Schrodinger came up with the quantum theory that the state of particles could best be described in probability fields. Rather than saying with certainty where a particle is, we can only say with varying degrees of probability where it is; thus a particle potentially exists in many places at the same time.
Suppose that your computer is the range of all probability, and we're trying to track a quantum particle as it travels from the top middle of your screen to the bottom middle. From past experience, we know that 40 percent of the time, our chosen particle travels a route somewhere within the middle third of your screen. Next to that middle third are paths it has taken in the past with less frequency. Maybe the next strip on each side has been traveled 20 percent of the time, and the strip after that only 5 percent of the time, and so on, out to the edges where there is only an infinitessimal probability that our quantum particle will travel that route. (More or less your standard bell curve distribution.)
This quantum field is actually useful for some sort of mathematical/physics thing I dimly remember from some reading I did in high school.
Anyway, Shrodinger, whose umlauts I am too lazy to recreate at this point, illustrated his principle with this suggested mechanism: Take a cat and put it in a box. Elsewhere there is a radioactive isotope that is going to decay; at the point it decays, a poison gas will be released into the box where the cat is, and the cat will die. You have no way of knowing the state of the particle and therefore have no way of knowing if the cat is alive or dead.
Time elapses. At this point, there is a 10 percent chance the isotope has decayed. Is that cat alive? There's a 90 percent chance it is.
More time elapses. The isotope has a 25 percent chance of having decayed. Is that cat alive, or is it dead? There's a 75 percent chance it is alive, and a 25 percent chance we will need to explain to the university president why it was necessary to poison a cat during a physics lecture.
For purposes of the experiment, the cat as an entity does not exist. It exists in a state of probability; it may be a cat, or it may be that it wouldn't voom even if you put 80,000 volts of electricity through it. For this reason, the principle of probability in quantum mechanics became known as Schrodinger's Cat.
Fred Pohl (?) did a fairly decent -- or so it seemed at the time, to me -- sci-fi novel where he applied Schrodinger's ideas to spacetime, where we know the startpoint and endpoint of the universe, from Big Bang to Big Crunch. Which path does the universe take in-between? Well, we live upon one probability strand, but there are other timelines of other probabilities -- alternate timelines, where history worked out differently. On those, you will find Americas where 9-11 was prevented, or ones where Gore was president and it happened. On still others, Bill Bradley or John McCain was president at the time of 9-11. There is another timeline exactly like the one we are in now, but I used a different example of the timelime, or didn't fix my typo in the word "example," and so on. In Pohl's novel, and in later books too, I believe, people who travel across those probability lines, from one alternate history to another, are called Quantum Cats.
And this concludes today's lesson in quantum theory.
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Chronicling the five stages of faith
1. Awakening
The person awakens to spiritual things and to the presence and love of God. This can happen suddenly, in an instant conversion, or it can take place over months or years: The person becomes aware of God's love as never before, and the experience comes with feelings of joy and even exaltation.
2. Purgation.
Having experienced the love and holiness of God, the believer recognizes that she is out of sync with God. Thus begins a period of mortification, the killing off of desires, habits, and states of mind that get in the way of God. Often serious disciplines are taken up -- longer prayer, fasting, self-examination retreats, sexual chastity, relinquishing possessions -- to conquer spiritual sloth and pride. The period is characterized by moral effort and spiritual pain.
3. Illumination.
Now more morally and spiritually honed, the believer becomes joyfully aware of God at a new level. The knowing in the awakening phase is like enjoying the light of a full moon on a cloudless night; like basking in the noontime sun on a summer day. Many, if not most, people do not proceed beyond stage 3.
4. Dark night of the soul.
The most terrible experience is sometimes experienced at various points in each stage, and sometimes as an extended period of its own. Sometimes called "mystic death," it entails the final and complete purification of the self. It takes its name from a book by John of the Cross, who described the experience.
The chief characteristic is absolute loss of God, a sense that the sun has been completely obliterated. Desolation and despair are the usual emotions the seeker experiences. It isn't that God literally withdraws, but he does withdraw every emotional benefit the seeker has so far derived from faith. The seeker continues through the spiritual loneliness knowing that this "spiritual crucifixion" is necessary: One must learn to seek God for God's sake, not for the sake of the happiness God brings.
5. Union.
In this stage, the seeker enjoys God not as an illumination, in which God shines down upon her; here she becomes one with God. Again, this is not one in the sense that the seeker is destroyed, but one in the sense that husband and wife become one. This stage is often called "Mystical Marriage."
In my experience, this goes in cycles. In the sense of salvation, the Old Man dies once, but in the long haul, his death is a prolonged and painful thing. He appears to die, but he is only asleep, and when God appears to withdraw, the Old Man stirs and wakens again, and the flesh cries out in rebellion over the unfairness of God and his wanton cruelty.
Eventually we submit those areas to God again and find that completion comes in the Giver and not in the gifts, and we find that we can experience the Giver by walking in his ways and being like him to others around us. That's what the list refers to as unity, but it never lasts. God is very jealous; he does not share us with anyone, not even with ourselves, and he will not be content until we are wholly is. Each drink from Christ's cup is a deeper and more bitter draught, but it also fills us with more of his character and life.
I also have to say in all honesty that I think I've only been through that stage once, when my son returned to his birth parents. There have been bad times before, but none of them ever came close to the agony that I went through in the months leading up to and following Chris' departure.
I say that this period is something I would not exchange because, now that I feel I'm finally starting to see the sunlight and feel the breeze again, I've also getting a sense of what I've learned. It's hard to explain in a nutshell, and I don't feel like trying to reduce it to words again at this moment, but essentially it's been a time for depending upon Christ in greater amounts, for embracing the Cross to the bitter end, learning to love others endlessly and experiencing Christ's presence amid meaningless suffering. If I have suffered for doing what is right, and if my son has suffered for no reason at all, then so has Christ. He not only understands, but he shares in our suffering and we have shared in his. And though the experience still makes me cry, that's something I wouldn't trade for anything.
Rather than seeing the stages -- especially the last two -- as exclusive options, I'm thinking of them more of something that we reach by degrees. After the terrors of the dark night come new depths of understanding and closeness to God that bring us closer to what I would call "wholeness" but is labeled here as "unity." One never experiences the entire thing in this lifetime, but by degrees and by the grace of God we start to find our fulfillment in him and not in what he gives us. That's beyond the euphoria of Stage 3 -- what I call "infatuation with God" -- which is why I didn't check that option.
Grief and pain have a way of wakening us to a new understanding of Christ's love and mercy, and I would say anyone who has gone through the long dark night -- anyone who knows that spot where Despair sinks her hook into your heart; anyone who remembers being at that dark and lonely place where there was every sign that God had abandoned them but still said, "Not my will but yours be done"; anyone who has cried out into the void for an answer, for a reason, for hope and heard only the dispassionate response "Follow me," and done just that -- anyone who has survived God's violent love, at some level, through the grace of God, has found wholeness in him.
My own limited experience indicates that the roads to Calvary and Zion are one and the same, and that the more closely we follow Christ, the more it is going to hurt. In the end, the Cross will kill us, but by that time, we will be so full of the light of Christ that his grace will carry us through.
I've been through the Long Dark Night, and it ain't pretty. But I wouldn't trade that pain or grief for any other joy.
The person awakens to spiritual things and to the presence and love of God. This can happen suddenly, in an instant conversion, or it can take place over months or years: The person becomes aware of God's love as never before, and the experience comes with feelings of joy and even exaltation.
2. Purgation.
Having experienced the love and holiness of God, the believer recognizes that she is out of sync with God. Thus begins a period of mortification, the killing off of desires, habits, and states of mind that get in the way of God. Often serious disciplines are taken up -- longer prayer, fasting, self-examination retreats, sexual chastity, relinquishing possessions -- to conquer spiritual sloth and pride. The period is characterized by moral effort and spiritual pain.
3. Illumination.
Now more morally and spiritually honed, the believer becomes joyfully aware of God at a new level. The knowing in the awakening phase is like enjoying the light of a full moon on a cloudless night; like basking in the noontime sun on a summer day. Many, if not most, people do not proceed beyond stage 3.
4. Dark night of the soul.
The most terrible experience is sometimes experienced at various points in each stage, and sometimes as an extended period of its own. Sometimes called "mystic death," it entails the final and complete purification of the self. It takes its name from a book by John of the Cross, who described the experience.
The chief characteristic is absolute loss of God, a sense that the sun has been completely obliterated. Desolation and despair are the usual emotions the seeker experiences. It isn't that God literally withdraws, but he does withdraw every emotional benefit the seeker has so far derived from faith. The seeker continues through the spiritual loneliness knowing that this "spiritual crucifixion" is necessary: One must learn to seek God for God's sake, not for the sake of the happiness God brings.
5. Union.
In this stage, the seeker enjoys God not as an illumination, in which God shines down upon her; here she becomes one with God. Again, this is not one in the sense that the seeker is destroyed, but one in the sense that husband and wife become one. This stage is often called "Mystical Marriage."
In my experience, this goes in cycles. In the sense of salvation, the Old Man dies once, but in the long haul, his death is a prolonged and painful thing. He appears to die, but he is only asleep, and when God appears to withdraw, the Old Man stirs and wakens again, and the flesh cries out in rebellion over the unfairness of God and his wanton cruelty.
Eventually we submit those areas to God again and find that completion comes in the Giver and not in the gifts, and we find that we can experience the Giver by walking in his ways and being like him to others around us. That's what the list refers to as unity, but it never lasts. God is very jealous; he does not share us with anyone, not even with ourselves, and he will not be content until we are wholly is. Each drink from Christ's cup is a deeper and more bitter draught, but it also fills us with more of his character and life.
I also have to say in all honesty that I think I've only been through that stage once, when my son returned to his birth parents. There have been bad times before, but none of them ever came close to the agony that I went through in the months leading up to and following Chris' departure.
I say that this period is something I would not exchange because, now that I feel I'm finally starting to see the sunlight and feel the breeze again, I've also getting a sense of what I've learned. It's hard to explain in a nutshell, and I don't feel like trying to reduce it to words again at this moment, but essentially it's been a time for depending upon Christ in greater amounts, for embracing the Cross to the bitter end, learning to love others endlessly and experiencing Christ's presence amid meaningless suffering. If I have suffered for doing what is right, and if my son has suffered for no reason at all, then so has Christ. He not only understands, but he shares in our suffering and we have shared in his. And though the experience still makes me cry, that's something I wouldn't trade for anything.
Rather than seeing the stages -- especially the last two -- as exclusive options, I'm thinking of them more of something that we reach by degrees. After the terrors of the dark night come new depths of understanding and closeness to God that bring us closer to what I would call "wholeness" but is labeled here as "unity." One never experiences the entire thing in this lifetime, but by degrees and by the grace of God we start to find our fulfillment in him and not in what he gives us. That's beyond the euphoria of Stage 3 -- what I call "infatuation with God" -- which is why I didn't check that option.
Grief and pain have a way of wakening us to a new understanding of Christ's love and mercy, and I would say anyone who has gone through the long dark night -- anyone who knows that spot where Despair sinks her hook into your heart; anyone who remembers being at that dark and lonely place where there was every sign that God had abandoned them but still said, "Not my will but yours be done"; anyone who has cried out into the void for an answer, for a reason, for hope and heard only the dispassionate response "Follow me," and done just that -- anyone who has survived God's violent love, at some level, through the grace of God, has found wholeness in him.
My own limited experience indicates that the roads to Calvary and Zion are one and the same, and that the more closely we follow Christ, the more it is going to hurt. In the end, the Cross will kill us, but by that time, we will be so full of the light of Christ that his grace will carry us through.
I've been through the Long Dark Night, and it ain't pretty. But I wouldn't trade that pain or grief for any other joy.
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
key life lessons
"Everything I need to know about life I learned from Monty Python"
1. Never answer the door for an encyclopedia salesman unless he's a burglar
2. If you can't think of a name for your pet, call it Eric
3. Never be afraid of Scotsmen on Horses unless they play tennis
4. Lupines make excellent currency
5. When crossing the street, don't trust Keep Left signs
6. When buying a bed ask for the dog kennels
7. Never suppress a man's right to gestate a fetus in a box
8. Always keep your cat confused
9. To be named Bruce even if you're not Bruce is acceptable
10. Never underestimate the power of a bicycle repairman
11. It's not polite to stare at anyone even if they have two buttocks
12. White mice are very musical
13. Always read the ingredients before eating chocolate
14. Remember to always ask politely when you want more beans
15. If you become king, remember to brush up on your knowledge of swallows and gravity
16. Always check carefully before buying any parrots
17. Never trust strangers in suits of armor carrying chickens
18. Keep your eye out for 16 ton weights falling out of nowhere
19. Never expect the Spanish Inquisition
20. Always be careful of moose bites
21. When asking to leave the military before you get killed always say "please"
22. Never tell your waiter if you have a dirty fork
23. If you're a Colonel, you CAN stop the sketch and anything else you deem too silly indeed
24. When writing a formal complaint, always address it "Dear Sirs," even if it's to your mother
25. If you are ever on the game show Blackmail, get to a phone!
26. If your name is Carol, don't go into show business with a group of British crazies
27. Being a loony is not only a privilege but a good waste of time
28. The words "knickers","bum" and "semprini" are part of the naughty bits *
29. "Lord Reginal" is not a naughty bit
30. Albatrosses do not come with wafers
31. Now the penguin on top of your television set will explode
32. NEVER trust Hungarian phrasebooks
33. Be careful not to get squished by huge feet from the sky
34. Not everyone likes SPAM
35. Lumberjacks are okay
36. There is nothing quite so wonderful as money
37. When all else fails, have an argument
38. When you need to identify a bishop, look for the tattoo on the back of its neck
39. A witch will float, as will a duck, and you can build a bridge out of rocks, but wood burns and so do witches.
40. When learning to walk, make it silly
41. Never think twice about waking up the neighbor if you're a upperclass twit
42. Tinny words are not as nice as woody ones
43. It's important to know how not to be seen
44. Don't even ask about the Camembert; you know the cat's eaten it
45. Don't think that rabbits are nice, harmless animals
46. Pantomime horses make the best secret agents
47. Learning to fly means more than being suspended from the ceiling and flapping your arms
48. Never trust a show to end when the end credits start rolling
49. Always check your seat for hidden pigs
50. The most dangerous of animals is a clever sheep
51. The earth is banana-shaped
52. Fresh fruit can be dreadful weapons
53. When answering the phone, remember to check your shoe-size
54. Nine out of ten British housewives can't tell Whizzo butter from a dead crab
55. Policemen make wonderful friends (And boy, can they sing!)
56. When speaking on television, indicate pauses with appropriate gestures
... and most of all,
57. Always look on the bright side of life.
1. Never answer the door for an encyclopedia salesman unless he's a burglar
2. If you can't think of a name for your pet, call it Eric
3. Never be afraid of Scotsmen on Horses unless they play tennis
4. Lupines make excellent currency
5. When crossing the street, don't trust Keep Left signs
6. When buying a bed ask for the dog kennels
7. Never suppress a man's right to gestate a fetus in a box
8. Always keep your cat confused
9. To be named Bruce even if you're not Bruce is acceptable
10. Never underestimate the power of a bicycle repairman
11. It's not polite to stare at anyone even if they have two buttocks
12. White mice are very musical
13. Always read the ingredients before eating chocolate
14. Remember to always ask politely when you want more beans
15. If you become king, remember to brush up on your knowledge of swallows and gravity
16. Always check carefully before buying any parrots
17. Never trust strangers in suits of armor carrying chickens
18. Keep your eye out for 16 ton weights falling out of nowhere
19. Never expect the Spanish Inquisition
20. Always be careful of moose bites
21. When asking to leave the military before you get killed always say "please"
22. Never tell your waiter if you have a dirty fork
23. If you're a Colonel, you CAN stop the sketch and anything else you deem too silly indeed
24. When writing a formal complaint, always address it "Dear Sirs," even if it's to your mother
25. If you are ever on the game show Blackmail, get to a phone!
26. If your name is Carol, don't go into show business with a group of British crazies
27. Being a loony is not only a privilege but a good waste of time
28. The words "knickers","bum" and "semprini" are part of the naughty bits *
29. "Lord Reginal" is not a naughty bit
30. Albatrosses do not come with wafers
31. Now the penguin on top of your television set will explode
32. NEVER trust Hungarian phrasebooks
33. Be careful not to get squished by huge feet from the sky
34. Not everyone likes SPAM
35. Lumberjacks are okay
36. There is nothing quite so wonderful as money
37. When all else fails, have an argument
38. When you need to identify a bishop, look for the tattoo on the back of its neck
39. A witch will float, as will a duck, and you can build a bridge out of rocks, but wood burns and so do witches.
40. When learning to walk, make it silly
41. Never think twice about waking up the neighbor if you're a upperclass twit
42. Tinny words are not as nice as woody ones
43. It's important to know how not to be seen
44. Don't even ask about the Camembert; you know the cat's eaten it
45. Don't think that rabbits are nice, harmless animals
46. Pantomime horses make the best secret agents
47. Learning to fly means more than being suspended from the ceiling and flapping your arms
48. Never trust a show to end when the end credits start rolling
49. Always check your seat for hidden pigs
50. The most dangerous of animals is a clever sheep
51. The earth is banana-shaped
52. Fresh fruit can be dreadful weapons
53. When answering the phone, remember to check your shoe-size
54. Nine out of ten British housewives can't tell Whizzo butter from a dead crab
55. Policemen make wonderful friends (And boy, can they sing!)
56. When speaking on television, indicate pauses with appropriate gestures
... and most of all,
57. Always look on the bright side of life.
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
'o holy night'
I've only ever sung "O Holy Night" once, but to this day it remains a Christmas hymn that makes me soar.
