Idlewild's Christmas Countdown

First of all, it is story day! You can find my story Hunter and Wolf by clicking here or checking out the Short Story link to the right. It's a bit more philosophical musing than narrative... but I sort of like it. It's about respecting death in order to respect life, about violence and about human nature. I might go back and do some extra editing eventually and then repost it, but we're having some troubling baby sleep problems right now and it's not the time. As always, feel free to comment on anything I write.

Anyway... 

Only 25 days left until Christmas... I know someone who's excited.

Tomorrow is the first day of December and I'm going to be starting something a little different. I will be counting down the days until Christmas with a new book recommendation each day! 

Every day until December 25th I will recommend a book. The books will be varied. There will be novels, comics, short stories and manga. There will be books for everyone aged 0 - 127. There will be different genres. Though many of these books may be well known, my goal is to suggest less popular alternatives to exceptionally popular works like Harry Potter, Twilight, The Fault in Our Stars (anything given the Hollywood treatment) as well as to revive some classics and bring attention to more alternative storytelling formats like comics and manga.

There will be a list to the right for an at-a-glance look at the recommendation for each day. There is no significance to the order except that I've tried to spread out similar genres or formats throughout the month.

So check in when you can and feel free to comment if you've read a book, if you're interested in reading it,  or even if you have your own recommendations. If you're looking for a good read, hopefully you'll find something you're interested in. Or maybe it will help you choose a gift for that special someone. My hope is that maybe you'll even try something new!

*For friends and family who are now thinking "A post a day, is she crazy!?"... almost of the posts are already written and will be updated automatically. So I'm actually getting a break this December. No worries!

Let It Snow! (except in New York, you guys deserve a break)

Image source: http://www.bostonglobe.com/
Seriously Boston, we feel for you...

So Christmas is coming up... and things have been BUSY, though not all in a bad way. Despite the chaos of teething, separation anxiety, more sleep issues and general domestic disorder... I have been very occupied with a lot of creative endeavors.

One of these things is a project for the blog, which I will be revealing next weekend... So stay tuned.

The rest has to do with a new tradition my family is working on for Christmas this year (and hopefully future years). The idea is to do everything as homemade as possible. And ecologically friendly too. We are putting together baskets for most members of our family filled with lots of homemade goodies (sorry, no spoilers!) This year, due to baby, we're a bit limited by time... But we would eventually like to transition to all homemade ornaments and decorations as well. 

There are a few reasons we've decided to make this switch. The first is obvious. Most people who celebrate Christmas complain about the commercialism... We wanted to actually do something about it. It also seemed like a great tradition to help Emily to learn about giving and putting real thought into those gifts. Not to mention it encourages creativity and gives us lots of activities to do over the holidays.

Homemade ornaments allow us to be ecologically friendly - reusing household items, using biodegradable materials - and can minimize storage space since some ornaments can be recycled after the holiday is over. Outdoor ornaments can help feed birds and wildlife (when done safely of course). Again, great lessons for Emily to learn and be a part of.

This means I have been crafting up a storm on top of my usual chores, writing and babytime. And next month I'm sure I'll be baking up a storm. Honestly though, it is incredibly satisfying. Scouring the internet for ideas, coming up with my own, thinking carefully about each person and what they would enjoy... it has been a lot of fun so far. Though I love shopping during the holidays - seeing the lights, hearing the music, walking through the (manageable amount of) snow - putting the time and energy into making gifts has made the holidays so much more meaningful so far.

Next weekend I will be pulling out my decorations and my tree, which means going through everything and purging what we no longer need. Another tradition we want to include Emily in is going through all of our clothes and toys each year and making donations. It's a great way to let go of material things and recognize the needs of others. Food drives and other donations are important to remember as well.

If you celebrate Christmas and have been worrying about the commercialism, the financial stress, or maybe you just feel like it's lost meaning as you've gotten older... here's some of the ideas that we use to remind us what the season is all about:

• Make handmade gifts for people. Even if you're an adult without kids... there are plenty of ideas on the internet or at your library (Cookie cutter salt dough ornaments, knitting, baked goods, repurposed items, poetry, etc.)

• Donate to a charity in someone's name. Most people have a charity which they have personal connections to (my brother has Autism and I used to work for Spinal Cord Injury Ontario, so those are two big ones in my house). Or even set up an advent calendar and donate a small amount to several charities.

• If you do buy presents, try to buy from local businesses or artisans. There are plenty of craft shows around Christmas time, or try your closest Farmer's Market or even a local restaurant.

• Make homemade wrapping paper from recyclable paper

• Decorate a tree outdoors with bird seed, fruits, etc.

