Don't Take It Personally, Babe, It Just Ain't Your Story

Don't Take It Personally, Babe, It Just Ain't Your Story is a visual novel/ video game developed by indie developer Christine Love. It follows the lives of six teenagers going to a high school, and their trials and tribulations. It was actually really good, aside from some nonsensical stuff at the end. Don't take my word for it, though; it's free download for Mac, PC, and Linux, at this link (http://scoutshonour.com/donttakeitpersonallybabeitjustaintyourstory/)

It only takes three hours or so to beat, so play it. I promise you, it's worth your time. But you know, some sexual situations. No nudity or anything, but some pretty... intense sexual talks. But it doesn't feel forced in there- it feels like something teenagers might say. Not all the lines do, but they seem to fit.

Okay, so you didn't play it. Wow, thanks a lot. Kinda stings. Anyway, I'll continue, mostly spoiler free.

I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss video games as a medium, just a little, and this game is certainly one that helps illustrates my main point; that at some time in the future, whether it be 200 or 2000 years from now, most media will be some form of video game.

Right now, I've gotta say, video games are pretty awesome. The tech behind some of them is amazing- apparently, Assassin's Creed III can have up to 2000 people on screen at once. That's fantastic!

But I know a lot of my readers don't really care for video games. Like a lot of mediums at the start, not everybody enjoys them. Some people claim not to be good at them, others claim motion sickness, and yet others just say they don't like them.

But video games are invading people's lives. Angry Birds appears to have surpassed the Bible in sales, and Draw Something is a newcomer that's already made a helluva lot of money, especially for a title that has a complete free version. These games have introduced gaming to hundreds of millions of people- through their cell phone, nonetheless.

Don't Take It Personally is only sort of a video game. You don't get to control where your character moves, all of what they say, where they go, who they talk to, or anything like that. You do occasionally make choices during the game, but sometimes- annoyingly- your character just makes them for you. But hey, this isn't my story. Babe.

The exciting part is that I don't know whether to call it a book or a video game. It's interactive, which most books are not. But you spend most of your time reading, not characteristic of video games. This merging of two mediums is what I see coming together in the future.

Books and movies can't really meld well. You won't see a movie that's entirely or mostly text, or a novel with moving pictures. The closest you'll get is an adaptation from one medium to another, but you wouldn't call the Hunger Games movie a book- it's still a movie.

You can, however, blend movies and video games. See Heavy Rain. Although it was controlled (mostly) like other games, it was definitely a movie-vibing game. Cinematic is definitely one of the biggest words to describe it.

I'd like a future where there are fuzzy lines between mediums. This won't ever get rid of any medium entirely; No one's going to play an interactive version of Great Expectations. But this does open the door for a lot of new possibilities, for games, movies, TV shows, music, and yes, even books.

I'd love to see where it takes us.

Thanks for reading and considering,
- J. Valett

On Honesty

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged a helluva lot recently, so that explains a slighty-longer-than-a-week wait for this post. Hopefully I haven't been keeping anyone from doing anything productive. Like reading opinionated blogs run by egocentric teenagers. Don't wanna mess that up.

I might have an objectivist-themed memo up sometime in two weeks. My birthday's this Sunday, so I'm pretty pumped. Oh, if you see me or talk to me through the electronodes, don't wish me a Happy Birthday on Sunday. Do it Saturday, or don't do it at all. Because if you wish me a happy birthday on Sunday, I might not have had enough time to make it happy. I might not be prepared for a happy birthday. Just do it Saturday, so I can be like, "Okay, Jane Shepard wants me to have a happy birthday tomorrow, will do."

Also, I like seeing the chain reaction from idiots who don't bother to check its my birthday before wishing me a happy one. Well, that's not fair. I do it too. Actually, it is fair, I'm just calling myself an idiot as well.

TOO MUCH TIME HAS BEEN SPENT ON PRE-TOPIC STUFF.

Anyway, honesty. Honesty was one of those pillars of childhood which taught us never, ever to lie in order to be a good person. Unsurprisingly, like most of the topics which ended up as the "Character Counts" trait of the month, we haven't one a very good job listening.

I read somewhere, and I may be making this up, that the average person lies like six times per day.

Now you see, I'm gonna be a hypocrite this week. I don't like lying very much, as an ideal, but I do it exceedingly often. Occasionally, I'll just lie to see if I can get away with it. Maybe that makes me a sociopath.

Whatever.

