Reading Through the Eyes of a Child

I’ll be honest. When I first picked up Persepolis I was expecting to be hurled into an alternate reality I had never before experienced. I was expecting a journey in which I would unearth the secrets of how life would be like growing up in Iran. However, this is not what I received. Not exactly at least. And this is, in my opinion, what gives this book so much power.

Obviously the whole point of the book is to show the revolution in Iran in a way that us ignorant westerners can understand. This is a tall task. However, author Marjan Satrapi is up to it. And in fact, not only does she succeed in shedding light on the revolution in a way that westerners can understand. But instead she successfully bridges the gap between two cultures which on the surface may seem extremely different.

And yes, I understand that this is partially due to the reason that Satrapi was fairly wealthy. She being of that status, at least to begin her life, may have had more  similarities to those of us in western cultures. However, this does not detract from the fact that through her writing finess she is able to erase the boundaries between readers and is able to then tell the story of her life.

She is able to do this through focussing on the general. Satrapi, in her book is able to focus on aspects of childhood, of innocence. Traits that are not race-specific but rather traits of the human race. And through this perception of innocence she is able to convey her feelings for her country in a way which seems natural to us. Sure, pretending to be Fidel Castro may seem messed up in our eyes. But when she tells of her dreams of  dictatorship, it feels strangely natural.

this is because when she writes, she focuses on what is natural for a child. And just as she took in the revolution as a child, so will the reader. And when you are able to view it from a view of a child, no longer is everything so foreign. I could have easily imagined myself in the same position even though I grew up in the US. Esys

The Tradition That Keeps on Giving

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKeyOkoCyo4&feature=youtube_gdata

Convincing people that a job in the video game industry isn’t that easy is not very easy. But there exists a thing that if used inconspicuously can help guide an audience towards your goals. These things are fallacies. In the book Paid to Play the authors do a good job of painting in words the life of a worker in the gaming industry. However this is not done without a healthy portion of fallacies.

One kind of fallacy that I have found quite often within the duration of my reading the book was the red herring fallacy. In fact, these red herrings are generally not even disguised into the flow of the book but are instead used in another form. This form being in the form of notes at the bottom of the page. These notes being in reference to something mentioned in the main text above. These notes also have nothing to do with the point the author is attempting to make; instead, they merely distract from it. Bingo, red herring.

Let’s take a look at some examples. For example, on page 97, the authors of Paid to Play are describing how influential audio is in the making of a game. They then mention a quote by Oscar Fischinger relating to this idea. From here they include a note which talks about how he also invented the lumigraph organ which has nothing to do with audio in video games. They even acknowledge this by saying in regards to this machine “as far as we know has never been used on a video game soundtrack” (97). So essentially they are committing a rhetorical foul in redirecting the argument but are also acknowledging it. This is to say the least very interesting.

However, in addition to the red herring, the authors also have another favourite fallacy: the straw man. In this fallacy the authors set up a hypothetical situation and proceed to attack it. These authors do this pretty often. I even mentioned in a previous blog entry. Here I was describing how I was how frustrating it was to have these authors assume that the books readers are not taking these jobs seriously and proceeding to attack them for that.

A good example of this is where the authors are  pointing out that contrary to what they expected, you will have to spend a good amount of time writing if you want to be a good script writer. This is set up by the quote “You didn’t actually think that you would be just handed checks without having to earn them?” (150).

And examples of this are found in nearly every section. In regards to sound implementation, the authors go on to critique a situation they have made up in which the reader is going into this chapter thinking that sound production was actually all about creating music.

All in all these aren’t terrible uses of the straw man fallacy but they are using it which itself is a foul if not a major one.

I Take That Other Post Back

Turns out that my prediction from my previous blog entry has held true. No longer am I having to put up with pages and pages on how working in the gaming industry sucks. And while they sure aren’t making it sound easy, in recent chapters they have been good at providing a contrast of the good and the bad. Much better than flat out saying “if you think you’ve got what it takes to do these jobs, read this chapter and reconsider (Rush, 5).

This is not to say that they do not tear these jobs apart. It is actually quite the contrary. When describing the life of a programmer, Stratton is quick to point out that you can “work eighteen hour days for a month” (Stratton, 56). However this bothers me less as this is concrete information regarding why it can suck, of which I am sure constant 18 hour days would suck. This is as opposed to the first few chapters in which they would essentially questioning why anyone would want to be a programmer in the first place.

What is especially refreshing is that they also point out the good in those same positions they tear apart. For example while they stressed that programming can be very stressful, they also made sure to include positives such as “always working with the latest technology” (Stratton, 54). They also make sure to include various quotes from those who love their jobs, as stressful as they may be, to ensure that the reader is able to view various opinions on each area of work in th gaming industry.

Overall, I think that this past section of the book has been much more objective than the earlier parts as the authors take a bit of a step back with their subjective opinions on the various careers. Instead of telling you what you probably would be up to or what they think you may enjoy, they instead give you a career and list the types of personalities it fits as well as the opinions of those working in the fields. Add to this a summary of the ups and downs to ensure that the reader has sufficient pros and cons to where they can make their own decisions and you have a pretty good overview of that specific career. And while there will always be some opinion shining through (oftentimes in the form of a bad joke pertaining to a certain job), it has been, for the most part, very informative.

You Aren't Cut Out for this Job

I have always thought that many people have this skewed image on how the gaming industry works. That somehow the games manage to make themselves and the designers are always having fun. This book so far has been devoting all its energy to that. Especially the idea that “The one thing you can count on in the game industry is that you can't count on anything in the gaming industry.” (Hodgson).

And while I do think that it is important to weed out those who can’t understand that  the gaming industry is just like any other industry in terms of stress or workload...  I didn’t read this book to be able to understand that which was already understood. So far there have been short descriptions of the roles involved in making the final products followed up by a long snippet describing how this job is harder than you think. So far the writers have essentially been writing this phrase over and over: “Think you could do this job as a possible career? Yeah right... odds are you aren’t smart enough and lack work ethic”

And again, I know where they come from. They probably hear the phrase “you play games for a living, awesome!” way too much. And reflecting on this I am seriously questioning why their title is what it is. Don't they realize that the title Pay to Play is just going to attract those who they are trying to drive away for the first 40 pages. Wouldn't it just be more efficeint to have a title something akin to: The Harships of the Gaming Industry and save us all some time.

But what they don’t realize, at least what I assume is true is that those who are reading this book probably realize this as most of them want to seriously find out how the industry works. Because if you are willing to put the time in to read this much about the process of game creation aren't going to be the ones to put things lightly.

But maybe I am being a bit too harsh on this book up to this point. After all I am still only a fraction fo the way through.And while this is pretty annoying I do think that they will soon switch over from weeding out those with false hopes of an easy career and begin to focus on what a job in the industry actually entails. This is why I still have a good feeling about this book and as of now I just have to get through the initial period of “There’s a good chance you aren’t cut out for this industry.” So for now I will just have to wait it out until it gets good, using the occasional humorous jab at gamer stereotypes as fuel to keep reading.

Let the People be the Judge of This.

Article

These days it is incredibly easy to forget that behind every prison sentence is an actual human being. This might be a father, a mother, a teenager. And  while oftentimes they do deserve the sentences they are being given, this is starting to become the exception rather than the rule. And you (assuming you are American) are paying for it. And I think that in this case we can all agree that we have better things to spend money on as a country than  making sure Sharanda P. Jones doesn’t return to the streets.

These people were never malicious. They pose no threat to our country. They merely saw no other way out than to sell drugs to support a child that they could not support with their jobs. To add to the injustice, these kids own lives are negatively impacted by knowing that their parent is imprisoned for life. Some may even be blaming themselves for it.

The sad thing is that the system we operate in now seeks to prolong problems rather than seek out solutions. Because if you think about it, it makes sense that if these people were being paid sufficiently in their low wage jobs to begin with, there is a good chance that none of this would have happened.

Certainly a good part of this is due to the greed of the institutions where these people are being kept. They want them there. And they want you to pay for it. Certainly the least we can do is voice our opinion that we do not want this to continue. That we as a country will no longer stand for this. Because when pressure, we can influence the government to change and change for the better.

Futurama: Mocking Richard Nixon for Thousands of Years

I have always love Futurama. Never have I seen a show with so much awesome wit, both obvious and subliminal. Sometimes it even seems like they know who I am and my political views while watching the show. And based on what I learned from Thank You For Arguing chapter 20, I am sure now that they do know who is watching.

I realized this while watching an episode in which Fry, the protagonist, attempts to decide which party to vote for.  The candidates being two clones who state the same things in regard to every issue, changing their wordings only slightly. I find this to be pretty funny as it, in my opinion, reflects how democrats and republicans are in many situations in today’s politics. I also fondly remember an episode in which a monkey, who has just been given basic human intelligence, declares he suddenly feels like joining Fox News. This  makes me laugh as I realize that Fox is a pretty extreme right news station.

But wait, wouldn’t making these kind of jokes alienate extreme conservatives? Well to be honest, yes it would. But for Futurama, it is worth the trade off. This is because while it is alienating this group, it is making the vast majority of its viewers happy. The creators of Futurama realize that their type of sarcastic humor is more likely to appeal to a young, diverse crowd. And to a larger extent, a more moderate to liberal crowd.

The writers for the program here are using a great example of code grooming. They are able to realize that their show appeals to a certain crowd more than others. By constantly making a fool out of prominent political figures such as Richard Nixon, they are accepting that they have a chance of losing the whole 3 viewers of the show who think Nixon was the best ever president of the US while simultaneously encouraging those who think otherwise to watch more.