Read all the things! Fantasy, humor great for summer

A favorite web comic/blog of mine is now a book featuring a series of stories that happened to (or because of) a young girl. Hyperbole and a Half is perfect for a “meh” sort of day because it’s an instant mood booster. With pictures drawn by the author (who I sincerely want to be friends with), each tale left me laughing and often identifying with her train of thought. From her exploits with Simple Dog to her struggles with motivation and depression, readers can connect with almost every story. On some level, I think each of us has had a moment of IDGAF rebellion when we just feel nothing (and a little bit invincible) or when we just can’t seem to guilt ourselves into actually doing something. And maybe finding one other person who understands (and the laughs we can get from the stories and pictures she provides) is just the leg up we need. I blew through this book in a few hours (the pictures help), and I laughed the entire time. Allie’s prose is very straightforward, and if you enjoy deadpan humor, you’ll absolutely get a kick out of this book.

One More Thing: Stories and Other Stories by B. J. Novak

Not only is the former The Office actor and writer attractive, he’s hilarious and brilliant off-screen, too. In One More Thing, Novak presents beloved tales, various themes, and ideas across a wide range of subjects with a sharp wit, keen eye, and inquisitive mind. We see the hare’s side of the race with the tortoise, a teacher who wants to do away with arithmetic, the stock market struggling through depression, what heaven might be like, and what some people may consider when they talk to their ex. B.J. entertains the reader with each story, some of which are only two sentences, but all of which speak volumes.

Green Rider by Kristen Britain

If you’re looking for something in the fantasy realm (especially if you’re as big a fan of series as I am), Green Rider is a high ranker on my list. It was also one of the first fantasy novels I have read to feature a female protagonist. Fearing expulsion and disappointing her family, Karigan G’ladheon leaves her school after a fight with an aristocrat’s son only to find her troubles just beginning. On the road home, Karigan encounters a young man, dressed in green, impaled with two blacks arrows. He is one of the king’s Green Riders, a legendary messenger service that serves the crown. He pleads with his dying breath that she carry on his mission and deliver the life-and-death message to King Zachary. Unable to deny the dying man’s final wish, she agrees to the task. She is given his golden winged-horse brooch, the symbol of the Green Riders, and a warning: “Beware the shadow man …” Now pursued by assassins, spirits, and an unknown threat to the kingdom, Karigan embarks on her journey through a world of complex magic and forces she does not yet understand.

You Are a Badass: How to Stop Doubting Your Greatness and Start Living an Awesome Life by Jen Sincero

January 1 isn’t the only time to make life-changing decisions and resolutions, and if you need that extra push to really start enjoying your life, You Are a Badass won’t steer you wrong. Some people may shy away from this sort of book because it’s self-help, but I honestly believe if everyone read this book, the world would be much better off. The author delivers her lessons through tales from her own life, but the advice never feels like a lecture. It’s almost like Jen is right there just talking to you. You’re forced to really look at yourself, own up to your faults, and then fix them by evaluating what you really want — because if you want something, you’ll make it happen. To make more money, to move to another city, to lose those extra few books — if you want it, go for it. Plus, she curses while encouraging you to stop moping and feeling sorry for yourself, which earns huge points in my book.

The Way of Shadows (Night Angel Trilogy #1) by Brent Weeks

Another recommendation for the fantasy (and series) lovers out there, The Way of Shadows combines assassin training, the will to survive, and magic. Azoth, a young “guild rat” who has grown up in the slums, knows survival is not guaranteed. He searches for the city’s most accomplished assassin, Durzo Blint, to gain an apprenticeship with the wetboy and create a better life for himself and, hopefully, help his friends in the process. In order to be accepted by Durzo, Azoth must reject his old life and take on the identify of Kylar Stern, a trained killing artist and deadly opponent. Kylar must obey his new master’s teachings, learn the dangerous politics of the city and its inhabitants, and control the strange magic that comes with being an assassin who is chose by a Ka’kari, an orb that connects the broken paths in a person’s magic, allowing Kylar to access his powers. I was completely engrossed in this book from start to finish and blew through the trilogy in a few days. The characters are well-developed and the intrigues and hard choices posed — friends or orders, love or duty — kept me begging for more.

State your name: Etymology of these United States

The names of provinces in any country can be seen as a road map of the people who lived there: the conquering, the conquered, the vainglorious, and the descriptive. The United States is no different. The East Coast is draped with the names of kings and the poetry of conquistadors, while the northern and western parts of the country are largely sprinkled with indigenous words and phrases that have all but lost their original meanings. Without further ado, let’s have a closer look at this patchwork tapestry.

Alabama is likely from a Choctaw term meaning “plant-cutters.”

Alaska is from the Aleut word alaxsxaq, which means, “the object toward which the action of the sea is directed,” or perhaps more succinctly, “the coastline.”

Arizona is a Spanish transliteration of an O’odham word meaning “having a little spring,” probably not in reference to the Colorado River. The O’odham are an Aztec offshoot that were frequently called Piman by the Spanish. This is probably because, when the Europeans asked them who they were, they replied “pi mac,” which means “I don’t know.” Y’know, because language barrier.

Arkansas is a French transliteration of the word used by the Algonquian peoples to describe the Quapaw, a Sioux tribe that lived on the Arkansas River.

California was named by Spanish explorers after a fictional place in a 1510 novel of Garci (Ordóñez) Rodríguez de Montalvo, whose works are compared to those which make up Arthurian legend. The name may as well be Arrakis or Hogwarts, as the word does not mean anything in particular.

Colorado was named after the Colorado River. The Spanish word simply means “colored,” and implies a reddish, weather-beaten hue.

Connecticut is from the Algonquian quinnitukqut, “at the long tidal river.”

Delaware was named for the first English colonial governor of, ironically, Virginia, Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr. The word is roughly French for “of the war,” or “warrior.”

Florida was discovered by the Spanish in 1513 on Palm Sunday, one name for which is Pascua florida, or “flowering Easter.”

Georgia was named for King George II of Great Britain. As a side note, the Caucasian country Georgia was named for Saint George.

Hawaii is Proto-Polynesian for “place of the gods.”

Idaho is from the Kiowa-Apache word idaahe, meaning “enemy,” used to describe the Comanches.

Illinois comes from an Algonquian tribe who called themselves ilinouek, or “ordinary speaker.”

Indiana was named for the “Indians” in the Americas, who were, of course, not actually from India at all. The word originally derives from Sanskrit sindhu, the same root as the word Hindu, and it means “river.”

Iowa comes from Dakota ayuxba, or “sleepy ones,” describing the Chiwere people who lived there. I feel like we can just name the entire country “Iowa” without much difficulty.

Kansas shares the same root as Arkansas.

Kentucky probably comes from an Iroquoian word meaning “meadow,” something like geda’geh.

Louisiana was named after King Louis XIV of France, deriving from Old High German Hluodowig, “famous in war.”

Maine comes from the name of a French province. The word is Gaulish, probably in reference to “mainland.”

Maryland was named after the wife of King Charles I of England, Henrietta Maria of France.

Massachusetts is Algonquian for “at the large hill,” because there’s a big hill southwest of Boston.

Michigan was named after the lake, probably Old Ojibwe meshi-gami, which means “big lake.” So Lake Michigan is “Lake Big Lake.”

Minnesota is from Dakota mnisota, which means “cloudy water,” in reference to a river.

Mississippi was, of course, named after the river, originally an Ojibwe construction, mshi ziibi, or “big river.” There we go again. The Mississippi River is the “big river river.”

Missouri is from an Algonquian word meaning “people of the big canoes,” in reference to Chiwere tribes from that region.

Montana is just Spanish for “mountain place,” because of all the Rocky Mountains there.

