Monthy Archive: May 2006
« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »

If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).

If you want to know more about me, click here.

May 02, 2006

Thoughts : A political thought experiment

I start with an observation: governments today do not rule people, they rule territory. A nation does not govern its citizens; it governs what takes place within its boundaries by citizens and non-citizens alike, and likewise does not govern what its citizens do while not within that geography. There are places in the world whose economy is entirely based on the fact that people can go there and do things which are illegal for them to do "at home".

I do not point this out because I see it as inherently bad; but it does leave me wondering if there are alternatives, and if there are alternatives, what are their advantages and disadvantages. Both Cory Doctorow and Neal Stephenson have written stories where nations are defined by people, not by territory. A person is a part of some group and is subject to the laws of that group no matter where they travel. The complications come when people from different "tribes" interact in ways which may be legal to one and not to another. Is there a way to resolve such disagreements that is both practical and beneficial?

Note, I am not suggesting that a transition from what we have today to something like this could be accomplished. The current model is too well ingrained in our culture to make such a change. As a SciFi fan, I tend to think of this in the context of the formation of an interstellar alliance between various "alien" species. This also eliminates the assumptions that can be built on the commonality that we are all human and therefore certain laws can be assumed as "universal".

So here's the thought experiment I pose to myself from time to time. A group of alien societies (including, if you like, the human race) come together to form an alliance for the purpose of trade, information exchange, and common defense. Each species is assumed to remain self-governing; but some concessions must be made to make travel to other worlds safe and practical. There needs to be some set of rules that ensure that a being traveling to another world will neither be subjected to unnecessary risks nor unnecessary legal entanglements. The more research and preparation required to safely travel, the fewer beings will travel and the value of the alliance will be diminished.

The key question, I claim, is reduced to the following proposition. If a creature from culture A (the Actor), does something to a creature from culture S (the Subject), which is witnessed by individuals from culture O (the Observer) (as well, obviously, by A and S) while traveling on a world governed by creatures of culture L (the Location) – how do you decide if the activity is legal? Today, in the real world, the answer is that culture L almost always makes that determination. But is that the only consistent solution? And what are the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives?

Consider our real world solution to this problem, does it really make sense if the activity is legal in cultures A, S and O, for it to be illegal for them do it just because they happen to be across some border (keeping in mind that as formulated, the only witnesses are those who also consider it legal)? Or if it is illegal in cultures A, S and O, it is really in the interest of the greater good for it to suddenly become legal when you cross the border? Whatever disadvantages may exist in other solution, it would be hard to argue that our current model is without flaws.

When thinking about this, keep in mind it is being proposed in the context of alien societies. So possibilities like a given activity being required by one culture's law and forbidden by another's should be taken into account. In fact very little can be assumed in terms of commonality between cultures.

By the way, I originally added culture O to the mix (the "observer" culture) to take into account the fact that most cultures have some form of censorship – things which it believe people should not be exposed to – and I wanted to take that into consideration as well. I discovered that it actually helped clarify some of my own ideas, and simplified my answers significantly.

Anyway, I'll share my own thinking in a later post, and then eventually extend that to what it would mean to have governments of people not land.

Posted by Steven at 07:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

May 04, 2006

Life : Adjustments

So, as previously noted, the conclusion I came to at the end of my first year of blogging was that trying to do a blog of this style on a daily basis was going to take too much energy away from other things I wanted to accomplish. I'm not willing to change the style of blog, and I'm not willing to make it the focus of my life, so the only remaining knob to turn was frequency.

I now believe I can fairly consistently produce 3 blog posts a week without it becoming a problem for me. I still might miss an occasional one, but I think I can stay enough ahead of the curve at that rate that I can be fairly consistent.

Given that, here's my question: if I am only posting 3 entries a week, does it matter to my readership if I am consistent in when I make those posts? Does it matter if I post Monday, Tuesday and Friday one week, and then Wednesday, Friday and Saturday the next? Or would it be a significant advantage to people if I posted between 6PM and 9PM (Pacific Time) every Monday, Wednesday and Friday (with exceptions made only for dates of historical significance)?