Truth is a very valuable currency. In the Mass Effect game series, which I have been playing often in order to pump myself up for the third installment, there is a character known as the Shadow Broker. The Shadow Broker's job is to gather up as much information as possible, and he (later she; long story) sells it to the highest bidder. I'm not sure why I told about that, other than its a cool idea.

Truth is the only means we have to communicate with one another.

You ever think about History class? If your history teacher just made up a new war, would you question it? Let's say that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated while robbing a bank, and all the historians decided to hush it up, would you know about it? No.

For a culture that lies as often as it does, we take the truth for granted. We trust almost every word out of the mouths of our parents, of our teachers, of our idols, and take it as truth. Why?

Because what's the alternative? A world in which we know nothing for certain, nothing that can't be seen with our eyes, or heard with our ears?

Maybe that's why I have such a problem with religion. It requires you going off of what other people are just saying- there is no definitive proof, no stone that says, "GOD WUZ HERE", nothing so definitive. But why do I take the history textbook as truth, and not a book much older?

I don't know. Probably because the Bible has a lot more, for lack of a better word, magic than history tends to. Probably why I don't buy the Long Island Medium either.

I think a world where people were more honest might be an improvement. Sure, there would be fewer couples (can't lie about flaws or opinions), more unemployed (can't lie about feelings about boss or inactivity at work) and less friends, but there would also be fewer corrupt politicians, much more criminals in jail, and things like that. People would be a lot more callous and take criticism better. People wouldn't have to worry about Ponzi schemes, dupes, cons, bamboozles, evil plans, none of it.

Not worth discussing this though. It's like conceiving a world with less dependance on technology; sure, it's fine to think, but barring some catastrophic attack, won't come to fruition. An even greater attack would be needed to get people to stop lying.

But of course, I must practice what I preach, and that's where I fall short. I lie often. I don't want people to get offended, so I lie. I don't want to freak people out, so I lie. I don't want people to feel sad, so I lie. I don't want to admit that I'm human, so I lie.

And I'm not gonna stop, or tone it down, at least til the end of high school. Once I cut bonds with all of the dead weight here (not saying everyone is dead weight, calmate) I can just keep the good ones around. But do me a favor, and don't ask me if you are a good one or not. You may not want to hear it, and I might not want to say it.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Rachel's Inspiration: A Dissection and Discussion

Whenever I think about the speech I'll give after being elected the first Jewish President, after being a successful writer/actor/director for a decade or so, it always ends like this: "Nation, if you vote for me because I am Jewish, than I have failed you. If you vote for me because you liked me in a movie I made, than I have failed you. If you vote for me for any other reason than you honestly feel, in your heart of hearts, that I would be the best person for the job, than I'm afraid that I have failed you."

Well, Idealists, I have failed you. I made a promise, a solemn vow, if you will, to have my surprise ready for March 15th. I have failed you. It'll still come, hopefully, but for now, all I can offer you is an extra long post in compensation.

Anyway, today at school, there was an assembly, a presentation given by a student who attended Columbine High School in 1999, when the school shooting took place. He talked a little about the actual event, as the main focus of the meeting was Rachel Scott.

If you were at the assembly, I hope you won't mind if I give a little recap of some of the backstory. Rachel Scott was a kind, optimistic, and a forgiving-to-the-fault eighteen year old, who became the first victim of the Columbine shootings. The purpose of the assembly was to get us to accept a challenge made by Rachel in an English essay, a message to start a chain-reaction of kindness, choose positive role models, and things of that nature.

I totally respect the message being broadcast here, I really do. The world could greatly improve with a little more kindness here and there. The problem with Rachel's Challenge was how it was presented, and a couple of the ideas mentioned.

The first of which deals with judging others. Rachel insisted that one should not judge others by what they have done, as you don't know what they are going through. Only after getting to know a person can you judge them.

I disagree wholeheartedly here. What can we judge people on, if not their actions? May we not condemn Osama bin Laden until we have learned if he was bullied in school? Should we forgive Stalin until we can prove that his mother did in fact love him?

Of course, caveats and caveats must be accounted for. It is true that people have off days, and a first impression formed on one of these days would be negative. Then it is up to the person who had the bad day, who presented a bad face, to rectify the action. If they cursed you off for trying to help you, it should be them who apologizes.

You have to earn respect from me. If you are rude to me, should you be given respect automatically? No, you shouldn't.

Another thing I disagree with, one that may finally allow me to be diagnosed as a pessimist, is the notion that there is good in everyone. I guess that comes with a sense of religion, a belief in a higher power that would not make people unless they were good, which I lack. I don't believe that everyone has inherent value, because that makes things too easy.

