Reflective Debates

            This week I had the fascinating experience of participating in a political debate. Not real for real politics, of course, although real enough to merit the attention of myself and others. However, like most things that aren’t real, it granted very accurate insight into the function of real politics – and I came out not only with a greater respect for politicians, but with a much greater understanding of why it takes them so long to get anything done.

            The topic for debate was around the development of policies for the group I joined that is eagerly awaiting the release of the Chronicles of Elyria. In essence, a decision needed to be made on how to deal with people who choose to settle on our land, but choose not to officially join the larger group. It may not seem like such a hard decision to make, but there are a lot of nuances surrounding it.

            For a bit more frame of reference, in Elyria (which is a MMORPG), the governmental system (including laws and taxes) is controlled by players. So a lot of things have to be considered – such as military strategy, infrastructure, and resource management (as resources are finite and can be exhausted). So the question was, if someone takes control of some land and pays their taxes and follows the laws of the larger governing body, but doesn’t engage in the co-operative initiatives of the larger group, how should they be handled?

            This topic had been getting discussed by the policy-makers, and when it came down to being time for making the policy, they put out a call for anyone interested in helping to write it. I suggested an open forum for the discussion, and was surprised when it actually happened – and resulted in a five hour long conversation.

            I won’t bore you with the details, but it boiled down to two polar ideals, with everyone involved somewhere on a spectrum between the two. At one end were the people who believed that the settlements should be left alone so long as they didn’t prove hostile or cause problems by being unwilling to trade resources, and at the other end were the people who believed such settlements as refuse to join the bigger group should be immediately and forcefully eliminated.

            The result, in the end, is still yet to be determined – but we provided some new ideas for the policy writers, and showed them that the will of the people had the same spectrum of opinions as the governing body – which was determined to be a good thing, as it meant the views of the people were accurately represented.

            For my part, it was mostly an enjoyable experience, working with the more open-minded people to find a middle ground. There was also some frustration with the less open-minded people who, rather than discussing, stated their opinion repeatedly and wouldn’t sway from their viewpoint in the least.

            Coming out of it, my overall thought was, “Well... so this is why governments in the real world take so long to accomplish anything.” Suddenly I have more respect for what politicians deal with.

            And, once again, we see how well fiction reflects reality. Many people may declaim that “it’s just a game”, but what we’re seeing is a microcosm that reflects our own world. I can’t wait for this game to launch so I can see where this goes.

Check out my YouTube channel where I tell the stories of my D&D campaigns.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Assassin's Creed in Review

            The Assassin’s Creed series is one of my all-time favorite videogame series, so, now that I’m caught up on them, I’ve decided to give an overall review of them – broken down by each game, highlighting the pros and cons.

            The overarching plot of the series is about a secret war that has been raging in our world between two organisations for all of recorded time. The Templars are a group of people who believe that humanity, if left to their own devices, will constantly be warring and self-destructive, and so they strive to gain total dominion over the human race so that they can force them to live idealised lives, free of free will, and thus bring about world peace. Assassins, on the other hand, believe that all people deserve to be free to make their own decisions, regardless of good or bad, trusting that humanity will eventually sort itself out – and so, they fight against the Templars and other powerful leaders seeking to subvert free will.

            It’s a fascinating, intriguing, political and philosophical plotline that is woven through a device that allows people to explore the memories of their ancestors, stored within their DNA – thus allowing the games to take place both in modern times and historical. Built around conspiracy theories, the stories have enough merit that you can almost believe the events in the games are real.

Assassin’s Creed

            The first game in the series, and the one that became so popular that all the others were possible, was a cutting-edge game when it was released. Along with the captivating story of an imprisoned former Assassin being forced to seek a powerful artefact in his Crusader-times ancestor’s memories, the game brought forth a new play style that was exactly what a lot of people wanted. Based in stealth and parkour, the game involved running around, climbing buildings, being sneaky and killing enemies as stealthily as possible. Of course, if you weren’t stealthy enough, you could end up being chased by a huge mob of guards for a very long time.

            That was the most frustrating part of the game, and probably its biggest flaw. There was an excellent system for running away and finding a place to hide so you could escape guards, but the further you ran, the more guards joined in the chase – making it harder to break their line of sight long enough to hide. This no doubt led to a great deal of rage-quitting – especially since one of these chases could be triggered by accidentally bumping into a guard.

            The other big challenge of the game was that it was secretly a bit of a puzzle game. The intent of the game was that you had specific targets you had to kill, and if you didn’t do it stealthily you ended up having to fight your way through a mob of enemies. This made a lot of logical sense, but most of the missions were set up in a way that it was almost impossible to figure out a sneaky way to approach your targets on your first play-through – to the point where it often seemed like it was impossible to get a stealth kill. A challenge is all well and good, but the game needed a little more guidance.

            The final problem in this game was that, while it was a game built around stealth, the end-game required a large amount of melee combat with large groups of enemies – a very frustrating circumstance, particularly because the game’s combat system – while good – was built strongly around pushing the right buttons at precisely the right time.

            In spite of these issues, the game was immensely fun and popular – especially for those who enjoyed a challenge. And for those that made it through, they were met with wonderful plot revelations that left them with more questions than they answered, making them desperate for the next game to find out what would happen next.

Assassin’s Creed II

            The second game learned from the problems of the first, and fixed them, making the game play far better. The modern-day hero escaped his Templar captors to work with the Assassins, giving a great view of both sides of the conflict. In the past, the player was now exploring renaissance Italy, giving a look at how the Templar-Assassin conflict grew over time.

