[Movie Review] Hellboy 2: The Golden Army

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army
2008
Directed by Guillermo del Toro
Starring: Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Doug Jones, Jeffrey Tambor, Seth MacFarlane, Luke Goss, Anna Walton, Roy Dotrice

SPOILER WARNING: I am going to talk a lot about what happens in this film. If you have not seen Hellboy 2: The Golden Army and do not wish to read spoilers, STOP READING NOW.




All right, here we go. Hellboy 2: The Golden Army is one of my favorite films. When it's on television and I have the time I will watch it. It's a comfort movie. I know it's ten years old now, but I feel like reviewing it.

I was just watching it on tv a short while ago and I realized that this film is a terribly poignant movie. Hellboy was an action movie and a funny movie. Hellboy 2 is funny too, and has plenty of big action scenes, but it's crammed with poignant moments and those are what make it special for me.

The poignancy starts early on, when Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) must go to meet his father, the king of the elves, in a dingy building in an industrial district. It continues when Nuada murders his own father to claim the first part of the Crown of Bethmora.

It's terribly poignant when Hellboy chooses to destroy the beautiful forest god, last of its kind, that Nuada used to attack the citizens of New York. It's poignant when the crowd turns on Hellboy despite his having just rescued a baby from the creature, and when Liz (Selma Blair) must finally face that her fiery power has permanently separated her from the rest of the ordinary human world.

Abe Sapien's (Doug Jones) affection for Princess Nualla (Anna Walton) is poignant when you imagine how the amphibious man has spent his life in isolation being treated as a lab specimen. Liz's determination do whatever it takes to save Hellboy after Nuada mortally wounds him is poignant. Liz making an agreement to accept the consequences of saving Hellboy is poignant. Princess Nualla sacrificing her own life to stop her twin brother from destroying the world is poignant, as is Abe's sorrow at her loss, and the way the elves turn to brittle stone and crumble to dust when they die.

The feeling of painful love and loss is heavy in this movie. The magical supernatural world to which Nuada and Nualla belong is fading, vanishing from the world. It will never be seen again. Perhaps no one will ever again visit the underground chamber in Ireland where the Golden Army rests. No one will wake the giant who guards the entrance and it will sleep forever. Maybe no one will ever make an agreement with the Angel of Death again.

There's also an element of poignancy for me because there will never be another Hellboy movie starring this cast directed by this director. Hellboy has moved on. Another actor has taken the role, another creative team has made their own version. That's a pity, because Ron Perlman was the perfect actor to play Hellboy in my opinion, and Guillermo del Tor was the perfect director to impart his special visual and storytelling touches to the film. I doubt the new creative team will produce something like the sorrowful love stories in this movie or the achingly beautiful forest god. I wish there had once been things like the forest god in the world. I feel sorrow that such a thing has never been.

[Elder Scrolls] The Elder Scrolls Online

I'm a big fan of the Elder Scrolls series of games from Bethesda, specifically the console versions for Xbox, Xbox 360, and Xbox One. I've played Morrowind, Oblivion, and most recently Skyrim. I even tried the earlier computer game, Daggerfall, although I lacked an instruction manual and found it a bit challenging to play when I didn't know what I was doing.

I enjoy the open world, and the opportunity to play solo without having to ever follow the main quest if I don't want to. I've spent hours collecting alchemical ingredients and crafting armor rather than fight bandits, explore dungeons, or slay dragons. The game offers so many opportunities for the kind of play style I enjoy that I've never actually completed the main plot of any of the three games I mentioned above.

When Bethesda announced a few years ago that it would be producing a MMO version of Elder Scrolls, I wasn't sure how I felt about it. I've never played any MMO; the horror stories of ruthless experienced players being awful to 'newbies' made me reluctant to try, as did the thought of having to team up with random strangers to complete certain activities. In addition I don't have a computer setup that would make playing such a game comfortable or fun. I was  disappointed because I feared this meant there wouldn't be any more solo open-world console games set in Tamriel, the world setting of the Elder Scrolls series.

The ESO MMO has been out for several years now, but just this week Bethesda announced an opportunity for players to try the game free for a week. Because it's now possible to play on Xbox or PlayStation through online services, my spouse decided to give it a try. I confess I haven't tried it out myself, I've only been observing while he plays. But here are a few of my observations.

The play experience has many things in common with Skyrim, the last ES console game released prior to the MMO. It has all the races, the various ethnic groups, and many of the same types of monsters and quests. The controls are a bit different since the game was designed to resemble other MMOs like World of Warcraft. You can play solo, but if you want to explore some dungeons you have to team up with other players; there's a function that will find you some people to team with if you don't have friends you can join. Like Oblivion and Skyrim, the NPCs you interact with are fully voiced, some of them by some well-known actors like Michael Gambon and Malcolm McDowell and others by some of the same voice artists who worked on Skyrim. But of course your character doesn't speak. You select responses when in a conversation. As in Skyrim, you usually only have two or three response options.

My mate didn't spend much time in the character creation menu, which is my favorite part of ES games. But it looks like there are plenty of options to individualize your character to suit your taste. Sadly the game's designers made the online elves look more human (and in my opinion less interesting) than the elves of the console version. The online game also introduces classes, which were something that existed in Oblivion but not in Skyrim. You also have to choose a faction, which really only comes into play if you choose to engage in PvP (player-versus-player) battles, which represent a war that is currently taking place in the game.

One of the big differences from the console/PC games is that there's a whole world out there to explore, not just one country or province. Skyrim limits you to the Imperial province of Skryim, which is Tamriel's Scandinavia analogue. Oblivion kept you in Cyrodiil, seat of the Empire, and Morrowind took place in the homeland of the dark elves, a land of strange plants and animals not found elsewhere in Tamriel. The MMO doesn't offer access to every part of Tamriel at present, but perhaps it will eventually. It does let you visit Morrowind and Daggerfall, and if you want to experience PvP combat you can visit Cyrodiil. If you're in other parts of the game world you can't attack other players and they can't attack you, which eliminates the issue of rude players killing your character for experience points that has been a problem in other MMOs.

The notable differences between the MMO and the console games include not only the bigger world and the menu options, but the presence of other players. You do see other players, lots of them. They run or gallop past constantly, never stopping to interact. Sometimes they run right through your character, having no effect at all. They suddenly appear to fight a monster your character is fighting and then go on their way. They stand in the middle of a street practicing their spells or attacks, or perhaps they're fighting an enemy you can't see. It feels a bit odd. You have to pretend that they're not really there, since you never speak to them and you can't fight them. This oddness becomes most obvious when a Daedric Anchor suddenly appears and every player in the region swarms to it to fight the daedra and gain experience and loot. If you're not within easy reach of the Daedric Anchor, there's no point in going because all the other players will have wiped everything out and eliminated the Anchor by the time you get there.

The 'boss' monsters and NPCs are also leveled, so it's possible to take on a quest that your character just isn't ready to face, and the game won't give you any obvious sign that you should wait until you're higher level to pursue that quest. I watched my spouse repeatedly fight one level boss and die until he gave up and went off to follow other simpler and less dangerous quests. This has happened to him several times. That's not something you usually face in other ES games; it's possible for a very low-level character in Skyrim to kill a dragon if you make sure to keep an eye on your health. My husband was either hitting a bug or a game limitation that wouldn't let him use a healing potion while fighting the level boss, which made it especially frustrating for him. I expect that if I try playing the MMO, I'll probably spend a long time taking on minor quests to gain experience and better equipment/magic before I attempt some of the bigger quests.

Overall the experience of ESO seems very similar to playing Skyrim. You can still craft potions, cook food, make armor and weapons, and there are some new skills to learn. You can use magic and weapons freely, you can wander all over the landscape, you run into lots of random monsters, you can eventually have your own home. You can join various organizations to gain benefits and supplies. The big advantage of the online game is the ability to keep playing in that wonderful expansive setting. Now that it's possible to play the game just the same way I would play the console version, it's tempting me to give it a try myself.

What If? Alternate History Lord of the Rings

I've been thinking about Lord of the Rings things and roleplaying today, and that brought another topic to mind: how to roleplay in the LOTR setting.

There have been several different LOTR/Hobbit/Middle-Earth roleplaying rules sets issued over the years, especially by MERP (Middle-Earth Role Playing) from 1984, the Lord of the Rings Adventure Game from 2002, and The One Ring from 2011. I have never had an opportunity to play using any of these rules. Despite my being a big fan of LOTR, the friends I game with aren't interested enough in the setting to want to roleplay in it, particularly since it would require using different rules than our default d20 system rules.

