20081031.NetNeutrality

Yesterday I hinted that in this election, Abortion should be a non-issue. Well, not so much hinted, but revealed. And now I shall reveal what I believe to be the most important single issue facing Americans this election. It's also the issue that will be the most sadly overlooked this election.

Unlike many issues that people think are important, Network Neutrality is a big one that will actually quite possibly be decided within this next presidential term. Abortion, as important as it is, won't likely be affected at all in this coming term. Gay marriage won't be at all affected by the president's opinion on things. Taxes, education, and special needs all pale in comparison to the importance of Net Neutrality. Heck, though Obama's no hawk, even an end to our stupid involvement in Iraq isn't anywhere on the visible horizon. So anyway, what is Net Neutrality and why is it so important?

Okay, so you know how right now when you have internet, you can go wherever you like on the internet and read whatever you like? This is (in a very simplistic way) due to Net Neutrality. This is what makes the internet the amazing thing that it is. You or I or anyone can say whatever we feel like and anyone in America has the ability to read it.

What many major telecommunications corporation wish to do is limit the internet depending on how much subscribers pay. One of the common models runs something like this:

Subscribers who pay a minimal amount (say, $25 per month) will get access to some basic websites Gmail, Wikipedia, Amazon. Subscribers who pay a little more (say, $50 per month) will get access to a little more, like Gmail, Wikipedia, Amazon, plus maybe Facebook, Myspace, Flikr, Youtube, and a news source (like the LA Times). Only subscribers who pay top dollar (say, $100 per month) will get unlimited access to the internet.

Part of why the internet is so great is because of its information-spreading abilities. In the last ten years especially, the internet has been invaluable in uncovering abuses of power and discrediting people who would use the power of lies to harm the less powerful. The internet is the average Joe's best means of holding power in the wider world. And that all goes away if Net Neutrality goes away.

The people who host blogs and write for their own personal websites (where all this protective information comes from) do so because of the chance that people from the internet will visit. A site that is of only mediocre popularity still gets at least 200 visitors a day. But that's because the people visiting have the freedom to do so. If, say, ninety-five percent of those on the internet can't actually see your site, you won't have a whole lot of reason to continue paying monthly and yearly fees to produce a website that no one reads. Within months of Net Neutrality going away, the internet (as a source of information) dies.

And the people with power who are acting in evil or irresponsible ways continue getting away with their wrongdoing. I believe that the removal of Net Neutrality would cause great harm to the weak in the world. As a Christian, I believe its important for us to stand up for the weak, for the victims.

NOTE: Net Neutrality is a far more complex issue than I've represented here. Even the primers are complicated. So, please forgive the simplification. Save the Internet has a pretty decent FAQ on What Is Net Neutrality.

20081030.ProLifeChoice

So Pro-Lifers. What's the deal huh? You now have an election in which abortion isn't the main issue. What are you gonna do? You're suddenly free to vote for whomever you like. Are you going to branch out or just continue with tradition?

Okay, so let's back up. Why is this election not really about abortion like every election before it? How did the number one issue affecting Christian voters get back-burnered? Just a little thing really. It's called John McCain's beliefs.

Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.

Here's the thing. Every time in the past when I've pointed out that the long string of pro-life presidents has done nothing to curtail abortion, the reply has been: Well a pro-life president can put a pro-life justice on the supreme court and if we get enough judges, they'll overturn Roveywaid.

Now nevermind for a minute that it's pretty doubtful that a 5-of-9 pro-life Supreme Court would even take the case, in our present election the placement of a pro-life justice isn't a likely scenario. Why? Because McCain doesn't think that Roe v. Wade should be turned around. In fact, philosophically, he's not far off from Obama. Neither of them want to overturn 1973 and both of them dream of a day when it doesn't even matter that abortion is an option because society just won't feel any need to use that option.

So then. If abortion won't be affected by a vote either way, we have the first election in ages in which single-issue (pro-life) voters may actually have to think and consider what they're voting for. And tomorrow, I'll talk about what I think the most important issue of this election is. The savvy of you may actually be able to guess this one.

20081029.prop8ganda

The other day I was driving with a couple people. Something like the following dialogue occurred.

PASSENGER #1:
Oh, you remember my pastor, right?

DRIVER:
Of course.

PASSENGER #1:
Well, Sunday my husband and I were having lunch with him and we were talking about the state of the world and the politics.

DRIVER:
Oh man...

