Given that I don't really like complaining about things without offering suggestions for a better way, here are three ways to deal with sectarianism in football. I should note that one of these is radical to the point of being utterly irresponsible.
1) The SFA/SPL could ban all football chants. Instead, allow people to bring in instruments (maybe even issue vuvuzelas to the crowd). This immediately limits sectarianism to those with the discipline to learn an instrument - and when there's trouble, it's considerably easier to remove "the guy with the bagpipes" than "whoever started that chant". (You'd continue to allow cheering, of course - just no chants that have a recognisable tune.)
2) The SFA/SPL could embed a couple more officials in the crowd, and if they hear sectarian chants, have them order the match abandoned. Afterwards, the points get divided based on the nature of the chants and the current score - the default is "no points for either team", but you need some process in place to avoid fans from deliberately getting games abandoned when their team is currently losing.
Or, of course, simply deduct points from teams whose fans do engage in the chanting.
3) Remove the police presence from the inside of grounds entirely. Instead, license the grounds to host football matches. The moment there is trouble, including sectarian singing, strip the club of the right to host matches. That this then provides clubs with a massive problem of fulfilling their league obligations is their problem (they would have to find a new ground, at short notice, and that ground would be at risk of also losing its license).
(If this were done, clubs would have to have the absolute right to ban away supporters if they felt that was necessary. The clubs would also have to massively increase the level of stewarding at games.)
And, yes, #3 is the one that is potentially irresponsible. To be honest, I think #1 is probably the best solution.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
An Over-abundance of Pizza
In a new entry in the category of "worst thing that's ever happened"...
For the concert today, I of course washed and ironed my short-sleeved shirt. This is my only shirt of this sort, and it was slated for replacement after the concert.
I then proceeded to drop it in the mud while getting out of the car.
Fortunately, there was a break built in to the proceedings - a chance to relax, get changed, and get something to eat. For me, this was changed to "rush to the shops like a madman, buy a new shirt, iron said shirt, order pizza, quickly eat said pizza, get changed, and rush back."
Well, so far, so good. The shirt is bought and ironed, the pizza is ordered and pending delivery, and now I'm taking a short break. Huzzah!
But it turns out that Dominos are having a special offer this weekend, in honour of the big day (see previous post), whereby one can order one pizza and get one free.
This would be great, except that two pizzas is just too much even for me. And I can't have the leftovers for breakfast, as I've already gotten the sausage and bacon out of the freezer. Nor for lunch, as I have leftover fajitas. Nor indeed for dinner tomorrow, as I'm away at an exciting barbeque.
Truly, it is a trial for the ages. I bet Julius Caesar never had problems like this to wrestle with on his quest for glory...
For the concert today, I of course washed and ironed my short-sleeved shirt. This is my only shirt of this sort, and it was slated for replacement after the concert.
I then proceeded to drop it in the mud while getting out of the car.
Fortunately, there was a break built in to the proceedings - a chance to relax, get changed, and get something to eat. For me, this was changed to "rush to the shops like a madman, buy a new shirt, iron said shirt, order pizza, quickly eat said pizza, get changed, and rush back."
Well, so far, so good. The shirt is bought and ironed, the pizza is ordered and pending delivery, and now I'm taking a short break. Huzzah!
But it turns out that Dominos are having a special offer this weekend, in honour of the big day (see previous post), whereby one can order one pizza and get one free.
This would be great, except that two pizzas is just too much even for me. And I can't have the leftovers for breakfast, as I've already gotten the sausage and bacon out of the freezer. Nor for lunch, as I have leftover fajitas. Nor indeed for dinner tomorrow, as I'm away at an exciting barbeque.
Truly, it is a trial for the ages. I bet Julius Caesar never had problems like this to wrestle with on his quest for glory...
The Big Day
Tonight, my band host our major fund-raising event of the year, a concert with Skerryvore. If this goes well, it will secure our funding for the rest of the season. If it goes badly, it could cause us some major problems. Our most recent projections suggest that we're on course to make a small loss.
It's a worrying day, not least because there's now nothing that can be done to help matters. The band have a practice later, but the truth is that how well we play with have no bearing on how much money we make.
Oh well. I just hope it's a good night.
Sorry, did you expect this post to be about something else?
It's a worrying day, not least because there's now nothing that can be done to help matters. The band have a practice later, but the truth is that how well we play with have no bearing on how much money we make.
Oh well. I just hope it's a good night.
Sorry, did you expect this post to be about something else?
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Swan Lake on Ice
Lady Chocolat and I have a standing agreement that once per year, round about Christmas, we'll venture out to the ballet. I've determined that I can just about survive the crazy flailing about of the limbs, and other madness, associated with it all. Last year was Cinderella, and the year before was the legendary Squirrel Ballet.
However, it was the Lady's birthday recently, and as luck would have it, Swan Lake on Ice was on at the Theatre Royal. And so, since this allowed me to sort out her birthday present with a minimum of fuss, and since it also allowed me to pretend to be far more sensitive and caring than is usually my wont, off we went.
Turns out, it was awesome.
We had seats in the dress circle, just a few rows back from the front. This proved to have many advantages - slightly more leg room, shorter queues for the bar, and a much better view. This last was key, for obvious reasons. All in all, a vast improvement.
As for the performance... well. There were things that they did that, had they been described to me, I would not have believed they were possible. In fact, I'm still not convinced. Basically, they seemed to spend their time whizzing about, performing all sorts of jumps, and twirls, and spins, and lifts, most of which were completely insane, and all on a rink that was just far too small for what they were doing. And all that was before they set the ice on fire.
No, really.
I think part of what set this apart from the ballet itself was that it was very obvious just how difficult and dangerous it all was. With the ballet, although I can appreciate that a hell of a lot of training has gone into it, the better the performers are, the easier they make it all look.
Anyway, all in all it was a great performance, and a good night.
And now I still have "The Sleeping Beauty" to look forward to in December...
However, it was the Lady's birthday recently, and as luck would have it, Swan Lake on Ice was on at the Theatre Royal. And so, since this allowed me to sort out her birthday present with a minimum of fuss, and since it also allowed me to pretend to be far more sensitive and caring than is usually my wont, off we went.
Turns out, it was awesome.
We had seats in the dress circle, just a few rows back from the front. This proved to have many advantages - slightly more leg room, shorter queues for the bar, and a much better view. This last was key, for obvious reasons. All in all, a vast improvement.
As for the performance... well. There were things that they did that, had they been described to me, I would not have believed they were possible. In fact, I'm still not convinced. Basically, they seemed to spend their time whizzing about, performing all sorts of jumps, and twirls, and spins, and lifts, most of which were completely insane, and all on a rink that was just far too small for what they were doing. And all that was before they set the ice on fire.
No, really.
I think part of what set this apart from the ballet itself was that it was very obvious just how difficult and dangerous it all was. With the ballet, although I can appreciate that a hell of a lot of training has gone into it, the better the performers are, the easier they make it all look.
Anyway, all in all it was a great performance, and a good night.
And now I still have "The Sleeping Beauty" to look forward to in December...
Experimental Cookery 2011 #3: Irresistible Peanut Butter Cookies
Source: Baking Made Easy, by Lorraine Pascale (p.200)
Cook Time: Approx 20 minutes prep, plus 15 minutes cook time (done in two batches)
Difficulty: Easy
Servings: Makes 12 big cookies, as claimed in the book
Equipment used: Big bowl, scales, spoons, fork, frying pan, chopping board, sharp knife, 2 baking trays, baking paper
On Saturday, I'm heading over to a barbeque with cousin A (plus M, S and D). Consequently, I have decided to cook up another batch of the brownies, and also a batch of these peanut butter cookies. Because such things barbeque extremely well, of course!
These proved to be quite easy to make - one step followed on from the last naturally enough, and there was no pressure of time this time, so...
The only slight difficulty came when trying to lay them out on the baking tray - there simply wasn't room to do 12 all at once, and the cookies expanded into the oven to touch one another. Still, no harm done.
The cookies that have come out of the oven are giant! They're much thicker than in the picture, quite a bit bigger, and generally more suited to hungry Steph/vens. Huzzah!
Otherwise, they look pretty great, and so will do good service come the weekend.
Result: Not sure - I'm saving them until Saturday. But, of course, this means they're not exactly "irresistible", by definition!
Cook Time: Approx 20 minutes prep, plus 15 minutes cook time (done in two batches)
Difficulty: Easy
Servings: Makes 12 big cookies, as claimed in the book
Equipment used: Big bowl, scales, spoons, fork, frying pan, chopping board, sharp knife, 2 baking trays, baking paper
On Saturday, I'm heading over to a barbeque with cousin A (plus M, S and D). Consequently, I have decided to cook up another batch of the brownies, and also a batch of these peanut butter cookies. Because such things barbeque extremely well, of course!
These proved to be quite easy to make - one step followed on from the last naturally enough, and there was no pressure of time this time, so...
The only slight difficulty came when trying to lay them out on the baking tray - there simply wasn't room to do 12 all at once, and the cookies expanded into the oven to touch one another. Still, no harm done.
The cookies that have come out of the oven are giant! They're much thicker than in the picture, quite a bit bigger, and generally more suited to hungry Steph/vens. Huzzah!
Otherwise, they look pretty great, and so will do good service come the weekend.
Result: Not sure - I'm saving them until Saturday. But, of course, this means they're not exactly "irresistible", by definition!
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
A Quick Thought on the Royal Wedding
I almost certainly won't be watching the royal wedding. With the band having a concert that night, I suspect I'll be too busy. Besides, even if I were free, it's very likely that I could find better things to do with the time.
That said, I have absolutely no objection to the coverage that is being given to this event, the amount of attention paid to it, or even to the cost. As I see it, if we're going to have a monarchy, then it is entirely appropriate to allow it to take centre stage when some significant event occurs - and the wedding of our future king certainly counts as a "significant event".
I say that despite feeling, as a matter of principle, that we probably should not have a monarchy, and that a democratic approach would be better. But I object to half-assed mediocrity a whole lot more than outdated notions of Divine Right.
That said, I have absolutely no objection to the coverage that is being given to this event, the amount of attention paid to it, or even to the cost. As I see it, if we're going to have a monarchy, then it is entirely appropriate to allow it to take centre stage when some significant event occurs - and the wedding of our future king certainly counts as a "significant event".
I say that despite feeling, as a matter of principle, that we probably should not have a monarchy, and that a democratic approach would be better. But I object to half-assed mediocrity a whole lot more than outdated notions of Divine Right.
I do apologise...
The last post was rubbish. The person responsible has been notified that he won't be being paid for his contribution.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Glorious Summer, except for one day...
I've been enjoying the nice weather lately, especially since I'm currently in the midst of a week off, which for once actually gives me a chance to enjoy it.
My best opportunity came on Saturday, when the band were playing in Falkirk High Street - a chance to do some much-needed fund raising, to get some much-needed outdoor practice in, and a chance to take advantage of the good weather (and the better crowds that result).
Naturally, Saturday was the one day that it rained.
Even worse, knowing that we'd play in several slots, with breaks in between, I cunningly packed a book in my pipe box to read while taking a break. My pipe box is mostly waterproof, with the one weakness being the side pocket with the vertical zip... the side pocket where my book was stored. Luckily, it was a trashy novel that I have since finished.
Saturday was not the very best of days.
#11: "Serenity: Big Damn Heroes Handbook", from Margaret Weis Productions
#12: "At the Gates of Darkness", by Raymond E. Feist
My best opportunity came on Saturday, when the band were playing in Falkirk High Street - a chance to do some much-needed fund raising, to get some much-needed outdoor practice in, and a chance to take advantage of the good weather (and the better crowds that result).
Naturally, Saturday was the one day that it rained.
Even worse, knowing that we'd play in several slots, with breaks in between, I cunningly packed a book in my pipe box to read while taking a break. My pipe box is mostly waterproof, with the one weakness being the side pocket with the vertical zip... the side pocket where my book was stored. Luckily, it was a trashy novel that I have since finished.
Saturday was not the very best of days.
#11: "Serenity: Big Damn Heroes Handbook", from Margaret Weis Productions
#12: "At the Gates of Darkness", by Raymond E. Feist
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
How I'm Going to Vote
In the Elections for the Scottish Parliament
Until a few years ago, it was my intention to vote SNP for everything except the Scottish parliament, because I fundamentally don't agree with independence but do agree with most of their other policies, and because the Scottish parliament is the one venue where I think there is an actual risk they might be able to achieve independence.
So, it had been my intention to vote Lib Dem at the Scottish elections. That will not now be happening.
Despite the terrible confusion of being faced with a political party that actually does deliver (most of) what it promises in its manifesto, a political party that does at least stand for something (even if it's something I don't agree with), and a political party that genuinely does seem to be mostly competent, I'll be voting SNP this time. Granted, any one of the above should really bar them from any sort of serious politics, but...
My prediction: This election is really too close to call. I expect the Tories to stay pretty much constant, the Lib Dems to be all-but annihilated, and the various minor parties and independents to do quite well. But will we see an SNP majority, a Labour majority, another minority government (probably SNP), or something else?
My guess is that we'll see another SNP government, with a very small majority. But I'm really not sure - it depends on where those Lib Dem voters go.
On the AV Referendum
I'm actually a bit annoyed about this one. If we're having a referendum on the voting system, why are the currently-elected politicians the ones to determine the terms of the decision? That is, why do they choose that we can have the Alternative Vote or First Past the Post, but can't decide that we want some other, better system?
Frankly, the ballot here should have at least four options: First Past the Post, the Alternative Vote, the Single Transferrable Vote, or Proportional Representation. (Amusingly, the vote itself should probably be done on an Alternative Vote mechanism.)
As things stand, we'll probably end up with another referendum in five years, either because we gave the 'wrong' answer (no) this time, or because we gave the 'right' answer (yes) and they now want to take the next step.
Plus, the Alternative Vote is a grubby little compromise that really doesn't help much. As far as I can tell, it's main effect will be to strengthen the grip of the 'big three' parties on the House of Commons, and since those 'big three' pretty much represent the worst thing about our current politics, I can't see that being a good thing.
And yet, despite this, I'm going to be voting 'Yes' to the Alternative Vote. Because I believe it does represent a small step towards a better politics, even if we won't get to the end result for a decade or more.
My prediction: It doesn't matter; nothing will change.
If the 'No' campaign have their way and win the day, the coalition government will fall apart. Without the promise of the AV floating around, the Lib Dems will have no reason to stick with their Faustian pact. It may be that Nick Clegg and a tiny faction of Lib Dems will stay with the Tories, and possibly even join the Tories formally, which may just be enough to maintain a majority. But I expect the bulk of the Lib Dems to walk away.
If the 'Yes' campaign wins, things are even more interesting. I would expect the government to delay bringing it to a vote for as long as they possibly can (again, once it's passed, why would the Lib Dems stay in coalition?). When it does come to a vote, there is absolutely no guarantee that it would pass. And, indeed, it may be that a significant number of Tories rebel (possibly even finding allies of convenience within the Labour party!), enough to block the measure. Again, that might well be enough to split the coalition - especially if it was suspected the Tory whips were less than enthusiastic in enforcing the line.
I really can't see this coalition bringing about any significant change to the voting system.
Until a few years ago, it was my intention to vote SNP for everything except the Scottish parliament, because I fundamentally don't agree with independence but do agree with most of their other policies, and because the Scottish parliament is the one venue where I think there is an actual risk they might be able to achieve independence.
So, it had been my intention to vote Lib Dem at the Scottish elections. That will not now be happening.
Despite the terrible confusion of being faced with a political party that actually does deliver (most of) what it promises in its manifesto, a political party that does at least stand for something (even if it's something I don't agree with), and a political party that genuinely does seem to be mostly competent, I'll be voting SNP this time. Granted, any one of the above should really bar them from any sort of serious politics, but...
My prediction: This election is really too close to call. I expect the Tories to stay pretty much constant, the Lib Dems to be all-but annihilated, and the various minor parties and independents to do quite well. But will we see an SNP majority, a Labour majority, another minority government (probably SNP), or something else?
My guess is that we'll see another SNP government, with a very small majority. But I'm really not sure - it depends on where those Lib Dem voters go.
On the AV Referendum
I'm actually a bit annoyed about this one. If we're having a referendum on the voting system, why are the currently-elected politicians the ones to determine the terms of the decision? That is, why do they choose that we can have the Alternative Vote or First Past the Post, but can't decide that we want some other, better system?
Frankly, the ballot here should have at least four options: First Past the Post, the Alternative Vote, the Single Transferrable Vote, or Proportional Representation. (Amusingly, the vote itself should probably be done on an Alternative Vote mechanism.)
As things stand, we'll probably end up with another referendum in five years, either because we gave the 'wrong' answer (no) this time, or because we gave the 'right' answer (yes) and they now want to take the next step.
Plus, the Alternative Vote is a grubby little compromise that really doesn't help much. As far as I can tell, it's main effect will be to strengthen the grip of the 'big three' parties on the House of Commons, and since those 'big three' pretty much represent the worst thing about our current politics, I can't see that being a good thing.
And yet, despite this, I'm going to be voting 'Yes' to the Alternative Vote. Because I believe it does represent a small step towards a better politics, even if we won't get to the end result for a decade or more.
My prediction: It doesn't matter; nothing will change.
If the 'No' campaign have their way and win the day, the coalition government will fall apart. Without the promise of the AV floating around, the Lib Dems will have no reason to stick with their Faustian pact. It may be that Nick Clegg and a tiny faction of Lib Dems will stay with the Tories, and possibly even join the Tories formally, which may just be enough to maintain a majority. But I expect the bulk of the Lib Dems to walk away.