I have to admit, I've always found it hard to imagine playing a LOTR RPG. Though JRR Tolkien wrote about many other periods of Middle-Earth's history, the part that's best defined is the period of LOTR itself, and the tale of the Fellowship's efforts to finally defeat Sauron once and for all. But everyone knows that Frodo was the Ringbearer, and his companions were Sam, Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, and Gandalf. Who could take their place? If a group of people decide to play in the Middle-Earth setting during that time period, do they replace the original members of the Fellowship? If they do, how? If they don't, are they elsewhere fighting to prevent Sauron from noticing Frodo's actions? That doesn't sound as fun if you know someone else is off saving the world while you're just acting as a distraction.

I couldn't get my head around playing in that setting without the player-characters having to be the characters from the books, and that didn't seem like much fun to me. It would be the ultimate 'railroad' campaign, where the player-characters' actions don't count because the outcome is predetermined.

But then a friend of mine started running a Star Wars campaign taking place during the time period of the original film trilogy. The player-characters started out as slightly shady folks with their own ship, a bit like Han Solo. Then they happened to land on Tatooine just in time to get a contract to transport an old man and a teenaged boy named Luke to the planet Alderaan. Basically, the premise of the campaign was that Han Solo arrived at the Mos Eiseley Cantina too late to pick up Obi-Wan and Luke Skywalker, and as a result, the player-characters took over the roles Luke and Han played in the movies. They rescued Princess Leia from the Death Star. Eventually one of the player-characters became a Jedi and took Luke's place in going to Dagobah to train with Master Yoda, and the PCs ultimately became the heroes of the Rebellion and destroyed the Death Star. But because they were different characters than the film characters, the outcome of the campaign wasn't identical to the ending of the movie trilogy.

After witnessing this, I started to think differently about how a group of players could play through LOTR and still have fun. How would things happen differently if the heroes weren't Frodo and his friends? Looking back on the history of Sauron and the One Ring, I'm trying to work out what direction such a campaign could take.

There's a lot of coincidence in LOTR. Isildur loses the Ring. Hundreds or thousands of years later, it's found by Deagol. Smeagol then takes the Ring from him and goes into hiding. Centuries later, Bilbo happens upon it in the goblin cave where Gollum is hiding. It isn't until Gandalf realizes what it is that the trajectory of the Ring starts to involve some conscious decisions. But what if Isildur had never lost the Ring, or if someone of his household had managed to find it immediately after his death? Perhaps the Ring could have been kept, openly or in secret, by the royal house of Gondor until that line faded. Maybe the Ring came under the control of the Stewards of Gondor after the royal line failed. It could have subtly influenced everything the rulers of Gondor did for centuries, making that kingdom into a very different place than it is in LOTR.

Or the Ring could have been put away in a treasure house and forgotten as the centuries passed and rulership of the country passed from one family to another. Then perhaps it could be stolen by a thief or found by a servant, and the story of its journey toward destruction could begin.

Going at the concept from another angle, Sauron could have succeeded in bringing Elves, Men, and Dwarves under his control through use of the Rings of Power, and the campaign could become a struggle to save the world from an eternity of darkness. The player-characters could be part of a rebel organization recruited to get the Ring and destroy it, which would make for a much darker and more challenging campaign.

For a campaign with a lighter tone and hewing closer to the original plot of the books, Frodo could refuse to take the Ring himself and instead a different group of characters could volunteer for that task, characters with different personalities and skills than the characters from the books. Meanwhile the book characters could be the ones organizing behind the scenes, forging alliances and attacking Sauron's forces to prevent the Dark Lord from noticing the party inching toward Mount Doom. This would give the player-characters the opportunity to meet the book characters, perhaps even to be their friends or family members, while the PCs remain the stars of the show.

Players can often be inventive in solving problems in roleplaying games. It would be interesting to see how a completely different group of people would try to solve the problem of getting access to Mount Doom without being caught by Sauron's forces. Would they sneak into Mordor disguised as orcs or Easterlings? Would they try to skirt around to the far side of the territory while Sauron's attention was directed at Rohan and Gondor? Would they recruit all the forces of Gondor, Rohan, Rivendell, Lothlorien, and the Misty Mountain to invade Mordor with a massive army? There are plenty of possibilities.

I doubt I'll ever get a chance to find out what an alternate version of LOTR would be like, and in some ways I think that's probably a good thing. I'm so invested in that world that I might make a nuisance of myself if the other players didn't treat the setting and its history with proper respect. But just the same, I'd still like an opportunity to try a LOTR roleplaying game myself someday.

I Want My D&D TV

After writing a post about a planned tv series based on the writings of JRR Tolkien, I started thinking again about something I've wanted to see for a long while: a tv series inspired by Dungeons & Dragons. Now seems like a good time, with the popularity of Game of Thrones and various fantasy films like the Harry Potter franchise, and improvements in visual effects to make things like non-human creatures and magic effects more achievable.

But there's been a Dungeons & Dragons tv show, you may say. Well, I'm sorry if this offends your nostalgia, but the D&D animated series from the '80s is an awful representation of D&D. It features modern-day characters who are transported to a magical fantasy world, instead of characters who belong there. Much of it is played for comedic effect, and the characters are (rather disturbingly) all teenagers - hence children. That's not the kind of story and characters I want to see.

I want to see characters who belong to that world, who already know how it works. I want them to go on quests rather than being on one continuous mission to defeat a recurring villain. I want the world to be fully realized instead of an ill-defined background for the characters' actions. I want the characters to be fully developed, too, with personalities and histories and reasons for doing what they do, even if their reasons are only to seek wealth or fame (one hopes that not all of them would have those goals).

But there are things I don't want to see in such a show, too. I don't want it to be full of political intrigue, sex, and violence, like GoT. There can be some sex, and some violence, and even a little political intrigue, but not to the level of GoT. The focus of the series should be about the characters, how they relate to each other, and how they overcome great obstacles to achieve success. It should also feature all of the elements that make it D&D - strange monsters, magical artifacts, ancient ruins, creatures from other dimensions, widely varied cultures, ancient prophesies and legends, gods walking the earth in disguise, divine interventions, magical healing, things that are innately and unequivocally evil, and many different species of sentient beings. GoT may have some of those things now, but it lost my interest because it lacked those elements during its early series.

I'd like this show to be a live-action show. I think visual effects for television have achieved the necessary level of sophistication to make that work. But I'd be satisfied with an animated series, too, as long as it wasn't written like a children's' show. The writers could take a page from animated shows like Avatar: The Last Airbender, Adventure Time, and Steven Universe to write shows that will appeal to kids without being simplistic or emotionally shallow. But I'd prefer live-action so it wouldn't have to worry as much about parents assuming if it's animated it's suitable for small children. If we could have a show like Stargate SG-1 with alien planets and spacecraft and raygun-like weapons, and have that show a decade ago, then I don't see why we can't have a show about elves and dwarves and wizards and dragons and magic spells.

Come on, somebody, make it happen.

Tolkien TV

Less than a month ago, Amazon announced that they would be optioning the Lord of the Rings as a new streaming series, to compete with HBO's highly successful Game of Thrones adaptation. Details are sparse thus far, but the information available states that they intend to tell new stories set prior to the LOTR trilogy. Whether these stories will feature characters and settings familiar from the LOTR and Hobbit films or new ones is unknown.

I was not as displeased with the trio of Hobbit films as many fans, though I can't deny that I find some flaws with them. I'm also not a great fan of Game of Thrones, in either its literary or television form. What I am is a great fan of Tolkien's literary world-building and the other stories he told beyond The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, in The Silmarillion and the various other books (The Lays of Beleriand, The Children of Hurin, Beren and Luthien) that his descendants have published from his notes. As a result of these opinions, I'm ambivalent about a LOTR tv series. But I'm not completely opposed to it, so long as it isn't the kind of misuse of the setting that has recently appeared in the PC/console game world - yes, I'm looking at you, Shadow of War. If the producers of the new series completely discard what's canon from the books in favor of making something that wears the skin of Tolkien over a blatant imitation of Game of Thrones, then it's guaranteed I won't be watching.

But if initial previews indicate that the production team are respectful of the source material, I'll give it a chance. Like many Tolkien fans, I have a strong desire to see more of his work visualized. For me, the LOTR film trilogy was like bringing my imagination to life. I forgave Peter Jackson the changes he made to the story because it was all so beautifully realized and he clearly loved the source material so much (one may ask how he could willingly change anything if he loved the source material, but that's a discussion for another post). I wish that Jackson's team could make film adaptations of some of Tolkien's other tales of Middle-Earth, without the Hollywood marketing machine pushing him to manipulate it to suit their desires, as reportedly happened with the Hobbit films. I think some of the stories of Middle-Earth that take place prior to the creation of the Rings of Power are more than worthy of being translated for film or television. I don't think that's what Amazon is going to do, though. But if I had a magic wand (or a Ring of Power) to make them produce a tv series based on what I'd like to see, here's what I think they should do.

