What the heck. I'll post it anyway.

RANT WARNING!!!

I spent a long time on this one.

OK. I'm angry about something. I've been talking about it with my students in class, and I'd like to get it off my chest. I've done my best to get the sarcasm, bitterness, and overstatement out. Here we go!

You may not have heard about this: it was downplayed by the world media, probably so that the Taliban wouldn't get leverage from a worldwide outcry, or maybe Afghanistan is just yesterday's news (isn't that possibility disgusting in itself -- that a place where people are dying and a whole country is laced with minefields isn't newsworthy anymore?). However, here in Korea, it was a proper, candlelit-vigil-level crisis. Twenty-three Korean missionaries were kidnapped, and two murdered, in Afghanistan by Taliban terrorists. Seoul denies it, of course, but rumours keep popping up that a large sum of money changed hands for their recent release.

The kidnapped missionary group's story reads like a litany of bone-headed recklessness. They ignored international warnings against traveling to Afghanistan, to begin with, even flaunting their daring by having their pictures taken in front of the sign warning them not to enter Afghanistan. They rented a tour bus (big, easy target), and didn't check whether the highway they were traveling was safe to traverse on a tour bus. It wasn't. By blundering into such a dangerous situation, this group backed Korea into a corner where no face could be saved, where Korea looks bad in front of all its allies. Not that anybody deserves to be kidnapped and confined, but they sure weren't exercising much common sense.

Beyond the international faux-pas' committed by Seoul in response (negotiating with terrorists directly, rather than through the local government, possibly funding terrorist organizations, and painting a big bulls-eye on the back of every Korean missionary and aid worker in any unstable country), this has also led to a lot of hand wringing and self-examination about the way Korean missionaries act when they go abroad.

Here are some quotes from an article I read in a recent issue of the Korea Herald about the work of Korean Missionaries abroad.

"Doing God's Work for Taliban" by Shim JaeHoon, Korea Herald, Thursday September 6, 2007; page 13.

". . . The kidnapping . . . has revived criticism of missionaries' no-holds-barred proselytizing. The zeal of some churches, often offending local sensitivities, has made the Korean missionaries controversial at home and abroad. . . critics suggest that Korean missionaries pause and moderate their course.

"Korean missionaries are 'too loud and aggressive in their ways and self-centered. . .'

"In temperament, Korean missionary activities reflect the country's aggressive outward-looking economic push in recent decades. . . [as in their economic expansion,] an obsession with numbers and size weakened the moral foundation of what Korean church historians say is an otherwise splendid achievement. . .

"But such success is the root of present-day problems. Obsessed with over achievement, pursuing quantity over quality, the churches are often criticized for placing secular interests above spiritual commitment. . . Some critics suggest that vigorous missionary activities abroad actually serve to cover up the churches' manifold problems at home, including some corrupt and divisive institutions.

". . . The Afghan incident not only prompts a hard look at Korea's overseas missions, but also much-needed reflection on the state of South Korea's religious establishment."

Rob again. You see, other issues aside, at home and abroad, Korean Christians (and especially Korean protestants) are about the most aggressive, in-your-face proselytizers I've ever seen. When you walk around downtown Seoul, especially on weekends, you'll run into groups of Christians singing into megaphones, strumming guitars into car-battery powered amps, hollering Christian slogans at people and handing out fliers ("Hey Barri! Gatt lobjuh yu! Berriebang Jejus!" the old lady shouted at me. "Hey buddy! God loves you! Believe in Jesus!"). Students of mine have recounted a lot of instances, during discussions I've had about this in class, of Christians telling them they're guilty, wrong, or hellbound.

Now, I'm not going to get into a discussion about the relative merits of different world religions, but what I will say, emphatically, is this: that brand of street evangelism has always been my least favourite thing about Christian (and any kind of faith) culture. I personally think it's wrong-minded, and it puts the worst features of religious communities on display -- aggressiveness and arrogance, moral smugness and judgmental superiority, standoffishness and, frankly, heedless rudeness. When I say "I know Jesus, and I LOVE him a lot!" and they still insist, "That's not good enough. You have to come to MY church!" As if only the baptismal water at THEIR church works properly, it makes me think, "why would I want to go to a church full of people as pushy and presumptuous as you are? It sounds very unpleasant." Why would anybody? (When you take such tactics across cultural barriers that are sometimes not fully understood, doing as Koreans do, even though you're in Rome. . . you can see how the chance of people being offended increases: at least here in Seoul, people are USED to it.)

