Started re-reading Empowered Volume 3 last night.
I have a thing with Trade Paperbacks/Graphic Novels where I always read them twice. I dunno why I started this - I think it's cos so much of my stuff ends up packed away in boxes or fairly promptly re-sold on e-bay it helps me feel I've got better value for money out of it. It's a bit like watching both the dub and sub version of an anime - one time you can appreciate the story, the next you can look more at the art.
Anyway, the point of this post is to say I really think Adam Warren knocked it out of the park with this third volume of Empowered.
For anyone not in the know, here's the wikipedia article about Empowered. Basically it's one of those "If super heroes and villains were really real what would it actually be like?" ideas. A bit like the telly show Heroes, but a bit sexier and funnier and better and with Adam Warren's lovely art skillz.
I've been a fan of Adam Warren's for quite a while - his Dirty Pair stuff was around at the time I was first getting into anime and manga and I find his stuff quite funny and his techno-fetishistic-ness appeals too. You can get a look at what Mr Warren is all about by checking out his deviantart page here. He also pimps Empowered quite a bit, so you can check out stuff about it there.
Anyway, back to the point again - Empowered volume 3 is very good.
Empowered apparently started as a commission that developed into something more, and if you check out the books you'll see Volume 1 is lots of very short (2-4 page) stories. The stories have generally gotten more coherent and formed a single narrative arc as the volumes have gone on and with volume 3 we have some of the longest tales, but the thing I like is that they still vary in length.
Because the volumes are released as larger trade-paperback style it gives more of a freedom that allows each story to be just the right length, and I like that a lot.
Another thing I like is one of the characters - the caged Demonwolf. I guess the best description I could give of him is that he's a super-villain in a kind of Lovecraft-ian vain, but his essence has been trapped in an alien belt-like device that therefore renders him powerless. In fact, all he can do is talk and see via some sensors.
It's a little difficult to express quite what's so awesome about the caged Demonwolf, but think early Stewie from family Guy - arch super villain utterly trapped by his circumstance. It's the juxtaposition of pretensions of grandiosity with the mundaneness of reality.
He's not in volume 3 so much, but what is in volume 3 is very good, with some really meaty story arcs and some interesting character development, with few laughs and some genuine yaoi doujinshi too... Anyway, you should definitely check it out.
Friday, 30 May 2008
The end of the world as we know it
There was a program on Channel 4 the other day that looked at what would happen if we humans suddenly disappeared from the face of the Earth.
Really it was all fairly obvious - nature would simply reclaim the space - but it was interesting to hear how quickly it would happen, and there was some great stuff from Chernobyl.
I'd love to go to Chernobyl. Unless you're close to the reactor core, it's actually pretty safe now (if it wasn't the wildlife wouldn't have come back).
But then I've always loved the whole post-apocalyptic future stuff. I even had a go at writing a sort of one called Infection. You can give it a read by clicking here if you really like.
In fact it was actually writing Infection that kinda made me think I'd like to have a go at actually writing properly. Before that I'd written a few short stories, but Infection had more of an arc.
Since then I've struggled to actually realise that goal. What you don't realise is that writing is hard work.
I mean, you kinda know that - an average novel is about 80,000 to 120,00 words so it obviously isn't 'easy' - but what you don't realise is how draining coming up with those words can be. I don't mean like as in writer's block, but simply the act of generating stuff and laying it down in a sensible and coherent way is draining.
I mean, you can write quite a lot in a day, but then what you find is that the next day you feel like the life has been sucked out of you, and the next day too. So you end up writing in splurges and it feels disjointed and a little incoherent.
Or the other way is to write a little bit each day and deliberately hold yourself back, but then it feels like you're getting nowhere - you check how many words you've done all the time, think about all the stuff still to do and it seems never-ending.
In the beginning you sort of wonder how writing can be a full time job. After a while it becomes clear.
Really it was all fairly obvious - nature would simply reclaim the space - but it was interesting to hear how quickly it would happen, and there was some great stuff from Chernobyl.
I'd love to go to Chernobyl. Unless you're close to the reactor core, it's actually pretty safe now (if it wasn't the wildlife wouldn't have come back).
But then I've always loved the whole post-apocalyptic future stuff. I even had a go at writing a sort of one called Infection. You can give it a read by clicking here if you really like.
In fact it was actually writing Infection that kinda made me think I'd like to have a go at actually writing properly. Before that I'd written a few short stories, but Infection had more of an arc.
Since then I've struggled to actually realise that goal. What you don't realise is that writing is hard work.
I mean, you kinda know that - an average novel is about 80,000 to 120,00 words so it obviously isn't 'easy' - but what you don't realise is how draining coming up with those words can be. I don't mean like as in writer's block, but simply the act of generating stuff and laying it down in a sensible and coherent way is draining.
I mean, you can write quite a lot in a day, but then what you find is that the next day you feel like the life has been sucked out of you, and the next day too. So you end up writing in splurges and it feels disjointed and a little incoherent.
Or the other way is to write a little bit each day and deliberately hold yourself back, but then it feels like you're getting nowhere - you check how many words you've done all the time, think about all the stuff still to do and it seems never-ending.
In the beginning you sort of wonder how writing can be a full time job. After a while it becomes clear.
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
We won the cold war, but it means we can never win Eurovision
So I watched Eurovision last Saturday.
I know it's not the coolest of cool things and I'm not watching because I enjoy "camp" stuff particularly, but as Terry Wogan says, it's always a good chance to laugh at Johnny Foreigner.
We came last.
Now this isn't new - in the last few years we've come either last or very near the bottom every time. But there was a legitimate reason for that - our songs were shite and deserved to do badly.
However, this year's song was okay. Eurovision is never the height of musical endeavour, but as pop songs go it wasn't half bad. It was also well performed and fairly anthemic, which often does well at Eurovision.
But only two countries voted for us - Ireland, who you might call our only neighbours, and San Marino, which, I would guess, contains a fair few British ex-pats. (But then saying that, Malta didn't even vote for us and that's basically an actual part of Britain - I don't quite get that one.)
Anyway, the problem this year is that the voting has become all skewed and messed up. Don't get me wrong, the voting's always been political, it's just that now it's gotten silly.
Previously it didn't matter if Norway always voted for Sweden and vice-versa, because there weren't that many neighbours to vote for and so the half-decent songs would tend to rise to the top because they'd still get decent marks from Sweden and Norway, just not the top marks.
Now, there are so many former Soviet satellite countries that they all vote for each other to such a degree (not just the top votes, but all the votes) that nobody else stands a snowball's chance in hell. Plus there's an added issue in this new structure.
Every year the French never vote for us. Because they don't like us. This issue has been magnified over too. If Russia and Western Europe are at odds (e.g. they've assassinated someone in our country), the Soviet-satellites aren't going to vote for us for that reason too, so it's a double-whammy.
The real winner this year was Greece, as they consistently got the most votes, and, of the 'traditional' Eurovision countries, those like Greece that are maybe a bit more 'neutral' are the the only non-Soviet-satellites that might win it. But clearly the word had gone out this year that Russia had to win, so they just couldn't overcome the onslaught of high marks Russia got.
As I say, Eurovision has never not been political, and there's always bizarreness, but when you put in a perfectly decent, well-performed song and you come dead-last it just rankles a bit.
And I wouldn't mind, but Eurovision is paid for by the European Brodacasting Union (EBU) and we (along with a couple of the other old-skool countries) are the ones that actually pay for it.
So we pay a fortune for the ex-Commies to tell us just how much they don't like us!
I think a solution would to proportionalise the voting more. Most of these countries are tiny and yet their votes count for as many points as ours do.
I know it's not the coolest of cool things and I'm not watching because I enjoy "camp" stuff particularly, but as Terry Wogan says, it's always a good chance to laugh at Johnny Foreigner.
We came last.
Now this isn't new - in the last few years we've come either last or very near the bottom every time. But there was a legitimate reason for that - our songs were shite and deserved to do badly.
However, this year's song was okay. Eurovision is never the height of musical endeavour, but as pop songs go it wasn't half bad. It was also well performed and fairly anthemic, which often does well at Eurovision.
But only two countries voted for us - Ireland, who you might call our only neighbours, and San Marino, which, I would guess, contains a fair few British ex-pats. (But then saying that, Malta didn't even vote for us and that's basically an actual part of Britain - I don't quite get that one.)
Anyway, the problem this year is that the voting has become all skewed and messed up. Don't get me wrong, the voting's always been political, it's just that now it's gotten silly.
Previously it didn't matter if Norway always voted for Sweden and vice-versa, because there weren't that many neighbours to vote for and so the half-decent songs would tend to rise to the top because they'd still get decent marks from Sweden and Norway, just not the top marks.
Now, there are so many former Soviet satellite countries that they all vote for each other to such a degree (not just the top votes, but all the votes) that nobody else stands a snowball's chance in hell. Plus there's an added issue in this new structure.
Every year the French never vote for us. Because they don't like us. This issue has been magnified over too. If Russia and Western Europe are at odds (e.g. they've assassinated someone in our country), the Soviet-satellites aren't going to vote for us for that reason too, so it's a double-whammy.
The real winner this year was Greece, as they consistently got the most votes, and, of the 'traditional' Eurovision countries, those like Greece that are maybe a bit more 'neutral' are the the only non-Soviet-satellites that might win it. But clearly the word had gone out this year that Russia had to win, so they just couldn't overcome the onslaught of high marks Russia got.
As I say, Eurovision has never not been political, and there's always bizarreness, but when you put in a perfectly decent, well-performed song and you come dead-last it just rankles a bit.
And I wouldn't mind, but Eurovision is paid for by the European Brodacasting Union (EBU) and we (along with a couple of the other old-skool countries) are the ones that actually pay for it.
