Tonight's Experimental Cookery was unfortunately another of the rare failures. Fortunately it was quick and easy to put together, and indeed cheap. But the combination of flavours just didn't work for us at all - the pasta was bland, the cheese really didn't come through, and the sweetness of the pear was off-putting.
So I won't be trying this again. (I'm also starting to think that that book was itself a mistake, given that that's now two failures out of only a small number of outings. Still, we'll see.)
#24: "The Enchanted Wood", by Enid Blyton (a book from The List)
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Day 150: Update on... Stuff
It's day 150, so time for another update. It's going to be a really short update this time, as there's really not much to say on most of the topics:
Books: By day 150, I 'should' be at 24.66 books read. At the time of writing, I'm currently about halfway through book 24, so I'm a little behind.
In terms of the actual goal I set, I've made no progress since last time. That's mostly just a consequence of just not getting as much reading done as you might expect. I think it's still possible to catch up, but I'm not terribly confident.
One thing that's of note here, though, is that I now have copies of all of the required books in stock. It actually amounts to ten more books to read, as "The Complete Works of Shakespeare" and "Hamlet" only count as one but "The Faraway Tree Collection" has four individual volumes. Of course, that means I'd need to do more than one a month to get through them all this year.
Band: There's nothing to report here - we've been practising through the winter, and on Saturday we have the first of our Gala Days for the year. However, this is, deliberately, a much lower-stress environment than the competition season, so I won't be blogging about it in detail.
Gaming: I'm still involved in the work game, which is going fine, and have done a very small amount of blogging over on the Imaginarium. However, I'm increasingly leaning towards thinking of myself as an ex-gamer.
Perhaps one thing of note: I've decided to abandon my notion of a 30th Anniversary game - after a very brief burst of enthusiasm, almost nobody actually signed up, and I found that finding the time to prepare something was turning into a real pain. So unless there's an outcry in the next two months (that is, by the start of August), I'm going to let that slide.
Weight: Mixed fortunes here - I've continued at the gym, which is good, but not really lost any weight.
Blogging: I slipped behind my preferred rate of blogging, both here and on the Imaginarium. In the last month I've made up a little ground here, and so am just a few posts behind my preferred target of an average of 10 posts a month. On the Imaginarium, there was nothing at all in April and not a great deal for most of the rest of the year. Mostly, that's just a consequence of not actually being involved in any serious gaming.
And that's everything. Not much to report this time, but that's no bad thing!
#23: "Walking on Glass", by Iain Banks
Books: By day 150, I 'should' be at 24.66 books read. At the time of writing, I'm currently about halfway through book 24, so I'm a little behind.
In terms of the actual goal I set, I've made no progress since last time. That's mostly just a consequence of just not getting as much reading done as you might expect. I think it's still possible to catch up, but I'm not terribly confident.
One thing that's of note here, though, is that I now have copies of all of the required books in stock. It actually amounts to ten more books to read, as "The Complete Works of Shakespeare" and "Hamlet" only count as one but "The Faraway Tree Collection" has four individual volumes. Of course, that means I'd need to do more than one a month to get through them all this year.
Band: There's nothing to report here - we've been practising through the winter, and on Saturday we have the first of our Gala Days for the year. However, this is, deliberately, a much lower-stress environment than the competition season, so I won't be blogging about it in detail.
Gaming: I'm still involved in the work game, which is going fine, and have done a very small amount of blogging over on the Imaginarium. However, I'm increasingly leaning towards thinking of myself as an ex-gamer.
Perhaps one thing of note: I've decided to abandon my notion of a 30th Anniversary game - after a very brief burst of enthusiasm, almost nobody actually signed up, and I found that finding the time to prepare something was turning into a real pain. So unless there's an outcry in the next two months (that is, by the start of August), I'm going to let that slide.
Weight: Mixed fortunes here - I've continued at the gym, which is good, but not really lost any weight.
Blogging: I slipped behind my preferred rate of blogging, both here and on the Imaginarium. In the last month I've made up a little ground here, and so am just a few posts behind my preferred target of an average of 10 posts a month. On the Imaginarium, there was nothing at all in April and not a great deal for most of the rest of the year. Mostly, that's just a consequence of not actually being involved in any serious gaming.
And that's everything. Not much to report this time, but that's no bad thing!
#23: "Walking on Glass", by Iain Banks
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Polystyrene
Almost a year on (I know!) I'm still working through my to-do list from when we moved into our house. One of the key tasks is to clear out a lot of stuff from the garage, perhaps even in the hope that one day a car might be parked there (nah). Which involves numerous trips to the council recycling centre to get rid of things, which is fine.
However, I've discovered the latest in a long line of minor annoyances: apparently, the council don't take polystyrene, as it's just not cost effective for them to recycle. Consequently, such material should be disposed of in general waste.
Which is annoying on three counts:
However, I've discovered the latest in a long line of minor annoyances: apparently, the council don't take polystyrene, as it's just not cost effective for them to recycle. Consequently, such material should be disposed of in general waste.
Which is annoying on three counts:
- Polystrene is annoyingly common as a packing material. Even having only received relatively few deliveries of things packed in it, we've gathered a substantial amount.
- It's something that is eminently recyclable. And given the quantities involved, and the environmental impact, it's something we really should be recycling.
- There are several businesses in the area offering recycling of polystyrene. Unfortunately, they seem to be offering their services to local businesses, so they're not really of any great use to us.
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Lukewarm
Ten (!) years ago, I wrote a blog post entitled "Concerned about the church" in which I expressed a concern that the way things were going, the church would die out simply of old age. This week, I'm now reading reports that the church has lost some 20% of attendees in the last five years, probably for exactly that reason. Those reports indicate that at the same rate of decline, the Church of Scotland will be effectively extinct in 30 years. Worryingly, I expect that rate of decline to accelerate rather than remain steady.
(Incidentally, I was recently told that Funsize's baptism was the first in about a decade or so at the centre we attend, although the same parish has had a few at their other location. Similarly, there have been no weddings at our centre in that time, and precious few at the other, but there have been plenty of funerals at both.)
