The first science fiction books I read (in the late 1950s) were either mass market paperbacks or, very occasionally, library hardcovers. But back then not many SF books were printed in hardcover, and most so published were “classics,” like Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea , H. Rider Haggard’s She, or Frankenstein .

The first paperback SF novel that I recall reading was A.E. van Vogt’s Slan, which I snitched from my mother’s SF bookcase and took to school – except it was stolen from me on the school bus. Fortunately, that occurred on the way home, and I’d finished reading it. Explaining the loss to my mother was another matter. Still, I have a particular fondness for Slan, because one of the first author blurbs I got was from A.E. van Vogt for my first novel (The Fires of Paratime, later republished in an uncut version as The Timegod).

My first eight novels were only published in paperback, except for The Fires of Paratime , which had a Science Fiction Book Club hardcover printing as well. The Magic of Recluce was my first novel with a hardcover printing.

I don’t recall ever buying a hard-cover SF or fantasy novel until I was at least in my fifties, for the simple reason that I couldn’t afford hardcovers, at least not in the quantities in which I bought and read mass market paperbacks.

When I left Washington, D.C., and moved to a MUCH smaller house in New Hampshire, to become a full-time writer, I sold most of those paperbacks, well over two thousand of them because there was no place to put them. For all that, I still have a fondness for the mass market paperback.

Those paperbacks developed two generations of readers and writers, and I’m not so sure that ebooks have the same beneficial effect, even if ebooks are much easier to store. And, somehow, to me, trade paperbacks are a compromise representing higher cost and less convenience, while ebooks lack a certain permanence, given that Amazon can erase everything.

I suppose that makes me a creator of fictional futures and fantasies with his heart anchored in the pulp paperback.

Do real-world nations use a weapon or a tactic just once and then discard it because it’s no longer new or interesting?

Let’s see. Knives and bladed weapons were developed so far back we can’t accurately tell exactly when. They were definitely used as a main weapon for thousands of years and remain in use as personal and professional weapons. Gunpowder is still around (if the latest new and improved version) some two thousand years after its first use. In more modern weapons, the first F-35, the latest fully operational U.S. fighter/interceptor, was delivered twenty years ago, and it’s projected to be in use for another 20 plus years. The B-52 is still going strong after more than sixty years.

People, and presumably aliens as well, will use tactics so long as they’re effective and existing weapons so long as there’s not something better and/or more cost effective. And they may develop new weapons or tactics, provided they’re actually better or not too costly.

Yet, over the years, and slightly more so recently, I’ve gotten comments complaining that protagonists keep using some of the same tactics and magical weapons time and time again. Some also complain that the antagonists’ forces are dumb or slow to change their reaction to the protagonist’s skills and tactics.

Now, I realize that there’s a certain segment of readers who want something new in every book, and I do my best to provide that in terms of political plotting, treachery, who else gets involved in the fighting, and even with protagonists gaining greater mastery of their magical skills and how to apply them.

But… I also know history and culture. Tactics don’t change unless weapons or defenses change, and even then, they tend to change slowly. One reason for slower change in lower tech cultures is that limited communications mean that when one land or leader comes up with something new, other countries have never seen it and refuse to believe what’s happening until it’s too late. There’s also the fact that the military leaders are conservative and don’t like to change tactics, particularly when it requires retraining forces.

The Mongol invasions, Alexander’s use of the phalanx, the rapid conquest of two-thirds of the Mediterranean basin essentially by Islamic culture, the machine gun, the German blitzkrieg, all were examples where those techniques worked well initially because existing armies and cultures were unable or unwilling to adapt quickly.

And, of course, sometimes, brute application of time-tested weapons, along with massive casualties, can surmount smaller forces equipped with limited wonder-weapons. That’s why Alyiakal spends so much time training his forces, because even the most powerful mage of the age is limited and needs disciplined and effective troopers.

I work to maintain a certain realism (strange as that sounds for fantasy) in the way cultures, tactics, and weapons work in human societies, and that means that characters will keep using tactics that work, until they don’t.

Alas… that also means readers will often find Alyiakal and other protagonists using tactics and devices that work time and time again.

The United States is historically based on both laws and shared accepted customs. Not every aspect of its operation and governance is laid out in the Constitution.

For example, George Washington set the custom that a President should only serve two terms. That precedent lasted roughly a hundred and fifty years, until Franklin Roosevelt ran for and won third and fourth terms, which led to the adoption of the Twenty-Second Amendment.

Then there was the understanding that the sitting President could nominate Supreme Court Justices, until Senate majority leader McConnell decided that the Senate didn’t have to accept and vote on nominees until after the next election.