PASSENGER #1:
I know, huh. Anyway, were talking about this Proposition 8 and he was saying how if it fails, then he will have to perform gay weddings and how—

PASSENGER #2:
Oh, actually that's not true.

PASSENGER #1:
Yes it is.

PASSENGER #2:
No, it's really not. If Prop 8 fails, things will be exactly as they are right now. Does your pastor have to perform gay marriages right now?

PASSENGER #1:
No.

PASSENGER #2:
Then he won't have to perform them if Prop 8 fails.

PASSENGER #1:
Yes he will. It's all a part of the agenda.

DRIVER:
Yeah.

PASSENGER #2:
No, see that's all just propaganda. The stuff about pastors being forced to marry gay people or kindergartners being taught about homosexuality and how good it is. People like propaganda because we like being afraid and getting riled up over things, but the fact is that if Prop 8 fails, nothing is going to be different than it is right this very minute.

PASSENGER #1:
You're just being naive.

PASSENGER #2:
No, really. This is the way propositions work. If a proposition fails, the law remains unchanged. Because the point of a proposition is to change the law.

PASSENGER #1:
So you think that homosexuals should get married?

PASSENGER #2:
...

I swear to you, living in this world is like working with children sometimes. We went back and forth for who knows how long and every single time I offered an argument, she responded with either "You're just being naive" or by wondering why I think homosexuality is fine. Oh, and there were the couple of times that she pulled the age card on me ("In my fifty-five years, I've seen...").

I'm constantly astounded at how irrational people become when politics enter the conversation. And not just irrational, but emotionally invested and even belligerent. It's as if your disagreement as an individual with their understanding of policy is the cause of all the world's ills. I wish adulthood was a mark of maturity. But it just isn't. *sigh* More's the loss.

So quick rundown of the things that went wrong in Passenger #1's responses to me:

1) Constant response to me that I was being naive. That may be, but Passenger #1 never made any attempt to demonstrate this beyond simply stating the fact. This is not an example of persuasive argumentation.

2) Changing the subject. What I actually think of Prop 8 was not at issue. What I think of homosexuality was not at issue. Whether homosexuals would like to shut down churches is not at issue. What was at issue was this: whether the propaganda associated with Prop 8 bears any resemblance to reality.

3) Referring to her age as an argument. This is the same old patronizing "you'll understand when you're older," "you'll understand when you're married," "you'll understand when you have kids" argument. Which is, of course, not an argument. If you don't think I understand, then explain it to me. I'm smarter than you, I guarantee that I'll understand the words coming out of your mouth.

4) Making reference to The Slippery Slope. I hear this one All the Time. In response to my charge that if Proposition 8 fails, the law will not change, I was handed the old argument: "Well, you don't understand. It's a slippery slope. It's just one step. In ten years, homosexuals will have special rights and churches will be forced to hire homosexual pastors." I think people are forgetting that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. In other words, not a tactic used in honest debate.

5) Oh yeah, and there was much raising of voice on her part. As if volume equals a better argument.

Sigh. What a world.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in a rundown of the propagandist sentiment and examination of those individual claims, check out this helpful article on the matter: A Commentary on the Document "Six Consequences...if Proposition 8 Fails.

20081023.SnuffReview

NOTE: Until I get bored of the conceit, all reviews will be introduced like so with a clumsily worded Haiku Review.

Title: Snuff
Book: Novel
Author: Chuck Palahniuk
Year: 2008
Pages: 197

I'm not sure where the real problem with Snuff lay. Sure it's easy to point to dull and repetitive dialogue. Or continual narrative use by several characters of stock phrases that nobody uses very often. Or the uninspired characters. But somewhere beyond all that, Palahniuk just kind of, I dunno, fails to deliver a worthwhile story. And it didn't help that the ending was a confused jumble of narrative vomit—unless there were some hints to a different chronology that I had missed in my hurry to finish.

So anyway, here's what's what. Cassie Wright is this aging porn queen and she's setting out to break records by accomplishing sex acts with 600 men in a single go. Most of the book occurs in the green room, where the gradually diminishing group of 600 men mill about eating snacks and trying to keep themselves ready for action. The book is narrated by four of the characters, three individuals from the assembled male-strom (Numbers 72, 137, and 600) and Ms. Wright's manager, Sheila.

