As I’m writing, I typically listen to something. Often this is old blues (Robert Johnson, Blind Willie Johnson, etc.), or older jazz (Davis, Coltrane, Monk, Brubeck, etc.), or my favorite rock outfits (Bob Dylan, The Band, Elvis Costello, etc.). The beauty of iTunes is that I have all of that at my fingertips, and I can arrange it however I like. With Dr. Dog’s new album, there is absolutely no need to mix and match. Just put it on repeat and let it roll! From blazing (yet, strangely cute) indie rock (e.g., “The Old Days”) to a Band inspired romp completely with 1970s horn section, ELO-esque harmonies, and a Joe Cocker meets David Bowie lead vocal yelling “Oh Yeah!” (“Army of Ancients”), Fate delivers all kind of goods.

If you’re not familiar with Dr. Dog, maybe you should be. This little band from Philadelphia has made me sit up and listen. As we were jamming (and I do mean “jamming”) to the album in the car the other day, I said to Natalie: “This is how I imagine The Band would sound if they had formed now instead of back in the 1960s.” High praise from the lights of me, as I think The Band, as a band, is probably tops in my book. But all the elements are here. Shades of Manuel on the piano, Hudson’s ghostly organ in the background, both serving as layers beneath Danko’s excellent bass work, the screaming guitar of Robertson and the pounding drums of Helm. Yet, none of these guys are present. Instead, we’ve got Stens, Miller, Leaman, McMicken, and McElroy.

The cohesiveness of the sound makes Fate a great listen. It’s already a staple of our music collection. Give it a spin!

I’ve got to be honest. I really liked W.. As a guy who is firmly entrenched in the middle, leaning left on some issues, right on others, I felt like the portrayal of George W. Bush was remarkably fair — especially given what I was expecting from Oliver Stone and company. In fact, of all the characters in the film, I feel like Bush comes off the best.

The movie is well-written and well-structured (even though it just back and forth in time), and mostly well-acted (more on that in a moment).

In fact, Josh Brolin’s performance as “Junior” is so good that you don’t mind that he doesn’t really look like him. Brolin’s impression of Bush is spot-on, but it is not a caricature and does not get in the way. Instead, Brolin’s performance comes off as very honest. Cromwell’s as George H.W. Bush also rings true, though Cromwell did not even begin to do an impression of “Poppy.” This was probably a good decision as those who chose to impersonate their real-life counterparts tended to do poorly.

Chief among the poor performances was Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice. Her impression of Rice was over-the-top to the point where it was just uncomfortable. She even looked uncomfortable doing it. I’m not sure what Stone and company were thinking when they allowed her to continue to do this (or, perhaps, egged her on to do it).

While the film feels somewhat balanced to me, there are some items that I just don’t get. The movie wants to vilify many of those involved in the decision to invade Iraq: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. This I expected. Yet, the film makes Colin Powell out to be a saint. The contrast between Powell and Rice is particularly striking. Newton’s portrayal of Rice is as a weak sycophant, while Jeffrey Wright‘s portrayal of Powell presents him as the only level-headed member of Bush’s cabinet, yet he is forced to tow the line in the end.

In his brief introduction to the film, Cromwell said that the movie was timely, arriving “neither 10 years too early nor four years too late.” While I find the timing of it a bit suspect (so shortly before an election — note that many major political players are shown in this movie: John McCain, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, but no Obama), I feel like Cromwell might be right. Why not examine Bush’s presidency while it’s still fresh in our minds?

In the end, I’ve got to recommend W. for two reasons:

• Josh Brolin’s performance
• The interesting, almost centrist, portrait that it paints. Not sure how the Righties and the Lefties will feel about this. I am definitely interested in hearing their opinions though.

The story is Pi Patel’s — a boy who grows up in India but is shipwrecked when his family decides to emigrate to Canada. Roughly two-thirds of the novel deals with this shipwreck as Pi floats the Pacific Ocean in a life boat with a host of zoo animals.

Sounds like a ridiculous situation, right?

