KARA
This short film (from the Heavy Rain game studio) is intended to unveil their current motion capture ability. Although it isn't—unfortunately—a teaser for their next PS3 game, it is a very effective measure of how fantastically high they're setting the bar regarding: story, character, direction, script, and cinematography. I admire anyone (I still use singular blame) who can cause me to empathize with their character in five minutes.
For the future is gated, and there are tolls to be paid.
Oh, what a wondrous sentence. I tripped over it at the terminus of the short fiction, We Show What We Have Learned. Although the metaphorical story (written by Clare Beams) was deftly crafted, it was her insightfully essomenic bumper-post sentence which brought me pause.
I paid my first toll exactly thirty years ago. Up to that point I'd been clumsily sketching together a future which included a degree in art followed by a job which would utilize my creativity. I'd been tracing my future on the skein of selfish privilege in the ridiculous naΓ―vetΓ© of youth (qualities, both invisible in the mirror but soon to become extremely clear in my backlight). Inside the echo of a single conversation in February of '82, I permitted my future to be shanghaied and—subsequently—dropped out of college, joined the army, and became an infantryman.
Navigating through life's toll gates must be something of a forte; adapt or become trapped.
lex parsimoniae
Vachss Can No Longer Carry The Weight
Having read every Vachss book, beginning in the late 1980's, I believe he lost his drive and anger and clarity of voice about the time he killed Pansy (Dead and Gone, 2000). He's tried for the last dozen years to get it back the way many authors do...with new characters, new settings and even new genres...none of those books are in the same league or contain the grit, clarity, or surprising hooks as well as the dark, gut-wrenching emotions he was able to imbibe into those early Burke revenge-thrillers of his. The reason is, probably, what it was/is for many artists. He changed.
Success de-fangs many creative people (which I like to think of as the Morissette Principle) and so Andy the artist becomes Andrew the author becomes Mister Vachss the businessman. He is now only writing to pay for the toys he bought with the proceeds of his previous sweat and hard-won creativity. He is no longer devoting months of his time to the keyboard on re-writes because he no longer has a message he needs to get out. Or a story to tell. Or an impatient ghost uncomfortably residing in his spine. Add to that...he has a very lazy, publisher-owned editor who never, never, never will send his story back for re-tooling because that would slow down the money train.
It's a sad thing to see, when an author becomes ensconced in his tower of success where he slowly loses readers because he has stopped struggling to create a quality product and has resorted to writing from a template, writing for a paycheck, and writing poor-quality pap.
This will be my last Vachss. I may pick up a future book of his at a lending library just to see if he was able to Koontz his way out of this downward spiral (Dean Koontz pulled out of a quality-dive-and-impending-crash in the late 1990's with his Moonlight Bay and Odd Thomas Series and now writes so very much better than he ever did in the preceding two decades). The odds are that Mister Vachss is satisfied with his past successes, is not listening to critics, and is very happy to be Mister Vachss the businessman...isn't it ironic?
Confused by homosexual confusion
I generally find my religion pretty close to human nature, it looks very logical, quite practical but there is one thing that confuses me, totally stumps me: its stand on homosexuality. Not only my religion but all religions strongly condemn it, on the other hand homosexuals claim that it is the most natural thing for them.The preceding is the unaltered 16 January post written by Beenish Kahn, a Pakistani woman living in Toronto, Canada.
Now I am not taking any sides, I am sharing just my confusion,
1. Apart from humans, homosexuality is a common occurrence in many animals. So is nature trying to say that it is only for animals to follow such instincts or is it trying to say that it is but natural to have something different from normal?
2. If according to religion it is but unnatural then why do people claim to be so helpless against it? If it is like any other sin then why do homosexuals bear so many discriminations just to publicly state their sexual identity? From where do they get the courage of bearing all the bullying? In short, why would anyone deliberately choose a hard path if it is something unnatural?
3. When an octogenarian gay couple get married after 50 years of living together, doesn’t it show companionship more than any other emotion?
I do not want to judge anyone and least of all in the light of religion but I do want to know what exactly is religious logic behind it? Is it religious politics of many centuries, is it holy scriptures understood the wrong way or is it people not understanding the laws of nature?
Routinely, I read things which expand my knowledge. Other times I may contemplate and ponder over something I've read (but not retain the information). And, occasionally, my conversations are fueled by the ideas of others. Once in a blue moon I'm driven to respond with an entire post of my own. This is one of the latter.
Not all religions condemn homosexuality as is initially posited by Ms Kahn, (Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism don't address it or are neutral) but she is correct in regard to the big three (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam).
Then she poses a few statements followed by seven questions outlining 'her confusion'.
The first declarative statement she makes is factually bass-ackwards. It should read: Although male-on-male and female-on-female sexual acts have been documented in a large number of species in the animal kingdom, it's routinely interpreted as acts of dominance or sexual play. The exception are humans, who form long-lasting, intimate, emotional bonds with members of the same sex.
Her next seven sentences are all questions. Each different. But there is a similar tone in the confusion of each. As I see it, the crux of her problem is she is either unable to—or can't—see the situation logically, from a shoe-on-the-other-foot perspective.
Since puberty, humans of the female persuasion have caused my nervous system to react with an "attraction impulse." When I look at a man my brain registers the same response as when looking at an ostrich or a chair. Neutral. Non-erotic. This is not a conscious choice I make or have ever made and (most importantly) I'm incapable of making a different one. I don't choose.
However, there are millions of people on the planet who's nervous systems provide an attraction impulse for both genders, and some of these polysexual people—because of a desire to conform or not be shunned by their community—choose to have a sexual relationship only with members of the opposite sex (many of these people use religion to aid their choice by touting "sin dogma").
Also, there are hundreds of millions of people on the planet who's nervous systems provide an attraction impulse for only members of the same sex. They don't choose...no more than the billions who are only attracted to the opposite sex.
Until the last few centuries 'church' was synonymous with 'government' (in many countries, it still is) and, most of the time, government is run by wealthy dominant males. The leaders of all governments make and enforce rules in order to maintain their status quo. This could explain why religions support(ed), condone(ed) and didn't/don't consider a sin: owning chattel, burning witches, gender apartheid, racial segregation, etc.Ms Kahn...is your only confusion, really, the church's disapproval of buggery?
Also:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
