The Evolution of Dogs - the final chapter (for now)

Having read and reviewed Kolner-Matznick's "Dawn of the Dog", I think that about covers the modern books on the topic. We started with the Coppingers, then Derr. Followed by Pierotti and Fogg, and closed with Kolner-Matznick.


I still think the Coppingers' ideas were transformative, although there is some updating needed. Of the four, Pierotti and Fogg offered us an apparently well researched, but intellectually dishonest piece, and the least valuable of the contributions. Derr was reasonably well researched, but his emotional tirades revealed a strong bias. Kolner-Matznick is biased, but admits it, and it does not affect her work.

I've come to the conclusion that the Coppingers were both right, and wrong. Their conclusion that dogs self-domesticated is still so blindingly simple that any Occam's razor comparison to any idea that man intentionally domesticated dog leaves the human-driven evolution in tiny bits and pieces on the cutting room floor.

However, the other half of their idea? That dogs did this in response to the creation, by man, of a new food niche? And that dogs took advantage of this niche? That idea creates problems. However, I find it to be a third unassailable fact, to add to Kolner-Matznick's two, that modern dogs came to us via that niche. Still, there is ample evidence that something also preceded that niche development.

The Coppingers food niche theory has a strong foundation, as one of the irrefutable facts we KNOW, as offered by Kolner-Matznick, is that the archeological records only shows the existence of dog remains from about the same time as the appearance of permanent human communities. But Derr points to other archeological findings which seem to indicate earlier association of men and wolves, or perhaps proto-dogs. Pierotti and Fogg refer to some of the same research. Kolner-Matznick probably does too, but she includes more works, and more recent works.

There are some who quibble the details of the archeological evidence here.  One thought is that the appearance of recognizable dogs may have slightly preceded permanent communities. Another is that the archeological record is often scarce and only offers peepholes into a universe of possibilities. So there may have been earlier dogs - but we just don't know. I'm not persuaded by the slight time difference (of a couple of thousand years, but it's relative!). The archeological records of the earliest permanent communities is not complete, either. Recent findings have an apparently permanent community established some 25,000 B.P. (rather than the 10-12 currently in common use). Another thought is that those earliest known dogs appear too quickly - there would have needed to be sufficient time for dog to evolve from its ancestor. I also don't find this persuasive - the edge of that envelope - like other edges in nature - is full of overlap and grey area. There are very few purely delineated boundaries. We will return to this shortly, discussing the boundaries between wolves and dogs.

The Coppingers food niche theory also points to the massive change in size, between the wolves and/or proto-dog wolf-dogs in the archeological records, and the dogs who seem to appear at the dawn of agriculture. They speculate that this change could be an example of the domestication effect - where domesticated animals lose size - compared to their wild cousins. And, they speculate that some of the morphological changes - physical differences between dog and wolf - are due to neotony - as a natural by-product of domestication.

Kolner-Matznick, however, points out a range of evidence to support dogs having evolved these morphological changes prior to dogs' close association with early permanent villages. And it seems to me that the evidence, at this point, leans in her favor. As she points out, some of the morphological differences are not what one would expect from the domestication effect. Her work with skull shapes plays a big part here.

Derr, and Pierotti and Fogg, both, in slightly different ways, propose that dogs, as wolves, associated with man prior to agriculture. And they present evidence of that if we wish to be persuaded. The Pierotti and Fogg arguments are intellectually dishonest, but their essential premise still has validity. That premise is that man and wolf could have had a cooperative, commensal, relationship prior to agriculture. A primary argument against this is that man and wolf were competing predators. And, as such, cooperation would have been unlikely. Personally, I don't have a problem thinking that some sort of cooperation existed prior to the dawn of agriculture. And Kolner-Matznick gives us a third option, that dogs existed prior to the archeological record of them. And her arguments are honest and persuasive. The corollary of this is that those early proto-dogs DID cooperate with humans, at least somewhat.

