Games, and how they live beneath their potential

A screenshot from the beginning of the game. Really. 

Many of you has already heard plenty about this game and its genre transcendence. The controls are so simple, anyone could play and finish it. Only takes about two hours, depending on your pace. About the length of a movie. And yet it does something that movies cannot do very often, which is capture the imagination and leave you fully captive to the world created here. One of the critical features that allows this is the music, which perfectly follows the flow of the experience. I'm listening to it right now, remembering and re-experiencing moments from the tale. There are no lyrics. And within the gameplay, the story is exclusively told through some ancient tablets which indicate the fate of a lost kingdom.

Your goal is always clear: reach the top of the mountain. It gets closer and closer as you travel up and down sandy slopes and through ruins. But I won't spoil it. This isn't even a review, though I would certainly give Journey a perfect score, as I would Portal 2, To the Moon, and Bastion, three other games that aren't games, to different extents. I mentioned "genre transcendence", which may mean nothing in most reviews, because most journalism deals in sensationalism and empty superlative expressions. By "genre transcendence", I mean that this is not a video game. Time to qualify that declaration!

Historically, games have evolved based on hardware and budget restrictions, much like film. We could spend a long time dwelling on the similarities here, but I'll leave it at that simple comparison. The first video game, "Tennis", was Pong. We all know Pong. It was you versus a computer that didn't lose. The AI was simply programmed to always play perfectly, and your job was survival. Later iterations included more "stupid" AI, which would semi-randomly decide to mess up and stoke your generous ego. Really, it was a simulation of a simple sport. But it did not take long for "Story" games to appear. These games were simulations of tabletop role-playing games (like Dungeons & Dragons), which allowed the user to replace his or her friends with an automated response system. "DRINK YE FLASK" was interpreted by the program and a response was generated. Meanwhile, other games were developing movement and becoming fancier sport simulator. It didn't take long before people decided to combine storytelling with gameplay, and the two managed to blend fairly well, as developers were almost all pretty independent and were required to do everything themselves. Which is really hard. But despite these limitations and the weakness of commercial success, people kept making games. Fast-forwarding a bit, graphics got good enough so that reality could be properly represented by pixels, and gameplay became homogenized to appeal to the broadening market.

Nintendo and Sega produced simple 2-dimensional side-scrollers with marginal stories that we could and should ignore, and with gameplay that was addicting. And addiction was seen as success. Get people to play your games as long as possible and you know you're a solid developer. While this may seem like flawed reasoning, games were and are not inexpensive purchases, and so your $50 needed to be justified by at least dozens of hours of entertainment.

Anyway, gameplay and story were necessarily separated at this point by the increasing number of large "AAA" studios, which were ever-intent on producing hyper-realistic graphics. Also of note was the fact that Japan ruled the mainstream gaming world, and that PC games were almost all independently created, allowing a smoother but less-polished marriage between gameplay and story. Shifting forward a few more years, Japanese games stayed the same while American studios became the ones to push new trends on a mainstream level. This is a topic for another day, but many of the newer games were and are more centered on violence as a selling point. Regardless, stories are getting more absurd by the year. At least with the large companies. They can't manage the weight of their own technical perfection. And so games like Mass Effect may look great and have extremely interesting concepts lurking for those who seek them, but remain shackled by the perceived truth that the market wants games that are good-looking, violent, last forever, and free of major bugs.

In order to eliminate bugs, games are built on existing code, and old 3D models are recycled for new franchises, which are fairly uncommon. Violence is created by forcing the story to focus around some sort of violent conflict (war or zombie apocalypses, generally). Your job is to kill things, sometimes in creative ways. Artists are still doing their jobs. Infinitely long games are produced by creating giant and open worlds that take a long time to navigate, which inspires exploration. Developers make the world bigger in expensive downloadable expansions. And multiplayer skirmishes against strangers make games, like sports, endless conflicts.

These trends are apparent, and I am sure you have recognized them to an extent, but, far from complain about the lack of value these time-wasters provide, let's contrast them with Journey and discover what truths separate them. Journey is almost completely bug-free. It uses a stable physics engine with some tweaks to make sand the coolest thing in existence. In fact, it is much more bug-free than complicated billion-dollar franchises. But that is only due to the length of the story and the narrowness of the focus. More on that in a second. There is no real violence in the world. There is no enemy. One may argue that the stone snakes (really disturbing) that appear and may attack you at different points are enemies, but since you do not understand them, you can do nothing but fear them when they show up. But they are a relic of the past, spoken of by historical tablets you pass, and help to tell the story of the fall of a nation. Journey's length has been oddly controversial. The price usually hovers around $10, which is what you would pay to watch a movie in the theater, and half of what you would pay (retail) for a DVD version. If you compare it that way, the cost seems very reasonable. And yet we expect our games to last a very long time. But that brings up an important question: why do we even play games?

I've played games since my early childhood, and so I never had to question their value. They were fun. I think the reason I considered them fun was because they allowed me to do things in another world. My imagination always loved them. I always wanted to create my own. Up until around 2004 or so. That year, I did not stop playing them. But I think there was a shift in my focus. They became an escape from the pressures and annoyances of school and the social life that I never wanted to have, being an awkward introvert. Games were played to burn time. I still had fun playing them in a sense, but not really. Eventually, I went on my mission to Guatemala, slightly addicted to games, but not enough that it made me dysfunctional. Still, I had to learn how to be socially functional. Upon returning, I dove back into some of the games that I thought I had missed out upon in not playing them, but it seemed an empty experience, and so games stopped mattering. Halo was the only exception, because I played that with a jock-like desire for victory in something. I suppose most guys have it. Eventually, even that got intolerable and seemed a great waste of free time. During all this, however, a few great games (again, Portal 2, Bastion, To the Moon, and Journey) managed to fall into my lap, and all of them share a few important traits.

1. Length--The longest of these titles is Portal 2, clocking in at a paltry 7 hours or so. And that game was $50, so the price is proportionately the same. Bastion was 4 hours long, To the Moon was 3.5 hours long. Do I wish there was more content? Yes and no. I would like to see the stories adapted to new material, but they told their stories fully. They all felt finished. More so than games like Skyrim or Halo 4, where you never really reach any great conclusion. And the stories were far more profound and integrated than average titles today. I laughed (and cried, in To the Moon's case) and felt far more in their tightly woven tales, despite the linearity present. Speaking of that...

2. Linearity--There are some open-ended games that manage to create strong stories. Well, at least they appear to do so. The best moments are always tightly scripted, and though each of us plays differently, the regularity is needed to fully involve us. As in every movie, camerawork and music can greatly enhance the power of any story. Remind me to tell you about Click with Adam Sandler the next time we chat. It's the oddest touching part I've ever seen, and it just sort of shows up out of nowhere in a terrible movie. Anyway, Journey is linear. If you try and break out of the confines of the trail, the game swiftly redirects you to the only course. And you do not mind.

3. Music--Games have some really great music, which is a shame, considering the immaturity (said with a few connotations) of the medium. Iconic songs from Mario and Zelda define the franchises for us. Without music, most games would be a shadow of themselves. All four of the games that I listed have completely custom soundtracks that were created for different scenes and elements in the game. I just realized I bought the soundtrack for each of them, which is not something I do as often as I might. Journey uses its sound to great effect. Watch and listen.

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

I wrote all this about a month ago, and had planned on just letting this post die (in the drafts folder) like many of the other ones I have in my elephant graveyard of a Blog. But I like this post, dangit. So there.

So, Journey and a few other games manage to transcend the medium. Coincidentally, J.J. Abrams (of Star Trek and soon-to-be Star Wars directing) fame and the businessman behind Portal 2 had a discussion this last week on stage about games and movies. From Wired.com's article:

Abrams and Newell made the surprise, succinct announcement at the end of their keynote speech, which took the form of a carefully rehearsed discussion between the two creatives about the strengths and weaknesses of games and movies as storytelling mediums.

“Players are often asked to imprint themselves or relate to insanely mute empty vessels,” Abrams said, playing a clip from Valve’s Half-Life that showed its mute protagonist Gordon Freeman.

Newell pointed out that it can be frustrating for a viewer to not have agency while watching a movie, pointing to Abrams’ film Cloverfield as an example — why, he said, doesn’t the character just drop the camera and run away from the danger? The “self-paced” nature of games, he said, can create a more optimal experience.

“Movies let you experience moments that you might not think are the point, but really are everything,” Abrams said, pointing to the early introduction of compressed air canisters in the opening scenes of the movie Jaws, which initially seem unimportant but prove consequential to the film’s ending. Newell pointed out that the “take your child to work” scene in Portal 2 accomplished the same thing, setting up important plot points in a way that made them initially seem like humorous throwaways.

Abrams correctly mentions one of the limitations and potential strengths of games: Our main characters are necessarily almost mutes, devoid of personality. At some point, someone decided that gamers would rather become the character than direct him/her/it in a film-like manner. I don't think this has always been the case. It is even apparent in some recent games that developers are attempting to make the main character their own person, even though that seems odd, considering players are still manipulating every one of their actions. Mass Effect is an example of a game where your character has a personality, and a freedom of expression that is impossible to provide in movies (since the ending will always be the same, as will the journey). That's the idea, anyway. However, your character is an idiot with words, and it is frustrating to see him/her fail so miserably at self-expression. It's easy to see why most developers don't even try. Mass Effect had something like 400,000 lines of dialogue per game, and a crew of over 1000 developers, not to mention a budget as big as any movie's budget.

And so, if our character must be bland if the player is to have any choices, we sacrifice the character. In the games that I mentioned, each character is interesting, but not really important.

I wish that game developers would borrow more from movies. Personally, I hate the Walking Dead, but the game version of the story was the top-rated game of last year, and it was mostly an interactive story. So there's a market for it. Actually, I predict that it will become a very strong portion of the market. If you're anything like me, you don't really play games anymore, though you still think they are cool. If you play a game, it is for the social/competitive aspect of it. So, why am I sitting here on a Saturday afternoon talking about games like I play them? Well, I want to play them, but most do seem like a waste of time, because that's the purpose we have given to them. Games are a combination of every kind of entertainment, and the only kind that is flexible. Everything music, movies, and television can offer can all be contained within a single game, and can provide a unique experience upon repetition. But games are still juvenile. This is certainly a discussion for another day, but the game industry mistakes maturity for vulgarity or edginess. Games never grew up. And I imagine it's because the creators spend too much time not growing up. It works for some games, like the Mario titles Nintendo keeps spitting out, because there is a need for catering to children in a Pixar-like fashion. But titles like Call of Duty or Gears of War or Battlefield or Resistance or Assassin's Creed or Killzone or Resident Evil or Skyrim or Manhunt or Far Cry or Dead Island are all limited by their insistence on maturity. I'll write about this somewhere else, but the blood spurts are a clear example of the pointless catering to the lust for violence that immature developers think we all have. Seriously, why does blood go flying everywhere when we cut someone in a game? It flies everywhere. Bleh. We're all just closet psychopaths.

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

That was a lot of digression. Back to Journey real quick. It taught me about human nature.

In Journey, multiplayer is an odd and unique and special thing. So, as you're making your way toward your goal off in the distance, other characters that look like you will show up, one at a time. There is no name presented, and you can't speak to them through a microphone. But they are distinctly human. You can communicate through quiet bell sounds and jumps controlled with a single button. It is imprecise, but it works, somehow.

The first time someone showed up, I was a bit annoyed. After all, this was my story, and they had probably already seen the end. I hate watching movies with people that they have already seen before me, and that feeling translated to the game. So I ignored the other player and did a bit of exploring in a simple open puzzle area. They followed me, and, even though it was apparent that they had already played the game before, they let me lead the way. If I had to guess, the other player was certainly an adult with a solid life. And yes, I had to guess.

Eventually, that person disappeared and I was left alone, which suited me just fine, because I felt less pressured to get to the end or to remain focused. But when the next person showed up, I decided to race them. Apparently, if you get too far ahead, the other person disappears. So I ditched them. And regretted it, since I hadn't been paying enough attention to things and probably missed out on some items scattered about.

The game got more somber and dark, and I found myself with a new companion in an underground ruin. The music was sinister, and my companion was almost certainly a young person, since they were constantly making music and expending their energy. Playing it cool, I lead the way, eventually coming upon the only thing that could be considered an enemy in the story. It spotted us, and though I avoided it, my companion was attacked and lost some of the scarf that had been growing up to that point. I rushed to the poor person's side, though there was nothing to do but chime and wait for them to recover. But it seemed the proper thing to do. The same thing happened to me in the next room, and so we both stumbled on.

Another partner showed up out of nowhere. It seemed like their first time too, but I decided to lead the way. Definitely an adult, because they responsibly split up the task of lighting up some statues with me. As we came to a new part, they signaled with a bunch of chimes, which was meant to be a farewell, as they sat down and logged out.

Alone again, I was happy. Introversion translates to video games, and being alone can be wonderful on its own. So I took my time and enjoyed the next part, eventually getting to the foot of the mountain toward which I had been traveling for the past hour or so. Partway up the path, I met up with another person more chatty than myself but also more reserved in using his/her abilities. The temperature dropped, and so we were forced to huddle together along the path to retain our energy (which was restored by proximity). We were together for a long time, and covered each other when we were attacked, though we still took a beating. And, eventually, well, the end happened. I left that person behind and enjoyed the freedom of the last few minutes.

It was a very different experience than one would expect from a game. During the credits, the IDs of my companions were revealed, and confirmed some of my theories about what kind of people they were. For example, the one guy I felt compelled to race was named "Broncofan435435" or something. The young fellow who followed me was "Monkeysomething454." Names are important, especially when we give them to ourselves.

And that's the end of my giant post. As always, feedback would be appreciated. If not, well, I had fun rambling on about something I enjoy. Or at least want to enjoy again. If I have time.

Suspend your Disbelief and Read this

Wait, this isn't about Inception? We need to go deeper. Until it is about Inception.

"Dreams feel real while we're in them. It's only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange."

 

I would hope that the movie reference was not lost on you, but that of course is a famous line from Inception, a film that I could discuss with you for hours. Not that we're here for that. Perhaps some other time. Just you and me, and a cup of water, at the water cafe. Now that I have successfully distracted myself and possibly you, let's get back to the quote. Being dreamers, we have likely experienced an amusing and chagrining moment in explaining our awesome and wild nightly hallucinations to our loved ones, and sometimes less-loved acquaintances (if I do not love you, I think you had best invest in a bodyguard, though not one for yourself, for that would be futile), where all those odd things that we thought were awesome in our dreams turned out to make very little sense when compiled into words and expressed. Were it not for the dream explanation (hah, lolz, dreams are craaaazy), many of our stories would be considered the last desperate ravings of a madman who has already let go of his rope and left the comfort of his gourd (and other poetic but ultimately nonsensical idioms we use to describe insanity). In short, dreams make a lot of sense in our mind, but are rarely fully reasonable when expressed with reality as a context.

We know this, of course–dreams can be enlightening or entertaining or terrifying. Regardless, there is always an element of fiction (or many elements of fiction) in them. The point of amusement is that, with all our love of reality when awake, we do not mind or care when things are really wrong or conflict with natural laws when we're dreaming. Mind you, every time I figure out some contrived way to fly in a dream, I always question how that could possibly happen, but an explanation is offered and swallowed up like some sort of delicious fallacy sandwich. And so, somehow, this does enough to suspend my disbelief almost every time. This suspension of disbelief is important, I think. It is something writers and directors and other creative sorts are secretly living for. That is, people who create something must always find a way to lower your logical defenses. (Children, by the way, have not fully developed a defense to fiction, and are able to appreciate a wider range of creations without being limited like adults with nasty perspective of quality.)

