Riba Rambles:
Musings of a Mental Magpie

Posted by Lis Riba at 5:30 PM

From Her Majesty's spymaster:

Walsingham's secretary Robert Beale made so bold as to publish a pamphlet strongly denouncing torture of any kind, and under any circumstance, as cruel and barbaric and contrary to English law and liberties.

Now, let's face it. No matter how much you dress it up with sonnets and lace, Elizabethan England was quite the police state. And Walsingham was their chief spymaster, in charge of protecting the kingdom and willing to use any means to achieve that goal. You can't believe his secretary would publish something like that without Walsingham's knowledge and consent.

Which leads to the conclusion that in 1580 Sir Francis Walsingham had a more enlightened view of torture than our present administration in 2005.

Ian's been too furious to blog about this case, but he keeps ranting to me we've discussed the matter. Let's see whether my memory's good enough to paraphrase Ian's point.

This administration has redefined torture down to actions "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." That ignores the fact that most torture is specifically designed to cause pain without killing the subject, whether we're talking about bamboo-under-the-fingernails or waterboarding, or even back to Elizabeth and the Inquisition, with thumbscrews and the rack. Part of the point of torture is that it's nonlethal, whether to extract information, brainwash, or just enjoy the suffering.

At any rate, they've now redefined torture to exclude nonlethal torture.

Then along comes a case where torture unquestionably killed the victim, and he was sentenced to "negligent homicide" and may remain in the military.

The government has created a catch-22 and defined torture out of existence. [I think I may have missed a step somewhere along the way in his argument. Lousy memory!]

PS: how about this incongruity of two jury verdicts from the same day:

War Protester Sentenced to 6 Months for Damaging Upstate Recruiting Station

vs.

No Prison Time for Soldier Held in Iraqi's Death

PPS: My inaccuracies finally spurred Ian to write out his thoughts on the matter.

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:55 PM

Senators Kerry and Kennedy are trying to lead a Senate filibuster of Alito.

I feel so proud to be from Massachusetts right now.

[If you're not, and want to urge your senators to support the filibuster and try to keep Alito off the Court, contact numbers are here.]

Posted by Lis Riba at 6:49 PM

In Roger Ebert's reports from the Sundance Film Festival, actress Robin Tunney is quoted as saying:

“Revenge is silly except in Elizabethan drama”

I have to take exception to that, because I find Elizabethan revenge plays to be quite silly. If you're familiar with Julie Taymor's Titus, get a load of the wisecracks Ian and I came up with. And I continue to assert Jew of Malta is wicked funny, despite its antisemitism.

Maybe I'm just a sick pup -- after all, I was stifling giggles at the end of Dido from the moment they revealed the bonfire in Act V. And since reading 1599, I've started wondering about staging Hamlet using tropes of the slasher/horror genre...

At any rate, I consider all of them to be quite silly.

And while I realize that wasn't the point of Ms. Tunney's remarks, nonetheless, I'm to see attention drawn to the genre.
Maybe next year's Sundance...

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:25 PM

As I wrote last week, about 7pm the Sunday we were in Chicago I noticed the Goodman Theatre was running a production of Shakespeare's Pericles -- one of his plays we had never seen, and one that's rarely performed. It was Sunday night and most theaters I know don't offer Sunday night shows, but we checked the theater's website and discovered they had a 7:30pm curtain. I sent Ian back up to the room to grab our jackets while I went down to the lobby to find out where the theater was.

A hasty dash ensued and we arrived at the stroke of showtime (by my watch). Huffing and puffing we made our way to the box office, where we managed to get two seats in Box 9 above the mezzanine. That close to showtime, we even got the tickets half-price, and had just enough time to catch our breath before the show started.

Apparently, this is a restaging of a 2004 production of Pericles from Washington DC's Shakespeare Theatre. I'm not sure how much of the cast returned, but there definitely seems to be a lot of overlap.

Pericles has quite an odd story structure. Ian and I couldn't help laughing at the audaciousness of it all. Definitely a play written for King James' court: far more elaborate and masque-like than Shakespeare's earlier works. I'm not sure whether I'd call it a tour de force, but it tours through at least five different kingdoms over the course of the story.

Fortunately, excellent use of costume always made it abundantly clear who and what you were seeing. Each country had its own color scheme, worn by its inhabitants whereever they may show up.

