Scribbles by W. Patrick

Scribbles by W. Patrick

Scribbles by W. Patrick

"Braveheart" Takes Freeeedom With the Facts

    "Braveheart" Takes FREEEEDOM With the Facts

     

     Picture a movie made by a British production company, starring an Australian actor who grew up in Ireland.  Now, imagine this movie is about the American Revolutionary War.  In this movie, General Washington orders General Patton to destroy the advancing Vietnamese troops by using his specially trained “Space Rangers” and their laser rifles. About halfway through the movie, a confused Abraham Lincoln is found out to be a traitor, but redeems himself at the end by leading his flak-jacketed troops across the Potomac to victory.

    "Come at me, Bro!"

      Insane hogwash, right?  There’s no way that anyone, irrespective of national origin could possibly confuse a tale like that with actual history.  Don’t be so sure.  You see, there are people out there who, for having watched the Mel Gibson Oscar-winning film “Braveheart,” believe that they are experts in the life of William Wallace and in Scottish history, in general.

     Now, full disclosure:  I’ve seen “Braveheart” about a dozen times and have enjoyed it each and every time.  Similarly, I have enjoyed “Star Wars” and “Ghostbusters.”  I do not feel an overwhelming need to attribute any historical significance to either of those movies, and I feel much the same way about the fictionalized tale of William Wallace.  It was fun and full of adventure.  It was brilliantly filmed and the acting was absolutely top-notch.  There was a relatable hero, a perfectly hateful villain and a giant man made out of marshmallows.  (The last one, of course, relates only to “Ghostbusters”).

     Let’s start with Wallace himself.  History records the man to be anywhere from 6 foot 5 inches to a staggering 7 feet tall.  Where common sense would dictate that a Scotsman from the thirteenth century would probably not be a viable point-guard for the Boston Celtics and that 7 feet is probably pushing the limits of credulity, the man was more probably than not very tall, indeed.  Mel Gibson, on the other hand, is not. 

Actual Size Comparison 

     Now, I am not implying that Mel Gibson’s character was a tiny weakling, or that he did not look absolutely smashing in his kilt; far from it.  That does bring up another area where Hollywood has taken a few liberties with European history, though.  Kilts did not exist in the time of William Wallace.

     As previously stated, William Wallace lived during the latter part of the 13^th century.  Scotsmen started wearing Kilts over three centuries later.  The kilt, which literally translates from Scottish into, “to tuck ones clothes up around one’s body,” was a full length garment, with the upper half serving as a cape or a hood.  It was adopted from Norse settlers who wore similar garments that they called kjalta.  This fashion icon was not adopted until the 17^th century, so there was no way that William Wallace or any of his clansmen would have been wearing them.  They wore pants…boring pants and probably sensible shoes, as well.  To their credit, however, had the producers been sticklers for historical accuracy, movie-goers the world over would still have no idea what Mel Gibson’s knees look like.  So ask yourself: is that a world you want to live in?

     Okay.  We probably would've eventually figured it out.

      On now to that traitorous Robert the Bruce, who, in accordance with the wishes of his leprosy-ridden father, betrays Wallace and all of Scotland.   Here, I will give you fair warning.  If you are ever at a gathering of Scotsmen and you go into a diatribe of how that nasty Robert the 17^th Bruce was a no good so-and-so, be prepared to be unceremoniously and violently stomped into a fine paste and made into a haggis.

     You see, Robert the Bruce is one of Scotland’s greatest national heroes.  He assumed the throne in 1306 and led his band of “warrior poets” to victory against Edward I.  As a matter of fact, the term “Braveheart” actually refers to Robert the Bruce, whose troops, after his death, literally carried his heart into battle.

     He never betrayed his kinsmen and, though critical of William Wallace’s early campaigns, he became one of his most outspoken and influential supporters.