Now, there are several reasons why church attendances are in decline, and plenty of reasons why the Church of Scotland is having problems attracting young people in numbers. (It should be noted that there are some denominations, even in Scotland, that are growing among young people - but they're growing from a very low base.) However, one thing that really doesn't help is that, for an organisation that is supposed to provide moral authority, the church is publicly very bad at taking a stand.
Here's the thing: the Church of Scotland makes the news approximately once a year, when the General Assembly is held. For people who don't attend, that may be the only time in the year when the church gets even the briefest thought from them.
And for as long as I can remember, the coverage of the General Assembly has been dominated by the ongoing controversy concerning homosexuality - whether it's the ordination of gay ministers, same-sex marriage, or whatever other flavour of the issue is under discussion that year. And every year, the outcome of the General Assembly is a fudge, a bad compromise... and then the issue rears its head again the year after.
In the meantime, attitudes in secular society have shifted very significantly, and the issue of same-sex marriage, at least, has been resolved pretty conclusively. And young people in particular are very comfortable with that. There are still some details to work out (such as the continued need for, and access to, civil partnerships), but basically the issue is dealt with. (I should note that here I'm referring specifically to gay marriage - I'm well aware that equality is still a way off.)
The upshot of that is that, for many young people, their only exposure to the church consists of (mostly) old men arguing over an issue that, frankly, they thought was resolved years ago.
That's not an image of an organisation that's good at things. It's not an attractive image for the church. And, for an organisation that should be providing moral leadership, that's very poor.
And since both sides in the debate base their arguments on competing verses in scripture, here's one (Rev 3:14-16, edited):
And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
Now, I do understand that the church is in a hard place, since there are very strong views on both sides, and since both sides back their arguments with scripture. (And I'm willing to accept that, for the most part, their arguments are based on a sincere belief in that scripture, rather than other motives.) And I therefore understand that taking a firm decision, either way, is likely to cause a split.
But here's the thing: there is a very real possibility that even the least-damaging decision will lead to the effective end of the Church of Scotland. It's probable that the more-damaging decision will lead to that end. But I'm certain that failing to take a decision at all will lead to that end. The clock is ticking; you can't take forever.
The church is called on to be salt and light. If it can't make a clear decision, whether that means going with the zeitgeist or standing against it, then what is the point of it?
(Incidentally, you'll note that I haven't at any point stated what I think that decision should be. I know where I stand on the issue, and I'm also well aware that I'm at odds with a number of people I know, and some whom I respect a great deal. But we're at the point now where I think it's critical that the General Assembly makes some decision, even if it's one I disagree with.)
(Incidentally, I was recently told that Funsize's baptism was the first in about a decade or so at the centre we attend, although the same parish has had a few at their other location. Similarly, there have been no weddings at our centre in that time, and precious few at the other, but there have been plenty of funerals at both.)
Now, there are several reasons why church attendances are in decline, and plenty of reasons why the Church of Scotland is having problems attracting young people in numbers. (It should be noted that there are some denominations, even in Scotland, that are growing among young people - but they're growing from a very low base.) However, one thing that really doesn't help is that, for an organisation that is supposed to provide moral authority, the church is publicly very bad at taking a stand.
Here's the thing: the Church of Scotland makes the news approximately once a year, when the General Assembly is held. For people who don't attend, that may be the only time in the year when the church gets even the briefest thought from them.
And for as long as I can remember, the coverage of the General Assembly has been dominated by the ongoing controversy concerning homosexuality - whether it's the ordination of gay ministers, same-sex marriage, or whatever other flavour of the issue is under discussion that year. And every year, the outcome of the General Assembly is a fudge, a bad compromise... and then the issue rears its head again the year after.
In the meantime, attitudes in secular society have shifted very significantly, and the issue of same-sex marriage, at least, has been resolved pretty conclusively. And young people in particular are very comfortable with that. There are still some details to work out (such as the continued need for, and access to, civil partnerships), but basically the issue is dealt with. (I should note that here I'm referring specifically to gay marriage - I'm well aware that equality is still a way off.)
The upshot of that is that, for many young people, their only exposure to the church consists of (mostly) old men arguing over an issue that, frankly, they thought was resolved years ago.
That's not an image of an organisation that's good at things. It's not an attractive image for the church. And, for an organisation that should be providing moral leadership, that's very poor.
And since both sides in the debate base their arguments on competing verses in scripture, here's one (Rev 3:14-16, edited):
And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
Now, I do understand that the church is in a hard place, since there are very strong views on both sides, and since both sides back their arguments with scripture. (And I'm willing to accept that, for the most part, their arguments are based on a sincere belief in that scripture, rather than other motives.) And I therefore understand that taking a firm decision, either way, is likely to cause a split.
But here's the thing: there is a very real possibility that even the least-damaging decision will lead to the effective end of the Church of Scotland. It's probable that the more-damaging decision will lead to that end. But I'm certain that failing to take a decision at all will lead to that end. The clock is ticking; you can't take forever.
The church is called on to be salt and light. If it can't make a clear decision, whether that means going with the zeitgeist or standing against it, then what is the point of it?
(Incidentally, you'll note that I haven't at any point stated what I think that decision should be. I know where I stand on the issue, and I'm also well aware that I'm at odds with a number of people I know, and some whom I respect a great deal. But we're at the point now where I think it's critical that the General Assembly makes some decision, even if it's one I disagree with.)
Monday, May 21, 2018
Assembling the Barbecue: And in Under a Decade!
On Saturday, in between not watching the wedding and not watching the FA cup final, I took the opportunity to not watch the Scottish cup final and instead built my barbecue. This was the usual exercise in frustration, with the instructions appear to have been written by an engineer, probably as the last "I don't really want to do this" task in the list of things to do. So we had text that didn't quite make the process clear coupled with diagrams that did - or would have, had they not been printed at a tiny size.
Still, I managed to assemble the barbecue without resorting to industrial language, so that's good. And, what's more, it took less than a decade to achieve this feat!
I should probably explain that one.
Shortly after I purchased the flat in Falkirk, it was pointed out to me that Asda had a really good offer on barbecues - if I recall correctly, it was a then-£150 barbecue for £75 - and that I shouldgo buy one. So I did. (In fairness, that was a pretty good deal. But maybe not the best use of funds.)
Anyway, I purchased this barbecue, put it into my lock-up, and then did nothing with it. For eight years. Amongst other things, I didn't actually have anywhere to have a barbecue, what with it being a top-floor flat, and with the bit of common ground being strictly reserved for drying clothes and nothing else.
It's possible I didn't quite think that one through.
So the barbecue sat in the lock-up, untouched, for all that time. Then it went into storage with the rest of our belongings, and then into the garage at the new house. And, finally, it came out of its box on Saturday and is now sitting, assembled, in our garden.
But at least there's now some chance of it actually getting used...
Still, I managed to assemble the barbecue without resorting to industrial language, so that's good. And, what's more, it took less than a decade to achieve this feat!
I should probably explain that one.
Shortly after I purchased the flat in Falkirk, it was pointed out to me that Asda had a really good offer on barbecues - if I recall correctly, it was a then-£150 barbecue for £75 - and that I shouldgo buy one. So I did. (In fairness, that was a pretty good deal. But maybe not the best use of funds.)
Anyway, I purchased this barbecue, put it into my lock-up, and then did nothing with it. For eight years. Amongst other things, I didn't actually have anywhere to have a barbecue, what with it being a top-floor flat, and with the bit of common ground being strictly reserved for drying clothes and nothing else.
It's possible I didn't quite think that one through.
So the barbecue sat in the lock-up, untouched, for all that time. Then it went into storage with the rest of our belongings, and then into the garage at the new house. And, finally, it came out of its box on Saturday and is now sitting, assembled, in our garden.
But at least there's now some chance of it actually getting used...
Surviving the Dragon
Technically, the first book I read to Funsize was not "The Hobbit", but was in fact a poorly-selected "I know my..." book. However, it's certainly true that "The Hobbit" was the first story I read to my daughter, so that counts. We started about a week after she did, and finished this weekend. It took us rather longer to get through than might be expected, largely because she was scared of the dragon - and who can blame her?
Probably my biggest impression from reading the book to FS is that it reading it aloud is a very different experience to reading it myself. The simple act of vocalising the words means that the whole story proceeds more slowly. But, also, it changes the nature of it all - rather than just describing the thing, it becomes important that the words fit together well, that the sounds go together. This is especially true of the songs, of course, which are easy to skim when reading to yourself but which are much more poetic aloud.
My second impression, as this was my first re-read since the films came out, is that this novel is probably unfilmable. Which is an odd thing to say, but I'm now more than ever convinced that the films called "The Hobbit" aren't films of this book (or story) at all - they're quite another thing. (To the extent that you can't edit down the films to excise the added material and thus arrive at the story in the books.) But I don't think that simply filming the story as presented works either - too many of the dwarves amount to a name and a colour for the hood, with no other character to speak of. I don't see any sensible way to resolve that problem, especially as the stated motive for Bilbo going on the quest is to avoid the company having thirteen members!
Thirdly, regarding the choice of "The Hobbit" for a week-old child: well, why not? At that age, it's not actually as if it makes much difference what is read to her, since it's mostly about hearing our voices anyway. So it might as well be something the reader can enjoy. Plus, it has the great advantage that her geek credentials are now unimpeachable. So there.
Next...
Well, LC is apparently reading "Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls" to FS. Meanwhile, I've made a start on a storybook Bible - we received two copies of this as gifts, and narrowly avoided a third, so it comes highly recommended.
#21: "The Hobbit", by J.R.R. Tolkien (a book from The List)
#22: "O.L.D. Fantasy Heroic Role-playing Game", by Russ Morrissey
Probably my biggest impression from reading the book to FS is that it reading it aloud is a very different experience to reading it myself. The simple act of vocalising the words means that the whole story proceeds more slowly. But, also, it changes the nature of it all - rather than just describing the thing, it becomes important that the words fit together well, that the sounds go together. This is especially true of the songs, of course, which are easy to skim when reading to yourself but which are much more poetic aloud.
My second impression, as this was my first re-read since the films came out, is that this novel is probably unfilmable. Which is an odd thing to say, but I'm now more than ever convinced that the films called "The Hobbit" aren't films of this book (or story) at all - they're quite another thing. (To the extent that you can't edit down the films to excise the added material and thus arrive at the story in the books.) But I don't think that simply filming the story as presented works either - too many of the dwarves amount to a name and a colour for the hood, with no other character to speak of. I don't see any sensible way to resolve that problem, especially as the stated motive for Bilbo going on the quest is to avoid the company having thirteen members!
Thirdly, regarding the choice of "The Hobbit" for a week-old child: well, why not? At that age, it's not actually as if it makes much difference what is read to her, since it's mostly about hearing our voices anyway. So it might as well be something the reader can enjoy. Plus, it has the great advantage that her geek credentials are now unimpeachable. So there.
Next...
Well, LC is apparently reading "Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls" to FS. Meanwhile, I've made a start on a storybook Bible - we received two copies of this as gifts, and narrowly avoided a third, so it comes highly recommended.
#21: "The Hobbit", by J.R.R. Tolkien (a book from The List)
#22: "O.L.D. Fantasy Heroic Role-playing Game", by Russ Morrissey
Thursday, May 17, 2018
Competition Season Begins
Camelon & District Pipe Band had their first competition of the season last weekend, at Dunbar. According to the RSPBA website, they did rather well, which is nice.
Personally, I'm finding that I miss the competition season not at all. I was never particularly keen on that aspect of the band - I always preferred the social aspect, and really didn't need the stress. It was just that that was the local band, and they competed - so if I wanted to play, that was more or less a pre-requisite.
So, I wish them the very best of luck for the season ahead. But I'm also quite glad to be able to look on from the outside!
Personally, I'm finding that I miss the competition season not at all. I was never particularly keen on that aspect of the band - I always preferred the social aspect, and really didn't need the stress. It was just that that was the local band, and they competed - so if I wanted to play, that was more or less a pre-requisite.
So, I wish them the very best of luck for the season ahead. But I'm also quite glad to be able to look on from the outside!