Ian and I have had many conversations about Shakespeare under a proscenium arch -- as opposed to thrust stages, which put the audience on three sides of the action (and is closer to the theatres Shakespeare wrote for). But here they made it work. Scene changes were simple, relying heavily on the color-coded costuming. The most elaborate scene change (setting the table for an elaborate feast) became a choreographed dance of attendants that hardly slowed the story down at all.

Acting was fine all-around. Certain roles seemed designed for doubling, and I was not only surprised when I checked the program at intermission that they hadn't doubled these roles, but somewhat disappointed. [To wit, the play's opening introduces a bad daughter and worse father. Later, Pericles encounters a good father and daughter. The good and bad characters never share a scene, and not that any of them were poorly played, but I think it would've been more effective to reuse the same actors.]

Chorus lines were both rearranged and reassigned. Frankly, that made for a far more powerful opening. Instead of the Chorus setting the stage and telling us what was about to happen, we were dropped right into the action. Pericles and the audience make discoveries, a decision has to be made... and then the chorus delivers the prologue -- explaining what just was (for audience members who are a bit slow getting into the iambic pentameter groove) and providing enough delay to ramp up the tension.

I'll confess to disappointment with the playbill/program, at least in comparison with what we get here in Boston. For Shakespeare, I've grown used to seeing a full summary of the plot (for the benefit of those having a hard time following) with essays from dramaturges to provide history and context. This playbill had a short paragraph setting up the story (a synopsis of the information delivered in the prologue) and four paragraphs by the artistic director on the obverse. And that's it.
Ian suspects the difference is attributable to Shakespeare troupes v. standard theatres, or maybe something from Boston's more academic audiences. I suppose I've just been spoiled by our local companies.

But my complaints are all relatively minor. Pericles isn't performed often, and this production performs it well. See it if you can. I have heard the Shakespeare Theatre Company in DC will restage the production May 25 to June 3 at the Carter Barron Amphitheatre. Either way, I recommend catching it.

Pericles, playing at Goodman Theatre in Chicago through February 12

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:25 PM

Been a while since I posted one of these, but Her Majesty's spymaster describes such a truly thankless task that I had to share:

For months on end, [Francis] Walsingham had painstakingly pursued negotiations for a marriage between his mistress Elizabeth the Queen of England and one of the French King's younger brothers.

I'm snipping a whole bunch of stuff about all the diplomatic pitfalls, how some of his superiors were undercutting him behind his back (Leicester in particular),

But then there was the maddening factor that it had never been clear whether the Queen herself, a past master at diplomatic dissimulation, wanted the negotiations to succeed or not. To her dutiful ambassador she sent one contradictory hint after another. It might have been subtle politics, for as long as the hope for a marriage was alive the French would remain friendly, and the irksome advisers at home who kept urging upon her the need to marry, and produce an heir, and so safeguard the royal succession, would be silenced; a good strategy if at heart she had no intention of marrying.

But then at times it seemed that she was merely uncertain herself, or thta she was enjoying her prerogative to act like a woman, and a queen, and coyly keep everyone guessing. Either way, her poor ambassador was frequently left bewildered. In late July 1572, Elizabeth had sent Walsingham a letter instructing him to tell the French King that the twenty-year age difference between her Majesty and the young Alençon made a marriage impossible. Four days later, she sent a second letter stating that she believed the age difference might well be overcome -- and instructing Walsingham to show the King both of these mutually contradictory letters at the same time.

"I see your negotiation shall be full of perplexities," William Cecil, Elizabeth's Principal Secretary, sympathized.

A possibly useful meditation the next time your boss gives you inconsistent instructions.

Meanwhile, this puts me in the mood to find and finish a book I abandoned several years ago. Monarchy and matrimony: the courtships of Elizabeth I.

Nowadays we take it for granted that Elizabeth was The Virgin Queen and thus never would wed. But that perspective only comes from hindsight. This book looks at each courtship in context, and (according to the cover blurb) suggests she might've welcomed marriage but "[h]er courtships foundered on political and religious difficulties which divided her council."

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:30 PM

May I indulge in a brief "I told you so" moment?

