With Skyward Sword, the Zelda series saw another nudge in the direction of deeper characterization. More effort and time was clearly put into making the people of Skyloft and beyond both more believable and likable. Many people attest to this iteration of Zelda herself being the one most worth saving, and new characters like Groose and Ghirahim won't soon be forgotten. Even Link, according to some, was at his silent yet emotive best. But notice I don't put him in the same group as the others.
That's because over time, Link hasn't evolved all that much. Sure, with each new game his face has shown us more and more expressions, but Link himself is very much the same. He's silent...no matter what he does, he doesn't really protest, he kicks ass, he saves the world. Since Wind Waker, Link's added a new emotion in "get pissed when sister/friend gets kidnapped." Twilight Princess gave him...well, a few more rape faces then we ever wanted. And in Skyward Sword Link smiled more than ever. Which is jarring, given what he was doing. I made the point back in my review that this most recent Link was a total masochist. Another tear container? Smiling like a maniac. The Gods don't think I'm worth and want to test me again? So happy. My princess is in another century? Stepford smiling.
It's gotten to a point now where Link isn't quite relating with the player any more. I mean, players want dungeons, yes, but they certainly don't want...that other thing that the Gods like to hit Link with in Skyward Sword. Yet Link just goes along with it, never once telling Fi to shove it or questioning whether or not what he's doing is really worth it.
And that's the thing...it's something that irks me about more than just the Zelda series. Characters like Link just aren't stopping to consider the gravity of the situation. I mean, he's sort of taken up the mantle of "hero" and slashed the toes of stories-tall monsters to save some girl, about whom he can't get any straight answers. That's an awful lot of faith, even for a good, pure guy like Link. I know Nintendo's not too big on the whole "make characters deep and dark" thing, since they tried it with Samus to varying degrees of success, but Link's a character that deserves it. It'd certainly be a nice spin on the formula to have a Link with a little more of a personality. They can do this without making him Cloud too, or avoiding making him like Pit, who's still a lovable character with all of his chatter.
So how do we change Link? Let's start by looking at what he's always been, besides mute. Try and find me a game where Link hasn't been praised for his bravery or heroism. If you can, that'd be interesting considering in pretty much every console release since Ocarina of Time, except Majora's Mask, Link has obtained the Triforce of Courage. In Wind Waker, he actually had to build the damn thing. In some of the other games, it came as a bundle with the Master Sword. Point is, Courage/Bravery is Link's trademark characteristic.
Typically though, we look at courage or bravery as standing up to your fears and overcoming them. But fear isn't an expression that Link often shows. Surprise, yes. Shock, yes. But fear, very rarely. It's more or less always the case that Link has enough determination in him to go from one boss-ridden side of the Earth to the other. A giant screaming idol with a sword and shield? Bring it on. A lava-loving centipede with claws bigger than his whole body? Locked and Loaded. A pale elf dressed in holey tights and with a tongue longer than...Okay admittedly, Link showed some righteous discomfort when he first met Ghirahim. But when it came to fighting a monster whose toes may have had more mass than he did, Link doesn't even really stop to admire the size of the thing. Nope, let's charge on in.
Thing is, Link is as brave at the end of the game as he is in the beginning. You'd think he slayed purple goblins and man eating spiders as a means of survival prior to his adventure. Granted, it takes balls of steel to stand up to any of those monsters, it's just that...most of us...wouldn't. I'm not saying Link isn't a brave man. I'm saying that he never has to earn the Triforce of Courage that always seems to be the thing he has to...earn. The only thing about Link that grows in a Zelda game is his arsenal and his body count....oh, and somehow how much he wants to save Zelda.
We need a Link that grows. It's kind of funny actually since the first time we saw 3D Link, he was whimpering and crying in his bed. We never see him do that again. Let's have a Link that stays like that for a while. The call to action comes...and Link let's it go to the answering machine. Maybe he's tough at first, determined to go out and save whoever's been kidnapped this time, but one look at the monsters ready to knock him down and eat him and he scurries back home. We get a scene of him sitting on his bed shivering, paranoid at any little sound he hears, even if it's just the village kids come to poke fun at how he can't come within a yard of a buzzing bee. Instead of Link, it's his helper, the Fi, the Navi, or the Midna, who has to step up to the challenge, dragging Link kicking and screaming into this adventure.
Link's fear could also be used as a gameplay element. At first, he can only fight certain types of enemies effectively without fumbling all over himself in a panic. As he builds up confidence, his sword skills become smoother and previously terrifying enemies become more manageable. It would give a greater sense of accomplishment right to the player that now things are getting easier and enemies aren't so tough. It would have to be a subtle mechanic, activated when an enemy engages Link or vice versa. The type of enemy would determine Link's fear and the moveset he'd have against them. This, of course, would mean there would have to be a wide array of such movesets, to help the player grow little by little, in ways they may not notice. It'd be a nice way to keep a player within certain boundaries too.
Xenoblade Chronicles actually has a tinge of this in it. It's world is massive, and naturally populated with creatures of all shapes and sizes. You're walking straight through Tephra Cave and then WHAM! A caterpillar over four times your size comes out of the ground, the caution siren sounds, and you're in a desperate battle you feel foolish for running so eagerly into. You learn very quickly that some enemies are not to be trifled with, even if you're right where you're supposed to be. It's a brilliant system, and one that would work very well with the Zelda series. Let's face it, a lot of the creatures found in Hyrule Field aren't all that daunting. Throw in one of the more massive, daunting enemies in the vein of Xenoblade, and the player will naturally connect with Link in not wanting to even go near the thing. Enemy design and presentation would be key.
Imagine it...you start out with a Link that's bullied, fearful, timid, and untrained in sword combat (we'd have to have a Link who's somewhere between Young Link and TP/SS Link in age, I think), so by the time we reach the end of the game, he's decked out in the classic green tunic, wielding the Master Sword, and glaring down enemies with a confidence he's earned by overcoming the personal trials that came along with the trials of the hero. When he reaches the final boss, Link's hands shake with adrenaline...he's still scared, but he's overpowering his fear with confidence. THAT'S when he earns the Triforce: when he's finally gained the courage to climb the big, dark tower and face down the huge, ferocious, ominous, daunting, frightening final boss. Now he's wielding that sword as well as a player's arm will allow. He still get scared, breathing heavily as the final boss' power bears down on him. He gets scared because in reality, it'd make anyone nervous.
Again, games today always seem to forgo logic for badassery. Protagonists are fearless, snarking and taunting their way through the game and filled to the brim with determination right up until the final boss...which is a towering, 50 foot shirtless demon that attacks by grabbing meteors from the atmosphere and throwing them. I mean, look at something like Resident Evil, which is MEANT to be scary...and yet the main characters are always cool and collected. Even if the main character is surprised by the appearance and power of an enemy, you can bet they'll be back on their feet within seconds, ready to play...meanwhile if the same thing were to pop up in your backyard, you the player would likely piss yourself and run away. The question is then...how can we make players understand how a protagonist might actually feel if the situation were to occur in reality. I mean, how ironic is it that games are getting more and more realistic...yet the characters don't react to ten foot tentacle monsters realistically at all?
Zelda games have come far enough to incorporate this type of expression into Link's character, since he's been more and more expressive with every game. If Nintendo wants to continue down the path of character expansion, they'll need to mix it up some, and Link's characterization is the most potent place to do that. It actually helps that he's a silent protagonist...it forces the game makers into packing as much into his facial expressions and body language as they can, making a landmark of a character. The whole subtlety thing can be learned from Shadow of the Colossus. Wander was largely silent, yet we can determine a lot about him from how clumsily he waves his sword around, how he can manage to shoot while on a moving horse (standing up even), and how he changes over the adventure. The changes are both obvious and minimal. The obvious ones are that Wander gets stronger and healthier, as shown by his circular grip gauge and health bar. The less obvious, and most enthralling one, is that Wander's appearance actually changes as the adventure goes on too...to the point where runes come up all over his skin and his hair darkens. His clothes are torn, roughed up, and he altogether just looks tired. I've never ever seen this technique...this attention to detail used in any other game, and it's one that should be used in Zelda.
Skyward Sword was another step in the right direction for Nintendo's minimalist storytelling. They're always about not bogging the player down in story, cutting it down for gameplay. What if though, these story elements became part of the gameplay? What if Link's character actually affected how the game played? The player would then be directed and drawn into the story, maybe even to the point of looking for and picking out when Link changes his swordplay, and maybe even his looks. Just like in Shadow of the Colossus, there would be consequences both obvious, a la gameplay, and subtle, a la some of Link's expressions and how he looks. When next we see Link, I want to see a character who really earns the Triforce of Courage by overcoming his fears...fears that normal people would be crazy not to have.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Oh, the Nostalgia!
Okay wow so Blogger has changed everything so much that it apparently refuses to work in the browser I typically use. Now I have to use it in a different browser, which totally ruins the internet for me. I'm not particularly fond of this layout either, especially since it's incredibly easy to miss the title box and the "Publish" button is no longer in the logical place- below the text box, which is proper because as writing goes on, the text scrolls and progresses downward, thus when you're finished you're at your lowest point...
Anyway, that little rant is dreadfully ironic considering the thing about which I originally planned to rant, and on which I will be ranting from this point. Normally I don't complain about the "new" things in life. When Facebook updates, I'm "meh" at best since I've grown used to change every once in a while. The rest of the denizens of the internet don't seem to see eye to eye to me. This is especially true when we get on the topic of entertainment. I'm going to say a word right now, and you're probably going to recognize it...but I want you to think about it's connotation. Ready?
Nostalgia
Thought about it? I mean, what do people really think about it? It's hard to say really. Usually "nostalgia" is referring to some...thing...a movie or a game or a tv show, at least in it's internet form. Nostalgia is essentially a sequel to "epic," an old world that gets slightly warped and egregiously abused to the point that you get tired of it. I don't blame nostalgia though, it's not it's fault that people seem to use it to prolong the life of fads and trends only resurrected by the advent of modern technology and used as a replacement for new experiences.
It could be quite the drinking game really. Go find some videos that are likely to lead to similar videos...the soundtrack to a videogame from two generations ago might do nicely...and take a drink any time someone mentions "nostalgia," "Good times," or reminisces about the game in any way shape or form. I don't recommend doing this with Toonami since you'll pass out rather quickly. So here's my next question. How did we get so obsessed with nostalgia....and why?
Bob Dylan may have written one of the truest songs ever when he wrote "The Times They Are A-Changin'" because dear God do times change. In fact, you could argue that the only thing that doesn't change is the fact that things change. The only reason you could argue against that is because now people seem to have footholds in the past. Whereas before, when something changed, there wasn't any going back, we the people now have the ability to not only review those past things, but pretty much resurrect them. YouTube is the main provider for this ability, wherein you will find...pretty much anything you ask it to. Full episodes of old TV shows and entire walkthroughs of games that died from water damage long ago. They're all there now. Hell, you can even find old commercials and bumps you didn't even know you wanted to see again.
Before YouTube, there was nowhere near as much of this type of thing available. Nostalgia was something that came from photo albums and boxes in the attic. It was about YOU and YOUR memories, typically not the thing or story itself. That's why it always strikes me as odd that 17-18 year olds are having these feelings of "nostalgia," considering it used to be a rare word that was uttered or used when middle aged or elderly people were thinking about what they were like when they were 17-18, and maybe regretting leaving such a life behind.
As I've said in the past, entertainment has become a lot more potent in recent decades, and far, far more immersive. In the 50s, you had novels and TV shows and movies, yeah, but they're nowhere near as expansive as they are now. They don't spawn games and other novels and incarnations in every form of media imaginable. The characters aren't as deep or developed, and they don't last as long. Today we have sensations that are based around stories...there's such things as "fandom" and "multimedia." These stories can go as far as to define entire periods of our lives, even in childhood...the same time that used to be defined by playing baseball and...whatever else. Kind of a different life. I won't pretend I know what that's like since I grew up with franchises like most other people my age.
Though I grew up with the same things as everyone else, there's still disparity about the world "nostalgia" that makes me not want to do it. Personally, I'd find it kind of insulting when used to describe something I did. When someone comments "Oh, the nostalgia!" it basically says "I remember this for the memories it gave me." People who leave their comments at "nostalgia omg" without expanding are basically just saying they liked something because it's old. It's from their childhood. Which was better than now. Look, I know we're a transitional generation....and I know it's not the best of times right now as the world tries to figure out how to keep up with itself, but honestly, it wasn't really those shows and games that made your childhood great. It was the fact that you were carefree enough to have them be the only things on your mind. Now you're older, responsible, and you've gotten used to the ideas and stories presented to you when you were younger. New entries just don't have the same effect on you as the old ones did because now you know some of the sad truths of the world that have always been present in a series. But you don't see them as much in the old entries of a series because when you knew them best, you were a kid. So uh...let me ask you this....WHY did you like those things? Could you answer that in detail?
As far as 90s cartoons go, it's true there were some uniquely gifted writers, animators, and designers active at the time. But let's not forget that in the 90s we also had cartoons that were made even earlier than that. Take for example, Tom & Jerry, which I now occasionally watch on Cartoon Network around lunch time. When I watch those cartoons now, some of the slapstick actually makes me laugh. The absurdity of the situations makes me chuckle. I don't really remember laughing all that much at shows when I was a kid. This is really weird because I have a wide understanding that these shows were made entirely by adults that have a real understanding of how the real world works. Yet, at the same time, I understand that that is what makes cartoons new and old FUN. These people get to experience a world without limits so that the viewer can experience a world without limits. Tom running under an anvil and getting flattened isn't coincidence...it's completely deliberate. It's just so absurd that you have to revel in it. It might even pose a mature question...what happens in a world in which people can't die? Kind of a neat thing to consider, yeah?
Yet instead of considering these things with the new, more mature viewpoint that the children of the 90s now have, most just settle for "this was from better times!" Believe me, I miss being a carefree kid too, but I can still admit to using entertainment today the way that I did then. I'm constantly looking for new things while revelling in the old ones...and when I happen to stumble on a few episodes of Dragonball Z or Dexter's Lab, I'm always far more interested to catch what I missed as a kid when I was taking everything very, very seriously. When I say I took it seriously, it means I was always entirely immersed in the world of the show, even to the point where I sometimes didn't even understand what was going on. The same thing applies to videogames, where I might play the first level or world of a game over...and over.....and over...and over...and never win but never get mad either. Somehow the goal of the game was never to get to the end, but play until I was finished. Maybe it's these weird outlooks that I had that give me my view on nostalgia now.
Even so, I'd say describing something as "nostalgic" is shallow. There's so much more to that work than the time at which it was released. There are other things that make those stories great. Or not great. "Nostalgia" doesn't even commit to whether or not something was even good. It's irrelevant to the series itself since it really refers to the context surrounding it. Again, I have fond childhood memories of games that I never played past the second level. They're actually fond memories, despite the fact that I can't actually have made a fair judgment on the game based on the amount I'd played. Maybe games were never "good" or "bad" to me. Even though I understand now that I can never experience things for the first time again, I almost don't want to since I can now look at things more completely and accurately. I'm not comparing things to their older counterparts, and when I'm playing a sequel to something I've actually played, I have to fight the urge to enjoy it less due to the fact that it's not entirely new.
This whole nostalgia craze is toxic to the current creative environment too. If people are staying rooted in past series and refusing to get into new, modern things, then there's far less people to draw on for making something the next big thing. People will write off entire franchises simply because they have replaced the old ones, despite the hours of work put into them and the level of quality that ultimately results. People will condemn further entries into a series just because they haven't experienced them in the same context that they did earlier entries, despite the fact that all the things they thought would be awesome as a child are now in this game or show. When they're too busy watching, researching, talking about, and commenting on 297 episodes of Dragon Ball Z, they're not going to notice all of the new series out there that will come to define this time period.
It's ironic, since nostalgia only effects certain people. The concept itself isn't really timeless. Comments concerning nostalgia are often accompanied by "I weep for kids today since they won't have shows/games as good as these!" That's hilarious. The kids today are too busy making future nostalgia on their own. Just like Bob Dylan suggests, what's here today will be different tomorrow, and when the times change once again, the kids that were screwed out of the supposedly implacable experiences their older siblings/friends/random older people on the internet cherished will long for the context of their old shows and games. And who knows what they'll see. Coming back to right now, I know what I want to see is depth over nostalgia. Let's talk about why something is actually great. Let's recognize things on their own merits, and keep the ones we find we love for no apparent reason our own little treasures. We can use these things to connect the dots, not just admire the unfinished bigger picture.
Consolidate. Combine. Fuse. Integrate. We have so many luxuries these days. Not only did us 90s kids get to enjoy the richest selection of stories and entertainment ever available, we also have the means of enjoying them whenever and however we wish as we so choose. It would be an abuse of those luxuries to use them just for playing the same old things over and over again. As they say, there's a difference between growing up and getting old.
Anyway, that little rant is dreadfully ironic considering the thing about which I originally planned to rant, and on which I will be ranting from this point. Normally I don't complain about the "new" things in life. When Facebook updates, I'm "meh" at best since I've grown used to change every once in a while. The rest of the denizens of the internet don't seem to see eye to eye to me. This is especially true when we get on the topic of entertainment. I'm going to say a word right now, and you're probably going to recognize it...but I want you to think about it's connotation. Ready?
Nostalgia
Thought about it? I mean, what do people really think about it? It's hard to say really. Usually "nostalgia" is referring to some...thing...a movie or a game or a tv show, at least in it's internet form. Nostalgia is essentially a sequel to "epic," an old world that gets slightly warped and egregiously abused to the point that you get tired of it. I don't blame nostalgia though, it's not it's fault that people seem to use it to prolong the life of fads and trends only resurrected by the advent of modern technology and used as a replacement for new experiences.
It could be quite the drinking game really. Go find some videos that are likely to lead to similar videos...the soundtrack to a videogame from two generations ago might do nicely...and take a drink any time someone mentions "nostalgia," "Good times," or reminisces about the game in any way shape or form. I don't recommend doing this with Toonami since you'll pass out rather quickly. So here's my next question. How did we get so obsessed with nostalgia....and why?
Bob Dylan may have written one of the truest songs ever when he wrote "The Times They Are A-Changin'" because dear God do times change. In fact, you could argue that the only thing that doesn't change is the fact that things change. The only reason you could argue against that is because now people seem to have footholds in the past. Whereas before, when something changed, there wasn't any going back, we the people now have the ability to not only review those past things, but pretty much resurrect them. YouTube is the main provider for this ability, wherein you will find...pretty much anything you ask it to. Full episodes of old TV shows and entire walkthroughs of games that died from water damage long ago. They're all there now. Hell, you can even find old commercials and bumps you didn't even know you wanted to see again.
Before YouTube, there was nowhere near as much of this type of thing available. Nostalgia was something that came from photo albums and boxes in the attic. It was about YOU and YOUR memories, typically not the thing or story itself. That's why it always strikes me as odd that 17-18 year olds are having these feelings of "nostalgia," considering it used to be a rare word that was uttered or used when middle aged or elderly people were thinking about what they were like when they were 17-18, and maybe regretting leaving such a life behind.
