Something that has long bothered me is how in series 4 of Doctor Who, they keep making a big deal of pointing out that the Doctor and Donna are not together, not attracted to each other, are just friends.
But I've thought about it, particularly after seeing Catherine Tate and David Tennant together in several other things, and in interviews. They have such incredible chemistry and work fantastically off of each other. If they didn't specifically say they weren't together, it would be far too easy for people to assume they were.
So I'm learning to forgive it.
More on Donna another time.
11 November 2012
16 October 2012
The Doctor and River Song: Part 1
After series 6 of Doctor Who ended, I'd see a lot of talk about the Doctor's attitude towards Dr. Song. About his contempt towards her and how he clearly didn't want to marry her.
Even if you haven't watch the Night and the Doctor mini-episodes, I think it's pretty clear that the Doctor does have strong affection, at the very least, for River.
In his own timeline, the first time he kisses River at the end of Day of the Moon, even if taken by surprise, he seems to quite get in to it. Earlier in the story, he had at least a couple of obvious flirting moments with her. When they first get to the warehouse where the little girl is as he looks out the window, and when they rescue Amy.
In A Good Man Goes to War, he doesn't act anything less than delighted when he's miming out kissing to River, after he finds out who she is. In Let's Kill Hitler, when Melody turns into the body they'll know as River Song, when she kisses him, he obviously is kissing her back.
But let's talk about The Wedding of River Song, shall we? When he arrives at the pyramid, sees River. They have a short exchange:
River: Am I the woman who marries you? Or the woman who murders you?
Doctor: I don't want to marry you.
River: I don't want to murder you.
And people ask, if the Doctor truly does care for her, why would he say that, and convincingly?
The Doctor knows what it means to marry River Song. He knows what she can't know yet, he remembers the Silence in the Library. He knows that even if she survives in the computer, that she willingly, enthusiastically even, gave her life to save all those thousands of people, even more accurately, to save him. And he knows that to get to that point, she had to have information that she could only have if they married each other. If they don't marry, he can ensure the day is put off as long as possible for her, possibly is even re-written.
So yes, he may resent marrying her, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want to marry her.
And the only reason I'm talking marriage specifically rather than love without doing the formal deed, is that marriage is the only circumstance under which he can reveal his true name, if I understand correctly.
Note: The Doctor's views on River Song are so much more obvious by this point in series 7, but this is from the point of view of the end of series 6. More on their relationship at some point in the future.
Even if you haven't watch the Night and the Doctor mini-episodes, I think it's pretty clear that the Doctor does have strong affection, at the very least, for River.
In his own timeline, the first time he kisses River at the end of Day of the Moon, even if taken by surprise, he seems to quite get in to it. Earlier in the story, he had at least a couple of obvious flirting moments with her. When they first get to the warehouse where the little girl is as he looks out the window, and when they rescue Amy.
In A Good Man Goes to War, he doesn't act anything less than delighted when he's miming out kissing to River, after he finds out who she is. In Let's Kill Hitler, when Melody turns into the body they'll know as River Song, when she kisses him, he obviously is kissing her back.
But let's talk about The Wedding of River Song, shall we? When he arrives at the pyramid, sees River. They have a short exchange:
River: Am I the woman who marries you? Or the woman who murders you?
Doctor: I don't want to marry you.
River: I don't want to murder you.
And people ask, if the Doctor truly does care for her, why would he say that, and convincingly?
The Doctor knows what it means to marry River Song. He knows what she can't know yet, he remembers the Silence in the Library. He knows that even if she survives in the computer, that she willingly, enthusiastically even, gave her life to save all those thousands of people, even more accurately, to save him. And he knows that to get to that point, she had to have information that she could only have if they married each other. If they don't marry, he can ensure the day is put off as long as possible for her, possibly is even re-written.
So yes, he may resent marrying her, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want to marry her.
And the only reason I'm talking marriage specifically rather than love without doing the formal deed, is that marriage is the only circumstance under which he can reveal his true name, if I understand correctly.
Note: The Doctor's views on River Song are so much more obvious by this point in series 7, but this is from the point of view of the end of series 6. More on their relationship at some point in the future.
2 September 2012
Amy Pond
I love Amy. I really do.
But she isn't as great as the other companions. I really think that the biggest thing that keeps the Doctor with her is immense guilt.
She has the attitude of Rose, in loving the adventure and danger, and looking after the Doctor. She loves Rory, big time. But you get the feeling that her helping others, other than Rory and the Doctor is because she thinks she should. It's not like Rose in series 2, episode 1, where the Doctor insists that Rose would care. If Amy didn't react, I don't really think it'd be the same kind of indicator. Rose, Martha, and Donna all really cared what happened to others. Amy gives the impression that she only cares because she cares what the Doctor thinks.
Which is why she needs Rory and Rory needs her. Alone, neither of them are as compelling as a companion, but he has the caring for everyone thing. He's brave for things that are the right thing to do, rather than headlong rushing into any danger he sees. He's perceptive with people who he doesn't necessarily have a strong connection with. Amy is more perceptive I think, for people who she really loves. Which isn't very many people. And she's right clever. And she will help others, but she appears to go out of her way to do it when the Doctor needs her to. Particularly in The Beast Below, in taking a chance to save the starwhale. When she didn't know the consequences with regards to her relationship with the Doctor, she chooses to forget and try to steer the Doctor away. But in The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People, she doesn't want to help Jennifer if it puts the rest of them in danger, and doesn't want Rory to go after her. I think Rose, Martha, and Donna would have, or at least put up a fuss about leaving her alone.
The best sum-up of her is the Doctor calling her "mad, impossible Amy Pond."
But she isn't as great as the other companions. I really think that the biggest thing that keeps the Doctor with her is immense guilt.
She has the attitude of Rose, in loving the adventure and danger, and looking after the Doctor. She loves Rory, big time. But you get the feeling that her helping others, other than Rory and the Doctor is because she thinks she should. It's not like Rose in series 2, episode 1, where the Doctor insists that Rose would care. If Amy didn't react, I don't really think it'd be the same kind of indicator. Rose, Martha, and Donna all really cared what happened to others. Amy gives the impression that she only cares because she cares what the Doctor thinks.
Which is why she needs Rory and Rory needs her. Alone, neither of them are as compelling as a companion, but he has the caring for everyone thing. He's brave for things that are the right thing to do, rather than headlong rushing into any danger he sees. He's perceptive with people who he doesn't necessarily have a strong connection with. Amy is more perceptive I think, for people who she really loves. Which isn't very many people. And she's right clever. And she will help others, but she appears to go out of her way to do it when the Doctor needs her to. Particularly in The Beast Below, in taking a chance to save the starwhale. When she didn't know the consequences with regards to her relationship with the Doctor, she chooses to forget and try to steer the Doctor away. But in The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People, she doesn't want to help Jennifer if it puts the rest of them in danger, and doesn't want Rory to go after her. I think Rose, Martha, and Donna would have, or at least put up a fuss about leaving her alone.
