The Belgariad: Epic-Fantasy-Tale

For a while now, a friend of mine has been after me to read some books by David Eddings - specifically, the Belgariad. So I finally picked up copies of the books of the Belgariad (Pawn of Prophecy, Queen of Sorcery, Magician's Gambit, Castle of Wizardry , and Enchanter's End Game, for the Google-challenged) and have been reading through them for the past couple of days. So, I figured, why not take this excu- opportunity to ramble on interminably, and review the thing? Hopefully, I'll end up avoiding spoilers, and only reveal that which is painfully obvious. Which would be most of the plot. So, uh, yeah.

The story starts with the typical ordinary-boy-unaware-of-special-destiny as the protagonist. The momentous-event-that-shakes-his-life occurs, and he's dragged on the quest-that-reveals-his-destiny.

(When I do that thing-with-the-hyphens, I'm pointing out a cliché. Fantasy seems so rife with them. Or maybe it's just me.)

Anyhow, the plot drifted on along those lines, and I was surprised - I'd expected more clichés. Eddings, however, manages to avoid most of the clichés that have popped up in so many fantasy(especially medeival-ish) series' ever since The Lord of the Rings hit it big. It has its share throughout the story, no doubt, but to a degree, it avoids them. Notable clichés include: ordinary-boy-unaware-of-special-destiny, quest-that-reveals-his-destiny, prophecy-that-predicts-titanic-clash-between-good-and-evil, and bad-guys-have-evil-sacrificial-rituals. To be fair, it's virtually impossible to avoid every single cliché out there and still craft a good story, so it's all good.

Anyhow, it all moves along toward that titanic-clash-between-good-and-evil in a fairly transparent manner. Which is to be expected, I guess; it would hardly be called a cliché if it wasn't recognizable from a mile away. But like I said, it's all good. Enjoyable, even.

The ingredients are pretty standard - we have sorcery, a good-at-heart young hero, eccentric party members with varied personalities (the smart-aleck, the wiseman, the brave knight, the true love, yadda yadda yadda), a big bad guy who's pure evil (or really bad, at least), gods, sworn enemies, revenge, the usual. It's put together pretty well. Eddings' style of writing is ok - not the best I've seen, yet far from the worst. When combined with the plot and characters, it makes for a semi-engaging read, one which sorta builds up steam as one reads it. It all holds until the ending.

In my opinion, while Eddings did a pretty good job with the rest of the story, the ending is pretty lame. The titanic-clash/climax came out to be a yawn(for me, at least), as Eddings seemed to lose his ability to avoid the clichés and hit them head on here, high, loud, and repeatedly. Whereas I was moving at a fairly leisurely pace through the first four books, I was literally flying through the last quarter of the fifth one, hoping the misery'd end soon. It all boils down to the predictable happy-ever-after ending that I despise so much - everyone falls in love, gets happily married, and lives on to be happy for the rest of their lives, with a vague promise of further adventure. Ugh.

Maybe some of that is contradicted in his later books - I wouldn't know. But what I do know is that I have a healthy (ok, maybe not) dislike of the happy-ending-where-everything-turns-out-perfect. I prefer the more ambiguous sort of endings, the ones where you have to wonder if the "victory" really was a "victory" at all, or think about whether the end was worth the means used, and the cost is greater than just a couple token characters, that sorta thing. But then, it needn't follow that formula either - I just really can't stand happy endings.

So here's what it comes down to:
Plot - 6.5/10
Characters - 6/10
Writing - 6.5/10
Climax - 2/10
Ending - 0/10

All in all, I'd rate the series a 5 or a 6. In my opinion, the average fantasy lover would be better served by playing through some of the better RPG's out there, like Oblivion or Neverwinter Nights. Maybe some of the D&D board games if computers don't take your fancy. But then, that applies to me, with my set of likes and dislikes. If you're really curious (or a huge fantasy freak), go read it for yourself (after making other people read this - we all love traffic, after all), and make up your own mind. A word of advice though - unless you're particularly strong of stomach, I'd avoid the epilogue. It's so soppy I was almost retching at the end of it. But again, that's just me.

Roach. Cock Roach.

Cockroaches are cool.

I was thinking this to myself as I watched the cockroach on my bathroom floor get up yet again after I'd whacked it the 10th or 29th time with a flyswatter. Yeah, I know I'm supposed to be all nice and stuff to animals, but when it comes to mosquitos and cockroaches, they started it.

But while mosquitos are annoying and weak, cockroaches are cool. They're tough. I've stomped them, swatted them, smashed them, burned them, stabbed them, and used Raid on them, but a lot of the time, they just get back up. And then I step on them, hard(and twist), and then they die. But they're still cool.

This thought reverberated in my skullpan for a few minutes after I'd successfully transformed the cockroach into a steaming smear on my floor (they're enemy agents, I swear), and walked away with my trusty flyswatter holstered. The thought was promptly lost as I saw that I'd left a box of Oreos on my bed.

After making a nice and proper pig of myself (not a crumb dropped, I'll have you know), the thought came back. Why did I find cockroaches so goshdarned cool?

Maybe it was because of their armor/shape scheme; they look sorta like living brown Batmobiles. With all that shiny, sleek armor, and the way they just *poof* jet across the floor (don't believe me? try getting down there and pounding one with your fist. ain't as easy as it looks, is it?), and the fact that they've got those serrated little things on their arms like Batman does...heh. I've this idea that Bob Kane actually meant to make him Roachman, but the execs up at DC didn't like it. "Roachman, striking disgust, loathing, and a desire for a can of Raid into the hearts of housewives everywhere" would probably do wonders for Raid, but wouldn't help comic sales very much, methinks.

So I took the idea a little further, and it hit me - Holy Superspies, true believer, EVERY superhero is based (at least partly) on cockroaches! Think about it: super strength? Cockroaches are kinda strong for their size. Invulnerability? Cockroaches are pretty damn durable. The whole secret agent James-Bond-y schtick? You tell me, what do cockroaches do in your house, if not sneak around and cause trouble? Flying? Cockroaches can fly. You name the power, cockroaches probably have some variant of it. Ok, sure, other bugs were used as well, but I think the main inspiration came from cockroaches. I can imagine the brainstoming they would've done in the beginning -

Guy 1: "Hmm...how about 'The name's Roach. Cock Roach'?"
Ian Fleming:"Naw, we need something less misogynistic. Something the women will love. How's about a compulsive womanizer named..."
*Ian Fleming notices a small stack of "James' Finest Illegal Bond Paper! For the BEST forgeries around!", that appeared out of nowhere to serve as a plot device*
Ian Fleming:"That's it! We'll call him Illegal Forgeries!"
Guy 1:"Uhh...ok..."
Or something like that. Whatever.

As usual, I think this all leads up to a...(say it with me now, kids...) conspiracy! I think the cockroaches are out to get us with their massively superior prototype-superpowers. The only way to stop this is by destroying the Spice Girls once and for all. What's that, teeny-bopping(what's that mean, anyway?)-kid-who-had-to-have-this-read-to-him/her sitting over there? The Spice Girls are good, you say? "Zigazig Ha" actually means something, you say? Don't believe me, you say? Fine. You just wait. One day, when a nuclear missile is accidentally launched at China (or wherever), and a nuclear war starts, and cockroaches mutate into giant, 60-foot-tall Spice Girls, don't come crying to me. You go on listening to your stupid Britney Spears on your crappy pink iPod, you teeny-bopping(there's that phrase again...)...teeny-bopper! Yeah, that's right! Run home to mommy, you wuss! Damn straight, go whine to your huge(heh) daddy who's been in the army and served 2 tours in Vie-...oh fuck.

Shit. I gotta run. But please, heed my warning! Don't waste time! Kill the cockroaches! They walk among us! They must be eradicated before it's too late!

*Shiny Butter Knife runs off stage, away from a homicidal maniac firing a huge assault rifle.*


TV Voice: "That's all for today's rant, kids! Tune in next time for another exciting episode of 'Stupid Doom-Saying Rants That Make No Sense!', with your host, Overpaid TV Voice!
And now, a message from our sponsors!"

*Voice offstage says something unintelligible. Don't they always?*

TV Voice: "Whaddaya mean we got no sponsors?! Then who the hell is paying for me?! Say what?! Did you just say downsizing?! Why're you looking at me so funn...oh. Crap."

*A sigh is heard, followed the sound of footsteps, a pistol being cocked, and a shot. Starving kids in Russia rejoice, serving someone else's plot device. Footsteps again. The mic is switched off.*

I Pity The Foo' Who Can't Think of a Better Title

Jebus Christ!

Wow. Conservapedia. CreationWiki. How utterly ghey can the conservative brigade get?

Maybe I'm being a little unfair. Maybe I'm just biased against CreationWiki because I think the idea that God created everything is plain stupid. I mean, come on, EVERYONE knows Chuck Norris created Oblivion Jesus who created Obi-Wan Kenobi who created Mr. T who created everything(except, of course, for duct tape. I claim credit for that.)!

But Conservapedia(interesting piece on it)...I haven't laughed that hard since 5 seconds ago, when I was reading some UnNews.

(By the way, here's the Uncyclopedia page on Conservapedia)

Seriously, though, beyond wasting space and unloading a bunch of Uncyclopedia links, I actually did have stuff to say about Conservapedia and CreationWiki.

It's always come as something of a shock to me to see people actually believing things just because they're told to. I'm not immune to it myself, but I'm hypocritical enough to find it odd. As a scholarly work, the Bible is (like most - if not all - religious texts), IMO, effectively raped. Where're their sources? How can the data be verified? Who actually collected the information in the first place? Where/What are his/her credentials?

I'm not saying that I don't believe in God(heh), just that I've always found organized religion a little, how do I put it, incredible. Not "incredible" as in, "Hey! In the sky! It's Mr. Incredible!", but more "incredible" as in "not credible". God isn't the same as religion. And assuming creationism is, indeed, a more viable theory than evolution(not saying it is), whose version? I mean, there're as many versions of creationism as there are foo's that Mr. T pities; who's right? Who decides? More importantly, how do you decide? Choosing from one of the many "holy books" out there would mean accepting one religious gospel as more true than the others. On what basis do you do that, since all of them (Scientology does not count) claim to come directly from the G-man(or some equivalent) himself?

Guy 1: "My holy book says this version must be true."
Guy 2: "Yeah, well, mine says otherwise."
Guy 1: "Well, mine's right from the lips of God."
Guy 2: "No, mine is!"
Guy 1: "No, mine!"
Guy 2: "No, mine!"
*Hearing this, mine workers go on strike*
(Repeat for a few hundred years. Throw in a couple Crusades when you start to get bored. Keep repeating.)
After a few thousand years...
Guy 1: "No, mine!"
Guy 2: "No, mine!"
*BOOM*
Mr. T: "Ah pity the foo' that don't agree it's mine!"
*The Mice proceed to take over everyone and start laughing at how badly these foo's just got pitied*
The Mice: "Neep neep! Neep neep! PwNd j00 n()()b, l0lz0rz!!shift+1!!111 oMg KtHx !one!one!11!"

This, more or less, is what has already happened and is happening as a result of people trying to decide whose book is right. I dunno about you, but I'd rather not get PwNd like a n()()b by a six-foot-tall invisible wizard and pitied by Mr. T like the foo' I am.

Not that I espouse Atheism; in its own way, it's as bereft of hard evidence as religion is. What proof is there that there is no God? The lack of proof that there is a God can't really qualify as such; that's like saying "I have not seen the RIAA do anything good; therefore, they must've done nothing good". Hmm. Maybe that's not the best example. But I think you get my point.

Arguing that a lack of hard evidence for is evidence against is an argument that is ridden with fallacies. "I have no hard evidence that HD-DVD's really exist. I mean, I haven't seen them for myself. Sure, I've read lots of stuff about them, I've heard other people talk about them, but I haven't seen them myself." While not a perfect analogy, I think it conveys my meaning: the moment one begins to buy into that argument(lack of hard evidence for is evidence against, and vice versa), the very foundation of absolutely everything (INCLUDING science) becomes suspect. How do I know muons are not fictional entities? Have I seen any hard evidence for them? Or that the Earth is really revolving around the Sun; again, how do I know? I've only seen evidence that other people have presented over the years. How do I know it isn't suspect? How do I know that the mathematics they've used isn't an elaborate hoax?

I don't have any answers to the question of God's existence or lack thereof. I don't even know if there are answers to be found. But I still think Conservapedia and CreationWiki are teh ghey. PWNED!

(Jesus H Christ! 18 links in this post! All but 4 of them to Uncyclopedia! Yes! 19!)

The Truth Behind Ritualised Weddings

Many are the poojas and hindu weddings I have had to attend. For those not in the know, a pooja is a hindu religious ceremony, and a hindu wedding is about the only thing on earth boring enough to cause death in the unwary.

Now, at these poojas and the wedding (hereonwards referred to as "the functions"), I noticed one thing common to all of them; well, more than one thing, really, but one thing really stuck: the priests were chanting in sanskrit. Seeing as I don't understand the language, it all sounded the same to me. At which point an ugly suspicion reared its head in my mind: what if it is all the same? What if these priests are just saying a few lines in sanskrit, and all they're doing is mixing them up and rehashing them? What if they're counting on the droning and the similiarity (at least to a layman like me) of the words to confuse us into thinking he's blessing people or whatever, when in reality he's just saying a bunch of nonsensical crap? I managed to stop , before I entered the territory of alien conspiracies, but that suspicion still niggles at me. I mean, it's what I would do...

Another thing I noticed they (the functions, that is) had in common was a certain long-windedness. Case in point: the wedding. The guy sits crosslegged in front of the girl(and vice versa) for hours on end, as certain "sacred rites" are performed. Then the couple has to be paraded around for a while, and then they sit in these incredibly ornate and incredibly uncomfortable chairs for another few hours. All under the glare of spotlights, wearing heavy jewelry and makeup and the like.

Doubtless there's some deeper cause behind this; however, my idea is based on the simple precept of most of my ideas: follow the sex. So it seems that the point of all this is to work the couple into a state of extreme horniness by allowing them to see each other, but not really do anything, for hours on end, so as to aid in the wedding-night "festivities". A sort of long-winded foreplay, if you will. Of course, this tactic may also backfire, resulting in a couple that's too tired to do anything but go straight to sleep that night. I suppose I shall have to conduct a survey...from a safe distance, that is ;).

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Christian weddings don't seem to have this kind of risky, hyper-extended foreplay. I mean, as far as I can tell, they basically walk up the aisle, say their vows, and start making out. I think that's far less risky; the chances of them getting too tired to get it on that night are much less, and the horniness quotient of the couple(s) should still be just fine. I suppose that's the main thing behind ritualised weddings: foreplay and horniness. In which case, I'm going to found a religion where the only ritualisation in weddings is some good old fashioned 69...and free condoms for the guests.

Of course, this kind of simplicity (in christian weddings) may also lead to the risk of a horny guy whispering sweet nothings in his girl's ear, and then, as they begin to make out, some SOB who's been ordained (a priestly version of myself, I would say) popping up and saying: "I now pronounce you man and wife". Or whatever it is they say. Not that they'd be legally married, but it may be argued that they would be "in the eyes of God". All in all, a great way for the aforementioned ordained SOB (or possibly just a guy in a priest's clothes) to screw with their heads...the best thing is that after this, a truly god-fearing couple (the ideal target, that is) cannot kill you or beat the living hell out of you without (a fear of) risking hell, or at least a serious loss of points with "the big guy upstairs" - possibly even being forced to listen to the annoying hindi “soniYE” songs with the electric drum beats and irritating techno effects.

The worst mistake you can make when pulling this trick off, however, is to target a violent, atheistic couple. Not only do they get huge discounts(in the form of non-expenditure) on weddings (all they have to do is register), they'll be more than happy to spend the money saved on a club and use it to cave your skull in, and they won't be worrying about the technicalities of applied metaphysics while they're at it.

Moral of the story? ->
1) Wedding rituals, no matter how much other people might disagree, are not about sacredness or anything; they're all about foreplay.
2) An ordained SOB (or better yet, a normal SOB in a priest's clothes) can have a lot of fun.
3) Violent atheistic couples, massive clubs, and priests/pranksters are plain bad news.

"O Lord, help me to be pure, but not yet" - Saint Augustine.