[I found this in my drafts, apparently I forgot to edit it and publish it, so better late then never here it is. This is a first in series of reviews I plan based on my pre-review post from before Christmas]
So, George R. R. Martin, and his Feast of Crows, was late enough to irk me. (As I'm sure it irked many fans.) Its lateness was starting to feel Stephen King's Gunslingerish. When it came out, it was only half a book, half a very very big book, making it in fact larger then your average one book. The reason for this was publishers ability to physically print the book came into question, as it stands the behemoth has pages made of onion skin, and is still thicker then your average hardcover. (It does not exceed the ISO bear ergonomic size guidelines, but only barely, eh BooBo. [As I am editing this 3-5 weeks after initially writing it, I'm certain this was a lot funnier the first time, the kernel of this joke has something to do with the fact either ISO or some other standards board has a set of ergonomic size guidelines for products, in regards to humans.])
When George decided to split the book he had two choices, he could make Feast of Crows Part 1, and Feast of Crows Part 2; where he cuts the book in half along the temporal axis. Instead, George shimmied his plots about, so that half the characters had there whole story told. Fortunately the points of interaction in his story are local wise very disparate, and so this could be done without revealing too much of what you weren't seeing.
To say the least, I was appearing about his choice, but it was his choice, and I can't really change it, so in my opinion doesn't matter. For the record, now that I have read it, he made the right choice.
In approaching this book, I was concerned that I would be lost in the twisting maze of plot. I had reread the whole series prior to the published publication date over two years ago, only to find out within days of the published publication date, that the published publication date was utter bunk. In protest, I refused to re-re-read the books, I figured sure fire if I did that again, the book would magically vanish from my shelf for another two years just to spite me. So head first into his story I dove, and it tenderly caught me, and pulled me into its twisting curves most masterfully.
Since most of my friends, and family haven't read the book yet, and most of them will at some point probably read my copy, I will avoid spoilers. What I will say is that the long wait was worth it!
Martin wrote a phenomenal book that captivates its readers, and pulls you along. At times you find your self screaming at the book demanding justice for your beloved characters, or comeuppance for those you loath, Cersi, I hate that witch! As always each chapter focus on one character's point of view and as always you are put behind that characters eyes, and see it through them. This of course makes their pain all the more visceral.
Without given much away, he has taken to a slightly different naming on his chapters that works well. In this case his characters are evolving, and the chapters which used to (and still primarily) are named with the name of the character they feature, "Cersi", "Jamie", etc. Yet he strays a little bit naming chapters with names more befitting the characters present evolution. Looking back at previous books to demonstrate instead of hinting at the content of this, a chapter might have taken the name "King in the North" as opposed to "Robb" at such a time when Robb called his banner men to him, and set off to avenge Ned Stark (Dammit, George, I didn't see that one coming, I really didn't, after you killed Ned, I knew you for the monster that you were!)
Continuing on my parenthetical rant, Martin did an interview with The Star (that link will probably die,) where he likened killing characters to football, and being all suspenseful. I tend to agree that it makes for a better book in the long run, but when he does kill someone you really like it really gets you emotionally. This works both ways, in one of the first two books when he pours a pot of molten gold over the head of the sniveling wretch of a boy king you are very very satisfied!
So Martin once more has written a great book, and while an evil part of me wanted reason to complain, other then it being late, I can't find one. So, Martin, if you are searching the web, and find this site, know that you have a fan, and know that you better write more!
Friday, February 03, 2006
Freedom of Responsibility?
Today I will be talking/ranting about a number of sacred freedoms that people will die for, and most certainly fight for, or at least fight about. If you can't get the vibe yet, this is not going to be pretty, so duck out now if you wan.
First off, let us enumerate some freedoms for the people, as specified by the Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDoHR), of which most free, democratic nations ascribe to in one fashion or another.
From this document, we will be working with
Free speech
One of the most frequently referenced rights is described in Article 19 of the UDoHR, it states:
Perhaps it is my naivety, or my own misunderstanding of US constitutional law, but I'm pretty sure this also covers "freedom of the press" so a little more digging, and it turns out that the US puts it in one shot gun declaration itself. So here she is, the First Amendment:
If you are having any difficulty understanding that, I found a helpful annotated definition here. I don't want to get bogged down here with bias or discussion (that will come later) so moving briskly along:
Freedom of Peaceful Assembly
Article 20 of UDoHR: states:
The pesky constitution covers it all in one amendment, so no comment here.
Freedom of religion
Bring out my friend the UDoHR, it states in Article 18. :
Pretty straight forward that I may believe whatever I wish and I may practice those beliefs without fear of persecution. The US takes that one further and ensures that my government must act in a religion agonistic manner preventing discrimination, or perceived discrimination caused by inequitable treatment of different religious groups.
