Thursday, 24 March 2011

¡Prontu, Prüm Citaxhiên! #2 - Talossa as narrative

My good friend and co-founder of the Free Commonwealth of Penguinea, Adiêns Glaçâ, once said to me: "Talossa is a story or it is nothing", or words to that effect. He was damn right. Talossa is not an RPG, in which a designer sets up the terms of a "game" and everyone else plays roles in it. (Although sometimes it got that way when ex-King Robert was at its worst.) Talossa is an ongoing collaborative narrative - a story about a small independent nation in North America - in which the co-writers are all characters, playing themselves. Sometimes it's a narrative about whether that nation should even exist; or whether it is even a nation. But "a small independent nation in North America" is the sine qua non, or should I say the sânc qët nitgil, of the Talossan narrative.

It follows that the only reason anyone will be interested in Talossa is if the story is interesting. But who writes the story? Simply put - we all do, by our interactions as Talossans. And - if we want new people to come join us in our glorious, ridiculous pasttime - we have to make that story an appealing one. The old Kingdom, for most of its history, had a narrative of "the combat between Leftists, Rightists and Centrists". By the pre-revolutionary period, that had turned into "patriots vs. traitors", a far less interesting story, because who really wants to play the role of a traitor?

So, this is the question for those voting in the current Chamber of Deputies election. Whose narrative is most interesting? Which of the three candidates is telling a story that not only you, the voter, finds most interesting, but prospective citizens might find interesting, interesting enough that they wish to become not only a character but a co-writer of this story?

Let's look at the platforms of the various parties in this election. The Democratic Socialists' platform is completely devoid of contact. It basically promises "I will be a good person". And no-one doubts that cxhn. Jum will be so, but how will it push the Republic forward? What will he do?

On the other hand, the Peculiarists at least have a vision. One can argue about whether simplified immigration (i.e. lowering our standards?) or provincial reform (i.e. turning them into clubs?) will be a good idea. But they are raising debate. It is the debate about what kind of nation Talossa is, and is really the only nation worth having. The one flaw is the ridiculous option of abandoning half the national territory, and that's a flaw basically because it sends a message to all prospective citizens - "The Republic of Talossa is not real, not serious". (Certainly not as serious as the intransigent Royalists under the Woolley monarchy.)

Compare these to the Defencist manifesto. Electoral Reform will make our elections mean something in terms of programmes and mandates, rather than personality - i.e. will make them part of the ongoing story of Talossa, rather than a bloodless process of rubber-stamping members of a committee. Legislative Reform will make it much easier for citizens and newbies to understand "the rules of the game" - or "the story so far". Real Time Talossa will enable us to be Talossans in other way than posting on a web forum indistinguishable from a godzillion others. Federalism will make the Talossan story more interesting by decentralising it - a goal we have in common with our Peculiarist cüncitaxhiêns, although we may differ on the means. And finally, the National Webspace is our window on the world. Currently it is impenetrable and unfriendly. If we are serious about getting new citizens, we need to reform that.

In summary, I would say that the PVZT manifesto is a specific and realistic way of making our Republic more understandable, more attractive and more interesting as "the story of a small independent nation in North America". This will enthuse both us, and outsiders. Can you, the voters, say that the DemSoc or Peculiarist visions will do as well?