I want you to really think tonight if you are a good person. "Of course I am!" you say, "Or at least I'm definitely not a bad one." No one wants to believe that they are a bad person, because, well, you are you. It's much easier to say you are a good person, at least because you have good intentions. And some of you are good people, and some of you aren't. At least from where I'm standing.

What is it that's said about good intentions? "A small act of kindness is infinitely better than the best of intentions." Hmm. Either get working on being a good person or accept the fact that you aren't.

The presentation also focused a lot on the mystical elements, a facet I found irrelevant and distracting. Why is it necessary to tell us about a businessman's dream in Ohio in order for us to be kinder? It isn't.

The problem with this kind of assembly is that it's quite polarizing. There is Group A, who love it partly because it's sad, and Group B, who would have despised it if it had been perfect and given them free candy. Neither is in the right, and I can't decide which group I fall into. Probably B, since I'm typing up a critical response.

Despite having a lot of problems, there's a lot to like. It was in fact very sad, which brings with it contemplation for a lot of us. Getting high schoolers to think, really think, is a difficult task, but it was accomplished with videos and accounts of a tragedy in a school much like most others.

To be honest, this post was not as long as it should have been, or to be even more frank, as good as it should have been, but I owe yall something. The surprise is coming, I promise.

Thanks for reading and considering and waiting that much longer,
-J. Valett

Why Equality is Bad (As Told by A White Male)

Hey folks. Before I dive straight into the thick of things, I'd like to say that Yowza, March 15th seems awful close right now. Probably shouldn't have set it so close, but we'll see if I can still get it out of the gate by then. Anyway, onto the topic.

Equality is something that people have always been fighting for, and is something that people will likely fight for in the future. The United States of America was based in equality, among other things, or at least equality between rich white men.

Now the playing field has leveled quite a bit, in terms of all sorts of equality. Sexism, Racism, Religionism, Ageism, and Anhedonism have been reduced quite a bit. Women can now run for President, black people can now run for President, Buddhist people can run for President, and 12-year-olds, well they can watcht he news to see Buddhist women running for President.

Equality has come a long way, and I believe that it will continue to go a long way, but that we should be very careful about equality. As Ayn Rand demonstrates in Atlas Shrugged, we should not want to push equality too far.

An example I heard in English class was that of women firefighters. Some women who were rejected from the firefighting squads were done so because they couldn't lift a ladder of a certain weight. These women argued that the rules of lifting this ladder were sexist, as smaller-framed women couldn't lift the weight.

Makes sense, but in a flawed way. Because, as for most equality as I am,  I'd rather have a squad of all men
who can lift the goddamn ladder to save my life than a Team Equality of people sitting around as I burn.

Another example of which I heard in class (Math this time around) was about a Caucasian actor playing the role of an Asian man in the movie 21. I had no problem with this, while my math teacher took offense.

The way I see it, this was no different from the casting of a black actor in a white role in the movie Thor. While both caused uproar, the reaction to a white man taking over an Asian role is seen more negatively, because of the lack of many Asian protagonists in Hollywood.

I think, plain and simple, that the best person for the job should be chosen. Should race be considered? Sure. I wouldn't want a white slave in Django Unchained, but if the race is malleable, don't make it the defining feature. If you find the best actor for the role, choose them. Not the okay person who happens to be the same race as the person you are basing them off of.

Something else that pisses me off is the stupid thing that colleges can take minority students over mainstream (I couldn't think of another word here) ethnicity students to bolster minority percentages. Same reasons as above.

Equality should be about making the requirements for something equal, not making sure a minority gets the position. That's true equality, not the fancy schmancy inequality we get today.

Choosing a black person to go to X college because of their race over a white person? Exactly as racist as choosing a white person over a black person because of their race.

Femenism is equally as sexist as chauvinism.

Unfortunately, all of my claims apply to an ideal world. Not one where females were demeaned for centuries, where non-whites were demeaned for centuries, or one where non-Christians were demeaned for centuries. Unfortunately, we hit the triple whammy.

I try not to take these things into account. But there are little pieces of inequality that each of us carries, and that's okay.

I only find myself attracted to females. Sexism. Most of the characters I author-surrogate into my stories are white Jews. Racism and Religionism. When I think of a hero, I think of a male. Sexism. When I think of a president, male. Sexism.

And that's okay. Inequality is okay for some things. Just don't make a habit out of it.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett