D-Day

Today is the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. In an effort to end Nazi Germany's hold on Europe The United Kingdom, Canda, and the United State launched an amphibious invasion that has never been rivaled. Thousands of men landed via parachute and landing craft and fought through a concrete jungle of mines, barbed wire, machine gun nests, tunnels, and forts in order to establish a foothold from which they could advance across Europe. With the Soviet Union battling from the East and the Allied powers from the west Germany surrendered within a year (May 9, 1945).

The battle of D-Day was a pivotal moment in World War II. I have little doubt that had it failed Germany would have done significantly more damage to Europe. Would they have been stopped? Probably. Hitler's vision was unsustainable and would have fallen - but at what additional cost. Perhaps nuclear weapons would have been used against Germany in addition to Japan. We might never know the extent of the damage. We only know what was accomplished by those that stormed the beaches and overcome the defenders.

The history of World War II has always had been of particular interest to me. Perhaps it was the global scale of it. Maybe it was the fact that I had relatives that fought in it. For whatever reason I have always found myself drawn to its stories and history. With that in mind I would like to recommend a few books that I've read that give insight on the conflict and that I have found both inspiring and inspirational.

The Trio of books: D-Day, Pegasus Bridge, and Citizen Soldier by Stephen E. Ambrose covers preparations for the invasion, its execution, and aftermath. Pegasus Bridge focuses on the British glider troops that were tasked with capturing bridges on the east flank and holding off German reinforcements until the beaches were secure. All three books focus on the individuals who fought the war, not just the general strategies and tactics, but the actual riflemen, and what they experienced. You can read my review of the audio version of Citizen Soldier from my other blog for a more detailed description.

Armor and Blood by Dennis E. Showalter is a recently published book about the Battle of Kursk, Germany's last offensive action against the Soviet Union. While it took place a year before D-Day its contribution to the downfall of Nazi Germany cannot be ignored. Many westerners are not familiar with the Eastern Front of World War II and the way that the Soviets fought. Armor and Blood gives a great view of what has been determined as the largest tank battle in history. It is more of a historical analysis with lots of attention given to both individual tactics and overall strategy. It was an very interesting read. You can read my review of the audio version from my other blog for a more detailed description.

I believe that The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, is perhaps the most incredible book that dives into the history that surrounds Would War II. I listened to this last year and was blown away by the magnitude of information that we have about the Nazi Party, Hitler's rise to power, and the ease that it all happened. I use the term "ease that it all happened" because it is not hard to see another Hitler like tyrant rise to power in our day. Shirer adds personal memories to the host of captured documents that were seized to weave a frightening tale of politics and desire. My father rereads this book every ten years or so to "remind himself to pay attention." You can read my review of the audio version from my other blog for a more detailed description.

These are just a small handful of books that examine the watershed event that was World War II. D-Day was one of the largest, most complete gathering of men and material and was executed was daring and bravery. Disaster occurred, victory was won, and men lived and died on both sides. That fact is important to remember. Every war has two sides. Let those that fought for freedom and those that fought for their homeland be honored.

Altered Perceptions

I've learned a few things about mental illness over the last few years. This has been through attending conference presentations on the topic given by professional and licensed counselors and therapists, following people with mental illness on Facebook and Twitter, and personal association with friends with everything from epilepsy, schizophrenia, Asbergers  depression, anxiety, panic attacks, to boarder-line psychosis. I do not know all, or even a lot, but I do like to consider myself as somewhat familiar with mental illnesses and their manifestations.

It is for this reason that I am endorsing and encouraging Altered Perceptions an anthology of behind-the-scenes, short fiction, and creative non-fiction in support of Robison Wells, a wonderful author and victim of the ravages of mental illness. I'll let him describe it for you. Rob ultimately lost his job because of his condition. He wasn't able to work in a traditional office environment and his writing was not sufficient to cover his expenses. He and his family have reached a point that they need serious help. Brandon Sanderson, Rob's friend and highly successful author, initiated the Altered Perceptions project by suggesting authors submit work that could be complied into an anthology that could be sold to help raise funds to pay off the biggest debts Rob's family were experiences (student loans and to the IRS). Not only did Brandon submit 5 chapters of the original draft of Way of Kings, an awesome book, for the anthology - he is paying the printing and publishing costs. All of the proceeds of the project will go to help Rob and his family.

The people submitting work to this anthology should tell you the kind of person the Rob is. There are 30 different authors (not including Rob himself) who have submitted work, some of it original pieces, including several New York Times sellers. Brandon Mull, Brandon Sanderson, Dan Wells, Larry Correia, Jessica Day George, Shannon Hale, Howard Tayler, Mary Robinette Kowal, and a host of other successful writers have stepped up to help Rob in his time of need.

The secondary, although no less important, goal of this project is to raise awareness of mental illness. It is real and the more we talk about it the more we understand it. I will be doing what I can to contribute and spreading the news. I encourage you do to the same.

Before you die

A coworker pointed me towards the BBC's top 100 books you need read before you die (2014) list where I had read just over a quarter of them (26). It got me thinking about what makes a book (or anything really) eligible to get on that list. A Bucket List is a list of things you would like to do before you die, but there are lists out there that other people built that say what everyone should do/read/watch/eat pre-death. I don't really have an issue with others writing those lists. I'm simply curious what their criteria is. When I put the question to my wife, "What kinds of books would you put on a 'must read' list?" she responded, "What ever the person needs." It wasn't the answer I was looking for but it demonstrates her pragmatic view on live as opposed to my more ideological one.

I'll be honest, with her rather simple but pertinent answer it makes it hard to compile my own list of must read/do/eats. Can I know what I should do if I don't know what I will need to do? Probably not. With that in mind I present: not my list of things you should do/read/eat, nor my own bucket list of what I would like to do/read/eat, but my Things I'm glad that I've done/read/eaten.

(In no particular order, but with number 1 being unquestionably the most significant)

1 - Married my wife. Easily the best thing I've ever done. Marrying her changed me in ways I never thought it would. It's made me want to be a better person. I love her deeply and she makes me deliriously happy.

2 - Lived (and still am living) as a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints. Marx called religion the opiate of the masses, but even if I didn't known of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Christ I don't see any problems with the way my life has gone by living the it. I receive peace, joy, and comfort from my beliefs. I avoid lots of problems by obeying by religion's tenants. I do not regret anything I have not been able to do because of my faith and I treasure what I've done and learned.

In all honestly most of the the life changing, significant events in my life have come from those two things. These include:

* Servicing a religious service mission to SW Russian (Rostov-na-Donu, Volgagrad, Novocherkassk, Krasnodar)

* Having children

* Reading the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other religious texts

* participating in service opportunities


3 - Reading:
* Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
* 1984 by George Orwell
* Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer
* The Allience by Gerald Lund
* Mere Christianity and The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis


4 - Visited:
* New York
* Boston
* Mamev Kurgan and the Panaramic Museum (Volgagrad, Russia)
* Red Square (Moscow Russia)
* Trakai Castle (Lithuania)


5 - Learned to rock climb. Talk about discovering a whole new world.

6 - Learned Russian. It taught me about language in general, introduced me to a different culture, and gave me an appreciation of differences.

7 - Earned my Bachelor's degree. My education helped define how I look at the world and helped me learn more about myself and others.

There are many more things that I am glad that I did/read/ate, but these are the big ones. As I thought about these it did occur to me that there is one thing that I recommend people do before they die - Live.

Why we read

EA Younker recently had a new addition to her house, a young man named Tech, who struggles with reading. EA makes some pretty valid points - you need to be able to read to get a driver's licence and a job, but why is literature pushed so heavily in school? I clearly understand the need for people to communicate well in writing. However, is there validity to people questioning why they are required to read Shakespeare, Dickens, or any of the other "classics" out there? Just as people in the arts question the need for them to study algebra is there a reverse argument? EA's husband, Moose, did his training in technical fields and had very little patience or preference for reading. He's done well for himself and his career and his life without analyzing or even reading the classics. So - like math - what is defending the study of literature?

Unlike math, students can graduate from most colleges and universities without taking a literature course. I never took one. Writing classes, however, tend to be required as much as math is. With that said, I will say it's unlikely that a student will not be exposed to at least one instance of literary analysis in college. So, to get some kind of perspective literature requirements, I went back to high school. The Common Core has a nice website for what the standards are for the different levels from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Once you hit sixth grade and up the standards look very similar, but just require more extensive supporting of your ideas. From this, I get that the goal of studying literature is to help students see narrative structure, engage in critical reasoning based on evidence and inference, comparing and contrasting mediums in both artistic and practical uses of conveying ideas, examining how the characters respond to their environment, and being able to succinctly convey complex ideas. I guess I can understand those goals.

However, couldn't those skills be developed via other means? In fact, I demonstrated how algebra develops reasoning and critical thinking when defending why we study math. Scientific experimentation could be used to examine different mediums. Speaking and writing classes would be perfect for examining how to convey ideas. And psychology and sociology would let us examine real people interacting with their environment more accurately than a fictional character in a fictional environment. So, is literature just being redundant? Books take time to read - especially for someone with dyslexia, vision difficulties, and attention limitations. And many of the books that are required are books that the generation reading them don't feel they can relate to.

So, why do we require students to study literature? Because, the human mind works by building connections between both internalized, personal experiences and external examples. And literature can help provide us with both personal experiences and external examples in ways that other forms of entertainment can. Take film - often seen as the opposite of books. Lets take the Twilight series as an example. The bulk of the books is taken up by Belle's internal struggles, thoughts, insights, and musings. How do you translate that to visual - Stares! Mary Robinette Kowal mentioned this in talking about puppetry (4:05 in the podcast). The puppet is thinking about what it's looking at. Unfortunately the audience is watching the watcher and has to infer what they are thinking. While it is possible for an actor (or a puppeteer) to convey exactly what is being felt, it may still not be clear why they are feeling that way because we have no insight into the character's mind short of a blatant (and often criticized) voice-over. Not to say that books can't be ham-fisted in their approach to their topic, just that there are more options open to a writer than a film maker.

I threw this question out on Facebook and had a number of people contribute. One linked to an article on Scientific America that discussed results of reading literary fiction (the genre that "classics" often fit into). The study found that people that read literary fiction had a higher capacity for empathy. The same was not true for genre fiction, according to the study. The reason for this was that, "literary fiction... focuses more on the psychology of characters and their relationships." Which I find clashes slightly with the next statement, "Often those characters' minds are depicted vaguely, without many details, and we're forced to fill in the gaps to understand their intentions and motivations." If they focus so much on the characters' psychology and why are their minds often depicted vaguely. Anyway, I will agree that literary fiction tends to focus on unsympathetic characters and situations, requiring the reader to develop forms of empathy to understand the character better. I do think that thoughtful reading of genre fiction can also increase empathy, but the work will need opportunities for the reader to empathize.

A part of literature building our ability to empathize is that through literature we have the ability to witness the world through other peoples' eyes. George R.R. Martin said, "A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one." My initial thought was that Julius Ceasar (in the Shakespeare play of the same name) says, "A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once." There are very important distinctions between these quotes. They just sound the same. Unlike the coward a reader has the luxury of experiencing others' lives and points of view in whether those people be fictional of real. One of the best books I ever read was It Doesn't Take a Hero, the autobiography of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. Another was The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Both were non-fiction and enabled me to experience, in a small way, events and wars that helped shape my culture and generation. People looking to experience censorship and government controls have but to look to Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury, 1984 and Animal Farm by Orwell, and Anthem by Rand. There are so many topics that may be explored and experienced in literature. It doesn't just have to be non-fiction.

And lastly, a reason to study literature. To help people come to enjoy reading. Books are a basis for entertainment and culture all over the world. Many movies start life between covers. Even those that don't are first written down. The same goes for theater, broadcasts, speeches, and comedy. Someone first committed it to paper and it sounded good enough there to expand and build on it. I don't begrudge film makers their adaptations of books. I don't prefer audio books over paper copy or digital. I'm just glad that I gained an appreciate for a good story early in life so I could enjoy it for the rest of my life.

"Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's good."

The title of this post is a quote from my paternal grandmother who was a vivacious reader of just about everything. She was the one that introduced Harry Potter to my mother before my mother read it to us. Her collection of books was a great legacy and her ability to talk about books was always a delight. I was looking forward to such a discussion when I called her to tell her that I had finished Bram Stoker's Dracula.

"Grandma! I finished reading Dracula!"
"Oh."
(pause) "Aren't you proud. I read a classic."
"Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's good."
(pause followed by me chuckling) "So, Grandma. I take it you didn't like it."
"Nope."

That's a pretty accurate account of how the "discussion" went. Personally, I loved Dracula. I found it interesting and intriguing and more than a little suspenseful - particularly since I knew what Dracula was and could see the writing on the wall. I remember wanting to scream at Johnathan Harker, "He doesn't have a reflection!! This man is not normal! Get out of there!!!" but of course he wouldn't have heard me.

Dracula is considered a classic, and it's one of the few books that I've read that have that distinction. 11th grade English was not a good class for me. The only book I actually finished was The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Didn't read Huckleberry Finn (Twain), The Scarlet Letter (Hawthorne), or anything else that year. So, you could say that my experience with "great American Classics" is..... unfinished. I've read and seen more Shakespeare than many, but a deficiency of Dickens. I feel quite familiar with Austin but have only read Jane Eyre from the Bronte sisters' works. And my Classical (Greek and Roman) literature is even more lacking than my Dickens. I would say of my classic (and classical) literature education that I know what I should have read, but haven't actually done so.

Which launches me into my musing of what constitutes a "classic" and what should we be reading. "Classic book" even has its own Wikipedia page. For many, it's what we should be reading. Books that young people should be exposed to in order to "learn literature." However, there is some pretty heated debate about that. If you're looking for entertaining discussions on this, click the links to read and listen by authors I enjoy over at Monster Hunter Nation and Do I Dare to Eat a Peach who have something to about it.

For myself, a classic book is one that has longevity. Something that has stood the test of time, for one reason or another. They may be message fiction (have a particular agenda or moral lesson in mind - Scarlet Letter, 1984, and Lord of the Flies I'm looking at you.) It might be genre altering (The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings come to mind, not to mention Asimov's work). It might be well written and compelling (King Lear, Macbeth, and Julies Caesar are just three of the many works - three that I'm more familiar with than others). These works have been through a lot and are still read and meaning and enjoyment is found within them.

What I find difficult to fathom is when someone will say "That isn't a classic because it's (a genre fiction)" or "(book title) is an instant classic." The definition of "classic" used in these statements must differ from might significantly. Standing the test of time, gaining a kind literary immortality, happens to many different kinds of books. J.R.R. Tolkien practically invented modern fantasy - one of the key staples to genre fiction. For the second, can anyone project what the next "classic" will be? In 1952 the movie "Singin' in the Rain" was released. Looking at the Academy Awards for 1953 the movie was involved with only two categories: Best Actress in Supporting Role (Jean Hagen in the role of Lina Lemont) and Best Music, Scoring of Musical Picture and it didn't win either of them. Based on that, one might think that "Singin' in the Rain" might fade from time. But when was the last time you talked to someone who saw "American In Paris" the show that won Best picture the year before? "Hans Christian Anderson" with Danny Kaye was nominated for more awards and is a wonderful movie, but is virtually unknown in popular circles. Yet, "Singin' in the Rain" has drawn audiences of many ages for years since. I only want to show that you can't say what will become a classic and what won't. Not until the time has passed and we look at what people are still reading.

And what should we be reading? Why are classics considered so important to read? With how long this post has gone, that is a question for another time. But in the meantime - What do you think people should read?

Real life Twilight: Vampires and Werewolves

Since I posted last week on Dracula, the big bad himself, and with All Hallow's Eve coming up next week I figured I'd share some stuff I learned about real like vampires and werewolves.

Both of these resulted in my discovering the National Geographic Wild YouTube channel. In addition to having some fun animal stuff (as well as other National Geographic programs), there are even full episodes of shows. One that I've recently watched is America the Wild with Casey Anderson. He strikes me as a Bear Grylls meets the Kratt Brothers - an outdoor enthusiast with a strong interest in animals. That and like the Kratts, he's willing to do some pseudo-crazy things. Like lie down with a bunch cows that are being fed off of by vampire bats.

Some interesting points that come up in the episode. For instance, vampire bats are the only mammal that that are exclusively hematophagy (feed on blood). From what I could find, the only other creatures that only subside on blood are our common friends in the bug world. Another interesting fact is that if you are on the look out for vampire bats, you need to watch the ground. They sneak up on their pray and leap on them, rather than flying on them. Something else I found interesting is that the their face is packed full of heat sensors that can pick up where the blood is closest to the surface. From there they simply open up the vein and let their spit keep the blood from clotting. I can't say I would ever find myself getting cozy with a vampire bat, but they are kind of cool for how they have adapted and their unique hunting style.

I also promised werewolves and while I still think that Corriea has the coolest werewolf ever in Earl Harbringer (see the first sentence on that page, "Dirty Harry meets Twilight." got to love it! Oh, click next to read chapters from the book.) I have to confess that Casey's Monster Wolf is a pretty convincing idea.

The premise of the Monster Wolf episode is to try to explain why there are wolves and wolf packs that are more aggressive - and consequently more dangerous to people. The hypothesis is that at some point the wolves bred with dogs giving their mental and genetic makeup a bit of a cognitive dissonance. On one hand they are familiar with humans and being near them. On the other they have instincts that make them extremely dangerous. Ultimately what you get with a wolf-dog (the result of interbreeding) is a creature that is not afraid of humans but that is hardwired to protect itself, its territory, and its food from everything. They point out that wolves, even cubs, cannot be domesticated. It's an argument of nature verses nurture and with wolves nature is all that matters. In some ways wolf-dogs are literal werewolves because they will be very dog like - playing, romping, etc - but as the video shows (just after the 17 minute mark) they can turn into the primal wolf with the right stimuli. It may not be a full moon, but the change happens just as fast.

Werewolves and Vampires have a long history in culture and folklore. I will put in another plug for Corriea's Monster Hunter Alpha (and the rest of the series to boot) as it gives a different mythos to the origin of werewolves. And lets just face it that Earl Harbinger could take Jacob, Sam, and the whole twilight pack apart. And that would be even before he changed forms. While the Volturi show up with just a lot of people, Earl brings a small crew and a Carl Gustav. Larry, I want to read the account of MHI taking out the Volturi. Make it happen!

The Monster Man

I've learned that there is a new television series coming out called Dracula. I've looked at some of the promotional material and  I have to say that I have mixed feelings. This is partially because I particularly enjoyed reading the book (despite my avoidance of horror literature and film) and I worry about how they treat the original work. But that is a common fear for any adaptation and not a valid reason to dislike something. I do have to say that I am curious about the way that Dracula is portrayed and the way they take the story. It is highly unlikely that I will watch the new drama, however. One reason is that I'm not a big serial drama consumer. The second is that I do not appreciate watching overly sexual television or film. The last reason is that I don't have any way to receive television signals - and I'm perfectly happy about that. Now, I mentioned how I have mixed feelings about the idea of the new Dracula take - this is because I think that evil should be portrayed as such.

I have to agree with Tracy Hickman. In a Writing Excuses episode from 2009 he expressed his resistance against the popular rise of vampires by saying: "Vampires are monsters, and they should be monsters, and they've turned into cute, cuddly, hunks. And I object to that. I think that's actually ill serves women, because what we've done is, we've taken this monstrous cliche, the idea of the monster man as a warning -- a cautionary tale for women and turned it into a chick-flick." In the original Dracula story, by Bram Stoker, Dracula is a creature that steals infants from their mothers to drink their blood, kills without hesitation, and is intent on dominating others - by forcing them to drink his own blood. He is methodical, cunning, vicious, and worst of all charming - the mask he uses to cover his viciousness. Some may say that he is justified by his love of country and his desire to preserve it, but the question is "justified to what?" Character has grown stronger over the years as others have interpreted him and his power and abilities have grown. Yet, I see no situation in which he himself would seek redemption. I suppose the new series could feature an anti-hero as our main character. I can't say that I've ever really got into those however. So what is this interest in the macabre [dealing with death] romance?

Dan Wells, in his novella Night of Blacker Darkness, may demonstrate another part of the equation. Wells' vampires are weaklings who cannot overpower an adult. They are easily overcome by any strong smell (one was turned away by a sharp cheddar cheese once) and are quite pathetic. They claim to have started the Gothic movement "to romanticize the concept of the powerless victim." (Their problem now is that all they got are moody young women who start book clubs. Really, the book is hilarious.) If you take the idea of Tracy's "monster man" and combine it with Dan's "helpless victim," I wonder if you get the recent surge in paranormal romance. The same Dan Wells, along with his brother Rob, put together a fun list of "Which monster would be the best boyfriend?" Dracula scored below Mr. Hyde and above the Phantom of the Opera. He was docked down the list because he already has three wives already. But lets not forget that he is a monster.

Now, despite this line of thinking, I must confess to quite enjoying the movie Hotel Transylvania which features Dracula as an over-protective father, trying to keep his daughter safe from the terrors of humanity. Perhaps I feel more comfortable with this Dracula because he is such a complete opposite of Bram Stocker's. Or maybe it's the fact that I can be empathetic to his situation (I found out that my 5 year old already has a cadre of boys following her around and I want to buy a shot gun). Or perhaps because there is such a need to suspend disbelief for everything else, I can excuse such a portrayal of evil as "misunderstood." Whatever the reason, you may call me a hypocrite for liking one alternate version of Dracula while disparaging another. With that said, I know what to do with vampires, regardless of if they're named Dracula or not.

[picture citation]
Or you can always read Larry Corriea for some suitable ways to get rid of them. My personal favorite is plastic explosives. I would love to see a Twilight / MHI crossover. And yes, I've read both series.

Blink and you might miss it

I recently finished readying Reilly's Luck by Louis L'Amour. I've read a fair number of L'Amours and even wrote book tests to test reading comprehension for a couple dozen of them when I was a junior high student. That includes two of his three "larger" novels: The Walking Drum and Last of the Breed. I went looking for The Haunted Mesa this last weekend but was unable to find it. So, I added a trio of his standard paperbacks to my book pile as a bit of a palate cleanser from all of the epic and high fantasy I've been doing lately. True to style, the book featured valiant heroes, evil villains and a couple of gun battles. It got me thinking about the often pictured "fast draw" and the way that L'Amour portrayed it.

There are plenty of L'Amour's books in audio formats and I've listened to my fair share of them. The last one, however, had an interview with him that was rather enlightening as far as the his understanding of gun-battles. He mentioned a showdown within his life time (I wish I could remember the details) where a marshal entered an establishment to apprehend a suspect and the man "went for his fun." In the end both men were dead having short each other multiple times and covering a distance of  ten to twenty feet each. Even though they were being hit by bullets their adrenaline kept them moving and shooting. Many of L'Amour's books feature both people in a gunfight being hit with the winner of the fight the one who survives. The single shot duel to the death is unrealistic and, according to a number of sources, a creation of Hollywood. L'Amour's account also demonstrates what author and gun expert Larry Corriea says about handguns in his blog post on home defense. Handguns "poke holes in people." compared to long guns, pistols are not very effective at killing people. There are very few places you should shoot somebody with a pistol that will kill them quickly.

Competitive fast draw competitions (that is the non-lethal kind) have been going on since the 1950s with different clubs favoring speed or accuracy. The standard methods of testing and timing fast draw is either to use blanks and pop balloons or use wax bullets and a metal target. Different clubs have different rules, but from what I can see the Cowboy Fast Draw Association appears to be one of the largest. They use wax bullets and ask their competitors to dress in period clothing - which I think is appropriate as they focus on period firearms. While the "Wild, Wild West" is a creation of fiction, it's still an era with a look and a feel. The start position is with the hand on the gun, which to me only makes sense as if you know you're going to be in a fight you are going to be holding your gun. They use single action revolvers so the hammer has to be pulled back first before the trigger can be pulled. A double action pulls the hammer back on the first trigger pull and then drops it on the second. Interesting note, the Sig Sauer line of pistols often do  not have a safety but a level that engages a double action trigger. This is why the line, "No safety on the Sig" shows up in the movie Red 2.

The way people draw looks rather odd. Many will crouch down, bending their holster leg quite a bit. This is so when they draw, they can straighten their leg which pulls the holster down limiting how far they have to lift the gun. The real fast shooters also fire from the hip which I imagine takes some practice in order to hit the target. This works well for single shots, but I would hate to have to fire a second from that position. The real impressive things is how fast these folks can react, draw, and fire. This video shows shooters with their times displayed.

Bear in mind that most people blink between .1 and .4 seconds which means that with most of these folks, you might literally miss their draw if you blink. That's kind of intimidating.

Granted, This guy didn't see Trinity coming when he got into this fight. But then unless you've seen They Call me Trinity, you'll never see him coming.

Here there be Dragons

In the last six months I have read two Dragon Lance books, books entitled Dragon Run and Dragonflight, and returned to a classic computer role-playing game based on Dungeons and Dragons. I also picked up a book called Storm Riders which featured a dragon on the cover, but it turned out to be the 2nd book in a series so I have to go find the first one, Shadow Raiders. I may be on bit of a dragon kick. But I could probably argue that I've always been on a dragon kick.

Dragons have been featured in stories for centuries and across many different cultures. I thought it was interesting that the American Museum of Natural History in New York has information on the natural history of dragons. I was also able to find a website entitled Draconika which had a nice organized selection of information on dragons and dragon lore. It was rough doing research on this as there is lots of websites that discuss draconian lore, but as they are fantastic creatures of folklore there really isn't a council of authorities that peer review the information out there. As such dragons and related creatures may be subject to multiple interpretations. I have to say my favorite and perhaps the most extensive source of established draconian lore is the Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manuel. It is just one take on dragons, but is very well built and exists for the purpose of building stories. It is not based on actual folklore that I'm aware of.

One of my favorite dragon stories is Flight of Dragons, a 1982 movie with the voice talent of James Earl Jones, Harry Morgan, and John Ritter. I was ten or eleven the first time I saw it and liked the explanations it gave for dragon flight and why they sleep on gold as well as the story line in general. I was further delighted when the film How to Tame your Dragon was produced and turned dragons into the equivalent of motorcycles and dive bombers. Both of the films show a variety of dragons (How to Tame your Dragon doing a better job of it), but with such fantastic creatures you can really come up with anything. In many ways they defy the laws of physics. I don't know the equations, but I'm pretty sure the giant monstrosity of a dragon that Hiccup and Toothless fight (in the film) is physiologically impossible. And for such a creature to fly would be quite a feat. However, as mentioned dragons are fantastic and as fantastical creatures they are given abilities that can explain their oddities and the violations of the laws of physics and biology. They are powerful beings and as such are not to be limited by mere science!

There are many stories of both evil and good dragons. Metaphorical and literal monsters and steward teachers or saviors of mankind. I've tried to think about what it is about dragons that makes me excited. Perhaps it the might of these creatures, the power to do anything. Most dragons are attributed with intelligence, so maybe its the idea of non-human sapient life. Let's face the fact that breathing fire or some other kick trash compound is awesome. The idea of riding a dragon, or befriending one, makes for a compelling image of power and ability. Maybe it's just the pure fantastic about them - that they can be anything and do anything - a subject of creativity. The musing is endless.

I think I can establish one concrete idea about my interest in dragons, however. If there is an alpha predator it is the dragon. In many stories humanity makes up a staple in dragons' diet. They are big enough, fast enough, strong enough, and smart enough to challenge our primacy on whatever world we both inhabit. Even in books such as Dragonflight where dragons are simply tools for humans, they are powerful and it is clear that if they want to humanity wouldn't stand a chance. They are a natural predator and we are their natural prey. Like many enjoy hunting bears, lions, tigers, and other creatures that can harm humans, dragons could hunt us under similar circumstances. Yes, humans may kill dragons, but it is not easy. A challenge for both dragon and knight. Even under more modern circumstances taking a dragon down would be difficult as is demonstrated in Monster Hunter Legion.

What would life be like if we lived with a natural predator impacting our daily lives? How would it have shaped society if we had an evolving intelligent creature that hunted us at its leisure? Would we have invented the computer or satellites? Would our culture be different in our choice of celebrities and heroes? Would we have the conflicts with other groups of people - would war exist if we had a common enemy? Would dragons choose to rule and would we be treated like slaves, chattel, or peons? I'm familiar with a fair number of stories with dragons and can say that I've seen many of these questions asked and answered with varying results. Still the questions pose themselves. Dragons are a great way to explore them as you can create any kind of dragon you want. The only requirement is that it be awesome.

Read an awesome flash fiction story about a dragon written by EA Younker inspired by Kanga, my daughter. 

(picture citation)

The great Iron Horse

Not long ago my wife went and saw The Lone Ranger in the theater with my sister, M, and her husband, Moose. The discussion since has been varied, and I will say that I enjoyed it. No, this will not be a review. I will mention a few things about it here, but I don't consider it spoiling it because anybody who has seen the trailer should know these things. First, it features trains. Second, there is a train wreck. It is on trains that my musing takes me.

One of the scenes in the film is outlining the significance of the railroad and steam power. If you think about it, before steam power, the most efficient way to move goods and people was via water. Over land you had to use people (which required large amounts of people and food) or animals (which required people to watch the animals, and consequently food). There is also a very strict weight to speed ratio for animals and people. Increase the weight and you decrease the speed. Increase the speed and you have to decrease the weight. So if you had goods you could either move them quickly in small amounts or more slowly in large amounts. In the book Ascent of Rum Doodle by W.E. Bowman describes the difficulty in dealing with packing food for a trip:

The object of the expedition was to place two men on the summit of Rum Doodle. This necessitated the establishment of a camp at 39,000 feet stocked with a fortnight's supplies for two, so that in the event of adverse weather conditions the party could wait in comfort for an improvement. The equipment for this camp had to be carried from the railhead at Chaikhosi, a distance of five hundred miles. Five porters would be needed for this. Two porters would be needed to carry the food for these five, and another would carry the food for these two. His food would be carried by a boy. The boy would carry his own food. The first supporting party would be established at 38,000 feet, also with a fortnight's supplies, which necessitated another eight porters and a boy. In all, to transport tents and equipment, food, radio, scientific and photographic gear, personal effects, and so on, three thousand porters and three hundred and seventy-five boys would be required..."

While this statement is made in humor, it does demonstrate some real things to consider when it comes to traveling.

Ships require men as well, but the size of the load that a group of nautically trained men can take with them is vastly bigger then a Sherpa's. Even the Volga boatmen and their equivalents in other cultures could move more than if they didn't have the boat or raft to store the stuff in. This is one reason why civilization tends to stick to rivers and coasts. Not just for the fresh water, but also the transportation. Also, look at the difference between cultures that existed with water transportation verses overland. Arabia, the American Midwest, and Siberia were not known for their large, inland cities. So, what do you do when there are no rivers, seas, or lakes, or oceans?

The steam powered locomotive was an answer to that question. Like boats the ratio between the amount of goods and the number of people required was high. Also, they could travel at speeds that exceeded people's or animal capabilities (early engines were between 13 and 29 MPH without a load). It took a number of years to go from the early commuter train "The Best Friend of Charleston" to the transcontinental railroad project, but rail had an effect on the country unlike any other. Instead of towns forming next to large rivers where the paddle boats could bring supplies, they began to pop up everywhere. Many of these towns began as support for the railroad. Often these towns were full of "weekend entertainment" and were called "Hell on Wheels." To this day many "railroad" towns are considered to have unsavory reputations and being known for being rough around the edges. This also meant that if the railroad changed, the town often dried up. I've camped at Terrence, UT which was a town that was bypassed with the Southern Pacific Railroad cut across the Great Salt Lake. I was there 15 years ago all we found was broken china, building supplies and some holes in the ground that were old foundations, root cellars, etc. It is amazing how quickly things can change.

Interestingly enough trains are still one of the most efficient ways to move goods. I as fascinated to learn that diesel locomotives use diesel engines to power electric generators for toque motors and as such are really hybrid vehicles. In Russia I saw a lot of electric trains used for both commuter and freight. I believe this picture is from Russia showing power poles put in between the rails. I say it's Russia because of the prefabricated concrete ties and the general situation. .You kind of have to be there to get it. You can see the lack of use on the rails, so don't get bent out of shape about the people doing it being idiots.

In addition to how trains are powered, you have the different kinds of trains. I've personally ridden on cross country passenger, commuter, light rail, and even a cog train. Cog trains are fun because they have a third rail (not the electric kind) that has places for a cog wheel to fit. They use cog trains to climb steep inclines and mountains. I took the cog up Pike's Peak with a school trip and I remember them saying that the train could literally stop in a very few seconds. This is simply because if they lock that cog wheel there is no slippage on the rail. You can see the third, crenelated rail in this picture of the Pike's Peak cog train.

Trains have always been fascinating to me and I wish I could spend more time on discussing them and researching them more indepth, but this blog has go on long enough. I would like to end with what is considered on of the greatest silent movies which also is considered a fabulous train movie - The General, featuring Buster Keaton. One of the things that makes this movie so incredible is that, like The Lone Ranger, there is a train crash. However, unlike its modern want-a-bees, Buster Keaton actually crashed an honest-to-goodness, fully-working, legitimate steam locomotive into a river. It was obviously done in one take and is impressive by any standard.

Talking in the depths of the ocean

I recently listened to Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy on Audible.com. I tried reading it when I was younger (like in high school) and just couldn't make it through the first chapter. It is a large book, about 650 pages, but that isn't what did it. It was just how technical it was. Clancy is well known for this and I found a similar difficulty in reading The Hunt for Red October, although I made it about half way through that one. I am only really able to enjoy the books if I listen to them. I don't want to get into why it's easier to listen then read these books but it's true. As a student of Russian and military history it is a great story about how a situation that causes the Cold War to become a very, very hot one. Despite the land war being fought in West Germany, the USSR needs to close the Atlantic so that the NATO troops can't be supported by American equipment. The troops can get across by air but the material to fight the war (ordnance, munitions, tanks, etc.) have to be shipped. So, just as the German's tried unsuccessfully to do in WWII, the USSR is attempting to block US ship access to Europe. Only this time, the Americans are at a disadvantage...

As a large part of the book that hinges on the navy, particularly submarine and anti-submarine warfare, I thought that I would dive (yes, pun intended) into a topic that I was thinking about a little while ago - submarines. You may remember my mention of Dr. Tim Wolters, my former professor who taught aviation and aeronautics. Last I E-mailed him, he included one of his publications, "Early Experiments in Submarine Wireless" (The Submarine Review, July 2011, 119-129). That got me thinking about the dynamics of submarines. Particularly how they interact with the world around them.

My first interactions with submarines was actually the Red Storm Rising video game. that my father owed and played. Years later I would play, Jane's Fleet Command and it drove me crazy that when I would give orders to my subs, they would run deep and I couldn't change their orders for a period of time. This is simply because salt water blocks, scrambles, or otherwise causes problems for most communication systems. Dr. Wolters' article was on experiments using wireless telegraph to try to communicate, but in the end the antenna would need to be out of the water (Wolters, 2011, p. 123). Wolters points out that during the Cold War, the US developed a towed buoy that contained communications antenna, but that the idea was originally tried in 1915 (ibid). According to The Naval Institute guide to World Naval Weapon Systems by Norman Friedman (5th edition, 2006, Naval Institute Press), towed buoys and antenna are still used, some with great success, but they are still limited by depth and speed (p. 53). This means that a submarine has to want to talk to you for you to talk to it.

The Navy is continuing to search for ways to better communicate with submarines. The better they can communicate the better they can be used. For instance, in Red Storm Rising the USS Chicago a US nuclear attach submarine, is approaching a Russian surface ship task force. They are in an ideal position to eliminate the Russian flagship and deal a sever blow when the fleet wigs out. In the confusion, Chicago is able to launch three missiles, but is unable to even record the results before they are driven off by anti-submarine tactics. They figure that another sub had slunk in for a shot and had spoiled theirs. Had the subs been able to communicate they could have coordinated their attacks and dealt a heavy blow to the surface fleet. As it was, Chicago was unable to exploit their position or even ascertain the damage done. Communication is very important for successful operations. I won't tell you what happens when the captain of the Chicago does when he meets the man who spoiled his shot.





The latest innovation that is underway is the submarine laser communication (SLC) project. Back in January of 2010 the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) put out a challenge to develop a "blue-spectrum submarine laser communications system able to link submerged submarines with nearby aircraft." In October of that same year, the contract was awarded to QinetiQ set to be tested in "naval exercise in mid 2012." DARPA has very little to say about project from what I found. But I can't blame them for being quiet about this kind of project. I was unable to find much information on how the device worked during the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) last year, but it appears that it was tested during the exercise. The fact that nothing else has come out can mean a number of things. Many would assume that it means the device was a success and therefore now top secret. Or, just as likely, that they are still reviewing the results. Either way, it may take awhile more before we hear anything. Granted, if you serve on a sub, you may hear about it a lot sooner and hopefully, you won't have to come to periscope depth to do so.




One last submarine story. I got this one from The Reader's Digest, the "Humor in Uniform" section. The writer had two friends in the navy, one served on a destroyer, the other on a submarine. The surface man commonly referred to the submariner as a "Bubble-head," a commonly used term for crewmen of a sub. When the writer asked his submariner friend if he minded, the friend replied that he did not. The writer asked what submariners called surface men. The answer came: "Targets."

Shambling their way into our hearts (but they prefer our brains)

According to Wikipedia's list of zombie films there 240 zombie movies made between 1920 and 2002. Between 2003 and the upcoming World War Z (scheduled for later this month) there is a whopping 400. Again this is all according to Wikipedia which we all know posts a "no guarantee of validity", but since I have cited them before for more important things, we'll stick with them for this. These numbers come to 2.93 zombie movies a year for an 82 year period and 40 movies a year for a 10 year period. Do know what I get from this? Our modern society really likes zombies.

And what's not to like about zombies! They're cuddly, cute, and...... flesh-eating, mindless, animated corpses. Ok! So there is a lot to not like about them. However they have stumbled their way into our media and our minds over the last ten years with a relentlessness which they are known for. It's amazing how far it's spread. I was not surprised when the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement saying "CDC does not know of a virus or condition that would reanimate the dead (or one that would present zombie-like symptoms)." However, about a year before the statement came out the Public Health Matters Blog at the CDC posted the following: Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse. They have since posted other material that teaches preparedness using a zombie theme including the graphic novel Preparedness 101: Zombie Pandemic. So, about a year behind the CDC I figured I should get on the bandwagon and play a tune to please the masses.

First, let me say that I am not a fan of zombie related film or other cultural motifs. I will say that this topic was rather entertaining to look into. In my research I found different references which say that zombies in general came from Haitian folklore, particularly around voodoo. However, these references also point out the the flesh-eating kind were the spawn of film and popular culture - the first film cited being "Night of the Living Dead" by George A. Romero. The original zombies were like bound servants to the voodoo master, spirits forced to remain on earth which the shadow man could ensnare. I will say that the original story is sufficiently macabre to raise the heckles on anyone (except perhaps your hard core voodoo witch doctor), but then the horror industry got a hold of the idea. I heard Dan Wells talk on his podcast Writing Excuses that zombies were not just terrifying because they are all of the things I've mentioned above, but also that they can be anyone. Zombies means having your loved ones come after you. Zombies mean that those you loved ones are not just lost, but now are the monster. That can be a truly terrifying thought. The webcomic Looking for Group illustrates this well  in this mildly graphic strip - you cannot trust even those that look innocent.

It's amazing thought how much the genre has permeated many elements of culture. I just finished reading The Beyonders series by Brandon Mull and in book two they cross a land that was ravaged by worms which turned corpses into puppets that longed for human blood. Brandon Sanderson summarized his first book ever published, Elantris, as "zombies in prison." I didn't hear that until after I read the book and realized that while he never called them zombies, that is exactly what they were. Larry Corriea, includes zombies in both of his major series: in Monster Hunter you first hear about them when a voodoo witch creates them to get back at some kids, and in the Grimnoir Chronicles (an alternate history) they were the last ditch effort of the Kaiser to win the Great War (WWI).

Interestingly enough, along with using zombies as a horror troupe, it appears that there are some that look at life (or unlife) from the zombies' point of view. Both Beyonders, and Elantris use zombies that retain some form of intelligence, treating their condition as almost a form of dementia which degenerates after a period of time. Also, there is the fairly new film Warm Bodies which puts a fun twist on not just zombie stories but also Romeo and Juliet. As I said, I am not a zombie movie kind of person, but that one is one that I would watch. I'm sure there are others out there, but those are just the ones I'm familiar with.

So what has gotten society on the zombie bandwagon? I'm not sure if I know. It could be looking for a new way to scare up some trills. Or perhaps, it has always been used as a way to address bigger social/world problems - such as disease, genetic mutation/experimentation, terrorism, religion - you name it I'm sure you could work it into a zombie story. I have to agree with Doc and Rodger from The Whiteboard though.

Perhaps it's the age of terror we live in, where horrific violence is almost an every day occurrence. People want to be able to strike back at the evil in this world and zombies are the perfect target. Think about it, they are clearly evil, easily identified, and often move slowly. It takes a lot to drop a zombie, so people can really work out their frustrations while knowing that they are doing something good. This my explain the rise in, books, movies, and video games, Besides the media outlets, there are even physical activities like zombie walks, zombie runs, and even Humans vs Zombies - a huge group of "schools, camps, neighborhoods, military bases, and conventions" which allow people to "fend off" a zombie Apocalypses. My brother and his wife took part in a number of these games. Also, my wife will regularly "run from zombies" for exercise using the Zombies, Run! app, an interactive story line featuring you as a runner for an enclosed based trying to survive the hordes of zombies. So, not only are zombies therapeutic, they are healthy.

So, what does it take to survive a zombie Apocalypse? That has been the discussion for quite a number of years. I personally like the information given in this short video posted by the singing banana himself - Dr. James Grime and featuring Thomas Woolley. It turns out, mathematically, the best thing you can do to survive an outbreak is run. If you goal is to preserve society, the modelers suggest "hit hard and hit often." I guess it's time for me to get in shape and keep my blunt instruments handy. 

End of originality?

I enjoy listening to the podcast Do I Dare to Eat a Peach with Dan and Rob Wells every Wednesday. Both have participated in podcasting before, they are both published authors of international renown, and they are brothers (Dan is older by less then two years). And like most siblings they enjoy similar things, but often disagree about them. I enjoy the banter and the information (they are both very intelligent and Rob is a total research nut) but I don't always agree with what they say. For instances in episode 21 they talk about the oddness of the poem that was originally written with Camille Saint-Saens "Dance Macabre" (the 1:09:35 mark in the episode) I was screaming, "It was written in French! Of course it's odd, it's a translation!" Anyway, I've been known to disagree with them, but I still enjoy myself.

 Episode 36 was on covers of songs and it got me musing. Why do we enjoy new versions of something? Covers of songs. Remakes of movies. Re-tellings of stories in novels. Let's take the story of Cinderella. That link will take you the the "adaptations" part of the Wikipedia article. As you look at the list, keep in mind that novels and short stories are not listed. My family has at least two re-tellings in novel form. How many times has that story been retold? I believe I would be accurate to say that it has been done over a hundred times.

In the Do I Dare to Eat a Peach episode, Dan and Rob specifically only look at covers of the songs, not mash-ups (mixing two or more songs), or adaptations and remixes (altering the lyrics). My comparison to Cinderella does include those additional elements. But regardless it begs the question: Why use the same old tired story again. And again. And again.

Dan's other podcast, Writing Excuses covered this question in Season 8, episode 6. Taken from the liner notes they address my question: "Familiar stories let us explore things in new ways, both because we know what’s coming, and because we don’t need to be brought up to speed on the story." They are applying this to written stories, but the same can be said of other media. Rob Wells mentions in an earlier Peach episode that movie adaptations of books are like making apple pie. It takes a whole food (apples), but turns it into  a different food (pie). This provides variation and can produce different perspectives.

For example, JRR Tolkin talks about the sacrifice of Boromir  in The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring. It takes about a two paragraphs (online text here p. 417). It is a stirring scene and you do feel a sense of loss at his death. This scene was taken by Peter Jackson in his movie adaptation and translated to a visual medium. The end product is very different from the original, but the power behind it is equal or arguably greater. NOTE - I am not advocating that movies are better than books, just that they are different and different is not inherently good or bad.

Now let's look at the title of this blog. Is our fascination with established stories ruining our creativity and preventing people from being original? Some may say that it is. I enjoy a variety of YouTube artists and many of them do covers, adaptations, remixes, and mash-ups of popular songs. The last two movies I watched were a Bond film (a book adaptation) and Wreck-it-Ralph a movie pulling from video game troupes. Even Pixar's two upcoming movies are pulling from works they've already established (Planes from the Cars world, and a Monsters Inc. College film). Where is the new stuff?! Well, believe it or not, it's in there. Let me explain.

I recently finished reading Cinder by Marissa Meyer. It is one of the many adaptations of Cinderella and one of the two that my family owns. Allow me to explain how it is original. First, it is a science fiction story that takes place so far in the future that people living on the moon have evolved to be more than human. Cinder, our lowly protagonist, is a cyborg. Oh, and did I mention it takes place in the Orient, or that there is a plague killing everybody, or that Cinder is a mechanic? Like Mary Robinette says in the Writing Excuses episode cited earlier, the story has the important elements that tell us it is a Cinderella story, but everything else is new a exciting. I highly recommend the book. So you know the series isn't done yet, but it's well worth reading.

Allow me one math example here. If you were to look at most advanced math concepts you would discover that, for the most part, they are extrapolations and adaptations of the four basic operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Heck, even multiplication could be seen as an advanced form of addition. And subtraction is just the opposite. So have there been any original science or maths done since the discovery of addition? Of course. Original thinking in math and science (including the social sciences) is often taking established ideas and applying them in new ways, or combining them to create something new. This is the basic idea of synthesis.

The argument could be used that humanity has been creating ideas for long enough that there is no such thing as an original idea - in any discipline. Joseph Campbell in Hero with a Thousand Faces basically says that despite existing thousands of miles apart all the different cultures in the world had, in essence  the same myths and legends. So was humanity ever really original? Yes. Our originality comes from taking the known and mixing it with the unknown. Taking the familiar and crossing it with the strange. Taking two seemingly opposite ideas and combining them and finding not only do they not cancel each other out, but blend in a new and exciting way. Think about the scene from Disney/Pixar's Ratatouille - where Remy tries to explain food to his brother. It's kind of like that. 

For your viewing (and listening pleasure) here is a playlist I put together of some of my current favorite covers from YouTube artists.

Muse on what your next original idea will be while listening to the music.

Writing is the answer not 42.

Douglas Adams asked in his book The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, "What is the meaning to life, the universe, and everything?" The great computer Deep Thought gave the answer, "42." There are many that think this is still fundamental correct, but when it comes to Life, the Universe, and Everything in Provo, UT the answer is "writing" (and by extension reading).

This year my wife and I were finally able to attend one of the greatest writing symposiums in the inter-mountain west: Life, the Universe, and Everything. My mother wrote in her weekly E-mail that this was the fifth year they have attended. The biggest draw for us this year was that my younger sister and father were presenting a research paper they had written entitled, "Reactors built in the 20th  century blow up in the 21st." It was a discussion of the shift in science fiction from space opera to dystopian and apocalyptic. It was fascinating to hear both the origins and the progress of sci-fi, particularly as I tend to be picky about what sci-fi I read.

We enjoyed the few other panels we were able to attend. Although, I was reminded that just because people are on a panel doesn't mean that they are the most knowledgeable on the topic. It reminded me of this Schlock Mercenary comic. There was some good discussion, but it was also entertaining to watch one of the panelists do everything possible not to roll her eyes on a number of occasions as people said things she disagreed with. I was also able to attend a discussion on how to write action done by one of my favorite authors, Larry Correia. Larry is one of the authors I wanted to go all "fanboy" on. He is very good at writing action that keeps you engaged and I don't think there has been a book he's written that I didn't stay up late (or early i.e. past 2:00 am) to finish. Several of his 400+ page books I've read in less than a 48 hour period.

As we drove home, my wife commented that I should consider taking up writing again. That is, I have considered taking up writing and my wife was recommending that I consider it again. I have not written anything of particular note, but I have some ideas bouncing around my head that have been marinating for a while. I do enjoy learning about the writing process and how to improve writing, but I've come to see myself as an informed consumer. With that said, I do enjoy putting ideas on a page and I think that was one the the catalysts of keeping a blog. Writing gives me a way to think or should I say muse.