Bit by bit, parts of the U.S. political structure that were taken for granted from past experience are being challenged or rejected simply because various politicians have, in effect, said, “There’s no law forbidding this; so I’ll do it.”

More often than not, when politicians and businesspeople do something unfair or biased or grossly advantageous to a significant group of people, public pressure increases for a law to forbid that practice.

The United States already has too many laws and regulations. At least, the Republicans think so, as do at least some Democrats, but in a democracy abuse of position and power creates more pressure for laws to restrict that abuse.

Bias and civil rights abuse continued despite the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, and reaction to that abuse finally led to the Civil Rights Act and federal supervision of the acts of certain states.

Failure of corporations and businesses to clean up after themselves led to Superfund and hazardous waste laws, and cost the EPA Administrator her job, and sent the Assistant Administrator for Solid and Hazardous Waste to prison.

Abuse of market power by large corporations in consumer goods led to increasing federal intervention, and the creation of the Consumer Protection Agency.

As for Trump’s abuse of power based on doing things no other President has tried (except Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon), and that of the Republican majority in the Texas legislature in trying to turn state representatives into instant convicts, there are two possible outcomes – more legislation or dictatorship (also supported by more legislation).

Either way, we’ll have less freedom because too many people are willing to do anything that’s not expressly forbidden by law, either for power or profit, or out of fear of those in power.

And from what I see, few see the danger, and even fewer speak out.

For the past three months, men have been working to replace a sewer line running down the middle of the street beside university buildings here in town. We’re talking five blocks, a third of which is bordered by parking lots on one side or the other. The street is cordoned off a block at a time, but most of the time, no one is actually working. Days can go by with no apparent progress.

Because it’s a sewer line, and Cedar City doesn’t have a separate sewage and water entity, this “construction” has to be under municipal control or authority.

Now, at the same time, just off the northwest corner of the campus, the state of Utah is building a roundabout to replace a four-way stop sign on the main road into the university area, as well as one of the few direct routes to the downtown area from the west. Two months have passed since that section of road was closed (containing one of the three major overpasses of the freeway), and only a limited amount of ground has been torn up, and the university has been told that the closure will continue for at least another two months.

When fifteen thousand students return in less than a month, I suspect that there will be more than a little anger and confusion.

These aren’t federal projects; they’re state and local. So the blame here doesn’t lie with the feds.

Over roughly the same time period, we’ve seen entire subdivisions be laid out and the first houses going up on the west and south sides of town.

And, oh yes, in less than three weeks, an older hotel on the edge of the historic downtown was razed, the land cleared, and construction is underway on a half-block square Maverik super gas station. Why, I have no idea, given that there are three other Maverik gas stations within less than a mile, but I’m betting it will be operating before the roundabout or the sewer construction is complete.

To me, at least, all these are another indication of American public priorities.

“Compromise” is not a nasty word. In fact, compromise is the basis of a free society, yet far too many people fail to understand this.

A truly “free” society is one where one’s freedom to act is maximized within the law. In a free society, laws provide the guardrails so that someone else’s freedom doesn’t minimize or destroy yours.

The greatest problem facing any society is drawing the line between individual rights and maintaining the order necessary for society to function. As Alexander Hamilton pointed out, “without order, there is no liberty.”

Theodore Roosevelt had a similar view when he said, “Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive.”

Because people have different views about how the order necessary for a working society should be structured and maintained and the degree of personal freedom optimal for that society, effective government requires compromise.

Yet today, both the far left and the far right seem to have forgotten this, each side wishing to impose through force of law its vision for society, even though some of those beliefs impose constraints on others that are not necessary to maintain order and public safety and legal imposition of some beliefs can result in physical harm to others.

A good example of such extremism are laws that prohibit abortion in all circumstances as well as any procedure that might conceivably result in abortion or miscarriage. As a result, both women and their unborn children are dying at record numbers in states like Texas.

Another is requiring Christian theology be taught and actively practiced in schools and other public, when roughly one-third of all Americans are not Christians. What’s ironic about this is that many of those insisting that Christian theology be more publicly imposed are violently opposed to the Islamic practice of Sharia, which would impose Muslim beliefs as law.

On the left, the attempt to require institutions mandate which pronouns are used by whom is nothing more than speech police. While I understand and respect people’s desires to maintain and announce their own gender preference, that should be a personal preference, not a government requirement. Requiring everyone to announce their gender identity by specific pronouns goes too far and attacks the right to personal privacy.

Unfortunately, the apparent simplicity of absolutism in government and religion can be so seductive that common sense – and compromise – are all too often swept away.