This may be old news to many of you, and for all intents and purposes it is last week's news, but it's been stewing away in the back of my head and I feel that even though it may be a little out of my depth to discuss, I want to say something on the matter anyway. So let's talk about King! For those of you who don't know, King are the developers behind Candy Crush, Pet Rescue, Bubble Witch and other such gaming classics that routinely clog up your Facebook notification page with invites from elderly relatives. Most of you are probably already turning your noses up thanks to the aggressive, friend sharing and micro-transaction based business model they've adopted, but oh no, that's not why I'm here. Afterall, they're far from the only ones guilty of this and that kind of business model only works as long as there are players there to throw money into the pot. No, I'm here because they have recently attempted to trademark the word 'Candy'. No, scratch that, not attempted, have succeed in trademarking the word Candy at least as far as the US trademark office and the European Trademark Agency is concerned.
Now I have to say I'm not really surprised, or even particularly annoyed, by this move. Oh, it's ridiculous, don't get me wrong, and so shady it may as well have been taken right out of the corporate play book of EA or Microsoft (at least, recently!) in terms of sleazily throwing your weight around. But I get it. I understand the desire to want to protect your product, even over-zealously, especially in the budding, still developing world of IOS and Facebook gaming. As long as we allow companies to make moves like this (and in this case, by 'we' I mean the trademark offices of the world) they will, and ultimately I take the rather optimistic stance that it'll sort itself out and common sense will come to rule in the end.
It's going to be a tough process getting there, and my heart goes out to those who get screwed over in the process, but as the indie developer interviewed in the gamezbo article noted - He also discovered that he can't use 'Memory' in his game title on IOS either. There's only going to be so many of these silly, suggestive trademarks that Apple can help large developers enforce before the IOS store becomes untenable for most smaller developers and they go elsewhere. This may not be a problem for the platform in the short term, but considering most of the big guns of casual game development rose up the ranks off the back of one big game that happened to catch fire with the public and became popular, what's going to happen when the big games on their devices get tired and stale and they've scared off the new blood to replace it?
I'd hope it wouldn't get to that point, and King would reign it in, but that confrontational title up there? It isn't up there for nothing. While the trademarking of Candy doesn't get under my skin another word that they've set their sights on trademarking has. That word is 'Saga', and not only that but they've already started to come down hard on developers daring to use it. The reason I find this far more repulsive and despicable than the trademarking of 'Candy' is at least, when it comes to that, I can see where they're coming from. Just typing 'candy' into the Google Play app store gets you this:
But saga? King's spokesperson makes the point that the word saga is integral to their branding, as it ties their products together, and something they need to protect even if it means going to draconian measures to do so but... I'm sorry. That's just a big pile of corporate BS and I, for one, am not buying into it. Nobody refers to Candy Crush as Candy Crush Saga outside of advertising and quite frankly, it sounds awkward and clunky when you do. There's a recent advertisement for the new features on Amazon's Kindle device, where the woman manning Kindles virtual help station admits to a 'Candy Crush Saga addiction' and that extra word there just sounds wrong. It takes away from the snappiness of the title, and feels tacked on and unnecessary because frankly, it is. It's why I chose not to include the 'Saga' on any of the titles I listed above, because the only one it suits is 'Pet Rescue Saga' and even then just plain old 'Pet Rescue' works as well, if not better. It's not what the people who play it refer to it as, and as an attempt to form some cohesive brand between their games it's as naked and transparent as they come. The only thing King's games have in common is they take gaming formulas that are old as dirt and put a new sheen and polish on them, beyond that their catalogue just reads like the back cover of one of those collections of '1001 PC Games!' you can pick up in any supermarket across the country.
But maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe there is some justification here I'm just not seeing. Maybe the saga at the end of King's games is not related to them seeing their game library as a whole as a saga, but that each individual game is a saga in it's own right. Okay, let's break out the Oxford English dictionary and grab some definitions;
Saga
Noun
a long story of heroic achievement, especially a medieval prose narrative in Old Norse or Old Icelandic:a figure straight out of a Viking saga
Okay, a complete strike out on that one. Let's try another!
a long, involved story, account, or series of incidents:launching into the saga of her engagement
I suppose one could argue that King's games are indeed a long series of incidents, but you're floundering in pretty shallow water there. Especially when the Banner Saga? A game that is inspired directly by Viking Saga's of old, has a much stronger claim on the word than they will ever have. In fact, every story based game with a long, winding narrative would have a stronger claim on that word than they would. Trademarking 'candy' in the video game industry isn't disastrous because I don't think there's a game out there that can't just swap out the chocolate and marshmallows for something else and still be fine and when it comes to names? Just call it 'Sweet Shop Crush' and you're probably good. But trying to trademark the word 'Saga' in an entertainment media is like trying to trademark the word 'Fable' or 'Folktale' or 'Parable' or even just 'Story' itself. Stories and narrative are one of the very core features of games development, yes you can just as easily change the title of your game to 'The Banner Fairy Tale' as you can take candy out of a name, but you shouldn't have too. When you exist in a storytelling medium these words should be as free to you as the words apple and persimmon should be to a grocer.
Imagine if Pixar tried to trademark the term story off the back of their Toy Story movies. The idea is simply monstrous, and the idea that King could potentially drag a small indie developer like Stoic (a three man team who had to Kickstart their game, I might add!) to court over this, or would even dare stand in their way over something as absolutely insane as trying to trademark a synonym for story, the one thing King's games do not and never will have, is just as barbaric in my mind.
