Reports from the Edge

On hiatus

2009-11-01T10:49:00.002-06:00

This is quite possibly the longest I have ever gone without blogging and it's interesting to consider the reasons why.

1. Facebook. Yes, the ubiquitous FB fulfills many of the functions which I'd always used my blogs. Want to share an interesting link? Share it on FB in a couple of seconds. Make a snarky comment? Add it to the FB status. The amount of time to do either of those things is a fraction of composing a blog post.

2. Time and energy. Most of my keyboard-tapping and sentence-composing is now devoted to my English class. After writing anywhere from one to three papers every damned week, my enthusiasm for writing any other kind of piece is seriously diminished.

3. Without a major election year going on there just doesn't feel like a compelling reason to post regularly. I know, the Republicans are going out of their way to seem unreasonable, uncooperative, and unbelievably misleading. But there are far better sites devoted to pointing that out than I could ever be.

4. Without putting out too many details (partly because it's still not resolved, and partly because I don't want medical details on the interwebs), I've been having health issues all summer. It makes me tired and crappy feeling, and the carousel of drugs can make me mentally dopey... again, not really contributing to a writing frame of mind.

5. Second Life. I have a feeling some are pooh-poohing my involvement in this virtual society, but I can't really express how much I'm enjoying it without sounding like I've been brainwashed by a cult. So, you know, if you don't like it, fuck you. I've made some wonderful friendships, have a burgeoning career as a deejay in several clubs, and even (quite unexpectedly) acquired a SL boyfriend. The time I once spent obsessively blogging is now spent obsessively roaming the virtual landscape.

I'm sure I could dredge up some more reasons but those are the main ones. And they lead to my announcement (as if the headline didn't give it away) that this blog is going on indefinite hiatus. No major issues or problems, just a series of things that combined keep me away from the Blogger page, and I might as well just make it official.

I'm not taking down RftE because I'm sure I'll be back at some point (at least by the 2012 election season, if not before). Thanks, everyone, for hanging out with me here. See you again soon.

A war on disinformation

2009-08-15T10:18:00.003-05:00

I had a kinda funny thought this past week. That's not all that unusual, really, but I'm going to post it here to see if I can get some support for it. Because I think it would be a fascinating social exercise at least, and a powerful tool at best.

The "birthers" (where did that name come from, anyway?) and the right-wingers stomping around crying about the "death panels" and other healthcare falsehoods, are just two easy examples of how conservatives in this country are capitalizing on just about the only weapon they have these days, since they don't have any actual ideas: They are using lies.

Make up something absurd, spread it everywhere, pay people to show up at public events and make a scene about it... suddenly it becomes the truth even though there isn't a shred of evidence anywhere to support it. And that got me thinking... Couldn't the same weapon be used against them? And by that I mean, Let's make up some lies.

I couldn't be more serious. We're both looking at the easiest medium to use in spreading these lies, and that's the internet. Twitter, Facebook, e-mail, blogs, they can all spread "news" faster than anything else. Think about it, where did you first hear about Michael Jackson? Somewhere on the internet, right?

So here's my experiment: Join with me to create some totally outrageous fabrications that, in all likelihood, a lot of cretins could believe. I mean, they readily accept the laughable notion that a man made it to the top office of the land without anyone anywhere following a legitimate paper trail. How hard can they be to fool? Yes, I'm asking you to lie, and two wrongs don't make a right, yada yada. Sometimes you have to do ugly things in a war, and this has become an unavoidable war of disinformation.

Everyone is fair game. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney. Pick a target and aim. Let's come up with some good ones and then spread 'em like gasoline on a wildfire. We'll all tweet them, blog them, put them in Facebook comments... and then sit back and watch. Will they catch fire and spread? Could it really be that easy to get disinformation into circulation?

Let's find out. Who's with me?

Talk to the hand

2009-08-06T10:25:00.003-05:00

A great shot by Cesar Altamirano of Dominic Monaghan's surprise appearance at the Lost panel during Comic Con 2009.

Charlie's just one of several characters rumored to be returning for the final season. What do you think? Dead, alive, or just a great publicity stunt?

Second LIfe Diary #8

2009-07-18T20:44:00.005-05:00

I'm trying to stop shopping quite so much for my apartment in SL, or for clothes — which is way more fun in SL than it is in real life, let me tell you — and actually explore more. So I decided to visit the Titanic which, in SL, is not resting on the bottom of the ocean but is comfortably docked and ready for tourists.

This is me (tiny me, way at the front) doing my best "I'm king of the world!" It kinda lacks something when the boat isn't actually moving.

And here I am, floating in the ship's pool. I probably should have brought my bathing suit.

Heh heh, you said "sticky"

2009-07-14T14:04:00.005-05:00

I don't know why, probably because I'm testing the upper limits of stressed-outedness lately, but I thought this was funny.

I mean... really. Did they not know what the substance was? If you got close enough to know it was sticky, couldn't you identify it? And how wise it is to stick your finger in something — to determine its stickiness — if you don't know what it is? Ah, local reporting at its finest.

