Jeremy McLean's Blog, page 3
September 3, 2015
"Nothing is Original" - Ship of Theseus
Now that I think about it, I may have wrote a similar post like this in the past... Ah, who cares?
Everyone these days says that nothing is original anymore, but what does that even mean? I don't mean that in a rhetorical "I'm going to discuss it now" way. I literally don't get what people mean by that because I see original things all the time. It depends on definition I supposed, and to the people who say nothing is original I think they might just be looking to hard at things.
If I was to hazard a guess at the thought process, the argument would be that all ideas for story have been done before, every iteration of those stories has been explored, and people are just taking them and reshaping them in different ways.
How is that different way not original then? I really wanted to add the "F" word in that sentence to get across how I'm saying it in my mind.
Sure, the elements might has similarities to other works: The love triangle, the vampire story, the daring action hero, but when taken and twisted, the end result (if done right) is original.
I brought this up "The Martian" before in a recent blog post, and I'm going to reference it again here (I really need to read the book, but I'm excited for the movie). There have been stories about going to Mars, and to a broader sense space exploration, before, and there have been one's about where the crew is isolated and have to survive, but not like this. The Martian takes those ideas and makes it original. It's evident in the trailers that we haven't seen anything of this sort before. You could spend all day breaking down the tropes (Like Cast Away but in space) and seeing what came before it, but it itself is original.
And if you aren't excited to see that movie, or read the book, then go suck a lemon.
If it wasn't apparent by the title, this reminds me of the "Ship of Theseus" thought experiment. To give it in a broad stroke, over the course of his journey, Theseus had to repair his ship, one by one replacing the old wood with new wood until all the old wood is gone. The question is whether something that has had every component changed is still the same object.
If we take away Theseus being the owner, and we're just talking about a random ship, I feel that once all the pieces have been replaced it's not the same ship anymore. The only reason why someone would call it the same ship is because of an attachment they had to the old ship. They don't want to let go, so they say it's the same, even though everything about it is different except the overall shape. When you look at the finer details you can see how different it is, but if you look at it from afar, oh yes there's the same shape of mast, the same bevel at the bow, and the same keel.
I think the real reason why people feel nothing is original is because of a perceived attachment to something in the past. We see in the new something akin to the old, and can't help but think on it, dwell on it, until all we see are those bits and pieces of the old, which doesn't allow us to appreciate the finer details which make the new original and special in it's own right.
Don't ever let someone tell you that what you're making is unoriginal. If you make the story your own, then regardless of what you take as inspiration it will show in the final product, and it will always be special no matter what anyone says.
Don't plagiarize though, that's not cool.
Everyone these days says that nothing is original anymore, but what does that even mean? I don't mean that in a rhetorical "I'm going to discuss it now" way. I literally don't get what people mean by that because I see original things all the time. It depends on definition I supposed, and to the people who say nothing is original I think they might just be looking to hard at things.
If I was to hazard a guess at the thought process, the argument would be that all ideas for story have been done before, every iteration of those stories has been explored, and people are just taking them and reshaping them in different ways.
How is that different way not original then? I really wanted to add the "F" word in that sentence to get across how I'm saying it in my mind.
Sure, the elements might has similarities to other works: The love triangle, the vampire story, the daring action hero, but when taken and twisted, the end result (if done right) is original.
I brought this up "The Martian" before in a recent blog post, and I'm going to reference it again here (I really need to read the book, but I'm excited for the movie). There have been stories about going to Mars, and to a broader sense space exploration, before, and there have been one's about where the crew is isolated and have to survive, but not like this. The Martian takes those ideas and makes it original. It's evident in the trailers that we haven't seen anything of this sort before. You could spend all day breaking down the tropes (Like Cast Away but in space) and seeing what came before it, but it itself is original.
And if you aren't excited to see that movie, or read the book, then go suck a lemon.
If it wasn't apparent by the title, this reminds me of the "Ship of Theseus" thought experiment. To give it in a broad stroke, over the course of his journey, Theseus had to repair his ship, one by one replacing the old wood with new wood until all the old wood is gone. The question is whether something that has had every component changed is still the same object.
If we take away Theseus being the owner, and we're just talking about a random ship, I feel that once all the pieces have been replaced it's not the same ship anymore. The only reason why someone would call it the same ship is because of an attachment they had to the old ship. They don't want to let go, so they say it's the same, even though everything about it is different except the overall shape. When you look at the finer details you can see how different it is, but if you look at it from afar, oh yes there's the same shape of mast, the same bevel at the bow, and the same keel.
I think the real reason why people feel nothing is original is because of a perceived attachment to something in the past. We see in the new something akin to the old, and can't help but think on it, dwell on it, until all we see are those bits and pieces of the old, which doesn't allow us to appreciate the finer details which make the new original and special in it's own right.
Don't ever let someone tell you that what you're making is unoriginal. If you make the story your own, then regardless of what you take as inspiration it will show in the final product, and it will always be special no matter what anyone says.
Don't plagiarize though, that's not cool.
September 2, 2015
Fame Throughout History
I often wonder just what famous people from history thought of themselves. Were they like some of the young pop stars of our day? Arrogant and proud of their accomplishments? Or were they humble and modest of their own fame? Or were they the unfortunates who became famous posthumously?
Did those who experience fame treat it differently than we do these days?
I imagine they did. These days we live in such a connected world I feel that fame is so far beyond what those in the past could have even hoped to attain. We live in a world of excess. We want and want and want, and we beg and beg and beg those who create things we love to create more and more frequently.
Back then, I'm sure there were people who had such attention, but not to the same extent. Those people could have probably left their houses and not had to deal with fans stopping them in the street and hounding them when they were just trying to buy food.
Now, it's understandable when stars break down. They can't do anything without someone over their shoulder, reminding them of how famous they are, of how different they are, of how high they are on a pedestal.
