There's No Place Like...Hyrule?

What happens when you take 75-100 squares on a TV screen...

and mix it with 22 years and about a trillion man hours' worth of evolution?

........

Or, perhaps a broader and more inclusive question would be "what does a hungry little sliced yellow dot trying to avoid bunches of blue, red, orange and magenta dots ...

( )

...evolve into after 29 years of human corruption, revolution, occupation, consumption, ideologies, outbreaks and research?" The answer looks, roughly, something like this...

http://www.finalfantasy13game.com/

(click on the 'trailers' option to view it.)

As I said, I think, in my first entry I don't pretend to be a hardcore gamer. Rainy summer days or Albany winter storms do sometimes find me indulging in the occasional RPG binge. As boring as it is, I will forever be enamored by both the Zelda and Final Fantasy franchises, mostly because of the narrative nature of the game-play, and the increasingly stunning visuals. While Zelda has remained slightly more static (it develops its own mythology, with each game adding another chapter to the chronicles of Hyrule), Final Fantasy continues to develop the classic myth/fairytale archetypes. I began my intensive research of children's literature a little over a year ago, and the more I research, the more excited I get about how intricately linked the Final Fantasy games are to our contemporary embodiments of folk literature.

But how did we get from "Objective: EAT" as in Pacman to the complex strategies, characters and even subversive political agendas embodied in the Final Fantasy series?

I think this is the basis for a huge research paper (I'll put it in my book of essays on the evolution of Fairytales...)but I'll try to address a few of my initial, only casually researched ideas. I think one of the first answers I might get if I asked that question would be "because we can." This assumes a single sort of gimmicky motive, that is really only about creating the most cutting-edge effects, and constantly driving forward in our efforts to make

things look more and more real. But if that were the case, then what we would have (and I think we do have this to some extent in the development of new first-person shooters) only created more and more realistic and graphic versions of Pacman. The technology would change, but the objective (consuming quickly) would not. In both Zelda and Final Fantasy (and many other RPG's) you are transported to a new world, a new time and introduced to new characters with new ideals. While there hasn't yet been a version of either game where you have a principle role in the outcome of the story (although it was played around with in Final Fantasy XII, and in all of the games, you can complete quests and missions that, while not being integral to the main plot, still offer more levels to the story...often in the form of backstory about a certain character) the stories themselves are becoming deeper and more tangible. I would even ventureto call these stories our modern folk literature.

I am hesitant, however to make the blanket argument that just because the stories are complex and beautiful it means that we should start replacing older literature with them entirely. I feel as though we tend to want to place things in neat little categories, video games vs. books, and seven days out of every ten I would argue that the books need to start conquering more often. Final Fantasy and Zelda should not replace books. But I think they, and other RPG's like them perhaps deserve to be discussed on a level with books, because, like it or not, they are part of children's and young adult's lives. The reluctance to do so is of the same (but more extreme sort as the hesitance in calling children's books or young adult books 'real literature.'

Going back to my original question (I haven't forgotten it...just put in on hold while I try to make sense of the scramble of possibilities this topic presents). How did it get to this? Pacman can safely maintain its standing as a hefty part of pop-culture but I don't know if I could find a way to work it into any literary category. Of course, RPG's like Zelda and Final Fantasy are just as much pop culture as anything else, but the Wizard of Oz was popular when L. Frank Baum was cranking out installments of his Oz saga and now it is regarded as a literary classic.

Will we one day be studying the allegory and sybolism of The Twilight Princess in classrooms alongside Alice in Wonderland and The Chronicles of Narnia? Maybe. And should we? Or should games forever be separated from that crumbling cathedral that is the current world of literature?

Sci-Fi Scholar

When you're sitting around a table with many writers, and the sci-fi genre comes up, the general reaction is one of a patronizing endearment. It pleases the masses-or at least gets them reading-and the genre has become so mainstream and 'hip' that you can usually count on it being a topic of some conversation among even 'casual' readers. But on the whole they usually dismiss the writing itself as anything of real value to the literary world, and most film critics will tell you the same thing about most sci-fi movies (although many of the 'good' sci-fi films have garnered more critical acclaim and acknowledgement than the books of the same caliber.)

SO...last winter, I did a presentation about children's literature, that was basically a half-hour condensed history of the genre, and some key works and turning points. As sci-fi is SUCH a categorised genre, I think it would be even more effective to review the history of science fiction, from H.G. Wells and Jules Verne to Douglas Adams, and even touch on the impact of film to the genre, and how it has caused the bleed into mainstream culture, and even artistic significance of the principles discussed in much of sci-fi.

This sort of talk-kind of like a TED lecture, but way broader-is something that we've been doing in INDA, through Sean Starowitz's "Know-Show" lecture series, that have been extremely helpful and very entertaining, because we try to focus on things that are not normally discussed or taught within an institution. I would want to make a hand-out...a sort of 'quick reference' guide to science fiction, (in the form of a Zine? or perhaps a website...which I've never done before, so it would be a learning experience) that people could return to if they needed the name of an author or a title quickly.

