a little light reading with Mr Baum 3

That was a long walk. I could have stayed where I started and remained equally (yet not so definitively) disappointed. No need to carry it all the way here. There was a nice show, a flashy display of power. We expected as much. Something wasn't quite right though, something felt wrong.

That's when we decided to look behind the curtain. There we found a man, well-meaning though he may have been, but still merely a man and not the wizard for which we were hoping. He did his best to conjure up solutions nonetheless, to our various problems, and some of us were impressed with his skulduggery, I however retained my disappointment upon discovery of his deception. Scarecrow still thinks he got a brain; Tinman believes he received a heart; Lion is no longer afraid; getting Dorothy home proved more of a challenge than the rest; I didn't get a billion dollars either. And all this thanks to the wonderful wizard of Oz and confirmation bias. Do we always find what we are looking for? Only on the occasions when we don't.

a little light reading with Mr Baum 2

Maybe you're missing a brain, or a heart or something else. You're not as fully complete as you'd like to be. All rational measures look unpromising, then like a tunnel of light breaking through the dark horizon of death: a little hope. A benevolent, powerful being in a magnificent city wields the wherewithal to alleviate the embarrassment of your long held, torturous short-comings. With the avenues of the probable leading to unwanted ends the highly-improbable, nigh-impossible are the only roads left to take.

Dorothy wants to go home, I want a lot of things. You set out on a journey searching for the end of the rainbow. Good luck.

a little light reading with Mr Baum 1

I recently finished reading The Wizard of Oz (tWoO), but the text isn't finished with me yet. Like that turn of phrase? It only gets better or worse from here. Good to have all the bases covered, that way I can maintain an impenetrable fortress of you don't really know what I'm talking about, that's the fog of conversation. Unlike my intentionally obtuse style tWoO is perhaps the most straight forwardly written book in all of existence. I can't say either way for sure, but I certainly got that impression. It strangely reminded me of the mega super corporate icon (Lebrons and Tigers and Jordans, oh my) approach to public relations: They present such a vanilla image that you can read absolutely anything you want into their personalities (because it seems like they don't have any), thus broadening their appeal.

With that in mind, I found tWoO wonderfully profound in its simplicity (I probably projected my own prejudices onto the work, but hey everybody else is doing it right?). The Wizard of Oz -- the character not the book -- turned out to be a merchant of skulduggery, an air-balloonist, a native of Omaha and not a wizard at all. No surprise to anyone who's seen the movie, and who hasn't?

Sometimes I like to go all Rene Descartes on my beliefs, just to see how they hold up. Strip away, strip away, strip away and see what's left. Imagine your whole life you feel inherently flawed, there's a vital part of yourself missing, you're discontented, incomplete...TBC

work out

BP 90kgs*5,5,4,3

seated row 95/4*5

It's a kind of magic

For a long time now I've enjoyed the works of Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. Just finished Top Ten and The Invisibles and I can't say any thing's changed, those guys are still bloody brilliant (these were hardly their most recent offerings, so it was about time I got around to reading them). Why mention these two scribes in the same breath? First, I rank them as the two best comic book creators ever, which counts for a lot I'm sure (Warren Ellis and Garth Ennis aren't far behind, what is it about being British that predisposes you to being an amazing comics writer? I don't know). Secondly, they both believe in magic. Literally. Not that there's anything wrong with that (I say condescendingly). Hey, I believe in God -- broadly speaking that's a little more acceptable among the general populace, but when you think about it, not that much different (of course there are differences and any self-respecting spiritualist would probably balk at being associated with the perceived evils of the institutionalization of worship, but for the sake of argument lets try to build bridges and not burn them) -- so I can see where they're coming from.

Did you survive the structure of that last sentence? Good.

I always mention the magic thing, but I haven't figured out what I'm trying to say when I bring it up until now. The thing about these guys world view is that they have a faculty of imagination which is stunning, thrilling, untouchable in its potency and I want some. You tell someone you believe in God and that's pretty pedestrian, but tell them you believe that magic is real, well that's a horse of a different colour (mainly because practitioners of magic are more marginalized than religious groups). Alan Moore worships an ancient roman snake god (I'm not sure if he's being ironic though). Grant Morrison believes after a wild trip in all senses of the term he was (sort of) spirited away by benevolent aliens and so The Invisibles contains semi-autobiographical snippets of his life (including that experience) and was intended as a sigil to help spearhead the human race in a more positive direction. That kind of audacity doesn't just grow on trees you know. I'm convinced that because of their chosen paradigm, Mr. Moore and Mr. Morrison are able to make creative leaps that most of us can't even dream about. And I'm so jealous.

note: in the interests of full disclosure both men have qualifications for what they mean by magic, but I'll let you find those out for yourselves.