Once you disregard that they both have cute girls in leading roles and that sailing is central to both, Wedding Crashers and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest really have nothing to do with each other, at least cinematically. I saw Pirates within a week of its release in theaters, and Wedding Crashers for the first time about a year after its release, and after seeing both, the one commonality between the two films is that they were both a lot better than I thought they would have been.
Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
I did not see the first Pirates movie until the end of 2005, after it had been on DVD for quite a while. I associated the girly "Omigod, it's Johnny Depp! And Orlando Bloom!" mentality with that movie, and I expected it be sophomoric comedy. Turns out, I was wrong. It was actually a pretty decent movie. I wasn't blown away by it (though I should probably watch it again; a tiny screen and a DVD player with an identity crisis didn't help that movie's case) and I had no real drive to go see the second one in theaters. I figured I probably would see it, because many of my friends are inexplicably into the "let's go see everything in the theater as soon as it comes out" mentality. That's exactly what happened.
I was expecting something halfway between "decent" and "good" and I ended up with "excellent." This is seriously a great movie. Don't believe what you might hear about it being "incomprehensible." There are multiple plotlines. Deal with it. Just because there happens to be more than one thing going on at once in this movie does not make it hard to follow. It makes it interesting.
It probably helps that I'm a big fan of the historical/seafaring/colonial age genre. I mean, listening to the Decemberists, reading Neal Stephenson, and eating dinner at Dante's Down the Hatch is one thing (okay, three things) but to me, Pirates is the defining movie of that genre. Swashbuckling action, which might look cool but usually doesn't impress me cinematically, here has an actual purpose of defining the setting. A three-way sword fight? Pretty cool; I doubt that's ever been done before. The water wheel, the pendulum cage... these are what special effects ought to be; things that you can't see in everyday life but actually could exist and that you've never thought of.
The acting in this movie is noteworthy as well. For all the crap I heap on Johnny Depp's fanatical cult of "every teenage girl ever," the man knows how to act. He's taken Jack Sparrow from a simple pirate captain in an entertaining series of movies into a cultural icon. (Jack is an example of how a character is supposed to work, like I talked about a few months ago, with both a competent director to define the role and a competent actor to execute it.) He's charismatic and he possesses a humorously large vocabulary. Depp plays this character with just enough quirks to be entertaining, but not such antics that he's in Anchorman territory. His accent and personality are both flawless, never dropping either, greatly enhancing the credibility and enjoyment of the character.
Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom do very well in their respective roles as well. As one article I read put it, Knightles does well playing the "damsel doing just fine, thank you" as opposed to the damsel in distress. If this character type seems cliched at this point, it's only because Knightley herself made it so. If anything, Knightley seems less attractive than she used to, not quite sure why. I think she's a bit too skinny. And, though his role takes less finesse than Depp's, Bloom does a fine job as well. He's a great foil to Depp, courageous and serious to the self-interested and flippant Sparrow.
Now, a lot of people thought Gollum from Lord of the Rings was the coolest special effect achievement ever. I might be the only one who didn't much care about Gollum, and in that case I'm probably alone in not much caring about Davy Jones either. The character was good, and I guess the tentacles were cool if you're into that sort of thing, but it just didn't impress me. That said, Davy Jones is an excellent villain, a worthy followup to Barbossa, and I'm looking forward to seeing him again in the third installment.
As is easy to do in a pirate flick, Dead Man's Chest features great cinematography. How could those lovely, sweeping shots of a bustling port and majestic eighteenth century warships and vast open ocean really be omitted from this film? The cinematography reminded me of that from Master and Commander, which won an Oscar for its brilliant camera work. The music was awesome as well, enhancing the overall epic feel of the movie. This is actually the sort of movie that might entice one to become a "movie person" and randomly go to movies, expecting to get a great deal of entertainment value out of it. Unfortunately, Dead Man's Chest is so entertaining that you'd be sorely disappointed with virtually everything else out there.
Review: Wedding Crashers
Yep, I'm a year late on this review. This is one of those spur of the moment, "Hmm, I heard this was funny, so why not throw it in the Netflix queue?" ideas. Again, expectation pointed to "typical frat pack comedy, probably going to be a lot of gaggy humor" but whatever. As it turns out, the balance of "frat pack" comedy to romatic comedy was more stilted toward the "romantic comedy" direction. Usually, given two alternative styles, "romantic comedy" is not the direction you necessarily want to go. Compared to the sort of humor I was expecting, though, that was probably a pleasant surprise.
More of the pleasant surprise came from how witty Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn really were as the titular wedding crashers. One scene where Vaughn's character Jeremy provides Wilson's John with a copy of the Secretary of the Treasury's position paper on Micronesian economics, and the followup where John actually has a pseudo-intellectual discussion with the Secretary about Micronesian economics... genius. Some of the backstories they use to get into weddings are downright inspired, a far cry from the kind of stupidity I thought would surface.
But the best part of this movie is that is actually has a soul. At one wedding, John bumps into a girl who does not exist in real life. This girl combines "extremely attractive without being sleazy" with "playful and witty" with "sweet and charming" with "sophisticated but not arrogant." Now, if any male were to encounter a girl this incredibly ideal in the real world, he'd drop everything to pursue her. As it turns out, instead of pull some sort of eye-rolling immature stunt, this is exactly what John does. Thus, the movie has a real sort of likability that goes way beyond sophomoric jokes.
Likability, of course, doesn't imply perfection. We don't need to see what breasts look like. Nude scenes do not add to the cinematic value of a movie. They may get some single-minded guys in the door (and I of anyone realize that movie making is a business) but they simply are never cinematically justified. Also, the entire movie was extremely predictable. Of course Perfect But Nonexistent In The Real World Claire Cleary (a stunning Rachel McAdams) ends up dumping her loser boyfriend (and I wish the movie had been a bit less explicit as to his cheating on Claire, so it would have make John's achievement seem more impressive) so the Heroine and Hero can Reunite at the Triumphant Climax of the Film. Of course the Hero's Sidekick with No Moral Code but who has a Girl Proclaim Her Love to Him ends up actually loving her and another Happy Couple is born. We didn't need to watch past half of the movie to know what was going to happen at the end. But Vaughn and Wilson play such funny and compelling characters, and Rachel McAdams is so darn cute (and her character so darn amazing), that we want to watch it.
Currently listening: "To Zanarkand," Final Fantasy X, Nobuo Uematsu
Monday, July 24, 2006
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Evil Monkeys Abound
Review: Lady in the Water
First off, M. Night Shyamalan is a genius, because he recognizes that monkeys are evil.
Now that that's taken care of... almost every time you watch a movie, you know what you're getting yourself into. You thrust Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn into starring roles and you immediately know what kind of movie Wedding Crashers (see a future post) is going to be. Dead Man's Chest (also see that future post) is going to be exactly like Curse of the Black Pearl except later. With Lady in the Water, you're probably thinking "Okay, Shyamalan flick, a bit of creepiness, massive twist at the end." As it turns out, Lady in the Water has none of that. The movie is much less classic Shyamalan and much more Neil Gaiman.
If you haven't read anything by Gaiman, pick up American Gods right now and read it. Lady in the Water was less evocative of American Gods and more of Neverwhere, but either book will give you a much better idea what to expect out of Lady in the Water than any of Shyamalan's earlier films. In fact, I was thinking "holy crap, this is Neverwhere" through the entire movie. The comparison isn't entirely fair, especially since the book's mythology focuses on its setting, and the movie's mythology has much more to do with a sequence of events than where they take place. But once you take into account the "regular world guy" who gets visited in the regular world by the "magical mystical girl with special powers but who needs regular world guy to survive," which in turn slowly reveals the "fantastic subculture that affects humans but humans have no idea it exists"... the movie gets Gaiman-esque very quickly.
So that's the first caveat of Lady in the Water. If the premise of fantasy bothers or annoys you, don't bother seeing this movie. A corollary to the first caveat: Lady in the Water is indeed a fantasy movie; it is not scary in the least. (The movie does, however, make the same mistake that The Omen and so many other contemporary "horror" films do. That is, it confuses "startling" with "scary." A loud, unexpected noise that makes you jump is not scary.) But fantasy doesn't mean George RR Martin style sword and sorcery, in either Lady in the Water or Neil Gaiman's books' case. It means affinity toward the supernatural and a creative sense of mythology. And Lady in the Water certainly has both.
And really, that's the mark of a good fantasy setting: the permeability of the mtyhos into the setting. It's easy to say "I have set my story in quasi-medieval times, and there is magic." It's not much more difficult to add "My characters believe in this supernatural force that sometimes actually aids them." But to craft your characters and story so well that its gods seem like actual beings, its legends serve as actual sources of inspiration, and its included ethical debates are ones actually worth having in the real world, you've created something magnificent. This is why Final Fantasy X was such a powerful game: the Yevon mythos gave rise to a much deeper sense of realism to the setting. The mythology was so thorough that it became believable, and the player actually felt as if he were doing something important, sacred even, when he arrived at Zanarkand. And to bring things full circle, the Shyamalan-magnitude twist when the player finally reached Zanarkand was all the more incredible because the mythology was so ingrained. (Inversely, this is why Final Fantasy IX was such a dismal game, because you were playing through a story with no overarching mythology to lend it credence.) George RR Martin does this differently than Final Fantasy X, with central conflicts coming over the authenticity of some of the myths (which integrates nicely with his vague and blurry magic system), but he also does it well. And while not as masterfully as Final Fantasy X, as thoroughly as American Gods, or as intriguingly as something from Song of Ice and Fire, Lady in the Water holds its own when it comes to internal mythology.
This mythology starts simple, then grows more complex as the movie progresses. The audience is on a sort of "need to know" basis, which works just fine. We see pictographs at the start of the movie, giving a general outline of the legend, then a few specifics, then more precise details as they become important to the storyline. This works well because it's more the audience learning concepts than having a shovelful of mythology stuffed in its face at the beginning and being mandated to learn it all. Shyamalan uses the "story" device throughout the movie to acheive this effect. One of the recurring themes of the movie--painfully obvious by the fact that the titular Lady in the Water is a magical being named Story--is that there are a few universal "stories" that you have to learn to believe in. These may seem fantastic at first, but they have their validity. Shyamalan's characters aren't necessarily aware that they're in a movie, but there are plenty of self-aware references to plots and characterization (see below) that result in a sort of "translucent" fourth wall. As such, the mythology is able to be revealed gradually rather than with a shovel in the form of a few of the main characters discussing a bedtime story. I'm not sure if this is cheesy or clever--in truth, it's a little of both.
As the movie's best part comes from its mythology, its worst part comes from its attempts at commentary on the theater. I think Shyamalan speaks a bit too loudly as would befit his level of influence. Shakespeare, the greatest playwright of the last millennium, didn't venture to delve this deep into the murky water (my apologies for the bad pun) of "criticizing a genre from within a work of that genre" until Hamlet, about eleven years into his career as a playwright. After writing a couple of dozen plays, he's entitled to make those witticisms about "pastorical-comical, historical-pastoral" actors and how the art of the theater is not in the state it should be. After one movie with huge critical and commercial achievement, and a few further releases with dubious success, Shyamalan is not entitled to the same. While critics' viewpoints can diverge wildly from popular opinion of a film, the truth is that many moviegoers are going to listen to what the critics have to say before deciding to see a film. Therefore, it's important as a director to make a film that appeals to critics, not because you necessarily care what the critical opinion is, but because there are potential audience members that do care what that opinion is.
So is it not intuitively obvious that making a film critic the least immediately likable character in the entire movie is shooting yourself in the cinematic foot? Let me say that I actually like this guy, because his deadpan reviews of vapid artiness are grounded in a strong dose of realism. The movie's best line comes when Cleveland (the main character) is discussing a romance film the local paper had him see. The Critic complains that the climactic moment of the movie, when the characters finally profess their love for each other, was during an unnecessarily cliched rainfall. Cleveland suggests that maybe this was a metaphor for cleansing and rebirth, and the Critic answers simply, "No. It's not." After this clever attack on critics who think themselves wonderfully insightful for pointing overused metaphors to the filmgoing proletariat, it's no wonder that critics hate Lady in the Water: they all got their feelings hurt. The movie's weakest scene, still furthering the negative sentiment many critics have toward this film, when both the fourth wall and the credibility of the entire story are at their most fragile, is when the Critic makes a few predictions regarding the plot of the story he realizes he is in immediately before his death. At this point, the rest of the theater laughed the most--because hey! This is obviously meant to be funny, and I'm clever enough to have picked up on that intention, so I'm going to laugh! A bit of pointless comic relief, coupled with the decidedly negative portrayal of a film critic, accomplish nothing for the complex mythology that Shyamalan has built to this point in the movie, and probably in fact weaken his message.
What was that message? Now comes the third caveat about Lady in the Water (the second being, if you're a critic, this movie will probably feel like a personal attack). The movie, while doing a lot to criticize other movies for using tired out devices (like the rainbound kiss), doesn't have that much to say when it comes down to originality of theme. "Find yourself," it urges, "be open to all sources of inspiration." Guess what? Hamlet beat Lady in the Water to the punch there too.
Other elements of what make a movie either good or bad didn't really stand out in this one, as Lady in the Water is a concept- and plot-centric film. The acting didn't strike me as particularly excellent or horrible: Paul Giamatti as Cleveland was believable and sympathetic but not revolutionary; Bryce Dallas Howard carried a character that even the most self-absorbed high school drama kid could have pulled off. The cinematography and special effects were present and neither good nor bad. I have strong praise for the music, which was on the whole melodic and a welcome departure from the atonal "mood music" that seems to plague suspense movies.
In the end, Lady in the Water is a movie I don't feel all that strongly about either way. I certainly don't think that the film merits the scathing reviews that critics have delighted in saddling it with. On the other hand, with such an extraordinary creation of a setting and an urban-fantasy set of legends to color that setting, more attention could have been paid to what all of that mythology actually means, what the statement behind the concept actually says. Ultimately, King Kong hid a complete lack of meaning behind a sense of epic scale, huge special effects, and an over-the-top aesthetic-heavy visual experience... no matter how good those visuals may have been. If Lady in the Water hides a complete lack of meaning behind a complex mythology, no matter how good that mythology is, is there really a difference? The movie is undoubtedly entertaining, and not at all bad, but with a little extra thought could have been actually good. In other words, it's probably worth seeing, as long as you understand the caveats, but don't expect either The Sixth Sense (what you might think this movie should be like) or Final Fantasy X (what this movie really should have been).
Currently listening: "Jupiter, Bringer of Jollity," Gustav Holst (from The Planets)
First off, M. Night Shyamalan is a genius, because he recognizes that monkeys are evil.
Now that that's taken care of... almost every time you watch a movie, you know what you're getting yourself into. You thrust Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn into starring roles and you immediately know what kind of movie Wedding Crashers (see a future post) is going to be. Dead Man's Chest (also see that future post) is going to be exactly like Curse of the Black Pearl except later. With Lady in the Water, you're probably thinking "Okay, Shyamalan flick, a bit of creepiness, massive twist at the end." As it turns out, Lady in the Water has none of that. The movie is much less classic Shyamalan and much more Neil Gaiman.
If you haven't read anything by Gaiman, pick up American Gods right now and read it. Lady in the Water was less evocative of American Gods and more of Neverwhere, but either book will give you a much better idea what to expect out of Lady in the Water than any of Shyamalan's earlier films. In fact, I was thinking "holy crap, this is Neverwhere" through the entire movie. The comparison isn't entirely fair, especially since the book's mythology focuses on its setting, and the movie's mythology has much more to do with a sequence of events than where they take place. But once you take into account the "regular world guy" who gets visited in the regular world by the "magical mystical girl with special powers but who needs regular world guy to survive," which in turn slowly reveals the "fantastic subculture that affects humans but humans have no idea it exists"... the movie gets Gaiman-esque very quickly.
So that's the first caveat of Lady in the Water. If the premise of fantasy bothers or annoys you, don't bother seeing this movie. A corollary to the first caveat: Lady in the Water is indeed a fantasy movie; it is not scary in the least. (The movie does, however, make the same mistake that The Omen and so many other contemporary "horror" films do. That is, it confuses "startling" with "scary." A loud, unexpected noise that makes you jump is not scary.) But fantasy doesn't mean George RR Martin style sword and sorcery, in either Lady in the Water or Neil Gaiman's books' case. It means affinity toward the supernatural and a creative sense of mythology. And Lady in the Water certainly has both.