One of the tales that I feel could potentially compete with the broad saga of Game of Thrones is the story of Feanor and the Silmarils. While Tolkien's writings carry no hint of the sexuality rampant (pun intended) in GoT, there is plenty of intrigue, adventure, and action available to build an exciting series from. For those who've never read The Silmarillion (shame on you) or don't remember it, the Silmarils are three magical gems created by the Elf prince Feanor in the realm of Valinor, which is essentially Heaven for Middle-Earth, especially for Elves. All of the characters in the tale of Feanor are Elves, which I'll admit could possibly be a problem for a tv series, since audiences generally tend to want characters they can relate to. But setting aside the issue of all non-human characters, I think a good writing team could make this work. Feanor could be a compelling lead; he's a proud, brilliant, fiery character who creates something that even the Valar (the demigods of Tolkien's world setting) are incapable of replicating. His obsession with his creation ruins his life and the lives of all seven of his sons, as well as those of many other Elves, and brings endless strife to what was once an idyllic place. There's even a villain, Melkor, who is rather like Loki from the Marvel films but darker and even more powerful. 

It would take some work to flesh out any characters other than Feanor himself. Most of the other characters in the saga, such as Feanor's seven sons, his father, and his various half-brothers, are mere cyphers. His wife is hardly more than a name. But that lack of definition leaves lots of room for talented screenwriters to develop the characters. There are plenty of battles as well, and magic. And if there's a desire to link the movies to the series, they could always include Galadriel - she is the daughter of one of Feanor's half-brothers.

But if a story of the Elves and the gods set before the Sun or the Moon even existed doesn't excite a creator, then the production team could always turn to the travails of Beren and Luthien instead. At least Beren is human, and it's a love story about a couple who keep getting separated and end up having to go on a long quest. It's a follow-on from Feanor's story, since part of the quest they undertake is to recover the Silmarils from Morgoth (aka Melkor) after he manages to steal a couple of them. In my dream series, both the story of the Silmarils and of Beren and Luthien would be told.

If the story of the Silmarils or of Beren and Luthien's romance isn't appealing enough, there's the tale of the Numenorean kings and how they were misled into destroying themselves by the duplicity of Sauron, Morgoth's minion. There aren't that many Numenorean characters described in detail in Tolkien's writing, but good screenwriters could flesh that out. Palace intrigue, sex, violence - all of those things could be added to make the story more appealing to modern audiences (even if sex and overt violence aren't very Tolkien). Following the Numenoreans would have the advantage of having mostly human characters, with a few Elves and Dwarves thrown in for flavor. Gandalf could show up since he was around then (though technically he would probably have been known as Mithrandir). The stories could also include themes of racism and religious conflict, as the later Numenorean kings came to resent the Elves and turned away from worshipping the supreme deity Eru Iluvatar in favor of worshipping Morgoth.

I don't know what Amazon will do with this property, or even if they'll actually follow through. I admit there's a part of me that doesn't want a 'modern' story full of sex and violence, and worries that they'll try too hard to emulate Game of Thrones' style in an attempt to repeat its success. I'd like to see a story that stays closer to Tolkien's romantic, other-worldly vision of Middle-Earth while eliminating some of his implied sexism and racism. But I'll try to keep an open mind until I find out what Amazon is really going to do.

Where Do They Get These Ideas?

I just stumbled across this article from January, and I've got to agree that most of these theories are truly bonkers. Let me count the ways.

Looking at theories 4 and 12, it seems that some people don't know how to calculate the passage of time, since these proposed parental events would have happened too far in the past for Rey to be only 19. I also wonder why so much speculation revolves around her parents having Force abilities. Nothing in the Star Wars canon that I'm aware of dictates that Force users must be descended from Force users. And the idea that the Force can somehow engender virgin births is one part of the prequels that I can happily ignore. Perhaps some Force-user impregnated Anakin's mother and then used a Jedi (or Sith) mind-trick to make her forget about the experience.

Popular Theory #1 seems the most likely explanation. Personally I don't want Rey to be related to the Skywalker dynasty at all, because I'm sick of the whole Star Wars universe revolving around them. But if she is related to Luke, they'd better come up with a really good explanation of why she was left on Jakku with no one to look after her. It could be a David Copperfield sort of story, or Oliver Twist, in which she did have a guardian but something happened to that person and no one was aware of it or able to do anything about it. Maybe Luke couldn't go fetch her because he was busy fleeing from someone, or trying to save Ben Solo, or fighting with the Dark Side somehow. Perhaps he could have been marooned on Ahch-To. Just because he's got Force powers doesn't mean he can whip up a spaceship or fly unprotected through the vacuum of space (although if you watch Star Wars Rebels, it certainly does imply that Jedi don't need spacesuits, at least for short trips).

Rey could also be descended from some other SW canon character that no one thought of, such as an Imperial character. Maybe Palpatine had children of his own and could be her grandfather. Maybe she's Padme's very-much-younger sister, since we know nothing about Padme's family on Naboo. There's a lot of territory to choose from without making her a relative of the Skywalkers. Okay, so Padme would make her a relative. Let's just not make her a sibling or descendant of the surviving Skywalker clan, okay? Are you listening, J.J.?

If there isn't a good explanation for her abandonment on Jakku, I hope that there is at least a thorough one. As I've grown older and watched more Star Wars material, especially The Clone Wars and Rebels, I've come to realize what a lot of other people also think: that the Jedi had become self-righteous jerks by the time of The Phantom Menace. They weren't meant to be a military organization; they were supposed to be more like a monastic organization that gave altruistic aid. Part of what Palpatine did, besides drawing Anakin to the Dark Side, was make the Jedi Order into a military unit and give them command of armies when they had no background for that sort of thing. Their biggest failing was that the Jedi Council didn't say no to any of this. So it isn't hard to accept that someone coming from that history could put a young child in hiding on a rough planet thinking she'd be safer there and then completely fail to check in on her. People are fallible creatures, even Force-using people. Who left Rey on Jakku doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with who her parents were.

In any case, I'm really hoping that none of the theories listed in the article are true. I hope Rey isn't related to any existing characters, let alone the Skywalkers. I want the filmmakers to surprise me, and surprise me with something that makes such good sense that I'll be amazed I didn't think of it before. Is that too much to hope for?

Apples to Oranges

Lately I've been seeing a lot of videos and stories show up in my Facebook feed that are intended to show how much better other countries do things than the US. They're supposed to shame us into making ourselves better. While I think it's great to look at what other countries do and think about how we could improve things in our own country, comparing our country to countries that aren't like us isn't really productive. I've compiled some information to show why.

The first one of these comparisons I've seen recently is with the Finnish school system. Finland is reputed to have one of the best school systems in the world. Of course the US would like to be the holder of that title. But let's look at what's different about Finland that makes it possible for them to have such good schools. Finland has a population of approximately five and a half million people. It's the most sparsely populated member nation in the European Union. Their largest city, Helsinki, only has a population of a little over a million residents. The United States has over 300 million residents. The largest city in the US has a population nearly 1.5 times the population of the entire country of Finland. Right there, it's much easier to have a good school system when you have fewer people to educate. Finland also has a much less racially and ethnically diverse population than the US. Nearly everyone in Finland belongs to the same religious group as well. It's also much easier to have a good school system when most of the students and teachers are from the same cultural and spiritual background and speak the same language. In Finland schools are managed by municipalities. Private schools are rare. Kids don't often attend preschool, and after high school they're just as likely to go to a vocational school as to college. All of that reflects an entirely different attitude toward how schools are operated and what their purpose in society is when compared to the US. And probably one of the most important differences: the personal tax rate in Finland is around 50%. The Finns have a lot more money to spend per capita on education than we do in the United States.

So how would we like to make our schools more like schools in Finland? First we have to change the public attitude toward teachers, and then what's our next step - higher taxes? Reduce immigration? Force all immigrants to speak only English and convert to Christianity?

Now we'll go on to the next "let's be like them!" post I've seen. This one is about how Germany recycles 65% of its garbage. Let's look at this. I think we all know that Germany is a smaller country in both land mass and population than the US. One of the things this means for Germans is that people who live in rural areas aren't that far away from a population center. Consequently it's probably not that difficult for German citizens to have recycling pickup or a recycling center in their neighborhoods. In the US there are rural areas that are hundreds of miles away from population centers. Here in the US, most garbage and recycling is handled by private corporations. Can you imagine how much it would cost residents in remote rural areas to have recycling from a company that had to drive a 200-mile round trip to make a weekly pickup? And we know that if the people have to transport the material to the recycling center themselves, it's not going to happen. What rural residents can afford to drive even 50 or 100 miles a week just to get rid of their recyclables? The highest poverty rates in the US are in rural communities. Even if recycling was handled by municipalities, it wouldn't help rural residents. Low population density and low per capita income would mean that many rural communities simply couldn't afford to pay for the service.

