Bend Over Americans....

The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of forcing Americans to accept Obamacare, with the stipulation that the penalties for not doing so are minimal.  That's right.  It's now referred to as a "tax," this penalty.  This has all sorts of implications on freedom, your wallet, government interference in your life, and sets a historical precedent that allows the Fed to now tax indiscriminately, regulate, and to prescribe your life style.  For more on that merely google for it as it's all over the internet news.

Now for something completely different...

Something Different Yet Related

Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Hi.
If memory serves...  This is my first real post here on LotGD.
Not for lack of desire, but mostly lack of time.  Time and fear.  Fear of not being nearly as interesting, insightful, and comfy as Rob.

So, with Time, Confidence, and Comfort on my side, here is my first contribution to the dialogue.

LINK

There, you've watched the video.  You've laughed, you've loved, and perhaps come away enlightened or reminded that you instinctively knew all of this before.

The camera pans out.  We see the monitor and desk of a genius at work, covered with toys, funny clippings, and rubber band animals.  In the distance, upon the wall beautiful artwork; in the air, lovely music or relaxing sounds of nature.

Pans further: The location, be it home or apartment, and the back of the head of the reader/viewer.

Pan: Flute or bread

Pan: Everything

The Epic Trend

I created this essay a few years back in response to something Rob wrote in association with Pied Piper Publishing. I recently took it in a different direction and submitted it as a scholarly article. This is the original, (non-scholarly) version. I just put it here because I don't know what else to do with it and hope that someone might find it worth a read. I'm no expert on design, but I've always loved this game . . . .

In the first edition of the Piper's Corner, Rob Kuntz made an editorial comment noting the now long-established trend in both Fantasy literature and FRPG toward the epic:

Barbarians and adventurers, fortune

seekers and other more-or-less fantastic

folk graced our past fantasy feed.

Conans, Fafyrds, Thongors, Kyrics, and

a slew of others. Where did they go?

Informed readers would mostly agree

that publishers no longer (or rarely) serve

this fare, that it has played itself out and

fallen as a barbaric example of itself to

the rise of regurgitated “Epic” fantasy.

So too is this seemingly emulated in the

FRPG field. Everything is about saving

the world now rather than having fun,

free-booting and mere adventuring.

Child-hood fancies have been regulated

to a high-brow, moralistic atmosphere,

and all of these “ stories” (Jack and

the Beanstalk anyone?) no doubt find no

room for expression either.

No longer is it satisfactory to take sword in hand, slay a few orcs and gather up a little well-earned loot, but now even the smallest adventure must be part of a larger quest in which the fate of humanity itself is at stake, the players being (of course) integral (if unwitting) partners in a vast cosmic dance occupying some moralistic high ground. Although Rob (and others, notably Benoist Poire on April 14, 2009) have more fully elaborated in this blog on the role of myth in D&D, I have a few thoughts I’d like to add.

The epic trend is not a terribly recent phenomenon. You can see it playing out in TSRs product lines in the 1980s.  Individual, isolated adventures (Tomb of Horrors, Caves of Chaos, White Plume Mountain) give way to the connected and epic fare of the Dragonlance series.  Of course, this is too simplistic -- before Dragonlance came the Slaver series and even EGG (the master creator of the episodic, decidedly non-epic, hack and slash adventure) connected the Giant Series with the Descent series and then topped it off with a rather epic conflict with a divine opponent (although I know he had help from others along the way).  It was never clear whether any action in GDQ was to save the world, but it at least benefited one large corner of it.  So, even before Dragonlance, in the heyday of AD&D's fun-loving "mere adventuring", there was a trend to the epic, if only a slight one. 

