Ultimate Post - The Llamas Have Been Sacked

I'm a bit late on this but I put it down to wearing out in the last mile. I was also having a great deal of trouble figuring out what to title my new personal blog. I've got it knocked now, and more on that later. I've really enjoyed my Composition II class, but then I've always enjoyed English classes that don't involve angry humorless nuns. That deserves a bit of explanation, so before I tell you more about wonderful this term was, lets talk about my worst English class ever.

It was my senior year of high school, and my English teacher was in fact, a former nun from Ireland. I didn't hate her or anything, but her class was not fun. This is how things started out - we were assigned a short essay on Beowulf. We were to say what we believed the message of the work was, the central theme. I was, as I am now, a bit of a smart ass. Much in the same way the ocean is a bit wet.

So I wrote my take, that Beowulf was a cautionary tale (much in the same vein as an After-School Special) about the dangers of alcohol abuse. I used direct quotes and paraphrases to support my position and I thought it was quite clever - funny, even. I realize that wasn't why the author wrote the piece, but that wasn't what she asked us to write about. My grade? A ZERO "F." It would've been better to have gotten a bit of extra sleep than to work on the assignment. I'll concede it was an unconventional take on the story, but it fulfilled the conditions of the assignment and I enjoyed writing it. Of all the papers I've done for school, that is the one I'm most proud of - though sadly I don't have a copy of it.

On with the positives now. The thing I enjoyed most in this class was the blog you're reading. If SPC offered a class on blogging (or perhaps online writing), I'd take it in a heartbeat even if it weren't part of my program. I received some very nice compliments from my instructor - both in class, and in the comments here (thank you, by the way) but I still feel I have a lot to learn.

I need to be better about planning ahead. I tend to work "on the metal" - I write a post, I do a little (very little) proof-reading and post. This was an area I got cited on in regards to my papers in class as well. I think I'm a somewhat competent editor . . .  with other people's work. I have a lot of difficulty spotting errors in my own; worse - I find it hard to work up enthusiasm for editing a piece. When I'm ready to write, there isn't anything that can stop me; when it is time to proof-read, I start thinking that it's been a long time since I've organized my blank CD collection by age, brand name and logo.

Follow through is a problem area for me. There were a lot of things that I wanted to do that I never got around to, for instance my piece on Star Trek. I will try to pick some of these up on my new blog. I think part of the problem here was that I had an insane schedule - three express classes, one that had a workload designed to crush your spirit and remove your will to live (Thanks LAN Concepts!)

I need to be more regular. Is it wrong that snickered as I typed that? What I mean is, I need a regular schedule for posting, and to stick with that. I need to be realistic about what I can do while I'm in school. I originally wanted to post here every day. In addition to that I was writing on 750words.com (which is still awesome - I completed the challenge for April, but I've decided to slack a bit this month), in addition to all the other nonsense that I usually pursue in a day. As much as I love writing, I think I may have pushed myself a little too hard.

As to the class itself, I really enjoyed everything I did. Particularly the research paper and the critical interpretation, though those are also the assignments where I had a few "off the hinges" moments. I really liked the fact that the instructor was unafraid to try new things. Seriously, she could teach the instructors of my more technical classes a few things about being innovative. Office hours on Skype was particularly great.

I enjoyed the poetry section more than I expected to, and I ended up showing the poetry slam pieces I selected to a few of my friends. Alas, I still have no sense of rhythm, so I don't think I'll be the next Poet Laureate. I think it might be fun to try sometime though.

As to what I'm doing now blog-wise now that the term is ended, I'm writing a blog for my Javascript class here, and a personal blog here. I decided to keep them separate because I understand that not everyone shares my fascination for Wonkery. I hope you enjoy them, and that you have a great summer!

The Penultimate Post - Games As Art

My post tomorrow is the last one on this blog, my Composition II class will be complete. I've had a great time here. Be sure to check back tomorrow evening and see what I'll be doing next. In the meantime, this games as art thing is something I've wanted to write about for a while.

Recently, Roger Ebert declared that video games "can never be art." Later in the article he retreats to saying it won't be in the current generation of gamers lifetimes that games will be considered art. These statements produced a good bit of "Argle bargle bargle ARE TOO ART!" in the gaming community - this isn't that kind of post. Ebert is an intelligent man, he's entitled to his opinion - I just think he's wrong.

Ebert's article was a response to this TED talk from Kellee Santiago, who says that games already are art. While I agree broadly with her, I find a lot to quibble with as well. I'm going to look at both opinions and give you my take on the subject - and it is worth exactly what you paid to read it.

Let's look at Ebert's arguments first - stripping away the excess verbiage, he has a very definite idea of what constitutes art:

- Usually the creation of a single artist.

- Games are primarily about the "win" condition - IE points scored, levels completed, etc.

