From the blogs I see advertised, I guess I'm considerably late to the party in jumping on the "Let's write about sex" bandwagon.

 

If this entry offends anyone, I apologize; just because I look down on you, doesn't mean I don't like you. Anyway, I'm far too self-absorbed to spend much time thinking about what other people are doing; I'm mainly only concerned with what I do. If you're out shagging everything that stands on two legs (or are perhaps less discriminating) I couldn't really bring myself to care; I have bigger concerns to occupy my attention.

The motivation for caving and finally addressing this, the most ubiquitous topic, derives from events of my own life (natch). I recently had a...unique conflict. Worse, I never had the opportunity to share my views on the matter, and now the thoughts and perspectives fomenting inside me crave outlet. So tumultuous is my inner thought life that it leaves me shaking in dark contempt and frustration. What better place, then, to give my most private, intimate opinions voice than a very public blog, in plain view of all my friends? It's a strange world this digital age has created, but that's a tangent for some other time.

Where to begin?

First of all, I might as well admit I want sex. Whatever is to follow may leave some confusion on the matter, so I might as well preface these words with that confession. In fact, I might go so far as to say it is my most basic desire. (Freud would approve.) But I want something more badly than sex, which means there is something I desire that I am willing to sacrifice sex for, the inferior want being slave to the superior.

About a Boy nicely encapsulates my own philosophy on coitus in a secular package. There is a moment where the protagonist shocks himself with the realization he wants the "Less and the More," even at the expense of mere sex if necessary. It's a gentle, bare display of emotion and I find it comforting to know that if I am insane, at least I am not alone in my insanity; someone else out there has independently arrived at the same conclusion I have.

Also, it's notable that this character, an unbeliever, agrees with my basic instincts. Something fundamentally human we share allows us to agree on this matter, and indeed in describing what follows I don't find it necessary to crack open a Bible or other religious text on a single occasion. It would be nice if I could tout, "I will not have premarital sex to glorify God with my obedience," but I won't be making that claim. Hopefully there are other means by which I might bring glory to God, and my standards on sex can play into them indirectly, but I've never come to the point where I find it necessary to ask, "What does the Bible have to say about this?" Long before I reach for the Word, I have an answer which renders such research unnecessary:

I do not want to have premarital sex.

I do not want to...I don't ask "What is right and wrong?" I do not want it, with the last fiber of my arrogant being. My arrogance strengthens my resolve; my will is reinforced by a spirit of defiance.

I do not want it for I am human.

People forget the strand of divine hair that separates us from the beasts, but I can't. I cannot shake the animal instincts dogging me, so I turn and bare my teeth at them in kind. We humans walk upright, clothe ourselves, share ideas via speech, live indoors, dispatch our waste in private, and pass down our culture through the generations. It is only in sex that we revert to our naked, animal selves, driven by the basic instinct to propagate the species, indiscriminately and wantonly fucking and allowing the last vestigial trace of our shared bestial characteristics to survive.

Sex, then, is a tricky business for me, who scorns the animals. Even if I wanted to continue dismissing it as base, I would be stopped by the knowledge it was created by God and is good. And, as prefaced above, I don't want to completely forswear the act. So what is it, then? What makes it beautiful? What can redeem it in my eyes?

What does it mean for sex to be distinctly human?

Allow me to borrow some poetic imagery from the New Testament, even while still claiming my reasoning is basically existential. Marriage is the metaphorical, permanent unification of two; sex is the literal act of making two flesh one. As such, it is in the perfect position to become the ideal symbol of marriage, an act that stands to reaffirm and physically demonstrate the concept behind it.

But it only retains this special meaning if it is reserved for the boundaries of marriage.

Sex for me, then, can serve as a symbol beyond mere pleasure. And what a symbol it is.