Nebraska is from the Omaha word ni braska, which means “flat river.”

Nevada was named after the Sierra Nevada mountain range on the border. The word is Spanish for “snowy.”

New Hampshire was named after the English county of Hampshire. Hampshire, similar to Hampton, comes from Old English hamtunscir, which simply refers to a village-town and its surrounding farmlands.

New Jersey was named for the Channel Island of Jersey. The word probably either comes from Old Norse jarl (earl) or somebody’s name.

New Mexico was not actually named after the country of Mexico. The state, then a province of New Spain, was named in 1598 — that’s 220 years before Mexico gained independence and named itself. The word is Aztecan mexihco, of unknown origin.

New York was renamed from New Netherland, from when the Dutch East India Company set up shop for the lucrative fur and trading opportunities. It was renamed after British acquisition in honor of future King James II, then Duke of York and Albany. The word York eventually derives from ancient Celtic Eborakon, or “Yew tree estate.”

North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were all one state until the early 1700’s, when governing disagreements caused many of the Lords Proprietor to sell their shares back to the crown. Carolina was named in honor of King Charles I of England (Latin Carolus).

North Dakota was named for the Dakota tribe, who spoke Sioux. Their word, dakhota, means “friendly.”

Ohio was named after the river, with the Seneca word ohiyo, which means “good river.”

Oklahoma is from a Choctaw construction, okla homma, which means “people who are red.” Daniel Snyder is vindicated.

Oregon is probably originally Algonquian, but we don’t know what it means!

Pennsylvania means “Penn’s woods.” Penn is Welsh for “head,” sylvania is Latin for “woods.” It was named not after William Penn, the founder of the colony, but rather his late father, also William Penn. Will wanted to name it “New Wales.” That’d be fun.

Rhode Island was probably an extension of the Dutch name given to Block Island, Roodt Eylandt, or “red island.”

South Carolina shares the same origin as North Carolina.

South Dakota was separated from North Dakota in 1889 on account of population growth. Name origin is shared.

Tennessee is named for a Cherokee village Ta’nasi, the meaning of which is lost.

Texas is a Spanish transliteration of a Caddo word, taysha, which means “friends.” Is it time to change the state’s motto to “I’ll be there for you?” *clap clap clap clap*

Utah is from Western Apache yudah, or “high.” As in mountainous, not as in stoned, considering the large Mormon population. Though Colorado is next door.

Vermont sort of means “green mountain” in French, but the correct form would be “Mont Vert,” so maybe the person who named it didn’t actually know French very well?

Virginia was named, of course, after the Virgin Queen of England, Elizabeth.

Washington was named after George Washington. The word is Old English for “Wassa’s house.”

West Virginia was originally part of Virginia but split during the Civil War.

Wisconsin was named after the river, but the origin of the word is unknown.

Wyoming comes from a region on the other side of the country, in Pennsylvania. It’s from an Algonquian word, chwewamink, which means “at the big river flat.” They named the state Wyoming because they had nothing better to call it, I guess?

So that’s the end of the tour. Hopefully you’ve discovered whether your favorite state is friendly or sleepy or even if you’re a “Jarlsey girl.” See you next week!

Nationalism, not just killing of Ferdinand, sparked WWI

“Patriotism is the belief your country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.”
— George Bernard Shaw

With World Cup fever overtaking the globe, it is interesting to see the rise of patriotism in people, including me, who rarely go about flag-waving and chanting “U-S-A.” It’s an interesting look into who we are as people and a remnant of something tribal within us. But while patriotism and nationalism can be great and honorable things at times, it also has a negative side — one which has caused some of the greatest mass slaughters in human history.

On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, was assassinated by Gavrilo Princip, a Yugoslav nationalist. What followed was one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, with over 16 million deaths and 20 million wounded.

In a world in which the United States sees far fewer casualties despite being perpetually at war, the idea that 16 million people could march to their deaths in a span of four years is simply unfathomable. But the reasons for which so many fought and died are still very much a part of our world. And while I am optimistic enough to hope it won’t happen again in my lifetime, I am not so naive as to believe it can’t happen.

The Great War in 1914 did not simply begin because of an assassination of an Austro-Hungarian royal. The archduke’s killing was just the final spark that set off the dynamite. The fuse had been burning for the previous 100 years, and while the flame had been doused at times, Ferdinand’s death ensured the fuse would be lit again with a flamethrower.

The story of World War I is not just the story of an assassination and entangling alliances. It is the story of the overwhelming power of nationalism — of the belief in national self-rule, of the belief in British exceptionalism, of the belief in American ideals and the inevitable triumph of democracy. In short, millions died because they believed their nations stood for something greater, and they were willing to fight for that.

The story begins in the 18th century, when a little-known soldier from Virginia named George Washington got into a scrap with French soldiers in what today is called Pittsburgh. The actions started the French and Indian War, which ended with Great Britain in control of vast new territories in Canada but in substantial debt. The Brits asked their American colonies to pay more in taxes, which sparked a long debate about the right of a free people to choose their own representatives. It ended with a war.

In declaring themselves free, however, the American colonists also declared that “all men were created equal.” The American cause spread to France, and soon, the French overthrew their own government and proclaimed liberty, equality, and fraternity. French nationalism became the new order of the day. No longer was a citizen identified as Corsican or Norman or Parisian — he was simply a Frenchman. The French Revolution, despite its high ideals, ended with the installation of a new emperor: Napoleon Bonaparte.

Napoleon spent the next few years conquering much of the European continent, and despite the fact that he was now a French monarch, he spread the ideals of the French Revolution. Napoleon created small républiques based on national identity, including the Kingdom of Italy, the Duchy of Warsaw, and the Confederation of the Rhine. For the first time, many of these peoples were coming to terms with the idea of ruling over themselves like the Americans and the French. The idea of nationalism came into vogue.

Most of these new nations were split up following Napoleon’s defeat and the Congress of Vienna. Reactionary forces were determined to maintain the status quo. That meant returning nations to their former masters and reinstalling the king of France. An example could not be set that it was OK to overthrow a monarch.

The Congress of Vienna’s goal was to maintain what they called the Balance of Power. Similar to the philosophy which kept world powers in a Cold War for half a century, the Balance of Power philosophy stated that no nation on the European continent should gain enough power to be able to crush the other Great Powers. The Great Powers, which included Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and France, would act as checks on one another, with their strength being so equal that war between the Powers would be too deadly and costly. As an added bonus, the Powers would be expected to help one another out when any pesky ethnic minorities decided they wanted to pass their own laws.

That agreement came in handy in 1848, when numerous nationalistic groups tried to spark their own revolutions. The French were successful, ending the French monarchy and creating the French Second Republic, which was headed by Louis-Napoléon, who, of course, became emperor a few years later. Other nations were less successful.

The Austrian Empire faced the greatest threat from nationalism. The empire included Austrians, Hungarians, Slovenes, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Croats, Romanians, Serbs, and Italians. Each ethnic group included those who hoped to either achieve autonomy or independence. Further complicating things were the Germans, who, like the Italians, were seeking national unification.

Within the next two and a half decades, both Italy and Germany would achieve their nationalist goals through war, bribery, and realpolitik. The unification stories of both nations were intertwined and helped to set the stage for World War I.

Italian unification began with the Congress of Vienna and ended in 1871, when Rome was named the capital of the united Italy. Rome was taken by the Kingdom of Italy in a victory against the Papal States when Louis-Napoléon, now known as Napoleon III, had to remove troops so that they could be used in a fight with Prussia. Italian unification set off a wave in Europe and created a sixth Great Power, offsetting the balance that was created in Vienna.

Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck was no nationalist, but he understood power and understood how to manipulate the population. By provoking a war with Napoleon III and the Second French Empire, Bismarck knew he would be able to persuade the smaller German states to side with their brother countries. The Franco-Prussian War began and quickly ended with France’s humiliation. In the end, Napoleon III was removed from power, Alsace-Lorraine was ceded to Prussia, and the German states united under Prussia’s King Wilhelm to form the first German Empire. The loss of Alsace-Lorraine wounded France’s pride, and the country was determined to win the rematch, whenever that day came. The unification of Germany also offset Europe’s Balance of Power, upsetting Great Britain, which began an arms race with the Germans.

German unification was technically not complete, however. The Austrians were also a Germanic people, but as rulers of their own empire, which included many belligerent ethnic minorities, they had no desire to promote the nationalism that was making Germany strong. Still, their shared desire to avoid war with Russia led to the Dual Alliance of 1879.

Austria in the beginning of the 20th century was in the midst of political turmoil driven by nationalism. In 1882, Serbia proclaimed its independence from the Ottoman Empire, which, like the Austrian Empire, contained many disparate ethnic groups. Ethnic Serbs in Austria, as well as other Slavic peoples, desired to be rid of their Austrian overlords and wished to unite with their brother country. Austrian leadership was torn on how to handle Serbia, with Franz Ferdinand, ironically, maintaining a dovish stance toward the country. The biggest reason for Austria to stay out of Serbia, however, was that Russia considered itself to be the protector of this smaller Slavic country.

And thus the stage was fully set for a World War. Yugoslav nationalists, including Bosnians and Serbs, were sick of being dictated to by the Austrian aristocracy and the Congress of Vienna. A small group of militants chose to do as Washington would do and fight for their freedom. Ironically, they killed their best ally in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the aging monarch took action against a country that had been a thorn in his side.

By attempting to crush Serbia, Austria provoked Russia, which stirred German nationalism into a frenzy, causing the young empire to mobilize for war. Germany went to war again with France, which was looking for an excuse for a rematch to take back Alsace-Lorraine. France, which was yet again a Republic, had sided with the other prominent republic in Europe, Great Britain, in a Triple Entente with Russia. Thus, German aggression provoked Great Britain and Russia, which was already involved to protect Serbia. Oh, and Germany then signed a pact with the Ottoman Empire in the midst of this, bringing the dying empire of the east into the battle as well.

But what about the United States? Well, American nationalism has always been a bit different than that of their European counterparts. Even in the early 20th century, American ethnicity was not really clear-cut. Immigrants had come to the United States from all over Europe and were becoming part of a nation that already included immigrants from China and the descendants of slaves from Africa. American identity became less about a common history and more about a common philosophy.

That philosophy was democracy, and even though it’s debatable how truly democratic the United States has been at various points in history, it was something the country believed was worth fighting for. Thus, with France and Great Britain being pushed by the empires of Europe, it became necessary as an extension of American nationalism to join the war. After all, the world had to be made safe for democracy.

Sound familiar? Remember this the next time you are watching the World Cup and cheering for the U.S. of A., while CNN is explaining why we may be entering Iraq for the third time in as many decades. Nationalism can be a great thing, but it may also lead to the downfall of society. Appreciate what makes us different, but don’t let it divide us to the point of destruction. After all, the end of humanity is in no one’s national interest.

WWE spotlights ladder match, pro wrestling’s spectacle

It’s summer blockbuster season again. We fans are being treated to the greatest in action spectacles and violence — and it’s pretty great. But action-adventure epics aren’t limited to the silver screen, and Transformers won’t be the only thing I’ll be watching this weekend that’s full of car wrecks.

WWE Money in the Bank, the leading professional wrestling company’s annual demolition derby, airs Sunday on pay-per-view and WWE Network. The event will feature two multiple-person ladder matches with huge prizes — the WWE World Heavyweight Championship is on the line in one, and an opportunity to fight for that championship at any time is up for grabs in the other. Within the context of sports entertainment storylines, there are few matches that hold more importance to a pro wrestler’s career.

But the Money in the Bank ladder match is just the newest incarnation of a match that dates back over 40 years and has featured some of the greatest action ever seen on screen — all without the benefit of special effects. The ladder match, quite simply, is the greatest gimmick match in professional wrestling. And if you aren’t a pro wrestling fan, I promise: even you will be entertained by a good ladder match. The best of the ladder matches have included some of the most absurd and risky maneuvers ever performed by any human being for any reason. See exhibit A:

In case you don’t have time to click on that video, the clip is of one man tackling another man in the middle of the air. There are about a million ways this could have gone wrong, yet both men were able to get up and walk away after the match. Neither practiced this stunt, and neither got paid extra for coming so close to death. The two performers simply wanted to put on a show that would get them attention, even if that meant risking their lives. And ultimately, it worked: both men are former WWE World Champions — something that only about 40 men in the last 50 years can say.

The ladder match, however, did not begin as a smash-mouth, high-octane, Michael Bay movie in a 20′-by-20′ ring. Its origins are much more humble and date back to 1972, when jumping through tables was unheard of in the sport of pro wrestling.

WWE fans are often told that the first ladder match ever took place in 1994 at WrestleMania X. That, however, is untrue. The match wasn’t even the first in WWE history.

The first recorded ladder match was held two decades earlier in a company called Stampede Wrestling. Stampede ran out of Calgary, Canada, and was known for its innovation and use of international pro wrestling stars. In September 1972, Stampede tried out a new gimmick which saw two men compete to climb a ladder to the ceiling, where a wad of cash was awaiting the victor. The match saw Dan Kroffat defeat Tor Kamata.

Stampede didn’t revisit the match again for seven years, when it pitted Junkyard Dog against Jake “The Snake” Roberts. The match, which can be seen on WWE’s first ladder match DVD compilation, is pretty unbearable to watch and looks nothing like the violent metal-fest we know and love today.

Stampede Wrestling was run by legendary professional wrestling promoter and patriarch Stu Hart, who often used his many sons as top stars in the territory. His son Bret, whom you may have heard of, competed in another early ladder match in Stampede against Bad News Brown.

Bret “The Hitman” Hart, as you may know, later joined Vince McMahon’s World Wrestling Federation (today’s WWE) and suggested that the company adopt the ladder match stipulation. McMahon, who had never heard of such a thing, eventually agreed to let Bret show him what a ladder match was all about. The Hitman was given the opportunity to influence McMahon at an untelevised house show in Portland, Maine, against an opponent of his choosing: Shawn Michaels.

The Michaels/Hart match was more in line with the ladder match of today, but with the match never airing on television, it was not able to gain the attention of pro wrestling fans around the world. Incidentally, it didn’t capture the attention of McMahon either. According to Hart, McMahon never actually bothered to watch WWE’s first ladder match.

With Michaels’ experience with Hart tucked away in his mind, “The Heartbreak Kid” suggested the match to McMahon again, but on a very different stage. Michaels, who had been suspended from the company for failing a drug test, was stripped of the Intercontinental Championship. While he was away, Razor Ramon was named the new champion, but when Michaels returned, he still had the old belt. And so, the first nationally televised ladder match was booked for the biggest show of the year, WrestleMania X, with both Intercontinental titles hanging above the ring, waiting for one man to capture the undisputed championship.

“Still, the spectacle is one of the best in the world, and fans love the matches for a reason. The ladder match has a storied history in professional wrestling, and will continue to be the maker of superstars.”

Michaels and Ramon put on a spectacular show, full of violence and risk-taking unheard of in WWF in the early 1990s. When Michaels dove off the ladder onto Ramon, he cemented his legacy in the minds of professional wrestling fans.