It certainly is. That’s the magic of Pi. By the time I got to this ridiculous situation, Pi’s narrative and style had me so invested in him and in his story that I couldn’t help but suspend disbelief (the same is not true of the Japanese characters who debrief Pi at the end of the novel). As Pi narrates (through the lens of an italicized “author” character) his childhood: growing up in Pondicherry, his father’s zoo, his brushes with Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam and his subsequent appropriation of all three, I came to love this little guy. Consequently, as he’s floating around the Pacific with a 450-pound Bengal tiger, I’m really concerned for the outcome of the story. Of course, at least part of this was due to my curiosity: “How is Martel gonna get this teenager off this boat?”

Things aren’t all roses, however. The author character is turned on to Pi’s story by an old friend who says that this story will “make you believe in God.” I’m not sure what that means in the context of the story. Pi’s view of religion is doctrinally challenged — he has no rules. His appropriation of Krishna and friends along with Jesus and Allah makes for a strange God-soup that is difficult to understand.

So, Pi has watered these religions down, but he has also boiled them down by reducing the three to one incontrovertible truth, one dogma: LOVE GOD.

Overall, Life of Pi really works. It’s a fun read on a lot of levels, and highly recommended. Some of Martel’s choices at the end are puzzling, mystifying, and don’t really sit well with me. But, hey, it’s not all about me, is it? I think Pi would agree.

Finally, Pi can certainly be inspirational. He’s screaming at me: “Tell the better story.” I just need to figure out what that means.

The story focuses on a young college graduate, Chris McCandless, who eschews modern society in favor of his alter ego, “Alexander Supertramp.” McCandless tells his parents that he may be attending Harvard Law while they dine together in post-graduation celebration. This will be the last time that they see him, as McCandless wanders west in search of himself.

Through his travels, McCandless comes into contact with various people: a hippy couple, a plains states grain farmer, a young girl who falls in love with him, and an old man who has retired and works leather in his garage shop. Each of these encounters impacts those involved in differing ways. As he moves about the U.S., McCandless becomes fixated on Alaska. After hitchhiking there he spends weeks in solitude in the wilderness.

In terms of performances, everyone holds their own, but it is Hal Holbrook who steals the show here. His portrayal of Ron Franz, an old man who befriends McCandless, is heartbreaking and wonderful. Good to see Hal back on the scene.

Sean Penn directs and does a fine job weaving various elements together: cinematography, score, and original music by Eddie Vedder. No complaints here, really. It is effective, efficient direction. The story is taut and spins along at a great pace.

Moving on…

I love the end of Into the Wild. The first two hours, however, are a bit painful to watch. In abandoning his former life, McCandless punishes his parents and sister, and probably his old friends, though we never hear from them. This punishment and rebellion phase of the film makes it difficult to identify with McCandless. Instead of empathizing with him, I started to turn against him — I wanted to shake him and tell him to stop whining.

Two hours of whining should get on anyone’s nerves.

In the end, however, McCandless comes around and discovers that humans aren’t meant for solitude. True happiness comes from relationships. By this time, however, it is too late and the damage is done.

The presentation of the McCandless family does nothing to assist in making us feel that Chris is whining. The film presents Mr. and Mrs. McCandless in a harsh light, highlighting their mistakes whilst they glorify their suburban consumerism and “success”. Meanwhile, his sister, played well-enough by Jena Malone, is an angelic victim without fault or substance, unfortunately. There is nothing deep or interesting going on here, though that will change in the last 15 minutes of the film.

Into the Wild should be commended for where it takes our main character. The journey to that end, however, may easily become the focus of attention for many viewers. I would be particularly interested to learn what teenagers and college-aged kids think about Chris McCandless and what he says and does. Will they miss the somewhat enigmatic (yet obvious…right?) end? Difficult to tell.

The Shack is the tale of Mackenzie Allen Phillips (a.k.a. “Mack”), a somewhat normal guy, who is asked by God to return to a shack in the forest where one of his daughters was brutally murdered. While there, God in all His/Her glory and personages converses with Mack, showing him the many things that he has misunderstood.

In this blog, I like to think about writing. When I think about The Shack and writing, my thoughts aren’t good.

First of all, the chapter titles are too cutesy and only tangentially related to what’s in the chapter. A scene that occurs around breakfast is called “Breakfast of Champions”, but not much of this scene has to do with “champions.” This is just one minor example, but it is something that started to get on my nerves as the pages wore on.

