Explaining the Batman

This post was inspired by a recent chat session I had with a couple of friends. It is amazing what Nolan, Goyer and company have done with Batman Begins. It has created interest in people to explore the mythology that is the Batman. This post hopes to bring an understanding of the Batman Mythology for the lay.

A Wee Bit of Bat-History

The Batman was first created in 1939 by Bob Kane and Bill Finger. He was a dark legendary figure. Even then, his history was his parents met a tragic end and was the impetus of how he became the legendary Batman. Over the years, this origin had not changed, even during the “campy” years of the 1950s and well into the 60s. For a more in depth take on this history, please refer to this wiki.

In 1986, DC Comics, had rebooted their universe. They recreated icons, Superman, Wonder Woman and all the rest. But they had a problem. The Batman's legend as created by Finger and Kane was already perfect! What it did lack was some depth, some detail. Enter a creator named Frank Miller.

Frank Miller was a gifted creator. He had done a spectacular Daredevil run. He created a fan favorite character--- Elektra and was the author of her own death. By this point in history he had also already written the saga called “The Dark Knight Returns” which was the Batman's last adventure.

Enter Frank Miller, he was to retouch the Batman's origins for DC Comics. What happened afterwards was a spectacular mini-series run that would be called Batman: Year One. It of course incorporated the elements of Kane's Batman. For nearly twenty years now, Batman: Year One was the foundation upon which our era's Batman is based upon and draws inspiration from.

Tragic Beginnings

Bruce Wayne is a tragic figure. Orphaned at a very young age (eight/nine in most accounts), he was a lost boy since then. He was the little prince of Gotham, royalty as close at it ever could be for an American. He was heir to a vast fortune, from a family that had created Gotham itself. Yet here he was, just a boy, the last sole surviving progeny of all that Gotham was. All he had left was a gentleman's gentleman who had been entrusted to care for him long before he lost his parents.

Being brought up to be succeed one's father is bad enough. Being groomed to be king, immensely more challenging. Having to be both and something more without a mother and father, is a weight beyond measure, in the real world or in the fictional genre of the Batman.

Brilliant and talented, Bruce Wayne sought to make sense of the world. In every history, Bruce Wayne already knew what he wanted to do: make sure that what happened to his parents, never did again for anybody else. He traveled the world, in search of knowledge. He was a skilled martial artist. He was a skilled detective. He was a skilled scientist. He trained his mind, his body into the peak of human perfection.

In canon, Bruce Wayne traveled to Asia, spent years there learning more skills. His Master Kirgi, would later give him a choice: spend the next 20 years forgetting the violence that had marked him or leave. He found himself in Gotham.

The first night out, Bruce Wayne was a failure. Bleeding to death Wayne returned to the Manor, hoping to die. Then a Bat fell into his family library where he was and he knew how to bring fear into the hearts of criminals. He would become fear itself. He would become the Batman.

Batman Begins in Bat-Lore

The history of the Batman is a tale woven by many generations. It adapts itself to the times but every generation adds a richness to the story itself, making it greater. Should it every become canon, the movie Batman Begins, builds on sixty years of history adds to the profusion of this history.

Take Ra's Al Ghul for instance. He was a creature created in the 1970s. He is a “modern” creation by a man called Denny O'Neil. He was, I believe the perfect reflection of the Batman. Ra's Al Ghul is the Anti-Batman.

Ra's Al Ghul is a terrorist when he was created. He still is. He is human, yet Ra's has lived for centuries through what he calls, the Lazarus Pit. It is a bath, a product of Alchemy some say that when immersed in it, will give a person new life but at a cost. You become slightly crazy with each immersion.

Ra's believes in both canon and movie, that the world needs to be purged of the infection of humanity. He seeks to bring balance to the world by bring about the destruction of our time's civilization and a return to simpler and more balanced living. Shrewd and calculating, his methods are manipulation of people to achieve his end goal. He is a master of theatrics and deception.

In canon, Ra's Al Ghul employs hundreds of agents, the League of Assassins. He is rich beyond imagination. He has in his employ his own cadre of gentleman's gentleman called the Tribe of Ubu.

