The BillPages

Start hoarding your bananas now.

Read this article from BBC.com this morning.

It made me think of this.

Thank goodness there aren't very many of them left, because they are much, much stronger than we are. And the way we've been treating their habitats, they've got every reason to be pissed off at us.

Hapland 2 is out. Prepare to get no sleep.

Rob over at Another Stinkin' Blog pointed out the first Hapland to me. This one is... worse.

If you haven't already, read Terry Pratchett.

The UK author of comic Sci-Fi is prolific and profound. I've just finished reading "Thud!", the thirty-fifth novel in his series of Discworld novels (depending on how you count). It is, like all my favourite Discworld books, a story of the City Watch in the teeming metropolis of Ankh-Morpork. It's a murder mystery. And a comedy. And a fantasy. And, sort-of, a history. Mostly what it is, is a continuing exploration of why people are the way the way they are, how that affects the people around them, and how that leads to loneliness, mistrust and sometimes war.

Mostly what it is, is damn good.

Pratchett, or pterry as the rabid fanatics at alt.fan.pratchett call him, has woven a complex and surprisingly complete world since "The Colour Of Magic" first appeared in 1983. In general, there are four main divisions of story on the Discworld. The aforementioned City Watch, the Wizards of Unseen University, the Witches in the tiny mountain kingdom of Lancre, and Death. Death is the classic skeleton-with-a-scythe character, and is often more human than many of his... uh... clients. Mixed in with these recurring elements are a series of stand-alone stories, each featuring a different Kingdom, god, or other unexplored bit of the Disc.

Ah, yes. The Disc.

The Discworld is exactly what it sounds like. A big, flat, roughly circular disc floating in space. Well, not floating. Something's gotta be holding it up, right? That something is, naturally, elephants. Four of them, standing on the back of a giant turtle, named A'Tuin. Big mountains in the centre of the disc, an-ever cascading waterfall around the edges... and an entire world in between.

Pratchett's world has all the classic fantasy elements - dwarfs, trolls, dragons, wizards - but everything is turned slightly on its head. Doing to fantasy sort of what Douglas Adams did for Sci-Fi, Pratchett takes the conventions of the genre and turns them in on themselves. The result is a series of novels which are interesting, memorable and hilarious.

Thud! is, as it says on the book jacket,:

It's a game of Trolls and Dwarfs where the player
must take both sides to win ...

It's the noise a troll club makes when crushing
in a dwarf skull, or when a dwarfish axe cleaves
a trollish cranium ...

It's the unsettling sound of history about
to repeat itself ... THUD!

The best thing about Thud! is that on top of everything else it's actually a really good mystery. There are twists and turns, clues and red herrings, devious people and dupes, and in the end a resolution that wraps up everything neatly, but not too neatly.

If you plan to embark into the Discworld for the first time, I suggest you start at the beginning, just to get the first-time descriptions and feel for the place. After the first two novels, both about Rinsewind the Wizard, you can probably branch out into any of the books. "Wyrd Sisters" is a good place to start with the witches ("Equal Rites" comes first, but is sort-of a stand alone story). For the City Watch you really should start with "Guards! Guards!" and proceed in order. The Watch undergoes real change, has the most novels in it's sub-set, and follows a clear progression from book to book.

Each Discworld novel is it's own story, but they sometimes refer backwards.

Discworld resources on the net:

Buy Pratchett from Amazon.

Learn all you need to know and much, much more at the L-Space.

Get the offical scoop from the official site.

And check out the wiki.

Enjoy!

No, I'm not talking about this. Or this. Although they won't, and I wish they would.

I'm talking about the attack on reason being perpetrated by reactionary bastards cloaking themselves in a false veneer of religion.

This one is all about Darwin, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. The first big court case to tackle the issue of evolution in schools since Scopes opened yesterday in Pennsylvania. The difference is that this time Evolution is the standard in the syllabus and Creationism is the encroacher. Of course, the advocates don't call it creationism. But we shouldn't let them get away with that.

I already ranted against bad science a while ago. Intelligent Design is just the most high-profile in a list of crap that's being foisted on the public on a daily basis. For a regular update on crap that you shouldn't buy into, check out Randi.org.

This issue has been debated all over the place, on TV, in print, and especially on radio over and over again. I'm not going to bother to point out ridiculous flaws in the logic of IDers. I'm not going to point out that the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY (Yes. All. 100%. No, him too. Really) supports Darwinistic Evolution as 'good science' and considers ID to be either 'bad science' or, more accurately 'not science at all'.

