Doctor Who: More World Building & Strong Secondary Characters Plz

WARNING: Spoilers Ahoy!.

Lately I feel like I've been in a minority when it comes to the last couple episodes of Doctor Who: "The Bells of Saint John" and "The Rings of Akhaten". They have vastly underwhelmed and disappointed me.

The worst part: I expected disappointment for "Bells." Jenna-Louise Coleman shined as different iterations of Clara Oswin Oswald in "Asylum of the Daleks" and "The Snowmen". She did so as one-time characters in different historical and futuristic periods.

How could Clara Oswin Oswald top herself extended over the minimum of a half season? We also have a track record of companions disappointing me during the Steven Moffat era of Doctor Who. They shine in the beginning then fizzle into just a companion. They have their occasional bursting into light again, then they go back to bleh for the sake of plot.

Clara Oswin Oswald has mostly shined. The character and Jenna-Louise Coleman have done a great job with the material they're given. They have great chemistry with Matt Smith and The Eleventh Doctor. He has done great work with his material, too.

I heard or read an interest interpretation that I unfortunately forget the source. Somewhere on the Internets, someone said this pair work so well because Jenna Louise-Coleman talks as fast as Matt Smith. Clara is something of a companion version of the Doctor. She acts as a female mirror of him rather than a foil or even the everyperson to act as the audience stand in. I really wish I remember where I read that.

My disappointment doesn't lie with Clara, even if she acts as a vehicle for the things I'm disappointed in.

The blame doesn't fall on where I thought it would: the characters or actors.

Well, maybe I'm disappointed in the Doctor lately. Really? Having him stalk Clara as a child and as she grows up? Those flashbacks would have worked just fine without The Doctor in them. As a way to insert some tension at the end and for Clara to stand up for herself as an individual? No. That could've been done more organically as the two get to know each other. Is Clara a Ganger being used to spy on the Doctor? Sorry, that was just badly executed.

Ever since "The Angels Take Manahattan", we've been seeing an immature off balance in a dangerous type of way Doctor.

The Tenth Doctor claiming himself "Timelord Victorious" seemed wrong and terrible. Nonetheless, as audience members, we rooted for him at the same time. He had witnessed horrible injustices throughout his 800 or so year life throughout the universe. Who wouldn't want to fix the universe after all that? It was wrong but understandable and coming from a sympathetic character.

But, anyway, I think the characters and actors do the best that they can with the script they're given. I have no problem with the character development, either. I don't know where the season/series arc is going. I can only criticize the pacing of the development of both the characters and arc.

What does this character arc/development have to do with the larger arc Moffat has created with The Silence, River Song, the War against the Doctor, and the Great Intelligence. Series 5 had great progress. Series 6 slowed down but there was progress halfway through. First half of Series 7 was about the departure of the Ponds. Now we want to get back to the series arc and find out who the real Big Bad is, what is their motivation and how the hell have they been able to pull off everything they've done!

The funny part, though, which is my major issue: I could probably handle all these deficiencies if we had better world building and Good secondary episode-length characters. We had the child-queen in "The Rings of Akhaten." She really didn't do much other than motivate main characters and bounce themes off them. That's not what makes a great secondary character fit for world building.

I compared this episode a lot to "The Beast Below" a lot last night. I won't get too deep into my comparison because the parallels should be pretty obvious. In "The Beast Below," though, we had great Secondary characters: Liz 10, the voting booths, Smilers, Winders, Hawthorne and even the Star Whale. If it weren't for the novelty and interesting aspects of all these characters, that episode wouldn't have held my interest for very long. It also helped how interrelated they ended up.

I've finally come to accept the hypothesis that "The Angels Take Manahattan" is mostly an episode about stories (thank you, Laura Koroski and io9 for highlighting this hypothesis). I appreciate the decisions that Amy and Rory make in the episode.

Nonetheless, we hardly had a world around the Doctor, Amy, Rory and River Song. The two secondary characters in the beginning really just establish the story or play out as plot device. Modern day New York City hardly felt like anywhere special. No one other than the main characters showed their faces. Did we even have extras in the background? NYC of the past was empty except for cherub Weeping Angels, adult Weeping Angels and Statue of Liberty Weeping Angel. . .did the episode get set in NYC just so we can have a Statue of Liberty Weeping Angel?

If "The Angels Took Manahatten" was a one up on a show like Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits, it would have been a strong episode. The episode had interesting enough ideas and plotting to carry an anthology show. We wouldn't need to care TOO much about the characters.

Doctor Who has those episodes, too. "Blink" does great there. It's a one-up Doctor-lite episode. Most every fan loves that episode, and the Doctor really ends up playing a secondary role. His character has the weight of his history behind him.

Nonetheless, since "Blink" is just a one-up Doctor-lite episode, we don't need to have a ton of character development. We just need quick characterization and an interesting, novel situation. But if the Doctor has anything more than his secondary character status, the characters in this story would need more development for it to resonate with the audience. Looking back, I could see myself feeling disappointed if the Doctor came to the fore front of the episode as a primary character. We'd either get all the answers right away or get annoyed that the Doctor hides vital information from us.

"Blink" stands on its own because it is a standalone episode and doesn't need the depths of world building character development that many Doctor Who episodes need. The plot and ideas prove strong enough for one episode that we don't have to get pulled into the quality of characters developed.

Of the four episodes from "The Angels Take Manhattan" to the episode last night, "The Rings of Akhaten," only "The Snowmen" felt like it had strong secondary characters. We had: Vastra, Jenny, Strax, the previous governess/Ice Governess, the family of Captain Latimer and, off-screen, the memory of the Amy and Rory going away.

Albeit, this episode needed strong secondary characters. The Doctor became reclusive and didn't want to get involved with people. Clara needed some way to learn about the Doctor and get closer to him. The secondary characters gave her that opportunity.

My hypothesis makes the great secondary characters in "The Snowmen" kind of sad. They only rose to their height because the plot needed them. Writing stories DO require an economy of elements, especially TV and movie writing. Those media only afford a certain amount of time to tell a story. Everything needs cramming into that small space.

Even a novel has to balance these elements. A novel allows for more freedom. The audience, however, can take away that freedom. Fail to properly balance all the elements in the story, you run the risk of alienating your editor and audience. The novel doesn't get published or doesn't meet enough success for an author to have easy time publishing again, if at all once.

Doctor Who has fallen out of balance. Over the last couple weeks, I've caught myself asking why I continue to watch. I did that even with the first half of the seventh series. The sixth series disappointed me, but the plot had enough compelling elements to it and River Song still had her charm. Nothing like an origin story to make a character more pedestrian and less exciting.

I think my continued watching has to do with hope for the future. Maybe the plot arc will pick up again, and we'll have the answers we've been looking for. Maybe the mystery of Clara Oswin Oswald will become more compelling again. The loss of balance tipping away from world building has come to disappoint me, though. We need more strong secondary characters and settings.

Last night's "The Rings of Akhaten" was pretty with the special effects and the variety of alien creatures. It didn't do much for me, though, because I didn't connect with the setting and the aliens. There's something to be said about literature and art getting us to experience what characters experience (alienation for the Doctor, feeling lost - that theme seems to be a big one for Clara and trying to get a hold back onto optimism and wonder at the world).