You would think that with four narrators, we would get four distinct voices, but despite the fact that Mr. 600 describes everyone as a "dude" and Sheila takes every opportunity in her narrative stream to refer to men by a string of euphemisms for masturbation (e.g. "pud-puller," "willy-wankers," "palm pilots"—yeah, I know, ho-hum...)—despite the fact that a couple of these narrators have obnoxious verbal tics, each of the four are quite obviously Palahniuk thinly veiled. Each of the narrators does this little shtick where they'll enlighten the reader to some odd piece of knowledge about one subject or another (usually movie star trivia) and then they'll punctuate by saying: "True fact." I've never run into anyone who talks like this ever, so to run into four or five in the course of a day seems a little tough to swallow. Also, I may have heard a person at some point in my life refer to the pointing index finger as a quote-unquote gun finger, but again, four people in a day?

Anyway, the story moves along at a nice clip and I finished it in good time, but I wouldn't call myself satisfied. Maybe Palahniuk spoiled me with Survivor, but a lot of this just had a kind of been-there/done-that feel to it. This felt like an author phoning it in. And I still don't know what happened with Sheila at the end. One minute she's pounding on the door and the next? It either skips a scene or we go back in time. And in either case, I just don't get it.

Rating:

Note: Overstreet can sleep happy tonight secure in the knowledge that his book was better than Chuck "First Rule" Palahniuk's.

20081021.PshopTennis

Oh it's been a long old time, but here we are again. The battle of the dancing ants. I'll see your Multiply and Halftone Pattern and raise you a Gaussian Blur and three Adjustment Layers. That's right. It's on. Photoshop Tennis. Just like mama used to bake.

Okay, I'm seriously done talking like an idiot. For now. In any case, it's been nearly four years since I last took up Kat's challenge and made Venus give birth to a glorious t-bone. Young kdirectorate thought it was about time for another go 'round and so here we are. Sorry kids, no voting this match as I've yet to figure out how to put a voting mechanism into a flash file. Maybe next time.

20081020.Rhetoric

People (as a people) are particularly adept at expressing opinions in dogmatic terms, eschewing rational discussion in favour of, well, being loud. And, as it happens usually, proud. Now there are really far too many instances of this for me to pick on and neither I nor you have that kind of time, so in the interest of being a kind and benevolent future dictator, I'm only going to mention two here. Both in the political realm.

1) The Sanctity of Marriage
Apparently there is some piece of prospective legislation out there going by the ultra-cute and tidy nickname Prop 8. This is California's bid to change the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. You know what? Fine. Whatever. That's not what I'm talking about here. Whether one thinks the proposition is stupid or not, the full-blown and unalterably stupid... uh, stupidness(?) comes into play in the rhetoric people are using in support of the prop.

The idea that Christians are demanding YES on Prop 8(!!!) because they are all about the sanctity of marriage is laughable.

If these Christians really cared about the sanctity of marriage and its reflection of the covenant relationship between God and man, then they would stop getting divorced. Of conservative non-denominational Christians, thirty-four percent have been divorced. Thirty-four percent have given up their ability to be considered anything remotely like a good example of the sanctity of marriage. If the sanctity of marriage was such a grave concern, divorces would be a steep bit more rare.

And let's just say that a believer in the sanctity of marriage really felt the need for this stuff to be legislated? (And I'm not for one minute presuming here that it should be.) What would be a good start to legislating the sanctity of marriage. Why the outlaw of divorce of course. After all, what impinges more on the sanctity of the institution? People deciding that vows made before God mean little enough that they can be cast aside over something as piddling as irreconcilable differences? People deciding that despite the fact that marriage is meant to be a sign of the loving relationship between God and his people, that they would feel better pissing all over that covenant? Or people entering into a covenant with one another that has nothing to do with the sign that God created?

Those of you who still think that same-sex civil unions are the bigger diminishment to the sanctity of marriage can go out and wait in the shed. Uncle Steve will be along shortly so your lessons can begin.

2) Palin as Special-Needs Hero
Sarah Palin, who will hopefully never be our president, has been touted as the saviour of quote-unquote special needs children. Because she has a baby with Down syndrome. A baby who she will rarely see and will be too busy to take care of. I'm not really sure if I need to go on here.

But I will. I gotta tell you, if I were five and my mom was always at work or out of town on business, I would absolutely not be a happy child. I needed the care and nurturing given me by my mother during my youth. I wouldn't be half as well-adjusted as I am today (and blog's evidence to the contrary, i am so well-adjusted it should scare you). Now if I would have had a tough time with a mom exiting Stage Right every other day, I cannot imagine how tough it will be on... [don't make fun of his name, don't make fun of his name, don't make fun of his name] little, uhm, Trig.

Fact is, if Palin had a whole heckuvalot of concern for these children with special needs, she just might think of taking care of the one in her own backyard. Where I presume she keeps him.

20081016.YearOfBooks

Since Paul and Wendy didn't like my desert-island author question, Paul suggests something more realistic: What do you plan to read over the next twelve months? Okay, easy enough, I guess. Here's a rough sketch of the texts I plan to consume over the next four seasons, ranked into four categories, the first being the one's I will pretty much absolutely read and the last being books that I will read unless other additions to the list along the way push these out.

Snuff   (Chuck Palahniuk)

Baudolino   (Umberto Eco)

Wind-Up Bird Chronicle   (Haruki Murakami) REREAD

---

The Love of a Good Woman   (Alice Munroe)

The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana   (Umberto Eco)

The Last Cavalier   (Alexandre Dumas)

The Children of Húrin   (J.R.R. Tolkien)

Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World   (Haruki Murakami)

Wild Sheep Chase   (Haruki Murakami)

The Graveyard Book   (Neil Gaiman)

Never Let Me Go   (Kazuo Ishiguro)

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn   (Betty Smith)

Nine Stories   (J.D. Salinger)

Silverfish   (Dave Lapham)

The Absolute Sandman, v. 1   (Neil Gaiman) REREAD

The Absolute Sandman, v. 2   (Neil Gaiman) REREAD

The Absolute Sandman, v. 3   (Neil Gaiman)

The Absolute Sandman, v. 4   (Neil Gaiman)

Fables, v. 11   (Bill Willingham, Mark Buckingham)

Mary Jane Loves Spider-Man, v. 2   (Sean McKeever, Takeshi Miyazawa)

---

The Count of Monte Cristo   (Alexandre Dumas) REREAD

The Elephant Vanishes   (Haruki Murakami)

After Dark   (Haruki Murakami)

Remains of the Day   (Kazuo Ishiguro)

An Artist of the Floating World   (Kazuo Ishiguro)

The Cheese Monkeys   (Chip Kidd)

No Country for Old Men   (Cormac McCarthy)

Patriot Acts   (Greg Rucka)

Heart, You Bully, You Punk   (Leah Hager Cohen)

The Man Within   (Graham Greene)

King of Odessa: A Novel of Isaac Babel   (Robert A Rosenstone)

The Picture of Dorian Gray   (Oscar Wilde) REREAD

Thunderstruck   (Erik Larson)

Lady Chatterley's Lover   (D.H. Lawrence)

Middlesex   (Jeffrey Eugenides)

Five Festal Garments   (Barry G. Webb)

Locas: The Maggie and Hopey Stories - A Love and Rockets Collection   (Jaime Hernandez)

Emma, v. 2-7   (Kaoru Mori)

---

Kafka on the Shore   (Haruki Murakami) REREAD

The Shack   (William P. Young)

Twilight   (Stephanie Meyer)

Great Neck   (Jay Cantor)

Leepike Ridge   (N. D. Wilson)

Oscar Wilde Discovers America   (Louis Edwards)

Cyndere's Midnight   (Jeffrey Overstreet)

Water for Elephants   (Sara Gruen)

Oh yeah, and there's whatever six books get included into our bi-monthly bookclub.

As you can see, I lean heavily toward fiction. I think there are two non-fiction books in that pile and one fiction that's written as if non-fiction and one piece of historical fiction based around events recorded in journals and newspapers et cetera. I'm obviously favouring a couple authors (primarily Murakami, Ishiguro, and Gaiman - my rereads are almost wholly from two members of this group).

Some of the books from the last group are ones I don't have much particular interest in, but sort of feel a duty toward. Neither Twilight nor The Shack interest me, but they're so very popular that I may just check them out (plus The Shack sounds like the kind of thing that someone from the book club may pick anyway). Water for Elephants has an interesting cover, but that's about all I know. Leepike Ridge is one I'll have to give an honest shot to. I had read the first chapter and put it down under the shame of reading something that was overwrought and just trying too hard (not unlike the recently Auralia's Colors)—one of the things about my personality that makes like a little tricky to negotiate is that I become unbearably uncomfortable when I see someone embarrassing themselves. For this reason, I don't usually watch Ben Stiller movies (Meet the Parents was torturous) and have a hard time with Michael's scenes from The Office when he's interacting with anyone outside the office. And, it turns out, I get a sick-ish feeling in my stomach's pit when I read someone and it's clear they're trying super hard and not making it but maybe they don't realize it and they're just so earnest and, yeah. Basically, watch Swingers and you'll know what I'm talking about.

HR.AuraliasColors

NOTE: Until I get bored of the conceit, all reviews will be introduced like so with a clumsily worded Haiku Review.

Title: Auralia's Colors
Book: Novel (Fantasy)
Author: Jeffrey Overstreet
Year: 2007
Pages: 336

I had only heard good things about Jeffrey Overstreet's fantasy novel, Auralia's Colors. Which is, I'll state up front, not the best way to approach a text unbiased. I picked the book up expecting greatness and found only good-ness. I delved its innards hoping for something that would transcend its genre and discovered a novel mired in its genre.

Not that it's all bad. And neither is it at all bad. Auralia's Colors does though make generous use of what for lack of a better term can be called faults.

First the bad.

The novel, like most of its kind, labours heavily under the burden of its forefathers. The stereotyped tropes of the genre are a cruel taskmaster under whose fell thumb Auralia and her colours never threaten to emerge. The themes are tired and overworn and I felt like I was reading any number of the fantasy books I grew up with as a kid. Many of the characters are mere caricatures and you know from the first page of their introduction exactly who they will turn out to be (I had hoped while reading that he would be turning these stereotypes on the reader, playing with and then dashing expectations, but alas...). The prose is overheated, wrought over and again in the forge of Overstreet's imagination. (I read the first couple pages to The Monk while she prepared herself a lunch and her response: "Hm, I think he's trying to hard.")

Randall Munroe (of XKCD) recently posited a helpful rule of thumb regarding these types of novels:

Auralia and her colours do suffer on this point—though not as much as they might. While Overstreet is not quite as imaginative world-builder as Phillip Pullman and doesn't have the master's grasp on the language as does Tolkien, he does tell a well-paced story. This is something at which Pullman, for all his imagination, utterly fails. Overstreet's characters who are less like the cardboard standees that populated the Suncoast Videos of yesteryear are engaging enough and I really did want to find out what would happen in the end. The climax to this first book was satisfying enough that I went to the library to see if they had the first sequel Cybele's Midnight, but they didn't. And I'm not quite sold enough to actually purchase it.

As far as Fantasy goes, I'd put Overstreet far below Tolkien (but who isn't when it comes to fantasy), quite a stretch below Gaiman, a bit below Feist and Rowling, far above Pullman (though my butt is also far above Pullman), better than most of those Dungeons & Dragons books I read in juniour high, and probably on a par with McCaffrey and nearly on a level with Lewis (though in fair disclosure, I'm not the biggest fan of Lewis). Of course, this is his first novel and some authors have been known to hone their craft as they go.

Rating:

NOTE: While browsing Borders last week, I thought I'd check out the book's sequel, read the first chapter, and see if it was improvement enough to tempt my wallet (as I happened to have a spending allowance burning a book-sized hole in my pocket). I went to Sci-Fi/Fantasy and browsed down to the O section. Or more precisely, where there would have been an O section had there been any O authors. Apparently there are plenty of N fantasy authors and piles of Ps, but nary an O.

Still, I knew they had the book, so I meandered over to their handy self-service computer and located the mislaid volume. As it turned out, they had a bunch of copies. All in the wrong section. For some reason, the novels had been labeled (I'm guessing by the publisher) as "Christian Fiction." Man, way to stick to the ghetto. Sure, the book would probably find a ready audience (as Tycho might say, "a Captive audience), but the author's work will never be able to be appealed to a wider audience if it's shuffled into some dreary corner with a bunch of books that didn't deserve the cost of binding. Seriously, have you ever stopped to admired the tortured writing that passes under the banner of "Christian fiction."

I might not have been made a particular fan of Overstreet's trilogy (?), but I liked it alright. And I could see myself finishing the series if it didn't cost me anything but time. His work deserves better than the ghetto.

20081013.Catastrophe

Sorry about the last week of (non)posting. Mono-y weariness overtook me and sapped my strength to write. In any case:

BOOM! New topic!

So one of the things that intrigued me about Cormac McCarthy's style of writing is his strange excisement of the apostrophe. I didn't really get it because he's not super consistent. Or at least I can't figure out why he keeps them sometimes but not others.

In any case, dropping apostrophes from writing is, I think, a phenomenal idea. I mean, really, how nonsensical is the apostrophe in its or isnt? They way words and grammar work, the apostrophe is entirely superfluous excepting those cases in which the apostrophe represents a sound (as in transliteration of some African tongues or in bad science fiction-slash-fantasy).

Therefore, I will endeavor henceforth to entirely remove apostrophes from all contractions in my writings here (I havent yet decided on possessives)—just to try it on for size. Couldnt. Havent. Wont. Shes. Itd. Didnt. Therell!

How fun!

20081006.WhichAuthor

This time I'm interested in reader feedback. We'll take a similar question to the last. If you could only read one author for the rest of your life, which author would you choose? For the sake of getting answers more interesting than orthodox, let's exclude the holy scriptures of your chosen faith from the running.

For my own part, there is a heated race between Umberto Eco (five plumbable novels and fistfuls of non-fictional essay-type things) and Haruki Murakami (whose work never ceases to intrigue me).

I dropped out many of my favourite authors because they either were too one-note (e.g. Raymond Chandler, whose work is phenomenal but only for its style), had too small an ouevre (e.g. Harper Lee with one novel), or works in a genre that's too limiting to enjoy for a lifetime (e.g. Raymond Feist, who writes splendid fantasy adventure stories, but come on, fantasy adventure for one's whole life?).

My third runner-up was Neil Gaiman, who writes with both breadth and whimsy and is entirely enjoyable. Only perhaps less thoughtful than my two premium choices.

I'm absolutely torn here. While Murakami is vastly more enjoyable to read than Eco, in Eco you have the sense that you are actively learning about his subject-matter. To be fair, Murakami also rearranges the way one sees the world, only perhaps in a less formal and academic way.

In the end, perhaps I will choose Murakami for this simple reason: Eco often deals with literature and if I am only able to read Eco, I will never be able to encounter any of the works to which he refers (making reading something like On Literature a particularly dry and arduous task, I'd imagine).

So Murakami it is. Congratulations big guy.

But enough about me. How do you roll?

20081003.MusicForever

So the Monk alerted me to what may be one of the most important questions of our time. If you could only listen to one musical artist for the rest of your life, which would you choose?

That is, by any stretch, an awesome question and one that I don't even know how to begin to answer. Okay, that's a lie. I know one way to begin and that is this. I'll start with a list of five finalists and hopefully by the time I'm finished listing those, a winner will emerge pretty clearly in my mind.

So then, Top 5 Finalists in the Only Musical Artist I Can Ever Listen to Again Contest:

Nina Simone
Starflyer 59
John Coltrane
Ennio Morricone
The Flaming Lips

See, there're several things to look for here. Range, mood, breadth of catalogue, talent, and the ability to not drive me insane. If an artist has one style and sticks to it doggedly, it's very possible that one could tired of said artist somewhat immediately. So here we knock out Diana Krall, any kind of punk, The Decemberists, etc. If an artist's mood is too excited, then they are only appropriate some of the time. Pixies suffer here, for while they're easily one of my favourite bands, their unique brand of musical love is not, for instance, something you can study to or have a romantic dinner to. If a band is phenomenal but only has an album or two under their belts, they'll get old really fast. Jefferson Airplane is great when they're great, but they've only got a couple albums of usable material. Same with Cream.

Of the five artists I mentioned, I think the semifinals bring us to:

Nina Simone
Starflyer 59
Ennio Morricone

Ennio Morricone, having composed nearly 5oo films, certainly has a catalogue one wouldn't quickly zip through. Style of music would also very dramatically from film to film. Nina Simone, however, holds forth with a soul that is indelible and just cannot be found in Morricone's work (or in 99% of music for that matter). Listening to her over and over, one would discover deep veins of emotion to be mined for a long, long time. She also has an extensive catalogue. Starflyer may seem a funny addition here, but because of their dream-pop style, Starflyer has a tendency to be there when you're looking for it and to fade into the background when you're not. Plus, it's awesome make-out music.

Man, I am absolutely torn. I guess it's down to Nina Simone or Starflyer 59. And I honestly can't choose. Nina would garner me more respect from those who care about music, but Starflyer is just so easy to listen to. Plus with Starflyer, Jason Martin is still alive so I could bank on him adding more to his musical repetoir and even evolving into other styles and tastes. Grr. How can one choose! Hmm, having a bit of the gamer gene, I will roll a d20, even odds. 1–10 going to Nina and 11–20 going to Starflyer.

And it's a 3. I will listen to Nina Simone only. For the rest of my life. Wow.