If the 'Yes' campaign wins, things are even more interesting. I would expect the government to delay bringing it to a vote for as long as they possibly can (again, once it's passed, why would the Lib Dems stay in coalition?). When it does come to a vote, there is absolutely no guarantee that it would pass. And, indeed, it may be that a significant number of Tories rebel (possibly even finding allies of convenience within the Labour party!), enough to block the measure. Again, that might well be enough to split the coalition - especially if it was suspected the Tory whips were less than enthusiastic in enforcing the line.
I really can't see this coalition bringing about any significant change to the voting system.
Your Highness
Lady Chocolat and I went to see "Your Highness" on Friday, with several of the guys from my RPG group (plus several of their respective partners, and even some non-gamer friends). It was an enjoyable night.
By my count, there are exactly two ways to make a good fantasy film.
The first is to take the "Lord of the Rings" route, and take the whole thing seriously, filming it as though "this actually happened". That isn't to say there isn't humour in the "Lord of the Rings" films, but it's organic to the characters and the situation, rather than being inherent in the premise itself.
The second approach is to treat the whole thing as absurd, and build a comic fantasy. This is the approach taken in "Your Highness", and it works quite well.
I believe this is why the "Dungeons & Dragons" films failed so abysmally. The people making those films really wanted to treat them seriously, but they lacked the ability to pull it off. Fantasy is expensive - you need a big budget for spells, and monsters, and other-worldly vistas, and so on. The problem is, if you don't have a massive budget, you have to cut corners elsewhere. So, the quality of the script suffers. The quality of the actors suffers (and, if you do somehow manage to get a couple of good actors, they recognise the lack of quality everywhere else, and so just phone it in). The quality of the director suffers (or, worse, the director is a massive fanboi with no actual experience...).
And so it goes. By shooting for seriousness that they just couldn't deliver on the budget, they made a huge mess. They're not even "so bad it's good." They're just bad.
And so we come to "Your Highness". In all honesty, this isn't a great film, but it was a very entertaining one, largely because it embraced the absurdity of the genre as a whole. Plus, they seemed to have channelled every single "bad RPG" moment imaginable, and put them up on the screen - it played out very much like an RPG session might well.
I doubt there will be a sequel. This seems the sort of film that will make decent, but not outstanding money, will do quite well on DVD, will make a loss on paper (all films make a loss on paper), and will not quite earn a sequel. In all honesty, that's probably for the best.
Still, not to worry. I had fun.
#10: "Serenity: Spaceships and Six Shooters", by Lynn Blackson and Jason Durall
By my count, there are exactly two ways to make a good fantasy film.
The first is to take the "Lord of the Rings" route, and take the whole thing seriously, filming it as though "this actually happened". That isn't to say there isn't humour in the "Lord of the Rings" films, but it's organic to the characters and the situation, rather than being inherent in the premise itself.
The second approach is to treat the whole thing as absurd, and build a comic fantasy. This is the approach taken in "Your Highness", and it works quite well.
I believe this is why the "Dungeons & Dragons" films failed so abysmally. The people making those films really wanted to treat them seriously, but they lacked the ability to pull it off. Fantasy is expensive - you need a big budget for spells, and monsters, and other-worldly vistas, and so on. The problem is, if you don't have a massive budget, you have to cut corners elsewhere. So, the quality of the script suffers. The quality of the actors suffers (and, if you do somehow manage to get a couple of good actors, they recognise the lack of quality everywhere else, and so just phone it in). The quality of the director suffers (or, worse, the director is a massive fanboi with no actual experience...).
And so it goes. By shooting for seriousness that they just couldn't deliver on the budget, they made a huge mess. They're not even "so bad it's good." They're just bad.
And so we come to "Your Highness". In all honesty, this isn't a great film, but it was a very entertaining one, largely because it embraced the absurdity of the genre as a whole. Plus, they seemed to have channelled every single "bad RPG" moment imaginable, and put them up on the screen - it played out very much like an RPG session might well.
I doubt there will be a sequel. This seems the sort of film that will make decent, but not outstanding money, will do quite well on DVD, will make a loss on paper (all films make a loss on paper), and will not quite earn a sequel. In all honesty, that's probably for the best.
Still, not to worry. I had fun.
#10: "Serenity: Spaceships and Six Shooters", by Lynn Blackson and Jason Durall
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Can't Take the Sky From Me
As you may have noticed, in the last month I've been busily reading a number of "Serenity" books. These are actually supplements for the "Serenity RPG" by Margaret Weis Productions, a short-lived RPG based on the film "Serenity", which was itself based on the short-lived "Firefly" TV series.
At Christmas, I had the opportunity to run a one-off adventure using the "Serenity RPG", and although it was really not a great adventure, it was enjoyed by all present, and there was some interest in kicking off a campaign. And so, I hunted up the books, and got stuck in to the reading.
I've also been doing a far amount of musing about game design, and have been doing a fair amount of reading of late, largely into those blogs that are part of the "Old School Renaissance". A lot of what they have to say is really quite interesting (and a lot is nonsense, of course), but particularly of note is their emphasis on Doing It Yourself, rather than relying on publishers producing adventures, and settings, and other material to bloat out the setting.
In that regard, the fact that both the RPG, and indeed the "Firefly" series itself, was rather short-lived is actually a boon. There's just enough material to inspire campaigns, but not so much as to further constrain the group from making The 'Verse their own.
So, where am I going with this?
Well, firstly I think I'm inclined to actually throw out the rules system in use in the Serenity RPG. It's actually not very good. I'm probably inclined to go for Savage Worlds - it's pretty close, and it's a very good fit, but it also has a bit more robustness to it. (That said, I understand there's now a "Cortex 2.0", which takes the Serenity system and vastly improves it; perhaps that warrants a look?)
Secondly, if the crew are going to have their own ship (which of course they are), then they're going to be fairly mobile. This suggests to me that the best thing to do is a 'sandbox' style game - they can go wherever they want, and adventure will find them there.
This in turn suggests that, thirdly character advancement should be fairly slow, or indeed static. This is fine, since both the Serenity RPG and Savage Worlds use fairly slow advancement schemes anyway. Still, I may even be inclined to just not bother giving out advancements at all - characters are created at Veteran level, and stay there.
Fourth, since there is a fairly small amount of source material available, and a grand total of six published adventures (mostly short), I'll need to do a fair amount of leg work coming up with interesting things for the crew to do. I had hoped that the "Serenity: Adventures" book would be more useful in that regard, but it was not to be. Amusingly, the Star Wars Saga Edition book "Sum & Villainy" may be more use.
Fifth, I really need to watch "Firefly" again!
At Christmas, I had the opportunity to run a one-off adventure using the "Serenity RPG", and although it was really not a great adventure, it was enjoyed by all present, and there was some interest in kicking off a campaign. And so, I hunted up the books, and got stuck in to the reading.
I've also been doing a far amount of musing about game design, and have been doing a fair amount of reading of late, largely into those blogs that are part of the "Old School Renaissance". A lot of what they have to say is really quite interesting (and a lot is nonsense, of course), but particularly of note is their emphasis on Doing It Yourself, rather than relying on publishers producing adventures, and settings, and other material to bloat out the setting.
In that regard, the fact that both the RPG, and indeed the "Firefly" series itself, was rather short-lived is actually a boon. There's just enough material to inspire campaigns, but not so much as to further constrain the group from making The 'Verse their own.
So, where am I going with this?
Well, firstly I think I'm inclined to actually throw out the rules system in use in the Serenity RPG. It's actually not very good. I'm probably inclined to go for Savage Worlds - it's pretty close, and it's a very good fit, but it also has a bit more robustness to it. (That said, I understand there's now a "Cortex 2.0", which takes the Serenity system and vastly improves it; perhaps that warrants a look?)
Secondly, if the crew are going to have their own ship (which of course they are), then they're going to be fairly mobile. This suggests to me that the best thing to do is a 'sandbox' style game - they can go wherever they want, and adventure will find them there.
This in turn suggests that, thirdly character advancement should be fairly slow, or indeed static. This is fine, since both the Serenity RPG and Savage Worlds use fairly slow advancement schemes anyway. Still, I may even be inclined to just not bother giving out advancements at all - characters are created at Veteran level, and stay there.
Fourth, since there is a fairly small amount of source material available, and a grand total of six published adventures (mostly short), I'll need to do a fair amount of leg work coming up with interesting things for the crew to do. I had hoped that the "Serenity: Adventures" book would be more useful in that regard, but it was not to be. Amusingly, the Star Wars Saga Edition book "Sum & Villainy" may be more use.
Fifth, I really need to watch "Firefly" again!
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Oh s***! What are we going to do now?
I thought carefully about the title of this post. As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I generally take the view that if you feel the need to use a profanity filter over what you're saying, it's generally a sign that you probably shouldn't be saying it anyway. However, I did consider that I may yet be on one or two blog-rolls, and while I may be happy swearing on my own blog, I'm not so keen on fouling the air over on Welshy's far more civilised blog.
Anyway...
One of my absolute favourite films of all time is, of course, "Transformers: the Movie". (Obviously, this is the animated one of yesteryear, not the Michael Bay abomination starring Foxy Megan and The Beef.) Truth be told, it's not really the best film, but it's a childhood favourite and so inherently great.
Way back when TF was in the cinema, and later on video, the BBFC had mandated some cuts to the film. The UK never got the cut that was shown in the States. With the DVD releases of the film, this was changed, mostly for the better.
However, at one point in the film, one of the characters is heard to utter the line, "Oh shit, what are we going to do now?"
Now, I'm an adult, and frankly don't really care about swearing in films. It just doesn't bother me. But the thing is, my nephew, PJ, is not. And, what's more, he's something of a sponge - he basically takes in absolutely everything he's exposed to. (Fortunately, his memory doesn't extend as far back as his first Christmas, when a supervillain who shall be known only as G commented on the existence of a certain present-bearing housebreaker...)
Anyway, this of course creates a certain problem. PJ loves Transformers (of course), and would love the film. But all the DVD versions include this swear-word. (Which, it should be noted, adds not a single thing to the film.) And that means that I cannot get him a copy, or let him watch my copy, or anything of the sort - his parents may make that decision, but I'm not entitled to do so. It's really frustrating.
So, I have to ask: what were the publishers thinking? And, indeed, what were the BBFC thinking in letting it go ahead in this form? Did they even watch the revised cut?
It just seems so pointless, and annoying.
(Incidentally, if and when I eventually have children, I feel I shall have to take the BBFC certificates as only the loosest of guidelines. Honestly, I don't believe they watch a lot of what they pass - there are some things that get through that really shouldn't (South Park's erect penis), and some things that get cut that shouldn't (Die Hard 4.0). It really seems to make no sense. Indeed, it often seems that they just translate the US rating into its UK certificate equivalent. This would certainly explain why the '12' became a '12A', thus making it exactly the same as the US PG-13...)
Anyway...
One of my absolute favourite films of all time is, of course, "Transformers: the Movie". (Obviously, this is the animated one of yesteryear, not the Michael Bay abomination starring Foxy Megan and The Beef.) Truth be told, it's not really the best film, but it's a childhood favourite and so inherently great.
Way back when TF was in the cinema, and later on video, the BBFC had mandated some cuts to the film. The UK never got the cut that was shown in the States. With the DVD releases of the film, this was changed, mostly for the better.
However, at one point in the film, one of the characters is heard to utter the line, "Oh shit, what are we going to do now?"
Now, I'm an adult, and frankly don't really care about swearing in films. It just doesn't bother me. But the thing is, my nephew, PJ, is not. And, what's more, he's something of a sponge - he basically takes in absolutely everything he's exposed to. (Fortunately, his memory doesn't extend as far back as his first Christmas, when a supervillain who shall be known only as G commented on the existence of a certain present-bearing housebreaker...)
Anyway, this of course creates a certain problem. PJ loves Transformers (of course), and would love the film. But all the DVD versions include this swear-word. (Which, it should be noted, adds not a single thing to the film.) And that means that I cannot get him a copy, or let him watch my copy, or anything of the sort - his parents may make that decision, but I'm not entitled to do so. It's really frustrating.
So, I have to ask: what were the publishers thinking? And, indeed, what were the BBFC thinking in letting it go ahead in this form? Did they even watch the revised cut?
It just seems so pointless, and annoying.
(Incidentally, if and when I eventually have children, I feel I shall have to take the BBFC certificates as only the loosest of guidelines. Honestly, I don't believe they watch a lot of what they pass - there are some things that get through that really shouldn't (South Park's erect penis), and some things that get cut that shouldn't (Die Hard 4.0). It really seems to make no sense. Indeed, it often seems that they just translate the US rating into its UK certificate equivalent. This would certainly explain why the '12' became a '12A', thus making it exactly the same as the US PG-13...)
Hmm...
I wonder if I can get to 1,000 posts before the end of the year?
I mean, if I do that then it must be time for Part Four!
729 and counting...
I mean, if I do that then it must be time for Part Four!
729 and counting...
Microwave Woes
A couple of months ago, my microwave gave up on my. I felt this was rather poor, as I'd only had it five years. (My parents have had their microwave longer than their youngest son.) Still, it was cheap...
Anyway, after several weeks of managing without, I bought a new and much more expensive model. (Also, more powerful, bigger, and energy efficient.)
Today, my new microwave has given up on me. It lasted all of four weeks. I find this shockingly poor, not least because I've only used it a handful of times. Guess I know what I'm doing on my day off on Friday...
Anyway, after several weeks of managing without, I bought a new and much more expensive model. (Also, more powerful, bigger, and energy efficient.)
Today, my new microwave has given up on me. It lasted all of four weeks. I find this shockingly poor, not least because I've only used it a handful of times. Guess I know what I'm doing on my day off on Friday...
Some Disturbing Developments
Two things in the news today left me really worried...
The Latest Twist in the Old Firm Saga of Hate
It was reported today that, at the last Old Firm match of the season, some of the police involved will infiltrate the crowd, and identify and arrest those singing 'banned' songs, and that those identified will be made subject to banning orders for up to 10 years.
Now, the thing is that if you are serious about freedom, you have to expend a fair amount of concern protecting the freedoms of people you don't particularly like to do things that you don't particularly like.
I really don't like Sectarian songs, but the simple fact is that this should not be a police matter. In fact, it is really, really important that this not be a police matter.
Freedom of speech is probably the single most important freedom that we have. Without freedom of speech, any of our other freedoms can be violated, and we won't be able to do anything about it. The police getting involved because of the singing of songs is wrong.
(Incidentally, we do have a law on the books banning "hate preaching". Now, the first thing to note is that this law should never, in fact, have been passed in the first place. The second is that it was never intended for this purpose - it was intended as an anti-terrorism matter.)
Now, I can quite understand the desire of the government to take action on this. The singing of Sectarian songs shames the clubs, it shames Scottish football, and it shames Scotland as a whole. But the government does not, and must not, have the right to do anything about it.
What should happen? Well, Rangers (and Celtic) need to be the ones taking action. They should have their stewards identify those singing the songs, they should eject them, and they should ban them. This is perfectly acceptable - a business can restrict freedom of speech on its premesis (of course). Indeed, UEFA can similarly require Rangers and Celtic to take some actions.
But the government must not.
What Are We Doing In Libya?
I have been troubled about our actions in Libya for some time. Because we refuse to take direct action to remove Gaddafi (because International Law does not allow us to explicitly do this), all we've been doing is prolonging the conflict - the rebels don't have the wherewithal to succeed without our aid, and we've prevented Gaddafi from wiping them out (probably rightly). The problem, of course, is that all the people in the middle have to suffer, and will continue to suffer indefinitely.
But that's actually less important than what has been reported today, which is that the British government are considering equipping the rebels with British-made body armour.
This must not be done.
Very simply, we don't know anything about these rebels. They are allies of convenience, nothing more. Once the fight is done, we don't know what their stance towards us will be, except that we can be sure that they won't be handing back the equipment.
We should have learned our lesson with Al Qaeda - todays ally may turn out to be tomorrow's enemy. Better that we fight the battle for them, even if that means removing Gaddafi in defiance of International Law, than that we equip a force of dubious intent with weapons that might be turned against us.
The Latest Twist in the Old Firm Saga of Hate
It was reported today that, at the last Old Firm match of the season, some of the police involved will infiltrate the crowd, and identify and arrest those singing 'banned' songs, and that those identified will be made subject to banning orders for up to 10 years.
Now, the thing is that if you are serious about freedom, you have to expend a fair amount of concern protecting the freedoms of people you don't particularly like to do things that you don't particularly like.
I really don't like Sectarian songs, but the simple fact is that this should not be a police matter. In fact, it is really, really important that this not be a police matter.
Freedom of speech is probably the single most important freedom that we have. Without freedom of speech, any of our other freedoms can be violated, and we won't be able to do anything about it. The police getting involved because of the singing of songs is wrong.
(Incidentally, we do have a law on the books banning "hate preaching". Now, the first thing to note is that this law should never, in fact, have been passed in the first place. The second is that it was never intended for this purpose - it was intended as an anti-terrorism matter.)
Now, I can quite understand the desire of the government to take action on this. The singing of Sectarian songs shames the clubs, it shames Scottish football, and it shames Scotland as a whole. But the government does not, and must not, have the right to do anything about it.
What should happen? Well, Rangers (and Celtic) need to be the ones taking action. They should have their stewards identify those singing the songs, they should eject them, and they should ban them. This is perfectly acceptable - a business can restrict freedom of speech on its premesis (of course). Indeed, UEFA can similarly require Rangers and Celtic to take some actions.
But the government must not.
What Are We Doing In Libya?
I have been troubled about our actions in Libya for some time. Because we refuse to take direct action to remove Gaddafi (because International Law does not allow us to explicitly do this), all we've been doing is prolonging the conflict - the rebels don't have the wherewithal to succeed without our aid, and we've prevented Gaddafi from wiping them out (probably rightly). The problem, of course, is that all the people in the middle have to suffer, and will continue to suffer indefinitely.
But that's actually less important than what has been reported today, which is that the British government are considering equipping the rebels with British-made body armour.
This must not be done.
Very simply, we don't know anything about these rebels. They are allies of convenience, nothing more. Once the fight is done, we don't know what their stance towards us will be, except that we can be sure that they won't be handing back the equipment.
We should have learned our lesson with Al Qaeda - todays ally may turn out to be tomorrow's enemy. Better that we fight the battle for them, even if that means removing Gaddafi in defiance of International Law, than that we equip a force of dubious intent with weapons that might be turned against us.
Update on Games
Speaking of my D&D groups, time for an update:
The Saturday game seems to have settled into a reasonable pattern. I have brought my Warhammer campaign to a close: the Company of the Black Hand uncovered the corruption at the heart of Walkenburg and rooted it out; in time they were able to depart the town as heroes, albeit ones wounded and deranged by their experiences.
I have taken a step back from running games with this group for the time being; one of my friends is instead running "Dark Heresy" for a while. It's an interesting game; we'll see how it pans out.
The group also seems to have settled into an almost-monthly meeting cycle, which seems to work reasonably well. It's not ideal - I would prefer to meet more often - but it's much better than our previous arrangements, and actually means we may meet more often this year than in each of the last two. So that's good.
The other group is currently in something of an interim period. We don't have any ongoing games running, with a couple of new campaigns about to kick off. Despite this, the group seems to be quite busy: we've had a number of one-off games, we have a cinema night planned for Friday (going to see "Your Highness"), and we're in the process of moving the site from Meetup.com to GroupSpaces, due to the changes made to Meetup.
In the middle of next month, I'm going to be starting up a new campaign, "The Eberron Code", which I've described as "like The Da Vinci Code, but starring Indiana Jones, set in Eberron, and better written". There seems to be quite a bit of enthusiasm about this one, and I'm rather looking forward to it also. I've had a good number of ideas for plotlines and adventures, have a good idea of the campaign metaplot, and am quite keen to run a game again.
So, it's all looking quite good, really.
The Saturday game seems to have settled into a reasonable pattern. I have brought my Warhammer campaign to a close: the Company of the Black Hand uncovered the corruption at the heart of Walkenburg and rooted it out; in time they were able to depart the town as heroes, albeit ones wounded and deranged by their experiences.
I have taken a step back from running games with this group for the time being; one of my friends is instead running "Dark Heresy" for a while. It's an interesting game; we'll see how it pans out.
The group also seems to have settled into an almost-monthly meeting cycle, which seems to work reasonably well. It's not ideal - I would prefer to meet more often - but it's much better than our previous arrangements, and actually means we may meet more often this year than in each of the last two. So that's good.
The other group is currently in something of an interim period. We don't have any ongoing games running, with a couple of new campaigns about to kick off. Despite this, the group seems to be quite busy: we've had a number of one-off games, we have a cinema night planned for Friday (going to see "Your Highness"), and we're in the process of moving the site from Meetup.com to GroupSpaces, due to the changes made to Meetup.
In the middle of next month, I'm going to be starting up a new campaign, "The Eberron Code", which I've described as "like The Da Vinci Code, but starring Indiana Jones, set in Eberron, and better written". There seems to be quite a bit of enthusiasm about this one, and I'm rather looking forward to it also. I've had a good number of ideas for plotlines and adventures, have a good idea of the campaign metaplot, and am quite keen to run a game again.
So, it's all looking quite good, really.
The Orks Are Coming!
Since the start of the year, I have completed the painting job on the first quarter of my Space Orks. The second batch are now about halfway done. At the current rate, I should be finished the whole force by the end of the year, which would be nice.
In parallel with this, some of the members of my gaming group have expressed an interest in actually playing some of the wargames (for which the minis are intended). Of course, they have naturally indicated a preference for the fantasy game, rather than the sci-fi one, rendering my orks somewhat useless!
(This is especially amusing as the only reason I have the orks in the first place is that when I moved to Yeovil, the group there played the sci-fi game rather than fantasy. I do have two entire armies for the fantasy game, but they're packed away in boxes, and I don't really want to unpack them, as they take up a lot of space.)
A funny thing about the painting: I find the whole process very relaxing, and yet there isn't a single part of the process that I would actually say I enjoy. Preparing the figures for painting is a hassle, the undercoating is a nuisance, the early coats are dull, and the later coats are very frustrating. I don't even particularly like looking at the finished figures - they tend to get shelved as I move on to something else.
But still, there's something about it. It's probably a combination of two factors: the ability to spend an hour here or there focussing on a simple task without worrying about anything else, and also the clear and obvious progress towards a clear goal - with every hour, the minis become visibly more complete.
It's interesting.
Plus, it's quite good fun to dream about the next painting project - do I build up my ork force into a proper army, do I invest in a bunch of character models for use in D&D, do I do something else entirely (maybe a Dwarf army for Warhammer Fantasy?)... or do I do nothing at all and just pack it all up again once these ones are done?
In parallel with this, some of the members of my gaming group have expressed an interest in actually playing some of the wargames (for which the minis are intended). Of course, they have naturally indicated a preference for the fantasy game, rather than the sci-fi one, rendering my orks somewhat useless!
(This is especially amusing as the only reason I have the orks in the first place is that when I moved to Yeovil, the group there played the sci-fi game rather than fantasy. I do have two entire armies for the fantasy game, but they're packed away in boxes, and I don't really want to unpack them, as they take up a lot of space.)
A funny thing about the painting: I find the whole process very relaxing, and yet there isn't a single part of the process that I would actually say I enjoy. Preparing the figures for painting is a hassle, the undercoating is a nuisance, the early coats are dull, and the later coats are very frustrating. I don't even particularly like looking at the finished figures - they tend to get shelved as I move on to something else.
But still, there's something about it. It's probably a combination of two factors: the ability to spend an hour here or there focussing on a simple task without worrying about anything else, and also the clear and obvious progress towards a clear goal - with every hour, the minis become visibly more complete.
It's interesting.
Plus, it's quite good fun to dream about the next painting project - do I build up my ork force into a proper army, do I invest in a bunch of character models for use in D&D, do I do something else entirely (maybe a Dwarf army for Warhammer Fantasy?)... or do I do nothing at all and just pack it all up again once these ones are done?
Mango Powder
There won't be an Experimental Cookery post this week. I was intending to do something from one of Gordon Ramsay's books (this being the only cookbook I own that I have not yet used). Unfortunately, the recipe calls for both mango powder and coconut oil, neither of which I have been able to source.
This is actually something that has annoyed me in the past: cook books do tend to require the occasional 'obscure' ingredient, not easily sourced from the supermarket, and they also tend to be quite poor in either identifying a substitute, or at least indicating where they believe you could source the ingredient. It's most vexing, as it can render large parts of the book unusable.
This is actually something that has annoyed me in the past: cook books do tend to require the occasional 'obscure' ingredient, not easily sourced from the supermarket, and they also tend to be quite poor in either identifying a substitute, or at least indicating where they believe you could source the ingredient. It's most vexing, as it can render large parts of the book unusable.
Update on Band
Once again, the competition season is almost upon us. The first competition of the new season, the Dunbar Highland Games, is a month tomorrow. And the band is not ready.
There was some significant enthusiasm and excitement a couple of months ago, when it was finally confirmed that the band were being promoted to Grade 4A. There was then some further discussion about a Development Band, providing a means for younger players to make the step from 'learner' to 'competing'. (Unfortunately, we lost a couple of people due to that; ironically, the very people the Development Band was intended to help.)
But of late, the practices have fallen into a depressing pattern: the attendences are poor (and always the same people), the progress is patchy, and things are just going on. The band is getting better, but slowly.
I suspect the end result will see us going to Dunbar with only a handful of pipers actually being able to play. No doubt, there will be several people who get a rude shock when they are told that they're just not reaching the required standard.
But the truth is, that may be a necessary step. It's really quite clear that some people are putting in the required effort, and some others just aren't. Well, it's simply not fair on those who are doing the work to be dragged back by those who aren't.
Still, it seems very unlikely that we'll come away from Dunbar with anything. It's one of the bigger minors, and it's also an event that lots of bands want to "put down a marker" at, to show their intentions for the year.
We'll see...
#7: "Serenity: Out in the Black", by Tracy and Laura Hickman
#8: "Serenity: Adventures", by James Davenport, Ted Reed, James M. Ward, Alana Abbot and Billy Aguiar
#9: "Pathfinder: The Haunting of Harrowstone", by Michael Kortes
There was some significant enthusiasm and excitement a couple of months ago, when it was finally confirmed that the band were being promoted to Grade 4A. There was then some further discussion about a Development Band, providing a means for younger players to make the step from 'learner' to 'competing'. (Unfortunately, we lost a couple of people due to that; ironically, the very people the Development Band was intended to help.)
But of late, the practices have fallen into a depressing pattern: the attendences are poor (and always the same people), the progress is patchy, and things are just going on. The band is getting better, but slowly.
I suspect the end result will see us going to Dunbar with only a handful of pipers actually being able to play. No doubt, there will be several people who get a rude shock when they are told that they're just not reaching the required standard.
But the truth is, that may be a necessary step. It's really quite clear that some people are putting in the required effort, and some others just aren't. Well, it's simply not fair on those who are doing the work to be dragged back by those who aren't.
Still, it seems very unlikely that we'll come away from Dunbar with anything. It's one of the bigger minors, and it's also an event that lots of bands want to "put down a marker" at, to show their intentions for the year.
We'll see...
#7: "Serenity: Out in the Black", by Tracy and Laura Hickman
#8: "Serenity: Adventures", by James Davenport, Ted Reed, James M. Ward, Alana Abbot and Billy Aguiar
#9: "Pathfinder: The Haunting of Harrowstone", by Michael Kortes
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Experimental Cookery 2011 #2: Cookies & Cream Fudge Brownies
Source: Baking Made Easy, by Lorraine Pascale (p.204)
Cook Time: Approx 30 minutes prep, plus 25 minutes cook time
Difficulty: Moderate - harder than the soup, but not hugely difficult
Servings: The book claims 16, but I got 18 of varying sizes
Equipment used: Loads of stuff! Mixer, saucepan, baking tray, greasing spray, baking paper, chopping board, sharp knife, two bowls, 2 tablespoons, 2 teaspoons
In honour of Mother's Day, and also because I really wanted to try these (they're the reason I bought the book), I made Brownies. These proved to be a bit fiddly to make, but mostly because I made the mistake of working on things in parallel, which meant that I had to wait for an earlier step to complete before I could move on to the next step.
The end result is just great, though. And totally evil, of course!
Result: 9/10 - oh, so very, very nice
Cook Time: Approx 30 minutes prep, plus 25 minutes cook time
Difficulty: Moderate - harder than the soup, but not hugely difficult
Servings: The book claims 16, but I got 18 of varying sizes
Equipment used: Loads of stuff! Mixer, saucepan, baking tray, greasing spray, baking paper, chopping board, sharp knife, two bowls, 2 tablespoons, 2 teaspoons
In honour of Mother's Day, and also because I really wanted to try these (they're the reason I bought the book), I made Brownies. These proved to be a bit fiddly to make, but mostly because I made the mistake of working on things in parallel, which meant that I had to wait for an earlier step to complete before I could move on to the next step.
The end result is just great, though. And totally evil, of course!
Result: 9/10 - oh, so very, very nice
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Experimental Cookery 2011 #1: Butter Bean, Chorizo & Red Onion Soup
Source: Gordon Ramsay's Fast Food (p.19)
Cook Time: 32 minutes start to finish. Note that I had a little help in the preparation phase; probably add a couple of minutes for that.
Difficulty: Dead easy
Servings: The book claims 4, but I only got 3 from it
Equipment used: Saucepan, chopping board, wooden spoon, 2 knives, ladle, bowl, strainer, small plate
This one is pretty much what it says on the tin - a soup made from butter beans, red onion and chorizo. Unlike the soups from Jamie's book (most of which I've now tried), this one didn't get liquidised at the end, and therefore was a chunky, rather than smooth, soup.
The end result was fairly tasty, but a little on the bland side. I think that if I do it again, I'll need to find something to add a bit more pep to it.
Result: 7/10
Cook Time: 32 minutes start to finish. Note that I had a little help in the preparation phase; probably add a couple of minutes for that.
Difficulty: Dead easy
Servings: The book claims 4, but I only got 3 from it
Equipment used: Saucepan, chopping board, wooden spoon, 2 knives, ladle, bowl, strainer, small plate
This one is pretty much what it says on the tin - a soup made from butter beans, red onion and chorizo. Unlike the soups from Jamie's book (most of which I've now tried), this one didn't get liquidised at the end, and therefore was a chunky, rather than smooth, soup.
The end result was fairly tasty, but a little on the bland side. I think that if I do it again, I'll need to find something to add a bit more pep to it.
Result: 7/10
Monday, March 28, 2011
Experimental Cookery: The Return
I have decided to return to doing "Experimental Cookery" posts, mostly because I now have loads of cookbooks, and have fallen into the trap I once complained about: I never cook from them. Plus, lots of people said they liked those posts. So, they're back, until I get bored again.
I'll be doing a couple of things differently this time: rather than picking one book and working through it, I'll jump from book to book according to my own secret design (or at random). I'll also not be sticking to Tuesday, as I'm frequently busy on that day. Oh, and I'll try to offer some more useful information with the posts: the book used, the cook time, the difficulty, and the list of equipment that was used.
So, onward!
I'll be doing a couple of things differently this time: rather than picking one book and working through it, I'll jump from book to book according to my own secret design (or at random). I'll also not be sticking to Tuesday, as I'm frequently busy on that day. Oh, and I'll try to offer some more useful information with the posts: the book used, the cook time, the difficulty, and the list of equipment that was used.
So, onward!
A nice restful weekend...
I had Friday and today off from work, mostly just to use up the last of my holiday allowance of the year. It has been a nice, restful time, by which I mean I busily worked through my list of things to do. Such as...
So, it's been a busy time. Also, despite the impression my previous post may have given, I'm not quite dead. At least, not yet.
#6: "Les Miserables Volume One", by Victor Hugo (a book from The List)
- Not going to tell you! Haha! Ha! Ha.
- Bought a new microwave.
- Started painting the second batch of Space Orks. Eight are finished, the second eight are now under way. I have another sixteen to do after these.
- Watched "Unthinkable" (not great), "Harry Brown" (good), and just enough of "Cabin Fever 2" to decide it wasn't worth watching.
- Watched the first two parts of the "Lord of the Rings". Yes, this is the same as the previous point, but it's good enough to deserve mentioning twice.
- Restocked the fridge with a meatloaf and chicken tikka masala.
- Washed the car.
- Lots of practice on the pipes.
- Finished Volume One of "Les Miserables". Poor young Marius is in love, at last.
- Ordered a frame for the picture that I got at Christmas.
- And the usual sundry and pointless tasks...
So, it's been a busy time. Also, despite the impression my previous post may have given, I'm not quite dead. At least, not yet.
#6: "Les Miserables Volume One", by Victor Hugo (a book from The List)
Sunday, March 13, 2011
An Apology and a Retraction
Lady Chocolat took offense at my previous post, which likened modern action films with ballet. She felt this did a disservice to ballet.
Which is a fair comment. Ballet doesn't have a character spouting inane dialogue.
(For the rest of it, though, I'm afraid the comparison is apt: both are heavily choreographed, both require extreme training for detailed physical performance, and ballet doesn't actually tend to have particularly coherent plots. I mean, just look at The Nutcracker: all those crazy squirrels running all over the place...)
Oh, I'm going to pay for that one...
Which is a fair comment. Ballet doesn't have a character spouting inane dialogue.
(For the rest of it, though, I'm afraid the comparison is apt: both are heavily choreographed, both require extreme training for detailed physical performance, and ballet doesn't actually tend to have particularly coherent plots. I mean, just look at The Nutcracker: all those crazy squirrels running all over the place...)
Oh, I'm going to pay for that one...
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Idiocy in Action Movies
Excuse me, but I need to rant for a bit.
I saw "The Transporter" in the cinema on a recommendation. And it all started rather well. We were introduced to Frank. He's a somewhat amoral mercenary driver. Oh, and he has a quirk: there are some rules that he won't ever break. Cute.
So, of course, on his next assignment, he breaks one of the rules, and looks inside "the package". And it's a cute girl. Okay, I think I see where we're going with this, but carry on...
Okay, he delivers the package. Oh, and there's the sudden but inevitable betrayal. Shocking! So, of course, he's going to go back and get the girl. But of course, because there are so many more of them, and he no longer has a car, he'll need to use a cunning plan to go get her...
Ah, no. He's just gone and kicked in the door.
And that was the point where the film lost any connection to reality. Simply put, beyond that point it didn't matter what they did, it just could not ever make sense.
