Thursday, September 17, 2009

Ancient Memories

For no particular reason, I recently remembered a conversation I had with my Elementary School Secretary (hereinafter "ESS") at about 9:00 ante-meridian on fine spring day circa 1986.

Iason: "Hi, Ms. ESS. I need a pass."
ESS: "Hi, Iason. Why are you so late for school?"
Iason: "I slept in."
ESS: ". . . You mean you overslept."
Iason (indignant): "No! I slept in, is all!"
ESS: "Uh, oh. Okay. Here's your excused tardiness pass."
Iason: "Thanks!" -trots off to classroom-
Eight-year-old me got them mixed up, but was certain he had it right. Is there a statute of limitations on being mortified?

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

What I thought of Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver

First a quick note: Quicksilver: Volume One of the Baroque Cycle is not the same book as Quicksilver: The Baroque Cycle #1. The latter is a third of a novel, the former is a fantastically vast and amazing tome of almost 1000 pages. Harper decided to play this bit of publishing chicanery upon us to sell more books to people who were afraid of books that weigh more than chihuahuas. It is a mistake I made, which necessitated the purchase of two books where only one was required, and about which I am a little bitter now.

Publishing peccadilloes now aside: There are novels in the world that you read because you like them, and there are novels in the world that you read because they make you smarter readers. The last book I read in the latter category was Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, which was, I think, good, but was too smart for me. I trudged through it because reading things that are too smart is a pretty good way to become smarter, I think. That doesn't make the process enjoyable, though. It's more than a bit like taking medicine, and, honestly, the strongest emotion I felt about Foucault's Pendulum was relief that I had finally finished it.

Quicksilver, on the other hand, was somehow both a joy to read and far too smart for me to actually be able to follow. Don't kid yourself, Quicksilver is a very challenging read. There are a lot of characters, and most of the characters have two or three titles that they are often referred to by. I spent just as much time reading back (or forward to the Dramatis Personae in the appendix) to remind myself who a person or a place or a thing was as I did actually reading. Stevenson doesn't patronize you by taking it easy on you, either. People, and their positions in society and their relationships are never explained in awkward "device" conversations (which is a problem especially regarding ridiculously inbred royals). Same is true with places, and historical events. Nobody ever says, "remember how Oliver Cromwell violently deposed the Crown, killed as many Irish Catholics as he could, and then he died, and then they exhumed him and chopped off his head and reinstated the Regency?" No, instead, when they happen to come up in conversation, people talk about these events and people and places as though you already know what they're talking about. In this way, Stephenson requires, but also somehow also engenders, an in-depth knowledge of Early-Enlightenment Era Continental history. Wikipedia is your friend.

And while this story contains, teaches, and uses, history, economics, geography, cryptography, physics, anatomy, astronomy, biology, mathematics, alchemy, politics, courtly intrigue and protocol, and any number of interesting "topics," that's not what it's about, and that's not what makes it compelling. It's the characters that really make this story so tremendously readable, in spite of it's almost complete state of unreadability. All the characters, fictional and historical, have real life breathed into them. All are interesting and complicated, and very few are broadly drawn caricatures, which is the temptation too many writers of historical fiction give into. While the book is undoubtedly an unabashed celebration of Science!, Stepehenson recognizes that scientists, even ludicrously world-changingly famous ones, are complicated and disturbed, and very often not fully functional humans.

In a few places, Stephenson gets "cute" by introducing some technology or word or cleverly uses some bit of information we have, in the 21st century, that the characters themselves do not have. Unfortunately, this is executed often with such a "wink" to the reader that it almost appears as an anachronism, and takes the reader out of the period. On the other hand, there is no real attempt to use 17th century speech or cadence or spelling in anything, which is the best kind of anachronism, the kind that allows the contemporary reader to actually understand the dialogue, so I forgive him these few small clever trespasses.

In Quicksilver, Stephenson brings life to an absolutely amazing period in the world's history, and also manages to tell a compelling story with a very intriguing set of characters and historical figures. Yeah, I was more than a little relieved when I had finally finished, but somehow I don't think it'll be too long before I pick up the second volume.

Bonus: On the day after I finished, I went to the Huntington Library and took a gander at this. I was like a little boy on this first day of school.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Watchmen Chapter I

Part of Heiligekuh's Watchman Read-a-Long:

The first thing that really struck me this read is the color palette. The muted tones, the color washes, the poor level of color detail. I love it. I understand that most of it is just an artifact of the printing technology of the time, but now it seems fitting. Especially in this first chapter, every panel is just infused with dilapidation, and the color is what really sets that mood.

Each of the characters is so damaged. Each has their own problems (Dan and his self-pitying, Laurie and her passive-aggressive Mommy issues, I don't even know where to start with Rorschach), but they all seem to be borne out of this: each of them has the kind of enormous ego that might compel a person to don tights and fight crime, and all of them have been more or less rejected by the world. They all still think they can save the world, but the world keeps telling them no thanks, and they don't know how to deal with that. Even Jon, who, at some level, knows he's not useful as a force for good, but just as a weapon, as leverage. That may be a bit of forward-projecting, which I promised myself I wouldn't do, but I think his face in page 23 panel 9 speaks volumes. Is that bliss? Envy? Sadness? Considering how post-human Jon thinks he is, it's a pretty human expression.

I have no idea why the story about Moe Vernon is in there. I guess it furthers the funny/sad dichotomy that is the Comedian, and Dan and Laurie's closing conversation. Also maybe it shows how unrelated wanting to be a "hero" and caring about people is? Any thoughts?

Saturday, November 10, 2007

I'll Tell You What's Not In the Box: Any Part of Andy Samberg

I heretofore declare this blog mostly defunct!

Is it possible that this declaratory post de-defuncts this blog? Is it, in fact, made funct? Is funct a word? If not, why?

Maybe, because of the newfound functness of this blog, I'll have to start posting again.

. . . but I wouldn't bet on it.

If you're looking for Iason's more current online projects/presence/whatnot, you may wish to purview the following:
633k.eliaser.com (with more fun projects to come)
My Facebook Profile (for some reason, I'm finding this relatively enjoyable. I don't even understand why.)

Or, if you'd like, you may wish to answer the following query:

Extra points if you can identify all three references.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Yarr!

That's it. That's all I have to say, after two months of silence. Yarr.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

A Panda is NOT a Fixed Medium of Expression

I am a card-carrying member of the Zoological Society of San Diego. I love the Zoo and the Wild Animal Park, I love to hang out and watch the animals, and I love what the Zoological Society's missions and methods are. But when I was recently at the zoo, I noticed this sign posted in the Panda area. Sorry, I mean the "Giant Panda Research Station."

WTF??!?!!
Let's be clear: a Giant Panda is not protectable intellectual property. An animal is not copyrightable, because it is not a fixed medium of expression. Similarly, a Panda cannot be trademarked, nor is it patentable, nor is it a trade secret. A picture of a Panda, a description of a Panda, yes. But an actual Panda? No way. If a Panda were just walking down the street, I could take a picture of it, and slap it all over whatever commercial materials I wanted. No matter who it belonged to. I think it might be fun to see the Zoo try to forward an appropriation of likeness argument on behalf of the Panda, but I'm pretty sure that only works on people. -grin- So how on earth can the Zoo assert this right? Did they just make it up?

It probably has something to do with this nonsense in tiny print, that I just now noticed, on the back of my membership card:

Member agrees not to commercially use any photography or reproduction in any form taken during any visits to the Parks . . .
I assume the same thing is on the back of the tickets. You see a lot of this, what I'm going to call "ticketwrap" nonsense about, and I think it's completely unbinding. I signed nothing, I made, nor contemplated, nor was aware of, any such agreement. I'm sure the zoo would argue that I should have been aware of such a thing, and that I submitted to it by entering the zoo. Baloney. I made no agreement, and there was no contract. In any sense of the term. See Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 161 A.2d 69. "It is not enough merely to show the form of a contract; it must appear also that the agreement was understandingly made." See also Kravitz v. Parking Service Co., 29 Ala. App. 523. I'm sure I could find more, better authority, but who's got the time for that? I'll wait until they sue me. Why would they sue me, you ask? For this, mayhaps:

So, go, buy your Panda Tee, which, and let me be perfectly clear on this point, is a reproduction of a photograph that I took at the San Diego Zoo, that I am using for commercial purposes. Which I believe I am legally entitled to do. So, bring it, Zoological Society.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Federal Court: "Fuck You, F.C.C."

Link. (Free Login Required.)

Finally, somebody gives the what-for to those power-hungry unconstitutes at the F.C.C. I've long been concerned about what the surprising, sudden, unprecedented imposition of fines for "fleeting expletives." The F.C.C. and the courts have said for decades that context matters, and all of the sudden these new knuckleheads throw all of that out of the window and start dinging for every possible "infraction" that they perceive.

I love the dissent: "The commission’s position is not irrational; it is not arbitrary and capricious." Sure, even if I give you rational and unarbitrary (which I don't), let's just ignore that it was unconstitutional. We should never forget that the F.C.C.'s entire purpose for existence is to abridge speech. I'm not saying that what they do isn't important, I don't want chaos on the airwaves (most days), but their obligations and power should be drawn as narrowly as friggin' possible. Because, and I'm not saying that the Founding Fathers listed their amendments in order of importance, but the first one is the best.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Skill City!

Just a quick plug: you should be playing Skill City. It's got a pile of your favorite puzzle games, plus one you've never seen before, with the promise of much more forthcoming. And really, it's all very shinily packaged together. I'm still groovin' on the music, in particular.

I don't just insert this plug because I want to support the developer, who is a buddy, but because I'm there, and I want the unique opportunity to kick your everloving ass at the puzzle game of your choosing.

So, bring it, already. Username: Iason.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Media Review: The Manikin


Medium: Novel
Author: Joanna Scott
Original Publication: 1996

Scott's prose has never ceased to captivate me in the past, and The Manikin was no exception. Her writing is haunting; somehow distant and cool while at the same time intensely personal and touching. Not a tremendous amount happens in the book, but I was never bored, and didn't have any trouble turning the pages. The titular "Manikin" refers not to a store window mannequin, but the frame around which an animal's skin is mounted in taxidermy, and the house which is both the setting and the main character of the book. In this, as in her other novels, Scott employs an amazing literary device the likes of which I've not really seen anywhere else. She'll paint you a picture of the scene in tremendous detail, such that you know what the room smells like and precisely where everyone is positioned, and only once you have this incredibly clear picture of the setting does she allow the action begin. You can see her crafting a picture in your mind, and then shouting "action," and letting the various characters play their parts. Often, in these descriptions, she uses the second person to wonderful effect. Upon our meeting in 1999, she called this her "tour guide voice," and passed it off as a cheap narrative trick, but I think it's a phenomenal method of laying the scene out before the reader. Other readers might find The Manikin to be uneventful and depressing, but I relished in the slow, creeping, lavish Gothic-ness of it.

Monday, April 30, 2007

"Take A Deep Breath" is Definitely the Best Advice I've Received All Day

I'm sorry posting has been sporadic, to say the least. I'm just not sure what the focus the TMA should be now. For that matter, I'm not really sure what the focus of Iason's life is, either. I guess I could complain about the trials and tribulations of a contract attorney, but I could never match of to the horrors faced regularly in New York. Or I could moan and groan about how hard looking for work is, but, so what else is new? Not even I want to read about that. Nor do I really follow any tiny aspect of the news closely enough to warrant some crazy little niche blog. Vanity blog? Yeah, that's more or less what this has been, but I'm just not that interested in that right now.

So, pardon me while a reconfigure a) my life, and b) this blog. In that order.

But the real reason I'm blogging is to tell y'all that I'm a Skyper, now. I know I am, once again, four years behind the times, but I love it, and I want you to call me on it. I got the cheap-ass SkypeIn thingey, so I actually have a number, too: 858-926-5529 (which, coincidentally, translates nicely into 858-WANK-LAW. Nice, hunh?)


My status

Anyway, I thought you should know.

Iason 2003-09