Second, the first 80 pages are entirely too long and unnecessary. As I read it, I had several thoughts, allow me to share a few with you:

• The author must be trying to get this novel up to a minimum length. This stuff is unnecessary and long-winded.
• The author is not confident in his writing skills.
• The author does not know what’s important.

Honestly, it was painful. I got the sense that Mr. Young was just trying to stretch this thing out so that it would be of a normal novel length. In so doing, there was some crazy word choice. At one point, Mack sits down to watch television. Nowhere do you see the words “TV” or “television.” Instead, Mr. Young has chosen “media tube.” Totally unnatural. In the end, as a reader, I just didn’t feel like I was in good hands.

The book does lurch past these difficult opening scenes. Once Mack makes it out to the shack (about 1/3 of the way through the novel), things pick up and become more interesting. Still, there are some inconsistencies. For example, one of the persons of God is represented by a black woman. Throughout her extended conversations with Mack, her speech fades in and out of colloquialism making me wonder: “Why can’t God stay in character?”

Beyond that, though, The Shack does present an interesting take on the Trinity and interesting ideas about how humans live with each other and with God. For this, and in spite of its poor start and tendency towards emotional cheese, it is probably worth reading.

However, the whole thing is cheapened by the final page of my copy which talks about “The Missy Project.” The Missy Project is a promotional tool that encourages you to write reviews of, promote, and hand out copies of The Shack. If I picked up some novel by Michael Chabon or Umberto Eco, and I saw this, I’d be disgusted. You would be too. Look, Mr. Young, if your book is good enough then people will tell others about it. If it’s not, then they won’t. Just because it is “christian” in nature doesn’t mean it’s okay to shamelessly self-promote. Whatever your intentions, it wreaks of money-grubbing.

Finally, a note on “heresy.” Mr. Young has caused a lot of controversy with the publication of this novel. A lot of people are up in arms about the theology that is presented therein. Ultimately, as I read it, I kept thinking: I’m glad there is a bunch of hoopla over some of this stuff…American Christians need to be confronted with their stereotypes. Do I agree fully with Mr. Young’s take on things? No. But, I think we’d agree on the biggies (e.g., God saved us, breaking our bondage to sin and death through Jesus’s salvific work on the Cross). Let’s agree on the biggies and not sweat the small stuff. I’ll get off my soapbox now…

UPDATE: For a well-reasoned, balanced, humble look at many of the issues involved with The Shack, see the following posts by Regent College’s Professor John Stackhouse:

1. In Defense of Ideological Fiction
2. Some Theological Concerns (Part 1)
3. Some Theological Concerns (Part 2)
4. Some Celebrations

Unfortunately, I had to give my copy back, but I am sure that I will be picking up my own at some point so that I can re-read it again. As I write this, I must ask myself: “Why the heck would you re-read something so horrific?” Again, it demands to be read…

Set in some post-apocalyptic future Hell, The Road is the tale of a man and his child traveling south through the (nuclear?) winter to find warmer climes. From the outset, the mood is dark and foreboding. While an early flashback whispers of lost utopia, it is almost the only hint of normalcy that you’ll find in this taut page turner. Instead of focusing on paradise lost, McCarthy chooses to focus on the present. How do our travelers find food, shelter, warmth in their increasingly hostile environs?

As I said above, there are points in the story that literally made me feel sick. However, the grotesque is not here presented merely for the grotesque’s sake, but serves the larger whole:

• (a) it shows us the ability of the human spirit to endure (though the reasons for this endurance vary and are questioned)
• (b) it horrifies us, perhaps as a warning against allowing the state of things to slip into this sort of Hell

The style, at first, seems self-aware. McCarthy has eschewed grammatical conventions like normal paragraphs and punctuations. You won’t find any chapters in this novel either. Each scene bleeds into the next by the use of paragraphs offset from each other by a blank line. It’s difficult to read at first. Items flow together. You always have to think about who is speaking a given line (“he said” doesn’t mean much when the two main characters are nameless and male). By the middle portions of the novel, however, I forgot all about these quirks and eccentricities. Instead, I was just blazing through wondering what would happen next. It is to McCarthy’s credit that he abandoned grammatical conventions here. It slows us down a bit, which is a good thing, as The Road is meant to be savored and enjoyed. Still, it’s the sort of read that you’ll probably finish up in a couple of sittings.

Overall, The Road is a touching sort of buddy narrative unlike any other. The relationship between the father and child, the way they speak to each other, is at once real and foreign. For this relationship alone, and the ability of its narrative to keep you pressing forward, The Road is highly recommended. Yet, in its warnings and meditations on humanity, The Road becomes so much more.

Is this my favorite novel? Perhaps. I’d have to think about it…but it’s definitely way up there on the list.

Thank you, New Oxford American Dictionary that came bundled with my Mac. Scrivener isn’t just some noun historical, it’s also a smashing piece of writing software from the folks at Literature and Latte (for good measure, here’s a link to the Literature and Latte Blog, if you like to read the latest).

First, some personal back story.

Several years ago, when I was a college lad, I waffled back and forth over word processors. I began with Word, using it for everything. I was so naive in those days! “Is there anything out there other than Word?” I thought. Turns out there was.

As I got more and more into my study of Classics, I discovered some deficiencies in the Mac version of Word. Specifically, Word on the Mac has terrific trouble with some unicode stuff that was important to me (e.g., unicode Hebrew is an impossibility). After writing my undergrad honors thesis completely in Word, struggling through its poor implementation of unicode (my thesis was full of Greek, and a little Hebrew), I ventured out into the world of alternative word processing.

Eventually, I settled on Mellel. Designed by folks who really understood the needs of those who worked in multiple languages, Mellel was an awesome companion throughout my graduate work. Designed for people who love unicode and work in multiple languages, Mellel allowed me to choose specific settings for how I wanted the text to look when I switched over into Greek or Hebrew.

As nice as Mellel was, I really wanted something more when it came to creating fiction. For me, the act of writing often involves the creation of new worlds. Characters have complex relationships with their setting, both where they exist and when they exist, and, of course, other characters. In the case of a current crop of short stories that I’m working on, the characters even have relationships with characters who have long since died. With so many balls in the air, I need something that helps me to organize my thoughts a little better. I needed something more than just a word processor — I needed a thought processor.

Enter Scrivener.

Scrivener has about a million features. In my 3 or 4 months of intense usage, I have barely scratched the service. So, this is by no means a review of all of those features, I’m just writing as an impassioned fellow in the middle of a love affair.

Scrivener provides all of the note-keeping and outlining features that I need, and integrates them into a single window. Conceptually, Scrivener splits my writing into “Draft” and “Research.” In the Draft section I outline (complete with note cards on cork board!) and write my work. Research is where I keep all sorts of notes, PDFs, etc. Let’s look at an example.

For a long time, I have been working on stories set in a fictional Texas town. These stories span many generations (literally from Native American villagers to 21st century townsfolk). Consequently, I’ve got a lot of facts to keep straight:

• Family relationships and family trees.
• What the town looked like during various eras.
• The changing economic climate of the town.
• Etc.

To keep all of this stuff straight, I have a series of notes in the Research section divided into three major folders: Characters, Town Notes, Musings.

Each character that is introduced in a story has his/her own profile where I keep important information: birth date, family relationships, interesting details, etc. No matter what story I’m working on, I have immediate access to that characters information. Very handy.

Town Notes gathers all of the information about the town. I have drawn up a street map for various periods — those JPEGs go in this Town Notes folder. Each year that I’ve written about so far has a file with information about what happened that year: deaths, births, economic disasters or triumphs, and so on.

Musings is a repository for ideas I have about future stories. For example, at one point, I thought it would be cool to write a story about the current townspeople’s Native American predecessors. So, I sketched out a quick outline of that story and threw it into the Musings folder. I also keep ideas about major themes (some themes I like to drag throughout a bunch of stories), and what I call the “mythology” (yeah, I’m an X-Files fan…deal with it!) — an overarching storyline that ties things together.

So, all of these sections are floating around within one window. Sounds difficult to navigate, huh? Not really. While it has definitely taken some getting used to, Scrivener’s split pane functionality allows me to be working on a draft in the top portion of the window, while browsing through notes in the bottom portion. Quite nice.

Other features that really float my boat:

• Full screen mode.
• A sidebar where I can scrawl quick notes about whatever file I’m working on.
• Keyword/Metadata coolness with Spotlight goodness.
• The ability to use Scrivener files with Subversion or CVS.
• Templating feature that allows me to quickly get up and running whether I’m writing a short story, novel, screenplay, treatise, or whatever.
• A variety of output and export options.

Scrivener really is a full-featured writing suite that makes a great deal of sense, especially for those who tend to take a lot of notes about what they’re writing. At only $39.95, it gets the job done admirably. Download the trial!

Introduction

Someone told me a while back that they preferred Freebird’s to Chipotle. Hmm. I decided to investigate.

DISCLAIMER #1: This is a totally subjective review. Go with what you like. Just know that if your opinion differs from mine, you’re opinion is probably wrong.

DISCLAIMER #2: In terms of burrito yumminess, neither of these places can hold a candle to Cambridge’s “Boca Grande” on a good day (though, there have been bad days…beware). If you are from the Boston area, and you start talking to me about Anna’s Taqueria, realize that you are wrong before you start.

The Options

OK, the person who told me he preferred Freebird’s to Chipotle said that he felt like he had more options at Freebird’s. That was as far as I was willing to press the issue. So, let’s look at the options.

If you are interested in something other than a burrito, then I think Freebird’s is probably your place. Chipotle, as far as I know, has nothing beyond burritos, the “Burrito Bol” (carb friendly by removing the tortilla), and tacos. I could be wrong here. It doesn’t really matter because this post is about burritos. If you’re looking for something other than burritos…then you don’t need to read any further.

In terms of numbers of options, I think things are fairly equal. Freebird’s has some more tortilla options, and maybe another bean option. Chipotle has more meat options. As far as I can tell they have the same number of salsas, unless you count Freebird’s “BBQ” sauce — which you shouldn’t because it is wrong to put BBQ sauce on a burrito.

So, I’ll call it a draw here.

Tor-Tor-Tortilla

I mentioned above that Freebird’s has tortilla options a-plenty. Chipotle has only one. At Freebird’s you can reach for the Wheat, Flour, Cayenne, or Spinach. “Wow!” you might exclaim. Freebird’s must win this one hand down.

Heck no.

What’s the use of having all of these tortilla options if none of them measure up to the Chipotle tortilla? I’m definitely a proponent of “do one thing and do it well.” Chipotle gets the right amount of chewiness out of their flour tortillas because that’s all they make. Further, I’d say that the flavored tortillas at Freebird’s do not contribute to the flavor of the burrito significantly.

Big Fillin’

Now, this is totally subjective, but I much prefer what Chipotle has got goin’ on. For my money, nothing says “awesome burrito” like a huge pile of pork. For the folks at Chipotle, pork is the flagship meat. If you haven’t sampled the pork at Chipotle, then you aren’t really eating the standard chipotle burrito — at least give it a try.

Unfortunately, recent dietary restrictions have prevented me from biting into a big, fat, pork burrito — Natalie and I are opting for the lighter veggie fare these days. Chipotle typically delivers here. Fresh onions, bell peppers, and whatnot grilled over the open flame that you can see back there. Quite a bit of flavor, quite nice.

Freebird’s, in terms of the veggie option, is not a lot different. Looking at the meats, however, there is a greater difference. Again, the pork at Chipotle is so dynamite that it just overshadows whatever Freebird’s might try to throw at me.

Guac and Li’l Fillin’

Our standard burrito these days looks like this:

• Rice
• Beans
• Veggies
• Guacamole
• Corn Salsa
• Pico De Gallo

Quite a yummy combination. At Freebird’s this comes out quite well, although the bang for your buck is not really positive — you get less for your money than over at Chipotle.

Of these items, there is really only one major significant difference: Guacamole.

There is no fast food chain that comes close to matching Chipotle’s guacamole. I’m a total fan boy when it comes to this. It really is quite good. Sure, it suffers from being mixed a little too vigorously (a good guacamole should have some nice chunk to it). But, it tastes fresh, limey, and delicious. I really can’t say enough about how good it is — you’ve got to go to a good Mexican restaurant in order to purchase guacamole that exceeds the Chipotle caliber.

Atmosphere

When you walk into Chipotle you are greeted by interesting little Aztec sculptures (dudes holding burritos), and some very nice black and white prints of Chipotle restaurants. For the most part, it’s pretty laid back and subdued. The focus is on the burrito.

Freebird’s is different. The Freebird’s in my area has seen fit to decorate with garbage on the wall (usually unappealing in a restaurant). It seems to be a requirement at Freebird’s that the person building your burrito have various tattoos and piercings (I rather like this punky aspect of Freebird’s). Lastly, I was disappointed to see words like “ass” emblazoned across ads on every table (a no-no at Chipotle…nothing on the table but what you bring to it!). I’m not offended, but, if I had small kids, I might be annoyed.

Verdict

So, which is better, Chipotle or Freebird’s? In my opinion, Chipotle wins in three important areas:

• Guacamole — head and shoulders above the competition.
• Tortilla — far chewier and more delicious than Freebird’s (which can sometimes be stale).
• Atmosphere

There you have it. Chipotle wins, in my less-than-humble opinion. Now, if only they’d build one in Clear Lake!

Update

My friend, John, who apparently went out and spent some cash at Chipotle this afternoon after reading this post (perhaps Chipotle will send me some sort of thank you for my referral), made an excellent point: Freebird’s has many different sizes. In my mind, I was comparing the “Freebird” to the standard Chipotle burrito, but I did not make that clear. Freebird’s has many different sizes which is especially important if (a) you are splitting a burrito, or (b) you are a teenage male. Thanks John!

I had the fortune of hearing some radio sessions they had done (for PR purposes, I suppose), and really enjoyed Deschanel’s vocals again. So, now I’m listening to their album, Volume One, and I keep saying to myself: “Yeah…” This is good stuff. Out of step with what’s going on amongst her peers in the music scene (Deschanel and I are the same age, I believe), but both refreshing and a throwback to older musical forms.

Again, in her vocals, I find those jazzy shades, but on the album I’m hearing more Loretta Lynn and Jeannie C. Riley. In fact, I’d fall over myself to hear Deschanel sing “Harper Valley PTA.“

If you have secret love for older country music, especially strong female vocals, picking up Volume One might not be a bad idea. I just can’t help but smile as I listen to it.

Okay, back to writing…

I’ve been using Fluid for about three weeks now, and just thought I’d offer up my experience.

This review is based on Fluid 0.7, the most recent version that was available when this post was written.

What & Why?

As the web evolves and becomes more and more “2.0,” my reliance on web applications for tasks that used to be handled by desktop has increased. Web applications are simple, easy-to-use, and because they only require a browser, they are typically cross-platform and ultra-portable. Here is a list of the web apps that I currently use on a daily basis (and the desktop apps they replaced):

• Gmail (replaced Apple Mail)
• Remember the Milk (replaced a variety of “to-do” apps including OmniFocus)
• Google Docs (replaced Word, Mellel, and Excel — Though I still need to use these from time-to-time)
• Google Calendar (replaced iCal)
• Google Reader (replaced Vienna)
• Mint (replaced Quicken)

In short, these web apps cover my major daily activities: email, to-do’s, light word processing and spreadsheeting, scheduling, and money management.

At one point, however, I became annoyed with this phenomenon. My annoyance had a great deal to do with my own mode of working. I prefer to use the keyboard for most tasks — the mouse is the enemy! When switching between apps, I use cmd-tab to get around. Because these applications live in web browsers, cmd-tab can’t be used. Instead, I must use your browser’s shortcuts to navigate through its tabs or windows. The problem here is that, no matter how hard I try, it is inevitable: my tabs are going to get disorganized. When this happens, and things stop working consistently, I get frustrated and want to drop this Web 2.0 thing altogether!

Fluid allows me to trick myself into thinking that I’m looking at a regular application, when, in fact, it is simply a self-contained, site-specific browser (site-specific browser = SSB).

Notice how each of these web applications shows up in my Dock as its own item: Gmail, Remember the Milk, Google Calendar, Google Docs. I can cmd-tab to them, launch and select them from the Dock, etc. Some apps, such as Gmail and Google Reader, even have badges that get updated. Looks like I’ve got an unread email in my inbox. Quite nice!

If you’re a real geek then you’ll love the fact that Fluid now has a JavaScript Console, JavaScript API for dock badges as well as Growl notifications. I’m a Growl user, so I’m down with that.