Space: Above and Beyond
As part of my effort to phase out my Region One DVDs, I made a list of films and series to replace, and somehow "Space: Above and Beyond" made the cut. This was due to some fond memories of the show, and led to me finally purchasing a new, Region Two, set and re-watching the show over the past several weeks. That re-watch concluded last night.
It turns out that it was a mistake to replace that set, with the new disks now immediately finding themselves as prime candidates to be purged next time we have a clear-out.
I've watched "Space: Above and Beyond" four times. The first time was back in the 90's, when I caught the latter half of the TV transmission (if I recall correctly, this was late at night on either BBC 2 or Channel 4 - back when terrestrial TV was five whole channels!). When it was released on DVD I would have watched the series then, and I re-watched it a few years ago.
My recollection of the show was that it starts out pretty weak, but somewhere around halfway through it suddenly gets much better, and that it ends very strongly.
Well...
It's true that that trajectory is broadly accurate, but it rather exaggerates how good the second half of the series is. In fact, there are a couple of very good episodes, and a number that are pretty much okay. As a whole, though, the series really doesn't hold up. And given how far TV storytelling has advanced even in the last six years, it's no longer really worth considering.
That said, there is one potential point of interest in the show. "Space: Above and Beyond" does have a pretty strong concept, and several of the character do have stories that are worth telling (though it's rather unfortunate that the 'main' character is actually the least interesting of the bunch - a fact that the writers seemed to realise pretty early on). The show just doesn't manage to fulfil its potential.
What that means is that "Space: Above and Beyond" is probably a prime candidate for a reboot - especially if looking for something to fill the niche once held by "Battlestar Galactica". That said, I'm not convinced that it has enough name recognition to make such an effort worthwhile... and BSG itself now ended a fairly long time ago, so maybe that niche no longer exists.
(In related news, I'm now within touching distance of the end of my cull of Region One disks - my 'replace' list is down to four entries, none of which is a TV series. With luck, I'll get that done by the end of next month.)
It turns out that it was a mistake to replace that set, with the new disks now immediately finding themselves as prime candidates to be purged next time we have a clear-out.
I've watched "Space: Above and Beyond" four times. The first time was back in the 90's, when I caught the latter half of the TV transmission (if I recall correctly, this was late at night on either BBC 2 or Channel 4 - back when terrestrial TV was five whole channels!). When it was released on DVD I would have watched the series then, and I re-watched it a few years ago.
My recollection of the show was that it starts out pretty weak, but somewhere around halfway through it suddenly gets much better, and that it ends very strongly.
Well...
It's true that that trajectory is broadly accurate, but it rather exaggerates how good the second half of the series is. In fact, there are a couple of very good episodes, and a number that are pretty much okay. As a whole, though, the series really doesn't hold up. And given how far TV storytelling has advanced even in the last six years, it's no longer really worth considering.
That said, there is one potential point of interest in the show. "Space: Above and Beyond" does have a pretty strong concept, and several of the character do have stories that are worth telling (though it's rather unfortunate that the 'main' character is actually the least interesting of the bunch - a fact that the writers seemed to realise pretty early on). The show just doesn't manage to fulfil its potential.
What that means is that "Space: Above and Beyond" is probably a prime candidate for a reboot - especially if looking for something to fill the niche once held by "Battlestar Galactica". That said, I'm not convinced that it has enough name recognition to make such an effort worthwhile... and BSG itself now ended a fairly long time ago, so maybe that niche no longer exists.
(In related news, I'm now within touching distance of the end of my cull of Region One disks - my 'replace' list is down to four entries, none of which is a TV series. With luck, I'll get that done by the end of next month.)
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Two Mistakes - and a Lesson
On Monday, I got to work nice and early, reached into my pocket to move my mobile phone onto my desk... and discovered I had LC's car keys with me. Oops. Fortunately, we have a spare set, so she was able to manage without me having to rush home to return them, but it was rather a pain.
Today, I walked to the gym (as is now my wont). It being a nice day, I left my jacket in the office, since I didn't need it. However, when I got to the gym I suddenly realised that my membership card, without which I can't get in, was still in my wallet, which was in the aforementioned jacket in the office. Oops.
The lesson from these is about keeping things in the right place - both those car keys should have a place where they live, and neither of them was in that place. After I drove LC's car on Sunday, I should have taken the keys out of my pocket and put them where they lived. As for the gym membership card, it was simply living in the wrong place - since it will only ever be used when I'm using my bag of gym kit, it should be stored in that same bag (and not in the wallet I carry with me all the time). That way, when I get to the gym I either have the card or I have bigger problems.
Of course, neither of those are truly revelatory. But I figured they might be amusing. Slightly.
#19: "William Shakespeare's Star Wars: The Force Doth Awaken", by Ian Doescher
#20: "Pathfinder: Songbird, Scion, Saboteur", by Crystal Frasier and Richard Pett
Today, I walked to the gym (as is now my wont). It being a nice day, I left my jacket in the office, since I didn't need it. However, when I got to the gym I suddenly realised that my membership card, without which I can't get in, was still in my wallet, which was in the aforementioned jacket in the office. Oops.
The lesson from these is about keeping things in the right place - both those car keys should have a place where they live, and neither of them was in that place. After I drove LC's car on Sunday, I should have taken the keys out of my pocket and put them where they lived. As for the gym membership card, it was simply living in the wrong place - since it will only ever be used when I'm using my bag of gym kit, it should be stored in that same bag (and not in the wallet I carry with me all the time). That way, when I get to the gym I either have the card or I have bigger problems.
Of course, neither of those are truly revelatory. But I figured they might be amusing. Slightly.
#19: "William Shakespeare's Star Wars: The Force Doth Awaken", by Ian Doescher
#20: "Pathfinder: Songbird, Scion, Saboteur", by Crystal Frasier and Richard Pett
Tuesday, May 08, 2018
The Handmaid's Tale
I'm a little surprised that I've never actually blogged about this...
