They Who Serve Who Only Stand And Wait

Recently, I have been allowed to read books again, which is glorious. I have found myself drawn to some nonfiction. I mentioned this to an older acquaintance and they responded with 'Oh, I'm so glad you've grown out of those silly fantasy novels and are reading big kid books' (paraphrased). This bothered me to no end, but I made no issue of it at the time, knowing my cause already lost. I put it aside for awhile until the multi-talented Sean PC posted an observation on Facebook, which I'm reprinting here.

"...has an interesting observation. When a relationship has ended, and a person dwells on the feelings of their broken heart, after a certain amount of time everyone thinks they should get up and get over it and move on. “S/He wasn't worth it, anyway.”

But if someone moves on without seeming to care, everyone thinks they're a bit cold hearted, and wonder if they really cared in the first place - and may even suggest that they take a little time to mourn the relationship if just for its significance. Is this a double standard? And what is the time limit someone is allowed to mourn the past and ... See Morewhat if? And then there's what we are asking these people to do, and our views on emotions in general: How much significance do we allow our emotions? Are we to slip on a mask of good cheer and congeniality when we have "dwelled too long"? If we seclude ourselves because we make others uncomfortable, or are forced into seclusion because our display makes others avoid us, time spent too long there make our friends wish us out of it - but happy. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is the purpose of the stage - so that while we go about our daily lives with a social mask on, we may be ourselves in character, and allow our audiences see and feel what it might be like if people were free to be themselves."

My attention was predominantly to his supposition that the stage allows us to express what our culture does not. I wholeheartedly agree, but I would expand that notion to include basically all forms of fiction.

The further separated, the more distanced from reality, the more we are willing to open our minds to the possibility.

Consider the following scenario:
You have strong beliefs about the environment. You consider actions of our government and the corporations that call a lot of the shots to be irresponsible if not downright immoral. You believe our culture needs to change from one of consumption to one of careful stewardship.
Sure, you could write about it, try to convince others. But likely you would be labeled and then categorically ignored as a liberal, an extremist, a tree-hugger. No one wants to be told that what they are doing is wrong, that they may have to give up their comfortable lifestyle.

SO....spends billions of dollars and make a movie set on a different world where the alternative lifestyle is represented by individuals who are tall and blue and catlike and suddenly, BAM, everyone wants to hear what you have to say. It helps if everything is shiny and wellmade and stuff blows up too.

Undoubtedly some people were put off by the social subtext in Avatar. I was at points. But how many people do you think walked out at least THINKING about some of the questions it raised? Probably enough that James Cameron feels pretty good about it. The message didn't change, but put it in a way that people feel separated from, that makes them feel comfortable and you will reach a much bigger audience.

Do I think that was the point of the movie? No. The point of the movie was to be entertaining. It was intended to make money. But you know, while you're at it...

I've mentioned before that the Joker is a powerful character because we know he's *not real*. We can explore the moral and philosophical question he raises because he's OVER THERE. Fantastical fiction is therefore perhaps the greatest vehicle for philosophical discussion. My big brother said he thinks philosophy is dead. I disagree. I think it just changed addresses.

There is of course, some major differences. In a fictional setting, one is allowed to artificially limit options and circumstances. One could argue that it is easier for the Na'vi to live as they do because as far as we know there's only 20,000 or so, whereas on our planet, we have 7 billion. There are some things that are simply unfeasible for us to accomplish given geography, size and population. These issues should not be pushed aside, and they are valid concerns, but just thinking about them raises more discussion which could potentially lead to some positive outcomes.

This of course, raises a different issue.
What is the definition of propaganda? The connotations change over cultures. We generally consider it a bad thing here, yet the difference between propaganda, opinion and education is fine and fuzzy. Other cultures don't consider it a bad thing, because they don't feel that stigma of overt attempts at manipulation that we do. Is it only propaganda if we feel this attempt? That can't be right because guaranteed attempts are made that we allow to slide by because they are ineffective. Is it only propaganda if it IS effective then? Well then we would call it education.

Acting perhaps gives us an even more direct example than reading, as we are active participants instead of passive consumers. After all, isn't a staple of acting that it is permissible to say/do certain things because it is not YOU ACTUALLY DOING THEM? If people were unwilling to take this step, we'd have much fewer villains (and people would be that much more frightening who chose to be so o.o). We are clearly capable of suspending our own personal identity for the sake of the Story.

What does this say about the responsibility of the playwright? The actors? If they are indeed, not simply acting out a shallow tale of conflict and closure, but in fact presenters of ideas and concepts for pondering and reflection, does that change how they behave? Would they try harder? Probably not, being professionals, but maybe it would help them get into character by thinking about it.

So the next time someone comes up and asks why you waste your time with fantasy, science fiction, movies of clear non-reality, ask them if the messages contained therein are any lowlier or baser than the latest romantic comedy or stoner flick. Ask them which is more realistic, the emotions felt by the Hobbits or by the cast of Grey's Anatomy? Ask which is more palatable, yet able to bring up emotions of loss and duty...Star Trek or 24? What movie nailed right to the point on issues of race and responsibility more poignantly in recent history than District 9?

And then ask them why we only have fantasy to discuss such things.

The fact that they involve lasers, giant sandworms, aliens and gold-bikini clad princesses does not make them any less legitimate forms of expression. And their very distance from our reality makes us freer to explore issues too difficult or socially unacceptable to delve into in other ways.

The ups and downs of Change

There is something I've noticed when it comes to explaining to people what I do as a historian. Or rather, what historians do in general, as I can only count myself as one in the loosest of terms.

The issue revolves around the term 'revisionist'.

To some, revisionism is a bad thing, and usually this stems from Presentism...that is, forcing or overlaying our values on individuals in the past and interpreting their actions through our current system of values and understanding. This is what's known as Bad History. As in, you're doing it wrong. For example, Lincoln wrote in his journals about a close friend of his, recounting tales of falling asleep nearby, and so on. Dumb people wanted to interpret this as Lincoln being a closet homosexual, ignoring all evidence to the contrary (though his wife WAS pretty crazy). That's because in our society, guys don't talk like that, and they certainly don't describe cuddling with their friends.
But one, they also didn't have internal heating like we do. I would not be surprised if people got in close in all sorts of ways we'd raise our eyebrows at just to keep warm. Secondly, their notions of masculinity would be quite different from ours, so this would likely not be seen as any kind of threat to his hetero-ness. Third, he was like 12. I mean, really.

It is understandable why people would be wary of scholars and their historical 'discoveries' given some of this unfortunate mishaps. They did the same thing with Richard I...assuming that because he did not have children, he must have not lain with his wife, Berengaria. This is in direct contradiction to the NUMEROUS accounts of Richard raping and pillaging pretty much everywhere he went. The man liked the wenches.

The downside of having this wholly negative view of alternative interpretations however, is that it blinds us to the true point of revising.

When you write a paper and you find that there is better evidence, or a better way to put forth your argument, you revise your paper. That's just part of good scholarship. History and science and to some extent, philosophy is the same. People sometimes criticize scientists for changing their explanations but I have always viewed this as a strength of those doctrines. After all, if science was always so dogmatic, we would never have an Newton or an Einstein, people who fundamentally challenged our understanding by being wiling to let go of formerly preconceived notions.

From a religious point of view, is it not true that we interpret sacred texts differently now than we did fifty, a hundred, five hundred years ago?

Change can be good when it is an improvement. But of course, change is also frightening, which is where individuals truly become wary of new historical evidence, especially regarding people they admire and respect.

First, one must look at what 'evidence' means. Historians are like detectives, piecing together what was from what remains. This is, by definitions, always an incomplete picture, otherwise we wouldn't still be doing it. As new pieces come in, sometimes in contrast to previous pieces, they are evaluated on their strengths. Primary versus secondary sources. Analyzing why the sources were created (for example, a diary is a great primary source, but one must keep in mind that if the individual knew the diary would be read, how might that affect his or her writing?) and so on.

All nations have heroes. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. And the flaws, the sins, the mistakes that they made does not mean they are bad people.
Humans are multi-layered creatures, we have both good and bad, we make decisions in ignorance and are judged by those with the benefit of hindsight.

George Washington was not, I believe, a bad person. He did, however, own slaves, something I consider morally wrong. You could argue that this was just 'how it was at the time', but that is not a valid argument to me. For as long as there has been slavery, there have been those who stood against it. There is ample evidence of those, even during the times of Washington and Jefferson making arguments and protesting slavery. They would have certainly been exposed to such ideas.
More importantly to me personally, things are morally wrong regardless of time or society. Some things more so than others obviously. I wouldn't call those who choose not to eat certain food silly because it WOULD be wrong for them, according to their beliefs. But there are some things where you would be hard pressed to prove to me it is okay, and almost all of these involve evils against other people. Slavery, rape, murder...it was wrong 200 years earlier, it's wrong in any other culture. At least, in my moral code, and it would take a pretty strong argument to convince me otherwise.

But there are people who believer we shouldn't talk about Washington's slaves, or how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during Civil War (though that made much more sense, given the circumstances) because that would tarnish them somehow.
The problem with this is you have no stripped these individuals of what makes them great. They are not great icons, or great statues. They are great MEN and men are full of errors. It is DESPITE these faults that we consider them great because they are so clearly human like us.