Telling people they are wrong, guilty, and going to hell only builds walls of stereotype, prejudice and hurt that make it really hard for people to listen to ANY kind of talk about such topics from even the most open, considerate, and reasonable person of faith. I believe that there are people honestly seeking God, and seeking something to believe in, who are rejecting the Church out of hand, not because of any problem with Christ at all, but because they've been hurt or offended or judged by people who treat Jesus as if he were a pair of socks to be peddled on the street.

One of my students (a Christian himself) mentioned how, when Christians chase you down like that in the street, it certainly isn't going to make their religion or church attractive to you. In fact, he suspects the main motivation is a kind of self-validation of one's own faith: "I must be really committed! I approached thirty people this hour, and one even swore at me!" If those people need faith-validation, I wish they'd go have a quiet time, or even better, feed the hungry, visit prisoners, and clothe the naked instead! The church ought to be forming tight, holy, integral communities that take leadership in helping people, and attracting people to them in THAT way, in my opinion.

I just feel like people who take these tacks, who tell Catholics they're going to hell because they worship Mary, who use scare tactics like "where would you go if you died tonight", or dismiss other religions out of hand: "It was the Devil talking to the Buddha!" completely miss the point that faith is not about being right, and then judging everyone from their moral/philosophical high-ground, but about being grateful that God loves them.

I suppose I admire the courage it takes to sing hymns into a megaphone on a city street: you can't deny these folks are passionate, but passion that is not tempered by sober-minded leadership and deep humility is dangerous, irresponsible, (not to mention, if numbers remains their goal, off-putting to those not "in the club"). By acting without grace and moderation, and putting arrogance and rudeness on display as they represent the church (and, by association, Christ) they are defeating their own purpose of advancing the kingdom of heaven (as THEY define it), and sowing distrust and dislike for Christ.

"Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words." St. Francis of Assisi

"Our words show what we want to be. Our actions show what we are." -me, age 17

There.

Feel free to comment. Anyone can comment, but your comments won't show up until I've checked them. Don't worry: they're filed away waiting for me to log on.

Love:
Rob

Ever heard of International No Car Day?

A few thoughts

today is international no car day, and in commemoration of that, Seoul is not allowing cars to run in the downtown Jongno area (finance district), or in Apkujeong (where rich people live). Most of my young students liked it: conservation and responsibility and (gasp!) sustainability will, I think, be the buzzwords of our generation. Some of my older students were annoyed. In the words of one longtime car-commuter: "The mayor of Seoul is inconveniencing many of his citizens."

I think it's force of habit, really -- it's totally illogical to drive to work if you work in a downtown center (especially one as accessible by subway as Jongno), between traffic and a free-for-all parking situation, it seems it'd be more trouble than it was worth, when the bus system here is efficient enough to get you into town, and all the time you spend walking to the bus stop, you get back in not having to find a parking space downtown. Some people, I think, LIKE to drive to work, so that everybody can admire their mercedes as they wait for the lights to turn green.

In fact, that's part of my "roboseyo save the world" scheme. Here's what I think, after watching human nature at work.

Human beings are simply too short-sighted to individually, all at once, decide to live in sustainable ways. We're just too accustomed to our lifestyles. Even if we DO try to make things better, often it almost works like bartering -- "I planted ten trees last arbor day, so that balances out my driving to the convenience store" or "I compost, so I'll take a long, hot shower," or "I only buy free range eggs and humanely slaughtered beef, so I'm gonna run the air conditioner all night long." (This kind of thinking culminates in the idea of carbon credits -- "I sponsor hectares of rainforest in Brazil, so it's OK for me to fly my private jet around." Why not sponsor the rainforest AND take commercial flights?) Planet Earth is not a merchant to be bargained with, she's more like a mother that needs nurturing, at this point.

