Book Review - Pirate King by Laurie R. King

I've always kind of liked Sherlock Holmes, though I was never a fan to the point where I devoured all of Arthur Conan Doyle's work.

I do love Laurie R. King's conceit of Holmes being a real figure and living until at least the 1920s, and befriending (and then marrying) a young girl named Mary Russell. Russell soon becomes Holmes' new Watson (though Watson is a character in some of the novels too), recording her adventures with Holmes as they solve mysteries and partake in other adventures.

Sadly, the latest book is not the best example of this. Pirate King is meant to be a farce, a comedy that will change the mood of the series a little bit. The idea is nice, and I usually enjoy comedic episodes of serious television shows.

Sadly, Pirate King is not that funny, and thus becomes extremely tedious.

My review has been posted on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:

Mary Russell has gone on a lot of adventures as Sherlock Holmes' wife, but this is something even she has never experienced. Chief Inspector Lestrade asks her to go undercover with a British film company whose eccentric owner wants to do a strange version of the "Pirates of Penzance." It seems that somebody in the film production company is suspected of nefarious deeds on the sets of various movies the company has made. Mary is supposed to figure out who's behind everything from gun-running to drug smuggling, depending on the movie. Even Mary can't predict what will end up happening as the entourage moves from Portugal to Morocco, and she'll have to use all of her wits to keep the company safe.

Unfortunately, the characters don't mesh at all, it's impossible to keep them straight, and the jokes are based on those characters. Thus, hardly any of the jokes work.

It saddens me a bit, because I had high hopes for Pirate King, and I do look forward to King's next Holmes novel.

This one doesn't work at all, though.

Podcast stuff - Episode 19 of Down the Hall (Radio EPLT)

The 19th episode of Down the Hall has now been posted!

This week, we talk both Physical Education and field trips, so two ways that you can get kids out of the classroom and out into the field (hence the title "Out in Left Field"

In it, I recall a field trip to the Chicago Art Museum. I couldn't tell you when it was, or what all happened on that trip. I just remember "no flash photography."

While you're at it, why don't you head on over to Facebook and like us there?

You know you want to. And you know that you're now feeling verrrrrrrry sleepy.

But don't forget to like us before you head to bed.

Is there a doctor in the house? - A PhD journey sparks thought

I want to heartily congratulate Natasha Boskic, a co-worker of mine, for successfully defending her PhD dissertation last night. She did a fabulous job, and I had the honour to be there. Six of us from the office went over to offer our support and be in the audience (it's open to the public, though typically it's just people the person knows). She did a fabulous job, and we're all very proud just to be associated with such success.

(Incidentally, I interviewed Natasha for the last episode of the podcast about her dissertation, which involved ethical and literacy issues in alternate reality gaming. She was a great interview and it was a very interesting topic).

She started out by saying that doing a PhD is a personal journey, and those words stuck with me throughout the rest of her presentation. I don't have a PhD (hell, I don't even have a Master's degree), so I don't have any frame of reference. But I can only imagine what kind of journey that entails. Four years of your life (I don't know what the average is, but I'm sure that's close) dedicated to researching a question, an area that you feel passionate about. I'm sure you discover a lot about yourself in that journey.

It made me stop and think about my life, though. I did apply to the Master's program in History here at UBC back in 2000. I didn't get in, mainly due to grades I think. It turned out to be a good thing, in a way, because I discovered after the fact that our staff tuition waiver doesn't cover graduate school. Yes, if it was something I was passionate about, we would have made it work. But while I wanted to do it, that passion wasn't really there to justify the cost. Who knows? That passion not being there might have made it so I would have been unsuccessful anyway.

We've had four doctorates come out of our office (3 PhDs and a Doctor of Education degree), and as we were walking over to the defense yesterday, we were talking about that. My boss asked me when I was going to get my PhD. I joked that I didn't even have my Master's.

That started the line of thought that continued when Natasha started speaking. I don't have any real desire to go down that academic path. While I do have a passion for learning, the passion for learning in an academic setting isn't really there, even ten years later.