• Make decorations for your tree, or a wreath for your door out of environmentally friendly materials or reused items. Throw on some music and get creative. It is a great way to get into the spirit!

• Do a "spring cleaning" and pull out old items (clothes, toys, non-perishable food items) for donation. They are really appreciated at this time of year. Plus, if you have kids, this frees up some space for new toys, clothes etc.

• Which reminds me, if you're shopping for kids, consider non-toy options such as books, or even experiences (certificates for museums, arenas etc.)

• Remember that Christmas - like any holiday - is unique to each person. It has different meanings, different memories associated. And it isn't universally celebrated. Don't judge people because they don't celebrate, or they celebrate differently than you. Whether a person puts up their tree in October or not at all, please don't criticize them. If they celebrate Chanukah or Kwanzaa or Yule or even nothing at all, respect their beliefs and their freedom to express them.

• And finally, find your own traditions. If something feels superficial or forced, get rid of it. Include the things which are meaningful to you and your family. Too often I hear people complaining about Christmas and then continuing on with the traditions they claim not to enjoy. Make the holidays about what you feel is important and what you enjoy and respect that others are doing the same. 

Have any other tips or traditions you'd like to share? Let me know! I'm always looking for new ideas. 

Image source: peanuts.wikia.com

Filthy Casuals

If you are at all involved in gaming, you've probably heard the term "casual." Likely in combination with the word "filthy," "goddamn," "stupid," or more creative derogatory adjectives.

If you know absolutely nothing about gaming... "Casual" is a term used to refer to a person who plays casual games. "Casual games" are those that are seen as lacking a required dedication, those with a simplicity of game mechanics compared to those in the mainstream, those that are easily accessible to people of any age regardless of their previous gaming experience.

Examples include cell phone games (Angry Birds, Bejeweled), Facebook games (Farmville, Papa Pear), a lot of Wii/motion control titles (Wii Sports, Just Dance) and many indie games (Gone Home, Dear Esther).

Image source: http://rovio.com.co/
Do you know how many hours people put into this game? Probably more than I put into most JRPGs...

So why the hate for casuals? It's sort of a complicated issue, though I'd argue it really shouldn't be. It's reliant on a few major facts:

Gaming has been highly persecuted throughout its existence. Video games have been blamed for everything from rotting brains to causing mass shootings. On top of that, it has generally been seen as a niche interest held by antisocial nerds. In a nutshell, gamers are used to having their medium (and themselves) criticized and having to defend gaming against non-gamers.

Image source: http://mp1st.com/2014/03/13/call-duty-ghosts-ps4-receives-1-7-gb-stability-patch/#.VGi6NsmFLts
Interestingly, FPS games like COD have actually been scientifically linked to benefits like increased spatial awareness

Gaming has become a very lucrative business and therefore has become very steeped in business politics. Until recently, when indie game developers finally were given the mechanisms to reach audiences on a wider scale, the medium has been almost solely reliant on large publishers to distribute games. Unfortunately, these publishers care more about profit than fan loyalty. Games are pushed out before they are ready, downloadable content is tacked on at high costs, and a gimmick is always great for a Christmas rush.

Image source: http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassin%27s_Creed:_Unity
Speaking of rushed releases... Youtube some of the glitches next time you're bored.

Because gaming was such a select group for so long, there hasn't been a lot of change to the content of games. And since the content never diversified, the diversity of the audience failed to flourish, making the group somewhat exclusive. The current audience has become acclimated to a certain type of game and a certain type of content (e.g. the angry, violent white man wants retribution).

Image source: http://iheartbeingagirl.blogspot.ca/2013/03/why-so-many-videogame-characters-look.html
Well that's a diverse group if ever I saw one...

Video games are now being marketed to previous non-gamers. A few years ago, with the release of Nintendo's family system, the Wii, and the advent of multipurpose devices like tablets and smart phones, video games began to be noticed by nongamers. From here, things like Steam Greenlight, Kickstarter and Indiegogo began allowing diverse independent designers to make and widely distribute games. Games that were different than the mainstream in mechanics, story and characters. Games that had almost no mechanics, games with no graphics, games that were easy to pick up and put down. Games that appealed to all races, all genders and all ages.

Image source: http://www.nintendo.com/wiiu/videos/#all/Wii_U_stories:_The_Jones_Family
Nintendo's ads now tend to focus more on families and less on stereotypical gamers

Combine these facts and you get a group that's very possessive of their medium. Many of them define themselves based on this medium. They are a Gamer. Now, all the people who didn't understand their interests are also identifying as Gamers, but often the games they're playing have no resemblance to the games previously considered mainstream. And worse, the companies that distribute the games are catching on that there are more casuals than mainstream Gamers. There's serious profit to be earned and they just might shift focus. The result: the people who used to criticize gaming have now stolen the medium for themselves, taking the games and the gaming identity with them.

It's easy to see how hatred stems from this. The problem is that the logic behind this conclusion is fundamentally flawed.

For one: casuals are not all the same people who originally persecuted gaming. It is largely made up of people who would have been gamers but didn't know where to start. Or felt unwelcome. It's made up of the people whose parents couldn't afford a console when they were kids. The women who were tired of seeing themselves portrayed as the victim. The people of colour that struggled to find their own heroes. The LGBTQ community that felt invisible at best and the butt of a joke at worst. The grandparents that felt they were too old to learn something so new. The moms who hardly ever had a hand free or a moment to spare. The people who were sick of violence. These games provide a less intimidating gateway into all types of games. And even if some of these people used to think poorly of games, isn't it in everyone's best interest when we're all on the same side? The side that supports video games as a legitimate hobby?

Image source: http://store.steampowered.com/app/400/
Portal is a great example of what diversity in the gaming industry can create

Next problem: these people are NOT taking games away. The publishing industry has long had a problem with catering only to the majority. Those of us who love puzzle games, point and click adventures or even brutally punishing games have known this for a long time. As have the people I mentioned before. We've had to look elsewhere for our games and the selection has often been limited. If games do start disappearing, blame the greedy publishing companies, not the audience. Blame the selfish developers who are willing to sacrifice their artistic autonomy to make a buck. Support the indie developer and the businesses that help them without keeping them on a tight leash. Speak out against greedy companies like EA, Activision, etc.

Now, keep in mind that accepting "casual" gamers as legitimately part of the gaming community DOES NOT mean all games need to be geared towards everyone. It does not mean all violent games will be done away with. It doesn't mean that games' difficulty will be lowered. It does not mean that all games will have some artistic and deep meaning that overrides the game play. At least it shouldn't. And if this happens, once again, we need to look to the developers and publishers to make original content and not what will make a quick profit. We should not blame the audience they are CHOOSING to cater to. 

What it DOES mean is that a game can have a low difficulty level and focus on artistic experience over complex mechanics WITHOUT being criticized. It means reviewers should not be persecuted for giving positive reviews to games that don't fit previous definitions of "games." It means that we should not make someone feel ashamed because their gaming experience consists of Farmville and Angry Birds. After all, isn't this part of what started the problem in the first place? People criticizing and judging others based on their interests? You don't have to like casual games. You can have intellectual discussions about genre boundaries, game play mechanics and story preference, but insulting or excluding someone or a group of someones based on their tastes is pathetic.

The issue really shouldn't be this complicated. I think of it in terms of books. I love reading. I love it when other people say they like reading too. There are a lot of people I know who read all the time and yet we have no similar interests in books. That's why genres exist - so we can roughly determine how much a title will interest us. Whether it will interest a friend. My friend's love of romance does not degrade my love for fantasy. And the same goes for different formats as well. The existence of comic books does not harm classic literature. Marvel fans are not making a power play against Dickens' fans. I am not offended by my child's See and Sound book. I don't have a problem with audio books... 

"I mean... they're just too easy. They shouldn't even call them books. Filthy casuals. Real readers read TEXT."

Is the Book Always Better?

The other day I was reading this article about Hollywood's poor history of adapting anime into film. And it got me thinking about adaptations in general. I mean, most of us have said (yelled, whined, screamed) "the book was better." But I'm curious... Is the book always better? Is it even fair to judge a movie against a completely different medium? And what is it that makes us (I'm sure I'm not just speaking for myself) absolutely furious when a film botches its source material?

Image Source: www.flicker.com
I've been assured by multiple people that this is the worse adaptation. Ever.

Ultimately, I think a lot of this comes down to opinion and taste. One of the amazing things about literature is how extremely personal the experience of reading a book can be. This is true of any medium to an extent, since all experiences require some kind of interpretation, but more so for books.

The non-sensory nature of text means the physical appearance of characters and settings are much more fluid. The atmosphere is also more variable since we are not fed an emotional music soundtrack, colour palettes or even background noise. There's also a lot more content in books to be interpreted than in many other forms of media. What each person values and retains can be different than another person reading the same book. These things result in a very personalized vision of the story presented through the text. A film interpretation is limited to a single visual presentation and unable to cover all material in the course of two hours. What the director portrays in those two hours may be exactly how one reader imagined the story, while nothing like what another reader envisioned. 

