Sunday, November 14, 2010
A Pathetic Attempt at Progress
I am SOOOOO lost on how to handle InDesign. Combined with most of the week being devoted to handling my Video Production project and the limited time I can allot due to the hour and a half I must waste traveling to and from Grants Pass, I have found myself with virtually nothing to show for an assignment this week. I have only a single page template for InDesign, but I haven't had a chance to print it or export it to the right format. I'm going to try and remedy this situation on Monday. Until then, I've pretty much got nothing.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Distinguishing the Different Types of Entertainment
As an individual with mild asperger's syndrome, I am constantly trying to break things up into discernible, unmistakeable elements to try and make some sort of sense of the almost endless, inherent complexities of life. I have tormented people demanding they make completely clear what they mean when they talk because I can't pick up on all social cues. I have passionately argued that the way we talk to be geared more towards people like me so that a condition that is ultimately not our fault doesn't cause us to be "left behind." (Yeah, it's selfish.) I have also developed a theory about the human condition that objectively speaking, we cannot better anything and no options are "better" than others. They are simply alternatives with equal upsides and downsides, and I've come to identify many behaviors that society cherishes as being similar to other behaviors that society frowns upon. For instance, I have been arguing for years that confidence and arrogance are at least more difficult to distinguish from each other than most would have us believe, and at worst two sides of the exact same coin. (The only clearly distinguishing factor between the two seems to be that when one succeeds at his goals or turns out to be right, s/he is called confident, and if s/he does not succeed or turns out to be wrong, s/he is called arrogant.)
I feel that most entertainment or "art" falls between two extremes: substance and style. Neither of these can dictate whether a work is considered "good" or "bad"; they simply describe the work. This is how I define them:
Substance is the technical specs and the literal, clearly distinguished aspects that do things differently from other works. Innovation is one of the primary words associated with it. Depth is another. Characters that feel realistic and are not generally cardboard cut-outs--especially with regards to being good or bad--tend to populate movies, books, and games of substance. Some examples of substance-oriented entertainment include the movie "Pan's Labyrinth," the Zelda video games, most Mario games, and classic novels like To Kill a Mockingbird and A Tale of Two Cities.
Style is a bit harder to define. I think the best way to describe it is that sort of "popping off the page" effect. It's kind of like taking elements that have already been done before and presenting them in a way that just comes across as appealing. In forms of entertainment like movies and video games, it involves things like matching up music with what's happening on screen and--in the case of action films--creating unpredictable choreography. In the case of literal artwork, it involves the inclusion of little details that make the picture "come to life," such as bright colors and shadow effects. In books and movies, it more often contains characters that are less lifelike, more simple, and the reason for this is usually because the focus is on the quick pace of the story or the action on screen. Some examples of entertainment focused more on style are many Disney films, particularly the action flicks of Jerry Bruckheimer (Pirates of the Carribbean, Deja Vu, National Treasure), the Indiana Jones films, the video game series Devil May Cry, many anime TV shows such as Dragon Ball Z, and the Dirk Pitt Adventures written by Clive Cussler.
Virtually all entertainment is not clearly defined into one category or the other. It all falls somewhere between pure substance and pure style, even if each work tends to lean more in one direction than the other. An almost perfect balance of the two is extremely rare. While it doesn't always lead to this, many works that fall in that well balanced area come to be regarded as the finest entertainment works of our time. Some examples of entertainment that I consider well balanced include the phenomenal movie "The Dark Knight," the video game "Final Fantasy X," and the novels of Michael Crichton and Dan Brown. (To be fair, many of the characters in Crichton novels tend to be interchangeable with characters in his other novels, but the mere scientific feasibility of his ideas is, for me, so engrossing that I can't say I really care.)
