Unfortunately. Ponting as captain is the path the selectors chose. I say “unfortunately” not because his tenure has been a failure but because the succession planning has. At 36 Ponting is close to the end of his career. While he can still perform at the level required his form and talent are certainly tapering. All that may prolong his career at this late stage is the search for a replacement. And there are more than a few of his teammates in the same position.

For a long time Australia had a number of seemingly ready-made replacements who were capable of stepping into the team and performing. Darren Lehman and Michael Hussey both had over 10, 000 first-class runs to their names before they were given an opportunity. Brad Hodge ended with over 17, 000, and despite averaging 55.88 in the five-day game only managed six test matches. Marcus North has also scored over 10, 000 first-class runs. Matthew Hayden has nearly 25, 000 to his name and Justin Langer has over 28, 000. The list could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. Australian cricket—for a long time—has had a number of batsmen with plenty of runs waiting to step into the national side.

Compare that with now. Some of the loudest calls for inclusion are for Usman Khawaja. This young man has had an impressive start to his first-class career but has only just passed 2, 000 runs. Callum Ferguson has scored over 3, 000 runs but at a much lower average than Khawaja. There is no particular reason that either young man could not step up and be a fine Test cricketer, but they are going to need longer in the side than Australia seems interested in granting. This is particularly the case for the specialist spinner.

Since Warne’s retirement at the end of the last home Ashes series in 2006/7, Australia have gone through an unseemly amount of spinners and are further than ever from finding a replacement. The fast bowling stocks are only slightly better off. Once Ponting had exhausted McGrath and Warne he always had Brett Lee, who took over 310 Test wickets. The current crop of fast bowlers don’t look like getting 20 wickets in a Test match between them, let alone 300 over a career. And that’s where Ponting’s failure is most acute—a lack of clear plans for dismissing batsmen.

So where to next for Australia? The World Cup is only a little over a month away so I wouldn’t be making a move on the Test side until after that. Even then Australia’s Test schedule isn’t clear. The ICC’s Future Tours program—from 2006—has Australia going to Bangladesh in April, hosting Zimbabwe in June, before going to Sri Lanka in August. A tour of Bangladesh is probably as good as any time to trial a new captain and a new(ish) side.

(EDIT: Apparently the Bangladesh and Zimbabwe series are not happening.)

So between now and next summer here is a quick rundown of what I think should happen with the Australian side.

1. Shane Watson is an unlikely opener but he has done a fine job. Perhaps he would provide better value down the order, but with Katich’s career seemingly over there aren’t many options to open the batting.

2. Phil Hughes seems to be a favourite of the selectors. I don’t think he has what it takes to succeed at the toughest level, but if the selectors want him then they need to be prepared to persist with him for a while.

3. Michael Clarke hardly deserves to be first drop but what else can the selectors do? Clarke is young enough and talented enough to turn it around—if he wants to. About the only other candidate for number three is…

4. Michael Hussey. I also think that Hussey is the best possible choice for captain at the moment. Not only has he displayed more backbone this series than any other batsman but his nickname of “Mr Cricket” is well-earned.

5. David Hussey is about the only player in domestic cricket who could step into the side, although at 33 he hardly represents a long-term investment.

6. Ricky Ponting should be given the option to stay on as a batsmen. Rather than seeing the loss of the captaincy as an unbearable slight, he should view it as an unburdening, an opportunity to play with freedom. Even at 36 he is a fine batsman and a fine catcher and fielder. Keeping Ponting on—at least for a bit—will give the rapidly upheaving side some balance, continuity, and experience.

7. Tim Paine. Brad Haddin hasn’t done much wrong, but at 33 he is getting old for a keeper. If Ponting couldn’t be convinced to stay on as a batsman for another year, then Haddin would be worth keeping around, but it’s one or the other.

8. Nathan Hauritz. Look, Hauritz is awful, I know he is. It’s just at this stage there isn’t a better spinner in Australia. At the moment Australia are falling into the trap that plagued England for so long. No confidence in their batting, no confidence in their bowling, and so they pick someone who does both—neither effectively—and suddenly Steven Smith has an undeserved Test career.

9.–11. Mitchell Johnson, Peter Siddle, Ben Hilfenhaus, Ryan Harris, and Doug Bollinger. Honestly, pulling three names out of a hat is about as good as theory as any other for this lot. Include all five in any squad and you’ll find one injured, and (at least) one horribly out of form. Pick the other three and you’ll be no worse off. Of course, if you have a decent captain then each bowler should have a plan for each batsman that isn’t simply, “Bowl it like McGrath would.”

Well, there you have it. I haven’t pursued a “youth policy” as aggressively as some would like, and I haven’t ended as many careers as the baying Australian public would like. What I have done is put into place a sensible succession plan. And if all goes according to that plan, after the next home summer then Clarke would have proven himself, and another batsmen and another bowler would have emerged from domestic cricket ready to take their place in the Australian cricket team. No matter what actually unfolds over the next year or so, the cricketing public need to accept that the Australian side is going to get worse before it gets better.

Most Australians will be expecting Andrew Strauss and Kevin Pietersen to be the highest run-scorers for England this summer, with a fair helping of grit served up by Paul Collingwood. And there is no reason to suspect this will not be the case. It is the addition of Bell’s runs that makes this scenario formidable. Australia will be planning their attack around Strauss and Pietersen while knowing that the English pair will get away from them at times. If Bell starts to produce the number of runs he is promising to then Australia are going to be faced with significantly bigger opposition totals.

A contributing factor to Bell’s possible emergence this summer is the weakened Australian attack. No bowlers remain from the last Ashes series played in Australia, when Bell averaged 33.1. While last year’s Ashes series was disappointing for Bell (140 runs at 28), he was plagued by Mitchell Johnson who picked up Bell’s wicket five out of six times. (The last dismissal went to Peter Siddle, but Bell was not among his six victims yesterday.) However, Johnson’s form has not been good for a while now and we saw yesterday that, without Johnson firing, Bell was able to make a decent score. And Bell will be disappointed with the way that he was removed.

If Bell does flourish this summer then England are going to be tough to beat. In some ways, Bell’s success will be the measuring stick of Mitchell Johnson’s performance. If Johnson manages to regain his form—and with the enigmatic Johnson that could happen in one spell—that will tip the series in favour of the Australians. Regardless of whether we regard it as a success of Bell’s, or as a failure of Johnson’s—and that will come out in the details—if Bell averages close to 50 then England are going to be very difficult to beat.

The Real Reason I’m Not Voting Liberal

They are a bunch of ghouls. Senator Alan Eggleston, who is a Liberal Party candidate for the Senate, felt it was appropriate to send out a letter and a glossy flyer which gave nobody in the electorate any credit whatsoever.

The one issue addressed on the glossy flyer was asylum seekers. It’s key point was that the Liberal party promised to “turn the boats back.” Well down the list of bulletin points was “fair treatment for genuine refugees.” I take it, Dr Eggleston, that you mean you will treat fairly all those refugees which manage to avoid your best efforts to turn them back. I thought you were supposed to be deterring people from trying to sneak into Australia?

The Liberal party continually use two deliberately misleading phrases, “illegal immigrants” and “queue jumpers,” to describe asylum seekers. The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely nothing illegal about a person arriving on Australian soil and asking for refuge. It also means that there is absolutely no queue to jump.

The constant use of these phrases is outrageous! The Liberal party’s stance on asylum seekers is that they will use lies to get elected. The Liberal party knowingly and deliberately uses a group of people who make up 0.6% of all immigration to Australia as a key to being elected. That Labor feel compelled to match this is all the more disappointing because of its (relative) unexpectedness.

The Liberal candidate for Durack in the House of Representatives, Barry Haase, is only marginally less ghoulish, if only through dilution. His pledge to stop the boats is one of six points on his glossy page. (Of course, the other five are mostly mindless platitudes such as “end the waste” and “help families.”) But what he lacks in ghoulishness he makes up for with dimwittedness.

I spoke to Barry Haase in person on the topic of GMO canola. He said that he was in favour of it because it only sped up the process of what conventional breeding could do. The first thing to know about GMO crops is that they are genetically modified in ways that could never happen in nature. It is an important issue and it is fair to say that Barry Haase does not know the first thing about it. You need more than that stupid hat to give you some rural credibility, Barry.

The Liberal party’s policies are based on cynical pandering to a lowest common denominator demographic which they themselves are largely responsible for creating.

Whew! There you have it, the real reason I am not voting Liberal. Of course, when the policies of the two major parties are virtually indistinguishable it would be hypocritical to vote Labor.

Before this election campaign the thought of Tony Abbott as Prime Minister made me want to leave the country. Now, on election eve, my hope for this election is not about who will be Australia’s next Prime Minister, but the make-up of the Senate.

Vote responsibly, vote Green. Your candidate may not get in, but this isn’t the same as betting on the Melbourne Cup. The important thing is to be able to look at yourself in the mirror on Sunday morning.

Why I Will Not be Voting Liberal

Modern politics is generally a closely fought affair where elections are won and lost in a handful of marginal seats. Unfortunately this means that if you live in a safe seat—for either side—then neither side tries very hard in the electorate. In the case of the newly created seat of Durack the Liberals don’t need to try as the seat is a sure thing. It also means that Labor will spend their time and money where it will be the most helpful.

For this reason I will be voting against the sure bet—and I urge you to do the same. The only way to get the major political parties interested in our electorate is to let them both think that the seat is winnable.

Even if you cannot stand the prospect of casting a vote for Labor there is still a way to make the two major political parties sit up and take notice. On 60 Minutes, Mark Latham urged those disillusioned with Liberal and Labor to make an informal vote. There are many reasons a vote can be counted as a “donkey vote” and so I am not sure that this tactic can ever be widespread or accurate enough to make a difference.

A much more effective way to sound alarms in head offices in Canberra is to vote for a third option. That is why on Saturday I will be voting for the Greens.

I am sure that many of you find the thought of voting for the Greens more difficult than voting for Labor but there is a crucial difference. Unlike the increasingly indistinguishable Liberal and Labor parties the Greens have no chance of forming a government in their own right. This makes the Greens the perfect protest vote.

If the above is too politically cynical for you, then here are some quick points of benefit that the Greens’ policies have over both Liberal and Labor:

• The Greens are the only political party who are not queuing up to sign over Australia’s agricultural future to international biotech corporations
• The Greens are the only political party whose Immigration Policy is not focused on a group that make up 0.6% of total immigration. Both Liberal and Labor deliberately mislead the electorate by using phrases like ‘illegal immigrants’ and ‘queue-jumpers’ when discussing refugees. People are legally entitled to turn up and ask for asylum—there is no queue to jump
• The Greens support a National Broadband Network and oppose mandatory internet filtering. The Coalition’s broadband policy is built on wireless technology which means the internet will work as well as your mobile phone

On Saturday 21^st August, 2010, I urge you to send a strong message to Canberra that we are an electorate worth investing in.

Impossibly tall. Impossibly thin. Impossibly bosomy—especially for someone that tall and that thin. Gisele is one of the most famous women in the world.

Gisele is also a new mother, and it is some of her opinions on mothering—breast-feeding in particular—that have caused something of a storm in a C-cup.

Author: Tiago Chediak

The snapshotted opinion appears to suggest mandatory breast-feeding worldwide:

I think there should be a worldwide law, in my opinion, that mothers should breastfeed their babies for six months.

Gisele was, of course, speaking in her role as glowing mother, not in her role as model/philosopher. The reaction here in Australia has been quite widespread. Possibly because we are in election mode and everything is being treated as a policy announcement. Maybe Tony Abbott will seize upon the trend and make his paid parental leave scheme conditional upon breast-feeding. Or, more likely, he will join the chorus against Gisele to prove his solidarity with the half of the electorate that can’t stand him.

Those who have reacted strongly to Gisele’s remarks focus on the enforced breast-feeding aspect, and, after racing through several stages of hypothetical law-making (including supposing that a “world-wide law” is an actual thing), seem to arrive, inevitably, at the conclusion that such a statute would be a zero-tolerance policy:

@ksteve85: Wow Gisele, way to completely piss off the mommy community. I BF, but how dare you suggest it should be law. Some mom’s CAN’T.

This approach misses Gisele’s point entirely. In the brief captures from the interview I have seen, Gisele makes two points:

1. That breast-feeding helped her keep her figure
2. That breast-milk is more nutritious for babies than formula.

There is nothing controversial about these two claims. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) has some very similar comments to make:

WHO can now say with full confidence that breastfeeding reduces child mortality and has health benefits that extend into adulthood. On a population basis, exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life is the recommended way of feeding infants, followed by continued breastfeeding with appropriate complementary foods for up to two years or beyond. 1.

It appears Gisele’s mistake (aside from not being an internationally recognised health authority) stems from rhetorically over-simplifying the situation and its benefits to arrive at a statement which seems to suggest that breast-feeding should be legally demanded.

Let’s be honest. Gisele does not travel in the same circles as the rest of us. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to imagine that many people whom Gisele encounters in her regular life are successful career people with an army of assistants and nannies in tow to assist with child rearing, and for whom breast-feeding simply does not fit into their lives.

For example, Gisele’s comments make more sense if they are understood as addressing the kind of attitude that was brought up in a Daily Mail article regarding Gisele’s own comments:

And in 2008, TV host Kate Garraway said she struggled with breastfeeding her daughter Darcey.

‘After three weeks I certainly didn’t feel sexy, I felt a bit like a milk cow who existed only to provide food for her child,’ she said. 2.

And people are upset because Gisele has unrealistic ideas about motherhood? One might speculate about how Gisele would have felt had she been unable to go back to modelling swimwear six weeks after giving birth, but such speculation is not particularly helpful or relevant.

“Gisele’s Law” has been framed in terms of people who choose to use “chemical food” rather than those mothers who are unable to fully nourish a child on breast-milk alone. The reference to making it a law is simply a figure of speech.

.

EDIT: As of writing this, Gisele has updated her blog. Here is an excerpt:

My intention in making a comment about the importance of breastfeeding has nothing to do with the law. It comes from my passion and beliefs about children. 3.

.

1. http://www.who.int/child_adolescent_health/topics/prevention_care/child/nutrition/breastfeeding/en/index.html
2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1299711/Gisele-Bundchen-says-breastfeeding-law-6-months.html
3. http://blog.giselebundchen.com.br/en/sentido/a-importancia-da-amamentacao/

Thomas Cave’s story is bookended by the first-person accounts of Thomas Goodlard. The technique of using a relatively minor character to contextualise the main narrative is not unusual, but I particularly like the relationship between the two. Despite being quite close to Cave around the time of the adventure, Goodlard is never really told what Cave went through that winter, and his incomplete understanding creates tension.

Goodlard’s first-person account is contrasted with the omniscient narrator which tells Cave’s story. Goodlard belongs firmly to the world of men, a world based around the ‘I.’ Cave stands aloof from men—even before his voluntary isolation, but particularly after it. (And through it, obviously.) The novel is a parable demonstrating the divisions between Man and Nature, Man and God, even Man and Himself. It is the latter of this triumvirate that renders a first-person narrative ineffectual for Cave’s story. Yet it is this separation of Man from Himself that allows Cave to reconcile the first two divisions. In contrast, Goodlard is never not completely himself, and that keeps him from understanding Cave’s revelations about Nature and God.

While there is tension between the two character’s narratives, and between the concurrent narratives of Cave’s survival and remembrance, Cave’s new understandings of God and Nature are driven by the contrast between the summer and winter of the Arctic—a contrast that Cave is the only person to endure.

The once pristine area is stained by human activity and atrocity. But once Thomas Cave is left behind, all the masks of humanity, all the incidentals of existence are stripped away, leaving survival and memory—humanity in its purest state. The landscape, for all its fierceness and complete indifference to mankind during the winter months, retains the signs of human vandalism as the damage done in previous summers returns after winter: the grease, the blood stains, the skeletal remains.

Thomas Cave’s voluntary solitude, completely removed from the world of Man, reveals to Cave that Nature has its own, rightful, existence. By attempting to prove that man is indomitable and can conquer nature, Cave realises that man is not the master of nature, but its dependent.

Georgina Harding’s first novel is a solid, enjoyable effort but ultimately unfulfilling. The amount of time spent on the psychological troubles of Thomas Cave is not justified by the results. Haunted by loss, Cave is neither psychologically complicated, nor redeemed by his flagellation: “’If there was one thing I learnt in the North, Tom Goodlard, it was this: that there are no devils out there. No devils in the ice or the snow or the rocks, none but those inside us, those we bring.’”

We attended a matinée performance of Circus Royale in a small country town so instead of a bustling evening carnival atmosphere I found the whole thing a little depressing. The sideshow vendors (both of them) were clearly experiencing another mundane day at the office. The afternoon sunshine pierced through the tawdry veneer of glitz and glamour revealing the tatty condition of a working circus.

