Pre-Burnt

I heard something interesting the other day... though I am not sure it is was a few days or a few weeks ago. Obsession really distorts ones sense of time...

Humans have lived in fear of fire for a long time. There were many great fires in memory. Half of Chicago burned, London burned, The White House burned, etc. But have you noticed that we do not hear of these kinds of things any more? I never really thought about until I heard this: "We do not live in fear of fires because we live in pre-burnt structures"!

We burn out anything that might burn from bricks, steel, glass, etc. If all of the materials out of which we build no longer have anything left that can be burnt, there is no stored "fire energy", hence no fires. Interesting, no?

This got me to thinking about the current love of my life - food. We Humans cook our food, and by doing so are removing some of the energy from that food. The foods we cook have less energy to stoke our inner fires, so to speak. So maybe the Japanese are on to something with this Sushi thing...!

This leads to a personal note from me - I love burnt food. I love burnt cheese especially. Grilled meats are amazing because they are burnt on the outside. Yum! If other people think it is burnt to a crisp - beyond eatable, I'm there cooking it a bit longer for my tastes.

So, does this mean that by my love of burnt foods that I am depriving myself of the energy content of the foods that I eat? How about you - how do you want your steak cooked now?

The Edward

Hellsing

I just found this DVD series called Hellsing.  Then found it was based on a Graphic Novel, so I am in the process of reading them.  Very interesting tales of vampires!  Or more precisely, there is one main vampire, Alucard, and his half vampire slave, Police Girl.  There is a lot more to the story, but the master vampire is obviously what drives the fan base.

So, why are Vampires cool?  They are always portrayed as monsters who kill more people than the most prolific series killer, and yet have an air of aristocracy about them.  Alucard kills other vampires because he thinks that they are not true vampires, that they lack that sense of propriety.

I believe in the original mythos, vampires weren't cool.  They were the undead, so they reeked of death - ie had a funky smell.  More like brutal killers rather than the anti-heroes of today.  When did all of this change?  And why?

The other thing I found interesting was Police Girl, other than the fact that they draw her as always wearing very short skirts.  They seem to often have someone like this, someone who became a vampire willingly, but doesn't want to embrace the vampiric ways.  In this story, she avoids drinking blood, even though it causes her many problems.  Same thing happened in that Anne Rice novel as well.  Is this supposed to represent the last vestiges of the main vampire's humanity?  Is this to show that they aren't all bad, that at first they resist drinking blood and taking human life, and even though they eventually give in, they still probably have that resistance?  Are we trying to humanize our monsters?

What makes mass murder into entertainment?  The Showtime show Dexter is about a serial killer, and it is devastatingly popular.  Would it be popular with someone who survived this kind of tragedy?  Do we as a people take pleasure in other's suffering?  Are these shows and books a way to secretly rejoice in it, knowing that we are not alone, that others out there must feel as we do?

Are all of these signs that we just live in constant fear of ourselves - our true feelings, and of others and what we think they are capable of?

The Edward

More on Spoilers

After my Harry Potter spoilers, I was talking with a good friend about it.  My contention was that there is no such thing as a spoiler, the idea that was espoused by my blog entry.  He pointed out something that I hadn't considered - people want to feel the effect of the master story teller as she weaves her spell with words to convey the sense of wonderment when that which a spoiler so crassly spoils, is revealed to full effect.  I was captivated by this idea.  People just wanted to be taken on a journey by the story teller.  Spoilers would ruin that, since the shock/effect would be diminished with knowledge of what would happen at some point in the story.  Wow, how did I miss that!

After pondering this for a few days, I decided that though it was a good idea, and was  lulled by its logic, it didn't ift my blog.  See, there is no such that as a spoiler!  That's right, I am going to spit in the face of logic!  Though, I will now explain why.

Let's say that there is a book coming out soon and I tell you that the main character dies in the end.  Now what?  You can choose to believe me or not.  Before I said that the character dies, if you had spent any time at all waiting for this book, you probably thought that it the main character might die.  So, what have my words changed for you?

Let's say that I show you a picture of the page that clearly states the main character dies.  How does this change anything?  I could easily have faked this.  And this actual did happen with the Harry Potter novel - there were fake pages out there claiming to be "spoilers".

Unless you didn't think anything at all about the future and what might happen in the book, anything I say or show you, you probably already thought about.  Does this mean that you have already spoiled the story for yourself by thinking?  Do my words and/or pictures carry more weight than your thoughts?

Before I saw The Sixth Sense, I read a review that spoiled the movie.  While watching it, I saw the movie differently than if I knew nothing about it going in.  The movie kind of sucked.  Why?  Because it totally depended on the surprise factor.  I know how many of the Shakespeare plays end, yet I will still watch them.  Why?  They should be "spoiled" for me, based on the logic of spoilers.

It is all about letting go.  When I see a movie, I analyze it death.  I always know who did it near the beginning of the movie, which means most dramatic movies suck for me.  I think most people could know who did it, but they fool themselves - they purposely do not think about the possible "spoilers".  The people who didn't want to know how the last Harry Potter book ended probably didn't think about how it might end.  Any thought about it might have spoiled it for themselves.  Letting go and not thinking about any aspect of the story is the only way to let the story teller move you to the place they are trying to get you to.

So, if you want to enjoy a good story, enjoy a play about which you already know the whole story, or to watch/read a Mystery, don't think.  If you think, you will spoil a good journey.

The Edward

PS Actually, I'm sure I would have figured out the secret of The Sixth Sense and would have found the movie to be just as annoying. It doesn't matter to me if I figure it out or if someone told me before the movie begins - knowing what will happen just makes watching it play out very tedious for me.

Fuzzy Bunny Slippers

After seeing the latest Harry Potter movie, I thought of something.  "Wow, what a crappy movie" would be the obvious thought, but not this time (well, not the only thought this time).  They have characters that call themselves Death Eaters.  Beside the fact that most people eat dead things, it got me thinking.  They all had these cool black cloaks and cool scary face masks and dark foreboding names, but why?

I've seen this in countless movies and books.  The Dark Side.  Starscream.  Joe Black.  The Master.  Kaos.  Why do all of these groups/people have dark sounding names?  Is it easier to recruit people into your organization with them?  Like in Reservoir Dogs - no one wants to be Mr. Pink.  Why do people want these tough sounding names?  Do they lack a true belief in their own internal Evil, so they need someone external to themselves to recognize this with words that connote their evil nature?  Sounds like someone needs a hug and a little confidence building...  wimps.

When I become an Evil Overlord, things will be different - I want people confident in their Evil.  I think the names and outfits, to be truly evil, should be lies.  Calling someone or something not what it is, ie deception, sounds more interesting to me.  The leaders should have names like Snuffles, Huggy, and Smiles.  They will great each other with the word "Friend" instead of comrade or saluting.  And the standard outfit would be bright colors and soft materials.  I think these things would inspire more fear in people than any of this Dark Lord crap.  "Run!  He was friendly and wears interesting colors!  He is a member of Friends of Life!  The slaughter is about to begin!"

It is true, I have actually seen things like this in some movies and books.  In horror films, there is nothing scarier than a child demon.  Sweet little innocence is actually a code word for death and destruction.  And there are the gentlemen killers in some of these stories, people so confident in themselves that they have a seductive aura of Evil about them.  People of quiet confidence do not need names like Death Eaters to inspire terror - like in The Devil's Advocate.  I guess that is why they say "it is the quiet ones you have to watch out for", for they truly know Evil.

The Edward

Harry Potter Spoilers!

This seems to be the topic on the lips of every news outlet - how will the final Harry Potter book end?  What will happen to all of those lovable characters?  I'll tell you something, there are no spoilers.  But first, a warning:  The rest of this blog MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS, if there is such a thing.  You have been warned.

I first saw an article on cnn a week or so ago that someone had hacked the computer at the publishing house and was posting spoilers from what he read.  He said that Hermione dies trying to save Ron.  And Snape dies.  I was so shocked to read this that I canceled my pre-order of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows!

Then a few days ago, someone posted a set of pictures of the final seven pages of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows!  This made all of the media outlets again!  And more shocking, he had a different summary of the book:  Ron dies.  Hermione becomes a nurse.  Ginny marries someone else.  Percy dies.  Snape dies.  Shocking!

Then yesterday, while searching for that link again, I saw another round of stories, this time about someone who posted the entire book online in the form of blurry pictures.  Someone read it and had these spoilers:  Hedwig dies.  Fred dies.  Ron and Hermione get married.  Harry and Ginny get married and have three kids.  Snape dies.  Amazing!

What do all of these spoilers have in common?  They are all wrong!  Sure, they all claim Snape dies, but that just shows what I am talking about.  All of these latest Harry Potter books are under lock and key, being kept safe, just in case their secret escapes.  But, my question is:  what is their secret?  And what happens if it escapes?  Okay, my two questions are...

The books are nothing more than what J.K. Rowling believes would happen to the characters in the world she described in her previous books.  It does say what happens, only her opinion of what happens.  I'm sure you could think of a much better ending to these characters than she could.  I am sure you have already thought of an ending that you would like to see.  Why?  Because this ending is the one that is best for you.  Why do you care what ending someone end came up with?