And we wonder why they so often break, when really the pressure is so beyond anything that humans were meant to be able to handle. Did famous people back in the day break down like they do today? I'd like to know, but they probably did. Just because the pedestals are bigger these days doesn't mean they couldn't fall off them back then too.
Did those who experience fame treat it differently than we do these days?
I imagine they did. These days we live in such a connected world I feel that fame is so far beyond what those in the past could have even hoped to attain. We live in a world of excess. We want and want and want, and we beg and beg and beg those who create things we love to create more and more frequently.
Back then, I'm sure there were people who had such attention, but not to the same extent. Those people could have probably left their houses and not had to deal with fans stopping them in the street and hounding them when they were just trying to buy food.
Now, it's understandable when stars break down. They can't do anything without someone over their shoulder, reminding them of how famous they are, of how different they are, of how high they are on a pedestal.
And we wonder why they so often break, when really the pressure is so beyond anything that humans were meant to be able to handle. Did famous people back in the day break down like they do today? I'd like to know, but they probably did. Just because the pedestals are bigger these days doesn't mean they couldn't fall off them back then too.
September 1, 2015
Comedy and Trolling (They are not the same) - Jimmy Kimmel
I'm not a comedian. Let's get that out of the way immediately.
Recently, Jimmy Kimmel made a bit on his show about the recent expansion of youtube's live streaming services. Youtube made a separate site especially for the gaming side of it's community, gaming.youtube.com, and Jimmy Kimmel didn't seem to understand the appeal of this.
If the story stopped there, everything would be fine, but no it didn't stop there. Mr. Kimmel is a comedian, so he had to make an attempt at comedy at this situation. (Because making fun of something you don't understand always works out)
For those who aren't aware of just what this is, I will explain. There has been a growing trend in people doing what's known as a "Let's Play." People will play a game and then upload it to youtube, or live stream it on youtube and another service called twitch where people can then watch said "Let's Play."
On the surface, this does sound kind of stupid, as why would someone just watch a game being played, a game is supposed to be interactive that's part of the appeal after all (and this may be what Mr. Kimmel is thinking) but I'll explain further. In the better Let's Play videos, the ones that actually get a lot of subscribers and viewers, it's not just about the game it's also about the person playing the game.
The person playing the game becomes and entertainer in a variety of ways. In some instances, the player is a professional and people would watch them just as they would another sports player: to see the game played professionally with a high level of skill (Yes, E-Sports are a thing).
In other instances the players are on the same level as comedians and make jokes about the game and tell stories about their lives. A great example of this is Game Grumps. The hosts of Game Grumps actually take improv classes to learn comedic timing and improve the quality of their commentary. They are also interesting people. I dare anyone to watch a Game Grumps episode about Dan's father and not laugh.
The third type of entertainer I feel is one that happens across the board, but even moreso in live streaming, which is the interactive entertainer. They talk to the audience, build a connection, and because of the stories told and the window into their lives the viewers feel almost a part of the show. In a live stream setting this is even more apparent as sometimes the streamer will allow the viewers input on the game, or even get to play in online multiplayer with the streamer.
The route Mr. Kimmel chose to take for comedy was one of insulting the audience that consumes this content. He called it first the "we should all be very ashamed of ourselves for failing as parents channel" insinuating that obviously everyone who likes this type of content was raised wrong. Then it went into a bit where there were several more channels on youtube where you could watch people watching other people play video games, and the bit repeated until it was God watching. God turns to the camera and laments about how he's created a race of idiots.
Here's the video in question: https://youtu.be/Ji9KmXwrA5Y
Afterwards, needless to say people were upset and disliked the video on youtube and posted many many comments on it. A lot of the comments he received were threats and general hate, which is wrong and shouldn't have happened, but many other comments provided well thought out arguments as to why some people like watching other people play video games.
When the attention it was getting went into overload, Mr. Kimmel spoke about it again on his show, taking the comments which attacked him or made poor arguments. Mr. Kimmel set up his side of things so that he looked like the good guy in front of people that were attending his show and would probably be on his side regardless (or would be thrown out I imagine).
In this sense, I can only think that Mr. Kimmel was seeking to troll those who attacked him, and by association everyone who doesn't agree with him on the subject. The subject Mr. Kimmel believes, I will remind you, is that those who like watching a form of entertainment are idiots or delinquents.
This is not comedy, this is just attacking another group of people. Attacking for the sake of laughter, essentially schadenfreude, is the low hanging fruit of people who can't come up with something cleverer, wittier, or just plain intelligent.
Perhaps if Mr. Kimmel was better at his job he wouldn't have to rely on such tactics and could have even used the situation to admit that he was trolling and that it was fine to have such a hobby, but this didn't happen. Mr. Kimmel pulled up a comment in the second video about someone likening watching people play video games to watching sports. Mr. Kimmel stated that he watches football and also thinks it's dumb, but that watching people play video games is like watching fantasy football.
This is again a lack of understanding about the Let's Play format that, had he actually respected the people he was making fun of he would have easily found out. He could have seen the comedy of the Game Grumps, or the mastery of a professional E-Sports player, or the interaction from a live streaming with the audience. I'm sure that many people in the comments mentioned these people, and I'm sure that Mr. Kimmel ignored them and didn't try to further his understanding of the subject.
Mr. Kimmel doesn't seem to grasp that the smartest form of comedy is understanding a subject inside and out and being able to point out it's flaws in a clever way. We almost saw it with the fantasy football comment, which I did laugh at, but the rest was just trolling.
The saddest part is that the video itself was posted on youtube, and the reason all the networks want to be on youtube is because even they understand that it's growing quicker than ever. Youtube is just like Netflix. People are no longer watching cable, they watch netflix. People are no longer watching talk shows, they're watching people's blogs to connect with them personally. Mr. Kimmel is part of a medium that is shrinking daily, and perhaps he feels scared of that.