When he was created, Ra's Al Ghul had a daughter. She was Talia and though by circumstance, fell in love with the Batman and he, though in denial, feels something as well. It is a fact in canon that only Talia Al Ghul calls the Batman, “beloved”. She lives in both his world as the adventurer Batman and in the world of business, having been given the position of Chief Executive Officer of Lex Luthor's LexCorp when the latter was elected President of the United States.

The movie, Batman Begins has a Ra's Al Ghul. He was Bruce Wayne's last teacher before assuming “the Mantle of the Bat”. It was Ra's in Batman Begins who taught him how to be ninja. He taught Bruce Wayne how to master his fear, how to face it. He taught him the art of theatrics and deception.

In Batman Begins, Lucious Fox was the scientist who worked in Applied Sciences. He would later be promoted by Bruce Wayne to become Chief Executive Officer of his company, the guy who runs the daily operations of Wayne Enterprises. The starling difference in the comics and in the movie is that Fox, suspects or has a faint idea who Batman is. In the comics, he does not.

The character of James Gordon, though not entirely explored in the movie was it was in Year One (though it is understandable, I mean, the story is “Batman Begins” and not “Gordon Begins”), is yet another example of how the movie adds to the fullness of the story. James Gordon in the movies, as in the comics starts off as the honest cop in the street. Yet as honest as he is, James Gordon does not and has never “ratted” out his fellow officers. He just doesn't take their bribes and things like that. The movie adds to this by bring to light this side of James Gordon. He is the symbol of the honest people in Gotham, a patriot.

The Rogues Gallery

Part of the success of the Batman is the depth of his Rogues Gallery as much as the depth of his supporting cast.

Of all the heroes, perhaps save, the Flash, the Batman's rogues is as well known as he is. They are diverse characters themselves. Each can stand alone but shines themselves. They have for example also clashed with other heroes in the DC Universe and stood just as tall as their nemesis.

For a list of the members of his rogues gallery and links to topics concerning them, please refer to this wiki.

The Women in Bruce Wayne's Life

No post of this magnitude is ever complete without at least touching the loves of Bruce Wayne. We won't study them in depth--- there are just too many but we will touch on the movie's love interest.

Rachel Dawes (though I personally think they should have named her Rachel Dawson) is a new character to the Batman mythology. As a friend of mine pointed out, she's like Lana Lang (from the Superman Mythology) crossed with Silver Saint Cloud (from the 70s Batman).

Let me explain.

Lana Lang in the reworked 80s history of Superman was the girl who grew up with Clark Kent. She was the childhood sweetheart. She knew him as Clark and as “superman” long before Lois Lane coined the “S” Term. She was also the girl, who Clark Kent out grew later in life.

Silver Saint Cloud was this woman who discovered that Bruce Wayne was Batman. Now, she wasn't as smart as Lois Lane (who took sixty plus years and Clark had to remove the glasses to find out who Superman really was) being just an ordinary girl who just happened to figure out her boyfriend's nocturnal adventures by a matter of deduction.

All three women would walk away from the loves of their lives. Bruce Wayne didn't even have to push Rachel or Silver away, they'd do it themselves.

The many loves of Bruce Wayne's life include such characters as Talia Al Ghul, Lois Lane (from the animated series and some minor hints re: Lee and Loeb's Hush), Selina Kyle (Catwoman, she's good now, sort of), Barbara Gordon (only in the Bruce Timm animated series), Wonder Woman (in both comics and in the cartoons), Vicky Vale (journalist), Vesper Fairchild (who died so that Batgirl's dad and Lex Luthor could get even with Bruce, its a long story), and Sasha Bordeaux. And if I forgot anybody, please feel free to add to the list, as it is a substantial list.

It is of important note that Talia Al Ghul and Bruce Wayne have an out-of-continuity-son Ibn al Xu'ffasch. In pre-Crisis (DC Universe reboot in the mid-1980s)era, Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle had a daughter named Helena Wayne who became the Huntress in the Silver Age of Comics. Like Ibn, Helena Wayne does not exist in current DC Continuity.