This is akin to the "nuclear fridge" incident in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", John McClaine vs the Fighter in "Die Hard 4.0", or Pierce Brosnan's complete inability to sing. It doesn't matter what qualities the rest of the film has, it cannot get past that one thing.
Of course, the sequels to "The Transporter" and also the "Crank" films don't even pretend to make sense - they're stupid from the outset. People seem to view them as extreme action films, but they're really not. They're ballet, only with explosions and a CGI budget. I would say that they're a parody of action movies, but the people making them always seem to utterly humourless when talking about them. That, and they're not funny.
Frankly, I blame CGI for this. Prior to the advent of CGI special effects, stunts had to be done by real people. That scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where Indy goes under the truck? Some poor stuntman had to actually do that. The ridiculous, impossible bus jump in "Speed"? Yep, some stuntman did that. Oh, and the scene from earlier in that film where Keanu's character jumps from the fast-moving car to a fast-moving bus? Yeah, someone did that... and his name was Keanu. Woah, indeed.
(Oh, about "Raiders...". There's a scene where Indy hitches a ride on a German sub, back to their base. On seeing that, my mind had filled in a bit, assuming Indy made his way into the sub, and lay low. But no. According to George Lucas, and therefore canon, Indy rides the outside of the sub all the way. And just like that George utterly ruins one of the best films of all time.)
It all makes me mad. Give me solid characters, a plot that actually stands up to a little consideration, and then layer on the stunts, the explosions, and everything else.
Or maybe I'll just stop watching action movies.
(Incidentally, this all came about as a result of an an argument about stupidity in the 4e rules. Apparently, it's unreasonable to think that fantasy should be grounded in some sort of reality, if only as a launching pad for the fantasy. But the problem is, if your 1st level adventure is "Die Hard", that gives you plenty of scope for further, escalating adventures. If your 1st level adventure is "The Expendables", then what the hell does your 30th level adventure look like?)
#5: "Pathfinder: Sanctum of the Serpent God", by Neil Spicer
I saw "The Transporter" in the cinema on a recommendation. And it all started rather well. We were introduced to Frank. He's a somewhat amoral mercenary driver. Oh, and he has a quirk: there are some rules that he won't ever break. Cute.
So, of course, on his next assignment, he breaks one of the rules, and looks inside "the package". And it's a cute girl. Okay, I think I see where we're going with this, but carry on...
Okay, he delivers the package. Oh, and there's the sudden but inevitable betrayal. Shocking! So, of course, he's going to go back and get the girl. But of course, because there are so many more of them, and he no longer has a car, he'll need to use a cunning plan to go get her...
Ah, no. He's just gone and kicked in the door.
And that was the point where the film lost any connection to reality. Simply put, beyond that point it didn't matter what they did, it just could not ever make sense.
This is akin to the "nuclear fridge" incident in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", John McClaine vs the Fighter in "Die Hard 4.0", or Pierce Brosnan's complete inability to sing. It doesn't matter what qualities the rest of the film has, it cannot get past that one thing.
Of course, the sequels to "The Transporter" and also the "Crank" films don't even pretend to make sense - they're stupid from the outset. People seem to view them as extreme action films, but they're really not. They're ballet, only with explosions and a CGI budget. I would say that they're a parody of action movies, but the people making them always seem to utterly humourless when talking about them. That, and they're not funny.
Frankly, I blame CGI for this. Prior to the advent of CGI special effects, stunts had to be done by real people. That scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where Indy goes under the truck? Some poor stuntman had to actually do that. The ridiculous, impossible bus jump in "Speed"? Yep, some stuntman did that. Oh, and the scene from earlier in that film where Keanu's character jumps from the fast-moving car to a fast-moving bus? Yeah, someone did that... and his name was Keanu. Woah, indeed.
(Oh, about "Raiders...". There's a scene where Indy hitches a ride on a German sub, back to their base. On seeing that, my mind had filled in a bit, assuming Indy made his way into the sub, and lay low. But no. According to George Lucas, and therefore canon, Indy rides the outside of the sub all the way. And just like that George utterly ruins one of the best films of all time.)
It all makes me mad. Give me solid characters, a plot that actually stands up to a little consideration, and then layer on the stunts, the explosions, and everything else.
Or maybe I'll just stop watching action movies.
(Incidentally, this all came about as a result of an an argument about stupidity in the 4e rules. Apparently, it's unreasonable to think that fantasy should be grounded in some sort of reality, if only as a launching pad for the fantasy. But the problem is, if your 1st level adventure is "Die Hard", that gives you plenty of scope for further, escalating adventures. If your 1st level adventure is "The Expendables", then what the hell does your 30th level adventure look like?)
#5: "Pathfinder: Sanctum of the Serpent God", by Neil Spicer
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
No More Wheels for Sheila
The recent ruling by the EU that car insurers can no longer discriminate against men has had the very amusing effect of uniting both the left-wing and right-wing commentators in their condemnation of it. Those on the left hate it because for once this is a ruling that doesn't make women more equal. Those on the right hate it because this is yet another instance of that pesky EU getting involved in British business.
I do always love it when the two sides agree like this.
There is one argument against this ruling that has some weight, and it is this: young men do on average get involved in more accidents, and on average those accidents are more expensive. Therefore, since the insurance industry is entirely about managing risk, based on cold hard statistics, it makes sense that they apply those statistics.
I have big problems with this argument.
Firstly, it must be said that my insurance underwriter is not insuring men, they are insuring me. The driving habits of other men, no matter how outrageous, quite simply have no bearing on how I drive. And that's the thing about discrimination: although we always talk about discrimination against groups, discrimination is always felt by the individual.
(Statistically, women don't know the offside rule. Does that make it acceptable to assume any given woman doesn't know the rule, even if she happens to be an assistant referee? Similarly, if a young man grows up in a different country, absent the whole "boy racer" thing, is it still valid to charge them more based on that aspect of our culture? (Note: neither of these is a theoretical example.))
Secondly, we have always had a habit of ignoring statistics when they don't suit us. Tobacco is legal in this country, but cannabis is not. Indeed, the latter has just been re-reclassified as a class B drug, in defiance of the relevant statistics.
But leaving aside those quibbles, it remains the case that men on average do cause more accidents, and more expensive accidents. So, the underlying point remains, doesn't it?
Except... insurance premiums aren't based solely on the statistical model. Insurers are first and foremost businesses, and so a key factor in their equations is how much the customer will be willing to pay.
(As an experiment, when you get your renewal premium, phone up your provider and tell them Admiral have offered the same cover for £20 less. If your premium is based purely on the statistical model, their response has to be, "That's nice." I'm sure they won't mysteriously find that new and cheaper alternatives have just opened up.)
(Caveat: don't do this if your current insurer is Admiral!)
Then there are the usual marketing tools.
Consider introductory discounts. Your current insurer has at least 12 months of detailed data about your driving habits and claims history. Over time, they get a clear picture of exactly where in your category you sit. A new insurer does not have this data, so has to be more conservative - the risks are simply greater. Because of this, it should always be cheaper to continue with your current insurer. Somehow, though, it never is.
We also get the cross-promotions. Why is it cheaper to insure me as a driver if you're also insuring my home and contents? The one simply has no bearing on the other. It's not even as if they can claim reduced administraion costs - they're completely different departments!
And that's the crux of it: as soon as insurers stop using purely statistical means to arrive at quotes, the justification that discrimination is based on statistics loses its meaning. They charge what they charge because they can, because people expect it, and because they have no option but to pay.
If we're serious about equality, this was the correct ruling.
I do always love it when the two sides agree like this.
There is one argument against this ruling that has some weight, and it is this: young men do on average get involved in more accidents, and on average those accidents are more expensive. Therefore, since the insurance industry is entirely about managing risk, based on cold hard statistics, it makes sense that they apply those statistics.
I have big problems with this argument.
Firstly, it must be said that my insurance underwriter is not insuring men, they are insuring me. The driving habits of other men, no matter how outrageous, quite simply have no bearing on how I drive. And that's the thing about discrimination: although we always talk about discrimination against groups, discrimination is always felt by the individual.
(Statistically, women don't know the offside rule. Does that make it acceptable to assume any given woman doesn't know the rule, even if she happens to be an assistant referee? Similarly, if a young man grows up in a different country, absent the whole "boy racer" thing, is it still valid to charge them more based on that aspect of our culture? (Note: neither of these is a theoretical example.))
Secondly, we have always had a habit of ignoring statistics when they don't suit us. Tobacco is legal in this country, but cannabis is not. Indeed, the latter has just been re-reclassified as a class B drug, in defiance of the relevant statistics.
But leaving aside those quibbles, it remains the case that men on average do cause more accidents, and more expensive accidents. So, the underlying point remains, doesn't it?
Except... insurance premiums aren't based solely on the statistical model. Insurers are first and foremost businesses, and so a key factor in their equations is how much the customer will be willing to pay.
(As an experiment, when you get your renewal premium, phone up your provider and tell them Admiral have offered the same cover for £20 less. If your premium is based purely on the statistical model, their response has to be, "That's nice." I'm sure they won't mysteriously find that new and cheaper alternatives have just opened up.)
(Caveat: don't do this if your current insurer is Admiral!)
Then there are the usual marketing tools.
Consider introductory discounts. Your current insurer has at least 12 months of detailed data about your driving habits and claims history. Over time, they get a clear picture of exactly where in your category you sit. A new insurer does not have this data, so has to be more conservative - the risks are simply greater. Because of this, it should always be cheaper to continue with your current insurer. Somehow, though, it never is.
We also get the cross-promotions. Why is it cheaper to insure me as a driver if you're also insuring my home and contents? The one simply has no bearing on the other. It's not even as if they can claim reduced administraion costs - they're completely different departments!
And that's the crux of it: as soon as insurers stop using purely statistical means to arrive at quotes, the justification that discrimination is based on statistics loses its meaning. They charge what they charge because they can, because people expect it, and because they have no option but to pay.
If we're serious about equality, this was the correct ruling.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Not Hearing the People Sing...
It's funny to think that by this time last year, I had already read 16 books. This year, I have read four.
Still, that's not actually a problem. The reason for the relatively slow progress is that most of my reading so far this year has been in "Les Miserables", which has been extremely slow going. Last week, I finally finished up Part One (of five). I'm particularly enjoying the singing. Oh, and the bits that the editors decided not to translate from the French. (There was also a great pun that they did translate, but which was only funny in the French. Ho ho!)
The other reading I've been doing has all been game related. I've been slowly reading through the AD&D 1st Edition hardbacks (which have actually been fascinating - it seems I've been doing it wrong for years), and the most recent Pathfinder books.
The sort-of-but-not-quite goal for March is to finish the first volume of "Les Miserables", read through the "Dungeon Master's Guide", and read the latest Pathfinder, thus getting caught up on that front. Which will give me a grand total of seven books.
#3: "Pathfinder: Vaults of Madness", by Greg A. Vaughan
#4: "Pathfinder: The Thousand Fangs Below", by Graeme Davis
Still, that's not actually a problem. The reason for the relatively slow progress is that most of my reading so far this year has been in "Les Miserables", which has been extremely slow going. Last week, I finally finished up Part One (of five). I'm particularly enjoying the singing. Oh, and the bits that the editors decided not to translate from the French. (There was also a great pun that they did translate, but which was only funny in the French. Ho ho!)
The other reading I've been doing has all been game related. I've been slowly reading through the AD&D 1st Edition hardbacks (which have actually been fascinating - it seems I've been doing it wrong for years), and the most recent Pathfinder books.
The sort-of-but-not-quite goal for March is to finish the first volume of "Les Miserables", read through the "Dungeon Master's Guide", and read the latest Pathfinder, thus getting caught up on that front. Which will give me a grand total of seven books.
#3: "Pathfinder: Vaults of Madness", by Greg A. Vaughan
#4: "Pathfinder: The Thousand Fangs Below", by Graeme Davis
Monday, February 21, 2011
Guilty
For the first time, we've had to remove someone from our gaming group. Due to circumstances beyond the control of anyone in the group, one person just didn't fit (and, with the best will in the world, really couldn't). Unfortunately, the nature of what we do (and, particularly, where we meet) meant that there really wasn't a compromise solution available.
The worst part of all this was that I didn't have a particular problem with the person in question, but because I am the Organiser of the group (el queso grande), and indeed because I don't have a problem with this person, I felt it was my responsibility to be the one to break the news, and to be the bad guy in all of this.
Responsibility sucks.
Oh well, it can't be helped. It really had to be done. Still, if you'll excuse me, I have to go wash my mind out.
The worst part of all this was that I didn't have a particular problem with the person in question, but because I am the Organiser of the group (el queso grande), and indeed because I don't have a problem with this person, I felt it was my responsibility to be the one to break the news, and to be the bad guy in all of this.
Responsibility sucks.
Oh well, it can't be helped. It really had to be done. Still, if you'll excuse me, I have to go wash my mind out.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Drama!
At 2 pm this afternoon, Meetup.com made a massive change to the layout of their sites, and also to some of the ways in which those sites operate. Unfortunately, this took the Meetup that I run, and which was pretty much perfect for the purposes I wanted it for, and turned it into something completely useless.
(Two analogies as to the scale of the change immediately spring to mind: the change to the 'ribbon' interface with Microsoft Office 2007, and the change from D&D 3e to D&D 4e.)
I guess the change would be great for someone who actually liked it. If you don't, though...
Probably the most frustrating thing about this is that there is so much on the site that is customisable, sometimes to the point of being annoying, and yet when they do something like this, they don't offer a "Classic Mode" option.
Ah well. We have a couple of guys in the group who are very web-savvy. There had already been some talk about moving to a dedicated site, to avoid the fees that the site changes for use. I guess this just makes the decision that much easier. Still, it really put a damper on what had, until then, been quite a good day.
#2: "AD&D: Player's Handbook", by E. Gary Gygax
(Two analogies as to the scale of the change immediately spring to mind: the change to the 'ribbon' interface with Microsoft Office 2007, and the change from D&D 3e to D&D 4e.)
I guess the change would be great for someone who actually liked it. If you don't, though...
Probably the most frustrating thing about this is that there is so much on the site that is customisable, sometimes to the point of being annoying, and yet when they do something like this, they don't offer a "Classic Mode" option.
Ah well. We have a couple of guys in the group who are very web-savvy. There had already been some talk about moving to a dedicated site, to avoid the fees that the site changes for use. I guess this just makes the decision that much easier. Still, it really put a damper on what had, until then, been quite a good day.
#2: "AD&D: Player's Handbook", by E. Gary Gygax
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Bank Bonuses
Here we go again. Once again, the banks are about to pay out significant bonuses to their people, based on bad performance. Once again, the media are kicking up a storm. Once again, the politicians are talking tough... and once again they will fail to do anything about it.
Now, I should preface this by saying that I don't, as a matter of principle, have any great problems with companies paying bonuses. They help companies attract the top people, and they encourage success by allowing employees to share directly in the success of the company.
But that's the key point there: they allow employees to share in the success of the company. At the moment, the banks are not successful companies. They are not doing at all well, having required massive bail-outs, and still being excessively publicly-owned. So, there is a very strong case for not paying bonuses.
So, what should be done?
Well, firstly, it must be noted that many of these bonuses, and the terms under which they are paid, are specified in the contracts of the employees. In this case, the banks must pay them out, per the terms of the contracts. That is actually the right and good thing here - we can't have companies just ignoring their obligations to their employees, or else large companies will start screwing over their employees (even more?). (And any 'dodge' by the government to try to claw back this money, or levy an extraordinary tax on bonuses, or whatever, would be equally distasteful.)
However, where there is any discretionary element to the payment of bonuses, this must be blocked, at the very least until the bank in question turns a profit, if not until the bank is freed from public ownership. In fact, it should have been an absolute condition of the bailout that companies accept that "discretionary" bonuses not be paid. (And, also, that any bank that is judged "too big to fail" must likewise accept that it is "too big", and must therefore be split up, but that's another rant.)
Going forward, any new employee contracts really must be drafted with better control over bonuses, and crucially with a clause in place that can halt the payment of bonuses under sufficiently bad conditions. (Where "sufficiently bad" needs defined in the contract, of course, but needs to include "in the case of public bailout".)
And, finally, we should be looking at renegotiating the existing contracts as far as possible, to insert the clauses above into the contracts.
So, that's what the government (and banks) should be doing about this madness. As for the bankers... well, I feel that in most cases, they should be declining these excessive bonuses, until such time as the companies are back to where they should be. However, that really is a matter for the conscience of the individual.
(One last thought: when the banks do get back to profitability, and do manage to free themselves of public ownership, and especially if they do so in a manner that actually makes a profit for the public, those who have led them from the mess and back to where they should be absolutely do deserve bonuses for those actions. Once the job is done, and not before.)
Now, I should preface this by saying that I don't, as a matter of principle, have any great problems with companies paying bonuses. They help companies attract the top people, and they encourage success by allowing employees to share directly in the success of the company.
But that's the key point there: they allow employees to share in the success of the company. At the moment, the banks are not successful companies. They are not doing at all well, having required massive bail-outs, and still being excessively publicly-owned. So, there is a very strong case for not paying bonuses.
So, what should be done?
Well, firstly, it must be noted that many of these bonuses, and the terms under which they are paid, are specified in the contracts of the employees. In this case, the banks must pay them out, per the terms of the contracts. That is actually the right and good thing here - we can't have companies just ignoring their obligations to their employees, or else large companies will start screwing over their employees (even more?). (And any 'dodge' by the government to try to claw back this money, or levy an extraordinary tax on bonuses, or whatever, would be equally distasteful.)
