Missed Classic: The Price Of Magik - Won! (With Final Rating)

By Ilmari

Underground

Last time, I had just explored a house from top to bottom and defeated a giant slug with some salt. Beyond the slug opened up a completely new playing field. It seemed the game was funneling me towards some direction, since there were so many one-way connections between rooms (in truth, there was always a route I could backtrack to the house).

I love the decoration

The first interesting encounter was a golem wearing a silver mail with the word FIN written on it. It took me a while to find out what the creature wanted, but finally I traded my robes with the mail.

There's a union for every trade

The FIN spell turned the target into a fish, and it came soon handy, when I arrived at a river. A ferryman took me to the center of the river, I turned into a fish and dived. My reward was another spell (SAN).

Rest of the underground

Beyond the river I found a tunnel, the end of which was guarded by a bloodworm. Fortunately, my trusty bat friend scared the monster away.

Next, I came to an altar, on which rested a talisman, above which floated a 10 000 kg weight. If I tried to take the talisman, the weight crushed me. The simple solution was to cast FLY spell, which was enough to keep the weight floating, even if I took the talisman.

I didn't know cherubs looked like this

A few rooms further I found a statue of cherub. The statue was holding a trumpet, which I knew to be a focus for BOM spell. I couldn't just take the trumpet, but I had an idea I could test what BOM would do (you don't need to be holding the focus for casting a spell, it just needs to be in the same room). To my delight, the spell turned the statue alive. The cherub was scared and left the trumpet behind.

Somewhere else

I came to a glowing portal, where I had to offer a gift to Myglar, the evil wizard, before I could proceed. Myglar accepted any item as a gift, and then I could move through the portal to a grassy plain. The weirdest thing was that a brass monkey dropped on my back and refused to move. Taking into account that Brass Monkey is a cocktail and having a monkey on a back refers to being addicted, I think this is meant to be a joke. Ha-ha.

Getting the monkey off was equally ridiculous, and I had to check the clues to get it. I had to backtrack to house - fortunately I could use the ZEN spell for quick movement - and go to its kitchen area, specifically to a cold room. After a few turns, the monkey got too cold, escaped and left me with a crystal and a black ball. The black ball wasn't that interesting - it was a sort of one-time protection to any spell - but the crystal ball was a focus for ESP spell, which let me send an astral projection to an adjacent room for one turn.

My mapping session ended, when I came to a portico, filled with giant ants. With no idea how to defeat them, I turned to test some of my new spells and items. I tried various things with the talisman I found and rubbing it sent me to a new valley, completely separate from the rest of the game. This place was almost empty, but I did find a riddle:

My father is dark 

My mother's unknown

I dwell in high places

And where the ghosts moan

Returning from the valley, I continued checking the spells. BOM was especially useful, since the house was full of things I could animate. Most of them revealed new spells, some unleashed monsters, and one gave me a spell focus (claw, focus for SAN). But the most interesting result came from a picture of Stonehenge.

It really took me there!

Map of Stonehenge

At the middle of Stonehenge I found a blue box with the spell IBM written on it. This scene broke the mimesis for me. Had I been transported from a nameless fantasy realm to Earth? Why is there, presumably, a computer in Stonehenge? Did IBM have blue computers? And what does it all have to do with the spell itself, which frightens its target? In any case, I could use IBM to scare off the giant ants.

The final rooms

Beyond the ants I found new rooms. They were otherwise empty, but one of them contained a locked room. I could now try the ESP spell, which allowed me to project an astral projection of myself to some direction and returned me back to my body after one turn. Thus, I saw that beyond door there was a dead idol. I could not do anything physical in my astral form, but I could cast spells. Thus, it was only a matter of casting BOM to make the idol alive and of casting HYP to make it obey my command to open the door.

Next problem was an ice room that was too cold for walking through. The solution was simple - I just flew through it.

Is this supposed to be gargoyle or moonbeast?

After few rooms I came across a gargoyle and a moonbeast. Moonbeast was more aggressive, so I decided to deal with it first. I had trouble figuring out what I was supposed to do to the beast, so I checked the official clue sheet. The solution was waving a mirror, so that the moonbeast would be scared of its reflection.

Gargoyle was more peaceful, but it also prevented my move forward. The gargoyle wanted me to solve a riddle - it didn't tell me what riddle, but since I had come across only one riddle in the game ( see above), I guessed that would be it. I had no idea of the solution, so I again turned to the clue sheet. Turns out, the correct answer was FEAR.

Only one more room to go! I entered the lair of evil Myglar - who instantly killed me with a lightning. I restored and sent instead my astral projection to the room. I tried casting SAN - a spell that makes a person completely sane - and it did make it impossible for Myglar to cast any spell, but he still had a dagger he could use. I then tested DED - a spell to "kill" all magic. After casting it, Myglar's magical enchantment of eternal youth collapsed, and the evil wizard died.

Somewhat surprisingly, the game gave me an opportunity to decide whether I wanted a good or a bad ending. In the good ending, I received all the powers Myglar used to have and led the world into a new era of magic and prosperity. In the bad ending, my supposed magical powers were actually just figments of my disturbed mind and I was sent into an institution where I spent the rest of my days imagining myself as a magical ruler over my fellow inmates. Now, that came out of left field.

Spells (if I've "officially" found them) - foci (if I own them) - what they do: ESP - crystal ball - send an astral projection to a room next to you, ? - candle - ?, ZAP - ashes - throw a lighting, DET - elder cross - detect danger, XAM - prism - checks if target is focus for some spell, ZEN - mirror - rapid movement, MAD - grimoire - make target mad, HYP - staff - hypnotises targets, FIX - valerian - heal the target, DED - wheel - cancels spells, FLY- broom - makes target fly, DOW - pendulum - check if target is magical, BOM - trumpet - turns statues and pictures alive, SEE - feldspar lense - finding secret doors, KIL - axe - makes target go berserk, FIN - silver mail - turns target into fish, SAN - claw - makes target sane, IBM - blue box - frighten the target

Inventory otherwise: mandrake, skull, knucklebone, ring, eyebright flowers, cage, robes, knife, wolfsbane, shovel, plate armour, crowbar, talisman, black ball

Final Rating

Puzzles and Solvability

If we ignore the rather silly puzzle of monkey on the back and some of the more obtuse puzzles at the end of the game, all the puzzles were easy and solvable, once you knew what all the different spells did. Indeed, one might say that the biggest puzzle in the whole game was to learn how to use different spells and what effects they had. If I could have asked for something more, it would have been a more creative use of combinations of spells, since the rare times I had to do this (for instance, when creating an astral projection to cast spells in a room I couldn't access) felt very satisfying.

The problem is that the game allows the player to skip a lot of these puzzles e.g. with a liberal use of XAM and ZEN spells. It's one thing to provide alternative solutions and a completely other thing to let the player beat the game without solving puzzles, especially as solving these puzzles doesn't lead to a different outcome from not solving them.

I haven't spoken that much about the combat system, which the Price of Magik shares with its predecessor, Red Moon. Suffice to say that it serves even less function than in the previous game, since here no monsters need to be fought with. This means also that most of the spells, which often are meant to be used in combat, serve no purpose at all. Seems like a waste.

Score: 4.

Interface and Inventory

The interface is probably the best I've yet seen in Level 9 games. Just to name a few innovation, the game introduces (I think) the OOPS command you can use to correct your previous move, completely discards the need for stacking items by removing the inventory limit (finally!), allows for more complex commands in the style of Infocom and even lets me command other creatures. These additions are sufficient enough to increase the score from Red Moon.

Score: 5.

Story and Setting

The story is, to put it nicely, mostly irrelevant. You are told of an evil wizard in the manual and you finally face him at the very last room of the game, and in between you just keep exploring and augmenting your arsenal of spells. Well, to be fair, there are a couple more references to Myglar, but surprisingly few considering I am supposed to be walking in his home.

The house of Myglar is a good setting and has at least some thematic cohesion. The latter part of the game loses this cohesion, when you leave the house and the player has to trudge through yet another featureless cave system.

Score: 3.

Sound and Graphics

Graphics are what they have mostly been in Level 9 games: waste of disk space. At best they have some link to the room descriptions, often enough they don't, and constantly they are bland and boring to look at.

Score: 2.

Environment and Atmosphere

The premise and the mechanics of the game seem at first quite promising, since the mapping of Myglar's house makes for a relatively atmospheric experience. Then the player is sucked through a picture to Stonehenge, finds an IBM and uses it for magic. In the end, if you choose the "bad ending", it's all revealed to be a hallucination.

Score: 2.

Dialogue and Acting

Some reviews suggest that the text would have been better in a version with no pictures (or, I guess, in Amiga version). I can rate only what I see, and I see terse sentences with barely enough meat to make an OK room description. Not very engaging.

Score: 2.

4 + 5 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 30.

This lands the game somewhere close to Red Moon and Emerald Isle, which seems quite appropriate.

Bill Cosby, Extraodrinary Evidence, And The Art Versus The Artist

Nearly every weeknight of elementary school for me ended with Different Strokes, The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air, and The Cosby Show. Unlike my own Father, who knew Bill Cosby primarily through his stand-up, I came to know "America's Dad" through that show, and boy, what a show it was. I found it funnier than Different Strokes, but not quite as funny as Fresh Prince. Sure, The Cosby Show was clean, like Full House, but far more humorous and believable. Cosby as Dr. Cliff Huxtable brought such a warm, charismatic presence, who could tell a rousing story or be outright loony with his facial expressions. Of course, there were other strong performances, like that of Phylicia Rashad, Malcolm Jamal-Warner, or the young Raven-Symone. Much like Fresh Prince or Different Strokes, The Cosby Show dealt with growing up, education, childhood, and even celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ray Charles. It also didn't hurt to see a black family portrayed with dignity and humanity. Indeed, The Cosby Show reruns will remain a treasured part of a childhood memories, but they may be a part that I will now always fear to revisit.


Old rape allegations against Bill Cosby have resurfaced this year, thanks to Hannibal Buress and the power of viral media. Women are telling their stories, and America is listening. I have listened and reflected. It seems so clear, regrettably clear to me, that Bill Cosby, a man I once admired, is with little doubt in my mind, a serial rapist.


Extraordinary Claims, Extraordinary Evidence

The old maxim of rationality I've heard used by Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you want to claim something, like aliens control the White House, then you need to show equally extraordinary evidence. However, to claim that one has been raped, unfortunately, isn't an extraordinary, but dreadfully, quite common. So it shouldn't take much to convince us of such a claim. There are those who say that we should "err in favor of the victim", and while this is a justified belief, statistically anyways, I'd rather treat rape like any other crime, in the sense that we should maintain a neutral position until persuaded otherwise, or "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". After all, weeding out liars from truthers isn't always as clear cut as it may seem, even when said liars are in low supply. In cases like these where there will usually be no trial, I would often argue for the slightly lower standard of a "clear and convincing evidence", in which, according to Cornell's Legal Information Institute, "a party must prove that it is substantially more likely than not that it is true," ("Clear and Convincing Evidence"). This seems a far more reasonable assertion to make than the "preponderance of evidence" standard, in which one only prove that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This seems to me a petty standard with which to damnably brand someone a criminal, let alone a rapist. We can do better than that. No doubt, it is useful in probing crimes, but not quite in condemning. That standard seems to me not much better than a guess or a coin toss, and leaves far too much ambiguity, as far as damning anyone is concerned, anyways. However, the Cosby situation is an incredible outlier, in which we can safely discard the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, or even the exceedingly low "preponderance of evidence" standard and argue that it is "unreasonable" to doubt that Cosby is a rapist. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. We should not discard this maxim, even in cases of rape. Yet, rape, notwithstanding, can be reasonably proved within these standards if all the right questions are asked. Here, I make that argument. Just keep in mind that I'm no lawyer, so none of these are bona fide legal arguments. I am simply making educated guesses based on these incredible situations, while also trying to bring them to their most reasonable conclusions.

I first came across the allegations long before Hannibal Buress spoke up. I read them in Katie McDonough's article for Salon, "A nation ruled by creeps: Woody, Cosby, and James Taranto's demented "balance."" From there, I read Tom Scocca's article in Gawker "Who Wants to Remember Bill Cosby's Multiple Sex-Assault Accusations?", and Amanda Hess's similarly titled "Why Doesn't Anyone Care About the Sexual Assault Allegations Against Bill Cosby?" for Slate. I'll admit, when I first read these words, it reminded me of the time that I uncovered one of my Christmas presents early, and figured out that Santa Claus didn't exist (I still played along for awhile, though). I had looked into the Ark of the Covenant and seen something I clearly wished I hadn't. Ignorance is bliss. That an entire generation was raised on Bill Cosby without knowing a smidgen about these damning allegations is frightening. Heck, Cosby's biographer Mark Whittaker, tried to erase them from history in his book. A move he later apologized for doing. I wasn't completely sure at the time if they were true, but the accusations seemed credible, almost damning. At the time, it seemed more likely than not that Cosby did something wrong. What I hoped for was an investigation from the media for better clarification, but I wouldn't get one until Hannibal Buress went viral.

You should all know the basic story at this point. Comedian Hannibal Buress slammed Cosby briefly in a comedy routine that caught the eye of the Internet, a transcript of the bit is here,

"Thirteen? And it's even worse because Bill Cosby has the fucking smuggest old black man public persona that I hate. Pull your pants up, black people. I was on TV in the '80s. I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom. Yeah, but you raped women, Bill Cosby. So, brings you down a couple notches. I don't curse on stage. Well, yeah, you're a rapist, so, I'll take you sayin' lots of motherfuckers on Bill Cosby: Himself if you weren't a rapist. …I want to just at least make it weird for you to watch Cosby Show reruns. …I've done this bit on stage, and people don't believe. People think I'm making it up. …That shit is upsetting. If you didn't know about it, trust me. You leave here and Google 'Bill Cosby rape.' It's not funny. That shit has more results than Hannibal Buress." (YouTube.)

Since then, there has been great discussion on social media and in the news about the allegations. When I first heard of the bit, I knew exactly what Buress was talking about. Then, the women started coming forward about Bill Cosby.

So many women, in fact, have come out to accuse Cosby, that it's hard to keep track of them all. Thankfully, Filipa Ioannou, Elliott Hannon, and Ben-Mathis Liley have a complete list of all women who have publicly accused the comedian of sexual misconduct on Slate:

1. Lachele Covington---An actress who alleged that Cosby put her hand near his penis on January 25, 2000 and filed a police report. The authorities decided that no crime was committed.

2. Andrea Constand---A woman who worked at Temple University, Cosby's alma mater, claimed in 2005 that when she went to Cosby's home seeking advice, he gave her herbal pills for "anxiety" and Cosby then proceeded to sexually assault her. While a Pennsylvania prosecutor could not find enough evidence to charge, he found Constand "credible" and Cosby "evasive." Constand opted to sue Cosby in a civil suit for $150 million, which cited, the now famous, 13 Jane Does who had personal testimonies with Cosby. The Jane Does never got a chance to testify, because Constand settled for an undisclosed amount.

3. Shawn Brown---The National Enquirer reported in 2005 that Brown, who was in a consensual relationship with Cosby, was drugged and raped by him in 1973.

4. Tamara Green---A retired trial attorney and one of the Jane Does cited earlier, Green took to the Today Show in 2005 to claim that Cosby drugged and assaulted her in the 1970's.

5. Beth Ferrier---A model who had previously been in a consensual relationship with Cosby, told the Philadelphia Daily News in 2005, that Cosby drugged her coffee and sexually assaulted her. She was also a Jane Doe set to testify.

6. Barbara Bowman---An aspiring actress and model, Bowman told Philadelphia Magazine that she was one of the Jane Does set to testify in the Constand case. In 2014, after Buress went viral, she told her story to the Daily Mail and The Washington Post alleging that Cosby drugged and raped her multiple times.

7. Joan Tarshis---Also in 2014, after Bowman retold her story, Tarshis, a music industry publicist and journalist told Hollywood Elsewhere that Cosby drugged and raped her twice in 1969.

8. Linda Joy Traitz---A former waitress at Cosby owned restaurant, Traitz alleged this year that Cosby tried to force her to take pills which would help her relax and when she refused, unsuccessfully tried to rape her.

9. Janice Dickinson---Probably the most famous of the accused, TV personality and model, Dickinson told Entertainment Tonight this year that Cosby drugged and raped her in 1982. (Notice a pattern here?)

10. Therese Serignese---A Florida nurse who told The Huffington Post this year that in 1976, Cosby drugged and raped her when she was only 19.

11. Carla Ferrigno---Actress and wife of The Incredible Hulk's Lou Ferrigno, told Rumorflix this year that in 1967, Cosby forced a kiss on her while his wife, Camille, was in another room.

12. Louisa Moritz---A lawyer and actress from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Moritz told TMZ this year that Cosby forced oral sex on her in 1971 during The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.

13. Renita Chaney Hill---A woman from Pittsburgh who alleged on CBS that Cosby drugged and raped her after their relationship started when she was 15.

14. Michelle Hurd---An actress from Law and Order: SVU and Gossip Girl, wrote on her Facebook page that Cosby touched her inappropriately, and implied that Cosby drugged and raped another actress she knew.

15. Angela Leslie---Another actress-model who told the New York Daily News that Cosby forced her to masturbate his hand at Las Vegas in 1992.

16. Kristina Ruehli---Another Jane Doe in the Constand case who previously worked as a secretary for Cosby's talent agency told Philadelphia Magazine that in 1965, Cosby drugged her and when she woke up, he was forcing her to do an oral sex act on him.

17. Victoria Valentino---A former Playboy Playmate told the Washington Post that in 1970, Cosby gave them her and another actress, Meg Foster, red pills. She recalled trying to pull Cosby off of Foster as he attempted to rape her, and Cosby later coerced her into an oral sex act.

18. Joyce Emmons---A former comedy club manager who told TMZ that in the 1970s, Cosby gave her a drug for a migraine and she later woke up nude next to a friend of Cosby's she had rejected earlier. When she confronted Cosby, he laughed it off, saying it was "just a Quaalude."

19. Jewel Allison---A former model who told the New York Daily News that in the late 1980's Cosby drugged her wine and raped her.

20. Donna Motsinger---A Jane Doe who told The New York Post that Cosby drugged and raped her while she was a waitress at a California jazz club in 1971. ("A Complete List of the Women Who Have Accused Bill Cosby of Sexual Assault.")

Reuters reports that Cosby was additionally accused by two new women, along with Ferrier in a news conference with lawyer Gloria Allred. One woman, Chelan, said that Cosby assaulted her when she was 17 in 1986. Another, Helen Hayes, said that Cosby groped her breast in 1973. Allred, seeking an end to the situation, asks that Cosby either end the statute of limitations, which would open him up for a lawsuit, or create a $100 million fund for his victims. Along with that, Judy Huth is suing Cosby of sexually assaulting her in 1973 when she was 15 years old (Sinha-Roy; Kesley). So 23 women have all accused Cosby of some sexual wrongdoing. Of these, only five were among the 13 Jane Does, which leaves 8 other unknowns to accuse Cosby, totaling at 32 women to accuse Cosby of sexual misconduct, and Lord knows how many more. It's his word against all of theirs. I hope that these women get their day in court and I hope that Bill Cosby rots in a prison cell.

Of course, there are still those who insist that these women could be lying or exaggerating, or that they need more evidence. Indeed, false allegations of rape do happen, as we saw with Tawana Bawley, the Duke Lacrosse scandal, and more recently, Caleb Warner, but it is a pernicious myth to say that they are a common occurrence, especially on this scale. I know it sounds trivial to explain false rape allegations at this point, but please bear with me.

For evidence, I point to the 2010 study, "False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases" from the journal Violence Against Women, which concluded that, "Of the 136 cases of sexual assault reported over the 10-year period, 8 (5.9%) are coded as false allegations. These results, taken in the context of an examination of previous research, indicate the prevalence of false allegations is between 2% and 10%" (Lisak, et.al). Yes, I realize that this study is a small one, but considering that real rapes are highly under-reported, I see this statistic as our best rule of thumb. Even Emily Bazelon and Rachael Larimore of Slate, wrote that while the preponderance of false rape allegations are hard to calculate, they nevertheless stated that upon reading Phillip Rumney's reviews of false rape statistics that, 

"Rumney's smart debunkings leave us with a group of American, British, Canadian, and New Zealand studies that converge around a rate of 8 percent to 10 percent for false reports of rape. Not all of these studies are flawless, but together they're better than the rest of the lot." ("How Often Do Women Falsely Cry Rape?")

Regardless if these statistics are exact or not, just keep in mind, if you can, that the preponderance of false rape allegations is very low. So the chances that these women, who have nothing in common, and apparently nothing to gain, are all lying about being raped by Bill Cosby, of all people, seems rather odd to me.

Indeed, in her video "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence--Except In Rape Claims?", feminist blogger and skeptic Rebecca Watson has said, (emphasis mine),

"For instance, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a phrase that skeptics love to throw around. What this means is that if something has a very small likelihood of happening, you need a proportionally large amount of evidence to convince you that it may be so. The odds that John Edward is actually talking to the dead are incredibly low, so in order to believe it we ask that he provide a proportionally impressive demonstration to convince us.

But because we're talking about rape and not psychics, suddenly many skeptics abandon their belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and instead demand that no claims be considered extraordinary based upon their odds of happening." (Skepchick.org)

This sentiment is also echoed by another feminist blogger within the skeptic community, Greta Christina. On the Freethought Blogs, when she indicates that being able to point out a serial rapist or sexual harasser shouldn't be too difficult, because there are clear warning signs that tell us so. These include, "Multiple similar claims made against the same person from different people. Especially when these claims show a similar pattern of behavior," and "Other people corroborating behavior that falls short of harassment/assault, but is consistent with it." ("Harassment, Rape, and the Difference Between Skepticism and Denialism.") Well, at least 30 women have accused Cosby of sexual harassment, and not all of them say they were raped, but abused in some manner consistent with the various other testimonies.

I ask of you, what seems more extraordinary, Cosby's innocence or his accusers allegations?

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I believe that I have sufficiently done so, thus far. However, I would argue that the onus switches from the claimant, once they have sufficiently made an argument worth refuting. The testimonies of these women are so consistent, credible, and in such sheer number, that they overwhelmingly warrant a response from Cosby. If one weighs the arguments for and against Cosby, it is clear that one just makes more sense than the other. In the words of Charles Ramsay, its a "dead giveaway." Ta-Nehisi Coates bears this out clearly in his article for The Atlantic,

"A defense of Cosby requires that one believe that several women have decided to publicly accuse one of the most powerful men in recent Hollywood history of a crime they have no hope of seeing prosecuted, and for which they are seeking no damages. The alternative is to see one of the most celebrated public fathers of our time, and one of the great public scourges of black morality, revealed as a serial rapist" ("The Cosby Show").

If the words of these women aren't enough, then the smoking gun is in two interviews Cosby did for the most prestigious non-partisan news organizations in the country: National Public Radio and the Associated Press.

For a "Weekend Edition" interview on NPR with Scott Simon, Bill Cosby was asked about his loaning of 62 pieces of art to the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art in Washington D.C. The display of this art was called "Conversations: African and African-American Artworks In Dialogue." One such painting was "The Thankful Poor" painted by Henry Ossawa Tanner in 1894. It features an old man and a little boy in prayer at a dinner table. Their meal is modest. Not long after talking about this collection, Simon brings up the allegations.

"This question gives me no pleasure, Mr. Cosby, but there have been serious allegations raised about you in recent days. You're shaking your head no. I'm in the news business. I have to ask the question - do you have any response to those charges? Shaking your head no - there are people who love you who might like to hear from you about this. I want to give you the chance. All right..." ("Cosbys Start A 'Conversation' With African-American Art.")

Usually, if one is innocent of an accusation, especially one as repulsive as rape, they would deny it loudly like there's no tomorrow, or at least, I would. So Cosby's silence, in my mind, betrays in him. By saying nothing, he gave more validation to the allegations than if he responded, even briefly. His silence implies that, perhaps, there's something to these claims.

I've also thought about "The Thankful Poor" by Henry Ossawa Tanner, as well as Cosby's tendency to berate the black middle-class in America. Since this essay is primarily about rape, I won't spend too much time on Cosby and race, but seeing that it's relevant, I'll address it briefly.

Cosby's racial views are best expressed through his famous "pound cake" speech, for the NAACP that commemorated the 50th anniversary of Brown v Board of Education at Washington D.C. in May of 2004. Cosby took the event to criticize the black-middle class for their own failures. The "pound cake" part is here,

"Looking at the incarcerated, these are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake! Then we all run out and are outraged, "The cops shouldn't have shot him" What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand? (laughter and clapping). I wanted a piece of pound cake just as bad as anybody else (laughter) And I looked at it and I had no money. And something called parenting said if get caught with it you're going to embarrass your mother. Not you're going to get your butt kicked. No. You're going to embarrass your mother. You're going to embarrass your family." (Rutgers.edu)

Here's another segment referring to his now infamous "pull your pants up" rhetoric,

"Are you not paying attention, people with their hat on backwards, pants down around the crack. Isn't that a sign of something, or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up (laughter and clapping ). Isn't it a sign of something when she's got her dress all the way up to the crack…and got all kinds of needles and things going through her body. What part of Africa did this come from? (laughter). We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans, they don't know a damned thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap and all of them are in jail. (When we give these kinds names to our children, we give them the strength and inspiration in the meaning of those names. What's the point of giving them strong names if there is not parenting and values backing it up)." (Rutgers University)

An interesting segment where he mocks black slang,

"Brown Versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem. We've got to take the neighborhood back (clapping). We've got to go in there. Just forget telling your child to go to the Peace Corps. It's right around the corner. (laughter) It's standing on the corner. It can't speak English. It doesn't want to speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk. "Why you ain't where you is go, ra," I don't know who these people are. And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk (laughter). Then I heard the father talk. This is all in the house. You used to talk a certain way on the corner and you got into the house and switched to English. Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't land a plane with "why you ain't…" You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. There is no Bible that has that kind of language. Where did these people get the idea that they're moving ahead on this. Well, they know they're not, they're just hanging out in the same place, five or six generations sitting in the projects when you're just supposed to stay there long enough to get a job and move out." (Rutgers University).

Now, are there problems in the black community? Yes, of course. Every community, black, white, yellow, etc, probably has its own issues they need to confront, but one glaring omission Cosby makes is that he refuses to acknowledge the socioeconomic impact that institutional racism has had and still does have on black communities. He ignores that the justice system is disproportionate in its targeting of blacks, which may explain why you have so many in prison, and with often longer sentences. Simply because America has made progress (and it has) doesn't mean that we're living in a "Rainbow Nation" of Mandelian heights. Cosby also makes some rather rude assumptions about these blacks simply because of the way they look and talk. Yeah, Tupac Shakur may have looked like a "thug", but he was one of the most well-read and most poetic musicians of the 90s. Every subculture, from hippies to goths, have been judged by their clothes more than by their ideas. If Cosby can't see the poetry or the rhythm in slang, then he is intellectually poorer for it. Cosby would benefit from a discussion on language with John McWhorter. Where would we be without "Huckleberry Finn", "Catcher In The Rye", and "On The Road" which used slang to drive a more relatable narrative, or the transcendent lyricism of Nujabes and Lauryn Hill, which embodied the urban, black experience? By the way, most of the people who work to fix issues in the black community are, in fact, black. Had Cosby not heard the song "Self-Destruction", or of the good work done against urban crime by "Cure Violence"?

Jabari Asim makes a good response to Cosby's remarks in The Washington Post,

"That same element can be found in Cosby's remarks. It is true that some blacks continue to engage in conduct that contradicts and undermines the aims of the civil rights movement. He has every right to take them to task. It is far less amusing that Cosby, a multimillionaire, chose to criticize "the lower economic people" when evidence of the habits he condemned -- misplaced priorities, negligent child-rearing, deteriorating morality -- can be found at every level of American society. Why single out poor people, who are least able to defend themselves?" ("Did Cosby Cross The Line?")

Now, onto "The Thankful Poor", it is painting that I think is quite poignant now. I say this for two reasons. One, it depicts, what I interpret to be, a father and son. Two, they are poor. For many people, including myself, Cosby was a father figure, but in the end, that's all he was, a figure. To me, the old man in the painting represents how we saw Cosby, and what we expected of him. In mythological terms, he was our Merlin, our Gandalf, our Obi-Wan Kenobi. Yet that old man is stuck in the painting, an ideal. Moving on to the poverty aspect of "The Thankful Poor", Cosby, apparently, has little empathy for the poor black middle class (and women while we're at it). That he can enshrine a painting examining poverty in America, and yet fail to properly engage in it in real life, shows his empathy deficit. Yes, Cosby has done philanthropy, but philanthropy is easy, and by itself won't save the poor. Cosby can appreciate this painting. He just can't understand it. Does he not know that the poor, the black poor today, still try to be grateful and still suffer?

In his Associated Press interview, Cosby verbally bullies the AP like a Mafia gangster who "has friends in high places." Here, we saw him naked, the real "Bill Cosby", a far more disgusting and vile creature than we were led to believe, a drooling Jabba The Hut, thriving in rot. Shortly after being asked about the allegations, to which his response was, well, no response, Cosby, thinking that he was off camera, began to coerce.

Cosby: "Now can I get something from you?"

AP Reporter: "What's that?"

Cosby: "That none of that will be shown?"

AP Reporter: "I can't promise that, myself, but you didn't say anything..."

Cosby: "I know I didn't say anything, but I'm asking your integrity that since I didn't want to say anything, but I did answer you in terms of 'I don't want to say anything, of what value will it have?'"

AP Reporter: "I don't think it will have..."

Cosby: (Speaking to off-camera publicist) "Mam? What'd you say?"

AP Reporter: "Sorry?"

Cosby: "What did you say?"

Off-camera publicist: "I don't think it has any value either."

Cosby: "And I would appreciate it if it was scuttled."

AP Reporter: "I hear you. I will tell that to my editors and I think that they will understand..."

Cosby: "I think if you want to consider yourself to be serious that it will not appear anywhere."

AP Reporter: "OK. I appreciate what you've asked."

Cosby: "Thank you. And we thought, by the way, because it was AP, that it wouldn't be necessary to go over that question with you."

AP Reporter: "I know. And we haven't written about this at all in the past two months, but they want, my bosses wanted me to ask..."

Cosby: "If you will just tell your boss the reason why we didn't say that upfront was because we thought that AP had the integrity to not ask."

Off camera publicist: "One other point on that: One of the three major TV writers for the AP in Los Angeles called me up and asked me - Lynn Elber - and I said we're not addressing it. So she said fine and she just closed it off."

AP Reporter: "OK."

Cosby: (to publicist) "And I think you need to get on the phone with his person immediately."

Off camera publicist: "I will, OK."

Cosby: "OK, thank you." (My FOX Austin)

This is the moment, for me, when the loving "Cliff Huxtable" truly died, and the decaying, greedy, self-centered low-life known as "Bill Cosby", reared his ugly head. Not only did Cosby again refuse to respond to serious allegations, but he also wanted to cover up this dialogue from the world. Get your heads out of the sand, Gamergate, this is what real corruption in journalism looks like!

Look closely during the interview, far behind Cosby, and you can see "The Thankful Poor." What a contradictory scene!

For Inside Edition, body language expert Dr. Lillian Glass studied Cosby's body language in the video and observed that, (emphasis mine),

"This shows a man who is used to having a lot of power, and who is used to using his power to get whatever he wants. You see him very protective in a V position over his private parts, and this is what is being discussed in essence, his cheating behavior, or the allegations. So, when you look at what's going on with their hands you can tell a great deal about his vulnerability." ("Explosive Video: Bill Cosby Pressures AP Reporter to 'Scuttle' Interview")

And they say that rape is about power, don't they?

Given all of these factors, it would seem very implausible to deny Cosby's crimes, but still, there are those that do. Aside from the longtime fans, too starstruck for the truth, you have those who are simply hesitant to point the finger at Cosby, despite how glaringly obvious it all is. They act as if the truth is unknowable, as if all rape cases should be weighed in the exact same way. This is ridiculous. The Cosby situation is vastly different from the sexual assault allegations against Woody Allen, Julian Assange, or even the late Michael Jackson. I won't go into the details of these difficult, but serious cases, however, it seems fairly reasonable to me, that cohesive arguments could be made by either side of those issues. Believe what you will, but I think that in those cases, agnosticism isn't an unreasonable position. However, the degrees of which you hold that agnosticism can differ. It may seem more probable to some that Woody Allen is guilty of wrongdoing that Julian Assange, and vice-versa, but there still remains uncertainty significant enough to refrain from labeling the accused as "rapists."At the same time, the media should be more responsible in investigating these various claims. I would like to see a re-examination of the Michael Jackson case, myself, given the new accusations against him by Wade Robeson and James Safechuck, and while I don't think that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, that issue could certainly benefit from a another look.

If all this still sounds shocking, even if it makes sense to you, that's fine, it's supposed to be. That Bill Cosby and Cliff Huxtable are two different people is a scam that fooled all of America. Jim Goad of Taki's Magazine, I feel, conveys our shock well,

"It wasn't surprising, nor especially depressing, to hear that Mike Tyson was convicted of rape in 1992. After all, Tyson was known for little more than being a mentally challenged Brooklyn street thug who nearly murdered people with his fists in the ring. We expect these things from people such as Mike Tyson. But not of America's Dad." ("America's Rapist Dad")

So if you are to accept my argument that Bill Cosby is a serial rapist, then what can be done about The Cosby Show? Is it ethical to watch, or to even laugh at?



 
The Art Versus The Artist

I enjoy the art of many artists whose moral values I find, well, lacking, to say the least. Ender's Game is one of the finest science-fiction books I've ever read, but its author, Orson Scott Card, is a raging homophobe. Rosemary's Baby and The Pianist are excellent films, but their director, Roman Polanski, is, like Cosby, a rapist. Ezra Pound was a magnificent poet, but also a fascist supporter of Mussolini. All three of these talented people produced controversies that forced this conflict of art versus artist on the public.

When filmed adaptation of Ender's Game up for release in 2013, clearly among the first to capitalize on the young adult dystopian craze started by the Hunger Games, many saw reason to boycott it. I even know friends of mine who did. Regardless of how good the film was, they didn't want to contribute a cent to Orson Scott Card. Let's recall that once wrote an article in Deseret News lambasting the legality of same-sex marriage and even its acceptance as normal, he has these lovely gems to his name, (emphasis mine),

"The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

"Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show "gay marriages" as normal. How long do you think it will be before such textbooks become mandatory — and parents have no way to opt out of having their children taught from them?

"No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn." ("State job is not to redefine marriage.")

Pretty stupid stuff, right? A shame that Card didn't actually attempt to destroy the government. That would've been pretty funny. Gay marriage ain't so bad, eh, Card? Well, as soon as Lionsgate adapted the film for release, LGBT activists saw boycotting the Ender's Game film as a way to damage Card. The movie opened to mixed reviews and a mediocre box office return. This may, in fact, have to do with the negative reception around Card, but there were those who suggested that boycotting was the wrong move. One such person was Mack Rawden of CinemaBlend. He seemed to say that it was unfair to condemn the entire cast and crew of Ender's Game, since not a cent of the money earned would return to Card. He also argued in favor of separating art from artist,

"Movies have to be judged by their content, not by who created them. Your average film is organized and executed by hundreds of people of different races and genders who boast different sexual orientations, different religions and different political leanings. The only thing they have in common is their shared desire to make the final product as brilliant and moving as possible, and if you separate the group and start looking at each one of these creators individually and their perceived motivations, you're almost always going to find some horrific and unseemly things beneath the surface. Why? Because a high percentage of us suck." ("Why Boycotting Ender's Game Doesn't Make Sense.")

I agree with much of what Rawden says here. It's only inevitable that our cherished works of art will have contributions from idiots, but art should stand on its own, regardless of its creators. Yet, it's very easy to say that when the creator isn't an intimate player in their work. After all, Card was very detached from Ender's Game, in the story he doesn't appear. For those who subscribe to "Death of the Author" Card doesn't even exist. Yet bigotry is not as awful as rape. Enter Roman Polanski.

Polanski, as we all know, raped Samantha Geimer by use of drugs when she was 13 years old in 1977. For that crime, he has not been able to return to the United States, should he be jailed. In 2009, when going to Switzerland for the Zurich Film Festival, he was jailed over his arrest warrant at the pressure of American officials. Whoopi Goldberg defended Polanski's actions as not "rape-rape", and Hollywood followed suit. They signed a petition calling for Polanski's release, and according to TV Guide, the signatories included Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese along with 100 other filmmakers and actors. (Bryant). Here, art was not separated from artist. Is not possible to celebrate The Pianist, Chinatown, and Rosemary's Baby, while holding Polanski accountable for his crimes against women? I would think so. Like Card, Polanski doesn't exist within the universes of these films. He is detached. While both Chinatown and The Pianist came from intimate places in Polanski's lifetime, the death of Sharon Tate and escaping the Holocaust, none of them advocate rape. Besides, films are collaborative efforts. Why should Polanski get all the honor for them? Hollywood made the mistake of assuming a director is as good as his films. They left the rape victims behind.

By the way, this dilemma is not a new phenomenon. A Little Treasury In Modern Poetry records a moment when Ezra Pound won the Bollingen Prize of $1000 for his Pisan Cantos in 1949. The poetry was controversial because it reflected Pound's admiration for Mussolini's Italy, as well as his own antisemitism. The jury that awarded him was not unanimous and included W.H. Auden, T.S. Eliot, Karl Shapiro, Robert Lowell, Conrad Aiken, and Robert Penn Warren, among others. In response to the controversy, the jury released this statement:

"The fellows are aware that objections may be made to awarding a prize to a man situated as is Mr. Pound. In their view, however, the possibility of such objection did not alter the responsibility assumed by the Jury of Selection. This was to make a choice for the award among eligible books, provided anyone merited such recognition, according to the stated terms of the Bollingen Prize. To permit other considerations than that of poetic achievement to sway the decision would destroy the significance of the award and would in principle deny the validity of that objective perception of value on which civilized society must rest," (879-880)

The responses among poets, and indeed, those of that jury, were decidedly mixed. One of voted for Pound, Robert Lowell, said in his defense that,

"I thought it was the very simple problem of voting for the best book of the year; and it seemed to me that Pound's was. I thought the Pisan Cantos was the best writing Pound had ever done, though it included some of his worst. It is a very mixed book: that was the question. But the consequences of not giving the best book of the year a prize for extraneous reasons, even terrible ones in a sense---I think that's the death of art," (880).

Conversely, Karl Shapiro, who voted against Pound, did so for more personal reasons,

"I voted against Pound in the balloting for the Bollingen Prize. My first and more crucial reason was that I am a Jew and cannot honor antisemites. My second reason, I stated in a report which was circulated among the Fellows: "I voted against Pound in the belief that the poet's political and moral philosophy ultimately vitiates his poetry and lowers its standards as literary work," (880). 

At moments, I feel just stuck in the middle of these two sides in the whole "art versus artist" debate. One the one hand, I don't believe that whether or not the creator of an art was morally righteous should sink or swim its value. Yet on the other hand, it can be damaging. Joseph Conrad's apparent racism in Heart of Darkness was unhelpful to its portrayal of the Congolese. Yes, Heart of Darkness is a great novel, but racism damaged its effectiveness as art, at least, as far as Chinua Achebe was concerned.

You could argue that since the Bill Cosby persona is different than Cosby himself, that it's okay to laugh at his jokes, but is it really? Woody Allen has also insisted that his persona on film is different than who he is in real life (take that for what you will). Unlike Polanski or Card, Allen, like Cosby, does exist within his works. I suppose I feel more comfortable watching Woody Allen films, because the case against him is decidedly less definitive than against Cosby. So it's admittedly easier for me to disassociate his character from the allegations. Yet any time I want to watch The Cosby Show, I feel as if I'd be laughing at a serial rapist, giving him credit. It's a shame too, because so many other talented people contributed to that show, and now, their legacies have been sullied, obstructed even.

As much as I would like to, I can't erase Cosby's impact from history. Heck, one of his stand-up albums was preserved by the National Recording Registry. Not to mention that The Cosby Show itself was an important show for the visibility of blacks in America. Yes, the show may not have dealt with race as often as Fresh Prince, but I for one, thought it was nice to see blacks portrayed as living regular lives like whites, instead of often being shown in race polemics. Not that that's a bad thing, or anything, on the contrary, it's desperately needed, but I believe that there should also be a spectrum of black portrayals. That much being said, I think that those unfamiliar with Cosby, especially younger ones, should understand what he meant to us, and to America. They deserve to know that much, but if it's too painful for them, I get it.

By the end of the day, I don't know what the right answer is. You'll have to decide this for yourself. I really don't think I'll be able to watch or hear anything of Cosby's for a very long time. Rape is just so ugly. I guess I can live without Cosby, though. There are other comedians, like Carlin, Hicks, and Chappelle. There are also other good memories to revisit, The Goonies, Harry Potter, and Looney Tunes. Still, I'll miss Cliff Huxtable. I hardly knew ya.

Let me end by saying that the Cosby case is both extraordinary and ordinary. I say this because it is absolutely extraordinary to have such a grand number of women all accuse a rapist of the same or similar crimes, even Jian Ghomeshi had fewer. It also ordinary, however, in the sense that most rapists are serial rapists, and as such, they have a long list of victims that they've hurt. This is why we have such a great number of women who have been raped, and yet a low number of men who are rapists. Feminist blogger Jessica Valenti said provocatively in The Nation that "Rape is as American as apple pie---until we own that, nothing will change." ("America's Rape Problem: We Refuse to Admit That There Is One"). At the time, I felt that the statement was a little obtuse, but now, I admit, I was wrong. Rape has infected our schools, our military, our clergy, our prisons, our sports teams, and now, our televisions. When even "America's Dad", of all people, is a rapist, that tells us that rape is undoubtedly a part of the American experience. To deny this is to deny reality.