I read "The Handmaid's Tale" way back in 2010. My reaction at the time was that it was exceptionally well-written, and quite disturbing. However, I took considerable comfort in the consideration that not only was it not the world we lived in, but also that it wasn't realistic - too many people would have to operate in a manner contrary to their own interests for that to happen. (And I don't mean that women could stop it. We have four entire industries (fashion, cosmetics, diet, and glossy magazines) whose entire business model is based on women spending lots of money. They would be the ones to stop it.)
That said, I've since watched the electorate in both the UK and the US voting contrary to their best interests, so maybe there's something in it after all...
Anyway, we watched the first season of the show last year. It's not exactly fair to say we 'enjoyed' it, since we didn't, but it was extremely well made. That said, the quality wasn't uniform. In particular, there was a clear divide between the bits that were in the book and those areas where it was changed or expanded - with the new material being markedly weaker.
The first season, of course, adapts the whole of the book. Which leaves them in a position where everything in the second season is going to be new material. Which doesn't bode well.
But there's also a big problem. The end of the book (and also the first season) is delightfully ambiguous - things really don't look good for Offred, with her being bundled into a van for... some purpose. We're also told that, at some point, Gilead will fall, but there's no clear indication as to the time-scale involved.
So, this leaves a big question: where does the show go from here? And I don't find any of the answers particular satisfying...
The 'realistic' answer is that Offred is in for a world of hurt. A society such as that depicted would have all manner of control mechanisms in place, such that Offred's various rebellions would not be tolerated. And given the issues with the other handmaids in the last episode, they would be coming down with a hammer blow. So the likely outcome isn't good - here come ten episodes, essentially, of torture porn followed by her giving birth and then, probably, a rather nasty public execution. I have no desire to watch that.
The other possibility, which is the one I rather expect them to go with, is much the same for the first several episodes, followed by a heroic rescue, the tide turning, and Offred spearheading a fight against Gilead. With the season ending in one of two ways: either Offred is reunited with her husband or, more cruelly, them being reunited some time earlier followed by his dying at the end of the last episode. The problem with that is that it's too fantastical - if Gilead is so easily defeated (in that it pops up and falls all in a single generation), that rather undercuts the menace of the series. I have no desire to watch that.
The third possibility, of course, is TV stasis - because they want to run the show for the indefinite future they'll move the pieces around a bit, but ultimately the second series will end up pretty much in the same place as the first one did. Only with Offred now having two children to search for, rather than just one. And given that I didn't enjoy the first season that much, I think I'll give that a miss, too.
The bottom line: I'm not going to be watching the second season of "The Handmaid's Tale". And, frankly, I'm reasonably sure that they'd have been much better to just leave it at one.
I'll still recommend the book, though. Because it's very good.
I read "The Handmaid's Tale" way back in 2010. My reaction at the time was that it was exceptionally well-written, and quite disturbing. However, I took considerable comfort in the consideration that not only was it not the world we lived in, but also that it wasn't realistic - too many people would have to operate in a manner contrary to their own interests for that to happen. (And I don't mean that women could stop it. We have four entire industries (fashion, cosmetics, diet, and glossy magazines) whose entire business model is based on women spending lots of money. They would be the ones to stop it.)
That said, I've since watched the electorate in both the UK and the US voting contrary to their best interests, so maybe there's something in it after all...
Anyway, we watched the first season of the show last year. It's not exactly fair to say we 'enjoyed' it, since we didn't, but it was extremely well made. That said, the quality wasn't uniform. In particular, there was a clear divide between the bits that were in the book and those areas where it was changed or expanded - with the new material being markedly weaker.
The first season, of course, adapts the whole of the book. Which leaves them in a position where everything in the second season is going to be new material. Which doesn't bode well.
But there's also a big problem. The end of the book (and also the first season) is delightfully ambiguous - things really don't look good for Offred, with her being bundled into a van for... some purpose. We're also told that, at some point, Gilead will fall, but there's no clear indication as to the time-scale involved.
So, this leaves a big question: where does the show go from here? And I don't find any of the answers particular satisfying...
The 'realistic' answer is that Offred is in for a world of hurt. A society such as that depicted would have all manner of control mechanisms in place, such that Offred's various rebellions would not be tolerated. And given the issues with the other handmaids in the last episode, they would be coming down with a hammer blow. So the likely outcome isn't good - here come ten episodes, essentially, of torture porn followed by her giving birth and then, probably, a rather nasty public execution. I have no desire to watch that.
The other possibility, which is the one I rather expect them to go with, is much the same for the first several episodes, followed by a heroic rescue, the tide turning, and Offred spearheading a fight against Gilead. With the season ending in one of two ways: either Offred is reunited with her husband or, more cruelly, them being reunited some time earlier followed by his dying at the end of the last episode. The problem with that is that it's too fantastical - if Gilead is so easily defeated (in that it pops up and falls all in a single generation), that rather undercuts the menace of the series. I have no desire to watch that.
The third possibility, of course, is TV stasis - because they want to run the show for the indefinite future they'll move the pieces around a bit, but ultimately the second series will end up pretty much in the same place as the first one did. Only with Offred now having two children to search for, rather than just one. And given that I didn't enjoy the first season that much, I think I'll give that a miss, too.
The bottom line: I'm not going to be watching the second season of "The Handmaid's Tale". And, frankly, I'm reasonably sure that they'd have been much better to just leave it at one.
I'll still recommend the book, though. Because it's very good.
Avengers: Infinity War
Friday saw LC and I take FunSize for her first trip to the cinema. For this purpose, we had purchased a set of noise-reducing headphones for her to wear, which led to two slight concerns - firstly, that she might simply reject them entirely; and secondly that they might not be enough. (Seriously, what's with the volume control at the Vue these days? They have the volume set considerably higher for the adverts and trailers than for the film itself, to the point where it's frankly painful. While the trailer for "Mission Impossible: Fallout" was playing, I was concerned we'd have to give up, given how FS was responding to all the noise, and that despite the headphones.)
Anyway, we made it through the trailers, and in to the film itself. And it's good - "Infinity War" is very much the culmination of everything they've been building for 10 years, and it therefore benefits greatly from all that lore. Don't go unless you've seen a good portion of the films leading up to this (seriously, why would you jump in at chapter 20 of the long-running series?). But if you have, and you've enjoyed most of the entries, you'll probably enjoy this one.
That said, while it's good, it's not great - this isn't on a par with the first "Avengers" film, and it's certainly not in the same league as "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" or "The Dark Knight". There's just too much crammed into too little space (and that despite a 2 hour 40 mins run-time), and too many characters.
From here on out, there are spoilers. So if you don't want to know, skip to the next post. You know the drill by now. :)
I think the thing I liked most about this film was the way it really did sum up everything we've seen so far - the film didn't waste any time re-introducing characters or locations, but just got on with things. We saw (or heard referenced) all the locations we've seen to date (Asgard, Knowhere, Zandar Prime...), caught up with pretty much everyone we'd seen thus far.
Although, having said that, the thing I actually liked most was the tiny moment where Bruce Banner finally reunites with Natasha Romanov - there's barely any dialogue there, with everything communicated in silence. It might seem strange, but that's probably the best character moment in the whole film.
The big weakness of the film, though, is that it does just try to cram in too much - too many characters, too many locations, too much story. Everything is therefore compressed and urgent, skipping from one thing to the next just to get the pieces into place. And then there's the big CGI showdown (yawn). We do eventually come out on the other side of the CGI showdown, and get back to the characters, and that's good... but I'm just not sure it's enough.
Also, I'm afraid the tone is inconsistent. Partly this is inevitable - whereas in the first Avengers film they did a good job making the Iron Man bits feel like an Iron Man film, the Cap bits feel like a Captain America film, and the Thor bits feel like Thor; here they're trying to do that and add Spider-Man bits and Doctor Strange bits and Guardians of the Galaxy bits... and given that the latter, in particular, is quite at odds with the seriousness of everything that's going on, it just didn't quite come together. Which is a shame.
And then there's the ending. Which would have been very powerful... if we didn't know that most of the dead characters have sequels in the works. We know Doctor Strange and Spider-Man and Black Panther are coming back, so their deaths are immediately undercut.
Incidentally, it's worth noting that Thanos' master-plan is absurd. That's fine, since he is after all "The Mad Titan", but it's really rather depressing watching various supposedly-intelligent people seriously discussing it. But that's not a problem with the film...
So, the upshot is that this is a good film, but not a great one (as I said above). It's probably a film I'll rewatch a few times, notably just before "Part Two" comes out, but I don't expect to rewatch it too often - certainly less often than any of the Captain America films, the Guardians of the Galaxy films, or "Thor: Ragnarok".
(I was going to sign off by noting that it was still probably the best new film I've seen this year. But it occurs to me that that's not true - "Black Panther" has it well beaten.)
Anyway, we made it through the trailers, and in to the film itself. And it's good - "Infinity War" is very much the culmination of everything they've been building for 10 years, and it therefore benefits greatly from all that lore. Don't go unless you've seen a good portion of the films leading up to this (seriously, why would you jump in at chapter 20 of the long-running series?). But if you have, and you've enjoyed most of the entries, you'll probably enjoy this one.
That said, while it's good, it's not great - this isn't on a par with the first "Avengers" film, and it's certainly not in the same league as "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" or "The Dark Knight". There's just too much crammed into too little space (and that despite a 2 hour 40 mins run-time), and too many characters.
From here on out, there are spoilers. So if you don't want to know, skip to the next post. You know the drill by now. :)
I think the thing I liked most about this film was the way it really did sum up everything we've seen so far - the film didn't waste any time re-introducing characters or locations, but just got on with things. We saw (or heard referenced) all the locations we've seen to date (Asgard, Knowhere, Zandar Prime...), caught up with pretty much everyone we'd seen thus far.
Although, having said that, the thing I actually liked most was the tiny moment where Bruce Banner finally reunites with Natasha Romanov - there's barely any dialogue there, with everything communicated in silence. It might seem strange, but that's probably the best character moment in the whole film.
The big weakness of the film, though, is that it does just try to cram in too much - too many characters, too many locations, too much story. Everything is therefore compressed and urgent, skipping from one thing to the next just to get the pieces into place. And then there's the big CGI showdown (yawn). We do eventually come out on the other side of the CGI showdown, and get back to the characters, and that's good... but I'm just not sure it's enough.
Also, I'm afraid the tone is inconsistent. Partly this is inevitable - whereas in the first Avengers film they did a good job making the Iron Man bits feel like an Iron Man film, the Cap bits feel like a Captain America film, and the Thor bits feel like Thor; here they're trying to do that and add Spider-Man bits and Doctor Strange bits and Guardians of the Galaxy bits... and given that the latter, in particular, is quite at odds with the seriousness of everything that's going on, it just didn't quite come together. Which is a shame.
And then there's the ending. Which would have been very powerful... if we didn't know that most of the dead characters have sequels in the works. We know Doctor Strange and Spider-Man and Black Panther are coming back, so their deaths are immediately undercut.
Incidentally, it's worth noting that Thanos' master-plan is absurd. That's fine, since he is after all "The Mad Titan", but it's really rather depressing watching various supposedly-intelligent people seriously discussing it. But that's not a problem with the film...
So, the upshot is that this is a good film, but not a great one (as I said above). It's probably a film I'll rewatch a few times, notably just before "Part Two" comes out, but I don't expect to rewatch it too often - certainly less often than any of the Captain America films, the Guardians of the Galaxy films, or "Thor: Ragnarok".
(I was going to sign off by noting that it was still probably the best new film I've seen this year. But it occurs to me that that's not true - "Black Panther" has it well beaten.)
Experimental Cookery 2018: Jamaican Goat Curry
Some time ago, I became aware that there's a stockist of goat meat between home and the Grand-parents', and since then I've been wanting to give it a try. Following a visit down South at the weekend (that was sadly unsatisfying), and despite my phone's best efforts to auto-correct 'goat' to 'boat' I was finally equipped. And so, Sunday's main meal was a true experiment, with a new and exciting ingredient (and, indeed, a case where the main ingredient was new and exciting).
The recipe comes from the Hairy Biker's "Great Curries". I make no claim that it is even remotely authentic (of course) - not that that has ever stopped me!