Who is Batman?

We finally get to the part where we talk about, who is Batman?

You see, the Batman is many things to people. As the animated series episode, “The Legend of the Batman”, tells us, each kid tells a different “Batman” story. Yet each incarnation of the Batman fits in their understanding of him.

The Batman could be that campy 50s/60s character that Adam West portrayed. He could be saying puns like “holy robins!” or having “pow”, “bam” printed across the screen or comic every time he hit a guy.

The Batman like that episode properly depicted, could be this huge man, driving a tank. He was lord of Gotham. He could be menacing, fighting of mutant gangsters, just as Frank Miller imagined in “The Dark Knight Returns”.

The Batman could be the detective. He solved crimes, as was popularized in the 70s. He is the World's Greatest Detective.

The Batman could also be the urban myth or the general commanding his franchise of costumed vigilantes, protecting Gotham (and sometimes the world) from crime (and the forces of evil). He could also be the strategist, the brains behind the Justice League, commanding in the shadows, using only his keen intellect lead the league towards victory. He could also be like James Bond, with all the cool gadgets and vehicles the car that the women love.

Though if you were like me, he'd be all of those things (except that campy 50s/60s style) and he is more.

“Bruce” is the public face of the Batman. He is this rich, stupid, spoiled playboy who dates movie stars and buys things that are not for sale. He is a mask, the real mask.

The Batman, is a frightening creature. He is primal, he is an element that lives in darkness. The Batman strikes fear in the hearts of those who prey on the fearful. He is an ideal. He is an all powerful symbol, as the movie, Batman Begins aptly refered to, "that the good people can rally behind of".

It is a common and often times understandable mistake that “Bruce Wayne” is mixed with “the Batman”. Noticed that I made a distinction between “Bruce Wayne”, “Bruce” and “The Batman”? Because they are three elements but there is only one true face. That is “Bruce Wayne”.

“Bruce Wayne” is the genius who expanded his family's already vast wealth into an empire that spans the globe. In current canon, Wayne Enterprises has interests in Technology, in Real Estate, in Communications. They even “own” Batman's old outfit, the “Outsiders” and his wards' the “Teen Titans”, providing for their resources through a series of corporations. It caused quite a stir with his adopted son.

"Bruce Wayne" is a warrior and an "aristocrat" as equal to Wonder Woman.

It is “Bruce Wayne” who solves mysteries, and challenges the norm. It is “Bruce Wayne” under the guise of the Batman who employs “theatrics and deception” as weapons. It is he who can think two steps ahead of just about everybody, even Lex Luthor. It is “Bruce Wayne” who developed a vast array of technology.

I submit, “The Batman” as he is depicted is a mask and that the real man, the real person is “Bruce Wayne”.

“Bruce Wayne” is always pictured as cold and calculating. He is heartless, he is cruel, he dumps women, even a Wonder Woman. No one could be that dumb. But who can understand his reasons, for a genius and for all his will, it is the heart he could never control. Perhaps it is because, "Bruce Wayne" is filled with so much heart. He acknowleges that "it never forgets" (see Rucka's OMAC #2).

Amanda Waller (in the Justice League Unlimited episode, “Epilogue”) was right in her analysis. The Batman may be the warrior who exercised his will above all others, who did what had to be done. But he was a man who used the vast powers of his intellect, as much as he did his human heart. Two steps ahead of everybody else, even a Superman, Bruce Wayne always figured out the best way out of a solution and employed everything to accomplish that. At the crux of every choice, is the core of Bruce Wayne's moral compass, his beliefs as his parents taught him and a heart that rivals Superman's.

What is Bruce Wayne but a testament: the pinnacle of human achievement, of the perfection of body and mind and the will to overcome tragedy and a heart so filled with compassion, of love, of understanding of his fellow beings?

What is the Batman but a means to protecting people? It is an extension and embodiment of Bruce Wayne's will to help people and like no other character in history, does it from the darkness so perfectly, he does not fall into it.

As the world will always need a Batman, he is different to every person and every age. The Batman will forever be an extension of the person behind that cowl.