A lot of this brings to mind another casual game company that actively managed to sleaze itself out of business, Zynga. Zynga were the minds behind Farmville, a few casino games adapted for Facebook and the App store as well as Dream Heights. That last one, by the way, was mired in controversy as it turned out to be a blatant copy of a game from another company Zynga had attempted to buy. The big names of the game industry employing underhand tactics to an absurd degree isn't news, but I'm starting to wonder - Is there something inherently rotten in the make up of these casual games markets that give the companies that emerge on top of them the impression that this kind of thing is more okay than most? Mobile and facebook games are, afterall, an extremely derivative sub-section of the already highly derivative business of gaming as a whole. Almost all of Rovio's Angry Birds franchise (including spin off's such as Bad Piggies) are essentially flash games or older IOS games with a better art design. Candy Crush itself is just the good old match three formula with a lick of paint and a more questionable use of incentive systems to keep you clicking those candies. Even Doctor Who Legacy, a game I have been really enjoying of late, could draw unfavourable comparisons to Puzzle Quest. Although I would like to add, the developers of that game are incredibly customer friendly and seem quite genuine about the love of their product, which is always nice to see.
One has to wonder, does this paranoia of copycat games and other companies riding to glory off the back of their hard work feed directly into their corporate culture when they grow to become the big fish of their respective pond? Do they feel like they need to work harder not only to protect what they feel is their own, but also to beg, borrow and steal as much as possible so that they can produce the next big hit to capture their audience once the novelty has worn off and everyone grows tired of their last one? I can't imagine that there is as much brand loyalty in the casual fanbase as there is in other areas of the gaming market. It's like asking somebody who only watches films from time to time who their favourite director is, most people don't pay attention to that kind of thing, they just like the kind of films they like and don't pay much heed to what's going on behind the camera. King and co. aim for this kind of market, the one that isn't interested in the mechanics of gaming or that companies behind it, but just wants something fun and addictive to play on their lunch break. Perhaps that also plays into why they think they can get away with these kinds of shenanigans, their fans will probably never hear of it and never think less of them in any case, because they don't care. They don't read gaming websites, don't buy gaming magazines, aren't connected to the industry in the way people who invest more time into gaming are.
Or, much more likely, there's nothing intrinsically special about the casual gaming market and this is just another example of a large corporation pushing the boundaries of what it can and can't get away with, simply because it can afford too. I can only hope that King, like Zynga before them, push too far and wind up out of business, because frankly? This whole affair has left a rather sour taste in my mouth.
Even if you don't believe in New Years Resolutions, everyone tends to have their hopes and goals for the year. Something they want to have done more or less of by the end of the year, somewhere they want to be by the time another three hundred and sixty five days rolls around, even if it only manifests in general drive and ambition - A year is a fairly reasonable time to expect some kind of change. There's an illusion of length to it, but at the same time something in the back of your brain knows it's no time at all. This never ending tug of war between 'Ah, it'll be fine, we can do it tomorrow!' and 'No, what if tomorrow never comes!' is something that's familiar to us all, especially those who have spent any length of time as a student, and can more often lead to something being put off indefinitely than a snappy call to arms. My particular bugbear over the years has been reading. I used to devour books by the tree-load, my main characteristic if I was introduced to somebody was 'Oh, he reads. A lot.' with the emphasis very much there. I'd start a series, and not stop until I'd eaten my way through it all. More recently I started to shift my habit away from books, towards comics, but with the price of print comics ever rising, and me not quite being comfortable with reading them on digital platforms, even my comic book reading has slowly fallen by the wayside.
It's an aspect of myself that I find terribly depressing, yet at the same time can't seem to work up the willpower to correct. Now don't get me wrong, if I want to tear through a book series, I still can. Before A Dance With Dragons was released, I gave myself a good month to re-read the other books in the series so far before the newest volume hit. I did it in a week. I also managed to tear through the last half of Dracula in a couple of days, knowing that I wanted to see exactly where Mina's character was by the end of the book before I wrote a single word to this blog, and honestly... It felt good to be back in that mindset, and really good to be reading again.
So good, in fact, that I've decided that I can use this platform for some mild personal betterment.
Year on year, I always promise myself that I'm going to devote more time to reading and never do. Well, my dear friends, with your help, I shall! As of next month I'm going to be launching a monthly segment to the blog, where any one of you can suggest something for me to read, I'll pick the one I'm most interested in and once I've read it I'll do a little write up of anything I find interesting within it. There's only a few requirements I ask you to follow.
Please keep it to single books only. Not full series. You can suggest a single book within a series if you like, but I'm not going to sit here and promise that I'll get through a whole trilogy or more in a month.
While a general description of the book is entirely optional (you can give one if you like, but I figure that's something I can look up) what I would like with every submission is a suggestion of something that you'd like to see me give my perspective on when I tackle the write up. This can be pretty much anything you like, so long as it's related to the book, the author or the writing process, but I do want you to keep in mind that I'm not a literary critic. There are things I may miss, or gloss over, or simply not have the knowledge outside the narrative to do full justice too (see the last blog, and my confusion over the Order of the Dragon, which could have been rectified by a touch more research on Vlad the Impaler himself) but I'll give it a good go, and strive to produce something entertaining for you all at the very least!
I don't want to rule out non-fiction entirely, as who knows? I might learn something genuinely fascinating! But I do feel like keeping it to fiction and being able to discuss plot points, character motivation, etc. is going to give me more to sink my teeth into. So I'm not going to ban non-fiction, but just bare in mind unless the suggestion really catches my imagination, I'm probably going to favour fiction.
So, to summarise - If you want to bring a book to my attention, simply post the title of the novel and a suggestion for something to talk about in the eventual blog postsomewhere that I can see it and I'll pick the one that most catches my eye every month, and get reading. It's that simple, and I'm sure isn't going to leave me vulnerable to a whole world of pain and torment. Because I can trust you guys, right?
Right?
Anyway, I'll be getting this whole thing started next month with one of my own picks! Seeing as February is the month of love, I'll be reading that epic tale of romance, intrigue and fishmen - H.P. Lovecraft's The Shadow Over Innsmouth and pondering on what makes the Deep Ones such a popular presence in the Mythos that has built up around the writers work over the decades.
I'll see you next month for that (and no doubt, a few posts inbetween), in the meantime though - Get those suggestions rolling in!
Over the past few months I've been watching the latest television adaptation of Dracula, which in essence is an excuse for Jonathan Rhys Meyers to be all smouldering and tormented as he moves like no man is supposed to move. Full credit to him, I can fully believe he's a vampire, and his performance is top notch throughout. Yet the show falls into this same, vast canyon a lot of American television shows seem to find themselves in for me these days. When it comes to television from my home country, I tend to be able to decide very quickly if it's something that's for me or just something I don't have time for. For media from the States, though? I either really, whole heartedly enjoy it or just... Can't work it out for the life of me. I floundered with Arrow for half of the first series, the awful Dexter style narration and weak characterisation of his family bogging down a show that otherwise, had so much potential. In that case they kicked it up a notch with the John Barrowman and island plots, and the series hasn't slowed down since, becoming some truly fantastic television.
On the other hand, I watched every single episode of Defiance, and that show is a disappointing mess of loose plots and characters that seem to have been stolen wholesale from every other genre television show that has been popular in the last decade or two. Yet if anybody else says that, I feel like I need to jump to it's defence with thoughts like 'Hey! Grant Bowler and the guy who played the mine owner were really good! And it had some interesting ideas in it... Kind of...' Which I think strikes at the heart of the whole thing. Defiance, in reality, was a great tapestry of really inspiring ideas and some fairly abysmal ones, barely woven together to make a rather mundane whole, and already coming apart at the seams. Yet I hoped against hope the inspiring elements, the performances that were great, the design and lore that was actually good would win out. You know what, I'll still be there in the Summer when series 2 comes around, hoping the same hopes, because on some level I'm clearly some strange, televisual masochist that will never, ever learn. Heck, maybe I'll even bring you guys along for the ride! Blogs on Defiance, truly I am a generous and kind hearted writer to bring you such gifts!
Sarcasm aside, Dracula isn't quite that bad, but if anybody asked me to give it a solid recommendation I'd struggle to call it good. Now don't get me wrong, there's a lot to like. As you can see from the trailer above, it's all very slick and polished (although for my money, I much prefer this Sky Living one which I sadly can't embed. It's what drew me into wanting to watch the series in the first place.) and I like the underlying premise and the basic plot. Count Dracula comes to London, posing as an American industrialist to unravel the organisation that tore his mortal life apart. It's something with so many possibilities, and they revel in toying with them. At first I wasn't sure how I felt about Dracula being on the side of the Angels, but as the series has progressed I find myself asking... Who are the angels in this scenario?! This is a much more meaty dynamic than anything Defiance ever came up with and arguably enough to justify watching too.
It also sparked my interest because the TV show was the second utterance I'd heard of the phrase 'Order of the Dragon'. Now in my 2013 retrospective, I mentioned West Wind Miniatures - A fine company, who make fine products, and if you have any interest in wargaming, hobby craft or Victoriana/historic campaigns then you should be doing yourself a favour and at least give their line a gander. As it turns out though, thanks to Westwind I already had an Order of the Dragon - Except... They were Dracula's posse. His boys. His crew. His other generic term to make Dracula sound like a gang leader in inner-city Birmingham. Yet in the show they seemed to be an order of vampire hunters who were set up to be his main antagonist. Add to that the fact that certain characters clearly had very different roles than what I understood them to be from other Dracula infused media I'd consumed, and I was very confused indeed.
So I did the smart thing.
I went back to the book.
(My own take on the Count and Renfield, from Westwind's Order of the Dragon set)
Now before you get any ideas, no, the purpose of this blog is not to drag the TV series over hot coals because it's not a faithful adaptation of the book. Like I said, the premise and main plotline? Absolutely fine. I love it. It's not supposed to be a straight up adaptation of the book, it's intended to be a soft modernisation using more sophisticated story telling techniques to tell the story of the character at a slightly different slant. Upon reading the book though, a few stark contrasts came to mind and a few things that had been sat in the back of my brain, nagging at me, refusing to let me enjoy the show whole heartedly did come to light.
To jump right into that latter category, let's talk about the women! The novel features two main characters, Mina Harker and Lucy Westenra. There's also Mrs. Westenra, who plays a more minor role, but not enough to really be ranked on the same level as these two. Lucy is a very sweet girl, beloved by the majority of the male characters (indeed, two of them proposed to her and one went on to marry her) who at times can come across as more of a story element than a character in her own right. The Westwind line identifies her miniature as 'The Lost Love', which is very apt really. Stoker does not imbue Lucy with a very strong or terribly unique personality beyond being a doe-eyed, dutiful damsel, but he epitomises her as the very essence of innocence, beauty and sweetness - So when tragedy befalls her, it really takes it's toll, both on the characters and the readers. As to Mina, we'll get onto her a bit later.
The television show also features Lucy and Mina, but it also has a third, new character who... I honestly cannot remember the name of without looking it up. I wanted to call her Lady Jane Grey, but a quick search reveals her surname to be Weatherby, and me an idiot for muddling fictional characters up with English royalty. In the TV show, we see Lucy become a more selfish and manipulative character, while Lady Jane is... Also extremely selfish and manipulative. You see, there is a very good reason I couldn't remember her name - And that is because if it wasn't for the fact Lady Jane fought vampires, had a lot more sex and was a touch older, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between these blonde schemers. In fact, there have been times when I've mistaken Lady Jane for a re-imagining of Mrs. Westenra herself, which became very awkward when the two of them started to get rather more, ah, intimate on screen. For as much as I want to roll my eyes at Lucy's fey, aristocratic girly-girl attitude in the book, her characterisation in the series is in some ways worse. It's not more complex, it's not even any more mature, it's like they just gave her a complete tonal shift and set her down to cause trouble, and given how closely aspects of her personality resemble Lady Jane's - She comes across as rather redundant at the time of writing.