I personally have a very long list of web sites I track, and have made an effort to actually organize them based on how often I check them. There are "multiple times a day" sites, "daily" sites, "weekday" sites, "MWF" sites, "weekly" sites, and "monthly" sites, so for me, being predictable would help. However I suspect I am unusual in that effort and organizations. So, any opinions out there?

Posted by Steven at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

May 06, 2006

Faith : Dungeons and Dragons and Christianity

I've had some private conversations related to my playing DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online), raising the question "should a Christian be playing Dungeons and Dragons?" Since this question is out there, I thought I'd outline my perspective (which I'll get to after placing a few stakes in the ground).

The first stake is Matthew 5:21-29. The essence of this passage is that from God's point of view, imagining yourself attacking someone is the same as (as bad as) attacking them; and imagining yourself having intercourse with someone else's wife is the same as (as bad as) actually doing it. It is also clear from the passage that this is a general principle, so it would be fair to say that imagining yourself practicing witchcraft (which God abhors) is the same (as bad as) actually doing it. So engaging in an activity which includes imagining yourself as a "wizard" or a "sorcerer" raises legitimate questions. It is therefore clear to me that there is a line someplace with respect to "role playing games" which should not be crossed.

For my second stake. Consider a computer game where you control a squad of American soldiers in WWII, fighting the Nazis. A couple of the soldiers in the squad are riflemen. If you press the right keys on the keyboard and click the mouse in the right way, they will shoot at the Nazi soldiers and damage them. In addition to the riflemen, you also have some specialists in your squad. One is a medic, and if you press the right keys on the keyboard and click the mouse in the right way you can make the medic try to remove to reduce the effects of damage that people on your squad have received. Another is a commando who is an expert on sneaking up on people and dispatching them silently. The commando is also good with traps, locks, etc. Another soldier on your squad is a "heavy weapons expert" who can use weapons like flamethrowers, mortars, etc. If you press the right keys on the keyboard and click the mouse in the right way the heavy weapons expert can shoot fire at enemy soldiers or make explosions occur at great distance. Now, I appreciate that there are Christians who believe that violence is never justified, even in a "just war" like WWII; but most Christians would not have fundamental problems with this kind of game.

Now consider another game where you control a group of characters with different skills. Some of those characters, when you press the right keys on the keyboard and click the mouse in the right way, cause damage to the enemy. Others when you press the right keys on the keyboard and click the mouse in the right way try to remove to reduce the effects of damage that people in your group have received. Others are skilled at sneaking up on enemies and dealing with traps and locks. Others when you press the right keys on the keyboard and click the mouse in the right way can shoot fire at the enemy or create explosions at a distance. In fact, this game is played in exactly the same way with the same effects as the WWII game with just one difference – instead of calling some of the squad members riflemen, they are referred to as fighters; instead of a medic, you have a cleric; instead of a commando, you have a rogue, and instead of a heavy weapons expert, the character who can shoot fire at the enemy (who are called monsters instead of Nazis) is called a wizard. In brief, it is a computerized version of Dungeons and Dragons. So the question is – if the games are essentially identical except for the names used for things – is the game any different morally? Do the words used to describe something change its moral character?

OK, now for my point view.

I believe in the message of Matthew 5:21-29; but I do not believe it applies to how I used to play D&D when I had time and certainly does not apply to DDO. When I play DDO, at no point do I imagine myself to be doing the things my character is doing. I imagine myself sitting at my desk playing a game, controlling a character in a story. That character and that story may involve things which may raise moral issues (as all good stories do); but I don't picture myself ever doing those things. Likewise when I played D&D in person eons ago, I was never into the role-playing aspects that other people enjoyed. To me, D&D was an exercise in collaborative story telling – I described the actions of my character in a way which I felt told an interesting story when combined with the stories all of the other players were telling. The character was not me, and I did not imagine myself to be my character. I did think about what a character like that might do in a given circumstance; but there was always a separation of myself and my character. Based on that, I believe then and now I have stayed on the safe side of the Matthew 5 line.

