Michael Offutt's Blog, page 119

The world has seen its first trillion dollar idea

We live in a  unique era in that we've probably seen the first "trillion dollar" idea. And it really boggles my mind. I'm referring (of course) to Apple's iPhone. Just to put this in perspective, a "billion" dollar idea is a rarity. A very select few (handful) of individuals get "billion" dollar ideas. The founders of Twitter, Square, Uber, and Whatsapp had billion dollar ideas. For you writers out there, J.K. Rowling had a "billion" dollar idea. So how rare of a sighting is a billion dollar idea anyway? Is it a unicorn? Pretty much.

Anyone fortunate enough to get one of these ideas should thank their lucky stars that they had the "genius" and inspiration to execute it. I say (tongue in cheek) that this is true UNLESS you're republican. In that case, you should just fall back on the hubris that comes oh-so-naturally and proclaim to the world, "I came up with this idea and executed it and you can too. You just need to stop taking government welfare and pull yourself up by your bootstraps."

And let's not even concern ourselves with million dollar ideas. Those are aired on every episode of "Shark Tank," although to be fair...a lot are shot down by the sharks (and justly so). As an aside, I think everyone should watch Shark Tank, doubly true if you're someone that thinks "I'm clever and I have an idea worth millions." Chances are, you're not as clever as you think, and you have no idea what a good idea even looks like. Here's your "I'm doomed to the middle class" card. Now settle in to being mediocre like the rest of us.

Now, just to be clear, the intent of my post is not to metaphysically defecate on too many republicans out there who live and die by the mantra: "the reason you are poor is because you're lazy!" Rather, I want to talk about what Apple has done that other companies can simply not do at this time. Yes, I'm going to talk about "the impossible" and how one company does it every single quarter. Even more astonishing is the fact that "doing the impossible" now garners "yawns" from people who don't recognize it for being mind-blowing and extraordinary at the same time.

Last week, Apple reported earnings for the first quarter of 2014. In just three months (12 weeks) they sold enough of their products to bring in $47 billion in profits. This not only blew away Wall Street expectations that believed the tech company would produce only a meager $42 billion, but reaffirmed their position as the most profitable company in the world.

If you're a Google fan boy, then here's a comparison for you: Google reported earnings of $3 billion for the same time period. They dominate the search landscape and experienced revenue growth of 19%! Everyone that has been online is reading about Google buying up other companies, continuing to innovate, and their employees get some of the best perks in the world. All of this is because Google is flush with cash. Yet they make almost 14X less than Apple does for the same time period. They are a minnow compared to a whale shark. How's that for perspective?

To say I'm in awe of Apple is an understatement. My jaw hangs open because it's inconceivable to me that someone could have an idea worth $1,000,000,000,000. Literally, fifteen "ideas" like the iPhone would entirely pay off our national debt. Making $200 billion a year on their products, it only took Apple five years to hit the $1 trillion mark. Sure, they've spent a lot too which leaves their cash hoard in the bank at a mere $200 billion that they can use to invest in whatever they want to invest.

Here's what Apple did in their earnings call last week (summarizing Tim Cook, the Apple CEO's, words): 1) A stock split of 7 shares for every 1 share in existence effective in June, 2) an increase to their dividend of 8%, and 3) a stock buyback increase from $60 billion a year to $90 billion a year. Wow! Most companies are lucky to be able to afford to buy back $1 billion of their stock. Apple's numbers are just plain ridiculousness. To misquote Weezer from Steel Magnolias, "Apple has more money than God."

It's these kinds of things that get my tongue wagging. In particular, the 7 to 1 stock split is curious. Why? I think it's to lower the stock price which is now at roughly $600 a share to around $70 a share which would make it fit very nicely into the Dow Jones, which is a very snooty Index (and the oldest) and only has 30 stocks in it. That's 30 companies that are cherry-picked for their power and influence in the American economy. Lots of people think that it's a barometer of how well our country is doing. If the Dow sinks, then the economy is sinking too (or at least that's the idea). But if Apple is invited into the Dow Jones, what stock gets the boot? Perhaps the cue was in (again) Tim Cook's words in his conference call when he (more or less) said, "I'd like to welcome Microsoft to the app store. We like it when companies take an opportunity to explore technology." In other words, the jab at Microsoft was more than obvious.

