Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition

This weekend I got together for the first time with my new DnD group in Canada. Not all the members could make it, but four of did. We didn't do an "official" game, as I'm new to the group, the aforementioned couple of people who couldn't attend, and this was my first foray into using the new 4th Edition (4ed) rules published this year by Wizards of the Coast. Until now, I'll I had done was read through the books, create a few characters, and do some mock battles on my own.

While talking about it afterward, I brought up and then Dave clarified it by saying that our knowledge of the 3.5 ruleset actually is a hinderance to learning 4ed. For example, during a combat one of the player characters (PCs) knock one of the antagonists down. It took us a few minutes of discussion and looking up the various rules about Prone and Standing up from Prone to determine what, if anything should happen when the villain tried to stand up. In 3.5, you see, standing up from prone was a move action that provoked an "attack of opportunity." I assumed, as the erstwhile game master (GM; alternately dungeon master or "DM") of the session, that would be true still. However, we could find no rule indicating such in 4ed. Someone coming in fresh would have just taking it on faith (i.e., "I didn't see anything that said anything bad happens doing this, so he stands up") while we were/I was stuck having to question it because our/my previous knowledge interfered (i.e., "This used to cause an attack to trigger, does it still in this edition?").

One nice aspect of the rule book is that, very early on, it tells you that the player's handbook (PHB) and dungeon master's guide (DMG) provide the general rules for the game environment. It then explains that any specific rule trumps the generic. So, for example, the rule book might say that you can only attack one time in a round. But your character may have a specific ability that says it can be allow you to attack twice in a round. The specific exploit you have overrules the general rule and yours wins. The rules are also primarily based on allowing rather than restricting. It actually has a section where it extols the value of a GM saying yes to the players, allowing them to try things even if they seem kooky or dangerous, assigning bonuses and penalties as seems appropriate, and letting the dice and the player's actions determining the outcome. As this is how I like to GM, seeing it in print is a welcome sight. The books also provide a decent amount of examples and sample numbers (straight numbers and suggested bonuses and penalties) to aid a GM in determining what those target numbers can be.

Creating characters is slightly easier in some regards, as you don't have to pick as many individual feats, skills, etc. for your character and many things have been "rolled up" for easier game use. However, although the magical "talents" (called exploits) that each class receives and uses regularly comprise a smaller list per level, the ramification of taking one over another is far-reaching. So you want to spend time looking for coordinated abilities and synergies with attributes, skills, and other powers.

For example, I chose to create a Warlord (one of the new classes introduced in 4ed). This class is a "Leader," meaning that his skills are primarily based around helping the party in various ways (healing, buffs, tactics, etc.). There are two paths that you can choose to follow; Inspirational (charisma based) or Tactical (intelligence based). Or, of course, you can choose not to pick one and instead just follow your gut. However, if you choose one of those paths, certain of the exploits that you receive have special bonuses as a synergy with the path. So it is in your best interest to take those exploits that provide a synergy as, even on a miss or failure, you might still get an advantage (for example, one skill provides that a Warlord can give his entire party a 1+INT modifer bonus to attack rolls against his target if he hits. If he has the appropriate synergy with Tactics, even on a miss, the party all receives a straight +1 to attack rolls vs the target. So the chance for a large bonus on a hit, or a small bonus on a miss. Without that synergy, on a miss you get nothing.)

One nice feature of 4ed is that they built "respecification" (or respec) right into leveling. In an overly simplistic explanation, at every level you can trade one exploit out for another if you find it isn't working as you hoped/wanted. There are limits and rules on this, but it is very helpful so that, if you take on exploit that you thought would be "killer" and you find you have hardly used it, you can trade out for another and hopefully find the right fit for you play style and the party you are in.

Much has been said in blogs and chat boards about the four character "Roles;" defender, controller, striker, and leader. Some argue that these make the game "more like a computer game." I find this a little humorous as these roles have always existed, all the way back to 1ed-- they just weren't defined and written into the rules. In 1st, 2nd/Advanced, 3.0/3.5, etc., the warrior classes defended the rest of the party from damage by being "meat shields." The rangers, thieves, monks, and others primarily used their high movement, lower defense, and larger damage quotient to strike at specific enemies while hiding behind the warriors to keep from being killed. Classes with high charisma and a variety of support abilities were leaders by buffing the party, healing, and helping out wherever needed. And those with good crowd-control abilities, group debuffing abilities were primarily used to control the villains against which the characters fought. And problems occurred when you were in a group where the, say, Cleric refused to cast healing spells (or didn't even memorize any!), the Fighter used light armor, no shield, and had really bad hit points, etc. I'm not saying that you, as a player, couldn't choose to go against the grain and still be successful in your chosen field. I am saying that, if you are the Cleric in a party with no other person with the ability to heal or provide buffs, and you choose never to use those spells/abilities, they better know it going in so they have a plan to work around this "hole" in the party's skill set.

Having these roles better defined allows you to more fully embrace what you character is supposed to be doing during (and out of!) combat and helps new people to the game better understand how the pieces fit together. In the party we made up yesterday, we had my Warlord (Leader), a Cleric (Leader), a Wizard (Controller), and a Ranger (Striker). So we went in knowing we did not have a true "defender" class to keep the attention of the enemies, but we had two with the ability to heal, the warlord was a decent, medium-armored fighter as his secondary skill set, and we worked around that absence by playing to the strengths of the party-- controlling the crowd to get easy damage, lots of healing to make sure everyone stays standing, tactical advantages and shifting, and high damage output to take out the enemies quickly.

The exploits are pretty fun. You don't get many to start (two "at-will" (use every round, all the time), one "encounter" (can only use once per encounter maximum), and one "daily" (can only use once per day or after a six-hour rest)), but they are designed to be used often and in concert with your other party member's exploits. And as I explained above, there are rules in place to allow you to switch them out whenever you level so you can fine-tune what you do and how you do it.

Creating enemy groups (mobs) to send against the party is a bit easier. As well, the monsters have suggested tactics and their exploits are designed to be used together as a party against the PCs. So, for example, if you have a party of 4 first level characters, you want to generally have 400 xp worth of enemies (or enemies and traps) to send against them. This may be, say, 8 goblin minions worth 25 xp each, it may be 6 goblin minions and one goblin warrior, it may be 4 goblin strikers, or you may find one creature worth 400 xp by itself that would be a challenge. As each mob has its own exploits and tactics, it is easy to scan them over and then have them fight effectively; minions want to gang up on one character and use their exploits to give each other advantages. A goblin warrior wants to strike out at the "toughest" PC and take him out as quickly as he can. A goblin skirmisher wants to stay back, use his distance weapons primarily and not engage in melee. Zombies have the tactic of wanting to gang up on one character so that one attacks and the other uses a grab exploit to keep the attacked PC from fleeing. Once a PC (or mob) is grabbed, additional rules come into effect which make it easier to strike the character, providing bonuses and penalties in various ways.

One of the biggest difference I felt after reading the books and that I can see from my limited first playing experience, is that 4ed only defines the basics of the world. They provide the foundation on which you play the game, and nothing more. I always felt in previous editions but 3.0/3.5 especially, that WotC defined everything so concretely that you basically knew everything you could do and couldn't do. If it wasn't in the rules, you couldn't do it. Even people who normally wouldn't go down this path had to become "rules lawyers" in order to get something slightly out of the ordinary done. And this included, to a large extent, even how you role-played your character. Classes, alignments, races, and such were pretty set in stone and could cause issues for the entire party or the players if people strayed from the rote path.

In 4ed, I feel a real "can-do" attitude in the rules. How you role play is primarily left up to you and the GM to decide; there are limited rules and a few suggestions, but nothing so concrete that you can't come up with a reasonable explanation for variation. It is all about allowing the players to try what they want and giving the GM all the power to allow it, learn from it, and keep the game fun and fresh.

The group plans to get together again soon and create some slightly higher level characters and do another impromptu session of just "in location X, fighting monster Y" to continue to see how the rules work and get our comfort level set with 4ed. And then we'll make an official game, role up real characters, and start an ongoing campaign or two. Can't wait!

Someone Who Gets It

With all the Favre news lately, reading this quote in Peter King's MMQB article put a smile on my face:

"I don't have hard feelings. The great thing about being a fan is you can have an opinion and you can express your opinion. I'm glad we live in a country where we're allowed to express our opinion and say what we feel is on our mind. A lot of people don't have that freedom and don't have that opportunity. I don't have any regrets. I don't have hard feelings toward anyone. It's a game. Sometimes we forget that, but it's a game. It's a game a lot of us played as kids and enjoyed so much that sometimes the business side of the game ruins that. I've always tried to keep that first and foremost.''
--Classy former Jet quarterback Chad Pennington, after being fired so the Jets could bring in Favre to be their quarterback this year

I like Pennington. He's a talented QB who happens to have injury issues. When he can stay on the field, and when he has a front line that can protect him, he is a quality QB who can get the job done. This quote also shows that he understand that what he does for a living is a blessing, and not one that many people get. Shows that his head is on straight, which seems to be true for far too few of those playing in the NFL (or any professional sport, for that matter). Here's hoping he can do some good for Miami.

Not THAT Great

So, the inevitable backlash has started already, and the movie has been out for barely a week. Heath Ledger's performance isn't "that great" I read on one response to an article about The Dark Knight. "Nothing special," said another poster. "Aaron Eckhart was better," said another.