By changing that, we also deprive children of the sense that despite their own faults or errors of the past, they can achieve.

~~~

The second problem, which comes up a lot in the education sphere of history is making it one dimensional. Everyone has an argument. Everyone is pushing something. This doesn't have to have some nefarious agenda, but we all believe or interpret stuff a certain way and of course this will affect how we talk, even subconsciously.

Unfortunately, I just remembered I have Christmas shopping to do so I will go into that on our next episode. :D

Quick blurb

This is a rant. Will be short, promise.

Was watching Gotham Knight with Chaz, Tim and Andrew. Tim thinks Batman is a 'pansy' because he doesn't kill people.

I cannot begin to describe how aggravating I find this.

The irony, perhaps, the paradox of Batman is that he truly does BELIEVE in the system. He believes that everyone deserves a fair trial, that they should be judged by society and dealt with accordingly. I'm sure he agrees there are flaws within the system: bad guys let out on technicalities, the whims of human judges. All of this, however, is irrelevant. The system is there because WE put it there, because it separates us from the beasts, and is more or less what civilization rests on. The rule of law. Not the rule of might.

Batman (at least, my understanding of him) recognizes that there are those who work outside the system. Those to whom our laws don't apply because they are simply so far flung from what would be considered in the creation of laws. Sure, he takes out common criminals too but no one really pays attention to those, and in Gotham, they well established that the entire city was pass the point of the system dealing with it.

So Batman works outside, yet parallel to The System. He goes outside, fights the bad guys on the outside, and pulls them INSIDE The System. By killing them, Batman would say that democracy doesn't work, that The System is a failure and hey, everyone, just kill those think deserve it.

Batman is a hero because he confronts evil, but he does it on just terms and he does not put himself in all positions, judge, jury and executioner. That's not his role. His role is to attain those the normal law officer can't, and to make those criminals more 'available'.

He has to play by our rules, because they are OUR rules and he works for US. That's how it works.

/End Rant

A Fair Warning

As most of you know, the actual nittygritty of politics doesn't interest me. I don't usually care much about who is right or wrong. Of course it affects me, of course I take some note of the news. But what will really catch my interest is analyzing HOW people argue. What are the words they use, what are their tactics, and so on.

Recently I've heard something enough times to grate on my brain. So if you ever want to have a conversation with me, I have a request.

I don't like referring to presidential advisors and heads of the bureaucracy as 'Czars' because it just sounds dumb to me. And I don't like that both sides of the political spectrum always have problem when the other side is in power. We're a big country, it takes a lot of people to make everything work. I don't begrudge the President some help. Obama was certainly not the first, and the Republicans were certainly not the first to use the term to try to create suspicion.

That's not my issue.

If you are attempting to prove that Obama is a socialist (which of course has to mean he's the incarnation of evil right?) do NOT, I repeat NOT use the argument "Well he's appointed czars, which is a Communist term!"

You have just lost all credibility, have a nice day.

The Tsar was who the Communists overthrew (well, the Bolsheviks and other radicals anyway. Communists came later). It is pretty much the opposite of communism in just about every way (except corrupt bureaucracy which is more or less universal). Putting them together shows not only a suspension of critical thinking but a total ignorance of history, or at least a convenient smashing together of facts which only serves to prove that anything will be used to fit your preconceived notions.

There are plenty of decent, legitimate reasons to put together a case, if you feel so inclined. A lot is open to interpretation.

This is not one of those things. This is people being stupid on purpose. They may have fantastic evidence otherwise but if I hear them use this phrase (which I have...way too many times), I am going to ignore them mostly because this is a pet issue. That is admittedly close minded on my part, and if I felt they were sincere in wanting a discussion, I would probably point out the issue and move on from it, giving them the benefit of the doubt. I swear though, one word of argument, where I can tell it doesn't matter what I say since they've already made up their minds, I'm going bursar because that's just ridiculous.

So now you know, and knowing is half the battle. :D

New Project

I am putting my Nanowrimo project "Wasteland:Earth" on its own blog. Go over and check it out.

Ya rly

It becomes increasingly clear as I'm forced to delve into the adult world that people from the previous generation (or their parents) are not only somewhat isolated from mine, but downright uncomfortable with certain taken-for-granted aspects. This shouldn't be a huge surprise considering generation gaps have always caused some wariness on both sides, but it's strange when one is right in the middle of it.

For example, I was talking to one of my father's coworkers, a very nice conversational woman, about Twilight and some of my issues. We actually didn't get to talk long which was probably to her benefit because I was just about to go into my long tirade but she did make one comment that stuck with me, not only because I believe it to be wrong but also because it offense my sense of identity as a member of NetGen.

"I don't blame these books for kids not being able to spell or read. I blame that thing *points to my phone* and text messaging."

I was not able to tell her why I thought she was incorrect, so you get to hear instead.

As most of you know, I am a texting fiend. We have to have an unlimited plan because otherwise we'd spend about five hundred dollars, just for texting.
I can, however, form a coherent sentence, complete with more-or-less (depending on how much I care at the moment) correct grammar structure and few spelling errors.
This attitude isn't new. They (adults, and so on) said the same thing about instant messaging. That it was going to destroy language as we know it. And truthfully, the internet has changed the way we talk, write and even think.
Bob Salvatore said that writers now have to be more clear about who is talking in a dialogue because the readers are used to reading an instant message conversation where the speaker's name/username is displayed above their message. This needn't be seen as better or worse, it is just a changing perspective.

These arguments, to me, demonstrate a discomfort with the staples of the Internet Generation. They are similar to the arguments against web-journalism, blogging and forums. Those who are not involved frequently discredit them as invalid, sometimes with much justification, but almost always out of a sense of alienation.

But I digress.

MSN and Blackberries are not to blame for kids' inability to spell anymore than video games and Marylin Manson is to blame for them being violent. It's a cop out for parents and the school system.

I can continue texting and still be able to spell when the occasion calls for it because I had a good education, with a heavy emphasis on clear communication which encouraged proper grammar and spelling. I read a LOT of books, most of them above my age level, which exposed me to various styles of writing and a lot of "big" words. You know, those with more than two syllables.
The United States has the worst education system of any developed nation. This was a problem even before the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which just threw gasoline on the blaze. So part one of the responsibility lies there.
Part two is on the parents who consider it wholly a teacher's job to educate their children. These are the parents who don't help their kids with homework, who don't encourage them, and then get uppity when the teacher points out their child is falling behind. Where do you think children learn that sense of entitlement?
And yes, to some extent, I do blame Harry Potter and Twilight, but only a microscopic amount. I appreciate that they 'got kids to read', though I disagree that they (especially HP) 'saved literacy'. What they did was get kids to read at a perpetually fourth grade level. There are a lot of better books out there that would challenge young readers more, get them more interested and would encourage them to raise their reading level. I admit, I wouldn't be so critical if I didn't see a lot of kids who started reading Harry Potter books and then found everything else "too hard" or boring because they couldn't understand it. That isn't the series' fault at all, it just diminishes my appreciation for its contribution to the writing world.

Technology is always going to be an easy scapegoat because there's a correlation. Young people use more technology. Young people have X problems. Well, OBVIOUSLY the technology must be causing X problems. This is a logical fallacy.
I don't doubt that everything mentioned is a contributing factor. Writing online all the time CAN (and probably does) make kids lazy. I actually think that the way text messaging and things like Twitter have altered language simply shows its versatility and adaptability. It shows people thinking outside the box. Now, once they are back IN the box, yes, they have to talk like the other Boxites.

My point is that even if the internet and all its byproducts HAVE degraded grammar and spelling, it would not have been able to do so if children's grasp of those subjects wasn't already weak. If they knew better BEFORE they got online, it wouldn't matter as much. We need to improve our schools first (and possibly issue parenting licenses :P) and if there are still problems after, we can deal with them, too. In the end, the buck stops with those in authority, the parents and the teachers. Funny how they are the first to condemn then, isn't it?

Shades of Gray

Alright, fellow philosophers, I pray this will be a short post because as my usual subject matter goes, this is fairly shallow. I'm going to talk about myself.

Well, let me rephrase. I'm going to share with you a thought process which led to a realization of how not-simple the world is. This is another one of those 'everyone knows this' times, but it was causing a dissonance in my mind and I wanted to share the reconciliation.

I was raised in a fairly isolated environment, which is not to be confused with being sheltered. All my friends were much more sheltered than I was, it was simply that I saw the same people every day, and did not see much of the rest of the world.

This left me to form subconscious mindsets which have only recently been brought into question and discarded.

Being surrounded by Christians and having limited contact with non-Christians, I developed the notion that only Christians were good people. To a child's mind, this should make sense. Good=moral. Moral=This-one-set-of-beliefs.
Another concept was that all talents come from God, therefore if someone seems really talented, they must be blessed which must mean that even if they are hiding it, they are believers. This should also make sense when you think about how many Tony's, Oscars and other awards are accepted with God mentioned in the thank yous. Even if it insincere, it is 'the thing to do', and when I was small, it was hard to discern a difference.

Now, flash forward. I think most people are inclined to justify or stick up for those we admire, actors, celebrities, singers, and so on. Part of this is that identity notion I talked about earlier. We identify with certain people, certain tastes, and it is hard having those questioned. The other part is that very few people would want to admire BAD people. It simply doesn't make sense.
So we come up with lots of reasons for why people do what they do and what we think it means. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as I've said before, art is subjective.

I give you the example of Eminem because that's what got me thinking about all this.
No one is ever going to say that his music is family friendly or remotely aligned with Christian values. However, I am preinclined to say 'Well he really doesn't mean THOSE parts because of X, Y, Z and he's really doing D.'. This is because I have a hard time imagining someone could be so talented and really so selfish and hateful, it is inconsistent with my understanding of the universe's works. And I want him to be a good person because I don't want to believe that someone I respect is all the things others accuse him of.

But, as the great Neil Gaiman said about another author: He's not your bitch.

I have heard the argument made that people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are purposefully inflammatory because they want to shake things up, they want people to argue with them because it forces them to think. The exact same argument can be made for Eminem (and has, numerous times). And to be honest, Glenn and Em DO do what they do for the same reason (wow that sentence sucked). They do it for money. Eminem sells more records by being controversial and Glenn Beck gets higher ratings and more listeners by being a hateful jerk-I mean opinionated pundit. I'm sure there are times where they really are sincere in their anger, where they truly desire to wake people up, using intemperate language to shake people off the fence. But they are also certainly aware that they are now personas which must be kept up for the sake of sales.

My point for this is that I know now that there are plenty of good people in the world who don't believe the way I do. And there are a depressing many terrible people who claim to believe the same things, though I don't believe them. I still believe that people are talented and given ability for a reason, but I also recognize that circumstances play a strong role. Would Elizabeth I have been such a great queen if she hadn't been faced with such adversity right from the beginning of her rule? Adversity breeds greatness. I believe God gives each of us potential, but it is up to our own determination and our surroundings to develop it. And because we all have free will, we do not have to use our abilities for what was perhaps their original intention.

So now, if someone says 'Why do you like that celebrity, he/she is such a douchebag who does K and U?', I'm not going to be all that bothered by it unless they are being inaccurate or unnecessarily malicious because who we are isn't only defined by who we enjoy having entertain us and it IS possible to be talented but not moral, and/or good but with different beliefs.

I know all of this is incredibly elementary but I feel like the universe is less frightening for not having the contradiction. Things are rarely as black and white as we considered them when we were little.

Have any of you ever come to a conclusion that you felt you should have realized a long time earlier?

The parts of us

Alright, it is after midnight, I am typing from my BB and I don't have a really clear idea of what I'm trying to say, so please bear with me.

I've had a few different conversations with people that have caused me to reflect on previous experiences.

Countless things interest us. We watch tv shows, play games, read books, surf the web...we read articles about random stuff that catches our eyes and frequently wonder "How does that work?"

But these things don't make us who we are. Not all of them. But I thing we personalize more than we would initially assume.

For example, we all self-label to some extent. I think of myself as many things, some with more justification than others. The positive side is that because I recognize I am not alone and others share this aspect of myself, I can find them and explore more. The negative is that when I find my definition does not match the rest of the worlds or at least the mainstream, I feel offended. It is basically a logical equation.

I am X.
Their X is different.
I am not X?

I'm sure many people of faith have felt the same when loud people who claim to represent their beliefs make them look stupid(*coughfoxnewscough*).

There is of course, a level of eliticism here, of which I am quite guilty. Any person who claims to be a real goth is required by custom to sneer at Hot Topic, and they aren't really wrong to do so, but they ARE choosing to define a broad genre by what will make THEM feel the most justified, the most "hardcore". They are the "real" everyone else is a poser.

Of course, the very worst outcome would be that an individual ceases all critical thinking and literally just follows the crowd, that is, their group. Following the party-line is the most obvious "adult" example. This is why I claim to be neither Liberal nor Conservative. That's not to say that everyone who does self-identify gives up their free will, just that it is more common than I am really comfortable with.

As usual, South Park said it best.
"If you want to be nonconformist, you have to dress just like us and listen to all the same music we do."

So that's self-labeling. There are other personalizations we do however.

Because the genres/stereotypes are so broad as to be almost meaningless, we frequently strive towards exceptionality. This is especially true when we are in a clique of people who all fit the broader category. I will use an example I gave during a discussion with Ardent Sluggard.

Take the notion of Nerd-dom. To at least a decent portion of the population, the Nerd is misunderstood, sometimes maligned or marginalized, etc. It can be tiring to constantly justify your interests, always answering the occasionally venemous question of "Why do you like THAT?"

On the other hand, it offers a level of satisfaction for those who prefer to stay on the fringe. Now imagine being surrounded by other Nerds. You are no longer special, you no longer standout. Where before, you may have considered your unique Nerdness as a part of your identity in relations, it now has all the significance as the fact you walk upright (usually). So now one searches for some aspect of nerdiness that sets him/her apart. Frequently, these activities will then be moved to a more special place of the individual's mind and heart because it now defines them. This can mean the person will view these more personally and sensitively.

The last chosen component of identity is belief. We all know the stories from history. So much bloodshed over ideas, so many battles and cultures laid waste. This doesn't mean having beliefs is a bad thing. The issue lies with people. Our beliefs are a central part of who we are. We base our decisions, our lifestyles on them, they guide our thoughts. And no matter what they say, everyone believes something.

This is why arguing beliefs can be so difficult. You are not attacking (or just questioning) an idea, you are attacking THEM, what makes them them. It is almost totally impossible to separate the person from their beliefs.

This goes for all the aspects I have discussed. People don't like having their identity threatened and it will make them defensive.

Now if we REALLY wanted to get sticky, we coukd talk about whether beliefs should be held accountable for the actions carried out because of them.

Take Marx and Rand. I agree with portions of their views (polar opposites that they are) and they have some good ideas. But taken to an end conclusion, they can andf have been easily utilized to justify terrible actions. Is that Marx or Rand's fault? Surely such was not their intention (one would hope), so are they to blame?

That's another day's issue, I think.

Till then.

Geek Movie Previews

Oh, the internet, and all the forewarning you give us. Looks like the upcoming film season will be good to us geeks, so I thought I'd fill in some previews of what's coming up.

These are all based on video games or comic books and therefore could turn out absolutely terrible. But I dare to hope. Curse you, Chris Nolan and what you've done to us.

First, there is Prince of Persia. Apparently, it has come to a surprise to a lot of people that they've already cast and shot a lot of this. I saw production pictures awhile back and just assumed so had everyone else.

Why this can rock: The director has done a few Young Indiana Jones movie, which may bring some experience, since those don't actually suck. Plus he directed Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, so he knows what it's like to do licensed movies. With actors like Sir Ben Kingsley and Alfred Molina, there's some obvious cred going on...

Why it can suck:...however, I'd like to remind everyone that Ben Kingsley was in BloodRayne and Alfred Molina...okay, fine, I won't make a jibe about Spiderman 2. He's still cool.

What may totally ruin an otherwise perfectly good movie: Well, first, if you're going to do a Prince of Persia movie, your special effects had better rock. Nothing ruins ancient-time flicks like stupid sand effects. It's pretty much the difference between awesomeness of The Mummy and the suckiness of...all the not-the-first-movie Mummies.

And then, of course, there is the Prince himself. Many people are skeptical of Jake Gyllenhal as the main character, mostly because he is associated with 1) dating Kirsten Dunst (ew) and 2) pretending to get it on with Heath Ledger (slightly less ew, ironically). However, anyone who has seen Donnie Darko knows that his weakness won't be his acting. It will be managing to not overact, yet maintaining a level of I-don't-take-myself-so-seriously-everyone-is-groaning-in-the-aisles. And of course, there are the physical ramifications.

Now, I was already really impressed with how much work Tobey Mcguire put in to get the role of Spiderman. He really really wanted it and he worked hard to get it. That doesn't mean he did a really good job, but I actually blame the director more than anything else (even though he's already pre-redeemed since he gave us Bruce Cambell). My point is that, I am aware that just putting in effort to reach the physicality of the character isn't enough to make that character likable. However, it does look like at least a modicum of effort is being made.



This film is in Post-Production and will come out next year.

Then there is Mr.Reynolds, who never ceases to amaze. In the near future, he will join the ranks of Halle Berry and James Marsden as individuals who have played both DC and Marvel characters. The difference is HE WON'T SUCK.

If you saw the Wolverine movie, you know that Ryan Reynolds did NOT get enough facetime but when he was onscreen, he was ON. Actually did a lot to make the movie not-suck-as-much (okay, I still liked it). So knowing he gets his own movie is pretty tight for me.

Why it could rock: Deadpool. Motherfscking Deadpool. OP'd, wise-cracking, don't-mess-with-me BAMF. With the right script, this could really be awesome. We already know Reynolds can wisecrack, that more or less is his entire career. And we know he can do the physical between Blade Trinity and Wolverine, so he's got the spectrum down.

Why it could suck: They don't have a director yet, and that sort of thing can really make or break a film. The greatest acting in the world can't help if you have no clear direction (anyone who has ever been in any small town play ever can attest to this). So fingers crossed.

What could ruin an otherwise perfectly good movie: Making Deadpool so OP'd that he's not interesting to watch because there's no challenge. He was pretty fricken' uber at the end of Wolverine and as cool as that was, it would be hard to maintain for an entire two hour film.

This movie is still in 'Announced' phase, and is set to come out in 2011.

MEANWHILE...

Green Freaking Lantern. Played by, /fanfare/ Ryan Reynolds! Thus, he jumps from two Marvel Characters (Hannibal King of Blade Trinity counts as Marvel obviously) to DC as Hal Jordan.

Why this could rock: Again, wise-cracking superhero of uberness? Sign this Canadian up.
Also, the director has some action movie cred under him: Goldeneye, Casino Royale, Mask (and Legend) of Zorro to name just a few of the more recent ones. And hey...could be worse. Could be Boll.

Why it could suck: Not enough cheese, too much cheese, not enough story, not enough action...there are a lot of ways these types can go wrong. Also, considering that the direction something like Green Lantern takes could help point a finger on whether there's ever an ACTUAL JL movie. Considering how monumentally different Superman Returns and Batman Begins is in art style (not to mention, you know, timeline), it may be hard to reconcile the two. Green Lantern may be the happy medium to give hope it can be done.

What could ruin an otherwise perfectly good movie: Them failing so utterly to pick a direction that works with todays audience that a Justice League movie becomes totally impossible. Failsauce incarnate.

This movie is also set to come out in 2011, which would be pretty funny (remember when Cyclops was killed off so he could look MORE like a pansy compared to Superman?).

Jumping back to the Marvelverse, there is...

THOR!
Now to be honest, Thor has never been a fave of mine but the movie is shaping up awesomely.

Why it could rock: First, Kenneth Branaugh, the greatest Shakespearean actor EVER-of-all-time-hands-down is directing. He's directed quite a few films, including some of the best renditions of Shakespeare onscreen and he's very good with actors. This could really add a layer of sophistication that would keep this movie away from Hulk-like emptiness.
Second, the cast looks AWESOME so far. First you have the guy who played Kirk's dad in the new Star Trek as Thor. Little young from what I usually imagine but it could definitely work, since he's got that Norse thing going on. Then you have Jessica Biel (who's already rocked Marvel once, appearing alongside Ryan Reynolds in Blade Trinity), who has both grace, good acting and general badassery...who is rumored to be Sif, badass warrior goddess. I, personally think this would be great for Biel as an actual superhero. Adding to the potential love-triangle is Natalie Portman who is again sauntering into sci-fi genre, though I'm sure she's trying to block out all memories of Star Wars. This means, she too is bouncing to the other side of the street, having already done V for Vendetta, which technically counts as a DC comic. And finally, Brian Blessed is going to be Odin. Ironically, he was also in a Star Wars prequel, as Boss Nass, but you can totally imagine his voice booming out across Asgard. Also a Shakespearean actor, I'm not really surprised he was tapped for this.

Why it could suck: As the next movie working towards an Avengers film (technically the third, after Iron Man and the second Hulk movie), they have to tread a fairly fine line. Also, though the actor playing Loki certainly has the look, he hasn't been in too much, and a weak Loki could really kill the whole plot.

What could ruin an otherwise perfectly good movie: Bad lightning effects. I'm not even kidding, this movie better have an amazing budget. Though Mr.Branaugh has been IN movies with pretty hardcore SFX, he's never directed one to my knowledge, and we may end up with the Fantastic Four issues all over again. GD giant world-sucking cloud....

Again, 2011. That year is going to be wicked.

Stuff you probably already know about:
Iron Man 2 is getting along pretty well. There are pictures of Mickey Rourke as Whiplash, which was a surprising choice as a follow up villain. Here's hoping the maintain the level of awesome.
Castlevania, set to be directed by the AWESOME Paul Anderson was shut down because the writer was crap. So no whiplove for us. Same goes for Halo, though that isn't all that surprising. Peter Jackson may be cool, but he's also a prima donna and Microsft likes their level of control.
There IS going to be a new Tomb Raider movie, but whether Angelina returns or they get the girl who has been modeling/acting as Lara, or someone else entirely, has yet to be seen.

Please God, don't let it be Megan Fox. For anything. Ever. Especially not Wonder Woman.

Still, all in all, there have been more games licensed to be made into movies which is both awesome and sucky because it means that the movies being made aren't being pushed by individuals REALLY passionate about it, but by those who make them because they'll sell, guaranteeing mediocrity and all around crapulence for many. Still, the recognition of video games as a marketable artform is somewhat gratifying for those of us who have ALWAYS considered them such.

Now, just no Uwe, and we'll be okay.

I open the floor to all discussion.

Eff you, Samuel Clemens

A common staple of The Internet, especially from the nerd-sector, those proud members of NetGen is the Nerd/Geek/Gamer Webcomic. Love them, hate them, argue over them, people have their faves, their disses and there's an entire subculture built around this.

It has reached the point where you click a link, an advert and then think 'Oh great, another one'. This crossed my mind when I first saw Homebr00d. And to be honest, it really is just Fanboys, but not quite as endearing (or professional, lol) and without a decent female character. But I read the entire archive (there aren't that many, it's pretty new), and I walked away with a conclusion.

It does not MATTER how original a webcomic is. Well, it does. Obviously you don't want clones. But I would never tell an aspiring writer/artist to not give it a shot simply because the idea "has been done before". For one thing, most of the ones I'm referring to are just doing this as a side project. They have other lives, jobs, so they don't need to take themselves so seriously here.

I've often wondered what Gabe and Tycho think about being the standard. Virtually any comic you read will reference them in some way and will DEFINITELY be compared. I don't think this bothers them, nor do I think they feel remotely threatened. They're freaking Penny Arcade, no one is going to usurp their position, they occupy the highest echelon of webcomic greatness.