A lot of people have given CEO Tim Cook grief by accusing him of being "boring" and implicating that "boring" is the death of all tech companies. Sure, he isn't another Steve Jobs but there will never be a replacement for Steve. And when it comes to trillion dollar ideas, I think one comes along (if ever) once a century from this point forward. Seriously. Expecting a person, group, or even company with limitless money to squirt out another trillion dollar idea is just stupid. Be appreciative that you live in a time when you actually saw a trillion idea birthed into the world. It's probably as rare as seeing Haley's comet with the naked eye. Most of us will ever recall but one in our entire life. And that's just how I see it.

Cliffhanger endings and unsolved mysteries reveal an uncomfortable truth: no matter how adamant our opinion behind our eyes lurks insecurity and doubt.

I want to talk about writing. Weird, huh?

It occurred to me as I was thinking about my White Walker post earlier this week that one of the things that keeps me coming back to George R.R. Martin's books are the unsolved mysteries. My mind yearns for answers, yet if I were to actually get them I'd swiftly grow bored and move on. But there's a curious thing that happens right before resolution: it's this desire to be validated about my theories as if my own opinion about something isn't enough. And it's something that I think all of us feel, which is why cliffhangers and unsolved mysteries have such a hold on us as human beings.

Take for example the movie "Inception." The ending is wide-open for interpretation and has been the root for countless argument between couples. Is the top going to spin forever thereby indicating that Leonardo's character is stuck in a dream? Or is the top going to topple over, thus proving that Leonardo is in the real world. The camera cuts (frustratingly) away from this scene before a resolution is delivered. And no matter who you ask, there's always an opinion. However, all of these opinions have one thing in common: they don't really trust themselves. In other words, they'd like the director to give them a final answer and "validate" what they believe. But if this were to happen, then some of the magic of the story would be gone.

This is one documented reason why Stephen Spielberg was so resistant in making changes to "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" despite studio pressure. The master craftsman that he is, Spielberg knew that if people were allowed to see behind the curtain, that his film would somehow be diminished. And this is exactly what took place. Getting a view inside the interior of the mothership is the same as looking upon the Wizard of Oz and arriving at the realization that he's nothing but a Kansas con man. How many people were disappointed by this as children? I know I was. But when it came to "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," lots of people wanted an answer because they didn't trust their opinion of what took place. It's just another sad case of people wanting it to be real only to be reminded that reality oftentimes disappoints.

So are we hardwired to always care what other people think? Are we always going to doubt our own opinions unless it is validated by someone else? The answer biologically may be yes because we experience a reward sensation in our brains when meeting with another's approval (as seen in M.R.I. scans).

If this holds true, then a skilled writer should be able to craft each chapter in such a way that it ends with an unsolved mystery or some kind of cliffhanger that forces the reader to turn the page in order to validate their own opinion. George R.R. Martin is a master of this. Me? Not so much (though I try really hard).

The critic Emily Nussbaum wrote in an essay that appeared in The New Yorker, "cliffhangers are fake-outs. They reveal that a story is artificial, then dare you to keep believing. If you trust the creator, you take that dare, and keep going." And that's just it because I think we are more apt to trust someone else than we are to trust ourselves.

I don't know if I had any kind of particular epiphany about this (or where it even came from) but it seems to me that cliffhanger endings and unsolved mysteries reveal an uncomfortable truth: that no matter how adamant our opinion, behind our eyes lurks insecurity and doubt. And that is why these two tropes keep paying off in spades. I look forward to your opinion in the comments even though I know you secretly don't trust it.

What we know about the White Walkers took a big step forward in Oathkeeper

White Walker by ElderscrollerLast night's episode of HBO's Game of Thrones was called "Oathkeeper" presumably titled thus because Brienne gave this name to the Valyrian steel blade gifted to her by Jaime Lannister. But the symbolism behind "Oathkeeper" is more vast than a solemn vow made between a knight and her lord. It is about the vows that bind those who have honor and choose to live in the world of Westeros. Everyone has oaths from the Red Viper of Dorne to those who swear fealty to House Targaryen. There's the oath that Jaime Lannister swore to Katelyn, the oaths that the Night's Watch takes to guard the southern kingdoms from the Wildling threat, and now we've seen a different kind of oath. It's one that gives us a glimpse behind the winter curtain of the North and into the society of the White Walkers by answering the question: "What are the Others doing with Craster's baby boys?"

Rumors and speculation over the fate of these babies has been online for years now. George R.R. Martin has never answered any of it in his books, presumably because he thought that he would get to answering certain questions before HBO caught up with him. But it's absolutely apparent from this episode that HBO's makers have been given license to cover material that Martin has not explained. And one of the BIGGEST questions is the fate of these children. Were the White Walkers eating them? Or did they need baby boys to reproduce?

