On February 22nd, 2017, the Scientific Journal, Nature, published a report first received in November 2016 detailing the discovery of 7 Earth-like planets in orbit around an ultra-cool dward star. The star, TRAPPIST-1 is approximately 39 light-years away. This discovery and the possibility that one or more of these planets is both within the habitable region we know of, and reasonably expected to contain water, the possibility of life residing on these planets has led me to contemplate life on our own planet.
TRAPPIST-1 is approximately 39 light-years away, let's round that up to 40 for the sake of simplicity for this post. Radio waves, and TV broadcasts are both a form of electromagnetic radiation, and travel at the speed of light. So, any signal we broadcast today, would reach their star in 40 years time. Technology behind the development of Television began in the 1920s, but it wasn't until 1936 when the BBC began the first regular broadcast service. If we take this as the first broadcast that can reasonably be expected to reach TRAPPIST-1, it would have arrived in 1976, and, if a reply were sent immediately, that reply would arrive on Earth in 2016. Assuming any contact made with an alien race would be a matter of public knowledge, and not covered up as is the case in most conspiracy theories, then we can reasonably assume no contact has been made.
This all presupposes that a number of things are true:
- That one or more planets in orbit around TRAPPIST-1 have life
- That life on these planets is technologically advanced
- That they are both capable of receiving, and sending signals of this nature
Let's just suppose for now that these are all true, the fact we have had no contact can tell us that they have either not yet noticed any of our signals, or, they have noticed but chose not to reply. So, the latter begs the question, what have they actually received. When you think of the year 1936 and what was happening in the world at the time, there begins to raise a concern about what impression of humanity any alien race would actually get. From 1976 in our time, they would have begun receiving broadcasts from Earth in 1936 onward. If they chose not to reply, and chose to document what they received since, then for the last 41 years they have been receiving among other things, news reports of our history from 1936 to 1976.
A lot of things happened on Earth during that time period. While some of us would like to say that time does not accurately depict the world as it is today, that assertion is becoming harder to justify. The same rhetoric and toxicity of politics from World War 2 is alive and well. The actions of the Nazis in World War 2 are now being echoed by Donald Trump. Going further the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were moments most people hoped would never be repeated, but with a President who repeatedly asked "if we have nukes why can't we use them" that possibility is no longer one reserved for tinfoil hat wearing crackpots, it's a very real possibility once again that credible voices now call into question.
We can't take back the broadcasts that have already been sent, but the world we live in today is not just a world that is for our eyes only. If there is life out there, everything we do and cover through mass media is being sent out into the cosmos. With the Universe being infinite, the possibility of life existing elsewhere is a mathematical certainty. When you look at the state of this planet and what is happening to our world, and you look at what humanity has done, in spite of its achievements, the question remains. What sort of message are we sending? To any alien race receiving our broadcasts and looking at us, what would they think? Are we a race that you would actually want to meet? Is the reason behind the fact we have never encountered intelligent life beyond Earth simply that? - that the reason it hasn't ventured near us is because it knows better. It is intelligent enough to know that we are not yet ready, that we can't even treat one another with decency and respect, so it's unreasonable to expect us to treat any other race as such.
An unusual Trump poll
I like to play BuzzFeed quizzes from time to time. I play them for their entertainment factor and the time wasting element. I tend not to take the results of them seriously. Whilst I find quizzes fun, and find some interesting to gauge my knowledge, like 'Can you name these middle eastern foods?' (which I got 7 out of 13 on if you're wondering) and 'Which Sherlock character are you?' (I got Lestrade) the ones I find most interesting are the quizzes that are made up of polls. These tend to have no right and wrong answer they simply let you vote and you see what others voted for too.
I recently did one of these quizzes, 'Are you actually terrible at making decisions?' the format for which, was a series of questions where you have triangles of three choices and you can only have two of them, so you are asked to pick one to remove. It's not often these polls actually give me something to stop and think about but the 10th item on this list did. The statement is, you must eliminate one of these three friendship qualities: being non-judgemental, being fun to be around, or being trustworthy. The poll stays open so by the time you play it if you choose to the results will have changed.
The results when I played it were: 71% for being non-judgemental with 163K votes, 22% for being fun with 49K votes, and 7% for being trustworthy with 16K votes. This genuinely surprised me. Personally I would choose to eliminate the requirement that people are fun to be around in order to ensure they are trustworthy and non-judgemental. I find it quite surprising that 71% of people are willing to be around others who are judgemental just so they will be fun and trustworthy. That to me is incredible that almost three quarters of the people who voted are willing to potentially surround themselves with negativity. 71% of people are willing to consciously choose to subject themselves to negativity just to ensure they are with someone is fun and trustworthy.
