Ideas? Suggestions?

Once again, it’s been quite a while. I fully intend to post more often…we’ll see how that goes.

Part of the problem is that I’m closing in on the ABD phase of the PhD program. Yup, one more course remaining, and then all I have to do is write a minor book while three faculty members monitor every step of the process.

Good times.

The funniest thing is, the more research I’m doing for this dissertation on virtual worlds, the less time I have to spend in virtual worlds. Did I say “funny?” Sometimes it seems cosmically perverse. That’s OK, though. I’m still learning a lot, and I’m still enjoying most of the learning that I’m doing.

One thing I’m look at right now is fiction centered on/in virtual worlds. My hope is to find some good fiction to which I can apply the research I am doing for a literary application of the work. This is where I need some help. I’m not sure what’s out there as far as relevant fiction goes. My current list:

• Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson
• Tea from an Empty Cup, Pat Cadigan
• Otherland, Tad Williams
• Circuit of Heaven, Dennis Danvers
• ANIMA, Dalian Hansen

I haven’t yet read Otherland and ANIMA (subtitled A Novel about Second Life). If you’re familiar with even a couple of these titles, you can probably see where my thinking is.  (If not, what I’m looking for are stories which take place in or prominently feature digital virtual worlds – not, however, just representations of the internet like Gibson’s “matrix” in the Sprawl series, but worlds designed and presented as such.) I know there are not many readers of this blog, but I’m asking in every venue available to me, including this one, whether anyone has suggestions for other works I might look at.

Thomas More’s Utopia has been suggested, as has Edwin Abbott’s Flatland. I haven’t read them, but I’d also love to get feedback on whether either one fits.

Let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Hey, who can’t?

Song of the Moment: "Rockstar," Nickelback
END OF LINE

No on Proposition 8

OK, it’s been a while. I could give you all the excuses reasons for that, but in the end what’s important is that I’m writing again. At least right now.

In any case, I live in the land of the political initiative, referendum, or proposition, and it seems we’re called to the polls at least a couple of times every year to cast votes on the welfare and direction of the Golden State. Which, if you ask me, is pretty cool, though it takes a little getting used to.

This November, along with the national ballot, we have several state and local measures to consider. The two of these that I think are of greatest import are Propositions 4 and 8. I might talk about 4 some other time, but for right now my concern is Prop 8.

Put simply, Prop 8 if passed would ban same-sex marriages in California. You may or may not know that this is an issue that’s gone back and forth in this state; most recently, a California Supreme Court ruling held that it was unlawful to limit “marriage” to strictly man-woman couples. This means that same-sex marriages are valid and recognized in California at the moment, but Proposition 8 aims to add wording to the state constitution to the effect that only a man-woman marriage would be valid and recognized here.

That’s just wrong. There are a whole host of reasons that I hold that opinion, and I may go into them another time. What interests me right now, though, is that this issue – both locally and nationally – points a giant, sore finger at the massively gaping hole in the supposed wall between church and state. Half the problem here is the blanket use of the term “marriage.” If you stop to think about it, you realize that agents of religious authority (clergy) are given permission to perform a ceremony that affects the status of a couple in the eyes of governmental / civil authority. If we’re supposed to support the separation of church and state, isn’t that whole setup in direct conflict of the principle?

There should, from the very founding of this nation, have been a distinction made between the union of two people in a religious context and a similar (though not identical, and sometimes completely different) union in a civil context. The fact that some religions or denominations recognize same-sex marriage while their local governments do not points to that as a basic truth. Or how about this  one?: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (yes, the Mormons) once allowed and recognized polygamy (some fundamentalist groups not affiliated with the mainstream church still do), but the federal government of the USA has never recognized polygamous marriages. This demonstrates quite clearly that marriage does not mean the same thing to religion as it does to government.

But those who support Prop 8 – that is, those who wish to ban same-sex marriage – conflate the two contexts. They claim that if the state recognizes same-sex marriages, then their religious beliefs will be in danger. But wait: if we really have separation of church and state, then no state decision can impinge upon their beliefs. So what’s to be afraid of? The Catholic Church supports Prop 8, but the state is not going to force Catholic priests to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. So the Catholic Church (and all who support Prop 8) is not really defending their right to do things their way; they’re specifically hoping to restrict the rights of others to do things a different way.

I think civil union (marriage in the civil context) should be separated from matrimony (marriage in the religious context) altogether as a matter of principle. It would make sense for those who are religious to have the two be combined or overlapped in some way, but we now live in a time where there are lots of people who for many differing reasons have or want nothing to do matrimony, while still desiring the rights and responsibilities of civil union. Not to mention many who are married in name but don’t really live that way.

It’s to the benefit of the state to allow same-sex marriages. Just as with heterosexual marriages, it promotes social stability and contributes to economic stability. Beyond that, though, it’s straight-up illegal for the state to discriminate against people on the basis of religion or sexual preference / orientation (among other things, of course). By banning or prohibiting same-sex marriage, for whatever reasons, the state is by definition treating one group of people (homosexual couples desiring to be married) differently from another (heterosexual couples desiring to be married) on the basis of sexual orientation and possibly religion. These two sets of people are otherwise indistinguishable: in each case you have two people who are probably in love and want to publicly and socially declare an intent to commit permanently to each other and obtain all the rights and responsibilities that accompany such a declaration; the only difference is that one pair has different plumbing, while the other pair has the same plumbing. The state should not be in the business of discriminating between people on the separate or combined bases of sexual orientation and religion.

Wait, isn’t that basically what the California Supreme Court said?

Come on, people. How hard is it, really? Do you want to live in a land where discrimination is ok? I probably shouldn’t ask that question – too many people, if they answered truthfully, would say “Yes.” But if you don’t, then oppose Proposition 8 this November. If you live in California, vote against it. If you don’t live in California, urge any Californians you may know or come into contact with to vote against it. It’s that simple.

Song of the Moment: "Hawaii Five-O," The Ventures
END OF LINE

Digital foot-binding

It’s a strange confluence of circumstances. On the one hand is the way content creation – and, in particular, content permission – works in SL. Designers often don’t want customers to have modify permission on their work, because then the customers can, well, modify their work. It also makes them more vulnerable to forgery and cheap knock-offs. On the other hand is the tradition (habit? trend?) of making shoes that are designed to fit the “size 0″ avatar foot.

The result is, as everyone who’s into these things knows, the size zero shoe. You purchase a pair of shoes, and they look fabulous, and they’re designed for size 0 feet, so you adjust your Foot Size slider to 0 so they’ll look right. And, in theory, there’s nothing wrong with that – to a point.

In fact, though, it’s systemic. It’s institutionalized. It’s become accepted practice. And there is something seriously wrong with that.

How is this different from virtual foot-binding? Avatars are being asked to change their bodies in order to fit social norms or fashions. No, they’re not even being asked. In some cases, they’re being politely reminded, but often the bodily deformation is simply taken for granted. And, as we know, it’s not just shoes. There exists a whole host of clothing items that are designed only for avatars that are designed within a relatively narrow (both literally and figuratively) size spectrum. And, I recently learned, the same goes for poses and animations.

Now, this isn’t the case for all designers. When it comes to shoes in particular (but also for other size-sensitive items), there are a handful of creators who for their own reasons give us mod perms. Some of those who don’t will still sell their shoes in two sizes (such as 0 and 10, or 0 and 30), which is at least a little accommodating. And there are starting to be designers who cater specifically to “plus-sized” or otherwise non-standard (as if!) avatars.

But in a world that prides itself on diversity, where even a basic avatar can have any of dozens of attributes sized from 0 to 100 (you should hit the Random button sometime and see what happens), this strikes me as simply insensitive. It’s no different from FL’s neurotic and neurosis-producing insistence that beauty and taste are a single vision that must be administered in a top-down manner. We know better than that, don’t we? How is it that this kind of thinking found its way into our virtual world?

And worse, how is it that we as residents put up with it?

Song of the moment: "Put Your Top Down," Tré Little
END OF LINE

On The Dark Knight

Well, I couldn’t miss it, so (even though it took me a while) I finally got around to seeing The Dark Knight.

Let me first say that I really didn’t like Batman Begins. As I’ve already mentioned to some people, I think Christian Bale was only OK as Batman/Bruce Wayne, the story wasn’t all that fun, and the only image that I really appreciated was the picture of Gotham glittering in daylight. Plus the Batmobile was an atrocious-looking monstrosity of a vehicle that didn’t even have the brutish beauty of terrifying power.

So (spoiler alert!) I’m glad they finally blew it up. That little motorcycle-type thing wasn’t much better, though.

In any case, The Dark Knight is a far superior movie. Yes, I enjoyed it. While the story was really good, I don’t think that Heath Ledger’s performance was really worth all the hoopla that the critics have been making. The opening sequence was great, and the Joker’s legendary madness was well-written, more or less. And Christian Bale has grown into the Batman role a little more.

Overall, the movie was a helluva ride, which is generally what I’m looking for in a movie that comes from comic books. Of course, you get a better ride from something like Ultraviolet, and I’m looking forward to the Watchmen movie next year, but that’s not important right now…

While I enjoyed the movie, there is a major philosophical beef I still have with its existence. This issue dates back to Batman Begins, and is essentially going to be a fundamental problem with every installment of the new Batman movie franchise. The problem is a lack of respect for canonicity.

Now, I’m not one who insists that a comic-based movie adhere rigidly to the established stories of the comic. Marvel’s movies have convinced me that movies are a different medium and their stories must therefore be constructed differently. That’s totally fair.

What bothers me – has bothered me since Batman Begins – is that the established canon of the four previous Batman movies was simply erased. Some of us appreciate a consistent story universe, and this has now been completely destroyed. I feel it as a personal affront, that the creators of the two latest Batman movies simply have no respect for their forerunners – and no respect for those of us who have some degree of fondness for those earlier films.