But even with the answer from last night's episode, what do we know about the White Walkers really? Sifting through the novels and my own memory, I present to you my findings.
Called "the Others" in the book, Old Nan (the storyteller who knitted in Bran Stark's room following the accident that left him paralyzed) said, "In that darkness the White Walkers came for the first time. They swept through cities and kingdoms, riding their dead horses, hunting with their packs of pale spiders big as hounds."

The Others, a.k.a. the White Walkers are "mythologicals" in the world of Westeros (mythologicals meaning they occupy the same area of magic and power as dragons). Stories from the time of the First Men and the Children of the Forest, eight thousand years before Robert Baratheon's rebellion, was a winter known as the Long Night that lasted an entire generation. During that winter, the White Walkers descended upon Westeros from the Lands of Always Winter. None knew why they came, they killed everything in their path, and reanimated the dead as wights (under their command) to kill the living. In a conflict known as the War for the Dawn, the White Walkers were defeated and driven back, and the Wall was raised to bar their return.

We know they are humanoid in appearance and now we know why. From "Oathkeeper" the White Walkers (at the end) are seen transforming a baby boy into a baby White Walker in the middle of a cairn that looked a lot like Stonehenge (only made of ice). They are tall, have long wispy white hair, pale white skin that's stretched taut across their frames lending them a gaunt and mummified appearance, and they have glowing blue eyes.

They are preceded by intense cold, bitter winds, and snow. They can freeze anything they touch to the point that even steel shatters (although Valyrian steel will probably resist them). They have superhuman strength, and they wield swords and spears made from ice. They also have their own language (Skroth), and it would appear that a touch to the face of a baby creates a "mini-me" version of themselves. Although why they need only babies (and human ones at that) remains unclear. Children even a few years old are not turned but instead slaughtered and made into wights to serve them, so there's something unique about newborns. What that could be is anyone's guess.

They also can be instantly killed by weapons made of dragonglass. According to the red priestess Melisandre of Asshai, the Others are the servants of a deity called the Great Other, the god of darkness, ice and death, who is locked in eternal warfare with R'hllor (the god that Melisandre worships). R'hllor is the god of light, fire, and life. We heard her speak of this God of Darkness this season so color me intrigued. But even with what we know about the White Walkers, there remains these questions:

1) Why are they so hateful?
2) If they are servants of the Great Other as Melisandre suggests, then what are the Great Other's goals?
3) If they need human babies to reproduce, then why do they slaughter humans? 

A chart that tells you where to start if you want to explore Discworld

The title says it all. Ever wanted to dig into Terry Pratchett's magnum opus? As with anything huge, a guide often  helps.
Click to EMBIGGENHave a favorite Discworld novel? Please share it in the comments.

I seriously need an ending to this romance people! #haveyouseenthiscouple

Hello friends. I kind of got swept up in the romance of this documentary built around Justin Timberlake's song "Not a Bad Thing." The video that explains it all is embedded below and you REALLY should watch it because who doesn't need a real life romantic story? This kind of thing just warms my heart.

And there's also a lot of wisdom in this video from practically every kind of couple imaginable. Wisdom in the form of couples struggling to define what love is and what love means for them. I went through the video and made a transcript of all the times the couples mention love. Hopefully in the comments you will tell me which one is your favorite. And maybe you'll share something of yourself, and tell me what you think love is and how you would define it. Here's to wishing you many warm fuzzies (and seriously watch the video).
This is a true story. January 12th, 2014. It was a crisp cold Sunday night on a Long Island Railroad Train speeding towards New York City. It was a scene out of a movie like "Say Anything." A young man proposed to his girlfriend playing a Justin Timberlake song. They were so in love. You almost NEVER see that. We don't know who these people are or what their story is, but maybe you do. We're making a documentary about falling in love. Have YOU seen this couple?

Love is not something you can really look for. It's not scripted. It just happens.

You find love and then you lose love and then you have to work to find it again. And then you lose it.

I think if you really like...ya know, grow yourself and get to really know yourself first; then you can find love.

I think when you publicly propose to somebody it really inspires love all around.

Proposals, you plan it in your head, you plan it on paper, and in the end it's just who you're askin' to marry you and spend the rest of your life with.

I rolled out of bed one morning before my wife and said, "Will you marry me?"

I was confident that she would say yes. Otherwise I'd--
No, you weren't confident!
I was confident.

I think love is an attachment. And, um, I found that I was so attached to my lady that I couldn't love anyone else.

I think it's like a very brave thing to look for love, to fall in love, and to ask for someone to love you back.

Once you're in love, you're in love. You can't control that. It's not an off and on switch.