And really, that's the mark of a good fantasy setting: the permeability of the mtyhos into the setting. It's easy to say "I have set my story in quasi-medieval times, and there is magic." It's not much more difficult to add "My characters believe in this supernatural force that sometimes actually aids them." But to craft your characters and story so well that its gods seem like actual beings, its legends serve as actual sources of inspiration, and its included ethical debates are ones actually worth having in the real world, you've created something magnificent. This is why Final Fantasy X was such a powerful game: the Yevon mythos gave rise to a much deeper sense of realism to the setting. The mythology was so thorough that it became believable, and the player actually felt as if he were doing something important, sacred even, when he arrived at Zanarkand. And to bring things full circle, the Shyamalan-magnitude twist when the player finally reached Zanarkand was all the more incredible because the mythology was so ingrained. (Inversely, this is why Final Fantasy IX was such a dismal game, because you were playing through a story with no overarching mythology to lend it credence.) George RR Martin does this differently than Final Fantasy X, with central conflicts coming over the authenticity of some of the myths (which integrates nicely with his vague and blurry magic system), but he also does it well. And while not as masterfully as Final Fantasy X, as thoroughly as American Gods, or as intriguingly as something from Song of Ice and Fire, Lady in the Water holds its own when it comes to internal mythology.
This mythology starts simple, then grows more complex as the movie progresses. The audience is on a sort of "need to know" basis, which works just fine. We see pictographs at the start of the movie, giving a general outline of the legend, then a few specifics, then more precise details as they become important to the storyline. This works well because it's more the audience learning concepts than having a shovelful of mythology stuffed in its face at the beginning and being mandated to learn it all. Shyamalan uses the "story" device throughout the movie to acheive this effect. One of the recurring themes of the movie--painfully obvious by the fact that the titular Lady in the Water is a magical being named Story--is that there are a few universal "stories" that you have to learn to believe in. These may seem fantastic at first, but they have their validity. Shyamalan's characters aren't necessarily aware that they're in a movie, but there are plenty of self-aware references to plots and characterization (see below) that result in a sort of "translucent" fourth wall. As such, the mythology is able to be revealed gradually rather than with a shovel in the form of a few of the main characters discussing a bedtime story. I'm not sure if this is cheesy or clever--in truth, it's a little of both.
As the movie's best part comes from its mythology, its worst part comes from its attempts at commentary on the theater. I think Shyamalan speaks a bit too loudly as would befit his level of influence. Shakespeare, the greatest playwright of the last millennium, didn't venture to delve this deep into the murky water (my apologies for the bad pun) of "criticizing a genre from within a work of that genre" until Hamlet, about eleven years into his career as a playwright. After writing a couple of dozen plays, he's entitled to make those witticisms about "pastorical-comical, historical-pastoral" actors and how the art of the theater is not in the state it should be. After one movie with huge critical and commercial achievement, and a few further releases with dubious success, Shyamalan is not entitled to the same. While critics' viewpoints can diverge wildly from popular opinion of a film, the truth is that many moviegoers are going to listen to what the critics have to say before deciding to see a film. Therefore, it's important as a director to make a film that appeals to critics, not because you necessarily care what the critical opinion is, but because there are potential audience members that do care what that opinion is.
So is it not intuitively obvious that making a film critic the least immediately likable character in the entire movie is shooting yourself in the cinematic foot? Let me say that I actually like this guy, because his deadpan reviews of vapid artiness are grounded in a strong dose of realism. The movie's best line comes when Cleveland (the main character) is discussing a romance film the local paper had him see. The Critic complains that the climactic moment of the movie, when the characters finally profess their love for each other, was during an unnecessarily cliched rainfall. Cleveland suggests that maybe this was a metaphor for cleansing and rebirth, and the Critic answers simply, "No. It's not." After this clever attack on critics who think themselves wonderfully insightful for pointing overused metaphors to the filmgoing proletariat, it's no wonder that critics hate Lady in the Water: they all got their feelings hurt. The movie's weakest scene, still furthering the negative sentiment many critics have toward this film, when both the fourth wall and the credibility of the entire story are at their most fragile, is when the Critic makes a few predictions regarding the plot of the story he realizes he is in immediately before his death. At this point, the rest of the theater laughed the most--because hey! This is obviously meant to be funny, and I'm clever enough to have picked up on that intention, so I'm going to laugh! A bit of pointless comic relief, coupled with the decidedly negative portrayal of a film critic, accomplish nothing for the complex mythology that Shyamalan has built to this point in the movie, and probably in fact weaken his message.
What was that message? Now comes the third caveat about Lady in the Water (the second being, if you're a critic, this movie will probably feel like a personal attack). The movie, while doing a lot to criticize other movies for using tired out devices (like the rainbound kiss), doesn't have that much to say when it comes down to originality of theme. "Find yourself," it urges, "be open to all sources of inspiration." Guess what? Hamlet beat Lady in the Water to the punch there too.
Other elements of what make a movie either good or bad didn't really stand out in this one, as Lady in the Water is a concept- and plot-centric film. The acting didn't strike me as particularly excellent or horrible: Paul Giamatti as Cleveland was believable and sympathetic but not revolutionary; Bryce Dallas Howard carried a character that even the most self-absorbed high school drama kid could have pulled off. The cinematography and special effects were present and neither good nor bad. I have strong praise for the music, which was on the whole melodic and a welcome departure from the atonal "mood music" that seems to plague suspense movies.
In the end, Lady in the Water is a movie I don't feel all that strongly about either way. I certainly don't think that the film merits the scathing reviews that critics have delighted in saddling it with. On the other hand, with such an extraordinary creation of a setting and an urban-fantasy set of legends to color that setting, more attention could have been paid to what all of that mythology actually means, what the statement behind the concept actually says. Ultimately, King Kong hid a complete lack of meaning behind a sense of epic scale, huge special effects, and an over-the-top aesthetic-heavy visual experience... no matter how good those visuals may have been. If Lady in the Water hides a complete lack of meaning behind a complex mythology, no matter how good that mythology is, is there really a difference? The movie is undoubtedly entertaining, and not at all bad, but with a little extra thought could have been actually good. In other words, it's probably worth seeing, as long as you understand the caveats, but don't expect either The Sixth Sense (what you might think this movie should be like) or Final Fantasy X (what this movie really should have been).
Currently listening: "Jupiter, Bringer of Jollity," Gustav Holst (from The Planets)
Monday, July 10, 2006
It Never Seemed So Strange
These are the days, this is the time, where $20 an hour is to be made by watching some Korean students play 20 Questions. It is a good time to have a summer job.
Something I realized the other day: my generation does not care about Communism. We do not see communists as a threat, we think McCarthy and Nixon were somewhere between paranoid and lunatic. (Okay, so older people see Nixon as paranoid too.) We see communist ideology as more laughable than dangerous. We do not understand why the Vietnam War was fought, nor why "containment" was such a laudable goal. There was a time where "card-carrying member of the Communist Party" was a phrase that portended doom for whomever it was attached to. No longer; now the Red Menace merely seems like an empty threat.
I discovered this when a radio talk show host took a call who was virulently condemning a few members of Congress as those same "card-carrying members of the Communist Party." How would you have responded to this? My personal response would have been along the lines of "Who cares? So that member of Congress happens to believe differently than you and me." This host, however, decided to return with "Communism? That's a serious and dangerous charge." Misguided, certainly; even dead wrong, sure. Serious? Not really. And dangerous? Not at all.
I don't doubt that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union would have rather the United States been a communist nation. I also don't doubt that there were those in America that would have rather the United States been a communist nation. But would the American people have stood for that? And I recognize the superiority of the free market to the command economy. But does that mean the United States as we know it would have been shot to hell if a few more satellite countries had "fallen" to communism for a few decades?
The threat of communism, as the current generation sees it, does not exist. But radio demagogues and others continue to preach it as if the country once--and still does--lived or died based on the presence of a handful of communists in the government. And that threat just is not relevant anymore.
Stick another tack into the world map. I have now eaten Persian food, and I am impressed. This was the simplest of all ethnic meals I've eaten in my world tour of eating exotic stuff, and it was every bit as good as anything else. Main course: chunks of lamb, kabob-style; rice. Exactly two ingredients (plus whatever spices and seasonings made their way into the dish). Then there were some appetizers: Pita-like bread, and herbs, cheese, and nuts to eat with the bread. More rice (crispy this time) and some beef and bean stew. Nothing to it.
Currently listening: "Suddenly I See," KT Tunstall
Something I realized the other day: my generation does not care about Communism. We do not see communists as a threat, we think McCarthy and Nixon were somewhere between paranoid and lunatic. (Okay, so older people see Nixon as paranoid too.) We see communist ideology as more laughable than dangerous. We do not understand why the Vietnam War was fought, nor why "containment" was such a laudable goal. There was a time where "card-carrying member of the Communist Party" was a phrase that portended doom for whomever it was attached to. No longer; now the Red Menace merely seems like an empty threat.
I discovered this when a radio talk show host took a call who was virulently condemning a few members of Congress as those same "card-carrying members of the Communist Party." How would you have responded to this? My personal response would have been along the lines of "Who cares? So that member of Congress happens to believe differently than you and me." This host, however, decided to return with "Communism? That's a serious and dangerous charge." Misguided, certainly; even dead wrong, sure. Serious? Not really. And dangerous? Not at all.
I don't doubt that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union would have rather the United States been a communist nation. I also don't doubt that there were those in America that would have rather the United States been a communist nation. But would the American people have stood for that? And I recognize the superiority of the free market to the command economy. But does that mean the United States as we know it would have been shot to hell if a few more satellite countries had "fallen" to communism for a few decades?
The threat of communism, as the current generation sees it, does not exist. But radio demagogues and others continue to preach it as if the country once--and still does--lived or died based on the presence of a handful of communists in the government. And that threat just is not relevant anymore.
Stick another tack into the world map. I have now eaten Persian food, and I am impressed. This was the simplest of all ethnic meals I've eaten in my world tour of eating exotic stuff, and it was every bit as good as anything else. Main course: chunks of lamb, kabob-style; rice. Exactly two ingredients (plus whatever spices and seasonings made their way into the dish). Then there were some appetizers: Pita-like bread, and herbs, cheese, and nuts to eat with the bread. More rice (crispy this time) and some beef and bean stew. Nothing to it.
Currently listening: "Suddenly I See," KT Tunstall
Monday, June 26, 2006
You're a Fickle Little Twister
(are you sweet on your sister?)
Quick: the master of modern epic fantasy. Robert Jordan? Not anymore. Maybe back when his books were still interesting. David Farland? An excellent author, who tells a great story, but who still needs to prove he can write something beyond a fairy tale. Terry Goodkind? Hovers between amazement and tedium.
George R.R. Martin? Ah, yes, of course. A Song of Ice and Fire is a brilliant work. (A note here: I will avoid using names to attempt to avoid spoilers, at least for the time being.)
Other fantasy authors try to convey some sort of superficial disbelief in and disapproval of magic among the inhabitants of the world, while the reader has already seen magic raze cities and restore the dead to life. In A Song of Ice and Fire, Martin actually makes the reader think about what's magic and what's not. A character who claims to practice magic, then is revealed merely to be practicing medicine. A character who really should have no supernatural significance or powers who gives his breath of life to a dying woman. The same woman, who probably should be dead, returns as a vengeful wraith--or is she simply a living shell of what she once was? A red priestess who sends an assassin to kill a usurper king--or was that "assassin" really a spirit; a shade?
Take this, and add the most complex but consistent feudal political system ever written of. A powerful noble raises in the North and is murdered at his own wedding by his presumedly loyal sworn house, who had conspired with a slighted family because the noble refused an offer of marriage. An ambitious queen mother who supplants her son's entire council to win the realm for herself--and to hide the shameful secret of that son's birth. A scheming lord, removed from his station on that same royal council, installs himself at his lord son's protector, and arranges a marriage for his ward, a young girl who through a system of ancient birthrights and alliances will eventually claim that fortress. This girl happens to be the sister of that same murdered noble from the north, anxious to reclaim her birthright. Martin does all of this and more, flawlessly.
Having just finished the fourth book in A Song of Ice and Fire, A Feast for Crows, I feel the need to comment on it. Spoiler warning, in full force. If you haven't read A Feast for Crows but someday plan to, do not read ahead. (Samantha, this means you.)
The action in this book was a little slower than in A Storm of Swords. Then again, I can't name a book with faster events than A Storm of Swords. Some fair-weather fans are criticizing the book, saying that Martin had "Robert Jordan" syndrome. At least plotlines were advanced in Martin's "necessary-plot-advancement" book, in contrast to Jordan's Crossroads of Twilight, in which nothing at all happened. And most of Martin's characters are so darn good that I can't really begrudge an occasional "get all the characters up to speed, so a future book will be really amazing" episode.
Now, about those characters. The book was awfully Jaime and Cersei heavy, so we'll start with them.
Cersei got what she had coming to her all along. She's going to kick the bucket, but I think not until the very last book. She's evil, villainous, and hated by practically every fan of the series. Martin can't dispose of her too quickly; where would we be for antagonists if she were to die too soon? Her arrest for treason, etc. at the end of the book was a way of placating fans who desperately wanted to see something bad happen to her. And we got that. We got even more when we saw Jaime's reaction to her desperate plea for help...
Tommen Baratheon, King on the Iron Throne, is probably doomed. Grand Maester Pycelle is too old to run the kingdom, and Tommen is too young. We can assume that Margaery Tyrell has some designs on the throne, but as of now she's got the same trial to look forward to that Cersei does.
Jaime has become my favorite character in the series (as well as the inspiration for this otherwise-cryptic Decemberists reference as a title). He's certainly the best-developed. We've seen him go from traitorous to nasty and self-centered to actually having a soul. Jaime's denial of Cersei's "please help me! I love you!" was, without a doubt, the best moment of the book. I enjoyed following his storyline a great deal.
Brienne may or may not be dead. Kind of like how a lot of characters end up. I kind of like the theory that she's going to end up in Catelyn Stark "I'm not quite dead yet" mode, even though there's not much to support that. And of course there's the matter of what that word she yelled before she may of may not have died. I suspect we'll find that out, but not until book 6.
Sansa now looks poised to gain a whole lot of political power in not too much time. I think she underwent some pretty interesting changes in this book as well, a whole lot more subtle than Jaime. I only wonder how her interactions with her husband Tyrion are going to change if and when she reclaims her birthright.
I don't really care what happens to any of the Greyjoys, to tell the truth. They're far from compelling characters. Asha is especially annoying (proclaiming "my queensmoot" and then not being able to back up her boasts). Really, I haven't gotten past seeing any of them as minor annoyances, just there for their own weird goals and to screw over the rest of Westeros. These guys are the only weak link in A Song of Ice and Fire and the only set of characters who I don't especially want to hear a PoV from ever again in the future.
The Martells are an interesting addition to the series. I'm a bit surprised that Myrcella didn't die in Arianne's little coup, and the fact that she's still alive when she could just as easily and reasonably be dead suggests that she's going to have a bigger part to play in the future. Also, there are some possibly intriguing ramifications of Prince Doran's desire to unite Martell and Targaryen. I think Arianne's a dangerous character, and should some disaster (or just the gout) befall Doran, she's not going to be content merely to sit in the desert and let someone else take over Westeros.
Arya of House Stark, or should I say Cat, continues to develop into someone truly dangerous. Cersei and the rest of Arya's list had better look out. When she comes back from Braavos with her secret ninja moves from the government, it's going down. Then again, suspicious temple dude didn't seem too happy with her murder of Dareon, evidently blinding her for retaining some of her identity... so maybe getting back from Braavos won't be so easy after all.
I don't really think that the Samwell chapters were necessary in the book, but the plot point that now he's going to be a maester is important. While he's down in Oldtown, he's probably going to find out some archaic piece of information that will help whoever's left defend the kingdom from winter when it comes.
And now, as I've seen on some discussion websites, my Sacred Cows/Marked for Death list.
Sacred Cows:
--Daenerys. It seems intuitive, even obvious, that once everyone in Westeros is done killing each other, Daenerys and her dragons are going to show up and save everyone's ass from whatever in the hell is lurking beyond the wall. Then she reclaims her dynasty's Iron Throne, and everyone lives happily (?) ever after.
--Jon Snow. He will be just as instrumental as Dany in defeating the threat from beyond the wall. Ice and Fire, right? He'll end up marrying Dany; if the speculation that Jon is actually half Targaryen, and seeing as how the Targaryens often marry each other, this prediction makes even more sense.
--Tyrion Lannister. The Imp is one of Martin's favorite characters, which Martin admitted himself. Tyrion is going to continue bouncing around the kingdom, making and foiling plots for quite a while.
--Arya, at least for a little while. She's not going to die before she comes back to Westeros and exacts some revenge on her hit list.
--Sam Tarly. He's got an importance to the final epic struggle, even though we don't know what it is yet.
--Davos Seaworth, at least for now. He's not really dead. I don't think a confirmed PoV character would die that far removed from the action.
--Bran Stark. He still has to become the fated creepy mystical little kid!
Marked for Death
--Stannis Baratheon. We've already seen Robert and Renly die, and I think that Stannis is not far behind. House Baratheon started this war by rebelling against the Targaryens, and I think that the war won't end until the house is completely broken. Besides, by following Melisandre, what does he expect? Symbolically, relating to the overall theme of the series, his "fire" is not going to be the right one to save the kingdom; Dany's will.