Of course, there are certainly adaptations that are objectively poor in terms of accurately representing the original story. Movies in which the story has been changed beyond recognition or so much has been left out that characters or elements of the plot have been left undeveloped. But again, there is still an element of opinion required when determining how a movie stands up against its source material.

Image Source: www.wikipedia.org
My favourite book and film, though the two are nothing alike.

For instance, Hayao Miyazaki's film Howl's Moving Castle, based on Diana Wynne Jones' novel of the same name, is a beautifully crafted and complex tale of love, magic and self confidence. It is, however, almost nothing like the original story. It is almost impossible to compare the two and determine "which is better" since they are so unalike. Miyazaki has taken the basic premise of the novel and some elements of the overall theme and turned it into something entirely his own. 

This, of course, again raises the question of whether film and literature can actually be compared. We must remember when viewing film adaptations that they are often not solely intended to be a straight shoot from page to screen, but the interpretation of a story that the director/screen writer wishes to present. The Lord of the Rings films are not the children of J.R.R. Tolkien but of Peter Jackson and his team, based on his personal experience reading the books.

But, that doesn't mean we can't have an opinion about a film's loyalty to its source. An example I often cite (and will bring up in another post in the nearish future) is My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. I don't want to give any spoilers because I highly encourage you to read this novel on your own, but I will say that what happens at the end of the book changes the perspective of the entire story. It gives meaning to what has been happening and deals an intensely emotional blow to the audience. The movie simply skipped the ending. On top of that, they even included a line saying "there was no meaning" to what had occurred. In my opinion, this is disloyal to the original novel. Even though the movie My Sister's Keeper probably has more in common with its source than Miyazaki's Howl's Moving Castle does, I would argue that this one change makes it significantly less effective at accurately portraying the overall story.

Image Source: www.jodipicoult.com
Highly recommend this book. The movie? Let's just pretend it doesn't exist...

I often find that my favourite adaptations are those where the screen play has been written by the original author. This is probably because anything the author chooses to include or omit will create an overall story still in keeping with their original theme and intentions. Some examples are Anne Rice's Interview with The Vampire, and Peter S. Beagle's The Last Unicorn. There are also authors who remain involved with the film and consult on the script. J.K. Rowling was relatively involved in the Harry Potter movies and Neil Gaiman produced Stardust (as well as the upcoming Graveyard Book adaptation).

Image Source: www.wikipedia.org
Nostalgia anyone?

 
So we come to the question: "Is the book always better than the movie?" In my opinion, there have been films that presented a story more enjoyably and effectively than their literary counterparts. And I reiterate, this is my opinion. As an example, I was not a fan of Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveler's Wife. Yes, I'm aware that puts me in the minority. I am intrigued by the premise, but I found most of the characters shallow and unlikeable. I didn't like the way the main characters dismissed Henry's ex-girlfriend, blowing her off as psycho instead of in need of help. I hated Clare's acceptance of Gomez and his obvious sexual advances. The film adaptation did away with both of these elements, writing out the ex-girlfriend and making Gomez a likeable character, loyal to both Clare and Henry. For me, the film presented exactly the parts I enjoyed about the story while removing those that were unappealing. Obviously, a person who found all of the novel appealing, would highly disagree with my preference of the film.

Image Source: www.goodreads.com
I just really didn't like it...

A fan of Niffenegger's novel may even be angry with me for saying that I enjoyed the movie more than the book. We've all been there. "You liked it!? Really? But the book was so much better!?" And the worse of all, when someone responds: "I never read the book." That's when you rush home and lend them your dog-eared copy immediately, unless it's signed of course... then you'll just have to pick them up their own copy for Christmas.  

Honestly, I don't think this is an attitude we have solely for books. We feel ownership and allegiance to anything we like. Whenever someone says something negative about something we enjoy, it makes us feel uncomfortable. We have an urge to show them just how mistaken they are. Whether by passive-aggressively getting them to read a book, or by having a full scale debate about how the original Matrix was better than the sequels. We associate these opinions with our identities, and when someone challenges them, we see it as a challenge to our self-image.

Image Source: www.imdb.com
Seriously...

At the end of the day though, we have to remember that it is opinion. We can discuss and debate, but if someone doesn't agree... oh well. If we all liked the same things, then we wouldn't really have much to discuss in the first place.

Of course... this is always easier said than done... and I'm sure most of my friends can call me out on doing the same. What do you think? Share your opinion in the comments. Or feel free to disagree with me and tell me what I got wrong below.

Fictional characters, fictional feelings?

Anyone who loves reading will talk about how the story and the characters stay with them long after they close a book. Many people will also tell you about the period of grieving that can take place after experiencing a good story. The time it takes before you feel mentally and emotionally prepared to read something else. The time it takes to mull over the detail, the meaning, the relevance to your own life. The time it takes to let go of the characters you've spent the last several days, weeks, or even months with. Television, film and video games can also have a similar effect. So, the question I have is: what exactly is the relationship we share with fictional characters? These are just thoughts and observations, and as usual, I'd love for people to join the conversation. So feel free to comment and share, discuss, disagree, whatever. I've also included some images that just might remind you of how emotional fiction can get... feel free to let everyone know how many you recognize/ if they broke your heart all over again.

You can honestly only ever watch this movie once. Never again.

I remember some time ago, I was having a conversation with a friend about our favourite characters from television. We got onto the topic of what characters we were attracted to. We both admitted to having become so enthralled with a character that there was literally a period of "getting over" them when the show finished. As if we had been rejected by them. Or had been in a relationship that was now over. There was a point in time where we had to consciously convince ourselves that there was no chance we would ever be with that person. Because they didn't exist.

I felt there was an obligation to include this one. Sort of that classic "feels" moment...

It seems strange at first, but it isn't so different from what happens in many fandoms. Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Star Trek, etc. All of these things have massive followings. People who dress as characters, write fan fictions, hold annual cosplay events. What exactly is the attachment we have for fictional worlds and characters? Is it really any different than what happens in " real" life?

Is your crush on Daryl Dixon as real as that crush you had on that guy at the office?

Are the tears you shed for a certain headmaster as meaningful than the ones you cried for your mentor who passed away?

Is that feeling of coming home when you hear the familiar whir of the Tardis as genuine as when you return after a semester abroad?

I don't think the answers are as obvious as many would think. And I really think it would be naive to immediately devalue our feelings because they are directed at a fictional entity.

I called Alex at work sobbing after watching only 5 or so minutes of this movie...

I'll start with celebrities. A lot of people feel emotionally attached to celebrities. Fans gather in droves to events, just to get a signature. They cry and create tributes when they pass away. Celebrities are real people, but I would argue that our perceptions of them aren't real. Our feelings are often based on characters they played in films or television. Even when we go out of our way to watch their interviews, read their biography and maybe meet them in person, we are still only seeing a minute part of who they are. Their interactions are also being filtered through the media, public relations personnel, and any persona they may have adopted to make fan interactions smoother. Though there is a real person out there named Ryan Gosling, our image of him is largely fictional. Our feelings are for the man we believe him to be, more so than the person he actually is. 

Not gonna lie, I cried.

To break this down further, I would argue that a similar concept applies to all of our relationships. How many times, when a relationship doesn't work out, do people say: "(S)he's not the person I thought (s)he was?" Or after a person passes away, you hear stories that make you question whether you really knew that person at all? When we know someone, I believe our brain creates a rough image of who we believe that person to be. We use this image to anticipate reactions, make judgements about their character, etc. It's like when we talk about the importance of first impressions. Our brain is designed to take a limited amount of information and stretch it as far as it can. (For anyone interested in psychology, this is also similar to how we fall prey to stereotypes.)

:(

 So, basically, all of our interactions are interactions with the image we have created of a person. Our fiction of that person. When you feed your brain information about a fictional character (or world, or event), I believe it interacts with that information much the same way that it does any other information. We have an image of Batman/ Bruce Wayne that tells us what he looks like, his background, his qualities. We use this information to predict his actions - this is why we can recognize when a character is written poorly. If someone writes about Batman shooting villains, we go "hey, that's not the Batman I know" because it doesn't fit with the mental image we have. It's much the same as when I ask Alex if he wants to go for sushi and he says no, "Who are you, and what have you done with my husband?"

<3

 

Now, obviously there are differences between fantasy and reality. A two-way relationship is one of those differences. Fictional characters don't respond when you ask them a question. You can't learn any more about them than what's on the page. You can use your aforementioned mental image to make inferences about their behaviour, but you cannot definitively know their response to something. Therefore, there is a limit to which you can "know" a fictional character and then have to resort to filling in the blanks yourself. There is a level of exploration that you cannot achieve without a real person. The same applies to settings and events as well. 

Here's a tough one. I cried so many times during this show.

Of course, it doesn't mean the emotions we feel about fiction aren't real. As I said, our brain is sorting the information similarly to how it would sort any other information. So our attraction to a character, our feelings of familiarity, our sense of loss... these are all occurring as if they were real. Does this not mean the feelings themselves are real?

This of course raises a lot of questions about reality. If our interpretation of the world is based on perception and a series of personal fictions... where is the line between reality and fiction? Is there one? Ah... but we'll save that for another day.