I am not surprised by the backlash, but I am disappointed in it. Regardless of the fact that his cast mates were extolling his performance prior to his unfortunate death, most of those who are against Ledger's acting today seem to be in one of a couple of camps:

• He is only being considered for an acting award because he died.
• He shouldn't be considered for an acting award because of how he died (i.e., that the Academy would be somehow praising a "druggie").
• He simply didn't do a good job of acting.

Point one is a bad argument because many of the principles on The Dark Knight were praising his work prior to his death. Christopher Nolan is said that Ledger created something special with his performance and was hired because he was "fearless" (site). Michael Caine said many very positive things about Heath's performance (site) -- in October, well before the actor's death. A variety of places like Entertainment Weekly, E!, and others all had very positive hype about his performance prior to his death (I'm trying to find links, but it seems like of them are gone now--- or just buried in all the July 2008 articles and I'm not finding them now).

Point two is faulty reasoning. Ledger died from an accidental and lethal combination of drugs that were all legally prescribed to him (site). There are plenty of people who argued that it would be very difficult to OD on any one of those drugs, but taking even a few of them together could lead to issues-- which is, according to the official record, just what happened. To say that he was a "druggie" or to imply that Ledger was trying to commit suicide is simple distortion.

Point three is the only one that has any credible argument to it, simply because what is one person's idea of good acting may not be for another. Without having some sort of guideline for what makes an acting job superior means that all awards for acting are either popularity contests or subjective interpretations, or a combination thereof. I have my own assessment of what makes for good acting, but admit that it may be too stringent.

What I think makes Ledger's performance stand out in The Dark Knight is that he completely subsumes himself into the role he has created. He is virtually unrecognizable as Ledger, and you see nothing of his prior roles in this one. It is a unique character formed from the imagination of the actor. I also think that the consistency with which the actor plays the role is important-- the character as interpreted by the actor must remain consistent throughout the movie, suffering little to no instances of the actor shining through or the character overwhelming the scene in such a way as to be a distraction.

As an example, George Clooney was nominated for the movie Michael Clayton last year. While I happen to like Clooney, and I very much enjoyed Michael Clayton, I thought this nomination was a bad choice. Clooney did a damn fine job, but it was the same character with the same emotions as has appeared in a few of Clooney's last few dramas. Compare Syriana to Michael Clayton, and you will see little difference in the way Clooney portrays either character. You could also use nearly any one of Kevin Costner's roles as another example of this; he is always basically the same guy with the same range no matter if he's dancing with wolves, saving a post-apocalyptic world, or playing catch with his ghost dad. Another example is actually Jack Nicholson's 1989 turn as The Joker. His version was more clownish than psycho, but you never, ever forgot it was Jack Nicholson up there. The writer tailored lines to his specific cadence, makeup was used in a way that allowed as much of Jack's face to shine through as possible, and they generally played to all of his strengths from years of playing the crazy guy in movies. Nothing wrong with that, and it was a great counterpoint to Michael Keaton's portrayal of Bruce Wayne/Batman, but there was little to no "acting" going on in the role.

I believe, if you could find someone who somehow didn't know that Heath Ledger was The Joker and had them watch the movie without seeing the credits, there would be little chance of them guessing it was the guy from A Knight's Tale or Brokeback Mountain. There are no mannerisms or affectations of the actor's in the role he is playing. I did not see him break character or have an "up" (too over the top-- which is hard to judge on a character such as this, but worth the effort) or "down" (you can see the actor shining through, or the actor is not putting the same level of effort into the character) moments. He was this person.


In the end, though, I know that posting this argument is just tilting at windmills. Nearly every year there is some sort of nifty movie-related thing that comes along and, just as soon as the mainstream jumps on board, the people who originally made it popular jump off and start the backlash. We saw it with Juno last year, as a recent example.

Good Authors Gone Bad

I am reading a newer novel by one of my favorite horror authors, James Herbert. He always has nifty ideas for his horror and has been writing it for years. However, as with all authors but especially those who write horror, his ability to close out the story in a satisfying way is a little hit or miss. In his best works (Moon, Rats, Domain, The Fog, The Magic Cottage), he hits just the right tone and nails the ending in a way that is very rewarding for the reader. When he misses, he doesn't miss by much (The Dark, The Survivor, Fluke).

In this new novel, Nobody True, he not only misses, but misses badly. The idea is promising; a man is killed by a serial killer while having an out-of-body experience. Since his spirit wasn't inhabiting the body when it was killed, he is not a ghost but he also cannot pass on to whatever awaits him beyond this life. He has little to no effect on the world in general, but soon learns that he must find his killer and stop him somehow.

The execution of this plot is simply bad. Herbert reiterates things as though he is writing a children's novel. There are pages and pages of repetitious examples of just how the main character, James True, cannot effect the world around him, how he can move around, how horrible the serial killer's actions are. Last night, there were five pages in a row that described, re-described, and then rehashed again the problems True was having. I got the point during paragraph one and two, I certainly didn't need the remaining 4.75 pages of reiterations to make me understand that what he was doing was hard. I don't think even the most obstinately stupid reader was confused after the first page of this-- and most readers are not that dumb to begin with-- so the remaining 4 pages of rehashing this concept were pointless. And this is just one example; the entire book is full of this kind of thing.

It is reminding me of the last Harry Potter book. While, ultimately, I enjoyed the book and the conclusion to the series, the middle about 200 pages were all about how nothing happened. Ron, Hermione, and Harry had run away, were 'porting around the countryside, hiding, and nothing happened to them for days and weeks on end except that they got on each other's nerves. Most of the readers, including children, got the point after the first time. The second and third times Rowling reiterates, it sets up that the three are in for a long, hard time. But each time basically the same thing continues to be iterated, it gets boring and I lose interest. And I'm not the only one; many of those with whom I have discussed this book say the same thing. And all of us are surprised that they are filming this book in two movies, as we all assumed they would cut this section out into a montage with a "Time Passes" type of segue to the end.

I still enjoy James Herbert and I see that there are still a couple of books by him that I do not own. I look forward to getting them but I sure hope that they don't fall into the same category as Nobody True. Here's hoping for another Moon or Rats, instead!

The Dark Knight

This is a movie that would likely be up for awards... except that it is about a man who dresses up as a bat and fights crime. While Ledger, deservedly, may get a nod for his unreal depiction of The Joker, I doubt the film will do well in any other category come Oscar time. Which is a shame.

This is a dark, adult crime story about three people who all are trying to clean up crime in a crime-ridden city. One is breaking the law to save the city, while the other two are trying to uphold the law even against an anarchic psycho and a conglomerate of mobsters. In no particular order, one of the three is nearly killed, the other is severely injured and turns to evil, and the last allows himself to become the hunted in order to preserve the city's new-found hope and rejuvenation.

If that story were directed by Scorsese and starred DiCaprio, Crowe, and Washington, you would be talking about a sure Oscar nomination and probably multiple acting, writing, and direction nods. But, this story is "from a comic book" and therefore it may not get anything.

The acting is very strong. The all-star cast gives you everything you expect. Bale is once again strong as a mostly affable but also playboy-ish Bruce Wayne and also excels as the grim, gritty, angry Batman. Eckhart and Gyllenhaal are great additions to the strong supporting cast of Caine, Freeman, Murphy, and Oldman, who all do incredibly with their roles (as they did as well in the first). And then there is Ledger. Heath Ledger is incredible, creepy, sardonic, and more than a bit scary as the Joker; he plays him like Charlie Chaplin's Little Tramp if the Tramp wanted to light a fire and watch the whole world burn to ashes. Or the Little Tramp as played by Alex DeLarge. He is magnificent, and it makes it that much more tragic that this actor cannot be around for the next movie and take this character somewhere new.

The action is, again like the first film, predominantly real effects over CGI. This helps the believability of everything. There are a lot of explosions and fight scenes scattered throughout the film, plenty of guns and wackiness, and one scene of cross-dressing that will make you laugh.

The script is, as I mentioned at the opening, a very strong crime story interlaced with the theme of good versus evil. The Joker is, in essence, anarchy incarnate while Batman breaks rules for the "greater good." The Joker proves that it isn't "evil" we fear so much as the loss of normalcy and routine in our lives. Batman is struggling to bring normalcy and routine back to Gotham City by taking out the overabundant criminal element. Gordon (Oldman) and Dent (Eckhart) are trying to champion justice and the law to provide hope to the people of Gotham City.

This film is dark. It is a very strong PG-13, which I think should really be a an R. The violence is pretty extreme and, while it does not actually show much of the gore associated with the criminal acts depicted, I think any children in the 5-12 range would be disturbed by the incredibly dark story, the gore that is shown, and the emphasis on violence and anarchy depicted by The Joker. My nephew is a very sophisticated 10, and I would not take him to see this movie if he asked.

Most movies have three acts, generally corresponding to a beginning, middle, and end. This movie has four acts. Without trying to spoil anything, one character is turned to evil by the Joker and goes on a rampage, creating this fourth act. I felt this would have been better serviced being presented in full in a third film. However, the storyline for this is shoe-horned into the end of this film, and is primarily what pushed The Dark Knight to a full two and a half hours running length. Do not mistake me-- the story is good, well-acted, and makes sense to tell here, I just felt it could be even better as the beginning to, or entire film for, the next Batman movie.

Nestor Carbonell plays the Mayor of Gotham. While he does a fine job in the role, my wife and I were both a little put off by the intense amounts of eye liner he was wearing. It was noticeable and caused us to giggle a little at him after awhile

I felt the movie had a bit of an over-reliance on gadgets this time around. I realize that Batman is all about "the wonderful toys," but this one felt a slight bit forced. While the bat-sonar was an interesting idea, its use in the finale was a bit off-putting to me and took me a bit out of the story.

Like Iron Man earlier this summer, The Dark Knight is proving that if you a) keep close to the original source and give the "fanbois" what they want and b) get strong acting to go with a strong story you will get a movie that all audiences can enjoy, fanboi and uninitiated alike. I expect this movie to get at least $300 million this summer because of this combination.

I would rate this a solid A on my scholastic grading scale. The acting, general story, wonderful effects, and Ledger keep bring it to a solid A. The length, overly dark story elements, reliance on gadgets, and fourth act keep it from the A+ it should and could be. Anyone who likes a good crime drama, superhero story, or gangster movie will find this to their liking.

Questions

I few years back I developed a philosophy about people. I noticed in my own life and those around me that a specific question word tended to be the main reasoning behind many of our decisions. I started really paying attention to the people around me and found that I could see it happening on just about everyone.

Here, then, is my philosophy.

*** ----- ***

Premise
Each person has a Primary motivator driving his or her life which takes the form of one of the six question words. Secondary motivators are one to two of the remaining question words, and often switch due to stress or circumstances in the person's life. The remaining question words are tertiary; they are motivators only as circumstances dictate and always after answering the primary and/or secondary questions.

Primary Motivators
As we were likely all taught in grammar school, or from Sesame Street, the primary question words are Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How. Here is how they operate:

Who - People are your primary motivator. You prefer interactions with others over tasks, issues of time or space, or wondering how or why something is the way it is. Your first response to most situations or circumstances is to find out who is going to be there, who is doing what task, or who is involved.

When told there is a party Friday night, you are most likely to ask first, "Who is going to be there?"

What - Tasks, items, and the concrete, are your primary motivator. You prefer the concrete over personal interactions, issues of time or space, or wondering how or why something is the way it is. Your first response to most situations or circumstances is to find out what is going to be involved or what tasks need to be accomplished.

When told there is a party Friday night, you are most likely to ask first, "What will there be to do?" or "What's going on?"

Where - Location/space is your primary motivator. You prefer to think spatially rather than about the tasks, personal interactions, time, or how or why something is the way it is. Your first response to most situations or circumstances is to find out where you need to be (physical location) or where you are going (personally, professionally, etc.).

When told there is a party Friday night, you are most likely to ask first, "Where is it?"

When - Time is your primary motivator. You prefer to think more abstractly about the past and the future, oftentimes to the point of ignoring the present. You prefer to reminisce about the past or envision the future over the concrete, personal interactions, where something is, or how or why something is the way it is. Your first response to most situations or circumstances is to find out when you need to be there, when it is happening, or to think about how it fits into your schedule or about past events or circumstances that were similar.

Note: People motivated by "When" are not people who are concerned with today. People who "live for today" or who focus primarily on today and rarely worry about the past or future are always motivated by one of the other question words as their primary motivator.

When told there is a party on Friday night, you are most likely to ask first, "When is it?"

Why - The reasons behind events, behavior, or circumstances are your primary motivation. You prefer to think about the underlying reasons more so than about the concrete, time or space, personal interactions, or how something is the way it is. Your first response to most situations or circumstances is to delve deeper and figure out the reasons behind the events or situations. You like to know what makes things (and people, events, situations, etc.) "tick."

When told there is a party on Friday night, you are most likely to ask first, "Why now?" or "Why a party?" (Also, "What's the reason for the party?")

How - The states and conditions of things, or the underlying method to something or that someone uses, is what motivates you. You prefer to think about the conditions of the events, people, and circumstances in which you find yourself over the concrete, time or space, personal interactions, or why something is the way it is. Your first response to most situations or circumstances is to find out how it makes you and others feel, or what conditions are present and may affect those involved.

When told there is a party on Friday night, you are most likely to ask first, "How is that going to affect our plans for Saturday?" or "How are we going to get everything ready in time?"

Note: How is an uncommon motivator. It bears traits with both Who and Why and often can be confused with them. If you are tending to be more concerned with the person involved than how they are doing or feeling, you are more likely a Who than a How. If you are more concerned with the underlying reasons for something than the state of it, you are more likely a Why than a How. If the underlying method of doing something or the end-result of the activity or circumstance is most important to you, then you may be an How.

Concrete versus Abstract
Who, What, and Where tend to be a more "concrete" or left-brained, logical, or analytic approach to the world. Why and How tend to be a more "abstract" or right-brained, creative, or even haphazard approach to the world. When can be either abstract or concrete, and often is both.

However, do not be confused or think that more logical people will fall into one set of questions or another. While these are the tendencies I have observed to-date, there are enough people who are a logical Why or How or a creative Who, What, or Where that no hard and fast rule may be applied in this philosophy. For example, while you can make a reasonable assumption as to the creativity of someone you don't know well but who seems to qualify as a Why or a How, you should also not be surprised if they turn out to be logical and analytical.

Secondary Motivators
The question motivators do not exist in a vacuum. Each of them swirls around in each person and different stresses or circumstances will cause certain additional questions to motivate us at different times.

That being said, I find that most people have usually one question word, in addition to their primary motivator, that seems to pop up more often than the others. After they appease their primary motivator, this is the next most important concern they need to have addressed before they can continue or that allows them to continue on once started. This is the person's secondary motivator. Sometimes a person may find two secondary motivators, one which occurs mostly when they are at ease and without stress and another that takes over at times of stress. So far, I have found this to be somewhat unusual; most people have a single secondary motivator that crops up in most circumstances.

However, the definitions and examples given above remain valid for the secondary motivator.

For example, I am a Why primary. The most important thing for me to know is why I am doing something. Without that answered, I find it incredibly difficult to start or proceed with a task or situation. Once I have resolved that for myself or been provided it by the person giving me the task or circumstance, I can start going. If I'm unstressed and feeling good, I usually next ask What. I shift from the Abstract of the "Why" behind something into the Concrete of "What" I am doing. However, in times of stress, I shift to a "How" motivation. Once I know why I'm doing the task or circumstance, I need to stay in the more abstract and find out what states or conditions apply, what methods I am going to use or ignore, and what my end result should be. This tends to make me good at working in structured environments with high-stress issues, but poor in working in unstructured environments without due dates or with poor procedures.

Gotchas!
Be careful of some of what I like to call "gotcha" questions.

If you ask, "What time is the party?", you might think you are asking a What question. But it is obvious that the time is the motivating factor. The motivating factor behind the question is the primary concern here, and the English language has some fairly complex ways of asking questions that can make it look like we're asking one thing, when we're really asking another.

How and Why questions can often start with a the word "what," for instance. "What can I do to solve this problem?" is a complex question that has many possible motivators to it: are you really asking about the task you can do to solve the problem (What motivator), are you asking about the underlying reasons behind the problem and trying to delve more deeply into it (Why motivator), or are you truly concerned with the method used and underlying conditions that apply to the problem (How motivator)?

My best advice is to "go with your gut." Even if you try to out-think yourself by asking yourself overly complex questions, your gut or instincts usually know what you're really asking. Try simplifying. Whenever an overly complex question comes along, break it down and search for the motivator that appeals the most to you on an instinctual level; go with your first instinct or first impression, it is much more likely to be right.

So, if you have the "what can I do to solve this problem?" question, you should break it down or think about your motivation: is your immediate reaction an image in your head of you doing something? Then you are probably motivated by what. Is your immediate first reaction question why are you doing it? Then you are probably motivated by why. Is your immediate first instinct a quick list of the methods you are going to use? Then you are likely how motivated.

Simplifying the complex and going with your initial first impression are both your friends. Use them!

Putting it to Use
So, how does this philosophy work in the real world? How does knowing this information help you to lead a better and/or more productive life?

If you know what motivates you, you can eliminate stresses in your life by seeking out the information you need to help you move forward. If you can make reasonably accurate guesses about the motivations in those around you, you can help ease stress in your life by providing them what they need (which eases stress in their life).

Getting What You Need
First, determine which is your primary motivator. Think back to times at work. When your boss came in and yelled at you about that project, what were your first thoughts:

• "Is he blaming me?"
• "What is he talking about?"
• "Where does he get off acting like this?"
• "When did this happen?" or "When can I explain what happened?"
  
• "Why is he so angry?"
• "How can I solve this problem?"

Also, what were some of the first questions or statements that you made to him when it was your chance to speak?

• "Who can we put on this project?"
• "What can I do to make it right?"
• "Where can I get the right information/people/etc.?"
• "When is it due?" or "When do you need it by?"
• "What has changed with the project/with the client/etc. to cause this reaction?"
• "How can I fix this for you?"

Simplify the situation and pay close attention to your first instinctual reaction to it. Then think of another, maybe less stressful circumstance and ask yourself what were your first thoughts about it at the time. Remember a time when you were stuck and couldn't proceed with a task or project; which question did you keep asking yourself until, once you got the answer, you finally could proceed.

Once you have a pretty good idea into which category you fit, you can start to seek out that information as projects and circumstances occur.