It did, however, make me think about the huge variety of personal journeys that we all take. We all go down separate paths. While our friends and family can love and support us down those paths, they can't really join us on them. Sometimes we are joined by others who are moving the same way along those same paths, and perhaps friendships can form out of those. The journey is ultimately a personal one, though.

None of them are "better" than another. It just depends on what you need at that time. The gaining of knowledge, whether it's research knowledge or just knowledge about yourself, is always a valuable endeavour, whether it's through a formal process like a PhD or just improving yourself in everyday living.

All of this reinforced some things that I've been thinking about for the last couple of weeks, about the need to be more social. In retrospect, a few of my posts during that time period have ultimately stemmed from this, I think. I see a bit of stagnation setting in that I need to do something about.

I'm going to V-Con, a science fiction convention here in Vancouver (if you're going to be there, look me up!). I plan on not being a wallflower at this convention, or at least not as much of one as I was last time I went. Small steps!

I'm also taking a short fiction class next Spring. I don't know if anything will result from that writing-wise, but I'm also taking it for the social aspect, to talk to classmates and all of that. I do hope to get at least one short story out of it too, of course.

Finally, my boss has had individual meetings with everybody in the office, and one of the things we talked about was professional development, as well as personal development that may only be related to work tangentially. After that meeting, some ideas have been sitting in the back of my mind. After seeing Natasha yesterday, and the final result of her personal journey, these thoughts have crystallized a bit more. Maybe a public speaking course of some kind (that's one of the ideas that my wife suggested too, but it went in with all the other ideas, percolating in my mind without actually coalescing into anything immediately).

I don't know exactly what I'll decide to do, other than what's already in motion. Thankfully, the issue with my friend that sparked some of the recent posts (you can probably guess which ones they are) has been resolved. It did initiate a lot of these thoughts and realizations, though. So maybe it's for the best that it happened. It taught me a lot about myself, and the parts of my life that have been missing, even if I hadn't actually noticed that they weren't there.

My personal journey most likely does not fall along the academic path like Natasha's did (though I do hold out that option for the future).

But I think it's time that I finally start it, whichever path it leads down.

Anti-Semitism Controversy at York University - Is there something in the water there?

Anti-Semitism is a serious issue, but it can be hopelessly trivialized when it's charged in absurd situations.

It all started when professor Cameron Johnston, a Jewish man by the way, was beginning his "Self, Culture, and Society" course at York. In it, he explained that:

...the course was going to focus on texts, not opinions, and despite what they may have heard elsewhere, everyone is not entitled to their opinion.

“All Jews should be sterilized” would be an example of an unacceptable and dangerous opinion, Johnston told the students.

Sarah Grunfeld, a 22-year-old student who has evidently been there for four years (but evidently was not busy developing critical thinking skills in that time), stormed out of the class and started complaining to the higher-ups at York about Johnston's anti-Semitic remark.

Yes, you read that correctly. He was saying that the statement "All Jews should be sterilized" would not be an acceptable opinion. Grunfeld evidently wasn't paying attention, only starting to when he uttered the phrase itself, not when introducing the whole reasoning for why he said it.

She storms out, sends a note to a campus Jewish group, Hasbara, which immediately starts spreading the call for Johnston to be fired without actually investigating the claim. (I'm assuming they didn't investigate it, because any investigation would reveal the context of the statement). They release the statement to other Jewish groups as well as the media, which, of course, runs with it.

Calls for his firing grew, and all apparently without actually looking into what actually happened. This could have been nipped in the bud if somebody along the chain of events had actually stopped to think before spreading this.

The flap is easily explained, and you would think that Grunfeld would be properly mollified now that the context of the statement was revealed to her (and maybe she should actually start listening in class).

You would be wrong.

Grunfeld said Tuesday she may have misunderstood the context and intent of Johnston’s remarks, but that fact is insignificant.

“The words, ‘Jews should be sterilized’ still came out of his mouth, so regardless of the context I still think that’s pretty serious.”

Are you kidding me?

Ok, all of you who didn't believe I was a sexist pig last week should at least now be reporting me to the authorities for typing those hated words above. Oh, and don't forget the Toronto Star, whose article I'm quoting in this post, along with all the other media outlets that repeated what he said.

Because just having the words come out of your mouth is enough to brand you an anti-Semite.

Maybe we're safe because we typed them rather than saying them. That's the kind of critical thinking being displayed here, so who knows?

Going to university is supposed to broaden your mind and help you learn how to think critically. To absorb information and learn how to evaluate it for yourself.

I'm beginning to wonder if that's what's truly happening, though.

Note: this story is from Wednesday, September 14. I have found no record of more recent stories, so I don't know if Grunfeld is still sticking by her charge. If not, she hasn't publicly said she's changed her mind. And obviously nothing has happened to Johnston, or that would have made the news too.

Which means sanity has actually prevailed in this case.

Movie Review - Rise of the Planet of the Apes

The original Conqeust of the Planet of the Apes is not my favourite of the original Ape movies, thus making it a prime candidate for a remake, this time being called Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Thankfully, the remake is everything the original wasn't, which includes "good." Yes, there were definitely problems with the movie, but overall, it was a very enjoyable experience.

Unless you're squeamish about animal testing, that is.

Will Rodman (Jamie Franco) has created a new drug that could cure Alzheimer's Disease, and of course it has to be tested on animals before it can proceed to human trials. In the chimps, it seems to have heightened the intelligence in at least one case, along with fighting the disease. The chimp, affectionately called Bright Eyes, goes berserk just as Rodman is presenting his findings to the board for more funding for human trials. Bright Eyes' son is found in her cage, and Rodman smuggles him out to take care of him, naming him Caesar. Caesar (played wonderfully by that motion capture genius, Andy Serkis) has even more intelligence than Bright Eyes did, and lives a happy life with Rodman until things go horribly wrong. Caesar will end up leading his fellow apes to safety, perhaps a precursor of an Ape society that will rise in the future?

(Thanks to Shopping Blog)

The humans in Rise of the Planet of the Apes are nothing to write home about. Other than Rodman, none of them are given any depth at all, playing more caricatures than anything else. Rodman's new girlfriend, Caroline (Freida Pinto), is totally wasted, doing nothing in the movie other than identifying a few primate traits so the audience would understand them later in the movie, as well as providing one scene of being Rodman's conscience. The head of the drug company where Rodman works, Steven Jacobs (David Oyelowo) is your stereotypical company head honcho who wants money more than anything else.

As an aside, do we really need to see yet another greedy drug company businessman in films? Talk about your stereotypes! At least Rise limits it to one man, rather than making the entire company that way, but it's still annoying.

Rodman is the only human character given any depth, and even he's semi-cliched. He's desperate to create the Alzheimer's cure because his father is suffering from it. Thus, the shortcuts that he takes are done for personal reasons, not those of greed. You can also tell that he cares about Caesar. Yet even Rodman only manages to barely reach a third dimension.

I have to especially call out the head of the Primate refuge and his son (Bryan Cox and Tom Felton), who are so stereotypically cruel and provocative that it was almost over the top. Felton's performance is the same, though Cox tones it down. However, the characters themselves are hopeless.

(Thanks to InEntertainment)

The good thing is that the apes save the day, which I guess might be the point. Serkis is simply amazing as Caesar, assuming that even the expressions on Caesar's face were taken from Serkis. You can almost tell what he is thinking at times. The other apes are also very well done. The CGI when they move doesn't quite cross into "Uncanny Valley" territory, but it is exceptional. The one major confrontation in the movie, on the Golden Gate Bridge (shown in all the trailers), is beautifully shot.

(Thanks to Twitch)

The story was interesting and definitely keeps your attention. The movie packs a lot into less than two hours, though that could be because the ending is so obviously a set-up for a sequel that it doesn't even really exist. The movie just ends. There isn't a cliffhanger or anything, but there also isn't really a resolution.

There are a few plot holes, though. Caroline dates Rodman for years, moving in with him at the very least (apparently), yet five or so years later, she still is shocked at Caesar's origin? You weren't curious for all those years? And if you did ask and he blatantly lied to you about it, that's a pretty big lie to forgive without saying much. This is a testament to how unimportant the human characters are in this movie.

Overall, I did greatly enjoy Rise of the Planet of the Apes. If your heart goes out to animals so much that you can't see any mistreatment of them whatsoever, then this movie is not for you. They have to set up why Caesar is outraged to begin with, so there are some bad scenes. Keep in mind, though, that I don't believe any real apes were used in the movie. If there were, certainly not in any of the violent scenes.

Grab your popcorn and get ready. This is a very good movie, and know that you'll be getting more of it in the next few years as well.

It's a win-win!

A Companionable Silence

We've all heard of the concept of "companionable silence," when two people are sitting together, not talking, just enjoying the atmosphere around them. It's a concept that I'm not comfortable with, however. I don't know why that is. I've rarely been able to just sit there and feel that companionship with a person without the sounds of our voices.

(Thanks to Travel Adventure)

Some people love silence. They love just sitting with somebody and enjoying the act of being with them. No words are needed. It's not that they *won't* talk; it's just that there's no requirement for it. They are perfectly comfortable with the other person, no matter what is said or not said.

I wish I could be that way.

I understand the concept intellectually, of course. It's not like somebody's saying something in a foreign language if they mention it to me. I get it.

I just don't feel it.

It's a bit different with the wife, of course. We spend a lot of time together, and of course it's not filled with constant talking, though I do sometimes feel there is more than may be necessary on my part. We do enjoy our quiet time, though I usually have some noise going on, whether it's the TV or my games or whatever. I've never been a big fan of silence even when I'm by myself.

I'm more talking about time with friends, when you're having lunch or going for a walk or whatever. Something of limited duration, when you will be going back to work or to your own lives in a relatively short period of time. In those times, I find prolonged silence intensely uncomfortable. It almost feels oppressive sometimes.

Again, I KNOW that none of this is true. But it just feels like if there's silence, that's because there's nothing left to say. That the other person doesn't want to talk to you for whatever reason. Never mind the fact that, if they didn't want to be with you, they wouldn't have agreed in the first place to lunch or a walk or whatever.

When I'm sitting with somebody at lunch, and there's a silent lull, part of me (that insecure, neurotic part, I guess) is just waiting for them to say "well, I have to get back to work" or whatever, as a cover for them just wanting to get out of there. Like, "if you're not going to talk, then I've got better things to do with my time than sit here."

The thing is, I probably would enjoy just having their company. Ok, 30 whole minutes without a word spoken would be bad, but you get the idea. But often I just enjoy being with them, and I do like the feeling of companionship.

It's just that niggling fear underneath it all that they don't feel the same way that bothers me. Even though they've never given me any reason to think they feel differently.

I think there's an underlying reason for all of this, a comfortableness with the self that just isn't always there. We've all heard the phrase "comfortable in your own skin." I think that's a big part of it.

So if you consider me a friend and have noticed this, or we're online friends and we ever meet for the first time, I hope this explains a few things. I do try to make sure that what I say is at least interesting or relevant or something like that. I try not to be totally stupid about it. ("gee, it's really raining hard out there!") If you do notice it and it gets irritating, I'd prefer being told about it rather than you internally saying "this is the last time I'll meet up with him!"

Silence can be a good thing, especially when the alternative is inane chatter created just to fill that void of emptiness.

I just wish I could enjoy it like others seem to.

Boneless Update

It's been two months since we brought our new cat home, and she's settling in quite nicely. She's filling out very well too, considering her experiences before we adopted her.

She's eating well, she's giving us just as much love and affection as we're giving her, and I think she's getting used to us. She's still a bit jumpy when a sudden sound outside happens, but she's even calming down as far as that's concerned.

Anyway, I thought I'd give you a brief post with a couple of pictures taken a few days ago. Show you how much she's grown in just this little while.

I caught her napping at the top of her cat post. (click both images to see them larger)

And after that, she decided to pose for me.

Enjoy!