The act of waiting serves as a representation of the subversion of my own animal instincts. I transcend my own basic desires to become human, a being made in the image of the divine. As symbol, waiting speaks this message: "I will fight my own self, my arrogance, my own most basic and strongest temptations, for you." Sex as symbol is, then, the reminder and reaffirmation of the commitment I make in marriage. A symbol that I will grapple for my love at the cost of no less than transforming myself, and in the process transform sex itself from mere biology into the very act of making love.

This, then, is why I wait, why I must wait. I want the "Less and the More" so desperately. I save myself so I can give her the most dramatic sign I (and...God?) can conceive of for the love I have.

 

Dream journal.

 

Dreamed neighbor children were given a 1:1 scale RC Tyrannosaurus Rex. It would predictably be on the other side of the glass, leering in, wherever you opened the blinds. Still jumped every time. Began avoiding windows like there was a tornado.

 

Wish I had one as a kid.

I don't blog much anymore.

I'm not exactly sure why this is. Perhaps I write less. Perhaps I feel I have nothing to say. Perhaps I specialize more, using Google Wave and email to have discussions with only those I have reason to believe will be interested.

Very occasionally (such as here), I will attempt to give private matters wider attention.

I have a long--or at least established--history of blogging reviews/analysis of movies. (One Night With the King, The Dark Knight, Batman Begins, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.) Whatever my motivation, I'm attracted to dissecting the merits and meaning of films. I like storytelling, studying it, appreciating it, and scathing it.

After my third viewing of last year's Star Trek I made a rather lengthy examination of the contradictions and plot difficulties on google Wave. Since I went to all the effort, I figure I might as well repost it to the blog.

Problem is, I anticipate some people might take issue with my complaints, finding them pedantic, unreasonable, and lacking imagination or "fun." But I really want to express there is a distinction between movies which require a temporary substitution of the internal rules of the imaginative universe and those which don't play by any rules, not even those for expected human behavior.

To help in drawing this distinction and demonstrate I have a sense of fair play, I have decided to interpret developments in ST in what I call, "John McClane terms." I've chosen Live Free or Die Hard as my archetypal "ridiculous movie" for a number of reasons. First, it's the most over-the-top movie I can think of without a single narrative inconsistency. Yes. You heard me. I believe this film to be utterly internally consistent. Watching it, not a single question is raised in my mind; I understand the proceedings perfectly. People shake their heads and groan at the lack of realism in this film, but lack of realism is not a storytelling mistake. It is a choice on the part of the filmmakers.

Furthermore, there are other similarities between DH4 and ST. The fabricated rules of their respective fantasy universes overlap.
1. Both Kirk and McClane are potentially genetically bio-engineered supermen who can survive brawling, high falls, and gunshots/laser blasts. They have impeccable aim, are in impossible condition, and always triumph. Ok. I can accept that.
2. Computers can do anything in both worlds. This is made up as the writers go along. You want your computer to modify warp capabilities? Remotely control other terminals? Lack any sort of security? Be hackable from physically accessible locations via fictional interfaces? Make a pizza? Ok, you got it.
3. Both movies follow prior art and rewrite the spirit and style of their universes. If I were attempting to evaluate Star Trek on the basis of the previously established logic of Star Trek I would be burning J.J. Abrams in effigy right now. But I'm no purist; if someone wants to reboot a series, so long as it's good I'm fine with this.

John McClane terms are also useful as the "scifi-y" nature of ST makes it difficult to distinguish futurized technology/society/organization from plot holes and humanly unrelatable behavior. But with John McClane terms, by analogy I am going to demonstrate the absurdity of ST.

SPOILER ALERT. Don't read past here if you haven't seen the films Star Trek and Live Free or Die Hard.

Narrative Mysteries in the Motion Picture Star Trek:
1. Over Vulcan, instead of warping out of interference and FTL'ing Starfleet, Pike opts for a dangerous space diving mission (and one that involves him being taken into custody on an enemy ship).

2. Though only what appears to be milliliters of "red matter" is ever used, still Spock carries around gallons of the stuff. (Thanks to Dan M. for bringing this to my attention.)