Now as a proud Canadian, I would be remiss in my reporting if I neglected to mention the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms. Not withstanding the 'not withstanding' clause, it is a pretty weird document. The Charter asserts that an individual has the right to a number of fundamental freedoms, within reason. For example, freedom of speech and of the press means you can pretty much say anything you like, but if (and I am lacking the right verb/tense here) produce hate speech, you have exceeded the reasonable limitations on your freedoms. Anyways, the charter shotguns your rights as eloquently as the US Constitution does, so have a read:
I think I have covered my basis pretty well; you are all now informed of your human rights, now I want to talk about human responsibility. First, let me tell you a tale, straight from the news, and into your home.
A European News paper publishes a editorial cartoon that depicts the Islamic Prophet Mohammad wearing a Turban which is in fact a bomb (I believe there is implied or explicit Nuclear implications as well.) You can see stories about the comic here but out of respect, I will not directly link, nor post it. Out of respect? Absolutely, this comic was a slap in the face of devout Muslim's and on a number of levels. Although I strongly feel that one should be able to take political satire at face value, and as a comic image of global issues, that doesn't give satirist carte blanch to trample all over someone's feelings.
Why was the comic so offensive? Well two reasons really, the first I think anyone individual who has religious beliefs can relate to, and that was the depiction of a key figure or symbol of your religion used in a profane manner. Imagine Jesus dressed up as a priest being charged with pedophilia. Or an individual dressed as a ninja using the Star of David as a ninja. If you are secular, take an important iconic piece of your self identity and vilify it; how about a personification of the American Constitution oppressing and taking the rights and freedoms away from someone. Any of these images may upset you, as something you hold dear, and important to your identity is pilloried and profaned.
To top this insult with more insult, imagine how you would feel if your religion forbids any imagery, positive or negative, of that iconic figure. My understanding (loose as it is) is that it is forbidden to make an image of the Prophet Mohammad, this rule was put in place to prevent idolatry by insuring that Mohammad would not be raised or deified by exuberant, but miss guided devotees.
So we have profane imagery, and we have forbidden imagery together in a piece of political satire, and what does it produce? A whole bunch of angry Muslims, one is left with the question: does this surprise the artist or news establishment?
The answer apparently is yes. Let me establish that in spite of this comic being forbidden by Islam this doesn't prevent the comic's artist, nor his paper from producing and publishing it, arguably it is in bad taste, but he has the right. What right? Why Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Expression of course (how quickly we forget our primer.)
But Geoff, if the artist and paper were well within there universal rights, how dare the people become offended? Well, Geoff, I'm glad you asked. The rights governed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are, well universal...
So... those people who were offended, and expressed their offence were well within their rights to do so, what a great world we live in* where we have such great universal rights. They exercised a little Freedom of Expression, and some Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, and got a whole bunch of "up yours" in response.
After the initial out pouring of offense by members of the faith the world over, the artist and paper might have ended things quickly. They may regretfully have realized they put a burning hot poker on a very sensitive area, apologized for the oversight, and everyone could have walked away mollified. Sadly, the opposite happened, those parties responsible for the comic defended their right to freedom of the press, buy enjoying that freedom a little bit more. They vilified protesters as censors, and refused to back down form their position.
Without going into the timeline in detail, things have gotten way out of hand. The papers continue to spew about their rights, and the extremists are pouring out of the wood works in the Middle East threatening violence against those responsible. At this point I'm inclined to reinforce that there are a large number of perfectly rational, and justifiably angry Muslims, who are peacefully protesting, either in direct protest, or boycotting. Sadly, there is the extremist element of the culture, which is willing to hurt or kill for this insult. I strongly disagree with them, they are deplorable cretins, the type who want to fight just to fight, and have gone too far.
Where this brings me, is to my point (finally.) I strongly believe in the rights set forth in the UDoHR, they are well thought out, and were hard fought and won over generations of oppression of our forefathers. World War II in many ways was about protecting the rights of the Jewish people from their oppressors. The American Civil War was about a country fighting itself to protect the rights for all, not just the few. We should never take these rights for granted, but truly we have the right to take them for granted if we like. Right now I'm liberally exercising my rights; in fact the very core of the internet is built on the tenets of free speech, and freedom of the press. Yet in spite of an individual having the right to do/say something, there is no right to Freedom of Responsibility.
We are responsible for what we do and say, we may exercise our freedom of speech, but if in exercising our right to expression, we insult or offend, we have no guarantee of forgiveness or absolution. In simpler terms, if you insult a friend, he has no obligation to forgive your insult, nor remain your friend. In fact their right to not continue to associate with you is protected. This responsibility seems to have been forgotten in our age of litigation, but I will remind everyone of the old adage "reap what you sow."
In light of these global events, I would like to propose a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibility, the terming of which will require some thought, but the spirit is as follows:
You are responsible for your actions.
