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?

Catching Up

Or at least catching my breath. I want to review my progress thus far, and talk about some things that have been on my mind lately.

This has been a pretty hectic term, that was kind of my intention going into it. I've had a pretty laid back schedule for the past two or three years in terms of work and school, I wanted to see if I could handle it. I've done pretty well, but I think I'm ready for a break next term. I'm going to take a class on javascript, and I really want to focus my attention on it.

I've learned the value of back ups the hard way this term. Overall, I responded well to my iMac (the machine I do most of my school work on) dying, I'm thankful I have this Macbook available as well. Most of the things I've been working on are located in Google Docs or in SPC's Angel system, so I didn't really lose anything. I wish I hadn't freaked out so much about it though - I lost a lot of time to that, and well, it really wasn't very productive. The video card was still just as fried, ya know? On the upside, I'll be getting it back in the next couple of days.

In terms of this class, I feel bad. Because I spent so much of the first part of the term being so slammed, I don't think I produced good work. What I turned in was often rushed, and in the case of my outline, incomplete. Whether I like outlining or not (and I don't) isn't the issue. I've got a couple of student's that I'm helping, and I don't think they got my best efforts either, though I'm sure they'll do fine in any case. It's mostly a matter of confidence.

This blog has been really enjoyable, I had intended to start blogging this year one way or another, and getting a measure of extra credit is just icing on the cake. I think I need to take more time in proofing and editing the articles I post here. I need to watch my temper, I'm far too easily outraged and am likely to go launch a rant when I'm in that state. Being passionate about something is okay, but I suspect people have a limited tolerance for ranting.

I'm looking forward to going back to school on Monday. See you there.

The Dizzying Heights of Celebrity?

I want to apologize, my posting has been a little irregular recently. I'm currently trapped between the Scylla and Charybdis of my two express classes which are ending. I wanted to celebrate a gala moment for this blog though. As of last night, my subscription numbers have tripled! That's right! I have three subscribers. Of course, that really isn't important on a student blog - this is the place I practice writing for my Composition Two (Electric Boogaloo?) class. But subscriber number three, you are welcome here!

I have to admit that it went to my head a bit when I found out. First, I enjoyed an exotic alcoholic beverage . . . from Milwaukee. Then I attended a movie premier . . . at my neighbors house. I made him roll out the red carpet and shoot pictures of me entering his living room with his digital camera. We watched the camcorder footage from his vacation last year. There was pop-corn. It was fun. When it was time to go home, I was driven by a chauffer . . . my neighbor's son, in the cargo area of his little red wagon. I tipped him a fiver and returned to my customary seat in front of the iMac.

I may have gotten a little out of control, but I promise to use my newfound power wisely. You won't see me dancing without pants in a Hollywood discotheque. I promise not to run around with strange women. That's going to be an easy promise to keep, because women strange or otherwise seem to have enough sense to avoid running around with me. I won't cheat on my taxes, lie to Congress, or ship arms to the developing world. I won't publicly discuss my blog's subscription numbers or talk about Fight Club.

Oops. Cut me some slack, I'm new at this.

Sometime after Wednesday, I hope to finish up my series on Star Wars, talk a little about RSS readers, and maybe we'll have some cake. See you then, Buckaroos.

Chris Demmons, New Media Mongrel? Maybe I ought to be a "New Media Mongol?" That sounds exciting.

Let me know what you think.

Who Owns Your Names?

You do, right? It's only common sense. But are you sure? How sure? I know there at least two or three people (probably a lot more, those are only the ones who've done something that was indexed by Google) that share my first and last name. Probably at least a few share my middle name, once we look at the actual number of people with my legal name, rather than the subset that Google displays. At least one of them is older than I am. Can he claim that I'm infringing upon his trademarks or copyrights (should he register our name)? Can he claim my writing or other work as his own? Can he take my deeded real property? After all, that's his name on that deed as much as it is mine and he has an earlier claim than I do - he was born first.

Does that make identity theft an IP violation? If someone steals my identity and creates a successful artistic work using my name, can I claim his work as mine? If he has children and gives them my surname, is that a derivative work based on my name? Can I gain custody? If he's married under my name, do I have to assume his marriage contract?

Of course, all this seems absurd now, but one day sooner than you might think these issues will be paraded before a judge's bench. This is where our current IP laws are leading us - maybe it would be better to pull back and think it over before we reach the abyss?