The average viewership of Jimmy Kimmel is a little less than 1 million to a little over 1 million from what I could find. The average Pewdiepie video? Between 2-3 million.
I'd be scared too.
Recently, Jimmy Kimmel made a bit on his show about the recent expansion of youtube's live streaming services. Youtube made a separate site especially for the gaming side of it's community, gaming.youtube.com, and Jimmy Kimmel didn't seem to understand the appeal of this.
If the story stopped there, everything would be fine, but no it didn't stop there. Mr. Kimmel is a comedian, so he had to make an attempt at comedy at this situation. (Because making fun of something you don't understand always works out)
For those who aren't aware of just what this is, I will explain. There has been a growing trend in people doing what's known as a "Let's Play." People will play a game and then upload it to youtube, or live stream it on youtube and another service called twitch where people can then watch said "Let's Play."
On the surface, this does sound kind of stupid, as why would someone just watch a game being played, a game is supposed to be interactive that's part of the appeal after all (and this may be what Mr. Kimmel is thinking) but I'll explain further. In the better Let's Play videos, the ones that actually get a lot of subscribers and viewers, it's not just about the game it's also about the person playing the game.
The person playing the game becomes and entertainer in a variety of ways. In some instances, the player is a professional and people would watch them just as they would another sports player: to see the game played professionally with a high level of skill (Yes, E-Sports are a thing).
In other instances the players are on the same level as comedians and make jokes about the game and tell stories about their lives. A great example of this is Game Grumps. The hosts of Game Grumps actually take improv classes to learn comedic timing and improve the quality of their commentary. They are also interesting people. I dare anyone to watch a Game Grumps episode about Dan's father and not laugh.
The third type of entertainer I feel is one that happens across the board, but even moreso in live streaming, which is the interactive entertainer. They talk to the audience, build a connection, and because of the stories told and the window into their lives the viewers feel almost a part of the show. In a live stream setting this is even more apparent as sometimes the streamer will allow the viewers input on the game, or even get to play in online multiplayer with the streamer.
The route Mr. Kimmel chose to take for comedy was one of insulting the audience that consumes this content. He called it first the "we should all be very ashamed of ourselves for failing as parents channel" insinuating that obviously everyone who likes this type of content was raised wrong. Then it went into a bit where there were several more channels on youtube where you could watch people watching other people play video games, and the bit repeated until it was God watching. God turns to the camera and laments about how he's created a race of idiots.
Here's the video in question: https://youtu.be/Ji9KmXwrA5Y
Afterwards, needless to say people were upset and disliked the video on youtube and posted many many comments on it. A lot of the comments he received were threats and general hate, which is wrong and shouldn't have happened, but many other comments provided well thought out arguments as to why some people like watching other people play video games.
When the attention it was getting went into overload, Mr. Kimmel spoke about it again on his show, taking the comments which attacked him or made poor arguments. Mr. Kimmel set up his side of things so that he looked like the good guy in front of people that were attending his show and would probably be on his side regardless (or would be thrown out I imagine).
In this sense, I can only think that Mr. Kimmel was seeking to troll those who attacked him, and by association everyone who doesn't agree with him on the subject. The subject Mr. Kimmel believes, I will remind you, is that those who like watching a form of entertainment are idiots or delinquents.
This is not comedy, this is just attacking another group of people. Attacking for the sake of laughter, essentially schadenfreude, is the low hanging fruit of people who can't come up with something cleverer, wittier, or just plain intelligent.
Perhaps if Mr. Kimmel was better at his job he wouldn't have to rely on such tactics and could have even used the situation to admit that he was trolling and that it was fine to have such a hobby, but this didn't happen. Mr. Kimmel pulled up a comment in the second video about someone likening watching people play video games to watching sports. Mr. Kimmel stated that he watches football and also thinks it's dumb, but that watching people play video games is like watching fantasy football.
This is again a lack of understanding about the Let's Play format that, had he actually respected the people he was making fun of he would have easily found out. He could have seen the comedy of the Game Grumps, or the mastery of a professional E-Sports player, or the interaction from a live streaming with the audience. I'm sure that many people in the comments mentioned these people, and I'm sure that Mr. Kimmel ignored them and didn't try to further his understanding of the subject.
Mr. Kimmel doesn't seem to grasp that the smartest form of comedy is understanding a subject inside and out and being able to point out it's flaws in a clever way. We almost saw it with the fantasy football comment, which I did laugh at, but the rest was just trolling.
The saddest part is that the video itself was posted on youtube, and the reason all the networks want to be on youtube is because even they understand that it's growing quicker than ever. Youtube is just like Netflix. People are no longer watching cable, they watch netflix. People are no longer watching talk shows, they're watching people's blogs to connect with them personally. Mr. Kimmel is part of a medium that is shrinking daily, and perhaps he feels scared of that.
The average viewership of Jimmy Kimmel is a little less than 1 million to a little over 1 million from what I could find. The average Pewdiepie video? Between 2-3 million.
I'd be scared too.
August 31, 2015
Everyone Loves a Revenge Story... But No One Thinks They're the Villan
I think it's safe to say that most people enjoy hearing about another person's comeuppance. If you're squeamish with violence, then stories of karma would be the equivalent here. Someone acts horribly, and something bad (minor) happens to them in return.
So why is it that these stories keep happening? We hear about it on the internet even moreso these days, whether through a viral video, or through relatable experiences. Someone freaks out at a cashier at McDonalds and the video is posted online where that person is made fun of and called an idiot by dozens.
How are these examples not a deterrent to this type of behavior?
I think the biggest factor (certainly not the only one) is that no one thinks that they are like that. No one thinks that they are a crappy customer, it's the incompetent wait staff that keeps screwing up the order.
No one wants to think of themselves as the bad guy (or gal).
Perhaps you've had a bad day, and you don't want to explain something over again, so you become a little curt and mutter something under your breath. The person on the other end asks "what?" and all you hear is that they want you to repeat it again. Your nerves are shot, and instead of saying it under your breath, you yell it and call the person stupid. Man, that felt good didn't it? You just had a bad day and vented your frustration.
You may not be able to relate to all of that example, but we've all had bad days. We've all just wanted to get that sweet burger and fries to wash away the horrible day, and any step between you and it is just another slab of icing on a shit cake.
I'm not saying that this is the sake with everyone, and there's really no excuse for such behavior, but before you call the person in the video freaking out at the customer a horrible person, just think that you could be one really bad day away from doing the same thing.
So why is it that these stories keep happening? We hear about it on the internet even moreso these days, whether through a viral video, or through relatable experiences. Someone freaks out at a cashier at McDonalds and the video is posted online where that person is made fun of and called an idiot by dozens.
How are these examples not a deterrent to this type of behavior?
I think the biggest factor (certainly not the only one) is that no one thinks that they are like that. No one thinks that they are a crappy customer, it's the incompetent wait staff that keeps screwing up the order.
No one wants to think of themselves as the bad guy (or gal).
Perhaps you've had a bad day, and you don't want to explain something over again, so you become a little curt and mutter something under your breath. The person on the other end asks "what?" and all you hear is that they want you to repeat it again. Your nerves are shot, and instead of saying it under your breath, you yell it and call the person stupid. Man, that felt good didn't it? You just had a bad day and vented your frustration.
You may not be able to relate to all of that example, but we've all had bad days. We've all just wanted to get that sweet burger and fries to wash away the horrible day, and any step between you and it is just another slab of icing on a shit cake.
I'm not saying that this is the sake with everyone, and there's really no excuse for such behavior, but before you call the person in the video freaking out at the customer a horrible person, just think that you could be one really bad day away from doing the same thing.
August 30, 2015
Branding (Not with cows) - McDonalds, Nike, etc.
I don't feel building a brand is that difficult. I feel that building a brand is all about consistency. If your message, look, and feel are consistent, people will start to associate the two together. Branding can be as simple as a name and a tagline you repeat over and over, and as complicated as a line of products with similar logos or art style.
For instance, if you continue to repeat a tagline, eventually people will have that tagline stuck in their mind and be reminded of it constantly with word association.
Take for instance, McDonalds. Their slogan is "I'm lovin' it" and they play it in every commercial. If you watch tv and have to sit through said commercials, they always put it at the end with a catchy jingle. I don't watch tv that much, and even I find myself thinking/humming the tune and saying the slogan when I see those golden arches.
McDonalds, at least in that aspect, has built a good brand, and through a very simple means. How hard would it have been to come up with "I'm lovin' it" in the grand scheme of things? Probably not that hard. Certainly not years, not even months. Whoever in the company created that slogan probably did it in a day. After they created the slogan, however, McDonalds was consistent in their advertising, and it worked.
Certainly McDonalds has had several slogans and rebranded over the years, but when you get as big as McDonalds you can take a chance on a new slogan as they don't have issues getting the message to consumers.
So what do you do when you're small time and don't have millions to blow on a commercial? Remain consistent even if your budget is small.
If all you have is a name and a slogan, you can make it work. Put the slogan everywhere you can (where it makes sense of course) and make sure that it stays in the minds of your audience. Whatever your product or service, don't do it half assed. Make sure that you're providing a quality product and the rest will come along.
If you're inconsistent in quality, or your message, it sends mixed signals to the audience, and creates confusion. If you're a big company you can afford a little confusion, but when you're starting out this is of course the worst thing that can happen. Make sure that when you choose your branding that you're sure it's the right one to go with.
Building a brand isn't hard, building an audience is harder.
For instance, if you continue to repeat a tagline, eventually people will have that tagline stuck in their mind and be reminded of it constantly with word association.
Take for instance, McDonalds. Their slogan is "I'm lovin' it" and they play it in every commercial. If you watch tv and have to sit through said commercials, they always put it at the end with a catchy jingle. I don't watch tv that much, and even I find myself thinking/humming the tune and saying the slogan when I see those golden arches.
McDonalds, at least in that aspect, has built a good brand, and through a very simple means. How hard would it have been to come up with "I'm lovin' it" in the grand scheme of things? Probably not that hard. Certainly not years, not even months. Whoever in the company created that slogan probably did it in a day. After they created the slogan, however, McDonalds was consistent in their advertising, and it worked.
Certainly McDonalds has had several slogans and rebranded over the years, but when you get as big as McDonalds you can take a chance on a new slogan as they don't have issues getting the message to consumers.
So what do you do when you're small time and don't have millions to blow on a commercial? Remain consistent even if your budget is small.
If all you have is a name and a slogan, you can make it work. Put the slogan everywhere you can (where it makes sense of course) and make sure that it stays in the minds of your audience. Whatever your product or service, don't do it half assed. Make sure that you're providing a quality product and the rest will come along.
If you're inconsistent in quality, or your message, it sends mixed signals to the audience, and creates confusion. If you're a big company you can afford a little confusion, but when you're starting out this is of course the worst thing that can happen. Make sure that when you choose your branding that you're sure it's the right one to go with.
Building a brand isn't hard, building an audience is harder.
August 29, 2015
Learning by Action
Experience is invaluable, knowledge is irreplaceable, something something high brow comment.
I really find it fascinating that we as humans learn by doing. Even when we're not trying to, we're subconsciously taking in information on what works, what doesn't, and using that information to get better at whatever task we're trying to complete. (For the most part) When we actively look at what we're doing, take feedback, and apply that feedback is when things truly get special in my mind.
With writing, feedback is the most essential component to becoming a great writer. We rely on editors to tell us what we did wrong grammar-wise, we rely on test audiences to tell us what they liked or didn't like, and we rely on reviews to tell us what everyone else missed.
Certainly there is going to be some advice and feedback that is wrong, not suited for a writers style, or reviews from people who just didn't like it and wouldn't no matter what changed (unless it was a different novel), but ignoring feedback is the worst thing a budding author can do.
I personally take all feedback seriously and try to improve my skills so I don't repeat mistakes. The results are fairly clear, my second novel was leaps and bounds better (at least according to the majority).
We may be able to get better alone, relying on our own thoughts and feelings as to what sounds good, but that can only get you so far.
Fortunately, humans are social creatures, and we've learned to help others. If you're without anyone to be in your test audience, ask friends and family to critique whatever you're working on for you. (They may be a little biased, but it's better than nothing.) Beyond that, there are no doubt workshops that can probably help you build your craft with professionals, or others in your situation, who can give you the valuable feedback you need.
Never stop learning, never stop working hard, and never miss an opportunity to grow.
I really find it fascinating that we as humans learn by doing. Even when we're not trying to, we're subconsciously taking in information on what works, what doesn't, and using that information to get better at whatever task we're trying to complete. (For the most part) When we actively look at what we're doing, take feedback, and apply that feedback is when things truly get special in my mind.
With writing, feedback is the most essential component to becoming a great writer. We rely on editors to tell us what we did wrong grammar-wise, we rely on test audiences to tell us what they liked or didn't like, and we rely on reviews to tell us what everyone else missed.
Certainly there is going to be some advice and feedback that is wrong, not suited for a writers style, or reviews from people who just didn't like it and wouldn't no matter what changed (unless it was a different novel), but ignoring feedback is the worst thing a budding author can do.
I personally take all feedback seriously and try to improve my skills so I don't repeat mistakes. The results are fairly clear, my second novel was leaps and bounds better (at least according to the majority).
We may be able to get better alone, relying on our own thoughts and feelings as to what sounds good, but that can only get you so far.
Fortunately, humans are social creatures, and we've learned to help others. If you're without anyone to be in your test audience, ask friends and family to critique whatever you're working on for you. (They may be a little biased, but it's better than nothing.) Beyond that, there are no doubt workshops that can probably help you build your craft with professionals, or others in your situation, who can give you the valuable feedback you need.
Never stop learning, never stop working hard, and never miss an opportunity to grow.
August 28, 2015
Weird Science (Fiction) - Knights of Sidonia
This has nothing to do with the 1985 movie.
I recently watched the second season of an anime called Knights of Sidonia on Netflix, and I must say I have a strange fascination with it. At times grotesque, cute, funny, and action packed, this sci-fi anime has a lot of what I love about sci-fi, and things that I wish there was more of.
Spoiler warning, this post will talk about things in the series, and you should just watch it for yourself, as it is really cool.
The story is set on a spaceship called Sidonia, where the last humans are travelling to find a suitable place to colonize, or just survive as they are being chased by aliens known as Guana for unknown reasons. The humans fight the Guana in giant machines called Guardes. The main character, Nagate Tanikaze, is an ace pilot of one such Guarde and works to protect Sidonia from the ongoing Guana threat.
The reason why I wanted to talk about it was that it does so many things with sci-fi that you just don't see these days. Everything sci-fi is so grounded, and even the crazier aspects of the sci-fi is explained in the narrative leaving nothing to the imagination and making it so sterile. It's like they try to make it so that it suspends disbelief, but they try too hard and don't just let the imagery do the job.
I'm not saying necessarily that this is bad, as the main movies I'm thinking of I loved, but I just feel that too many movies these days are trying to be grounded in reality because the studios are afraid of audience alienation.
For example, Interstellar was an excellent film, probably well researched, and explained the science just enough that when it got to the weird stuff it didn't feel so weird as it was awe-inspiring.
I want more sci-fi that touches on the unknown in such a way that it's so far outside our realm that we can't even go past the point of thinking "WTF just happened?"
In Knights of Sidonia, there are a lot of moments that pique my curiosity that just aren't explained, and I kind of love that. Not only does it enrich my appetite for the series, as I'm always thinking there's going to be more tidbits shared, but it leaves you with a feeling of wonder that modern sci-fi doesn't have.
In Knights of Sidonia, you never know why the Guana are attacking humans, why they destroyed earth, and perhaps you never will. The Guana at the beginning look like pink shapeless masses. Soon, though, they begin to take the shape of humans, and even talk. It's creepy to see a human with pink scales across half their body talking in single word sentences. Each step closer to this makes the answer of just what the Guana are more attainable. Part of why I'm watching is to see that storyline advance.
Another strange aspect is what humans are using to fight the Guana. Prior to the present day storyline, humans could do nothing but run away as the Guana had impenetrable scales. Across the travels in deep space, Sidonia found a massive structure made of an unknown material and origin. It was shaped like a pyramid, but hollow and with holes across the entire surface. It was found that the material was volatile to the Guana and so they started to use it to fight against the aliens, but in the present day series it's found that the Guana are actually attracted to the material, so Sidonia could just be causing their own destruction.
Where did this structure come from? What are the Guana and why are they so obsessed with humans? Are they intelligent? I want the answers.
Everything in the series is excellent, but it's those moments that have me at the edge of my seat and chills running up my spine.
I certainly love grounded sci-fi, don't get me wrong. I'm super excited to see The Martian when it comes out, but the age of Star Trek (The Next Generation) seems to be dead, and it makes me a little sad.
I recently watched the second season of an anime called Knights of Sidonia on Netflix, and I must say I have a strange fascination with it. At times grotesque, cute, funny, and action packed, this sci-fi anime has a lot of what I love about sci-fi, and things that I wish there was more of.
Spoiler warning, this post will talk about things in the series, and you should just watch it for yourself, as it is really cool.
The story is set on a spaceship called Sidonia, where the last humans are travelling to find a suitable place to colonize, or just survive as they are being chased by aliens known as Guana for unknown reasons. The humans fight the Guana in giant machines called Guardes. The main character, Nagate Tanikaze, is an ace pilot of one such Guarde and works to protect Sidonia from the ongoing Guana threat.
The reason why I wanted to talk about it was that it does so many things with sci-fi that you just don't see these days. Everything sci-fi is so grounded, and even the crazier aspects of the sci-fi is explained in the narrative leaving nothing to the imagination and making it so sterile. It's like they try to make it so that it suspends disbelief, but they try too hard and don't just let the imagery do the job.
I'm not saying necessarily that this is bad, as the main movies I'm thinking of I loved, but I just feel that too many movies these days are trying to be grounded in reality because the studios are afraid of audience alienation.
For example, Interstellar was an excellent film, probably well researched, and explained the science just enough that when it got to the weird stuff it didn't feel so weird as it was awe-inspiring.
I want more sci-fi that touches on the unknown in such a way that it's so far outside our realm that we can't even go past the point of thinking "WTF just happened?"
In Knights of Sidonia, there are a lot of moments that pique my curiosity that just aren't explained, and I kind of love that. Not only does it enrich my appetite for the series, as I'm always thinking there's going to be more tidbits shared, but it leaves you with a feeling of wonder that modern sci-fi doesn't have.
In Knights of Sidonia, you never know why the Guana are attacking humans, why they destroyed earth, and perhaps you never will. The Guana at the beginning look like pink shapeless masses. Soon, though, they begin to take the shape of humans, and even talk. It's creepy to see a human with pink scales across half their body talking in single word sentences. Each step closer to this makes the answer of just what the Guana are more attainable. Part of why I'm watching is to see that storyline advance.
Another strange aspect is what humans are using to fight the Guana. Prior to the present day storyline, humans could do nothing but run away as the Guana had impenetrable scales. Across the travels in deep space, Sidonia found a massive structure made of an unknown material and origin. It was shaped like a pyramid, but hollow and with holes across the entire surface. It was found that the material was volatile to the Guana and so they started to use it to fight against the aliens, but in the present day series it's found that the Guana are actually attracted to the material, so Sidonia could just be causing their own destruction.
Where did this structure come from? What are the Guana and why are they so obsessed with humans? Are they intelligent? I want the answers.
Everything in the series is excellent, but it's those moments that have me at the edge of my seat and chills running up my spine.
I certainly love grounded sci-fi, don't get me wrong. I'm super excited to see The Martian when it comes out, but the age of Star Trek (The Next Generation) seems to be dead, and it makes me a little sad.
August 27, 2015
New York Daily News Clickbait Sensationalism Shock Factor (I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. YOU HAVE TO READ IT FOR YOURSELF)
Hoo boy, that's a long title.
Probably not so recently, internet articles have been using headlines which appeal to our baser instincts of curiosity like never before. This has been done for years, tabloids citing shocking photos of a well known celebrity every week comes to mind, but has become saturated with the rise of the internet.
For better or worse, our curiosity will lead us on a journey, and can be used against us for these meaningless articles which promise to show us something that we have to see to believe. At best, we get a bit of a laugh, at worst we provide ad revenue for a site that regurgitates something created by another whom will not see a dime.
However, just as with anything, clickbait can be used for good, or extreme ill, oftentimes to send a message.
Recall earlier in the year, when French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo used the image of Muhammad on the front cover as a gag. Later, extremists took action against the magazine and killed eleven while injuring eleven others.
Was the magazine in the wrong for posting the image of a religious figure whose depiction is forbidden? Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. That's a debate for another day. Was the response these extremest took wrong? Absolutely.
Did the people of Charlie Hebdo expect opposition to their magazine over the image. No doubt, but obviously not to that extent. Their intent was to engage, like clickbait. Did their message have some deeper meaning other than "Haha, we posted a picture of Muhammed." I doubt it. (In the realm of political satire, the joke from Charlie Hebdo was about as deep and funny as a Jeff Dunham original)
Because of the attack however, it became a symbol for freedom of speech and that terrorism will not stand.
Recently, the New York Daily News posted graphic images of a recent shooting which resulted in the death of two CBS reporters and the injuring of another with the headline "Executed."
Could it have been handled differently? Certainly. Their intent was clear however: This needs to be talked about.
According to all studies, violence and homocide is lower than it has ever been in all of human history, but people are still being murdered and attacked. Weapons are easier to access and use now than they've ever been in human history. We still have weapons in an age when we shouldn't.
It's easy to hear about all the violence that we still have in the world and look the other way, say that it'll get better, and ignore the problems that are still in place which allow the violence to continue. Showing you a disturbing image relating to said violence ensures you remember it exists. And, hopefully, if you remember that two people died because the perpetrator so easily acquired a gun you'll do something about it.
We didn't get to where we are today by staying the same as we were thousands of years ago. Without dialogue, without change, we won't progress as a species.
The clickbait (what do you call print media clickbait?) of New York Daily News can be used for good, and I sincerely hope that was their intention.
Don't be offended by the image on the cover, be offended by the violence that preceded it. Be offended that these deaths were preventable. Be offended that instead of talking about changing laws people are talking about how offended they are by the cover of a fucking newspaper.
We may have lost paradise, but that doesn't mean we can't at least make ourselves a garden.
Probably not so recently, internet articles have been using headlines which appeal to our baser instincts of curiosity like never before. This has been done for years, tabloids citing shocking photos of a well known celebrity every week comes to mind, but has become saturated with the rise of the internet.
For better or worse, our curiosity will lead us on a journey, and can be used against us for these meaningless articles which promise to show us something that we have to see to believe. At best, we get a bit of a laugh, at worst we provide ad revenue for a site that regurgitates something created by another whom will not see a dime.
However, just as with anything, clickbait can be used for good, or extreme ill, oftentimes to send a message.
Recall earlier in the year, when French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo used the image of Muhammad on the front cover as a gag. Later, extremists took action against the magazine and killed eleven while injuring eleven others.
Was the magazine in the wrong for posting the image of a religious figure whose depiction is forbidden? Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. That's a debate for another day. Was the response these extremest took wrong? Absolutely.
Did the people of Charlie Hebdo expect opposition to their magazine over the image. No doubt, but obviously not to that extent. Their intent was to engage, like clickbait. Did their message have some deeper meaning other than "Haha, we posted a picture of Muhammed." I doubt it. (In the realm of political satire, the joke from Charlie Hebdo was about as deep and funny as a Jeff Dunham original)
Because of the attack however, it became a symbol for freedom of speech and that terrorism will not stand.
Recently, the New York Daily News posted graphic images of a recent shooting which resulted in the death of two CBS reporters and the injuring of another with the headline "Executed."
Could it have been handled differently? Certainly. Their intent was clear however: This needs to be talked about.
According to all studies, violence and homocide is lower than it has ever been in all of human history, but people are still being murdered and attacked. Weapons are easier to access and use now than they've ever been in human history. We still have weapons in an age when we shouldn't.
It's easy to hear about all the violence that we still have in the world and look the other way, say that it'll get better, and ignore the problems that are still in place which allow the violence to continue. Showing you a disturbing image relating to said violence ensures you remember it exists. And, hopefully, if you remember that two people died because the perpetrator so easily acquired a gun you'll do something about it.
We didn't get to where we are today by staying the same as we were thousands of years ago. Without dialogue, without change, we won't progress as a species.
The clickbait (what do you call print media clickbait?) of New York Daily News can be used for good, and I sincerely hope that was their intention.
Don't be offended by the image on the cover, be offended by the violence that preceded it. Be offended that these deaths were preventable. Be offended that instead of talking about changing laws people are talking about how offended they are by the cover of a fucking newspaper.
We may have lost paradise, but that doesn't mean we can't at least make ourselves a garden.
August 26, 2015
Writing Fatigue
I love writing, but boy if it isn't hard work.
In the grand scheme of things, writing isn't hard work in the traditional sense (traditional being manual labour), but it's another kind of taxing. Mentally taxing.
Finding the time to write, staying motivated to continue writing, and editing are all difficult things and they don't have anything to do with the actual writing part. When writing, you have to think about a dozen different things at once.
With non-fiction you have to constantly fact check and ensure that what you are writing makes sense to someone who's had no intimate knowledge of the subject, and make sure that it flows with the rest of the document all the while ensuring it's actually interesting to read.
With fiction, you have to keep in mind a dozen different personalities at once, each with their own backstory and motivations weighing on the narrative, as well as maintaining flow and reader interest. And, depending on the subject matter, you could be doing just as much research as a non-fiction writer.
It can be a struggle even to get a few words on the page, regardless of how well versed you are in the particular subject. Fatigue is an inevitability.
So, how does one deal with fatigue? I feel that just as with general fatigue you take a nap, a break to rest, you need to do the same with writing. Take time away, recharge your batteries, work on other things, then come back to writing when you're rejuvenated.
Taking a break can give you the chance to focus on other things as well. Inspiration comes from experiences. If you don't take time to experience what life outside of writing has to offer, you can't expect to gain anything new to write about.
Of course, this is always in moderation. If you take so many breaks that you aren't finishing your project, then maybe you should be taking less breaks and just push through. Maybe it's not so much fatigue as procrastination at that point. (trust me, I know what that's all about.)
Take it as a positive, fatigue must mean you're working hard. Work hard enough that you can be fatigued, and break long enough to be inspired to work harder next time.
Want to support the production of Jeremy's writing? Visit www.patreon.com/jmclean or click here and become a patron!
In the grand scheme of things, writing isn't hard work in the traditional sense (traditional being manual labour), but it's another kind of taxing. Mentally taxing.
Finding the time to write, staying motivated to continue writing, and editing are all difficult things and they don't have anything to do with the actual writing part. When writing, you have to think about a dozen different things at once.
With non-fiction you have to constantly fact check and ensure that what you are writing makes sense to someone who's had no intimate knowledge of the subject, and make sure that it flows with the rest of the document all the while ensuring it's actually interesting to read.
With fiction, you have to keep in mind a dozen different personalities at once, each with their own backstory and motivations weighing on the narrative, as well as maintaining flow and reader interest. And, depending on the subject matter, you could be doing just as much research as a non-fiction writer.
It can be a struggle even to get a few words on the page, regardless of how well versed you are in the particular subject. Fatigue is an inevitability.
So, how does one deal with fatigue? I feel that just as with general fatigue you take a nap, a break to rest, you need to do the same with writing. Take time away, recharge your batteries, work on other things, then come back to writing when you're rejuvenated.
Taking a break can give you the chance to focus on other things as well. Inspiration comes from experiences. If you don't take time to experience what life outside of writing has to offer, you can't expect to gain anything new to write about.
Of course, this is always in moderation. If you take so many breaks that you aren't finishing your project, then maybe you should be taking less breaks and just push through. Maybe it's not so much fatigue as procrastination at that point. (trust me, I know what that's all about.)
Take it as a positive, fatigue must mean you're working hard. Work hard enough that you can be fatigued, and break long enough to be inspired to work harder next time.
Want to support the production of Jeremy's writing? Visit www.patreon.com/jmclean or click here and become a patron!
August 25, 2015
Crowdfunding's Impact on Creativity (Patreon/Kickstarter)
I didn't post about it here, so I will now for the first time: I'm on Patreon! Click here, on on the link on the right, to visit Patreon and see a video of what it's all about.
Patreon is a site dedicated in bring creators and fans together so that fans can bring more of what they love to live. This is done by fans becoming a patron and pledging a monthly amount so that creators can just focus on... well... creating.