Bibliography

Asim, Jabari. "Did Cosby Cross The Line?" The Washington Post. May 24, 2004. Web. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51273-2004May24.html

Bazelon, Emily; Larimore, Rachael. "How Often Do Women Falsely Cry Rape?" Slate. October 1, 2009. Web. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/10/how_often_do_women_falsely_cry_rape.html

Bryant, Adam. "Fellow Filmmakers Call for Roman Polanski's Release." TV Guide. September 30, 2009. Web. http://www.tvguide.com/News/Scorsese-Defends-Polanski-1010320.aspx?rss=breakingnews&partnerid=imdb&profileid=01

Buress, Hannibal. "Hannibal Buress Called Bill Cosby a Rapist During a Stand Up." YouTube. October 29, 2014. Web. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzB8dTVALQI

Card, Orson Scott. "State job is not to redefine marriage." Deseret News. July 24, 2008. Web. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html

"Clear and Convincing Evidence." Legal Information Institute. Web. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clear_and_convincing_evidence

Christina, Greta. "Harassment, Rape, and the Difference Between Skepticism and Denialism." Freethought Blogs. August 12, 2013. Web. http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/08/12/harassment-rape-skepticism-denialism/

Coates, Ta-Nehisi. "The Cosby Show." The Atlantic. November 19, 2014. Web. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/11/the-cosby-show/382891/

Cosby, Bill. "Dr Bill Cosby Speaks." Rutgers University. May 2004. Web. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~schochet/101/Cosby_Speech.htm

"Explosive Video: Bill Cosby Pressures AP Reporter To 'Scuttle' Interview." Inside Edition. November 20, 2014. Web. http://www.insideedition.com/entertainment/9302-explosive-video-bill-cosby-pressures-ap-reporter-to-scuttle-interview

Goad, Jim. "America's Rapist Dad." Taki's Magazine. November 17, 2014. Web. http://takimag.com/article/americas_rapist_dad_jim_goad/page_2#axzz3K3DfoERX

Hannon, Elliot; Ioannou, Filipa; Mathis-Liley, Ben. "A Complete List of the Women Who Have Accused Bill Cosby of Sexual Assault." Slate. November 21, 2014. Web. http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/11/21/bill_cosby_accusers_list_sexual_assault_rape_drugs_feature_in_women_s_stories.html

Lisak, David; Gardinier, Lori; Nicksa, Sarah C.; Cote, Ashley M. "False Allegations Of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases." Violence Against Women. 2010. 16. Web. http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/16/12/1318.full.pdf+html

Rawden, Mark. "Why Boycotting Ender's Game Doesn't Make Sense." CinemaBlend. October 31, 2013. Web. http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Boycotting-Ender-Game-Doesn-t-Make-Sense-40101.html

Simon, Scott. "Cosbys Start A 'Conversation' With African-American Art." NPR. November 15, 2014. Web. http://www.npr.org/2014/11/15/364289549/cosbys-start-a-conversation-with-african-american-art

Sinha-Roy, Piya; Kelsey, Eric. "More women detail sex abuse claims against Cosby." Reuters. December 3, 2014. Web. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/04/us-people-cosby-idUSKCN0JH2KV20141204

Valenti, Jessica. "America's Rape Problem: We Refuse to Admit That There Is One." The Nation. January 4, 2013. Web. http://www.thenation.com/blog/172024/americas-rape-problem-we-refuse-admit-there-one#

"Video and transcript of Bill Cosby AP Interview." My FOX Austin. November 20, 2014. Web. http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/27442190/video-and-transcript-of-bill-cosby-ap-interview

Watson, Rebecca. "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence--Except In Rape Claims?" Skepchick.org. August 23, 2014. Web. http://skepchick.org/2014/08/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence-except-in-rape-claims/

Williams, Oscar, ed. A Little Treasury of Modern Poetry. 3rd ed. 879-880. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970. Print.

Apple Music Gets Karaoke-Style Lyrics In macOS Catalina - Ars Technica

Apple Music gets karaoke-style lyrics in macOS Catalina

Fuchsia Malaise Playtest Sessions

Last week, I ran three different sessions in my Cha'alt campaign.  This post will highlight the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Session One

This was on Roll20, and it was kind of a disaster.  Every player seemed to be on a different page or possibly different book.

They arrived at the golden gates of A'agrybah, and learned a bit about the city and taxes.  Apparently, paying taxes is a fate worse than death because several PCs (one in particular) was preoccupied by imminent tax collection for the entire scenario.  Always looking for somewhere to hide his meager wealth so the tax man doesn't take a cut.

Another PC just stalked the guy afraid of taxes like a creepy ex-girlfriend.  It was weird.

A third PC wanted to go off completely on his own to the palace (the rest of the party was in the tavern making friends).  And when he got there, he wanted to speak directly to the King.  That didn't happen.  Instead, the PC talked to a servant and when that wasn't good enough, he attacked a royal guard.  The PC almost killed the guard, but reinforcements were called.  And when multiple guards eventually killed the PC, the player complained about poor dice rolls.  Really, dude?  You chalk that fate up to bad luck?  Wow, ok...

A fourth PC decided he would take down the biggest guy in the bar who had two companions sitting next to him.  That lasted a whole 2 rounds until the PC was skewered dead on the end of the barbarian's obsidian blade.

The fifth PC tried to make the most of his adventuring time.  I felt bad for him, since his party just collapsed under the weight of their own distraction or incompetence.

Session Two

Same set-up as before (also a Roll20 game), the PCs enter A'agrybah.  This time they enter the marketplace, find a guide, and get a tour... until a couple of thieves make off with their coin purses.

They track the thieves to a blind alley and combat takes place.  It's quite the battle, ending with the most murderhobo PC ripping the head off a thief when he was trying to run away.

It was fun, and everyone had a great time!

Each of those games lasted about 70 minutes, so there wasn't much time for anything else.

Session Three

This was face-to-face at my FLGS, and a blissful four-hours long.  I'd been waiting weeks for this game.  Crummy weather (ice and snow) almost ruined things, but luckily there was a window.

BTW, all three sessions used my Crimson Dragon Slayer D20 hack of both OSR and 5e.  FYI, the cleric isn't broken!  Not only does he allow the party to keep fighting past the 2nd encounter without having to rest for the day, he allows the wizard to keep casting spells (both during and between combats).

Patrick played a cleric moon-elf, Pat played a fighter blood-elf, Michael played another fighter blood-elf, and Steve played a sky-elf wizard (who became his own familiar).

Three of the four players ran through The Black Pyramid a couple months ago.  Instead of starting at 1st level, I suggested they make 3rd level characters and rolled on that d100 past event random table from How To Game Master Like A Fucking Boss.

I introduced some Fuchsia Malaise backstory - the PCs' settlement had been destroyed by off-worlder invaders intent on draining Cha'alt of its most precious resource - zoth.

In order to successfully raid the off-worlder's base, Elysium, they'd need either high-tech weapons, magic items, or both.

Rumors of relics and artifacts within The Black Pyramid abound, so off they went.  As per usual, just the tip of the pyramid was visible, shiny black, the majority submerged beneath irradiated sand.

They met a demon attempting to open up a gateway to some Demon Lord, and decided to help him.  Each PC was bestowed with an infernal blessing, and the gate-opening demon became an NPC hanger-on.

The PCs spent a little time with The Community, but nothing substantial happened there.  Then, they wandered into a Tiki bar and chatted with a demonic vacuum salesman (vacuum sales-demon?) and the negotiations began.  The vacuum demonstration included sucking up some NPC into another dimension (ok, maybe it was demonic).  Two vacuums were purchased.

After that transaction, the PCs felt this would be the perfect initiation for their new demon friend, Qa'atz.  His rite of passage will be to kill the salesman and loot his body as the other PCs watched.

Qa'atz got advantage on a surprise stab to the stomach. Sadly, I rolled badly and Qa'atz missed horribly.  The salesman backed away and disintegrated him in one shot (rolled bad on the saving throw, too).