Use

Fluid is quite easy to use.

1. Launch the application and you’ll be greeted with this window:

2. Enter the URL (e.g., https://mail.google.com/mail) for Gmail.

3. Enter a name for the application.

4. Choose where to save the application. Of course, like any other OS X app, you can drag it wherever you want later.

5. Tell Fluid which icon to use for the app. It can use the website’s favicon — which is handy but very low-res. Luckily, there is a Fluid Flickr Group where you can grab PNG icons for your favorite web apps.

Voila! You’re done. Double-click the application and get busy…

The Good

1. SSBs Fit My Workflow
No elaboration needed here — I’ve said my piece above.

2. Dock Badges
What could make an app feel more Desktop-y than live updating badges on the Dock icon?

3. Control How To Handle Outside Links
A Fluid apps preferences allow you to control how that application handles links to other domains. This is especially useful when you want some apps to open links within and others to use your regular browser. For example, I hate the idea of my mail client opening up a link. My Gmail app’s preferences allow me to tell it to use FF3 to open links. Problem solved. At the same time, you might really like the idea of being able to open Google Reader stories in tabs — no problem.

Here’s a quick screenshot of the application’s preferences:

4. Growl Support
I love Growl. Anything is enhanced by its use of Growl. OK, maybe not anything.

5. Knocks the Socks Off of Mozilla’s Prism
Prism, like Fluid, is Mozilla’s answer to the SSB need. You might be thinking, “Well, Stephen — aren’t you a Mozilla fan? Why not use Prism?” Unfortunately, as of this writing, there is no way to open more than one Prism SSB at a time (at least in OS X, maybe this works in Windows). This is beyond comprehension. It is, for lack of a better word, dumb.

6. Checks for Updates
As you can see above, there is a preference for each Fluid app to check for updates. I am hoping that when Fluid is updated, it will be able to update these apps individually so I won’t have to recreate them. If this is the case, then this rocks. If not, then we can slip this item down into “The Bad.”

The Bad

1. WebKit
I am not a huge fan of WebKit. I use Camino as my primary browser, though I’m testing Firefox 3 right now. In either case, I would prefer to use Gecko as my rendering engine.

Why does it matter?

It doesn’t matter too much. However, my Fluid apps look all WebKit-ish, which means that web widgets and forms and whatnot look slightly different than they do in Camino/FF3. Consequently, my web apps look a little “off” to my eye.

2. No Keychain Access (as far as I can tell)
One of the reasons I opted for Camino over Firefox a year or two ago was the issue of saved passwords. I like the idea of having passwords saved in the keychain (still one of my issues with FF3). Fluid does not seem to have a way to access passwords from the keychain. Further, it does not have a way to save passwords. This means that I’m typing in passwords for apps like Gmail more often than before.

3. Too Many Apps
Over the past few weeks, I have sometimes felt like I have too many apps running. I like to keep things clean. If you are paranoid about the number of apps that pop up on the screen when you hit cmd-tab, then Fluid might not be for you.

The Ugly

There is one little bug in Fluid that requires discussion. I didn’t put this in “The Bad” simply because I felt it belonged in its own category.

As of v. 0.7, Fluid apps have a really annoying habit. When I click on an external link in an app that does not use them (e.g., Gmail as I’ve discussed my setup above), the Fluid SSB opens a blank SSB window before opening the target in your other browser.

Example:

• I have Gmail setup in a Fluid SSB to disallow external links.
• I click an external link.
• Gmail app opens a blank Gmail app window.
• A new tab in FF3 is created, displaying the target.

This is quite annoying. This is my appeal to Todd Ditchendorf, the creator of Fluid, fix this please!!! FIXED

Conclusion

Fluid creates great little SSBs for my favorite web apps. It’s changed the way I work with web apps, and I’m quite grateful for it. Currently, I give it 4 out of 5 stars.

What can it do to earn 5 stars?

1. Stop the silly blank window business described above. FIXED
2. Give me a choice of rendering engines.

Otherwise, I think this is a solid app, and I can’t wait for it to mature into 1.0.

UPDATE

- The blank window opening problem now has a workaround. Check out this page at the Fluid App Google Group.