SFF Hot from Printers: New Releases discussion

This month we have four novellas. They are all quite short, so I decided no need for a special spoilers thread, but use spoiler tags instead

Beware this takes place before Network Effect. I was super disappointed by this and it kind of ruined the experience for me. It is a completely acceptable Murderbot installment though!

It was discussed elsewhere that Wells hired a ghost-writer for this one, but nothing of substance.

I read this in one day. Like Kristenelle, I was very disappointed the story didn't follow Network Effect but was another generic story in Preservation Station. I guess there's nothing wrong in the story per se, but I was just so bored. I can understand why people would suspect this was written by a ghost writer: it's very generic Murderbot story, almost formulaic.

Humm, I didn't mind that it wasn't chronological. It was another Sherlock Holmes style story (and now that you mention it Antti, it was formulaic and lacked the imagination of other stories in this series), which is fun and easy, but nothing ground breaking. I didn't laugh out loud or snigger while reading either. But I love me a good murder mystery and I am still a Muderbot fangirl, so I gave it 4 stars.

Huh, the ghost writer theory is interesting... It was super formulaic. It literally felt like a book I'd read before.

Kristenelle wrote: "Huh, the ghost writer theory is interesting... It was super formulaic. It literally felt like a book I'd read before."

I guess it can be checked by e.g. frequency of words used in each novella - if it is closer between the first 4 than between this and any of them, it can be a sign (not proof, because author's vocabulary may change too)

I didn't even realize it wasn't chronological. And of course, I really liked it. It's the kind of thing I like

P.S. I read it a few months ago.

My review https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Oleksandr wrote: "readers aren’t told [...] why the rest of the galaxy hasn’t yet followed the same glorious path (except for evil corporations mantra)."

I would guess is the same reason why most of the countries in the world haven't followed the Scandinavian welfare state model: because the rich want to get richer, instead of distributing that wealth to masses. I mean, you're Ukrainian - you should know how this works!

Non-distributive policies can even be popular among the masses, if enough people believe they can be one of the lucky few who make it big. I've often heard that this is a common mentality in the USA: John Steinbeck famously said: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Antti wrote: "I would guess is the same reason why most of the countries in the world haven't followed the Scandinavian welfare state model: because the rich want to get richer, instead of distributing that wealth to masses. "

I guess most most of the countries in the world haven't followed mainly because their per capita GDP is still too low to be able to finance the level of desired services. I fully agree that even with that level of GDP they could have been more equal and egalitarian in wealth distribution and access to services. The USA is a unique case, which stressed freedom and opportunities throughout its history, even if vertical mobility is usually higher in other countries with comparable incomes

Oleksandr wrote: "I guess most most of the countries in the world haven't followed mainly because their per capita GDP is still too low to be able to finance the level of desired services"

Finland started to build it's welfare state in the 1960's, when it's per capita GDP was under 2500$. There are only a handful of countries in the world with lower GDP:s today. But it's true that you can't leap from developing world coutry to full-fledged Scandinavian state in one leap: it's a time-consuming process.

But as you said: most countries in the world could have more equal policies (usually a LOT more), but they don't do it, because of human greediness. Usually the elites try to keep themselves wealthy, instead of developing their country or enriching the people.

In Murderbot, the Corporations have replaced the states as the main oppressor of the people. It's a bit naïve way to look at the world - the most state-like actor (The Preservation) is also the most benevolent, while corporations are greedy and evil - but its not unrealistic in itself.

I do agree that the worldbuilding would benefit if there were some evil state-like actors and "nice" corporations as well, so as to be less black-and-white.

Sorry for a belated reply

Antti wrote: "Finland started to build it's welfare state in the 1960's, when it's per capita GDP was under 2500$. There are only a handful of countries in the world with lower GDP:s today."

You are definitely are better aware about the situation in Finland. For historical GDP per capita data I prefer to use Maddison's project data, which can be found here https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldev...

In 1960 according to that source Finland had USD PPP 9931. Let's compare it to other countries in the same year: it is 71% of Sweden, 72% of Great Britain (and say 158% of the USSR and 327% of Turkey) so it was a solid middle income country. Moreover, when I've read economic history of Sweden, I was surprised that the agreement between capital and labor on a country-wide scale was made without any help of the state, i.e. it was a start of welfare state (for there were things like unemployment benefits, minwage, even some kind of medical insurance IIRC) without state taking the prominent role. So, not all corporations are the same :)

This is why I enjoyed The Dispossessed - there both state capitalism and state socialism are equally alien for a person from anarchic socialism.

As a side note - how is healthcare in Finland works with "non-essential" services, like a cosmetic surgery for people that are "normal" looking?

Oleksandr wrote: "As a side note - how is healthcare in Finland works with "non-essential" services, like a cosmetic surgery for people that are "normal" looking?."

This is a really interesting question. Is it ever difficult to get any services? Is there ever a situation where you want an operation or medication that the state decides you don't really need? Are things like therapy for mental health or marriage counseling included? Are things like speech and physical therapy widely available for children who are developmentally delayed?

I can't speak for Finland, but in Germany mental health is paid for 100% till age 18 and 90% for over 18. Speech and physical therapy for kids is available and paid for (with some waiting time). Marriage counselling is not included. And it is not the state which decides what is needed but your physician. When they give green light the health insurance usually follows.
What is not covered are beauty corrections. I had to pay for my teeth correction last year.

It's pretty similar in Finland. There are usually long-ish lines to public health care, which is why some people go to private clinics, which are more expensive, but you get faster service.

If you use private clinics for essential health care, the state will cover part of the costs, but if its non-essential (say, cosmetic surgery), you will pay for the whole thing yourself.

Oleksandr wrote: "In 1960 according to that source Finland had USD PPP 9931."

Yes, I should've used PPP GDP; that was lazy of me. What can I say; I'm having a vacation and it's starting to show.

But still, it means Finland in 1960 is comparable to, say, Romania today, if you compare to other countries; but in absolute terms, Ukraine had GDP PPP 9813 in 2018, so that's the same as Finland in 1960.

There are loads of countries that could transition towards Nordic-style society, but they... don't.

I'm beginning to envy you Annti!

Antti wrote: There are loads of countries that could transition towards Nordic-style society, but they... don't."

Entrenched corporate power is no joke.

If we started on healthcare I can say a few words on the Soviet system and its developments. It was set up in the 1930s and is usually named after its promoter Semashko's system, Nikolai Semashko. It, in lines with planned economy principles, took number of people per a given territory and set that there should be say 100 hospital places and 10 doctors per 100 thousand population. The idea seems valid, but two unintended consequences:
1. fixation on number of places, not patients cured
2. fixation of doctors on chief diseases of the 1930s period, so e.g. no such specialists as sexologists even in the 1980s and abundance of less required specialists.

While healthcare was free (written in the USSR constitution), there were long queues to some specialists, and it was customary to pay/bribe informally. Also, if a patient died after say surgery, it was tested for malpractice, so a lot of surgeons took only low risk cases, increasing death rate e.g. for many traumas compared with the West.

Right now Ukraine tries to reform the system. based on Canadian and UK healthcare systems

Kalin wrote: "Antti wrote: There are loads of countries that could transition towards Nordic-style society, but they... don't."

Entrenched corporate power is no joke."

Too bad I cannot find my anti-entrenching tool.