Gentle Reader -- You are welcome to peruse my web-based journal. I assure you that my contributions to this medium will be both infrequent and inconsequential. Read on!

NANTUCKET

I hear there was a girl from there, once . . .

So, some friends of mine and I have rented a house on the island of Melville (on Ahab Drive, no less). Thursday through Tuesday will be spent on that island, a few blocks from a beach (where the water is icy cold, but whatever . . . ). Call me Ishmael.

Back on Tuesday! Maybe by that time, they'll have figured out this whole Chandra Levy thing. posted by Carlton at 10:59 PM

Just to respond to and amplify something Scott said: The only purpose of commercial television is to get the viewer to sit through the advertising (hence the term "commercial television"). The entertainment programming is just there to keep you watching through the commercials. A funny thought, huh? posted by Carlton at 8:40 PM

Yes, I am a big geek. But whatever, man. We all gotta live our lives. posted by Carlton at 8:48 PM

ENTERPRISE ME, BABY (Part III)

For anyone who is still bothering to read this -- cheers!

So, I really like this new show, *Enterprise*. For one thing, the technology problem is solved -- warp drives are pretty new-fangled, and the captain and crew don't quite have their space legs yet. Everyone is afraid of the transporter, no matter how it's modulated, and there are a lot of alien races out there that have never heard of us, and aren't afraid of us. Yay! In addition, the show does explain the origins of Starfleet, to a certain extent. It was founded on Earth, and predates the Federation . . . ohhhhh.

Even better, the show is trying to tell a larger story than can be contained in forty-seven minutes. Of course it comes to us in episodes, but there is an honest (and successful) attempt to place each episode into a chronology that makes some sense. For example, the crew often refers to how long they've been in space (five months, ten months, etc.), and to adventures they've had in the past. That makes it all seem a bit more real to me, and I'm more willing to suspend my disbelief. And not everyone gets along! Characters disagree about matters both important and trivial, or just get on each others' nerves. I love it!
And there are little touches: One character, Malcolm Reed, seems to sit on the bridge for no other reason than to make approving facial expressions while the captain talks who whomever is on the screen. I dig it.

I mean hey, it's TV, so *The Sorrows of Young Werner* it aint. But I've craved a good sci-fi show in the Trek mode for a really long time, and this show is helping me satisfy that need. So everyone should be happy for me. And now I'll shut up about it.
posted by Carlton at 8:47 PM

ENTERPRISE ME, BABY (Part II)

The point of my late rant about Star Trek:TNG was two-fold: (1) I began to hate it partly because I liked it so much at the beginning and because I felt that the show had so much promise that was unfulfilled, and (2) I really like the new show *Enterprise*.

ANOTHER thing that I disliked about TNG, which Scott addressed in his last comment, was how hypocritical it seemed. Sure, human culture had advanced to where we were at peace with ourselves and we had created a Federation that was a harmonious melenge of civilizations and races. After you watched the show for a little while, however, it became clear who was really running the show in the Federation: Starfleet. The guys with the warp drives and the photon torpedoes seemed to have a great deal of influence in this perfect society. For example, the government of the Federation is some kind of poorly defined, parliamentary body with a head of state who is always some kind of bumpy-headed alien. When this august body wants to accomplish something, who does it call to do it? Starfleet. When the Borg attacked the Federation, were there any other military forces out there to oppose them? No, just Starfleet. Since you'd think that the Federation would have thrown everything they had at the Borg, it follows that Starfleet represents the sum total of the military might of the Federation.

And who runs Starfleet? Humans. Of all the Starfleet vessels you've heard of, how many have non-human captains? Not very many. How many alien admirals? Where is Starfleet located? On Earth. If you want to go to Starfleet Academy, you'd better be able to get to Earth, breathe oxygen, speak English and get along with humans. Certainly, there are aliens on Starfleet vessels -- but in a multicultural society like the Federation, where humans presumably represent only a small fraction of the population, aliens are vastly underrepresented on Starfleet vessels.

What's my point? For my money, the Federation is a military dictatorship run from San Francisco, masquerading as a high tech socialist paradise. We've seen (human) captains take all kinds of unauthorized actions on their own without Federation interference, from violating the Prime Directive to infringing on the Neutral Zone. They never seem to get into any trouble . . . perhaps because there is no one to oppose them. All political power in the Federation is vested in a military agency, Starfleet Command, which espouses an egalitarian ideology while dispatching armed vessels to contol the space lanes with no check on the exercise of its power.



posted by Carlton at 3:47 PM

ENTERPRISE ME, BABY

As I think I may have mentioned in this space (or in my comments on Greg's blog), I really hate Star Trek: TNG. I hate it now because I used to like it a lot, and an awareness of its failings just crept up on me until I could ignore them no longer.

Part of the problem was simply that humanity is too powerful -- it was difficult for the writers to envisage problems that technology couldn't solve. It irritated me whenever the issue at hand was solved by some technological deus ex machina (especially if it involved "remodulating" something) or the problem was one that would have been solved in about five seconds if the characters hadn't conveniently "forgotten" about some technological deus ex machina from a prior episode. This is especially bad in any story involving some peculiarity of the transporter as a major plot element -- the crew must "remodulate" it from one episode to the next so that it can only solve problems ONCE. Just off the top of my head, I recall when the transporter has been used to make people younger, cure disease, allow people to exist indefinitely in stasis and travel to alternate realities. You'd think that some of these extra features might come in handy at a later date -- but they don't.

Another, larger, problem stems from the episodic format of the show. Because there is no continuity from episode to episode, each hour must end exactly the way it begins, and no conflict can be introduced that can't be dealt with in forty-seven minutes (plus commercials). At the end of the show, all the characters have to be back on the ship, happily going about their duties, just as they were at the start. I think that the deus ex machina problem mentioned above has its roots in the episode format.
One result of this is that episodes can be played in any order in syndication; the only way to tell what season the episode comes from is to look at uniforms and hairstyles.

Finally, of course, is the death blow -- the fact that everyone gets along. It's all one big happy family on this paramilitary, intensely heirarchical, extremely hazardous duty starship. Everyone knows his or her place, no one questions authority, and everyone is constantly performing his or her job at the highest level of human ability (if not, it is undoubtedly because of some sinister alien influence). In this crew, you have one alien from an extremely bloodthirsty and barbaric race (Worf), another who can read minds or feelings (and NEVER asks permission to do so!) (Troi) and a physically and mentally superior android who is admittedly devoid of any emotion or feeling (Data). The possibilities are endless -- if Data is the only memeber of the crew whom Troi can't manipulate, why doesn't he make her uncomfortable? Why doesn't Data's inhumanity ever show itself in ways that are abhorrent instead of cute -- surely it must happen sometime that the most logical and expedient course involves reaching out and snapping some alien bad guy's neck. Data wouldn't even feel bad afterwards -- if Worf did it, he would probably feel proud and want to eat some part of the bad guy. Instead they are both loveable.

More later.

posted by Carlton at 4:59 PM

ARE YOU APPOSITIVE ABOUT THAT, SIR?

For the comma cops out there:

"If said Agent becomes disqualified, unavailable, unwilling or incompetent to make a timely decision concerning my health care, then I appoint, as alternate, my sister, Sally Smith, as second alternate, my mother, Jane Lane, and as third alternate, my mother-in-law, Mary Monsoon." posted by Carlton at 3:43 PM

THE NAME GAME

Just wanted to point out the name of the CIA headquarters: The George Bush Center for Intelligence.
I think that refers to the elder Bush. posted by Carlton at 10:52 AM

A NOTE ABOUT FATHERS

This morning on *Meet the Press*, Tim Russert interviewed two different people: King Abdullah of Jordan and Caroline (?) Kennedy (JFK's daughter). During the interview with King Abdullah, Russert made references to "your Dad" when referring to the last king of Jordan, King Hussein. King Abdullah, on the other hand, referred to his father consistently as "His Late Royal Highness". When interviewing Kennedy, Russert would refer to, "your father, President Kennedy."

Is there something of a respect gap here? I like Tim Russert a lot, but you just can't be informal when talking with or about a ruling monarch. Would Russert have referred to Queen Elizabeth as "your Mom" when interviewing Prince Charles (who has a lot less power than King Abdullah, by the way)?

By the way, I'm very impressed with King Abdullah, who is doing the interview circuit in D.C. this week. No only is he a serious, articulate fellow with a Special Forces background and a real agenda for brokering peace in the Middle East, but he has a really attractive wife and was once on Star Trek: Voyager!
What more can you ask for? posted by Carlton at 6:30 PM

What a metaphor! posted by Carlton at 6:36 PM

DECISIONS AND REVISIONS WHICH A MINUTE WILL REVERSE

So yes, I took down the one page of masterful fiction that I found on an old disk. Why did I take it down, you ask? A better question is why I put it up in the first place.

A friend who reviewed this space referred to my blog as "a paean to my own cleverness". (Anyone care to guess who?) Yes it is, I reply, although I'm not sure where I rate on the Cleverometer these days. And what's a "paean", anyway?

But you know, something about posting my years-old unfinished fiction on the internet made my skin crawl after a while. I used to want to be a writer of one type or another (a sci-fi writer, a Serious Writer, a writer of screenplays, mostly the kind of writer who gets all the hot chicks). That dream has been in mothballs for some time, though I occasionally get it out to look at it. Anyway, I have some pride about my writing, and putting some ratty old piece of unfinished prose up just ain't right

What happens to a dream deferred? Like a buried ember, it remains hot.

posted by Carlton at 6:34 PM

LOOKING THROUGH OLD DISKS

Here's the first page or so of a novel I tried to write once.

