A big thank you to everybody who turned up at our open house to celebrate the official launch of Plain Kate. We hosted a large gathering, including Seanan Forbes who visited from New York, to my parents, to Erin’s Hopeful Writers friends, to Rebecca, who dropped everything and came in from Stratford. Wellwishes were received from Erin’s family long distance (Rosemarie tells me that the book is in the wild in the Midwest).

We had loads of food, and we weren’t able to eat more than a fraction of it. I know what we’re having for dinner tonight. But the highlight among highlights was the cake that Nan Forler put together, which featured the cover of Plain Kate, rendered in icing.

We spent most of today recovering, not doing much, and tomorrow will be spent cleaning, so you know a good time was had by all.

I’ll have more to write about later, but for now, here’s a picture of my two daughters colouring…

In October 2008, I was commissioned by a contractor working for Crabtree Press on a children’s non-fiction book that’s come to be titled Earth’s Secrets. The book is about the aspects of the Earth which we can’t easily see, like the winds that blow the weather, heat pockets, or the pressures in the fault lines deep beneath the Earth. It was part of a string of work-for-hires I was commissioned to do back in 2008 and, for whatever reason, the title was pushed back until now.

By comparison, it is already possible to pre-order Lamborghini, part of Crabtree’s upcoming Supercars Series, that I just handed over to the editor exactly one month ago.

But that’s how these work for hires go, sometimes. They are written on a completely different schedule, and a completely different creative pull than your standard novel. When I was given two months to write Lamborghini from scratch, including designing an outline, that was the most time I’d been given for such a book. I was assigned a subject, and had to research it, quickly.

And, in spite of that, I had to wait two years before publication. Still, I’m quite pleased by this release. It’s another title under my belt, and it was a book I enjoyed putting together. I look forward to seeing what the book actually looks like, once I get it in my hands (for some reason, Amazon hasn’t seen fit to post a cover of Earth’s Secrets).

Tomorrow is going to be a big party at home for the arrival of Plain Kate, and like Erin, I am looking forward to seeing how the book does in the wild. Still, as big as Plain Kate is, it’s interesting how it’s still possible to be proud of a much smaller, lower-profile book, simply because it has my name on it. And the reason for that is because an author’s name is written in blood.

The photo on my left is entitled Blanik Glider, by Frank Kehren. It is used in accordance with his Creative Commons license.

I think most writers — the lucky ones, at least — have a loved one who is a natural editor, be it parent or child or sibling or spouse who isn’t afraid to say exactly what he or she thinks about what the writer has written. That person has a sense of what works and what doesn’t, and is a wealth of ideas on how certain things can be improved. Only the most arrogant writers think that they don’t need to be edited. Those people who can give you advice and still manage to speak to you the next day are a vital asset that must be cherished. Indeed, it’s critical. Your material has a much stronger chance of being accepted by editors if it comes pre-edited.

I’m lucky enough that I don’t have one such individual, I have two: my mother, and my wife. Both are published authors (we are eagerly counting down to the official release date of Erin’s Plain Kate). Both are talented. And both aren’t afraid to tell me when something isn’t working in one of my stories and when something needs to be changed. My mother has long proofread my material, going back from my fan-fiction days, and her advise has always been helpful. My first draft of Icarus Down was no different.

Some of you will recall this bit of advice, which forced me to reconsider a critical aspect of Simon’s character:

The big weakness in the book is Simon (who ought to be your greatest strength)… …You have cast Simon very much as a beta male — he is passive, does not try very hard to hold his own against Isaac, tends to follow Rachel’s lead, chooses a risk-free career, insists on not questioning authority, and does very little thinking for himself. In conversation, his responses often make him seem startled, abashed, or confused. This does not make him a character who engages the reader’s interest or sympathy.

You’ll also remember her suggestion: make Simon a pilot, as he was when I first started the story, instead of a postal clerk.

But Erin had some advice of her own to add. Simply changing Simon back into a pilot wasn’t enough. The first scene didn’t quite snap. And part of it, she thought, may have been due to the ambiguous relationship between Isaac and Simon. They clearly have a long history together, but they’re not related. As a result, Isaac comes off as a bully, and Simon comes off as a wimp by simply accepting his presence. There have been friendships between golden boys and quiet keeners before, but if Isaac irritates Simon, why doesn’t Simon just walk away?

But what if Isaac and Simon were brothers?

You can see the difference in my mother and my wife’s creative styles, here. My mother came up with her suggestion after an extensive review of my full manuscript, considering the character of Simon as a whole and identifying the change that could improve the structure of his character throughout the story. Erin’s idea came more spontaneously, one evening as we were getting ready for bed. Her view was, the difference in Simon and Isaac’s characters was not one that would naturally bring them into conflict with each other, unless they tied closer together by familial bonds.

This meshed several dangling elements in the early part of the novel together. The mystery of Isaac showing up on Simon’s maiden flight deepens, from an attempt by Isaac to recruit Simon to a cause, to a discussion about something that is now a pressing concern for the both of them: their mother’s mysterious death.

Erin went further, and took a stab at revising the first scene. After a bit of back and forth between her and me, we have a completely new opener for Icarus Down, which I’d like to share with you, after the break:

It’s been busy here. A lot of things are going on. Many of them boring things that don’t bear reporting, such as laundry. Many more of them exciting, but which also don’t bear reporting, such as the ins and outs of kid wrangling. And some things worth reporting.

