1.23.2006

What If....

Michael Chabon had written the script for the recent FF movie?

the Goths you ridicule somehow communicate a difficult truth?

Thomas Aquinas denied a local presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

we can hardly know how to read the Scriptures?

you suddenly lost all present and future Internet access?




Yup, just clearing out all of the bookmarks that should have made full posts. I'm having a hard time dealing with Internet demands, but I'm enjoying reading everything that has to do with this game that I'll be playing tomorrow night.

1.21.2006

You Don't Know Jack

From the December 2005 issue of Christianity Today:

A guy approached Jack on the street one day and asked if he could spare a few shillings. Jack immediately dove into his pocket, brought out all his change, and handed it to this beggar. The chap he was with--I think it was Tolkien--said, "Jack, you shouldn't have given that fellow all that money; he'll just spend it on drink." Jack said, "Well, if I had kept it, I would have only spent it on drink."

-Douglas Gresham, giving an example of one small way in which his stepfather, C.S. Lewis, lived out his faith.

1.14.2006

Co-ed Naked Blogging

After a brief burst of blog posts, I found that I'm still not quite up to the sustained level of Internet use that I had become accustomed to during the school semester.

Anyhow, I've been thinking about nudity in motion pictures.

I've never written about my position at length, but most friends that I converse with in person know my thoughts on the matter, which are (very) briefly summarized in a comment here on my own blog about a year ago:

"Well, the truth is that you're not watching an actor commit a murder. No murder takes place. It's pretend.
This is not true of sexual scenes in films. Yes, that male actor is actually touching that female actor's breasts. Maybe his thoughts are somewhere else, but his actions betray him. There is no pretend."

A few days ago, I was reading an interview of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. They were interviewed by Lawrence Grobel and the interview was originally published in Playboy magazine.


Grobel: And couldn't one be curious about seeing an actor or actress without any clothes on in a love scene in a movie?

Ebert: The moment that an actor takes off his or her clothes, the movie changes from a fiction film into a documentary.

Siskel: I remember something Spielberg told me about sex scenes. He feels that it's almost impossible to do a sex scene without the audience having the reaction, "Oh, that's what they look like."

Ebert: I am not arguing against nudity in the movies. All I'm saying is that acting has traditionally consisted of putting on costumes, not taking them off. Actors have traditionally been in the business of pretending to be somebody else other than themselves. Well, the moment that the actor completely unclothes, the actor abandons character and becomes self to some degree.





I think that Ebert is absolutely right in his last comment.

The revelation of self in nakedness will almost always destroy the narrative flow of a motion picture.

It is that moment when I'm reading Spike's novel and think to myself, "Well, that sentence was very clever and extremely well-written." Yes, indeed, it may have been, but the fact that it drew attention to itself means that it drew me out of the narrative and made me focus on the mechanics of the story rather than the story itself.

The same is true in this nakedness business. The viewer watches a Scorcese film and sees Harvey Keitel nude (Harvey Keitel is always nude), and instead of becoming further engaged in the story, as one might think an intimate sex scene may do, one is driven away from the story by the sudden unspoken (perhaps half-thought) realization that we're no longer looking at a character named J.R. We're looking at Harvey Keitel.

Impromptu conclusion, Spike's most clever sentences are akin to full frontal nudity on the big screen.

That's not at all where I had intended to go with this post.

1.08.2006

Random (?) Post

Though I could quibble, I'm mostly in agreement with M. Joseph Young's Confessions of a Dungeons & Dragons Addict.

For the purpose of this post, here's a quote from his essay that I'll continue to think about:

"First, like most games--all those which use dice or cards--Dungeons & Dragons(tm) assumes that dice and cards fall in a random pattern along statistically predictable probabilities. It is extremely difficult for us to deal with this assumption. The question of whether dice and cards fall at random or are divinely controlled is far beyond the scope of this article, but the answer goes directly to the nature of the sovereignty of God. Christians who play such games should grapple with the issue and form an opinion about it. Note that it is possible to avoid all such games by only playing those games which pit skill against skill--athletic competition, chess, checkers, reversi, competitive puzzles such as tic-tac-toe and dots--but these are the games most susceptible to the problems of the competitive spirit, the idea that one wins and therefore all others lose. That may be a far more dangerous challenge to the principles of the gospel than the more intellectual question of whether the assumption of statistical randomness is an affront to the sovereignty of God."