However, I'm getting a head of myself: I haven't really defined what I see as the content of epic or of Rob's comments about it.   There are many ideas wound up in Rob's comment, not all of which I can address.  The first is that there is a difference between the moralistic seriousness and grand scope/sweep of many modern adventures and the more amoral (just for fun, it's a game, don't worry about the now-orphaned children of those dead orcs) traditional adventure.  These two elements of grand sweep and morality aren't necessarily inseparable -- just because something is "epic" in scope (large, long, intricate, with a pattern all laid out for folks to follow in which the fate of the world is at stake), doesn't necessarily mean it must be moralistic -- or does it?  Saving the world does mean acting selflessly, sacrificing the good of the individual for the needs of the community.  That's a highly moralistic act. If epic can be defined as embodying the values of a nation or culture, morality is necessarily part of it. Moreover, the suggestion that the DM in an epic campaign somehow scripts or plots out before hand the moralistic path the players are to follow is troubling.  If (e.g.) the Dragonlance series is the prototype for how epic must be handled in D&D, the epic adventure doesn't really leave the players with too much choice and that (as many philosophers of morality will tell you, including Immanuel Kant), drains any morality from the activity -- perhaps we could say the characters are acting morally, but certainly not the players.  The kind of structure or railroading that goes with many epic campaigns seems almost necessary to chart the moral path such epic campaigns require -- but by removing player choice from the game, you wind up not with an epic so much as a morality play. The translation of a literary epic into an RPG undermines both the essence of epic and RPG: the problem with the epic in D&D is not just with its moralistic, non-episodic tone, but with its authorial proscription, with its control of the player's acts and choices.

Therefore, in suggesting that the epic trend has existed in D&D almost since the beginning, my purpose isn't to question Rob's assertion that there is a more recent (and perhaps undesirable) epic bias, but to give some thoughts on the place of epic elements in the FRPG by looking back at one of the intellectual forebears of the game: not EGG this time, but Fritz Leiber. Through an analysis of his first published Fafhrd and Mouser story I want to suggest that the best D&D Campaigns (in my opinion) evolve into a “mosaic epic” rather than the “proscriptive epic” I’ve been detailing above; in doing so, I think this game we love offers some possibilities for profound reflection on, of all things, the nature of the human condition.

Going through some back issues of Dragon magazine recently, I was startled to note the pervasive presence of Leiber in its early pages.  I knew EGG had greatly admired his work, had adapted Nehwon into FRPG supplements and knew him personally; however, I didn't realize the extent to which the early Dragon (at least) relied on Leiber's presence to establish a market.  Leiber and a friend from the U of Chicago, Harry Fischer, had (as many know) invented the (in)famous heroes Fafhrd and Gray Mouser as part of an imaginative game, a kind of precursor to D&D in which versions of each player would go together on adventures, some of which, I suppose, formed the basis of Leiber's Nehwon stories.  I'm unsure of its extent, but Leiber seems to have had a fairly profound influence on the D&D game -- EGG must have certainly read all the Nehwon stories voraciously, even if he didn't borrow the "role playing" aspect from Leiber and Fisher (that aspect arising independently from EGG's and Arneson's experiments in war gaming).  The first published Fafhrd and Mouser story appeared in 1939 in Unknown as "Two Sought Adventure."  I mention it not to suggest it's in any way the primary influence on the shape of the early D&D adventure (Howard's Conan stories, Lovecraft's dark sublimity, Vance's picaresque, Smith's work -- they all have an equal or greater claim to that), but merely to claim an interpretation of this story is one way to understand the role of the episodic and the epic in the FRPG.

The genesis of this first published adventure seemingly has nothing to do with the epic, nor with any moral high ground.  Fafhrd and the Mouser are greedy (or at least poor), have found a clue to a supposedly great treasure in the southern woods, and have mounted an expedition to liberate it.  They're going to steal, loot a tower, and kill (albeit in self defence) in order to succeed.  This is standard (you might even say prototypical or paradigmatic) fare for the episodic, incidental D&D adventure of the 70's and 80's.  It's fairly clear that Fafhrd and Mouser have no (or at least very few) moral qualms about anything they're doing, nor are they doing it for any "greater good" or epic purpose other than to satisfy their own appetites for amusement, wine and women.  It's also pretty clear that Leiber himself had few qualms about writing such stuff because to him, as to the heroes themselves, all of this -- the searching, the fighting, unraveling the tower's mystery -- it's all just a game, at least at the start.