            This game took all the raw potential of the first game and made an amazing experience, bringing in new abilities and systems that would make this the best game in the series for a while. For fans of the first game, it was a dream come true.

            It also added a strong educational component to the game – with a database that was updated as the game was played, filled with write-ups on historical landmarks, figures, and events.

            As with the previous game, this one ended with wonderful cliff-hangers for many of its plotlines.

Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood

            This was essentially a clone of Assassin’s Creed II, with some added abilities and some updated game functionality. This one, however, had the historical part of the game set it renaissance Rome. It had a lot of great story and history, as well as some fun new functions, but by the end of the game it was getting just a bit stale.

            However, another wonderful cliff-hanger ending kept fans on the edges of their seats, hungry for more...

Assassin’s Creed Revelations

            Assassin’s Creed Revelations was the first big mistake in the series. Don’t get me wrong – it was an excellent game in its own right, but... as I said, Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood was getting stale by the end, and this game was just more of the same, though set in Constantinople now. Yes, there were some neat new features, but it was just a lot more of the same.

            As for plot, the main plot was a whole lot of “more of the same” that felt like it was there just to allow filling in blanks for various characters’ personal back stories – which was the actual interesting part of the game.

            As for the name “Revelations”... well, after the previous game, there was really only one thing the players wanted revealed. And it wasn’t revealed. At least, not in the main game. There was an optional mini-game downloadable content (that you had to purchase separately) that eventually answered the questions we actually wanted answered. As someone who doesn’t buy DLCs, I didn’t even know about this until its contents were referenced in the following game, and I had to extrapolate from context. Don’t put main plot in DLC. Just... don’t.

            The ending of this game failed to live up to the cliff-hanger expectations, though it did point us in the direction of the next game.

Assassin’s Creed III

            This game revitalised the series, bringing in a new combat system and a whole lot of new abilities. It also finally brought us out of the same historical character into the renaissance and into the time of the American Revolution. The game now brought in wilderness mechanics, allowing for hunting and climbing trees, which was a very fun new aspect, as well as an ability to sneak through and hide in foliage.

            The best part, however – at least in my opinion – was almost a mini-game, involving seafaring missions. The ship game play was so well done that I immediately wished that they would make a pirate game.

            The historical nature of the game was really brought to the fore, as there is so much documentation about the time period. They also did a remarkable job of representing the aboriginal populace within the game, as the main character was half Mohawk.

            In spite of all the good things about this game, the stoic main character lacked the appeal of the one we had through the renaissance, which made the game a bit less enjoyable. The plotline also became a bit disjointed; hopping from one historical checkpoint to another.

            The game did manage to end with a cliff-hanger – not quite as good as the earlier games, but it was designed more for shock impact, and it did its job of making the player wonder what would come next.

Assassin’s Creed Liberation

            This wasn’t one of the main games in the series (originally made for a handheld system), and it showed. The plot was almost a side-story in the series – it was interesting, but it had no impact in the grand scheme of things. This was very disappointing to me, as the game held a great deal of potential and could have been so much more.

            Set in New Orleans, Liberation had the first female main character in the series – and with her came a unique system of multiple personas, which changed her abilities and how the people in the world reacted to her: she could dress as a member of upper-class society, a slave, or as an assassin. The possibilities with the game play were amazing, but they were stinted by it not being made as a main feature.

            Overall, the plot felt like a time-loop plotline, where nothing that was done seemed to have an impact on the big picture.

Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag

            Black Flag was an instant hit, and in my opinion is still the best Assassin’s Creed game to date. It took that mini-game from Assassin’s Creed III and made a full game out of it – Assassins as pirates in the tropics. You would think that the game would focus entirely on the seafaring aspect, but on land they had all the great stuff in the previous game and more.

            The one downside to this game was that it continued with the disjointed plot points of the previous, only slightly worse. In spite of that, the overall plot lines were glorious, giving everything desired from an Assassin’s Creed game.

            Not only did the game end with a satisfying cliff-hanger, but it expanded upon the illusion that the in-game events were really happening in our world in a thoroughly enjoyable way. If you only ever play one game in this series, this should be the one.

Assassin’s Creed Rogue

            This game was once described to me as a “consolation prize” for people who hadn’t upgraded to the most recent generation of gaming systems, which had Assassin’s Creed Unity being released on them at the same time. After playing both games, I strongly disagree.

            Taking place in the northern seas, Rogue is very much a clone of Black Flag for game play, but it has an important twist: for the first time, we are playing as on the Templar side of the game, giving us a deeper insight into what has always been presented as the “enemy” side of the story. Apart from having an excellent plot on its own, it also fills in some plot gaps that were chronologically in between Black Flag and Assassin’s Creed III.

            While it didn’t have the greatest ending of the games in the series, it wasn’t disappointing either.

Assassin’s Creed Unity

            The makers of this game made a very bold leap with this game, and they clearly had very good intentions, but it didn’t work out quite the way they hoped. Taking place during the French Revolution, this game had great historical insight to the times, but the main plot could have been a bit better. It was, unfortunately, sidetracked by the desire to make the game a multiplayer experience. It was a really cool idea – having teams of assassins working together on missions – but it was brought out on a system which required payment for multiplayer, which limited the pool of people who were playing. Having had other multiplayer modes in earlier games, I think bringing multiplayer into the story mode of the game was something players wanted – it just didn’t play out as well as everyone hoped.