The only way the US is going to have a 65% recycling rate is if it's government-enforced and probably government-operated, and if urban residents are willing to be taxed for the service provided to rural residents. And on top of the financial and logistical considerations we'd need a major change in public attitudes, to convince people that recycling is an essential social responsibility, like feeding kids. We're not doing so well at convincing people they ought to feed kids, so it's hard to see how we could convince people they ought to recycle.

None of the above is meant to say that we can't achieve the same results as Finland and Germany. I think we can. But we need to remember that the United States is not like those countries, and what made their successes possible isn't necessarily going to work for us. Let's also remember that we don't know where these stories get their figures. Maybe Germany only recycles at a 65% rate in major urban centers. What basis are they using for claiming that Finnish schools are better? Graduation rates? Test scores? Are we sure those are the figures we want to use to measure success?

It's good to look to these countries as inspiration, but we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to them. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Movie Review: John Wick

John Wick (2014)
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Willem Dafoe, Michael Nyqvist, Alfie Allen, Adrianne Palicki, Lance Riddick, Ian McShane, John Leguizamo, Dean Winter

This afternoon my husband and I decided to watch John Wick. I had read some reviews indicating that for an action movie about a hitman, it was better than one might anticipate. Having viewed it, I have to concur with those opinions.

The movie does a lot of the same kind of thing you see in other action films of the same type: there are some big set-pieces in which Reeves' John Wick character takes out a small army of opponents with relatively little difficulty because he's supposed to be the baddest badass of them all. There's a car chase. There's lots of fighting and shooting. But the way that it does them isn't the way these sorts of scenes are being done in recent films.

We saw Jason Bourne recently, the 2016 entry in the Bourne film franchise, and I was rather disappointed in it. I have a certain fondness for the first film in the series, The Bourne Identity. But 14 years later Jason Bourne had fallen into the reliance on rapid editing and "shaky-cam" cinematography that passes for exciting action scenes in films lately. During that film's "boss" fight scene, it was almost impossible for me to tell what the two combatants were doing. Made only two years before Jason Bourne, John Wick avoids those action-movie stylistic cliches and goes back to an older style of editing and camera-work in which the audience can actually see what's happening. That's not to say there aren't plenty of cuts in the action scenes, but they're farther apart, and the shots are long enough and the camera position far enough away from the actors that the audience can make out each movement. After watching a couple of scenes done this way, I realized that I'd become so (reluctantly) accustomed to the other style that John Wick's action scenes seemed almost as if they'd been slowed down. I had to remind myself that actually everything in other movies has been sped up. It was really refreshing to be able to see all the fight choreography clearly.

Another thing John Wick does is keep the plot simple. Jason Bourne is all about spies, so it's not surprising that the story is complicated. John Wick is about a hitman going out to get revenge. That's it. He's not rescuing anyone, he's not trying to steal the mob boss's big stash or recover some information that is being used to blackmail him. He isn't even trying to get out of the business. He's just trying to punish someone for doing him wrong. That simplicity stands the movie in good stead.

John Wick also has a really amazing cast. Look at that cast list up above. John Leguizamo and Ian McShane aren't in it much, but when they are they shine. They're not just there to get some other big names on the marquee. Keanu does just fine in the lead role. It isn't a stretch for him, but there's something to be said for finding your niche and sticking to it. I know a lot of people think he's not a good actor, and while I'll certainly admit there are many better performers, he's good in the right part. My husband always says that his bar for judging a performance is an actor's ability to display grief convincingly, and in a scene near the beginning of the film Reeves has to do that. He does it well.

Other things I enjoyed about this film: the Russian mobsters speak Russian and are subtitled. The movie physics seem like real-world physics; no one made any incredible leaps or rail-kills, and there were no exploding cars or springboard jumps. The guns ran out of bullets in what seemed like a reasonable amount of time. Most importantly, my husband didn't cringe or complain about any of the firearms action. It's one of his pet peeves that people in movies usually do really ridiculous things with guns.

The film isn't without its share of movie tropes: near the beginning there's a funeral taking place in the rain. The hero is able to walk away with injuries that would incapacitate a normal person and also miraculously avoids any serious bruising on his face. But in defense of these examples, the film does show it raining again in later scenes, and the protagonist gets stitches and limps about painfully after being injured.

While I wouldn't rate John Wick as one of the best movies I've ever seen, or even one of he best action movies, I have to say that it's a decent movie and worth watching if you want to see an old-school action film where you can actually figure out what's going on.

The Ten Commandments of Riding a Bicycle

To follow up on the Ten Commandments of Riding the Bus, here are the Ten Commandments of Riding a Bicycle.

1.  Thou shalt wear a helmet, for thy hairstyle be not more precious than thy brain.

2.  Thou shalt wear brightly-colored practical garments and place upon thy bicycle bright lights and reflective devices, that others may easily see thee.

3.  Thou shalt not ride in darkness unless thou first obey the First Commandment and the Second Commandment.

4.  Thou shalt comply with the signs and signals that control the flow of vehicle traffic.

5.  Thou shalt ride in the designated bicycle lane if there be such a lane.

6.  Thou shalt be courteous to pedestrians.

7.  Thou shalt not use thy cellphone while thou ridest thy bicycle.

8.  Thou shalt not wear thy headphones while thou ridest thy bicycle.

9.  Thou shalt not pass other bicyclists unless thou first ascertain whether automobiles approach thee.

10. Thou shalt ride a bicycle that is suited to thy size and is properly adjusted so that thou mayest ride safely and comfortably.

The Ten Commandments of Riding the Bus

After reading the Ten Commandments of Costco, I decided it was time to do something I've been thinking about for a long time.

Therefore, I present The Ten Commandments of Riding the Bus.

1.  Thou shalt have thy fare ready before thou boardest the bus.

2.  Thou shalt sit if there be an unoccupied seat.

3.  Thou shalt keep the volume of thy music playing device low if thou choose to listen to music during thy journey.

4.  Thou shalt not listen to music or watch videos if thou hast not headphones.

5.  Thou shalt keep the volume of thy voice low if thou engage in private conversation.

6.  Thou shalt not place thy personal possessions upon an unoccupied seat, nor shalt thou prevent other passengers from accessing unoccupied seats.

7.  Thou shalt not block the aisle or exits.

8.  Thou shalt not take thy rest aboard the bus, neither shalt thou eat thy meals or complete thy homework, nor shalt thou apply thy cosmetics or open thy laptop whilst thou ridest the bus.

9. Thou shalt not open a window.

10. Thou shalt seek out the schedule and route for thy journey before thou leavest thy house.

Don't Spoil It For Me

Author's note: I wrote this blog about a month ago, but hadn't posted it yet. It seemed appropriate now that I've actually seen the movie in question.

In less than a month the seventh Star Wars film, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, will arrive on theater screens. In this era of social media, I know a lot more about this upcoming film than I knew about the original Star Wars when I saw it in 1977. In the ‘70s we were lucky to see one or two trailers for a film, and typically you only saw a trailer in the theater, during the previews that ran before the feature film began. There might have been a few magazine articles in magazines for film industry professionals, or in some of the sci fi genre ‘zines like Starlog, but I didn’t have access to those. I didn’t know much about Star Wars beyond that it was a sci fi film when I walked into a theater in Lubbock, Texas to see it for the first time.

As the release date for The Force Awakens approaches, I’ve seen innumerable articles on websites, and if I followed more people on Twitter I would probably have seen hundreds of tweets. I’ve seen many photos. There have been many tv ads and several trailers. I should be feeling as though I already know the plot of the film. But I don’t. Some of that is down to good editing; the television spots and trailers have managed to avoid giving away too many details. Some of my continued feeling of wide-eyed anticipation is down to my optimism. I hope that this film will regain some of the charm that the ‘prequel’ films lost. I’m excited to see the main characters from the original film brought back to the big screen. And despite any disappointment the prequels may have caused, I’m eager to see more of that imaginary universe.

But some of the reason I don’t feel all this media coverage is spoiling the movie is that no one can spoil a movie for me, not even by telling me the entire plot. I’ve heard complaints in recent years that social media and the movie studios’ push to use social media to get potential viewers excited about their products have ruined any sense of anticipation for movies. Sometimes I would agree with that sentiment, especially when a studio decides to release a trailer that appears to include all of the important plot developments. I don’t want a trailer to give the whole story away, even if that won’t prevent me from seeing the movie anyway. Occasionally this type of reveal will tell me that a movie I thought I might want to see isn’t really my cup of tea. But most of the time I feel that all this information just whets my appetite if the film is one that I genuinely wanted to see from the first time I heard about it.

Let me explain this further by describing how I choose a book in a library or bookstore. First, I look at the cover blurb to see if it describes a type of story that I think I would enjoy reading. Then, I read a bit of the first page to see if I like the writing style. After that I take a look at a page or two somewhere in the midsection, to find out if the writing style is consistent throughout and doesn’t make a dramatic turn to something darker or less accessible. Then I read some of the last page to see if I like how it ends.