On my patreon I'm doing two things, I'll be posting updates on the novels I'm working on so that fans can get a sneak peak before anyone else. You can see the first chapter of my new story, Bartholomew Roberts Justice by clicking here and pledging $1/month. I'll also be doing youtube tutorials for those who wish to also become authors. The main thing I want from patreon is people's time, which means feedback on the chapters or tutorials I post.
Of course money is nice as well, and goes a long way in helping me produce more content. If you don't have enough money to spare (seriously, even $1/month goes a long way) you'll still be able to see the chapters I post, just not right away, and the youtube tutorials will be publicly available on youtube for free as well.
So, with that out of the way, it brings me to the topic I wanted to talk about. Social media changed the way we share things with each other, and now because of the internet crowdfunding has changed the way we create... for better or worse.
The first big change I saw in terms of books and video games when it came to creation was the invention of the e-reader and the smartphone. With e-readers came an easier way to self-publish a novel. All you needed was a little programming skill, or someone else who did, and of course a finished manuscript, and you could have your novel available for sale. With smartphones it made small games that were easy to make a viable business. The point of entry was not very high, costs were low, and smartphones went crazy with the IPhone, so there was a huge potential audience.
Before, you had to cater to larger publishers to get your product recognized and off the ground, and you were often beholden to their terms of what would sell (I.E. for games it had to be a high end title, probably a shooter, and 99% of the time a white male lead. For books, you had to basically beg to be published, and already be polished enough to the point that the publishing company didn't have to do much to put it on store shelves and increase their revenue.)
Now, it's easier than ever to be independent and publish on your terms, and often the barrier for success is simply that your work is polished and complete.
With crowdfunding, that's not the case. With Kickstarter, anyone can pitch and idea for a game, and it doesn't even have to be complete, if you show a prototype (essentially like a first draft of a book, or the first few chapters even) and the idea is solid people will get behind it.
This means that much more products have been able to get off the ground because people have shown that they can make something amazing, they just need the money and time to do so. Now, even finances aren't a barrier for entry into the publishing world. Just get something together and see if the community will help pay for you to produce it.
But this also means that people who don't have the chops to follow through start something they can't finish. There's been countless kickstarters that have gone incredibly well only to never be completed because the people who started them were not prepared to do what they said they would. Either they overpromised and couldn't deliver, or they just didn't know the ins and outs of what they were trying to do and blew their budget because they didn't know their expenses like they should have.
Consumers have been burned because they've invested in something they want to try, but lose their money because the person wasn't experienced enough to finish the job.
Perhaps that's part of the reason why, with novels at least, publishers are seeking out self-publishing success stories and offering them deals. These authors have proven that they have what it takes and the market wants what they're offering. No more hedging their bets on a half finished manuscript and a plucky rookie, they have proven sales and proven track-record.
With crowdfunding it's easier than ever for someone to create their winning idea, but that doesn't mean they should. Maybe it's better to learn how to complete something before starting something.
Patreon is a site dedicated in bring creators and fans together so that fans can bring more of what they love to live. This is done by fans becoming a patron and pledging a monthly amount so that creators can just focus on... well... creating.
On my patreon I'm doing two things, I'll be posting updates on the novels I'm working on so that fans can get a sneak peak before anyone else. You can see the first chapter of my new story, Bartholomew Roberts Justice by clicking here and pledging $1/month. I'll also be doing youtube tutorials for those who wish to also become authors. The main thing I want from patreon is people's time, which means feedback on the chapters or tutorials I post.
Of course money is nice as well, and goes a long way in helping me produce more content. If you don't have enough money to spare (seriously, even $1/month goes a long way) you'll still be able to see the chapters I post, just not right away, and the youtube tutorials will be publicly available on youtube for free as well.
So, with that out of the way, it brings me to the topic I wanted to talk about. Social media changed the way we share things with each other, and now because of the internet crowdfunding has changed the way we create... for better or worse.
The first big change I saw in terms of books and video games when it came to creation was the invention of the e-reader and the smartphone. With e-readers came an easier way to self-publish a novel. All you needed was a little programming skill, or someone else who did, and of course a finished manuscript, and you could have your novel available for sale. With smartphones it made small games that were easy to make a viable business. The point of entry was not very high, costs were low, and smartphones went crazy with the IPhone, so there was a huge potential audience.
Before, you had to cater to larger publishers to get your product recognized and off the ground, and you were often beholden to their terms of what would sell (I.E. for games it had to be a high end title, probably a shooter, and 99% of the time a white male lead. For books, you had to basically beg to be published, and already be polished enough to the point that the publishing company didn't have to do much to put it on store shelves and increase their revenue.)
Now, it's easier than ever to be independent and publish on your terms, and often the barrier for success is simply that your work is polished and complete.
With crowdfunding, that's not the case. With Kickstarter, anyone can pitch and idea for a game, and it doesn't even have to be complete, if you show a prototype (essentially like a first draft of a book, or the first few chapters even) and the idea is solid people will get behind it.
This means that much more products have been able to get off the ground because people have shown that they can make something amazing, they just need the money and time to do so. Now, even finances aren't a barrier for entry into the publishing world. Just get something together and see if the community will help pay for you to produce it.
But this also means that people who don't have the chops to follow through start something they can't finish. There's been countless kickstarters that have gone incredibly well only to never be completed because the people who started them were not prepared to do what they said they would. Either they overpromised and couldn't deliver, or they just didn't know the ins and outs of what they were trying to do and blew their budget because they didn't know their expenses like they should have.
Consumers have been burned because they've invested in something they want to try, but lose their money because the person wasn't experienced enough to finish the job.
Perhaps that's part of the reason why, with novels at least, publishers are seeking out self-publishing success stories and offering them deals. These authors have proven that they have what it takes and the market wants what they're offering. No more hedging their bets on a half finished manuscript and a plucky rookie, they have proven sales and proven track-record.
With crowdfunding it's easier than ever for someone to create their winning idea, but that doesn't mean they should. Maybe it's better to learn how to complete something before starting something.