The Circus Royale big top at night. (Source: http://www.circusroyale.com/media.php)

But perhaps I am being too harsh. While outside the bigtop was certainly depressing, inside was another story. The bigtop was both much larger and more comfortable than I imagined. And away from the harsh, judgemental glare of sunshine the whole atmosphere became slightly more enchanting.

As is bound to be the way with these things, the show started slowly. And I don’t know if it is my age, but a lot of the performers looked a lot younger than they perhaps ought to have.

The first few acts were easily the weakest of the entire show, with the four ponies particularly distressing. Now, I am not a horse person, nor a qualified animal handler, but one of the ponies looked incredibly depressed. This opinion stems almost entirely from reading anthropomorphised body language, and an expert in horses might be able to dismiss the low-held head, but in an entertainment setting, looking depressed is what counts.

There were a number of other animal acts. The acts involving larger animals (cows, camels, ponies) were more of a parade around the ring than anything else. The only truly enjoyable acts were the ones with the dogs, though mostly that was due to the humour of the trainer.  All the animals—aside from the one that needed a prescription for pony prozac—looked as though they were treated and fed well. I did also hear that one of the cows was taken to the local vet and was removed from the show to rest.

The show did lack a trapeze or high-wire act, though there were a few acts that did take place up high. And while these acts were solid, it would have been nice to see a proper trapeze act. (The link on the website lists such acts as I am talking about, but they were not in the performance I attended.)

Damien Syred with the Man in the Bottle (Source: http://www.circusroyale.com/media.php)

The two most impressive acts in the circus are the much touted “Man in the Bottle” and the “Wheel of Death.” One of the acts is accurately named, the other overstating the case slightly. I found both of the acts utterly engrossing and impressive.

In these days where any number of incredible things are readily available, the unusual skills of circus performers do not seem as impressive as they once might have. When Cirque du Soleil produce television specials, when impressive human feats are shared over the internet, and when movies make the incredible look probable, the impact of the circus cannot help but suffer by comparison. But from these weaknesses the circus can draw its strengths. Whereas those competing experiences are mediated through a screen the circus has an intimate immediacy. Those other experiences are streamed constantly directly into our homes, either at the click of a button or unbidden; the circus is an event. It involves anticipation, readying, travelling. And that is what makes the circus so exciting—the fact that it comes to town so rarely.

While a working Mythbuntu box would replace a TiVo, my Mythbuntu experiment was not born from dissatisfaction with the TiVo. Rather it was born from my dissatisfaction with Apple TV. Now, I don’t have an Apple TV, and I’m not particularly inspired to get one. For two reasons: 1. You want me to pay $329 to be able to watch my content two rooms away? 2. While I am interested in renting and downloading movies, it’s not really something that my internet is up to. Also, I could add, that I’d probably need to buy a new TV to work with the Apple TV.

What I do (or did) have is (was) a Windows box that is not being used. Well, occasionally I put my feet up on it, but it’s not even particularly suited to that. My Windows box used to be my primary TV for years, thanks to  a WinFast 2000XP TV card from Leadtek. So, right there, at my feet—literally—I had the beginnings of a Mythbuntu box. With some limitations. Firstly, I wasn’t (and I’m still not) sure whether the TV card actually worked. It did stop being recognised by the program, but I figured that was at least just as likely to be Windows’ fault. And even if it did work, it is a software based encoder which was going to put an awful strain on my resources which were only borderline-adequate to begin with. Secondly, there is no video card at all let alone one that would enable TV out. So you can see why I eschewed the conventional ‘adventure’ and used the term ‘experiment’ instead.

After some trouble getting the Mytbuntu image to burn properly (apparently Linux distros are notoriously fussy about a few scratches on a CD) it was time to install. The process was pretty straight forward because it is just a straight software install. All the fiddly, difficult bits are done in the Set-Up once the install is complete.

Mythbuntu loading screen

Once I had the software installed, and I had flashed through a quick set-up (it was late at night and it didn’t find my TV card so I didn’t get too worked up over the details), I began trying to use the DVD function. It had trouble with the Region 1 disc that I tried, though it played copies that I had previously made okay. I also managed to rip that particular DVD as well as upload a Video_TS folder I had on my iMac. So that bit worked okay, but it was time for bed.

