Who says they’re cold-blooded?
In the February 2006 issue of Reptiles*, Jim Pether, owner/manager of a reptile park in the Canary Islands, shares his experiences breeding Komodo dragons (Komodos: A Breeding Project With Teeth).
His initial attempts were nearly disastrous:
“Then, one day when I was not at the park, a visitor ran and told my wife Christine that one dragon was attacking another. She ran down to find the male chewing the female’s leg off and bravely (or stupidly, depending on your view) jumped in and began beating him over the head with a broom.”
She manages to rescue the female by luring the male away with a dead rat. The vet saved the female’s leg. Not willing to press his luck, Pether sent the female to the Rotterdam Zoo.
He had one more female to try out.
“Nervous at first, the female ran away and hid in her burrow . . .”
Word gets around.
“but after a few days got used to the male’s presence. They were soon basking together.”
On to the action.
“Actual mating began when the male started tongue flicking the female’s cloacal area, presumably to test if she was ovulating and releasing pheromones. The male then raked her back with his long claws and tongue flicked her body. He then positioned his body parallel to hers and tongue-flicked her neck. Using a rear leg, he lifted her tail to mate with her.”
Was it good for you, too?
D.
*Available at pet stores near you!
No one-liners in today’s Dowd Op-Ed
Full text of today’s Maureen Dowd NYT Op-Ed, Vice Axes That 70s Show, is up at The Peking Duck (thanks, PD!)
She hasn’t given us much new material, I’m afraid; only one interesting bit of recent history:
As attorney general, John Ashcroft clamped down on the Freedom of Information Act. For two years, the Pentagon has been sitting on a request from The Times’s Jeff Gerth to cough up a secret 500-page document prepared by Halliburton on what to do with Iraq’s oil industry – a plan it wrote several months before the invasion of Iraq, and before it got a no-bid contract to implement the plan (and overbill the U.S.)
. . . and one bit of ancient history:
Consider this: when Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, supported by President Ford, pushed a plan to have the government help develop alternative sources of energy and reduce our dependence on oil and Saudi Arabia, guess who helped scotch it?
Oy. When are the leaders of our country going to get their heads out of their oil wells?
D.
Technorati tag: dowd
Synopsisysessss . . .
Most of you know about this already, but just in case you haven’t heard, Miss Snark is doing her synopsis crap-o-meter extravaganza this week. Check it out.
Wish I could have participated, but life here has not been very orderly.
D.
Serenity and the Dungeons & Dragons guide to character development
We watched Serenity last night. As usual, Jake walked in well after the movie had started and wanted to know what was happening. I found myself falling back on Dungeons & Dragons alignment terminology to explain the characters and their actions:
“That’s the captain of the Serenity and his crew. They’re all unlawful neutrals. That guy there? He’s an assassin for the Empire, or whatever they’re called. He’s lawful evil. If this movie runs true to form, before the movie is over the unlawful neutrals will be forced by circumstances to become unlawful goods . . .”
Or that’s what I would have said, if it weren’t for Jake saying, “Huh? What? I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Which is a shame, really, because the Dungeons & Dragons alignment scheme provides a fast and accurate means of typing a character. Moreover, for writers, it’s a convenient way to get a quick understanding of a newly created character.
For those of you not wise in the ways of D&D, here’s how it works. Alignment involves two variables, each of which have three possible values. A character can be lawful (law-abiding), neutral (self-serving), or chaotic (or ‘unlawful,’ actively seeking to overturn the social order). A character can also be good, neutral, or evil. By combining these parameters, you have nine possible character types.
Quick quiz: Han Solo is . . . ?
Getting old and paunchy, yes, but he’s also unlawful neutral at the beginning of Star Wars. Just like the crew of the Serenity, Han is forced by circumstances and a freeze-drier to become unlawful good.
Luke Skywalker is . . . ?
Unlawful good, but he’s really weak on the “unlawful” part. In a marginally not-bad Empire, you just know the little priss would be lawful good. The only reason Luke is unlawful is the fact that the law — the Empire — is so damned eeevil.
Back to character creation. This website provides a 36-question quiz to help you determine your character’s alignment. I took it with one of my main characters in mind, and came up with “Neutral,” which is just about how I think of him. Tui cares more about an abstract (the Truth, capital T and all) than his own family. He’s not evil, but neither is he good.
I haven’t tried taking the quiz with my rogue, Boron, in mind, but he’d better turn out unlawful neutral, or I don’t know my Boron.
Why is this a worthwhile exercise? Because two of the things that make a novel fun are characters who change, and characters in conflict. If you want your characters to change, you need to make sure the change isn’t too drastic.
When I analyze my NiP, most of the changes are plausibly close. Like Han Solo, Boron must become unlawful good. Tui stays doggedly neutral, but it takes him a mammoth effort to do so.
Tui’s wife Sul is my biggest problem child. In the rough draft, she was lawful evil all the way. When I wrote the novel, though, I became more and more fond of her. My villain became a tragic heroine. I asked her to change from lawful evil to unlawful good.
Well, as Maureen and my wife will tell you (Jona has been more forgiving), this proved to be too great a leap. I had major motivation problems. Sul’s transformation feels artificial, forced.
I was asking too much of her.
Now that I’m editing, I’m toning the evil way down, mostly by making Sul’s initial alliance with evil seem far more innocent and plausible. The reader should think, “Yes, in those circumstances, I might make a deal with the devil, too,” particularly since the “devil” seems eminently reasonable (although scary, just the same). Sul is, after all, a powerful female willing to fight beak-and-talon for her family’s best interest. Sul wouldn’t go to a male authority figure with her problems; no, she’d go to the most politically powerful female in the land.
Thus, instead of “lawful evil becomes unlawful good,” Sul’s transformation will be “lawful good to unlawful good” — which is a much more believable change.
How about conflict? As Star Wars and Serenity demonstrate, Lawful Evil vs. Unlawful Good is an entertaining pair-off. I think audiences today like a little ambiguity in their heroes and villains, and that’s what LE vs. UG provides. If you want Unlawful Evil vs. Lawful Good, you’ll have to mine the videostore shelves for some old Jimmy Stewart or John Wayne movies. (And not all of Wayne’s characters were Lawful Good — not by a long shot.)
As for Serenity, I guessed right. The captain has a change of heart, becomes Unlawful Good, and defeats the Lawful Evil forces of the star system. There, I ruined it for you. The movie had one other surprise — Hello Kitty videos are evil — but you knew that already.
D.
Tagline: The hardest trick is making them stay
. . . in the theater.
Guess that movie.
Give up? Here’s a clue. Picture John Cusack looking tired, depressed, and constipated. Need help?
I’ll give her toys
Mom, Dad, do you really want to know why I never dated Jewish girls? Because I never met one like Sarah Silverman, that’s why.
All I ever met in the B’nai B’rith Youth Organization were girls who couldn’t stop talking about how much their dads made or how much their homes were worth. A BBG girl’s idea of teen success: hearing that someone half the valley away said something nice about her, and she doesn’t even know me! They were the Typhoid Marys of niceness.
Whereas Sarah, bless her heart, is nasty and funny and oh my god I need another fix of Sarah . . .
Ah, that’s better.
My eternal thanks go out to YesButNoButYes for the next two links. Don’t mean to kvetch, but this has been a mighty depressing Hannukah. Not even our temple’s Hannukah party could perk me up. I can’t do parties without Karen. Cannot, cannot, cannot. I only get more depressed. Anyway, thank you, YBNBY, for giving me a much needed laugh.
On to the linkage. If you click on nothing else, check out Sarah’s video, Give the Jew Girl Toys. I used to be a big fan of Adam Sandler’s Hannukah Song, but Adam? Sorry, bro. That animated Hannukah movie you did, it sucked big ones. Sarah’s my home girl now.
After you’ve watched Sarah dish it to Santa, if you still can’t get enough of her, check out this interview in which Sarah plays with a dreidel and eats latkes. (Thank YesButNoButYes for this one, too.)
Excuse me. I need to go search the web for all things Sarah.
D.
Faith and politics on Christmas morning
Thanks to Blue Gal for pointing out GQ’s interview with Jimmy Carter (a partial transcript is available online). Quote from the beginning:
You call yourself a born-again evangelical Christian, but you draw the line at the word fundamentalist. Can you define those terms?I define fundamentalism as a group of invariably male leaders who consider themselves superior to other believers. The fundamentalists believe they have a special relationship with God. Therefore their beliefs are inherently correct, being those of God, and anyone who disagrees with them are first of all wrong, and second inferior, and in extreme cases even subhuman. Also, fundamentalists don’t relish any challenge to their positions. They believe any deviation from their own God-ordained truth is a derogation of their own responsibility. So compromise or negotiating with others, or considering the opinion of others that might be different, is a violation of their faith. It makes a great exhibition of rigidity and superiority and exclusion.
I’ve admired Jimmy Carter for a long, long time. Even though I don’t agree with him on every issue, I’ve always felt his heart was in the right place. Consistently, Carter’s actions have mirrored the teachings of his faith . . . unlike certain other politicians whose words and deed are diametrically opposed.
Harper’s Magazine is not exactly a fundamentalist-friendly place (see, for example, Jeff Sharlet’s Jesus Plus Nothing, a captivating look at the twisted version of Christianity which drives many of today’s politicians), so biblical literalists won’t be very happy with Erik Reece’s December 2005 article, Jesus without the Miracles: Jefferson’s Bible and the Gospel of Thomas. For a critique from a self-described ‘theological conservative,’ read this post at Distilled Eye.
I don’t intend to argue about the miraculous aspects of Jesus’ life and resurrection — you either believe in this as a matter of faith, or you don’t, and nothing I say will make a bit of difference. I would like to give you an outsider’s perspective. What I find most off-putting about modern American Christianity is its emphasis on the carrot-and-stick damnation/heaven, sin/salvation meme, the obsession with the miraculous aspects of Jesus’ life, and, most of all, the de-emphasis on Jesus’ ethical teachings*.
That’s where the Jeffersonian Bible comes in. Per Reece’s article, after Jefferson edited the New Testament, he was left with the following principles (quoting Reece):
- Be just; justice comes from virtue, which comes from the heart.
- Treat people the way we want them to treat us.
- Always work for peaceful resolutions, even to the point of returning violence with compassion.
- Consider valuable the things that have no material value.
- Do not judge others.
- Do not bear grudges.
- Be modest and unpretentious.
- Give out of true generosity, not because we expect to be repaid.
Although I don’t consider myself Christian, I try my best to embrace these principles. Well, I have a lot of trouble with Do not judge others, and the Do not bear grudges thing REALLY gives me fits, but still, I see the value in these teachings.
I’d like to point out that these principles, these values, are also (to the limit of my understanding) consistent with Talmudic Judaism. But, like many Christians, modern Jews have a problem living up to the ideals of their faith. That returning violence with compassion bit — well, Israel and the United States both have a wee problem with that one, don’t they?
I find it all very depressing. Ordinary people have a hard time living up to those principles, and their politicians do far worse. It’s painfully obvious the world would be a better place if this were not so. Can a politician practice these principles and survive?
Which brings me back to Jimmy Carter. In trying to resolve the Iranian hostage crisis, he used limited force — unsuccessfully — and avoided going to war, largely because his religious/ethical beliefs told him it would be wrong to do so. (I’m basing that statement on his recent interview with Jon Stewart, by the way.) And what did America do? They voted him out of office, first chance they got, and vilified him for years to come.
It busts my chops.
D.
*I’m sure many of you can give me examples to the contrary — congregations where the ethical precepts are placed first and foremost, individuals and organiziations who really do practice what they preach. No doubt these folks are doing great work, and I don’t mean to slight them. But the politically dominant breed of American Christian (the Bushes, Dobsons, Robertsons, and Falwells of this country) not only ignores these precepts, but actively subverts them.
Editing update and a question
This morning, I shuffled chapters and came up with a 20-chapter first-book-of-the-trilogy consisting of 104K words. A bit big for a first book, but it’s not a deal-breaker (like, um, a 304K-word novel).
Only one problem: the first book will end with one hell of a cliffhanger.
I don’t think this is a problem, but remember, I have NOVICE tattooed on my forehead. I can’t imagine a publisher buying the first book without buying the second and third, too. They’re similar in style, humor, and quality. If anything, the second two books will be better than the first.
So, here’s my thinking: if they buy the first, they’ll buy all three, and they’ll follow up on the first book’s publication with publication of the second and third in the coming year. Readers will know this, and they’ll forgive me for the cliffhanger.
Won’t they?
D.
Kudos and Kvetches: The 40-Year Old Virgin
The premise: unbelievable?
Not at all. We encounter many 40-year-old virgins in medicine. Oddly enough, all of them are doctors. Never forget that medical school selects for social misfits, and that no sane person voluntarily becomes a doctor. Given that, is it any wonder that many doctors are 40-year-old (and older) virgins?
Who is that lovely blonde, and what is the chance she might come visit your blog?
Glad you asked. That is the gorgeous and talented Elizabeth Banks, whom you may remember from Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, and Sea Biscuit. In The 40-Year-Old Virgin, she plays cleanliness-obsessed secondary love interest Beth. As for whether she might visit my blog, I see this as slightly more likely than me winning the Super Lotto.
I buy tickets twice a week.
Do you know how I know you’re gay?
No. How?
One photo:
‘Nuff said. Anyway, what did you like about the movie?
Well, Paul Rudd (pictured above) (the good-looking one, not the doofus with his shirt off) rocked. I thought that whole “Do you know how I know you’re gay?” banter penetrated some of our darkest male fears, opening a dialog on the existential desperation of self-absorbed heterosexual angst.
Just kidding. That stuff was funny as hell, though.
You know what else I liked? The fact that this gal,
actress Catherine Keener, Steve Carell’s main love interest, was born in 1960. (Catherine, you’re welcome here any time, too.) Honestly, aren’t you at least a little squicked out when Jack Nicholson (born 4/22/37) nuzzles up to Helen Hunt (born 6/15/63)?
Back to Ms. Keener. I love the fact that Judd Apatow cast an age-appropriate woman in this role. He even made her character a grandma. This is not a screenplay which shies away from the fact that the protagonists are middle-aged. In other words, this is a movie for us forty-somethings. Yay!
Aside from that, I really, really liked Ms. Keener’s performance. I understood Andy’s instant attraction to her. I even understood why he would prefer Catherine Keener to Elizabeth Banks. And, by the way, there’s more chemistry between Keener and Carell than in any movie romance I’ve seen for a long time.
So what are you kvetching about?
One thing, and one thing only. Same thing I touched on in my last Smart Bitches Day column. If you feel genre-bound to include a boy-loses-girl plot twist, please make it believable, okay? In Grosse Point Blank, the monkey wrench flows naturally from the plot. There’s a tiny bit of coincidence involved (Debi shows up at just the wrong time), but that’s forgivable, in my opinion.
In The 40-Year-Old Virgin, the argument which temporarily divides our protagonists seems forced. I felt like I was watching the writer jam a square peg into a round hole. If that wasn’t bad enough, Apatow felt compelled to put some weird-ass chase scene in there, with Andy chasing after Trish on his bicycle. Ugh!
Other than that, this movie gets an unqualified thumbs-up from both of my hands. I’ll have my eye out for other Apatow projects. (Just checked IMDB: Judd Apatow co-executive produced one of my all time favorite sit coms, The Larry Sanders Show. Show of hands: who remembers David Duchovny’s repeated appearances on that show? I do, I do!)
D.
P.S.: Michelle has blogged about The 40-Year-Old Virgin, too. Let’s have a 40-Year-Old Virgin party, everyone!