Book Review - The Royal Stuarts by Allan Massie

Over the last few years, my love of History has transformed and broadened. I used to be mainly a military history nut, and I still am (and I'm still a nut, too, but that's unrelated). But I have also moved on to things like Medieval History, especially European History that encompasses almost anything from the end of the Roman Empire all the way up to more recent times.

One area I have not covered much is the history of Scotland. That's not really by choice; it's just that I haven't found a good book on the subject crossing my path. There should be one soon, I would think, as some little-studied (by me, anyway) areas of history keep popping up in books by authors I like.

The Royal Stuarts, by Allan Massie, sort of wets that whistle, though not entirely. The book is a biography of the entire Stuart line of kings and queens of England, from Robert II back in 1371 (Scotland only) all the way to James III (VIII in Scotland), a king without a country as he was in exile his entire life. Each chapter is about a monarch, so earlier chapters are shorter as there is less documentation on them than there is on later royal members.

My review of the book is up on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From my review:

"The history of Great Britain is well-mined territory for many casual history readers with any interest in Europe through the ages. Two areas that I have missed in all of my reading, however, are Scotland and the English kings (and queen) after Elizabeth. Many (like me) stop with Elizabeth and don't delve any further. However, the Stuarts are an interesting family in themselves, especially James I (best known for the King James version of the Bible) who immediately succeeded Elizabeth. With The Royal Stuarts, Allan Massie takes a look not only at James and his post-Elizabeth version of Great Britain, but also the entire Stuart family from beginning to end. A welcome side effect is that the reader gets a nice (if somewhat superficial) history of Scotland as well."

I greatly enjoyed this book, and I will have to make do on my promise to myself to find a book on Scottish history soon.

In the meantime, The Royal Stuarts will do me well. It's nice to see that the Stuarts were such a randy bunch of guys, especially the early ones.

A Television Icon Returns - And Nobody's Shot Him...Yet

I was watching something on TV last week, and saw an ad for the Summer shows on Bravo TV up here in Canada. And one of the ones that slipped by very quickly seemed to have a familiar face in it.

I turned to my wife and said "Was that Dallas?"

To the Internet, Boy Wonder!

Good ol' J.R. is looking a bit long in the tooth

I checked Internet Movie Database, and sure enough, Dallas is coming back. That 1980s night-time soap that spawned Knots Landing (a show that I consider a guilty pleasure of my past), another night-time soap. Maybe that will come back? Is Donna Mills still hot?

Anyway, yes, Dallas is coming back, and it's not being rebooted. This won't be a show with a similar plotline and recast characters. This is a sequel of sorts. At least three of the original stars are back: Larry Hagman (J.R.), Patrick Duffy (Bobby), and Linda Gray (Sue Ellen). And this time, they've brought their kids.

Here's the trailer that came out for it in December:



It will be on TNT in the States, and I believe it starts on June 13.

I won't be watching it, but I'm not sure if I am pleased that it's coming back or horrified. The plot, for those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, is that the Ewing clan is a family whose riches are steeped in Texas oil. J.R. Ewing is a manipulative bastard who will do anything to get ahead. Bobby is his brother, the nice guy who very famously appeared in a shower. Sue Ellen was J.R.'s wife, though I'm sure they're divorced by now if they weren't already in the original show (knowing that would require me to care).

The new incarnation of the series will have these three characters, along with supposedly three others from the original series, along with their progeny who it turns out are just as bad as their parents.

And hilarity will ensue, I'm sure.

Oh, that and steamy sex. Can't forget that.

The series will be like most TNT series, 10-episode seasons. The first season will be this Summer and I guess we'll see from there.

Are you as pumped as I am for the return of this show? Have you been missing it like I have?

And if you match either of those, what's wrong with you?

Book Review - Critical Path by Dan Amrich

Those of you know me well, or even just a little bit, probably know that I'm a big video game fan. So it should come as no surprise to you that I jumped at the chance to read a book on video game reviewing. Especially a book by that game reviewing legend, Dan Amrich.