The Waterloo-Wellington Bloggers Association get-together went off without a hitch a week ago today. A few people turned up, but what we didn’t have in quantity, we certainly made up in quality, as we all sat and talked for two hours on a number of subjects, including aspects of social media, pedestrian and transit issues in Waterloo Region, and sparking a ‘none of the above’ revolution. I had a good time, and I’d like to thank everybody who came out. We’ll do this again sometime soon.

Also, on Tuesday, my parents took both kids and I to the Canadian National Exhibition, just as we’d done with Vivian the year before. This was Nora’s first time, and she loved the lot of it, especially the riding of the train to get to and from the event. Though we only stayed for about three hours, making use of just the Food Building and the Kiddie Midway, I think we got our money’s worth. Maybe a couple of years from now, we can actually look at more of the exhibits.

Anyway, I snapped a number of shots on my iPhone camera, and Erin posted them to Flickr. You can see the full set here.

Last, but not least, we are now four days away from the release of Erin’s Plain Kate. Erin’s very nervous about the whole thing, but I think we’ll be fine. She received a starred review in the Quill and Quire, and a lot of good publicity in the United States. And speaking of publicity, Erin has been encouraged to produce a daily video-log, counting down the days, and reading off small sections of the novel, all free on YouTube. Here’s the first one:

Unfortunately, you can’t tell me what you think at the moment, because my webhost (Hostgator) has had to shut down my Movable Type comments, likely to do an over-enthusiastic spambot trying to get past my defences. I’ve currently set up a ticket to resolve this, and normal service should be resuming shortly. I’ll keep you posted.

(Update: 5:31 p.m.): I’m just off the phone with Hostgator’s technical support. We’ve gone through the process of optimizing the databases (I had no idea that this was maintenance that should be done regularly. I haven’t optimized my tables since signing up with them, years ago. Hmm…). We’ll see if this helps. Hopefully, comments will be restored, shortly.

(Update: 6:16 p.m.): The optimization appears to have done the trick, and normal service has resumed. I’ll have to remember to do this more often.

So, what do you think of the new look?

You probably don’t know me from Adam and, strictly speaking, I can’t vote for you, even if I wanted to. So what is a man from Kitchener doing writing this letter to a candidate in the race to be mayor of Toronto? Why do I care about your policies for my old home town?

Though I left Toronto back in 1991, I remain firmly attached to my city. One doesn’t forget the place where one grows up. Also, it is a simple fact that, given the economic weight of Toronto, and given the city’s media presence, I know far more about Toronto city council meetings, much less the Toronto mayoralty race, than I do about local politics here in Waterloo Region. And as prosperous as Waterloo Region is, our economic wellbeing is hampered if the City of Toronto underperforms. It is in my own interest, both in terms about how I feel about the city I grew up in, and how I live in the city I live in now, that the next mayor of Toronto knows how to address the challenges facing Canada’s largest city.

I have complained bitterly about the quality of the candidates as a whole in this mayoralty race. I fear that Smitherman is resting on his laurels as a front runner, has no clear ideas on where to take the city into the future, and has an ascorbic personality that will deepen the dysfunctional nature of Toronto’s city council. I believe many of the candidates in this race have embarked on foolish negative policies simply on the basis that incumbent mayor David Miller used to support them, thus throwing the baby out of the bathwater. And the less said of Rob Ford, the better.

But I have been intrigued by your candidacy. You have interesting ideas about where to take this city, and in spite of your negative take on Transit City, your overall campaign hasn’t been as negative as the others. I appreciate your sentiment that Torontonians shouldn’t wait for the province to fund needed transit improvements, and the idea of selling Toronto Hydro, using the funds to clear out the city’s debt, and using the interest savings from that to fund slow and steady subway development, is workable in theory (though I have my doubts about it in practise). Your performance in the recent mayoralty debate, where you spoke sensibly and pragmatically against Rob Ford’s tirade against Tamil immigration shows me that you think well on your feet, and you try to accommodate and negotiate rather than harangue and confront. Toronto city council could use more of what you offer.

And I can’t help but notice that you’ve attracted a number of people who supported John Tory’s campaign for mayor — my second choice in the 2003 election. While I believe that Mayor Miller has done much good for the city, I’m not confident that Pantalone has the charisma to win this election or to carry Miller’s policies forward. Besides, maybe it’s time for a change? Maybe it’s time for a new way of doing things? So, in this open letter, I’d like to share the concerns I have, and offer suggestions on how to improve your platform.

I am particularly concerned about your public transit policy, and cannot in good conscience support your candidacy until those concerns are addressed. I have long had a strong interest in improved public transportation, both in Toronto and elsewhere. With a group of other Torontonians, I help run the web site Transit Toronto (http://transit.toronto.on.ca/). For the past fourteen years, we have diligently recorded the history of public transportation throughout the Greater Toronto Area. We love the TTC. It was an important part of growing up in the City of Toronto, offering us teenagers the mobility other teenagers could not experience until the purchase or gift of their first automobile.

And while we grew up, we watched the Toronto Transit Commission transform from an envy of North American cities to a beleaguered institution, strapped for cash and embarrassing the city with decrepit vehicles and stations. We saw ridership drop by 25%, and we saw buses and streetcars come less frequently and grow ever more crowded.

And we’ve seen things turn around. We’ve seen vehicles, stations and riders come back. The Toronto Transit Commission now carries more passengers per year than it has ever done in its history. We are all well aware that daunting challenges remain, but we’re very interested in ensuring the agency doesn’t slide back to the state it was in during the mid 1990s.

As a candidate from (apparently) the centre-right, you are campaigning towards a sentiment that the city needs to control its costs, possibly by cutting services, possibly by taking a hard line against the unions backing Toronto’s city workers. Your plan to re-launch slow and steady subway construction aside, I fear that a Rossi mayoralty would reduce transit service throughout the City of Toronto, increasing crowds on buses and streetcars and possibly forcing riders to pay more for that privilege.

But my greatest complaint about your transit platform has been your negative approach to the previous council’s Transit City initiative. This strikes me as both disruptive and fiscally unsound. You have suggested cancelling construction on the Eglinton and Finch West LRTs when both projects have been fully committed to by the province of Ontario, absolving the City of Toronto of its construction costs, here.

You have likened these LRT projects to slow streetcars, but that’s simply not true. With Eglinton proceeding through a tunnel from Black Creek to east of Laird, and on grade-separated right-of-way all the way to Don Mills, the Eglinton LRT here is functionally no different from a full-fledged subway line. Travel times on Eglinton between Laird and Keele drop from 48 minutes to 19 under this plan. At the same time, the LRTs offer the flexibility of coming to the surface, west of Jane and east of Laird, bringing higher order transit service to these parts of the city for a fraction of the cost of new subway construction. This is particularly worthwhile considering that the projected ridership levels of these segments, while more than what a bus could handle, is still low enough that subway stations built on this part of the route could be as deserted as those seen on the woefully underused Sheppard subway line.

It seems ludicrous to me that you would be opposed to these transit improvements, particularly when the province has committed to them, and particularly when they would make the lot of transit riders through these parts of the cities much better. Besides, with the money freed up, in theory, by your sale of Toronto Hydro, you could spend it on transit improvements elsewhere in the city, spreading the improvements wider (such as a Downtown Relief subway line) rather than re-inventing the wheel and redoing something that has already been started (such as an Eglinton subway).

Another concern I have is your platform’s proposals on privatization. I see this as potentially and needlessly antagonizing the people who already work very hard at keeping this city functioning. However, I must point out that I am not outright opposed to privatization; I am just sceptical about it. I am aware that examples exist of privatization producing improvements to certain public services, but I’m also aware of many other examples where the promised savings never materialized, and the public ended up with services that were less responsive or available than before. Privatization is not a panacea. However, I remain open to the possibilities privatization offers.

For instance, take the TTC’s washrooms, please. The TTC maintains washrooms at ten stations. (Kennedy, Warden, Bloor-Yonge, Kipling, Finch, Sheppard, Eglinton, Wilson, Downsview, and Don Mills). All of these stations are within the top twenty list of busiest subway stations on the network, and the washrooms themselves have been a notorious source of complaints (although the situation is improving).

Given the high level of foot traffic of these stations (collectively, at least a half million riders per weekday), then one could think that a franchise such as Tim Hortons, Second Cup or Starbucks might jump at a chance to open up outlets at each of these stations. So why not make a deal with them? Renovate and expand the spaces currently occupied by the washrooms and offer that to these franchises as a place to build one of their shops at a modest rent, on the condition that the businesses keep their washrooms accessible to the public and, most importantly, clean?

Given the high level of foot traffic in the other stations of the top ten that don’t have washrooms (St. George, Union, Dundas, King, Queen) and in the one station that used to offer washroom facilities but no longer does (Islington), one could conceive of this as a way of opening more washrooms on the subway network, increasing the comfort of subway patrons without a significant investment from taxpayers. Then, if you reassign the janitorial staff charged with maintaining current washrooms to other duties elsewhere in the system, you improve the cleanliness of the network, again without increasing costs. It’s a suggestion.

But my greatest concern about the transit policies on your platform is that I don’t know much about them. Beyond slow and steady subway expansion and dissing Transit City, what does your campaign propose to do about crowded buses and streetcars already in operation?

For all the faults of the previous administration, much good was done to public transportation in this city. Most of Toronto is now within 300 metres of a bus, streetcar or subway stop that operates at intervals of thirty minutes or better from 6 in the morning to 1 in the morning next day. This opens up so much of the city to people who cannot easily drive and is an important feature to an accessible, pedestrian friendly city.

If your platform calls for constraining the costs of transit, how does it propose to do it? The Toronto Transit Commission is one of the two most cost-efficient transit agencies in North America. Making back 75% of its operating costs from fares, it receives less government subsidy per capita than even New York City. I cannot see how cutting the TTC’s subsidy means anything less than forcing riders onto progressively more crowded vehicles that arrive less often, if at all, and paying more for the privilege. Unless you intend to campaign hard on getting the province to supply more of the operating costs, or try to find some way of reducing costs internally (I have doubts you will be successful there), I cannot see that a Rossi mayoralty will mean anything but worse transit service for all Torontonians.

So, please address this: can you promise here and now that TTC services won’t be cut? Not a bus, not a streetcar and not a subway car? You are encouraged to explain how you’d do this, but for me, I’d rather pay higher fares for better service than current or lower fares for worse service.

Address this, and I believe you will have filled a gap in your campaign platform, and you will have made yourself a well-rounded candidate, and an excellent prospect to be mayor of a dynamic City of Toronto.

P.S.

If you want another suggestion for an interesting campaign platform that improves on rather than simply destroys the Transit City proposal, consider this: while deriding the Eglinton and Finch West LRTs, you have said that there is nothing you can do about the Sheppard East LRT, now that construction has started. This isn’t exactly true, and an opportunity might exist for you to step in and improve the Transit City plan rather than just destroy it. Although construction has started on the Sheppard East LRT project, it has started on work centred around a railway crossing in Agincourt. The money being spent here benefits not only the Sheppard East LRT, but also GO Transit riders on the Stouffville line. More importantly, given the proposal that exists to extend the Sheppard subway to the Scarborough Town Centre, this is not an area where the subway will go.

