I recently finished a book called "A Path With Heart", which had been highly recommended from various Buddhist sources, and it absolutely lived up to the recommendations.
One of the more immediately useful ideas in it is the concept of getting away from compartmentalization. That is, the idea that some activities and places are spiritual and others are not. Theoretically, baking cookies or fixing your car can be spiritual activities if you approach them the right way. It wasn't the first time I've come across this idea, but it was the first time I've seen it discussed this extensively or seen this many examples of it in practice.
And so it was that I took that concept to work with me last week and tried to put it into practice, with my job as a spiritual activity. I really needed something to help me, since I'd gotten behind schedule due to being out sick for a couple of days the prior week. The main thing was that when the stress was getting to me, I'd busy out my phone, then pause and try to focus back into my meditative state from that morning so I could approach my work again with a spiritual focus and attitude. If I couldn't get calm enough to be able to focus on my own heartbeat and breath, I wasn't ready to take calls again just yet, no matter how much I had to do or what deadlines I was facing. I don't think it ever took more than two minutes for me to regain my focus, and I didn't lose my temper to any greater extent than the occasional grumble under my breath. Looks like a winning technique, but I won't know for sure until I try it with the pressure really cranked up.
The other main idea I put into practice was the concept of obstacle as teacher, rather than something that simply needed to be overcome. Again, not a new idea, just something to apply diffferently. By focusing on the lesson first, then on overcoming the obstacle, I seemed to be better able to get things done without frustration distracting me.
"A Path with Heart" and "Zen Wrapped in Karma Dipped in Chocolate" are very different books that helped me in the same way, which was by providing multiple applied examples of Buddhist concepts. Useful stuff!
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Dollhouse Episode 2
I probably wouldn't be commenting on Dollhouse again quite so soon if the second episode hadn't been such an improvement over the first. It wasn't a quip-filled bundle o' humor, but it's not meant to be. However, it did have some Whedonesque dialogue and the multiple plot threads that I'd been hoping to see from the beginning.
It's not as immediately engaging as Firefly had been, but it started to raise some of the real issues I've wanted to see tackled since I first heard about the series concept. My faith (no pun intended, Buffy fans) has been substantially restored. Here's hoping that the upcoming episodes are more like this one!
It's not as immediately engaging as Firefly had been, but it started to raise some of the real issues I've wanted to see tackled since I first heard about the series concept. My faith (no pun intended, Buffy fans) has been substantially restored. Here's hoping that the upcoming episodes are more like this one!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
2009 Game Convention Plans
I'm planning a lean year on the convention front, for various reasons. DexCon 2009 in July is a definite, and I anticipate visiting some friends in northern PA for a sort of private con in May or so, and that's it.
For DexCon, I plan to run "Lives in the Balance" for GURPS Cabal and the new humorous Sorcerer scenario I haven't finished or named yet (though I do have a fair number of notes for it). I'll offer "Fear Itself" for In Nomine again, and probably a four player version of "A Dance of Pairs" for Sorcerer. I'd like to offer the sequel I've started for "A Slice of Blackwoods" for GURPS Banestorm, but I'm not sure I can finish it in time.
So why such a lean year for roleplaying conventions? I still love PoliCon, but I don't think I'm going to have anything appropriate ready in time. If I finish the new Sorcerer scenario in time I might try it, but it's unlikely. I've already run Sorcerer at the last two PoliCons, and I feel as though I've gone to that particular well too many times. I could run something with Fluid, which is my own design (good for this crowd) and very low prep, but I'd like to have a high level of enthusiasm the first time I present it and I just don't have that right now.
I'd like to go to GenCon again, but a couple of factors (mostly financial) came together against it. The fall MEPACon is far enough away that it's still a possibility if a lot of things change by then, and I'd offer the same events for MEPACon as I will for DexCon if it happens, but it's not in my plans at this time.
Several factors seem to be pushing me away from being as active at roleplaying conventions as I've been in the past, so I'm going to roll with that, keep my foot in the door by going to DexCon and maintaining contact with my roleplaying friends, and see what next year brings.
For DexCon, I plan to run "Lives in the Balance" for GURPS Cabal and the new humorous Sorcerer scenario I haven't finished or named yet (though I do have a fair number of notes for it). I'll offer "Fear Itself" for In Nomine again, and probably a four player version of "A Dance of Pairs" for Sorcerer. I'd like to offer the sequel I've started for "A Slice of Blackwoods" for GURPS Banestorm, but I'm not sure I can finish it in time.