So, I think humans are just too short-sighted to make the changes necessary. "But Rob, that's a dim view of humans!" I refer you to Tommy Lee Jones in Men In Black, when asked why aliens are kept secret:

Jay: Why the big secret? People are smart, they can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

Individuals can be very reasonable, but humans en masse find it much harder to change patterns than A person, until there's an incentive (like tax breaks and consumption penalties).

(not to knock on the people who DO try to make a difference: all the power to you! Continue being leaders and examples!)

I think, to effect the wholesale changes that will be necessary to avert ice-cap melting, petroleum reserve depletion, and other such disasters, sits on our leaders' shoulders to, um, take leadership here, and make changes that will actually make people WANT to be more environmentally conscious, and as we've learned, the only way to do that is to make it affect people's pocket books. Increase car taxes for people who work in urban areas. Increase large vehicle and SUV type vehicle taxes (for non-families and small families) through the flippin roof. Make gas taxes in the city so high that it's WORTH the extra 20 minutes to use a bus, and then IMPROVE the public transportation enough that people find it worth using. Maybe, abolish private car ownership and allow only company cars. Decentralize cities so that people can bike to work. Create parking lots for bike riders and carpool lanes, offer tax incentives to people who don't own a car. It's just not going to be important to people to stop taking long hot showers until their water shuts off after they've reached their daily quota, or they get dinged, hard, on their monthly bill for every day they go over.

But here's my fantasy. I want to see downtown car bans every day -- it was GREAT walking around downtown Seoul today, seeing nothing but buses on the street. They closed two lanes on either side of the thoroughfare and laid down grass turf, simulating park space. People were chillin' on the street. It was awesome! I'd be so happy if that happened in EVERY major city in the world -- imagine only buses being allowed to access Manhattan Island, and downtown LA, Chicago, Vancouver, London, etc. I mean, something's gotta be done, and I have a sinking feeling that it might happen too little too late, if world leaders keep worrying about economic growth over everything else.




that patch of grass is usually the lane where taxis pick up passengers. Doesn't that look so much nicer?

Another thing on my mind:

Whether you follow sports or not, you've just gotta hand it to Roger Federer. The man has won 4 Wimbledons, and 4 US Opens in a row, in an extremely strong field, with a level of dominance never before seen -- straight set victories over guys ranked top ten in the world, consistently! I won't put a bunch of stats here, but imagine winning the best actor award four years running, or the Booker Prize for Literature, or the Pulitzer Prize, four years in a row; of course, that wouldn't happen, because there are so many politics involved in awards like Bookers, Pulitzers and Oscars, but really, that makes Federer's accomplishment MORE impressive -- in sports, your history or reputation doesn't mean squat, other than a possible mental advantage over your opponent. You STILL have to hit the ball inbounds, return the service, etc. -- every time a new tournament starts, you're back at zero again, unlike in arts, where Martin Scorsese gets handed the Best Director and Best Picture Oscar for making "Just Give It To Me Already" (oops. I mean "The Departed"), and Tom Hanks can "nice guy" his way into two consecutive Oscars (though he really did deserve the first one). Plus, you don't have a team to support you, like Wayne Gretzky or Pele did. In tennis, it's just you. Tiger Woods is impressive, but he's collected his trophies over the course of eleven years, while Federer has basically gotten spitting distance from the all-time major tournament wins record in the space of four years. (But Woods is American, so he'll still get more props and press, even if Federer goes an entire year without losing a single set.)

If you know who Sir Mixalot is. . .

Holy cow this is funny.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

"Who cares about Derek Zoolander anyway? The man has only one look, for Christ's sake! Blue Steel? Ferrari? Le Tigra? They're the same face! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

Now. . .
seen on the side of the bus:
Mun Geun Yeong, Korean TV and commercial star.

these pictures were side by side.






Now, for comparison. A North American model showing off HIS versatility:


except, one's a satire, and one's in earnest.


Pretty much, this is the only note dear Mun Geun Yeong plays. Last summer, she was LITERALLY on the side of every third bus and billboard, stumping different products. She earned the nickname "Korea's little sister" and she was the flavour of the month. She's a TV star, and while she still had her baby fat, was ridiculously cute (so much that she never bothered with things like versatility or talent). Pretty much, imagine seeing this every where you turn. (She had other commercials for other products, but the only thing that really changed were her clothes.





