Tonight We're Gonna Party Like It's Blog Post Ninety-Nine!

Please DO NOT Sign This Petition

I feel almost filthy jumping on the bandwagon of speculation with regards to the end of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but something popped up in the news, and I consider it my duty to deliver whac-a-mole-style justice!

I speak of this petition, addressed to J.K. Rowling, to have her "resurrect" Harry - after a fashion - and write more adventures for him and his mates...regardless of the events of the supposedly final seventh book. The Citizen article which informed me of its existence provided worrying statistics, namely that some 66% of readers (total) desire more tales of the Boy Wizard's adventures after The Deathly Hallows is published. It revolts me that, when given a seven-book-long series detailing the adventures of a select few people in a vast and compelling world of magic which exists beneath the very noses of us Muggles, the majority of readers would rather have more of the same than deeper explorations into the depths of J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World! It's not surprising that this is the case, of course; people enjoy routine because it is comfortable, because it is easier than being perpetually on one's toes. Adapting to new characters means assimilating new information, means forming new emotional bonds, means using that lump of grayish stuff that occupies the skull - people HATE that.

I will concede that Harry Potter being the phenomenon it is has become more product than art, but I believe that what fans who sign this petition do not understand what they are doing. The Deathly Hallows will surely include the final showdown between Harry Potter and the Dark Lord Voldemort, and that means that ONE OR BOTH WILL DIE. Do these people think that it is a coincidence that J.K. has devoted many a page to discussions of how these two are intertwined? Harry can no more exist as a dramatic character without Voldemort than he can without Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Hagrid, or even the Dursleys! Without a central enemy, he has no motivating force, no perpetual shadow looming over his head, and no destiny. There could be other villains, but none would compare. Even if J.K. went as far as to create another wizard of terrifying evil, the lack of intertwined destinies would make this new malefactor a pale shadow next to The Dark Lord. If she chose to omit a hero-villain conflict for infighting, she would end up writing another sixth book, which to my mind was a jarring transition from angst-vs-evil to hormonal angst which felt forced and artificial. She has said it herself: Harry's story ENDS WITH THE SEVENTH BOOK. Dragging him out for another go-round would feel tired and limp, more so if he's already had to die.

What I WOULD like to see is a new series set somewhere else, because the particulars of the hidden world of magic intrigue me to no end. For example: How are spells made? How did the art of wizardry evolve? What were the circumstances of Hogwarts' founding? What is the daily life of the Minister for Magic like? What kind of dark wizard did Aurors apprehend before Death Eaters and the Dark Lord? See, THESE are good questions which DO NOT require the presence of Harry Potter to answer. I would sign a petition asking for more works in the same universe inhabited by Potter and Company, but I will NOT ask an author to go against her creative vision. Finally, I should point out that it is none other than a BOOK VENDOR which has created this petition. I trust it goes without saying what the true motive for this petition is?

PS: From an artistic point of view, a noble sacrifice seems befitting of Harry Potter. No, I DO NOT think he should be a Jesus figure, but that may be unavoidable, as he has always been something of a messiah to the Wizarding World. There, now you know what my theory is.

It Might Not Unfold Into a Giant Robot...

But my computer is still one of my favourite playthings, and so it is with great pride that I announce my most recent upgrades: A G5 laser gaming mouse, and not one, but TWO new [EDIT] Western Digital (gah, curse my random reflex-writing of "Maxtor" here) 500GB Hard Drives.

My financial situation being what it is, I didn't actually buy either of these; one is a substitute for the prize I am never going to get from the Ontario Reach for the Top people (I am suddenly reminded that I need to blog about both tournaments...), and the other is my Dad realizing that 120GB just doesn't cut it for data storage anymore. It makes these bittersweet upgrades, as much as my true connection to any computer should be through hands-on assembly, rather than purchase. If I'd been able to pay for either or both of these upgrades, I would have had a greater share of the computer ownership. Some people gauge their independence in terms of cars, I judge mine in terms of computers, it's as simple as that. When I buy every component of a new computer, I will feel just that much more sovereign. Moving out will help, too...but it's a great deal more expensive, and so naturally further down the line

I will need a job to accomplish either of these goals, of course, but with at LEAST 3 out of my next 4 weeks being spent on vacation, there seems scant hope or point to the acquisition thereof.

Ah, well. There's always the fall season...

Why do I get the feeling that come fall, I will be telling myself "there's always winter"?

-LOUD

Take the red pill, not the red meat

Food For Thought

S.M.O. Recently posted a plea for people to stop idling their cars on her blog. It may be 2 or 3 down on the page by the time you read this, but it's there. I would like to advocate another small change that almost anyone can make, which could vastly decrease one's environmental impact. Eat less meat. That is all. I will justify this from both moral, and practical standpoints.

It is not inhumane to kill and eat another creature, supposing one kills it to enjoy sustenance, and not sadism. Predators and prey are central to creating balance in an ecosystem, since long before humans evolved. It is true that animals experience pain, and that we may comprehend this suffering. Does that not make it immoral to knowingly cause an animal pain? At the very least, we should limit the amount of suffering inflicted upon the prey. The food of all life is either in whole or in part derived from other life. Unless all eating is made immoral, killing an animal to eat it is not wrong...unless one values life based upon complexity, and our traditional food animals are protected. I dismiss that as logic of convenience, as the acceptable definition varies by culture. You might not kill and eat a dog or cat, but there are people who do.

If eating meat is not wrong, per se, why should you eat less? Because animals are not killed in any humane fashion (insofar as such a thing can exist). They have been (and according to the news today, still are) fed the ground remnants of their own predecessors in their food! They are kept in enclosed conditions, and given far too many drugs. I have no problem with the use of medicine, but overuse of antibiotics is dangerous. You can free your mind from any delusions you have about the meat industry here.

Ah, yes, and the environmental impact. If you didn't take grade 11 biology (and I won't blame you if you haven't!) I'll sum it up like this: plants are about 10% efficient at transforming solar energy into stored (ie. food) energy. Animals are 10% efficient at converting that energy into stored energy. 10% = .1, and .1 x .1 = .01. When you buy meat, it contains only one one-hundredth of the energy required to produce it (even less, taking into account transportation and packaging costs). You, too, are nearly 10% efficient, so in a best-case scenario, eating meat will render one one-thousandth of the input energy available to your body. The added costs of meat are exacted upon the earth in the burning of rainforest for pastures, use of fresh water we can ill afford to spare, and use of grain we could eat direct, the use of electricity and gas in the farming industry, and what must be 10x the food required to feed a person directly. Humans are Omnivores, emphasis on the OMNI. We do not have to eat meat, certainly not as much as we do. If anyone reading this has ever looked down on someone for being a vegetarian, or for not eating meat daily and in abundance...fuck you. Go and get eaten by a bear, or lion, or tiger, if meat is so fucking good. Oh, right...it's only good when you aren't the one being eaten. If all of Canada, say, ate even one-tenth less meat than we do now, that would be something. Less cruelty, less pollution, and less greenhouse gases.

Sinter Klaas – Booty* in your boots!

Tonight is essentially Dutch Christmas, or as I like to call it “ha ha, I -get-some-presents-before- the-rest-of-you-with-winter-holidays-later-in-the-month eve”. On the thought of presents, I already said to give money to charity, instead of buying me swag this year. How's about we go a little farther with that one. To my circle of friends, and beyond: let's do some real giving this season, and I'm not talking about sex (although the Christmas/holiday season is an excellent time for that, too). No, I speak of pooling some cash, and buying a goat for a village in a country less developed than our own. Sure, it's great to get new games, hardware, all that junk...but we give those out on birthdays already. This might sound preachy, and it might sound less fun (I would counter the latter, because it would be pretty cool to say “I gave goats for Christmas/Hanukkah/etc. This year”, don't you think?)...but in the end, we would have made a real difference. If you are interested, take the time to leave a comment, MSN me, call me, email me...your choice. I want to get this organized ASAP. Oh, and we don't have to do goats...although I hear that's all they had last year. Specific decisions as to the nature of the gift will be made in due time.

*As in 'Loot', geniuses. As for the boots, the Dutch version involves wooden shoes, as opposed to our traditional stockings.