So we pay a fortune for the ex-Commies to tell us just how much they don't like us!
I think a solution would to proportionalise the voting more. Most of these countries are tiny and yet their votes count for as many points as ours do.
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
And speaking of Banks
Bit of a flurry of posts this morning I think, as I couldn't be arsed (read: was playing Civ3 almost non-stop all w/end) to post on my blog over the bank-holiday week-end.
While I was sorting out the overdraft issue I also took the opportunity to cancel this insurance thing I have on the credit card. I've had it for years and never really thought about it. The idea is if you can't pay for some reason, then this thing covers the payments.
Well, I've not really used the card in ages and was intending to slowly pay if off and eventually get rid of it (I'm lethal with credit card spending - hence the unwatched DVD mountain I've accumulated). As such, the effects of this insurance have become apparent to me. Here's an example of what happens, using some easy numbers:
Get the statement, see that the minimum payment is £50.00
Pay the minimum payment - balance goes down £50.00
Interest is applied - balance goes up £30.00
Insurance is added - balance goes up £20.00
So, interest + insurance = minimum payment. In other words, the balance never changes!
I'm not sure if that's ironic, or just plain annoying.
It's my own fault for not really thinking about it before, but this is what the bank's rely on - people not thinking things through properly.
While I was sorting out the overdraft issue I also took the opportunity to cancel this insurance thing I have on the credit card. I've had it for years and never really thought about it. The idea is if you can't pay for some reason, then this thing covers the payments.
Well, I've not really used the card in ages and was intending to slowly pay if off and eventually get rid of it (I'm lethal with credit card spending - hence the unwatched DVD mountain I've accumulated). As such, the effects of this insurance have become apparent to me. Here's an example of what happens, using some easy numbers:
Get the statement, see that the minimum payment is £50.00
Pay the minimum payment - balance goes down £50.00
Interest is applied - balance goes up £30.00
Insurance is added - balance goes up £20.00
So, interest + insurance = minimum payment. In other words, the balance never changes!
I'm not sure if that's ironic, or just plain annoying.
It's my own fault for not really thinking about it before, but this is what the bank's rely on - people not thinking things through properly.
Whoops
I cocked up last week it seems and instead of putting my credit card number for something I gave my debit card number. This meant the payment came directly out of my actual account, which, of course, didn't have quite enough cash in :(.
And the upshot of this? I went a smidge overdrawn and so got a nasty letter telling me they were going to charge me for the privilege.
Fundamentally, I don't mind actually mind this - I fucked up, so I guess I should pay the price. What I do mind is the difficulty and problems I had trying to fix this error. I apparently went overdrawn on Thursday, but then they didn't send me a letter 'till Friday. Obviously, it takes a day in the post and so I got the letter on Saturday morning.
However, the bank isn't bloody open on Saturday (I ask you - in this day and age, they're closed on a Saturday?). It's also a Bank Holiday week-end, meaning the bank was actually closed until Tuesday.
But they charge for every day it's overdrawn, meaning Thursday right through to Tuesday. SO HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO GET MONEY INTO THE ACCOUNT?
Okay - I try Internet Banking. I've got a credit card with the same bank - surely I can get money from one to the other?
No.
I've got another bank account with a different bank (who, incidentally, are open on a Saturday), but although I can transfer money via the internet I know it takes a ridiculous amount of time (something like 7 days!) for the money to move over, by which time the bank's open again anyway.
Note that this is the internet. Where things happen instantly... unless you're a damn bank, apparently.
So I phone them up - the solution? Arrange an overdraft facility online and that will stop the daily charges.
The customer is always right. Unless you're a bank, in which case the customer is there for the shafting.
And the upshot of this? I went a smidge overdrawn and so got a nasty letter telling me they were going to charge me for the privilege.
Fundamentally, I don't mind actually mind this - I fucked up, so I guess I should pay the price. What I do mind is the difficulty and problems I had trying to fix this error. I apparently went overdrawn on Thursday, but then they didn't send me a letter 'till Friday. Obviously, it takes a day in the post and so I got the letter on Saturday morning.
However, the bank isn't bloody open on Saturday (I ask you - in this day and age, they're closed on a Saturday?). It's also a Bank Holiday week-end, meaning the bank was actually closed until Tuesday.
But they charge for every day it's overdrawn, meaning Thursday right through to Tuesday. SO HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO GET MONEY INTO THE ACCOUNT?
Okay - I try Internet Banking. I've got a credit card with the same bank - surely I can get money from one to the other?
No.
I've got another bank account with a different bank (who, incidentally, are open on a Saturday), but although I can transfer money via the internet I know it takes a ridiculous amount of time (something like 7 days!) for the money to move over, by which time the bank's open again anyway.
Note that this is the internet. Where things happen instantly... unless you're a damn bank, apparently.
So I phone them up - the solution? Arrange an overdraft facility online and that will stop the daily charges.
The customer is always right. Unless you're a bank, in which case the customer is there for the shafting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)