- People naturally "know" what great art is.

- No game can be compared with the great art works in other fields.

To be fair, perhaps I've missed something but these seem to me to be the main points. Ebert also notes that what a given person (versus a culture) considers art varies.

A Man Alone . . .

This statement was made in the context that video games are evolving from a primitive state to more sophisticated art. The example being, early cave paintings versus the old masters. Ebert points out that even in collaborative work, there is usually a single artist that gets the ball rolling. He believes that video game development, typically being a group effort, disqualifies it.

I'll even admit that I sympathize with his opinion, that I want to share it. I dislike "organized" art, such as schools of painting or sculpture. But I feel his opinion is irrelevant at best. If you go back to early gaming, even where the final product was developed by a team (the early Build engine games, for example) - there was still a lead developer who had a vision for what the finished product would look like. We could say the same thing with a more modern game like Brutal Legend, which was started by Tim Schaffer's vision and added to by other artists. It really isn't any different in that respect from a tribal dance or a group of cave paintings.

I really don't think his statement here is in any way important. Even if video games development didn't have a lead, even if it was wholly a collaborative effort from #include to the end statement - it doesn't really say much about the finished product.

4 teh Win!11!


Some games have "win" conditions. Halo, Civilization 4, Zork, Pong, Atari Combat - all these games have win conditions. It doesn't necessarily follow that they are not art. Just being "different" from paintings, music, dance, motion pictures, etc is not enough - you have to specifically state why having a win condition disqualifies games as art.

Ebert recognizes that some games don't have a win condition:

Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

This is wrong on a couple of levels. Most adventure games have neither points, nor hard and fast rules - they are primarily about the story that the designers want to tell, but they are not the same thing as a novel, audio book or visual presentation of a story. There is still a subtle win condition - completing the game, but it isn't the same as Space Invaders or Left4Dead. At the same time, I don't see how you can say that a game without a win condition isn't a game.

For instance, it is impossible to win World of Warcraft or Farmville. I'm only going to speak to the former here - I really don't understand what would possess someone to play Farmville. In the case of WoW, there isn't really a win condition set by the game - the player decides what constitutes winning. Due to the changing nature of games like these, even that is not a constant.

Some players just want to get their character to the level cap; others need every character they have on a server to reach that cap. Some don't want to level at all - they reach a certain arbitrary point (say, level 19) and decide to just do player versus player combat at that point. For other players it is having the very best gear available at any given point. The last is probably the most common goal, but as those goal posts are always in motion, there is no final end game until Blizzard stops developing the game. I'll provide a clearer example from my own experience.

I started a druid on the Khadgar server several years back named Devothumb, I still play him today. In the original WoW, leveling a druid was very difficult. This was because druids were a healing class, and by necessity didn't have a lot of damage dealing abilities. So to begin with, getting my druid to level 60, the level cap at that time was my goal. WoW had a storyline back then, but it often felt fragmented, often as not, I thought about my story of Devothumb the Druid and created ideas about what sort of person he was. Later, when I reached the cap, I started raiding.

Raids in WoW are really big dungeons that require a lot of people working together to complete. Back then it was 40 players, and you could try once a week. As I said, Druids were initially healers, but moreso the reason you brought them to raid was to help another healing character class - priests. I chafed under that requirement, I wanted to do something different and eventually reached that goal - I raided in Blackwing Lair as a Moonkin (damage dealing) druid after the 1.8 patch made it barely viable. After the Burning Crusade expansion was released the rules changed again, and so did my goals. Today, I'm back to healing when I have time which isn't as often as I'd prefer. My goal is simply to be a good healer and help people finish lower end content, five man dungeons. I'm pretty happy so far.

I Don't Know What Art Is, But I Know What I Like . . .


I take issue with the idea that people naturally know what great art is. Cezanne's early works were critically panned and physically attacked by some patrons. Few would argue that he was a great artist. I think it's telling that often as not we only award someone with the mantle of "great artist" after they are safely dead.

Both Santiago and Ebert talk about what is and isn't art. I hate to be vague, but when they say this I think they are using it as a stand in for "these are things I don't like." I don't think that's a valid way to approach the issue. By that rationale, Alas, Babylon a critically acclaimed novel isn't art. I don't care for it and think it was one of the worst novels I've every read.

Santiago specifically mentions The Simple Life as an example of where television went wrong, where it did something that wasn't art. I've never seen the show, but it doesn't look like something that would interest me. Frankly, most television and movies don't light my fire - but I won't write either medium off as "not art." I suspect there might even be good arguments for the show she mentioned as an artistic work. Who is right? It's a matter of personal preference.

Yeah, but It's Not Shakespeare . . .


