When the money’s on the line, golf becomes like poker; you can play to win or you can play to not lose. Or, if you don’t have any real idea what the difference is, you can do what most golfers and poker players do: play to lose. The don’t know that’s what they’re doing, but the loss is just as inevitable as if they had drawn four cards to a deuce kicker or used a putter off the tee.
from Fast Greens by Turk Pipkin (love that name!)
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Oh, Those Terrible Bloggers!
Via Clive Davis, we get this example of how the legacy media looks at bloggers:
Mr Sifry reckons that about 75,000 new blogs are created every day, ie about one new blog a second. And just to address the gibe that blogs are like Christmas toys - to be played with once and then discarded - he estimates that 13.7 million blogs are still being updated three months after their creation and about 2.7 million people update their blogs at least once a week.
Professional media folk are predictably incredulous about this. Why would anyone write without being paid for doing so? And, besides, who do these people think they are, gaily airing their so-called ‘opinions’? Jean-Remy von Matt, the CEO of a German advertising agency, spoke for many in the media industry when he fired off an enraged email after bloggers had effectively sabotaged one of his advertising campaigns. In the email he called blogs ‘the toilet walls of the internet’. ‘What on earth’, he asked, ‘gives every computer-owner the right to express his opinion, unasked for?’ (emphasis mine)
Now, I have no idea just what the advertising campaign in question is, nor do I know how bloggers could effectively "sabotage" it (although I suspect there's a good story there, if anyone wants to tell it), but the arrogance implicit in von Matt's question reminds me an old Wizard of Id poster I used to have. When the King is informed that the peasants are revolting, he drily comments "They certainly are".
Clearly, von Matt needs a copy of this book.
Of course, at the risk of sounding just like a peasant, I should mention that I've always been a fan of toilet-wall graffiti.
Mr Sifry reckons that about 75,000 new blogs are created every day, ie about one new blog a second. And just to address the gibe that blogs are like Christmas toys - to be played with once and then discarded - he estimates that 13.7 million blogs are still being updated three months after their creation and about 2.7 million people update their blogs at least once a week.
Professional media folk are predictably incredulous about this. Why would anyone write without being paid for doing so? And, besides, who do these people think they are, gaily airing their so-called ‘opinions’? Jean-Remy von Matt, the CEO of a German advertising agency, spoke for many in the media industry when he fired off an enraged email after bloggers had effectively sabotaged one of his advertising campaigns. In the email he called blogs ‘the toilet walls of the internet’. ‘What on earth’, he asked, ‘gives every computer-owner the right to express his opinion, unasked for?’ (emphasis mine)
Now, I have no idea just what the advertising campaign in question is, nor do I know how bloggers could effectively "sabotage" it (although I suspect there's a good story there, if anyone wants to tell it), but the arrogance implicit in von Matt's question reminds me an old Wizard of Id poster I used to have. When the King is informed that the peasants are revolting, he drily comments "They certainly are".
Clearly, von Matt needs a copy of this book.
Of course, at the risk of sounding just like a peasant, I should mention that I've always been a fan of toilet-wall graffiti.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
I Call "Bullshit"!
A group of designers, recent recipients of a National Design Award, have written an open letter describing why it is they can't bring themselves to meet with the First Lady:
"Dear Mrs. Bush:
As American designers, we strongly believe our government should support the design profession and applaud the White House sponsorship of the Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum. And as finalists and recipients of the National Design Award in Communication Design we are deeply honored to be selected for this recognition. However, we find ourselves compelled to respectfully decline your invitation to visit the White House on July 10th.
Graphic designers are intimately engaged in the construction of language, both visual and verbal. And while our work often dissects, rearranges, rethinks, questions and plays with language, it is our fundamental belief, and a central tenet of "good" design, that words and images must be used responsibly, especially when the matters articulated are of vital importance to the life of our nation.
We understand that politics often involves high rhetoric and the shading of language for political ends. However it is our belief that the current administration of George W. Bush has used the mass communication of words and images in ways that have seriously harmed the political discourse in America. We therefore feel it would be inconsistent with those values previously stated to accept an award celebrating language and communication, from a representative of an administration that has engaged in a prolonged assault on meaning.