As I've said in the past, entertainment has become a lot more potent in recent decades, and far, far more immersive. In the 50s, you had novels and TV shows and movies, yeah, but they're nowhere near as expansive as they are now. They don't spawn games and other novels and incarnations in every form of media imaginable. The characters aren't as deep or developed, and they don't last as long. Today we have sensations that are based around stories...there's such things as "fandom" and "multimedia." These stories can go as far as to define entire periods of our lives, even in childhood...the same time that used to be defined by playing baseball and...whatever else. Kind of a different life. I won't pretend I know what that's like since I grew up with franchises like most other people my age.
Though I grew up with the same things as everyone else, there's still disparity about the world "nostalgia" that makes me not want to do it. Personally, I'd find it kind of insulting when used to describe something I did. When someone comments "Oh, the nostalgia!" it basically says "I remember this for the memories it gave me." People who leave their comments at "nostalgia omg" without expanding are basically just saying they liked something because it's old. It's from their childhood. Which was better than now. Look, I know we're a transitional generation....and I know it's not the best of times right now as the world tries to figure out how to keep up with itself, but honestly, it wasn't really those shows and games that made your childhood great. It was the fact that you were carefree enough to have them be the only things on your mind. Now you're older, responsible, and you've gotten used to the ideas and stories presented to you when you were younger. New entries just don't have the same effect on you as the old ones did because now you know some of the sad truths of the world that have always been present in a series. But you don't see them as much in the old entries of a series because when you knew them best, you were a kid. So uh...let me ask you this....WHY did you like those things? Could you answer that in detail?
As far as 90s cartoons go, it's true there were some uniquely gifted writers, animators, and designers active at the time. But let's not forget that in the 90s we also had cartoons that were made even earlier than that. Take for example, Tom & Jerry, which I now occasionally watch on Cartoon Network around lunch time. When I watch those cartoons now, some of the slapstick actually makes me laugh. The absurdity of the situations makes me chuckle. I don't really remember laughing all that much at shows when I was a kid. This is really weird because I have a wide understanding that these shows were made entirely by adults that have a real understanding of how the real world works. Yet, at the same time, I understand that that is what makes cartoons new and old FUN. These people get to experience a world without limits so that the viewer can experience a world without limits. Tom running under an anvil and getting flattened isn't coincidence...it's completely deliberate. It's just so absurd that you have to revel in it. It might even pose a mature question...what happens in a world in which people can't die? Kind of a neat thing to consider, yeah?
Yet instead of considering these things with the new, more mature viewpoint that the children of the 90s now have, most just settle for "this was from better times!" Believe me, I miss being a carefree kid too, but I can still admit to using entertainment today the way that I did then. I'm constantly looking for new things while revelling in the old ones...and when I happen to stumble on a few episodes of Dragonball Z or Dexter's Lab, I'm always far more interested to catch what I missed as a kid when I was taking everything very, very seriously. When I say I took it seriously, it means I was always entirely immersed in the world of the show, even to the point where I sometimes didn't even understand what was going on. The same thing applies to videogames, where I might play the first level or world of a game over...and over.....and over...and over...and never win but never get mad either. Somehow the goal of the game was never to get to the end, but play until I was finished. Maybe it's these weird outlooks that I had that give me my view on nostalgia now.
Even so, I'd say describing something as "nostalgic" is shallow. There's so much more to that work than the time at which it was released. There are other things that make those stories great. Or not great. "Nostalgia" doesn't even commit to whether or not something was even good. It's irrelevant to the series itself since it really refers to the context surrounding it. Again, I have fond childhood memories of games that I never played past the second level. They're actually fond memories, despite the fact that I can't actually have made a fair judgment on the game based on the amount I'd played. Maybe games were never "good" or "bad" to me. Even though I understand now that I can never experience things for the first time again, I almost don't want to since I can now look at things more completely and accurately. I'm not comparing things to their older counterparts, and when I'm playing a sequel to something I've actually played, I have to fight the urge to enjoy it less due to the fact that it's not entirely new.
This whole nostalgia craze is toxic to the current creative environment too. If people are staying rooted in past series and refusing to get into new, modern things, then there's far less people to draw on for making something the next big thing. People will write off entire franchises simply because they have replaced the old ones, despite the hours of work put into them and the level of quality that ultimately results. People will condemn further entries into a series just because they haven't experienced them in the same context that they did earlier entries, despite the fact that all the things they thought would be awesome as a child are now in this game or show. When they're too busy watching, researching, talking about, and commenting on 297 episodes of Dragon Ball Z, they're not going to notice all of the new series out there that will come to define this time period.
It's ironic, since nostalgia only effects certain people. The concept itself isn't really timeless. Comments concerning nostalgia are often accompanied by "I weep for kids today since they won't have shows/games as good as these!" That's hilarious. The kids today are too busy making future nostalgia on their own. Just like Bob Dylan suggests, what's here today will be different tomorrow, and when the times change once again, the kids that were screwed out of the supposedly implacable experiences their older siblings/friends/random older people on the internet cherished will long for the context of their old shows and games. And who knows what they'll see. Coming back to right now, I know what I want to see is depth over nostalgia. Let's talk about why something is actually great. Let's recognize things on their own merits, and keep the ones we find we love for no apparent reason our own little treasures. We can use these things to connect the dots, not just admire the unfinished bigger picture.
Consolidate. Combine. Fuse. Integrate. We have so many luxuries these days. Not only did us 90s kids get to enjoy the richest selection of stories and entertainment ever available, we also have the means of enjoying them whenever and however we wish as we so choose. It would be an abuse of those luxuries to use them just for playing the same old things over and over again. As they say, there's a difference between growing up and getting old.
Monday, April 16, 2012
The Chronicles of Indie
Okay so it's a Monday night and there are a shit ton of things I could be doing right now for school but I really wanted to write something like this, dammit! This is how we write best I think.
Of course, I have to come back in a way that's appropriate, so I'll once again be *ahem* "borrowing" a topic from Cat. I'll be using some different rhetoric, of course, since I like to try and appear...understanding of both sides. You might recall a post I did waaaaaay back about the lack of "rock stars" in this day and age. Well, this is kind of an update on that.
I've been kind of inclined to get back into music lately. I'm blaming it on my friend Wes, who invites me to be in a band of his once every few months. Once he invites....he's persistent, and I could go on and on about how I really believe in him and the things he's trying to do musically. Anyway, when he called me and asked me to be in his latest project, I asked him what type of music we'd be playing, and he used the one word I'd fear would come out of his mouth. He used it twice in fact. The word was "indie." It was kind of disappointing since I know how Wes likes punk music and bluegrass and anything that sounds good, and I was really up for being into something punky. But alas, when I heard he and his two fellow recruits a few days later, they were indeed, very very indie.
Let me preface this by saying they weren't bad musically. I was pretty impressed by their vocal togetherness and the way they were able to keep the song(s) together with tempo and everything, since personally I'm shit without a drummer. This isn't even really about them as much as it is about ideas and themes and sounds.
Earlier today, I was thinking about what a record might look like if I put one out today. I had a bit of an interview with myself, and I ended up trying really hard to contrast the "record" with indie music. I figured my record would be an amalgamation of punk, rock, alternative...whatever I felt like. It'd be about stupid shit like Facebook friends and Youtube comments and aviator glasses. It'd be raw, imperfect, and full of dirty, scratchy guitar. I'd want it to have sounds that range from Foo Fighters style hard rock to the quirky raps of Gorillaz. Apparently though, the last thing I would want it to be is indie.
The first word that came to mind was "sterile." Indie music is so so clean. The guitars are always clean, if they ever stray from being acoustic. There's not a hair out of place. The vocals try their damndest to avoid emotion. It's not dirty or punchy or action-packed. In a way though, that's brilliant. Indie is a good indicator of where we are as a race. Right now, we're a bunch of germaphobes, afraid to let our kids play outside since even the fricking sun can give them cancer, let alone the millions of invisble organisms that are floating around that we can't even see. Our food and water has to be specially processed to be considered safe. The five second rule no longer applies. On a human level, showing emotion is a sign of weakness. Indie music very much represents us right now. The emphasis here is on intelligence and cleverness, rather than the raw emotions and feelings that other music channels.
It's interesting because when you look at popular music, all of them are about dancing. Rap is so huge today because that's the thing everyone shakes their ass to. It's why dubstep and techno are so popular. What the hell was disco? Something to dance to. How about jazz and swing? How about trumpets and drums? Shit, way way back when, music was used for two things: celebrations and marches. Even rock was part of a huge dance craze...I mean, that's kind of what the Beatles were before they'd been famous long enough to get bored with the same old song and dance. See, even that cliche puts song and dance together. The curious thing is that you really can't dance to indie music...it's slow and doesn't really have a beat.
Maybe we as a people don't have a beat, and that's why indie is creeping up on us as a dominant genre. Maybe we are shedding our emotions and dirty minds for cooler heads. I mean, think about it. Indie musicians are all about their own integrity and talent. It's supposed to be them, an acoustic guitar and the truth....and maybe a guy with a beard playing bass, but that's it...and maybe a violin....and maybe a female singer with short hair...but that's it. Oh and maybe a flutist. But that's all. None of this computery, autotune bullshit...just my Mac for recording. And then what you end up with is droning vocals that barely go outside of a certain range because that'd be too risky. Trying to avoid computers, technology, and electronics ultimately and ironically makes the resulting music sound...very robotic.