3. The promotion of Kirk to Captain, on the heels of his mutinous assault on the bridge (which got him marooned) and his defiance beaming back on board the ship. In Star Trek World, bad behavior is rewarded.

John McClane terms: McClane goes into the police station and has an argument with the chief. When he's ordered out of the room, he scuffles with other officers. Punishment is arranged, which he escapes, returning to the station. The Chief is incapacitated and--instead of returning McClane to his sentence--McClane is allowed to replace the chief. The ever-level McClane is more astonished than when he jumped on that flying F-35 and survived the experience.

4. Of course, marooning Kirk in the first place doesn't really make sense, especially given the danger of the planet to which he is marooned, with man-eating aliens inhabiting every five cubic feet of ice. Doesn't the ship have--a brig?

John McClane terms: after McClane's disruption in the station, the chief orders him placed inside a cage in the "Big Cats" exhibit at the local zoo, promising officials will be along to pick him up shortly.

5. Running into future-Spock stochastically pushes credibility, even dismissing the complaints of the incredible unlikeliness that you should meet someone from the future who happens to know you. Planets are big. Even if both Kirk and Spock were abandoned a safe-distance from the Federation outpost (the movie mentions it is some kilometers from Kirk's pod), that's still a huge area in which to randomly stumble into someone's cave while being pursued by a space-beast.

John McClane terms: McClane escapes his cage, only to be rescued from the big cats by his ex-wife who, despite living in a different state, happens to be in the Big Cats exhibit as well due to the same events that caused McClane's altercation with the chief in the first place. She gives McClane advice on mending the relationship with their daughter Lucy.

6. Spock's easy restoration to active duty. In a real military, after having an outburst on the bridge, he is admitted either: a. to brig for disorderly conduct, b. to sickbay for psychological evaluation. This is actually much less offensive than 3., since it is noted Kirk is basically insane and he would pull shenanigans like this (especially knowing Spock and he were destined to be friends), but coming on the heels of 3. I experience deja vu. They can try this unlikely device once in their movie and, ok, maybe I'll let it pass. But two times? One immediately after the other?

7. Not to mention three times. At Kirk's return to Starfleet headquarters on earth he is promoted to Captain, which I suppose makes sense given his heroic service. So you would expect, having shown "promise," but also having committed no less than mutiny, the higher-ups would give him command of a minor vessel and allow him to make good on his potential. Not so. They give him the freaking flagship. One more movie. One more movie is needed to hop from cadet->captain->captain of most prestigious vessel in starfleet.

John McClane terms: After saving the day, it is decided McClane's resourcefulness, combat prowess, and pure blind luck qualify him to be promoted to commissioner. (It should be noted that after three movies of saving the world, McClane is still just a cop. The higher-ups are surely appreciative of what he's done, but aren't going to find him qualified for greater administrative, diplomatic, and political responsibilities.)

8. When Papa Kirk fights against Nero's ship...what actually does he accomplish? In fact, how does ANY OF THE ENTIRE RESULT make sense? After the Kelvin kamikazes the Romulan vessel, we have a stream of non-warp drive shuttles fleeing a still very powerful, very armed futuristic Romulan vessel. Where do the shuttles go? If they call for help, why don't the ships picking them up investigate the (nearby) Romulan vessel that attacked them? Is the Romulan ship disabled? If so, how does it get repairs for its futuristic technology? If not, why doesn't nero continue destroying the shuttles in his mad rage? If they're out of range (though both shuttles and starship are visible in the same shot), why doesn't he use his warp drive to give chase, especially as there's no more Kelvin shooting down his torpedoes? Does he...run away in the face of the overwhelming unarmed shuttle threat?

9. Kirk (baby Kirk) mentions that the ship that attacked the Kelvin was a gigantic Romulan ship that was never seen or heard from again. However, the thing spends twenty-five years rooted to the spot where it destroyed the Kelvin, waiting for Spock. Surely someone could have gone and investigated the scene of the attack? One might suppose they've hidden themselves someplace distant and are using future scanning capabilities to monitor for Spock's return and the "electrical storm," but when it happens, you know how they confirm? They look out the window.

10. When Kelvin went shipo a shipo with Romulan vessel, the entire crew managed to escape. When a fleet of Federation starships are lured into the Kelvin's trap at Vulcan, there are no survivors. The Enterprise comes out of warp in a graveyard of warships, nary a shuttle in sight. So...what was the difference? Is Nero simply more capable in the face of more difficult odds, which is why single ships (Kelvin, Enterprise, Spock's little science vessel) keep besting him?

Bonus 10. Nero uses "Centaurian slugs" (or something) on Pike. Are these standard issue on Romulan mining vessels? (It is conceivable they covertly landed on...errr...Centaur...and picked some up along with the groceries, as they were anticipating their mission. This concession is why this point is a bonus; I usually let the little things slide if not for a host of mounting inexplicable developments.)

Bonus bonus 10. Spock's science vessel is armed. Better safe than sorry, eh, Vulcan? (Justification for "bonus" status: technically the Enterprise is a science vessel, too, and it's armed.)

11. And, the facebook status: "In the future, it will be concluded ridiculously vertiginous walkways without safety railings are the optimal configuration for the interior of mining vessels. Good to know."

Finally, the most glaring insult to intelligence in the entire ST film. This one is subtle until expressed in McClane terms.
12. Once Nero's ship is in distress (being sucked into a singularity), Kirk offers assistance. This makes sense for a peacekeeping alliance like the Federation. When Nero refuses, the Enterprise responds by...shooting him. A. They are no longer under threat from Nero, and B. his ship is about to be destroyed at the center of a black hole. To kill a group of war criminals, without giving them a trial, feels vindictive. At least Kirk and Spock should be court-martialed for this atrocity.
Or, another way of looking at it, the ultimatum of "allow us to help you or we will kill you" feels out-of-place in an idealistically peace-loving society. Perhaps deep-seated bloodlust lies just beneath the veneer of peace and harmony of Federation ideology.

John McClane terms: The enemy McClane has been pursuing has been disarmed, and is dangling over the side of a cliff. His grip is rapidly loosening. McClane leans down and shouts, "Give me your hand!" The villain replies, "Never! My pride is too great to ever accept assistance from you!" McClane...then...

Proceeds to shoot the man in the face.

Yes. I posit you should be that shocked and revolted by the ending of Star Trek, but don't blame you if you missed it. It took me three viewings to recognize, after all.

In summary, I think Star Trek an excellent film. Effects, action, music, and production are all top-notch. I especially enjoy the dialogue, which I find refreshing and lifelike. The characters are immensely pleasurable to watch and have great chemistry. It is a very gratifying film experience. It simply makes ZERO SENSE FROM START TO FINISH. I don't hold that against it. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Allow me to clarify the parameters of this list. Do I mean the "best," "most influential," or most "personally beloved" games? Yes. Somewhere, deep in my gut, the criteria for admittance is gestating, and I will allow that inner voice to guide me. Then again, it's more of a gurgle than a voice and could be "digesting" rather than "gestating." (Specifically, the TVP nuggets I just dined on.)


10. Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast
What: FPS/3rd-person action game following a Jedi exile on his quest to regain his abilities and save something. (Girl? Galaxy? The Universe's Ultimate Curry? I can't remember, which goes to show the plot really stays with you.)
Why: Enter a room filled with stormtroopers. Force pull half-a-dozen into the air and watch them drop. Lightning blast two dozen, and throw your lightsaber in a circular arc through their stunned bodies. Somersault over the lone Sith adversary and strike a critical blow where his defenses are weak--from above him. Land before all your opponents have even finished slumping to the floor and feel the adrenaline rush as you realize you are one of the most formidable forces (get it?) in the galaxy: a Jedi.

Apart from the slow-to-start but ultimately pitch perfect campaign, I sunk dozens of hours playing multiplayer at LAN parties, and my positive memories are wrapped up with fond recollections of some of my oldest friends. If all that's not enough, JKII employed the considerable talents of Mark Hamil to reprise his role as the Joker.