It was Christmas 1990 in Haiti, when I was teaching at Quisqueya Christian School. We had a staff Christmas party. This was in the tropics, mind you -- about as un-Christmasy as I can imagine. No snow. No evergreen trees. It was hot, dry and dusty as all get-out, and I was a bachelor living more than 1,500 miles from the family I had celebrated Christmas with 20 times previously.
Jim Muchmore was playing his guitar, the kerosense lamps were flickering -- I don't think the power had even been on that night -- and as we sang "O Holy Night," the worship was one of the most tremendous Christmasy experiences I've ever had. That scene is burned indelibly into my mind and I see it again whenever I hear this song.
It was Christmas 1990 in Haiti, when I was teaching at Quisqueya Christian School. We had a staff Christmas party. This was in the tropics, mind you -- about as un-Christmasy as I can imagine. No snow. No evergreen trees. It was hot, dry and dusty as all get-out, and I was a bachelor living more than 1,500 miles from the family I had celebrated Christmas with 20 times previously.
Jim Muchmore was playing his guitar, the kerosense lamps were flickering -- I don't think the power had even been on that night -- and as we sang "O Holy Night," the worship was one of the most tremendous Christmasy experiences I've ever had. That scene is burned indelibly into my mind and I see it again whenever I hear this song.
old ghosts
Way back in 1988-89 when I was a college freshman, I had a fairly close friendship with a woman named Sharon. At the time she was going steady with a football player from another school -- and, you know, this is getting pretty hard to write. I have 15 years' distance from the situation now, so I think my perspective is a little clearer now. Let me tackle it another way, now that I've rewritten this paragraph 32 times.
We were pretty close. I characterized our relationship, to myself at least, as one where we were fairly transparent with one another. We talked about our goals, our struggles, our faith and our pasts with an openness that I had never known before. I don't know that anyone ever considered us a couple -- certainly she didn't -- but I wouldn't have minded. I even asked her to go out with me, knowing full well that she was dating somebody at another school.
Know something? This isn't getting easier to write about. I'm getting more confused the longer I write.
Essentially what it boils down to is I was in love with her. She was the first woman I ever had those feelings for, and even now 15 years later I'm stirring up something as I think about freshman year.
Sophomore year was completely different. Sharon distanced herself from me dramatically. Previously when I had visited her room, we could talk for hours. Now, she pretty much pretended I wasn't there. She was still friendly to me, but there was a very big and invisible wall. At the time I told myself that she had been bothered by how close we had become and had distanced herself from me. That probably is a bunch of post-adolescent hogwash, and the truth is that she didn't share my attraction and hoped that with distance I would eventually leave her alone.
I did, but oh how it hurt. It still hurts thinking about it, and I'm happily married to Natasha now and have been for five years. Throughout the rest of college, I felt like I had been ripped in two and kept waiting for her to come to her senses and "come back" to me. It wasn't until she got engaged to someone else that I realized that not only wasn't I in the game, I was playing the wrong sport. I must have held the candle out for Sharon for four years after my freshman year before I finally saw the light.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that men are essentially a bunch of losers. When we've been in a relationship with a woman and thought that she might be The One, it's damn near impossible for us ever to get her out of our mind and stop thinking that What If is really Should Be, and that given the right combination of events, things will work out the way we know they should. Am I making sense?
Probably this is why the Song of Solomon cautions us not to awaken love until the proper time arrives.
We were pretty close. I characterized our relationship, to myself at least, as one where we were fairly transparent with one another. We talked about our goals, our struggles, our faith and our pasts with an openness that I had never known before. I don't know that anyone ever considered us a couple -- certainly she didn't -- but I wouldn't have minded. I even asked her to go out with me, knowing full well that she was dating somebody at another school.
Know something? This isn't getting easier to write about. I'm getting more confused the longer I write.
Essentially what it boils down to is I was in love with her. She was the first woman I ever had those feelings for, and even now 15 years later I'm stirring up something as I think about freshman year.
Sophomore year was completely different. Sharon distanced herself from me dramatically. Previously when I had visited her room, we could talk for hours. Now, she pretty much pretended I wasn't there. She was still friendly to me, but there was a very big and invisible wall. At the time I told myself that she had been bothered by how close we had become and had distanced herself from me. That probably is a bunch of post-adolescent hogwash, and the truth is that she didn't share my attraction and hoped that with distance I would eventually leave her alone.
I did, but oh how it hurt. It still hurts thinking about it, and I'm happily married to Natasha now and have been for five years. Throughout the rest of college, I felt like I had been ripped in two and kept waiting for her to come to her senses and "come back" to me. It wasn't until she got engaged to someone else that I realized that not only wasn't I in the game, I was playing the wrong sport. I must have held the candle out for Sharon for four years after my freshman year before I finally saw the light.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that men are essentially a bunch of losers. When we've been in a relationship with a woman and thought that she might be The One, it's damn near impossible for us ever to get her out of our mind and stop thinking that What If is really Should Be, and that given the right combination of events, things will work out the way we know they should. Am I making sense?
Probably this is why the Song of Solomon cautions us not to awaken love until the proper time arrives.
Saturday, December 20, 2003
My last wishes when I ring down the curtain and join the choir invisible
When I die, I want what's done with my body to be what makes a difference for the living.
This seems only appropriate, all things considered. What happens to my body won't make much difference to me since I'll be dead. Stuff me afterward with all the sawdust you want, cremate me and stick my ashes in an urn on the mantlepiece, or turn me into fertilizer. I really won't care. I'll already be dead.
That's why I want things to benefit the living. I want all my harvestable organs and blood removed. Give someone else a chance.
Cremate me if you want. Scattering the ashes makes a degree of sense since it symbolizes that I am being borne away to heaven, but only if my family wants it that way. My wife's dad was cremated after dying while she was a college sophomore. Not only didn't she get to see his body, she doesn't have a place to visit. Kind of a double-whammy.
My grandmother was cremated before her funeral in 1991, and it was hard for me to feel a sense of closure because I never saw her body. Cremation's fine, I just wish emotionally that I had been able to say goodbye.
Death is a long way off, I hope; and when it comes, I hope to greet it with as much sass and snark as I've greeted life. But when I say goodbye, I want to do it with a grace that befits the people around me. Give them what they need, and let me go my way in peace.
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn. Used with permission.
Tweet
That's why I want things to benefit the living. I want all my harvestable organs and blood removed. Give someone else a chance.
Cremate me if you want. Scattering the ashes makes a degree of sense since it symbolizes that I am being borne away to heaven, but only if my family wants it that way. My wife's dad was cremated after dying while she was a college sophomore. Not only didn't she get to see his body, she doesn't have a place to visit. Kind of a double-whammy.
My grandmother was cremated before her funeral in 1991, and it was hard for me to feel a sense of closure because I never saw her body. Cremation's fine, I just wish emotionally that I had been able to say goodbye.
Death is a long way off, I hope; and when it comes, I hope to greet it with as much sass and snark as I've greeted life. But when I say goodbye, I want to do it with a grace that befits the people around me. Give them what they need, and let me go my way in peace.
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn. Used with permission.
Tweet
'the enemy within'
There's an episode from the first season of Classic Trek where a transporter malfunction splits Kirk into two halves. The first half contains all his nobler characteristics: gentle manner, restraint, compassionate, friendly and so on -- but as the sheep, it is incapable of command and making decisions. The second is his "dark" half: self-indulgent, brutal, violent and incapable of control. Call it the Wolf. The Wolf attacks a crew member and even tries to rape Yeoman Janice Rand.
The episode's quite interesting from a psychological perspective, and it's even been used to assist some psychiatrict patients by getting them to see that both sides of their personality are essential for them to be a fully functioning human being.
Now at the end of the episode, when they fixed the transporter and reintegrated the two halves of Kirk, he remarks to Spock, "I've seen a side of me no one should have to see." I think we're led to consider the Sheep to be the real Kirk since it's the one we see at the start of the episode, and so we understand that he's referring to the Wolf.
I'd argue that he's also referring to the Sheep -- that he holds the interal weakness in his much disdain as the internal predator.
Any takers?