The best sum-up of her is the Doctor calling her "mad, impossible Amy Pond."
24 August 2012
"Just a theory"
After seeing more references than I care to remember about evolution merely being a "theory," I got annoyed and wrote up a post on my G+ account. Decided to share it here. Full text follows:
Particularly whenever somebody mentions evolution, or speaks against creationism, one of the evolution deniers will inevitably throw out the phrase “just a theory.”
I won't go so far as to say that it enrages me, but it does piss me off. As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Words used in different contexts can mean completely different things. To most of the English-speaking world, in common parlance, “theory” refers to how something is thought to work. It's how something works on paper, but hasn't necessarily been conclusively proven in practise. It may or may not be commonly believed, but in the end, it is unproven.
In science, it has quite a different use. It is not some airy-fairy thought that scientists have faith in. It is not merely something that they haven't managed to disprove yet. It is not a hypothesis. Steven D. Schafersman* describes it better and more forcibly than I'd be able to without borrowing from him:
"The final step of the scientific method is to construct, support, or cast doubt on a scientific theory. A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.
"These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking."
Just a theory? Scientific theories contain some of the best of humanity and what we're capable of.
Just a theory? To those using that phrase about evolution for example - excuse the rudeness - but please shut up and go away. You don't understand the words you are using, and it is pointless to engage with you, as you don't know the language, and don't want to know the language.
* http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html
Bolding in the excerpt is added by me.
Particularly whenever somebody mentions evolution, or speaks against creationism, one of the evolution deniers will inevitably throw out the phrase “just a theory.”
I won't go so far as to say that it enrages me, but it does piss me off. As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Words used in different contexts can mean completely different things. To most of the English-speaking world, in common parlance, “theory” refers to how something is thought to work. It's how something works on paper, but hasn't necessarily been conclusively proven in practise. It may or may not be commonly believed, but in the end, it is unproven.
In science, it has quite a different use. It is not some airy-fairy thought that scientists have faith in. It is not merely something that they haven't managed to disprove yet. It is not a hypothesis. Steven D. Schafersman* describes it better and more forcibly than I'd be able to without borrowing from him:
"The final step of the scientific method is to construct, support, or cast doubt on a scientific theory. A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.
"These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking."
Just a theory? Scientific theories contain some of the best of humanity and what we're capable of.
Just a theory? To those using that phrase about evolution for example - excuse the rudeness - but please shut up and go away. You don't understand the words you are using, and it is pointless to engage with you, as you don't know the language, and don't want to know the language.
* http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html
Bolding in the excerpt is added by me.
8 August 2012
Doctor Who: The Waters of Mars
It seemed appropriate to re-watch this, given the successful Curiosity Rover Mars landing 2 days ago.
The character of Adelaide Brooke (played by Lindsay Duncan) is magnificent. In every part of this, but most spectacularly, the moments right at the end of the episode.
It's no secret that I love David Tennant. Not only is he my standard of "hot," but he's wonderful as the tenth Doctor. He's not quite as angry as Nine was, but still more driven by his passions than Eleven is. Eleven still has the anger, but it seems to be directed more inwards, making it difficult at times to hide his self-loathing. And Ten is in a particularly sensitive time for The Waters of Mars. Still too soon after losing Donna - not only his best mate, but she'd just experienced a link to him, to the Time Lords. Still too soon after finally being reunited with Rose, somebody who he loved so completely, only to leave her not only cut off from him again, but with a sort of clone of himself. Him, but a him who could really have a relationship with her. Ten leaves Rose, with his final visual memory of her being Rose kissing him, but not him. Two such powerful relationships, with two extraordinary women, lost almost at once.
So the Doctor checks out Mars, I suppose after having letting the TARDIS choose a "random" date for him. Only to land at a fixed point. He brings up Pompeii. Another fixed point that Donna begged him to lessen, at least a little. And in running away from it, he's the one who makes it happen. Only this time, he doesn't have Donna to stop him when needed, to remember what's right, and he's terrified about what he could do. He tries to run. But he's the Doctor. He desperately wants to let himself be drawn into it, he wants to help, he wants to find out what's going on, he knows he shouldn't.
He's pulled in by Adelaide, "the woman with starlight in her soul." He falls a little in love with her, as he does with all his companions, and gets and stays more involved than he know he should. Indeed, he brings about the fixed point even when he does all he can to stop it, as the "Time Lord Victorious." He tells her about Action 5, he tells her about what her death inspires. Had he not, would she have shot herself at the end? Would she have set the base to explode before they left? And she, like all his companions, falls a little in love with the Doctor as well. Had she not, would she have been so horrified by the idea of the Time Lord Victorious? Would she have tried to stop him, as Donna would have?
And her conversation with Adelaide at the end was gut-wrenching, but perfect.
The Doctor: For a long time now, I thought I was just a survivor, but I'm not. I'm the winner. That's who I am. A Time Lord victorious.
Adelaide: And there's no one to stop you?
The Doctor: No.
Adelaide: This is wrong, Doctor! I don't care who you are! The Time Lord victorious is wrong!
The Doctor: That's for me to decide. Now, you'd better get home. Oh, it's all locked up. You've been away. Still, that's easy... All yours.
Adelaide: Is there nothing you can't do?
The Doctor: Not anymore.
This was a turning point. The Doctor was starting to believe himself a kind of god, not subject to any rules. He was the victor, there were spoils from the Last Great Time War! What a monster he could have become, given enough time with that mind-set.
And then Adelaide, after standing up to him and unsuccessfully stopping him, quietly went inside and brought him back to himself. He doesn't get to decide who is important, and who is not so important. He doesn't get to operate outside of any rules. He needs someone, but will always end up lonely and alone in the end.
Coming back to himself, he knows more of what he's capable of. He articulates it somewhat in Series 6, A Good Man Goes to War.
Doctor: Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many.
I love Adelaide, if only for reminding the Doctor of why he's the lonely god, trying to be more of a man, rather than striving towards more powerful god-hood. And I love the Doctor, for making people love him and want to be the best that they can be. And expose himself more clearly to himself.
A final thought. I think that in the fabric of time, a component of some of these fixed points specifically is supposed to include him bringing about said fixed points. As his TARDIS tells him in The Doctor's Wife, "I always took you where you needed to go."
The character of Adelaide Brooke (played by Lindsay Duncan) is magnificent. In every part of this, but most spectacularly, the moments right at the end of the episode.