Love doesn't go in a straight line. There's curves and twists and turns and bumps.

Love finds you. Yeah, it finds you.

Twenty years later we're here and this guy...has appeared...four years...ago.

Six years later...engaged! See the ring!

We just got engaged.

Love is...whew...

You're a brilliant writer but so are millions of people you've never heard of

I'm not sure why writers even have random writer's groups. People get together and solicit from one another an opinion regarding one's work. It sounds helpful in theory, right? But here's the thing (and I'm speaking from experience): most writer's groups are comprised of people who primarily read one kind of genre (and that's the one they write in as well). And this is terribly dysfunctional in a large group. Allow me to elaborate by posing a few questions.

Why would someone who likes fantasy even value the opinion of someone who writes romance? Why would someone who writes young adult value the opinion of someone who writes memoirs? If you write romance, then why value what a science fiction schmuck like myself is going to say about it?

Here's my point: given their free time, these people (on their own) do NOT go to the bookstore and read the type of writing that you're doing. Yet, you're willing to listen to them either praise or rip apart (the more likely scenario) your writing as they tell you "this bores me" or "this doesn't work for me." You know what you should say? The whole genre probably bores you because you don't buy it and this invalidates your opinion . AUDIENCE IS EVERYTHING! Every manuscript has an audience and soliciting it to the wrong one is always going to get you negative feedback.

So yeah, I think writer's groups/critique sessions make absolutely no sense. Honestly the only reason I go (I no longer have work that I put before anyone) is because I enjoy the social atmosphere and the food. I suppose that's reason enough, right? Maybe my group of peeps should just come together and face an uncomfortable candor: that we should rename writer's group "game night" and play Bananagrams instead of critiquing one another's manuscript.

As a caveat, if you haven't ever played Bananagrams you really should try it. I once managed to spell "xylophone", but I digress...
This game is serious fun. If you disagree, then you're boring.A couple months ago, I had a kind of "blow up" at my writer's group when I popped some inflated egos (some writers I network with think they are so adroit). Why do they think this? Because they are not online. They believe their insanity is unique. Just like a dominant religion in one area (where everyone believes the same thing), these writers exist in a bubble fooling themselves into thinking that they are part of a "gifted" minority group that has a story inside them, and that it is their mission to tell it to the world by means of a six-figure contract from a major New York publisher!

I tell them they really should go online. The noise to get noticed is deafening: a million voices raised in unison all chanting "I wrote a book, please read it." Just look at Twitter, Facebook, and the Blogosphere at large. If each writer were a grain of sand, then all of them together would make a beach that extends to the horizon like you see on HGTV's The Hawaii Life.

Some of the writers in my group are into super intricate world-building. You know what? It's really good stuff, and therein lies the rub. One guy has come up with monsters, has maps, a magic system, colorful characters, and tons of plots going on (kinda like George R.R. Martin). It's so intricate that I can't even begin to tell you the details. I even call it "brilliant." But here's the thing: a kaiju's belly full of writers are brilliant and crazy world-building is done all the time by millions of Dungeon Masters worldwide. That statement should tell you two things. The first is that Dungeon Masters at every con from coast to coast are creative people. This makes "creativity" as a commodity in writing about as common as dirt. The second is that I think George R.R. Martin could probably run an interesting Dungeons & Dragons game if you could keep it from descending into sex talk.

I told this group that there are so many people out there making worlds, typing away at keyboards, who have come up with planets that do this, and magic systems that do that, and political intrigue that do this other thing that you could fill Salt Lake's largest convention center with their numbers. I think I used the phrase, "I could throw a spongy rock in a crowd and it would bounce off the noggin' of someone brilliant! Therefore, you are not special. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble about this."
That was when I faced outrage. One of the older writers in the group said, "Mike, you are wrong! Most people who write shouldn't be writing. They don't have the talent. The ones that do have the talent get recognized and get publishing contracts." Keep in mind that the writer who said this has had some success in her professional career so it's in her best interest to keep the myth alive that "talent gets its just reward." However the earth, the stars above, and the society at large very rarely recognize "talent" because it's too common. Think of it this way: if you get an "A" on an exam you are in the top 10%. This means that 1 in 10 people can duplicate exactly what you did. In a world populated by 7 billion, the "A" is actually meaningless. Of real value would be the person that could score a 99.9999999998% because that would make you unique.

So I said, "No they don't. I'm sorry but I disagree. I think there's plenty of evidence that some very profitable writers get published by major names and don't have 'talent' as you say. I think that people who sell a lot of books (as in the millions) got lucky. This isn't something you can strategize. Circumstances unique to their lives that have nothing to do with planning and everything to do with serendipity made their stories HUGE best sellers. Names like Stephanie Meyer, George R.R. Martin, and Amanda Hocking. And to insist that you are better than someone else who isn't published or doesn't have a contract is just a lie. It comes from the fact that you're probably starved for validation because you've been mediocre most of your life and secretly have contempt for others because you feel you've never been recognized for how smart you are. But there's lots of smart people in this world, and being smart doesn't make you a genius. Genius is extremely rare, and when you actually see it, it knocks your socks off. Just look at Mozart and Salieri because Salieri can tell you what that feels like. As for writing, be thankful if you EVER make it big because it means you won the lottery. That's it. People who win the lottery don't go around and say, 'He he, I won because I was smarter than everyone else.' They say something like, 'Gosh I sure was lucky.'"

It may sound like I'm a real sour puss when it comes to the business of writing and publishing, but I'm not. In truth I'm probably the best advocate for writers because I don't bullshit them. I encourage people to write all the time (that ask me) and I point the many ways in which someone can navigate the business. But here's what I say to their elaborate plots and wonderful characters that inevitably bombard my ears: "It sounds brilliant and you have a very creative mind. But never forget that there are millions of people out here who are just as brilliant and just as creative. If your manuscript doesn't attract the attention of an agent who goes through fifty thousand submissions in a month, it may be that you lack that 'extra something' that has nothing to do with writing and everything to do with something that's not within your ability to control. And if you fail and never realize your dream? Well that happens too, and it sucks for you. Sometimes it's better to pick up a book and be the audience for someone else that HAS made it, because in the death of your dream is born one that belonged to someone else. And that isn't so bad. Not everyone can be a star. Not everyone can be super. Not everyone can be special. In our society there's the cream of the crop and then there's everyone else. That's just how it is; welcome to capitalism. Think about it. In a society where everyone is super, no one is. There's great comfort in belonging to the 'everyone else,' because you're rubbing shoulders with great people who just haven't had the distinction of being recognized. Trust me on this, because I speak from experience." No one wants to be mediocre. It just happens and asking "why me?" will never bring you peace of mind.

I'll leave you with this thought from Syndrome in Pixar's The Incredibles because (despite the uncomfortable message) it is oh so true:

I rarely feel nostalgic and I think that's a good thing

I've seen enough of this to never want to watch it again. Give me new stories.I find curious the effect that nostalgia tends to have on putting a shine on things that really aren't that good. Take for example the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark. I can't watch "Raiders" these days and not laugh at it for the horrible and cheesy fight choreography in the bazaar. When Indiana Jones swings his fist, it's absolutely clear that he misses them, and then there's almost a one second delay before the person he's hitting does a "jerk" and falls backward. And lets not even mention the effects. They look nearly as bad as the Godzilla movie that flat out puts a guy in a rubber suit to topple buildings.
And of course there are the stars from the past. Namely I'm thinking of Audrey Hepburn. She's all over the place these days with Kim Kardashian and others trying to mimic her skinny jeans look with the ballet flats on her feet. I've seen Breakfast at Tiffany's, Charade, and many other Hepburn films. She honestly isn't as good an actress as Vivien Leigh or Betty Davis yet she's popping up more and more in our culture as if she were some timeless icon (which I refuse to believe she is). Hepburn was just a woman (will I get stoned for saying that?) I don't even think she's all that beautiful aside from having a neck as long as a swan (which made it so that she could wear a string of pearls like nobody's business). So why are people pretending like she's the most incredible actress ever and even using computer generated graphics to include her ghost in Dove chocolate commercials?
Merriam-Webster defines nostalgia as a "wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition." In my life I've noticed that people love to mourn the extinction of things, and it puzzles me. I no longer listen to 80's music unless it happens to pop up on the radio, and then I usually want to change the station to NPR and listen to something relevant to my time. I never liked eating Twinkies and could care less whether or not they were even available. I don't understand people's obsession with records or even paperback books (they are cumbersome and heavy). I don't pine over how no movie trilogy set in the Star Wars universe will ever be as good as the holy grail of "A New Hope," "Empire," and "Return of the Jedi." Those films were pretty terrible! The dialogue is horrible for one and the acting poor. I don't miss "Leave it to Beaver," "Dobie Gillis," or the fantasy films of my youth that had Harryhausen effects like the original Clash of the Titans. We should all be thankful that CGI has swept the entertainment industry giving us fantastic things like Cameron's Avatar and The Desolation of Smaug. The only thing I like about old houses is the character from the outside. On the inside I want everything modern from electrical, to appliances, to the open floor plans... I'd much rather own a 2014 Kia Optima than a 1980 Smoky and the Bandit Trans Am. The list goes on and on. Maybe I'm an alien because I just don't get why people cling to the past so much.You know, I don't fault Lucas, Spielberg, or any other director that revisits old films and tries to make them better with new technology. They really do look terrible. I can't stand watching the first Terminator. It's so cheesy. Maybe this is a time to say that reboots really do serve a great purpose because they can be way better than the original. Anyone nostalgic for the original True Grit? For me it's unwatchable.  I'll take the new one over the old any time.
I think that it's good that all things have a time and a place to just die off and that includes ideas. It kind of bothers me that people (and scientists in particular) chatter on about someday finding a way to make humans immortal. There's even a movie out this weekend that kind of broaches this subject (starring Johnny Depp). I find the idea of never having to die an attractive one until I realize that all of the old political and religious opinions that make my life miserable would stay alive with the people who perpetuate them. So yeah, I guess that makes me an advocate of the Grim Reaper. There's a time and a place for death. It allows all of us an opportunity to move forward, nostalgia be damned.

