I had a wonderful weekend--probably the best I've had in ages--but before I get to that, I want to talk about "The Dark Tower." Having finished the final volume in a marathon three-day press, I find I have a lot to say about it.

( Read onCollapse )

I finished "The Dark Tower: The Waste Lands" in a marathon late-night reading fest last evening. Very good stuff, but I feel like King was trying to smush two books into one. The arrival of Jake into Mid-World and the exploration of Lud could probably have each taken up a book completely on their own, and compressing two very different stories into the same novel left me with a profound feeling of disconnection.

I'm also not that deep into Blaine as a huge, terrifying villain. Maybe it's the pink, or male issues with prison rape, but I found Gasher and Tick-Tock (especially Jake's nightmarish run through the maze) much more frightening. King spends the whole book building Blaine up as this massive foe, and he's really like a petulant HAL 9000 with MPD. ;)

Still, there's a lot to like about the book, from watching the ka-tet form and help Roland deal with his growing insanity to the sense of relief and triumph for when Jake finally comes across, to the sad tableau of horror that is Lud, and the realization that the world has indeed moved on. That's another thing I like about King--a more pretentious writer would have used these stories as metaphors that club you over the head. Jake's escape from our world to Mid-World would be a huge allegory for the end of innocence and growing up, while the fall of Lud is meant to display in no uncertain terms where our own disrespect for our world and each other may lead us. But King doesn't need to drive the point home--he just gets out of the way, tells the story, and lets you come to it for yourself.

An excellent entry in the series, overall, but slightly less to my taste than the previous two. On to "Wizard And Glass!"

I recently finished "The Drawing of the Three", second installment in the "Dark Tower" series. It started out slow for me, personally--I can't believe it took 100 pages to get Eddie from that damn plane into Mid-World, but it picks up considerable steam thereafter. It seems like King devoted equal space to introducing both Eddie and Odetta/Detta/Susannah, and as is his wont, did a marvelous job of creating whole, fully fleshed, and realistic characters in a fraction of the space some writers do.

It really says something about how good a writer King is that he could take Roland, the "baddest killing machine in the known universe" (as Nick) put it, and make for him a credible threat out of a legless schizophrenic woman. ;)

Very good stuff, all told. Can't wait to pick up the next volume.

After years of my friends wearing me down like water on stone, I have finally decided to take the plunge and read Stephen King's "Dark Tower" series.

I never got around to it before, but after Nick said I needed a big pair of revolvers with wood handles (I think) for game, I was like, "Okay! Okay! I'll read the goddamn series already."

I've got about 2 1/2 books to work through first, but they're fairly short and I read quickly, so I suspect this'll be taking up much of my fall. :) I haven't read novelized fiction in years--I don't get down with Robert Jordan or George R.R. Martin, for example, since those stories were a lot better when we called them "The Lord of the Rings." :) And King hasn't written any good horror worth a damn since "IT," in my opinion. But this stuff sounds much different, and maybe I'll dig it. We'll see.

When I told Jessi Rose that I was going for it, her pink hair actually glowed. It was a moment.

I may need to get familiar with The Gunslinger if only to defend myself from the hordes of Martin/Jordan fans I just shat a brick on. :)

From author Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture:

"To base any moral position on natural fact, whether that fact is derived from nature or from nurture, is asking for trouble. In my morality, and I hope in yours, some things are bad but natural, like dishonesty and violence; others are good but less natural, like generosity and fidelity."

I've been wrestling with the implications of this philosophy for a while. Many of my best debates, such as those with Brian (Happy Birthday!), have centered around the concept that man is innately "evil" or "immoral."

I don't like the idea that we are born into sin, or even that our "default" states are amoral or violent. But the male propensity for violence is a lingering genetic truth, an expression of our primal need for dominance and suitability for mates. Is dishonesty innate to us? Not as much as I think self-interest is--the impulse to act in our own best desires. What we want comes first, to ensure our own survival. This could be as pivotal as not intervening when you see a mugging, or as small as lying about someone's behavior to ensure you are not ostracized from the social herd.