I stopped and thought about this for some time and tried to comprehend why people would be willing to choose that option and I have a theory. I don't know if it has any weight but it's a theory nonetheless. I believe this means the majority of people are afraid of living a boring life, they are consumed with the idea of having as much fun as possible even if that means putting themselves into negative environments to do it.
Of the three qualities that were stated, two are binary, and one is a scale. The binary options are Non-judgemental and Trustworthy.
- If you eliminate people who are non-judgemental, then those who are left are those who are judgemental.
- If you eliminate people who are trustworthy, then those who are left are those who are not trustworthy
- If you eliminate people who are fun to be around, then those who are left are those who are not fun to be around - that doesn't mean they are a nightmare, just means they're not fun. That's a scale.
So, 71% of people are willing to be around judgemental people who are fun to be around and who are trustworthy - essentially Cady being in with the plastics before she lost their trust in Mean Girls, than be Cady at the end of Mean Girls when she was around friends she trusted, who weren't judgemental, but weren't necessarily fun.
The only thing I can say to that is just like Cady, when you're around judgemental people and you lose their trust your life will be a whole lot worse than if you were around non-judgemental people and lost theirs. You're essentially choosing between antagonists and pacifists and making the conscious choice to be with antagonists - which I guess in a way pretty much sums up the entire reason Donald Trump was elected, because people who actually like him actually think they can trust him and find it funny that he winds everyone else up, they don't care that he's judgemental and critical of so many people and openly mocks them.
I recently did one of these quizzes, 'Are you actually terrible at making decisions?' the format for which, was a series of questions where you have triangles of three choices and you can only have two of them, so you are asked to pick one to remove. It's not often these polls actually give me something to stop and think about but the 10th item on this list did. The statement is, you must eliminate one of these three friendship qualities: being non-judgemental, being fun to be around, or being trustworthy. The poll stays open so by the time you play it if you choose to the results will have changed.
The results when I played it were: 71% for being non-judgemental with 163K votes, 22% for being fun with 49K votes, and 7% for being trustworthy with 16K votes. This genuinely surprised me. Personally I would choose to eliminate the requirement that people are fun to be around in order to ensure they are trustworthy and non-judgemental. I find it quite surprising that 71% of people are willing to be around others who are judgemental just so they will be fun and trustworthy. That to me is incredible that almost three quarters of the people who voted are willing to potentially surround themselves with negativity. 71% of people are willing to consciously choose to subject themselves to negativity just to ensure they are with someone is fun and trustworthy.
I stopped and thought about this for some time and tried to comprehend why people would be willing to choose that option and I have a theory. I don't know if it has any weight but it's a theory nonetheless. I believe this means the majority of people are afraid of living a boring life, they are consumed with the idea of having as much fun as possible even if that means putting themselves into negative environments to do it.
Of the three qualities that were stated, two are binary, and one is a scale. The binary options are Non-judgemental and Trustworthy.
- If you eliminate people who are non-judgemental, then those who are left are those who are judgemental.
- If you eliminate people who are trustworthy, then those who are left are those who are not trustworthy
- If you eliminate people who are fun to be around, then those who are left are those who are not fun to be around - that doesn't mean they are a nightmare, just means they're not fun. That's a scale.
So, 71% of people are willing to be around judgemental people who are fun to be around and who are trustworthy - essentially Cady being in with the plastics before she lost their trust in Mean Girls, than be Cady at the end of Mean Girls when she was around friends she trusted, who weren't judgemental, but weren't necessarily fun.
The only thing I can say to that is just like Cady, when you're around judgemental people and you lose their trust your life will be a whole lot worse than if you were around non-judgemental people and lost theirs. You're essentially choosing between antagonists and pacifists and making the conscious choice to be with antagonists - which I guess in a way pretty much sums up the entire reason Donald Trump was elected, because people who actually like him actually think they can trust him and find it funny that he winds everyone else up, they don't care that he's judgemental and critical of so many people and openly mocks them.
Reciprocation
Someone once said "Be kind to others, you never know what they are going through"; this is something that I think is admirable, but not always practical. I think the more practical approach to this is to stop and think about your own behaviour, specifically when you have your own struggles. When you have insecurities, one of the hardest things to overcome is the thought, "If they don't say it, then they don't think it", the kick of that comes in the fact it's toxicity coming from your own thoughts and if you have any fear of confrontation, that can stop you saying it to others. The end result here is someone doing something that bothers you, namely that they don't do what you hope they will, yet they are likely oblivious to the fact it bothers you, which leaves you suffering in silence because you can't tell them. What would make it all better is for them to do what you expect, but they can't know that because they're oblivious.
