I like Star Wars Episode 9

I'm going to talk about the older stuff first, so I assume you have seen those, but just in case you haven't, I'll have spoilers in there about the old Star Wars stuff.  If you don't want to read my long intro, you should be able to scroll down and find the header for the Episode 9 review, which by the way, will have spoilers in it.

A quick version: I like Episode 9, and think you should see it if you like Star Wars.

---

I'll start out by doing a quick recap of my opinions on earlier Star Wars movies to give you an idea of whether you might agree and how to know if my thoughts on Episode 9 are useful to you.

Original Trilogy: I love these movies.  I acknowledge that there are flaws with them, but the movies are good enough that I still love them... even though Ewoks somehow managed to take on soldiers in armor and who had blasters.  The trench run isn't very logical in its setup, but it's one of the best scenes in all of Star Wars.  And the best scene in all of Star Wars is Luke and his father dueling at the end of Return of the Jedi.  I love the original trilogy.

Special Editions: I don't think they needed to add a bunch of stuff on the screens, but I like some of it.  The windows in Cloud City that they added were beautiful and made it seem more like a place people could live.  And the trench run got some added X-Wing dog-fighting that I liked.  But the idea that Greedo got a shot off is dumb and hurts the character arc of Han Solo (he's a shady guy willing to kill for convenience at the beginning and he gets to grow into a hero).  I prefer the original versions.

Prequels: These are truly awful.  I heard someone suggest once (https://redlettermedia.com/) that Episode 1 seems like we had reached the point where no one was willing to push back against Lucas when he spouted off a stupid idea.  In the originals, Han Solo was going to be some kind of green skinned alien (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Solo), and C3-P0 was going to sound like a shady car salesman (https://www.vulture.com/2015/12/anthony-daniels-c-3po-c-v-r.html).  Lucas was also going to use Wookiees in Return of the Jedi as his primitive species that helped the rebels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewok).  What he should have done was dropped his idea of a primitive species, and made it a slave labor force of Wookiees that the rebels could rescue and let them tear up the Empire... but I'm digressing.  The ewoks were the first bad idea Lucas sneaked through, but we know it wasn't the first bad idea he had.  He had a bunch of creative people involved in making the originals that apparently pushed back and saved us from lizard Han, and shyster C3-P0.  By the time the Prequels were made, no one pushed back and told Lucas that his ideas were dumb, and we ended up with poop jokes, political drama, and pod racing taking up half a movie.  We only get 9 of the story of Skywalker.  And the prequels sucked.  I'm pissed about this.

Episode 7 - The Force Awakens: I'm unhappy that they chose to copy episode 4.  I wrote a long post about my thoughts on this movie, https://highdex.blogspot.com/2016/05/my-thoughts-on-star-wars-episode-7.html, and there's a section of it listing the ways it's a copy that I noticed.  I would have preferred that they bring us back to the Skywalker story with the familiar faces, and introduced the new characters in relation to them, instead of making the characters I was interested in into supporting characters.  I like the new characters though.  I just would like to have gotten a better idea of what happened in 30 years, especially around why the Empire/First-Order is still the most powerful organization in the galaxy and why the Rebels/Resistance is still the low-resource under-dog.  Or maybe... don't have the bad guys still be in power and do something different.  Like have the galaxy have changed in 30 years after winning the war against the Empire.

Rogue One - A Star Wars Story: I think they did okay with making the characters engaging.  I remember being moved while watching it, but the movie wasn't very good.  If you're going to tell the story of how the rebels got the plans for the Death Star star, maybe don't set it up so that it breaks some stuff in Episode 4.  No reason for the rebels to analyze the plans to find a weakness if they got the part with the weakness out of the huge data bank and sent that specifically.  And why can Darth Vader move so well in Rogue One, but not in Episode 4?  Why didn't they take this chance to make a very cool spy movie?  Maybe help explain why the custodian of the most important data in the galaxy is the same person who is sent to pick up the old Jedi Master?  Eh... this one had good emotional engagement with decent characters, but it wasn't a good enough movie to overcome the things that stuck in my brain while watching it.

Episode 8 - The Last Jedi: The worst Star Wars I've ever encountered.  I hate it.  A lot.  I'd like to hit Rian Johnson (the creator) with a baseball bat.  Repeatedly.  I wrote a long essay about that one too.  Here. https://highdex.blogspot.com/2019/12/if-anything-i-hate-star-wars-episode-8.html

Solo - A Star Wars Story: I'm... hmm... kind of indifferent to this one.  It was okay.  It did a couple things I didn't need.  But it was a side story and didn't really screw with anything I knew about Han.  Eh.  Whatever.

Episode 9 - The Rise of Skywalker

As mentioned near the top, this section contains spoilers.  If you want to avoid those, the rest of this essay is not for you.

I'll start with the short list of things that caught my attention and tweaked me the wrong way a little... but I'm going to point out that while I consider these negatives, they aren't enough to make me dislike the movie.

• The Kiss: The kiss was... I guess it wasn't offensive, but I don't feel like it added anything.  I think it could have been good without it.  One of my favorite things about the movie Moana (I have kids that love it... don't judge me) is that Disney didn't try to force a romance into it.  The two main characters are a man and a woman, and they spend a lot of time together helping each other out, but Disney left out the romance and that's a fantastic thing.  Now, I don't think Episode 9 had much of a romance, but the kiss at the end wasn't really needed.  I didn't need to think that feelings went that way.  It could have been left out and we see the real friendship bond that was forged through all the struggle.
• Diad?:  I didn't need the mumbo-jumbo about the two Force users being some kind of special duo.  That wasn't really needed to explain anything and it didn't make the story better.
• A bit of cheese: I've only seen it once prior to writing this, so I'm having a hard time coming up a specific example (other than the next bullet point).  But I remember the feeling a few times in the movie where I thought they might have pushed the cheese factor a little high.
• specific cheese... C3-P0: They seem to have written the bit about C3-P0 not being able to tell them where the location is so that they could have a scene where he gets kind of emotional and the writers try to tug on the heart strings a little.  It felt a bit forced.  Remember it's not bad enough to make me dislike the movie... just... felt a little out of place.
• Emperor Palpatine: Okay, the big bad guy is once again, Palpatine.  Maybe it's better they didn't explain it.  But Palpatine is alive and he's been gathering a huge fleet of Star Destroyers that each have a planet busting gun on them.  I actually really like that we finally get to see something that's been happening over the last 30 years. But I'm a little iffy on bringing back Palpatine.  Did he not die in Episode 6?  Was he a clone that got the memories written in as a sort of backup for Palpatine?  How old is he supposed to be if not a clone?  Eh... it's... it's iffy.
• Final Fight... get on with it:  In the final fight where Rey, Kylo, and the Emperor are facing off, I think you go through too many ups and downs.  If you've seen it, maybe that makes sense to you.  I just can't think of a clearer way to describe it.
• Leia's Vision and Lightsaber: Maybe I need to hear the description again... but Leia giving her lightsaber to Luke to hang on to because she had a vision it would be needed to defeat her son or something like that... I... I don't know.  It was confusing when it was being explained, but it was also just a weird idea.  Why not just say that Leia had left the thing with him when Ben snapped because she didn't want it anymore or something simple?  Why not just have Luke hand her the extra lightsaber and say "you might need this... it's was Leia's a long time ago."?  Just felt weird.
• Damage Control: The movie had to do a lot of damage control to fix the story from Episode 8 before it could end the series.  So, it has scenes that seem to be direct responses to Episode 8.  I consider that unfortunate because episodes 7 and 8 should have been made with the level of fan appeal and Star Wars flavor that Episode 9 has... and then Episode 9 wouldn't have to do any of that extra work.

Alright... that's my list of negatives.  Maybe I'll think of more, but I think I really liked Episode 9.  I went into it with the belief that there was no way to recover from the disaster of Episode 8.  I was sitting at the beginning of the movie certain that I was going to hate it.  I paid attention, and figured that the hits would start coming and never stop.  But it didn't happen that way.

huh...

I was thinking that this would be the point in the review where I'd start listing the things I really enjoyed and made it feel like Star Wars again, but it doesn't feel right for me to do that.  I really liked everything I didn't mention as a negative.

It FELT like Star Wars again to me.  Maybe that's all I need to say.

So, I love the original trilogy (unmodified) and now I think I really like Episode 9.

If anything, I hate Star Wars Episode 8 more than ever

It's been about two years since the release of Star Wars Episode 8: The Last Jedi.  And I hate that movie so much that I hate Rian Johnson as human being, and if I ever meet him, there's a good chance I'll suffer severe apoplexy while I shout at him about how much I hate him for what he did to Star Wars.  And there's a small chance my ability to reason will disappear and I'll put that man in a hospital with the beating I'd bestow on him.

Subvert Expectations?  That's a worthy goal by itself?  Fuck you Rian Johnson.  I hope you die miserable, despondent, and alone... slowly and painfully.

Alright... I want to write some more about the movie itself.  But it's hard to figure out what else to write.  I've written a few other reviews of the movie including one where I tried really hard to keep my emotion out of it, to point out flaws that I think should sway everyone's opinion of the movie to the negative by a wide margin.  I feel like Episode 8 is Donald Trump, and people who like Episode 8 are Trump supporters who are just missing the huge list of horrifying things that Trump has done that should make everyone hate him.  I'm super confused that anyone likes Episode 8, and that anyone isn't mad at Rian Johnson for the steaming pile of offensive rotting shit that he handed us.  Yes... I'm equating all three things: Trump, Episode 8, and a steaming pile of offensive rotting shit.

