DC Comics announced a "re-start" of their comics, streamlining into a new set of 52 ongoing series. I've read the first 2 issues of Action Comics (this title was where Superman first appeared in 1938).
The new Superman is interesting, kept most of the old costume, though updated (ie. no red underpants over his blue tights). I like the tone of the new book - Superman is seen as an alien, and the military is interested in figuring out what he's about - they've hired Lex Luthor to investigate. This seems more "realistic" in the sense that a substantially augmented person would likely be seen suspiciously, until they've established a history of "good deeds". The story reads well and is compelling to return to monthly.
Compare this to the horrible job Marvel is doing to revitalize their lines. Massive storylines that seem to damage rather than enhance, the characters and the universe they inhabit. It appears that Marvel is more interested in destroying their links to the past to free up the creators to experiment, than they are to maintain a compelling character/universe that creates a long-term connection to characters. DC seems to be creating such a universe, which bodes well.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Finished (Paper Book) - "Failure is Not an Option" - Gene Kranz
"Failure is not an Option" is an excellent book. It covers the Mercury (one man), Gemini (2-man) and Apollo (3-man) missions from the late 1950's through the early 1970's.
This book, along with being a chronology and history of the manned space program, proved to be an excellent management strategy book, and a must-read for anyone who considers themselves to be a leader, or is in a position where they SHOULD be considering themselves as leaders. In my experience, many "leaders" are micro-managers, who "lead" only for personal gratification. Kranz's book shows what actual leadership is - identifying and training a good team, keeping responsibility and integrity in the forefront of all decisions, focus on the key issue(s) and problem(s) and working/training to make sure that there is full trust in the team when the going gets tough. This means that "obedience" is not a characteristic of wording teams - they are expected to bring up alternatives, to question your decisions, to make sure that their input is heard and integrated. At the end of the day the team decides what to do, and all members, as they are part of the process, believe in the outcome and stand behind decisions, not waste time, energy, focus and trust by second-guessing their teammates.
I remember the first moon mission, and the subsequent missions, though I was young enough to take it as a fact, but not realize how momentous it actually was ("didn't they go to the moon a while ago? Why are they not showing my cartoons?"). Thus, the basics of the stories were known to me, what Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions did, and how they formed steps to the moon. I'll admit that I wasn't born when Apollo 1 burned on the launchpad, and didn't really hear about Apollo 13 in any detail until the Tom Hanks movie.
What astounded me in the book, was how many critical issues and problems had to be dealt with on each mission - failure to solve the problems in real-time with primitive computing power would cause, at best, an abort, and at worst, catastrophic death of the astronauts and/or others if the event happened at launch or soon thereafter. Switch problems, primitive computer coding and other $10 problems become critical when you can't run down to Canadian Tire or Radio Shack to pick up spare parts. The ability of mission control to isolate, understand, and solve these problems with the world watching is incredible - that's why it is such a manual of leadership.
Highly recommended.
This book, along with being a chronology and history of the manned space program, proved to be an excellent management strategy book, and a must-read for anyone who considers themselves to be a leader, or is in a position where they SHOULD be considering themselves as leaders. In my experience, many "leaders" are micro-managers, who "lead" only for personal gratification. Kranz's book shows what actual leadership is - identifying and training a good team, keeping responsibility and integrity in the forefront of all decisions, focus on the key issue(s) and problem(s) and working/training to make sure that there is full trust in the team when the going gets tough. This means that "obedience" is not a characteristic of wording teams - they are expected to bring up alternatives, to question your decisions, to make sure that their input is heard and integrated. At the end of the day the team decides what to do, and all members, as they are part of the process, believe in the outcome and stand behind decisions, not waste time, energy, focus and trust by second-guessing their teammates.
I remember the first moon mission, and the subsequent missions, though I was young enough to take it as a fact, but not realize how momentous it actually was ("didn't they go to the moon a while ago? Why are they not showing my cartoons?"). Thus, the basics of the stories were known to me, what Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions did, and how they formed steps to the moon. I'll admit that I wasn't born when Apollo 1 burned on the launchpad, and didn't really hear about Apollo 13 in any detail until the Tom Hanks movie.
What astounded me in the book, was how many critical issues and problems had to be dealt with on each mission - failure to solve the problems in real-time with primitive computing power would cause, at best, an abort, and at worst, catastrophic death of the astronauts and/or others if the event happened at launch or soon thereafter. Switch problems, primitive computer coding and other $10 problems become critical when you can't run down to Canadian Tire or Radio Shack to pick up spare parts. The ability of mission control to isolate, understand, and solve these problems with the world watching is incredible - that's why it is such a manual of leadership.
Highly recommended.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Finished (Audiobook) - "The House That Ruth Built: A New Stadium, the First Yankees Championship, and the Redemption of 1923" - Robert Weintraub
I liked "The House that Ruth Built" more than I expected. I certainly underestimated the changes undergoing baseball in the early '20's, and didn't appreciate the effect of introducing a faster ball following the "Black Sox" scandal.
The primary antagonists in "The House that Ruth Built" were John McGraw, who was the purveyor of scientific baseball, grinding out bunts, sacrifices, base steals and strong defence, along with plays and pitches choreographed from the manager to make every run a work of art and effort. Ruth exemplified the opposite - a single swing bringing in a run, or more. McGraw considered Ruth to be animalistic and dangerous to the life of the game, the rest of the world considered Ruth a superman and larger than life in all aspects.
I hadn't known of this evolution before reading the book. I also hadn't appreciated what it would have been like for the new Yankees to be sharing the Polo Grounds with the established, and high achieving, NY Giants. McGraw, a part owner of the Giants actually accellerated the creation of "the Yankee Stadium" by greatly increasing the rent charged to the tenant Yankees. However, he also put up roadblocks, by hamstringing the municipal processes necessary to build the stadium, using his close personal contacts and heritage.
I also hadn't realized how revolutionary Yankee Stadium was - the size of the enterprise, the speed of construction, the creation of multi-location food and beverage (though alcohol was prohibited at the time, a prime reason for the stadium was to be a captive audience for the owner's brewery), the thought that went into the ramps and access to seats.
The book contains lots of gritty stories of the time, which makes the odd, out of sequence story telling forgiveable.
The primary antagonists in "The House that Ruth Built" were John McGraw, who was the purveyor of scientific baseball, grinding out bunts, sacrifices, base steals and strong defence, along with plays and pitches choreographed from the manager to make every run a work of art and effort. Ruth exemplified the opposite - a single swing bringing in a run, or more. McGraw considered Ruth to be animalistic and dangerous to the life of the game, the rest of the world considered Ruth a superman and larger than life in all aspects.
I hadn't known of this evolution before reading the book. I also hadn't appreciated what it would have been like for the new Yankees to be sharing the Polo Grounds with the established, and high achieving, NY Giants. McGraw, a part owner of the Giants actually accellerated the creation of "the Yankee Stadium" by greatly increasing the rent charged to the tenant Yankees. However, he also put up roadblocks, by hamstringing the municipal processes necessary to build the stadium, using his close personal contacts and heritage.
I also hadn't realized how revolutionary Yankee Stadium was - the size of the enterprise, the speed of construction, the creation of multi-location food and beverage (though alcohol was prohibited at the time, a prime reason for the stadium was to be a captive audience for the owner's brewery), the thought that went into the ramps and access to seats.
The book contains lots of gritty stories of the time, which makes the odd, out of sequence story telling forgiveable.
Finished (Audiobook) - "Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power" - Robert Dallek
Richard Nixon was the first president I was aware of - he was elected for his first term when I was four, and his second when I was 8. I remember hearing about Watergate on "In the News" a 30-second or 1 minute news brief played during cartoons on the weekend. I was fully an "impeach the bum" at 8, but was very sad when he resigned (I remember watching the wave from the helicopter on his last day in the White House on Ford's inauguration day. I later (when I was early 20's) read RN and a few of Nixon's other books ("Leaders" sticks with me, as he had met, in person, many influential world leaders, showing what his presidency could have been remembered for had events played differently).
