Thyroid

Yeah, I'm referring to the "Greater Middle East". I guess Arabs in general think of the entire Arab world as the "Middle East". It's slang for "we Arabs, yes?". The Middle East was never not fucked-up, but for once, people are making some sort of stand. I like this. In Jordan you can't say anything without fear you'll be fucked - hey, it's in our constitution (Article 15) - by everyone's favorite boogeyman, the intelligence division. Protests and protesters fall under this category. The protests, at least, make me a little happier, because maybe we'll lead to full-on democracy and then, if we're lucky, a slightly better future. If that sounds like sweetened bullshit to you, know that, to me, this means a lot. Really. Having the freedom to say what I want without fear of torture interrogation (which isn't uncommon with certain kinds of loud-mouths) sounds like a big step towards making it a better place to live in. I'm not going to go around being disruptive (I'm no communist, which, incidentally, is illegal to believe in here), but at least I'd like to have the right to be.

You guys, the Middle East is flippin'. In Jordan, we're having protests! Us! I know it's a stunt to ease-up on the Human Rights Watch, but a protest! In Jordan! Holy shit! There's revolution in Tunisia, the Lebanese government has collapsed, and Sudan is being split into two countries. Holy fuck biscuit.

I'm about 0% interested in another Bioshock (or at least one set in the by-now boring Rapture), but I've heard nothing but good things about Minerva's Den. So I was wondering if I could play that without trudging through BS2. Do I at least have that choice?

I highly respect and admire their decision to cancel. It wasn't as good as they wanted it to be. And that's that, then. A brave decision, and the reason why I'll buy the next game on pre-order.

Good movie. Make sure it's not the theatrical cut, which was this weird-ass P.O.S. that the studio edited into existence when they snatched the footage out of Terry Gilliam's hands.

But this isn't the same. Cheap books, available to be stored on a device, not taking up space? Don't you buy games on Steam when they're dirt cheap? Even if you're not that interested? Oh, certainly. But how many people would buy a text file of a short story or novel off of your website? Not many. But get one, trusted source like Amazon, and set the prices right (this is all just theory; I don't have any numbers), and people are more likely to buy your book, without need for publishers or anything of the sort. It hopefully wouldn't be that regulated, but it makes things so much easier.

Haha. Well, nobody said anything about *reading* them. A lot of people just like *buying* them and telling themselves they'll read them later. Look at your own backlogs. I saw the Complete Works of Charles Dickens being sold for $5.00 on Amazon Kindle. :/ Yeah, this is one thing I agree with. The prices are not really that much cheaper. I disagree. You make interesting points throughout the thread, but I think - if anything - it'll produce a lot more great writing. Oh, there'll be junk. But the day that widespread publishing becomes available to everyone is the day that truly risky and artistic artworks can be made. It's writing's answer to punk rock, except it doesn't cost a lot to make.

I don't like Kindle. I love the idea of being able to buy hard-to-find books - say the works of Anthony Burgess - in a second, but they're not doing that. I like the idea of being able to pay for (what is essentially) a text file and a little more for a hard copy, simultaneously, but they're not doing that. Books are still expensive. Look at hardcovers: it's not the material they use that's worth the extra cost, it's the fact you're getting early access to this book. It's caused misunderstandings. All I'm saying is, people are more likely to buy more if they had gigs and gigs of space to store their books in, and if the books were cheap (hell, make the pre-1923 books free), than if a book still costs $20 but is essentially a text file. Or what do I know. Look at Steam. </random ranting>

Yeah, Ernest Hemingway's use of simple sentences was revolutionary for its time, and still mind-bogglingly clever today. It's hard to let go of its influence when you start doing your own writing, a problem made worse by the style itself being much harder to pull off that well than a first glance would indicate. I have never read Fiesta!. I have, however, gone through several short stories, his memoir A Moveable Feast, a decent section of Death in the Afternoon, and The Old Man and the Sea. The last is the greatest of all these. I was far too young to understand it when I read it (being ten or eleven), but the older I grow the more I like it. It's telling that I haven't even touched the book since, but still think about it so often.

Confession: I've only listened to 3/4 of one podcast (the Chuck Jordan one), and around half another (Sean Vanaman's first one), bringing my total up to 5/4 podcasts. I'm not overly familiar with many games discussed on the others, so I haven't listened to them.

Doctor Who Christmas Special. :tup: A little silly, but that's OK. I haven't seen Blade Runner yet. I might do it this weekend. Hopefully. Kromsy movie year score so far: 3/12

Anyone know any good science-fiction shows? I appear to be turning into a sci-fi lover. Blame Doctor Who (yes, I know it's science-fantasy) and being in love with ideas. I refuse to see 60's Star Trek, but anything else is good. Anyways, in continuation of Kromsy Movie Year: I saw most of the Doctor Who movie. Paul McGann is an excellent Doctor, when given room to actually be the Doctor (which the director and script don't usually allow him), and the film is beautifully lit. It's also, for the most part, handled well in terms of camera placement. On the other hand, the script is sub-par and some of the casting/editing decisions baffle. I didn't even finish the movie. Shame, too, because McGann could have been a pretty good Doctor. No Matt Smith, but quite good nonetheless. Next up are Blade Runner, Moon, and Brick. I'll post my highly unanticipated opinions on them as I see them.