Related is a blog post by Mark Jackson that I saw for the first time today: Why Religious People Shouldn't Design Board Games

"Perhaps the very structure of a competitive game is antithetical to communicating Bibilical theology. I dunno - I'm gonna have to think about this one some more."

1.04.2006

Mashed, Baked, Fried, Leave Those Skins Alone

1.03.2006

Shot a Man in Reno

Here are two Mildred quotes from last night:

Will we get to meet Johnny Cash when we go to heaven?


Yes, other children may be wiggling to the Wiggles, but my daughter is celebrating with Cash. I'm not sure if she's so much concerned about his immortal soul, or whether or not she'll get to hear his voice mixed with others around the throne.




Mildred: Does Elizabeth Krantz have a baby in her belly?

Abigail: I don't think so.

Mildred: But she's married.

Abigail had a difficult time phrasing a response, and Mildred's definite tone of voice (and subsequent lack of interest in the conversation) suggested that none was needed. So, Elizabeth, if you ever read this, you have been admonished by Mildred for possibly not living up to your marital responsibilities. You must start procreating immediately!

1.02.2006

Closer to the Grave

We're getting closer to the grave each day
Mortal man won't you stop now and pray
Leave the road of sin alone, let Jesus lead you home
We're getting closer to the grave each day


-Hank Williams


A few weeks ago, I bought a large stack of comics at a GoodWill store. They were all from the 60s and 70s, a couple dozen or so, bought cheap because they were all missing their covers.

One of these purchased comics is Tomb of Dracula #59, the August, 1977 issue.

I've never read any Tomb of Dracula, and have heard very little about it, so I had no expectations heading in.

Brief narrative summary: A team of vampire hunters, each one of them seeking revenge, will not stop until Dracula is dead. Against their better judgement, they follow the lead of one of Dracula's followers, who has his own reasons for betraying his dark lord. The betrayal and subsequent attack on Drac's life is scheduled to occur during the Feast in celebration of Drac's newborn son.

The best moments are when the various vampire hunters are almost working against each other, because, even though they are superficially a team, they each feel the need to be the one that destroys their evil foe. In the ensuing battle at the feast, a bullet meant for Dracula passes through him, as he turns to mist, and strikes and kills his infant son.



Dracula strikes out in his fury, killing the traitor, and about to turn his wrath on the hunters, when his human wife stops him from doing so.

It is at this point that things get even stranger. Dracula's wife, Domini, has been following someone whose likeness adorns the wall; a picture of Jesus (this is an assumption on my part that it is Jesus- the painting is never explicitly referred to by that name, but it seems obvious - but don't take my word for it, for all I know this is a picture of Dr. Strange in the costume he wore in the '70s).

Here is the concluding dialogue from the last three panels....

Dracula: But.. But something prevented me from touching it... from removing that mocking portrait from the wall. And now.... you tell me that you listen to his words over mine? How could you, wife? How could you?

Domine: Dracula, you are my husband, the man I love. The father of my child. Please, come here. Embrace me, and accept His words. He will show you the way. Take my hand, my love. Please, take my hand.

Dracula: (As he's saying this, he's turning into a bat and flying away from his wife) After all this time... you simply do not understand me. You can't understand what I've become, and why I can't do what you ask me to do! Lord help me... I can't!

1.01.2006

Geek Stones

In the past month, I have not been on the Internet much, but, when I have been, I've been updating my BoardGameGeek collection information and earning GeekGold toward an Avatar.

My first review (and the first review of the game on BGG) can be found here:

Under-active Bladder

Want to play?

When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning. —Reiner Knizia