So why such a lean year for roleplaying conventions? I still love PoliCon, but I don't think I'm going to have anything appropriate ready in time. If I finish the new Sorcerer scenario in time I might try it, but it's unlikely. I've already run Sorcerer at the last two PoliCons, and I feel as though I've gone to that particular well too many times. I could run something with Fluid, which is my own design (good for this crowd) and very low prep, but I'd like to have a high level of enthusiasm the first time I present it and I just don't have that right now.
I'd like to go to GenCon again, but a couple of factors (mostly financial) came together against it. The fall MEPACon is far enough away that it's still a possibility if a lot of things change by then, and I'd offer the same events for MEPACon as I will for DexCon if it happens, but it's not in my plans at this time.
Several factors seem to be pushing me away from being as active at roleplaying conventions as I've been in the past, so I'm going to roll with that, keep my foot in the door by going to DexCon and maintaining contact with my roleplaying friends, and see what next year brings.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Dollhouse
I've got to be up front here and say that I'm an unabashed Joss Whedon fanboy. I'm not a particular fan of Eliza Dushku, though she can be good at times. My hopes for Dollhouse were high, and yet early reviews had been mixed, so I wasn't too excited by the time I was finally able to watch the first episode last night.
On the plus side, there were a lot of intriguing plots put into place. There are questions I'd very much like to see answered. I can see a lot of depth in the supporting characters already, and there are a lot of good stories to be told with those characters. The premise of the series is a little shaky, but the writers address that very directly in the first episode, implying that there is an answer to the obvious question of why a person wealthy enough to afford a memory-implanted doll wouldn't just hire a regular (and cheaper) person with the necessary expertise; it's just that they're not going to answer that question quite yet.
On the negative side, I saw almost none of the trademark Joss Whedon witty dialogue. This might be a purposeful choice, being that the dialogue so beloved by the hardcore Whedon fans might be part of what puts off non-fans. The only characters that really grabbed me were Echo's handler and Dr. Saunders (she of the scarred face). That's not terribly surprising, as it often takes a few episodes for characters in Joss' shows to show enough of themselves for the viewer to get attached to them. The writing was generally more straightforward than Joss' other shows, though there were a few twists to keep things from getting dull. There were a lot of bits (the motorcycle chase and dance scene at the beginning for example) that were clearly added just to increase the amount of action and keep the suits happy, and I seriously think those detracted more than they added in the big picture. I wanted to know why I should care about these people and about the background of the Dollhouse, and instead we spend more screen time watching Eliza dance in a short skirt. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you, but if I want to look at girls dancing in short skirts, there are other places I can get that. I wanted a good story involving characters I cared about, and only got a little of that here.
I've already read that FOX has made a commitment to show a dozen episodes of Dollhouse, if I'm not mistaken, but the flip side of that is that the creative staff had to agree that the first seven episodes will function as stand-alones rather than the layered plotting I generally enjoy in Joss' best work. We've been promised that after those first seven, the big picture plot will take off in earnest, and I hope that's true.
It's a good premise for a series, with lots of issues about identity, etc. to use as material, but honestly, that first episode was just okay. I doubt I'd stick with it if I didn't have faith in the creative people behind it to craft it into something far more powerful by the end of the season. The potential is definitely there, but Dollhouse hasn't truly grabbed me yet.
On the plus side, there were a lot of intriguing plots put into place. There are questions I'd very much like to see answered. I can see a lot of depth in the supporting characters already, and there are a lot of good stories to be told with those characters. The premise of the series is a little shaky, but the writers address that very directly in the first episode, implying that there is an answer to the obvious question of why a person wealthy enough to afford a memory-implanted doll wouldn't just hire a regular (and cheaper) person with the necessary expertise; it's just that they're not going to answer that question quite yet.
On the negative side, I saw almost none of the trademark Joss Whedon witty dialogue. This might be a purposeful choice, being that the dialogue so beloved by the hardcore Whedon fans might be part of what puts off non-fans. The only characters that really grabbed me were Echo's handler and Dr. Saunders (she of the scarred face). That's not terribly surprising, as it often takes a few episodes for characters in Joss' shows to show enough of themselves for the viewer to get attached to them. The writing was generally more straightforward than Joss' other shows, though there were a few twists to keep things from getting dull. There were a lot of bits (the motorcycle chase and dance scene at the beginning for example) that were clearly added just to increase the amount of action and keep the suits happy, and I seriously think those detracted more than they added in the big picture. I wanted to know why I should care about these people and about the background of the Dollhouse, and instead we spend more screen time watching Eliza dance in a short skirt. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you, but if I want to look at girls dancing in short skirts, there are other places I can get that. I wanted a good story involving characters I cared about, and only got a little of that here.