That’s right, I read the end. That part horrifies my spouse, who thinks that knowing how the story ends before reading it is ruinous. But for me, it’s a guarantee that the author is taking the story somewhere I want to go. Most of the time I find that the final page of a book doesn’t give away all the most important plot developments. It doesn’t tell me everyone who lived or died, or what they did between the first page and the last. That’s how I feel about reading/seeing/hearing information about a movie before I see it, too. Just because I know all of the characters and general plot elements doesn’t mean I know everything that happens in the film. Even if someone else watches the film and gives me a detailed description of it, I still won’t feel that they ruined it for me, because what that person got out of the movie and what my experiences and values will lead me to derive from it may be completely different.

Based on all of the information I’ve received about The Force Awakens thus far, this is what I think I know:
There’s a man named Finn, who at some point in the story wears stormtrooper armor. There’s a woman named Rey who is on a desert planet similar to Tatooine. Han Solo and Leia appear. Han Solo talks to Finn and Rey. Chewbacca is seen with Han Solo, and they appear to be flying the Millenium Falcon through the interior of a crashed star destroyer. R2-D2 also appears, but not with any of the other familiar characters. A person who has a prosthetic hand is seen touching R2-D2, but the person’s face is not visible. There’s a person wearing a helmet reminiscent of Darth Vader’s helmet. There are stormtroopers. There is Darth Vader’s actual helmet, which appears to have melted. There is a dark-robed figure with a red lightsaber shaped like a sword. There are some mysterious voiceovers mentioning the Force, but we never see who is speaking. Rey and Finn seem to be involved in some fights, at least one of them in a snowy landscape.

If one reads the information available online, one will learn that the person in the Vader-like helmet with the red lightsaber is Kylo Ren, but nothing in the trailer tells you that. Online sources also state that Finn is a stormtrooper with some type of organization that is trying to preserve the Empire. The trailers don’t tell you that, either. Based on my knowledge of the prior films, I speculate that the person with the prosthetic hand that touches R2-D2 is Luke Skywalker, because I know Mark Hamill is appearing in the film even though he isn’t seen in any of the ads or trailers. I know he probably survives this film, or at least survives to become a ghost like Obi-Wan Kenobi, because I saw a tweet from Mark Hamill stating that he’s had to re-grow his contractually obligated beard, which he had shaved to appear in another part.

Now based on all that information in the preceding two paragraphs, how much do I really know about this film? I don’t know who Finn and Rey are or how they meet each other, or how they meet Han Solo. I don’t know what Han and Leia and Luke and Chewie and R2-D2 have been doing for the past 40 years of Star Wars Universe time. I don’t know who Kylo Ren is. I don’t know who the forces involved in the combats are, or what they’re fighting about. I don’t know the beginning, the middle, or the end of this story, so I know less than I would if I were buying this as a book. I know just enough to make me excited to see it. So the trailers and ads and tweets and blogs have done their job, and all these glimpses have not spoiled my anticipation to see this movie.

Why I Like the Changing Face of the Doctor

I've mentioned before that I'm a big fan of Doctor Who. I've been a fan for over 20 years. I met my husband and most of my friends because I am a fan of Doctor Who, so the series has had a big impact on my life. One of the things I like most about the series, aside from it being science fiction and quintessentially British, is the fact that the actor who plays the Doctor changes fairly regularly. That's a troubling issue for some fans, who become so attached to the current actor that they have trouble adapting to the changes. I've heard of fans who stop watching when a Doctor changes. But the change is what I look forward to, no matter how much I'm enjoying the actor who's currently in the role.

When I was a girl, my family regularly watched the television series Gunsmoke. It was a family tradition. For those not familiar with this series, it was a Western genre series that ran in the US from 1955 to 1975. In that respect it has similarities with the long-running Doctor Who. But for the entire run of the series, the lead character was Marshall Matt Dillon, the marshall of Dodge City, Kansas. The series was also on radio for nine years prior to being adapted for television, and the main character of the radio serial was also Marshall Matt Dillon, though portrayed by a different actor.

Marshall Dillon never retired - at least not permanently. He wasn't killed by some random outlaw, though he came close a few times. He remained the marshall of Dodge City for 20 years. The town doctor was also played by the same actor for the same length of time. During the majority of the tv series run, the Long Branch Saloon was run by Miss Kitty, who was a romantic interest for Dillon. They never married, and never seemed to progress their relationship beyond close friendship.

The point I make in describing Gunsmoke is that it never substantially changed. Every week one could rely on seeing the same familiar faces doing the same things. Marshall Dillon tracked down the bad guys. Doc Adams bandaged gunshot wounds and provided comic relief moments of banter with deputy Festus Haggen. Miss Kitty provided expository dialogue opportunities and worried about the marshall if he got hurt. The characters never grew, they never pursued new opportunities. The town never changed in size or population makeup. The only major changes that ever occured happened in the late 1980s, when the series was revived in the form of several tv-movies.

Doctor Who also has elements that never change. It's always about the Doctor, a Time Lord from the planet Gallifrey who travels through time and space in a vehicle that looks like a 1960s British police telephone booth. He's usually accompanied by a young human woman who acts as his platonic companion and a surrogate for the audience. They get into trouble and usually end up saving the day. But every few years the Doctor's companion will change. Sometimes he has more than one traveling companion. Occasionally his companions are males, or the companion might not be originally from Earth. He's even had a few companions who weren't human. Now and again he doesn't have a companion at all for a short period of time.

More importantly, the Doctor himself changes. Typically every three or four years the actor portraying him departs and is replaced by someone else, who is deliberately chosen because he looks entirely different from his predecessor. He may be significantly older or younger, taller or shorter, have a different hair color, speak with a different accent. This new actor is under no obligation to play the role in the same way as the previous performer; in fact, it's encouraged for him to bring new facets to the part. The Doctor may suddenly manifest new talents, skills or interests that he never previously demonstrated. It's possible that in the future the Doctor may even change race or gender. And yet, the audience is expected to accept this new actor as the same person.

The production team also changes periodically, and each new team changes the tone of the series somewhat. Gunsmoke probably had changes in the production team as well, but although some of the more racist and misogynistic elements softened as the series moved into the 1970s, the essential elements never changed. The new producers weren't permitted to have Matt Dillon die or retire, he wasn't allowed to marry Miss Kitty or any other woman. The setting didn't move from Dodge City to some other location. People in Dodge City didn't start buying cars and the town wasn't electrified. The series really didn't acknowledge the passage of time - or the aging of the actors.

Doctor Who has changed with the times more than Gunsmoke ever did. The Doctor has lost his entire species. He's fallen in love with - and lost - one of his companions. In the earlier days of the series he didn't try to change history, but in more recent episodes he's made obvious and significant changes to historical events. He's backtracked over his own timestream. He's encountered his previous and future selves. He's even reached the end of his own lifespan. Some of this malleability is a function of this being a science fiction series about a time traveler, but some of it is also the willingness of the producing network to allow more flexibility, and of the audience to be more accepting of change.

It's this malleability that I like about the series, and the character. I don't want to watch another Gunsmoke populated by essentially static characters. I look forward to seeing what the new actor does with the role, how the actor interacts with new companion characters, what direction the new producers will take the show. Doctor Who has now been on television screens for 30 years. Imagine what sort of programme it would be if it was still what it was when it began in 1963. It would still feature the Doctor as a somewhat irascible old man, perhaps still traveling with his granddaughter and two London schoolteachers. If the series production team hadn't been willing to accept drastic change when original star William Hartnell decided to step down, we'd probably be experiencing what viewers of soap operas often see when an actor leaves and a new person is brought in to play the same role - the actor will still resemble the previous actor, still play the part the same basic way. Each replacement actor for the Doctor would have been another older man, trying to play the Doctor as the same irritable and imperious character. I probably wouldn't be watching Doctor Who any longer if that was the type of series it was. I would have lost interest long ago.

I can understand the desire for beloved entertainments to be changeless, to consistently bring us that familiar character and setting we enjoy. Our lives are full of so much change that it's comforting to know some things don't change. But I firmly believe that if Doctor Who didn't change, it wouldn't have managed to become the longest-running dramatic series in television history. I challenge those viewers who have a hard time accepting when the Doctor changes to realize that this is an essential element of the series, without which it wouldn't be the show that you liked. Give the new Doctor a chance. You might grow to like him even more than you did the previous one.

May the Fourth Be With You

Today is May 4, Star Wars Day.  My Facebook and Twitter feeds are full of people commenting on their affection for the Star Wars films (and plenty of people dismissing the three prequel films).  All of this discussion has reminded me of my affection for the original trilogy, especially the very first film (first in terms of release date, not continuity chronology).

I was 17 years old when Star Wars -- A New Hope was released. I first saw it in a theater in another town, with a church youth group.  I was awed, amazed and thrilled by the special effects.  I had never seen anything quite like it, as cliched as it is to say that.  Here were gorgeous spacecraft unlike any I had ever seen before.  Here were robots that looked like they could really exist.  Here were aliens that looked like aliens instead of people.  And of course, being about Luke Skywalker's age myself, I felt an emotional connection to the young hero.  I didn't know about 'Mary Sue' characters in those days, and I didn't find Luke's whining nearly as annoying as I do now.

I didn't know how Luke, Leia, Han and Chewbacca would escape from the garbage compactor.  When Darth Vader killed Ob-Wan I was crushed.  When Luke found that his aunt and uncle had been slain I felt his despair.  When Luke's X-wing made its run down the channel to the exhaust port, I recall that I was gripping the arms of my theater seat the way I would have gripped the sides of an amusement park thrill ride.  This was one of the most exciting, engrossing movies I had ever seen.

I was in love with this movie.  After it made its way to the new twin theater in my home town, I went to see it three more times.on my own.  I purchased the soundtrack on 8-track cassette and listened to it repeatedly as I awaited the release of the second film, wearing headphones in my darkened bedroom or college dorm room as I replayed my memories of the movie in my mind.

Years later, when VHS videotapes became available, I purchased copies of all three of the films and watched them repeatedly.  I never watched The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi as many times as I viewed A New Hope, but I had affection for all of them, an affection that mellowed with time but never completely waned.  I was eager for George Lucas to produce the promised additional films.  Like millions of other fans, I waited decades for him to fulfill that promise.

By the time Lucas finally did follow through and produce more Star Wars films, some of my initial enthusiasm had faded.  I had seen what happened when someone came back to a beloved saga years later.  It wasn't the same.  The Star Trek films had shown me that.  Still, when The Phantom Menace was released, I went to see it with high hopes.  I wasn't as disappointed as many fans of the original trilogy.  I've always been pragmatic about changes to the story.  Twenty-five years had passed, after all.  It was no surprise that George Lucas had changed his mind about some of the details of the universe and characters he had created.  But I came away feeling a bit dissatisfied.  I didn't despise Jar-Jar Binks, but I thought the character was unnecessary.  Why not just let C3PO resume his comedy relief role from the original films, instead of introducing a new character?  I was unimpressed with young Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker. He wasn't a good actor, and Lucas' script had made him too young, so that his later obsessive affection for Padme Amidala was a bit repellent.  I found myself wishing that The Phantom Menace had been a film about Qui-Gon Jinn and young Obi-Wan Kenobi rather than about Anakin.

The next two films continued the trend of making me wish that George Lucas had chosen to make different stories.  Anakin didn't become any more appealing or sympathetic when he was played by Hayden Christiansen.  The once strong and clever Padme became a helpless victim to be pitied when she fell in love with Anakin (I don't object to May-December romance, but Anakin was made to seem like a stalker and it was unconvincing that an 8-year-old boy would become romantically attracted to a teenaged girl).  I wanted to see more of Obi-Wan's story, and more detailed development of Anakin's turn to the Dark Side.  There was just something missing from these movies, something that failed to take me back to the thrill of watching A New Hope over and over when I was younger.  Perhaps no film would have brought me the same emotions that I felt when I watched that film for the first time at age 17, but it would have be nice if the prequels had come a bit closer to that goal.

It's recently been revealed that since Lucas sold the Star Wars property to Disney and JJ Abrams was named to take the reins of a new film series, at least one of the new films will feature the original cast.  Much as I'm happy to see Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford together again, I feel a bit of trepidation about returning to those characters after so many years.  The actors are all in their sixties now, and while I think people over thirty deserve more leading roles in films, I'm uncertain where the story will go. After so many years the characters should have grown and changed.  Will they be allowed to do that, or will the script (and the audience) expect them to behave the same way they did nearly 40 years ago?  If they are allowed to be older people who have lived full lives between the end of Return of the Jedi and the beginning of the first new film, what kind of story will the movie tell?

Despite my concerns, I know that my undying affection for that amazing little movie I saw when I was 17 will make me go to see the new film, at least the first one.  As long as Disney and Abrams treat those beloved characters with respect, I will likely see whatever they care to produce. It's Star Wars, after all.

A Word on Behalf of Adverbs

I feel compelled to say a few words on behalf of the much-maligned adverb.

I'm currently reading Stephen King's On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft.  Like a number of other writers (including the inimitable Strunk & White), Mr. King abhors the use of adverbs in writing, especially in dialogue attribution.

If you don't remember your grade school grammar lessons (or Schoolhouse Rock), an adverb is a word that modifies a verb, adverb, clause or phrase.  They are usually the words ending in -ly: swiftly, softly, quickly, slowly, angrily, sadly, unflinchingly. Dialogue attribution in writing means the phrases where the writer identifies which character has spoken a line a dialogue: he said, she said.  Many writers like King believe that adverbial dialogue attribution is a Very Bad Thing: "He said angrily", "Joan shouted furiously".  

I am a believer in moderation in all things, and I can see where too much use of adverbs in dialogue attribution can be undesirable.  It's possible to show that he said it angrily by using other descriptive vocabulary instead of stating it as part of the dialogue attribution.  But I also believe that adverbs are part of our language and we should use them sometimes.  They can be the ground black pepper sprinkled judiciously (see what I did there?) on top of our vocabulary salad.

William F. Nolan once commented that if you want to reduce your word count, remove all the adverbs.  But I feel that excising the adverbs will leave your text a bit bland.  I find it rather dull to read a story in which all the characters only say their dialogue and never say it with any kind of flavor.  I intend to keep using adverbs in my writing, now and then, when they seem most effective.

This has been a public service announcement on behalf of adverbs.

Remembering Things We Would Prefer to Forget

Recently a friend drew my attention to this article about the treatment of slavery by Southern plantation tourist attractions and museums.  It brought to mind some thoughts I've had about this and related topics, and I decided to transcribe those thoughts here.

First, while I find slavery abhorrent, believe it has no place in modern society, and am saddened that it still exists in the 21st century, I do not believe we can apologize for or make amends for the slavery white Americans inflicted on black people in the past.  We are not responsible for what our ancestors did.  In the past, slavery was acceptable.  Apologizing for that belief held by people we never knew seems insincere to me.  We can feel regret for what they did, but we cannot feel true remorse or apologize sincerely because we ourselves are not the people who committed the offense.  Resentment over things that happened before any of us were born hinders us from moving forward.  Apologizing, or trying to make amends by setting up memorials, or making films like 12 Years A Slave, just give people an opportunity to think, "It's all right now, I don't have to feel badly about slavery anymore," and then stop thinking about it.

What we should do is remember.  We should remember what slave owners did to slaves.  We should remember so we can avoid doing that again.  We should also remember, as the article points out, that slaves did not simply live in misery all the time.  They had full lives just like everyone else.  Even when they faced being permanently separated from their families, they still had happiness sometimes.  If we assume that their lives were nothing but pain and sorrow we diminish them as people.

We also need to remember that America was not the only country where slavery was practiced.  It has been practiced by almost every major culture in history.  The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Celts, Chinese - all had slaves.  Many African and Native American tribes practiced slavery.  Slavery has been a common example throughout history of how humans treat the "other", people who are different from themselves.  Different tribes, different cultures, different languages all have given us an excuse to say, "Those people aren't us, they aren't really people.  It's all right to take everything from them and force them to live where we tell them and do what we want them to do, without any compensation." 

Even when it wasn't called slavery, there were still many practices of oppressing and marginalizing other people.  Thralls, serfs, bondsmen, indentured servants - all are forms of slavery, situations where one person gives up freedom, sometimes willingly, most of the time not.  Medieval serfs couldn't decide to move or work for a different lord.  Indentured servants had an opportunity to pay off their debts, but until they were able to earn enough to do that they had no freedom.  Shanghaied sailors were subjected to a form of slavery, kidnapped and forced to work on a ship they had not chosen for little or no wage. Servants in the households of Victorian England might have earned wages, but the restrictions set on them by their employers weren't much better than slavery, and the wages weren't enough to live on.  Factory workers during the 19th century didn't have much better lives than slaves, either.  They didn't have to fear their children or spouses would be sold and sent away, but they had few options for improving their lives.  Even in the 20th century here in the US, mining companies virtually enslaved their miners, forcing them to live in company-owned housing for which they became indebted to the company, and paying them in company currency called 'scrip' that was only good at company-owned stores.  The miners couldn't leave because they were in debt to the company, and they couldn't strike for fear they would be evicted from their homes.  And many women are still enslaved for sexual purposes, deprived of any means of support and blackmailed into cooperation by threats of violence against themselves or their children.  Slavery hasn't gone away, we've just changed its name.