I'm just going to say that, in my opinion - and this is just an opinion - the proponents of Intelligent Design don't believe it either. They don't believe in Omphalos Creationism, or that Abiogenesis is impossible.

What they believe is that God wants them to spread his word. And that anything contrary to the literal text of the Bible is against His wishes regardless of whether or not it's true.

And, like certain other fundamentalists, they believe YOU should be forced to agree.

Bastards.

Truth by accident, or sly commentary on purpose?

I wrote a post this morning all about the Emmy's. Why I didn't watch the show, why I did read the results in the paper. Shows I think were ignored completely, shows that should and shouldn't have won.

It was a very detailed post. I had hyperlinks to everything.

But at the end of the day, what I wanted to say was really simple:

I love William Shatner.

So this isn't the next post. This is the one after that.

William Shatner winning his second Emmy is the first time I've been excited about an actor winning an award since... well since the last time William Shatner won an emmy.

It is quite possible that no actor has been made fun of more than William Shatner. Sure, folks pick on Keanu, but after one little "Woah!", where can you go? And every hack of an impressionist does John Wayne and Brando.

But Shatner... people do whole monologues of Shatner. Kevin Pollack has built a career doing Shatner. Well, and Columbo, but mostly Shatner.

You see, they... say... he.... talks...like this.

(I'm informed by the people on Fark.com that the last two words always go together.)

They say he has an inflated ego. That he's a huge ham. That he is, in short, bad.

I say bullshit.

A lot of what was in the original Star Trek called for overblown reactions to bit players in ridiculous looking costumes. Shatner portrayed a belief in the reality of unreal situations, and it allowed the audiences to believe as well.

William Shatner is everything great acting should be. His delivery is FULL of variations in level of intensity, emotion, pace and volume. His body language is fully committed to dialogue and character at all times. And he does what's right for character and story, regardless of his own chances of appearing goofy.

Shatner is THEATRICAL.

Unfortunately, film directors and critics are - for the most part - not. Shatner can seem out of place because the rest of the medium is, as Olivier once described it, anemic. He lives and breathes his role, instead of hitting his mark and speaking. He does what Brando does, only instead of mumbling and half shutting his eyes, he enunciates and stares intently at the camera.

Shatner says "I've come all the way for this. Are you prepared to come with me?"

I'm an actor. I've been told I'm good. I've won awards.

And I aspire to be half as good as William Shatner.

So, congratulations, Mr. Shatner. Good for you.

I did this whole thing without the gratuitous linking I normally engage in. I wanted people to focus on the greatness of Shatner. But just too keep up the average, here's a picture worth looking at.

Everyone should play Sudoku. It rocks.

To be honest, I've been avoiding the news lately. I'm dreading things like body counts, and suicide bombs, and other horrible tragedies.

I know, I shouldn't make light of things. I apologize.

But I have checked out some of the news-related websites I frequent. The main one, Fark.com, has been around forever and offers links to intersting, humourous and unusual stories, as well as forums for discussions on these stories. Others, like The Obscure Store and News Of The Weird are a little slower to update, but have some neat commentary. Chuck Sheppard's been doing this since the 70s, and has been published doing it since 1988.

Anyway, there are a number of really nifty stories that have cropped up, but they all seem to miss the point, at least to me. For example, there's this story, about a Starbuck's in Texas which has banned one of their cups:

"...was recently asked to remove a series of cups that some would argue "promote homosexuality." the Lariat Online, Baylor University

I've read the article. I've read the forums on the site I got the article from. NO ONE SAYS WHAT THE FREAKIN' QUOTE IS! It's from Armistead Maupin, and it has something to do with being gay, or not being gay, or whatever. But what IS it?

And a couple of days ago, the Bush-bashing crowd was making great hay out of a photo posted on Reuters (the link is to the Yahoo Reuters feed). According to Snopes.com, the photo is probably legit, as it comes from a reputable source.

So the debate started about how Bush was somehow a goof for having to go to the bathroom in the middle of a big important meeting. And others said that he's obviously just a human being, so what's the big deal?

But what no one seems to mention is the note itself. Whoever wrote it - the President may in fact have been responding to a note someone passed him - has serious printing issues. Note my transcription:

I think I MAy NEED A BATHroom break?

I hope the password to the president's computer isn't case-sensitive, because he's screwed if it is. And why is it a question? Doesn't he KNOW if he needs to go to the bathroom or not? And the next bit is written in cursive, instead of printed! Really, they must not teach penmanship at Yale.

