character meme 1

(The following meme has not been authored by me or anyone I know. All of these were acquired from other sources that did not designate an original author. If you know the original author of any of these memes or are the author, yourself, please let me know and I will either remove the meme in my blog post or edit the post to give you the proper credit.)

Ten Character Meme

(Instructions)

Choose ten of your characters and list them by name giving each one a brief description. Anser the following questions based on the list of characters you've named.

(Characters)

1. Chief Councilor Vodstvo: Old man who appears to be very old. Main advisor of court, close friend of crown prince, wise, sarcastic, suspicious
2. Abigail Richmond: Woman in mid-20's, athletic, aloof, average intelligence, unknown past
3. Leo Slater: Man who appears to be in his mid-20's. Quiet, observant, serene, empathetic
4. Cecilia Carrera: Woman in late-20's. Broken, dejected, afraid, anxious.
5. Tate McMurphy: Man in mid-20's. Religious, faithful, loyal.
6. Cade Gregori - Man in early-20's. Down to earth, average, surprisingly caring
7. Grady Camacho - Man in late-20's. Classic bad boy, sarcastic, rude, asshole
8. Rose Carrera - Woman in late-70's. Classic matriarch, out-spoken, strong, fiercely protective
9. Lumine - Woman who appears to be in her late teens. Lady of the court, daughter of high priest, sister-in-law of crown prince, nervous, capricious, curious.
10. Nixon Perry - Man in late-20's. Enigmatic, vague, smart, deep.

(Questions)

4 invites 3 and 8 to dinner at their house. What happened?

Rose mistakens this dinner as a chance to meet her daughter's new boyfriend, Leo, whom she swiftly falls in love with herself. She is overjoyed that Leo is a good man whom she believes will properly love and care for her only daughter, Cecilia. She does not disguise her disappointment when Cecilia insists that she and Leo are not dating. Leo says nothing. He doesn't want to add to Cecilia's embarrassment. Rose spends the bulk of the night trying to forge a romantic connection between Leo and Cecilia. She also spends a lot of time criticizing her daughter's kadu, which needs more salt, and fingering the crucifiz hanging from her neck.

9 tries to get 5 to go to a strip club. What happens?

Tate is initially freaked out at the idea of a significant member of the court taking part in such debauchery that is a sin against the flesh. But Tate refuses to outwardly judge her. When he questions their place there, Lumine insists that this outting in only to better understand the people of this land and their motivation. She tells Tate that his faith is a comfort to her and she needs that when faced with such dangerous ideas.

You need to stay at a friend's house for a night. Who do you choose: 1 or 6?

Cade. Just because Vodstvo's place would be hella cold.

2 and 7 are making out. 10 walks in. What is their reaction?

There's a very brief flash of disgust on Nix's face until he quickly composes himself to exhibit his usual aloofness. He mutters something vaguely nihilistic and leaves the room before Abby and Grady can react. When they are interrupted, Abby realizes whose arms she is in and insults Grady. Gray says something kind of obscene and scratches himself and leaves, laughing at Abby as her sneers at her over his shoulder.

3 falls in love with 6. 8 is jealous. What happens?

Rose is only jealous because of how badly she wants Leo to date her daughter. She then laughs and figures that someone so sweet and good looking has to be gay. But she tries to sway Leo from liking Cade. Cade reminds her all too much of the kind of bad influence Grady was in her own daughter's life and she doesn't want Leo to get hurt by Cade the way Sissy was hurt by Grady.

4 jumps you in a dark alleyway. Who comes to your rescue: 10, 2, or 7?

Abby. Grady would likely be laughing or helping Cecilia. Nix wouldn't even care.

1 decides to start a cooking show. Fifteen minutes later, what is happening?

Vodstvo's face is bloody with entrails sticking out of his mouth as he sighs in relief to the end of his hunger that was caused by the drought.

3 has to marry either 8, 4, or 9. Whom do they choose?

He'd probably choose Lumine. Those Carrera women are more hastle than they are worth.

7 kidnaps 2 and demands something from 5 for 2's release. What is it?

A bottle of Jack and a carton of Marlboro lights.

Everyone gangs up on 3. Does 3 have a chance in hell?

Yes. Because Leo can heal.

Why is 6 afraid of 7?

Because Grady is a sign of where Cade is headed.

1 arrives late for 2 and 10's wedding. What happens, and why were they late?

He was consuming souls.

5 and 9 get roaring drunk and end up at your house. What happens?

I find they only drank 2 chi-chi's each. And they were virgin chi-chi's. I convince them they are so drunk they need to sleep and proceed to tell everyone about it.

9 murders 2's best friend. What does 2 do to get back at him?

Abby wastes the bitch. Lumine is no match for her. But Lumine accepts her fate as she is disgusted at the fact that she was capable of murder.

6 and 1 are in mortal peril and only one of them can survive. Does 6 save themself or 1?

Cade saves himself. He is certain Vodstvo is the bad guy.

8 and 3 go camping. For some reason they forgot to bring along any food. What do they do?

Rose is ready to kill some animals with her bare hands, clean and cook them. Leo is trying to figure out why the hell he keeps finding himself alone with this crazy old lady.

10 is in a chariot crash and is critically injured. What does 9 do?

Pray.

My, how you have grown!

I obviously don't update this half as much as I should. So I'm going to come up with different ways to fill the blank spots as I do in the Mommy blog. To be perfectly honest, it doesn't quite help me publish more. It's not for a lack of words that I am not on my blogs near enough. It's for a lack of time and motivation.

But let's try it out anyway.

My first attempt at lulls in posting will be to post various character memes found wandering around the Internet at the fingertips of creative people. These character memes involve questions and hypothetical situations for different characters. Sometimes the meme calls for known characters. Most of the time they call for original characters. No matter the case, for this blog I will mostly be using original characters unless otherwise stated.

Oh yeah, I'm an "aspiring writer". Whatever the hell that means.

Now as an introduction: I currently have three ongoing projects. One's been on hold for several years now. That is the only one that actually has a full working outline. The other two are relatively new works. None of them are anywhere near being finished. I justify lulls in writing by saying I'm still in research mode.

I am generally a reality based fiction writer. That means my plots involve things that could possibly happen in real life as opposed to fantasy or science fiction. However, two of the aforementioned works are fantasy. Those fantasy novels do largely take place in this world or a world much like ours. Both are part reality-based fiction. I mention this because it seems that these character memes have largely involved characters from fantasy works. Most of my characters - or at least half - will be more realistic than fantastic.

I will also be adding this disclaimer to all memes:

The following meme has not been authored by me or anyone I know. All of these were acquired from other sources that did not designate an original author. If you know the original author of any of these memes or are the author, yourself, please let me know and I will either remove the meme in my blog post or edit the post to give you the proper credit.

First one coming up pronto...

in an ideal world

Ayn Rand said that, "If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject."

I am not Ayn Rand and have no desire to be anything like her other than achieving her best-selling author status. But even the most idealistic, most compassionate and most empathetic person should strive to see the logic in this belief along with its grave weaknesses.

Altruism taps into basic human emotions and the condition that we are above our primal instincts and have the ability to care in a manner that is beyond our need for survival. Part of that is our ability to empathize and when that feeling rules our actions, we take steps to consider the welfare of others. We are uncomfortable with the thought that someone else like us is suffering at the hands of a world that is much more cruel than many of us have experienced first hand.

But is there such a thing as taking such empathy too far? I believe there is. The line for me is drawn when such empathy is demanded or made law, either by official decree or because it is expected of a civilization due to a majority mindset. I may not want to live in a world where altruism is stifled. I would also not want to live in a world where altruism is expected.

We often come across people who are so good in their own nature and want so badly for others to understand, believe and foster that goodness within themselves. We understand their idealism and often agree. We also often agree that it would be the best if only we knew for certain a way to gently and naturally mold the human race to feel similarly.

There are so many reasons the human race is not going to come together as a whole to agree to provide care for all of this world's citizens. We could debate about how accurate the triune brain model is regarding the workings of the brain and the relationship among its many parts. We can talk about the R-Complex and how evolution changes or adds, it does not take away and as such, we, as humans, we will never evolve to a point that the reptilian complex is completely gone or even over-ridden. We could weigh in on whether or not it would even be beneficial to society if we lost our ability to feel rage, understand fight or flight, or have a desire for power and territory. We can trek back in history and discuss thousands upon thousands of years worth of influence on the many different cultures that exist in this world and the high improbability of being able to change such influence in less time than it took to create it. We can discuss the strange phenomenon of cultural canon being silenced and changed by occupation, and still finding its influence on a generation that did not even know such an idea existed. We could discuss, at length, all the psychological things we have yet to really theorize about and so many in existence that we still do not understand.

There are so many reasons that equality is merely an idea that cannot truly exist for anyone. There is the simple fact that aptitude and skill differ from person to person. The knowledge that if given a choice, we'd want to deal with the best of any given field because there will always be people who are better than others. There is the understanding that with different people come different interests. The understanding that our motivation often goes way beyond mere passion. There is the belief that without incentive, people are not always smart, motivated or, again, altruistic enough to want to follow certain paths that are commonly associated with wealth and security in a cash world. Those who would question the chances of someone choosing to be a surgeon over a ditch digger knowing the payback would be equally nothing, at least nothing material that could be measured against one's neighbor's, when the drawbacks stack strongly against the other profession.

All of those, of course, are simply theories. But those theories are based on observation and experience. And with all of that mentioned, there are still so many other reasons a utopia of self-sufficiency is an idea that most will say is never going to manifest itself, no matter how hard we try or how many of us would love to live in such an idyll. The vast majority of this world try to perform actions that they believe will lead them to such a place. That place is their salvation. This place is their trial. The reality of this trial is that things are not going to reach a point of harmony and sustaining in a world even remotely similar to ours. This is the strangest point of agreement to me. Both science and faith seem to agree on this one thing very often: There is no such thing as perfection.

For me, this argument can only be solved in one way. It's not in deciding whether we can change the zeitgeist of the whole world or not. When nature is something that cannot be changed, it's the outer environment that is. We, as a society, are the nature. The rules, both written and unwritten, are the environment. Changing our environment will involve changing our canon, our actions, our history, our language, our morality and our laws. Altruism can only be globally achieved if it was agreed by a governing group that it is in our best interest as a whole to mandate good deeds.

The whole is part of the problem as much as it is part of the solution. In any situation when the whole is considered, the individual is not. In accepting our differences, we accept that someone will be disappointed. There may be basics that most of society agree on that have to consider the whole before the individual. A person may feel it's in his best interest to kill the person standing next to him. But as that would hurt society as a whole, laws are in place to deal with such things. Yet even then, there are factors that make such a law malleable to consider the individual. A man who kills an innocent person in cold blood is different from a mother's calculated plan to murder the man who killed her child is different from the guy who hears voices that command him to kill is different from the government that decides to execute a man deemed unfit to ever live in society again.

There is still a line I'd prefer the government not cross. Just as I would not support a government that persecutes thought crime, I also cannot support a government that would dictate how a person should live and thrive and one that mandates a person's possessions and expression of the individual's beliefs and gifts to such a degree no matter the intention.

When the floodgates are open, we don't always know what's going to rush through. We don't know how much a ruling population is going to dictate the way society grows and prospers. We don't always know what the next step will be or how long it will be till a line is crossed. We all want a big change and some drastic step to be taken when the quality of life starts to slip faster than we can keep up with. We reach a point when it feels like we cannot take another step or live another day in our present living conditions. But ore rules to achieve a utopia may not change our world. It may only allow for more control and more influence when we have all learned by now that some of our best intentions become sullied by a deeper need for control. The less involved the leaders of our society are in my life, the better.

I don't know what kind of world our future generations will live in. I don't know how many future generations will even exist. But I do know that despite how bad life is for so many, smaller steps to get to a better tomorrow are more preferable than drastic solutions that have not been examined or tested enough. I do know that supreme control in any group's hands, again, whether it be by law or majority belief, is not an answer to the problems we have most likely contributed to more than we have helped alleviate.

here and now

There's a trap we often fall into when musing about all the things that came before us and all the things we have yet to see. We want to live long enough to see what our children make of this world and see what kind of legacy we've left for the future generations of our families. We read or hear stories of a world that existed long before we were born and wonder what it would be like. Sometimes that wonderment breeds a longing for a different time. Sometimes it makes us disenchanted with the world that exists now as if we were such a wrong fit. I've done it before. I've said that I was born too late. As a literary snob whose life is permeated with music and cinema and art, I want to know all the people who existed well before my time and understand what they did to create the works I appreciate most. I think of the lives of ancient civilizations when life was more simple or moments in history that flourished under art, expression and education.

The reality is that the person who appreciates all of that, who muses about a world that's been around much, much longer than I have, is a person that was created, not born. That creation is the product of all those past musings, present observations and future dreams. I am who I am only because I was born in this time, in this world, in this present. I would be different, observe differently, believe differently and behave differently had I been born in another time, in another place. I have the benefit of learning from great minds that expired before me, of the legacy they left behind, of the stories my elders share with me, the world around me now and the future I see in my children's eyes.

"The best place to be is here. The best time to be is now." - Wyld Stallyns.

