Quz 6 Redux

The answers to Quz 6 are up now. I managed to fluff the arithmetic during the scoring, so Team SquidBlog didn't do quite as well as I'd thought. Still, 34 out of 40 isn't too bad at all, though I'd point out that a) anyone who couldn't even guess the name of a Rolling Stones album is breathtakingly ignorant of musical history, and b) if you can't get a football trivia question right that even I know the answer to, you may have to consider the possibility that you're an alien sleeper agent programmed by that kid Qulazx Central sent to Infiltration HQ for work experience.

Lucifer: No Friends Of The Devil

-->

There are probably any number of ways to consider Lucifer's third arc (I'm including the initial mini-series, natch), but one fruitful angle is to approach The House of Windowless Rooms as the final part of an introductory trilogy. The Morningstar Option outlined Lucifer’s motivations. A Six-Card Spread demonstrated his methodology. The House... completes our welcoming tour by showing us exactly what awaits those that get in his way.

We had an early taste of this in the fate of Meleos’ library, of course. And Lucifer’s bearing has never given us any doubt that crossing him would be profoundly unwise. Still, clearly Izanami requires a reminder of exactly how dangerous Lucifer is, and it’s important for us to see him in action against an opponent more powerful than a heartbroken pacifistic angel. There was the Basanos, of course, but that at its core was a business negotiation, albeit an unquestionably dangerous one.

The House... presents us with something very different. This isn’t about negotiation, it’s about battle. Actually, it’s about two battles, one over the Morningstar’s wings, and the other over his gate.

The difference between the two is striking. Lucifer enters Izanami’s domain unarmed, naked and mortal, and gains his wings without any more inconvenience to himself than the ruining of his borrowed lapels. In contrast, Mazikeen’s defence of the gate has her blinded and horribly burned, Lux razed to the ground, and the survival of Creation only ensured by the interference of Jill Presto and the Basanos.

One can argue at length whose conflict was the harder; a sociopathic, headstrong Lilim against two Jin En Mok, or a wingless, mortal Lucifer against a family of murderous Japanese Gods. What is unquestionable is that Lucifer’s approach is light years away from Mazikeen’s endless headlong charges into combat (note how Mazikeen’s two victories in fighting Saul and Cestis come from trickery and lateral thinking). Lucifer has no problem with violence when necessary – as attested to by the off-screen fate of the hapless Ritsime – but his preferred tack is a good deal more subtle, if no less fatal.

Generally, Lucifer’s tack, and his strength, lies in assessing a situation, and taking the route out no-one else expected. To him, there is no Catch-22. He is frequently offered two or more equally unappetising choices; fight a demon or push his hands into molten lead; offend his hosts by eating a sacred animal or offend them by refusing to eat at all; sit at any chair in a circle that will lead to Kagutsuchi claiming he has chosen a chair above him. A Hobson’s choice, each one, but in every case Samael takes some new route unconsidered by his opponents.

Of course, this is entirely unsurprising. Who else could be so skilled at evading the apparent dictates of fate as the Morningstar, whose entire existence is dedicated to escaping what lies in the cards (we are reminded again of his distaste for the Basanos, even if once again we note him acting on the information they gave him and he claimed to find irrelevant)? It is not only the edicts of God he wriggles free from, after all. The machinations of these Japanese deities, whose obsession with stealing worship in order to survive must profoundly disgust him (as evidenced by his curt dismissal of Tsuki-Yomi’s fears as the latter lies bleeding from the wound of the Three-Named Sword, as well as his cold poisoning of Kagutsuchi), are navigated also, and rather more easily. Even games of chance disagree with him, as Izanami’s gatekeeper learns to his cost. Randomness is anathema to fate, perhaps, but they still represent what Lucifer despises: a lack of control. The Devil, we learn, does not play dice, though one imagines he would be rather good at it.

