This book is so astonishingly mediocre that it's difficult to even have an opinion about it. I think at least part of the problem is that it's really difficult to identify basic literary elements. Is there a plot? Is this characterization? A joke? What's going on here?
I think this is what happens when someone that isn't actually funny tries to write humor and Make a Statement at the same time. The result? A heavy-handed piece of environmentalist propaganda full of unrelated things that are bizarre but not actually funny.
The main character, Smith, comes across as a strange dichotomy because he is portrayed as being clueless AND effective. (Of course you find out later that he's only effective because some magic is inhabiting him and using him to transport it around. So really, he's just clueless.) The secondary characters include a demonic magician, the son of a Saint that married a Demon, and a well-travelled cook that, Forrest Gump-like, was apparently involved in every major event in recent history.
The entire novel is tiresome from the beginning to the end. Every time it looks like it might get interesting (a train under attack by assassins!) the author ruins it by introducing an amazingly trite explanation (they're ecoterrorists!).
The very last scene is actually reasonably well-done, yet it bears no relation whatsoever to the rest of the book. Maybe the author came up with an idea for a short story and decided to add about 300 pages of text just for the heck of it.
Rating: 1.0
About Me
Jul 10, 2007
Jul 9, 2007
Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End
| For some reason Blogger will not allow me to attach a link to the title of this entry. I've been having some irritating problems like this for a while, like the fact that whenever I edit a post it puts the entire thing into a blockquote for some reason. They just rolled out some sort of new functionality package and the only result I've been able to detect is that a bunch of things STOPPED working. Anyway, here is the link: http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/pirates/atworldsend/ I heard a lot of negative comments about this movie; in fact, I only went to see it because I was seriously bored. I can somewhat understand the negativity, but I enjoyed the movie a lot. It reminded me more of the endgame of an RPG than of a movie, though. After spending the first two movies meeting new people and creatures and discovering a bunch of information, all of it comes together in the same place for the Big Showdown. Pirates III handled the number of events a lot better than Spiderman 3 did and the movie wasn't filled with lengthy pauses where either nothing much happens or something happens but it makes no sense. There were a few surreal scenes but since the plot involves people that are supposed to be dead/enchanted/immortal/crazy those scenes were acceptable even if they were indecipherable. I also thought the special-effects extravaganza/endgame was really, really sweet, although I have to admit it occured to me that I'd seen something remarkably similar in The Little Mermaid. I should also mention that if any GM did try to run the Pirates movies as an RPG, I would feel really sorry for them. Talk about splitting up your party! |
Jennifer Government
Sometimes you have to ask yourself: why did I get this book? Well in this case I'll tell you flat out: it had my name in the title. I wasn't really expecting much, in fact I had a hard time reading it objectively because I was expecting it to be Libertarian propaganda.
It's not, though, or at least not exactly. Instead, the book is a remarkably honest take on what happens when the government is not capable of/allowed to fulfil its important and necessary functions. A corporate representative says it best near the end of the book, at the moment you might almost identify as the climax: "This isn't freedom, John. It's anarchy."
Max Barry, the author, does not have a lot of love for big corporations, and this shows in the plot of Jennifer Government. A marketing executive, John, at Nike Corporation hits on the idea of building "street cred" for Nike's latest ultra-expensive shoes by having some of the first customers capped. Image-conscious teenagers will be thrilled to be seen in lethal shoes. It is beneath the mighty marketeer, however, to actually carry out these planned killings, so he bullies some poor merchandising rep into signing a contract without reading it.
Everything becomes chaos from there. The shootings draw the attention of Jennifer Government, an embittered agent and single mother that wants to see justice done even though the Government doesn't have the budget for that sort of thing. The remainder of the plot involves kidnapping, a computer virus, and an all-out corporate war involving missiles and guns instead of more traditional standbys like money and advertising.
It's a fun book and fairly short; the kind of novel you take to the beach so that you can fall asleep with it on your face about halfway through and amuse the tourists. The corporation angst felt kind of dated, though, seeing as how this is increasingly the world of The Long Tail. Part of what keeps mega-corporations in existence any more are government subsidies and regulations that keep new entries from competing effectively. In a world without that insulation the mega-corporations will dwindle unless they really do provide unmatched service.
Max Barry also has a very funny website that you can visit if you are so inclined.
Sing it with me now: "You're so vain . . . you prob'ly think this book is about you . . ."
Rating: 3.0
It's not, though, or at least not exactly. Instead, the book is a remarkably honest take on what happens when the government is not capable of/allowed to fulfil its important and necessary functions. A corporate representative says it best near the end of the book, at the moment you might almost identify as the climax: "This isn't freedom, John. It's anarchy."
Max Barry, the author, does not have a lot of love for big corporations, and this shows in the plot of Jennifer Government. A marketing executive, John, at Nike Corporation hits on the idea of building "street cred" for Nike's latest ultra-expensive shoes by having some of the first customers capped. Image-conscious teenagers will be thrilled to be seen in lethal shoes. It is beneath the mighty marketeer, however, to actually carry out these planned killings, so he bullies some poor merchandising rep into signing a contract without reading it.
Everything becomes chaos from there. The shootings draw the attention of Jennifer Government, an embittered agent and single mother that wants to see justice done even though the Government doesn't have the budget for that sort of thing. The remainder of the plot involves kidnapping, a computer virus, and an all-out corporate war involving missiles and guns instead of more traditional standbys like money and advertising.
It's a fun book and fairly short; the kind of novel you take to the beach so that you can fall asleep with it on your face about halfway through and amuse the tourists. The corporation angst felt kind of dated, though, seeing as how this is increasingly the world of The Long Tail. Part of what keeps mega-corporations in existence any more are government subsidies and regulations that keep new entries from competing effectively. In a world without that insulation the mega-corporations will dwindle unless they really do provide unmatched service.
Max Barry also has a very funny website that you can visit if you are so inclined.
Sing it with me now: "You're so vain . . . you prob'ly think this book is about you . . ."
Rating: 3.0
Jul 6, 2007
Ratatouille
| I've been reading reviews of this movie over the past couple of days since I stumbled over one on the Randex. I can sympathize with director, who has spent considerable time trying to get people to stop drawing parallels between his work and Ayn Rand's. It's no fun to put a lot of work into writing something fun and original and be told that you're "Just like Tolkein" or "Just like Ayn Rand" or whatever. Granted, he might have gotten away with it a little better if he hadn't directed a movie that is similar, in essentials, to The Fountainhead. Ratatouille is about someone that loves his work and is held back by society. Given, he's a rat, and he loves to cook, but Remy is sort of like Howard Roark. Some of the events in the movie are a little goofy, but it's supposed to be goofy. I think the main characteristic of this movie is simply its benevolence. There isn't a really evil character to be found anywhere, although there is some underhandedness and the food critic is certainly fearsome. Instead of reducing this battle over the kitchen to unimportance, it elevates it into a battle royale between opposing forces. As a writer I find it difficult to get a good story out of everyday things like cooking. I consider this to be a deficiency and I always like it when someone else manages to do it. I think everyone needs to be reminded that there are important things in life other than shooting the bad guys. Fighting the bad guys is easy: the lines are clearly drawn and it doesn't take great mental effort to arrive at the correct conclusions. It might require a lot of physical effort, but that's easy compared with the task of figuring out whether to, say, take someone's word on their abilities or sort out what is causing your office morale to sour. Yet all these little activities of astonishing difficulty go largely unnoticed. That's why I'm always pleased when someone shows one of those activities in a light that outlines what an important issue it is. |
A Song of Ice and Fire
| This is a series by George R. R. Martin that perfectly exemplifies the principle of how to write yourself into a hole; very similar to Robert Jordan, in fact. There are four books in the series thus far: A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, A Storm of Swords, and A Feast for Crows. The series starts off with a bang: A Game of Thrones catapults you right into the action and the several threads of the story all take off immediately with the presentation of the various members of the Stark family. The setting is presented a little oddly, in that some of the important fantasy details aren't explicitly drawn out: you have to infer their nature over the course of many chapters and changes of narritive perspective. I actually found this to be a good presentation because you adopt the same view of the world that the characters hold: you take it for granted as the natural course of things in this fantasy world rather than viewing it as some abberation that needs to be corrected. The plot is a twisting complexity of intrigues, betrayals and counter-betrayals, so it is a fun read and Martin does a good job of making it easy to follow the events: the motivations of the various characters are fleshed out so perfectly that the events are not confusing at all. A Game of Thrones leads us from the general stability and well-being of a prosperous land up to the death of the King at the hands of conspirators and hints ominously of the disintegration that must follow as the land breaks up again into numerous factions. A Clash of Kings follows the struggle of these vast warring factions and introduces several new narrative characters and plot threads. Things begin to get more complicated but for the most part we are remaining with the Stark family and the personal importance of the events is clear. Some factions you like, some you dislike, and some you empathize with but despise their methods. In A Storm of Swords, the faction fights are all-but-solved, or at least you think you can see the shape of the solutions on the horizon. Some of the worst characters are killed off, the good ones remember their priorities, and the fantastic parts of the world begin to solidify and take hold. It looks very much as though one more book could bring everything to a very satisfactory conclusion. In A Feast for Crows, this illusion is brought crashing down. Nothing happens in the book. Nothing. More narrative perspectives are brought in, important previous ones are completely ignored, and instead of the great events being resolved you are brought down to the tiniest, narrowest view possible: it is as though the story has developed cataracts and is reduced to stumbling myopia. Tellingly, the author finds it necessary to explain/apologize for the nature of the book. He intentionally presented only half of what was going on in the story; he intends to dramatize what happens to the other narrative characters in his next book. This killed any desire I had to read the rest of the novels. What draws you through these books primarily is the desire to know what happens. Well, if I'm going to have to wait for him to write two more books before I can find that out I'm not even going to bother. I can't retain interest in a story for that long. A Feast of Crows mangled the cast badly enough as it was: my favorite conflicted character died in the most pathetically pointless way possible. The whole story has become uselessly tiresome. I suppose this is what happens when an author takes a ten-year hiatus from writing. In his afterword Martin explains that when he started he found himself writing and writing and writing and he just ran out of room to tell everything that he wanted to in one book. Well, I'll tell you what this means: it means you need to avail yourself of the services of a good editor. Oh well, the first three books were good. Rating: 2.5 |
Jul 5, 2007
Transformers
I just got back from seeing this movie and I am so happy I went to see it. It was an action movie, it was totally melodrama, but oh it was good melodrama. It is so rare to see a movie so full of explosions and meaningful dialog and hilarious comedy; it's simply a delight for the senses. Oh, before I forget: SPOILERS. THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS. Yeah!
Now there are one or two criticisms I could make, like the fact that it was kind of dopey how the Sector Seven nincompoop basically said all human technology was reverse-engineered from Megatron . . . what was up with that? Bah. It was totally unworthy of such an excellent movie to make a statement like that, but it was only like 2 seconds of the entire movie so nevermind.
I really liked how Optimus Prime really had the power of his convictions; he was absolutely willing to pay the ultimate price to uphold them. Plus the voice they used for him was awesome, Peter Cullen, who also voiced Optimus Prime in the cartoon series. Personally I think HE should have been called the "leading man", but then I'm a sucker for a military man with a good voice. He was also the voice of King Kong, another impressively masculine character. Why are the best men robots and apes? Nah, on second thought, don't answer that. I'm not sure I want to know.
I also like how (don't forget I said SPOILERS) they didn't cheese out the ending and kill Optimus. I was all set for it, I was ready to cringe and be pissed off, and boom! Someone thinks for two seconds and we have The Happy Ending Extraordinary. Oh, it was good. Everyone in the theater clapped at the end, I haven't been to a movie where people clapped in a long time!
It was also very nice how the military was portrayed as being competent, the Men in Black were shown as jerks, the Secretary of Defense was a cool guy, there was a nifty girl hacker . . . I could go on and on but you'd probably be better off just going to see the movie already.
Have fun!
Now there are one or two criticisms I could make, like the fact that it was kind of dopey how the Sector Seven nincompoop basically said all human technology was reverse-engineered from Megatron . . . what was up with that? Bah. It was totally unworthy of such an excellent movie to make a statement like that, but it was only like 2 seconds of the entire movie so nevermind.
I really liked how Optimus Prime really had the power of his convictions; he was absolutely willing to pay the ultimate price to uphold them. Plus the voice they used for him was awesome, Peter Cullen, who also voiced Optimus Prime in the cartoon series. Personally I think HE should have been called the "leading man", but then I'm a sucker for a military man with a good voice. He was also the voice of King Kong, another impressively masculine character. Why are the best men robots and apes? Nah, on second thought, don't answer that. I'm not sure I want to know.
I also like how (don't forget I said SPOILERS) they didn't cheese out the ending and kill Optimus. I was all set for it, I was ready to cringe and be pissed off, and boom! Someone thinks for two seconds and we have The Happy Ending Extraordinary. Oh, it was good. Everyone in the theater clapped at the end, I haven't been to a movie where people clapped in a long time!
It was also very nice how the military was portrayed as being competent, the Men in Black were shown as jerks, the Secretary of Defense was a cool guy, there was a nifty girl hacker . . . I could go on and on but you'd probably be better off just going to see the movie already.
Have fun!
