WHEEEEE! (OR SHOULD THAT BE, 'WIIIIIIIII'!)

Through a connection made via a friend of a friend, we got a Wii for Christmas.

If you're not a gamer (or you don't have kids), the Wii (pronounced "wee") is Nintendo's new gaming platform. And it is unlike any other game system out there.

It's different because it's three-dimensional. If you play the boxing game (part of a sports package that comes with it), you hold the wireless remote control in one hand and a second wireless control (called the nunchuk) in the other, and you box -- and your body's movements and arm movements cause your alter ego on screen to bob and weave and jab and punch just as you're doing at the same time in three-dimensional space.

The remotes are incredibly sensitive. When bowling, the least twist of the wrist can make a difference between a strike and only a few pins down.

We bought it for the kids because it was the number one item on both their wish lists. It was a huge hit. I have for years labeled Lee's Christmas gifts with hints (for instance, way back when I bought him the Beatles White album on CD, I labeled it "Wishing you a white Christmas"), and a couple of years ago the kids demanded that I start leaving hints for them on their gifts as well.

The kids were totally not expecting to get the Wii. Just a few days before Christmas, one of Cory's best friends told him, "You'll never get a Wii. They're all sold out everywhere." So they really didn't make the connection when they read the label that said, "What should you say when you open this present? "Yippee"? No, that's not quite right. "Whoo-hoo"? No, that's not it, either..."

They opened it, a bit puzzled. Then saw what was inside. Then started to yell "Yes!" "Yay!" "Thank you!" (they sounded like that old video clip of kids opening a Nintendo 64 that's been running on BMW commercials). Then suddenly they realized what the label had said -- and started yelling, "Wheeeeeeeeeee!"

We knew they'd love it. What we didn't realize was that we'd love it too.

The Wii is just incredibly fun. Who knew a video game system would give us family time? But we've spent hours so far bowling, golfing, playing baseball... It's just a kick. And the kids love it that mom and dad will play video games with them.

We realized we were (just a bit) hooked when Lee was disappointed last night that I was going to bed early. "Oh darn," he said. "I was thinking we could play some golf."

Try it! You'll like it!

MOVIE THOUGHTS: THE NATIVITY STORY

This late in The Nativity Story's run, rather than straight-out reviewing it, one has to ask why the movie tanked.

I think it tanked for two major reasons. The first, and most interesting, was actually proposed by Lauri Deason of Act One.

Lauri pointed out that her parents (and dad's a pastor) go to the movies every weekend of the year... except the first three weeks of December. That's because those weekends are packed with pre-Christmas stuff, much of it church-related. The programs. The pageants. The parties. The shopping.

And when did The Nativity Story open? Not Thanksgiving weekend, when people are turning their attention from one holiday to another, but don't yet feel the pre-Christmas pressure and might have time to go to a movie with their families. Not Christmas weekend, when all the 'stuff' is over and the family is together and gee, why don't we all go see that new Christmas movie.

No, it opened the first weekend of December.

So that's one reason it tanked: A foolish release date, based on a lack of understanding of the audience. (As a personal example, let me know that we didn't see the movie till Christmas weekend -- we simply didn't have time!)

The second reason it tanked: It was such a bland movie.

Now, I know some people have taken offense at various elements of the movie. I've read quite a bit from people who really really didn't like the Wise Men being comic relief. I have to say, that didn't bother me in the least. Very little bothered me about the movie. But very little was compelling. And even less was inspiring.

The things that worked for me: I liked the establishment of the world, seeing just how hard people had to work, how they were working all the time. I liked the look of the movie -- it felt very real to me...

And I liked a couple of the performances. Joseph was by far the most interesting character, and as I've never given all that much thought to Joseph, it was a fascinating point of view from which to see the story (though I don't think that's what the filmmakers intended). And I liked Herod. I found him chilling, hitting all the right notes. And cool curled beard.

And I liked the way the composer worked a few lines of Christmas carols into the score here and there. The "Carol of the Bells" echoes while they're looking for a place to stay in Bethlehem I thought worked particularly well.

But the rest of the movie was a snooze. And given the story they're telling, that's sort of criminal.

In particular, I thought Keisha Castle-Hughes's performance as Mary was a high school level performance. Not once did I feel any emotion from her, not once did she seem to have any sense of awe or wonder or fear about what was happening to her. She just seemed mildly peeved most of the time. And not once did I ever believe she was pregnant. I had to stifle an out-loud guffaw when, 9 months along, she popped up from sitting on the ground in a manner no pregnant woman could manage.

I also found the movie extremely shallow, with no understanding of what this story really means, of how it fits into the larger story of redemption. In fact, I found there to be very little sense of redemption at all. This was an event that happened to one couple 2000 years ago, and for some reasons having to do with fulfillment of prophecies that are never made clear (and which, we sense, only primitive people of a bygone era would even care about), a couple of other people find it important. But it certainly has no effect on us, other than as a piece of history or fable or legend.... One certainly got no sense that this story is true.

The movie was also visually lacking. I thought of this again on Christmas Eve. At the end of our church's Christmas Eve service, everyone in the sanctuary lightsand holds a candle, and they turn out all the lights, so that the sanctuary is lit only by candlelight -- it's very beautiful. But this year I noticed that one light was left on, very faintly: The spotlight illuminating the cross at the front of the church. So that even as we sing of Christ's birth, the shadow of the cross is already present. It was haunting.

Well, there was no such haunting moment in The Nativity Story. How easy it would have been to create 'the shadow of the cross' at the moment of His birth. But nothing like that seemed to occur to the filmmakers. Missed opportunities such as this abound through the movie.

One has to hope that the whole thing isn't a missed opportunity. The Nativity Story was ultimately a hurry-up-and-cash-in-on-the-"Passion"-audience effort by a studio (New Line) to make some bucks off the Christian audience. They didn't make all that many bucks (though they certainly didn't spend much in making the movie). So will they write off the audience?

Hard to say at this point... In the meantime, the movie is almost certainly out of the theatres already. But don't worry. You didn't miss much.

COMMENTS

With Squawkbox, the comment box system I've been using, going offline next week, I stand to lose three years worth of comments. (Yes, the upside is as I switch to the new Blogger templates, I should get comment boxes that work consistently.)

But I don't want to lose all your comments. So over the last couple of weeks, I've been going back through every post and cutting-and-pasting the comments over into a word processor, just to save them. (Will I get them back on to the blog? Maybe. No promises.)

When a blogger posts something and no one comments, it often feels as if we're writing into a void. Well, it's clear, and heart-warming, to realize that I have not been writing into a void of any sort!

I've been really touched at how many of you have commented, and what thoughtful and incisive (and often kind) comments you've made over the years. 2006 alone resulted in 134 pages of comments... and half of 2005 (as far as I've gotten) has netted 150 pages so far!

So let me pause to thank you for commenting on this blog -- one of my New Year's resolutions that actually has been more of a blessing to me than I ever expected. I will try to make it easier(!) for you to comment in the future. But for now, thanks. And Happy New Year!

HELP ME OUT?

I'm very excited to have What Will Harry Do? out and available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. And it's been fun to see folks start to write reviews.

But a weird one cropped up yesterday.

A guy(?) calling himself "Kacey" posted a one-star review on Amazon. He clearly had not read the book. What he said was, in essence, "Why should anyone pay for spoilers?"

Okay. Fine. He's entitled to his opinion. Though one has to wonder why he's even clicking around to look at books like this online, if he's so desperate to avoid spoilers. It is, of course, tacky to write a review of something one hasn't read (or, as with a movie, seen).

So I clicked on his profile, thinking maybe I'd send him an e-mail asking why he was "reviewing" books he hadn't read... when I noticed something quite interesting.

"Kacey"'s Amazon profile links to very few people. But one of them is a person who caused immense trouble for Barbara Nicolosi on her blog, by posting all sorts of obscene, blatantly false, and probably libelous posts. She had to ban him from her blog -- and also had to ban him from another message board we're both on, because of his scurrilous behavior.

Is it just a coincidence that this guy's name shows up linked to the guy firebombing my reviews? (Could "Kacey" even be a pseudonym for the same guy? Possible, I suppose. I don't play those games, personally, but I know some do. To be honest, I wouldn't recognize the guy in a room. I've met him, and I know who he is. I've never had any personal interaction with him that I'm aware of.)

Sure, it could be a massive coincidence. But I am just suspicious enough to think it's not coincidental.

So here's my request. If you've read the book already (and especially if you've read it and liked it!), could you click over to the Amazon page (use the link through the book title ablve) and write a review to help counteract his utterly bogus review that's bringing my overall review score way down?

I really don't understand this kind of nastiness. I didn't understand it when it was happening to Barb, and I don't get it now. Why would people go out of their way to be so destructive?

I don't get it. But if you wouldn't mind clicking over, I'd sure appreciate it.

ONE LAST CHRISTMAS POST

We went to Christmas Eve service last night -- Always a mixture of beauty (the music, the message, the people) mixed with a little agony (the fact that we take Grandma with us, and she squirms and fusses and demands attention throughout, and one never knows if she'll hit the guy sitting in front of her with her cane for being too tall -- something she's done before).

This year Sabrina really threw herself into the singing. She sang so loud and clear that people a couple rows ahead were turning around to see what that was back there.