Early construction of the Sheppard East LRT heads east from the Agincourt crossing, since Metrolinx is still planning out how to connect the LRT to the Sheppard subway stub line in the west. So, theoretically, there may be time to intervene. Offer Metrolinx Toronto’s debt-freed money towards finishing the Sheppard subway, and let the Sheppard East LRT (paid for by the Ontario government) connect to the line at Kennedy rather than Don Mills.

Then let Metrolinx proceed as planned with the Eglinton LRT, the retrofitting of the Scarborough LRT and the Finch West LRT. These are important services that will improve public transit throughout the city in cost-effective ways. Once the money freed up by the sale of Toronto Hydro pays for the completion of the Sheppard subway, tackle another priority that is currently low on Metrolinx’s list, but high on the minds of Torontonians: the Downtown Relief subway line.

(Update: August 26 at 4:53 p.m.) I’d like to note that Mr. Rossi gave me a classy reply, which I greatly appreciated. Rossi wrote:

@jamesbow Thank you for your thoughtful letter. Your passion for transit is evident and I appreciated reading your views and insight. My campaign appreciates all ideas, and takes them into consideration, on how to improve our great city.

We shall see what we shall see.

Well, who’d have thought that the Australian election would be this interesting?

As a representative of one Commonwealth country to another, who has woken up with their parliament so finely balanced between the various parties as to be basically deadlocked, let me be the first to say “welcome to our world”. As one who has lived with not only minority parliaments over the past six years, but finely balanced minority parliaments, I can say that it’s not the end of the world. The business of the country seems to get along just fine, even if the shenanigans on Parliament Hill grow and grow to become almost a national embarrassment. Frankly, we’re not about to end this minority situation soon, even if an election occurs this fall, like I suspect it will. Just as Labor and the Liberal/Nationals essentially lost this Australian election together, we’re simply not willing to give either of the two largest parties (Liberal or Conservative) the satisfaction of a majority anytime soon.

Reading through the Twitter feed #ausvotes was interesting last night. It’s good to see that many Australians are treating this situation with good humour. But I noticed a few comments complaining about people “informally voting”, and for the life of me I couldn’t understand what they were talking about. I had to look it up before the answer made sense.

“Those who do not wish to vote for any of the available candidates sometimes resort to informal voting—placing a blank or incompletely filled-out ballot in the ballot box. In principle, informal votes are excluded from the election count.

(link)

Hmm… So, this is no different from the Canadian (and American) practise of spoiling one’s ballot. In previous elections, I’ve acted as a deputy returning officer and a poll clerk, so I’ve experienced these first hand. Sometimes accidentally, sometimes deliberately, people fail to mark their ballot properly, and their votes aren’t counted. I’ve had the pleasure of reading out such votes for “You all suck” and “crudely drawn representation of a middle finger” into the official record. These ballots are not counted as part of the final tally, but their numbers are logged (even if the statistics are hard to come by). Canadian voters can even decline their ballot, by showing up at their polling booth, announcing themselves and announcing their intentions. The poll clerk then ticks the voter off the list as having voted, and places the unmarked ballot into the ballot box. It’s counted exactly the same as a spoiled ballot.

Australians are legally compelled to vote. Canadians aren’t. You see the impact of these different policies by the respective turnouts: 95% Australia, 58% Canada. But perhaps since voting Australians no longer have a low voter turnout to complain about, those frustrated at the closeness of the contest, or the fact that the Liberal/Nationals might be a hair’s breadth from toppling the ruling Labor Party, have expressed frustration expressed by those who have “voted informally”. Basically, it’s along the lines of what we hear in Canada: “those who don’t vote don’t get to complain about the politicians we elect”. That sort of thing.

In this election, reflecting the fact that neither Labor nor the Liberal/Nationals electrified the electorate, informal voting was at an all-time high: as many as 1 in 20 spoiled their ballot. However — and this is important — it is their right to do so. Australian law says so, as do the basic principles of democracy.

In a country where voting is compulsory, the refusal to make a choice on the ballot is as clear an expression of “none of the above” as it is possible for one to make without “none of the above” actually being on the ballot. Any attempt to subvert that democratic option renders your country a dictatorship by multiple choice. People who complain about people spoiling their ballot are no different, in my opinion, from supporters of one party calling the supporters of another party “idiots” for expressing their own political opinions. If your party failed to convince enough voters of the merits of its own platform, the fault does not rest with those who decided to express disapproval, the fault rests solely with your own party. It’s not their fault that you’re out of touch with that section of the electorate. Fix the problem yourself, or get over it.

Countries everywhere, not just Australia and Canada, could benefit if the “none of the above” option is placed on the ballot. Whether it has any formal impact, or ends up being counted as akin to a spoiled ballot doesn’t matter, so long as the choice is available and the records are made public. Let’s see what sort of mandate our MPs could have if the “none of the above” vote starts outpacing certain parties on the ballot. In Canada, it could actually lead more people to vote.

Please note that this book review contains spoilers, so if you don’t want to be spoiled, look away, now.

Charlie Fletcher’s middle-grade fantasy Stoneheart is a promising but ultimately frustrating read. There is a lot to like about this book, but it can be a challenge to read, and certain flaws detracted from my enjoyment at the end.