Soon I Will Be Invincible
| No, I have not thrown a cog and suddenly turned into a megalomaniac (or at least, more of one than I already was): this is actually the title of a book. I was a little leery when I saw it at Borders, partially because I was thinking of writing a novel about superheros after I finish my current project(s). That, and I was pretty sure that it was going to be a steaming heap of postmodern dreck. You have to be careful with those books that say they have "novel ideas about good and evil". Most modern ideas about good and evil are bunk. However, I encountered the book again on Oo.net when I found out that someone had pre-ordered it and was planning on reading it. So I was in a quandry: maybe it wouldn't be awful after all. Anyway, if you can't tell this little story is leading up to me buying the book and reading it, finally. My opinion can be summed up very succinctly with one syllable, not even a word: eh. It wasn't as bad as I'd feared, but it wasn't as good as I'd hoped. The book asks a lot of questions about what makes a superhero or a supervillian but it never really answers them, either. The two main characters, a super-genius villian (Dr. Impossible) and a newbie hero cyborg (Fatale) posit a lot of potential theories but they don't seem particularly satisfied with their own theories. Certainly none of their actions lead to any sort of resolution; the good guys win because an ambiguously-aligned character allows them to, not because of anything they did. So, not a very satisifying novel. I read in other reviews that it was humorous because there were a lot of "references" to comic-book culture, but I don't read comic books so either I didn't get them or they just weren't that funny. It makes me sad to see a mainstay of incredible melodrama (super heros) made so gray and dull, like wet newspapers. Rating: 2.0 |
Dragon Bones
| This is an interesting little fantasy novel that revolves around the psychological effects of abuse; not so much what the attacker does to the victim, but what the victim does to himself. The plot is a little simplistic but the characters are interesting and well-drawn, so it was definitely an enjoyable read. Dragons are a fantasy mainstay so it intrigues me how many different ways authors come up with to present them. In Dragon Bones the dragons (well, I should say dragon, there's only one in the story) are almost like genius loci; the defining spirit of a place rather than a big firebreathing lizard with wings. Mistreating the dragons has dire consequences for the entire realm. Unfortunately there's not that much more to say about the novel. It's something to do if you happen to be bored, but there's no reason to add it to your reading list if you're like most people and you have more books than time. Rating: 2.5 |
Jul 4, 2007
Paladins
I'm not a big fan of Joel Rosenberg, but I thought I would give this book a try anyway, primarily because I liked the title. Well, the book was okay.
The main difficulty I have with Rosenburg's writing is that nothing he writes is any fun. He conveys nothing that makes me smile or laugh or feel delighted. I can't hold a frowny face for the entire time I'm reading a book. Heck, I can't even stand to be frowny for an entire hour. Yet this is the essence of his writing. His books sit on the spirit like a lead brick.
It doesn't help that he writes series fiction, either, so every one of his novels contain elements that are important to the meta-story (whatever it is) but not to this particular novel. Paladins is essentially about men that carry "live" swords; swords that are inhabited by a particularly strong soul. These swords grant great power, but it is a dangerous power, difficult to wield and placing great strain on its wielder.
That's all well and good. So explain to me why he decided to set this fantasy story in an "alternate history" where Mordred beat King Arthur and established a huge British Empire? Not to mention that there are mythological creatures like Morgaine running around? How do these two elements fit together? When you write a novel, the setting should be no more and no less than a vehicle for presenting your story, whatever it is. It should not be this weirdly disconnected world that you invented because you could.
The best characters in the book are pushed hither and yon by the whims of other players, the story ends with a hideous deus ex machina scene (the king comes in and rearranges everything), and everything is grim and defeatist. Not my favorite novel by far.
Rating: 2.0
The main difficulty I have with Rosenburg's writing is that nothing he writes is any fun. He conveys nothing that makes me smile or laugh or feel delighted. I can't hold a frowny face for the entire time I'm reading a book. Heck, I can't even stand to be frowny for an entire hour. Yet this is the essence of his writing. His books sit on the spirit like a lead brick.
It doesn't help that he writes series fiction, either, so every one of his novels contain elements that are important to the meta-story (whatever it is) but not to this particular novel. Paladins is essentially about men that carry "live" swords; swords that are inhabited by a particularly strong soul. These swords grant great power, but it is a dangerous power, difficult to wield and placing great strain on its wielder.
That's all well and good. So explain to me why he decided to set this fantasy story in an "alternate history" where Mordred beat King Arthur and established a huge British Empire? Not to mention that there are mythological creatures like Morgaine running around? How do these two elements fit together? When you write a novel, the setting should be no more and no less than a vehicle for presenting your story, whatever it is. It should not be this weirdly disconnected world that you invented because you could.
The best characters in the book are pushed hither and yon by the whims of other players, the story ends with a hideous deus ex machina scene (the king comes in and rearranges everything), and everything is grim and defeatist. Not my favorite novel by far.
Rating: 2.0
Public Decency and Nuisance Laws
One of the tougher, long-term debates going on at Oo.net is the question of what kind of public decency/nuisance legislation is proper and effective at protecting rights. I, personally, have difficulty with the idea of ANY legislation to this effect because every attempt I have seen thus far has relied on non-objective definitions. Non-objective law is a monster that cannot be set loose in any circumstances.
Still, I agree that I don't want neighbors that play music at 110 dB or flash strobe lights in my windows or wear thong swimsuits that bare their hairy buttcracks to all and sundry. What rational person DOES want to live with those conditions? So the problem becomes: how do you protect what Ayn Rand called approximately "the right not to see" when there is no universal definition for what is "offensive"?
Well, I think I've come up with a practical method for this, although it probably needs some work. Firstly, you break the area up into two categories: nuisance and communication.
Nuisances are things that impinge on your property, like bright lights, powerful smells (note I didn't say BAD smells), and loud noises. These are nuisances and the most important point is that you must not have to take any action to be affected by them on your property.
Communication is, well, anything that can be used to communicate an idea. This can be images of people or animals or anthropomorphic vegetables (body language) or symbols, or words. These don't necessarily have to be loud or painfully bright to cause a problem, like the aforementioned thong bathing suit.
Then, you have two fundamental situations where this sort of thing becomes a problem. Either you are on your own private property and someone is impinging on you from their private property, or both concerned parties are in some "open" location owned either by one of you or by a third party. I say "open" instead of "public" because of the current state of "public" property, which is owned by everyone and no one. This type of property is improper.
I say these two fundamental situations because others are easily dealt with: if a nudist wanders onto your private beach, you just tell them to leave. End of problem. If you are running an "open" beach, though, then you have an issue that may not be as easily handled.
This is where the stipulations come in.
For private property cases, you simply have to explicitly delineate the rights of the complainee. I came up with a few stipulations, but there may be a few more required.
1. The complainee can by no means be prohibited from engaging in the specific activity, they can only be restrained from displaying it where it impinges on the property of the complainer. How the complainee restrains this display is up to him.
2. No damages. You are not going to get money out of your neighbor. This right here will help reduce harassment because no one is going to spend money to litigate--unless it's a real problem--when they can't hope to gain anything from it except peace-of-mind.
For open property cases the entire matter can be handled by requiring everyone that wishes to have open property to post their restrictions--if there are any. You already see this around with signs like "no skateboarding" and "no swimming", all you have to do is extend it to things like "no complete nudity" or "full coverage suits only" or "no shirt, no shoes, no service".
It should also be required that you identify the type of business you are operating. This is simply good advertising. If you're running a restaurant, there should be a sign saying so, if you're operating a Nazi store, there should be a sign saying THAT.
This works because it is universal and objective, and no one is required to have or post restrictions. At worst, they're required to put a sign on their door explaining what the property is. If the mall doesn't have a sign saying "no nudity" and someone streaks the place, on what grounds are you going to litigate against the mall? You can complain to the mall in the hopes that they will revise their signage, but that's about it.
I think this (or something along these lines) would be a functional approach.
Still, I agree that I don't want neighbors that play music at 110 dB or flash strobe lights in my windows or wear thong swimsuits that bare their hairy buttcracks to all and sundry. What rational person DOES want to live with those conditions? So the problem becomes: how do you protect what Ayn Rand called approximately "the right not to see" when there is no universal definition for what is "offensive"?
Well, I think I've come up with a practical method for this, although it probably needs some work. Firstly, you break the area up into two categories: nuisance and communication.
Nuisances are things that impinge on your property, like bright lights, powerful smells (note I didn't say BAD smells), and loud noises. These are nuisances and the most important point is that you must not have to take any action to be affected by them on your property.
Communication is, well, anything that can be used to communicate an idea. This can be images of people or animals or anthropomorphic vegetables (body language) or symbols, or words. These don't necessarily have to be loud or painfully bright to cause a problem, like the aforementioned thong bathing suit.
Then, you have two fundamental situations where this sort of thing becomes a problem. Either you are on your own private property and someone is impinging on you from their private property, or both concerned parties are in some "open" location owned either by one of you or by a third party. I say "open" instead of "public" because of the current state of "public" property, which is owned by everyone and no one. This type of property is improper.
I say these two fundamental situations because others are easily dealt with: if a nudist wanders onto your private beach, you just tell them to leave. End of problem. If you are running an "open" beach, though, then you have an issue that may not be as easily handled.
This is where the stipulations come in.
For private property cases, you simply have to explicitly delineate the rights of the complainee. I came up with a few stipulations, but there may be a few more required.
1. The complainee can by no means be prohibited from engaging in the specific activity, they can only be restrained from displaying it where it impinges on the property of the complainer. How the complainee restrains this display is up to him.
2. No damages. You are not going to get money out of your neighbor. This right here will help reduce harassment because no one is going to spend money to litigate--unless it's a real problem--when they can't hope to gain anything from it except peace-of-mind.
For open property cases the entire matter can be handled by requiring everyone that wishes to have open property to post their restrictions--if there are any. You already see this around with signs like "no skateboarding" and "no swimming", all you have to do is extend it to things like "no complete nudity" or "full coverage suits only" or "no shirt, no shoes, no service".
It should also be required that you identify the type of business you are operating. This is simply good advertising. If you're running a restaurant, there should be a sign saying so, if you're operating a Nazi store, there should be a sign saying THAT.
This works because it is universal and objective, and no one is required to have or post restrictions. At worst, they're required to put a sign on their door explaining what the property is. If the mall doesn't have a sign saying "no nudity" and someone streaks the place, on what grounds are you going to litigate against the mall? You can complain to the mall in the hopes that they will revise their signage, but that's about it.
I think this (or something along these lines) would be a functional approach.
Jul 3, 2007
Blogroll Update
My 'roll has been out of date for a while, but I finally got around to fixing it. I don't read many blogs on a regular basis because I have limited patience/interest with politics and most of the blogs I read are political in nature. This may be in an indication that I need to branch out, but since I'm a conservative reader I don't actively search out new blogs to read. Heck, I haven't even been writing that much for months, so I doubt anyone noticed the blogroll issue anyway.
Anyway, I have added:
Rational Jenn: http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com/
I stumbled across Jenn's blog as an indirect result of Diana Hsieh's OList project, but I liked her blog and I like her name so on the 'roll she goes. Her blog is a lot like mine in that she mostly talks about what's going on in her life and her interests instead of politics, but the politics are there.
Edge of Reason: http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/
This is my boss's blog, actually, but he writes some interesting stuff about Objectivism and psychology etc.
Twenty-Sided: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/
Shamus isn't an Objectivist, he's a libertarian, but he's also into gaming in a big way so I like to read his material. He is also publishing a webcomic called DM of the Rings that makes me laugh quite a lot.
I also fixed the link so Acid-Free Paper now leads to Toiler's new blog as opposed to his old blog. It's funny because when I first added him to the 'roll on Literatrix he commented that, yes, it was correct to put the hyphen in there even though there wasn't "officially" one on the title of his site. Well, now there is. So, it's even more correct now.
I've also added two new sections to my 'roll, although I don't have a lot of links in those sections at the moment. This may change, but then again it may not. The major addition there is Schlock Mercenary: http://schlockmercenary.com, which is a fun space-opera webcomic that I now read daily.
That's all for now.
Anyway, I have added:
Rational Jenn: http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com/
I stumbled across Jenn's blog as an indirect result of Diana Hsieh's OList project, but I liked her blog and I like her name so on the 'roll she goes. Her blog is a lot like mine in that she mostly talks about what's going on in her life and her interests instead of politics, but the politics are there.
Edge of Reason: http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/
This is my boss's blog, actually, but he writes some interesting stuff about Objectivism and psychology etc.
Twenty-Sided: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/
Shamus isn't an Objectivist, he's a libertarian, but he's also into gaming in a big way so I like to read his material. He is also publishing a webcomic called DM of the Rings that makes me laugh quite a lot.
I also fixed the link so Acid-Free Paper now leads to Toiler's new blog as opposed to his old blog. It's funny because when I first added him to the 'roll on Literatrix he commented that, yes, it was correct to put the hyphen in there even though there wasn't "officially" one on the title of his site. Well, now there is. So, it's even more correct now.
I've also added two new sections to my 'roll, although I don't have a lot of links in those sections at the moment. This may change, but then again it may not. The major addition there is Schlock Mercenary: http://schlockmercenary.com, which is a fun space-opera webcomic that I now read daily.
That's all for now.
Check Out My New Ride
Whenever I reach a new level of prosperity in my life I always wind up having to make tough decisions about what I want to improve first. I have a list (yes, an actual list) of all the things I want to get. It includes things like an apartment, new furniture, gym membership, new computer . . . it's a long list. However, my shortly after I arrived in New York my car started misbehaving again and I realized that it just wasn't worth maintaining the thing any more.
So, I got a new car.
I've always preferred to own new things. I realize this is probably not very economical of me, but I figure the point of doing all this work is so that I can actually enjoy myself, not so I can bury myself in austerity. Well, let me tell you, I understand now why people get a new car every few years. My Ion is gorgeous.
It has a few features that I could do without, like Onstar, but for the most part I just love it. I like having automatic windows and doors. Granted, I forgot to lock the car a few times the first couple of days because I didn't have pushing the button automatized, but I live in a low-crime area anyway, so no harm done. I love that the car is so quiet and accelerates smoothly, two things my old car did NOT do. I love being able to sit in the driver's seat without having to put the seat all the way back and lean forward slightly to reach the wheel. This is a really uncomfortable position on long drives.
I love cruise control. I wish the idiots around here were better drivers so I could use it more, though. I have an hour-long commute every morning and evening, 90% of it on highway and I very rarely can use my cruise control because I can guarantee that when I try to turn it on some moron will pull out RIGHT IN FRONT of me and force me to slam on the brakes. I wind up looking in my rearview miror thinking: Why'd he pull out in front of me? There's no one behind me for a kilometer but he just HAS to get IN FRONT of ME.
People in New York don't know how to merge, either. Instead of sensibly getting in the correct lane as soon as they can, they ALWAYS drive all the way to the end of the lane and then try to run someone off the road. If you don't slow down for them, they'll just drive right into you, it is pathetic.
The New York drivers are another reason I'm glad I have this new car: now I have AIR BAGS and scratch/dent-resistant side panels.
Jun 19, 2007
Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer
| I have to admit that I am one of those people that will go see a superhero movie regardless of how campy it looks or how lousy the reviews are . . . I will even defy the opinions of people whose artistic judgment I take seriously to go see a movie with super heroes in it. Now, that being said, let's all remember the first Fantastic Four movie. Actually, let's not, because it was awful. It was really, really bad. So, when I went to see this latest one I was really not expecting very much. Well, I was surprised. Rise of the Silver Surfer was actually quite good! It wasn't perfect . . . some of the plot was just goofy and there was a bit of "bad girlfriend" whinging from the Invisible Woman, but the director didn't let it get out of control. As an aside, does anyone else think that Jessica Alba looks RIDICULOUS with blond hair and blue eyes? Why couldn't they get someone to play the Invisible Woman that actually HAS blond hair and blue eyes? And what was WITH that peacock-blue eyeshadow, anyway? She looked like Mimi from the Drew Carey show. I also want to know why, if Mr. Fantastic designed this snazzy flying car, why did they spend 2/3 of the movie being shuttled around in helicopters and airplanes? That flying car made it from their headquarters in, um, I think it was L.A. to GREENLAND in FIVE MINUTES. |
*Coughs* okay, I was going to explain why the movie was good, not get hung up complaining about some of the corny elements. You have to expect corny elements in any movie that isn't R-rated nowadays.
The major reason why the movie is good is that it makes sense. The characters have reasonable motivations. They act like sane people who haven't had their brains sucked out by creatures from the dungeon dimensions. They make reasonable choices that have good results. The Silver Surfer is not over-done at all; he has some real pathos going for him and he makes a very good sympathetic villian, although you do end up wondering whether that gray stuff is meant to be his skin or some kind of body suit, because that leads to some interesting anatomical questions . . . okay, maybe that was just me. Even the Human Torch grows up during the movie and starts acting (sort of) like an adult.
It seems weird to me that the sequel should be better than the first movie, but the same thing happened with the Spiderman movies, so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised. I have a theory for why this occurs, actually: it's because the Superhero Origins of these characters were all written during the Silver Age of comics, and thus they are INCREDIBLY campy today. Bit by a radioactive spider? Flew threw a Cosmic Storm?! Come on, what do you take us for, idiots? When the moviemakers feel constrained by the limitations of these old, sad comic books, they are unable to make a decent movie. However, when they start getting into their own plotlines and developing their own ideas, it turns out quite well. This even explains why The Incredibles was such a fun movie and why the third Spiderman was so bad.
So, moviemakers: stop riding on other peoples' old ideas and come up with your own stuff. It makes better movies in the long run.
Jun 12, 2007
A Contest for Literatrix
I stumbled on this contest by visiting the Randex, and I quite frankly can't think of anything better-suited to my personal interests, so I emailed the contest sponsor immediately. It really is funny what you find if you look around.
I'm not absolutely certain that my current novel is what they're looking for: I will know more when I get a response. However, I'm sure that there are a number of authors out there working on books that involve freedom on some fundamental level, and any author can certainly use some money and extra incentive to get cracking!
My novel is thematically more about volition than freedom, but the functioning of man's volitional consciousness is the underlying reason why freedom (especially of the political sort) is of such absolute importance. So I think I will probably qualify for this contest, and I urge anyone else that is working on a similar novel to do so as well.
What I don't urge, however, is that you attempt to write a novel for this purpose if you weren't already in the process of doing so. Nothing will turn your writing into miserable hacky second-hand dreck than trying to write to someone else's theme. Writing depends on integration of conscious thought with subconscious automatizations, it doesn't work if you try to ignore what's going on in your subconscious and keep everything on a conscious level. In order to fulfil someone else's desires, that is pretty much what you have to do.
I don't know if the contest operator is an Objectivist, and I suppose it's not really that important unless he intends to exert editorial control. Even then, it's still probably not that important because the kind of fiction I write is not about listing a bunch of explicit ideas, but about leading the reader to make the kind of conclusion I want . . . in other words, "show, don't tell". Here's to freedom!
I'm not absolutely certain that my current novel is what they're looking for: I will know more when I get a response. However, I'm sure that there are a number of authors out there working on books that involve freedom on some fundamental level, and any author can certainly use some money and extra incentive to get cracking!
My novel is thematically more about volition than freedom, but the functioning of man's volitional consciousness is the underlying reason why freedom (especially of the political sort) is of such absolute importance. So I think I will probably qualify for this contest, and I urge anyone else that is working on a similar novel to do so as well.
What I don't urge, however, is that you attempt to write a novel for this purpose if you weren't already in the process of doing so. Nothing will turn your writing into miserable hacky second-hand dreck than trying to write to someone else's theme. Writing depends on integration of conscious thought with subconscious automatizations, it doesn't work if you try to ignore what's going on in your subconscious and keep everything on a conscious level. In order to fulfil someone else's desires, that is pretty much what you have to do.
I don't know if the contest operator is an Objectivist, and I suppose it's not really that important unless he intends to exert editorial control. Even then, it's still probably not that important because the kind of fiction I write is not about listing a bunch of explicit ideas, but about leading the reader to make the kind of conclusion I want . . . in other words, "show, don't tell". Here's to freedom!
May 27, 2007
Freedom and Necessity
When I first started reading this book by Steven Brust and Emma Bull, I was reminded of another novel that I read in high school, Dear Mr. Henshaw, because Freedom and Necessity proceeds in much the same fashion: it is a series of letters exchanged between the four principle characters. Over the course of these letters, the story unfolds. There the similarity ends.
Freedom and Necessity is a deep and twisting growth of plots, intrigues, violence, death and love taking place in Britain during the 1850's and vaguely involved with the Chartist uprising: Marx and Engels (the philosophers) are actually characters in the novel. It is effective in the novel, but someone more acquainted with history than myself may find it to be gauche.
The gimmick of the storytelling (the letters), tends to destroy some of the reader's involvement with the plot: hearing someone talk about what happened is entirely different than observing it while it is happening. The authors repair this with another gimmick: one of the principle characters is gifted with an unusually exact memory so she can report occurances verbatim. In all, this is a violation of the literary principle of "show, don't tell", and it means that some sections of the novel are a bit dull.
I think the rest more than makes up for this, however, and I liked this quote from the back of the book so I am sharing it:
If you like that sort of thing, give this book a try.
Rating: 3.0
Freedom and Necessity is a deep and twisting growth of plots, intrigues, violence, death and love taking place in Britain during the 1850's and vaguely involved with the Chartist uprising: Marx and Engels (the philosophers) are actually characters in the novel. It is effective in the novel, but someone more acquainted with history than myself may find it to be gauche.
The gimmick of the storytelling (the letters), tends to destroy some of the reader's involvement with the plot: hearing someone talk about what happened is entirely different than observing it while it is happening. The authors repair this with another gimmick: one of the principle characters is gifted with an unusually exact memory so she can report occurances verbatim. In all, this is a violation of the literary principle of "show, don't tell", and it means that some sections of the novel are a bit dull.
I think the rest more than makes up for this, however, and I liked this quote from the back of the book so I am sharing it:
And so the adventure begins . . . leading the reader through every corner of mid-nineteenth-century Britain, from the parlors of the elite to the dens of the underclass. Not since Wilkie Collins or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has there been such a profusion of guns, swordfights, family intrigues, women dressed as men, occult societies, philosophical discussion, and, of course, passionate romance.
If you like that sort of thing, give this book a try.
Rating: 3.0
May 22, 2007
Tiffany Aching
Terry Pratchett is definitely one of my favorite authors so I thought I'd say a few words about his newer books that are intended more for a younger audience. Granted, this doesn't prevent adults like myself from enjoying them, but the opportunity for a fun and worthwhile way to entertain your youngsters should not be ignored.
Pratchett is mostly a satirist and a lot of his work is derivative, but his slanted take on familiar subjects is worth a look--worth a second look, too, in fact. I mention this because the Tiffany Aching books (The Wee Free Men, A Hat Full of Sky, and Wintersmith thus far) bear an odd superficial resemblance to the famous books of another popular British fantasy author that writes for the same age group . . . an author whose name starts with a J. and ends with a Rowling, if you get my drift.
The resemblance is odd because although the books share some faint surface details--Harry Potter is about a boy learning to be a wizard, the Tiffany Aching books are about a girl learning to be a witch--you couldn't find two takes on roughly the same subject that were more different if you tried. Harry Potter attends a school where magic is pinned down in books and readily accessable. Tiffany Aching discovers that the only school for witchcraft is the entire world and that no one can teach you the most important lesson: the real trick about magic is knowing when not to use it.
And, of course, you have the Wee Free Men, described by Pratchett as being like Scottish smurfs that have seen Braveheart a few too many times. They can make a special child that can talk to the fairies kind of wish she couldn't.
In the end, the Tiffany Aching books are good fun thoroughly mixed with good sense. Get them for your kids.
Rating: 3.5
Pratchett is mostly a satirist and a lot of his work is derivative, but his slanted take on familiar subjects is worth a look--worth a second look, too, in fact. I mention this because the Tiffany Aching books (The Wee Free Men, A Hat Full of Sky, and Wintersmith thus far) bear an odd superficial resemblance to the famous books of another popular British fantasy author that writes for the same age group . . . an author whose name starts with a J. and ends with a Rowling, if you get my drift.
The resemblance is odd because although the books share some faint surface details--Harry Potter is about a boy learning to be a wizard, the Tiffany Aching books are about a girl learning to be a witch--you couldn't find two takes on roughly the same subject that were more different if you tried. Harry Potter attends a school where magic is pinned down in books and readily accessable. Tiffany Aching discovers that the only school for witchcraft is the entire world and that no one can teach you the most important lesson: the real trick about magic is knowing when not to use it.
And, of course, you have the Wee Free Men, described by Pratchett as being like Scottish smurfs that have seen Braveheart a few too many times. They can make a special child that can talk to the fairies kind of wish she couldn't.
In the end, the Tiffany Aching books are good fun thoroughly mixed with good sense. Get them for your kids.
Rating: 3.5
May 21, 2007
Paper and Pen
I wandered down to the bookstore yesterday and paused in the stationery section (oops, I almost committed a faux pas there: stationary means standing still, stationery is writing paper) because I want to get back to work on my novel Ratbreed. So, I had to get a nice new notebook for writing in because nothing puts me in the mood to write like a nice new notebook. Plus, all the typing I've been doing lately has caused my right hand to start hurting and I don't really need to add RSS to my list of woes. (That's Repetitive Stress Syndrome, if you were wondering.)
That's when the influence of Toiler struck me, because there at the front of the stationery (look, I did it right again!) section was a display of Moleskine notebooks. Drat the man, after hearing his enthusiasm for his notebook-of-choice I had to take one down and have a look at it!
I have to admit it is a nice notebook. (Yes, I bought it, what were you expecting?) The thing I like most is that the paper is delightfully smooth. Any writer that's ever written on cheap paper knows the unpleasantness of frequent paper cuts, especially when you're packing up your materials quickly or paging back through your work to figure out where you thought this story was going three pages ago when you started it. No risk of that with this baby!
It also lies nearly as flat as a spiral-bound notebook, which is a huge plus. Frequently book-bound notebooks are worse than cheap books in that you can't actually write in them unless you have three hands or you crack the binding terribly, at which point the pages will probably start to fall out. Once again, not a problem here. Granted, this could probably be solved with a reporter-style notebook, but I hate those because you have to turn the book upside-down to write on the back of the page, and being the awkward person I am this usually means that eventually I wind up writing on the back of the wrong page and my notes are never comprehensible after that.
It's also delightfully spare in appearance. The one I got is plain black without any sort of ornamentation. If you found this notebook lying around, you would just have to open it and read it because anything that monastic-looking would have to contain strange writings of dark and eldritch purpose.
Oh, and I got a pen, too. It's black.
That's when the influence of Toiler struck me, because there at the front of the stationery (look, I did it right again!) section was a display of Moleskine notebooks. Drat the man, after hearing his enthusiasm for his notebook-of-choice I had to take one down and have a look at it!
I have to admit it is a nice notebook. (Yes, I bought it, what were you expecting?) The thing I like most is that the paper is delightfully smooth. Any writer that's ever written on cheap paper knows the unpleasantness of frequent paper cuts, especially when you're packing up your materials quickly or paging back through your work to figure out where you thought this story was going three pages ago when you started it. No risk of that with this baby!
It also lies nearly as flat as a spiral-bound notebook, which is a huge plus. Frequently book-bound notebooks are worse than cheap books in that you can't actually write in them unless you have three hands or you crack the binding terribly, at which point the pages will probably start to fall out. Once again, not a problem here. Granted, this could probably be solved with a reporter-style notebook, but I hate those because you have to turn the book upside-down to write on the back of the page, and being the awkward person I am this usually means that eventually I wind up writing on the back of the wrong page and my notes are never comprehensible after that.
It's also delightfully spare in appearance. The one I got is plain black without any sort of ornamentation. If you found this notebook lying around, you would just have to open it and read it because anything that monastic-looking would have to contain strange writings of dark and eldritch purpose.
Oh, and I got a pen, too. It's black.
May 19, 2007
The God Delusion
This book by Richard Dawkins is intended to present the essential case against religion, however I think it falls short of the mark.
The best portions of the book are the ones that deal with elaborating on the various arguments for religion and why they are erroneous; faced with someone else's argument Dawkins has no problem bringing his ideas to bear. I actually found the chapter fairly informative, because I had not previously encountered some of the arguments and I could see why they might be difficult to counter on the fly.
The most bizarre factor I found in this section that Dawkins falls back on a "probability" analysis for many of the arguments . . . an analysis that is logically flawed. It amounts to relying on Occam's razor, which is not, in fact, a logical truism. You cannot discuss the "likelyhood" or "probability" of something that bears no relation to any known facts. Not to mention the fact that there must be a definable and identifiable alternative in order to discuss probability. I can discuss how probable it is that a woman will have a boy or a girl: there are two known alternatives and the result must be one of them. You can't discuss the likelyhood that God or Vishnu or Ashura-Mazda created the universe because you don't know all the alternatives or even that the answer must necessarily be one of these alternatives.
Dawkins just declares that we'll assign some random "likelyhood" factor to each alternative, but what does this amount to? Let me pull some stuff out my rear end. This is not the way to argue logic or use reason.