We've lost the feeling that generally pulls us into Doctor Who, though, the sense of wonder and excitement that the Doctor and the TARDIS bring to us on our TV all too infrequently. The wonder at seeing new worlds being built and injustice in them getting righted. Even when the Third Doctor was stranded on Earth, we could get a sense of world building and wonder (just look at the technological gadgets he got fascinated in!).

It's the feeling that most of the Star Trek franchise, Star Wars and a lot of science fiction has brought to us. On the one hand, if Doctor Who wants to go down the hole of existential alienation, let's go all the way and really feel it in an innovative way.

I rather dislike skirting this middle ground, though. It focuses all on story and primary characters at the neglect of world building. Let's go somewhere new, meet someone new and encounter new problems that we don't face here on Earth. But let's really feel it and really get absorbed into these new worlds and societies. Let's wonder how that 45 minutes or 60 minutes went by so fast and how come it can't last longer. Let's wonder how we got so absorbed into this fictional world or these crazy, unrealistic problems. Let's build a world and experience it together.

LINKS OF INTEREST:

• Doctor Who
• "The Bells of Saint John"
• "The Rings of Akhaten"
• Jenna-Louise Coleman
• Clara Oswin Oswald
• "Asylum of the Daleks"
• "The Snowmen"
• Steven Moffat
• Matt Smith
• The Eleventh Doctor
• "The Angels Take Manahattan"
• The Tenth Doctor
• "The Waters of Mars": Go to last couple paragraphs in Plot section to read about "Timelord Victorious
• The Silence
• River Song
• the Great Intelligence
• Revived Doctor Who: Series 5
• Revived Doctor Who: Series 6
• Revived Doctor Who: Series 7
• "The Beast Below"
• Liz 10
• Smilers
• Winders
• Hawthorne
• the Star Whale
• Challenge By Geek blog of Laura Koroski
• io9
• Amy Pond
• Rory Williams
• Weeping Angels
• Twilight Zone
• The Outer Limits
• "Blink"
• Doctor-lite
• Vastra
• Jenny
• Strax
• the previous governess/Ice Governess
• Captain Latimer
• TARDIS
• The Third Doctor
• Star Trek
• Star Wars

Pandora Radio, It's Been a Great Relationship, but I Think We Make Better Friends

I understand Pandora's recent restriction on how much time mobile users can listen for "free" per month. A business needs revenue. Pandora isn't a charity. I get it.

I still think they made a bad decision from a market penetration standpoint. $.99 per month isn't that much to pay for 40+ more hours of music on a mobile device if you use it a lot. I do. With other options out there, like Spotify, iTunes radio stations, though, I think Pandora might end up losing listeners rather than gaining them.

I, for one, have re-discovered Spotify and found more merits to it. A year or so ago, a friend of mine argued that Spotify did a better job of relating songs to each other on a station.

I disagreed at the time. I think my disagreement came more from finding virtues in Pandora's broader swath in relating songs to each other. At that time, I had been getting back into finding new music via music broadcasters like Pandora and Spotify. I wanted to discover more music, so Pandora's broad swath made sense at the time.

I probably would have paid the $.99 this month, too, if I wasn't taking a long weekend trip to the Carribean. Last time I went out of the country, I couldn't use Pandora. Why spend even $.99 this time when I wouldn't have access for almost a week. I'm on a budget, and every dollar counts.

It hasn't help Pandora's case, when it came to me, that BBC America will broadcast the premiere Doctor Who Series 7 Part 2 tonight, either. I always like listening to Doctor Who music around premiere time. I'm excited, so I want to get into it.

Listening to Doctor Who music on iTunes gets a little boring, though. I don't want to listen to the music as arranged on albums anymore. I also would love to hear something new and related. Heck, listening to Spotify, I learned that there was a score released for the Doctor Who A Christmas Carol special. It's been 2 or 3 years since it was broadcast, and I hadn't known.

The Pandora selection of Doctor Who music has always sucked. They pretty much only played songs from the David Tennant specials and from the combined Series 1 & 2 album. Not horrible selections, but not enough of actual Doctor Who music. I've gone to the station because I want to hear Doctor Who music!

So Pandora taking away my privelege of listening to them after awhile has become a win for me. I've found other avenues to listen to music in ways that benefit me. Spotify's Murray Gold station practically plays only Doctor Who music (with some Sherlock and The Avengers music thrown in). I can't object to that.

I have no problem observing that I think this decision may end up hurting Pandora more than it helps. Sure, getting a little influx of revenue will make a nice boost and looks good in the short run. It feels more like a work around patch to the problem than a solution to revenue issues, though.

If I have found other avenues to listen to music that meets my needs better at different times, I'm sure other people have, too. I don't actively look for different products and don't like being the first to adopt things. If this action of Pandora's has led a passive consumer to switch products for even just selected uses, imagine what a more active and opinionated consumer will do.

Combine that with the revenue Pandora gets from advertisers. Consumers can pay $3.99 to listen without ads. A lot of people, like me, have no problem suffering ads for free music. Now Pandora has lost an ad listener for not only the post-40 hours per month period, but for periods before that when something like Spotify better fits my needs.

So, on one hand, thank you Pandora for depriving me of your service. I've been able to find another product that can provide for my demand better at times. You've helped me see that I have got some other great options out there.

While helping me, though, you may have hurt yourself. By depriving me, you have lost the market share of my own and probably many other ears for a period of the month. And not just after the 40 "free" hours, but other times before that point.

I hope you don't regret your decision. Heck, maybe it will even help you come up with a better product. Maybe you can win me and others back 100% of the time. I'm not leaving you, but I don't have any other problems "dating" other online music programs. Thank you for showing me the other opportunities out there. You're a good friend.

Yet, you might want to work on your product and marketing strategy. The underdogs might get you in this dog-eat-dog world.

LINKS OF NOTE:

• Pandora
• Spotify
• iTunes
• BBC America
• Doctor Who
• A Christmas Carol special
• David Tennant specials
• Murray Gold
• Sherlock
• The Avengers

The_Wife's 2013 C2E2 Panel: Exorcising the Spectre of the Fake Geek Girl

I've slacked enough through the dreary February. The last couple of weeks I've been too sick and worn down to much of anything.

It has come time to announce my wife's, Michi Trota, panel at the Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo (C2E2) this year. Last year, it was the Geek Girl and the Artist. It gave us all a pleasant surprise. A bunch of people came in to give their attention and take in some interesting observations. Who knew that young girls and women loved Captain Kirk so much because he went out and DID STUFF (and I don't mean had sex with things, he made things happen). I know I didn't.

For the last panel of the first night of the con, we expected most people to have left the convention for some partying or get some sleep. They had two more whole days to hit the convention floor and sit in on other panels. But no, enough people showed up and stayed to keep the panel going for a half hour past the scheduled end time. The conversation got so organic and fun that, unfortunately, the girls didn't have enough time to field questions from the audience. Oh well, the audience had a good time.