Now having said that, I understand that for some Christians, the distinction I make is too subtle. I respect those who disagree and would not encourage anyone whose conscience is bothered by this to play such games. Furthermore, in terms of D&D itself, I have seen other groups play the game in ways which involve a lot more role-playing then I am used to (it is after all a "role playing game", so how I played it was perhaps unusual). There are groups I have observed which I would have trouble joining because they edge too close to the line my conscience informs me of. So, while I am comfortable with my own position, I respect that playing these games might well be a bad idea for other people in other circumstances. While my own conscience is clear, I would not want to cause someone else to stumble by my freedom (see First Corinthians, chapter 8 for this principle in action). Finally, in all this I am open to the possibility that I may be wrong. At some point in the future, God may well correct me on these points; but until then I can only follow my present understanding.

Posted by Steven at 05:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

May 09, 2006

Observations : A funning this happened to me…

…on the way to this blog entry.

A week ago today, I posted on "a political thought experiment", outlining a theoretical situation I ponder from time to time. My intent was to post part 2 of that series today, explaining my own answer to the problem; and then to post part 3 next week which would apply that answer to the question of governments of people instead of territory.

However, as I began to write up the blog post, I discovered that my arguments were not as compelling to me in black and white as they had been bouncing around in my head. Now (so far at least) I haven't actually changed my mind on anything; but I have to concede that I am less certain as I was of my answers. Given that, I have decided to postpone the remainder of this series until I have thought through the question more.

Instead, I will make two observations on this occurrence. The first is that another unexpected benefit of writing this blog is that it has forced me to think through my opinions more clearly. It is one thing to form an opinion on one's mind, and quite another to try and explain that opinion in a compelling manner to another person. For those who value their own intellectual integrity, I highly recommend blogging.

The other observation is that I continue to view humility as one of the principle virtues. All learning begins with the willingness to acknowledge that you may be wrong, and stops as soon as you cease to be willing to listen to alternatives. Openness to experimental proof or counter-proof is a hallmark of science. The willingness to consider alternative explanation is the cornerstone of skepticism. Humility can lead you to value both the wise man for his experience and the fool for his alternative point of view. We would have far fewer problems in the world if humility was more greatly valued.

Posted by Steven at 07:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

May 11, 2006

Processes : And a process wonk too

I've been reminded by recent events of yet another interest of mine: organizational processes – how decisions are made in an organization, what documents should be written, what meetings should be held, what positions should exist, etc. Actually, in addition to writing a science fiction novel and a book on my perspective on Christianity, I have also often thought of writing a book on what I have learned in the last 25 years about how to run an organization.

How I got involved in this is an instructive story in its own right. I was at a company (long ago – not my current employer, so this is safe blog fodder) working on a project which was had some unusual characteristics. There was a document which the company's engineering process said needed to be written by the lead engineer (me in this case). I had some questions of how to apply the document template to this particular project, particularly one section of the document. So I started asking the people on the list of reviewers (those who had to approve the document once written) assuming they'd be able to tell me what they would expect in that section for my project.

What I discovered was that everyone on the reviewers list said that they never read that section – they all assumed that someone else used it. So I cast my net wider – perhaps the person who used that information wasn't a reviewer; but still needed the information after the doc was approved. So, I asked anyone and everyone who I could imagine using the document at all (following up on suggestions for who that might be), and discovered that there appeared to be no one in the entire company who was the least bit interested in the information in that section of the document. In the process I also started to ask people about the rest of the document and discovered that very little of it was actually used by anyone for anything, and many of the parts which were used were laid out in ways that made it difficult for people to extract the information they actually needed.

So, I went back to everyone and asked a different set of questions. What information do you need to make you decision or otherwise do your job? How will you use the information? What format would be most useful to you? I then produced a new template for the document that(because it actually met people's needs) was quickly adopted by my department. I'll note that the new template was actually one third the size of the original and much easier to write and review. My work on this caught the attention of other folks in the company, and eventually led to my having a seat on the company's overall process committee. All because I asked some questions which you would think would be obvious.

Since then I have gotten involved in process for just about every company I have worked for. In doing so, I have learned a lot both about how organization work and how they fail. To me getting an organization to work is just another kind of engineering – different from software engineering but engineering nonetheless. People are not computers or robots, and processes which do not take into account the peculiar ways that real people succeed and fail will not be effective; but once you spend the time to understand people, you can engineer processes which actually help people be effective in what they do as opposed to fighting against them. There are some hard rules must be obeyed and softer principles that can be used to guide the judgment calls that inevitable must be made when the rules allow for more than one option. Someday I'll write them all up. Until then I'll share a few pointers in this blog as I have opportunity and inspiration.

Posted by Steven at 05:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 14, 2006

Introspection : Mom

My mother died 14 years ago, and there are still days I miss her. She died of cancer, so we all knew what was coming and were able to prepare for it. A week before she died, I was able to fly out and spend time with her and Dad, as well as my brother and nephew who had also flown out. When I went to visit her in the hospital the last time before getting on the plane to come home, we knew it would be the last time I saw her in this life, so she and I were able to say everything we needed and wanted to say. There were a lot of tears; but I know I was able to say a proper goodbye. I can't imagine what its like for people who loose a loved one suddenly without that kind of opportunity for closure.

Now here's where tradition would have me talk about what a great Mom she was (which she was); but long before she died I reached the point of accepting that Mom was a normal, flawed human being. She had her issues, her baggage; as I have mine. There's something liberating about being able to look at your parents as people like yourself. There's a closeness you can develop which is impossible as long as they remain the idealized icons of a child.

Mom and I reached that point early. Both of us came to know Jesus around the same time, and so shared a common experience of learning what Christianity was all about. Our relationship as brother and sister in Christ quickly overwhelmed the son/mother relationship, freeing us to talk more honestly with each other about what we were experiencing in life. At the end of the day, Mom was one of my best friends, and it is in that role I miss her most.

She was in many respects a stifled artist. In a different day and age I think she would have become a classic bohemian; but she lived in a culture where a woman got married, had kids, raised a family, and defined themselves by those roles. To be clear, this was not something Dad did to her – I don't think it occurred to either of them that things could be any other way. Eventually, as my brother and I grew up, Mom did try and discover herself (discovering her faith and sharing it with me was a part of this); but I think the woman she might have been was buried too long to be recovered. The result was that in later years, Mom was often quite flighty – jumping from one thing to another, following fads, always (I think) trying to find herself in something new.

In all, my biggest regret is that I don't own any of her paintings. I do have some craft projects that she and Dad did together – Dad doing the woodworking and Mom painting the results; but she also did several paintings on her own which became lost in one of my parents many moves. I was always able to sense the emotions she put into the pictures – she and I had a common language in that regard, so her imagery spoke to me. I still wish I had one to keep, to cherish.

Anyway, happy mothers day, Mom.

Posted by Steven at 07:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

May 16, 2006

Life : WorldCon in August

I decided this past week that I will in fact be going to WorldCon (the World Science Fiction Convention) this August in Los Angeles. This has been a surprisingly complex decision for something a year ago I would have considered obvious. I have been to two WorldCons (2002 in San Jose and 2004 in Boston), and I found both to be immensely enjoyable and extremely useful to me as a writer. When it was announced 3 years ago that this year's convention would be in LA (not too difficult to get to from where I live), it seemed like a great opportunity. However, my rethinking of my life this last year significantly altered my perspective and complicated that decision.

To explain why, I need to step back and explain what WorldCon is. Those whose image of a "Science Fiction Convention" is a bunch of twenty-somethings in Klingon costumes drooling over the chance to see actors from their favorite TV show, that is not WorldCon. I have been to regional conventions which fit that description and would never return. When I found out in 2002 that the World Science Fiction was being held in San Jose, CA (a half hour from where I lived) I almost skipped the opportunity because of bad experiences at other 'Cons. I am so glad I didn't.

WorldCon started in 1939 as a convention for fans of written Science Fiction (and Fantasy). There was no TV then and very little in the way of SciFi movies. The focus of WorldCon then and now is on Science Fiction literature. These days there is always some content related to TV and movies (5-10% at the ones I have attended, I expect a bit more for this next once since it is hosted in LA); but the bulk of the convention is about the written word and it is largely attended by intelligent and literate people (with an average age in the 40's I would guess).

Furthermore, WorldCon is where the Hugo Awards are presented. The Hugos (Technically the "World Science Fiction Achievement Awards") are the highest honor bestowed on Science Fiction writing. There are other awards (the Nebulas, for instance); but the Hugo is the one everyone in the industry wants. The Hugos are in almost every respect the "Academy Awards" for SciFi.