Dawkins also has a substantial problem presenting the case for atheism, however. Part of this may be the fact that it's difficult to be for a position that is essentially a negation (atheism is non-religion, it's not pro-anything). The other part seems to be that Dawkins has only vague ideas of what anyone should be for. In complaining about the morality evidenced in the Bible (particularly in the Old Testament), the best rationale he can come up with for why it is vile and destructive is that it is not compatable with the "changing moral zeitgeist". What, exactly, comprises that zeitgeist and why is that a better morality than the one of the Old Testament?
No answer is forthcoming. So, really, the book is kind of pointless unless you're already an atheist and can fill in Dawkins' holes for yourself, or you don't really care much for clarity of thought and communication and you base your ideas on whatever you've read the most recently.
Oh well. If you're looking for a real comprehensive case against religion and for an alternative, I suggest you look into Objectivism and the writings of Ayn Rand.
Rating: 2.0
The best portions of the book are the ones that deal with elaborating on the various arguments for religion and why they are erroneous; faced with someone else's argument Dawkins has no problem bringing his ideas to bear. I actually found the chapter fairly informative, because I had not previously encountered some of the arguments and I could see why they might be difficult to counter on the fly.
The most bizarre factor I found in this section that Dawkins falls back on a "probability" analysis for many of the arguments . . . an analysis that is logically flawed. It amounts to relying on Occam's razor, which is not, in fact, a logical truism. You cannot discuss the "likelyhood" or "probability" of something that bears no relation to any known facts. Not to mention the fact that there must be a definable and identifiable alternative in order to discuss probability. I can discuss how probable it is that a woman will have a boy or a girl: there are two known alternatives and the result must be one of them. You can't discuss the likelyhood that God or Vishnu or Ashura-Mazda created the universe because you don't know all the alternatives or even that the answer must necessarily be one of these alternatives.
Dawkins just declares that we'll assign some random "likelyhood" factor to each alternative, but what does this amount to? Let me pull some stuff out my rear end. This is not the way to argue logic or use reason.
Dawkins also has a substantial problem presenting the case for atheism, however. Part of this may be the fact that it's difficult to be for a position that is essentially a negation (atheism is non-religion, it's not pro-anything). The other part seems to be that Dawkins has only vague ideas of what anyone should be for. In complaining about the morality evidenced in the Bible (particularly in the Old Testament), the best rationale he can come up with for why it is vile and destructive is that it is not compatable with the "changing moral zeitgeist". What, exactly, comprises that zeitgeist and why is that a better morality than the one of the Old Testament?
No answer is forthcoming. So, really, the book is kind of pointless unless you're already an atheist and can fill in Dawkins' holes for yourself, or you don't really care much for clarity of thought and communication and you base your ideas on whatever you've read the most recently.
Oh well. If you're looking for a real comprehensive case against religion and for an alternative, I suggest you look into Objectivism and the writings of Ayn Rand.
Rating: 2.0
May 17, 2007
Seven Possibly Interesting Things
I saw this meme on Gus Van Horn and I thought I'd give it a try since I'm too tired to come up with anything really original today. However, I'm having a hard time with it since I'm also apparently too tired to come up with anything that's possibly interesting about me, too. I'm probably one of the most boring people on the face of the earth.
Hmm. Does that maybe count as #1? Nah, I have to be able to come up with something better than that. Okay, let's try this:
1. I'm the only person in my family that cannot play a musical instrument. I can't sing, either.
2. I still haven't seen The Shawshank Redemption. I'm not sure why.
3. I'm an Objectivist. I love fantasy novels. I can't stand Terry Goodkind.
4. Red is my least-favorite color. Every car I've ever owned has been red.
5. I will hold long, drawn-out, loud conversations with myself when I think no one is listening. Frequently, I am mistaken. Maybe I can get a second job as a street mutterer or something.
6. I have never fired a gun.
7. I think glasses are sexy.
Whew. That was way more work than it was probably worth.
Hmm. Does that maybe count as #1? Nah, I have to be able to come up with something better than that. Okay, let's try this:
1. I'm the only person in my family that cannot play a musical instrument. I can't sing, either.
2. I still haven't seen The Shawshank Redemption. I'm not sure why.
3. I'm an Objectivist. I love fantasy novels. I can't stand Terry Goodkind.
4. Red is my least-favorite color. Every car I've ever owned has been red.
5. I will hold long, drawn-out, loud conversations with myself when I think no one is listening. Frequently, I am mistaken. Maybe I can get a second job as a street mutterer or something.
6. I have never fired a gun.
7. I think glasses are sexy.
Whew. That was way more work than it was probably worth.
May 16, 2007
Arrived
Well, here I am in New York with not much to do except work and no one to do it with. It always takes me a long time to get settled into a new place because I'm not very social under the best of circumstances and after a long day full of people I don't know very well I must fight a fierce desire to hide under the furniture.
Let this not be taken to indicate that I'm not enjoying myself: I am. Work is going good and I'm learning a lot of new things about a business that doesn't appear complicated on first brush but actually requires quite a bit of savvy and lots of organization. I'm finding my way around and I've located the absolute earthly necessities: Wal-Mart and Borders. I also found a movie theater and I went to see Spiderman 3 over the weekend.
Given ,I seem to have become a mass of physical ailments, too: after being absolutely fine for several years my allergies have come back with a vengeance and I spent several days stuffed-up and sneezing. Then, just as I was getting better I spontaneously fell over in the parking lot (wow, graceful) and tore all the skin off my knee. It's healing and it ITCHES. Then this morning I was ill, however I seem to have gotten over that much at least.
I have a lot of projects I'd like to work on, such as converting KloOge (more on this later perhaps) so I can run a 3.5 ed D&D psionics game online with all the bells and whistles. I've got novels to work on and I should start looking around to meet some new people. So, I thought, hey, I should blog. Blogging is a good way for me to get in the mood to start on projects and it gives me an incentive to look around for something to write about.
Let this not be taken to indicate that I'm not enjoying myself: I am. Work is going good and I'm learning a lot of new things about a business that doesn't appear complicated on first brush but actually requires quite a bit of savvy and lots of organization. I'm finding my way around and I've located the absolute earthly necessities: Wal-Mart and Borders. I also found a movie theater and I went to see Spiderman 3 over the weekend.
Given ,I seem to have become a mass of physical ailments, too: after being absolutely fine for several years my allergies have come back with a vengeance and I spent several days stuffed-up and sneezing. Then, just as I was getting better I spontaneously fell over in the parking lot (wow, graceful) and tore all the skin off my knee. It's healing and it ITCHES. Then this morning I was ill, however I seem to have gotten over that much at least.
I have a lot of projects I'd like to work on, such as converting KloOge (more on this later perhaps) so I can run a 3.5 ed D&D psionics game online with all the bells and whistles. I've got novels to work on and I should start looking around to meet some new people. So, I thought, hey, I should blog. Blogging is a good way for me to get in the mood to start on projects and it gives me an incentive to look around for something to write about.
Apr 18, 2007
Movin' On Up Redux
For those of you that don't know and may be interested, I'm going to be moving to New York very soon; in fact, Friday is my last day at work. Since I've kind of gotten tired of answering the same questions over and over and over and over I thought I'd include this handy Moving FAQ:
Q: You're moving to New York?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: I found a nice new job there and I'm sick of Dayton.
Q: Where in New York? In New York City?
A: No. Monsey.
Q: Where?
A: *tired sigh* It's just north of New Jersey.
Q: *blank look* Oh. So are you going to live in New York City?
A: No. I'll actually be living in Middletown.
Q: Where?
A: *dirty look*
Q: Oh, um, okay then, have you got a place to live?
A: No, I was just going to sleep in a cardboard box. Of course I do.
Q: Are you excited?
A: Yes.
Q: So what are you going to be doing?
A: I'll be the Production Manager at a medical transcription firm.
Q: I didn't know you did medical transcription.
A: I don't. Note the Manager part of that job description.
Q: Oh, so you'll be like, managing people?
A: Something very like that, yes. Practically identical.
Q: So how'd you find this job?
A: I know people that know people.
Q: Do you think you'll miss Dayton?
A: Is this a trick question?
Q: So, um, are you excited?
A: Well I was.
If you can think of any other inane questions I haven't answered, feel free to send me a message.
Q: You're moving to New York?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: I found a nice new job there and I'm sick of Dayton.
Q: Where in New York? In New York City?
A: No. Monsey.
Q: Where?
A: *tired sigh* It's just north of New Jersey.
Q: *blank look* Oh. So are you going to live in New York City?
A: No. I'll actually be living in Middletown.
Q: Where?
A: *dirty look*
Q: Oh, um, okay then, have you got a place to live?
A: No, I was just going to sleep in a cardboard box. Of course I do.
Q: Are you excited?
A: Yes.
Q: So what are you going to be doing?
A: I'll be the Production Manager at a medical transcription firm.
Q: I didn't know you did medical transcription.
A: I don't. Note the Manager part of that job description.
Q: Oh, so you'll be like, managing people?
A: Something very like that, yes. Practically identical.
Q: So how'd you find this job?
A: I know people that know people.
Q: Do you think you'll miss Dayton?
A: Is this a trick question?
Q: So, um, are you excited?
A: Well I was.
If you can think of any other inane questions I haven't answered, feel free to send me a message.
Mar 9, 2007
300
I have to blog about this movie while it is still fresh in my mind; a true description of any work of art must encompass the whole and not dwell on trifling details that are of small significance to the overall work.
The whole of 300 was: it's very good. The symbolism was profound, the pagentry overwhelming in its grandeur and shocking in its grotesqueries. There was only one flaw that prevented it from ascending to the realms of great art.
I think I should point out this flaw, because it is not so much an error on the part of the director or scripwriter; it is a symptom of a philosophical flaw endemic to this culture. I speak of the chronic inability to recognize, define, or demonstrate what is the good.
The general story of 300 you may already know: it is a retelling of the battle of Thermopylae, where King Leonidas held off the Persians. The movie (based on a graphic novel with the same title), is highly fictionalized. I don't say this as criticism; the purpose of art is not to teach us history. It would be dull art indeed if it did. The more fiction the better, I say.
In the movie's presentation, on the one side we have the Spartans: highly trained and disciplined warriors raised on deprivation and struggle until they are the finest fighting force in the world. Their small numbers mean nothing. On the other side we have the Persians, slaves to their god-king Xerxes, bound to his will, their numbers almost beyond counting.
The director did an excellent job of displaying the corruption of Xerxes and his slave forces, not to mention the nature of those who would choose to bow before the god-king of the East, taking his wealth in exchange for their freedom. What he did not do was demonstrate the value of freedom in any meaningful way. Without definition or demonstration, a battle cry becomes an empty platitude, righteousness becomes the mindless rage of an animal. You may fight to preserve Sparta, Leonidas, but what in Sparta is worth preserving?
Or, to look at it another way, what in America is worth preserving? What in life is worth preserving?
We are left with no answer. In all the works of this country, there is no answer. Almost everyone retains enough rationality to point out the myriad contradictions, hypocricies and evils that confront us every day. All this requires is the ability to say: here is one fact and this contradicts it. It is very difficult to say about anything: this is truth, this is right, this is good. You require a full ethical and philosophical foundation to be able to declare that with confidence about anything.
This is also what is most significantly lacking in this culture. Even if someone grasps some good in a semi-coherent fashion, they may not think it worth putting into their art for fear of the "contraversies" . . . in this culture there is no shortage of vultures ready and willing to knock down any attempt to define the good. It is quite possibly the most significant cause of the depravity, despair, and desolation that lie in the hearts of the people of this country.
If you want to create great art, you must stand up to battle these vultures. I salute the efforts of the creators of 300, salute them and say, you must still do better.
The whole of 300 was: it's very good. The symbolism was profound, the pagentry overwhelming in its grandeur and shocking in its grotesqueries. There was only one flaw that prevented it from ascending to the realms of great art.
I think I should point out this flaw, because it is not so much an error on the part of the director or scripwriter; it is a symptom of a philosophical flaw endemic to this culture. I speak of the chronic inability to recognize, define, or demonstrate what is the good.
The general story of 300 you may already know: it is a retelling of the battle of Thermopylae, where King Leonidas held off the Persians. The movie (based on a graphic novel with the same title), is highly fictionalized. I don't say this as criticism; the purpose of art is not to teach us history. It would be dull art indeed if it did. The more fiction the better, I say.
In the movie's presentation, on the one side we have the Spartans: highly trained and disciplined warriors raised on deprivation and struggle until they are the finest fighting force in the world. Their small numbers mean nothing. On the other side we have the Persians, slaves to their god-king Xerxes, bound to his will, their numbers almost beyond counting.
The director did an excellent job of displaying the corruption of Xerxes and his slave forces, not to mention the nature of those who would choose to bow before the god-king of the East, taking his wealth in exchange for their freedom. What he did not do was demonstrate the value of freedom in any meaningful way. Without definition or demonstration, a battle cry becomes an empty platitude, righteousness becomes the mindless rage of an animal. You may fight to preserve Sparta, Leonidas, but what in Sparta is worth preserving?
Or, to look at it another way, what in America is worth preserving? What in life is worth preserving?
We are left with no answer. In all the works of this country, there is no answer. Almost everyone retains enough rationality to point out the myriad contradictions, hypocricies and evils that confront us every day. All this requires is the ability to say: here is one fact and this contradicts it. It is very difficult to say about anything: this is truth, this is right, this is good. You require a full ethical and philosophical foundation to be able to declare that with confidence about anything.
This is also what is most significantly lacking in this culture. Even if someone grasps some good in a semi-coherent fashion, they may not think it worth putting into their art for fear of the "contraversies" . . . in this culture there is no shortage of vultures ready and willing to knock down any attempt to define the good. It is quite possibly the most significant cause of the depravity, despair, and desolation that lie in the hearts of the people of this country.
If you want to create great art, you must stand up to battle these vultures. I salute the efforts of the creators of 300, salute them and say, you must still do better.
Feb 27, 2007
The Prestige
I just watched The Prestige for the first time on DVD, and I enjoyed it a great deal; it certainly brought a number of ideas to mind.
Isn't it interesting that movies of the same general type tend to all come out at roughly the same time? Here we have The Illusionist and The Prestige together, two tales of battling magicians. Is there some kind of Hollywood espionage going on? My theory is that there's one guy in Hollywood that comes up with all the movie plots. He's some sort of raving genius and the big studios like to hold parties where they get him drunk and let him expound on his newest idea. Then whoever is at the party turns his idea into a movie. Okay, okay, it's not a very elegant theory, but still.
The Prestige properly belongs to the "mind bender" movie genre, so named by my housemate, and there is the half-expected moment of epiphany near the end of the movie where you figure out what is going on. I think that's what really makes the entire genre enjoyable . . . the fleeting sensation that all the pieces have slotted into place and you can see the workings of the machine. It's really great. Unfortunately, in this movie it doesn't sync up quite perfectly. I suspect there are two causes for this. Firstly, that the movie exposition is extremely scattered, rushing from one time and place to another without giving you time to grasp the relation of the events. Secondly, there are some extraneous elements that don't wrap up into the story very well and explanatory elements are introduced too late in the movie to develop properly. It very much left me with a sense that a few pieces of the machine had gone *ping* into the corners somewhere.
It was fun, though, and not the least because it has Hugh Jackman in it. He's such a great actor. I thought Christian Bale was only so-so . . . he was better in Batman Begins. David Bowie as Nikola Tesla was just wicked. I mean, come on, Bowie? Tesla? That's just surreal, and the more so because he did a great job in the role.
Isn't it interesting that movies of the same general type tend to all come out at roughly the same time? Here we have The Illusionist and The Prestige together, two tales of battling magicians. Is there some kind of Hollywood espionage going on? My theory is that there's one guy in Hollywood that comes up with all the movie plots. He's some sort of raving genius and the big studios like to hold parties where they get him drunk and let him expound on his newest idea. Then whoever is at the party turns his idea into a movie. Okay, okay, it's not a very elegant theory, but still.
The Prestige properly belongs to the "mind bender" movie genre, so named by my housemate, and there is the half-expected moment of epiphany near the end of the movie where you figure out what is going on. I think that's what really makes the entire genre enjoyable . . . the fleeting sensation that all the pieces have slotted into place and you can see the workings of the machine. It's really great. Unfortunately, in this movie it doesn't sync up quite perfectly. I suspect there are two causes for this. Firstly, that the movie exposition is extremely scattered, rushing from one time and place to another without giving you time to grasp the relation of the events. Secondly, there are some extraneous elements that don't wrap up into the story very well and explanatory elements are introduced too late in the movie to develop properly. It very much left me with a sense that a few pieces of the machine had gone *ping* into the corners somewhere.
It was fun, though, and not the least because it has Hugh Jackman in it. He's such a great actor. I thought Christian Bale was only so-so . . . he was better in Batman Begins. David Bowie as Nikola Tesla was just wicked. I mean, come on, Bowie? Tesla? That's just surreal, and the more so because he did a great job in the role.
Jan 28, 2007
Lucky # Slevin
Although this movie contains Morgan Freeman, Ben Kingsley (Sir Ben Kingsley? What's up with that?), Lucy Liu, and Bruce Willis, it's no better than fair and possibly even worse.
Slevin is a young man caught accidentally in a conflict between two gang lords due to a bizarre case of mistaken identity. It's supposedly an attempt at a twist-ending crime film (vaguely along the lines of Ocean's Eleven), but the pacing is too drawn-out to be fun or leave you guessing.
At the end, it's pretty much what you'd expect to see on television on a dull Sunday afternoon.
Slevin is a young man caught accidentally in a conflict between two gang lords due to a bizarre case of mistaken identity. It's supposedly an attempt at a twist-ending crime film (vaguely along the lines of Ocean's Eleven), but the pacing is too drawn-out to be fun or leave you guessing.
At the end, it's pretty much what you'd expect to see on television on a dull Sunday afternoon.
Galileo Blogs
I wandered over to Galileo Blogs' site from Oo.net and I have to say it's pretty impressive, so I'm adding him onto my blogroll. I should probably do some more work to flesh it out, but it seems like a lot of the sites I add to my 'roll wind up getting deleted some time later when I become disenchanted with them. Oh, well, such is the price of progress.
Jan 22, 2007
Rousseau and the Real Culture War
David Heleniak has done me the favor of letting me read his forthcoming book, Rousseau and the Real Culture War so that I could review it, and I have to say that I found it quite interesting. Heleniak's point, that the Left and Right are basically identical, is a pretty common observation, but I have never encountered his particular discussion for the reasons why this came about anywhere.
I'm not especially familiar with Rousseau or 18th century French philosophy, and it was startling to see how and why Heleniak considers that his ideas have given rise to the modern Left.
The book does have some flaws, mostly because the organization and presentation of the argument are a bit scattered and it requires some concentration to follow, but the material is sound. Heleniak does a good job of keeping it concise, so it's easy to sit down and read it all the way through. I'm sure we'll be hearing more from Mr. Heleniak in the future. At the moment I'd say he's still an amateur, but a very promising one. There's nothing wrong with being an amateur: I'm one and probably will be for quite some time.
Mr. Heleniak indicated that he plans to have Rousseau and the Real Culture War available at lulu.com sometime next month, and perhaps also available at Amazon or other sites later. I'll post an update when I have firmer information than this.
Rating: 2.5
I'm not especially familiar with Rousseau or 18th century French philosophy, and it was startling to see how and why Heleniak considers that his ideas have given rise to the modern Left.
The book does have some flaws, mostly because the organization and presentation of the argument are a bit scattered and it requires some concentration to follow, but the material is sound. Heleniak does a good job of keeping it concise, so it's easy to sit down and read it all the way through. I'm sure we'll be hearing more from Mr. Heleniak in the future. At the moment I'd say he's still an amateur, but a very promising one. There's nothing wrong with being an amateur: I'm one and probably will be for quite some time.
Mr. Heleniak indicated that he plans to have Rousseau and the Real Culture War available at lulu.com sometime next month, and perhaps also available at Amazon or other sites later. I'll post an update when I have firmer information than this.
Rating: 2.5
Crank
Have you ever seen a movie and then kind of wonder why you bothered? Well, that's the way I feel about Crank. In fact, I pretty much felt that way before I saw the movie, I just let my housemate talk me into renting and later watching it because he wanted to see it. He's a guy, I suppose he can be forgiven for having occasional low tastes.
The "story", to the extent that there actually is one, is pretty basic: the main character, a professional gang killer-for-hire, has been poisoned as an act of revenge by (surprise) another gang killer-for-hire. The "twist", to the extent that there actually is one, is that adrenilin slows the effects of the poison. So, numerous ridiculous stunts, chase scenes, etc. ensue.
I'm pretty sure that Crank doesn't come even close to qualifying as art. There's not really even a plot. However, it is proof positive that in order to produce a successful action movie, you don't need a reason, just an excuse.
The "story", to the extent that there actually is one, is pretty basic: the main character, a professional gang killer-for-hire, has been poisoned as an act of revenge by (surprise) another gang killer-for-hire. The "twist", to the extent that there actually is one, is that adrenilin slows the effects of the poison. So, numerous ridiculous stunts, chase scenes, etc. ensue.
I'm pretty sure that Crank doesn't come even close to qualifying as art. There's not really even a plot. However, it is proof positive that in order to produce a successful action movie, you don't need a reason, just an excuse.
Jan 21, 2007
The Illusionist
There's really not that much to say about this movie other than the fact that it was well done; it is almost a study in understatement, driven by the character of Eisenheim, the Illusionist. There's not a great deal of excitement or suspense. Events unfold quietly, at a measured pace.
Eisenheim is in love with Sophie, the Duchess, however since he's the son of a cabinetmaker their romance is essentially impossible . . . at least on the surface. She is taken away from him and he travels the world for many years. During that time, they lose touch and it is arranged for Sophie to marry Crown Prince Leopold, largely in support for the Prince's schemes to gain support from Hungary and become Emperor. Leopold cares little for Sophie other than for political gain. Leopold becomes interested in Eisenheim's fantastic illusions, sparking a reunion between the two childhood friends and a rivalry between the Crown Prince and the Illusionist. Then Sophie is murdered.
The film doesn't deal with any particularly grand abstractions, even seeks to avoid them, but the interactions between the various characters are fascinating and the acting is superb, even if the conclusion is somewhat predictable. The illusions are also neat to watch, so I thoroughly recommend the film.
Eisenheim is in love with Sophie, the Duchess, however since he's the son of a cabinetmaker their romance is essentially impossible . . . at least on the surface. She is taken away from him and he travels the world for many years. During that time, they lose touch and it is arranged for Sophie to marry Crown Prince Leopold, largely in support for the Prince's schemes to gain support from Hungary and become Emperor. Leopold cares little for Sophie other than for political gain. Leopold becomes interested in Eisenheim's fantastic illusions, sparking a reunion between the two childhood friends and a rivalry between the Crown Prince and the Illusionist. Then Sophie is murdered.
The film doesn't deal with any particularly grand abstractions, even seeks to avoid them, but the interactions between the various characters are fascinating and the acting is superb, even if the conclusion is somewhat predictable. The illusions are also neat to watch, so I thoroughly recommend the film.
Jan 16, 2007
Jack Bauer Gives Us the Lowdown
I spotted the above brief humorous article while I was browsing around and I had to chuckle, even though I don't watch 24.
Jan 14, 2007
Eragon
The way of a director that would turn a popular fantasy novel into a movie is as a darkened kitchen containing an open diswasher.
I hadn't heard anything particularly good about this movie, but I decided to go see it anyway because I enjoyed the book a great deal. Sadly, it wasn't really worth the effort. The movie is incredibly mediocre.
The major problem that I could detect was that the events and the characters' motivations did not link up very well. Events proceeded one after another but there was never a sense of a plot moving forward: nothing seemed connected to anything else. The characters had no personality, the soundtrack was heavy-handed . . . all in all a bad job of telling a good story.
I hadn't heard anything particularly good about this movie, but I decided to go see it anyway because I enjoyed the book a great deal. Sadly, it wasn't really worth the effort. The movie is incredibly mediocre.
The major problem that I could detect was that the events and the characters' motivations did not link up very well. Events proceeded one after another but there was never a sense of a plot moving forward: nothing seemed connected to anything else. The characters had no personality, the soundtrack was heavy-handed . . . all in all a bad job of telling a good story.
Jan 12, 2007
NutriSystem Update #1
Well, I'm on the fifth day of my new NutriSystem diet and thus far things are going pretty well. Some slight ups and downs have occured as I acclimate to the new food intake schedule, but that's only to be expected.
# of Days on diet: 5
# of Pounds lost: 9
# of Days on diet: 5
# of Pounds lost: 9
Quick Thought
I heard on the radio this morning that Nancy Pelosi wants new legislation put into place that will require the government to negotiate better drug prices for Medicare recipients. Pardon me a second, but it isn't a negotiation if the government demands lower prices! It's equivalent, literally and morally, to a thug holding you up for your wallet. If he only takes SOME of the money instead of ALL of the money and lets you keep your drivers' license and credit cards, that doesn't make it any more right.
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
Jan 4, 2007
The Pursuit of Happyness
I hadn't been to see a really good movie for far too long. A coworker recommended The Pursuit of Happyness to me and it seemed intruiging, not at all like the usual tired romantic comedies and action movies that parade endlessly across the silver screen.
The premise is simple: Will Smith plays a hardworking father that wants to provide a better life for himself and his family. Trapped in a dead-end independent sales position, he discovers the potential of a career as a stock broker, and it seems like a dream come true. But it is a faint and distant dream, seemingly not for the likes of him. His bitter struggle to grasp hold of his dream before it escapes is both horrifying and inspirational.
The perpetually-goofy Will Smith is not someone you'd expect to see in a movie like this, but he carries the weight of the entire movie much like Tom Hanks carried Cast Away, and he does it so well that you have to wonder whether he's acting at all. The direction is great: elements are introduced, played upon, and then reveal their importance in a grand dance of interconnected pieces. One small thing that struck me is that even though Will Smith is black and most of the people at the brokerage are white, race is not made much of as an issue. It's not even mentioned at all, which makes Mr. Smith into an almost-unseen type of character: the heroic man with whom everyone can identify.
The premise is simple: Will Smith plays a hardworking father that wants to provide a better life for himself and his family. Trapped in a dead-end independent sales position, he discovers the potential of a career as a stock broker, and it seems like a dream come true. But it is a faint and distant dream, seemingly not for the likes of him. His bitter struggle to grasp hold of his dream before it escapes is both horrifying and inspirational.
The perpetually-goofy Will Smith is not someone you'd expect to see in a movie like this, but he carries the weight of the entire movie much like Tom Hanks carried Cast Away, and he does it so well that you have to wonder whether he's acting at all. The direction is great: elements are introduced, played upon, and then reveal their importance in a grand dance of interconnected pieces. One small thing that struck me is that even though Will Smith is black and most of the people at the brokerage are white, race is not made much of as an issue. It's not even mentioned at all, which makes Mr. Smith into an almost-unseen type of character: the heroic man with whom everyone can identify.
Jan 1, 2007
New Year's Resolutions?
I'm a little ambivalent about doing any New Year's resolutions this year, largely because I find it difficult to predict my progress towards concrete goals. This may, in fact, be my problem: my goals are too abstract for me to make reasonable progress towards accomplishing them.
Let's take an example of one of my goals: find a better job. The difficulty comes in defining what, precisely, constitutes a "better" job. One that's in a better location? One that pays more? One that offers better opportunities for advancement? Ideally, I'd like to get all of those things, but often it's necessary to settle for just one of those qualities . . . it may even be necessary to take a cut in one of the other areas.
So, it's often difficult for me to decide what opportunities to pursue, and even then, they tend not to pan out. I didn't do such a good job of accomplishing my resolutions for last year, largely because Something Came Up. I think this possibly qualifies as the Lamest Excuse Ever.
So, this year, I've decided to take a slightly different approach. My overall goals are the same (I'm in pretty much the same position I was last year), but I'm going to try altering my approach to them. So, for instance, instead of resolving to lose a specific amount of weight, I'm going to try NutriSystem for a month and monitor my weight. If I lose weight, I'm going to focus on keeping at it for another month, and so on.
Likewise with finding a better job: I'm going to look at the want ads and apply for anything that looks good this week. Then, next week, I'll do it again. Sooner or later I'm bound to find something.
