In Review: The Word

I actually finished this book several weeks ago, but I figured I'd better tie up the loose end from my "Currently:" post before reviewing anything else.

I picked up "The Word" by Irving Wallace in an airport convenience store on the way out to visit my Mom in Atlanta. I picked it up because it mentioned "The DaVinci Code" in a tagline on the cover, because it was a best-seller back in the 70's, and because it was a suspense novel about Christian revisionism, much like the DaVinci Code (which, you can tell, I enjoyed). But it wasn't like the DaVinci Code. That's not a crime in itself, but it really wasn't that great in any case.

The thing that threw me just a few dozen pages into the book was the graphic sex. Frequent graphic sex. I'm not really a prude - I'm not that opposed to graphic sex in the right kind of books, but it seemed really out of place in a book that spent most of its time philosophizing about Christ and the meaning of life. It was a real distraction, and while I think the goal of its inclusion was to coolify the main character, it made him seem shallow and distractible in my book. "'This is the most important moment of my life', Randall thinks as he puts down his copy of the one thing that will unify world religion and give everyone's life new meaning. 'Hmm, but I've had a few drinks and now I'm horny. I think I'll go bonk my secretary." Maybe it was supposed to make him appear more fragile, and more human. Maybe it was just the pre-AIDS mores. It was definitely a distraction.

The book was fairly boring. I had every intention of liking the book, and I really tried to get into it, but it was repetitive and went on for pages and pages into the main character's thoughts and introduced nothing new or important to the story. Not even important to the character, really, either. I guess that it fleshes out the protagonist and makes him more realistic, but there's a reason why the Indiana Jones movies don't stop to show him use the restroom or sleep - it's boring and unimportant. Between all of these extended reveries, not much happened for a long time. The book was quite long, but I think the same story - perhaps a better story - could have been told in 1/3 the pagecount.

The last 50 or 70 pages of the book were also really anti-climactic. What had actually managed, after much trial and tribulation, to build to a bit of suspense, just kind of fizzled out. Blah. No payoff for all of the effort put into the book.

With all that said, I enjoy reading, and I still give the book a C+ or so, because I did finish it and not just so I could write a review. There were a lot of interesting ideas that weren't really developed but were worth thinking about. If anyone wants to borrow it, they're more than welcome to. I won't even ask for it back.

3 of 3 Debates...

...Are now over. The rumors of the pollsters are also that 3 of 3 debates were won by Kerry, but I'm not so sure. If the measure of winning was who was the most clear, who got their point across most eloquently and efficiently, and who avoided looking like the bigger buffoon, then I'd say the pollsters are right, by a substantial margin. But the real test should be, who attracted the most undecided and new voters to their side, and we may not have an answer for that until November.

The thing that's frustrating is that these two questions don't necessarily have to have the same answer, especially where President Bush is concerned. He is declared a winner, or at least having accomplished what he set out to do, if he keeps from swallowing his own foot and manages to shoot off a couple of one-liners. I'm pretty sure that's not just the incumbant's advantage, either - I think people kind of feel sorry for the guy who has trouble saying "nuclear proliferation" and who has a goofy smile, and they think he's "just people" like them and sees their point of view.

I'm really struggling to like Bush - I feel like if half the country can like him so intensely, he has to have some really stellar qualities. I don't dislike him as a dude, as a character on his ranch down in Texas - he's perfect there. But as the guy in charge of steering the country's boat? Really? Some people like him because he's consistent, but it's starting to drive me nuts. He drops the "flip-flop" bombs on Kerry, and after a few good detonations, Kerry actually came up with a pretty good explanation - one that reasonable people would nod at and look for something else to focus on. But Bush and his group just keep saying the same thing, like they didn't hear what Kerry said and don't think we did either. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Nyah, nyah, nyah" all the time may be consistent, but if you're still doing it when someone's trying to explain that you're about to walk across the freeway, it just makes you stupid.

If someone could give me some reasons to like Bush and be proud of what he accomplished in the last 4 years, I'd be very thankful. Please?

Neverwinter Nights

It was a long game. A long, long, looooong game, that I think I poured about 70 hours into, and that's just counting this time - this time of playing through the game with my spiffy new video card and all of the graphical wonderfulness that it entails. Of course, I poured another 40 hours into the game a year or two ago when it came out, back when my 32MB VRAM laptop was the best way to play it, and where the screen would freeze for seconds at a time when more than five creatures came on the screen. That's a big problem of course, because there were almost always more than five creatures on the screen when anything interesting was happening, and even though the image would freeze, the game would keep going, so the next frame I saw might have me hacked to pieces on the ground.

The storyline was okay, but not great, but that was hardly the point of the game. More than anything else, the game is an engine for creating stories of your own, which they explain how to do in great detail. That's what sold so many copies and built such a big fan base. That's what made it such a great idea in the first place. And boy, am I excited to start building modules of my own. While doing other things, I've been reading the Official WorldBuilder's Guide, and it looks fairly easy, as long as you're willing to stay within the scope of what the game can accomplish.

That doesn't really excuse 70 hours of me at the monitor clicking away at orcs and giant spiders and air elementals, though, to the neglect of Kim and a couple of minor duties. That's just obsession - the same obsession that has me very excited about playing the other two modules Bioware's released (which I've purchased now).

Hmm... after 70 hours on the main game and the promise of another 50 hours in the two modules, I'm spending another 30 minutes to write about it. Silly me. On to other things.

In Review: Bush/Kerry Debate 1

After watching the debate last night, or more specifically the commentary after the debate, I've come to the conclusion that I am either more partisan than I thought, or the whole political punditing system wrapped around the debate is so rigid and automatic as to be practically useless.

I know that I watched the debate with a bias. I wasn't really biased about Kerry - I was neither particularly impressed by him or worried about him. The whole business of him being wishy-washy is a non-issue to me, and it really feels like a straw man set up by the Bush camp - personally, I'd rather have a leader who changes his mind when presented with new information than one that is afraid of losing face, even when engining toward disaster.

I was definitely biased against Bush. It's not because he's a Republican (or at least I hope it's not), but because I don't think I can trust him. I almost voted for him in 2000 because he promised to be a centrist and one who would bring together right and left; instead, we seem to be in one of the most partisan periods in recent American history. He talked about how important international ties were, but now he doesn't seem to think we need anyone beside the UK and Australia on our side. Oh, and Poland - we can't forget Poland. Anyway, I'm sure you know what people say, and I'd just say the same thing, so I'll move on.

If debates have winners and losers, I thought Kerry was the clear winner. Where Bush seemed to try to fit memorized multiple choice answers to the questions, Kerry answered the question with an essay that had both support and a point. Where Bush seemed confused and uncertain (several times asking for a 30-second extension, then spending 15 seconds staring blankly while he figured out what to say), Kerry always seemed to know what to say, and he seemed to mean what said. Bush said at least a dozen times, "It's a hard job" and "Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong Place" - he sounded like someone in a little over their head in the Presidency. Kerry did not resort to gimmick lines or soundbites - personally, I'd prefer a President who would rather deal with issues than pander to the 5-second news lead-in.

But afterward, the commentators said that Kerry was unclear and uncertain. They said he hadn't laid out a plan for Iraq. He very clearly did - the 4 things we need to accomplish, and if you want more detail on how to do it, go to johnkerry.com. Bush just said we need to "Stay the Course", but does anyone know what "the Course" is? It didn't really seem like any of the commentators had really watched the debate to draw conclusions - they'd watched it to find support for the conclusions they'd drawn earlier.

It's very frustrating, because people listen to the commentators at least as much as the debate itself, because the commentators seem clever and have opinions that seem to make sense, and will make us clever if we agree. The commentators are not living up to their responsibility to elucidate the debates for those that need help following along; it seems more like they're trying to build up a brand name and attract consumer-viewers. It's not really democratic anymore, but it's not really a mediarchy, either. I don't know what it is, but I'm frustrated. Frustrated, and looking forward to the next debate.

In Review: Beyond Belief, by Elaine Pagels

Though the book was worth the read for me, I thought the title was deceiving. Pagels spends more than half of the book discussing the Gospel of John, which she sets up as being in opposition of Thomas. Where the synoptic gospels portray Jesus as a man, both John and Thomas portray Jesus as a god. The difference between the two is the breach that was closed by the Council of Nicea - was Jesus actually one with God, i.e. God himself and something totally unlike ourselves, so that we could never hope to be truly like Jesus - or was he as a God, an ascended man who marked his footsteps so we could follow along his path. Do we approach the Father through faith in this God-Christ, or through knowledge unlocked by the Man-Christ. Trust me that Pagels discussess this with more clarity and intelligence than I am able to muster this early in the morning.

I'm not sure what Pagels' credentials are, entirely, but she has written a number of books on this and similar topics, and seems to be very well regarded in the field. She writes intelligently and with a good deal of support and references (she uses end-notes instead of foot-notes, a good choice for this type of book), and I think she approaches the subject both as an academic and as an interested human.

The book also contains a full translation of the existing portions of the Gospel of Thomas at the end, translated by Pagels and her professor-mentor.