One thing I'd hoped to accomplish in 2007 was to function better as a player in roleplaying games. I hate to admit it, but I haven't done very well in that respect.
Pacing is problematic in many roleplaying sessions, and like many players, I get restless when nothing's happening, or things are happening too slowly. One of my main missions as a GM is to keep the events in a game moving at a pace that's enjoyable for the players. I'd like to think it's a job I do better than many GMs. Unfortunately, that means that I'm all the more frustrated when I feel it's not being done well when I'm a player.
I've seen players in some of my sessions doing a wonderful job of dealing with the situation when the pace is too slow for them. In fact, it's one of the signs I look for in the players to let me know that I (as GM) need to pick up the pace. A destructively bored player begins to do things that distract others from the game. A constructive bored player makes things happen that add to the game. For example, the player might initiate a conversation with a NPC or explore the setting while waiting for something more interesting to develop in the main plot. The point is that a good player can add to the overall enjoyability of the game even when he can't advance the overall plot. I know this, and yet I've been having trouble doing it. I'll have to try to do better this upcoming year.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Mohammed the Friendly Bear Revisited
I wanted to better understand the Muslim point of view of the apparent conflict between Islam and western countries, so I decided to find some Muslim websites to try to see things from another side. Most of the sites I found were, not surprisingly, based in England, where they have a fair sized Muslim population. I learned a lot from this, finding some of it enlightening and some of it disturbing.
On the historical/political side, I have a better understanding of how they see their past political conflicts with western countries. I'll just say that I can see how they feel they were interfered with in some respects, and I'll leave it at that without trying to argue the merits of either side.
One particularly interesting discussion on a Muslim message board involved a non-Muslim asking about apostasy, which is when a Muslim decides to convert to another religion. The non-Muslim raised the question as to whether or not it's true that apostasy is punishable by death according to Islam. The bottom line is that yes, it's true, but that while strict Muslims would enforce it, more moderate Muslims generally would not.
One of the more illuminating responses explained that there was a historical reason for that position. At the time the Koran was written, it was common practice for men to infiltrate the opposing army, find out their plans, then return to their own side. So men would turn up to join their army, proclaim themselves to be Muslims, then leave with information. The reason for this rule wasn't spiritual; it was military, and common sense! I have a serious problem with the notion of putting someone to death based on spiritual doctrine, but I can understand the reasons for executing a spy in the course of war. The main problem here is that what was once a practical matter has become spiritual doctrine of a destructive nature.
On a different subject, one of the major conflicts between western values and Islam is political. In the west, we have the separation of church and state as a key principle for various reasons. In Islamic thought, there is no boundary between church and state. In fact, it's unacceptable and inconceivable to them that there could be such a boundary. From their point of view, it's the equivalent of saying that we'll only allow a leader to be in charge if he explicitly rejects morality!
I found multiple Muslim-based websites that took the position that, while western nations allow Muslims to worship freely in their countries, that's simply not enough. Those writers explained that Islam is as much political as it is spiritual, and that anything less than eventual implementation of sharia law is unacceptable. At the very least, they feel that a democracy that includes Muslims in their population should take Muslim sensibilities into account, requiring women to dress more modestly as a matter of law, for example. In multiple cases, they pointed out that one of the key differences between western values and Islamic values is that the west emphasizes individual freedom, where Islam places greater weight on the good of the community as a whole, at the expense of the individual if necessary.
A moderate Muslim believes that everyone will eventually convert to Islam, perhaps over a period of centuries, while an extremist believes that everyone should convert now. My main issue here is that many religions profess to having all of the answers, but that becomes a problem when the people of that religion insist on implementing their practices for all on this side of the afterlife. I want to stress that I'm not speaking exclusively about Islam when I say that.
Compromise between the sets of values is difficult at best, because some of the differences are so pronounced. It seems to me as though the best we're going to do in terms of compromise is to leave them to run their countries according to their values and run our countries according to ours. Frankly, the core values of most human beings are not terribly far apart, and I can't see why we can't live side by side with our different belief sets if we're willing to show some tolerance for other views and reasonable consideration for other sensibilities, but it's a difficult stretch when one set is so unwilling to compromise in some respects.
At the end of the day, I think intent has to be the measuring stick. Innocently allowing a group of Muslim children to name a toy Mohammed is obviously nothing more than a cultural mistake, at worst. Drawing a stick figure on a piece of paper, labeling it Mohammed, and mailing it to a mosque just to upset people is another thing entirely, and it's important that all people on both sides understand the distinction and operate accordingly. I can't think of any circumstance under which violence is justified based on a mere insult, even of the most extreme kind. That said, if you're going to intentionally insult someone else's core values, you'd better expect some kind of backlash in return.
I remember Sinead O'Connor tearing up a photograph of the Pope on Saturday Night Live many years ago and finding out that she was very upset at the reaction of many Catholics to her "artistic statement". It's worth noting that no Catholics rioted or called for her death, but it certainly had an impact on the commercial success of her musical career. As for the spiritual impact of her action, I don't think any of us on the corporeal plane get to judge.
On the historical/political side, I have a better understanding of how they see their past political conflicts with western countries. I'll just say that I can see how they feel they were interfered with in some respects, and I'll leave it at that without trying to argue the merits of either side.
One particularly interesting discussion on a Muslim message board involved a non-Muslim asking about apostasy, which is when a Muslim decides to convert to another religion. The non-Muslim raised the question as to whether or not it's true that apostasy is punishable by death according to Islam. The bottom line is that yes, it's true, but that while strict Muslims would enforce it, more moderate Muslims generally would not.
One of the more illuminating responses explained that there was a historical reason for that position. At the time the Koran was written, it was common practice for men to infiltrate the opposing army, find out their plans, then return to their own side. So men would turn up to join their army, proclaim themselves to be Muslims, then leave with information. The reason for this rule wasn't spiritual; it was military, and common sense! I have a serious problem with the notion of putting someone to death based on spiritual doctrine, but I can understand the reasons for executing a spy in the course of war. The main problem here is that what was once a practical matter has become spiritual doctrine of a destructive nature.
On a different subject, one of the major conflicts between western values and Islam is political. In the west, we have the separation of church and state as a key principle for various reasons. In Islamic thought, there is no boundary between church and state. In fact, it's unacceptable and inconceivable to them that there could be such a boundary. From their point of view, it's the equivalent of saying that we'll only allow a leader to be in charge if he explicitly rejects morality!
I found multiple Muslim-based websites that took the position that, while western nations allow Muslims to worship freely in their countries, that's simply not enough. Those writers explained that Islam is as much political as it is spiritual, and that anything less than eventual implementation of sharia law is unacceptable. At the very least, they feel that a democracy that includes Muslims in their population should take Muslim sensibilities into account, requiring women to dress more modestly as a matter of law, for example. In multiple cases, they pointed out that one of the key differences between western values and Islamic values is that the west emphasizes individual freedom, where Islam places greater weight on the good of the community as a whole, at the expense of the individual if necessary.
A moderate Muslim believes that everyone will eventually convert to Islam, perhaps over a period of centuries, while an extremist believes that everyone should convert now. My main issue here is that many religions profess to having all of the answers, but that becomes a problem when the people of that religion insist on implementing their practices for all on this side of the afterlife. I want to stress that I'm not speaking exclusively about Islam when I say that.
Compromise between the sets of values is difficult at best, because some of the differences are so pronounced. It seems to me as though the best we're going to do in terms of compromise is to leave them to run their countries according to their values and run our countries according to ours. Frankly, the core values of most human beings are not terribly far apart, and I can't see why we can't live side by side with our different belief sets if we're willing to show some tolerance for other views and reasonable consideration for other sensibilities, but it's a difficult stretch when one set is so unwilling to compromise in some respects.
At the end of the day, I think intent has to be the measuring stick. Innocently allowing a group of Muslim children to name a toy Mohammed is obviously nothing more than a cultural mistake, at worst. Drawing a stick figure on a piece of paper, labeling it Mohammed, and mailing it to a mosque just to upset people is another thing entirely, and it's important that all people on both sides understand the distinction and operate accordingly. I can't think of any circumstance under which violence is justified based on a mere insult, even of the most extreme kind. That said, if you're going to intentionally insult someone else's core values, you'd better expect some kind of backlash in return.
I remember Sinead O'Connor tearing up a photograph of the Pope on Saturday Night Live many years ago and finding out that she was very upset at the reaction of many Catholics to her "artistic statement". It's worth noting that no Catholics rioted or called for her death, but it certainly had an impact on the commercial success of her musical career. As for the spiritual impact of her action, I don't think any of us on the corporeal plane get to judge.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
I enjoyed the earlier version starring Gene Wilder, but I'm also a big Tim Burton/Johnny Depp fan, and had to see how the two compared, so I picked this one up via Netflix. I haven't read the source material, so I can't intelligently comment regarding which was more faithful to it. As I understand it, Tim Burton was a huge fan of the original book and was appalled by the differences between the book and the first movie version, which is why he wanted to make another one.
All things considered, the earlier version was probably more accessible to most audiences, and the pacing was better (Tim Burton's version suffers from slow spots, especially in the beginning). However, I think I prefer the Tim Burton version overall.
I didn't enjoy the music very much in either version. The songs were catchier in the original, but the Oompa Loompas are less annoying in the newer version. The special effects were obviously far better in the newer version.
I liked both Willy Wonkas, though I preferred Johnny Depp's more disturbing take on the character. Many critics felt that the parental subplot in Burton's version was unnecessary. I completely disagree. That subplot made sense of Depp's peculiar take on Wonka without taking up too much screen time.
The performances by most of the kids were better in the newer version, except that I preferred the original Charlie.
Most significantly, I far preferred the ending of the newer version. In the original version, Charlie misbehaves just as the other kids do, though he's able to save himself from serious consequences. In the newer version, not only does Charlie behave himself, he truly earns his reward at the end, and it's more satisfying.
Call this one a seven on a 1-10 scale. I'd cheerfully have given it another one or two points if the overall pacing had been better.
All things considered, the earlier version was probably more accessible to most audiences, and the pacing was better (Tim Burton's version suffers from slow spots, especially in the beginning). However, I think I prefer the Tim Burton version overall.
I didn't enjoy the music very much in either version. The songs were catchier in the original, but the Oompa Loompas are less annoying in the newer version. The special effects were obviously far better in the newer version.
I liked both Willy Wonkas, though I preferred Johnny Depp's more disturbing take on the character. Many critics felt that the parental subplot in Burton's version was unnecessary. I completely disagree. That subplot made sense of Depp's peculiar take on Wonka without taking up too much screen time.
The performances by most of the kids were better in the newer version, except that I preferred the original Charlie.
Most significantly, I far preferred the ending of the newer version. In the original version, Charlie misbehaves just as the other kids do, though he's able to save himself from serious consequences. In the newer version, not only does Charlie behave himself, he truly earns his reward at the end, and it's more satisfying.
Call this one a seven on a 1-10 scale. I'd cheerfully have given it another one or two points if the overall pacing had been better.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Religion and Politics
Is it just me, or are these two topics crossing over a whole lot more than usual in the past few years?
Why are some candidates for the presidency of the United States having to answer so many questions regarding their religious affiliation? What happened to the concept of a separation of church and state in this country?
When one is making moral decisions, your spiritual belief set is bound to come into that decision making process. I understand that. I also understand that if someone shares a religious affiliation with you, there's a pretty good chance you'll agree on the results of the decision making process, but that's no guarantee, contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe. I want to see what a person does, not what they say, or what labels they have stuck to them, before I'd consider voting for them.
It worries me that many people seem to be looking for an easy litmus test to decide their choice of candidate. The president has to make too many choices on various subjects for voters to support them on the basis of one issue. What good is it to make your choice based on one issue that's important to you if that candidate is against everything else you believe in? It's a more complex decision than that, and should be approached accordingly. A general agreement on religious affiliation is stronger than a one issue agreement, and so it would be a better basis for a choice of candidate, but I've seen enough people who claim a particular belief set without actually living their lives according to it to be a bit skeptical until I see the choices that person actually makes.
On the other side of the coin, if someone has a different religious affiliation than I do, but makes a lot of choices I agree with, I have no problem with voting for him/her.
To focus on one particular candidate for a moment, here are some reasons I could not support Huckabee for president. First, he spends $30k to make a commercial attacking the record of another candidate, then he decides not to use it. This does not demonstrate the fiscal responsibility I want to see from the president. Then, he brings the press in and shows them that commercial to demonstrate how he's taking the moral high ground by not using it. Except that he is using it, because the press is, by nature of what they do, going to publish information about the content of the not-being-used commercial, which means that he isn't truly taking the high ground at all. In fact, I trust him a good deal less now because these actions show that he's deluding himself or trying to delude others, and either way it doesn't give me confidence in him.
It also bothers me that he was quoted as saying that he wanted to take this country back for Christ. What about the many non-Christians who live here? Doesn't the president work for everybody in the United States? After eight years of George W. saying that God is on our side, I'm sure our Muslim friends who perceive the U.S. as being at war with Islam would appreciate it if we followed up with a new president who has publicly announced that he'd like to take the U.S. back for Christ.
It's a delicate time. I'm glad that so many people in the world seem to be getting more interested in spiritual issues, but it concerns me that that interest seems to be resulting in people choosing sides on which to fight when we should be focusing on what we have in common to resolve conflicts instead of making them worse. Are people looking for real spirituality or clear and easy answers in a confusing world?
Why are some candidates for the presidency of the United States having to answer so many questions regarding their religious affiliation? What happened to the concept of a separation of church and state in this country?
When one is making moral decisions, your spiritual belief set is bound to come into that decision making process. I understand that. I also understand that if someone shares a religious affiliation with you, there's a pretty good chance you'll agree on the results of the decision making process, but that's no guarantee, contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe. I want to see what a person does, not what they say, or what labels they have stuck to them, before I'd consider voting for them.
It worries me that many people seem to be looking for an easy litmus test to decide their choice of candidate. The president has to make too many choices on various subjects for voters to support them on the basis of one issue. What good is it to make your choice based on one issue that's important to you if that candidate is against everything else you believe in? It's a more complex decision than that, and should be approached accordingly. A general agreement on religious affiliation is stronger than a one issue agreement, and so it would be a better basis for a choice of candidate, but I've seen enough people who claim a particular belief set without actually living their lives according to it to be a bit skeptical until I see the choices that person actually makes.
On the other side of the coin, if someone has a different religious affiliation than I do, but makes a lot of choices I agree with, I have no problem with voting for him/her.
To focus on one particular candidate for a moment, here are some reasons I could not support Huckabee for president. First, he spends $30k to make a commercial attacking the record of another candidate, then he decides not to use it. This does not demonstrate the fiscal responsibility I want to see from the president. Then, he brings the press in and shows them that commercial to demonstrate how he's taking the moral high ground by not using it. Except that he is using it, because the press is, by nature of what they do, going to publish information about the content of the not-being-used commercial, which means that he isn't truly taking the high ground at all. In fact, I trust him a good deal less now because these actions show that he's deluding himself or trying to delude others, and either way it doesn't give me confidence in him.
It also bothers me that he was quoted as saying that he wanted to take this country back for Christ. What about the many non-Christians who live here? Doesn't the president work for everybody in the United States? After eight years of George W. saying that God is on our side, I'm sure our Muslim friends who perceive the U.S. as being at war with Islam would appreciate it if we followed up with a new president who has publicly announced that he'd like to take the U.S. back for Christ.
It's a delicate time. I'm glad that so many people in the world seem to be getting more interested in spiritual issues, but it concerns me that that interest seems to be resulting in people choosing sides on which to fight when we should be focusing on what we have in common to resolve conflicts instead of making them worse. Are people looking for real spirituality or clear and easy answers in a confusing world?
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Happy New Year!
I don't know that starting the year with a post of bit and pieces is a good idea, but it's what's on my mind at the moment.
Here's to Doc Aether and his bride-to-be, with whom my wife and I shared a post-Christmas lunch. We don't see each other in person often, but it's always a pleasure when we do.
I stand corrected on my previous post re: Madonna and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I found out that Gwen Stefani acknowledges Madonna as a musical influence, and I can see that. I still don't think Madonna belongs, but that's at least one contradictory piece of evidence.
Christmas isn't a one day thing for me. It's a marathon of at least a week, getting together with various family members and friends, local and otherwise. I'm sure it's getting to be more and more that way for everyone.
One of my sisters gifted me with an MP3 player, so I'm finally going to join the world of musical downloads. I'm sure there'll be a learning curve while I figure out how to use the thing and where to find music I'll enjoy.
My other sister bought me a desk catapult. I already have the best desk toys at work; this should build on that reputation.
My niece and nephew were noticeably more personally friendly this year. I think they're old enough now to understand where some of the presents are coming from. :-)
This was more of a clothing Christmas than usual for me, which I'm happy with. Remember when you were a kid and hated getting clothing for Christmas?
My mother asked what my wife got me for Christmas. When I explained that two of the main gifts were a demon skull and an 18 inch talking Pinhead figure, she just shook her head. In spite of my spiritual inclinations, I've always enjoyed creepy images, going back to when I was very young. As a kid in my single digit years, I had these Styrofoam airplanes called Freaky Fliers that included images like a disembodied flying eyeball, and a small plastic figure of something called Rat Fink (see Ed "Big Daddy" Roth if you want a visual) that was given to me by an uncle. I haven't figured out why I've always had an affinity for images that most people would find creepy; it's just been part of me as far back as I can remember.
Books are big for me almost every year, and this year was no exception. Philosophy, psychology, and biography were this year's subjects. Now what I need is time to read.
Gift cards are fine to receive as gifts so you can get whatever you want, and they're certainly convenient for the buyer, but there's little point in trading them with family members who clearly don't get each other. I don't know a good solution to the problem other than choosing not to buy them for others yourself or acknowledging that you can't buy well for each other and agreeing not to exchange gifts. On the other hand, there are some people who are tough to buy for, and who likes to be on the receiving end of a poorly conceived gift?
I went to see the Sweeney Todd movie with some family members. I'll admit up front that I'm a Tim Burton fan, but I must say that this is some of his best work. The acting performances are excellent, almost across the board. Highly recommended! I'm afraid there might be too much blood for mainstream success, though.
I've signed up for a yoga class beginning in mid-January. I didn't seek this out. It was offered at work, and I just thought it might be interesting to try. Even if it's a mistake, at least it'll be an interesting mistake.
I'm feeling an inclination to play music again, which has been missing for several years now. My musical discussions with one of my step nephews, who is just starting to get serious about playing, are probably an influence here, though I don't think that's all of it. On the other hand, I don't have the time or any other musicians I know who are likely to want to play as little as I would. Once a month would be cool. I already have too much on my plate, so I'll have to give this time and see if the urge passes or builds. I might want to get out my bass and try to get back into practice in case I decide to start playing again. I still have no interest in playing in public again; I'd just want to do it for fun.
I'm still struggling a bit finishing the roleplaying scenario "Fear Itself". I wrote the scenario first and I'm writing the characters afterward, which is the reverse of my usual process, and maybe that has something to do with it.
I really want to see the New England Patriots lose. They're a fine team, and certainly deserve to win this year's NFL championship, but they've already spent too much time on top of the heap and I don't like to see anyone in professional sports win every game. If I could write the story, I'd like to see them lose to the Green Bay Packers in the Super Bowl, then see Brett Favre retire as a winner. I've got a feeling that's not gonna happen, though.
Hope you all had good holidays. And now, back to the regularly scheduled program...
Here's to Doc Aether and his bride-to-be, with whom my wife and I shared a post-Christmas lunch. We don't see each other in person often, but it's always a pleasure when we do.
I stand corrected on my previous post re: Madonna and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I found out that Gwen Stefani acknowledges Madonna as a musical influence, and I can see that. I still don't think Madonna belongs, but that's at least one contradictory piece of evidence.
Christmas isn't a one day thing for me. It's a marathon of at least a week, getting together with various family members and friends, local and otherwise. I'm sure it's getting to be more and more that way for everyone.
One of my sisters gifted me with an MP3 player, so I'm finally going to join the world of musical downloads. I'm sure there'll be a learning curve while I figure out how to use the thing and where to find music I'll enjoy.
My other sister bought me a desk catapult. I already have the best desk toys at work; this should build on that reputation.
My niece and nephew were noticeably more personally friendly this year. I think they're old enough now to understand where some of the presents are coming from. :-)
This was more of a clothing Christmas than usual for me, which I'm happy with. Remember when you were a kid and hated getting clothing for Christmas?
My mother asked what my wife got me for Christmas. When I explained that two of the main gifts were a demon skull and an 18 inch talking Pinhead figure, she just shook her head. In spite of my spiritual inclinations, I've always enjoyed creepy images, going back to when I was very young. As a kid in my single digit years, I had these Styrofoam airplanes called Freaky Fliers that included images like a disembodied flying eyeball, and a small plastic figure of something called Rat Fink (see Ed "Big Daddy" Roth if you want a visual) that was given to me by an uncle. I haven't figured out why I've always had an affinity for images that most people would find creepy; it's just been part of me as far back as I can remember.
Books are big for me almost every year, and this year was no exception. Philosophy, psychology, and biography were this year's subjects. Now what I need is time to read.
Gift cards are fine to receive as gifts so you can get whatever you want, and they're certainly convenient for the buyer, but there's little point in trading them with family members who clearly don't get each other. I don't know a good solution to the problem other than choosing not to buy them for others yourself or acknowledging that you can't buy well for each other and agreeing not to exchange gifts. On the other hand, there are some people who are tough to buy for, and who likes to be on the receiving end of a poorly conceived gift?
I went to see the Sweeney Todd movie with some family members. I'll admit up front that I'm a Tim Burton fan, but I must say that this is some of his best work. The acting performances are excellent, almost across the board. Highly recommended! I'm afraid there might be too much blood for mainstream success, though.
I've signed up for a yoga class beginning in mid-January. I didn't seek this out. It was offered at work, and I just thought it might be interesting to try. Even if it's a mistake, at least it'll be an interesting mistake.
I'm feeling an inclination to play music again, which has been missing for several years now. My musical discussions with one of my step nephews, who is just starting to get serious about playing, are probably an influence here, though I don't think that's all of it. On the other hand, I don't have the time or any other musicians I know who are likely to want to play as little as I would. Once a month would be cool. I already have too much on my plate, so I'll have to give this time and see if the urge passes or builds. I might want to get out my bass and try to get back into practice in case I decide to start playing again. I still have no interest in playing in public again; I'd just want to do it for fun.
I'm still struggling a bit finishing the roleplaying scenario "Fear Itself". I wrote the scenario first and I'm writing the characters afterward, which is the reverse of my usual process, and maybe that has something to do with it.
I really want to see the New England Patriots lose. They're a fine team, and certainly deserve to win this year's NFL championship, but they've already spent too much time on top of the heap and I don't like to see anyone in professional sports win every game. If I could write the story, I'd like to see them lose to the Green Bay Packers in the Super Bowl, then see Brett Favre retire as a winner. I've got a feeling that's not gonna happen, though.
Hope you all had good holidays. And now, back to the regularly scheduled program...
Sunday, December 23, 2007
An Incident at the Grocery Store
My wife and I were both feeling under the weather this past week, but one of us had to go to the grocery store for essentials. Since I was feeling marginally better than she was, I was the more sensible choice, so off I went.
I picked up the things I needed and was in line at the register, being rung out. I was facing the girl at the register, so the next person in line was coming toward my left side. Since I wasn't feeling well, I have to admit that I wasn't as aware of my surroundings as usual and didn't see who it was, other than registering that there was a person approaching from that side.
As I was standing there, I suddenly felt a hard impact on my left thigh. Fortunately, I had my weight solidly distributed, so I didn't lose my balance, but the impact was hard enough to hurt. So I looked up to my left to see an upscale woman, probably in her late 60's, wearing a lot of make-up and clearly artificial red hair coloring, who had just pushed her cart into my leg with as much strength as she could muster. She was still glaring down at her grocery cart after having placed her items on the conveyor belt that moves stuff up to the register. She looked a bit more irritated than when I first looked at her, then pushed her cart into my leg again as hard as she could. She wasn't able to build up as much momentum this time, so it didn't really hurt, but it was annoying. She repeated this several times, still glaring down at her cart as though it was responsible for her not moving forward, while I tried to clear my head enough to decide what to say to her, if anything. The girl at the register was busy taking my money and getting my change, so she didn't notice what was happening. I tried to think of what I could say to her to make her stop, but since I wasn't feeling well, I was in a bad mood and most of what came to mind wasn't very pleasant. I realized that saying any of the things I had in mind was unlikely to improve the situation in any way. She continued to push during the entire time I was considering my options, never once looking up from the cart.
By this time, I was more amused by her complete obliviousness than annoyed by it, so I said nothing, took my change and my groceries, and left. I took one last look back at her to see what she'd do when the resistance stopped. Her expression changed to one of satisfaction as she moved forward, still not so much as glancing at me.
I'd love to know what was going on in her mind during the whole process. I don't know if she was genuinely clueless that I was there, or if she didn't know what to say after realizing what she'd done and thought it most socially graceful to continue to appear to be unaware. My best guess is that she was focused on her holiday grocery shopping and really had no idea what she was doing. The holidays sometimes have that effect on people.
Enjoy the seasonal festival of your choice, and don't forget that however busy you are, other people are people, too!
I picked up the things I needed and was in line at the register, being rung out. I was facing the girl at the register, so the next person in line was coming toward my left side. Since I wasn't feeling well, I have to admit that I wasn't as aware of my surroundings as usual and didn't see who it was, other than registering that there was a person approaching from that side.
As I was standing there, I suddenly felt a hard impact on my left thigh. Fortunately, I had my weight solidly distributed, so I didn't lose my balance, but the impact was hard enough to hurt. So I looked up to my left to see an upscale woman, probably in her late 60's, wearing a lot of make-up and clearly artificial red hair coloring, who had just pushed her cart into my leg with as much strength as she could muster. She was still glaring down at her grocery cart after having placed her items on the conveyor belt that moves stuff up to the register. She looked a bit more irritated than when I first looked at her, then pushed her cart into my leg again as hard as she could. She wasn't able to build up as much momentum this time, so it didn't really hurt, but it was annoying. She repeated this several times, still glaring down at her cart as though it was responsible for her not moving forward, while I tried to clear my head enough to decide what to say to her, if anything. The girl at the register was busy taking my money and getting my change, so she didn't notice what was happening. I tried to think of what I could say to her to make her stop, but since I wasn't feeling well, I was in a bad mood and most of what came to mind wasn't very pleasant. I realized that saying any of the things I had in mind was unlikely to improve the situation in any way. She continued to push during the entire time I was considering my options, never once looking up from the cart.
By this time, I was more amused by her complete obliviousness than annoyed by it, so I said nothing, took my change and my groceries, and left. I took one last look back at her to see what she'd do when the resistance stopped. Her expression changed to one of satisfaction as she moved forward, still not so much as glancing at me.
I'd love to know what was going on in her mind during the whole process. I don't know if she was genuinely clueless that I was there, or if she didn't know what to say after realizing what she'd done and thought it most socially graceful to continue to appear to be unaware. My best guess is that she was focused on her holiday grocery shopping and really had no idea what she was doing. The holidays sometimes have that effect on people.
Enjoy the seasonal festival of your choice, and don't forget that however busy you are, other people are people, too!
Monday, December 17, 2007
"Fear Itself" - Progress at Last
I've finally gotten back to making progress on my newest In Nomine scenario. This scenario follows what happens to some NPCs after the conclusion of a prior story ("Angels on the Edge"), so I was counting on using those NPCs as PCs for this one. Unfortunately for me, those characters weren't as fleshed out as I'd thought, and it's taking some serious time to bring them up to snuff as player characters. They're finally taking shape as intended. The stats are done now for about half of them, so I have to finish the others and do some character write-ups, which I usually enjoy, then I'll be ready for a playtest.
After that, I'll move on to the scenario I'd started for Don't Rest Your Head, which shouldn't take too long.
Brace yourselves, playtesters, early 2008 may be busy!
After that, I'll move on to the scenario I'd started for Don't Rest Your Head, which shouldn't take too long.
Brace yourselves, playtesters, early 2008 may be busy!
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
I was looking at the list of upcoming inductees to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and have to ask if these are really deserving to be there. I haven't blogged much about music, but those of you who know me well enough know that I used to play, and know a lot more about the history of rock and roll than the average person.
Madonna - I have a real problem with this one. While she's had a powerful cultural influence, I don't think anybody can reasonably argue that she's had any significant musical influence on rock and roll. How many up and coming musical acts would cite Madonna as someone they want to emulate in anything other than a commercial sense? This is not the Marketing Hall of Fame. Maybe the argument would be that the presentation of her live shows influenced others.
John Mellancamp - It's true that he's had a lot of hits, but again, I don't see anyone citing him as a significant musical influence. My own opinion is that his music is, at best, catchy but derivative. Yes, he's been around for a long time now, but longevity alone is not a reason to put someone in the Hall of Fame.
Leonard Cohen - To be honest, I don't know much about him. What I've heard has at least been creative and unique, and I know that other more famous performers have cited him as an influence. I hadn't known that he was a Buddhist until I read his Wikipedia entry just a moment ago. Based on that entry, he's certainly had some success, but he's not someone who'd be likely to be at the top of any given individual's list of people who have to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I don't have a problem with his selection, even though he seems like a bit of an odd choice to me.
The Dave Clark Five - They had a lot of hits in a short time, but I don't see any lasting influence on music on their part.
The Ventures - There's definitely some lasting influence here on a number of well known (and more influential) musicians from the 60's. Seems like a good choice to me, though a lot of younger people wouldn't recognize them.
Am I correctly seeing a pattern here, in that the people who have actual musical influence are being balanced out by performers with more commercial power? It's almost as though they're afraid that a less commercial set of selections won't have enough star power to keep the attention of the public. Acts with high sales have to be considered, since they've demonstrated a certain appeal, but the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame should be about more than numbers. Weren't there any better options here?
Madonna - I have a real problem with this one. While she's had a powerful cultural influence, I don't think anybody can reasonably argue that she's had any significant musical influence on rock and roll. How many up and coming musical acts would cite Madonna as someone they want to emulate in anything other than a commercial sense? This is not the Marketing Hall of Fame. Maybe the argument would be that the presentation of her live shows influenced others.
John Mellancamp - It's true that he's had a lot of hits, but again, I don't see anyone citing him as a significant musical influence. My own opinion is that his music is, at best, catchy but derivative. Yes, he's been around for a long time now, but longevity alone is not a reason to put someone in the Hall of Fame.
Leonard Cohen - To be honest, I don't know much about him. What I've heard has at least been creative and unique, and I know that other more famous performers have cited him as an influence. I hadn't known that he was a Buddhist until I read his Wikipedia entry just a moment ago. Based on that entry, he's certainly had some success, but he's not someone who'd be likely to be at the top of any given individual's list of people who have to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I don't have a problem with his selection, even though he seems like a bit of an odd choice to me.
The Dave Clark Five - They had a lot of hits in a short time, but I don't see any lasting influence on music on their part.
The Ventures - There's definitely some lasting influence here on a number of well known (and more influential) musicians from the 60's. Seems like a good choice to me, though a lot of younger people wouldn't recognize them.
Am I correctly seeing a pattern here, in that the people who have actual musical influence are being balanced out by performers with more commercial power? It's almost as though they're afraid that a less commercial set of selections won't have enough star power to keep the attention of the public. Acts with high sales have to be considered, since they've demonstrated a certain appeal, but the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame should be about more than numbers. Weren't there any better options here?
Friday, December 14, 2007
Veronica Mars - Season One
I finished watching this yesterday, and had a few thoughts on it. As I'd said before, the quality writing is the best reason to watch it. I found the ending satisfying without necessarily tying up everything (since a TV series has to have somewhere to go next season). I'll probably watch the second season at some point, but for now I need a break, and the Netflix review consensus seems to be that later seasons weren't as good as the first, anyway.
One thing that didn't make sense to me is Veronica's taste in men. Most women will be attracted to men who are very much like their father in some respects, while a minority will look for men as different from their father as they can manage. Either way, it's a reaction to their father, which is understandable, since he's the first man that's important in her life (assuming he's present to raise her). Since Veronica's father is a main character on the series, we get to know him fairly well, so we can accurately judge whether or not this is true for Veronica, and it's not even close.
