Sometimes, When There Are No Videogames...

...I read.  And this time, I read Game of Thrones and Ready Player One.  And now I will discuss them.  And none of this is recommended (4 out of 5 dentists agree).

I don't pleasure read very often, so I can't really compare one book to another or say if an idea is original or played-out.  But here goes.

Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin

Based on the HBO series (ok, other way around), this is the long beginning (750+ pages) to a multibook series and it feels that way, too.  In other words, most times it seems like a big set up rather than an individual story.  Characters are introduced, you learn how they tick somewhat, but there are a lot of them.  At first, I was worried I wouldn't remember all their names and keep them straight, but this didn't turn out to be a problem after all.  However, don't go in expecting some sort of resolution--in fact, things are murkier at the end than they were at the beginning.  That said, it's still an entertaining ride, mostly, I guess.

The back of the book says "At the center of the conflict lie the Starks of Winterfell, a family as harsh and unyielding as the land they were born to."  ...Huh?  Did we read the same book?  Eddard Stark, the head of the House of Stark and Lord of Winterfell, may be honorable and duty bound but by the standards of the day, he's one of the most compassionate characters in his position.

See, apparently men are all about going to war and nailing other chicks while they're away from their wives, and there are a ton of disenfranchised bastards (in the literal sense) roaming around.  The King, Robert Baratheon, apparently has a ton of them.  These bastards have to fend for themselves for the most part--maybe the receive unknown assistance through back channels in some instance, but they never know their fathers and they definitely aren't in line to inherent squat.

Eddard Stark, though, only has one bastard, and rather than support him from afar (or ignore him completely), he brought him home with him and raised him with his other children.  His wife didn't like it, but Eddard would never reveal the information about the woman with whom he conceived this child, either to his wife or to the child.

Eddard also strongly believes that, if you're going to sentence a man to die, you should be the one to swing the sword.  Don't send another man to do your dirty work.  This is also unlike every other ruling man in the book.

So Eddard is interesting and presumably the protagonist, except there really isn't a protagonist.  Each chapter is told from another character's perspective: Eddard; his bastard, Jon Snow; his wife, Catelyn; his son, Bran; his daughters, Arya and Sansa.  Other perspectives are Tyrion Lannister, known as "the Imp," a dwarf born to a powerful family who are generally at odds with the Starks and sundry others.  We also see things from the perspective of Daenerys Targaryen, one of two remaining members of the last king who was overthrown by Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark (but actually killed by Jaime Lannister, now known as "the Kingslayer.").  Her role in the book is separate from the rest, as she does not interact with what one might call "the main story" or "main players."  Rather, she's on a separate island, involved with a militaristic horse tribe that fears the sea (and therefore is never a threat to "the main players.").  Yet, it is perhaps her story and her character that are the most compelling--even though it's outside of everything else, I got excited when the chapter was titled "Daenerys."

But it is also Daenerys's story that points back to the obvious truth of this book: it's a set up for a series, and does not do much (if anything) standing on its own.  Clearly, she is going to have to get involved with "the main story" at some point, but that she does not do it at all in his book frustrates, like seeing the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie without knowing in advance they were making a third one for sure.  (Sidenote: Back to the Future II avoided this conundrum, I think, but I could be wrong.)

And her story is only the most obvious one, but as things are supposed to be "wrapping up," it's clear that nothing is resolved at all.  Everyone is in a considerably more chaotic situation than when they started, and the outcome is incredibly unclear.  Which is fine if you're dedicated to reading the series in advance, but I learned through Game of Thrones that I prefer books that can stand alone, even if they are part of a series (like Harry Potter).

I am intrigued with the story and I want to know what happens, but I'm also half-minded to read Wikipedia entries about the characters I care about rather than read the series.  Part of the problem involves jumping from perspectives each chapter.  I was excited for chapters from Eddard, Bran, Tyrion and especially Daenerys.  But whenever it was labeled Sansa or Catelyn, I found myself mentally checking out because I didn't find those characters compelling.

So, I guess if you're into reading a large series of books, Game of Thrones won't disappoint.  If not, you still might like this book, and maybe it will help going in that there won't be any resolution.

Ready Player One by Ernest Cline

This book came out of nowhere and changed my life.  OK not really, but I found it really compelling and very thought-provoking.  Yet, at the end I wondered if I really liked the book, or if I was just so happy with myself because I caught most of the pop culture references involved (especially the more nerdy ones).

One of my top five favorite movies of all time is High Fidelity, along with The Truman Show, Roman Holiday, The Princess Bride, and Saving Private Ryan.  Actually I can't swear by that list--the only safe ones are High Fidelity and The Truman Show.  I could also throw in Napoleon Dynamite, Good Will Hunting, Garden State, and even Juno if I was feeling a bit frisky.