Mina Harker though, is a much more interesting case. In the book, Mina is the loving and faithful wife of Jonathan Harker, who works as a school mistress. She is portrayed as resourceful and practical, yet the fingerprint of a woman's role in polite Victorian society (especially in regards to her husband) is imprinted as heavily on her forehead as the red mark that embellishes it in the later part of the book. Mina knows her limitations as a woman, and she accepts them. On the surface, the Mina Harker of the series is much more progressive. She refuses to be an accessory to Jonathan, and has a much more progressive occupation as she is training to be a Doctor. The problem is, she's also a massive flake. True, Jonathan in the series is even more of a massive flake than she is, but the point stands - If the chips were down and the stakes (a-heh-heh!) were high, I'd want novel Mina in my corner every time.
The fact of the matter is, for as progressive as the series creators have tried to make Mina's character - Insofar she hasn't really done all that much. At all. Really, the series seems to make her as much of a plot device as Lucy was in the book at times. By some strange co-incidence, Mina resembles Dracula's wife, who died centuries before her own birth, and when the two meet? She falls for him. She falls hard. And that... Is about the extent of her storyline. Trying not to succumb to the Count's dark charms, while trying (and failing) to keep her marriage with Jonathan alive. Meanwhile, over in that Victorian text they're all adapting, Mina is strong, resourceful, brave and every bit as part of the adventure as the men that surround her. In fact, it only seems to be when the men decide it's a good idea to cut her out of proceedings (and she, naturally, agrees because... Hey, that's just what a polite, well spoken woman does!) that things become really problematic for them and the Count truly gains the upper hand.
I think for me, the disconnect comes because Mina in the series is clearly a character they are pushing as progressive, yet ultimately she shows so little personality or even practical thought outside of her three love interests. We're told she has drive, we're told she has ambition, but in reality she's eternally reacting, and every idea she has seems to have been spurred to life by John, by Lucy or by the Count himself. In the book however, Mina may well be mindful of her role to society and her comparative status to her husband and their male friends, but she's the spinning dynamo that keeps the group together. They'd be thoroughly screwed without her. For me, it casts a whole new perspective on her role in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, especially why Alan Moore chose her as the leader of the little band of misfits. It's simply an extension of her role in the novel, as that brave and gallant woman at the heart of everything.
(The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, led by Mina Murray. Image taken from Comicvine.)
Perhaps as the series progresses, the Mina of the television show will begin to show some of those traits, however I don't think I'll be holding my breath. If only because there's another significant flaw the series suffers, and that is the other plot. The one that's not brilliant, or fun, or really does anything but get in the way - Yet in some ways is far more central to the show than the revenge plot I talked about earlier. That, my friends, is the love triangle. Well, I call it a triangle, it's more of a love polygon.
You see, the Count, posing as American business man Alexander Grayson, loves Mina as he believes she's a reincarnation of his dead wife. Mina loves the Count, because maybe she is! Or maybe it's because her husband is a raging, ignorant dumbass, or because, as we discussed earlier, she's a touch of a flake herself. Jonathan loves Mina, and has loved her for years, wanting to make her his adoring wife and... At times going about it the complete wrong way (see raging, ignorant, dumbass comment above). Okay, so far, so soap opera! However, the kinks really do come out when it's revealed that Lucy also loves Mina, and is trying to win Jonathan's heart to get back at Mina for spurning her, while at the same time Lady Jane is using Lucy to get at Mina through John because she's fallen head first for Grayson while it's clear that he only has eyes for Mina.
And this is where the wheels come off for me.
Honestly, I don't mind big, entangled, intricate love stories. They can add spice to an interesting narrative, and help to further the emotional development of characters. The problem? Most of these characters just aren't likeable or altogether very well defined. I think you're ultimately supposed to be rooting for Mina and the Count to rekindle their lost love, but it's a hard sell when the Count is at times a charming socialite and at times a ruthless monster. It's also hindered by the fact that Mina and John had a nice, normal thing going on and as much as I dislike John's character - He was really coming around to his wife's needs before the Count stepped in. Of course, he's the one who ultimately seems to have ruined that, so I've got no sympathy or love for him again here either. As for Lucy, well, the only discernible reason I can find for Lucy to even be in love with Mina is 'Yay! Women making out on TV is hot!' so I'm not really feeling that one either. In fact, the only one I do feel for is Lady Jane. The Count made her love him so he could use her, and was ready to toss her aside at a moment's notice, but at the same time, their relationship was so physical that it's hard to tell if Lady Jane is truly hurt because she loved him, or that she can't seem to satisfy all his needs herself. Either way, that relationship is so complicated and both characters involved lead double lives that make them hard to like for terribly long (if you even like them at all) that it's hardly strong enough to support all the other strands of this mad web of relationships on it's own.
(Behold the mighty Love Fish and despair!)
What works for the revenge plot, that feeling of not knowing who to trust and everything, even the monstrous vampire Dracula and the sweet and cuddly Van Helsing, falling into that murky shade of grey that is as far from black as it is from white, doesn't really work here. Honestly? None of these relationships seem worth fighting for, none of them seem healthy and most importantly of all - Few of them are all that interesting on their own merits. John and Mina's relationship in the book may have been a simple one, but it was the glue that held everything together, that gave them a reason to bring the fight right to the doorstep of that foreboding Transylvanian Castle.
That's not to say the series gets all it's characters wrong. I've already praised Dracula himself, but a very surprising stand out is Renfield. The insect munching inmate of the book becomes a worldly, business smart former slave who acts as Dracula's right hand man throughout all his dealings. It's a surprising twist on the character, but works very well. Van Helsing's much more darker turn, and his very tenuous alliance with the Count himself, is also hugely intriguing and one thing I can't wait to play out. The Order of the Dragon, headed by Ben Miles putting in a fantastic performance as Mr. Browning, adds such an interesting element to the story that... Well, they're the ones that made me chase down the book in the first place. Truly, the series has a lot going for it, but at the same time it's hampered by characters that don't shine as brightly as their Victorian era counterparts and a convoluted tangle of relationships that I doubt I'm ever going to be able to force myself to care about. A Song of Ice and Fire this is not.