In case I haven't been clear about what I consider substance and style to be, I'm going to present a metaphor that I think is quite accurate: relationships. The "substance" of a relationship with someone you love is the compatibility, the similarities, the appreciation for the individual's personality and values. In a relationship composed exclusively of substance, the significant other also tends to be your best friend. The "style" of a relationship is the fiery red hot passion, often associated with looks. It is the part that is more likely to be driven by hormones and sexuality. In a relationship composed exclusively of style, the significant other is--for me at least--something to obsess over and desire constantly in the sexual sense. The best relationships, naturally, fall as close to the middle of these extremes as possible. To summarize, in a relationship of extreme "substance" but no "style," there's a meaningful connection as friends but no desire for each other, and in a relationship of extreme "style" but no substance, there is desire for one another but not much else.
The kind of enjoyment that can be gained from each type of entertainment is something that I feel can be distinguished as well. For me, entertainment that leans more towards substance provides a nice steady warmth that you can usually rely on to last for the entire duration of the experience. Often, good substance keeps something from getting dull over the "long haul." For me, entertainment that leans more towards style provides something that hits really hard and fast, often eliciting a response from me like, "Oh wow! That's awesome!" In the case of action movies--a genre that I believe frequently features more style than substance--it is accompanied by adrenalin rushes. The catch for style-oriented entertainment is that, despite providing a bigger high than the substance-oreinted stuff, it's often a one-trick pony. For instance, most action flicks I see are really fun the first time, but on second viewings have lost most of their appeal. Why? In my opinion, it's because now I know what's going to happen in the car chase or how the choreography is going to play out. In summary, substance provides a low but steady high similar to what one gets reading a good, lengthy novel, and style provides an abrupt, intense high akin to using cocaine or other drugs.
I think it's easy to see why an entertainer should strive to straddle the fence between the two types. Create something with too much substance in it and you'll wind up with something so fleshed out that no time is spent drawing in the consumer. In many cases, you could lose the consumer in the plethora of details that leave nothing unexplained or to the imagination. Create something with too much style in it and the consumer will be drawn into a world that is alive but seemingly unfinished or cliched. Create something that balances the two extremes, and you wind up with something that starts at a lower high, sometimes goes to abrupt, intense peaks, and then goes back to the lower high. You get something that contains enough technical prowess to feel fleshed out and enough life to keep the consumer involved.
Let me remind you, the reader, that this is just the general method I think one should follow to create something that has greater potential to last and please more consumers. That, however, does not mean that leaning in one direction more than the other makes your entertainment less worthwhile; it merely make it worthwhile in different ways.
One of the things that often frustrates me about entertainment critics is that they seem to be almost exclusively interested in substance and give little credit for succeeding with style. It aggravates me even more because stylized games like Devil May Cry score so well with critics while other stylized games like P.N. 03 and 3D Sonic the Hedgehog games get panned, despite each containing the same rough amount of substance. Many Jerry Bruckheimer films get a lot of criticism too, while superhero flicks with similar amounts of style like Spider Man and Spider Man 2 score well, despite having almost identical frameworks. The only genuine explanation I can come up with for why is because entertainment critics are incapable of seeing when they've gotten so absorbed in something for its abrupt, intense qualities and when they're having fun because of more substance-oriented stuff. As such, they seem to group games like Devil May Cry and films like Spider Man with other things of substance. My more cynical and angry side likes to think this is because they don't want to admit that they've fallen for something of style cause that would mean looking in the mirror and acknowledging that they're attitudes aren't always right. Thank heavens I'm not alone in my appreciation of style. If it weren't for the many consumers that enjoy stylized things, we'd probably see a whole lot less of them. And frankly, I think it's a shame the critics can't appreciate what style brings to everything. But then, given how elitist many of them seem to be, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I'd like to conclude with one final comparison for those who might have remained lost for the entirety of this essay:
-Substance causes us to say "Neato" repeatedly for a long time
-Style causes us to say "Awesome!" a few times for a short while
Thanks for reading. :)
I feel that most entertainment or "art" falls between two extremes: substance and style. Neither of these can dictate whether a work is considered "good" or "bad"; they simply describe the work. This is how I define them:
Substance is the technical specs and the literal, clearly distinguished aspects that do things differently from other works. Innovation is one of the primary words associated with it. Depth is another. Characters that feel realistic and are not generally cardboard cut-outs--especially with regards to being good or bad--tend to populate movies, books, and games of substance. Some examples of substance-oriented entertainment include the movie "Pan's Labyrinth," the Zelda video games, most Mario games, and classic novels like To Kill a Mockingbird and A Tale of Two Cities.
Style is a bit harder to define. I think the best way to describe it is that sort of "popping off the page" effect. It's kind of like taking elements that have already been done before and presenting them in a way that just comes across as appealing. In forms of entertainment like movies and video games, it involves things like matching up music with what's happening on screen and--in the case of action films--creating unpredictable choreography. In the case of literal artwork, it involves the inclusion of little details that make the picture "come to life," such as bright colors and shadow effects. In books and movies, it more often contains characters that are less lifelike, more simple, and the reason for this is usually because the focus is on the quick pace of the story or the action on screen. Some examples of entertainment focused more on style are many Disney films, particularly the action flicks of Jerry Bruckheimer (Pirates of the Carribbean, Deja Vu, National Treasure), the Indiana Jones films, the video game series Devil May Cry, many anime TV shows such as Dragon Ball Z, and the Dirk Pitt Adventures written by Clive Cussler.
Virtually all entertainment is not clearly defined into one category or the other. It all falls somewhere between pure substance and pure style, even if each work tends to lean more in one direction than the other. An almost perfect balance of the two is extremely rare. While it doesn't always lead to this, many works that fall in that well balanced area come to be regarded as the finest entertainment works of our time. Some examples of entertainment that I consider well balanced include the phenomenal movie "The Dark Knight," the video game "Final Fantasy X," and the novels of Michael Crichton and Dan Brown. (To be fair, many of the characters in Crichton novels tend to be interchangeable with characters in his other novels, but the mere scientific feasibility of his ideas is, for me, so engrossing that I can't say I really care.)
In case I haven't been clear about what I consider substance and style to be, I'm going to present a metaphor that I think is quite accurate: relationships. The "substance" of a relationship with someone you love is the compatibility, the similarities, the appreciation for the individual's personality and values. In a relationship composed exclusively of substance, the significant other also tends to be your best friend. The "style" of a relationship is the fiery red hot passion, often associated with looks. It is the part that is more likely to be driven by hormones and sexuality. In a relationship composed exclusively of style, the significant other is--for me at least--something to obsess over and desire constantly in the sexual sense. The best relationships, naturally, fall as close to the middle of these extremes as possible. To summarize, in a relationship of extreme "substance" but no "style," there's a meaningful connection as friends but no desire for each other, and in a relationship of extreme "style" but no substance, there is desire for one another but not much else.
The kind of enjoyment that can be gained from each type of entertainment is something that I feel can be distinguished as well. For me, entertainment that leans more towards substance provides a nice steady warmth that you can usually rely on to last for the entire duration of the experience. Often, good substance keeps something from getting dull over the "long haul." For me, entertainment that leans more towards style provides something that hits really hard and fast, often eliciting a response from me like, "Oh wow! That's awesome!" In the case of action movies--a genre that I believe frequently features more style than substance--it is accompanied by adrenalin rushes. The catch for style-oriented entertainment is that, despite providing a bigger high than the substance-oreinted stuff, it's often a one-trick pony. For instance, most action flicks I see are really fun the first time, but on second viewings have lost most of their appeal. Why? In my opinion, it's because now I know what's going to happen in the car chase or how the choreography is going to play out. In summary, substance provides a low but steady high similar to what one gets reading a good, lengthy novel, and style provides an abrupt, intense high akin to using cocaine or other drugs.
I think it's easy to see why an entertainer should strive to straddle the fence between the two types. Create something with too much substance in it and you'll wind up with something so fleshed out that no time is spent drawing in the consumer. In many cases, you could lose the consumer in the plethora of details that leave nothing unexplained or to the imagination. Create something with too much style in it and the consumer will be drawn into a world that is alive but seemingly unfinished or cliched. Create something that balances the two extremes, and you wind up with something that starts at a lower high, sometimes goes to abrupt, intense peaks, and then goes back to the lower high. You get something that contains enough technical prowess to feel fleshed out and enough life to keep the consumer involved.
Let me remind you, the reader, that this is just the general method I think one should follow to create something that has greater potential to last and please more consumers. That, however, does not mean that leaning in one direction more than the other makes your entertainment less worthwhile; it merely make it worthwhile in different ways.
One of the things that often frustrates me about entertainment critics is that they seem to be almost exclusively interested in substance and give little credit for succeeding with style. It aggravates me even more because stylized games like Devil May Cry score so well with critics while other stylized games like P.N. 03 and 3D Sonic the Hedgehog games get panned, despite each containing the same rough amount of substance. Many Jerry Bruckheimer films get a lot of criticism too, while superhero flicks with similar amounts of style like Spider Man and Spider Man 2 score well, despite having almost identical frameworks. The only genuine explanation I can come up with for why is because entertainment critics are incapable of seeing when they've gotten so absorbed in something for its abrupt, intense qualities and when they're having fun because of more substance-oriented stuff. As such, they seem to group games like Devil May Cry and films like Spider Man with other things of substance. My more cynical and angry side likes to think this is because they don't want to admit that they've fallen for something of style cause that would mean looking in the mirror and acknowledging that they're attitudes aren't always right. Thank heavens I'm not alone in my appreciation of style. If it weren't for the many consumers that enjoy stylized things, we'd probably see a whole lot less of them. And frankly, I think it's a shame the critics can't appreciate what style brings to everything. But then, given how elitist many of them seem to be, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I'd like to conclude with one final comparison for those who might have remained lost for the entirety of this essay:
-Substance causes us to say "Neato" repeatedly for a long time
-Style causes us to say "Awesome!" a few times for a short while
Thanks for reading. :)
Sunday, November 7, 2010
My Book Proposal
In the world today, there is way too much one-sided thinking, even among those who are smart. It has infected, it seems, most everything in our culture, from politics to entertainment to even our personal lives. While it can't always be avoided, it's rather frustrating to me just how little people seem to care or how unwilling they are to at least try to keep an open mind about things. I have--over the years--written a bunch of essays on various subjects, many of which relate to this topic. They question typical arguments made by people about political attitudes, critical talking points about video games and other entertainment mediums, and even feature an essay about why people shouldn't have to clean up their room all the time.
Because I'm being lazy and want to tie this into some other projects I'm working on, I'd like to propose taking these essays and compiling them in a book. It's not the most creative idea, I know, but with a little imagination I believe I'll be able to come up with something creative for my cover. I'm thinking something that will be simple and yet convey a lot. How I'll do that I don't know, but I'll figure it out.
If this proposal is unacceptable, I COULD use this as an opportunity to get myself to finish--or at least continue--writing one of my stories. If that works better, I'm thinking of doing a cover with anime characters should the story be a fantasy or a simple photograph with some window dressing of some kind if I'm writing a romance.
Anyway, that's my pitch. Let me know what you think. :)
Because I'm being lazy and want to tie this into some other projects I'm working on, I'd like to propose taking these essays and compiling them in a book. It's not the most creative idea, I know, but with a little imagination I believe I'll be able to come up with something creative for my cover. I'm thinking something that will be simple and yet convey a lot. How I'll do that I don't know, but I'll figure it out.
If this proposal is unacceptable, I COULD use this as an opportunity to get myself to finish--or at least continue--writing one of my stories. If that works better, I'm thinking of doing a cover with anime characters should the story be a fantasy or a simple photograph with some window dressing of some kind if I'm writing a romance.
Anyway, that's my pitch. Let me know what you think. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)