The match changed the direction of pro wrestling from a display of mat skills and a competition of strong men to an entertainment form defined by spectacle and risk. Sure, muscle heads continue to have their place in WWE, but smaller, more athletically gifted pro wrestlers are no longer ignored completely in favor of bodybuilders. In fact, Michaels set the stage for the ladder match to be the professional springboard for smaller pro wrestlers, paving the way for men like Rob Van Dam, Jeff Hardy, and Eddie Guerrero.

The WrestleMania ladder match set the standard by which all subsequent ladder matches would be judged. And in the late 90s and early 2000s, three tag teams raised the bar to a height that can never again be reached — and probably shouldn’t be.

In 1999, The Hardy Boyz faced Edge and Christian in the first-ever tag-team ladder match. The Hardys, who had been inspired by Michaels and considered the WrestleMania X contest among the best matches of all time, set out to prove what they could do with the match that HBK made famous. Edge and Christian, still new to WWE at the time, were more than willing to do their parts to make the tag team match stand out. The four competitors tore down the house with innovative violence and spectacular, suicidal maneuvers. All four men received a standing ovation and caught the attention of the decision makers in WWE.

Six months after their ladder match encounter, the two teams were joined by The Dudley Boyz in a three-team ladder match, proceeding to steal the show at WrestleMania 2000. With this match and their Tables, Ladders, and Chairs rematches at SummerSlam and the next year’s WrestleMania X-Seven, the three teams cemented their statuses as pro wrestling legends with some of the most risky, incredible performances ever seen from any professional athletes.

Unfortunately, this type of match is incredibly dangerous, and the spectacles that took place featuring those six men can never — and should never — be duplicated. The men involved took too many risks and raised the bar too high. In 2011, Edge, who has competed in dozens of ladder matches, had to retire while seemingly in his prime due to neck damage sustained after years of brutal competition.

In order to maintain the aura of the ladder match, WWE has made sure to use multiple athletes in most of these contests so the risks can be dispersed. While singles matches still take place with a ladder, the vast majority of ladder matches today are Money-in-the-Bank style, featuring between six and 10 competitors.

Still, some of the risks taken in Money in the Bank matches take a fan’s breath away. Shelton Benjamin in particular has used the Money in the Bank match to leave his legacy in the world of professional wrestling. Some of his more daring moves will be seen on highlight reels for decades:

We all know professional wrestling features predetermined outcomes and scripted segments, but much of what the performers do in the ring is determined by those involved. Many of the moves hurt. But the ladder match brought to the mainstream a more painful ring style that defined pro wrestling in the 90s and can still be seen today. We have to remember that the performers are people, too, and that we can’t have the bloodlust we had in the 90s if we expect our favorite pro wrestlers to live long and healthy lives.

Still, the spectacle is one of the best in the world, and fans love the matches for a reason. The ladder match has a storied history in professional wrestling, and will continue to be the maker of superstars.

WWE Money in the Bank has raised the status of the ladder match to the main event. The match often displays the talent of WWE’s next top stars and acts as a proving ground for those who want the world’s attention. Who will rise to the occasion this Sunday? I don’t know about you, but I look forward to finding out.

Finger Lakes wineries make for great weekend trip, part 2

In my last edition of this column, I wrote about the first half of my trip to New York state’s Finger Lakes, including wineries on Keuka Lake and Seneca Lake. This is the story of the second half of the trip, including the rest of the wineries my wife and I visited on Seneca Lake. Unfortunately, we did not make it to Cayuga Lake — this time.

The last winery we visited on the west side of Seneca Lake was Red Tail Ridge. The winery has one of best driveways in the Finger Lakes, snaking through the beautiful vineyard, uphill to the production facility, with the tasting room just beyond. Known for its dry wines, Red Tail Ridge is also one of the most environmentally conscious wineries I’ve visited. In 2011, the winery received the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) gold certification as a result of green features like geothermal cooling and heating and using recycled building materials.

The wines are fantastic as well. Oaked and unoaked chardonnays show very different expressions of the same grape. A nice dry riesling and a zippy, refreshing dry rosé were both great, but the 2013 riesling was the standout white. With 1.3 percent residual sugar, its not bone dry, but it achieves wonderful balance between acidity and a very slight hint of sweetness. I loved the crushed rocks and lime aromas on the nose and the zesty citrus on the palate.

As for the reds, Red Tail Ridge is known for producing wines using some rare varietals in addition to making a delicious pinot noir. These unique wines include: Teroldego, a red grape from northeastern Italy, which has produced a wine with black cherry flavors mixed with interesting herbal and earthy notes; Dornfelder, a thick-skinned German grape with raspberry and smoky flavors; and the Austrian grape Blaufrankisch also called Lemberger, which has a mixed berry palate combined with earth, smoke, and spice. All are delicious and worth trying.

On Sunday, we began our tastings on the eastern shore of Seneca Lake. This area is sometimes referred to as the “Banana Belt” for its longer growing season. Vineyards are closer to the lake here than in most areas, and the water is very deep, allowing the microclimate to stay warm for a bit longer than the rest of the Finger Lakes.

Our first stop was at Silver Springs. The winemaker was in the tasting room, which allowed us to hear more about his process and style. Silver Springs utilizes some grapes from the Finger Lakes and others from Long Island, which provided an interesting comparison. Grapes for some wines are dried on straw mats, an old italian wine making method. The pinot grigio was a delicious summery white, with crisp acidity but also a full-bodied mouth feel, plus delicious peach and pineapple flavors.

Damiani Wine Cellars, our next stop, had an impressive tasting room with a beautiful view of the lake, friendly staff, and plenty of wine variety. One standout was their Prosecco-style sparkling wine; with nice citrus and floral flavors, it would be a perfect easy sipper for the end of a hot day. We also really enjoyed the Vino Rosso, an everyday table wine with bright red fruit flavors that would pair perfectly with pizza. This winery isn’t just for table wines, however. Damiani is making some very interesting fine wines as well. The 2010 cabernet sauvignon, Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve, and merlot were all very well made. The Cab Reserve really caught my attention with its powerfully concentrated black fruit flavors along with hints of fig and cedar.

Damiani also produces some very interesting single-vineyard wines, which is becoming one of the best parts of wine in the Finger Lakes. There are many micro-climates and soil varieties in certain pockets of the Finger Lakes, and these offerings are making a serious splash for those searching for terroir — a sense of place — in wine. Damiani’s bottles from the Sunrise Hill Vineyard, Damiani Vineyard, and Davis Vineyard all warrant attention, especially the Sunrise Hill Lemberger.

Atwater Estate Vineyards has some really outstanding dry wines; we thoroughly enjoyed everything we sampled. Atwater and Billsboro, which I wrote about in part one of this review, share the same winemaker. Two sparkling wines at Atwater, Riesling Bubble and “Pinot Noir Bubble (a rosé) were easy purchases. Both are fruit-forward, food-friendly, very refreshing, and priced right — perfect for sipping on the deck or by the pool during warm summer weather. The dry riesling was delicious, with its lime and mineral flavor profile. We really enjoyed the peach and citrus flavor combination in the pinot gris and were pleasantly surprised by the Riewürz — a unique blend of riesling and Gewürztraminer. Two red blends, Stone Bridge Red and The Big Blend, were also quite good.

Red Newt Cellars is one of the best riesling producers in the country, with no fewer than six to try: the light, refreshing, and slightly sweet “Circle” riesling, with orange and apricot notes; the mineral-driven dry riesling with crisp acidity; the semi-dry riesling boasting juicy peach and pear; and three single-vineyard rieslings — Bullhorn Creek, Tango Oaks, and Lahoma, each expressing different styles and unique terroir. Red Newt also produces single-vineyard bottlings of merlot and Gewürztraminer, which are fascinating to try.