I suppose if there's one thing to learn from a comparison of the novel and the series, two very different animals though they are, it's that for all the complexity, intrigue and 'mature and modern' storytelling of the television show - Sometimes a more simplistic approach is the best. It can work better for the overall narrative, and can produce far more interesting and developed characters.
Still no idea where or how this 'Order of the Dragon' stuff originated, though!
Now, this was originally going to be a blog about Dracula - And considering I have that partway written, I'll probably go ahead and post that next week. But something has been rattling in my head today, that I think I want to discuss, so I'm going to do just that!
Originally I didn't think I had an awful lot to say about Sherlock. It returned, it was brilliant, but there seemed to be nothing to really delve into as far as discussion points went. Oh, don't get me wrong, I saw that big cliffhanger as plainly as you did, and yes, I know what you're thinking 'What about the other big thing that happened?!' and all I can say to you is, yes it's all very interesting. But nothing really reached out and grabbed me. Until... Until I started pondering one of the smaller details, that could be laying roots for much greater things, but doesn't seem to be getting all that much discussion. In fact, few people I've talked to even noticed it - So maybe it's all in my head. But by the end of this blog, it's going to be in your head too, so I'd consider that a job well done for today!
As a warning, this blog is going to contain spoilers for series three of Sherlock. I don't know how I can make this any more clear for you, but for my American friends, my friends who have not quite yet caught up, or anybody else who hasn't jumped on the Sherlock bandwagon but may want too in the future and doesn't want to be spoiled? Well, this has spoilers in it. Sorry, it's unavoidable, but please! Do, feel free to come back when you're all caught up! These words aren't going anywhere, I promise.
As an apology to those people, I offer you this fun (and spoiler free!) little video where Sherlock meets the Doctor. It definitely put a smile on my face when I first saw it, and is very well made, although the way Smith and Cumberbatch's faces and mouths move may haunt your dreams for months.
You're welcome.
Now then, with that out of the way, let's get down to business. The one thing that series three of Sherlock brought to my mind was a very simple question, that doesn't have any kind of simple answer. That question?
Is Mycroft Holmes dying?
This may seem like it's rather left field to some of you, but something is most definitely up with Mycroft in the third series. The most obvious indicator is that we're seeing a lot more of him, but at the same time this doesn't mean an awful lot on it's own. If there's one unifying theme in this series, it's family and friendship and how the two are almost interchangeable. John and Mary are as much Sherlock's family as Mycroft and his parents, perhaps even more so, and having Mycroft be more prominent in the episodes is a good way to highlight his differing relationships with both. It also could be argued that this series placed character building above the cases, and that Mycroft's increased presence was a way of fleshing him out in the same way other characters were fleshed out. Not to mention the climax of the third episode depended on the audience believing that Sherlock was indeed Mycroft's pressure point, with the whole series working hard to present and highlight the chain that Magnusson talks about to us before he even makes an appearance. Mary influences John, John influences Sherlock, and Sherlock... Well, you get the picture.
But let's shift focus a bit and look at Mycroft's motivation in the series. His one, main goal throughout (aside from his usual, national terrorism and homeland security goals) is making sure that Sherlock is exactly where he belongs. In Baker Street, in London, protecting Queen and Country from whatever may crop up under the surface. He brings Sherlock home after two years of globe trotting dismantling Moriarty's criminal network for exactly this reason, and throughout the series we see Mycroft chastising his brother for being an impulsive child - Both in person, and in his head. Who is it that sits in judgement in Sherlock's courtroom scenario, demanding he concentrate and focus on the facts of the murder at John's wedding? Who is it that pulls him away from the minor detail of the gun and tells him to open his eyes and see what's obviously in front (well, in this case behind) him? Who is it that warns him off Magnusson because he knows that a confrontation between the two couldn't go any other way than how it did? Sherlock might read people like a book, but Magnusson understands them like a clockmaker, he was never going to win in a conventional sense. That look of abject disappointment on Mycroft's face, coupled with Sherlock pictured as a child after he shot him, was perfect. And for one final question, who is it that turned that plane around as soon as a hint of Moriarty appeared?
It's very clear that Mycroft wants Sherlock in Baker Street and is going to great lengths to keep him there. I even wonder if the terrorist threat he called Sherlock back to deal with was really beyond Mycroft's scope to take care of at all. It didn't seem a terribly complicated case in the end. He's also constantly pushing, both in Sherlock's head and otherwise, for the Great Detective to grow up. To be better. To take responsibility. The question I ask in response is, why? He never seemed particularly bothered before. In fact, he seemed happy to let his brother loaf around and do what he liked, on the one provision he didn't get in the way. Could it be that Mycroft isn't going to be around much longer, and needs somebody of his own calibre to protect his city, his country, while he's gone? That he needs Sherlock, because he's not going to be around much longer to do what needs to be done himself?
Still pretty flimsy, huh? Okay then, let's get physical! Throughout the series we see that Mycroft has not only taken up exercising, but can also no longer handle his cigarettes. That first one isn't all too alarming, Sherlock doesn't seem surprised to find his brother exercising although from his remarks about it could be deduced that Mycroft doesn't do it often.The other thing though, although Sherlock passes it off on him smoking cigarettes with too much tar and just being stubborn about it, is where things for me get interesting and really got my mind racing. It seems to be a very deliberate, if a little blink and you'll miss it, sign of physical decline. Of course, we could also just assume that Mycroft is getting out of shape. I believe, in the books he was a rather large, unwieldy man - Bloated from being behind a desk for too long. This could just be a suggestion that Mycroft in the series is going that way (and I am all about Mark Gatiss in a fat suit!) or a cheeky nod to his character in the books from Gatiss and Moffat.