The next day I moved the Mythbuntu box into the lounge-room to hook it up to may satellite box. Yes, I do live somewhere where I have to get both my free-to-air television and broadband internet delivered by satellite. Different satellites, I believe. Anyways, because my TV card was not found during the set-up stage  (remember, it had ceased working a while ago), I moved into a different PCI slot to see if that would work. Here I had some mixed results. After the move the card was found and correctly identified, but during the move I had to remove the RF cable and unfortunately the socket stayed connected and actually pulled out of the card. (See, I told you it was an old card.) So the failure of the subsequent channel scans was not that big of a surprise.

And that is really where my experiment has stalled. I have tried a few other connections, but nothing seems to work. There are at least four possible explanations: 1. The TV card really does not work. 2. Mythbuntu can’t handle my satellite decoder box. (I think this is unlikely as it is the same style box as Foxtel receivers use and there seem to be plenty of those who have a working Mythbuntu system.) 3. Incorrect/faulty cables. 4. A poor Mythbuntu installation, be it Mythbuntu itself, a corrupt install, or inadequate hardware.

All that remains left to add is what I actually thought of the Mythbuntu user interface. I didn’t move away from the default theme, so my conclusions are very much of the interim nature. (Interim conclusions?!) If I was a Windows user I would have probably thought the the interface was quite snazzy, but being a Mac user my feeling is that it was a little dowdy. Nothing unbearable, just not as polished as I am used too. It was an awful lot cheaper though.

Big Boned is the third Heather Wells book by Meg Cabot. I have not read the first two, but from what I could gather, Heather Wells is a former popstar who now works in administration at a dorm. Sorry, residence hall. Based on what I assume to be the events of the first two books, the dorm, Fisher Hall, is referred to as Death Dorm. Predictably, director spots are hard to fill, so the college appoints an interim director, who, you know, gets murdered

It’s hard to know what to make of Ms. Cabot’s novel. On the one hand, it is very fast-paced and written in a likeable manner. On the other, it is largely forgettable. The book is caught between a detective story and a romance and does not succeed as either. As a detective story, the plot is weak and low on details and in general not developed enough to have a twist.

Actually, now that I come back to this two weeks later, I can’t even remember who the murderer was. Okay, I have now, but it shouldn’t have taken that long. Like I said, highly forgettable.

Dunkin the Vampire Slayer itself is many things. It is, by turns, gloriously uneven, endlessly imaginative, lacking the polish of a publishing house,  but overall it is great fun. I particularly like the device of fitting a thousand year old vampire into a management role—hilarious. It is, however, the treatment of vampires that is uneven, with master vampire Creole sounding suspiciously like Colonel Clink, accent included.

The audiobook is the first in the trilogy about Dunkin the Vampire Slayer, though the character Devlin steals most of the scenes in which he appears, and in fact, Devlin is the main character in a spin-off series. Devlin is a gruff sounding character who is given voice by Mr. Crites much more naturally than the others, and one gets the feeling that it is not just because the author’s cheese grater-smooth voice is well-suited.

While Mr. Crites does provide his own unique vision, there are many elements that will be familiar. The alcoholic bad-ass loner who hates to see injustice and can still be scolded by his mother; the vampire-slayer/hot vampire taboo relationship; Fate’s drawing together of individuals with the necessary qualities; ancient scrolls and prophesies; and, the overly noble hero. While the elements may be familiar, Mr. Crites’ handling of them is, although frequently forced, his own, and the same could be said of his prose. While the writing, particulrly dialogue has a tendency to be forced, it does keep the story moving at a brisk pace, only slowing when Dunkin, Devlin, and the sidekick, Ash, spend a little bit extra time needling each other, and parlaying crudity—which isn’t that crude, despite the author’s constant assurances that it is.

For all that Dunkin the Vampire Slayer is, it is not high art, nor is it intended to be. Indeed Dunkin does not seem to be anything other than pop entertainment—and it is entertaining. Mr. Crites’ fast-paced style and well-produced podiobook makes for good listening, and I have not traditionally been a big fan of audiobooks, finding it too easy to get distracted. Mr. Crites held my attention and I was always keen to hear the next instalment. Which means that, despite its clear literary short-comings, Dunkin the Vampire Slayer is well-worth checking out.

P.S. Part two is out now.