It was quick and easy to prepare. The meat came ready-diced, so all that was needed was to cover it in the spice rub, mix, and let it sit for a while; then fry up some spiced onions; then combine these, along with some water and other additions. And then it baked for two hours.
The result was... interesting. This meal wasn't like anything I've had previously, although the goat meat was only really a small part of that. The spices were pretty strong - almost overpowering.
But it was nice. I liked it. Perhaps more importantly, LC liked it, polishing off her whole meal. So that's a win, not least since there are four other portions now waiting in the freezer.
We'll certainly be having this again, even after those four portions are going. And we'll probably have goat in some other meals at some later stage. However, I will have to investigate other stockists, since I can't be tied to that particular trip in order to get it...
All in all, that's a win.
The recipe comes from the Hairy Biker's "Great Curries". I make no claim that it is even remotely authentic (of course) - not that that has ever stopped me!
It was quick and easy to prepare. The meat came ready-diced, so all that was needed was to cover it in the spice rub, mix, and let it sit for a while; then fry up some spiced onions; then combine these, along with some water and other additions. And then it baked for two hours.
The result was... interesting. This meal wasn't like anything I've had previously, although the goat meat was only really a small part of that. The spices were pretty strong - almost overpowering.
But it was nice. I liked it. Perhaps more importantly, LC liked it, polishing off her whole meal. So that's a win, not least since there are four other portions now waiting in the freezer.
We'll certainly be having this again, even after those four portions are going. And we'll probably have goat in some other meals at some later stage. However, I will have to investigate other stockists, since I can't be tied to that particular trip in order to get it...
All in all, that's a win.
Wednesday, May 02, 2018
The Gym Shower Rant
So I went to the gym at lunchtime, which was fine. Afterwards, I went for a shower, of course. And there my woes began...
As discussed previously, getting a good temperature setting on a shower is an exercise in frustration. But today that wasn't the issue.
On most home showers, there's some sort of on/off control - press a button when you want to start a shower, press it again when you're done. But for gym showers that doesn't work: inevitably a minority of customers will fail to stop the shower, and huge amounts of energy and water will be wasted. So there has to be some sort of automatic cut-off. (That of course means that a minority of selfish muppets have ruined it for everyone else. Which basically describes the whole world.)
In every gym and swimming pool I've seen, the solution to this has been to have a button that switches on the shower for a limited time, before it then cuts off again. And that's okay, I guess... most of the time.
Where it doesn't really work is when that cutoff time is set to about 3 seconds. Or, more accurately, the exact amount of time it takes to get your shampoo lathered up so that you can't open your eyes to see the button to press it again.
Honestly, is it really too much to ask that the cutoff be set to a decent length of time? Granted, setting it to 1 minute would lead to an average of 30 seconds of wasted time, but is that truly so terrible? (And if it really is, I could accept a 30 second cutoff, leading to an average of 15 seconds of waste.)
Better still, of course, would be to fit the shower with an automatic sensor, just like the toilets in the same gym use to control their auto-flush - press the button to start, and then it will detect when you move away and stop the shower automatically.
As discussed previously, getting a good temperature setting on a shower is an exercise in frustration. But today that wasn't the issue.
On most home showers, there's some sort of on/off control - press a button when you want to start a shower, press it again when you're done. But for gym showers that doesn't work: inevitably a minority of customers will fail to stop the shower, and huge amounts of energy and water will be wasted. So there has to be some sort of automatic cut-off. (That of course means that a minority of selfish muppets have ruined it for everyone else. Which basically describes the whole world.)
In every gym and swimming pool I've seen, the solution to this has been to have a button that switches on the shower for a limited time, before it then cuts off again. And that's okay, I guess... most of the time.
Where it doesn't really work is when that cutoff time is set to about 3 seconds. Or, more accurately, the exact amount of time it takes to get your shampoo lathered up so that you can't open your eyes to see the button to press it again.
Honestly, is it really too much to ask that the cutoff be set to a decent length of time? Granted, setting it to 1 minute would lead to an average of 30 seconds of wasted time, but is that truly so terrible? (And if it really is, I could accept a 30 second cutoff, leading to an average of 15 seconds of waste.)
Better still, of course, would be to fit the shower with an automatic sensor, just like the toilets in the same gym use to control their auto-flush - press the button to start, and then it will detect when you move away and stop the shower automatically.
Tuesday, May 01, 2018
On The List
While I'm at it...
Generally speaking, I'm rather impressed with the system used for elections to the Scottish parliament - a number of constituency MSPs elected via First Past the Post, followed by a further number elected via lists to top it up, on a proportional basis.
However, there is one very significant weakness to the system: if a particular individual gets themselves into a position at the top of one of the 'big' party lists (SNP, Tory, Labour), they're pretty much guaranteed a seat, and it becomes effectively impossible to get rid of them. That's really not democratic - the electorate really should have a meaningful ability to elect or reject a candidate.
(There's a case in point here: one of the Tory MSPs has been in the parliament on the list for 17 years. In that time, he has stood for a constituency several times, and been unsuccessful every time. And yet, despite that explicit rejection by the voters, he remains in place.)
I'm inclined to think that this quirk of the system should be closed, if it is practical to do so. And, fortunately, there's an easy fix: institute a one-term limit for MSPs serving on the list.
That is, if an MSP enters the parliament by winning a constituency, they should be free to stand for re-election and continue in their role. If, however, they enter parliament by virtue of their position on the regional list, they then become ineligible for a place on a regional list at the next election. If they want to continue in the parliament, then they must fight a constituency and allow the electorate a say on them specifically.
(This doesn't entirely eliminate the possibility of a party playing the system. But it's enough of an improvement that I think it's worth doing.)
(I should note that this also hits the Green party harder than any other - since they don't have any constituency MSPs, all of their incumbents would become ineligible for a second term (unless they did happen to win a constituency). Even then, I'm not convinced that that's too terrible, as the main effect would be to expand their range of people with parliamentary expertise. Which is surely no bad thing?)
Generally speaking, I'm rather impressed with the system used for elections to the Scottish parliament - a number of constituency MSPs elected via First Past the Post, followed by a further number elected via lists to top it up, on a proportional basis.
However, there is one very significant weakness to the system: if a particular individual gets themselves into a position at the top of one of the 'big' party lists (SNP, Tory, Labour), they're pretty much guaranteed a seat, and it becomes effectively impossible to get rid of them. That's really not democratic - the electorate really should have a meaningful ability to elect or reject a candidate.
(There's a case in point here: one of the Tory MSPs has been in the parliament on the list for 17 years. In that time, he has stood for a constituency several times, and been unsuccessful every time. And yet, despite that explicit rejection by the voters, he remains in place.)
I'm inclined to think that this quirk of the system should be closed, if it is practical to do so. And, fortunately, there's an easy fix: institute a one-term limit for MSPs serving on the list.
That is, if an MSP enters the parliament by winning a constituency, they should be free to stand for re-election and continue in their role. If, however, they enter parliament by virtue of their position on the regional list, they then become ineligible for a place on a regional list at the next election. If they want to continue in the parliament, then they must fight a constituency and allow the electorate a say on them specifically.
(This doesn't entirely eliminate the possibility of a party playing the system. But it's enough of an improvement that I think it's worth doing.)
(I should note that this also hits the Green party harder than any other - since they don't have any constituency MSPs, all of their incumbents would become ineligible for a second term (unless they did happen to win a constituency). Even then, I'm not convinced that that's too terrible, as the main effect would be to expand their range of people with parliamentary expertise. Which is surely no bad thing?)
The House of Lords
Looking back at the blog archive, I don't appear to have ever posted about what I think should happen with the House of Lords. So...
I'm inclined to think that the House of Lords has now gone beyond the point where it cannot be meaningfully reformed; it needs to be replaced entirely. I'm also persuaded of the argument that simply having it be elected in the same manner as the House of Commons is a bad idea - partly because that leaves us subject to the same broken duopoly that has subverted our democracy, partly because it's better if only the HoC has the legitimacy of the democratic mandate (so that a conflict can be clearly resolved), and partly because of the purpose of an upper chamber: the scrutinise and revise laws.
The thing is, to get the best scrutiny for laws, your ideal body is not, in fact, one constructed via a popularity contest. Rather, you're better off with a body comprised of subject matter experts.
Therefore, I would propose replacing the Lords with a 300-member Senate. Every 5 years, 100 of those members would be nominated for a single 15-year term (a different third each time, such that once 15 years have passed all the members have been replaced). As noted, once an individual has served a single term, they cannot be nominated again.
The nominations, meanwhile, should be divided among appropriate bodies: the various political parties should each nominate some (based on their proportions in the Commons); the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Ireland governments should each nominate some (with a further group nominated by the PM to represent England, unless and until an English assembly is convened); the universities could nominate some, the NHS, the Armed Forces, the business community... and so on. The idea is to get a wide range of experts from across the nation so that they can provide expert input and proper scrutiny.
(Needless to say, I haven't thrashed out all the bugs. But that's the broad outline of the idea. Not that I think it matters anyway - we've been talking about House of Lords reform for at least a century, and the only changes we've managed to make have been to make it even worse. There's about as much chance of proper reform as there is of federalism. That is, none.)
#18: "Dangerous Women", edited by George R.R. Martin and Gardner Dozois
I'm inclined to think that the House of Lords has now gone beyond the point where it cannot be meaningfully reformed; it needs to be replaced entirely. I'm also persuaded of the argument that simply having it be elected in the same manner as the House of Commons is a bad idea - partly because that leaves us subject to the same broken duopoly that has subverted our democracy, partly because it's better if only the HoC has the legitimacy of the democratic mandate (so that a conflict can be clearly resolved), and partly because of the purpose of an upper chamber: the scrutinise and revise laws.
The thing is, to get the best scrutiny for laws, your ideal body is not, in fact, one constructed via a popularity contest. Rather, you're better off with a body comprised of subject matter experts.
Therefore, I would propose replacing the Lords with a 300-member Senate. Every 5 years, 100 of those members would be nominated for a single 15-year term (a different third each time, such that once 15 years have passed all the members have been replaced). As noted, once an individual has served a single term, they cannot be nominated again.
The nominations, meanwhile, should be divided among appropriate bodies: the various political parties should each nominate some (based on their proportions in the Commons); the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Ireland governments should each nominate some (with a further group nominated by the PM to represent England, unless and until an English assembly is convened); the universities could nominate some, the NHS, the Armed Forces, the business community... and so on. The idea is to get a wide range of experts from across the nation so that they can provide expert input and proper scrutiny.
(Needless to say, I haven't thrashed out all the bugs. But that's the broad outline of the idea. Not that I think it matters anyway - we've been talking about House of Lords reform for at least a century, and the only changes we've managed to make have been to make it even worse. There's about as much chance of proper reform as there is of federalism. That is, none.)
#18: "Dangerous Women", edited by George R.R. Martin and Gardner Dozois
Autopilot
A few years ago, I went through a process of making sure my finances were all under control. (Not that they were ever out of control, particularly; it was more a question of taking stock rather than cutting back.) At that time, I set up a number of charitable donations to come out of my account on a monthly basis, in order to set a level of giving with which I was comfortable.
And then I promptly forgot all about it (mostly). The great beauty of setting these things to run automatically, after all, is that then I don't need to worry about them.
However, as a consequence of LC and I finding a new church and transferring our membership is that I've been compelled to look again at those standing orders. Which has left me shocked at just how easy it is to let things run on autopilot...
(The good news is that it's going to be a matter of increasing my charitable donations to reflect the fact that I'm making more now than I was five years ago, rather than that I've built up a lot of expenses that have run amok. Still, it would be better to be keeping track of everything that bit more closely.)
And then I promptly forgot all about it (mostly). The great beauty of setting these things to run automatically, after all, is that then I don't need to worry about them.
However, as a consequence of LC and I finding a new church and transferring our membership is that I've been compelled to look again at those standing orders. Which has left me shocked at just how easy it is to let things run on autopilot...
(The good news is that it's going to be a matter of increasing my charitable donations to reflect the fact that I'm making more now than I was five years ago, rather than that I've built up a lot of expenses that have run amok. Still, it would be better to be keeping track of everything that bit more closely.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)