Apples also are not oranges. But if nobody had compared gaming to television, movies, drama or novels, let me be the first. I think the game Sanitarium is as good as anything done by Hitchcock. I think one thing that hurt Santiago's argument here is that she focused on commercially successful independent developers. I think it's okay to show work that hasn't been rewarded by the market place, great art often isn't. That was certainly the case with Sanitarium, it was the only work produced by that development house, and it was a failure commercially. I think it is okay to show off the work of large studios and "AAA" games. They can be art too, even if they are successful in the market place.

But Do We Really Have To?


The argument that I have the most sympathy with in Ebert's essay is this. I'm not sure it is a good idea to have games considered as art. I think the art world and the Games-As-Art movement can often be so stodgy that they are a parody of themselves. At the end of the day, a game should be fun. If it fails in that, than I can say hopefully without contradiction that it might not be art.

Ebert wonders why it is important to "gamers" to have their medium declared art. I think there are a couple of reasons for this; recognition for the creative work that developers do is one of them. But the games as art movement is trumpeted louder by players than developers, so I think that is culturally speaking an afterthought. I think the reason that players want this is that we've been marginalized by the mainstream culture for a long time. The stereotype of a "gamer" is an overweight, socially maladroit male who lives in their parent's home longer than is socially acceptable. As with any stereotype sometimes it is true, but more often - especially today as game become more accepted culturally, it is not.

Additionally, it is a bulwark against the worst excesses of the mainstream media. Fox News reported that the game Mass Effect featured "full frontal nudity" and was "marketed to children." This was in no way true, this sterling bit of reporting was sourced as "I heard it from a friend." The same network claimed that Modern Warfare 2 is about "being a terrorist." Other mainstream outlets have treated the media with the same scorn and disregard. The majority of stories about video games (and all stories about video games with mature subject matter) are negative; absolutely without exception.

I think that because video games are a different medium, they are consumed differently than other forms. I think art is sometimes created (or is at least driven by) the player, not the developer. House of the Dead 2 & 3 for the Nintendo Wii, at least as it is played by my friends is a good example of this. It is a rail shooter - you move through a linear story, shooting zombies for score. The localization of this game is very poor resulting in a high quantity of "Engrish," and playing it is almost like an episode of Mystery Science Theatre 3000. Whereas a novel or a movie is mostly a one-to-one experience between the author and the consumer.

Fin


I think that both parties have it wrong. I feel that Roger Ebert does not have the necessary qualifications to determine whether video games are art. He is not, so far as I know, well versed in the medium.

In some ways though, Kellee Santiago's arguments make me even more uncomfortable. I agree with her that games are already art, but I'm less sure that you can point to game one (say, Braid) and say this is good art and point to game b (Grand Theft Auto) and say it isn't. At least not until well after the fact. The idea of using a study to promote a particular viewpoint on games as art feels to reminiscent of Socialist Realism or the Surrealist school that rejected Dali because his paintings sold.

I think we have to let these sleeping dogs lie, and after we are long cold in the ground, the people who come after us get to decide which games, novels, plays and movies are good art. I think creators should be free to make what they like, and while this will sometimes produce wonderful games, it will also occasionally produce something ugly or daft. We have to move forward being okay with that.

A Midsummer Night's Team Building Exercise (NSF56k)

It's been far too long since I've had the chance to post, and I wanted to fix that. There was a class discussion about our big, final project - A Midsummer Night's Dream, and our Professor was saying that she did not believe you could do it in a modern setting. I don't think this is true, I think there are a lot of ways you could do it in a modern setting. The one I mentioned in class was having it set in an office. If I were given the opportunity to stage it, this would be my cast:

Theseus - Executive Vice President of Operations - Miranda Richardson




This is a conscious role reversal. She plays the part of Theseus, and in this case Operations has just swallowed up several other departments including Finance. I'd want Miranda Richardson because of her role as Queen Elizabeth I in Blackadder II. In fact, I'd want Theseus to be played this way - as a brutal flighty despot. You really don't get to see her doing that in this clip, but trust me - if you've seen the series you know exactly what I mean. If you haven't seen the series you need to go watch it yesterday.

The reason I'm putting a woman in Theseus' part is that women tend to have a stronger role in an office environment. In this world, guys tend to be the minority. In my last position, for instance, I was one of three guys (two non-management) on the office staff. This was typical everywhere but at the one call center I worked at. I also like the idea of turning some of Shakespeare's ideas on their heads.

Hippolyta - Former Executive Vice President of Finance, Currently Senior Assistant VP of Operations - Sir Nigel Hawthorne (Yes, I'm well aware that he's dead and mores the pity)





Obviously Hippolyta would have to have more lines. In fact, I'd rather see a little more tension between Theseus and Hippolyta than was seen in the play. If really were putting this on, I might pick Steve Martin as a replacement for Sir Hawthorne. Sure, he's best known as a comedian, but he can do good dramatic work as well - go see The Spanish Prisoner and come talk to me.

In this case, Hawthorne's department has been swallowed up by Operations, and he has been demoted. One chief difference between Shakespeare's play and my adaption is that there would not be a romantic relationship. Instead we have two long term bitter rivals, who are now forced to work together. Obviously Richardson is the victor, but she didn't get to fire Hawthorne, so it wasn't a total victory. The CEO insisted that she keep Hawthorne on and make put him in the deputy's position. The two of them are currently trying to make the best of a bad situation. In terms of behavior, they tend to behave like an old married couple (I'm thinking specifically of my paternal grandparents) - they never have a kind word for each other, but will defend the other against outside threats. As in the case of the actual characters, there is respect, but it is buried under a mountain of sarcasm.

Egeus - Manager of the Special Services Group and heading The Very Big Project - John C. McGinley




Egeus is a character that caused a lot of head scratching in my class, I think my version would be a lot easier to understand. He's the worst boss you've ever had. The sort of boss you instinctively duck in his presence, because you know at any moment he'll start throwing things at you. The sort of boss that begins a one on one "discussion" by kicking your door down. If you don't have a door, he'll have Facilities install one just so he can kick it down.

In the original play, Egeus is a jerk to his daughter, but respectful to Theseus. I'd turn that on it's head. McGinley would play a character that is a full on, fire breathing asshole - unless Hermia (more on her later) is within earshot; when that happens he becomes the most reasonable human being on Earth. In this case, she is his protege and he thinks of her as a daughter, though that feeling isn't reciprocated.

Egeus is part of the conflict in the original play, here too, but in the opposite direction. McGinley is a company man through and through, and highly protective of Hermia. He has two goals - both of which stand in opposition to her, though he doesn't know it in one case. He is trying to prevent her from being transferred to the night shift. The night shift is (as it is so often in the real world) career suicide. He wants her to move up the ladder with him, but she doesn't consider this a "career job" and just wants the extra money that the night shift provides, as well as to get away from McGinley who she finds a bit smothering and creepy. McGinley has no idea that the transfer originated with her. She is also part of the romantic plot, the Lysander character is a team leader at the company is a report to of one of McGinley's rivals (he considers almost everyone a rival) and he does everything he can to try to disuade her.

Hermia - Team Leader Customer Service Team One, Special Services - Felicia Day





She's well known from her role in The Guild and you should seriously watch that. It's a great show. But as Hermia, she'd have a very different role. Hermia in this play is kind of bitchy and self-centered, but in a passive-aggressive way that doesn't always get noticed by her colleagues. She doesn't see this company as her future career, and this causes conflict with her boss - though this conflict is indirect until late in the play (she tries to get quietly transferred to night shift, he thinks someone else is trying to move her and attempts to stop it.) She has an interoffice romance going with Lysander. My goal with this character is to give her less personality than Helena - again, the opposite of the original play.

Lysander - Team Leader Customer Service Team Two - ????

I honestly have no idea who I would cast in this role. I'm not going all "I don't judge guys," I just don't know in terms of drama who the current sex symbol is. Most of the ones I know are from older films. He'd essentially look like the young male lead in a soap opera, and like Helena be kind of a cardboard cut out sort of figure. Like Barbie and Ken come to life.

Lysander reports to one of Egeus' rivals - which is the first reason he hates him, the second is that he's involved with Hermia and Egeus doesn't think he's good enough. Oddly enough, the two are a lot alike and unlike Hermia, Lysander does see himself making a career at the company though Egeus is trying to sabotage it by attempting to have him transferred to the night shift instead of Hermia.

Demetrius & Helena - Team Leads Customer Service Three and Four

John Cusack and Christa Miller

I'm pretty sure you know who John Cusack is but I'm just going to link from here on out to preserve your precious bandwidth. They're a contrast with Hermia and Lysander, older, less focused on the future and more about getting through the day. Both would qualify as the sort of beaten down office workers that I've spent years seeing (and almost turned into myself.)

They're more "everyday people" than Hermia and Lysander.

Rude Mechanicals - Day Shift Customer Service Reps

Or maybe HR staff might make more sense. I really want to include the play within a play. It could either be done as a talent competition or, perhaps as a motivational video. I like the motivational video idea better. I'll admit I'm sourcing the tone of this adaption from Resume with Monsters by William Browning Spencer which you should immediately go read. One of the things I loved in the book were the motivational tracts included in the main characters paychecks that seemed to have the opposite effect.

In the role of Bottom? Jack Black.

I'm unsure who I'd want for the remaining cast members, obviously people who could play straight man against Jack Black.

Oberon, Titania and Puck - Night Shift Customer Service Managers and Customer Service Representative.

For Oberon and Titania, I'd like these two from The League of Gentlemen (WARNING video is probably not safe for work). One of the things I really didn't like about Midsummer is how they handled the fairy kingdom. Fairies were the original "other" - they sometimes looked a bit like us, but it was a parody of humanity. They were weird and obsessive when it came to their behaviors, and even when they looked attractive, they were "off" in a way you couldn't put your finger on. I want to go the troll route here and make the fairy king and queen ugly.

I'd point to Oberon's weirdness by parodying a supervisor I had once who was really in to meetings. Even when there really wasn't any information to convey. The night shift has no staff aside from Puck, who reports to Oberon. Despite this, the first time we see Oberon he is giving a meeting to an empty conference room. He's referring to power points, taking questions from the floor - the whole nine yards. When Puck interrupts him, he gets cross with him.

I think I'd like to make Titania an absurd teamwork fanatic - something like this.

Incidentally, Moss from the IT Crowd would be my choice for Puck.

I'm unsure how the conflict would work between Oberon and Titania off hand, obviously the lovers (err team leaders) get seconded to night shift and the comedy of errors begins when Puck gets ahold of them.

I'll admit, that this version makes a lot of changes from the original play, and you certainly could run the play as normal - I just like my take on it. What do you think?

Walking on the Moon

I only have a week to go before my critical analysis paper is due and I'm panicing a bit. I want to do a story from Sex and Violence in Zero G, but I'm not sure which one. I'm now leaning towards the first "Captain Future" story. First, let's take a look at the Near Space saga as a whole:

- Influenced by Robert A. Heinlein

The Near Space stories are a tribute to Heinlein's Future History stories. The first story in Near Space is "Walking on the Moon", a homage to Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold the Moon" an early tale in Future History. Like Future History, Near Space is told from precommercialized space travel in Walking in 2010 to "Mister Chicago" which is near the end of the timeline in 2093.

Heinlein is featured in the wall of photos at Diamond Back Jack's, with Jack Baker the proprietor of the bar at a science fiction convention when he was a kid.

- Not A Randroid Stroke Book

Heinlein's characters were often two dimensional. Harriman in "The Man Who Sold the Moon" was typical, a coiled spring of "Can Do" and all the positives of big "C" Capitalism in action. While I think an argument could be made that this was the gold standard of science fiction pulp writing at the time, you can see that Ayn Rand used this style as a model for her characters.

Steele is clearly a Heinlein fan, but takes the opposite tack. The big space companies as a group are portrayed as being obnoxious, meddlesome, clueless and occasionally sinister. Skycorp (later ConSpace), the first space company is the most directly portrayed throughout the series. Whereas Harriman himself is a focus throughout Future History, McGuiness the CEO of Skycorp never gets any screen time and is only referred to in a few stories.

Our first view of Skycorp is in "Free Beer and The William Casey Society." This story shows Skycorp (and NASA) as stodgy by enforcing a "no booze" regimen in space.

Later, in "The Return of Weird Frank" (my favorite Diamond Back Jack story, for the record) when the author describes the boredom of working in space ("People often compared the wild nightlife on Skycan to that of Deadhorse, Alaska.") and when discussing The Sex Monster. "Skycan was a small, closed environment, and the company frowned on sexual congress in space ('insurance problems' was the catch-all phrase, as was for almost everything else which was fun.)"

In "Sugar's Blues" another corporation with operations in space is portrayed as sinister. The story compares the spacers who hang out at Diamond Back Jack's with company men "They were company men. Any company; pick one, they all look alike." Attired from JC Pennys, flat top haircuts and used car dealer mustaches - that is more or less how the author describes them. Versus the workers who are in jeans, Skycorp caps and cowboy shirts.

The company, Spectrum-Mellencamp a biological firm, frames Sugar ('because everything I do comes out sweet') Saltzman and his crew for drug use after they destroy a space station module containing the company's plans for the first street legal recreational drug. After Saltzman allows the narrator (a journalist on the space beat) to publish what happened, the company gets revenge by burning down Diamond Back Jack's.

In the novel Orbital Decay, we see Skycorp collude with the National Security Agency to place a satellite in orbit that will act as a tap on every line of communication in the world. It is tested on American citizens.

- A Paen to the Working Man

Steele's Near Space stories take blue collar workers and put them in the role that test pilots and astronauts filled in Wolfe's The Right Stuff. His characters are bawdy and weird where test pilots and the early astronauts are seen as the figurehead of America.

This contrast is particularly sharp in Orbital Decay and Clarke County Space. Decay has its protagonists many of the spacers mentioned in the Diamond Back Jack stories:

- "Virgin" Bruce Neiman, a former biker on the run from the law.

- Lisa Barnhart, a shuttle pilot.

It also adds

- Popeye Hooker, a depressed former shrimper, believes he is on the run from the law.

- Jack Hamilton, a botanist who is more than he seems, and the narrator of the story.

Their antagonist is Captain H. G. Wallace, the project supervisor of Skycan, Skycorp and the National Security Agency.

Captain Wallace is a deliberate twisting of a sci-fi trope. When Hamilton first meets Wallace, he recalls seeing him in interviews. He looks like someone who just walked out of The Right Stuff. Crew cut. Rugged build. Lots of talk about man's destiny in space.

Upon meeting him, he has crazy eyes, sallow, sunken features - he seems a shadow of his former self. Note Wallace's initials H. G. W. - it is a reference to Herbert George Wells, an early science fiction author, and the first author to write a fictional account of a trip to the Moon. Wallace could easily be compared to Captain Queeg from the Caine Mutiny, or General Ripper from Doctor Strangelove. It isn't simply that all three of these characters go insane, but the way they go insane - they live in a particular reality, informed by their prejudices and enforced by their role as commander.

Wallace believes that those who settle in outer space are the next step in mankind's evolution. They must be morally and physically superior to average men. This is similar to Wolfe's The Right Stuff, in that Wolfe suggests that test pilots and astronauts are a breed apart, that they possess a special quality that most men and women do not have. His crew are mostly blue collar workers, odd ones at that, who have been driven nuts by isolation and boredom. The clear difference between what should be and what is drives Wallace around the bend.

This is apparent in a number of places in the novel, and as the story winds up Wallace begins to isolate himself from the crew. He has a Queegesque moment at the end of the novel when he claims that the crew's demands to keep the offspring of two cats brought up for research purposes is the beginning of the mutiny.

In Clarke County Space, the conflict is between the New Ark - a sort of hippie commune and Clarke County Corporation, the company which built the Clarke County Space Station. There is also a conflict between a mafia hitman (the Golem) and the Sheriff of Clarke County that intertwines with the main plot - the struggle between the farmers (New Ark) and the tourism board (3C).

This story is an homage to the Heinlein novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. In both stories we have a revolutionary struggle. In Mistress, the average Lunar citizen is a prisoner - either criminal or political. New Ark party members can be readily compared to them, Clarke County was written during the Reagan years when being referred to as a "hippy" was an insult and the political left was on the wane. In both novels, the colonists use weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent force - in Mistress the colonists actually use the weapons. In the case of Mistress, this weapons takes the form of large chunks of the regolith hurled from the lunar surface by catapult at the Earth - these catapults were formerly used to send raw materials to Earth orbit for processing. In Clarke County, the weapon is an illegal 100 megaton nuke that was secretly placed in Earth orbit. In both revolutions help is given from an unexpected quarter. In the case of Mistress it is given by the Moon's central computer which has been sentient for some time, though this is not known by society at large. In Clarke County also has a secret artificially intelligent computer who styles itself "Blind Boy Grunt" after Bob Dylan, because he wishes he was Dylan. Of the two, Blind Boy Grunt has a more developed personality and a very hackish sense of humor. Both end with the founding of the first off world nation, in Heinlein's work it is just the Moon, in Steele's it is an alliance between Clarke County, Descartes Station on the Moon and Arisia Station on Mars called the Pax Ad Astra. The actual formation of the Pax is not shown in the novels, but Steele shows us a seen from the later independence struggle in The War Memorial. The War Memorial is a stark contrast with the scenes of combat in Mistress. Death is swift, horrifying and impersonal in The War Memorial. The memorial referenced in the title is a person whose combat space suit malfunctions after a nearby artillery strike renders his suit immobile. He watches as the invading force he is a part of is slaughtered by the Pax Militia's long range guns, helpless to save his comrades or himself. He dies in his suit, which except for a piece of piping in the CPU housing of the suit (shrapnel from the artillery strike), is completely untouched by the ravages of war. When a Pax Militia patrol finds him, they leave him untouched except for a small circle of stones at his feet to remember the fallen.

Heinlein was a product of World War II, combat in Moon and all his novels is idealized as a righteous struggle. Action sequences are always a matter of good versus evil. Steele is a product of the baby boom, and Vietnam - the first televised war. In "The War Memorial," the conflict of Pax versus Earth is not shown in this way, but through the eyes of the protagonist - full of fear and the knowledge that death can strike at any moment before his suit malfunctions; afterwards is the knowledge that he will die, and very soon.

The main character of Clarke County, Jenny Schorr (later Jenny Pell) bears examination. While she is one of several protagonists, Schorr is the one who changes the most, and moves the plot forward. She cuckolds her husband with Sheriff Bigthorn whom she is in love with. Her husband Neil Schorr, is both distant and unfaithful to her - both with his female admirers and the New Ark Party itself. She pushes forward the idea of independence for Clarke County when she sees that there can be no compromise with the Clarke County Corporation and that her husband is content to fruitlessly debate with them. She declares her independence from him and 3C. While Heinlein is noted as one of the few pulp era authors who had strong female characters in the leading role, they often resembled his male characters - coiled springs of can do and resourcefulness, often unemotional or critical of emotion. They were essentially his male characters with a sex change. Schorr is convincing as a female character. While she has moments where she is confident, she is also uncertain, emotional and even self-criticizing. I am not saying these are feminine attributes, they are human attributes. Jenny Pell is more believable as a person than Heinlein's protagonists.

- The Palace Coup

This isn't directly covered in a story, but is treated as history after a certain point, we see it discussed in "Zwarte Piet's Tale." Pell's Pax Ad Astra falls to a palace coup. Pell's party attempts to rule by consensus, which is nigh impossible considering the distances involved between Clarke County, the Moon and Mars. Her former husband Neil Schorr and a number of conservative elements within the Pax form a Monarchist party, supporting a constitutional monarchy. There is a coup. Mars and the Jovian moons declare their independence from the new Pax. The constitutional part is a sham, after Queen Macedonia is crowned, the government of Pax shows an active disregard for the rights and happiness of its citizens.

This is seen in "Zwarte Piet's Tale," the Pax tells would-be defectors to Mars that the Martian government will shoot down any Pax lander in their air space.

In "Kronos," neither the crew of the Intrepid nor the Royal Rapid Response Militia sent to Titan are trusted with the particulars of their mission. The crew is felt to be untrusted because they are "superiors" (humans bred with adaptions for space travel) and many superiors sided with the Jovians when they declared independence. The Royal Militia is deemed untrustworthy because it is made up of common citizens, drafted into national service.

Later in the Captain Future saga, Pax Naval Intelligence blackmails the protagonists into a kidnap attempt on Jenny Pell. They want to bring her back to the Pax to face treason charges and to interrogate her for information regarding the Earth facility on Mercury - the only colony owned by an Earth company in the inner Solar System. This also appears to be an attempt at revenge by Neil Schorr, her former husband who is now Prime Minister of the Pax Ad Astra.

If the original Pax represented the political left, the new Pax represents the American right. While they are more efficient at accomplishing their objectives due to the authoritarian structure of the government, they are also seen to be petty, corrupt and indifferent to the needs of the citizenry. Their primary goal is the perpetuation of the monarchy and the extension of its power by any means necessary.

This part of the Near Space saga is more in agreement with Heinlein's work. Heinlein was also anti-authoritarian, though the views presented in his novels come closer to small "l" libertarianism than the traditional left. Both author's used their series to decry prejudice. This can be seen in Heinlein's work in Stranger in a Strange Land; in Steele's work it can be seen in both The Pink Triangle and in the Captain Future saga. In particular, Steele highlights that it is okay to be different, and even to be uneasy at the differences in others, but that you are ultimately responsible for your actions.

Okay, game off - I know this is talky, but I wanted to get some of this out there so I could figure out how I want to approach this. I'm still not one hundred percent sure of which Near Space tale I'd like to do, or even if I'll be allowed to do it. There really isn't anything in the literature text that excites me. Ursula K. Guinn? Yuck.

Loot Runs

I was thinking of computer role-playing games in terms of my future paper while I was playing Fallout 3 the other day. The progression curve seems backwards to me. When I talk about "progression" here, I mean it in the sense of the difficulty curve, but that affects story progression too.

Most CRPGs start the players out as level one schlubs. Rats and wild boars are a major cause of death among level one characters. As they defeat these rather modest enemies and advance the story they gain in levels; they get new equipment that adds to their stats. By end game they are a walking engine of destruction, almost invincible save for the end boss or falling asleep at the keyboard. Measuring progression by level is part of the problem.

CRPGs are the descendants of tabletop RPGs and those trace their roots back to Dungeons and Dragons. Early D&D had its own roots in tabletop wargaming. D&D used level based progression, and thus CRPGs use it today. But there are some serious mathematical issues that can come from this scheme. I recall two games of Robotech back when I used to play tabletop games regularly. One gamemaster followed the developer's advice of parcelling out experience points, which are used to determine the player's level, very sparingly. In his game it took six months to a year of regular weekly play to hit the next level. The other gamemaster handed them out like candy on Halloween. His players quickly passed the level that the designers recommended for character retirement (the player character becomes a non-player character used to introduce adventures by the GM) and on to the level cap. Characters in Robotech really weren't designed to be played at that level. A single five player party would take on whole alien armadas - by themselves. This is roughly the equivalent of five soldiers winning World War II. My Fallout 3 game on the PS3 has reached this point. There really aren't any enemies that are a threat to me anymore, and that kills a story dead.

I think there might be a better way of handling progression in computer games. Imagine if we turned this equation upside down. The player begins as a major hero - at the "level cap," they are well skilled and equipped - we can skip killing 1,000 boars for experience. The game designer uses this period of nigh invulnerability to teach the player how the game works. Over time though, the player gets progressively weaker. His stats and skills don't go down, but his equipment starts to wear out, in a modern game ammunition might become scarce. This reverse progression means that enemies don't have to scale upwards as dramatically as they have to using a more conventional progression scheme. Players have to make choices about when they want to use their equipment - they're less likely to pull out the +12 Sword of Awesome or the Man Portable Nuke Cannon against the diseased rat if they know it might not be available against a more threatening monster. I think this system allows more freedom for the writer - players out leveling content is less of a concern.

Goodbye, Research Paper. Hello Critical Analysis

My research paper is done, I have no regrets.

The class has moved on to critical analysis now. We started out looking at poetry, and how you should read it. Now, we have the option of doing a paper on either a short story or a poem.

As poetry is for the most part not my thing (my sense of rhythm is 404), I'm looking at short stories. Vonnegut's "Welcome to the Monkey House" is my current front runner, but I'm tearing through my library and the web. I've also considered doing it on the Zen story "Trading Dialogue for Lodging" which is a favorite of mine. I think the guy who wrote that should be resurrected and given a staff position on Saturday Night Live.

My Top Five - Bad Films

Sure, top five lists are cliché, consider this an homage to one of my favorite movies of all time, High Fidelity.


Number 5 - Plan 9 from Outer Space

Featuring the writing of Ed Wood, and starring Bela Lugosi (and Mr. Wood's chiropractor playing Lugosi after he died during the filming), Vampira and the massive bulk of Tor Johnson. This film was acclaimed the worst movie of all time by the book The Golden Turkey Awards. Tim Burton, made a film about the making of the movie with a star-studded cast. 

My favorite "actor" in the film is The Amazing Criswell, a talk show psychic who didn't shy away from making precise predictions. In 1968 he predicted the end of the world would occur on August 18, 1999 when all the oxygen would be sucked from the Earth by a black rainbow. Obviously this is absolutely true and all this business about 2012 is a lot of hog wash. You can also listen to May West sing about Criswell here. And you probably should. More Criswell from the intro to Plan 9:

The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club!

Number four: The Omega Man - A Remake of The Last Man on Earth

This is a remake of the vastly superior Vincent Price classic, it's pure 70s and pure pain. Essentially a zombie movie, but the zombies aren't slow or mindless - they're an active, cunning opponent. Something that can't be said of Charleton Heston, the movie's lead.

Number Three: Space Hunter, Adventures in the Forbidden Zone

Sadly, I can't find a trailer for this one. You might be able to find quite a bit more than the trailer elsewhere. Hint. Hint. I remember seeing it as a kid, it has to be one of the worst movies of all time and features a young Molly Ringwald as the plucky sidekick. In this 3-D film Peter Strauss plays Wolff the space adventurer who must rescue a trio of shipwrecked super models from the clutches of Overdog.

Overdog, played by Michael Ironside is probably one of the most perplexing and disturbing villains ever played on screen.

Number three: Strays

As tempting as it would be to list the Vin Diesel movie, this isn't it. I'm bending the rules - this one is made-for-tv, but it still counts.

I originally saw this on Joe Bob's Drive-In Theater, and it has to be one of the silliest horror movie plots ever conceived. Written by former Hardy Boy Shaun Cassidy, this movie is the standard American family buys a dream house but there's something wrong. In this case the trouble is a pack of feral house cats. I wish I was kidding. One of the most unintentionally funny movies you'll ever see.

Number two: The Beast

Another made for TV classics, hawked endlessly by the Sci-Fi channel along with its desperately unnecessary sequel. A giant squid terrorizes a small fishing community in the Pacific Northwest. I'm sick of the squid.

And the number one bad film is . . . the envelope please . . . .

Zardoz

This movie was the impetus for this post. A friend of mine mentioned that she has seen this, and quoted the famous line:

Which isn't the sort of thing you normally hear when you're doing your shopping. But I was wrong, I could've sworn that Burt Reynolds was the lead in this movie. It seems like the sort of movie Burt Reynolds should star in. I guess I'd prefer to remember Sean Connery as 007.

Down to business, in this film Sean Connery plays an "exterminator" in the post apocalyptic future. Sworn to the god Zardoz (that'd be the giant floating head that carries on about wangs), a man who kills the underclass known as "brutals." In a way it is Teenage Cave Man meets the 1970s. In time, he discovers the shocking (read: not-all-that-shocking) truth about his civilization and his god.