Slumdog, you got lucky

2009-06-27T11:36:00.003-05:00

On first read, the blast-from-the-past news this week that the Oscars would, for the first time since 1944, feature 10 Best Picture nominees instead of the five we've become used to was disconcerting and a little dismaying. Will it mean an even more crowded holiday/award season release schedule? twice as much "for your consideration" advertising? a *shudder* six-hour awards telecast?

But consider what might have happened last year, when the feel-good fairy tale Slumdog Millionaire was a shoo-in months ahead of the awards, and you'll see why this is actually a great idea. Might there have been a different outcome if the field of nominees had been twice as wide?

As a brief aside, first, let's take a moment and reflect again on the fact that of last year's fiee Best Pic nominees, only two of them were in the top twenty best-reviewed of the year: Milk (#13) and Slumdog Millionaire (#6). Yup. The other three nominees weren't even in the top twenty. Contrast Slumdog's 86 score on Metacritic to The Reader's dismal 58. This disconnect between mass critical opinion and the voting tastes of the Academy will probably never be resolved, so anyway...

Here are the five nominees from last year:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

And, as we know, Slumdog Millionaire looked like the best choice to Academy voters.

Now consider, the following list:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Frost Nixon
Iron Man
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire
Rachel Getting Married
The Reader
Revolutionary Road
Wall-E

This is what I think the BP nominees might have looked like with a field of ten. In this company, Slumdog doesn't look quite so much like a slam-dunk, does it?

Using the "voters vote with their hearts" theory (which is shaky at best, but we'll go with it), voters could have taken their Slumdog vote and cast it instead for Iron Man or Wall-E. What's that? Iron Man is too lightweight for the Academy? I'm sorry, did you see Slumdog?

That doesn't necessarily mean Iron Man or Wall-E would have won. But if they leeched enough votes away, Milk, The Dark Knight or even Benjamin Button could have benefitted and snuck into the lead. On the other hand, with Wall-E actually in the running, instead of relegated to its token Best Animated Feature category, it could have built enough momentum (it certainly had the goodwill and the rave reviews) to win on its own.

So that's what's ultimately so great about this new plan, and why it's the smartest thing the Academy has done since... well... in a long time. For a couple of months it will give a smaller film like Rachel Getting Married or Revolutionary Road, or a genre pic like The Dark Knight a chance to bask in the spotlight as a Best Picture nominee. But more than that, by taking the same voting pool and spreading it twice as thin, it makes it that much more likely a real — and, perhaps, more deserving — underdog will win.

A beary slow news day

2009-06-18T13:21:00.003-05:00

This is news? really?

The really "bwah!" moment is at :38 — see if it doesn't force a guffaw out of you. I still can't decide whether or not they meant this seriously, but I seriously hope... not.

And should we be surprised it's a Fox news channel?

Hey, Emmy voters

2009-06-13T13:34:00.005-05:00

You know, Mr. and Ms. Emmy Voter, every year you get lazy and vote for the same people as last year, and pretty much every year you get the nominations spectacularly wrong. And every year people try to help you out by pointing to worthy nominees, and every year you ignore us.

Doesn't stop me from trying again this year. Now that you have your ballots in-hand, just write down the following and be done with it. Because we can always hope that, for once, you won't just nominate Jeremy Piven and Tony Shalhoub and Two and a Half Men again. And again. And again.

Remember that this is your last year to do right by Battlestar Galactica. Get it wrong and we may never speak again.

If you're interested in actually doing your homework, here is the complete list of submissions.

You're welcome.

Second Life Diary #7

2009-06-09T16:55:00.003-05:00

Shawn, one of my Second Life buds, accompanied me over the weekend on a quick jaunt to Disneyworld.

Well, okay, not Disneyworld, per se. It's called Mouse World in Second Life and, though you wouldn't know it from the high level of detail, it's not officially endorsed by Disney (who is missing a great cross-promotional opportunity). The Mouse World sim creators have done an amazing job replicating some of Disneyworld's highlights.

We first rode Thunder Mountain Railroad which, while a bit jerky in spots, was still a fine simulation. Then, after chatting a bit with a Snow White whose first language was evidently not English, we tried to ride Space Mountain. Shawn never could get the ride to function for him. I was able to get on the ride, but it kept malfunctioning and I finally gave up and got off. It may not have been deliberate in this case, but actually that's pretty much what Space Mountain is like in real life as well. So, once again, good job of verisimilitude.

The capper, though, was the Haunted Mansion. Complete with a suspiciously accurate narration and musical score (suspiciously accurate = a recording of the real ride), this simulation hit every single feature of the real Haunted Mansion. It's possibly the most impressive thing I've see in SL so far, and that — coming from someone who has conversed with dragons and been menaced by vampires — is pretty high praise.

Having a sit-down in front of Cinderella's Castle. Prince Charming was a no-show. (Click to enlarge.)

Tony's closing number

2009-06-08T21:38:00.002-05:00

NPH = Nearly Perfect Host.

And here is the story behind it.

For the cubicle workers of the world

2009-06-03T12:54:00.005-05:00

... who would rather listen to a movie than work. And, really, isn't that most of us?