And she knew the words to the carols. Or almost all the words.

She made one little 'goof' that I absolutely loved. While singing "Joy to the World," Sabrina sang "Let every heart prepare His room."

And I loved it. Because when I think of the phrase "prepare Him room," I get a visual image of people shoving over in a pew or on a bleacher to make room for yet one more person to cram in. I know that's not the intention of the line, but that's the image I get.

But "prepare His room" is totally different. With that, I see someone making a special room ready for Jesus to come. Clean sheets on the bed. Flowers on the bedside table. Maybe a chocolate on the pillow. Everything perfect. Everything thought through with love and anticipation.

So Merry Christmas everyone (all 12 days of it!). And let every heart prepare His room!

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS

When the title for Book 7 was announced (I never got the hangman to work, by the way -- anyone else have that problem?), I sort of snickered at all the people clicking on dictionary.com and the like to find a definition of "hallows." "The OED is what we need for this," I murmured to myself, "not some fly-by-night cyberdictionary."

But I hadn't quite gotten around to hauling out my own humungo copy of the Oxford English Dictionary and tracking down where the kids might have put the magnifying glass. So I am very grateful that Felicity has done it for us! Click over for the very best analysis of "deathly hallows" I have yet seen. Good work, Felicity!

Travis has also added a fascinating link to a discussion of the Four Hallows of Arthurian Legend. Click here as well.

As for the speculation that the "Deathly Hallows" refers in some way to Godric's Hollow because the words sound alike... Well, as a former linguist, I can't go with that at all. The phonetic resemblance between "hallow" and "hollow" is a coincidence. And I trust that J.K. Rowling knows enough about the history of words (and the Arthurian legends, for that matter) that Felicity's and Travis's posts are far more on the money.

Now, could the "deathly hallows" (one meaning being the location of the relics of the saints, if you haven't clicked over to Felicity yet) actually be Godric's Hollow, because it's where Harry's personal 'saints' -- his mother and father -- died? Well, Harry must go to Godric's Hollow in Book 7. But because we already know that, it seems "deathly hallows" will refer to something more. When have we ever started a book knowing what the title referred to?

My own thoughts... I don't think we can do more than guess till the book comes out. I think we will see a new location, one we've never seen before. And I think the title is more interesting for thematic echoes than anything else. Book 7 will be about death. And it will be about (in some way) the holy -- or the unholy.

But didn't we already know that?

...Nine more months... At least. (Plenty of time to click over and buy my book, she said shamelessly!)

MOVIE THOUGHTS: THE GOOD GERMAN

So our kids wanted to see Eragon, and having read the reviews (and having not read the book -- yet), we sort of wanted to skip it. And the only movie in the multiplex whose playing times matched Eragon was The Good German. Hey, George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh. It's gotta be worth two hours, right?

Yawn.

Oh, sorry, I seem to have dozed off there for a minute, just thinking about the movie.

So George Clooney is sort of supposed to be Bogart in Casablanca, and a near-unrecognizable Cate Blanchette is supposed to be the Ingrid Bergman character (though she seems to be channeling Marlene Dietrich instead) and she's married to a character named Emil Brandt, whom everyone is trying to find for some unclear reason, and he's clearly the Victor Laszlo character. And Tobey Maguire plays the modern equivalent, best I can tell, to Ugatti.

The parallels to Casablanca continue in specific shots, especially in the final sequence. The reveal of the plane on the tarmac is so exactly the same shot that I heard people whisper "Casablanca!" through the theatre.

But you know, I've seen Casablanca. I've seen it some 15 times or more. And Good German is no Casablanca. Not by a long shot.

The plot is far too complicated and sometimes even undecipherable (though it's possible I may have dozed off in the middle, which could explain that). The performances are okay (though by the third time Clooney got beat up, some of the audience was starting to snicker).

Much has been made of the way Soderbergh used authentic cameras from the period, authentic film stock, etc., in an effort to recreate 1940s black-and-white. And he certainly succeeded on that account. The film really does look as if it came from the period.

But no one would mistake it for a 1940s movie. Not for a second. Why? Because of the writing.

Two huge flaws in the writing.

1) The characters swear a blue streak, with Maguire's character in particular dropping the F-bomb every few seconds. Now maybe Paul Attanasio thought he was being edgy, or maybe he hasn't bothered to look at old movies with the sound turned up in a while, but they just didn't do that in the '40s. Maybe he thought he was making it more authentic (after all, soldiers do swear). But he actually made it less real -- the cinematography was so well-done, so made us believe we were watching an old movie, that the swearing was just jarring -- and not in a good way.

2) When you think of Casablanca, you think of great, enduring lines. "Round up the usual suspects." "Here's looking at you, kid." "I'm shocked -- shocked!..." "We'll always have Paris." And on and on.

But there are no good lines in Good German. Nothing quotable. Nothing fun. Nothing memorable. It's just a yawn from start to finish. I can't even figure out how they could manage to cut a trailer out of this movie, since there are no 'trailer moments' from start to finish.

It's actually a great object lesson, and an arrow pointing to the importance of the writer. You can't 'copy' or 'pay homage' to a great movie just by copying the look of the movie. If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage. (Of course, copying the look, as difficult as it was in this case, and as meticulously as it was done), is much easier than duplicating the level of writing in a script like Casablanca.)

Ultimately, The Good German is a film school exercise, nothing more. If you are fascinated by 1940s cameras, this is the film for you.

If not... well, maybe we should have seen Eragon after all...

WHAT KIND OF CHRISTMAS TREE ARE YOU?

We have an awesome Christmas tree this year. We traditionally go to a choose-and-cut tree lot. We pick out a tree, then while I stand in line to pay, Lee and the kids play 'Marco Polo' in and out of the trees. We go early, usually around Thanksgiving, to choose the tree, then come back a couple weeks later to have it cut and take it home.

Well, that's what we tried to do this year. But when we got to our tree's location... it was gone. Someone had cut down our tree by mistake.

Turns out the tree lot reserves a bunch of trees in every category in anticipation of just such mistakes. They apologized -- and upgraded us. Boy, did they upgrade us! The tree we drove home (with much trepidation on my part, as I watched the top of it bouncing up and down in the rear view mirror) was a good 3' taller than the one we bought, and absolutely magnificent. It belongs in a mall, not in a home.

But we're not fools. They offered, we said yes.

It took 3 days to decorate and a ladder to reach the higher branches. But the one thing we don't have on it, despite the quiz below, is cranberry and/or popcorn. In fact, I have never strung either in my life... Hmm. Maybe I'd better start.

You Are a Cranberry and Popcorn Strung Tree

Christmas is all about showcasing your creative talents. From cookies to nicely wrapped presents, your unique creations impress everyone.

What Christmas Tree Are You?

JUST (BARELY) IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS!

What Will Harry Do? The Unofficial Guide to Payoffs and Possibilities in Book 7 is now available on the major online booksellers -- Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and the like.

Click here to get your copy at Amazon... or here to get it on Barnes & Noble.

Of course, you can still get it at a discount here. (Unless you're in a rush, don't accept the default shipping option -- there are cheaper options in the menu.)

And if you've already read it -- Well, click on over to any of these spots and post a review!

Merry Christmas, all!

THANKS FOR READING!

This is my favorite time of the year to get mail, as it probably is for most people. I actually love getting all the pre-printed newsletters (especially if they're well-written). I like seeing pictures of people's kids.

And this year I've started getting little notes from people from my past remarking, "I've been reading your blog."

And that just tickles me pink. What a kick it is to know I'm still connected to some of these people who've meant so much to me in the past, even if I don't know they're eavesdropping, as it were, on my life.

I know some people will just never leave comments on a blog. And I know my comment boxes have been all screwy for the last several months. (I'm going to switch over to the new beta version of Blogger over the holidays, which hopefully will solve the comment problem.)

But even if people don't leave comments, it's cool to know we're still in touch.

So thanks for reading, all you folks who will soon be getting my Christmas newsletter with the pictures of my kids. I'm glad we're in touch more than once a year, even if I don't know about it at the time!

WHAT KIND OF ORNAMENT ARE YOU?

Well, given that we are about to put the angel treetop ornament on our tree, I suppose this is somewhat appropriate....

You Are an Angel

A truly giving soul, you understand the spirit of Christmas.

What Christmas Ornament Are You?

NEWS FLASH! CHRISTIANS HAVE AN EFFECT ON HOLLYWOOD!

For those of us on the front lines, or more realistically, a few rows back from the front lines, in Hollywood, we always have to wonder: Are we, as Christians, having an effect on (a) the people around us and (b) the corporate culture of Hollywood?

Well, I got a partial answer a few days ago.

I was speaking to someone (not a believer) who is making a movie for a company with substantial public ties to the Christian world (but making totally mainstream movies). I asked what it was like dealing with the company.

"Well," he responded, "they're totally dysfunctional."

But before I could jump in and comment, he hastened to add, "That's not fair. All of them are dysfunctional. These folks are actually a bit better to deal with. They're dysfunctional, yes, but at least they're not evil."

...Whoa.

So here we have a partial answer to the question: Are Christians having an effect on Hollywood? Yes. We are. And it's a positive effect.

Because we may be dysfunctional, but at least we're not evil!

