Stabby-Stab-Stabberson - Parrying Daggers

Well blocked!

Let’s discuss parrying daggers.  It came up recently in an interesting discussion about female arms and armor, so it’s been on my mind.  I’m not going to go into all the various sundry how-to of sword-and-dagger combinations that can be used, as there is no real definitive conclusion on the subject.  Simply put, parrying daggers add an offensive/defensive character to a combat style in many of the same ways that shield or buckler might, while at the same time removing the added force and control of two hands on a sword or spear—also in the same ways a shield or buckler might.

This will just be a quick description of three of the most common (though not exhaustive) types of parrying-daggers from the 16^th century in Europe, when this style of fighting was at its peak when paired with a saber or rapier: swordbreakers, trident daggers and main gauche.

Swordbreakers

Despite its name, the “swordbreaker” was not intended to actually break swords. “Sword catcher” or “thrust breaker” might be a better term for what was intended.  The sturdy, short-blade with serrated teeth like a comb would be used in combination with a sword to parry and hopefully trap an opponent’s sword.  Most weapons of this era were made from strong, flexible steel and would have withstood most attempts to break them.  Swordbreakers, in comparison with other parrying daggers, were a complicated and likely expensive item that weren’t really worth the effort.  For these reasons, while they have some mention in fencing manuals and training, they weren’t as prevalent as other parrying daggers. 

Trident Daggers

This has to be one of my personal favorites mostly because this is a case, much to my chagrin, where Hollywood got it right—or at least mostly right.  Trident daggers were actually a thing.  Two spring-loaded blades are meant to jut out into a trident-like dagger, surprise the enemy, and trap the blade.  Disney’s Three Musketeers featured this weapon in the hands of Porthos (Oliver Platt), and while again it wouldn’t have broken a blade, it certainly was a real thing of which we have examples.

Main Guache

French for “left hand” this is a category for literally any dagger used to parry or thrust from the subordinate/off hand.  I’m not even certain if it’s considered a historical term.  It may simply have become the term de rigueur as meurtrière is used to describe “murder holes” and trebuchet is meant to describe any number of traction slings from around the world.  Still, the main gauche would often be a dagger specifically paired with a sword for parrying and counter-thrusts opposite, or together with, the sword hand.  From rondels to misericorde to, well, any other style of dagger.  There are simply too many to name.  But when used as an off-hand weapon, main gauche is the modern term to use.  Even the previously mentioned trident dagger is sometimes called a trident main gauche.  Go figure!

Two-sword fighting probably needs a good, bleach-based debunking (and perhaps we’ll get to that someday), but dagger-and-sword fighting generally doesn’t.  The dagger, opposite its sword counterpart (usually a rapier), was studied and developed as a style of fighting, most specifically during the Renaissance period.  This wasn’t unique to European sword fighting, as illustrated by other cultures like the Japanese daisho with a matched pair consisting of a long katana and short wakizashi (although other variations existed).

Stranger Things—A Review

What do you mean only 8 episodes!?

Netflix has really hit one out of the park with Stranger Things.  This supernatural mystery, set in the 80s, provides plenty of entertainment for audiences of all appropriate ages (probably 13 and older).  The ensemble cast brings together veterans like Winona Ryder, Matthew Modine and David Harbour alongside newcomers like Millie Bobby Brown and Natalia Dyer, crafting relatable characters who find themselves caught up in a horror story.

When Will Byers, one of a group of true nerdy kids, disappears on his way home, his mother (Ryder) becomes increasingly frantic.  Her reaction and real world fears is something any parent can relate to.  She only becomes convinced that her son is alive and somehow “trapped” when events and evidence begin to pile up.  Meanwhile, Will’s friends, played by a Goonies-inspired trio (Finn Wolfhard, Gaten Matarazzo, Caleb McLaughlin) arrive at the same conclusion when they discover Eleven, a girl with strange Stephen King-like psychic powers.  Obviously, there’s some connection between the arrival of Eleven and the disappearance of Will, but that exact nature is mostly left to the final reveal.

The 80s never looked so real.

While adhering to many of the themes of a drama-horror, Stranger Things does some wonderful things—like making its characters smart.  Those who have had some experience with the doings of a horror movie will know that in order to amp up, or hand-wave, the action, characters tend to make silly, even stupid choices given the ongoing circumstances.  That’s generally not the case with Stranger Things.  Every major character who knew, or had some idea, what was going on actively worked to protect themselves while still trying to overcome the “big bad”.  For once, there was some solid critical thinking within the rules of the story that is quite amazing.  Also, for a show set in the 80s, it doesn’t overwhelm the audience with a truckload of references.  If this show had been filmed in the 80s, likely viewers wouldn’t have been any wiser.