Let's take an example of one of my goals: find a better job. The difficulty comes in defining what, precisely, constitutes a "better" job. One that's in a better location? One that pays more? One that offers better opportunities for advancement? Ideally, I'd like to get all of those things, but often it's necessary to settle for just one of those qualities . . . it may even be necessary to take a cut in one of the other areas.
So, it's often difficult for me to decide what opportunities to pursue, and even then, they tend not to pan out. I didn't do such a good job of accomplishing my resolutions for last year, largely because Something Came Up. I think this possibly qualifies as the Lamest Excuse Ever.
So, this year, I've decided to take a slightly different approach. My overall goals are the same (I'm in pretty much the same position I was last year), but I'm going to try altering my approach to them. So, for instance, instead of resolving to lose a specific amount of weight, I'm going to try NutriSystem for a month and monitor my weight. If I lose weight, I'm going to focus on keeping at it for another month, and so on.
Likewise with finding a better job: I'm going to look at the want ads and apply for anything that looks good this week. Then, next week, I'll do it again. Sooner or later I'm bound to find something.
Dec 29, 2006
Happy Holidays etc.
It seems kind of silly to make a big deal about coming back and then not blog for two weeks, but I've been kind of distracted.
The first thing that happened was the Saga of Car Repair, which is kind of a funny story in and of itself. Events ran as follows:
1. Dad calls me asking what he and Mom can get me for Christmas. After positing several suggestions, he mentions helping me out with getting some regular maintenance for my car, which is in dire need of same. This sounds like a fantabulous idea to yours truly, so we conclude the discussion with the decision that we will look around for a good place to get said repairs.
2. The VERY NEXT DAY my car develops an ominously flat tire while I am at work. So, I wind up sitting around for two hours while I wait for Sandy's Towing (good service, btw . . . the wait was NOT their fault) to come get me. In theory, this could have been resolved more easily by me a.) having a spare and b.) changing it myself, however I'm not especially mechanically inclined and trying to change a tire in the freezing cold parking lot when I have only the most rudimentary idea what I am doing and I have forgotten to bring a coat is not my idea of a brilliant . . . idea. I'd rather pay the hundred bucks to have a professional move my car than worry about frostbite and/or potential serious injury. This is the same reason why I don't offer to jump start other people's cars.
3. I tell Firestone (my car repair persons of choice) that I need new tires (second flat in three months and they are bald) and while they're doing that I could use an oil change, inspection, etc. etc. etc. just open the thing up and see what needs to be replaced.
4. Firestone calls me back the next morning (elapsed time car in their posession: 14 hrs) and informs me that, well, basically the entire car needs to be replaced. Okay, it wasn't quite that bad, but it was still pretty bad. The catalytic converter was in two pieces (so THAT'S what was causing all the noise), the rest of the exhaust system needed replacement, I needed new brake shoes on the front wheels and two new brake CYLINDERS on the back wheels (they were busted and leaking), and, oh, by the by, the sway pins (I think that's what they said) are also broken so the car could just spontaneously roll over at some point.
5. I hang up on them and whine and complain (internally) about how fiendishly expensive transportation is for a while. Then I start trying to figure out where I can scare up some money to pay for all of this. After ritually cleaning out my pants pockets and seat cushions, I email my parents to let them know the damage and encourage them to contribute whatever amount seems best to them.
6. Mom calls me back and explains that they'll just pick up the tab.
7. Brief hiatus while I figure out how I wound up on the floor with the phone on my face.
8. Car is re-obtained from Firestone in actual working condition (total elapsed time car in their possession: 25 hours). There is much rejoicing.
So, that is my Holiday Story for the year. Hope everyone has a great New Year!
The first thing that happened was the Saga of Car Repair, which is kind of a funny story in and of itself. Events ran as follows:
1. Dad calls me asking what he and Mom can get me for Christmas. After positing several suggestions, he mentions helping me out with getting some regular maintenance for my car, which is in dire need of same. This sounds like a fantabulous idea to yours truly, so we conclude the discussion with the decision that we will look around for a good place to get said repairs.
2. The VERY NEXT DAY my car develops an ominously flat tire while I am at work. So, I wind up sitting around for two hours while I wait for Sandy's Towing (good service, btw . . . the wait was NOT their fault) to come get me. In theory, this could have been resolved more easily by me a.) having a spare and b.) changing it myself, however I'm not especially mechanically inclined and trying to change a tire in the freezing cold parking lot when I have only the most rudimentary idea what I am doing and I have forgotten to bring a coat is not my idea of a brilliant . . . idea. I'd rather pay the hundred bucks to have a professional move my car than worry about frostbite and/or potential serious injury. This is the same reason why I don't offer to jump start other people's cars.
3. I tell Firestone (my car repair persons of choice) that I need new tires (second flat in three months and they are bald) and while they're doing that I could use an oil change, inspection, etc. etc. etc. just open the thing up and see what needs to be replaced.
4. Firestone calls me back the next morning (elapsed time car in their posession: 14 hrs) and informs me that, well, basically the entire car needs to be replaced. Okay, it wasn't quite that bad, but it was still pretty bad. The catalytic converter was in two pieces (so THAT'S what was causing all the noise), the rest of the exhaust system needed replacement, I needed new brake shoes on the front wheels and two new brake CYLINDERS on the back wheels (they were busted and leaking), and, oh, by the by, the sway pins (I think that's what they said) are also broken so the car could just spontaneously roll over at some point.
5. I hang up on them and whine and complain (internally) about how fiendishly expensive transportation is for a while. Then I start trying to figure out where I can scare up some money to pay for all of this. After ritually cleaning out my pants pockets and seat cushions, I email my parents to let them know the damage and encourage them to contribute whatever amount seems best to them.
6. Mom calls me back and explains that they'll just pick up the tab.
7. Brief hiatus while I figure out how I wound up on the floor with the phone on my face.
8. Car is re-obtained from Firestone in actual working condition (total elapsed time car in their possession: 25 hours). There is much rejoicing.
So, that is my Holiday Story for the year. Hope everyone has a great New Year!
Dec 11, 2006
Neverwinter Nights 2
One of the two games that I've been waiting, literally, all year to buy, NwN2 has really turned out to be a worthwhile experience for me. The funny part is that most of the value actually comes from some of the philsophical (specifically, ethical) issues that arise within the official campaign.
For those of you unfamiliar with NwN, the general idea is to bring the 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons rules to computer gaming in a form that enables individuals to write and publish their own stories. While both games and their various expansions contain their own "Official" campaign that you can easily play as a stand-alone game (and they are reasonably fun just to play), by far the heftiest part of the package is the DM Toolset. This is an extremely nice feature, because once you've finished the Official campaign, you can still download new playing material, usually for free or very cheap. (Or write your own, of course.)
Anyway, on with the review. The graphics are, as one might expect, much improved in this newer game, although this does mean that they require correspondingly better computer hardware to run. They've lost most of the cartoony aspects from the previous game, that's for sure. It runs reasonably well on my low-end machine, or at least it does now that I've turned down all the graphic options.
The thing that tickles me, though, is that a lot of the conflict in the game plot can basically be described as a result of bad philosophical principles. As an Objectivist, this made it fun for me to play because as the plot thickened I was sitting back thinking: "I could have predicted that," or "I knew something like that would happen." The ethical positions in the game are portrayed very consistently and quite well.
UNfortunately, there's basically no Objectivist "side" at all if you want to be consistent, so if you have limited patience you may experience a desire to smack some of the characters before you've finished. If you like CRPG's and D&D in particular, I say this game is well worth the money.
However, DO NOT BUY THE OFFICIAL STRATEGY GUIDE. This is a friendly warning, free of charge: it is totally worthless. It doesn't tell you anything you can't figure out for yourself by playing the game, and much of the information is actually incorrect since there have already been multiple 50+ meg updates that changed large portions of the game in significant ways. If you are planning on writing your own mods, it might be worth it to buy the World-Builder's Guide, but other than that don't touch it.
For those of you unfamiliar with NwN, the general idea is to bring the 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons rules to computer gaming in a form that enables individuals to write and publish their own stories. While both games and their various expansions contain their own "Official" campaign that you can easily play as a stand-alone game (and they are reasonably fun just to play), by far the heftiest part of the package is the DM Toolset. This is an extremely nice feature, because once you've finished the Official campaign, you can still download new playing material, usually for free or very cheap. (Or write your own, of course.)
Anyway, on with the review. The graphics are, as one might expect, much improved in this newer game, although this does mean that they require correspondingly better computer hardware to run. They've lost most of the cartoony aspects from the previous game, that's for sure. It runs reasonably well on my low-end machine, or at least it does now that I've turned down all the graphic options.
The thing that tickles me, though, is that a lot of the conflict in the game plot can basically be described as a result of bad philosophical principles. As an Objectivist, this made it fun for me to play because as the plot thickened I was sitting back thinking: "I could have predicted that," or "I knew something like that would happen." The ethical positions in the game are portrayed very consistently and quite well.
UNfortunately, there's basically no Objectivist "side" at all if you want to be consistent, so if you have limited patience you may experience a desire to smack some of the characters before you've finished. If you like CRPG's and D&D in particular, I say this game is well worth the money.
However, DO NOT BUY THE OFFICIAL STRATEGY GUIDE. This is a friendly warning, free of charge: it is totally worthless. It doesn't tell you anything you can't figure out for yourself by playing the game, and much of the information is actually incorrect since there have already been multiple 50+ meg updates that changed large portions of the game in significant ways. If you are planning on writing your own mods, it might be worth it to buy the World-Builder's Guide, but other than that don't touch it.
The Return of the Jenni
I've actually been feeling somewhat my old self (and, yes, I realize that term may be subject to debate!) again lately, perhaps because I finally gave up and spent several days sleeping or perhaps because I've returned from Computer Game Purgatory and actually started paying attention to real life again. Either way, I figured that this was a good time to start back on blogging. Plus some of my friends like Toiler and Myrhaf have been posting occasionally.
So, with their good example before me, I present a return to our Regularly Scheduled Programming.
So, with their good example before me, I present a return to our Regularly Scheduled Programming.
Oct 31, 2006
Voting With My Feet
Objectivist bloggers are getting ready for the mid-term elections, and, once again, there's a great deal of debate and dispute. I am greatly saddened by Dr. Peikoff's comment that anyone choosing to vote Republican or--my choice--not vote is not an Objectivist and does not understand Objectivism.
Let me tell you what I understand. I understand that I have to use my own judgment, and an attempt to substitute anyone's thinking for my own is no more and no less than a total abdication of rationality. I have heard arguments for both sides and I have come to the conclusion that I simply don't have enough information to make a decision that shows any signs of being well-planned in this particular area.
I also have a very good reason for not devoting my entire life to this issue: it's not that important. We are not talking about a vital or even indicative clash between ideological opposites, here, we are talking about trying to make a short-term, concrete decision about the shortest-term-thinking, most concrete people in the world today: politicians. It is not these people, ultimately, that will be responsible for determining my fate and the course of the great drama that is my life, but the people that think long-term and in abstract principles. Those are the people with whom I share my ideas and utilize my small powers of persuasion, in a forum where my voice may actually, possibly, be heard.
It is not possible to realize a gain by strenuously supporting the least objectionable of an unpalatable alternative. At best, you will simply slow the descent into destruction while making it appear that you are still in favor of that eventual destruction. I'm rejecting this false alternative outright.
Let me tell you what I understand. I understand that I have to use my own judgment, and an attempt to substitute anyone's thinking for my own is no more and no less than a total abdication of rationality. I have heard arguments for both sides and I have come to the conclusion that I simply don't have enough information to make a decision that shows any signs of being well-planned in this particular area.
I also have a very good reason for not devoting my entire life to this issue: it's not that important. We are not talking about a vital or even indicative clash between ideological opposites, here, we are talking about trying to make a short-term, concrete decision about the shortest-term-thinking, most concrete people in the world today: politicians. It is not these people, ultimately, that will be responsible for determining my fate and the course of the great drama that is my life, but the people that think long-term and in abstract principles. Those are the people with whom I share my ideas and utilize my small powers of persuasion, in a forum where my voice may actually, possibly, be heard.
It is not possible to realize a gain by strenuously supporting the least objectionable of an unpalatable alternative. At best, you will simply slow the descent into destruction while making it appear that you are still in favor of that eventual destruction. I'm rejecting this false alternative outright.
Sep 11, 2006
That Day
I don't have any sage words to add on the anniversary that every American should be observing today. Everything I have felt or thought has been said--and said better--by someone else. Yet, I would be delinquent in my responsibilities nonetheless if I failed to speak.
What really strikes me at this moment is the scale of the devestation: not that it was so large, but that it was so small. What's three thousand people more or less? Many more people than that die every year in car accidents. It's no more damage than we do to ourselves in casual murders over drugs, sex, and fashionable tennis shoes.
Yet it is this attack that is a disgrace to any creature that has ever laid claim to the title of human being. It is the essence of horror--delivery, unarmed, into a fate that you can forsee but not act to escape. Every facet of your life comes with its attendant risk, but you do not sit paralyzed with fear because you know that you have the power to act, even up to the last second, and that is the only power you need.
You can act, and act correctly, because you can reason; you can put facts together and solve the daily and deadly dangers that face you. If you work with your reason instead of fighting it you come to enjoy this exercise; mere security bores you and you seek out greater challenges to overcome. Even in moments of extremity you can seek out a solution. You can disarm a mugger. You can drive defensively. You can solve it.
But what can you do when your reason cannot serve you? You cannot reason with a madman. There is no solution for fireballs, clouds of smoke, and thousands of tons of collapsing steel. The one thing you have that preserves you from danger cannot save you. You become this man, waiting for an unknown fate.
I may not like what my fellow country-men choose to do with their lives. But I hate with all the fire that is in me those that would deny them the choice.
What really strikes me at this moment is the scale of the devestation: not that it was so large, but that it was so small. What's three thousand people more or less? Many more people than that die every year in car accidents. It's no more damage than we do to ourselves in casual murders over drugs, sex, and fashionable tennis shoes.
Yet it is this attack that is a disgrace to any creature that has ever laid claim to the title of human being. It is the essence of horror--delivery, unarmed, into a fate that you can forsee but not act to escape. Every facet of your life comes with its attendant risk, but you do not sit paralyzed with fear because you know that you have the power to act, even up to the last second, and that is the only power you need.
You can act, and act correctly, because you can reason; you can put facts together and solve the daily and deadly dangers that face you. If you work with your reason instead of fighting it you come to enjoy this exercise; mere security bores you and you seek out greater challenges to overcome. Even in moments of extremity you can seek out a solution. You can disarm a mugger. You can drive defensively. You can solve it.
But what can you do when your reason cannot serve you? You cannot reason with a madman. There is no solution for fireballs, clouds of smoke, and thousands of tons of collapsing steel. The one thing you have that preserves you from danger cannot save you. You become this man, waiting for an unknown fate.
I may not like what my fellow country-men choose to do with their lives. But I hate with all the fire that is in me those that would deny them the choice.
Sep 10, 2006
Book Meme
John Baker was kind enough to inform me that I've been tagged for a book meme. Normally I'd let the tag pass by, but since he's such a nice fellow I thought I might as well go along with it. I've posted something similar to this before, but what the hey.
1. Name one book that changed your life.
I could go the easy route with this and say Atlas Shrugged, which would be true, but it should also be fairly obvious to anyone that reads this blog. So, instead, I'm giving credit to The Little Engine that Could, my favorite book when I was a very small child. It contains an instructive and important lesson that all children could benefit from internalizing.
2. Name one book that you've read more than once.
Atlas Shr . . . no, no, I'll think of something else. I've read almost every book that I've ever owned more than once, so I'll pick one at random: Cryptonomicon, by Neil Stephenson.
3. One book you would want on a desert island.
Probably the New York City yellow and white pages. If my presentiments about conditions on desert islands are correct I wouldn't have much time or energy for reading but I might get unexpected use out of a large book with thin pages.
4. One book that made you cry.
Where The Red Fern Grows by Wilson Rawls
5. One book that made you laugh.
The Wanderings of Wuntvor by Craig Shaw Gardner.
6. One book you wish had been written.
How to Become a Super-Hero in Thirty Seconds, Guaranteed
7. One book you wish had never been written.
I'll answer this even though I don't think there's much purpose to it: tie between The Communist Manifesto and the Bible. The removal of one book from the amazing pile of ridiculous slush out there isn't going to have much of an effect. Some crank will eventually come along and write something even worse.
8. One book you are currently reading.
Weirdly enough, I'm not, however I just finished The Complete Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
9. One book you've been meaning to read.
There's a few of these on my shelf at the moment, so I'll go with The Anubis Gates.
10. Tag five people.
Not a chance.
1. Name one book that changed your life.
I could go the easy route with this and say Atlas Shrugged, which would be true, but it should also be fairly obvious to anyone that reads this blog. So, instead, I'm giving credit to The Little Engine that Could, my favorite book when I was a very small child. It contains an instructive and important lesson that all children could benefit from internalizing.
2. Name one book that you've read more than once.
Atlas Shr . . . no, no, I'll think of something else. I've read almost every book that I've ever owned more than once, so I'll pick one at random: Cryptonomicon, by Neil Stephenson.
3. One book you would want on a desert island.
Probably the New York City yellow and white pages. If my presentiments about conditions on desert islands are correct I wouldn't have much time or energy for reading but I might get unexpected use out of a large book with thin pages.
4. One book that made you cry.
Where The Red Fern Grows by Wilson Rawls
5. One book that made you laugh.
The Wanderings of Wuntvor by Craig Shaw Gardner.
6. One book you wish had been written.
How to Become a Super-Hero in Thirty Seconds, Guaranteed
7. One book you wish had never been written.
I'll answer this even though I don't think there's much purpose to it: tie between The Communist Manifesto and the Bible. The removal of one book from the amazing pile of ridiculous slush out there isn't going to have much of an effect. Some crank will eventually come along and write something even worse.
8. One book you are currently reading.
Weirdly enough, I'm not, however I just finished The Complete Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
9. One book you've been meaning to read.
There's a few of these on my shelf at the moment, so I'll go with The Anubis Gates.
10. Tag five people.
Not a chance.
Sep 5, 2006
On the Shelf
In case you hadn't noticed, my blogging has been extremely erratic for the past couple of months. This is a result of several factors conspiring to temporarily kill my enthusiasm for matters literary. I will be back, and with several fiction projects to boot, but right at the moment I'm shelving the responsibility while I take care of other matters. Thanks to everyone that's visited.
Sep 2, 2006
World War II Army Quiz
Amusingly enough, this fits my personality pretty well. I find it amusing as well that the allies (except France) are all definitely at the top and the axis are all definitely at the BOTTOM. HT: Gus Van Horn
 | You scored as Finland. Your army is the army of Finland. You prefer to win your enemy by your wit rather than superior weapons. Enemy will have a hard time against your small but effective force.
|
Aug 23, 2006
Night Watch
I'm aware that I've already reviewed a book with this same title: just so that there is no confusion, this is not the same book. It is, instead, an oddity that came to my attention because of a thread on Oo.net: a fiction novel out of Russia. Not only that, a bestselling fiction novel out of Russia. I don't exactly keep tabs on everything that moves through the bookstore, but I haven't seen such a thing before.
Night Watch follows the career of a mystical secret agent working for the "good guys". In basic essence it is very similar to the TV shows Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The main character, Anton, is not entirely happy with his work or with the nature of the world and the working"arrangement" between the light side and the dark side. His difficulties develop through several separate but connected story arcs as he learns that there isn't much difference between the "good" ends divorced from means and the "evil" means divorced from ends. Both sides are engaged in all manner of deviousness that adds up, eventually, to nothing.
I found the agonizing a bit dense and over-done, but Anton's realization at the end of the book made me smile. It was only a small piece of a large puzzle and did not alleviate the gray doubt of his surroundings very much, but I have to say that the novel is worth reading.
Rating: 3.0
Night Watch follows the career of a mystical secret agent working for the "good guys". In basic essence it is very similar to the TV shows Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The main character, Anton, is not entirely happy with his work or with the nature of the world and the working"arrangement" between the light side and the dark side. His difficulties develop through several separate but connected story arcs as he learns that there isn't much difference between the "good" ends divorced from means and the "evil" means divorced from ends. Both sides are engaged in all manner of deviousness that adds up, eventually, to nothing.
I found the agonizing a bit dense and over-done, but Anton's realization at the end of the book made me smile. It was only a small piece of a large puzzle and did not alleviate the gray doubt of his surroundings very much, but I have to say that the novel is worth reading.
Rating: 3.0
Aug 21, 2006
Ramalama (Bang Bang)
I heard Ramalama (Bang Bang) on "So You Think You Can Dance?" some weeks ago and, after some digging, managed to find both the song title and the name of the artist. It's such a genuinely weird piece of music that I liked it immediately (especially the dull, gong-like beat overlaying the entire song). Check out Ms. Murphy for yourself.
Aug 14, 2006
Cool Video Clip
If you're at all curious about what I do for a living, click on the link above and watch the video from Fox News 19; about halfway through the clip there will be some footage from a "Lab in Dayton" . . . the girl sitting on the window in the blue scrubs is Jackie, she works in my room. (The lady in the back in the green scrubs and white jacket is my team leader, Nan, but she's only visible for a second or two.) I wasn't in the video because I was at lunch. We had a package left to do that day and the video crew showing up delayed us. Still, it's kind of nifty.
Personally, I'm in favor of offering money for tissue and organ (and blood) donations, but since that's currently illegal and not likely to change any time soon, I'm registered as an organ and tissue donor. When there's really no rational reason to go one way or another on an issue (and I don't consider refusing to donate on principle because you're not allowed to get paid for it a rational reason) I figure generosity can't hurt. After all, I'll be dead, so what do I care about what they do with my, well, meat? Heck, I spend my working hours taking apart other people's earthy remains, it's sort of like poetic justice if I insist that they get a crack at me as well.
Okay, so it's kind of a tasteless joke, but there just aren't any other kind in this business, and you have to laugh about it at least a little, otherwise you'll go mad.
Personally, I'm in favor of offering money for tissue and organ (and blood) donations, but since that's currently illegal and not likely to change any time soon, I'm registered as an organ and tissue donor. When there's really no rational reason to go one way or another on an issue (and I don't consider refusing to donate on principle because you're not allowed to get paid for it a rational reason) I figure generosity can't hurt. After all, I'll be dead, so what do I care about what they do with my, well, meat? Heck, I spend my working hours taking apart other people's earthy remains, it's sort of like poetic justice if I insist that they get a crack at me as well.
Okay, so it's kind of a tasteless joke, but there just aren't any other kind in this business, and you have to laugh about it at least a little, otherwise you'll go mad.
Aug 12, 2006
Raising the Roof
I spent this morning at work, however my housemate invited his buddies over and spent the day crawling all over the roof, ripping off shingles and plywood and applying more shingles and plywood. The roof turned out to be a mess: mis-applied shingles, rotting wood, poorly-attached joists. It's about typical for this house, which appears to have been the abode of do-it-yourselfers whose aggressiveness in the face of home projects was matched only by their incompetence in the face of the selfsame projects. (Don't ask me about wiring.)
I share the incompetence trait, but my response in the face of a lack of knowledge is: get someone else to do it. I mean, that's the whole point of dividing up labor, right? I get on with the writing and cutting up bodies, and other people shingle roofs, wire houses, and fix my car, right? Well, assuming I can pay them for it, that is.
So, why is it that you find so many jobs that were done by people that clearly didn't know what the heck they were doing? You don't save money or time in the long run by doing a crappy job on your own. I know how it happens--I work, after all--but I still don't understand why, and I never have. Why, when I know my professor is spouting absolute B.S., do I have to sit through the inane lecture, biting my tongue? Why, when I know my supervisor has no plan and is just randomly firing off things in the hope that one of them will work, do I have to be patient?
It's the elitist's credo: why do I have to live with the mistakes of people that are stupider than I am? I don't even have patience with my own stupid mistakes, so where do they get off expecting me to have patience with theirs?! Sometimes I think that if I'd spent more time telling people where to get off and less apologizing to them for their own mistakes, my life would have been better. So why don't I? I've always been afraid of what might happen, which is probably the worst stupid mistake I've ever made. I was afraid of having to stand alone.
Well, I have to do that, anyway. At least, if you stand up, you can be proud of being brave. It's not worth it to be "nice", especially since you never get anything out of it.
I share the incompetence trait, but my response in the face of a lack of knowledge is: get someone else to do it. I mean, that's the whole point of dividing up labor, right? I get on with the writing and cutting up bodies, and other people shingle roofs, wire houses, and fix my car, right? Well, assuming I can pay them for it, that is.
So, why is it that you find so many jobs that were done by people that clearly didn't know what the heck they were doing? You don't save money or time in the long run by doing a crappy job on your own. I know how it happens--I work, after all--but I still don't understand why, and I never have. Why, when I know my professor is spouting absolute B.S., do I have to sit through the inane lecture, biting my tongue? Why, when I know my supervisor has no plan and is just randomly firing off things in the hope that one of them will work, do I have to be patient?
It's the elitist's credo: why do I have to live with the mistakes of people that are stupider than I am? I don't even have patience with my own stupid mistakes, so where do they get off expecting me to have patience with theirs?! Sometimes I think that if I'd spent more time telling people where to get off and less apologizing to them for their own mistakes, my life would have been better. So why don't I? I've always been afraid of what might happen, which is probably the worst stupid mistake I've ever made. I was afraid of having to stand alone.
Well, I have to do that, anyway. At least, if you stand up, you can be proud of being brave. It's not worth it to be "nice", especially since you never get anything out of it.
Aug 5, 2006
Mistborn
Before I began this blog, I reviewed Brandon Sanderson's first book, Elantris, on Oo.net. Frankly, it was campy; a 2.0 at best. When I spotted Mistborn on the shelf at the bookstore, I didn't know what to think. It sounded interesting, but Sanderson's first book was such a let-down. Still, some of my favorite authors write bad books occasionally, so I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm glad I did, because Mistborn, by contrast, is good.
The story follows the work of Kelsier, a legend of the underworld, as he undertakes his greatest heist ever: stealing the government. In the dreary, ash-smothered Final Empire, he assembles a crew and uses his magical abilities to further his cause, adopting a young protege to go where he cannot.
As a caveat, though, there are a great many traditional fantasy staples in this book, the first of a projected trilogy. The "magic system", dubbed Allomancy for its reliance on ingested metals, which is explained in great detail. The strangely distorted landscape. The hideous and frightening monsters. The made-up slang. I've reached the point where I find the development of an imaginative and detailed setting to be of very little importance in a novel, and that is a point that Sanderson seems to enjoy dwelling upon. I think my changed preference reflects the fact that there's nothing to think or draw conclusions about in such flights of world-building; you can only passively absorb because it bears no connection to reality, kind of like mathematicians trying to imagine a four-dimensional "cube". I don't find much of value in absorbing things in order to say "that's neat" and move on.
It's still very much Sanderson's writing style, which is fine because style wasn't the problem with the original so much as tone and some awkwardness with the plot. In Mistborn, the goofy, bouncy characters are completely fitting--it's a gang of thieves, after all! The awkward politics make perfect sense as well, since the involved parties are supposed to be politically naive in the first place. There's excellent foreshadowing of future books, but the important points are wrapped up neatly in the climax.
I look forward to the next book eagerly.
Rating: 3.5
The story follows the work of Kelsier, a legend of the underworld, as he undertakes his greatest heist ever: stealing the government. In the dreary, ash-smothered Final Empire, he assembles a crew and uses his magical abilities to further his cause, adopting a young protege to go where he cannot.
As a caveat, though, there are a great many traditional fantasy staples in this book, the first of a projected trilogy. The "magic system", dubbed Allomancy for its reliance on ingested metals, which is explained in great detail. The strangely distorted landscape. The hideous and frightening monsters. The made-up slang. I've reached the point where I find the development of an imaginative and detailed setting to be of very little importance in a novel, and that is a point that Sanderson seems to enjoy dwelling upon. I think my changed preference reflects the fact that there's nothing to think or draw conclusions about in such flights of world-building; you can only passively absorb because it bears no connection to reality, kind of like mathematicians trying to imagine a four-dimensional "cube". I don't find much of value in absorbing things in order to say "that's neat" and move on.
It's still very much Sanderson's writing style, which is fine because style wasn't the problem with the original so much as tone and some awkwardness with the plot. In Mistborn, the goofy, bouncy characters are completely fitting--it's a gang of thieves, after all! The awkward politics make perfect sense as well, since the involved parties are supposed to be politically naive in the first place. There's excellent foreshadowing of future books, but the important points are wrapped up neatly in the climax.