The episode's quite interesting from a psychological perspective, and it's even been used to assist some psychiatrict patients by getting them to see that both sides of their personality are essential for them to be a fully functioning human being.
Now at the end of the episode, when they fixed the transporter and reintegrated the two halves of Kirk, he remarks to Spock, "I've seen a side of me no one should have to see." I think we're led to consider the Sheep to be the real Kirk since it's the one we see at the start of the episode, and so we understand that he's referring to the Wolf.
I'd argue that he's also referring to the Sheep -- that he holds the interal weakness in his much disdain as the internal predator.
Any takers?
Friday, December 19, 2003
'the undiscovered country'
"The Undiscovered Country" was decent, but it had a few flaws that I think knock it down in rank to probably the fourth-best Classic Trek film:
1) Valeris. Who the heck is she? She appears out of nowhere and yet her betrayal is supposed to catch us off-guard and to shock the other, established characters. Sorry, this completely failed to work for me. Earlier scripts called for having Kirstie Alley reprising her role of Saavik and having Saavik betray Kirk. If only "Cheers" had worked around the movie filming schedule -- Alley wanted to do the role -- it would have been tremendous. Saavik was deeply established in fans' minds because of the parts she played in TWoK and TSFS, plus her cameo is TVH. It would have shocked the bejesus out of us to see her betray the Federation, but it would have *fit*.
Thanks to the novelisations, it was generally accepted among fans that Saavik and David Marcus had been lovers, and it was the Klingons who had killed David. She would have wanted to avoid peace with the Klingons as much as anyone else. She also would have seen the logic to what she was doing; the movie as written continued her relationship with Spock and the others perfectly from where it had been; and so on. Honestly, either the "Cheers" crew should have adjusted, they should have got Robin Curtis to reprise the role; or they should have waited until there was a break in the "Cheers" filming.
2) Kirk should have died. Actually, in the earlier scripts -- I think as late as the penultimate draft -- he *did* die. It was perfect; he dives to save the Federation president and takes the phaser blast for him. It gives Kirk a hero's death, balances Gorkon's sacrifice with one from the Federation, completely exonerates Kirk of complicity in Gorkon's death, and it ties back into the words of the Klingon chancellor in Star Trek IV: "There will be no peace while Kirk lives!" Instead, he lives for no good reason.
3) Continuity errors. At the start of the movie, Sulu is commanding the USS Excelsior, which has been on a mission studying gaseous anomalies. Later on, Spock and McCoy rig up a photon torpedo with a sensor used to study gaseous anomalies so they can peg General Chang's ship. Absolutely smegging brilliant, but for one thing -- the Enterprise hasn't been studying gaseous anomalies. The Excelsior was. Again, I understand earlier drafts had Sulu's ship getting in this first critical shot -- a perfect way to pass the baton -- but that was changed so the Enterprise could get it in.
4) Too many stupid jokes and rehashed ideas. "I've been dead before," Spock quips. Kirk wrestles someone who looks just like him. (Saw that in "Whom Gods Destroy," "What are Little Girls Made of?" and "The Enemy Within," among others.) Valeris firing a phaser inside the galley just to illustrate something she could have explained very easily and without destroying a pot of mashed potatoes.
5) Mind rape. There is no way Spock would ever -- ever -- do that.
It was fun to watch the first time, but it doesn't really hold up so well to repeat viewing.
1) Valeris. Who the heck is she? She appears out of nowhere and yet her betrayal is supposed to catch us off-guard and to shock the other, established characters. Sorry, this completely failed to work for me. Earlier scripts called for having Kirstie Alley reprising her role of Saavik and having Saavik betray Kirk. If only "Cheers" had worked around the movie filming schedule -- Alley wanted to do the role -- it would have been tremendous. Saavik was deeply established in fans' minds because of the parts she played in TWoK and TSFS, plus her cameo is TVH. It would have shocked the bejesus out of us to see her betray the Federation, but it would have *fit*.
Thanks to the novelisations, it was generally accepted among fans that Saavik and David Marcus had been lovers, and it was the Klingons who had killed David. She would have wanted to avoid peace with the Klingons as much as anyone else. She also would have seen the logic to what she was doing; the movie as written continued her relationship with Spock and the others perfectly from where it had been; and so on. Honestly, either the "Cheers" crew should have adjusted, they should have got Robin Curtis to reprise the role; or they should have waited until there was a break in the "Cheers" filming.
2) Kirk should have died. Actually, in the earlier scripts -- I think as late as the penultimate draft -- he *did* die. It was perfect; he dives to save the Federation president and takes the phaser blast for him. It gives Kirk a hero's death, balances Gorkon's sacrifice with one from the Federation, completely exonerates Kirk of complicity in Gorkon's death, and it ties back into the words of the Klingon chancellor in Star Trek IV: "There will be no peace while Kirk lives!" Instead, he lives for no good reason.
3) Continuity errors. At the start of the movie, Sulu is commanding the USS Excelsior, which has been on a mission studying gaseous anomalies. Later on, Spock and McCoy rig up a photon torpedo with a sensor used to study gaseous anomalies so they can peg General Chang's ship. Absolutely smegging brilliant, but for one thing -- the Enterprise hasn't been studying gaseous anomalies. The Excelsior was. Again, I understand earlier drafts had Sulu's ship getting in this first critical shot -- a perfect way to pass the baton -- but that was changed so the Enterprise could get it in.
4) Too many stupid jokes and rehashed ideas. "I've been dead before," Spock quips. Kirk wrestles someone who looks just like him. (Saw that in "Whom Gods Destroy," "What are Little Girls Made of?" and "The Enemy Within," among others.) Valeris firing a phaser inside the galley just to illustrate something she could have explained very easily and without destroying a pot of mashed potatoes.
5) Mind rape. There is no way Spock would ever -- ever -- do that.
It was fun to watch the first time, but it doesn't really hold up so well to repeat viewing.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
die now
I wrote a column about Toys for Tots for the paper this week, and apparently caught everyone off-guard.
The column doesn't so much take issue with the notion of giving toys to underprivileged children as it does with the notion that this is enough, that the spirit of Christmas doesn't call us to somthing greater than merely handing out toys. Everyone at the office has known for some time that I'm not only a Christian but a former missionary, but unless I'm mistaken, interest in what I believe has just experienced an upsurge. I hope that's true among the community when the papers hit the stands tomorrow evening and Thursday.
Jesus doesn't ask merely the difficult of us; he asks us to do the impossible. The Cross is not a matter of inconvenience; it's about death. Jesus doesn't say, "Follow me and I'll give you everything you want," or even, "Make a couple sacrifices and follow me." What he says is, "Follow me and die."
I don't want that. You don't want that. None of us wants that. But that's what he calls us to. It's something that flies in the face of every ounce of who we are as people, our urge to matter, to have meaning in our lives, even to survive.
In exchange for dying now -- and he means death, real death to our selves -- he promises us not self-fulfillment or happiness, but grief, suffering, pain, and an eternity filled with a wilder, more unbelievable love than we've ever known before.
Everyone who knows me or who has read my blog, knows how I've wrestled with the grittiness of the faith. Paul and Jesus alike tell us that God is merciful and compassionate, sending rain upon the just and unjust alike.
And if we look at life that way, we do see incomparable mercy: Even men like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have known the untrammeled joys of seeing their children born and watching them grow through infancy and into full-fledged childhood. Even miserly scrooges can be touched by the beauty of a sunset, and the worst employers have discovered loyal workers and true friends.
But if life is beautiful, it's also foul. Children are abducted, raped and murdered. Teens are tormented brutally for being too slow in gym class, for being too smart in math class, for enjoying reading in a TV world or for watching the wrong TV shows.
Men like Matthew Shepard are murdered for being gay, and teen parents who kill their newborn children are let off with probation while people who smoke marijuana pass years in a jail cell.
Power is on the side of the strong, the wicked sit in positions of authority, and the law is corrupt. It's been that way since the beginning. God appears to be either schizophrenic or indifferent, but he claims to be good.
The defining moment of history was the Cross, where Jesus took on our sins -- became our sins -- and died. At the Cross, we find expiation for our sin. At the Cross, what righteousness we have through faith comes alive and grows us into the likeness of Christ so that God sees us fully realized in his son as we never have been realized here.
At the Cross, the old man dies and the new man comes to life as everything is stripped painfully away, and at the Cross we find the full depths of God's wild and reckless love, and everything else -- including the senseless suffering of children -- finds its meaning.
What we're left with is a love that defies understanding; it's wild, it's reckless and it's destructive. It's a raging torrent that, if we let it, will sweep us away and never let us be the same again.
Every now and then, I hear strains of that music through the noise of life, and it makes me dance with reckless abandon.
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn. Used with permission.
The column doesn't so much take issue with the notion of giving toys to underprivileged children as it does with the notion that this is enough, that the spirit of Christmas doesn't call us to somthing greater than merely handing out toys. Everyone at the office has known for some time that I'm not only a Christian but a former missionary, but unless I'm mistaken, interest in what I believe has just experienced an upsurge. I hope that's true among the community when the papers hit the stands tomorrow evening and Thursday.
Jesus doesn't ask merely the difficult of us; he asks us to do the impossible. The Cross is not a matter of inconvenience; it's about death. Jesus doesn't say, "Follow me and I'll give you everything you want," or even, "Make a couple sacrifices and follow me." What he says is, "Follow me and die."
I don't want that. You don't want that. None of us wants that. But that's what he calls us to. It's something that flies in the face of every ounce of who we are as people, our urge to matter, to have meaning in our lives, even to survive.
In exchange for dying now -- and he means death, real death to our selves -- he promises us not self-fulfillment or happiness, but grief, suffering, pain, and an eternity filled with a wilder, more unbelievable love than we've ever known before.
Everyone who knows me or who has read my blog, knows how I've wrestled with the grittiness of the faith. Paul and Jesus alike tell us that God is merciful and compassionate, sending rain upon the just and unjust alike.
And if we look at life that way, we do see incomparable mercy: Even men like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have known the untrammeled joys of seeing their children born and watching them grow through infancy and into full-fledged childhood. Even miserly scrooges can be touched by the beauty of a sunset, and the worst employers have discovered loyal workers and true friends.
But if life is beautiful, it's also foul. Children are abducted, raped and murdered. Teens are tormented brutally for being too slow in gym class, for being too smart in math class, for enjoying reading in a TV world or for watching the wrong TV shows.
Men like Matthew Shepard are murdered for being gay, and teen parents who kill their newborn children are let off with probation while people who smoke marijuana pass years in a jail cell.
Power is on the side of the strong, the wicked sit in positions of authority, and the law is corrupt. It's been that way since the beginning. God appears to be either schizophrenic or indifferent, but he claims to be good.
The defining moment of history was the Cross, where Jesus took on our sins -- became our sins -- and died. At the Cross, we find expiation for our sin. At the Cross, what righteousness we have through faith comes alive and grows us into the likeness of Christ so that God sees us fully realized in his son as we never have been realized here.
At the Cross, the old man dies and the new man comes to life as everything is stripped painfully away, and at the Cross we find the full depths of God's wild and reckless love, and everything else -- including the senseless suffering of children -- finds its meaning.
What we're left with is a love that defies understanding; it's wild, it's reckless and it's destructive. It's a raging torrent that, if we let it, will sweep us away and never let us be the same again.
Every now and then, I hear strains of that music through the noise of life, and it makes me dance with reckless abandon.
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn. Used with permission.
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
forget toys for tots, give a real gift
I've had about all I can take of Toys for Tots.
It's not that I think it's a bad organization, nor that I disagree with its mission of distributing toys to disadvantaged children at Christmastime. I'm just sick to death of hearing about it.
It seems like every time I turn around, someone else is collecting toys for Toys for Tots. My employer is collecting them. A real-estate office down the street is collecting them. Today I got a piece of mail from yet another organization that's collecting toys for them.
Is this the most pressing need before us as a society today? You would think from all the hype there is for Toys for Tots at Christmas, that everything is hunky-dory in America today except for some poor kids who aren't getting enough presents for Christmas.
Since this is ostensibly done as a forerunner of the Christmas spirit, let's forget about the fat guy in the red suit for a little bit. Let's look instead at the little boy whose birth Christmas originally was intended to celebrate.
It's easy to forget sometimes amid all the junk that has accumulated around Christmas that it's meant to be a religious holiday. And it's easy to forget amid all the junk that's accumulated around the religion what it is that Jesus Christ was really about.
Aside from a cryptic reference in the Roman historian Suetonis' "Twelve Caesars," and a few other remarks made by other ancient writers like Josephus, the four gospels in the New Testament are pretty much our only source of information about the life of Christ.
Those gospels record Christ as making a pretty radical call on his followers. Unlike the modern Jesus of the political and religious right, the Jesus shown in the gospels didn't push a particular moral philosophy, he didn't champion one economic system over another, and he didn't really back a political party or agenda.
One thing he did ask of his followers: Love one another.
The sort of love Jesus emulated and that his earliest followers strived to uphold wasn't some warm, fuzzy, goodwill-toward-men sort of thing. It was a no-holds-barred kind of love, one that called for putting others' needs ahead of your own. He told his followers to give everything they had for other people, to be involved in their lives, and to care for them in real and tangible ways.
He also called for giving generously to the poor. He actually told one rich young ruler "Go, sell everything you have, and then you can be my disciple," without even once cautioning him to make sure that the poor weren't welfare cheats playing the system.
His rule of love doesn't allow for discriminating between friends, enemies and strangers. Everyone deserves the same level of compassion if you want to be called a follower of Christ.
Worst of all, Jesus never promised people it would be easy. In fact, he said if you follow him closely enough, that it would kill you.
That's a powerful kind of love. It's the sort of love that reached out and took hold of me when I was a teenager on the brink of entering college. I didn't understand at the time what it was I was getting myself into when I committed myself to following Christ, but I've learned. It's been hard, but I've learned.
The lesson was burned deep into my soul last year when my wife and I, following Christ's lead, opened our home to a boy whose parents had failed him so badly that the state had put him into foster care.
I learned how bitter and painful that love can be when my foster son returned to his parents before they were ready, against his caseworker's judgement and against the judgment of social workers familiar with the case, simply because some bureaucrat at DYFS wanted to close the case.
If you ask me, that sort of agony is one hell of a better way to share the joys of the season than dropping off a bunch of toys at a business.
Where's the human connection with Toys for Tots? The most you've got is a tax-deductible purchase, a smile from some overworked employee who's been asked to handle Toys for Tots in addition to his regular duties and some vague, disembodied sense that you made some child somewhere happy for a few minutes on Christmas.
Humbug.
Presents are great, but you know what? They're candy. They may make children happy for a few minutes, but they're not going to do a thing to really help the child in the long run. What good is candy to a child who doesn’t have dinner? What good are toys to children who have no homes to play in? What use are presents to children with no parents to speak of?
I really don't want to hear another word about Toys for Tots, or some other toy drive to collect a bunch of gizmos and widgets that will be broken by New Year's Day.
If you want to really make Christmas a special day for somebody, become a foster parent or adopt a child. If that's too much for you, then at least go to a homeless or battered women’s shelter, and play with the kids.
No, the kids might not get the latest toys to play with, but they'll have something better.
They’ll have love.
It's not that I think it's a bad organization, nor that I disagree with its mission of distributing toys to disadvantaged children at Christmastime. I'm just sick to death of hearing about it.
It seems like every time I turn around, someone else is collecting toys for Toys for Tots. My employer is collecting them. A real-estate office down the street is collecting them. Today I got a piece of mail from yet another organization that's collecting toys for them.
Is this the most pressing need before us as a society today? You would think from all the hype there is for Toys for Tots at Christmas, that everything is hunky-dory in America today except for some poor kids who aren't getting enough presents for Christmas.
Since this is ostensibly done as a forerunner of the Christmas spirit, let's forget about the fat guy in the red suit for a little bit. Let's look instead at the little boy whose birth Christmas originally was intended to celebrate.
It's easy to forget sometimes amid all the junk that has accumulated around Christmas that it's meant to be a religious holiday. And it's easy to forget amid all the junk that's accumulated around the religion what it is that Jesus Christ was really about.
Aside from a cryptic reference in the Roman historian Suetonis' "Twelve Caesars," and a few other remarks made by other ancient writers like Josephus, the four gospels in the New Testament are pretty much our only source of information about the life of Christ.
Those gospels record Christ as making a pretty radical call on his followers. Unlike the modern Jesus of the political and religious right, the Jesus shown in the gospels didn't push a particular moral philosophy, he didn't champion one economic system over another, and he didn't really back a political party or agenda.
One thing he did ask of his followers: Love one another.
The sort of love Jesus emulated and that his earliest followers strived to uphold wasn't some warm, fuzzy, goodwill-toward-men sort of thing. It was a no-holds-barred kind of love, one that called for putting others' needs ahead of your own. He told his followers to give everything they had for other people, to be involved in their lives, and to care for them in real and tangible ways.
He also called for giving generously to the poor. He actually told one rich young ruler "Go, sell everything you have, and then you can be my disciple," without even once cautioning him to make sure that the poor weren't welfare cheats playing the system.
His rule of love doesn't allow for discriminating between friends, enemies and strangers. Everyone deserves the same level of compassion if you want to be called a follower of Christ.
Worst of all, Jesus never promised people it would be easy. In fact, he said if you follow him closely enough, that it would kill you.
That's a powerful kind of love. It's the sort of love that reached out and took hold of me when I was a teenager on the brink of entering college. I didn't understand at the time what it was I was getting myself into when I committed myself to following Christ, but I've learned. It's been hard, but I've learned.
The lesson was burned deep into my soul last year when my wife and I, following Christ's lead, opened our home to a boy whose parents had failed him so badly that the state had put him into foster care.
I learned how bitter and painful that love can be when my foster son returned to his parents before they were ready, against his caseworker's judgement and against the judgment of social workers familiar with the case, simply because some bureaucrat at DYFS wanted to close the case.
If you ask me, that sort of agony is one hell of a better way to share the joys of the season than dropping off a bunch of toys at a business.
Where's the human connection with Toys for Tots? The most you've got is a tax-deductible purchase, a smile from some overworked employee who's been asked to handle Toys for Tots in addition to his regular duties and some vague, disembodied sense that you made some child somewhere happy for a few minutes on Christmas.
Humbug.
Presents are great, but you know what? They're candy. They may make children happy for a few minutes, but they're not going to do a thing to really help the child in the long run. What good is candy to a child who doesn’t have dinner? What good are toys to children who have no homes to play in? What use are presents to children with no parents to speak of?
I really don't want to hear another word about Toys for Tots, or some other toy drive to collect a bunch of gizmos and widgets that will be broken by New Year's Day.
If you want to really make Christmas a special day for somebody, become a foster parent or adopt a child. If that's too much for you, then at least go to a homeless or battered women’s shelter, and play with the kids.
No, the kids might not get the latest toys to play with, but they'll have something better.
They’ll have love.
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
grammar and god
One of the things about English grammar is that it's so dynamic. Often there is not a single correct answer, but several answers that are defensible as long as you're familiar with the concepts.
Gaining a greater familiarity with language has made me feel like I understand Logos in a whole new way. Like language, you can discuss him until you're blue in the face, but he can only be understood once you experience him.
Gaining a greater familiarity with language has made me feel like I understand Logos in a whole new way. Like language, you can discuss him until you're blue in the face, but he can only be understood once you experience him.
Monday, December 15, 2003
best star trek movie
- Star Trek: The Motion Picture
- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
- Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
- Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
- Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
- Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
- Star Trek Generations
- Star Trek: First Contact
- Star Trek Insurrection
- Star Trek Nemesis
I enjoyed "The Voyage Home" the first few times I saw it, but after a few times, it reached the point that I found myself saying, "Oh, yeah. That joke again." While TVH had an important environmental message, I thought "The Wrath of Khan" was far better in terms of movie-making. Like all good sci-fi, it wasn't about the story or the neat special effects, but the characters. In this case, it was Kirk's midlife crisis and feeling that his best years were behind him; it was Khan's destructive obsession with revenge; and it was the very deep bonds of friendship among Kirk, Spock and McCoy.
It was, all things considered, first-rate science fiction, something Star Trek often has fallen short of, particularly in its more recent years.
Second places goes to ST3:TSfS.
"First Contact" had the potential to be a truly creepy monster movie with the Borg slowly assimilating the Enterprise crew, and it had the potential to be a psychological movie as it studied Picard's motivations. It made some solid moves in those diretions, but they really got too goofy when it came to Zefram Cochrane down on the planet. I could have done without a lot of that, and I could have done with a more respectable characterization of him. The way they did it was just ridiculous and made him into a buffoon rather than an inspirational person like Kirk and others saw him as.
They focused too much on the buffoonery and really failed to provide anything about him that would make him a role model or an inspiration, either to the future or to viewers.
Yeah, he came up with the warp bubble, which means he was smart. But even there, what was his reason? To get rich and buy a small island where he could be surrounded by half-naked women all the time. There are people who believe in discovery for its own sake and to improve the human condition. I don't think it would have been unreasonable to ask that Zephram Cochrane be one of those, especially since this is "Star Trek" we're talking about, which has always stressed human exploration and increasing our knowledge of ourselves and the universe.
Actually, if you read the novel "Enterprise," there is a rather compelling characterization of Cochrane there like what I'm describing. I really wish they had followed something like that instead. There are buffoons who accomplish things by accident, and many of our heroes had their weaknesses and things that made them small in ways both subtle and gross, but there are truly great men in history as well, and it demeans us all to forget that or pretend that it is not so.
As far as Star Trek V goes, I understand Shatner was under some pressure from the studio and ended up taking a bit of a fall for things he had no control over.
And it wasn't all that bad. Sybok was *completely* in character. (Interesting trivia point: Originally, the role of Sybok was meant for Sean Connery, but he opted for the role of Dr. Henry Jones in "The Last Crusade," which came out the same summer. Wtiters paid tribute to him by naming the Vulcan paradise after him: Sha Ka Ree.)
The best advice I ever had on "The Final Frontier" was to watch it like it's a very long episode. The feel of the movie actually is a lot like the original series.
best captain of the starship enterprise
Pick one:
For those who don't know but may care:
1) Jonathan Archer: Captain of the Enterprise in "Enterprise," the latest gallon of skim milk from the cash cow.
2) Robert April: First captain of NCC-1701, appeared in Star Trek: The Animated Series.
3) Christopher Pike: Succeeded April, preceded Kirk. Appeared in "The Cage" and in "The Menagerie."
4) James Kirk: Captain of the Enterprise, NCC-1701, during its five-year mission that was canceled after three years.
5) Willard Decker: Was supposed to captain a refitted Enterprise at the start of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," but Kirk, now an admiral, pulled rank to take the Enterprise out to meet Vejur.
6) Spock: Captain of the Enterprise during its tour of duty as a training vessel, in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan."
7) John Harriman: Captain of the Alaska class starship Enterprise, NCC-1701-B. He appears in "Star Trek Generations" and is notable mainly for totaling his starship on its maiden voyage. The actor had a similar role in "Ferris Bueler's Day Off."
8) Rachel Garret: Captain of the Enterprise-class (?) starship Enterprise, NCC-1701-C. Her ship was destroyed and she died repelling a Romulan attack on the Klingons. She appears, due to a temporal anomaly, in "Yesterday's Enterprise."
9) Jean-Luc Picard: Captain of the Galaxy-class starship Enterprise NCC-1701-D and its successor, NCC-1701-E.
10) William Riker: Given field promotion to captain during "The Best of Both Worlds," while Picard was assimilated by the Borg.
Due to space constraints, I was unable to include Captain Jellison, who took command of the Enterprise-D for a two-episode story in the sixth season of "Star Trek: The Next Generation," or Montgomery Scott, who was promoted to the rank of captain at the beginning of "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock."
Sisko and Janeway don't count for purposes of this poll, since he was captain of a space station and she was captain of Voyager.
I don't really know much about Sisko. I saw the episode with Q, and I saw "Trials and Tribble-ations," but aside from those and one or two other shows, I never really saw that much DS9. It seemed like a nice and welcome change of pace for Star Trek when I first heard about it, setting a show on the backside of Star Fleet rather than on its flagship. I never got into the show later on because it became too invovled with the war plot and the Dominion and all.
Pike, like April, might be an interesting captain, but we really don't know much about him. What appears in "The Menagerie" is almost all from "The Cage," and I'm only aware of one Star Trek novel that deals with him further. (That would be "Vulcan's Glory," by D.C. Fontana, for those keeping track.)
My personal preference is Kirk. Unlike Picard, he didn't surrender every time he faced a hostile; he demonstrated moral restraint when he had the advantage over a fallen enemy; and also unlike Picard, he actually led the Enterprise into the unknown and explored space. True, he had more casualties, but he also was an explorer, where the potential for casualties was much greater. Kirk also wasn't a self-righteous moralist like Picard.
- Jonathan Archer
- Robert April
- Christopher Pike
- James Kirk
- Will Decker
- Spock
- John Harriman
- Rachel Garret
- Jean-Luc Picard
- William Riker
For those who don't know but may care:
1) Jonathan Archer: Captain of the Enterprise in "Enterprise," the latest gallon of skim milk from the cash cow.
2) Robert April: First captain of NCC-1701, appeared in Star Trek: The Animated Series.
3) Christopher Pike: Succeeded April, preceded Kirk. Appeared in "The Cage" and in "The Menagerie."
4) James Kirk: Captain of the Enterprise, NCC-1701, during its five-year mission that was canceled after three years.
5) Willard Decker: Was supposed to captain a refitted Enterprise at the start of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," but Kirk, now an admiral, pulled rank to take the Enterprise out to meet Vejur.
6) Spock: Captain of the Enterprise during its tour of duty as a training vessel, in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan."
7) John Harriman: Captain of the Alaska class starship Enterprise, NCC-1701-B. He appears in "Star Trek Generations" and is notable mainly for totaling his starship on its maiden voyage. The actor had a similar role in "Ferris Bueler's Day Off."
8) Rachel Garret: Captain of the Enterprise-class (?) starship Enterprise, NCC-1701-C. Her ship was destroyed and she died repelling a Romulan attack on the Klingons. She appears, due to a temporal anomaly, in "Yesterday's Enterprise."
9) Jean-Luc Picard: Captain of the Galaxy-class starship Enterprise NCC-1701-D and its successor, NCC-1701-E.
10) William Riker: Given field promotion to captain during "The Best of Both Worlds," while Picard was assimilated by the Borg.
Due to space constraints, I was unable to include Captain Jellison, who took command of the Enterprise-D for a two-episode story in the sixth season of "Star Trek: The Next Generation," or Montgomery Scott, who was promoted to the rank of captain at the beginning of "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock."
Sisko and Janeway don't count for purposes of this poll, since he was captain of a space station and she was captain of Voyager.
I don't really know much about Sisko. I saw the episode with Q, and I saw "Trials and Tribble-ations," but aside from those and one or two other shows, I never really saw that much DS9. It seemed like a nice and welcome change of pace for Star Trek when I first heard about it, setting a show on the backside of Star Fleet rather than on its flagship. I never got into the show later on because it became too invovled with the war plot and the Dominion and all.
Pike, like April, might be an interesting captain, but we really don't know much about him. What appears in "The Menagerie" is almost all from "The Cage," and I'm only aware of one Star Trek novel that deals with him further. (That would be "Vulcan's Glory," by D.C. Fontana, for those keeping track.)
My personal preference is Kirk. Unlike Picard, he didn't surrender every time he faced a hostile; he demonstrated moral restraint when he had the advantage over a fallen enemy; and also unlike Picard, he actually led the Enterprise into the unknown and explored space. True, he had more casualties, but he also was an explorer, where the potential for casualties was much greater. Kirk also wasn't a self-righteous moralist like Picard.
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
'outlaws of sherwood'
I read "Outlaws of Sherwood," and was highly disappointed by it. It failed to be much of a feminist retelling of Robin Hood, and really, it failed to be much of a retelling of Robin Hood at all, when you get down to it.
Yeah, Marian was the better archer, and it was her performance at the archery contest that made the legend come alive, but it's really not much of a feminist retelling simply to give the women the men's jobs and have them do a better job at it, is it? That's saying we're interchangeable and pretends that women are men with a few differences in terms of structure, and utterly fails to praise the womanly qualities that really put men to shame.
Granted, it was better than Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Mists of Avalon," which had as its two main theses that men are scum and Christianity is the worst thing to happen to civilization because it's a horrid, hateful religion. It had a few moments of strength, but a lot of its potential was squandered by what I assume was Bradley's smallness.
Yeah, Marian was the better archer, and it was her performance at the archery contest that made the legend come alive, but it's really not much of a feminist retelling simply to give the women the men's jobs and have them do a better job at it, is it? That's saying we're interchangeable and pretends that women are men with a few differences in terms of structure, and utterly fails to praise the womanly qualities that really put men to shame.
Granted, it was better than Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Mists of Avalon," which had as its two main theses that men are scum and Christianity is the worst thing to happen to civilization because it's a horrid, hateful religion. It had a few moments of strength, but a lot of its potential was squandered by what I assume was Bradley's smallness.
more electric company
And here's the latest: I have a tape of the first episode of "The Electric Company," courtesy of the Sesame Workshop.
It was a blast watching this, and not just for me. Evangeline sat and watched the whole thing, utterly enraptured. A friend of Natasha's was coming by to go some place with her, and Tracey got stuck in the living room with me, watching it and wanting to know how I got my hands on it.
The episode in question was built around the letter G and was aimed at teaching kids to recognize words where it made each of its two sounds. SOme pretty silly humor, but still enjoyable. The outfits are outrageous -- particularly Morgan Freeman's Easy Reader get-up -- but the show is quite good. Great skits I recognized were the "It's the plumber. I've come to fix the sink" routine, and the monolith on the moon. Very nice memories.
Anyway, what this all boils down to is, we need you to call Sesame Workshop at (212) 595-3456 and tell them you want to get "The Electric Company" on DVD next Christmas
It was a blast watching this, and not just for me. Evangeline sat and watched the whole thing, utterly enraptured. A friend of Natasha's was coming by to go some place with her, and Tracey got stuck in the living room with me, watching it and wanting to know how I got my hands on it.
The episode in question was built around the letter G and was aimed at teaching kids to recognize words where it made each of its two sounds. SOme pretty silly humor, but still enjoyable. The outfits are outrageous -- particularly Morgan Freeman's Easy Reader get-up -- but the show is quite good. Great skits I recognized were the "It's the plumber. I've come to fix the sink" routine, and the monolith on the moon. Very nice memories.
Anyway, what this all boils down to is, we need you to call Sesame Workshop at (212) 595-3456 and tell them you want to get "The Electric Company" on DVD next Christmas
Elmo, schmelmo
For the sake of all that is good and holy, we need to stop Elmo,
It's not Elmo as much as it is the massive marketing push behind him. I can handle Elmo as a Muppet on Sesame Street when he is one of many Muppets. He's nice on "Bert and Ernie's Word Play" and he's fine on the 25th anniversary video, and probably in some of the other videos too.
But by the time we've had "Cinderelmo," "Elmocize, "Elmo Presents Kid's Favorite Songs" (volumes one and two) and GOK how many other Elmo tapes, plus the never-ending barrage of Elmo toys, I've had enough of the little red monster to wish that Barney would choke to death while eating him.
There are many other Muppets on Sesame Street besides Elmo, but if you ever go to Sesame Street Live or Sesame Place, you wouldn't know it by the souvenirs.
I think I would get annoyed by even Cookie Monster if he were pushed that heavily.
It's not Elmo as much as it is the massive marketing push behind him. I can handle Elmo as a Muppet on Sesame Street when he is one of many Muppets. He's nice on "Bert and Ernie's Word Play" and he's fine on the 25th anniversary video, and probably in some of the other videos too.
But by the time we've had "Cinderelmo," "Elmocize, "Elmo Presents Kid's Favorite Songs" (volumes one and two) and GOK how many other Elmo tapes, plus the never-ending barrage of Elmo toys, I've had enough of the little red monster to wish that Barney would choke to death while eating him.
There are many other Muppets on Sesame Street besides Elmo, but if you ever go to Sesame Street Live or Sesame Place, you wouldn't know it by the souvenirs.
I think I would get annoyed by even Cookie Monster if he were pushed that heavily.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
stories for girls
My wife and I have tried to steer clear of beauty=good, ugly=bad thing, but Evangeline has gravitated toward stories like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty with a vengeance. To what extent are girls wired to value their appearance? That can manifest itself in many different ways of course; I've never felt that makeup does a lot to make women look more attractive, and usually it just looks gaudy. Obviously I'm at odds with a lot of society on that point.
And to an extent, aren't our images of Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty determined by the Walt Disney movies? Those are visual media, where you have to rely on visual cues to convey a character's good or evil intentions. That's why Shere Khan has such an evil-looking grin, and Baloo looks like such a loveable oaf.
How is an artist supposed to capture a person's inner beauty anyway? That's what it's about, isn't it? Glamor is one thing, but Beauty with a capital B comes from within and makes a person glow regardless of how plain someone might consider them.
I love "The Paper Bag Princess" and pretty much anything else that Robert Munsch has written. Evangeline enjoys his stories too, although she's off on a marketing-inspired Princess kick right now.
I thought it interesting that some people think that Beauty and the Beast has a good message because Belle falls in love with the Beast because of his character. It's funny, because the movie ends with the Beast becoming a handsome prince, thereby underscoring the message that looks really are everything.
Another good book is "Rumplestiltskin's Daughter," which gives a pretty novel twist to the old fairy tale. The miller's daughter runs off with Rumplestiltskin instead of marrying the king since Rumplestiltskin obviously likes her, really wants a kid, and would be an excellent provider. (Plus she has a weakness for short men.) The story follows their daughter, who gets arrested by the king and given the same ultimatum that her mother once faced. Very clever book, nice messages about keeping your wits and about the foolishness of greed.
And to an extent, aren't our images of Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty determined by the Walt Disney movies? Those are visual media, where you have to rely on visual cues to convey a character's good or evil intentions. That's why Shere Khan has such an evil-looking grin, and Baloo looks like such a loveable oaf.