9. Dawn of War
What: Sci-fi RTS based of the established IP of a...table-top strategy game?
Why: The harshness of 00's (Oh-Oh's) towards RTS's was only surpassed by their abuse for the endangered-species adventure genre. While the 90's ended on a high of creativity with the three-dimensional Homeworld, stagnation and audience decline have troubled this once celebrated category and most developers are content to release variations on the harvest resources/pump out units/engage in rock/paper/scissors combat formula. At least with DoW, Relic (who also developed Homeworld...hmmm...I just now noticed the connection) brought the "assault" mode of FPSes to real-time strategy and tried something different. It's a formula that works, and I spent many hours with friends attempting (and failing) to become adept at the small-squad micromanagement required for victory.


8. Sam & Max Save the World
What: Telltale Games resurrect both Lucasart's classic not-franchise and the very undead Adventure games themselves.
Why: Most developers can manage to make a good adventure game (Grim Fandango) or a profitable one (Nancy Drew Does Something Generic in a Mansion Like Saving Lost Shoes and This Isn't a Real Title But I Can't Be Bothered to Research an Authentic One), but not both at once. Telltale Games, however, have managed to combine both adequate/good gameplay and a business-savvy episodic content model, allowing them to churn out product-after-product of above-mediocre titles in a much-cherished but formerly presumed dead category. This spot really goes to Telltale Games, but since a company isn't technically a "game," I'm giving it to the first release to pioneer their technique. Perhaps it should have been titled Sam & Max Save Adventure Gaming.

(Naw. Who would've bought into that far-fetched premise?)

7. Knights of the Old Republic
What: A soldier from a galaxy far, far away and a long, long, long, long, extra-long time ago must choose what path to tread between light and dark on the quest to save--or rule--the galaxy.
Why: Solid RPG gameplay makes this entry fun, virtuoso storytelling makes this game transcendent. The expansive plot takes you across multiple worlds, while also finding space to give dimension to even the smallest characters. Excellent voice-acting and music service the experience, which is not only the best Star Wars tale written this decade (for any medium, natch), but one of the best sci-fi stories period. The jaw-dropping twist also makes this a Sixth Sense for the aughts, of sorts.


6. Portal
What: Test-subject in scientific lab attempts escape demented AI captor via ingenious use of dimension-warping experimental technology.
Why: It's the marriage of innovation coupled with unpredictable, hilarious, and compelling narrative. The writing is top-notch, brilliant sci-fi. The conceptually-simple game mechanic (or maybe not; it's about bending two physically separated locations to a single point via the use of additional dimensions) has legs that carry it to endless applications. It's broad appeal (no violence! Just puzzle-solving and turret disarming!) has led quotes like "The cake is a lie" to enter our mass culture and be printed on our t-shirts. Finally, the poignant and heart-rending resolution between a woman and her companion cube haunts me to this day.


5. Half-Life 2
This was another genre-advancing entry from Gabe Newell and the team at Valve. While their commitment to story is always trumpeted, I appreciate them more for the techniques they contribute than actual plot and characters. Lifelike animation, seamless lip-syncing, and the much-used peripheral scripted scene (a giant walker lumbers down the street just in the corner of your vision) are standard, now, but Valve set the bar.

Like a full-length technical demo, Valve showcased physics-based gameplay done right and proved that beautiful, hardware-pushing engines need not be unscalable to half-a-decade old equipment. That you could run the game on your ancient eMachine with a smooth framerate was a subtle achievement, but I think an important one, emphasizing some positive message about inclusivity or eco-friendliness or something. I'm tired and bitter about games making me purchase new video cards every two years. There.

You can read my original review here.