Global Metal is an enjoyable documentary on metal of different cultures. Some of my friends appear in the Dubai section!

I guess what I mean is, something with "meat". Not Dean Koontz and James Patterson. That probably doesn't make sense in a large context, but this is just a list made by some online duders who have *some* inkling on what that word could mean.

Those last two are so perfect they could punch a flying robot shark with their individual dicks. (-- IGN.com)

OK, then. Games of 2010 that I actually bought, played, didn't necessarily finish: - Nelson Tethers: Puzzle Agent - Poker Night at the Inventory - Sam and Max: The Devil's Playhouse I'm already writing a review for Puzzle Agent for my backlog review blog thing, Poker Night I enjoy with a couple of friends when they come over and Devil's Playhouse I liked a lot up to where I played, but I was tired of adventure games then and they kind of tapered-off of my play-now list. Games I wanted to buy but couldn't: Costume Quest, Deathspank 1 + 2, Metro 2033, Napoleon: Total War, Sonic 4, Sonic Colors, a billion other things.

I was trying to list some "meaty" modern writers the other day. Living bros and brotettes* who put a bit of literature in their story. I couldn't expand my list beyond these guys, and some of those - the ones in italics - are people I know from reputation only, by which I mean that I haven't actually read anything by them. Care to help me expand the list? Michael Chabon Don DeLillo Umberto Eco (this based on Chris Remo's gushing) Cormac McCarthy Haruki Murakami ** Thomas Pynchon Philip Roth * coining words for your benefit; it's what Shakespeare would've done. ** (sort of; I think South of the Border, West of the Sun is literary, anyways, but the Japanese claim he isn't)

Followin' the hobo stew.

I didn't play a lot of games that actually came out in 2010, so I'll just mention the game I played *most* in 2010, Torchlight, which I poured a little under 13 hours into. 'twas nice. I'll see if I manage to finish Sam and Max S03 'fore the year is up. That could be my GotY, if the last two episodes are up to par.

Thanks. Went ahead with the Director's Cut, though I also found a copy of a "Final's Cut" I'd like to see later. I shall watch the film when I can. It looks neato-mosquito.

So, this didn't turn out so well. Anyways, I saw The Birds yesterday. Decent thriller, mediocre script. . I suppose you could make a case for it being metaphorical (and the dots do add-up, sort of, if you ignore a crucial fact or two), but as a straight-up plot it results in annoyance. Hitchcock is a capable director, as always. Anyone here see Blade Runner? I don't know which cut I should see. It's kind of annoying how many versions there are.

Here's something interesting. From Joystiq: There's apparently also local and online multiplayer involved. I love blending genres, so this is right up my alley. The colourful art style - while a little too reliant on looking too much like an orange-obsessed Torchlight - is another selling point for me. Probably not going to plop $19.99 on it, but I'd get it for a tenner. (Above statement may vary, depending on reviews.)

Keeping in mind that I only read book one, I'm not happy with a lot of it because it seems that most of the actors were cast on the basis of what the characters look like, as opposed to who they really are. Ned, for example, is a middle-aged man; but is, really, quite old and weary, at least mentally. The king is the other way round - a little older, but a complete prat. To be honest, I don't think Mark Addy looks or even fits the part, but I'll hopefully be proved wrong. I'm not, usually, when it comes to casting and adaptations (especially if it's not something I'm a bit of fanboy for, like Monkey Island), but who knows? I should read book 2. I love the first one; I don't know why it's taken me so long to pick-up the second.

I *did* read Sorcerer's stone. But the "math"/"maths" thing is more likely due to a memory of what is an obscure, non-important line in a book I read in 1998.

You lot. Here's one of several reasons why Harry Potter is so popular. I read the first Harry Potter when I was eight and it had just come out in paperback. I haven't read it as an adult, but I will say this: Us kids loved it because it made us think it was there. The book opens with a dull, boring life of a very uninteresting British family, and even gets into Harry's school life ("I don't know. I'm rather good at math"). It then tells us that Harry is a wizard (yeah) with this amazing past he knows nothing about. Is there anything more boring than school? So wasn't it the best thing ever to imagine, even hope, that we could get a letter to somewhere that was a little bit more magical? Even if it was school? I mean, we knew it was stupid; no owl was going to reach us when we turned eleven to tell us to come to Hogwarts, but that's where the book's power lay. Once it opened-up our imagination to the idea of a magical world being integrated into our own - that, you know, just around that corner is Diagon Alley, if only you know how to get to it - we'd take anything, and everything wonderful just kept coming. It was a book about us; kids. Any adult who got it was just lucky, but us kids knew, instinctively, how wonderful it was. The first four books were all excellent like that. Five I read as a 13 year old, so I knew how frustrated Harry felt about things. 6 I disliked; 7 was just dark and scary, even with its silly moments. It's why I'm so reluctant to re-read the books as a 21 year old. :/ Sometimes you're lucky, but I think I'll refrain from Harry Potter until I get a little nostalgic.