However, there's also an emotional element going on here. We see Mycroft spending more time with his parents, taking them to see Les Mis in London and of course, coming around for Christmas. Naturally it's torture for him, but it's torture he's putting himself through when (in one case, at least!) his brother is choosing not too. Not to mention his very open display of affection towards his brother, when he tells Sherlock that he loves him. Again, this could just be set up for Magnusson's pressure point, but it does seem far too sledgehammer subtle for that. We know how fond Sherlock and Mycroft are of each other. They belittle each other, they fight, Sherlock thinks of all the people he knows Mycroft is the easiest to murder, but isn't that the definition of brotherly love? If you haven't pondered murdering your siblings at least once in your lifetime, I daresay you don't have a healthy relationship with them.
So if all this is true, why hasn't Sherlock noticed? Well, I daresay he has. We've been in Sherlock's head a lot in this series, and while many people in his life populate it, one keeps coming up again and again. Mycroft. He's very dominant in his thoughts, and while that could just be down to the fact that Mycroft is as close to an equal as Sherlock has, it could also be that he realises something is going on and is either in denial or simply is choosing not to make a big deal of it because... Well, he practically choked on his cigarette at Mycroft even admitting that he loves his brother, how well do you think emotions are generally dealt with in that family?
Given all these subtle and unsubtle nods, I can't help but think that something is up with Mycroft. Perhaps he's not dying, which I'd be quite pleased with because I love Gatiss' take on the character, but something is going on. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Mycroft orchestrated the 'return' of Moriarty for the same ends as bringing his brother back to London in the first place. All we saw was a .gif with some writing photoshopped onto it, anybody on Tumblr can and does do that, but who has the power and skill to hack the country's media network? Moriarty, obviously. One of his generals Sherlock missed, possibly. Perhaps even the 'true' Moriarty who used the current one we know and love as a cover all along (the descriptions of Moriarty the victims gave in series 1 didn't match up with what we eventually got, afterall. But then again, it's more likely Moriarty used a cover when talking to them to keep Sherlock off the trail, revealing his bouncy, flamboyant self later) possible but unlikely! Taking away the criminal element and the possibility of it being a new player altogether, that leaves The Woman and... Mycroft.
As cool as the set up for the return of Moriarty actually being a preface for the grand return of Irene Adler would be, there's something about a dying Mycroft, faking Moriarty's return to save his brother from banishment because... Well, he's the only one he trusts to carry on his work and keep the country safe, and also, on another level - He's his brother and he loves him that I find incredibly touching and at the moment, rather more plausible than Moriarty coming back from blowing his brains out on a rooftop. I suppose we'll have to wait and see, but for the moment - I'm calling it. Sherlock series 4 or 5, a big bombshell is going to be dropped about Mycroft. At the moment, the only thing that eludes me (despite the case I've made for his death above), is what?
Ah, the Winter Steam Sale. A glorious time when PC gamers can pick up all kinds of marvellous titles for a fraction of the cost. I, myself, picked up a couple - Trying to limit myself to picking up only a select few titles, under three pound and not going over that unless I really wanted it. Well, it turns out there was something that I really wanted, and have only recently got around to playing. The Stanley Parable is a game that I have been utterly fascinated with for months now. It's not just that it gets rave reviews, even from those who are usually no fans of the 'Here's a big environment, walk through it and discover!' variety of game, but it's the nature of those reviews. There's an element of secrecy surrounding The Stanley Parable, like it is an enigma that can only be unwrapped in the playing. Unlike every other title we might hear about, where reviewers, critics, lets players and all and sundry inbetween will be happy to divulge every single detail of every single mechanic anybody could possibly be interested. There was only one, single unifying response towards going into detail about the game from all corners.
Don't.
Just don't look for details. Don't ask for details. Here is a bare bones of what it's about, a tease of the experience, now go and play it for yourself and experience this absolutely bonkers creation!
The question does come to mind - How on Earth can something even begin to live up to hype like this? When you're actively told to expect the unexpected, to have an experience that is only relatable through the gameplay, is it possible to come out anything less than disappointed? Like entering Cadbury World and finding that, for all the polish and the anthropomorphic cocoa beans they want to litter the place with, it's still a factory where very heavy, industrial equipment makes chocolate overseen by some very bored looking employees in white smocks. Not an Oompa Loompa in sight.
So, to be foolish enough to keep chasing this analogy, what is The Stanley Parable? John Cadbury, or Willy Wonka? Well, my friends, in my experience if it's either, it's most definitely Gene Wilder at his most charming and his most deranged.
What is The Stanley Parable, you might ask? Well, Total Biscuit's 'WTF is...' above gives a good run down - But to give the very short version, you are Stanley. You walk out of your office one day to find all your co-workers missing. Go through the door on the left.
That is the game in a nutshell. Or at least the springboard that takes you on an experience that leads to... Who can really say? I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with the general consensus here. This is something that needs to be played, and if you ever see it on a Steam weekly/daily sale, or indeed the upcoming Summer Sale? Jump on it. Just do. The only thing I can tell you is how it made me feel. It's a strange thing, really, because in any other game I'd point to a great set-piece, or a moving narrative moment, or a really exciting piece of gameplay. In Mass Effect 3 I'd point you to Mordin Solus' storyline as one of the most moving, and well written, moments of the game. In Saints Row IV I'd tell you a story of the hi-jinks myself and a friend got up too abusing the Black Hole Gun and the Abduction Ray. In Sonic The Hedgehog 2 I'd talk for days about the amazing soundtrack that, even now, a decade an a half later still gets stuck in my head. But my one, prevailing memory of The Stanley Parable will be how it made me feel.
On the surface, it's a game that's a lot like Portal in a way. You go through it, and a voice from above tells you what to do - But as you go on the sardonic nature of the narration begins to make you wonder. At least, this was the impression I got on my first play through. On subsequent ones, I've found that this aspect changes depending on your actions. I decided to write this blog after I played the game as it is 'supposed' to be played, always expecting some kick in the tail, some sudden surprise. But aside from some very subtle, and very pointed bits of dialogue - It was a very underwhelming experience. Which, in it's own way felt right.
