Finally, after five torturous years of longing and waiting and hoping and praying and crying (okay, I got a little carried away with the hyperbole there), drumroll please:
Book 2 of The Stones of Revenge is coming.
That’s right, you asked for it, you begged for it, you lost sleep waiting for news about it, you might have even lost your appetite you were so anxious. (And boy would you be skinny now. I mean, five years, geez!)
Anyway, May 1st.
Yep, that’s the date. Just a few more days away.
13 to be exact.
In honor of Preston’s birthday, you can continue the story!
They may not be your favorite but you can’t stop partaking and eventually some gets stuck in your teeth.
First off let me just say that the last year has been quite hit or miss on here lately and for that I apologize. I have a few thoughts I just had to get out this morning, hence the reason for this post. They have to do with the this current political clime we find ourselves in. (And a huge shout out to the 4 people who consistently read here. You’re beautiful people.)
Now, I consider myself to be a political junkie of sorts and I’d like to focus on the Republican side of this thing because I just find it more interesting. But first a word about the Democrat side.
Democrats
I find it uninteresting mainly because it is only a race between two people and has been since they started. And truly they remind me of two siblings at play slap-fighting. One might hit a little harder once and again but otherwise it is a rather tame match. They don’t seem to want to expose weaknesses that could help each other, presumably to help in the general election. But they just lack a sort of je ne sais quoi in the entertainment side of things.
Republicans
Now on the Republican side you have personalities galore. (Humiliations galore?)
And this Donald Trump thing standing above the rest. Now I’m not here to endorse a candidate or sling mud though I so easily could. No, I’ll leave that to other talking heads. I just wanted to talk quickly about the phenomenon that has Trump in the delegatal (just made up a word, score) lead.
A lot of people say it’s about a referendum on the government or anger or change. And whereas those elements might exist, I think Trump is benefitting from something much more practical. I think his surge of popularity is really more of a ruse due to the fact the there are so many people in the race.
Let’s take a look at an example:
As you can see from the picture, in SC, Trump’s most impressive victory to date he got about 33% of the vote. Rubio at 22% as well as Cruz at 22% followed by the other 3 at around 8% each.
First. I find it interesting that about 67% of SC did NOT vote for Trump.
Second, many polls have shown Trump to date quite bad in alternate voting. That is to say if a person’s candidate is not available who he/she like for asecond choice. He doesn’t do well in the category.
So it seems, 30-35% of the population are ardent Trump fans. And while that may be significant and helping him win primaries, that also means 65-70% aren’t. Now Jeb is out and his supporters will indelibly vote for other candidates but that I think will only hurt Trump in the long run. Sure some of Jeb’s supporters might turn to Trump though I doubt it considering their feud. But take his 8%, couple it with Kasich’s 8% (who is out of money) and Carson’s 8% (who has no real shot at this point) and spread it all out among the other serious candidates.
Take those three out prior to South Carolina, and I think you have Trump losing SC. And if not he only squeaks by.
If and when the bottom three (now two) exit the race will be telling in Trump’s success from here on out. Should it become a three man race and he continue to win, then call it a referendum or will of the voters, but at this point I think it’s more about plurality of alternate choices than anything else.
So, I’ve been one of the biggest proponents of this belief for about a decade now, and as much as I scream it from the rooftops, no one seems to listen. And though I know I’m not the first to say this…
I’m making it official. Because once it’s posted in a blog, it becomes the truth. You know what I mean? It’s like on that State Farm commercial. “They can’t put anything on the internet that’s not true.” Right? Right?!
Anyway, as the title says, I wholeheartedly believe that two of my all-time favorite things in life are in actuality the exact same thing! (In the vein of Superman/Clark Kent, Batman/Bruce Wayne, or Green Arrow/ Oliver Queen)
In this series I am going to list out 8 different reasons why the Genius of Star Trek is really just the Genius of the Bard himself repackaged.
So, right now you’re saying, “Really, I’ve waited this long for the next reason and I get this?!”
Hold on there, Buster. There’s more to this than you think. Let me explain…
Now, another aspect about Star Trek and Shakespeare that makes them identical, and seems almost obvious, is that they are both dramas meant to be watched.
I know the guy eating his nachos reading this just before another Netflix binge is shouting at his screen, “Cheap connection!” and probably getting nacho cheese all over the keys as he mashes the letters to pull up Real Housewives.
But to this I say, “1) You wouldn’t believe how many people try to just read Shakespeare plays and complain they don’t get it, and 2) To quote the indomitable Vin Diesel, “I don’t care if you win by an inch or by a mile. Winning is winning.” #winning? (ok, weird context)
Anyway, look, it’s obvious to everyone today that Star Trek is something to be watched. And, yes, I know how many books and comic books have been written. (Ok, scratch that, I don’t “know” the exact number, nacho guy, but you know what I’m saying.)
But let’s set aside the literature for now and focus on the basics. I’m talking about original concept and function. TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT. And I guess I’ll include ’09 but anyone whose honest with themselves should agree it doesn’t “really” fit with the others. (That’s another post.)
Concept: Shakespearean. Function: Meant to be watched.
In conjunction, and something I have to train students to understand, Shakespeare is a play which means it is meant to be seen! If you have ever had an English teacher who made you only read the plays and not act them out, then let’s be honest, he or she failed you. To understand a play, it needs to be read, seen, and acted.
But I digress, simply put another reason it is easy to see why Star Trek and Shakespeare are exactly the same thing is that they are both meant to be watched. (And if you count conventions, acted too) 😉
Ok, so it was a short post. Whatevs. You still enjoyed it. 🙂
So, I’ve been one of the biggest proponents of this belief for about a decade now, and as much as I scream it from the rooftops, no one seems to listen. And though I know I’m not the first to say this…
I’m making it official. Because once it’s posted in a blog, it becomes the truth. You know what I mean? It’s like on that State Farm commercial. “They can’t put anything on the internet that’s not true.” Right? Right?!
Anyway, as the title says, I wholeheartedly believe that two of my all-time favorite things in life are in actuality the exact same thing! (In the vein of Superman/Clark Kent, Batman/Bruce Wayne, or Green Arrow/ Oliver Queen)
In this series I am going to list out 8 different reasons why the Genius of Star Trek is really just the Genius of the Bard himself repackaged.
Back at the Helm again with the 6th reason why Star Trek is the Superman version of Shakespeare’s Clark Kent. (Or is that the other way around?)
Star Trek and Shakespeare #6 – The Stories Pushed the Envelope
Let’s take a look at Shakespeare on this one first.
One of the geniuses of Billy Boy Shakes is his ability to put audiences in situations where they have to come face to face with their own morality especially with regard to aspects of Elizabethan society.
For example, in King Lear, one of the main motifs of the play is betrayal. Betrayal of children to their parents, betrayal of parents to their children, betrayal of siblings. But the real crescendo of this motif is played out when Shakespeare suggests that betrayers will ultimately turn on one another as seen in the love triangle between Edmund, Goneril, and Regan.
In fact, this “love triangle” is really more of an “adultery triangle” as the ladies cheat on their husbands for Edmund and Edmund cheats on the ladies with each other. Of course Shakespeare, can’t just let the ambiguities in the story speak for themselves. He has to give King Lear, the catalyst of the betrayals and paramount betrayer, a speech denouncing not only his daughters’ adulterous activities, but the adulterous activities of the world.
Though Lear’s diatribe here is mainly about his daughters, it is impossible not to see a corollary to the Elizabethan world as well. A society known for its façade of devotion and yet promiscuous behind the scenes. Did Shakespeare’s words change Elizabethan society? Not necessarily, but they had to press upon the consciousness of the audience.
In the same way, Star Trek pushed upon the societal mores of the world in which it was produced. One great example of this is the episode “Plato’s Stepchildren”.
In this episode, the crew of the Enterprise are forced to be slaves to a superior race called the Platonians. The Platonians have the power of telekinesis, and it is through this mind control that they force the crew to do whatever they wish. This is most powerfully illustrated when they force Captain Kirk (William Shatner) and Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) to kiss. The first interracial kiss on television. (gasp)
Now, NBC didn’t want to air this on television in certain areas of the country, but according to Shatner and Nichols, Shatner purposely made funny faces to keep the studio from airing alternative shots forcing them to go with the kiss. Were people upset? Yeah, but this wouldn’t be the first (or last) time Star Trek forced viewers to deal with their prejudices. (But that’s for reason 4). Did this change people’s minds? Hard to say, but the episode did definitely make audiences uncomfortable.
In both instances here, Shakespeare and its counterpart Star Trek left audiences with a chance to check themselves about how they view the world and how they act within it. I can’t say conclusively that both wanted to change society, but the genius doesn’t lie in the ends simply in the means.
“Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sailaway from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.” ~ Mark Twain
Recent Comments