Magic is better than bad science

Seriously, don’t use science if magic would be more believable.

I’ve been reading and watching and playing more stuff, and I really got to say: some of them take basic science and throw it out the window. At this point I’m on the verge of yelling at some shows and saying: stop trying to “explain” it away in ways that don’t make sense, tell the audience that in this particular fictional universe magic exists, whether it’s a universal ether or some crazy life-force, and be done with it.

Seriously. In fact, a simple explanation of: this fictional universe has an additional fundamental force, and the creatures/people that inhabit this universe are able to interact with it naturally, it’s called magic – is far better than some silly science that tries to be as accurate as possible, but completely fails.

There’s even a certain show/book that glosses over the role of governments making sure electronics work correctly, vast teams of programmers that can either make a function or find out how to change it, and sticks “something” that makes microwaves or “something similar” into a lightweight helmet, that’d only activate after a couple hours, when it’s likely the batteries don’t have enough charge, and will fry a brain. Oh wait, ALL of those are in Sword Art Online. Two years trapped in a game world, and not a single server crash (HAH), a team of programmers to change the technology, or even barring those (assuming the author could explain those away… somehow, and I’ll accept many for those, but not the final) the simple use of an EMP to disable the functionality of the brain-frying helmets?

Seriously?

It’s unfortunate, because there are a lot of stories that seem to start off with good principles and an interesting plot, and then flounder due to some haphazard explanation. The same author writes both Accel World and Sword Art Online. SAO has a great premise, but then the explanation for why everyone is trapped in SAO is…. terrible. Awful. He also makes a really annoying number of things happen in Accel World, such as easy to get viruses from pictures – seriously? Technology is good enough to give people virtual overlays and HUDs, but the technology doesn’t run in sandboxes, the visuals can be hacked by external attackers, sounds like TERRIBLE QUALITY ASSURANCE and lack of government oversight right there… or just an author writing an interesting story but badly screwing up the explanations. Of course, considering they have technology that allows them instant recording, yet the main character doesn’t even use it when someone is confessing how they are going to blackmail him is just… WHY DIDN’T HE JUST RECORD THE CONVERSATION!?!? Especially when a later episode reinforces the ability.

I guess I’ve given one author a hard time. However, I still enjoy the rest of the story, just not the explanations given or the lack of technological prowess in technological societies. It’s still better than some things I’ve seen which would still be better off using magic than bad science.

I don’t like the thought of using the word “magic,” it has bad connotations in reality. However, for fiction, you can add additional forces to the universe the fiction resides in. Just don’t try to ground it in reality with bad science.

Posted in Writing | Tagged | Leave a comment

Guest post: You Don’t Want a Job, by Joel D Canfield

Today’s post is a guest post by Joel D Canfield, who has authored another book, titled: You Don’t Want a Job. You certainly don’t want a job in the traditional sense, I know that holds true for me as well. Without further ado, the rest is via Joel:

Bread and Circuses: Toto, We’re Not in the 30s Anymore

You don’t want a job.

I say that not just because it’s the title of my 10th book, just released.

I say it because, whether you realize it or not, it’s true.

If you’re under the age of 30, you’ve lived in a very different world from the one I grew up in. Though I’m only 50-something, things were very different in the 60s and 70s, which you missed entirely.

Anyone older than 30 will almost certainly tell you that a job is secure; that a regular paycheck will allow you time to play on the weekends. Put in the 40 or 50 hours, then from Friday at 5 ’til Monday at 8, fill every hour with something fun.

Find someone over the age of 30. Look deep in their eyes. That deep black hole is the regret of a meaningless life.

According to the poet Juvenal, the final days of Rome consisted of “bread and circuses” — just enough food to stave off starvation, coupled with an entertainment-obsessed society.

Sound familiar? Is this any way to run a civilization . . . or your life?

The Psychology of Happiness Says Otherwise

Here are some quotes I used in my newest book. Just in case you’re not familiar, I’ll introduce them both. (Emphasis in all quotes is mine.)

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Flow

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi is noted for his work in the study of happiness and creativity. He is best known as the architect of the concept of flow, the altered state of consciousness we sometimes find ourselves in when totally engaged with a challenging task. Martin Seligman, former president of the American Psychological Association, described Csikszentmihalyi as the world’s leading researcher on positive psychology.

Csikszentmihalyi on why it matters what we do for a living, and whose job it is:

“Because for most of us a job is such a central part of life, it is essential that this activity be as enjoyable and rewarding as possible. Yet many people feel that as long as they get decent pay and some security, it does not matter how boring or alienating their job is. Such an attitude, however, amounts to throwing away almost 40 percent of one’s waking life. And since no one else is going to take the trouble of making sure that we enjoy our work, it makes sense for each of us to take on this responsibility.” — Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, p. 101-2.

Abraham Maslow and What We Need

Our second expert is Abraham Maslow, whose name is forever tied to his theory of self-actualization as illustrated in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

From Maslow we learn that personal growth, not complacency, is the path to happiness.

“All people in our society (with a few pathologic exceptions) have a need or desire for a stable, firmly based, usually high evaluation of themselves, for self-respect, or self-esteem, and for the esteem of others. These needs may therefore be classified into two subsidiary sets. These are, first, the desire for strength, for achievement, for adequacy, for mastery and competence, for confidence in the face of the world, and for independence and freedom. …More and more today . . . there is appearing widespread appreciation of their central importance, among psychoanalysts as well as among clinical psychologists.

“Satisfaction of the self-esteem need leads to feelings of self-confidence, worth, strength, capability, and adequacy, of being useful and necessary in the world. But thwarting of these needs produces feelings of inferiority, of weakness, and of helplessness.” — Motivation and Personality by Abraham H. Maslow, p 45

No More Working for the Weekend

The concept of the job as we know it today is an artifact of the industrial age.

You’re an artifact of the internet age, the information age.

Living like a 1930s factory-worker makes no sense today. Whether it made sense in 1930, I’ll leave to you.

If what you do, all day, every day, doesn’t give you a sense of purpose, a reason to leap out of bed in the morning because you just can’t wait to get started, you’re doing the wrong thing.

The best time to change, to start creating your own business, was 10 years ago.

The next best time is right now.

Bio:

About the author: He may have taken a knock to the noggin in his leap off the hedonic treadmill, but Joel D Canfield still manages to string sentences together most days. Though he pays the bills as a web developer (self-employed, of course) he’s managed to write and self-publish his 10th book, released this month. Its cheeky title is You Don’t Want a Job and he believes every word of it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Never upgrading, best price

So I was considering where I could cut a cost, and I remembered that Verizon now has tiered plans due to 4G, however my 3G would stay unlimited as a grandfathered plan unless it’s ever changed.

Turns out that the cheapest plans are…. current plan, unlimited, 3G only (which is all I can use), 30$ a month, or 3/4G, 2GB of data a month, and still 30$ a month.

So, I’ll be sticking with my trusty DroidX (that’s right, the first X), for a long, long time. It’s the cheapest of the expensive.

Really sad that now that I’m not using that much data anymore, they don’t have something like a 2GB 15$ a month plan. Really, 30$ for 2GB? Wow.

Posted in Writing | Leave a comment

Most Recent Spider-Man

So, The Amazing Spider-Man has been released and rebooted in 2012, yay! I was so very much looking forward to this movie. And it was enjoyable. Somewhat. As a hero movie, sure. As Spider-Man, I don’t know.

I really wanted to enjoy it. But sadly, I’ve read the comics. 1-450 of TASM, though not the other versions. Nor the reboot that happened somewhere after 450. However this reboot modernized it, but in a bad way. Spider-man felt far too weak (physically), they made light of his strongest power (spider sense is supposed almost at a magical, premonition level in the comics), the relationship with Ben was “uh, what?” and they also removed another power entirely, his ability to heal from wounds quickly, usually overnight for anything worse than a shallow cut.

Now, I know that reboots and movie versions change things, and I’m fine with change. But it felt like too many things were lacking. There wasn’t enough Martin Sheen, but then again, there was too much Martin Sheen. I didn’t really like what they did with PP’s parents. Their effect on him becoming Spider-Man was, sadly, movie-coincidental. Now, it’s true enough that PP probably wouldn’t have become SM if his parents lived in the comics (at the outset, that is… not to spoil the rest of the comic’s story, of course), but to go as far as having a direct hand in PP’s transformation into Spider-Man felt very wrong.

One of the interesting points in the comics wasn’t just that a radioactive spider bit PP. It was also that PP lived after that bite, and it’s inferred that although there was the coincidence of him being bitten, there was also the amazing coincidence that he lived and was changed into SM instead of being killed off. The bite was a coincidence, but him living through the bite and becoming SM was actually partially a miracle, and somehow he had just the right compatible genetic code. The spiders in the movie, however, felt contrived. Sure, it still feels like PP had the same stroke of luck to not die when bitten, but for these spiders to exist in the first place, what occurred to bring them about, felt wrong.

I suppose that since we received a better understanding of how radiation works since the original spider-man days they had to come up with something more scientific this time, which was fine. However I wish that PP becoming SM was not related to the rest of the plot. I wish it was still a miraculous coincidence of unrelated people and sciences, but in this movie, it was all part of the same core, all interrelated, and even biologically related… I didn’t like it.

I like they brought Gwen back, but the way the handled certain parts, and how she never, ever, in the comics… yeah yeah, no spoilers. It could have been changed drastically, and they did. But I don’t like the way they changed it. Gwen was Peter Parker’s girlfriend. And that tortured him later in the comics, considering how she viewed him before her death (this happened in the late 60’s or early 70s, it’s 40 years old, I’m not going to hold back spoiling that).

It was decent, but I just couldn’t love it as a fan of Spider-man. I do like reboots and changes, but they just had to go and weaken him too far, both physically and plot-wise.

I suppose I can hear the argument that Iron Man also had the origin story that depended on the plot, but that felt far less contrived, far more real and believable, ironically enough for a comic movie.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Audacity of a Plot

Today I saw something that I couldn’t stop laughing about. When browsing around I saw the title of a movie and decided just to see what it was. I had no intention of watching it, but at least wanted to know whether to file it in the not gonna watch or never in a million years going to watch category. It was Lockout. I clicked, saw Guy Pearce holding a gun, and was about to click back… till I saw the plot description.

Read this. I don’t know how to describe it any further, to mock it any further than what it does to itself. It’s a conglomeration of just… wow. Bad probably doesn’t even begin to describe it. But every time I read it, I laugh. And this movie isn’t a parody staring Bruce Campbell? Seriously? Wow. Please, Bruce Campbell and Jeff Goldbloom, come together to make a sincere parody of this movie. Without further ado, the immortal words of PLOT:

A man wrongly convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage against the U.S. is offered his freedom if he can rescue the president’s daughter from an outer space prison taken over by violent inmates.

Isn’t that just gold?

Posted in Writing | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment