Michael's Domain

So here I am, sitting in my room after the completion of Demo Fall 09.  Now to prepare myself for full reporting back at home base.  Here are some highlights of what I thought.  There is one thing I gathered from talking to people around the show, and reading/participating in the Twitter stream here at Demo:  Everybody views the demonstrated technologies from their own unique points of view.  With that in mind, the opinions here are from my points of view.  Take them for what they are.

Chris Shipley (@CShipley), who has run the twice-a-year show for 13 years officially retired from this position.  She handed it off Matt Marshall (@MMarshall).  I will say that I am a little concerned with where Demo is going to go without Chris; I've only ever been to Demo twice, and Demo 08 was a far superior experience than Demofall09.  Maybe that's the economy; I don't know.  Here's hoping and wishing the best to Matt for his ability to lead and inspire the next generation of Demoers.  Follow that on with wishing the best for Chris in her future endeavors.

First, I think one of the Demo God panelists said it best when he said that you have to take criticism for what it can teach you -- with one caveat -- pay attention to who is doing the criticism.  I think this is definitely important, and I think it's one area that Demo could do better at is critically critiquing the demonstrations.  Walking around the pavilion floor my partner and I found two types of demonstrators -- those that were interested in feedback (way to go Fuze Box!) and those that didn't (most notable to us was Third Iris).

On the criticism front, I seriously cannot stand to watch one more social media presentation.  I was frankly confused by some of the technology and why it was found to be innovative.  Take Digsby for example -- they went through their demo giving us a tour of their software product, and at the very end explained what they were demoing...  (It's hard not to sound like a smart *ss here...)  They were at Demo Fall 2009 to demo their new, innovative Twitter client that is now integrated with their software application.  In their precious 6 minutes they took the time to explain to us that sorting the tweets oldest first was important.  I didn't get it.  I was baffled looking for the innovation.

Another criticism that hits too many people to name all of them, but was definitely reflected by My Real Estate, was HAVE A BACKUP PLAN.  List price, IIRC, is $20,000 for 6 minutes of demo time.  If you get up there on stage and your network isn't working -- HAVE A BACKUP PLAN.  Have a video of what you would show us live ready to go in case something happened...  Put it in power-point so you can advance to the next video on cue.  Have a backup for the backup...  Have a fully recorded voiced video -- what if your entire team gets food poisoning and cannot stand up there...  For $3,333.33 per minute, have a backup plan to the network (and your application) working.

Last of the criticisms (though not really a criticism) is that not all of the products here at Demo are polished.  I tested out several apps last night on my iPhone and none of them worked perfectly.  I tweeted most of the problems and/or emailed the companies directly.  This is Demo afterall, and I think it's reasonable to have some flaws.

That rounds out my criticism for Demo -- and again, if I named you above it's not that I don't like you, it's just that I'm an opinionated person and those are my thoughts.  Learn from them, or shrug me off -- it won't bother me.

What was great?  Well, I think the Demo God's did a GREAT job of selecting Demo God winners.  Each of those technologies had something about them that sung.  Emo Labs -- phenomenal and game changing for the sound industry.  Article One Partners -- I deal a lot with Patent and other IP in my work, and I'm glad to know that there's this type of service out there.  Burt AB -- advertising analytics for the masses.  Enthusem -- making advertising personal through print media/postal mail (though I think there's much more you can do with this with a range of price points).  Faculte -- bringing simple video editing and re-editing to the web.  LeapFILE -- a very well thought through file sharing service.  Liaise -- automating our task list from what we say in our emails (WOW!).  NativeTung & Dubzer -- bringing translations to the Internet age (finally!).  Symform -- peer-to-peering backups (though you've got to rethink that holding the key thing -- danger, danger!).  Traackr -- Brand and press management will love you.  Weels Corp -- I'm always looking for easy ways to share web content (KISS though -- read "Don't make me think").  Local Dirt -- you speak to the Green in me (now only if Austin was wired up!)

All in all, not a bad time at Demo Fall 2009.  I'm not sure we'll be back in the spring -- I think we'll watch from afar and see if the quality kicks it back up a notch.  It's been great talking with all of the attendees and demonstrators.  Thanks for a great time.

MikeDoug

It drives me crazy, and I'm pretty sure it drives you crazy. The Internet is filled to the brim with bloggers and other social media commentary -- and the real benefit/strength to such a world is the ability for the media to follow in the footsteps of its name: SOCIAL.

But!  Almost every time I feel the urge to respond/reply to a blogger with comments (good, bad, or neutral), I usually don't because one thing gets in my way -- creating an account. I have little to no interest in creating accounts on every website I stumble upon, and it's rude for them to think that we should.

Technology is there to support EASY third-party authentication of people who want to reply to an article.  It's called Open-ID, and there are many TRUSTED websites who you can interface with, including: AOL, BBC, Google, IBM, Microsoft, MySpace, Orange, PayPal, VeriSign, Yandex, Ustream, and Yahoo! (list obtained from wikipedia article on OpenID). 

Here is a simple page that helps explain OpenID:  http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_is_now_an_openid_provider.php.  A problem I see with the way some people have implemented it (including LiveJournal!) is it's too confusing.  On LiveJournal it asks for an OpenID URL -- I know what that is, but does 99.99999% of the population?  Alas, even though I know what it is, I could not find Google's URL...

When is the Internet and the anti-social media going to get with the program, stop making me replicate my identity everywhere, and find the meaning of social?

This is Kaelie, my 4 year old.  We spent a day this summer down at Sea World with Mom Mom and Pop Pop from Texas.  We had a blast.  This picture is from one of the MANY times Kaelie was getting wet.  Next time we need to remember to take swim suits -- and just LEAVE the Kaelie in her's.

This is a crop of a larger picture, but I just loved the expression in her face and the water dripping from her hair. So beautiful!

It's been a while since I've posted on one of the books I've been reading, and that's mostly because I've slowed down some with other parts of my life kicking into gear.

"Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters" was, for me, an eye opener of sorts.  I already believe that I do many things right in my role as father to two young daughters (both under 5).  Further, I have no doubt that I would do alright having not read this book.  However, I think this is another book I'd like to read again in a few years to let it speak to a slightly older, and hopefully wiser, father.

There are a few things I know I will take away from this book today.  First, it is my job to teach them how to expect people to treat them.  If they are treated with dignity and respect at all times, then they will expect friends and otherwise to be likewise.  I've also taken away the fact that I do not have to accept "kids will be kids" and "give them their space" -- Meeker advocates strongly that even into a child's twenties it continues to be a good idea to keep close track of them.  She goes as far as to state that even in the late teenage years that the brain is not developed enough to handle complex situations, and even in those years kids can make life altering stupid mistakes.

We'll see how things turn out.

Another Dave Ramsey recommendation (as he has two daughters).

If you are seeking the keys to a successful mindset, then this is a book for you to read. However, it will definitely challenge your thoughts of how the world works from the physical to the metaphysical, and from the normal to the paranormal. I read through this book with a minimum level of skepticism which surfaced from some of the earliest pages, and varied in degrees throughout the chapters. The author expects the reader to be skeptical, and I appreciate that. I am of a mind to read through it again in a couple of years; perhaps then my mind will be ready to accept more of the concepts held therein.

Nevertheless, the book has challenged me in ways that no other book has in my entire lifetime. I've definitely learned things about what one must do to become successful, and I feel enriched and somewhat empowered by it. His idea that "[n]ature has endowed us with absolute control over but one thing, and that is thought" is intriguing to me; everything we materially "control" is but an extension of our thinking. While people may influence our thinking (positively or negatively), we are ultimately at the helm of thought in our brain. We control what we believe and what we allow ourselves to be convinced.

Hill further theorizes that, "all thought has a tendency to clothe itself in its physical equivalent." How true is that! How amazing is that! We all know people who wallow in their self- or group-pity. It’s the misery-loves-company groups that depress and strangle the willingness to live out of those around them. The negative thoughts lead into a cycle of depression and poverty, and often times unaware faked attitudes of happiness. I am not supposing that to be truly happy one must be financially wealthy – I am supposing that to be truly happy one must not live in a world where negative thoughts and self- and group-debasement is tolerated.

For a long time, I have been a believer in “the mind is a powerful thing”. I have seen and heard of people healing or slowing life threatening medical conditions by little more than sheer willpower; while I do attribute miracles to my Lord, I still hold that a person must first WANT to live before such miracles can occur. Mind-over-matter is essentially what I’m talking about. If you will it, you can make it become reality. At a minimum I firmly believe that when it comes to your own physical body, you truly do have the power to control a great many things.

Hill takes it a step (or more) further, and his idea of thoughts turning into concrete existence is the ultimate premise of the book. He states that you can truly “Think and Grow Rich”! I can see merit in it. Key ingredients, according to Hill, are a burning desire for a concrete goal and faith that it will be achieved. He goes as far as to say that you should regularly envision yourself holding the cash of your burning desire. How different is this burning desire for money (or any other goal) than for health and life? I’m still on the skeptical bench with taking this extra step that Hill takes, but I can see how it ties in with other things I believe.

If nothing else, having a burning desire and absolute faith that you will achieve something are key to having a mindset of success. I think that’s where the “transmutation” of thoughts into reality really occurs. It occurs where the mind is set to a task and it is drive to achieve the task without being swayed by what Hill terms as “temporary failure”. Hill states that everyone suffers from temporary failures. The difference, as I can see it, between “temporary failure” and “failure” is the mindset of the person. If the mindset is driven by a burning desire and absolute faith, then any mishap is instantly viewed in the mind as a temporary situation – because the person has prepared his mind with knowledge that problems will happen and the absolute faith keeps them strong on their path. For me, this is because absolute faith is in the mind, and as I’ve said previously I truly believe that the mind is a powerful thing. I believe the best summary here is found in large, all-caps print in the book: “A QUITTER NEVER WINS – AND A WINNER NEVER QUITS.”

Hill adds that knowledge is a key factor in financial success. The knowledge you can gain for yourself through all sorts of means is important, but so too is what he terms the “Master Mind”. The concept behind the master mind is to align yourself with others (of equal or better intellect) who are equally (or better) attuned to your burning desire. It is important to build a brain trust to further the burning desires to which we align ourselves. These are the people who are going to feed you ideas and thoughts – consciously or not. Hill breaks knowledge into two groups: Synthetic knowledge is the knowledge you can create consciously by combining two or more previous thoughts together. Creative knowledge is the knowledge gained through extra-sensory sources which Hill states are most often associated with “hunches” or “flashes of thought.”

I cannot overstate how much Hill emphasizes the importance of positive thinking as a precursor to success. What I find most interesting is discussions I’ve been a part of at work with one of the owners of the company I work for. She states very clearly that in business, as in life, she thinks only of success and winning – and you’d be hard pressed to say that she and her family have not been successful. When I first heard this I was taken aback with thoughts of danger in being overly giddy or blind to dangers which lurked ahead. Now, after opening my mind to “Think and Grow Rich” I’m not so certain. Going through this book I was often times reminded of the owners of my company, and that, if nothing else, helped me decide that what Hill was conveying was important enough to keep going. Trust me, there were enough times when I thought “boy, this guy is whacked” – but I kept going because I knew there was more here for me to take in.

Think positive. Reject negativity. Be decisive. Be honest. Be true.

All truths from the book, and all truths from life.

 
(Another Dave Ramsey recommendation.)

I'm currently listening to "The 8th Habit" (which I'll post about once I complete it).  Something which struck me from the first chapter or two was the discussion about the changes over time from "hunter gatherer" to "farm" to "industrialized farm" and how each time multiples of an order of magnitude in efficiencies were gained...  How the cry of "we're losing our jobs/farms" of yesterday are not that different of the newer knowledge worker age increasing efficiencies and changing how the game is played.

We need to stop fearing that we are losing our jobs and our economy will fail because of new advancements (ahem, unionized people listen up); we need to take advancement by the horns and follow it to the next layer of success.  There has never been a time where sticking to the old, under-producing methods ever worked for anyone.  The horror stories of people losing their farms in the 20th century were indeed heartbreaking, but they were symbolic of the realization that when you fail to pay attention to advancements in society and you stick to the old ways because the old ways always worked for you... well, don't expect to be very successful.

This same tread is true in almost every area of society you look.  This includes your local church.  Boy do we church people like to do things "because we always have" or "because it worked in the past".  The theory put to use too many times is "why change it?", and too often it wins the day.

Don't get me wrong, I am a full believer that we must always strive to be content with what we have, but if we have not achieved all that we dream then we should not be comfortable.  Contentment and comfort are two different things for me.  I may be content living in a 2-story house even though it is not comfortable for me (I've grown to HATE 2-story houses).  Contentment is a conscience acknowledgment that what I have is truly enough or sufficient, and a mature recognition of needs vs. wants.  For me I want a 1-story house, but I have no truly physical or mental need.  Thus, as an adult I am capable of recognizing the fact that moving to the 1-story house of my wants puts undue harm on my financial goals.  I (along with my wife) have, therefore, grown content with the home in which we now live, but we both acknowledge that the contentment with what we have does not eliminate the comfort we still desire.  Fulfilling that goal of comfort, however, should only be tackled when you weigh it against all other goals and desires in your life.

This philosophy of contentment all circles back around to the changes of times as reflected in the ages of working.  If you grow comfortable with the way you work in society, and that way begins to out-date itself, then you risk falling behind and becoming outdated yourself.  If you are content with the way you work in and around society while at the same time leaving your level of comfort tied to new advances in the way the same work is done, then you are tying your future to the reality of change.  It is simple.  They taught us in school.  History repeats itself.  The ages of working will constantly change.  New methods of working will constantly come about and improve upon the old.  It's the greatest accomplishment of the human race.  Either align yourself with others who are comfortable and refusing of change (and too often lack contentment and are loaded with resentment), or align yourself with those who are content but not comfortable.

It's your choice, and these are just my thoughts.  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, and maybe I'm just somewhere in between.  Though for me, this works.

Yes, I believe the government (or the banking industry) needs to do something to minimize the impact falling housing prices is having on the banking industry.  I understand that much of the instigation of the present downturn was from the sub-prime mortgages where people suddenly became unable to pay.  However, the resulting reduction in home prices due to the fallout from the sub-prime is now resulting in many people becoming upside-down on their homes and simply walk away from a mortgage they are more than capable of paying.

No, I'm sorry.  You bought the asset (the house).  If you are allowed to assume the reward of the asset appreciating, then you should damn well be willing to assume the risk of it depreciating.  The present day walkout by consumers with good mortgages is essentially showing banks that they have assumed 100% of the risk of depreciation in the housing market.  Not only is that bad business for the banks to get into, but it is also unethical for a person to walk away from paying his debts when he or she is perfectly capable of doing so.  Remember also that you are not just walking off with the bank's money -- you are walking off with the bank's customers' money.  Certainly everyone remembers "It's a Wonderful Life"; though it is a whole lot more complicated now than it was then, it is still the same principal -- That's my money!

Either the government is going to need to put laws in place to prevent walk-offs short of full bankruptcy, or one or both of the government and the industry itself needs to make mortgages much harder to acquire.  We cannot have our banks in such a situation as to become easily insolvent and potentially fail, and the current full-assumption of risk for the reduction of housing prices is a red flag.

That said, I think mortgages should be harder to get.  I believe that we, as a nation, need to become better schooled in debt and how it runs the lives of most Americans.  In short: debt is dumb, and the more we can do to further that notion the more stable our economy can be.  (Though it will take a serious hit as we migrate from debt to cash spending since we are already so far into the debt side of the equation.)  If you want more information on "debt is dumb", see www.daveramsey.com.

Another quick read.  Another Ramsey recommendation.  Another great book.

I was worried about this book as I began reading it.  It was slow to grab my attention, but once it did I kept turning the pages until I had devoured it.  Felber invites us into the life of an adopted boy who grew up in a monestary only to find his true love in the business world of merchanthood.  The time is roughly set as after Christ and around the time when St. Peter's Basilica was erected -- so many, many years ago.  The book goes through the life of this merchant and his successes/failures and the once-every-three-year interactions with his mentor.  Each time he denotes new principals by which to lead his life.

I'd put the principals here, but that would likely ruin the book for those who would wish to read it.  The parts that spoke to me over and above the normal financial wisdom parts were the reference to faith in God through Christ and worldly success.  One such instance is from Revelation 1:6 which reminds us that God has made us kings and priests -- God calls each of us to our own course -- some for priesthood, but other for kinghood.  Felber's premise is that the two paths of callings from God are intertwined into the ultimate partnership.  The priests do their work of furthering the word of God and His kingdom on earth, and the kings (merchants) provide the provisions to do so.

Felber also disclaims a number of common rhetorical arguments against individuals becoming wealthy.  The first is the story of Jesus (Luke 18:18-22) telling the wealthy man to sell all of his belongings and give them to the poor -- misguided individuals would interpret that to say that wealth is evil and we should always give everything to the poor.  Felber makes the connection that Jesus is not saying that, and the reality is that Jesus was speaking to THAT man and HIS situation -- the situation there was that worldy wealth had become what this man worshiped, and the only way to right his soul was for him to leave it behind.  This is not unlike an alcoholic having to leave alcohol completely out of his life after becoming sober -- otherwise failure is a sure thing.  Felber also reminds us that Jesus knew and interacted with many wealthy men, and discussions of throwing it away and going to the poor house were never recorded.

The second misused scripture message Felber covers is "For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:25).  This verse is also used to show that money and wealth must surely be evil, or why else would it prevent or hinder a rich man from entering the kingdom of God.  Felber teaches us (and I had never heard this before) that there is another possible interpretation (and one that is confirmed on wikipedia as a possibility) that in Jerusalem there is a gate entering into the city known as Needle's Eye -- a gate so short that a camel could enter only if kneeling and unencumbered with goods.  Therefore (and even if the Needle's Eye is not exactly as described), this verse is not dictating an impossibility (as a camel passing through a sewing needle's eye would be) of entry, but one of greater difficulty.  Wealthy men will face a more difficult time entering into the kingdom of God if for no other reason than they must guard against money being the idol of their worship.

The key to these two ideas I've shared, and a few more bits, sum up into the one principal I will share with you here:  "FINANCIAL PROSPERITY IS CONNECTED TO SOUL PROSPERITY".  The insight here is neither that if you prosper financially then your soul is prospering, nor is it that if your soul is prospering then you will prosper financially.  The insight is that it is important to put God in proper perspective in your life, serve Him and His ways, keep his commandments, and then should you work diligently at all that you do in honor of Him, then you financial prosperity is His gift unto you.

This is but a glimpse of what Felber's tale has for you -- and it is really the glimpse into the part that struck me as important and relevant for my life.  I encourage you to read it should you want some financial success tidbits with a mixture of God and biblical teachings.

This was an AMAZING page turner -- I finished it in under 24 hours.  This was another non-fiction book told through a narrative (or "fable" as the author denotes it).  Lencioni boils down unhappiness in the workplace as being the result of an employee having the following:

• Anonymity - When an employee's boss knows nothing about the employee's personal life, then the employee feels like an anonymous pawn.  On the other hand, when an employee's boss knows a lot and keeps up with the personal life of the employee, then there is a bond and connection that makes the employee feel as if he is not just a cog in the machine.
• Irrelevance - This is the concept that people need to know that their work impacts the lives of other people.  Most often it is the manager of the employee that is impacted for good -- but often there are other "customers" and fringe benefits of people's work.  Making certain that the employee knows whom they impact gives them purpose.
• Immeasurement - (A word coined by Lencioni in this book.)  This represents the idea that employees should be given ways in which they can measure their progress and their quality.  It is an age old question of "how do you know you are doing a good job".  It's important to ask the question, and to help fill the answer out completely for employees.  I see this as providing them with self-provided feedback as they track their measurements.  Lencioni goes to some length to explain that these should be simple and not an overkill amount of work -- it should be easy to do.

I liked what I read, and perhaps I will incorporate it some in how I manage (watch out guys!).  However, the one thing that concerns me is that the book is mostly the narrative of teaching the story (which was done VERY well, bravo Lencioni!), followed up by a brief discussion of the concept, and then it wraps up through a series of what Lencioni termed "Case Studies", but really they are examples of situations and how the three signs should be worked in those cases.

No where is there any research sited.  No where does Lencioni say "I've tried this".  The back cover of the book is full of quotes from executives of major companies praising the book, but I'll have to research more before I can really incorporate these ideas fully.  Just from the read of the book, I am left skeptical due to the lack of reference and real-life commentary.

You can check out the website for the book yourself for more information: http://www.miserablejob.com

This was a book in Dave Ramsey's recommended reading list, and it was an absolute hoot to read.  Essentially it is a book about financial planning for the future written in the form of a narrative.  The author did a great job of making it a page turner, and even though it was a narrative, the lessons the author was providing you came through loud and clear.  It is a good read, and worthy of a Ramsey recommendation.

The lesson he teaches is that anyone can become wealthy REGARDLESS of career, occupation, or earning capacity.  Pay yourself first, invest wisely, and live within your means.  Further, fast money is always loose money -- get rich quick more often than not equates to get poor quicker.

I finished reading "Wealth to Last", and it is a book I recommend to anyone wanting to plan their life instead of letting their lives just happen to them.  My wife and I have long time listened and read Larry's thoughts on financial stuff, and recently we have begun Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University program -- and I must say that I am in awe of Dave's ability to tell it like it is and to not worry who he makes mad in the process.  Even though my wife and I are "fine" financially, FPU has helped us in many ways change a "fine" lifestyle into one with a plan and a view of our money is doing.

One thing stood out as different to me between Ramsey and Burkett/Blue:  Ramsey says that once you reach age 60 you should buy Long-Term Care insurance (LTC).  He makes no differentiation of people in different financial positions.  He says "just get it", and he recommends that you approach your aging parents about "getting it".  Burkett and Blue, in Wealth to Last, qualify that a person should only get LTC insurance IF they have assets to protect -- otherwise let Medicaid take care of the bill while you keep what you can.  The important thing here is that you don't do LTC insurance if your assets are less than the "spend down" points from Medicaid.

This point was driven home for me when I read that California sent a letter to elderly (low-income and lower-middle-class) to impress upon them the importance of LTC insurance.  They did this without regard to net worth of the individuals, and I can only imagine that most of the elderly receiving this are individuals who will not be served by purchasing LTC insurance -- in fact it will only hamper their existence in the time before LTC becomes necessary.

But then, I'm not an expert in these matters, so read, research, and think for yourselves!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0

If you're an Internet geek, you will love this.  It was recorded at RIPE 55 (the Nanog of Europe) in 2007.  Absolutely HILARIOUS.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R4H0Q00&show_article=1

This absolutely scares me:

We aren't smart enough to design things, we just let evolution do the hard work and then we figure out what happened," Szostak said.

In Gainesville, Fla., Steve Benner, a biological chemist at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution is attacking that problem by going outside of natural genetics. Normal DNA consists of four bases—adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine (known as A,C,G,T)—molecules that spell out the genetic code in pairs. Benner is trying to add eight new bases to the genetic alphabet.

Bedau said there are legitimate worries about creating life that could "run amok," but there are ways of addressing it, and it will be a very long time before that is a problem.

"When these things are created, they're going to be so weak, it'll be a huge achievement if you can keep them alive for an hour in the lab," he said. "But them getting out and taking over, never in our imagination could this happen."

Okay, so let me get this straight... Small things can't hurt us?  Small things can't escape our ability to stop them?  What about viruses?  Plagues?  Are we really so smug as to think that playing god isn't dangerous -- just because we're bigger than what we are creating?  This does absolutely frighten me...  I'm all for scientific advancement, but to use 'never' is extremely inappropriate for someone in the scientific field.  I haven't read it yet, but there's a book on the Black Swan theory that is in my reading queue...  Just because it's improbable doesn't mean it is of no importance.

:)

I was watching an episode of "The Closer", on TNT, about a retirement home where the manager was poisoning patrons who didn't have anybody visiting them.  He called it "managing their deaths" since they were dying, if not already dead themselves.  The point was that nobody visits them, ever, so why should we care.  In his mind he was doing them a favor -- of course, at the same time, he was ensuring that they died on days that would not preclude him from getting a big, fat bonus check every month.

That's when my mind was sent back to Crime and Punishment and the discussion about destitution.  If destitution is as Dostoevsky puts it,  "there is nothing, there is nobody", then our discarded elderly are, in fact, destitute!  These are the very people who brought us into this world, cared for us as infants during our screaming and completely dependent stage of life, and the answer for so many of them is four walls, and few-if-any visits?  We should be ashamed as a society -- for all the self righteousness the United States has about being the best nation on earth, I'm sure we could learn a lot from even some of the most remote, third-world countries on this planet.

We recently went by the library as part of our rediscovered desire to read, read, read -- and to stay out of the poor house from buying more and more books, and thus more and more bookshelves.  As fate would have it the library had a whole section of books for sale for $1 each -- I almost bought the entire Dune series, but I became confused on what books went in what order, and the first book was badly damaged -- so I passed.  Instead I opted for just one book, Crime and Punishment.  Kristen looked at the book, looked at me, looked at the book, and again back at me and said, something along the lines of, "that's not your next choice of books is it?"  I claimed ignorance of her plight to which she said merely: "Wuthering Heights AND Crime and Punishment?"

I told her that I only figured that if we were going to venture down this path of reading that we should at least hit some of these classics and see what exactly it is that makes them so great in the eyes of English and Literature teachers everywhere.  So without further delay:

Chapter 1
What a melancholy character Raskolnikov is!  Henceforth I shall refer to him only as R for no other reason than Raskolnikov is painful to the mind and fingers to type out.  Right from the start we know many things about R:  He is poor bordering on destitution while being some time behind on the rent for his closet of an apartment; for reasons yet to be revealed we also find that he is quite the psychopath in the making -- he is meticulously planning to commit a crime -- you get that not only from the title of the book, but also from his actions as he recants the number of steps to his destination, his realization that the hat he dons does not fit the costume of rags, and any number of other things.  His thoughts are not of a sane man.

Chapter 2
If I thought R's thoughts were those of an insane man it was merely because I had failed to yet become acquainted with Marmeladov (M).  This bloke we meet in the saloon (or bar for those of us in the 21s century), and he forces himself onto R against R's desires.  The purpose of this chapter is for us to know M, his family, their circumstances, and how they got there in excruciating detail -- and trust me this is achieved.  M's excessively long ramblings while drunk go on and on to teach us this information, but it was done fascinatingly so:

"My dear sir, poverty's no vice, and that's the truth.  Drunkenness, however, is no virtue; and that's the truth, too, only more so.  But destitution, my dear sir, destitution is most certainly a vice.  You may be poor, yet still retain a certain inborn nobility of feeling.  When you are destitute, there is nothing, there is nobody.  When you are destitute, they don't use a stick to chase you away.  When you are destitute, they sweep you clear of human companionship; and just to make it more insulting they use a broom.  And rightly so."

How true that is for any society -- where the destitute are shunned and shutoff from human society.  The distinction here that Dostoyevsky (the author) makes between poor and destitute is stark and true.  There are many, many poor, even in the US, that are nowhere near destitute.  The poverty line brings you to poor -- there is no line for destitution -- yet we see them and have even met some of them.  A dear soul that has touched me deeply over the last several years is a man known only as Bird.  He's a homeless man who an old pastor of mine repeatedly invited in to services and potluck lunches at our church -- a noble action in today's churches when often times heavily misguided Christians shun and repulse them away.  I saw Bird the other day sitting at one of his bus stops on South Lamar, I prayed for him, and I snapped the photograph you see here (his face is obscured or I would not post it).  If ever you met him and spoke with him, you would meet a kind soul who will, upon meeting you and getting to know just a touch about you, will stop you and pray with you, FOR you.  Bird!  One of the destitute of our times!  One of the least of these!  Stopping to pray for me?!

It is the times, however, when I see him at one of his bus stops and I don't stop to converse with him that I see the face of destitution so clearly.  There is no human joy in his face.  There is no hope.  In the words of Dostoyevsky, "there is nothing, there is nobody."  Repeat that to yourselves a couple dozen times, and as you do think about it being the reality of your life -- nothing, and nobody.  Seems pretty hopeless to me.

A final quote I will make from M's monologue, but a lengthy discussion I will not embark upon; I make the quotation merely because I find further insight into both M and R's characters in it:  "And everyone needs a somewhere, a place he can go."

In closing for this posting, I am drawn back to something I learned from the New York Institute of Photograph: 
What differentiates a GOOD picture from a GREAT picture is that the great picture will always relate a universal truth.  If we apply this principal to good literature and great literature, then Dostoyevsky just might be on to something here.

While my wife and I were relaxing, alone, at a bed and breakfast, without the sounds and other joyous parts of parenthood around us, we found ourselves in the room around 11:00 at night and found ourselves curious about what was on TV -- of all things.  We happened upon Comedy Central which had Ralphie May's "The Girth of a Nation" on -- and let me tell you that if you like standup, this is a guy to watch; you will laugh your arse off, I promise!

I will definitely watch everything he produces.

Enjoy!

Currently finished with the book.