Disavowing anything to do with Qa'atz, the PCs made their way to a room where a female demon (wow, lots of demons in this session... even for me!) was gifted a magic sword by an infernal council.  The PCs agreed to help her by being their champion and killing the titan Za'argon so she could have a ridiculously large ruby.

The magic sword had an unbreakable glass pommel and a variable plus to hit and damage, so one player suggested the current "+" number would be visible inside the little glass sphere as an indicator.  A brilliant idea and the kind of thing that could only happen in an RPG.

A hive of reptilian insects was in another room, and they became fodder for a fireball spell, as well as, the magic blade.  A decent amount of treasure was found searching the honeycombs.

A wandering humanoid offered to sell his own magic sword.  It had a strange name, Kenyur-Trova'ak. Not having a translation handy, I looked for the closest thing in the Viridian glossary at the back of How To Game Master Like A Fucking Boss and came up with "passionate oblivion"... a better translation would be "the strength of nothingness."  Then ended up trading a vacuum and a turquoise slab for the sword.

The last room before Za'argon was full of his devoted worshipers who occasionally offered themselves to the minor god when he was feeling especially peckish.  The PCs didn't think much of them, playing strategy games and plucking their zita'ars.

The PCs had a whiz-bang idea of removing the chartreuse sphere from an adjacent triangle-shaped room so the worshipers could use it as a new age music room with excellent "triangular acoustics".

Unfortunately, Za'argon needed to roll a 1 for him to fail his save.  I rolled a 3, which was damn close.  So, he didn't immediately die.  But the sky-elf wizard did lob a fireball at him.  This little table was rolled on.  The wizard's player rolled a 6.  Ouch!  Knocking half its Hit-Points down, the rest of them dealt damage like true adventurers.

The cleric dropped down onto the titan's head so he could dish out a holy invocation to Lovecraftian abominations.  The fighters (they both had magic swords, but especially the one with the variable +) wailed on him.

Za'argon slapped all of them around with a couple rounds of tentacles, practically killing the cleric.  The wizard asked if it was possible for him to cast a spell to save his companion's life.  I deemed that it was.  The wizard could try preventing the cleric's soul from leaving his body.  The wizard cast his spell and the cleric would need to make a saving throw.  Luckily, he did.

Finally, the killing blow cut the titan in twain.  The PCs looted his chamber, the demon sorceress took her giant ruby, and her champion did not return the sword even though she was done with him.  She vanished into thin air before the PCs could turn on her.

Za'argon's horn bestowed enough power making the party's spell-caster a Very Powerful Wizard (at long last).  He used that temporary power to destroy the enemies within Elysium.  Also, the PCs became 4th level.

Having survived The Black Pyramid was no easy feat.  For years and years, they will be able to tell their children and grandchildren of their bravery, cunning, and unbelievable fortune!

VS

p.s. One thing I like to do is look back at my sessions and see if there's something I could have done differently, that could be improved upon.  The demon sorceress should have been sexier and a potential love-interest for one or more PCs.

Vintage Computer Festival Southeast 6.0

When:
Saturday April 21, 2018, 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. and Sunday April 22 2018, 12 p.m. to 5 p.m.

Where:
A new location this year:  5000 Commerce Parkway, Roswell, GA 30076.
It's in the  Roswell Town Center mall, around the back off Commerce Parkway.
Please check the Google Map linked from the address, it's a little tricky to find the first time.
This  Map Link shows the entrance.

What:
Speakers — Come hear first-hand accounts of events in computer history and informative technical presentations.  We have again attracted some very interesting speakers this year!
Check the Speakers link above more details.
Exhibits (and exhibit registration) — Exhibits are presented Saturday and Sunday.   You'll find computers from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's.  From PDPs to Commodores to Apples… Some exhibits contain pristine original machines, others painstakingly restored machines and others focus on unique modern hacks.  You'll find all this and everything in between.
We will also be having a sneak preview screening and feedback session for an upcoming documentary Love Notes to Newton (click link for a trailer)  This will occur at 3 pm on Saturday.
Hands On Activities  — We offer a chance to let your inner engineer out.   A very popular feature of our Festival is the chance to create your own electronic device.   We have kits available for purchase (for everyone from complete beginner to those already handy with a soldering iron).
We also expect to again have a demonstration area put on by the FIRST Robot team  T\ They will be there to talk about their experiences at the FIRST competition as well.
Consignment — We offer a consignment area as part of our show.   We'll try our best to sell your vintage computer related  items. Details are on the Consignment link.  Please  remember this isn't a flea market.
Vendors — We invite folks who might have items that would be of interest to our audience to exhibit at our show as well.    Register using the exhibits link.
Concessions — We offer a concession area where you can get soft drinks, water, popcorn, etc. We also have Festival T-Shirts (and a few from previous years) along with some other computer related items.  Click the link for a more detailed list.

For whom:
Everyone! Computer geeks, families/children, STEM students, students, collectors, IT professionals, curious onlookers…

Admission: Free

http://vcfed.org/wp/festivals/otherevents/vintage-computer-festival-southeast/
https://mailchi.mp/computermuseumofamerica.com/vcfse60updates?e=fd35a5dce2

Brainstorming With Factoring

In the last post I described how I sometimes describe a problem with a matrix, and then look at the matrix transpose to see if it gives me new ideas. Another technique I use is to look for a factoring.

In algebra, factoring transforms a polynomial like 5x² + 8x - 21 into (x + 3)·(5x - 7). To solve 5x² + 8x - 21 = 0, we can first factor into (x + 3)·(5x - 7) = 0. Then we say that x + 3 = 0 or 5x - 7 = 0. Factoring turns a problem into several easier problems.

	x	3
5x	5x²	15x
-7	-7x	-21

Let's look at an example: I have six classes, File, EncryptedFile, GzipFile, EncryptedGzipFile, BzipFile, EncryptedBzipFile. I can factor these into a matrix:

	Uncompressed	Gzip	Bzip
Unencrypted	File	Gzip(File)	Bzip(File)
Encrypted	Encrypt(File)	Encrypt(Gzip(File))	Encrypt(Bzip(File))

Using the Decorator pattern (or mixins), I've turned six different types of files into four components: plain, gzip, bzip, encrypt. This doesn't seem like much savings, but if I add more variations, the savings will add up. Factoring turns O(M*N) components into O(M+N) components.

Another example comes up when people ask me things like "how do you write linear interpolation in C#?" There are a lot of potential tutorials I could write:

	C++	Python	Java	C#	Javascript	Rust	Idris	…
Interpolation
Neighbors
Pathfinding
Distances
River maps
Isometric
Voronoi
Transforms
…

If there are M topics and N languages, I could write M*N tutorials. However, that's a lot of work. Instead, I write a tutorial about interpolation, someone else writes a tutorial about C#, and then the reader combines knowledge of C# with knowledge about interpolation to write the C# version of interpolation.

Like transpose, factoring only helps sometimes, but when it applies, it can be quite useful.

Movie Reviews: Captain Marvel, Green Book, Juliet, Naked, Colette, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald, Aquaman, Ralph Breaks The Internet, Mary Poppins Returns, Like Father

See all of my movie reviews.

Captain Marvel - It's not the toxic male mob intent on trashing this movie because it features strong women characters (some of color, no less) that gets me. It's the well-meaning but clueless regular men (and women) who don't get that a female superhero movie doesn't have to a) be exactly like a male superhero movie or b) feature a woman who has to listen to, love, or get saved or supported by a man.

"Vers" is a Kree, a humanoid with a past that she remembers in glimpses in her dreams. She is fighting as an elite Kree warrior against the "terrorist" shape-shifting Krulls, and told by her mentor and the world's AI that they gave her her special powers (shooting energy blasts from her hands and other things, that other Krees don't have) and will take it away if she can't control it. During a mission she is kidnapped by Krulls and crash lands in 1990s Earth, where she discovers many secrets about the past and the war she is fighting. Eventually she turns into Captain Marvel; this is late in the movie but not a big spoiler.

The naysayers who say that Brie Larson doesn't exhibit enough emotion didn't watch the movie. Okay, maybe she doesn't play CM as a vulnerable helpless naif, or make us feel her struggles too much, but she exhibits fear, doubt, confusion, happiness, joy, anger, and everything in between. She's just freakin' strong and powerful, she's generally in control, and she's angry. Captain Marvel has nothing to prove after being lied to and finally regurgitating the lies. She spent six years in a civilization that treats men and women equally and she doesn't know anything about being a second class citizen. She is a powerhouse and a warrior. And so, in a more human way, is her female friend Lashana Lynch, a pilot who skillfully flies a rescue mission and shoots down enemy ships.

The naysayers who claim that CM doesn't learn or grow also didn't watch the movie. Okay, the turning points were sometimes a tad rushed, but it's a Marvel movie; for crying out loud. Compared to other Marvel movies, this was Shakespeare. Everything about her confusion, her gradual uncovering of the truth, and her turning points are well presented in the movie and make sense. (How she got her powers - and lived - doesn't make sense, but then neither do any of the other Marvel superhero origin stories.)

One way to analyze if the movie works is to ask if the movie would still be good if the sexes were swapped. The answer is hell yes. But it's far better to have women as the lead characters, because so few movies like this do. It's high time that girls had some uncompromising, independent, unsexualized, strong role models.

Everyone involved in this movie did a great job. It has the most real character development and character relations I've seen in a Marvel movie since Iron Man. Within the context of Marvel, the plot flows seamlessly into the rest of the MCU (without the hanging threads that Wonder Woman left in the DCU, for example). CM is a real superhero, like Superman. A fun watch. Ben Mandelsohn also bring fun to most scenes he is in as one of the Skrulls.

Green Book - Based on a true story of a low-class Italian bouncer who drives a black, fancy piano virtuoso across the deep south in 1962. Mahershala Ali plays the somewhat ridiculous Doctor Donald Shirley who is invited as guest of honor in places where he is typically not allowed to sleep or eat. Viggo Mortensen is nearly unrecognizable as his driver, who starts off as a crude racist but ends up ... well, you'll have to see.

The story is okay, the acting and everything else is good. The movie creates a relatively safe space to encounter racism, with only a little violence and general racism. It's more a road movie and a culture class of refined vs uncouth. I don't know that the movie deserved an Oscar for best picture, but it was solid enough, if a tad predictable in some places.

The ending scene is unbelievable as Hollywood movies tend to be.

Juliet, Naked - A very good romantic comedy. Duncan (Chris O'Dowd) is a fanatic blogger who obsessively tracks information about one musician, Tucker Crowe (Ethan Hawke), who disappeared many years ago. Duncan is more interested in his hobby than his girlfriend, Annie (Rose Byrne), who ends up in contact with Tucker behind Duncan's back.

Like in many romantic comedies, it's hard to figure out how the girl ended up with the guy in the first place. Not that Duncan is horrible, but he's not a great match for Annie. The scenery is a small pretty, port town in England crossed with some scenes in London hospitals and studios. The movie is mostly laid back.

It's sweet and calm, with an original screenplay that goes in a familiar rom-com direction with some original, unexpected confrontations along the way. Well worth a watch.

Colette - Keira Knightley plays the eponymous writer in a now-familiar story of a woman writing under her man's name, who takes the credit, until she has had enough of that, thank you.

Keira is a firehouse in some movies (Pirates of the Caribbean, Begin Again) and out of place in others (Pride and Prejudice, The Imitation Game). Here she is closer to the latter, unfortunately, unable to give the role the kind of gravitas that would make a more interesting picture. Her character is too straightforward. The plot is too straightforward. Colette's lesbian encounters were not scandalous at the time, because no one knew about them, and they are not scandalous to us today, so that part of the plot doesn't really add much substance to the movie.

It's not bad, and it doesn't drag, but it wasn't very memorable.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - Actually a good movie. The critics somewhat miss the mark here. They didn't like that this was an interim chapter of a movie that sets up the next one(s). In this regard, it's something like HP 5 or 6, but without the tournament or shock ending. Basically, if there had been a shock ending, the critics would have been mollified. The problem is that we're not invested in the characters, so that kind of an ending wasn't really possible.

Queenie, Jacob, Newt, and Tina, as well as a host of other characters, all congregate in Paris (and some other places) to chase after the smarmy Grindelwald, who is assembling an army to attack muggles, and the reborn Credence who has some kind of part to play. Dumbledore is also involved in some short scenes that don't give us much information.

They abandoned sense regarding Queenie's character and reduced her to a plot point "good witch turns bad" using the flimsiest of plot elements: they shoehorned Jacob back into the movie as another plot element. That part was kind of a mess, which I bet JKR could have done much better in book form than it ended up being on screen. As for Newt and Tina, yeah, it's a little hard to figure out why Newt is the hero handing this mission, instead of a pack of competent, trained aurors, but whatever. I also give "whatevers" to a few of the other random plot elements.

It's still pretty fun, pretty magical, mostly makes sense, is well-paced, has some clever and thrilling moments, and takes its time doing world-building ...something which other directors could learn from (*cough* new Star Wars *cough* all comic book movies *cough*). I'm not saying I'm going to run out and see it again in the theater, but I'll happily watch it again when I re-watch the whole FBaWTFT series.

Aquaman - Actually ... meh. Lots of men with irrelevant supporting women. That's par for the course, mostly, but the men are not interesting. They yell, pose, and fight. The spectacle and effects are pretty and overwhelming sometimes, but it all comes to a lot of posing and fighting, and nothing interesting in the way of plot or characters.

Queen of Atlantis runs away, or gets washed away, and meets a human who runs a lighthouse. They have a baby, Aquaman, who grows up (in too-little screen time) who goes to claim his crown in the sea. To do this he has to find a magic trident, while being pursued by a human in a magic suit who is upset that Aquaman didn't save his criminal father from dying, as well as the current lord of Atlantis who wants to kill all the humans for dumping garbage in the ocean.

On the one hand, it's nice when the bad guys have reasonable motivations (taken too far). On the other hand, do we really want to be rooting FOR dumping in the ocean? Or oppression of black people around the world (Black Panther)? Or overpopulation (Avengers Infinity War)?

Visually beautiful, frenetic, and kind of insane is the best that can be said about it. It's like Thor underwater, with a laser light show. Not on my list of great comic movies.

Ralph Breaks the Internet - Ralph and Princess Vanellope are video game characters, as you know from the last outing of this franchise. They get sucked into the Internet, and try to find a (real world physical) component to fix Vanellope's arcade game (and then the money to buy the component), and then they get into fights and races with hot gaming chicks and computer viruses.

It mostly makes sense if you don't think about any of it too hard (take one small aspect of a real world concept, pretend that it makes sense for a video game character to deal with or manifest, repeat ad nauseum). It's entertaining. It tries hard to have relatable characters, but they are just flat pixels on which to give a few life lessons and say jokes. The room full of hip Disney princesses was fun, but I couldn't help feeling that even this scene could have been better. Actually, just following a bunch of updated, feminist Disney princesses, free from the constraints of their movie plots, would make a great movie.

It tries hard, but ultimately it's just okay.

Mary Poppins Returns - Emily Blunt makes a nice Mary Poppins. She lacks (deliberately) some of the warmth and sentimentality that Julie Andrews had in the original, but makes up for it with a no-nonsense strictness and charm that gives her a more otherworldly, appealing magical quality. Lin-Manuel Miranda is good as the sidekick with an accent almost as bad as Van Dyke's was.

In this story, The Banks children are grown up with children of their own. They are facing financial problems that will cause them to have to leave their house. If only that lost bank deed with the proper signature would turn up to save the day. In the meantime, where is light-heartedness and fun to be found any more?

It's hard to judge this kind of thing as an adult with grown children. The original Mary Poppins was not one of my favorites: I loved the songs, but the movie was mysterious and dragged on on occasion (what the heck was that whole plot about women's votes? (I asked as a child)). This movie was at least as good, with inventive animated sequences and songs that pay homage to the original without duplicating it or being too "modern". On the other hand, maybe modern songs would have been a better idea for modern kids, like in The Greatest Showman?

I liked it.

Like Father - Kristen Bell and Kelsey Grammer play their charming selves in this so-so romantic comedy without the romance; is there a genre for parent-child relationship movies?

Rachel (Kristen) is an overworking always-on-the-phone bride who is left at the altar by her fiance for bringing her phone with her to the altar. Her estranged father (Kelsey) who left when she was five showed up to the wedding and then again a few nights later. They get drunk and end up on the cruise she was supposed to have gone on with her ex-fiance. They fight, they try to bond, they fight, they bond.

It's all predictable, down to the expected karaoke scene, the just-when-it-looks-like-everything-is-going-well-they-fight fight, and the last minute change of heart. Kristen and Kelsey carry the movie with their talents, and the usual assortment of nice location shots and the not-too-odd irrelevant cruise guests along for backdrop. No surprises makes it a little dull, but there is nothing very wrong with the movie and there are some laughs.