beyond all recognizability is a CCRU specialty.)

The AOE [Architectonic Order of the Eschaton. Don’t ask.–B.G.]  focuses upon a single problem—acknowledging no other: how to reproduce magical power across discontinuity. As Hummpa-Taddum gets smashed on New Year’s Eve, substitute powers await their chance and their destiny, sober, patient, totally ruthless…

The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master—that is all.

As longtime readers know, the aesthetic of “millennial weirdness” is a favorite hobby-horse of mine, and the CCRU Writings have it in spades.  And indeed, perhaps it is more than just an aesthetic found in the world of cyberpunk video games and Art Bell’s radio programs. It does feel, doesn’t it, as if something did change about a quarter-century ago. As if, to quote Lovecraft again, “the world and perhaps the universe had passed from the control of known gods or forces to that of gods and forces which were unknown.”

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Kingsnorth is right: there is some malevolent metaphysical aspect to the rise of what he calls “The Machine.” If so, his plan of setting limits on screen time and not communing with the demonic presences “unless you really have to” is woefully inadequate. The CCRU actually provides a much more plausible roadmap to dealing with such forces, if they do indeed exist. The only issue, of course, is that their handbook provides instructions on how to summon the unholy powers.

As any good Lovecraft reader knows, the Necronomicon is a double-edged sword. You can use it to send the eldritch abominations back whence they came, if you know what you’re doing. And if we are truly in a spiritual war, we’ll need to have a grimoire or two in our toolkit.

But what exactly would this mean? Can we banish AI back into the Shadow Realm just by turning the Numogram upside-down? (It’s not like it would make any less sense.) Well, you could try it, I guess, but again, remember Kingsnorth’s warning about the internet-as-Ouija-board. More to the point, recall the words of the unnaturally long-lived 18th-century necromancer Joseph Curwen in Lovecraft’s The Case of Charles Dexter Ward:

I say to you againe, doe not call upp Any that you can not put downe; by the Which I meane, Any that can in Turne call up somewhat against you, whereby your Powerfullest Devices may not be of use. Ask of the Lesser, lest the greater shall not wish to Answer, and shall commande more than you.

by on

Are you tired of hearing how AI can revolutionize how you work, play, shop, eat, sleep, drink, etc.? Are you sick to death of hearing about how you can leverage social media to earn crypto to buy NFTs? Do you miss the days when you could just walk around the corner without worrying about a self-driving car running you over while influencers record it with their drones to get likes on Tik-Tok?

Well, Paul Kingsnorth is and does. And he’s written a book about it. Not merely about our current state of affairs, but about how we got here, where we are going, and why we are in this handbasket.

He starts off slowly, explaining how “The Machine”, as he calls it, was built. By “The Machine”, he doesn’t just mean computer technology—though that certainly seems to be the endgame—but all of the quantitative, precise, “rational”, scientific, and “left-brained” modes of interacting with the world. An example from James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State is instructive: the Germans chopped down all their messy, organic trees and replaced them with nice, evenly-spaced ones. It was orderly, symmetrical—and disastrous for the ecosystem.

The same thing, more or less, has been happening to everything for the last 400 years in Kingsnorth’s view. It’s become harder to ignore lately, but as he explains, artists, poets, writers and other such people have been complaining about the phenomenon for centuries. To take one notable example, consider the words of J.R.R. Tolkien, who mused at the end of World War II, “Well the first War of the Machines seems to be drawing to its final inconclusive chapter–leaving, alas, everyone the poorer, many bereaved or maimed and millions dead, and only one thing triumphant: the Machines.”

Of course, World War II was hardly “the first War of the Machines.” World War I featured tanks, airplanes, machine guns, etc. I’m not sure when “the first” War of the Machines was. Maybe when they introduced the siege engine?

But this just goes to prove Kingsnorth’s point: that this is an ancient problem that has been evolving over the course of world history. The petty political squabbles of this or any other day pale in comparison to this steady, monotonic trend toward a fully-mechanized planet.

Where will it all end? In gray goo? In Kingsnorth’s view, even that might be more merciful than what’s in store for us.

Because, as he takes some pains to elaborate, the danger of technology may be something more than just mass unemployment and the gradual loss of our ability to do anything other than stare at screens. Kingsnorth, a Christian, sees something darker, more metaphysical and spiritual at work here:

“Silicon Valley mavens, from Mark Zuckerberg with his metaverse to Ray Kurzweil with his singularity, regularly talk… about where the technium—The Machine—is taking us. Our job, they seem to imply, is simply to service it as it rolls forward under its own steam, remaking everything in its own image, rebuilding the world, turning us, if we are lucky, into little gods. They never consider where this story has been heard before… that ‘AI’, on the right lips, can sound like just another way of saying ‘Antichrist’.

Humor me. Imagine for a moment that some force is active in the world which is beyond us. Perhaps we have created it. Perhaps it is independent of us. Perhaps it created itself and uses us for its ends… Perhaps it has always been there, watching, and now is seizing its moment.”

This sounds pretty dramatic. On the other hand, there are weird things in the history of technology. As Kingsnorth observes, an apple with a bite out of it has rather major significance in Western theology, and not as a good thing. And then you find out the original price of the Apple I…

Still, this could all easily be dismissed as the human tendency to look for patterns where none exist. (For example, when I typed “exist” just there, it was the 666th word of the post. Does this mean anything? Probably not.)

