Top Gun

Pete "Maverick" Mitchell is an F-14 pilot; one of the best. He's selected (with his RIO, "Goose") to attend Top Gun, where he vies with the other pilots (especially Iceman) for top spot in the class. But when a training mission goes wrong, Maverick must come to terms with the reality of loss and pain . . . and fast,  as he's thrown into a combat zone.

With people raving about its sequel (currently in theaters), I re-watched Top Gun yesterday for the first time in decades. I remembered more than I thought (I must have seen this movie a lot as a child). Released in 1986, it holds up surprisingly well. The movie moves lightning fast- perhaps appropriate due to topic, but they could have slowed things down a tad on the relationship/character development side- but has quotable moments, impressive action scenes, and poignant moments. Everything is very "eighties" about this flick, to include the music (no bad thing; it is fun to reminisce). But, again, it does hold up well. 

*Mild spoilers here* Seeing this as an adult, the main thing that bothered me were timelines & events at the end of the film. Consider:

- Maverick & company graduate Top Gun (in California); they're given deployment orders at the ceremony

- 24 hours later, they're on an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean

- They immediately do a mission that turns into an active combat zone

- Maverick is the hero and immediately given his choice of assignment; he chooses to return to Top Gun as a flight instructor. After one mission.

The ending felt insanely accelerated. And it was something that could have been easily changed- why not say "one week later" in the Indian Ocean? And why not add a screen explaining that Maverick went on to have a good career, and __ years later, returned to Top Gun as an instructor? Easy alterations to make things a good deal more believable. Finally, an active combat mission against Russia with no spiraling ramifications?! Before the Cold War was over? But whatever . . . it's a fun film.

Rating: A-

Inkdeath (Cornelia Funke)

The Inkheart trilogy concludes! Immediately after Inkspell . . .

Mo, Meggie, and Resa are together again, living with the Black Prince and his band in the forests of Inkworld. Ombra is now ruled by the Adderhead's cronies, driving the women and children therein to despair. As Mo contemplates how to help, the Adderhead realizes his book giving eternal life has a problem, and will stop at nothing to fix it- and take revenge on Mo. Meanwhile, Elinor desperately seeks a way into the story, as Fenoglio and Orpheus pen rival versions of the tale's finale. How will the story end? Are the characters controlled by the ink, or can they change the story to their liking?  

-------

This conclusion to the Inkheart trilogy was in the same vein as the other entries- suspenseful, poignant, and satisfying. 

Thoughts on the Trilogy

As a whole, I like how the trilogy looked at the power of words and story. "So often it is words or pictures that first tell us what we long for." Funke's idea of being able to write and speak things into being may have its roots in the Bible- "In the beginning was the Word" (referring to Jesus), and we see the Lord speak Creation into being in Genesis. Words do indeed have incredible power- to create and destroy.

Additionally, the story explored the concept of immersing ourselves in another('s) story. Sometimes, that happens when we're unhappy with our lot in life's story and yearn to be in another world (like Elinor or Orpheus). Other times, it can be when we immerse ourselves in a larger narrative of the world we're in, laying down our desires for the sake of others (like Bluejay). Ultimately, per Dustfinger, "Who knows? Perhaps all of us belong in more than one story."

Overall, this is a fun, child-appropriate fantasy trilogy. Recommended.

Rating: A

The Bad Batch: Season 1

Introduced in Clone Wars: Season 7, "The Bad Batch" is an elite clone trooper force, genetically mutated with varied special abilities. Now with their own television series, The Bad Batch: Season 1 tells their story as they witness the rise of the Empire, flee its cruelty, learn of their inhibitor chips, remove them, and figure out how to survive in a galaxy very different from the one they were created to serve. All while protecting another genetically deformed clone, Omega.

This came out over one year ago. We started this 16-episode series then, but lost track of it when we moved back to America. Picking it up months later certainly led to gaps in memory, but it was enjoyable enough. Some of the episodes seemed like random mercenary adventures. Others were poignant, showing how the Empire started the move away from clones to 'regular' troopers. There were a few pleasing tie-ins to the series that were set before and after (The Clone Wars and Rebels, respectively). Overall, it was decent. Season 2 is in production and due out in September.

Rating: B

Pay for Performance?

Back in America, I've had baseball on the mind. We're about a third of the way through the regular season; sufficient for some analysis. Today the focus is payroll vs. performance.

Major League Baseball (MLB) is the only one of America's mainstream professional sports leagues with no salary cap. In other sports, each team is limited to spend an agreed-upon amount each year assembling their team. If (for example) they need a roster of 20 players and the cap is $200 million, they could spend $80 million on just one player, but then they would have only $120 million for the other 19. Salary caps are a mechanism to encourage team parity- if one team has a lion's share of good players, in theory they won't be able to afford all of them as they hit free agency (this is assuming those players demand contracts worthy of their abilities, which is typically the case), meaning the good players over time will be spread over multiple teams and (in theory) encourage competitive games. I won't get into the effectiveness of the construct here (personally, I like it, but it is no guarantee of parity- good synergy and coaching matter, too). Either way, MLB lacks the construct, meaning any team can spend as much (or as little) as they like assembling their roster.

Per spotrac.com, in 2022, the New York Mets have the highest payroll ($260M), and the Baltimore Orioles the lowest ($46M). The same site shows each team's winning percentage; below is the current breakdown (ranked by payroll; WIN% is the column to the right of the team name).

As you'd expect, some of the teams with the highest winning percentage also have the largest payrolls. But it isn't universally true; the Phillies, Red Sox, White Sox, Braves, and Cubs are above the league average in payroll but below in winning percentage. Conversely, the Twins, Brewers, and Rays are below the league average in payroll but above in winning percentage. 

While winning is what ultimately matters, you can also see how the teams rank in batting and pitching, respectively (stats from ESPN):

In batting, the Rockies, Guardians, Marlins, and Twins are hitting above their weight. The Padres, White Sox, and Astros aren't living up.

 

In pitching, the Rays, Brewers, Twins, Tigers, and Guardians are pitching above their weight. The Braves, Phillies, White Sox, Angels, and Giants aren't living up.

If the MLB is sufficient to prove the concept, you do indeed get what you pay for . . . generally. But here's to those small market teams. I'm cheering for you.

Amusing Ourselves to Death (Neil Postman)

In the classic Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman discusses how "forms of public discourse regulate and even dictate what kind of content can issue from such forms." He argues that a great shift has happened, looking at "the decline of the Age of Typography and the ascendancy of the Age of Television" and its ramifications. Claiming that "the medium is the metaphor," and "our metaphors create the content of our culture," he shows that the shift to a television-based culture "has had grave consequences public life, that we are getting sillier by the minute."

Summary

Technology transforms the way we think. "The form in which ideas are expressed affects what those ideas will be." Any new medium "changes the structure of discourse" and creates "new forms of truth-telling." The alphabet (and written word) changed the world. And typography (the printed word) dominated the landscape for over 400 years, from the invention of the printing press (mid-1400s) to the mid-1800s. It monopolized and shaped the discourse. We see this looking at "Typographic America," where print was "the model, the metaphor, and the measure of all discourse." Language (written and spoken) was the principle means of communication, and it molded us to think a certain way. It gave us a 'typographic mind.'

As Postman ponders the "Typographic Mind," he argues that "in a culture dominated by print, public discourse tends to be characterized by a coherent, orderly arrangment of facts and ideas. The public for whom it is intended is generally competent to manage such discourse." "The printed page revealed the world, line by line, page by page, to be a serious, coherent place, capable of management of reason, and of improvement by logical and relevant criticism." But the Age of Exposition would soon be replaced by the Age of Show Business.

The invention and proliferation of the telegraph "gave a new meaning to public discourse." The "dazzle of distance and speed" ended up "introducing on a large scale irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence."  Quality and evaluation took a backseat, giving us "a world of broken time and broken attention." Soon after, photography made pictures the new focus and "forced exposition into the background." Together, telegraphy and photography created a language "that denied interconnectedness, proceeded without context, argued the irrelevance of history, explained nothing, and offered fascination in place of complexity and coherence." 

Decades later, "television gave the epistemological biases of the telegraph and the photograph their most potent expression, raising the interplay of image and instancy to an exquisite and dangerous perfection. And it brought them into the home." He spends the rest of the book arguing "that television speaks in only one persistent voice- the voice of entertainment . . . in other words, [it] is transforming our culture into one vast arena for show business." "What I am claiming here is not that television is entertaining but that it has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience." And he believes what television offers as a truth-telling medium is "dangerous and absurdist."

Why? Like any other medium, television "is a philosophy of rhetoric," and "on television, discourse is conducted largely through visual imagery, which is to say that television gives us a conversation in images, not words . . .[it therefore] demands a different kind of content from other media. You cannot do political philosophy on television. Its form works against the content." For example, political debates on television today are "no discussion as we would normally use the word . . . [there are] no arguments or counterarguments, no scrutiny of assumptions, no explanations, no elaborations, no definitions." They have become a spectacle of sound bites and one-liners, "brought to heel by a medium that requires them to fashion performances rather than ideas." It's all about entertainment. Looks and celebrities matter more than propositions or facts. We can expect nothing other, for "what we watch is a medium which presents information in a form that renders it simplistic, nonsubstantive, nohistorical and noncontextual; that is to say, information packaged as entertainment." And, terrifyingly, "television is our culture's principal mode of knowing about itself."

What can we do about it? Not much, Postman admits, other than be aware. Understand that television shapes (and not merely reflects) culture. That "form will determine the nature of content." And remember that truth as we look beyond television, for "in every tool we create, an idea is embedded that goes beyond the function of the thing itself." "There is nothing wrong with entertainment . . " the problems come when we live in the worlds created by it."

Review

This book was written in 1985, well before proliferation of Internet, smartphones, and the Information Age. And yet, as my friend says, "Postman was right." We have become absurd, silly, uninformed, and unconcerned. Our attention spans diminish as we're bombarded with information. We have no time to reflect or process. To form coherent arguments, appreciate subtlety, or tease out nuance. It's all about speed and spectacle. Amazing book. I should probably ponder it more, but there's this video of an octopus who does magic tricks that I need to check out.

Rating: A 

The Eternals

In the beginning, beings called the Celestials created the stars and life. Then the Deviants came- horrific monsters who fed on intelligent life. To protect their creation, the Celestials created Eternals- immortal beings with special abilities- to fight and destroy the Deviants. Ten Eternals protect Earth, and eradicated the planet's Deviants long ago . . . or so they believed. When an Eternal is attacked by a Deviant, the band re-forms to counter the threat, and will soon face something far greater. Can they possibly prevail?

Widely considered the worst movie in the ever-growing MCU, I was in no hurry to watch it, but finally plowed through it over two nights to fill in the gap (it was the only MCU flick I hadn't seen). While I'm not sure it was the worst MCU film, it is certainly in the bottom tier. It partly suffers from MCU overload- ten more heroes in a world that now encompasses dozens of films and TV shows. And a completely new story, which begs questions like "where were these people during the Infinity War"? (The movie does address that, to be fair.) There are some plot twists, amusing moments, and interesting themes, but ultimately this fell flat for me for the following reasons:

• It's hard to develop ten new characters in one film. They're one team, and designed to be so, but they each have personalities, beliefs, and strengths impossible to sufficiently explore in such a short time. 
• It felt completely disconnected from the MCU. Not inherently bad; it is a new story, after all. But as the MCU grows, it is increasingly difficult to believe that "oh yeah, yet another horrific threat is happening at the same time" as all the other movies and their crises. It's overload.
• There was not a lot of music in this one. Music plays a big role in films, and its absence was felt. 
• Spoilers in this point. One theme did intrigue me, but it wasn't covered sufficiently (or correctly). It has to do with authority (something MCU films have covered in the past, to be sure), and who is in ultimate control about what happens. The general conclusion seems to be that we (the Eternals, in this case) ultimately decide what is good and bad, and can overrule our creator. In the movie, the creator is neither omniscient nor omnipotent nor (from the Eternals' perspective) inherently good, so they plot against him. In a way, it replays the original human sin- wanting to be in God's place- only here, the message seems to be 'this is entirely justified.' It may be, based on the flawed 'god' the movie shows as creator, but it's a short step from that to concluding that we humans are always in the right and our ways are always correct- and God is flawed. It enshrines secular humanism and justifies the way humans have operated since the fall of man. Certainly not the way things should be or what we should be modeling.

I fought falling asleep both nights I watched this. Some of that was due to exhaustion, perhaps, or maybe it is a reflection of how uncompelling the film was. Either way, there are better MCU flicks out there. Some promising elements fell flat, and the MCU is starting to overload me.

Rating: C-

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Richard Bauckham)

The point of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses "is to show that Jesus' teaching was not only transmitted by anonymous masses, but also and very significantly by particular individuals." - Simon Gathercole

A summary follows; any quotes below are from the book.

Summary

The Christian faith trusts that we "encounter the real Jesus" in the Bible (most obviously in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). How did the Gospels come to be? Some have argued that they were collectively transmitted orally by a community, obscuring the historical Jesus behind decades of anonymous alterations before they were put to paper. In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, however, scholar Richard Bauckham argues that "the Gospel texts are much closer to the form in which the eyewitnesses told their stories or passed on their traditions than is commonly envisaged in current scholarship. This is what gives the Gospels their character as testimony. They embody the testimony of the eyewitnesses, not of course without editing and interpretation, but in a way that is substantially faithful to how the eyewitnesses themselves told it, since the Evangelists were in more or less direct contact with eyewitnesses, not removed from them by a long process of anonymous transmission of the traditions."

"The Gospels were written within living memory of the events they recount. Mark's Gospel was written well within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses, while the other three canonical Gospels were written in the period when living eyewitnesses were becoming scarce, exactly at the point in time when their testimony would perish with them were it not put in writing." Thus, to Bauckham, "Gospel traditions did not, for the most part, circulate anonymously but in the name of the eyewitnesses to whom they were due."

To support his argument, Bauckham looks at many things, to include:

• Early church father Papias (who wrote ~110-130 CE) and other ancient writers on their views of the importance of eyewitnesses as the best way to record history (very relevant to the formation of the Gospels).
• A study of names in the Gospels.
• "Many characters in the Gospels are unnamed, but others are named. I want to suggest now the possibility that many of these named characters were eyewitnesses who not only originated the traditions to which their names are attached but also continued to tell these stories as auhoritative guarantors of their traditions."
• Israeli scholar Tal Ilan's study of Palestinian Jewish names in the period of Jesus and the early church.
• This is "a significant resource for assessing the origin of Gospel traditions," as the study then compared with the Gospels reveals evidence that goes against those claiming names in the Gospel accounts were added much later.
• The significance of the Twelve Apostles and their role as "official eyewitnesses and guarantors of the core of the gospel traditions."
• "The idea that a Gospel, since it tells the whole story of Jesus, must embody the testimony of witnesses who were participants in the story from beginning to end- from the time of John the Baptist's ministry to the time of the resurrection appearances."
• This was true of more than just the Twelve Apostles, as the Scriptures themselves attest.
• The literary device called inclusio and how the Gospels use it to show Peter as the primary source of Mark and Luke and to show John (not necessarily the Apostle) as the primary source of John.
• "Mark's Gospel not only, by its use of the inclusio of eyewitness testimony, claims Peter as its main eyewitness source; it also tells the story predominantly (though by not means exclusively) from Peter's perspective."
• Anonymous persons in Marks' Passion narrative and the reason behind it 
• Bauckham argues that the omitted names are for 'protective anonymity,' as Mark's Gospel is the earliest account, written while many were still alive and could be considered seditious figures by the ruling powers for being with Jesus during that time; John's account (written much later, after these would likely be dead) then names them.
• Papias' thoughts on the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. He felt that, in short,
• "Peter, an eyewitness, related logia about Jesus orally in Aramaic but not in literary order. Mark, not an eyewitness, translated Peter's teachings [into Greek] and put them in writing accurately and omitting nothing." [Meaning they remained out of chronological order.] 
• Bauckham shows later how "Peter is Mark's principal eyewitness, but that, since he drops out of the narrative after his denials of Jesus, the three named women function as Mark's principal eyewitnesses for the remainder of the narrative. They are his witnesses to the crucifixion and death of Jesus, to his burial, and to the empty tomb." 
• "Matthew, an eyewitness, put the logia about Jesus in writing in Aramaic/Hebrew in literary order . . . [others], not an eyewitness, translated Matthew's written logia [into Greek] as well as they were able." [and Papias thought that translation put things out of order]
• "John, an eyewitness, put the logia about Jesus in writing in Greek in literary order."
• Models of oral tradition (looking at "the nature of the [oral] transmission of Jesus traditions in the early church" and how cultures carefully controlled oral traditions, to include use of memorization and authorized tradents to pass on knowledge).
• Among other things, Bauckham argues "Paul provides ample evidence of the formal transmission of traditions within the early Christian movement . . .[to include] the words and deeds of Jesus."
• Anonymous tradition vs. eyewitness testimony
• Arguing against the movement called form criticism, which "saw the Gospels as folk literature more or less continuous with the oral traditions as formed and transmitted anonymously by the communities." His "argument is rather that the continuity of the Gospels is with the testimony of the eyewitnesses, not via a long period of community transmission but through, in many cases, immediate access to the eyewitnesses or, in other cases, probably no more than one intermediary."
• "In their close relationship to eyewitness testimony, the Gospels conform to the best practice of ancient historiography."
• What about some of the differences between th Gospel accounts? ". . . [M]inor verbal and narrative differences among the Synoptics . . . may be better seen as the kind of performative variations normal in oral tradition, not necessarily emobodying higly nuanced ideological divergences."
• Eyewitness memory, looking at the science behind the confidence (or lack thereof) that we can have in the mind's recollective abilities, to include "the objectivity of the event and the rememberer's insight into its meaning."
• The Gospel of John as eyewitness testimony, the only Gospel which "claims not only to be based on eyewitness accounts but to have been actually written by an eyewitness."
• The witness of the Beloved Disciple, whom Bauckham argues is the author of John (and not one of the Twelve, but a lesser-known disciple who also had been with Jesus since the beginning). 
• He also argues that John claims Peter's role is leading the whole church, while the Beloved Disciple's role is "witnessing to the truth of Jesus" [by writing the eyewitness account].
• Papias, Polycrates, and Irenaeus on the Gospel of John
• John's Gospel differs markedly from the other three 'Synoptic' Gospels.
• Though popular scholarly consensus is that this Gospel's author was John the son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve, Bauckham believes John the Elder is the Beloved Disciple mentioned (and hence author of the Gospel). Further, that "the distinctive narratives of the Gospel of John derive not simply from the Beloved Disciple himself, but from a particular circle of disciples of Jesus in which the Beloved Disciple moved." That he ran in different disciple 'circles' as evidenced by his focus on "disciples not prominent in the Synoptics." This John lived much longer than most of the other eyewitnesses as well, making sense of the Gospel's later dating.  
• The Jesus of testimony, looking at the trustiworthiness of testimonies in general, their value, and their inescapability.
• Some believe historians can piece together the past independent of testimony. Impossible. "Testimony is as basic a form of knowledge as perception, memory, and inference." "All knowledge relies on testimony." It's okay to doubt- if there are valid reasons for doing so- but an inherent distrust of what everyone says is an unsustainable way to live (and practice history). We all believe some and disbelieve others. "The witness says not only "I was there" but also "believe me."
• "In everyday life, we do not systematically mistrust everything anyone tells us. When someone who is in a position to know what they tell us does so, we normally believe them. But we keep our critical faculties alert and raise questions if there is specific reason to doubt. There is no reason why historical work should be substantially different in its dialectic of trust and critical assessment."
• "Trusting testimony is indispensable to historiography. This trust need not be blind faith. In the "critical realist" historian's reception and use of testimony there is a dialectic of trust and critical assessment. But the assessment is precisely an assessment of the testimony as trustworthy or not. What is not possible is independent verification or falsification of everything the testimony relates such that reliance on testimony would no longer be needed." There "is truth that only testimony can give us," whether we like it or not. It "offers us insider knowledge from involved participants. It also offers us engaged interpretation, for in testimony fact and meaning coinhere . . ."
• We cannot be certain. "In history, we only deal in probabilities (as is also the case in much human knowledge). Historians are in the business of constantly making reasonable judgments of probabilities. To believe testimony, to trust it when we have no means of verifying its content in detail, is a risk, but it is the kind of risk we are constantly taking when we trust testimony in ordinary life."
• The second edition adds material on eyewitnesses in Mark (to include a discussion on who Mark was), the identity of the Beloved Disciple, and thoughts on the end of form criticism.

Ultimately, the book "is an attempt to validate the Gospels themselves as sources that are historically trustworthy at the same time as being testimonies of faith. They give us Jesus interpreted- interpreted from the perspectives of the eyewitnesses and the Gospel writers. They give us representations of Jesus but representations whose historical basis can be tested. My claim is that they transcend the dichotomy between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. They give us the Jesus of testimony."

"Testimony offers us, I wish to suggest, both a reputable historiographic category for reading the Gospels as history, and also a theological model for understanding the Gospels as the entirely appropriate means of access to the historical reality of Jesus . . .[this] enables us to read the Gospels as precisely the kind of text we need in order to recognize the disloruse of God in the history of Jesus."

"In summary, if the interests of Christian faith and theology in the Jesus who really lived are to recognize the disclosure of God in this history of Jesus, then testimony is the theologically appropriate, indeed the theologically appropriate, indeed the theologically necessary way of access to the history of Jesus, just as testimony is also the historically appropriate, indeed the historically  necessary way of access to this "uniquely unique" historical event. It is in the Jesus of testimony that history and theology meet."

Review

Fascinating. Intriguing. Scholarly. Compelling. This book enthralled me. Dense in places but largely accessible, I learned a tremendous amount about not only the Gospel formation but historiography and the various disciplines relating to the study of memory, testimony, and even names. My summary above only scratches the surface. Bauckham is clearly a scholar (with hundreds of footnotes and a 30-page bibliography to accompany his 600-page account), writes well, and makes a compelling argument. I look forward to re-reading the Gospels with an eye towards the topics discussed in this book. I started today.

Rating: A