Friday, 31 May 2013

"Get Into That Kitchen And Make Me A Natural BLT, Woman!"

I'm feeling lazy today (as well as stressed; I've got a meeting coming up with the second-worst PhD student I've ever met because I'm at the shitty end of an extremely long list of people who've passed the buck on him), so how about I just pick on an obvious idiot: Erick Erickson
After a Pew Research report found that mothers were the sole breadwinners in 40% of American households with children, Erick Erickson said on Fox Business that it is “anti-science” to suggest that’s acceptable.
Said Erickson: “I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology — when you look at the natural world — the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role.”
This is so hilarious a misunderstanding of the words "natural" and "science" it almost qualifies as art.  When Erickson looks around this society we've artificially created to look inside the houses we've artificially constructed, he's horrified to learn that the person gaining the money we've artificially given meaning to isn't being collected by the natural people?  "Natural breadwinner" is no less an oxymoron than "natural shuttle-pilot".

It's the invocation of science that's truly wonderful, however.  Science, we now learn, simply means that the most common occurrences are the right occurrences.  That shit be biology, yo!

In celebration of this brave new face of the scientific method, I propose the following list of Erickson's Laws, each of which details behaviour or concepts that only those dabbling in anti-science would even consider:
  • Women making money
  • Cooked food
  • Objecting to people fucking in public
  • DVDs
  • Antibiotics
  • Giving birth
  • Spines
Once again, science is victorious!

Friday Talisman: Cults Never Seem To Work Out

Fresh off the paint bench this week, it's the Dark Cultist, who as a Talisman character I've always found a bit boring, but which gave me the chance to try a rather nice colour scheme.  It's pretty similar to the one on her character card, with the major alteration being me giving her tights and boots.  I don't think bare legs and sandals are responsible choices when your dark rituals might end up splashing demonic acid all over the place, or some such.



I'm particularly proud of the weird energy sloshing around her staff's head, but I like the base quite a bit as well.  It's just Stirland Mud with a little Burnt Grass stuck to it, but it seems suitable for the kind of blasted heath I imagine these cultists meet up on to get up to whatever it is they do.

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

The Briar Around The Slide


Sooner or later this increasingly irregular series of posts is going to come to an end.  Eight or so more and I'll have polished off the whole of Lucifer, and be casting around for something else to discuss at tedious length.  The obvious choice is Carey's latest series, The Unwritten, and indeed that's exactly what I'm going to be looking at.  When we get there, an awful lot of time and space is going to get used up talking about the nature of stories, which is great for me, as it's just the kind of meta-commentary I like doing.

In fact, I like it so much that I'm going to start now.  In my defence, that's because this is the point where Carey started as well, or at least where he brought it to the surface.  Lucifer concerned itself with many themes over the course of its run - hence why this series of posts exists - but as the Morningstar began to set more and more time was dedicated to the meaning stories have upon our lives, to the point where it's difficult in the extreme not to conclude Carey realised what he was going to write next once it started bleeding in to what he was doing at the time.

Essentially, the intertwined "Stitchglass Slide" and "Wire, Briar, Limber Lock" represent the stage at which Carey stops merely telling stories, and begins to pull them apart and reassemble them.

(Spoilers below)


Monday, 27 May 2013

A Tale Of Cocktails #40

Long Island Iced Tea

Ingredients

2 oz vodka
1 oz tequila
1 oz gin
1 oz white rum
1/2 oz white creme de menthe
6 oz coke
2 oz lemon juice
1 tsp sugar syrup
Lime slice

Taste: 9
Look: 7
Cost: 7
Name: 8
Prep: 5
Alcohol: 3
Overall: 7.1

Preparation: First, syrup your sugar.  Then shake all non-fizzy liquids over ice and strain into ice filled glasses.  Add coke and lime slice garnish.
 
General Comments: This is a lot of work to put together, but it's worth it.  It's not tremendously difficult to mix sweet and bitter in such a way as to impress some people, but doing it so that it works across the board.  That's exactly what the LIIT does, and it does it both with style, and with gin.  Opinions can differ which of those is the most important.

(Not really.  It's a trick question: gin is style.)

Sunday, 26 May 2013

Heretical Adaptations

Without wishing to sound even more insufferable than usual, I'm not really one for what could be described as "popcorn books".  I've nothing against the idea of lightweight fluff in general, I should stress; no-one with the kind of comic book recommendations I get each time I sign into Amazon could claim that.  But that's the point, perhaps.  I prefer my brain-on-hold entertainment to come from a comic book one can polish off in fifteen minutes, or a film that'll be done inside two hours.  Four hundred pages of text seems like quite a commitment when the aim is to get as little permanent as possible from the experience.