What is clear, whether you believe in dark supernatural forces at work or not, is that technology is having a significant effect on our ability to relate to one another as human beings. I don’t know if talking to an AI chatbot really is summoning demons, but there’s no doubt that they are capable of producing immensely destructive results.

In example after example, Kingsnorth hammers home the devastating effect that technology is having on people, ruining bodies and minds, destroying relationships, uprooting communities, and in general, “turning man against his brother / till man exists no more.”

All right, I admit that’s leading the witness a bit. Kingsnorth doesn’t necessarily expect us to believe that The Machine is the antichrist, although reading between the lines and listening to some of his interviews, it’s pretty clear to me that in his heart of hearts, that’s exactly what he believes. Which might explain some other things about the way the book ends up.

Because after documenting, in great detail and at some length, all the ways in which The Machine is ruining everything that is good and beautiful, we come to the part where we reasonably might expect him to offer us some kind of solution to this problem.

And what he offers is, essentially, nothing. Oh, he says some fine-sounding words about “setting limits” and “drawing lines.” For example, he himself has resolved to never use an AI chatbot, before almost immediately conceding that it’s possible he might have already unknowingly used one when calling a customer service number. He says he’ll never have a smartphone, but agrees that this makes life in the modern world exceedingly difficult.

Yeah, I’m sure that limiting ourselves to only 4 hours of screen time per day will stop the autonomous weapons systems right in their tracks. “Mr. Dent, have you any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if I just let it roll straight over you?”

Kingsnorth is clearly a very intelligent man, and he must know his proposed solutions are woefully inadequate. And frankly, I think that he really believes that trying to fight it is a lost cause. As a Christian, he presumably believes that this has all been foretold, and that his victory will be attained not in this world but in the next, by holding true to his faith through the suffering that is to come.

Which is all well and good, I guess. Although if so, why even bother to write the book? And charge $13.99 plus tax for it on Kindle? This seems like it’s starting the resistance to techno-capitalism off on the wrong foot.

I’m not really accusing Kingnorth of hypocrisy. He is guilty, and he freely admits it. But then, so am I. I’m here writing in sympathy with his anti-machine manifesto on a blog on the internet. If The Machine really is some kind of malevolent xeno-intelligence, this is the part where we cut to it sitting in its lair, cackling maniacally at the pathetic ineptitude of its foes.

All this is a long way of saying that I agree with the general substance of Kingsnorth’s case. And I also agree with his observation that many, many other people throughout history have made the same observation. And all of them have proven largely correct at each step.

And it has never once mattered.  The Machine remains the undefeated champion. It should be clear enough by now that simply writing “The Machine is bad”, however eloquently, is simply not an effective form of resistance. Neither are any of the other obvious forms which have been tried over the centuries, from the Luddites to the Green Party.

If anyone wants to do anything about this, it seems to me it will have to be something that has never been tried before.  They will have to approach the problem in an entirely new way, because all other methods have failed.

Either that or take the Kingsnorth route, and try to live the best life they can while praying for deliverance in The Final Conflict with The Enemy. Well, who can say? The early Christians took over the greatest empire the world had seen to that point with a strategy of pacifism and martyrdom.

But that didn’t stop the advance of The Machine, either.

by on

The great comic actor Danny Kaye once said of his Gilbert & Sullivan parodies: “You know, I like Gilbert and Sullivan; I love singing it. I always wanted to make some records of some of them. Then I start in all good faith to sing it properly and then something goes haywire inside me; I go haywire–and the words go haywire.”

Something similar happened to me once: I wanted to write a classic 1940s noir-style detective story. Like Kaye, I started in good faith to do it, but it went haywire. That is to say, it turned into one of my typical action stories, with too many shootouts and too much technology. So I gave up on it.

What’s this got to do with C. Litka’s latest short story? Well, unlike me, when he tries to write a noir story, it doesn’t go haywire. On the contrary, he captures the vibe perfectly, despite the fact that as usual, the setting is not Earth, but his own cleverly constructed sci-fi world.

Nevertheless, he nails the essence of the noir tale. I could practically imagine the main characters as Bogie and Bacall, bantering back and forth as they tail their quarry through snowy streets on a dark evening.

Now, although I say the story is noir, it’s not jet noir. Part of the charm of Litka’s stories is the fact that, unlike so much modern fiction, they aren’t gratuitously violent or debauched. Well, hey, many of the classic noir films had to follow the Hays Code, too, and yet they turned out all right.

Enough of this! You want details, right? Well, sadly, I can’t give too many, because this is a short story, and to say much at all would give away the fun. It’s another Redinal Hu story, set a few months after the first one. Hu is once again drawn into an intrigue among the rival Great Houses. And as in the first story, what I enjoyed most about this is how he uses his wits, rather than violence, to effect a solution.

Admittedly, the same can’t quite be said of his dog, who gets involved in the action quite unexpectedly. Dogs are not known for handling matters with subtlety and discretion, which makes for an entertaining twist in what feels like an espionage caper.

All told, another highly enjoyable entry in Litka’s series-within-a-series that is the life of Redinal Hu.