On Hold

It was requested of me to halt publication to my blog while I have an ongoing lawsuit. As such, once it is resolved, I shall resume posting. Until then, a million more apologies. So sorry.

Lists Considered Harmful

If you're anything like me, I'm sorry.

Let me provide you a glimpse of my mind: if I start making lists, especially lists of things that are related, or that have sublists, my mind does a crazy spiral off into oblivion until I can get to a good stopping place in my mind.

It's not so bad, as it helps me visualize problems on a larger scale, but at the same time, it's unpredictible, like an elemental force, and I can only direct it and hope it does the right thing

So, if you ever see me sitting there, quiet, and there's something clicking in my head, you can be sure that it's because I made a list recently.

That's all.

Using Layers of Relative Reality to Measure the Validity of Fictional Crossovers

What a mouthful… The point of this article is to discuss a matter that causes my brain to overload when it considers the possibilities and implications. That matter is: fictional crossovers. A fictional crossover appears when a character or other identifiable element appears in a different piece of media as that same character.

What prompted this was the concept of the “Tommyverse,” that is, a single show that unites about 90% of television shows, according to certain claims. I find this part of the theory fascinating. I find the part about St. Elsewhere taking place all in Tommy’s mind, therefore all the related shows take place in Tommy’s mind pure poppycock.

For the sake of argument, I’ll define the following terms (and I’ll make them relative to TV series, since that’s my primary focus):

1. A sequel is a show whose narrative continues the main narrative of the original show, but is itself a different show.
2. A spinoff is a show that splinters off a character or aspect of the original show. It either runs alongside the original show or can happen much later. It differs from a sequel as it does not follow the core narrative.
3. A remake is a show that effectively “reboots” the narrative and characters. This may have the same characters, but they are not the “same” characters that appeared on the original show (e.g., they are multiversal aspects of the same character, just placed in a different era).
4. A crossover is an appearance of a character or other element appearing in its non-native show.
5. A splinter is a show that, like a spinoff, derives its origin from something else, but unlike a spinoff, does not mutually share the universe with its parent.
6. An homage is a sort of reference in one show to another media. Whether it establishes a shared universe is yet another matter.^[1]

Now, the important thing to remember in this discussion are things I like to call “layers of relative reality.” I’ll call them “layers” to make things easier. Typically, there are three types of layers:

1. A sublayer is a layer whose existence is entirely within another layer.
2. A main layer is a layer in which an entity exists.
3. A metalayer is a layer that contains the entity’s main layer as a sublayer.

There are also two flavors:^[2]

1. A shared layer is a layer with multiple observers
2. A private layer is a layer with only one observer

So, to make it seem less ambiguous, let’s give some examples:

1. A dream is a private sublayer (as far as I can tell)
2. A real TV show is a shared sublayer of our main layer
3. Your life is your main layer.
4. If you had a life similar to The Truman Show, your life would still be your main layer, and the outside world would be a metalayer.

Okay? Cool. So now, I’m going to break down what I consider a “shared universe.” Here are my rules:

1. Fan fiction doesn’t count
2. In fact, only “authorized” or “licensed” matters should count
3. Parodies don’t count
4. Dream appearances are hard to justify
5. Celebrity guest stars are hard to justify
6. Public domain is hard to justify
7. It’s easier if the characters make reference to it in their respective shows
8. Cartoons are okay^[3]
9. Context matters!!!
10.  All the while, consider the layers

So, let’s take a look at one particular franchise: X-Files.

The show had two spinoffs: Millennium and The Lone Gunmen. Further, it had crossovers with both Homicide: Life on the Street and The Simpsons. If you delve into the comics, you’ll also find crossovers with 30 Days of Night and Ghostbusters.

Let’s analyze this, then. If we assume that characters aren’t multiversal and admit that their appearance on The Simpsons was not parodic (it may have parodied the tropes of X-Files, but it was not exactly a parody of the characters, otherwise they would have names like Sana Dully and Mox Fulder or something. It would be more of a satire). Further, since all the appearances I mentioned were authorized by some authority of X-Files, we can then say that these events all happened on the same sublayer. It’s a no-brainer to say that Millennium and The Lone Gunmen share a universe with X-Files, and it’s just a little more to say it shares a universe with Homicide: Life on the Street (which has crossovers with all those initialism shows: CSI, et al.). Once you get over the hurdle of including Springfield into the mix (and it’s not that hard to assume that the events of The Simpsons could totally happen in the same universe as X-Files), you only have to then assume that there are vampires in Alaska and ghosts in New York.

One thing worth noting on the The Simpsons episode is the appearance of Chewbacca, Gordon Shumway, Marvin the Martian, and Gort. These can safely be argued as “parody,” and therefore, X-Files doesn’t in fact share its universe with Star Wars, ALF, Looney Toons, and The Day the Earth Stood Still, at least, not through this aspect.

Now, let’s look at another show: The Big Bang Theory.

Now, this show is a Chuck Lorre production, as is Two and a Half Men. In both shows there exists another show (a sublayer) Oshikuru: Demon Samurai. This shared sublayer of main layer of the shows. We could then argue that this shared sublayer indicates that two shows are a common main layer (which could be complicated by Sheen’s appearance in The Big Bang Theory). Two and a Half Men also has had crossovers with Dharma and Greg, therefore one could argue that these three shows exist on the same layer.

Now, the main reason why I discount celebrity appearances is because, on some level, most shows are splinters from our main layer, and as such, are likely to have the same celebrities and cities.

The main reason why I discount the public domain is because there is no control over “the canon.” While I really don’t care about “canon,” for the sake of determining “shared universes,” this is important. However, if the same version of a public domain character appears in two different media, then that could arguably link them.

There are few things, though, that break our ability to cleanly show shared universes.

1. If one show that has a crossover also features people watching the show in which the crossed over (this is hard to argue).
2. Contradictory things, like if an alien invasion happens on one show but doesn’t even get noticed on the other show.
3. Quantum silliness, such as time travel and multiverses. These can really mess with a unified argument, as each time you travel through time, you potentially alter the relative future timeline, and you create forks in the space time continuum.

The strange thing that comes from this grand unified theory of television is the fact that there are so many people that look like each other and have the same mannerisms. For example, the Tommyverse can link to both I Love Lucy and The Lucy Show,^[4] which both feature Lucille Ball playing a woman named Lucy complete with Lucyisms, and in both series, she’s friends with a character played by Vivian Vance. It’s a strange world that has both Lucy Ricardo and Lucy Carmichael.

While multiverses help invalidate most claims to a shared universe, it’s handy to have to explain away contradictions. You could say, then that Show X exists in a layer with an aspect of Show Y, but Show Y does not exist on the same layer as Show X.^[5] In many ways, then Show X is a splinter of Show Y, much like most real shows are splinters of our own.

Layers, hopefully, can provide a useful argument tool in determining the validity of a shared universe claim. They are flexible enough to allow for normal use, but also can incorporate multiverses.^[6] I certainly hope that this paradigm allows for more reasonable debate on the subject.

Other shared universes of note beyond the Tommyverse are:

1. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
2. The Wold Newton Universe
3. Anno Dracula

Also, I believe that the writings of Stephen King and his son Joe Hill share a universe, or at least reference each other a whole heck of a lot.

---

[1] Think, for example, the company Yoyodyne. Originally from a Thomas Pynchon novel, it’s been referenced in Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, Star Trek, and Firefly, but is not necessarily indicating that all these things take part in the same shared universe.

[2] There may be a third flavor, depending on whether or not you consider your present layer “observable” by its residents.

[3] People don’t like to include The Simpsons in the Tommyverse, as it’s a cartoon. I say that if you apply the rules above and argue layers, it’s not that big of a deal. If it helps, just think of the cartoon as a different viewing aspect of a real-life version of the same show.

[4] I Love Lucy to The Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour (sequel) to The Danny Thomas Show (The Williams family rents out Lucy’s home once) to The Andy Griffith Show (Andy Taylor arrests Danny Williams in Mayberry) to Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. (spinoff on Gomer Pyle) to The Lucy Show (Gomer Pyle appears in “Lucy Gets Caught up in the Draft”).

[5] Do I need to draw a Venn diagram for that? I think I’d need to use non-euclidean space to do so…

[6] Think about those “what’s different between these two pictures” kind of puzzles you find in childrens’ coloring books.

Book Miner - Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer by C. S. Lewis

Overview

I have a plethora of C. S. Lewis books lying around the house (quite literally, as I am currently without bookshelves for my library of several hundred books). Among the stacks of my “green”^[1] books was this thin tome, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer.

While Lewis is known for his Chronicles of Narnia series, he’s also know as an epistemologist, his letters having been collected in countless tomes. In this book, though, the letters aren’t real. Much akin to the Screwtape Letters, Letters to Malcolm features letters to a guy named Malcolm regarding theological issues and concerns.

I was interested to read this, as while at times Lewis can be an annoying writer, he also makes some excellent points and traverses territory where most Christian authors tend to avoid.

Be mindful that in the discussion that follows, I am most likely going to address some theological issues from the perspective of a theist. If that sort of thing doesn’t appeal to you, you have been warned.

Synopsis

As I mentioned above, this book takes place in a series of letters to a fictional person named Malcolm, and old school chum of the author’s (presumed to be Lewis himself for the purpose of this discussion). While we only see Lewis’ responses, we get a picture of them having a lively discussion of prayer, including the big questions like “Why bother if God already knows what you need?”.

The discussion drifts from speculative to real as one of their close friends suffers a malady, for which they pray.

In the end, Lewis presents Malcolm a wonderful overview of the whys and wherefores of prayer, even if he sometimes ventures into territory that some (i.e., protestants) might consider against what they believe (including an interesting support of the concept of purgatory).

Analysis

I was going to write out an analysis of each chapter, but let’s face it: I’m too busy. Instead, I’ll do my best to cover the things I found interesting and noteworthy in the book.

In one letter, Lewis balances the importance of living a Godly and Christlike life versus observing all the sacraments. While some may see these as mutual things, his point is not to stop observing communion, but instead to not let the observation of communion from getting in the way of making you a good Christian.

In his discussion of “canned” prayer, he made a wonderful allusion to marriage. If you’re no good at writing poems, reading poems to your spouse can be just as romantic. Likewise, in your relationship with God, a canned prayer may be just as sweet to God’s ears as one you laboriously piece together. However, Lewis points out later that this does not mean that prayers are recipes or incantations that get God to give you what you want.

In the Bible, there is a passage about prayer, and how you should lock yourself in your closet and be alone when you pray. Lewis, though, points out something that I too struggle with when I’m alone with myself doing anything: all that silence and solitude is distracting. We need “the right amount of distraction” to help us stay focused. This part really intrigued me, as I could totally relate.

Lewis also covers other aspects, like the Lord’s Prayer (though, unlike Phillip Keller, he does so in a single letter). Things that I thought were interesting were Lewis’ take on the temporal nature of God (That is, the general belief is that God knows the future, and therefore, why do we even pray? God knows what’s going to happen, etc., etc.), as well as Lewis’ claim that we should pray for the dead (something Protestants really don’t do).

The argument for this, as well as for purgatory, were rather interesting, and a little complex. They deal mostly with the difference between “Heaven” and “New Heaven”.

All in all, I enjoyed this book, even if Lewis can be stodgy at times, telling jokes that, let’s face it, only he finds are funny. In the end, though I find epistolary works to be one of the least interesting forms of writing, I found Lewis had a lot interesting and informative things to say.

---

[1] This is my attempt at humor, to distinguish unread books from read (“red”) books.

The Turkey City Lexicon

[Editor’s note: A million apologies for not writing the first chapter of The Gingham Sword. I could explain, but it would sound like an excuse. Assuming my life has a tolerable amount of chaos in it, there SHOULD be one next week, or another million apologies.]

I’m a writer. At least, that’s what I try to be. I started a writer’s critique group in Houston, and I regularly sharpen my writer-fu by reading, reading, reading, and seeing what I like.

My reading shows me what I like in the same way that a car enthusiast would look at cars to see what he or she likes. I like stories that get good mileage, are sleek, quirky, unique, and colorful. I like them to have a nice sound system, and to have some of the cool bells and whistles. If I have to work hard, I want the story to pay off. Stuff like that.

So, in my critiquing and my reviewing, I find myself often citing a particular indispensable tome: The Turkey City Lexicon. I highly suggest you read it, study it, know it, and most of all, follow it, when you write. Of course, much like Kurt Vonnegut’s rules to writers, you are welcome to break these rules, if you have a good reason to.^[1]

I find that the most common malady in self-published and small press writing is exposition. This is referred to as “show, not tell” in the Lexicon.

As a brief example, here’s the difference.

The Scene: A man walks into a room, where a woman with a gun is already waiting there for him.

Tell

Detective John Everyman entered his office after a long day scrounging the docks for clues regarding Mrs. Felicia MacGuffin’s husbands supposed infidelities. He still smelled of the fish and fowl, and salt seemed to crust his skin and sleeves. He was unable to find any clue of infidelities, but he did find a great seafood place he’d have to take Marcia to on their anniversary, if she could get over the ambient smell of the sea.

        When he flipped on the light, he saw a medium-height woman standing there. She had blonde hair, blue eyes, red lips, and a red dress. In her hands she held a Walther PPK, and it was pointed at his chest.

He had no idea who this woman was, or whether she had the determination to pull the trigger. He felt the reassuring weight of his own Magnum in its shoulder holster next to his good luck charm, a medallion with a seven pointed star and the latin phrase En Vitus Vitum printed on the front, a gift from his deceased father.

“Who do I owe money to this time?” he asked.

Show

He flipped the switch when he entered the office, and a flicker of light illuminated the room. A blonde woman in a red dress stood before him. She had a grin on her face and a gun in her hands.

“Who do I owe money to this time?” he asked as she leveled the gun at his chest.

While it may not be the best example (I’m pressed for time), do you see the difference? Which one leaves a more lasting impressing in your mind? Which one was easier and more interesting to read?

It’s just my opinion (as someone who reads significantly more than 50 books a year) that the second example, while shorter, leaves me with a whole lot more intrigue than the previous one. Especially if any of the details included in the text are completely irrelevant or have a more natural way to divulge later in the prose (e.g., through realistic conversation, not as-you-know-bobs). I feel that sparse writing that tells you more is more valuable than infodumps.

Though I will admit, there are some times where infodumps are useful. I would refer you to the writings of J. R. R. Tolkien and Neal Stephenson for practical applications of the infodump.

---

[1] This was, if I’m not mistaken, the last rule, but I can’t seem to find it written anywhere...

Book Miner - The Shapeshifters' Library: Released by Amber Polo - Chapter 10

Chapter 10 of The Shapeshifters’ Library: Released by Amber Polo…

Synopsis

The werewolves meet at the Bistro to discuss the problems that have recently arrived, including Dustbunnie, who was not originally invited. Needless to say, she is miffed at the mockery of her position as the Alpha.

After the meeting, Dustbunnie visits Burney to discuss the latter’s book-stealing activities.

Finally, we get a glimpse of Godiva’s undying affection for the Griswold, two shapeshifting dogs who live in the basement.

Analysis

This chapter, like many of the chapters in this book I’m finding, are composed mostly of reflection and conversation. While dialog is an important element in any story, too much is a distraction from the actual things that are happening (or should be happening) on the page.

The one-sided relationship between Godiva and Griswold has been building in parts up til now. So far, I see little to no value in it.

And as a mostly unrelated aside, I have a question about dog shapeshifter physiology. So, some dogs, at birth, have cropped tails, ears, or toes. Do the shapeshifters have this done when they’re young? If so, does it reflect on their human bodies? Like, if they lose a toe, are they missing the corresponding toe? And if not, what if they lost an arm or eye? Or is it just “magic”? “I’m a shapey-shiftey dog, and I want to look like a Pomeranian! Boom!” And if that’s the case, why can’t they alter their “breed” at will?

Just a few questions to leave you with. On to the next chapter...

ASP.NET MVC External REST Models

If you have a web application that needs to make use of third party services, you may find it useful to make a local model for that object as you process it on the server site. For the example, I’m going to integrate the LibraryThing getwork response for my example application.

First, we want to model the information we want:

public class LTWork {     public int Id {get; set;}     public string Author {get; set;}     public string Title {get; set;}     public string Url {get; set;}     public IEnumerable<string> Characters {get; set} }

As you can see, we’re wanting the basic book stats (title, author, URL, and a list of characters). When we cann the site, we get a REST response that looks like this.

Now comes the time to parse it. Since it’s coming in as XML, we’ll want to parse the XML and extract the appropriate data. We’ll probably want to leverage this in a LibraryThing-specific service. Here’s our basic definition (we’re going to be using IoC containers):

public ILibraryThingService {     LTWork GetWork(         int? id, int? isbn, int? lccn, int? oclc, string title     ); } public LibraryThingService : ILibraryThingService {     private static string Url =          "http://www.librarything.com/services/rest";     private static string Version = "1.1";     private static string ApiKey = "..."; // yeah right…     private static string BaseUrlBuilder() {         return String.Join("/", Url, Version);     }     private static string CommandUrl(         string commandName,          params KeyValuePair<string, string> arguments     ) {         return BaseUrlBuilder() + "/?"              + String.Join("&",                  commandName,                  arguments.Select(x => x.Key + "=" + x.Value),                  "apikey=" + ApiKey             );     }     private static string GetResponse(string url) {         if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(url)) {             throw new ArgumentNullException(url);         }         using (WebClient client = new WebClient()) {              return client.DownloadString(url);         }     }     private static LTWork ParseWork(string data) {         if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(data)) {             throw new ArgumentNullException("data");         }         XDocument xdoc = XDocument.Parse(data);         LTWork ltWork = new LTWork();         ltWork.Id = Int32.Parse(             xdoc.Descendants("item")                 .Attributes("id")                 .FirstOrDefault()                 .Value         );         ltWork.Author = xdoc.Descendants("author")             .FirstOrDefault().Value;         ltWork.Title = xdoc.Descendants("title")             .FirstOrDefault().Value;         ltWork.Url = xdoc.Descendants("url").FirstOrDefault().Value;         ltWork.Characters = xdoc.Descendants("field")             .Where(x =>                 x.Attribute("type").Value == "3"                 && x.Attribute("name").Value == "characternames"             )             .SelectMany(x => x.Elelements("fact").Value);         return ltWork;    }     public LTWork GetWork(         int? id, int? isbn, int? lccn, int? oclc, string title     ) {         if (             id == null              && isbn == null              && lccn == null              && oclc == null              && String.IsNullOrEmpty(title)         ) {             throw new ArgumentException(                 "Must specify at least one parameter"             );         }         List<KeyValuePair<string, string>> arguments =              new List<KeyValuePair<string, string>>();         if (id != null) {             arguments                 .Add(new KeyValuePair("id", id.Value.ToString()));         }         if (isbn != null) {             arguments                 .Add(new KeyValuePair("isbn", isbn.Value.ToString()));         }         if (lccn != null) {             arguments                 .Add(new KeyValuePair("lccn", lccn.Value.ToString()));         }         if (oclc != null) {             arguments                 .Add(new KeyValuePair("oclc", oclc.Value.ToString()));         }         if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(title)) {             arguments.Add(new KeyValuePair(                 "title", title.Value.Replace(' ', '+')             ));         }         string url = CommandUrl("librarything.ck.getwork", arguments);         string response = getResponse(url);         return ParseWork(response);     } }

Whew. That looks right…

Okay, so what that’s going to do is send the request to the server, get back a chunk of XML, and then parse out work info and the list of characters from the XML body, then present it in the model. If you so desire, you could then store this to your own database, or just present it life, whatever works best for you and your application (and of course the LibraryThing API terms of service).

If you’re doing this with a JSON API, it’s much easier, but that’s for a different article.