For example, the next time you are in a meeting at work and given a project to do, you could ask specific questions immediately (as appropriate) to gather the information you need to start the project with less stress:

• "Who wants to help me with this?" "Who can I get approvals from?" "Who can I use as a resource?"
• "What tasks are appropriate to use to accomplish this project?"
• "Where can I get the data/information to assist me with the project?"
• "When is it due?" "Are there any intermediary due dates?" "What time/day do you need it by?"
• "Why are we doing this?" "Why does the client need this change?" "Are there any underlying factors that I should know about?"
• "What steps should we take to finish this project?" "Are there any hidden circumstances or issues I should be made aware of before I start?" "How would you like me to proceed with this-- do you have anything you specifically want me not to forget to do?"

Giving What They Need
You can use the same methods to determine what others need. When your boss comes in to talk with you, is he primarily asking about your family and friends? Is he trying to make a personal connection with you? Is he always staying focused on the task at hand? Is he asking you why or how you are doing something, and what you are doing seems inconsequential? These and other observations can help point you toward what motivates those around you.

Once you have a firm grasp of what motivates a person in your life, try providing it.

For example, let's say you have determined your manager is a Who. Every time you speak with him, he is asking about the people in your life. He is concerned with who is going to meetings and who is going to lunch. So, the next time you need help with a project, you shift out of your motivating factor and start the interaction by asking about his family or friends. You ask about his most recent vacation, or simply ask "How are you?" and actually listen to the reply and ask questions about the answer. Once those pleasantries are done, and he has likely asked you about something in your life, you can shift back to the task at hand and ask the question you need answered. You may find he is better able to focus on the task, more willing to help or provide feedback, and is more positive about your interaction.

On the other side of things, when the same boss comes to yell at you about something, it is imperative you pay attention to the questions he starts with or continually comes back to; if it is a who related line of questioning, you likely need to provide him with a who (i.e., "I worked on that project," or "I was part of a group with X, Y, and Z and we came up with that slogan," etc.). I'm obviously not suggesting you should be a tattle-tale, or commit political suicide by saying things at work you shouldn't, breaking confidences, or anything of the sort-- but a person with a who motivator is not going to let something go until he gets a who response. So think about how you can provide him with that interpersonal communication he wants in addition to the motivator questions that will appease your needs.

For example, maybe you allay your need first, by asking him what is wrong or how you can help, or why the situation has come to a head (whatever you have decided is your motivating question). Then, as he answers, you have time to think of a who response to help his needs and allay his issues. "You know what? Let me talk with Sally and Joe about this and we'll figure out a solution for you and get back to you. Before I do that, though, weren't you on vacation recently? Did I hear that it was a fishing trip?" This gives him three defined "Who" people, you, Sally, and Joe, and it offers him a chance at the interpersonal he needs as a Who person. He will likely leave your desk happy knowing who is working on the issue and be calmer because he talked about his vacation trip to Cape Cod.

Conclusion
By using the knowledge of your own motivators and looking for the motivators in others, you can reduce stresses in your life by seeking that information which you need and providing the information that others need in a timely and effective manner.

Not Easy

I knew things wouldn't be easy when I moved here, but some things I certainly didn't expect to be the issues they have become. Take my truck, for example. I knew I had to pay to export it from USA and import it into Canada. I knew I had to get it inspected and approved for use in Canada. But I didn't expect it would be such a hassle.

The Registrar of Imported Vehicles (RIV) sent me an email that they couldn't determine if my vehicle had any recalls against it. Before they would release my inspection form, I have to go through Saturn to get a form that says either there are recalls and I've taken care of them or that there are no recalls. Once they receive that, they will release form and allow me to get it inspected.

Now, this letter/information is not something that you can just get from your local Saturn. You have to go through Saturn Corporation to get it. First I contacted a Saturn rep via the My Saturn website and spoke via their direct IM with an actual person. She told me they could no longer provide that information via that service, so she provided me with a phone number to call Vintage Vehicle Services.

I called the number and the nice woman there told me that she could not help me, but that Vintage Vehicle Services could help me, and provided a number. I called that number and the nice lady there also informed me that Vintage Vehicle Services could help me and she had not just one, but two numbers for me to call. One of those connected me to a nice lady who, in fact, works for Vintage Vehicle Services. I described my circumstances and she knew exactly what I needed. She also informed me that there would be a "small fee" for the service, as they no longer provide them for free. I gave her my wife's fax number at work and waited to hear from my wife.

M informed me she had received the form and that the charge was $260! Small fee my ass.

But, until I can get this cleared through RIV I cannot get my car inspected, and I only have 45 days in which to get that done, so I have to pay it. So, I have the form filled out. M will take it to work tomorrow and get that faxed off and yet another charge will be added to the overall cost of moving.

As my mother would say, "This too shall pass."

Easing On Down the Road

A big thank you to my mother, who drove all the way from California to New Brunswick to help her son out and get him moved to where he wanted to be. She put up with my wild mood swings, incredible stress levels, and a lot more during the drive. But we made it in one piece and I couldn't have done it without her.

The moving in process is taking time. I think M would like it to happen much faster, just because she hates all this change and randomness that is occurring with my move, but intellectually she also knows this will all take time to sort out.

I've started calling and making arrangements for various issues; I was sort of thinking that all the paperwork was involved in getting here and that I wouldn't have to do much more once I arrived. Not so. I have to get a SIN, my PR (green) card, my vehicle inspected and registered, I may have to get a new drivers license, we have to work on Medicare, and, I'm sure, a host of other items I'm not even remembering at this moment.

And the little things-- like a BPass for the bridge so I don't have to physically pay $.50 each time I cross it. And keys to her vehicle for me and keys to my vehicle for her. And finding locations for all of my stuff. Moving her stuff around or possibly even getting rid of some of it to make more room. It is remarkable how much my 5x8 trailer of stuff is changing the house and the immediate environment!

But, we are trying hard to take things one step and one day at a time. We aren't stressing over doing too much at a time. Instead, we are emptying a box here and there, deciding what we will do next, writing lists of projects and plans, and moving forward.

On tap for this next week: M will get my truck serviced (got all 3,000+ miles needed for next service in one 1-week trip!) including having them check/replace the transmission fluid and look at the axle and ball-joint and re-grease as needed, she'll stop on Tuesday and get me a BPass for the truck on her account. In the near future: a new local bank account for me, getting a few more boxes unpacked, and maybe buying some shelving for all of our books, DVDs, CDs, etc.

And so our married (and together!) life begins anew.

Going, Going...

The days have been a blur.

I have been working like a fiend to pack, plan, prepare, and prioritize my trip from here to Saint John, NB, Canada. All the time I am also dealing with literally a score of people wanting to know what is going on, exterior forces that have their own agendas (mostly business people who don't seem to realize that I need them NOW), and juggling my emotions.

As of today, the apartment is pretty far along the path toward being packed up. I still have a lot of work to do tomorrow, of course, but it is far along. The hitch is on the truck (even if the ball was installed upside down on the ball assembly), damn near every scrap of food is gone from the apartment, the closets are empty, and all of the furniture except the PC desk is gone. Some of these became adventures that made the steps trials in their own right.

I picked up a TomTom GPS for the trip, to help us get where we're going safely, and for my first few months (and maybe longer!) in Canada, as I won't know my way around very well. TomTom has maps of most of North America, so it will work in both places. And I can upgrade the maps if needed.

Tomorrow is going to be pressure-packed, as we are determined to leave on Tuesday, June 10th. I need to get my car serviced, finish packing, call a few places, mail an important document, and get that trailer held for Tuesday. Oh, and update the front office of my apartment of the new date I will be leaving.

The first step of the journey may be a little one; depending on how long everything takes tomorrow and Tuesday morning, we may only make it to Desert Hot Springs before stopping and resting. We may make it to Chris' house in Scottsdale, AZ. We may make it farther. But Tuesday is the day we're scheduled as long as I can get an appropriate-sized trailer and everything else is done.

I've spent days getting all of my personal items updated with appropriate addresses, tentative dates of leaving, etc. And then there was Caly; I won't go into that decision any further, but I am missing her.

So, I'm somewhere around 36 hours from possibly leaving the only area I've ever known for the great adventure that is married life, Canada, and the east coast of the continent. To weather and ice hockey. And, of course, living with my wife.

Some time tomorrow, my PC will go dark for around a week. During this time, I will not have any access to email, my blog, Facebook, or any other PC-related communication. We will keep M informed of our stages and she will keep you abreast of our status. Wish us luck that the trip will go smoothly and uneventfully.

R.I.P.

I talk a good talk. I say, "I will only spend so much on my pet. I can always get another pet."

But I don't walk the walk.

Living in the desert, pet death is a fact of life. Our family has had more than one pet run over by a car, be poisoned by haters or insects/arachnids, run afoul of the wild dogs and coyotes that roam freely, or just go missing one day and you don't know what became of them.

I thought I had something lined up for Caly, tentatively, until she was diagnosed with diabetes. It was always a tough sell to any person or organization to take an obese cat with a history of UTIs and a little, tiny bit of "bad behavior" thrown in. But the diabetes was the end. No one wants a 10 year old cat, no matter how cute, that may pee on things, and has to be given injections twice a day, monitored, and given a special, more expensive diet. That was a killer. And I simply felt that moving Caly, at her age and with her conditions, to a brand new environment in Canada, with all the issues of getting her medically cleared to cross the border, was not a viable option. I considered it many times over the last few months and weeks in particular, but I kept coming back to that.

Over the last week I have been trying harder to find someplace with a no-kill rule to take her. But none would, because of her age and the preexisting conditions. So today I called back my vet. Jenny, at the front desk, did her best to be kind but basically said the vet wouldn't do it unless I checked some last minute other locations. I tried them-- same deal. Not with diabetes. None of the pounds would take her without the threat of euthanasia due to her age and the existing condition.