And in this town, apparently that's saying a lot.

MOVIE THOUGHTS: HAPPY FEET

Happy Feet was one of our most anticipated movies of the fall/winter. We loved the trailers, even though we couldn't tell much about the movie. "It's about penguins that sing and dance," my kids informed me. Well, duh.

And when we saw it last week (it's taken me that long to marshall my thoughts, and they're still sort of confused), we saw exactly that movie. Lots of fun. Joy. Music and dancing.

But we saw another movie as well. One that wasn't advertised in the trailers at all. One that turned into a progagandistic near-rant on how humans are despoiling the earth. (Not a message that offends me... but I would have liked to have expected it.)

We saw (SPOILERS!) a movie about a penguin on the run for his life. About a penguin captured by humans and put in a zoo portrayed as an inhuman prison. About a penguin forced to wear a tracking device. A movie that scared or upset some kids in the theatre (drawn in by that alluring advertising that promised them a movie they would love).

I enjoyed the movie, for the most part. (Especially the motion capture and the singing, John and Edie!) But I found myself wishing I'd know what movie I was going to.

I feel pretty sure Happy Feet will win the animation Oscar this year (beating out the perennial favorite, Pixar, for this summer's Cars). And technically it deserves it for the seamless and breathtaking blending of live action backgrounds with animated footage, for the thousands of feathers on each penguin, etc.

I realize I'm not giving you my thoughts on the movie, but more my thoughts on the advertising. But for me, unfortunately, the deceptive advertising colored my whole experience of the movie, left me walking out of the theatre puzzled rather than joyous.

I commented on something similar a few months ago with NBC's hit Heroes. The summer marketing had my kids jumping up and down with glee. Who knew there would be (largely implied) soft porn and bodies shown hacked to bits. The audience sure didn't, based on the ads. (Now don't get me wrong -- I love the show. But my kids don't watch it. And they shouldn't have been tempted to.)

Is it that the lure of the family audience is so great at the moment that advertisers will do anything to get them in? Did George Miller of Happy Feet even know what the ad campaign was going to look like?

I liked the movie. But had I not been misled as to the genre of movie I was going to, I might have really loved it.

For my money, Over the Hedge and Hoodwinked are still the most fun animated movies of the year...

WHAT CHRISTMAS MOVIE ARE YOU?

Yes, I know it's not officially Advent until Sunday, but I sort of like it that we have this extra week between Thanksgiving and Christmas this year... lets me slide into the season rather than feeling slammed that I'm already behind.

As for the movie choice here... Well, White Christmas is actually the movie we always watch every year, but we're also huge fans of the George C. Scott version of A Christmas Carol. I don't know if it's on DVD, but we have an old laser disc of it, and we love it.

So I'll take this as sort of a cross between the two.

And God bless us, everyone!

Your Christmas is Most Like: The Muppet Christmas Carol

You tend to reflect on Christmas past, present, and future... And you also do a little singing.

What Movie Is Your Christmas Most Like?

FOUND

Well, Sabrina did a lot of crying, but turns out she also did some praying. In between tears, she closed herself up in her room, knelt down at the foot of her bed, and prayed for God to keep kittie Leia safe and bring her home.

And after we had walked the neighborhood multiple times, with Lee knocking on every door (most people didn't open their doors but spoke through them... it's that kind of neighborhood, unfortunately), the kids went to bed.

Almost immediately after that, Lee heard meowing. Outside.

He went out to look, and who did he find, shivering and petrified, hiding in the garage, but Leia, home from her walk on the wild side.

I wish I had a picture of the joy on both kids' faces. Sabrina was ecstatic. Cory did his "happy dance."

One would hope Leia had learned her lesson. But no. While she's quite clingy, she still spends an inordinate amount of time in the window, straining outside, looking for something to kill.

I guess us prodigals never learn...

But we are grateful to have her home, smelling funny apparently (according to her brother Luke, who couldn't stop sniffing her for a full day), but safe and sound.

Thanks to God for restoring what was lost.

LOST

One of our big Christmas presents to the kids last year was our lovely little kittens, Luke and Leia. They turned one-year-old last month. Luke is the gentler one, Leia the born killer who stalked birds and lizards through the window and killed every bug she could get her claws on. The place we adopted them from asked that we guarantee they remain indoor kitties, and so they have never been outside.

Until today.

Lee stupidly shut a door to the outside last night without checking to make sure it was latched. It was a windy day, and the door blew open. At about 1:30, our pool guys, doing their job in the back yard, noticed Leia running back and forth by the back fence. We arrived home from a meeting about 20 minutes later... and she was gone.

We have walked the neighborhood calling her name. We have printed a hundred flyers, which Lee is distributing door to door right now. We have prayed for her safe return. We have left doors open (with Luke safely locked up). We have left food accessible.

But we have not found her. And we live in the hills. The same hills where coyotes live... Many, many years ago, when we first moved into the hills (different house, different cat), we were warned, "If your cat is still out at sunset, drop everything and find him. Because if you don't, you will never see your cat again."

It's well after sunset. We haven't found her. We doubt she could even find her way home, given her lack of experience with the outside world.

Sabrina has spent much of the evening crying. So has Luke, wailing his "Where's my sister?" wail (the one she never responds to) from behind his locked door.

It's one thing to go after a lost sheep. But a lost cat is much harder to find... And pretty soon I will start crying, too.

FUNNY WORDS

I get sent a lot of funny word-related e-mails from various folks, but here's one I actually hadn't seen before.

Evidently the Washington Post has an annual contest in which readers are asked to redefine common words. The winners from whatever year this was were...

coffee, n. the person upon whom one coughs.

flabbergasted, adj. appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.

abdicate, v. to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

esplanade, v. to attempt an explanation while drunk.

willy-nilly, adj. impotent.

negligent, adj. absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.

lymph, v. to walk with a lisp.

gargoyle, n. olive-flavored mouthwash.

flatulence, n. emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.

balderdash, n. a rapidly receding hairline.

rectitude, n. the formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.

pokemon, n. a Rastafarian proctologist.

oyster, n. a person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms.

Frisbeetarianism, n. the belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.

circumvent, n. an opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men.

...Hope these were all new to you too!

HAPPY THANKS GIVING

As I've said before around this time of the year...

Many years ago I started a small spiritual discipline that doesn't take much time, but it tells me oh so much about the state of my heart.

At (more or less) the beginning of every month, I sit down and make a list of 50 things I'm grateful for from that last month. My list goes back well over 12 years, back to before Cory was born. (I have "thank you's" listed from when he was still 'inside,' referring to him as Attila because of his remarkable beating-up-on-mom abilities.)

I've had one or two whole years where I simply abandoned the discipline, and had to pick it up again. I can always tell how I'm doing spiritually by whether I look forward to it at the beginning of each month, or dread it.

So here are some "thank you" thoughts from last December through to this month, chosen at random in reverse chronological order.

And with that, I wish you all a very happy Thanksgiving.

1. Our new manager Jon
2. Sabrina's birthday party
3. Sabrina getting a good part in the church Advent musical
4. Cory's easy and cool Halloween costume (identity crisis)
5. The parents' breakfast at the Harvard-Westlake school
6. Cracking the story on "Pompeii"
7. Gregg helping me prep for my interview at USC
8. Encouragement from our headmistress re middle school applications
9. Coffee with our old friend Rick
10. Getting Sabrina's sewing machine working again
11. Cory not getting badly burned by the dry ice at a dance party
12. Sabrina memorizing all her memory verses plus extras at Family Camp
13. People saying Cory and his friend Max should cut a CD of their Family Camp songs.
14. Ice on a hot day
15. Our friend Andrea's new script
16. Re-reading "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" to the family
17. Our friend Kitty saying she's praying "thank you" for us, not "please"
18. Cory getting off the wait list for summer camp
19. Sabrina getting a spot at summer camp
20. People blown away by Sabrina singing at the school talent show
21. Writers group BBQ at our friends Nancy and Bob's house
22. Getting a sizeable residual check
23. Swimming on a hot day
24. Co-Girl Scout leader Kate's hard work on our backyard campout
25. Grandma's caregiver back from the Philippines
26. People praying for us
27. The "American Idol" finale
28. Hanging out w/ the kids w/ no agenda
29. Confidence that God will come through for us
30. Making the kids' travel scrapbooks
31. Cory's wit
32. Fasting for Lent
33. Being almost done writing "Shakespeare's Curse"
34. The 'Da Vinci Code' "othercott"
35. Finishing the pitching workship for Act One
36. Our friend Marion
37. Sleep
38. Rain
39. Our Oscar party
40. Lee doing great story work on "Shakespeare's Curse"
41. "Dancing with the Stars"
42. Sabrina buying me a silver bracelet in Mexico
43. Grandma's long term care insurance
44. Adopting our new kitties Luke and Leia
45. Sabrina being such a huggy and kissy girl
46. Playing the 20 Questions handheld game in the car
47. Christmas
48. Singing the Hallelujah Chorus at church with Sabrina
49. Magnificent sunset at our Christmas party
50. The "Narnia" movie doing so well at the box office

Happy Thanksgiving, all!

WHAT KIND OF PIE ARE YOU?

I'm happy to be apple pie, I guess, but could we at least make it French apple?

Personally, while I love pumpkin, we have always found that chocolate silk pie is what goes over best at Thanksgiving. Unexpected, I suppose. Apple, we have leftovers. But never chocolate silk...

And by the way, why pie for Thanksgiving? Why not cake? Anyone know?

You Are Apple Pie

You're the perfect combo of comforting and traditional Those who like you crave security

What Kind of Pie Are You?

THE "CHRISTMAS WARS"?

I was very glad to read a news report last week that Wal-Mart has decided to celebrate Christmas again this year, rather than the anemic "holidays." Under pressure from upset patrons, they will again use the greeting "Merry Christmas" instead of the generic "Happy Holidays."

Now, I don't object to the use of "the holiday(s)" to refer to the general time, or to the kids' vacation period... as in, "What are you doing for the holidays?" Because there are other other holidays going on, Hanukkah (big at my kids' school with its sizeable Jewish population) and New Years...

But the idea that we must avoid the word "Christmas" for fear of offending people, when the vast majority of people in this country celebrate Christmas in one form or another is simply ludicrous. (We went to a New Year's party last year at the home of some Jewish/Buddhist friends -- and they had a Christmas tree up.)

We definitely celebrate Christmas, not "the holidays." Our party is labeled as a Christmas party, we send Christmas cards, etc.

So I was quite surprised at a little throwaway remark of Sabrina's the other day.

I keep the Christmas cards I receive for a year or so. It just seems so heartless to throw them away when cleaning up after the holidays. They sit in a little pile in a cabinet in my office. But every year or two, I weed through those old cards and dump the ones I no longer care to keep. That extra time makes it easy to decide what few I do want to save.

A few days ago, one of the cats managed to wedge himself into that cabinet and came out trailing Christmas cards all over the floor. Sabrina noticed and said, "Mom, why do you have holiday cards on the floor?"

"Holiday" cards? From my own daughter? In my own house?

I know it's not even Thanksgiving yet, but maybe I'll break out the Christmas CDs a bit early this year...

HELP ME SPREAD THE WORD...

I'm trying to get the word out about my book, WHAT WILL HARRY DO? The Unofficial Guide to Payoffs and Possibilities in Book 7, which you can buy here.

But I'm pretty close to running through my own contacts in the Harry Potter webiverse. If anyone out there has thoughts on how I can get it posted on other appropriate blogs or websites or message boards, please let me know how I can follow up. After all, Christmas is coming!

(And thanks to those of you like Travis and Beth and Barb who did so before I could even ask!)

Thanks, everyone!

THE "DEBATE" OVER MIDDLE SCHOOL

We are in the middle of Middle School applications and interviews for Cory. Applications, you say? Interviews, you say? For Middle School?

Sigh. Yes. That's sort of what it means to live in the L.A. school district and care about your kids' education. Complicated by the fact that, if you start in private schools, transferring over to public schools and actually landing in a place you wouldn't be frightened of is close to impossible.

So we're writing the essays and visiting the campuses and prepping for the entrance exam... I fully believe that applying to college will be a breeze compared to this process.

One of the schools we wanted to consider was a highly-regarded Christian high school. It's not near us, but we assumed there would be a bus, as most of these private schools tend to offer bus service to most general areas. We checked it out this weekend.

The place was beautiful, by far the most outstanding campus we'd seen. The teachers were clearly caring and dedicated. We liked them immensely. The students we met were bright and kind and excited about their school. I felt this would be a very happy place to go to middle school and high school.

But we're not going to apply.

Part of it is certainly the distance. At current gas prices, it would cost us over $100 a week in gas, not to mention the time. (There is no bus -- all the buses run away from Los Angeles, not toward us... symbolic of the greater issue.)

Part of it was the relatively low academic standards for admission. The other schools we're applying to require scores of 7 to 9 (on a scale of 9) for admission. This school wants 4s and 5s to get in. Hm. Now, I don't think that means Christians are stupider. I think it just means that, because they restrict their student body according to religious belief, they have to cast their net wider in terms of academic achievement.

But the final straw for us was the attitude that popped up from time to time. Talking to other prospective parents at the open house, we heard comments about how they had "made a conscious choice to remove themselves from the culture" of Los Angeles. That certainly threw us off step. We've made a conscious choice to engage the culture of Los Angeles, of Hollywood, and as a consequence, of the world. Would we end up, as a family, out of step at a school where we should feel at home?

Apparently so. Because, keeping our own feelings out of it, when we asked Cory how he would feel about going to a school where everyone shared his beliefs (expecting him to say he thought it would be cool), he got thoughtful. Then he said he didn't think he'd like it that much, "Because where's the debate? I like debate!"

We were proud of him. At 12 years old, already he's got a taste for engaging the culture. Good for him.

So, with some surprise, we are withdrawing our application to the one major Christian high school around. Cory could have gotten in without even trying there (they want 4s and 5s? he gets 8s and 9s on those tests). It would have been a guaranteed fallback choice, at the very least. But we're going to walk the middle school tightrope without a net.

Because all those other highly-academic, hard-to-get-into private schools are just the right place for a kid who likes debate. And if Christian students don't go to those schools, that's a side of the debate which will never be heard there.

When next March comes and we're waiting for fat letters or skinny letters in the mail, we may be desperately hoping we'd kept the safety net in place. (We haven't got the connections or the big bucks to make any of these high-end schools a lock. All we've got is a really, really smart kid who loves to learn and does well on standardized tests.)

But no safety net for us. Off we go, to engage the culture, starting at middle school and working up. "Where's the debate?" indeed....

MOVIE THOUGHTS: FLUSHED AWAY

I have never understood the attraction of keeping rats as pets, so really wouldn't be keen to see something like Flushed Away were it not for two things: (a) It comes from Aardman Animation of Wallace and Gromit fame and (b) My kids insisted.

But I'm really glad I saw this movie. Not because it rocked my world or because it broke new ground in movie-making. Just because I really, really laughed. A lot.

The story is basic animation fare: An "uptown" rat (living in a gilded cage -- literally -- in Kensington Gardens) ends up down with those messy sewer rats, gets involved in an adventure with one of them (involving a stolen 'ruby' and an insidious plan to flood the sewers -- but really, it hardly matters), and falls in love with a girl from the wrong side of the tracks... um, drain.

Half the charm of this movie is in the performances -- Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Ian McKellen as the most dastardly of villains, Bill Nighy, Andy Serkus... All perfectly performed.

The other half of the charm is in the visuals. How can you not love a movie where a cockroach is discovered reading Kafka's "Metamorphosis" -- in French, no less! And even though this is a computer-animated movie, the characters keep the distinctive Aardman look that we all know from W&G, which feels very right somehow.

It's not a movie that will stay with you a long time. But if you need to laugh (and these days, that's a lot of us), then you could do far worse. This is a funny movie. Go see it instead of seeing Borat for the third time.

THANKSGIVING QUIZ OF THE WEEK

Well, this one came out perfectly! The stuffing is my favorite part of Thanksgiving, to make and to eat. I have a marvelous recipe which I fiddle a bit with every year. A cornbread base, with cranberries, figs, sausage, pecans... I can't wait!

You Are The Stuffing

You're complicated and complex, yet all your pieces fit together. People miss you if you're gone - but they're not sure why.

What Part of Thanksgiving Are You?

Hurry, take the quiz before you start cooking (or before you get on the plane)...

MOVIE THOUGHTS: THE QUEEN

When I first heard The Queen announced, my first thought was, "Well, it's a good thing Helen Mirren is already Dame Helen Mirren, because after this, she'd never be knighted!" In our post-modern, hyper-cynical age, my assumption was that any take on Queen Elizabeth II would be a negative one.

After seeing the movie, I'm not sure my initial assumption was correct. QEII could possibly appreciate this movie a lot -- or hate it a lot, of course. We'll never know. And that's part of the point.

The Queen is a fascinating, push-in-the-camera-as-close-as-you-can-and-see-all-the-blemishes look behind the scenes at Buckingham Palace during the week Princess Diana died. It's "Upstairs, Downstairs," if you will, with the "upstairs" being the royals and "downstairs" being Tony Blair, the brand new PM.

In making The Queen, Stephen Frears chose very very well in picking that one week to focus on. Too often these incredibly intimate movies tend to be about nothing, and that's what would have happened had they chosen any other week. We sense that from seeing the Palace's attempts to keep going forward as if nothing of consequence has happened in Diana's death. And we see, in their actions, the sheer boredom of the royal life at most times. As we tell our writing students, something has to happen for your movie to be worth watching.

Well, something did happen that week. And can we blame Elizabeth for being a big blind-sided by the truly immense reaction to Diana's death? Weren't we all surprised to learn we felt so deeply about the Princess? I sure was, and when it happened, I was surrounded by people who were equally surprised. I was at the Telluride Film Festival, in my condo, getting ready to go to a party, channel-surfing on the TV, when I heard the words "Diana's death" coming from a news channel. I kept surfing -- then froze. How many "Dianas" were there whom a news person would call by first name? ...Everything seemed to freeze as well at the Film Festival. Parties ended early, people just drank and talked about the death and watched the news. And all were surprised at their own reactions.

The following week, our pastor got an enormous amount of flack for preaching about Diana's death (as well as Mother Teresa's). I wondered at that: Why shouldn't he preach about something that had so emotionally rocked so many in the world? ...And I began to think through: Why did her death matter so deeply to so many? I believe it's because we all have in us an innate longing to see royalty set aside its crown and come down among the people. Think of the many fairy tales wrapped around that concept. This longing is, of course, a reflection of our longing to see the King, who did indeed leave His throne to become an ordinary person. In our democratic age and place, we wouldn't recognize this longing if we saw it -- but it sprang to life in Diana's death.

Back to the movie... Because it focuses on a week we all remember, the movie has to get it right. And it does. The intercutting of the news footage with the movie footage is flawlessly done (including roughing up some movie footage to make it look physically like the news footage, which helps the blend immensely). We are allowed to revisit the emotionality of that week while looking at the pure lack of understanding within the royal family, where only Charles seems to have any emotional reaction to his ex-wife's death. (Frears wisely keeps the young Princes offscreen.)

As for Ms. Mirren, well, just go ahead and mark your Oscar ballots now. Her performance is perfection. And it's a difficult performance, as this is a performance where none of the emotion can come out, where we have to understand what a character is feeling and thinking with no hints given. Masterful.

The Queen is one of those small films that seems to be about so little yet gives us so much: An understanding of the place of the monarchy, a questioning of why royalty matters, a look into a private world that comes off as non-voyeuristic (when it could have been very much so). And ultimately, a sympathy toward and understanding of the very visible yet very private Queen of England.

An excellent movie without a single false note. Don't miss it, especially if you love great acting.

MY SO-CALLED LIFE

It's official. I have no life.

At least no social life. Or not much. Or so it would seem.

I was chatting with a school mom the other day, and we were, as moms do, playing the "I have no life" game, talking about how all our time is tied up w/ our kids or various obligations. And I began to wonder: Is that true?

So, just for the heck of it (and because I really like making lists), I went through my calendar for the year, and just looked at all the "events" marked down on it. Since I work at home, this basically amounts to the times I had to actually put on presentable clothes and leave the house. I subtracted out time spent on what we might call "maintenance." You know, doctors, dentists, haircuts (and kids' doctors, dentists, haircuts...) And of course, I do leave the house to run errands, but that doesn't count either. I'm talking things that would end up on a calendar.

And I learned that my life may or may not be quite out of balance, depending on your point of view.

46% of my "away-from-home" time is spent on volunteer work. About half of that is entertainment-industry related (mostly for Act One and the Alliance of Women Directors. A good chunk of that is teaching, but less than you'd think. Of the other half of my volunteer work, 2/3 of it is related to my kids -- I'm a Girl Scout leader and a room mom, and do other volunteer work at their school, too. And the final 1/3 is volunteering up at our church. I've probably spent in the neighboorhood of 500 hours on volunteer work this year so far.

But of course, kids require more time than just volunteering for their various involvements, and another 16% of my "away-from-home" time is spent attending their activities: football games, birthday parties, playdates, school presentations, etc.

11% of my "away-from-home" activities were work-related meetings of various sorts. That number is much lower than it should be; in part because we were holed up at our computers writing for the first few months of the year, and in part because our agents were derelict in their duties.

10% of my "away-from-home" activites were church-related that had nothing to do with Sunday morning or volunteering.

Leaving a mere 17% in the "other" category. Now, it'd be nice to think that all of that was pure fun. And a lot of it was: We've thrown about 10 parties of various sorts this year (though some overlap with other categories, for instance, we hosted a barbecue for Act One, we hosted a pool party for Cory's church youth group, we hosted a backyard campout for the Girl Scouts, etc.).

Also included here were our 2 trips out of town: 4 days in Baja California with our writers group in February, and our church's Family Camp in August. Also included here are the meetings of our writers group itself, which I can't quite categorize as "work" (even though it sort of is) or "church" (even though it sort of is) or "social" (even though it sort of is).

So when I try to figure out how much of a purely "social" life I have... 6% of my activities of this year could be classified as 'social.' By which I mean coffee or lunch or the movies with friends. Or an invitation to a party that doesn't have a "purpose." And only one evening out, in the whole year, with Lee with no kids, no obligations, no place we "had" to be. (But remember, because we work together, we're together all day, and we can go to the movies, etc., during the daytime.)

Now, I don't regret (most of) how I spend my time. I'd rather spend time on volunteer work than on partying, for the most part. But I do look at those numbers (rather compulsively gathered, I admit) and wonder if I should be having more fun. Or would that just be too selfish? I really don't know. Maybe I should start thinking this over to get ready for next year's New Year's Resolutions.

At any rate, the next time I'm in one of the perenniel "I have no life" conversations with a bunch of school moms, I will certainly know whereof I speak!

"WHAT WILL HARRY DO?"... THE COVER...

Just thought you might like to see the cover of my new book, "What Will Harry Do?" -- the better to motivate you to buy a copy here!

"WHAT WILL HARRY DO?"

Yes, folks, at long last, my book: "What Will Harry Do? The Unofficial Guide to Payoffs and Possibilities in Book 7" is published and ready for purchase!

It should be available on Amazon and other online retailers soon, but right now, you can purchase your very own copy here. You can see the snazzy cover art there too -- I haven't quite figured out how to post it here, but will do so asap.

Every Harry Potter fan should have it. And can you even think of a better Christmas present for your Harry Potter fan friends?

Click on over to get your own copy. And while you're there, feel free to make a comment or leave a review. (Hmmm... I guess you'd have to buy it and read it first for that, huh? Well, easy to do by clicking here!)

Let me know what you think.....

RETROACTIVE PRAYER

Thank you to those who posted comments below, praying for our script going out. (Three passes-but-we-love-you-let's-talk, so far. Still waiting to hear otherwise.)

I smiled at the several people who said they'd pray "retroactively." Smiled especially at the use of that specific phrase.

When I was a freshman in college, I had a prayer partner with whom I met 3 days a week, every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Believe me, you get some very specific prayer in when you're meeting that often, and we were very faithful about it.

And then the summer came. I took an apartment with some girlfriends by the beach, and my prayer partner headed home to northern California for the summer. In a pre-cell phone era, when "long distance" was still a phrase with some meaning (and cost), we certainly weren't going to call to pray together.

So we decided to send postcards. We bought stacks of the pre-stamped ones from the post office, and sent them faithfully with prayer requests to each other every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

Now of course, if I sent a postcard on Monday, saying "Please pray about my job interview tomorrow," there was no way my prayer partner was going to get it in time to pray for it. But we decided, just as people posted below, that because God was outside time, it was still a good idea to pray about things that had already happened but where we didn't know the answer.

God, being outside time, would be able to factor those prayers into the whole scheme of things, we reasoned. After all, through most of history, people couldn't even communicate with the speed of a postcard, much less a phone call (or an e-mail or a text message) and they still managed to pray for each other across time and distance. So we decided we would pray for things that had already happened.

And we called it "retroactive prayer."

So that's why I smiled when I read the same phrase in the comboxes. I do appreciate your retroactive prayers, and I also appreciated the chance to remember the person I was way back when, studiously reasoning out how this new-to-me God stuff worked.

THE VERY LAST MOMENT FOR THIS QUIZ

Given my oft-expressed-in-previous-years feelings about Halloween, I don't think there's any way I'd end up with a smiley face pumpkin....

You Are

A Distressed Pumpkin Face You would make a good pumpkin pickle.

What's Your Pumpkin Face?

IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND...

We have a script going out to production companies and studios tomorrow. About ten different people will be reading it... then hopefully their bosses... then hopefully their bosses.

Best case scenario, someone wants to buy it. Next best case scenario, everyone who reads it wants to meet with us and talk about other projects.

I don't usually write about my own career here (it's just not that interesting). But a spec script going out is a special case. So if anyone reading wouldn't mind sending up a prayer or two. (A prayer for favor. A prayer for a sale for mondo bucks. Whatever you feel comfortable with.)

Thank you very much. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.

WHAT KIND OF CANDY ARE YOU?

This week's quiz is in honor of the granddaddy of all candy-related holidays, Halloween...

Though doesn't it seem as if all holidays are now becoming candy holidays? Easter, Valentine's Day, even Mother's Day (and my kids make a pretty good case for St. Patrick's Day). When did that happen?

At any rate, this particular quiz pinpointed me exactly. My favorite candy, ever since I was a kid. Some things never change.

Reeses Peanut Butter Cups

Very popular, one of you is not enough.

What Kind of Candy Are You?

What kind of candy are you? Let us know before the 31st!

TV THOUGHTS: DEAL OR NO DEAL

Lee and I are giving the keynote talk today for the Cinema Studies Conference sponsored by the Los Angeles Film Studies Center, which is itself sponsored by the Christian Colleges Coalition, on "The Role of the Moral Hero." Maybe I'll post some of that (not-quite-finished-but-hey-we-have-5-hours-still) talk here later.

But as we discussed what to say, we ended up talking a bit about Deal or No Deal.

Now, DOND has all the feel of the early days of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire -- the kind of show that gets a massive tune-in for a short time, then the ratings dissipate and it fades away or goes to syndication. Maybe I'm wrong, and it'll stick around for a while. It could, because it has the right ingredients.

What are those ingredients? Well, following the late Prof. Brian Stonehill of the Claremont Colleges, we teach our students that the elements of a successful story are "heart, smarts and sparkle." DOND has the opportunity for smarts if one wants to take advantage of it: Trying to outguess the Banker. What will he offer this time? What are the odds of winning? At what point does it make financial sense to take the deal? Some of us who don't use the math centers of our brain much get a chance to work them out here.

And it certainly has sparkle. The set itself is incredibly well-designed; staying tuned last week to the premiere of 1 vs. 100, the second show was almost unwatchable because its set was so boring to look at after DOND. Howie Mandel (whom I will always think of as Dr. Fiscus from St. Elsewhere) is absolutely compelling, and runs the show with a wicked charm that's incredibly watchable. And oh yeah, there are those 26 lovely, always smiling "ladies" in their short, tight dresses. Perhaps that might add a little "sparkle" for some viewers (all I know is, Lee is always in the room when they enter the set. Hmm.).

DOND is a little short on heart. I think it's interesting that they've been adding that in their choice of contestants. More and more, the contestants seem to be "themed," so that the show can make offers that tug on the heartstrings. The woman last week who was a major Jets fan, and had offered the ultimate Jets package (season tickets, meet the team, and more, plus about $100K) -- Would she give up a temptation specially designed for her just to keep earning her daughter's college education?

But what Lee and I found interesting was the fact that every week (actually, 3 times a week), the audience gets to watch a little morality play. The show isn't about gambling, because the contestants aren't playing with their own money. No matter what, even if they walk away with $10, they end up with more than they came in with. No, the show is really a test of personal integrity and character.

How greedy are you? How easily manipulated are you? Will you listen to the crowd screaming "No deal" -- or to your daffy husband/wife/best friend screaming "no deal" -- when logic says you should hit the button and take the deal? Do you have the courage to say yes to something good rather than holding out for a fantasy that, odds are, will never happen? Do you give in to temptation when Howie becomes the voice of the devil, saying "But you could have the $1,000,000 in your case," even though you know the odds of that are astronomically low?

I think that's the appeal of the show, which, face it, is otherwise pretty lame as a game show (I mean, the contestants don't have to know a thing, they just guess their way through it all). It's the Garden of Eden, three hours a week, with pretty ladies thrown in for good measure. It's a chance for us to test our own levels of greed, of manipulability, of susceptibility to temptation.

All in the guise of a dumb game show. Who knew?

THIS IS SO ABSOLUTELY WRONG...

I love easy Halloween costumes. Last year, Cory wore a blue shirt covered with cotton balls and carried a squirt bottle of water around -- he was "Partly cloudy, chance of rain." This year, he is covering himself with "Hello My Name Is" name tags with a different name written on each one, and going as an identity crisis. (The 99 cent costume. Gotta love it.)

Sabrina is a bit more complicated this year. She is velcroing toy cars all over herself and going as something really scary: the 405 Freeway. (Okay, you have to live in L.A. to fully appreciate that one.)

I doubt I'll ever have need of a Halloween costume again. Somewhere in a box I have the pieces of my old can-can dancer costume, which I suppose I could squeeze into if I had to. But in the meantime, all I know is that this quiz came out so very wrong.....

Your Haloween Costume Should Be

Elvis

What Should You Be For Halloween?

How about you?

GIVING UP ON STUDIO 60

I'm genuinely sorry to say that I think I've watched my last episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.

I wanted to like it. As I said in my initial review, I love many of these actors, and I'm a big fan of Aaron Sorkin's writing in general, especially his dialogue. I don't think I missed an episode of The West Wing, and I was a huge Sports Night fan.

But they lost me completely and totally in the opening teaser last night.

No, it wasn't a remark about "crazy Chrstians" or the like. Actually, I've found the "Christian" storyline rather ham-fisted not particularly realistic, and not very interesting. It hasn't bothered me at all the way it's bothered others.

What lost me was a speech by the character played by Christine Lahti, apparently a "real" news reporter assigned to write a story on the show-within-a-show. On and on she went about how IMPORTANT Studio 60 is. And when the Matthew Perry character demurs, trying to say, hey it's just a TV show, she didn't shrug and say, "Yeah, you're right." No, instead, the speechifying continued: This show is IMPORTANT!!!!! And by implication, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is also IMPORTANT!

Sorry. But it's just a TV show. Yes, pop culture is important, sociologically, spiritually. But any one TV show -- especially a show purporting to clone SNL, which was so over a couple of decades ago -- is just not IMPORTANT in and of itself.

I truly hate to say it, as I really am a fan. But I think Sorkin needs to get over himself.

At any rate, that one speech lost me, one of his biggest fans. I won't be weighing in on future discussions of "the" Christian character in prime time... because I won't be there.

Let me know if anything happens, okay?

TV THOUGHTS: HEROES

This was our family's most highly anticipated new show of the year. The incessant promos over the summer really drew us in. We couldn't wait.

And now, three episodes in, I'm not really sure if I hate the show or love it.

The concept, if you haven't seen it, is that people all over the world are newly discovering superpowers of one sort or another, pretty much simultaneously. And they've come up with some interesting characters and some interesting superpowers.

There's the cheerleader who can't be hurt (burns heal, bones snap back into place, etc.). There's the Japanese comic book geek who has managed to bend the space-time continuum, rolling the clock backwards and teleporting from place to place (without much control so far). There's the pair of brothers, one a politician, the other a loser, who can fly -- but the politician needs to keep it all secret. There's the down-on-her-luck single mom in Vegas who has a violent and vengeful doppleganger who lives in a mirror. There's the well-meaning cop who can read thoughts. There's the artist who finds himself painting scenes from the future -- both as fine art (which he then finds mirrored in front page photographs) and as comic books (which tell the story of the Japanese comic book geek). There's the son of the Indian professor who was tracking all these phenomena.

And to drive everything forward, there's the still-shrouded-in-some-mystery villain who is trying to track them all down and presumably stop them. And he happens to be the dad of the cheerleader (who's adopted, by the way, so maybe he could take her down without much compunction).

It's all a great character design, and the show works incredibly well on a "What happens next?" level.

But.

First, I have some serious problems with how this show was promoted. Our kids really wanted to see it. And based on the promos, we let them see the pilot. Oops. Mistake. The pilot contained what bordered on soft porn (the Vegas girl doing phone/video sex to pay off her debts to the Mob) -- Cory actually ended up putting his hands in front of his face and saying "Mom, I don't think this is appropriate."

At first we thought, well, we'll fast forward through the inappropriate scenes. But by episode two, when we were dealing with cut up bodies in the trunk of a car, it was clear that this show was not going to be appropriate for kids in any way, shape or form. So why did they market it in a way that (older) kids would be so attracted? Frankly, this should be a 10:00 show, not a 9:00 show.

My other problem is the unevenness of the show. Some of the character storylines are just not that interesting (the two brothers, for instance, and even the professor's son tracking the "heroes"). Because there are so many characters, you don't have to wait long to have someone you care about show up onscreen, but it would be nice to even things out a bit. Not by dumbing down the storylines that really work, but by bringing the weak ones up to the level of the top storyline--

Which is, without a doubt, the story of Hiro (ha ha), the Japanese comic book geek. So very wonderfully played by Masi Oka, with a level of pure joy and exuberance rarely seen on TV. I could frankly bail on all the other characters, but he's worth coming back to week after week, just to see what happens to him.

Maybe we should just cut together Hiro's scenes for the kids -- all appropriate, all paying off the implied promise of the promos, and all wonderful.

Bottom line: An adults-only show worth watching -- at least for a while. But if they can't develop the "What happens next" intensity of Lost, they may not hold on to the extremely healthy ratings they've enjoyed so far.

THE BOOK IS ALMOST HERE

I received the proof copy for What Will Harry Do?: The Unofficial Guide to Payoffs and Possibilities in Book 7 today. That, if you just started visiting this blog, is the cleaned-up, prettied-up book version of all the set-ups and payoffs posts about Harry Potter that first appeared here. (But just 'cause you read them here doesn't mean you don't have to buy the book!)

I have a lot of proofing to do -- I don't like the margins, so that'll be a significant change. And of course, there's the page by page read-through to do. And I realized I forgot a spoiler warning -- probably pretty necessary!

But, oh, does it look pretty! (Thanks to the stunning cover designed by Joseph Rubio. Thank you, Joseph!)

Should be available in a matter of weeks. Keep tuned!

THOUGHTS ON A PLANE CRASH

I listen to the news often while driving around, and today was a big errand/driving day. So I was listening to the news of the plane crashing into the condo building in New York City for quite a while.

A few thoughts...

1) How in the world does a pilot crash into a building by accident? (Pete, if you're reading this, maybe you can elucidate us. Use language we can understand, please.)

2) Most of the L.A. coverage consisted of them basically feeding us the live feed from WCBS in New York City. I was very impressed with the coverage. No extraneous chitchat, no speculation as to what "might" have happened, just straightforward reporting of facts in the clearest and most concise possible manner. Quite a difference from the "happy chat" and personal interjections that invade even the 'hardest' of L.A. news. (It was odd to listen to the NYC traffic reports though, and hear reports on bridges and tunnels rather than freeways.)

3) Do you think a plane crash in NYC would ever have been covered in L.A. minute-to-minute, live, without even breaking for commercials, before 9/11/01? I certainly don't. A major incident, sure, but a local one, not one that merits wall-to-wall coverage 3000 miles away. And any other kind of plane crash, even in New York (say, a plane that crashed into the Hudson River), probably wouldn't have gotten such coverage. But things are different now.

...Remember the days when we could hear of a plane crashing into a building and not immediately think about terrorism?... Remember...?

HOW MUCH IS YOUR LIFE WORTH?

Gee, I would have thought the answer would be somewhere around $.16.

Your Life Is Worth...

$225,500

How Much Is Your Life Worth?

How 'bout you? (If the comboxes are deigning to work...)

AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US

For me, as for many, the stunning point about the massacre inside the Amish schoolhouse a few days ago was not that it occurred -- though the location certainly did feel like something you'd only find in a movie.

It was the reaction of the Amish community to the murder of their children.

Their immediate response -- not one that had to be summoned up as the "right" thing to say -- was to forgive the murderer.

Huh?

Yeah, I mean, I know Jesus says we're supposed to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, yada yada. But when was the last time you actually saw someone do that? And we're in a battle, right? We're soldiers! Soldiers don't forgive! They decimate whatever stands in their way, right? ...Right?...

The stories about the Amish choice to forgive -- including this by Terry Mattingly and this from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- ripped at my heart.

I was glad because the world was seeing truly Christian behavior modeled before them. No hypocrisy, no "do what I say, not what I do." Just unimaginable, mysterious, makes-no-sense love.

And I was sad because I know that I couldn't respond that way. I was raised by parents who devoted much of their emotional energy to holding grudges -- grudges against people who had wronged them 20, 40, 60 years previously... even grudges against people they'd never met. The mere concept of forgiveness was a completely unknown quanity in my house.

But now, thanks to the Amish, I have a very real and present image before of what forgiveness really looks like, even in this fallen world. And millions of other people have that image as well.

And that, even more than the thought of those horribly murdered little girls, makes me want to cry.

TV THOUGHTS: STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP

I like to catch two or three episodes of a show before weighing in, so I realize I'm voicing my thoughts a little later than everyone else on Studio 60. Maybe that's not a bad thing.

Oddly enough, Studio 60 made me think of Bay City Blues. You may not remember BCB -- it was an extraordinarily short-lived show in the '80s about a baseball team.

Why would Studio 60 remind me of Bay City Blues?

Here's the thing. Way back when, Stephen Bochco summed up Hill Street Blues this way: "Life is hell, but we're cops." In other words, the show is about people who can at least try to make a difference. Bochco explored the same theme with NYPD Blue, and many of his other shows were variations on a theme: L.A. Law ("Life is hell, but we're lawyers"). Even Commander in Chief ("Life is hell, but I'm the President.") And of course, there have been tons of "Life is hell but we're doctors" shows through the years too.

But "Life is hell and we're baseball players" just didn't work. Imagine that.

Well, Studio 60 has much the same fundamental flaw. There's really nothing at stake if these characters succeed or fail. All they're doing is putting on a TV show. The fate of the free world is not an issue here ("Life is hell but we work for the President of the United States" -- yeah, that works).

So all we're left with is a soap opera -- a clever, very well-cast soap. But that's fundamentally the primary source for the episodes' storylines: the conflict between the characters.

Except structurally, Studio 60 is presented as a procedural show -- think CSI or Law and Order. The weekly "case" for Studio 60 is not a murder, it's an episode of late night TV. Will the show get on the air?!! Unfortunately, the lack of stakes pops up again. Justice is not served if our characters meet their goals. Lives are not saved if our characters meet their goals. No, all that's at stake is whether the fictional audience of the fictional show-within-a-show was pleasantly diverted for 90 fictional minutes.

Ultimately, nothing happens by the end of every episode. The show will go on. The main characters will all keep their jobs. So we have no incentive to stay tuned to see what happens next -- something that reality shows have mastered beautifully (Who gets voted off? Who doesn't finish the race?).

"Let's put on a show!" can get old fast. Can Aaron Sorkin sustain it for 24 hours? Maybe. He's an awfully clever writer, he's designed his characters well, the show is quite watchable. But I can't believe anyone else could have sold this show, because anyone else would have had to answer the question: How do we get to 100 episodes?

The show is well-cast and well-acted. I like seeing Brad Whitford on the small screen, ditto with Matt Perry, Amanda Peet, Steven Weber. Heck, I even like the bald guy whose name I can't remember but who was hilarious on the short-lived It's, Like, You Know. (I can't figure out why they're wasting Tim Busfield, though. And what is Weber's character's job title, anyway?)

But there are problems. I think it's a problem that Amanda Peet appears to be the funniest person on the show -- and she plays the network exec. The people who are supposed to be funny largely aren't. The show-within-the-show looks pretty lame. Not as lame as SNL has become. But lame.

And then there's the "Christian" non-controversy. Ooooh, a Christian character in prime time! Ooooh, the show-within-the-show is doing a sketch called "Crazy Christians."

Sorry, but I can't get too worked up about any of this. Yes, he put a Christian character on his show (Harriet, played by Sarah Paulson). Good for him. He hasn't written her particularly well, however. She gets the Christian jargon wrong often. She seems to totally define herself by her religious stance, which is totally unrealistic for any Christian in Hollywood. But it's a start, and there are interesting places the character could go -- whether Sorkin realizes what those are I'm not so sure.

Why did he create this character? Was it to have a convenient means to slam Christians? I actually don't think so. I think he's trying to write her right -- he just doesn't know how.

I think he created the character of Harriet for two reasons: (a) He deep-down-inside knows his show is about nothing, and he needs to create conflict by any means possible. And throwing a Christian into Hollywood certainly feels like the ultimate fish-out-of-water, with conflict ready made. (b) He dated Kristen Chenowyth, a Christian, while she was working on West Wing, and clearly she got under his skin in some ways. I trust she has some thick skin, because I'm guessing we'll see elements of their true-life relationship played out in the Harriet-Matt relationship.

And I think that's pretty much it. A Christian character, in this venue, is interesting. It allows for controversy, both fictional and real -- and a show like this needs controversy to find something to write about week after week (witness how quickly the show resorted to the 8-year-old DUI mug shot story surrounding Amanda Peet's character -- the kind of storyline that feels like a 3rd or 4th season "What-story-haven't-we-done-yet?" episode. Yet they trudged it out in the 3rd episode).

Of course we'll never see the "Crazy Christians" sketch. It only exists to provoke enough controversy to get people to tune in (and maybe to see if Christians would foolishly take the bait and protest in real life a sketch that never existed -- and we all know there are Christians gullible enough to do just that). The "patriotism" issue brought up in the 3rd episode (with no payoff, by the way -- sloppy plotting) is the same thing -- It's an effort to make the show feel edgy, relevant, important... and at the same time, an effort to get people to tune in by courting non-existent controversy (and probably also just a little bit of a West Wing hangover for Sorkin).

People who are all incensed about the show need to take a deep breath and see if they're incensed about something that's actually on the air, or something they think might be on the air. And then change the channel, if need be.

I think many people will change the channel over the upcoming episodes. Not because they're offended, but because ultimately, nothing is happening. That's a problem endemic to a "backstage" show. What that means is, in any behind-the-scenes show we have to enjoy the ride, because it's not really going anywhere.

I enjoy the ride. I've always been a fan of Sorkin's dialogue, and I love some of these actors. So I'll stick with the show, for this season at least.

But it's no Sports Night.

WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?

I actually started off doing a "How Much Do You Weigh?" quiz which was astonishingly accurate -- only one pound off! -- and that's without asking any height questions. But no way am I going to post that here or anywhere else!

So instead here is a question I'm sure my kids have wondered about me many times...

You Are From Saturn

You're steady, organizes, and determined to achieve your dreams. You tend to play it conservative, going by the rules (at least the practical ones). You'll likely reach the top. And when you do, you'll be honorable and responsible. Focus on happiness. Don't let your goals distract you from fun! Don't be too set in your ways, and you'll be more of a success than you ever dreamed of.

What Planet Are You From?

How 'bout you?

A VEGGIE UPDATE

As many of you are aware, Veggie Tales has hit NBC over the past few weeks with very good ratings, but with most of the "God-stuff" cut out. How did this happen? Why did someone agree to it?

Well, in the past couple of days, Phil Vischer, creator of Veggie Tales, has blogged about just those questions. With the furor flying, it's good to read the whole story.

Also fascinating -- and heartbreaking -- is Phil's 11-part story of The Fall of Big Idea Productions. Beautifully written and painful to read, it's a cautionary tale that wades right into the clash between art and business that frustrates us all. Click over when you have some time...

WHAT COOKIE ARE YOU?

It's certainly true that I often feel as if I have a foot in two separate and conflicting worlds (Hollywood vs. the church... writing vs. teaching... fun mom vs. mean mom), and am pulled between them.

Right now I feel oddly pulled toward the kitchen... How 'bout you, what cookie are you?

You Are a Black and White Cookie

You're often conflicted in life, and you feel pulled in two opposite directions. When you're good, you're sweet as sugar. And when you're bad, you're wicked!

What Kind of Cookie Are You?

REALITY CHECK

Maybe the reason I end up watching so much reality TV (compared to scripted TV) is because it's less work. When I watch scripted TV, I find myself rewriting in my head, or replotting, or making a mental note of something that was done especially well. When I watch reality TV, I can turn that part of my brain off and just watch like everyone else.

Excuses aside, I thought I'd just weigh in here on the beginnings of a couple of this season's reality shows.

Survivor

Or should that be, "Survivor: The Racist Season"? That's at least what some would have us believe. Or should it be "Survivor: The Naked Ploy for Ratings"? (Probably more accurate...)

If you haven't been watching (or reading about it), this season's Survivor consists of 4 teams, 5 members each, divided by race: Asian, black, Hispanic, white. A "social experiment," we are to believe. This experiment, apparently, will show us what happens when people of the same race are put together in the same environment -- because of course in real life, we're all perfectly integrated and people of the same race never hang together.

Is it working? Depends on what you mean. The smaller size of the teams isn't really working, if you ask me. Each team feels like the endgame because it's so small, yet we don't know the people well enough to be at that point. And when one team threw an immunity challenge to get rid of one member this week, the import of their action on such a small team seemed particularly idiotic. (But was it? At Tribal Council, said member, whose name I simply don't remember, professed undying love for a member of another team whom he's never even talked to -- a little too weird to be around for 39 days, perhaps...)

As for the racism issues... Well, one of the lessons we always repeat to ourselves with regards to our own writing is, "Keep your characters in the same room." In other words, you can't have conflict between characters if the characters have no chance to interact. In the same way, the potential of conflict along racial lines has been effectively removed from Survivor so far this season (though the Asian team has already started dividing along nationalistic lines). Does that give us a more "pure" Survivor, where the conflicts are based purely on personality? Or a more tame one, when we were promised more edgy?

It sort of doesn't matter. With teams of 5 (two teams now down to 4), a merge has to be coming sooner rather than later. And then we'll be back to the status quo, all promotional gimmicks over.

Dancing With the Stars

Just this week I had to teach a shortened version of our class on "The Spiritual Needs of the Audience," and I had to miss Dancing With the Stars to do it. As I started the first spiritual need -- the Need for Beauty -- I realized why I was missing the show so much: It so meets the need for beauty.

I just love this show, if only for the way it makes me smile. And I love the way our whole family flocks to watch together. And the way Lee gets up to show Sabrina how to waltz during commercials. Yes, it feels like a flashback to 1950s tv -- but I unashamedly love this show. (Clearly I'm not alone, given that it was no. 1 last week -- which still sort of astonishes me.)

Right now I'm a Joey Lawrence fan, with Emmitt Smith close behind. Emmitt is just so smooth and light on his feet -- you can tell he's not even thinking about what his feet are doing, which is one of the marks of a good dancer in my book (I hate it when I can see them counting their beats mentally). Mario lost it a little for me this week with the showboating, but his first week was so strong. Jerry Springer is giving us a lesson on how to behave when you're publicly put in a situation where you're not playing to your strengths -- he's playing the bad cards he was dealt beautifully (with Harry Hamlin close behind on that score).

Why haven't I mentioned any of the women? Well, somehow they're just not that interesting this year. Sara the country singer is too embarrassed by her own body. Willa (I don't even know who she is in real life) is terrific, but clearly has no fan base whatsoever. Monique and Vivica Fox both did well, but haven't shown the personality I'd like to see, falling back on rather cliche sexiness instead (and same for Willa, who has better moves if worse scores).

But I'll be happy to change my vote, as the contestants work hard and continue to amaze. All I can say is, I won't be missing an episode. Somehow this is a TV show that just purely makes me happy every week. I turn off the TV smiling. And how many shows can you say that about?

THAT INVISIBILITY CLOAK THING

I don't know why I wasn't that interested in J.K. Rowling's post regarding the "NAQ" (never-asked question) about Harry's invisibility cloak.

Here's the NAQ:

...Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility cloak at the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could make himself invisible without a cloak?

Prior to posting this I had a quick look on-line, and realised that some fans have been speculating about this question. However, nobody has ever asked me about it, and they really should have done...

It seems to me there are only two possibilities: Either James felt the cloak wasn't safe with him (the least likely possibility -- I would think one would be much more concerned with keeping other things safe, like, say, one's infant son), or Dumbledore needed it for someone else's use.

Who could that person have been? Well, almost anyone in the Order of the Phoenix. Given that Dumbledore knew, thanks to the Prophecy, that either Harry or Neville could be in danger from Voldemort at any time, I wouldn't be surprised to learn someone was posted to stand watch under an invisibility cloak in Godric's Hollow. After all, we saw the same tactic used with Mundungus standing watch (poorly) at 4, Privet Drive. Presumably the person standing guard would be the person (one of the people?) who was present for Voldemort's attack on the Potters.

We'd all come up with the same list. Pettigrew, Snape -- really, anyone from the Order is probably eligible to be on that list. The list gets narrowed down a bit when one realizes that Dumbledore had to get the cloak back somehow -- Pettigrew, for instance, wouldn't have been in a position to return it.

There is much more to say -- and much is said at Beth Priest's well-thought-through blog. I just can't seem to get my mind spinning around the whole issue -- I have no idea why. Do I subconsciously think that Rowling is trying to distract us by misdirecting us? Am I just too wrapped up in my own stuff at the moment? Not sure...

But while I can't come up with my own thoughts for whatever reason, I'd love to hear yours...

VEGGIE TALES: SELL-OUT? OR SELL-NOT?

Many people have opined on what's happened with Veggie Tales now appearing on NBC Saturday mornings. The basics: Apparently at the last minute, NBC demanded an edit of the Veggie Tales episodes to appear, excising references to God, including the standard Veggie Tales tagline, "God made you special, and He loves you very much."

What to do in such a situation? Do you take the stand of Rack, Shack and Benny, and refuse to bow down to the chocolate bunny? Or do you make the cuts as demanded in order to get on the air?

Veggie Tales chose to make the cuts. Immediately some people branded them as having sold out. You can read Phil Vischer's response to their upset fans, if you're interested.

Personally, not knowing anything at all about how the deal went down, my guess is that we're looking at naivete more than selling out. Phil Vischer has never shown much of a head for business, having had his big dreams dashed for lack of an adequate business plan. My guess (purely speculation, I repeat) is that he saw a chance to play in the big leagues again and didn't read his contract well enough. The time to stand up and refuse was when going line-by-line through a contract that certainly gave NBC the right to edit... not at the time when the edits were demanded. So either someone was naive ("Oh, they have the right to edit, but they'll never use it") or sloppy ("Go ahead and sign, it looks okay to me").

But I actually became concerned about the Veggie-Tales-on-NBC issue from a different angle.

A couple of weeks ago, I was driving, with my radio on to a local Christian radio station, KFSH 95.9 FM. And the morning drive time jocks announced that Veggie Tales was going to be on Saturday mornings. Lots of "how cool," etc. And then Bobby Shaw, the guy DJ, said this:

"Tivo them, burn them to DVD, and you'll never have to buy them again!"

My jaw dropped. I had just heard a Christian encourage illegal activity on the public airwaves.

Now, I know that the stats show that Christians steal music online as much as non-believers do. But it's one thing to hear those stats and another to hear someone giving permission to hundreds, maybe thousands of people to do just that.

For shame, KFSH. For shame, Bobby Shaw.

I wrote to Bobby. I pointed out that he was encouraging illegal activity. That copying copyrighted material without paying for it is stealing. I pointed out that, even though his station advertises itself as "safe for the whole family," he was encouraging activity that is harmful to the families of his listeners.

I told him that hundreds of thousands of people (thousands of whom are Christians, and therefore possibly in his audience) rely on the legal sale of the products we work on to put food on the table and gas in our tank. Writers, actors, musicians, all receive residuals, tiny payments based on every DVD sold, every CD sold, every airing on cable TV. Those tiny payments add up. They can make a difference between being able to pay the rent or not, for thousands of people.

I pointed out that my kids know that burning music off the internet, ripping DVDs off the TV, is, in fact, theft. (Cory even approached me with some worry this summer when people started asking him to make a CD of his hit songs from Family Camp: "Mom, we can't do that without violating copyright, can we?" I found myself explaining the concepts of fair use and parody to a 12-year-old.)

I asked Bobby if he wanted his "family-friendly" station to stand for stealing bread off the tables of his listeners? To stand for flippant encouragement of theft? And I asked him to please respond on the air, apologizing for his remarks and taking them back for the sake of the listeners who would be harmed by them.

Here's his response, by return e-mail:

"Thanks!"

What a wuss. What a shameful way to respond.

So, did Veggie Tales sell out in editing for NBC? Yeah, they probably did, most likely without realizing they had (back at the deal stage). But now that they're on the air, I can only hope that they're a HUGE hit, causing many many listeners to race out to Toys R Us and Wal-Mart to buy DVDs and videos of the 'real' episodes. Because that way, maybe my friends who've worked on Veggie Tales will make up a tiny bit of what they lost from an irresponsible DJ making shameful remarks.

And in the meantime, I've taken KFSH off the radio buttons in my car. Because any station that encourages theft and refuses to correct their statements isn't "family-friendly" in my book.