The overall creepy, edge-of-your-seat feel of this eight-episode series is one that will draw you in from its era-appropriate title card through to its mystery-wrapped conclusion.  Enough of the conflicts are resolved that, should it not fare well, the entire story is told.  However, there are plenty of ends loose enough that the show could build a worthwhile second season.

Travelling With Children

Road trips are no joke!

We set off on the 1,209-mile road trip with my three sons and one of our homestay students in our Toyota minivan.  The boys were equipped with Kindles, headphones, water bottles, three different boxes of snacks from Costco and a DVD player.

It almost wasn’t enough.

If, as a friend noted, a family vacation is like "pretty much an extended birth control ad", then a road trip of three days up and two days back is at least three votes for a vasectomy.

Here’s hoping insurance will cover it.

It should be noted that mistakes were made.  No one is denying that.  Our first, biggest mistake was forgetting the travel case of DVDs and music CDs.  We were left with one copy of Toy Story, The Wiggles “Go Bananas!” and a misplaced disk of The Wallflowers “Bringing Down the Horse”.  You can only listen to “Rusty the Cowboy” and “Three Marlenas” so many times before you start questioning your sanity.

Die, demons, die!

But where some would see only obstacles, I see an opportunity: buying stuff.  I love stuff.  You can get me to do just about anything by giving me stuff.  It’s my one weakness.

Target doesn’t have nearly the music or DVD selection that it once did—before the internet came along and ruined everything—but it has enough.  We let the boys each pick a movie, and then we wisely selected a discount of all three seasons of: Avatar: The Last Airbender.  I almost convinced my wife to pick up Avatar: The Legend of Korra, but alas, the boys only got to pick one movie, so I was in the same boat.

The only mistake we made was picking all this up on our first day arriving in Washington.  No matter where we went after that, the boys wanted to watch a movie.  Despite all the media at their fingertips, they were like ravenous locusts, desperate to consume even more.

That’s where the bribes came into play.  We picked up Soho coin purses for each of the boys,

Uncounted lives were saved by this bag.

and we kept a running timer.  At each hour, the boys who had been good, would get a quarter that they could spend on anything they wanted at the next stop.  At the mid-point of each day we gave them a dollar.  Boys who behaved badly could also lose money.  We did not help the boys buy any of their treats—they had to save their coins and balance them against the cost of candy bars and soda pops.  At one point, the oldest managed to convince the middle son to pool their money together and buy a bag of Jolly Ranchers which quickly disappeared from view. 

I’m fairly certain my middle son got exactly two from the entire bag.

Going Back to Cali

If I don't move, no one will notice me.

It does not feel good to be back. In the Pacific Northwest, our hottest day was 85F (29C). We descended back to Southern California and enjoyed temperatures well over 100F (38C). Yesterday was close to 105F (40C), and they issued a power use warning. Today and tomorrow are more of the same.  We’re supposed to get some relief starting this weekend, where temperatures will “cool” to the mid-90s (35C).

Also, I haven’t seen Star Trek: Into Darkness yet, so no spoilers.

I’m looking at you, Audrey!

Finally, yesterday, on my way out of the driveway, I tore through the sidewall and the rim of my right rear tire.  The rim is shot, so not only will I have to replace the tire, but I’ll have to get a new rim as well.

It’s turning out to be a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week.

Two Arrows Are Not Better Than One

One arrow?  Hah!  Try six at the same time!

You can actually shoot multiple arrows from a single bow, but that’s where Hollywood and reality diverge.  Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves make it seem as easy as taking the "Multi-Shot" feat from Dungeons & Dragons.  There are three main problems with this: power, accuracy and training.

A bow stores potential energy in the limbs when it is drawn by the archer.  That energy is transferred out of the limbs, through the string, and into the arrows, which, being lighter and (hopefully) aerodynamic (see what I did there?) fly off and gravely injure or kill the bad guy on the other side.  But a bow can only store so much potential energy.  An archer can’t dial that energy up or down.  Shooting more than one arrow at the same time will split the potential energy between the two.  In the best case scenario, each arrow now only has half the punch it normally would (and probably less).  Where one arrow has a chance of hitting a target, punching through any layers of cloth or armor, and actually doing damage, two arrows—at best—halves that chance (probably more).

Accuracy is also completely messed with when you nock two arrows to your string.  Two (or more) arrows released at the same time will effect each other and spin at different rates, making aiming both arrows impossible.  An archer who wants to achieve any measure of accuracy with this trick will more likely have to sight one arrow, and just hope for the best for the other.  Anything beyond 15-20 yards and the arrows are going to be wildly off any standard trajectory, and they’ll start to lose any force whatsoever.  Check out this “amazing” shot and note that they archer takes about five to six short steps back from his target.

Ok, so we lose power and we lose accuracy, which means that any archer would have to spend a ridiculous amount of time to learn how to shoot more than one arrow.  The range of the bow is now effectively halved (at least) and a lot of effort is being placed into what is

Hit me, Tauriel, one more time!

essentially a trick shot.  Obviously, an archer’s time is easily better spent training for the accuracy and power of a single arrow.  There are precious few combat situations that come to mind where cutting the power and range of your arrows will play out any better than quickly and accurately shooting one arrow after another.

The upshot (if you don’t mind) is that there are precious few life-or-death situations these days for a trained archer.  On the other hand, there are many chances to show off in an exhibition or a friendly practice session. A number of show archers have mastered this technique to awe and amaze audiences.  It certainly is amazing to watch!  But it’s doubtful that an archer, who used the trained skills in combat, would want to devote any amount of time to learning how to wow people rather than kill them.  

Cool, Clear, Water

Quaff, is the proper term.

About two years ago, my wife and I went to a water conservation event put on by the local news channel.  I don’t remember what it was.  They had some reusable shopping bags filled with the usual fare—pamphlets advertising various business, cheap flashlights, and a water bottle.

My wife got one.

I did not.

I figured we’d end up throwing most of it away anyhow, and we have a ton of leaky water bottlers we already don’t use.

Once again, I was wrong.

Sexy Hydro Flask, rocking the purple fishnets!

The water bottle turned out to be a high quality, double-walled, vacuum insulated number.  It was only 18-20 ounces, but still it was an impressive piece of equipment to toss in as an attendance freebie.  I knew, from my honors physics class years and years ago that vacuum insulated thermos was the best.  I’d never actually ponied up for one, so this was my first experience.

Fill it up with ice, add water, and the ice will stay frozen almost the whole day.

No, seriously.

There was some loss of ice, but because the double-wall with the vacuum between, there was almost no change in the temperature inside the bottle.  I tried to look up the term for this, but didn’t find it.  I’m sure someone else can tell me.  That would be great.

Anyhow, long story short, my wife had an excellent water bottle, and like a sucker I was still using a Nalgene bottle from 1990s!  A year ago, I traded my Nalgene in for a 1 liter Hydro Flask . . . which my wife quickly co-opted.  It had a handle and carried more water, so naturally it had to be hers.  Last week, on Prime Day, I picked up another hydro Flask for myself.  My only complaint is that they don’t offer a small mouth lid, and the humangear versions don’t work with it.

Ghostbusters (2016) - Review

Be slimed.  Be very slimed!

The Ghostbusters are actually quite afraid of ghosts, but you shouldn’t be.

For the first two acts, the ladies in proton packs from Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters reboot yell, scream and run from the very ghosts they set out to hunt.  Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, spend most of their time getting slimed and mastering their streams with hilarious results.

I laughed hard enough to wake the dead.  Don't worry, more puns to follow!

When Erin (Wiig) finds out that a “ghosts are real” book, written in partnership with her estranged friend Abby (McCarthy), has resurfaced and threatens her tenure, she goes to confront the issue.  An obvious, but easily exorcised, plot device to bring the two, along with tech/gearhead/engineering genius Holzmann (McKinnon) into their first spectral confrontation.  The only real complaint comes in the zombie-handed way Patty (Jones) is jackhammered into the team.  Even hilariously airheaded receptionist Kevin (Chris Hemsworth) flowed into the group like a Class 5 Full-Roaming Vapor through a hotel wall.  Once the team is assembled—and named—we’re well on our way.

Never cross the streams.

It’s incredibly hard to not compare this 2016 version with the classic and seminal 1984 installment.  Feig does an admirable job of tapping into the “ghosts are real” and “It’s so crazy it just might work” concept team of unappreciated brainiacs with the power to save the day.  He also tamps down the traditional option of turning the camera on McCarthy and letting her say whatever comes along.  Wiig, McKinnon and Jones easily carry their own versions of crazy into a mix that works well.  Hemsworth’s scenes alone are worth the price of admission.

It’s the third act where plot troubles manifest.  Feig walks the line of paying fan service to the original film, narrowly avoiding catchphrases made popular in the original.  But this cleverness backfires, drawing audience chain-rattling-groans at the missed-it-by-that-much moments.  The movie would have been better served with just the small cameos by the majority of original casts members which were delightfully nuanced (hint: watch for the bust of Harold Ramis early in the film, and stay for the after credits).  This also takes time away from the set-up and pay-off that otherwise is actually quite interesting and fun. 

The girls in khaki deliver a fun spectacle of ectoplasmic enjoyment.  The laughs are quick and many, the plot is solid and fun.  It’s not easy trying to live up to the gold standard set by the 1984 version—Ghostbusters II certainly didn’t.  This new film is hilarious, inviting, and a fun way for classic fans to enjoy a new installment, and a new generation of boys and ghouls to be introduced.