Why does she seem to be attracted to men with a serious psychotic streak? I don't just mean men who have quirks or "bad boys", but men who suddenly become loud and sometimes violent with little provocation. I understand that these are teen characters, and therefore less stable than adults, but they seemed over the top to me, even by teen standards. The police deputy is obviously an exception, but I can't see why he'd hold any attraction for Veronica, either, apart from the fact that he works in law enforcement and is a little older than her. That doesn't seem like much, and she's clearly less attracted to him than she is to the psychotics, in any case. I could understand one strange guy happening to appeal to her for some reason, but the fact that it happens more than once makes it a pattern, and that bothers me. I prefer to see romantic relationships that make some kind of sense, even when they're not what you'd call healthy relationships.
Creative work inevitably tells you something about the point of view of the person (or people) creating it, so what does this tell us about Rob Thomas, the guy behind this series? I don't know anything about him, so I don't even have a basis from which to speculate. I just know that it doesn't square with the more accurate perceptions of human behavior otherwise seen in the series. Don't get me wrong here. I enjoyed this series, and would recommend it to almost anyone. I just don't understand that particular aspect of it.
One thing that didn't make sense to me is Veronica's taste in men. Most women will be attracted to men who are very much like their father in some respects, while a minority will look for men as different from their father as they can manage. Either way, it's a reaction to their father, which is understandable, since he's the first man that's important in her life (assuming he's present to raise her). Since Veronica's father is a main character on the series, we get to know him fairly well, so we can accurately judge whether or not this is true for Veronica, and it's not even close.
Why does she seem to be attracted to men with a serious psychotic streak? I don't just mean men who have quirks or "bad boys", but men who suddenly become loud and sometimes violent with little provocation. I understand that these are teen characters, and therefore less stable than adults, but they seemed over the top to me, even by teen standards. The police deputy is obviously an exception, but I can't see why he'd hold any attraction for Veronica, either, apart from the fact that he works in law enforcement and is a little older than her. That doesn't seem like much, and she's clearly less attracted to him than she is to the psychotics, in any case. I could understand one strange guy happening to appeal to her for some reason, but the fact that it happens more than once makes it a pattern, and that bothers me. I prefer to see romantic relationships that make some kind of sense, even when they're not what you'd call healthy relationships.
Creative work inevitably tells you something about the point of view of the person (or people) creating it, so what does this tell us about Rob Thomas, the guy behind this series? I don't know anything about him, so I don't even have a basis from which to speculate. I just know that it doesn't square with the more accurate perceptions of human behavior otherwise seen in the series. Don't get me wrong here. I enjoyed this series, and would recommend it to almost anyone. I just don't understand that particular aspect of it.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Differences
I've been finding it hard to get motivated to do much more than the essentials for the last two weeks or so. So in accord with Buddhist thought, rather than forcing things and metaphorically banging my head against a wall, I decided to let go and observe the process of my own mind's working to see if I could figure out what was happening. It turned out to be a sort of pre-holiday mental housecleaning, and seems to have passed. I feel a lot less cluttered now, in spite of still having a lot of holiday stuff to do, and maybe that was the purpose. Now I'm ready to move on.
This train of thought led me to consider how Buddhism has changed me over the past year or so. I've already talked about some of those differences, but there have been some surprises along the way as well. Please bear with a little self-indulgence here; I still have enough ego to need it on occasion.
I'm more observant now. It's a lot easier to see what's going on when you're not as preoccupied with your own thoughts. I'm working on really listening to people, well enough to hear through the clutter of words to the actual meanings they're trying to convey (which don't always correspond much with the words they've chosen), as well as underlying information that they may not realize they're giving you.
My energy level is better. The main reason for this is that I'm not tying up my energy maintaining my anger any more. The simple understanding that anger is a choice (once you get past the initial emotional reaction) was all that I needed. It sounds so simple, but each person has to assimilate life's lessons in their own way, and Buddhism was the way that worked for me in this case. I used to believe that you needed to vent to release anger, lest it tear you apart inside, but it turns out that venting becomes self-perpetuating after a while. It took quite a while for that one to sink in in my case.
I don't resent the things I have to do to maintain my life the way I used to. I used to feel as though anything that took me away from creativity was a side track, rather than my creativity being something I did in my spare time. Yes, I know that's backwards, but I have to be honest that that's the way I felt about it. I used to define myself by my creativity, but I don't need that to prop up my ego anymore. The cool thing about that is that I can just enjoy my creative work for what it is without feeling so much is at stake.
I'm more kind to the people I have incidental contact with. I'm referring to the waiters, store clerks, etc. of the world. I don't think I was ever that bad in dealing with them, but I'll admit that I'd often think about them more in terms of function than in terms of them being human beings, for the most part. I think most people are guilty of that to some degree, which is why those jobs usually aren't much fun.
I don't swear as much as I used to. I generally reserve it now for that initial burst of anger that I'll feel on occasion, then I let it go, which means that I don't need to continue to use the harsh language. It used to be more important to me at times to express myself than to take into account that people had to listen to it.
My job is easier. I'd expected that to come along with better anger management (which was my main goal when I started reading Buddhist material), but the surprise to me was how much easier people are to deal with if you begin dealing with them by showing a fundamental human interest in their well being beyond the matter at hand. There are people who can fake that well enough to fool an awful lot of people, but I'm not one of them. I had to genuinely feel it, or it came off badly, which required a serious change of mind set on my part. My problem had been that I was frequently overwhelmed by the impossible time constraints of my job, and was trying to deal with people so quickly that they had the feeling that I didn't care about them. It wasn't that I didn't care about them; it was that I didn't have the time to spend on them, but the message they were receiving was that I wanted to be rid of them as soon as possible, and they didn't appreciate that. When I started taking more time with them up front, I found that I had fewer difficult situations and saved much more time in later conversations.
I have very little interest in alcohol now, which was a big surprise. I was quite a drinker in my early 20's, and even in more recent years it wasn't unusual for me to respond to a tough working day by going home and having a drink. I can still enjoy alcoholic drinks for taste, but I have no desire to get even slightly drunk anymore. When I'd first read that alcohol was considered a Bad Thing in Buddhist thought because of the impact it has on clear thinking, I'd thought I'd never be able to give it up, and now I've largely lost interest as a natural result of meditating. I'm enjoying my clarity of thought and don't want to give that up.
My default setting now is to be happy, unless I have reason to be otherwise. Like the anger issue, I realized that happiness is an available choice, and why wouldn't I choose it if I can? That's a real revolution for me, after years of battling depression. I doubt that most people will understand the full impact of that unless they've known me through those depressions.
I find that I'm less patient when people get angry than I used to be, which is hilarious, if you think about it. I used to be more willing to accept anger in others when I believed it was inevitable under the circumstances. Now, I have to consciously remind myself that, while that person is effectively choosing to stay angry after the initial event, it wasn't that long ago that I'd be doing exactly the same thing, and that I need to be helpful to that person if I can.
I don't think I've changed this much in a single year in a very long time, and I'm glad it seems to be for the better. The trick now is to make sure the lessons stick, apply them more consistently and continue to build on them. If you've bothered to read this far, thanks for reading, and I hope you got something out of it.
This train of thought led me to consider how Buddhism has changed me over the past year or so. I've already talked about some of those differences, but there have been some surprises along the way as well. Please bear with a little self-indulgence here; I still have enough ego to need it on occasion.
I'm more observant now. It's a lot easier to see what's going on when you're not as preoccupied with your own thoughts. I'm working on really listening to people, well enough to hear through the clutter of words to the actual meanings they're trying to convey (which don't always correspond much with the words they've chosen), as well as underlying information that they may not realize they're giving you.
My energy level is better. The main reason for this is that I'm not tying up my energy maintaining my anger any more. The simple understanding that anger is a choice (once you get past the initial emotional reaction) was all that I needed. It sounds so simple, but each person has to assimilate life's lessons in their own way, and Buddhism was the way that worked for me in this case. I used to believe that you needed to vent to release anger, lest it tear you apart inside, but it turns out that venting becomes self-perpetuating after a while. It took quite a while for that one to sink in in my case.
I don't resent the things I have to do to maintain my life the way I used to. I used to feel as though anything that took me away from creativity was a side track, rather than my creativity being something I did in my spare time. Yes, I know that's backwards, but I have to be honest that that's the way I felt about it. I used to define myself by my creativity, but I don't need that to prop up my ego anymore. The cool thing about that is that I can just enjoy my creative work for what it is without feeling so much is at stake.
I'm more kind to the people I have incidental contact with. I'm referring to the waiters, store clerks, etc. of the world. I don't think I was ever that bad in dealing with them, but I'll admit that I'd often think about them more in terms of function than in terms of them being human beings, for the most part. I think most people are guilty of that to some degree, which is why those jobs usually aren't much fun.
I don't swear as much as I used to. I generally reserve it now for that initial burst of anger that I'll feel on occasion, then I let it go, which means that I don't need to continue to use the harsh language. It used to be more important to me at times to express myself than to take into account that people had to listen to it.
My job is easier. I'd expected that to come along with better anger management (which was my main goal when I started reading Buddhist material), but the surprise to me was how much easier people are to deal with if you begin dealing with them by showing a fundamental human interest in their well being beyond the matter at hand. There are people who can fake that well enough to fool an awful lot of people, but I'm not one of them. I had to genuinely feel it, or it came off badly, which required a serious change of mind set on my part. My problem had been that I was frequently overwhelmed by the impossible time constraints of my job, and was trying to deal with people so quickly that they had the feeling that I didn't care about them. It wasn't that I didn't care about them; it was that I didn't have the time to spend on them, but the message they were receiving was that I wanted to be rid of them as soon as possible, and they didn't appreciate that. When I started taking more time with them up front, I found that I had fewer difficult situations and saved much more time in later conversations.
I have very little interest in alcohol now, which was a big surprise. I was quite a drinker in my early 20's, and even in more recent years it wasn't unusual for me to respond to a tough working day by going home and having a drink. I can still enjoy alcoholic drinks for taste, but I have no desire to get even slightly drunk anymore. When I'd first read that alcohol was considered a Bad Thing in Buddhist thought because of the impact it has on clear thinking, I'd thought I'd never be able to give it up, and now I've largely lost interest as a natural result of meditating. I'm enjoying my clarity of thought and don't want to give that up.
My default setting now is to be happy, unless I have reason to be otherwise. Like the anger issue, I realized that happiness is an available choice, and why wouldn't I choose it if I can? That's a real revolution for me, after years of battling depression. I doubt that most people will understand the full impact of that unless they've known me through those depressions.
I find that I'm less patient when people get angry than I used to be, which is hilarious, if you think about it. I used to be more willing to accept anger in others when I believed it was inevitable under the circumstances. Now, I have to consciously remind myself that, while that person is effectively choosing to stay angry after the initial event, it wasn't that long ago that I'd be doing exactly the same thing, and that I need to be helpful to that person if I can.
I don't think I've changed this much in a single year in a very long time, and I'm glad it seems to be for the better. The trick now is to make sure the lessons stick, apply them more consistently and continue to build on them. If you've bothered to read this far, thanks for reading, and I hope you got something out of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)