The Variable Man

I am reading Philip K. Dick's novella "The Variable Man". Losties take note. Imagine my delight to discover that it is about a man who is dragged into the future, causing unexpected consequences. Faraday uses the term "variable" to describe a human being's ability to change the pre-ordained time line. Is this purely coincidental? A cursory examination of Lostipedia shows no references to Dick's use of the term, or to the novella itself. Lost DOES refer to Dick's uber-strange novel VALIS, about a computer becoming a god. Interesting!

The Fractured Follies: CAH Fundraiser

The Follies turned out to be a GREAT success. (You would never have predicted that based on the dress rehearsal Thursday night.) We finally nailed the square dance, really for the first time since we started rehearsing it. The opening and closing numbers with Mom in the big chorus were stunning. And the Tico Tico dance (Copacabana) brought the house down both nights. Most of the other numbers were jaw-droppingly good, especially the one from Nunsense starring Kelly Taylor-Wilson and Barbara Barrows (BC's director of PR) along with Jae Bryan, Judy Hussey, and Lori Brown.

Here is a picture of the Copacabana Cuties:
Front row (L to R): Pete Genta, Clay Heinz, Phil Williams, Rick Geninnati. Back row: Roger Goodman, Larry Clark, Steve Carr, Bob Schwab, John Lapp, Jim Salske, Bob Anderson, Andy Zilm, and Me!

And here is a picture of most of the Federated Church people who were in the show, minus Sam and Nate, Eldon Wold, and Katie Bloomer:

Front row (L to R) Elise Schwartz, Mom. Middle row: Char Genta (as Loretta Lynn), Mary Ann Harp, Kelly Taylor-Wilson, me. Back row: Pete Genta (as Conway Twitty), Mark Kaiser, Sue Holtz-Kaiser, Mary Loveless, David Schwartz.

Besides being a really good show, it was a LOT of fun!

Tabula Rasa: Good vs Evil

Ostensibly Tabula Rasa is about Kate and her "clean slate" on the island. but it seems to me to follow directly from Locke's "light and dark" discussion on the beach in the pilot. Several characters are presented in this episode as having indeterminate morality, most notably Kate. It is revealed that, before the crash, she was a prisoner of "the law" for having committed an unknown crime. And yet she shows real compassion for the people around her, including the marshall himself. She helped him on the plane, and she had a chance to kill him on the beach, but didn't. It isn't clear from this episode whether the marshall himself is good or evil. Jin and Sawyer both seem to be less than stellar individuals, but both show flashes of compassion in the episode. Perhaps most enigmatic is good old Locke, already a figure of mystery. He seems to be a decent chap in his relationship with Walt and Michael, but oh, that episode-ending, bone-chilling scowl....

Carlinville Color Tour

Last weekend we drove over to the river to see if the colors were any good. They weren't. It turned out that the colors in town were better. This weekend they are the best we've had here in west central Illinois for many years. Here are some examples.

Tabula Rasa

Having just watched Tabula Rasa, I know all over again why I fell in love with this show. The ending scene of the episode is classic Lost. Even though I knew what would happen, I was enthralled. In a way it was even more interesting to watch the tableau unfold, knowing what the last shot would be......
The arrow-straight line between Locke's "light and dark" conversation with Walt in the very first episode, and the iconic conversation between Jacob and his Nemesis on the beach in the very last episode becomes crystal clear upon rewatching. Light and dark, good and evil, which is which is which?

Lost clips

I’ve finished rewatching the first two episodes (Pilot, Parts 1 and 2). I found two different series of YouTube clips summarizing the major themes of seasons 1 - 5. They were put together by fans, ttheblackbox and campetin, using music not original to the series, but appropriate and moving, mostly. The first series (ttheblackbox) is far superior to the second series (campetin), except I enjoyed the second campetin episode “Happy Moments” very much. I think even non-Lost fans would be moved by it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxT3Z_Wz6oI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVMZGYJFpxE

Watching these and the Pilot have raised some questions and thoughts. See my next post.

Lost - Video Podcast: The Variable

Interesting little clip about the literature of Lost.

Lost - Video Podcast: The Variable

Lost Rewatch

I'm starting Lost all over, because I was undergoing withdrawal. Watching the second time is an odd experience. Some of the charm is gone because half the fun is not knowing what will happen next, and of course now I do. On the other hand, it is fun to see the familiar characters develop, form their relationships and experience their lives on the island all over again.

I have just finished the first half of the pilot, and already I have noticed some things I didn't notice the first time. I hadn't remembered that Rose said about the tree-crushing monster the first night: "That sound that it made, I keep thinking that there was something really familiar about it." I wonder if that has any significance. And now I'm not so sure that that monster is the same as the smoke monster we meet later. And why would it have killed the pilot so quickly?

It's also fun to compare incidents with what we now know to be significant about them from later episodes. For example in the first episode, Jack tells Kate the famous story about overcoming his fear during his first spinal surgery. What he doesn't tell her is that it was his father who gave him the idea, which we only find out in a flashback in season 5.

Did the monster kill the pilot because Jacob had no use for him? If so, why not any of the rest?

This is going to be fun! (And no spoilers possible, so we can discuss it in as much detail as we want!)

Beaver Dam with Jack

Sunday afternoon we took Jack for a walk at Beaver Dam. It was a wonderful day, weather-wise. Cool but not cold, overcast but not dark. The sun peeked through the clouds occasionally. Jack enjoyed himself very much. All sorts of new sniffs to experience.

I went a little crazy with my cell phone camera. Here are some shots of the park. The leaves are just beginning to turn. In another week should be gorgeous.

Besides the nice scenery, the summer flowers are just barely hanging on. Here is some goldenrod,

daisy fleabane,

and a low leafy plant who's leaves have turned bright red.

Some tiny pink flowers growing up amid the ground clutter,

onelonely pink clover,

The summer's last chicory flower,

and LOTS of fungus.

This interesting box-like growth on the side of a tree :)

and a tiny red-spotted fungus(?)

Most dramatically, Mom spotted a huge hanging wasp nest off in the woods. Of course I had to get close enough to take some pictures. There were wasps going in and out of the round black hole on the side.

The thing is about twice as big as my head, and hanging from a branch by a thin vine.

It really was quite beautiful, intricately made with soft swirls and patterns of bumps.




That's it for now. I have lots more pictures if anybody is interested.

Multi-verses

Thanks to the article Mom sent us all (which, interestingly, mentioned both Anathem [favorably] and Lost [jeeringly]) I started thinking about the multi-verse. The obvious question for us Losties is: Did Juliet manage to detonate the bomb, thus negating everything that happened in seasons 1-5 ("If I never meet you, I never have to lose you.")? Or did she not? The obvious answer is: Both! I'm wondering if we now will start on a two-track plot in which our heroes in one universe continue their struggles in 2007/1977 on/off the island, at the same time they live their lives in the other universe, having safely arrived at LAX blithely unaware of each other. In the latter universe, I bet they begin to form relationships, and somehow become aware of the goings-on in the other universe. Just a thought.

The Incident

Well, I’m finally done with Season 5. Now you don’t have to worry about spoilers, Dan, at least not for me. I appreciate your keeping quiet. It must have been hard to watch me flounder with weird theories.

The first ten minutes of The Incident were awesome. The music, the visuals, the shocking dialogue, the understated emotions played superbly by two fine actors, answers to lingering mysteries, new mysteries revealed: all made for classic television – LOST in a nutshell.

The last ten minutes of The Incident were likewise amazing. So much action and raw emotion, several major twists, all setting up the ultimate cliffhanger with questions we’re dying to have answered.

The rest of the episode was good, but not up to the opening or closing. The bulk of the episode dealt with four ideas. (1) Who will support Jack in his quest to nuke the island, who will support Kate in her quest to stop him, and who just wants to get outta there? Loyalties and emotions shift. I must say Juliet’s waffling was irritating, but her line “If I never meet you, I never have to lose you.” was heartstabbing. Eventually, everybody gets on board with Jack’s plan, even Kate. And it was nice to see Miles and Chang united. (2) Jacob fiddling in the lives of the Losties at various times was intriguing at first, but once we got the idea, we got the idea. A couple of fascinating questions did arise: Did Jacob resurrect Locke after his fall? If so, given later developments, why?? Was Jacob responsible for Nadia’s accident? (3) The survivors of Ajira flight 316 are Jacob’s allies. Jacob recruited Alana, who already seemed to know him when he contacted her in the hospital [Did she have plastic surgery? If so who was she really? My guess is Ana Lucia, or possibly Libby.] They need to be able to identify Jacob once they arrive, thus the question about the shadow of the statue, and the possibility that Frank might be him. Alana’s sidekick asked Miles the same question when they kidnapped him in Some Like it Hoth. [So did they think Miles might be Jacob???] (4) Locke v.2 is not really Locke. I had already suspected as much (see my last post).

So here’s my theory: Jacob’s companion on the beach (aka Locke2 aka Christian2) is a deity, the Island incarnate. Jacob is an evil entity who has somehow gotten control of the island and uses it for his own fun and games. The Island deity can’t kill him, and can’t get rid of him, but a mortal can. Thus Ben becomes a pawn in the grand game.

We shall see.

Follow the Leader: A Classic LOST Episode

I’ve suffered recently from a terrible case of blog fade, I admit it. What with school starting and all…. Ah, but I’ve managed to watch most of LOST Season 5. My report:

This season is different than the others. It starts off with a bang, and just keeps going at breakneck speed. The first several episodes seem like one long episode, and the time jumps, both literal, and flashback, are confusing but exhilarating. Even though the off-island parts following the Six left me a little cold, each episode gives us plenty to chew over. The relationship development is slowed, although the Sawyer/Juliet relationship blew me away at first. I still don’t quite buy it.

My main purpose here is to sing the praises of two of the later episodes, and in particular the last one I watched: Follow the Leader.

First, I loved Some Like it Hoth. Of course, I’m partial to Hurley, and I have developed an appreciation for his relationship with Miles. This episode gives that relationship a full airing (which the van needed at one point [yuck yuck]). I loved the scene where Miles, Hurley and Chang were in the van, and Hurley kept needling Miles to tell Chang he’s his son. [Realistically, how could Chang have not suspected? I mean, how many Chinese guys are named Miles?] But I was totally impressed by the scene after they got back to the barracks and Chang had left them, when Hurley was trying to persuade Miles to approach Chang. He used his own experiences and those of Luke Skywalker as examples. That scene was both laugh-out-loud funny, and tear-jerkingly touching AT THE SAME TIME. Quite a feat.

Now to Follow the Leader. This episode, left me gasping. It features humor, raw emotion, shocking moments, major questions answered, and gaping holey questions. We can see the season finale taking shape. At the same time we’re left wanting to know how it’s all going to come together.

Humor: (1) Hurley (of course) tries to convince Chang that they AREN’T from the future, fails miserably, gives up. “OK, Dude, we’re from the future.” (2) Sawyer sees Juliet safely into the sub, then turns around and views the panorama of the island. The audience naturally believes he will bolt and head back to the island for any number of reasons. Instead he murmurs “Good riddance” and ducks inside.

Raw emotion: (1) Kate and Jack talk about Daniel’s plan to blow up the island. Jack’s all for it, to wipe out the death and misery so many have experienced over the last three years, to bring back Charlie and Shannon and Boone and…. On his face, we can see the misery he has experienced himself, what he has felt at losing friend after friend, and yes, the sadness of knowing the implications for him and Kate. Kate’s miserable because she realizes it would mean she never meets Jack or Sawyer (not to speak of all the people who will die in the explosion). Both actors (neither particularly impressing me in the past) wring the most out of that brief scene. That scene is immediately followed by (2) Ellie talking to them, the realization coming over her that she has killed her son, then that Daniel has given her a way to wipe out that sin. This actress is awesome. (3) Miles watching Chang roughly dismissing his mother and his baby-self, finally understanding his whole life story in that one bit of a scene. (4) Kate joins Sawyer and Juliet in the sub. No words are spoken, but the emotions playing on all three faces speak volumes about their past relationships.

Shocking moments: (1) Alpert tells Sun he watched Jack, Kate, and Hurley all die 30 years ago. (2) Locke tells Sun if there’s a way for Sun and Jin to be together, “to save OUR people”, he’ll find it. (So he still considers Jin et al to be his people. Or is he lying…?) (3) Locke reveals his purpose for bringing the Others to Jacob: “I’m gonna kill him.” (4) It was LOCKE who directed Richard to go to Locke and pull the bullet out, and also relay the message from Locke, that Locke would have to die. My head spins. (5) Sun: Will this man Jacob be able to bring Jin and the rest of our friends back here? Locke: Absolutely. Richard aside to Ben: I’m beginning to think John Locke is going to be trouble. Ben: Why do you think I tried to kill him?

Questions: Did Eloise send the Six (and Locke and Ben) back (even though she knows she kills Daniel) so, ironically, they would blow up the island and thus she never shoots Daniel? Did Widmore fund Daniel’s research and recruit him for the freighter so he would go back and explode the bomb? Did Widmore recruit Miles so he could talk to the dead Daniel? Did Widmore know Miles was Chang’s kid? Tangentially, why was Charlotte recruited? And why Frank both times? Purely coincidence? We know Christian (or his manifestation) was resurrected on the island. Is that the same thing that happened to Locke? Is he real, or a manifestation? When did the Locke/Alpert/Locke bullet extracting scene happen? Obviously in 2007, but we first saw it immediately after the wheel-turning in 2004, during the mad time shifts. Does that mean that at least one of the shifts led them to the future? And how did Locke know the exact moment to set the scene in motion? “The island told me.” Again, is he the real Locke?