--Cersei Lannister. But not for a while, as mentioned earlier. The little brother that kills her is going to be Jaime (who, if I remember correctly, is a few minutes younger than Cersei?), not Tyrion. The irony of Cersei, the most false and money-hungry character in the series, being killed with a fake golden hand that her former incestuous lover wears? Too much to pass up.
--Jaime Lannister. But not before he kills his sister. Just when he gets dangerously close to becoming good, he's going down. Maybe at the hands of Catelyn's little zombie band?
--Walder Frey. So much attention was paid to his line of succession in A Feast for Crows that would be completely irrelevant if the Lord of the Crossing stayed alive the whole time.
--Robert Arryn. Being sickly and weak in this series does not lend itself to living a long time (see Hoster Tully and Maester Aemon). The question is, will it really by his weakness that kills him, or an unfortunate "accident" brought on by Littlefinger?
--Roose Bolton. This guy already made enemies of the Starks and the Greyjoys; no telling when he's going to turn on the Lannisters too.
--Euron Greyjoy. He doesn't even have his entire house behind him, not to mention making enemies of the Lannisters and Tyrells and Hightowers.
So there. Can't wait to find out how much of this ends up being true... A Dance with Dragons, early 2007.
EDIT: Jon Snow's parentage consipracy theory. After talking to my friend Patrick about the matter, I have even stronger evidence to that theory. The general theory, which I cannot take credit for, is that Jon is not Eddard Stark's bastard at all, but the product of a union between Lyanna Stark (Ned's sister) and Rhaegar Targaryen. I can only claim credit for some of the following supportive details.
First, parentage matters. People in Westeros are willing to go to great lengths when it comes to the parentage of a child. Take Roose Bolton's betrayal of Robb Stark, which was (at least partially) motivated by wanting to legitimize his bastard son and get an heir. Additionally, even though it's "metagaming," Martin himself has said that it matters who Jon Snow's parents are. So we're not wasting time by theorizing. "It matters" in A Song of Ice and Fire talk means we're not dealing with a commoner; it has to be someone of noble blood.
Second, people in Westeros die. Who would know the truth of Jon's birth? Under this theory, Lyanna Stark certainly would. She's dead. Ned Stark would, too. Dead. Catelyn might know, but in her zombified condition, it's not like she's striking up conversation with passersby about her family secrets. All of the Stark kids would be too young to know anything about what happened. Brandon Stark (Ned's brother) and Rickard Stark (Ned's father), both dead. The only person who would know and be in any condition to tell, at least on the Stark side, would be Benjen.
Benjen Stark is still alive, no doubt about it. He's been listed as "presumed dead" since the prologue of the first book in the series. In A Song of Ice and Fire, you've either got the curly braces around your name, or you're still kicking somewhere. So Benjen Stark is the only one on the Stark side that potentially knows about, and of any main character, Jon Snow is the only one with any chance at all of interacting with him.
So what? So one person on the Stark side might know about Jon's parents. How about the "other" side? If Rhaegar is really Jon's father, he's dead. So is every other Targaryen except Dany, who's too young to know anything. The reason this is evidence is that if Jon's other parent were some random noblewoman, the secret of his birth would be a lot less secret than if it lay with a dead family. Somebody would have come forth with that information, probably to extort money or land out of Ned, if that random noblewoman really existed.
Third, and most importantly, Rhaegar and Lyanna had something going on. After winning the Harrenhal Tourney (year 282), Rhaegar Targaryen takes Lyanna Stark to a tower (year 283). Ned Stark and company go to the tower, kill a few Kingsguard, and find Lyanna in a pool of blood. Lyanna forces Ned to make a promise to her, then she dies. A pool of blood could mean that Rhaegar killed her... but is it possible this was from childbirth? That would explain her death, too, as a lot of people in A Song of Ice and Fire seem to die during childbirth. Looking at the timeline, it's most likely that Lyanna's child by Rhaegar was conceived during or immediately following the Tourney. We know this is when Jon Snow was conceived; Jon is of age with Robb Stark. Robb was 16 at the Red Wedding in 299, meaning he was born in 283 and probably conceived in 282. So Jon Snow's birth coincides almost exactly with the time Lyanna was at the tower.
Robert Baratheon supposed that Rhaegar raped Lyanna (Robert's betrothed) and took her to the tower against her will. Maybe that's true; maybe Jon is the product of Rhaegar's rape of Lyanna. Then, Rhaegar took Lyanna to the tower against her will to protect his own secret. Or, looking at it from another angle, maybe Rhaegar's union with Lyanna was consentual. And Rhaegar took Lyanna to the tower for her protection, not against her will at all. Either way, it would be awfully convenient for nobody to be able to see Lyanna during the months she was pregnant.
And this promise that Lyanna made Ned make? To take care of Jon. Agreeing to raise and care for his sister's baseborn son is exactly the kind of thing that the morally upstanding Ned Stark would do.
While we're at it, fourth, Ned Stark's a really good guy. Does he strike you as the kind of guy who would have a bastard son? Moreover, when Jon was born, Ned and Catelyn were already together (as evidenced by Robb Stark). So not only would Eddard have had to have given birth to a bastard child, it would have had to have been while he was with Catelyn. I just can't see one of the only righteous and honorable people in all of Westeros doing that.
And finally, it would fit the series theme. Ice and fire, right? Jon would have been born from a noble of the north (ice) and a Targaryen (fire). Now, look ahead to when Daenerys comes back to fight the enemy beyond the wall. Jon's going to be right there by her side. Jon (with the Night's Watch; ice) and Dany (with her dragons; fire) are going to defeat that unknown enemy. Then--how's this--they get married. Ice and fire. Under this theory, Dany would be Jon's aunt, and among a family known for marrying brother to sister, that would probably actually be accepted.
If that's not conspiracy theory, what is?
Currently listening: Symphony No. 7, Antonin Dvorak
Quick: the master of modern epic fantasy. Robert Jordan? Not anymore. Maybe back when his books were still interesting. David Farland? An excellent author, who tells a great story, but who still needs to prove he can write something beyond a fairy tale. Terry Goodkind? Hovers between amazement and tedium.
George R.R. Martin? Ah, yes, of course. A Song of Ice and Fire is a brilliant work. (A note here: I will avoid using names to attempt to avoid spoilers, at least for the time being.)
Other fantasy authors try to convey some sort of superficial disbelief in and disapproval of magic among the inhabitants of the world, while the reader has already seen magic raze cities and restore the dead to life. In A Song of Ice and Fire, Martin actually makes the reader think about what's magic and what's not. A character who claims to practice magic, then is revealed merely to be practicing medicine. A character who really should have no supernatural significance or powers who gives his breath of life to a dying woman. The same woman, who probably should be dead, returns as a vengeful wraith--or is she simply a living shell of what she once was? A red priestess who sends an assassin to kill a usurper king--or was that "assassin" really a spirit; a shade?
Take this, and add the most complex but consistent feudal political system ever written of. A powerful noble raises in the North and is murdered at his own wedding by his presumedly loyal sworn house, who had conspired with a slighted family because the noble refused an offer of marriage. An ambitious queen mother who supplants her son's entire council to win the realm for herself--and to hide the shameful secret of that son's birth. A scheming lord, removed from his station on that same royal council, installs himself at his lord son's protector, and arranges a marriage for his ward, a young girl who through a system of ancient birthrights and alliances will eventually claim that fortress. This girl happens to be the sister of that same murdered noble from the north, anxious to reclaim her birthright. Martin does all of this and more, flawlessly.
Having just finished the fourth book in A Song of Ice and Fire, A Feast for Crows, I feel the need to comment on it. Spoiler warning, in full force. If you haven't read A Feast for Crows but someday plan to, do not read ahead. (Samantha, this means you.)
The action in this book was a little slower than in A Storm of Swords. Then again, I can't name a book with faster events than A Storm of Swords. Some fair-weather fans are criticizing the book, saying that Martin had "Robert Jordan" syndrome. At least plotlines were advanced in Martin's "necessary-plot-advancement" book, in contrast to Jordan's Crossroads of Twilight, in which nothing at all happened. And most of Martin's characters are so darn good that I can't really begrudge an occasional "get all the characters up to speed, so a future book will be really amazing" episode.
Now, about those characters. The book was awfully Jaime and Cersei heavy, so we'll start with them.
Cersei got what she had coming to her all along. She's going to kick the bucket, but I think not until the very last book. She's evil, villainous, and hated by practically every fan of the series. Martin can't dispose of her too quickly; where would we be for antagonists if she were to die too soon? Her arrest for treason, etc. at the end of the book was a way of placating fans who desperately wanted to see something bad happen to her. And we got that. We got even more when we saw Jaime's reaction to her desperate plea for help...
Tommen Baratheon, King on the Iron Throne, is probably doomed. Grand Maester Pycelle is too old to run the kingdom, and Tommen is too young. We can assume that Margaery Tyrell has some designs on the throne, but as of now she's got the same trial to look forward to that Cersei does.
Jaime has become my favorite character in the series (as well as the inspiration for this otherwise-cryptic Decemberists reference as a title). He's certainly the best-developed. We've seen him go from traitorous to nasty and self-centered to actually having a soul. Jaime's denial of Cersei's "please help me! I love you!" was, without a doubt, the best moment of the book. I enjoyed following his storyline a great deal.
Brienne may or may not be dead. Kind of like how a lot of characters end up. I kind of like the theory that she's going to end up in Catelyn Stark "I'm not quite dead yet" mode, even though there's not much to support that. And of course there's the matter of what that word she yelled before she may of may not have died. I suspect we'll find that out, but not until book 6.
Sansa now looks poised to gain a whole lot of political power in not too much time. I think she underwent some pretty interesting changes in this book as well, a whole lot more subtle than Jaime. I only wonder how her interactions with her husband Tyrion are going to change if and when she reclaims her birthright.
I don't really care what happens to any of the Greyjoys, to tell the truth. They're far from compelling characters. Asha is especially annoying (proclaiming "my queensmoot" and then not being able to back up her boasts). Really, I haven't gotten past seeing any of them as minor annoyances, just there for their own weird goals and to screw over the rest of Westeros. These guys are the only weak link in A Song of Ice and Fire and the only set of characters who I don't especially want to hear a PoV from ever again in the future.
The Martells are an interesting addition to the series. I'm a bit surprised that Myrcella didn't die in Arianne's little coup, and the fact that she's still alive when she could just as easily and reasonably be dead suggests that she's going to have a bigger part to play in the future. Also, there are some possibly intriguing ramifications of Prince Doran's desire to unite Martell and Targaryen. I think Arianne's a dangerous character, and should some disaster (or just the gout) befall Doran, she's not going to be content merely to sit in the desert and let someone else take over Westeros.
Arya of House Stark, or should I say Cat, continues to develop into someone truly dangerous. Cersei and the rest of Arya's list had better look out. When she comes back from Braavos with her secret ninja moves from the government, it's going down. Then again, suspicious temple dude didn't seem too happy with her murder of Dareon, evidently blinding her for retaining some of her identity... so maybe getting back from Braavos won't be so easy after all.
I don't really think that the Samwell chapters were necessary in the book, but the plot point that now he's going to be a maester is important. While he's down in Oldtown, he's probably going to find out some archaic piece of information that will help whoever's left defend the kingdom from winter when it comes.
And now, as I've seen on some discussion websites, my Sacred Cows/Marked for Death list.
Sacred Cows:
--Daenerys. It seems intuitive, even obvious, that once everyone in Westeros is done killing each other, Daenerys and her dragons are going to show up and save everyone's ass from whatever in the hell is lurking beyond the wall. Then she reclaims her dynasty's Iron Throne, and everyone lives happily (?) ever after.
--Jon Snow. He will be just as instrumental as Dany in defeating the threat from beyond the wall. Ice and Fire, right? He'll end up marrying Dany; if the speculation that Jon is actually half Targaryen, and seeing as how the Targaryens often marry each other, this prediction makes even more sense.
--Tyrion Lannister. The Imp is one of Martin's favorite characters, which Martin admitted himself. Tyrion is going to continue bouncing around the kingdom, making and foiling plots for quite a while.
--Arya, at least for a little while. She's not going to die before she comes back to Westeros and exacts some revenge on her hit list.
--Sam Tarly. He's got an importance to the final epic struggle, even though we don't know what it is yet.
--Davos Seaworth, at least for now. He's not really dead. I don't think a confirmed PoV character would die that far removed from the action.
--Bran Stark. He still has to become the fated creepy mystical little kid!
Marked for Death
--Stannis Baratheon. We've already seen Robert and Renly die, and I think that Stannis is not far behind. House Baratheon started this war by rebelling against the Targaryens, and I think that the war won't end until the house is completely broken. Besides, by following Melisandre, what does he expect? Symbolically, relating to the overall theme of the series, his "fire" is not going to be the right one to save the kingdom; Dany's will.
--Cersei Lannister. But not for a while, as mentioned earlier. The little brother that kills her is going to be Jaime (who, if I remember correctly, is a few minutes younger than Cersei?), not Tyrion. The irony of Cersei, the most false and money-hungry character in the series, being killed with a fake golden hand that her former incestuous lover wears? Too much to pass up.
--Jaime Lannister. But not before he kills his sister. Just when he gets dangerously close to becoming good, he's going down. Maybe at the hands of Catelyn's little zombie band?
--Walder Frey. So much attention was paid to his line of succession in A Feast for Crows that would be completely irrelevant if the Lord of the Crossing stayed alive the whole time.
--Robert Arryn. Being sickly and weak in this series does not lend itself to living a long time (see Hoster Tully and Maester Aemon). The question is, will it really by his weakness that kills him, or an unfortunate "accident" brought on by Littlefinger?
--Roose Bolton. This guy already made enemies of the Starks and the Greyjoys; no telling when he's going to turn on the Lannisters too.
--Euron Greyjoy. He doesn't even have his entire house behind him, not to mention making enemies of the Lannisters and Tyrells and Hightowers.
So there. Can't wait to find out how much of this ends up being true... A Dance with Dragons, early 2007.
EDIT: Jon Snow's parentage consipracy theory. After talking to my friend Patrick about the matter, I have even stronger evidence to that theory. The general theory, which I cannot take credit for, is that Jon is not Eddard Stark's bastard at all, but the product of a union between Lyanna Stark (Ned's sister) and Rhaegar Targaryen. I can only claim credit for some of the following supportive details.
First, parentage matters. People in Westeros are willing to go to great lengths when it comes to the parentage of a child. Take Roose Bolton's betrayal of Robb Stark, which was (at least partially) motivated by wanting to legitimize his bastard son and get an heir. Additionally, even though it's "metagaming," Martin himself has said that it matters who Jon Snow's parents are. So we're not wasting time by theorizing. "It matters" in A Song of Ice and Fire talk means we're not dealing with a commoner; it has to be someone of noble blood.
Second, people in Westeros die. Who would know the truth of Jon's birth? Under this theory, Lyanna Stark certainly would. She's dead. Ned Stark would, too. Dead. Catelyn might know, but in her zombified condition, it's not like she's striking up conversation with passersby about her family secrets. All of the Stark kids would be too young to know anything about what happened. Brandon Stark (Ned's brother) and Rickard Stark (Ned's father), both dead. The only person who would know and be in any condition to tell, at least on the Stark side, would be Benjen.
Benjen Stark is still alive, no doubt about it. He's been listed as "presumed dead" since the prologue of the first book in the series. In A Song of Ice and Fire, you've either got the curly braces around your name, or you're still kicking somewhere. So Benjen Stark is the only one on the Stark side that potentially knows about, and of any main character, Jon Snow is the only one with any chance at all of interacting with him.
So what? So one person on the Stark side might know about Jon's parents. How about the "other" side? If Rhaegar is really Jon's father, he's dead. So is every other Targaryen except Dany, who's too young to know anything. The reason this is evidence is that if Jon's other parent were some random noblewoman, the secret of his birth would be a lot less secret than if it lay with a dead family. Somebody would have come forth with that information, probably to extort money or land out of Ned, if that random noblewoman really existed.
Third, and most importantly, Rhaegar and Lyanna had something going on. After winning the Harrenhal Tourney (year 282), Rhaegar Targaryen takes Lyanna Stark to a tower (year 283). Ned Stark and company go to the tower, kill a few Kingsguard, and find Lyanna in a pool of blood. Lyanna forces Ned to make a promise to her, then she dies. A pool of blood could mean that Rhaegar killed her... but is it possible this was from childbirth? That would explain her death, too, as a lot of people in A Song of Ice and Fire seem to die during childbirth. Looking at the timeline, it's most likely that Lyanna's child by Rhaegar was conceived during or immediately following the Tourney. We know this is when Jon Snow was conceived; Jon is of age with Robb Stark. Robb was 16 at the Red Wedding in 299, meaning he was born in 283 and probably conceived in 282. So Jon Snow's birth coincides almost exactly with the time Lyanna was at the tower.