            In spite of that, this game doesn’t deserve the bad reputation is has. It wasn’t great, but neither was it horrible. It also brought in some awesome puzzle-based side quests – solving riddles and murder mysteries – which I found were a very enjoyable addition to the gameplay.

            Like Liberation, however, the overall plot seemed to have little to no impact on the overall plot of the series. Rogue, to me, was certainly the better of these simultaneously released games.

Assassin’s Creed Syndicate

            Now, this was an exciting game. Taking place in London, England, during the Industrial Revolution, this game brought so many new aspects to the game: trains, carriages, and a few slightly more technological tools than were previously available. In addition, there were two main characters to play in the game – twin brother and sister – which you could switch between, though each also had their own private missions. This gave the game two parallel plotlines in the historical times, as well as bonus sections occurring during the world wars.

            The game play was wonderful (keeping, though to a lesser extent, the riddles and murder mysteries of Unity), but the plot – while excellent – took on an almost comedic tone at some points, breaking the willing suspension of disbelief that the series is so good at achieving. The ending was also very good, but it didn’t have quite the “I have to know what happens next!” of many of the previous games.

Assassin’s Creed Origins

            This game was striving to remake the series, which it did need to keep the game play from growing stale. It did a good job of it, too – not perfect, but it shows great promise for the future of the series.

            Taking us into ancient Egypt this time, this game took place during the time of Cleopatra. It also completely remade the combat system, and brought the players into a completely open world experience. It was an excellent game, but it felt a bit like a game that was exploring new territory and wasn’t sure what to do with it yet.

            The plot was descent – captivating enough to keep me interested, but it felt a bit like the game makers didn’t entirely know how to handle a game world as big as this one, making it seem stretched and spread thin. Still, in the scheme of the series, it gave a lot of good information. The ending, however, was a bit lacking – to the point where I wasn’t even completely certain the game had ended. I was convinced there had to be a “second ending”, but there wasn’t.

            There was, however, a great new addition to the game. Gone were the historical entries on everything during the game, but replacing it was a virtual tour mode of the game, where you got to explore the game without the combat aspects and could take guided tours that taught what the teams learned during their research. It was a very fun and interactive way to explore the history of Egypt.

            And that brings us up to date on the latest game. In spite of the disappointing ending of the last one, I’m still excited to see what will come next. The new direction brought by Origins suggests great potential for the future games. Will the series live up to that potential? I like to think so – the game makers aren’t perfect, but they have shown a remarkable ability to adapt and adjust what they create when their games don’t perform as well as they hoped.

Check out my YouTube channel where I tell the stories of my D&D campaigns.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Earn the Right to Complain

            This week, as I cast my vote for my provincial elections at an early polling station, I was asked if this was my first time voting. Amused, I replied that it wasn’t, and assured the questioner that I’m somewhat older than I look. But, then I reflected on it and realized that, while I’ve voted in the last few federal elections, this may actually be my first time voting in a provincial one.

            Looking back, I distinctly remember not caring at all when I was first old enough to vote. I didn’t see what good it would do – I was only one person, after all, and, quite frankly, I didn’t care what the government did. I didn’t feel that who was elected to government had any direct impact on my life. So, I didn’t vote.

            I think it’s a major failing in our education system that we don’t teach people the importance of voting – at least, not in a way that sticks or that they care about. I did have a mandatory Civics course that lasted half a semester where we were taught how to vote and given the basics on the structure of the government, but I don’t recall being taught the why of any of it. Admittedly it may have been because I lacked interest and none of what I was taught stuck, but young people not voting seems far too common a thing for it to have been just me.

            So, it falls to parents to educate their children on voting, which is a catastrophe on its own. Some people don’t vote because they don’t care and don’t think it matters, while others vote for the same party every time because that’s what’s “done”, and others believe people should choose for themselves and avoid talking about it at all. It’s made all the more difficult because talking about politics is considered a taboo subject.

            It’s fair to say that I picked up my parents’ political leanings, even though it wasn’t a major topic in my house. Even so, it was because I agreed with their views, not because I was blindly following. When I chose not to vote in that first election I was eligible to vote in, they respected my decision – though they reiterated the one idea that had been present all my life: If you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain about the government.

            It’s a very simple idea, yet powerful. It taught me the idea that you have to earn your right to complain about the government by voting, because if you didn’t vote, you obviously didn’t care enough, so it’s your own fault. You may not feel like one vote in a pool of thousands, or millions, counts for much, but if you didn’t cast your vote into that pool, you didn’t partake in the system and, thus, have no right to complain.

            Still, I didn’t vote. Not until a government came into power that started doing things I disagreed with – a government whose every decision seemed to fly in the face of what it meant to be Canadian and that was dragging the international name of Canada through the mud. But, as I saw this, I realized that I couldn’t complain about it. I hadn’t voted, and so I had no right to complain. But the very next federal election, I did vote. The same government ended up in power, but at least this time I felt I had done what I could to fight against it. I had earned my right to complain about what they did.

            So, today’s lesson is: vote. It doesn’t matter if you think who you vote for will win or not, the important part is to make your voice heard, however small it may be. Be it in this election, or any other election to come, anywhere in the world, vote. Vote, or be prepared to remain silent and live with the decisions made by others.

            Earn your right to complain.

Check out my YouTube channel where I tell the stories of my D&D campaigns.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Finding the Middle

            This week I stepped into the middle of a dispute between friends on Facebook. I don’t like to harp on a similar topic two weeks in a row, but such are the times. I’ll tell you what I saw.