Is the Lion and the Rose the ultimate critique on our modern society, our widespread apathy, and the tyrants we fear?

You may have heard of Megan Huntsman in the news. If you haven't, then this is all you need to know: she's a local (Utah) gal who was booked into the Utah County jail on suspicion of killing six of her newborn children over a 10-year period. Seven dead babies were found on April 12, 2014 in a garage at a Pleasant Grove home where Huntsman lived up until 2011.

Is there a lesson to any of this? Not really. Utah captured one monster and this sicko's name is Megan Huntsman. But anyone that thinks a change has happened is just fooling themselves. People saw Megan for years. They never interacted with her; they never said a word even if they thought something suspicious might be going on. It reminds me of stories of girls who get kidnapped and are held in backyards next door to neighbors who ignore what's happening on the other side of the fence.

This "stick your head in the sand and scream LA LA LA" part of our culture won't change because we live in a society that prizes its privacy. People have been raised to detest intrusion; even the American dream consists of a picket fence. This notion of building walls has a purpose: to hedge the "riff raff" out. I've noticed a trend among young people in this area. They are initially outgoing until they meet someone and get into a relationship. From that part forward its all about building walls, separation, and isolation to "couple-only" activities. The wishes of the couple are all filled with dichotomies like "I want to have access to all the things that a city has to offer, but I don't want any of the people around that might tell me what to do or influence my children or possibly covet my partner."

They don't even bother to ask: do any of the things I want run counter-intuitive to each other? Yes it's possible for isolation in a big city, but not without a lot of money to build a house on a double lot to ensure that the neighboring houses aren't staring into your windows, and then put a wall around that house to keep all the undesirables out. Ever drive into a gated community? It's kind of a surreal, sterile experience. It's like driving into a land ruled by the Borg from Star Trek where everyone thinks the same and all yards have one tree, accent lighting, and varying degrees of the same paint job. But most of them (if asked) will tell you how much better life is inside the wall than outside. Otherwise they wouldn't choose to live there, right? Life is better where you don't have to deal with commoners.

Game of Thrones has this same loathsome view that the rich have for the poor in spades. It's funny how access to money makes people think that they are better than other people who don't have money. As I watched the "Purple Wedding" episode of Game of Thrones on Sunday wherein King Joffrey dies, I thought to myself, how can George R.R. Martin's world be so ridiculously cruel yet so real to me? And suddenly I thought of Megan Huntsman, and it all became clear as glass. George is a master observer, and he's merely imbuing these characters with what I'm seeing every day. And most of that is how ugly, petty, and inhuman people are. This episode has so many examples of people being awful that it's hard to cover them all. But, like a good blogger, I'll give it my best shot.

There's Stannis Bartheon. This "would be" king watches as his witch/high priestess Melisandre burns three loyal supporters at the stake (one is his brother-in-law whose only crime is refusing to tear down his altars to the Seven Gods when Stannis orders it). And yes, just like Megan Huntsman, no one says a thing. Everyone just watches it all go down with a kind of "clueless" expression.

Then there's Reek. Reek, a.k.a. Theon Greyjoy, just watches as Ramsay Snow slaughters an innocent girl because she's pretty and made his girlfriend jealous. For the record, Ramsay shot the girl in the leg so that the dogs could rip her pretty face off. I guess she isn't so pretty anymore.