And the big question: Can the human variable really change the time-line as Daniel suggests, or are they destined to repeat the same history (What Happened, Happened). My guess is the latter. Evidence: Daniel knew he talked to the little-girl Charlotte and scared her by warning her about leaving the island. He was determined not to repeat that, but in the end, he had to to save her.

All in all, a wonderful episode.

What I’m Reading Now, Part 4

I just finished a short Heinlein novel called Time for the Stars. Not being a huge Heinlein fan, I wasn’t expecting much, but it was actually pretty good.
I had to forgive one small scientific error that Heinlein, surprisingly, promulgated. He said communication with spaceships going away from Earth at velocities close to the speed of light would be difficult, not only because they would be so far away from Earth, but also because the light waves emitted from the spaceship toward Earth would be moving so slowly. Of course light waves move at the same speed, no matter the velocity of the emitter.
I also had to swallow the idea that certain people (mostly certain pairs of twins) can communicate by telepathy if properly trained. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Furthermore, the basis of the story is that such communication is instantaneous and strong, no matter how far the communicators are from one another. To his credit, he wrote that the scientists in his story were incredulous that such could be true.
The main plot device of the story involves a pair of twins used to communicate between a ship exploring the stars and Earth. One brother is on the ship, one is left behind. The problem is, of course, that time passes at different rates in an accelerating frame of reference and a stationary (or technically constant-velocity) frame of reference. Thus what was a few years for the twin on the ship was decades for the other twin. Of course the twins have a reunion after the voyage, one now in his twenties, the other in his eighties, very poignant. Meetings between people when the difference between their ages has changed dramatically? Sounds familiar…..

After Time for the Stars, I started reading Philip K. Dick’s anthology Paycheck. (Jeff gave me the book which he had finished reading in Japan – thanks, Jeff!) The very first story, “Stability”, involved - you guessed it – time travel! Is the island controlling what I read??? The story is brilliant. A man is directed to a patent office he has never visited where he is presented with a device he has never seen and told that it is an invention he himself submitted to the office. The patent is denied, so he takes it home and tries it. It sends him back in time, for it is indeed a time machine. In the past he picks up a mysterious container that talks to him. He then uses the time machine to return to the present, except he arrives a few days before he picked up the device. At the direction of the container, he proceeds to the patent office where he submits the device for a patent. (In case you haven’t read Dick, his stories are brilliant but very strange.)

Romulan Pops

Thought you all might like this:

http://www.trekyourself.com/?mId=31366679.3

For more fun, mouse over: 1. The Enterprise on the right 2. The phrase “Cheez-it. The Big Cheese.” 3. The “Trek Yourself” logo. Watch my eyes.

Lost: The Worst and Best

After a blogging break, I'm back with more Lost musings. I'm part way through season 4 now, and haven't commented for a while, so I will do so briefly now. Season 1 "The Losties" was magical and got me thoroughly hooked. Season 2 "The Tailies" was really a continuation of season 2 with a few interesting new characters added. I particularly liked Eko and Libby, but they were eventually killed off. In fact the only tail section survivor left is poor old Bernard, not a particularly likeable, nor important character. Season 3 "The Others" started off with a bang. The season opener showing Otherville on the day of the crash took my breath away. But after that, the season semed to be less Lost-like than I was used to. I found it cruel, irritating and confusing at first, but as we learned more about Ben and Juliet, the answers and new mysteries came fast and furious, and I again found myself mesmerized. Season 4 "The Freighter People" introduced a whole bunch of new characters, some endearing (Daniel), some infuriating (Miles). Again, I found the early episodes to be less enjoyable than earlier seasons, and I concluded that I find it difficult to warm to characters I don't know, particularly when the writers seem to take great delight in obscuring the motivations of the new characters. Furthermore, season 4 introduced the new technique of featuring "flash-forwards" in some episodes instead of the familiar "flashbacks", with no warning. Again, I found that irritating at first, but eventually became fascinated with seeing glimpses of the future, and puzzling out how the plot arc could possibly lead to what we were seeing.

Now I comment on three consecutive episodes in particular, illustrating the good and the bad. The Sun- and Jin-centric episode 7 "Ji Yeon" was mostly uninformative: it didn't really answer any questions, nor raise any new questions. The only question seemed to be: Will Jin arrive at the hospital in time, and why is he so worried about a stupid panda? Imagine my irritation when it turned out Sun's off-island experience was a flash-forward, while Jin's was a flashBACK. Not fair. It seems that this episode was designed for no other reason that to elicit the "HUH???" response. And the episode ending twist was actually a double-twist: Jin is dead in the flash-forward (even though Sun non-sensically keeps asking when he'll arrive at the hospital), and the spy on the boat is....MICHAEL! Hurley's appearance to support Sun was a nice touch.

The 8th episode was also disappointing. "Meet Kevin Johnson" was almost exclusively a flashback showing how Ben recruits Michael. Nothing terribly surprising or interesting there. The parts that I would be interested to see weren't shown: How did Michael get back to New York and settle Walt at his mother's and start living his life without revealing that he had been on Oceanic 815? Then the "twist" at the end (Rousseau and Carl's end) seemed to have nothing to do with the rest of the episode. Very disconcerting.

But episode 9 "The Shape of Things to Come" was superb. It was absolutely packed with interesting and surprising occurances, one shocking twist after another, an emotional ride for the viewer and the characters.
On the island the boat's doctor is found dead in the surf, but the boat says he's there and fine! (more time-discontinuity). Daniel lies about it, Bernard catches him out (good job Bernard!), he is forced to admit they aren't there to rescue the Losties. (Surprised?). Jack has a mysterious ailment. The ambush at Otherville is dramatic, and gut-wrenching. Sawyer and Hurley defy Ben's commands to rescue Claire. Stirring. Ben's face-off with the mercenary ends shockingly. Even though Ben is (so far) basically evil, you can't help but feel for him. Ben summons the smoke-monster! Wow! So a mystery posed in the very first ever episode is semi-explained. Yeah, smoke monster, way to go! And the dramatic show-down between Locke and Sawyer has been brewing for some time. I loved their parting comments. Sawyer: “If you as much as harm one lock on his curley head, I’ll kill you” Locke “Fair enough.” Wow, Sawyer is getting soft. Risking his life to save Claire, then standing up to Locke to protect Hurley!

But all that is only half of the story. The flashforward was equally packed with fascinating stuff. It featured Ben AND Sayid, and told the story of how Sayid ended up working for Ben as an assassin. We learn that Sayid eventually finds and marries Nadia, only to have Widmore (or somebody) kill her. Why did Ben wake up in the middle of the Sahara??? We see Ben-as-James Bond. Interesting. The conversation between Ben and Sayid shows the humanity of both men.