How is an artist supposed to capture a person's inner beauty anyway? That's what it's about, isn't it? Glamor is one thing, but Beauty with a capital B comes from within and makes a person glow regardless of how plain someone might consider them.
I love "The Paper Bag Princess" and pretty much anything else that Robert Munsch has written. Evangeline enjoys his stories too, although she's off on a marketing-inspired Princess kick right now.
I thought it interesting that some people think that Beauty and the Beast has a good message because Belle falls in love with the Beast because of his character. It's funny, because the movie ends with the Beast becoming a handsome prince, thereby underscoring the message that looks really are everything.
Another good book is "Rumplestiltskin's Daughter," which gives a pretty novel twist to the old fairy tale. The miller's daughter runs off with Rumplestiltskin instead of marrying the king since Rumplestiltskin obviously likes her, really wants a kid, and would be an excellent provider. (Plus she has a weakness for short men.) The story follows their daughter, who gets arrested by the king and given the same ultimatum that her mother once faced. Very clever book, nice messages about keeping your wits and about the foolishness of greed.
the electric company redux
Here's the deal: I spoke to the executive vice president of content. She was impressed that I remembered so much about "The Electric Company," and seemed surprised when I said that pretty much every thirtysomething I've mentioned it too wants to know why it's not out on DVD yet.
Being that Sesame Workshop has now turned 35, they're looking at "The Electric Company" with an eye toward redoing it. Her belief is that the developmental approach is dead on, and the concepts are key, but the implementation will need to be changed for the current crop of viewers. I suppose there's probably some truth to that, although I'm sure there are a number of 6- to 8-year-olds who would love the original series. I know Eowyn would. She loves "Rocky and Bullwinkle," for example, a children's show that was in repeats when I was her age.
To pave the way for "The Electric Company" redux, they're probably going to start selling related merchandise (of course) like T-shirts and what have you. They recognize of course that nostalgia is their biggest ally, so there is some consideration being given to a re-release of the original series.
Gruenberg told me they have to do market research. Phooey, I say. Do the research for them. Give them a call at (212) 595-3456, and say you want the original Electric Company on DVD. Be pushy enough that that they can't just blow you off with the pat "We're thinking about it" answer.
On an interesting note, she asked me if I feel as passionately about "Sesame Street" as I do about "The Electric Company," and wouldn't you know, it somehow slipped out that I can't stand Elmo. She was surprised by that -- even as she was impressed that I knew why Snuffaluffagus had gone from being Big Bird's imaginary friend to being a real person (sex abuse in the 1980s, they were concerned kids would think parents won't believe them about serious issues). Her impression was that most people love Elmo. What I tried to share was that while many children love Elmo, he's been marketed to death, so I'm leery of him because he wasn't around when I was a kid, and I'm leery of him because I don't want to be stuck with Chicken Dance Elmo or some other annoying Elmo present each year.
(I didn't mention my own two proposed Elmo toys -- Syphillis Elmo, whose fur turns yellow, and Beat Me With a Stick Elmo -- if for no other reason than the conversation had gone well to that point.)
Anyway, call Sesame Workshop. Their number again is (212) 595-3456. Give them a call and tell them you want to get "The Electric Company" on DVD next Christmas. And tell them you think another great Christmas present would be Push Me Down the Elevator Shaft Elmo.
Being that Sesame Workshop has now turned 35, they're looking at "The Electric Company" with an eye toward redoing it. Her belief is that the developmental approach is dead on, and the concepts are key, but the implementation will need to be changed for the current crop of viewers. I suppose there's probably some truth to that, although I'm sure there are a number of 6- to 8-year-olds who would love the original series. I know Eowyn would. She loves "Rocky and Bullwinkle," for example, a children's show that was in repeats when I was her age.
To pave the way for "The Electric Company" redux, they're probably going to start selling related merchandise (of course) like T-shirts and what have you. They recognize of course that nostalgia is their biggest ally, so there is some consideration being given to a re-release of the original series.
Gruenberg told me they have to do market research. Phooey, I say. Do the research for them. Give them a call at (212) 595-3456, and say you want the original Electric Company on DVD. Be pushy enough that that they can't just blow you off with the pat "We're thinking about it" answer.
On an interesting note, she asked me if I feel as passionately about "Sesame Street" as I do about "The Electric Company," and wouldn't you know, it somehow slipped out that I can't stand Elmo. She was surprised by that -- even as she was impressed that I knew why Snuffaluffagus had gone from being Big Bird's imaginary friend to being a real person (sex abuse in the 1980s, they were concerned kids would think parents won't believe them about serious issues). Her impression was that most people love Elmo. What I tried to share was that while many children love Elmo, he's been marketed to death, so I'm leery of him because he wasn't around when I was a kid, and I'm leery of him because I don't want to be stuck with Chicken Dance Elmo or some other annoying Elmo present each year.
(I didn't mention my own two proposed Elmo toys -- Syphillis Elmo, whose fur turns yellow, and Beat Me With a Stick Elmo -- if for no other reason than the conversation had gone well to that point.)
Anyway, call Sesame Workshop. Their number again is (212) 595-3456. Give them a call and tell them you want to get "The Electric Company" on DVD next Christmas. And tell them you think another great Christmas present would be Push Me Down the Elevator Shaft Elmo.
Monday, December 08, 2003
wonder twins
When I got older and caught the Wonder Twins in reruns, I started to wonder what would happen to Zan if he were subjected to a phase change. Suppose he's in the form of ice, and he gets caught in Superman's heat-ray vision and melts? Worse, suppose he evaporates?
That curiosity I suppose is fueled at least in part -- how's that for qualifiers? -- by an issue of "The Avengers," where Crusher Creel escapes capture by assuming the qualities of the Hudson Bay, and disappearing into the water. He later turned out to be alive (of course), but it struck me when I first read it as an odd and terrible way for a superhuman to go.
Then there's the question of whether Jayna might ever forget herself and mentally become the animal she is impersonating, as the wizards risked in Ursula LeGuinn's "Earthsea" books.
And lastly, did anyone catch Marvin's cameo in "Kingdom Come?" I missed it until it was pointed out to me, and then I couldn't stop laughing.
That curiosity I suppose is fueled at least in part -- how's that for qualifiers? -- by an issue of "The Avengers," where Crusher Creel escapes capture by assuming the qualities of the Hudson Bay, and disappearing into the water. He later turned out to be alive (of course), but it struck me when I first read it as an odd and terrible way for a superhuman to go.
Then there's the question of whether Jayna might ever forget herself and mentally become the animal she is impersonating, as the wizards risked in Ursula LeGuinn's "Earthsea" books.
And lastly, did anyone catch Marvin's cameo in "Kingdom Come?" I missed it until it was pointed out to me, and then I couldn't stop laughing.
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
'antwone fischer'
Some months ago, a co-worker lent me his copy of "Antwone Fischer." It's based on the true story of a Navy seaman who joined the Navy in part to escape the rather abusive foster home he grew up in. As the movie works its way toward a conclusion, Fischer's psychiatrist convinces him that if he's ever going to overcome his demons, he has to go home -- not to his foster parents, but to the birth family he never knew but has always dreamed about.
Not surprisingly, I cried during that segment of the movie as well, as he searches for his family and then finds his mother and tells her about the sort of man he's grown up to be and how he used to always dream about the day she would come and rescue him from his foster family.
I cried, but I was able to sit through the entire movie, for one simple reason. In my mind, I'm not the abusive foster parent Isaac is trying to escape, but the loving parent he wants to track down in order to be complete.
Not surprisingly, I have a few drafts of stories that deal with this. I have one where Orpheus descends into hell to rescue not his wife but his child; in another story, it's a grown man searching for the shadow who remains just out of reach, just beyond the edges of his perception.
My hope is that one day I'll answer the door and Isaac will be on the other side, looking for the source of his bizarre idea of what "daddy" looks like. (After all, his father's black. I'm not.)
Here or in heaven.
Not surprisingly, I cried during that segment of the movie as well, as he searches for his family and then finds his mother and tells her about the sort of man he's grown up to be and how he used to always dream about the day she would come and rescue him from his foster family.
I cried, but I was able to sit through the entire movie, for one simple reason. In my mind, I'm not the abusive foster parent Isaac is trying to escape, but the loving parent he wants to track down in order to be complete.
Not surprisingly, I have a few drafts of stories that deal with this. I have one where Orpheus descends into hell to rescue not his wife but his child; in another story, it's a grown man searching for the shadow who remains just out of reach, just beyond the edges of his perception.
My hope is that one day I'll answer the door and Isaac will be on the other side, looking for the source of his bizarre idea of what "daddy" looks like. (After all, his father's black. I'm not.)
Here or in heaven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
