To display the most relevant entries to you in priority,
vote for the stories you are interested in
()
and reject those that you are not interested in
()
Two weeks ago, Google launched Gesture Search as a public
Google Labs Beta and since the
release, Google has received quite a bit of feedback. For example it was requested to support
Gesture Search for earlier versions of Android, as well as access to it outside the US. Gesture
Search lets you quickly find a contact, an installed application, a bookmark or a music track
from hundreds or thousands of items, by simply drawing alphabet gestures on the touch screen. Say
you want to call your friend Anne. Just open Gesture Search and draw letter "A", and Gesture
Search returns a list of items that have words starting with "A".
Do you think that MSPaint is just a doodling tool for small kids? Well, check out the video after
the jump, and see if you don’t change your mind. It probably serves as a good reminder than
we shouldn’t complain about the tool we’re using, when we can’t come up with
something cool, eh? Have you drawn anything cool with MSPaint? Let us know via the comments
section.
Just in time for people who really really didn’t like the new Alice movie, Lewis Carroll’s
original, handwritten, hand-illustrated version is now online. Carroll had a nice way with
the drawings.
This version, which is the one Dodgson handed to Alice Liddell, is somewhat different from the
published version. According to the site’s intro, he removed “some of the private
family references” and added two chapters.
When I visited my cousin last week, his daughter Neeka Mashouf (age 13) and two of her classmates
(Nicole Bronstein and Sydney Schonefeld) were deeply engaged in creating a stop-motion animation
film for a class project, complete with a homemade stage and camera platform. The assignment was
to explain and show examples of Newton's three Laws of Motion in a creative way. They chose clay
as their medium and did all their stitching and editing in iMovie. It was fun to hear them talk
about their learning process. When they first started, they weren't capturing small enough
motions in each frame and the flow was coming out choppy. They went back to the drawing board and
this is what they came up with. Way more dynamic than any presentation I remember doing for
science class in 8th grade. It's exciting to see what this next generation of makers is crafting.
You wouldn't expect to find "We've tightened up the graphics on Episode Three" among the
usual list of noted improvements between Telltale's episodic releases. After all, with
endearing, demented characters like Sam and Max taking up quite a bit of the screen, who cares how
many polygons are left for that pot plant in the corner?
"We wanted to bump everything up presentation-wise for this season," said designer Chuck Jordan,
drawing attention to the Telltale engine's impressive -- nay, tight -- visual
enhancements. The Penal Zone, the first of five monthly episodes comprising Sam & Max: The Devil's
Playhouse, features noticeably improved lighting, real-time shadows and more expressive
facial animation. As Jordan pointed out, "an expression can sell a joke for the first time."
Based on the demo I saw at the Game Developers Conference, it's also apparent that the improved
graphics do make a difference to that pot plant. Because you transform into one. "When you
finally get to control Max," Jordan said, "it's really weird." Like, really really weird.
You wouldn't expect to find "We've tightened up the graphics on Episode Three" among the
usual list of noted improvements between Telltale's episodic releases. After all, with
endearing, demented characters like Sam and Max taking up quite a bit of the screen, who cares how
many polygons are left for that pot plant in the corner?
"We wanted to bump everything up presentation-wise for this season," said designer Chuck Jordan,
drawing attention to the Telltale engine's impressive -- nay, tight -- visual
enhancements. The Penal Zone, the first of five monthly episodes comprising Sam & Max: The Devil's
Playhouse, features noticeably improved lighting, real-time shadows and more expressive
facial animation. As Jordan pointed out, "an expression can sell a joke for the first time."
Based on the demo I saw at the Game Developers Conference, it's also apparent that the improved
graphics do make a difference to that pot plant. Because you transform into one. "When you
finally get to control Max," Jordan said, "it's really weird." Like, really really weird.
· Torres and Franck Ribéry lead list of transfer targets
· Squad pleads for final Champions League chance
Chelsea are drawing up plans to reshape their squad after being knocked out of the Champions
League and despite the current squad pleading for one more chance to win Europe's top prize.
The 1–0 defeat by José Mourinho's Internazionale on Tuesday exposed
weaknesses in Carlo Ancelotti's squad. The club will aim to retain the spine of the team but a
number of fringe players are expected to be moved on in the summer.
Chelsea's transfer policy in recent seasons has been one of relative prudence, as successive
chief executives have aimed for self-sufficiency instead of continued reliance upon Roman
Abramovich's benevolence. However, the club's Russian owner has made it clear that should the
right players become available at competitive prices, he will fund the occasional big signing.
Ancelotti may thus be able to consider moves for long-standing targets such as Fernando Torres,
Franck Ribéry, Angel di María or Sergio Agüero. Torres is emerging as the
club's principal target and the Spanish striker's future at Liverpool could be decided by the
level of investment attracted to his club in the next few months. Real Madrid will compete for
Ribéry's signature though the French forward, who plays for Bayern Munich, confirmed
interest from Chelsea last month.
Abramovich was at the club's Cobham training base yesterday and he spoke to Ancelotti about
long-term transfer policy. Funds could be raised by moving players on with the likes of Deco,
Ricardo Carvalho, Paulo Ferreira, Juliano Belletti and even Salomon Kalou potentially made
available. The owner's desire to reinvigorate the squad could also have implications for contract
negotiations with Joe Cole and Michael Ballack, whose deals expire at the end of the season, and
possibly Nicolas Anelka, who is contracted until 2011.
Previous Chelsea managers have come under serious scrutiny following elimination from the
Champions League but Ancelotti, who has been at the club for nine months, retains the owner's
faith and will oversee the next stage in this team's development.
"Most of the players are really happy and want to stay here and continue the adventure," said the
striker Didier Drogba, 32, who was sent off late in the 1-0 second-leg defeat. "It would mean a
lot to win [the Champions League] together next season because we've been trying so hard to do
that for such a long time. I hope there is more to come from this team."
Their forward Florent Malouda, 29, said the current team "could have given much more than we
did". Ballack, now 33, offered the telling admission that Inter's physical power had proved too
much to cope with. "I don't think this team is coming to an end because you can't use this game
as a means of assessing the development of the side over the whole year," the German midfielder
said.
Uefa's disciplinary panel has yet to decide if Drogba's red card for violent conduct
– the Ivorian stamped on Thiago Motta's ankle – will prompt
further sanction. The Ivory Coast striker is nine months into a three-year probationary period
for a previous offence. Drogba was banned for four matches, with a further two games suspended,
for verbally abusing the Norwegian referee Tom Henning Ovrebo after Chelsea's defeat in last
season's semi-final, against Barcelona.
Drogba faces a mandatory two‑match ban for his most recent offence, which
could be extended to four games. "The referee was a bit hard [on me] with this red card," said
the striker.
"I stepped on [Motta's] achilles tendon, but it was not intentional and I was more focused on the
cross and the ball. I know I have had unhappy endings in Europe for the last three years [he was
also sent off in the 2008 final], but I'm going to try and make it better. I hope next season
will be mine."
My city of Alameda, Calif.? We’re passing a city council resolution!
Heaven knows I want a 1 gigabit-per-second connection, too — so why isn’t my mayor
wrestling an octopus (or sharktopus)?
Is Sarasota (or Duluth, or Topeka) on to something?
“We don’t have a burgeoning tech and creative industry,” explained Richard
Swier (see disclosure below), who is spearheading Sarasota’s attempt to get Google fiber.
And without such an industry, he felt his town had to do something “crazy” in order
to get on Google’s radar. In addition to the shark tank, Sarasota declared one of its
islands “Google Island,” and its I Want
Google Fiber in Sarasota page on Facebook claims some 5,300 fans.
Alameda’s more sober approach certainly lacks flair, but that, too, is by design, according
to Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott. She believes the message Google sent out in its call for
participation was that the company wanted speed, efficiency and regulatory assistance, which the
city council’s resolution, with its task force and one point of contact for the entire
project, was specifically designed to do.
Jim Meyer, who founded the non-profit WireAlameda.org,
echoed Ott’s all-business approach. “We have a strong application,” he assured
me.
Since an active community behind the project was another one of the criteria set by Google, I
asked Meyer about our paltry number of Facebook fans and the dearth of big, showy community
events. Meyer pointed out that Facebook is a competitor to Google, so the group didn’t want
a big presence there, and in terms of big events, WireAlameda is organizing a community
chalk-drawing event this weekend. Chalk drawing certainly won’t attract mainstream media
attention (unless it’s laser chalk), but it’s not meant to — the point is to
showcase townsfolk that come out in order to pitch in.
In the meantime, an unexpected benefit has emerged: The actions of Swier’s group,
WireAlameda and others around the country have become a rallying point for towns beaten down by
tough economic times. Amidst the constant news of layoffs and general bad times, Google’s
gambit is giving people something they haven’t seen in awhile — hope.
**Disclosure: I went to high school with and played 9th grade basketball with Swier. We
haven’t talked really at all since high school, but his relentless efforts and recruiting
on Facebook clogged up my news feed and provided inspiration for this story.
Offstumped’s post attempts to chart a course for the future of what he calls
the “broad political space opposed to Left Liberalism.” As laudable and
difficult the endeavour is, the ideas he espouses in the piece leave many gaps in clarity,
ignores crucial areas, and casually dismisses many vital points that need to be accounted for.
A few words about some specific items on the recently-concluded online debate before getting into
a detailed response of the post. I don’t really have any view on that debate except for
what Offstumped says here:
Untamed Internet Activism remains a sore point [.] There is no clear intellectual leadership
visible on the horizon for taming this Activism and for taking it beyond the Internet
I’m not sure I agree with the usage of “untamed Internet activism.” He probably
means well, but to “tame” generally means “to control, to rein in.” Used
in the context of the Internet, this lends itself to the conclusion that we need to come up with
ways to control what he calls “Internet activism.” If this taming is what is called
for, it’s self-defeating, and it directly contradicts his general principle of upholding
the right to free speech. This is not to argue for having the freedom to abuse/insult somebody
without provocation but it does smack of censorship. However, in the absence of more
information/complete context, I’m not aware what the said activism implies.
I’m all for having clear leadership but everything has its own place. The idea of creating
a common platform is good but “taming” something by trying to bring in some sort of
standardization doesn’t bode well. It could eventually degenerate into toeing some
line—however good or bad the line maybe.
The Future can’t be Separated from the Past
The section titled Its about the future stupid says:
First time voters in 2019 will be a generation born in 2001 around or after 9/11 who are right
now studying in 4th grade
The past maybe an inspiration and a guide, the West maybe a case study,
but end of the day this exercise has to be about the future. Standing where we are today, if we
are not thinking ahead on the challenges, opportunities and the sense of
history with which todays 4th grader and the many who probably are not even in school will
be making political choices 9 years from now, then we will be irrelevant even before 2002 makes
it to History text books [...] We must draw a line to
#2 make this about the challenges and opportunities of the future and not
about righting history’s wrongs
I broadly agree about the challenges etc that the future presents. However, the “past as an
inspiration” and “sense of history” present some problems. If you want to look
to the past for inspiration, you need to know it thoroughly. Also, a sense of history
means that we know our history really well. What percentage of this broad political space know
it, and more importantly, can understand its impact on the future? Apart from a vocal fringe,
nobody really is interested to avenge (or “right”) historical wrongs. A sense of
history therefore, also means understanding the past accurately so we can discard the wrongs and
vow to never repeat it. Yet, what’s the kind of history that these 4th graders are being
taught?
Also, framing this in terms of votes/voters is shortsighted. The idea is to create an
intellectual climate where everybody is unafraid to openly debate everything without attaching
labels and trying to figure out “which side somebody is on.” And this has to shorn of
concerns such as getting votes. The Nehruvian Congress party—and later, the
Left—created precisely this sort of “intellectual” climate with
eyes always on the ballot box. I’m unsure if this is the approach Offstumped
recommends.
Essentially, this approach—mindshare, 2014 generation,
etc—falls in the realm of strategy, not ideology (a term
I’m both queasy and careful to use) for want of a better word. This note about
generational/age/franchise aspect makes eminent sense if Offstumped was talking about an
electoral strategy. Unfortunately, he seems to mix this up with other things I’ve noted
above.
Denouncing Hindutva without understanding it
After this, interestingly, Offstumped characterizes “political” Hindutva
thus.
#1 at its core was the product of deep insecurity and victimhood
This is quite easy to say offhand but I’d rather Offstumped had given irrefutable
evidence in support. Can he deny that the Indian state actively discriminated (and continues to
do so) against Hindus for the better part of post-Independence India? Can he deny the fact that
Hindu institutions and value systems were systematically derided by the state? Can he deny the
fact that the Indian state spawned an education system that showed Hindu history in unflattering
light? The said insecurity and victimhood are real. The words are not
“insecurity” and “victimhood” but threat and discrimination. But
for this kind of state-sponsored discrimination against Hindus, what was the need for a movement
like “political” Hindutva, where Hindus felt they needed a political voice?
#2 has been tainted by Adharma committed in its name.
I’d be more careful before using words like “Adharma” without understanding its
complete meaning. Adharma is not merely the English equivalent of
“injustice” or “crime.” If you look at the history of violence
perpetrated by Hindus, it has always been in retaliation to an attack/provocation. Plus,
Hindus have taken to the streets because the Indian state has proved beyond doubt that it is
incapable of both preventing original offenders from hurting Hindu sentiments, temples, etc as
well as proved ineffective in punishing the original offenders. Characterizing this as
Adharma shows an ignorance of the meaning of Adharma. This is not to defend
violence committed in the name of Hindutva/Hinduism but there is such a thing as spontaneous,
natural retaliation. A group of citizens picketing and stoning an MLA’s house for his
misdeeds after it has tried all peaceful and legal methods is not Adharma.
#4 was intellectually hollow in its failure to evolve an Intellectual Political Tradition geared
for the challenges of this Century drawing on the rich tradition of Kautilya’s Arthashastra
and others who followed him
In a post that approvingly talks about drawing from Kautilya’s rich tradition, it is
surprising that there’s not a single mention of what that tradition is. Supporting
Kautilya is a double-edged sword for I can show a host of material in the Arthashastra
that’d qualify Kautilya for the selfsame label of the “political” Hindutva
brand that Offstumped asks us to abandon.
In essence, the “political” Hindutva of the 1990s didn’t arise from a vacuum.