However, where there is any discretionary element to the payment of bonuses, this must be blocked, at the very least until the bank in question turns a profit, if not until the bank is freed from public ownership. In fact, it should have been an absolute condition of the bailout that companies accept that "discretionary" bonuses not be paid. (And, also, that any bank that is judged "too big to fail" must likewise accept that it is "too big", and must therefore be split up, but that's another rant.)
Going forward, any new employee contracts really must be drafted with better control over bonuses, and crucially with a clause in place that can halt the payment of bonuses under sufficiently bad conditions. (Where "sufficiently bad" needs defined in the contract, of course, but needs to include "in the case of public bailout".)
And, finally, we should be looking at renegotiating the existing contracts as far as possible, to insert the clauses above into the contracts.
So, that's what the government (and banks) should be doing about this madness. As for the bankers... well, I feel that in most cases, they should be declining these excessive bonuses, until such time as the companies are back to where they should be. However, that really is a matter for the conscience of the individual.
(One last thought: when the banks do get back to profitability, and do manage to free themselves of public ownership, and especially if they do so in a manner that actually makes a profit for the public, those who have led them from the mess and back to where they should be absolutely do deserve bonuses for those actions. Once the job is done, and not before.)
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Damn it Ed...
So, VAT went up today, which was a bit of a pain. And so this morning we had the Labour leader being quoted as saying how unfair this was, and that this tax increase would inevitably hit the poorest worst, and...
Here's the thing: Britain's finances are a mess. We have a huge debt problem. Worse than that, we have a structural deficit in place (meaning we spent more than we make, which means things are only getting worse). The creditors are getting antsy. We must deal with this deficit urgently, and really should be dealing with the debt after that. Any government would have to take harsh action on this matter.
There are three ways to deal with the problems. The first is to cut public services to the bone. Stop spending money, and so reach a point where outgoings are less than income. The second is to raise taxes, and so reach a point where income is greater than outgoings. (Or, more realistically, do some of column A and some of column B. How much of each is an open question.)
The third option is to do nothing, take on lots more debt, and hope really hard that the eceonomy gets itself moving, and grows really fast, and so income grows to exceed outgoings. But that only works if the creditors will sign up for it... and at the present time, they won't.
(I suppose you could allow massive inflation, and so minimise the debt that way. Which would be a great idea, except that runaway inflation will make paupers of us all.)
So, it has to be cuts or taxes.
The Labour party have spent months griping about the cuts. They're monstrous, they tell us. They're completely unfair, and will inevitably hit to poorest hardest, they tell us.
And they're right. The cuts will hurt a lot of people, and they will hit the poorest hardest.
(I'm not going to address the question of 'fairness', since that depends very much on your point of view. One could construct a very strong argument that says that it's only 'fair' for the rich to pay less in taxes than the poor, since they also make less use of public services. As such, 'fairness' can be made to mean pretty much anything you want it to mean.)
The problem is, you can't have it both ways. If the cuts are monstrous, and unfair, and shouldn't happen, then you have to have tax rises. If tax rises are monstrous, and unfair, and shouldn't happen, then you have to have cuts. Pick one position, or the other, but you can't have both... or you have no credibility.
Anyway, back to the title.
Damn it, Ed, stop making me defend the Tories!
#1: "AD&D: Monster Manual", by Gary Gygax
Here's the thing: Britain's finances are a mess. We have a huge debt problem. Worse than that, we have a structural deficit in place (meaning we spent more than we make, which means things are only getting worse). The creditors are getting antsy. We must deal with this deficit urgently, and really should be dealing with the debt after that. Any government would have to take harsh action on this matter.
There are three ways to deal with the problems. The first is to cut public services to the bone. Stop spending money, and so reach a point where outgoings are less than income. The second is to raise taxes, and so reach a point where income is greater than outgoings. (Or, more realistically, do some of column A and some of column B. How much of each is an open question.)
The third option is to do nothing, take on lots more debt, and hope really hard that the eceonomy gets itself moving, and grows really fast, and so income grows to exceed outgoings. But that only works if the creditors will sign up for it... and at the present time, they won't.
(I suppose you could allow massive inflation, and so minimise the debt that way. Which would be a great idea, except that runaway inflation will make paupers of us all.)
So, it has to be cuts or taxes.
The Labour party have spent months griping about the cuts. They're monstrous, they tell us. They're completely unfair, and will inevitably hit to poorest hardest, they tell us.
And they're right. The cuts will hurt a lot of people, and they will hit the poorest hardest.
(I'm not going to address the question of 'fairness', since that depends very much on your point of view. One could construct a very strong argument that says that it's only 'fair' for the rich to pay less in taxes than the poor, since they also make less use of public services. As such, 'fairness' can be made to mean pretty much anything you want it to mean.)
The problem is, you can't have it both ways. If the cuts are monstrous, and unfair, and shouldn't happen, then you have to have tax rises. If tax rises are monstrous, and unfair, and shouldn't happen, then you have to have cuts. Pick one position, or the other, but you can't have both... or you have no credibility.
Anyway, back to the title.
Damn it, Ed, stop making me defend the Tories!
#1: "AD&D: Monster Manual", by Gary Gygax
Monday, January 03, 2011
Goals for 2011
Having given the matter some thought, I have decided to set a list of goals for the year. However, I'm only going to set a few, as I don't want a repeat of the "tyranny of goals" from 2009. So, here they are:
And that's the list. Notable in their absence are goals for reading and for learning. In both cases, I've decided to take a break from setting a specific goal, with a view to looking at other things. Also, where in 2009 I had the "tyranny of goals", in 2010 I had the "tyranny of books". I'm not having that again!
- Super Secret Goal #3. As with the previous two, I'm not going to say a single thing about this until such time as it is complete, at which point I'll note that it's complete but probably not reveal what it was. So there!
- Blog more. I was rather remiss on that front in 2010, which ended the year with a bunch of updates about books but very little else.
- I need to get back down to my "fighting weight" again. Back when I hit my target, I declared that I really didn't want to lose control and gain back lots of weight. Well, that didn't work so well. I'm not back where I started, but I need to reverse the trend before I get there.
- Depending on whether or not the band get promoted, I will have one of two goals with the band. If the band are not moved up, then I believe our goal should be nothing less than to win grade 4B. If we do get moved up, then the goal will be to win promotion again, to grade 3B.
- Get some resolution on the situation with the Saturday game. One of three things may happen here: we may elect to dissolve the group, we may commit to better attendance at weekly games, or we might agree to a less-frequent but more reliably schedule. But, one way or another, this needs sorted out, as it can't just go on as it has been.
- Write something. I haven't decided whether this will be fiction (in which case, I'll post it here), or a homebrew D&D variant (some more musings on this may follow). But, something...
- Relax more. I'm reliably informed that I'm too stressed out all the time.
And that's the list. Notable in their absence are goals for reading and for learning. In both cases, I've decided to take a break from setting a specific goal, with a view to looking at other things. Also, where in 2009 I had the "tyranny of goals", in 2010 I had the "tyranny of books". I'm not having that again!
Aiming for a Clean Slate
I return to work on Wednesday, which is surprisingly too soon.(Normally, I feel quite ready to get back as early as the 2nd, but not this year.) Before I go back, though, I would really like to get to a position where I'm starting from a 'clean slate' with no annoying tasks lurking in the background, with everything nice and organised, and generally looking good.
So, the remaining tasks:
And that's it. The rest of the appartment is clean (according to my schedule), all my clothes are washed, dried and ironed, the Christmas decoration is down, my credit card is paid off, I've thrown out all the food that is out-of-date, and I've even caught up on the various web-comics that I usually follow.
So, the remaining tasks:
- I have a bunch of Warhammer 40,000 Orks that need cleaned, assembled and undercoated. The undercoating will have to wait (as there's no dry space available for using spraypaints on), but the rest can be done.
- The kitchen is due for a clean, as of first thing tomorrow.
- I need to go to Tesco. I have a fridge bursting at the seams with alcohol, but not a single drop of milk in stock.
- The recycling bins need emptied.
- The movies that are still littering my Sky+ box need to be deleted. If I don't watch them tomorrow, then it's time to admit I'm just not going to watch them at all.
- I need to post a list of goals for the year. Speaking of which...
And that's it. The rest of the appartment is clean (according to my schedule), all my clothes are washed, dried and ironed, the Christmas decoration is down, my credit card is paid off, I've thrown out all the food that is out-of-date, and I've even caught up on the various web-comics that I usually follow.
Sunday, January 02, 2011
My Year in 2010
2010 was a great year, but oh so hard! In fact, I'm still recovering from the insanity of it all!
Anyway, with a view to getting a clean slate to start the new year with, here is my review of the year:
My Year in... Work
2010 was a vast improvement over 2009. Back at the start of 2009, I had predicted that we were in for eighteen months of hell, after which things should hopefully get better. In the event, this turned out to be overly pessimistic, but only slightly.
On a personal level, I can justifiably claim I did some of my best work in 2010. However, because this was mostly done with our backs to the wall, we never really gained the benefit of this work. In 2011, though, I'm hopeful we can get out from under the backlog, and start making real progress for ourselves.
There were also some distinct plusses for my in 2010, but I can't really talk about them here.
Probably the biggest downside of 2010 was the difficulty of getting away from work. It seemed that almost every holiday had to be cancelled, shortened, moved back, or adjusted due to the all-consuming needs of the office. That's a large part of why I'm so exhausted now.
In 2011, I basically want more of the same, with some adjustments to how we do things to try to make things easier. Oh, yes, and a holiday now and then would be nice!
My Year in... Gaming
2010 was a very mixed year for gaming.
The RPG Meetup continues to go well. We've gained both in numbers, and also in the formation of a keen "core group" that makes the scheduling much easier. We've lost a couple of people, due to moves, but have gained others in the interim. In 2011, it should just go on in the same manner.
The other group is basically dead. We managed a handful of sessions in 2010, but only one in the latter half of the year. My plan currently is to wrap up the current campaign with this group, and then go to a different type of game (basically, a series of one-off games), unless and until we can manage more regular meetings.
Finally, there was the "Christmas Game", a one-shot game that I ran last week. Sadly, it didn't go very well - the players were fine, the system was fine, but I just wasn't "in the zone". Shame, really.
In 2011, I expect to be starting a new campaign, "The Eberron Code" with the Meetup group. It promises to be interesting.
My Year in... Band
2010 was the most successful year that the band has had since I joined.
We actually had a bad start to the season and a bad end to the season. However, the middle section was immensely successful, and has set us up for what looks to be a great year in 2011. We came seventh in the "Champions of Champions" table for our grade last year, narrowly missing the cut to be moved up to grade 4A. However, we've since recruited some new people, so may be being promoted after all.
Meanwhile, we're looking at the possibility of setting up a "Development Band" to bring through our younger players, which will improve things immensely.
The band also ran trips to Italy and Spain last year. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend either, but both were enjoyed by those who did go, and contribute to our success.
Finally, the band qualified for the main competition at both the World Championships (coming seventh overall) and at Cowal, these being the only two contests with a qualification phase. So, success there.
The only area where the band fell down last year was in finance. We made a (small) loss last year, which is itself fine, but it leaves the band with no financial reserves. So, this year we absolutely must make a profit; a tall order on top of everything else.
The goal for this year is simple: more of the same.
My Year in... Love
Still awesome.
My Year in... Resolutions
I didn't set any goals last year, except for the books target, which I actually sailed through. That being the case, there's not really anything to say here.
For 2011, I need to set some goals.
My Year in... Travel
A trip to Ireland with the band, which proved very successful, plus holidays in Keswick with Lady Chocolat and to France with the family. All were excellent.
My Year in... Faith
Things have improved in the last year, although in a nebulous way that's hard to express or quantify. All is well, for now.
My Year in... Health
Unfortunately, my neck still gives me occasional pain. It's not as bad as it was, but it definitely seems to be aggravated by both stress and the cold. Somewhat unfortunate, given my life, really!
Other than that, things are pretty good. I need to go back on my diet, as the bulk of the weight lost in 2008/09 has been gradually regained.
Mi Año en Español
I took two Spanish courses in 2010, one in January and the second in October. The first was really good, but unfortunately by the time the second had come around I'd lost a bit too much. The second course was therefore much harder, and with everything else that was going on I really didn't have the time to dedicate to it.
I have decided not to continue with the Spanish at the present time. My conclusion is that my understanding of the language is quite broad, but has almost no depth at all. Simply studying yet more would therefore be building on a shaky foundation.
Instead, I am considering options for practicing the language in the real world. Whether this is a holiday in Spain (or other Spanish-speaking course), or an "immersion course" remains to be seen. For now, though, it's on the back-burner.
My Year in Painting
Some months back, I posted about miniature painting, how I had given it up but sometimes thought about coming back to it. Well, at the end of November I did exactly that. I have since bought some new paints, and have painted a small number of miniatures.
I'm now assembling an Ork warband for painting, and may well invest in a small number of other figures to paint. The truth is, I do find it very relaxing, and it was only the psycholoigical pressure of having too many unpainted figures that caused me to eventually quit. So, if I'm careful about managing it...
Well, we'll see.
My Year... Overall
2010 was a great year. 2011 is going to be an awesome year. I have every confidence.
Anyway, with a view to getting a clean slate to start the new year with, here is my review of the year:
My Year in... Work
2010 was a vast improvement over 2009. Back at the start of 2009, I had predicted that we were in for eighteen months of hell, after which things should hopefully get better. In the event, this turned out to be overly pessimistic, but only slightly.
On a personal level, I can justifiably claim I did some of my best work in 2010. However, because this was mostly done with our backs to the wall, we never really gained the benefit of this work. In 2011, though, I'm hopeful we can get out from under the backlog, and start making real progress for ourselves.
There were also some distinct plusses for my in 2010, but I can't really talk about them here.
Probably the biggest downside of 2010 was the difficulty of getting away from work. It seemed that almost every holiday had to be cancelled, shortened, moved back, or adjusted due to the all-consuming needs of the office. That's a large part of why I'm so exhausted now.
In 2011, I basically want more of the same, with some adjustments to how we do things to try to make things easier. Oh, yes, and a holiday now and then would be nice!
My Year in... Gaming
2010 was a very mixed year for gaming.
The RPG Meetup continues to go well. We've gained both in numbers, and also in the formation of a keen "core group" that makes the scheduling much easier. We've lost a couple of people, due to moves, but have gained others in the interim. In 2011, it should just go on in the same manner.
The other group is basically dead. We managed a handful of sessions in 2010, but only one in the latter half of the year. My plan currently is to wrap up the current campaign with this group, and then go to a different type of game (basically, a series of one-off games), unless and until we can manage more regular meetings.
Finally, there was the "Christmas Game", a one-shot game that I ran last week. Sadly, it didn't go very well - the players were fine, the system was fine, but I just wasn't "in the zone". Shame, really.
In 2011, I expect to be starting a new campaign, "The Eberron Code" with the Meetup group. It promises to be interesting.
My Year in... Band
2010 was the most successful year that the band has had since I joined.
We actually had a bad start to the season and a bad end to the season. However, the middle section was immensely successful, and has set us up for what looks to be a great year in 2011. We came seventh in the "Champions of Champions" table for our grade last year, narrowly missing the cut to be moved up to grade 4A. However, we've since recruited some new people, so may be being promoted after all.
Meanwhile, we're looking at the possibility of setting up a "Development Band" to bring through our younger players, which will improve things immensely.
The band also ran trips to Italy and Spain last year. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend either, but both were enjoyed by those who did go, and contribute to our success.
Finally, the band qualified for the main competition at both the World Championships (coming seventh overall) and at Cowal, these being the only two contests with a qualification phase. So, success there.
The only area where the band fell down last year was in finance. We made a (small) loss last year, which is itself fine, but it leaves the band with no financial reserves. So, this year we absolutely must make a profit; a tall order on top of everything else.
The goal for this year is simple: more of the same.
My Year in... Love
Still awesome.
My Year in... Resolutions
I didn't set any goals last year, except for the books target, which I actually sailed through. That being the case, there's not really anything to say here.
For 2011, I need to set some goals.
My Year in... Travel
A trip to Ireland with the band, which proved very successful, plus holidays in Keswick with Lady Chocolat and to France with the family. All were excellent.
My Year in... Faith
Things have improved in the last year, although in a nebulous way that's hard to express or quantify. All is well, for now.
My Year in... Health
Unfortunately, my neck still gives me occasional pain. It's not as bad as it was, but it definitely seems to be aggravated by both stress and the cold. Somewhat unfortunate, given my life, really!
Other than that, things are pretty good. I need to go back on my diet, as the bulk of the weight lost in 2008/09 has been gradually regained.
Mi Año en Español
I took two Spanish courses in 2010, one in January and the second in October. The first was really good, but unfortunately by the time the second had come around I'd lost a bit too much. The second course was therefore much harder, and with everything else that was going on I really didn't have the time to dedicate to it.
I have decided not to continue with the Spanish at the present time. My conclusion is that my understanding of the language is quite broad, but has almost no depth at all. Simply studying yet more would therefore be building on a shaky foundation.
Instead, I am considering options for practicing the language in the real world. Whether this is a holiday in Spain (or other Spanish-speaking course), or an "immersion course" remains to be seen. For now, though, it's on the back-burner.
My Year in Painting
Some months back, I posted about miniature painting, how I had given it up but sometimes thought about coming back to it. Well, at the end of November I did exactly that. I have since bought some new paints, and have painted a small number of miniatures.