The story starts with a 12 year old boy named George, who’s had a really bad day. He’s one of those kids who are easily picked upon by casual bullies, and his teachers are, at best, complacent. On a trip to the Natural History Museum in London, George gets into trouble for something he didn’t do, and he rebels against his life by storming out of the museum, on his own, and then punching the head of a stone dragon.

But rather than break his hand, George ends up breaking the solid stone instead. And that’s not the weirdest thing that happens. In retaliation for this affront, a stone pterodactyl peels itself off of the wall of the Natural History Museum and stalks George through the busy streets of London, among Londoners who take no notice of a boy running for his life from a vicious statue. It’s only when George desperately takes refuge at the base of a war memorial that his life is saved, when the bronze Gunner steps off his pedestal and dispatches the pterodactyl with three shots of his bronze gun.

George’s troubles have only just started, however. The Gunner explains that George has fallen into an “unLondon”, a parallel version of London overlaid atop of the “real” London where the statues move, and are divided between the spits (statues that retain a definite human form — particularly soldiers on war memorials) and taints (statues of animals or creatures of the imagination, which are jealous of the spits for their resemblance to their human makers). George’s act of rebellion has upset the fragile truce between the taints and the spits and has riled the taints into a murderous rage. George has less than twenty-four hours to find the Stone Heart — possibly a stone at the heart of London — to make amends for what he has done, and return himself to his old world. Fortunately the spits, who have no love for the taints, will help him.

The Gunner and George are also helped by a girl named Edie who, unlike the normal residents of London, can see the statues move and, when seeing George walking with one of them, eagerly rushes forward, thinking that she’ll be alone no longer. But Edie is not like George. She is a ‘glint’, who has a special ability (or possibly a curse) of seeing images of the past (and forcibly broadcasting them to anybody in the area) just from touching particular objects. Despite early friction, George and Edie manage to work together and become friends — which is good, because the array of fearsome statues against them are terrifying to behold. Worse than the taints is a mysterious, cursed man known as the Walker — who wants to take the broken dragon’s head to the Stone Heart for his own benefit — and his mysterious raven companion, which may be a denizen of hell and is impossible to kill. And time is running out.

There is a lot to like about Charlie Fletcher’s Stone Heart. The London he establishes is lovingly crafted and richly detailed, and his depiction of George’s very bad day makes for great reading. The characterizations of all of the principles — particularly Edie — is compelling, and he imbues each and every spit with rich and fascinating personalities. The taints that they face are deeply scary, and the action scenes where the two children face the metal and stone monsters will keep you turning pages (“Grid Man” in particular is a highlight). You will believe that the statues of London will come down off their pedestals and talk to you. All in all, the book makes a good companion for a trip to London of your own, making me want to walk the streets George and Edie ran through, seeing the spits and taints for myself.

There are frustrating elements in Fletcher’s writing style, however. The point of view shifts between the main characters with little warning, and often within scenes, distracting the reader from the story. At points, it’s difficult to understand who is saying what line of dialogue until after the line of dialogue gets spoken. A stronger editorial hand, here, could have greatly improved things.

But it is George’s choice at the end of the novel that I had the greatest problem with, and here spoilers follow. At a superficial level, I can understand why Fletcher decided to have George refuse to put the broken dragon head on the heart stone, and essentially decide to reside permanently in unLondon. Not only does it set up a sequel (Iron Hand and Silvertongue complete the trilogy), but it does keep George and Edie’s friendship going, which is the best thing about the novel. However, I did not feel that enough preparation had been made for George to want to abandon his life in ‘real’ London. Yes, he experienced considerable personal growth in unLondon, and won a friendship from Edie, both of which he’d hate to lose by returning home with no memory of his experience here. But although he has no father and an absent mother, he still has a mother who, despite being self-centred and distracted, is still likely to be alarmed when she discovers her son missing. It struck me as surprisingly callous that he would just abandon her.

Moreover, it’s hinted that George’s actions at the beginning of the book have sparked a war between the spits and the taints, and that the casualties from that war could be quite severe. I’m uncertain whether George placing the broken dragon’s head on the Stoneheart and making amends would stop this war, but if it would, then it is highly irresponsible for George not to do this. Indeed, a good explanation for George’s decision to stay in unLondon would have been if George learnt that, even if he made amends, the war between the spits and the taints would begin regardless. Then George’s choice becomes escaping back to his old life, or staying to finish something that he inadvertently started, taking greater responsibility for his actions rather than the easy way out. Unfortunately, this was an opportunity lost.

Despite all this, I’m still swept along by the world Fletcher has built and the characters he has populated them with. I care strongly about George and Edie’s struggle, and will be cracking the spine on Iron Hand shortly. If you want an imaginative and rollicking good adventure, you could do much worse than taking out Stoneheart for a spin.

Further Reading

• Video: meet the author
• A review from Literature Young Adult Fiction

So, what are you guys doing, this Saturday afternoon, around 4? How about we gather at the Heuther Hotel in uptown Waterloo for some good conversation, good food and good drink?

I’ve posted the formal invitation here. It’s that time of year again when bloggers in Waterloo Region and Wellington County gather to see the faces of the strange, strange people who populate the blogs around them. We’ve run this each year for the past few years, and each time a good time was had by all. This is a multi-partisan gathering that has united Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, Greens and people who don’t give a flying fig about politics around a table, bringing the startling revelation that not much separate us beyond the pixels.