At the first BloggerCon in October 2003, I raised the following issue:

[R]egarding the freedom of the Internet, who controls access? Outside of college students, how many people get their home access via the phone company, cable company or AOL/Time-Warner? There are only a handful of companies providing fast internet connections for individuals and small businesses. And if you fall afoul of any of them, they can make it hellish to obtain an alternate feed.

What happens when they decide to start restricting by content? How accessible will the blogosphere remain?

Jeff Jarvis, Adam Curry and other "experts" dismissed my concerns as alarmist, but sadly I was just ahead of my time.*

A Sunday Washington Post article previews what's coming down the pike:

Do you prefer to search for information online with Google or Yahoo? What about bargain shopping -- do you go to Amazon or eBay? Many of us make these kinds of decisions several times a day, based on who knows what -- maybe you don't like bidding, or maybe Google's clean white search page suits you better than Yahoo's colorful clutter.

But the nation's largest telephone companies have a new business plan, and if it comes to pass you may one day discover that Yahoo suddenly responds much faster to your inquiries, overriding your affinity for Google. Or that Amazon's Web site seems sluggish compared with eBay's.

The changes may sound subtle, but make no mistake: The telecommunications companies' proposals have the potential, within just a few years, to alter the flow of commerce and information -- and your personal experience -- on the Internet. For the first time, the companies that own the equipment that delivers the Internet to your office, cubicle, den and dorm room could, for a price, give one company priority on their networks over another.

The issue is network neutrality and the implications are huge:

Congress is taking first steps toward updating and rewriting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a key legal underpinning for media, telecommunications and Internet activity. This process, required by technological advances, will probably take a year to complete.

More dramatically, executives at AT&T and BellSouth got into the headlines recently with a series of audacious statements. In a November Business Week story, AT&T Chairman Edward E. Whitacre Jr. complained that Internet content providers were getting a free ride: "They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires. . . . They use my lines for free -- and that's bull," he said. "For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!"

It was a stunner. Whitacre had apparently declared that AT&T planned to unilaterally abandon its role as a neutral carrier.

[...]

[A]n executive with BellSouth was quoted saying that the company would consider charging Apple five or 10 cents extra each time a customer downloaded a song using iTunes.

The article points out increasing centralization among bandwidth providers. Cable companies currently have 55 percent of the residential broadband market. Mammoth mergers are further reducing the number of options.

Network neutrality is (surprisingly) not written into current law or regulation. Lobbyists on all sides are currently trying to shape the legislative proposals.

^* What's truly ironic was this "foresight" was totally based upon studies of past communication technologies in my Social Informatics class. Each was initially heralded as a way of increasing communication and education for the unserved and/or isolated populations. And in the end, they became just another mass media entertaining the lowest common denominator. No matter how open each new medium appears at its introduction, eventually, inevitably, gatekeepers emerge.

For example, when radio first appeared, transmitting equipment was relatively cheap. Radio was seen as a way to connect rural farms to one another and to the larger world. There was plenty of bandwidth for lots of small mom&pop community radio stations. And nowadays, it's mostly Clear Channel. Outside college radio stations it's nearly impossible for upcoming musicians to get on the air without pay-for-play.

Which is what they appear to be talking about for the Internet:

At the end of the day, Google's Davidson says that his biggest worry is not for Google but for the prospect of bringing fresh innovation to the Internet. After all, if worse comes to worst, Google can pay AT&T or BellSouth to maintain its role as the Internet's dominant search engine. But the bright young start-up with the next big innovative idea won't have that option.

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:11 AM

I have a short browser button script that appends a parameter to the end of a URL: “&...”

Only problem is, sometimes the URL itself ends in an ampersand. “&&” doesn't go to the correct page, and I once again have to manually edit the URL -- something the script was supposed to prevent.

I know the logic I want -- a conditional test whether the final character of the URL is & -- but don't have the Javascript to encode it.

Can anybody provide a few hints or pointers?

Thanks.

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:50 PM

You can find almost any style of writing in the blogosphere.

I know many people are fond of rereading the journals of Pepys or Thoreau or Kafka, and the like, but none have quite spoken to me.

Tonight I found Postcards of Travelling Matt

And I remember the originals, and I am nostalgically happy...

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:00 PM

Stopped by the comic shop yesterday to pick up my subscriptions. Among the comics was a novel: Blood and swans by Donna Barr -- a novelized biography of her famous character The Desert Peach.