I'm now assembling an Ork warband for painting, and may well invest in a small number of other figures to paint. The truth is, I do find it very relaxing, and it was only the psycholoigical pressure of having too many unpainted figures that caused me to eventually quit. So, if I'm careful about managing it...
Well, we'll see.
My Year... Overall
2010 was a great year. 2011 is going to be an awesome year. I have every confidence.
Books of the Year 2010
Before doing my retrospective of the year, I think I'll get the master list of books from last year sorted out. So, here they are:
The twenty books marked with asterisks are from The List. A full 50 of the books are RPG books, mostly from the Pathfinder, Eberron and Star Wars Saga Edition lines. A single book was work-related. Two books were re-reads: "The Colour of Magic" and the "Eberron Campaign Setting".
The most read single author was Raymond E. Feist, who I had fallen behind on. I have now caught up. Unfortunately, the books have shown a marked decrease in quality; I think I probably quit at exactly the right time!
The best book of the year by quite a distance was "To Kill a Mockingbird". The worst was "Angels & Demons", narrowly beating "The Da Vinci Code". Other very good books included "Catch-22", "Brave New World", "Oliver Twist" (despite a shocking lack of singing), both the Neil Gaiman anthologies, and "Children of Hurin".
Two books particularly surprised me: "Alice in Wonderland" wasn't as enjoyable as I had expected, but "Confessions of the Shopaholic" was much more enjoyable than expected. (Of course, it must be understood that the one was nowhere near being the worst book of the year, while the other was nowhere near the top!)
I'm not going to set a reading goal as such for the next year. There are a number of authors that I want to stay current on, a couple of series I want to get caught up on, and a couple of specific titles I want to read ("Les Miserables" and "War and Peace" being the big two). I also want to read through the thirteen "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" 1st edition hardbacks this year, and want to stay current on Pathfinder. Oh, and I also want to read a bunch more books from The List.
However, that's not a goal as such: if I don't read some or all of these, I'll not be too upset. I will continue listing the books that I have read at the base of my posts, but for information only.
- "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary", by Paizo Publishing
- "Pathfinder: What Lies in Dust", by Michael Kortes
- "Pathfinder: The Infernal Syndrome", by Clinton Boomer and James Jacobs
- "Star Wars: The Clone Wars Campaign Guide", by Rodney Thompson, Patrick Stutzman, and JD Wiker
- "USB Complete", by Jan Axelson
- "Nation", by Terry Pratchett
- "Star Wars: Scavenger's Guide to Droids", by Rodney Thompson, Sterling Hershey, Patrick Stutzman and Robert Wieland
- "Northern Lights", by Philip Pullman *
- "Pathfinder: Mother of Flies", by Greg A. Vaughan
- "Star Wars: Scum and Villainy", by Gary Astleford, Robert J. Schwalb, Owen K.C. Stephens, Rodney Thompson and JD Wiker
- "Children of Hurin", by JRR Tolkien
- "Fragile Things", by Neil Gaiman
- "Animal Farm", by George Orwell *
- "Star Wars: Galaxy of Intrigue", by Rodney Thompson, Gary Astleford and Eric Cagle
- "The Subtle Knife", by Philip Pullman *
- "Hot Pursuit", by Corey Reid
- "Shadows of the Last War", by Keith Baker
- "The Kite Runner", by Khaled Hosseini *
- "Eberron: Grasp of the Emerald Claw", by Bruce R. Cordell
- "Elric", by Michael Moorcock *
- "Pathfinder: The Twice-Damned Prince", by Brian Cortijo and James Jacobs
- "Eberron: Voyage of the Golden Dragon", by Nicolas Logue
- "Wolf of the Plains", by Conn Iggulden
- "Pathfinder: Classic Horrors Revisited", by James Jacobs, Rob McCreary and F. Wesley Schneider
- "Yes Man", by Danny Wallace
- "Pathfinder: Stolen Land", by Tim Hitchcock
- "Star Wars: Threats of the Galaxy", by Rodney Thompson and Robert J. Schwalb
- "Rebecca", by Daphne de Maurier *
- "Hunter: the Vigil", from White Wolf Publishing
- "Eberron Campaign Setting", by Keith Baker, Bill Slavicsek, and James Wyatt
- "Pathfinder: Rivers Run Red", by Rob McCreary
- "The Amber Spyglass", by Philip Pullman *
- "Eberron: Whispers of the Vampire's Blade", by David Noonan
- "Eberron: Eyes of the Lich Queen", by Stephen Schubert, Tim Hitchcock and Nicolas Logue
- "Krondor: Tear of the Gods", by Raymond E. Feist
- "Lords of the Bow", by Conn Iggulden
- "The Catcher in the Rye", by J.D. Salinger *
- "Star Wars: The Unknown Regions", by Gary Astleford, Owen K.C. Stephens and Rodney Thompson
- "Pathfinder: The Varnhold Vanishing", by Greg A. Vaughan
- "Life of Pi", by Yann Martell *
- "Bones of the Hills", by Conn Iggulden
- "And Another Thing...", by Eoin Colfer
- "Eberron: Sharn: City of Towers", by Keith Baker and James Wyatt
- "The Burning Land", by Bernard Cornwell
- "Races of Eberron", by Jesse Decker, Matthew Sernett, Gwendolyn F.M. Kestrel, and Keith Baker
- "Star Wars: The Force Unleashed Campaign Guide", by Sterling Hershey, Peter Schweighofer, Owen K.C. Stephens, and Rodney Thompson
- "Forest Mage", by Robin Hobb
- "Pathfinder: Blood for Blood", by Neil Spicer
- "Dragons of the Hourglass Mage", by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman
- "Sharpe's Waterloo", by Bernard Cornwell
- "To Kill a Mockingbird", by Harper Lee *
- "The Ghost King", by R. A. Salvatore
- "Star Wars: Rebellion Era Campaign Guide", by Rodney Thompson, Sterling Hershey, Owen K.C. Stephens and J.D. Wiker
- "Pathfinder: War of the River Kings", by Jason Nelson
- "Honoured Enemy", by Raymond E. Feist and William Forstchen
- "Star Wars: Legacy Era Campaign Guide", by Rodney Thompson, Sterling Hershey and Gary Astleford
- "Oliver Twist", by Charles Dickens *
- "Star Wars: Jedi Academy Training Manual", by Rodney Thompson, Eric Cagle, Patrick Stutzman and Robert Wieland
- "Unseen Academicals", by Terry Pratchett
- "Star Wars: Galaxy at War", by Rodney Thompson, Gary Astleford, Eric Cagle and Daniel Wallace
- "The White Rose", by Glen Cook
- "Tomb of Horrors", by Ari Marmell and Scott Fitzgerald Gray
- "Pathfinder: Sound of a Thousand Screams", by Richard Pett
- "Pathfinder: Souls for Smuggler's Shiv", by James Jacobs
- "Murder in LaMut", by Raymond E. Feist and Joel Rosenberg
- "Brave New World", by Aldous Huxley *
- "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", by C.S. Lewis *
- "Eberron: Five Nations", by Bill Slavicsek, David Noonan and Christopher Perkins
- "Confessions of a Shopaholic", by Sophie Kinsela *
- "Eberron: Explorer's Handbook", by David Noonan, Frank Brunner and Rich Burlew
- "Jimmy the Hand", by Raymond E. Feist and Steve Stirling
- "The Colour of Magic", by Terry Pratchett
- "Magic of Eberron", by Bruce R. Cordell, Stephen Schubert and Chris Thomasson
- "Player's Guide to Eberron", by James Wyatt, Keith Baker, Luke Johnson and STAN!
- "Talon of the Silver Hawk", by Raymond E. Feist
- "Eberron: Secrets of Xen'drik", by Keith Baker, Jason Bulmahn and Amber Scott
- "Faiths of Eberron", by Jennifer Clarke Wilkes, Ari Marmell and C.A. Suleiman
- "Birdsong", by Sebastian Faulks *
- "Pathfinder: Racing to Ruin", by Tim Hitchcock
- "Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition", from Pinnacle Entertainment Group
- "King of Foxes", by Raymond E. Feist
- "The Da Vinci Code", by Dan Brown *
- "Exile's Return", by Raymond E. Feist
- "The Handmaid's Tale", by Margaret Atwood *
- "Flight of the Nighthawks", by Raymond E. Feist
- "Angels and Demons", by Dan Brown *
- "Eberron: Dragonmarked", by Keith Baker, Michelle Lyons, and C.A. Suleiman
- "Pathfinder: City of Seven Spears", by James Jacobs, Kevin Kulp, and Rob McCreary
- "Into a Dark Realm", by Raymond E. Feist
- "Eberron: Secrets of Sarlona", by Keith Baker, Scott Fitzgerald Gray, Glenn McDonald, and Chris Sims
- "Smoke and Mirrors", by Neil Gaiman
- "Eberron: Forge of War", by James Wyatt, Wolfgang Baur and Ari Marmell
- "Catch-22", by Joseph Heller *
- "Dragons of Eberron", by Keith Baker, Scott Fitzgerald Gray, Nicolas Logue and Amber Scott
- "Wrath of a Mad God", by Raymond E. Feist
- "Rides a Dread Legion", by Raymond E. Feist
- "Eberron: City of Stormreach", by Keith Baker, Nicolas Logue, James "Grim" Desborough, and C.A. Suleiman
- "Pathfinder Companion: Adventurer's Armory", by Jonathan Keith, Jeff Quick, Christopher Self, J.D. Wiker and Keri Wiker
- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass", by Lewis Carroll *
- "Stonehenge", by Bernard Cornwell
The twenty books marked with asterisks are from The List. A full 50 of the books are RPG books, mostly from the Pathfinder, Eberron and Star Wars Saga Edition lines. A single book was work-related. Two books were re-reads: "The Colour of Magic" and the "Eberron Campaign Setting".
The most read single author was Raymond E. Feist, who I had fallen behind on. I have now caught up. Unfortunately, the books have shown a marked decrease in quality; I think I probably quit at exactly the right time!
The best book of the year by quite a distance was "To Kill a Mockingbird". The worst was "Angels & Demons", narrowly beating "The Da Vinci Code". Other very good books included "Catch-22", "Brave New World", "Oliver Twist" (despite a shocking lack of singing), both the Neil Gaiman anthologies, and "Children of Hurin".
Two books particularly surprised me: "Alice in Wonderland" wasn't as enjoyable as I had expected, but "Confessions of the Shopaholic" was much more enjoyable than expected. (Of course, it must be understood that the one was nowhere near being the worst book of the year, while the other was nowhere near the top!)
I'm not going to set a reading goal as such for the next year. There are a number of authors that I want to stay current on, a couple of series I want to get caught up on, and a couple of specific titles I want to read ("Les Miserables" and "War and Peace" being the big two). I also want to read through the thirteen "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" 1st edition hardbacks this year, and want to stay current on Pathfinder. Oh, and I also want to read a bunch more books from The List.
However, that's not a goal as such: if I don't read some or all of these, I'll not be too upset. I will continue listing the books that I have read at the base of my posts, but for information only.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Yes!
#100: "Stonehenge", by Bernard Cornwell
And with that, I'm swearing off doing anything so absurd ever again.
And with that, I'm swearing off doing anything so absurd ever again.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Ninety-nine
I feel I shall have to find a Flake now. Yum, yum.
#97: "Eberron: City of Stormreach", by Keith Baker, Nicolas Logue, James "Grim" Desborough, and C.A. Suleiman
#98: "Pathfinder Companion: Adventurer's Armory", by Jonathan Keith, Jeff Quick, Christopher Self, J.D. Wiker and Keri Wiker
#99: "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass", by Lewis Carroll (book twenty from The List)
Just one more to go...
#97: "Eberron: City of Stormreach", by Keith Baker, Nicolas Logue, James "Grim" Desborough, and C.A. Suleiman
#98: "Pathfinder Companion: Adventurer's Armory", by Jonathan Keith, Jeff Quick, Christopher Self, J.D. Wiker and Keri Wiker
#99: "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass", by Lewis Carroll (book twenty from The List)
Just one more to go...
Friday, December 24, 2010
Mamma Mia!
Some months back, I was forced to watch "Mamma Mia". The things we do for love...
Anyway, I didn't hate it. In fact, there was quite a lot to like about it. The music was of course what one would expect, and most of the cast were fine.
With one key exception. Simply put: Pierce Brosnan can't sing. At all.
Now, even this might be fine. Give him a small part, with just a handful of lines, and you're fine. But no. Instead, he's given the most significant of the three male roles, such that he has to carry several songs. And he just can't.
Basically, that one bad decision ruins the entire film.
(And it's not like you can really get away with bad music. In theory, some musicals could manage that, and be carried by the plot, the characters, or a general sense of well-being. But the entire selling point of "Mamma Mia" is the music. That has to be right, and it just isn't.)
So, I won't be watching "Mamma Mia" on DVD again. I might be persuaded to see it on the stage, if I really must, but not on DVD.
#94: "Dragons of Eberron", by Keith Baker, Scott Fitzgerald Gray, Nicolas Logue and Amber Scott
#95: "Wrath of a Mad God", by Raymond E. Feist
#96: "Rides a Dread Legion", by Raymond E. Feist
Anyway, I didn't hate it. In fact, there was quite a lot to like about it. The music was of course what one would expect, and most of the cast were fine.
With one key exception. Simply put: Pierce Brosnan can't sing. At all.
Now, even this might be fine. Give him a small part, with just a handful of lines, and you're fine. But no. Instead, he's given the most significant of the three male roles, such that he has to carry several songs. And he just can't.
Basically, that one bad decision ruins the entire film.
(And it's not like you can really get away with bad music. In theory, some musicals could manage that, and be carried by the plot, the characters, or a general sense of well-being. But the entire selling point of "Mamma Mia" is the music. That has to be right, and it just isn't.)
So, I won't be watching "Mamma Mia" on DVD again. I might be persuaded to see it on the stage, if I really must, but not on DVD.
#94: "Dragons of Eberron", by Keith Baker, Scott Fitzgerald Gray, Nicolas Logue and Amber Scott
#95: "Wrath of a Mad God", by Raymond E. Feist
#96: "Rides a Dread Legion", by Raymond E. Feist
Monday, December 13, 2010
Ooh, tense!
Yesterday morning I finished the very funny "Catch-22", taking my running total for the year to 93 books. This is a mighty total by any measure, but it does leave me some seven books short of the century, with a mere 19 days remaining this year. Worse, I now need to average more than two books a week to reach the goal.
(In fact, I need to average around 125 pages per day to complete the goal. But that's oversimplifying somewhat: not all pages are created equal.)
On the plus side, I now have only one more week of work this year, and there's only two more band practices before that takes a break also. So, I should be getting some additional time to read the remaining books.
So, it's all a bit tense. I'll update as I go...
#92: "Eberron: Forge of War", by James Wyatt, Wolfgang Baur and Ari Marmell
#93: "Catch-22", by Joseph Heller (book nineteen from The List)
(In fact, I need to average around 125 pages per day to complete the goal. But that's oversimplifying somewhat: not all pages are created equal.)
On the plus side, I now have only one more week of work this year, and there's only two more band practices before that takes a break also. So, I should be getting some additional time to read the remaining books.
So, it's all a bit tense. I'll update as I go...
#92: "Eberron: Forge of War", by James Wyatt, Wolfgang Baur and Ari Marmell
#93: "Catch-22", by Joseph Heller (book nineteen from The List)
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Snow Day 3?
Dammit, I really want to get to work! I'm going crazy here.
I'm going to try to get the car out again in half an hour or so, but if I can't then I guess I'm stuck here.
I'm going to try to get the car out again in half an hour or so, but if I can't then I guess I'm stuck here.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
The Michael Bay of the Writing World
I was asked to say something about why I didn't like "The Da Vinci Code". Given that I also didn't like "Angels & Demons", I think I'll cover that as well.
The thing is, it's not that these books are badly written. You can see the list of books I've read in the last two years, and there's no denying that there's a load of dross on there. And Dan Brown's works aren't significantly worse than some of the others.
Besides, I do think that the comparison is apt: as with a Michael Bay film, a Dan Brown novel doesn't need to be well-written, provided he keeps the pace up, and fills it with enough exciting events to distract you from the vapid nonsense involved. And so everything happens at a hundred miles an hour (even the endless chapters talking about art or science). There are people running here and there, revelations on every page, secrets and lies, things being hinted at and not revealed until later...
It's exciting.
The problem is, I do have a brain, and it doesn't just switch off. And in both "The Da Vinci Code" and "Angels & Demons", the idiocy reached a level that I couldn't just ignore.
As I've mentioned before, I don't like it when people in the church start talking about science. As a rule, they don't have the grounding to know what they're talking about, or if they do then they over-simplify things for their audience to a point where it stops being anything like real science.
I also don't like it when scientists start talking religion (e.g. Dawkins). Again, they too often don't really understand their topic, or perhaps deliberately get things wrong for effect (more on this later). Basically, if you're going to talk about both, you really need to understand a fair amount about both, and very few people do.
Dan Brown's works are filled with endless expositions on art, science, religion and history. But it's bad art, bad science, bad religion and bad history.
The scene that first brought this to the fore was in "Da Vinci...", where Langdon has gone to see his colleague Leigh Teabing to discuss the Holy Grail. Whereupon about three quarters of the plot of the book is laid out in a huge chunk of exposition. (Actually, about 100 pages of exposition - I'm amazed he got away with it.)
Anyway, we proceed to have these two supposed high-end academics laying out the secret history of Jesus' wife and children, the vilification of Mary Magdalene, her line marrying into the French royal line, and then becoming extinct, and the Holy Grail being a vagina, and...