But I do like the idea of choosing to be generous. To make the conscious decision to be "good," to act on a higher ethical level, to live according to principle over predilection--this appeals to me. It says that we can dictate the course of our evolution. That while we may be set to a default state of amorality in order to ensure evolution and survival, that we can reshape the course of our evolution, and mold ourselves into more ethical beings.

I believe in God, but I believe that God gave us free will--our most precious gift. When you exercise that will--even if it's to not believe in God--you're doing Him a service. I can't accept any religious view that demands submission to a "higher power" as a condition for acceptance. God does not want us to submit. God wants us to grow, to change, to learn, to think, and to build ourselves into the beings we have the potential to be.

Evil, in its base form, is the relaxing of responsibility. "He made me do it." "It wasn't my fault." "It wasn't my responsibility." When you shut down your capacity to make reasoned decisions and just blindly follow orders, you are opening the door to the potential for evil.

The triumph of the "good" is the celebration of the ability to think for oneself, to question, to challenge, and to embrace new paradigms. That doesn't mean shedding ethical concerns, but embracing them. It's too easy to say, "Well, that's just human nature. We'll never change." Bullshit. A millenium ago we were living in mud huts and castles, and families were made to work the farm for the good of the lord. (Okay, that still happens... :)) But we have evolved and continue to evolve, and part of that means the will to live according to a code of belief and knowing one's nature can be molded and shaped by action, just as it shapes action in turn.

I can't leave this without a quote from two old friends of mine:

SMITH: ....You must be able to see it Mr. Anderson, you must know it by now. You can't win, it's pointless to keep fighting! Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you persist?

NEO: Because I choose to.

Discuss. :)

A certain young egotist had been cajoling me to hit a party last night, but I deferred due to exhaustion from the chaos of Thursday. This turned out to be for the best, as I came home about 5:30 pm, had dinner, flopped on my bed to catch up on my reading...

...and didn't wake up until 11:45 pm. I even missed the premieres of "SG-1" and "Atlantis" for complete failure.

Luckily, I caught the tail end of the "SG-1" repeat, so I know what's going on, but I am at a loss as to how Daniel got on to the Ori ship. ;) "Atlantis" was pretty good. I loved the piss-take on Sheppard's womanizing, Kirk-esque ways. ("I knew I shoulda paid attention.) I'm continually amazed at how good the VFX are for the Gate series--those space battles were film-worthy. One thing about the show bothered me, and that was the continual destabilization of Weir as a strong character through her mistake in trusting the Wraith. I know the Gate shows are very pro-military, and I respect that, but it's a little irritating to see the civilian characters either end up with a very "Kill first and don't ask questions" mindset (as with Daniel) or be portrayed as continually bamboozled (Weir, Woolsey, etc.), or be totally insufferable (McKay). It's the same problem I have with "Galactica," wherein the civilians are either whiny bitches or insanely ruthless.

It was good to see Connor Trineer back in the role of Michael--as I said before, the guy was the best thing about "Enterprise" this side of Jolene Blalock's lack of clothing, so he deserves to get more work. Also mad love for Ronon, who is fast becoming King Badass of Boot Hill. ;)

Speaking of badass, I got my copy of "Wolverine: Not Dead Yet" from an Amazon reseller yesterday. I think I got shafted on the price a bit, but I can't complain--it's still an example of perfect economy in storytelling. Apart from the fact that he drew Logan's bone claws way too long, Lenil draws a phenomenal Wolverine, and Ellis--well, he's the man. 'Nuff said. Like Steve Skroce's underrated "Blood Debt" (The definitive "Wolverine vs. ninja assassin killers" tale), it's a gem from the vastly-maligned (but justly so) '90's.

I offer a hearty welcome to Brooke, who looks like she'll be an interesting read, has a lot of cool interests of her own, and a friends list that utterly defeats mine. ;)

And while we're on the topic of total defeat, I offer a post from the Freakonomics blog that dismembers the whole hysterical "ZOMG! D.C. IS A CITY OF CRIME" meme that is infecting otherwise intelligent people around here. :) As Josh told me, a crime emergency in D.C. means a white person got killed in Georgetown, and he loses his days off. ;)