Beyond the mask, the cool toys, the car, the butler and the beautiful women, how does one best construe “The Batman”? It was the Rachel Dawes character who gave us the ultimate answer. (In fact, I believe that the whole movie of Batman Begins fails without her character simply because she is the key.) “It is not who we are in the inside that matters. It is what we do”. That's Bruce Wayne. That's Batman.

links of interest

How the Batsuit Works

Being Batman

The Batman Wiki Page

Beyond Flight and Tights

These Are The Voyages...

Enterprise evokes such profound romantic notions that should leave us spellbound. The premise of Enterprise was a telling of the beginnings of Star Trek lore. As “legend” would have it, the coalition of planets known as the Federation was founded in the ashes of war, just as a United Earth was founded on such debris.

For four years we have watched Enterprise, seen the high caliber of its actors and watched the detailed marvel of its veteran production crew. Yet when it should have talked about Romulans, they talked about the Xindi. When they talked about Vulcans, they should have told stories more about Vulcan history and why Enterprise's Vulcans were different, T'Pol being sexy and all. Perhaps it the Andorians that got the best spotlight of all, Klingons being Klingons. In the end, what saw Enterprise's demise was the stories they chose not to tell.

I cheered when they talked about Vulcan history and how flawed the Vulcan race of Archer's era was. The Andorian story was likewise of such profound interest, that it was fun to watch. They were some of the finest Star Trek stories around, too bad they were told too late in the series.

The series finale, perhaps it was a way--- a “clever” way to abruptly wrap the entire series together. Though the old Enterprise-D, Riker, and Troi were nice to see again, such a series finale did not do Enterprise the justice it deserved, it fit more as a long lost episode of a series that ended a decade ago. It could have just started as Troi telling a story, something such simple, with Riker listening. Though “These Are the Voyages...” had such great acting from the Enterprise crew and elicited such profound sadness to see them go... it was cumbersome to see they were just mere holo-recordings. I for one would have wanted to hear, what Archer said to bind the Federation together, instead I get Data on comms talking to Troi, and as much fun as that was and though fit the overall story, didn't seem appropriate.

It was sad to see Enterprise go. Its failure was because of such terrible planning by the writers--- the series bible should have ended four years, with additional stories extending it three or four more years thereafter, if warranted. Perhaps they thought the mere fact it was Star Trek, people would watch. We watch Star Trek for the high caliber stories, , because it brings such high caliber actors and because of the cool Starships. We watch Star Trek, because they tell tales of hope, of heroism, of adventure, challenging the horizon, of boldly going where no one, no man has gone before.

Something Else Entirely

When I was ten years old, I sat in a movie house and saw the very first Burton Batman. Though the years, in spite of the stories, I watched Batman on film, because they were Bat films. Sixteen years later, I once again sat to watch Batman. Forget the past four films, disavow the sixties campy Batman, Nolan, Goyer, Bale and everybody involved with Batman Begins had built upon sixty plus years of legend, and took it beyond imagination. This is the Batman like no one has seen in any medium!

Batman Begins', hypothesis is simple. Who is Bruce Wayne? It is true that this has been the subject of much debate over the years. It has been the basis of story lines for the past decade at the least. None has delved much closer than Goyer and Nolan's Batman Begins.

Batman Begins takes us to the very beginning of the Batman mythology. Bruce Wayne takes center stage. It is a serious film, a biographical-epic. It is a documentary of Bruce Wayne. It is an analysis of Bruce Wayne.

The audience will see him evolve, going through a roller coaster ride of moral dilemmas even until the end of the film. You don't have to be converse in the comic books or have seen any of the vast material there is about Batman to enjoy this movie. And when the credits start rolling, the audience can go home, having understood how this young man, this prince chose to become the king and protector of his city.

About twenty years ago DC Comics (the publisher of Batman comics) rebooted their comic book universe and so, a guy named Frank Miller who created and wrote so many fine comic books (particularly a spectacular Daredevil run and had created Elektra before that) was tasked to tweak the Batman legend. It was called Batman: Year One. Since Frank Miller's run, the Batman legend has been tweaked a bit, but never ever straying from the concept that Miller had recreated. Year One had since been the de facto standard. Batman is human who is superhuman because he is a man.