Let's stop wringing our hands over what our ancestors did, and instead remember it and vow to ourselves that we will not allow this to happen again.  Let us not look on those who are different from us as less than ourselves, or unworthy of the same freedom we have.  Let us treat everyone with respect.  Let us fight to prevent others from being enslaved or oppressed.  That is the best response to slavery we can give. 

I Want That, Part One

Apropos of nothing, here are some things I want that I will probably never acquire.  Sigh. Being a materialist is such a disappointment. I don't have a Pinterest account, so this is where they will be immortalized.  Until next month when I find something else I dearly desire but cannot have.

Free People Sargeant wool coat  Can't find this anywhere in a larger size, so I'll never even know if it would fit.  Maybe it didn't come in a larger size. I have actually touched one, but it was an Extra Small.

Or this one, although I'd prefer a longer coat.  Never seen one "in the flesh".
Free People Military wool coat. 

If I can't have that one, I'd take this Alexander McQueen coat..

Completely impractical as a coat, but very smart-looking.
Newport News velvet coat.

Frye Veronica slouch boots  I love Frye boots.  But they are so expensive. 

These are cheaper and probably not bad boots.  But they are difficult to find in my size. 
Steve Madden 'Fairmont' boots.

I actually have a pair of these.  They're are very comfortable. Lucky Brand 'Sweet N Straight' cords  Sadly, I ripped the knee on the first wearing - I snagged a buckle on my boot on the trouser leg (no, the trouser leg did not get caught in my bicycle pump).  The style has been discontinued, so I'll probably just have to patch them and live with my misfortune..

Velvet frock waistcoat / sleeveless dress 
It's pretty.

Well, that's enough of that.  For now.

To Sleep, Perchance to Write

SPOILER ALERT! 

I have a confession to make:  I've become a Sleepyhead.  For those who haven't yet heard this term, it's the online name for fans of the new Fox Network dark fantasy series, Sleepy Hollow.  For those who haven't heard of or seen Sleepy Hollow, it has taken Washington Irving's two best known fictional characters, Ichabod Crane and Rip Van Winkle, and blended elements of them into an engaging tale in which Crane awakens in 2013 after a 250-year magical sleep and must join forces with a sheriff's lieutenant to battle demonic forces that are attempting to bring about the End of Days.  (Pauses to catch breath.)


There are many reasons I like the program: The engaging actor portraying Ichabod Crane; the chemistry between the two leads; the mythical premise with its references to Biblical prophecy, Freemasonry, witchcraft and other occult and supernatural elements; and the frequent use of historical flashbacks to the Revolutionary War. 

But aside from those reasons, I think the real appeal for me comes from something else.  For the past two years I have been working on a fantasy novel for which the premise bears more than a little resemblance to the plot of this series.  My protagonist is a man who finds himself awakened in a new time, long after his normal lifespan would have ended, where he must pit himself against the forces of evil.  The details of course differ from Sleepy Hollow, but the basic coincidence of concepts remains. 

I'm not the sort of person to think that any idea I have is an original one, so this similarity doesn't trouble me.  Others have written such stories and will again.  But I do find it interesting that this program has inspired me to write more on my novel than I have in quite some time.  It had been languishing untouched in my "story stub" file since last year, as I lost inspiration and my attention turned to writing other things.  Watching Sleepy Hollow has inspired me to return to this story, to add new details to it and fill in blanks. So, in addition to enjoying Sleepy Hollow for its entertainment value (and for the dishy Tom Mison), I can enjoy it because it led me back to writing.  Anything that inspires me to write is a good thing.

The Doctor's Gone All Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey

Warning:  This blog post will be full of spoilers from the 50th anniversary Doctor Who special 'The Day of the Doctor' and the minisode 'The Night of the Doctor'.  If you haven't seen them yet and don't want to read spoilers, STOP READING NOW.

There, now that's out of the way, I can express all the thoughts that have been percolating in my Whovian fangirl brain since seeing 'The Day of the Doctor' on November 23rd (and again in 3D on November 25th).

The first issue I want to address is the regeneration of the Eighth Doctor in 'The Night of the Doctor'.  It's a pity Paul McGann's first appearance onscreen as the Doctor since 1996 had to be a regeneration story, but at least now we know how the Eighth Doctor regenerated. 

Except, the Eighth Doctor doesn't regenerate into the Christopher Eccleston Ninth Doctor.  Instead, he regenerates into an incarnation of himself better suited to being a warrior, to fight in the increasingly desperate and terrible Time War.  As we learn in 'The Day of the Doctor', this new version doesn't consider himself the Doctor anymore, feeling he isn't worthy of the name.  But that isn't what's most important to my current thoughts.  What's important here is that when Eight regenerates into the "War Doctor" (or the Other Doctor, as he's already being referred to online), the version of actor John Hurt we see replacing Paul McGann's face is much younger than the man who appears in 'The Day of the Doctor'.

During the events that take place in 'The Day of the Doctor', Doctors Ten and Eleven end up spending some time in a cell with their previously unmentioned predecessor - I'm going to call him Other for ease of identification.  Ten at one point proclaims that he's 904 years old.  When asked, Eleven states that he's 1200, but he sometimes gets confused, or maybe he's lying.  This leads me to feel that not only have we been numbering the Doctors wrong ever since the series rebooted in 2005, but that the Doctor is quite a lot older than he tells us he is.  When we first meet the Other Doctor, he looks older than he did in the regeneration scene because he's presumably spent centuries fighting in the Time War.  Admittedly fighting in a war could age a person rapidly, and fighting in a Time War doubly so, but I still feel it's likely that Other was around for a very long time before he met his two successors. How long, we'll probably never know.  Is Eleven's claim of 1200 years incorporating that time?  I think not.  I believe the figure of 1200 indicates that Eleven has spent 300 years in his present form, adding on to the 900 or so years he claims as Ten. So he is lying, because he's leaving out the time he spent as the Other Doctor. So, how old is the Doctor, really?

Back in 'The Deadly Assassin', we were told that a Time Lord could only regenerate twelve times, thus one could have only thirteen different versions of him/her self.  The episode didn't explain whether this limitation was a biological, legal or social limit.  If we renumber the Doctors to accommodate this previously unknown one, that means the upcoming version of the Doctor to be portrayed by Peter Capaldi will actually be number Thirteen.  I'm not too bothered about bending or eliminating the Rule of Thirteen, since we've already seen that this rule could be waived for the Master - which makes it seem likely that it was a self-imposed limit and not one of Time Lord biology.  Since the Doctor undoubtedly doesn't want to stop gallivanting about the Universe having adventures, and there aren't any other Time Lords around to enforce the rules, the Doctor can keep on regenerating as long as someone is willing to keep producing the show.  And since the Time Lords he saved in 'The Day of the Doctor' may remember what he did even if he himself doesn't, they might even reward him by relaxing the regulations for him - assuming they ever manage to get out of the pocket universe he put them in.

I read a blog a few days ago in which the blogger theorized, based on the events that occurred in 'The Name of the Doctor', that Matt Smith's Doctor is actually the last Doctor, and Peter Capaldi's Doctor will precede him rather than follow him in chronology.  (Unfortunately I can't find it now, but if I locate it later I'll add a link.)  That will certainly give a big headache to the people who are worried about accuracy of numbering.  It's an interesting theory, and the author proposed some compelling evidence to support it.  I'm a bit dubious that Stephen Moffatt will go that far in messing with the chronology of Doctor Who, but it would be thought-provoking.  I don't know how the script would handle that we saw David Tennant turn into Matt Smith.

In addition to thinking a lot about what this new Doctor means to the history of the character, I've also naturally been thinking a lot about the forthcoming regeneration when Matt Smith leaves the series with the upcoming Christmas special.  Regeneration is the core of Doctor Who.  The Doctor always changes.  I've come to look forward to it.  I'll miss Matt Smith, and I'd be equally happy if he decided to continue for another year.  But I'm excited to see who the Doctor will be next.  What will his personality be like?  We've had Nine who was melancholy and guilt-ridden, always seeming like a man who was trying to fight off depression; and Ten who had some of that mingled with a more eccentric and playful attitude; and now Eleven who is aptly described as "a madman in a blue box".  Even though we were told he wouldn't remember what happened in 'The Day of the Doctor' (apparently crossing your own time stream does that), I wonder if the next Doctor won't be a bit less eccentric, a bit more "grown-up" in his behavior.  Not too grown-up, I hope.  There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes.