I'm proud to say that Michi will be doing another this year at C2E2. Unfortunately, it occurs on the other end of the convention schedule. The other end, as in, the middle of the last day, on Sunday. Not necessarily the most ideal time. The three times I've gone to C2E2, I haven't gone on a Sunday. Friday day or evening then all day Saturday had just pooped me out too out. Nothing on Sunday really caught my eye, though.

You'll see me at C2E2 on Sunday this year. At least you'll see me at Michi's panel. The first sentence of the panel's description:

This moderated panel will demystify the spectre of the "fake geek girl" that's been haunting geek culture.

You can read the rest of the description and get time/location at the C2E2 Website.

As they did last year, The Chicago Nerd Social Club has provided sponsorship for her panel. You should check them out if you live in Chicago. It's a good crowd, and they have plenty of ideas for things to do. They welcome ideas for other things to do, too!

If you're up on the whole podcasting thing (I've gotten big into listening to them a lot lately these days, myself): a reliable source told me that the guys from Loot the Room will record an interview with her soon. Keep your eyes for it!

And I'm hoping to get into the groove of posting regularly again, like back in January. I'll try not to let work, ironing, laundry and getting sick get in the way. I'll try my best!

LINKS OF INTEREST:

• Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo (C2E2)
• Exorcising the Spectre of the Fake Geek Girl
• The Chicago Nerd Social Club
• Loot the Room

Make Life Easier by Keeping Your Own Medical Records

With the Affordable Care Act and all, I've heard a lot of talk over the last few years about medical providers keeping digital records. That's fine, but why don't we keep some kind of medical records of our own? They won't have the level of authority as a doctor's medical record, but keeping your own medical records has its uses.

I'll admit, I'm a little biased on this topic. As a health insurance agent, I've heard people ask "How am I supposed to remember five to ten years of medical history?" when filling out an application. I usually just tell them to work from memory best as they can.

I've had my fair share of surprises, though. Plenty of people fail to remember

• What happened
• What treatment they had
• What doctor they may have seen after some kind of serious illness, like cancer, heart attacks and other things that scare the pants off me

I've even seen people get declined for life insurance because they can't remember where they had a test done. The life insurance carrier can't get the information they need for underwriting. They can't even start figuring out if they can take a risk on the applicant. All this after the applicant has gone through the paramed appointment and everything.

Since the Affordable Care Act was passed, I've also filled out a couple health insurance applications as my employer looked at their group plan options. Thankfully I had a good enough memory that I was able to dredge up the necessary information. I could also work off of old applications.

We all get older, though. Our memories lose their edge. We end up having more accidents and stranger bodily issues arise. Remembering medical history DOES get harder.

All those issues on my mind, I put together a simple spreadsheet where I keep a log of my medical, dental and other relevant history and claims. I can just type in the information then not have to worry about remembering all of it. Another use for keeping your own digital records: you can keep your facts and dates straight when communicating with insurance carriers about claims.

The headers of the spreadsheet looks something like this (click at it to see it full size):

I used my experience with medical questionnaires on health insurance applications to make the fields. The top part should be pretty self explanatory.

• What do you have?
• Who did you see to treat it?
• How do you get in touch with that person?

That cuts out a lot of work for underwriters. Applying for life or health insurance also becomes much more efficient. Stress gets cut, too.

Makes the job easier for a new health care provider to do research or find out where to get medical records, too. No need for

• The phone book
• Searching on the Internet
• Prospecting through a professional network

Much easier just to get a phone number off a spreadsheet, especially when not much contact has occurred in years.

Sure, they could have closed shop. That's a whole other issue, though. Not much the patient can do but make sure their authoritative medical records follow them from doctor to doctor.

The ongoing record under the contact information part becomes a little complicated, though. Claims and ongoing medical conditions can require multiple phone calls, visits, e-mails and references to some online accounts or status updates, check ups or procedures. Some conditions even have a multitude of procedures that need to be done.

I like to use the merge function to my advantage for this part. I don't use merge for the "Date of Note" or "Note/Status" much, if at all. New information gets added in these fields more than other data.

New dates and notes pretty much keep getting added to

• Date of Service
• Insurance Carrier
• Claim #

Just merge the cell in these columns that has information with blank cells underneath that match up to the fields where you put "Dates of Notes" and "Notes and Status." You won't need to keep typing and sifting through this same information. You put it in once and just look at it once.

Those parts could change in the future if you

• Have multiple visits
• Switch insurance carriers
• If your current insurance carrier sets up a new claim for the same thing (I've seen it happen!). It's unlikely, though.
  

This simple spreadsheet will save time and effort trying to recall all those appointments and treatments. Get the application or visit a new doctor then pull out the spreadsheet. You'll be in and out with the past in no time!

It can get a little cumbersome, though, after a couple years. I can see it getting even moreso later. As of now, I put more recent stuff at the end. I have thought about putting it at the top. I won't need really old information after awhile, so it will keep getting pushed down further and further.

Maybe have multiple spreadsheets for multiple years. The individual sheets remain manageable and easier and faster to load. We want the experience with this tool effortless and painless, after all.

Using a database program for keeping these records might help more. I've started using LibreOffice Base to take notes for my bachelor project. I've used more elegant databases, but those cost a whole lot more than the price tag of FREE for LibreOffice Base.

Database programs don't have the simplicity of spreadsheets. They also require more customization and set up time. As we get old and subjected to more injury and sickness, though, our health histories become more complex. The simplicity of a spreadsheet might end up a mess and difficult to sift through for desired information.

With a database, though, you can do all types of filtering and sorting information. Instead of copying and pasting, you can have the database just display entries that have certain characteristics. Also, no need to mess with highlighting a ton of spreadsheet fields then use the sort command. Just tell the database to sort with a click on a header.

A database also has the advantage of just showing one note at a time. A spreadsheet requires you to sift through tons of irrelevant information. Then you have to manually avoid all the irrelevant text that stays on the screen. Don't have to do any of that crap when just looking at one entry at a time.

I'll have to look into using a database to keep my personal digital health records. Yay, yet another task to add to the list. . ..

LINKS OF NOTE:

• Affordable Care Act
• LibreOffice Base

No Matter Which Hobbit It Is, It's Still Tolkien's Hobbit

A little more than a week ago, I read the Huffington Post article, "Dislike Peter Jackson's The Hobbit? Then You Don't Know Tolkien" by Seth Abramson. I agree with Abramson, but I also don't think he fully appreciates the history behind The Hobbit, as we know it today. If he did, I don't think he'd have as much trouble with the Tolkien philistine critics out there.

It took Abramson's article for me to reach this conclusion. Like him and many others out there, I think Peter Jackson could have cut a bit and emphasized different aspects of the film to make a more enjoyable viewing experience. I won't get too deep into the actual film or its narrative, though. I had fun watching it and don't have strong enough feelings to criticize the film itself.

I won't get all that deep into the technological aspects of the frame speed, 3D vs 2D or anything like that. I saw the 24 frames per second (fps) in 3D version. It looked fine with only one or two things that took me out of the action and drama but nothing that stands out too much. I haven't seen any of it in 48 fps. I'm curious to do so some day, though, just to see what all the fuss is about.