Robert Baratheon supposed that Rhaegar raped Lyanna (Robert's betrothed) and took her to the tower against her will. Maybe that's true; maybe Jon is the product of Rhaegar's rape of Lyanna. Then, Rhaegar took Lyanna to the tower against her will to protect his own secret. Or, looking at it from another angle, maybe Rhaegar's union with Lyanna was consentual. And Rhaegar took Lyanna to the tower for her protection, not against her will at all. Either way, it would be awfully convenient for nobody to be able to see Lyanna during the months she was pregnant.
And this promise that Lyanna made Ned make? To take care of Jon. Agreeing to raise and care for his sister's baseborn son is exactly the kind of thing that the morally upstanding Ned Stark would do.
While we're at it, fourth, Ned Stark's a really good guy. Does he strike you as the kind of guy who would have a bastard son? Moreover, when Jon was born, Ned and Catelyn were already together (as evidenced by Robb Stark). So not only would Eddard have had to have given birth to a bastard child, it would have had to have been while he was with Catelyn. I just can't see one of the only righteous and honorable people in all of Westeros doing that.
And finally, it would fit the series theme. Ice and fire, right? Jon would have been born from a noble of the north (ice) and a Targaryen (fire). Now, look ahead to when Daenerys comes back to fight the enemy beyond the wall. Jon's going to be right there by her side. Jon (with the Night's Watch; ice) and Dany (with her dragons; fire) are going to defeat that unknown enemy. Then--how's this--they get married. Ice and fire. Under this theory, Dany would be Jon's aunt, and among a family known for marrying brother to sister, that would probably actually be accepted.
If that's not conspiracy theory, what is?
Currently listening: Symphony No. 7, Antonin Dvorak
Friday, June 23, 2006
Primacy and Recency
Two bands to whom I have been introduced over the last year have recently released new CDs. Here follows the reviews of both of them.
First, a bit about steak.
I ate dinner at a restaurant called Stoney River yesterday. A steakhouse, kind of a hunting lodge style atmosphere, with standard fare. Lots and lots of wine, probably very good, which I will be more qualified to comment on in a year and a half. Salads and appetizers, from which I chose the lobster bisque. Wonderful, and along with the bread, a great first course to the meal. A page of "entrees" including chicken, fish, etc. dishes, which might be decent, but I'll never know because eating anything but steak at a steakhouse is heretical.
The steak I ended up with was advertised as the house special. (No, it wasn't cojones, for those familiar with one of my favorite jokes. If you've not heard the cojones joke, ask me to tell it to you sometime.) This steak, a filet, was very good. Stoney River apparently has a Secret Blend of Seasonings they put on all their steaks, and it was delicious. But eating this filet just served to confirm for me that I like the ribeye a lot better. A filet is probably a better cut if you want a single piece of ultra-high quality meat. It's probably healthier, as a large portion of the ribeye's flavor comes from the marbelization (ie, the fat). But as long as I'm going to order three quarters of a pound of meat anyway, I'll take the ribeye and six dollars over the filet any day.
Now, a bit about quasi-coffee.
Starbucks, contrary to popular opinion, is only halfway a coffeehouse. The other half is "purveyor of all drinks wonderful, warm, and cold, that may or may not tangentially involve coffee as one of their ingredients." One of these (that can either be ordered with or without a coffee base), new for and limited to the summer, is the banana coconut frappucino. I've had both the coffee-based and the creme-based, and it's hard to say which is better. But it doesn't matter, because both are amazingly good. It's refreshing, perfect for 96-degree summer days. This is the sort of thing that probably actually exists in the Caribbean, except it's probably half rum and half all that other stuff. Despite its lack of rum, the Starbucks version is certainly worth a drink, with the caveat that if you don't like coconut, you may want to request the drink without it, and if you don't like banana, stick with something else. All in all, though, this (in addition to the Blackberry Green Tea frappucino) makes summer second only to Christmas as Starbucks' best season.
Review: Ganging Up on the Sun
Guster's latest release was sadly underreported. I looked in a Best Buy ad, and saw that the CD was now for sale. I thought this was probably a recent development, and headed to iTunes to buy it. As it turns out, it had been out for like two weeks already, with no iTunes coverage at all. (And yet, we see Nelly Furtado's mug all over that enterprise. That "Promiscuous" song really, really grates on my nerves. It needs to go away. And is it just me, or does she look positively mentally retarded on the cover of her new album? I digress.) Some of the user comments said that this was a slight departure from old Guster, but most everyone gave it a really great rating.
Deservedly so. Ganging Up on the Sun a worthy followup to Guster's other great albums. My biggest (and really only) complaint is that it lacks the band's trademark bongos in most of the songs. But aside from that, nothing to complain about at all. "Manifest Destiny" is the mosy readily listenable song on the album, with a pleasantly pop-ish piano line in the background for almost the entire song. Think Ben Folds, or maybe the Decemberists at their most bright and happy. Interestingly, the parallels to other songs does not stop there. "The Captain" is a Western fantasy, and would be as easily in place on a Rilo Kiley CD as where it is. We even get a female vocalist (but she's probably not as good as Jenny Lewis). Subsequent songs evoke Coldplay and Muse in places and Sufjan Stevens in others.
Remarkably, all of the songs have a stylistic element in common. They all sound like Guster. The band's sound is there on all of the tracks (minus the bongos), the vocals are still solid, and the styles are more varied than they've ever been. Fans of the band, assuming they're not stuck-up "purist" fans of the band, as in "they don't sound exactly like they used to so I don't like them anymore" will love this release.
Review: Under the Iron Sea
Keane's second release has been lauded as being more adventurous than the band's first. That's probably true, if only marginally so. The album has a different collective "feel" about it, but the actual sound of what's going on it largely the same as it ever was. For the unfamiliar with Keane, think Coldplay minus a guitar, and you've got it. There are people out there who would decry that estimation as ignoring certain nuances of sound, and they might be right. But that's the parallel that I drew upon hearing the band, and that's the one that makes the most sense to the most people.
Some of the tracks on this CD fail to deliver. The first, "Atlantic," is steeped in tritonic dissonance and gave me serious doubts about the ultimate quality of this album. Most of the middle of the album--after "Is It Any Wonder?" and before "Crystal Ball," is okay but rather uninteresting. But there is a lot of good to hear as well. The aforementioned "Is It Any Wonder?", which will probably become the best-known and most-played track on the CD, is a fun one to listen to. And the album gets really good toward the last few tracks. "Crystal Ball" all the way up through "Let it Slide" (which apparently is an iTunes exclusive?) is awesome. My favorite track is "The Frog Prince" which is musically superb and tells a fascinating story at the same time.
I suppose this entire album can appeal to certain people, though probably not all at once. There are tracks that I find boring and unmusical, but that others can probably draw a parallel to Radiohead (which I also find boring and unmusical) and immensely enjoy. The ones I like, certain fans are probably going to denounce as being too "mainstream" and easily musical. The point is, any given listener is going to like at least half this album.
Currently listening: Under the Iron Sea, Keane
First, a bit about steak.
I ate dinner at a restaurant called Stoney River yesterday. A steakhouse, kind of a hunting lodge style atmosphere, with standard fare. Lots and lots of wine, probably very good, which I will be more qualified to comment on in a year and a half. Salads and appetizers, from which I chose the lobster bisque. Wonderful, and along with the bread, a great first course to the meal. A page of "entrees" including chicken, fish, etc. dishes, which might be decent, but I'll never know because eating anything but steak at a steakhouse is heretical.
The steak I ended up with was advertised as the house special. (No, it wasn't cojones, for those familiar with one of my favorite jokes. If you've not heard the cojones joke, ask me to tell it to you sometime.) This steak, a filet, was very good. Stoney River apparently has a Secret Blend of Seasonings they put on all their steaks, and it was delicious. But eating this filet just served to confirm for me that I like the ribeye a lot better. A filet is probably a better cut if you want a single piece of ultra-high quality meat. It's probably healthier, as a large portion of the ribeye's flavor comes from the marbelization (ie, the fat). But as long as I'm going to order three quarters of a pound of meat anyway, I'll take the ribeye and six dollars over the filet any day.
Now, a bit about quasi-coffee.
Starbucks, contrary to popular opinion, is only halfway a coffeehouse. The other half is "purveyor of all drinks wonderful, warm, and cold, that may or may not tangentially involve coffee as one of their ingredients." One of these (that can either be ordered with or without a coffee base), new for and limited to the summer, is the banana coconut frappucino. I've had both the coffee-based and the creme-based, and it's hard to say which is better. But it doesn't matter, because both are amazingly good. It's refreshing, perfect for 96-degree summer days. This is the sort of thing that probably actually exists in the Caribbean, except it's probably half rum and half all that other stuff. Despite its lack of rum, the Starbucks version is certainly worth a drink, with the caveat that if you don't like coconut, you may want to request the drink without it, and if you don't like banana, stick with something else. All in all, though, this (in addition to the Blackberry Green Tea frappucino) makes summer second only to Christmas as Starbucks' best season.
Review: Ganging Up on the Sun
Guster's latest release was sadly underreported. I looked in a Best Buy ad, and saw that the CD was now for sale. I thought this was probably a recent development, and headed to iTunes to buy it. As it turns out, it had been out for like two weeks already, with no iTunes coverage at all. (And yet, we see Nelly Furtado's mug all over that enterprise. That "Promiscuous" song really, really grates on my nerves. It needs to go away. And is it just me, or does she look positively mentally retarded on the cover of her new album? I digress.) Some of the user comments said that this was a slight departure from old Guster, but most everyone gave it a really great rating.
Deservedly so. Ganging Up on the Sun a worthy followup to Guster's other great albums. My biggest (and really only) complaint is that it lacks the band's trademark bongos in most of the songs. But aside from that, nothing to complain about at all. "Manifest Destiny" is the mosy readily listenable song on the album, with a pleasantly pop-ish piano line in the background for almost the entire song. Think Ben Folds, or maybe the Decemberists at their most bright and happy. Interestingly, the parallels to other songs does not stop there. "The Captain" is a Western fantasy, and would be as easily in place on a Rilo Kiley CD as where it is. We even get a female vocalist (but she's probably not as good as Jenny Lewis). Subsequent songs evoke Coldplay and Muse in places and Sufjan Stevens in others.
Remarkably, all of the songs have a stylistic element in common. They all sound like Guster. The band's sound is there on all of the tracks (minus the bongos), the vocals are still solid, and the styles are more varied than they've ever been. Fans of the band, assuming they're not stuck-up "purist" fans of the band, as in "they don't sound exactly like they used to so I don't like them anymore" will love this release.
Review: Under the Iron Sea
Keane's second release has been lauded as being more adventurous than the band's first. That's probably true, if only marginally so. The album has a different collective "feel" about it, but the actual sound of what's going on it largely the same as it ever was. For the unfamiliar with Keane, think Coldplay minus a guitar, and you've got it. There are people out there who would decry that estimation as ignoring certain nuances of sound, and they might be right. But that's the parallel that I drew upon hearing the band, and that's the one that makes the most sense to the most people.
Some of the tracks on this CD fail to deliver. The first, "Atlantic," is steeped in tritonic dissonance and gave me serious doubts about the ultimate quality of this album. Most of the middle of the album--after "Is It Any Wonder?" and before "Crystal Ball," is okay but rather uninteresting. But there is a lot of good to hear as well. The aforementioned "Is It Any Wonder?", which will probably become the best-known and most-played track on the CD, is a fun one to listen to. And the album gets really good toward the last few tracks. "Crystal Ball" all the way up through "Let it Slide" (which apparently is an iTunes exclusive?) is awesome. My favorite track is "The Frog Prince" which is musically superb and tells a fascinating story at the same time.
I suppose this entire album can appeal to certain people, though probably not all at once. There are tracks that I find boring and unmusical, but that others can probably draw a parallel to Radiohead (which I also find boring and unmusical) and immensely enjoy. The ones I like, certain fans are probably going to denounce as being too "mainstream" and easily musical. The point is, any given listener is going to like at least half this album.
Currently listening: Under the Iron Sea, Keane
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Suddenly, Everything Has Changed
"And it's root, root, root, for the home team..."
I have just watched the Atlanta Braves lose their tenth straight game. The announcers tell me this is a feat not accomplished since the mid 1980s. The Braves are not playing "bad baseball." They are not in a "slump." They stink, plain and simple. This is America's Team, right? The Team of the 1990s... but not of the 2000s. To fans like today's children, Skip Caray correctly points out, this is not supposed to happen. It is a nightmare, a terrible perversion of the Way Things Are. To me, it's a window into the years of my birth and infancy. I knew this sort of disaster used to happen. Potential for it existed, but never made it into this catastrophic kinesis.
The inevitable question: how does a team go from 14 straight division championships to last place in the division? From winning nearly every series at home to a winless homestand? (As my dad adroitly pointed out, we do not need to see "First to Worst" on the front page of AJC Sports.)
The bullpen is really bad, unquestionably. 15 blown saves to 15 converted saves is not an acceptable ratio. The Braves are, what, 15 games out of first place? And 15 blown saves? How interesting. (Of course, a team cannot convert every save opportunity. But being, say, 3 or 4 games out of first is a lot better than 15 back.) It's almost like the team cannot possibly hope to win unless it has an insurmountable lead coming into the 7th inning. And with the Braves' hitting being lackluster at best lately, that insurmountability isn't showing up too well. Abysmal batting averages with runners in scoring position. No average from the first two hitters, and no home runs from numbers 3-6 in the lineup.
And so the trade rumors start.
Trade Andruw Jones and Chipper Jones, some rumors say. Or John Smoltz, maybe. Jeff Francoeur? Brian McCann? I don't know enough about that to say. I'm not a manager. And then some say that Bobby Cox has outlasted his ability, some say the same about John Schuerholtz. Regarding that, though, I certainly have something to say. Bobby Cox, in particular, has shown time and time again that he can make a team great. Consider 1990, the last time the Braves were not champions. Then consider 1991: the Braves go to the World Series. Both of these managers have deftly handled the team year after year. Let's give them the chance to do so again in the future.
Finally, a massive trade for a single big-name player is probably not the way to go either. The Jim Thomes, Ichiros, and Albert Pujolses of the world? Of course they're talented baseball players. Of course they can guide their teams to victory. But can even they singlehandedly turn a miserable team's fortunes around? I doubt it. A solid hitter, even an All-Star caliber one, cannot erase 15 of 30 blown saves.
Two weeks ago, I would have said that something needs to be done soon, but I think it's already too late for this season. Braves fans, bow your heads, and acknowledge that all things must pass. It's been a good run. But something does need to be done. And we need to trust Cox and Schuerholtz to do their jobs.
Oh, World Cup Fever. The United States lost to Ghana. Oh well.
Currently listening: Ganging up on the Sun, Guster
I have just watched the Atlanta Braves lose their tenth straight game. The announcers tell me this is a feat not accomplished since the mid 1980s. The Braves are not playing "bad baseball." They are not in a "slump." They stink, plain and simple. This is America's Team, right? The Team of the 1990s... but not of the 2000s. To fans like today's children, Skip Caray correctly points out, this is not supposed to happen. It is a nightmare, a terrible perversion of the Way Things Are. To me, it's a window into the years of my birth and infancy. I knew this sort of disaster used to happen. Potential for it existed, but never made it into this catastrophic kinesis.
The inevitable question: how does a team go from 14 straight division championships to last place in the division? From winning nearly every series at home to a winless homestand? (As my dad adroitly pointed out, we do not need to see "First to Worst" on the front page of AJC Sports.)
The bullpen is really bad, unquestionably. 15 blown saves to 15 converted saves is not an acceptable ratio. The Braves are, what, 15 games out of first place? And 15 blown saves? How interesting. (Of course, a team cannot convert every save opportunity. But being, say, 3 or 4 games out of first is a lot better than 15 back.) It's almost like the team cannot possibly hope to win unless it has an insurmountable lead coming into the 7th inning. And with the Braves' hitting being lackluster at best lately, that insurmountability isn't showing up too well. Abysmal batting averages with runners in scoring position. No average from the first two hitters, and no home runs from numbers 3-6 in the lineup.
And so the trade rumors start.
Trade Andruw Jones and Chipper Jones, some rumors say. Or John Smoltz, maybe. Jeff Francoeur? Brian McCann? I don't know enough about that to say. I'm not a manager. And then some say that Bobby Cox has outlasted his ability, some say the same about John Schuerholtz. Regarding that, though, I certainly have something to say. Bobby Cox, in particular, has shown time and time again that he can make a team great. Consider 1990, the last time the Braves were not champions. Then consider 1991: the Braves go to the World Series. Both of these managers have deftly handled the team year after year. Let's give them the chance to do so again in the future.
Finally, a massive trade for a single big-name player is probably not the way to go either. The Jim Thomes, Ichiros, and Albert Pujolses of the world? Of course they're talented baseball players. Of course they can guide their teams to victory. But can even they singlehandedly turn a miserable team's fortunes around? I doubt it. A solid hitter, even an All-Star caliber one, cannot erase 15 of 30 blown saves.
Two weeks ago, I would have said that something needs to be done soon, but I think it's already too late for this season. Braves fans, bow your heads, and acknowledge that all things must pass. It's been a good run. But something does need to be done. And we need to trust Cox and Schuerholtz to do their jobs.