Hindutva as I suppose he’s aware, has a long history. Ignoring this history and coining a
new term “political Hindutva” is not a good approach. However, because he has called
upon us to abandon it, the burden of proof lies on Offstumped to show
us—by tracing this history—why it makes sense to abandon
Hindutva. Instances of demolishing buildings, disrupting lovers on Valentine’s Day,
burning posters, etc don’t count. I shall respond to him where I stand on this once I get
his response.
And then in a most interesting (and startling) paragraph, Offstumped lays down this
prescription:
Just as Rajadharma as articulated over the Centuries was the Constitution for the
State, the Indian Constitution is the Rajadharma in this day and age.The only
“Warrior Spirit” to protect Dharma is that which the has Constitutional sanction. The
only Right to bear Arms is that which is sanctioned by the Constitution. Even the Kshatriya of
yesteryears had no blanket immunity to use their arms but for the protection of Dharma which in
today’s context is the Indian Constitution.
For the record, Rajadharma was not the Constitution for the State. The Indian kingdoms
of the time Offstumped speaks about had no Constitution in the sense we understand it
today. The definition of a Raja is Ranjanaat iti Rajah (He is the king who
entertains/keeps his subjects happy). The closest equivalent to the word
“Constitution” is Smriti. Till date, we have 40 Smritis, the
earliest dating some thousands of years ago. We can vaguely liken the Indian Constitution to the
41st Smriti but only after it passes some tests as we shall see.
Rajadharma is an entire subject in its own right and very simply, it involved the king
to always uphold Dharma and ensure that his subjects were always happy and that his
coffers were always full. In the times of the Ramayana, it was to uphold this Rajadharma
that Rama had to forsake Sita. The King had sanction to employ any and every means to achieve
these twin objectives and relied on the smritis and his council of ministers to guide
him. The smritis in turn dealt with every conceivable aspect of Dharma in
minute detail including giving us such things as the kind of bodily ailments caused by excessive
gambling. Space doesn’t permit me to elaborate further but equating Rajadharma
with the Constitution of the State is wholly incorrect.
Equally, the Indian Constitution is not the Rajadharma of today. It is one
thing to say that the Constitution is a noble document and one of the pillars of our democracy
and other nice things. However, superimposing Rajadharma upon it is misleading to say
the least. One of the first tests of whether the Indian Constitution is indeed the
Rajadharma of today is to find out whether the Constitution itself upholds Dharma.
A marked feature of a Smriti (I’m using the term very loosely here) is its
fluidity, its adaptability to changing times because Dharma varies from age to age.
There have been pitched battles to amend whole portions of the Indian Constitution to accommodate
the changing needs, and aspirations but such portions have remained in a time warp. However,
amendments that injure both the Constitution and Dharma are passed nonchalantly. The
other test is how a Smriti treats other/minority groups/religions. The Indian
Constitution places minority institutions almost beyond the scrutiny of law. A fourth test is how
it treats the cultural icons, symbols, and literature of the nation. The Indian Constitution
makes it illegal to kill the peacock and the tiger and also punishes an insult to the national
flag. Yet, it doesn’t accord the same status to our epics, which are now reduced to
literary lab pieces for anybody to maul at will. The Ramayana and the
Mahabharata are not merely Hindu epics—they are Indian
epics. They define the Indian way of life and continue to influence people of all major religions
in the country. Neither can you argue that a secular/democratic nation has nothing to do with
religion because as we see, there’s nothing secular about Indian democracy. Additionally,
the word “secular” itself was an ugly aberration that Indira Gandhi introduced and
hasn’t been erased till date. This is the nature of Adharma. I can cite several
other instances but the point remains that the Indian Constitution doesn’t entirely adhere
to Dharma. If Offstumped argues that this is the Rajadharma, we all
need to follow, I have nothing further to say.
Besides, there’s another aspect to this. A king who fails to perform his
Rajadharma properly faces the prospect of his own subjects rebelling against
him—in other words, of taking the law into their own hands. Pretty much
what’s happening today. Successive Indian governments have failed to carry out their
Rajadharma properly, and worse, in many cases, actively encouraged
Adharma—votebanks, subverting the Constitution, the Emergency, etc.
If they had discharged their Rajadharma properly, we wouldn’t have had the “violence
unleashed by the political Hindutva” people.
Offstumped leaves me with no choice except to say that equating Dharma and
Rajadharma with the Indian Constitution stems from a deep ignorance of the concept of
Dharma. As a friendly note, anybody who wishes to talk about Dharma and make
sense needs to invest serious time and effort to understand its basics. Merely being
well-intentioned and supportive of Dharma isn’t enough.
Proffer alerts us to the bizarre story
of how IMAX (last seen suing
competitors and misleading
people about what an IMAX film really is) is now threatening the folks
behind the Sandy3D open source 3D flash engine. Apparently, IMAX has some sort of 3D drawing
system called SANDDE. So, maybe, if you squint, you could see how IMAX might be complaining about a
trademark issue. But the letter from IMAX is quite odd. It doesn't mention trademark at all.
Instead, it mentions a French patent.
This is quite odd, considering that there's clearly no patent issue here (beyond the fact that
Sandy3D isn't in France and the products are entirely different). So why isn't IMAX talking
trademark? Well, perhaps because IMAX's trademark on SANDDE was
considered abandoned as of March 8, 2000. Yes, more than ten years ago. There's also
the fact that this open source project is not a commercial endeavor at all, meaning that IMAX might
have a lot of trouble proving "use in commerce" even if it actually had a trademark. Perhaps IMAX
could get away with claiming a common law trademark, but even then, its ability to do anything to
Sandy3D would be quite limited, and it's difficult to see anyone finding a likelihood of confusion
existing between the two.
In the end, it looks like some IMAX lawyers decided to just threaten these open source developers,
hoping that by spewing some totally unrelated info about a patent, it might scare the developers
into changing the name on a product, even though the patent has nothing at all to do with the
issue, and the company has no registered trademark on the name in question.
I've come to the conclusion that people are attending
cons wrong. At least I think that must be the problem, since they find them so very draining.
People I know prepare for comic conventions as if they are prepping for the Iditarod,
rather than a relaxing weekend with like-minded people.
Growing up in Europe, we'd make fun of the Americans and the way they'd go on vacation. "We
saw 4 countries in 2 days!" they would proudly exclaim, as if running at top speed through
an entire country was something to be applauded. The aim of a vacation in Europe is to soak up
the foreign culture, which can only be done by spending leisurely hours wandering cities and
villages, eating in local cafés, shopping in weird markets, and generally doing nothing
much for as long as possible. Rather than zipping from one country to another, we try to spend as
long as possible in one place, winding down and generally getting the speedy pace of modern life
out of our systems.
This is how I grew up thinking of vacations, and this is still how I approach
all of them, including the ones at comic book conventions. It's only this year
that I realize how different my attitude is to my friends and colleagues, who push themselves to
the very limit. I see now that the trepidation and anxiety with which they anticipate this season
is entirely down to their own approach to it. There are many intimidating articles with "useful
tips" about how to "survive" comic cons, and it is well-intentioned advice like this which can
spread this kind of feverish approach to comic book convention attendance.