Urgaan himself (the architect of the tower in which the treasure is hidden) started the game long ago, planting (as the adventurers find out) a series of clues to lure thieves to his tower for some unknown purpose, perhaps to test the mettle of his mighty, but unidentified guardian.  Fafhrd and Mouser enter into the spirit of the contest, racing against another player (Lord Rannarsh and his men) and winning the first engagement (an attempted ambush by that other player) through keen senses and decisive action, all the while maintaining a jocular and playful mood in the spirit of good sportsmanship.

The gaming references continue as the pair reach a cottage close to the clearing in which the treasure tower stands.  Not only does Mouser play puppets with the little girl who lives there (and aren't all story characters puppets of their author's will?) but he hears of a game the little girl plays with the "giant" of the clearing, one that supposedly lives inside the tower:

 . . .There be a magic circle I must not cross [at the edge of the clearing around the tower].  And I say to myself there be a giant inside . . . Every day, almost, I play a game with him.  I pretend to be going to cross the magic circle.  And he watches from inside the door [of the tower], where I can't see him, and he thinks I'm going to cross . . . and I get closer and closer to the circle, closer and closer.  But I never cross.

Both adventurers feel this child's story is a pleasant addition or spice to the adventure they still don't take too seriously.  It's as though they see themselves as inhabitants of a rational, mundane world who are skirting the borders of a faerie tale, a tale neither believes can be real.  The duo soon find themselves playing a decidedly unenchanting version of this game, as Rannarsh and his men approach the tower next morning -- since the clearing around the tower is open ground, a killing field, all the players keep to the sheltering trees, trying various stratagems to best their opponents.  Fafhrd and Mouser win, of course, but not before the game begins to take on a slightly more serious tone. The last sequence of the battle pits Fafhrd against two of Rannarsh's henchmen, at which time, Leiber emphasizes, the hero is in grave peril for his life:

[Fafhrd] knew that the ancient sagas told of heroes who could best four or more men at swordplay.  He also knew that such sagas were lies, providing the hero's opponents were reasonably competent.

Although Leiber's main point is likely to distinguish himself and his work from that of Robert E. Howard, to show that his heroes are less than epic protagonists and more like real people with real emotions, motivations and the like, the effect of this is also to distinguish the Nehwon adventure from the epic.  Epics (Leiber is saying) are lies; they don't accord with human experience -- by contrast, Leiber (at least at this point) seems to suggest that his (then new and innovative) brand of fantasy will more closely reflect such human experience.

However, just at the moment Leiber seems to banish both epic and fantasy, they reassert themselves with a vengeance. There is no rational explanation for the anxiety Fafhrd and Mouser feel as they enter the tower, yet the anxiety exists powerfully.  Although the duo’s motivations may be the decidedly-mundane ones of greed and curiosity, they cross paths with one on a truly selfless and epic quest.  With the appearance of Arvlan, Urgann’s descendant who has dedicated his life to undoing the evil instigated by his forebear so long ago, the epic trend appears in Nehwon, only to be dismissed.  With Arvlan’s death, and the duo’s more cagey, effective, and less idealistic engagement with the problems they face, epic and the epic heroes who participate in them, again seem rather out of fashion.  The problem with epic heroes is they have few choices except to die -- Fafhrd and Mouser want to live, as any normal person would.