Oh, World Cup Fever. The United States lost to Ghana. Oh well.
Currently listening: Ganging up on the Sun, Guster
Friday, June 16, 2006
Like Hell This Song Isn't About LSD
Upon getting an eye exam today, I had to be entered into the database (because it'd been far too long since I'd had my last). All the usual fields were there: First Name, Last Name, Date of Birth, and Gender. Now, you'd expect Gender to be either "Female" or "Male"... right?
Not so.
Inexplicably, we have "Female," "Male," and "Other."
My mom and I were prompted to wonder... do they actually have enough cases where this option comes into plat to warrant adding it? Part of me really, really wanted to ask my eye doctor exactly what that was supposed to mean, and how often neither "Female" nor "Male" seems to cut it.
Currently listening: Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, the Beatles; Soundtrack from Hero
Not so.
Inexplicably, we have "Female," "Male," and "Other."
My mom and I were prompted to wonder... do they actually have enough cases where this option comes into plat to warrant adding it? Part of me really, really wanted to ask my eye doctor exactly what that was supposed to mean, and how often neither "Female" nor "Male" seems to cut it.
Currently listening: Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, the Beatles; Soundtrack from Hero
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
In Celebration of 6/6/6
Here's a piece I wrote a couple of years ago that I think is fitting for today.
Currently listening: Deadbeat Sweetheartbeat, The Juliana Theory; and My Flame Burns Blue, Elvis Costello
Quinto die ante Kalendas Mai; secundo anno Domitian imperatore
I recently read your latest work, “Revelation.” This is a most excellent piece of writing, and being a particular eschatology aficionado, I enjoyed your account of events depicted therein. The numerical symbolism was especially thought provoking: I understand the number seven as perfection and the number six as imperfection (although this displays a clear bias toward your side), but I am a little unsure as to the significance of the number ten. Perhaps this can be clarified somewhat in a future printing.
Now there are a few points on which I feel you must be corrected. Foremost, you refer to the “harlot
Secondly, although one cannot know the exact outcome of the great battle at the End of Days, you purport to know that your side will be victorious. While I know I cannot dissuade you from this opinion, I feel it is my duty to correct an egregious inaccuracy regarding the location of the battle. As is evident from Chapter 16, your account has the battle happening in Judea, near
Finally, according to your account, again in Chapter 16, the three demonic spirits assigned to perform works to the world resemble alligators. While their amphibious reptilian nature cannot be denied, I believe (if my notes are in fact veritable) that these spirits are planned to resemble frogs more closely than alligators. It would be somewhat impractical for the Prophet (the one whom you refer to as the “False” Prophet) to be forced to emit such a creature from his mouth.
By the way, I was most interested in knowing in your true identity. Is it true that you were actually one of the original disciples of the Prochrist, as the rumors claim? If this reckoning is accurate, then you would be about ninety years old, and I am afraid to say that my sources inform me that lifespans lasting this long will not be common or even attainable until about eighteen hundred years from now. Granted, “John” is a fairly common name, but perhaps you should consider signing your eschatological work as “John*” and affix the appropriate footnote explaining your identity. I would (you will admit, understandably) not want to go through the editing process with you only to have the work not published because of issues concerning the author’s identity.
Please correct these inaccuracies posthaste or I am afraid that legal action must be brought against you. As my organization and I both realize that neither defamation of character nor false forecast of events was intended by your writing, we hope that a future edition will make these necessary changes so that you may avoid recourse. I would also encourage you to write in the future; perhaps essays on current would events would be in order… if the Emperor Domitian sees fit to release you from prison.
The blessings of your (false) deity be with you,
Uzgoroth
Currently listening: Deadbeat Sweetheartbeat, The Juliana Theory; and My Flame Burns Blue, Elvis Costello
Sunday, June 04, 2006
On the Placement of Products
The onset of Tivo. A foreboding omen, a dark portent, a harbinger of doom for the advertising industry. After all, if people aren't watching a television show in real time, they'll Tivo it and gloss over all of the precious hundred thousand dollar commercial spots. So something had to be done. And thus was born product placement, the practice of blatantly inserting references to your product into whatever medium you like. The standard issue "creepy secret government organization" black SUVs in 24 aren't generic black SUVs but Ford SUVs. And so forth.
(No, this is not yet another entry about television. It's about advertising practices.)
You know what? It doesn't bother me, really. And it's not going to influence me either. To follow the motif of not engaging in popular cultural practices simply because they're there, but not rebelling against them simply because they're popular either. Traditional-style commercials and product placement: I'm not going to be subliminally influenced to buy a product because I see it advertised, and I'm not going to actively rebel against the product because I've seen it advertised.
So that got me thinking: how effective, really, is advertising? I know it makes sense if you've got a new product or service to display: "here's something that didn't exist before, does exist now, and you might be interested in." To me, it does not make sense if it's "here's something that you already know exists, and here's why you should be interested in it. Watch me demonstrate its amazingness." That kind of approach just doesn't work for me, and I'd like to know in general how effective it is.
Audience poll: are you more, less, or as likely to buy a product/service if you've seen it advertised? Do you find your opinion of a product/service changes after you see an advertisement for it?
The reason I ask is because I recently participated in a strange survey/market research scheme. I received a phone call regarding my television and movie watching habits, and before I knew it, I was agreeing to watch a video mailed to me and provide my feedback on it. I watched said video today, which contained the most God-awful sitcom I have ever subjected myself to, King of Queens included. Before and after I watched it, I was to fill out forms corresponding to what I would like to receive as a prize should I be selected for a sweepstakes. I got (sometimes bizarre) categories to choose from, and had to pick an item from each. Without going into too much detail, if a box containing some Oreos, Aquafresh toothpaste, and Mrs. Dash Garlic and Herb seasoning salt shows up on my front porch, I'll have a pretty good idea why.
The strange part about it was the date on this God-awful sitcom: 1997. That's an almost ten year old show they're having me watch? For what purpose? This isn't Seinfeld; pilots from a decade ago don't mysteriously resurface, especially not ones that bad. Then take the before/after aspect of the prize booklets. An obvious thought would be that I was supposed to have been influenced by the commercials on the tape to change a few of my selections. Only one of the product categories in the "after" booklet had a corresponding commercial during the show: batteries. Even more strangely, batteries did not show up in the "before" booklet, but guess what the very first category was in the "after"?
So my current conspiracy theory, which my dad and I formulated as these strange events progressed: it's all about the batteries. The show is a red herring; they couldn't care less what I thought of it. They just want to know how the Energizer commerical affected my desire to buy Energizer batteries.
In the "after" booklet, for my preferred battery brand, I picked Duracell.
Currently listening: Weezer (Blue Album)
(No, this is not yet another entry about television. It's about advertising practices.)
You know what? It doesn't bother me, really. And it's not going to influence me either. To follow the motif of not engaging in popular cultural practices simply because they're there, but not rebelling against them simply because they're popular either. Traditional-style commercials and product placement: I'm not going to be subliminally influenced to buy a product because I see it advertised, and I'm not going to actively rebel against the product because I've seen it advertised.
So that got me thinking: how effective, really, is advertising? I know it makes sense if you've got a new product or service to display: "here's something that didn't exist before, does exist now, and you might be interested in." To me, it does not make sense if it's "here's something that you already know exists, and here's why you should be interested in it. Watch me demonstrate its amazingness." That kind of approach just doesn't work for me, and I'd like to know in general how effective it is.
Audience poll: are you more, less, or as likely to buy a product/service if you've seen it advertised? Do you find your opinion of a product/service changes after you see an advertisement for it?
The reason I ask is because I recently participated in a strange survey/market research scheme. I received a phone call regarding my television and movie watching habits, and before I knew it, I was agreeing to watch a video mailed to me and provide my feedback on it. I watched said video today, which contained the most God-awful sitcom I have ever subjected myself to, King of Queens included. Before and after I watched it, I was to fill out forms corresponding to what I would like to receive as a prize should I be selected for a sweepstakes. I got (sometimes bizarre) categories to choose from, and had to pick an item from each. Without going into too much detail, if a box containing some Oreos, Aquafresh toothpaste, and Mrs. Dash Garlic and Herb seasoning salt shows up on my front porch, I'll have a pretty good idea why.
The strange part about it was the date on this God-awful sitcom: 1997. That's an almost ten year old show they're having me watch? For what purpose? This isn't Seinfeld; pilots from a decade ago don't mysteriously resurface, especially not ones that bad. Then take the before/after aspect of the prize booklets. An obvious thought would be that I was supposed to have been influenced by the commercials on the tape to change a few of my selections. Only one of the product categories in the "after" booklet had a corresponding commercial during the show: batteries. Even more strangely, batteries did not show up in the "before" booklet, but guess what the very first category was in the "after"?
So my current conspiracy theory, which my dad and I formulated as these strange events progressed: it's all about the batteries. The show is a red herring; they couldn't care less what I thought of it. They just want to know how the Energizer commerical affected my desire to buy Energizer batteries.
In the "after" booklet, for my preferred battery brand, I picked Duracell.
Currently listening: Weezer (Blue Album)
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Hollywood Lacks New Ideas (Take heart, take heart, O Bulkington!)
Hooray for the Memorial Day blockbuster. O big, flashy, cost-80-million-to-make-but-probably-pulls-in-100-million number... where would the country be without you? And as I was viewing my choice of Memorial Day blockbusters, I realized that there's nothing original going on here. We're not just talking about recycling plotlines (a new one of which we've not seen since Shakespeare, and even the Bard himself ganked a lot from Aeschylus and his ilk)... we're talking straight-up repitition of concept. Almost all new movies you see today are 1) remakes of existing movies; 2) movie adaptations of existing plays, comics, video games, or books; 3) sequels to existing movies; or 4) film adaptations of true stories.
Think about it. Big movies of right now: X3. Mission Impossible III. The DaVinci Code. All fit into the above categories (and in fact X3 is both a movie adaptation of an existing comic and a sequel to an existing movie). Movies that have been nominated for or won Oscars in the recent past: Return of the King. Ray. Munich. Capote. Brokeback Mountain. King Kong. The Aviator. I could go on, but the point is made. I'm not saying they're bad movies or anything... just, dare I say, unoriginal?
So how about that X3?
Review: X-Men: The Last Stand
In the sequel-happy state of affairs in which we find ourselves, The X-Men series is perhaps the only one for which I have seen all of the movies. The thing is, this isn't so much out of some huge love for the X-Men concept. It was out of being in the right place at the right time... as in "I've got X-Men on DVD. Want to watch it?" Then, "On second thought, I don't really feel like watching The Matrix Reloaded. Let's see X-2 instead." And most recently, "Hey Matt, what are you doing today? We're watching X3."
The thing about the X-Men movies is they're not too bad at all. Never having been a huge fan of the superhero concept, and recently becoming bored with action movies, I'd expect this series to be something that I pretty much shrug off as mindless entertainment. And it is mindless entertainment, but at least it's actually entertaining mindless entertainment. One piece of high praise I have for these movies, and for X3 in particular, is that I was actually impressed by the special effects. Where certain other movies lauded for their special effects didn't impress me to say the least (eg King Kong), the effects in X3 were quite good. Like Magneto lifting the Golden Gate Bridge. Absolutely amazing. Between that and Jean Grey's atomokinesis (and heck, Jean Grey herself), this movie is visually impressive.
Even without being a superhero buff, it's pretty obvious that one concept that differentiates X-Men from other superhero settings is the moral discussion of difference from mainstream society. Where most superhero settings are focused on one or a handful of protagonists, in X-Men, there's an entire subculture of "mutants," giving rise to intellectual debates about integration, toleration, etc. This is especially evident in the third movie, where one of the two main plotlines involves a so-called "cure" for being a mutant. Ethical dilemmas abound! While this is hardly Crime and Punishment, you've gotta give some credit to this movie for wanting to make us think, if only secondarily to watching stuff blow up.
The other primary plotline shows the apotheosis of Jean Grey, who doesn't hesitate to go from loyal friend of Xavier to evil servant of Magneto to "Ah, screw it, I'm just going to disintegrate everything." Her transformation gives rise to yet another debate, this one discussing the proper use of restraints; self-identity weighed against "this psycho is going to blow up all of California if we don't stop her." Not that that would necessarily be a huge loss.
As usual with the X-Men movies, the acting was merely solid at worst and quite good at best. Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart? It's like a geek actor dream movie. (Given the movie's events, it's questionable whether Stewart will be reprising his role as Charles Xavier in a hypothetical sequel, which would be a huge loss.) Some moments were especially cheesy. The whole Rogue-Iceman subplot... I don't care. At all. Magneto wondering "what have I done" after doing plenty of mean and downright evil things--like going as far as to tell Mystique (who saved him earlier in the movie) that she wasn't one of them anymore? Ridiculous.
Of course, "Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" was brilliant. There's a flash dubbing of an old X-Men cartoon somewhere on the Internet (I don't have the link; if you've got it, let me know) that features that exact line... and seeing it in the actual movie was amazing. All in all, a highly entertaining movie... not award-caliber, not inspiring, and not revolutionary... but so what?
And no, the point of that review was not so that I could use the word "apotheosis" in a sentence and make a pretentious literary reference while doing it. Really. I promise. (But a dozen points if you can name the reference, without Googling it.)
Currently listening: Comfort Eagle, Cake
Think about it. Big movies of right now: X3. Mission Impossible III. The DaVinci Code. All fit into the above categories (and in fact X3 is both a movie adaptation of an existing comic and a sequel to an existing movie). Movies that have been nominated for or won Oscars in the recent past: Return of the King. Ray. Munich. Capote. Brokeback Mountain. King Kong. The Aviator. I could go on, but the point is made. I'm not saying they're bad movies or anything... just, dare I say, unoriginal?
So how about that X3?
Review: X-Men: The Last Stand
In the sequel-happy state of affairs in which we find ourselves, The X-Men series is perhaps the only one for which I have seen all of the movies. The thing is, this isn't so much out of some huge love for the X-Men concept. It was out of being in the right place at the right time... as in "I've got X-Men on DVD. Want to watch it?" Then, "On second thought, I don't really feel like watching The Matrix Reloaded. Let's see X-2 instead." And most recently, "Hey Matt, what are you doing today? We're watching X3."
The thing about the X-Men movies is they're not too bad at all. Never having been a huge fan of the superhero concept, and recently becoming bored with action movies, I'd expect this series to be something that I pretty much shrug off as mindless entertainment. And it is mindless entertainment, but at least it's actually entertaining mindless entertainment. One piece of high praise I have for these movies, and for X3 in particular, is that I was actually impressed by the special effects. Where certain other movies lauded for their special effects didn't impress me to say the least (eg King Kong), the effects in X3 were quite good. Like Magneto lifting the Golden Gate Bridge. Absolutely amazing. Between that and Jean Grey's atomokinesis (and heck, Jean Grey herself), this movie is visually impressive.
Even without being a superhero buff, it's pretty obvious that one concept that differentiates X-Men from other superhero settings is the moral discussion of difference from mainstream society. Where most superhero settings are focused on one or a handful of protagonists, in X-Men, there's an entire subculture of "mutants," giving rise to intellectual debates about integration, toleration, etc. This is especially evident in the third movie, where one of the two main plotlines involves a so-called "cure" for being a mutant. Ethical dilemmas abound! While this is hardly Crime and Punishment, you've gotta give some credit to this movie for wanting to make us think, if only secondarily to watching stuff blow up.
The other primary plotline shows the apotheosis of Jean Grey, who doesn't hesitate to go from loyal friend of Xavier to evil servant of Magneto to "Ah, screw it, I'm just going to disintegrate everything." Her transformation gives rise to yet another debate, this one discussing the proper use of restraints; self-identity weighed against "this psycho is going to blow up all of California if we don't stop her." Not that that would necessarily be a huge loss.
As usual with the X-Men movies, the acting was merely solid at worst and quite good at best. Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart? It's like a geek actor dream movie. (Given the movie's events, it's questionable whether Stewart will be reprising his role as Charles Xavier in a hypothetical sequel, which would be a huge loss.) Some moments were especially cheesy. The whole Rogue-Iceman subplot... I don't care. At all. Magneto wondering "what have I done" after doing plenty of mean and downright evil things--like going as far as to tell Mystique (who saved him earlier in the movie) that she wasn't one of them anymore? Ridiculous.
Of course, "Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" was brilliant. There's a flash dubbing of an old X-Men cartoon somewhere on the Internet (I don't have the link; if you've got it, let me know) that features that exact line... and seeing it in the actual movie was amazing. All in all, a highly entertaining movie... not award-caliber, not inspiring, and not revolutionary... but so what?
And no, the point of that review was not so that I could use the word "apotheosis" in a sentence and make a pretentious literary reference while doing it. Really. I promise. (But a dozen points if you can name the reference, without Googling it.)
Currently listening: Comfort Eagle, Cake
Thursday, May 25, 2006
What the heck just happened there?
