tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13180870477388163272024-03-05T01:50:38.201-08:00Politics and MetaphorA discussion of the ideas and themes I encounter as I writejrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-9874252401317381182018-06-15T06:08:00.000-07:002018-06-15T06:12:22.998-07:00The Trump Narrative or, Only Trump could go to North Korea.They said that only Nixon could go to China.<br />
<br />
But where Nixon could work toward rapprochement with a traditional enemy because of his hardline stance of defending American interests and the fundamentals of western democracy, it is a distasteful corollary that only Trump could go to North Korea, for exactly the opposite reason, namely his indifference to principle.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump believes in a Story of an American Empire, sure. But it’s an Empire that he feels has the right to act with impunity because of its might. Its great moments in the 20th century, defending democratic principles during the the World Wars and the Cold War, were - to his eyes - no more than acts of noblesse oblige. He has shown his preference for power over principle time and again, and the principle that ‘might is right’ is something that Kim Jong-un recognizes, in all likelihood, instinctively.<br />
<br />
Kim Jong-un is, after all, a young prince who has come to his throne early. He has had to fight off the pretenders to his throne with efficient brutality. This is something that obviously appeals to Trump. In Trump’s story they are both Kings and thus, on some level, brothers. Their bond, as royalty, is more important than the people they rule over, and if it happens that Kim has been using nuclear weapons as just another bargaining chip in the political struggles within the kingdom of North Korea, well it’s something he’s done himself.<br />
<br />
In this meeting, Trump has given Kim political capital to play within his Kingdom, he has after all forced a meeting with the leader of the Great Evil Empire - and that’s got to play well back home. In return, Kim has given Trump the ceremonial recognition that he so desires, has always desired - for Trump likes the trappings of power much more than the responsibility of it. There are very few things that Trump would enjoy more than getting a Nobel Peace Prize to wave in Obama’s face.<br />
<br />
So Donny and Kim offer each other accolades (and tours of fancy cars) in exchange for <i>talk</i> of peace. Neither is particularly concerned whether this peace is truly acheived or maintained, but rather in the story they can tell of their greatness.<br />
<br />
No wonder then, that Trump loathes Trudeau and the rest of the G7, leaders who see Trump and the USA as just another country - in doing this, they call to question the story that Trump wants to believe. Sure, G7 leaders recognize that the USA is the world’s most powerful economy, but not one that must be given any especial consideration or respect beyond that simple fact. They are a trading <i>partner - </i>Trump’s not a king, and they are not vassals offering tribute or taxes. Trudeau knows that he’s sharing a bed with an elephant, and that he needs to be careful, but he’s not <i>afraid. </i>None of them are - the USA is just another member of the G7, of the OECD, of NATO. They may be dominant, but they don’t have, and are not treated as though they have special rights. Must drive Donny <i>crazy.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Oddly though, this narrative between Donny and Kim might actually be the recipe for success, after all, at least they’re talking (for now). The Trump Narrative, the one that guides his foreign policy (as opposed to the Obama Doctrine, which was based on realpolitik, not a monarchist drama) is one that meshes with North Korea’s own delusions. One can only hope that they are able to tell a story of peace.<br />
<br />
But I ain’t holding my breath.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-18805139744566171992014-02-02T12:22:00.001-08:002014-02-02T12:26:30.980-08:00Hild: A review "Hild" by Nicola Griffith is a phenomenal epic set in 7th century England - the growth of an empire from the perspective of the protagonist, who is both a seer and a female.<br />
<br />
I find the portrayal of both of these aspects of her character fascinating, but for two entirely different reasons. The first is what another reviewer has called the 'skeptical fantasy' novel.
<br />
<a href="http://io9.com/hild-and-the-rise-of-the-skeptical-fantasy-novel-1505421852">http://io9.com/hild-and-the-rise-of-the-skeptical-fantasy-novel-1505421852</a><br />
<br />
The argument made, is that it give a 'skeptical' interpretation of the fantasy genre, debunking the mystical elements of the story, even as they are presented. But to me, this means it's not a fantasy novel at all, that instead, it's historical fiction. Hell, it's <i>Literary</i> Historical Fiction. - it reminds me more of Hillary Mantel's "Wolf Hall" than anything else. That same deep understanding of the politics of the time, the same meticulous research and the same view of the world through the lens of one character. Not a king, but an advisor, or more specifically here, a seer. Of course there is mysticism and religion, but any novel of the period would require this - it was a fundamental aspect of the time.<br />
<br />
But it get's labeled as fantasy for one good reason, and one bad. The bad reason, is that Nicola Griffith has written Fantasy and SciFi in the past. And despite the fact that she's written in a variety of genres, there's a tendency in publishing to try and box writers into neat packages. This is why Margaret Atwood's novels are seen as LiFi (Literary Fiction), even though her forays into SciFi, are not particularly strong examples of either genre, despite the worshipful reviews and interviews she's had on the books.<br />
<br />
The good reason, and there is one, is that if you do enjoy a lot of fantasy set in medieval or pre-medieval settings, you'll enjoy this. The characters view a world filled with the otherworldly, and their relationships with their gods are more visceral than intellectual. And of course, there's the same sense of honour, passion and adventure. And like Mantel it's beautifully written. The plotting and motivations are flawless, insanely complicated (especially if you have trouble remembering names, as I do), But its easily worth it, Hild is fascinating and deeply engaging. <br />
<br />
The other aspect of the novel that I find interesting, is what it is not. I think of this novel in contrast to what I remember of "Mists of Avalon". I never did finish that novel - I found the female characters, frankly, unbelievable. Driven by barely understood passions, lacking (as far as I could tell) any intellectual aspect, they lacked a grounding in the fundamental truths of their world. It seemed to me, fatuous, overly romantic, and deeply annoying. The women in Hild's world are smart, practical and ambitious, but they are still deeply human, more than capable of having their reason swayed by desire, or passion, anger or fear. Like any of us. <br />
<br />
Hild, of course, is a bit different from the rest of the women - she's seen as something deeply unworldly, capable beyond her years (like, "Ender's Game" capable) but that's, arguably, no surprise. She's the heroine - it what makes her the focus point of the story. But the other women (and it is predominately a woman's view of the world throughout) are like any women. Some smart, some not so much, some daring, some cautious. In some ways, it reminds me too, of a recent TV series, "The Bletchley Circle". Though frankly, in that series, all the women are exceptionally smart.<br />
<br />
So, if you enjoy straight up Historical Fiction (like Mantel) or an altered history (like Kay) ore hell, any fiction at all, give it a go.jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-73230661896152645772012-11-24T13:13:00.001-08:002012-11-24T13:17:48.656-08:00Book Review: Aping MankindSo I've done a book review on: Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity by Raymond Tallis.
It's a book that supposedly illustrates the fallacies around the neurological interpretation of the mind. I didn't care for it. I did a full review at <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/461277119">goodreads</a>.jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-53445783611123357552012-11-13T18:03:00.001-08:002012-11-13T18:14:09.917-08:00Literary Fiction as a Tool of Oppression<br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14px;">Every good story is an act of rebellion. Indeed, I believe that this is at the core of why we write; a defiance of the world as it is, our stories give voice to our frustration and anger. And because I’m politically obsessed, I am exceedingly fond of stories that include the political, especially those with an (un)healthy dose of byzantine scheming</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <a href="#1" name="top1"><sup>1</sup></a>.
</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">My own writing reflects this; while most of my stories start out as strictly personal journeys, eventually, some political reality intersects with the characters' lives, and their struggles are transformed. Their conflicts come to have a significance not only to their own fate, but also to their world's. And this, as it is with most people who write Speculative Fiction, is a central theme. For in Speculative Fiction, not only does the world affect the characters, but the characters also fundamentally affect the World, be that outcome heroic or nihilistic. </span></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">
</span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">I’m endlessly fascinated in how this process plays out with my own characters; in my stories I've created rebel fairies, subversive machines and a post-punk engineer, all of who play a significant role in shaping their world. </span></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">
</span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Nor am I am alone in this - one of my favorite examples is the Vlad Taltos series by Stephen J. Brust. His central character is, initially, simply struggling for survival in a feudal society, but as he succeeds, he comes to see - hell, has his face shoved in - the systematic injustice of the system he lives in. And, despite his best efforts, he is drawn into the earliest stages of resistance. But even as he sidesteps the conventions of a ruling elite, that courts and despises him in equal measure, he is equally uncomfortable with the 'cause' that defies the system of injustice that surrounds him. Consequently he never lets go of that space between the two worlds. For Vlad, this is part of what constantly places him near the fulcrum of decision, even though he is not a major player in the politics of his world. </span></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">
</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Now, this theme - that of being torn between two world views - is scarcely exclusive to Spec Fic; it is found in many genres, including Literary Fiction, from authors the likes of Mordecai Richter and Anne-Marie MacDonald. But the idea of conflict and choice plays out very differently in Literary Fiction than it does in Speculative Fiction, due to a fundamental difference between them. And that is the role of the World in the story. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Literary Fiction presents the world as, well, the world. A setting that is socially and physically immutable, a force of nature; something that the characters must deal with or work around, but never truly change. By contrast, Speculative Fiction presents the world as World. Another character in the story<a href="#2" name="top2"><sup>2</sup></a> - one that can both affect, and be altered by, the other characters as much as they are altered by it.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">This simple shift in perspective yields profound differences. Without the World as a character, Literary Fiction must focus on the personal, and the world lived in is accepted as <i>fait</i> <i>accompli</i>. Consequently, while the story may expose and explore society's attitudes and injustices, it does not offer characters who can change their world. Instead it explores how the world affects those characters. And when there is a shift in the world, be it societal or technological, the characters are buffeted by those winds of change. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">There is a great advantage to this approach to writing; because you do not have to explain the world, you can focus more on the relationships between the characters and their relationship to a world that we all understand. Not to say that Speculative Fiction doesn’t explore these relationships, but these explorations must take a different direction because they involve the defining of the World as a character. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">In Literary Fiction, one of my favourite examples of this is Hillary Mantel’s <i>Wolf Hall</i>, which explores the profound changes occurring during Henry VIII’s reign. It is a world we all know, to some degree, and she familiarizes us with it further as we go into the story. But all in all, it is still familiar ground. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; text-indent: 27.2px;">Because of this familiarity, Mantel's focus can shift, minutely, away from the profound changes in Henry’s England and towards the people and processes that made those changes possible. She does this through Thomas Cromwell, a fascinating character in his own right, but one who also acts as a powerful lens with which to examine the world. This ability of a character to act as a lens is one of the hallmarks of Literary Fiction. We understand the world differently, due to the perspective of the person observing it. But some aspects of this perspective are only possible if the world does not look back.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">In Speculative Fiction the world must be explained, and while a character can act as a lens, almost invariably, there has to be a place where the reader can learn more about the world. In this case, a character must become less like a lens, and more like a simple pane of clear glass - transparent. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">The use of a familiar world in Literary Fiction also, to my mind, creates an inherent bias in the novel. For if the reader already understands the fundamentals of the world, then that world cannot change. The story may show an aspect of the world that the reader has not previously explored - the seedy underbelly, the academic grind, or the rat-race, these are all are tropes we already have some rough familiarity with, and we expect the author to provide us with greater insights to these, already existing, places. But fundamentally it is the world we know, and it remains the world we know. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">This means that the world in Literary Fiction, <i>inherently</i>, endorses the status quo. Look at the novels of Jane Austen: we cheer the heroine's happiness in a world built on inequality. Nor is Austen's work a historical artifact - consider <i>A Suitable Boy</i>, <i>The English Patient</i>, <i>A Complicated Kindness</i>. All books I love, but their worlds are immutable, as far as the characters are concerned. Indeed, part of the core message of these books is the very fact that the world is fundamentally beyond the characters control. That the idea of control is almost absurd.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">In contrast to this, Speculative Fiction is based in a world where there is a core assumption that there will be change in the world - and that this change happens as a consequence of the choices and actions of the characters in play. That is not to say that Speculative Fiction is inherently progressive; often it is not. One only need to take a look at the underlying messages in Tolkein’s <i>Lord of the Rings</i>, especially <i>Return of the King.</i></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"> Nonetheless, the underlying message in Speculative Fiction is that the world can be changed, often by surprising people. People who take risks. It is the kind of story where the rebellion isn’t simple defiance, but a defiance that ends in an outcome that actually addresses the source of that frustration. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">I think that it is this, not the odd names or the technobabble or the invented worlds, that makes the literary establishment contemptuous of Speculative Fiction. It is the very idea that the world is as changeable as the characters who inhabit it. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">And they are called the literary establishment for a reason. These are the chattering classes, the gatekeepers of culture who define what kind of culture has ‘value.' They are tools of the publishing industry, judging what is ‘good’ literature and what is not. And by attempting to ghettoize Speculative Fiction, to relegate it to the realms of pulp, they are able to accuse Speculative Fiction of being mere adventure stories, rather than contemplations of society. They are frightened of good Science Fiction and Fantasy, because those stories tell a new truth, that now, we are like gods - capable of changing the world, simply by choosing to. It is a reality that few recognize, and even fewer want us to.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Is it any wonder they prefer stories of helplessness and despair?</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; min-height: 16px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; min-height: 16px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; min-height: 16px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">
<a name="1"><b>1 </b></a>Those who know me would be profoundly unsurprised given that I'm always arguing (and occasionally lecturing the hapless) about politics.<a href="#top1"><sup>↩</sup></a></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; min-height: 16px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; text-indent: 27.2px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">
<a name="2"><b>2 </b></a>I first heard this idea of World as character presented by Karl Schraeder at a talk organized by the Toronto Public Library a couple of years back as part of a series on SF and Fantasy.<a href="#top2"><sup>↩</sup></a> </span></div>
</span><div style="font-size: 14px;">
</div>
</div>
<hr width="80%" />jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-54909035017364452812012-09-02T19:23:00.004-07:002012-09-02T19:35:56.035-07:00Wallowing in Nihilism <div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; text-align: -webkit-auto;">I have to admit, I'm positively gleeful about the latest arctic ice extent data. It's a stupid attitude really, but I'm helpless before that savage joy, that anticipatory thrill of watching the crows circle just before they sink their oily black beaks into the soft, vulnerable parts of our hydrocarbon addicted society.</span></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGlopyg8NTGfJLavG-RbxBfti3JckymqOisTAL0Zv28mt1hDBLULgeExXFdGHFVS4YPo4wJSkUmMraw_TmWU_bG94dT-oVjU38AdRjhjrY7OApUpESthhLXSodPqpDJQFo4f5prna0Cas/s1600/IMG_0125.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGlopyg8NTGfJLavG-RbxBfti3JckymqOisTAL0Zv28mt1hDBLULgeExXFdGHFVS4YPo4wJSkUmMraw_TmWU_bG94dT-oVjU38AdRjhjrY7OApUpESthhLXSodPqpDJQFo4f5prna0Cas/s200/IMG_0125.PNG" width="166" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh9nnWnyJvqEKCn_7tj87ddzEBC_6FTNnorRZ1WI3wwhyphenhyphenfCCVMdsZ9-Os6RDRhsjElu399ZuYmFIUy3nlNiX3lpgS6V9t09eVfatZ1K5tK3a9oVykL3do0PLue6K35TIBsWTQiKrUalXc/s1600/IMG_0126.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh9nnWnyJvqEKCn_7tj87ddzEBC_6FTNnorRZ1WI3wwhyphenhyphenfCCVMdsZ9-Os6RDRhsjElu399ZuYmFIUy3nlNiX3lpgS6V9t09eVfatZ1K5tK3a9oVykL3do0PLue6K35TIBsWTQiKrUalXc/s200/IMG_0126.PNG" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/" style="font-family: Helvetica;">http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/</a><br />
<br style="font-family: Helvetica;" />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">It's not like we didn't see this coming, I mean the Star Trek (TNG) series, spoke about it, and what was that? 1990? But whatever, what I find more interesting are the first glimmerings of 'global warming is a good thing' meme. How it's opening up the North for exploitation and development. </span><br />
<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/reviving-arctic-oil-rush-ottawa-to-auction-rights-in-massive-area/article4184419/" style="font-family: Helvetica;">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/reviving-arctic-oil-rush-ottawa-to-auction-rights-in-massive-area/article4184419/</a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">I particularly like the quote: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">"The North is in the midst of change, as melting ice promises more open northern shipping routes, which might help companies bring northern oil to global markets."</span><br />
<br style="font-family: Helvetica;" />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">And given the time scales involved in resource development, we </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">(our collective humanity) is </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">obviously more than capable of long term planning. But generally, we only tend to do it, when we see some specific, potentially personal, gain. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Helvetica;" />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">And in global warming, there is personal gain to be had, it's all about the collective good. For the individual there's the realization of the NorthWest passage for shipping and the investment potential in areas that may quite possibly be a new frontier of sorts - areas with a a harsh climate becoming productive, pleasant and appealing, while the land is still cheap. </span><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD0pqDOAtk&feature=youtube_gdata_player" style="font-family: Helvetica;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD0pqDOAtk&feature=youtube_gdata_player</a><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">(No, I'm not saying Global Warning causes earthquakes, I just thought it was a fun case study)</span><br />
<br style="font-family: Helvetica;" />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">And with a certain morbid anticipation I am looking forward to the Op-Ed articles that will be written when Global Warming, and its consequences, are eminently self-evident and irreversible. How they will argue that, all-in-all, in hindsight, really, it was a good thing. Don't ya think? And really, those hard hit areas were kinda write-offs before </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">anyway, weren't they?</span><br />
<br style="font-family: Helvetica;" />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">And never will they accept any culpability, they will accept no responsibility, our economic elite. If anything they'll blame the consumer (who they enabled) or the worker (who they subcontracted) just as they did with the fisheries. Of course it is us, the electorate, that let them get away with (or voted for) this bullshit.</span><br />
<a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html" style="font-family: Helvetica;">http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html</a><br />
<br style="font-family: Helvetica;" />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">In the end, those that lament the loss of the old climate are nothing but a bunch of Luddites. Smelly hippies standing in the way of progress. Pathetic really. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Helvetica;" />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Don't ya think? </span>jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-78213327885467016122012-04-25T19:12:00.005-07:002012-04-25T19:12:58.168-07:00<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">To hell with Marx, I follow the Qun.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">So I just finished playing Dragon's Age II, and let me tell you, it was awesome. One of the reasons I got the game was to play some DLC starring Felicia Day. Who is awesome, and a redhead, so I'm totally crushing on her geeky self. But it was the game itself that enthralled me. Great voices, great story, amazing world building.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">And the Qun.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Imagine Marx as a desert prophet in the Middle Ages and you end up with the Qun. By comparison to serfdom, and a world controlled by a nobility (no equality before the law, that's for certain)</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">, well, wouldn't it start looking pretty good? Regular Meals, a respected Place in the Order. An existence defined essentially, by the principle,"From each according to their ability to each according to their need."</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Beats the socks off bowing and scraping to some inbreed with an inherited title, don't it.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">All this from a video game (with Felicia as the sexy <strike>Russian</strike> Qun agent).</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Gotta love it - time to write some fan fic.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br /></span>jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-26922529673825972812011-10-05T19:50:00.000-07:002011-10-05T19:50:58.097-07:00Steve JobsAdmittedly, I've always been an Apple guy. The interface was always more intuitive for me, and I just wanted my computer to be a tool, not a hobby. I wanted it to be seamless with the function I wanted it to do, and I wanted what interaction I did have to be esthetically pleasing. Like cooking in a pretty kitchen.<br />
Now you don't need a pretty kitchen to cook a great meal, but I prefer it. Some of the best cooks I know have chaotic kitchens with pots and pans everywhere. And their food is great. But I end up frazzled in that kind of kitchen.<br />
<br />
But Mr. Jobs, well, he saw further. He saw past just making a pretty kitchen, and wanted you to have an entirely new perspective on cooking. It's still cooking, but you can do it in a new way. <br />
<br />
iMac, to iPod, to iPad. All of these devices are changing how we view and handle information and so many of the outcomes of these. The portability, the effortlessness of the interface. These let us focus on the task, not on how we do it.<br />
<br />
And that, in my mind, is what good design is all about.jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-61430817344301314392011-10-02T16:27:00.000-07:002011-10-02T16:27:32.061-07:00ConversationsHad some friends over last night. Couple of Marxists (though we have argued about exactly <i>what </i>they are, so I may be a little off there - but you get the idea). We talked about the my new house reno, about the food they cooked for us - yes, they visit us and then cook. Awesome or what? I did supply the wine though, and there was a fair bit of it.<br />
<br />
And we talked about politics. Not about the tactical back and forth that you see on the TV. Not even the policy that you see on some of the more in depth coverage shows that have a small (if dedicated) viewership. But about what we think the system should do. What the system means. All very meta stuff and I was thinking a lot about the culture that would yield a society where these kinds of conversations would be more prevalent.<br />
<br />
Conversations about what it means to live in the world we are in. Not always that meta shit, but also about policy, about what matters to us. Not just politics either, but arts and sports (doing and watching) and crafts and hobbies - stuff that has more substance - because fun is serious stuff.<br />
<br />
And you know, serious topics <i>can</i> be presented in an interesting way. Look at any good documentary. So what is it in our culture that keeps us from doing this more. Are we all just too tired, or is it simply that we are getting shouted down by the latest ephemera from the world of reality TV.<br />
<br />
And who makes that choice. Because its not <i>just</i> us. We can choose not to partake, but if the culture as a whole is screaming about the seasonal stars of Big Brother and the like, well it's difficult to talk over the nonsensical din.jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-60671028250807735682011-06-20T16:31:00.000-07:002011-06-20T16:32:31.821-07:00Is it your fault Harper got in?If you're under 45, the answer is probably yes.<br />
<br />
In that age range you are probably engaged in social media, and disengaged from standard electoral politics. The Globe and Mail had an article on how badly Ekos screwed up their polling. They did this by failing to assume that if you're under 45 you're an apathetic fuck who can't get your increasingly obese ass of the couch and vote.<br />
<br />
see here: <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-pollsters-painful-reckoning-how-could-i-have-screwed-up-so-badly/article2065573/page2/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-pollsters-painful-reckoning-how-could-i-have-screwed-up-so-badly/article2065573/page2/</a><br />
<br />
For a more complete analysis of how (if you didn't vote) you fucked up, look here:<br />
<a href="http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/FG-2011-06-17.pdf">http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/FG-2011-06-17.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Instead you're likely on facebook or some such shit where you get to <i>feel </i>connected to the world around you, to <i>feel </i>engaged. Even when you aren't.<br />
<br />
Even when your apathy and your artsy left wing sensibilities and your carefully cultivated cynicism result in the reelection of someone who's policies the majority of Canadians disagree with.<br />
<br />
And who will work hard to increase the gap between rich and poor (Union busting and Corporate tax breaks)<br />
<br />
Well done. Bravo.jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-30761428303425393812011-06-11T18:30:00.000-07:002011-06-11T18:30:45.997-07:00A Vacation of SortsSo I've just sent out my novel to members of my two writing groups, in hopes that they'll have a chance to read it and give me feedback. At 130K, I've finished it to a point where I want a sense of the thing as a whole before I rip it apart and put it back together.<br />
I'm hoping we're talking minor surgery, not a full multiorgan transplant.<br />
<br />
As a reward/sanity check, I've decided to take two weeks off of writing. Completely. Nothing on my shorts, no plotting on the other novel sitting on my shelf looking at me with big puppy dog eyes.<br />
<br />
So now I don't really know what to do with myself. Even when I procrastinated, I was procrastinating on <i>something</i>. Now I don't have to procrastinate, or argue against it. Suddenly my weekends and evenings have no demands.<br />
It's weird.<br />
<br />
So I mowed the lawn. I was very thorough. Barb thought I looked a bit mad.<br />
<br />
Now what?jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-74734685245071842772011-05-25T18:40:00.000-07:002011-05-25T18:40:44.877-07:00The Wealthy Consider the Poor, or, the trials of Noblesse ObligeCouple of (slightly dated) articles in the Globe from Globe, Friday May 6 I'd like to comment on. The links are:<br />
<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-paying-peoples-way-out-of-poverty-can-help-us-all/article2011940/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-paying-peoples-way-out-of-poverty-can-help-us-all/article2011940/</a><br />
And an article from Christine Blatchford whom I use primarily to get my blood flowing when caffeine fails. Outrage is a great stimulant:<br />
<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/fire-inquest-reveals-grinding-humiliating-crippling-grip-of-poverty/article2012005/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/fire-inquest-reveals-grinding-humiliating-crippling-grip-of-poverty/article2012005/</a><br />
<br />
Both of these talk about the horrors of poverty and how it impacts society at large. The first article is useful reading in and of itself, though probably not that surprising. Poor, homeless people are a drag for everyone. They rely on emergency services more, they buy less (which is not ideal in a consumer economy), they have more trouble getting jobs because they have no resources.<br />
<br />
If you're on the left this is no surprise. We know all this stuff. Even on the right people are willing to acknowledge this. But what really gets to me, is the framing of the article. That the wealthiest <i>suffer</i> because of the poor. And that because of this, horrid loss of income for the wealthiest, that they should consider things like a guaranteed income for the poorest. Apparently the program initiated in a few communities in the 70s has yielded great results (though no reference is given).<br />
<br />
So, if you're rich, you should care about the poor because it means you'll get richer.<br />
<br />
Lovely.<br />
<br />
As for the Blatchford article. She laments how this woman dies, in an underfunded community housing site, due to the fact that only one or two social workers went 'above and beyond' the call of duty. As though this poor woman was the only person in need. Indeed she paints a picture of an unfeeling bureaucracy in a field where the burnout rate is exceptionally high, and is generally considered underfunded and frankly, where the renumeration for workers is not particularly great.<br />
But that's Blatchford all over. Only looking at the individuals in a narrowly defined crisis. Not considering the systemic inequalities that drive these situations. Not in any real sense. She blames the ground level workers for not caring enough. For not being truly exceptional.<br />
<br />
Well, that's because they're human. And there's no saying that they're not exceptional in other circumstances. Just not this one.<br />
<br />
The common thread, in my mind, between the two articles is the manner in which they paint anyone not in the professional upper middle class framework either as incompetent (Blatchford) or as an investment opportunity (Paperny and Grant). Not as people.<br />
<br />
And in the Paperny and Grant article, I'm willing to play ball with that, if it works.<br />
<br />
I just don't like it.jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-64122600523411399342011-05-08T14:37:00.000-07:002011-05-08T14:37:37.322-07:00Creating NarrativesSo now the election is over. The conservatives won, but so did, on a relative scale, did the NDP. We have come to a clear delineation between two world views, collective and individual.<br />
<br />
One the one hand, I think that this is a good thing. The Liberals, for so many years, have been the 'safe' bet. The compromise that we could all live with. No narrative, <i>per se</i>, but rather the balance point defined by desire and fear. Desire to do the right thing, and fear of paying too much.<br />
<br />
Our Nation, has not really chosen a narrative, like the Peacekeeper or Medicare or Balanced Budgets, rather they've pushed their way into our consciousness from the fringes - usually the NDP or Reform. To their credit though, it was the Liberals who brought all of these things to fruition on a national scale. But these successes were accompanied by a certain arrogance that rankled. Especially in the moment. And sometimes they failed. Look at the National Energy Program. And in the end, we could see the achievement only at the moment of culmination, or sometimes, only after it had become entrenched.<br />
<br />
But in these last few years, we've gone from compromise to muddle.<br />
<br />
So the Liberals now, are spent, and about bloody well time, I say. Now we have a Left/Right dichotomy in the House while I embrace the clarity this <i>may</i> bring, I fear that our story may become the American story. Only two ways are seen, and to entertain ideas from the other end of the spectrum is naught but treason.<br />
<br />
The single largest benefit of a multi party system is that new ideas flow. Ideas force their way into the public narrative to create innovative public policy. I think that this Parliament will be useful, help us to once again have a clear Narrative from both ends, to show us distinct policies to help us define ourselves. Define our choices, costs and benefits.<br />
<br />
Just keep in mind, please, that Policy is not just about solving problems, it's also an opportunity to dream, to see not just a safer future, but a better one.jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-57295961624745324292011-04-17T12:36:00.000-07:002011-04-17T12:38:20.020-07:00Choose your own Adventure - Welcome to Electoral Politics<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;">So, we're all disengaged from the current election. Expectations are that the voter turnout will be the lowest to date. The voters complain of a lack excitement, vision and alternatives.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">We complain because we're addicted to being the audience. To watching the story, not being part of it. We're afraid of drama's that are bigger than us, the will always exceed our grasp, because they are about our world. But let's start small. </span></span></span>Let's look at each of these complaints.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Excitement: </span></span></span> </span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Well we lack the excitement of the last election in the US. But really, was that excitement a good thing. That country just came out of surviving the worst president the country had ever seen and in came a fabulous orator capable of inspiring hope. About a new beginning with real policy. </span></span></span> </span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;">Then the rubber hit the road and his popularity drops like a stone – because policy is never about the quick and easy fix. If it was, policy would be easy. So politicians are cautions, because voters are.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;">Vision:</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;">This is a bullshit complaint – there's plenty of visions. It's just that true vision usually involves two things, risk and sacrifice. Now the fact that the electorate doesn't really yearn for these things from government is fine – I have no complaint with this (actually I do, but not wanting these things is a perfectly reason position to take).</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;">So what we want is adventure without inconvenience. A video game. Not life. Sorry kids – there's plenty of visions – from the Greens to the Family Coalition. You want Vision, then bloody well take a chance.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;">Alternatives:</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Not </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">quite</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> the same as the above – though often related. There actually are alternatives. Politicians are not all crooks. But if you want a safe bet, but with some specific direction, then you have to </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">pay attention</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">. Now sometimes this is easy – in Canada we've had elections with very clear outcomes – FTA, NAFTA, Charlottetown, Deficit reduction (the Manning/Martin dynamic) and classically, the origins of Medicare.