One result of this is that the convention is well attended by professional from the SciFi publishing industry: publishers, editors, literary agents, illustrators, and of course lots and lots of writers. I struck up a conversation in a line once and discovered that the guy I was talking to was the submissions editor for a major publisher (the guy who makes the initial decision if his company is going to buy your new novel). Later, I found myself sitting in a seminar next to two agents who happened to handle two of my favorite authors.

And speaking of seminars, the backbone of WorldCon are usually over a hundred panel discussions. Some are "just for fun"; but many relate to the craft of writing and the art of getting published. Some of my favorites from past WorldCons include:

- "Things I Wish Some Pro Had Told Me When I Was Just Starting Out" hosted by two published authors, Kevin J. Anderson and Rebecca Moesta.

- "1000 stories in one hour" hosted by one of my favorite authors, Orson Scott Card. For the record, he cheated; but it was still a great brainstorming exercise and taught me a lot about the different between a great concept and a great story.

- "The first two pages" with a panel of publishers, editors, agents and writers talking about what they look for in the first two pages of a novel.

- "Designing an alien language" hosted by a professional linguist talking about how human languages differ and how to extrapolate ways that non-humans might communicate

- "How to write a fight" by an author and martial arts expert.

- "Things we hope never to see again in another novel" a discussion of worn-out ideas (or ideas which should never have been used in the first place). In the process, the panel talked about a lot of books that "got it right" and I walked away with a long list of new novels and authors to try.

The summary of all this is that if you are an aspiring SciFi or Fantasy writer and have a chance to attend a WorldCon, you really should go – there are too many opportunities to learn and improve your craft there. Furthermore, if you are an aspiring SciFi or Fantasy writer and you have a completed manuscript, you would be foolish to not attend WorldCon. Why? Because having an editor recall your name and remember you as someone who seemed otherwise rational can make a big difference in your chances of getting published; and WorldCon is the perfect place to develop those relationships. This isn't even sleazy – the reason most editors attend WorldCon (and hold parties in their suites) is so that they can meet aspiring writers (I have been told so by multiple publishers). Just don't come with manuscript in hand (a serious faux pas). The goal is to let them get to know you; and if you are lucky, get them to ask you to send them your manuscript. Being able to say in your cover letter "Here's the manuscript you asked me to send you…" can get you past a lot of competition – as long as you are telling the truth.

Which finally brings this back to my own situation. As I have commented previously on this blog, I have decided to put my fiction writing on the back burner and focus on non-fiction for the next few years. So, when my reminder to register for WorldCon this year came up, I was in a quandary. Fiction and non-fiction writing and publishing are different beasts, and I'm unlikely to learn anything at WorldCon that would help with any of my current projects. Likewise, any relationships I develop now would likely to be forgotten by the time I actually have a fiction manuscript in hand to sell. As an aspiring writer, there was no real reason to attend WorldCon this year, and as such I had to rethink whether it was worth attending as "just a fan". What finally closed the deal was that, given that WorldCon is being held in LA this year, a lot of my favorite television writers will be attending and the chance to meet and spend time with them makes the trip worth it to me. However, I suspect this will be the last WorldCon I will attend until I get back to writing fiction and have a manuscript complete.

Posted by Steven at 05:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 18, 2006

TV : 2006 Spring Finales, part 1

The 2005-2006 network TV season has nearly come to a close, so I thought I'd make a few comments on shows I was still watching at the end of the season and their finale episodes.

The West Wing
Farewell. The final episode of the series was what was needed and expected, but no more. Each of the characters had their moment in the spotlight. Each was given a chance to comment on "what's next". One reviewer describes it as "dignified", which sounds about right. Safe might be more apt. Boring even. For a show that started out by challenging so many conventions, it was sad to see it go out with something which said so little. The show was just not the same after Season 3 when Sorkin left and Schlamme found himself in the back seat as "Executive Consultant". There were moments of greatness; but never as good as what can be found in the first three seasons.

Grey's Anatomy
Wow. It's interesting to have seen the season finale of Grey's Anatomy so soon after the final episode of The West Wing. In many respect the writing and direction of GA reminds me of those first three seasons of WW. I loved the fact that the opening voice-over monolog (usually done by the main character Meredith Grey) was done by all of the interns this time. The sequence where Dr Webber questions the interns was a wonderful. Each giving an almost non sequitur monolog response to Webber's question; but in doing so revealing so much about how that character has changed over the season. Great TV. On the flip side, the show once again shows why Meredith may be the lead character; but she is certainly no role model. While the reasons for her lack of discipline with men are by now well established in the series, it is still hard to see her making mistake after mistake in her relationships.

Bones
I was very surprised that they'd start to resolve the big background mystery of the show (what happened to the main character's parents when she was a child) at the end of the first season. That's the kind of thing you drag out as long as possible and start to resolve when ratings go down. However, given that they decided to jump into that now, I have to say their (partial) resolution was well conceived. Here you have a character whose whole life has been built around finding people's true identities so that justice can be done. Having her find out that her own identity is false and that her parents were criminals is a brilliant move. For a character that has been established as being "tightly wound", this kind of thing should have lasting consequences. We'll see if the writing staff is up to that challenge next season; but cracks are already showing. I appreciated the fact that Ms. "let the evidence speak for itself" initially refuses to believe what her staff is telling her about the movie ticket.

Lost & Alias
The Lost finale is next week; but the producers are promising that we finally get some answers (accompanied, I am sure, by more questions). In addition, the final episode of Alias comes next week. This show dropped off my list a couple years ago; but I'm certainly interesting in how they try to wrap it all up (or if they do). My best guess is still that Sloane and Rambaldi are the same person; but don't ask me how.

Posted by Steven at 06:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 21, 2006

Books , Faith , Movies : The Da Vinci Code

I'll start by saying that as a work of entertaining fiction, I really enjoyed Dan Brown's book, "The Da Vinci Code". It reminded me in a lot of ways of one of my favorite films: "Raiders of the Lost Ark". A professor chasing clues to find some relic of the past, being chased in turn by murderous enemies who want the same relic for different reasons. It was a quite enjoyable story. The movie likewise was good, although not great. The story requires a great deal to be explained to make sense, and while you can hide that amount of exposition in a several hundred page novel, it tends to take some of the wind out of a movie. Ron Howard did an excellent job, probably as good as could be done with the material; but there have been many better movies made (some even by Howard).

So as a work of fiction, there is much to praise in this story. Unfortunately, it is having an effect on society beyond mere entertainment. Poll after poll by diverse groups have indicated that significant numbers of people are actually taking this story seriously. Answering "yes" to question like "Has 'The Da Vinci Code' influenced your religious beliefs" or even more directly "Do you now believe that Jesus was married?" To me, this quite astounding. If someone came out of watching "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and seriously said that they now believed that the Nazi's has recovered the Ark of the Covenant and that it was now held in a US Government warehouse, people would give them a wide birth; but there are people who accept the fictional premise of "The Da Vinci Code" as true and other people are treating this as normal.

Perhaps it is because I have in fact studied Christian Church history that I find this so strange. The claims of the story make no sense if you know a bit of history. I'll not expound here the many ways that the evidence presented in the book is flawed (but entertaining) - there are wonderful sources out there for anyone who is interested. Let me merely state three points which, for me personally, killed the believability of the premise long before needing to do the kind of serious textual or artistic analysis which can be found elsewhere.

First, a large percentage of the people who attended the council of Nicaea (where the book's conspiracy was supposed to originate) were the same leaders of the church world-wide who had survived the persecution under Emperor Diocletian which had ended only thirteen years earlier. Many had been imprisoned for their beliefs and had seen close friends and family killed for their faith. These were not people who would go along with any "change" to Christianity, and if the decisions at Nicaea did not represent what they understood to be true, they would have fought against it with the same energy with which they fought against Diocletian's persecution. A conspiracy to somehow change Christianity at Nicaea from what was a true consensus belief would have failed. No, what was made official at Nicaea was in fact what was the consensus belief of most (but I'll acknowledge, not all) Christians from long before 325AD.