Appreciate your life, your presence and your mark on this world. Understand that part of the reason for your love of the world that existed before you were born is a direct result of the person you've created. And that person lives now. There sure as hell ain't nothing wrong with that.

the religious rite needs a better marketing director

i viewed a 'not so interesting' piece of video earlier tonight that included some background music with some type of a parable. i tried to view it with an open mind, hoping for the best. i knew immediately it was a religious tale and though i view such things with trepidation i considered that this may have a little hint of affirmations that can be beneficial to anyone, of faith or not. i reserved my judgment but i needn't have.

the tale should be familiar to most. it involves a philosophy professor who challenged his students to prove that god existed by using prayer to prevent a piece of chalk the professor was about to drop from shattering on the ground. no one bothered. and then one person willing to speak up about his faith actually spoke against them and, of course, by some miracle (the miracle of prayer) that piece of chalk slipped from his fingers and gently bounced and rolled off his clothing to reach the ground without breaking. the professor was dumbstruck and fled. the student got up and spoke about his god to a class of 300 people left without this intimating professor.

now while i usually expect people living in the information age to actually do their research before passing on such things, i knew many wouldn't. i only need to look at the amount of spam and propaganda spread en masse about some of the most ridiculous notions known in our time. so in case you haven't bothered to look it up, check it out here http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp. the long and short is that this tale can not be confirmed and if this professor is as prolific as the parable would like you to believe, it should be easily authenticated. bottom line, it's a big old honking pile of horse shit. it's not true.

that said, if you're going to pass on a tale with a lesson that means something to you, think carefully about the message you are trying to convey. and look at it the way you would look at any idea you need to market. who is your audience? what do you want them to get from it? that tale is not going to sway a non believer. it's not going to challenge anyone to rethink his or her interpretation of spirituality. it is not going to mean anything. it's a ridiculous story with an absurd end.

the religious rite at its worst tends to forget the whole foundation of their faith. what would that be? it would be FAITH. forcing someone to prescribe to what you believe in is not spreading faith. preaching in an obscene and in your face manner is not going to nourish faith. that kind of force only produces something that is not authentic. if it's not authentic, it's not truly faith.

here's an idea: before you prescribe to any philosophy, truly try to understand what that philosophy means by existing. since when does christianity profess to be an immovable force that can be harnessed by any mere human being to accomplish an instant miracle? the "challenge" put forth by the "professor" has nothing to do with what christians are to believe and any christian should know that and be able to speak knowledgeably about it.

change the parable around. take out the request that someone stop the chalk from breaking through prayer alone since, once again, a true christian should understand that god does not simply do exactly what we ask him to do. what happened to god working in mysterious ways? remember this: god did not even appear as himself to the woman chosen to birth his son. why of all the things going on in this world is he going to answer to you to prevent chalk from breaking no matter how much you believe? if your faith is real, if you know your faith, the most obvious answer would be simple. reach out and catch the piece of chalk in your hand and proudly state that through god, you were created. through god, you were led to take this class. and through god, because of god, you were able to prevent the chalk from breaking through a physical action that you firmly believe could only happen because of the greatness of god.

this is only one of many attempts created by people to add credibility to their faith. why do you need proof of something you believe in? if your faith is that strong, who's to say what form it manifests as long as you feel it? that's the message that needs to be professed. there is no reason. there is no rhyme. those without an inkling of faith are not going to be swayed by any form of proof you can provide since that faith is not tangible. believe by believing. have faith in your faith. wander the path of thinking that god is real because you feel it, because you know it, because your faith is strong and because that is the gift you have been blessed with.

and remember that many of us without faith respect you so much more with the simplicity of knowing something just because you do.

a belated review: the dreaded "the da vinci code"

some of those close to me have heard or read my tirades on this novel. but as this is a new blog and new year, i'm coming back with it. this time i'm not sticking to an, "it sucks" argument. it does suck. and here's why...

first, the concept of the story. how is this at all new? how has anyone lived more than 18 years of his or her life and not heard of any other work that suggests the key points of this trite and overdone story? cryptology and conspiracy theory aside, who hasn't heard or even come up with, completely on their own, the possibility of mary magdalene having been jesus' wife and bearing his children? even if you do consider the conspiracy theory side of it - the involvement of secret societies guarding the "truth" about jesus christ's lineage - it is not new. if it were new, it is not still not that original. any person can come up with such a plot. the expression of it would be where it counts. it would be what sets this apart from any work that touches on similar ideas. so let's explore that.

it's so difficult to know where to start and what to end on: the tired prose; the exhausting repetition of the same descriptive words; the horrendous dialogue; this suspense drama that impossibly some how comes off as a harlequin romance without the sweaty sex in a barnyard or some hidden cape; the attempts at suspense and cliff hangers that any well read person can see right through; the claims of factual evidence before and after the actual story when those things have been proven to be hoaxes by the very people who invented them; the attempts at dynamic characters that are actually quite boring and bland as though brown intended them to come off as a pig in a dress; and the very worst part being a claim that this isn't some big, blockbuster, hollywood movie when it is completely executed as one (and subsequently turned into one).

fans love to come up with the "IT'S FICTION!!!" argument against those of us who find this book to be nothing more than a horrible waste of environmental agents to mass produce such a ridiculous novel. please read this and understand it: there are a great deal of people out there who don't care at all about its religious connotations. so take that argument completely out of the picture. this is not about offense over a sensitive subject. this is about a book that was not good from conceptualization to execution. but even without the religious debate surrounding it, there are still TDVC lovers who argue that brown's complete disregard for historical fact is still okay because it is fiction. sorry, no. that's not how it works. this was not a fantasy or science fiction novel taking place in a made up world. this is, whether you realize it or not, reality based fiction. dan brown intended it to be so. and the man did not do his research. that's the thing with reality based fiction, one needs to do his or her research or be able to depict life accurately and believably. you can create a made up town in alaska. you cannot describe alaska as a tropical island. you almost have to come up with completely fictional people. you cannot give them hooves instead of feet or purple polka dots on their hot pink third and fourth arms. you can give an alternate explanation to historical events. you cannot depict them as not happening at all or happening differently.

now, though i admit to being a literary elitist, fond mostly of the classics who would love to be able to absorb much more fantasy and science fiction novels if i didn't believe that most of them were so poorly written (and worse, in a collection of 600+ pages), i absolutely have my guilty pleasures. i read old favorites i appreciated as a teenager and am fully aware of how poorly they are written. there are things i pick up now and instantly love despite the lame execution. so i understand the ignorant appreciation of this book. and i call it ignorant because those who read this and love it are likely to have not been exposed to the works that came before it that far surpass the artistic merit of TDVC. but it should not be regarded as an incredibly written work of art that deserves any of the accolades it has garnered.

fun times gift from the heart,...

i'm the regular cook around these parts. but regular cooking often only involves one main dish, one side and some veggies, er, sometimes. though some of those regular dishes are somewhat labor intensive, we're usually talking about a maximum of 1 hour preparation not counting the amount of time it takes to marinate meat when called for. it never gets more intense than that.

a few valentine's day ago i went hardcore with a roast and some other stuff. it was a multi course meal that took me a good day to prepare with a few hours spent on previous days to get other things prepped.

this year i'm doing it again. we're having a multi course romantic valentine day dinner the day after valentine's day so it doesn't cut into our mikey time and i can enlist the help of a relative to clear the house out of mother and children. dinner will be for two this sunday.

we're going italian and this is going to be way more labor intensive than the previously mentioned roast dinner.

on the menu...

1. amuse-bouche: bruschetta - a toasted round of italian bread topped with tomatoes marinated with garlic and basil. crispy pancetta and fresh shredded parmesan cheese

2. salad: caesar salad with rommaine lettuce, garlic croutons and a parmesan crisp.

3. appetizer: polenta round topped with gnocchi in a prosciutto and pea olive oil sauce.

4. main course: chicken parmigiana - crisp, breaded chicken breast in a marinara sauce smothered in mozzarella and parmesan cheese.

5. side dish: spaghetti in a sun dried tomato, basil and garlic infused olive oil dressing.

6. dessert: chocolate cherry cheesecake

i was going to make tiramisu for dinner but finding lady fingers here is just a bitch. and there's no way in hell i'm going to make my own. besides, my "best friend" loves cheesecake.

the list of ingredients, those not already existing in the house, are as follows:

- potatoes
- nutmeg
- frozen peas
- prosciutto
- shallots
- ricotta cheese
- canned tomatoes
- bread crumbs
- parsley
- mozzarella cheese
- spaghetti
- french bread
- tomatoes
- pancetta
- basil
- fresh parmesan
- caesar dressing
- romaine lettuce
- croutons
- sun dried tomatoes
- olives
- chocolate cookies
- cream cheese
- cherries
- bittersweet chocolate chips

good lord, what am i getting myself into.

and sorry for another deviation. this is supposed to be about the non-wife things. so it's not. it's just a looooooooooove thing.