Oh and of course there's Joffrey. How can we not forget the most vile character in the series? Has there ever been anyone more hated and grotesque than this young king? Let's just concentrate on the wrongs that he visited upon everyone in this episode:

1) Joffrey makes a hideous spectacle by humiliating his uncle Tyrion and his wife, Sansa, over and over again. He insults him, pours wine on his head, and makes him his cup-bearer (which Tyrion tries to turn into a compliment) but it isn't. Joffrey makes him bend over to pick up his cup, kicks it under the table, and is just a complete ass. I suppose what may be most shocking is the fact that he's clueless that he's actually so awful. I know people who are exactly like this: completely unaware to the idea that they are chauvinist pigs, jerks, and ignorant. And these aren't old people but young, raised in households that stuck a silver spoon in their mouths and raised them to call "flight attendants" by the name "stewardess" even though that term hasn't been used in twenty years.

2) Joffrey pretends to take an interest in a book that Tyrion's given him for his wedding only to destroy it with his next gift, a Valyrian sword forged from Ned Stark's original weapon. Not only that, but he cracks jokes about beheading Ned Stark over and over again. I suppose cutting a book to ribbons isn't so far-fetched these days. There's plenty of people in our society now who view reading as a chore and would like nothing better than to see books burned.

3) Joffrey throws things at minstrels, gives people money to be cruel to his fool, and then hires five little people to impersonate himself and other kings to recreate the murder of Robb Stark. It's all calculated to insult Sansa and Tyrion to the max. This kind of behavior is called bullying, and I see it every day.

When Joffrey died, the internet the world over celebrated. In a way, it reminded me of how the world celebrated when Osama Bin Laden died. I think that's where George is at his most brilliant and his most real. George recognizes that the world is filled with tyrants and that there are very few people who ever stand up to these tyrants. Most of us are guilty of allowing them to go about their business, doing awful things, because our lives are too busy or too valuable to get involved in stopping so much evil. Maybe when Melisandre of Ashai said, "The world we live in now is the real hell" she was not just uttering a line, but taking a cue from the master himself and showing us what George R.R. Martin really thinks of this world. Perhaps The Lion and the Rose is the ultimate critique on our modern society, our widespread apathy, and the tyrants we fear.

Why I kind of detest time travel in my science fiction

Continuum is a show that's on SyFy, and its third season started a week ago. Warning: there will be some spoilers ahead (if only to use as a platform to allow me to bitch). So in Continuum, we've got this organization called Freelancers. We don't know much about them other than they like to put time travelers in glass boxes similar to Joss Whedon's horror movie Cabin in the Woods and they are an ancient organization that's been around for over a thousand years that doesn't "time travel." Instead they know all about "time travel", have great technology to do so, and monitor the integrity of the timeline like a "firewall" monitors the integrity of your network. When bad stuff gets through to corrupt the present, then they selectively choose and dispatch a cure because not everyone that goes into the past has the ability to change the future.

Continuum has decided to integrate time travel so much that it's a plot device. In some ways this works for me. I do like the idea that every time you time travel, you create a new branch of the timeline. I like the idea that when you time travel, you could meet yourself and this would be bad. It explains why Kagame had to sacrifice himself on the day he was born just to make sure that he never met himself (that was season one). It also explains why Kiera could not go forward in time and just stop herself from ever embarking on time travel to begin with. I also like the idea that major paradoxes cause the universe to destroy itself. In Continuum, there's no Alec to grow up and invent the time machine and create Kiera's advanced suit and weaponry so super storms are basically destroying the earth. That scratches out one timeline.
It all sounds like great science fiction, right? But here's the thing: I feel like too much time travel just moves all the writing "left" into another universe kind of like a dream or where all the characters are just slightly different because they don't shave or wear wigs. I'm not a fan of "good Spock" meets "evil Spock" (nerdy Star Trek reference I know) and that's essentially what we're getting in this season of Continuum. Kiera has basically become an asshole because she's so stressed out over what her timeline Alec has done and it's almost like we've got entirely different characters. For one, she no longer trusts Alec (which was one of the things I really liked). Also, the flash futures no longer make sense to me because I don't know if they're actually plausible given the split that's now caused by so many time travelers going back in the past. Like why should I care if these things may or may not even exist now?
I guess this is where time travel really gets under my skin in a bad way. I detest clones running around and I don't think it ever really improves a narrative. Back to the Future's installments 2 and 3 were not superior to the original in this aspect and were simply an excuse to spend more time with a loveable character. Hopefully they (the writers of Continuum) will just stick with the one timeline and not pull this crap again because its too confusing, and I don't like the character changes occurring in their personality. Honestly, writers should steer clear of time travel. No one ever does it well unless "time travel" is part of the opening and that's where the readers/watchers are dropped. Doing time travel mid-series is just too awkward.