I'm not sure whether the book would appeal to anyone not already familiar with the comic book.

The Desert Peach began as a joke about an atrocious color of paint, personified as Erwin Rommel's younger gayer brother who led a unit of misfits in the AfrikaKorps. But over time, the story and characters grew richer, and until this book fell into my hands, I hadn't realized quite how much I missed them.

I'll confess, I didn't care quite so much for the last few Donna Barr comics I've read. Her stories (both Peach and Stinz) grew further and further AU. And her artwork got more stylized until it became difficult to identify the characters.

Still, this book sucked me in. As the life story of the Desert Fox's fictional brother, it also acts as a biography of the real Rommel himself. And that's fascinating. Yet it skips over most of the events from the comic, barely even names many of the characters besides Peach, Udo and Rosen Kavalier (I don't even think she uses that nickname once in the book). Those who love the comic won't be getting the familiar stories and those without that previous knowledge may have trouble seeing the point at all...

Of course, that's not the book I started reading this weekend.

Friday night, I began reading Her Majesty's spymaster, a biography of Sir Francis Walsingham. First of all, curses on whomever decided to release this book without an index. There's a short alphabetical "list of names" in the beginning, but that's neither complete nor sufficient.

The book begins dramatically enough, with Walsingham as the English ambassador to France -- can you imagine a more thankless job than negotiating a marriage for Queen Elizabeth? -- trapped in Paris during the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. After getting Walsingham (and us readers) through that hairy situation, the narration jumps back to the beginning, and presumably continues chronologically thenceforth. [I don't yet know for sure; the Donna Barr book sidetracked me. I do hope to finish this, however.]

Yesterday afternoon, we caught a matinee performance of Mrs. Henderson Presents. Fun movie, I recommend it. It's the story of the Windmill Theatre, which put on a nude show in 1930s and WW2 London. The trailer (available online in all the usual locations) explains much of the story -- there aren't many surprises but the cast does it quite well. And what a cast it is -- the big names are Bob Hoskins, Judi Dench, and Christopher Guest (who steals every scene he's in). Do you ever get the feeling like Judi Dench is having the time of her life? I mean she's proved her chops by winning the Oscar. Now she's M in the James Bond movies, Lady Bracknell, Chronicles of Riddick and so forth...

At any rate, as we left the theater, we realized that this movie has no real villains. Nobody's outright evil. That feels extremely rare in modern movies. Also, nobody acts stupid for the sake of plot. They may not be doing the right thing, but they're doing what's right for their character based on the knowledge that character has.

Also, I realized this is the second film this season recreating the London Blitz. [These things usually come in threes; any other forthcoming films about WW2 London I should know about?]

BTW, anybody who sees Mrs. Henderson Presents after this, could you please note the titles of the Van Damms' books which they acknowledge at the end of the closing credits. Haven't been able to locate them through my usual sources; I suspect they're not only decades out of print, but were only published in the UK. If I could find them, I think I'd like to read them.

Meanwhile, if anybody knowledgable could recommend some good books about London during and after the War, I'd appreciate it. The subject keeps coming up tangentially among my interests, and I think I'd like to learn a bit more about it. Thanks.

Posted by Lis Riba at 6:30 PM

My grandmother smokes. But when we last visited her, her arthritis and hand-shakes made it hard for her to light her cigarettes. It was almost painful for us to watch.

Anybody know where I could find a good (but not overly expensive) lighter that would be easier on her hands? Something like OXO Good Grips would be good...

Looking around, I realize that governmental consumer product safety standards require all lighters sold in the US to be childproof. But I've got Internet access, and with that entry to the global economy...

Any smokers (or pyromaniacs) have suggestions?

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:30 PM

Today's Globe includes an article on the Moscow Cats Theatre. Though it mentions "Boston shows" it didn't provide any details on when or where.

I found more info thru The Phoenix:

John Hancock Hall, 180 Berkeley St, Boston | Jan 27-29 | $46-$56 | 617.931.2000

Rather pricy, and I'm not even sure they have tickets left. But I find myself... curious. Anybody else interested? Anybody else attending (or seen them in other venues) who could describe it further?

Meanwhile, you can ogle the cuties kitties at the official website