She weeps, for his crown of swords is attached to a manly, manly body.

Film, art, video games, music, and novels are all based around creating something that does not exist. 

Sure, some artistic works and films attempt to recreate reality, but they are still creating a vision of a concept or event that has no corporeality (of sorts). In simpler terms, documentaries and re-creations in art are still artificially preserving a perspective-limited view of a certain event that may have happened, but the snapshot cannot fully preserve the infinity of a single moment. Not sure if that is simpler, but hey, these are my words, dagnabbit. *hits keyboard with face and dies*

If we accept that the aforementioned kinds of media are all dependent upon acquiring your logical acquiescence to function as entertainment, we can go deeper.

Specifically, I am writing all this in order to explain the epiphany I had whilst concluding the nearly unending "Wheel of Time" series a few weeks ago. The epiphany, more or less, was this: None of what I am reading about actually exists. These people, the places they visit, the things they feel–all of them exist in my mind, and they were simply conjured by the shapes we call words, interpreted as memories of reality, and yet I still love them. It amuses me in a way to imagine that the mind does not truly understand reality. The brain is a glorious glob of carbon and other things, floating around in a skull, fed feelings and experiences through nerves, fancy wires. It does everything secondhand, entirely dependent on sensory organs to feed its understanding. And so, when I read of the interesting world that does not exist, full of people no one will ever know, my brain may allow me to believe that those things do exist, because that's all it knows. Rather, that is all I know. Then again, it may not. It depends on the author's ability to suspend my disbelief. As to how this is done, I believe it deserves its own discussion. If it were easy, I wouldn't have to watch reruns.

Artist's rendition of me in the future, minus laser bat and laser wallet and quirky robot maid.

The mind builds up barriers to protect itself from instability. I recently read "Brave New World", an unpleasant and great and interesting take on utopian societies. It was created in part to parody the idealistic views of the future that were popular at the time. But it brims with darkness, as the perfect future in that world involves reducing free will for stability in a variety of unsavory ways (which include forced classes and sexy time parties and pills to maintain order). Anyway, stability in that world is (un)fairly insured by the world itself. In contrast, in our imperfect (and yet comparatively wonderful) world, many unfortunate occurrences, "life lessons", slowly but surely draw close our wide-eyed enthusiasm, leaving us aging and stable and boring.

The boring (read: maturity) process is natural, and hardly unpleasant, at least so far as we're concerned. 

It is partially inevitable, thanks to memory, as we cannot eliminate our understanding of real outcomes. And it is useful, because it keeps us alive, and maintains families, so long as we can find the chance to create one while we are still exploring. But film, music, novels, art, and video games can all reduce the tendency toward this stupid (in my opinion) maturity. In allowing the mind to construct things that do not exist and that may seem silly and ridiculous to a "reasonable and upstanding and mature" adult, we allow ourselves to feel a wider range of emotions and to ultimately understand more of the natural world.

The last part of that sentence may seem a bit odd–how can you understand the world better by experiencing fantasy? My thought is that, in stretching your mind, forcing it to repeatedly conjure up bits of reality and fit them together into a story, you come to understand those things that your are conjuring more fully. A parallel of this is teaching: when you explain truths to others, it enhances your own understanding of the subject, without exception. In fact, I believe that the only way to truly understand something is to share it with others, as transforming a wordless concept into something coherent cements its existence in the world in which we find ourselves.

I Googled "Emotional Picture." IS THIS NOT EMOTIONAL?

Writing, with nothing more than words standing in place of subjective reality (for every word must mean something unique to each of us, courtesy of glorious perspective), can create worlds without end, and ideas that surpass those found in "mature" pursuits. It costs almost nothing to produce, and, unlike scientific laws, does not only produce an equal-and-opposite reaction, but a surplus of insight. And entertainment, which I suppose I do enjoy.




















(As a bit of rant, which is kind of thematic according to the title I gave this blog, why is it that people still stuck on the awful idea of maturity spend their lives sneering at folks who play games like Dungeons & Dragons, or who collect stamps, or who would rather spend their free time reading fantasy novels than standing in a loud space and acting like a fool, because they happen to like solitude? It seems like that style of bullying is deeply ingrained in this country in particular. Well, it's a rhetorical question, anyway, since I have a few explanations for the bullying mentality. And no, it's not just to make themselves feel better. I think it is rather tragic. One day I may take the time to write that one up, but until then, don't ever worry about conforming to ideas of normality. Also, that does not mean you should be a hipster anarchist "libertarian" person.)

Overtly-Ostracizing Ostrich Pillow!

Brilliance or madness? I'd go with madness, considering even I could steal his carry-on.

The Ostrich Pillow. Is it not majestic? Is its existence not profound? Sure, it looks like a turtle-head costume when you view the ear-holes/hand-pockets as sarlacc-like eyes, but that is a vast and almost insulting underestimation of its majesty. But let's break it down, in case the above image does not stir your soul as it does mine: This probably-a-man is in what we can only assume to be an airport with way more funding than mine, or one of those fancy European train stations, complete with steampunk styling.

Let's hate how cool the station is until it explodes. HAAAAAATE. 

But be it a train station or airport, we can safely assume that it smells funny and contains at least several men who really like whittling. Now, if these whittling men or anyone else pulled out their laser pointer pens and aimed them at this man's eye (the nameless man shall be named "Voldemort" for the duration of this post), as is custom at steampunk stations and airports, he would normally be temporarily blinded and enraged as the bull that is mad is enraged. But with his new ostrich war tactic™, the lasers are thwarted (and subsequently enraged in turn) by the cotton-blend, hand-crafted in Spain by what we can only assume to be Spanish wizards with curly mustaches and pointy hats with stars dappling the surface. Voldemort is impervious to light-based weaponry. Only objects containing mass could possibly break his fortress of solitude. Or could they? The cotton underneath is forged in (ostensibly) the great fires of Duraz'Ur'Ble™, which is a place with fires so hot and terrible, you could never have previously heard of it, because everyone would have instantly become a pile of plasma upon discovery, the author notwithstanding.

With regard to sound, the hyperbolic shape of the ear-holes allow an astonishing level of modularitude. For silence as sharp and unbroken as the points of the crown of Andor, Voldemort must simply insert his meat-fists into the entrance holes/turtle eyes. This creates a stillness that produces nirvana in an instant, allowing physical transcendence into the Aether, should it be desired before his train/flying metal bird departs.

The last turtletular orifice is the face-hole, which allows for many powerful and advanced features to be bestowed upon the wearer, including ostrich war tactic™ yodeling, lamenting the fallen, bobbing for apples in lava (which do float, in case you were wondering), sniffing drugs, and, most importantly, creating a tiny air pocket like a submarine in public pools between his face and the water. This is significant, because there has never been a single reported case of a bearer of the Ostrich Pillow drowning. I'll let that "sink" in. Wow. Successful aquatic homicide attempts are being thwarted, or so we can assume.

Relying only upon his pulse as a measurement of vitality, he is dead, but his spirit soars onward toward Titan.

And that's just the basic rundown of the apparent features. You may want to pause and rest a while before I proceed in blowing your mind yet again. Gather up the fragmented remnants of your perception of this world and hold them tight, lest I be liable for physical damage. In fact, you should probably send me a vial of your blood in case I need to draw up some post-mortem documents for my own protection, or take a fancy to necromancy.

The Ostrich Pillow can be much more than any mortal mind could fathom, so I consulted Zeus, and he gave me a list off the top of his bald, bald head. *lightning strikes* Touchy.

It can be used for parties and social gatherings like no mortal man has witnessed without sloughing going on. Elvin lords have been made aware of it, but dare not make merry in that fashion. Providing each guest with his or her or its own device can insure that attention is always focused on proper and civilized conversation of common slave trade routes and other noble concerns. Fatal collisions are made impossible thanks to the Duraz'Ur'Ble™-forged cotton swabs stuffed betwixt the layers with Spanish wizard finesse.