As follow up, I also found this great article on The Star.
*The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a binding document, and there are many places in the world where such rights are oppressed. This is a deplorable situation, but one that may be rectified in my life time.
First off, let us enumerate some freedoms for the people, as specified by the Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDoHR), of which most free, democratic nations ascribe to in one fashion or another.
From this document, we will be working with
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedom of the Press
- Freedom of Peaceful assembly
- Freedom of religion
Free speech
One of the most frequently referenced rights is described in Article 19 of the UDoHR, it states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Perhaps it is my naivety, or my own misunderstanding of US constitutional law, but I'm pretty sure this also covers "freedom of the press" so a little more digging, and it turns out that the US puts it in one shot gun declaration itself. So here she is, the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you are having any difficulty understanding that, I found a helpful annotated definition here. I don't want to get bogged down here with bias or discussion (that will come later) so moving briskly along:
Freedom of Peaceful Assembly
Article 20 of UDoHR: states:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
The pesky constitution covers it all in one amendment, so no comment here.
Freedom of religion
Bring out my friend the UDoHR, it states in Article 18. :
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Pretty straight forward that I may believe whatever I wish and I may practice those beliefs without fear of persecution. The US takes that one further and ensures that my government must act in a religion agonistic manner preventing discrimination, or perceived discrimination caused by inequitable treatment of different religious groups.
Now as a proud Canadian, I would be remiss in my reporting if I neglected to mention the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms. Not withstanding the 'not withstanding' clause, it is a pretty weird document. The Charter asserts that an individual has the right to a number of fundamental freedoms, within reason. For example, freedom of speech and of the press means you can pretty much say anything you like, but if (and I am lacking the right verb/tense here) produce hate speech, you have exceeded the reasonable limitations on your freedoms. Anyways, the charter shotguns your rights as eloquently as the US Constitution does, so have a read:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
I think I have covered my basis pretty well; you are all now informed of your human rights, now I want to talk about human responsibility. First, let me tell you a tale, straight from the news, and into your home.
A European News paper publishes a editorial cartoon that depicts the Islamic Prophet Mohammad wearing a Turban which is in fact a bomb (I believe there is implied or explicit Nuclear implications as well.) You can see stories about the comic here but out of respect, I will not directly link, nor post it. Out of respect? Absolutely, this comic was a slap in the face of devout Muslim's and on a number of levels. Although I strongly feel that one should be able to take political satire at face value, and as a comic image of global issues, that doesn't give satirist carte blanch to trample all over someone's feelings.
Why was the comic so offensive? Well two reasons really, the first I think anyone individual who has religious beliefs can relate to, and that was the depiction of a key figure or symbol of your religion used in a profane manner. Imagine Jesus dressed up as a priest being charged with pedophilia. Or an individual dressed as a ninja using the Star of David as a ninja. If you are secular, take an important iconic piece of your self identity and vilify it; how about a personification of the American Constitution oppressing and taking the rights and freedoms away from someone. Any of these images may upset you, as something you hold dear, and important to your identity is pilloried and profaned.
To top this insult with more insult, imagine how you would feel if your religion forbids any imagery, positive or negative, of that iconic figure. My understanding (loose as it is) is that it is forbidden to make an image of the Prophet Mohammad, this rule was put in place to prevent idolatry by insuring that Mohammad would not be raised or deified by exuberant, but miss guided devotees.
So we have profane imagery, and we have forbidden imagery together in a piece of political satire, and what does it produce? A whole bunch of angry Muslims, one is left with the question: does this surprise the artist or news establishment?
The answer apparently is yes. Let me establish that in spite of this comic being forbidden by Islam this doesn't prevent the comic's artist, nor his paper from producing and publishing it, arguably it is in bad taste, but he has the right. What right? Why Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Expression of course (how quickly we forget our primer.)
But Geoff, if the artist and paper were well within there universal rights, how dare the people become offended? Well, Geoff, I'm glad you asked. The rights governed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are, well universal...
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
So... those people who were offended, and expressed their offence were well within their rights to do so, what a great world we live in* where we have such great universal rights. They exercised a little Freedom of Expression, and some Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, and got a whole bunch of "up yours" in response.
After the initial out pouring of offense by members of the faith the world over, the artist and paper might have ended things quickly. They may regretfully have realized they put a burning hot poker on a very sensitive area, apologized for the oversight, and everyone could have walked away mollified. Sadly, the opposite happened, those parties responsible for the comic defended their right to freedom of the press, buy enjoying that freedom a little bit more. They vilified protesters as censors, and refused to back down form their position.
