Food Adventures #36: Cherry Mincemeat Frangelico Pie

I love mince pies.  They've been a part and parcel of family Christmas' ever since I was a kid- (along with Christmas cake, of which there was none to be had this year!  Sad face.   Randomly though, I think we did Christmas cake more than we did Christmas pudding growing up.  Man, I miss Christmas cake now!)   The Missus found this recipe in Saveur Magazine a couple of months ago and the plan was to make this pie for Thanksgiving, but time caught up with us and we couldn't get it done.

As it turns out, this sucker was worth the wait.  Behold:

The interesting thing about this pie was the fact that we had to make the mincemeat ourselves.   Dried cherries, golden raisins, apples, pear, lemon and orange zest with a nice 1/3 of a cup of Frangelico, let it sit for three days to a week and slap it in a pie crust...  the magic will happen.  I got a little nervous because usually, mincemeat is darker in color (and sometimes contains meat, but we got hooked up with vegetarian suet instead) but as it turned out, my nerves were for naught: it tasted like mincemeat and it tasted delicious.

Second interesting thing about this pie:  the pie crust...   I'll admit, shamefully that the Missus and I didn't make our own crust.  (I think I'm going to spend 2014 getting into pies in a big way, so I'll start making my own crust, but you know, for the purposes of Boxing Day dinner, we fudged it a little bit and got a store brought crust.)  The interesting thing is that we were up in Iowa Falls visiting the Mother In Law and the employees at the Hy-Vee up there gave a big thumbs up to Pappy's Pie Crust- the secret is in the lard and the little old ladies swear by it, they said.  (The first part is actually on the label, the second part, not so much.) And it did produce an amazing, flaky, just about perfect pie crust.

I would make this pie again.  And again.  And again.  And maybe again, but probably not again after that, because we'd run out of Frangelico at some point and that shit ain't cheap.  In general, I find something very satisfying about baking a pie...  gonna have to keep an eye out for good recipes like this one because a good pie can be a beautiful thing.  I know this one was...

'Monsters University' --A Review

Tons of movies have tried to be Animal House.   That classic of college excess and frat life seems to have spawned a whole sub-genre of what you could call 'the college movie' in the decades hence and few, if any have succeeded in matching the progenitor of it all.  Some have come close:  PCU, Old School and Van Wilder, to name a few.   Others, like Accepted, are interesting but most of them just, well, suck out loud.

It is, therefore, a testament to the magic of Pixar that of all the films that have attempted to recapture the lightning in the bottle that was Animal House, they have closest with their prequel to Monsters Inc, Monsters University.

The story of how Mike Wozowski (Billy Crystal) and Sully (John Goodman) met, it opens with a flashback to a young Mike going on a field trip to Monsters Inc, where he stumbles through a door to the human world and is so entranced by the field of scaring that he decides that whatever it takes, he's going to be a scarer.   Cut down the road a little to his freshman year of college and everything is going fine for Mike:  he's gotten into Monsters U and he's finagled his way into the Intro to Scaring- the weedout course to gain entry into the prestigious scaring program that Mike so desires.

It's then he meets Sully.  Sully comes from a family of scarers and relies on his natural abilities, family name and a rough sort of charm to skate through class and school.  He gets into the prestigious fraternity of Roar Omega Roar while Mike has to redouble his efforts to prove he's got it.   A rivalry develops between the two which culminates in the Scare Final, where they're both dropped from the course:  Sully for not studying enough and Mike for not being scary.

Mike refuses to give up and joins Oozma Kappa Ooozma, the only frat on campus he can get into and challenges Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren) to a wager:  if OKO wins the on campus Scare Games, they can get into the scaring program.  She agrees, but on the condition that if they lose, they're all kicked out of school.

The usual shenanigans ensue- but instead of tying it all neatly in a bow like most of these movies do, there's a twist to the ending which I won't reveal- only to say that it ends up getting both Mike and Sully kicked out of school and surprisingly, the Dean wishes them luck and they end up getting jobs at Monsters Inc and working their way up the food chain to become the scarers we met in the next movie, Monsters Inc.

There are some kids movies and kids television shows that I can't stand- I put them on, The Cigarillo is entertained, I do my best to ignore them. (See:  Dora and her yelling, any CGI animated Thomas and Friends, etc, etc) but the animated films that can break through the boundaries of genre and become great movies to me are the ones that work for both kids and adults and this one does and then some.  Massively entertaining, fun to watch and a great time, Pixar nails it once again.  Overall:  **** out of ****

Food Adventures #35: Chocolate Peanut Bacon Bark

I finally made some holiday bark. Recently, it seemed like every year around Christmas I'd be trolling Buzzfeed or Huffington Post and I would run into tons of recipes for holiday bark.   Eye catching flavors ranging from straight up peppermint bark to more exotic caramels and beyond would leap off the screen at me, trying to entice me with their allure and sweet temptation.

Thus far, I've managed to resist.  It's pretty easy to do this time of year- after all.  There's meals to plan, pies to bake and all in all, it's hectic, crazy and everything in between.  But this year, I stumbled across a wonderful recipe that was just so simple, I couldn't say no to it:  Chocolate Peanut Bacon Bark.

Listen, if you say the words 'chocolate' and 'bacon' to me in the same sentence, I'm there.   I'm on board, ready to rock and bring it ON!  But, throw in peanuts like this recipe does and it's a match made in heaven.

Let's start with what I loved about this recipe:  the simplicity.  All it took was unsalted peanuts, semi-sweet chocolate chips and bacon.  THAT'S IT.   Melt the chocolate, add peanuts, bacon, smear on a cookie sheet and stick in a fridge (well in our case, the garage) overnight to set up.  What resulted with amazing.  The peanuts gave it a nice crunch, but the saltiness of the bacon tamped down the sweetness of the chocolate making it taste more like dark chocolate than semi-sweet chocolate.

I've never made holiday bark before (like I said) but given the ease and beauty of the product that resulted, consider me a convert.  Rest assured, I'll be back this time next year to make another variety of the stuff...

This Week In Vexillology #61

Last week, we looked at Kurdistan but we're coming back to the United States to round out our end of the year special on separatist movements- yes, This Week In Vexillology, we're heading to that State of Mind whose quest for statehood got derailed by extremely bad timing:  the State of Jefferson

There have been a couple of other proposals for states called Jefferson over the course of our history- one was proposed in 1859 for the area of the southern Rocky Mountains which were, at the time, under the control of Kansas.  Eventually at the Wyandotte Convention, the present borders of Kansas were locked in and what was Western Kansas became the Jefferson Territory, eventually superseded by the Colorado Territory and then, obviously Colorado itself.

The next proposal started a decade or so later down in Texas.   You see, the original bill that annexed the Republic of Texas to the United States allowed Texas to be divided into up to four states owing to Texas' size at the time- but with an influx of carpetbaggers after the Civil War the notion gained traction around 1870, first calling for a State of Lincoln but that went nowhere- another proposal called for the creation of two states, Jefferson and Matagorda got a little further but failed to gain approval of the state legislature, so despite a brief revival of the proposal around 1915 or so, it more or less died- at least in Texas.

Where it came closest to fruition (and potentially still could, I suppose) is in the Pacific Northwest- traditionally seen as the rural counties of southern Oregon and northern California- a 'secessionist' movement was launched in November 1941- a 'Governor' was inaugurated but any momentum toward becoming a state ended on December 7th, 1941 with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  Interestingly enough:  the 'state' turned out to be the only part of the continental United States attacked in World War II- when a Japanese pilot dropped some bombs in the Oregon coast in 1942.

Which brings us to the flag:

The seal is meant to be a gold mining pan.  The two Xs are known as the 'Double Cross,' and signifies the region's sense of abandonment from the state governments of Oregon and California.  The proposed capitol of the state is Yreka, California- the state is commemorated with a State of Jefferson Scenic Byway in the region and the public radio that serves the region rebranded itself as Jefferson Public Radio but it seems that the dream of a state of Jefferson will still have to remain just that, a dream.

So give it up for the Great Hypothetical State of Jefferson, everybody!  And remember, until next time keep your flags flying- FREAK or otherwise.

'Much Ado About Nothing' --A Review

I was a little cautious when approaching this film:  the 1993 Kenneth Branagh adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing remains one of my favorite Shakespeare adaptations ever put to film and it's one of my favorite films of all time, actually-  if I saw it on television, I'd sit down and watch, no questions asked.   So when I heard that Joss Whedon had adapted Much Ado for film, I was curious to see if his adaptation would measure up to the 1993 version.

(Seriously:  the '93 version had a perfect cast:  Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson, Keanu Reeves, Michael Keaton, Robert Sean Leonard, Denzel Washington and making her film debut, Kate Beckinsale of all people.  How can you possibly measure up?)

Happily, Whedon is more than up to the task.   His version is a modern adaptation and takes a different interpretation of Beatrice (Amy Acker) and Benedick's (Alexis Denisof) relationship, implying they had a one night stand before the play begins, changing things up to make their relationship a lost love found rather than finding an entirely new love.  It's a change I like because it puts the often thorny relationship between Beatrice and Benedick into context-  you get a better realization of why they might not like each other that much.

The setting is perfect:  it's Whedon's house.   Yes, what makes this brilliant is that the man was on a two week contractually obligated vacation from The Avengers and decided to relax by making a movie in his house.  I want this house.  Badly.  It's a beautiful house and I couldn't think of a better place to set a modern adaptation of this play.   The rest of the movie seems to flow from the setting...  all the men are in suits, the women in stylish dresses.  Smart phones and pictures get taken (it's an especially nice touch at the start of the movie when Leonato (Clark Gregg) enters, gesticulating with his smart phone to announce the Prince's impending arrival to Messina.)

I think the fact that it was filmed in black and white also helps make this a magical adaptation.  A straight modern adaptation with the noises, lights and vivid colors of modern life could have overwhelmed the play itself- the black and white helps tone that down and, along with the setting- the hills around Los Angeles could easily double for any number of places in Italy- or at least look Italian enough to lend a sense of authenticity to the movie.

This cast is also fantastic!  Any one who is a fan of Whedon's shows will recognize most, if not all of the cast.  From Clark Gregg (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) to Nathan Fillion (Firefly- who also steps beautifully into Michael Keaton's role as Dogberry the Constable.)  There's also Sean Maher (another Firefly alum), Reed Diamond (Dollhouse), Fran Kranz (Dollhouse), Ashley Johnson (that waitress in The Avengers, who gets saved by Captain America)- you get the idea. Jillian Morgese makes her debut as Hero opposite Fran Kranz as Claudio. (Not to mention Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof, alums of Buffy and Angel.)

Overall:  I think it's kind of gutsy to adapt Shakespeare for film.  You've got source material that's well, immortal, and you can't just show people what they'd see at their local Shakespeare festival.  You've got to deliver a fresh and original take on it- and while Branagh's take was somewhat traditional, Whedon's take is riskier and all the more breathtaking in that he assembles a magical cast, drops them in a magical setting and weaves a spell that holds the movie together from beginning to end. **** out of ****

Quack Attack

I swore to myself I wouldn't write about this.  This is one of those mindless, completely pointless things that gets flung up by the media from time to time so people on both sides of the political aisle can clutch their pearls and cover themselves in outrage and light up Facebook with mindless arguments that go precisely nowhere and escalate into nasty, personal attacks far to quickly for my liking.  However, since this stupidity won't die and people insist on talking about it, I figured, why not join in the fun.  So, are you ready?  Good, because here's what I think:

I don't care.

No seriously.  I have not a single fuck to give about this situation and, here's why:

This isn't a family of noodly Episcopalians from Poughkeepsie. These are fire and brimstone flavored Christians from rural Louisiana.  Expecting them to lead a gay pride parade is a little naive, I think.  I mean, what was everybody expecting?  Seriously.  They've never hidden their beliefs.  It's been out there- it's just that Phil was a little too blunt about it and now people are pissed.

And yes, people have a right to be pissed.  People have a right to boycott, sign petitions, rage on Facebook and express themselves however they like.  Free Speech, y'all.

And yes, he had a right to express his beliefs.  I don't agree with them, but he has a right to say them.  If you don't like them, say so.  Change the channel.  Boycott the station.  Don't buy the merchandise.  Free Speech y'all.

And yes, A&E has a right to fire him for expressing those beliefs.  The First Amendment protects our speech but not the consequences of it.

But, to complete our little rage circle, people also have a right to be pissed at A&E for firing him. (And to boycott, sign petitions, rage on Facebook, etc, etc.)  Free Speech y'all.

So, pretty much it's a glorious example of how messy living in a free country can be and not something I'm going to expend too much of my time on.

B-b-b-but what about the persecution of Christians in this nation, Tom?  Oh, I'm sorry, have we started feeding Christians to the lions again?  Because if Jack Hanna starts doing that on Letterman, I'd watch Letterman more often.  Are Christians being beaten, tied to a fence post and left for dead in the cold? Sorry, folks, but I'm not buying into that one.  Republicans trot that one out to motivate voters and for a lot of people it works.

But I do think that the cultural elitists in this country, many of whom are very, very liberal do sneer at Christianity quite a bit.   When an artist dips a Crucifix into a jar of piss on smears elephant dung on a portrait of the Virgin Mary, people (Christians) who find that offensive and start yelling about it, get told to 'Shut up, because it's art.'* When One Million Moms Against Boobies or whatever its called launches another crusade against whatever shit show is on MTV or TLC or whatever, they get told 'Shut up, change the channel, FREE SPEECH.' And when it comes to free speech, I don't think we should have double standards depending on your political affiliation.

Yes, it was offensive.  No, I did not in any way, shape or form agree with him.  If you don't like it, change the channel.   You can't change minds or alter attitudes on issues like this by insisting that people don't have a right to speak their minds.

*Art is tricky, because it's subjective- everyone has their own definition of what it is.  But, I think if you create something purely for shock value and publicity and not out of any genuine creative desire/aspect you wish to explore, you're a cheap hack and an attention whore.

'Cars' and 'Planes' --A Double Review

Like every two year old boy I think in the history of the world, The Cigarillo loves cars.  And trains.  (We've been watching a lot of Thomas The Tank Engine these days) so the Missus and I, being a little short on kids movies (I think we had The Incredibles and I want to say The Little Mermaid) decided that for his birthday, we'd get him a double shot of fun things he should like, Cars and it's vaguely related spinoff, Planes.

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of Cars, I have a shocking confession:  I had never seen it.  Sure, I'd seen parts of it now and again and there was some weird cartoon on Netflix featuring Mater and his crazy adventures but I'd never actually seen the movie, so I had that going for me- and, somewhat fittingly for Pixar's final independently, produced motion picture before the House of Mouse ate it up, it's a beautiful, fun little movie.

Set in a world populated by talking cars, the film introduces us to it's main character, Lightning McQueen as he's in the middle of a key race- the last one- for the coveted Piston Cup between himself, retiring veteran Strip Weathers and infamous bad guy Chick Hicks.  Lighting (voiced by Owen Wilson) is desperate to win the race so he can ditch his current sponsors, Rust-eeze and move on up to the greener, more lucrative pastures of Dinoco once Weathers retires.  After McQueen ignores the advice of his pit crew and refuses to get tires, he blows one just short of the finish line and the race ends in a tie.

A tiebreaker is scheduled for Los Angeles a week later and McQueen wants to get there as soon as possible- he pushes his driver, Chuck to drive straight through and when Chuck falls asleep, McQueen eventually rolls out of the back of his trailer and, lost and confused blunders into the town of Radiator Springs- wrecking up the main road in the process.  Arrested by the locals, he's about to be sent on his way by the town Mayor, Doc Hudson (Paul Newman) when a local lawyer Sally (Bonnie Hunt) intervenes and convinces the judge that he should repair the damage at least.  He attempts to do so quickly, but does such a shoddy job, he's forced to do it again right and it takes several days.

To make a long story short:  he discovers what's really important in life (friendship, sportsmanship, other treacley lessons) and the movie ends pretty much like you'd expect.

Planes is pretty similar.  Except with planes instead of cars...  the hero of planes, a lowly crop duster by the name of Dusty Crophopper (Dane Cook) dreams of flying in an around the world race and winning air racing glory.   Obviously, since this is a Pixar movie it all works out okay in the end but despite the fact that it comes across as a blatant money grabbing spinoff (the thing practically drips with toy merchandising opportunities) there's a certain charm about it that I enjoyed.  It reminded me a little of Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines and the animation of the various global locales the planes fly to are beautifully done but other than that, it seems to lack the emotional depth that Pixar brings to Cars.

Overall:  Cars over Planes, I'm afraid.  Planes isn't bad, but Cars has more developed characters and takes an oddly nostalgic turn when looking at the town of Radiator Springs and how time passed it by when the Interstate was built.  (The movie is filled with Route 66 nostalgia, actually.)  At the end of the day though, both are quality movies and quite watchable for both kids and adults.

This Week In Vexillology #60

This Week In Vexillology, we're looking at the flag of the last ethnicities/cultures/people who don't have a state of their own (thanks in part to some colonial skullduggery and general oppression by a variety of difference countries over the decades) the Kurds and the flag of Kurdistan:

Adopted on December 17th, 1945 this flag actually has a name!  It's the Alaya Rengin, or 'The Colorful Flag.'   The red in the flag symbolizes the blood of the martyrs of Kurdistan and the continued struggle for the freedom and dignity of Kurdistan and its people.  Green represents the beauty and landscapes of the country, white is for peace and equality while yellow represents the source and life and light of the people.

The sun itself gets interesting:  it's an ancient symbol of Zoroastrianism and has 21 rays of equal size and shape- the number 21 holds importance in the ancient Ezidi religious tradition of the Kurds.  (Click on the links if you want more info on either religion-  personally, I find Zoroastrianism fascinating...  one of these days I'll have to sit down and learn more about it.)  The flag is also banned in Turkey, Iran and Syria.

So, what's the deal with the Kurds?  Why isn't there an independent Kurdistan and more to the point, where is it?  Well, it's here:

You begin to see why the flag is banned in Turkey, Iran and Syria don't you?  Iraqi Kurds won a lot of autonomy after the fall of Saddam and even before that, protected by the no-fly zone, they enjoyed a lot more freedom than Kurds do in other countries. After World War I, when the Ottoman Empire disintegrated there was a moment where the Kurds seemed to be on the verge of gaining independence-  the Treaty of Sevres dividing up what is now modern day Turkey called for a referendum on the future of a Kurdistan region but that was never implemented and was ultimately done away with in the Treaty of Lausanne- basically, the Colonial powers at the time couldn't come through for the Kurds.   The Turks rallied behind Ataturk against the loss of so much of their territory, expelled the Ottoman Sultan and destroyed the Greeks (who were occupying areas around Smyrna at the time) and rejected Sevres and forced a renegotiation.  Kurdish aspirations were shoved aside to recognize the Republic of Turkey as the successor state to the dissolved Ottoman Empire.

(That might be a totally crappy version of the history that actually took place, but it's the best paragraph summary I could muster! The actual history is complex, crazy and time-consuming and if you don't believe me, check out the tale of the island of Ada Kaleh.)

In the meantime, put your hands together for Kurdistan!  And remember until next week, keep your flags flying- FREAK or otherwise!

'The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug' --A Review

This was the first Peter Jackson movie I've ever seen that didn't have me twitching and shifting in my seat, wondering when it was going to end.   By my reckoning, The Desolation of Smaug ran around two hours and forty minutes or so and unlike it's predecessor, the meandering, bloated An Unexpected Journey, there's not a single minute that I would consider unnecessary in this movie.  It moves at a brisk clip, never gets boring and it's the first time that any film in the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit franchise that ended in a genuine, beautiful cliffhanger.

Don't get me wrong:  I think Jackson and Company are milking the cow that is the money making franchise of these movies for every penny they can and it's to the detriment of the book, I think, but Jackson more than redeems the meandering, bloated first movie with a stronger, more coherent second outing.  Had the first movie been as taut and as well paced as this one, I'd be feeling a lot better about The Hobbit trilogy overall.  The first movie made me wonder what the hell they were thinking, ruining a book like this by forcing what is a relatively small, easy read (compared to The Lord of The Rings, that is) into three movies.  After The Desolation of Smaug, I can honestly say that I'm looking forward to the sequel.

But it didn't get off to a strong start:  I was immediately irritated by a flashback to Bree, where Gandalf (Ian McKellan) and Thorin (Richard Armitage) meet to decide to launch the quest to retake the Lonely Mountain and Gandalf decides they need a burglar.  My initial thought was:  when the hell did they go to Bree in The Hobbit?   What are they doing?  But the flashback quickly closes and the movie picks up where the last one left off, with the company on the edge of Mirkwood, still pursued by orcs.

Gandalf finds them refuge with the skin changer Beorn- who, while disliking dwarves, likes orcs even less and given them aid to get them to the edge of the dark forest of Mirkwood.  When Gandalf finds orc graffiti on some ruins, he leaves them to investigate further (and their pursuer, Azog is summoned to Dol Gulder, leaving his son Bolg in charge of the pursuit.)  He charges the dwarves not to stray from the Elven path, but of course, as soon as Gandalf leaves, they get lost and stumble across the giant spiders of Mirkwood.

(Just as a tangent:  I really think this is where my distaste of spiders come from.  Peter Jackson being Peter Jackson means that these are gigantic, hairy spiders that are the stuff of any arachnophobes nightmare but I have to say:  he got them right.   That part of the book was always the creepiest to me and he nailed it.)

Once free of the spiders, they're promptly captured by the wood elves of Mirkwood including Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly.)   As a character, I know there's a lot of controversy about Tauriel as she's totally made up and not at all in any of Tolkein's books, but as a character, she's got more gumption that Arwen or Galadriel from The Lord of The Rings and she's likable to boot.   There's real potential they could blow this and have her be little more than a plot device to illustrate the divide between rich and poor (Legolas has a thing for her, but he's the King's son and she's not good enough for him, per the King) and elf and dwarf (Fili, who's a little taller and more handsome in that long haired, I might be in a Dwarven rock band, kind of way also has a little thing for her.) but so far, so good.  I think she works.

Where you'd think that Jackson might meander a bit, he surprises you by hitting the accelerator button.  He moves his company right along, having them escape from the Wood Elves and float down the river to Long Lake, where they meet the Barge Man, Bard (Luke Evans) who agrees to the smuggle them into Lake Town, where the Master of Lake Town (a delightful but woefully underdone Stephen Fry- hope he has more to do in the next film) spies on everyone.   Eventually, Thorin reveals himself to the town and is sent on his way with the blessing of the Master, who hopes for riches to flow from the Mountain to his town once more.

Soon enough, the company reaches The Lonely Mountain, finds the hidden door and sends Bilbo (Martin Freeman) inside the steal the Arkenstone from the Dragon Smaug.  Smaug (who is voiced with absolute perfection by Benedict Cumberbatch...  that man is Smaug.  It's like my childhood came to life right in front of me on the television screen.  And I haven't had a feeling like that since the very first Transformers movie, when Optimus Prime transforms, leans down to Shia LeBoeuf and Peter Cullen says 'Hello.') awakens and discovers Bilbo has a bit of scrap with the dwarves, gets pissed off and busts out of the Lonely Mountain to go and destroy Lake Town for helping the dwarves.   Bilbo and his friends watch in horror.

Oh, and Gandalf gets together with Radagast (Sylvester McCoy) and discovers that the Nazgul have awoken and goes to Dol Guldor, where he discovers that Sauron is back and is in dire need of some Visine.  (Undoubtedly, he'll get bailed out by either The Eagles or Galadriel in the next movie.)

Overall: This redeems the first Hobbit movie and then some!  There's not a wasted minute in this movie and it made me excited to see the next one!  I still think that this could have been better done as two movies instead of three, but while the first one just seemed to go on forever and ever, this one reminded me of the best parts of the book and what made it so great in the first place.  **** out of ****

What I'm Reading #1

I'm only just now starting to get into my reading groove again:  finishing the book and getting it out onto various platforms for people to purchase took a lot out of me and when you focus in on your writing like that, I've discovered that's it's pretty easy to fall out of a reading groove and harder still to climb back into one.

I've also arrived at a very strange place in my life:  I'm really committed to reading the books I have before buying new ones.  This is, so far, a phenomenon I haven't experienced:  new book guilt! But my backlog increases with every passing year and there are books I genuinely do want to read that I currently own.

My Goodreads account will tell you that I'm about halfway through Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge and just cracking into Defend The Realm by Christopher Andrew.  (My long slog through the 12 volumes of Churchill's history of the Second World War seems to have petered out in the early weeks of Operation Torch.  I'll pick it back up again, though.)  I decided to shake things up though.  I'll still finish Rainbow's End but I'm putting Defend The Realm on hiatus to pick up a biography that's been gathering dust on my bookshelves for far too long:

Gladstone, by Roy Jenkins.

Before I plunge into the subject of this biography, it's worth saying a few words about the author.  Roy Jenkins was a British Politician who rose as high as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party before resigning over the party's (then) decision to oppose entry into the Common Market.  He served as President of the European Commission from 1977-1981 and in 1981, dismayed with the leftward tilt of the Labour Party became one of the Gang of Four who broke with Labour to form the Social Democratic Party- which eventually merged with the Liberal Party to become the Liberal Democrats of today.

In short, when it comes to British politics, the guy obviously knows his stuff- and that's something that gives him a huge advantage when it comes to writing biographies of towering British political figures like Gladstone. (He's also written a beautiful one volume biography on Churchill, which I also have sitting on my shelves somewhere.)

Biographies are a tricky thing.  Too dry and academic, you risk putting readers to sleep.  Too informal and loose and you risk readers questioning the seriousness of your scholarship.  The key seems to be finding a balance between the two ends of the spectrum and Jenkins does and then some.  What helps, I think, is that his writing style is underpinned by a sense of irony and dry wit and a mountain of passion for his subject.

The problem becomes that a Jenkins biography is immersive.  It drops you into the time, the history and does it's level best to get you inside the skin of it's subjects.  'Voluminous' doesn't begin to describe the man's biographies- they're doorstops and they take time, but Jenkins' passion keeps you going.

So why Gladstone?  You know, I'm not really sure.  I think the last time I visited the UK, I found myself in a Waterstones (palatial, wonderful bookstores that they are, despite being a chain) and started perusing political biographies and this one caught my eye.  Between them, Gladstone and Disraeli were the Prime Ministers that defined 19th Century British Politics and although I've yet to find a biography of Disraeli that looks good enough to buy, I thought I'd start with Gladstone and get one half of that titanic rivalry.

Let the learning begin!

Whiskey of the Month #15: Glenfiddich 15 Year Old Solera Vat

It's back to single malt this year with a double first for Whiskey of the Month:  my first foray to the Valley of the Deer and Glenfiddich and my first 15 year old Single Malt.  Glenfiddich has a rich history that dates back all the way to 1887 and hails from the Speyside region- which contains the largest number of distilleries in Scotland.  (When it comes to Scotch, there's the Lowland region, Highland, Campbelltown, Islay and Speyside- each has their own tradition, flavor and style.)

So why the Solera Vat?  Why not another Glenfiddich?  I'll just go ahead and confess- I kept seeing ads for it in magazine and the descriptions of honey, raisins and plump golden sultanas hooked me in.  It sounded delicious, so when my birthday came along, I went ahead and jumped at the chance to try it for myself.  I wasn't disappointed:

Color:  The color on this seems to be more amber than anything else.  I was teetering toward calling it honey or dark honey but that wasn't quite right either.  Color wise, amber fits and it fits perfectly.

Body:  The predominant note I pick up from this is honey.  The bottle mentions raisins but if there's fruit in here, it's subtle almost too subtle to pick up.  But it is there- but I'd say it's more dried fruits in general rather than just raisins.  Maybe figs or dates as well?  It's hard to tell.   It's got a nice, mild body to it as well.  Sniff this and your nose hairs remain safely intact-  some single malts are so strong all you can smell is the burn, but the fact it is so mild lets you pick up flavors beside alcohol as well.

Palate:  It sits lightly on the tongue, which is nice.  In fact, it might be the nicest thing about this whiskey.   It's not trying to kick you in the face, it's trying to get you to sit back and really enjoy it.   And you know what, given how quickly I've sucked down this bottle, its probably the key to the Solera's success.

Finish: Beautiful.   It goes down smooth and the warming sensation is gradual- it's the perfect finish to an excellent single malt.

Peter O'Toole, 1932-2013

What can you say about an actor like Peter O'Toole?  It's ridiculous the man was nominated 8 times for an Oscar but never won it- ridiculous.  But he was unique, an original presence on screen in an age that seems to breed would be movie stars by the bucket load, he was probably one of the last, true icons of Hollywood that stood out.  It didn't have to be a good movie or even a great movie- any movie that had Peter O'Toole in it was elevated just by his presence.

I think it was his eyes.  Such an unusual shade of blue, that piercing stare seemed to jump straight off the screen and come right at you.  Or maybe it was his range:  from the evolution of the quiet, reserved Lawrence to the warrior leading the final assault on the Turks at Damascus in Lawrence of Arabia or the thunderous bellows as King Henry II in The Lion In Winter, he could be everywhere and nowhere at once, emotionally speaking.  It's astonishing to watch.

Lawrence of Arabia was probably the first movie I ever saw him in and it remains (along with Gandhi) one of the only three hour long movies I'll watch again on a regular basis and it was amazing.   The sheer epic scale of it- all without one bit of CGI.   I sort of want to go home and watch it tonight, actually...   but despite discoveries like this one and the fact that he was King Priam in the limp, tepid destruction of one of the greatest pieces of writing in human history in Troy, where he burned brightest, for me personally was in The Lion In Winter.

Maybe it was the fact that Katherine Hepburn was a perfect foil for him.  Maybe it was the fact that it was loaded with star power- Anthony Hopkins, a young Timothy Dalton- everyone could act in this movie. But I'd like to think it was the writing...  I would love to see a stage production of it.  It's so simple: a dysfunctional family stuck in a castle for Christmas and yet the words, the viciousness of the machinations and political games...  it's the power of the writing that carries the movie.  (I stumbled on a nice long form piece from Gay Talese way back in 1963 profiling O'Toole.  It's well worth a read.)

Peter O'Toole was one of the best.  There was no one like him before him and will be no one like him after he's gone, on either stage or screen.  He will be missed...

The Week In Vexillology #59

Last week, we kicked off the month with the Estelada, the flag of Catalan Independence.  This week, we're heading east to the Caucuses and the most well known de-facto independent republic you've never heard of, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

Before we delve into the complex circumstances around the creation of Nagorno-Karabakh, let's get down to brass tacks and look at their flag.   It's derived from the flag of Armenia- only it has a white pattern added.  A white, five-toothed, stepped carpet pattern was added to the flag that symbolizes the current separation of the country from Armenia and it's aspiration for eventual union with 'The Motherland.'   The Armenian colors/tricolor represent the heritage and culture of the Nagorno-Karabakh, with the white pattern represents the country being separated region of Armenia.

All right, now that's out of the way:  where is Nagorno-Karabakh?  What's its deal?  Well, get on Google Maps and look up Armenia.  Down in the southeast part of the country, the borders narrow and it's bounded on both sides by Azerbaijan.  There's an enclave called Nakhchivan that's controlled by the Azeris and on the other side of the border, in contiguous Azerbaijan, that's where you'll find the Nagorno-Karabakh.  It's internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (which is why you won't find any borders on Google Maps) but the Azeris haven't controlled it since 1991.

What started this mess?  Well some bad border drawing on the part of Stalin back in the day stuck a sizeable enclave of Armenians square inside what the Azeris considered their territory.  The Soviets kept a lid on things quite nicely but when the Soviet Union broke up, things went downhill fast.  With a population roughly 76% Armenian and 23% Azerbaijanis, the local Armenian population agitated for unification with Armenia- something that Azerbaijan resisted strenuously. A full scale war broke out and fighting lasted from 1991-1994 before a ceasefire was declared.  By the end of it, Armenia and the N-K were in control of about 14% of Azerbaijan, 9% outside the original oblast of N-K.  (Want the full 4-1-1 on the war, check this out.  It's extensive to say the least.)

So, ladies and gents put your hands together for the Nagorno-Karabakh and remember, until next time, keep your flags flying, FREAK or otherwise!

What The Hell Happened To Our Foreign Policy?

I voted for Obama in 2008.  It seemed like a good idea at the time and although I quickly soured on his domestic policies, I always (up until the whole dust-up over Benghazi) didn't think he was a complete idiot when it came to foreign policy.  But the last six months just seem like one blunder after another blunder...  in fact, you know what- scratch that:  you can divide this administration into two periods- before Benghazi and after Benghazi and after Benghazi, for some reason, our foreign policy has gone to shit in a handbasket and then some.

First there was Syria...  my God what a clusterfuck that was.  Don't get me wrong:  I was less than thrilled at the prospect of another foreign intervention.  There's an optimal time to do these things where we could have minimized chaos, death and general warfare and when it comes to Syria it was about two years ago now.  Our Syria policy was the furthest thing from competent I can think of.  If you're going to declare a 'red line' and then when the bad guys cross that 'red line' you do precisely dick about it, it doesn't send a good message to the rest of the world that we can be taken seriously.

Well, well, what are we supposed to do?  (I hear you say.)  We can't intervene in a multi-sided, complicated, chaotic Civil War.  Of course we can't.  And yes, I agree with the rest of you that securing all Assad's chemical weapons is probably a pipe dream.  But the guy has an Air Force that's been used to deliver the chemical weapons (not to mention do other cheerful things like drop bombs on playgrounds, rebel held positions, civilian areas, etc, etc) and if we can't 100% guarantee we get all his chemical weapons, we can, at least, make sure he doesn't have an Air Force to use to deliver them.  Air strikes could have been limited in aim and scope.

Once the President vacillated and dumped the decision on Congress, knowing full well what they would do (absolutely nothing) then we pretty much got rolled by Putin and Assad.   End result:  Assad is still in power.  People are still dying.  No good results.

Then there was Iran...  I'm somewhat leery of this, but will concede that some sort of an agreement sure as hell beats air strikes or an invasion of some kind.  We could have bargained a lot harder than we did though.  To me, it's six of one and a half a dozen of the other on the enrichment issue.  If Iran needs a new power plant all that badly, I can't, in good conscious say that a country can't do whatever it damn well pleases to get power to its people.  That said...  the Iranian regime is not democratic.  It has all the institutions of a democracy and I think if the idea of separation of state and mosque catches on there, the Iranian people are going to be just fine and then some.  I'm a big believer in democratic peace theory and whether it's American corporate media propaganda or just a general sense of distrust, I'm not sure there's a lot of credibility behind the Iranians.  Call me crazy, but the whole funding Hezbollah thing doesn't make me, well, you know, want to trust them and all.

If the agreement works, great.  I saw a lot of Conservatives railing against the fact that our policy has shifted from 'ending' the Iranian nuclear program to 'containing' their nuclear program but if it makes the Middle East two bottles of bad tequila away from a disaster instead of their usual half a bottle, I think we could maybe call this a win.

Then there's China and it's new air defense zone.  They declared it, we thumbed our noses at it by flying B-52s over it and they sent Vice President Biden over to shake some hands and pose for some photos.  This is one aspect of our foreign policy that I've always kind of loved...  there's always been an intricate dance between the two great powers and the complexity of our relationship is almost maddening at times.  But Vice President Joe Biden is on the case, so there's nothing to worry about right?

Right?

Overall the general bouquet of competence that seemed to hang over the Obama Administration's foreign policy has, for me, totally fallen apart- and that's without even taking into account the continued existence of Gitmo and his policy of drone strikes and listening in to every phone call he can get his hands on.

Sigh.  I suppose the fairy tale has to end some time, right?

10 Authors (In No Particular Order) Part I

Originally, I had conceived this feature as a way of highlighting the authors that had influenced my writing or whom I thought more people should know about and read but then, I thought that was too restrictive and to be honest, I didn't think it was something that I could creatively carry over the long term. 

Instead, I decided to reach into my spice rack and sprinkle some magic onto things and break it into a five part series about ten authors who I think rock and that more people should know about and/or read.  Some of them have influenced my writing and my literary tastes and development more than others.  Oh and because I hate the whole 'who is your favorite author' question (I love books, therefore I have many favorite authors.  You can't exactly choose one!)  They're in no particular order!

Bon Appetit!

10. Kim Stanley Robinson:  I don't know when I first started reading Robinson's Mars Trilogy but I do know that it blew my mind.  It's easy, if you're not a fan of science fiction to dismiss trilogies about the colonization of Mars as flights of fantasy and you might pass it by.  That would be a huge mistake.  Robinson's writing, his characters, the world he so vividly creates and grounds in real-world science elevate the trilogy into something that breaks the boundaries of the genre and rises into the realm of excellent literature as well.  (I keep trying to convince The Quiet Man of this- as Robinson's realism is something that's right up his alley.)   My recommendation:  start with the Mars Trilogy, but don't miss his Science In The Capitol Trilogy if you want something a little more Earth bound.  2312 is excellent as well.

9. Anne McCaffery: "Lessa woke, cold."  One of the greatest opening lines I've ever read and after that, I was hooked.  If you don't mind dragons then McCaffery's original trilogy of Dragonflight, Dragonquest and The White Dragon is a great place to start.  (Two of the novellas included in Dragonflight actually won McCaffery a Hugo and a Nebula Award- making her the first woman to win either one- something I didn't know!  So it's groundbreaking as well.)  Now what if dragons aren't your thing...  hmmm, well I can respect that.  Dragons aren't for everyone- but I guarantee you once you start exploring the world of the Dragonriders of Pern, you'll never look at dragons the same way again.  (Bonus:  if you're looking for something with a basic equation of Napoleon + Dragons, these won't disappoint you either.) 

But over the years, I've also become increasingly impressed with another universe of McCaffery's, the Talent.  Set in a universe where psionic talents (telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance) have been scientifically proven, it's near-future, contemporary touch in the early books (To Ride Pegasus, Pegasus In Flight) gives way to a more straightforward space based science fiction universe in the books that follow (The Rowan, Damia, Damia's Children.)  It's a fascinating evolution to track over the course of the series and features some of the strongest female characters I've read.  My recommendation:  it depends on what you're looking for.  McCaffery has plenty to offer, but if you're not afraid of dragons, plunge into Pern with Dragonflight.  If telepathy and telekinesis are more intriguing to you, I'd say The Rowan is a great place to start.

The Cost of Obsession and Mandela's Legacy

Well, it turns out British Prime Minister David Cameron didn't want to 'Hang Mandela' after all- he did take a 'dodgy' trade trip to South Africa in 1989 but apparently apologized for his position on sanctions against the apartheid regime in 2006.  The supposed controversy gobbling up the Interwebs in the wake of Mandela's passing (especially across the Pond but there was the occasional pissing match over here too about what someone said/did way back in the 80s and that tiresome question over Mandela's status as a 'possible terrorist') has now apparently been put to rest but should underline two important things that everybody, regardless of their political leanings should keep in mind when people die:

First of all, don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Second of all, someone's dead.  Try not to have a party about it and definitely don't try and score political points off of a dead person.   In football (or American handegg, depending on what side of the ocean you're on reading this) that would get you a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct.   While I don't have handy yellow flags, I will judge you for it and instantly label you a massive tool.  (Because it's impolite to speak ill of the dead and/or score political points off of them, that's why.)

But that got me thinking...   how do you define a 'terrorist?'  Why are there people out there convinced that Mandela was a terrorist?  Naturally, I started digging on Wikipedia and found out the following:  In the wake of the Sharpeville Massacre many in the ANC (including Mandela) came to the conclusion that if their peaceful protests were going to be met with force by the Apartheid Government then violence was inevitable and so they founded a militant wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe to carry out guerilla attacks and acts of sabotage against the government until their demands for political change were met. 

I haven't yet found anything that indicates Mandela took a direct part in the militant wing's activities, although he was charged along with ten other ANC leaders in the Rivonia Trial because of his connection with the militant wing he wasn't charged with any specific act of violence- more conspiracy to undermine/commit sedition against the Apartheid Government type of things.   Where I think people on the right got a little hysterical back in the day was with the connections to the South African Communist Party.

It's very easy for me to sit here, in 2013 and judge the activities and the policies of various Cold War governments a bit harshly.  I didn't live through it, I wasn't there and in hindsight, everything is 20/20.  But there is a cost to be paid for the obsessions of the past...  the fact remains that back in the day any association with the Communist Party of any kind was enough to get you labeled a terrorist or worst.   Anyone opposed to communism, however odious, could find friends in the West and that is something that frustrates me to this day- when our government had to stand by regimes like the apartheid regime in the name of fighting communism, then did we really know who are friends were?  Do we know?

The obsessions of the past can exact a heavy price from us in the complexities of the present.   Do I think Mandela was a terrorist?  No, I don't.  The calculation that the ANC came to in the wake of Sharpeville might have been an extreme one but it was one that I don't find particularly illogical, given the circumstances at the time.  If the West was unwilling to intervene or impose sanctions and every effort at peaceful protest was met with violence, what then were they supposed to do? 

I expect the debates on that particular question to continue for decades as it promises to be a crucial part of shaping Mandela's legacy for the history books.

This Week In Vexillology #58

Since it's the end of the year, I thought I'd do something a little different a shake things up.  So, I've decided to dedicate the month of December to the flags of some separatist movements around the world, just for a change of pace.   The idea randomly hit me a few weeks back when I was watching a soccer match for the Europa League, I think and somewhat randomly, they were playing in Tiraspol, which is the capitol of the breakaway region of Transnistria. 

I jumped on Wikipedia, did a little digging and came up with what I hope are four interesting, thought provoking flags for the month of December.  And since the holidays are a time for good food and good drinking, I thought, what better place to start than in the northeast corner of Spain with the Estelada, the flag of Catalan Independence.

Interestingly enough, the Estelada comes in two varieties- the blue one seems to be more common but there's also the red Estelada (or the yellow estelada) as well.   The actual flag of Catalonia is known as the Senyera and it is just the four traditional red stripes on a field of yellow.

The Estelada originated in 1928, where it was adopted in the 3rd Article of the provisional Constitution of the Catalan Republic- which was written in Cuba- so if the triangle and star seem a little reminiscent of the flags of Cuba and Puerto Rico, that's by design.   The star in the flag represents freedom and the blue triangle signifies the blue sky of humanity.

The red/yellow version of the flag dates from the 60s, when the Socialist Party (PSAN) split off from the National Front (which had formed to fight to the Francoist Dictatorship) and wanted a flag the represented their socialist ideals- so they changed the star to red.  (These days, per Wikipedia, both are used at the same time today not necessarily because of any socialist stirrings but simply because the red version looks pretty good and is in traditional Catalan colors.)

Chances for independence?  Any time soon, I'd say slim to none...  with both Scotland and Catalonia clamoring for independence, it's in the interest of both Madrid and London to veto EU entry of either new hypothetical country.  (A fact that the Spanish Prime Minister hinted at, throwing cold water on SNP claims of a 'seamless' transition to the EU.)  In the future?  It can't be ruled out- the Catalans share a common history and a common culture that means they would probably do just fine as a country. 

So, ladies and gentlemen, put your hands together for Catalonia!  And remember, until next time, keep your flags flying- FREAK or otherwise!

Nelson Mandela, 1918-2013

Nelson Mandela has died at the age of 95.

What can you say about someone like Nelson Mandela that hasn't been said already?  I've never read the his autobiography and I was a little too young to understand or remember his release from prison in 1990, but I do remember South Africa's first multi-racial, truly democratic elections in 1994.  I remember plenty- far too many, in fact, predictions of doom and destruction.  But Mandela and South Africa proved everybody wrong and that's probably one of the most remarkable things that I've ever witnessed in my lifetime.   South Africa remains free and democratic. That could be his greatest legacy of all.

I sort of went on a Mandela kick a couple of years ago after I caught one of ESPN's 30 For 30 documentaries called The 16th Man which chronicled South Africa's victory in the 1995 Rugby World Cup, which was cannily used by Mandela, whose support for the Springboks (viewed at the time as a symbol of prejudice and apartheid) helped rally the nation behind the time and helped to bridge many divides after Apartheid fell.  The story (perhaps a wee bit Hollywood-ized, I'll concede) fascinated me so I got my hands on what looked like a good biography of the man and read it cover to cover.

What an amazing life- I think NPR summed it up best:  'He was born into a country that labelled him a second-class citizen and died one of the world's most respected men.'

I've already seen snark on Twitter between lefties and righties (more across the Pond than here, but it's probably coming) about whether Mandela was a terrorist or not.  Personally, I find it distasteful turning a person's death into a pissing match instead of the celebration of life its supposed to be and if you're really going to harp on about who said what thirty years ago in the middle of the Cold War, then it's a little sad.  And given the fact that Mandela was thrown into prisoner for twenty seven years and ultimately invited his jailers to his inauguration, his message of the power of forgiveness risks being forgotten.

What will history ultimately say about Mandela?  I'll leave that up to history to decide, though I'll just say that you can probably count on one hand people whose moral character and courage in the face of oppression inspire more than just people in their own country but people around the world.  It was a privilege to live in a world where he did and he will be missed.

The General Weirdness of Liz Cheney's Senate Run

When I first heard that Liz Cheney was running for Senate in Wyoming, I shuddered a bit.  Having the spawn of our ex-Vice President Skeletor in the United States Senate or anywhere close to the reins of power brought a chill to the old oxipetal.  If, in France, one egg is un oeuf and according to that old 80s sitcom, Eight Is Enough, then one Cheney is more than enough.

The general weirdness of this decision quickly became apparent.  Was Liz Cheney running as a Democrat in deep red Wyoming?  No.  Instead, she was launching a primary challenge to entrenched Republican Senator Mike Enzi.  I think at last count (just after the dust had settled from her very public spat with her sister of her position on gay marriage) she was a whopping 52 points down to Enzi with Election Day creeping closer by the second.

I don't get it.  If Enzi was vulnerable or if there was an opening, I could see it making sense.  After all, the Cheney name is well known in Wyoming (Dad was the state's House Member for ten years before moving onto be Secretary of Defense and then assuming his position as Vice President Skeletor in Bush The Younger's administration) and she could probably rely on a hefty chunk of money from that. 

But that's not that case:  Enzi's a 16 year veteran of the United States Senate and the way the system is set up (one of the many drawbacks to our system) the incumbency advantage is huge!  So why do it?  What possible point could you be trying to make?  (And to top it all off, she only moved back to Wyoming in 2012.)

To be totally fair to her, she's got a decent resume with a few decent mid-level assistant deputy secretary-ships in the State Department, work on three Republican Presidential campaigns and a stint on Fox News.  So she's got plenty of experience in Washington that she can bring to the table.  But I just can't get away from what a crazy-ass, Charge of the Light Brigade type of a move this is.   I know the Cheney name is well known and carries weight in Wyoming (and to be sure, I asked Mother Kiwi when she was out here for Thanksgiving with the rest of the Kiwi Clan) but using it to underpin a primary challenge on a very, very safe Republican Senate Seat?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it'd be enough.  If you were a Kennedy from Massachusetts maybe- but that assumes you don't already have the Senate seat to begin with, you know?

I also think her gay marriage flap with her sister was a stupid move as well.  If you're 52 points down, you need something to convince the voters that you're the real deal.  Barring Enzi getting a head injury and switching parties, you've got to provide contrasts somehow.  And whether she meant it to or not, the now lamentably public family pissing match makes it look like she threw her sister under the bus to try and outflank Enzi on the right.  I would have come out swinging in the other direction and said yes, I'm in favor of marriage equality- if my sister has a right to marry so should everyone else.  In Wyoming, I'm damn sure people would have disagreed with her on that- but there's an outside chance that they would have respected the fact that she has the courage of her convictions a little more.

I keep thinking that I'm missing something here, some nuance or dirty little secret that will explain it all- but either way, it doesn't strike me as smart politics for the GOPers.  If you must eat your young and primary a sitting member of your own party, you need a better reason than 'oh, my Dad used to be Vice-President and I just sort of feel like it.'

Either way, it's one of the more fascinating stories of the 2014 election cycle.  (Speaking of which,  I feel the familiar itch starting:  might be time to start my usual biennial/quadrennial marathon of The West Wing.)

The Tao of Writing #1: Why No Map?

"A map would have been nice."

One week into the release of The Prisoner and The Assassin and that's probably the most common complaint I've heard.  Why no map?  The short answer is that I didn't want to put one in.  Aesthetically, no map I could produce in Google Maps or elsewhere would live up to what I consider to be the gold standard of cartography:  National Geographic.

Back in the day, The Cigar Parentals had a subscription to National Geographic and I was the one that would always gank the map (if there was one in there) out of the issue before anyone else got to read it*- the walls of my bedroom were covered with a variety of different, random maps and I would pour over the details of each and every one.  I used to imagine how cool it would be to work for the National Geographic Society and be the one of the cool people (because such people would automatically be cool) who got to make the maps.  Articles like this excite me.  I am almost physically unable to pick up a globe without examining it to see if it's out of date or not. 

So if I'm going to put a map in this book or another book I write, it's going to have to be awesome or it's not going in there.  Period.

The longer and more complicated answer is that I didn't want to tie my writing down to anything.  I wanted to avoid having to have a long, Star Wars like introduction or a list of characters at the beginning of the book.  Is it a risk to just drop the reader into a story and have them discover the world the characters live in for themselves?  Probably.  Some readers might like to know what they're getting into before they start reading while others might enjoy the slow unveiling of the world the characters are living in.  Above all when writing this, I was paralyzed by that one awful fear that people would read this and then give the feedback that I'm sure all writers love:  "I don't get it."

So I compromised.  I set the stage and then let the reader plunge in and discover for themselves.   You won't find specific years or dates in the book because there are people probably counting down until 2015 so they can ask "Where's my hoverboard?"   Dates tie you to things- I wanted to leave the reader with the nagging idea that the chain of events that lead to the future I'm describing in The Prisoner and The Assassin might be plausible and could happen at any time.

I like the idea of readers looking up some of these places on their own to find out that yes, they actually do exist.   I like the idea of readers drawing their own sense of geography about the world I wrote about.   In my experience, that usually happens anyway:  my childhood was dotted with several trips through the worlds of Anne McCaffery and David Eddings and depending on which parent was on reading duties that night (it tended to be Mother Cigar more than Father Cigar) the pronunciation would always change somehow. 

So no maps, ever?  I can't rule out putting in a map at some point-- if I feel the story demands it and/or the readers want it, I'd certainly consider it but again, it would have to be a really, really good map for me to get it in there.   The Prisoner and The Assassin has the luxury of being grounded in real-world geography as well.   You, the reader can find pretty much everything on a map if you really, really want too.   But even if you're looking at fantasy novels or other genre classics that come with a map- not all of them measure up to me either.   To me, a well-made map can make or break a book almost as much a cover can.  I spent more hours that I can count pouring over the maps of the worlds of David Eddings and Anne McCaffery (the ones drawn by Shelly Shapiro) and by the time I was in junior high, I could probably draw them all blindfolded in my sleep.  They were beautifully drawn and helped bring the reader into the worlds in the pages beyond better than any written prologue ever could.

So I'm open to the idea of a map but I know that my own high standards would mean that it would have to be an amazing one.

*Much to Father Cigar's delight, I was also known to grab Newsweek (back when it was good) and sneak off to read it- especially the end of the year Political Cartoon issue.  He was, however, quick to hide the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition when it showed up.

1: Publish My Novel

It's finally here!

I've been working on this one for awhile and it consumed most of my month last month (hence the lower productivity- for that I apologize) but I finally got it released on Kindle.   (Nook and hopefully print on demand paperback are coming soon, I promise!) I'll probably spend the next month or so polishing everything up and figuring out how everything works and after that, I'll start work on the sequel.

It feels amazing, it really does.  It's out there.  People are paying money for it- people are buying my book.   Now, I just have to figure out how to raise my marketing game to get it out to as many people as possible.   Look out for blog tours, a book signing and maybe even a release party if I can get around to it in the hustle and bustle of the holidays.   I had moments, early on when I thought my cover could have been better, where I wondered if anyone was actually going to like my book and then I realized, it didn't matter:  I like this book.  I believe in these characters and what I've written.  I just have to find a way to let as many people know as possible so they can see if they like it too.

It's going to be a crazy ride, but I'm looking forward to every minute of it.

In the meantime, if you want to buy my book for the low, low, price of $2.99 for your Kindle, check it out, here.  And please, feel free to leave me a review!

Thirty Days of Thanks, Part Two

Day 16: I'm thankful for cheese. There's nothing quite like a warm, freshly made loaf of bread and a nice selection of cheeses. Especially stilton. Could NOT be lactose intolerant, that's for sure.

Day 17:  I'm thankful for people who think things like this are a good idea.

Day 18: I'm thankful for family, both the regular and in-lawed variety.  Without the support of parents, siblings and in-laws I don't know where we'd be.

 

Day 19:  I'm thankful for caffeine.  When you can't get back to sleep and bank on that one final hour before Little Man wakes up at his usual time of 8:30 only to discover that non, today, he's going to wake up at 7:30, caffeine helps a lot.

 

Day 20:  I'm thankful for creativity.  God knows where I got my imagination from, but as I'm starting to format my book for publication, it's so amazing that I actually produced a real life, honest-to-goodness BOOK.  Of course, the next trick is getting people to read it, but for now, I'm thankful I had the story, the imagination and the creativity to get this thing to where it is right now.

Day 21: I'm thankful for coffee in all its varieties. Today would be a very, very long day without it.

Day 22: I'm thankful for hot water and a warm bed. When your pilot light threatens to go out again (happened a couple of days ago. I spent twenty minutes in the hallway in my underpants swearing very loudly at it and probably came close to flooding the house with gas- but I got it relit!) and you have to get up to come to work at the ass crack of dawn you tend to appreciate what you're leaving behind/don't have.

Day 23: Yes, I'm going to copy Ali Nicole and say I'm thankful for my nieces. It's been a joy to watch them grow these past years/months and I'm glad they're great cousins for Little Man and it's going to be fantastic to see them next week and see what crazy adventures they get up to in the years to come.

Day 24:  I'm thankful I learned to appreciate whiskey.  Grandad loved his whiskey, so did Dad and somewhere along the way, I picked it up as well.  Every new whiskey I taste takes me deeper into a delicious, delicious world of discovery.  I love it.

Day 25: I'm thankful I've been able to travel as much as I have.  Even here in the US, my parents were never shy about throwing us in a car every summer and embarking to points known and unknown.  Thanks to family back across the pond, I've seen a decent chunk of Europe as well.  That's awesome and hopefully someday the Missus and I will be able to do the same for our kids (and maybe add on a few destinations neither of us have seen along the way.)

Day 26: I'm thankful for the quiet moments walking back to the car after work.  It helps me unplug- something that I know I'm not always that good at, but I like to think I'm getting better at it.

Day 27: I'm thankful for the students being gone all week.  Work is really kind of relaxing when they're not around.

Day 28:  On Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for the company of friends and family and, of course, all the food.

Day 29:  On Black Friday, I'm thankful that I'm not working an Iowa-Nebraska game (happily in Lincoln this year) and even more thankful I'm not braving the hordes to shop.

Day 30: I'm thankful that this is the last day I have to do this!  There was some haterade out there on Facebook about the whole 30 Days of Thanks thing but this is the one Facebook meme/status thingy that I actually like.  Not because I feel the need to tell everyone about what I'm thankful for every year, but because I feel like while people, generally have things to be thankful for, you discover a lot more when you make yourself right them down somewhere.  And I think that's a good thing to do at least once a year.

This Week In Vexillology #57

This Week In Vexillology, we're sticking with a red and yellow theme by heading east out to the steppes and the Republic of Kyrgyzstan!

Adopted on March 3rd, 1992 for national and civil usage this flag is the first post-communist flag of Kyrgyzstan.  Not sure what exactly the delay was- as they had declared independence the year before in 1991 but it was one of the last Soviet republics to declare independence so maybe they just weren't ready to leave yet.

The red in the flag is for Manas The Noble, the national hero of Kyrgyzstan.  (Wikipedia has the 4-1-1 on him over here if you're interested.)  The forty rays of the sun stand for the forty tribes of the Kyrgyz nation, while in the center of the sun is a stylized yurt, the traditional home of nomadic people.  (If you want to know more about yurts or are potentially interested in buying your very own, I'd check out Pacific Yurts.)

While the flag is red and yellow, the Arms of Kyrgyzstan have an entirely different look:

Like Kazakhstan, the coat of arms does not have a shield but instead is more of a round emblem than anything else.  In the center is a white eagle with spread wings.  Behind this are the snow capped mountains of the Tien Shan and a radiant rising sun.   It's bordered by cotton and wheat, the major agricultural products of Kyrgyzstan while the name of the state, Kyrgyz Republic is in Cyrillic on the outside of the shield.

Either way, both flag and emblem are excellent.   So put your hands together and give it up for Kyrgyzstan!   And remember, until next time, keep your flags flying- FREAK or otherwise.

Food Adventures #34: Cider and Bourbon Braised Bacon

I should have gone to the meat locker.

(Rewinding a bit:  the brother-in-law found this awesome blog and as I was perusing it, I found this recipe.  A monthlong quest for the unsliced bacon (either belly or jowl) that the recipe called for ensued.)

It's not that I wasn't happy with what we ended up with.  As promised, the stuff melted in your mouth but the flavors, if they were there were way too subtle for me to notice.   It tasted great, but where was the cider?  Where was the bourbon?  Where was the intense bacon flavor?  It was then that I realized my mistake:  instead of regular, delicious, amazing looking pork belly:

I should have found some that was already cured.   As in actual, unsliced bacon.  Everyone keeps telling me that Bud's Meat Locker in Riverside is the place to go and next time, that's going to be my first stop.  But let's consider how promising this recipe looked after it was done cooking:

Doesn't that look amazing?  Doesn't that look like a glorious melding of cider, bourbon and bacon?  I think it does!  I don't get where things went awry.  Where did all the damn flavor go?  This is what we ended up with:

(If you were curious...  on the left we have latkes, because it's Hanukkah and quince and on the right, we find our bacon, post braising, after it was seared.)  The original recipe called for it to be served on beet chips with pureed parsnips and arugula but after consultation with Mother Cigar, we decided on going with a simple crostini with a white bean paste instead.  It worked great!  But overall, this recipe was a little confounding.  Texture wise, it delivered what it advertised, melt in the mouth goodness.  But flavor-wise, the 'intense bacon flavor' that the recipe described was somewhat lacking and I'm not entirely sure why. 

This one, I might have to take another run at.