Goyer's and Nolan's Batman follow those footsteps, builds on that rock-solid foundation. They have brought to an even wider audience, something comicdom has known for more than sixty years now: The Batman is the greatest comic book character of all time, bar none. Goyer's and Nolan's Batman is real. Batman is Bruce Wayne. Everything in the movie is as realistic and tangible as possible. Everything, no exceptions. You can believe Gotham really exists. Everything is just fantastic!

Beyond the aesthetics that surround the setting, Goyer and Nolan have created lifelike characters. Every actor who played a character in this movie is just perfect for their role! And every actor did a splendid job of bringing their characters to life. Katie Holmes as Rachel, wow! Garry Oldman, as Gordon, superb driving skills (you'll know what I mean when you watch it). Michael Caine, the best Alfred ever and truly captures the butler-father figure of the comics. Murphy's Scarecrow, what perfection! Freeman's Lucious Fox, more than excellent. Neeson performance was beyond outstanding. And Christian Bale without a doubt, he is the Batman!

People are said to be three people--- who others think of us, who we think we are and who we actually are. Bruce Wayne is the same. Others think he's just this playboy flop, which is useful when one wants people to leave you alone. Then there's who he think he is--- the mask of the bat: fearful, powerful primal. Then there is this person who he really is--- the shrewed businessman, the philanthropist, the compassionate human being, the crime fighter, the martial artist and many others. Christian Bale was able to personify this complex character in Batman Begins. Christian Bale is the perfect Batman.

One of the reasons for Batman's success throughout the years is the deep Rogues Gallery that compliments him. They come no better than Goyer's and Nolan's interpretation of those villains.

The villains in this story are so well written, so aptly portrayed that there are not enough words to describe them. In a typical superhero movie, a villain wears a mask, well maybe except Lex Luthor. It is the rule of thumb that the bad guy must wear a mask. Villains in Batman Begins are as evil as they can be because of who their characters are and this movie translates the depth of the Batman's Rogue's Gallery on screen exactly as they are in pages of today's comic book.

Ra's Al Ghul is the (main) villain of this story. Like all great villains, his evil coerces you to join him in his holy crusade. His, is an evil that wants to cleanse the world, not to rule it. He is the anti-Batman. Ra's was created by a man named Denny O'Neil who added much value into the Batman mythology. Though different in his comic book origin, this Ra's Al Ghul is very much so in spirit, in writing, in form and in substance the same character, O'Neil created. He is the perfect villain as the Batman begins his holy crusade. And what is Batman but a concept of using darkness to bring light? In many ways, Ra's Al Ghul is who Batman can be, should he disavow his own moral convictions and after watching the movie, could not picture another actor playing his part than Liam Neeson.

Murphy's Scarecrow was simply amazing. You will cringe in fear of his mask, though he hardly ever wears it except towards the end of the movie. Scarecrow is a perfect second villain to this huge movie. Surprisingly, his use like everything else in the movie, is just perfect.

Superhero movies of our time, have had characters included as easter eggs. Maybe a creator or a famous writer of that character for many years is included for about ten seconds, something for the fanboy/fangirl to leap for joy or say “hey” about during and after the film. Victor Zsasz didn't play any big role, but he was an “easter egg”. Zsasz, (FYI: a serial killer that the Batman had time and time again in the comic book brought back to the loony house) I'm pretty sure the avid Batman comic book reader would recognize. The Bats during Batman's Arkham siege was another hats off to Miller's just as the characters of Falcone, Flass and Loeb and many others were but not because it had to be there, and were essential part of the storytelling process.

The success of the Batman franchise--- comic books and other media are not just rooted in the fact that Batman is such a rich character (no pun intended). His Rogue's Gallery have added to that success but similar manner, the profusion, the fullness of his supporting cast has helped create a world so very much like our own. Batman Begins has made that even more evident.