Second, the Christian tradition (at least until 380AD) was to exclude "heretics" from the church; but otherwise to let them be. The idea was that people were given a choice by God. Those who followed The Way were a part of The Body. Those who weren't were lost and would pay the cost for their decision in due time. The result was that almost every doctrinal debate within the Church would result in some group of dissenters who would head off and "do their own thing." From the church's point of view, they were abandoned to their folly. The idea of trying to suppress these alternative ideas and otherwise persecute those who followed them did not become church policy until 380-381. The result is that there is a rich literature of alternative views of Christianity from the first three centuries which exists until today. Many of these ideas are far more problematic then the ideas presented in "The Da Vinci Code". This was actually one of largest surprises for me as I began to research church history on my own – how easy it was to find information about the "loosing side" on various doctrinal debates. The existence of all of this "heretical writing" (some quite divergent) leaves me disbelieving that any conspiracy to suppress any single doctrine would have occurred and left all of these other views out there.

Third, while the whole "Jesus was married and had a kid" part of the story is flashy, a key part of the book (which the movie dances around – using the words but never really explaining what they mean) is that "original" Christianity embraced the "sacred feminine". According to the book, suppressing the existence of Jesus' family was only a means to suppress the role of "sacred feminine" in the church. And what exactly is the recognition of the "sacred feminine"? Well, it essentially boils down to worshiping "the goddess", including having ritual sex. For those who have only seen the movie, this aspect is played down; but recall in detail what Sophie saw her "grandfather" doing which led to their estrangement (its only on screen a moment; but its there). If this is what first-century Christianity was about, I would first suspect that Rome would have had a lot less problem with the religion, and second, there would have been records – not just church records (which might have been suppressed); but personally letters, historical documents, etc. There were several sects within the Roman pantheon which included traditions like this, and those practices left echoes in the larger community which can be found by historians in places which would be difficult to eliminate perfectly. Yet there is no such record for Christianity anyplace in the world. Instead there are records of complaints about Christian's unwillingness to participate in such activities. The idea that the "sacred feminine" was ever a part of the early church is just not believable.

I have more to say about "The Da Vinci Code"; but that will have to wait for another day.

Posted by Steven at 06:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

May 23, 2006

TV : Fall 2006 TV preview

The 2006 "upfronts" (early network announcements of their fall schedules to advertisers to allow them to pre-purchase ad slots) are out, and I can see I'm going to be reading a lot of books this fall. There's only one show on my "must try" list, and a few others that have good concepts but I'll wait to hear the "buzz" this fall before deciding if I'll try them.

The sure thing

OK, in TV there is no such thing as a sure thing; but "Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip" comes pretty close. An Aaron Sorkin "behind these scene" drama with an ensemble cast is a fairly safe bet since he has already had hits with "Sports Night" and "The West Wing" using that formula. This time it's behind the scenes of a "Saturday Night Live" style comedy show, and everyone is already saying that this is the 500 pound gorilla of the Fall season. Which make's ABC's decision to reschedule "Grey's Anatomy" up against it puzzling. Granted, Grey's is one of ABC's best shows; but why risk going head-to-head?

The good concepts

After that, there are no shows in my opinion which are clear winners. There are a few shows with interesting concepts, and given the right writers and actors, some of these may win. However, the network's track record of putting together the right writers and actors for good concepts isn't very good, so I'm in "wait and see" mode on these. As we get closer to the fall, there tends to be more info available and I'll decide then which of these I'll take out for a test drive.

Jericho
Events in a small Kansas town after "the bomb" has been dropped. Kind of a Midwest version of the classic book "Alas, Babylon". There are a lot of directions you can go from that premise, and many of them are interesting. If they take the time to deal with all of the questions that come up when a small community get cut off from the larger civilization, it may prove worth it.

Heroes
A bunch of normal people around the world wake up one day with superpowers. One can fly, another read mind, another teleport, etc. The producers promise that there is a larger story with the fate of the world in the balance; but that individual episodes will deal with the more personal dramas of the various characters dealing with their abilities in the real world. Kind of like "The 4400" or Straczynski's "Rising Stars" comic books. The latter clearly showed the deep questions you can get to starting with this premise (does power really corrupt? How do you determine the "greater good"?) We'll see how the network does.

20 Good Years
A comedy about an older "Odd Couple" (two very different men who share a place to live) who realize that they probably have only 20 good years left and decide to make those most of their remaining time on earth; but in very different ways. There is a lot of room for meaningful observations about life in between the jokes if they make the effort.

