![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Thursday reading is at War
comments on endings
Katherine Arden, The Bear and the Nightingale. The structure seemed a bit odd here: I really expected the interlude in the cabin to fall closer to the middle, and the Nightingale to be more important and more obviously at risk.
fiction in progress
Melissa Scott, Point of Sighs. Only a chapter or so in. It's always nice when people in historical fantasy settings have a limited wardrobe.
excessive background reading for game(s)
Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. Chenoweth and Stephan directly compare primarily nonviolent and primarily violent campaigns to overthrow governments since 1900. Though neither strategy is guaranteed success, their analysis shows that on average nonviolent campaigns are significantly more successful, in large part because they are able to attract more participants. Moreover, nonviolent campaigns are successful in the context of repressive regimes, not just democratic ones. This holds in large part because when a regime reacts violently to nonviolent protesters, the protesters often attract new support. (If you're analyzing this tactic in terms of competitive control, the point is that nonviolent campaigns can make ordinary people feel that the regime won't protect them, even when they follow basic rules like "don't take up arms against the government".)
Katherine Arden, The Bear and the Nightingale. The structure seemed a bit odd here: I really expected the interlude in the cabin to fall closer to the middle, and the Nightingale to be more important and more obviously at risk.
fiction in progress
Melissa Scott, Point of Sighs. Only a chapter or so in. It's always nice when people in historical fantasy settings have a limited wardrobe.
excessive background reading for game(s)
Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. Chenoweth and Stephan directly compare primarily nonviolent and primarily violent campaigns to overthrow governments since 1900. Though neither strategy is guaranteed success, their analysis shows that on average nonviolent campaigns are significantly more successful, in large part because they are able to attract more participants. Moreover, nonviolent campaigns are successful in the context of repressive regimes, not just democratic ones. This holds in large part because when a regime reacts violently to nonviolent protesters, the protesters often attract new support. (If you're analyzing this tactic in terms of competitive control, the point is that nonviolent campaigns can make ordinary people feel that the regime won't protect them, even when they follow basic rules like "don't take up arms against the government".)
no subject
no subject
Heh, prior to beginning this project the absolute latest war I had thought about at all was WWI, so I also spend a lot of time realizing obvious tactical facts like "You can call for air support on your radio".
no subject