The Bistro at Red Newt is easily one of the finest restaurants in the Finger Lakes. Like the terroir expressed in Red Newt’s single-vineyard wines, the Bistro aims to express the taste of the Finger Lakes: the food is sourced from over 30 farmers and producers in the region. If you have the chance, try the wine pairing dinners.

At Hector Wine Company, we were fortunate enough to taste with one of the winemakers. Hector is a relatively new winery, having only opened in 2010, but is already making a splash with excellent wines and a great tasting room. We tasted a pinot blanc, somewhat rare in the Finger Lakes, and enjoyed the delicate citrus and tropical flavors mixed with a tinge of minerality and pepper on the finish. The sauvignon blanc was also a standout, light and refreshing with lively lemon and apple characteristics, and hints of herbs and fresh cut grass. Conversely, the pinot gris had a slightly more cloying mouth feel, likely from the oak-barrel aging, with a nice cantaloupe/melon component, along with tropical fruit flavors.

Leidenfrost Vineyards has been growing grapes on the family farm since 1947, and the experience and knowledge the winemakers amassed over the decades is evident in the wine. The reds were particularly good here, especially the pinot noir: really nice hints of floral and red berries on the nose, with ripe black cherries dominating the palate and a long finish. The Cabernet Franc Reserve also stood out, with an interesting nutty, coffee component on the palate. Leidenfrost’s heritage blend, Rhapsody, was full-bodied and loaded with fresh, ripe black fruit flavors as well as smoky pepper on the finish.

Pulling into the parking lot at Lamoreaux Landing feels more like arriving at a winery in California, with the fantastic views and the beautiful, grandiose building in front of you. But once inside, it feels smaller and friendly, despite the high ceilings, with the cozy tasting bar and wine racks spread around. The wines were, frankly, outstanding. Like Red Newt, the tasting menu puts a distinct focus on riesling with multiple single-vineyard offerings. The dry riesling, Yellow Dog Vineyard Riesling, and Round Rock Riesling were each fantastic. While the Yellow Dog had flavors of tangerine and lemon with mouthwatering acidity, the Round Rock had a much more integrated and round feeling to it, with almost creamy apple flavors, less zest, and more elegance. All three were no-brainers at checkout.

As for reds, the Estate Red is a ridiculous bargain at $12, a perfect wine for pizza or casual drinking with both true winos and beginners. The pinot noir was elegant and smooth, with an intriguing mix of the expected cherry and slightly earthy herbal flavors, combined with an unexpected orange/tangerine character.

This was one of the best trips to the Finger Lakes I have made in awhile. Most wineries are pulling out all the stops with serious, delicious, thought-provoking, and complex wines. I feel like I bought more dry rosés and sauvignon blancs than usual, though the beginning of summer undoubtedly had something to do with that. Pinot noir and cabernet franc are fairing the best among reds, but there’s no question that riesling is king in the Finger Lakes.

If you live in the northeastern United States, do yourself a favor and make the trip. It is well worth the drive.

Swirl, sniff, sip.

‘Cybertron’ series a good fit for Transformers franchise

As you read last week, Charissa is in the British Isles. Filling in at Fanning Out this week is video game expert Nick Rose.

With the release of Transformers: Age of Extinction upon us, I thought it necessary to look at a set of related Transformers media: the “Cybertron” video game series. While the first two installments were not directly related to Michael Bay’s previous films, which had their own exclusive video game tie-ins, the next installment in the “Cybertron” series, Rise of the Dark Spark, acts as a sequel to the previous games while also tying into the upcoming film. Confused yet?

Let’s be honest here. 2010’s War for Cybertron and its 2012 sequel Fall of Cybertron were marketing ploys. Aware of the commercial success of Bay’s films, High Moon Studios developed games that might serve as loose prequels to the films while also giving fans some gun-toting, wheel-spinning robot action in a different medium. This article is part-review and part-retrospective of the first two games. Ultimately, the “Cybertron” series differs from the films in that the critical debates over loyalty to a particular continuity are not as important as having a blast … literally.

War for Cybertron (WFC), as its title suggests, begins by thrusting players into the civil war that is an integral part of several Transformers incarnations (take your pick). Though most sources will agree it fits best with the “Aligned” continuity family, conventions from “Generation 1” are also present. The first half of the campaign is from the Decepticons‘ point of view, covering Megatron’s harnessing of Dark Energon to defeat current Autobot leader Zeta Prime and eventually corrupt the very core of the planet. While Megatron is undoubtedly the head honcho, his rivalry with fellow Decepticon Starscream is given significant attention, sometimes to laughable effects. Each robot may carry two weapons and possesses a special combat ability. A simple press of the joystick sends your character effortlessly twisting into his vehicle form, be it a weaponized Cybertronian car, truck, or jet.

The campaign’s second half puts you on the other side of the action. The Autobots, their capital city in ruins after the defeat of Zeta Prime and gargantuan defender Omega Supreme, struggle to halt Megatron’s plans. When they learn of their planet’s fate, all efforts are devoted to evacuating the planet while still mopping up any remaining Decepticon threats. An added bonus comes from original Optimus Prime voice actor Peter Cullen reprising his role. Longtime fans will certainly appreciate the confident eloquence he brings to the character. Other popular Autobots like Bumblebee, Ironhide, Warpath, Ratchet, Jetfire, and Sideswipe make appearances as well, most of them playable. The winner of best game sequence goes to an action-packed later mission in which Jetfire leads an assault against a Decepticon orbital weapon that transforms into the game’s final boss, Trypticon.

War for Cyberton‘s story ends inconclusively, most definitely leaving things open for a sequel. For those who tire of the campaign, WFC introduces what has become another staple of the series. In the online multiplayer mode “Escalation”, up to five players must survive against increasingly difficult waves of enemies.

In WFC, Trypticon is produced from the planet’s infected core. Photo source: Gameinformer.com

Two short years later, Fall of Cybertron (FOC) was released. To switch things up from last time, players now begin as Autobots and pick up with the Decepticons later. As with most sequels, the cast is expanded in this outing. Two additions hyped by the game’s reveal trailer were that of Decepticon Bruticus (formed by the Combaticons) and the fan favorite Grimlock for the Autobots. The campaign’s structure is more varied as well, placing you in control of about a dozen different characters by the time the end credits roll. Everything about FOC is bigger, louder, and oh-so-glorious in its execution. New enemy types like the Decepticon Leaper or Guardian challenge players, but the formula to defeat them is easily executed after a first try. A reformatted weapons system allows players to carry one primary and one “heavy” weapon for tougher enemies. Once blueprints for these weapons have been recovered, players can access them from an in-game store.

Cinematic trailer for FOC. Video source: YouTube

Fall of Cybertron’s biggest improvements come in the departments of sound and mechanics. Transforming is just as simple as in the first game, but vehicle movement is superbly more fluid. High Moon made sure to include more areas that require players to navigate in vehicle form. The opening of chapter 3 sees Optimus being escorted by the massive Metroplex through Iacon city’s ruins. Danish composer Troel Brun Folmann’s score for the second game definitely channels Steve Jablonsky’s work from the live-action films. Key moments on both sides of the campaign are complemented by the music’s epic feel, especially in the explosive final battle that bounces between faction perspectives. The adventure concludes with the Autobot’s escape vessel, The Ark, being sucked through a space bridge.

Impressive and enjoyable as they are, both games are not without their respective downsides. As third-person shooters, they are not groundbreaking in any way. Players expecting anything cerebral or challenging beyond the occasional boss fight might be disappointed. Also, both games encourage cover but lack the sophistication to perform it properly, à la Gears of War. None of these drawbacks ruin the overall experience, and I recommend them to anyone willing to shut off their brain for hour or five.

Megatron fights against the Autobot’s mightiest defender, Omega Supreme, in War for Cybertron. Photo source: IGN.com

I suppose the bulk of my enjoyment stems from the fact that the “Cybertron” games seem to possess a meta-knowledge of what they are. They’re two more installments in a media franchise inspired by toys. Are we meant to take more seriously Optimus’ and Megatron’s philosophical banter on freedom and destiny, even if it is expertly performed? Is a tear to be shed when Metroplex sacrifices himself so his Autobot allies can escape their crumbling home world? Maybe a little. Not to downplay storytelling in games, but it seems many fans feel those deeper considerations toward theme, story, and “accurate” characterizations are better suited for discussions of Bay’s films.

Rise of the Dark Spark, released Tuesday for both current-gen and previous-gen consoles, will merge the formerly stand-alone “Cybertron” universe with that of Bay’s films. Screenshots and trailers suggest that its game design and physics with be very similar to Fall of Cybertron’s “Havok” engine, with developer Edge of Reality taking over for High Moon. Early reviews range from mediocre to downright negative, unfortunately, I’ll reserve judgment until I play the actual game, but all signs point to Dark Spark as a rush job that may potentially tarnish this game franchise’s otherwise decent reputation.

Democratizing American English has been OK for years

This week’s special Lingwizardry is brought to you by our resident historian, Kevin Hillman.

Every year, Merriam-Webster adds new words to the dictionary. And every year, we bemoan the addition of lingo like “LOL” and “sext” to our official lexicon, as though it is indicative of the downfall of society. But these words, primarily created in the Internet age, are part of a long American tradition.

See, unlike the French, who have an Académie that regulates their language, English, particularly American English, has a long tradition of democratization. So while it is easy to whine about kids and their PDAs and typewriters ruining good ol’ American words, remember that it is nothing new, and an evolving language is really OK.

Actually, “OK” is the perfect example of how Americans have democratized the English language in the past 200 years. “OK” sounds like a word that would have been invented in the Internet age alongside LOL and WTF. The word, in all its simplicity, actually predates Internet lingo by about 155 years. It sounds like an acronym and looks like one, too, but ask people what “OK” stands for and very few could give you the answer. Most signs point to “OK” meaning “orl korrekt,” which you might recognize as making no damn sense whatsoever.

It turns out that American men and women of the 1830s actually had a sense of humor, and even though they were among the few people in the world who were actually literate, they liked to misspell words and make weird acronyms. You might recognize this as common practice for anyone who’s ever sent a text message. “Orl korrekt” was a purposely corrupted spelling of “all correct” and took on its meaning, and, as was hip at the time, was then shortened to simply “OK”.

This democratization of language was a direct result of the Declaration of Independence. Following the American Revolution, common folk began to see themselves as human beings on an equal footing with their supposed social betters. The American aristocracy (Greek aristokratía, from aristos, “excellent,” and kratos, “power”) certainly didn’t love the idea, but it came with the territory after claiming that “all men were created equal.”

The first and second generations born after the American Revolution had taken its purported goals to heart and began democratizing institutions everywhere. This democratization led to the drastic divisions in the Protestant Church, which created several new sects due to popular differences in interpretation. Politics became less about deferring to the greater sort and more about selecting the guy who agreed with your views — or bought you beer.

It also affected much of our language, with Mister, Madame, and other honorifics coming into common use for common folks, as opposed to being reserved for the upper class. Democratization of the English language meant the spelling of some words was changed to align with more common usage, a practice that exists to this day and can cause a lot of confusion.

Even the word “democracy” itself took on new meaning — or, at least, new connotations. To the Founding Generation, “democracy” (Greek dēmokratía, from dēmos, “people,” and kratos, “power”) was a dirty word, used in disgust and largely viewed as describing “mob rule.” Many of the founders of the American Republic thought the common people just weren’t capable of ruling themselves, which is the reason we have a Senate and an Electoral College and don’t pass laws based on referendum the way the Athenians did things.

The change in tone for “democracy” came at about the same time as the rise of “OK” — and largely thanks to the same man. “OK” was perhaps the biggest product of American linguistic democracy. An abbreviation and misspelling fad in 19th-century Boston created the most commonly understood word in the 21st-century world. Its simplicity and catchiness gave it tremendous spreading power. But “OK” never would have spread far outside of the working classes of Boston if not for the most important president in the history of the United States.

Of course, I’m speaking of Martin Van Buren. The eighth president of the United States and key founder of the Democratic Party began his life in Kinderhook (Dutch for “children’s corner”), New York, and was of Dutch ancestry. The first “ethnic” President, Van Buren actually spoke Dutch as his primary language. Van Buren was also the first president born after the American Revolution, making him the first president born a U.S. citizen — and making the “This is America, so speak English,” argument look a bit absurd. Van Buren, the son of a tavern keeper, had no love for the aristocratic ways of Old America and was a strong advocate for giving a voice to the common man.

In the early 1820s, Americans believed party politics was dead. The Democratic-Republicans of Thomas Jefferson were the only viable political party left, having defeated the Federalists soundly and frequently. With the election of 1824, however, that all changed. With four different candidates on the presidential ballot, no man was able to secure a victory, and the race was thrown into the House of Representatives, which awarded the election to John Quincy Adams. Popular favorite Andrew Jackson was furious, and Van Buren, with his brilliant political mind, saw an opportunity.

The country was shifting from the days of the Revolution, which romanticized the ancient Roman Republic and the ideals of disinterested leadership, to the second generation of American political leaders and an affinity for all things Ancient Greece. Hence the shift in popularity of the word “democracy” as well as its philosophy, which was associated with Ancient Greek government.

Van Buren understood the shift better than anyone. After the election of 1824, Van Buren began assembling an opposition party against Adams by using the prestige and stature of Old Hickory. Jackson, viewed as a hero of the people, was able to garner support from all around the country, as common men viewed his rough nature and gruff attitude as proof that he was just like them. His immense popularity led to Adams leaving after only one term in office, as Jackson, the people’s chosen representative, was elected in 1828, establishing the Democratic Party as a force to be reckoned with.

Van Buren had built a party from the ground up and changed the way we look at politics — and our own language. Van Buren, in the tradition of Jefferson, changed the connotation of “democracy” into a positive one. The first generation born under the Declaration of Independence was seeing to its promise of equality for all — err, all white men anyway.

1836 was Van Buren’s year to take up his party’s mantle. He took on the Whig candidate, William Henry Harrison, and was victorious in a landslide, largely thanks to the popularity of the incumbent. In 1840, however, Van Buren was not so lucky.

Van Buren’s Democratic Party and the Whigs who opposed it established what we would consider the modern political system. The elections were no longer about issues but more about appealing to the masses with slogans and sound bites. Harrison’s Whig Party ran with “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too” in reference to Harrison’s military victory in the Battle of Tippecanoe and his running mate, John Tyler. They also perpetuated the myth that Harrison, like Van Buren and Jackson, was a common man’s hero, born in a log cabin on the frontier — which he certainly was not. Harrison was Virginia aristocracy, born in a comfortable mansion, with a father who signed the Declaration of Independence. The log cabin image, however, caught on.

Van Buren, despite being the son of a tavern keeper, was portrayed as a wealthy, aristocratic snob. You may recognize these tactics, as they still exist to this day, with the best example being George W. Bush, a Yale legacy and son of a president convincing the country that he was a Washington outsider and a cowboy.

To combat the Whigs, the Democrats began calling Van Buren “Old Kinderhook,” or “OK” for short, in reference to his hometown. “Old Kinderhook” used the nickname to gather grassroots support, but was ultimately defeated by Tippecanoe and his Log Cabin campaign, proving that perception is everything when it comes to politics.

On the bright side, the race greatly popularized the use of the word “OK”, with it reaching all corners of a country which had only a president and a common language uniting it. The introduction of the telegraph and the railroad, which signaled the birth of mass communication, meant that “OK” would spread across the nation, just like the Internet did for “LOL” and “sext”.

In time, our language further evolved, with “OK” now being written as “okay” in most of our conversations.

Today, we honor Old Kinderhook’s memory by invoking his nickname in every single conversation we have. So remember, Old Kinderhook may not make your list of top ten U.S. presidents — unless you rank them in chronological order — but Martin Van Buren did popularize the most American of words, and that is pretty OK.

‘Martial Mama’ shares her favorite summer reads

Ahab’s Wife: or, The Star-Gazer by Sena Jeter Naslund

This novel imagines the story of the wife of Captain Ahab (yes, that Captain Ahab). Naslund’s tale weaves literary characters (Ahab and the crew of the Pequod) with actual historical figures (Margaret Fuller and Maria Mitchell, as well as Emerson, Hawthorne, and the Alcotts). The story follows the physical and spiritual journey of Una from her home in backwoods Kentucky to the shores of Nantucket, Massachusetts. Una’s keen mind and reflections on the nature of self, others, the natural world, and beyond make for an inspiring and satisfying read.

The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien

I love this book so much because a) it is a delightful tale of adventure, b) it shows how even a small and relatively unremarkable hobbit can make a huge difference in the lives of others, c) Middle-earth is a fascinating place, d) Bard and his black arrow are way cool, and e) it brings back fond memories of my aunt reading this to my cousin and me. A fantasy tale with lessons about first impressions, facing one’s fears, loyalty, friendship, tough decisions, and good and bad, The Hobbit is a book that is worth a read and then some.

The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver

In 1959, Evangelical Baptist preacher Nathan Price embarks on a mission from Georgia to the Congo with his family. The story is told from the perspectives of his wife, Orleanna, and his four daughters, Ruth May, Rachel, Leah, and Adah. Combined, their voices weave a tapestry of experiences, sometimes uplifting and sometimes tragic. Kingsolver deftly explores the topics of culture, religion, individuality, family dynamics, and a search for truth and meaning against the backdrop of political unrest in an unfamiliar land.

All the Pretty Horses by Cormac McCarthy

I have my friend and fellow Curiata.com contributor John Butz to thank for introducing me to this book and the works of Cormac McCarthy. In general, I read books fast, eager to see how the story unfolds. This is impossible to do with All the Pretty Horses (and McCarthy’s other books as well). Despite McCarthy’s spare use of punctuation (no quotation marks signifying conversations, for example) and long sentences, his skillful use of language makes you want to slow down and savor every beautiful word. The story follows John Grady Cole, a 16-year-old Texas cowboy with a natural affinity for horses, and the loss of everything dear to him (his grandfather, the family ranch, his parents, his love, his horses, the Age of the Cowboy). While this may sound depressing (and don’t get me wrong, it mostly is depressing), there is room for hope here for “the world to come.” Even though McCarthy’s work would never be considered light reading, gems like this make it well worth the time:

The fire had burned to coals and he lay looking up at the stars in their places and the hot belt of matter that ran the chord of the dark vault overhead and he put his hands on the ground at either side of him and pressed them against the earth and in that coldly burning canopy of black he slowly turned dead center to the world, all of it taut and trembling and moving enormous and alive under his hands.

Outlander by Diana Gabaldon

In recommending this book, I really am recommending the entire “Outlander” series of which the eighth book, Written In My Own Heart’s Blood, was just released June 10. Since one generally begins a series at the beginning, though, let’s start there. It is hard to categorize this book; it is at once historical fiction, science fiction, mystery, romance, and adventure. Bear with me, because the premise sounds questionable, but the story really is amazing. Claire, a combat nurse, reunites with her soldier-husband, Frank, in Inverness, Scotland, in 1945. One afternoon, while looking for medicinal herbs, Claire comes upon a group of standing stones. She touches one of the ancient boulders and is unwittingly transported back in time to 1743. What follows is an adventure involving a sadistic British officer, a young Scottish warrior, political intrigue, clan warfare, witchcraft, and a woman forced to declare her own loyalties. If you undertake “Outlander,” do me one favor: please, please, please stay with it for the first few chapters. The beginning seems a bit uneventful, but after page 50, the action never stops.

Transformers trilogy can be blockbuster litmus test

There is a tendency among film critics to scoff at blockbusters, action flicks, and movies with copious amounts of CGI. They complain at the direction Hollywood has been taking, which sees more and more action-heavy movies each year. But their complaints are misplaced, and at times, seem a bit snobbish to movie fans like me, who love Oscar winners and blockbusters with equal passion.

Movies such as Lincoln, Schindler’s List, and Good Will Hunting tell tremendous stories about history or the human condition and allow us to look inward. But movies heavy with special effects and action aren’t necessarily bad movies. Often, they allow us to look outward, challenging our ideas of right and wrong in new and powerful ways, while pushing us to think of where we could be and where we could go. Others just offer us unique stories which look incredible in IMAX 3D.

There are movies, however, which deserve their criticism. They are films that ignore basic storytelling, choosing instead to focus only on action, violence, and explosions.

The first Transformers trilogy offers a good example of both types of big-budget blockbusters. Transformers has long been used by film critics as the example of everything wrong with Hollywood today, but I am inclined to disagree in two out of three cases. Transformers 1 and Transformers 3 both tell good stories with heart and humor, while Transformers 2 falls into the same trap as some of the less popular action-heavy movies.

So what is it that Transformers 1 and 3 got right? It is important to remember that a movie should be judged for what it is and not what it isn’t. The Transformers movies were never intended to earn an Academy Award for Best Picture. They weren’t made to question the human condition, and they weren’t made to raise awareness of a disease or illness. The Transformers movies were meant to bring children of the ’80s and ’90s back to their childhoods in ways that would still appeal to their adult sensibilities. They were made to be fun and to push the boundaries of what computer animation could do. In these ways, the Transformers movies were very successful.

Fans of the 1980s cartoon show were thrilled when the first movie began and the voice of the original Optimus Prime, Peter Cullen, could be heard again. They were fascinated by a movie that honored their childhood fantasy without talking down to them. And people new to the franchise got to enjoy watching high-octane battles and explosions in a simple good versus evil story. The movie was escapism at its best.

But there are plenty of escapist movies out there that fail the test of a good movie, including Transformers 2. So why is it that I feel the first and third succeeded where the second failed? Put simply, there is a fair way to measure blockbuster films within the range of what can be expected. Look at the good blockbuster movies: Star Wars, The Avengers, The Dark Knight, The Winter Soldier. What stands out about these movies as opposed to the bad blockbuster films?

The late Roger Ebert put it this way: “The very best films in this genre, like Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight and Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2, had compelling characters, depended on strong human performances, told great stories, and skillfully integrated the live-action and the CGI.”

Man of Steel, Godzilla, and Transformers 2 lack what all movies need: heart. The characters are cliched, with only minimal development. Transformers 1 and 3 have heart. Yes, Shia LeBeouf is annoying. Yes, Megan Fox is not the best actor. Yes, the explosions and battles are ridiculous. And yes, Michael Bay is probably a misogynist. But these movies took time to get to the action-heavy payoffs and built up the relationships and personalities of the characters first.

The slow buildup to the big action scene is a great idea, but it requires characters who can carry the story while we wait. Our concern for these characters then increases our interest in the big payoff, because we care about their safety. In poor blockbusters, like Man of Steel and Godzilla, we are given one-dimensional characters while waiting two hours for the big payoff in which an entire city is leveled with little concern for the humans who died.

Transformers 2 lacks the discipline of its predecessor and falls into another common trap of the blockbuster. Revenge of the Fallen cost an exorbitant amount of money and spent all of it on explosions and destruction, without any sense of pacing or character development. It gives away too much action and keeps the big scenes from feeling special. It also fails to live up to the expectations of a good movie in a plethora of other ways.

The first movie was about first contact with heroic and not-so-heroic alien races who were bringing their war to Earth, but it was also about a boy and his car — and a boy trying to score with a girl who was way out of his league. We can relate to Sam Witwicky, who is seen as a slacker in school and a loser to most people. He is the everyman who rises to the occasion and saves the Earth.

But what is the plot of Transformers 2? Robots are killing each other and Sam is afraid to tell his smoking-hot girlfriend that he loves her. Sure, he’s starting college, but his personal difficulties are hardly even addressed in the movie.

The movie instead plods along with poorly designed robots continually propositioning Fox, while we have to see robot testicles and, at times, pretty blatant racism. It’s Bay at his worst, relying far too heavily on the robots and explosions while lacking the heart that makes the other films so fun.

Transformers 1 and 3 do things right by starting in reality and slowly building to the absurd. They start by showing the problems of the young Sam, whose world is about to be shaken. He faces the same difficulties that most young men face — problems in school, trying to impress a pretty girl, troubles finding a job, and more. It just so happens that his new car turns out to be a sentient alien robot.

And that’s what the movies do so well: they take this absurd concept that was created specifically to sell toys and make it at least somewhat believable, not to mention fun to watch, just like when we were children who found the cartoons so fascinating. The movies will never be in contention for any acting awards, but they are fun, decent movies for the audience that loves to see giant robot fights.

Going forward, before Hollywood invests millions of dollars into a movie, it should use the Transformers films as a litmus test. Build to the big moment, like Godzilla did, but make the human characters compelling so that we can enjoy the ride, like Godzilla was unable to do. Don’t sacrifice story for spectacle, like Transformers 2, but make sure the spectacle holds even more power, because we care about the characters, like in Transformers 3. Explosions and good CGI may guarantee you a triple, but why settle for that when you can hit a homerun?

Few of my favourite things: Fanning out in British Isles

In case you haven’t figured it out by now, I watch a lot of television. I also read a lot of books and watch a lot of movies. I am completely fascinated by stories. That’s why I started this column, so I could write about all the TV shows and movies I love, and share that love with readers.

However, Fanning Out isn’t just about a TV show, or a movie. You can also Fan Out over people and places. Two of my favorite places are the United Kingdom and Ireland which, coincidentally, have also happened to produce many of my favorite shows and people.

I’ve been fascinated by Ireland for as long as I can remember. It probably dates back to my multiple viewings of Darby O’Gill and the Little People as a child. I always pictured it as this magical place with rolling green hills and beautiful lakes and forests. Turns out, I wasn’t that far off. Sure, there aren’t actually leprechauns running around the Ring of Kerry, but the country is peaceful and beautiful. I traveled there with my family back in 2008, and I shared the five reasons I love the Irish for St. Patrick’s Day. In fact, I am there again right now, spending a few days in Ireland before traveling on to Scotland, Wales, England, and France.

Apart from my brief time in Northern Ireland during my last trip, I’ve never been inside the United Kingdom. I am really excited to be seeing some awesome historical and cultural points of interest: William Wallace‘s sword in Scotland, Stonehenge, and Shakespeare’s birthplace, just to name a few). I’m also hoping I have a chance to work in a few more nerdy stops because, honestly, what would a trip to London be without a stop at Platform 9 3/4 in King’s Cross railway station? I’m hoping to track down at least one blue police box while I’m there. Also, I fully intend to point out Big Ben while stating, “Look kids, there’s Big Ben!” Possibly more than once.

My excitement about travelling through the U.K. isn’t just about getting to stop at all these nerdy locations I’ve read about or seen on TV, though. It’s also about getting to finally immerse myself in a place and culture I’ve only known from a distance for years but feel completely akin to.

As I stated earlier, I’ve loved Ireland for as long as I can remember, but my fascination with all things British didn’t really hit until I finally let a coworker talk me into watching this science fiction series some of you may have heard about called Doctor Who. Sure, I’ve always had a thing for British guys and their accents — most likely stemming from the crush three-year-old-me had on Davey Jones of the Monkees — but I never truly appreciated the charms of Britain until I started watching Doctor Who, followed by its spinoff, Torchwood. Both shows were a gateway into the world of British television, and I quickly realized there was a whole range of great television being produced in another country that, in some ways, was much better than anything I was watching in the United States.

Sherlock and Downton Abbey are two British shows that have become very popular in the States, and most fans of The Office are at least aware of the existence of its British counterpart, whether or not they’ve watched it. However, there’s a wide range of television from across the pond that hasn’t become widely available in the United States unless you’re a frequent viewer of BBC America; I watch quite a bit of British television, but there are a lot of shows even I don’t know about.

British television has a very different feel from American television. As anyone who has watched one can tell you, British sitcoms have a completely different sense of humor, which is one of the reasons why you hear fans debating over whether they enjoy the British or American version of The Office more. I honestly haven’t watched a lot of British sitcoms, but two that I have seen — and love — are Black Books and The IT Crowd.

Black Books is the perfect sitcom for anyone who has ever worked in a bookstore — or worked in retail at all. The series stars Irish comedian Dylan Moran as a belligerent book shop owner who hates his customers and, pretty much, people in general. The IT Crowd stars Chris O’Dowd, perhaps better known in the U.S. for his appearance in Bridesmaids, and Richard Ayoade as two nerdy information technology employees working under a recently hired supervisor who knows nothing about computers; I fell in love with this series almost immediately.

I spend much more time watching British dramas, which are also very different from U.S. dramas. What I love about British dramas is their understanding of suspense. An entire hour of a British drama can have very little real action (no car chases, explosions, gunfights, or anything of the sort) and still have you on the edge of your seat.

The first season of Broadchurch, starring David Tennant, is a perfect example of this. The series was utterly compelling without any over-the-top action sequences, and the performances of the entire cast were brilliant. The eight-episode series focused on the investigation of the murder of a 10-year-old boy. If you like mysteries and suspense, I highly recommend you watch this series. And try to do it before the Americanized version of the show, Gracepoint, comes on in the fall. While the previews look somewhat promising, and the same team is adapting the series with Tennant in the same role, there’s a high probability that the original series will be far superior to the Fox version.

Another great series for fans of suspenseful mysteries is Wallander, starring the always wonderful Kenneth Branaugh. Wallander is based on the mystery series by Swedish author Henning Mankell. The series uses the same format as Sherlock, each season just three 90-minute episodes. If you need further encouragement to watch, the first two seasons also starred another popular British actor, Tom Hiddleston.

I’ve been watching all these series and more for years, and now I’ll finally get to see the England that I’ve previously only seen on television. I can’t wait to finally get to see the streets of Sherlock’s London, seaside cliffs like those in Broadchurch, and the old book shops like Bernard Black’s (though, hopefully, with proprietors a little more friendly than he).

But it isn’t just about visiting places shown on television. I’ll finally get to see the countryside where Jane Austen heroines walked, that inspired J.R.R. Tolkien to create Middle-earth, and where Shakespeare was born.

Of all the things I tend to fan out about, Great Britain is high on the list, and I’m finally going to be there.

curiata

provoke your curiosity