I hope she doesn't mind if I poke at her balloon. Maybe she can go cry on a pile of cash to feel better. Korea supersaturates their celebrities -- tv, movies, posters, commercials -- ubiquity seems to be the catchword of Korean celebrity agents. They don't seem to realize a little mystery adds staying power. A little of the old, "leave'em wanting more"

Anyway, thought for the day. Celebrity worship and star overexposure is annoying, in any culture.

P.S.: 100th post!

A Tribute to the Magic Umbrella

I bought this Umbrella in Osaka, when it was hinting at rain.



I should have known then. You see, as soon as I bought this umbrella, it stopped hinting at rain and cleared up, leaving me, nonplussed, carrying an umbrella around when I didn't need it.

I liked this umbrella, because it had a cord instead of a little plastic loop at the end, which meant I could tie it around my bag strap instead of having to carry it in my hand any time I wanted to bring it with me.

It was only after about a month of bitter cold in March (the first of the odd weather this year) that I noticed something strange. First, I attributed it to Murphy's Law, but later I realized I had purchased a magic umbrella over in Osaka.

You see, this umbrella controlled the weather. Every (I mean every) time I brought the umbrella with me to work, it didn't rain; every time I left it at home, it DID rain. All through late March, April, and May, this continued, so consistently it could only have been magic. I began to boast of my magic umbrella, really, to anybody who would listen. It became a bit of a running joke.

Then, in late June, I decided to leave the umbrella in Korea while I went to Canada. I was lucky, in retrospect, that rain didn't follow me to every destination in Canada, but instead, a far sadder thing happened. Probably from disuse, the magic umbrella lost its power to control the weather.

You see, in August, I carried the umbrella every day. . . but it rained every day, too. This brilliant umbrella lost its power to control the weather, and then, as if to really hammer it home that it was no good anymore, on one of those ghastly rainy August days, it started dropping water on me, right through its cloth rain-shield. The poor thing had had it. So, I have retired the magic umbrella, and purchased a normal umbrella, whose only power is shielding me from the rain (except mist rain on windy days, which blows right up under the umbrella, pleasantly flecking my face with cool rain, and [if my Korean friends are correct] burning all my hair follicles and causing me to go bald.)

Here in Korea, many women have two umbrellas. One for rain, which keeps the acid rain from burning off their hair, and another light one for the sun, to keep the sun from tanning their skin into a darker shade (big no-no in Korean beauty standards). I'm not sure what happens when they bring the rain umbrella and it's sunny, or vice versa. Things must get very confusing.

Meanwhile, the weather in August was the worst of any month in my life. Yes, worse even than those three weeks of cold rain and grey skies in Fraser Valley Februaries. It rained almost every morning, which is tiresome in itself, but then, in the afternoon, it totally defied normal "rainy morning rules". Instead of brightening up into a nice, moderate day, where all the humidity has rained out in the morning, all the rain on the ground, and more moisture in the sky combined for a hammer/anvil double-whammy attack, and made the whole world as muggy and hot as a steam bath. Your skin melts off and you can't move, and the sun's bright, but then every once in a while it starts raining (sometimes really hard) so you better not be caught without an umbrella. . . yeah. it sucked. Most muggy Augusts have at least a few really brilliant beautiful days between the dog-days, but this entire month had no reprieve. Just disgusting.

THIS is why people are finally worrying about climate change. Because they NOTICE it.

Anyway, a moment of silence for the magic umbrella's untimely demise.



OK that's enough.

And let's hear it for September!

It's gotten interesting choosing subject matter for the blog, now that my Korean students, as well as my funky uncle, my dear friends, and, for all I know, total strangers, are reading it. Just when I think I can write anything I want, one of my students mentions a post or something.

What can you do, except write as if you might one day run for office? I don't know. I'll try not to do that, though.

Love you all, and hope to continue giving you an honest slice of my life.

Love:
Rob

This post has a bad word in it.

If posting a comic that uses the "F" word will change your opinion of me. . . I'm sorry I disappointed you. But I'm not apologizing, because real life has the "F" word in it, too, sometimes. (And nudity -- parents are STRONGLY cautioned that some parts of real life may not be suitable for viewing by small children, families, or the discernment-impaired.)