I'm glad to report that I enjoyed the book as much as I remember enjoying it the first time I read it.  I think, for me, what makes it such an enjoyable book is her writing style, and the style in which she contrives the characters to speak.  It's definitely different from modern prose -- almost fluid-like in its meandering through the riverbeds of conversations.

Going back to my previous post, I still maintain and hold to the fact that the entire downfall of the generation started the night Catherine was betrothed to Edgar and told Nelly that she would be "degraded" to ever marry Heathcliff; it's ironic that her plans were to better Heathcliff with the money and station obtained from marrying Edgar -- but Heathcliff, unaware of this plan because of his hot-headed flight caused by hearing his beloved claim degradation, sets off on a life of utter hatred, self loathing, and depravity.

It is the single character in Heathcliff -- a character without a first name even! -- whose actions turn this story from the "romance" Wuthering Heights is often sold as, into the tragedy it truly is.  In the end he does get the girl -- but only in his mad, deluded mind, and lastly in death.  I find it odd that this Heathcliff came into the scene as a dirty, homeless rat of a child -- and ends with all the worldy possessions he fought so hard to steal from his perceived enemies -- only to not care one iota about the things of the world.

It was the romance of what he could not have that drove him.  He could never have Catherine -- not after leaving in his huff and not fighting for her at that time -- he ended all possibility of it.  His return, and all of his actions thereafter were for one purpose of hurting those he hated, and hating those he perceived to have wronged him.  In the end it is his sense of entitlement to Catherine that brought him and all of those around him such pain.

I wonder what the story of the Earnshaw's and Linton's would have been like had Heathcliff never been brought to their house on that fateful day.  Catherine and Edgar would have been happily married -- though Catherine seemingly would have died in childbirth none-the-less.

In the end I guess we have the gladness from knowing that everything appears to have righted itself.  Heathcliff and his lover lay in the ground together, next to her husband; and Catherine and Hareton are set to live well off, and, proverbially, happily-ever-after.

The End

Currently on page 136, part way through Chapter 15.

A favorite quote of mine from the TV show Grey's Anatomy is:  "There is a land called Passive Aggressiva, and you are [I am] their queen."  Wuthering Heights is a strong testament to the destructive power of passive aggressive behavior where only the extreme outcomes are what comes to pass.

From the time (in Chapter 9) when Catherine tells Nelly of her engagement to Edgar, and how she would be degraded to marry Heathcliff, Heathcliff turns from a truly loving friend of Catherine's to an evil, passive aggressive, broken hearted, love sick man.  Everything he has done from that point on has befitted this description of him.  The irony of this is that in the same conversation, but unheard by Heathcliff because he storms off in his huff of anger, Catherine tells Nelly that she agreed to marry Edgar because she could use his power, influence, and money to raise Heathcliff up in class standing -- though she was misguided, she did not have distaste or lack of regard for her one true love.

He is driven by a strong desire to repay Hindley for his treatment of him as a youth.  Hindley, in his overdrawn state of depression from the loss of his wife, was an easy target.  Heathcliff finds him an easy target and keeps him in check easily; at this time we are not clear exactly what he has over Hindley, but it is obvious that there is a great debt, seemingly financial, and Hindley is much troubled by it; it is possible that it is from gambling, but that may-or-may not be conjecture -- my memory is a little foggy on that.

Heathcliff's hatred for Edgar stems almost entirely from the fact that Catherine married him -- there's very little that we are given beyond that.  That changes though after a physical confrontation wherein Edgar punches Heathcliff square in the throat and escapes (that scene was a jaw-dropper, especially when Catherine cuts off Edgar's help, forcing him into the position of fisticuffs).  From that point on Heathcliff makes it clear to Catherine that Edgar's life is only spared on her behalf.

It goes on, and on.  Catherine has a mix of passive and active aggression towards Isabella when she flaunts Isabella's crush on Heathcliff.  Much like everything else that comes out of Catherine's mouth, this leads to further tragedy in Heathcliff's actions of using it to gain a foothold into Edgar's family by actually wedding the girl -- even though he loves not a single hair on Isabella's head.  If Catherine had never said a word, it would never have come to pass.

There are so many other forms of passive and active aggression in the few short chapters between 9 and 15 that I am taken aback by Heathcliff and Catherine's declaration of love for one another in their reunion.  For two people who have so much deeply rooted love, they cause each other and those around them more pain and agony -- all because they cannot be together themselves.

I think I'd tend to call the first half of Wuthering Heights a true reflection of what a TRAGEDY is -- but upon further reflection it takes TRAGEDY to a further level, and I'm going to declare it a TRAIN WRECK.  Yes, a TRAIN WRECK.  The sheer amount of tragedy in Wuthering Heights, while probably not surpassing that of Hamlet, certainly ranks right up there with it at a neck-to-neck challenge.  (I had to read a summary of Hamlet just now to refresh my memory!)

I'll be honest that much of the last few chapters have been hard to read because these people are depressed and full of hate and anger.  Who wants that!?

With all that said, I am still looking forward to the second half of the book!

Currently finished chapter 9.

One of the hardest parts of the first several chapters is the who's who and the where's where of the book.  I will warn you that this is very much a potential SPOILER for those who have not read the book.  I say this because I think the first 6-7 chapters of the book seem to be built for you to ponder and explore just these two questions, but for those who don't mind spoiling some of the suspense of the bugging questions of "who the heck are these people", read on.

The places of Wuthering Heights is fairly simply -- you have, of course, Wuthering Heights, and its counter-part, Thrushcross Grange.  These two places are homes of some size.  In my mind they are old style plantation houses with plenty of rooms for their inhabitants while not being quite the size of mansions, and kitchens large enough to support all of the family members along with workers.  It is made clear that  Thrushcross Grange is the nicer, and perchance the larger, of the two.

Between the two houses is an area referred to as the moors -- this is a place people go in tales and memories only.  We are introduced to the Moors when Lockwood finds himself trapped at Wuthering Heights upon the onset of a snow storm -- the snow covering the roadways and disguising the swampy terrain making it impassable by all except those who know the moors by heart.  We later learn that Catherine and Heathcliff spend some amount of time playing the moors as children.  The moors are constantly referred to with a sense of mystery and danger -- when Heathcliff runs off one thought is that he could possibly have perished in the moors.   While C. and H. clearly have a fondness for the Moors, for they are very familiar with them from their childhood, the moors do not seem a place anyone would want to visit.

Now for the whos.  You are thrown into the book with a Mr. Lockwood as the narrator.  As the book progresses (at least through chapter 9) you will oscillate between Mr. Lockwood and Nelly (Ellen Dean) as narrators.  Mr. Lockwood is the new tenant  of Thrushcross Grange, a property Mr. Heathcliff rents out while living at Wuthering Heights himself.  Living with him at Wuthering Heights is Catherine Heathcliff, daughter-in-law to the Mr. Heathcliff, and Hareton Earnshaw.

Now I must  by way of continuing enter in to the real spoiler part here and explain how these parts fit together.  Continuing on past this point may take away from your enjoyment of the book.  If you do not want to have any spoilers, read this after reading through chapter nine.

The first thing to do is to point out  that there are two Catherines.  The following genealogy tries to lay out how things have happened -- people are born first in the sequence before they are allowed to marry and have offspring themselves, I felt that to be the natural progression to display the data in.  You will note that I have not discovered the first name of the Sr. and Jr. Mr. Heathcliffs.  You will also note that there are three generations shown here -- that is in part because the book is written in the present and with flashbacks -- so we get a long period of time in which to generate the genealogy of the characters.

Mr. & Mrs. Earnshaw had:
  * Hindley Earnshaw (son)
  * Catherine Earnshaw (daughter)
  * ? Heathcliff (vagabond Mr. Earnshaw cared for, but never really adopted)

Mr. & Mrs. Linton had:
  * Edgar Linton (son)
  * Isabela Linton (daughter)
  * Robert, John, and Jenny -- names mentioned on page 41 which could be the mom and dad's names as well as servant names -- I believe Robert to be a servant's name.

Hindley Earnshaw and ? had:
  * Harenton Earnshaw (son)

Catherine Earnshaw marries Edgar Linton and has:
  * Catherine Linton (daughter)

? Heathcliff marries someone and has:
  * ? Heathcliff Jr. (son)

Catherine Linton marries ? Heathcliff Jr. and has no offspring

The summer between my Junior and Senior years of high school (summer of 1993), I was a young man of 17 and I happened upon the book Wuthering Heights.  In reality there was no happenning upon the book -- I was roped into reading and studying the book front to back for the purposes of participating in UIL competitions the following year.  I had the book and a large 3" 3-ring binder full of notes and analyses of the book.  I was loaded with information.

That is when a really, truly funny thing happened.  For the first time, I was made to read a book for scholastic purposes...  and I ENJOYED the book.  Now for those of you who have had the opportunity to read Wuthering Heights for scholastic purposes, you probably think I am drunk off my gord, but it's the truth.  I walked away from that summer having truly enjoyed my time spent with Heathcliff and the gang.

Fast forward to the summer of 2007 (note the 14  year time jump!), I'm now a young man (I think) of 31 years and since I purchased a bargain-value copy of Wuthering Heights some years ago (no doubt due to my memories of fondness for the story), I have found myself drawn to select it as my first selection for Kristen and I's reading plan.

I must say that at first read I was beginning to doubt my memory and my choice -- it took me several days just to get past the first 20 pages!  I felt like I needed a dictionary for every third word, and there were so many characters thrown at me that I just simply couldn't keep track of them!  BUT!!!  Around pages 25-30 things begin to fall into place, and by pages 30-35 the story has sucked you in and you can't stop reading it.  I'm now trucking along and am excited to pick it up any chance I get.

Right now I'm around page 64 and I find myself  finally starting to put all of the characters into place -- these are characters you don't necessarily read a lot of details about -- but you know so much about them from what you do read as well as what you don't.

I look forward to more posts about my readings as time goes on.