BEN: We're finished here, Sayid. Turn around and walk away. Mourn your loss. Get on with your life.
SAYID: I have no life. They took it from me.
BEN: Go home, Sayid. Once you let your grief become anger, it will never go away. I speak from experience. This is my war. It's not yours.
SAYID: I spent the last eight years of my life searching for the woman I love. I finally found her and I married her. And I buried her yesterday. So don't tell me this is not my war. Benjamin... Who's next? BEN: I'll be in touch. (Ben smiles secretly.)

It leaves the lingering question: Could Ben have set up the whole thing in order to recruit Sayid?

And finally the scene in Widmore's bedroom was thick with meaning. Some exerpts: Widmore: I know who you are, boy. What you are. I know that everything you have you took from me. Again Widmore: That island's mine, Benjamin. It always was. It will be again.
Ben: But you'll never find it. Widmore: Then I suppose the hunt is on for both of us. Ben: I suppose it is. Sleep tight, Charles.

Delicious episode.

On Libby's disappointing kill-off

I was convinced at first that Libby didn't really die. 1. We never actually saw her being buried (Desmond's boat showed up during her funeral). 2. The writers made a big deal about the blankets and she was holding the blankets in front of her when she was shot. 3. The Libby/Hurley relationship was just developing. 4. We were getting tantalizing tidbits of her back-story, especially her brief appearance as a patient at Hurley's institution. 5. Hurley's insistence that he would soon figure out where he'd seen her. 6. I just plain liked her. I suppose it's still possible that she could return in Season 6.

I read that Cynthia Watros and Michelle Rodriguez were picked up for DUI during the filming of season 2, and that that may have had something to do with why Libby and Ana were killed off so suddenly.

LOST Season 2 Favorites

I’m well into season 3 now, but I want to review my favorite episodes of season 2. I’ve decided there are several types of episodes I like.

First there are the episodes that tell a good stand-alone story. A fine example is The Long Con. The story of Sawyer’s long con in real life kept us guessing through various twists and turns – who is conning whom? - right up to the end, and beyond, leaving us with the question: Does he go after the girl, or is he conning her too? (we find out in season 3). Meanwhile on the island, he is running a long con to obtain the weapons and drugs, though it’s not clear why. He tells Kate: “It’s what I do. You run, I con.”

Next, there are episodes that advance the overall story of the island by answering some questions and raising new ones. I particularly liked Lockdown, which introduced the idea of the periodic lockdown of the hatch (why?), the rough map of the island, and leads us to question whether Henry actually pressed the button or not (he says he did, later says he didn’t, but it seems he must have, or maybe not…), and thus again the question of whether the button pushing has a reason or not. It answered the question of Henry’s truthfulness: Sayid proved he was lying. And it twists with the appearance of food dropped by parachute, which still hasn’t been explained. Lock’s back story is interesting in that we are never sure until the end if he is being conned again.

Finally, there are the very special episodes where life on the island and a character’s previous life intersect dramatically. Perhaps my favorite episode of season 2 is the Hurley-centric Dave. The Dave character is interesting in and of itself. But the interplay of reality and imagination in both realms is compelling. Is island-Dave a real entity pretending to be an imaginary entity? I think he is the first of the various “appearances” we’ve seen of somebody who never really existed (or did he?) Or is he purely imaginary? And the consequences for our understanding of the whole island experience are profound. Dave makes a very good case that it’s all in Hurley’s head. Nah, can’t be, can it? And the ending in the institution when Libby shows up is one of the most truly shocking moments I’ve experienced. It literally gave me goose bumps. Too bad the writers decided to abandon the Libby character. She will be missed.

What I'm Reading Now, Part 3

Finished A Wrinkle in Time. Not good.

Finished The Big U, by Neal Stephenson. I highly recommend it to anybody interested in higher education. Though highly unrealistic, it is hilarious satire of university life. Stephenson skewers everybody: various student types, administrators, trustees, the Pres, unionized staff, and notably, those silly faculty members. I wanted to read The Big U because it involves Dungeons and Dragons being played in the tunnels under the university.

Now I'm reading The Dungeon Master, an account of the real-life disappearance of Dallas Egbert, a 16-year-old genius college student at Michigan State when we were there. It's written by William Dear, the private investigator who found Egbert. Though self-aggrandizing, Dear's account is well written. Egbert was known to have played D & D in the steam tunnels under good old MSU, thus the connection with The Big U.

My interest in these books had nothing to do with my current interest in Lost. Imagine my surprise when they began to overlap. Egbert's obsessions look amazingly like those of Locke and Eko. The underground tunnels in both books remind me of the various hatches on the island. And in The Big U, as in Lost, the line between reality and fantasy blur. In The Big U, the underground gamers see radioactive rats the size of dobermans, there are swarms of bats in upper dorm rooms, and students take directions from electronic devices such as TV test patterns, neon logos, and box fans.

Or maybe I'm just seeing things.

What I’m Reading Now, Part 2

I’m about half-way done dragging myself through A Wrinkle in Time. I’m not really enjoying it.

First of all, it’s aimed at teenagers, but that doesn’t mean it has to be juvenile. I mean really, the three mysterious beings are called Mrs. Whosit, Mrs. What and Mrs. Which. The evil being is a shadow called The Black Thing (also called IT). Secondly, it’s fantasy, which I only like if it’s funny, like the Xanth series, or extremely well-done, like the Lord of the Rings movies. I didn’t even like the LOTR novels (I know, that’s almost sacrilegious.)

I can see why the producers place a copy of a Wrinkle in Time on the island in Lost. It attempts to combine science (the tessaract, a sort of worm-hole) with magic. I’m still not sure if there are magical elements in Lost or not, but it certainly seems so at times. The show explicitly delineates a distinction between science and faith. Furthermore, A Wrinkle in Time deals with time travel, as the title suggests. And it has a number of religious allegorical references, as does Lost.

I can’t really see Sawyer liking it at all. I suppose if it were the only book on the island…

Madman Jack

Thought you all might enjoy this. Note that the tree was still there when I shot this video.

What I’m Reading Now, Part 1

I generally try to finish one book before starting another. However, for reasons explained below, I am currently reading “A Wrinkle in Time” by Madeleine L’Engle, and “The Big U” by Neil Stephenson. Thanks, Lynn! This post will deal mostly with Stephenson and “The Big U”. Later posts in the series will deal with a non-fiction book related to “The Big U”, with “A Wrinkle in Time”, with other Lost-related books, and with the serendipitous “con-fusion” of Stephenson and Lost.

I’m reading “A Wrinkle in Time” because Sawyer was reading it on the beach. Among other books referenced in Lost, it has plot elements directly related to the story. I’m reading “The Big U” because it is a library book, and has to be returned soon.