I'm talking about the Lost season finale. Like most episodes of that show, it answered a few questions, but for every question it answered, it asked two or three more. I'm going to attempt to do for Lost what I did for 24 earlier, but I'm afraid this is going to be much more toward listing questions asked than astually formulating hypotheses. Spoilers, of course.
First, something I figured out. Think back to the "Lockdown" episode. Locke and fake-Henry are trapped in a section of the hatch during the lockdown so that they can't access the computer. Locke is stuck under the blast door. He tells fake-Henry that something terrible is going to happen if he doesn't type in the numbers before the countdown reaches zero. So fake-Henry crawls through the ducts, and a few minutes later, the countdown resets. Fake-Henry tells Locke that he didn't do anything, that he didn't type in any of the numbers. However, we now know this to be a lie. Very bad things happen inside the station (and off the island, too) when the button is not pressed. Therefore, fake-Henry has to have pressed the button. He then lies to Locke, telling him that the place is a lie.
The most obvious theory is that fake-Henry has every idea what happens when you don't press the button, he didn't want that to happen when he was inside the station, but for whatever reason he didn't want Locke to think that pressing the button does anything at all. How does fake-Henry know this? Another theory is that fake-Henry doesn't actually know the effects of not pressing the button, he wants to find out, but he doesn't want that to happen with him in the hatch. So, he manipulates Locke into doing it for him.
Now, questions that were raised from the season finale, and ones that still linger from earlier:
The big one: what in the heck is going on with the Others? We found out that Mr. Friendly's name is Tom, and that Mrs. Klugh's name is Bea. They aren't in charge of the Others, but they both have some measure of authority. We also now know that fake-Henry is more important than either one of them, but whether fake-Henry is the "He" in charge of the Others, or if fake-Henry merely answers to "Him," we don't know.
Why do the Others have a Dharma hatch mockup at their camp? Furthermore, is that really the Others' camp? Walt says the Others aren't who they say they are. Tom has been wearing a fake beard for months (apparently at the suggestion of fake-Henry). So there is evidence that the Others are faking things; maybe that entire camp is a fake.
How did the Others get the boat (and fuel for it)? How do they know about the Pala ferry? Where does the Pala ferry go (more on this later)?
Are Michael and Walt off the show now? What's significant about compass heading 325? It's not a permutation of any of the Numbers; it's not an exact directional heading (315 would be exact northwest. 325 is approximately northwest by north.) Are they actually going to be rescued? The Others have made several bargains in the past and kept them all, so I see no reason why they won't be rescued.
Where's Sayid at this point? Last we saw of him, he opened the mockup of the Dharma station door. If the Others ever return to that camp, they're not going to be very happy to find a gun-slinging Iraqi there...
What's up with the four-toed statue? This is a nicely obtuse reference to the Numbers... but where did that thing come from? Who built it? Is it broken or merely unfinished?
Where's Cerberus been lately? Assuming the general theory of "island monster=Cerberus=black smoke" is true, we've not seen it much at all lately, since it appeared to Eko earlier this season. On the Blast Door Map, does "CV" in fact mean "Cerberus vent," as has been speculated? What was the Cerberus malfunction that the aforementioned map referred to?
How extensive is DharmaTel? Are the shutdowns that are mentioned on the map on some sort of schedule? It would seem like this is the case, and that's what Locke experienced in "Lockdown." Does the supply drop coincide with the lockdown?
How can Radvinsky be traced back to the original Dharma Initiative? Were he and Kelvin part of the Initiative? Or did Kelvin make his way to the island in some other manner, and he was added to the staff in the same way that Desmond was when we arrived? For that matter, was Radvinsky even part of what was originally going on there? Why did Radvinsky edit the orientation tape, and why did he hide part of the tape in another hatch?
Widmore. Shady as hell. First, we've seen that the island isn't just a snowglobe as Desmond claims; observers from outside the island can and do notice what's going on there. How deeply is Widmore connected with Hanso and Dharma? Already we've seen references to Widmore (Widmore Construction and Widmore Labs). I'd be willing to bet that Widmore knows something about what's going on on the island. Penny Widmore evidently knows to look for a magnetic anomaly, and the only way she'd know that would be through Dharma and Hanso.
Remember the power cable that goes off into the ocean that was discovered in season 1? What ever happened to it?
Desmond, Locke, and Eko. Dead or alive? Keep in mind that we don't actually have any idea what Desmond's turning the key did. Can we assume that it caused the magnetic fluctuations to stop permanently? Maybe Dharma actually built an electromagnet at the site of the Swan? I don't think so much involving Desmond's backstory (including Penny, the Portuguese guys, and Widmore) that may have an impact on season 3 would have been revealed had Desmond not lived.
My theory for what's going on here:
The Others are tied, somehow, to the original Dharma Initiative project. This would explain the Pala ferry and the fact that fake-Henry seems to know the consequences of not pressing the button. Their real camp is in a Dharma station (one of the stations whose name we do not yet know, but the symbol is probably a door). According to the Blast Door Map (which we now know to have been worked on by Desmond, Kelvin, and Radvinsky), things started to go badly for the Dharma Initiative in the mid 1980s. The "AH/MDG incident" occurred in 1985, and Cerberus "malfunctioned" sometime around then as well. We also know that the Hanso Foundation stopped funding the Dharma Initiative in 1987 (which is, coincidentally, when Rosseau showed up on the island). So, the "incident" made the Dharma stations stop working--we know the Staff, at least, was abandoned at this time. Maybe the Swan was the exception to this abandonment? Someone must have been pressing that button since 1985. Radvinsky?
Either way, the people who we now know as the Others stopped participating in the Dharma Initiative's research, banded together, and formed their own weird little civilization. Between 1985 and 1987, Hanso and Dharma tried to get it under control, but failed; this ultimately led to Hanso stopping funding Dharma in 1987, and Hanso trying to distance itself from Dharma and the island. Now, fake-Henry thinks that they're the "good guys" because only they know the truth about how evil Alvar Hanso is.
So how did Hanso come to fund the Dharma Initiative at all? Magnus Hanso (whose "resting place," according to the Blast Door Map, is the Black Rock) was Alvar's father; he was the captain of the Black Rock. Alvar first came to the island while he was looking for his father. At this time, he became aware of the strange electromagnetic fluctuations coming from the area around the Swan. Hanso decided to fund the Dharma Initiative to study those fluctuations.
At any rate, it's going to be a great 3rd season, if in fact season 3 continues the great quality and suspense that season 1 and 2 had. The only downside? Four months of no Lost.
Currently listening: "Los Angeles, I'm Yours," the Decemberists
First, something I figured out. Think back to the "Lockdown" episode. Locke and fake-Henry are trapped in a section of the hatch during the lockdown so that they can't access the computer. Locke is stuck under the blast door. He tells fake-Henry that something terrible is going to happen if he doesn't type in the numbers before the countdown reaches zero. So fake-Henry crawls through the ducts, and a few minutes later, the countdown resets. Fake-Henry tells Locke that he didn't do anything, that he didn't type in any of the numbers. However, we now know this to be a lie. Very bad things happen inside the station (and off the island, too) when the button is not pressed. Therefore, fake-Henry has to have pressed the button. He then lies to Locke, telling him that the place is a lie.
The most obvious theory is that fake-Henry has every idea what happens when you don't press the button, he didn't want that to happen when he was inside the station, but for whatever reason he didn't want Locke to think that pressing the button does anything at all. How does fake-Henry know this? Another theory is that fake-Henry doesn't actually know the effects of not pressing the button, he wants to find out, but he doesn't want that to happen with him in the hatch. So, he manipulates Locke into doing it for him.
Now, questions that were raised from the season finale, and ones that still linger from earlier:
The big one: what in the heck is going on with the Others? We found out that Mr. Friendly's name is Tom, and that Mrs. Klugh's name is Bea. They aren't in charge of the Others, but they both have some measure of authority. We also now know that fake-Henry is more important than either one of them, but whether fake-Henry is the "He" in charge of the Others, or if fake-Henry merely answers to "Him," we don't know.
Why do the Others have a Dharma hatch mockup at their camp? Furthermore, is that really the Others' camp? Walt says the Others aren't who they say they are. Tom has been wearing a fake beard for months (apparently at the suggestion of fake-Henry). So there is evidence that the Others are faking things; maybe that entire camp is a fake.
How did the Others get the boat (and fuel for it)? How do they know about the Pala ferry? Where does the Pala ferry go (more on this later)?
Are Michael and Walt off the show now? What's significant about compass heading 325? It's not a permutation of any of the Numbers; it's not an exact directional heading (315 would be exact northwest. 325 is approximately northwest by north.) Are they actually going to be rescued? The Others have made several bargains in the past and kept them all, so I see no reason why they won't be rescued.
Where's Sayid at this point? Last we saw of him, he opened the mockup of the Dharma station door. If the Others ever return to that camp, they're not going to be very happy to find a gun-slinging Iraqi there...
What's up with the four-toed statue? This is a nicely obtuse reference to the Numbers... but where did that thing come from? Who built it? Is it broken or merely unfinished?
Where's Cerberus been lately? Assuming the general theory of "island monster=Cerberus=black smoke" is true, we've not seen it much at all lately, since it appeared to Eko earlier this season. On the Blast Door Map, does "CV" in fact mean "Cerberus vent," as has been speculated? What was the Cerberus malfunction that the aforementioned map referred to?
How extensive is DharmaTel? Are the shutdowns that are mentioned on the map on some sort of schedule? It would seem like this is the case, and that's what Locke experienced in "Lockdown." Does the supply drop coincide with the lockdown?
How can Radvinsky be traced back to the original Dharma Initiative? Were he and Kelvin part of the Initiative? Or did Kelvin make his way to the island in some other manner, and he was added to the staff in the same way that Desmond was when we arrived? For that matter, was Radvinsky even part of what was originally going on there? Why did Radvinsky edit the orientation tape, and why did he hide part of the tape in another hatch?
Widmore. Shady as hell. First, we've seen that the island isn't just a snowglobe as Desmond claims; observers from outside the island can and do notice what's going on there. How deeply is Widmore connected with Hanso and Dharma? Already we've seen references to Widmore (Widmore Construction and Widmore Labs). I'd be willing to bet that Widmore knows something about what's going on on the island. Penny Widmore evidently knows to look for a magnetic anomaly, and the only way she'd know that would be through Dharma and Hanso.
Remember the power cable that goes off into the ocean that was discovered in season 1? What ever happened to it?
Desmond, Locke, and Eko. Dead or alive? Keep in mind that we don't actually have any idea what Desmond's turning the key did. Can we assume that it caused the magnetic fluctuations to stop permanently? Maybe Dharma actually built an electromagnet at the site of the Swan? I don't think so much involving Desmond's backstory (including Penny, the Portuguese guys, and Widmore) that may have an impact on season 3 would have been revealed had Desmond not lived.
My theory for what's going on here:
The Others are tied, somehow, to the original Dharma Initiative project. This would explain the Pala ferry and the fact that fake-Henry seems to know the consequences of not pressing the button. Their real camp is in a Dharma station (one of the stations whose name we do not yet know, but the symbol is probably a door). According to the Blast Door Map (which we now know to have been worked on by Desmond, Kelvin, and Radvinsky), things started to go badly for the Dharma Initiative in the mid 1980s. The "AH/MDG incident" occurred in 1985, and Cerberus "malfunctioned" sometime around then as well. We also know that the Hanso Foundation stopped funding the Dharma Initiative in 1987 (which is, coincidentally, when Rosseau showed up on the island). So, the "incident" made the Dharma stations stop working--we know the Staff, at least, was abandoned at this time. Maybe the Swan was the exception to this abandonment? Someone must have been pressing that button since 1985. Radvinsky?
Either way, the people who we now know as the Others stopped participating in the Dharma Initiative's research, banded together, and formed their own weird little civilization. Between 1985 and 1987, Hanso and Dharma tried to get it under control, but failed; this ultimately led to Hanso stopping funding Dharma in 1987, and Hanso trying to distance itself from Dharma and the island. Now, fake-Henry thinks that they're the "good guys" because only they know the truth about how evil Alvar Hanso is.
So how did Hanso come to fund the Dharma Initiative at all? Magnus Hanso (whose "resting place," according to the Blast Door Map, is the Black Rock) was Alvar's father; he was the captain of the Black Rock. Alvar first came to the island while he was looking for his father. At this time, he became aware of the strange electromagnetic fluctuations coming from the area around the Swan. Hanso decided to fund the Dharma Initiative to study those fluctuations.
At any rate, it's going to be a great 3rd season, if in fact season 3 continues the great quality and suspense that season 1 and 2 had. The only downside? Four months of no Lost.
Currently listening: "Los Angeles, I'm Yours," the Decemberists
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
24 Questions, Predictions, and Hopes about 24
First off, spoilers. I mean, duh. You can't not talk about a season finale like that.
Secondly, the Chinese coming back in the last ten minutes of the show? Brilliant. But it also shows how compelling the rest of the show is. Before the start of season 5, speculation was rampant about how the Chinese were going to play into the storyline. They didn't. And because the story was so engaging, people stopped focusing on the Chinese to look at the matters at hand. And when the Chinese reappeared... we were all shocked, even though we should have seen it coming.
Questions (mostly pertaining to the end of season 5):
1) Henderson: dead or alive? This really shouldn't be an issue, and in fact it wouldn't have been, if one of the lead-in segments (I think it was around 5:52 am) hadn't shown Henderson's body on the submarine. I can't think of another situation in which one of the panes in a 24 lead-in was focused on a dead villain. I was fully expecting Henderson to show up during the 6 am hour; he didn't, which lends credence to the claim that he's really dead. I think having him survive two direct shots to the chest would be cheesy, anyway.
2) What happened to Wayne Palmer? One minute he and Aaron Pierce are busting up some Henderson goons with automatic weapons, and the next nobody seems to know where the heck he is.
3) How is Graham related to what will happen in the future? I like the character; I think he's exactly right for an evil criminal mastermind. His character obviously has a lot of similiarities to Max, the villain revealed to be behing Peter Kingsley in season 2. Both are wealthy businessmen with oil interests; both are somewhat disconnected with the actual events of the day, instead running things from an undisclosed location; both have the ear of an important official in the US government. But Graham had much more of a speaking role that Max ever did, which is why I think he'll rear his head again.
4) Who sold Jack out to the Chinese? Popular speculation seems to think it was Logan, but I argue that Logan was nowhere near lucid enough in the last few hours to contact the Chinese and set up a plan to catch Jack. Besides, if he did that, he would be practically admitting to the Chinese that he had failed to kill Jack like he had said he would. I think it was more likely Graham, who clearly recognized the danger Jack posed and wouldn't be above revenge for souring the day's events.
5) What happens to the political landscape of the United States? Clearly, Hal Gardner is going to take over as acting President. I'd be willing to bet that Logan doesn't stand through a long impeachment but, like Nixon (after whom the character was clearly modeled), will step down from office, and we'll never hear from him again. Will Gardner have been through an election cycle, having already won or lost the presidency?
6) What's going to happen with CTU leadership? It chages every season, so why not again? Buchanan has done a respectable job (read: let Jack do his thing and look the other way), which is usually rewarded in 24-land with "you're fired."
7) Why is Jack "too valuable to kill?" What are the Chinese going to do with him?
Predictions (for season 6):
8) Jack isn't going to China... or at least he won't be there at the time that season 6 starts. He'll be at the Consulate in Los Angeles, or on a ship in international waters. It wouldn't work for a major character on the show to be completely gone from the United States.
9) Jack's "value" to the Chinese isn't a political value; the Chinese are going to use Jack as a spy to infiltrate the United States for them.
10) Because we already know that Jack doesn't care if the Chinese kill him, the only way the Chinese can coerce Jack into doing their bidding is to threaten Kim and/or CTU.
11) While spying on the United States, Jack unconvers a terrorist plot against America. This plan has nothing to do with the Chinese: fitting the "every other season" pattern, it's Muslim extremists this time.
12) The only way Jack can get his information to American officials is to send it through Chinese channels. Because there's always a "we can't trust Jack" sentiment in the upper levels of government, the new president will not think that Jack is telling the truth, simply because it's coming from Chinese sources.
13) There are people who do believe Jack: his small but loyal and talent band of followers at CTU. This probably includes Chloe, Buchanan, Audrey, and possibly Mike Novick.
14) Speaking of Novick, the current president will retain Novick as chief of staff and Pierce as a special agent. Novick is too compelling and Pierce too heroic to be lost to a new administration.
15) And just to add a conspiracy element to the mix, the terrorist plot that Jack uncovers while spying for the Chinese has some connection to Graham. We've not seen the last of him.
16) Of course, Jack eventually foils the terrorist conspiracy. But he does this at cost to some members of CTU. At the end of the day, everyone who didn't trust Jack toward the beginning finally realizes "hey, we should have listened to this guy all along." Then, there's a twist explaining why Jack won't be working at CTU for the next eighteen months. Oh wait... that's not so much a predicition as a guarantee.
