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."

Once more into the breach!

I just finished listening to Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs on Audible.com. It reminded me of King Soloman's Mines by Sir. H. Rider Haggard which my mother had recommended to me a could years ago, which is also on my list to read. These stories fit under what is commonly referred to as adventure fiction. Written in 1885 King Soloman's Mines is considered the first English adventure novel, but it was by far the last. Even today, our cinema has a rich tradition from The Thief of Baghdad (1924) to Indiana Jones(1981-2008), Prince of Persia (2010), and The Adventure of Tintin (2011). Most of these are based on works of literature, notably the first and last. The Thief of Baghdad was based on One Thousand and One Nights also known as the Arabian Nights Tales (published in English in 1706) while Tintin was originally published in French in 1929. So adventure stories have been going on for well over 100 years.

It occurs to me that there may be confusion about what constitutes an adventure story as opposed to a thriller, action, or other broad genre. While doing a search for "Adventure novels" I came across this list from  The Art of Manliness blog of "essential adventure novels." I've read 11 and am familiar with 19 others. I was grateful to see Kipling, Tolkien, Verne, Cussler, and Crichton which again shows the century long span of the genre. But does it answer our question about what constitutes adventure over other genres? Not really as Jurassic Park is considered a great work of science fiction and The Lord of the Rings is used as a common definition of fantasy. I googled "Adventure genre definition" and liked this particular one from Writer's Digest University:

Adventure Story: A genre of fiction in which action is the key element, overshadowing characters, theme and setting. ... The conflict in an adventure story is often man against nature. A secondary Plot that reinforces this kind of conflict is sometimes included. In Allistair MacLean's Night Without End, for example, the hero, while investigating a mysterious Arctic air crash, also finds himself dealing with espionage, sabotage and murder.

 Because adventure stories are based on action and adventure they are highly susceptible to genre blending. I think many people would not actually think of their being an adventure genre as much as they think of adventure stories within a genre. However, there are some stories out there that are best described by Adventure - Indiana Jones being at the top of the list. It's not a war story, it's not horror or even rally paranormal/supernatural. Mystery doesn't cover it either. There may be elements of those troupes but really it is all about the adventure with everything else being secondary. For instance, does the character of Indiana Jones ever really develop over the course of the movies? At the end of The Last Crusade is he really any different then at the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark? Not really. Yes, he has accomplished some things, reconciling himself with his father being one, but has he reached a higher level of self. Nope! He's still the same kick-butt, wicked smart, super awesome guy from when he ran away from the boulder and shot the guy with the big sword. It's all about the adventure!

This idea that the adventure reigns supreme and that character development is not as critical gives us our classic, iconic, heroes. These are the people who are good at what they do. If they fail it is because the circumstances, perhaps even the Gods, are against them. But despite failure, their competency and consistency helps them rise again and overcome whatever it was that denied them victory the first time. They may overcome flaws and weaknesses along the way, but their inherent nature is unchanged. They are heroic because that is who they are. I recently finished listening to Dodger by Terry Pratchett, one of my favorite authors. As I listened to the story (slight spoiler), I started to become surprised that everything Dodger did worked. Everything he put his mind to he was able to accomplish. He did develop in other ways and I believe that you could say there was some character arch, but everything worked out. It didn't make me care about his character any less, nor did it significantly diminish the tension, it simply made the story about the adventure and less about the character. I believe this is what is often called a plot-driven story. Many think that plot driven stories are not as good as character-driven stories, but I believe that's a matter of taste. The classic and popular  adventure stories seem to have done a good job of it though. So kick-back, get comfortable, and enjoy the ride.

Creatures of Habit

Stand with my back to the wall. Reach back and touch it with my left hand. Take a step forward with my left food and tap the ground with my racket. Say the score. Bounce the ball once and serve.

Position paper draft on right side of the screen. Open research notes, online sources, etc. on left side. Turn on music, low volume.

Wrap up daily activities by 10:00 pm. Dress for bed. Read or play computer until midnight.

I put on deodorant, comb my hair, then use three pieces of toilet paper placed on the bottom right corner of my sink counter to clean my razor every morning.

What I have described above are three things that I do under certain circumstances. The first is how I serve when playing racquetball. The next is how I write research papers and blog posts. Next is my general evening routine and has been for the last fifteen years. And lastly my morning routine of getting ready for the day.

As I was doing research on this, I was looking for information on "why" we form habits. It turns out that "why" and "habits" don't go together. I wasn't able to find anything addressing the "why" of habit forming, it's all of the fact that forming habits is something we just do.

Habits form when we repeatedly do something. That's it. If you do the same thing the same way, you will eventually form a habit. Now, MIT demonstrated that as we do the same thing over and over, we eventually fine-tune it so that it becomes more efficient. Ultimately thought, we find ourselves slipping into autopilot as we preform these tasks. This can happen for both good behaviors as we all know. But this address the reason that we do not discuss why we form habits. We form habits because we do things, and many of those things are the same thing, over, and over, and over, and over......

So, back to how habits form. Terry Gross from Fresh Air on NPR, did an interview with Charles Duhigg, author of the book The Power of Habit: Why we do what we do in life and business. There it mentions that habits consist of three parts: cue or trigger, behavior, and reward.

The cue or trigger is the switch that moves us to automatic mode, and can be hard to identify with all of the "noise" associated with our behavior. From the appendix of his book, Charles Duhigg points out that "experiments have shown that almost all habitual cues fit into one of five categories: location, time, emotional state, other people, or immediately preceding action." This means that if you are trying to figure out what triggers your habit you can look to only those five areas. So, just keep track of where you are, what time it is, how you feel, who you are with, and what you were doing before you slipped into automatic. A pattern will eventually appear and you can narrow down the cue.

The behavior can also be called the routine. This is what becomes automatic. It may be my serving routine as described above, or my evening routine. It may be someone reaching for a handful of M&Ms at "that time" in the afternoon. This is usually the most identifiable aspect of the habit and usually what you want to stop.

The reward is what reinforces the habit. For instance, people usually don't develop a habit of putting their hands on a stove. This is simply because it hurts like the devil when you do. There is no reward to that, only pain. So every habit has a reward associated with it, something we feel that we are getting out of our routine. Perhaps it is the feeling that you aren't missing anything, like putting on deodorant or shaving. Or perhaps it feels easier on the eyes to look to the right side of the screen to type and the left to read. Whatever it is, it can be identified. Duhiggs points out that in trying to break a habit you should experiment with rewards so you can narrow down what it is you're craving when you enact the behavior. Once you know what you are craving from the behavior you can find more appropriate behaviors to achieve the same reward.

I should point out that I've presented Duhigg's ideas in almost reverse order. Check out the link to the appendix of his book above. There really is some fascinating stuff there. I was going to get into the neurological aspects of habit building, but I'll have to save that for another post.

I do want to make one thing clear. Many people associate an unusually pervasive habit, such as keeping their desk clean, or a particular action at a particular time EVERY DAY with having Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). While I am no expert on OCD, but I have learned a thing or two from conference panels by mental health professionals and following Robison Wells, an author who has "a heavy dose of panic disorder, a moderate case of depression, and a growing, angry case of OCD." I love Rob's books and enjoy reading and listening to his blog and podcasts. In a blog last October, Rob made it clear:

"When my OCD literally makes me punch myself in the face, or smash my hand in hopes of breaking it, there's nothing I find more annoying than picky people who like to keep their desk tidy cheerfully declaring "I'm totally OCD!" Words have meaning."

Please be considerate of those that struggle with the most prevalent mental disorder out there, the disorder that I have heard referred to as "the King of Mental Illness." If you have a strong habit to do something, that is not an indication of OCD. When you habit impacts everything else you do so you cannot live a normal life - seek professional help. If it isn't OCD, it's probably an addiction. And those come with their own problems as well.

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.