If you like the familiar drone of a favorite film, Listentoamovie.com is just the thing. Whether you listen out loud or plug in your headphones, here you can launch a little audio player and tap into a library of over 1,400 movies (and over 200 episodes of The Simpsons, too).

But yes, you can only listen. No video, just an audio stream. It sounds a little odd at first, but I've found that sometimes the right movie can provide a very familiar and comforting sort of white noise to brighten the workday. It also has a "Stealth" mode that changes the player into a fake spreadsheet to fool nosy co-workers, though I'm not sure how you'd explain the sounds of Transformers coming over your computer speakers.

I've been listening to Under the Tuscan Sun, not just because it's a lovely movie but because Diane Lane's voice is soothing and friendly and, honestly, who wouldn't rather be in sunny Tuscany than stuck inside an office?

Second Life Diary #6

2009-06-02T07:00:00.004-05:00

My friend Julie, who passed away last week, loved to go to Mexico for vacations. She would go at least once a year, if not more often. Her funeral was Monday and, though I obviously couldn't actually go to Mexico, I could virtually wing my way down south through the magic of Second Life. It seemed a fun and appropriate thing to do in her honor.

[Click to enlarge.]

So, that's me (if you can see me, barely) standing on top of the pyramid at Chichen Itza. Wish you were here, Julie.

Got Zach?

2009-06-01T11:43:00.005-05:00

Zachary Quinto's video for... um... I don't really know what this is for. Milk? Wet t-shirts? Eyebrow maintenance?

Actually, I don't really care. I'd just like to say an I-think-I-forgot-to-breathe-for-56-seconds thankyouthankyou to videographer Tyler Shields, whoever he is.

That's all. I have nothing profound to say about this because my brain is oxygen-deprived.

It's time for a mystery

2009-05-29T16:00:00.000-05:00

I know it sounds crazy, but someone stole my alarm clock.

I say that I know it sounds crazy to derail possible conjecture that I am, in fact, crazy. Nonetheless, this is a true story. Someone stole my alarm clock.

Not my regular alarm clock; that's the fancy electric kind that first eases me from slumber with gentle music from a CD and then, when that approach inevitably fails, assaults me with that awesome screeeeeeeeeeee sound we all know and don't love.

Since it's fancy, it's also impossibly difficult to program. So, I bought a little cheapie battery-powered travel alarm clock. I use it when we have those great Illinois thunderstorms, so if the power goes out in the middle of the night and I sleep through it (which I always do), an alarm will still go off and I'll get to work on time. I also have early-morning meetings on Wednesdays and, rather than deprogram and reprogram my impossibly-difficult electric alarm, I just use the little clock to get up earlier than normal.

I have my system, and it works, odd though it may sound. And this past Tuesday evening, when I went to turn on my little alarm for my Wednesday morning meeting... the alarm clock wasn't there. It wasn't anywhere.

Now, the part I haven't told you yet is, I'm pretty sure I've identified the person who stole it. Eliminating unnecessary/boring details, I asked the landlord to investigate an electrical issue in my apartment. They did so. And what day were they in my apartment? That's right: Tuesday. And what room of the apartment were they working in? That's right: the bedroom. When did I notice the clock missing? That's right: Tuesday night.

I know it sounds crazy. Why on this forsaken earth would someone steal my cheapie, plastic, battery-operated alarm clock, when there are a lot more expensive things in this apartment to filch? I don't know. And I guess I can't say they didn't steal anything else, just because I haven't noticed anything else missing. So far. But still... why?

And if they didn't steal it, where is it? No, I don't remember seeing it since the last time I needed it — last Wednesday morning.

Will I call Royse & Brinkmeyer? No. What on earth would I say? "Hi. For some unfathomable reason, one of your maintenance people pocketed an inexpensive, easily replaceable travel alarm, while leaving an extensive DVD collection, a computer, and countless gadgets and trinkets behind. Can I prove it? Well, no. And yes, I know it sounds crazy. Never mind."

Before someone else says it, Yes, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that I moved it myself. However, why would I move it somewhere other than the bedroom? And where would I have taken it? I can only shrug in answer to both those questions. And so the mystery remains. Either a maintenance man is now able to get to work on time, or I've developed another personality who likes hiding things from me. If only I could get that other personality to do the cleaning and laundry.

And the four-toed statue is...

2009-05-28T20:38:00.004-05:00

ABC did a very sneaky thing. After letting podcasters and the blogos go kookoo trying to identify the four-toed statue, ABC posted its official recap of the show and, oh so casually, solved the mystery:

The camera pulls back over the ocean, and we see they were sitting on the base of a giant stone foot. And next to the foot is another foot -- and both feet have four toes. And as the camera pulls back, we see what we've been waiting to see since we first glimpsed that four-toed foot over three years ago... the towering, majestic statue of the Egyptian goddess Taweret.

Bit of an anticlimax, wasn't it? At least now we can move on to other mysteries, like: How are they gonna get Desmond back to the island? Because you so know he's going back.

But first, here's Wikipedia talking about Taweret:

When paired with another deity, she became the demon-wife of Apep, the original god of evil. Since Apep was viewed as residing below the horizon, and only present at night, evil during the day then was envisaged as being a result of Taweret's malfeasance.