"Nixon and Kissinger" provided me with a new perspective on Richard Nixon. I had always assumed (probably because he maintained it through his post-presidency writings) that RN was able to keep the domestic Watergate investigation away from decisions on other events. Using that as a lens, he did remarkable work by opening China and meeting with the Soviets. however, "Nixon and Kissenger" puts on a different lens, where world-altering events were used as a distraction, a way to keep the president in power until Watergate blew over - a much less noble, and much scarier version of history.
I suppose it might be naive to think that it is possible to believe you are being constantly attacked, and be able to "turn it off" and focus on other things. Clinton, apparently had that type of attention control, but lacked impulse control, derailing a historical potential of his administration. I was also shocked by how inactive RN seemed by the end of 73 and into '74, with Kissinger taking on a much larger role that would be considered ethical or reasonable, given the structure of the US governmental system.
I'd still recommend RN, for Richard Nixon's perspective, add in "Leaders" to show "what might have been", along wtih "Nixon and Kissinger" to get a feel for what the "real-time" experience was like.
"Nixon and Kissinger" provided me with a new perspective on Richard Nixon. I had always assumed (probably because he maintained it through his post-presidency writings) that RN was able to keep the domestic Watergate investigation away from decisions on other events. Using that as a lens, he did remarkable work by opening China and meeting with the Soviets. however, "Nixon and Kissenger" puts on a different lens, where world-altering events were used as a distraction, a way to keep the president in power until Watergate blew over - a much less noble, and much scarier version of history.
I suppose it might be naive to think that it is possible to believe you are being constantly attacked, and be able to "turn it off" and focus on other things. Clinton, apparently had that type of attention control, but lacked impulse control, derailing a historical potential of his administration. I was also shocked by how inactive RN seemed by the end of 73 and into '74, with Kissinger taking on a much larger role that would be considered ethical or reasonable, given the structure of the US governmental system.
I'd still recommend RN, for Richard Nixon's perspective, add in "Leaders" to show "what might have been", along wtih "Nixon and Kissinger" to get a feel for what the "real-time" experience was like.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Finished (E-Reader) - "Live from New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live" - Tom Shales and James Andrew Miller
Really liked "Live from New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live" - Tom Shales and James Andrew Miller. I was surprised that the book was virtually all quotes from cast members, writers, producers, guests etc.. It took a little time to get into the format, but it was well worth it.
I had lost touch with the show during the early '80's and picked up again about 5 years later. It's interesting to see what happened during those years, what well known faces were on the show when I wasn't watching. I certainly remember the original cast, and many of the later casts, but don't remember Julia Louis-Dreyfus and that period, though, of course, I remember her from Seinfeld - also didn't know Larry David was involved in SNL.
Lorne Michaels comes across, probably as he'd like to, as an odd combination of genius and difficult parent.
The logistics of the show are amazing - the still-running (at publication time) all nighter writing sessions on Tuesday to meet the read-through on Wednesday is legendary. It's also nice to see how the long-termers evolved, and how the show became a mechanism for young stars to become stars.
I had lost touch with the show during the early '80's and picked up again about 5 years later. It's interesting to see what happened during those years, what well known faces were on the show when I wasn't watching. I certainly remember the original cast, and many of the later casts, but don't remember Julia Louis-Dreyfus and that period, though, of course, I remember her from Seinfeld - also didn't know Larry David was involved in SNL.
Lorne Michaels comes across, probably as he'd like to, as an odd combination of genius and difficult parent.
The logistics of the show are amazing - the still-running (at publication time) all nighter writing sessions on Tuesday to meet the read-through on Wednesday is legendary. It's also nice to see how the long-termers evolved, and how the show became a mechanism for young stars to become stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)