Milkshake Duck Status and Rationales

For my own purposes, a list of currently known milkshake ducks, how I’m treating their work in my own consumption habits, and any rationales or justifications for these decisions. You may not agree with any or all of this, and that’s fine. This is kind of an exercise to help me figure out why I’ve made the decisions I have, and perhaps, whether I should rethink or change those.

  • Scott Adams: General right-wing buffoonery, including sexism, racism, anti-science views, etc.
    Haven’t really paid much attention to him in years anyway, but do have the very fancy oversized 10-year anniversary collected Dilbert, which was last taken off the shelves to see if it was the right size to prop up part of our couch (it wasn’t). Will probably offload it at some point.
  • Woody Allen: Sexual abuse
    Not watching any new work or supporting by buying old work. Keeping and will occasionally rewatch old favorite films already in the collection.
  • Orson Scott Card: Homophobia
    Not buying any new stuff, though I did pick up used copies of the first few Ender’s Game/Speaker for the Dead sequels and read them after reading those two Hugo winners. From what I’ve seen, OSC hasn’t been nearly as vocal or influential as he once was, and EG/SftD are too foundational to my early SF reading to write them off.
  • Neil Gaiman: Sexual abuse
    Still adjusting to this one. Won’t be buying, reading, or watching any new projects. Keeping books and films already in the collection, but it’ll probably be a while before I feel like re-reading anything (and just decided to skip his two Hugo award winning novels in my Hugo best novel reading project).
  • J.K. Rowling: Transphobia
    Not buying, reading, watching, or otherwise supporting any projects. Haven’t ditched the Potter books or films already in the collection, but not re-reading the books (and just decided to skip her one Hugo-award winning Potter book in my Hugo best novel reading project) or re-watching the films. Stopped subscribing to HBO’s Max streaming service in part because of their decision to move forward with a new Harry Potter series.
  • Dan Simmons: Islamophobia
    The same basic bucket as OSC: Not reading anything that isn’t already in my collection, but the Hyperion cantos was too mind-blowing to entirely ditch.

A Deepness in the Sky by Vernor Vinge

73/2024 – ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Interstellar travel spanning centuries, plans and plots spanning decades and more, first contact, an alien civilization presented in both very relateable and very alien ways…all sorts of good stuff here. Technically in the same universe as Vinge’s A Fire Upon the Deep, but so removed in space and time as to be standalone, with only a few connections to the other. Really enjoyed how Vinge presented the Spiders, and the revelations towards the end that I didn’t guess at all. An excellent read.

Me holding A Deepness in the Sky.

Asylum by Una McCormack

72/2024 – ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

As always, Trek is at its best when it’s looking at modern issues through an SF lens. On the surface, this is about Pike and Number One at Starfleet Academy, paired with a later mission that ties back to those experiences. But when dealing with minority ethnic groups reacting to years of oppression, there’s a lot more there as well. Plus, of course, some very entertaining ties to wider Trek lore.

Me holding Asylum.

Gruber: If I never see it, I don’t care.

I’ve been reading John Gruber’s Daring Fireball for years. His posts generally fall into one of three categories: Apple and tech sphere commentary that I tend to respect and appreciate reading, even when I don’t necessarily agree; baseball blather that I don’t care at all about; and occasional current events and political commentary that sometimes works for me, sometimes doesn’t.

But last week he surprised me with a remarkably blatant and forthright declaration of uncaring privilege. I’ve let it sit for a few days, but kept coming back to it, so here we are.

In responding to a post by Anil Dash about Substack, primarily advocating for writers to stop calling their posts/newsletters “Substacks” and therefore doing Substack’s marketing for them, Gruber notes Dash’s reminder that Substack has no issues with platforming Nazis and others on the far-right.

And his take is, despite many people whose opinions he says he respects refusing to support Substack because of this policy, he hasn’t personally seen stuff like this, so he doesn’t care. Literally, that’s what he said:

I know a bunch of good, smart people who see Substack like Dash does, and refuse to pay for any publication on Substack’s platform because of their “Hey we’re just a neutral publishing platform, not an editor, let alone a censor” stance. What I can say, personally, is that I read and pay for several publications on Substack, and for the last few weeks I’ve tried using their iOS app (more on this in a moment), and I’ve never once seen a whiff of anything even vaguely right-wing, let alone hateful. Not a whiff. If it’s there, I never see it. If I never see it, I don’t care.

Sure, this is a pretty common attitude to have. But it’s surprising to me to see it stated so publicly and blatantly. Instead of listening to and believing Dash and the other people in Gruber’s circles who have called Substack out on this (and it’s not like it’s difficult to find people talking about this: here’s TechCrunch, The Verge, the New York Times, and NBC News, and that’s just the first four links on a Duck Duck Go search for “substack won’t ban nazis“), he just shrugs it all away with “if I never see it, I don’t care”.

Look, lots of people publish on Substack. Not everyone is going to want to cut it out entirely, especially if writers they rely on use that as their primary or sole outlet. I have a few people I read regularly that still publish on Substack (I just read what I can for free via RSS rather than supporting Substack by subscribing to the paid content).

But even in that case, a thoughtful response would be closer to “I understand and support your choice, though for these reasons, I’m not going to walk away entirely”, not, “if I never see it, I don’t care.”

Just…ugh. Do better.

Clarkesworld Magazine Issue 218 edited by Neil Clarke

70/2024 – ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Favorites this month were “LuvHome™” by Resa Nelson, “Luminous Glass, Vibrant Seeds” by D.A. Xiaolin Spires, “Negative Scholarship on the Fifth State of Being” by A. W. Prihandita, and “Unquiet Graves” by Michael Swanwick.

Me holding Clarkesworld 218 on my iPad

Wolfs

🎥: Wolfs (2024): ⭐️⭐️⭐️

A thoroughly entertaining blend of Heat and Adventures in Babysitting. Clooney and Pitt play really well off each other. A good choice when you’re in the mood for a low-key action comedy.

Living Memory by Christopher L. Bennett

69/2024 – ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

A mysterious and dangerous astral phenomenon threatens the Earth, and Spock, Uhura, and Chekov must try to solve a mystery that ends up being tied to Uhura’s forgotten past. Meanwhile, Kirk, overseeing Starfleet Academy, has to deal with some problematic new cadets. The Kirk-centric B-blot is okay, mostly interesting for fleshing out more of Kirk’s time between the films. The primary plot is more interesting, especially as it picks up the thread of how Uhura was affected by her loss of memory during the Nomad incident, something never (or very rarely) explored. That part of the story I very much enjoyed.

Me holding Living Memory

Twisters

🎥 Twisters (2024): ⭐️⭐️

Oh, this was just dumb. Not that I expected much of it, but I was hoping for more enjoyably dumb instead of just…meh. Not so bad as to be a single star, just enough amusing moments for two stars, but definitely not any more than that.

Mad Max 2

🎥 Mad Max 2 (1981): ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

While the first now feels like an unnecessary origin story, this is where you can really see the world of the modern Mad Max movies taking shape in Miller’s mind. The homoeroticism and queer coded villains are simultaneously hilarious and cringy, but wow, did this film ever solidify an aesthetic. The car chases and stunts, along with the customized vehicles, really set the stage for what will come along a few decades later. Once again, I have no idea when I last watched this, but I enjoyed watching this one again more than I did the first film.