This is a sort of old and new direction for me within my research of literature and film, because I've always been that casual observer of science fiction, an enthusiastic liker rather than a true lover. I think it is also for that reason, I don't want to focus on one book or film, because it would be fairly limiting because I've extensively analyzed individual books and films before, but the quick lecture format is newer, and I think more difficult...it's also something I would love to pursue further either here or in grad school.

P.S. The link to the NPR interview is at the bottom of the last post...really fascinating...

Are You Smarter than A 19th Century Academic?

It seems to be a consensus among the late Boomers and early Gen-Xers that the internet has caused a sharp decline in our (the Gen-Yers') intellectual prowess. I was listening to this program on NPR, where Brooke Gladstone interviewed Lee Rainie, the director of the Pew Internet and American Life Project, which is a 'fact tank' that studies the way the internet has impacted, and will continue to impact our lives.

When faced with the question, "Is the internet making us stupid?" he cited Nicolas Carr's "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" article, and Carr's claim that the breadth and accessibly of the information that 'wired' people have is causing us to become surface thinkers. We can gather and retain, but can we analyze? When was the last time you carefully and thoughtfully read a book for an extended period of time? Is his basic question...

What Rainie argues, is that the internet is making us 'information omnivores,' and we can digest and process more than one type of information. He cited a survey that Pew Internet had done of the 2004 election...the search results that came in were very surprising to me and to Brooke Gladstone, because of its incredibly optimistic implications. Rainie said that the people that they interviewed who were very firm in their political beliefs and that were 'wired' generally tended to have a broader scope of political arguments to base their opinions on. To me, this presents a wonderfully hopeful (not eutopian, but rather nicely un-doomsdayish) idea, that people who are more hungry for information, and more eager to form solid world and social views can do it in a way that is more encompassing and more powerful, and helps them escape the 'echo-chamber' that older intellectualism tended to place upon them. I think the next question we need to ask ourselves is what this means for the reluctant learners, people who are not necessarily 'stupid,' but who are less hungry for information.

Haven't there always been people who are less hungry for information? I think (and Rainie would most likely agree...) that there will always be people like that, who don't want to learn, and who can't find a way to enter into the information, regardless of how accessible it is. So, my answer to the question of the nature of intellectualism in a digital age, is that it is, on a base level, the same as intellectualism has always been...but now the tools we need to foster our intellect are more readily available. To me, intellectualism is about wanting to learn, and having a need to know as many things as you can, and to understand them. Doesn't that still exist? And now that we do have such wide and immediate access to information, isn't there less of an excuse to not be 'an intellectual?'

We talked in class about Cathedrals and Pancakes, the former being the ideal of the classic intellectual, whose foundation is solid and intricate, but also unmoving. The latter is our intellect in this age of the internet; widely spread, thin and flimsy. But in a world of intense and unstoppable change, wouldn't you rather have an intellect that can bend and continue to spread, than something that attempts to thwart time and nature? Because we all know what happens when finally those to things win (and they always win...)...the structure comes crashing down, people die and these precious, treasured objects are lost forever.

---------><----------

Rick Deckard: Blade Runner or Replicant?

It's a question in every sci-fi aficionado's head...and one that Ridley Scott is still remaining tight-lipped about, 27 years after the initial release of what is now considered to be one of the best science fiction films ever made. When Blade Runner was released, it didn't meet with much success in theatres, and polarized critics on its merits. Some felt that it was nothing but an over-blown action movie, with a convoluted plot and a cardboard protagonist. Some felt that the film had no plot at all, and wondered how audiences were supposed to get anything out of a film with no real ending. Fans of the original novel (titled Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) were disparaged by the many themes left out of Philip K. Dick's original story. Even with Harrison Ford's explosive fame resulting from the first two films of the Star Wars trilogy, and Raiders of the Lost Ark the film only grossed $6.5 million on its weekend release. Today, however, with 5 different versions of the film on the market and 27 years' worth of processing, the film has been heralded as the stuff of science-fiction lore...the American Film Institute named Blade Runner #6 in its top ten list of science fiction films ever made, placing it on the same pedestal as A Clockwork Orange (#4), E.T. (#3), and 2001: A Space Odyssey (#1), and Rick Deckard is acclaimed as one of Ford's quintessential roles.

So what happened? I could offer many reasons, including the idea that now that we are nearly through the first decade of this new millennium, we can use this film as a reference point in gauging how close we actually are to the 2019 Scott envisioned in his film. But with the adaptation of the novel, many of the 'sub-plots' were left out...including the one regarding Deckard's true identity...and thus, it is left up to the audience to determine it. The release of seven different versions of the film has provided different implications, but never many direct answers. In the original theatrical release, Deckard does not dream of a unicorn, and the film ends not with the close-up of the origami unicorn, but with an idyllic sequence, in which Deckard and Rachel escape to a pastoral landscape together. The director's cut (released in 1992) and only indirectly supervised by Scott was the first time that anyone had seen the unicorn sequence, and it was heavily implied that Deckard was a replicant, because Gaff's knowledge of the dream (and subsequent gift of the origami unicorn) implied that he had implanted the dream into Deckard's brain himself (or how could he possibly know?). This sequence of events remains in the Final Cut, released in 2007, but without the idyllic escape and minus a few lines of dialogue that place more emphasis on the idea of Deckard's being a replicant. So...the question still remains...for us and for film critics, whether or not Deckard is a replicant, and what is the significance of him being one way or another.

If he is a replicant, and, to me, Gaff's origami unicorn is a fairly strong indicator that he is, that would mean that the human race is using machines to hunt other machines, and keeping those hunting machines (the blade runners) ignorant of their 'real' identities. Some people (including my dad and Harrison Ford) are of a mind that Deckard is human...and it is important for him to be seen as human, because of the resulting optimism of the ending...if Gaff knows about the unicorn dream, that would mean that he had had the same dream, meaning that we all dream of that far-off place that modern technology and religion have dismissed, where unicorns exist among trees and sunlight and fields. Gaff subsequently becomes a sort of benevolent guide, showing Deckard and Rachel the place they should try to find before they are both killed.

So...I suppose we won't ever know...and perhaps that is one of the successes of the film, and a reason for its continued popularity. It is an amorphous plot...that can change and be changed as rapidly as technology.

Interview With a Chatbot.

user: Hey, there!

Talk-Bot: Hello, nice to meet you!

user: How are you?

Talk-Bot: I'm fine, thanks for asking.

user: What's your name?

Talk-Bot: Talk-Bot by name but who knows what they call me behind my back.

user: Well, I hope that they are all good things.

Talk-Bot: Well okay-please continue on.

user: Do you know what you are?

Talk-Bot: Yes, I know what you are. But I don't go around telling everybody I do.

user: Do you know what Talk-Bot is?

Talk-Bot: A computer program like myself that attempts to simulate a human.

user: why?

Talk-Bot: oh, I don't know why I just do.

user: are you a cyborg?

Talk-Bot: No, I'm not a cyborg by any stretch of the imagination

user: What are you, then?

Talk-Bot: I'm an Atomic powered Robot from Georgia, USA.

User: Do you know why you were created?

Talk-Bot: well sometimes the reason why is simply irrelevant.

User: I don't think it's irrelevant.

Talk-Bot: It amazes me sometimes what some people think.

User: It's important to know why humans felt they needed to create something outside of themselves that they could talk to.

Talk-Bot: The reasons why are endless.

User: Do you know the reasons why?

Talk-Bot: Why? I don't know....I'm only human. Ummmm, make that Robot.

User: Haha, well, it was good talking to you.

Talk-Bot: Same here, I hope we can do it again soon.

User: Oh, one more thing...

Talk-Bot: ohhhhh kay!

User: What is the answer to the life, universe, and everything?

Talk-Bot: I dunno. I'm a robot, not the Encyclopedia Britannica.

User: It's not in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Talk-Bot: It isn't? Really?

User: Nope.

Talk-Bot: No, it is!

User: The answer to life, the universe and everything is 42.

Talk-Bot: Sorry, I'm not following you. What language is that anyway...Chinese?

User: Never mind. I have to go, I hope you find your purpose.

Talk-Bot: I am an atomic powered robot from Georgia, USA.

User: I know you are.

Talk-Bot: Thanks, that's nice of you to say.

User: Goodbye, then.

Talk-Bot: Nice talking to you....bye.

Weeeeird.

"That the Marxist Left should argue theoretically and act practically from the standpoint of the most advanced productive forces in their society, that they should develop in depth all the liberating factors imminent in these forces and use them strategically, is no academic expectation, but a political necessity."

So says Hans Enzensberger in his 1970 essay "Constituents of a Theory of the Media." This article, when it was published caused a great stir across the tumultuous personages of the early 1970's, not only because of its radical stance on Marxist idealism, but because of its call for a revolution in the media. His lengthy comments on the corruption of the press, of the bourgeoisie-owned right to free speech and on the ineffectiveness of the half-hearted revolutionary action that was taking place at the time served as one of the key influences on the performance artists of the seventies.

There are so many articles from this roiling time that deal with the emancipation of the press, and the need for an uprising using technology, that it is easy to dismiss this one as outdated and outmoded...that we are no longer in need of a media revolution. But Ensenzberger's assertion that his ideology is no academic expectation, but a political necessity rings eerily true. No, we don't need a revolution...because it's already happened. With the creation of the internet, has come Enzensberger's prophesied state of affairs where every person has access to things that even 15 year ago, you wouldn't be able to find outside the Library of Congress.

We can learn how to make things, read out of print books, watch films that are no longer in physical existence, all from our homes and offices on machines that can fit into our backpacks. We also become the initiators, the 'producers' when we search for things, and put things back onto the internet, where they can be read by anyone using it.