Where the game truly shines, is what happens when you go off the track, and really I suspect is the way this is all supposed to be played out. Afterall, given the choice, when do gamers do as their told? I know that as soon as I got to a certain point in any Elder Scrolls game, I just wave goodbye to the main quest and load up on sub quests, leaving the kingdom to save itself while I got kill some rats in some guys basement or deliver beer halfway across the world. The mad thing is, I take pride in this! As if I'm beating the machine, as if it cares. As if, in Skyrim, the Stormcloaks and the Imperium are both cursing my name because I'd rather doss about in the mountains than get rid of all these pesky dragons from the land.
That is the impulse I suspected the game was going to take great joy in mocking. It's exactly what Totalbiscuit describes in his own video, and those elements are there. If you really want to get into this aspect, go and buy the game then try to get the 'Knock Five Times' achievement. It's the game in a nutshell, and is absolutely hilarious. However underneath the hilarity, I also found it deeply disturbing on some levels. I've played a good two hours so far, and have found at least three endings where I've just had to stop, push my computer chair back from the desk and walk away. It hit me that hard. As I said above, I went through my more vanilla play through expecting something very hard hitting - And to be quite frank, it's a good job this game is all psychological, because I think if they went in for just one good jump scare I'd have a heart attack. That's how much of a wreck some of the endings made me into.
Yet the mad thing is, I know there are more and I suspect there are things I've simply glossed over. I was sceptical at first, because I thought the two doors were the be all and end all of the game - But when I progressed further I found there are more environments to explore, more things to tamper with, just more to this game than meets even the most inquisitive of eyes. It may, at times, make me consider and question more than some would say a game has any right to, but I want to go right back and play more of it regardless. As the loading screens remind us, the end is never the end is never the end is never the end is never the end...
So, something I wrote in my last post got me thinking. It's a topic I'm almost afraid to touch, because I know I have friends who feel very strongly on the matter, and it's hardly timely, but I promised weekly blogs (to myself, if nobody else!) and this is what has been buzzing around my brain this week. So here we go!
Last post when I wrote about Day of the Doctor, I mentioned in passing Doctor Who's inclusivity and how, at it's best, it had something for everyone. This got me thinking about something that got the internet somewhat riled a few months ago, when a snippet of an Alan Moore interview was posted around various comic book sites. In this interview, Alan Moore had the audacity to say... Well, see for yourself...
"I hate superheroes. I think they're abominations. They don't mean what they used to mean. They were originally in the hands of writers who would actively expand the imagination of their nine- to 13-year-old audience... These days, superhero comics think the audience is certainly not nine to 13, it's nothing to do with them. It's an audience largely of 30-, 40-, 50-, 60-year old men, usually men. Someone came up with the term graphic novel. These readers latched on to it; they were simply interested in a way that could validate their continued love of Green Lantern or Spider-Man without appearing in some way emotionally subnormal... I don't think the superhero stands for anything good. I think it's a rather alarming sign if we've got audiences of adults going to see the Avengers movie and delighting in concepts and characters meant to entertain the 12-year-old boys of the 1950s."
You can read the full interview at the Guardians website here, where Alan has a nice chat about the most recent project with his name attached and has a little pop at Grant Morrison to boot. But what you see above is the majority of the "offensive" material, and many comic book sites chose to cut it down even smaller than that, to a sentence or a snippet.
Now, let's make a few things clear. Alan Moore doesn't hate superheroes. I know he just said he did above, right up there, in black and white but he later clarifies he hates what they've become, 'they don't mean what they used to mean... I don't think the superhero stands for anything good'. At the time I also argued that, perhaps, he didn't mean to say that enjoying these things as an adult was emotional subnormal. Afterall, how could he? Alan Moore is a fan of what superhero comics used to be, if not what they are today, and will talk for hours about Shuster, Siegel, Ditko and Kirby with the best of them. In fact, he does so in great detail in this video about Stan Lee's contribution to Spider-Man. If those with a vested interest in superheroes in their adult years are emotionally subnormal, then he must be too. Which can't be right, can it? But in the time since, I've changed my mind. I think Alan Moore meant every word but he doesn't care about appearing emotionally abnormal for the things he loves, and nor should we. Surely, that's the very lifeblood of geek culture, right there?
Stripping away all the bitterness and the purposely confrontational tone, Alan Moore's point is fairly simple. The modern audience for superhero comics has come to expect their entertainment to grow with them and adapt into something that suits their more adult tastes, rather than evolve into something that may capture the imagination of a modern audience of children in the same way that comic books entranced him as a child. Some might see this as a good thing, some might wonder, in the face of competition such as video games and the internet, what else publishers can do but indulge their older audiences but for Moore this is a problem.
And... I'm surprised to find that on thinking about it, I actually agree with him.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm very much a lover of modern superhero comics and until I was forced to slash my comic budget to next-to-nothing I was picking up a good twenty-to-thirty titles a week. While I was collecting, I loved them. I enjoyed the highs of Geoff Johns Green Lantern enough to ignore the lows, I despaired at the cancellation of Doom Patrol and L.E.G.I.O.N. (still two of the best superhero titles in years, in my opinion) and I despaired that the current Legion of Superheroes titles in the new 52 didn't really seem for me. But as I was reading, I started to notice a problem. It first hit me in Batman, and it hit me quite hard years ago, just after HUSH was published. All the stories were becoming very similar, all built around the central pillar of 'MY PARENTS ARE DEEEEEEEEAD!!!' angst that Bruce feels, all concerned with misery and dwelling on mistakes and something very peculiar was happening to the villains. They seemed to becoming more brutal, more savage, embracing taboos such as cannibalism and self-mutilation to make them seem more frightening. They were becoming alarmingly savage, and to be honest... Sometimes it was a very tough read.