In the comic books, Lucious Fox is Bruce Wayne's trusted right hand man at Wayne Enterprises. He runs the company for Bruce. Here, he is thrown into Applied Sciences by the corrupt Chairman of the Board of Bruce's company. It is Fox in the movie, where young Master Wayne gets his fancy gear. He is Batman's “Q”, though not your typical geeky gadget guy. Here again, Goyer and Nolan adds to the richness of the mythology by writing him more than just the caretaker and enforcer of Bruce's empire and Morgan Freeman is delivered the role, flawlessly.

Goyer and Nolan again added constructively to the richness of the character of James Gordon and Oldman's performance brought him to life perfectly. Understandably though, we could not have a bigger Gordon subplot but it is Bruce Wayne's movie and what we got is more than great. One event in the entire film that I enjoyed pretty well was Gordon's driving. (If you've seen it after reading this then you'd know what I mean). That was just way cool.

Throughout the many incarnation the Batman on the big or small screen, it is Alfred the Butler who is the most human and the best character they have translated. In this incarnation, Goyer and Nolan have again out done themselves. Like every character in Batman Begins that takes their cue from the comics, this Alfred is our era's Alfred Pennyworth. He is father figure as much as he is friend, adviser, employee. And his sense of humour, superbly delivered by Michael Caine makes him even more believable. The crowd where I watched laughed really hard at his lines. What good are all those push ups, Alfred yells at Bruce, If you can't even lift a single log? Hilarious.

Katie Holmes' character is something new and something old to the Batman mythology (and I hope they make this character a fixture in the mythology). Yes, I had asked before why Talia (Ra's daughter in the comics and one of Batman's love interest) was not included. That answer was simple of course. Talia doesn't and wouldn't serve any purpose at all to this story. Katie Holmes' character Rachel Dawes, does. Ms. Holmes holds her own with her more veteran co-stars. She just fits and delivers an excellent performance--- girl next door with matching moral conviction, who more than a mere love interest is the conscience of our hero.

Just as she is Bruce's conscience throughout the movie, Rachel is our eyes and ears. At the end of Batman Begins, it is through Rachel we find our answer to the movie's hypothesis. It is not who we are in the inside that defines us, it is what we do.

Superhero movies used to be relegated as fun movies. They are big budgets with actors playing campy roles. There were a few select ones that were outstanding, that shined. The first Superman movie for its time, reflected Superman and the essence of his character but in many ways, my personal preference (though at times the angst just gets to you) is Smallville. There was also Burton's Batman and set the bar higher for superhero movies. Spiderman and its sequel(s), raised the bar again in quality of production as much as the acting, cinematography and storytelling. Though a lot of people disliked it, I believed on second viewing, Hulk also shined. To say that Batman Begins raises the bar on superhero movies is a discredit to it and to the cast and crew's hard work. Batman Begins is more than a fun movie, it is not saying it isn't. It is a superb story so meticulously and painstakingly crafted but even that isn't describing it with justice.

Some people may think that dramatic storytelling at the beginning of the film makes the film boring. Contrary, they fail to construe that it perfectly tells the story of the young Bruce Wayne as he searches for himself amidst the darkness. As an avid Batman comic book reader, I was one of those who have waited years for Hollywood to make Batman right. Now they did. This is how movies should be made, irregardless whether or not the movie is based on a comic book. It is exciting. It has the right dose of funny. It is entertaining. It is smart. It has depth in storytelling, in the characters, in cinematography, in acting, in production, in everything. Kudos!

Because it is something else entirely, Batman Begins makes the legend of the Batman much more richer. It answered for the common folk the question of who Bruce Wayne is. Batman Begins is why Batman is a legend. This is the Batman!

Explaining Transitions: AppleTel

The landscape of the computer industry changed yesterday, with the announcement and confirmation by Apple Computer's CEO, Steve Jobs that the future Mac line will have Intel Inside.

There are many angles that are being considered. Why and why now? Perhaps it is best to take Jobs' explanation at face value: Future business for Apple can be realized only through Intel's Processor road map (more likely the x86-line). Apple isn't happy that G5s and perhaps its successors can not run on notebook computers (the fastest growing hardware segment today). Thats the reason today and the immediate future--- the two years transition period when current G4s will be yesterday's chip. Further down the line, it is difficult to speculate what it is exactly, but Apple has probably projects in the pipeline that will work with a company that can deliver performance for every resource and buck that it uses.