For those of you not familiar with Stephenson, he is a great writer. His magnum opus is the Baroque Cycle, a trilogy of long, heavy novels set in the 1600’s: “Quicksilver”, “The Confusion”, and “The System of the World”. I find myself unable to write a brief summary, so I won’t even try. (Jeff, you want to try?) Suffice it to say anybody with a liberal arts education will appreciate them. “Cryptonomicon” is a follow-up novel (though written earlier) set in the current time and in WWII. Equally fascinating. I highly recommend them all. One of the main characters in the Trilogy is Jack (hmmmm), a character to rival Locke. Other Stephenson novels I have read are Snow Crash and Zodiac. I have his most recent, Anathem, on the shelf waiting for my attention. I didn’t enjoy Zodiac as much, though still a good read. And I read Snow Crash long ago. I don’t remember much about it other than its cyberpunk-ness. Stephenson has said that, after 9-11, he decided science fiction wasn’t serious enough, so he switched to historical fiction (although his historical fiction isn’t like any historical fiction I’ve read).

Recently I became interested in the utility tunnels and sewers running under many college campuses, including Michigan State. These radiate an irresistible draw on college students, many of whom have broken into them and used them for all manner of silly and vile activities. While we were at Michigan State, a child-prodigy college student named Dallas Egbert (seriously) vanished from the campus and from the face of the Earth. The story dominated campus news for months. Theories abounded, among them that he had been playing a physically real version of Dungeons and Dragons in the tunnels, and had been killed. That turned out to be not quite true, and he was eventually found. His story is told in “The Dungeon Master” by his former attorney William Dear. I look forward to reading that after I finish “The Big U”.

“The Big U” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_U ) is set on the campus of American Megaversity, whose foundation is also riddled with tunnels and sewers. The book is a brilliant satire of life on a college campus. Written in 1984, it feels only slightly dated. Though its events occur on a large campus, graduates of Kalamazoo, Blackburn, and Illinois Wesleyan will recognize many of the groups it satirizes. Among them are the self-named Airheads (a female dorm wing), members of the Physics Club and the Computing Club who also tend to be members of Megaversity Association for Reenactments and Simulations (M.A.R.S.), the Stalinist Underground Batallion, and the Temple of the Unlimited Godhead. Stephenson ( http://web.mac.com/nealstephenson/Neal_Stephensons_Site/Old_site.html
) wrote the novel while at Boston University, on which it is not-so-loosely based. He was not proud of it, calling it “a first novel written in a hurry by a young man a long time ago." The novel had been out of print for years when Stephenson discovered that it was selling for hundreds of dollars on ebay. He reluctantly allowed it to be republished saying “the only thing worse than people reading the book was paying that much to read it”. I respectfully disagree.

Changes at the house

Thought you all might like to see some the changes we've made here.

I laid laminate flooring in the kitchen and hallway.

We had the livingroom carpeted.

(Jack had to sneak into the picture.)

We had the old maple tree in the play yard taken out.

Stay tuned for video of Jack romping around the old tree.

Hurley

In a comment on a recent post, Dan sang the praises of the LOST character, Locke. In a further comment, I agreed that he is one great character. But upon further reflection, I have to say I really love Hurley. He is used in Lost primarily as comic relief, but he is an interesting dramatic character as well.

He is such a great comedic presence, not because of what he says, but how he says it. Jorge Garcia has a delivery that often makes a simple statement outrageously funny. In one episode, before the crash, people around him suffer a long series of horrible accidents. He thinks he's a jinx. On the island, after listing a series of these incidents, most of which the audience had witnessed, he adds one we’d not heard before: “Then, the chicken joint I worked at was hit by a meteor. Or actually it was a meteorite.” Not that funny? Then why did I laugh out loud? And in some cases he doesn’t have to say a thing to elicit a snicker. While telling his lawyer about the jinx, a man falls screaming past the window behind the lawyer. Neither Hurley nor the lawyer say a word, but the expression on Hurley’s face is priceless. And then there’s the quote that still cracks me up when I think about (warning: sick humor): “Dude, you’ve got a piece of Arzt on you.” (More about Arzt later.)

What a stroke of genius to put Hurley in charge of the food from the hatch. I say that NOT for the reason some might think: that it’s funny to let the fat guy control the food – think Elephant Eats the Profits. Rather, in real life Hurley had just experienced the rejection of his old friends when he won the lottery. Having much and not being able to give people everything they want is painful. The accusing look on Hugo’s buddy’s face, and that on Hugo’s face in response is heartbreaking. Neither one had to say a word. On the island, he was sure everybody would hate him for having to ration the food. He came up with a wonderful solution.

Now about Arzt and Hurley. First I have to say that I have never been startled by a TV show like I was by the incident at the Black Rock. I literally jumped several inches. It was a wonderful bit. But before then, Arzt and Hurley were discussing cliques. I believe Arzt was expressing a true and deep emotion harbored by those who feel they are not part of the “in” crowd. [And on the island, there must be many of those, since the people who seem to make all the decisions, and get all the attention, only comprise about a quarter of the people in the group. The rest are “red-shirted ensigns”. In fact when I saw Arzt, whom we had never seen before as a character, accompanying the group to the Black Rock, I thought “Uh-oh, he’s a goner.” I thought it was confirmed when he went off by himself and the monster showed up. I was surprised when he came back alive. Then….poor old Arzt!] Anyway, I was interested by Hurley’s response to Arzt’s affirmation that Hurley was in the clique. It was a combination of “Who, me???” and “Whatever.” And I believe those are the responses most people in the “in” clique would truly feel.

Once again, Lost works on so many levels.

Addendum to last post

Oh my gosh, I was just rereading my last post and realized WHEN Locke might have been implanted with something! When he supposedly had his kidney removed! Wild!

LOST theory and more musings

I am now four episodes into the second season. I’ve had to totally rethink my ideas about the island. Although there may still be a mystical element, I’m thinking the explanation is mostly scientific. I’m thinking most of the weird things can be explained by Dharma projects, either ongoing, or gone awry.

To me the smoke monsters SOUND very mechanical, and Locke did say it’s a device to protect the island.

I took Locke’s advice and watched the film again (and again!). According to the film, we know the following. Dharma started in 1970. The film was copyrighted in 1980. There were at least three Dharma stations, probably more, and several areas of communoresearch (whatever that is), including meteorology, electromagnetism, psychology, parapsychology, zoology (mispronounced in the film, btw), and eutopian social (garbled). The whole thing seems very creepy, and I’m guessing its ultimate goal is something nefarious, like development of new super weapons (Honso is an arms magnate.), mind control, eugenics….

Here are some ideas:
The polar bears escaped from the zoological research station. The film did show polar bears!
The Others are remnants or descendants of the research on eutopian social whatever. (Keep in mind I haven’t actually met the Others yet, except Ethan, and I’m not positive he was an Other.)
Station 3 was originally designed to study electromagnetism, but was then switched to a psychology study: How would people handle the idea that they control the end of the world? How would they handle the stress of being essentially tied to a place and a strict schedule, possibly with a screwed up sleep cycle.) Or perhaps it was a psychological study all along.
The island is undetectable due to a powerful, probably artificial, magnetic field. That’s why compasses are slightly off. The project is clearly being kept secret.
The island itself may be artificial, designed specifically for Dharma.
Walt was taken due to his latent parapsychological talents. (Was Brian in on it? Did he kill Walt’s mother?) If so, obviously at least some of the research is ongoing.