4. World of Warcraft
What: I don't know, I've never played it.
Why: Millions upon millions of people pay exorbitant subscriber fees to do repetitive virtual tasks in a dated graphical environment. And I'm afraid to even install the trial (which comes bundled free with video cards, mice, laser printers, pizzas, sunglasses, and shampoo) because of the habit-forming reputation this game/modus vivendi has. This is a significant contribution to the industry, much in the way tobacco contributes to the GDP or lotteries contribute to financing public education. I don't have to form an addiction to appreciate all three of these things exist. Like the War on Drugs needs marijuana, so the PC Gaming sector probably is dependent upon this gem for its survival.


3. Bioshock
What: Crash survivor ventures into underwater failed art-deco Randian social Utopian experiment, where philosophical questions are as dangerous as bullets.
Why: This is the first game I have encountered that uses the intrinsic nature of videogaming itself to make a point about free will. This clever utilization of the medium--which has been a long time coming--is a significant advance for the domain, and will hopefully inspire further ambitious and mature treatments of "mere" games. When coupled with immersive (and chilling) atmosphere, fantastic art direction, genius-level writing and dialog, and competent technical achievements Bioshock serves as a standout entry for the decade.


2. Halo (the original)
What: The Master Captain--or somebody--has to fight...oh...things in...the future? And there's a ring, like a really BIG one.
Why: Despite its underwhelming basis (I still have not played a Halo campaign to completion, and they're brief), it somehow overcomes this shortcoming in multiplayer which is nothing less than an addictive, polished, and finely balanced experience. This is Goldeneye for the New Millennium, and so much more, the game that made bringing bigscreen tvs to LAN parties something that actually happens and is not all that unheard-of. Countless hours have been spent with friends building our team coordination and honing our solo abilities. Halo gave me the excuse I needed to see other people in the new decade, and for that reason I will be eternally indebted to Bungie. (Just as Microsoft may be; Halo in large part could be responsible for making them a contender in the console business.)

1. Wii Sports
What: Use vaguely reality-corresponding movements to play a selection of virtual sports.
Why: Arguably responsible for catapulting the flagging Nintendo Entertainment Company (or am I just making that name up?) from its distant-third to market share dominance over competitors Microsoft and Sony. The best-selling game of all time (take that, cousin Mario!), Sports gets credit for introducing gaming to the non-gamers, the grandpas and elderly and supercilious art snobs. Or so the hype goes. But the numbers don't lie, and fifty million copies suggests more games were moved than there are gamers in existence. Maybe I'm just making that up, too.

(Sports comes bundled with the Wii; see how I did that, making sales appear more significant than they are?)

Honorable mentions, or Games I Really Liked, or Wasted Hours of my Life, or Nostalgia Valley:
1. Guild Wars. (170 - 180 hours)
2. Oblivion. (80 - 90 hours)
3. Knights of the Old Republic II. (c. 70 - 80 hours over two play-throughs, plus my sleep-deprived immune system caught the flu during finals week)
4. Prince of Persia series (had to give 70 - 80 hours over four installments)
5. Dragon Age: Origins (67 hours, not counting the many battles I lost)
6. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (c. 40 hours)
7. Tales of Vesperia (c. 40 hours)
8. Eternal Sonata (c. 40 hours, see review here.)

dakt.org

Home of "Dan and Kermit Talk," the acronym is pronounced DAK-TORG, or DACT-DOT-ORG if you care.

He's just a little baby blog at this point, still stumbling around and eating the carpeting but one day he shall grow into a mighty website who will shake whole internet-paradigms and be the progenitor of at least two buzzwords.

Perhaps the first "dialectic" blog I've heard of (perhaps), dakt.org is a joint venture between Dan H. and myself and already has a devoted following 100% larger than weblog average. There you will find stuff, maybe. I'm not making promises.

dakt.org is recommended for:
1. Those with high blood pressure.
2. Expectant mothers.
3. The elderly.
4. Those who suffer from motion sickness or experience back, chest and neck pain.

It may seem as though I'm just looking for excuses to drop the dakt.org URL. This isn't the whole truth; I'm also looking for excuses to drop the dakt.org RSS URL.

So, subscribe today. You maybe won't regret it.