Samuel Gordon Stuart is no mere blogger. He is the epitome of a blogger. When Leonard Kleinrock first imagined the basic principles of packet switching, I am quite sure that Samuel was the embodiment of this. The chap appears to have a keen interest in, well, everything, though nothing in particular. Sure, we know he likes 2UE, John Kerr and Nattie, his dog, and he does make clear, however, his dislike for Summernats and those people who associate with such activities ("loonies"), but this lad is like a glass ball: nothing to pick at so that we can see his 'interior'. Yet, if he is that glass ball, we can already see through him. The problem is, people already look through him, ignoring the fact that this person obviously has more than half a brain, knows what he is talking about and loves what he is doing. Everyone just sees this glass ball, and because they can't rip into him, they try to break it. But Sammy has remained strong in the face of those trying to get at him, and it's good to see he has continued on.

However, glass has another enemy: diamonds. Yes, the only thing that can leave a mark on him is a diamond, in particular, because of the 'rough' group of people that are after him, a diamond in the rough. OK, possibly the worst lead into a metaphor there, but who cares. But, that's what this audience member happened to be when when listening to Samuel's Persiflage #5. Towards the end of his broadcast, he spoke upon some recent news, in particular, a technological advancement by an Israeli company which has produced a glasses-type display unit that can plug into an audio set as well. It's the cinema-experience without the cinema, or the T.V. shows without the T.V.. Unfortunately, poor Samuel seemed to shun this idea. Rather than dwelling on the increasing positives of this innovation, he turned to the evil, the dark, the malicious side of the world and brought the example of using the 'experience' of the headset on public transport, being robbed and thus, it's the equipment's fault. I thought that the short-sightedness of the poor boy might very well be resolved in a short, direct, possibly border-attacking, email that expressed my positive reviews of such a piece of technology:

Samuel Samuel Samuel.

In your latest Persiflage, you didn't show much appreciation for the new "display device" that you brought up through the single example of public transport. If you had widened your view to include further "examples" that are not, and cannot, be tailored to your subjective view of this issue, you would not have inadvertently slandered the name of the poor Israelis and the new technology they have created. As a well traveled person in flight and road, something that through the example you have brought up up may not be, traveling excess of twenty hours on an International flight to London, a little less to Paris and Rome, not including compulsory stop-overs, usually of a night, to Singapore, Jakarta, Dubai or Hong Kong. Also, taking into account those not as 'well-off' as some, like myself, who can afford First of Business Class seats, and must buy Economy Class, the mere opportunity of watching and listening to a movie that you choose from your own personal collection of DVDs (rather than having you selection dictated to you by the flight company), is certainly worth the cost-difference between a Economy Class and a Business Class.

Similarly, as a regular passenger in long road trips across Australia and Internationally, you may note, next time you are in a car, that there is no video/audio set up for cars made prior to the past two years, and that if you indeed wanted one, you would have to fork out a significant amount of money to afford such a system in older cars. This can also be dangerous in that it provides a substantial amount of distraction for the driver who's primary objective is to concentrate on the road ahead. This new invention would eliminate all distraction for the driver, while enhancing the experience for the passenger. Note, young Samuel, that not everyone is enamoured with radio.

Perhaps in your further Podcasts you could refrain from passing judgment on a well-thought piece of technology before you consider all its uses rather than one that you choose to give. Objectivity is the key to being a successful reporter.

Clayton Northcutt.

I believed I had a valid point, and, without any lies present in that email, believed I was more correct in my judgment of this product than young Samuel. I cannot wholly say I expected a reply within a day, but a mere one hour and forty minutes later, I did, in fact, have a new email in my Inbox. It read:

Dear Clayton,

Thank-you for your email, you have raised some good points which did not occur to me at the time, and I will be more than happy to read your email in full on the next persiflage.

On a plane or in a car this device would be quite good, although I'm sure you would agree that there are some situations where it would be downright dangerous...much like mobile phone text messages are safe, as long as you're not driving.

For the record I was not acting as a reporter, instead I was providing an opinion. Clearly my opinion did not take all the facts into account.