I have called almost 10 different places, places on top of the others I have tried over the last week and even earlier, trying to find someone I could give my cat to who would just take care of her until she was adopted or died on her own.

When all that failed, the vet reluctantly agreed to perform the euthanasia.

I talk a good talk. Saying, "It's just a pet. I can go down to nearly any shelter or, hell, drug store, and pick up a replacement today!"

But I don't walk the walk.

The very short drive to the vet was long. I was fine up until the woman at the reception desk to whom I had not yet spoken (the other two were on the phones when I arrived), asked, "So who is this and what can we do for you today?" She, of course, said it in a very cheery tone.

"Calypso and ...," I nearly lost it right there, "and ... euthanasia." I'm very happy her face turned dour and sad. I was stroking Caly through the opening to the cat carrier, paying special attention to her eyes and the spot by her ears she likes so much. Only cat I have known that loved being rubbed right on her closed eyes. By the time the receptionist very quietly gave me a copy of the euthanasia form and I paid the bill, I could barely speak. In a voice heavy with sadness and with a face that was on the verge of tears, and I'm sure was white as a sheet, I said -- I did not ask -- "It will be quick and painless."

"Yes," she replied quietly.

"Then I have to leave now," I said before I lost it altogether. I walked somberly to my car and sat there for a few minutes.

Oh, I talk a great talk, but I can't walk the walk.

I am sad beyond measure that, as of right now, this minute, the cat who has been my constant companion for the last 10 years is not here to curl up in my lap and purr. And I wish I had learned how to properly cry so I could get this OUT already and be "done with it." I'm sitting here with a red face, the urge to cry, tears in my eyes and more waiting, and a slightly runny nose, and I simply cannot let go enough to let it out. My chest hurts from the emotion and simply don't know how to make it release or come out or go anywhere.

And I'm not allowing comments on this post because I'm afraid someone will say all the right things ("It was the best decision," "It had to be done," etc.) or the wrong things ("Did you think to try X," "Well maybe you could have done Y," etc.) and I simply don't want to hear it, okay? Because, frankly, when all is said and done, this was my decision and, like all decisions I make, it was made with the best available information, for the best possible reasons, and included what I thought was best for all parties involved, including my beloved cat. I made what I thought was every reasonable attempt to find another answer to this situation and it came up empty every time.

And I'm simply going to have to live with that, accept it, and move on, no matter how hard that is.

Because I talk a really great talk, but I simply cannot walk the fucking walk.

The Eyes Have It

I just found my baby book. One thing I found very interesting is that, according to my mom's notes, I was born with bright blue eyes which then turned "pure brown!" (with an underline on brown).

This surprises me as my eyes are now very definitely hazel-- mostly greenish, with brown mostly around the very outside, and some gold flecking throughout. They can become more brown with certain emotions and more green with certain emotions, but there is not a trace of blue at all and the brown is definitely not something to be underlined and exclaimed over!

If the eyes truly are the window to our souls, what does it mean when the window changes so dramatically? What does it mean when the window continues to change?

The First Hitch in the Plan

I ordered a hitch for my SUV through UHaul, which at the time had a great price. However, it turns out that it was back ordered and wouldn't ship, I find out today (6/2) until next week... which is fine except my plans are revolving around leaving around the 9th or 10th.

I went back to another site that had them and they are having a $10 off sale for today only, they have lowered the list price for the exact same hitch to under what UHaul was selling it for, and they claim they are in stock. So I pulled the trigger on that purchase, and got the entire thing, plus the ball assembly, for about $30-40 less than the same order from UHaul. If it ships today or tomorrow, I should have it by the end of this week.

So this means I may not get out quite on the original schedule. However, mom has cleared her calendar of the issues she had so we both have no plans for the foreseeable future. If we don't get out right away, who cares?

I have canceled all of my utilities for the 19th, which is the day the apartment complex expects me to be out by. So even if I have to stay longer, I am fine. I am continuing to cancel services and provide new addresses or updates today so I can rest assured that everything will start showing up in Canada or at the PO box in Maine and I can continue to receive what is mine.

After yesterday, I am also taking it a bit easy. I'm very sore in all the wrong places today, even after a hot bath last night. This old body just isn't as good at moving, lifting, and carrying heavy objects as it once was. I'm getting old!

Pomegranate Lemonade

When I was visiting Costco a while back, one of the trial people had a refreshing new product from Minute Maid: pomegranate lemonade. I like pomegranates (one of the few people I know who does) and I enjoy both pink and yellow lemonade. I also like cherry and raspberry lemonade, on occasion. So I gave it a try.

I was surprised by just how refreshing and thirst-quenching it was.

My local Albertsons got it in recently and I purchased one. I drank the entire 1 quart jug over the rest of that day, I was enjoying it so much.

The flavor is at first sweet and then a little tart. It definitely tastes like you are drinking lemonade, yet you also have the sweet fruitiness of the pomegranate. Neither flavor is overwhelming, and both seem to be competing for your attention as the liquid flows across your tongue. And, most importantly, when I finish drinking it, I don't feel thirsty any more (something that has never happened drinking water and rarely happens with other beverages to a satisfying degree).

I had mentioned it to mom, so we went to Albertsons to get some. I noticed as we walked past the ice cream section that they were still completely out of the large-size of Haagen Daaz Chocolate (they haven't had it any of the last four times I've been there-- you'd think the delivery person would get smart and say, "no one is eating these other flavors, but the chocolate is always sold out. Maybe I'll bring more chocolate." But you'd be wrong.). When we got to the rear of the store and checked the cold drinks section, they had plenty of the same flavor Tea, but I hate tea.

We found something else for mom, and then we drove to the Ralphs nearby. They not only had it, but it was nearly $2 cheaper per bottle. So I got two, and mom sampled some of one (the sugar content is just a bit too high for her to drink a full glass with her diabetes). She was impressed with the flavor and seemed disappointed she couldn't have more. I proceeded to have two glasses right then, and am now having another glass some hours later.

I think this beverage may become my drink of choice for the long trip across the country upcoming. Certainly seems a lot better for me than sodas would be.

Packing Up

Although it was her birthday, a fact that my very preoccupied mind had all but forgotten until my wife reminded me a few days ago, my mother came down today prepared to work. She arrived around 8:30 am and we immediately went to breakfast at Denny's (I prefer IHOP, but the one across the street sucks donkey kidneys and the other closest one is down by work, so I don't go to that one too often from here). We were back and ready to start work by about 9:30.

We started in the garage, just because we were already downstairs. First we got the not-a La-Z-Boy recliner that has been in the garage for about 5 years and wheeled it over to the garbage bins and threw it out. Next I confirmed the vast majority of the boxes were empty and awaiting use. Three boxes were left with stuff that I need to go through. There are some other items that need to be gone through, but those should be faster/easier. We put the really old, solid metal air compressor into her truck (heavy sucker!) which I had completely forgotten dad had given to me a few years ago. I would have liked to take it with me, but what do I really need with a 30 year old compressor?

We next got the armoire cleaned out (I had the majority of clothes out of it already, but the top had effects on it and there were some remaining clothes items inside) and we hauled that down to beside the trash bins. Mom convinced me not to throw it away and she was right; not long after putting it down there it mysteriously disappeared into someone else's home.

Next we cleaned off the remaining couple of things and got the big bookcase downstairs and next to the trash bins. It took much longer, but that, too, has mysteriously disappeared from the area.

The next item was the white bookcase in the front room. I had cleared the bottom two shelves but had not worked on the top or first shelf. So we cleared that junk off and then I worked on getting the case unstuck from the carpeting. Around this was one of the areas that Caly had "chosen" and the urine had, I was unaware until today, glued it to the carpeting. Very disgusting, but we got that down and we threw it away immediately. While someone may be able to use it, I couldn't in good conscience leave it out knowing that someone may have allergies or a sensitive nose and would take it and have issues.

The last item was the small love seat/couch. We took it down and a gentleman happened to be walking by who offered to assist us. He and I got it thrown into a different bin. This couch is covered in cat hair, was 10-years old when I got it from a friend at work, and had a bunch of cat scratching on it; if the dump-scroungers want to salvage it, so be it, but I wasn't going to leave it out for someone here.

We then finished her time here by tidying up here and there, making room, and cleaning some of the more egregious spots on the floor.

With the room we gained, I now have an area one inch smaller than the internal dimensions of the trailer I want to use marked in my bedroom. Well, actually the one I want to use and the one I think I will have to use. I am moving my boxes and bins into that area trying to determine realistically what size trailer I need, knowing that I am also going to use the back of my SUV to haul my more important items (my important documents, electronics, PC, etc.).

The bedroom is now mostly disabled. I have a few more books and one more bookshelf unit to get rid of. The closet in there is mostly done, but still has some stuff I have to get packed or ready for Goodwill.

My front room is looking a lot better, now that the couch and bookcase is gone. I do not plan to take my PC desk with me, nor the entertainment center. I now feel fairly confident that if I put them down by the bins, someone may find them useful.

The only known casualty along the way seems to be my brand new role of masking tape. It was on the white bookcase, I moved it off and, I thought, onto the bar. However, it is nowhere to be found. I've gone through all the new boxes we created, looked over everything we did, retraced my steps for the day as it relates to the apartment, and that role of masking tape is gone. Weird.