Games Workshop's Horus Heresy novels struck me as a potential exception.  The tale of how Warmaster Horus turned what should have been humanity's finest hour into a war that almost exterminated mankind might not be the best story GW have ever told, but I wouldn't want to be the guy having to make that case. Curiosity to learn more - the second-most common downfall of a geek, after bizarre ultra-defensive sexist rants triggered by entirely innocuous statements - led me to investigate (along with help from Chris, who lent me the first three novels).

Obviously, there are two angles GW needed to consider: people reading the books as an introduction to the 40th Millennium (actually the 30th Millennium here, but what's ten thousand years between friends?), and people already familiar with the broad strokes of the story looking for particulars.  Equally obviously, it's not easy for me to judge how well the books do capturing the first group.  My gut says pretty well; by focusing almost entirely on the Luna Wolves/Sons of Horus and - to a much lesser extent - the Emperor's Children means the sprawling nature of the Great Crusade doesn't overwhelm, and the savvy use of a dramatis personae at the beginning of the first book (pointlessly and inaccurately used in later novels presumably out of slavish devotion to anything Dan Abnett does) is helpful in that regard too.

Mainly, though, I wonder if I'm assuming the books work well for newcomers because their biggest failing might be failing to surprise savvy readers.  It's hard to get too worked up about which way a Space Marine's loyalty will swing when he has his own entry in Codex: Chaos.

Actually, that might be unfair, for two reasons, one redemptive, the other the opposite.  The redemptive argument is that these are three books (Horus Rising, about the eponymous character's increased dissatisfaction with his role, False Gods, in which that dissatisfaction is twisted by outside forces, and Galaxy in Flames, in which everything explodes in quick succession) are based on the unstoppable force of hubris turning to tragedy, with some cool action scenes scattered about.  One does not read a tragedy to be surprised; the clue is in the name.

None of that means though that surprise and tragedy cannot be combined.  Why stuff a trilogy with, at minimum, a dozen major Astartes characters and not make any effort to keep the audience guessing as to which way they'll jump?  Instead, almost every Space Marine in the books can be sorted into "loyalist" and "traitor" within five lines of their first appearance.  Even the exceptions don't surprise, they merely take the more likely of two options.  The absolute biggest shock of the whole trilogy comes from an Astartes who seemed a sure bet for treachery waiting for longer to turn traitor than one might have thought.

This is the far less charitable reading: that the trilogy doesn't suffer if you know how the story ends, it suffers if you know how the most cliche-ridden works imaginable end.  A story about brother betraying brother is an ideal opportunity to work some twists into the tale, but really what we end up with is little more than a handy flow-chart for spotting potential traitors.


All of which makes our nominal heroes seem rather thick and complacent.  Indeed, at least once during "False Gods" it becomes clear that they have the goods on at least one traitor, but they decide not to do anything until they have more to go on; a baffling decision that screams "authorial intent" as the books head towards thousands of loyalist Space Marines dying mainly because their commanders are just too stupid to live.

There is one big exception to the five-line rule, and it happens at the finale of the first book.  Which is to say, as no-one familiar with Black Library (that's GW's fiction wing, for the uninitiated) will be surprised by, Dan Abnett is the only one truly delivering the goods here.  His significant skill is obvious throughout Horus Rising, in which characters get multiple strands to their personalities and even the most depraved and evil figures who feature in the Heresy are shown to have their virtues before the treachery takes root.  It's not clear why Abnett didn't write the whole trilogy (perhaps he hadn't the time, or GW wanted all three novels written more or less concurrently), but it certainly suffers for his absence in the later books.  Indeed, one could make a very strong case for the idea that the quality of authors drops linearly.  Abnett isn't exactly a flashy or sophisticated writer, but he's perfect for the kind of high-octane action Black Library wants to churn out, and he's more than capable of making the machinations that occur between engagements interesting and layered.  Graham McNeill lacks Abnett's solid characterisation skills, and it hurts his book.   The major and surprising reveal of a trusted adviser proving to have a sinister agenda at the end of the first book is utterly undone by having that character suddenly become all sinister moustache twirling as the second begins.  Worse still, McNeill fumbles the all-important turn of Horus; the noble optimist of the first book becomes a brooding malcontent without explanation between novels, making his ultimate decision to rebel against the man he previously considered his father feel unearned.  That said, McNeill can still craft a good set-piece when he needs to.

Ben Counter, though, is no better than McNeill at characterisation, and even his action scenes cause problems.  To often they're both rushed and sparsely described.  Yes, long sentences of flowery prose aren't what you want when you're reading about desperate hand-to-hand fighting amidst a ruined city, but there's a skill to parsimoniously evoking a scene that Counter lacks.  The best thing that can be said about him is that he's enough of a writer to not spoil the exceptionally strong material he's been given - the battle of Istvaan III being close to author-proof, but even then he does his best.  One of the novels' major characters has his final duel to the death off-screen.  Another major character - really, the most important character to not make it out alive - is summarily dealt with in a few lines.  The glorious last stand of the loyalist marines never takes place because Horus - for which read Counter - gets bored and decides to just bomb them all instead.  There's more than a few aspects to these books I would have done differently had I been in charge, but the only truly baffling decision is to wrap up the centrepiece of the entire trilogy in two short chapters.  Surely one would never catch Abnett making so egregious a mistake.

All that said, given the action to dialogue ratio increases with each instalment, perhaps it makes sense to give the first novel to Abnett and the last to Counter.  Somewhere in another dimension exists a mirror trilogy in which Galaxy in Flames is the greatest novel Games Workshop has ever produced.  It's just that it caps a trilogy that starts with the most turgid and predictable potboiler imaginable.

I don't want to come across as relentlessly negative.  The steady reduction in writing talent is ameliorated to a large extent by the plot's increasing stakes.  The most important question adaptations of well-loved but nebulous story is this: has it made things worse?  Should the untold tale have remained untold?  Has this aspect of the tale, in fact, betrayed the whole?  The answer here is, fortunately, no, though it is not a no without qualification.  A failure to fuck-up is not the same thing as a success, and this trilogy drifts ever closer towards the latter as it progresses, until it finally crosses that line some forty pages before the end.

Friday, 24 May 2013

Cheatassonne


Ah, X-Box Carcassonne, you is so pretty.  But why you hurt me so?

Let's leave aside the question of whose bright idea it was to emulate a turn-based game and require each player to use a separate controller, and get to the real meat of the problem; the games utter inability to even plausibly mimic random tile allocation.

For those who haven't played this game before, the idea is that each player in turn is given a tile, on which can be one or more of three features: part of a city, a length of road, or a cloister.  The tile is then placed next to the tiles already on the board, so that e.g. a city piece is adjacent to another city piece.  Completing cities and roads gets you points; cloisters give you points when you surround them, monks being agoraphobics, presumably.  You can also place farmers in the fields, who get points if they have nearby cities to sell corn to.

It's all pretty simple, but it rather relies on the idea that each player has the same chance (more or less; the tiles don't always quite divide equally) of getting each tile.  Specifically, cloisters are often the most sought after items, because they can be quite valuable, and you can sort of leave them to themselves whilst you build other structures around them.

In my last three River games against four AI players, I have received precisely zero cloisters of the seven per game available.  The chances of this are less than 2%.  In my last game I came second, losing to an AI by 19 points.  26 of his points came from the three cloisters he acquired, of the seven available to five players.  The chances of this are less than 15%.  Yes, I confess that falls short of significant, but I figure if I whine about this now, I'll either collect more evidence in later games, or the universe will try to spite me by proving me wrong, and actually allow me to win a gorram game.

Those of you who suspect I'm simply applying basic statistics to a case of sore losing may not be entirely devoid of a point.  This doesn't mean you can't all piss off, though.

Thursday, 23 May 2013

Annoying All The Right People

Well, this is interesting.  It would be wrong of me to claim this is the most encouraging thing I've heard the new Pope say since his arrival; that towould be him dissing rapacious capitalism.  Nor will either of these rather surprisingly sensible positions be enough if he continues the Vatican's appalling policies on contraception, though apparently there's some hope that he won't.

Nevertheless, to me personally, this is kind of a big deal. It's always been my feeling that atheists and Christians should be able to work together on any number of causes, focussing on what needs to be done rather than why we think we should do it.  This is harder than it should be in practice.  Partially this is due to anti-religious sentiment amongst some atheists, but also partly responsible is the view held by some Christians that the real-world effects of such alliances are less important than the knowledge those they're working alongside have no interest in their theology.  The memory of attending a Christian talk three years ago in which the audience was told atheists are more deserving of heavenly punishment than Hitler springs immediately to mind.

So here's hoping that Pope Francis' words on the subject are a first step in mutual co-operation.  It's not like we couldn't get anything done with that.