It might be worthwhile to point out that the reason I did not take some of your examples into account is that I have never flown in a plane, nor have I been on a long car trip (the longest one would have been a bit under two hours), and the longest bus trip I have been on
was about six hours, but that was a school excursion with a few breaks and some videos.

Anyway thanks for your email, as I said, I will read it in full.

Regards,
Samuel

What a polite young man, I thought. I also felt sorry for him in not having had the experience of the rest of the world (which is very much a post I would like to write soon). However, I was satisfied with his reply in that he thought that the points I raised should be addressed, something that I do hope he will do accordingly, while, at the same time, defending his own line of reason and opinion. I felt somewhat sorry after this in that I paid the young fellow no compliments for his efforts in any of his Podcasts or his blog, while at the same time attacking his opinion, something I really had no right to do*. I readily accept that he has valid points: it can be dangerous, however, certainly more dangerous products exist on the market, like the mobile phone. I don't presume to think that any driver would attempt to travel with one of these head-sets on, however, he does bring up a point in that traveling on a train or bus, and, furthering the boundaries, merely sitting in some sort of park or public area, you would be susceptible to being the target of malicious people, and these are valid. I look forward to young Samuel's response in his next Persiflage and my brush with fame.

Clayton Northcutt.

*I did in fact email Samuel the link to this blog and a note of thanks after putting this post up.

Are you an able-bodied Sasquatch aged 10 to 150 who loves his or her country? If so, you should give serious consideration to a future in the Sasquatch Militia. That's right, the militia out to help protect The Republic of Cascadia is in need of new recruits. The training you get is great, and the pay, well, it's like nothing you've had before. Graduating with such skills as Stomping, Boulder Throwing, Log Swinging, Delimbing, Salmon Wielding, Inducing Fear with Howls, Ancient Yeti Martial Arts, how can you go past this opportunity if you are of the Sasquatchian species. And it's something to remember that you will be surrounded by your kind, so no specisim, making fun of your excess body hair or height.

Remember: The Republic of Cascadia needs your help!

Clayton Northcutt.

Let's get one thing clear: I'm a huge, huge, O.C. fan. I watch the show religiously, tape it if necessary and go through the DVDs once a month. There's just one problem: Season Three. Now, everyone was decrying Season Two before it was finished going to air, and because of the 'lag' between American T.V. and Australian T.V., Season 3 is still showing here, I hesitate to begin to run it down as far as I want to. Yet, this is the weakest season yet, and it's probably all due to the fact that all the big guns, original story lines and enjoyable characters have come and gone, unfortunately, in Season One. Season Two began as if it were a re-hashed Season One, only shifting a couple of plots around: this time the 'love triangle' affects Seth and Summer, Ryan and Marissa are finding it hard to get together and this time it's someone that Ryan gets into that affects their relationship mid-season. And lest we forget the marriage troubles that Sandy and Kirsten were having, very reminiscent of Jimmy and Julie Cooper in the first.

Now I can understand having to repeat plots, characters and ideas in a T.V. series. It's totally understandable, but not three times in three series. See, now Season One has been applied to Season Three, albeit covered over a little. Seth and Summer have a Taylor after Seth. Once again Marissa is getting involved with a guy (ala Oliver) who wants to be more than friends and Ryan is getting involved with another woman that is going to send Marissa into a spiral. Sandy and Kirsten are having their normal problems, only this time, Sandy is the fault. The list goes on. However, credit to the writers, they did bring in some new things, Seth and his marijuana, the High School and University fiascoes and Katlin, but those are three big things that, along with Season One's relationships (Oliver/Marissa, Theresa/Ryan/Child, Marissa/Luke, Ryan/Julie, Seth/Summer, Seth/Summer/Anna) and Season Two's (Ryan/Lindsay, Kirsten/Carter, Marissa/Alex, Seth/Alex, Caleb/Julie) were all rushed. Some of these plots had the potential to last a whole series, but most deserved longer than what they got. Instead of playing to the season schedule, play to the series. If a plot looks like it's going to span over the break between seasons, let it. Have the final episode still a cliffhanger, show the repeats in the off season, and if you are so insecure about the audience's intelligence and memory, not to mention the quality of the last episode, you could always make either a 'recap' episode to show before ratings kicks off again or, something totally original, half hour, fifteen minutes, something of this sort of length to show a couple of weeks before the show is back on to garner hype, that doesn't have a massive bearing on the seasons, more, it's an in between thing where if you watch, great, if you don't, doesn't matter, you haven't missed anything.

For example, last episode of Season Two, Trey gets shot, Marissa is the shooter, Ryan is beat up, Seth and Summer have just arrived on the doorstep. Now, the start of Season Three had zip all explanation as to what happened in between. So, as ratings season is on the horizon, slot in, at the usual time-slot, on the usual day, a half hour, a twenty minute, a ten minute even, little part where Seth or Summer call the police. Week after that, have Ryan in a hospital room getting stitched up, the room next-door, Trey is being worked on. The week after you have Ryan being let out of hospital and walking past Trey, not stopping, just looking through the window, with Marissa, both reflecting their emotional state for the next week which is the official return of The O.C. and start of Season Three. A simple idea, it gets people back in, it links plots across seasons more strongly and its a way to increase exposure to increase ratings. But best of all it means you can stretch out the plots, keep them going for as long as they need to. To hearken back to an earlier part of the post, the Oliver/Marissa thing could have successfully run for a lot longer, had Oliver, after Ryan clues in that he is a psycho, reveal himself to, say, other side characters. Luke, as one person, was suspicious of him, but why? He could have had a run-in with Oliver and had Luke join Ryan in trying to convince Marissa that Oliver was trouble. Look at the possibilities this would open up: Marissa thinks Luke is trying to get her back, she doesn't trust him, and then not Ryan, it's plot gold! But instead it went for less that half the season, and Taylor Handley, the actor playing Oliver, was so damn good that the character was one of the best to have a supporting role over the life of the series, and was too good to waste.

This is one of those topics that I could go on for ever about, so, to give you a break, I'll end this post here and continue with this at a further date.

Clayton Northcutt.

When you've started on a such a high peak, going down hill doesn't always mean that the show is about to hit rock bottom. Now, after that 'fortune-cookie-esque' statement, I'll bring it right to the topic for the post: Boston Legal. A highly witty, sophisticated, entertaining and original show, it is, alas, in my opinion, going down hill. Lets have a look why shall we?

The show began well enough. Well enough, there's an understatement. Fantastically is more appropriate. I didn't watch The Practice until the last series, where Denny Crane, Alan Shore and the whole Crane, Poole and Schmidt were introduced. And it kept me watching the show, especially Alan Shore. His quirky characteristics, beyond-brutal honesty, his almost psychologically-disturbed state made Alan Shore truly a one-of-a-kind character on T.V., and a type of person that you would be hard pressed to find in real life.

Finally the show came to air in it's own glory. And it was great, the first series was great. We get to meet a wide spectrum of characters, all different and no real "clones". Denny Crane took over as my favourite all because he was so unique! Who else walks round saying their name, thinking, believing and BEING the best at what he does on T.V.? Absolutely no one. Then you have every other character (just too many to name) just as funny and different that each week was a delight to watch.

OK, fast forward: they loose a couple of characters. Lake Bell leaves, which I thought was the biggest loss (as she was the character that had the most possibilities in the future), Rhona Mitra, Monica Potter. But they also picked up some good replacements: Candice Bergen, Julie Bowen, and increased the visibility of people like Rene Auberjonois and recurring characters. So we are finishing towards the end of Series One with a still stable and good cast.

But it's what was happening with the feel of the show that slowly began to make it less (though still) enjoyable to watch. Now, let's clear something up: American audiences are not the same as Australian audiences. That means the political divide that the writers are playing for isn't going to have the same outcome over here. Sure, the politics are "the same", but we don't have red and blue states. I don't even know if people over here take politics serious or care about them as much as is played up in Boston Legal. And that's the problem: the show became very political. Alan Shore became whatever side he is, as did Denny Crane. Gun control, environmental issues, national security and the Iraq War began to become regular topics. Now, don't get me wrong; these are important issues. But I watched the (biased) news, I live in the Internet, and T.V. drama shows are an escape from the crap World we live in. Please, by all means, include these issues in the odd episode, but not as a regular issue.