And it hurts me a little that my friends who are also geeks and who I would have guessed would react like me defend the movie.  It's... It's really just incredibly confusing and disappointing.

Back to Episode 7...

I guess my next approach is going to be to try to explain my expectations... born of great love for the original trilogy.  And I'll have to back up to Episode 7 to explain where the expectations started falling apart.

When it was shared that we'd be getting the sequel episodes to the original trilogy, I was excited by the potential, but a little nervous because George Lucas had done so much damage of his own with the Special Editions and with the truly terrible prequels.  But Disney was behind the reigns for this right?  It was someone different that understood that you had to give the fans something they'd like if you want them to spend money on it.

And my hope for the new movie was that we'd get to see how the galaxy had been changing and what the people we care about had been up to.  I wanted to find out that the New Republic was forming and that Luke had been running the New Jedi Academy.  I was thinking about which things from the extended universe they might include in the new movie.  Would Mara Jade be introduced?  Would Thrawn have been a source of inspiration for a character that had spent the last 30 years building a fleet and army... finally ready to act against the New Republic?

I knew that the actors were a bit too old to be the center of attention of an action adventure movie, but it makes complete sense to me that you would use the familiar characters to introduce what's happening at the time of the movie.  And you could even include the same basic new characters... but... I wanted to know what's been happening in the last few decades and I wanted to have a good believable story for what my favorite characters had been up to.

And while I like the new characters, and even some of the writing for Episode 7, it didn't deliver anything I was hoping for.  What it gave us was a near carbon copy of Episode 4.  I wrote a long review about that too.  But you can probably figure out my assertion about it being a copy of Episode 4.  Starts on a desert planet where a Force sensitive young adult has been left behind.  They meet someone that doesn't want to be involved, but is anyway.  There's a droid carrying really important information that everyone wants.  There's an inherited lightsaber.  There's a really long list of details that are copies.  In a 9 episode series, one of the episodes shouldn't be a copy of another one.

But the copied aspects that are part of my disappointment with Episode 7 are that NOTHING HAS CHANGED (Episode 8 even makes a joke about how nothing has changed).  The evil military organization is still the most powerful organization in the galaxy.  The rebelling organization is still the small group that doesn't have enough resources to fight back directly.  They're still on the run for some reason.  Thirty freaking years.  What was the point of WINNING the war from the original trilogy?

So, what I hoped for was the re-introduction to the setting with the familiar characters that told the story of the Rise of the Thrawn or something like that.  We start to see that outer rim new republic systems are being raided.  Leia (still in government) sends a message to Luke to ask him to accompany the scout ships to get a better idea of what's happening.  And yes, I realize it's also a copy of Episode 4 to have Leia ask the aging Jedi Master to help, but I'm going to add one more piece that's a copy...

He asks Ben Solo to accompany him because he's getting too old for this.  And maybe Rey is Luke's daughter in this version, and he asks her to come along too... while asking Mara if she's okay keeping the academy going.  We see on the trip that Ben and Rey are pretty competitive cousins, but while Rey is still friendly, Ben has that genuine need to be better... he wants to be more powerful.

Leia, Han, and Chewbacca are roped into the scout mission too.  Leia is meant as a diplomatic representative to talk to the system governments about what the New Republic will do for them.  Han and Chewy protect Leia but also might have contacts that could be useful sources of information.  Luke and the young Jedi are there to provide any insights the Force can help with (Leia too... she should be a trained Jedi at this point).

Poe can be one of the scout pilots with his snazzy new model X-Wing that's black and might have some stealth capabilities.  And in some battle happening near the end where the good guys find out the bad guys exist... they can still run into Finn and he can have his same basic back story.

In the Thrawn trilogy of books, Thrawn finds a sort of crazy Jedi Master that lives on some backwater world and who fell to the dark side... ruling a city around him using fear and his power with the Force.  He convinces the crazy dark Jedi to work with him to take down the New Republic and in exchange, he offers the children of Leia as students to raise, mold, and train as he sees fit.  Maybe we could see a similar relationship in Episode 7 for the remnants of the Empire to be lead by.  Thrawn with his genius, and Snoke having gathered a few pupils to call the Knights of Ren.  Thrawn keeps manipulating Snoke, by letting him believe he is in charge, and subtly guiding Snoke to good strategic decisions... using him until he doesn't need him.  Snoke turns out to be a malformed clone of the Emperor that never got the complete memory transfer... so he's kind of unhinged, but still powerful.

In the climactic battle of Episode 7 we get some Knights of Ren fighting our Jedi (maybe Luke came up with a new name to go along with taking a path different from the Jedi... whatever).  Ben Solo gets to see what emotion and rage can give for power as he fights the Knights of Ren.  He may even give in a little and feel the ease of using anger in a fight.  He gets a taste of the Dark Side of the Force and he likes it.  This can be the set up for Ben betraying the good guys in Episode 8 or something.

I like this idea for Episode 7.  And while some of the writing was good in what we got, and the actors did good jobs with the characters, and the new characters are interesting... the difference between what we got and what we could have had if a person who truly loved the setting had written the story is heart-breaking.  We only get 9 episodes.  Numbers 1 through 3 are already awful.  And Episode 7 while not truly awful was just disappointing.  We could have had something wonderful.

And then we got Episode 8...

Episode 8... the atomic bomb going off.

This episode is so offensive to me that as far as the movies go, I only accept the original trilogy... before the special editions.  It completely destroyed any hope I had for Disney giving me something I would like.  And it reveled in it.  Rian Johnson is even quoted as saying he wanted to subvert expectations.  And... maybe... maybe I could have accepted not getting a fun action adventure story in line with the original trilogy if the content was good on its own.  But it's not.  It's a strange patchwork of crap, on a framework of a slow space chase that limited everyone to the ships they were on for almost the whole movie.

I'm going to start with why this movie is crap given that Episode 7 happened the way it did (as opposed to my idea for the movie).

Episode 7 wasn't good, but it did set up some characters and possible story hooks that COULD have turned into something interesting.  I get that a LOT of people are happy that Rey turned out to be unrelated to anyone and could be amazing without being a Skywalker.  But... the numbered episodes started out as the story of Anakin Skywalker, and focused in part on his children: Luke and Leia Skywalker.  The numbered episodes ARE THE STORY OF SKYWALKER.  And the story hook of Rey's origin might have been predictable as a Skywalker... but... predictable isn't inherently bad.  We know that the good guys are going to blow up the planet-destroying super-weapon at the end.  But the battles provide big tension and are good for emotional engagement in the story.  Being predictable doesn't make a story bad.

So, Episode 7 set up Rey's mysterious back story, and Episode 8 made a point of ignoring it.  Either Episode 7 just got worse because it made a big deal out of it, or Episode 8 is shitty for letting us get interested in something and then letting it just sort of pitter out into nothing.  Want to make a point that you don't have to be a Skywalker to be special?  Fine.  There's plenty of room for other characters that can even be Force sensitive and special... but the numbered movies are the story of Skywalker.  That's the story I signed up for.  Not some waste of time where the writers say, "look over here... this is interesting... oh... so interesting... wait... never mind."

Snoke and Knights of Ren are another example.  Snoke is killed in Episode 8, but he was a window into the past that I wanted to know about.  What happened in the last 30 years?  Who is Snoke?  Who are the Knights of Ren?  Are they a new order of dark side Force users?  How did they come about?  What's their philosophy?  Is Snoke just super pissed at Luke for ending the Emperor and Vader?  Maybe Snoke was another apprentice because the Emperor was sensing that Vader was faltering?  Who knows?  From the movies we get nothing.  And the movies should be able to stand together without extended universe stuff to explain it.  The original trilogy managed it just fine.  But Episodes 7 and 8 do not in my opinion.

And I haven't even gotten to most of the movie yet.  I've just mentioned how Rian Johnson took the story and character hooks from episode 7 and threw them in the trash.

Episode 8 essentially starts with a crank phone call.  Poe calls Hux and makes a crank phone call to stall for time.  Do I need to say more about that one?

This leads to to Poe disobeying Leia when she wanted the group to flee... presumably at the point where they still could have escaped in time, and Poe decides to ignore her and kill off a good chunk of his friends to destroy one ship.  This is super dumb.  Leia should have recalled all the other ships and let Poe decide if he wanted to continue his attack alone or follow orders and survive.

Or... the writers made Leia super stupid.  If the rebel ships couldn't get back to the ship in time for the fleet to flee, but they might have a shot at destroying it before they jump to hyperspace... then Poe was correct, and Leia's little lesson in leadership and the burden of risking people's lives is incorrect in that situation.

That opening battle was so dumb.  If you can jump a big ship into hyperspace just ahead of a fleet of huge enemy ships and destroy all of them and yourself in the process.  Why didn't they do that with a shuttle or something?  One person dies (or one droid) instead of what?  Forty people?  And why isn't that technology developed into a missile?  They've had hyperspace technology for THOUSANDS OF YEARS and the bizarre purple haired lady figures out it'll work and is the ONLY PERSON EVER TO DO THIS.  I HATE that Rian Johnson fucked this part up so badly.

Anyway... even if you exclude the introduction of physics that break the setting for everything that has happened before, the battle at the beginning could have been a race to destroy the big guns on that big ship.  A desperate battle just to hobble the attackers enough so you can escape.  You can even have Poe make a bad decision that gets people killed, and have Leia chide him for it later.

Whatever.

Oh... and the bad guys are incredibly stupid.  They get one BIG shot off at the base on the ground... that's been evacuated.  They have life sign sensors.  And they can see the ships that are about ready to flee.  If it takes that long to cycle through shots from that big gun... why is the first shot at an empty base that might have useful information left behind?  Why didn't they destroy the rebel threat they've been chasing for how long?  Plot Armor?  I understand that sometimes it has to be there... but this is just horrifyingly stupid.

Anyway...

The next step is the beginning of the worst backbone to a movie in any franchise I like.  They add TWO more concepts to the setting that don't exist anywhere else to shoe-horn in a slow chase through space.  The first concept they introduce is a new technology that can immediately where you went with a hyperspace jump.  It was unnecessary, especially considering the story could have been much better without the stupid slow chase.  But to make it even more tense they added the concept that the capital ships were low on fuel and could only make a couple more hyperspace jumps... which would be pointless because they can be tracked there.

Why is the rebellion the tiny band still and the empire is still easily in power?  Why didn't the "Resistance" just jump to the New Republic military headquarters that has massive space stations and a fleet of combat ready capital ships?  The bad guys know where they jumped to and if they follow, they're going to lose.

And in a setting where a flash light is large enough to hold a power source that can indefinitely power a lightsaber, and where a moon sized ship can fire a blast that destroys a world... how does a ship run out of fuel?  What a stupid thing to introduce in order to achieve the goal of creating a stupid backbone to the movie that ends up limiting you so severely that the most climactic moment Carrie Fisher gets before she dies is that her character is blown into space and survives.

God I hate this movie so much.

So, now we' stuck on the ships and Princess Leia who should be a fully trained Jedi with her own lightsaber has a few scenes in a room on a ship, gets hurt, misses half the movie, and is painfully under used.  Oh for no reason Ackbar dies in the stupid blown into space scene.  At least I think that's Admiral Ackbar.  Anyway... it's not just Leia.  Everyone is just sitting on the ships while they plod through space trying to keep out of reach of the bad guys plodding through space.

And why did Kylo and his wingmen have to go back to that bad guy fleet?  Because they couldn't be supported from that distance?  Kylo was winning.  He had destroyed the hangar bay with the only fighters.  They were transport ships without much in the way of weapons.  Kylo could have ended the movie and destroyed the resistance completely.  Oh well.

Whatever.

Rian Johnson realizes that his slow chase scene is limiting him, so he gives Finn and Rose a shuttle to go off on a little adventure of their own while their friends are going to die.  Wait... hyperdrive capable shuttle that the bad guys don't seem to care about, and we already know that the bad guys aren't bothering with life sensor usage... An idea is forming... how many people could they fit in that shuttle?  How many shuttles do they have?  Why don't those small shuttles at the end have hyperdrive?  Even without hyperdrive, they were stealth shuttles or something?  Or the empire is dumb enough to ignore sensors?  Whatever... even if the ferrying with the small shuttle that's ignored would take days, couldn't the little shuttles flee and just hang out in space for a couple days while the shuttle goes back and forth to move people?  Couldn't the shuttle fly some pilots to where there might be more shuttles and use those small shuttles to get people out of there?  If their big hope at the end is a radio call to everyone hoping for help, couldn't they have sent the shuttle somewhere with a big radio and send the message from there much earlier in the chase before running out of fuel or landing on a planet?  This movie is so incredibly stupid.  No part of it makes any sense at all.  Zero percent.

So, we get a stupid side story at a casino town where Rian Johnson makes a heavy handed point about industry not following morals.  I'm sighing and pausing in my typing because I'm trying to figure out what to say about that side story.  Here's a list...

• The side story is pointless for the movie
• The flimsy plan falls apart immediately and the improvising results in stupid failure that has us seeing BB-8 pilot an AT-ST
• There's a happy scene riding racing animals to freedom while trashing the town.  I can't care less about that in my Star Wars Action Adventure Escapist story.
• There's the heavy handed philosophical point about the morality in business
• The side story wastes our precious movie time... we only get 9 movies and the prequels were already garbage... complete utter garbage and we get Rose Tyler smiling and happy while her friends might be dead because she's riding race horses to freedom.  I hate this side story.

To top it off the good guys that went on that abysmal failure of a mission somehow make it to the resistance base before the first order gets there with their attack group, and luckily doesn't kill any of their friends as they crash through the closing door and we see people running for their lives.  God I hate Rian Johnson.

Let's back up a little to another side story about Rey, Luke, and Kylo... and some unimportant guy named Snoke who is thrown away.  The end of Episode 7 has Rey finding Luke and offering his lightsaber.  This is one of the other story hooks that Episode 7 set up and that Rian Johnson decides to explode with dynamite and put in his own stupid idea.  This could have turned into the explanation that Luke had come to this place because it was an old hideout Mara had used, and he hoped to find clues about where she might have taken their daughter to hide her from the Knights of Ren who attacked the Jedi Order and nearly wiped it out causing Mara to hide their daughter until the fighting was done but she never made it back.  So, Luke had been gone for so long desperately searching for his daughter and chance (or the Force or whatever) brought them together.

Rian didn't like the idea of sticking with the theme and feel of Star Wars.  He seemed to think it was up to him to change Star Wars fundamentally.  He wanted to subvert expectations, so he decided the optimistic hero that redeemed one of the most evil men in the galaxy, would be so fearful and pessimistic that he'd consider killing his nephew while the nephew slept.  Yeah... that works great in Star Wars!  For those not picking up on the sarcasm in the writing, that last comment was sarcasm.

I hate the character assassination of Luke Skywalker.  Hate it.  There are lots of ways Kylo Ren could have turned to the Dark Side without destroying one of the characters I actually cared about.  Rian Johnson figured it would be fun to have Luke be a bitter old man with a broken spirit.  That's flat out wrong.  I don't care if in the real world we all get disillusioned and jaded as we age.  Star Wars isn't reality.  It's an escape to lighthearted adventure that's specifically not the real world.

Luke Skywalker doesn't give up hope.

So, we have this stupid foundation for Rey not getting help from Luke and developing a friendship with Kylo Ren.  The story device of telling part of a story; then another; and then the final real version was kind of neat.  I liked that.  But the story was the terrible stupidity around Luke not acting like Luke.

And then Luke dies at the end because he's tired from using the Force.  Super dumb and pointless.  I know that the old characters can't be the focus by the end, but there was zero benefit to Luke dying at the end.

Alternate 8

With the real version of episode 7, episode 8 (in my opinion) should have used the two big story hooks of Rey's mystery and the mystery of the dark Force users (Snoke and the Knights of Ren).  Even if Rey wasn't Luke's daughter, Luke should have known who she was, and trained her.  The Knights of Ren should have been a thing, and we should have learned a little more about what happened in the last thirty years that resulted in the lack of change in the galaxy (why is the empire effectively still in power?  why is the rebellion still a thing?).  Leia and Luke should have reunited and gotten at least one scene where they got to fight together against bad guys and Rey and Finn watch open mouthed at the lightsaber use and Force use... before they snap to it and start helping.  And yes... the movie should end with the rebellion escaping... the bad guys need to be in the lead by the end of the middle of the trilogy... but it could have skipped making the escape the whole movie.

If my version of Episode 7 was what happened, we get to see the fall of Ben Solo and him becoming Kylo Ren.  We get to see how the legacy of Vader influences Kylo.

And "what could have been" is a big part of why I hate Episode 8 so much.  We got crap when we could have gotten wonder.  And if Disney was insistent on giving Rian Johnson a Star Wars movie, it shouldn't have been a numbered episode because he broke what the numbered episodes were about.

Episode 9?

Episode 9 is coming out this weekend, and Disney and Ryan Johnson have killed my hope that they'll produce good Star Wars content.  I have no hope that episode 9 will be good.  I was going to skip it in theaters but my family is intent on going and guilted me into going.  So, I guess Disney is getting more of my money.

My Current Thoughts on Gun Control

I agree that black market gun sales are likely the biggest contributor to major criminals having guns... so... gun control laws wouldn't likely have much effect on them.  But the argument that making gun control laws stricter is pointless because it won't have an effect is a false argument, though I can't remember the name for that kind of argument... maybe it fits into straw man.  Gun control laws being made stricter doesn't have to be aimed at those criminals.  What about all the mass shootings where people buy guns legally when they really shouldn't have been able to?  Can't we try to address those?  I'd like my kids to be able to go to school without having to do active shooter drills, and without having to wonder if they're going to get shot there.  Obviously, whatever we're doing now isn't working... so, something has to change.  I'm not okay with children dying in school.  Are you?

Mental Health Issues & Background Checks
Right now, people like James Holmes can legally buy firearms and commit mass murder like he did at the Aurora Colorado Shooting in 2012.  At age 11 he tried to commit suicide, and was working with a social worker who reported that he believed "Nail Ghosts" were fighting each other with firearms.  He was depressed and obsessed with killing for over a decade according to James himself.  This is not a well man.  But the information about his broken mind was not available to the background check system apparently, because he was legally able to buy his guns.  You know what?  Instead of me trying to provide an article's worth of information... this is an article about the laws around who can and cannot buy guns.

So, what I'm getting at is that while the existing laws have apparently already helped with preventing people who shouldn't have guns from buying them, the background check system and even the laws around mental health issues and firearms can be improved.  And when talking to a person who loudly speaks out against gun control laws... I don't understand why this would be a problem for them.  Unless they have reasons they shouldn't own guns.  The system is already in place... it just needs to be made better.  And sharing of information between states and law enforcement agencies in general is a great step to keep convicted felons from crossing state lines to buy guns.  This move would prevent zero people who should be allowed to own guns from buying them.  And it would definitely prevent more people who shouldn't own them from buying them from gun stores.  They'd have to go to much bigger lengths and might fail.

Another step we should take in my opinion is removing the stigma around mental health issues.  Right now if a person admits they see a therapist, psychologist, or Psychiatrist there is a stigma around it.  General reaction is to think less of the person.  But... if a person with a mental health problem is self-aware enough to ask for help... I applaud that person.  That person is impressive for recognizing that they need help.  And if the people around them help instead of deriding them for having a problem, the world would be a better place, and people like James Holmes might not end up killing a bunch of people.

To the end of fighting against the stigma: I'm a loving father (of boy/girl twins and a great step-son) and loving husband; I love my parents and siblings;  I love my friends; I'm a full-time employee who likes his co-workers and his boss and I pay my taxes; I take care of my two dogs and two cats and try to give them good lives;  I try to help friends and family when I can with whatever is needed (moving, watching pets during vacations, listening when they have troubles, and so on); I donate to charity when I can (having twin babies is expensive... not a lot of extra cash right now); and I care about the world.  I'm upset by the damage we're doing to our environment and upset that rich people are trying to claim fossil fuels are okay.  I'm upset by wealth inequality.  I'm upset by bigotry from misogyny to racism to the mistreatment of the LGBTQA community to the mistreatment of our veterans to the mistreatment of the poor.  I try really hard to self-reflect and to change my views when I get information that contradicts what I believed, and I try really hard to be a good person...

And I had to make use of a therapist for years.  For me it was stress related.  My major symptom was incapacitating headaches that happened roughly once a week, and lesser headaches almost all the time.  I had tried medications to see if they'd help, but they didn't.  I had gone to an Ear-Nose-and-Throat doctor to see if it was a persistent sinus infection or something, but it wasn't.  I had imaging done of my brain to see if I had cancer, but it wasn't that either.  I finally decided to try therapy... and that worked.  Having someone to talk to that wasn't part of my life... who would be unbiased... who could help me work through whatever was bothering me... who was being paid, but who at least seemed to care and possibly actually did care.  Great guy.  I really appreciate what he did for me.  And to continue being honest, the only reason I stopped going was because life got so crazy.  Having the twin babies turns out to be somewhat time consuming.  Other parents know what I mean.  And with all that time dedicated to responsibilities and no time to relax... I have more headaches again.  Not as bad as before... but I'm definitely getting more headaches again.  I'd like to have time to go back to therapy.

My mental health issue is definitely not as dangerous as James Holmes' issues are.  But if he had sought help before the shooting and got help, I would have been impressed to hear his story.  And at the same time, I would appreciate that he wouldn't be allowed to buy guns anymore.  Hopefully, he would have understood that he shouldn't have access to guns.


Mandatory Training, Licensing, and Registration
I'm not sure how easy this would be to implement, but I would expect that the NRA should LOVE this one.  The NRA already runs facilities all over the country that offer training... imagine if there was a government contract to run the required safety and skill training for gun ownership.  I accept that there's no way to force this based on existing gun ownership, and being grandfathered in is fine.  But, for new gun purchases, if you pass the background check, you get to take a gun safety and use course that the NRA gets to administer; you get your license; and the gun gets registered to you.  That makes the gun your responsibility legally, which is a good thing, because then everyone else is legally responsible for their guns too.  If the gun is used in the commission of a crime, there's a straight line back to the person who is legally responsible.  How much more careful do you think other people will be with their guns?  And if you are already careful, and don't sell your stuff to strangers... it doesn't affect you at all.

You might complain about the government then having a list of gun owners, and that if the government ever does become a fascist one that tries to take our guns away to prevent a rebellion... but... I'm going to tell you that that doesn't matter.  Imagine the rebellion.  Really.  You have your gun.  Who are you going to shoot?  The police aren't your enemy.  They're other citizens, and killing them would be a tragedy.  And if you shoot at them, they're going to shoot at you, and you dying for no reason other than stupidity is also a tragedy.  Are you going to shoot at soldiers if they're used on our soil to quell an uprising?  Seriously?  Do you think you stand a chance against military resources?  And do you think it would any less tragic?  And on top of that, do you think that even millions of people rising up and millions of people dying between our law enforcement agents, soldiers, rebel citizens, and innocent bystanders would solve the problem of the broken government?

A civil war here in the United States would be pointless and awful.  The next thing to consider is that police and soldiers are citizens.  If the president ordered them to take guns away from us, how many of them would be willing to follow those orders?  Didn't they sign up in part to protect us... even from domestic enemies?  The president would be the enemy.  And my hope is that the leadership in the military and law enforcement agencies would not listen.  Things would go to crap for a while... but a president willing to do fascist things is going to cause problems like that.

Anyway... the point is that if things get that bad, civilian firearms won't help.  So, being registered won't cause you a problem.  You can still own your guns and you can still shoot criminals that break into your home or that try to use deadly force on you.


Summary
Right now in the world, too many innocent people, including children at school, are dying because of gun violence.  The current gun laws, law enforcement information sharing, and health care system are not doing a good enough job.  There are things we can change that won't infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, and which will have a good effect on reducing gun violence.  And for our children, we should be yelling at our government to try these things instead of being afraid of the outlier politicians that want to do more drastic and ridiculous things.  I completely agree that taking guns away is not feasible or a worthy goal.  But something has to change.  I'm not willing to accept that our children might be shot and killed at school.  That's not okay.  We have to change things.


Side Note: Arming Teachers
This is a horrifyingly stupid idea.  I shouldn't need to say more than that, but there seem to be people who think it's a good idea.  So, my brief counter to them...

Teachers are not soldiers.  Many teachers are elderly.  All the teachers I know spend a lot of their time not at the school still doing their jobs, like correcting papers; talking to parents; providing after school help; improving their skills on their subjects (taking classes to keep up to date); and basically spending more time than I do on my full-time job doing their job.  So, if we change policy so that teachers should be armed, how do we convince the 70 year-old that they need to spend their money to buy a gun and ammunition (when they already spend their money for school supplies for our kids) as well as spending their time and money to learn to use a gun effectively?

And then how do we train those same teachers to deal with a combat situation?  Do you really think a teacher is supposed to be able to handle an active shooting situation like a police officer or soldier?  If you do, you're being ridiculous.  And finally, where the shooters at schools tend to be students or graduated students... we're talking about asking teachers to shoot at kids that they probably know pretty well.  That's awful.  It's not some enemy soldier on a battlefield that you've never met.  It's a kid that you possibly taught in class.  A teacher at a school that helps children for their life work is expected to point a gun at a student with a gun and pull the trigger with the expectation of taking a life.  I get that it's to protect other lives.  And it's the right logical choice to make in that scenario.  But there are soldiers in our military who have a hard time with shooting at anyone.  And you want teachers who signed up to help kids to be ready for something not all of our soldiers are ready for?

One final thing to think about is that it doesn't address the problem.  The problem is that kids willing to kill don't get help for their problem, and then get access to guns.  For the first part, parents who are already stretched thin in this day and age of two-income houses being a necessity need to pay more attention to their kids.  If something seems wrong... talk to your kid.  Offer help.  Do everything they can to help.  And make sure guns are safely stored, most likely in a safe, but there are quick release locks so that the gun can be kept for home defense without it being something the kid can accidentally use.  My dad also taught me about guns starting at age 6 or so.  If you're going to keep guns in the house, you should teach your kids about how dangerous it can be to handle them poorly or irresponsibly, and take them to the range so they understand them, and so it isn't a taboo that they are very curious about.

The part about people who need help getting guns might not be from their parents though, and that's where gun laws can improve to keeps guns out of their hands.  Alright... that's enough I think.  If you are vehemently against changes to gun laws, I beg you to reconsider for your children and grandchildren, and because what needs to be done isn't nearly as bad you seem to think it is.

The Use of Time Travel in Fiction

Time travel does seem to happen a fair amount in sci fi and fantasy fiction, and in my opinion, there are good uses and bad uses.  And I think I have to convey my thoughts on what makes them good or bad by the use of examples.  As a warning, there might be spoilers sprinkled here and there in the examples.  Let's start with a prime example...

Doctor Who

This show is fantastic, and is an example of a good use of time travel to tell a story.  I'm referring mostly to the reboot of Dr Who, and most specifically the seasons with the 9th, 10th, and 11th Doctors.  I'm not familiar enough with the originals (though the 4th Doctor is still stuck in my memory), and after the 11th Doctor, it lost its appeal for me a bit and I stopped watching.

So, obviously the show is built around time travel.  Doctor Who is a Time Lord, and his ship is a Time Machine.  In that setting, Time Travel is fundamental and it is used to tell stories in pretty much any time or location.  And it works.  They don't try to explain how it could work in physics, and they don't need to.  It's like the Force in Star Wars.  It's not trying to suggest that this is how it works in reality... just that setting.

Most important though, Doctor Who as a show doesn't use time travel to get around problems in a cheesy way.  It doesn't write itself into a corner and then fall back on the catch-all solution of time travel to fix a problem in their writing.  And that's the mistake I see in things like...

Avengers: Infinity War & Endgame

I'll start on this example by saying I really like the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).  My favorite on the list is the first Avengers movie: "Marvel's The Avengers".  I've seen all but "Spider-Man: Far From Home" at the time of writing this.  So, while I'm about to complain about Infinity War and Endgame, I like the movies.

Infinity War set up the problem, which was that Thanos succeeded.  He gathered all the stones, and ended half of all life.  And that's pretty much where the movie ended.  I was actually really excited because it was the Empire Strikes Back of the MCU.  The bad guys won, and the good guys are scrambling to pick up the pieces.  And I was especially excited to see how the good guys would come back and solve the enormous problem.  So, Endgame was a big exciting thing for me when it came out.  And it definitely delivered from the perspective of emotional engagement.

But, Endgame used time travel as the solution to the problem.  And I realized at that moment that letting Thanos snap his fingers and erase half of life in Infinity Was was the mistake.  They wrote themselves into a corner, and time travel was the only solution.  I know that the comics allow time travel.  I dislike it just as much there.  The X-Men movies are all messed up because of it too.  Anyway... with the setup of Infinity War, there was literally nothing Endgame could do that would be satisfying.  Thanos wielding infinite power and winning is the worst corner to paint yourself into.

If the writers did it on purpose, and expected to use time travel in Endgame, then I'm not impressed.  If the writers just couldn't come up with something better, then I'm disappointed.  I think they would have been better served if Infinity War was the story of Thanos collecting the first 5 stones, and Endgame should have been the defense of the 6th stone.  Infinity War still gets to be about the bad guys winning... Thanos got 5 of the stones and is really powerful.  The 6th stone gets defended in Endgame with every possible trick and hero while they try to figure out how to get the other 5 stones back away from Thanos.  At the end, Thanos asks why they fought so hard to stop him since he was just trying to help.  He's genuinely confused.  Right up until they kill him to stop him from trying again.

Another example of a good use of time travel is...

Star Trek Movies Reboot

When they decided to reboot the Star Trek movies, I think they actually did a good job.  The movie was really engaging and fun, and used a lot of the campy science-babble that doesn't make sense that is normal for Star Trek.  But the story is that a really pissed off Romulan comes back in time and changes something fundamental to the Star Trek universe right as the Kirk-Era story is beginning.  And I think they mention something about a branching of reality, so they can say that the older Trek still exists, but so does this new Trek.  And that's it for the time travel.  It's used as a way to explain the reboot as being part of the existing setting in a very neat way.  It's actually really impressive.  It's not used to solve a problem of the writing that they did already... It's used to support the setup of the story, and I approve of it.  But here's another example of bad use of time travel...

The Terminator Series of Movies

The Terminator movies have time travel as fundamental to the setting, like Doctor Who... but... the story is also based on the idea of cause and effect.  The concept of cause and effect is essential to the story because humans from the future try to come back in time to change things, so the robots don't ruin the world and wipe out most of humanity.  But this jumps right into paradox head first.

Time travel paradox is the idea of going back in time to change something, and if you succeed, the motivating event that caused you to go back in time isn't there anymore, so the second time around, you have no reason to go back in time to do that.  So, if the humans succeed in stopping the robots by going back in time, when that point in time occurs again, no one will be there with any reason to go back again.  They won't know to go back in time and change anything.  So, it's a paradox.  Can't happen.

While the Star Trek reboot used time travel to change something in the past, it did so to explain the reboot and offered the idea of a branch in reality.  The Terminator movies base their entire idea on going back to change the past and seem to ignore paradox entirely.

Looper

Another movie that focuses on the time travel, but they use it to tell a character story, and in the movie they specifically call out that you shouldn't focus on the time travel physics.  So, while there are paradox problems in Looper, they use it pretty well, and they do tell a pretty good character story.  So, this is an example of good use of time travel in my opinion.

Conclusion

I might come back and add more examples at some point, but for now, I think my opinion is clear or can be made clear.  If you use time travel in your fiction, it should serve the story without being a major hole in the setting like in Terminator.  It should also be avoided as a solution to a problem that exists because of bad writing prior to the need for a solution like in Avengers: Endgame.  Others may disagree, but that's my opinion.

My second post about Game of Thrones after the battle episode

Okay... well... spoilers will be here.  If you want to avoid spoilers... this blog post isn't for you.


========================


I finally saw episode 3 a couple days after it aired.  Well... I saw maybe 10% of it.  The creators decided to make it so dark that if you didn't have all other sources of light completely blacked out, you had zero chance of seeing what was going on.  I'm guessing they were going for making it dark so that it would convey what the characters are experiencing better... tension from not being able to see the scary monsters.  But... they over did it.  A lot.  Like: who thought this was a good idea?  It was so dark that in spending all my time squinting and straining my eyes, I didn't get engaged in the episode emotionally at all.  I spent all my time trying to figure out what the heck was going on.  There has to be a happy medium... visible so I can watch the show, and dark enough to have some mystery and build a little tension.

That's one problem.  The next problem is that the episode sucked.  For a lot of reasons.  Let's start into horrifically stupid choices...

Stupid Choice #1: Keeping Bran anywhere near Winterfell
So, they knew that the Night King was after Bran with great determination for some reason guessed at by Sam Tarley who suggested it might be because the Three-Eyed Raven has all the memories and killing him would be a way of destroying the history of the living.  Whatever.  Bran is still the Night King's target right?

What should they have done?  Days before the undead reached them, Bran should be have been whisked away (possibly by a dragon who could make the trip quickly, but horses would be fine) to a boat to head for one of the islands with a castle way out in the ocean.  This accomplishes two things.  First, if the Night King continues to Winterfell and wins, at least he doesn't get Bran, and when he goes after Bran, he can't take his army with him.  The only military asset he has that can go after Bran is the dragon... and as we've seen, they're not invincible.  Balista or even dragon glass bows and arrows with some strong castle walls would probably be enough to survive a ranged assault by the dragon and to kill it if it comes in close enough to tear down walls.  And if the Night King was motivated enough to go after Bran first... Winterfell is safe.  But, the Night King would be smarter to just finish up at Winterfell before going after Bran.

Stupid Choice #2: Keeping the non-combatants anywhere near Winterfell
Aren't there a bunch of castles further south with recently murdered leaders that likely could use an influx of leadership and workers?  Sansa could have lead those people.  Why would you hide in a crypt?  With no weapons?  I mean... why?

Just send the vulnerable people away.  They had that option.  The Night King would eventually go after them if Winterfell fell, but there's a chance of survival by not being in the stupid crypt.  It also removes the worry that the fighters at Winterfell might have had around protecting the crypt.  Once the keep is breached, they can leave and fight on whatever ground is most convenient... or try to run away... or whatever.  With the civilians there, the fighters were stuck more than they had to be.

Stupid Choice #3: Sending the cavalry into the darkness to attack the undead army.
What the hell kind of flabbergasting stupidity do you have to have to send a huge chunk of your fighters to die?  This whole battle is being fought to help as many people survive as possible.  You know the undead army is enormous and your horse riders aren't even close to the undead numbers.  And you can't see the enemy... you're sending your people into the unknown... no intel beyond "there are way more undead than horse riders".  I'm appalled at this one.  Just dumb.

Those horse riders should have been split up.  Some to go with the refugees further south, and very few held in reserve off to the side of the battle and hidden from view if possible.  After the huge number of traps and the huge amount of fire from the good guy dragons, and after the majority of the undead army is gone or in the castle, the horse riders sweep in and start demolishing undead from behind... and maybe have a shot at the leadership.

Stupid Choice #4: Crappy Traps
The fire wall was the most effective obstacle they had.  Great.  But it didn't work for long.  During the time it was keeping the undead from advancing would have been the perfect time for the dragons to make their primary appearance.  Undead charge the castle and are subject to the large number of traps.  Those who make it to the castle are stopped by the fire wall.  The dragons slaughter almost the whole undead army that's just standing there.  Then the dragons likely have to deal with their undead sibling... but if that was the opening move... hurray!

I feel like the good guys had time enough to do more with things that would disable an undead.  Heck... a ton of bear traps all over the field on the way in.  The undead become much less mobile.

Something.

Stupid Choice #5: Not setting up defense points inside the keep, and being determined to hold the keep
Yeah... protecting the walls is important... but... the bad guys have a dragon too, and castle walls won't last forever... especially if the undead giants are there to break down the main gate.  Once inside, you want fortifications that allow archers to fire freely while behind a row of spear wielders who are themselves behind a low stone wall so attackers have to get over it.  Have the best melee fighters prepared in the choke points in hallways once you give up the wall, and have more fighters behind them to help if someone gets injured.

And... have an escape route.  Since you were smart enough to send away the civilians and Bran, you don't actually have to hold on to the keep at all.  Your goal is to destroy as many of the undead as possible with as few of your own people dying as possible.  If things are going that badly, you have all the defense points have a way to retreat inward until everyone is at the escape tunnel.  The undead army is choked into the hallways facing this one front and they can't get to the huge number of survivors escaping.  Make it possible to close and bar a door to slow them down more.  Have horses (as many as possible) ready at the end of the escape tunnel and as well hidden as possible.

Stupid Choice #6: Ending the big threat of the entire series in one episode that isn't the last episode
The writers messed up fairly significantly.  The Night King has been this slow build menace for the entire series.  He IS the climactic bad guy of the series.  Or, he's supposed to be.  With Arya killing him and all his undead just automatically falling... what are we left with?  The battle against Cersei?  Really?  I mean... she's a pretty good character, but... what?  What are we going to do for the rest of the episodes?  The existential threat is gone.

What should have happened is that Bran was removed to that relatively safe island where the undead army couldn't get to him.  Then the Night King has a longer term goal.  He never gets involved in the fight at Winterfell... it's just another stop on the way, and with my idea of escape options, the undead army can win without killing most of the good guys.  The good guys run away with new fear about how crazy the undead army is.

With Winterfell fallen, one of Cersei's allies is next (the bank people maybe), and the undead army slaughters the unprepared people... and Cersei no longer has her source of money.  It's her first wake up call that she's going to have to get involved.  And the undead army grows with all the dead from that banking place.

Meanwhile the good guys are trying to figure out what to do.  From the first battle, and recounts from others, the Night King hangs back for the most part and doesn't have nearly as many of his undead near him.  They come up with a plan to attack him when he has launched another battle against someone else.  They try it but find one of the lieutenants instead.  They kill him, and the army he was commanding loses potency and the people being attacked manage to win.

The Night King realizes they figured out the biggest weakness to the undead armies, and is more careful.  The battles happening all over the place now have better guards for the lieutenants.

King's Landing gets hit in an episode near the end.  Cersei flees and the Iron Throne is empty and in ruins.  Huge numbers of people have died.  Cersei runs into the good guys.  You have a moment for character development and she offers help, knowing the world is ending.

The Night King finally sets his sights on Bran.  The final episode shows that the Night King has been busy gathering ships, and he manages to get a decent sized army to the island.  The final stand is there.  The Night King is foiled a few times, but he also manages to kill some major characters.  His dragon is defeated.  And then when he is finally face to face with Bran, the real final fight occurs.  It takes more than one stab to kill the Night King, and it takes real effort to bring him down.

When the fight is over, and the Night King is dead, his minions lose some power and the tide of battle shifts to the good guys winning.  At the end, you have the major players in the game of thrones all in one room.  None of them knows what will happen, but they all have an agenda.  Cersei and Daenerys most of all.

The series ends with a conversation between liked characters that survived about how the Iron Throne is gone and each kingdom is on its own.  Life will continue.  We'll get a little info about each character that wraps things up.  And there won't be one ruler on the Iron Throne at the end.  The whole journey was about how chaotic it all is.  And we get to end the series knowing the big scary bad guy got defeated, but that everyone else would pretty much go back to being who they were... fighting, scheming, and so on.

My first essay about Game of Thrones... now that it's ending

I kind of dislike Game of Thrones, but I also can't stop watching it.  George R. R. Martin created something interesting, but he's also a terrible jerk that should be punched in the face.

There's a good chance for spoilers at this point.  If you haven't seen the show and are planning to watch it, I recommend not reading further.  If you haven't seen the show and are looking for something to help you decide whether to watch it... well... go ahead and read it, but some of the impressively written surprises might be ruined.  If you've seen the show and are curious about my opinions after reading that intro paragraph... hopefully it'll be entertaining...

My reason for writing this essay is that we're just a couple episodes into the final season, and how it ends is on a lot of people's minds including mine.  I think I have a variation of Stockholm Syndrome... I'm an abused prisoner of the show and I have grown to want to be here.

The setting itself is really interesting.  Being a huge geek (I play Table Top Role Playing Games; Have read a fair portion of the various D&D novels; Have read the Lord of the Rings books except the Silmarilian, and in general the fantasy genre appeals to me), the medieval setting with some high fantasy elements appeals to me.  You have the scary specter of the undead; the dragons; the three-eyed raven; some amount of magic; Dire Wolves; flaming swords; and the faceless ones.  There's a lot to drawn from.

Then the characters start appearing and you have the easy to hate Lannisters, the easy to support Starks, and a bunch of families with their own flavor and like-ability.  And this is where GRRM starts to upset me.  He seems to specifically choose to kill off the characters I start to become interested in as soon as they show any sign of being genuinely good or heroic.  The characters I want to see more of just get killed off.  It happens a lot through the series.  You can almost set your watch by it.  We get the occasional table scraps of King Joffrey getting painfully murdered and Ramsay Bolton getting what he deserved too.  But we're talking about a couple happy blips in dozens of hours of story telling.

And for 7 seasons I've hated GRRM for being such an intolerable jerk, but I want to see what happens next... so he's doing something right.  But in thinking about Game of Thrones, I have this unhappy pit in my chest... the memory of being more sad and upset than I was happy and entertained.  The experience has not been a good one.

Now we face the 8th season.  The first two episodes have been... hmm... dull?  I guess it's setting everything up, but the season is supposed to be what?  Eight episodes long?  They're running out of time.  So, what I've seen so far of season 8 might be necessary, but it's not super engaging yet.

What will happen in the last few episodes?  Will we have a satisfying ending?  If experience is a reliable judge, then no... we won't have a satisfying ending.  The characters I like will all die or suffer some horrible fate.  Whoever it might be, the worst person possible will end up taking the Iron Throne.  All the dragons will die.  The wolves all died but one (and that one will probably die too), and I hated that.  I love dragons, but they're definitely going to die because they did it to the wolves and because GRRM is a piece of crap.

Nothing good will happen.  They'll end the series basically where it began where most people's lives are exercises in bearing with hardship and suffering, and the people in power are selfish pieces of crap that bicker and scheme for their own wants before the needs of people.  No progress will have been made.  And this long story will be a huge waste of time.

But a friend reminded me that GRRM doesn't control the show (just the books).  Maybe the people writing the show right now will do something intended to be more satisfying?  Well... there's definitely a decent chance the current writers will try to do something better for us.  But, GRRM's setup is bleak and full of bile.  Turning it around suddenly might make for a happier ending, but it'll be forced if they break from the pattern.  It won't fit.  It'll feel fake.

My conclusion is that there's literally no way this series can end in a satisfying way.  GRRM's way is just crap.  And the "happy ending" way doesn't fit the foundation.  It's a no win situation.

But I'm still going to be glued to the TV to watch it.

Contemplation: Finding Time and People to Share With

This blog post is likely to meander.  And it will likely have a fair amount of complaining in it around being an adult with responsibility.  But it will also be at least somewhat about playing Table Top Role Playing Games (TTRPGs), because that's the thing I want to do more of that I can't.  Specifically GURPS.

I'm going to estimate 6 years ago in 2013 as being the last time I was single.  During my single years I was pretty miserable, socially awkward, and mentally unhealthy.  It's not a situation I want to go back to at all.  I love my wife, and I love my kids.  I'm much better off, and much happier... even if I have to changed a poopy diaper pretty frequently.

I mention my time being single though because it had something that married adult life didn't: much less responsibility.  I still had to work, but chores didn't have to be done if I didn't want to do them.  I could put off laundry, dishes, trash, vacuuming... I didn't have to do any of that.  Instead, I could binge watch shows and movies; play World of Warcraft or whatever games I wanted; buy tons of geek crap because I had money to spare; and make plans with friends whenever I wanted.

Now... I feel like I'm actually a grown-up now.  I have my wife, my step-son, two dogs, two cats, and two babies (almost a year old now).  I have to let the dogs out to go to the bathroom, clean the litter boxes, feed them all, and I generally do the vacuuming which is basically an exercise in finding all the places the dog hair has congregated.  I try to do dishes... but my wife does them too.  I make breakfast for my wife and I every morning.  Now we also have a pellet stove which takes an incredible amount of tending.  I help with the babies, changing diapers, feeding them, and playing with them (which is a wonderful experience, but is time consuming).  I have my full time job too of course.

Beyond time constraints, money is way gone.  Babies (especially twins) cost a lot.  Home repair costs a lot (we had retaining walls fixed, and the most recent thing is having our windows replaced to help with energy loss which is costing us over $1000 a month to keep the house warm).  The mortgage on the bigger house is bigger than my condo.  And Christmas has become this crippling thing where you have to spend money on way too many people.

We're not keeping up very well with chores.  And that drives my wife crazy.  She can't relax when there's stuff that needs doing.  I'll sit down in moments where I think I have a little time to decompress, and then my wife will start doing a chore, and I obviously can't just sit there.  I have to get up and be productive too.  So, we'll get through some chores and then there isn't time left.  I didn't get to decompress.  At all.

Weekends you ask?  That's prime-time for chores, and plans for time with family.  Nice relaxing Saturday?  Nope.  Never.  Vacuuming has to get done, some project or another has to get done, and any of the 47 family in the area needs to see the babies, but not as a means for us to go do something fun... as a means for us get chores done because trying to do chores while watching babies is impossible... or we spend time with family just sitting there talking or playing cards or whatever, and that's nice enough, but we're still watching babies, and we're not getting chores done then, and it's still not a restful thing for me.

There's no end to it.  It just cycles constantly.  I'm running on empty, and I don't know when the fuel will run out or what it will mean when it does.

Getting more fuel I think would work best if I could do a hobby.  I love imagination.  And I love sharing my imagination.  I write a little in terms of fiction, but haven't completed a novel yet.  The thing I write most often is setting information for use with a GURPS campaign.  I love GURPS, and I love playing a campaign where I have players who are interested in playing.  I love when the game play feels like a novel we're writing together.  I love when the characters have solid back stories and act in ways that I wouldn't have considered had I written the story on my own.  I love when players have emotional experiences while playing.  I love when players talk about the game even when we're not actively playing because it was so interesting to them... like it's a good TV show that has viewers wanting more.

But I don't get to do that.  I can't steal moments to work on settings... but... my GURPS group hasn't played in a long while.  It fell apart for a number of reasons, including that my wife and I had no time.

I do play in a Pathfinder group with some friends.  And that's... well... it's nice to play with friends, but Pathfinder is designed to be played with published modules... either tiny episodic things where the story doesn't really matter, and the character-depth I like doesn't matter at all... or long adventure paths with story that doesn't really matter, and the character-depth I like doesn't matter at all.  The rule set could work with a home grown campaign setting, and the GM could write their own stuff just fine... but that's not what we do.  So, I'm not really invested in the characters or story, and I don't feel compelled to talk about it with the other players between sessions... it's not a good enough TV show.

We meet once every two weeks on Thursdays.  It's nice to get out of the house to play, but like I said... it doesn't really scratch the itch.  The role it does pay for me, is to make sure I see some friends regularly.  But for role playing game fun, it would help if it wasn't essentially a video game on paper.  I dislike class/level systems in general, and the d20 dice mechanic sucks in my opinion.

What I want is my depth of story back, and to use a system I like.  What I want is my Saturday evening GURPS sessions back.  And I want players who invest emotionally in their characters.  I want time to spend working on my settings, and I want to share a story that gets modified in ways I wouldn't have predicted by my wonderful clever players who have really cool ideas of their own.

It helps me to sink into imagination like that.  But I don't get to have that right now.  Not only do I not have time, but I don't have enough players that want to get it going again.

And two of the players are very new to role playing.  Two more are somewhat new.  And one is an expert that loves this as much as I do.  The expert is great, though we butt heads now and then.  The two somewhat new players are good, and get into it a bit... but I think we still have a threshold to cross where they feel comfortable enough with the rules that they then feel comfortable with the choices they can make in the game.

The two completely new players are really nice people, and they have been trying, but I feel like either I'm failing to... well... as I think about this... I guess the highest probability is that I'm failing.  I've been playing GURPS and TTRPGs in general since December of 1989, meaning that as of the writing of this essay, I have a bit over 29 years of TTRPG experience.  And I'm probably considering things obvious that aren't actually obvious to new players.  So, it's probably mainly my fault, but the new players aren't picking things up quickly, and seem to be making choices that result in purposely ridiculous characters for the sake of humor instead of taking things a little more seriously.

It's daunting to me.  My wife told me I should run some Pathfinder for them to help them learn what they're doing, but my heart just sank.  I started buying some modules, and trying to prep for it, but I couldn't follow through.  I just don't want to run Pathfinder.  It's not a system I like, and I hate that it would be pre-made shallow stories that don't care what the background of the characters is.  My wife was trying to be helpful.  But I couldn't clearly explain what was happening in my head.

Maybe if I set up an introduction campaign in GURPS.  Instead of complicated widespread sci fi with technology that not everyone knows and too many choices... I make a setting that's more fantasy.  Players won't have as much setting knowledge to obtain and the rules they need to learn can be drastically trimmed.  But it would still be a primer for GURPS instead of PF/D&D/d20-Fantasy.

I think my wife would support it.  And maybe I can get buy-in from players.  And maybe I can help bring new players in, instead of expecting too much.  Okay... I've written enough.  I don't know that this post will be of interest to anyone at all, but I'm posting it anyway.  Kind of a journal entry, and it helps me to have written it.

Politics: Gun Law Change for Gun Rights Supporters

I am a supporter of citizen rights to keep an bear arms.  I grew up in a military family and learned to shoot starting around age 6.  I enjoy target shooting quite a bit, and I tend to prefer pistols over rifles.  I know there are a lot of modern pistols with some pretty nice improvements, but my favorite pistol is still a simple Beretta 92 FS.  Going shooting with friends is a great way to relax and have fun.  I just want to be clear that I enjoy firearms as a hobby, and support firearm rights in general.

But I also think that gun laws need to change some.  And I'm writing this essay because I feel like staunch supporters of gun rights are assuming much more extreme things than what most people who want change actually want to do.  I feel like a staunch gun rights supporter will assume when I wrote "gun laws need to change" that I mean we need to ban guns and take them away from law-abiding citizens.  Or some equally extreme change that is way beyond what I think should happen.

A staunch gun rights supporter might also be thinking: "why change anything?  It works fine right now!".  And that's kind of a straw man argument I just set up, but I think the point I'm trying to make will stand on its own.  I think we need some change because I'm not okay with my kids having to go to school worrying about being shot.  I'm not okay with anyone's kids having to worrying about dying at school.  We're a FIRST WORLD COUNTRY right?  Aren't we supposed to not have incidents where children die because other kids took a gun to school and shot people?  It's not limited to kids of course... adults killing other adults is awful too.  And while I agree that changing gun laws doesn't address people who are emotionally broken and who have no criminal record deciding and planning to kill people... the idea that gun laws work fine is incorrect.  Something we're doing is not working.  Too many people die by being shot including children.  And I'm not okay with that.

I'm hoping at this point that you're open to hearing some thoughts on changes that don't include taking anyone's legally owned guns away.  I'm not looking to ban all guns.  What I want is for us to change something.  What do we change?

The first thing we need to do is research.  We need to understand the problem better.  If we make big changes without information, we're shooting in the dark, and the chance of success is very low.  Why haven't we already done research on gun violence?  It seems like a really reasonable thing to do right?  Get information about a problem to help you address it?  Unfortunately, the last time it was tried, it was lead by a man who was biased against guns and who may have fudged results to get what he wants.  This was horrendously stupid of him because it gave the NRA a leg to stand on to prevent all research.  And that's what they did... they pushed legislation to make further research extremely difficult...

How the NRA Worked to Stifle Gun Violence Research
Why Gun Violence Research Has Been Shut Down for 20 Years

So, we ended up in a situation where the NRA acted as a blockade for information instead of eagerly funding research.  Imagine how different things could be if the NRA had chosen to act responsibly for the safety of people and for the protection of gun rights.  In an argument, reality and fact are the most important ways to win.  The NRA could have pushed to get good information so they could fill the role of teacher about gun responsibility and safety.  But instead, they chose to use money to end the argument as though they were afraid of facts.  If keeping the status quo really is the best option, the facts will support that.  But the NRA doesn't even seem to believe its own stance... because they aren't willing to do any research.  They're not interested in doing what's right... they're assuming the other side wants to take their stuff and it doesn't matter what else is involved... no one is taking their guns (which again... isn't what the majority of gun law reform folks want).  The NRA is being an intractable old man that won't change their minds even if changing their minds would be a good thing.  I think I'm a lifetime member of the NRA because my grandparents bought me the membership... but the NRA stopped representing me a long time ago.  I dislike the NRA because they're not being a good influence on society anymore.  They're just being stubborn dangerous ignorant jerks.

What the NRA should do is spend their money to broaden their teaching and safety programs to encourage more people to go to local shooting ranges and try out target shooting while learning about gun safety and responsibility.  Stop using money to prevent progress.

Anyway... I went on a tangent there.  We need information about what could work to make the gun violence situation better.  We need research.  And we can overcome bias and lies by making the research open... everyone gets to know what's going on.  Heck... have the NRA send a representative or a few who get to act as a watchdog that can express disagreement but not stifle anything.  We need information.

But there are things we can try in the meantime that make sense too...

Improved Background Check System

We already have laws that say certain kinds of criminals aren't allowed to own firearms, and we have a background check system that is meant to help gun stores avoid selling to criminals.  What I'm suggesting is that we improve a faulty system.  If my understanding is correct, it's possible for a criminal to go to another state and pass the check because records of their crimes might be local to their home state.  And in some cases crimes are recorded with one law enforcement body while another is where a check is made.  The problem seems to be one of information sharing...

Gun Background Check System Riddled with Flaws

It seems obvious that this is something we should encourage our government to address.  And I hope it seems like a rational thing to do even to someone who is a staunch gun rights supporter.  This action wouldn't stop anyone who is legally supposed to be able to own a firearm from buying one.  It just means criminals won't slip through cracks as easily.  And it even has the potential to reduce mass shootings because several of the most famous ones were committed by people who had criminal records or who had recorded mental health issues that would have prevented the purchase of those firearms they used.  Though I'll admit that some might have found other means (Timothy McVeigh comes to mind).  But just because determined people will find a way to hurt or kill others doesn't mean we shouldn't address a problem in the system for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Licensing and Registration

Don't misunderstand... this next suggestion is a hard one for me to make.  The idea of requiring a license and registering guns is one I dislike when I think about the government essentially having a list of gun owners should they ever decide to swing to fascist government that we need to rebel against.  It tweaks me... but... then I also have to remember a couple other things.

First, armed rebellion isn't going to happen.  Things would have to get a lot worse before enough people were willing to organize to try something like that.  Second, the military and police would be the deciding factor regardless of citizen armament.  If the military still supports the government, then the citizens don't stand a chance.  But if the military is full of our parents, siblings, cousins, and children... people who are also citizens of this country... and they agree that the government is broken to the point where armed rebellion is the only option... then our guns wouldn't matter either.  The fact that the government would have a list of gun owners wouldn't factor into it at all.

One more thing to consider with this suggestion is that there's no way the government could enforce registering the guns people already own.  If you want your existing arsenal to stay off the list... it can stay off the list.  If you want to buy a new gun... then that gun will be on the list along with your name.  But, really, this step accomplishes something else.

I think it's worth licensing people for gun ownership because it's a step in the process that allows us to force potential gun owners to go through safety training.  It's really just like a car.  An untrained person has a lot more potential to hurt people than a trained one.  It also gives the opportunity during training for instructors to impress upon the students how much of a responsibility ownership and use is.  And it socializes gun owners to a degree.  You take a class over a period of time that introduces you to other people who are looking to be legal gun owners.  You might make new friends that way.  And it might help with disenfranchised people connecting with others.

And it won't stop people who should have the right to buy a gun from doing so.  We all just go get licensed; refresh our own knowledge; and participate in spreading good gun information to more people who otherwise wouldn't get it.  Having training classes like this also is more inviting and could do a lot to improve the reputation of gun ownership in this country.  There are millions of gun owners, but most of what people in general are aware of is the people who do bad things with guns.  Making this more public can shine a light on gun ownership that is favorable.

The registration part of this idea is probably mostly meant to support the next idea I'll write about in the next section, so I'll address it more there...

Responsibility for Your Guns

Right now, a gun owner isn't necessarily legally responsible for their guns.  I think gun owners should be.  If someone breaks into my home, and steals my gun while I'm on vacation, I didn't secure the gun enough.  That's my fault.  If the criminal then uses the gun to hurt someone, they are completely responsible for their actions, but I bear some responsibility for allowing my gun to be used that way.

Sellers of guns should be likewise responsible.  If they don't do a background check, and sell the gun anyway... that's just stupid.  Sellers should be responsible for making sure a person who shouldn't own a gun doesn't get one through them.  At a convention or trade show, someone selling a gun there should also have to run the background check, and should also be responsible for not selling to a criminal.  And they should transfer the registration to the new person.

If buying a gun the legal way means having yourself tied to the gun legally, legal gun owners are likely to pay more attention to making sure it's kept safely when not in use, and criminals will have a harder time not being connected to crimes committed with those guns.  Really, it's just like a car.  You are responsible for not letting people get hurt with your car.

To be clear, I don't think gun owners should be responsible for the specific crime committed with their gun by someone else, but they should be responsible for allowing their gun to be used criminally.  Fines up to jail time.  I know I would be careful with owned guns and who I let even hold them.  I SHOULD be scared to let my guns be handled irresponsibly or criminally.

Mental Health

I should address this.  I'm not recommending new laws around it.  I'm bringing it up because a common thing I've heard is the idea of not changing gun laws because they can't do anything to help a mentally disturbed person.  There's some truth to the statement in that changing the gun laws won't help the mentally disturbed person.  And we SHOULD see what we can do to help people depressed enough to consider suicide, or emotionally broken enough to think lashing out by killing others is the right thing to do.

But the statement also makes an assumed connection.  It assumes that because the laws we're talking about changing won't help people with severe enough mental health issues, that the laws won't help with gun violence rates.  That's a false equation.

We definitely should do research into stress in our society and see what extra stuff we can do to help people not become part of the problem in the first place.  There's no question there.  It's a path to a better community.  But we need to be more responsible with guns too.

Should we arm the teachers?

No.  No.  Definitely No.  It's the dumbest idea that came out of recent mass shootings at schools.  It's stupid in every way.  First, consider who our teachers are.  I'm imagining a 70 year old that has trouble walking smoothly.  This person has dedicated their lives to teaching children.  And for their dedication they get under paid and are expected to fund their own classroom supplies.  This person has chosen to live their life so that we (when we were children) and our children can be given the power of knowledge.

The teacher should not have to pay more for gun classes, a gun, ammo, and to give up more of their time to become proficient with a gun so they can teach our children.  And the thought that a teacher would have to deal with a combat situation like a soldier is ridiculous.  Flat out ridiculous.

And then remember who they're expected to point a gun at.  They're expected to point a gun at a kid that is shooting other kids.  A freaking kid.  Yes... they chose poorly and chose violence without cause.  And you would be legally and morally right to stop that kid from hurting anyone else.  But it's a kid.  Can you imagine your child being the aggressor?  It's important that you do.  How much do you love your child?  How much does it hurt your heart to think that someone might point a gun at them to shoot them, and that your kid dying would be the morally right thing?  Jesus... the whole situation is awful, and the suggestion is that we expect a teacher who has loved their students and given themselves to helping children grow into informed adults... to shoot one of those kids in a live fire situation that soldiers sometimes panic in... it's still ridiculous.

One more way to think about this that makes it ridiculous: Even if teachers could afford being armed and were emotionally prepared to shoot at a child and trained like a soldier, there's still shooting.  The aggressor kid has to have shot some people first and is likely to keep going.  The teacher has to retrieve their gun and then shoot the kid.  People are still dying tragically.  Children are still dying at school.  Arming teachers doesn't solve the problem at all.  At best it reduces the number of deaths.  And that's good I guess.  But it's no where near good enough.  The idea that anyone would suggest spending the time and money to arm teachers and then expect of them the ability to shoot anyone is preposterously wasteful and cruel.

The real problem is that the gun owner parents screwed up.  They raised their kid in a way that lead the kid to thinking lethal violence is a solution, AND allowed that kid access to their guns.  The solution to this problem is in large part the responsibility of every parent.  Every parent needs to pay attention to their kids.  Every parents needs to look for signs that their child is going down a dark path, and if so, then offer the child help.  Talk to them and ask them what's wrong.  Give them the support of knowing their parent actually care what's happening to them.  Help them understand that dealing with emotional difficulties involved in growing up can be done without lashing out.  And of course: keep guns out of their hands except when you are there to shoot with them.  Teach them responsibility and the value of life.

Summary

I think I've rambled enough.  My hope is to point out to staunch gun rights supporters that people who want change aren't rabid extremists that want to confiscate your guns or make it illegal to own and use guns.  I want to see research done that might save lives.  I want to see government agencies sharing information better and strengthening the background check system.  I want to see potential gun owners being trained and licensed.  I want to see guns registered so that owners have to be more responsible with their firearms...

I want to be able to send my kids to school without worrying about them getting shot.  I want to go to restaurants without wondering if someone is going to choose that place and time to make a statement.  The situation we're in together right now is that what we're doing isn't working well enough.  Something needs to change.  Let's figure it out and make changes that include new or modified gun control laws.  Again... not taking things away... just making the legal obtaining of firearms a little more secure.

Additional Thoughts

I have a hypothesis that a major contributing factor to gun violence (suicides, mass shootings, and even violent robberies) is the wealth gap.  When you consider that the average CEO of a company makes over 360 times what their average employee makes (Forbes article from May 2018), and that the average pay in the United States is about $45,000 per year (Average Salary article... note the difference between the service industry and profession occupations).  If we go with an average number of employees around 20 (that average is for this thought experiment only, since according to this really interesting article about average number of employees, 90% of U.S. companies have fewer than 20 employees, but some companies go up above 500.  If my math is right based on their chart, the average number of employees all around is 19.9, so I'm using 20), we can imagine a fairly disturbing hypothetical company...

This average company has 20 employees plus the management team which includes a CEO.  The employees each make $45,000 per year, and the CEO makes $16.2 million per year (45,000 times 360).  That number SHOULD shock you.  Regardless of the number of employees, that difference in pay IS the real-world wage gap in our country right now.

Now if you think about the idea that most homes have to be two income homes to pay for cost of living (mortgage or rent, electricity, water, heating, property taxes, food, car payments, insurance for house and cars, gas for the cars, an internet connection, and these days: cellphones), that means the common home has about $90,000 in income.  Next look at this Forbes article which says that 78% of workers live paycheck to paycheck.  That means that those people (and my family is among them) can't build up savings, and can't spend money on things like vacations or enjoying life.  We can't go on expensive vacations.  We can't buy a sports car for fun.  We can't buy a vacation home.  We can't even really afford home improvement projects even when they're necessary (my house is terrible on energy efficiency for heating and our heating system is mostly electric... nearly $40,000 in loans later and we're making the house more functional, but still not ideal, and our monthly outgoing money has gone up).  My wife and I make more than the average, but with two 11 month old babies, cost of child care is eating up a good chunk of that, and we're barely treading water.

What we have is a situation where 78% of workers are living that way while CEOs and rich people in general are living off 150 times that.  One year for them could fund a family's life for 150 years.  How is that reasonable?  Rich people are selfish assholes (potentially with some exceptions).

The CEO of our imaginary average company making over 16 million a year with 20 employees could choose to pay those employees three times what they're making (45,000 to 135,000 per year) by taking a pay cut of 1.8 million... they'd still be making over 14 million a year, and their employees lives would be ridiculously improved.  They could start saving money, and even splurge a little.  One parent could quit their job and stay home with the kids, or keep working and child care costs wouldn't hurt as much.  Quality of life goes way up.

But what CEO is going to do that?  What CEO is going to make it easier for only one member of the family to work?  Companies want more people working... and giving us the freedom to have one member of the household not work is just not something I think they're likely to do.  And what rich person thinks that any of their employees deserve more money?  Rich people are selfish greedy assholes (potentially with some exceptions).

So, why do I bring this up in an essay about gun violence?

How much stress do you think the average person has living paycheck to paycheck without the freedom to take real breaks to decompress?  How many people who commit suicide (the largest part of gun deaths per year in the U.S.) are doing so because they can't dig themselves out of financial trouble?  Because they can't see a light at the end of the tunnel?  How many people would be happier if rich people didn't have a stranglehold on us?  I'm speculating so don't assume my implication is correct.  But, it's a reasonable speculation.

And our children... how many families could afford to have one parent stay home with kids?  How many of those emotionally broken children willing to kill others might have had parents that had more time for them?  How many of those parents would have caught the signs instead of being exhausted for too little pay?

Of course there are a lot of factors that a layman like me just isn't aware of.  But that's why I put this as a note at the end of the essay with disclaimers.  It's just my hypothesis about a major factor in gun violence, and really most of the problems this country faces.  Hopefully you found it interesting.