In their art, Taweret was depicted as a composite of all the things the Egyptians feared, the major part of her being hippopotamus ... with the arms and legs of a lioness, and with the back of a crocodile. On occasion, later, rather than having a crocodile back, she was seen as having a separate, small crocodile resting on her back, which was thus interpreted as Sobek, the crocodile-god, and said to be her consort.

So we get a little Sobek after all. It goes on,

Early during the Old Kingdom, the Egyptians came to see female hippopotami as less aggressive than the males, and began to view their aggression only as one of protecting their young and being good mothers, particularly since it is the males that are territorially aggressive. Consequently, Taweret became seen, very early in Egyptian history, as a deity of protection in pregnancy and childbirth.

In most subsequent depictions, Taweret was depicted with features of a pregnant woman. In a composite addition to the animal-compound she was also seen with pendulous breasts, a full pregnant abdomen, and long, straight human hair on her head.

Which would go a ways toward explaining why we've never seen the statue from the front (and by that I mean the pregnant boobies that Europeans wouldn't think twice about but that might traumatize young conservative American minds). I can't locate any paintings or statues of Taweret that show her wearing the short, masculine-style kilt we see on Lost's version. Or holding ankhs in both hands (one hand yes, both hands no). Those arms and legs are also clearly human and not of the lioness variety. So, either something is afoot with these discrepancies, or it's impossibly sloppy art direction.

Frankly, I liked Sobek a lot more than Taweret as the statue's secret identity. Simply, his backstory fit better. Yes, Taweret is connected with childbirth, and women can't carry to term on the island. But we're missing something here, if there is indeed a connection at all. Taweret's statue was created hundreds if not thousands of years in the past. Childbearing didn't become a deadly issue until after The Incident, as evidenced by Amy being able to give birth to Ethan with Juliet's assistance. So why would Taweret have been invoked for a problem that didn't exist yet?

Honestly, I think the ABC recap got it wrong. Call me stubborn, but I'm sticking with Sobek until the show's writers (as opposed to the network's web minions) say otherwise.

In the shadow of the statue

2009-05-14T10:40:00.007-05:00

Spoilers, spoilers, yadayadayada.

I'm not going to get into a long-winded dissection of last night's S5 finale of Lost. There's just too much. Instead, just some thoughts on my favorite character's bravery, and that statue.

In the past I've usually only teared-up during the early portions of Sun & Jin's story, hence my soft spot for them. But Elizabeth Mitchell as Juliet — who rocked since the day she first appeared and burned muffins and snarked out her bookclub — was glorious in what I fear is her swan song (heh, Swan? the Swan's a hatch, too! Get it? Nevermind).

Ever since the 316ers crash-landed in the past and messed up James and Juliet's idyllic Dharmalife, I've had a bad feeling Juliet was not much longer for the show. That, and the fact that Elizabeth Mitchell has been cast in the new Fall series "V". If she has to go then she got a hero's send-off, as she well deserved. And if she does survive to next season a la Desmond's key-turning blast (and subsequent loss of clothing), well, so much the better. In either case, Emmy should take notice. Excuse me while I wipe my eyes and blow my nose.

Now, about that beautiful statue [see pic, click to enlarge]. As if Lost wasn't awesome enough already, they continue to incorporate the mythology of my favorite ancient civilization. I haven't had a chance yet to riffle through my library, but according to Wikipedia:

The god Sobek, which was depicted as a crocodile or a man with the head of a crocodile was a powerful and frightening deity; in some Egyptian creation myths, it was Sobek who first came out of the waters of chaos to create the world. As a creator god, he was occasionally linked with the sun god Ra.

Sobek's ambiguous nature led some Egyptians to believe that he was a repairer of evil that had been done, rather than a force for good in itself... He was also said to call on suitable gods and goddesses required for protecting people in situation, effectively having a more distant role, nudging things along, rather than taking an active part.

Sounding familiar?

If Jacob is the personification of the island he would be associated with Sobek because Sobek created him. We've always assumed that the smoke monster was the protector of the island because it chased and killed interlopers (or, in the case of Locke, let them go... hmm...). If Jacob "is" the island and Smokey is its protector, Smokey is unable to kill Jacob because that's counter to his programming (I don't think we have enough info yet to speculate why Smokey despises Jacob enough to want him dead and be searching for that loophole).

We saw the groundwork for this a few episodes ago. NotLocke took Ben to the temple to atone. Ben wandered off without NotLocke and encountered Smokey, who took the form of Ben's daughter, Alex (note that we don't see NotLocke and NotAlex at the same time). NotAlex tells Ben to do whatever NotLocke says; since Smokey is actually both NotLocke and NotAlex, it's essentially saying "do what I tell you to do, because you're my loophole". I think this is pretty much confirmed when, last night, NotLocke said he'd met Jacob before "in a manner of speaking," and the dying Jacob noted, "You found your loophole."

I'm still looking for who Sobek's enemy/duality might be within Egyptian mythology (gotta look that up tonight), so if anyone has info on that please add it in the comments. Moon-grrl has pointed out the show is getting a little Biblical, what with all the Jacob/Esau and Cain/Abel parallels (actually it's always been hinted at, what with Jacob, Aaron, Daniel, Benjamin, Sarah, Rachel, "Exodus," and of course Christian Shepherd). I hope that it just winds up being a mythos mish-mash without hewing strictly to Christian mythology, because that's a little too red-state for my tastes.

Finally, consider the hieroglyphic components of Sobek's name [see pic]. Yeah, that's a foot. A coincidence, maybe, or possibly a sly wink and a hint. I'm thinking the latter.

ETA: I don't think series director Jack Bender has had a better moment than his handling of our characters as the bomb sailed down the shaft. The silence, the agonized close-ups, and the stunning acting rank this as, I think, one of Lost's all-time best sequences. Simply brilliant.

The high cost of falling down stairs

2009-05-11T09:08:00.002-05:00

This story is a great example of the disarray our medical system in American finds itself in these days.

In hindsight, maybe Jesse Ashlock shouldn’t have walked out of the New York emergency room last summer, only a couple hours after being knocked unconscious in a Brooklyn bicycle crash.

Medical crews told him he needed a blood test, chest X-rays and probably a CT scan to check for head injuries. And he certainly should have had treatment for major road rash, including raw scrapes on his face, neck and hands.

But the 31-year-old editor for a design magazine was between jobs, briefly without health insurance and afraid of being stuck with a sky-high hospital bill. The doctor on duty dismissed Ashlock’s questions about cost, telling him she was “a physician, not an accountant,” he said.

I can completely relate to these people after my latest round of tests on my ankle.

The short version, in case you don't already know: I stumbled down the bottom of some stairs and landed badly on my ankle. It was still sore a few weeks later so I thought it would be smart and responsible to have a doctor poke at it, to confirm nothing was seriously wrong.

Three doctors, one set of x-rays, one MRI, and four office visits later, everyone confirmed what I already knew (because I'm smart that way) — I'd bruised my ankle.

Well, thanks for that. Now the bills have started rolling in. I'm already at several hundred dollars that my insurance won't pay, and I noticed that the MRI hasn't yet known up. So I still have to scrape up funds to pay for 30 minutes of enforced non-motion that I went through, really, for nothing.

[Digression: Here's a fun activity for sometime when you're bored. Try to not move for 30 minutes. It doesn't sound bad. Set a timer for 30 minutes, lay on your bed and don't move. At all. Breathe and blink, that's it. Do. Not. Move. And don't think about the fact that you can't move. During the last few minutes I was ready to fabricate state secrets just to get them to unstrap me.]

It's hard not to get bitter about stuff like this, even though I do feel the doctors were honest and well-intentioned. But if a medical professional is 99.9% sure no bones are broken, is it really necessary to schedule — and make a patient pay for — an MRI that will, in all likelihood, just repeat results we already know?

And at several points over those weeks, I did keep asking medical staffers, "How much is this going to cost me?" And no one ever knew. As that doctor in the article point out, doctors and nurses aren't accountants (though that's a pretty snarky response from a health care professional — it sounds like something Cristina on Grey's Anatomy would say). But there has to be a way of letting a patient know just how deep they are digging into their bank accounts for various treatments. We should be able to make responsible financial decisions about treatments in the middle of the medical process.

My ankle is much better (finally). But the irony is that, with the benefit of hindsight, I can see that if I had never gone to Convenient Care, never been directed to x-ray, never seen my GP, never gone to orthopedics, never been given that Stormtrooper boot to wear, never been given that ankle brace to wear, and never been strapped into the MRI machine... the end result would have been exactly the same.

Oh, except for having to pay out the equivalent of a month's rent. Yeah, that's money I would still have, and my ankle would still be fine. Right or wrong, this experience is definitely going to color my decision-making the next time a medical issue arises. And it shouldn't be like that.

Sunday comic

2009-05-10T20:57:00.003-05:00

Second Life Diary #5

2009-05-09T13:22:00.003-05:00

I've been wondering what aspect of Second Life to diary about next. Should I explore the seemingly-endless fashion choices and vendors? The unexpected yet fascinating sexual opportunities? The dichotomy between a user's real appearance and how they choose to design and clothe their avatar? The creepy (to me, anyway) subculture of furries — people who present as animals instead of humans? I asked Narc if he had a suggestion, and he simply came back with, "Why?"

As in, Why bother with SL? Comparing it to World of Warcraft, SL seemed to him little more than playing dress-up with your avatar and chatting in a fancy setting. The implication being WoW — with its long-term battle plans — at least had some kind of raison de'etre while SL, with its "casual" approach, lacked a purpose (strange, coming from the person who wrote this). So, here’s my defense (though I don't think it requires one) of my new fascination.

I haven't yet participated in any SL role-playing. I'm making assumptions based on what I've encountered so far and what other SL residents have told me, while Narc is also making assumptions from a dedicated gamer’s point of view. There are plenty of worlds (or "sims," in SL-speak) where the point is to participate in role-playing and quests. I've been to one based on the world of Gor, and another inspired by the Firefly/Serenity 'verse. While not as expansive or complex as it seems WoW's quests can be, they're similar multi-player, role-playing scenarios.

But while SL does offer role-playing games, it also gives residents the option to just be, and not have to mess with magic and gold and talents and what-not unless they want to.

Maybe your goal is to talk to people from around the globe, go exploring and socialize. Cool, done. Or, you can start a zoo filled with every animal imaginable then maintain it for the enjoyment of all SL residents. You probably don't have that option in real life (and now you don't have to worry about polar bears biting the patrons). Be a DJ in a dance club, a fashion designer or an escort, take a parachute jump off the Eiffel Tower, walk on the bottom of the ocean (with or without scuba gear), or change gender from night to night (or even be a child again, which is slightly creepy but whatever). If you're allergic to animals but really want a pet's companionship, in SL you can get your kitty — or fox or puppy or falcon or panda — and not worry about sneezing or the expense. The personality scripting in some of these animals makes them astonishingly autonomous.

You can attend classes at virtual colleges, some of them extensions of real-life universities like Harvard, Texas State, and Stanford, consult with customer service reps from IBM, Sun and Cisco, or test-drive product demos from Adobe. Is any of this slaying-the-dragon stuff? No. But that doesn't mean it doesn't give someone a real sense of companionship or accomplishment.

A few evenings ago I roamed through King Tut’s tomb, something I’ll likely never do in real life, and even blasphemed by sitting on his funerary shrine (woo hoo! see pic). I got stalked — seriously — by a vampire in a club and, for a Buffy fan, that's pretty awesome. And a group of guys I've befriended from three different countries, on two continents, got together and roamed a virtual "robot museum," an exhibit of movie and TV robots over the last century. A good time was had by all and didn't cost a thing (we even set Gino on fire with one robot’s death ray). Was there a point to any of it? Other than to have some laughs and explore, no, but does everything have to have a point? I think, again, no.*

And, I have to ask, can you do any of those things in WoW?

But WoW was designed for, and meets the needs of, an entirely different gaming community. Just because WoW doesn't allow you to jump off the Eiffel Tower doesn't make it a lesser endeavor, and just because SL doesn't require magic spells and battle plans doesn't make it pointless. In fact, I think, it's the lack of a single point — or the ability to invent a different "point" every single day, if you even need one — that is SL's appeal.

Wondering whether either of these pastimes have a point distracts, I think, from the real point: It’s fantasy. It’s entertainment. It’s a sense of community, whether you're chasing demons or having a vampire chase you. Pointing to a lack of purpose isn't a compelling, constructive or fair criticism toward either ‘verse. Even sadder, it changes them both from the rewarding technological marvels they are, into dry case studies in some Sociology term paper.

*Or, maybe everything already has a point.

An evil, evil time-waster

2009-05-03T09:00:00.001-05:00

So I got up Saturday morning determined to blaze through all the chores and housework that have been criminally neglected due to the creation of my Second Life. In the virtual world there are no such things as "chores" or "housework," so it makes it that much harder to return to the real ones.

Nonetheless, I was determined. And I was completely derailed for far too long by an e-mail from Narc directing me to the Super 14 Jersey Swap from Adidas. It's slick marketing at its Flash-iest, though I totally don't understand what's behind the swapping sweaty jerseys. Really? Jocks do this? Why? I mean, if this were a Falcon video, I would totally get it. But in real life... not so much.

But the evil time-wasting began upon a visit to Square Hippies, which is where Narc discovered a link to the Jersey Swap site. I did eventually get all the chores done. But it wasn't for lack of distraction. Square Hippies is an evil, evil site. Go on, take a look. Wallow in the evil. (I totally concur with his Matthew Fox post.)

And no, I don't know who Ali Williams is. But yes, I did print out his poster. And watch him in Slo-Mo Replay. Because I'm superficial like that and, after eventually getting my chores done, I earned the reward.

All Twittered out

2009-05-02T15:42:00.002-05:00

The month-long experiment with Twitter twittered out sometime last week and, on the whole, I don't get it. Well, I do get it but I mean, for me personally, I don't get it. Or, more specifically, I don't want to get it anymore.

During April I "followed": J.J. Abrams, Hugh Jackman, Nathan Fillion, Tina Fey, Dave Karger, Bruce LaBruce, Jane Fonda, Eddie Izzard, Neil Gaiman, Michael Ian Black, David Gregory, John Dickerson, Felicia Day, Sockington the cat, The Rachel Maddow Show, Chelsea Lately, Lost on ABC, The Underwire, the Jay and Jack Podcast, ITV's Primeval, TV Without Pity, Defamer, Gnightgirl, moon_grrl, gamera, rat79, and narciblog.

Weeding through the chaff for the occasional grain of wit or wisdom got really tedious. Twitter provides a platform for a lot of B- and C-list celebrities (and, yes, some A-list too) to make funny and/or annoy their fans with inanities we were spared pre-Twitter.

It was interesting to read Hugh Jackman's tweets as he traveled the country with Wolverine premieres, and Felicia Day's geektastic observations were always charming and welcome.

Reading the behind-the-scenes excitement as Jane Fonda's new Broadway play opened was pretty fascinating for this theatre geek (and she comes across as a totally genuine and generous personality). Probably my biggest entertainment came from Sockington, with gems like: "EGAD YOU WOKE UP flailing feet everywhere I hate you GET BACK TO DREAMLAND STUPID WARM LEGS not done with you yet BE A BED AGAIN gah".

However, Michael Ian Black — whom I've always considered a funny guy — tweets about 30 times a day to see, it seems, how quickly he can erode my opinion of him as funny. Sample: "My unicorn flu is getting worse. I just shit out a My Little Pony." I originally followed Anderson Cooper but he obviously passed it off to assistants who constantly flooded Twitter with links to his website. After two weeks I un-followed with curses directed in his silver-headed direction.

I originally included Cooper along with newsies like NPR's John Dickerson and NBC's David Gregory thinking, erroneously as it turned out, that I'd keep abreast of breaking news. Never happened in any momentous way. Dickerson's wit was always welcomed, but maybe I just didn't follow the right news organizations to feel in-the-know.

I also found that, for those who I followed on Twitter and on Facebook, the posts and tweets often duplicated themselves. That makes Twitter the more redundant because all it can do is link to further information. Facebook allows embedded photos, video, etc., which makes it more of a one-stop info shop. Personally, I just got a better sense what people were up to on Facebook.

So, though Facebook keeps fucking up their revamps and seems determined — for some insane reason — to want to turn itself into Twitter, I enjoy it far more than I ever will Twitter. Perhaps, old-farty as it may be, it's that I'm not part of this narcissistic generation that finds every second of its existence so riveting that it must be constantly documented in 140-character bursts. Facebook can feel like a genial phone call to catch up with friends. Twitter feels like an annoying acquaintance who pokes you fifty times a day to ask, "Guess what I just did? Guess what I just did? Guess what I just did? Guess what I just did?"

Guess what? Unless you cured cancer, dropped a house on Dick Cheney, or gave Colin Farrell my phone number... I don't care.

ETA, about 6 hours later: Well, there's a first — I've offended a celebrity! And what does he do? He tweets it, of course. Does this not prove my point? Yes, yes it does.

Second Life Diary #4

2009-04-27T17:03:00.005-05:00

On some level, it disturbs me that the better I get at tweaking my avatar’s appearance, the more I’m starting to think, “Ooh, he’s hot.” And, likewise, with some other avatars like Tiberius; there’s something jarring about being attracted to someone’s appearance and then remembering that the someone in question is, in fact, a cartoon animation.

I’ll ‘fess up; my first encounter with this creepy reality-disconnect was the Disney film Aladdin. When Aladdin first appeared, my brain said, “Hmm, he’s cute.” And then I mentally ran to a dark corner in my mind and curled into a fetal position.

On a less disturbing note, Matthew will be pleased to know that I have brought the “radio voice” out of mothballs for use in SL. Because I need all the sexy I can bring to this poor avatar’s new existence.

I visited a dance club Saturday night (and didn't even have to get dressed up! it's awesome being able to go out, and yet, not go out). I'll have more detailed observations soon but, in the meantime, here's a screencap of my avatar. Yes, he's crawling across the dancefloor and no, he wasn't drunk. It was a strange part of the dancing animation program. It also had me doing handstands which, even in a cyberworld, strikes me as a dangerous and slightly inconsiderate thing to do on the dancefloor.

Second Life Diary #3

2009-04-23T14:14:00.004-05:00

Contrary to what I previously wrote, I decided to post a mostly-anonymous screenshot of my avatar, relaxing on a virtual beach. I could get used to that.

So I ventered out into the virtual world for the first time, and explored a new area named GayZ (that's where the beach is located). It was practically dead on a weeknight, but I made a couple of friends. One looked like a human and had clothes on. The other was short, yellow, had huge iridescent wings, and was naked. Um... welcome to Second Life!

The human is Tiberius and he was exceedingly generous and patient while answering questions and, believe me, I had a lot of 'em. He explained that this particular area was fairly new and that explained the emptiness. He also gave me a couple of really ugly Hawaiian shirts (um, thanks, I think) as well as $200. So I'm no longer a pauper in SL and I didn't even have to sleep with him (although you can do that in SL, and get paid for it, too). Ah, the kindness of strangers.

The other stranger, Stig, was also kind, though it was difficult to sustain conversational momentum while he stood there naked. Yes, avatars can have genitals. And this fairy (that's not a judgment, I think he really is supposed to be a fairy, hence the wings) has very anatomically-correct genitals. He's an "officer" in this realm (kind of a bouncer-sort who can literally ban troublemakers from an area, which is one way to make a living in SL), and he lives in a cottage full of fantasy items like talking mirrors, crystal balls, absinthe carafes, and... a cat! His cat avatar is all kinds of adorable; if you pet it, it purrs loudly and follows you around. Tiberius has a pet bunny which hops up on his shoulder. I love that you can have pets in SL, though I wonder if I'll feel unfaithful to Dru should I ever get a virtual cat. Maybe I should go the bunny route, instead.

We went upstairs in Stig's cottage and that's where the adult fare appeared. Lots of picture porn on the walls though, luckily, no sex toys in sight. He said he was still working on the room, so... we'll see.

Adding a new level to the experience of chatting with Tiberius and Stig was the fact that we were actually chatting. Well, they were chatting and I was typing. Both used headsets with mics and real audio came from their avatars. Since I didn't have a headset plugged in I was limited to text chat. I questioned them about using their real voices in SL, but my analytical approach may have lost something in the text translation. I don't know if I offended them or not, but — if one is creating an entirely new persona complete with fantasy appearance, why would you want to be stuck with the same old voice?

Lots of people use voice chat in SL, though, so breaking that part of the fantasy doesn't seem to cause much concern. Neither Tiberius or Stig had much of an answer; it just didn't seem to bother them. Of course, Tiberius has a lazy Texan drawl, and Stig has British Cockney dialect that fit the yellow fairy avatar quite nicely, really.

I guess I'll join the ranks of the speaking masses in the next night or two, just to see what it's like. But I already feel like I'm compromising the fantasy.

Second Life Diary #2

2009-04-22T18:00:00.001-05:00

I can tell you right off the bat that my Second Life is causing me almost as much stress as my first life. And that's a really inauspicious beginning.

Perhaps the experienced MRPGer wouldn't be staggered by the complexity and scope of the Second Life interface. I am not one of the experienced so, while I consider myself modestly intelligent, it's going to take a long time to master my avatar's motions and appearance. And it's that appearance that's caused most of the stress so far.

Skins, shapes, forms, colors, sizes, styles... As Kathy Najimi once said, "Choices, choices, choices." Though we are born into Second Life in adult form, we enter it much as we entered the real world: naked, homeless, and broke. And the only one of those that you can immediately address is the naked part. For comparison, let me just say that I mastered walking and flying (yes, you can fly in SL) fairly quickly. Mastering the appearance interface and tweaking it to suit me has taken... literally hours, I'm embarrassed to say. And by hours, I mean that I'm into double digits already. And I'm still not satisfied, though since I leave the bathroom mirror in that same state of mind every morning, I shouldn't be surprised.

Choosing one's appearance in SL is the first psychological playground I've encountered, and it's raised some interesting questions. If you could literally choose your appearance, what would you look like? What would you keep, and what would you improve? What nationality do you feel? Would you honor your real ancestors, or would you embrace your second existence with blue skin, pink hair, and yellow eyes? Trust me, that's relatively "normal" compared to some avatars I've seen. But more on that tomorrow.

I sat and wondered: Do I create my avatar as a virtual replica of myself? The technology exists in SL to map a photo of your real face onto your avatar's head. Do I create the virtual representation of the persona I feel inside? And what would that look like? Do I even know? Do you know what your personality looks like? How would you give it form?

Good god, that's a lot of heavy thinking already for what's supposed to be a game. Although, I'm not sure Second Life qualifies as a game any more than real life is a game. There are no winners in real life. We all die and we don't take any prizes with us. There are no real winners in SL either because there is no ultimate goal other than those you set for yourself — love, sex, riches, a nice home, and fun friends. Which, strangely enough, sounds like real life to me.

Except the people I know in real life don't have wings.

Second Life Diary #1

2009-04-21T18:00:00.001-05:00

When I mentioned Second Life in a Twitter tweet a few days ago, Rat questioned, "Is that still around?" The answer is Indeed, yes it is.

If you aren't familiar with Second Life, just go here for the details. In short, it's the closest thing the average person has right now to a second virtual life. And as difficult as it is some days for me to manage the first, real life, why in tarnation would I want to attempt juggling the demands of a second one?

One answer would be that, Hey, it doesn't hurt anything to check it out. It also doesn't cost anything, at least not right away.

Another answer would be that I read a news story recently which not only reminded me that (yes, Rat) Second Life is still going strong, but detailed how two people met virtually, then really, then got engaged. Do I think that will happen to me? No. But, still, it's nice.

A third answer would be that I'm finding real-life crushingly trying and diminishing these days, and a controllable, prettier, and — yes — fantasy world looks really attractive.

And the real answer would be a simmering stew of all of the above. So, I'm going to embark on yet another month-long experiment, this one not bound to exact 1-through-30 calendar days, but roughly a month nonetheless. (The other month-long experiments have met with varied success; the Script Frenzy fizzled due to illness and real-world distractions, and the Twitter experiment has another week or so to go.)

To respect the privacy issues inherent in Second Life, I won't be divulging my avatar's name, nor the complete names of any avatars I encounter. When creating a new avatar the user specifies their first name, but the last name is selected from a randomly-created and limited drop-down menu of choices, some reasonable ("Clarrington", which I almost chose) and some not so much ("Scientist"? really?). My avatar now has the same last name as one of my favorite TV characters, and that's all you're getting out of me.

I haven't decided yet whether I'll post any screenshots; most likely not, unless some really spectacular event pops up. Like, I don't know, I meet a celebrity. It's a fantasy world. It could happen.