            It started with a democrat friend, outraged by recent events, making a blanket statement about republicans. A republican friend of both of us objected to the statement. What followed was a back-and-forth (not too heated, but clearly emotional on both sides) where each stated their opinions on the ideals of those with the opposing viewpoint.

            Normally I don’t say much on Facebook (or elsewhere – I really am a very quiet person), but this time I had to step in. Here was a pair of people, friends, arguing, all the while saying absolutely nothing – communicating no actual information.

            I pointed out to them that this was the exact problem in politics. It isn’t that the opposing side is unwilling to listen (although that plays a part), it’s that when people have differing viewpoints no one bothers to look at or explain why they hold that specific opinion.

            The sad truth of the matter is that most people can’t truly understand something outside their own experience. The most generous people in the world are the poor – people who know what it is to have little, so they share as much as they can with those who need help. People who have never had close experiences with people with mental illnesses (or had one themselves) don’t understand why mental illness is such a problem – and often think people with mental illnesses are just weak or lazy. People who haven’t experienced something don’t have the same frame of reference as those who have – and, as such, they form different opinions.

            But no one bothers to explain; all people do is shout their already formed opinions at each other. Then they dislike each other and go their separate ways, choosing to only spend time with those who agree with them. Then there become two large groups, isolated from each others’ frames of reference. Their own ideals are amplified by sharing them with people who agree, and the two groups grow further apart as their disputes grow bigger. The world gets divided into “us” and “them”.

            On the other hand, if both sides are willing to listen – to question, to explain – then there is truly some hope. Opinions are formed based on our experiences (or just taken from a source we trust), making an opinion on its own meaningless. When two people take the time to figure out why they have opposing opinions, they have a chance of finding common ground or swaying each others’ views. Or they might find they still disagree, but at least they’ll understand why they disagree. That might not seem important, but it is – it’s the difference between thing someone is a stupid, mindless sheep, and understanding that they reasoned out their opinion – even if they did end up with different results.

            When it comes down to it, there are very few people in the world that genuinely want to cause harm. Everyone wants what they think is best. Often they value the same things – they just see things from a perspective so different that it’s hard to relate. But if the two sides come together to share how they reached their views, they might very well find some middle ground – and that middle ground will be all the more solid because of the work it took to find it.

            The dispute between my two friends? Diffused, with both agreeing with the points I made. I suspect they would have gotten there without me anyway, but I like to think I helped to get them (and others viewing the thread) thinking about resolutions. That’s what we need more than anything right now – mended fences and common ground, because the United States are falling apart and there’s only so much the rest of the world can do to pick up the pieces.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her life coaching website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Hindrance or Help?

            Finding a weekly topic to blog about is often difficult, but I’m finding this week to be a particular challenge. This is because I know that I’m going to end up talking about the exact subject I don’t want to, no matter how hard I try to avoid it. So, I’m just going to save myself the effort and dive right into it.

            I’m sad to say that I’m not surprised by the results of the US election. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised. Electoral systems may have started out decent, with good intent, but they weren’t designed for the world we live in today. Back when the US was founded, the population was around 2.5 million. It’s far easier to convey information to that many people, and to take a vote on their opinions, than it is with the 127 times that population of today.

            Yet, the problem runs deeper than that. Beyond being outdated, the system has become tainted – turned into a manipulative game to see who can influence the voters the most. As I was watching part of the election, the commentators kept talking about all the research and strategies that go into “flipping” key voting regions. It’s more than just that – it’s a psychological game to suppress voters who favor the opposite side, either by convincing them that they don’t have a chance, or by convincing them that their win is assured so they needn’t bother voting.

            This is all made possible by the vast amount of information we have – studies of previous voting trends, psychology, and the certainty that most people will vote for the same party, no matter what. Yet, we still consider this a democracy.

            In my opinion, it isn’t. It’s like the professional level of the game Starcraft. This is a war strategy game that has been taken to a whole new level. The people who play it are amazing – they develop strategies, perfect them, then pit them against each other. They time themselves and their routines, figuring out the most efficient ways to spend their resources and build an army to outdo their opponents. They must constantly balance between micro (controlling their units) and macro (managing their base and producing their army) because if one falters, they lose. The players are so fast and need such precision that someone hitting a key one second late can cost them the war.

            At that level of game play, I no longer call it a game. I’ll accept it as an e-sport, but a game is played for fun and I don’t see the amount of training needed to play that game at high-level as fun. Just as a democracy where the candidates have to put on a show to manipulate voters, rather than earning them based on what they plan to do for the country, is no longer a democracy.

            Every election I’ve seen has become something that should be illegal – it becomes a contest to see which candidate can do a better job of dragging the other through the mud. In the end, that’s all that matters. Who are the people more afraid of having in charge of the country?

            With this election, it should have been obvious. It was obvious, as far as anyone could tell. That is, perhaps, why almost half the people registered to vote didn’t. They thought it was a sure thing, so they weren’t needed.

            Here in Canada, we’re pushing for electoral reform to fix this very problem – to make votes actually count in elections. To take away the numbers game of winning certain constituencies to win the election. To bring back democracy.

            The problem in the US right now is that what’s done is done. All the world can do is wait and hope. We can hope that some of the electorates will vote against their party. Failing that, we can hope for impeachment. Or we can hope that the new president was putting on a show and really isn’t as horrible as he seems – although this, unfortunately, will not put an end to the rash of bigotry his campaign has deemed acceptable.

            It may seem like it’s not my place, being Canadian, to criticize US politics – but the problems have reached us here, too. The results of this election are not limited to the US. The world is at a critical place right now and needs strong, responsible leadership from all the leading countries. Will the US help or hinder in the coming years?

            We can only hope for help.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her life coaching website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Whoops, Politics Happened

            I generally try to keep politics out of my blog posts. Sometimes I wonder why and quickly remind myself it’s because that’s one of those topics we’re not supposed to talk about. Politics and religion. It’s too easy to upset people. Besides, that's not what I (or my blog) is about.

            Unfortunately, right now, Canadian politics are frustrating me so much that I can’t get them off my mind. I’ve just spent the last half hour trying to find something else to talk about, but my mind kept circling back to this.

            Canadian democracy. How it’s supposed to work vs how it actually works.

            Let’s pretend for a moment that Canada is much smaller than it is. Let’s say there are ten cities governed by one body. The government is supposed to be representative of what the people want, so each city sends one person in to represent them. This person is elected from a selection of candidates, each of which presents their ideas on how the country should be run. People vote for the person who they feel best represents their ideals whoever wins becomes part of the government.

            We now have a government made up of ten people. Those ten elect one of their members to be their chairperson and spokesperson. That person doesn’t have much more power than the rest; they’re just in charge of keeping the meetings running smoothly. The ten of them discuss issues, vote and deliver their decisions.

            That’s how it’s supposed to work, only on a much larger scale. That’s where it starts to fall apart. The first problem is that there are too many cities, so the country is divided into districts. Each representative now represents far more people, too many for them to possibly get to know everyone personally.

            The second problem is that, even separated into districts, there are still 338 representatives. That’s a whole lot of people who have to agree upon one spokesperson, the Prime Minister, from amongst themselves, or to come to any decision for that matter.

            The solution? The candidates arrange themselves into parties, networking themselves with people with similar ideals and working together to earn a victory. They pre-pick who will be the Prime Minister if their party if their party wins more seats than the others.

            The idea is solid and it worked to a certain extent, except for the part where three major parties rose to the top. With these three parties playing tug-of-war over the majority of votes, a problem began to arise. Each party obtained loyal supporters, who will vote for them no matter what. Then, in the middle, there are the swing votes – the people who like to believe they are more politically informed and will vote based on the issues.

            But, rather than voting for the individual they want to represent themselves, they vote for the party and the Prime Minister they think will do the best job. In fact, most Canadians don’t even realise they’re supposed to be voting for their local representative rather than the Prime Minister – or that those representatives, if they win, aren’t supposed to follow the Prime Minister blindly.

            While the representatives are supposed to vote based on what they believe is best for the country and for the people they represent, as part of a party they are expected to follow the pack. If their party wants an issue voted on one way, that’s how they’re expected to vote. With all the pressure, how many will actually vote against their party if they believe their party is wrong?

            So, what we end up with is a room full of people elected by the swing votes. Those people mostly vote in pre-determined ways. Now, if we have a minority government (going back to the ten representative example) with one party with four representatives and the other two with three, we see a government that functions mostly as it should. There is an even distribution of views and so changes are only made if two of the parties agree. Not as much happens, but more Canadians are happy.

            On the other hand, with a majority government (say, five, three and two representatives) the party in power can do pretty much whatever it wants. The only thing to stand in their way are the few representatives willing to go against the flow.

            Of course, this is where things start to get really messed up. All it takes to get voted in is to have the most votes in your district. This means if 35% of the people vote for you, and the majority of the votes are split between your opponents, you still get in.

            And so starts the dirty politics. The focus shifts from sharing your great ideas for the country to making your opponents look bad. It won’t work for all their supporters, but you just have to sway them enough to keep the votes split between them. As long as you don’t look as bad as they do, you can win with 34% of the voters behind you – less, if your district has smaller parties and independent candidates to absorb more of your opponents’ votes.

            Here, we come to Canada’s greatest problem. We have one right-wing party, two major left-wing parties and a further two less substantial left-wing parties. The vast majority of Canadians voted for left-wing parties, yet we ended up with a right-wing majority government. How? Because with four left-wing parties to choose from, the single right-wing party just had to keep their loyal supporters, win a handful of the swing vote (using manipulative fear tactics to scare them away from the opposition), and make the other parties split the vote.

            The worst part is that the left-wing parities perpetuate the problem. In their struggle to rise to the top, they further split the vote. The majority of Canadians are sick of our right-wing government and our Prime Minister who thinks he should be allowed to do whatever he wants. Our left-wing parties know this, so they are fighting harder than ever to win, knowing that they have the support of the country.

            Yet, they are further splitting the vote. They are even helping the right-wing party by attacking their left-wing fellows on petty details when they should really be teaming up. All it would take for them is for them to work together a little – to have some candidates drop out of key swing districts so the vote won’t be split. Then we’d end up with a government we’re at least reasonably happy with.

            Since both major left-wing parties want to alter the electoral system so that more votes actually count in the end result of elections, they would only have to do this once. Then they could work together to implement the better voting system they’ve promised and Canadians will actually end up with governments the majority of them are happy with.

            Well, as happy with as is possible.

            I’m just tilting at windmills, though, aren’t I? All I can do is shout out to my fellow Canadians and encourage them to vote. You all know who not to vote for – although, I suppose if you’re voting for them already, nothing I say is going to change that (and, for those people, I want to assure you that I’m not saying the right-wing should be out of the government. Everyone deserves their representation. That representation should just be proportional to what the people want, and that is not a majority right-wing government.)

So, really, this is for the 9 million Canadians who didn’t vote in the last election because they thought they wouldn't make a difference.