What about Locke?

I’m wondering if Locke might be a product of Dharma, with or without his knowledge. He seems to have a wonderful relationship with the island, and an innate understanding of it. He did predict the rain, and Dharma did study meteorology. Locke said Boone had to be sacrificed. He also railed against the hatch, screaming “I did everything you asked of me.” To me Honso’s grainy picture in the film looks a lot like Locke’s father (if indeed he is his father). Here’s a crazy idea: if Locke had been somehow created by Dharma, maybe he really did have a virgin birth! How did his legs get fixed in or after the crash? Perhaps Dharma somehow “fixed” him. Or he was never really broken, but something was implanted that could be easily reversed on the island. And whatever is implanted can be switched on and off, thus explaining why his legs suddenly stopped working before he and Boone discovered the plane, but worked just fine thereafter. (I have not yet seen how he became disabled in the first place.) As you can probably tell, I’m thinking off the top of my head now. It also just occurred to me that Jack somehow miraculously fixed his future wife, and he had no idea how! Hmmmmmmmm. I still have no insight into how Locke would have known about Boone’s nurse’s death by falling down the stairs.

What about the numbers?

The numbers 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42 (which add up to 108) have two separate history-streams. The WWII listening station heard them being broadcast in the 40’s, which lead Sam Toomey to use them, which lead to Leonard, then to Hurley. On a seemingly unrelated stream, they are seen etched into the hatch, and constitute the code. If Dharma started in 1970, they must have gotten the numbers from the other history stream, unless there is a temporal shift and the WWII listeners heard them from Dharma. The question is: who was broadcasting them during WWII, and why? What’s so special about those particular numbers? And are they really jinxed? (I don’t think so.)

Enough for now….

LOST religion

I’ve now watched through the Hurley-centric episode 16, “Numbers”. In the last few episodes I’ve been struck by the theme of redemption that has been repeated over and over. Each of the characters has a fascinating back-story in which he or she was on the plane with a major problem, often one dealing with a difficult relationship, or self-image issues.

Locke is wheelchair-bound and unfulfilled. Jack has father issues. Kate has made a mess of her life through bad choices. Charlie sees himself as worthless. Sun and Jin have marriage problems. Boone has issues with his step-sister, Shannon. Shannon has used men throughout her life, and now sees herself as useless on her own. Sawyer affects a tough-guy persona, but he’s wracked with guilt for what he has done. Sayid has to live with the horrors of his past. Claire is pregnant, single and confused. Michael has no clue how to handle relationships, especially with his eight-year old son, returned to his care after many years. And Hurly thinks he’s a jinx. (All of the above are seriously understated! Each of them makes a wonderful story in and of itself.)

Locke receives redemption first, miraculously, immediately upon crashing on the island. After that, he seems to play an important role in the redemptive power the island exerts on the others. As Locke tells Shannon: “Everyone gets a new life on this island”. In some cases Locke intervenes directly and powerfully (Charlie, Michael). In others his ministrations allow the island to work on the character in question (Boone, Sawyer). In yet others he merely encourages the characters to accept what they have been given (Jack, Shannon). I leave it to those who have seen these episodes to review how each of the characters undergoes his or her own redemption, and to those who haven’t, to watch carefully as they occur. As in real life, the people don’t always get what they thought they wanted, but rather what was best in the long run (Sun and Jin).

I’m tempted to see the island as a type of deity with powers to heal the wounded soul, and Locke as a kind of angel. But perhaps I’m seeing more than is there. On to episode 17!

LOST musings

Correction: In my last post I said I hadn’t seen much good in Sun to that point in my viewing. I meant Jin. Sun is a wonderfully sympathetic character. And Jin is coming around too, actually helping Furley when he stepped on an urchin. By the way, we know Sun secretly speaks English. I suspect Jin does too, or at least understands it. Funny how neither knows the other does, but we figured it out so easily.

I’ve now watched the pilot and 12 regular episodes. These episodes focus on, and tell the back story (at least in part) of: Jack (twice), Kate (twice), Locke, Sawyer, Charlie, Claire, Sayid, Sun and Jin, Michael and Walt, and Boone and Shannon.

Understanding that I only know a fraction of the story to date, I have a couple of general observations.

It seems to me that all the characters, more or less, have reasons to NOT want to be rescued. The most obvious one is Locke, who, not only has been miraculously cured, but is living the life he always dreamed of. (He also seems to have some mystic connection to the island, but that’s another story.) Jack doesn’t want to have to face his mother, since he was unable to bring his father back alive from Australia. Furthermore, it seems there is a chance his father is actually alive through another miracle. We get the feeling neither Locke nor Jack’s father, if he is alive, would necessarily maintain their good health elsewhere. Both Kate and Sawyer don’t want to have to face justice. Both Sun and Jin are free of her father now.

Another musing: I’m beginning to think some or all the survivors are somehow “supposed” to be on the island. Whether it’s fate or manipulation by some mysterious force, I don’t know. Evidence: Kate’s little airplane with the broken propellers, Claire’s psychic who was so insistent that she be on that particular flight. [By the way, it seems inconsistent that she refused to sell her baby to the first couple in Australia, but then seemed to go along with selling it to a couple in LA. Also that she didn’t question more vehemently why the psychic had such a radical chance in his reading of her.] I also seem to remember another incident with a broken toy airplane, maybe even marked “Oceanic”, but I can’t remember where we saw that. Am I imagining it?

It also seems to me that the island itself is not where it “should” be. Evidence: The plane got 1000 miles off course so readily. The beach that was supposedly there for years is all-of-a-sudden eroding away, like it has encountered a current that it hadn’t encountered before. The magnetic field around the island doesn’t align with Earth’s field. It’s almost as if the island exists in a different space/time from the rest of Earth, and was placed there specifically for these people/events. A government plot? Aliens? Hmmmm.

LOST Obsession

I'm more than half-way through the first season and I'm just blown away by LOST. Dan's posting of March 26 suggests that it wasn't that great in the first season, but I've found it fascinating.
I love how each episode focusses on a character's backstory, often solving mysteries , then delivering even bigger mysteries. At the same time revealing more about the island itself and the individuals' relationships to each other.
I love how most of the characters are complex, not always good, not always bad (although so far, Sun and Sawyer don't seem to have much good in them, and Locke seems like a very good guy. I know, I know, there is much more to come, right?
The episode where Ethan first appears and takes Claire and Charlie is one of the finest pieces of television I've seen in a LONG time. It is creepy in several ways (Claire's "dreams" (or were they), Hurley's discovery that Ethan was never on the plane, Ethan's face when he confronts Charlie and Claire after we discover he's not one of them). It is profoundly shocking (finding Charlie). It is heartbreaking (Jack having to rat out his father, Jack and Kate's discovery of Charlie and desparate attempts to save him, especially Kate's reaction when Jack won't stop trying to revive him. It is touching (when Charlie is revived, how overjoyed they are, even though he is still mostly a stranger to them. Jack cradling him like a baby.)
All in all, an amazing show.

The Armstrong Victory Garden

The "20's and 30's" at church (the TAT's for short) planted a garden in the big field across from the college. They want to harvest enough produce to donate to the food pantry. Since my Dad had helped them get started as a group, they decided to name the garden in honor of him. Here's a picture of Gramma standing by the sign.

The garden is pretty amazing. They have long rows of onions, peppers, carrots, beets, potatoes, beans, peas, radishes, and probably a few other things.

Dan and Sarah, you're rewatching the whole thing???? Wow! I notice how mysteries are seemingly solved, but the actual solution is just out of view. Like when we discovered the handcuffs were from Kate, not Sayed or Sawyer as I had guessed. Then I thought her crime, if any, must have had to do with the old guy in Australia who took her in, especially when she caused him to crash... But No! It was something prior to THAT even. And why did she try to give her captor oxygen on the plane, just to show that she's really a good person? It was really cool how at the end of one episode everybody seemed to be getting along great and the music was all playful. The black guy had found the kid's dog (actually Boone had but the kid didn't know that). Then all of a sudden the music grows very scary and the camera focusses on Boone's scowling face., and the episode ends. My question: Did the writers of the first season have any idea what would happen in later seasons? Or did they keep getting new ideas as the seasons passed, like a soap opera?

At Dan's urging, I watched the first two episodes of LOST. Now I'm hooked! I became interested in the characters right away. Amazing how many quirky little mysteries arise almost immediately, some of which are then solved quickly, like the handcuffs, and others are left for the future. I found it to be intense, mysterious, dramatic, even funny. On the the next episode!

What is science?

What is science?

The practice of science is divided into two great realms: Observation of the world around us, and explanation of the phenomena we observe. Some scientists do mostly or exclusively observation. Others propose and test theories. More about “testing” theories later.

Observation

This realm of science requires direct observation. It takes many forms as evidenced by the number of terms we use to describe the observations: phenomena, data, measurements, properties, evidence, laws.

Explanation

This realm of science invokes theoretical mechanisms which we cannot observe directly to explain the phenomena we can observe. It often takes one of three forms: hypothesis, theory, and model. There may be several reasons we cannot observe the mechanisms directly (too small, too big, too slow, too fast)

Each of these kinds of Observations and Explanations will be considered further in later chapters, but a few examples will be useful here:

For centuries humans have observed some very strange rocks shaped like animal bones and teeth, insects, plant leaves, even eggs and footprints. Many of these have been measured, catalogued, classified, and studied endlessly. All of that falls into the realm of observation. Of course, immediately upon discovering these “fossils” humans proposed hypotheses to explain their existence (Theories: God put them there or species evolved).

When early chemists started doing careful measurements (weighing everything in sight) they discovered that the total mass in any system was always the same before and after a chemical or physical change. They formulated a Law called the law of the conservation of mass. (A Law is just a summary of lots and lots of observations.) They also proposed hypotheses to explain why mass is always conserved (Theory: All mass is made of unchangeable atoms).

Early astronomers observed that all the heavenly bodies move across the sky from east to west. They also observed that most of them stayed in fixed position relative to each other night after night (called stars), but that a few of them changed their positions relative to the fixed bodies and to each other each night (called planets, or wanderers). They also proposed explanations for all this data. (Theory: The planets are attached to separate huge spheres that rotate around the earth independently of the sphere that all the stars are attached to.)

Early humans observed that different people behaved differently. They proposed explanations.(Theory: The way people behave is controlled by the stars they were born under.)

You can probably think of many, many, many other examples of observations made by scientists and everyday people. Some of them may not require explanations (theories). You may or not have theories to explain the observations. A lot of the fun of science is coming up with explanations, then trying to decide what evidence you need to suppport or refute your theory.

Question: Can a theory ever be proven?

The short course in Seattle was cancelled. boo hoo So I guess I'll be doing the House Manager thing for both the Geriatric Theater production and the King and I. Plus I'll be tearing up the old floor here, painting all the walls (hall and kitchen) and laying laminate flooring.

Textbook short course, when Jeff comes home, and Jack pictures.

Having just read your lovely comments of support on an earlier post, I want to let everybody know I will be attending a Chautauqua course on text-book writing near the end of July. That is, unless Jeff is flying in one of those days, then I won't. Jeff, do you know what day you'll be arriving, and at which airport?

Ok, here are some pictures of Jack and his new friends Katie and Harry.

What science isn't

In a later blog I'll tackle a definition of science. But first we need to understand what science isn't. Science is NOT the same as technology. Technology is designing, making and using tools. People who do technology are engineers, designers, inventors. Technology can be as simple as using a stick as a lever to move a boulder, or as complex as designing a nuclear power plant, or a lander to explore Mars.

By contrast a scientist observes and explains the world around us. More about this in a later post.

Are chemists scientists? Not necessarily! Many chemists do technology, including me. Chemists who try to synthesize useful compounds like drugs, pigments, adhesives, and a host of other uses are technologists at heart. Chemists who analyze samples for contamination or to determine the formula of a new compound are using tools for practical purposes, so they are technologists. Chemists who devise new methods of analysis are technologists because they are inventing tools.

Note that a technologist is not the same as a technician. A technician follows an established set of rules to accomplish a task. A technologist probably established the rules.

Please don't think I am denigrating anybody's role. Scientists, technologists, and technicians all play a vital role in progress. But they play different roles.

Obviously technology and science depend heavily upon one another, and often the same person does both science and technology. Nowadays technology depends heavily on the knowledge that scientists discover. Likewise, science depends heavily on the tools that technology delivers.

I'm guessing the formulation I have outlined here would be controversial. I'm sure some people I have decided are technologists would argue that they are true scientists. I disagree, but who am I to say? Any arguments?

Professors Profess

Why are we called "professors"? Because we love to profess! We love to impart our hard-won knowledge. We get so much pleasure out of learning new things, and we want to share that pleasure by telling our students what we have learned. We really want our students to understand what we already understand. What we aren't thinking about is HOW we learned it, by reading and studying and rereading and researching and questioning, NOT by having somebody else tell us.

It's the same with anybody else who enjoys working to perfect their crafts, from athletes to artists, singers, and actors. Nobody does all that work without wanting to share their accomplishments. Thus athletes want big crowds of spectators, and choirs give concerts for free if need be. Artists want to display their artwork; almost never do they hide their paintings. And, of course, actors want to perform in front of an audience. Similarly, professors need to profess.

Unfortunately, sports fans don't become athletes by watching a game. Neither do art, theater, or music fans gain a bit of talent by observing art, theater, or music. And students don't really understand their subjects better by just watching us profess. They need to study it themselves, as we did to learn it in the first place.

Some random thoughts and pictures

I'm listening to Najee, My Point of View. It's a CD one of you left here, so I copied it. I LIKE it!

I mentioned my Inorganic Chemistry course a while back. I'm teaching it for two students who needed it to complete their chemistry minors. Before I started teaching it, I only knew what little Inorganic Chemistry I learned in college lo those many years ago. So the three of us are learning it together. Obviously, the students are reading and learning from the text more than from any wisdom I impart to them. And believe it or not, they are learning a LOT, and they are amazed at how much they are learning by essentially teaching it to themselves (with some guidance from me of course). Furthermore, they seem to be enjoying it. Remember, these are not Chemistry Majors! The same thing happened when I taught Nuclear Chemistry twice to one student each time. I think all four students had an eye-opening experience. They learned that, yes they CAN read technical stuff, and they can learn best by really studying material (not "memorizing", which is what most students mean when they say "studying"). Those of who have taught know exactly what that is like, because most of us never really learned a lot until we started teaching ourselves, and we HAD to study the material.

I'm going to blog soon about what "professors" do (want to guess?) and what science really is.

I may attend a workshop this summer about writing textbooks, because I have a dream of writing a few books: one for General Chemistry, one for Organic Chemistry, one about learning and critical thinking, especially in chemistry, and one about the philosophy of scince, especially as it relates to chemistry. Probably just a dream, but who knows?

Here are a couple a pictures from our trip to the City Museum, taken at Denny's.

Greg and Sarah M

Dan and Sarah K

Last night as I was trying to organize the Summer Rep finances I started watching Star Trek: Nemesis. I assumed I'd seen it already, so I could just kind of glance at it as I concentrated on the checkbook. I quickly discovered that I had NEVER seen it! Then I remembered that when it came out, I never got around to it, and promised myself I'd see it on DVD, which I didn't, of course.

So I settled in for a long evening of Trek. And here's what I thought about it:

1. It was kind of fun. Janeway is now an admiral, played by Kate Mulgrew. Did this take place before, after, or in an alternate universe from Voyager? Did Voyager ever get home? I can't remember. Geordi has lost his hair-barette type visor and now has cool blue contacts. Riker and Troi are getting married, and the whole crew is invited to the wedding but betazoids are always naked at home, so the crew will have to get naked for the wedding. Worf worries about this, much to the hilarity of the crew. Fortunately (the cast is getting pretty long in the tooth), we never have to witness the nuptials due to the ensuing crisis. Apparantly Romulus has a sister planet called Remus (makes sense, right?). The Remans are subjugated by the Romulans. The Remans serve as slaves in the brutal dilithium mines on Remus. The Remans look nothing like the Romulans.

2. As stated above the cast is getting OLD. Data especially seems to have wrinkled rather badly. Do androids age? Hmmmm.

3. The plot is full of holes. (a) Would Janeway be made an admiral after having been lost in space all those years? (b) Would two alien planets actually be called Romulus and Remus? OR is that just what WE call them? (c) How can the Remans be both a subjugated race of slaves and a warrior race right up there with the Klingons? and would they be allowed to have an awesome warship like the Scimitar? By the way, their faces are totally mask-like, even more than most Trek aliens. Why is it that the powerful warrior Remans haven't risen and totally kicked the wimpy Romulans butts? (d) The Romulans steal some of Picard's DNA and clone him so the clone can replace him and become a secret agent. Like that doesn't have about 100 reasons it can't possibly work. (e) When a new regime takes over Romulus, they abandon the Picard-clone project, and throw the clone (named Shinzon) into the dithium mines on Remus, where he suffers terrible brutality (left to our imagination). Does this make sense? Wouldn't they either keep him happy and healthy in case they need him, or kill him if they are afraid of him? (f) The aforementioned clone somehow not only survives, but manages to take over the entire Romulan government???? Can you say Battlefield Earth? (g) Shinzon's loyal second-in-command (a Reman) has some weird telepathic abilities. Apparently he took Shinzon under his wing in the dilithium mines, where he was also a slave, and used his telepathic ability to raise Shinzon to the highest government post. The Romulans are terrified of Shinzon (a wimpy human). Right. (h) Shinzon, of course, identifies and allies himself to the Remans, and he hates the Rolulans. But why does he hate humans, Picard specifically, and why does he want to destroy Earth?(i) Apparently Dr. Soong made yet another prototype of Data, called B-4 (get it? B-4?). How in the world did Shinzon get ahold of it? (He says he "found" it.) So he scatters B-4's pieces on an abandoned planet, resting assured that the Enterprise (no other ship, just the Enterprise) will find it. He also somehow trusts that the Enterprise crew will reassemble B-4 (OK, that's likely) and download all of Data's knowledge and memories into it (Hmmm, you think?) before realizing that B-4 is programmed to escape and return to the Scimitar, where he will immediately give up all the info to Shinzon. Of course it works to Picard's advantage as he discovers the plot, and sends Data over to the Scimitar, disguised as B-4. (j) Oh, I forgot, Shinzon is, of course, much younger than Picard, so the Romulans put some kind of aging device in him when they cloned him. But now it's killing him, and he needs a transfusion with Picards blood. (k) Finally, what was with the Reman luitenant channeling Shinzon's intrusion into and violation of Troi's mind? It was carried out, most ludicrously, by the lietenant putting his hands on Shinzon's bald head and then telepathically targeting Troi. Why????? Oh, I know, so she can tune into HIM later, and find him even though he's cloaked!

4. By the way, Data dies in the movie. Awww, sad. But hey, remember how they downloaded all his knowledge and memories into B-4? Hmmmmm.....

5. OK, after rereading all of the above, it was a pretty bad movie. But here's the biggest plot hole of all: I really enjoyed it! Weird.

More stuff

We saw this cool van at West Main Motors, and thought it would be perfect for Jeff, but it costs $20,000.

We had a good time at the spuds lunch at church. Grandma was there. She's amazing, doing wonderfully well. She's planning to go to Green Lake, WI for a writer's conference with a friend from the Geriatric Theater for a week at the end of April.

Starting the big push to the end of the semester. It'll all be over soon.

My first ever blog post

Thanks to my kids, I am finally being dragged into the 21st century. A while back, I started a Facebook account, and soon accumulated many friends. Recently I started a Twitter account, but have few followers (yet). And now I have a blog. I started the blog because I really enjoy reading Jeff's, Dan's, Sarah M's, John's, and Marisa's. (Note: not all of them are my kids, directly anyway!) It's kind of like how I got started with Summer Rep. When Greg was a kid, he auditioned for You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown. He had so much fun, I auditioned the next year.

By the way, Summer Rep is doing The King and I this summer.

Another by-the-way, Rich Young is leaving Blackburn to teach at Bethel College in Indiana. Not sure what Summer Rep will do for an artisitc director now.

That's enough for now. I don't want to spend all my ideas at once, then suffer blog fade!