It would be like Tolkein being offended for every fantasy story that ever comes out.
How many of us have read a book, especially in the sci-fi/fantasy genre and thought 'well I've read that idea before'? Sure, it may bother us sometimes, especially if it's just a carbon copy but we accept that there are certain norms that will probably pop out a lot and that is okay. You know why? Because we LIKE them. Homeb00d didn't offer a lot I didn't already know (though there were a few thought provokers that I'd never considered before) but I'm glad I read it, and will probably keep reading it because 1) I want to be supportive and 2) it's still funny. And more importantly, relatable. That's what we read these for right? There's something kind of perversely pleasurable in reading a joke you know many people wouldn't get. It's a community experience, it makes you feel special and part of something at the same time. Plus it says that out there, people experience and think about the same things you do: Arguments about PiratesVNinjas, RROD, DCMA laws and so on.

So 1) stop being elitist about webcomics, let the guys do their thing and if you don't want to read it then don't, and 2) feel free to go out and make some of your own! Who cares if maybe it's been done before? You would have to go out and read every single comic ever to be sure that a joke, a story, a plot HADN'T been done before and good luck with that. Samuel Clemens said that originality is dead. Well, if that was the case then, the flies have landed and the maggots have left the corpse.
So be free! Do it because you want to.

Movie Review+Redux

Bestest thing about weekends?

Rock Band with all your friends
plus
Movies with someone you love watching movies with
plus
Boomer's Milkshakes
plus
Not reading that book for class even though you know you should
plus
Care package of food from grandparents so you don't starve to death during finals
plus
Sleeping FOREVER.

I won't go into RB details since most of you were there, but I thought I'd talk about some of the movies I watched, and include a bit of a re-review. A review squared? Whatev.

First there was Valkyrie. As most of you know (or don't), Mr.Cruise is not a fave of mine. I like, maybe...movies of his (let's see, Legend, Top Gun, A Few Good Men, oh and Last Samurai, so four) and was hoping for wowage this time around.
To be honest, wowage did not happen. Not that he didn't do a fine job but with the eyepatch, there needed to be more compensation in voice and facial expressions.

I suppose the best thing about this movie is how fast it is, at least from my perspective. It almost goes too fast, leaving not a lot of development. There was certainly a feeling that more could have been done, but at least it didn't drag.

EVERYONE was in this movie. I was constantly going 'Wait, that guy is in this too?'
It was somewhat gratifying to see Bill Nighy as someone who is NOT in control of the situation, he played off the nervousness quite well. Kenneth Branaugh was, as expected, quite good, I wish he'd been in more of the movie.

Though I'm sure some may find it difficult o accept this movie about Germans when there is only one German actor in the whole thing, I submit that they set up suspension of disbelief quite early and in what I felt was an extremely artistic way, so that it never really bothered me (and this is one of those things that usually aggravates me). The only real problem with this movie is many many times you felt that this scene was going to be one of those BIG DEALS, where Hitler was going to give this brilliant soliloquy or there was going to be an emotionally charged moment...and then that just didn't happen. So it wasn't so much that it was bad, it just felt like there was a lot of unfulfilled potential. /is trying hard not to make a Bryan Singer/X-Men joke

In conclusion: This movie is a good rental, definitely worth seeing once, though on one of those quiet days.

Immediately after, there was Frost/Nixon. Talk about flipping the coin, this movie was nothing BUT BIG DEAL moments, with a little bit of dragging. Nixon was brilliant, he stole every scene. The movie is a mix of documentary and classic cinema, which gives a definite story-focus. The downside was that in some ways, it felt very chopped together, it didn't have a nice smooth flow. The script was great, however, and there is a monologue by Nixon that will leave you going "...k..." with very wide eyes.
Michael Sheen as Frost probably did an accurate representation but between the two, it was obvious Nixon walked all over him, which unfortunately made Frost-in-the-movie seem like a weak acting job, when really that was how it actually went.

So if you're interested in history, journalism or politics, this is another good one-time rental. If not, you'll probably not get too much out of it.

And finally, another look at Star Trek. I'm really happy that from what I've seen, The Internet has reacted favorably. Even people who were not so into the canon change admitted that it was a good movie and they enjoyed it. I was a bit surprised it got bumped from number one at the box office so quickly, because there's so much rewatchability (speaking of which, still open to seeing it again :D). This time, I tried to focus on some technical aspects over content, which was my focus last time.

I was really blown away by the music. Besides having the greatest use of a Beastie Boys song ever, the whole soundtrack is just really solid, epic in some places, delicate in others. Any fan of John Williams will tell you that Sci-Fi movies offer the greatest opportunities for composers because you just don't have many other conduits to do really uplifting, big band, classic orchestra numbers.

Little tidbits, homages to other films (I promise there is a Star Wars reference in there) stuck out more as well, and I walked away more impressed with Spock, Bones and Uhura. Sadly, Kirk is still the weakest character for me, but he had to do a lot in not-a-lot-of-time, and I am more than willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to any subsequent sequels.

Like I said, some people didn't like the canon change, but there is one scene that to me acts like a giant disclaimer. They literally say: Our destiny has changed, things aren't going to be like they could have been (IE, the way the show was)and we don't know what will happen. Yes, as a long time fan, this can be really disconcerting but remember what it is that people REALLY like about the series: The characters. THOSE don't change. Yeah, Kirk and Spock didn't get along in this movie, but it made total sense in context and it was clear that the relationship would be built up. Other than that, and a few other dynamics being a little bit different, everything you liked about the old characters are here, just in a new situation.
To me, that is better than if they'd kept the STORY but changed the characters, and I think the fans would have responded way differently.
Now of course, the challenge is to maintain the inertia, bring us something else that's epic, while maintaining the intimate character dynamics, especially in our jaded consumer market.
I realized I had a problem with the trailer for Transformers 2, complete with Michael Bay explosions was shrug worthy. A few years ago, I would have been blown away, and now, it's passe'. So, Mr.Abrams...feel free to wow us some more.

A Note on Art

Art is a transcendental concept, I think. It rises above nationality, creed or religion, above social class and circumstances. Art is transitory, amorphous as a child of Nereus and just as desirable.

Most of all, art is universal.

There is, I personally believe, an understood, though frequently unconsidered agreement between the Artist and the Public. But first, a few terms.

Art, in this case, refers to anything the Public deems it is. This means that what is considered art now, will not be art later, and what was scoffed at in its creation is now lauded as classic. This will be readdressed later. Art can include anything visual, auditory, tactile...anything the individual experiences sensually (as in, through the senses).

The Public is exactly what it sounds like, the people, the general consensus, thems that talk. In this way, art is incredibly democratic, for good or ill, though with many, many revolts and revolutions.

I think Art is such a sticky and amalgous (no, that's not a word) subject because its very nature changes when its status changes.

I will give an example to explain my point.
Recently, I was reading the blog of the great Neil Gaiman who was answering a reader's question about whether his blogging on his life and writing process made him more accountable to the Public who now had easier access to him. He (the reader) cited George RR Martin who seemed to be doing [everything in his power to avoid writing this novel and doesn't he owe it to his Public to finish this?] (paraphrased) to which Mr.Gaiman had the single greatest reply I have ever heard come from an Artist:

George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.

~~

This is something of an unfortunate side-effect of the information/net age, though I think the entitlement mindset was always there. The Public feels the Artists are obligated to feed their insatiable hunger for Art. What they don't apparently remember is that Artists are People too (sounds like a button slogan) and in actuality owe them NOTHING. The contract is between the Artist and the Editor/Gallery Owner/Commissioner/Record Label...not you. It is their (the artist's) prerogative if and when you get their work.

Which brings us to Form 1 of Art. As long as he/she is working on it, the Art belongs to the Artist. No one else has the right to judge, critique or interfere with it while it is in this Form/Stage. They can change it, destroy it or put it out.
Should they take the third option, Art takes on Form 2.

Any Art that is PUT OUT THERE, that is, made available for mass consumption (published, hung in a gallery, recorded on a record) it belongs to the PUBLIC. The Artist is still credited, still respected but how their art is received/perceived is up to the Public. This is why the status of Art can change from era to era, because though the Art piece is the same, the Public changes.

This leads me to several conclusions.

1) If Art belongs to the People...if it is there for them to critique, love, be affected by...then they are allowed to do what they want with it. This is why people getting up in arms about musicians who do cover songs aggravates me. If the original musician did not want their work covered, they should not have recorded it and made it available for others. In a similar way, if you are only writing 'for yourself', don't expect to get published. The strongest way I can think of putting this is: The Artist has no rights. This may seem cruel, if not downright blasphemous, but I believe it is necessary for Art to reach its ubiquitous state. It's like the essence has to be released into the aether.
That being said, we are totally allowed to blast an artist for a terrible cover, but you do that based on the merit of the cover itself and if it sucks, not on the fact the cover exists.

Likewise, think about movies. I understand that Alan Moore is understandably full of hate considering the treatment of his work in Hollywood. But I also think he's got too tight a hold on it. It's Out. Yes, it should absolutely be treated with respect and I wish more had, but the fact that someone makes a movie of it? That is their right as a member of the Public.

And Art is open to interpretation. What the artist intended, what they meant when they created the piece...does not HAVE to match what the Public receives as the meaning. This is why Art can be so personal to the individual. Which leads to my second conclusion.

2) The Bible should not be considered a Work of Art.
Yes, it has some beautiful poetry, marvelous imagery. But if you are going to make the argument that it is the Word of God, and that it holds actual Truths...that is, NOT being open to interpretation...then this is not Art. It is a message, just like this blog is a message, or a text is a message. From Sender to Receiver. Yes, every single person is a Receiver and yes there WILL be interpretation which is actually a good thing in some cases, I think. If you believe all the Bible is open to interpretation, that it is up to each individual how they take it, then feel free to call it Art. But I don't think you can have it both ways.

This doesn't mean that Art can't contain truths, simply that it has more to do with the Public's perception of truth, and not the Artist's intention.

Any thoughts from the studio audience?

Metablogging

Recently, a friend of mine asked why I talk about politics so much. I had to stop and think for a while, because 1) I never thought about it in terms of talking about politics and 2) that's not what the purpose of this blog is. After some discussion, it was determined that we simply approached the subject differently, but it made me consider what and why I write. Though I'm sure this will be quite apparent to all of you, I thought I should address it anyway.

I'm going to deal with the second question first, because it is the simplest. Blogging, like most role-playing games and joint stories, is inherently selfish, bordering on vain. You want to have your words read and considered and usually care more about that than reading others, usually simply because of time. I think it is a sign of maturity of the circle of bloggers I read and read me that this is less of an issue and we all are quite faithful readers. This is also why I consider blogging a perfectly valid expression of thoughts, because while there is certainly stupid people out there, if you find a good group, it can be a way to have mature discussions.

I've talked about a lot of things on this blog, usually something I'm passionate about, which is why it's somewhat limited to books, faith, music, nerdom, and what my friend identified as politics. All of these tend to be viewed through a philosophical lens, because that's how I approach things. The potential downside of course is that this means I am not REPORTING, I am INTERPRETING, which of course means that someone else could interpret the same set of "facts" differently. This can make discussion seem rather irrelevant because neither of us HAVE to be "wrong", we simply think about it differently. So it seems to have a "Why bother" element. I admit, I haven't got a great answer to this, so maybe some of you have thoughts on the matter. I don't want to just be spewing my opinion as if it is more important than anyone else's, which is why I'm always encouraging discussion.

I keep this blog because writing something down means you have to take ownership of it. It allows me to analyze my own thoughts and opinions and also not to have to repeat myself countless times when someone asks me what I think. I just direct them here. Though, I admit, most of you have to hear me talk about it beforehand anyway since I'm sorting my thoughts out loud. So, uh...apologies for all the repeats.

~~~

Now, for the other, slightly stickier question.

I do not think I talk about politics. I talk about people. If I was going to talk about politics, if I gave two hoots about it, I would watch the news. But I don't. I watch pundits and commentators. Why? Because I care less about what has happened and more about what people THINK about what's happening. And then I comment about what I think about what they think. I'm like a pundit to pundits. That's one reason that I see them all as a giant sitcom, because really, it is all so satirical.

For example, I absolutely do not CARE what Glenn Beck believes. What I care about is HOW he expresses himself (which as far as I can tell is the rudest, most moronic way possible) and how he talks to, about and with other people. It's the HOW and WHY more than the WHAT.

It interests me more when people, not parties, not political branches, but PEOPLE are being hypocritical, or holding double standards or being just plain stupid. It's true, I pick on the Republicans more for this, but that is for two reasons.
1) I was raised Republican and though I don't identify with either political party (again with the not caring about politics), it offends me that the way I was raised, the things I believe are being so twisted by people who claim to believe the same thing, yet fail to act like it at every turn.
2) At least in recent days, the party is so lost that one can't help but oscillate between pity and fury at their unending BS and stupidity and all around douchebaggery.
For example, Dick Cheney (the most aptly named man ever, I maintain) said he would much rather take Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell.
Colin Powell's great sin of course was endorsing Barack Obama over John McCain. For this, he's been blasted, called a traitor and been told he should just go to the Democrats. Let's review. Colin Powell is a highly decorated general who has served our country with distinction. Rush Limbaugh is a bag of hot air who spews hatred from his smoking nostrils for three hours a day, who couldn't cut it on television and thus is consigned to radio. Colin Powell gave good, well-thought out reasons for why he was following Obama. Both Cheney and Limbaugh ignored them all and just chalked it up to race. In response, Powell said, very reasonably and without much emotion, "Well, that's unfortunate". If anyone attacks Limbaugh, he verbally shreds them, their family and any housepets. Even people who HATE the previous administration really respect General Powell, he was liked by both parties (not always, but a decent amount, more than many others) and even now, he is an eloquent, reasonable voice in a time of confusion, where being loud is more important than being right.
Yet, Cheney thinks the Republicans need Limbaugh more than Powell? Srsly, WTF? He is seriously out of touch, if that's the case. Even more so, apparently anyone who disagrees, or who doesn't 1000% follow the party line is a heretic, and that's a surefire way for any party to get blasted to bits because they are so stuck in their ways, they're incapable of adapting or seeing past their own prejudice.

But see...I've said nothing about policies, practices or other aspects of politics. I'm talking about people being dumb.

Now, it is a valid point that it is pretty much impossible to disentangle the people from the politics. That's what they talk about, that's what people will know them for. I understand this, and like I said, I didn't disagree with the person I was talking to. I simply mean that I don't THINK about it in terms of politics. I'm looking at the why's, not the what's.

One last point. I was asked if it bothered me that so many people get their news from these commentators who seem to be deities dictating what the flock of sheep should believe. And yes, it does, but I don't blame the commentators for that. I don't think pundits get their jobs because they want to be the Metatron. Sure, it can evolve to such, but I don't think that was the original intent. Like me, they are just people who are attempting to interpret the events around them. It is up to the public to either listen or not, to act on that opinion or not, and it is ESPECIALLY up to them to do their own research, to consider critically what is being said.

It is so much easier to confirm "facts" these days, with all the information on the internet, and things being recorded as to be double checked. That's why people have to take ownership of what they say.
What is harder to nail down is truth. The truth comes from the why, the interpretation, the philosophy behind. That's more of what people argue about and that's one reason it's so hard to come to a compromise and conclusion on it. There are just so many considerations and so much has to be viewed from the individual's point of view that it's nigh impossible to take the perspective of others.