            Vote. Because this is probably the most important election in Canadian history and you can make a difference.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Cultural Shifts

            My parents recently returned from a trip to China and I was particularly struck by the stories about the current cultural structure they have. They are currently in a transition from communism (where – at least in theory – everyone is provided what they need, but no one really owns anything) to capitalism (where people earn money based on their work and their job and use that money to buy whatever they need or want – or just stockpile it). Since this is a rather extreme mix, they've ended up with a fascinating mash-up of the two, with an odd class system in the middle.

            In the cities live the “citizens”, who have money, rights and all those sorts of things. They own and rent property – although the prices are extremely high and the spaces are small – and function much as we in the Western world would expect.

            On the other hand, out in the country live the “peasants” – mostly farmers who are paid very little and own nothing. Yet, at the same time, they live in houses free of charge and often these homes are nicer and have more space than those of the privileged “citizens”.

            In this system, the “peasants” who work very hard and sacrifice much can buy their way into being a “citizen” – the tour guide was one of these and had made the proud step with much hard work and with the help and sacrifice of his parents. The people seem very proud of their transition into capitalism.

            What I found most interesting about the current state of the system is how close it currently is to ancient Rome. There they had slaves. There were rules about how they could be treated and at a certain age they could be released. They even (at least legally) had the ability to save up money to buy their way to freedom and possibly even a citizenship (if I'm remembering correctly).

            The sad part, though, is that with the change to capitalism, China is starting to lose its artists. In a system where everyone is provided for equally, there is plenty of room for people to focus on developing talents and artwork – and beyond that, there is no need to charge for that art what it is really worth. Switching to a capitalistic system, the artists need to make an hourly wage for their work. With all the detail and care that goes into any given piece of art, it is rarely possible to sell it at a price where someone will actually buy it. So, the artists of a country largely defined by its art are slowly fading away.

            The same problem has struck in the farming community as well, causing a food crisis for the country. Many farmers are abandoning rice fields in favour of fishing, where there is much more money to be made.

            Hearing about this culture and its shift is very enlightening and inspiring to me as a writer, creating my own world and cultures. However, as a resident of this world, I can’t help but feel sad about it. The world leans so heavily towards capitalism, where money is valued above all else. There’s an emphasis on getting as much money as you can, regardless of whose toes you step on to get it. The worst part is that it gives the impression of working well, so many people get behind it and cheer it on – especially the people who have figured out how to make the system work for them and don’t see everyone left behind.

            But where would we be if everyone managed to get the system to work for them? What if all the “unimportant” minimum-wage workers suddenly up and vanished, having found a better way to live? Who would flip our burgers? Who would cash us out and stock the shelves in grocery stores? Who would grow the food?

            Capitalism is clearly not the way to go. They say money is the root of all evil and all you need to do is look at the world to know that it is true.

            What will work better instead? Honestly, I don’t know. I've put a lot of thought into it and every time I think I have a solution, I find a way that human greed will turn it against itself. But I keep hoping and thinking. Perhaps someday I will come up with the answer, or someone else will. Then it will be our turn for a cultural shift.

            Until then, all I can do is share my insights and hope that they might make a difference.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Review of The Warded Man

            Wow, it’s been forever since I've done a book review! It’s about time. But first, a story.

            I bought this book, The Warded Man, four years ago. Since then, it sat on a shelf. Why? Well, because I simply never got around to reading it until now. It happens sometimes.

            So, this past week I decided to pick it up and read it. Suddenly, a couple days later, I received an email from Amazon with a list of books they thought I’d like, including the sequel to The Warded Man. Spooky, right? I mean, I bought this book four years ago from a book store. Amazon had no way of knowing I even owned it (I made no mention of owning or reading it anywhere online). I start reading it and suddenly there’s a recommendation for the sequel. I feel watched. Either this was a remarkable coincidence (likely) or Amazon has a remarkable marketing setup probably involving satellites (unlikely, but fun to speculate about).

            Anyway, on to the actual book. The Warded Man, by Peter V. Brett, is the story of a world where every night, demons rise from the ground to prey on living things. The human race is dwindling. In ancient times, they used to have the magic to fight these demons, but all they know now are the defensive wards to keep the demons at bay. They huddle indoors at night, with the screeching demons outside, hoping that the demons won’t find a crack in their defences.

            The story itself follows the lives of three characters from three different villages, each of which survived a horrific demon attack. The reader is brought along on their journey as one strives to become a Messenger (the people who travel from town to town, braving being on the road at night with only their wards to protect them), another is apprenticed to be an Herb Gatherer (the women who function as the society’s doctors and midwives), and the third chases his dream to be a Jongleur (the entertainers who sometimes travel with Messengers, who spread news and legends as well as joy).

            As I read the book, I found myself wondering what it was that kept me reading. I felt that the overarching plot of the book was a little thin, yet for some reason I couldn't put the book down. It was the characters and their individual struggles that were so compelling, dragging me forward, wanting to know more – and above all else, wondering where the story was going that it would inevitably bring them all together.

            Along with that, the world building was excellent. The political structure of the various cities and settlements were very well developed, as were the cultural differences. I did find the overall culture to be a tad on the sexist side (relying heavily on gender stereotypes), however I believe this was intentional on Brett’s part – after all, in a world where humans are struggling to survive, repopulation is paramount and alters priorities in the society. One thing I absolutely loved was a character’s transition from a small community – where everyone banded together to help each other out – to the big city, where people were apt to strive for wealth and beggars roamed the streets. A wonderful commentary, I felt.

            Overall, I found The Warded Man to be a thoroughly enjoyable read. It was creative and well thought out – a wonderful debut for Peter V. Brett. I may even have to get the sequel which Amazon clearly wants me to buy.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Is Charlie Freedom?

            I have said many times before that I live under a rock – as such, it takes something really big in the news to find its way to me. Such is the case with the Charlie Hebdo attack this past week.

            For those who haven’t heard of it yet, last Wednesday two gunmen attacked the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo (a weekly satirical newspaper in France), killing twelve people and wounding another eleven. The attack led to a global cry to support free speech.

            On the surface, it is a very simple matter. People were silenced for the ideas they expressed and the world has spoken up saying we’ll stand behind Charlie Hebdo and the right to free speech. I thought it was incredible, at first, until I looked into more facts and the matter became far more complicated.

            As I mentioned earlier, Charlie Hebdo is a satirical paper – more than that, it is a far left-wing one, openly poking fun at all religions and politics, sometimes in very vulgar ways. This particular attack was carried out by a pair of Muslims who saw their Prophet being made fun of in the paper.

            Now, does that justify murder? No, of course not – nothing does. Their religion wasn't the only one being made fun of and none of the others took this sort of drastic action. However, I think that this is a good time to stop and think on what freedom of speech actually means.

            I'veblogged before about freedom and how complicated it actually is, and this situation goes to demonstrate that fact. You see, the freedom to say anything you want doesn't mean you should say it. A big part of freedom is responsibility and the biggest responsibility is respecting other peoples’ freedom. The freedom to think, believe, say and do as they will.

            When you take that freedom of speech and start throwing it in people’s faces, you are expressing your freedom by denying others’ theirs. That is what Charlie Hebdo does, at least as far as I can gather. They make jokes about whatever they can and, when people say they get hurt, they claim “free speech!” This same claim is regularly made all over the internet by people who have hurt others. “I have free speech, so you aren't allowed to get mad at me for what I say, even if I am stomping all over everything you believe.”

            I'm confident that the contents of Charlie Hebdo have never been intended to hurt anyone. Quite the opposite – it’s meant to make people laugh! Words are powerful, though. That’s why people try to ban certain books. We’re taught from childhood that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. It’s a lie. Words hurt – we just tell ourselves that they don’t to try and make them hurt less.

            Humour is all well and good, but why must it come at the expense of others? It’s important to be able to laugh at yourself, but not everyone has been able to acquire that skill. All some people can see are others laughing at them and what they care about. Of course they’re going to retaliate.

            Following the attack, a huge campaign has started: “Je Suis Charlie”, or “I Am Charlie” - the support of free speech. On one level, I completely support it because freedom is so important. At the same time, I cannot condone the content of Charlie Hebdo which, while intended to be funny, can also be inflammatory and insulting – taking freedom of speech to the extreme that spits in the face of others’ freedom.

            Now, there is a simple solution to this sort of conundrum: simply don’t read things that offend you. Is it Charlie Hebdo’s fault that the attackers read their paper? No. That doesn't stop people though – it seems to be in human nature to poke at wounds; to seek out that which causes us pain. We’re drawn like bugs to lamps, with this dread fascination, toward things we know we should keep away from.

            In the end, it doesn't really matter, though, does it? The cards have been played and there are only two possible outcomes: we raise our voices in support of Charlie Hebdo or we are seen to be bowing to the wishes of the attackers – a success for them that will spread the word worldwide that violence can end free speech and more attacks will quickly follow until everyone is afraid to say anything. It’s ironic, really, that this attack has led to the exact opposite of what the attackers intended – partially because we've been left with no other options. We have to stand behind Charlie, or witness the death of freedom.

            So, I guess I don’t have a choice. I am Charlie. I have to be, or I encourage more tragedies.

            I wish that this situation could have been resolved without anyone being hurt or killed. I wish that Charlie Hebdo hadn't become the face of freedom. I wish there was more humour in the world that didn't rely hurting people.

            I wish I lived in a world where I didn't have to support something I don't believe in to support something I do believe in.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

World Building

            One of the most important parts of writing is world building. It doesn't matter where a book or story is set; the writer needs to know the world inside and out.

            Some world building is easier – for example, a book set in the real world tends to need very little creation, although it does require more research. Other times, world building can be challenging – like a book set in a fantastical city in another world where the various people and establishments are critical to the plot.

            What I chose to do is, in hind sight, nearly impossible (at least for one person) and exceptionally challenging. I decided to build an entire fantasy world, the same size as ours (or, at least, close enough).

            Why is this task so difficult? Try to picture our entire world. Can you name all the countries and their capitals? What are the diplomatic statuses between each country? Where are the trade routes and what do the countries trade?

            Those are the easy questions. There are a whole lot of other details to come up with as well, like plants and animals unique to the world or ones that appear in other books and mythology that have their own twist in this world. Famous historical figures and locations. Religions, cultures, societies, politics, regional moral standards. The list goes on and on.

            Luckily it can be cheated, at least to a certain degree. Do I really need to know about unicorns if they don’t appear in the book I'm working on? No, I can leave that until I actually need it. But the more that is developed in the world, the easier it is to add flavour.

            Recently I decided that it was high time (after four and a half years and books of writing in this world) that it was high time I named the months and days of the week in my world. It seems like a relatively unimportant task, but now that it’s done I can actually set my characters’ birth dates in stone. Plus, whenever I feel like naming the day or the month in which the story is occurring, I'm ready to do so. I may even go back and add them into the books I've written, adding a new depth to the realism of my world.

            Of course, that whole process opened up a whole new can of worms for me, because now I'm working on the moon cycles. It sounds easy enough – and it was. For the first moon. However, following in my footsteps of craziness, I decided that the moon has a couple moons of its own. Now I'm working on coming up with the rotation patterns of those moons, trying to find a pattern that will allow me to have an easy reference for when I'm writing.

            It’s a good thing that I found a program for making my own encyclopaedia. I have the right mind for storing all this information, but having it all written down and organised in one place has made my writing infinitely easier.

            Nevertheless, let this be a lesson to you. If you want to build a world, start off small or you might find yourself drowning in the oceans of your own creativity.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Always Something New

            I love those moments in life when you’re reading a book or watching a movie for somewhere between the second and millionth time and you suddenly notice or realize something for the first time. Sometimes it’s just simple little things that you aren't meant to catch at first, like that brief look or comment a secret villain makes that seems harmless unless you actually know the truth about them. Other times, it’s a huge revelation about the secret meaning behind the story.

            An example of the first one was something Colleen pointed out to me while we were watching The Incredibles – for the first time, we noticed that when they entered the secret laboratory of Edna (the superhero seamstress), she actually had large bolts of fabric stored in there. It’s a small detail that usually just slips by, but when you notice it, you realise just how attentive to detail animators are (set dressers, too, for live movies).

            I recently started reading The Hobbit (again), but I'm seeing it with new eyes thanks to all the special features I've seen from the movie. What stood out to me this time was a single line – a comment about the battle of the mines of Moria. I've never noticed it there before, but because it plays a larger role in the movies, I caught it this time. This isn't just a testament to the attention to detail that Peter Jackson has, but also to Tolkien’s world building skills. Nothing says the world of a book is real like a casual reference to historical events.

            The one that got me thinking about all this was while I was watching The Croods (yes, I know I watch a lot of movies, but I make chainmaille for a living and it helps to have some entertainment). It’s a fun animated movie, with some good messages in it and that’s just what I was thinking when the “wow” moment hit me. The biggest underlying meaning in the movie is overcoming fear to live a better life.

Then I took a closer look and my jaw dropped as I saw, twisted into the story, a huge political and social commentary on the effects of fear, including how it is used to control people. A fearful person used their fear to instil fear in others to get them to do what they wanted, justifying it to themselves by saying it was for their protection. The fear closed minds and prevented progress. It wasn't until the fear was released that minds were opened and life became better.

            If you take that story and paint it over various people and/or world events (I'm sure I don’t have to give any examples), certain things suddenly start to make sense (or, at least, as much sense as they can). I don’t know if the movie makers intended for their movie to be applied to a global scale, but I don’t really care because it can be. Be it for a person, country or planet, overcoming fear opens minds and improves life.

            That’s the best part about these revelations – they don’t even have to be intended by the creators. They are there and they bring a new life to entertainment, which is why the best books, movies and video games are worth second, third and fourth times through. Even if it’s in your mind, there’s always something new to find.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Blog for Vendetta

            “Remember, remember, the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.”

            That’s right! Tomorrow is Guy Fawkes day, or as I like to call it, V for Vendetta day. Ever since I discovered the movie, I have watched it every year on the fifth of November. Why? Because it’s a great movie full of wonderful messages and the fact that the story takes place surrounding the fifth of November gives me the perfect excuse to watch it on the same day.

            Not that I need an excuse.

            What’s it about, then, this movie? Well, if you haven’t already, I’d suggest you watch it yourself. I will, however, try to give you the general idea as spoiler free as possible for those of you who haven’t seen it. For those of you who have, who knows? Maybe I’ll point out something you missed.

            The most obvious thing V for Vendetta is about is revenge (it may as well be in the title), but I hardly need to mention that. I doubt there are any revenge messages out there that we haven’t all heard in dozens of stories.

            What else is it about, then? Human nature, power, freedom, love, manipulation, fear, politics.... The list goes on. When I first watched the movie, I was largely drawn to it because I've always been particularly drawn to heroes (or anti-heroes, in most cases) who fight for ideals I believe in – Robin Hood, Zoro, the Dread Pirate Roberts – and V fit the bill perfectly.

            In recent years, however, the movie has had a new pull for me. It’s a warning. I can’t watch the movie without seeing the political system – one where the government rules by fear – as a very real potential future for our world. And that scares me.

            I know that, right now, it seems a little laughable that the world could be taken over by fear-driven tyranny, but look closely at the sort of political campaigns we have these days. They’re mostly based around telling us all the bad things about the opposition. It’s a war to see who can be made to look the worst – and it works. The result is that we vote based on who we’re afraid to have in control of our country, rather than who we think will do a good job running the country.

            That’s the first step into the world becoming that of the one in V for Vendetta.

            Enough of my political tirade and back to the movie, which, through writing this, I have discovered a new way to appreciate. It is a perfect example of something I believe is important in all fiction: the reflection of reality. It’s a story that is enjoyable simply as entertainment, but if you look deep enough you can apply it to our own world. That is artistic expertise right there.

            So, I invite you to do as I have done. Make the fifth of November a day to remember by sitting down and watching V for Vendetta. Perhaps if we spread the word, people will see how they're being manipulated and we’ll avoid the day when the world is controlled by fear. In the very least, you’ll get to see how incredibly expressive Hugo Weaving can be from behind a Guy Fawkes mask. It’s impressive.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.