The characters are in your mind.  The ones in her mind are different than the ones in your mind.  They may share the same names, but obviously if you have envisioned a different ending than she did, they must have a different life in your head.  Why destroy your characters and replace them with hers?

That is one of the reasons people are avoiding spoilers.  At some point in the near future, people will know how J.K. Rowling ended her characters.  But people want the characters in their minds to live a little bit long.  To enjoy what they believe should be the conclusion.  J.K. Rowling will kill your characters this Saturday, so why read her next book?

The secret to building a nuclear device, if escaped, would be the same as if you invented it yourself.  if you compared those leaked secrets to what you invented, you would have the same works at the end.  That is a secret.  If the ending of Harry Potter escapes, it will not be the same as the one you invited yourself, as shown by the above spoilers.  This is not a secret.  It is just one person's ideas. There are no such things as spoilers, ever. Sorry to ruin the ending for you.

The Edward

Entropy and Order meet in a bar...

Listening to the Joy of Science on CD again, and there was talk of Entropy and how it increases.  The "latest" thinking is that the amount of order must be taken into account for a process.  The example used was a deck of cards just out of the box has a higher order than a shuffled deck.  And no matter how much one shuffles the deck, there is almost no chance that it will end up ordered again, hence Entropy increases.  But there is a problem with this.

Each state is just a state - there is no bias.  A deck of cards just out of the pack is in no better order than a shuffled deck.  Shuffling a deck of cards doesn't increase the entropy, it puts it in another unique state.  It is only the human mind that sees a deck out of the box as "in order."  Are the cards sorted by atomic thickness?  Number of atoms of carbon?  Number of photons bouncing off of them?  Even if one chooses that the face of card be used to determine order, which order?  What if the order I want is all cards of like type be together?  So, instead of by suit, it is by value?  In that case the cards coming out of the box are not sorted.  At each and every shuffle, the cards are sorted by some criteria, and shuffling them again will make it so that they will never exist in that order again.  Each order is unique, it is just that we have such limited rules on what is ordered.

If we can define Order with one rule, we consider it ordered:  all suits together.  The Universe does care about our definition of Order, and so us creating a set of rules for how the Universe acts based on what we label Entropy seems very silly.

The Edward

A Fight Half Done

I noticed something the other day, but that is a topic for a different blog post.  Today is about something I've seen in horror movies for awhile.  Not the naked women that used to fill these movies in the 80s and 90s, but instead lets talk about the final scene.  The monster, this overwhelming creature of pure evil with the strength to back it up, gets shot and falls down.  At this point, the pitiful human has an advantage over the monster, so the human is now the more powerful of the two.  So, what does this human do?  He or she throws down the weapon, turns his or her back and walks away, followed by everyone in the audience screaming at the screen "He isn't dead yet!  Shoot him again!"  They never do.  Once the human has the upper hand, they walk away.  Then the monster rises up and attacks again, followed by a struggle of some sort, and the human finally kills the monster, which is what he or she should have done in the first place. This person had to wait until the monster was once again a stronger threat before he or she could kill it.

Two quotes come to mind when I see this in a horror movie:  "Never get involved in a fight unless you are willing to finish it." and "Never deal a non-fatal blow to an opponent."

Who amongst us wasn't picked on in school?  This picking on probably didn't create a sense of "wow, I learned my place! I will accept my lot in life..."  How many of us instead thought, and still think to this day, "I'll show them!  Some day I will be rich and/or powerful, and will come back to this town and show them who's boss!"  See, the same thing as in the monster movie.  Not finishing someone off when one has the upper hand is always fatal!

At every point in a conflict one side is the stronger of the two.  People fear beating on the wimp, because it is a losing proposition.  One needs to deliver a decisive blow early in the fight, or do not even bother.  Who wants to kill someone or thing when it is on its last breath?  Do you want to see an hour of someone kicking someones ass, beating them to a bloody pulp, then finally killing them?  After an hour of this would you say "Wow, that was so cool!  That tough guy finally won!"  Probably not.  But if the tough guy went through a crowd of wimps, killing them all with the slightest touch, I imagine it would a very popular movie!

This is all based on people not wanting to kill the underdog.  At some point in the fight, if the underdog has the upperhand, he is no longer the underdog, so the roles are reversed.

When invading another country, it is the same thing.  If you do not take over and master it ASAP, it is like kicking the ass of a wimp for an hour.  No one wants to see it.  No one feels a sense of empowerment.  People are just disgusted by it.  If you want to be an invader, go in and kick ass!  Do not leave a fight half done, or that country will hold a grudge forever.

The Edward