This is a warning to every one of you who are thinking about being parents. What I am going to discuss today is something you might not have noticed or are maybe even endorsing. You might not realize the dangers that is crouching at your door step, waiting for your children to fall victim to it. It is already lurking in countless homes here and around the world. Be warned, this may be shocking.
Cartoons today suck.
So maybe the hype was a bit much, but what I say is still true. If any of you have seen the recent programming on Cartoon Network, you can almost trace the line of decay that the shows have gone through. From when we were young to where we are now, cartoons have nosedived from the wit and humor of days gone to the drug induced, color vomiting, flashing distraction it is now.
Do you now what I found on Boomerang lately? Teen Titans. That's right, that five season action/comedy show that we watched when we were only a bit younger is on the retro station. I miss shows like that. Teen Titans was fun, it had engaging action, deep characters, thoughtful plot lines, as well as the fun wit, tantalizing art, and wacky style. It was surprisingly mature while keeping its silly side. Teen Titans offered little nuggets of truth to kids on topics like friendship, hard work, respect, and others. They weren't heavy handed about it, but it was there all the same. Looking back on it, I see these messages more clearly, and I appreciate them.
In contrast, we now have Adventure Time. If ever a show was made while under the influence of Acid, this is it. The sheer lunacy of this astounds me. There is nothing here but cliche dialogue, bright colors, and psychotically loony characters (not like Looney Tunes, that is awesome). There is no depth to the story or the characters, no merit in anything that it does. This type of show is nothing more than a mindless block of thirty minutes for parents to shove their kids in front of to get them out of the way.
I remember Saturday mornings. I'd wake up early, get a bowl of cereal and use the piano bench as my table. I'd sit on the couch and watch hours of cartoons. I knew the theme songs, I loved the characters, and the shows helped build my imagination. This isn't just nostalgia that I'm running off of. I like to buy the old shows I loved and watch the DVDs. Even now, when I'm twenty years old, the shows are still good. They have the same charm and wit that I appreciated, even more now that I understand them better. There was an art to cartoons back then. Now, it seems like it is all a quick cash in. Corporations turn out shiny, mindless, and shallow programs that are made to waste kids time and earn them ratings. This industry is in need of an overhaul. We need those out there who are willing to invest time and passion into their product and create something meaningful as well as enjoyable. We can do it, our generation of artists, writers, directors, and producers can save our future children from the slime that is called kids programming now.
Seriously, some of these shows now could only have been produced in a drugged up state.
Just something to chew on.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Christmas...That's It.
Twas the really early morning before Christmas, and all through the house, not a creature was stirring, but my brother, myself, and the episode of Psych. Last minute present wrapping continues since we had put it off, and Kyle's indie music meshed with the witty TV banter. I at my computer and Kyle at his was trying to figure out what topic to spit out this week.
Then I figured there was only one choice. I'd write the truth of Christmas.
If you'll forgive the absolutely terrible rendition of "A Night Before Christmas," this is my Christmas entry into the sea of similar posts. I don't think that anything else fits for me to write about this time except for the reason we even care about this season. If it wasn't for Jesus's birth, this would be nothing but the end of finals, and the wintry season where we goof off for a month (or take a January course). Instead, we have a holiday season that could arguably be called the happiest time of the year (on a whole anyway). And there's a reason for that.
This isn't a surprise, people suck. We all sin, and there's nothing we could do about that. In the old Israel nation they had sacrifices and long ceremonies to get back in good standings with God. Not the easiest thing in the world. Life was hard, sin was easy, and humanity was not in a good way. God decided to change that. He knew that a perfect sacrifice would be needed. And there was only one person that would fit: His Son.
But how would this man come into the world? He could come down in a blaze of glory and splendor, flanked by legions of angels with a heavenly choir singing his praises. But we'd be missing a crucial part in the person of Jesus, his human nature. In that, He had to come to earth as a man, but first a baby. Jesus needed to come into this world through a woman. and that woman was Mary.
Mary was a kid really, maybe only sixteen. Still young, but promised to be married to the man Joseph. The only thing she might be thinking of was rearing normal children and living a simple life. Then, God chose her to have the greatest responsibility of anyone on earth. An angel came down to speak with her and deliver God's message: she would bear the Son of God. We don't know what could be going through her mind, the fear and the stress, but in it all, she believed the angel when he said she was blessed and that God was with her.
That's one side, but there was another half, Joseph. Joseph found out about the child, but not his identity. He knew this could be trouble. Being honorable, he thought about silently disowning Mary and not humiliating her. Of course, God had to step in. He spoke to Joseph in a dream and told him about the child. He brought Joseph to His side and Joseph took Mary as his wife.
Then, as what was probably a move rooted in greed, Caesar Augustus decided to take a census of his kingdom. His rules were that every man had to return to his home town to register. This decree would send Joseph, and now his wife Mary, from Nazareth to Bethlehem. The two traveled to the famed Town of David since Joseph was part of the family line of King David.
While in town, they could not find any place to stay. Every inn was full. This would have been less of a problem if Mary wasn't so closed to giving birth. She was close and needed some place to be sheltered and give birth. In their desperate search, one kind innkeeper offered them shelter in the stables. That night, Mary and Joseph bedded down in the hay with sheep and horses, waiting to bring their son into the world.
That night, Jesus came into the world. Under the light of a shining star, the little boy that embodied all God's glory was born in a little town, behind a little inn, in a little stable, and placed in a little manger. And to a group of shepherds nearby, angels heralded the coming of this King. To the lowliest of society, the greatest news was given. These shepherds ran to Bethlehem and saw the baby King and worshiped Him there.
The rest we'll get to another time (probably Easter) but right now, we have this story, the reason for Christmas. There is so much in this story, more meaning than I could ever hope to uncover, and more truth about God than I could ever expect to be able to show. All I could think of tonight was to share the story of Christmas. Sure it has my flair to it, but the truth is there. If you want the real thing, go to Luke 2. The bible has told it better than I ever could. I've done my part to share and for this week, that's all I have.
Merry Christmas, see you all next week.
Just something to chew on.
Then I figured there was only one choice. I'd write the truth of Christmas.
If you'll forgive the absolutely terrible rendition of "A Night Before Christmas," this is my Christmas entry into the sea of similar posts. I don't think that anything else fits for me to write about this time except for the reason we even care about this season. If it wasn't for Jesus's birth, this would be nothing but the end of finals, and the wintry season where we goof off for a month (or take a January course). Instead, we have a holiday season that could arguably be called the happiest time of the year (on a whole anyway). And there's a reason for that.
This isn't a surprise, people suck. We all sin, and there's nothing we could do about that. In the old Israel nation they had sacrifices and long ceremonies to get back in good standings with God. Not the easiest thing in the world. Life was hard, sin was easy, and humanity was not in a good way. God decided to change that. He knew that a perfect sacrifice would be needed. And there was only one person that would fit: His Son.
But how would this man come into the world? He could come down in a blaze of glory and splendor, flanked by legions of angels with a heavenly choir singing his praises. But we'd be missing a crucial part in the person of Jesus, his human nature. In that, He had to come to earth as a man, but first a baby. Jesus needed to come into this world through a woman. and that woman was Mary.
Mary was a kid really, maybe only sixteen. Still young, but promised to be married to the man Joseph. The only thing she might be thinking of was rearing normal children and living a simple life. Then, God chose her to have the greatest responsibility of anyone on earth. An angel came down to speak with her and deliver God's message: she would bear the Son of God. We don't know what could be going through her mind, the fear and the stress, but in it all, she believed the angel when he said she was blessed and that God was with her.
That's one side, but there was another half, Joseph. Joseph found out about the child, but not his identity. He knew this could be trouble. Being honorable, he thought about silently disowning Mary and not humiliating her. Of course, God had to step in. He spoke to Joseph in a dream and told him about the child. He brought Joseph to His side and Joseph took Mary as his wife.
Then, as what was probably a move rooted in greed, Caesar Augustus decided to take a census of his kingdom. His rules were that every man had to return to his home town to register. This decree would send Joseph, and now his wife Mary, from Nazareth to Bethlehem. The two traveled to the famed Town of David since Joseph was part of the family line of King David.
While in town, they could not find any place to stay. Every inn was full. This would have been less of a problem if Mary wasn't so closed to giving birth. She was close and needed some place to be sheltered and give birth. In their desperate search, one kind innkeeper offered them shelter in the stables. That night, Mary and Joseph bedded down in the hay with sheep and horses, waiting to bring their son into the world.
That night, Jesus came into the world. Under the light of a shining star, the little boy that embodied all God's glory was born in a little town, behind a little inn, in a little stable, and placed in a little manger. And to a group of shepherds nearby, angels heralded the coming of this King. To the lowliest of society, the greatest news was given. These shepherds ran to Bethlehem and saw the baby King and worshiped Him there.
The rest we'll get to another time (probably Easter) but right now, we have this story, the reason for Christmas. There is so much in this story, more meaning than I could ever hope to uncover, and more truth about God than I could ever expect to be able to show. All I could think of tonight was to share the story of Christmas. Sure it has my flair to it, but the truth is there. If you want the real thing, go to Luke 2. The bible has told it better than I ever could. I've done my part to share and for this week, that's all I have.
Merry Christmas, see you all next week.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Christmas and Cash
Most who know me know this: I freaking love Christmas. I love the cold, the snow, the lights, the tree, the Christmas music played over and over, the crappy Hallmark movies with plots so cliche that I could give you a whole synopsis five minutes in. I love the family's open house, the Christmas cooking, Christmas presents with the Millers, Christmas Eve services, and the fact that this is when we celebrate the coming of Jesus. Christmas is my season; it's one of the times that I get excited. And it ticks me off when people try to rain on this holiday.
The idea that Christmas is just a commercialized holiday ticks me off.
I realize where this idea comes from, don't get me wrong. Hallmark makes a killing on Christmas cards, the stores are filled with loud angry people who waited until the last minute to buy Christmas presents, Santa in the mall is one of the biggest attractions for little kids, and often it feels like the reality of Christmas, the coming of Jesus, is lost.Amid the scuffle of shopping and decorating, the idea that people forget what Christmas means is a logical one. Yet often people are only looking at these actions and judging them, not looking at the depth it reaches.
When you see those people trying hard to find the right gifts and often being very rude in their dealings, there is more to them than just pushy materialism. They aren't just caught up in what they are buy, but I would say more who they are buying it for. They want to get the right gift so they can make someone else happy. It might be a parent trying to get a toy for their child, a boyfriend looking for the right jewelry for the girl he cares for, or some concerned grandchildren trying to find a gift for the grandfather that might not be with them next year. The spirit of giving is alive and well in this season, despite peoples apparent rushing. They might not be so concerned with the random people they meet in the store, but there is a desire to give good gifts to those they love.
This is also the time when many people are more expose to the message of the season. There are those that only go to church on Christmas and Easter, and this is the time when pastors have a chance to reach out to them. It might just be tradition that they show up to church, but as long as they are there, you have a chance to reach out to them. It does no one any good to sit in your weekly pew and judge those that only came for this service. You should reach out to them and try to bring them back. Show them that there is more to church than just Christmas. They might be ignoring the real meaning behind Christmas, but when they show up regardless, it is your chance to bring them into a deeper relationship with the season and the man behind it.
Christmas isn't just about the money and the presents. It isn't about capitalism and wealth, having and not having, giving and getting. We all should realize that Christmas is about Jesus and his birth. But that doesn't mean we should look at the lights and Santa impersonators with disdain or judgement. This season is also about kindness to others, respect, and the love for family. You don't know those others that you see in the store, but you can understand that in their hearts they have a desire to show love to someone. Jesus will always need to be at the center of our celebration, but don't look down on the fun traditions others hold along with that.
I know, it has to be a surprise to see me encouraging tolerance. Consider it a Christmas miracle.
Just something to chew on.
The idea that Christmas is just a commercialized holiday ticks me off.
I realize where this idea comes from, don't get me wrong. Hallmark makes a killing on Christmas cards, the stores are filled with loud angry people who waited until the last minute to buy Christmas presents, Santa in the mall is one of the biggest attractions for little kids, and often it feels like the reality of Christmas, the coming of Jesus, is lost.Amid the scuffle of shopping and decorating, the idea that people forget what Christmas means is a logical one. Yet often people are only looking at these actions and judging them, not looking at the depth it reaches.
When you see those people trying hard to find the right gifts and often being very rude in their dealings, there is more to them than just pushy materialism. They aren't just caught up in what they are buy, but I would say more who they are buying it for. They want to get the right gift so they can make someone else happy. It might be a parent trying to get a toy for their child, a boyfriend looking for the right jewelry for the girl he cares for, or some concerned grandchildren trying to find a gift for the grandfather that might not be with them next year. The spirit of giving is alive and well in this season, despite peoples apparent rushing. They might not be so concerned with the random people they meet in the store, but there is a desire to give good gifts to those they love.
This is also the time when many people are more expose to the message of the season. There are those that only go to church on Christmas and Easter, and this is the time when pastors have a chance to reach out to them. It might just be tradition that they show up to church, but as long as they are there, you have a chance to reach out to them. It does no one any good to sit in your weekly pew and judge those that only came for this service. You should reach out to them and try to bring them back. Show them that there is more to church than just Christmas. They might be ignoring the real meaning behind Christmas, but when they show up regardless, it is your chance to bring them into a deeper relationship with the season and the man behind it.
Christmas isn't just about the money and the presents. It isn't about capitalism and wealth, having and not having, giving and getting. We all should realize that Christmas is about Jesus and his birth. But that doesn't mean we should look at the lights and Santa impersonators with disdain or judgement. This season is also about kindness to others, respect, and the love for family. You don't know those others that you see in the store, but you can understand that in their hearts they have a desire to show love to someone. Jesus will always need to be at the center of our celebration, but don't look down on the fun traditions others hold along with that.
I know, it has to be a surprise to see me encouraging tolerance. Consider it a Christmas miracle.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, December 9, 2011
I'll Open Your Mind
This idea has been simmering since probably my sophomore economics class in high school when I was being vehemently argued with regarding some of the ideas I held in regards to policy and politics and the like. See, I could be called a conservative, meaning I have some kind of moral compass and I don't think everyone can live however they want. This kind of mentality doesn't fly well in a public high school where everyone is all about tolerance and stomping on religion. A lot of my fellow students did not appreciate my ideas. With all their negativity, I've come to a conclusion.
I hate open-mindedness.
I can just hear all the "culturally aware" and "socially sensitive" people just flying off the handle right now. How dare he say such a thing! Being open-minded should be the corner stone of our society! It helps us understand others better and keep us from being bigots! Whatever mantra of social justice you want to tack onto it, it all boils down to the same thing: we should accept all ideas, no matter what.
Maybe I'm just argumentative (and I am), but I refuse to accept this idea. There is truth, truth that will always be true no matter what anyone says. Despite all the post-modern junk out there, there is absolute truth (which I'll get into another time). Now, like I've made clear, this idea hasn't won me a lot of supports in school. Countless times I've been told that I have to be more open-minded to the ways the world "really" works. (Side note, I loved hearing from other high schoolers how the world works when none of them had ever done anything else but mooch of their parents for most everything.)
All this build up come to this. Anyone who accuses someone of being closed-minded is just as closed-minded as the one they're ridiculing. The thing about making any kind of judgement call is that when you compartmentalize someone as unwilling to see your side, your not realizing that you refuse to see their side as well. If you won't entertain the idea that they could be right as well, then you have closed your mind off in the exact opposite manner. You are just as closed-minded as them.
I love how being closed-minded is the go to remark when someone refuses to listen to an idea they don't agree with. It is a defense against having to listen to the opinions of anyone else. When you peg someone as close-minded, they don't have any way to argue. To you, they are ignorant and bigoted, unable to see the "enlightened" mentality that is supposedly arising in out culture. It is then easy to disregard what they are saying. After all, since they're close-minded, there is no intelligence in their argument.
It may be too much to ask for a universal respect. Honestly, we have a selfish world and anyone who doesn't want to hear something doesn't have to. But when this same idea starts to infiltrate into everyday thought, that if you don't agree you can just disregard, that is when we have some problems. Sharing ideas, even ones we don't like, is how we get a better perspective on our world. A variety of thoughts helps create a solution that we can all accept.
Anyone who feeds me that close-minded garbage again is getting an open mind courtesy of a pick ax...nah I'm kidding.
Just something to chew on.
I hate open-mindedness.
I can just hear all the "culturally aware" and "socially sensitive" people just flying off the handle right now. How dare he say such a thing! Being open-minded should be the corner stone of our society! It helps us understand others better and keep us from being bigots! Whatever mantra of social justice you want to tack onto it, it all boils down to the same thing: we should accept all ideas, no matter what.
