2012

So that was 2012, personally an unremarkable year but not a totally wasted one either. When I reflect back over 2012 its been a year of highs and lows but neither at any great height or depth.

The low stuff? Well ongoing health issues, employment and love. Midway through the year I also hit a low patch, I wouldn't exactly call it depression and took no medication but there was a time when I struggled to be motivated and felt gloomy for a good duration. I think I only ever told a couple of people and I went around wearing a painted smile. It's hard to put into words how I felt but eventually I shook it off, I bounced back and now its behind me.

The highs? Becoming an unlikely male model photographed by a famous artist in London. Malta in spring. My Humanist blog, having the eye tattooed again and friends that made life ever enjoyable. There have been other good moments but the above are the ones that spring immediately to mind.

I think on the whole 2012 made me a better person inside. I certainly became stronger, absorbed more, became something of a rebel with causes yet remained balanced and able to realise when I was wrong and needed to re-align matters. Less beer has been consumed and more books have been read. Even when I momentarily glanced into the past I felt no emotion, a sure sign I'd moved on.

So what do I want for 2013, well apart from the usual health and happiness I want many things. I want to carry on building great friendships, I want to travel more and get my car back on the road. In these uncertain times I want stability (who doesn't!?) but I'm still going to speak out against issues many would rather avoid. Honestly speaking I don't have a concrete plan for 2013 but I've always liked to be flexible, I suspect the car being road worthy again and becoming fitter are immediate priorities though, then I'll take it from there.

So bring on 2013. I'm ready!

Of Facebook, Friends and Passions Bold

'Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.' 

Was written by Voltaire in a letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770. It's often misquoted nowadays along the lines of 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. With that sentence said, and hopefully digested by anyone reading I want to write frankly about feelings, passions and that modern conundrum of social networking - Facebook.

I have to be honest and say I have a love/hate relationship with Facebook. Like most human beings I'm inquisitive, so checking into Facebook regularly satisfies my thirst for knowledge and curiosity. Overall I think I like it mainly because it keeps all friends and associates alike in one place. I suspect some just have a large friends list to stroke their own ego though!

That said I don't always like what I see on there. I'll be candid for a moment and say I don't like a constant stream of updates by the same person. Then there's the things I have no interest in, babies, dogs, repeated posting of regurgitated imaged jokes that are still doing the rounds from Myspace and constant posting of music videos. 

BUT....

That said I have nothing personally against the person posting, because to be honest, if I had kids I'd be passionate about them, I'd be proud and want the world to know about them. If I had a dog, the same would apply, as would a favourite musical band, and on it goes. So even though I grind my teeth about some things I'd always defend peoples right to post whatever they want. What do I like to see? Well I enjoy witty comments, jokes, holiday photos as I love travel and links to interesting articles. So I guess the likes offset the dislikes and you have to take into account we're all different, we can't all like the same thing - fact.

The reality is on platforms such as Facebook is that people don't do criticism well, who does really? Criticism and things like ridicule come in different forms of course and can be constructive as well as negative but when we do either - we reason. I recently told a female friend I thought she posted too many status updates and many seemed mundane or irrelevant. This of course didn't go down well and I woke the next day to find myself deleted as a friend. Oh well, my timing wasn't perfect but my criticism was that if I was finding minutiae and tedium in her status's then others may do but of course I realise she has every right to post status's as much as she likes. I don't mind being deleted and obviously my comments hit a nerve but in all honesty her constant stream of comments pointed towards insecurity and a desire to be popular when really she was likeable enough in the first place. Sometimes people need telling and in some circumstances its for the right reasons or we care.

This is where Facebook is used as a weapon though, an emotional base tool akin to infantile playground psychology 'I've suddenly decided I don't like you and I'm not your friend anymore'. We may all remove people from time to time on Facebook for varying valid reasons. I've done it myself but the usual reason for me is I don't really know the person, or they are the type to add you then never speak when they see you in the street. Would I delete someone for disagreeing or criticism of me? Highly unlikely.

I often clash with people on Facebook because some of my views are controversial, I seemingly have a faculty to disenchant people with my opinions and critical thinking. I'm pretty sure some of this is because people don't want think critically, they are comfortable in their bubble and stepping out of it can be unnerving. They may also disagree with me because they have genuine logical and legitimate reasons to do so, after all people do think differently, which is why I like debate so I can see different angles on things. Though I may have strong thoughts and passionate opinions I am not afraid to be outwitted or proved wrong.

Take for instance a recent status of mine in which I openly voiced opinion against the Pope and Queen. People didn't like it, knee jerk reactions occurred and strong counter opinions were voiced, some however were in total concurrence. The person that didn't like my comments is an ex military sort, excellent morals and not a bad bloke at all, the queen and country noble sort you might say and we seem to share a passion for dark humour. The irony was though whilst he was happy to defend religion he has been open about his feelings on Muslims etc in the past, some of which I share, especially on immigration. So the obvious counter argument would be you can defend one faith yet not another? Christianity can be a comfort to millions yet Islam cannot? I don't like any organised faith, though more of that shortly. He actually backed a comment once that I did on immigration but probably believes Britain is still great. I'd say we are both patriots in a different way.

Personally speaking, I don't like the Monarchy, I feel we are descending into neo-feudalism where the cultural and rich/poor divide is getting bigger. So inevitably what we may be come is something like a quasi medieval society and the historically minded will all know how grim those times were. Just look at Henry VIII, he used religion to his advantage, used ordinary men in wars to acquire territory and wealth and gorged on lavish banquets when many had nothing. I'm not saying the current monarchy is the same of course but they have many, many faults and we shouldn't blindly put so much emphasis on them as we do in my opinion, the days of the empire are long gone, we need to modernise and not keep giving rich people even more money.

Moving to religion, well that would take an age to explain my complete and utter revulsion of it. The pope preaches love and peace in his Christmas message yet openly takes a swipe at gay people, a contradiction in terms. The papacy is an organisation that is seeing thousands die in Africa by telling them using condoms is against gods will. How in rationalities name is this good??

My views on organised religion are so strong that I have been writing a Humanist blog since March of this year. I am wholehearted and passionately opposed to it for countless reasons.

So going full circle. Passion for things is what drives us, you are passionate, I am passionate, you have interests, I have interests, you have causes, I have causes and we all have different humour. The stigma attached to shorter people like me voicing opinions is that we have 'little man syndrome'. Any person under 5'5" kicking off is seemingly labelled with it. No such condition exists of course but its often used to denigrate the more vertically challenged of us should we get uppity and dare to have an opinion. I understand the term of course, and in some ways I agree it can be applicable, but only in the sense of a short person with real anger issues actively seeking physical confrontation to prove something, that is just folly. Maybe in my late teens and early twenties I may have been more like that, trying to stand shoulder to shoulder in the big wide world but you soon find out big people hurt when they hit (physics!) but that's not to say little people can't hurt back, Mike Tyson was never the tallest of boxers I believe. Fighting in any form, though necessary on occasion, should be avoided, I'd go for debate and dialogue every time. I realise I am diminutive in physical stature, I'm happy with that especially in my more mature years, wit and words have to be my weapons because brawn cannot be, I just wouldn't want to be the big sort who clobbered someone because they disagreed and could do so through sheer physical force. I guess I'm the Tyrion Lannister sort, for anyone that watches the Game of Thrones series or reads the books.

My passions, my angers, my beliefs are done via the medium of blogging and Facebook, with words and reasoning, done with honesty and done so all can see. Anyone who really knows me, knows the real me as a person despite my rants, opinions and dark satire. On many occasions I cross swords on Facebook with another friend but we always chat about views when we meet and we appreciate each others brevity on certain things.

I'm fortunate to live in a democracy and have free speech. On some occasions though I've been wrong, certain criticisms of the Fox & Crown come to mind but these were things I felt passionate about at the time but reacted to in haste and by listening to people whom perhaps I shouldn't but I'm human and I make mistakes. I deleted my blog on the pub and spoke to the people concerned, admittedly I should have perhaps done that in the first place. I know all don't agree with me, I don't expect them to but I hope the bonds of friendship transcends differences in opinions and they are mutually respected. I just want to end with the fact if you don't feel happy about something then don't be ever be afraid to say!

As Mark Twain once said; 'Our opinions do not really blossom into fruition until we have expressed them to someone else.'

I may not like everyone's views or opinions but like Voltaire I would defend their right to have them. Social Networking and blogging may not be everyone's proverbial cup of tea but it gives millions a voice - 'Vive la social revolution!'

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review

So there I sat, a happy little hobbit waiting for a film I'd always wanted to see, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey though the reality is this isn't an unexpected review!

*Warning the following review has minor rants and contains spoilers*

The film starts well with Ian Holm reprising his role as the original Bilbo Baggins alongside Elijah Wood playing Frodo in what is a nice little prologue piece linking the movie to the past Lord of the Rings trilogy via Bilbo's memoirs.

Then more back story follows regarding the Dwarven kingdoms of Erebor before Gandalf presents himself at Bag End and invites the new Bilbo (Martin Freeman) 'On an adventure'. So far, so good and it gets better when the dwarves 'come-a-knockin' at the shy hobbit's round door. The atmosphere is infectious, the dwarves are brimming with character and a couple of songs add to the proceedings and light heartedness. Peter Jackson's script writers have also injected some humour in there which works well and has the audience laughing along.

Bone of contention #1

I'm surprised that despite his eye for detail Jackson fails to explain how Gandalf and Thorin have actually met, to omit something like that didn't sit well with me. They both actually meet at the Prancing Pony in Bree before the main story begins and travel together to the Shire, both discovering mutual goals. It would have been so easy for Jackson to have inserted a brief scene of them meeting in Bree to explain things but no, you're left to work that one out for yourself.

Proceedings move swiftly on to the dwarven mission and off we trot seemingly with little deliberation for Bilbo except for a few moments of silence when he gazes around his empty hobbit hole but this is only a small gripe on my part.

Bilbo soon sets off and we are out of the Shire, which leaves me wondering why Jackson rebuilt the entire Hobbiton village again, because we see little of it, if at all, unless we see more in a future film.

So, onto the road we go, some more back story on Thorin from the excellent Ken Stott who plays the aged dwarven veteran 'Balin'. We were promised more of Middle Earth and I felt Jackson could have done a CGI Bree in the distance for a fleeting scene before the party enter the Lonelands. Suddenly its into the Trollshaws and the Trolls. 

Bone of contention #2

Balin mentions more of the back story of Thorin and the battle of Azanulbizar in which Thorin was wounded after fighting Azog (allegedly) but gains his name from using an oak branch as a shield. The film distorts this beyond belief. Page 1410, Appendix A, states that Thorin was wounded in the battle along with Thrain and there's a footnote to Thorin getting his name from the oaken branch but that's as far as it goes for Thorin in the battle, he's only a young dwarf then after all. Azog the orc is actually slain in this battle by a young Dain Ironfoot after Azog slays Nain his father. Dain despite his young years slays Azog and beheads him, he's shaken by it all but goes onto greater things, but the battle is won even though the dwarven loses are grievous (Return of the King, page 1411 appendix A). Despite all this in the movie Azog is alive and well and hungry for more despite having had his head hewn off and thrust on a stake in the book. So the stage is now set in the movie for Azog to be Thorins nemesis and for a purist like me its unforgivable. It will be interesting to see how they portray Billy Connelly who plays Dain in a later film but any credit of him killing Azog has been stolen from him by the meddling Jackson.

Moving on, we meet the wizard Radagast the Brown who is played very adeptly by Sylvester McCoy and isn't as irritating as earlier reports suggested, however...

Bone of contention #3

How does Radagast move so quickly from Rhosgobel in Mirkwood over the Misty Mountains and bump into the company? Its a good old trek and bumping into the company by chance? I think not, there's fate and good luck but come on! I'm not against Radagast's appearance in the film but in the books he barely gets a line or two and the movie embellishes his role above and beyond its need.

So the trolls dealt with we have Azog in hot pursuit and suddenly the terrain changes from woodland to barren hills in the blink of an eye, the company descend into the safety of Rivendell and we get more story distortions on the council of the wise meeting etc, though it seems to work ok.

Thorin isn't a happy dwarf and heads off as he's working against the clock mission wise. So off the party head again and set about traversing the Misty Mountains. Not a wise move but the interlude where the giants enter is vastly over emphasised and adds nothing to the movie, its not a bone of contention I just didn't see the point in mountains moving and theatrics. The party take shelter, Bilbo isn't happy and then the goblins capture all but Bilbo.

Andy Serkis returns as Gollum, steals the show again and the riddle scene is faithfully recreated. The we get Gandalf returning to rescue the dwarves and like the mountain scene an overstated scene of escape in which rickety wooden platforms and rope bridges look more like a Keystone cops caper than able dwarves escaping, it doesn't feel right at all, though Barry Humpries works well as the Goblin king and there's some chuckles in there.

Bilbo having unwittingly discovered the one ring realises that it makes him invisible and makes his escape from the now maniacal Gollum and rejoins the dwarves. Though...

Bone of contention #4

Bilbo having gave Gollum the slip actually escapes from goblins and rejoins the dwarves, The Hobbit, Riddles in the Dark pages 85-86 but this is a minor moan really.

So on escaping Azog once again gives pursuit to our unlucky band having had a seemingly easier journey thus far. The dwarves get trapped up trees just like in the book but...

Bone of contention #5

Azog and Thorin bump heads and get it on and Bilbo joins in the battle with the rest of the dwarves before they are all rescued by the eagles. They do get rescued by the eagles in the book but the skirmish never actually occurs and of course Azog shouldn't even be there!

So, that really concludes the film and I guess if you're reading this that I didn't really enjoy it. On the contrary I did but I can't abide Jacksons meddling when it isn't necessary at all, the book provides plenty of material and so do later appendices and references. On a more positive note, when the closing credits came down my friend Dominic turned to me and said 'It feels like we've never been away'. He was right, it didn't, the one good thing despite new technological innovations is Middle Earth still feels familiar and that's a boon for the viewer and casual Tolkien fan. New Zealand does capture the feel of Middle Earth well but I can't help musing what if some bits had actually been filmed here in England, it would have been nice. 

Despite the bending of the original story the film works well enough, the actors hold the film up well, Ian McKellen being especially excellent as a returning Gandalf. Freeman is a revelation as Bilbo and fits the role fantastically and the actors playing the dwarves are all very commendable too, though some get more lines than others, of course this may change. I really liked Ken Stott playing the elder Dwarf Balin. The film is a little protracted but I never really felt bored as the pace moves along fairly well with the odd pause, Rivendell being the main one.

In all honesty it felt good to be back in Middle Earth, I suspect greater things will come (well I hope so) in later films and the characters will grow even more. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey isn't an epic but its not shabby either, Peter Jackson has taken many liberties with it and some of it works and for purists like me some is just downright wrong. I can't judge a whole trilogy on one film but it isn't a bad start all said and done but its nothing earth shattering either.

I can't help wondering what another director would do with it all but I guess that will never happen in my time. If I had to rate it out of 10, then I'd give it a solid 7 but I can't help feeling a little disenchanted by Jacksons meddling. I'll go see it again in 48 frames per second I suspect. The soundtrack is also noteworthy and like the LoTR's trilogy compliments things well.

So, to end with, not a bad movie experience by any means, I'd recommend it and I'd see it again but I think it'll be better to judge it as a trilogy than a one off film at the end of the day.

The Final Countdown

The tickets are purchased and now the waiting and anticipation begins, I'm talking about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Soon the magical story from my childhood will grace the big screen and the characters from the book will spring to life as imagined by director Peter Jackson and Co. Whilst I am excited, I am also feeling tentative because being something of a Tolkien purist I want it to look and feel right whilst keeping to the original story. 

The reviews and feedback so far vary widely. Much is being debated from technical merits to the length of the film and opinion does seem divided though it does lean towards favourable. I always expected it to get some flak, after all Peter Jackson isn't everyone's cup of tea. Of course I'll have to wait until I see it for myself, and indeed I did have issues with the Lord of the Rings trilogy which I felt had genuine moments of cinematic greatness to dull and protracted interludes that added nothing to the story. The bottom line with books that become films is that they are adapted to suit the masses.

I'm looking forward to this movie, it feels very much like the movie(s) that I've always wanted and waited and now its all reality. Bilbo Baggins maybe an unlikely hero but he's always been my hero and now he's leaping from the pages of the book onto the screen. 

As I've mentioned before in past blogs, I read The Hobbit and then read the Lord of the Rings whilst on holiday in Yorkshire aged around 14. I remember being sat outside the farmhouse we stayed in steadily reading through the book, gazing at the maps and daydreaming about Middle Earth. There were always parts I never really understood and re-read but as I absorbed the pages I was flanked by the shimmering sea to my left and rolling wooded hills to my right. I would often stop reading and imagine characters from the books walking through the beautiful countryside around me. So whatever happens with the upcoming movies I will still have the books and the memories regardless.

So the countdown until Thursday and the movie begins. I expect my excitement will steadily mount and hopefully I will be able to do some kind of review come the end of this week.

Martin Freeman is Bilbo Baggins and he's going on an adventure!

......