That's part of the gimmick and intelligence of it though. Think about it. There's probably an indie song out there that's about genocide in Africa, and the whole thing is done in typical indie style: acoustic guitar, keys, bearded bassman, and maybe some brushes on a drum. It's sung in monotone. Dissonant? Cleverly. Why? Because the song is supposed to represent how lackadaisical the world is about the topic. The way the vocals are sung are indicative of public opinion...it expresses that we don't really care about what's going on. That's true, and it's very clever, yes. But you're not going to get people to a) think about it long enough to understand that THAT's what you were trying to say, and b) do a damn thing about it without explicitly including the genocide hotline in your lyrics somewhere.
See, music is used very much like therapy today. Something like the Foo Fighters is basically catharsis: you yell, you scream, you throw yourself around and air-drum until you almost barf and then you kind of crash afterwards. Science says it doesn't solve problems, but it sure feels pretty fucking good. Indie, on the other hand, is kind of like real therapy: it's this long, painful, sensical solution to problems that you probably should use to help you get better in the long run. It also costs 100 bucks an hour. Here's the thing with music: it ain't therapy and I'm not paying 100 bucks for a CD. I listen to music because it FEELS good and it makes me kind of want to DO something, not because I'm looking for insight or like...permanent solutions to my problems...this is a terrible metaphor.
The fact of the matter is that indie doesn't really have the things that I personally want in music. It doesn't really have what the general population wants either, since I can't really shake my ass to it. I guess maybe some people do want to spend a little time interpreting the symbolism behind lyrics about someone getting up and shaving their beard or whatever. It sure won't be the bassist doing the shaving however. One of the things I can't fathom is how this translates into a fun live experience. I mean, you do get a whole lot, and I mean a WHOLE LOT of "Ooooh"s in the choruses of an indie song since that seems to be the only word they can fill a big vocal with. I mean, that Gotye song, "Somebody that I used to Know" or whatever? I can't understand why someone would feel the need to hear that one live since there's so little going on in it and it's not really exciting. Are you challenging yourself to see if you can stay on your feet while rather unexciting music plays for an hour? I respect indie in the ways that I've mentioned, but I really can't place what puts an indie band show on par with a show from a few decades ago...yknow, which is apparently the last time before indie that music had any integrity.
Okay so back to the rock thing. I always get nervous about rock dying, largely due to people confusing it with indie. Look at this year's Grammys. What do Foo Fighters and Mumford and Sons have in common? They were both nominated for best rock album of the year...in the same category...implying they're similar. How does that work? Especially since Chris Rock or Kanye West or whatever was probably nominated in TWO DIFFERENT categories for the SAME record. Seriously indie...if you're going to be indie, go be indie. Leave the rocking to people who aren't afraid of the distortion switch.
I really, really want to see another hard rocking band come along...kind of like the successor to Foo Fighters. If I were to make an album right now, it'd be a compendium of things that are all very true and human...stupid shit that we're all too proud to admit we care about. I really want to write an old-school MCR song about a friend deleting their facebook like it's some big tragedy. I want to write a song about how people frigging text other people whilst stiting right next to you. I won't pretend to give a shit about the big things. Instead, I'll write a song about how Pop Tarts are the greatest invention ever for a starving college student, and I'll do it in the style of someone who's climbing Mount Everest with the aid of a jetpack.
We need a good band who can rock out hard in the name of how self-absorbed and silly we are.
Of course, I have to come back in a way that's appropriate, so I'll once again be *ahem* "borrowing" a topic from Cat. I'll be using some different rhetoric, of course, since I like to try and appear...understanding of both sides. You might recall a post I did waaaaaay back about the lack of "rock stars" in this day and age. Well, this is kind of an update on that.
I've been kind of inclined to get back into music lately. I'm blaming it on my friend Wes, who invites me to be in a band of his once every few months. Once he invites....he's persistent, and I could go on and on about how I really believe in him and the things he's trying to do musically. Anyway, when he called me and asked me to be in his latest project, I asked him what type of music we'd be playing, and he used the one word I'd fear would come out of his mouth. He used it twice in fact. The word was "indie." It was kind of disappointing since I know how Wes likes punk music and bluegrass and anything that sounds good, and I was really up for being into something punky. But alas, when I heard he and his two fellow recruits a few days later, they were indeed, very very indie.
Let me preface this by saying they weren't bad musically. I was pretty impressed by their vocal togetherness and the way they were able to keep the song(s) together with tempo and everything, since personally I'm shit without a drummer. This isn't even really about them as much as it is about ideas and themes and sounds.
Earlier today, I was thinking about what a record might look like if I put one out today. I had a bit of an interview with myself, and I ended up trying really hard to contrast the "record" with indie music. I figured my record would be an amalgamation of punk, rock, alternative...whatever I felt like. It'd be about stupid shit like Facebook friends and Youtube comments and aviator glasses. It'd be raw, imperfect, and full of dirty, scratchy guitar. I'd want it to have sounds that range from Foo Fighters style hard rock to the quirky raps of Gorillaz. Apparently though, the last thing I would want it to be is indie.
The first word that came to mind was "sterile." Indie music is so so clean. The guitars are always clean, if they ever stray from being acoustic. There's not a hair out of place. The vocals try their damndest to avoid emotion. It's not dirty or punchy or action-packed. In a way though, that's brilliant. Indie is a good indicator of where we are as a race. Right now, we're a bunch of germaphobes, afraid to let our kids play outside since even the fricking sun can give them cancer, let alone the millions of invisble organisms that are floating around that we can't even see. Our food and water has to be specially processed to be considered safe. The five second rule no longer applies. On a human level, showing emotion is a sign of weakness. Indie music very much represents us right now. The emphasis here is on intelligence and cleverness, rather than the raw emotions and feelings that other music channels.
It's interesting because when you look at popular music, all of them are about dancing. Rap is so huge today because that's the thing everyone shakes their ass to. It's why dubstep and techno are so popular. What the hell was disco? Something to dance to. How about jazz and swing? How about trumpets and drums? Shit, way way back when, music was used for two things: celebrations and marches. Even rock was part of a huge dance craze...I mean, that's kind of what the Beatles were before they'd been famous long enough to get bored with the same old song and dance. See, even that cliche puts song and dance together. The curious thing is that you really can't dance to indie music...it's slow and doesn't really have a beat.
Maybe we as a people don't have a beat, and that's why indie is creeping up on us as a dominant genre. Maybe we are shedding our emotions and dirty minds for cooler heads. I mean, think about it. Indie musicians are all about their own integrity and talent. It's supposed to be them, an acoustic guitar and the truth....and maybe a guy with a beard playing bass, but that's it...and maybe a violin....and maybe a female singer with short hair...but that's it. Oh and maybe a flutist. But that's all. None of this computery, autotune bullshit...just my Mac for recording. And then what you end up with is droning vocals that barely go outside of a certain range because that'd be too risky. Trying to avoid computers, technology, and electronics ultimately and ironically makes the resulting music sound...very robotic.
That's part of the gimmick and intelligence of it though. Think about it. There's probably an indie song out there that's about genocide in Africa, and the whole thing is done in typical indie style: acoustic guitar, keys, bearded bassman, and maybe some brushes on a drum. It's sung in monotone. Dissonant? Cleverly. Why? Because the song is supposed to represent how lackadaisical the world is about the topic. The way the vocals are sung are indicative of public opinion...it expresses that we don't really care about what's going on. That's true, and it's very clever, yes. But you're not going to get people to a) think about it long enough to understand that THAT's what you were trying to say, and b) do a damn thing about it without explicitly including the genocide hotline in your lyrics somewhere.
See, music is used very much like therapy today. Something like the Foo Fighters is basically catharsis: you yell, you scream, you throw yourself around and air-drum until you almost barf and then you kind of crash afterwards. Science says it doesn't solve problems, but it sure feels pretty fucking good. Indie, on the other hand, is kind of like real therapy: it's this long, painful, sensical solution to problems that you probably should use to help you get better in the long run. It also costs 100 bucks an hour. Here's the thing with music: it ain't therapy and I'm not paying 100 bucks for a CD. I listen to music because it FEELS good and it makes me kind of want to DO something, not because I'm looking for insight or like...permanent solutions to my problems...this is a terrible metaphor.
The fact of the matter is that indie doesn't really have the things that I personally want in music. It doesn't really have what the general population wants either, since I can't really shake my ass to it. I guess maybe some people do want to spend a little time interpreting the symbolism behind lyrics about someone getting up and shaving their beard or whatever. It sure won't be the bassist doing the shaving however. One of the things I can't fathom is how this translates into a fun live experience. I mean, you do get a whole lot, and I mean a WHOLE LOT of "Ooooh"s in the choruses of an indie song since that seems to be the only word they can fill a big vocal with. I mean, that Gotye song, "Somebody that I used to Know" or whatever? I can't understand why someone would feel the need to hear that one live since there's so little going on in it and it's not really exciting. Are you challenging yourself to see if you can stay on your feet while rather unexciting music plays for an hour? I respect indie in the ways that I've mentioned, but I really can't place what puts an indie band show on par with a show from a few decades ago...yknow, which is apparently the last time before indie that music had any integrity.
Okay so back to the rock thing. I always get nervous about rock dying, largely due to people confusing it with indie. Look at this year's Grammys. What do Foo Fighters and Mumford and Sons have in common? They were both nominated for best rock album of the year...in the same category...implying they're similar. How does that work? Especially since Chris Rock or Kanye West or whatever was probably nominated in TWO DIFFERENT categories for the SAME record. Seriously indie...if you're going to be indie, go be indie. Leave the rocking to people who aren't afraid of the distortion switch.
I really, really want to see another hard rocking band come along...kind of like the successor to Foo Fighters. If I were to make an album right now, it'd be a compendium of things that are all very true and human...stupid shit that we're all too proud to admit we care about. I really want to write an old-school MCR song about a friend deleting their facebook like it's some big tragedy. I want to write a song about how people frigging text other people whilst stiting right next to you. I won't pretend to give a shit about the big things. Instead, I'll write a song about how Pop Tarts are the greatest invention ever for a starving college student, and I'll do it in the style of someone who's climbing Mount Everest with the aid of a jetpack.
We need a good band who can rock out hard in the name of how self-absorbed and silly we are.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
A Wizard Romance
Ah yes, another monday night spent shirking schoolward responsibilities in order to write a blog post. Originally I wanted to call this post "The Lucas/Rowling Love Affair" but I figured that wouldn't look good in potential Google search. Besides that, I figured out that it was Twilight, not Harry Potter, that I'd compared the Star Wars prequels to a little while back.
Yes, this is another blog post about Harry Potter, but it's one I mentioned in the last one...you know, way back when. You might recall that I said that Harry Potter and Ginny Weasley's relationship is an essay in and of itself. Well, this is that essay. And while this pair is going to be my ginny pigs, I'd like to expand the idea to all literary and film relationships. In addition, I promise that one day soon Harry will get his respectful dues. One thing I've noticed is that, as I've grown up with the Potter series, I think I dig into it a little more because I dig into myself a little more as time goes on. That's why I see this series as an equal, and again, soon I'll give Harry his due.
For now however, we need to discuss his love life, because it's something that always bugs me, particularly in the films. I know, I know, you can't make an argument out of something they changed from book to film. True, but I can if the book makes similiar errors. The most egregious error of the film is that Ginny Weasley does not get enough screen time, particularly when it comes to shots with Harry. This is somewhat less egregious in the books, yes, but there's still one thing I really don't get.
Seriously, why does Ginny get no respect? The only thing she ever really seems to be is the go-to girl for babying, and it really pains me to use that word. What I mean is, she's always on the end of "stay here and be safe" or "you can't come with." This makes no sense in context considering she's presented as a more competent which than something like 99% of her peers. Conjurer of the best Reductor Curse in Dumbledore's Army? Nope, can't come with us to the Department of Mysteries. Emotionally strong enough to handle possession by Voldemort and an unrequited obsession for Harry Potter that lasted several years? Nope, can't come with us to find Horcruxes. Re-started a rebellion by committing several brave acts of defiance in a school gone bad? Nope, be the only one to stay here and do nothing.
I know how hard it is to insert another character into things. Before you know it, you're having a hard time fitting all the characters together, or there's too many opinions floating around to make progress. I get that, but Ginny had every right to go on a hunt for Horcruxes in the Deathly Hallows, and Harry didn't need to be so bleak about breaking up with her at the end of Half Blood Prince. Okay, Harry doesn't want to make her a target. Considering that, he does an awfully good job not thinking about her for the duration of the countryside trek. Voldemort, I believe, still had access to Harry's mind at the time to some degree (although I could easily be wrong on this, since it'd be a huge plot hole seeing as how Voldy could've just mind melded to find Harry). This isn't to mention the fact that Harry has spent gratuitous amounts of time with the Weasley family over the years, and that Ginny is openly rebelling against Voldemort's men in Hogwarts. Yeah Harry, you're really keeping her safe.
This all stems from the fact that the Harry/Ginny ship (which I'm all for, by the way) was fairly underdeveloped. A mutual relationship had been budding since Order of the Phoenix, and things became apparent on Harry's end throughout most of Half-Blood Prince, but then, once Harry leaves for Horcuxes, bam, we're stuck. Normally, a book and a half of romance would be fine. This, however, is the soul mate of a character who has four and a half books of history and development behind him as the main protagonist of the entire series. Harry's love story needed to be full and gratifying. It needed to be a story of its own, and it needed to be an exploration of Ginny's character as much as it was of Harry's. We know comparatively little about Ginny as we do Harry, and even compared to Ron and Hermione. Yet this is the girl who marries the main character. This is why Harry and Ginny getting together and subsequently breaking up (I think Harry's relationships are even shorter than mine) always seemed like a bit of an ass pull for me.
I understand and sometimes roll my eyes at the fact that Ginny is good for Harry based on what we know. She's tough, exceptionally good at magic, and funny. Why do I roll my eyes? Because Harry marries his mother. Now, we know even less about Lily than we do about Ginny, and what we do know about backstory separates them, but really...Harry marries a tough redhead? This all contributed to an Epileptic Trees theory that Harry has some sort of conflict about recreating the past, and this results in him marrying his mother and naming all of his children after dead people, sometimes several dead people. All that aside, it's true, Harry Potter should have an action girl as his woman...but the whole point is moot when he and her family constantly try to take her out of the action when her moment to shine finally comes.
What the books and movies needed were some focus points for Ginny. The books were far better about this, giving her Quidditch matches to win and situations in which to defy death. What we needed though, were just a few bits from Ginny's perspective. A quick little shift like this can give you more information on a character than an outsider ever could. Give Ginny the spotlight for a little bit. Bring some of her offscreen moments onscreen, and when you do, don't pair her off with another girl or something. You have to give Ginny weight and importance. You have to make sure that she can become a main character, because when you're the girlfriend of THE main character, you have to be that developed.
The romance between Ginny and Harry should have been a romance for the ages much like Voldemort should have been a villain for the ages, but again, the feeling just falls short. This is no more evident than in the end, after the Battle of Hogwarts is won. Nothing between Harry and Ginny is evident. It's just like I said, this is the moment when Harry said they could be together again, and they don't get together. This should be the moment where we see that the next chapter in both of their lives will open. Now that Voldemort is out of the way, Ginny is Harry's next chapter. That's kind of important. To a degree I could understand trying to keep Ginny out of the battle. I can understand Harry not talking to her on the way to his death (though that is a bit of a stretch). I can't understand why Ginny isn't the first thing Harry wants when it's all over. Love is Harry's ultimate power. While it's an interesting plot point that it is not actual romance that drives Harry and gives him his heroic determination, it's a bit of a romantic letdown that Ginny does not end up factoring in to his last moments and final battle. Ginny was more of a sideshow, rather than the promise of a real future. Ginny should have been the reason Harry wanted to beat Voldemort. She was what lied beyond that quest. It just makes her seem like a bad motivation.
The movie, interestingly, gave Harry and Ginny a little bit more during the final battle. In a deleted scene, Harry joins hands with Ginny on the way to the Great Hall, and randomly kisses her later (with her trying to play the old Han Solo line, "I know" and nothing else). The former bit was incredibly random, short and fleeting as the two didn't exchange any words whatsoever, so it wasn't all that helpful, but it was honestly a bit better than the book's trying to keep her down. That all was avoided by the changes in presentation to the beginnings of the final battle. Ginny's lack of shining moments and reunion with Harry are still absent, as previously mentioned. Otherwise, the movies saw even less of Ginny than the books did and their relationship in Half Blood Prince consisted of a secret kiss and a few mentions afterward. An awkward moment in the seventh film helped a little, and sets up for one of the best lines in the movie ("Mooorning"), at the cost of a real show of passion between the two that was present in the books...though I'm apt to say the tradeoff was fair.
Still, there ultimately was no difference at the end. I believe in the book we didn't really hear anything about Ginny after the battle, and the fact that the movie includes something is kind of a shame. Once again, instead of with Harry, who she marries and fornicates with years later, she;s...elsewhere, and doesn't even seem to give Harry a look when he walks by. Not that many others do much differently, which again is the weirdest thing on the planet, but once again, the only person/people more important to Harry are Ron and Hermione. Or at least, one would think.
This, the main love story in Harry Potter, or rather, the love story involving the main character, is another example of how Harry Potter isn't quite perfect. Its strength lies in making magic out of normal, relatable characters and continually escalating thier situation until it reaches a grand scale. It is one of the great stories of our time, but it is not without its imperfections. In my eyes, it doesn't reach the heights it should in several areas, one of which is its villain, who admittedly has brilliance in his backstory, another of which is the central romance, which is a big deal when part of your appeal is the fact that your main character is an adolescent that's experiencing things like love for the first time...and struggling with it like many of its readers.
I admit, putting together a love story that works and has the desired emotional payoff is one of writing's greater challenges. It's easy to screw up...I mean, just ask Twilight, which follows a guy and a girl who have nothing in common and yet....let's not get started on Twilight actually. Let's not talk Anakin and Padme either...although one less balcony scene would have done wonders for their believability...oh, and one less biggest-dumbass-move-in-the-entire-history-of-film. If you want an example of a good love story, look at Simon and Nia in Gurren Lagann. They share an innate goodness and innocence, and she actually has a reason to be a little robotic. GL just has a way with characters in general, to the point where Yoko/Kamina seems...right.
The more frustrating thing is that there are fair examples within the HP universe itself. Lupin and Tonks' relationship was mostly off-screen, but it hit audiences in just the right way. Ron and Hermione was fairly developed, though once again held back and not quite explored as much as it was simply exposed a lot more. Shit, even Harry's mother had a better developed love story...or rather, she was involved in one. I understand very much that Harry Potter isn't a teenage romance story...but like I've said, the fact that this is part of Harry's development and the fact that Ginny ends up being a huge part of his future, and a potential symbol of hope, makes it a wall-banger that this particular story was not fully developed.
Yes, this is another blog post about Harry Potter, but it's one I mentioned in the last one...you know, way back when. You might recall that I said that Harry Potter and Ginny Weasley's relationship is an essay in and of itself. Well, this is that essay. And while this pair is going to be my ginny pigs, I'd like to expand the idea to all literary and film relationships. In addition, I promise that one day soon Harry will get his respectful dues. One thing I've noticed is that, as I've grown up with the Potter series, I think I dig into it a little more because I dig into myself a little more as time goes on. That's why I see this series as an equal, and again, soon I'll give Harry his due.
For now however, we need to discuss his love life, because it's something that always bugs me, particularly in the films. I know, I know, you can't make an argument out of something they changed from book to film. True, but I can if the book makes similiar errors. The most egregious error of the film is that Ginny Weasley does not get enough screen time, particularly when it comes to shots with Harry. This is somewhat less egregious in the books, yes, but there's still one thing I really don't get.
Seriously, why does Ginny get no respect? The only thing she ever really seems to be is the go-to girl for babying, and it really pains me to use that word. What I mean is, she's always on the end of "stay here and be safe" or "you can't come with." This makes no sense in context considering she's presented as a more competent which than something like 99% of her peers. Conjurer of the best Reductor Curse in Dumbledore's Army? Nope, can't come with us to the Department of Mysteries. Emotionally strong enough to handle possession by Voldemort and an unrequited obsession for Harry Potter that lasted several years? Nope, can't come with us to find Horcruxes. Re-started a rebellion by committing several brave acts of defiance in a school gone bad? Nope, be the only one to stay here and do nothing.
I know how hard it is to insert another character into things. Before you know it, you're having a hard time fitting all the characters together, or there's too many opinions floating around to make progress. I get that, but Ginny had every right to go on a hunt for Horcruxes in the Deathly Hallows, and Harry didn't need to be so bleak about breaking up with her at the end of Half Blood Prince. Okay, Harry doesn't want to make her a target. Considering that, he does an awfully good job not thinking about her for the duration of the countryside trek. Voldemort, I believe, still had access to Harry's mind at the time to some degree (although I could easily be wrong on this, since it'd be a huge plot hole seeing as how Voldy could've just mind melded to find Harry). This isn't to mention the fact that Harry has spent gratuitous amounts of time with the Weasley family over the years, and that Ginny is openly rebelling against Voldemort's men in Hogwarts. Yeah Harry, you're really keeping her safe.
This all stems from the fact that the Harry/Ginny ship (which I'm all for, by the way) was fairly underdeveloped. A mutual relationship had been budding since Order of the Phoenix, and things became apparent on Harry's end throughout most of Half-Blood Prince, but then, once Harry leaves for Horcuxes, bam, we're stuck. Normally, a book and a half of romance would be fine. This, however, is the soul mate of a character who has four and a half books of history and development behind him as the main protagonist of the entire series. Harry's love story needed to be full and gratifying. It needed to be a story of its own, and it needed to be an exploration of Ginny's character as much as it was of Harry's. We know comparatively little about Ginny as we do Harry, and even compared to Ron and Hermione. Yet this is the girl who marries the main character. This is why Harry and Ginny getting together and subsequently breaking up (I think Harry's relationships are even shorter than mine) always seemed like a bit of an ass pull for me.
I understand and sometimes roll my eyes at the fact that Ginny is good for Harry based on what we know. She's tough, exceptionally good at magic, and funny. Why do I roll my eyes? Because Harry marries his mother. Now, we know even less about Lily than we do about Ginny, and what we do know about backstory separates them, but really...Harry marries a tough redhead? This all contributed to an Epileptic Trees theory that Harry has some sort of conflict about recreating the past, and this results in him marrying his mother and naming all of his children after dead people, sometimes several dead people. All that aside, it's true, Harry Potter should have an action girl as his woman...but the whole point is moot when he and her family constantly try to take her out of the action when her moment to shine finally comes.
What the books and movies needed were some focus points for Ginny. The books were far better about this, giving her Quidditch matches to win and situations in which to defy death. What we needed though, were just a few bits from Ginny's perspective. A quick little shift like this can give you more information on a character than an outsider ever could. Give Ginny the spotlight for a little bit. Bring some of her offscreen moments onscreen, and when you do, don't pair her off with another girl or something. You have to give Ginny weight and importance. You have to make sure that she can become a main character, because when you're the girlfriend of THE main character, you have to be that developed.
The romance between Ginny and Harry should have been a romance for the ages much like Voldemort should have been a villain for the ages, but again, the feeling just falls short. This is no more evident than in the end, after the Battle of Hogwarts is won. Nothing between Harry and Ginny is evident. It's just like I said, this is the moment when Harry said they could be together again, and they don't get together. This should be the moment where we see that the next chapter in both of their lives will open. Now that Voldemort is out of the way, Ginny is Harry's next chapter. That's kind of important. To a degree I could understand trying to keep Ginny out of the battle. I can understand Harry not talking to her on the way to his death (though that is a bit of a stretch). I can't understand why Ginny isn't the first thing Harry wants when it's all over. Love is Harry's ultimate power. While it's an interesting plot point that it is not actual romance that drives Harry and gives him his heroic determination, it's a bit of a romantic letdown that Ginny does not end up factoring in to his last moments and final battle. Ginny was more of a sideshow, rather than the promise of a real future. Ginny should have been the reason Harry wanted to beat Voldemort. She was what lied beyond that quest. It just makes her seem like a bad motivation.
The movie, interestingly, gave Harry and Ginny a little bit more during the final battle. In a deleted scene, Harry joins hands with Ginny on the way to the Great Hall, and randomly kisses her later (with her trying to play the old Han Solo line, "I know" and nothing else). The former bit was incredibly random, short and fleeting as the two didn't exchange any words whatsoever, so it wasn't all that helpful, but it was honestly a bit better than the book's trying to keep her down. That all was avoided by the changes in presentation to the beginnings of the final battle. Ginny's lack of shining moments and reunion with Harry are still absent, as previously mentioned. Otherwise, the movies saw even less of Ginny than the books did and their relationship in Half Blood Prince consisted of a secret kiss and a few mentions afterward. An awkward moment in the seventh film helped a little, and sets up for one of the best lines in the movie ("Mooorning"), at the cost of a real show of passion between the two that was present in the books...though I'm apt to say the tradeoff was fair.
Still, there ultimately was no difference at the end. I believe in the book we didn't really hear anything about Ginny after the battle, and the fact that the movie includes something is kind of a shame. Once again, instead of with Harry, who she marries and fornicates with years later, she;s...elsewhere, and doesn't even seem to give Harry a look when he walks by. Not that many others do much differently, which again is the weirdest thing on the planet, but once again, the only person/people more important to Harry are Ron and Hermione. Or at least, one would think.
This, the main love story in Harry Potter, or rather, the love story involving the main character, is another example of how Harry Potter isn't quite perfect. Its strength lies in making magic out of normal, relatable characters and continually escalating thier situation until it reaches a grand scale. It is one of the great stories of our time, but it is not without its imperfections. In my eyes, it doesn't reach the heights it should in several areas, one of which is its villain, who admittedly has brilliance in his backstory, another of which is the central romance, which is a big deal when part of your appeal is the fact that your main character is an adolescent that's experiencing things like love for the first time...and struggling with it like many of its readers.
I admit, putting together a love story that works and has the desired emotional payoff is one of writing's greater challenges. It's easy to screw up...I mean, just ask Twilight, which follows a guy and a girl who have nothing in common and yet....let's not get started on Twilight actually. Let's not talk Anakin and Padme either...although one less balcony scene would have done wonders for their believability...oh, and one less biggest-dumbass-move-in-the-entire-history-of-film. If you want an example of a good love story, look at Simon and Nia in Gurren Lagann. They share an innate goodness and innocence, and she actually has a reason to be a little robotic. GL just has a way with characters in general, to the point where Yoko/Kamina seems...right.
The more frustrating thing is that there are fair examples within the HP universe itself. Lupin and Tonks' relationship was mostly off-screen, but it hit audiences in just the right way. Ron and Hermione was fairly developed, though once again held back and not quite explored as much as it was simply exposed a lot more. Shit, even Harry's mother had a better developed love story...or rather, she was involved in one. I understand very much that Harry Potter isn't a teenage romance story...but like I've said, the fact that this is part of Harry's development and the fact that Ginny ends up being a huge part of his future, and a potential symbol of hope, makes it a wall-banger that this particular story was not fully developed.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Model Ts and Atom Bombs
You know the feeling. It's the one where you're standing in your driveway, or worse, the side of the road, next to a car that has malfunctioned. You're sunk. Immediately your mind goes to the last time the car broke and it seems like it was a week ago, probably because you spent a few hundred dollars on it, and that's about all you wanted to spend for about a year on the thing. But no, here you are, stuck wherever it is that this thing has broken.
It's totally weird how this is our most common and most used mode of transportation. This is one of those things. It's 2012 now, and we're still using a variation of something that came about over 100 years ago. We invented flight not too long after, and it's proven to be an even more efficient mode of travel, but it too has seemed to stop getting better. The rate at which the two technologies have advanced has been slow in comparison to the good ol 1900s.
Our imaginations sure aren't the problem. We're dreaming huge right now, and have been for a good while, using what we have as a springboard for new ideas. The problem is, most of these dreams are just CG effects on the silver screen. I think that has something to do with the fact that the area in which technology has been accelling most lately is entertainment. 20 years ago, when I was born, half of the stuff I use to entertain myself didn't exist. No, more than half. For whatever reason, entertainment's where it's at right now. So what happened to all the other technology advancing?
Well, for America, I'd say the Cold War was part of it, since that was mostly about not just inventing the biggest, baddest weapons, but also keeping them a secret. So a lot of what got developed at the time only leaked out into the things the general public was consuming. I think the focus on advancement for the military probably stifled advancement for everyone. By the time the Cold War was over, the public had moved on to the whole entertainment bit. Note that I haven't done any research on this...it's really justa paper-thin non-scientific theory.
What really frustrates me is pretty much what I started with, actually. The only thing that keeps getting better in transportation technology it seems, is the computers in them that...don't really help me get from A to B. They don't really extend the life of the parts of my car either, making it work longer, nor do they make my car go faster or transcend the limits of travel set by the arbitrary roads that we use to get around. When the computers in a car can monitor its well being and fix it when need be, then we'll be getting somewhere.
My 96 Honda Accord breaking every so often, yeah, I get it, it has almost 200k miles on it. My parents' old van, yeah, it's going to break. It's because they're old...but really, a car being new doesn't really stop it from having problems. When they start to age or whatever, they're gonna break, and at that point they're no different than the '96 car, and it'll probably be even more expensive to fix. I'd rather have a car that has better longevity than my last one than one that can tell me where the next burger joint is.
But even that is small talk. The other day I was talking with a friend about the limits of travel. Why is it that I can sit here in 2012 and believe that Canada is as far away and inaccessible as the moon? It's attached to my freaking country, and yet it'd take a good bit of planning and an amount of money large enough for me to shy away from it to get there. What the hell is that? If I want to go, it shouldn't be a big thing. Considering we've had the technology to go to the moon and outer space for over 50 years now, anything short of breaking through the atmosphere should be a piece of cake.
Right now you've got to be rich to go anywhere on a moment's notice. Private jets exist but aren't accessible like they should be. Imagine if you had to take the bus everywhere with everyone except those who can afford cars. It'd be annoying, especially since those personal cars are a lot more efficient. Hell, anything that doesn't have to use a road is going to be more efficient. Imagine this one: if we embraced our ability to fly and lifted our transportation into the air, we could tear up the roads and highways and plant trees or build some much needed homes and stuff.
Okay, I know that's a bit much to ask, but admit it, it'd be so cool. I know there are issues with that, you know, like how do we get flying machines to be as fuel efficient as ground ones? How do we regulate sky traffic? Yeah, they're problems, but they're better than "how do we widen the roads so our overflowing population can fit on it?" Flying cars and hovercrafts are a whole new thing, a whole new realm of possibilities. Suppose we do come up with transportation that can get us around the world in 3 hours. How then do you prevent the people who'd then use these things to launch quick, surprise attacks on people they hate?
That brings up another point. I know I haven't even touched on corporate greed and all that, and honestly, I probably won't. Just mentioning it nowadays can give you a whole list of implications that sort explain "this has stunted the growth of...well...everything in some way or another." No, what really pisses me off is the violence. Okay, so who's bright idea was it to use a plane...as of right now our best mode of fast transportation...as a fucking death machine? No really, what the hell? That person has single-handedly slowed the evolution and advancement of the entire human race. This is a big reason why the only advancements in air travel in recent memory have been advancements to security.
Of course, the presence of ill intentions stunts us in other ways. Let me level with you for a second. How many ways are there to get from here, the USA, to Canada...or better yet somewhere like England? Plane and boat. Two. Now, how many ways are there to kill a person? A shit ton. I mean, say I want to headshot someone...I've got like a billion different options of guns to do it with. With our weapon technology, we can kill millions of people with a single hunk of metal. We could do that back in 1945. So what did we do afterwards? We made them more powerful. We came up with more ways to kill people.
Who does that make happy? Okay, suppose you get off on killing, you're happy when you hear you managed to kill 8008 people. Then what happens? Other people get angry, and then they come after you and kill a bunch other people, potentially you. And then you're not happy. You're either pissed or dead, the former which will instigate more people seeking happiness by trying to kill you. See how this works in a circle? Seriously, I'd rather have a car that can tell me where the next burger joint is than a new type of gun.
Speaking of which, it's pretty freaking crazy that I started this post by talking about something as simple and stupid as a car not starting. Eh, that's just what runs through your head when you're born with the ability to overthink things like I do. But if you think about it and summarize this post...today, your car breaks down and tomorrow millions of people die. Maybe more than anything this was just a look into my mind. Even so, can we all agree that transportation should be much easier and more effective than it is? Let's.
It's totally weird how this is our most common and most used mode of transportation. This is one of those things. It's 2012 now, and we're still using a variation of something that came about over 100 years ago. We invented flight not too long after, and it's proven to be an even more efficient mode of travel, but it too has seemed to stop getting better. The rate at which the two technologies have advanced has been slow in comparison to the good ol 1900s.
Our imaginations sure aren't the problem. We're dreaming huge right now, and have been for a good while, using what we have as a springboard for new ideas. The problem is, most of these dreams are just CG effects on the silver screen. I think that has something to do with the fact that the area in which technology has been accelling most lately is entertainment. 20 years ago, when I was born, half of the stuff I use to entertain myself didn't exist. No, more than half. For whatever reason, entertainment's where it's at right now. So what happened to all the other technology advancing?
Well, for America, I'd say the Cold War was part of it, since that was mostly about not just inventing the biggest, baddest weapons, but also keeping them a secret. So a lot of what got developed at the time only leaked out into the things the general public was consuming. I think the focus on advancement for the military probably stifled advancement for everyone. By the time the Cold War was over, the public had moved on to the whole entertainment bit. Note that I haven't done any research on this...it's really justa paper-thin non-scientific theory.
What really frustrates me is pretty much what I started with, actually. The only thing that keeps getting better in transportation technology it seems, is the computers in them that...don't really help me get from A to B. They don't really extend the life of the parts of my car either, making it work longer, nor do they make my car go faster or transcend the limits of travel set by the arbitrary roads that we use to get around. When the computers in a car can monitor its well being and fix it when need be, then we'll be getting somewhere.
My 96 Honda Accord breaking every so often, yeah, I get it, it has almost 200k miles on it. My parents' old van, yeah, it's going to break. It's because they're old...but really, a car being new doesn't really stop it from having problems. When they start to age or whatever, they're gonna break, and at that point they're no different than the '96 car, and it'll probably be even more expensive to fix. I'd rather have a car that has better longevity than my last one than one that can tell me where the next burger joint is.
But even that is small talk. The other day I was talking with a friend about the limits of travel. Why is it that I can sit here in 2012 and believe that Canada is as far away and inaccessible as the moon? It's attached to my freaking country, and yet it'd take a good bit of planning and an amount of money large enough for me to shy away from it to get there. What the hell is that? If I want to go, it shouldn't be a big thing. Considering we've had the technology to go to the moon and outer space for over 50 years now, anything short of breaking through the atmosphere should be a piece of cake.
Right now you've got to be rich to go anywhere on a moment's notice. Private jets exist but aren't accessible like they should be. Imagine if you had to take the bus everywhere with everyone except those who can afford cars. It'd be annoying, especially since those personal cars are a lot more efficient. Hell, anything that doesn't have to use a road is going to be more efficient. Imagine this one: if we embraced our ability to fly and lifted our transportation into the air, we could tear up the roads and highways and plant trees or build some much needed homes and stuff.
Okay, I know that's a bit much to ask, but admit it, it'd be so cool. I know there are issues with that, you know, like how do we get flying machines to be as fuel efficient as ground ones? How do we regulate sky traffic? Yeah, they're problems, but they're better than "how do we widen the roads so our overflowing population can fit on it?" Flying cars and hovercrafts are a whole new thing, a whole new realm of possibilities. Suppose we do come up with transportation that can get us around the world in 3 hours. How then do you prevent the people who'd then use these things to launch quick, surprise attacks on people they hate?
That brings up another point. I know I haven't even touched on corporate greed and all that, and honestly, I probably won't. Just mentioning it nowadays can give you a whole list of implications that sort explain "this has stunted the growth of...well...everything in some way or another." No, what really pisses me off is the violence. Okay, so who's bright idea was it to use a plane...as of right now our best mode of fast transportation...as a fucking death machine? No really, what the hell? That person has single-handedly slowed the evolution and advancement of the entire human race. This is a big reason why the only advancements in air travel in recent memory have been advancements to security.
Of course, the presence of ill intentions stunts us in other ways. Let me level with you for a second. How many ways are there to get from here, the USA, to Canada...or better yet somewhere like England? Plane and boat. Two. Now, how many ways are there to kill a person? A shit ton. I mean, say I want to headshot someone...I've got like a billion different options of guns to do it with. With our weapon technology, we can kill millions of people with a single hunk of metal. We could do that back in 1945. So what did we do afterwards? We made them more powerful. We came up with more ways to kill people.
Who does that make happy? Okay, suppose you get off on killing, you're happy when you hear you managed to kill 8008 people. Then what happens? Other people get angry, and then they come after you and kill a bunch other people, potentially you. And then you're not happy. You're either pissed or dead, the former which will instigate more people seeking happiness by trying to kill you. See how this works in a circle? Seriously, I'd rather have a car that can tell me where the next burger joint is than a new type of gun.
Speaking of which, it's pretty freaking crazy that I started this post by talking about something as simple and stupid as a car not starting. Eh, that's just what runs through your head when you're born with the ability to overthink things like I do. But if you think about it and summarize this post...today, your car breaks down and tomorrow millions of people die. Maybe more than anything this was just a look into my mind. Even so, can we all agree that transportation should be much easier and more effective than it is? Let's.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
The Rage of Love
It's funny how sometimes I forget that not getting a lot of views can be a good thing. Like right now, when I've already wangsted all over twitter and GDC and facebook, and have illicited no interest from anyone to ay least talk to them about the thing that has me frustrated. And boy, am I frustrated. I haven't been this frustrated in a long time. It makes me imagine stupid things, like trashing my room, or looking like Darth Maul or going Super Saiyan Pure Evil Vegeta style.