While we have diverse political beliefs, we are united in our rejection of these policies. Through the wide-scale distortion of words (from "Healthy Forests" to "Mission Accomplished") and both the manipulation of media (the photo op) and its suppression (the hidden war casualties), the Bush administration has demonstrated disdain for the responsible use of mass media, language and the intelligence of the American people. (Emphasis mine)
While it may be an insignificant gesture, we stand against these distortions and for the restoration of a civil political dialogue.
The letter was signed by Michael Rock, Susan Sellers, Georgie Stout, Paula Scher and Stefan Sagmeister. "
It's hard to get more disingenuous than this. Instead of just coming out and saying something to the effect of: "We're not coming because we don't like the way your husband is running the coountry", these people have to cloak their protest under the guise of the administration's "demonstrated disdain for the responsible use of mass media, language and the intelligence of the American people".
This is elitist thinking at its finest and when it comes to disdain for the intelligence of the American people, it's clear the President has nothing on the folks at 2X4. We are, of course, nothing but "sheeple", incapable of seeing through the wily disinformation scheme promulgated by the President and his handlers. Even the media is being "manipulated" (all but Fox News, naturally, which is in on the scheme), with information being "suppressed" in the Administration's "prolonged assault on meaning". And here I thought I knew the meaning of the words "sex" and "is".
Oops. Wrong administration, sorry.
My bet is the "diversity" of political belief at 2X4 runs the gamut of Left to Progressive, with a possible pitstop at Hard Left in between. Ironically, when it comes to showing disdain for the use of language, the postscript says it best:
"Another winner, Chip Kidd was also asked to sign the letter, but decided that the gesture may prove inappropriate."
While I applaud Mr. Kidd's decision not to sign the letter, I have to point out that the gesture itself may not prove to be inappropriate. It either is or it isn't. And when it comes to being honest and responsible in the use of language and in communicating exactly what you mean, it clearly isn't.
"Dear Mrs. Bush:
As American designers, we strongly believe our government should support the design profession and applaud the White House sponsorship of the Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum. And as finalists and recipients of the National Design Award in Communication Design we are deeply honored to be selected for this recognition. However, we find ourselves compelled to respectfully decline your invitation to visit the White House on July 10th.
Graphic designers are intimately engaged in the construction of language, both visual and verbal. And while our work often dissects, rearranges, rethinks, questions and plays with language, it is our fundamental belief, and a central tenet of "good" design, that words and images must be used responsibly, especially when the matters articulated are of vital importance to the life of our nation.
We understand that politics often involves high rhetoric and the shading of language for political ends. However it is our belief that the current administration of George W. Bush has used the mass communication of words and images in ways that have seriously harmed the political discourse in America. We therefore feel it would be inconsistent with those values previously stated to accept an award celebrating language and communication, from a representative of an administration that has engaged in a prolonged assault on meaning.
While we have diverse political beliefs, we are united in our rejection of these policies. Through the wide-scale distortion of words (from "Healthy Forests" to "Mission Accomplished") and both the manipulation of media (the photo op) and its suppression (the hidden war casualties), the Bush administration has demonstrated disdain for the responsible use of mass media, language and the intelligence of the American people. (Emphasis mine)
While it may be an insignificant gesture, we stand against these distortions and for the restoration of a civil political dialogue.
The letter was signed by Michael Rock, Susan Sellers, Georgie Stout, Paula Scher and Stefan Sagmeister. "
It's hard to get more disingenuous than this. Instead of just coming out and saying something to the effect of: "We're not coming because we don't like the way your husband is running the coountry", these people have to cloak their protest under the guise of the administration's "demonstrated disdain for the responsible use of mass media, language and the intelligence of the American people".
This is elitist thinking at its finest and when it comes to disdain for the intelligence of the American people, it's clear the President has nothing on the folks at 2X4. We are, of course, nothing but "sheeple", incapable of seeing through the wily disinformation scheme promulgated by the President and his handlers. Even the media is being "manipulated" (all but Fox News, naturally, which is in on the scheme), with information being "suppressed" in the Administration's "prolonged assault on meaning". And here I thought I knew the meaning of the words "sex" and "is".
Oops. Wrong administration, sorry.
My bet is the "diversity" of political belief at 2X4 runs the gamut of Left to Progressive, with a possible pitstop at Hard Left in between. Ironically, when it comes to showing disdain for the use of language, the postscript says it best:
"Another winner, Chip Kidd was also asked to sign the letter, but decided that the gesture may prove inappropriate."
While I applaud Mr. Kidd's decision not to sign the letter, I have to point out that the gesture itself may not prove to be inappropriate. It either is or it isn't. And when it comes to being honest and responsible in the use of language and in communicating exactly what you mean, it clearly isn't.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Linky-Linky
The Best of the Web is back and they have the best line on the current situation in the Middle East:
Some have criticized Israel for not responding proportionately to the attacks, but we'd counsel patience. After all, the Israelis aren't done yet.
Meanwhile, Scott Adams prepares for marriage by comparing Phone Whores and Phone Assholes at the airport, LAGuy is lamenting the death of the Monkees, Rebecca Blood thinks that Al Jazeera is just misunderstood and Instapunk compares Hillary Clinton and Ronald Reagan.
On the home front, Dr. Sanity offers a new State Slogan for Vermont:
Vermont: Too liberal for the Kennedys
All of which ties in very nicely with this report from the Boston Globe (h/t Best of the Web) regarding the shenanigans of the state Democrats and their attempt to claim Independent (and avowed Socialist) Bernie Sanders for their own.
Apparently, Vermont is not only too liberal for the Kennedys, it's too liberal for the Democratic Party. How far left of Left can you get?
Some have criticized Israel for not responding proportionately to the attacks, but we'd counsel patience. After all, the Israelis aren't done yet.
Meanwhile, Scott Adams prepares for marriage by comparing Phone Whores and Phone Assholes at the airport, LAGuy is lamenting the death of the Monkees, Rebecca Blood thinks that Al Jazeera is just misunderstood and Instapunk compares Hillary Clinton and Ronald Reagan.
On the home front, Dr. Sanity offers a new State Slogan for Vermont:
Vermont: Too liberal for the Kennedys
All of which ties in very nicely with this report from the Boston Globe (h/t Best of the Web) regarding the shenanigans of the state Democrats and their attempt to claim Independent (and avowed Socialist) Bernie Sanders for their own.
Apparently, Vermont is not only too liberal for the Kennedys, it's too liberal for the Democratic Party. How far left of Left can you get?
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Nobody Knows Anything
In just one more example of William Goldman's famous dictum about Hollywood, actress Kiera Knightley acknowledges that she and co-star Orlando Bloom didn't have a clue about the first "Pirates" movie:
Knightley says it wasn't until she was at the premiere of the first "Pirates" movie with co-star Orlando Bloom that she knew the premise would work.
"Orlando and I were sitting next to each other at the premiere, which was the first time I'd seen it, and we'd had a big talk and decided that if it was awful, we'd still leave the theater all smiles," she said.
Heckuva way to make a living, isn't it?
The first of two sequels opens tomorrow and so far, the reviews have been pretty tepid. Like all sequels, this one suffers from the standpoint of being a known commodity and the usual response from the filmmakers is to up the ante in terms of special effects. Judging from the trailer, that's just what they've done.
For now, I'm sticking with my prediction: Like the Matrix before it, Pirates 2 will open huge but ultimately offer diminishing returns and when Pirates 3 rolls around next Spring, people will be wondering why they ever bothered. I'm seeing it tomorrow - I'll let you know if I change my mind.
Update: Saw it yesterday and liked it a lot - it may, in fact, be the most "fun" movie of the summer. It does have much in common with The Matrix sequels (and the Back to the Future trilogy before that) and that represents both the good and the bad news. The good news is that the writers get to expand the characters (yes, there is character development, even in a movie like this) and tell their story on a much larger canvas, as it were. The bad news is that, with so much screen time (and money) to work with, you run the risk of ending up with a bloated mess.
As usually happens with these things, there's a bit of both in Pirates 2.
The real problem with filming two sequels like this is that you're really telling one story - just stretching it to fit two movies. As such, the first hour of this two and a half-hour sequel drags a bit and probably could have been cut by a third, if not half. However, the payoff it builds to more than makes up for it and the movie leaves you with a powerful hook - I defy anyone to not want to see how this comes out in Part 3.
Yes, the CGI is over the top (especially Davy Jones' crew) and some of it works and some of it doesn't. But it's still Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow who makes the whole thing work. He has created what I would call a new breed of superhero: a heroic buffoon. His Captain Jack is the combining of alter-egos: Superman with horned-rim glasses and a stumbling gait, Batman with a martini in his hand and a blonde on his arm. Believable both in his derring-do and his pratfalls, his lechery and his nobility, his is a character for the ages and worth the price of admission alone.
Go see it. And then mark your calendar for next May.
Knightley says it wasn't until she was at the premiere of the first "Pirates" movie with co-star Orlando Bloom that she knew the premise would work.
"Orlando and I were sitting next to each other at the premiere, which was the first time I'd seen it, and we'd had a big talk and decided that if it was awful, we'd still leave the theater all smiles," she said.
Heckuva way to make a living, isn't it?
The first of two sequels opens tomorrow and so far, the reviews have been pretty tepid. Like all sequels, this one suffers from the standpoint of being a known commodity and the usual response from the filmmakers is to up the ante in terms of special effects. Judging from the trailer, that's just what they've done.
For now, I'm sticking with my prediction: Like the Matrix before it, Pirates 2 will open huge but ultimately offer diminishing returns and when Pirates 3 rolls around next Spring, people will be wondering why they ever bothered. I'm seeing it tomorrow - I'll let you know if I change my mind.
Update: Saw it yesterday and liked it a lot - it may, in fact, be the most "fun" movie of the summer. It does have much in common with The Matrix sequels (and the Back to the Future trilogy before that) and that represents both the good and the bad news. The good news is that the writers get to expand the characters (yes, there is character development, even in a movie like this) and tell their story on a much larger canvas, as it were. The bad news is that, with so much screen time (and money) to work with, you run the risk of ending up with a bloated mess.
As usually happens with these things, there's a bit of both in Pirates 2.
The real problem with filming two sequels like this is that you're really telling one story - just stretching it to fit two movies. As such, the first hour of this two and a half-hour sequel drags a bit and probably could have been cut by a third, if not half. However, the payoff it builds to more than makes up for it and the movie leaves you with a powerful hook - I defy anyone to not want to see how this comes out in Part 3.
Yes, the CGI is over the top (especially Davy Jones' crew) and some of it works and some of it doesn't. But it's still Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow who makes the whole thing work. He has created what I would call a new breed of superhero: a heroic buffoon. His Captain Jack is the combining of alter-egos: Superman with horned-rim glasses and a stumbling gait, Batman with a martini in his hand and a blonde on his arm. Believable both in his derring-do and his pratfalls, his lechery and his nobility, his is a character for the ages and worth the price of admission alone.
Go see it. And then mark your calendar for next May.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Confuezing Simpl and Eezy
The AP's Darlene Superville takes a look at a movement to simplify spelling:
"When "say," "they" and "weigh" rhyme, but "bomb," "comb" and "tomb" don't, wuudn't it maek mor sens to spel wurdz the wae thae sound?"
If you found the second half of that sentence more difficult to understand than the first, welcome to the club. For a second example, try this one on for size:
"Americans doen't aulwaez go for whut's eezy — witnes th faeluer of th metric sistem to cach on. But propoenents of simpler speling noet that a smatering of aulterd spelingz hav maed th leep into evrydae ues."
The notion of simplifying the English language is not new - a list of proponents for the idea stretches back to Benjamin Franklin and includes such notables as Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain and George Bernard Shaw. Still, the idea has refused to take root, or, as Darlene puts it:
"But for aul th hi-proefiel and skolarly eforts, the iedeea of funy-luuking but simpler spelingz didn't captivaet the masez then — or now."
The reason is that simpler is not always eezyur, er, easier. And while email and text messaging might seem like an ally in this process, the emphasis in communicating on the Internet has always been about speed and space rather than just simplicity. In simplified spelling, some words - like "through" and "enough" - do shrink, but some do not. Hope, for example, becomes "hoep". Some words become even larger: also becomes "aulso".
The real problem with simplified spelling is that, no matter how you slice it, you're still trading one sistem, er, system of language for another. And those of us who have learned - if not mastered - one system won't be easily persuaded to learn another. Unless, of course, all books and newspapers and magazines start to look like this:
"(Andrew) Carnegie, hoo embraest teknolojy, died in in 1919, wel befor sel foenz went maenstreem. Had he livd, he probably wuud hav bin pleezd to no that milyonz of peepl send text and instant mesejez evry dae uezing thair oen formz of simplified speling: "Hav a gr8 day!"
In which case, well, u red it heer furst.
"When "say," "they" and "weigh" rhyme, but "bomb," "comb" and "tomb" don't, wuudn't it maek mor sens to spel wurdz the wae thae sound?"
If you found the second half of that sentence more difficult to understand than the first, welcome to the club. For a second example, try this one on for size:
"Americans doen't aulwaez go for whut's eezy — witnes th faeluer of th metric sistem to cach on. But propoenents of simpler speling noet that a smatering of aulterd spelingz hav maed th leep into evrydae ues."
The notion of simplifying the English language is not new - a list of proponents for the idea stretches back to Benjamin Franklin and includes such notables as Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain and George Bernard Shaw. Still, the idea has refused to take root, or, as Darlene puts it:
"But for aul th hi-proefiel and skolarly eforts, the iedeea of funy-luuking but simpler spelingz didn't captivaet the masez then — or now."
The reason is that simpler is not always eezyur, er, easier. And while email and text messaging might seem like an ally in this process, the emphasis in communicating on the Internet has always been about speed and space rather than just simplicity. In simplified spelling, some words - like "through" and "enough" - do shrink, but some do not. Hope, for example, becomes "hoep". Some words become even larger: also becomes "aulso".
The real problem with simplified spelling is that, no matter how you slice it, you're still trading one sistem, er, system of language for another. And those of us who have learned - if not mastered - one system won't be easily persuaded to learn another. Unless, of course, all books and newspapers and magazines start to look like this:
"(Andrew) Carnegie, hoo embraest teknolojy, died in in 1919, wel befor sel foenz went maenstreem. Had he livd, he probably wuud hav bin pleezd to no that milyonz of peepl send text and instant mesejez evry dae uezing thair oen formz of simplified speling: "Hav a gr8 day!"
In which case, well, u red it heer furst.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Watch Out for the Fifth on the Fourth
Went into Burlington last night and joined the throngs to watch the fireworks. B-town always has theirs on the 3rd, and just in case you're not sure what I mean by "throngs", the event was supposed to bring an additional 30K bodies to the waterfront. That may not sound like much but when the population of the city (sans students) is only around 35K to start with, it has a locust-like effect. To put it another way, it doesn't matter whether you're surrounded by a thousand cars on the freeway or a tractor and two cows on the back road, it's still a traffic jam.
We normally watch the fireworks from North Beach - a few miles north of downtown - but this year all the rain has raised the water (and pollution) level in the lake and the ferocity level of the mosquitos to a point where body armor and a snorkel are required for even a quick dip so we chose to view them from the waterfront where, hopefully, all the localized body heat would confuse the little buggers. It worked - to a point. It was such an all-you-can-eat buffet that we ended up as snacks rather than entrees.
The best thing about watching the fireworks up close and personal (maybe a half-mile away) was the way the explosions of sound reverberated between the water and the buildings. It made me think of the cannon-fire from the 1812 Overture. Very cool.
Anyway, for those of you who don't have fireworks nearby, here's a wonderful link, courtesy of LAGuy. Enjoy and Happy 4th!
We normally watch the fireworks from North Beach - a few miles north of downtown - but this year all the rain has raised the water (and pollution) level in the lake and the ferocity level of the mosquitos to a point where body armor and a snorkel are required for even a quick dip so we chose to view them from the waterfront where, hopefully, all the localized body heat would confuse the little buggers. It worked - to a point. It was such an all-you-can-eat buffet that we ended up as snacks rather than entrees.
The best thing about watching the fireworks up close and personal (maybe a half-mile away) was the way the explosions of sound reverberated between the water and the buildings. It made me think of the cannon-fire from the 1812 Overture. Very cool.
Anyway, for those of you who don't have fireworks nearby, here's a wonderful link, courtesy of LAGuy. Enjoy and Happy 4th!
Monday, July 03, 2006
Everyone's Wild About Harry
There is a lot of Harry Potter talk going round the Internet these days, thanks mostly to an interview that J.K. Rowling did on British Television recently. In the interview, Rowling says that she’s “well on the way” to finishing the seventh – and last – HP book and that the ending, which she first wrote back in 1990, has changed “very slightly”.
Apparently, one character that was slated to die has gotten a reprieve while two others have unexpectedly gotten the ax: “…two die that I didn’t intend to die,” she said, and added, “A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil here. They don’t target extras, do they?” Clearly, this woman has never watched much Star Trek.
Of greater import, she dodged the question of whether one of the victims would be Harry himself. While admitting that she understood the mentality behind killing off the main character in a series, she refused to speculate, saying “I don’t want the hate mail, apart from everything else”.
Well, as Tom Maguire would say. And speaking of Tom, his opinions on the subject are here. I’m not sure that I agree with all of his predictions but I will lay money that he’s right about the release date of the seventh book, especially since the release date of the fifth movie is now scheduled six days later. Meanwhile, Dr. Sanity pleads for Harry’s survival while The Anchoress argues that surviving Voldemort might not be Harry’s biggest challenge:
“And Harry…I can see him surviving the series - everyone wants to see Harry, Hermione and Ron live happily ever after - but what would the rest of Harry’s life be like? Perhaps he’d teach Defense Against the Dark Arts…but Voldemort vanquished it would all seem pretty pedestrian to him wouldn’t it? And rather purposeless? His parents would still be dead. Dumbledore, dead. Possibly Hagrid, dead. One or several Weasleys dead. Ron and Hermione probably wed.”
She compares HP with Hamlet and continues:
“Here is the interesting question…when a life has been lived with a sense of deep mission - as in either Hamlet’s or Harry’s case - and that mission has been fulfilled, what is the purpose of the life, thereafter? If the 18 year old Harry (or a 20-something year old Hamlet) have accomplished their goal, the thing that has driven them and given their whole life meaning and purpose, are we supposed to believe they can ever rest easy in a sort of “busywork” retirement? Perhaps this is why monarchs, old generals, popes, entrepreneurs, mother-hung rock stars and CBS newsmen can never willingly retire and live out their days. Without their sense of mission, life has no thrust and parry, no vivacity, no purpose.”
I don’t think anyone would want to read about Harry in his declining years – just as I don’t think anyone other than perhaps George Lucas would really care to read about Harry’s early years with the Dursleys. Rowling, or whomever, would have to come up with a new mission for him, something equal to the vanquishing of pure evil, and The Revenge of the White Ferret just won’t do.
Still, it is fun to speculate. But perhaps, as the Anchoress suggests, the best thing is simply to go back and re-read books 1-6 or, if you prefer, watch movies 1-4. You can never have too much Harry and 7/7/07 is still a year away.
Apparently, one character that was slated to die has gotten a reprieve while two others have unexpectedly gotten the ax: “…two die that I didn’t intend to die,” she said, and added, “A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil here. They don’t target extras, do they?” Clearly, this woman has never watched much Star Trek.
Of greater import, she dodged the question of whether one of the victims would be Harry himself. While admitting that she understood the mentality behind killing off the main character in a series, she refused to speculate, saying “I don’t want the hate mail, apart from everything else”.
Well, as Tom Maguire would say. And speaking of Tom, his opinions on the subject are here. I’m not sure that I agree with all of his predictions but I will lay money that he’s right about the release date of the seventh book, especially since the release date of the fifth movie is now scheduled six days later. Meanwhile, Dr. Sanity pleads for Harry’s survival while The Anchoress argues that surviving Voldemort might not be Harry’s biggest challenge:
“And Harry…I can see him surviving the series - everyone wants to see Harry, Hermione and Ron live happily ever after - but what would the rest of Harry’s life be like? Perhaps he’d teach Defense Against the Dark Arts…but Voldemort vanquished it would all seem pretty pedestrian to him wouldn’t it? And rather purposeless? His parents would still be dead. Dumbledore, dead. Possibly Hagrid, dead. One or several Weasleys dead. Ron and Hermione probably wed.”
She compares HP with Hamlet and continues:
“Here is the interesting question…when a life has been lived with a sense of deep mission - as in either Hamlet’s or Harry’s case - and that mission has been fulfilled, what is the purpose of the life, thereafter? If the 18 year old Harry (or a 20-something year old Hamlet) have accomplished their goal, the thing that has driven them and given their whole life meaning and purpose, are we supposed to believe they can ever rest easy in a sort of “busywork” retirement? Perhaps this is why monarchs, old generals, popes, entrepreneurs, mother-hung rock stars and CBS newsmen can never willingly retire and live out their days. Without their sense of mission, life has no thrust and parry, no vivacity, no purpose.”
I don’t think anyone would want to read about Harry in his declining years – just as I don’t think anyone other than perhaps George Lucas would really care to read about Harry’s early years with the Dursleys. Rowling, or whomever, would have to come up with a new mission for him, something equal to the vanquishing of pure evil, and The Revenge of the White Ferret just won’t do.
Still, it is fun to speculate. But perhaps, as the Anchoress suggests, the best thing is simply to go back and re-read books 1-6 or, if you prefer, watch movies 1-4. You can never have too much Harry and 7/7/07 is still a year away.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Required Reading
I added a new blog to my blogroll this morning. It's called Creating Passionate Users and though it lists several people as contributors, it seems to be primarily the brainchild of Kathy Sierra. I discovered it initially by linking to this post, which encouraged me to poke around and check out some of her previous posts. Since then, I've been a regular visitor. If I hadn't been waylaid by the move from hell, I would have added it to my blogroll before now.
Her recent post about her near-death experience a year ago and her subsequent link to this post at another site made a huge impresion on me. I find the site consistently interesting and definitely worth my time and I hope you will, too.
On a related note, it must seem strange for a small blog like this one to be recommending people to a larger blog that has far more viewers than I do. Sort of like the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. Well, I look at it this way: the Internet - and the blogging portion of it - is huge; so huge that, no matter how much of it you see, there's always much more that you can't see. And if you should somehow stumble across my little portion of it, the least I can do - other than hopefully making your time here worthwhile - is direct you to other places you might find of interest.
Think of it as a karmic exercise.
Her recent post about her near-death experience a year ago and her subsequent link to this post at another site made a huge impresion on me. I find the site consistently interesting and definitely worth my time and I hope you will, too.
On a related note, it must seem strange for a small blog like this one to be recommending people to a larger blog that has far more viewers than I do. Sort of like the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. Well, I look at it this way: the Internet - and the blogging portion of it - is huge; so huge that, no matter how much of it you see, there's always much more that you can't see. And if you should somehow stumble across my little portion of it, the least I can do - other than hopefully making your time here worthwhile - is direct you to other places you might find of interest.
Think of it as a karmic exercise.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
While I Was Away
Okay, so I know a lot of interesting and potentially life-altering things happened while I was otherwise engaged but surely none of them were more important than this. Or this. Or maybe this. Or perhaps this.
I mean, there are so many things going on in the world these days, it helps to have a sense of perspective, right?
Right?
I mean, there are so many things going on in the world these days, it helps to have a sense of perspective, right?
Right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