There is one other point I would like to discuss. Many researchers theorizing on this topic like to point out that cooperation between two competing predators is unlikely. Pierotti and Fogg's primary thesis is an attempt to refute that idea. However, there is a general assumption here, and that is that human hunter/gatherers would have no waste. This is based on observation of extant hunter/gatherers and recent historical accounts of same. But if we go back 100 to 200,000 years, mankind was still hunting megafauna, and doing mass kills by running prey off cliffs. Based on observation of current societies killing what remains of such large game, elephants, it is unlikely that there would NOT be an opportunity for another predator to scavenge the leftovers.

Now, there is a large time gap in between 100,000 years before present, and 10-25,000 years B.P. And maybe, in that whole time gap, human hunter/gatherers were super efficient, and more like the "waste not / want not" habits of observed hunter/gatherers. But it seems entirely possible, even likely, to me that there may have been human behavior that was less efficient. Which would mean that, at least in some places, there were leftovers for a food niche, prior to the advent of farming. And this is somewhat along the lines of what both Derr and Pierotti and Fogg propose, although I think Derr was, at the time of his book, still more inclined to think of the evolution of dogs as a human intervention. 

One of the underpinnings of pretty much everyone's scientific thinking, prior to Kolner-Matznick, was that dogs descended from grey wolves (Holarctic wolves, canis lupus). And the DNA shared between them is the basis for this, at least in recent years. It is that DNA sharing that generated a call to rename the scientific name for dogs, from canis familiaris, to canis lupus familiaris. In other words, dogs as a subspecies of the Holarctic wolf. However, since that call, (and since Kolner-Matznick's book) new ancient wolf DNA evidence has been found. And, it indicates that the Holarctic wolf and dogs share a mother somewhere way back when, but they are sister species, not ancestor and descendant. That evidence supports Kolner-Matznick's theorizing. So I'm sticking with canis familiaris.

There are other reasons I've been inclined to think that dogs are a separate species. Among those is the "gaze". Dogs look into people's eyes - wolves don't do that. And, dogs read human body language. Wolves don't do that.  And, while there is undeniable evidence that wolves and dogs continue to interbreed in some geographic areas, it is also undeniable that "the wolf and dog gene pools have maintained their general integrity over thousands of years of coexistence" (Kolner-Matznick, p 27).

This is where Kolner-Matznick's theory contributes. Objections to the thought that the modern grey wolf would have been allowed near human encampments are valid. Wolves are not tame, even when socialized. They are still wild, and potentially violent. However, if the wolf was not a wolf, but a sister species who evolved differently, then just maybe, eh? And that is what Kolner-Matznick gives us: a wolf who is not inclined to run in packs, who hunts singly, who is more omnivorous, who is more willing to scavenge, and who associates with other individuals on something like a friendship basis, rather than a pack heirarchy. When you put that wolf alongside humans who also hunted AND scavenged (as many researchers now believe), all of a sudden a potentially mutually beneficial, commensal relationship comes into focus in the realm of possibility.  Today you hunt, tomorrow I hunt. A wild and crazy idea, to be sure, but somehow it all happened and got us to where we are today.

The Coppingers postulated that if mankind somehow disappeared from earth, that dogs would shortly thereafter die out. This remains true. It might take a few years, but millions and millions of dogs would die. And there would only be a very few, a tiny percentage, that might survive multi-generationally. Wolves would continue. Dingos, by the way, would also continue, as they are the only dogs who are self-sufficient predators.

There you have it. Dogs are dogs. And wolves are wolves. And, while the twain do meet on occasion, they remain what they are. Everyone agrees, at least to some degree, that dogs played, at the very least, a large contributing part in their own domestication. Personally, I'm inclined to think, given what history we do have of dogs, that mankind played the minor role in the process. But that - the modern history of dogs - or the history of dogs since the dawn of agriculture - is the next episode.

The evolution of dogs - Kolner-Matznick's "Dawn of the Dog"

This is a definite "add" recommendation for library bookshelves, either home or public. Written by a non-academic, it is not a "fun" book, but rather, valuable for what it adds to the conversation on the evolution of dogs. The author may not have made a living in academia, nor obtained letters to put behind her name, but she is a scholar and scientist regardless. The book has two sections - it's really two books in one. The first section covers the author's findings and thinking on canine evolution. The second is a series of descriptive essays on various aboriginal wild dog landraces.

I'd like to get two quibbles out of the way first. The author doesn't tell you what her point is until page 121 - nearly the end of the first section! I much prefer to hear the point up front, in the manner of a scientific paper, and then explore the arguments behind the reasoning. So, if you like, skip to page 121-122, and then return to the beginning.

The 2nd quibble starts with a statement in her preface: any theory about the origin of dogs "including the concept I prefer, the Natural Species Hypothesis, is speculation based on inductive reasoning ('educated guesses')". The author then proceeds to characterize theories other than hers as "once upon a time" or "just so" stories, which I found a bit disingenuous. Especially so, as one such theory, that of dogs evolving as humans began to live in villages - is also a theory of the natural evolution of a species.

However, Koler-Matznick has bigger fish to fry, and does a good job of doing so. She spends a lot of time on explaining some of the science behind what she presents, but she does so in a useful fashion. While her book is very current (it contains references to studies as recent as a 2015 publication), it has since been passed by new discoveries and findings. In particular, I'm thinking of the discovery of some 30,000 year old wolf DNA. Which finding, however, supports some of Koler-Matznick's theorizing.

On the very first page, in her preface, Koler-Matznick also gives us this nugget:
"Here are the scientifically-proven facts about the origin of the dog to date:
1. The dog and gray wolf are very closely related.
2. The oldest recognized dog fossils are dated to about 14,000 years ago."
Which is right in the time frame of when man began agriculture, and permanent villages. The Coppingers relied on this fact when they theorized that dogs may have evolved to utilize man's leftovers.

Koler-Matznick, however, is convinced that dog was dog prior to that process. From page 122:
"The dog was never canis lupus. It was a naturally evolved species before it attached itself to humans." And, therein lies a hefty nugget. The recent discovery of ancient wolf DNA supports this idea - in that it indicates that dogs did not descend from grey wolves - but rather grey wolves and dogs are sister species, both descended from a now extinct ancestor. Koler-Matznick has to work hard to present evidence and arguments that dogs did not evolve FROM wolves. Today the genetic records are making that job much easier.

Also though, that thought reveals how Koler-Matznick differs from Coppinger. Coppinger theorized that dogs became dogs because agriculture and permanent dwellings created a new niche. Koler-Matznick theorizes that dog was already nearly dog before then.

In order to back up that point, Koler-Matznick goes into genetics, skull shape, and wild dog behavior. She does a deep dive into the genetics, but it's useful stuff. The skull shape work is original. She relates various characteristics to the use typified by a characteristic - for instance, how dog's tooth shape differs from wolves, and how this likely indicates dogs evolved to take prey in a different fashion. And she examines evidence from the fossil record. Her final key component is the behavior of aboriginal wild dogs - like dingos, and the arctic sled dogs.

Kolner-Matznick has put together a very extensively researched, and well thought out volume. 

All in all, the author offers us a very useful addition to the conversation. Highly recommended. 

Book review: Our Debt to the Dog, Bryan Cummins

Bryan Cummins huge contribution to the current abundance of books about dogs, their history,  and origins deserves a reserved spot on every reference shelf - public or private. He gives us an immense book that could easily have been 3 or 4 books, or more. He gives us a compendium review of the existing literature, most notably, to my mind, from historic mentions, but right up to the Coppingers and Derr. This book is comprehensive, rational, and exceptionally well done.

Some may find his writing a bit dry. Cummins doesn't give us an emotional take on the topic. I found his writing interesting, but so densely packed with information that I preferred to digest it in bits. It will certainly go on my bookshelves to be referred to again and again. And I will be making plenty of notes in the margins!

Cummins covers the many roles dogs have played in human society. We see them as hunting companions, herding and guarding workers, draft animals, their role in various religions, and on to dogs as fighting machines, both in blood sports, and at war.

On the topic of herding dogs and their history, the subject I was most interested in, Cummins provides a supremely comprehensive review of historical sources who have written about dogs used with livestock, either as guardians or herders.

Cummins is not perfect. He did miss at least one source that I know of - Iris Combe on herding dogs of the UK. And he pictures two breeds, the German Shepherd Dog, and the Rough Collie, as being typical of a certain type of herding dog, when they are both manufactured breeds that have only existed in modern time. (This is absolutely true for the GSD, but could be quibbled about with the Rough Collie. However, it is recognized that the rough collie has, for well over 100 years, been bred for appearance, not function.) Such minor points will also be found in other areas - but these are truly minor points of little significance.

Cummins brings us more good material on the history and cultural anthropology of dogs, in one book, than any other I have seen. And, he does it thoroughly and thoughtfully. The annual convention of the "Dog Writers of America" (2013 or 2014) honored the book with an award of excellence. And well deserved!

Ruffwear booties - a quick review

Ruffwear booties are not cheap. And here is my quick review: FAIL.

I bought a pair because the store thought they were a good product. I needed something to protect Klinger's feet while he healed from an injury. They rubbed his ankles raw, and came off, usually when he was running (the MOST inconvenient time).

So, I added socks. That was worse. And, I put them away, in a drawer somewhere. Along come Amy and Andy. Andy tears a pad, and needs booties. So I give them another try. This was even worse - I could NOT get them to stay on Andy.

Then Amy had some icing issues in the snow, and I tried them on her. Same thing. They rub when they stay on, and then they come off when they shouldn't.

I don't have the faintest idea how to improve this design, but I know what I will try next. Next time, I will try buckskin booties that TIE at the top - like a moccasin.

Like these: https://www.dogmocs.com/

Ruffwear? Fail.

Managing Breeds for a Secure Future: Strategies for Breeders and Breed Associations by Phillip Sponenberg

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


Sponenberg has given us a volume of 24k gold. It is mostly about livestock, but it covers dogs quite well, also. In all that, he manages to clearly convey the concept that the varieties of animal breeds are gene pool reservoirs for an adaptation that was appropriate somewhere, at some time. And that those genes are no longer otherwise available as the foundation stock no longer exists in the wild. And he also discusses the impacts of show breeding - and losing genes that way. And more.
He covers aspects of reviving and restoring rare breed gene pools, and just plain healthy breeding practice. The last couple of chapters go into various breeding patterns quite thoroughly.
This is a valuable volume, I would think particularly for today's revival of interest in small-farming and heritage breeds. For those people who've been breeding for 30 years, it would offer less value, but still might contain some useful nuggets. If you are involved in heritage or rare breeds, or just want to start a small-farm commercially, this deserves a place on your reading list. And it deserves a prominent place on library reference shelves.



View all my reviews

It's a dog's world: the new library

It is incredible how much research is going on with dogs these past 20-30 years now! From black hole to nova status.

Some recent additions, note that most of these are borrowed from the library rather than purchased to actually add to my physical library. I gave up on keeping books over a decade ago. I haven't the resources, and modern computer archiving is too powerful. 

Pierotti and Fogg, Mark Derr, and the Coppingers (Ray and Lorna) you know about. BTW, my reviews of Pierotti and Fogg are going downhill - it appears their book misrepresents the findings of at least one other researcher (more than just the Coppingers): Marion Schwartz's fine volume, History of Dogs In the Early Americas. But put her book on a list of important volumes to read.

Also: Phillip Sponenberg: Managing Breeds for a Secure Future: Strategies for Breeders and Breed Associations, Second Ed.

He delves into how breeds can be reservoirs for certain genetic combinations. And it was great to read his thinking on the matter. What was also great was that he recognized exactly the place I think I'm coming from on breeds of dogs, and recognized that there is validity in the outlook that our definition of dog breeds may be overly restrictive. He mostly talks about other farm animals - sheep, goats, beef, fowl, but dogs as well. Good stuff.

Bryan Cummins: Our Debt to the Dog. Wow - so much to read! I've skimmed over a few random spots - it looks like it is chock-full of gold. I'll have to read more, but I might have to buy my own copy of this one. It covers a lot of territory I've been thinking about - the origins and development of breeds and job-specific dogs.

Coming soon, to my reading library:

Dawn of the Dog, The Genesis of a Natural Species, Janice Kolner-Matznick (had to buy a copy, library could not get it!)

from the library:

The genius of dogs : how dogs are smarter than you think, Author: Hare, Brian

The dog wars : how the border collie battled the American Kennel Club,  Author: McCaig, Donald.

Also, I will note, because this volume has been in many conversations regarding English Shepherds: Iris Combe's "Herding Dogs: Their Origins and Development in Britain". Mrs. Combe was "A Person of Interest" in the collie communities in the late 20th century UK. Her volume is a collation of her lifetime interest in the history of collies in the UK. It includes much that was verbal history alone, but also news clippings and antiquarian volumes. Definitely a permanent addition to the dog section of the bookshelves.

Coppinger, Derr, Pierotti and Fogg: when and how did dog become dog? Episode 2!

Why are dogs dogs, and not wolves? First of all, pretty much everybody who has ever dealt directly with wolves, coyotes, or dog-hybrids agrees: the animals are wild. They are not domesticated, nor tame. They are. not. dogs.

Pierotti and Fogg (last post) try to convince us that the First Nations, the aboriginal Americans, regarded dogs and wolves as the same thing. But wait a sec - they didn't use wolves to lug the travois, did they? No, they didn't. They used dogs. Ipso facto, Pierotti and Fogg are full of it.

I have a number of other issues with the Pierotti and Fogg book. They portray the First Nations as monolithic in belief regarding dogs and wolves. They weren't. Good science shows that the First Nations of the Americas had just as wide a variety of response to dogs as did European and Asian cultures. Some ate them, some revered them. Some buried them with their dead. And some scorned them as dirty.

They also portray "Western" culture as monolithic. And it was not.

The Pierotti and Fogg book is persuasively written. It reads well, and fairly easily. But, unlike Coppinger, or even Derr, they don't really present us with anything more than their own ego-stroking and bias confirmation.

However, the idea that man and wolf (which wolf was NOT the grey wolf we know today) had a commensal (mutually beneficial) relationship prior to the dawn of agriculture and permanent communities has backing in what little science there is. And, it is a logical concept. Personally, I find this concept just as good, rationally, as Coppinger's thesis that dogs developed as a result of the dawn of permanent human communities. All this does is deliver a variety of wolf, which is pre-disposed to be friendly to humans, to the scene at the dawn of agriculture, some 10k to 25k years ago.

Good science tells us that dogs are not descended from grey wolves, but rather that grey wolves and dogs are "sisters" in evolution - likely descending from a single "parent" type of wolf, a wolf that does not exist today.

By the way, although I've said this before elsewhere, Derr focuses on this same concept - that wolves developed a mutual relationship with humans prior to the advent of agriculture. Derr, I think, allows for the possibility of human control over the interaction.  Which I doubt, but it is possible.

And, again, I close with this thought: the advent of agriculture and permanent communities saw a distinct change in the physical appearance of the wolves we now call dogs. That significant development in the history of mankind was accompanied by a significant change in the animals we now call dog. Regardless of how dogs became dogs - they came to us through that filter of village dogs.

Coppinger, Derr, Pierotti and Fogg: when and how did dog become dog?

Thoughts on the evolution of dogs, according to the Coppingers, Derr, Pierotti and Fogg.

The Coppingers, Laura and Ray, led the way. At least in public pronouncement, about how wolves probably self-domesticated, and man likely did little or nothing.¹ Up until the 1980's, the common presumption was that man somehow managed the domestication process. Somewhere around the 80's or 90's, people actually started looking into the archeological and anthropological records to figure out what dogs were, and how they got here. In retrospect, it seems almost odd, but very little research had been done, earlier than that, about what dogs were, and how they came to be domesticated. A research black hole, if you like - certainly something of a vacuum. Since then everybody and their brother has been rushing to fill the gap.

The Coppingers' primary thesis on the evolution of dogs is that, (a) dogs are wolves who adapted (evolved) to fit into the space alongside human communities, and (b) that this was precipitated by humankind's development of permanent communities at the dawn of agriculture, and (c) that it was the wolves themselves who evolved to fit this niche environment (not humans, shoehorning wolves into domestication). All animals, including people, are opportunistic. If they see a niche they can occupy safely, they do. So the Coppingers think that some wolves saw the opportunity to live alongside man, and live off the easy pickings of mankind's scraps and leftovers.

But some people don't like that idea². Most notably to date, Mark Derr, who published, ten years after Coppingers' first book, How the Dog Became the Dog: From Wolves to Our Best Friends. Derr is vehemently opposed to the idea of dogs as "dumpster-divers". And, he presents a lot of good arguments that the domestication process, or, at the least, a mutually beneficial commensal relationship, began prior to mankind's establishment of permanent communities at the dawn of the age of agriculture.

Pierotti and Fogg's more recent book, The First Domestication. How Wolves and Humans Coevolved (2018) expands on Derr's thesis. They take it in a slightly different direction, and they expand on Derr slightly, going so far as to speculate that wolves and mankind entered a mutually cooperative relationship at some point in the stone age. (That's paleolithic and mesolithic if you prefer 25-cent words. )

My book review on GoodReads:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another entry in the "dogs are wolves" category, this book suffers from extreme bias and mischaracterization of other scientists' recent work. In particular the authors represent the Coppingers' views as 180 degrees opposite of what the Coppingers said. For instance, on page 21, they represent the Coppingers' views as "the process of domestication began with wolves being dominated by humans", when the Coppingers' view was precisely the opposite - wolves self-domesticated into an opportunistic commensalism with humans, i.e. taking advantage of leftover human resources. At a couple of points, they represent the Coppingers as arguing for the scientific reclassification of dogs as wolves, when Ray Coppinger was precisely opposed to that move. It makes me wonder if the authors have treated others of their sources, with whom I am less familiar, as cavalierly.

They also oversimplify and generalize both "Eurocentric" or "western" influence and conquest, and indigenous peoples. Neither of those categories were culturally monolithic, but the authors would like you to believe they are.

However, one of their ultimate points is that the domestication of dogs began prior to the advent of agriculture and permanent communities, and in this regard, there is science that backs them up. This is pretty much the same thesis that Mark Derr proposes in his books and articles on the topic. And, while they are both dismissive of Coppinger, they both propose a similar conclusion - it was not man who domesticated wolf, but wolf who domesticated himself into dog.

Pierotti and Fogg, and Derr all suffer from ignoring, or attempting to ignore, the elephant in the room: the village dog. Whether the process of domestication began 250,000 years ago, or 10,000 does not change the fact that the physiology of dogs changed markedly at about the same time that mankind began inhabiting permanent villages. And our dogs of today, even if they still occasionally crossbreed with wolves, are not wolves, but dogs, and they come to us through the filter of the village dog. Every dog that we call dog today exists primarily because of village dogs. The occasional interbreeding that Derr, Pierotti, and Fogg would like us to believe is of primary concern are minor eddies on the banks of a great and massive river.

My conclusion and recommendation: take a pass on this one. It adds little to the conversation, although in some ways Pierotti and Fogg do a better job of persuading the reader than Derr. If you are determined to learn more, it can be worth reading, so that you have some idea of the breadth of viewpoints that are currently out there, but be mindful that this is only one. If we revisit this topic in ten years time, I believe there will be other books, with better science on the topic. Just as an example, Science magazine published an article in 2015 on how dogs utilize the oxytocin feedback loop (and wolves don't). There is serious and major science going on in this field right now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One corrollary question I did not address in detail in the review (avoiding TLDR), is why I am so sure that dogs are dogs and wolves are wolves, and while the twain shall meet, they are NOT the same.

First of all, that Science article I mentioned in the review, back in a 2015 issue, on the oxytocin loop and dogs? I have a strong hunch that is a groundbreaking study, on defining what dogs ARE. One of the reasons cited for revising the scientific classification of dogs to wolves (subcategory dogs), was the inability to put a finger on what made dogs different. Dog vary widely in body types and behavior - and the argument goes "With all those body types, what IS a dog?". Well - that oxytocin loop may just provide the answer. It's not the size of the dog in the fight . . .

TO BE CONTINUED!

1. You'll find a review of his books earlier in another blog post, found here.
2. "Oh, there's a big surprise!" -- Iago, the parrot

Adam Smith's invisible hand

When Adam Smith talked about an invisible hand, he was assuming that the basic infrastructure of society was in place - or that market participants would provide the infrastructure to maintain a peaceful market through rational self-interest. What history repeatedly schools us on that is that people are not rational, except secondarily. A “free” market requires rules of behavior. IMO, Ostrom’s work regarding the “commons” proved this. The problem arises, often, in balancing rules and freedom, but complete freedom doesn’t work. Some market actor WILL take advantage - happens every time. Too many rules are also stifling - or rules written by the wrong set of participants. Like a king - not a good person to write the rules, as they are disconnected from the market.

Alita: Battle Angel, pre-review

I can't say it's a review - I haven't seen the film yet! But I've viewed every trailer and clip I can find, because this one looks exciting!

A lot of the complaints I see seem based on characteristics of the film that parallel characteristics of manga.

Manga is not for everyone. It is juvenile and sometime puerile. It's philosophical and psychological depths are often stereotypes, and simplifications.

Much like Marvel and DC comic story lines we've seen in the past decade or so of story/movie conversions. AMOF, I've often seen similar negative comments on that spate of Marvel and DC comic/movie conversions. So, hey, the original stories were not Hemingway or Conrad deep. And any good movie conversion, that is honest to the original stories, won't be, either. But they can be deep, introspective, and philosophical in their own way. Spiderman and X-men are good examples of comics depth.

If you can accept and enjoy the original stories on their own merits - then you might also be able to enjoy the movie conversions - when they are good. The recent "Ghost in the Shell" movie is a good example of a BAD adaptation - lord love a duck, it's bad. Alita, on the other hand (I've only had access to clips so far), seems to be quite the opposite - as good a conversion to movie as you can expect - when moving a story from print to screen.

And it looks to me like a damn good story, and a ton of fun!

It was late afternoon, and we were expecting snow overnight. Temps had been nice - often above freezing during the day. In the 20's at night. There had been so snow, so the iced-over ponds were smooth and people were talking about skating. In the neighborhood chat somebody said they had measured the ice thickness at over 5", which surprised me, since the days had often been a bit over freezing.

Just about dusk, we were at the store. We were close to one of  our goose client ponds. So, just for the something to do, I drove over to the pond beach. I expected it to be empty, but I was quite wrong - it was packed - with skaters!

It was a beautiful evening, with the light fading, and a few flakes of the first snow floating through the air. The ice was beautiful - smooth and dark. Our first day of real winter this year.

The following day we got snow and sleet. Proper northeast muck for the roads.