It is easy to despair under all of this. Easy to fall into the Why Bother. But I think the act of talking about it in itself is a worthy enough endeavor, and it doesn't matter if we ever come to a conclusion. I don't think it would be necessary. Just the fact the discussion is there is enough for me. But that's just me and my personality, and everyone is different.

I hope that this cleared up any questions, whether vocalized or not. Hit me up with more!

~C

A few responses

I meant to get around to doing this a while back but between a very busy week and my internet going down, I had been unable to get to it.

The subject for this week are: The Correspondents Dinner and this whole Miss California nonsense. I may or may not start talking about the whole CIA VS Pelosi goofiness as well, depending on how much steam I have by the end.

I always look forward to the Press Corp dinner, ever since Stephen Colbert let former President Bush have it with both barrels. I don't know what they were thinking when they invited him, but he obviously had guts. So Miss Wanda Sykes had a lot to live up to. I considered her an intriguing choice for this year's dinner considering her race and sexuality, both undoubtedly taken into consideration and I was skeptical she would be able to perform at the same level, mostly because I'm not all that familiar with her work.

Before we get to that though, I'd like to say that I was quite impressed with President Obama. We already knew he was likable and the fact that he could also be funny by being self-deprecating and yet 'ballsy' enough to poke fun at those who those who criticize him made me that much more appreciative. When Bush did it last time I watched, he gave me the impression of a bully and while I still chuckled every now and again, it was not nearly as enjoyable. I won't go into details because I'm sure most of you have seen it, but I appreciated the President's humor.

I DID laugh at Wanda Sykes, so did the people with me. Sometimes just out of amused shock, sometimes because she was truly clever.
"Governor Palin was supposed to be here but she pulled out last second. Someone should really tell her that's not how abstinence works" was one of my favorite lines (and the aforementioned governor will come up later as well).

But of course, there was the great controversy: What she said about Rush Limbaugh.
First...like Keith Olbermann, I disagree with her and her use of those jokes. 9/11 is something that is never joked about, and I think she realized that right after she spoke. It doesn't matter who you're talking about, you simply do NOT joke about the Towers. I know people want to make this big deal about the President smiling but I don't think he agreed with it. He's in a public situation, the pressure is on, and I know *I* laughed the first time, mostly out of shock. I just don't think too much should be read into that.

I gotta admit, I thought it was really funny when she said: "I hope America fails, I hope his kidney's fail, how about that?"

Do I think that's an appropriate thing to say? No, and I feel kind of bad for acquiescing with it. Making personal attacks like that are just not good ideas.
Do I think he deserved it? HECK, yes. I cannot imagine how many Christians can listen to such a hateful man. He completely has attacks like these coming, considering how much he attacks others. This is the guy who called THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES "Barack the Magic Negro".

This makes me so angry. I can understand disagreeing with those in power, in fact, I encourage it, I think it shows what a great country I live in that you are ALLOWED to do that. I can even understand going so far as to call someone stupid or immoral, that makes you sound like a moron, but it's okay.
But RACE comments? I'm sorry, you've lost all credibility with me. Attacking someone's character with real, valid proof, that's fine. But being racist and hateful to get ratings...makes apparently a well listened to monster.

So I think she definitely stepped out of line, but part of me is sympathetic because he's been out of line for awhile. I'm pretty sure he couldn't even see the line with a telescope at this point. His following still baffles me.

So that's the dinner. All in all, I think it was cool, but I agree with those who felt some of it was ruined by inappropriate comments.

Then there's this Miss California thing. /sigh I can't believe this is even news worthy.

Okay, first of all: I think Carrie's critics are not attacking her 'anti gay marriage' message. I'm sure there are those who disagree, but that is not what the issue is. I can't really speak for them though, so I will try to just say what I think.
Saying what she thought of gay marriage was not a big deal to me.
What IS aggravating is her going on and on about how she was punished for speaking her mind and how dare people step on her First Amendment right.

First of all...She broke the contest rules, she had surgery before the pageant and she joined a political organization after, all of which is against the rules. If she's punished, it would be for that. But she WASN'T. She gets to KEEP being Miss California, so nothing happened to her.
Second of all: The First Amendment has NOTHING to do with this. The First Amendment simply says that the GOVERNMENT can't stop her from saying things. But the government didn't, her EMPLOYERS did...and they are well within their legal right to do so.
Which brings us back to...Miss Palin. Yes, I'm so glad she's sticking up for the blonde. But seriously...this is why I didn't want McCain to win. I did not want that woman within two hundred yards of executive power. Besides being just as corrupt as the 'far left' that she liked to lambaste...but she also likes to sound incredibly stupid. Again bringing in this non-existing First Amendment issue...

On the other side, we have...David Shuster. As most of you are aware...I do not like him. For all sorts of reasons, his voice is annoying, he is not good at hiding the 'reading off the teleprompter' issue and...well, he did not handle this story well in my opinion. He was incredibly emotional and just unprofessional. I wanted to tell him 'You know, I bet Fox is hiring, because you sound like one of them'.

But in the end what this all comes down to is: Who really cares what Miss California says? Yes, this is a shallow pageant, no it is not going to go away. Get over it.

~~

Now for this whole thing about Speaker Pelosi. I do not know a lot about this case, so I cannot speak definitely. But first they said she was debriefed...which she'd already said, and which they couldn't contradict.

Do I think Speaker Pelosi is lying? Probably to some extent, I have little faith in any politician. But do I think they said 'Hey, Nancy, we're waterboarding people, is that cool?' and she said 'Oh yeah, no problem'? No, I don't think so. I admit it's...disconcerting how she keeps saying 'Oh yeah...um...' and then changes her story so that it doesn't contradict but adds more details. I want to know why she didn't just say all this to begin with. On the other hand, there are some things she can't tell us and I don't think that says she's hiding something. It would be illegal for her to disclose all information, that's why you have to sign all these papers swearing you won't talk about it. So perhaps that played a part.
What aggravates me is that even if her story isn't lining up, the evidence against her is questionable at best because most of it is being given by the CIA....which is the organization she is accusing of lying. Yes, they should definitely defend themselves, but if it is just going to be a game of 'he said, she said'...I gotta admit, I'm not really convinced by either party.

Most of all, what bothers me is how partisan this all seems to be. The way the whole issue got brought up was the Reps saying 'But wait, SHE knew about it too, that makes it okay!'.
In Keith's words: "This is NOT about party. This is about the rape of our ideals. And if a Democrat is equally culpable...then they can go to hell, too."
I don't care what party those involved were in. Torture is NEVER okay. Just because someone in the Dems party MAY have known about it does not make the Reps who were in charge (IE, Bush, Cheney and them) any less responsible. This all seems like a way to divert attention and it aggravates me. But hopefully it all works out soon.

Any thoughts, fellow philosophers?

Why I Am A Snob

We all have it. Something we are elitist about. And I am one of the worst kinds of hypocrites, because I actually despise elitism. But we all have something.

I have two things. Hot Topic wannabe vampires. Screw you all, I've been doing this since I was two, at least.

And poser nerds.

Now of course, one of the benefits of having a Star Trek reboot is it makes lots of new fans. I don't mind that, I don't consider myself better than them, though I've been watching for so long.

Wanting to get in Zack Quinto's pants does not make you a nerd.
Wanting to sleep with Spock makes you a nerd. A pathetic nerd, but a nerd nonetheless.

Discussing for ten minutes who was hot and who was not does not make you a nerd.
Discussing how it compared to the original makes you a nerd.

Anytime someone brings up a content focused issue, cutting them off with "I don't care, he's hot" does not make you a nerd.

I could go on. Please understand my rage. And forgive my snobbish elitism.

Nerd Weekend Rockout!

As I sit on my bed, munching away at what I think are meant to be Cookie Dough bites from the theater, I consider the two films I have seen in as many days.

Summer is certainly starting off well for the geek in all of us and I look forward to seeing if Terminator will complete the trifecta of fandom.

In the meantime, here are my thoughts on Star Trek and Wolverine. Please note that while I strive ever to be spoiler-free, there are some items which simply can't be avoided. I try to keep these to fairly well-known tidbits of information, but if you have not read or hear ANYTHING about either of these movies, if you have been locked in a cave and not even a rumor has made it to your ears...or if you just don't care to read reviews (I know most of the time I don't), then feel free to wait for our next Review-ridden segment.

I went into Star Trek with very high expectations and into Wolverine with very low expectations and both probably helped serve me.

First, to space...the final frontier...

The very first scene has some pretty mind blowing action, all the things we liked about the Star Wars prequels without any of the stuff we DIDN'T like about the Star Wars prequels (so basically, lasers, fighting, explosions, that fun stuff). The special effects were solid and I'm not even going to lie, guys, in the first ten minutes, I was holding back tears.

The premise of the movie through me off just a bit, because it greatly involves alternate realities, time-space paradoxes and the like and those just hurt me simple lady mind. In some ways, I felt like this was a cop out so they did not have to work within the constraints of the original universe but I realized by the end that there was SO much respect for the source material and that they were simply being ambitious and setting up for future movies. This is literally a reboot in the purest sense of the word.

Script, as you know, is extremely important to me, and this did not disappoint. While it wasn't shot full of punchy one-liners, there were a few memorable lines and the story never dragged.

Of course, what everyone is concerned about is: How was the acting? How do you recreate the magic that held so many enthralled, and obviously continues to do so after over forty years? I think the director and the producers had a good formula. The cast was a mix of veteran actors, not only of "respectable" (/snarl) films, but sci-fi goodness as well...along with some relative new comers. Because this was such an ensemble cast, it never felt like 'Oh he was just stuck in there because he's a known name', it was apparent that the casting was done based on ability, physical appearance and character dynamics (also known as chemistry).

Kirk, obviously, has to carry much of the movie, but like most animes, he was not my main focus, though he was certainly strong. My only qualm is not so much of a problem, simply a hope that in the following films he has matured a bit, at least to the point where he appears more compassionate to his crew. Star Trek wouldn't be the same if Kirk didn't seem to have the concern he had in the show, but as this was an origins story, and one where the rules were completely knocked "out of orbit" (ha...haha.../sigh), those relationships hadn't developed yet. My favorite thing about Kirk is how well he pulled the lovable manwhore off. He chased soooo much tail, but it was still kind of endearing, and almost always hilarious.

The relationship between Kirk and Bones was what I was most concerned about, as it was always one of my favorite dynamics in the show, and in this, I was blown out of the water. Their scenes were perfect, they played off and complimented each other well and had some of the best dialogue. Karl Urban has officially been forgiven for the vomit-inducing Pathfinder.

Spock is the other side of the equation, as he plays such a prominent role. I think that Zack Quintus (whose name I totally just butchered I think) did a remarkable job showing the conflict between the human and Vulcan halves, though I admit, it is easier to not sound like an automaton when you have Leonord Nimoy's resonating voice. Still, his was probably the most difficult role to pull off, and he did so admirably. His dynamic with Kirk was not the most ideal for me but again...this was because of the way the story was structured and it wasn't enough to ruin it for me.

Uhura was competent as well as witty and gave off that 'girl everybody likes' vibe, which was great because that was always one of her characteristics. She may or may not have been a bit OP'd at her job...>.>...but I certainly didn't mind.

I honestly think they went out and found the cutest kid they could to be Chekov. He had mile long eyelashes and his accent was giggle worthy. At first I thought maybe he would make the movie too silly, but it became apparent quickly that he was a necessary figure. He filled a much needed space as the innocent.

Finally, there was Scotty. And the problem with Scotty is...HE DOES NOT GET ENOUGH SCREENTIME. Seriously. However, when he's there, he delivers some great lines.

With all these characters, there was a bit of caricature involved. The impression I got was that as they got older, they mellowed a bit and what you saw as streaks in their characters from the show are demonstrated in full hormonal bloom in this movie. Kirk is MORE impetuous, Scotty is MORE of a joker, Bones is MORE of a paranoid "Dear God, man!" spouting ball of aggravated angst.

The villain was done, I thought, quite well by Eric Bana. He is not seen too much in the film, which gives the impression he is not well developed but I think that's not quite accurate. The underlying premise of his character is simple and doesn't require a lot of backstory or character build-up. What IS impressive is how sympathetic he is without you losing sight of the fact that HE IS THE BADGUY.

The Starfleet uniforms were more in keeping with Next Gen then the original series, which is good on lots of different levels.

The most important thing about this movie is FANSERVICE. There is a Red shirt. He is obviously a Red Shirt. You see it coming a mile away and it is quite rewarding. There are lots of moments of irony (Bones says the first time they meet Spock, "I don't know who he is, but I like him") and numerous connections made to the original films, especially 2 and 3. We see how Kirk beats the Kobayashi Maru dilemma, and the list goes on and on. The point is that if you've never seen any Star Trek, you're going to appreciate this movie as a solid film and if you HAVE, you're going to be blown away at how well they balanced new and old.

My only problem with this movie was that relationships between the crew as a whole and especially between certain key characters was not as developed as I'd like but that's what sequels are for. ^.^

The problem with Wolverine is that I saw it AFTER Star Trek, and now all summer movies are going to have to compete with that. We saw this last year (or was it the year before) where Iron Man was just dominating...until Dark Knight came out. Like those two films, these two have very different roles and push very different buttons.

When you go to see Wolverine (and I would encourage you to do so), remember that you're seeing a comic book movie and all that goes with it. Dark Knight does not count :P. Think about the classic Batman, Superman, heck, even Spiderman movies. Go in there, don't think, don't question the physics, just enjoy people doing crazy stunts and pulling off physically impossible feats because THEY CAN.

From what I'd read of the Wolverine Origins comic, the movie follows it pretty faithfully, though there are gaps in my knowledge that I'm sure Ardent Sluggard or Holden could fill in for me. The link between Wolverine and Sabretooth that is postulated is not one I'm familiar with but one I think all kids reading X-Men thought of at some point.

And no, "Wade" (Ryan Reynolds) was not totally nerfed. The first time you see him, the first scene he is in, he has nothing but hilarious lines. You don't see him again almost for the entire movie, so it wasn't like he was there but not doing anything. He just wasn't there. When he comes back and is "muzzled", it's okay because he's KICKING ASS. I was like 'Holy crap, he's OP'd'.
This movie was also fanservice, but mostly to the ladies. I think Hugh Jackman spends at least 47% of the film with his shirt off. There were a few funny lines and to be honest, the script was smarter than I thought it'd be.
There were also super cliche'd moments where you were going "What? really?" but I actually found these strangely comforting. It was nice to get back to basics. Special effects were fairly consistent, only a few where you were like 'that probably should have been thought out better'. Gambit was cool but his accent wasn't nearly thick enough. Like there was a lot of obvious potential, I don't think there was anything wrong with the casting, but he didn't say a single french word the whole time.

The fight scenes were good, which was important for a movie like this. I really liked the Deadpool fight scene, it was like watching the Duel of Fates in Episode I all over again. Although, saying that makes me think of music.

The music in Star Trek was definitely better, I mean one of the first songs they play is "Sabotage" by the Beastie Boys and it fits so well that you've barely started and already want to rock out in your seat. The rest of the music was quite moving, very epic, and fit quite well (those who had issues with the musical choices in Watchment, myself not being one of them, will not have that problem with this movie). Wolverine's music was just sort of...there. It wasn't bad, but none of it was particularly memorable.

I'm really looking forward to the Deadpool spin off, I think they've set down some great groundwork and have some good material to work off of.
Yes, Wolverine was cheesy, yes, there were stereotypical moments we'd all forgotten about in our bliss of originality (isn't it funny when comic book movies are the ones being original?), but it was FUN, and I'm glad I went.

So...I went in with high hopes to Star Trek and it exceeded them, which makes me happy inside and out. I went into Wolverine with low expectations and was quite pleasantly surprised. I hope this review will inspire you to go out and decide for yourselves. <.<...And...if anyone is thinking of seeing Star Trek anytime soon...>.>...can I come?

~CiS

The Wisdom of Kerbouchard: Restarting Installment

Insert usual 'sorry I took so long' stuff here.

Today's subject is: Poverty and the Charity of Women (AKA 'The Ladies')

This installment is brought to you by Chapter Forty-Three

"Evil comes often to a man with money; tyranny comes surely to him without it.
I say this, who am Mathurin Kerbouchard, a homeless wanderer upon the earth's far roads. I speak as one who has known hunger and feast, poverty and riches, the glory of the sword and the humility of the defenseless....
Hunger inspires no talent, and carried too far, it deadens the faculties and destroys initiative, and I was hungry, although not yet starving.
Women have treated me well, bless their souls, and it has occurred to me that a man need know but two sentences to survive. The first is to ask for food, the second to tell a woman he loves her. If he must dispense with one of the other, by all means let it be the first. For surely, if you tell a woman you love her, she will feed you.
At least, such has been my limited experience.
Yet such a solution was beyond me, for my rags lacked gallantry and rags without firm exciting flesh beneath them excite little compassion and no passion. A woman who will gather a stray dog into her arms will cal the watch if approached by a stray man, unless he is very handsome, but not often even then, for there remains an occasional feminine mind of such a caliber that she might suspect him of more interest in her money than more intimate possibilities...Around me were wealth, luxury and decadence. The two former I did not share, but decadence is the one attribute of the very rich to which the poor have equal access.
Decadence is available to all; only with the rich it is better fed, better clothed, better bedded.
Cities were built for conquest, and I, a vagabond, must conquer this one with what weapons experience had provided.
To a man without money, for I could not cal myself a poor man, the obvious way to riches was theft. Thievery, however, is a crime only for the very ignorant, in which only the most stupid would indulge. There is a crass vulgarity in theft, an indication that one lacks wit, and the penalties far outweigh the possible gain.

{Mathurin considers what he can do in the new city considering his many talents. He decides against acrobat, magician mercenary and physician.}

A storyteller, perhaps? A weaver of tales? Thus far my flights of fancy had been reserved for the ears of women, for long since I had observed that masculine beauty as an enticer of the female is overrated. Women are led to the boudoir by the ears. For one who talks well, with a little but not too much wit, it is no problem.
Where women are concerned it is the sound of the voice, the words that are spoke and the skill with which they are said, especially when combined with a little, but not too much, humility."

Thoughts, fP's?

Simulated Death

Obviously, something that has been on the news so much we can't avoid thinking about it (try as we might) is the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo and what should be done about it. There are obvious ramifications on all fronts, and I really appreciate how this issue transcends (for the most part) party politics. Unfortunately that taint is still there, but on the street, from what I've heard from people I've talked about, being a Republican or Democrat is pretty much irrelevant to where you stand on the issue. I don't have a legal degree, I am not a policy maker. I'm an United States citizen. So here is what I think.

1) Is Waterboarding torture?
The justification for this not being torture was that it didn't do any lasting harm and would not cause prolonged suffering. You're just simulating drowning. Only then another memo came out that said water MAY be inhaled. In the words of Aandail: At that point, you're not simulating drowning. You're actually drowning. You're simulating death.
Yes, there's a doctor present. You know, the Holocaust had doctors present, too. The logistics are pretty much irrelevant to me.

2) Should those at the top be prosecuted?
I agree with those who say that the people who had to actually perform these 'enhanced interrogation techniques' should not be punished because they were doing what they were told. I remember 'A Few Good Men', we basically program soldiers to not question, and they are already in extreme circumstances. I can't imagine that they send the fluffy bunny guards to Guantanamo and I'm sure the mental toll of being down there, with people who may be responsible for the deaths of Americans is easy on them. And it's comforting like I said that both sides are very supportive of the troops.