This all comes down to a simple concept that most people develop at a very young age, that is the concept of private thought. There is a psychological test to determine when a child becomes aware of this. The test involves a simple story and a question:
A child is told: "There are two children, Adriana, and Bernadette, and two boxes a red box, and a blue box. Adriana is given a cookie, she places it in the blue box. Bernadette is then told to leave the room. Adriana then moves the cookie to the red box, and leaves the room too. Bernadette comes back into the room and is told to get the cookie."
The child is asked: "Which box will Bernadette look in first?"
If the child answers the blue box, then they understand the concept of private thought, they understand that Adriana knows the cookie moved, but Bernadette doesn't, because she wasn't there to witness it being moved.
If the child answers the red box, then it is likely they have not yet developed the concept of private thought, they think Bernadette knows the cookie moved because Adriana knows it moved. They can't comprehend that they both have separate experiences.
Now this isn't a foolproof experiment and it's not meant to provide a definitive answer to whether a child has developed this concept, it is only intended to give an indication.
The concept of private thought is something we develop naturally, but for many of us there can be a latent tendency to insist that others must know what we know, even if there's no indication at all that they should. This can cause many conflicts when we expect people to behave in certain ways and they do not; the fact they do not can be infuriating, or frustrating. Basic social interactions like reciprocating pleasantries, "Hi how are you", "I am good, how are you?", "I am good thanks" can become such basic behaviours to us that the failure of others to show any reciprocation can leave us feeling like they are rude. The thought that they may not be used to asking back never crosses our mind, even when it is presented to us we retort with anger "That's stupid, it's common courtesy" - to you, maybe, to others that's not a guarantee, moreover the expectation that failure to do it would cause upset or alter the mood will never cross their mind if they don't expect to have to reciprocate in the first place.
You can develop many theories as to why some people find this natural and others do not, the nature versus nurture debate can come into play, indeed I have seen the argument that anyone who was an only child will be less likely to reciprocate because they weren't conditioned to when growing up, or the class vs privilege debate which argues those of a higher class are more likely to reciprocate out of etiquette, and those of a lower yet still privileged class will tend not to reciprocate, with those in the lowest class with little or no privilege will be likely to reciprocate out of preconditioned perceived equality and traditional concepts of manners. Personally I don't think any of these actually explain why some people do and don't, if I was to even try I would use introversion versus extroversion but even at that I could argue a case why both would and both wouldn't so I don't think you can really predict this behaviour until you know more about someone.
The bottom line here is that these conflicts whilst they are perceived as being the fault of the other person, are ultimately dependent on our own perceptions of behaviour and our own expectations - not those of the other person. I think this divides people into those who are self centred, and those who are other-centred and those who are considerate of others. The questions that still intrigues me is whether this is learned behaviour or not, and whether you can make someone go from one to the other.
This all comes down to a simple concept that most people develop at a very young age, that is the concept of private thought. There is a psychological test to determine when a child becomes aware of this. The test involves a simple story and a question:
A child is told: "There are two children, Adriana, and Bernadette, and two boxes a red box, and a blue box. Adriana is given a cookie, she places it in the blue box. Bernadette is then told to leave the room. Adriana then moves the cookie to the red box, and leaves the room too. Bernadette comes back into the room and is told to get the cookie."
The child is asked: "Which box will Bernadette look in first?"
If the child answers the blue box, then they understand the concept of private thought, they understand that Adriana knows the cookie moved, but Bernadette doesn't, because she wasn't there to witness it being moved.
If the child answers the red box, then it is likely they have not yet developed the concept of private thought, they think Bernadette knows the cookie moved because Adriana knows it moved. They can't comprehend that they both have separate experiences.
Now this isn't a foolproof experiment and it's not meant to provide a definitive answer to whether a child has developed this concept, it is only intended to give an indication.
The concept of private thought is something we develop naturally, but for many of us there can be a latent tendency to insist that others must know what we know, even if there's no indication at all that they should. This can cause many conflicts when we expect people to behave in certain ways and they do not; the fact they do not can be infuriating, or frustrating. Basic social interactions like reciprocating pleasantries, "Hi how are you", "I am good, how are you?", "I am good thanks" can become such basic behaviours to us that the failure of others to show any reciprocation can leave us feeling like they are rude. The thought that they may not be used to asking back never crosses our mind, even when it is presented to us we retort with anger "That's stupid, it's common courtesy" - to you, maybe, to others that's not a guarantee, moreover the expectation that failure to do it would cause upset or alter the mood will never cross their mind if they don't expect to have to reciprocate in the first place.
You can develop many theories as to why some people find this natural and others do not, the nature versus nurture debate can come into play, indeed I have seen the argument that anyone who was an only child will be less likely to reciprocate because they weren't conditioned to when growing up, or the class vs privilege debate which argues those of a higher class are more likely to reciprocate out of etiquette, and those of a lower yet still privileged class will tend not to reciprocate, with those in the lowest class with little or no privilege will be likely to reciprocate out of preconditioned perceived equality and traditional concepts of manners. Personally I don't think any of these actually explain why some people do and don't, if I was to even try I would use introversion versus extroversion but even at that I could argue a case why both would and both wouldn't so I don't think you can really predict this behaviour until you know more about someone.
The bottom line here is that these conflicts whilst they are perceived as being the fault of the other person, are ultimately dependent on our own perceptions of behaviour and our own expectations - not those of the other person. I think this divides people into those who are self centred, and those who are other-centred and those who are considerate of others. The questions that still intrigues me is whether this is learned behaviour or not, and whether you can make someone go from one to the other.
LGBT Movies
In my previous post I mentioned how I had only experienced Rent for the first time at the end of last year, and mentioned the backlash I would get from some within the LGBT community for saying so. This is something I find fascinating about the LGBT community, that, beyond the fact that it is bound by sexuality there is an entire culture attached to it, which there is an expectation to explore. This is something which I feel is encouraged quite assertively by the community to the point where those who are new to it often end up with a reading list or a watch list with books, movies, and TV shows they're expected to go and consume.
In the UK the first few examples of this that I came across were centred around LGBT themed movies. I don't mean Hollywood productions like Brokeback Mountain - a movie which for the record I hated because it was promoted heavily as an LGBT movie yet I felt it wasn't aimed at LGBT people at all - that was a movie for straight people really. No I mean Indie movies from decades passed and more recently from studios like TLA Releasing who focus on LGBT themed productions.
Some of these movies are good, some are okay, and some are really crap. Regardless they are part of a culture that you're expected to explore and form opinions of as an LGBT person and hold as points of reference. To an extent the same applies to music produced by any artist regarded as a Gay Icon, and in recent years it has also extended to productions made by LGBT-centric networks. The latter gives rise to shows like RuPaul's Drag Race which if you're an LGBT person who has never seen it will typically elicit a jaw drop from most people part of "the scene" with some expression of bewilderment and possible expletives.
Whilst having a culture centred around a community is not a bad thing, there has to be a question of whether someone actually wants to be part of that culture just because they are "eligible" to be a member of that community. By that I mean there has to be a certain level of awareness that LGBT people are not all the same. You will find LGBT people who love a particular singer who has never been considered a gay icon, and who might not like the singers that are. For a culture that once used the word Queer in reclamation to express pride in diversity and difference, it does at times seem overly enthusiastic with the concept of conformity. "I have to wear black to be non-conformist, all non-conformists wear black"
I ran a blog at one point, now deleted, which had a series of reviews of LGBT themed movies. Those reviews were written when I was younger and I was journeying through this world that was new to me. The reason I stopped writing reviews for it was because at a certain point it really did feel like "if you've seen one you've seen them all" - LGBT themed movies seemed to rehash the same story over and over with different characters, different settings, but same story. Either perpetually feeling lonely then finding the one, or a coming out story, or not feeling part of the ether, disillusioned with life. These movies often lacked the diversity that they were supposed to show because mainstream media would not.
Ironically as mainstream media started to embrace LGBT characters and start showing them in a wider range of settings and environments, some within the LGBT community protested this as assimilation. That LGBT culture was being destroyed by attempts to remove focus from the fact someone is LGBT and place them in a role where that aspect of their life would feature to a minor extent but beyond that the character was "normal" - I hate that word but it's the only word I can think of to describe this mentality.
The middle-ground I would like to see here is for both to grow in tandem but it seems as one grows the other shrinks. What once inspired me, watching LGBT themed movies depicting LGBT characters' lives now bores me as it becomes generic. Some of the LGBT movies which were the most outstanding for me ended up being serialised, for some, sequels were written, some became trilogies. One in particular annoyed me, called Bear City, which depicted an LGBT love story that centred around the Bear community and the idea that you don't have to be a twink to find love if you are gay - this promoted a very positive message but not content with letting the work stand on its own, it was made into a trilogy and to be quite blunt the second and third instalment were shit. Which made me feel like the only reason it was extended into a trilogy was not to spread a message but to cash in on the modest success of the first movie.