And as we go, we repeatedly have these experts saying, "Of course, X and Y and Z..."
But the thing is, X is just wrong, Y is a lie, and Z is maybe true if you really stretch the known facts.
But because these are 'experts' (even if they're fictional characters, and even if at least one of them is an expert in an entirely fictional field), people who don't know better will simply believe them. After all, if an expert says it, it must be true, right? And he couldn't put it in his novel if it wasn't true, could he?
Or, better still, how about the scene in "Angels..." in which Langdon is told about an experiment that 'proves' Genesis could be possible. (Of course, that itself is a nonsense - if you assume an all-powerful creator God, then of course it is possible; if there is no such creator God then Genesis is irrelevant anyway.)
Anyway, to prove Genesis is possible, our scientist has created "something out of nothing". Fair enough.
So, he took a particle stream (um, isn't that 'matter'), and fired it along a particle accelerator at speed (um, isn't that 'energy'), and then fired another particle stream along the accelerator in the other direction (more 'matter' and 'energy'), and proceeded to collide them (more 'energy'). And the result was... matter was created.
Something out of nothing? Um, no. That would be "something out of something else". Which is well-understood scientific principle: E = mc^2, and all that. ("Angels & Demons" even gets the science wrong in the 'fact' section preceding the novel itself. At least "The Da Vinci Code" didn't manage to annoy me until the first word of the novel proper.)
Then there's the logic failure: a key part of the plot of "Da Vinci..." revolves aroung the search for the "sacred feminine", the female counterpart to God. Fair enough. It also posits that Jesus was just a man (albeit a prophet), who had children by Mary Magdalene. Also fair enough.
But then, when Langdon finds the bones of Mary Magdelene at the end of the book, he feels compelled to kneel and pray at the feet of the goddess.
Um, what?
Surely, if Jesus was just a man, then Mary was just a woman, and their children would be... well, children. And wondrous as all that is, where exactly is this supposed goddess?
Bit of a failure on the 'logic' front, there, I think.
And so it goes. On the surface, these books are a quick read, they're exciting, and they have a bit of 'smarts' to them. It's just that as soon as you scratch the surface that you find that, well, it's all surface.
At least "Revenge of the Fallen" only takes two and a half hours to get through.
The thing is, it's not that these books are badly written. You can see the list of books I've read in the last two years, and there's no denying that there's a load of dross on there. And Dan Brown's works aren't significantly worse than some of the others.
Besides, I do think that the comparison is apt: as with a Michael Bay film, a Dan Brown novel doesn't need to be well-written, provided he keeps the pace up, and fills it with enough exciting events to distract you from the vapid nonsense involved. And so everything happens at a hundred miles an hour (even the endless chapters talking about art or science). There are people running here and there, revelations on every page, secrets and lies, things being hinted at and not revealed until later...
It's exciting.
The problem is, I do have a brain, and it doesn't just switch off. And in both "The Da Vinci Code" and "Angels & Demons", the idiocy reached a level that I couldn't just ignore.
As I've mentioned before, I don't like it when people in the church start talking about science. As a rule, they don't have the grounding to know what they're talking about, or if they do then they over-simplify things for their audience to a point where it stops being anything like real science.
I also don't like it when scientists start talking religion (e.g. Dawkins). Again, they too often don't really understand their topic, or perhaps deliberately get things wrong for effect (more on this later). Basically, if you're going to talk about both, you really need to understand a fair amount about both, and very few people do.
Dan Brown's works are filled with endless expositions on art, science, religion and history. But it's bad art, bad science, bad religion and bad history.
The scene that first brought this to the fore was in "Da Vinci...", where Langdon has gone to see his colleague Leigh Teabing to discuss the Holy Grail. Whereupon about three quarters of the plot of the book is laid out in a huge chunk of exposition. (Actually, about 100 pages of exposition - I'm amazed he got away with it.)
Anyway, we proceed to have these two supposed high-end academics laying out the secret history of Jesus' wife and children, the vilification of Mary Magdalene, her line marrying into the French royal line, and then becoming extinct, and the Holy Grail being a vagina, and...
And as we go, we repeatedly have these experts saying, "Of course, X and Y and Z..."
But the thing is, X is just wrong, Y is a lie, and Z is maybe true if you really stretch the known facts.
But because these are 'experts' (even if they're fictional characters, and even if at least one of them is an expert in an entirely fictional field), people who don't know better will simply believe them. After all, if an expert says it, it must be true, right? And he couldn't put it in his novel if it wasn't true, could he?
Or, better still, how about the scene in "Angels..." in which Langdon is told about an experiment that 'proves' Genesis could be possible. (Of course, that itself is a nonsense - if you assume an all-powerful creator God, then of course it is possible; if there is no such creator God then Genesis is irrelevant anyway.)
Anyway, to prove Genesis is possible, our scientist has created "something out of nothing". Fair enough.
So, he took a particle stream (um, isn't that 'matter'), and fired it along a particle accelerator at speed (um, isn't that 'energy'), and then fired another particle stream along the accelerator in the other direction (more 'matter' and 'energy'), and proceeded to collide them (more 'energy'). And the result was... matter was created.
Something out of nothing? Um, no. That would be "something out of something else". Which is well-understood scientific principle: E = mc^2, and all that. ("Angels & Demons" even gets the science wrong in the 'fact' section preceding the novel itself. At least "The Da Vinci Code" didn't manage to annoy me until the first word of the novel proper.)
Then there's the logic failure: a key part of the plot of "Da Vinci..." revolves aroung the search for the "sacred feminine", the female counterpart to God. Fair enough. It also posits that Jesus was just a man (albeit a prophet), who had children by Mary Magdalene. Also fair enough.
But then, when Langdon finds the bones of Mary Magdelene at the end of the book, he feels compelled to kneel and pray at the feet of the goddess.
Um, what?
Surely, if Jesus was just a man, then Mary was just a woman, and their children would be... well, children. And wondrous as all that is, where exactly is this supposed goddess?
Bit of a failure on the 'logic' front, there, I think.
And so it goes. On the surface, these books are a quick read, they're exciting, and they have a bit of 'smarts' to them. It's just that as soon as you scratch the surface that you find that, well, it's all surface.
At least "Revenge of the Fallen" only takes two and a half hours to get through.
700th post
I just noticed that the previous post was #699. Which makes this the 700th post to this blog.
Of course, one number is basically the same as any other, so it's a largely meaningless milestone, but still...
Much-belated edit: Again, no it isn't - this is post 699!
Of course, one number is basically the same as any other, so it's a largely meaningless milestone, but still...
Much-belated edit: Again, no it isn't - this is post 699!
House Gets Nasty
I should warn you in advance - this post contains spoilers for the most recent episode of "House" (or, at least, the one most recently broadcast on Sky).
I watch "House" every week, but I'm not really a huge fan. As far as I can tell, it's largely a mystery show that the audience simply has no basis on which to participate - if the medicine is accurate (which I very much doubt), then you can only guess what's going on if you yourself are an expert in obscure medical conditions; if the medicine is not accurate, then nobody can take part. Of course, there's the 'fun' of watching House bully and insult his staff, and the interactions between the characters, and... you know, I just don't get it - those things really aren't as compelling as I'm told.
Still, it's entertaining enough, I guess.
However, like many other shows, "House" has a number of recurring themes - Foreman is arrogant about something until House slaps him down (although... isn't Foreman supposed to be the boss these days?), Chase has loads of women after him, Taob is cheating on his wife or she's cheating on him or not...
And this week, we had a recurrence of my least favourite, the one I call "poke the fundies" - a religious patient comes in, House proceeds to belittle and mock his faith, and forces him to reject some part of his beliefs, and then the disease is cured.
Now, here's the thing: I have absolutely no problem with challenges to my beliefs. My reasoning is that if my beliefs are sound, then they will survive whatever challenges are put to them; if they are not sound, then I'm better off without them.
But there's a big difference between 'challenge' and 'mockery'. If you simple ridicule and mock, there is no discourse there, and there's no meaningful response possible. Take something out of context, point and laugh hard enough, and you can make anything look ridiculous, whether it is or not.
This week, "House" crossed the line. Our patient is first shown at the start of the show being crucified. He starts vomiting blood, and you hear someone say, "Get him down from there."
It transpires that the character's daughter had cancer, and he made a deal with God - every year she lives, he will nail himself to a cross. (I'll not start on that particular bit of madness.)
They then short-circuit the usual diagnostic process, and quickly determine that there is one treatment, which of course involves the use of embrionic stem cells. So, naturally, the patient refuses - his beliefs don't allow him to use such a treatment, due to the connection with abortion.
So House tries to mock the patient into giving up his beliefs, then he tries to use his bully pulpit to get the patient to take the treatment anyway, and then finally he lies to the patient, telling him his daughter isn't cured, that God lied, and that therefore the character should take the treatment.
So he does.
Yay, House!
But here's my problem: there's nothing there. It's just assumed that House is right. There's no discussion whatsoever of the ethics of the treatment, which are very definitely not clear-cut*. There's absolutely no character growth. The patient doesn't decide whether his life is more important than his faith - he's lied to and tricked into making a choice he probably wouldn't otherwise have made. House learned nothing, the other characters learned nothing, and we learn nothing.
Except perhaps that this is a show I don't care to watch any more.
* Incidentally, I say that despite believing that we should proceed with the development of such treatments. But it's a very complex issue, and simply dismissing any concerns as being irrelevant is unacceptably dismissive, at least as far as I'm concerned.
I watch "House" every week, but I'm not really a huge fan. As far as I can tell, it's largely a mystery show that the audience simply has no basis on which to participate - if the medicine is accurate (which I very much doubt), then you can only guess what's going on if you yourself are an expert in obscure medical conditions; if the medicine is not accurate, then nobody can take part. Of course, there's the 'fun' of watching House bully and insult his staff, and the interactions between the characters, and... you know, I just don't get it - those things really aren't as compelling as I'm told.
Still, it's entertaining enough, I guess.
However, like many other shows, "House" has a number of recurring themes - Foreman is arrogant about something until House slaps him down (although... isn't Foreman supposed to be the boss these days?), Chase has loads of women after him, Taob is cheating on his wife or she's cheating on him or not...
And this week, we had a recurrence of my least favourite, the one I call "poke the fundies" - a religious patient comes in, House proceeds to belittle and mock his faith, and forces him to reject some part of his beliefs, and then the disease is cured.
Now, here's the thing: I have absolutely no problem with challenges to my beliefs. My reasoning is that if my beliefs are sound, then they will survive whatever challenges are put to them; if they are not sound, then I'm better off without them.
But there's a big difference between 'challenge' and 'mockery'. If you simple ridicule and mock, there is no discourse there, and there's no meaningful response possible. Take something out of context, point and laugh hard enough, and you can make anything look ridiculous, whether it is or not.
This week, "House" crossed the line. Our patient is first shown at the start of the show being crucified. He starts vomiting blood, and you hear someone say, "Get him down from there."
It transpires that the character's daughter had cancer, and he made a deal with God - every year she lives, he will nail himself to a cross. (I'll not start on that particular bit of madness.)
They then short-circuit the usual diagnostic process, and quickly determine that there is one treatment, which of course involves the use of embrionic stem cells. So, naturally, the patient refuses - his beliefs don't allow him to use such a treatment, due to the connection with abortion.
So House tries to mock the patient into giving up his beliefs, then he tries to use his bully pulpit to get the patient to take the treatment anyway, and then finally he lies to the patient, telling him his daughter isn't cured, that God lied, and that therefore the character should take the treatment.
So he does.
Yay, House!
But here's my problem: there's nothing there. It's just assumed that House is right. There's no discussion whatsoever of the ethics of the treatment, which are very definitely not clear-cut*. There's absolutely no character growth. The patient doesn't decide whether his life is more important than his faith - he's lied to and tricked into making a choice he probably wouldn't otherwise have made. House learned nothing, the other characters learned nothing, and we learn nothing.
Except perhaps that this is a show I don't care to watch any more.
* Incidentally, I say that despite believing that we should proceed with the development of such treatments. But it's a very complex issue, and simply dismissing any concerns as being irrelevant is unacceptably dismissive, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Snow Day 2
Yesterday was an awesome day. After my initial guilt at not getting to work, I spent the day painting, reading, cleaning, and generally getting caught up on things. I also took a wander up to the doctor's to put in a repeat prescription (nothing serious - mostly just stocking up just in case). En route, I helped a couple of people get their cars out.
All in all, I was really happy with my day, went to bed nice and early, ready to get back to work today.
Six inches of snow fell overnight, and I had exactly two chances of getting my car out: fat chance and nae chance. It's especially annoying, since the next street over was cleared for the buses, and my car is about fifteen feet from it, but is completely stuck.
And lots more snow is falling. I don't know when I'll be able to get back, and until then the work just keeps piling up.
Today is not going to be such a good day, I fear.
#91: "Smoke and Mirrors", by Neil Gaiman
All in all, I was really happy with my day, went to bed nice and early, ready to get back to work today.
Six inches of snow fell overnight, and I had exactly two chances of getting my car out: fat chance and nae chance. It's especially annoying, since the next street over was cleared for the buses, and my car is about fifteen feet from it, but is completely stuck.
And lots more snow is falling. I don't know when I'll be able to get back, and until then the work just keeps piling up.
Today is not going to be such a good day, I fear.
#91: "Smoke and Mirrors", by Neil Gaiman
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Snow Day!
The view outside my window right now is absolutely amazing. Falkirk is a veritable winter wonderland.
On the other hand, I missed half a day of work yesterday, didn't make it in at all today, and am looking doubtful for tomorrow. Far from the overtime I had expected to clock up, it looks like this week I'm barely going to do half my normal hours. Fortunately, the company are reasonable about such things - they understand that if I could be there, I would. Unfortunately, the work doesn't get itself done, but rather just stacks up waiting for when I get back.
#87: "Eberron: Dragonmarked", by Keith Baker, Michelle Lyons, and C.A. Suleiman
#88: "Pathfinder: City of Seven Spears", by James Jacobs, Kevin Kulp, and Rob McCreary
#89: "Into a Dark Realm", by Raymond E. Feist
#90: "Eberron: Secrets of Sarlona", by Keith Baker, Scott Fitzgerald Gray, Glenn McDonald, and Chris Sims
On the other hand, I missed half a day of work yesterday, didn't make it in at all today, and am looking doubtful for tomorrow. Far from the overtime I had expected to clock up, it looks like this week I'm barely going to do half my normal hours. Fortunately, the company are reasonable about such things - they understand that if I could be there, I would. Unfortunately, the work doesn't get itself done, but rather just stacks up waiting for when I get back.
#87: "Eberron: Dragonmarked", by Keith Baker, Michelle Lyons, and C.A. Suleiman
#88: "Pathfinder: City of Seven Spears", by James Jacobs, Kevin Kulp, and Rob McCreary
#89: "Into a Dark Realm", by Raymond E. Feist
#90: "Eberron: Secrets of Sarlona", by Keith Baker, Scott Fitzgerald Gray, Glenn McDonald, and Chris Sims
Friday, November 19, 2010
We Have a New Winner!
#84: "The Handmaid's Tale", by Margaret Atwood. (Book seventeen from The List. Very good book, and really quite disturbing.)
#85: "Flight of the Nighthawks", by Raymond E. Feist
#86: "Angels and Demons", by Dan Brown (Book eighteen from The List, and the new worst book of the year so far. On the plus side, since he wrote this one before "The Da Vinci Code", he's actually getting better.)
#85: "Flight of the Nighthawks", by Raymond E. Feist
#86: "Angels and Demons", by Dan Brown (Book eighteen from The List, and the new worst book of the year so far. On the plus side, since he wrote this one before "The Da Vinci Code", he's actually getting better.)
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Lack of Updates
I really need to blog more. The monthly updates to the list of books are getting ridiculous, not least since it gets increasingly difficult to remember the order in which the books should be listed.
However, the problem is one of time. Because I'm attempting to get to 100 books, almost all my time is taken up with other things, which doesn't leave me time for blogging.
Of course, I've resolved to blog more several times this year already!
However, the problem is one of time. Because I'm attempting to get to 100 books, almost all my time is taken up with other things, which doesn't leave me time for blogging.
Of course, I've resolved to blog more several times this year already!
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Argh! Hurty Brain!
I'm now halfway through my third Spanish course. It's really hard going - the level is just much higher, I've managed to forget a depressing amount, and there seem to be some gaps in what we should have covered last time.
And now, while listening to the accompanying podcast for last week, I find myself distinctly remembering a segment of the podcast. Only I'm absolutely certain I haven't already listened to it. Which leads me to doubt myself - did I forget that I listened to it, or am I imagining that I've heard this before?
Good thing I'm mad already, or else this could really break my head!
(I think this is going to be my last Spanish course. Truth be told, I'm not enjoying this one as much as the previous two, and I have less time now to dedicate to it than I did then, so I'm getting less from it. Also, I really need to spend some time speaking the language in a real-world scenario to fix it in my mind, and I'm not going to get that in a classroom environment.)
#77: "Faiths of Eberron", by Jennifer Clarke Wilkes, Ari Marmell and C.A. Suleiman
#78: "Birdsong", by Sebastian Faulks (book fifteen from The List)
#79: "Pathfinder: Racing to Ruin", by Tim Hitchcock
#80: "Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition", from Pinnacle Entertainment Group
#81: "King of Foxes", by Raymond E. Feist
#82: "The Da Vinci Code", by Dan Brown (book sixteen from The List, and also the worst book of the year so far. Oh, the posts I could write about its awfulness!)