Mainstream media misses the point all the time. They're increasingly obvious about not asking the obvious question. That's one of the reasons why the Daily Show and Real Time with Bill Maher have such loyal followings. "Real News" or not, they're at least trying to point out what's actually going on. That's why I turn to these web sources, to get a different perspective on the news of the day. To find out the story that's NOT the headline everywhere. To occasionally hear some GOOD news.

How about you? Heard any good news lately?

Believe me, when I say "Most TV Is Crap", I know what I'm talking about. I watch most TV. There are dozens of shows for which I've seen every single episode, and countless others that I've caught a lot of. And most of it is crap. Even the shows I really, really like have ALL ventured into crap once in a while. That's right: ALL of them. Sopranos? The scene where Tony had a conversation with his CGI mother. West Wing? Most of Josh's relationship with the Mary Louise Parker character. Arrested Development? Umm... okay Arrested Development hasn't been crap yet, but it's still fairly new. Give it a chance.

So I shouldn't be surprised that most of the new shows suck. If you read my reviews in the previous post, you'll notice that most of the shows are in the "not the greatest" category. And the three new ones I'm about to add are definitely not improving the average.

Pepper Dennis: Rebecca "Whatever Happened To Stamos" Romjin stars as plucky TV news gal Pepper in a series that seems to want to mix real human drama with Ally McBeal style humour. Unfortunately the real drama rings false and the humour falls flat. If it weren't for the eye-candy that is Ms. Romjin, there would be literally NO reason to watch this.

Threshold: I was really looking forward to this one, so maybe the hype was hard to live up to. But the show seems to have very little mystery to it. A lot is revealed in that first episode, which makes me wonder how long they actually expect it to last. There better be a deeper secret here, or they've showed their hand way to early. Lost fans will appreciate a nice turn by William Mapother.

The War At Home: Dear lord. Please disregard my earlier comments about having my faith restored in the American sitcom. This contrived, forced, incoherant mess is everything that's been wrong with TV comedy in the past decade. Obnoxious kids, goofy dad, together mom and the most egregious use of a laugh track I've heard in ages. And hey, you know what's funny? Racism and gay bashing! DO NOT WATCH THIS SHOW. I think I'm actually dumber just for having seen it. The normally talented Michael Rappaport isn't enough to save this one.

Ah well. There are still plenty of decent shows on the tube. And Family Guy and American Dad start up again tonight. Hooray!

I know, "Too much TV" sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? And yet, sadly, it may be true. I've been watching premieres of the new fall shows, and there are actually some really good ones coming out. Egads, I may have to stop watching old Star Trek episodes to fit them all in.

My take on the upcoming seasons new fare:

The Weird Shows:

Invasion: Really nicely done. Decent performances and a real sense of threat, without anything too overt going on. There are lots of folks hinting about 'something mysterious' but the first episode gives just hints, which is nice. Contrast that with...

Surface: The show that was going to be called "Fathom" may as well have changed it's name to "Superficial". Blank performances, obvious writing and way too much given away in the first ep. Here's a clue: if your whole show is based on the idea that 'something's in the water', don't show dozens of people seeing it in full view in the first ep.

Supernatural: What if Buffy were two brothers? Straight up demon-hunting, with attractive young people battling the beasts from beyond. The first episode had some genuinely creepy moments, some snappy dialogue and the beginnings of an interesting arc. Definitely one to keep an eye on.

Night Stalker: Darren McGavin must be spinning in his grave (what? he's still alive? Wow, who knew?). I've heard that they're 'revisiting' this one before airing, but the pilot I saw was under witten, over acted and badly, badly filmed. No tension, no logic, no element of believability within the fantasy.

Ghost Whisperer: A little too much like last season's Patricia Arquette vehicle "Medium", but not bad for all that. Jennifer Love Hewitt has more to offer than just eye-candy appeal, but still needs to improve her dramatic range to carry the lead. Supporting actress Aisha Tyler, who was so good on CSI, is unbelievingly annoying as Hewitt's best friend.

The Dramas:

E-Ring: The sad thing is, I really like both Benjamin Bratt and Dennis Hopper, both of whom phone in their first performances in this homeland security-themed series. A little not-so-subtle flag waving and overly earnest speechifying did little too help them through a fairly boring story that plays out like low-rent Tom Clancy.

Just Legal: With a title that sounds like a Hustler publication, one might expect a little zip. Not so, in this dissapointing effort at a legal drama. Don Johnson doesn't sell 'curmudgeon', which gives the decent Jay Baruchel nothing to play off as the young idealist. Hints of a darker past for Don and his cop buddy ring hollow. This may be aimed at the "Murder She Wrote" crowd.

In Justice: Based on the premise that there are thousands of injustly convicted people in American prisons, this show at least tries a new twist on the legal drama. Nice performances - particularly by the always interesting Kyle Machlachlan - elevate my opinion of this to "cautiously optimistic".

Bones: Look, I loved Angel. I though it was a great show. But David Boreanaz has never been what I would call a powerhouse actor. So what does it mean when he gives the absolute best performance in this show? I'd like to think he's been taking classes or something, but I think it's just that every other performance in this show was very weak. When all you've got as a series is "just another cop show", your characters better be interesting. Fans of forensic anthropology should read Kathy Reichs' novels instead.

Reunion: I'll be honest: I couldn't even get through this one. The odd premise of following a specific group of people through 20 years of their lives (each episode is a year) didn't work for me, at least in episode one. Maybe I needed to give the show more time, and develop an interest in the characters, but the first 30 minutes were too dull for me to bother.

Killer Instinct: Just another cop show. Again. With hints that one of the cops may have a dark and secret past. Again. Oh, and the victims were all beautiful, scantily clad young women. Again. Decent performances and the inventive (if deeply deranged) crime scenario made the show entertaining, but a tough Friday night time-slot and the glut of crime drama on air will probably mean we shouldn't get too attached to this one.

The Comedies:

My Name Is Earl: Laugh out loud, drop dead funny. If the creative team behind this one can keep up the standards set in the first episode, Arrested Development may have a challenger for 'funniest show on TV.' In addition to leading loser Jason Lee, Ethan Suplee and Jaime Presley (yowza) supply excellent comedic moments.

Everybody Hates Chris: Narrated by Chris Rock, and supposedly drawn from his real life experiences, this show is a little bit Malcolm In The Middle, a little bit Cosbys and a whole lot funny. Tyler James Williams carries the show as the young Chris, and does a great job.

Well that's it for the ones I've seen so far. I'm anticipating Threshold and Criminal Minds. All in all, I would say Invasion, Supernatural and the two comedies are ones I'll be following for sure. Add that to new shows already on the air (The Closer, Wanted and Weeds) and all the returning shows, and I basically won't be leaving my couch until spring.

Well, in the midst of vast tragedy, a note of far more specific grief is struck.

No, I'm not talking about William H. Rehnquist. I'm talking about Bob Denver.

Yes, the beloved Li'l Buddy has passed on, gone to join that great three hour tour in the sky.

Seriously, I watched Gilligan's Island every day when I was a kid. The old Black & white ones with the "And The Rest" bit in the theme song, the silly one with the Japanese soldier, even the time the Harlem Globetrotters played against the robots.

So long, Li'l Buddy. Let's hope you're going to a place where there are phones, lights, motor cars... ALL the luxuries.

So, who do you think affected people's lives more? Gilligan or Rehnquist? And who do you think will get more media coverage?

Billp

I suppose there's nothing new about human beings being fascinated by the suffering of others. Rome had the coliseum, the 'enlightened' renaissance had bear baiting, and public executions continued well into the 20th century (and still continue, some places).

But sometimes, we just get way too blatant about it.

I saw this on CNN.com today.




Egads. You sick bastards.

Insert your own rant about allowing families privacy in their grief and affording dignity to the dead. I haven't got the energy.

Everybody should read the first comment for my last post. Then they should check out the "Playing After Dark" blog, linked on the left. It's maintained by the guy who made the comment. One of these days, he'll post on his own blog.

Then you should defintiely check out Cabbages & Kings, and make some entries in the photo caption comments, and check out the story of the midnight bat attack.

And you should swing by Another Stinkin' Blog, and tell the poor guy what to read next. He's dying to know.

These are good folks. Read their blogs. (And tell your friends about mine!)

Reading the papers has been quite the downer this week, don't you think? Hurricanes, Stampedes, bombings, murders... it makes one yearn for the days of vapid infotainment.

Me, I've been tuning off the news and checking out a lot of the new shows coming up for the new season of television. So what do I catch just a few days ago? The series premiere of Invasion, which features a (wait for it) hurricane and a murder.

Now the TV sites are speculating that the network may delay promoting the show, and possibly even push back its debut, in the wake of Hurrican Katrina. Of course, the grim news coming from Iraq hasn't stopped FX Network from running with it's new show, Over There, about a troop of American soldiers caught up in that conflict.

And the recent high profile trial of the BTK Killer has had no effect on CBS's Criminal Minds or Fox's Killer Instinct, both set to debut this fall.

Yep. That's why I tune in to TV. For the escapism.