Something else has struck my interest more than these two aspects: the arguments over Jackson's loyalty to the original books. Many people have criticized him for stretching it out to three films when the source material is one book (a lot of that argument seems to revolve around Jackson and/or the film company being greedy and cynical). They also argue that The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, was a simple, fun adventure romp, not some kind of epic quest to save the world. Where would the material come from to fill all that extra time?

Abramson and others, on the other hand, point out that these critics who just want a simple adventure romp have it wrong. They fail to know or understand that Tolkien left behind plenty of source material in the appendices at the end of The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. I read the appendices once, maybe twice, and some other pieces of work that had tons of information about larger events and people that happened concurrently and led up to The War of the Ring.

In my view, both sides of have it right. I see only one part where both sides are wrong: saying that the other side is wrong, they don't understand and that there is a right or wrong answer. I take this approach because at one time or another, Tolkien had imagined The Hobbit in so many different ways on his own, as a standalone story, as something of a prelude to The Lord of the Rings and as probably everything else inbetween.

Tolkien originally came up with The Hobbit as a way to entertain his children or his children or grandchildren (I think he notes this point as in introduction to an edition of The Hobbit, or There and Back Again). Even the first edition published didn't have the One Ring in it. It was just a magical ring of invisibility. Also, Gollum willingly bet it in the game of riddles.

I haven't read the older editions. I don't have any further details of changes from earlier editions to more current ones. Nonetheless, it still stands: the earlier editions of The Hobbit, or There and Back Again was a standalone, not a planned prequel to the Lord of the Rings.

Later, down the road, though, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again did become a prequel. Tolkien kept updating new editions as they got released to make the stories consistent. As mentioned before, he also wrote material that he put in the appendices at the end of The Return of the King.

Tokien had also written a story called "The Quest of Erebor". Based on the link, Tolkien originally wanted to include it in the appendices of The Return of the King. He ended up not putting it in, though, to save space. This story fills the gaps in how Gandalf and Thorin put together their scheme, why they included Bilbo and other such topics not addressed in The Hobbit, or There and Back Again.

Peter Jackson just conflates all these different sources into a series of movies. The people criticizing Jackson for creating new plot points or anything like that just to fill time don't have the most solid ground to stand on. From my understanding, Jackson does do it a little by giving the orcs in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey a motivation rather than just random encounters met by the dwarves. I haven't read The Hobbit, or There and Back Again in awhile, but my instincts tell me that characters with motivations lead to a more absorbing story rather than not.

Abramson makes a valid point that these "haters" probably don't know Tolkien. I think he misses the point, though, that the movie the "haters" wanted would have been just as valid of a movie of The Hobbit: There and Back Again as the one Peter Jackson has and will make. Simply put: every version that a faction argues is the real version is a real version. Tolkien wrote most, if not all, the source material that Jackson is pulling from.

I, personally, enjoy that an argument such as this one can be made. Part of me wishes that the copyright had expired and anyone who wants could take and retool the story without needing any special rights or permissions. Tolkien had done a fun job of creating something of an artificial verbal history of Middle Earth as he had come up with new stories and worked to make them all consistent with each other, altering and developing the canon to make it richer each and every time.

Will the stories of Middle Earth become legend and myth for future civilizations as our current one falls or fades away? Will Middle Earth be like the myths we tell of Greek gods and goddesses, Persian gods and goddesses, Gilgamesh and Enkidu and all the rest of the stories that we have from our ancient history? I wish I had a time machine or the ability to observe some future time to see if this potentiality becomes actuality.

Just imagine the stories that would come about through errors in translation! Imagine all the different stories that could be developed for futue generations through the innovations of non-Tolkien writers! It would make an interesting sight to see, that's for sure.

LINKS OF NOTE:

• "Dislike Peter Jackson's The Hobbit? Then You Don't Know Tolkien"
• Seth Abramson
• Tolkien
• Peter Jackson
• From Forbes: "Why Are So Many People Against The Hobbit Being Shown in 48 FPS?
• The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
• The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
• The War of the Ring
• The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
• One Ring
• Gollum
• "The Quest of Erebor"
• Gandalf
• Thorin Oakenshield II
• Bilbo
• The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
• Middle Earth

Unofficially Scraping the Surface of Making Financial Tools and Concepts More Practical

A blog trying to explore creativity, community and stuff like that, like this one, has a place for tips on making sense of finance and organizing stuff. I came to the realization that a creative person could use these types of skills when I read an Asimov's Science Fiction column by Robert Silverberg a long, long time ago.

Silverberg's argument boils down to: "Creative people will likely not become rich, comfortable and ready for retirement solely from writing or whatever they create. Even creative people, unless they have some kind of fortunate windfall, will need to invest wisely to reach independent wealth and a comfortable retirement."

I won't give out stock tips or get too deep into investment stuff. I have reached an awkward stage in my life/career. I feel comfortable enough with my knowledge and instincts to follow my own advice. I may even offer my thoughts to friends and family, leaving it to them whether they find my advice sound or not.

At the same time, I have enough professional qualifications that weak social contacts might view my ruminations as qualified advice. Some people might view my 10 years working in the insurance industry and light experience evaluating risk as certification for being considered an investment professional. I don't offer that kind of advice and don't want the responsibility that comes along with it.

I have no problem giving advice on saving time, reducing stress and possibly even protecting personal finances against sudden physical and health-related losses. This blog entry or future entries are not any kind of marketing pitch, though. At most, I hope someone might take my ruminations, investigate and research them a little more then come up with useful conclusions of their own.

And if I present some tips to set up some practical organization principles and tactics, I hope people will take them to heart. They could make more sense of financial or health information. At the very least, they might address some issue in the future more efficiently than if I didn't mention some stuff I might mention.

All in all, this entry has become more of an abstracted, unclear rumination to say that I may want to bring up topics on how to handle the financial realm. Lots of people find financial stuff impractical, once you get deeper into it. I hope, every once in while, to shine some practical light on these topics.

Guess the only way I'll find out if I'm any good at doing so is by going ahead and writing about it. Please join me in some future entries to see if I'm any good at writing about these topics.

LINKS OF INTEREST:

• Asimov's Science Fiction
  
  
• Robert Silverberg

Doctor Who: Saying Farewell to Old Friends, Picking Up New Exciting Mysteries & Letting Shady, Silent Enemies Fester

The last Doctor Who Christmas special, The Snowmen, has excited me enough about Doctor Who and TV/movies that I need to blog about it. I haven't been jazzed up about either for a long time.

A quick log of my last entries about TV/movies:

• April 8, 2011: Copy & pasted from an e-mail to the Wife just before Doctor Who Series 6 some random musings about Series 5 and anticipation for Series 6
  
  
• December 18, 2010: A review of Inception, emphasizing that it was just OK. It didn't push itself like I had hoped a movie set in a dream would have
  
  
• April 18, 2010: Spoiler-free review of the first two episode pre-screening of Doctor Who Series 5, The Eleventh Hour and The Beast Below at the Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo (C2E2)
  

Doctor Who, BBC and Steven Moffat, despite his views of the female sex grating on my nerves regularly, have done a bang up job of making a TV plot line compelling again. I haven't been this sucked in and emotionally invested since a few isolated episodes of Series 6.

TV shows like

• Fringe
  
  
• Person of Interest
  
  
• Burn Notice
  
  
• White Collar
  
  
• Eureka
  
  
• Warehouse 13
  
  
• Leverage
  
  
• and a bunch of comedies

have kept me entertained. I'll even throw in most of the Doctor Who Series 6 into this category. All these shows kept bringing me back.

I didn't feel anxious about waiting so long (sometimes as little as a week) to see the next episode, though. I generally only got excited if the following episode was on TiVo or maybe for a single next episode. Not really for an extended amount of suspenseful time, though.

**** SPOILER ALERT: DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED THE EPISODE (OR EVEN FROM SERIES 4 TO CURRENT) ****

But Doctor Who: The Snowmen has sucked me back into the bittersweet, agonizing joy of fandom. After the second appearance and death of the Doctor's enigmatic new companion, I again feel the sudden desire for more of what Steve Moffatt does so well at the end of

• Cold Blood
  
  
• The Pandorica Opens
  
  
• The Big Bang
  
  
• The Impossible Astronaut
  
  
• The Almost People
  
  
• A Good Man Goes to War
  
  
• The Wedding of River Song
  
  
• Let's Kill Hitler
  
  
• Even Forest of the Dead

We're given a small compelling piece of emotionally-charged information/plot then pretty much told, now you get to wait awhile to learn more.

• Cold Blood: Not the best of episodes, overall, but Rory dies, gets sucked into the Time Field, erasing him from time. On top of that, despite how hard the Doctor tries, Rory's fiancee, Amy, can't remember Rory. How does the Doctor handle that kind of guilt?
  
  
• The Pandorica Opens: After being teased the whole season about the Pandorica opening, we learn what the Pandorica is, but then. . .Rory is resurrected as an Auton and kills Amy. The Doctor is put into the Pandorica. The camera zooms back from the Universe, showing all the stars extinguishing. How does the Doctor fix the erasing of EVERYTHING? How can the show even continue?
  
  
• The Big Bang: The Universe gets rebooted, but we don't know who blew up the TARDIS. We have an inkling that it has something to do with the Silence that's been mentioned all season. What is the Silence and who wants to blow up the TARDIS? We have no idea and have to wait months, MONTHS to learn more.
  
  
• The Impossible Astronaut: We see the Doctor killed by someone or something in an astronaut suit. He knows who it is. We can only wonder who it is until the end of the season. The who was actually predictable, but like at the end of The Pandorica Opens, we ask how the hell does that whole thing get resolved? And on top of that, we have a face to the Silents, but how and why are they or have blown up the TARDIS?
  
  
• The Almost People: A bleh conclusion to a bleh two-parter (exception of fun of seeing the Doctor and his ganger have fun together). However, we learn that since the beginning of Series 6, the Amy we've been watching has been a Ganger (even though it's been her real consciousness the whole time). The real Amy has been in the custody of the lady who has been popping up for a few seconds here and there then disappearing. And guess what. . .Amy's about to go into labor! Probably would have been horrible to have to wait a week, but I'll admit it: we were able to watch A Good Man Goes to War immediately afterward. I don't know if I would have been able to wait a week to watch the Battle of Demon's Run.
  
  
• A Good Man Goes to War and Let's Kill Hitler: We have part of the origin story of River Song, but the Silence kidnap her. The Doctor promises that she'll be safe and he'll find her. The origin story of River/Melody resolves quite satisfactorily in the madcap romp of Let's Kill Hitler.
  
  Nonetheless, we're left with some pretty annoying questions: How is the Doctor going to get out of being killed? How is the Silence going to blow up the TARDIS? Who is the leader of the Silence? How will the Doctor defeat the Silence? Sure, the Silence don't like the Doctor, but how did they get the knowledge and power to blow up the TARDIS when the Daleks, the Cybermen, etc. who have had plenty of reasons to blow up the TARDIS haven't done it?
  
  The best Daleks and Cybermen can do is put the Doctor into the Pandorica. He still gets out of it (yeah, he rebooted the Universe after it extinguished, but if it weren't for the Pandorica. . .the Silence would've won). How could anyone get so worked up to extinguish the universe and what is their escape plan (the Daleks had one)? If they don't have one, what has gotten them so worked up? And seriously. . .who is Prisoner Zero and could it have all that foreknowledge about all this stuff?
  
  What's kind of annoying. . .even now, after a series and a half and a few years, we still have all these questions! Seriously, though, I've made my peace that a few of them won't be answered. Steve Moffat seems to be the master of creating compelling world-building concepts then leaving them as non-sequiturs (for instance, what's up with the Papal Mainframe?).
  
  
• Forest of the Dead: The question that this episode leaves us hanging with that has been mostly answered in hindsight: who is River Song? Is she just a red herring, but she knows the Doctor's real name! She has to be important. . .and we've gotten a satisfactory amount of information about River since then. As of now, we still don't really know how she learns the Doctor's name. We have a suspicion: it happens on the Fields of Trenzalore where the "First Question" will be asked. We're assuming River will ask the Doctor his real name. Since the whole "First Question" arc is so connected to the Silence arc, though, I'm yawning.
  
  
• The Wedding of River Song: We learn about the "First Question" and the Fields of Trenzalore. It's something that the Silence want to prevent. At the end of the episode, we learn the "First Question" is WHO is the Doctor. Actually pretty anti-climactic, since the Silence plot arc has gotten old without any satisfying answers.
  
  Also, do we, the audience, want to know who the Doctor really is? Part of the show's fun is that the true identity of the Doctor is shrouded in mystery. The archetype of an alien traveling through space and time, fighting the forces of evil and calamity that he stumbles upon feels like enough. . .and plus he has fun doing it. Give him some kind of grand motivation, it feels like the magic could be sucked out of the show.
  
  Still. . .what are the Fields of Trenzalore? Why would the Doctor go (like Lake Silencio?) other than it's a fixed point in time. . .what a flimsy, uncompelling plot device to provide motivation for a character to go somewhere)? How does the motivation to go there, ask the First Question and answer the First Question develop?
  
  If it's River Song that asks it and is answered, why wouldn't the Silence have tried to prevent River from existing in the first place? Rather, they just participate in the events that caused her to exist in the first place to ask the First Question? Maybe that's why they blew up the TARDIS to extinguish the universe? It also seems like blowing up the TARDIS is what may have motivated the TARDIS to land in Amy Pond's back yard and bring about the existence of River Song. Is it just a predestination paradox?
  
  That's when I decided to stop thinking about it all back then. I realized Steve Moffat wouldn't answer even 10% to 25% of the questions I could think of. Even worse: Doctor Who would just beg more questions. I figured even if the show goes get weighed down with too any tedious unanswered questions, I would continue watching to see the train wreck occur and the fans let out collective yells of rage (Facing the ceiling, arms raised, "Moffat!!!!!!!!").

After the disappointment of Series 6, again feeling the aggravation and appreciation of suspense provides a breath of fresh air. Watching Series 6 after Series 5 felt like watching The Hobbit after The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit and Series 6 provided an enjoyable OK time with some high points, but nowhere near what had come before. I wanted more after Series 6, but I could wait.

I could say something similar about the first half of Series 7. However, it feels like both a breath of fresh air and the last gasps for air (for the Ponds), despite no strong push on larger plot points that the viewer knows of. For larger plot arcs, we

• See people asking the First Question (but the First Question gets asked a lot -- even before Series 5 when this whole arc started)
  
  
• Hear about history recording the Doctor's "death" then his existence getting expunged from all records
  
  
• Reminded about the theme of the Doctor's enemies escalating their aggression because of the Doctor being viewed as a major threat to their race and existence

Each standalone episode has its own enjoyable dramatic tension but doesn't pull the viewer onto the next episode. Likability of characters and quality writing keeps the viewer coming back. I didn't feel as much aggravation week to week, but I couldn't wait to see the next episode.

Unless you actively avoid spoilers, Amy and Rory exiting is predictable. Weeping Angels involved, Amy and Rory would be zapped around in such a way that a fixed point in time would be created and couldn't be changed. I hadn't figured out the exact execution, but the general idea was apparent. Albeit, knowledge of their departure drives the season, both in appreciation while they're still around and for the chance to say goodbye.

For Dinosaurs on a Spaceship and The Power of Three, the three stars shine. They work together as a great team.

For Rory and Amy, Asylum of the Daleks feels like a throw away. Their motivations for their separating feels lame and not true to the characters. Only Rory acting like an ass feels right, claiming he loved Amy more. That works just because otherwise, Rory is too perfect. Not worth throwing away well-written characters a whole episode just to prove someone's human, though.

The teamwork with the Doctor didn't come out so much in A Town Called Mercy and The Angels Take Manahattan, but those episodes accomplished their goals well. Mercy reminds us again about the Doctor's dark side and history and how much he needs others in his life.

The Angels Take Manahattan shows the lengths of Rory and Amy's love. We also see how significant Amy has become to the Doctor. It harkens back to the strange mother/son-father/daughter relationship they have in the first half of Series 5. They end up playing such big roles in influencing each other's personality development. Amy even gets to show the brains and empathy to save the day in The Beast Below and Victory of the Daleks. I missed that Amy.

Not since Series 5 did we see how important they felt their relationship was. OK, maybe the ends of The God Complex and The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe (which, per IMDB, is the first episode of Series 7) illustrate the importance of their relationships. Even then, they were just bare glimpses. Seeing Rory and Amy save the day and Amy make a decision despite the Doctor feels inspired.

The first part of Series 7 does well not to focus on the Silence plot arc. It provides a reprieve. The arc has worn thin by too many loose ends either answered too slowly or not at all.

The first part of Series 7 is the farewell song for Rory and Amy. The show did good on that note. We had fun romps, character development, learned The Power of Three and, finally, a farewell we didn't want to see but had to come and be seen.

We love Amy and Rory, but their story has played out. Their characters have gotten a little thin. Amy only shows the characteristics that make her a good character when Rory isn't around. Rory shows his best characteristics when Amy becomes the maiden in distress.

The first part of Series 7 does a great job of mending those shortcomings. It also crowns off with their independent, consistent final decisions mostly made together.

Amy and Rory could have kept on with the Doctor. Nonetheless, the show has had difficulties making them significant characters in Series 6. They come off more as plot devices. I can see their characters getting even thinner without adding much to overall plot arcs. I would rather they exit at their height instead wearing out their welcome as characters.

Then comes The Snowmen. It feels like the premiere of a Series 8: new companion, new title sequence and even a whole new console room.

Albeit, the title sequence and console room both feel like homages to Classic Who. I'm not too surprised, considering the 50th anniversary is coming up. I think the BBC wants to make a big deal out of it. But the Doctor even has a new outfit (keep in mind that bow ties are still cool).

We have a new mystery: Who exactly is Clara Oswin Oswald? Turns out that they didn't just use Jenna Louise-Coleman as a cameo character in Asylum of the Daleks.

That wouldn't have been anything new. Freema Agyeman played Martha Jones's cousin at Canary Wharf in Army of Ghosts. Karen Gillan played some kind of cultist in The Fires of Pompeii.

Sure, the character in Asylum of the Daleks has a similar name to that of the expected new companion. This is Doctor Whoo and Steve Moffat, though. No point in investing any further thought or energy into trying to figure out a non-sequitur detail.

As it turns out, though, the Oswin Oswald from The Asylum of the Daleks has something to do with Clara Oswin Oswald of The Snowmen and Clara (presumably Oswin Oswald) that appears at the end of The Snowmen.

The Doctor has suspicions she is the "same" character throughout the episode, but he doesn't confirm it until the end of the episode. Clara pulls him out of his shell throughout, but the end clinched it. He has proof she is the same, but how can it be? Doesn't she die twice in two different places, two different times? She also doesn't recognize him when she is a Dalek or as a barmaid/governess.

There's a lot of mystery here. The Doctor feels as excited as we do about it. I bet it will also tie in with the Silence, probably similarly how Amy Pond and her family does, but it doesn't have to. A charm of Clara's mystery and arc is that, as of now, it stands on its own.

Even if Steven Moffat writes woman in a not so praiseworthy way, he has shown he can intertwine characters into the story. They're not just tagging along for the journey and representing thee audience need for explanation. They're integral to the story, and not in a way that's incidental like Rose (anyone could have yanked open a panel in the TARDIS), Martha (anyone could've believed in the Doctor that much) or Donna (anyone could have absorbed regeneration energy and gain the consciousness of a Time Lord).

The great part of the mystery of Clara is, right now, she stands on her own (also helps that she is capable and has a strong personality). Doctor Who isn't so focused on the Silence fighting the Doctor at the moment with the occasional filler episode.

Right now, we have a great question that the Silence and Amy Pond had helped lay out: Who is Clara and what role does she have to play in the grand scheme of things? The Silence cause the need for Amy Pond by blowing up the TARDIS. The Doctor explains to her that he took her in the TARDIS because she is an enigma that he needed to figure out.

We have a framework for reacting to Clara Oswin Oswald. She's a mystery that has a part to play in solving some challenge in the future. What is that challenge? How will she resolve that challenge? Those questions will plague us, but they're kind of formulaic right now.

Where does Clara come from? Why are there multiple versions of her in the multiverse? Obviously she's smart, has plenty of personality and spunk and fun. In ways, she's a challenge to the Doctor and can resolve matters much like Amy Pond at the beginning of Series 5. Such potential for a companion, and even just a woman standing on her own showing up the Doctor, feels good and provides promise.

I hope that Moffat and other writers don't let her fall from this grace. Yes, complex characters need shortcomings, but Series 6 Amy Pond felt lazily written and too much of a stereotype most times. Karen Gillan and Amy Pond had chances to shine, but overall, her character went downhill until Series 7, Episode 2.

I look forward anxiously to discovering the enigma of Clara Oswin Oswald and getting to know her, in a way I haven't for a TV show in a long while. I love seeing the Doctor coming out of his funk to pursue this mystery. After nearly 50 years since creation of the show, the Doctor is almost part of the family, especially with his modernization and showing more humanity, positive and negative.

We'll get our answers, eventually. Nonetheless, I hope the execution of the show and Clara's continues as good as they have in Asylum of the Daleks and The Snowmen. I expect to keep watching, either which way, but I have missed this mix of suspense. I want it to continue, as much I hate it.

LINKS OF NOTE:

• Doctor Who
  
  
• The Snowmen
  
  
• April 8, 2011 Blog Entry - Pre-Series 6 Ruminations
  
  
• Series 6
  
  
• Series 5
  
  
• December 18, 2010 Blog Entry - Inception
  
  
• Inception
  
  
• April 18, 2010 - Review first two episodes of Series 5
  
  
• The Eleventh Hour
  
  
• The Beast Below
  
  
• Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo (C2E2)
  
  
• Steven Moffat
  
  
• Fringe
  
  
• Person of Interest
  
  
• Burn Notice
  
  
• White Collar
  
  
• Eureka
  
  
• Warehouse 13
  
  
• Leverage
  
  
• Cold Blood
  
  
• The Pandorica Opens
  
  
• The Big Bang
  
  
• The Impossible Astronaut
  
  
• The Almost People
  
  
• A Good Man Goes to War
  
  
• The Wedding of River Song
  
  
• Let's Kill Hitler
  
  
• Forest of the Dead
  
  
• Rory Williams
  
  
• Time Field
  
  
• Doctor
  
  
• Amy
  
  
• Pandorica
  
  
• Auton Rory
  
  
• Big Bang Two
  
  
• TARDIS
  
  
• the Silence
  
  
• the Silents
  
  
• Eleventh Doctor (Ganger)
  
  
• Gangers
  
  
• Madame Kovarian
  
  
• 
  Battle of Demon's Run
  
  
• River Song
  
  
• Daleks
  
  
• Cybermen
  
  
• Papal Mainframe
  
  
• Fields of Trenzalore
  
  
• "First Question"
  
  
• Lake Silencio
  
  
• fixed point in time
  
  
• predestination paradox
  
  
• Weeping Angels
  
  
• Series 7
  
  
• Dinosaurs on a Spaceship
  
  
• The Power of Three
  
  
• Asylum of the Daleks
  
  
• A Town Called Mercy
  
  
• The Angels Take Manahattan
  
  
• The God Complex
  
  
• The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe
  
  
• Clara Oswald
  
  
• new title sequence
  
  
• Jenna Louise-Coleman
  
  
• Freema Agyeman
  
  
• Martha Jones
  
  
• Martha's cousin
  
  
• Canary Wharf
  
  
• Army of Ghosts
  
  
• Karen Gillan
  
  
• The Fires of Pompeii
  
  
• Clara
  
  
• Oswin Oswald
  
  
• Rose Tyler
  
  
• Donna
  

Celebrities, Artists, Narcissists and the Illusion of Significance and Meaning

A few months ago on the New York Times Website, I found an essay about people telling each other about how busy they are and complaining about being busy all the time. It concludes that people engage in this behavior because it provides the illusion that they’re significant and their life has meaning. After all, if you’re so busy with commitments, you’re doing something important.

I’ve bought into this argument. I try not to complain about being busy and telling people I’m so busy when people ask me how I’ve been doing.

Having bought into so much, I’ve even bisociated this compulsion of busyness with narcissistic celebrities and artists, the ones that always want attention and have to be in the spotlight. . .but may not always have anything to show for it. Their crazy PR campaign may even have an element of an art piece.

Writers and artists capture meaning and stories in their works. Some of those works even capture enough attention to become part of tradition and cultural heritage. Art and stories become an attempt to contribute efforts into something permanent or to make that something permanent. It voices a desire for immortality and to influence the future.

I know that urge influences my desire to write and empowered career decisions I’d like to make in the future. Contributing to the transient and everyday doesn’t satisfy me. As Henry David Thoreau influenced me with a book after more than a century, I’d like to do the same for a young, impressionable mind. Even touching minds with an older person open to thoughts and experience would be cool.

I had told myself when I talked about my work and projects with people that I was simply sharing, working though a road block or even looking to see if others might have insight that I don’t. After all, that WAS what I was doing.

People would most of the time just ask why I don’t sit down and get it done. Definitely a two pronged analysis can be made:

1. I want to look important and significant by complaining about my work
2. People get annoyed by empty words and would rather see action and results

My explanations here definitely sound narcissistic, but I don’t think most people would see me this way. At least that’s the impression that people give me. A lot of these premises and conclusions come from overthinking more than anything. At least, I hope it’s more overthinking rather than narcissism.

Combine the elements mentioned in that opinion piece about busyness providing illusion of significance and meaning with the desire to contribute to the permanence of heritage and tradition through my writing. My sense of significance and meaning has a level of illusion to it until the future, possibly after my lifetime. Imagine people who either don’t have any material to present, still working hard on presenting said material or present material or lots of material that gets exposed to critics. Maintaining motivation with no or negative results can get discouraging and impact confidence or self-esteem.

In this case, an illusion can provide more benefits than negative. I have mentioned in the past that people often live with an illusion of inflated worth and meaning. The busyness linguistic illusion probably works into that. As does probably getting yourself seen, seen with adulated people, letting other people know about your big (maybe even highly pretentious) projects, coming off as a style maven, a trend setter, going to the big social events and all types of things.

These things may have a loose connection to permanence (you have to know people, after all). We have to ask ourselves, though, how much are people in the spotlight trying to maintain an illusion of significance and meaning? If an artist or celebrity didn’t have that outlet, what would happen? Does an artist or celebrity really just want a taste of that significance and meaning, or do they want to make it happen?

I like to think that they want to make it happen. I don’t think it’s that horrible that they want the illusion until it really happens. Sometimes people have to fake it until they make it.

Everyone, though, should get a chance to drink from that goblet of meaning and significance. There’s a reason why celebrities and attention-seeking artists get viewed as narcissists. . ..


LINKS OF NOTE: The ‘Busy’ Trap – New York Times, bisociation, Henry David Thoreau

Gratitude & Consideration: Improving Self Esteem & Society

A couple months ago at a college alumni function I learned a lesson that has improved my quality of life. It involved accepting responsibility for being a cool and good person. Someone else who went to school after me said that people told them that I was someone worth knowing. Always trying to come off as humble, I said something about not understanding how I developed a reputation that survived me, I'm not anyone special that has done anything significant.

An old friend didn't let me finish my sentence. They scolded me that I am worth knowing and that I should accept those types of compliments. The function ended soon after, but my friend's advice has stuck with me.

Maybe accepting compliments wouldn't hurt. After all, we give ourselves the worst criticism. Psychologically healthier people out there generate an illusion of inflated abilities, skills, experience and state of being. A lot of psychological studies make this argument.

I, on the other hand, have always had more of a negative or sober assessment of myself and situation. Having this old friend tell me I should accept compliments got me thinking that maybe I had an overly negative view of myself rather than realistic. What would it hurt to accept compliments indiscriminately for a bit?

A couple weeks later, I accompanied the wife to Lakes of a Fire (a local Burning Man-style event or more descriptively, an art, radical expression, trade/bartering and fire dancing event).

I went with her last year to Lakes of Fire for the first time. I had an OK time, something new but nothing that got me super excited or anything. It had nothing to do with the people or the event. I just had other things on my mind and hadn't gotten into the right mindset.

Accepting compliments elevated my experience this year. I said thank you and you’re welcome whenever I received and gave compliments or favors. Even once when someone complimented me on being awesome, I simply said “I know.” Yeah, kind of conceited, but we had a good laugh. Switching things up has its place.

I have more or less maintained this trait of gratitude and consideration, depending on the social milieu that I find myself in. I’ve also continued feeling a high subjective state of well being and having great interactions with people.

My theory goes along the lines that gratitude and consideration serves us more than just good manners and etiquette. For the subjective self, accepting compliments gets you to start believing them and even to engage in positive self talk that bolsters your elevated self esteem.

Self affirmations sound lame and even insincere, but having a stable self esteem goes a long way to improving quality of life for you and those around you. Fake it until you make it (or start believing it), they say. Just don’t let it go to your head so much that you start hurting other people.

I think the next part of my hypothesis touches on not hurting people. Both too much conceit and too much self abnegation in reaction to a compliment casts doubt on the complimentor. Showing too much conceit tells the complimentor they’ve misjudged someone’s sense of reality. Too much self abnegation tells the complimentor they’ve misjudged their own sense of reality.

People like to share concepts of reality and narratives, as long as their own reality checking facility doesn’t cast too much doubt. That kind of doubt causes a lot of cognitive dissonance and requires work to reconcile.

Someone else inducing that kind of dissonance and doubt with their own self appraisal makes it even worse. They’re supposed to know themselves better than an outside complimentor would know them. They have just distanced themselves from the complimentor.

More knowledge and familiarity means higher levels intimacy and comfort. Impractically negating established intimacy or advances of intimacy (lack of time, other commitments being practical reasons) becomes a slap in the face. It rejects the worth of knowing and getting to know the complimentor. As accepting compliments adds to positive self talk, rejection can contribute to negative self talk.

Accepting a compliment provides a compliment, both of judgment and the ability to build intimacy or camaraderie. Rejecting a compliment, however, can give insult. It casts doubt on a person’s judgment and their ability to build intimacy and camaraderie.

The original complimentor than accepts an unsaid compliment by saying “You’re welcome” and accepting gratitude. They have acknowledged being told they have a good sense of reality and judge of character. Their narrative has received affirmation and have made connection with another human, two of the most joyful experiences we can have.

People do everyone a favor by accepting compliments. They contribute to everyone’s self esteem and subjective well being by encouraging positive self talk all around.

Without a good practical reason to decline a compliment, accept them to better yourself and to improve the state of society. I guarantee that you’ll grab more joy from life. Just try it. You’ll see. I did.


LINKS OF NOTE: A lot of psychological studies argue positive illusions leads to better mental health, Lakes of a Fire, Burning Man

Tips for Developing Story from Nothing

I gave the following tips to a friend for starting development on a story from nothing:

1. Try to relax for idea generation and let the ideas bubble up
2. Put yourself in a different environment for idea generation, make yourself uncomfortable and accept the anxiety. Make the anxiety part of you as natural part of the process (getting up in the morning and working first thing helps me – have to push past drowsiness, but I think my mind also comes up with connections and ideas I wouldn’t come up with when fully awake)
3. All ideas are valid for this part of the process. It’s not time for critical thinking. You can get critical later
4. Look at it like a school assignment or a job:
   
   1. give yourself a deadline
   2. give yourself a quota of how many ideas you need to come up with
   3. Allot a certain amount of time that you need to work on it and WORK ON IT
5. Don’t censor yourself: think it, write it down on your brainstorming sheet or word processor

Right now, it’s about quantity, not quality. Just get any idea down on paper or the computer screen. You can make it better later. What’s the saying out there? 10%-20% is the writing, 80%-90% is revising. And to become professional, there’s probably some amount that goes into networking and marketing.

On the Isaac Asimov and Doctor Who Heritage in the Science Fiction Tradition

The trend over the last decade in science fiction movies for a focus on action and violence with pretty visuals has gotten me thinking about my own tastes. The latest example of the testosterone-drenched, American-mannered shoot first, ask questions later direction of Marvel's The Avengers has piqued my interest on this topic. i won't get into it about that movie; don't want to spoil and it didn't grab me in any stupendous way.

As an amateur writer, I like to think of science fiction and its trends as a tradition. Producers, consumers and critics of science fiction inherit a heritage and can contribute to it. As with any living tradition, science fiction receives all types of interpretations and has accumulated multiple branches of tradition based on tastes and preferences.

I like o think my tastes and preferences take me down the tradition of Doctor Who and Isaac Asimov. A quote from Asimov's Foundation series sums it up best:

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

I forget the exact context of the quote, but I think characters recite it multiple times. Throughout at least the original Foundation trilogy, the main characters solve problems with their minds and often through social manipulation. Rarely did they resort to violence of their own. Kinda sounds like cheating, but you work with what's available.

I had a long gap of not reading Asimov before giving the Foundation series a chance. Even then I only read a couple books from The Galactic Empire series, I, Robot and Robot Dreams. I haven't read the latter two in a long while, but I recollect a lot of ruminating and solving problems with the mind, not through violence or direct confrontation. Challenges presented as insurmountable by violence or direct confrontation kinda makes intellect and the indirect approach the only resort.

The Doctor in Doctor Who might as well follow this dictum from the Foundation series. After nearly fifty years of writers and a character with multiple personalities (not at once) because of regeneration, the Doctor and show has plenty of inconsistencies. Nonetheless, the Doctor generally uses violence as a last resort (even though the latest regeneration resorts to it more often with Daleks).

* * * START SPOILER ALERT - EXAMPLE OF DOCTOR'S LIMITS FOR VIOLENCE * * *

Even when comfortable with violence, The Doctor has his limits. His people, the Time Lords, sends him to destroy the Daleks at the time of their creation. They are calculated to exterminate the universe. The Doctor pauses, second guesses the course of action then chooses an alternate path because he didn't want to commit genocide. After all, who wants to commit that kind of irony.

* * * END SPOILER ALERT * * *

To me, violence and direct confrontation gets old and boring. As Irene Adler in the latest BBC show, Sherlock says a couple times, "Brainy is the new sexy."

I also like to think that real intelligence works as a deterrent to violence. Getting injured or killed with other options available just doesn't feel like a good idea. Intelligence in my mind often leads to coming up with options and possibilities. I like to think discouraging violence is a great idea because preventing injuries and killing seems like a great idea, too. And encouraging intelligence, in my mind, makes for a good way to deter violence, and I like how Isaac Asimov and Doctor Who promote intelligence and argue that violence pretty much promotes incompetence and lack of intelligence.


LINKS OF NOTE: Doctor Who, Isaac Asimov, Foundation series, The Galactic Empire series, I, Robot, Robot Dreams, regeneration, Daleks, the Time Lords, Irene Adler, Sherlock