But the important part is High Fidelity, both because the top five list was a reference to High Fidelity itself, and because it's chock full of references and pop culture stuff, most of which I don't understand but appreciate on a greater level because it's beyond my understanding.  See, I'm not a music lover on the level of Rob Gordon, so I can appreciate his love of music as he relates it to me even though I don't share that love.  One of the things they talk about, if only briefly, is that Rob, Dick and Barry divined that it's not what you're like, it's what you like that matters.  Cartoons, music, TV shows--having this in common is even more important than who you are.  At the end, Rob figures out that that's not really the case--that he loves Laura for reasons he can't explain but he fully realizes that the music part (and other things they like) doesn't matter.

But the idea, and the idea of pop culture references, of getting the inside joke (or even appreciating the inside joke even if it's over your head) creates this feeling of belonging or this aura of respect for those that do that you also want to belong.

Ready Player One is about a billionaire video game creator that invents the ultimate MMO video game that eventually takes over the world, voluntary "Matrix" style.  Everyone is logging in to escape the harsh reality of real life.  The billionaire dies, and his will is really a contest to retrieve three keys, open three gates and find this "Easter egg."  The winner wins his estate valued at $250 billion dollars and control this video game, called the OASIS.

In addition to the individuals searching for the egg, there are also egg hunting clans and one super-evil egg hunting corporation called IOI.  This corporation fully intends to better monetize OASIS, which the billionaire programmer sold individually for 25 cents and no subscription fee.

In order to find the egg, these egg hunters (or gunters as they are called) research everything they can about this billionaire's life:  his childhood, the video games he played, created, his musical tastes, etc. etc., anything that will give them a clue as to where to find these keys.  So naturally, there are stacks and stacks of references to movies and music from the 80s, even Dungeons and Dragon modules.

As I read through this book, I got the references (most of them), which enhanced my experience and made me think the book was genius.  And maybe it is, but I'm second guessing myself if only for this reason: what would the book be without the references?

High Fidelity includes musical references from a generation before me.  Music I've only heard if it was REALLY good, but generally heard by everyone ten years older than me.  There is a quiet reverence for this music and its fans, even if it's not my music.

Ready Player One's references are arguably still a generation before.  See, I've played Adventure for the Atari 2600... once.  I didn't beat it, and I certainly never found within it the very first video game Easter egg.  I've heard of Intellivision, I actually owned a Colecovision though I couldn't figure out how to make it work (I just used the Atari 2600 add on instead).  I played Pac-Man but never mastered it.  My generation was really the Super Mario Bros. generation (and probably more accurately, Super Mario Bros. 3).  Regardless of whether it's actually my generation or not, it resonates with me either because it is or for the same reason High Fidelity resonates.

It made me think: what if someone wrote this same book ten years "later" in its chronology, and the references shifted from Voltron to the Power Rangers?  From Street Fighter II to Pokemon?  Would it be the same, would it resonate?

The answer is no, not at all, not even close.  Not only do I not know those, I don't even respect them.  Those things--Power Rangers, Pokemon--don't come close, don't have the same depth, are mere imitations of the things in my childhood that were great.  Right?  Or is that just my perspective--I see the things in my generation as the original and all the followups as ripoffs?

Will people a generation or two before me like Ready Player One?

If I strip away all the pop culture references that I like and understand, is what's left still a good story?  Is it original?

As far as I can tell, the answers to those questions are probably good, but probably not original.  But thankfully, I don't have to read the book without the references, so even if the book is not an unqualified masterpiece (but rather, a qualified, perhaps limited to a certain group of readers type of book (as most probably are, I suppose)), if you grew up a geek in the 80s or 90s, you will probably enjoy this book.  Perhaps immensely.

Next books on my list: NONE.  Back to video games.  And wishing that the World of Warcraft would somehow be as good as the OASIS.

Replacement Refs and Fantasy Football

And non-titillating titles.  Not recommended.

The NFL is back, baby!  And this year, the NFL locked out its referees in a dispute over money, or at least, that's the only real piece of information being discussed because we don't know the numbers, etc.  The NFL says that it's going to be paying more money, but the refs did the math and say the get the greasy end of the stick in the long run.  Who is right?  Not sure.  But it's important to remember that the referees are locked out, not on strike.

(The other issue being discussed about the lockout is the hypocrisy of the NFL and its stance on player safety.  How can you lock out the most experienced refs but claim safety is a top priority?  But  you can read about that somewhere else.)

Replacement refs are calling the games; they did in preseason and they continued to do so in Week 1.  How are they faring?  Mario Williams blasted the refs for letting the Jets offensive line hold him on every play.  The Seattle Seahawks got an extra time out in the fourth quarter.  There were some other issues here and there, though it does not appear as if any of the flubs altered the outcome of a game... yet.

But even the presence of inexperienced referees is a signal to NFL teams, particularly coaches: try it, see if it works.  As Jim Rome said, if you're not cheating, you're not trying.

My favorite law professor played basketball with a guy who was great to play pick up with.  He played fairly, would admit when he fouled, etc.  But throw in a referee and the guy was a terror.  When someone else was charged with enforcing the rules, this guy would bend or break the rules in hopes a call went his way to gain the advantage over his opponents.  In other words, the referee became a "player" in the game, because his level of skill now had something to do with the outcome of the play, perhaps the game.

NFL teams--and NFL coaches--know that the referees are replacements, that they don't have the experience and training that the real referees have, and I guarantee you that factors into how they plan for the game.  It's one thing to call an extra time out and hope the referees are dumb enough to give it to you, or worse, not know what's supposed to happen if you call for a time out but don't have one.  It's one thing to tell the linemen to hold on every play.  But what will more creative coaches do to take advantage of the inexperienced refs?  I expect we will be surprised at the strategies we will hear about as the season progresses, unless the lockout ends soon.

While you're figuring out how that will affect your fantasy team and who you put in, I'll go ahead and talk about what I did in fantasy football this week.

I have three teams; on two teams, I had Matt Ryan and Peyton Manning.  Ryan's Falcons were taking on the Chiefs, who I read had a good secondary.  Based solely on that information, I benched Ryan for Manning.  What I neglected to read before making that decision is that two of the best Chiefs defenders were sidelined with injuries... which might explain how Ryan scored four touchdowns and torched them badly.

Thankfully, that didn't matter, because Manning played very well (just not as well as Ryan).  This week, Atlanta plays Denver, and I have no idea who I will start... Except that I am a Denver fan and really should start Manning, though biases like that are what turn one into fantasy football losers.

In my third league, Cam Newton started and was summarily exposed by his opponents.  I freaked and looked at the waiver wire for a new quarterback... Until I saw RG3 sitting on my bench.  Cha-ching.

Anyway, that's it.  Sorry it lasted even this long.

Big, Important Things!

I was browsing my Facebook news feed when a friend linked an article where one of the presidential candidates (and it will be transparent to most who this is, but this post is not about him so I'm omitting his name) indicated he would put a filter on all new U.S. computers to block pornography.  My first instinct was to respond with this:

How much taxpayer money will be spent on a filter that can never possibly work?  How much taxpayer money will be spent on laws and litigation for people who bypass the filter?  How much will the value of old computers go up because they are "filter-free?"

People have values that they want to sell during an election, that's fine.  But if you're serious about it, have a REAL plan, right?

I didn't post that because I didn't really want to fight about it, mostly because there are probably really transparent answers to all those questions: 1. the filters exist already in some form; 2. the filter is optional, but included automatically so parents can protect children; 3. see #2, it's a non-issue.

But the part that would remain unanswered, or maybe I just wouldn't be satisfied with the answer, is the last questions: if you're serious, have a REAL plan, right?  (Which may only be technically called a question because it does in fact end in a question mark, though really it is probably only a statement.)  That's kind of what this post is about.

People running for office, incumbents or otherwise (though perhaps this problem is more likely to occur in fiction rather than reality), seemingly often have plans to do X, Y or Z.  Often these comments referring to this plan seem to indicate that the plan is going to be mind-blowingly awesome, linked to iterations of "when I'm president," the plan will go into effect, and everyone will win.

My problem with this is, why is the plan conditional upon winning office?  One thought is that, as awesome as the plan is to the candidate, in reality the plan is only awesome for one party or those who lean left or lean right, and that the other party will find the plan horrible and dedicate time and resources into defeating the plan.  This makes sense on its face, with the example of the pornography filter: there are a lot of folks, many of which fall on the left side of the aisle, that don't want their internet content regulated by the government.  The plan is great for some, but awful for others.

But what if the candidate truly believes the plan IS great for everyone, regardless of political ties and impending opposition?  If you're American enough to believe that you love the country so much that you are the one most qualified to lead it, doesn't it follow that any plan that would benefit America is a plan that shouldn't wait, that shouldn't be conditional upon your winning office?

If you have a real plan to block pornography on the internet, why not try to implement it now, regardless of whether you get credit for the idea?  If you have a plan to fix social security, if you have a plan to boost the economy, if you have a plan to improve education, why should it wait?

I think I understand the idea that, once you're in power, you have the ability to do these great things; without that power, these things may not come to fruition.  At the same time, if a candidate, through his power as the party leader and/or the potential president, could use that status as candidate to sway other politicians to start implementing the plan... I mean, doesn't being the party front runner and potential election winner carry enough weight to get the ball rolling?  If you roll out an awesome plan and it starts to get implemented even before you're in office, isn't that a signal to the electorate that you can in fact deliver on these great plans once you get even more power?

Don't we as Americans deserve your effort to those ends, anyway?

I would love it, love it if a candidate said "I want to fix the pornography problem in America (sidenote: I know that presumes that there is a pornography problem in America, so that's obviously an ideology thing, but keep reading because that's not the important part, just the example).  I don't know how to do that at the moment.  The ideas we have aren't there yet--I can't just install a button that blocks pornography on every PC.  It's a complicated problem from a technical and legal standpoint.  But I'm dedicated to getting it done, and my colleagues and I continue to brainstorm and research how to reach this end.  If we figure it out before I am elected president, we won't hesitate to do what we can to implement it now."

Maybe candidates do say things like that, on perhaps more important issues that everyone already understands is complicated technically and legally.  Or maybe they avoid statements that will be pointed to as failure if they don't get it done.  Personally, I'd be impressed with the sentiment and the honesty.

I've rambled on long enough, am out of time, and can't salvage this anyway.  Did I forget to say this wasn't recommended?  Sorry, but maybe you should have known better?

Necropost: Tim Tebow is my Homeboy

Note: While I was contemplating a new post, I looked through my old posts and realized I started something on 4/23/10 on the eve of the NFL Draft where the Broncos drafted Tim Tebow, but I never finished it or posted it.  So what I'm gonna do is leave in the original post, then follow up.  This, of course, is not recommended.

THEN: 

Right?

Last night: "The Broncos drafted Tim Tebow IN THE FIRST ROUND??????"
Today: "Hey, the Broncos got Tim Tebow! Sweet!"

What changed? The flavor of the Kool-Aid.

But the pick is refreshing, and here's why. Towards the end of Mike Shanahan's reign, I felt he was a reactionary. Screw up a few times, you're gone; I'll go with the devil I don't know over the one I already know (I stumbled over that, but I'm reversing a well-known phrase for effect and it was bound to be clunky). He took a big chance on Plummer, and in my opinion everything was working... until he allegedly bombed in the AFC Championship (you can't ignore that the whole team was awful, but the QB took the heat). Somewhere in Plummer's three meaningful years there, Shanahan lost his edge and just started booting people. Bertrand Berry and Trevor Pryce are two good examples (though Pryce may have been gone before Plummer arrived, I can't remember). The rotating door at RB is perhaps the only area where Shanahan was trying to be proactive... but he let his past success with Terrell Davis boost his ego to the point where he thought he could do it again, and it never really panned out (and he never gave it the chance to, either).

Josh McDaniels? He has his issues, but his moves have been proactive. Remember, moving Cutler was always his idea, it just didn't work out the way he initially planned. He is Belicheck-esque in his demeanor: he's the boss, if you're going to run your mouth, you can do it somewhere else. That's why Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler are out of town despite their talent. But you know what? McDaniels isn't going to wait for their "talent" to let us down to get rid of them (and let's be honest, what did those clowns do for Denver while they were here? Three 8-8 seasons? Some talent.).

Long story short: Even if Josh McDaniels is wrong, at least he's making proactive moves he feels are necessary, rather than  (abrupt end of post)

NOW:

Well, I never got to expound on why I thought Tim Tebow himself was a good pick for the Broncos, but I probably didn't even know.  But today, here's where I stand:

I'm a card-carrying member of Tebowmania, way more so than at the time of the original post, except for that there is no club, no memberships and no cards.  Still, I'm sold, I hoped he would remain a Bronco, but Elway's ego got in the way.  Hey, I'm looking forward to the Manning era in Denver, no doubt, I only hoped Tebow could be the back up and learn from the master.  But I got to see Tebow play the Steelers in the playoffs in person, got to see the overtime victory, got to see the great run of wins that shouldn't have been.  Tebow has swagger, and his inspiration is his faith.  I want to see great things happen for him, and I want to see him do great things.

I stand by my comments about Shanahan.  He's still washed up, and he shouldn't have been so quick to shove Plummer down the stairs.

I was wrong about McDaniels, though not entirely so.  Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler, I'm still not fans of theirs.  But McDaniels did a poor job of replacing them--his draft picks didn't hold up.  I guess I can still admire his pluck, even if he was wrong, he did it his way (or Belichick's way, or something, or whatever).

Hopefully Elway and Fox know what they're doing, and hopefully Manning leads the Broncos to the playoffs each of his five years under his contract.