It's no secret that I love David Tennant. Not only is he my standard of "hot," but he's wonderful as the tenth Doctor. He's not quite as angry as Nine was, but still more driven by his passions than Eleven is. Eleven still has the anger, but it seems to be directed more inwards, making it difficult at times to hide his self-loathing. And Ten is in a particularly sensitive time for The Waters of Mars. Still too soon after losing Donna - not only his best mate, but she'd just experienced a link to him, to the Time Lords. Still too soon after finally being reunited with Rose, somebody who he loved so completely, only to leave her not only cut off from him again, but with a sort of clone of himself. Him, but a him who could really have a relationship with her. Ten leaves Rose, with his final visual memory of her being Rose kissing him, but not him. Two such powerful relationships, with two extraordinary women, lost almost at once.
So the Doctor checks out Mars, I suppose after having letting the TARDIS choose a "random" date for him. Only to land at a fixed point. He brings up Pompeii. Another fixed point that Donna begged him to lessen, at least a little. And in running away from it, he's the one who makes it happen. Only this time, he doesn't have Donna to stop him when needed, to remember what's right, and he's terrified about what he could do. He tries to run. But he's the Doctor. He desperately wants to let himself be drawn into it, he wants to help, he wants to find out what's going on, he knows he shouldn't.
He's pulled in by Adelaide, "the woman with starlight in her soul." He falls a little in love with her, as he does with all his companions, and gets and stays more involved than he know he should. Indeed, he brings about the fixed point even when he does all he can to stop it, as the "Time Lord Victorious." He tells her about Action 5, he tells her about what her death inspires. Had he not, would she have shot herself at the end? Would she have set the base to explode before they left? And she, like all his companions, falls a little in love with the Doctor as well. Had she not, would she have been so horrified by the idea of the Time Lord Victorious? Would she have tried to stop him, as Donna would have?
And her conversation with Adelaide at the end was gut-wrenching, but perfect.
The Doctor: For a long time now, I thought I was just a survivor, but I'm not. I'm the winner. That's who I am. A Time Lord victorious.
Adelaide: And there's no one to stop you?
The Doctor: No.
Adelaide: This is wrong, Doctor! I don't care who you are! The Time Lord victorious is wrong!
The Doctor: That's for me to decide. Now, you'd better get home. Oh, it's all locked up. You've been away. Still, that's easy... All yours.
Adelaide: Is there nothing you can't do?
The Doctor: Not anymore.
This was a turning point. The Doctor was starting to believe himself a kind of god, not subject to any rules. He was the victor, there were spoils from the Last Great Time War! What a monster he could have become, given enough time with that mind-set.
And then Adelaide, after standing up to him and unsuccessfully stopping him, quietly went inside and brought him back to himself. He doesn't get to decide who is important, and who is not so important. He doesn't get to operate outside of any rules. He needs someone, but will always end up lonely and alone in the end.
Coming back to himself, he knows more of what he's capable of. He articulates it somewhat in Series 6, A Good Man Goes to War.
Doctor: Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many.
I love Adelaide, if only for reminding the Doctor of why he's the lonely god, trying to be more of a man, rather than striving towards more powerful god-hood. And I love the Doctor, for making people love him and want to be the best that they can be. And expose himself more clearly to himself.
A final thought. I think that in the fabric of time, a component of some of these fixed points specifically is supposed to include him bringing about said fixed points. As his TARDIS tells him in The Doctor's Wife, "I always took you where you needed to go."
24 July 2012
Doctor Who: The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe
Starting at the most recent!
For me the most powerful exchange of the episode is the following:
Doctor: I imagine you'd prefer to be alone?
Madge: I don't believe anyone would prefer that.
Closely followed by:
Madge: I don't know why I keep shouting at them.
Doctor: Because every time you see them happy, you remember how sad they're going to be. And it breaks your heart. Because what's the point in them being happy now if they're going to be sad later? The answer is, of course, because they are going to be sad later.
The Doctor often acts goofy and carefree, but he so understands the heart of sadness and loneliness. Doctor Who, especially in the rebooted series, is the story of an alone and lonely man who keeps trying to find ways to fill the void and try to believe the front he puts up for everyone. So he tries to live through others, saving them in ways that he cannot be saved. Afraid to actually reflect, because pain and guilt will drown him. So moving on, always moving on.
The new series touches on that theme relatively often. How he flies away in his blue box as soon as he's done with the action, that he doesn't face consequences or clean things up, that he doesn't dare look back. And in "Let's Kill Hitler," he's confronted too directly with guilt, having to confess how much he's screwed up, because he can't run away from the voice interface at the time.
So, back to this one. The Doctor comes to return a favour when somebody who helped him when he needed it loses somebody so important to her. He tries to brush away her pain and that of her children under wonderful things. The method he uses to distract himself from his own pain.
But the thing is, is protecting himself from such pain, he doesn't connect with others the same way that many others do. Like Madge. She's immersed in her pain, and isn't having any of this. She doesn't want to be alone, but at the same time, she doesn't want any of this fake or temporary joy. Conflicted, but unwilling to deal with that through emotional separation. She wants to help the world and take home all the strays, but not because there's something missing. She may lash out under extreme sorrow, but she is such a good person, without any real darkness. The type of person the Doctor is inevitably attracted to.
It's interesting that those who he has the strongest connections with (in the new series, for sure) are those who have lost a core person in their life. In distracting them and keeping them awe-struck and happy and impressed, he distracts himself. Martha was helluva impressed with him and adored him, but the closest she came to loss was divorced parents. She didn't need him the same way the others did.
The Doctor needs to be needed. But in a way, don't we all?
I was relieved for the Doctor that River had told Amy and Rory about him being alive. That they just accepted him, and welcomed him in. He has enough guilt without going through that explanation.
For me the most powerful exchange of the episode is the following:
Doctor: I imagine you'd prefer to be alone?
Madge: I don't believe anyone would prefer that.
Closely followed by:
Madge: I don't know why I keep shouting at them.
Doctor: Because every time you see them happy, you remember how sad they're going to be. And it breaks your heart. Because what's the point in them being happy now if they're going to be sad later? The answer is, of course, because they are going to be sad later.
The Doctor often acts goofy and carefree, but he so understands the heart of sadness and loneliness. Doctor Who, especially in the rebooted series, is the story of an alone and lonely man who keeps trying to find ways to fill the void and try to believe the front he puts up for everyone. So he tries to live through others, saving them in ways that he cannot be saved. Afraid to actually reflect, because pain and guilt will drown him. So moving on, always moving on.
The new series touches on that theme relatively often. How he flies away in his blue box as soon as he's done with the action, that he doesn't face consequences or clean things up, that he doesn't dare look back. And in "Let's Kill Hitler," he's confronted too directly with guilt, having to confess how much he's screwed up, because he can't run away from the voice interface at the time.
So, back to this one. The Doctor comes to return a favour when somebody who helped him when he needed it loses somebody so important to her. He tries to brush away her pain and that of her children under wonderful things. The method he uses to distract himself from his own pain.
But the thing is, is protecting himself from such pain, he doesn't connect with others the same way that many others do. Like Madge. She's immersed in her pain, and isn't having any of this. She doesn't want to be alone, but at the same time, she doesn't want any of this fake or temporary joy. Conflicted, but unwilling to deal with that through emotional separation. She wants to help the world and take home all the strays, but not because there's something missing. She may lash out under extreme sorrow, but she is such a good person, without any real darkness. The type of person the Doctor is inevitably attracted to.
It's interesting that those who he has the strongest connections with (in the new series, for sure) are those who have lost a core person in their life. In distracting them and keeping them awe-struck and happy and impressed, he distracts himself. Martha was helluva impressed with him and adored him, but the closest she came to loss was divorced parents. She didn't need him the same way the others did.
The Doctor needs to be needed. But in a way, don't we all?
I was relieved for the Doctor that River had told Amy and Rory about him being alive. That they just accepted him, and welcomed him in. He has enough guilt without going through that explanation.
19 July 2012
Diablo III Annoyances
I've been playing Diablo III a lot since it was released in mid-May. Loving the game-play; just what I need when I want to just slay a bunch of stuff. But...
First thing I hate has to do with the followers. You get a choice. Either the templar, scoundrel, or enchantress. The templar is so self-righteous, you wish that he existed so you could smack him. The scoundrel is actually pretty funny. But the enchantress! Ug, I didn't think I could hate a video game character like this. She's like... You know when you're a teen or young adult, and one of your best friends has a younger sibling who hero-worships you, and probably has a little crush on you too. At first you might think it's kind of cute. And then one day you spend an extended period of time around the kid, and you start to really hate them. Add to this acting dumb because they think it's cute, and you have the enchantress. I mean, somebody has to like this, otherwise there wouldn't be so many girls and women who manage to attract the opposite sex by acting dumb and feigning worship. (Note: the enchantress does act this way towards both male and female characters.)
An example is the hero you play says something like, "I think we're close to the crown." Enchantress: "You have the right of it. As always." The voice actor makes it clear that she's fawning over you. She goes on at other times about how you're now her entire life, or acts all innocent about things that are said fairly clearly.
She even bothers me more than the attire they've put on the female heroes. A couple of them start off wearing thigh-high stockings, and at least one continues to for the entire game. The demon hunter, who is a kick-ass fighter and has attitude, wears spiky high heels. Even though her adventures running after monsters have her travelling across marshes, desert sands, and snow. These are fighters, not pretty side-kicks that sort of hang around to cheer someone on. Does a warrior of any type want to make sure her stay-ups aren't slipping, or sink into the soft ground in a crucial moment? And! There's one female angel shown. Like the other angels, she's faceless, and wears a big white robe (although hers shows a little leg). She flies at all times you see her. But she's also wearing high heels.
We're not all hormonal young men. I don't look to video games to find an attractive person in my life, and even if I did, they don't have to pull out the stereotypical shortcuts to showing that a woman is sexy.
And the thing is, it's not just what the gaming company thinks people want. Yes, the official forums aren't the majority of players, but it really makes me sick to see posts (with a fair amount of support) complaining that the female wizard's cleavage isn't big enough, or that the female barbarian should be taken down a few dress sizes. (I've stopped reading the official general forums, because I want to throw up whenever I read most of the stuff posted there.)
I guess the point is that it disgusts me that there still exist boys and men of all age groups who think this kind of stuff is okay. And probably women, too.
First thing I hate has to do with the followers. You get a choice. Either the templar, scoundrel, or enchantress. The templar is so self-righteous, you wish that he existed so you could smack him. The scoundrel is actually pretty funny. But the enchantress! Ug, I didn't think I could hate a video game character like this. She's like... You know when you're a teen or young adult, and one of your best friends has a younger sibling who hero-worships you, and probably has a little crush on you too. At first you might think it's kind of cute. And then one day you spend an extended period of time around the kid, and you start to really hate them. Add to this acting dumb because they think it's cute, and you have the enchantress. I mean, somebody has to like this, otherwise there wouldn't be so many girls and women who manage to attract the opposite sex by acting dumb and feigning worship. (Note: the enchantress does act this way towards both male and female characters.)
An example is the hero you play says something like, "I think we're close to the crown." Enchantress: "You have the right of it. As always." The voice actor makes it clear that she's fawning over you. She goes on at other times about how you're now her entire life, or acts all innocent about things that are said fairly clearly.
She even bothers me more than the attire they've put on the female heroes. A couple of them start off wearing thigh-high stockings, and at least one continues to for the entire game. The demon hunter, who is a kick-ass fighter and has attitude, wears spiky high heels. Even though her adventures running after monsters have her travelling across marshes, desert sands, and snow. These are fighters, not pretty side-kicks that sort of hang around to cheer someone on. Does a warrior of any type want to make sure her stay-ups aren't slipping, or sink into the soft ground in a crucial moment? And! There's one female angel shown. Like the other angels, she's faceless, and wears a big white robe (although hers shows a little leg). She flies at all times you see her. But she's also wearing high heels.
We're not all hormonal young men. I don't look to video games to find an attractive person in my life, and even if I did, they don't have to pull out the stereotypical shortcuts to showing that a woman is sexy.
And the thing is, it's not just what the gaming company thinks people want. Yes, the official forums aren't the majority of players, but it really makes me sick to see posts (with a fair amount of support) complaining that the female wizard's cleavage isn't big enough, or that the female barbarian should be taken down a few dress sizes. (I've stopped reading the official general forums, because I want to throw up whenever I read most of the stuff posted there.)
I guess the point is that it disgusts me that there still exist boys and men of all age groups who think this kind of stuff is okay. And probably women, too.
18 July 2012
Warning of upcoming content
I've been watching a
lot of Doctor Who lately; both new series and old (mostly new
though). And however ridiculous it sounds, I have thoughts on it
that I've trying to organise and work through, so for a while, this
blog may be heavily slanted towards that. May include some episode
reviews towards that end, too.
1 May 2012
Re-reading old favourites
I re-read Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. Teen memories made me recall it as a tale of passion and eternal love, and the depths to which one might fall once losing that. I wasn't so naive to think it a love story, but I did think that the book as a story of revenge was coupled with and as a result of a story of unconsummated love.
I was a little sickened upon reading it anew. I couldn't recognise a single healthy relationship in there, whether it be romantic or not. The closest to one was the new couple at the end, between Catherine Linton and Hareton Earnshaw, even if it did begin with him enduring such abuse from her merely because of her beauty. (I was glad though, to see Hareton come to some good eventually. To be inspired to be more than he had been, to push himself to learn to read, to recognise he might be worthwhile. I like to think that maybe he ended up allowing a relationship between them because without meaning to and despite herself, she made him want more for himself, rather than because he was bewitched by her beauty and kisses.)
Rather, now I recognise it as a tale of obsessive, undeserving passion, and how it can destroy a person. The reminder of how obsession is not the same as love, and how revenge can engulf a person such that they cannot define themselves outside of it.
I'm not saying that I don't still enjoy the book, that I don't think it's worth reading. But I don't remember myself or any of my peers recognising how icky all the relationships are. Edgar proposing to Cathy after she physically abuses him and he realises that she's always lied to him about her personality tendencies? His doting on her through all her unpleasantness, and her manipulation of her husband and sister (and everyone else) through either being pleasant infrequently as a reward or having fits otherwise? Actually, the way that just about everyone has fits when they don't get their way, lies, and how they treat servants, even those who've been with them their entire lives? I suppose the treatment of the servant class is not considered, really, but how it does reflect the people their "betters" actually are. Not that I particularly like the person of Nelly Dean. And given the time of the writing, maybe a lot of other stuff is considered fine. But the confusion between love and covetousness is still yucky.
Other yucky moments include Cathy and Heathcliff crying out passion for each other and making out and whatever else while she's just about to give birth to her child with Edgar, young Catherine fancying herself in love with Linton, Nelly so easily tricked and manipulated, despite receiving some sort of education and growing up exposed to such behaviour, Heathcliff impregnating Isabella even with his dislike of her coupled with his belief that he truly loves Cathy. So many others too.
The worst part, really, is that I remembered how in love Cathy and Heathcliff were. The romance of them together after death, on the moors. Rather than remembering how abhorrent every person in that book is. (I think that Hindley's wife might have been okay, if she weren't so compliant with how her husband treated Heathcliff.) The interesting story now is a man who wishes to be completely consumed with hatred and revenge. Who is at a loss when he fears that he isn't as committed to hatred as he thinks he should be. A petty boy, becoming a petty man, who confuses passion for other feelings. And how others can confuse this for either love or hatred, failing to see at the heart is a petty, greedy, unpleasant person, unable to accept responsibility for consequences. And the people around him whose own passions and regard for Heathcliff's consequently see him as being more than he is. People, including the readers, end up seeing Heathcliff as being greater than what he was. (Greater not necessarily meant as a positive adjective.)
It really isn't pleasant to look at oneself and see what you used to think of as romantic, and what you used to be able to explain away. How one can convince themselves that certain continuing behaviour is somehow not that bad because there were extenuating circumstances.
And yet I love Bronte for choosing to write about such unpleasant people and circumstances. For the reminder of the consequences of excesses, and how overwhelming, self-devouring passion, while compelling, is dangerous and unappealing with enough reflection. And what skill to be able to write of such horrible people and circumstances, of so many unhappy endings, and yet still to be able to keep so many reading all the way through, again and again, and to remember.
Note: It can be confusing, differentiating the older and younger Catherine/Cathy. As Heathcliff refers to the older one as Cathy, I think I kept consistent with that.
I was a little sickened upon reading it anew. I couldn't recognise a single healthy relationship in there, whether it be romantic or not. The closest to one was the new couple at the end, between Catherine Linton and Hareton Earnshaw, even if it did begin with him enduring such abuse from her merely because of her beauty. (I was glad though, to see Hareton come to some good eventually. To be inspired to be more than he had been, to push himself to learn to read, to recognise he might be worthwhile. I like to think that maybe he ended up allowing a relationship between them because without meaning to and despite herself, she made him want more for himself, rather than because he was bewitched by her beauty and kisses.)
Rather, now I recognise it as a tale of obsessive, undeserving passion, and how it can destroy a person. The reminder of how obsession is not the same as love, and how revenge can engulf a person such that they cannot define themselves outside of it.
I'm not saying that I don't still enjoy the book, that I don't think it's worth reading. But I don't remember myself or any of my peers recognising how icky all the relationships are. Edgar proposing to Cathy after she physically abuses him and he realises that she's always lied to him about her personality tendencies? His doting on her through all her unpleasantness, and her manipulation of her husband and sister (and everyone else) through either being pleasant infrequently as a reward or having fits otherwise? Actually, the way that just about everyone has fits when they don't get their way, lies, and how they treat servants, even those who've been with them their entire lives? I suppose the treatment of the servant class is not considered, really, but how it does reflect the people their "betters" actually are. Not that I particularly like the person of Nelly Dean. And given the time of the writing, maybe a lot of other stuff is considered fine. But the confusion between love and covetousness is still yucky.
Other yucky moments include Cathy and Heathcliff crying out passion for each other and making out and whatever else while she's just about to give birth to her child with Edgar, young Catherine fancying herself in love with Linton, Nelly so easily tricked and manipulated, despite receiving some sort of education and growing up exposed to such behaviour, Heathcliff impregnating Isabella even with his dislike of her coupled with his belief that he truly loves Cathy. So many others too.
The worst part, really, is that I remembered how in love Cathy and Heathcliff were. The romance of them together after death, on the moors. Rather than remembering how abhorrent every person in that book is. (I think that Hindley's wife might have been okay, if she weren't so compliant with how her husband treated Heathcliff.) The interesting story now is a man who wishes to be completely consumed with hatred and revenge. Who is at a loss when he fears that he isn't as committed to hatred as he thinks he should be. A petty boy, becoming a petty man, who confuses passion for other feelings. And how others can confuse this for either love or hatred, failing to see at the heart is a petty, greedy, unpleasant person, unable to accept responsibility for consequences. And the people around him whose own passions and regard for Heathcliff's consequently see him as being more than he is. People, including the readers, end up seeing Heathcliff as being greater than what he was. (Greater not necessarily meant as a positive adjective.)
It really isn't pleasant to look at oneself and see what you used to think of as romantic, and what you used to be able to explain away. How one can convince themselves that certain continuing behaviour is somehow not that bad because there were extenuating circumstances.
And yet I love Bronte for choosing to write about such unpleasant people and circumstances. For the reminder of the consequences of excesses, and how overwhelming, self-devouring passion, while compelling, is dangerous and unappealing with enough reflection. And what skill to be able to write of such horrible people and circumstances, of so many unhappy endings, and yet still to be able to keep so many reading all the way through, again and again, and to remember.
Note: It can be confusing, differentiating the older and younger Catherine/Cathy. As Heathcliff refers to the older one as Cathy, I think I kept consistent with that.
10 April 2012
Tools for Survival During a Zombie Uprising
I was excited to come across an article at io9 that referred to a zombie survival Google map, called the Map of the Dead. It's awesome. Enter your postal code, and it'll show you your immediate neighbourhood, showing medical locations, food and drinks, cemeteries, police, military, et cetera. It shows gun shops too, but that's not a big thing in Toronto.
But I'd probably be screwed in the event of zombies. Middle of large city, no real outdoors skills, wouldn't know how to handle gun or crossbow even if I had one, don't know how to break into anywhere. Still fun to think about sometimes!
But I'd probably be screwed in the event of zombies. Middle of large city, no real outdoors skills, wouldn't know how to handle gun or crossbow even if I had one, don't know how to break into anywhere. Still fun to think about sometimes!
5 April 2012
Science Fiction Surprise
Here's something I didn't expect before his death... Ray Bradbury finally allowed Fahrenheit 451 to be published as an ebook. He has traditionally been anti-internet, and specifically against ebooks.
Somewhat related is the subject matter of Fahrenheit 451. Most people who read it think that the main theme is censorship, and it's not difficult to see why. But it's not. And you know why I know it's not? Because Bradbury, the author himself, insists that it is not. Rather, it is on how television and other mass media is in conflict with written literature, and is a danger to reading. And how technology can break down communication between people.
And while I think that's a little harsh on technology (after all, reading books at the table or with family also gets in the way of talking with each other), I do consider it when you see a table of people together at a pub or restaurant, and most, if not all, are busy texting or whatever on their smartphones.
Somewhat related is the subject matter of Fahrenheit 451. Most people who read it think that the main theme is censorship, and it's not difficult to see why. But it's not. And you know why I know it's not? Because Bradbury, the author himself, insists that it is not. Rather, it is on how television and other mass media is in conflict with written literature, and is a danger to reading. And how technology can break down communication between people.
And while I think that's a little harsh on technology (after all, reading books at the table or with family also gets in the way of talking with each other), I do consider it when you see a table of people together at a pub or restaurant, and most, if not all, are busy texting or whatever on their smartphones.
3 April 2012
Post-Apocalyptic Fiction
I've been on an old sci-fi kick, stuff from the 60s and earlier. In reading The Pocket Book of Science Fiction, (published in early 1943), I came across "By the Waters of Babylon," by Stephen Vincent Benét. (Excitingly, the book itself is in near-perfect condition. As a 69-year old paperback. My used book store rocks hard.) Among the better and more engaging post nuclear war disasters I've read. But wait... 1943. And the author actually published it in 1937 before it was included in this anthology. Before the war. Before the Manhattan Project was started. No, the atom bomb was not mentioned specifically, but it felt so much like that was the disaster that I didn't even question it.
Some of the beneficial technology, I can see scientists specifically working towards duplicating the ideal described. The end of civilisation as we know it? I'd like to think that that wasn't a specific goal, at least not to the point of attempting to emulate an awesome story. It's creepy that I at first assumed it was from my 1950s or 1960s literature, before checking the copyright page.
Some of the beneficial technology, I can see scientists specifically working towards duplicating the ideal described. The end of civilisation as we know it? I'd like to think that that wasn't a specific goal, at least not to the point of attempting to emulate an awesome story. It's creepy that I at first assumed it was from my 1950s or 1960s literature, before checking the copyright page.
17 February 2012
Do Germans even stand a chance?
Poking around on Steam, today's deal is on Wolfenstein. I was playing Castle Wolfenstein by the time I was 10 years old, on the Commodore 64.
Nazis were scary (and to many, by association Germans were too) before we even learned the history of WWII in school. (Although I did know a bit about it from a Dutch teacher who grew up in the Netherlands during WWII. And he never called them Nazis, just Germans.)
And Nazi games in general have lived on over the years. So that kids who don't even know about the Berlin Wall vilify the Nazis, think of the German accent as scary and evil.
From vacations outside of North America, I've learned that Germans are the bad tourists, stereotyped as the European version of American tourists. They're known as rude, abrupt, and with no sense of humour. By people whose parents don't remember WWII (born during or after). It horrifies me that too much of the world at least unofficially allows an entire nation to be defined by feelings associated with a leader born in the 1800s and his people. Even then, I can see it more for Europeans, whose countries were ravaged by the war (which wasn't just Germany, by the way, even if a major player). Well, the older ones, who were actually affected by it in some way.
I don't know if it speaks well of my parents (who were born during the war in Allied European countries), or if they didn't notice, but I delighted in learning German in high school, especially with never really connecting with French or the Romantic languages, even with 10 years of study. I adored my teacher, we just called her Frau. She was hilarious and loving. I then applied for an exchange to Germany, where a German girl would live with me for several months and go to school here, and then later in the year, I'd go there and live with her family, go to school, live life. I could have used a bit more growing up before going, but it was fantastic. The people were like people anywhere. A joy for life, sometimes the best sense of humour, intelligent, fun. Not everyone was someone I could get along with, but a hell of a lot of them were. Until I die, I will treasure that time.
And sometimes I'm left entirely speechless when I'm told that every single German lacks a sense of humour. Relatives who live in Europe even tell me that. One of my cousins came really freaking close to calling me a liar when I said that many Germans have a sense of humour, a lot of them are friendly, will help you however they can. That they can smile and be happy. That some will go out of their way to help you. Hell, the class I was in there in West Berlin, they'd giggle talking about the prank the previous graduating class pulled, where they disassembled a teacher's car and reassembled it on the roof of the school.
I remember smiles, I remember love, I remember happiness.
And then think back to everything kids, teens, adults get about the evilness of the Nazis (which I'm not disputing - at least of the leaders and those who really believed in the cause and knew what was going on), and how Germans aren't much better (which I am disputing). I don't see signs of it slowing down much. I don't care for the pope (for other reasons), but understand that he didn't have much of a choice about being in the Hitler-Jugend. Yet he has to defend against that. Needs it backed up how unenthusiastic a member he was, and how it was law to join.
I (think and hope) that a lot of people now realise that Russia isn't Stalin. Do people realise that Germany isn't Hitler? And really believe that in their heart of hearts? I wish I were confident of that.
(And for the record, to me German sounds much sexier than French or Italian or any of the Romantic languages ever will. It is not a universal fact that it sounds harsh or ugly.)
Nazis were scary (and to many, by association Germans were too) before we even learned the history of WWII in school. (Although I did know a bit about it from a Dutch teacher who grew up in the Netherlands during WWII. And he never called them Nazis, just Germans.)
And Nazi games in general have lived on over the years. So that kids who don't even know about the Berlin Wall vilify the Nazis, think of the German accent as scary and evil.
From vacations outside of North America, I've learned that Germans are the bad tourists, stereotyped as the European version of American tourists. They're known as rude, abrupt, and with no sense of humour. By people whose parents don't remember WWII (born during or after). It horrifies me that too much of the world at least unofficially allows an entire nation to be defined by feelings associated with a leader born in the 1800s and his people. Even then, I can see it more for Europeans, whose countries were ravaged by the war (which wasn't just Germany, by the way, even if a major player). Well, the older ones, who were actually affected by it in some way.
I don't know if it speaks well of my parents (who were born during the war in Allied European countries), or if they didn't notice, but I delighted in learning German in high school, especially with never really connecting with French or the Romantic languages, even with 10 years of study. I adored my teacher, we just called her Frau. She was hilarious and loving. I then applied for an exchange to Germany, where a German girl would live with me for several months and go to school here, and then later in the year, I'd go there and live with her family, go to school, live life. I could have used a bit more growing up before going, but it was fantastic. The people were like people anywhere. A joy for life, sometimes the best sense of humour, intelligent, fun. Not everyone was someone I could get along with, but a hell of a lot of them were. Until I die, I will treasure that time.
And sometimes I'm left entirely speechless when I'm told that every single German lacks a sense of humour. Relatives who live in Europe even tell me that. One of my cousins came really freaking close to calling me a liar when I said that many Germans have a sense of humour, a lot of them are friendly, will help you however they can. That they can smile and be happy. That some will go out of their way to help you. Hell, the class I was in there in West Berlin, they'd giggle talking about the prank the previous graduating class pulled, where they disassembled a teacher's car and reassembled it on the roof of the school.
I remember smiles, I remember love, I remember happiness.
And then think back to everything kids, teens, adults get about the evilness of the Nazis (which I'm not disputing - at least of the leaders and those who really believed in the cause and knew what was going on), and how Germans aren't much better (which I am disputing). I don't see signs of it slowing down much. I don't care for the pope (for other reasons), but understand that he didn't have much of a choice about being in the Hitler-Jugend. Yet he has to defend against that. Needs it backed up how unenthusiastic a member he was, and how it was law to join.
I (think and hope) that a lot of people now realise that Russia isn't Stalin. Do people realise that Germany isn't Hitler? And really believe that in their heart of hearts? I wish I were confident of that.
(And for the record, to me German sounds much sexier than French or Italian or any of the Romantic languages ever will. It is not a universal fact that it sounds harsh or ugly.)
13 February 2012
On "karma" and "god"
I ended a long-term
relationship recently. Which is not my point today, except that when
finding out the circumstances of the break-up, people try to reassure
me that karma will get him. Or that he'll regret it. Or something
along those lines.
What makes people
believe that karma will get someone? For every example of somebody
coming to ill ends, there is another of somebody who keeps going
through life as they were. And really, how does it make anything
better for me if the other person has bad things happen to them?
Other than hoping that other people aren't taken in so completely and
hurt, why should what happens to him make any difference? Only when
feeling particularly vengeful is that thought satisfying, but really
only in theory. If I actually believed that my wishing something bad on him
had results, realistically, it'd feel worse, not better.
And then with the
concept of karma. I think that most people mean it in the sense that
a person is rewarded or punished according to their deeds. Who
decides on said punishing? Who decides what's good and bad?
In my mind, the usual answer
of “god” is ridiculous. To any rational person who has a sense
of right and wrong, god is irrelevant. If her or his existence
reassures somebody when they don't have anybody else, fine. (Although I don't see how an imaginary being really helps.) But in
terms of what will happen to you, afterlife, et cetera? If it takes
the concept of heaven or hell or purgatory to help you make your
moral decisions, how are you in any way a moral person? If you
believe that someone who believes something different from you is
going to have eternal torment, how are you a good person in any
conceivable way?
If not a god or
something filling a similar role, I don't see how the concept of
karma can work. Unless your own good or bad feelings about what you
did haunts or rewards you in some way. And if that's the answer,
calling it karma, some kind of conditional destiny, is stupid. (Also, it would imply that the person had a moral compass in the first place.) It's
in the same category of Marshall's “miracles” in How I Met Your
Mother.
23 January 2012
Lack of privacy
Wow.
I don't order pizza that often, but when I do, it (was) often from Pizza Hut.
However, I went to the site today, and they've redesigned their site. In order to navigate it at all (not just place an order), you are required to set up an account. For example, if I knew I wanted pizza, but didn't know where from, I'd have to set up an account with all my personal information just to see what they offer and how much it costs.
Even worse, I went to send in a comment. In order to make a comment, required information includes your first and last name, your full address, your phone number, and your email address. The only reason I then decided to make a comment after all is because I've ordered from there, they already know who I am, and they might as well see whose business they're losing.
Because requiring all the information is bullshit.
If I merely wanted to see what they offered, I wouldn't bother setting up an account to find that out. If I'd decided not to give them my business, why would I want them having all that personal information? If I wanted to tell them so, why would I want them to have my email, phone, and address if I don't need to receive a follow-up?
Yes, I could send email to their customer service email, but why make it more difficult to not give all that information? (Why is all that info compulsory?)
I left Facebook because I didn't like how they were creepy with regards to what they did with personal information. I'm sure as hell not going to give all that and more to a pizza company just for the privilege of seeing what they offer or giving them some feedback.
I don't order pizza that often, but when I do, it (was) often from Pizza Hut.
However, I went to the site today, and they've redesigned their site. In order to navigate it at all (not just place an order), you are required to set up an account. For example, if I knew I wanted pizza, but didn't know where from, I'd have to set up an account with all my personal information just to see what they offer and how much it costs.
Even worse, I went to send in a comment. In order to make a comment, required information includes your first and last name, your full address, your phone number, and your email address. The only reason I then decided to make a comment after all is because I've ordered from there, they already know who I am, and they might as well see whose business they're losing.
Because requiring all the information is bullshit.
If I merely wanted to see what they offered, I wouldn't bother setting up an account to find that out. If I'd decided not to give them my business, why would I want them having all that personal information? If I wanted to tell them so, why would I want them to have my email, phone, and address if I don't need to receive a follow-up?
Yes, I could send email to their customer service email, but why make it more difficult to not give all that information? (Why is all that info compulsory?)
I left Facebook because I didn't like how they were creepy with regards to what they did with personal information. I'm sure as hell not going to give all that and more to a pizza company just for the privilege of seeing what they offer or giving them some feedback.
18 January 2012
Internet censoring
I may not be American, but do recognise that SOPA and PIPA could affect us all. Terribly.
Please see this link. And bonus, Chad Vader, the Bloggess, and others are featured in it!
Please see this link. And bonus, Chad Vader, the Bloggess, and others are featured in it!
12 January 2012
World geography
The other evening, I went to visit a close friend. Near the end of my visit, her daughter, my heart's niece, got home from daycare. She's three years old and super smart. She's been reading and counting for a long time now, and it seems she's developed an interest in geography lately. Africa is her current favourite.