So, once again, if you find yourself near the Heuther Hotel up in Uptown Waterloo this Saturday (the 21st) around 4 p.m., please think about stopping by and sharing a beer. I’ll be there, and I look forward to seeing each and every one of you.

Dr. Dawg brings this story to my attention. The parents of Peter Jaworski were recently slapped with a summons for a bylaw infringement by the municipality of Clarington at the east end of the Greater Toronto Area.

I vaguely know Mr. Jaworski as part of the political blogosphere, though we travel in different circles. An ardent libertarian, he had successfully organized the Liberty Summer Seminar at his parents’ bread and breakfast. This was the ninth time libertarian leaning bloggers and politicians attended the gathering, but the first time somebody complained about it.

Over the weekend of July 25, the LSS celebrated its tenth anniversary with a two-day event on the Orono property. On Sunday afternoon, as the event was wrapping up, a municipal law enforcement official arrived without notice in the car parking area. He quizzed a passing LSS participant about the event, asking him what had been served for lunch, as well as the cost of the registration fee, and the number of port-a-potties available. After a few minutes, the official left without attempting to speak to the Jaworski family.

On August 12th, Marta and Lech Jaworski were each served with a summons to appear in court on the grounds that they had “allowed the use of land in an agricultural zone for a use other than a permitted residential use; namely for a commercial conference centre,” which is contrary to Clarington by-laws.* A first offence carries a maximum penalty of $25,000 upon conviction.

Now, Mr. Jaworski and I may not often agree on matters political, but I can see a bit of a dangerous precedent here. The seminar is a non-profit event, so while attendance was in the dozens, not much separates it from a family reunion, or a gathering of friends and colleagues that I myself might arrange among the Blogging Alliance of Non-Partisan Canadians or the Waterloo-Wellington Bloggers Association. If I asked attendees to chip in to cover the costs of the gathering, would I end up with bylaw enforcement officers coming down on my head? The Jaworskis weren’t brought down by any noise complaints and, according to the story, maintain good relations with their neighbours, and have successfully and without rancour hosted this event for the past nine years. But now the municipality of Clarington is essentially charging the Jaworskis for not hiring space at an approved conference space elsewhere in the city.

Try turning the tables on the Progressive Bloggers annual gathering, and it would be just as wrong. The application of the law here appears either malicious, or thoughtless. Either way, it’s an outrage. Dawg calls it an infringement on the Charter-guaranteed right to freedom of assembly, and I am inclined to agree. And given the traction this story is getting, many others across the political spectrum appear to agree.

The mayor and councillors of Clarington need to take a lighter hand with their residents, if for no other reason than to refrain from handing Peter Jaworski a perfect soapbox on which to speak.

(Update: 9:29 p.m.): Thanks to some digging by Big City Liberal, and an e-mail conversation between him and Peter himself, there may be more to this story than meets the eye. It looks as though there may be a dispute with some unfriendly neighbours happening, here, with some bogus complaints having been phoned into the city in the past. Stay tuned.

For the past few years, now, I’ve been struggling to keep my weight down. As hard as I have to work in order to keep after two toddlers, I still lead a pretty sedentary lifestyle. My attempts to go down to the gym haven’t worked out as well as I’d hoped.

But earlier this week, we happened to be in Canadian Tire when Erin suggested I try out some bikes. Earlier this year, she’d gone down to Ziggy Cycle to get herself fitted for a proper bicycle (replacing a found model that was built for a young teenager), and she’s used it a number of times on her morning commute to do her writing.

I could certainly see the merit of owning a bike of my own. I was tired of hopping into my car and burning gasoline just to pick up a few litres of milk. I wouldn’t have to go very far in order to improve my health and reduce my household costs. So, after looking around and testing a few models, I settled on one that felt comfortable, and bought it on the spot.

It has been eighteen years since I’ve last ridden a bike. They say you never forget how to ride, but what they really mean is that you don’t automatically fall over when you get on a bike for the first time in almost two decades. You still have to re-learn your sense of timing and balance, and you spend far too much time wobbling around, trying to keep control over the thing. So, for the first week, I’ve stuck to the private roads of our townhouse complex.

This is also the first bike I’ve owned with gears: 21 in fact. And they do make a difference. After some practise, I’ve gotten used to changing gears while pedalling, and I haven’t dropped a chain yet (fingers crossed). I still have to learn which are the right gears, however. Downshifting while climbing a hill takes me from pushing a gigantic stone up an incline to something I’d call “imaginary gear”. My legs are pumping, and it’s not very hard at all, but forward progress is so minimal, it’s a struggle to stay upright.

Yesterday, I ventured out of the townhouse complex for the first time, making a run to my local Sobeys to pick up groceries — a run I would usually have made by car, before. It went well. Despite some white knuckle moments resulting from my inexperience, I got to the store okay, and managed to haul back buns, english muffins, cole slaw and a six-pack of soda up the hill to our house. I was quite out of breath at the end, but it was still an eminently achievable run. i expect that as I do this run more often, before the snows come, the ride will come easier, and I’ll be healthier and richer as a result.

Other Images

This was why I was heading to the store. I needed buns and cole-slaw for pulled pork, and here’s the pork. It’s a perfectly slow-roasted tenderloin, smoked with apple-wood on our outdoor cooker. The rub consists of maple syrup, salt, pepper, paprika, chile, rosemary and cinnamon.

And Now For Something Completely Different

I give you: Nora removing raisins from their box:

The above photograph was taken on my iPhone 4.

Yes, I’ve joined the Apple horde. I didn’t line up for an iPhone at launch day, and I didn’t pre-order (I couldn’t, because I was in Lincoln, Nebraska at the time), but I’ve been wanting one of these gadgets for a long time. Yes, the product is somewhat overhyped, and yes, my love of all things Apple may have blinded me to the iPhone’s shortcomings, but it’s two days in, now, and I am still quite happy with my purchase.

A week ago, Tuesday, I went down to my local Bell store and asked if they had any iPhones on hand, knowing the answer beforehand. The clerk stopped just short of rolling her eyes before telling me ‘no’, but she did say I could put down a deposit for one. Which I did. I got a phone call on my cell phone yesterday telling me that its replacement had arrived. After taking the girls down to the Bell store before heading home (they were troopers, although the staff’s willingness to switch the in-store television to something kid-friendly helped immensely), they had me all set up and taking calls.

So, I’ve been told that, as a resident of Waterloo Region, I’ve been a bit of a traitor to the cause (read: RIM). Maybe I should have gotten a Blackberry. But I think RIM’s position is pretty secure, since the Blackberry and the iPhone occupy two similar, but subtly different niches. The Blackberry is more about e-mail and business and security, whereas I wanted an iPhone because it synced with iTunes. The Blackberries and the iPhones have started to converge — looking a heck of a lot like each other in recent days — but this difference will keep them apart, I think, with separate and large client bases. I don’t like writing e-mails on my iPhone. I don’t know how to set up automatic notifications of an e-mail’s arrival, and I’m not guaranteed that the e-mail will be properly encrypted to keep prying eyes away. If I were a businessman, I wouldn’t buy an iPhone.

But I’m not a businessman. I’m a gadget geek, who likes having access to his entire CD collection whilst driving in his car, and likes having the ability of keeping his kids occupied during long and tedious trips with some educational programming. And I like the fact that I don’t have to pack a separate camera, cellphone, or portable DVD player. Anytime the Blackberry can supply these features (plus integration with iTunes), then I’ll be interested.

So, I think RIM will do just fine without me. Besides, this region shouldn’t be putting its eggs all in one basket. Today, in the news, I see that Google is moving its regional operations into a reclaimed industrial building in Kitchener’s downtown core. That’s good news for the region. Google’s Android cellphone certainly has the capability of taking on Apple itself, and things promise to get very interesting here in the Golden Triangle.

More iPhone Portraits

	Nora reads at Chapters.
	Vivian pauses by the Dora Books
	The kids, holding hands.
	Still working out the kinks to this holding hands thing…

Other iPhone Notes

• I seem to be having the signal “death grip” issue that everybody is talking about, but there’s been no dropped calls, yet. I’ve also taken advantage of the free case offer from Apple to help fix this.
• The most fun thing about the iPhone is all of the applications that are available. I’ve already downloaded programs that will tell me when my next bus is to arrive (not available for Waterloo Region yet — get cracking, guys — but will be useful for when i visit Toronto or Guelph), accessing Twitter, and letting people know when I walk into businesses just about anywhere (just because, I guess). I need to ration myself, because this could get quite distracting, not to mention take up space that’s needed for my music collection and any photographs I take.
• The pictures above tell me that the iPhone is the best cellphone camera I’ve ever owned.

I was reading Twitter when I saw the following tweet:

steve_rennie: Green party’s top job not up for grabs (longer version) http://bit.ly/9CedyY #greens #cdnpoli

(link)

My initial reaction was one of disappointment. I had thought that the Green Party executive had made a mistake that would damage the party over the long term.

Four years ago, when Jim Harris was still leader of the party, the Greens had a clause in their constitution that required a full leadership convention to take place every two years or so, forcing incumbent party leaders to run for their jobs again, rather than just face a leadership review.

The Greens marketed this as an example of how the party was different from the mainstream. It was an example of bottom-up democracy, where the so-called elite weren’t protected from the grassroots. It was something I didn’t much think of, but it was something I respected — clearly so, given how disappointed I was to see this go.

When Elizabeth May campaigned for and won the leadership of the Green Party, there were some concerns out there. She had brought with her considerable organizational experience and possibly people from her work with the Sierra Club. She had a far more media savvy personality than the Green Party leaders before her. Her detractors suggested that she was an outside influence taking over the Green Party.

In my opinion, Elizabeth May has proven to be an effective leader for the Greens. Under her tutelage the party has participated in the leadership debates, received more media attention, and posted some of its best results in our previous two elections. However, my first reaction upon reading the tweet was that she was cementing her hold on the party. I would have advised against that. To deflect against the criticism that May was bigger than the party, she should have continued to work with the Green Party constitution as it was when she took over as leader. Possibly entrenching Elizabeth May as Green Party leader would reinforce the notion that the party was all about her. Moreover, it could prevent potential successors from building up their own credibility, making initial bids for the leadership before May’s eventual departure.

But reading this, it goes to show that you shouldn’t take tweets at face value. With only 140 characters available per post, context is often left out. The decision to protect Elizabeth May from a leadership challenge came not from the Green Party executive, but the Green Party membership:

Green party members overwhelmingly approved a motion delaying a leadership review until after the next federal election.

A leadership race must be held every four years under the party’s constitution.

Party leader Elizabeth May’s term ends Aug. 31 and at least one challenger — retired army Lt.-Col. Sylvie Lemieux — had stepped forward.

But 74 per cent of Greens voted for a motion to put off a leadership review until after the next federal election. Any motion that gets more than 60 per cent support before the convention is considered passed.

(link)

I assume that the 74 percent of Greens who voted here represented a substantial chunk of the Green Party membership in total (including those who didn’t vote). If this is the case, the scenario is far less that of a clique moving to protect an elite from the grassroots. Instead, the grassroots appear to have voted to postpone a pretty laborious process until such time when parliament in Ottawa isn’t one sneeze away from falling.

I still think the decision was a mistake in the long term, if only because it prevents potential successors from testing the waters and building their cred ahead of May’s eventual departure, but if it is a mistake, it’s one that the grassroots of the Greens have chosen to make, as is their democratic right. The accountability is theirs, and only time will tell if the decision they took was the right one or not. I can still respect it, and move on.

Finally, I’d like to mention quickly that, thanks to a recommendation from Rebecca, we’ve managed to get our hands on a copy of Steven Moffat’s other television project: an adaptation of Sherlock Holmes called just Sherlock). An adaptation, I hear you say: aren’t these a dime a dozen? Isn’t Robert Downey Jr. now the current definitive Holmes (bzzt! Nope. That record stays with Jeremy Brett, thankyouverymuch). But this one’s different.

Imagine a Sherlock Holmes story that stays as close as humanly possible to the plotline of one of the iconic books (in this case, A Study in Scarlett), but which moves the setting from Victorian London to the present day. Dr. Watson is a retired army doctor who was shot in Afghanistan. Detective Inspector Lestrade calls in Holmes whenever a case gets beyond the abilities of the police to solve. And in modern London, Holmes has to drop the pipe for the nicotine patch, thus forced to contemplate “three patch problems”.

It all lives and dies, of course, on the performance of the stars, and here Moffat has cast well. Benedict Cumberbatch plays a very young Holmes (he and Watson could practically be college buddies) to perfection, putting in all the manic mannerisms and making him mesmerizing. Martin Freeman plays a pretty young Dr. Watson. Hardly a bumbler, he’s an interesting character in his own right, and is the audience’s anchor, sharing our bewilderment as Holmes’ mind leaves his and everyone else’s in the dust. But I was particularly impressed by Rupert Graves’ Lestrade who, if the first episode is anything to go by, may turn out to be an even better friend to Holmes than Watson. Watson spends most of his ninety minutes being bewildered and amazed by Holmes’ intellect. Lestrade has known Holmes for five years, and the novelty has worn off. In its place, there is a yearning there for Holmes to get a hold of himself. Lestrade clearly admires who Holmes is, but fears for the man, which possibly makes him the most human character of the production.

Erin and I just loved the first episode, and finished the ninety minute production well buzzed. Where the heck does Moffat find the time to do this sort of thing? Writing and producing Doctor Who and Sherlock at the same time?

Who fans will find much to like here. Not only is it written and produced by Moffat, Mark Gatiss is a co-creator and stars as someone very familiar to the canon (I won’t spoil it here, as it’s left deliciously ambiguous until the end). There are some moments when I felt a connection between Holmes and Who, and there are moments where Benedict Cumberbatch shares some of the mannerisms of Matt Smith’s Doctor.

This series has just debuted in the United Kingdom (episode three appears tomorrow) and will soon be making it into the United States under Masterpiece’s Mystery, so I highly recommend that you check it out when it comes round. Whether you’re a longtime Holmes aficionado or someone new to the genre, you’ll find much to love, here.

So, it’s after bedtime. Vivian is asleep, but Nora has woken up and is putting up a big fight about being put back to bed. So we let her come downstairs in a bid to tire her out.

We have Doctor Who on. Specifically, we have Steven Moffat’s Flesh and Stone, the second part of his Weeping Angels two-parter from the current season. Normally we don’t allow the children to watch Doctor Who, because we don’t believe that Vivian’s old enough to handle the scary plots. However, our thinking is that Nora is young enough not to really register what’s going on with the television, and besides she’s up when she isn’t supposed to be, and we’re not interested in changing the channel.

So Nora is on our couch when Father Octavian’s Clerics, River Song, Amy and the Doctor jump to the Byzantium and scramble to get inside before the Weeping Angels attack. It’s a tense moment as we see the statues come after them.

And Nora takes one look at the action going on the screen, says “uh, oh!” and immediately puts her pink blanket over her head. She proceeds to sit there, quietly and calmly, like a little pink lump, while Erin and I laugh hysterically.

I have mixed feelings about introducing our daughters to Doctor Who. Nora’s quickly going to reach a stage where she’ll understand enough of things that it might be better to keep her away. Vivian has about three years before I feel comfortable with the idea of her watching an episode. On the other hand, she has recently been asking for us to play the Doctor Who music on the iPod when in the car. What’s more, she provides commentary on the various parts of the soundtrack.

“This is where the Doctor is thinking.” “This is where the Doctor saves the world!” “This is the boring part with the kissing.”

She’s actually built a pretty accurate picture of what Doctor Who is about. I’ve only ever shown her a trailer. She seems to have pieced it together from the music. Which tells me that composer Murray Gold is very good at what he does.

A Quick Question to Stockwell Day

Despite plenty of evidence to suggest that crime in Canada is on the decline, the president of the Treasury Board, Stockwell Day, says that the government needs to spend more money on prisons (which aren’t needed and do little, if anything, to actually prevent crime) because of an alleged (and questionable) rise in “unreported” crime.

A quick question, Mr. Day: how do you intend to fill those prisons if more crimes go unreported? How are police supposed to arrest unreported criminals?

Or, by chance, was the G20 harassment of innocent bystanders a hint of how you’ll approach this question in the future?