The important point here (I think) is that the story to this moment has maintained the same kind of light and playful tone as you might see in EGG’s Castle Zagyg (which I understand mirrors a similar tone in the original Greyhawk Campaign) -- this isn’t a game about epic heroes, but somewhat shady characters willing to kill the monsters and take their stuff. Fafhrd’s near death experience slightly complicates this picture by suggesting that all games (like D&D) are played by complex individuals who can bleed and die (and cry) -- that games can affect us in a very real sense. The story further complicates this picture by suggesting that, just as in Leiber’s tale, a game (such as a D&D campaign) can have (and is in fact greatly enriched by) a brush with epic elements.  Just as the story would be too banal without Arvlan, so the campaign needs to at least touch on something greater than its characters or players, while still offering those players real and meaningful choices.  Mouser doesn’t have to abandon his quest for the jewels to save the little girl, but he does and, in doing so, becomes just a bit more like Arvlan.  Although Fafhrd isn’t given an opportunity for self sacrifice he, as the author’s stand in, does get a glimpse of something even greater -- a grand mosaic pattern that he can only barely comprehend.  Removing the lid to the gems’ container:

His gaze shifted to the mercurous heavy fluid, where it bulged up between, and he saw distorted reflections of stars and constellations which he recognized, stars and constellations which would be visible now in the sky overhead, were it not for the concealing brilliance of the sun. An awesome wonder engulfed him.  His gaze shifted back to the gems.  There was something tremendously meaningful about their complex arrangement, something that seemed to speak of overwhelming truths in an alien symbolism . . . .

Caught in an episodic adventure, Fafhrd still manages to catch a glimpse of the vast patterns of which he is a part. Call Urgaan a Dungeon Master and Fafhrd a player authoring his own story (which is very much what Leiber was) and you get I think the perfect embodiment of the ideal interaction between the episodic and the epic for D&D: the episodic maintains freedom of choice for the player while still contextualizing itself as part of a larger pattern.  The resulting “mosaic epic” is, after all, what EGG gives us in GDQ.  In that series is the pattern for an epic D&D campaign that is not proscriptive of choice or morality.  This is what Gary knew (whether or not his conception of the game was influenced by Leiber) and what perhaps defines “old school” to a great extent.

The epic has always been part of the game -- it’s by participating in the epic that the game can tell us who we are, through the invocation of Jungian archetypes and the offering of real moral choices and challenges to players.  In doing this, the game becomes OUR epic, in which we plumb the depths of our own good or evil, law or chaos.  I felt, in the midst of my longest running campaign, as though a script was being written as we played -- that random or nonsensical elements arising at one point came to fit into an almost predetermined pattern as we went, a pattern as mysterious to me as my players.  I’ve always felt the most special thing about this game is that it can tell us, in the midst of such a pattern, about who we are.  Yes, it’s fun, yes it’s just a game; however, as Leiber points out in his story, life is full of such games -- life is in fact very much a game of episodic adventures participating in a greater pattern  (albeit one we most often retrospectively construct).  If this is true, games, especially ones in which we construct epic reflections of our hopes and fears, become more than games, revealing “overwhelming truths in an alien symbolism” that are nothing less than the pattern of life itself.

The Jacob Hornberger Show - March 10, 2012/RP VIDEO

Video streaming by Ustream

LINK

LINK

Ron Paul and Game Design

This post is actually a response to something Rob posted in a reply below. My comment was too long to be accepted as a reply, so I'm putting it here:

Thanks for the reply, Rob.

As you suggest, the success of a (seemingly) simple core concept depends on the dynamics of its development -- in game design or politics. What could be more simple (or correct) than the concept that citizens should be left alone to pursue happiness as they please? I would say (coming from my more socialist Canadian upbringing) that government does have a role in helping those who can't help themselves (because no one ever seems to start on a level playing field, these days: so these people have a much more limited scope in which to exercise their rights), but we do have the same, simple, starting place.

As for game design and Maze of Zayene, I don't wish to draw you into a discussion you don't want to have. However, I did once (years ago) promise you a review of MoZ, which I never did (working for tenure got in the way). I won't do it now either, except to offer a few ideas related to what's going on in this thread.

In retrospect, what impressed me about that series embodies the "thinking outside the box" philosophy that is so important to you: a group of four adventurers is recruited to assassinate a monarch who is oppressing his own people. Interestingly, one of these assassins is a paladin -- that really doesn't fit in with the now-common conception of the class and seems an interesting choice. The whole point of the series, though, was to pull the rug out from under the players' expectations -- they thought they were going to kill a king, but instead have to learn to think outside the box and understand that the king, too, is a victim, that there is a whole network of henchmen, magic, and machinery (headed by Zayene) that is really in control. That is the true enemy. It's pretty easy to see comparisons to the American political system (or the Canadian, to be fair). Right now, Ron Paul embodies to many people the right avenue of attack, the avenue for those who think outside the box and want to dismantle the machinery that currently controls the puppet kings. Isn't Zayene your deadlocked Congress, your bloated lobbying system, your superpack "money is speech" oligarchy? You need to escape this Maze, and the mode of that escape needs to be through thought (not violence) -- pretty much like in the MoZ series.

The image of thinking "outside the box" that really is my favorite in the series comes in Dimensions of Flight (if I recall): the party has to ascend to a high plateau up a series of stairs that really turns out to be a monster that they must fight. This isn't just another reversal of expectations, but embodies what I feel is an important message: often the very thing you think raises you up is the thing you must struggle against to truly gain your goal. This is true in politics: has the American experiment run its course? Does there need to be a new revolution (a peaceful revision of the current system) so that freedom can again flourish? This is also true in game design: I get the sense, Rob, that you are (maybe) struggling against your own past, that you are done with gaming and (I hope) are moving on to other things, that you no longer want to stay stuck in the wood-grained box that history has put you in. Regardless of whether that's right or not, I hope the years ahead for you are full of new challenges and a new sense of life and purpose (some of which maybe you'll share in this blog). I also hope that's true for America.

I know. Maybe to some (most?) it seems ridiculous that I should derive a revolutionary message from a gaming supplement and that I (as an outsider) should care or have any right to comment on the internal matters of another nation. But I do care. I spent 10 years of my life living amongst the terrible and the beautiful that is the USA and felt the hope and promise that William Blake (an Englishman) described, writing only 15 years after your Revolution:

The morning comes, the night decays, the watchmen leave their stations;
The grave is burst, the spices shed, the linen wrapped up;
The bones of death, the cov'ring clay, the sinews shrunk and dry'd
Reviving shake, inspiring move, breathing! awakening!
Spring like redeemed captives when their bonds & bars are burst.

But it's only a "hope" -- you're the ones who have to do all the hard work to make it come to fruition. Is Ron Paul the guy to spearhead change? I don't know -- but your current, two party system does not seem capable of change.

I always felt that Dungeons and Dragons was about using your imagination and thinking beyond the constraints set on gaming and even living. Honest thinking is always revolutionary. I just hope in this post (as in my profession) to encourage people to think and not dismiss my sentiments as the ravings of some lunatic.

****

Mark, I have decided to respond inline.  

Lunatic?  No.  I have found your thoughts, herein and in the past, lucid and thought provoking.

Who would have thought that while we were play-testing the game in '72 & '73 that we would actually take breaks through interjection of humor, philosophical or religious discussion, prime historical or economic referencing, etc.?  Yet that is what occurred most often, as we were not of the game and for the game and by the game, but social, philosophical, and ultimately, free individuals.  But this too, in part or whole, was linked to the game as we saw it and as we experienced it then.  No where is the diachronic process of history more relevant than in D&D, for it draws its ultimate base, and its ever expanding territory of the mind (in the best sense), from many areas, some of which I have noted, above.

Yet a poster here in responding to my recent upsurge in "political" postings decries that this, "used to be a good game blog."  Herein lies the disconnect that the "Reliant Culture" is part and parcel of.  Herein is the reversal of the sharing of thoughts and ideas, the otherwise informed stances of the past that have been disintegrating, and therein and thereby is why, when you strip away all of the foundational excuses to the contrary, why America's great experiment has failed.

My work expresses two things:  1)  Me.  2)  Hope.  It has never changed from being an expression of freedom in both cases.  The very product of that internalized process expresses itself externally in action and in expiation.  It embodies my conjoined ethic.

But in the end I have done enough in these 40+ odd years in game design.  My last interview at Hill Cantons was pretty much a summary of a phase that is now behind me even though it will always remain part of me.

What I do in the future is less important to me than promoting a lasting value though whatever that may be.  

Thank you, Mark, for sharing your thoughts here and at the old Yuku board.  Feel free to ask or probe, or follow-up on something I missed or glossed.  I have always encouraged other authors to post and I am glad you have taken advantage of that.

Kindest Regards as always--RJK

P.S.  The Xaene comparison is pretty spot on.  D&D was originally 3 little brown books; the Constitution is a slim affair you can hold in one hand.  Look at the gigantic mess that has been spawned in their place (40,000 laws passed in the U.S. just last year alone, one out of millions of examples).  Leave it to those who "know better" to pretty much water down or destroy a good thing.

New Ron Paul Ad

LINK at Youtube

HR 347 'Trespass Bill' Criminalizes Protest

HR 347 'Trespass Bill' Criminalizes Protest:  LINK

Obama signs Executive Order allowing for control over all US resources

President Obama signs Executive Order allowing for control over all US resources

Freedom or Tyranny?

Great Reading on Historical Subterranean Areas

LINK

Tired of "Straw Man" Arguments? Embed This in Answer

The One Book You Should Read This Year

Still relevant to this day, by a former high-ranking staff member in the Department of Education under Ronald Reagan.  Once I started reading I could not put it down.  Horrifying as it is enlightening.

Main Site Link

Free PDF of Best Selling Book

One of the World's Last Hero's: Ron Paul

It's Not All Fun & Games...

Xiaozhai Tiankeng

LINK #1

LINK #2

Through Whose Looking Glass?

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.: "Nothing is so common-place as to wish to be remarkable."

Samuel Johnson wrote, "Almost all absurdity of conduct arises from the imitation of those who we cannot resemble."

Faulkner once said, "Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself."

Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited; imagination encircles the world."

Nietzsche wrote, "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe."

"I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn." Albert Einstein

"If I am what I have and if I lose what I have, who then am I?" German psychologist Erich Fromm

Voltaire wrote, "There are some that only employ words for the purpose of disguising their thoughts."

"Is it not the glory of the people of America, that whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience?"  James Madison

"The Court Martial of Hiller C. Ranton"

"The Court Martial of Hiller C. Ranton"

Testimony of the Naval Court of Inquiry regarding the sinking of Captain Ranton's ship, the "Banal."

Transcripts:  

Court Record 1. On the morning of 21 August Cpt. Ranton ordered his ship to steer a course through uncharted waters of what is now known as Shallow Bay.  The result of this order lead the ship to hit a coral reef, tearing a hole in the Banal's hull.  Immediate flooding occurred and the ship sank to its deck.  There was no loss of life.  The HMS Dragon was dispatched to rescue survivors after receiving an S.O.S. from the Banal.  The Dragon arrived at the following scene as described by its officer of the deck, Lt. Commander Gestalt:

"The whole scene was chaos.  Naval personnel gazing this way and that, some shouting orders, but most in a mad rush to collect floating objects as fast as they could.  I distinctly recall Captain Ranton amid this turmoil trying to organize the mess.  He floundered from one group to the next whereat he read from one of the two texts he held separately in each hand.  Upon noting the arrival of Dragon he swam to us and we hauled him aboard.  Then began the retrieval of the Banal's crew."

In further testimony Lt. Commander Gestalt notes Captain Ranton's demeanor:

"It was one of haggardness brought upon by drink, I'd say.  His eyes were focused away from me as I sought to get him out of his wet clothes.  He fiercely gripped two books which he intended not to be parted from, but with some gentle persuasion I claimed these, plus a third from his trowser's back  pocket…"

Court Record 2.  These three titles are hereafter included in the court record as exhibits, E/A, E/B, E/C:

E/A: "How to do Anything, Anywhere, Anytime and Under Any Condition, So Help Me Goebbels"  --authors, various; edited and with commentary by H. C. Ranton

E/B:  "My Camp"  --original author's inscription defaced throughout and signed instead by Captain Ranton as the inditer

E/C:  "Mixology Made Easy" --Swill Press, 2002

Court Record 3.  Banal Crew Testimonies, abstracts.

1st Mate Noermynd:  "It all seemed so strange, you know?  We were well read and all, the Captain saw to that with his books. He'd rail on us to learn his ways; he was relentless in teaching us about every contingency, how to expect any course change in anything.  I  just don't understand how this happened; I really don't…"

Of special note are those testimonies of new recruits, known as Newbies by the Banal's crew:

Seaman Uppend:  "Well, with all due respect for the Captain and the officers, I was rightly confused.  He and they kept at us newcomers, saying that we had to read what they were reading to really know anything, and not to think, just do, you know?  One time I gave a suggestion and one of the officers, well, he looked in this book and said, "'Nope, it's not in here, doesn't apply, get back to duty.'"

Seaman Zerozum:  "There was so much pressure on the ship and every one talked the same, I mean, you know, THE SAME, repeating things over and over which I'd never heard at the Academy, but who was I, just a Newbie and scoffed at.  "They'd teach me," so many said, and I tried to believe, I did…"

Court Record 4.  Captain Ranton's testimony, abstracts.

"I followed protocol. I do it by the book and only the book, so help me…. ah… I do it by the book."

"I taught them by the book, even when we'd foundered I read passages in the water to inspire "My Camp," eh, erh, my crew, that is.  Yes.  My crew.  I followed protocol, I did it by the book.  How else is one to be inspired?  That is how I was taught, that is how I command, how I teach.  By the book and only by the book, so help me… ah, yes…"

When court appointed Navy psychologists were allowed to cross examine Captain Ranton they asked if the first book (E/A) was the book used in heightening crew response.  He refused to answer the question, but it is noted that he continued to look at exhibit E/A from then on out while requesting various mixed drinks.

Conclusion:  It is the Court's conclusion that Captain Ranton be penalized in full for violations of military code as set forth in the attached rider, Duty Codes Violated.  Captain Ranton is hereby discharged without ceremony and remanded to the Naval Care Facility at Long Beach for detoxification to last no more than 3 months. At his request the Long Beach Naval Hospital will provide a detention cell of bamboo for his comfort and ease.

Favorite Steve Jobs Quotes X2

"Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

“Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of other's opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”

Sir Ken Robinson: On Creativity

"I think it would be misleading, because the reason is people have to take a personal journey. This is your life, it’s not my life and you have to figure out what you want from it. What we can do, I think, is give people some navigational tools for that trip and some clear principles and examples and some techniques that they can use.

"It’s a two-way journey. The first is, in terms of being in your element and finding your greatest strength, is you have to go inward. You’re a unique person. Everybody is unique, a unique moment in history, and you have to be prepared to be honest with yourself and to spend time with yourself evaluating either the interest you know you’ve got or the ones you thought you would like to explore but never did. The things that you were drawn to, the things that you haven’t yet tried, the things that you would liked to have explored but you never did, the things that maybe you did but you were stopped from taking any further. But you have to do your own map of yourself. The book will have some help for that."  Sir Ken Robinson, from an interview here.

His website.

Two Books He has Written:

Save Me From Tomorrow: In Pictures

“The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed”—Hitler's Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels