Letting My Geek Flag Fly. . .The Star Wars post

First, allow the Lost One to apologize for what is really a rather self indulgent little piece of fluff. On the other hand...It is his blog so...

So the Lost One recently read Star Wars on Trial, which was an interesting piece of (semi) academic discourse on the impact of 40 plus years of *Star Wars* on our world and culture.
What was most fascinating (besides the reams, and reams of actual Venom that was produced against *Star Wars*[Who knew that many hated it, that much?]) was the "testimony" of defense counsel, Matthew Stover (Yes, yes, procedure Monkeys, the Lost One knows Counsel is not supposed to give testimony. However, the Lost One has reason to believe...wait for it...it wasn't an actual trial.) Mr. Stover was hired by Lucas Arts Limited to do the novelization of *Revenge of the Sith* which apparently required many, long conversations about George Lucas' vision of what the *Star Wars* saga should have been. Huh.

Jedi Prophesies, Or "was Anakin chosen to do that?!!??!!!"

Turns out, the answer is yes, yes he was. The interesting thing about the prophesy in *Star Wars* was that it was actually kind of obviously bad, if you just looked at it with clear eyes. "The chosen one will be born of the Force, and bring balance to the Force." The first part of the prophesy is easily dispelled. Virgin birth, boom, done. It's the second part that's interesting. Balance to the Force. Did it never occur to any of the Jedi, that when the Jedi outnumber the Sith Hundreds to 2, balance is the last thing you want?

Of course, the actual reason behind the epic fail with the prophesy had to do with the whole Eastern Philosophy that pervades the films. It is this belief that life is to be a balance of both good and evil forces that so puzzles, and confuses those of us with a Christian worldview. See, in the Christian world view evil is to be avoided, we call it sin. But in the Eastern world view, good and evil must be balanced in one person. This leads to some obvious contradictions (like when Obi-wan says only a Sith speaks in absolutes...Well, I guess he hasn't been trying to kill every Sith he came into contact with since the first film...), but it also leads to an unexpected out come: the Jedi are evil.

Overly good = bad, or "Why I learned to stop worrying and love the pain."

Well, not evil, just too good. As the series intimates, the Jedi have been losing their power for centuries. The implication that Lucas wanted to create was that the Jedi's very attempt to resist the dark side, by cutting themselves off from the lives of family and permanent relationships, has left them de-powered and vulnerable to the dark side. They are so weakened that the Force needed to create Anakin, to kill them, kill the most powerful Sith, and leave his son a clean field to restart the Jedi.

Which is interesting. If you look back at the films, some strange things begin to pop out. First, is the character of Qui-gon Jin, a character that sees the potential in Anakin, but is a bit of a trouble maker. The first to see the danger and the potential of Anakin, but his rebellion from Jedi Orthodoxy has left him outside the group's power structure. The only one who sees clearly is the bad boy of the Order. In the second, we have the very creation of the Clone army, though the Republic has never needed a standing army to maintain peace, the loss of Jedi power have necessitated its creation. (On a side note, isn't their an argument to be made that had the Republic had a standing army, when Order 66 came down, a non-clone trooper would have told the chancellor were to go and what to do upon arriving, rather then gun down his general, but I digress. . .)

Seeing the films from Lucas point of view actually makes them better. *Phantom Menace* becomes a watchable film, "Attack of the Clones" becomes a decent movie, and "Revenge of the Sith" is a crime against nature. Still, that's up from a crime against God, so...

Until next time friends.

Oh, the Horror, the Horror, of the *Bar News*

The Lost One has read his first exhilarating issue of his local Bar news' notification of punishments, and he is officially scared witless. It's not so much the extraordinary nature of the mistakes that get lawyers disbarred that terrifies him, as it is the ordinariness of the acts. Sure in the end the violations are HUGE, but you can almost always see the tiny point where a compromise was made, and the dark side took over, and then the lawyer started chasing it and...you get the picture. Scary. Still, the Lost One will just have to stay on the straight and narrow, eh? Until next time kids.

Why the nanny state sucks: A case study

From the civilization that used to rule the world, comes this story " 'I'll go abroad to keep my baby': Pregnant again mother of 13 vows to save new baby as sister calls for her to be sterilised":

A pregnant woman who has had all 13 of her previous children taken into care has vowed to flee abroad to prevent social workers taking away her 14th.

Okay, you're no doubt saying, any country can have a crazy person or two. But wait it gets so much worse:

Miss Winters, a heavy smoker who was herself taken into care as a teenager,
accused social workers of failing to help her achieve her deepest wish of having
a family and she would keep giving birth until she is allowed to keep one.

Read the article and you will see just how bad it is.

Did you catch it? Here is the Lost in the World's patened Crazy Cam (patent pending) for those who missed it:

[She]accused social workers of failing to help her achieve her deepest wish of having a family...

That's right crazy mccrazerton, thinks it's the government's job to make sure she has a child. But wait, there's more!

Turns out, the Brits haven't learned their lesson, Nanny State Ho!

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem
families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes. They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals. Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

How positively Orwellian of them. But there is hope, let's see what the opposition party has to say!

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: “This is all much too little,
much too late."

Now that my friends, is some weapons grade crazy.

The Lost in the World guide to books you shouldn't read, Cinema edition.

In his previous blog, the Lost One liked to mock bad books (Here and Here, for those interested). Now having seen a movie based on a waaaaaaaaaaaay too popular book series, the Lost One proudly presents, The Lost in the World guide to books you shouldn't read, Cinema edition, or why Twilight sucks.

The basic problem with Twilight, is that it fails to properly appreciate the role of the modern vampire. The figure has his roots in the seminal work of fiction, Bram Stoker's Dracula, where, unlike his other forgettable monsters, Stoker managed to turn the monster into a metaphor. Read the book, and it will quickly become apparent that the Vampire is a loose (A very loose [A very very loose]) symbol for the person who has lost control of their own libido. Don't believe the Lost One? Read the book. Some of Dracula's attack scenes are quite blush inducing, and at one point the Three Sisters, upon learning of Drac's plan to steal Mina Harper mock him by saying, "You will never find love."

And that is the grand truth of the Sexual libertine, he will never find love in excess, for pleasure is a tread mill that goes no where, and demands more and more stimuli to reach previous levels. Thus, in Dracula we have a monster, without a doubt, but a monster that is us at our worst, and most selfish. In that way, Dracula is an interesting and approachable character.

Yet, in Twilight, the vampire is presented as a controlled monster, a dog on a lease. It is obvious the author is aware of the tradition (She makes references to her characters, "Losing Control" [I.E. killing humans] in the sexual act), and yet chooses to allow her Vampiric hero, to control his blood lust in the name of love. The result is to imply that, rather then killing love in its cradle as it really does, in excess one can find love. No. Simply no.

Of course the term "love" is itself corrupted as a result, and we see C.S. Lewis' wise definition, "The Lover wants only the best for the beloved.", twisted into a sick simulacrum of itself, "The Lover wants the best for himself from the Beloved." As all through out the movie the Lost One kept thinking, "Oh, you love her? How horrible, for both of you. Just move away and she will forget you and find someone new. After all, most widows remarry." Of course, the "hero" doesn't, but exposes her to constant danger, for no better reason then...er...ah...

Which brings the Lost One to his second complaint, this movie has no logic. At all. See it's a family of vampires, living in the middle of nowhere (Why? A big city is much, much, much better for getting anonymously lost in), who attend school with normal people (Why? Two words, *Home Schooling*), and have super awesome powers (Why? Magic? Science? No answer.) no weaknesses (Why Aren't they proud to be Vampires then?) and are content to live on the fringes of society (Why? If they truly are as powerful and weakness free, why go with the whole blood lust scenario? Why, to quote a better vampire flick, isn't it that "Humanities Free Range days are over." [British Mini Series Ultraviolet. WAY better then Twilight.]) Yet ultimately, the author has no answers or merely weak ones. And when a plot point exists outside of reality, and only to move along the plot, there is a technical term for that in writing. "Bad writing".

Which leads to the final complaint, namely this is just another version of the Lost One's least beloved bedtime story, the bad boy who just needs to be loved. (That sound? The one you hear wherever you are on this happy spinning globe that is big daddy Earth, is the sound of the Lost One vomiting) But again, this fantasy is just as shallow as the male fantasy that, ironically, the vampire was created to mock, the I-can-sleep-with-every-one-consequence-free idea that is at the heart of the vampire mythos. Only, where STDs (Or STIs depending on the vernacular) have killed the male version, the female version is still alive, and keeping women in crappy relationships with abusive husbands, boyfriends, and lovers the world around. Yuck.

So ultimately, the Lost One must turn to a quote from the Sage that is the Ace of Spades, "There are 2 kinds of vampire films, ones in which valiant humans battle against impossible odds, to save humanity from monsters, and vampire films that suck." Wise words. Wise words, indeed.

The End of an ERa

Yesterday the final new episode of long running TV show ER was broadcast. Though the Lost One can't rightly say he was a fan (He's seen only a handful of episodes in the last half decade plus), the end did stir up a startling amount of emotions. So, cause the Lost One is feeling maudlin, he's going to subject you to this post. Sorry.

The First thing to know is that while he hasn't watched for a while, in the beginning, he did. Those of you old enough to remember it's beginning will recall the East coast/West Coast style rivalry that was being set up twixt, ER and Chicago Hope (Wha? The Lost One knows, right? So here's a link to explain). It was an easy choice really, whiny over educated sawbones, or fast-paced hero viewing created by the author of Jurassic Park? Yeah, it was that easy.

Still, it's not the memory of the shows he watched, but instead the Lost One remembers random things like calling his friend Elizabeth "Angel" Wolf, "Lizzie" during high school (Just Like Dr. Romano [Y'know, before the Lost One figured out he was a douche]), the article on the new hit medical drama he read while waiting for the bus to take him to the mall, or the time he found the ugly truth about racism in America, when he discovered there were actually people agitating against an interracial couple on ER (The shock? It was Actor Eriq La Salle an American of African descent who was opposed). Each memory takes an added flavor from the show to memories for which the show only provides a backdrop. Yet, they make the memory that much more intense.

And so, while he outgrew the show years ago, The Lost One bids a fond farewell to it, since it was with him in his childhood. Funny, the show ended it's run by recreating a scene from it's premiere, implying that while the show was ending, the drama at the hospital never would. A good metaphor for childhood, we all leave it, but it continues without us.

All the Planet's Problems Have Been Solved!

It must be official, otherwise why would the UN being wasting their time (and money) holding a retrospective of Battlestar Galactica? Don't miss take the Lost One, he was a huge fan of the show, it's fun. It's thought provoking. But, above all it's a television show.

From TV Guide:

"Standing in a United Nations chamber before a table covered in placards for
each of the 12 Battlestar Galactica colonies, Edward James Olmos delivered a
stirring speech that led a crowd of reporters and students to join in a chant of
'So say we all,' one of the key phrases from the show.
It could have been a stirring moment in the series finale — but the moment was real. "

The Lost One is (given his well known enmity towards the most useless entity ever created, the UN) less then shocked to see them waste time, money, and prestige on a chance to rub elbows with a few famous people (Official UN "Goodwill" ambassadors Geri "Sexy Spice" Halliwell, or Angelina "Adopt'em all, let God sort'em out" Jolie anyone?). Still, there is nothing useful that they could be doing at this point? Nothing?

The Lost One doesn't know which is sadder, that people accept this from the UN, or that it well may be the truth.

Entertainment vs. Art?

In his daily constitutional around the web, the Lost One discovered that the *Boundless* crew is all in a tizzy over *Watchmen* (No doubt, those of you who read *Boundless* regularly are shocked, simply shocked that someone on staff would voice a strong opinion [The Lost One often jokes that it is in the staff contract at *Boundless* that white smoke must be deployed when a new person is hired]), namely wondering aloud whether the movie is too full of adult content to be seen by Christians. This in turn led to a debate about what is art as opposed to entertainment leading to just a few of the relevant quotes below:

Anyone who visits the Vatican knows the difference between the Renaissance paintings of nudes inside, and the semi-pornographic billboards outside.

I think there is a difference between sculptures/paintings and real life...entertainment nudity...

Nakedness in an artistic context (the statue of the David, for example) is very different from another context.

All of this debate has led the Lost One to ask a very basic question: Is there, in actuality a legitimate distinction twixt art and Entertainment? To which the Lost One must answer emphatically, NO.

What's funny is that when one side defending *Watchmen* makes a statement about the nudity in the art world, people are quick to cry, "Foul". "They are different," The critic says, "Art is viewed by rich people in museums who use words like, 'Narrative Painting"', 'Maquette', and (the Lost One's favorite), 'Iconography'. It's far removed from something made for the menial purpose of mass consumption."

But of course the question is, is it? What most people fail to appreciate is the fact that art is always made to be viewed. It is not made for the artist to achieve catharsis, or to showcase their intellectual talent. No art is, at it's best, about the bringing of a new idea to the viewer. About communicating with them, about challenging them, about elevating them, but always about them. It's not focused on the artist's wants, needs, or personal beliefs about what the "right" crowd is. It is about communicating universal truth, universally. Indeed, a quick perusal of the art terms above will show that all of them are about selling the art, or communicating a story. Art is, and always has been about communicating.

The second thing missing is the simple fact that most of what we consider art, was created for mass consumption. Few would argue that Shakespeare isn't art. Yet Shakespeare wrote, not so students can discuss...say... the use of Amazon myth to subjugate women (or not), or the insights of a playwright into the follies of both youth and age, or the evil and corrupting nature of power, but instead wrote so the groundlings could laugh at poor Helena, who goes from one too few lovers, to one to many (Midsummer's Night Dream), to cry with Juliet when her parent's force her love to suicide, and herself as well (Romeo & Juliet), and to hiss at Richard III as he seduces a widow in front of the quickly cooling corpse of her own husband (Richard III). The fact that each of these plays excels at beautiful subtext, and thought provoking ideas, in no way diminish the fun for which they were ultimately created. It's the same in Painting, how many of the paintings we admire today were commissioned by nobles, purely for the pleasure of keeping up with the Jones, (Or De Gauls, or Reyes, or Mèdicis)? In architecture, Vitruvius' De Architectura is dedicated to the Emperor Augustus, is it so hard to believe this is because the designer was actively hoping to be massively popular? The Lost One thinks not.

Thus, there are things one could say against *Watchmen* (And the Lost One might just. Only...later), but the one thing you mustn't ever say is, "It's just entertainment." There is, ultimately, no such animal.