Although I suspect it is rather unfair to do so, I sometimes find myself comparing Lucifer to its parent series Sandman. More specifically, one can consider the progress of Lucifer’s arc with that of Morpheus. When one considers Sandman in light of Morpheus’ eventual fate, it is clear that his doom was set in motion early on. One could say the same of Lucifer, perhaps (I still have two books to read, so this must be taken with a hefty dose of salt). In truth, though, we had to learn of Morpheus’ inflexibility as we went along. Labelling Lucifer’s fatal flaw as his arrogance seems positively banal, an assumption one could make without so much as glancing at Carey’s work.

Nevertheless, what is unsurprising is not commonly untrue. What is interesting is not realising that arrogance will be Lucifer’s downfall, but how exactly it will happen. Here, we see Lucifer’s almost pathological need to insult those who oppose him bring him to within an inch of being stung to death by a demon of the Shiko-Me. Perhaps there was no other way to regain his wings, but without his casual contempt with which he treats Susano and Yama-No-Kami, to say nothing of his murder of Kagutsuchi, perhaps Izanami would have chosen a less vicious revenge than the poisoning of Lucifer’s feathers.

The true demonstration of Samael’s flaw, however, is in his exchange with Jill Presto when he returns to the smoking ruins of his nightclub. His snide dismissal of the Basanos not only risks another confrontation he has no real need of, but reveals something critical: Lucifer would rather lose alone than win through the intervention of others. If he cannot be in Lux to defend it, better it fall than it be propped up by those who are not bound to him.

Like Morpheus, or Gandalf, or Dumbledore, Lucifer cannot be everywhere at once. Lucifer is power, but he is not control (again, this comes as no surprise). Given his plans for the void beyond Creation that is – for now – his private playground, one can only assume that things have the potential to go very, very badly.

First, though, he has need of one thing more. He has Mazikeen and Musubi both to aid him on this side of the gate. But the other side must be guarded too. We shall talk more on that next time around.

A Perfect Beast

I spent Friday night with Bighead and a couple of other friends watching the Gala Theatre Stage School perform the stage musical adaptation of Disney’s Beauty and the Beast.

It was a fascinating experience. I’m never entirely sure what to make of the actual story. I have two fundamental problems with it, one from the Disney interpretation, and the other as old as the tale itself (which is not, one assumes, as “Old as time”). I find it very difficult to entirely shake off the feeling that the overall message of this particular yarn is that if you’re prepared to fall for someone ugly, you’ll get yourself a reward for being so nice as to forgive their repulsiveness. Now, there are plenty of good counter-arguments to this interpretation. It’s possible to view the moral of the story in exactly the way it’s presented: true beauty lies within. That might come across as a little clearer had the Beast, say, become gradually more attractive as the tale progresses, but then that would sacrifice the drama in the set-up, so it’s hardly surprising that route wasn’t taken. Even so, I remain uncomfortable each time I see Belle profess her love to the dying Beast, and then see the look of happiness on her face when he turns out to have been a Gallic pretty boy all along. This is why Shrek’s inversion of the tale works so well. The point isn’t that inner beauty translates into outer beauty, it’s that the former, we hope, renders the latter largely irrelevant. Belle’s reward for being willing to forgo physical attraction is to receive it. Shrek receives no reward other than the love of the woman he loves in return, and that’s absolutely all he needs.

I realise I am probably being uncharitable, in addition to potentially applying far too much thought to a tale for children (though that attitude taken too far is profoundly dangerous). Nevertheless, the issue remains. It’s accentuated by the Disney approach itself, in which all that stops Belle from leaving the Beast forever is him saving her from being torn to pieces by a pack of slavering wolves. That, at least, seems fairly unambiguously rooted in childhood fantasy. “She might not notice me now, but I bet if I saved her life she’d see how awesome I am”. The man who confuses gratitude for affection does himself – and the object of his desire – no favours.