Of course we know what the next Doctor is going to look like, at least what his face will look like, but we don't know yet how he'll get there.  The new version of the series has a pretty consistent regeneration style, with golden energy pouring out of him as his face morphs into its new form.  But his last two regenerations have been under duress.  Nine had to absorb the energy of the TARDIS from Rose Tyler's body.  Ten suffered radiation poisoning to save Wilfred Mott from the same fate.  But the Other Doctor regenerated as he had done the very first time he did so, when the First Doctor regenerated into the Second: his body was simply worn out.  He actually seemed happy to change, in stark contrast to Ten's protest of "I don't want to go".  What will cause Eleven to regenerate?  Will he be happy about it or fight against it?  Will he do it to save someone else, or to save himself?

And once he's in his new form, what will he wear?  Recent iterations of the Doctor have dressed less eccentrically than some of their predecessors.  The costumes worn by Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant could have passed on any present-day street as ordinary attire.  Matt Smith's costume started out to be fairly mundane as well, though his recent switch to a velvet waistcoat and frock coat are bit less "normal".  Will Peter Capaldi's costume follow that trend?  As I was contemplating these questions, it occurred to me that the Doctor has shown a fondness for frock coats or long overcoats throughout his lives.  Only his Third, Seventh and Ninth selves have elected to wear shorter jackets.  Will his newest self follow the long coat trend? (I like the long coats, so I hope he has one.)  What kind of costume-choosing scene will we get?  Those have varied widely over the years.  Several times the Doctor has essentially stolen clothing from someone else when no other option was available to him (Third, Eighth, Eleventh), while his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh selves took a great deal of time deciding what to wear from the TARDIS wardrobe.  I like a costume-choosing scene, but could do without some of the sillier ones (Fourth, Seventh).  I just want to see him making a choice, and preferably some more TARDIS interiors.

The TARDIS tends to adapt its appearance to the changes in its occupant as well.  Sometimes the Doctor redecorates without regenerating.  Will it take on a new appearance for its new man?  Does the TARDIS remember things the Doctor doesn't?  We saw that the Other Doctor's TARDIS console room had the  white "round things" that hearken back to the pre-reboot TARDIS decor.  I'd be delighted if that design element continued into the new Doctor's  version of the TARDIS.  But even if it doesn't, I know the set designers will come up with something interesting.

That's what's so special about Doctor Who.  There's always something new to look forward to.

Growing the Garden of You

Two weeks ago a coworker who was my mentor and to a certain extent my friend was fired.  Yesterday I found out that he had passed away.  I have a lot of thoughts about this running around in my head, but foremost among them is the feeling that my coworker didn't have a good support system.  His family lives across the country.  He didn't seem to have many friends who could help him out when he was in need. 

Having relationships with other people is a bit like growing a garden.  You have to decide what you want to put in it, how big you want it to be, and whether you want plants that are easy to care for, plants that bear fruit or vegetables, or plants that smell nice and are pretty to look at.  Once you determine that, you have to put in some work to keep it up.  If you don't look after your garden, it might be completely overtaken by weeds or die.

Personal relationships are like that garden.  To have friends takes effort.  First, to make friends you have to be a friend.  You have to be generous and supportive and respectful and interested, and sometimes you have to do those things even when you're not getting anything in return from the other person.  You also have to be careful about who you let into your garden.  If your friends don't make you feel good about yourself and proud to count them among your friends, they shouldn't be a part of your life.  It's okay to have some friends who are just casual friends, people you socialize with but don't expect them to help you move.  But they should still be people who make you feel good about you and about spending your time with them.  Don't let your garden fill up with weeds.

Don't let your garden die, either.  Keep in touch with your friends.  Ask them how they are from time to time.  Make time to see them or call them.  Don't keep saying to yourself, "I should really get in touch with X" and never following up on it.  You never know what can happen.  It's true that sometimes friends just grow apart, that whatever it was that made you friends in the first place can fade away, or people change and their personalities and interests no longer mesh with yours.  But when that happens, don't say to yourself, "I can't make friends".  Go out and actively look for new friends.  Go and try new activities, go to new places, don't be afraid to approach people you think might be good candidates and test the waters.  If it doesn't work out, so what?    Try again.  Don't be afraid of failure.

I wish I could have said these things to my coworker, but I don't know if he would have listened.  I just hope that someone else might read this and give some thought to how their garden of friends is growing.

To Tattoo or Not Tattoo

I grew up in the 60s and 70s, when tattoos were something that only sailors, ex-cons and carnies had.  When tattooing started to become more popular in the alternative culture a few years ago, I had my doubts, based on my upbringing.  Tattoos weren't something to be proud of, they weren't something "nice" people had.

But as tattoos became more common, I started seeing them in unexpected places, on unexpected people.  I knew they'd become mainstream when I noticed that an otherwise fairly conservative woman from my employer's human resources department had a tattoo on her ankle.  The general quality of available tattoos has also dramatically improved.  They are body art, not tacky things done in a back-alley tattoo parlor in Bangkok.  I started to like and admire them. 

But I still didn't want one.  They hurt, of course they hurt, no matter what some people claim.  It's a needle repeatedly jabbing you.  It's painful, the amount of pain varying dependent on the body location, the complexity of the design, and the pain tolerance of the individual.  My pain tolerance isn't great, so I'm afraid of the pain.  They're also expensive, if you get an elaborate one with lots of intricate design and color.  Tattoo sleeves are often gorgeous, but they take hours and lots of money to complete.  What if you run out of money and can't get your design finished?

But it wasn't really the pain or the expense that made me feel I'd never want a tattoo.  It was the indecision.  What would be the right design for me?  Where on my body would be the best spot?  What happens when I get older and my skin stretches and sags and the tattoo no longer looks as attractive as when it was new?  What if I get bored with the design, or just don't like it anymore after a few years?  I was sure that a tattoo would never be the thing for me, because I'd never be able to pick a design that I could live with for the rest of my life, and I was afraid I'd be stuck with something I wasn't happy with and couldn't afford to have it removed.  Something that permanent is scary.  I have pierced ears, but if I decide I don't want pierced ears anymore I can just stop wearing earrings and in a year or less the holes will grow shut. But my body's natural defenses won't get rid of a tattoo. Once you get one it's for the rest of your life.

A few months ago I decided that I really like the gauge earring styles that have become popular with people who stretch their earlobes.  I don't want to wear huge plugs or stretch my lobes so they hang down to my shoulders, but I do want the option to wear larger gauge "tribal" style earrings.  So I bought some stretching gauges and started stretching my piercings.  I'm up to 10 gauge now.  I haven't decided if I'll go bigger, but I'll probably stop at 10 or possibly 8 gauge, no more.  It's still small enough that the holes will shrink if in the future I decide I don't like it anymore, and I can still wear ordinary earrings if I don't feel like wearing the larger gauge ones.

This act of stretching my piercings has awakened in me a desire for a tattoo.  I have a design or two in mind, things I think I can be happy with for the next 20 years.  I've chosen a spot on my body where the ravages of aging shouldn't have too severe an impact, where I can also easily hide the tattoo if I want to:  My back, between the shoulder blades just below the base of my neck.  I've decided not to go for color, because color fades and I don't want to have to worry about touch-ups.  Now all I need is to make the final decision on the design and save some money for the actual inking.  I'm contemplating getting a henna tattoo of the chosen design first, so I can live with it for a few days and see if I really like it. 

The process of deciding on a possible design is difficult.  I like lots of things and have many interests.  Should I have a tattoo of something that represents my sci fi / fantasy fandom?  A Star Wars Rebel Alliance emblem, or the One Ring verse in Elven script?  I think not.  Much as I love my fandom, I don't think I want a representation of it permanently displayed on my skin.  I can't choose which part of that fandom I love more than any other part.  I also love Chinese language.  Should I have some characters or a quote tattooed on my back?  Lots of people have Chinese characters tattooed on their skin. I don't want to look like every other tattooed person.  I want something that makes me happy, something that I can admire in the mirror, something other people will hopefully admire when I choose to permit them to see it. 

Here are a couple of designs I'm contemplating.

This is a mehndi design.  I like the lotus shape - I love lotus flowers.  It also has spirals in it, a shape I'm really drawn to.  It's detailed without being too intricate, and it looks good as a simple outline without any color.

These are more mehndi designs.  I like the sun face second from the top, although I might want to make some minor modifications to it.  I like the rays, but I'm not entirely happy with the lips.

This one isn't an image file.  In the upper left corner of this page there's a design that resembles an eye.  It also reminds me of a cloud.  I really like it.  It's a good graphic design, it's simple, it's Chinese, and it reminds me of a place that I hope to visit someday.  So it would represent both hope and beauty for me.  

I'm trying not to find too many designs.  I don't want to make the choice difficult for myself.  My first thought was to go with the design from Jiuzhai Valley's website, but it's almost too simple, and looks too much like an eye.  Now I'm leaning toward a design like the mehndi lotus, perhaps with some modification to make it more personal to me.  We shall see if I ever actually settle on a design and take the next step toward getting an actual tattoo.