I first came to know Dan from the Official Xbox Magazine podcast and then saw some of his reviews in the magazine. I followed him when he went to Activision to become their social media manager (or whatever the official title is) and now religiously listen to his One of Swords podcast about Activision games and gaming (though it is so much more than that).

Anyway, he has been working on a book about game reviewing for a long while, and he's finally self-published it. Dubbed Critical Path (a brilliant name, if I do say so), it gives the reader all of the ins and outs on becoming a game reviewer. Some may not know this, but I did, for a short while, entertain the idea of becoming a game reviewer. I even started my own game review blog (which I haven't posted to in over a year). If I had read this book first, I wouldn't have bothered entertaining that dream, because I know I wouldn't have the dedication and energy required in order to do so. It was a casual flirtation, so it's good that it died there.

The reason for that is that Dan pulls no punches. He doesn't discourage readers from trying to become game reviewers. But he does tell you exactly what it entails, with no sugar-coating whatsoever.

My review of the book has gone up on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:

"Critical Path covers everything you're going to need in order to get your dream job of reviewing video games. He even mentions things that you might not think of but which are very important to keep in mind, such as having a bit of empathy for the game's creators who have spent many long months, if not years, putting together this game that you're getting ready to trash with a horrible review. He suggests trying your own hand at developing something, even if it's something simple, just so you get the feeling of what it's like.

The book covers a steady career path from getting your work noticed to becoming a freelancer to finally getting your dream job working at a gaming magazine or web site. He also shatters many illusions that young people who want to do this job probably have. You're not going to get rich doing this, and it's not just going into the office at 9am, picking up a controller and playing games all day, then going home at 5pm. It's actual work. Amrich pulls no punches in his description of just what this job entails and how hard it is to do when you go into it with blinders on. It's not discouraging in any way. He just wants to make sure you're going into it knowing the truth. He even addresses issues like dressing professionally and developing the social skills that you're going to need for interacting with people in the business. Again, it's not just hiding out and playing games all day by yourself."

It truly is a wonderful book, despite the minor issues I point out in the review (and Dan has rightly commented to me, and I've asked the editor to update the review, that the screenshots actually do come out very well if you have a Kindle Fire or something like that to read the book on. I was reading on a basic Kindle, and they were totally worthless on that platform).

Reading the book just reinforces the fact that I'd love to sit at a convention (maybe it would have been Pax, but those tickets sadly sold out almost overnight *sniff*) with Dan and have a beer, just talking video games.

If you have any love for video games whatsoever, go read this book!

When real-life death hits online

One of life's certainties, in addition to taxes, is death. Since the dawn of time, humans had to deal with not only the death of our loved ones, but the aftermath. Settling accounts. Changing our life to compensate for the loss.

Yes, we should always make arrangements so that our loved ones have as easy a time as possible in regards to settling our affairs.

In this day and age, with the rise of social media as well as other online fora where people can hang out and socialize, it becomes even more of an issue. I blogged about this before, but two recent articles on All Twitter made me think about it again.

The first article is called "When You Die in Real Life, Who Will Keep You Alive on Twitter?" and was written back in 2010. The reason I found it is because there is a new article up, dated May 22. Entitled "What Happens To Your Twitter When You Die? Creating A Social Media Will," this one talks about the nuts and bolts of things just a little bit more.

The first article talks about similar things to my earlier post (and I'm proud to say that mine came first, so you can't accuse me of thievery), about things like "who will notify your network if you should happen to die unexpectedly?" You've established a presence online, on Facebook and Twitter, or even a blog. You even have a following, friends that only know you from your online personality. I have numerous friends like that, all of whom have never met me. We correspond by email or via our social media sites, but that's it. Without going through my email box (which I guess is something she would have to do), my wife's not going to know how to get a hold of any of these people to tell them. Hopefully there's at least one person that's prominent enough that she would be able to let that person know and the other person can spread it.

As for accounts, the article makes a good point about having logins and passwords. Is your loved one going to be able to even get into your account in order to let those who care online know about your death?

A lot of that I covered in my previous post, but I love this line from Shea's blog:

"This is perhaps a subject that nobody likes to think about, but it’s a reality, and one that can force itself upon us at any moment. Like you, I plan to live forever, but just in case the worst happens, what preparations can you take to ensure that the people who care about you don’t just think you disappeared?

(And if you think this is ridiculous and your followers wouldn’t care, then you need to find different followers.)"

Really, if nobody cares what happens to you, why are they following in the first place?

I think the more recent article is even more interesting, because it talks about the ins and outs of your actual online presence. With identity theft a big problem these days, not to mention the possible pain of seeing your loved one coming up on Facebook searches and the like, it's a good idea to have somebody take care of your online presence when you die.

"Your Twitter is probably where you share posts from blogs that you may or may not own, and it’s likely linked to a bunch of other accounts as well. When you die, someone could potentially gain access to one of these accounts and be able to glean enough info to steal your identity. That’s bad enough when you’re alive, but SUPER annoying for your next of kin to try to sort out when you’re dead."

The blog gives a link to the USA.gov site with tips on not only writing wills, but writing "social media wills," which can include how each of your online accounts should be handled.

Much like a regular will makes your intentions known so that your loved ones don't have to worry about how to deal with your assets, a social media will helps them not have to worry about making decisions regarding things like your blog, your Twitter, and all of that.

Facebook, for example, you can either have your account deleted or they can create a "memorial" page where people can still see you and the stuff you did, but they can't add anything new to it. It also suggests that you actually have a social media executor who will take care of all of this, and it suggests making sure that he/she will get a copy of your death certificate because they he/she might need it in dealing with your various accounts.

This can be even more important if there is money involved, like if you've monetized your blog or if you have Paypal and stuff like that. If somebody gets into there and starts going crazy, your loved ones will have a lot of headaches to deal with that they would rather not have had.

It's all food for thought. I basically have only a couple, so I'm not sure if I'd go the whole formal executor route, but I would definitely think about making sure my accounts are accessible somewhere by my wife in case something were to happen to me.

Because you can never be too careful.

For those who subscribe to this blog by email - and an MST3K treat

You're going to get a little something extra this morning. Possibly.

I'm not sure of the ins and outs of how Blogger's scheduling system and Feedburner's email subscription works, so maybe not.

I just did a post that I meant to schedule for Monday, May 28.

I accidentally scheduled it for May 21.

Which, as you know, has already passed.

I've now edited it and it will be coming out on Monday as planned, but I don't know whether it will be emailed to you tonight because it was published. Publishing it on May 21 may mean it won't show up in your email box. Or it may go back in time and show up in your box last Monday.

Wouldn't THAT be funny?

Anyway, this doesn't affect many people, but I would like to know whether you get the post or not. Just so that I get an idea how this subscription thing works. If one of you could let me know, it's a Dallas post.

Much appreciated!!

We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.

Podcast Stuff - Ep 36 of Down the Hall

Ain't nostalgia grand?

In this week's episode, Jenny and I talk about our past school lives and just what exactly technology in education was like in our younger days. I actually go back to compiling computer programs with punch cards!

We also explain why Fiona isn't on this week (so you new Fiona fans don't come at us with pitchforks) as well as talking about a couple of interesting sites that we discovered on Twitter. It's amazing how much cool stuff you can find on Twitter. Why aren't you on Twitter yet?

Anyway, the meat of the episode was the interview that I did with Sandy Kendell, who works with K-12 teachers in Texas and helps them with their professional development. We have a long and awesome conversation about social media and technology and how all of this has transformed both the classroom as well as their development opportunities. She's a great person to talk to and also to follow on Twitter if you're involved in the field at all.

And for those you who are just being lazy layabouts on this gorgeous morning (or night, if you're half-way around the world), why not spend just a little bit of energy and go to our Facebook page and "like" us over there?

There may be a cookie in it for you.

Internet Hate and Why It's So Prominent

On my way home from work today, I was listening to one of my favourite podcasts, the Lasertime show put on by a bunch of the guys who used to do Talk Radar. (For those of my fans who don't read my media/pop culture posts, please keep reading. I only use some of those for reference points in order to make a larger point)

The subject of this particular episode isn't important, but as usual they all went off on tangents anyway, and one of them was on the incessant need for some people on the Internet to hate things. Especially popular things. And to hold onto this hate beyond any sense of rationality.

It really is a phenomenon that I have seen from time to time, though thankfully not too much recently. The reason for that is more where I hang out than because it's quieting down. Because it's certainly not doing that.

I feel your pain, Benny

You find this a lot in relation to various pop culture things like movies, games, books, television, and things like that. People have this irrational need to get into long, pointless arguments about things that really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Who would win in a fight: Galactus or Darkseid? Did Han Solo really shoot first when he killed Greedo, or is Lucas lame for making that change? Which Star Wars movie is the worst one? Just how many women out there would love to date me if I wasn't already taken? (Believe me, those arguments are legion and have gone on for fourteen years or so. It's also been responsible for a catfight or two)

I've graduated beyond these for the most part, and I've never taken part in them. Now I read (mostly) civilized debates on policy and stuff like that. I still occasionally check out game fora and the like, and you've never seen Internet hate until you've seen the comments in a post about Activision's Call of Duty franchise. The anti-Activision rants can reach legendary proportions.

So why do people on the Internet hate so much?

I think a large part of it is the anonymity that the Internet offers. On most fora that I visit, you can put whatever you want into the profile page. You don't have to use your real name. You can just go by "hist" like I do (well, not exactly like I do, or I may sue your ass off...or the system software just won't allow duplicate accounts. One of the two). You don't have to go by Dave Roy. You don't have to say anything about yourself.

Ok, some things I can go along with

So when Craigslistfan36533 starts ripping on those fans of Twilight or Star Trek or whatever, he can do so with complete confidence that nobody will ever come to his house and beat his face in. He can go to a Trek forum and say anything he wants. He would be different from a troll (as I described in a previous post) because he's not going there just to get a reaction. He honestly believes that whatever he's discussing sucked. He honestly can't believe that somebody likes it.

He just likes to get the hate on and not let it go.

Which brings us to another symptom of this phenomenon. The irresistible attraction to commenting (and hating) on something that really isn't aimed at you in the first place.

Chris Antista on this episode talked about this, and it resonated with me too, partially because I'm guilty of some aspects of this. He mentioned the backlash against things like Twilight (a book series that is obviously not aimed at 30-year-old men) and, more pertinent to me, Justin Bieber. I admit, I have made my share of "Bieber is the sign of doom!" jokes, but they're mostly jokes. I certainly don't hate the kid, and I would never go to a site devoted to him and trash him.

But he is an easy target, and maybe I should lay off those a little bit. I promise I've made my last Bieber joke on this blog.

May the worst demon from Hell strike me down if that is not so.

Ok, that was my last one.

C'mon. Breaking an addiction is hard!

Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, Internet hate.

One last aspect of Internet hate that I just find really odd, and I believe either Chris or Brett Elston also mentioned this on the podcast is the fact that arguments on the Internet seem to be never-ending.

If you and your buddies are at a bar, having some beers, and you get into a discussion about which ship would kick ass in a fight, the Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon, you'll debate it for a bit, get a bit drunker, start ogling the ladies at the end of the bar, and the argument will be quickly forgotten.

Not so on the Internet (maybe that's because there are no ladies at the end of the Internet bar?). That argument will go on for days and days. It may die down for a brief while, but somebody will always resurrect it. It may be an unsuspecting third party who, by saying something totally innocent, will step in it and look at his shoe like it's covered in dog shit. But something will happen. And the argument starts all over again.

Can this phenomenon be explained? I honestly don't know, because it completely mystifies me.

Just like most Internet fan-hate does.

Which is probably why it's a good thing I'm not a practitioner of it, isn't it?

Have you seen this sort of thing around before in the Internet environments you frequent? Or even where you don't frequent?

Inquiring minds want to know.