How Should We Deal with Failure?

A little while ago, I heard popular Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about failure on his radio show. Tyson cited NASA as a great example of how to treat failures: as pathways to future success.

Really, I couldn't agree with him more.

Failure is a natural part of life. It's how we learn. Often it's how we learn never to do a certain thing again (hot stove tops anyone?)

I should note that certain failures will rule the rest of your life. Specifically, if you murder someone. However, I think most people are smart enough to avoid making those decisions. I hope.

But it seems like we teach children to fear any type of failure deeply. If you fail at this certain thing, you fail at life. Forever. I have to say that this is hardly realistic. If you look at some of the most revered figures in recent years, you can find failure.

Steve Jobs is a good example of how failure can't stop an individual. Sure, Jobs formed Apple and helped popularize the first computer. He was also ousted out of the company due to his tyrannical leadership style and instability. Jobs then moved on to create a new computer company called NeXT. That didn't pan out either. However, all of those failures didn't keep Jobs down. Pixar became a massive success. After that, Jobs retook control of Apple and amplified the company's previous successes.

More often, we seem to teach people that they should defer their failure on to someone else. Now, rather than addressing any problems, we're simply avoiding them. Blaming someone else is an easy way out.

In the end, we should treat failure the way NASA does: that it's something to be avoided, but something to learn from if it happens.

--------------------------------

Note: I'm still working on getting through the second House of Cards mini-series. Expect the review within a week or so.

House of Cards Review - House of Cards UK

Hello everyone. Here we are at the first of many random things I plan to talk about on this blog.

It's House of Cards... the UK version. Didn't know there was a UK version? Well, now you do.

So here's how these reviews are going to work: I'm going to run through all the UK House of Cards seasons, reviewing each season as I go. Then, I'll hop over to the US version and review each season of that. I want to see how the two series stack up against each other.

With that out of the way, let's get started.

House of Cards UK Review (Part 1 of 3): House of Cards 

The UK version of House of Cards is technically not a traditional TV show, it's actually three mini-series that tell one big story. Each series is only four episodes long. The first is called "House of Cards", the second is "To Play the King", and the third is "The Final Cut".

So, how is the first mini-series? I'll just cut to chase and say it rocks.

The story centers on Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson), a fictional Chief Whip of the Conservative Party in the year 1990. The first episode begins on election night, where we see the Conservative Party has won once again. Urquhart expects to be rewarded by Henry Collingridge (David Lyon), the new prime minister, for his loyalty with a cabinet position, but is given nothing. Collingridge doesn't even want to use any of Francis's ideas for sprucing up the cabinet. Enraged, Francis hatches a plan to bring down Collingridge and take the prime minister position for himself.

Of course Francis can't do it alone. He enlists the help of Roger O'Neill (Miles Anderson), the party's cocaine-addicted public relations consultant; and Mattie Storin (Susannah Harker), a young journalist who does not realize what Urquhart is capable of.

At first glance this seems like your average mediocre TV political drama. However, House of Cards proves that the originality of a story doesn't always determine its quality, the details are important too. In a very Shakespearean touch, Urquhart frequently breaks the fourth wall to talk to the audience. He always does it with a smile. He dispenses snide remarks and deep musings on the nature of the world and politics.

Ian Richardson is fantastic as Urquhart. His deep, rich voice betrays a bottomless amusement with his opponents, even as he presents an icy image to the rest of the world. Richardson takes what could have been a staid political drama and gives it a sharp bite. I was hooked within a few minutes. I haven't seen the US version yet, but I will say that Kevin Spacey has a lot to live up to.

The rest of the cast is pretty terrific too. Susannah Harker plays Mattie with the heart of a press evangelist and a head full of ambition. She manages to keep the character from devolving into an irritating whiner like many similar journalist characters often do. We've seen the annoying "obsessed with the truth" journalist trope millions of times. Miles Anderson as O'Neill also does really well here. I particularly want to highlight his work in the fourth episode of the season. I won't say much more to avoid spoilers, but he's great.

While I've bestowed nothing but praise onto House of Cards so far, I do think there are some major weaknesses. The relationship between Mattie and Urquhart is a particular weak point. Mattie goes from simply relying on him as a source to loving him within four episodes. While that covers a significant amount of time in the narrative, the falling in love subplot doesn't really match up to her character. She is strong-willed and intelligent and it seems like she would realize that an affair with a married man would lead to nowhere. People might have other interpretations, but I didn't buy this plot development.

The other major weakness comes in the fourth episode. I won't say exactly what it is. I will say that most of the things in episodes one through three seem like they could actually happen. Episode four tested my suspension of disbelief. When you get to that part in the series, you'll know what I mean.

Other than those things, House of Cards is excellent entertainment. Ian Richardson is worth the price of the DVD alone. I wholeheartedly recommend it. I can't wait to check out the next miniseries.

 A hearty welcome to everyone reading this historic first post on my blog.

I think this might be the only time the words "historic" and "blog" have ever been used in the same sentence. Well... unless someone has a blog about old buildings or something.

My name is Adam Beck. I am a 25-year-old communications professional currently looking for a job in the Pacific Northwest. I attended Washington State University (go Cougs!) and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Communications.

So what's this blog about? Why have I started it and what do I intend to accomplish with it? 

The answer is that I want to give my readers (all none of them) a look into my daily thoughts and interests.

Those interests are like a big, unpruned tree, with different branches shooting off in random directions.

I love movies, television shows, and books. I have an eclectic music collection. I'm fascinated by science, especially astronomy and biology. I also like to ski and play tennis.

For the sake of my audience's sanity, I've decided to focus this blog down to mostly talk about movies, television, and books. After all, I love the art of storytelling. I ended up picking communications as a career because of this infatuation.

I'm always interested in how people structure stories, how people build the reality of their world, and most importantly, how they can fail at those things.

Analyzing the failures (or the things you don't like), can help you grow as a storyteller. Better yet, you can put those lessons to work in a different field.

I should also note that not all my posts will likely be about storytelling. I might decide to write down some of my random thoughts. Mostly though, this blog will be about stories.

So, with my mission statement explained and my blog ready to go, let's get started.