#83: "Exile's Return", by Raymond E. Feist
And now, while listening to the accompanying podcast for last week, I find myself distinctly remembering a segment of the podcast. Only I'm absolutely certain I haven't already listened to it. Which leads me to doubt myself - did I forget that I listened to it, or am I imagining that I've heard this before?
Good thing I'm mad already, or else this could really break my head!
(I think this is going to be my last Spanish course. Truth be told, I'm not enjoying this one as much as the previous two, and I have less time now to dedicate to it than I did then, so I'm getting less from it. Also, I really need to spend some time speaking the language in a real-world scenario to fix it in my mind, and I'm not going to get that in a classroom environment.)
#77: "Faiths of Eberron", by Jennifer Clarke Wilkes, Ari Marmell and C.A. Suleiman
#78: "Birdsong", by Sebastian Faulks (book fifteen from The List)
#79: "Pathfinder: Racing to Ruin", by Tim Hitchcock
#80: "Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition", from Pinnacle Entertainment Group
#81: "King of Foxes", by Raymond E. Feist
#82: "The Da Vinci Code", by Dan Brown (book sixteen from The List, and also the worst book of the year so far. Oh, the posts I could write about its awfulness!)
#83: "Exile's Return", by Raymond E. Feist
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Calling It
A couple of months back, after the Liechtenstein match, I had intended to post an update here stating that I now felt there was no chance of Scotland qualifying for the Euros in 2012. After a poor 0-0 draw against Lithuania (a match we needed to win), and then an extremely narrow victory (in the 97th minute!) against Liechtenstein, it really seemed there was no chance.
Still, a win was a win, it was pointed out to me. So, perhaps a little hope could be maintained? And then, all week the radio pundits had been saying that the Czech Republic weren't the force they had been, so maybe...?
Then came the news that our manager had decided to drop our in-form striker and instead go with a relative unknown, in an ultra-defensive 4-2-2-2 formation.
"What is he thinking?" I immediately asked. And then, "well, he's the manager. He must know what he's doing."
Yeah, I was right the first time. One heroic 1-0 defeat later, and we now get the excitement of facing Spain next.
So, yeah, I'm returning to my original prediction: Scotland won't qualify for the Euros in 2012. In fact, we won't qualify for the next World Cup, or the Euros in 2016 either.
So, the question is this: where do we go from here. Unfortunately, the answer is 'nowhere'.
See, it's not the players. This is the best squad of players we've had in more than a decade, and the best squad we're likely to have for more than a decade. As far as the manager is concerned, well, on paper, the four best candidates for the job are Walter Smith, Alex McLeish, George Burley and Craig Levein. Unless we can somehow persuade Sir Alex Ferguson or Martin O'Neill to take the job, we're not going to get anyone better.
So, if we can't improve the players, and we can't improve the manager, what can we do?
My radical solution is this: We should start lobbying for the dissolution of the Scottish national side and the Scottish Leagues, and press for an amalgamation with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Let's have a Team GB, and go from there. It's pretty much the only way we're going to see the finals of any major tournament any time soon.
(Of course, this week one of the English news outlets decided to poison that idea for me, by assembling 'their' Team GB. Naturally, they insisted on starting with the English team, and smugly asking "well, who can then break in from the other nations?" They also proved sublimely blinkered - as we all know, England have massive weaknesses in goal. The one area where Scotland is very gifted is in goalkeepers, where we have at least two world-class keepers. So, of their four choices for keeper, how many were English? Three. And where did the Scottish pick come in their order of preference? Fourth.)
(Still, despite that sort of idiocy, I think it's a good idea, for us at least, and I think it's probably time. Otherwise, we're not going anywhere.)
#76: "Eberron: Secrets of Xen'drik", by Keith Baker, Jason Bulmahn and Amber Scott
Still, a win was a win, it was pointed out to me. So, perhaps a little hope could be maintained? And then, all week the radio pundits had been saying that the Czech Republic weren't the force they had been, so maybe...?
Then came the news that our manager had decided to drop our in-form striker and instead go with a relative unknown, in an ultra-defensive 4-2-2-2 formation.
"What is he thinking?" I immediately asked. And then, "well, he's the manager. He must know what he's doing."
Yeah, I was right the first time. One heroic 1-0 defeat later, and we now get the excitement of facing Spain next.
So, yeah, I'm returning to my original prediction: Scotland won't qualify for the Euros in 2012. In fact, we won't qualify for the next World Cup, or the Euros in 2016 either.
So, the question is this: where do we go from here. Unfortunately, the answer is 'nowhere'.
See, it's not the players. This is the best squad of players we've had in more than a decade, and the best squad we're likely to have for more than a decade. As far as the manager is concerned, well, on paper, the four best candidates for the job are Walter Smith, Alex McLeish, George Burley and Craig Levein. Unless we can somehow persuade Sir Alex Ferguson or Martin O'Neill to take the job, we're not going to get anyone better.
So, if we can't improve the players, and we can't improve the manager, what can we do?
My radical solution is this: We should start lobbying for the dissolution of the Scottish national side and the Scottish Leagues, and press for an amalgamation with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Let's have a Team GB, and go from there. It's pretty much the only way we're going to see the finals of any major tournament any time soon.
(Of course, this week one of the English news outlets decided to poison that idea for me, by assembling 'their' Team GB. Naturally, they insisted on starting with the English team, and smugly asking "well, who can then break in from the other nations?" They also proved sublimely blinkered - as we all know, England have massive weaknesses in goal. The one area where Scotland is very gifted is in goalkeepers, where we have at least two world-class keepers. So, of their four choices for keeper, how many were English? Three. And where did the Scottish pick come in their order of preference? Fourth.)
(Still, despite that sort of idiocy, I think it's a good idea, for us at least, and I think it's probably time. Otherwise, we're not going anywhere.)
#76: "Eberron: Secrets of Xen'drik", by Keith Baker, Jason Bulmahn and Amber Scott
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Just catching up on the books...
I finished book 75 on the 30th of September, just before midnight.
This means that in the first quarter of the year I managed to get through 25 books, in the second I read 19, and in the third I read 31. The race is now on to read through 25 by the end of the year, and thus reach the threshold of 100.
Frankly, it's doubtful. What is certain, however, is that I am never doing this again.
#66: "Brave New World", by Aldous Huxley (book twelve from The List)
#67: "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", by C.S. Lewis (book thirteen from The List)
#68: "Eberron: Five Nations", by Bill Slavicsek, David Noonan and Christopher Perkins
#69: "Confessions of a Shopaholic", by Sophie Kinsela (book fourteen from The List)
#70: "Eberron: Explorer's Handbook", by David Noonan, Frank Brunner and Rich Burlew
#71: "Jimmy the Hand", by Raymond E. Feist and Steve Stirling
#72: "The Colour of Magic", by Terry Pratchett
#73: "Magic of Eberron", by Bruce R. Cordell, Stephen Schubert and Chris Thomasson
#74: "Player's Guide to Eberron", by James Wyatt, Keith Baker, Luke Johnson and STAN!
#75: "Talon of the Silver Hawk", by Raymond E. Feist
This means that in the first quarter of the year I managed to get through 25 books, in the second I read 19, and in the third I read 31. The race is now on to read through 25 by the end of the year, and thus reach the threshold of 100.
Frankly, it's doubtful. What is certain, however, is that I am never doing this again.
#66: "Brave New World", by Aldous Huxley (book twelve from The List)
#67: "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", by C.S. Lewis (book thirteen from The List)
#68: "Eberron: Five Nations", by Bill Slavicsek, David Noonan and Christopher Perkins
#69: "Confessions of a Shopaholic", by Sophie Kinsela (book fourteen from The List)
#70: "Eberron: Explorer's Handbook", by David Noonan, Frank Brunner and Rich Burlew
#71: "Jimmy the Hand", by Raymond E. Feist and Steve Stirling
#72: "The Colour of Magic", by Terry Pratchett
#73: "Magic of Eberron", by Bruce R. Cordell, Stephen Schubert and Chris Thomasson
#74: "Player's Guide to Eberron", by James Wyatt, Keith Baker, Luke Johnson and STAN!
#75: "Talon of the Silver Hawk", by Raymond E. Feist
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Cowal Highland Gathering
(I have deliberately skipped my account of the World Pipe Band Championships, so I can finish my recounting of the band's season on an appropriately high note.)
I hate Cowal.
I've been five times now, and never once had a good time. The day is far too long (left home at 6, got back at 11), it's invariably cold, windy and rainy, and there's almost nothing to do. But it's the pinnacle of the piping season, so of course, we have to go. Plus, there was a real sense we might actually win, and that would make it all worthwhile - wouldn't it?
And besides, as an added bonus, the Chieftain this year was Sylvester McCoy, the Seventh Doctor. That's got to be good value, no?
So, we went. The journey there was long and annoying, but not too terrible I suppose. The major amusement was when the guy at the dock wouldn't let our bus on the ferry because it didn't have enough clearance... only to discover that the bus was sitting in a hollow, so his measurement was wrong.
Just as we left the bus to go tune up, the rain started. Fortunately, it stopped a bit before we had to play, but it was still pretty miserable. And, as we marched over to the arena, my drones chose that particular point to decide to act up (having been fine to that point). That left me terrified that they'd be a problem on the field.
But they weren't. Fortunately, everything went okay, and we made it through qualification. But only just - this was not the polished performance of earlier in the season.
Anyway, it was 10:30 (ish), we have qualified, and we weren't playing again until 5.
Cue much tedious waiting.
Later, we gathered for the final. At this point, it was hot and sunny, such that when we left the bus, I actually debated whether I should bother taking my cape. I chose to do so.
This proved a good decision soon thereafter, as it started bucketing it down while we waited to go on. But the rain went off, we tuned up, and everything seemed fine.
But it wasn't fine. Once again, when marching to the arena, my drones decided to act up, having seemed fine right up until that point. Only this time, there was no escape on the park. Try as I might, I could not get them to sound correctly.
So much for that.
When we came off, it started raining again. Of course, we'd had to remove our capes to compete, and the person who was carrying them wasn't immediately available, and so we got soaked. (Couldn't even hide under an umbrella - it was that swirly rain that comes from all directions.)
One saving grace of the final being so late was that the march-past came immediately thereafter. So, on we went (now wearing capes), and shivered on the field.
Now, at all these events, the bands play the salute to the chieftain, which is usually "Highland Laddie". However, at Cowal, it's always "Glendaruel Highlanders" (I don't know why). Sadly, the guy who was ordering this mumbled at the key point, and then the drum major was calling the bands to order. The result was a predictable, and sad, shambles. Awful, awful.
(It wasn't even just that half the massed bands were playing one tune and half another; there were also at least three different speeds being played.)
And next would come the inspiring words of the chieftain. At least that should be entertaining - for the first time ever, there was a chieftain who I actually would like to hear from. Well, it wasn't a long speech. Indeed, it can't even be accurately described as "a few words". The chieftain said... nothing.
In the end, the band came tenth. We were seventh and tenth for piping, seventh for drumming and eighth for the ensemble. A poor result all around.
The weather being awful, we then retreated to the bus to head home, where we faced the same complaints as last year for not doing the parade (probably should have made the effort, although I don't think I could have faced it yesterday). Still, nothing close to the same fallout as last year, so that was am improvement at least.
And then home, and to bed. Thank goodness.
Before the day, I had been joking about the possibility of a Dalek invasion. It is a sad indictment of the day that that might actually have improved it.
#62: "Tomb of Horrors", by Ari Marmell and Scott Fitzgerald Gray
#63: "Pathfinder: Sound of a Thousand Screams", by Richard Pett
#64: "Souls for Smuggler's Shiv", by James Jacobs
#65: "Murder in LaMut", by Raymond E. Feist and Joel Rosenberg
I hate Cowal.
I've been five times now, and never once had a good time. The day is far too long (left home at 6, got back at 11), it's invariably cold, windy and rainy, and there's almost nothing to do. But it's the pinnacle of the piping season, so of course, we have to go. Plus, there was a real sense we might actually win, and that would make it all worthwhile - wouldn't it?
And besides, as an added bonus, the Chieftain this year was Sylvester McCoy, the Seventh Doctor. That's got to be good value, no?
So, we went. The journey there was long and annoying, but not too terrible I suppose. The major amusement was when the guy at the dock wouldn't let our bus on the ferry because it didn't have enough clearance... only to discover that the bus was sitting in a hollow, so his measurement was wrong.
Just as we left the bus to go tune up, the rain started. Fortunately, it stopped a bit before we had to play, but it was still pretty miserable. And, as we marched over to the arena, my drones chose that particular point to decide to act up (having been fine to that point). That left me terrified that they'd be a problem on the field.
But they weren't. Fortunately, everything went okay, and we made it through qualification. But only just - this was not the polished performance of earlier in the season.
Anyway, it was 10:30 (ish), we have qualified, and we weren't playing again until 5.
Cue much tedious waiting.
Later, we gathered for the final. At this point, it was hot and sunny, such that when we left the bus, I actually debated whether I should bother taking my cape. I chose to do so.
This proved a good decision soon thereafter, as it started bucketing it down while we waited to go on. But the rain went off, we tuned up, and everything seemed fine.
But it wasn't fine. Once again, when marching to the arena, my drones decided to act up, having seemed fine right up until that point. Only this time, there was no escape on the park. Try as I might, I could not get them to sound correctly.
So much for that.
When we came off, it started raining again. Of course, we'd had to remove our capes to compete, and the person who was carrying them wasn't immediately available, and so we got soaked. (Couldn't even hide under an umbrella - it was that swirly rain that comes from all directions.)
One saving grace of the final being so late was that the march-past came immediately thereafter. So, on we went (now wearing capes), and shivered on the field.
Now, at all these events, the bands play the salute to the chieftain, which is usually "Highland Laddie". However, at Cowal, it's always "Glendaruel Highlanders" (I don't know why). Sadly, the guy who was ordering this mumbled at the key point, and then the drum major was calling the bands to order. The result was a predictable, and sad, shambles. Awful, awful.
(It wasn't even just that half the massed bands were playing one tune and half another; there were also at least three different speeds being played.)
And next would come the inspiring words of the chieftain. At least that should be entertaining - for the first time ever, there was a chieftain who I actually would like to hear from. Well, it wasn't a long speech. Indeed, it can't even be accurately described as "a few words". The chieftain said... nothing.
In the end, the band came tenth. We were seventh and tenth for piping, seventh for drumming and eighth for the ensemble. A poor result all around.
The weather being awful, we then retreated to the bus to head home, where we faced the same complaints as last year for not doing the parade (probably should have made the effort, although I don't think I could have faced it yesterday). Still, nothing close to the same fallout as last year, so that was am improvement at least.
And then home, and to bed. Thank goodness.
Before the day, I had been joking about the possibility of a Dalek invasion. It is a sad indictment of the day that that might actually have improved it.
#62: "Tomb of Horrors", by Ari Marmell and Scott Fitzgerald Gray
#63: "Pathfinder: Sound of a Thousand Screams", by Richard Pett
#64: "Souls for Smuggler's Shiv", by James Jacobs
#65: "Murder in LaMut", by Raymond E. Feist and Joel Rosenberg
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Bridge of Allan Highland Games
Another glorious day for a competition, and with this one being on a Sunday, Lady Chocolat was able to join our venture.
It was a good day. Due to the reduced number of bands present, some of the competitions were amalgamated, and due to the nature of the Championship rules, the Grade 4B competition was mixed with the Novice grade. (It's also worth noting that, this being the weekend before the World Championships, there was an unusual number of very good bands present, many over from the USA and Canada for the month.)
We came third. Perhaps also relevant, the two bands that were first and second were from the Novice grade, making us the best Grade 4B band present.
And so our tally for the year reached seven prizes, including three at Championship events.
#57: "Oliver Twist", by Charles Dickens (book eleven from The List)
#58: "Star Wars: Jedi Academy Training Manual", by Rodney Thompson, Eric Cagle, Patrick Stutzman and Robert Wieland
#59: "Unseen Academicals", by Terry Pratchett
#60: "Star Wars: Galaxy at War", by Rodney Thompson, Gary Astleford, Eric Cagle and Daniel Wallace (And so, my reading goal is complete!)
#61: "The White Rose", by Glen Cook (from the "Chronicles of the Black Company" anthology - I had already read the first two books of the trilogy)
It was a good day. Due to the reduced number of bands present, some of the competitions were amalgamated, and due to the nature of the Championship rules, the Grade 4B competition was mixed with the Novice grade. (It's also worth noting that, this being the weekend before the World Championships, there was an unusual number of very good bands present, many over from the USA and Canada for the month.)
We came third. Perhaps also relevant, the two bands that were first and second were from the Novice grade, making us the best Grade 4B band present.
And so our tally for the year reached seven prizes, including three at Championship events.
#57: "Oliver Twist", by Charles Dickens (book eleven from The List)
#58: "Star Wars: Jedi Academy Training Manual", by Rodney Thompson, Eric Cagle, Patrick Stutzman and Robert Wieland
#59: "Unseen Academicals", by Terry Pratchett
#60: "Star Wars: Galaxy at War", by Rodney Thompson, Gary Astleford, Eric Cagle and Daniel Wallace (And so, my reading goal is complete!)
#61: "The White Rose", by Glen Cook (from the "Chronicles of the Black Company" anthology - I had already read the first two books of the trilogy)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)