XKCD is a comic my brother-in-law showed me. It varies from way over my head, to extremely nerdy, to awesome, and from "I know I got it but it really wasn't funny" to snarky, to drop-dead-hilarious. Here's a recent issue. I like it.


As the comic homepage itself says:

Warning: this comic occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors).

Another try.

New survey.

I was in a sandwich shop, and I heard some music in there that got me thinking, what's the PERFECT music to play in a sandwich shop? I mean, it's an interesting question for a variety of establishments, but there are a number of factors that play in, depending on the place.

1. familiarity. For some kinds of shops (most), familiar music is the best. Especially for drinking establishments, where people love to warm over the old rock classics. I can't remember the last time I went to a sit-down bar and DIDN'T hear Brown Eyed Girl. I'm told another kind of bar can't go a night without playing "Paradise City" by Guns'n'Roses (I usually avoid those kinds of places. In N. America, you're likely to run into a lot of cowboy hats and in Korea, you're likely to run into a lot of American G.I.'s there, which amounts to about the same: rednecks.) Bars like playing music people can sing along with. (Everybody say Hey Ya for Gnarls Barkley!)

Personally, I think sandwich shops and bars should play music that's familiar, like "Hey! I love this song" not familiar like, "Criminy! I swear Bob Marley's ghost is haunting me!" (My friend swears Bob Marley is the most overplayed artist in the world. I think it's a toss-up between Bob and the Beatles, with the winner depending on whether you count other artists covering the Beatles or not. Think about it. EVERY place that involves a beach and alcohol probably plays Bob once a night or more; a LARGE percentage of shops selling beach-ish goods [beach towels, tourist keychains, sandals, postcards] probably plays him once a day, and any establishment where patrons may purchase, use, or visit after using, ganga, will probably play Bob frequently, while any place far from a beach that has a beach/Carribean theme plays Marley on repeat. . . that's a flippin' lot!)

Tempo: tea rooms and wine bars ought to have slow tempoed music (they can even get away with classical), while coffee shops and sandwich shops want to have music that's upbeat but not too rousing. Bars want music that's more intense again -- hence the constant retreads of Doors, Stones and Green Day songs. (When will you ever hear THOSE three in a sentence together again, other than the sentence "Hey! I bet you can't use Doors, Stones and Green Day in a sentence that doesn't also include the words "conversely" "on the other hand" or "unlike" or "much much better than"!)

Volume: You want stuff that can fade into the background if you want it to be unobtrusive, but. . .

Quality: you also want it good enough that if somebody IS listening they aren't thinking "Cripes almighty! Boyz II Men? We either need to go, or somebody can just kill me now!" (Yes, I'm a hater now. Yes, this was my favourite song when I was twelve. I'll come clean.) I've been places where the music totally ruined the experience, and I've actually asked if we can go to a different place if the music is crappy enough -- music in a coffee shop is like cuisine during a trip: it'll make or break the experience. Nice beaches but bad food will dampen the entire vacation, turning it from an "it was great!" trip to an "It was great, but. . . " trip, and good coffee/food but atrocious music will make me never want to re-visit a coffee shop or restaurant. Like good/bad kimchi in a Korean restaurant. It's the final test of a place's awesomeousity. (I love inventating words.)

You certainly don't want to play something grating or unfamiliar unless you cater to a specific audience, or you're in a Portland coffee shop, so I've decided the perfect music for a sandwich shop or coffee shop is . . . Stevie Wonder. (For coffee shops, I will accept cool jazz as a good, but not original, choice.)

Who DOESN'T like Stevie Wonder? Nobody, that's who. He's not too loud, but if you DO listen, he's really good; he's happy and upbeat, but not cheesy (especially Songs in the Key of Life -- NOBODY else could have pulled off "Isn't She Lovely" -- a song about his newborn daughter, without rating eight out of ten or higher on the tripe scale). He's familiar, but not "Not this song again," familiar.

Marvin Gaye and Ella Fitzgerald are also good choices.

So the question of the day is,

What do you think is the best music for a coffee shop or diner?

Also: what type of establishment, as a rule, has the worst music (after country bars)? My vote goes to family restaurants like Swiss Chalet or ABC's.

P.S.: 1.

and 2.

(second one's funnier)

Survey of the Day

I can never remember which is which:

persimmons



and

pomegranates



both are popular seasonal fruits in Korea, one you eat the seed and the other you eat the flesh, and I've spotted and figured out which is which a dozen times, only to forget (like when I was seven and I couldn't figure out left from right until I figured out the "Left hand forefinger and thumb makes a capital "L" shape" rule of (haha) thumb. I didn't really get it nailed down until I started learning to drive.)

I also used to always mix up the words prostate and prostrate. The highlight of that confusion was the time in my Fantasy Literature 300 level class in university, when I said "The priest fell, prostate on the floor" and I got a good snicker from everyone, and even a snarky little comment from Dr. K.

what two words/things do YOU mix up, however many times you've tried to remember? Ever embarrassed yourself?

My beef with Harry Potter, book Seven.

In case you doubted that I was a bad guy before:

<-- it's me. Time to rant about Harry Potter, book seven. (Maybe it's just sour grapes, and maybe I've officially become the contrarian ass who hates The Beatles, not because The Beatles are bad, but just for the sake of argument, and for attention. Or maybe this is my desperate plea, my cry for help to anybody who still reads my blog to post comments so I know I'm not just writing for the space aliens to read 3000 years from now, when they dig up our civilization. . . but here goes anyway.) My Beef With Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Now I'm serious: if you haven't read the book, DON'T read this post. It's ALL about Harry Potter Seven (and touches on the previous books). Yes, it's in my inimitable writing style, so you can read it for the fun of reading my words (hyuk), but if you plan on reading the book, and haven't yet SKIP TO THE NEXT POST BY CLICKING HERE. Any place where it says "SPOILER WARNING", I'm about to talk about plot points in the book, so if you don't want to know what happens, SKIP THIS POST AND READ PREVIOUS ONE INSTEAD. Also avoid reading the comments. The comments include spoilers, too. Or go here instead.

So yes, I'm spoiling the book in both ways: giving away the ending, AND pointing out flaws that will be glaring once they've been pointed out (like sometimes a friend makes a comment about another friend, like "He interrupts constantly" or "she ends every sentence like a question" or "really. loud. chewer." and, after that person mentions it, you can NEVER be around that person without being annoyed by those things yourself.) So don't read this post if you want to preserve the magic of old Harry Potter.

1. Let's just get this out of the way. YES, it's a good book. It's as readable as bacon is edible, that is to say, compulsively, irresistably so. Rowling is a master of storytelling and scene-writing, she creates interesting situations and her characterizations are full of energy and life. Yes, the book touches on all the important points foreshadowed in the previous books, and each of the characters, in one way or another, gets his or her due (except Snape and Dumbledore).

2. I have some problems with the book. Snape is as woefully underwritten. All through the series, Snape has been the most interesting character. The "Is he good or is he bad?" conundrum lent dramatic energy to every book. In this book, everything is explained (too late in the book), at a point where Harry can't make any more choices about what to do or how to feel about him. He's a total non-factor, except as a source of important information. . . about the BACKSTORY! Changing him from the dramatic lynchpin of the series to a source of exposition was a shocking disappointment.

SPOILER WARNING IN THIS PARAGRAPH Mainly, though, WE BARELY SEE HIM! Matt rightly said Snape is the Gollum of the Harry Potter series. Imagine if Gollum disappeared halfway through The Two Towers and didn't reappear until Frodo and Sam passed him at the foot of mount Doom, where, nearly dead of thirst from waiting for them, he only has the energy left to point and say, "Keep right past the fist-shaped boulder. Loose gravel there. Good luck!" and die. That's the level of short shrift Rowling gave Snape in book seven. As we learned in 2 Fast 2 Furious, it's a bad move to take the most interesting character OUT of the story.

3. There were points where I really felt like Rowling was just going through the paces -- as if she'd written out a chart of characters and brainstormed each one's "just dessert," and basically plotted her seventh book around making sure we revisit every interesting member of the Potter world somewhere or another. The first half of the book especially felt, at times, like a farewell tour, playing all the greatest hits one more time. Good for a fanfiction, not for the climax of the most popular book series of all time.

4. The Dursleys were barely despicable at all. Throw me a bone here!

5. Give me more in the epilogue! At least make it INTERESTING. Matt pointed out, after the climax of Lord of the Rings, there's another hundred pages or so of the Scouring of the Shire, another hundred pages of time to revel in Sauron's defeat, and enjoy Frodo's newfound asskickery, before the book finally ends. How quickly did Rowling wrap up this book? ELEVEN pages after Voldemort dies, the book, epilogue and all, is finished. It's like she got sick of her own series, and wanted to wrap it up as quick as she could. (PS: Wouldn't Return of the King have been better if they had 20 minutes of the hobbits cleaning up the Shire instead of having 28 minutes of "And. . . . it's over. . . no, no it isn't. Gotcha!" These guys made fun of the ending of Lord of the Rings in a really funny way.

6. Voldemort is dumb. (SPOILER WARNING) -Voldemort uses magical means to try and kill Harry four times (book one, four, five, early in book seven) and also as a baby. Each time, he fails. Obviously, its time to change tactics. If he had any brains, he'd have just given each of his minions a knife and said "disarm him, and cut his throat on sight." Messy, but effective. Bellatrix threatens Hermione with a knife -- wizards obviously know how to USE knives (unlike postage stamps, which they don't quite get), so why not? -instead, he insists on facing Harry himself, in the same arena (magical duel) where he lost many times before. ego? pride? stupidity. Then, in the final climax, when he didn't kill Harry THIRTY MINUTES BEFORE with his killing curse, he STILL tries to defeat Harry in a duel AGAIN! My buddy quotes an old Alcoholics Anonymous proverb: "Doing the same thing, but expecting different results, is insanity." Moldy-wart is BIGGER than Harry, and meaner -- he could probably have killed Harry with his bare hands if he wanted to, if he'd disarmed him. At least he hadn't already tried that and FAILED (four times).

-if he really fears death, why does he make so many powerful enemies, and try to take over the wizarding world, sticking his neck out so far, rather than holing up in a forest and working his dark, life-extending enchantments? (That one's courtesy of Gregg Easterbrook from espn.com)

-He should have read the evil overlord list.

-(MAJOR SPOILER WARNING) He's not scary anymore. By losing to Harry so often (see above), he loses the menace he had in the first three books, before they even arrive at the climax, and by STILL wanting to duel Harry magically after he came back to freaking life the last time, he proves himself obstinate and suicidally stupid. It's Darwinism, pure and simple: evil masterminds that stupid don't deserve to be in the evil overlord gene pool anymore, and must make room for smarter antagonists, like Darth Vader, the bugs in Starship troopers, Godzilla, and Moe, the bully in Calvin and Hobbes. In Lord of the Rings, Sauron is more frightening, BECAUSE we never see him. We see the terrifying creatures that serve him, and if Sauron is undisputed master of such monsters, he must be miles more terrifying than them! We don't need to see him to be frightened. Like God in Milton's Paradise Lost vs. God in Dante's Paradiso, the one shown and displayed loses his power and mystery and, ultimately, his impact. It's just more impressive that Dante's God was so great the entire epic poem had to end rather than us laying our eyes on His face, compared to Milton's God, who was so pedestrian he could be reduced to explaining theological excuses for why he allowed Adam and Eve to sin. I'd rather have Dante's God of mystery than Milton's Great Heavenly Explainer.



7. (This point is mostly Matt's, though I agreed once he pointed it out) Harry won by dumb luck, especially in the first two books, and in the later books, more because of who he was (The Boy Who Survived, selfless, brave, kind to house-elves, able to love, endowed with special powers because of the twin cores, because of the scar, etc.) than because of any real wizarding skill of his own. That was disappointing. I wanted to see Harry kick some butt, on his OWN steam, his own wizarding power -- I mean, he didn't learn ANY new spells after the patronus charm in book three (except apparating, which is more a dramatic device than a spell for fighting evil -- faster transitions when you can teleport magically) -- sorry, but if adult wizards can do the cool stuff THEY can, how could Harry have made it through year six of Hogwarts (much less defeat the greatest evil wizard in a century) with about five spells, and a lot of guts? When did Hermione learn all the cool spells SHE knew? Why weren't the books about HER, when she's obviously the most buttkicking wizard of the trio?


True to my evil nature,
I shall destroy your enjoyment
of the latest Harry Potter book!

Mwahahaha!

8. Too much wandering in the woods. Dissipated any momentum that existed at the beginning. Made Harry seem like a schmoe. Plus, Harry spent too much time resenting either himself, Ron, Hermione, or Dumbledore in the last two books. Eyes on the prize, son! Unless the book is Catcher in the Rye, and the writer is JD Salinger, self-absorption and resentment aren't appealing! Harry (and Rowling) could get away with it for one book (book five, when it actually WAS him against the world) but after three books of self-pity, sullen resentment, and occasional rage and/or outbursts, I got tired of it. It would have been much nicer to see him get through this book on righteous rage or noble purposefulness, or even hell-bent-for-revenge passion, rather than surly, resentful, and passive-aggressive confusion about the clues Dumbledore left him. Plus, right to the bitter end, he NEVER trusts his friends. All the way to the end, he lies to Hermione and Ron about his ability to see into Moldy-wart's mind. What kind of a hero is this kid, anyway? I've heard the Potter books criticized before for the kids never trusting adults, but by book seven, he's even lying to his friends!


9. Dumbledore does things (especially concerning the Horocrux he found in the Gaunt's cabin) that just don't seem to fit with the rest of what we know about him. Sure, they were important to the action and other, later plot points, but they were still pretty dumb for a wizard smart enough to discover twelve different uses for dragon blood, AND powerful enough to defeat the wielder of the Elder Wand in open combat. And how on EARTH does he turn up inside Harry's head in the chapter King's Cross? That chapter -- an entire chapter of exposition in the middle of the climax of an incredible, LONG book series, was the most awkward chapter in the entire seven-ilogy.

My Conclusion:

10. I think it was because somebody was pressuring her to finish the book in time to coincide with the release of the fifth movie. The book (especially Snape, the episode in Godric's Hollow, the intermnable "wandering in the woods" part, the episode in the Malfoy Castle, the awkward "King's Cross" chapter, and Voldemort's mental meltdown --what's worse than a brain-fart? a brain-shart?), just felt like they could have benefited from more ripening. My guess is that her deadlines were too rigid, and her crafts(wo)manship suffered, which is an unfortunate end to the series. I waited two years; I'd have been glad to wait one more, even three more, if you could have made book seven one for the ages, Ms. Rowling -- I would have thanked you for taking your time.

11. Go back to point 1 and remember that I DID enjoy reading it the first time, and Rowling IS a really good storyteller, and writes action better than just about anyone I've read. However, I just felt like she could have done better. Return of the King is the best of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the jewel in the crown. This one was a bit more like the original Star Wars trilogy, peaking in the middle (books three-five; The Empire Strikes Back), and ending with a let-down. Yeah, the right people lived and the right people died, but it just didn't live up to the standard set by what came before. (Return of the Jedi -- come on. Teddy bears with bows and arrows?)

By the way, while I'm spoiling stuff everybody loves anyway, how did Fezzik learn that Count Rugen was the six-fingered man in The Princess Bride?

And there is no Santa Claus, either.

And Shakespeare was a plagiarist.

And I've been to Narnia, and it sucked. Bad food.

And babies smell bad.

(boy I'm a jerk)

Holy overkill, Batman!

I just realized that was WAY too much ancient Chinese wisdom for a single blog post, so if you haven't already been overwhelmed by it and skipped to the end ("Man and wife"), go ahead and try again: I edited out a bunch, to make it a little more manageable.

Also:

Ever notice how twenty years ago was the best time to buy real-estate, but six months from now (when the next model comes out, twice as fast for the same size and price!) is the best time to buy technology?

Also:

This picture made me snicker with its unabashed brazen-ness. I guess when it comes to beer advertisements, subtlety is overrated. (Hite is a local beer brand. Lots of t'n'a in their advertisements. Maybe if I look at the poster while I drink, I won't notice that the beer's not actually very good.)




After the Tao Te Ching, I suppose I also needed to post something asinine, just to balance out the blog content.

If you don't actually know English, but you think English letters look cool, you can just mash a keyboard for a while and hope patrons of your bar don't know any English, either.

Maybe it's a different language: anybody recognize any words?