This last weekend at the Emerald City ComicCon in Seattle I took
a relaxing couple of day off from work spending time with friends around the comic books we all
love. Since my flight arrived late on Friday (bit of rain in San Francisco held us up for 3
hours, which really makes you wonder how any planes get off the ground in the UK, but I
digress...) I didn't get in till 2am, so I slept in till 11am on Saturday and wandered to the
convention center. Now in theory I'd have loved to have been out bright and early to enjoy as
much of the convention as possible, but let's be realistic for a second, this is a week in which
I moved house and switched jobs. Having a nice hotel room meant sleeping in and taking a
leisurely shower, it was necessary to my mental and physical health. Would a couple of hours
spent on-line to get in have made my experience any better? And those couple of hours gained
inside the con; would they impact my life dramatically enough to be worth losing sleep over? Not
in my opinion.
Once inside, I met up with my brother Sam (who had been dragging his sleep-deprived arse
around for hours), and we went to say hello to some people. We managed to visit Josh
Ellingson, Darick Roberston, and Ben Templesmith for little chats before
we decided that what we really needed was a slap-up lunch. Sam and I left the convention center
and went down the street to a nifty sushi place I'd passed earlier. We knew that any food
obtained in the center wouldn't be as good, and we needed some fresh air (plus a break from the
swarming masses of people wasn't too bad either). After that I went back for a couple of hours,
which gave me time to say catch up with my old friends from iFanboy, as well as saying hello to
Mike and Laura Allred. Towards the end of the day I met Nathan Fox and
had to force myself not to buy artwork (moving house has made me realize that I own too much
stuff), but I still managed to get a fab little drawing of Zodiac out of him.
The next day I slept in again. I knew I only had one
hour at the convention until I had to catch my flight back to San Francisco, but I knew that this
would be plenty of time. In that one hour I had the best little talk with Kieron Gillen,
(who understands about haircuts, as evinced by the marvelous dos in Phonogram), and a
fascinating talk with Jim Rugg about his book Afrodisiac, (and his theories
about the internet, access to information, and the implications upon the class structure.) Almost
in passing I met Steven Seagle and found out that he wrote House of Secrets -
which I was crazy about when it was coming out, but because I'm terrible with names, had entirely
missed that - so I was delighted to talk to him. After that I had time for a quick glance at
comic books and trades on sale. Unless it's something rare or strange I don't want to drag heavy
books home, so I didn't buy anything. At the end of the day it's more fun to buy books from my
favorite comic shop and support local business.
...
Now all told, I probably spent 5, maybe 6 hours at the convention. It was relaxing, lots of fun,
and I feel like I got exactly as much culture and commentary as I could deal with in a day and a
half. Imagine how it could have gone, if I'd approached it as the "pros" do: My two solid 8 hour
days of intense exploration would have precluded all of those chance encounters, or made them
intensely rushed. In addition, I would have been too tired to socialize in the evenings (which is
half the fun) and I would have returned to San Francisco to a half-moved-in house feeling very
unprepared.
For me, the classic approach to cons was summed up
by a con-virgin I saw leaving on Saturday. When I asked what she thought of her first comic book
convention, she looked at me with haunted, frantic eyes and paused before saying; "... this
morning was very intense, there were so many people and so much stuff that I almost had a panic
attack... I left for a little break and then came back... So I managed the whole day, but I don't
think I want to come to another one of these." What a shame! The poor woman was shattered and
quite reasonably so. She was in that stuffy convention center for hours and I can't understand
why she'd make her first convention experience so horrible. Perhaps it's that all of the advice
she got came from people who go to these things with the intention of maximizing
their experience of comic conventions, i.e. quantity over quality of experience.
I think perhaps It's time for a new approach to conventions. We're adults and we need someone to
write the "Zen and the Art of Comic Con" or something like that. You know the kind of
thing, where you get to eat breakfast in bed, meander about and take lots of breaks. I'd take a
pass at it, but in all honesty it might be the kind of thing that we'll spoil by laying down
rules for it. Half the fun of my comic book convention vacations is doing what I want on my own
schedule, and I can't figure out how to write a list of how-to's for that, unless it's Aleister
Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
Seller Moonlight Bindery
offers these cool hand-stitched books with upcycled green Lego baseplate covers in three
different sizes. Shown here is the small version.
This funky book is made from two 5" (16 X 16 dot in geek speak) square green LEGOÂ@ base
plates. The paper is 70 lb. 100% recycled white paper suitable for writing or drawing. There are
10 signatures with 8 pages a signature for a total of 80 pages (or 160 if you count front and
back sides.) Also included are 20 flat LEGOÂ@ pieces (the pieces may differ from the
picture) AND a LEGOÂ@ separator so you can create the cover of your choice! ...All of my
books and albums are made by hand in my home-based studio. So my creations will last I use acid
free paper, cloth, and glue.
[In a column originally published in Game Developer
magazine, former lead designer on Firaxis' Civilization IV and current EA 2D staffer Soren
Johnson examines the role of luck in games, which he describes as "a social lubricant
– the alcohol of gaming, so to speak."]
One of the most powerful tools a designer can use when developing games is probability, using
random chance to determine the outcome of player actions or to build the environment in which
play occurs. The use of luck, however, is not without its pitfalls, and designers should be aware
of the trade-offs involved – what chance can add to the experience and when it
can be counterproductive.
Failing at Probability
One challenge with using randomness is that humans are notoriously poor at accurately evaluating
probability. A common example is the Gambler’s Fallacy, which is the belief that odds will
even out over time. If the Roulette wheel comes up black five times in a row, players often
believe that the odds of coming up black again are quite small, even though clearly the streak
makes no difference whatsoever.
Conversely, people also see streaks where none actually exist – the shooter
with a ‘hot hand’ in basketball, for example, is a myth. Studies show
that, if anything, a successful shot actually predicts a subsequent miss.
Also, as designers of slot machines and MMO’s are quite aware, setting odds unevenly
between each progressive reward level makes players think that the game is more generous than it
really is. One commercial slot machine had its payout odds published by www.wizardofodds.com in 2008:
* 1:1 per 8 plays
* 2:1 per 600 plays
* 5:1 per 33 plays
* 20:1 per 2,320 plays
* 80:1 per 219 plays
* 150:1 per 6,241 plays
The 80:1 payoff is common enough to give players the thrill of beating the odds for a a big win
but still rare enough that the casino is in no risk of losing money. Furthermore, humans have a
hard time estimating extreme odds – a 1% chance is anticipated too often and
99% odds are considered to be as safe as 100%.
Leveling the Field
These difficulties in accurately estimating odds actually work in the favor of the game designer.
Simple game design systems, such as the dice-based resource generation system in Settlers of
Catan, can be tantalizingly difficult to master with a dash of probability.
In fact, luck makes a game more accessible because it shrinks the gap –
whether in perception or in reality – between experts and novices. In a game
with a strong luck element, beginners believe that, no matter what, they have a chance to win.
Few people would be willing to play a chess Grandmaster, but playing a backgammon expert is much
more appealing – a few lucky throws can give anyone a chance.
In the words of designer Dani Bunten, "Although most players hate the idea of random events that
will destroy their nice safe predictable strategies, nothing keeps a game alive like a wrench in
the works. Do not allow players to decide this issue. They don’t know it but we’re
offering them an excuse for when they lose ('It was that damn random event that did me in!') and
an opportunity to ‘beat the odds’ when they win.”
Thus, luck serves as a social lubricant – the alcohol of gaming, so to speak
– that increases the appeal of multiplayer gaming to audiences which would not
normally be suited for cutthroat head-to-head competition.
Where Luck Fails
Nonetheless, randomness is not appropriate for all situations or even all games. The "nasty
surprise" mechanic is never a good idea. If a crate provides ammo and other bonuses when opened
but explodes 1% of the time, the player has no chance to learn the probabilities in a safe
manner. If the explosion occurs early enough, the player will immediately stop opening crates. If
it happens much later, the player will feel unprepared and cheated.
Also, when randomness becomes just noise, the luck simply detracts from the player’s
understanding of the game. If a die roll is made every time a StarCraft Marine shoots at
a target, the rate of fire will simply appear uneven. Over time, the effect of luck on the
game’s outcome will be negligible, but the player will have a harder time grasping how
strong a Marine’s attack actually is with all the extra random noise.
Further, luck can slow down a game unnecessarily. The board games History of the World and Small
World have a very similar conquest mechanic, except that the former uses dice and the latter does
not (until the final attack). Making a die roll with each attack causes a History of the World
turn to last at least three or four times as long as a turn in Small World.
The reason is not just the logistical issues of rolling so many dice – knowing
that the results of one’s decisions are completely predictable allows one to plan out all
the steps at once without worrying about contingencies. Often, handling contingencies are a core
part of the game design, but game speed is an important factor too, so designers should be sure
that the trade-off is worthwhile.
Finally, luck is very inappropriate for calculations to determine victory. Unlucky rolls feel the
fairest the longer players are given to react to them before the game’s end. Thus, the
earlier luck plays a role, the better for the perception of game balance. Many classic card games
– pinochle, bridge, hearts – follow a standard model of an
initial random distribution of cards that establishes the game’s
‘terrain’ followed by a luck-free series of tricks which determines the
winners and losers.
Probability is Content
Indeed, the idea that randomness can provide an initial challenge to be overcome plays an
important role in many classic games, from simple games like Minesweeper to deeper ones
like NetHack and Age of Empires. At their core, solitaire and Diablo are not so
different – both present a randomly-generated environment that the player
needs to navigate intelligently for success.
An interesting recent use of randomness was Spelunky, which is indie developer Derek
Yu’s combination of the random level generation of NetHack with the game mechanics of 2D
platformers like Lode Runner. The addictiveness of the game comes from the unlimited
number of new caverns to explore, but frustration can emerge from the wild difficulty of certain,
unplanned combinations of monsters and tunnels.
In fact, pure randomness can be an untamed beast, creating game dynamics that throw an otherwise
solid design out of balance. For example, Civilization 3 introduced the concept of
strategic resources which were required to construct certain units – Chariots
need Horses, Tanks need Oil, and so on. These resources were sprinkled randomly across the world,
which inevitably led to large continents with only one cluster of Iron controlled by a single AI
opponent. Complaints of being unable to field armies for lack of resources were common among the
community.
For Civilization IV, the problem was solved by adding a minimum amount of space between
certain important resources, so that two sources of Iron could never be within seven tiles of
each other. The result was a still unpredictable arrangement of resources around the globe but
without the clustering that could doom an unfortunate player. On the other hand, the game
actively encouraged clustering for less important luxury resources – Incense,
Gems, Spices – to promote interesting trade dynamics.
Showing the Odds
Ultimately, when considering the role of probability, designers need to ask themselves "how is
luck helping or hurting the game?" Is randomness keeping the players pleasantly off-balance so
that they can’t solve the game trivially? Or is it making the experience frustratingly
unpredictable so that players are not invested in their decisions?
One factor which helps ensure the former is making the probability as explicit as possible. The
strategy game Armageddon Empires based combat on a few simple die rolls and then showed
the dice directly on-screen. Allowing the players to peer into the game’s calculations
increases their comfort level with the mechanics, which makes chance a tool for the player
instead of a mystery.
Similarly, with Civilization IV, we introduced a help mode which showed the exact
probability of success in combat, which drastically increased player satisfaction with the
underlying mechanics. Because humans have such a hard time estimating probability accurately,
helping them make a smart decision can improve the experience immensely.
Some deck-building card games, such as Magic: The Gathering or Dominion, put probability in the
foreground by centering the game experience on the likelihood of drawing cards in the
player’s carefully constructed deck. These games are won by players who understand the
proper ratio of rares to commons, knowing that each card will be drawn exactly once each time
through the deck. This concept can be extended to other games of chance by providing, for
example, a virtual “deck of dice” that ensures the distribution of die rolls is
exactly even.
Another interesting – and perhaps underused – idea from the
distant past of gaming history is the “Element of Chance” game option from the
turn-based strategy game Lords of Conquest. The three options available – Low,
Medium, and High – determined whether luck was only used to break ties or to
play a larger role in resolving combat.
The appropriate role of chance in a game is ultimately a subjective question, and giving players
the ability to adjust the knobs themselves can open up the game to a larger audience with a
greater variety of tastes.
For most of my life religious icons have been of no consequence to me spiritually. There were two
reasons for this response as I now understand my journey in faith. First, I thought icons were
idols. The fact that the Orthodox kissed them made me quite “sure” this was the case
for decades. Second, my understanding of the proper use of icons was limited by my prejudice
against them.
The more I have studied the theology of the ancient church, and the practices of that church in
public and private worship, the more I have had to deal with a number of subjects that I knew
very little about. This was the case with icons. My initial fears were addressed by thoughtful,
helpful responses from Christians who were much better able to understand the important role of
iconography. Eventually I could no longer avoid the subject of icons when friends became Orthodox
and I became more than a little curious. I wanted to genuinely listen to other Christians, since
this is at the heart of my own faith journey, and I desire to learn all that I could from those
believers who lived the gospel in the earliest centuries of Christianity.
I assure you that I am not a secret member of an Orthodox Church (there really isn’t such a
category of membership since the Orthodox Church would not permit it) but I have learned a ton
about iconography from my Orthodox friends. Here, where sights and sounds are so powerfully
associated with worship, I have learned to at least ask the right questions and then to listen
for the answers, some of which move me very deeply.
The word icon comes from the Greek word for “window.” An icon is traditionally
understood as a pathway to prayer, a window to heaven, a door to eternity. But unless you
understand how and why icons have been written (I will explain this word “written”
later) your perspective will likely lead to a gut-level reaction in the negative. For me, icons
just felt totally foreign.
The icon represents something that is “other.” It is much more than art, though it is
art in one sense for sure. It is actually a visual drawing written by Christians whose focus was
upon theology more than upon painting a picture of representational art. This is why I said above
that icons are actually “written.”
Frederica Mathewes-Green, author of The Open Door: Entering the Sanctuary of Icons and Prayer (Paralcete Press)
recently told a writer for Our Sunday Visitor (OSV), a Roman Catholic weekly newspaper I
read,) that: “People are looking for something that has more authority or authenticity. The
baby-boomers thought they could find it in their own contemporary culture. We know that
doesn’t work, so we have to go further back into the past.” Mathewes-Green compares
the growing interest in icons in modern American religious expression with a cultural shift away
from movies like “Godspell” and “Jesus Christ Superstar” from the 1970s to the interest just a few years ago in
Mel Gibson movie: “The
Passion of the Christ.”
Mathewes-Green believes: “People are saying, ‘Give me something ancient
that I know hasn’t been concocted by some advertising genius in the last 10 years.’
They are trying to get back to the original faith. They are looking for authenticity, and they
are finding it in the world that made the icons and in the spirituality of icon Christianity. How
far they’ll go with it I don’t know. Will they stay with it when it starts to cross
them and they realize they have to live a certain kind of life?”
Christian historians believe icons were drawn by the earliest Christians. Some tradition supports
the idea that the very first icon was drawn by Luke, which is believed to have been a drawing of
the Virgin Mary holding the Christ child. Before you reject this as utterly impossible you would
do well to read further on the subject and consider the possibility that this claim could well be
true.
But why are icons said to be written, not painted? Because they are more like theological texts,
i.e. exact representations of interpretations of the Christian faith, not an artist’s
rendition of what he has conceived in a vivid imagination.
The most typical and classic icons were made before 1054 and thus the Great Schism of the church.
Both Eastern Right Catholics and the Orthodox have treasured these icons from before this tragic
split in the church East and West.
Frederica Mathewes-Green says, in her new book on icons, that she did not really grasp the power
of icons until one day in a museum she saw a processional icon with the Virgin Mary holding the
Christ child. When she went around to the other side of this icon she was surprised to see an
image of Christ on the cross that was called the “great humility.” She says she was
transfixed by what she saw and felt and it was here she began her journey into the ancient world
of icons. She soon found that icons helped her better understand her own sinfulness and
God’s greatness in the provision of his own son for her salvation. She concludes,
“Icons are not just artwork, and they’re not just there to remind you of something. .
. . in a mysterious way they make a connection for you.” She told OSV, “If you look
at an icon that way, you would gaze at it with love and a sense that it’s drawing your
awareness through the icon and to the presence of Christ.”
A Catholic iconographer describes herself as more a “scribe” than an artist. It was
this insight that helped me the most when I began to look at and understand icons a bit more.
Icons are not meant to be worshiped or made into art for painters who want to make a statement
that comes out of their own experience. Iconographers are seeking to be as faithful as possible
to a core truth (or truths) that come out of their deeply confessional Christianity. One Catholic
writer says icons are used in prayer alongside the Bible to see and hear what God is teaching us.
They are meant to pass on the great truths of the faith without embellishment or interpretation.
A true icon should be like Scripture, direct and with no changes.
Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz recently reported that some "Fox journalists"
believe that colleague Glenn Beck "uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that undermines their
credibility." Nevertheless, Fox News' reporters and "news" programs have routinely promoted and
echoed Beck on stories such as the 9-12 Project, tea party protests, ACORN and former White House
officials Van Jones and Anita Dunn.
Kurtz: Some "Fox journalists" worried Beck "undermines their credibility"
In just over a year, Glenn Beck's blinding burst of stardom has often seemed to overshadow the
rest of Fox News.
And that may not be a good thing for the top-rated cable news channel, as many of its staffers
are acutely aware.
With his celebrity fueled by a Time cover story, best-selling books, cheerleading role at protest
rallies and steady stream of divisive remarks, Beck is drawing big ratings. But there is a deep
split within Fox between those -- led by Chairman Roger Ailes -- who are supportive, and many
journalists who are worried about the prospect that Beck is becoming the face of the network.
By calling President Obama a racist and branding progressivism a "cancer," Beck has achieved a
lightning-rod status that is unusual even for the network owned by Rupert Murdoch. And that, in
turn, has complicated the channel's efforts to neutralize White House criticism that Fox is not
really a news organization. Beck has become a constant topic of conversation among Fox
journalists, some of whom say they believe he uses distorted or inflammatory rhetoric that
undermines their credibility.
[...]
Friction between opinionated cable personalities and journalists has also flared occasionally at
MSNBC. But Beck has caused such anguish at Fox that some of its journalists celebrated the
failure of last week's interview with embattled ex-congressman Eric Massa, which Beck pronounced
a waste of time.
[...]
One thing is beyond debate: Beck provides a strong lead-in for the network's evening lineup. "The
significance of Beck to Fox's bottom line cannot be underestimated," says Tyndall, the industry
analyst. "Getting an audience that size at 5 p.m. is absolutely unheard of."
But that growth has come at a price, at least for those at Fox who believe that Beck is beginning
to define their brand. Glenn Beck is a media phenomenon married to a phenomenally successful
network, but away from the cameras, theirs is a troubled relationship.
The New York Times
reported on October 11, 2009, that Fox News claims its news hours are objective and defined
as "9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays." Those weekday hours include America's
Newsroom, Happening Now, America Live, Studio B, Special Report, and The Fox
Report. America Live replaced Live Desk in early 2010.
"News" division takes cues from Beck on ACORN tapes
Beck brings ACORN videos to Fox. On the September 9, 2009, edition of his Fox News program, Beck
previewed an "exclusive" that would air on his program the next day, which he claimed would make
"things change a lot for those in power." Beck later aired snippets of a
video from James O'Keefe and
Hannah
Giles in which they entered the Baltimore office of ACORN. Beck suggested the video was the
"exclusive stuff" that he predicted the media would be "talking about" instead of health care. On
September 10, Beck interviewed Giles and credited Andrew Breitbart with starting the story. On
September 15, Beck again hosted O'Keefe for a "one-hour special." Beck continued pushing
subsequent ACORN videos from O'Keefe and Giles in the following months. Investigationslaterfound significant problems with the ACORN tapes
and cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing.
Fox "news" programs follow Beck's lead, seize on ACORN videos. Following Beck's
"exclusive" preview, on September 10, 2009, through 7 p.m., Fox News dedicated at least 17 segments to the ACORN video. Fox
"news" programs covering the video included: America's Newsroom; Happening Now;
Live Desk; and Special Report.
Fox "news" programs hype Beck-promoted San Bernardino ACORN tapes. On September
15 and 16, 2009, Fox "news" programs devoted significant programming to O'Keefe
and Giles' video of their interactions with an ACORN worker in San Bernardino, CA, who claimed
that she murdered her husband and gave advice on how to run a brothel. The worker stated after
the video was released that she hadn't murdered her husband -- which was confirmed by police --
and was attempting to "shock them as much as they were shocking me." Live Desk teased
the video, with co-host Martha MacCallum stating: "We can now tell you that you are going to see
yet another big development in the ACORN story. Another tape is expected to come out tonight
after 5 p.m." -- a reference to Glenn Beck's program. At 5 p.m., Beck devoted a "special program"
to the San Bernardino video. Following Beck, Special Report and America's
Newsroom ran reports on the video.
Fox News Sunday devoted 18 minutes, over two consecutive broadcasts, to ACORN
controversy. In September, Fox News Sundaydevoted a total of 18 minutes of programming
time on two consecutive broadcasts to covering the ACORN tapes. During his September 20
broadcast, host Chris Wallace conducted an interview with ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis and Rep. Darrell
Issa (R-CA) to discuss the story. During the September 27 broadcast of the program, Wallace aired
a segment on O'Keefe, in which he
advanced several of O'Keefe's claims
without noting that they are contradicted by readily available evidence and labeled O'Keefe the
"Power Player of the Week."
"News" division follows Beck's lead on bogus Dunn controversy
Beck pushed concocted story that Dunn "worships" and "revere[s]" Mao Zedong.
Throughout his October 15, 2009, program, Beck claimed that then-White House
communications director Anita Dunn "worships" and "idolizes" "her hero" Mao Zedong. As evidence,
Beck aired a video in which Dunn cited two of her "favorite political philosophers," Mao Zedong
and Mother Teresa during a speech to high school graduates. However, Dunn offered no endorsement
of Mao's ideology or actions -- rather, she spoke of Mao and Mother Teresa as two of her favorite
"political philosophers," and based on short quotes from them, she offered the advice that "you
don't have to follow other people's choices and paths" or "let external definition define how
good you are internally." Indeed, admiration" for Mao and that President Obama
has "surrounded himself with Mao
supporters."
Special Report followed Beck's lead in highlighting Dunn's "Mao"
comments. On October 19, 2009, Fox News' Special Reportaired a truncated clip of Dunn's Mao quote,
and Fox News contributor Brit Hume responded: "Well, she also said that this is the two people
she turns to most. This doesn't sound like it was a one-off attempt to make a joke and imitate
the Republican strategist Lee Atwater."
"News" division follows Beck's campaign against Van Jones
Beck led the charge against Van Jones. Beck repeatedly attacked then-White House
green jobs adviser Van Jones. Beck has falsely accused Van Jones of being a "convicted
felon," misleadingly
stated that Jones' place in the Obama administration "says that the president has an agenda
that is radical, revolutionary, and in some cases, Marxist." A September 6, 2009, New York
Times
article stated that "[c]hief among those keeping the story alive was Glenn Beck, the
conservative host of a Fox News Channel program. Mr. Beck began criticizing Mr. Jones in July,
first in segments on his syndicated talk radio show and then, on July 23, on his Fox News
program, said Christopher Balfe, the president of Mr. Beck's production company."
"News" division picks up Jones "controversy." On September 3, 2009,
America's Newsroom, Live Desk, and Special Report ran segments on the
"controversy" over Jones. Fox News dispatched at least two reporters, Molly Henneberg and James
Rosen, to the Van Jones story. For instance, America's Newsroom's Megyn Kelly said Jones
has a "somewhat radical and sometimes racially-charged past," and asked Henneberg if Jones
"described himself as a communist." Kelly further wondered how Jones became a "czar." From
America's Newsroom:
Live Desk covered Jones' past remarks with Rosen and promoted the results of a
non-scientific poll finding that 97 percent of Fox News viewers aren't "satisfied with Van Jones'
apology" for past remarks:
On Special Report, host Bret Baier
introduced a report by Rosen by stating that there's a "troubling pattern of behavior by one
of the president's top advisers [Jones]" and later concluded, "We'll see if the national hoo-rah
develops" over Jones.
Van Jones resigns; Beck and Fox "stories" receive credit. On September 6, 2009,
Jones
resigned, citing that he "cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time
and energy defending or explaining my past." The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim
noted that "[b]efore Beck mentioned Jones in the last few weeks on his Fox News television
show, Jones remained an obscure figure in the administration. After Beck mentioned him,
protesters at town hall meetings made Jones a staple of their complaints." In an October 28,
2009, speech (retrieved from the Congressional Record) on the House floor, Rep. Lamar
Smith (R-TX) said: "Fox reports the stories that the national media ignore. For example, without
Fox News, you might not have heard about the recent ACORN scandal. You might not have heard about
the troubling political associations of the President's former green jobs czar, which eventually
led to his resignation."
Wallace: It is "certainly the case that Van Jones had a history as a radical, as a
self-professed communist." In a panel discussion about Jones' resignation on the
September 6, 2009, edition of Fox News Sunday, Wallace
stated that "it certainly is the case that Van Jones had a history as a radical, as a
self-professed communist, and also, the fact that is -- that he signed a 2004 petition suggesting
that there be an investigation of whether or not the government had a role in 9/11."
News division continues to track Jones post-resignation. Fox News' Special
Report has continued to discuss Van Jones despite his White House resignation. Since Jones'
resignation, according to Nexis, Special Report has mentioned Van Jones on February 25,
February 24, October 19, October 6, September 28, September 16, and September 10.
"News" division promotes Beck's 9-12 special and rally
Beck started conservative 9-12 Project, whose members helped organize 9-12
protests. On March 13, 2009, during his "You Are Not Alone" special, Beck announced the launch of his 9-12 Project, whose
members helped organize and turn out participants to a protest on September 12, 2009. Beck
routinelyimplored his audience to attend the Washington,
D.C. rally on his Fox News show. Beck then aired a special edition of his television show live
from 1 to 3 p.m. ET on Fox News on September 12.
Happening Now promotes Beck's original 9-12 Project special. On March
13, 2009, Happening Now hosted Beck to promote his special. From Happening Now:
Live Desk promotes Beck's original special as "the place to be." On the
March 13, 2009, edition of Live Desk, co-host Trace Gallagher started a countdown to
Beck's special and said Beck's show is "gathering steam across the country." Co-host Martha
MacCallum added that Beck's special is "the place to be this Friday night." Gallagher said that
Beck's first principle is "America is good and we seemed to have forgotten that." Gallagher
interviewed Beck live outside Fox News' offices while he and Fox News graphics repeatedly
promoted the special:
Wallace: "I'm a big Glenn Beck fan." On the March 13, 2009, edition of Fox News'
Studio B, while discussing Beck's special, Wallace said he sensed that Fox News host Shepard Smith was "begrudging" Glenn Beck and
that he himself is a "big Glenn Beck fan" and is "on the Glenn Beck bandwagon."
Fox News heavily promoted the Beck-fueled 9-12 rally. Fox News heavily promoted the 9-12 Tea Party rally and
the Tea Party Express tour, whose
last stop was on September 12 in Washington. For instance, during the August 23, 2009, edition of America's News HQ, host and
reporter Shannon Bream said, "We want to let folks know" the Tea Party Express' schedule so "they
can be a part" of the events. And on August 28, 2009, Fox News dispatched reporters Griff Jenkins and
William La Jeunesse to the Tea Party Express kickoff in Sacramento, California. Jenkins also
reported from the 9-12 rally for Beck's special; a Fox News producer was caught encouraging the crowd to cheer during
Jenkins' report.
Beck promotes, hosts a "FNC Tax Day" Tea Party. While discussing the April 15,
2009, Tea Party protests on his April 6, 2009, program, Glenn Beck suggested that
viewers could "[c]elebrate with Fox News" by either attending a protest or watching it on Fox
News. Beck stated that in addition to himself, hosts Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean
Hannity would be "live" at different protests. While Beck spoke, on-screen text labeled those
protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." In the lead-up to April 15, Beck repeatedly promoted the tea parties and urged viewers to
attend them.
Like Beck, Fox "news" programs repeatedly urged attendance at tea parties. In
the lead-up to the April 15, 2009, tea parties, Fox's "news" programs and anchors frequently aired segments publicizing and encouraging viewers to get
involved with the protests. For instance, Special Report host Baier noted the URL of
TaxDayTeaParty.com and stated that the protests have been "largely ignored by the mainstream
media," while America's Newsroomfrequently hosted tea party
organizers and posted on-screen organizing information, such as protest dates and locations. Host
Bill Hemmer also repeatedly directed viewers to the show's section on the Fox News website, which
posted a list of tea party protests. The following are some of the graphics America's
Newsroom aired to promote the April 15 tea parties:
Hemmer promotes Beck's appearance at the Alamo. While guest-hosting the April
12, 2009, edition of Fox News Watch, news anchor Hemmer promoted Beck's appearance at
the Alamo tea party, stating:
HEMMER: While the mainstream is ignoring the tea party movement, here at the Fox News Channel,
we're gearing up to bring you special coverage of the events all across the country. Sean Hannity
is in Atlanta. Glenn Beck is at the Alamo. Where else would he be? San Antonio. Neil Cavuto is
live in Sacramento and Greta is in Washington, D.C.
Can't get to a tea party? Fox Nation hosts a virtual tea party. You can check it out on the site
for the location of a tea party in your area. Again, that is Wednesday, the 15th of April.
This book came out two months ago, but I waited until I had some other stuff to review so I could
do a few days of "reviews a day." I don't mind waiting a while with standalone long-form novels,
though, because it's not like the Next Big Event will be spoiled if you don't read this right
away! And there's some minor nudity below. You can handle it!
Naomi Nowak's latest book, Graylight, is
published by NBM and costs a mere $12.95. I'm extremely torn
about this book. I don't love it, but I do think it's a work that can be enjoyable. Allow me to
explain!
On the recommendable side, Nowak's art is astonishing (uh-oh, I just gave away what's not
recommendable about it). A quoted review on the back calls it "Pre-Raphaelite," which isn't a bad
description (it's actually the coloring of the book that's called that, but it does apply to the
design of the book as well, or at least what I know of the Pre-Raphaelites seems to apply) -
Nowak's art is lush, almost Edenic, with a bold color palette that I hesitate to call "girlie,"
but I'm sorry - that's the word I thought of. Nowak uses lots of deep greens and blues and
purples, and she puts her characters deep into nature, so that flowers and butterflies threaten
to overwhelm the pages. She designs the book so that each page (or double-page spread) is a
complete drawing, eschewing panels quite often to build a page in which the separate drawings
bleed into each other, highlighting the riotousness of nature even more. She does use panels, but
lays them out on the page so that they crash into each other at jagged angles, overlap each
other, and generally look "sloppy" - it's not sloppy, because Nowak is going for a deliberate
effect, but it's not a "traditional" design or even a frenetic design like we often see in "edgy"
comics. It's much more of a melding of the panels, as Nowak uses the panels like she does the
larger splashes - as ways to create a holistically pleasing scene. Nowak's attention to detail is
tremendous, even though it doesn't, surprisingly, extend too much to her characters. With a few
exceptions on a few pages, the characters remain inexpressive, which is rather odd. Occasionally
we can see that Nowak can do more with faces, so the fact that she doesn't is a bit
perplexing. Nowak is Swedish, and this book apparently takes place during a northern summer,
meaning the daylight lasts most of the day - we get a sense of dreaminess from the endless light,
which is a nice trick. Because we get a sense that these people just aren't getting enough sleep,
we get a feel that they are somehow dreaming while they're awake, and it heightens the sense of
strangeness that is pervasive in the book. Nowak's art is a true treat.
However ... the writing doesn't keep up. Nowak is going for a very impressionistic kind of comic
here, which is fine, but she does have a story to tell, and she doesn't do a great job. She's
telling the story of a young lady named Sasha and the unusual love triangle in which she finds
herself. But Nowak, in trying to avoid overexplaining, gives us hardly any narrative whatsoever.
What we get is a lot of dreamy scenes where people say things that often have no connection with
what anyone else is saying. It's a tough go. It begins on the first few pages. We see a woman
holding a baby, and then we see the father leaving. She then tells the baby that she'll never let
a woman "capable of this devastation" come into the baby's life, and that he'll "never end up"
like his father. The father then committed suicide. It's obvious that the father cheated on the
mother and she threw him out, which is not a bad way to start the story, but we can already see
that Nowak is going more for a mood than anything else. This becomes problematic as we move
along.
In the present, we meet a girl named Sasha, who's a thief. In the woods one day, she meets a man
she's seen hanging around town named Erik, who is off to interview a reclusive author for his
newspaper. He invites Sasha to come along as his "photographer," but the author - the same woman
we saw in the beginning - doesn't like this, and Sasha has to leave ... but not before she steals
a book from a shelf in the house. The woman's son, Edmund - the same baby we saw in the beginning
- then tries to track down the book, with less-than-desirable results. Sasha is romantically
involved with Erik, but Edmund desires her as well. His mother, Aurora, who promised to protect
him from women like Sasha, takes some extreme measures. And that's all I really want to say of
the general plot, because I don't want to spoil it.
Nowak makes us work too much, however. Sasha doesn't seem to be that evil, despite her thievery.
She doesn't really "act" upon Edmund too much, and Edmund doesn't seem to fall too far under her
spell, such as it is. Sasha's relationship with Erik comes completely out of nowhere - on one
page, they seem to have no connection whatsoever, and the next, they're naked together, and a few
pages later, they're arguing about whether Sasha should tell her friends she's in a relationship.
This makes the "love triangle" that forms with Edmund even more enervating, because not only do
Sasha and Edmund not have much of a relationship, neither do Sasha and Erik. So when Aurora
decides to take action, we not only don't completely understand her motivation (as much as we can
figure it out; and Edmund is still a grown man, so maybe she should let go a bit), but we don't
understand why this random girl has raised her ire. There's a vague explanation, but it doesn't
help too much. This weakens the climax of the book.
Nowak, as I wrote, is counting on us to do a lot of the lifting. That's fine - more comic writers
should do that. She leaves it up to us to make connections, and for the most part we can, but
where the writing really fails is with the characterization. If we're going to infer major plot
points, we need to have a clearer grasp of the characters. If Nowak wants Aurora to be seen not
as an overbearing mother or a martyr for her child's happiness but some of both, she needs to do
a better job with Aurora herself. If she wants us to care about Sasha and her odd kleptomania,
Sasha needs to be more compelling. The love triangle falls apart because all three characters are
ciphers, and therefore we don't feel anything for any of them. It gets back to the Nordic setting
- if Nowak is matching the aloofness of the characters with the dreamlike and slightly surreal
surroundings, well I guess she succeeded, but it doesn't necessarily make the book worth reading.
As I always feel when I read a comic by someone who is clearly talented and is also working
outside the superhero mainstream, I hate that I don't like this more. If you're interested in
Nowak's art, I would recommend it highly. If you're looking for that art to work in conjunction
with a solid story, you'll probably be disappointed. Nowak has done two other graphic novels, and
I'm actually interested in getting at least one to see how her writing is in those. That's how
cool her art is. But on the whole, Graylight falls a bit short. It's too bad.
A website that sorts everyday the most relevant information to you.
Vote for the news and Matoumba will learn your tastes and the information that you like the most.
It is all FREE!
Find here the history of the stories you found interesting.
Show this to people who share the same interests as you,
and if they use Matoumba, their own votes will fine recommandations to you.
Two weeks ago, Google launched 
[In a column originally published in 
Recommandations
)
and reject those that you are not interested in
(
)