I've already read that FOX has made a commitment to show a dozen episodes of Dollhouse, if I'm not mistaken, but the flip side of that is that the creative staff had to agree that the first seven episodes will function as stand-alones rather than the layered plotting I generally enjoy in Joss' best work. We've been promised that after those first seven, the big picture plot will take off in earnest, and I hope that's true.
It's a good premise for a series, with lots of issues about identity, etc. to use as material, but honestly, that first episode was just okay. I doubt I'd stick with it if I didn't have faith in the creative people behind it to craft it into something far more powerful by the end of the season. The potential is definitely there, but Dollhouse hasn't truly grabbed me yet.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Tales from Dramaville (Part 2)
One of our other main storylines involves an angel of Gabriel with a Role as a bounty hunter, in pursuit of a demon known to abduct children for an unknown purpose. The demon happened to target a child she knew, so now it's personal, and nobody gets as personal as an angry angel of Gabriel. She tracked him to a small city, where he's set up shop again.
He hasn't been active enough yet to give her enough clues to find him, but she patrols the areas where she knows he's been working, and tries to use the little information she has. There have been four children abducted in the area so far, three of whom have turned up dead over the last few days. Two of them were disposed of in the same way at the same time, though they disappeared over a week and a half apart. There's a strangely obvious pattern in the choice of abducted children, but why would someone who knows he's being hunted by an angel give her such an easy clue to stop him?
She's established connections and a certain level of cooperation with the other angels in town, which has given her a little more information than she's had, but not much. But now she also has backup, so unless the demon gets some help, he's in even more trouble when she finds him than he was before. Fortunately for him, there are other demons in town, too, but what sort of deal will he have to make with them to maintain his freedom?
He hasn't been active enough yet to give her enough clues to find him, but she patrols the areas where she knows he's been working, and tries to use the little information she has. There have been four children abducted in the area so far, three of whom have turned up dead over the last few days. Two of them were disposed of in the same way at the same time, though they disappeared over a week and a half apart. There's a strangely obvious pattern in the choice of abducted children, but why would someone who knows he's being hunted by an angel give her such an easy clue to stop him?
She's established connections and a certain level of cooperation with the other angels in town, which has given her a little more information than she's had, but not much. But now she also has backup, so unless the demon gets some help, he's in even more trouble when she finds him than he was before. Fortunately for him, there are other demons in town, too, but what sort of deal will he have to make with them to maintain his freedom?
Saturday, February 07, 2009
The Dark Knight
I know that everybody and their brother has seen this one by now, but I'm just getting to it for various reasons. I have to agree with one of my friends that this is one of the better comic book movies, but it's still several elements short of deserving a Best Picture nomination in my opinion. You might want to take my opinion with a grain of salt on this one, as I strongly disliked "Batman Begins" in just about every respect, which is one of the reasons I was so slow to rent "The Dark Knight". If I hadn't heard such good things about it from friends, I probably wouldn't have bothered renting it at all.
Heath Ledger and Gary Oldman put in great performances, and Aaron Eckhart is good as well. It's a good thing that Gary Oldman is on his game, as this is really Commissioner Gordon's story. Batman is almost an afterthought in his own movie, which was fine with me, actually, as I'm still not at all a fan of Christian Bale, and he absolutely doesn't hold up against Heath Ledger's Joker.
The acting performances held my interest enough that I didn't realize some of the problems I had with the story until after the fact. For starters, I never had any sense at all of what the Joker wanted, and this bothered me a lot even as I was watching the film. I'm sure a lot of people just accepted that he was supposed to be crazy and that was enough, but even "crazy" people have reasons for what they do. "I had to kill him so the squirrels didn't steal my pajamas" is still a reason. "Because it's fun" is a reason to do some things, but I don't buy it as a reason to plan wildly elaborate crimes, tweak the noses of powerful gangsters, and kill dozens of random people. The crimes themselves were well conceived and as funny as they needed to be, which I'm sure wasn't easy to write. I could live with the contradictory reasons given for the Joker's appearance, and even with the complete lack of any background at all as a stylistic quirk, though I found it less than satisfying. I don't necessarily need everything spelled out for me, but I prefer when you can at least infer a motivation on the bad guy's part. That's tough to do when he appears to be intentionally contradicting himself through most of the movie. For example, he says to Harvey Dent at one point that he's not a planner after we've watched him pull off at least three crimes that would've required incredible amounts of planning to pull off as he did.
As for Christian Bale as Batman, I'll just say that stone faced doesn't equate to intensity for me and leave it at that. This could have been a much better movie with a different Batman who actually seemed to care about stopping the Joker (or about anything at all, for that matter), and might have worked better as a crime drama following Jim Gordon and omitting the Batman character altogether. They would've sold fewer tickets to that movie, though.
I found the ending disappointing after all of the build-up, as well as being contradictory to Batman being well established as a character who simply doesn't kill people. To me, that's an essential part of the character because it's the most important difference between him and the other costumed crazy people that he keeps beating up and turning over to the police. It's true that he doesn't actually kill anyone, but the damage to his reputation with the public thinking that he did would be sufficient to get him locked up for a long while the very first time the police had the chance to do so.
I actually enjoyed the movie well enough while I was watching it, largely carried along by some of the strong acting performances, but at the end of the day I think Chris Nolan's take on Batman is just very different from mine. I really enjoyed "Memento" and I've always been a Batman fan, but the combination of this director and this character just doesn't work for me.
Heath Ledger and Gary Oldman put in great performances, and Aaron Eckhart is good as well. It's a good thing that Gary Oldman is on his game, as this is really Commissioner Gordon's story. Batman is almost an afterthought in his own movie, which was fine with me, actually, as I'm still not at all a fan of Christian Bale, and he absolutely doesn't hold up against Heath Ledger's Joker.
The acting performances held my interest enough that I didn't realize some of the problems I had with the story until after the fact. For starters, I never had any sense at all of what the Joker wanted, and this bothered me a lot even as I was watching the film. I'm sure a lot of people just accepted that he was supposed to be crazy and that was enough, but even "crazy" people have reasons for what they do. "I had to kill him so the squirrels didn't steal my pajamas" is still a reason. "Because it's fun" is a reason to do some things, but I don't buy it as a reason to plan wildly elaborate crimes, tweak the noses of powerful gangsters, and kill dozens of random people. The crimes themselves were well conceived and as funny as they needed to be, which I'm sure wasn't easy to write. I could live with the contradictory reasons given for the Joker's appearance, and even with the complete lack of any background at all as a stylistic quirk, though I found it less than satisfying. I don't necessarily need everything spelled out for me, but I prefer when you can at least infer a motivation on the bad guy's part. That's tough to do when he appears to be intentionally contradicting himself through most of the movie. For example, he says to Harvey Dent at one point that he's not a planner after we've watched him pull off at least three crimes that would've required incredible amounts of planning to pull off as he did.
As for Christian Bale as Batman, I'll just say that stone faced doesn't equate to intensity for me and leave it at that. This could have been a much better movie with a different Batman who actually seemed to care about stopping the Joker (or about anything at all, for that matter), and might have worked better as a crime drama following Jim Gordon and omitting the Batman character altogether. They would've sold fewer tickets to that movie, though.
I found the ending disappointing after all of the build-up, as well as being contradictory to Batman being well established as a character who simply doesn't kill people. To me, that's an essential part of the character because it's the most important difference between him and the other costumed crazy people that he keeps beating up and turning over to the police. It's true that he doesn't actually kill anyone, but the damage to his reputation with the public thinking that he did would be sufficient to get him locked up for a long while the very first time the police had the chance to do so.
I actually enjoyed the movie well enough while I was watching it, largely carried along by some of the strong acting performances, but at the end of the day I think Chris Nolan's take on Batman is just very different from mine. I really enjoyed "Memento" and I've always been a Batman fan, but the combination of this director and this character just doesn't work for me.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Time Flies Like the Wind; Fruit Flies Like a Banana
This isn't the title of a book, but it is on the back cover of one, and struck me as hilarious. I don't even think it's original to the author, but it's no less funny because of that.
The actual book is "Zen Wrapped in Karma Dipped in Chocolate" by Brad Warner. I've been too sick for the last two days to do anything more than sleep, eat, then read until I get sleepy, and managed to finish the book in the meantime.