[Removed] posted by Carlton at 7:47 PM

So, the greater part of my archives have disappeared. What's up with that? This morning, my comments function had disappeared for a while. What's up with that?

Blogger, like a certain type of girlfriend, is beautiful and willing but not very stable. posted by Carlton at 10:55 AM

WHATEVER A SPIDER CAN

This is where I pretend to be a movie critic.

Hey kids, I just went and saw the Spider-man movie, which was really quite good. I have to say, I was quite the aficionado of the webslinger back in the day (probably ages 12-16) and I have a collection of non-mint condition comics at my parents' house to show for it. As a result, I was a little worried about the movie, that it would somehow mar the good feeling I have for the spidey-oeuvre (talk about your neologisms!).

I love Kirsten Dunst!

I don't know anything about directing, cinematography, etc., so I have to credit the look, pacing etc. of the film entirely to Sam Raimi, the director, also the director of some great schlocky movies such as Army of Darkness and Darkman. Anyway, the film looked really good, with flowing action, CGI graphics that fit fairly seamlessly with the live action (which is to say, the transitions didn't call attention to themselves) and web-swinging that actually made some visual sense.

And the story -- the first half of the movie is part of comic legend, and is almost graven on stone tablets. I won't rehash the facts, but I think that the "origin story" of Peter Parker/Spider-man is by far the more engaging part of the movie, especially as the young dorkus discovers the extent of his powers and makes use of them. Inherent in the Spider-man world, however, is that the hero never gets to exult in or really enjoy his powers -- every achievement is turned back on him or has consequences that rob poor Peter of any glory that might rightfully be his. The best example of this is the picture is a brief fight that Peter has in school with his nemesis, Flash Thompson -- even after Peter wins, he is still labeled a freak by his peers, or perhaps even moreso than before. Ah yes. Very satisfying. And boys cry in this movie, so the chicks will dig it. (That's guy code. Translation: "There is a surprising amount of character and emotional depth in this film, which is surprisingly moving in parts.")

Purists will be upset about the absence of web-shooters or the fact that the Green Goblin attacks Mary Jane Watson and not Gwen Stacey (who seems to have been swallowed into the narrative void), but I don't care. The movie has to be streamlined, and I'm glad to see at least visual references to events that can't make it into the flick. *The Lord of the Rings* was another movie that made good use of this technique, making only ONE reference to Bill the pony, for example, but at least making the reference.

The only problem I had with Spider-man (other than the fact that when Spidey talks, his mask doesn't move like he's talking . . . ), actually, is that it just isn't the great movie that *The Lord of the Rings* is. That's really unfair to one movie, that it isn't another, totally dissimilar one, but LOTR really raised the bar for action/adventure movies with a heart. If anyone has actually read this far and wants to comment, I'd love to hear what you have to say.

On the King Scale (maximum five crowns), *Spider-man* receives 3 1/2 crowns, marking it as an exceptional film. posted by Carlton at 8:30 PM

CONFUSION REIGNS

You know, I don't myself understand the connection between Sept 11 and the Lord of the Rings, except that the WTC could accurately be described as "the two towers (that were destroyed in the terrorist attack)". I don't get the move for change, especially since the WTC is not something that we think should not be talked about, the book was named some time in the 1950s, and the WTC was more often referred to as "the twin towers" . Some people, I tell ya.

LOTR buffs, a question for you: What two towers are being referenced in the title of *The Two Towers"? posted by Carlton at 9:05 AM

WHAT ABOUT "THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS DYING HORRIBLE, MEANINGLESS DEATHS"? KINDA CATCHY!

I haven't been posting a lot lately, but I'm just too depressed about something or other to drag myself to the keyboard. Still, I had to expose my loyal readership to this.

Oh yeah:
What do you call a cow with no legs? Ground beef.
What do you call a cow with no legs? Don't matter, it ain't comin' to ya.
Where do you find a cow with no legs? Right where you left it.
What do you call a cow that had an abortion? Decalfinated.
What's a cow's favorite Italian food? Cowzone.

To His Cow Mistress

Had we but world enough and time,
This cowness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down and think which ways,
To walk, and in our long loves graze.
My bovinacious love would grow,
Vaster than paddocks, and more slow
An hundred years should go to praise,
Thine udders, and on thy haunches gaze.
. . .
Yet at my back I always hear
The farmer's wagon hurrying near.
The dairy's a fine and private place,
But none I think, do there embrace.

Damn the electric fence! Damn the electric fence!

Thank you. posted by Carlton at 7:10 PM