But, recently, Legal has picked up. Deny Crane has become an entertaining character rather than comic relief and Alan Shore seems to be defending morality rather than defending his political position. A few more of the characters have been fleshed out, and the cases everyone is undertaking are just as interesting as the characters. But I have a feeling that we are going to slip from this a-political show into a preaching phase again. I'm just hoping that perhaps we can have a more balanced view if that's the case.

And, if all else fails, more Denny Crane.

Clayton Northcutt.

Arrested Development is, by far, the best comedy program to come to television sets in the past five years. But why is it being canned? Because, at last, there is a show that is aimed at a high-brow audience, with intelligent scripts, talented actors and a comment on the rest of popular culture items that, obviously, the networks don't like. A.D. is a talent packed show, and a fair few of the stars are relatively unknown. This is probably one reason why the show doesn't have top billing on a network. However, if a show can create five, six, seven top new talents for future shows (Jason Bateman (a wider fan base), the extremely talented Michael Cera and Alia Shawkat, Tony Hale, David Cross (though already with a reputation), Will Arnett), why wouldn't a network push it? God only knows. But that's exactly what this show can do, and with known names in main character roles like Portia de Rosi, Jeffrey Tambor, Jessica Walter, and Ron Howard (as the narrator, but still) and the numerous real superstars that appear in the odd episodes, Charlize Theronn (Academy Award winner, almost the entirety of Season 3, just show one ad for this and everyone will be watching!), Henry Winkler (The Fonz, in nearly all of both Season 1 and 2, come on!), Zach Braff (one off, but would have drawn the Scrubs crowds), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Seinfeld devotees do still exist you know?), Ben Stiller (Probably as much drawing power (unfortunately) as Theron), Jack Black (Funny guy + acting skills + always has a movie in release = free publicity = rating), Richard Simmons (If de Rossi wasn't drawing anyone from the 'gay' demographic, this guy certainly will), Martin Short (Any explanation needed? Classic funny man!), Frankie Muniz (Malcom In The Middle was a great show (also killed in Australia by the networks), and those fans will also be drawn), and a fair few more that are famous to fans of certain shows, with proper advertising, exposure and prime time, this would have, guarantee, lock on, price favorite, have pulled massive ratings. It would have gone beyond the mere 14 episode Season 3. It would have gone on for ages. It would have been a money maker for the network, and instead, they bury it. They give it a shoddy time slot, world-wide mind you. Channel 7 over here felt the need to bang this in at smack on midnight Monday. Talk about smart management by the network.

You'd have thought that after the first round of Emmys the show won for Season 1 they would have played up its popularity. And even after Season 2 won the haul of Emmys, again, you'd have thought that the show would have been given more exposure. But no, instead they cut back on the Season 3 episodes and then put it on the back-burner, effectively, six-foot under. The networks have something to answer to when a show like A.D. is being canned and something like Stacked is getting renewed. Yes, that show Stacked: Pamela Anderson's atrocious acting abilities combined with tight fitting shirts and enough cleavage to complete three breast enlargements and still make ten more motherboards for my computer. Fox has to seriously evaluate itself here, in that, sure, they have a few smash hits in 24 (though the past series have shown it is beating a dead horse (with high hopes though for the latest series)), Prison Break and The O.C., but it is wasting any future that A.D. has (or had), with God-awful social commentaries like American Dad.

So, what can you do? Nothing. A.D. is resigned to never show up on T.V. again, bar the DVDs. So if you wanted to know what exactly I was talking about, raving about, in this show, and want to watch a really good, quality comedy that a) doesn't look for cheap laughs because b) there isn't a live audience and c) makes you smarter* because of the high-brow comedy it employs, go pick up Season 1 and 2, watch them, and by the time you're done with that, Season 3 will be released and, after that, you can cry yourself to sleep knowing that crap is playing instead of the great Jason Bateman leading his family into a new and funny life.

Clayton Northcutt.

*No actual scientific backing for this claim, but it's assumed by 90% of the world (no results to support the 90% either)