This is the problem I have with the direction LGBT movies are moving - they're not movies made to represent the LGBT community they are movies made for the LGBT community to consume. It's not about community it's about commerce. It's not done out of necessity through Indie studios because mainstream media won't produce it, instead it's done to specifically market a production to the LGBT community. This is essentially equivalent to a small forum online centred around a community moving from a place for people to engage, to being one loaded with advertisements directed at the members interests. We are no longer a community to this industry we are a commodity.
In the UK the first few examples of this that I came across were centred around LGBT themed movies. I don't mean Hollywood productions like Brokeback Mountain - a movie which for the record I hated because it was promoted heavily as an LGBT movie yet I felt it wasn't aimed at LGBT people at all - that was a movie for straight people really. No I mean Indie movies from decades passed and more recently from studios like TLA Releasing who focus on LGBT themed productions.
Some of these movies are good, some are okay, and some are really crap. Regardless they are part of a culture that you're expected to explore and form opinions of as an LGBT person and hold as points of reference. To an extent the same applies to music produced by any artist regarded as a Gay Icon, and in recent years it has also extended to productions made by LGBT-centric networks. The latter gives rise to shows like RuPaul's Drag Race which if you're an LGBT person who has never seen it will typically elicit a jaw drop from most people part of "the scene" with some expression of bewilderment and possible expletives.
Whilst having a culture centred around a community is not a bad thing, there has to be a question of whether someone actually wants to be part of that culture just because they are "eligible" to be a member of that community. By that I mean there has to be a certain level of awareness that LGBT people are not all the same. You will find LGBT people who love a particular singer who has never been considered a gay icon, and who might not like the singers that are. For a culture that once used the word Queer in reclamation to express pride in diversity and difference, it does at times seem overly enthusiastic with the concept of conformity. "I have to wear black to be non-conformist, all non-conformists wear black"
I ran a blog at one point, now deleted, which had a series of reviews of LGBT themed movies. Those reviews were written when I was younger and I was journeying through this world that was new to me. The reason I stopped writing reviews for it was because at a certain point it really did feel like "if you've seen one you've seen them all" - LGBT themed movies seemed to rehash the same story over and over with different characters, different settings, but same story. Either perpetually feeling lonely then finding the one, or a coming out story, or not feeling part of the ether, disillusioned with life. These movies often lacked the diversity that they were supposed to show because mainstream media would not.
Ironically as mainstream media started to embrace LGBT characters and start showing them in a wider range of settings and environments, some within the LGBT community protested this as assimilation. That LGBT culture was being destroyed by attempts to remove focus from the fact someone is LGBT and place them in a role where that aspect of their life would feature to a minor extent but beyond that the character was "normal" - I hate that word but it's the only word I can think of to describe this mentality.
The middle-ground I would like to see here is for both to grow in tandem but it seems as one grows the other shrinks. What once inspired me, watching LGBT themed movies depicting LGBT characters' lives now bores me as it becomes generic. Some of the LGBT movies which were the most outstanding for me ended up being serialised, for some, sequels were written, some became trilogies. One in particular annoyed me, called Bear City, which depicted an LGBT love story that centred around the Bear community and the idea that you don't have to be a twink to find love if you are gay - this promoted a very positive message but not content with letting the work stand on its own, it was made into a trilogy and to be quite blunt the second and third instalment were shit. Which made me feel like the only reason it was extended into a trilogy was not to spread a message but to cash in on the modest success of the first movie.
This is the problem I have with the direction LGBT movies are moving - they're not movies made to represent the LGBT community they are movies made for the LGBT community to consume. It's not about community it's about commerce. It's not done out of necessity through Indie studios because mainstream media won't produce it, instead it's done to specifically market a production to the LGBT community. This is essentially equivalent to a small forum online centred around a community moving from a place for people to engage, to being one loaded with advertisements directed at the members interests. We are no longer a community to this industry we are a commodity.
Measured With Love
I had never seen the musical Rent, nor the movie adaptation until the end of last year. I know some people will decry me for that, particularly as a gay man - which is a topic for a post in and of itself so we'll cover that later. I watched the movie adaptation as that's the only option open to me at the moment although I would not mind seeing it on stage as I rather enjoyed it. One musical number posed the question of how you measure a year, which made me think about how we measure life; I've thought about this many times but one thing the number suggested is to measure a year in love. So this post is my attempt to measure my own life in terms of love.
Before romantic love, and before platonic love from friends, the first love I experienced like most people was love from my family. My parents care for me deeply and have tried to do the best they could by me. As a kid I was blissfully unaware of the sacrifices they made for me, but as I look back on all they did I am grateful for every single one and I know how lucky I am. My parents are still together, they've been happily married for 34 years. Their relationship was and still is a model that I aspire to find one day - except with a guy of course. They were each never married to anyone else, they met when they were young and they've spent their lives together. I want to get married some day, and when I do I won't do it unless there is no shadow of a doubt in my mind that they are the one I want to spend the rest of my life with. I want marriage to be a commitment to one another, treating each other as equals, with love and respect.
That desire to treat others with respect and to treat them as equal is something that stayed with me through my life. It is I believe what has led me to form lasting friendships. My oldest friend I met when I was 5 years old, I'm now 28, and we are very different people. Despite our differences we've always been friends and I can't imagine anything that would ever change that. I don't hold on to friendships that I don't see as being respectful or as being reciprocated. In terms of the latter I simply mean that I must feel like you want me to be part of your life, if I don't feel that you do, I'm not going to make you stay in mine. I don't indulge in false platitudes, insincere compliments, and lip service. "We should hang our sometime" are words that will never cross my lips unless it's actually meant, even then I'm likely to be more direct and ask you to do something or go somewhere. My reluctance to indulge in these is something that some people say makes me socially awkward, and I used to find that unnerving but with age I've come to accept and openly admit that yes, it is. People that know me well, know what to expect from me, and those that want to know me better, should understand I appreciate directness. You don't need to beat around the bush with me.
The depth of love I hold for my friends and they hold for me is borne of a bond formed by the comfort and the reassurance that you don't have to pretend to be something you're not. I value honesty and openness, and think the strongest relationships are formed when communication is clear and unambiguous. If you want to be left alone you can say it. If you don't want to go out and would rather stay in and binge on a series with pizza and drinks then say that - if anything I'd prefer the latter.
When it comes to romantic love there have been a fair few unrequited loves but in terms of meeting someone who I loved in that way and who loved me in that way? That's not happened for me. To be clear I mean an actual committed relationship with someone I've actually spent time with for any extended period. I still have hope of course, but I also have patience. I'd rather wait than take a relationship of convenience where one or the other, or both, know that it won't last - to me that's not a foundation for a healthy relationship.
Before romantic love, and before platonic love from friends, the first love I experienced like most people was love from my family. My parents care for me deeply and have tried to do the best they could by me. As a kid I was blissfully unaware of the sacrifices they made for me, but as I look back on all they did I am grateful for every single one and I know how lucky I am. My parents are still together, they've been happily married for 34 years. Their relationship was and still is a model that I aspire to find one day - except with a guy of course. They were each never married to anyone else, they met when they were young and they've spent their lives together. I want to get married some day, and when I do I won't do it unless there is no shadow of a doubt in my mind that they are the one I want to spend the rest of my life with. I want marriage to be a commitment to one another, treating each other as equals, with love and respect.
That desire to treat others with respect and to treat them as equal is something that stayed with me through my life. It is I believe what has led me to form lasting friendships. My oldest friend I met when I was 5 years old, I'm now 28, and we are very different people. Despite our differences we've always been friends and I can't imagine anything that would ever change that. I don't hold on to friendships that I don't see as being respectful or as being reciprocated. In terms of the latter I simply mean that I must feel like you want me to be part of your life, if I don't feel that you do, I'm not going to make you stay in mine. I don't indulge in false platitudes, insincere compliments, and lip service. "We should hang our sometime" are words that will never cross my lips unless it's actually meant, even then I'm likely to be more direct and ask you to do something or go somewhere. My reluctance to indulge in these is something that some people say makes me socially awkward, and I used to find that unnerving but with age I've come to accept and openly admit that yes, it is. People that know me well, know what to expect from me, and those that want to know me better, should understand I appreciate directness. You don't need to beat around the bush with me.
The depth of love I hold for my friends and they hold for me is borne of a bond formed by the comfort and the reassurance that you don't have to pretend to be something you're not. I value honesty and openness, and think the strongest relationships are formed when communication is clear and unambiguous. If you want to be left alone you can say it. If you don't want to go out and would rather stay in and binge on a series with pizza and drinks then say that - if anything I'd prefer the latter.
When it comes to romantic love there have been a fair few unrequited loves but in terms of meeting someone who I loved in that way and who loved me in that way? That's not happened for me. To be clear I mean an actual committed relationship with someone I've actually spent time with for any extended period. I still have hope of course, but I also have patience. I'd rather wait than take a relationship of convenience where one or the other, or both, know that it won't last - to me that's not a foundation for a healthy relationship.
Too Real, Too Fake
In a previous post I wrote about the fantasy worlds of TV shows, Books, and Movies, that we like to immerse ourselves within. While the idea of getting lost in a fantasy world and forgetting the real one can be appealing at times, it can be difficult to suspend belief and go along with things that just aren't possible. When I first read The Da Vinci Code, I loved the story and the mixture of reality and fiction. Now I know some people will argue about that last part but let's just skip over the debate for now and assume it's just meant to be fiction that is presented in a believable manner as most people would assume. The reason I liked the Da Vinci Code was because it told a story that mixed in elements of reality and made the fictional world that much more believable.
Later that same year I read another book by Dan Brown, this time Digital Fortress. I've mentioned before I found this book incredibly hard to read and I left it at many points, returning at a later date to finish the story out of determination to simply finish what I started. The vision you can imagine is not unlike Joe Fox in You've Got Mail played by Tom Hanks, sitting with a bottle of beer needing to get drunk in order to make it through Pride and Prejudice.
The reason Digital Fortress was so hard for me to progress through and finish was because the subject matter was centred around something I knew a lot about - Encryption. I wrote my thesis on Encryption and created an algorithm that provided greater security than the AES - this sounds more impressive than it actually is, with encryption it's relatively easy to extend algorithms for example increasing key length can increase computation time which provides marginal gains in security, this combined with other tweaks can scale existing algorithms in some cases indefinitely, limited only in practice by your computational hardware but not by the actual theory behind it.
When you know about a subject matter, or when you have even a basic understanding of it, those irreconcilable details in the story begin to stick out. Plot-holes appear to you which become harder to dismiss over time, or in some cases outright impossibilities are carried through the work that irritate like you like a thorn in your side.
I find this easier to ignore with TV shows more than books. As for Movies those depend entirely on the nature of the movie and whether it's intended to be realistic - animated movies are the easiest to accommodate impossibilities and inaccuracies. To give an example of a TV show where this sort of plot-hole nags at you if you spend too much time thinking about it, I would use Stargate. SG-1, Atlantis, or Universe, any of the three really as they all share a common element in how the stargates actually work.
Throughout the series you are told that gates rely on constellations to be used to represent points in space, and that a gate address is determined by 6 symbols representing a constellation which allow you to plot a point in 3D space and a seventh symbol to denote the point of origin. In order to input these symbols you use a pedestal with in essence a keyboard showing these symbols representing the constellations - this is called a dial-home-device [DHD]. We're told that in the Milky Way Galaxy every DHD contains 38 common symbols and a 39th symbol which varies from planet to planet used to denote the point of origin which changes from planet to planet.
The problem with this system is that it presents the idea that a constellation such as Orion will be the same throughout our entire galaxy. Except in reality it would not be. Orion would only look like "Orion" from Earth. What we see in the night sky is a two-dimensional observation of a three-dimensional space. When you leave Earth and travel to another point in our galaxy your view of the stars that make up Orion would change, to the point where it would look nothing like the constellation we know. There are of course ways to explain these irritations and plausible explanations that can at least give you something to hold onto each time you meet this plot-point.
Similarly you have problems in many sci-fi shows which depict alien races that arises from the question "Why does everyone speak English?" - something which is very unlikely to happen, and in practice is something that most sci-fi shows never make any attempt to address.
So the question is, exactly how believable do you have to make an unbelievable story for people to be able to ignore the plot-holes and run with the main story? As a writer this fascinates. When I write, I feel most liberated when I write in one of two styles - complete fantasy or completely believable. I find it hard to find the middle ground. With complete fantasy you know the reader has no expectation of reality at all, and with completely believable stories you can easily write and ask yourself as you progress "Would I believe this?"
Mixing the two is an art which I still practice and I hope I am improving upon; but I still find it easy to get bogged down in the details as I begin to question everything more and more - successively asking "How" or "Why" - unfortunately this often ends up killing a story if I can't think of an answer.
Later that same year I read another book by Dan Brown, this time Digital Fortress. I've mentioned before I found this book incredibly hard to read and I left it at many points, returning at a later date to finish the story out of determination to simply finish what I started. The vision you can imagine is not unlike Joe Fox in You've Got Mail played by Tom Hanks, sitting with a bottle of beer needing to get drunk in order to make it through Pride and Prejudice.
The reason Digital Fortress was so hard for me to progress through and finish was because the subject matter was centred around something I knew a lot about - Encryption. I wrote my thesis on Encryption and created an algorithm that provided greater security than the AES - this sounds more impressive than it actually is, with encryption it's relatively easy to extend algorithms for example increasing key length can increase computation time which provides marginal gains in security, this combined with other tweaks can scale existing algorithms in some cases indefinitely, limited only in practice by your computational hardware but not by the actual theory behind it.
When you know about a subject matter, or when you have even a basic understanding of it, those irreconcilable details in the story begin to stick out. Plot-holes appear to you which become harder to dismiss over time, or in some cases outright impossibilities are carried through the work that irritate like you like a thorn in your side.
I find this easier to ignore with TV shows more than books. As for Movies those depend entirely on the nature of the movie and whether it's intended to be realistic - animated movies are the easiest to accommodate impossibilities and inaccuracies. To give an example of a TV show where this sort of plot-hole nags at you if you spend too much time thinking about it, I would use Stargate. SG-1, Atlantis, or Universe, any of the three really as they all share a common element in how the stargates actually work.
Throughout the series you are told that gates rely on constellations to be used to represent points in space, and that a gate address is determined by 6 symbols representing a constellation which allow you to plot a point in 3D space and a seventh symbol to denote the point of origin. In order to input these symbols you use a pedestal with in essence a keyboard showing these symbols representing the constellations - this is called a dial-home-device [DHD]. We're told that in the Milky Way Galaxy every DHD contains 38 common symbols and a 39th symbol which varies from planet to planet used to denote the point of origin which changes from planet to planet.
The problem with this system is that it presents the idea that a constellation such as Orion will be the same throughout our entire galaxy. Except in reality it would not be. Orion would only look like "Orion" from Earth. What we see in the night sky is a two-dimensional observation of a three-dimensional space. When you leave Earth and travel to another point in our galaxy your view of the stars that make up Orion would change, to the point where it would look nothing like the constellation we know. There are of course ways to explain these irritations and plausible explanations that can at least give you something to hold onto each time you meet this plot-point.
Similarly you have problems in many sci-fi shows which depict alien races that arises from the question "Why does everyone speak English?" - something which is very unlikely to happen, and in practice is something that most sci-fi shows never make any attempt to address.
So the question is, exactly how believable do you have to make an unbelievable story for people to be able to ignore the plot-holes and run with the main story? As a writer this fascinates. When I write, I feel most liberated when I write in one of two styles - complete fantasy or completely believable. I find it hard to find the middle ground. With complete fantasy you know the reader has no expectation of reality at all, and with completely believable stories you can easily write and ask yourself as you progress "Would I believe this?"
Mixing the two is an art which I still practice and I hope I am improving upon; but I still find it easy to get bogged down in the details as I begin to question everything more and more - successively asking "How" or "Why" - unfortunately this often ends up killing a story if I can't think of an answer.
Morphean Shroud
This world has become so tired and weary
With darkened skies it is so dreary
The light of hope is dim these days
And weakens with everything he says
One by one all the things we loved
Are cast aside, first pushed then shoved
Opposition is weak and divided at hand
As they say divided we fall, United we stand
Those with power that wield it so brash
They will not stop until they crash
Yet those who have power they don't realise
They have plugged their ears and closed their eyes
We are driven apart by our actions
Into hostile tribes in warring factions
As darkness deepens those of us will scream
Whilst others drift off into a dream
Two worlds emerge one real one in slumber
People will die in an untold number
Until alarm bells finally ring too loud
And the dreamers lose their Morphean shroud
They'll see what they did when it's too late
They'll walk in a world still filled with hate
Focused squarely on them for what they did
When the world screamed for help the run and hid
Guilt will grip some who were naive
Who heard his lies and did believe
Whilst others will stand without any shame
And laugh as if, it was all a game
Choose on which side of history you stand
Keep your eyes open and your head above sand
See the results of your actions unfold
Do not wait until you grow old
See the crops that which you have sowed
And the damages caused to our ethereal road
You can still cut them down before it's too late
If you refuse to let him stand and dictate
With darkened skies it is so dreary
The light of hope is dim these days
And weakens with everything he says
One by one all the things we loved
Are cast aside, first pushed then shoved
Opposition is weak and divided at hand
As they say divided we fall, United we stand
Those with power that wield it so brash
They will not stop until they crash
Yet those who have power they don't realise
They have plugged their ears and closed their eyes
We are driven apart by our actions
Into hostile tribes in warring factions
As darkness deepens those of us will scream
Whilst others drift off into a dream
Two worlds emerge one real one in slumber
People will die in an untold number
Until alarm bells finally ring too loud
And the dreamers lose their Morphean shroud
They'll see what they did when it's too late
They'll walk in a world still filled with hate
Focused squarely on them for what they did
When the world screamed for help the run and hid
Guilt will grip some who were naive
Who heard his lies and did believe
Whilst others will stand without any shame
And laugh as if, it was all a game
Choose on which side of history you stand
Keep your eyes open and your head above sand
See the results of your actions unfold
Do not wait until you grow old
See the crops that which you have sowed
And the damages caused to our ethereal road
You can still cut them down before it's too late
If you refuse to let him stand and dictate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)