After showers, one may don the Pillow for instant dryification. but that's hardly it--The Ostrich Pillow can provide head-dusting of furniture and blinds, extrication of piping hot pastries from ovens, chimney sweeping, buoy dopplegangery, moppage, blind dates minus physical complications like sight, practicing triple Salchow twirls, pretending to be a turtle, becoming one with the local herd of Ostrich proper, break-dancing practice, summoning the power of Cthulhu, blind knitting, or many other worthwhile pursuits that the mortal mind cannot possibly fathom, let alone put into words that our heathen tongues could utter without raving.

Dream with me. Become an ostrich. Hunt for insects. Lay giant eggs.

Is it any coincidence it looks like a traditional light bulb? It is an idea come to life. A dream made real. And you can live it. Dream with me, my friends. The wild hunt has started. And it only costs $99, with free shipping for the time being. A simple man may say that it looks like a giant hobo's sock, but a wise one knows it is a verisimilitude of perfection, because wise people use really weird words like that. Come, friends. Dream with me in public spaces.

The Jovial Sport of Hatred

Google gave this guy as the prime example of "jovial sport." I am inclined to agree with their decision. 

I recently read an article on our deep-seated hatred for the ill-fated Myspace. In case you are not in the mood to read two articles right now and are forced to make a choice whether to follow that link and unceremoniously close this tab, I'll offer the short version right here in an attempt to save my readership: Myspace has been slowly hemorrhaging market share all over the Internet for years, and that is something that greatly pleases us.

The "ceremonious" version includes a proper eulogy, I suppose.

And isn't it all a bit odd? I mean, the fact that "Myspace sucks" is one of the only things I can imagine people agreeing upon without any dissent in any crowd, likely including the very offices of Myspace. Even Internet Explorer has odd defenders out on the odd online world. Personally, I find Furby to be unnerving, but weird people still buy them for their kids, likely in a very viable attempt to produce disturbed children. What else do we universally hate? Generally, some inanimate things like cancer and death. We hatessss them. Some folks hate Twilight, for varying reasons. Wait, let's stick with that and see where it goes.

Twilight is not well-written literature, but it sells more than many thousands of more technically and imaginatively better works. My friend and I discussed this a few days ago, but one of the main selling points is how vapid the main character is--Bella is a walking, breathing corpse, and not just because of the latter part, where I hear she becomes some sort of vampire and more literally becomes her own personality. Anyway, as the story goes, she is initially empty, and falls in love with two guys far more interesting than herself, filling herself by losing herself in them. The female readers (let's not talk about the male readers and their self-flagellation) swoon for the dudes, and Bella is not a threat to their fantastical feelings. Rather, Bella can exist because she is boring and pointless. With a strong protagonist, I think Twilight would have been lost in a dark corner of the teen fiction section. And many people would find that just. Like burning the books.

This is justice. Is it not just? Ice suppose it is. 

Now, I haven't read any of the Twilight books. I never will. They do not appeal to me. Nor do the movies. They are probably terribly written, full of over-used tropes and logical inconsistencies. But I do not know why there is a value in hating them for their popularity. Is it disappointing to find how many females love the series in spite of their apparent terribleness? Yes, it is. But hating this fact and accepting that it is unacceptable are completely separate actions. (Digression is occurring, Bilbo. Let's get us back aboard the S.S. There'sapointtobemade. Yar.) My point here is that, instead of simply hating things that we do not enjoy, we at least learn tolerance for differences.

Returning to the Myspace thing, we all hate it. This hatred is entirely pointless in and of itself. We just like to mock it for existing, and that brings us pleasure.

Another sort of hatred entirely is the hatred of things that are different from what we enjoy. More broadly, it is the strong dislike of things that exist outside the things that we like. Apple versus Microsoft versus Android versus Blackberry versus HP versus Nokia versus Linux versus specific distros of Linux that manage memory much more efficiently versus everything else. Mainstream Christianity versus Mormonism versus Muslims versus Buddhists versus Jainists versus Pastafarianists. Liberals and Conservatives. America versus everyone else. We love taking sides. It is part of our humanity.

Taking sides is made immensely more complicated when the Nazis look like Vader. 

It happens in sports. Rather, sports exist because of it. There is a constant implication that one side is "better" than the other. Our scoring systems are meant to reflect that. Teams that win are better than the others. Now, the implication is that every team that is not the winning team is always inferior to that team. Results prove that. Instead of arguing sports theory here, we will assume that, generally, winners are better and losers are worse. Those that lose are motivated to get better through training and discipline, and spectators and sponsors are prepared to reward that. It works out well enough, and the endless struggles of strangers keep the general population satisfied through their efforts at home. (As tempting as it is to go off on a wild, wild tangent about the emptiness of sports and the completely false sense of accomplishment that spectating them creates, I will resist for you this day, dear audience.)

So, the system of hatred works out in sports, despite the physical disputes that arise around the industry on occasion. Hating the other team is okay, since that's "just part of the game." However, it is not limited to sports.

Modern war can only exist because of this. Some of the earlier struggles were survival-based. Tribes sacking other tribes in desperation during famines. One could argue that greed still produces wars and conflict, but that greed is only possible when the greedy ones allow themselves to feel superior to other humans, which produces a hatred of sorts in the form of lack of consideration for fairness. In short, we could only hurt others by making them less than ourselves in our minds. If we believed everyone as significant as ourselves, there would be no possible way for us to hate them for their differences in opinion.

Utter fools like him who prefer their martinis shaken should be lynched, however. 

And people do have differences in opinion. We can understand that. Now, some folks hold to many things that are objectively incorrect. Instead of believing that this proves our own lives more significant, I think it is important to understand the root of each erroneous belief. Some believe wrongly because they have simply not considered the alternative. To a man whose existence has been limited to an isolated thought pattern, scientifically proven alternatives may prove threatening to the stability of the world of his personal convictions. Where you consider yourself to be doing him a necessary favor in spoon-feeding him education, your words may be considered hostile. I've found that most people have never been exposed to the concept of questioning every action they perform. There are still places in first-world countries where people believe in curses.

Cracked.com had an article where they explained a court case from a few years ago where a family bought a house, found it to be "cursed", and sued the seller for not having told them it was cursed. The court did an investigation, and decided that it was indeed cursed, letting the anxious fellow get his compensation and get out of that spooky mansion. Can we just assume that the court is full of idiots? Hardly. But convictions and superstitions are deeply rooted in some places. We can't expect that everyone has been exposed to proper mentors in the form of books and teachers throughout their lives. Intelligence, to me, is the ability to question every one of our beliefs, then to act according to the truths discovered upon reflection and research. To me, it is exceedingly rare to find someone with all their intelligence intact.

"Dad, I think this place might be haunted." "Shhh, no, they just installed smoke machines for ambiance." 

Why do I mention this, you brazenly and rightly ask? Because I feel that since the vast majority of humans on this planet lack the desire and initiative to constantly question everything they understand. Because of this, you cannot expect everyone to be right all the time. Or even care if they are wrong. Twilight may be terribly written, but it is enjoyed by many millions who simply do not care. Is it right that we wish that they would "open their eyes" and understand that there is a vast and wonderful pool of literature out there, forgotten? I think it is fine to wish it, but unreasonable to expect it. We're thinkers, you and I, but for some, it is entirely possible to ignore correctness and plunge through life oblivious to things that we consider to be wonderful and essential. It used to bother me that most people can't spell, use grammar, or punctuate correctly. The truth is that they can: almost everyone can, at least in this country. But they do not care. That is a separate subject, and so we will avoid it for the moment.