What does this mean for the rest of the industry? Does this mean, Mac OSX will run on your PC today? Well yes, as long as you have drivers for those devices you are installing the OS into... and all you'll need is a compile of the code. Does this mean, it is theoretically possible to rip off a copy of OSX and install them on current Wintel tech? Then the answer is yes. So in this scenario, Microsoft is “sort of protected” because the important parts of OSX--- quicktime and the other layers, those are not open source. Apple is not muscling into Microsoft turf than they are already doing and have been doing ever since. But then, if price is right, why wouldn't they switch to OSX, which is superior to Windows in loads of ways?

Does this mean, Windows software can run on Apple? The Windows API is vastly different from OSX. Apple's OS is still more natively connected to Linux where in theory, a program that works on Linux will work on Macs with little software or code change. But what is easy is that developers will have less problem creating solutions for two platforms. Intel and the PowerPC are different architectures animals, now that Macs are x86, then it is far easier to port code.

And what of Linux? Does this mean, it is effectively dead now that Apple's x86? Of course not! For Linux, its strength lies in its ability to provide enterprise solutions--- specifically the backroom jobs that are handled by the big boys. These allow you to send email, to connect to the office, to provide firewall protection or that company-wide directory services. And there still that exotic PC hardware that wintel uses.

Linux may find it more difficult now to make a case that it is the preferred desktop choice, no different from what it is encountering now. It has very little in the spit and polish look of OSX. They are both Unix, they both use roughly the same compilers--- GCC and many similarities. But Linux hasn't made itself user friendly. It hasn't created a polished desktop look or an integrated user interface. Its great to play with these things but at the end of the day, sometimes, we need to get some work done and if you're looking for a unix-based desktop, Mac OS X is the right pathway for you.

Who's been affected by this change? The big looser is IBM. The Power architecture that they've so painstakingly worked to market since the G5 came to commercial use is now perceived as a dead end architecture. x86 has won the war of the processors. At the end of the day, without knowing the facts, IBM probably looked at the numbers and that further development would probably not be worth the investment and instead focused development on Game Chips that probably had the right set of volumes they needed to make things happen and leaves the impression that the Cell (which is based on the Power family) is probably not going to be a very good general purpose processor.

Will the transition work? Probably, the major pain is over as Steve Jobs demonstrated. OSX works on x86. The apps have plenty of time to migrate, which is good.

So will I be in line for a x86 Mac? Of course, there's more to the Mac than its hardware, its “soul” as Jobs put it was what really won me over: OS X, which just plain rocks.

The Mystery of the Force Ghost and the Training of Skywalkers

For years, we all wondered why Jedi Masters disappeared as they died and turn out as ghost later. It always bothered me that we didn't know if Lord Vader disappeared at the end. We just saw his armor being burned, I assumed there was enough flesh for the burning. Now we know better.

Returning from the Netherworld as a Ghost was not a whim. It is not a power a Jedi normally would have. We now know that this move by the Jedi Knights was in fact calculated, if the order and the galaxy was to survive. Why else, would Yoda direct Obi-Wan to train up on it?

Yoda knew in Attack of the Clones that Qui-Gon Jin could communicate with him. He felt it. Though the novel adaptation could tell us that he was not successful in conversing with that fallen master, Yoda was able to get some ideas. Yoda doesn't spend idle time meditating, he was contemplating the greater mysteries of the Force.

How and why was Qui-Gon able to do that? Was he that powerful? We can only speculate---- perhaps it is because of his link to Anakin. There must be a deeper connection between them and perhaps this was one reason why Qui-Gon was able to reach out from the netherworld.

It could be noted that Obi-Wan did not feel Anakin's pain, as he should have. We could argue, he was a bit busy at the time, being hunted down. But as Anakin's mentor, he should have had a deeper connection with the lad. We can say, he was not powerful enough.

It was Yoda, powerful as he was with a deeper understanding of the Force, who had felt Anakin's pain, even across the vast distance separating Tatooine and Coruscant. It was through his deep connection with the Force that he felt Anakin's pain and Qui-Gon's. Both instances had powerful repercussions on the fate of the Galaxy.

Obi-Wan admitted to Luke that he thought that he could be a teacher as great as Master Yoda and perhaps Vader would not have fallen to the darkside. In the gulf of time, eighteen years separating the events of Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, Obi-Wan changed. He was no longer the confident general we saw fighting in the Clone Wars. He blamed himself for Anakin's fall. In his old age, Obi-Wan learned humility, took responsibility for Anakin's failures.

From a certain point of view, we must ask, why did he do that? Yes, he trained Anakin but Anakin was no longer his Padawan at the time of his fall. The actions of his former student was Anakin's own responsibility, not his. Perhaps it was both a Jedi and human failing to take responsibility for the actions of others. Perhaps it was because he was apologizing to Luke for the tasks and trials the younger man would face because of his, because of the Order's, because of his parents' failings and for the failure of the generation that sired him to keep the fires of democracy burning.

As equally powerful and important is the fact that Obi-Wan had grown in deeper understanding of the Force, just as Yoda did during the eighteen years of near solitude.

What does all this have to do with the Force Ghost? Obi-Wan and Yoda had to learn how to return from the dead, if the galaxy and the order was to survive this crucible. The fact is, being a Force ghost was a new kind of power that no Jedi except Qui-Gon had done before and not even to the extent as to what Obi-Wan was capable of doing years later.

Why do you think, Darth Vader was perplexed in A New Hope after cutting Obi-Wan down? And why Obi-Wan told Vader, he would become more powerful should he kill him right then and there. Vader did not know that particular trick.

The Force-Ghost technique was not a fall back position, should anything happen to them, although that was the obvious way--- the ability to move about as the living force. The more important aspect was: Obi-Wan and Yoda had graduated to the level that with a deeper understanding of the Force, came a power and a humility that crude matter, matters not. Yoda in Empire lectures Luke on this: The Force is not limited to the flesh. Both masters were more powerful than in Sith, more powerful than the Emperor and Vader.

During the years of exile, Obi-wan, Yoda and Bail Organa must have realized, a time would come when the children would be reunited and that someway, somehow they will be trained in the mysteries of the force. It was not just because they had to defeat the Emperor, but it was because it was their birthright.

You see, Obi-wan and Yoda at the time of Hope were powerful enough, Force-wise to defeat the Emperor. They could defeat death--- something the Palpatine and Vader sought after but was not able to accomplish. But as Yoda knew after battling the Emperor in Sith the Galaxy itself must want to be saved, must want for democracy so bad they would be willing to fight for it.

Enter Luke Skywalker's training in the Jedi Arts. It was not like any Jedi training.
It was neither an accelerated course nor an abridge one. It was what he needed, as Yoda put it. Another master like Obi-Wan would have taught him the lightsaber techniques, which he did to Luke. He had enticed the boy through Anakin's lightsaber. But Yoda, he taught Luke something far beyond that. Yoda taught Luke about the Force.

Master Yoda had more than eighteen years to prepare for the few weeks of training he had given Luke. It was one reason why Obi-Wan admitted the failing of his teaching to Luke. He had admitted the failure of the Jedi training. Obi-Wan taught Anakin at a time of war and showed him how to use the Force for combat, Yoda would have taught how to seek the higher mysteries of the Force, even during such times of darkness.

Notice in Sith as Yoda left for the Wookie homeworld, he counseled caution to Windu about their actions? Yoda had an irking of the danger. What Yoda and Obi-Wan learned during the gulf of years between Sith and Hope, Luke was given the benefit of all their teaching. In so doing, Anakin Skywalker was redeemed, fulfilled his destiny of destroying the Sith.

The Mystery of the Force Ghost was the expression of one's understanding of the Force and the understanding of the higher mysteries of the Force that led to a new kind of training that Luke Skywalker benefited from.