     On the other side of the field of battle, we find the evil King Edward I, or “Edward the Longshanks,” to his buddies.  Portrayed as something of a cross between Darth Vader and the Sheriff of Nottingham, ol’ Longshanks couldn’t wait to rid Scotland of the men wearing their futuristic kilts before granting Primae Noctis to his knights.  Primae Noctis is, of or course, the abominable practice of granting feudal lords the right to bed peasant women upon their wedding nights.  It is quite understandable that this sort of thing would infuriate the Scots, causing all sort of violence and prompting the men to paint themselves blue.

    From their new album, "Freeeeeedom!!!"

      The problem with this, of course, is that it never happened.  The idea of Primae Noctis is a work of fiction, and has been so since about the time of the 16^th century.  There’s been a lot of talk of it through the centuries, but absolutely no evidence to substantiate its’ actual existence.  Oh, and no one in Wallace’s time ever painted themselves blue, either.  Unlike kilts, that was a fashion trend of several centuries earlier.

     Back to King Eddie Longshanks, though, the evil bastard.  Well…not so much.  Where he was known as the “Hammer of the Scots,” and he did fight to gain control of the land, he did so only after he was invited in by the Scots themselves.   That’s right, they invited him in to broker a peace and avoid civil war following the deaths of Scotland’s King Alexander III and of his granddaughter and only known heir, Margaret, Maid of Norway.  His terms for arbitrating such a peace included being named Lord Paramount of Scotland, a stipulation that the Scots agreed to.

    Read it?  Well, I skimmed it...I'm sure it's fine.

     Shortly after naming John Balliol the new king, King Edward thought better of it, considering King Balliol to be a poor choice and a weak king.  He attempted to remedy this mistake by attacking Scotland at its border towns and forcing Balliol to abdicate.  Though tyrannical attacks and all-out warfare were certainly over-reactionary on the part of Longshanks, it must be said that John Balliol was indeed a weak king and poor leader, and was known as “Toom Tabard,” or “Empty Coat” for the duration of his short rule.  Upon realizing this, it is not without merit that the Lord Paramount of Scotland might seek to remedy the situation.  A situation, remember, that he was originally asked to fix.

     Additionally, King Edward was responsible at home in England for the re-establishment of the “Magna Carta” and its joining with the decades-old “Forest Charter,” forming the “Confirmation of Charters” in 1297.  This not only granted rights to the aristocracy, (via the Magna Carta), and the peasantry, (via the Forest Charter), back in its own time, but is widely considered the basis of British law and still remains in statute to this day!   What a diabolical villain!

      "I shall kill them all.  Then, I shall donate the proceeds to fund Plague research!"

     Also, upon the death of his wife Eleanor in 1290 in the city of Harby, King Edward I had her body transported to London for burial.  At every one of the twelve spots that his wife’s body laid during the journey, Edward had a lavish stone cross erected in her memory.  Three of them still exist today.

     Surviving Queen Eleanor Cross

      Several more fictionalizations occur throughout the film.  For instance, Princess Isabelle of France was portrayed by Sophie Marceau as a beautiful young woman of a kind and virtuous nature.  In reality, the real princess was approximately 7 years old at the time of William Wallace.  Furthermore, upon becoming an adult, she was widely considered to be something of a bloodthirsty warrior who, after deposing her husband, King Edward II, launched another war into Scotland with her son, Edward III.

     In the film, King Edward I dies as Wallace is being executed.  King Edward did not die until several years after Wallace, at the ripe old age of 70.

     King Edward II did not marry Queen Isabelle of France until three years after Wallace’s death.

     The film begins in 1280, with the King of Scotland dead and Edward I invading.  King Alexander III did not die until 1286 and Edward’s attempt at conquest did not begin until roughly four years later.

     There may or may not, however, have been a giant marshmallow-man at the Battle of Stirling Bridge.  Let’s face it…with the amount of liberties taken by Hollywood in this and so many other films, it’s hard to be sure.

Scribbles by W. Patrick

Science Fiction VS. Fact VS. Human Nature

     Science Fiction VS. Fact VS. Human Nature

      Over the years, many parallels have been drawn between the fantasy technologies of yesterday’s science fiction and the actual devices being utilized today.  For instance, one might look at the communicator from “Star Trek” and draw similarities to today’s cellular phones.  In truth, Capt. Kirk’s communicator probably had more in common with the flip-phones of ten years ago than it does with modern “smart” phones.  For instance, you never heard him say,

     “What is the percentage of nitrogen in the atmosphere on Phorbix-7, Mr. Spock?  Oh, don’t bother, I’ll just Google it on my I-Communicator.”

     The inarguable point, however, is that many of the devices used by the science fiction heroes of our childhood are actually commonplace tools in both the workplaces and homes of today.  Where this correlation between fiction and fact has often been drawn, though, there has never been a comparison between just how that technology was utilized by the movie and storybook heroes of yesterday and how we actually utilize it in real life.

     Let’s start with the aforementioned “Star Trek” communicator.  As the name implies, it was primarily used for communicating; sort of a high-tech walkie-talkie system.  It was also instrumental in some of Kirk’s more tactical strategies and it was a necessary element in one of the most dramatic lines ever uttered on film.

     Now, let’s take a look at the average “communicator” user of today.  Do you overhear any requests for beaming up being made?  No.   Have you encountered anyone viciously shouting the name of their nemesis into their iphone as of late?  Probably not.  What you do hear on any given day, however, is an exchange something along these lines:

     “Hey.  ‘Sup?  Nuttin’.  Just hittin’ the Wal-Mart.  Naw.  What?  What?  You’re breakin’ up.  Naw, it’s you.  I got three bars.  What?  Damn.  Crappy phone.”

     Bear in mind, of course, that this “crappy phone” probably cost somewhere north of $400.

     Perhaps that’s unfair, though.  We’re not all military strategists, and the mobile nature of the phone itself is dependent upon signals from a mainframe tower system.  Let’s move on to the more permanent communication device, the “on-screen” video communication made famous in, once again “Star Trek,” as well as many other futuristic tales and films.

     Say you need to broker a treaty between two warring planets on the brink of destruction.  Maybe, instead, you’d simply rather speak face-to-face with the pilot of the ship you just encountered on the far reaches of space.  Perhaps its’ only the much needed face time with those at home that you need after so many months or years of exploration in the name of universal peace.  Nothing helps you accomplish these tasks as well as a large, plasma screen projecting a head the size of a monster truck right in your sitting area.

     Today, thanks to the proliferation of low-cost web cameras and gaming systems such as the “Wii U” and “Kinect” for the XBOX game consoles, the ability to video chat is at the fingertips of virtually anyone who wants to live out their sci-fi dreams.  How, exactly do we utilize this technological gift?

 This is moments before Batman asked the Prez to "Show him some boobies."

     Remember in “Demolition Man,” that Sylvester Stallone epic where the car would drive itself?  If not, the same technology made another appearance in the Will Smith Tour-de-Force “I, Robot.” 

 "Yep, we is some baaaaaaad muthas!"

     Where we haven’t produced a commercially viable self-driving car as of yet, we certainly have added navigation systems that, according to their marketing departments, work at least as well as the ones used by either John Spartan or the Fresh Prince.  Again, that’s according to a bunch of suits in the marketing department.  This is, more often than not, the reality of it:

     How about the Jetsons?  They had a vacuum cleaner that would clean the floors all by itself, even though they had Rosie, the Robot Maid!  Come to think of it, their meals were re-hydrated pills, the dog walked itself on a treadmill and teenage Judy was old enough to baby-sit younger brother Elroy.  What the hell was Rosie there for, anyway?

 "I'm the only thing that can protect you when the Robot Overlords come, you puny humans!"

     I’m off the point, though.  They had a vacuum that worked independent of any human interaction whatsoever, and we have that very same thing today!  What do we use it for? 

Yep.  A go-cart for cats.

     So, in short, what we have today are a bunch of toys that have similar properties to the devices used in past science fiction books and movies and that’s all.  Think about it.  Pretend you were an explorer who, on an Arctic expedition found and subsequently thawed out a caveman who suddenly came to life.  If you gave this caveman your laptop computer and he used it to beat your team leader unconscious with it, would you say that the caveman had “used the computer?”  Would science fiction be science fact at this point, or would you simply have to retrieve the weapon from the caveman’s hands?

     When it comes to comparing the technology of today with science fiction of yesterday, then…I believe it’s more fair and accurate to say that we are, indeed, cavemen with odd devices in our hands that we simply do not fully understand.

Understanding Feline Superiority

     Understanding Feline Superiority

     Before I begin, it must be made clear that this is not an exposition on how cats are better than dogs.  It is an age-old, useless argument, as cats and dogs are two very different creatures who affect our lives in very different ways.  One may as well argue the benefits of a jackhammer versus a peach cobbler.  In short, it makes no sense.  No, what I am going to attempt to make clear is how the feline species is, in almost every way imaginable, superior to that of the human race.

     First of all, I own a cat.  As a matter of fact, I own several, so from an observer’s standpoint, my opinion can be considered expert.  During this time of careful observation and attentive consideration, I have noticed a good many things that have proven to me that these cats are, indeed, higher up on the food chain than we naked apes, and moreover, they know it.

     One morning, whilst feeding my cats, it occurred to me that these little buggers rely on me for their very survival.  Being unable to work the can-opener or even the more modern pull-tab on the cat food tin, they would undoubtedly starve were it not for my benevolent interference.  Oh, what a vain fool I was.  You see, it was then that I remembered that the first cat brought into the family was a stray from outside.  It had survived through the harshest of weather using only her claws, teeth and cunning to catch mice on the run or birds about to take flight.  The memory forced me to realize that, even in my absence, these cats are such born hunters and survivors that starvation would be little problem for them.  On the other hand, I can take a $40 fishing rod, a $60 reel and $15 worth of bait from the local shop, go down to the lake, (a $5.00 entrance fee), and utilize my $25 dollar fishing license to try and catch my meal.  Four hours and $145 later, I will, more often than not, be buying groceries on the way home.

     Physically speaking, there is no contest, of course.  We humans are by nature larger than the average house-cat.  This gives us a false feeling of superiority because we wrongfully think that we could overpower them at any time we choose.  To test this theory, I defy anyone to attempt to give their cat a bath.  Please note that if you try this foolhardy act, I am in no way responsible for your hospital bills.  To try and gauge just how incredibly lithe and nimble these creatures are, though, one must simply sit still and observe as a cat amuses itself around the house with nothing but gravity and its’ ability to ignore the effects of it.

     My cats, I am sure, are the Parkour champions of the universe.  I have watched them slide under an open drawer, propel off the baseboard, leap off of said drawer against the wall, (while spinning in mid-air, mind you).  They then proceed to interrupt their inertia by touching the curtain rod and end up perched on top of the bookcase that I need a step stool to reach!  In contrast, I become winded whilst walking up the stairs and on more occasions than not, trip whilst descending.  Both of which, I know, my cats find utterly amusing.

     In making this argument to friends and colleagues, it is often brought up that we, as humans have conquered activities like writing and art…that we have developed science and technology far beyond the intellectual grasp of even the brightest feline.  We’ve invented business and medicines and transportation and have even “conquered the stars.”  My response to this is that we have done all of these things in order to make our lives more comfortable.  We take medicine and put up with day-to-day business so that, at the end of the day, we can lay around the house, all warm and content.  I then look at my cats, whose days are filled with nothing but lying around the house feeling all warm and content.  I must ask you, then: who leads a superior life?

     Also, it cannot be overstated that my cats share a common lineage with the majestic lion, the lightning-fast cheetah, the impressive panther and the grand Bengal Tiger. 

Humans, on the other hand, share a common lineage with Justin Bieber and the guy who invented telemarketing.

     Thankfully, our feline overlords are more than happy to let us lead our lives of blissful ignorance as to life and our place in it.  Though they could most assuredly change their minds at any time and overthrow the human race as if we were just another ball of yarn, I do not think that this is a fear that will ever be realized.  For thankfully, it seems as if we amuse them.  Now, if you’ll excuse me, there’s a litter box calling that simply is not going to clean itself.