Well, except those people who try to blame them. Or who put them in prison for it, and then let them sit there for FIVE YEARS and only now are saying 'Oh, no, we shouldn't get mad at them'. But that's a totally different post.

So then the question is: What do we do with the people at the top? To be honest, though my populist rage rants that they should all be taken to court, 1) We simply do NOT have enough information to make any kind of legitimate judgment and 2)...it's never going to happen. We are never going to prosecute the former President of the United States for something like this, even if we wanted to. So I leave that sort of question to the policy makers.

3) Is it effective?

This then is the crux of my issue. The former Vice President, who had these files in his OFFICE, says that we were able to produce good information from using these techniques. He has provided (admittedly not much) evidence to say so. *Maybe* lives have been saved through this.

The other side says that you can't trust information obtained under extreme duress because the victim will be tempted to say something, ANYTHING to make it stop. Furthermore, if the victim IS a terrorist, they have probably been trained, much like our soldiers have, to withstand interrogation techniques such as these.

Perhaps most problematic is the fact that because WE, the United States, did this...terrorist organizations actually get MORE converts. This is a great recruitment tool because it makes US the badguys and THEM, that is, the terrorists, the victims. Apparently Torture=Door to Topsy Turvy Land.

...

But all of this is absolutely irrelevant. It does not MATTER if torture was effective, I don't know why we are even discussing it. There is never a single justifiable reason to put a human being through processes like this.
I don't CARE what they did, this is NEVER okay.

We forgive soldiers in warfare because war is a terrible terrible thing and people feel forced to do terrible things in war. And to me...this wasn't war. These were prisoners, captives, many of whom were not given a trial, we don't even know if they DID anything wrong.

I've been told by some people, that this attitude of mine makes me Un-American. And do you know why?

Because I am unpatriotic enough to consider ALL human life EQUALLY valuable, whether you are white, Arab, black, female, Muslim, poor or disabled. And I hate to say it, but here in the U.S. if you aren't a rich, White Protestant male, the odds are stacked a bit against you. This is changing, for sure, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. But for me, I consider all life important, and if it isn't okay to do to US, it isn't okay for us to do it to THEM.

So it doesn't matter to me if we were scared after 9/11, or how much evidence Dick Cheney, the most aptly named man ever, produces. Torture is morally WRONG. Always, under all circumstances.

I just hope people can get over the petty political squabbling and get this cleared away so we can move on to other issues.

Here, have a video.

http://www.rockcookiebottom.com/post/97815385/109-for-this-song-i-took-language-directly-from

~C

~EDIT: ALSO...I would LOVE to see Sean Hannity actually follow through on his word and get waterboarded for charity. I hope he doesn't disgrace the soldier's families by backing out after he talked so big. Can you think of many people who deserve it more?

Adventures in Azeroth: Chapter 1 (Till I come up with something clever)

~All the usual disclaimers~

The psychological rape of the troll priest Rezzirection was undoubtedly the most deliciously cruel thing Anaemus had ever attempted.
For her part, Zi was in a world of turmoil. She could be certain of the reality of nothing. What truly transpired and what was the result of Anaemus' clever suggestions (and outright dark magic) mixed into an indecipherable account so that Zi no longer trusted her memory for anything. She found herself questioning everything that had ever happened to her. Well, almost everything.
When she had first come to the Lich King's camp and then to the outpost that Anaemus had been assigned, she had been shackled by the neck to a wooden pole while the Death Knight went out to fight or spread her corruption. Zi was left alone, sometimes for days, with no one to speak to. While accustomed to loneliness, the lack of all forms of conversation, joined with being left with only her garbled thoughts and memories were slowly decaying her psyche. Then Anaemus would return and from the way her ice and incarnadine eyes shone, Rezzirection could see a mountain of corpses, bodies mutilated, faces twisted around in agony.
Anaemus kept her constantly off balance by not allowing her any sense of regularity. Sometimes when she returned, Zi would be ignored for a long time. Other times, Anaemus would regale her with bloody accounts of villages sacked, families burned alive, their screams filling the night air. Once, Anaemus had come back wounded and, bringing Zi into her tent, asked if she could help her. It had just been a bone fracture in her shoulder, and when Zi finished (because what else could she do?) Anaemus had stayed lying on her side, faced away and silent. It occurred to Zi to run away but she had no idea where she'd go or what she would do. While she considered, she became aware of a soft sound.
“Are you...are you crying?” she asked, incredulously. Anaemus didn't answer though her lithe body had started to tremble. Rezzirection was torn between opposing forces. Was this another trick? Part of her knew she had been played with before and perhaps this was all part of a larger game. On the other hand, hers was a soft heart, incapable of seeing another suffer without attempting some comfort. And certainly, Anaemus had been considerate to her on their short journey, had never harmed her so far and had even been surprisingly gentle on occasion. Hadn't she?
But then there had been the other times, the times that had made Zi afraid of the dark elf, the times filled with pain and guilt. Had both happened or neither? Unsure of everything, Zi put a hand on Anaemus' shoulder. There was a stiffening but still, no word. Compelled by a mix of compassion and some sense of dependence, Zi laid herself down behind the shivering elf. As she moved her arms around to cradle the much smaller form, Anaemus turned over and buried her face against Zi and cried out a story of forced warfare, a broken spirit and a wish for redemption.
Had that really happened? Zi's head spun as she tried to consider it all.

~~
Anaemus allowed herself to be seen well before she needed to, knowing her unnatural complexion and dark armor would declare her a knight of the scourge. Not her usual modus operandi, but the Lich King had been very clear. She glanced to the side. In her hand, besides the reins of Asmodeus, her hellsteed, she held a leather leash, attached to a magicked felt collar around Rezzirection's neck. The troll priestess hadn't said anything for hours, lost as she seemed to be in her own mind. Anaemus hoped she was overanalyzing her situation, tearing her mind to pieces which would inevitably lower her defense. She was close now, almost ready. Anaemus suppressed a shiver of delight.
A gentle kick and Asmodeus broke into a gallop, Rezzirection's own steed forced to pick upthe pace to keep up. They made an imposing sight, charging into the Eastern Camp. Anaemus ran over what she knew one last time. In the past, she had most frequently been sent to the North, while this former Commander was a strong force in the East. Never one to play well with others, she was most often assigned assassination and “corruption” missions of sabotage and torture. Her jaw clenched at being forced into an alternative role.
When she was certain the whole camp had eyes for her, she spoke in a clear, commanding voice.
“I seek Varog Bonegrendel, commander of the Eastern Forces of the Scourge.”
A burly orc emerged from a dark green tent. He held his head high and carried his monstrous armor well, moving with a steady pace that bespoke both strength and agility. His unnaturally light hair gave him an aura of distinguished disciplined, though he glowered at her, his tusks moving strangely as he talked. Inwardly, Anaemus groaned. Of course he's an orc...
“I am Varog,” he identified himself. Anaemus dismounted, pointedly ignoring Zi, who remained seated on her raptor.
“I am Anaemus, just come from the King's camp. I bear a message for you.”
The orc did a good job of covering his reaction to her previous location, though she noticed his eyes tighten a little at the corners. Something else seemed to surprise him more.
“Arthas sends a Death Knight as a messenger-girl?” He paused, then threw back his head and laughed, deeply, the sound greatly offending her elfin ears.
“You must have done something very wrong.”
Anaemus' eyes narrowed to dark slits, partially out of contempt and partially because he was technically right. Arthas had sent her, one of his warriors, on an errand worthy of a ghoul. “To test her” after her bout with the light. But it was a pretense of a pretense for she was sure that before long he would have an assignment that required her singular talents. Varog's eyes moved past her to Rezzirection.
“A prisoner?” he questioned, his shoulders heaving as he resettled his armor.
“A pet,” Anaemus smiled, tugging the leash just lightly enough to indicate Zi should come down. Varog peered at the troll who glared at him, defiantly, though she was clearly shaken.
“A zombie?” he glanced at Anaemus.
“Oh, no. Well, once, yes. But she retains her free will. She stays with me willingly, don't you, love?” Anaemus stroked Rezzirection's face. For her part, Zi did not believe she was there willingly and she flinched at Anaemus' cold touch.
“Hmph,” the orc grumbled, making it clear what his opinion of free will was. He motioned almost imperceptibly with his hand and the earth starting to rumble benath their feet. A hand shot out, dirt under crooked nails. Then another, both pushing up, until a being that was once a human male but now all but unrecognizable shambled up, limbs held akimbo and eyes lifeless.
“This is the only kind of “pet” I require, elfling. One that conforms to my orders. That's the only kind of soldier I want too.” He looked at her pointedly. She smiled, recognizing the difference in their approach. The sheer poetry of the way she was rewriting Rezzirection's soul was obviously lost on the brutish commander.
“And I'm sure they appreciate having a commander with so many,” she paused to make sure the barb stuck, “MANY years of experience.”
He glowered at her, his braids rustling.
“Age matters less when you're dead,” he pointed out, admittedly accurately.
“And from the looks of you, so does appearance.”
Varog gritted his teeth. He bent so that his face was close to hers, craning his neck because she was so much shorter than him.
“Listen to me, vampire,” he spit the word out like a blasphemy (which, again, was admittedly accurate), “I do not have time for word games played with twigs. Give me the Lich King's message or get out of my way.”
If Anaemus was intimidated, she didn't let it show. Instead, she inclined her head in a slight bow.
“As you say...Commander.” Her voice was a study in layered subtlety as she managed to grant him the victory while at the same time undermining him by ensuring he knew the formality was just that...a formality. He spun on his heels and stalked towards the tent, motioning her to follow. Anaemus smiled impishly at Rezzirection before disappearing into the dark command center.