I don't think this is the strongest of Brad Warner's books, but it happened to hit me at the right time for me personally. For those who aren't familiar with him, Brad Warner is the unlikely American Zen master who also plays bass in a punk rock band and worked for a Japanese company that makes movies about giant monsters portrayed by guys in bad rubber suits. This time out, he talks about having one of the roughest years you can imagine and how he used his Buddhist practice to deal with it. During the course of that year, his mother passed away, his marriage broke up, and he lost his job with the movie company. He approaches all of this in a particularly unflinching way, keeping some details private, but for the most part letting his successes and failures all hang out for everyone to see. The core point of the book is to poke a big hole in the stereotype of the perfectly composed Zen master with no difficulties in his life who never makes a mistake. On that point, he is absolutely successful. His behavior in the course of the book is understandable, but not at all exemplary by his own admission. He points out on several occasions that even the best Zen practitioner makes mistakes and has difficulties in his life, and that anyone who tells you differently is almost certainly lying or just plain wrong.
I find this oddly comforting. It'd be nice to believe that there is someone in this world who really has it all together, and that that goal is attainable by us mere mortals, but it's a lot easier to believe that even the most together people in the world are still human and make mistakes or have serious difficulties in their lives from time to time. It shows us that it's more workable than you might think to get your life together as best humanly possible, and that mistakes are not only inevitable but essential to the process.
My Buddhist practice has definitely helped the quality of my life, but I'm still very much a beginner and still have some serious issues to work out. I had a time in my life similar to Mr. Warner's several years ago, which is why I was so interested in seeing how he dealt with it. All in all, it's not surprising that he did a better (if not perfect) job of dealing with his adversity, and that I can learn something from it.
This book is a more personal and less spiritually oriented book than his previous two. His writing style is as entertaining as ever, but if you're looking for Buddhist-style inspiration, there's less meat here than in his previous books. Still, I kept finding excuses to go back and read more until I was finished primarily because he has a fun way of describing his experiences, and the experiences are truly interesting in the first place. Warner has taken some flak in some Buddhist circles for his unconventional ways, and nothing in this book is going to change any opinions of him one way or another. Personally, I find his honesty refreshing and his writing engaging, and I'll probably buy his next book, too, whatever it happens to be. I think his approach to Buddhism is genuine and inspiring, though it's clear that he has his issues to work out, just like the rest of us.
The actual book is "Zen Wrapped in Karma Dipped in Chocolate" by Brad Warner. I've been too sick for the last two days to do anything more than sleep, eat, then read until I get sleepy, and managed to finish the book in the meantime.
I don't think this is the strongest of Brad Warner's books, but it happened to hit me at the right time for me personally. For those who aren't familiar with him, Brad Warner is the unlikely American Zen master who also plays bass in a punk rock band and worked for a Japanese company that makes movies about giant monsters portrayed by guys in bad rubber suits. This time out, he talks about having one of the roughest years you can imagine and how he used his Buddhist practice to deal with it. During the course of that year, his mother passed away, his marriage broke up, and he lost his job with the movie company. He approaches all of this in a particularly unflinching way, keeping some details private, but for the most part letting his successes and failures all hang out for everyone to see. The core point of the book is to poke a big hole in the stereotype of the perfectly composed Zen master with no difficulties in his life who never makes a mistake. On that point, he is absolutely successful. His behavior in the course of the book is understandable, but not at all exemplary by his own admission. He points out on several occasions that even the best Zen practitioner makes mistakes and has difficulties in his life, and that anyone who tells you differently is almost certainly lying or just plain wrong.
I find this oddly comforting. It'd be nice to believe that there is someone in this world who really has it all together, and that that goal is attainable by us mere mortals, but it's a lot easier to believe that even the most together people in the world are still human and make mistakes or have serious difficulties in their lives from time to time. It shows us that it's more workable than you might think to get your life together as best humanly possible, and that mistakes are not only inevitable but essential to the process.
My Buddhist practice has definitely helped the quality of my life, but I'm still very much a beginner and still have some serious issues to work out. I had a time in my life similar to Mr. Warner's several years ago, which is why I was so interested in seeing how he dealt with it. All in all, it's not surprising that he did a better (if not perfect) job of dealing with his adversity, and that I can learn something from it.
This book is a more personal and less spiritually oriented book than his previous two. His writing style is as entertaining as ever, but if you're looking for Buddhist-style inspiration, there's less meat here than in his previous books. Still, I kept finding excuses to go back and read more until I was finished primarily because he has a fun way of describing his experiences, and the experiences are truly interesting in the first place. Warner has taken some flak in some Buddhist circles for his unconventional ways, and nothing in this book is going to change any opinions of him one way or another. Personally, I find his honesty refreshing and his writing engaging, and I'll probably buy his next book, too, whatever it happens to be. I think his approach to Buddhism is genuine and inspiring, though it's clear that he has his issues to work out, just like the rest of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)