A new Batman movie could have gone with new villains and executed a graceful transition from the more campy movies into this darker vibe. That would’ve been artful. Instead, we just get conceptual amputation. Reboot. A total do-over, as if all that came before was a waste of time that deserves to be forgotten. It’s rude.

And Christian Bale’s Batmobile was just ugly.

Song of the Moment: "Low Place Like Home," Sneaker Pimps
END OF LINE

What we have here is a failure to communicate

Had the strangest experience in-world today. I was going to go shoe-shopping (yes!) with my friend and classmate Shailey – after the Shoe Expo, I have some new favorite vendors, and we need to get gussied up for the upcoming last day of class.

So we met this morning as planned. I actually signed on about an hour earlier, as I had to fulfill my compulsion to create a new outfit – I haven’t done so in over two weeks, and usually I make at least one a week. (Ooh, it hurts my soul just to think of the lost time…)

Anyway, Shailey greeted me in local chat. I’m on vacation right now, using a laptop with no microphone, so voice was not an option. (I don’t think it would have mattered anyway, but more on that later.) I greeted her back, and asked about the dragon that was following her around. Oddly, she didn’t respond right away, and when she did it was to say that she couldn’t receive any of my text even though she could see my typing animation.

“Weird,” I thought. I switched to IM, and got the same result. She realized there was something strange going on, and relogged to solve the problem. Except that it didn’t solve the problem. I tried chat, IM, and our class’s group chat; still nothing. I quickly put a notecard together saying that I could at least see what she was typing and dropped it on her – only to have her repeatedly decline the offer. Same with the shoe-store landmark I tried to give her.

By now you may have guessed what we later discovered – she had accidentally muted me. Now, I have never experienced the power of the mute before, and it was both frustrating and challenging. How to get a message to Shailey to let her know my side of the experience, and to say that I did indeed by this point suspect I was muted?

In a moment of inspiration, I rezzed a cube – thank goodness we were in a sandbox! – and dropped my earlier notecard into it along with a floating text script saying “Open me, Shailey!” I don’t know whether that worked (we’re going to meet again tomorrow, and I’ll ask her), but it at least had a chance and, while tedious, might be the only way to let someone know they’ve muted you – if it wasn’t done on purpose. (It occurs to me now that even if she couldn’t get the notecard, I could just make the floating text display my message; similarly tedious, but saves a step and guaranteed effective.)

But really, all of this got me thinking. SL offers a lot of things to residents, not the least of which is an infinite shoe closet just waiting to be filled. In addition to that wonderful fact is the great variety of ways to communicate with others. IM and chat, notecard and voice, prims that talk or link to websites, not to mention gestures and muting (an extreme form of communication!); our communication options are incredibly flexible. I’m not sure how many people (outside of vendors and other business people) think about it this way – I know I hadn’t. The power of the platform really hit home today.

Song of the Moment: "Mosh," Eminem

END OF LINE

Update, 8/2/08: It also occurs to me, depending on what you’re teaching, that this could be a great class exercise: communicate something (perhaps a predecided something) to someone else, perhaps in-class or perhaps out-of-class, without using local chat or IM. Or, as a series of exercises, first without chat, then without IM, then with increasing restrictions to promote lateral thinking on the issue. Lots of possibilities here, and it can be presented as a challenge or a game…

Song of the Moment: "Kismet," Bond
END OF LINE

Just a thought

At this point, I have lived just a short while longer outside of my parents’ home than in it. Of course, that word, “home,” doesn’t mean the same thing to me as it does to many others; a series of moves meant that I lived in five different towns in four states before I left for college. Since then, I have moved twelve times, not including a couple temporary situations of a month or less each. Tomorrow begins the thirteenth move of my adult life.

I’m pretty good at moving these days; it’s rarely easy, but I don’t usually let the stress get to me. In fact, I have thought of myself as pretty nomadic, since I generally preferred not to stay in one place for more than a few years anyway. Twice now I’ve moved halfway across the country, and since landing in California I’m starting to feel a little less nomadic. I don’t know if it’s because I’m starting to get old (okay, maybe not old, but not so young anymore). Maybe I love southern California and its weather so very much. Probably it’s a little of both, and more. But I find myself thinking that I may stay here. I mean, really stay here. If I can afford to stay after I graduate, that is.

Now, I’m not talking about “settling down,” which is still way out of the range of my temperament. And really it’s way too soon to be making any sort of judgements; I haven’t even lived in the Golden State a full year yet. But I really have been feeling like a little of the familiar restlessness is, just maybe, finally getting some rest.

Oh goodness, I hope that doesn’t mean I’m starting to grow up. I’m not sure I’m okay with even thinking that particular thought.

Song of the Moment: Theme from Star Trek: The Next Generation, Jerry Goldsmith
END OF LINE