So during dinner, I mention port, and tell her that it's a type of wine made in Portugal. Her mum asked her "Do you know where Portugal is?" And answering so immediately that you could tell she didn't have to think much of it, she replies, "Portugal is beside Spain!" I don't know that I was so familiar with European geography at any point in early schooling. And she has a globe that she loves to play with. Not because her parents forced it on her, but because when Santa asked what she wanted, she said she wanted a globe.
Damn.
I hope that she never goes through a stage where she downplays her intelligence because she thinks boys will like her better for it.
So during dinner, I mention port, and tell her that it's a type of wine made in Portugal. Her mum asked her "Do you know where Portugal is?" And answering so immediately that you could tell she didn't have to think much of it, she replies, "Portugal is beside Spain!" I don't know that I was so familiar with European geography at any point in early schooling. And she has a globe that she loves to play with. Not because her parents forced it on her, but because when Santa asked what she wanted, she said she wanted a globe.
Damn.
I hope that she never goes through a stage where she downplays her intelligence because she thinks boys will like her better for it.
10 January 2012
ST:TOR
I have friends playing TOR, and I heard some really good build-up for it.
But... this article in Forbes, and similar ones on other pages and publications. It leaves me feeling really icky that there's an option of a slave with a shock collar around her neck, that she can be tortured and belittled, that rape is an available act for the bad guys, et cetera. I know that the bad side is actually evil. But, it's one thing to watch it in a movie or read about it and root against it. It's another to role-play it in an immersive atmosphere. Knowing that the kind of people who want night elves in WoW to take off their clothes and dance for them are able to actually really get into some nasty stuff.
In WoW, I know that people get really into the RP. They get genuinely upset if someone they just know online isn't able to spend time with them. They get pissed off royally if someone from the opposite faction kills their character. They take it personally if another character emotes a /spit or something worse at them. Some people really have problems separating the game from reality at times.
And these people can now brag in their equivalent of Trade chat about how they torture and rape. Did we need another venue for woman-hate in new games coming out? There's enough misogyny elsewhere.
I was thinking of giving TOR a shot, but on second thought, I don't want to financially support this bullshit. It's sexist enough in WoW and other games. I don't need to pay to take that even further.
But... this article in Forbes, and similar ones on other pages and publications. It leaves me feeling really icky that there's an option of a slave with a shock collar around her neck, that she can be tortured and belittled, that rape is an available act for the bad guys, et cetera. I know that the bad side is actually evil. But, it's one thing to watch it in a movie or read about it and root against it. It's another to role-play it in an immersive atmosphere. Knowing that the kind of people who want night elves in WoW to take off their clothes and dance for them are able to actually really get into some nasty stuff.
In WoW, I know that people get really into the RP. They get genuinely upset if someone they just know online isn't able to spend time with them. They get pissed off royally if someone from the opposite faction kills their character. They take it personally if another character emotes a /spit or something worse at them. Some people really have problems separating the game from reality at times.
And these people can now brag in their equivalent of Trade chat about how they torture and rape. Did we need another venue for woman-hate in new games coming out? There's enough misogyny elsewhere.
I was thinking of giving TOR a shot, but on second thought, I don't want to financially support this bullshit. It's sexist enough in WoW and other games. I don't need to pay to take that even further.
8 January 2012
Home schooling
I'm sure there are good reasons for home-schooling in some situations.
But a big part of what going to school does is socialise the child. Parents of home-schooled children must have to put a lot of extra effort into helping a kid meet and spend time with their peers. Ideally.
Someone started chatting with me in WoW tonight. For once, I was friendly and chatted back. He started off with "Will you be my friend?" like kids do in grade school. Turns out he recently turned 16, and wanted a girlfriend. Asked my age (more than twice his age), and then asked if we could date. I let him down nicely, and asked about what he liked in a girl, and what the ones in his class are like, or where he hangs out with friends. If he told me the truth, he's home-schooled, and has no access to any girls at all. Doesn't know what he likes in a girl. Not sure where they hang out. So he wanted the next best thing and wants me to help him find a girlfriend in-game.
I enjoy MMORPGs. Would go so far as to say that you can learn a lot through them, and gain some valuable lessons. But separating a young teen from other kids his age, and then leaving him to play as he wants, late into the night, seems irresponsible. I'm baffled as to why any parents would let a child learn peer interactions from a game like this. On the internet, the anonymity tends to make a lot of people nastier, and different from their usual selves. Maybe that's why he's spending time in an area many levels too low for him, looking for people who he can help?
Yes, I'm making some assumptions. But from what little I saw, I found it tragic. He wants me to be his friend in-game. I hope I'm not the only friend he makes who isn't a jerk to strangers for the heck of it.
But a big part of what going to school does is socialise the child. Parents of home-schooled children must have to put a lot of extra effort into helping a kid meet and spend time with their peers. Ideally.
Someone started chatting with me in WoW tonight. For once, I was friendly and chatted back. He started off with "Will you be my friend?" like kids do in grade school. Turns out he recently turned 16, and wanted a girlfriend. Asked my age (more than twice his age), and then asked if we could date. I let him down nicely, and asked about what he liked in a girl, and what the ones in his class are like, or where he hangs out with friends. If he told me the truth, he's home-schooled, and has no access to any girls at all. Doesn't know what he likes in a girl. Not sure where they hang out. So he wanted the next best thing and wants me to help him find a girlfriend in-game.
I enjoy MMORPGs. Would go so far as to say that you can learn a lot through them, and gain some valuable lessons. But separating a young teen from other kids his age, and then leaving him to play as he wants, late into the night, seems irresponsible. I'm baffled as to why any parents would let a child learn peer interactions from a game like this. On the internet, the anonymity tends to make a lot of people nastier, and different from their usual selves. Maybe that's why he's spending time in an area many levels too low for him, looking for people who he can help?
Yes, I'm making some assumptions. But from what little I saw, I found it tragic. He wants me to be his friend in-game. I hope I'm not the only friend he makes who isn't a jerk to strangers for the heck of it.
6 January 2012
Doctor Who workplace
So, it seems that I now work in a TARDIS. You don't really notice the front of the building unless specifically looking for it, and it seems way bigger on the inside than on the outside. I wonder if wearing my key-pass around my neck will make me unnoticeable like the TARDIS key did at the end of the new series, year 3. (Note to self: test this out.)
Other than that cool fact, it's scary to go back to work after being off! Everyone was super nice to me though. And even though there isn't any physical exertion, it's tiring.
Other than that cool fact, it's scary to go back to work after being off! Everyone was super nice to me though. And even though there isn't any physical exertion, it's tiring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)