Another Reason to Hate Cell Phones

I went to bed at about 10:30 Saturday night. Wasn't particularly tired yet, but could tell I was heading that way. Figured I watch a couple of cartoons or comedies and then go to sleep. Go through one, and fell asleep sometime shortly after 11.

At 2 am my cell phone decided to turn itself on and start beeping at me to tell me that it was running out of power. I heard it three times before my soggy brain was able to discern what it was and where it was coming from.

I find it very strange that the phone wastes battery power to tell me it is nearly out of power.

Unfortunately, I was unable to successfully get any more sleep after this. I tried for well over an hour, and then got up and did some things. Even chatted with my wife once she logged in at work. I then went back to the bedroom and tried for another hour to sleep, but failed.

I managed to nap a little, off an on, during the Memorial Day NCIS marathon on USA, but never slept for more than 1 episode. I have a splitting headache and an upset stomach. I have a sore throat. I think all of the sickly feelings are just from not getting my needed rest.

Hopefully I'll get better rest tonight and be up for the trip to Goodwill I plan to make. I also have some phone calls and some other errands to run.

"Just Trying to Make an Honest Living"

I have heard a number of people say that illegal immigrants are "Just trying to make an honest living." If that is true, why are they here illegally? There is nothing honest in breaking the laws of this country in order to make that "honest living."

I have absolutely no problem with nearly any number of legal immigrants of any race, color, or creed coming to America. But I do have a problem with those who come here illegally. For me, I see it as a simple legal issue: if you break the law, you go to jail (or the equivalent, depending on the law). In this case, you get deported. If you are breaking the law, you shouldn't receive items and services that are intended for law-abiding individuals.

Why does my respecting the laws of this country make me racist in the eyes of those who support those who do not respect the laws of this country? I am respecting the laws of Canada in my attempt to get into, stay in, and get work in that country. Would the people who say I'm racist for my law-abiding ways here fight to protect my rights in Canada if I moved there illegally, took a job from a qualified Canadian at a lower wage, and took advantage of their medical services? Somehow I doubt it.

I will grant you that in my area the predominant number of illegals are Mexican. There is a small minority of Asians who come here illegally, and most other races and ethnicities are such a small percentage as to be negligible. However, I'm for all people of all races and ethnicities coming here legally, following the laws, and getting the advantages that those laws afford them. I continue to not be in favor of anyone breaking the law in general and this country's immigration laws specifically. I am not anti-Mexican. Nor am I anti-any other race or ethnicity.

I am, however, against anyone breaking the law. And, for me, this illegal immigration issue is simply that; people breaking the law. I do not consider the jobs that supposedly wouldn't or couldn't be done if those illegals weren't here. I don't consider how much we are allegedly spending on health care for illegals. I don't care about any of the other arguments, for and against, that many people make about this issue. Currently, how they are here is illegal, and I am against people breaking the law. Simple, straightforward, and with no deeper meaning.

Comic Strip

I wonder how Jim Davis is spying on me and Liz. It is a little frightening. At least he is changing our appearance in his comic strip. I mean, anyone who knows us knows this is pretty much how all of our conversations about clothes go. ;-)

Who Would You Be?

A few weeks ago my wife asked me out of the blue during a phone conversation which movie character I'd most like to be. She was, I think it is safe to say, surprised and amused by the reaction she got.

Because I didn't know.

For all the movies I have watched, and I have watched many movies, I do not have a character I want to be. For the next few days after that, I continued to regale her with possible characters I might want to be, but I never really nailed myself down to one in the end. I tried, but just couldn't do it.

I think she was expecting me to answer Superman. It is a true answer, and one I might give on a given day, but that is not a character I feel I could be. You see, when she asked that question, a whole host of qualifying questions and caveats immediately leaped to mind:

• Can I truly be the character in question?
• Should I answer who I think I can be or who I want to be?
• Is this my only choice, or can I say more than one?
• Do I only consider the character as a particular actor? If so, do I really want to be that actor and the character is superfluous?
• Am I just the actor in the movie, pretending to be the character for others to watch and get something out of the watching, or am I truly becoming that character?

For example, take Superman. As a character, he is interesting: only one of his kind left (not really, but was originally), a host of super powers, incredible moral fiber and the ability to act on that morality. Matter of fact, I would argue that the term "Man of Steel" does not refer to his body's immunity to damage but rather to his great moral compass and his ability to act on it whether or not it is the popular choice or legally correct. Do I sometimes wish I had that character's abilities? Of course. But could I, the person I am now, be Superman? I don't know. So I shy away.

I briefly considered Atticus Finch. However, while he suffers from some of the same issues as does Superman, he also has the problem in that there is only one person who is Atticus Finch in my mind: Gregory Peck. And, I am no Gregory Peck. To me, he is one of the epitomes of the acting profession and he just is Atticus Finch. I will always compare anyone who attempts to play the role to Peck and, frankly, they will fall short. This character has many traits and qualities that I aspire to, but I do not think I measure up well at this point in my life.

Then I thought of Chuck Nolan, the character Tom Hanks played in Cast Away. That is one great character; he is a survivor, overcomes his fears, and learns to take what life gives him and "who knows what the tide will bring". But this character led me to Saving Private Ryan and Captain Miller. And then to a few other characters that Tom Hanks played. Which leads me to think I wouldn't mind being Tom Hanks and that the characters are almost negligible.

Next are some other obvious ones that I think many people would pick: Captain Jack Sparrow, for his freedom and guile; Batman, for his ingenuity and resourcefulness (and his "wonderful toys"); John McClane, for his ability to overcome all odds, humor, and perspective; James Bond, for the gadgets, the cool, and the license to kill; Luke Skywalker, for the force or Han Solo for the cool; Indiana Jones, for his tenacity, intelligence, and morality. There are a whole host of characters that have good pieces, but could I be those characters? I just don't know. Each has an aspect or two that I respect, enjoy, or desire, but not a whole.

One that I thought I might like to be be is Lt. Exley, from L.A. Confidential. He's smart, egotistical, cunning-- all things I consider myself. He has a moral streak that is marred but strong. A strong possibility. Roux is another character I think I might like. A small character played by Johnny Depp in Chocolat, Roux is very comfortable with himself, assured, and knows what he wants. All attractive traits.

What about some of the flawed characters? Could I be Donnie Darko? V? Porter? Ripley? Leonard? Phantom of the Opera? Dracula? Lawrence of Arabia? Dirty Harry? While each character speaks to me in many ways, I just don't think I could be a flawed character like that. It doesn't speak to me, even if some of those characters are in some of my favorite movies.

So I continue my search. As you can see, I'm giving this question a great deal of thought and consideration.

I'm leaning toward a few right now:

• Bruce Banner/The Hulk: This character has always appealed to me. I like the dichotomy, as I am filled with them. I like that he is both a very smart man and powerful enough to affect changes. He doesn't have to take shit from anyone, which appeals to me on many levels, but is also kind, considerate, and able to create solutions. He has the two extremes of humanity in one package.
• Captain Jean Luc Picard: I personally find Picard the best of all Star Trek captains. He is smart, engaging, wise, a good warrior but a better commander, has a strong moral compass, but is flawed as well. I am thinking I may also be leaning this way because of Patrick Stewart, who is such a good actor, and because this character is bald-- as the sexiest of men always are. ;-)
• Dr. Archibald "Moonlight" Graham: This character has always appealed to me. He never really got his shot at baseball greatness and missed. So he became a doctor and helped his hometown for most of his life. Then, when given another shot at his baseball dream through Ray Kinsella, he takes it, only to be denied again when Ray's daughter is choking on a hot dog. He is so comfortable with himself and his decisions that he doesn't hesitate to stop being young and a baseball player to become old and a doctor. It is rare to find a character so at peace with himself and so sure of his place in the world.
• George Malley: I really like this character, even though he is played by John Revolting. He becomes smart, at peace, and accepting of his fate.

My current choices are a multiple personality disorder victim, a heroic captain, a bit character in a sports movie, and a man doomed to die from a brain tumor-- but is insanely smart (and somewhat telekinetic) until then. I wonder if those choices say anything more about who I think I am? Of course, the fact that this damn question has stumped me for weeks now says a lot already.

In the end, I guess the characters are part and parcel to the story for me. I get value and entertainment from the entire ensemble of the movie (direction, acting, story, editing, sound, etc.), so I find it difficult to put myself into the role or take myself out of the equation and become the character. I continue my search.

So, who would you choose?

Thunder

It has rained most of the day. Late morning it got particularly hard and then it tapered off around noon or early afternoon.

And it was then that the thunder started.

Normally, thunder is something that rumbles for a few seconds and fades, or cracks loud and grumbles slightly. However, this afternoon, I could hear the thunder rumbling from the north, heard it come directly overhead and it last over ten seconds (I had time to actually check the clock and count) and was low, loud, and close enough to shake the floor of my apartment. It then rolled its way further south, and lasted for another about 10 seconds doing that.

And then it did it again, about half an hour after that. And again, another hour or so after that. Each of these was not nearly as long as that first, long, rolling, loud one, but each was noticeable and distinctly longer than expected.

It was very unusual, and a little frightening. Thunder like that gives rise to the belief in God's or gods anger; Zeus quarreling with his brothers and sisters, Thor giving chase to the Midgard Serpent, Quetzalquotl taking his revenge. This was not, however, the most frightening thunder I have ever experienced. That is reserved for an evening in my college days when Chris and I were at the Stater Bros on Kendall and a bolt of lightning and a crack of thunder hit the same parking lot. We could feel the electricity in the air, feel the concussive force of the energy as it knocked us back a step and set off all the car alarms in the area, and were momentarily deafened by the huge crack of thunder. It was so strong that some carts left in the lot started rolling on their own.

It has remained overcast and a little damp, but for the last two hours or so it has not been rainy or thundering in this area.

Death (and Leaving) is the Thing

NOTE: Spoilers for season finales involved.

So, I'm watching the series finales of many of my favorite shows. And I start seeing the same themes repeated:

1. CSI - Warwick is shot in the head at the end of the show.
2. CSI: Miami - New medical examiner gets all of three lines and then is shot in the head. The episode ends with Horatio Caine being shot and possibly killed. And Ryan seems to be involved (or maybe even the shooter). Just a few episodes earlier the original medical examiner leaves.
   
3. NCIS - Jenny Shepard is killed in a fire fight in a diner and Gibbs' team is separate and sent all throughout the military and he is handed three new files for his new team.
4. Bones - The big mystery of who Gormagon is is totally wasted on a horribly written episode that sees Zack turn out to be the Apprentice and some no-name guy who is easily taken out being the Master. Zack is sent to a mental hospital.
5. House - Amber is killed and House and Wilson's friendship may be over in another horribly written show (well, the first half was awful and the second half was better -- and what happened to the strong characterization? Everyone, but especially 13, seemed to be acting totally out of the character set in previous episodes).
6. Numb3rs - Megan leaves and Charlie loses his clearance and the ability to work on most FBI projects.
7. Criminal Minds - Each member of the current team gets into an identical SUV and then we cut to an SUV blowing up. The cliffhanger is that we don't know which team member(s) was killed.
8. Smallville - This soap opera has the apparent death or dismissal of most of its main characters (Kara is in phantom zone, Brainiac was apparently killed, Lana "went away" (yay, finally), Chloe is arrested as a terrorist, and Lex and Clark have the entire fortress of solitude fall on their heads). I guess they will change the name to "Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen"?

Out of the majority of shows I watch, nearly all of them ended with mysterious deaths and/or dismissals of people. Come on, TV executives and writers, be more creative! One of the things I like the most about the new shows Life and Burn Notice is that both had opportunities to take the safe route and both avoided that each time. I just hope the writing is as good when they return. But most shows seem to always take the safe, easy route.

The most disappointing was Bones. This show is primarily about the characters, how they interact, and their chemistry. This season finale blew all that out of the water by having nearly every character except Booth acting in strange ways that were atypical for the character's development over the last three seasons. And to wrap up the entire Gormagon storyline in about 15 minutes at the end of one show and have it be Zack and some unknown guy? Dumb. Hopefully they were just either a) clearing the ongoing storyline so they could move on to better things or b) this entire thing is a red-herring and the very good writers will explain this totally stupid episode in a way that makes sense and will explain this aberrant episode away.

The best of these shows was the two-hour NCIS finale. This one involved all of the characters staying within character, had emotional depth, and made sense with the ongoing issues presented throughout the season. I fully expect the fact that the three main supporting characters were re-assigned and Gibbs has new "probies" to work with will be ameliorated next season.

Niche Market Movies

Speed Racer Follow Up

In a recent post on the movie Speed Racer I mentioned how poorly I thought the movie would do. Little did I realize how vastly overstated this very, very poor review and statement about how quickly the movie would be gone from the theaters would be!

Speed Racer managed to only bring in a little over $18.5 million on its opening weekend, and has tallied less than $1 million per day over the weekdays (for a comparison, Iron Man has been averaging between $3 and $5 million per day on the weekdays since release). In its second weekend, SR managed a little above a tepid $7.5 million. It currently stands at a paltry $24.3 million after two weekends and one week.

The production budget is claimed to be around $120 million for this movie, but estimates are as high as $250 million. The marketing money is estimated at between $50 and $100 million, so we're looking at this movie maybe having cost up to $350 million to make and release. They haven't even made 10% of that amount, if true.

I knew it was niche, I just didn't know quite how niche it was.

Sex and the City

Now here comes another niche-market movie. This one has three things going for it:

• Counter programming toward women in this male-dominated movie season.
• A set market of women to cater to.
• Women tend to be the drivers of the biggest successes in movie history.

However, I have a strange feeling this one won't do well either. Or, at least, won't be the huge success that movie bosses want. And Les Moonves will be able to say he won't make any movie starring women again.

Here's why I think this:

• While the idea of counter programming is a great one, you have to counter with a program that men want to see to. Women are a great key to making a movie a huge hit and making lots of money, but it has to be something that they can realistically drag their boyfriends and husbands to. This movie is tracking over 80% negative by males. Plus, when counter-programming, you have to post your movie against movies that skew only male. This one will be going against Iron Man, which has already proved that women like it; Indiana Jones, which has a very strong, universal appeal; is coming out after two already failed counter-programming movies (Made of Honor and What Happens in Vegas) didn't grab the same audience this movie is shooting for; and a few previously released and about to be released kids movies, to which it is typically the "mom's job" to take children, sucking at the movie budget of the family.
• The set market of those who liked the TV show of Sex and the City is incredibly small. It may be smaller than the niche market that likes Speed Racer (which has a base audience that is at least 30-years in the making), but certainly is not the basis for much more than a strong opening, and then a drop of 60% or more in week two. Sex in the City was on HBO, had good but not great numbers when compared against standard network hits, and continues to do mediocre on cable TV in reruns.
• While women tend to be the drivers of the movie business, it is typically men who make the decisions on what is seen. They make this decision based on the women with whom they are going to the movies, so it has to be something she wants to see and/or that he is willing to go see with her. Titanic, for example, was huge because women wanted to see it repeatedly and men enjoyed the effects and the action and the sinking of the boat. Spider-Man 1 and 2 became huge hits because men liked the character and the action/fights, while women could relate to Mary Jane and her unrequited love. Sex and the City was a show that few men watched and the numbers are tracking horribly for the movie when it comes to males.
• A lot of women don't like this show or these characters. My wife, for example, doesn't care for the show and hates Sarah Jessica Parker. Quite a few other women in my life either don't like the show, don't like the characters, or don't like the actresses in Sex and the City. So few of these women are going to go, cutting directly into the core audience the movie is shooting for.
  

So, I see it this way:

1. Sex and the City will open decently, at number 2 behind Indy's second weekend (I'm guessing Indy will make between $40-50 million second weekend), and probably in the mid-$30s from all the fans of the original show.
2. It will quickly drop down the list as the following weekend Kung-Fu Panda opens and the children will want to see that and Indy will still be going strong after only two weeks in release (this one being the third weekend), so Sex will likely make about $10-12 million the second weekend.
3. The weekend after that one sees The Incredible Hulk open and all the males will swarm in that direction, so I'd guess by that time Sex will be taking in scraps, around $5-7 million.
4. All told, I would estimate this movie will pull in around $50-$55 million domestic.

That may be good enough for a modest "hit" depending on how much the production and marketing campaigns cost. And this guesstimate does not include the foreign gross, which may be about the same amount or slightly less than the domestic, making this close to a $100 million movie. But I don't think this product will play well outside of English speaking, liberated countries (might do okay in Britain and Australia, and maybe France, but not in Japan, China, Spain, South America, etc.).

Edit/Note: After writing this I went to RottenTomatoes.com and checked. There are only four reviews for the movie so far and three of them are negative and one a luke-warm positive. If this movie doesn't get very positive reviews, my estimates will be high in this post.

Now, the race is on to see how inaccurate John is on this movie estimate.

Favorite "Bad" Movies

We all have soft spots for movies that are otherwise not considered "good," "valuable," or that are critically or commercially panned. For some reason, something about the movie speaks to us, or it reminds us of a certain point in our lives, or for some other reason we just make a connection to it.

Some of my favorite bad movies are:

• Brewster's Millions: Fairly standard story of a man who offers his offspring a small sum of money in his will-- or a much, much larger sum if it he can spend all of the original amount in X number of days. The twist here is that the old rich white guy is giving the money to Richard Pryor. Pryor had better movies, but I just get a kick out of this one. I love some of the decisions Brewster makes in how he spends the money and the earnestness with which everyone plays their role. John Candy is very good in a smaller role here, as well.
• The Replacements: I'm not a huge fan of Keanu Reeves or most sports films. Both of them tend to be trite and simple. However, I simply like this film. It is a fictionalized retelling of the strike season in the NFL, with Reeves being a never-was college QB who proves capable of taking a bunch of rapscallions to the playoffs and turning them into a team.
• The Saint: Movie version of the TV show of a Bond-like super thief who uses disguises and subterfuge to get what he wants. This one stars Val Kilmer in a role I thought he was perfect for; engaging, used his talents as an actor, and showed very good chemistry with Elizabeth Shue. I think this one would have done much better had it been released at a different time.
• Groundhog Day: I'm not a fan of Bill Murray or Andy McDowell, but both hit just the right notes in this movie about a guy who lives the same day over and over.
  

These are just a few of my favorite "bad" movies. I have many others that I like and watch nearly any time they are on TV but which didn't have good box office or receive critical praise.

What are some of your favorite "bad" movies?

Another One

This dream took place in my old house in 29 Palms and involved the world using undead zombies (as opposed to voodoo-style, living zombies) as menial workers, ala the end of Shaun of the Dead or Fido. For some reason, I discovered some sort of carrier wave signal coming in across the radio waves, which were imparting some free will and intelligence to the zombies. However, and how cliche, no one would listen.