Without going into the timeline in detail, things have gotten way out of hand. The papers continue to spew about their rights, and the extremists are pouring out of the wood works in the Middle East threatening violence against those responsible. At this point I'm inclined to reinforce that there are a large number of perfectly rational, and justifiably angry Muslims, who are peacefully protesting, either in direct protest, or boycotting. Sadly, there is the extremist element of the culture, which is willing to hurt or kill for this insult. I strongly disagree with them, they are deplorable cretins, the type who want to fight just to fight, and have gone too far.
Where this brings me, is to my point (finally.) I strongly believe in the rights set forth in the UDoHR, they are well thought out, and were hard fought and won over generations of oppression of our forefathers. World War II in many ways was about protecting the rights of the Jewish people from their oppressors. The American Civil War was about a country fighting itself to protect the rights for all, not just the few. We should never take these rights for granted, but truly we have the right to take them for granted if we like. Right now I'm liberally exercising my rights; in fact the very core of the internet is built on the tenets of free speech, and freedom of the press. Yet in spite of an individual having the right to do/say something, there is no right to Freedom of Responsibility.
We are responsible for what we do and say, we may exercise our freedom of speech, but if in exercising our right to expression, we insult or offend, we have no guarantee of forgiveness or absolution. In simpler terms, if you insult a friend, he has no obligation to forgive your insult, nor remain your friend. In fact their right to not continue to associate with you is protected. This responsibility seems to have been forgotten in our age of litigation, but I will remind everyone of the old adage "reap what you sow."
In light of these global events, I would like to propose a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibility, the terming of which will require some thought, but the spirit is as follows:
You are responsible for your actions.
As follow up, I also found this great article on The Star.
*The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a binding document, and there are many places in the world where such rights are oppressed. This is a deplorable situation, but one that may be rectified in my life time.
Comment moderation
I turned off that pesky comment moderation, comments will now show up right away. If I get spam I will delete it, but I get less spam then legit comments, and it is too time intensive to process the many to prevent the few. So comments for all!
Ontario Library Association - Super Conference
Okay, Librarians, you guys have thesaurus, please come up with a better name then Super Conference, it is just plain boring!
As I was walking Through the MTCC this morning I was like "Hey a library conference, that's hip, I wonder what they think about the internet, blogs, pod casts, wiki and all these wild and crazy new information streams." Many of the sessions I walked past had interesting titles, until I got to this last one. It was so horrifyingly bland I had to flee in terror here it is in all its glory:
The horror, the horror!
As I was walking Through the MTCC this morning I was like "Hey a library conference, that's hip, I wonder what they think about the internet, blogs, pod casts, wiki and all these wild and crazy new information streams." Many of the sessions I walked past had interesting titles, until I got to this last one. It was so horrifyingly bland I had to flee in terror here it is in all its glory:
TOWARDS A CANADIAN TAXONOMY FOR 211
Kim Turner, Library Services, Imagine Canada; Deborah Woods, Deborah Woods Consulting; Brian Bell, Director, E-services, Oakville Public Library.
Explore the major features and functions of the unique 211 system (3-digit number assigned in 2001 by the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for access to information on community, government and health services) based on 23 years of research and development by professional information and referral providers. Learn how it can assist in organizing complex databases of community services, the organizations that provide them, and the target populations for whom they are intended.
The horror, the horror!
Potter Fans Rejoice
Always good news is Potter news, the fifth installment in the Potter movies begins filming on Monday, and with filming about to begin, CNN has an article about the some of the new actors, including Imelda Staunton as the defense against the dark arts professor Dolores Umbridge.
Yes, I'm padding the blog with fluff, but worry not there is a big post coming, it just needs to get cleaned up, it was a little too stream of consciousness, and not enough stream of spell checked consciousness.
Yes, I'm padding the blog with fluff, but worry not there is a big post coming, it just needs to get cleaned up, it was a little too stream of consciousness, and not enough stream of spell checked consciousness.
Wookie Down
The post I made last night was about a hilarious blog, or perhaps it was a very serious blog, I'm not certain, as it was in the native tongue of the Wookie. Its back up now, but I have to wonder when blogger points to a blogspot blog in their blog of note category, and then blogspot takes it down for bandwidth reasons. Seems counter intuitive. Anyways it is back up now.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
So I was in the middle of something much more interesting when...
I looked at the Blog of note and found this: http://rrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnhhhh.blogspot.com/
All I can say is RRrrrrrnnnnnnhnhhHHHHH
All I can say is RRrrrrrnnnnnnhnhhHHHHH
Garage Storage Construction Complete
Finally, my embarrassment, I am incapable, it appears, of cutting melamine straight. Boo melamine!
Garage Storage Construction - Complete
Here in all their majesty, and slightly laden state, are my new shelves! Hooray!
Garage Storage Solution - Complete
So here is my nifty Winter Ski Rack. When you want your skis at hand, but not in the way. The summer rack is coming... in the summer :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)