The body count in the Walking Dead and a Game of Thrones results in the ultimate question.

"Valar Morghulis" means "All men must die." But actors in need of a job
may be hoping that it is not their turn for the cutting room floor.So now that HBO's Game of Thrones is back on television and dripping with the stench of those they carved up last season in the infamous "Red Wedding" episode...and given that "The Walking Dead" is on hiatus until fall but left Rick Grimes and crew basically locked up in the post-apocalyptic version of a larder for cannibals...there is a question that's been burning in the back of my mind. But before I get to that question for you (my readers) to decide, I want to present a thorough analysis beginning with George R.R. Martin's work. These are deaths of major and/or semi major characters in the story (they all appeared in more than one episode and had lines).

Eddard Stark was played by well-known fan favorite and actor Sean Bean. Many of us thought for sure that with this casting, he wouldn't get killed. But he got his head chopped off in season one.

What about Robb Stark, his son? Well Robb got murdered along with his mother Catelyn Stark at the Red Wedding. Weddings are supposed to be happy occasions. I guess Walder Fray never got the memo.

Renly Baratheon? Murdered by a demon sent by Melisandre the witch.

Kal Drogo? Poisoned by a soothsayer and witch. The best parts of him died when Daenerys refused to let him go and was rewarded with a body that lived but had no mind. Then she killed him.

Robert Baratheon? He was a king and I quite like the actor. But he got done in by conspirators and traitors and died too.

Talisa Stark (Robb's wife)? She got stabbed in the baby maker at the Red Wedding. That's like killing two wolves with one rock.

Viserys Targaryen? Kal Drogo crowned him with molten gold. That had to hurt.

Ros? Littlefinger found out she was spying on him for Varys so he gave her to King Joffrey who used her as a live target, brutally killing her by filling her with crossbow bolts.

Jeor Mormont, leader of the Crows, has his watch ended in Crastor's keep by Rast who betrays him.

Xaro Xhoan Daxos is killed when Dany seals him in his own vault from which there is no escape.

Pyat Pree the necromancer is set on fire by Daenerys' dragons.

Rakharo, one of Daenerys' blood riders, dies off screen when his horse returns bearing a severed head.

Body count for HBO's Game of Thrones is 13 (and this excludes probably a hundred minor characters). Okay, so now for The Walking Dead. Here's who we've lost thus far (by the end of season four):
These iconic characters didn't die yet. But do the actors have job security?
Decide by taking my poll!Amy (Andrea's sister) got bitten in the neck and died of blood loss.

Jim got bit in the stomach, died of infection.

Dr. Edwin Jenner and Jacqui died in an explosion at the CDC via suicide.

Otis was hobbled by Shane and devoured by walkers.

Sophia (Carol's daughter) died of infection from a walker bite.

Dale got disemboweled by a walker. Rick Grimes put him out of his misery with the trusty colt python.

Randall got his neck broke by Shane.

Shane was stabbed in the heart by his best friend Rick.

Jimmy got devoured by walkers.

Big Tiny got his head bashed in repeatedly.

Tomas got his head split in half by Rick and a machete.

T-Dog got devoured by walkers.

Andrew was shot in the head.

Lori was dying from childbirth complications so her son, Carl, killed her out of mercy.

Merle was shot in the chest by the Governor.

Milton was stabbed repeatedly in the stomach by the Governor.

Andrea got bitten on the shoulder by Milton and then committed suicide.

Karen and David were killed by Carol and then set on fire.

Caleb (the doctor) died from an unknown flu.

Caesar Martinez got bashed over the head by the Governor who then fed him (while still alive) to walkers.

Hershel got decapitated by the Governor.

The Governor was stabbed in the chest by Michonne (and killed).

Lizzie got put down by Carol (in one of the most shocking episodes ever).

Joe (leader of the claim gang) got his throat ripped out by Rick Grimes (and he bled to death).

That's twenty-four deaths of characters that got varying degrees of screen time, but all of them had speaking parts on the show. Just from memory (and looking at these numbers) I'd have to say that the group of actors in HBO's Game of Thrones probably have better job security in their characters. The Walking Dead is just way more brutal.

Agree? Disagree? What say you? Please take my poll and have a good Wednesday.Which group of actors have better job security?Those starring in the AMC horror drama "The Walking Dead."Those starring in the HBO epic fantasy drama "Game of Thrones."  pollcode.com free polls