Of course, until it was too late.

The signal imparted a need to break free and attack their captors to the zombies, and we went from overcoming and enslaving slow, shambling zombies to fighting large packs of intelligent zombies that worked together. People were not used to this, so the initial onslaught caught many humans unaware and they were ripped apart.

I had to run around, hide, and occasionally fight for my life. Running and hiding were difficult because the zombies were smart and were hunting the humans using the same reasoning skills as the human beings were.

I was rudely pulled out of the dream when the stupid moving people arrived this morning, bright and early, to start moving one of my upstairs neighbors. I had just been found in my current hiding place by a female zombie whom I knew, vaguely, and was fighting for my life, beating her over the head with a stout stick that I found nearby.

Weird Dream

I have very vivid, involved dreams.

The one last night was about me working for a large corporation. My products were no longer being used and one particular woman was eliminating a lot of positions, mine included. On my last day there I hooked up with a man who was working on a way to burst and send Morse Code for a special scientific project. I wound up helping him out, he liked me, so he hooked me onto his project.

When I got to work the next day, I had to go through orientation again, just in the building he worked in (which was across the quad from the building I had worked in). The woman (seemed to be played by Brooke Shields, only she could really act) and her assistant worked there and she was not happy to see me there. However, I had a legit job so there wasn't much she could -- for the moment.

This is where it got weird. While helping the scientist out (who looked a bit like William Hurt), his burst sending system started acting weird. While we troubleshooted the problem, people started winding up missing. Then they would return acting differently. I saw one of them and it was a techno-organic replica of the original person. I warned the scientist and he started organizing a resistance to these creatures. He asked me to help out with the resistance and go get the building's security. I found a couple who were on their way up and convinced them to help me. They told me all the other guards were either dead or turned. For defense we had specially designed lances that were the equivalent of arc welders that burned at around 4500 degrees Kelvin on the tip (this temperature was specifically stated to me by one of the guards right before he was disemboweled by a tech-org thing and we all had to fight it off and kill it) -- to which I said the ultra-heroic "well, that aught to melt through those soulless bastard's hides."

Then began the cat and mouse game of trying to determine who were techno-organic beasts and who weren't, killing those who were, and getting up from the ground floor back to the highest levels of the building where the scientist was trying to work on some things he felt would turn the tide and shut them down.

At one point I ran into the woman and her assistant (who was played by Brent Spiner), and I managed to, very graphically and in a lot of detail and slow-mo work, shove my hand and arc-welder rod/torch up into his chest cavity and ram the burning tip into his brain. This was very Manga/Anime inspired, with tons of cords, wires, plates, and writhing, moving parts inside. He was able to detach and transform his lower jaw for some reason I didn't immediately identify. While I did this, the woman got away. I woke up as I stood in the large atrium on one of the upper floors as I was deciding whether to go after the woman or continue on to find the scientist and hope he survived and had figured out what was going on.

I woke up a little out of breath and a bit tired. All that running up and down the staircases and through hallways of this large building tuckered me out. I feel almost like I need a nap to recover from my night's rest.

Origins

I have done some new research into my father's family. I recently rediscovered some of the information provided to me by an aunt (or a second, or third, cousin or some such) who had looked into it.

• It appears the "Z" was, in fact, intended to be there. The way my great grandfather signed his name has it in every case. There have been some rumors/stories that it was possible the Z was a mistake, added due to my great grandfather's flowery way of signing. Doesn't appear to be true from the copy of the wedding license and naturalization papers I have.
• The accent appears to be over the E. It is an acute accent.
• My family has a patent. My great grandfather patented an Acetylene Torch Generator to help his work in the coal mines of Pennsylvania. I have a copy of the patent.
• There is a story that my great grandfather bought his and his family's freedom from the near indentured-servitude of the coal mines. The info I have says he contracted Black Lung disease and retired to Michigan on disability.
• It appears the family comes from Aosta Valley in what is currently Italy. Here is a link to a Google Maps page of that valley:
  
  View Larger Map
• More on the Aosta Valley.

We don't know much of anything about the family before my great grandfather came over at the turn of the 20th century. We know that my great grandfather had a brother who went back to the Aosta Valley shortly after the family came here. We have first names on my great grandfather's mother and his mother's mother, but nothing more than that. It is like we don't exist prior to his coming to America!

I need to contact my Uncle Martin on my mother's side and see if I can get a copy of his notes on the other half of my family lineage. He's done extensive work on that and has it going back for hundreds of years, I've been told.

I Hate This

It is now 4 am and I'm still awake. Decided to leave the bedroom and give up trying to fall asleep. No particular thing or reason; I just fall asleep for a few seconds to a few minutes and the -- bam! -- I wake up and that's that for a long while. The problem is that I'm so tired and my brain is fuzzy that it makes doing anything difficult, so it is not like this can be turned into productive time.

So, here I am, blogging. Can't tell you the number of errors I've made and corrected so far (that fuzzy brain again). Hopefully this will be at least a little coherent when others read it or when I read it again.

I imagine I'll fall asleep sometime morning-ish. Usually happens when I least expect it. Of course, when this happens during a work day, I have to persevere and work through it, which is hard. And gets harder with each passing year. I'm 37 now; staying up all night is not really on the agenda like it was in my 20s or Teens. Don't have the worthwhile reasons or the stamina of youth on my side. Matter of fact, there were multiple times in college where I was awake for upwards of 72 hours straight before crashing and I didn't think much of it. I was one of the most coherent and functional ultra-tired people you would run across during those stints. But these days I need my sleep. Still only really need between 6 and 8 hours of sleep, with 7 seeming to be about optimal for me most nights.

My head feels about 10 lbs heavier and my eyes are droopy and feel gritty. I'm exhausted. Why can't I fall asleep?

Speed Racer

I am making this prediction: In America, Speed Racer will open fairly well, with about $60, maybe $70, million in its opening weekend. It will then fall by about 60% to about $24 million in its second weekend. By the third weekend, it will be under $10 million and effectively gone from the summer. I will be surprised if the movie winds up breaking $120 million total. I totally doubt the movie will score higher than a 40% on Rotten Tomatoes and will likely come in well below that figure (60% is considered "fresh" there).

Note: I am talking about America/North America only here. I understand that Speed Racer has a decent audience in Asian countries and in South America. It may be more successful overseas in general than here.

I make this statement for a few reasons:

1. Speed Racer is much more of a niche movie than even comic book adaptations are. I know a lot of cartoon/comic book lovers who are not fans of Speed Racer, and very few fans of Speed Racer outside of this niche. I don't see it having broad action appeal like other movies may have.
   
2. It is primarily CGI. And this CGI is garish, bright, and "cartoony," which the public has pretty much snubbed its nose at every time it has been released.
3. It is made by the Wachowski Brothers, who are not good writers or producers. (Their best work, The Matrix, is still being fought in court against plagiarism.)
   
4. People like "live action" action scenes more than CGI action scenes, given a choice between the two.
5. People are already complaining online of headaches and worse while watching previews and advance screenings. People don't like their movies to give them headaches.
   

Something like Iron Man, The Dark Knight, and Indiana Jones has bigger name recognition, likely better writing and production, and broader, general appeal to summer audiences. We'll see if I'm right.

Stuff

I live in a very small apartment. It is listed as 512 square feet, but a lot of that is unusable for storage or placement of things (there is a bar, for example, that separates the kitchen from the living area and makes putting any furniture or storage items in that area virtually impossible. Some of that 512 square feet is taken up with a washer/dryer cubbyhole and having a very large sliding glass door on one wall of the living area makes using that wall virtually impossible for furniture and storage.

Yet, now that I am packing up to move, I am finding I have a lot of stuff. I have packed 8 boxes of books so far, and likely need one, possibly two, more. and these aren't small boxes. I have one 18"H x 18"W x 16"L, four 12"x12"x12", one 12"x12"x16", and two others of odd sizes. That is just books. My DVDs should compact down into a few boxes, but I do have over 200 of those. Of course, the single biggest quantity of things that I have are the around 50 of the smaller comic book boxes filled with comics. Each of those is approximately 12"x8.5"x17". The lids on those, as any comic collector knows, makes them even longer, higher, and wider, as the lids are made to be thick (to support stacking).

Add onto this the size for my 27" TV, the other electronics, CDs (two smaller boxes), VHS (two boxes+), my La-Z-Boy recliner (the one piece of furniture that comes with me), all the kitchen stuff I plan to bring, board games and other knickknacks that I may want to bring, and my clothes, and it adds up really fast. I'm actually a little surprised at how well it all fits in my apartment as it is!

Time to go get some more boxes and bags....

The Lights Went Down in Irvine...

I was just starting a nice session of City of Heroes, had a friend join my team, and then the power went out. I thought I had blown a fuse, but when I looked outside, the entire parking lot and the other buildings were all just as dark. This was at 9:30pm. Had I been the least bit tired, I might have gone to bed. Instead, I found my flashlights and candles, grabbed a book, and started reading.

At about 10:15pm the lights started flickering and sputtering, but wouldn't stay on for long. I hurriedly switched off a bunch of things, which I hadn't thought to do earlier, and then waited. About 5 minutes later the lights went back on and stayed on. I waited a few more minutes before blowing out the candles. I got my PC running again, but alas my friend had logged off (probably irritated with me joining a group and then immediately logging out!).

Not sure what caused it, or if it was a standard blackout that we get all the time here during the summer happening a little early.