Day Break
A mash-up between the movie "Groundhog Day" and a murder mystery with a touch of "Tru Calling" mixed in. A man is falsely accused of murder and tries to prove his innocence; but discovers that every morning he wakes up at the start of the same day, giving him another chance to investigate and set things right. This could either end up monotonous or fascinating. If they play out how the information from previous cycles puts familiar events seen in previous episodes into a new light, this could be a great show.

The Nine
Nine diverse people are taken hostage in a failed bank robbery and spend 52 hours together under stressful conditions. As far as I can tell, the show is about how those 52 hours affect the character's lives after they are free. A good dramatic premise and I can see many ways to use this to comment on the human condition.

Six Degrees
Six strangers who don't even know each other at the start of the series begin to make decisions that affect each other's lives. If they really make this show about how people's decisions have consequences, not just for themselves but for others; and about the subtle interconnectedness which exists between people, this could be great. Of all of the shows in this category, "Six Degrees" is the one I most hope lives up to its potential.

Traveller
Three friend rollerblade through a museum shortly before it blows up in a terrorist attack. Two of them become prime suspects in the bombing, Things start to get really weird when they find themselves unable to prove that their third friend (who is missing) ever existed. There are a lot of shows this Fall trying to be "the next Lost"; but this one is just different enough that it might work.

'Til Death
A comedy about newlyweds who move in next door to a couple who have been married for 24 years. The older couple fight a lot; but underneath they truly love each other. The younger couple is just figuring out how this marriage thing works. There's a real opportunity here to say something in between the laughs about how real marriages evolve; but my guess is this will be all laughs and no substance.

On The Lot
This is the Mark Burnett and Steven Spielberg reality show collaboration which has teams of filmmakers creating a new short film each week in a different style/genre. Each week the loosing director is removed from the competition. The winner gets a job with Spielberg. I have long since lost interest in reality shows as a genre; but as a cinemaphile this may prove interesting.

Posted by Steven at 07:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

May 25, 2006

TV : 2006 Spring Finales, part 2

I hate doing two TV posts in a row; but I've been fighting a cold this week and spending more time than normal in front of the tube. So here are my observations on the last two finales of the season.

Alias
Well, that definitely ended the show - having eliminated a number of the characters in the course of the finale – but overall I found it less successful at wrapping things up. Yeah, the "good guys" lived happily ever after (although there is room for "Daughter of Alias" in a few years); but I didn't get much of a sense of closure. The flashback were nice as they allowed for all of the major characters of the past to show up for one final bow; but the only thing I really liked about the finale was the fate of Sloane – the perfect way to dispose of such a nasty character.

Lost
Now that's what a season finale should be like. You answer a bunch of old questions that people have been begging to have resolved; but at the same time you open up enough new questions to get people to come back. Unlike the Season One finale, I do feel like we know a lot more about the situation. Not enough to understand it; but enough to feel like I got something for my time watching the show, and enough to at least promise that this is actually heading someplace. Apparently next season we start to get the story of The Others. My early bet is that turning the key has sealed off the island so that even the others can no longer get off, and as a result they need to join forces with the rest of the LOSTies.

For the summer, we have the next season of The 4400 coming, and there's a new show on SciFi: "Eureka" that sound promising.

Posted by Steven at 05:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 30, 2006

Life : System Upgrade

I made some change a few months ago to combat spam on this (and related) sites and it seemed to have helped for a while. Unfortunately this past week someone renewed the abuse of this blog (as well as my album blogs) using an approach which was immune to my previous blocking strategy. My apologies to anyone who had to wade through the pile of false comments over the last few days

The good news is that I discovered that an upgrade to my blogging software had become available through my host. I have now upgraded this site to Movable Type version 3.2, whose major advantage over 3.15 is the inclusion of extensive anti-spam technology. Hopefully, this will block the latest wave of attackers.

Of course, anytime you move to block unwanted posters, particularly using a software solution, there is always a chance that it may also block legitimate posters. The approaches used by MovableType look reasonable and safe; but just in case, EMail me if any of you have problems with the site now that I have upgraded.

Thanks.

Posted by Steven at 07:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)