I look forward to the next book eagerly.
Rating: 3.5
Sixth Day
I did it.
For seven months I've been slaving away at my new job, struggling to force my ever-more-sluggish and reluctant body to accomplish my job functions. For seven months I've been told every day, multiple times a day, that I just wasn't quite getting it, that maybe I was coming along but I just had to be patient, that everything they trained me to do yesterday wasn't correct today, that if I was sitting still I should be moving, and if I was moving, I should be sitting still. That when I was proud of my progress, I was never good enough, and when I was mad, that I had no right to be.
Well, I've claimed my reward, and no one can take it away from me. What is it? Now I can work on Saturdays.
Sounds like a weird sort of "reward", more work, doesn't it? But the thing is, if you volunteer to come in and work on Saturdays, the company pays you, for four hours, almost as much as you make in thirteen during a normal week. So, more work IS a reward, because at the end of the month you take home half again as much as you would have otherwise.
The thing is, in order to work Saturdays you have to be ready. You have to be competent, and the supervisor has to vouch for you. Frankly, I think he was dubious about the idea, he was just tired of my whining. If so, he was wrong.
I am so doing this again next Saturday.
For seven months I've been slaving away at my new job, struggling to force my ever-more-sluggish and reluctant body to accomplish my job functions. For seven months I've been told every day, multiple times a day, that I just wasn't quite getting it, that maybe I was coming along but I just had to be patient, that everything they trained me to do yesterday wasn't correct today, that if I was sitting still I should be moving, and if I was moving, I should be sitting still. That when I was proud of my progress, I was never good enough, and when I was mad, that I had no right to be.
Well, I've claimed my reward, and no one can take it away from me. What is it? Now I can work on Saturdays.
Sounds like a weird sort of "reward", more work, doesn't it? But the thing is, if you volunteer to come in and work on Saturdays, the company pays you, for four hours, almost as much as you make in thirteen during a normal week. So, more work IS a reward, because at the end of the month you take home half again as much as you would have otherwise.
The thing is, in order to work Saturdays you have to be ready. You have to be competent, and the supervisor has to vouch for you. Frankly, I think he was dubious about the idea, he was just tired of my whining. If so, he was wrong.
I am so doing this again next Saturday.
Aug 3, 2006
Six Plays by Henrik Ibsen
Have you ever been browsing at a bookstore when a book just leapt off the shelf, tackled you to the ground, and dragged you over to the checkout counter, all the while shouting: "Buy me! Buy me! Buy me!"?
Yeah, me neither. Anyway, when I go browse for books, I normally head straight for the Science Fiction/Fantasy section. Occasionally I will make brief, furtive sorties into other parts of the store, and sometimes I will even try something I find there. Well, last week I got a little turned around carrying my fantasy novel to the checkout line and ended up in the Drama section. I didn't even know there was a Drama section. I'm not your Intrepid Bookstore Explorer, here.
Just as I was about to bolt, I espied the name "Ibsen" on this collection of plays, and I thought, "Wasn't he in The Fountainhead?" Until that moment, I truly didn't know that there was an actual playwright named Ibsen. I had never encountered one of his plays before. Some cultural education I have!
If you, like me, have never encountered Ibsen's plays in your own cultural explorations, then read them immediately! They are fantastic. I usually find even good plays to be dull reading at best; they aren't really meant for the format, after all. Even reading Ibsen, however, I gained a sharp sense of his keen observational powers and dazzling ability to put together a complex, many-layered plot. I understand why he is given credit for revolutionizing the drama and reinventing the tragedy.
The six plays in this particular collection spanned his career: "Peer Gynt", "A Doll's House", "Ghosts", "The Wild Duck", "Hedda Gabler", and "The Master Builder".
Edvard Grieg created a musical accompanyment (now very famous) for "Peer Gynt" that I have listened to many times and enjoyed, but this was the first time I'd ever heard of the play that inspired it. The story follows the adventures of the title character through his long life, travels, and existential conflicts as he looks everywhere to find himself and never succeeds. All this is told in excellent epic verse, a pleasure to read.
"A Doll's House", "Ghosts", and "The Wild Duck", are all family dramas of apparently small scope that probe deep issues underlying the artificial constructs the families build out of their lives. The book is annotated by Martin Puchner, who describes these constructs as the "bourgeoise lies" that Ibsen always seeks to expose--it made his plays shocking and controversial in the 1890's, and also renders them enduring works of art despite the narrowness of their events.
"Hedda Gabler" is another play, like Peer Gynt, about a single woman who, finding her life to be empty, shallow, and without meaning, seeks always to inject some sort of conflict or excitement into her surroundings; she reminds me of Dominique Francon from The Fountainhead, to be honest.
"The Master Builder" is yet another tragedy, this one about the demands of conscience on a man whose ultimate success stems from a terrible disaster. In seeking to rationalize and hide from the disaster, he only seeks in wrecking his wife's happiness, which in its turn only adds to the burden of unearned guilt he visits upon himself. The two forces lead him unerringly to final destruction.
Puchner describes Ibsen as both a realist and a naturalist; I don't know enough about drama to really categorize him, but he doesn't seem like much of a naturalist to me; he illustrates only too sharply the consequences of poorly-considered choices upon his characters, even as they blame their fates on powers outside their control.
Rating: 4.5
Yeah, me neither. Anyway, when I go browse for books, I normally head straight for the Science Fiction/Fantasy section. Occasionally I will make brief, furtive sorties into other parts of the store, and sometimes I will even try something I find there. Well, last week I got a little turned around carrying my fantasy novel to the checkout line and ended up in the Drama section. I didn't even know there was a Drama section. I'm not your Intrepid Bookstore Explorer, here.
Just as I was about to bolt, I espied the name "Ibsen" on this collection of plays, and I thought, "Wasn't he in The Fountainhead?" Until that moment, I truly didn't know that there was an actual playwright named Ibsen. I had never encountered one of his plays before. Some cultural education I have!
If you, like me, have never encountered Ibsen's plays in your own cultural explorations, then read them immediately! They are fantastic. I usually find even good plays to be dull reading at best; they aren't really meant for the format, after all. Even reading Ibsen, however, I gained a sharp sense of his keen observational powers and dazzling ability to put together a complex, many-layered plot. I understand why he is given credit for revolutionizing the drama and reinventing the tragedy.
The six plays in this particular collection spanned his career: "Peer Gynt", "A Doll's House", "Ghosts", "The Wild Duck", "Hedda Gabler", and "The Master Builder".
Edvard Grieg created a musical accompanyment (now very famous) for "Peer Gynt" that I have listened to many times and enjoyed, but this was the first time I'd ever heard of the play that inspired it. The story follows the adventures of the title character through his long life, travels, and existential conflicts as he looks everywhere to find himself and never succeeds. All this is told in excellent epic verse, a pleasure to read.
"A Doll's House", "Ghosts", and "The Wild Duck", are all family dramas of apparently small scope that probe deep issues underlying the artificial constructs the families build out of their lives. The book is annotated by Martin Puchner, who describes these constructs as the "bourgeoise lies" that Ibsen always seeks to expose--it made his plays shocking and controversial in the 1890's, and also renders them enduring works of art despite the narrowness of their events.
"Hedda Gabler" is another play, like Peer Gynt, about a single woman who, finding her life to be empty, shallow, and without meaning, seeks always to inject some sort of conflict or excitement into her surroundings; she reminds me of Dominique Francon from The Fountainhead, to be honest.
"The Master Builder" is yet another tragedy, this one about the demands of conscience on a man whose ultimate success stems from a terrible disaster. In seeking to rationalize and hide from the disaster, he only seeks in wrecking his wife's happiness, which in its turn only adds to the burden of unearned guilt he visits upon himself. The two forces lead him unerringly to final destruction.
Puchner describes Ibsen as both a realist and a naturalist; I don't know enough about drama to really categorize him, but he doesn't seem like much of a naturalist to me; he illustrates only too sharply the consequences of poorly-considered choices upon his characters, even as they blame their fates on powers outside their control.
Rating: 4.5
Fishing Rights: A Challenge to All
In the above post on Oo.net, I came up with what I think is an elegant solution to the "problem" of fishing rights, so now I'm looking for input on my solution. Basically, it is:
Would-be commercial fishermen bid yearly for a license to sell a specific type of fish (in a specified country, since governments can't exactly guarantee anything about other countries). This license is known as the "primary" license. The holder of the primary license can also issue "secondary" licenses whereby others can acquire the right to sell fish of the specified type. Each type of fish will be bid individually.
Note: The government is not the default "owner" of this license; in the absence of anyone that wishes to bid for a license (such as on fish that have little or no commercial value) then the license remains "open", and no one can contest anyone else's use of that type of fish.
I invite everyone and anyone to try and poke holes in my solution or demonstrate how it would not work. You may need to read the entire thread to understand the question under debate, however, and it's a bit long.
If you're not an Objectivist and/or you don't understand or care to understand how Capitalism actually works, I will inform you that your ideas are "not even wrong". This doesn't mean that I hate you, it just means that I don't want to write a ten-page paper explaining the foundation of the discussion before I get around to the actual discussion. So, this is actually a fairly narrow question.
You won't get anything out of this other than (possibly) bragging rights. I'll go ahead and offer a few scenarios that occured to me and my rebuttals as a starting point:
Q: Jennifer, wouldn't this constitute at least the potential establishment of a coercive monopoly?
A: In a word, no. A coercive monopoly depends not only on the non-existence of competitors, but the impossibility of competitors, and all anyone has to do in order to defeat your monopoly would be to out-bid you for the license next year. The government would only be ensuring that you had the right that you'd paid for, just like registering a patent.
Q: What's preventing the highest bidder from issuing more licenses than the market or fish population can support?
A: What prevents a manufacturer from making more shoes than he can sell? The fact that he'll lose money if he does. If there are already a great many entrants into a specific field, the wise capitalist invests elsewhere. If he doesn't, he loses his shirt and the problem quickly vanishes.
Q: What happens if some political group raises a bunch of money and buys all the fish licenses so that no one can fish?
Hey, if that's how they want to spend their money, so be it. It's no different from someone buying a strip mall and turning it back into wilderness.
Q: What's preventing everyone from refraining from bidding and getting "free" licenses?
Self-interest. The problem of fishing rights really only arises in the case of industrial-scale fishing, at which point it becomes profitable to acquire this sort of license so that you can exclude or (somewhat) manage your competitors from a specific field. Besides, could you ever be completely certain that you'd managed to secure the agreement of every potential competitor? Trying to enact a deal of this kind would leave the door open for a very small venture-capital firm to acquire the primary license at a very low price, then charge everyone for secondary licenses!
Q: What happens with foreign countries that don't have fish licenses?
Nothing. In any situation other than anarchy, the government will have to do something about fishing rights. Currently, the tendency is towards telling you where you can fish, and when, and how much, and how, and so on and so forth. Entry into a market where all you have to do is buy a license would be much more profitable.
Anyone else have good ideas? I realize that this scenario is terribly concrete, but I think it's beneficial to your overall thought processes if you occasionally attack concretes from an abstract standpoint. In addition, by showing that the same principle can be applied to even this concrete makes your entire case all that more sound.
Would-be commercial fishermen bid yearly for a license to sell a specific type of fish (in a specified country, since governments can't exactly guarantee anything about other countries). This license is known as the "primary" license. The holder of the primary license can also issue "secondary" licenses whereby others can acquire the right to sell fish of the specified type. Each type of fish will be bid individually.
Note: The government is not the default "owner" of this license; in the absence of anyone that wishes to bid for a license (such as on fish that have little or no commercial value) then the license remains "open", and no one can contest anyone else's use of that type of fish.
I invite everyone and anyone to try and poke holes in my solution or demonstrate how it would not work. You may need to read the entire thread to understand the question under debate, however, and it's a bit long.
If you're not an Objectivist and/or you don't understand or care to understand how Capitalism actually works, I will inform you that your ideas are "not even wrong". This doesn't mean that I hate you, it just means that I don't want to write a ten-page paper explaining the foundation of the discussion before I get around to the actual discussion. So, this is actually a fairly narrow question.
You won't get anything out of this other than (possibly) bragging rights. I'll go ahead and offer a few scenarios that occured to me and my rebuttals as a starting point:
Q: Jennifer, wouldn't this constitute at least the potential establishment of a coercive monopoly?
A: In a word, no. A coercive monopoly depends not only on the non-existence of competitors, but the impossibility of competitors, and all anyone has to do in order to defeat your monopoly would be to out-bid you for the license next year. The government would only be ensuring that you had the right that you'd paid for, just like registering a patent.
Q: What's preventing the highest bidder from issuing more licenses than the market or fish population can support?
A: What prevents a manufacturer from making more shoes than he can sell? The fact that he'll lose money if he does. If there are already a great many entrants into a specific field, the wise capitalist invests elsewhere. If he doesn't, he loses his shirt and the problem quickly vanishes.
Q: What happens if some political group raises a bunch of money and buys all the fish licenses so that no one can fish?
Hey, if that's how they want to spend their money, so be it. It's no different from someone buying a strip mall and turning it back into wilderness.
Q: What's preventing everyone from refraining from bidding and getting "free" licenses?
Self-interest. The problem of fishing rights really only arises in the case of industrial-scale fishing, at which point it becomes profitable to acquire this sort of license so that you can exclude or (somewhat) manage your competitors from a specific field. Besides, could you ever be completely certain that you'd managed to secure the agreement of every potential competitor? Trying to enact a deal of this kind would leave the door open for a very small venture-capital firm to acquire the primary license at a very low price, then charge everyone for secondary licenses!
Q: What happens with foreign countries that don't have fish licenses?
Nothing. In any situation other than anarchy, the government will have to do something about fishing rights. Currently, the tendency is towards telling you where you can fish, and when, and how much, and how, and so on and so forth. Entry into a market where all you have to do is buy a license would be much more profitable.
Anyone else have good ideas? I realize that this scenario is terribly concrete, but I think it's beneficial to your overall thought processes if you occasionally attack concretes from an abstract standpoint. In addition, by showing that the same principle can be applied to even this concrete makes your entire case all that more sound.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)