Maybe I'm just argumentative (and I am), but I refuse to accept this idea. There is truth, truth that will always be true no matter what anyone says. Despite all the post-modern junk out there, there is absolute truth (which I'll get into another time). Now, like I've made clear, this idea hasn't won me a lot of supports in school. Countless times I've been told that I have to be more open-minded to the ways the world "really" works. (Side note, I loved hearing from other high schoolers how the world works when none of them had ever done anything else but mooch of their parents for most everything.)
All this build up come to this. Anyone who accuses someone of being closed-minded is just as closed-minded as the one they're ridiculing. The thing about making any kind of judgement call is that when you compartmentalize someone as unwilling to see your side, your not realizing that you refuse to see their side as well. If you won't entertain the idea that they could be right as well, then you have closed your mind off in the exact opposite manner. You are just as closed-minded as them.
I love how being closed-minded is the go to remark when someone refuses to listen to an idea they don't agree with. It is a defense against having to listen to the opinions of anyone else. When you peg someone as close-minded, they don't have any way to argue. To you, they are ignorant and bigoted, unable to see the "enlightened" mentality that is supposedly arising in out culture. It is then easy to disregard what they are saying. After all, since they're close-minded, there is no intelligence in their argument.
It may be too much to ask for a universal respect. Honestly, we have a selfish world and anyone who doesn't want to hear something doesn't have to. But when this same idea starts to infiltrate into everyday thought, that if you don't agree you can just disregard, that is when we have some problems. Sharing ideas, even ones we don't like, is how we get a better perspective on our world. A variety of thoughts helps create a solution that we can all accept.
Anyone who feeds me that close-minded garbage again is getting an open mind courtesy of a pick ax...nah I'm kidding.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Petition for the Men
As I promised, this week we're talking to the guys. This will probably end up pretty short, partly because it is an easy set of ideas, and partly because I'm deathly sick. So with that, we're just going to jump right in.
Guys, be deserving of your lady friends counsel.
Here's what I mean. If the women you know are willing to talk with you, to help you work through problems you are having, whether with friends, work, or relationships with other women, you need to respect their input. Don't be the kind of guy who always runs to a friend, expecting them to take on all your problems, then ignore their advice. What that shows is that you don't care what they are telling you, you only want them to pay attention to you, give you sympathy.
Does this mean you always need to follow the advice you are given. There are times when you won't be given a viable plan. Your own judgement is just as important as the advice you are given. What you do need to do, however, is not take advantage you your friends willingness to help you.
One more thing. Guys, let's be honest. It is pretty easy to misconstrue a friends advice as a subtle sign they are interested in you. It's not your fault, discussions like that can be deep and intimate. That doesn't mean you should take it as a sign. It is possible to have profound discussions with women without a romantic interest. Don't let that idea get in the way of your friendship.
Also, learn when to keep your mouth shut, trust me.
Just something to chew on.
Guys, be deserving of your lady friends counsel.
Here's what I mean. If the women you know are willing to talk with you, to help you work through problems you are having, whether with friends, work, or relationships with other women, you need to respect their input. Don't be the kind of guy who always runs to a friend, expecting them to take on all your problems, then ignore their advice. What that shows is that you don't care what they are telling you, you only want them to pay attention to you, give you sympathy.
Does this mean you always need to follow the advice you are given. There are times when you won't be given a viable plan. Your own judgement is just as important as the advice you are given. What you do need to do, however, is not take advantage you your friends willingness to help you.
One more thing. Guys, let's be honest. It is pretty easy to misconstrue a friends advice as a subtle sign they are interested in you. It's not your fault, discussions like that can be deep and intimate. That doesn't mean you should take it as a sign. It is possible to have profound discussions with women without a romantic interest. Don't let that idea get in the way of your friendship.
Also, learn when to keep your mouth shut, trust me.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Petition for the Women
My role as a book reviewer means I get a hold of some titles that I wouldn't normally read. This latest batch has me reading a book on teen dating and sex. Not a topic I have a lot of experience with, nor do I intend to, but whatever, it's been interesting. In it was a point, however, that I think needs to be addressed and endorsed. It is an idea that I have seen in action a few times, typically being a part of it, but its range seems limited now. I hope that changes.
Girls, give your counsel to your guy friends.
Guys and girls think differently, this is a shock to no one. Of course, this revelation is made even more obvious through our interactions, we'll call them "conversations" if just to satisfy my current sardonic mood. Anyhow, we have different thought processes, different ways of dealing with situations, and varying methods of interpretation. What does this mean? It's hard to communicate and know what they other is saying. Hiring a translator won't work, mostly because I don't think either side has deciphered the other's language.
What I have seen, however, is how much we help each other. I know that I have talked with my female friends in the past and learned new perspectives, as well as interpretations that I hadn't thought of before. On the other side, I have played confidant for numerous people, listening and advising when I could. There is a benefit to having someone you can confide in who doesn't share your mindset.
Here's what we need, I believe. Girls, guys are pretty thick sometimes. Again, this is not the reveal of the millenia, but I need to cover that to move on. We benefit from your counsel. Yet it seems like it is hard to come by. It's like there is this unspoken taboo that says we aren't allowed to advise on other aspects of life. Conversations scrape away at whatever is shallowest and try to subsist on that. I mentioned before that I wish we could have deeper conversations, ask tough questions and get real answers. My request is that you girls out there who are our friends would be open to help. You have guys that trust you and respect your opinions, let them in on what you think. Let us learn from your mindsets. The value in these ideas are unparalleled.
Guys, I'm getting to you next week, just you wait.
Just something to chew on.
Girls, give your counsel to your guy friends.
Guys and girls think differently, this is a shock to no one. Of course, this revelation is made even more obvious through our interactions, we'll call them "conversations" if just to satisfy my current sardonic mood. Anyhow, we have different thought processes, different ways of dealing with situations, and varying methods of interpretation. What does this mean? It's hard to communicate and know what they other is saying. Hiring a translator won't work, mostly because I don't think either side has deciphered the other's language.
What I have seen, however, is how much we help each other. I know that I have talked with my female friends in the past and learned new perspectives, as well as interpretations that I hadn't thought of before. On the other side, I have played confidant for numerous people, listening and advising when I could. There is a benefit to having someone you can confide in who doesn't share your mindset.
Here's what we need, I believe. Girls, guys are pretty thick sometimes. Again, this is not the reveal of the millenia, but I need to cover that to move on. We benefit from your counsel. Yet it seems like it is hard to come by. It's like there is this unspoken taboo that says we aren't allowed to advise on other aspects of life. Conversations scrape away at whatever is shallowest and try to subsist on that. I mentioned before that I wish we could have deeper conversations, ask tough questions and get real answers. My request is that you girls out there who are our friends would be open to help. You have guys that trust you and respect your opinions, let them in on what you think. Let us learn from your mindsets. The value in these ideas are unparalleled.
Guys, I'm getting to you next week, just you wait.
Just something to chew on.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Teamwork Kills...Others
Let's keep on the topic of video games, if only for my sake. But before we get to that, the mildly related intro. With the release of Skyrim last week, it shouldn't come as a surprise that many people have taken to their single player campaigns and decided to leave the multiplayer games behind. I support this strongly, single player games have amazing stories and offer unique experiences, but let us not forget the team games.
Multiplayer games can offer an amazingly different experience.
Games are a big part of bonding on my floor. There have been numerous nights when we have been up until that late hours playing whatever games we could play together. Playing with others is one of the most integral part of a lot of games. I don't think that Call of Duty would be as popular as it is now if they hadn't put so much effort into the multiplayer. A game that requires team work is one that offers a brief look who we are when times call for support.
Two games I'm going to look at today offer some simple but interesting looks at teamwork in games. First up is a popular game i my dorm, Killing Floor. Killing Floor is a wave by wave first-person shooter where you and a group of five others shoot zombies, not exactly original, but the gameplay makes it amazing. The main idea is choosing a class, and playing to those strengths. The commando shoots lots of bullets, supports get shotguns and can weld doors quickly, demolitions help take down big targets, and so on. Ideally, each player chooses a class they are good with and that helps the team survive. I like the support class. I tend to hold a door welded so that nothing can come through, and the other guys shoot everything. Sounds fun right, sit and weld a door. Yet, I like this part. I enjoy the supporting role in these kind of games, and it neer feels as if what I am doing does not add to the overall well-being of the team, and the mutual drive for success. Killing Floor also backs up the idea that every player is valuable by letting you level classes without being them. Damage you do with a different class's weapon adds into the numbers for that class. A game where everyone is the same class doesn't usually end in a successful game. Killing Floor requires communication and diversity in play.
The second game is Monster Hunter. While this game has never really caught on in America, it is a favorite of my brother and I. The premise of this game series is to hunt smaller monsters, get some equipment, then hunt progressively bigger and more destructive dragons. Teamwork in this game is more rewarding than in most games I have played. Working with a group to take down monsters the size of mountains requires a lot of effort. Communication and planning are key. We tend to pick complementory weapon styles when we play together. Taking turns, drawing the monster away so the other could heal, and working tandem to find the best way to get some strikes in and stay safe. There is something about working together and fighting something like those monsters that is an unparalleled gaming experience.
What multiplayer games offer is a different chance to interact with players. Many games have the standard death match, free-for-all, and team game modes. These typically do not make for the deep kind of player-to-player interactions that we see in the games I mentioned. A good player on one server can completely dominate some games, and leave their team without any sense of accomplishment. Good multiplayer games are the ones that encourage those skilled players to help the newer players learn. It becomes beneficial to both sides. Cooperation is an idea that takes a good game to a great game.
I bet you're surprised I didn't mention Team Fortress 2 in this.
Just something to chew on.
Multiplayer games can offer an amazingly different experience.
Games are a big part of bonding on my floor. There have been numerous nights when we have been up until that late hours playing whatever games we could play together. Playing with others is one of the most integral part of a lot of games. I don't think that Call of Duty would be as popular as it is now if they hadn't put so much effort into the multiplayer. A game that requires team work is one that offers a brief look who we are when times call for support.
Two games I'm going to look at today offer some simple but interesting looks at teamwork in games. First up is a popular game i my dorm, Killing Floor. Killing Floor is a wave by wave first-person shooter where you and a group of five others shoot zombies, not exactly original, but the gameplay makes it amazing. The main idea is choosing a class, and playing to those strengths. The commando shoots lots of bullets, supports get shotguns and can weld doors quickly, demolitions help take down big targets, and so on. Ideally, each player chooses a class they are good with and that helps the team survive. I like the support class. I tend to hold a door welded so that nothing can come through, and the other guys shoot everything. Sounds fun right, sit and weld a door. Yet, I like this part. I enjoy the supporting role in these kind of games, and it neer feels as if what I am doing does not add to the overall well-being of the team, and the mutual drive for success. Killing Floor also backs up the idea that every player is valuable by letting you level classes without being them. Damage you do with a different class's weapon adds into the numbers for that class. A game where everyone is the same class doesn't usually end in a successful game. Killing Floor requires communication and diversity in play.
The second game is Monster Hunter. While this game has never really caught on in America, it is a favorite of my brother and I. The premise of this game series is to hunt smaller monsters, get some equipment, then hunt progressively bigger and more destructive dragons. Teamwork in this game is more rewarding than in most games I have played. Working with a group to take down monsters the size of mountains requires a lot of effort. Communication and planning are key. We tend to pick complementory weapon styles when we play together. Taking turns, drawing the monster away so the other could heal, and working tandem to find the best way to get some strikes in and stay safe. There is something about working together and fighting something like those monsters that is an unparalleled gaming experience.
What multiplayer games offer is a different chance to interact with players. Many games have the standard death match, free-for-all, and team game modes. These typically do not make for the deep kind of player-to-player interactions that we see in the games I mentioned. A good player on one server can completely dominate some games, and leave their team without any sense of accomplishment. Good multiplayer games are the ones that encourage those skilled players to help the newer players learn. It becomes beneficial to both sides. Cooperation is an idea that takes a good game to a great game.
I bet you're surprised I didn't mention Team Fortress 2 in this.
Just something to chew on.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Put Yourself In
These next two weeks mark some big releases in the gaming world. Skyrim launched just yesterday, the 11th, Saint's Row the Third will becoming out the 15th, Modern Warfare 3 has come out, and Legends of Zelda celebrates 25 years with Skyward Sword later this month. With all these big releases, and a special not for Skyrim and Saint's Row, I've decided to take this time to address a common trend in more and more modern games.
Character creation is great, when done properly.
Lots of games that have player created characters are trying to let them craft their own character for the rest of the story. Games like Mass Effect, The Elder Scrolls games, LittleBigPlanet, and others all had their own form of character creation. There are probably a hundred sliders in most menus that let you change every little facet of your characters...or so they would have you believe. In most cases, there is little difference between what ruggedly handsome man or woman you'll be playing as. Elder Scrolls: Oblivion was so callused as to not even let characters have beards. Many games don't give enough choice to the player when it comes to who they will be.
What I;m going to look at are a few games that do offer good choice. The first being Tony Hawk Underground. I look back on this game favorably, mostly because it was still ridiculous and tight in play, while letting you have loads of unrealistic skating fun in a variety of settings. The part of character creation that was done well here is choice. You could deck out your skater in so many different pieces of costume. I remember my guy had sunglasses, a rice hat, a winter coat, baggy cargo pants, and bare feet, all dyed a deep green. My brother's character looked distinctly different than mine. Underground offered a variety of choices in every aspect, with many kinds of shoes, shirts, pants, and accessories. A good character creation system needs to offer a huge load of choices. Every player will have their own style, and own sense of what is cool. Only having a few choices of any kind is never enough. Saint's Row falters a bit here. There are fun customization options, but they are pretty small in scope. Variety is the spice of life, right? And in a game where you are the character, you need to attune their style to what you like.
The next one we're looking at is The Smackdown vs. Raw series. That's right, WWE's wrestling game. What could these games have done right? Well, outside of some genuinely fun gameplay, they did character creation right in two ways. The first is in layers. The character creation works so well because of the ability to stack. You can choose to put various tattoos on and layer them into new patterns. Other clothing articles get stacked as well. If Minecraft has taught us anything, it's that people will go above what developers expected when given the freedom. If you limit the player to one shirt or top, they'll make due, but when you let them have a variety of options, they'll create some cool looks. The idea here is to not limit to just one choice. It isn't hard to think of adding an open button-down shirt over a long-sleeved T-shirt, and put a trench coat on top. The second area that these games did well was in the animations. Once you're finished building that muscle bound superstar (or unrealistically proportioned Diva) what kind of moves do they get? WWE has offered a very deep selection to choose everything from the basic punches, to ring-in and out animation, to specials. They have even added a pretty valid finisher creator. These games have some of the strongest character creation in games.
With so much emphasis on the player and their character, there needs to be more involved in the character creation. Most MMOs have a problem with this, letting you pick some starting equipment in your own personal flair, then clamming you up in the same dull armor that everyone gets. Some people really put time into what their character looks like and who they are in the world. Developers should respect their players and offer more in this content. The more a character connects to the game, the more they will enjoy the time. That is good for developers, publishers, marketers, and players.
But remember, there will be some seriously messed up player characters out there, we'll just have to live with that.
Just something to chew on.
Character creation is great, when done properly.
Lots of games that have player created characters are trying to let them craft their own character for the rest of the story. Games like Mass Effect, The Elder Scrolls games, LittleBigPlanet, and others all had their own form of character creation. There are probably a hundred sliders in most menus that let you change every little facet of your characters...or so they would have you believe. In most cases, there is little difference between what ruggedly handsome man or woman you'll be playing as. Elder Scrolls: Oblivion was so callused as to not even let characters have beards. Many games don't give enough choice to the player when it comes to who they will be.
What I;m going to look at are a few games that do offer good choice. The first being Tony Hawk Underground. I look back on this game favorably, mostly because it was still ridiculous and tight in play, while letting you have loads of unrealistic skating fun in a variety of settings. The part of character creation that was done well here is choice. You could deck out your skater in so many different pieces of costume. I remember my guy had sunglasses, a rice hat, a winter coat, baggy cargo pants, and bare feet, all dyed a deep green. My brother's character looked distinctly different than mine. Underground offered a variety of choices in every aspect, with many kinds of shoes, shirts, pants, and accessories. A good character creation system needs to offer a huge load of choices. Every player will have their own style, and own sense of what is cool. Only having a few choices of any kind is never enough. Saint's Row falters a bit here. There are fun customization options, but they are pretty small in scope. Variety is the spice of life, right? And in a game where you are the character, you need to attune their style to what you like.
The next one we're looking at is The Smackdown vs. Raw series. That's right, WWE's wrestling game. What could these games have done right? Well, outside of some genuinely fun gameplay, they did character creation right in two ways. The first is in layers. The character creation works so well because of the ability to stack. You can choose to put various tattoos on and layer them into new patterns. Other clothing articles get stacked as well. If Minecraft has taught us anything, it's that people will go above what developers expected when given the freedom. If you limit the player to one shirt or top, they'll make due, but when you let them have a variety of options, they'll create some cool looks. The idea here is to not limit to just one choice. It isn't hard to think of adding an open button-down shirt over a long-sleeved T-shirt, and put a trench coat on top. The second area that these games did well was in the animations. Once you're finished building that muscle bound superstar (or unrealistically proportioned Diva) what kind of moves do they get? WWE has offered a very deep selection to choose everything from the basic punches, to ring-in and out animation, to specials. They have even added a pretty valid finisher creator. These games have some of the strongest character creation in games.
With so much emphasis on the player and their character, there needs to be more involved in the character creation. Most MMOs have a problem with this, letting you pick some starting equipment in your own personal flair, then clamming you up in the same dull armor that everyone gets. Some people really put time into what their character looks like and who they are in the world. Developers should respect their players and offer more in this content. The more a character connects to the game, the more they will enjoy the time. That is good for developers, publishers, marketers, and players.
But remember, there will be some seriously messed up player characters out there, we'll just have to live with that.
Just something to chew on.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Loosen That Tie
So, I figured that after all that heavy reading you guys did last month, I'll get back to some easier, more opinionated writing. As many of you know, I dress casually. I wear hats and go barefoot as often as possible. T-shirts and overshirts are my main clothing options. There is an actual reason that I am boring you with these points.
I hate the idea of dressing up for church.
I never really had to dress up in nice clothes when I went to church. Shorts and a t-shirt were perfectly acceptable in my home. I remember my mom telling me that she never required us to dress up because she didn't want to take the time to make us look presentable. Sunday wouldn't be about rushing to church in stuffy starched shirts, it would be relaxed. I realize that this is how I grew up, and that is a major impact on my thinking, but even that isn't everything. As I look at it, it makes so much sense.
Church is supposed to be something we want to go to. For me, I hate ties, and if I had to wear one every time I went to church, I believe that I would dread going. It wouldn't be the same place for me. Church was always the place I could cut loose. The people there knew me and didn't judge my quirks and oddities. They knew that was just who I was, and they loved me for it. If I had to be dressed proper and stoic, my church wouldn't have been the same safe haven for me that it had been for so long.
Often the line, "come just as you are" is quoted for such a topic, and this wouldn't be a fairly standard online journal if I didn't. I love the idea of going to God in whatever way we can. We don't need to follow any special protocols or dress codes, all that is needed is a willing heart. Clothes don't make the Christian, it is the belief that defines us.
Just no nudist Christian churches please, lots of old people go to church....
Just something to chew on.
I hate the idea of dressing up for church.
I never really had to dress up in nice clothes when I went to church. Shorts and a t-shirt were perfectly acceptable in my home. I remember my mom telling me that she never required us to dress up because she didn't want to take the time to make us look presentable. Sunday wouldn't be about rushing to church in stuffy starched shirts, it would be relaxed. I realize that this is how I grew up, and that is a major impact on my thinking, but even that isn't everything. As I look at it, it makes so much sense.
Church is supposed to be something we want to go to. For me, I hate ties, and if I had to wear one every time I went to church, I believe that I would dread going. It wouldn't be the same place for me. Church was always the place I could cut loose. The people there knew me and didn't judge my quirks and oddities. They knew that was just who I was, and they loved me for it. If I had to be dressed proper and stoic, my church wouldn't have been the same safe haven for me that it had been for so long.
Often the line, "come just as you are" is quoted for such a topic, and this wouldn't be a fairly standard online journal if I didn't. I love the idea of going to God in whatever way we can. We don't need to follow any special protocols or dress codes, all that is needed is a willing heart. Clothes don't make the Christian, it is the belief that defines us.
Just no nudist Christian churches please, lots of old people go to church....
Just something to chew on.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Heart in a Pen
Admittedly, I've been putting some pretty heavy stuff up the last few weeks. Typically my updates have been about some issues or idea in our society, but these last ones have been rather introspective. No, I'm not a manic depressive or have some kind of split personality, I just right where I feel led. Interestingly enough, that very idea is my next topic.
I believe in writing what my heart tells me to.
Yes, I realize how cliche and mushy that sounds. It sounds like the end of some crappy kids movie right? The bad guys get defeated by the power of your heart! Pathetic (there's a reason no one wanted to be Ma-Ti from Captain Planet). But despite all the sickeningly sweet images you get, there is something to be said about writing what you feel, unedited and without any worry about what others think.
In reality, that's what I feel this whole online journal is. They are mental defragming, and have little structure. Any of my faithful readers might notice that I tend to wander, maybe babble from time to time. Here;s the reason, I don't plan what I'm going to write. Sure, I have a main topic each time, and maybe an image or point that came to me, but all the rest just fills in on its own (and it's not easy to have a relative introduction and some mildly witty ending each week). Sure, it might be better if I had some proper planning, but I would probably enjoy it less. I mean, I like doing this writing so much, that I've been thinking about making it a twice weekly thing (we'll see how that turns out).
Writing from the heart is something that I feel all writers do. There's only so far that logic and creativity can go, those stories and ideas that we love, that come from the heart are some of our best works. Honestly, I believe that everyone needs to do things from the heart: photographers, pastors, engineers, teachers, even accountants. Those ideas that possess you and ache to be put into action are the ones that can produce the most wonderous results.
Yet, as much as it should be a part of all lives, I also think that there is some fear that restricts. The heart is a delicate thing, that's just the truth of life. Even the toughest looking person has cracks that lead to heartache. When we do something, anything, from the heart, it opens us up to be shot down. Despite all the benefits that following what your heart is urging you to do, we can ignore that voice and choose to be safe. Little risk, little harm, right? But little reward as well.
Here's what I want. Let's have a day or a week or a lifetime where we just let go. Write what we want, draw what we want, take whatever pictures we want. Follow your heart. Mine is in my pen, my words. What I write has some part of me in it, this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. What we need is a release, the ability to listen to that little voice in our hearts, those ideas and beliefs that seem so exciting. That's it, to anyone with some deep reservations and doubts, just do it. Get out there and go for it, whatever it is.
But not right now, I mean, it's like 2:45 at night, have some common sense.
Just something to chew on.
I believe in writing what my heart tells me to.
Yes, I realize how cliche and mushy that sounds. It sounds like the end of some crappy kids movie right? The bad guys get defeated by the power of your heart! Pathetic (there's a reason no one wanted to be Ma-Ti from Captain Planet). But despite all the sickeningly sweet images you get, there is something to be said about writing what you feel, unedited and without any worry about what others think.
In reality, that's what I feel this whole online journal is. They are mental defragming, and have little structure. Any of my faithful readers might notice that I tend to wander, maybe babble from time to time. Here;s the reason, I don't plan what I'm going to write. Sure, I have a main topic each time, and maybe an image or point that came to me, but all the rest just fills in on its own (and it's not easy to have a relative introduction and some mildly witty ending each week). Sure, it might be better if I had some proper planning, but I would probably enjoy it less. I mean, I like doing this writing so much, that I've been thinking about making it a twice weekly thing (we'll see how that turns out).
Writing from the heart is something that I feel all writers do. There's only so far that logic and creativity can go, those stories and ideas that we love, that come from the heart are some of our best works. Honestly, I believe that everyone needs to do things from the heart: photographers, pastors, engineers, teachers, even accountants. Those ideas that possess you and ache to be put into action are the ones that can produce the most wonderous results.
Yet, as much as it should be a part of all lives, I also think that there is some fear that restricts. The heart is a delicate thing, that's just the truth of life. Even the toughest looking person has cracks that lead to heartache. When we do something, anything, from the heart, it opens us up to be shot down. Despite all the benefits that following what your heart is urging you to do, we can ignore that voice and choose to be safe. Little risk, little harm, right? But little reward as well.
Here's what I want. Let's have a day or a week or a lifetime where we just let go. Write what we want, draw what we want, take whatever pictures we want. Follow your heart. Mine is in my pen, my words. What I write has some part of me in it, this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. What we need is a release, the ability to listen to that little voice in our hearts, those ideas and beliefs that seem so exciting. That's it, to anyone with some deep reservations and doubts, just do it. Get out there and go for it, whatever it is.
But not right now, I mean, it's like 2:45 at night, have some common sense.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Mind Your Q's and A's
I enjoy answering questions. There is a lot that your answer to any question can tell about your own character. When I have stayed up late with friends, we often cover deeper ideas, ask more probing questions. I learn about them with their answers, but I also learn about myself. I have often had to think hard and talk my way through vague ideas that i have had. I have come away with more solid understandings of who I am. With that, there is something that needs to be known.
We need others to ask us what's wrong.
This might seem fairly straight forward, but let me build this up a bit. At Taylor, it often feels like the only relationship some people have with one another is in passing. You know each others' names, and can say hi when you walk past each other. Typically, one of you will ask how the other is. Polite society (ie society that doesn't really care) dictates that the proper response is "fine" or something like "it's been better." Non-committal either way, and leaves the either side feeling like they've made a daily connection. I'm guilty of this myself, but I try not to be. For whatever it's worth, I try not to give that same answer that everyone expects.
So, what I mean is that when we ask, we honestly need to care. I know that if there is something troubling us in life, it is hard to just tell someone. It is never easy to just go up to a friend and say, "Hey, this is bothering me..." and go into a night long explanation of your troubles. It's not that you don't think your friend will care, but it's that you want to be sure. I could find someone to unload my problems onto, and they might think that it isn't important. Yet, if someone asks me, I can at least assume they care enough to let me say my piece. People that I have let into that more personal side have asked me what was wrong, and I trust them more for it.
I don't believe that you need to have a heart to heart with everyone that you come into contact with. Frankly, when I think about the number of people I know and would say hello to on a regular basis, if I had a deep conversation with each of them, I would never get anything done. What I do think, is that when we have people that we care about, people's whose well being is important to us, we shouldn't just be satisfied with one word answers. I try to ask people and care about their responses, but I think that I get boxed into the routine responses as well because no one expects anything different. There isn't much I can do if the only answer I get is "fine." I want others to be able to tell me what's wrong, as much as I need to tell them my problems.
It all boils down, I think, to the need to care about people. I realize that this may sound odd coming from me, but it's a general truth. We go about with so many superficial relationships and feel that because we say hi and know someone's name, that we're interacting with them deeply. As a society, we need to step it up, there is a difference between being friendly and committing to people. Let's move past the point of face-value relationships and into a deeper understanding.
But let's be honest, some problems should only be dealt with between guys, and some only between girls.
Just something to chew on.
We need others to ask us what's wrong.
This might seem fairly straight forward, but let me build this up a bit. At Taylor, it often feels like the only relationship some people have with one another is in passing. You know each others' names, and can say hi when you walk past each other. Typically, one of you will ask how the other is. Polite society (ie society that doesn't really care) dictates that the proper response is "fine" or something like "it's been better." Non-committal either way, and leaves the either side feeling like they've made a daily connection. I'm guilty of this myself, but I try not to be. For whatever it's worth, I try not to give that same answer that everyone expects.
So, what I mean is that when we ask, we honestly need to care. I know that if there is something troubling us in life, it is hard to just tell someone. It is never easy to just go up to a friend and say, "Hey, this is bothering me..." and go into a night long explanation of your troubles. It's not that you don't think your friend will care, but it's that you want to be sure. I could find someone to unload my problems onto, and they might think that it isn't important. Yet, if someone asks me, I can at least assume they care enough to let me say my piece. People that I have let into that more personal side have asked me what was wrong, and I trust them more for it.
I don't believe that you need to have a heart to heart with everyone that you come into contact with. Frankly, when I think about the number of people I know and would say hello to on a regular basis, if I had a deep conversation with each of them, I would never get anything done. What I do think, is that when we have people that we care about, people's whose well being is important to us, we shouldn't just be satisfied with one word answers. I try to ask people and care about their responses, but I think that I get boxed into the routine responses as well because no one expects anything different. There isn't much I can do if the only answer I get is "fine." I want others to be able to tell me what's wrong, as much as I need to tell them my problems.
It all boils down, I think, to the need to care about people. I realize that this may sound odd coming from me, but it's a general truth. We go about with so many superficial relationships and feel that because we say hi and know someone's name, that we're interacting with them deeply. As a society, we need to step it up, there is a difference between being friendly and committing to people. Let's move past the point of face-value relationships and into a deeper understanding.
But let's be honest, some problems should only be dealt with between guys, and some only between girls.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, October 14, 2011
The Moon Listens At Least
Most of you that know me will agree that I am a pretty quiet guy. I can go hours without talking and not be bothered. I tend to listen more in conversation than talk. I'm not saying anything about being dull or unassertive, Lord knows that could never be the case. I would bet that most people have never heard me raise my voice. I may cheer at a concert or something similar, but no one has heard me scream. I have, however, made an intriguing discovery recently.
Yelling helps me voice my problems.
One night, I just had this urge to yell, to break my quiet ways and just shout out loud. So, two thirty in the morning, I walked out to the Taylor prayer deck where no one could hear me, and started yelling. I spent an hour out there, pacing along the wooden platform, shouting at the moon. I wasn't cold, the dew didn't bother me, I wasn't afraid of being alone in the dark, there was nothing but what I was saying. When I was done, I felt better. The walk back to my dorm was filled a sense of acceptance, if nothing else.
For me, it was an amazing release. There was so much that had been built up in me. When I let loose, yelling to the sky, it was like my frustration was freed a little bit. The moon took it in stride. Of course, I don't actually mean the moon was listening, but it was my physical stand-in for God. It gave me a vocal target, a specific place to send my troubles. And with that, I think my relief came from two sides. The first part coming from the physical act of shouting, of letting loose. The second part comes from the fact that I could yell to God.
That is a distinction that I want to make. For all my frustration and questions, I was never yelling at God. I think that this is important. The people that yell at God, I believe, don't have the same relief that I had. I wasn't angry with him, just confused. When people yell at God, I feel that means you aren't trusting him, but when you yell to him, it means you need help.
Where I am going with this is pretty simple, everyone should have a release. Wouldn't it be great if we could have a valve that let you drain out whatever was bothering you? People are angry, that's just a part of life. Some people deal with it well. Others, like me, have some trouble. But in all, I think that there is a way for everyone to deal with stress and frustration in their own way. My friend Jessica walks fast everywhere she goes, that, she claims, is her stress reliever. So I yell, she fast walks, others exercise, some people are more destructive, but we all have our own methods. If we could all find that healthy way to deal, imagine what a happy society we could have.
Admittedly, if everyone yelled like me, no one could ever sleep.
Just something to chew on.
Yelling helps me voice my problems.
One night, I just had this urge to yell, to break my quiet ways and just shout out loud. So, two thirty in the morning, I walked out to the Taylor prayer deck where no one could hear me, and started yelling. I spent an hour out there, pacing along the wooden platform, shouting at the moon. I wasn't cold, the dew didn't bother me, I wasn't afraid of being alone in the dark, there was nothing but what I was saying. When I was done, I felt better. The walk back to my dorm was filled a sense of acceptance, if nothing else.
For me, it was an amazing release. There was so much that had been built up in me. When I let loose, yelling to the sky, it was like my frustration was freed a little bit. The moon took it in stride. Of course, I don't actually mean the moon was listening, but it was my physical stand-in for God. It gave me a vocal target, a specific place to send my troubles. And with that, I think my relief came from two sides. The first part coming from the physical act of shouting, of letting loose. The second part comes from the fact that I could yell to God.
That is a distinction that I want to make. For all my frustration and questions, I was never yelling at God. I think that this is important. The people that yell at God, I believe, don't have the same relief that I had. I wasn't angry with him, just confused. When people yell at God, I feel that means you aren't trusting him, but when you yell to him, it means you need help.
Where I am going with this is pretty simple, everyone should have a release. Wouldn't it be great if we could have a valve that let you drain out whatever was bothering you? People are angry, that's just a part of life. Some people deal with it well. Others, like me, have some trouble. But in all, I think that there is a way for everyone to deal with stress and frustration in their own way. My friend Jessica walks fast everywhere she goes, that, she claims, is her stress reliever. So I yell, she fast walks, others exercise, some people are more destructive, but we all have our own methods. If we could all find that healthy way to deal, imagine what a happy society we could have.
Admittedly, if everyone yelled like me, no one could ever sleep.
Just something to chew on.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Second Fiddle
Be forewarned, this might sound a little depressing. It'll give you a little insight into who I am I suppose, but don't worry too much. This time around, I'm taking another look at choices. We're faced with tons of choices everyday: big and small, important and minor, voluntary or mandatory. As far as we know, the only thing that matters in the end, is the choice we did make. The other option matters little. At least, that's the accepted idea.
There is a theory, however, that says every choice we makes creates an alternate reality.
That's a crazy thought. Just imagine with me, what these other worlds could be like. Who might you be? More importantly, who might I be? I often think about how my life would be different if I had made one choice or another. I might be at a different school, I might not be a writing major, I might be dating someone, I might be engaged, I might be a father already. There's a lot of things that could be different. It takes a brain power far beyond mine to think about all the decisions I've ever made, and what could be had I chosen differently.
I've often thought about what I would be like if I wasn't a Christian. That scares me. I think that I would be a really terrible person if I wasn't part of God's family. My life is built around a morality that is bible based. Pretty logical for a pastor's son right? If I hadn't had those basics, I would have made some really stupid choices. I probably would have smoked pot in high school, or gone out with one of the girls that were so "active." How I talk, how I dress, how I interact with people, all those would be drastically different.
I started thinking about this after hearing someone made a comment about talking to your second choice person. That idea phrasing bothered me. For a long time, I've felt that I was always someones second choice, that there was always someone else that the person I was hanging out with would rather be with. That got me to thinking about how my life would have been shaped if they had decided to leave me alone for someone else. Or if they had decided to hang with me instead of some else.
I guess what this ( and ever other post about choice) is saying, is that I'm glad my life has had the experiences it has. As much as I think about what these other realities might be like, how I could be, I don't have to worry about them. I am who I am, and no amount of speculation is going to change that. I still wonder about the ties that I have been that second choice, when people have left me for someone else. It bothers me sometimes, but I think that I can look back in life and eventually see that it was for the best. I want to never feel regret for the choices I've made.
Now if only I could decide when to go to bed.
Just something to chew on.
There is a theory, however, that says every choice we makes creates an alternate reality.
That's a crazy thought. Just imagine with me, what these other worlds could be like. Who might you be? More importantly, who might I be? I often think about how my life would be different if I had made one choice or another. I might be at a different school, I might not be a writing major, I might be dating someone, I might be engaged, I might be a father already. There's a lot of things that could be different. It takes a brain power far beyond mine to think about all the decisions I've ever made, and what could be had I chosen differently.
I've often thought about what I would be like if I wasn't a Christian. That scares me. I think that I would be a really terrible person if I wasn't part of God's family. My life is built around a morality that is bible based. Pretty logical for a pastor's son right? If I hadn't had those basics, I would have made some really stupid choices. I probably would have smoked pot in high school, or gone out with one of the girls that were so "active." How I talk, how I dress, how I interact with people, all those would be drastically different.
I started thinking about this after hearing someone made a comment about talking to your second choice person. That idea phrasing bothered me. For a long time, I've felt that I was always someones second choice, that there was always someone else that the person I was hanging out with would rather be with. That got me to thinking about how my life would have been shaped if they had decided to leave me alone for someone else. Or if they had decided to hang with me instead of some else.
I guess what this ( and ever other post about choice) is saying, is that I'm glad my life has had the experiences it has. As much as I think about what these other realities might be like, how I could be, I don't have to worry about them. I am who I am, and no amount of speculation is going to change that. I still wonder about the ties that I have been that second choice, when people have left me for someone else. It bothers me sometimes, but I think that I can look back in life and eventually see that it was for the best. I want to never feel regret for the choices I've made.
Now if only I could decide when to go to bed.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, September 30, 2011
R.S.V.P.
Here's a fun lesson in mythical creatures. When vampires were real, ie. not sparkly, the only way they could enter someones home was by being invited in. Typically they would trick the person into inviting them in. The person would need to verbally invite them in, and then the vampire could enter as he pleased; whatever mystical barrier that was in place was removed. This means two things to me, one is that all the annoying Twilight fans waiting for their sparkly vampire dreamboat to sneak into their room and take them away will be disappointed.
The second is that invitations have powerful meanings.
This idea came to me last week Thursday. I was supposed to meet some friends in the Dinning Commons to go see the Lion King in 3D. Side not for context, Thursday in the DC is also the meeting for Living Waters. Living Waters is a weekly gathering for spiritual renewal. It has sermons and testimonies, and then they move into the "wacky" Christian stuff, like healing and prophesying. I say wacky, meaning uncommon. I have never really seen this kind of things in action. Anyhow, back to my story. I got there and couldn't find them. It seemed like they were gone. I heard what was going on, and usually, I would duck out and go back to my dorm. However, my friend Jessica invited me to sit with her. I'm glad that she did. I listened and was interested by the speaker's talk about brokenness, and after, I sat in on a session of prophesying. I'm still curious about it, but a lot of it seemed very important to the person we were asking insight for.
I could (and probably will) get into an article about these spiritual gifts, but this update is just going to talk about invitation. Inviting someone in is a powerful thing. I would have left that Thursday if I hadn't had someone friendly invite me in. How strange is that? I didn't want to be in a Christian meeting without the presence of someone I consider a friend. Having a friend ask you to be there makes an experience that might have been uncomfortable originally, a time of comradery. Imagine if you were to go to a party on your own, it would be awkward, you might know people, but you would be their because you wanted to be, not because you were asked. If someone invites you, however, it sets you at ease, and gives you an anchor. The person who invited you is someone you can rely one, and from there branch out to others.
This whole thing really drives home a need that Christians should fulfill. If we invited more people more friends, to church or to our church gatherings, who knows what would happen. The benefits could be numerous. People may just feel awkward about going to a church or bible study on their own, and if someone invites them to join them, they feel included. What do we have to be afraid of? We aren't trying to drag them kicking and screaming to our churches, but bring them in as friends. I believe that if we invite them to join us, more will take up our offers. We don't always have to be the ones to change them, just the ones to show them where they can find answers. Invitations are powerful, and they can really help change someone's mind about a given situation.
Let's just not invite people to those snake handling services, that might not be a good idea.
Just something to chew on.
The second is that invitations have powerful meanings.
This idea came to me last week Thursday. I was supposed to meet some friends in the Dinning Commons to go see the Lion King in 3D. Side not for context, Thursday in the DC is also the meeting for Living Waters. Living Waters is a weekly gathering for spiritual renewal. It has sermons and testimonies, and then they move into the "wacky" Christian stuff, like healing and prophesying. I say wacky, meaning uncommon. I have never really seen this kind of things in action. Anyhow, back to my story. I got there and couldn't find them. It seemed like they were gone. I heard what was going on, and usually, I would duck out and go back to my dorm. However, my friend Jessica invited me to sit with her. I'm glad that she did. I listened and was interested by the speaker's talk about brokenness, and after, I sat in on a session of prophesying. I'm still curious about it, but a lot of it seemed very important to the person we were asking insight for.
I could (and probably will) get into an article about these spiritual gifts, but this update is just going to talk about invitation. Inviting someone in is a powerful thing. I would have left that Thursday if I hadn't had someone friendly invite me in. How strange is that? I didn't want to be in a Christian meeting without the presence of someone I consider a friend. Having a friend ask you to be there makes an experience that might have been uncomfortable originally, a time of comradery. Imagine if you were to go to a party on your own, it would be awkward, you might know people, but you would be their because you wanted to be, not because you were asked. If someone invites you, however, it sets you at ease, and gives you an anchor. The person who invited you is someone you can rely one, and from there branch out to others.
This whole thing really drives home a need that Christians should fulfill. If we invited more people more friends, to church or to our church gatherings, who knows what would happen. The benefits could be numerous. People may just feel awkward about going to a church or bible study on their own, and if someone invites them to join them, they feel included. What do we have to be afraid of? We aren't trying to drag them kicking and screaming to our churches, but bring them in as friends. I believe that if we invite them to join us, more will take up our offers. We don't always have to be the ones to change them, just the ones to show them where they can find answers. Invitations are powerful, and they can really help change someone's mind about a given situation.
Let's just not invite people to those snake handling services, that might not be a good idea.
Just something to chew on.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Yes, it is Your Fault
I've made it clear that I like video games. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I'm concerned. I am a healthy and mature adult who can make decisions on what I think is good for me, and what isn't. That doesn't meant I haven't made wrong decisions, I have, but I can usually make a smart one. Why I bring this up is (if you haven't guessed by now) because I have seen some serious issues revolving around the choices that individuals make, and that parents make in regards to the media.
When parents dodge responsibility, kids suffer.
I guess I should define what I'm talking about. These are parents who don't spend time with their kids. They use movies, TV, and video games as cheap babysitters so that they can do what they want. Parents don't pay attention to the rating or reviews. They just give in to whatever their children want so that they won't whine. These is especially prominent in video games.
I'm back on video games, mostly because its my specialty, but also because I think it is one of the more dangerous avenues for this. When I was growing up, my parents made sure I stuck to the rating system that was given. The ESRB might be run by a bunch of pretentious know-nothings, but they are out to watch out for the younger generations. They're ratings have at least some logic. With that, I wasn't allowed to play anything out of my age range. I don't know what it is, but parents seems so less likely to follow those ratings now. I play more mature games now, online as well. I have played M rated games with kids who couldn't be over twelve. The reason I think that games are a bit more of a problem than other mediums.
Games are inherently interactive. Often you start to feel like you're a part of the story. Immersion is a big point in games. What this means, is that actions and consequences affect you a little more when it's your actions and part of your story. Now, as you age, you can separate yourself from this more, but I feel that in the younger years, the actions and outcomes can shape your thoughts a bit more. The connection you have with the character you're controlling is often deeper than in a movie or show. There may be more influence there than others.
This all boils down to one thing. There is indeed such a thing as bad parenting. Parents that let their children play games that are violent, that contain language, or that have sexual references should realize that their neglect is a reason for kids turning so much of their attention to video games. Leaving them alone to play is not the best solution, play with them, talk to them about their games, have fun together. The n your could do other things together, movies, sports, and all kinds of other opportunities. Games don't absorb the lives of kids who have strong family ties and interests.
Let's make a pact to keep kids from becoming spoiled brats, shall we?
Just something to chew on.
(For some more on this topic, check out Extra Creditz on Penny-Arcade TV.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/game-addiction-pt.1)
When parents dodge responsibility, kids suffer.
I guess I should define what I'm talking about. These are parents who don't spend time with their kids. They use movies, TV, and video games as cheap babysitters so that they can do what they want. Parents don't pay attention to the rating or reviews. They just give in to whatever their children want so that they won't whine. These is especially prominent in video games.
I'm back on video games, mostly because its my specialty, but also because I think it is one of the more dangerous avenues for this. When I was growing up, my parents made sure I stuck to the rating system that was given. The ESRB might be run by a bunch of pretentious know-nothings, but they are out to watch out for the younger generations. They're ratings have at least some logic. With that, I wasn't allowed to play anything out of my age range. I don't know what it is, but parents seems so less likely to follow those ratings now. I play more mature games now, online as well. I have played M rated games with kids who couldn't be over twelve. The reason I think that games are a bit more of a problem than other mediums.
Games are inherently interactive. Often you start to feel like you're a part of the story. Immersion is a big point in games. What this means, is that actions and consequences affect you a little more when it's your actions and part of your story. Now, as you age, you can separate yourself from this more, but I feel that in the younger years, the actions and outcomes can shape your thoughts a bit more. The connection you have with the character you're controlling is often deeper than in a movie or show. There may be more influence there than others.
This all boils down to one thing. There is indeed such a thing as bad parenting. Parents that let their children play games that are violent, that contain language, or that have sexual references should realize that their neglect is a reason for kids turning so much of their attention to video games. Leaving them alone to play is not the best solution, play with them, talk to them about their games, have fun together. The n your could do other things together, movies, sports, and all kinds of other opportunities. Games don't absorb the lives of kids who have strong family ties and interests.
Let's make a pact to keep kids from becoming spoiled brats, shall we?
Just something to chew on.
(For some more on this topic, check out Extra Creditz on Penny-Arcade TV.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/game-addiction-pt.1)
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Loser by a Nose
Do you ever wonder about the stupid things we practice as kids? I don't mean underage drinking or trying to skateboard off our school, those are a given. I mean the stupid traditions we have, especially when it comes to making choices. How many of us have played rock, paper, scissors to decided who does what? Or have flipped a coin? And lord knows we've all done the nose-goes game. You know what bugs me? There is one place that these kind of last person is the loser games should not have a place.
Why does the "loser" pray?
This isn't a deep spiritual question, though I'm sure I could spin it as such. My question is simple. I know that we do this, my youth group has. No one wants to volunteer to pray, so someone starts this game, to the loser goes the responsibility of prayer. Oh no, someone has to talk to their loving God now. How embarrassing.Now the rest can sit back and not worry, pay little attention, and let someone else talk.
I realize that my analysis might be harsh, but I hope it gets my point across. Why are we so afraid to pray? I believe that this fear comes from two problematic mindsets. The first part is that we feel judged by others. I know that "public speaking" isn't a strong point for some people. But should that mean we can't pray in front of our friends? God isn't the one judging us, he knows we might trip over our words, and that we might not be able to articulate what we're trying to say. He's looking at the heart of our prayer. The fear we have comes from other Christians.
My other point is just that. Other Christians put such unreal expectations on prayer. There are so many people who would probably consider themselves "good" at prayer. They know all the things to say, all the right buzz words and fancy titles, flowery praises and stock Christian phrases (something I'll get into later.) The kind of people that leave a mini-sermon in their prayers, and that keep on talking, long after everyone else has nodded off in boredom. There is this proceeding mentality that we need to know exactly how to pray, especially if we're doing it out loud, or else we're bad Christians. These people, these wild expectations and unrealistic prayers are the reason so many people are reluctant to pray in public.
Let's be honest about what prayer is. At its bare bones, prayer is talking to God. It doesn't matter how, how well you speak, what words you use, how elegant your phrases are. All that matters is that you are talking to God, and they two of you converse. I know that I don't pray like so many "Super Christians" that I have known pray. I'll start a prayer with "Yeah God, its me..." because I feel that I can be the most honest and real with God. I think that this is something people need to do in their own lives. Cut through all the Christian crap that we heap onto the foundations our our beliefs. All that matters is having a sincere open prayer. If that comes from the elegant language, awesome, but if it comes from saying "God, today sucked," then let each of them be just as meaningful.
Seriously though, I've nodded off in some people's prayers before. Can we get a time limit on some of those? Please?
Just something to chew on.
Why does the "loser" pray?
This isn't a deep spiritual question, though I'm sure I could spin it as such. My question is simple. I know that we do this, my youth group has. No one wants to volunteer to pray, so someone starts this game, to the loser goes the responsibility of prayer. Oh no, someone has to talk to their loving God now. How embarrassing.Now the rest can sit back and not worry, pay little attention, and let someone else talk.
I realize that my analysis might be harsh, but I hope it gets my point across. Why are we so afraid to pray? I believe that this fear comes from two problematic mindsets. The first part is that we feel judged by others. I know that "public speaking" isn't a strong point for some people. But should that mean we can't pray in front of our friends? God isn't the one judging us, he knows we might trip over our words, and that we might not be able to articulate what we're trying to say. He's looking at the heart of our prayer. The fear we have comes from other Christians.
My other point is just that. Other Christians put such unreal expectations on prayer. There are so many people who would probably consider themselves "good" at prayer. They know all the things to say, all the right buzz words and fancy titles, flowery praises and stock Christian phrases (something I'll get into later.) The kind of people that leave a mini-sermon in their prayers, and that keep on talking, long after everyone else has nodded off in boredom. There is this proceeding mentality that we need to know exactly how to pray, especially if we're doing it out loud, or else we're bad Christians. These people, these wild expectations and unrealistic prayers are the reason so many people are reluctant to pray in public.
Let's be honest about what prayer is. At its bare bones, prayer is talking to God. It doesn't matter how, how well you speak, what words you use, how elegant your phrases are. All that matters is that you are talking to God, and they two of you converse. I know that I don't pray like so many "Super Christians" that I have known pray. I'll start a prayer with "Yeah God, its me..." because I feel that I can be the most honest and real with God. I think that this is something people need to do in their own lives. Cut through all the Christian crap that we heap onto the foundations our our beliefs. All that matters is having a sincere open prayer. If that comes from the elegant language, awesome, but if it comes from saying "God, today sucked," then let each of them be just as meaningful.
Seriously though, I've nodded off in some people's prayers before. Can we get a time limit on some of those? Please?
Just something to chew on.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Nazis, Russians, and Martians
I've been ranting about music a bit these past few posts, so I've decided to get back to ripping apart something that I love more, i.e. video games. My floor tends to bond a lot with First Person Shooters (FPS to those of you who don't have a degree in Kill/Death Ratios). We'll stay up late playing TeamFortress 2 or Borderlands, or some other time sink. We like these ridiculous games. I know for me, it's there style. This update is devoted to a FPS trend that annoys me.
Why are we always killing Nazis or Russians?
I never really got into Modern Warfare or Battlefield: Bad Company. These games strive for realism and, in my opinion, sacrifice lots of potential to do it. Many FPSes (FPSi?) revolve around one of two ideas. Either the Nazis are still causing trouble, as in most World War 2 games and Wolfenstein, or the Russians have invaded or attacked America, like in Modern Warefare 2. Both of these entities are super powers that have had massive impact on the world, and both of them have been in two many games. Did you know that the Metal of Honor series has been going on since 1999? It's literally been in production longer than the actual WW2.
I understand the idea that fighting Nazis and Russians are great for war games. How else could you make a WW2 game without Nazis? See, my problem with FPSes now is that they all try to be war fantasies. Everyone seems to have this dream about being the hero of the war, personally ending Hitler's reign and ending the war. What I want to know is how uncreative are these game studios? There are only some many times we can go through the battle of Normandy, or drop in on D-Day. After a while it gets really dull.
One of my favorite FPSes is the Serious Sam series. Serious Sam is one of those mob shooters that spawns waves of enemies and lets you deal with them what whichever of the hundred guns you're allowed to carry at one time. In SS you get to shoot headless kamakazes, scorpion men with Gatling guns, and three story molten lava monsters that split into smaller versions. These games are ridiculous on so many levels, and that's what makes them fun. TeamFortress 2 is by far my favorite FPS, and with good reason. IT has charm and style that you don't see in most modern games. When I compare TF2 to Modern Warefare, I am amazed at how much faster and engaging the game play in TF2 is.
Realism, I believe, tacks away from the potential of games. No matter how good it looks, how indepth your gun mechanics are, how real the game seems, if the developer doesn't capitalize on its potential, then it can fail. Why is it that companies restrict themselves to war games that try to be real. I would love to see someone take the mechanics of Modern Warefare and put it into a game about a time-traveling Kight from King Arthur who shoots Aliens on some planet in the depths of space, with guns that shoot diamond peacocks. As long as the story and the mechanics fit together well, I believe that great games can be made from obscure ideas.
Essentially, however, FPSes are just point and click adventures. You point your gun, click, and move of in your adventure.
Just something to chew on.
Why are we always killing Nazis or Russians?
I never really got into Modern Warfare or Battlefield: Bad Company. These games strive for realism and, in my opinion, sacrifice lots of potential to do it. Many FPSes (FPSi?) revolve around one of two ideas. Either the Nazis are still causing trouble, as in most World War 2 games and Wolfenstein, or the Russians have invaded or attacked America, like in Modern Warefare 2. Both of these entities are super powers that have had massive impact on the world, and both of them have been in two many games. Did you know that the Metal of Honor series has been going on since 1999? It's literally been in production longer than the actual WW2.
I understand the idea that fighting Nazis and Russians are great for war games. How else could you make a WW2 game without Nazis? See, my problem with FPSes now is that they all try to be war fantasies. Everyone seems to have this dream about being the hero of the war, personally ending Hitler's reign and ending the war. What I want to know is how uncreative are these game studios? There are only some many times we can go through the battle of Normandy, or drop in on D-Day. After a while it gets really dull.
One of my favorite FPSes is the Serious Sam series. Serious Sam is one of those mob shooters that spawns waves of enemies and lets you deal with them what whichever of the hundred guns you're allowed to carry at one time. In SS you get to shoot headless kamakazes, scorpion men with Gatling guns, and three story molten lava monsters that split into smaller versions. These games are ridiculous on so many levels, and that's what makes them fun. TeamFortress 2 is by far my favorite FPS, and with good reason. IT has charm and style that you don't see in most modern games. When I compare TF2 to Modern Warefare, I am amazed at how much faster and engaging the game play in TF2 is.
Realism, I believe, tacks away from the potential of games. No matter how good it looks, how indepth your gun mechanics are, how real the game seems, if the developer doesn't capitalize on its potential, then it can fail. Why is it that companies restrict themselves to war games that try to be real. I would love to see someone take the mechanics of Modern Warefare and put it into a game about a time-traveling Kight from King Arthur who shoots Aliens on some planet in the depths of space, with guns that shoot diamond peacocks. As long as the story and the mechanics fit together well, I believe that great games can be made from obscure ideas.
Essentially, however, FPSes are just point and click adventures. You point your gun, click, and move of in your adventure.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Fifi the Freshman
Last Friday we had our influx of freshmen into Taylor. Swallow Robin has somewhere around twenty new faces getting used to our wacky home. I have come to notice an odd occurrence among the upperclassmen, something that I noticed when I was a freshman. It's actually rather annoying, I think; and it doesn't give our new friends their fair due.
Freshmen are not pets.
I guess the latest "in" thing is a freshman tote, like the ones you put a little dog in. It seems to me that many upperclassmen decide it is their sworn duty to guide these naive little children into the brave new world that is college. Heaven forbid that they have some time on their own to set themselves up comfortably and get into things at their own pace.
Essentially what I'm getting at is that so many times it seems like freshmen are treated like they are incredibly young. The way I hear some people talk about the freshmen is almost patronizing. Is it impossible for a freshman to find their own class? Or pick their own table at the DC? They're not as needy and dependent as some try and make them out to be. When I was a freshman, I wasn't allowed to sit by myself in at a meal. Someone would always come over to sit by me and talk at me. I believe there are days when we all want a quiet (as quiet as a cafeteria can be anyway) meal alone with our thoughts. Solitude is not a bad thing.
What amazes me about this mindset is that most of the freshmen aren't that young. We'll say that eighteen is a base age for them. Many sophomores are only a year older, if that. Some freshmen are non-traditional, like my roommates, who are twenty-two and twenty-three. Yet still people insist on treating them like they can't handle their own affairs. They're as mature as we were our first year, give or take (I realize that isn't always a positive thing). We had a group prayer over our dorm's freshmen, and it made me rather cynical (more so anyway). I can't judge the intent or the affect of the prayers, that isn't fair but I will say that the words I heard were more along the lines of "Let these poor ignorant children get it" than the "Let these men and women establish themselves in our community."
I've thought a bit about how I interact with freshmen, and I'm pretty proud about it. I feel like I've treated them as I treat everyone else in my dorm, regardless of age. In college, age matters much less than it did in high school. I can be just as solid friends with the senior who is twenty as I am with the freshman that is twenty-two. Age and grade don't amount to much, it's who they are as people that we need to pay more attention to. Being real, and treating them like equals is the best way, I believe, to help anyone adjust to a new situation in life.
It is, however, always Joe's fault.
Just something to chew on.
Freshmen are not pets.
I guess the latest "in" thing is a freshman tote, like the ones you put a little dog in. It seems to me that many upperclassmen decide it is their sworn duty to guide these naive little children into the brave new world that is college. Heaven forbid that they have some time on their own to set themselves up comfortably and get into things at their own pace.
Essentially what I'm getting at is that so many times it seems like freshmen are treated like they are incredibly young. The way I hear some people talk about the freshmen is almost patronizing. Is it impossible for a freshman to find their own class? Or pick their own table at the DC? They're not as needy and dependent as some try and make them out to be. When I was a freshman, I wasn't allowed to sit by myself in at a meal. Someone would always come over to sit by me and talk at me. I believe there are days when we all want a quiet (as quiet as a cafeteria can be anyway) meal alone with our thoughts. Solitude is not a bad thing.
What amazes me about this mindset is that most of the freshmen aren't that young. We'll say that eighteen is a base age for them. Many sophomores are only a year older, if that. Some freshmen are non-traditional, like my roommates, who are twenty-two and twenty-three. Yet still people insist on treating them like they can't handle their own affairs. They're as mature as we were our first year, give or take (I realize that isn't always a positive thing). We had a group prayer over our dorm's freshmen, and it made me rather cynical (more so anyway). I can't judge the intent or the affect of the prayers, that isn't fair but I will say that the words I heard were more along the lines of "Let these poor ignorant children get it" than the "Let these men and women establish themselves in our community."
I've thought a bit about how I interact with freshmen, and I'm pretty proud about it. I feel like I've treated them as I treat everyone else in my dorm, regardless of age. In college, age matters much less than it did in high school. I can be just as solid friends with the senior who is twenty as I am with the freshman that is twenty-two. Age and grade don't amount to much, it's who they are as people that we need to pay more attention to. Being real, and treating them like equals is the best way, I believe, to help anyone adjust to a new situation in life.
It is, however, always Joe's fault.
Just something to chew on.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Wistful
I write this latest entry from my throne in Swallow Robin lounge. If you can't read between the lines in that last one, I'll spell it out: I'm back at Taylor. Being back at school means a lot of new experiences and people. There have been a variety of new freshman showing up, and I'm working through my new responsibilities as the theater's master electrician. With greeting all this new challenges comes an interesting opposite, however. What I'm talking about is saying good-bye.
Why do we romanticize leaving so much?
Like I've said before, I'm not a big movie guy. I do, however, know enough about movie cliches to point to all those moody romantic movies that invariably have a scene were someone is either walking away and causing tension and angst, or someone is walking away with serious hope and a new found sense of purpose. While I realize that only little kids and autistic monkeys might think their lives will end up like movies, I also feel that we try to create such emotion in our good-byes.
I worked at a camp in New York all summer. I met a lot of great people out there. And then I had to go back to school. Thus I had to go through the long process of saying good-bye to as many of my friends as I could. A midst all the hands shakes and hugs and general good feeling, I couldn't help but feel that you never see anything like this in a movie. My good-bye sequence didn't have the same emotional weight that you can get on film. It wasn't that I didn't care about my friends as much as some fictitious floozy from a New York fashion industry, but that I wasn't trying to impress anyone with any emotional response. When we say good-bye, we do it to communicate to each specific person that they are important, and we want to leave on the right foot.
I think that this romanticized view that we get can often hamper our relationships. We get caught up in the idea that our farewell has to be some heart rending process that we sometimes forget to even see some people. I know that there were people who left before me, and I also knew that I saw very few of them to say good-bye, even though they had been a friend while working. I'm not saying that they hate me, just that they may have gotten so caught up in a proper good-bye to others that I slipped through the cracks.
I also believe that our flair for the dramatic is also an issue. I'm a theater guy, so I know what it means to be dramatic, and I've seen some very good actors in my short run. With that, I feel that I have seen some of the same type of acting in how people say good-bye. They want to make the best impact they can. Whether it is an unexpected going away present, the perfect sentimental words, or a meaningful kiss on the cheek (wanted or otherwise), we try so hard to make an point in our good-bye. I feel that this mentality can trivialize a friendship somewhat, that you don't think your friendship with the other person is all that they need, that they need some movie style farewell to really call you their peer.
Lastly, all the crying is an issue with me. My mom cried when I went off to college, I cried when I left my parents of my mission trip in Australia back in eighth grade. People cry when the move, when a boyfriend or girlfriend leaves, or just when there is something new that they have to leave for. We get so sad over having to leave. When I left camp, I was excited to get back to school. Sure I was going to miss people, but I can't say I was sad. when one of my friends was leaving (he came to see me) I told him that we have at least one more guaranteed time that we will see each other. That's the beauty of being a Christian. When we die, there will be a gathering of us all in heaven. We will see each other again and never have to worry about good-bye. That is a hope I live with. The German's have a term, auf wiedershen, meaning "until we see each other again." I have always liked that phrasing more. Good-bye sometimes seems hopeless, but auf wiedershen is a term that means you both have hope for seeing someone, and a desire to as well.
I don't mind the celebration, however, when i don't have to see certain people again.
Just something to chew on.
Why do we romanticize leaving so much?
Like I've said before, I'm not a big movie guy. I do, however, know enough about movie cliches to point to all those moody romantic movies that invariably have a scene were someone is either walking away and causing tension and angst, or someone is walking away with serious hope and a new found sense of purpose. While I realize that only little kids and autistic monkeys might think their lives will end up like movies, I also feel that we try to create such emotion in our good-byes.
I worked at a camp in New York all summer. I met a lot of great people out there. And then I had to go back to school. Thus I had to go through the long process of saying good-bye to as many of my friends as I could. A midst all the hands shakes and hugs and general good feeling, I couldn't help but feel that you never see anything like this in a movie. My good-bye sequence didn't have the same emotional weight that you can get on film. It wasn't that I didn't care about my friends as much as some fictitious floozy from a New York fashion industry, but that I wasn't trying to impress anyone with any emotional response. When we say good-bye, we do it to communicate to each specific person that they are important, and we want to leave on the right foot.
I think that this romanticized view that we get can often hamper our relationships. We get caught up in the idea that our farewell has to be some heart rending process that we sometimes forget to even see some people. I know that there were people who left before me, and I also knew that I saw very few of them to say good-bye, even though they had been a friend while working. I'm not saying that they hate me, just that they may have gotten so caught up in a proper good-bye to others that I slipped through the cracks.
I also believe that our flair for the dramatic is also an issue. I'm a theater guy, so I know what it means to be dramatic, and I've seen some very good actors in my short run. With that, I feel that I have seen some of the same type of acting in how people say good-bye. They want to make the best impact they can. Whether it is an unexpected going away present, the perfect sentimental words, or a meaningful kiss on the cheek (wanted or otherwise), we try so hard to make an point in our good-bye. I feel that this mentality can trivialize a friendship somewhat, that you don't think your friendship with the other person is all that they need, that they need some movie style farewell to really call you their peer.
Lastly, all the crying is an issue with me. My mom cried when I went off to college, I cried when I left my parents of my mission trip in Australia back in eighth grade. People cry when the move, when a boyfriend or girlfriend leaves, or just when there is something new that they have to leave for. We get so sad over having to leave. When I left camp, I was excited to get back to school. Sure I was going to miss people, but I can't say I was sad. when one of my friends was leaving (he came to see me) I told him that we have at least one more guaranteed time that we will see each other. That's the beauty of being a Christian. When we die, there will be a gathering of us all in heaven. We will see each other again and never have to worry about good-bye. That is a hope I live with. The German's have a term, auf wiedershen, meaning "until we see each other again." I have always liked that phrasing more. Good-bye sometimes seems hopeless, but auf wiedershen is a term that means you both have hope for seeing someone, and a desire to as well.
I don't mind the celebration, however, when i don't have to see certain people again.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, August 19, 2011
A Score to Settle
I've never been a big movie guy. I like some, but all in all, I'm not a huge fan. I do have friends, however, who are major movie addicts. I think, actually, that a great portion of people are really into movies of late. With that, I've noticed an trend in how people appreciate movies away from the silver screen. I have a bit of an issue with this latest trend.
I don't get why people like movie soundtracks.
I suppose what I mean by that is the score of a movie rather than that crappy CD that gets released with unrelated pop music slapped on it. What I'm talking about are the orchestral pieces by guys like Hans Zimmer (Inception, The Dark Knight), Michael Giacchino (Mission Impossible, The Incredibles), and Atticus Ross (The Book of Eli, The Social Network). These are those dramatic, mood-setting works that usually play in the background of pivotal scenes.
Let me start by saying that I am not criticizing the music itself. These composers are very good, they create works that really add to the movie. The performers are phenomenal on their instruments. And of course, the sound guys do great work in their editing and perfecting. There is loads of talent in these scores, no one can deny that.
Here's the thing about scores. They are meant to add to the movie by subtly creating a feeling. The dark and dramatic battle music could create some excitement, the light, airy castle music sets a care free mood, the soft, mysterious theme of a villain adds to their presence. All of these are background music, however. The action by actors and other visual elements are the real draw. The ironic thing about scores are, if they are good, then you shouldn't notice them, but if they are bad, then they stick out like a sore thumb.
I don't see the draw in listening to the scores separately. I have in my possession the scores from Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Transformers. I already covered the talent behind them, so with that said, there not that special. I usually skip over them if they show up on shuffle. If I want to listen to some orchestra music, I have enough classical music to last me for a long while. I also think that my classical is better than these scores. Scores aren't meant to stand alone, that is my conclusion.
I do, however, differentiate between scores and theme songs. If you start humming the Star Wars theme, or the Indiana Jones theme, other people know these songs. They are incredibly memorable. That is something that I think is lost on many of the new soundtracks that play. There are a few songs here and there that people recognize, but nothing that is as iconic as some of these older ones. To me, so many of the different pieces sound the same, or at least incredibly similar. Certain sounds and combinations create feelings and emotions, so it isn't surprising that common elements are used in many scores, but I do believe that with some risk taking, composers can find new ways to create the same feelings in interesting and exciting ways.
On the other hand, Daft Punk had an awesome soundtrack for Tron.
Just something to chew on.
I don't get why people like movie soundtracks.
I suppose what I mean by that is the score of a movie rather than that crappy CD that gets released with unrelated pop music slapped on it. What I'm talking about are the orchestral pieces by guys like Hans Zimmer (Inception, The Dark Knight), Michael Giacchino (Mission Impossible, The Incredibles), and Atticus Ross (The Book of Eli, The Social Network). These are those dramatic, mood-setting works that usually play in the background of pivotal scenes.
Let me start by saying that I am not criticizing the music itself. These composers are very good, they create works that really add to the movie. The performers are phenomenal on their instruments. And of course, the sound guys do great work in their editing and perfecting. There is loads of talent in these scores, no one can deny that.
Here's the thing about scores. They are meant to add to the movie by subtly creating a feeling. The dark and dramatic battle music could create some excitement, the light, airy castle music sets a care free mood, the soft, mysterious theme of a villain adds to their presence. All of these are background music, however. The action by actors and other visual elements are the real draw. The ironic thing about scores are, if they are good, then you shouldn't notice them, but if they are bad, then they stick out like a sore thumb.
I don't see the draw in listening to the scores separately. I have in my possession the scores from Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Transformers. I already covered the talent behind them, so with that said, there not that special. I usually skip over them if they show up on shuffle. If I want to listen to some orchestra music, I have enough classical music to last me for a long while. I also think that my classical is better than these scores. Scores aren't meant to stand alone, that is my conclusion.
I do, however, differentiate between scores and theme songs. If you start humming the Star Wars theme, or the Indiana Jones theme, other people know these songs. They are incredibly memorable. That is something that I think is lost on many of the new soundtracks that play. There are a few songs here and there that people recognize, but nothing that is as iconic as some of these older ones. To me, so many of the different pieces sound the same, or at least incredibly similar. Certain sounds and combinations create feelings and emotions, so it isn't surprising that common elements are used in many scores, but I do believe that with some risk taking, composers can find new ways to create the same feelings in interesting and exciting ways.
On the other hand, Daft Punk had an awesome soundtrack for Tron.
Just something to chew on.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Worthless
Praise music is a big deal many Churches and groups out there. I know there have been fights in my church over the music and what we play. People have probably heard me complain about a lot of Christian music before (And if you haven't, it'll be showing up in an entry at some point). Anyway, one thing that really bothers me is a recurring theme in so much of the music.
You are not worthless.
I hear a lot in Christian music how tarnished, broken, and generally worthless the singer thinks they are in God's eyes. They're deeply ashamed of sin, or have no value compared to God, they're unworthy of love, or they shouldn't be forgiven. All these things are true enough. There is no reason for us to get a big head over God's mercy, my complaints come from a lack of sense.
One main fact with being a Christian is that we are adopted into God's family, we are sons and daughters of God. This isn't the "red-headed stepchild" status, we are a part of the family and loved by God. That means we are valued members of the family, sharing in the wealth of the Father. We have worth. Our pitiful existences that we lived before being saved has been redeemed.
I hate to hear people always focusing on their shame. I see that as them looking for pity because of their old life. Whatever sin they had, they're still trying to use to gain some sympathy. I might be exaggerating things here (small chance) but I still think that focusing on past sins and failures isn't healthy. You can learn from your mistakes and move on.
Maybe I have an over inflated sense of self-worth, but I refuse to think of myself as dirt in God's sight. I know that He cares and that I am valued by God. Whatever I feel, however I sin, and whenever I fail, I know that God forgives me and that ultimately, that will outweigh any of my meager problems.
And if you're going to whine about me not putting in any verses in here, shut it. This is some musing, not a sermon.
Just something to chew on.
You are not worthless.
I hear a lot in Christian music how tarnished, broken, and generally worthless the singer thinks they are in God's eyes. They're deeply ashamed of sin, or have no value compared to God, they're unworthy of love, or they shouldn't be forgiven. All these things are true enough. There is no reason for us to get a big head over God's mercy, my complaints come from a lack of sense.
One main fact with being a Christian is that we are adopted into God's family, we are sons and daughters of God. This isn't the "red-headed stepchild" status, we are a part of the family and loved by God. That means we are valued members of the family, sharing in the wealth of the Father. We have worth. Our pitiful existences that we lived before being saved has been redeemed.
I hate to hear people always focusing on their shame. I see that as them looking for pity because of their old life. Whatever sin they had, they're still trying to use to gain some sympathy. I might be exaggerating things here (small chance) but I still think that focusing on past sins and failures isn't healthy. You can learn from your mistakes and move on.
Maybe I have an over inflated sense of self-worth, but I refuse to think of myself as dirt in God's sight. I know that He cares and that I am valued by God. Whatever I feel, however I sin, and whenever I fail, I know that God forgives me and that ultimately, that will outweigh any of my meager problems.
And if you're going to whine about me not putting in any verses in here, shut it. This is some musing, not a sermon.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Circles of Life
Two decades, twenty years, two hundred forty months, 87,605 days, 2,102,520 hours, 126,151,200 minutes, or 7,569,072,000 seconds. However you look at it, I've been alive for a good stretch of time. There are lots of people older than me as well (obvious I know.) Life goes on for all of us, day after day, the same twenty-four hours for all of us. I've been thinking a lot about getting older and growing up, and I've come to at least one conclusion.
Life isn't too short.
I've heard a lot of people say that life is too short for this or that. Regret, waiting, or whatever, people seem to think that if they don't do it now, they never will. There is this overriding idea that opportunity will never come to you again, that a door or window will be shut and never be opened again. Life lived without taking every opportunity is a life wasted, or so they think.
I've only been alive for twenty years, that's not much compared to others, people who are more experienced than me. The older men in women that I know have lived their lives, had their experiences, and taken what opportunities they wanted. I have also had more chances to do things than those younger than me. I still feel, however, that the years I have lived have not been quick.
Life is bursting at the seems with opportunity. There is so much that I can do, so many chances to take. If life was so short, there would be so fewer opportunities for me to do anything. To think that I have missed an opportunity, that I will never be able to enjoy something like it again is ridiculous. I believe that if I "missed" something now, that I could have another chance later in life. It wouldn't be the exact situation, considering I will be older, possible a different man, but I will still have that chance.
I'm not advocating being lazy, or ignoring something exciting. Take every chance you get to enjoy yourself, and to learn about yourself. I am saying, however, not to stress or feel regret for something you didn't do. Maybe it's the idea that life goes in circles, that there will always be another chance to enjoy whatever life has to offer. Don't worry about missing out on life, there is always tomorrow and what it will bring.
I bet someone could make a really hope-filled love song with this idea...don't.
Just something to chew on.
Life isn't too short.
I've heard a lot of people say that life is too short for this or that. Regret, waiting, or whatever, people seem to think that if they don't do it now, they never will. There is this overriding idea that opportunity will never come to you again, that a door or window will be shut and never be opened again. Life lived without taking every opportunity is a life wasted, or so they think.
I've only been alive for twenty years, that's not much compared to others, people who are more experienced than me. The older men in women that I know have lived their lives, had their experiences, and taken what opportunities they wanted. I have also had more chances to do things than those younger than me. I still feel, however, that the years I have lived have not been quick.
Life is bursting at the seems with opportunity. There is so much that I can do, so many chances to take. If life was so short, there would be so fewer opportunities for me to do anything. To think that I have missed an opportunity, that I will never be able to enjoy something like it again is ridiculous. I believe that if I "missed" something now, that I could have another chance later in life. It wouldn't be the exact situation, considering I will be older, possible a different man, but I will still have that chance.
I'm not advocating being lazy, or ignoring something exciting. Take every chance you get to enjoy yourself, and to learn about yourself. I am saying, however, not to stress or feel regret for something you didn't do. Maybe it's the idea that life goes in circles, that there will always be another chance to enjoy whatever life has to offer. Don't worry about missing out on life, there is always tomorrow and what it will bring.
I bet someone could make a really hope-filled love song with this idea...don't.
Just something to chew on.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Jesus Freaks
So, DC Talk was never a great band in my mind, but their song "Jesus Freak" seems to be a fitting title for this latest entry. Since I do go to a Christian school, and spend a good deal of time at a big Christian camp, I see many people who express their faith and beliefs differently. Some I agree with, others not so much. Yet I have noticed something that[s probably going to tick some people off.
I hope you take the term "Super Christian" as an insult.
Oh no, I bet I've crossed the line with some of my readers. How could I think anything like being a Super Christian is bad? I must have lost my mind or become an existentialist or something. Unlikely inner monologue aside, some of you might know what I'm talking about. When you hear "Super Christian," you probably have a certain image in your head, whether a generic idea, or someone you know. Let me describe what I see.
A Super Christian in my mind is something along he lines of a Bible-thumper. Everything they talk about has to do with God, or Jesus, what they learned or how they were blessed. There people are incredibly vocal about what they think God has been doing in their lives. Ask them how they're doing, and they'll fed you a line like, "God has given me a great day to enjoy."
All of this sounds pretty legitimate right? I understand what it is like to be excited by God's greatness and what He does for us. My problem is not with their excitement. I take issue with their consistency. I know a few Super Christian, and a common trend in them is that they talk their big game, but live like me. I am not perfect, I have some anger issues, I know when I sin, and I realize that I don't always put God first. That's what being human means. Super Christian are just like that, but they try to veneer their faults by slathering on the Christian buzz words. It seems like if they talk about God enough, people will ignore their shortcomings.
What really bothers me, is that the Super Christians believe that they are "above" me. I have been criticized by Super Christians for different short comings, and had various Bible verses vomited at me to prove me wrong. It's really amusing to see that the idea of quoting Bible verses for your own purpose is used by come Christians. Here's a verse for the Super Christian, " You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Mathhew 7:5.)"
Not all people who always seem to revel in God are Super Christians. I know some who are indeed people who are connected to God and want to share their joy. Two men that I will name up at Camp-of-the-Woods are Cody Allen Rushing and Christien Jackson. These two men are knowledgeable in the Word, and dedicated to God. The reason they are different, to me, is because of how they live. Both men are full of love for those that they meet, and both can admit their failures. I have spent nights talking to Christien about my faults and his, and I always feel like I grow when we're finished.
How we live is who we are. Super Christian live like everyone else and sound like hypocrites when they speak. Real men and women of God live in him, and inspire when they speak. So many Christians, it seems, fail to recognize their own faults and failings. I believe that God saved us and has forgiven our sins, but that doesn't make us perfect. No amount of pretty Christian vocabulary can hide the truth of who you are.
And if someone says they'll pray that I change my mind one more time, I'm going to defenestrate them.
Just something to chew on.
I hope you take the term "Super Christian" as an insult.
Oh no, I bet I've crossed the line with some of my readers. How could I think anything like being a Super Christian is bad? I must have lost my mind or become an existentialist or something. Unlikely inner monologue aside, some of you might know what I'm talking about. When you hear "Super Christian," you probably have a certain image in your head, whether a generic idea, or someone you know. Let me describe what I see.
A Super Christian in my mind is something along he lines of a Bible-thumper. Everything they talk about has to do with God, or Jesus, what they learned or how they were blessed. There people are incredibly vocal about what they think God has been doing in their lives. Ask them how they're doing, and they'll fed you a line like, "God has given me a great day to enjoy."
All of this sounds pretty legitimate right? I understand what it is like to be excited by God's greatness and what He does for us. My problem is not with their excitement. I take issue with their consistency. I know a few Super Christian, and a common trend in them is that they talk their big game, but live like me. I am not perfect, I have some anger issues, I know when I sin, and I realize that I don't always put God first. That's what being human means. Super Christian are just like that, but they try to veneer their faults by slathering on the Christian buzz words. It seems like if they talk about God enough, people will ignore their shortcomings.
What really bothers me, is that the Super Christians believe that they are "above" me. I have been criticized by Super Christians for different short comings, and had various Bible verses vomited at me to prove me wrong. It's really amusing to see that the idea of quoting Bible verses for your own purpose is used by come Christians. Here's a verse for the Super Christian, " You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Mathhew 7:5.)"
Not all people who always seem to revel in God are Super Christians. I know some who are indeed people who are connected to God and want to share their joy. Two men that I will name up at Camp-of-the-Woods are Cody Allen Rushing and Christien Jackson. These two men are knowledgeable in the Word, and dedicated to God. The reason they are different, to me, is because of how they live. Both men are full of love for those that they meet, and both can admit their failures. I have spent nights talking to Christien about my faults and his, and I always feel like I grow when we're finished.
How we live is who we are. Super Christian live like everyone else and sound like hypocrites when they speak. Real men and women of God live in him, and inspire when they speak. So many Christians, it seems, fail to recognize their own faults and failings. I believe that God saved us and has forgiven our sins, but that doesn't make us perfect. No amount of pretty Christian vocabulary can hide the truth of who you are.
And if someone says they'll pray that I change my mind one more time, I'm going to defenestrate them.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Christ and the Dating Game
I love going into bookstores and seeing books that I have reviewed sitting on the shelves. It's cool to think that my review might cause someone to buy it, then have their lives changed. Today I was in the Camp bookstore, looking through the numerous lifestyle books. At the bottom of one shelf was a whole section on christian singles. I browsed the books, not finding anything interesting. I did, however, think of something odd while looking at the content of so many.
Do christian guys not need to know how to date?
While examining the books, I saw a good number of them for girls about how to date in a christian manner. There were things like not seeking "Mr. Right" but being "Ms. Right," others on being independent, but also dedicated to another, and more. It's definitely a good idea to offer this kind of advice, christian dating is a murky thing, and the words of some "experts" can always help out.
Now, when looking at the books targeted to men, I saw, mainly, one trend in all of them. Most of the books were about remaining pure until God's appointed time. I realize that remaining pure is a wonderful goal to strive for, and something that requires learning and dedication. However, is that the only thing that a single man's life is about?
I wish there were more books about being christian, single men in a world where dating is so confusing. I admit that I have never actually dated anyone. There have been the odd situation once or twice, but not what I would consider actual dating. I think that I would be more inclined to pursue a dating relationship if I could get some insight before plunging into that tumultuous sea.
I know that a book can't teach everything, and may only offer some very small part of a grander puzzle. However, I believe it is better to go with some preparation, than totally blind. Life experience is one of the only ways to learn how to act in a dating relationship. Let's be honest, life experience can be painful, sometimes earth shattering.
The main reason I would like some kind of book on the subject, is because I would like to know how a christian mindset deals with life issues. There are enough secular books about dating and hooking-up to fill a trashy library, but I have not found too many books that deal with how to deal in a Christ like manner with a girlfriend, or how to follow God's will in a deeper relationship. Practical "skills" are one thing, but knowing how to be godly in your dealings with the sensitive feelings that we hold deep.
Even though I consider myself an aspiring writer, to whom nothing is off limits, I don't think that I am the person to write this kind of book, at least not at this, or any foreseeable, period of life. I do think, however, that there are enough strong christians out there, single and married, who can help teach the young and the restless like myself. I'm willing to take the plunge someday, but I have no idea when that will be.
And no (mother) I'm not ruling out any possibilities God might throw at me.
Just something to chew on.
Do christian guys not need to know how to date?
While examining the books, I saw a good number of them for girls about how to date in a christian manner. There were things like not seeking "Mr. Right" but being "Ms. Right," others on being independent, but also dedicated to another, and more. It's definitely a good idea to offer this kind of advice, christian dating is a murky thing, and the words of some "experts" can always help out.
Now, when looking at the books targeted to men, I saw, mainly, one trend in all of them. Most of the books were about remaining pure until God's appointed time. I realize that remaining pure is a wonderful goal to strive for, and something that requires learning and dedication. However, is that the only thing that a single man's life is about?
I wish there were more books about being christian, single men in a world where dating is so confusing. I admit that I have never actually dated anyone. There have been the odd situation once or twice, but not what I would consider actual dating. I think that I would be more inclined to pursue a dating relationship if I could get some insight before plunging into that tumultuous sea.
I know that a book can't teach everything, and may only offer some very small part of a grander puzzle. However, I believe it is better to go with some preparation, than totally blind. Life experience is one of the only ways to learn how to act in a dating relationship. Let's be honest, life experience can be painful, sometimes earth shattering.
The main reason I would like some kind of book on the subject, is because I would like to know how a christian mindset deals with life issues. There are enough secular books about dating and hooking-up to fill a trashy library, but I have not found too many books that deal with how to deal in a Christ like manner with a girlfriend, or how to follow God's will in a deeper relationship. Practical "skills" are one thing, but knowing how to be godly in your dealings with the sensitive feelings that we hold deep.
Even though I consider myself an aspiring writer, to whom nothing is off limits, I don't think that I am the person to write this kind of book, at least not at this, or any foreseeable, period of life. I do think, however, that there are enough strong christians out there, single and married, who can help teach the young and the restless like myself. I'm willing to take the plunge someday, but I have no idea when that will be.
And no (mother) I'm not ruling out any possibilities God might throw at me.
Just something to chew on.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
By Any Other Name
Anyone who has been through a high school English class should recognize the title as the tail end of one of Romeo's lines in Romeo and Juliet. In it, he is describing Juliet and ask if "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." It is supposed to mean that the name of anything doesn't matter, only what it is. This seems a little messed up in my mind. If I were the rose and he called me a tulip, I think I'd be pretty ticked (not counting in the fact that a rose isn't sentient.) To me, names are important, and that is why I speak how I do.
I always try to call people by name.
A few years back, someone once told me that your name is the sweetest thing that someone can say to you. We put a lot of value on our names, attaching honor and history to last names, and individual identity to our first. In many cultures, a family with a dishonored name is ostracized from their community. Calling someone by the wrong first name is one of the most embarrassing social interactions that we know of.
I always try to know someones' name before I really start to know them. A name is the most important starting point. Just greeting someone you work with by name in when you see them is a good start. After that, addressing them by name and asking questions just help solidify your friendship. This isn't Todd's guide to making friends, but it does show the importance of names among friends.
Names and identity go hand in hand. I believe everyone out there takes pride in their name. I know that I do. One thing that I love about the name "Todd" is that I almost never meet anyone with my same name. In most places, I am the only Todd, making me unique. The meaning of the name is also something that I like. One definition for it is "Seeker of Wisdom." I am one who peruses knowledge and common sense. Sounds accurate. The other definition is "Fox."I'm talking about the animal mind you, not the adjective (though I'm not against being described like that either.) Why do you think the fox from Fox and the Hound was named Todd? A fox is a cunning and intelligent creature, and I have always felt like these traits reflect well in me.
My last name is also something that I am proud of. Naevestad is a Norwegian name, shortened from its original form which was some twenty letters long (and which I don't know how to spell.) The original name meant "place of the lower fjord (river)" and denotes an actually place in Norway. There are maybe twenty people in the world with this last name, as far as I know. I am one of the lucky ones to hang onto that name. That also means that I am given the responsibility of passing it on (however unlikely that might be.) Naevestad isn't just a name, it is an entire family identity.
I mentioned how I feel unique with my name, but there are many times when I have friends with the same name. My dorm floor had four people on it named Nathan, three people named John, and three people named Andrew (Drew). It always seemed like there would be one person to retain the name, one would get a nickname, and others would be called by their last name. This seems only to happen to guys, however. The girls that I know with the same name, I call them by their name. I don't usually do anything to it.
There is also the subject of nicknames. I have some close friends that I have given nicknames. It isn't because I have trouble with their name, but because I have a special affection for them. I call my friend Catherine Sundheim "Sunshine" and my surrogate little sisters, Morgan and Cassie Miller, "The Little Blonde People." I know that I said above that I try to call people by name, but nicknames are different. Nicknames are about a personal bond. The name is usually between the two of you, your own special connection.
Romeo may have been trying to be elegant and deep, but the guy really didn't know what he was talking about (I'll get into my hatred for Romeo and Juliet another time.) True, just because a name changes, doesn't mean the object changes, but the identity does. Names are an important part of our lives. They are the earliest definers of who we are.
To the future parents out there, don't give kids stupid names, they'll hate you.
Just something to chew on.
I always try to call people by name.
A few years back, someone once told me that your name is the sweetest thing that someone can say to you. We put a lot of value on our names, attaching honor and history to last names, and individual identity to our first. In many cultures, a family with a dishonored name is ostracized from their community. Calling someone by the wrong first name is one of the most embarrassing social interactions that we know of.
I always try to know someones' name before I really start to know them. A name is the most important starting point. Just greeting someone you work with by name in when you see them is a good start. After that, addressing them by name and asking questions just help solidify your friendship. This isn't Todd's guide to making friends, but it does show the importance of names among friends.
Names and identity go hand in hand. I believe everyone out there takes pride in their name. I know that I do. One thing that I love about the name "Todd" is that I almost never meet anyone with my same name. In most places, I am the only Todd, making me unique. The meaning of the name is also something that I like. One definition for it is "Seeker of Wisdom." I am one who peruses knowledge and common sense. Sounds accurate. The other definition is "Fox."I'm talking about the animal mind you, not the adjective (though I'm not against being described like that either.) Why do you think the fox from Fox and the Hound was named Todd? A fox is a cunning and intelligent creature, and I have always felt like these traits reflect well in me.
My last name is also something that I am proud of. Naevestad is a Norwegian name, shortened from its original form which was some twenty letters long (and which I don't know how to spell.) The original name meant "place of the lower fjord (river)" and denotes an actually place in Norway. There are maybe twenty people in the world with this last name, as far as I know. I am one of the lucky ones to hang onto that name. That also means that I am given the responsibility of passing it on (however unlikely that might be.) Naevestad isn't just a name, it is an entire family identity.
I mentioned how I feel unique with my name, but there are many times when I have friends with the same name. My dorm floor had four people on it named Nathan, three people named John, and three people named Andrew (Drew). It always seemed like there would be one person to retain the name, one would get a nickname, and others would be called by their last name. This seems only to happen to guys, however. The girls that I know with the same name, I call them by their name. I don't usually do anything to it.
There is also the subject of nicknames. I have some close friends that I have given nicknames. It isn't because I have trouble with their name, but because I have a special affection for them. I call my friend Catherine Sundheim "Sunshine" and my surrogate little sisters, Morgan and Cassie Miller, "The Little Blonde People." I know that I said above that I try to call people by name, but nicknames are different. Nicknames are about a personal bond. The name is usually between the two of you, your own special connection.
Romeo may have been trying to be elegant and deep, but the guy really didn't know what he was talking about (I'll get into my hatred for Romeo and Juliet another time.) True, just because a name changes, doesn't mean the object changes, but the identity does. Names are an important part of our lives. They are the earliest definers of who we are.
To the future parents out there, don't give kids stupid names, they'll hate you.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Bat-wuss
Recently, DC announced that they were rebooting their continuity. Every series is starting over from number one. That means that there are new origin stories and hopefully a more coherent storyline. It's interesting to see where they go with this, the younger Superman is an interesting development. This reboot is also a smart time to change the story of one famous character. I've come to a rather controversial conclusion.
Batman is a wuss.
Now, let me be clear, the Batman we all know and love is hardcore. He's the dark knight, skulking through Gotham, beating down the villains, and instilling fear in the criminal underworld. Batman as a hero is pretty sick, but his origin is so pathetic. He doesn't have that real heroic beginning.
Let's look at this real fast. When Bruce was a kid, his parent's were murdered. Simple start right? Bruce trains and gets strong and agile, then dawns the famous cowl and becomes Batman. This seems pretty solid, but what about some other superheroes? Hal Jordan becomes the Green Lantern because of a sense of duty. Aquaman is out to protect his kingdom. Spider-man wants to honor his uncle's memory and atone for his selfish mistakes. Captain America is dedicated to his country. And Batman is a kid with some serious issues.
Batman is running off a messed up childhood and a desire for revenge. There is little that is noble about him. Most people probably would have moved on had they had some counseling. But here Batman is, bringing a crusade against crime to the streets of Gotham. Here's something to think about, Batman's parent's were killed and he swore revenge, Superman's entire planet was destroyed, and he's done his best to adapt and protect earth. Batman is the dark, brooding, anti-social, and Superman is a man of the people. Could you imagine what it would be like if Superman was that dark and brooding, scouring the galaxy for revenge? I don't think anyone would go for that.
I like Batman, I just think that they could do more with him. One of the main reasons I like Batman is because of the colorful cast of villains that he has. Villains like the Joker, Scarecrow, and Poison Ivy add a nice contrast to Batman that make both characters seem more in depth. But alone, Batman is very one sided, and compared to the other characters in the DC multiverse (had to get that word in somewhere) he's pretty boring. This reboot is a chance for Batman to be more than just a dark monolith of the night, he can have a depth and personality that is compelling and unique. Batman will never die in our minds, but this new age can bring him to amazing new heights.
On a related note, let's ditch the grown man in a rubber suit and little boy sidekick dynamic, that opens some serious questions that no one wants to get into.
Just something to chew on.
Batman is a wuss.
Now, let me be clear, the Batman we all know and love is hardcore. He's the dark knight, skulking through Gotham, beating down the villains, and instilling fear in the criminal underworld. Batman as a hero is pretty sick, but his origin is so pathetic. He doesn't have that real heroic beginning.
Let's look at this real fast. When Bruce was a kid, his parent's were murdered. Simple start right? Bruce trains and gets strong and agile, then dawns the famous cowl and becomes Batman. This seems pretty solid, but what about some other superheroes? Hal Jordan becomes the Green Lantern because of a sense of duty. Aquaman is out to protect his kingdom. Spider-man wants to honor his uncle's memory and atone for his selfish mistakes. Captain America is dedicated to his country. And Batman is a kid with some serious issues.
Batman is running off a messed up childhood and a desire for revenge. There is little that is noble about him. Most people probably would have moved on had they had some counseling. But here Batman is, bringing a crusade against crime to the streets of Gotham. Here's something to think about, Batman's parent's were killed and he swore revenge, Superman's entire planet was destroyed, and he's done his best to adapt and protect earth. Batman is the dark, brooding, anti-social, and Superman is a man of the people. Could you imagine what it would be like if Superman was that dark and brooding, scouring the galaxy for revenge? I don't think anyone would go for that.
I like Batman, I just think that they could do more with him. One of the main reasons I like Batman is because of the colorful cast of villains that he has. Villains like the Joker, Scarecrow, and Poison Ivy add a nice contrast to Batman that make both characters seem more in depth. But alone, Batman is very one sided, and compared to the other characters in the DC multiverse (had to get that word in somewhere) he's pretty boring. This reboot is a chance for Batman to be more than just a dark monolith of the night, he can have a depth and personality that is compelling and unique. Batman will never die in our minds, but this new age can bring him to amazing new heights.
On a related note, let's ditch the grown man in a rubber suit and little boy sidekick dynamic, that opens some serious questions that no one wants to get into.
Just something to chew on.
Friday, July 1, 2011
The Frenzy
Wikipedia (the source of all knowledge) defines a feeding frenzy as a situation where over-saturation of a supply of food leads to rapid feeding by predatory animals. A group of piranha might consider the wounded wildebeest as a meal and proceed to have a feeding frenzy on it's still struggling body. I figure that watching this would be a real gruesome sight. It's uncontrollable, nature just takes over and the feast commences.
Any college's freshman frenzy is just as terrifying of a sight.
It probably seems odd (to the few of you who read this) that I am covering this the summer after my freshman year. After all, shouldn't my commentary about it come from having just witnessed some sickeningly sweet exchange between a newly formed couple? Probably, but this has come about from a book had to read for my writing professor. It got me thinking, and since I had nothing better to write about this week, I wanted to make it my topic.
I guess this frenzy comes from having so much freedom as you enter college. There are no parents breathing down your neck, judging who you hang out with and who you're attracted to. Frankly, as long as they're human and of the opposite sex, your parents probably stay out of your business (aside from the expected badgering over the phone). It actually seems fairly natural. You're in a new environment, these people are stuck in the same place as you, you share many of the same beliefs, and in some dorms, you "live" together.
So if all this seems expected, what is bugging me you might ask? Here's a starter: Taylor has a reputation for hooking people up. A college like Taylor has a high rate for students meeting their spouses. Heck, it's practically printed in their pamphlets. What bothers me is the idea that the frenzy should overlap with this idea. Should the person you start dating a few months into your freshman year be your destined mate? I feel that is a pretty unrealistic idea to have going into any relationship that young.
Another thing that bothers me is what happens if things don't work out. Say you were dating Mr. Right or Ms. Wonderful for a year, then, come sophomore year, one of you goes abroad and you just can't hack it, the relationship ends. In many places, I think that it would be a growing experience and then you both would move on. Simple and clean right? Yet, mixing the Taylor mentality with the frenzy could have some nasty side effects. I could see someone getting severely depressed because things didn't work out. They might be thinking that there is no one else; they'll be single forever. You can see why I'm so critical of this right?
Something I've learned in my family, form my dad specifically, is that you need to be someone's friend, a real friend, before you can be anything more. Just hanging with a person for a few months then getting serious isn't a smart idea. When you're friends with someone, you see them at their best and their worst. You know the person, their character, not just how they portray themselves in public circles. I don't think that any relationship can be built strongly in only a few months. Without that deep friendship, I believe there is a weak foundation for the following relationship.
Now, I'm not condemning all my friends who did start relationships in their freshman year. I believe that whatever is going on is in God's plan, one way or another. I'm also not saying I am above this natural occurrence. If things had been different, I might have been a part of the frenzy as well. Right now, I'm just looking back at the last year and making some observations and guesses. I wish the bet of luck to my friends in relationships, but I also want to admit that I'm not usually shocked when some relationships come to and end. Maybe that's just my pessimism, or maybe I see where some troubles are creeping in. Either way, it's a part of life, and we can all deal with whatever comes are way.
By the way, a "DTR" (Define The Relationship ti those non-Taylor people) is really not suitable for public places. Let's put a new connotation to "get a room" and send them to the private hang outs in the library.
Just something to chew on.
Any college's freshman frenzy is just as terrifying of a sight.
It probably seems odd (to the few of you who read this) that I am covering this the summer after my freshman year. After all, shouldn't my commentary about it come from having just witnessed some sickeningly sweet exchange between a newly formed couple? Probably, but this has come about from a book had to read for my writing professor. It got me thinking, and since I had nothing better to write about this week, I wanted to make it my topic.
I guess this frenzy comes from having so much freedom as you enter college. There are no parents breathing down your neck, judging who you hang out with and who you're attracted to. Frankly, as long as they're human and of the opposite sex, your parents probably stay out of your business (aside from the expected badgering over the phone). It actually seems fairly natural. You're in a new environment, these people are stuck in the same place as you, you share many of the same beliefs, and in some dorms, you "live" together.
So if all this seems expected, what is bugging me you might ask? Here's a starter: Taylor has a reputation for hooking people up. A college like Taylor has a high rate for students meeting their spouses. Heck, it's practically printed in their pamphlets. What bothers me is the idea that the frenzy should overlap with this idea. Should the person you start dating a few months into your freshman year be your destined mate? I feel that is a pretty unrealistic idea to have going into any relationship that young.
Another thing that bothers me is what happens if things don't work out. Say you were dating Mr. Right or Ms. Wonderful for a year, then, come sophomore year, one of you goes abroad and you just can't hack it, the relationship ends. In many places, I think that it would be a growing experience and then you both would move on. Simple and clean right? Yet, mixing the Taylor mentality with the frenzy could have some nasty side effects. I could see someone getting severely depressed because things didn't work out. They might be thinking that there is no one else; they'll be single forever. You can see why I'm so critical of this right?
Something I've learned in my family, form my dad specifically, is that you need to be someone's friend, a real friend, before you can be anything more. Just hanging with a person for a few months then getting serious isn't a smart idea. When you're friends with someone, you see them at their best and their worst. You know the person, their character, not just how they portray themselves in public circles. I don't think that any relationship can be built strongly in only a few months. Without that deep friendship, I believe there is a weak foundation for the following relationship.
Now, I'm not condemning all my friends who did start relationships in their freshman year. I believe that whatever is going on is in God's plan, one way or another. I'm also not saying I am above this natural occurrence. If things had been different, I might have been a part of the frenzy as well. Right now, I'm just looking back at the last year and making some observations and guesses. I wish the bet of luck to my friends in relationships, but I also want to admit that I'm not usually shocked when some relationships come to and end. Maybe that's just my pessimism, or maybe I see where some troubles are creeping in. Either way, it's a part of life, and we can all deal with whatever comes are way.
By the way, a "DTR" (Define The Relationship ti those non-Taylor people) is really not suitable for public places. Let's put a new connotation to "get a room" and send them to the private hang outs in the library.
Just something to chew on.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
You Don't Know Me!!
In fact, most of you do know me (considering you probably wouldn't be reading this otherwise.) Something popped into my head this week, something that I've talked about with others before. This will probably rub some people the wrong way, but who cares.
Those people who whine about how "You don't know me" are idiots.
You've heard these kind of people right? You make some judgement about them and they scream about how you don't know who they are, or how they live in their private life. I guess the stereotype of this is the angry drunk girls on T.V. or something, but you get who I'm talking about at this point. Anyway, the reason I'm so harsh is because that statement doesn't make any sense.
It is very true that we don't know everything about everyone we meet. We all have secrets and private things that don't come out in daily life. Makes sense. Now what this whole build up is getting to. We can't be angry because people judge us because of what they see. How we present ourselves is who we are. If I'm sarcastic in my speaking, then people think I'm a sarcastic person. How right they are isn't the point, the point is that I portrayed myself as sarcastic and that's how people see me.
So, on to those people I talked about before. Usually a claim like the one above comes when they think someone (the "You" in this case) misjudged them. If say, a girl at a restaurant was being loud and obnoxious, yelling at the waiters and generally causing an uproar, you might think she's a self-entitled witch. Now, if you told her so, she'd probably feed you that line. In reality, she might be a nice person who you could get along with easily. Yet, because of they way she presented herself in polite company has dampened your view of her.
What I am saying is that we have to be careful about how we show ourselves to the world. We can't act one way and expect people to give us the benefit of the doubt. No one is going to think, "You know, just because he throws rocks at the elderly and is currently beating a homeless child with a pool stick doesn't necessarily mean he's a bad person. I'll try and get to know him better." We don't get a second chance to make a first impression. Cliche I know, but it is true. Don't get angry at people for judging you wrongly in your mind, think about how you've been showing yourself to the world. Often, you're the only one to blame for your reputation.
Then again, some people are just delusional tools who couldn't grasp reality if it came up and tore their face off.
Just something to chew on.
Those people who whine about how "You don't know me" are idiots.
You've heard these kind of people right? You make some judgement about them and they scream about how you don't know who they are, or how they live in their private life. I guess the stereotype of this is the angry drunk girls on T.V. or something, but you get who I'm talking about at this point. Anyway, the reason I'm so harsh is because that statement doesn't make any sense.
It is very true that we don't know everything about everyone we meet. We all have secrets and private things that don't come out in daily life. Makes sense. Now what this whole build up is getting to. We can't be angry because people judge us because of what they see. How we present ourselves is who we are. If I'm sarcastic in my speaking, then people think I'm a sarcastic person. How right they are isn't the point, the point is that I portrayed myself as sarcastic and that's how people see me.
So, on to those people I talked about before. Usually a claim like the one above comes when they think someone (the "You" in this case) misjudged them. If say, a girl at a restaurant was being loud and obnoxious, yelling at the waiters and generally causing an uproar, you might think she's a self-entitled witch. Now, if you told her so, she'd probably feed you that line. In reality, she might be a nice person who you could get along with easily. Yet, because of they way she presented herself in polite company has dampened your view of her.
What I am saying is that we have to be careful about how we show ourselves to the world. We can't act one way and expect people to give us the benefit of the doubt. No one is going to think, "You know, just because he throws rocks at the elderly and is currently beating a homeless child with a pool stick doesn't necessarily mean he's a bad person. I'll try and get to know him better." We don't get a second chance to make a first impression. Cliche I know, but it is true. Don't get angry at people for judging you wrongly in your mind, think about how you've been showing yourself to the world. Often, you're the only one to blame for your reputation.
Then again, some people are just delusional tools who couldn't grasp reality if it came up and tore their face off.
Just something to chew on.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Servicing Your Fans
Most video game enthusiasts know that E3 has just passed us by. There was the announcement for Halo 4, some Uncharted 3 coverage, more from Star Wars: The Old Republic, and Nintendo announced a new counsel. Big news with the recent release of Duke Nukem Finally, er, Forever!Movie goers have also been in for a treat this year. The new Pirates of the Caribbean (which I examined quite well I believe), Thor, Tron, as well as X-Men: First Class and the up coming Green Lantern and Captain America movies. With such a major media maelstrom, I've come to a solid conclusion.
Fans suck.
Harsh I know, but that's the truth. Fans of big time series are some seriously self-absorbed jerks when it comes to their area of fandom. There is something about nerd culture that refuses to let others into their world. They also seem to have a real hatred for any form of re-imagining of their favorite series. Fans are petty and protective.
The recent Tron movie is a good example of exclusivity in a fan base. I will set this out now, I have never seen either Tron movie. Neither of them looked all that great. What I'm going to talk about are the people. In a discussion among some friends I heard them criticize people who considered themselves Tron fans because they liked the new movie. My friends' argument was that since the new fans hadn't been fans of the old movie, than they had no right to say that they were Tron fans.
That kind of attitude bugs me. It makes something that is a way to pass time, a way to kill time, so kind of ivory tower. Come my fellow fans, the might fanatics chortle, let us look down on those trying to immerse themselves in our world. I get this sticky feeling that they think they're better because they've been fans longer. Here's the thing, however. Stripped down to its barest elements, this mentality has a reasonable foundation. Whether it is Tron, Superman, or Mario, fans are familiar with they're favorite series. They've grown up with it. The new fanbases can threaten to can seem to be threatening their childhood heroes and everything they knew about them. Pride in your favorite works is completely acceptable, but when you make yourself out to be superior because of your history, that is crossing the line.
The other point I wanted to make was about fans and re-imagining a series. This ties in a bit with the first idea. My example for this time around is the movie Thor. This is another movie on my "to see" list. However, the critics I have heard have said that this movie is too childish. It isn't gritty enough for the modern audience. This is such an stupidly odd idea to me. Let's take a quick walk down memory lane. The first Thor comic was published in 1962. This was the time when greasy hair and leather jackets were big, and The Twist was hitting dance floors across the nation. Not exactly a pop culture I would call gritty.
What I'm seeing here is something typical of comics. If it isn't dark and morally ambiguous with people getting killed off every other page, then many people these days think it is childish and unrealistic. Thor is about a giant Norse god with a hammer smashing things and throwing lightning. This is every young boys fantasy, haven't we hit childish and unrealistic with the subject matter itself?
I've raged enough against movies for now, so I'm taking this point to another medium, video games. This is a medium that is almost the opposite in its views on re-imagining, but is just as extreme. Those of us who enjoy video games don't settle for the same things. We want our series re-imagined. Legends of Zelda: Skyward Sword was one of Nintendo's big displays at E3 this year. They had amazing looking videos featuring the game, its style, and its action. Yet I found countless people who whined about the game, saying they've seen it all before. I myself am a huge Zelda fan, and I understand them, but disagree. They want a new formula, but if Nintendo did change things up, these same people would be complaining that it isn't the Zelda games they know and love.
There really is no way to satisfy the fans. Fans are petty and whinny, never satisfied, always wanting. I think the reason so many people avoid trying to get into comics or video games or movies is because the fans of each are so smug about their preferred medium. This is true of all kinds of hobbies, from sports to Dungeons and Dragons. Everyone talks about being open-minded and tolerant, but when their hobbies aren't so exclusive, they can get fiery.
I am also a fan of series, I admitted that above. I've been getting into comics, have been a long time fan of video games, and am trying out D & D. The reason I can say all this is because A) I'm not one to keep my opinions to myself, no matter how insulting, but mostly B) I am not exclusive. I'm always trying to get people to play video games and to read the things that I like. If I enjoy something, I think others deserve to enjoy it as well. All of us who consider ourselves fans of some series or another need to not be so offended by those who enjoy what we love. We could be their guides to all that we enjoy. Think of the reward like this, the more people who are fans of a series, the more likely that a movie or game company will put real effort in and do a piece right.
Just avoid Anime, that stuff gets real weird real fast.
Just something to chew on.
Fans suck.
Harsh I know, but that's the truth. Fans of big time series are some seriously self-absorbed jerks when it comes to their area of fandom. There is something about nerd culture that refuses to let others into their world. They also seem to have a real hatred for any form of re-imagining of their favorite series. Fans are petty and protective.
The recent Tron movie is a good example of exclusivity in a fan base. I will set this out now, I have never seen either Tron movie. Neither of them looked all that great. What I'm going to talk about are the people. In a discussion among some friends I heard them criticize people who considered themselves Tron fans because they liked the new movie. My friends' argument was that since the new fans hadn't been fans of the old movie, than they had no right to say that they were Tron fans.
That kind of attitude bugs me. It makes something that is a way to pass time, a way to kill time, so kind of ivory tower. Come my fellow fans, the might fanatics chortle, let us look down on those trying to immerse themselves in our world. I get this sticky feeling that they think they're better because they've been fans longer. Here's the thing, however. Stripped down to its barest elements, this mentality has a reasonable foundation. Whether it is Tron, Superman, or Mario, fans are familiar with they're favorite series. They've grown up with it. The new fanbases can threaten to can seem to be threatening their childhood heroes and everything they knew about them. Pride in your favorite works is completely acceptable, but when you make yourself out to be superior because of your history, that is crossing the line.
The other point I wanted to make was about fans and re-imagining a series. This ties in a bit with the first idea. My example for this time around is the movie Thor. This is another movie on my "to see" list. However, the critics I have heard have said that this movie is too childish. It isn't gritty enough for the modern audience. This is such an stupidly odd idea to me. Let's take a quick walk down memory lane. The first Thor comic was published in 1962. This was the time when greasy hair and leather jackets were big, and The Twist was hitting dance floors across the nation. Not exactly a pop culture I would call gritty.
What I'm seeing here is something typical of comics. If it isn't dark and morally ambiguous with people getting killed off every other page, then many people these days think it is childish and unrealistic. Thor is about a giant Norse god with a hammer smashing things and throwing lightning. This is every young boys fantasy, haven't we hit childish and unrealistic with the subject matter itself?
I've raged enough against movies for now, so I'm taking this point to another medium, video games. This is a medium that is almost the opposite in its views on re-imagining, but is just as extreme. Those of us who enjoy video games don't settle for the same things. We want our series re-imagined. Legends of Zelda: Skyward Sword was one of Nintendo's big displays at E3 this year. They had amazing looking videos featuring the game, its style, and its action. Yet I found countless people who whined about the game, saying they've seen it all before. I myself am a huge Zelda fan, and I understand them, but disagree. They want a new formula, but if Nintendo did change things up, these same people would be complaining that it isn't the Zelda games they know and love.
There really is no way to satisfy the fans. Fans are petty and whinny, never satisfied, always wanting. I think the reason so many people avoid trying to get into comics or video games or movies is because the fans of each are so smug about their preferred medium. This is true of all kinds of hobbies, from sports to Dungeons and Dragons. Everyone talks about being open-minded and tolerant, but when their hobbies aren't so exclusive, they can get fiery.
I am also a fan of series, I admitted that above. I've been getting into comics, have been a long time fan of video games, and am trying out D & D. The reason I can say all this is because A) I'm not one to keep my opinions to myself, no matter how insulting, but mostly B) I am not exclusive. I'm always trying to get people to play video games and to read the things that I like. If I enjoy something, I think others deserve to enjoy it as well. All of us who consider ourselves fans of some series or another need to not be so offended by those who enjoy what we love. We could be their guides to all that we enjoy. Think of the reward like this, the more people who are fans of a series, the more likely that a movie or game company will put real effort in and do a piece right.
Just avoid Anime, that stuff gets real weird real fast.
Just something to chew on.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Dr. Happy Teeth the Barbarian
Today I had to sit through one of the bloodiest procedures I'll probably ever be conscious for. At seven a.m, I had my to get my teeth and gums deep cleaned. It was an hour of sitting in a dentist chair as my teeth and gums scraped with hand held pickaxes. This whole debacle has brought about an interesting conclusion in my mind.
Dentistry is one of the most primitive forms of medical practice out there.
Medicine and techniques in hospitals grow by leaps and bounds as the years go on. All sorts of new methods and medicines, technologies and tonics, and practices and pills show up with new ways to heal. Disease are treated, and old ideas are thrown away. If there is so much innovation in the physical wellness area of medicine, why does my dentist still rake my teeth with a fancy set of toothpicks?
I'm don't like going to the dentist. That's not to say I don't like dentists as jobs, they provide valuable help to us, but going to the dentist is always the same. Lie about flossing regularly, deal with the same lectures, and have your chompers razed by some other worldly metallic artifacts. Okay, I might be exaggerating a little on that last part, but I'm right on the first two.
Dentists have been saying the same things for who knows how long. Their instructions seem simple, brush twice a day and floss daily. Simply enough right? Not when you factor in people. We're rushed in the morning, basically meaning we'll skip that brushing, and flossing is a beast. Nothing like running bladed rope through your teeth. At this point, couldn't we come up with some more advanced methods for dealing with teeth.
There are all those fancy automatic toothbrushes, I own one myself, and they have their benefits. Here's the thing though, they're still basically just a toilet brush that moves on its own. It's no use unless we put the time into using it. Somehow, I feel like there isn't enough incentive to brush. Dentists aren't helping the need to brush thing. What do you get when you're finished at the dentist's? A small roll of floss, and a pathetic manual toothbrush.
Flossing is also such an issue. It's time consuming, and pretty unpleasant, not to mention really hard to get into. Once you see that string covered in your blood, you can give it up pretty quick. They have those long handled ones that get the cross section of floss, and those are supposed to make it easier. But really, they're end up being just like the regular rolls.
Dentistry as a profession seems pretty technologically stagnate as well. Again, it's always metal picks and that weird rubber brush. Sometimes, added to the fun is a little device that sprays needles of pressurized water, oh joy. These tools are effective, sure, but that doesn't mean they're right for our day and age. A heavy rock was an effective hunting tool back when, but now we've got big shiny guns that can drop a deer at a thousand yards. Where is all the innovation and futuristic methods for dentistry? I think people will take their dental health more seriously if the dentist's office doesn't vaguely remind them of a medieval torture chamber.
Here's what I think we need: an all purpose mouthwash. Rinsing for thirty seconds is easy. If we could develop a mouth wash that killed all bacteria, penetrated the gums, and strengthened teeth, there would be some many more healthy toothed people. Medicine gets easier to use, a few pills takes away a headache for the day. Why isn't there some kind of remedy for tooth decay that works like that? Scientists are smart (usually) and I feel like this kind of product would be easy and profitable to develop.
People are lazy, and most other businesses realize that. They make things easy for the consumer to use so that they can sell more. Dentists need to pander to humanity's lack of motivation and develop a simple, easy to use dental health formula.
On a related note, no matter what innovations there are, I don't think the British will ever have good teeth.
Just something to chew on.
Dentistry is one of the most primitive forms of medical practice out there.
Medicine and techniques in hospitals grow by leaps and bounds as the years go on. All sorts of new methods and medicines, technologies and tonics, and practices and pills show up with new ways to heal. Disease are treated, and old ideas are thrown away. If there is so much innovation in the physical wellness area of medicine, why does my dentist still rake my teeth with a fancy set of toothpicks?
I'm don't like going to the dentist. That's not to say I don't like dentists as jobs, they provide valuable help to us, but going to the dentist is always the same. Lie about flossing regularly, deal with the same lectures, and have your chompers razed by some other worldly metallic artifacts. Okay, I might be exaggerating a little on that last part, but I'm right on the first two.
Dentists have been saying the same things for who knows how long. Their instructions seem simple, brush twice a day and floss daily. Simply enough right? Not when you factor in people. We're rushed in the morning, basically meaning we'll skip that brushing, and flossing is a beast. Nothing like running bladed rope through your teeth. At this point, couldn't we come up with some more advanced methods for dealing with teeth.
There are all those fancy automatic toothbrushes, I own one myself, and they have their benefits. Here's the thing though, they're still basically just a toilet brush that moves on its own. It's no use unless we put the time into using it. Somehow, I feel like there isn't enough incentive to brush. Dentists aren't helping the need to brush thing. What do you get when you're finished at the dentist's? A small roll of floss, and a pathetic manual toothbrush.
Flossing is also such an issue. It's time consuming, and pretty unpleasant, not to mention really hard to get into. Once you see that string covered in your blood, you can give it up pretty quick. They have those long handled ones that get the cross section of floss, and those are supposed to make it easier. But really, they're end up being just like the regular rolls.
Dentistry as a profession seems pretty technologically stagnate as well. Again, it's always metal picks and that weird rubber brush. Sometimes, added to the fun is a little device that sprays needles of pressurized water, oh joy. These tools are effective, sure, but that doesn't mean they're right for our day and age. A heavy rock was an effective hunting tool back when, but now we've got big shiny guns that can drop a deer at a thousand yards. Where is all the innovation and futuristic methods for dentistry? I think people will take their dental health more seriously if the dentist's office doesn't vaguely remind them of a medieval torture chamber.
Here's what I think we need: an all purpose mouthwash. Rinsing for thirty seconds is easy. If we could develop a mouth wash that killed all bacteria, penetrated the gums, and strengthened teeth, there would be some many more healthy toothed people. Medicine gets easier to use, a few pills takes away a headache for the day. Why isn't there some kind of remedy for tooth decay that works like that? Scientists are smart (usually) and I feel like this kind of product would be easy and profitable to develop.
People are lazy, and most other businesses realize that. They make things easy for the consumer to use so that they can sell more. Dentists need to pander to humanity's lack of motivation and develop a simple, easy to use dental health formula.
On a related note, no matter what innovations there are, I don't think the British will ever have good teeth.
Just something to chew on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)