I would love to explain, but the fact of the matter is that it is very rarely the case for a post to get zero views. That means I'm not free to just say anything, because in some cases, that is, the ones that have nothing to do with Russia, I have an idea of who may be reading these words. I say this all the time, actually...so if you had an idea that this post would be linked with the others where I complain about some entity I keep anonymous, you're absolutely right. This is another episode in that saga.
Honestly I'm tired of keeping the aforementioned secret. I'd love nothing more than to talk openly about this issue I'm having, but I'm not ready for it. I'm not ready for that at all, I don't think. Because of that though, it's frustrating that finding help is so hard, since due to the necessary secrecy, many of my typical avenues are closed to me. I'm kind of going at it alone, not that it isn't what I'm used to. It's just frustrating that that's the way it has to be right now. I can't really get help until it's too late.
But allow me to devolve into less sensical talk.
I'm sick of being fictional. I'm sick of being still life. For once, I'm sick of being intrigue, but in this instance only. My thoughts and my hours are being sent to one distant point, and nothing returns. It would put a strain on anyone's soul I think. Doing it is one thing, but doing it like this is another, much harder thing. There's even less of a head on the shoulders. It sucks being a sideshow or a subplot in the life of someone who's your main conflict this season. It frustrates me because I see little bits and pieces of the main picture, but not enough to where my mind can comprehend the fact that these things matter. No, my mind still wants to believe everything is equal...and that's a painful lie to maintain.
It's actually a theme in general that things are placed out of my reach to the fault of no one. Viewers here and on YouTube, friendship, and of course this, in the most literal sense possible. If I just had a stool, I could reach this shit...but I can't find one right now. I wish I'd stop talking myself down from stuff too. Sometimes I wish the words weren't there to make me accept whatever's going through my brain...and instead I'd do something totally whack.
Why? Because as we speak I'm watching something happen from inside a box made of thick glass. I can see lips moving, and I guess I can tell what they're saying...it's nothing really, and yet it twists and turns inside me. I know context, I really do, and though this is a simple matter, my mind does not fully comprehend what it is I am seeing. The fact that this glass is thicker than usual worries me...panics me. I can see out. I can bang on the walls and scream and yowl, all without the things I'm watching even knowing nor sparing a thought toward my attempts to reach out with them.
And if the glass weren't there? I honestly don't know if it would be any better. I'd say yes, because in the end, we are human, and we accept that. I guess there's still the glass though, it just has holes in it and now I can be heard. Those holes, for me, seem like craters. When they open it's like apertures open up in the whole world, not just some pin pricks. It's weird how much better it is than...this. This watching, looking on, seeing the emotion, and banging on the walls because I just can't understand it, even though one part of correctly inteprets all of it as nothing.
Why the fuck did this happen to me anyway? This goddamn heart will be the death of me, I swear.
I would love to explain, but the fact of the matter is that it is very rarely the case for a post to get zero views. That means I'm not free to just say anything, because in some cases, that is, the ones that have nothing to do with Russia, I have an idea of who may be reading these words. I say this all the time, actually...so if you had an idea that this post would be linked with the others where I complain about some entity I keep anonymous, you're absolutely right. This is another episode in that saga.
Honestly I'm tired of keeping the aforementioned secret. I'd love nothing more than to talk openly about this issue I'm having, but I'm not ready for it. I'm not ready for that at all, I don't think. Because of that though, it's frustrating that finding help is so hard, since due to the necessary secrecy, many of my typical avenues are closed to me. I'm kind of going at it alone, not that it isn't what I'm used to. It's just frustrating that that's the way it has to be right now. I can't really get help until it's too late.
But allow me to devolve into less sensical talk.
I'm sick of being fictional. I'm sick of being still life. For once, I'm sick of being intrigue, but in this instance only. My thoughts and my hours are being sent to one distant point, and nothing returns. It would put a strain on anyone's soul I think. Doing it is one thing, but doing it like this is another, much harder thing. There's even less of a head on the shoulders. It sucks being a sideshow or a subplot in the life of someone who's your main conflict this season. It frustrates me because I see little bits and pieces of the main picture, but not enough to where my mind can comprehend the fact that these things matter. No, my mind still wants to believe everything is equal...and that's a painful lie to maintain.
It's actually a theme in general that things are placed out of my reach to the fault of no one. Viewers here and on YouTube, friendship, and of course this, in the most literal sense possible. If I just had a stool, I could reach this shit...but I can't find one right now. I wish I'd stop talking myself down from stuff too. Sometimes I wish the words weren't there to make me accept whatever's going through my brain...and instead I'd do something totally whack.
Why? Because as we speak I'm watching something happen from inside a box made of thick glass. I can see lips moving, and I guess I can tell what they're saying...it's nothing really, and yet it twists and turns inside me. I know context, I really do, and though this is a simple matter, my mind does not fully comprehend what it is I am seeing. The fact that this glass is thicker than usual worries me...panics me. I can see out. I can bang on the walls and scream and yowl, all without the things I'm watching even knowing nor sparing a thought toward my attempts to reach out with them.
And if the glass weren't there? I honestly don't know if it would be any better. I'd say yes, because in the end, we are human, and we accept that. I guess there's still the glass though, it just has holes in it and now I can be heard. Those holes, for me, seem like craters. When they open it's like apertures open up in the whole world, not just some pin pricks. It's weird how much better it is than...this. This watching, looking on, seeing the emotion, and banging on the walls because I just can't understand it, even though one part of correctly inteprets all of it as nothing.
Why the fuck did this happen to me anyway? This goddamn heart will be the death of me, I swear.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Trains
Here's a little story I wrote inspired by Laura Shigihara's "Trains."
He kept looking over his shoulder to see the blank slate of the platform behind him, abruptly ended by the red bricks of the station. It seemed to him, a still life, its coat-clad denizens silently slipping between the flakes of white descending from the pale gray sky. His head turned around to the brown train car that took up all of the vision to his front. He turned his head again, noticing the positions of the hands on a clock that stared down on the station from its own pole. He checked his watch just to be sure, and watched as his breath made a haze in front of him.
It had only been two minutes. He was only two minutes into this twilight between where his journey ended and the next began. Home, however, seemed like a faraway land now. He’d refused to come here, and whenever he even passed the place, he tended to close his eyes. The image he saw when he looked over his shoulder, the one with all the people in fluffy black coats that would be stained into his memory for no reason, was one he’d feared since he’d put it to his back two months ago. His heart panicked as his dream that at the last minute, something might come and save him or wake him up came crashing down inside his mind.
His legs tingled as his brain whispered “run” to them. It was not electricity that flowed through them now, but ice, from the inside, not out. He shook his head and steadied his quivering lip, assuring himself that there was nothing more he could have done. Everything was perfect. Something in the back of his mind wondered, however, how that could be, when here he was unable to get on a train that was right in front of him. The seconds went by slower and slower.
They’d watched the leaves fall off of the trees and turn into small white flecks sailing to the ground. He wanted nothing more than to watch those trees turn green again, in that exact same spot, yet another thing he’d fallen in love with. Home did not have a spot like that. Home was thousands of spots away, all of which would pass in a big blur, even the ones he loved. The spots were not what he loved most. He would never have found them and taken them in if not for her. Seeing her face for the first time with all its dimensions and features intact was the moment his life became one long dream he got to wake up to every day.
He’d had two months to prove himself. He’d had two months to release everything that had built up inside of him and express everything that he never thought he’d be able to put in their proper place. Now that the time was up, he was wondering if he had done it. Something had seemed to hold him back the whole time from embracing her with all his might and telling her that there would be no train home and that he was going to stay forever. That, he believed, was the only thing he could have done to fulfill himself and be completely honest.
Yet here he was, in complete silence for the first time since the trees had leaves. Not a sound would permeate his ears for the next few hours, or maybe longer. Perhaps the next thing he’d let himself hear was the sound of her voice. This was not a thought he could entertain long however. When was “next time?” There was no answer, and maybe that was something he’d done wrong. Was this always how it was going to be, a back and forth of trains and travel with interspersed bouts of uncertainty? No matter the case, home would always be far away for someone.
All he wanted was for her to tell him, just one more time, that next time would be soon. He wanted her to tell him he’d done all he could and that she loved him more than ever. He knew that she had done all she could already. It was up to him now, but it was a weight he did not want to carry again. It was the weight of uncertainty that she needed to dissipate by telling him the hardest step had already been taken.
No, the hardest step was right now, the one right in front of him. He looked down at the first black stair that led up into the train. This was the first step he’d take that would take him so far away from her for an indefinite period of time. This might be the first of many he’d take identical to this one. How many would he have to take before everything was as it should be, for better or worse? At least, he thought, there’d be more than one.
Yes, the important thing is that this was not the last step. As long as there would be one more, no matter when, there would always be something to which he could look forward. He breathed into the air in front of him, having found the one thought he needed to comfort himself just enough for him to raise his foot. This step had to be taken so that it could be taken again. Without it, this was the end. Determined not to make it so, he took the step, his hand reaching for the rail. Once elevated, he looked out over the station again, his frown evening out on his face. All of the people were still invisible to him, and still nothing made a sound.
He found a seat next to the window and allowed himself to sink into it. He did not hear the train whistle, and barely noticed that the image of the station he’d just seen without the glass was starting to move. The only thing he saw was her face, a smile put on it just for him, attached to her head and body, with one arm moving in a motion that told him farewell. In a flash, he put his hand up and mirrored her on the inside. The smile on his face was just for her, and no one else. The smile she had given him was one, in this instance, that he would never tire of seeing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)