Hopes (for season 6):
17) Morris! Chloe? Married? ...what? As if that's not an interesting storyline on its own, Morris seems to be a really interesting guy. Now that the cat's out of the bag, you can't just throw this guy away, and I want to see more of the backstory.
18) No Kim. Things ostensibly related to Kim, whether or not they were actually related to Kim (eg, the phone call at the end of season 5), have gotten Jack into more trouble than anything else on the show. She's annoying and distracting from the main plot.
19) Less Audrey. I know there's some perception that Audrey needs to be there to show that there still is a human side to Jack. But characters like Chloe, David Palmer, and Tony have shown that Jack is capable of emotion... and I've never cringed any time one of those characters showed up on screen.
20) Buchanan gets some (from Karen Hayes, as we began to see in the season 5 finale). He's already shown himself to be a competent leader of CTU, and let's face it: the guy deserves some quality time that doesn't involve simultaneously fighting terrorists and someone in the government, all the while trying to balance the fact that he knows Jack is right with the fact that he gets reprimanded or worse for just letting the guy do is job.
21) More needle guy. I think his name was Richards? He was CTU's resident "get information out of the captured terrorist" specialist. Often, the threat of bringing Richards in was more than enough to get a confession.
22) More Curtis. The guy's the director of Field Ops at CTU, so I want him to... I don't know, lead some field ops? He had some of the most impressive non-Jack moments (eg. taking down Henderson) in season 5, and I want to see even more of those in season 6.
23) Miles gets his. That bastard ruined evidence against Logan, just because he wanted some promotions. Sure, he did become a victim of the Jack choke-hold and the Karen Hayes slap, but I want a more definitive "Miles was fired and will never be back at CTU."
24) Jack catchphrases continue. Because what would 24 be without "Damn it!" and "We're running out of time!"?
And a quick poll question: favorite moment of the finale? Mine was Jack (hopefully) killing Henderson on the sub, very dramatic and evocative of the end of season 1.
Currently listening: English Folk Song Suite: Intermezzo "My Bonny Boy," Vaughan Williams
EDIT:
My dad proposed a very convincing answer to the "what happens to the political landscape" question. The timeline seems to work out such that the country should have been through an election cycle. Hal Gardner, seen as a relic from the embattled Logan administration, decides not to run. Furthermore, the country's confidence in the Republican party is shattered after Logan. Sensing some nostaliga for the good old days of the Palmer administration, the Democratic party nominates none other than Wayne Palmer, who defeats the Republican candidate in a landslide.
Secondly, the Chinese coming back in the last ten minutes of the show? Brilliant. But it also shows how compelling the rest of the show is. Before the start of season 5, speculation was rampant about how the Chinese were going to play into the storyline. They didn't. And because the story was so engaging, people stopped focusing on the Chinese to look at the matters at hand. And when the Chinese reappeared... we were all shocked, even though we should have seen it coming.
Questions (mostly pertaining to the end of season 5):
1) Henderson: dead or alive? This really shouldn't be an issue, and in fact it wouldn't have been, if one of the lead-in segments (I think it was around 5:52 am) hadn't shown Henderson's body on the submarine. I can't think of another situation in which one of the panes in a 24 lead-in was focused on a dead villain. I was fully expecting Henderson to show up during the 6 am hour; he didn't, which lends credence to the claim that he's really dead. I think having him survive two direct shots to the chest would be cheesy, anyway.
2) What happened to Wayne Palmer? One minute he and Aaron Pierce are busting up some Henderson goons with automatic weapons, and the next nobody seems to know where the heck he is.
3) How is Graham related to what will happen in the future? I like the character; I think he's exactly right for an evil criminal mastermind. His character obviously has a lot of similiarities to Max, the villain revealed to be behing Peter Kingsley in season 2. Both are wealthy businessmen with oil interests; both are somewhat disconnected with the actual events of the day, instead running things from an undisclosed location; both have the ear of an important official in the US government. But Graham had much more of a speaking role that Max ever did, which is why I think he'll rear his head again.
4) Who sold Jack out to the Chinese? Popular speculation seems to think it was Logan, but I argue that Logan was nowhere near lucid enough in the last few hours to contact the Chinese and set up a plan to catch Jack. Besides, if he did that, he would be practically admitting to the Chinese that he had failed to kill Jack like he had said he would. I think it was more likely Graham, who clearly recognized the danger Jack posed and wouldn't be above revenge for souring the day's events.
5) What happens to the political landscape of the United States? Clearly, Hal Gardner is going to take over as acting President. I'd be willing to bet that Logan doesn't stand through a long impeachment but, like Nixon (after whom the character was clearly modeled), will step down from office, and we'll never hear from him again. Will Gardner have been through an election cycle, having already won or lost the presidency?
6) What's going to happen with CTU leadership? It chages every season, so why not again? Buchanan has done a respectable job (read: let Jack do his thing and look the other way), which is usually rewarded in 24-land with "you're fired."
7) Why is Jack "too valuable to kill?" What are the Chinese going to do with him?
Predictions (for season 6):
8) Jack isn't going to China... or at least he won't be there at the time that season 6 starts. He'll be at the Consulate in Los Angeles, or on a ship in international waters. It wouldn't work for a major character on the show to be completely gone from the United States.
9) Jack's "value" to the Chinese isn't a political value; the Chinese are going to use Jack as a spy to infiltrate the United States for them.
10) Because we already know that Jack doesn't care if the Chinese kill him, the only way the Chinese can coerce Jack into doing their bidding is to threaten Kim and/or CTU.
11) While spying on the United States, Jack unconvers a terrorist plot against America. This plan has nothing to do with the Chinese: fitting the "every other season" pattern, it's Muslim extremists this time.
12) The only way Jack can get his information to American officials is to send it through Chinese channels. Because there's always a "we can't trust Jack" sentiment in the upper levels of government, the new president will not think that Jack is telling the truth, simply because it's coming from Chinese sources.
13) There are people who do believe Jack: his small but loyal and talent band of followers at CTU. This probably includes Chloe, Buchanan, Audrey, and possibly Mike Novick.
14) Speaking of Novick, the current president will retain Novick as chief of staff and Pierce as a special agent. Novick is too compelling and Pierce too heroic to be lost to a new administration.
15) And just to add a conspiracy element to the mix, the terrorist plot that Jack uncovers while spying for the Chinese has some connection to Graham. We've not seen the last of him.
16) Of course, Jack eventually foils the terrorist conspiracy. But he does this at cost to some members of CTU. At the end of the day, everyone who didn't trust Jack toward the beginning finally realizes "hey, we should have listened to this guy all along." Then, there's a twist explaining why Jack won't be working at CTU for the next eighteen months. Oh wait... that's not so much a predicition as a guarantee.
Hopes (for season 6):
17) Morris! Chloe? Married? ...what? As if that's not an interesting storyline on its own, Morris seems to be a really interesting guy. Now that the cat's out of the bag, you can't just throw this guy away, and I want to see more of the backstory.
18) No Kim. Things ostensibly related to Kim, whether or not they were actually related to Kim (eg, the phone call at the end of season 5), have gotten Jack into more trouble than anything else on the show. She's annoying and distracting from the main plot.
19) Less Audrey. I know there's some perception that Audrey needs to be there to show that there still is a human side to Jack. But characters like Chloe, David Palmer, and Tony have shown that Jack is capable of emotion... and I've never cringed any time one of those characters showed up on screen.
20) Buchanan gets some (from Karen Hayes, as we began to see in the season 5 finale). He's already shown himself to be a competent leader of CTU, and let's face it: the guy deserves some quality time that doesn't involve simultaneously fighting terrorists and someone in the government, all the while trying to balance the fact that he knows Jack is right with the fact that he gets reprimanded or worse for just letting the guy do is job.
21) More needle guy. I think his name was Richards? He was CTU's resident "get information out of the captured terrorist" specialist. Often, the threat of bringing Richards in was more than enough to get a confession.
22) More Curtis. The guy's the director of Field Ops at CTU, so I want him to... I don't know, lead some field ops? He had some of the most impressive non-Jack moments (eg. taking down Henderson) in season 5, and I want to see even more of those in season 6.
23) Miles gets his. That bastard ruined evidence against Logan, just because he wanted some promotions. Sure, he did become a victim of the Jack choke-hold and the Karen Hayes slap, but I want a more definitive "Miles was fired and will never be back at CTU."
24) Jack catchphrases continue. Because what would 24 be without "Damn it!" and "We're running out of time!"?
And a quick poll question: favorite moment of the finale? Mine was Jack (hopefully) killing Henderson on the sub, very dramatic and evocative of the end of season 1.
Currently listening: English Folk Song Suite: Intermezzo "My Bonny Boy," Vaughan Williams
EDIT:
My dad proposed a very convincing answer to the "what happens to the political landscape" question. The timeline seems to work out such that the country should have been through an election cycle. Hal Gardner, seen as a relic from the embattled Logan administration, decides not to run. Furthermore, the country's confidence in the Republican party is shattered after Logan. Sensing some nostaliga for the good old days of the Palmer administration, the Democratic party nominates none other than Wayne Palmer, who defeats the Republican candidate in a landslide.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Summertime Entertainments
At this point, I would do well to explain my feelings regarding the "Wii." If you have not heard, this is what Nintendo is choosing to call their next-generation console. It's the most original of the names of the new consoles, but up against "Xbox 360" and "Playstation 3" that's not exactly saying much. The previous name for the system was "Revolution," which was inherently superior to "Wii" because 1) "Revolution" actually means something, 2) Even better, "Revolution" actually describes what Nintendo is trying to do with the system (ie, it will be a revolution in the gaming community because it's supposed to appeal to a population outside the traditional gamer), and 3) "Revolution" does not sound like the noise a 3-year-old makes when he's riding the Scrambler at a shady carnival that's just set up shop in the local strip mall parking lot.
I don't think "Wii" is disastrous. I don't think this hideous excuse for a name will hurt any sales--people who are interested in the system for its play content are still going to buy the system if it's called "Moose Crap" or "Damnation Straight to Hell" or "Tiananmen Square Tank Guy." That said, it's certainly not going to help sales. You're probably thinking that this is some artifact of the Japanese naming process. It's an interesting theory, but the fact is that "Wii" is not a phoneme that exists in the Japanese language. The reason for changing the name is ostensibly to avoid abbreviation (eg, GCN for the Gamecube, which stands for "GameCube: Nintendo" but might not be apparent to casual gamers) and localization (who the hell knows what "GameCube" comes out to be in German). "Wii" is "Wii" everywhere. Unless, of course, you're in Germany, where it's going to be pronounced "Vee."
And despite the amount of ridicule I choose to heap upon this system, I am still very interested in buying it. Playing old Nintendo games through the "virtual console"? New versions of Smash Brothers and Mario Kart (and presumably Mario Party) which you can play over a network? New controllers, but the ability to use the old ones for certain games? Sounds awesome. And at a price point at half that of the PS3... "Wii" or "Revolution" or "Tiananmen Square Tank Guy," I'm gonna buy it.
Review: Bound Together
The concept of the "remix" is one that in most cases I fail to understand. Let me get this straight. You want me to listen to a song, but instead of the version that I know and like, this version has a techno beat in the background and people muttering obtuse phrases on top of it? Huh?
The one case, however, that a remix actually makes sense, is for video game music. Most video game music has the underpinnings of enjoyable music, but it's too short and falls back on a loop of itself before it could be fully explored. Thus, the remix attempts to augment the good start of a song and add to it until it becomes listenable on its own. And this is generally successful, as seen in Overclocked Remix. Pieces like the Morrowind title, One-Winged Angel from Final Fantasy VII, and virtually everything from Chrono Trigger are reinterpreted and converted from what used to be background music into something that you would actually stick in your CD player or in your iPod on purpose.
And it was from a link off of Overclocked Remix that I came across Bound Together. This was a remix of Earthbound music, and not just a song or two, but an entire album worth. First, a word about Earthbound. This game, or Mother 2 as it's known in the context of the rest of the series in Japan, is probably my favorite video game ever. Humor, replayability, allusions and references, and--yes--room for philosophical speculation come together in an absolute gem of a roleplaying game. We're on the verge of Mother 3, a successor (if not a direct sequel) to Earthbound being released in America. The Earthbound fan community is one of the most loyal and faithful video game communities that I have ever interacted with. Therefore, given the legitimacy of video game music remixes, the appreciation (and near reverence) I have for Earthbound, and the past history and quality of Earthbound second-party content, it was without much trepidation that I downloaded Bound Together.
All in all, it's tough to give the compilation a wholly accurate review. It an immense accomplishment in places, nearly but not quite brilliant in some, and mediocre at best in others. Ultimately, Bound Together is most successful when it doesn't stray too far from the original Earthbound music. Some tracks, like "Sweet Dream Lullaby," "Paula Wanna Cracked Bat?," and "Zombie Lounge" (all of that makes a lot more sense if you've played Earthbound) are quite good because they are true reinterpretations of the Earthbound music, while a few other tracks whose names escape me are too much "techno beat in the background" and too little "song I know and like." One track, called "Da Black Market," especially stands out, as it's rap based on Earthbound. And it's not as bad as it sounds... in some of the verses. Some (the first and third, if I recall correctly) are actually quite cleverly written, some are unintelligible, and the last completely falls short when the topic of the rap becomes the cartridge. Two tips: if you're going to include lyrics in a remix, make sure they are understandable to whomever is listening, and if you run out of material, stop while you're not too far behind. The latter could really apply to the entire album... but if you're a fan of Earthbound, I definitely recommend checking this out, as it's certainly the most original and spirited take on the Earthbound material I've ever seen or heard. Whether that's a good thing or a bad one is up to you.
Review: Guild Wars
"You're a bit late here. That game has been out for a year." Of course I know that. But I only recently started playing it. To tell the truth, I've always wanted to get into an MMO. I screwed around on a friend's Everquest account back in the day, I played Ragnarok Online before its free beta run got closed... and that's about it. The monthly charge was the biggest turn-off: I didn't want to plop fifteen dollars a month for something that I might only play a little bit--or feel compelled to play it because I was paying so much. Guild Wars, though, doesn't charge anything to play besides buying the game itself. I'm not really sure why it took me so long to get into Guild Wars then, but I'm glad I did wait.
According to a friend of mine that has an extensive history with MMOs, which one you play doesn't matter nearly as much as whom you play with. Furthermore, Guild Wars isn't any significantly better or worse than any other MMO, ones for which you pay fifteen dollars a month included. Despite this, there seems to be a lot of elitism and rivalries among MMO players. Like when Final Fantasy XI came out, a lot of MMO devotees refused to play it because it wasn't a "real" MMO. And a friend of mine who plays FFXI says that a lot of people try out World of Warcraft, get bored with it, and "come back to eleven." Whatever. I'm just enjoying playing this game with my friends, and I'm enjoying even more the fact that I don't have to pay a monthly fee for it. Like other games, eventually I'll be bored with it, but that's the thing: I can simply stop when I'm bored with it. And pick it up later if I want to. Free of charge.
Currently listening: Greetings from Michigan, Sufjan Stevens
I don't think "Wii" is disastrous. I don't think this hideous excuse for a name will hurt any sales--people who are interested in the system for its play content are still going to buy the system if it's called "Moose Crap" or "Damnation Straight to Hell" or "Tiananmen Square Tank Guy." That said, it's certainly not going to help sales. You're probably thinking that this is some artifact of the Japanese naming process. It's an interesting theory, but the fact is that "Wii" is not a phoneme that exists in the Japanese language. The reason for changing the name is ostensibly to avoid abbreviation (eg, GCN for the Gamecube, which stands for "GameCube: Nintendo" but might not be apparent to casual gamers) and localization (who the hell knows what "GameCube" comes out to be in German). "Wii" is "Wii" everywhere. Unless, of course, you're in Germany, where it's going to be pronounced "Vee."
And despite the amount of ridicule I choose to heap upon this system, I am still very interested in buying it. Playing old Nintendo games through the "virtual console"? New versions of Smash Brothers and Mario Kart (and presumably Mario Party) which you can play over a network? New controllers, but the ability to use the old ones for certain games? Sounds awesome. And at a price point at half that of the PS3... "Wii" or "Revolution" or "Tiananmen Square Tank Guy," I'm gonna buy it.
Review: Bound Together
The concept of the "remix" is one that in most cases I fail to understand. Let me get this straight. You want me to listen to a song, but instead of the version that I know and like, this version has a techno beat in the background and people muttering obtuse phrases on top of it? Huh?
The one case, however, that a remix actually makes sense, is for video game music. Most video game music has the underpinnings of enjoyable music, but it's too short and falls back on a loop of itself before it could be fully explored. Thus, the remix attempts to augment the good start of a song and add to it until it becomes listenable on its own. And this is generally successful, as seen in Overclocked Remix. Pieces like the Morrowind title, One-Winged Angel from Final Fantasy VII, and virtually everything from Chrono Trigger are reinterpreted and converted from what used to be background music into something that you would actually stick in your CD player or in your iPod on purpose.
And it was from a link off of Overclocked Remix that I came across Bound Together. This was a remix of Earthbound music, and not just a song or two, but an entire album worth. First, a word about Earthbound. This game, or Mother 2 as it's known in the context of the rest of the series in Japan, is probably my favorite video game ever. Humor, replayability, allusions and references, and--yes--room for philosophical speculation come together in an absolute gem of a roleplaying game. We're on the verge of Mother 3, a successor (if not a direct sequel) to Earthbound being released in America. The Earthbound fan community is one of the most loyal and faithful video game communities that I have ever interacted with. Therefore, given the legitimacy of video game music remixes, the appreciation (and near reverence) I have for Earthbound, and the past history and quality of Earthbound second-party content, it was without much trepidation that I downloaded Bound Together.
All in all, it's tough to give the compilation a wholly accurate review. It an immense accomplishment in places, nearly but not quite brilliant in some, and mediocre at best in others. Ultimately, Bound Together is most successful when it doesn't stray too far from the original Earthbound music. Some tracks, like "Sweet Dream Lullaby," "Paula Wanna Cracked Bat?," and "Zombie Lounge" (all of that makes a lot more sense if you've played Earthbound) are quite good because they are true reinterpretations of the Earthbound music, while a few other tracks whose names escape me are too much "techno beat in the background" and too little "song I know and like." One track, called "Da Black Market," especially stands out, as it's rap based on Earthbound. And it's not as bad as it sounds... in some of the verses. Some (the first and third, if I recall correctly) are actually quite cleverly written, some are unintelligible, and the last completely falls short when the topic of the rap becomes the cartridge. Two tips: if you're going to include lyrics in a remix, make sure they are understandable to whomever is listening, and if you run out of material, stop while you're not too far behind. The latter could really apply to the entire album... but if you're a fan of Earthbound, I definitely recommend checking this out, as it's certainly the most original and spirited take on the Earthbound material I've ever seen or heard. Whether that's a good thing or a bad one is up to you.
Review: Guild Wars
"You're a bit late here. That game has been out for a year." Of course I know that. But I only recently started playing it. To tell the truth, I've always wanted to get into an MMO. I screwed around on a friend's Everquest account back in the day, I played Ragnarok Online before its free beta run got closed... and that's about it. The monthly charge was the biggest turn-off: I didn't want to plop fifteen dollars a month for something that I might only play a little bit--or feel compelled to play it because I was paying so much. Guild Wars, though, doesn't charge anything to play besides buying the game itself. I'm not really sure why it took me so long to get into Guild Wars then, but I'm glad I did wait.
According to a friend of mine that has an extensive history with MMOs, which one you play doesn't matter nearly as much as whom you play with. Furthermore, Guild Wars isn't any significantly better or worse than any other MMO, ones for which you pay fifteen dollars a month included. Despite this, there seems to be a lot of elitism and rivalries among MMO players. Like when Final Fantasy XI came out, a lot of MMO devotees refused to play it because it wasn't a "real" MMO. And a friend of mine who plays FFXI says that a lot of people try out World of Warcraft, get bored with it, and "come back to eleven." Whatever. I'm just enjoying playing this game with my friends, and I'm enjoying even more the fact that I don't have to pay a monthly fee for it. Like other games, eventually I'll be bored with it, but that's the thing: I can simply stop when I'm bored with it. And pick it up later if I want to. Free of charge.
Currently listening: Greetings from Michigan, Sufjan Stevens
Thursday, May 11, 2006
When I do my best work
2 am, of course. Seriously. During the summer (and other periods where I can sleep to a reasonable double-digit hour) I find it easiest to put all of my thoughts down in a cohesive manner at some reasonable single-digit hour in the AM. (See: first Kingdom of Loathing ascension... that was at about 3:30 am.)
So, time for a quick lesson and a review.
I neglected to do my homework. I'm not talking about forgetting to do some of Professor Dodd's Aplia bitchwork. This is as in me saying "Oh, it's a PCIe card! Those don't need power hookups." My research? Exactly two PCIe cards that I've installed, neither of which needed a connection to the power supply. This was a woefully inadequate sample size, particularly regarding the higher-end of the graphics card market. So now I get a fun chore, viz. upgrading my power supply!
It occurred to me about the time I was taking a Philips screwdriver to my computer case to determine how to dismantle my current power supply that maybe I'm in over my head?
Review: Rosenrot
I didn't even know until three days ago that Rammstein had released an new CD. I bought it two days ago. It did not dissapoint.
The best thing to be said about Rammstein is that, despite slight deviations about their "mean," their sound is pretty much the same as it's ever been. I can't point to a Rammstein CD that's my favorite or least favorite, and that's the hallmark of a great band. Their quality is consistent, and it has been over the last twelve years. Sure, Rammstein has varied its tempi a bit, added more languages, including English (marginally successfully), Russian (more successfully), and now Spanish (amusingly--you'd just have to hear it). But their music isn't any worse now that it was on Sehnsucht or Herzeleid. And for that matter, aside from the greater variation, it's not hugely better either. What you see is what you get.
Listeners, always clinging to their precious genre labels (see "alternative rock"), have of course tried to categorize Rammstein. "Industrial," they call them. Or "thrash rock." "Dark metal" and my favorite "Tanz-metall," which is apparently "Dance metal" in German. Show me the dance where they play Rammstein... all right, maybe don't, because it would probably be pretty scary. My point is, don't try so hard to group bands. Rate them on their sound, their artistic merit, not on their categorization of similarity to other bands. That said, if you've not heard Rammstein, they're a German band that would be most broadly, generally, and accurately classified as "metal." I can appreciate evoking the "industrial" genre too. And, despite your feelings toward metal or industrial (or heck, toward Germans), they're really good.
As for the new CD, it's almost all quality music. "Benzin" is apparently some quite clever social commentary about addiction to gasoline. If you're fluent in German, feel free to confirm or deny that for me. "Rosenrot," "Wo bist Du," both very good. And then we get to "Te Quiero P**a!" If you're about as familiar with Spanish as I am, this means nothing to you as an obscenity or anything else that would merit replacement of "ut" with "**" in the middle of the word. Evidently the title of this song (in slang--Babelfish doesn't even recognize it) translates to "I want you, whore!" And (again, despite the subject material) it's the best song on the album. Rammstein plus bullfighting music in the background? Oh, yeah.
Currently listening: Shuffle in iTunes, which has produced "Vertigo," Jump Little Children; "Suteki Da Ne [orchestrated version]," Nobuo Uematsu (from Final Fantasy X); and "The Last Time," the Rolling Stones.
So, time for a quick lesson and a review.
I neglected to do my homework. I'm not talking about forgetting to do some of Professor Dodd's Aplia bitchwork. This is as in me saying "Oh, it's a PCIe card! Those don't need power hookups." My research? Exactly two PCIe cards that I've installed, neither of which needed a connection to the power supply. This was a woefully inadequate sample size, particularly regarding the higher-end of the graphics card market. So now I get a fun chore, viz. upgrading my power supply!
It occurred to me about the time I was taking a Philips screwdriver to my computer case to determine how to dismantle my current power supply that maybe I'm in over my head?
Review: Rosenrot
I didn't even know until three days ago that Rammstein had released an new CD. I bought it two days ago. It did not dissapoint.
The best thing to be said about Rammstein is that, despite slight deviations about their "mean," their sound is pretty much the same as it's ever been. I can't point to a Rammstein CD that's my favorite or least favorite, and that's the hallmark of a great band. Their quality is consistent, and it has been over the last twelve years. Sure, Rammstein has varied its tempi a bit, added more languages, including English (marginally successfully), Russian (more successfully), and now Spanish (amusingly--you'd just have to hear it). But their music isn't any worse now that it was on Sehnsucht or Herzeleid. And for that matter, aside from the greater variation, it's not hugely better either. What you see is what you get.
Listeners, always clinging to their precious genre labels (see "alternative rock"), have of course tried to categorize Rammstein. "Industrial," they call them. Or "thrash rock." "Dark metal" and my favorite "Tanz-metall," which is apparently "Dance metal" in German. Show me the dance where they play Rammstein... all right, maybe don't, because it would probably be pretty scary. My point is, don't try so hard to group bands. Rate them on their sound, their artistic merit, not on their categorization of similarity to other bands. That said, if you've not heard Rammstein, they're a German band that would be most broadly, generally, and accurately classified as "metal." I can appreciate evoking the "industrial" genre too. And, despite your feelings toward metal or industrial (or heck, toward Germans), they're really good.
As for the new CD, it's almost all quality music. "Benzin" is apparently some quite clever social commentary about addiction to gasoline. If you're fluent in German, feel free to confirm or deny that for me. "Rosenrot," "Wo bist Du," both very good. And then we get to "Te Quiero P**a!" If you're about as familiar with Spanish as I am, this means nothing to you as an obscenity or anything else that would merit replacement of "ut" with "**" in the middle of the word. Evidently the title of this song (in slang--Babelfish doesn't even recognize it) translates to "I want you, whore!" And (again, despite the subject material) it's the best song on the album. Rammstein plus bullfighting music in the background? Oh, yeah.
Currently listening: Shuffle in iTunes, which has produced "Vertigo," Jump Little Children; "Suteki Da Ne [orchestrated version]," Nobuo Uematsu (from Final Fantasy X); and "The Last Time," the Rolling Stones.
Quantization: An Engineer's Quandary
Here's a list of terms: "Dressy casual." "Business professional." "Sunday attire."
Those terms have something in common: they refer to what you are supposed to wear to a specific occasion, and they're dreadfully nonspecific.
I, for one, like to know in advance what I should wear to an event. I hate being dressed to nicely, or not nicely enough. And so, to prevent this, people organizing events have taken to coining inane terms like the ones I mentioned. The big problem with those, of course, is that they're completely subjective and relative. To be a literalist about it, what if my business doesn't dress the same as another one? What if I'm Jewish, and Sunday attire is basically the same thing as Monday evening attire? The bigger problem, of course, is the individual perception of what is "dressy," what is "casual," etc. Theoretically, these terms form an axiomatic basis, with each one having a commonly accepted and agreed upon definition... but I, for one, have never heard an objective definition of any of them.
So, my engineering sensibilities enter into the situation, and I realize the only sensible situation is quantization. You can have clothing levels 0-5. Here's a quick summary of the clothing levels, as they apply to men's attire (women, I'm leaving it to you to fill in the gaps because I would have no idea where to start).
Level 0: What I'm wearing right now, for instance. This is literally anything you want it to be. Sweatpants and no shirt is an example. Note that this level is not generally acceptable for most public outings.
Level 1: What I will be wearing after I take a shower. This is jeans and a t-shirt, or it might include shorts if it's warm. What most people would choose to wear in most situations that do not require a greater clothing level.
Level 2: Generally, a bit nicer than clothing level 1. We're looking at nicer than jeans and a better than T-shirt: polo if it's warm and a sweater if it's cold, maybe.
Level 3: Now comes the first mention of that dread male accessory: the tie. At clothing level 3, a tie is not required, but it is acceptable (not that any man would choose to wear a tie given the choice not to). Dress pants and a dress shirt.
Level 4: Suit, or some other clothing combination involving a jacket and a (shudder) tie.
Level 5: Tuxedo, or whatever else you have that makes you look ridiculous, but it's generally accepted to be ultraformal.
Now, invitations can specify "Clothing level 2-3" instead of "Sunday attire." Or "Clothing level 3-4" instead of "Business professional." "Clothing level 5" instead of "Black tie." You get the idea. And now it strikes me, the number of invitations I've received that have said "Attire: Dressy, men should wear dress clothes but no suit required." What they were trying to say all along was "Clothing level 3."
See? How hard is that?
Currently listening: Rosenrot, Rammstein
Those terms have something in common: they refer to what you are supposed to wear to a specific occasion, and they're dreadfully nonspecific.
I, for one, like to know in advance what I should wear to an event. I hate being dressed to nicely, or not nicely enough. And so, to prevent this, people organizing events have taken to coining inane terms like the ones I mentioned. The big problem with those, of course, is that they're completely subjective and relative. To be a literalist about it, what if my business doesn't dress the same as another one? What if I'm Jewish, and Sunday attire is basically the same thing as Monday evening attire? The bigger problem, of course, is the individual perception of what is "dressy," what is "casual," etc. Theoretically, these terms form an axiomatic basis, with each one having a commonly accepted and agreed upon definition... but I, for one, have never heard an objective definition of any of them.
So, my engineering sensibilities enter into the situation, and I realize the only sensible situation is quantization. You can have clothing levels 0-5. Here's a quick summary of the clothing levels, as they apply to men's attire (women, I'm leaving it to you to fill in the gaps because I would have no idea where to start).
Level 0: What I'm wearing right now, for instance. This is literally anything you want it to be. Sweatpants and no shirt is an example. Note that this level is not generally acceptable for most public outings.
Level 1: What I will be wearing after I take a shower. This is jeans and a t-shirt, or it might include shorts if it's warm. What most people would choose to wear in most situations that do not require a greater clothing level.
Level 2: Generally, a bit nicer than clothing level 1. We're looking at nicer than jeans and a better than T-shirt: polo if it's warm and a sweater if it's cold, maybe.
Level 3: Now comes the first mention of that dread male accessory: the tie. At clothing level 3, a tie is not required, but it is acceptable (not that any man would choose to wear a tie given the choice not to). Dress pants and a dress shirt.
Level 4: Suit, or some other clothing combination involving a jacket and a (shudder) tie.
Level 5: Tuxedo, or whatever else you have that makes you look ridiculous, but it's generally accepted to be ultraformal.
Now, invitations can specify "Clothing level 2-3" instead of "Sunday attire." Or "Clothing level 3-4" instead of "Business professional." "Clothing level 5" instead of "Black tie." You get the idea. And now it strikes me, the number of invitations I've received that have said "Attire: Dressy, men should wear dress clothes but no suit required." What they were trying to say all along was "Clothing level 3."
See? How hard is that?
Currently listening: Rosenrot, Rammstein
Friday, May 05, 2006
So Long, Farewell; or: The Long Kiss Goodnight
If memory serves me rightly, this is about the time of year for those weekly pilgrimages to the shrine to the College Board, wherein the supplicants perform three hour rituals of tearing open the correct set of plastic wrap and getting hand cramps from writing many consecutive essays. I remember well my days of prostration before these idols: eight months of work, culminating in three hours of test-taking, resulting in a single number by which our worthiness would be judged.
College isn't much different, really. Except it's four months of work, not eight.
In honor of the conclusion of my first year at Georgia Tech, I have the following grievances against the Institution to offer:
1) Water. Anything to do with water is a problem at Tech. You think I'm making that up? I've got evidence:
a) Water fountains. We're talking "splash you in the face every time you try to take a sip" here.
b) Bathrooms. Take a shower? Okay. Be prepared for sudden unexpected temperature changes and pressure changes any time anyone flushes the toilet.
c) Floods. Whenever it rains, you seriously can't get anywhere on campus without walking through standing water.
2) A lack of intellectualism around campus. As Professor Uzer said, "We do not have time for intellectual pursuits at this institution." Apparently at lots of prestigious schools, important and interesting people come to lecture. At Tech, we get professors from other schools who talk about some mathematical concept so esoteric that the only people who actually understand what the hell is going on are other professors. No politicians, no writers, etc.
3) The Ratio. This goes without saying. Girls are constantly trying to slant this by using the "well, if you take out guys that don't do anything but play video games, it evens out" line. I counter that with the "well, if you remove girls that either have or don't want a boyfriend, it does whatever the opposite of 'even out' is" line.
Aside from all of this, though, I have little to complain about. And that's good, because I have three more years of little complaints to make.
Currently listening: "Spain," Chick Corea
College isn't much different, really. Except it's four months of work, not eight.
In honor of the conclusion of my first year at Georgia Tech, I have the following grievances against the Institution to offer:
1) Water. Anything to do with water is a problem at Tech. You think I'm making that up? I've got evidence:
a) Water fountains. We're talking "splash you in the face every time you try to take a sip" here.
b) Bathrooms. Take a shower? Okay. Be prepared for sudden unexpected temperature changes and pressure changes any time anyone flushes the toilet.
c) Floods. Whenever it rains, you seriously can't get anywhere on campus without walking through standing water.
2) A lack of intellectualism around campus. As Professor Uzer said, "We do not have time for intellectual pursuits at this institution." Apparently at lots of prestigious schools, important and interesting people come to lecture. At Tech, we get professors from other schools who talk about some mathematical concept so esoteric that the only people who actually understand what the hell is going on are other professors. No politicians, no writers, etc.
3) The Ratio. This goes without saying. Girls are constantly trying to slant this by using the "well, if you take out guys that don't do anything but play video games, it evens out" line. I counter that with the "well, if you remove girls that either have or don't want a boyfriend, it does whatever the opposite of 'even out' is" line.
Aside from all of this, though, I have little to complain about. And that's good, because I have three more years of little complaints to make.
Currently listening: "Spain," Chick Corea
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