So I have some problems with the structure of the story. The execution, however, was flawless. I really should go to the theatre more often, but my inexperience has the happy knock-on effect of being amazed every time I go as to just how much can be achieved by an inventive and dedicated troupe. Watching a man turn from man to beast and back in front of your eyes is truly astonishing. The battle for the castle that forms the film’s conclusion was brilliantly, impossibly recreated, with added lashings of French farce (a lovely and smart touch) for good measure. The cast’s rendition of “Be Our Guest” actually outstrips the source material, which shouldn’t be humanly (furnishing-ly?) possible – I’m really not sure why they didn’t end the first act on that, rather than what I can only assume was meant to be some kind of musical suicide note by a moping Beast. Absolutely nothing fell short of expectation, and frequently the show outstripped all hopes for it. Even the new songs, whilst not up to the standard of the originals, were engaging and interesting in their own right.

My only major niggle was the desperate lengths the cast went to imitate the accents and voices of the original stars. In this, I differ markedly from BigHead’s opinion, but if I’m watching an interpretation of a work from another medium, that’s what I want; an interpretation. Not something that is as close to a copy as possible within the structure of the new situation (something you could argue Zack Snyder’s Watchmen, for example, fell afoul of). Obviously, when you’re dealing with something as popular as a Disney film (or The Lord of the Rings, which also came up whilst I was talking this over with BigHead), the major heresy is not to copy too avidly, rather to change for the worst, but that makes replication merely safe, not necessarily good.

Over the course of this conversation, BigHead pointed out that I would be hardly likely to raise similar complaints had we seen a band that night rather than a play. And to some extent he’s right. Indeed, I am on record as disliking, say, Counting Crows’ habit of re-jigging their songs during live sets – though in fairness that has less to do with purism and more the fact that they’re often just not very good at doing so. On the other hand, I’ve seen live performances by Coldplay (on TV, admittedly) which were indistinguishable from their recorded versions, to the extent that it took me much of the song to determine they weren’t miming.

That holds absolutely no interest for me at all. I want some variation in a live performance. That, in large part, is the point of a live performance in the first place, at least to me. You can keep your shared experience. I want change. Not too much, perhaps, but surely some Goldilocks Zone of alteration and innovation must exist. This is especially true because the analogy above is faulty. We weren’t watching a band perform one of their songs. We were watching them play someone else’s song. Anyone ever loved a cover version because it was essentially indistinguishable from the original?

I’m betting no.

Still, I’ve gone on at length about this because it’s an interesting topic, not because the problem that led to it was particularly crippling. On the contrary, I was profoundly impressed and entertained. Even if I am worried about the fact that I thought the French maids were more attractive as feather dusters...

Quz 6

This months' quiz. A slightly uneven batch this time round: in general people found rounds 1, 2, 6 and GK fairly straightforward, but struggled with 3, 4 and 5. On the other hand, rounds 3 and GK were the only two where no team scored full marks, and the very last question in the quiz was the only one not to be answered correctly by anyone at all. The score to beat this week is 35.

Round 1: Words (each word contains an IATA airport code, e.g London Gatwick is LGW)

1 A family of small primarily insectivorous mammals which sport leathery armoured shells (Barajas International Airport, Madrid) ArMADillo

2 Subsequent to birth (London Stansted) PoSTNatal

3 A massive gravitationally bound system of stars and stellar fragments (Los Angeles International Airport) GaLAXy

4 A term meaning “Before the meal”, which refers to the first course of an Italian meal. (Tripoli International Airport) AnTIPasti

5 A lighter than air craft that is steered through the sky using a rudder and propellers (Gibraltar Airport) DiriGIBle

Round 2: Bears

1. From where in South America does Paddington Bear originate? Darkest Peru

2. From which American President do teddy bears take their name, after an incident on a hunting trip in which he demanded the mercy killing of a wounded black bear? Theodore Roosevelt

3. Which trilogy of books includes a talking polar bear by the name of Iorek Brynison? His Dark Materials

4. The constellation of Ursa Major, also known as the Great Bear, contains within it which pattern of seven stars which is frequently informally considered a constellation itself, and which can be used to find the North Star? The Big Dipper/The Plough

5. More correctly known as “Symphony No. 82 in C Major”, “The Bear Symphony” was completed by which composer in 1786, making it the last of the so-called Paris Symphonies to be finished, despite it coming first in the collection? Joseph Haydn

Round 3: Clowns

1. How is Hershel Shmoikel Pinchas Yerucham Krustofsky better known? Krusty The Clown

2. Which serial killer, active between 1972 and 1978 and responsible for over 30 murders in Illinois, was given the moniker “The Killer Clown” because of the popular block parties he would throw for friends and neighbours whilst dressed as a clown to entertain children? John Wayne Gacy, Jr.

3. In which decade was Ronald McDonald first introduced to television in an attempt to market the fast food restaurant’s products to children? 1960's

4. In which Steven King novel is the town of Derry terrorised by a demonic clown named Pennywise? It

5. What object is used to record the individual face make-up of every clown that joins Clowns International? An egg

Round 4: UFOs

1. Which US band, who released their debut album in 1995, take their name from a nickname for strange glowing lights frequently witnessed by American pilots during the Second World War? Foo Fighters

2. Which television writer and director created the 70’s television series UFO, his first show to use live-action shots rather than Supermarionation puppetry? Gerry Anderson

3 In the summer of 1947 a UFO, later controvertially identified as a weather balloon, crashed on a ranch outside the American city of Roswell. In which state does Roswell lie? New Mexico

4. What name did the American military give to their study of UFO sightings between 1952 and 1970, in reference to the small booklets given to exam candidates in many colleges and universities? Project Blue Book

5. Which 1959 Ed Wood film,in which flying saucers resurrect the dead as violent zombies, includes a posthumous appearance by Bela Lugosi and has been described by multiple critics as “The worst film ever made“? Plan 9 From Outer Space

Round 5: Dice

1. Which Nobel laureate once said “God does not play dice”, in reference to his dislike of the idea that any event could be truly random? Albert Einstein

2. “Tumbling Dice” was the lead single from which Rolling Stones album released in 1972? Exile on Main St

3. Which is the highest value on a “doubling dice”, which is used to denote the current stake in backgammon and several other games? 64

4. What is the most likely value obtained by rolling two dodecahedral dice and adding their scores (the most likely score on two standard dice being 7)? 13

5. From which ancient civilisation have the first cubical dice been found, earlier gambling games having used instead the polished heel-bones of sheep? Egyptian

Round 6: Hearts

1. The human heart has four valves: the tricuspid, the mitral, the aortal, and which other valve? Pulmonary

2. In the card game “Hearts”, which is the only point-scoring card not belonging to the eponymous suit? Queen of Spades

3. Joseph Conrad’s 1899 novel “Heart Of Darkness” was adapted – albeit with significant revision – into which 1979 film, directed by Francis Ford Coppola? Apocalypse Now

4. Hearts of Midlothian FC “enjoys” a rivalry with which other football club which is also based in Edinburgh? Hibernian FC

5. Which game does Alice play with the Queen of Hearts, amongst others, in Alice in Wonderland, a game made difficult by its use of live hedgehogs, flamingoes, and the Queen’s own soldiers for equipment? Croquet

General Knowledge

1. (Lolita) Humbert ascribes his obsession with nymphets to the death of which childhood sweetheart? Anabel Leigh

2. In what year did the USSR launch Sputnik 1? 1957

3. Chartreuse, harlequin and veridian are all shades of what colour? Green

4. Which country abandoned its previous monetary unit last year after inflation rose during December of 2008 to an estimated six hundred million googlon percent? Zimbabwe

5. The existence of which subatomic particle was first posited by Gell-Mann and Zweig in 1961, and demonstrated to exist – though originally named “partons” – in 1968? Quark

6. Which poem contains the lines “Water water everywhere, nor any drop to drink”? The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

7. Name either of the countries from which chorizo sausage originates? Spain or Portugal

8. The legendary “Mongolian death worm”, several feet long and the colour of blood, is alleged to haunt which Asian desert? Gobi

9. Who assassinated Lee Harvey Oswald at Dallas Police Headquarters in 1963? Jack Leon Ruby

10. What kind of an animal is a loa loa? A worm

"What Do You Think That Word Means?"

To be filed under "Things That Have Ruined My Childhood."

This is Orange Anal Penetration all over again. Call the Daily Mail! Won't someone think of the children!

Note To Self: Never Be Nice About The Right

I've been keeping an eye on Rand Paul ever since I gave him credit for at least being entirely honest about his totally lunatic, unworkable beliefs. Specifically, it was refreshing to see a conservative/libertarian finally confess that their approach to the concept of freedom would necessarily make life tough for some groups of people. Clearly, that doesn't make them right, but I have far more respect for libertarians who start sentences with "This will be difficult and seem unfair, but..." than I do for those who insist "Everything would be better for everyone if only...".

Well, since then Paul has been working very hard indeed to demonstrate he's just as bad as the rest of the Republican Party. His libertarian tough-talk has been getting less and less about making hard decisions, and more and more about confusing "freedom" with "getting away with a much as you can".

Anyway, I think he might finally have reached his nadir (though I'm by no means sure I'm right about that) with this slice of villainy:

"The bottom line is: I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules," Paul said... "You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs."

"I know that doesn't sound … I want to be compassionate, and I'm sorry for what happened, but I wonder: Was it just an accident?"

Steve Benen notes one obvious take-away here: it's probably not a good sign that Paul doesn't want to have a hand in any legislation about something he isn't an expert in. God knows, we need more brains in politics, and we certainly need politicians to be briefed better, but that doesn't mean they get to wash their hands of any situation they don't want to learn about.

There's something far worse here, though. Claiming shopkeepers rights to refuse sales is more important than customers rights to be served is at least a comprehensible position, even if I think Paul is on the wrong side of it. On the other hand, arguing that a mine won't be able to hire manual labour if its safety record isn't good enough is just completely, mind-bogglingly ignorant. It would be stupid at any time, but with the US in the grips of an unemployment crisis, it pretty much beggars belief.

And the thing is, I'm pretty sure Paul knows this. Why? Because of that last line. Paul has no evidence, as far as I've been able to determine, that the disaster at the mine was anything but an accident. But he's happy to suggest it might have been. Because if it was, it would mean he didn't have to consider the risks of his position. He's put himself in a position where he's saying "Without regulations no mine will have a deadly accident", and the only way he can square that with actual fatal disasters is to question whether they were an accident at all.

It's a fairly common rhetorical trick, actually: you start with your axiomatic principles, and question the validity of any evidence that surfaces that contradicts them. I suspect almost everyone is guilty of that to some extent every now and again, but that doesn't mean this particular brand of reductio ad absurdum that the American right seems to specialise in shouldn't be condemned for what it is. It doesn't matter whether it's logically incoherent, whether you exonerate those responsible, or blame the victim: the principal tenant that less regulation means more awesome must never be allowed to face criticism or counter-evidence.

In short, I spoke too soon. Either Paul is just another cynical opportunist, or he's completely insane.

Or both. It's probably both.

We Also Know Wasps Are Sexually Aroused By Pate

This is easily one of the funniest headlines I've come across in ages. I'm wondering how hard it would be to swap specialties. Being an authority on imprecise probability isn't nearly as cool-sounding as becoming a "monkey-annoyance expert".

I'd also like to know just how long this has been going on. In my head these mavens of monkey mislike must have a list pinned up in a lab somewhere:

THINGS THAT TERRIFY MONKEYS

• Snakes
  
• Birds
• Fire
• Squirrels
• Flying squirrels
• Flying squirrels that are also on fire
• Old age
• Financial uncertainty
• Younger, cooler monkeys taking their monkey woman
• Nuclear war
• That AIDS thing finally coming back to bite them
• No bananas