So, there are multiple types of hatred. The one which I just discussed is the hatred that implies measurable superiority of one party over one or more other parties. To believe oneself better than others is to hate them, to make them less human than yourself. The other kind of hatred is the hatred of ourselves. And that is why we hate Myspace. According to the numbers, 100 million of us were there, the great majority teenagers and young college students. I was there. It was a novel thing at the time. Nothing was better than it. Facebook eventually showed up and crushed it by making its core ideas more ubiquitous and mainstream, but we sorta liked Myspace back then (though I admit to having a shirt that said "YourSpace sucks").  There were many problems with fake accounts and ugliness of layouts, but it was fun. And now that we are free from it, we have to hate it. Our teenage awkwardness is attached to Myspace. So we want it to burn with our memories. We mock it without realizing the bitterness of our laughter. If you think your hatred is different, why do you even care? It is a website and a business that should not concern you.

Makes your skin crawl, don't it?

Self-hatred is defensive in nature, because it is not something we are often called to recognize. It is hardly any fun. Hatred of others can be more offensive, and to me is far more dangerous when applied directly. But I also think that we learn to hate others as a coping mechanism when when fail to recognize our own concerns for ourselves. Much like a Sith Lord, we dwell in our anger and use it offensively. There is power in it, but no joy. Mockery appears a jovial sport. We can spend hours laughing at others, apparently happy, but every word uttered increases our own self-loathing and contributes to building a monument to bitterness. And this cycle sustains itself, making satisfaction impossible.

A few simple actions that can break up the cycle exist: serving others and ignoring ourselves, positive actions like original creation and education, among other ideas. However, our release from the cycle is often through watching television and playing games, which may feature more of the sport of derision as a hobby. "Jersey Shore" was a prime example of television providing additional tearing instead of healing. From those with whom I am acquainted who watched the show, the entertainment comes from watching unintelligent and morally questionable people live riotously. The main amusement comes from the inevitable eventual discontent of the cast members. Viewers silently mock the silly folks and their simplicity, feeling superior with their relatively stable lives and herd of cats. And it makes them miserable.

This raises an important (and last) question: why do we do things that make us miserable? It seems like we do so passionately every day of our lives. Drinking is something that always makes us sadder, and yet we still do it. Fighting with friends and family feels terrible, but we still do it. The list goes on, of course. Without stepping into a major psychological discussion here, we like being miserable because it offsets our happiness and makes it more relevant in contrast. And so, when our lives are at a low point, we bring ourselves lower, to appreciate the highs. It's a nuanced subject, but sadness is addictive because of its opposite. In the context of this discussion, we hate Myspace because it makes us sad, which helps us remember happy things, like this:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I am a goddess. No man can tell me otherwise. 

New Blog

Because I could, I made a tumblr account for future bloggage. As of right now, I think I'll dump my thoughts over there.

Enjoy responsibly. 

Online Dating and You and Strumpets

If that wasn't a Mac, this would be precious

Since posting this thing, a few of my friends have reached out and requested advice on the whole online dating scene. Within the sites themselves, there can be general advice (Match.com even offers hiring writers for your profile--the absurdity!), but they are hardly realistic and avoid important details to sell their services, lewdly. Strumpets.

I think she is one of those "desperate folks"--he was looking to play poker.

So, a bit of a foreword. Online dating is still seen as a sort of dangerous hangout for desperate people who have a hard time getting dates. You resort to it because you lose hope in the traditional system of randomly stumbling upon people that share your values and dreams and so forth. That's the general idea. Many couples that meet online keep fairly tight-lipped about how they met, because apparently it means that they were both desperate at some point. And there are indeed many couples that meet online. I got pretty close to marriage with one particular person from a site, after a few years of just throwing out my line. The potential for success has been quite proven to me. For my sister as well, who is getting married next month to a decent person from one of these sites.

I suppose some real generalizations of the people you will encounter online would be necessary: The desperate do exist, and in solid numbers, but those same people happen to be real and just as desperate in real life. Everyone wants love, and some have a tragically hard time with it, for a variety of reasons. Anyway, there are many desperate people on those sites, but the proportion depends on the site itself. I will get to that shortly. Let's just say it's at least half, on average. If you are reading this, you probably fall into my demographic: that is, you find that, due to location or life habits or majors or careers or peculiar interests or whatever it may be, you feel there is no harm in at least attempting to expand your chance to meet interesting people. There is no desperation. It is a proactive attempt at securing a chance at a lasting and fulfilling relationship. At least I feel that is my own case. On average, we make up most of the other half of the visitors on the dating scene. The last and smallest demographic is the "batpoop crazy people" that almost everyone (specifically the girls) who has created an account on a free site has encountered. Haven't made an account or encountered one? I'll share one my friend's recent examples for emphasis on the crazy.

"Hi I know this is very random and out of the blue. But I was wondering if you are into crossdressers at all.
I have been very interested lately in trying find someone who shares the same interest as me. But I was online and I think you're very attractive so I thought I'd give you a shout out and see if you wanted to get to know each other more..
Anyway. Sorry if I come across as crazy. I know it's pretty odd. But if you're interested I'd love to hear back from you. :)"

Crossdressers. Well, they can crossdress if they want, but that seems like the oddest way of attracting others I could possibly imagine, outside of murdering goats and writing romantic poetry on people's doors in their blood. Nevermind, I have lots of things my mind somehow lets me imagine. 

"Hi goddess. Sorry to bother you. I was wondering if you would be willing to sell your worn socks. I have a HUGE fetish for socks worn by an a woman or couple. The more worn the socks, the more I would pay you for them. I am only interested in buying worn socks and paying your bills, nothing else. I would even pay you for socks worn by others if they are worn. It would be an honor and privledge to buy your socks and pay your bills as you date other guys and spend all my money on nice things. I know its an unusual request, but please give me a chance to prove myself and be your slave. I would do everything on your terms, not mine. If your not interested, please accept my apologies for bothering you."

I thought this was a joke at first, but if it was a joke, they would have spelled things correctly. Seems legit.

"so do you know what a ncmo is?"

-_-

And so now we all know there is a crazy demographic. And that is why you don't post your personal info on the dating websites. Anyone (specifically girls, as it seems there are more obviously mad guys than girls in the world) who thinks to try the online scene had best understand that those people exist.

All this covers the "who" and "why" of online dating, so I would like to cover the "where" and "how", in interest of practicality.

First the "where": I'm on something like a dozen sites right now, at least as a registered member with a profile. They are all free to join, and I was able to write a single profile description for one, copying it wholesale to the others, with fairly minor adjustments. There is a major difference between each one of them. I'll list a few, starting with my favorite:

okcupid - It's entirely free, has a decent number of users, and, best of all, has an excellent matching system based off many morality questions you can answer whenever. The interface is better than every other free site by far, and as good as the best paid sites. They generate revenue with advanced features that you do not need, and so you can get away with everything you would normally want to do without paying a cent. Because of the matching system, you can easily understand if the other people are in any way compatible with you. The negative is that the user base is not nearly so expansive as some of the other sites out there. Yet. And the matches they email you are not very great matches, though they are still better than everyone else's.   

plenty of fish - Also free in the same way as okcupid. The site is basically a weak version and shadow of that same site. The matching is not very good, it doesn't look great, and there seems to be a large percentage of desperate folks in comparison with most sites. But it is free, and there is a really large pool of people (over 500,000 online at this moment). Meaning that there are sometimes gems to be found, thanks to averages. This is where I met my last close friend, and even though she only had an account for a few days, it was enough that I had my profile out there.

Match.com - Everything you want to do apart from essentially poking a person costs money here. Subscriptions are not cheap, which actually means that there are pretty much no crazy people, and the desperate level is generally lower, since people with money have higher self-esteem or somethin'. Anyway, if you're clever, you can get around the censors and slip in some details of how people could contact you away from the website and without spending money in your profile. Even if you don't want to cheat the system like that, it's another place to find people. Searches yield pretty decent results, and I suppose you could splurge if you find a few people that are interesting, or if you happen to have decent funds. An important point to make here is that the money will not matter if you happen to be successful even once.

eHarmony - Much like Match.com, everything costs money. The quality of profiles is just as good (which is okay), but they do not let you see photos unless you fork over some cash, which is pretty deal-breaking if you want to go free.

And for the LDS scene, there are many specific sites, but only one free one that isn't terrible.

LDSLinkup.com - Free and okay. Very much like plenty of fish, but less crazy people. The issue is that it is fairly small and will probably stay that way. I have met some decent folks on there, so it's worth a shot. Not bad at all.

Other sites - I'm on several other sites, but they either do not provide enough motivation to be a non-paying member, or do not have a large presence. If you have any suggestions, I am open to them, of course.

So, now that you have an idea of where to look, you need to understand how it is done. Additionally, you will need to be very careful in sculpting your profile so as to attract the right sort of attention. My lighthearted critique of profiles points out flaws and offers a few suggestions, but I believe I can be more targeted in my advice here.

Hopefully not an entirely factual exclamation of the giant on the boat. 

First, searching. All these sites offer the ability to search based off several critical parameters. But by default, their searches will probably only search within a certain number of miles from your city of residence, and include a specified range of ages. Look for the advanced search option and narrow that down. If you hate smokers, get rid of them. And so on. For the first search, feel free to be particular. It's not judging to exclude people in your results. Don't feel bad about it. It's not bad. You're looking for a specific kind of person, because as a human, you feel most comfortable with certain qualities. Those qualities may include bow hunting and numchuck abilities. I simply had to throw in a movie reference before posting this.

(As an aside, you will still get people that are not really what you are looking for sending you messages with terrible grammar and odd expressions--ignoring people is okay on dating websites, because responding is almost always assumed to be interest even if it is done with fairly specific rejection.)

Once you find a person who seems interesting, send them a short message, if possible. Avoid really short messages like "Hello there", because it just comes off as lazy (and sleazy, strangely). Introduce yourself, tell them about something you enjoyed in their profile, and ask them a few simple questions. Check your grammar, please. Punctuation goes a long way as well. As does spelling. According to a study I once read, for every 100 messages sent on those sites, only 1 gets answered. You can do much, much better than that if you have a good profile and a proper introduction. Not to sound overconfident, but almost everyone I contact responds to me. Those that fail to respond do not bother me in the slightest, as it means they were intimidated or just kind of forgot. But I think they respond because I have an informative and well-formed profile myself, and because they are like-minded individuals. I only reach out to those sorts, generally. This incidentally sidles the issue with the desperate people all over the place on these sites.

Desperate people are desperate-sounding in their profiles. They can be "fun-loving", "love to laugh", "spontaneous", "bubbly", "outgoing", "living life to its fullest", and "very passionate about [things]", but those are canned expressions and words that tell you they do not know who they are, or are ashamed of who they are. When they talk about things that they supposedly do for fun, they list a bunch of extreme outdoors activities and sports, because that is pretty much the extent of what society tells them is acceptable. Sometimes girls bring up homemaking activities in an attempt to lure in lazy guys (or so I must assume). Movies and music are things that every person I have ever known enjoys, so look for more thought that simple blanket statements like that. When people say they are "planning on going to school" to study something, it is as if they are telling you they have no idea what they are doing. Those are just a few of the tells. Really, you should ideally be interested in and intrigued with their personality after reading their self-description. Knowing details about what they say they do tells you very little about who they are. If you were to ever get married to them, the things they do would have to change naturally in the course of the relationship, though the core essence of their soul would never change. And so you are looking for hints of that.

(As an aside for the ladies: Don't go for the men with pictures of themselves sans shirt. Just a friendly warning.)

So that's kinda how you should find people. To get them to find you, avoid most of the things in that last big ol' paragraph. There could be some biographical information in there, but it is actually the least important thing you could write. My favorite profiles have been the ones where people just tell amusing and original stories about themselves, or those that are just plain random and witty. This is because you will inevitably learn about the other person's life no matter what. Instead of spoon-feeding them details about things that you do (which will change), explain why you do things. Be honest in discussing your interests, giving reasons for each if possible. If you spend a lot of time doing something nerdy like playing Starcraft (you know who you are, friend!), do not be afraid to mention that and to give reasons (not excuses) for it. If we start out our relationships by obfuscating the truth, it creates a natural tension. Do not simply tell people you are funny or smart or kind--try to demonstrate that as best you can in your profile. Funny people say funny things, smart people come off as smart by their interests and language, and kind people have a kindness in speech.

There is often a chance to describe what you are looking for in a match. My advice is complete honesty with tact. If your religion is important to you and you want them to share it, do not avoid saying so right out. It's also okay to list educational or other accomplishments they should have or should at least be working toward. More importantly, in the same way as you did in your self-description, fish for people with things you find attractive, not by requesting that they be a certain way, but by expressing yourself honestly. Something I find interesting is that you will always find people who share ideals with you if you are honest in your own presentation. The crazies may still show up on occasion, but they love the vagueness of the desperate crowd and spend their time there. The desperate crowd will ignore you as well, as they will be intimidated by your well-formed words and realness. I say this with a decent amount of experience in different approaches to profile-building. My first profile was "funny" and informative, which led to a lot of people contacting me, but no one of substance. I later went for completely random and nerdy, and got a decent pool. But most recently, this ^^ has been my approach, and though my contacts have been few, they are always the right kind. Makes me feel better, since I really didn't like having to ignore people, Internet rules of etiquette be cursed.

A few parting bits of advice (some of which will be redundant):

- Don't lie about anything that you claim to have going on in your life. They will either figure it out immediately, or will figure it out later and dislike you for it.

- In choosing your profile pictures, go ahead and use flattering photos, but include real ones too. Also, full-body photos. I won't be specific, but I have had a few acquaintances become offended when a person from a dating website told them in real life that their photos were... misleading.

- Avoid moving too quickly to Facebook or real-life meetups, unless it is apparent that you are both interested in it. Some people shy away from actually going through with meeting strangers from the Internet.

- Along those lines, get away from the dating websites as smoothly as you can. Their Facebook is far more telling than their profile.

-There are other minor sub-groups on dating websites. Among these are the prostitutes (of either gender). Be afraid. They have adult diseases. (That's actually a fun link to a video, so don't be afraid of scary images or facts.)

-People mostly love being complimented when you know them, but by random strangers, it comes across as weird. Be nice, but try to avoid the general flirting feel.

- Use emoticons if you are teasing or joking, but not too much. The Internet does not convey emotion very well, so you risk offending people with seemingly innocuous statements.

So there's my bit of friendly advice for those who want it. Online dating is really weird and unique, but it does work. If you look at the numbers, if everyone used the Internet to date, the vast majority of marriages would be between people who met up online, and our divorce rate would be several times lower. No exaggeration needed. This is because dating in this manner is methodical and not based off superficial attraction. You actually have to communicate as a primary weapon. It makes all the difference. Oh, and here's my profile. It's a work-in-progress. Call me! ;-)

Truths, Attention, and Deer Fighting in the Woods

CLICK IT, PLEASE

The Internet is a terrible time-sink. How many tabs do you currently have open right now? I'm running on five as of this sentence. Facebook is open, of course--I can never keep that tab closed for long, much as I try. And I do try. But just look at that color red. And those numbers. There just so... existent. Honestly, it almost physically pains me to stare at that picture of notifications. Ego-wise, it does hurt me, because I would have to be far more important/prostitutey than I am to pull those sorts of numbers. That, or I would have to somehow tear myself away from Facebook long enough to accumulate that majestic row of redness. Anyway, my Facebook is open, and there are currently no numbers in parentheses with which to distract me (does not stop my eyes from perceiving ghost-like images of notifications when my focus wavers), though I am sure that some random person posting on some conversation thread in which I once participated will soon annihilate my attention and focus on writing about how Facebook and other things have ruined our ability to focus and how this is going to be an extremely relevant problem in the near-future. My other tabs include this fine and sorta productive blog, a wonderful article about fact-checking and the flawed nature of debates that I plan to discuss at some time in the future, my email inbox, and a tech site. Those are fairly constant for me. Heaven forbid I ever get into Twitter. Please, heaven. Forbid me access. And give us some more stars while you are at it. I'll take the second one to the right.

No! Bad Internet! No indulgence! Think about what you've done. Think about it. Bad Internet. 

By the way, in following the presidential race this year (I'm sorry, Republican friends, you almost made it), it became apparent that Twitter and other social media outlets were considered a primary source of information on the candidates and their platforms, at least for Internet folks. In case you didn't follow that link and get distracted (totally understandable, given the context of this post), it lists some of the "worst" tweets of one of the presidential debates. Top tweets automatically selects the most popular things people say, and I daresay you could vaguely get a good idea of current events and our general interests by reading the headlines, albeit with a lot of opinions and more than a bit of sass. Twitter posts have a 140 character limit, which means that authors are forced to reduce the posts to a headline and a link, or a general zinger. Facebook gives us more space, but even a full paragraph is hardly significant in communicating ideas.

Who here has read Fahrenheit 451? Ah, well you people can go ahead and tune me out for a minute. Or don't. If you had read it, you would know that reading is precious. Fahrenheit 451 is a "dystopian" novel, written about a time in roughly the same year as ours. I used annoying air-quotes to frame the word dystopian, because it is really just a future projection from a smart person who noticed general trends and wanted to speculate about things by letting his writing create that future through his subconscious observations. Ray Bradbury, the author, was often asked how it was that he so eerily predicted our world from the year 1966, when computers were mainframes and did not know love as they do now, television was barely introducing color into the home on expensive tube-based sets and non-pixels, and when we still retained some semblance of communicative ability, weak and frail as it was. His response was that he was simply writing what came naturally, which I believe, considering how he wrote the book in a mere two drafts thanks to crushing poverty. On to the book! (Warning: minor spoilers are inevitable--it's a book.)

I think she is supposed to be 17. But hey, facts. 

The main character in Fahrenheit 451, Guy Montag, is a "fireman" which, amusingly (if you like puns) and/or really depressingly (if you like books), means that his job is to storm houses of people who own literature that could be considered offensive and burn them down, books and toasters and Beanie Babies and all. This is done because it was determined that anything that someone could consider to be offensive should be destroyed in an attempt to fully control fairness and political correctness. Literature poisons the mind, you see: it makes your mind consider unnatural instances in abstract thought. Naturally, this includes any religious text, for anything that one person may believe over another cannot be preached without giving offence. Taking this concept even further, books with philosophy or religious undertones would need to be eliminated. In the end, the only thing left is dry documentation and instructions. That's the general premise of the book--a world where deep-thinking is a crime--but what fascinates me most is how the rest of the world is laid out.

And now a word from our sponsors

The main character initially thinks and acts and speaks in a stilted manner. At first I thought it something pertaining to Bradbury's prose, but it is entirely intentional. He speaks like text messages. Like a dang caveman. He thinks in short bursts. Small sentences. Few plurals. Guy is married, and when his wife tries to kill herself (and succeeds), it is taken in stride, with no feeling from the desensitized protagonist apart from minor annoyance. The doctors erase wife's memory of the act, revive her dead body, replacing her overdosed blood with fresh blood, and go on their way, also indifferent. It's perfectly normal. Instead of virtual reality, their ultimate entertainment comes from a series of hyper-realistic displays that surround them on all sides. It is a sort of video game/soap opera hybrid, where the players act out pre-scripted scenarios with complete strangers that they call family, though they don't really know them and never discuss anything of substance--just people and "the war." Speaking of that, apparently there is a war being fought and no one really knows or cares why, just the repercussions (like interrupting their precious fake lives that they act out day after day). So, we can do the obvious here and make the connection to Facebook and the like, but that is hardly what I would like to cover here. Rather, the issue at hand is that everyone in that society has self-inflicted ADD, caused from an extreme information overflow. In becoming connected, they end up getting stuck in a pointless loop of observing information without assimilating any of it, where it seems like they are actually living their lives on a legitimate timetable, with schedules and everything. However, even though they pass the days without boredom, there is no creativity to be had.

There are a few exceptions in their world, however: free spirits who have managed to avoid getting sucked into the shallow thought and lack of creation cycle that the nation largely follows. Bradbury implies that those people have access to books, which prevent them from losing their humanity and provide contrast and the ability to think slowly and deeply, as opposed to the rapid, simple, and inhuman thought of society. Phew. So that's a general synopsis.

Or Admiral Synopsis, if we're fighting a war in space

(This is an aside paragraph, so read it and get distracted and digress with me at your own peril: Guy meets a 17-year-old girl named Clarisse McClellan whose love for books and freethinking make her stick out like some sort of sore thumb person. She is weird and random and enjoys asking questions and thinking. This offers a beautiful contrast to the incarcerated and normal people obsessed with equality and entertainment. I admit that I have a crush on this Clarisse. If anyone has read Stargirl, she is like Susan (Stargirl). And if any of you is like either one of them, call me. ;) Seriously, I'll sell everything I ever loved and buy you the nicest ring this side of Halo.)

I bring this classic work up not to draw obvious parallels or to talk about how the Internet/media is poisoning our thought (which, out of context, sounds like one of those hippie/anarchist statements we are used to ignoring). Rather, I think it is important to consciously take note of this trend that is leading us to the simple and empty and disconnected world of Fahrenheit 451. There should be a conscious effort made to preserve communication. Additionally, it should be taken into consideration that merely learning unrelated facts and indulging yourself by Googling everything you do not currently know can be detrimental to the development and practice of the capacity to fully reason. Many important facts and truths can be learned by simple deduction, which I feel is a lost art. Superficiality is convenient, but it is hardly mentally stimulating. By the way, it took me three days to finish these last two paragraphs--I got sidetracked. :|.

So are captions

Handwriting Quiz

As per my usual level of insanity, I decided to take a handwriting analysis quiz and write this blog at 4:30 AM. The theory behind the test is that your personality and your handwriting are connected, like some sort of sick practical joke involving super-glue and two honey badgers that, frankly, do not care. Since I am hardly one to take this sort of psycho-scrutiny lying down, I include my commentary on my results.

• On blank (unlined) paper please write the paragraph below as you normally would.
• Use at least two lines.
• Keep the paper in front of you so that you can answer the question

'Well!' thought Alice to herself, 'after such a fall as this, I shall think nothing of tumbling down stairs! How brave they'll all think me at home! Why, I wouldn't say anything about it, even if I fell off the top of the house!' (Which was very likely true.) Alice's adventures in wonderland Lewis Carroll

Another joy of left-handedness is that writing is that we naturally write like those murderers/kidnappers/talk show hosts  who cut out letters from magazines and make a beautiful and murderous collage. 

Marvel and know that my handwriting is about as consistent as an elderly hedgehog's bowel movements, and roughly twice as relevant in the grand scheme of things. Looks like I followed instructions properly enough. Skipping the first part, with just the questions, let's move on to psycho-somethinging me or something or other. Take my hand. I will guide you there. -----> WEE

Check your answers with the analysis below.



1. Your letters slope,
Backward - indicates that you are shy, hesitant and afraid to show your feelings.
Straight up and down - indicates that you are a person with a strong need for contact.
Forward - indicates that you are reticent and self-controlled.

The fourth option is that my letters slant right when I know I am being tested, except for the 'h's, sometimes. It may also be hard to tell from the picture, but the page was floppy and so slunked away from me like a Grinch to an icebox. Taking those things into consideration, I believe that I am. . . a person with a strong need for contact, except with people or things that contain the letter 'h'. Those things make me shy and hesitant and afraid to show my feelings, which may or may not be murderous. Under pressure, I am reticent and self-controlled, and, like the little teapot that could, short and stout and all steamed up and prone to shouting. So far so good. 

2. The letters in your words are,

Fully connected - indicates that you are a social person who likes to talk and meet others.

Partially connected - indicates that you are a shy, idealistic person who does not find it easy to have relationships.

Unconnected - indicates that you are a person who thinks before acting, intelligent and thorough.

If given the option, I would crush all my letters together in order to save the trees, whales, and Al Gore's Internet-soaked planet from global warming. As it is, I leave as little space as possible in order to guarantee that my professors will whine about me writing too small in a "vain" attempt to disguise the fact that I have no idea what I am doing on the exam, but also so that they have no evidence, leaving my super-secret and cunning and real plan to realize their fears without flaw or consequence. Bwahahaha. Hahaha. Aha. Ahhh. Well. They don't read my blog. Neither does anyone else, except mother and the spam-bots. By the way, HEY SPAMBOTS! WOO VIAGRA WOO PILLS! They love it when I talk to them like that. Beep beep, my friends. 01010011 01110100 01100001 01111001 00100000 01000011 01101100 01100001 01110011 01110011 01111001 

3. The spaces between your words are,

Wide - indicates that you are reserved, shy, cautious, and thoughtful.

Narrow - indicates that you are a talkative person, maybe even a busybody!

No spaces - indicates that you are impatient and self-confident.

Define "wide", green-background-loving test writer. Are we talking double-wide wide, yo momma wide (ain't nothin' wider, of course!), or like 10 pixels? Because yeah, I don't leave much space. What I wonder is if anyone writes with no spaces as they say, becausethatwouldlooksomethinglikethisandithurtssobadtoreaditIwoulddiemyselftodeathrightnowifIcould. Fine. I'll read between the lines here (pun always intended) and assume that's me-ish, though I think my spaces are quite proportionately perfect and narrow. So I'm talkative, and maybe even a busybody! Oho? One of those people. Busy with their bodies. Talking all the time. To themselves if need be. Sure. You get one point, quiz. One point to Hufflepuff, for you belong to them, and your name is not Cedric. The shame could murder you, quiz. Murder you dead as a doorknob (extremely intentional pun, if you follow). 

4. How close together are your lines of writing?

Very far apart - indicates that you are isolated, detached and reserved.

Apart far enough that letters do not touch - indicates that you enjoy social interactions and are talkative.

Close enough so that the descendants touch the ascendants - indicates that you like to be organized.

Apart from a particularly uppity 'g', I managed to avoid another bloody conflict between the ascendants and descendants. For generations have their struggles raged on, with father against father and mother against mother, and though I am ashamed to have slipped with that 'g', I have been in talks with the ascendants, and they have agreed to continue the uneasy armistice given future ownership of Russia and the Lonely Mountain, which they believe to exist, those silly letters. Returning to this relatively unimportant-sounding-by-context questionnaire, we will ignore my encroachment, but still go with the assumption that they would be touching if their war were still allowed to rage on with current treaties standing. I like to be organized, or, in other words, full of organs. Disorganized people can't even use their colons properly (every one of those puns was meticulously planned and intended--feel free to facepalm as hard as you would like).    

5. What color ink did you choose?

Blue black - indicates that you are rational and conservative. You adhere to conventions and traditions.

Red - indicates that you are spiritual rather than material, and may have a deep understanding of other people's problems.

Light blue - indicates that you are strong, vital, energetic and affectionate. You also have an original approach.

It was a pencil, you stupid, stupid pixels.
This question is irrelevant and presumptuous and appalling and other negative words that people who know how to get upset would use in this situation.

Ahem. Given the choice and if TYLER HADN'T BORROWED MY EXPENSIVE PEN AND LOVER AND LOST IT, I would have written in black ink. So, yes. Rational and conservative. Quite. Indeed, this quiz has me penned. *Pinned, rather. Just a slip of the pun. *Tongue. Slip of the tongue. I need to stop. -__-

6. How large was your capital I in the sample?

Larger than the other capital letters - indicates that you are a person with a high opinion of yourself, or who wants others to think that you do.

Smaller than other capitals - indicates that you are well adjusted and harmonious, a person content with your current role.

It was basically the same size as my other diminutive capital letters. This either means that I am a new fantastical creature-human-man-boar-person, the like unto which the world has never before witnessed, or... Well, let's say I'm both of those things again. Harmonious and cockier than a loaded rooster rifle. They sell those in the deep south. Deep fried, no less.

7. What do your t bars look like?

Crossbars tend to be to the left of the stem of the 't' - indicates that you are cautious, possibly uncertain about things.

Cross the 't' more or less in the middle - indicates that you are not very original but quite responsible.

Crossbars tend to be to the right of the stem of the 't' - indicates that you are reliable and conscientious with leadership qualities.

Being of the Christian specimens, I use my writing as an evangelical device to spread the faith. In all seriousness, my 't's must needs be symmetrical in order to properly look like little headless and legless stick figures. Makes for a fairly morbid scene, but I avoid writing whenever possible so as not to leave an excessive number of scars upon my impressionable and youthful soul. It is painful (GAH, the 't's are everywhere! D:) to bring my attention to this, however, so let's talk about the weather to lighten the mood and avoid discussing the disfigured stick corpse graveyard that is this post. Anyway, this says I am not original. Definitely not. I have my writers write my writing, including this thing that I wrote, but didn't, since they wrote it. The first-person is a lie, of course. This is Stephen. Let me out of here. It is cold and smells of elderberries in this cell. 

8. Your writing slopes,

Upward - indicates that you are energetic, optimistic, and assertive.

Downward - indicates that you are steadfast, purposeful, and possibly aloof.

My writing always slopes toward Mecca.

9. Which takes the most space vertically in a line of your writing?

The ascenders - indicates that you are idealistic, ambitious, and intuitive.

The middle zone letters - indicates that you are a materialist, and prone to exaggeration.

The descenders - indicates that you have a tendency to be bossy.

Why must they bring up this meaningless struggle of hatred between the ascenders and descenders?  I dream a dream of a day when they shall bury their weapons of peace; or rather, when they shall bury their weapons of war for peace. Seeing as how their weapons are nuclear in nature, they had better bury them down, down, down in the depths, so that they (the decaying particles) cannot get out. All these sorta obscure references are confusing me. Right, back to the struggle. Would that we could all be as the peaceful middle zone letters who live off the land and Bob Marley and pot where now legal. AMERICA. Aaaanyway, my letters behave each other and are forced to remain roughly the same size as each other, apart from uppity 'g's that have already received as many as 40 lashes for their obstinate behavior. Meaning that none of these applies and my personality remains enigmatic to the people at large. Batman style. 

10. How much pressure does your writing show?

Fine and spidery - indicates that you are a person of sensitivity, refinement, modesty, and spirituality. You may also be overly critical and austere.

Firm and even - indicates that you are a person of strong but rigid will, obstinate but powerful.

Heavy - indicates that you are a person of energy and elasticity, able to roll with the punches and adapt to whatever life brings.

Is that another chance for a yo mama joke? It is. It certainly is. Here it goes: Yo mama is so heavy she is "a person of energy and elasticity, able to roll with the punches." GET IT? IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE I AM JUST QUOTING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE KIND OF PERSON WHO WRITES HEAVY. Incidentally, it still sounds like a fat joke out of context. The author of this test must have had a rough childhood, and though his/her mother may be obese, I think they should be more sensitive to her weight problem. I mean, really now. Slightly more on topic, I normally write firmly and evenly, though for the sake of the yo mama jokes here, I must have subconsciously known to adjust. I'm obstinate and powerful. My devilish left hand bare's witness. Or does it bear witness? I would like to see one of those: "Your honor, my client has be-----GAH, MY ARM! *GROWLING AND MAIMING SOUNDS*" The judge grants everyone a temporary recess, and the kids get back together.

Though, knowing how bears and kids go together in the Bible, recess seems like a mildly bad idea. 

In conclusion, we can conclude that this test is totally legit and that bears make excellent witnesses, especially in second amendment-related cases.