Over 100 academics worldwide have led the way in championing the rise of the cli-fi literary genre

 Over 100 academics worldwide have led the way in championing the rise of the cli-fi literary genre https://thefutureofreading101.blogspot.tw/2017/10/academics-have-led-way-in-championing.html #CliFi

SPUNKY KNOWSALOT

Is this Spunky Knowsalot?

---------------------------------------------

American climate activist Bill McKibben has entered the cli-fi world, with a debut novel titled “Radio Free Vermont.” And we have Spunky Knowsalot to thank for this 250-page seriocomic piece of writing. Who? Keep reading to find out who Spunky Knowsalot is!

Way back in 2005, McKibben was calling for novels and movies about cli-fi, and he revisited the same essay in an updated form again in 2009, also calling for cli-fi novels as he did in 2005, but it took him another 12 years to finally sit down with the help of Spunky Knowsalot to write his own comic entry in the cli-fi sweepstakes.

When he wrote the Grist essay titled ”What the warming world needs now is art, sweet art” in 2005, the cli-fi term had not yet been coined. But fast foward to 2017 and McKibben is aboard the train now, using a semi-comic novel to reach readers worldwide, as the book will be translated into 25 languages over the next several years.

So who is Spunky Knowsalot? He first surfaces on the book's dedication page where Mckibben writes: "For Spunky Knowsalot"

Starting November 7, which is the novel’s official publication date, McKibben will embark on a nationwide book tour to promote the novel, and you can expect literary critics and book reviewers and newspaper reporters to ask him about the identity of Mr Spunky Knowsalot. Who? Keep reading.

McKibben’s debut novel -- and a goood solid piece of cli-fi it is! -- follows a band of Vermont patriots who decide that their state might be better off as its own republic in the Age of Trump.

Witty, biting, and terrifyingly timely, ”Radio Free Vermont” is Bill's fictional response to the burgeoning resistance movement created by the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016. It’s cli-fi with a comic twist, as only Mckibben can twist it.

So before we end this preview, who the heck is SPUNKY KNOWSALOT? So far, Bill is not telling, his editors at Blue Rider Press are not telling, his PR people at Penguin RandonHouse Group USA are not telling, and his marketing team is not saying either.

Hint: if anyone knows the identity of Spunky Knowsalot, please leave a message in the comments section below.

"Blade Runner 2049" is it about global warming or global cooling? Great movie, bad science?

"Blade Runner 2049" is it about global warming or global cooling? Great movie, bad science? https://thefutureofreading101.blogspot.tw/2017/10/blade-runner-2049-is-about-global_6.html


 Wisely, Villeneuve doesn’t try to do that in taking the story forward, but his smog-infested and snowy Southern California as presented here makes a strong case not for the effects of global warming, but rather global cooling. Spoiler alert: It snows in L.A. in this thing.

HELP from academics keeping current with the topic of climate risk communications vs the EXPERTS who say that doom and gloom cli-fi movies and doom and gloom cli-fi novels are counter productive and turn readers and viewers OFF and make them feel helpless and blue, and this EXPERTP advice is backed up, apparently, by some studies by social scientists and climate scientists with TEENS in the UK and elsewhere that say that doom and gloom novels and movies are BAD for getting people to be more aware of the issues and to even take action. I believe that this is all BULLSHIT, pardon my French, and I am open to any comments otherwise, but I am tired of the NYT and Guardian and BBC and other MSM trotting out the old tired same old same old "alleged study" that proves that doom and gloom novels are the wrong way to go. This study does not exist. There was some study a few years ago that studied TEENAGERS in the UK, not adults, TEENS, and asking them what they felt about doom and gloom stories, etc.

HELP from academics keeping current with the topic of climate risk communications vs the EXPERTS who say that doom and gloom cli-fi movies and doom and gloom cli-fi novels are counter productive and turn readers and viewers OFF and make them feel helpless and blue, and this EXPERT advice is backed up, apparently, by some studies by social scientists and climate scientists with TEENS in the UK and elsewhere that say that doom and gloom novels and movies are BAD for getting people to be more aware of the issues and to even take action. I believe that this is all BULLSHIT, pardon my French, and I am open to any comments otherwise, but I am tired of the NYT and Guardian and BBC and other MSM trotting out the old tired same old same old "alleged study" that proves that doom and gloom novels are the wrong way to go. This study does not exist. There was some study a few years ago that studied TEENAGERS in the UK, not adults, TEENS, and asking them what they felt about doom and gloom stories, etc.
Well, teens are not the intended audience for adult cli-fi novels and movies. !!! So this study is flawed and BS and all the so-called EXPERTS with PHDs at Yale and Harvard and Princeton are used by the NYT to prove this hypothesis which is wrong and has never been proven.
So....can anyone point me to this so-called expert study that says doom and gloom is not the way to go? Link? There are several so-called studies. they are all BS. I want to find the links in order to tell my contacts in the MSM that they are barking up the wrong tree and that doom and gloom novels and movies are just as good as utopian cli-fi novels. It's all up to the readers and viewers.
In other words, "cultural values, literary values, literary input, not scientific knowledge, actually shape global warming views, more and more,'' as a study by Prof Dan Kahan at Yale from 2012 indicates.
So can you show me that STUDY that proves that doom and gloom turns teens off and makes them blue and depressed rather than pushing them to take action.? I believe deeply that doom and gloom ALSO has the power to push people to take action and to take up and be woke. Utopian novels too. Both.
Recently, the NYT did another cli-fi bashing article quotes severeal so-called experts about who doom and gloom is bad for us. I say NO NO No. doom and gloom is realiity, along with utopian visions, too. Show me the links! THANKS.
NYT reporter Melena Ryzik, just the other day in a cli-fi article writes: ""But getting Hollywood movies about climate change made is not easy. And when they do refer to it — as did the Roland Emmerich 2004 disaster flick “The Day After Tomorrow” — they rarely do much to galvanize the public to action. Even well-intentioned filmmakers with carefully drafted cautionary tales often miss the mark, climate scientists say.''
UH, WHO ARE THESE So-called CLMATE SCIENTISTS and what do THEY know about the arts and literature and novels and movies. VERY LITTLE. The NYT should ask writers and movelists and literary critics to answer this question not govt grand funded PHD guys with their heads in the PHD sands, doing study after study, and never once READING A NOVEL: or seeing a movie. IN FACT, cli-fi movies and novels do wake up people and do galvanize people inmto action, That is how i got into the work! Doom and gloom doesn't scare me. And i love utopian stuff too. But lets stop this MSM nonsense that doom and gloom novels turn people off. They don't. they wake them up.
NYT again here: ''And when climate change is depicted on screen, it’s often in an onslaught of fire and brimstone, an apocalyptic vision that hardly leaves room for a hopeful human response.
That, climate researchers and social scientists say, is exactly the wrong message to give.''
HOW does Melena Ryszik a socity reporter and red carpet gossip reporter know this? She doesn't. But she repeats this stuff over and over again. So I want so links to show her otherwise.
MORE from NYT article: “Typically, if you really want to mobilize people to act, you don’t scare the hell out of them and convince them that the situation is hopeless,” said Andrew Hoffman, a professor at the University of Michigan who is the author of “How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate.”
REPROTER ADDS: But that is just the kind of high-stakes film that Hollywood loves to produce — like “The Day After Tomorrow,” which depicted New York City as a frozen dystopian landscape. Or “Geostorm,” due Oct. 20, in which the climate goes apocalyptically haywire, thanks to satellites that malfunction.
REPORTER ADDS this BS: Copious research shows that this kind of dystopian framing backfires, driving people further into denial and helplessness; instead of acting, they freeze.
Melena did say....''One bright spot in showing environmental alarm onscreen is ....that climate change is a frequent topic of visual artists and writers, where the genre known as cli-fi is growing.''
FINALLY! and Melena concluded her article -- ''So, said Mr. Hoffman, the University of Michigan professor, we need “more movies, more TV, more music.”
“We have to touch people’s hearts on this,” he said. “It’s critical.”

NYT asks: ''Can Hollywood 'Cli-Fi' Movies About Climate Change Make a Difference?'' THE ANSWER IS YES!

NYT asks: ''Can Hollywood 'Cli-Fi' Movies About Climate Change Make a Difference?''

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/movies/mother-darren-aronofsky-climate-change.html

By MELENA RYZIK NYT reporter, culture, films, novels, climate

OCT. 2, 2017

EXCERPT:

One bright spot in showing environmental alarm onscreen is children’s programs, Ms. Levin said, which “work beautifully for everyday practices and overall awareness. Parents often watch with them, and they learn together.”

 

And climate change is a frequent topic of visual artists and writers, where the genre known as cli-fi  [see hot link here cli-fi] is growing.

 

 

One thing too few people do, according to Mr. Boykoff, the University of Colorado researcher, is laugh about climate change. Alexander Payne’s forthcoming “Downsizing,” in which people are shrunk to tiny versions of themselves — thereby using less resources — takes a swing at that approach.

 

Mr. Boykoff has had his students perform a comedy show about environmental destruction; a research paper on the outcome is being readied for publication. “If just scientists talking about their research and findings were successful” in motivating the public, “we’d be sorted by now,” Mr. Boykoff said. “But that’s not true. A lot of people don’t engage with these things through scientific ways of knowing. So the arts, the cultural sphere, is a really important part of this that’s underexplored so far.”

 

 

Mr. Maibach, the George Mason professor and an expert in polling on climate understanding, said the greatest problem facing climate communicators is that Americans are not talking about climate change enough — in any shape. “We call it the climate silence,” he said, “and it’s pretty profound.”

 

 

So, said Mr. Hoffman, the University of Michigan professor, we need “more movies, more TV, more music.”

 

 

“We have to touch people’s hearts on this,” he said. “It’s critical.”

 

=================

 

A version of this article appeared in the print editioj of the NYT on October 3, 2017, on Page C1 of the New York City edition with the headline: ''Can Hollywood 'Cli-Fi' Movies About Climate Change Make a Difference?''

 

REFERENCES:

 

***  Per Espen Stoknes, the author of “What We Think About When We Try Not to Think About Global Warming.”

 

**** “[Making cli-fi movies and getting funding] is really tough,” said Fisher Stevens, the filmmaker and actor. “[Global warming] is not a very sexy subject, and people just don’t want to deal with it and think about it.”

 

*** Andrew Hoffman, a professor at the University of Michigan who is the author of “How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate.”

 

***** “Geostorm,” is due Oct. 20, in which the climate goes apocalyptically haywire, thanks to satellites that malfunction.

 

**** “You have to frame these things so people feel like they have an entry point,” said Max Boykoff, a professor and director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

 

***** “The movie was 100 percent about fear,” said Ed Maibach, a professor and director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. “And during the credits, literally the credits, they made some recommendations about what we could do. That should’ve been a prominent part of the narrative, in telling people the highest value actions they could take.”

 

***** “The term ‘climate change’ isn’t as sexy and ‘script friendly’ as most plotlines,” said Debbie Levin, president of the Environmental Media Association. The solution, some researchers said, was to employ a bit of misdirection. “Agriculture, water issues, environmental justice,” Ms. Levin said. “Those all are big issues that work really well dramatically without saying the words ‘climate change.’”

A new calendar system dates October 2, 2017 instead as October 2, Year 75,017

A new calendar system dates
October 2, 2017
instead as
October 2, 75,017




One of the reasons we humans today cannot wrap our heads around the real deep issues and time frames of global warming and climate change is that our calendar time frame is too limited, with all major religious calendars systems from Mosaic, Jesaic, Mohammadaic, Buddhaic, and all other religions of the past 5000 year origin dates being too limited. As everyone on this site know, it is not really 2017 now. Jesus has nothing to do with where we are now in time, and nor does Moses or Mohammed or the Buddha or anyone else from these supernatural fake religions. In fact, if we could SEE the time frame in a much longer view, maybe we could get a better sense of the dangers we are in. So I created a new calender time framing today: the date today is October 2, Year 75,017 (it's a new timeframe, try it with your friends and colleages) Why 75,000 years time frame. Think about it and ask me if you still don't get it. So. New Years this coming Janunary will be January1, Year 75,018...) 2017 does not make any sense now in the Anthropocene. AGREE? DISAGREE? Add to the conversation! -- Cheers, Dan Bloom on October 2, 75,017.....PS i kept the 017 in the new date so that future historians and archivists can match the dates of 75,017 and 75,018 and so on with the OLD DATES from before this new dating system caught on. Which could take another 2500 years but i am starting today for anyone who would like to join me. Welcome to 75,017....it's a whole new ballgame!