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So, assuming I'm correct in my evaluations above (a stretch I'm sure) why don't we just suck it up and vote? </span></span></span> </span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">For a couple of reasons. One is that very few people work to make politics accessible. Note that I'm not saying </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">interesting</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">, but </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>accessible. </b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Dave Meslin has a few great examples around this here:</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/dave_meslin_the_antidote_to_apathy.html">http://www.ted.com/talks/dave_meslin_the_antidote_to_apathy.html</a></span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">It's a very short, very good talk, please take a look at it. </span></span></span> </span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Also, if we </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">do</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> care, if we </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">do</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> engage, we are made to feel like patsies. Silly fucking romantics who can't face the ugly truth. Apathy is the only real alternative. When, of course, the reverse is true.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">And finally, because we are addicted to the STORY. The beginning, middle and end. </span></span></span> </span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;">Politics is always about now, and we never know the outcome and that frustrates the shit out of us. Leaves us guessing and worried and fearful. So we avoid it, concentrate on what we need to survive, rather than engage in the endless possible, but never guaranteed.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">C'mon folks, be IN the story. Take a chance. The hero never really knows the outcome. And in electoral politics, </span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>you</b></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> are the hero. Even now, whether you know it or not.</span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><br />
</div>jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-72830561378279250952011-04-03T16:30:00.000-07:002011-04-03T16:30:51.708-07:00The Big ManSo there's an election going on here in the great white north. Our esteemed PM has called it after being found in contempt of parliament and while I could be mistaken in this, I think a goodly portion of his core constituency will admire rather than disparage this. They will look at him as a man that will not bow to the fussing of a dysfunctional house - someone who will stand tall.<br />
They will argue that he is a strong leader, who will do what it takes.<br />
<br />
This is of course a gross simplification of what government does. People want a strong man, they want the person who will take charge, make all the idiots in the world stop fussing and get down to the brass tacks and make stuff happen.<br />
<br />
Of course, the real world is rarely so simple. It requires negotiation. Accommodating awkward things like physics (as per the AECL debacle). But people don't want that - they want a nice neat story. I think it's one of the reasons we're drawn to stories - the nice neat tie up. The simple plot line where someone comes along and <i>fixes things.</i><br />
<br />
This is especially true of genre fiction - from mystery, romance, sci fi, action, fantasy. Especially fantasy. But it sneaks into our collective unconscious. We look to heroes and kings. For someone to <i>fix</i> all our problems. And it never works, not for long. Not unless there is one very big problem. Like a war. Which is why Churchill was such a legend. He was the quintessential wartime primeminister but he had trouble presiding over Britain's decline as an imperial power.<br />
<br />
So I say that we need to negotiate a new relationship with our heroes. Not to see them as the path to happy ever after, but rather as champions of a time. We need to appreciate and celebrate the fundamental ephemeral nature of the true hero. Let them find another path after the crisis and heroics so that their lives, and ours, are not always lost in the shadow of that flash of glory. to realize that building, while not glamorous, is as important as the great deed.<br />
<br />
But this is hard. We are trapped by our sense of narrative - we want the hero trapped in that moment of glory. To reiterate the moment again and again and then fade when we get bored. How can any one live up to that. I'd hate to be Neil Armstrong. To have that perfect iconic moment define nearly everyone' s view of you. How hard is that?<br />
<br />
But we keep doing this in our fiction - never giving the hero time beyond the heroics except as sepia toned epilogues. I think this has to change, though I don't know how to do this without turning fantasy into Munroe-like Can-Litjrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1318087047738816327.post-1231904438270479072011-03-26T12:03:00.000-07:002011-03-26T12:54:16.097-07:00Opening SalvoSo - Politics and Metaphor.<br />
<br />
I'm currently working on a novel - the White Bull, and in that process I've become increasingly fascinated with the society and politics of the typical fantasy world. Of course world building has a long tradition in this genre, but I think there are some fundamental themes that are pervasive, rarely acknowledged and hardly ever challenged.<br />
<br />
One is the fascination with the 'noble bloodline'. Often these are lost bloodlines. Nobility fallen upon hard times until the protagonist is able to use those long hidden qualities to overcome petty politics and save the realm. This was at it's epitome in Tolkein, who I see as the progenitor of our genre - though you can even see it in much of golden age scifi as well, from Robert E. Howard to EE Doc Smith.<br />
<br />
There are some authors who buck this trend - Steven Brust comes to mind - and while his world still revolves around the the fundamental reality of a nobility he does paint a great picture of the beginnings of a the revolution in "Teckla". I'd like to see more of this "low fantasy" genre - see the revolution come. See Aragorn up against the wall.<br />
<br />
See that attitude sink deeper into our own culture - one that still reveres the bloodline - from the English Nobility to the Trudeau and Kennedy dynasties.<br />
<br />
Screw that, I say Vive La Revolution.jrbutlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06961166548975252124noreply@blogger.com2