Taking a few steps back I started to realise, this isn't something that's particular to Batman. It was rife in the DC titles I was reading. Green Lantern featured Black Hand blowing his own brains out, very graphically, on panel. Supposedly minor characters were being butchered in increasingly gory and creative ways to up the stakes in big events and make the new, big villain look all the more scary and ruthless. Barry Allen, a light hearted man with a healthy relationship with his wife and two parents very prominently in the frame was suddenly made an orphan, now driven by solving the murder of his mother that his father had been wrongly convicted for. Somewhere, somehow, in so many of the titles I was reading - It seemed as though the fun had either gone, or was increasingly being asked to take a backseat to the kind of drama, angst and graphic depictions of violence that, while I'd never say has no place in superhero comics, surely shouldn't be allowed to be this prominent.
Now, to be clear, I can only really talk with authority to what I read in DC comics. When it comes to Marvel, I'm not expert and for all I know, they're a haven of wonderful stories told in a way that's accessible to all. Although considering Sentry tore Ares clean in two in a gore laden double page spread and a couple of other, worrying story beats I caught drift of I can't say for sure. I'm also not saying that all superhero titles need to be child friendly, in fact (before you throw your Tiny Titans collections at my head!) my argument isn't that titles need to be child friendly at all - They should be family friendly. I can't help but think that if I can't pick up the core titles of Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, The Flash, all these staples of the superhero genre and be just as comfortable sharing them with a ten year old as I would an eighty year old, in the same way that I'd very comfortably settle down to watch Doctor Who with just about anyone of any age range without thinking, then surely there's a problem. It's the one point I certainly don't agree with Moore on, superheroes shouldn't be for nine-to-thirteen year old's, they should be for everyone, and right now they're failing even at that.
Now you can make all kinds of excuses for why the comics are heading down this road, and I understand them well, but as touched on in my last post - DC, and in turn Time Warner, are suffering from something more problematic. This attitude of making everything dark, of making everything violent and of creating heroes and villains who live almost solely in the extreme with no balance has seeped into their movies. If you showed the designs for many of Nolan's Batman villains to people with no context, I'm certain few would be surprised if you told them they were designs for the latest slasher movie. Nolan sacrificed much of what made Batman fun and unique, and also the pure charm of so many characters, to chase something that was gritter, more realistic, more... Grown up. Yes, it was a huge sales success, but it ties directly into what Moore was saying above. Man of Steel is almost as bad, it's a movie where nobody smiles and the stakes are defined by how many skyscrapers are toppled and how much visible destruction can be crammed on screen at any given moment. In terms of comic book lore and mythology it's a spot on adaptation, but in terms of heart and mortality? I'm quite convinced it has none. One has to ask the question, who are these films for? What is the prime target audience? And ultimately, is it right that a Superman movie, Superman of all things, is aimed more at teens and adults than at a more family orientated audience?
Never fear though, it's not all bad! Because there is another point on which I break with Moore, and that's on the example he uses. The Avengers, the good old, superhero team up that was years in the making. It's not the best of superhero movies, but it's most certainly one of the most accessible. While Marvel comics may (or may not!) be indulging in the same slow, depressing march to 'maturity' that DC are, their film studios have just been fantastic throughout. Mixing humour, action, the right amount of angst and drama to create fun movies that I believe can be enjoyed by almost everyone. The Avengers is as prime an example of this as any movie out there. While it didn't get all the characters right, and while I thought a couple of the performances and emotional beats fell flat, let's look at what that movie is. Bunch of guys in gaudy costumes get together to fight an evil demi-God in a gaudy costume, culminating in an alien invasion where all the heroes have to come together to ultimately stop a force that looks unstoppable and save the day. That! That right there is superhero comics in their purest form, ladies and gentleman. Add in some fun, light-hearted banter, a layer of sympathy for the villain and an understanding that the stakes aren't tied to the amount of people being torn apart or the number of buildings being toppled on screen and you have a winner.
For as much as I worry about the future of superhero comics, and in what direction we're headed in, Marvel's films give me hope that we're not entirely lost in the quagmire of wanting to be mature and realistic, yet not really understanding what those terms mean or how to pull them off in a mature or realistic way, that other products have been slowly sinking in for awhile. I can fully appreciate what Alan is saying, and I can agree with him, but where he only sees the mangling of superheroes into something ugly and misshapen with no redeeming qualities whatsoever - I see a serious problem that, hopefully with the advent of digital distribution and Marvel's film work, DC's animated products (which have been, by and large, fantastic in keeping a balance between the lighter and darker shades of superhero comics without over indulging in either) and even Warner's own Arrow - Which seems to take just enough from both movies approaches to create a very entertaining program - Will iron itself out as a younger audience becomes more engaged with the characters and these products are easier for them to get a hold of.
So, here we are again! Or at least, here I am again. I still haven't really shared this around publicly, but I rather enjoyed my last foray into mad rambling and think I'd like to do it again. In my head I'm telling myself that I'd like to do one a week, but I'm not really sure if each week will provide something sufficient for me to get worked up about and write on. I had, for example, a great idea for this week that relied on something rather special arriving on my doorstep. Alas, that didn't happen, so we're pushing that back a few months - But I did start to think on what I could do instead.
Generally I'm not a nostalgic person. I'm not a huge fan of looking back at my own life, especially my childhood, and often cringe at photographs of myself that are before a certain dateline. Now, don't get me wrong, this is not because my childhood was in anyway tragic or terrible. My parents are wonderful people, and I owe the very fact that I'm able to sit here and type this out right now to their love and their persistence. I just generally feel that the person I was then doesn't quite reflect who I am now, and beyond that, having grown up with a rather debilitating heart condition, there's not an awful lot that's exciting or fun to look back on.
With that last thought in mind, and with the year only a few days old, I pondered on doing an end of year retrospective. Originally it was going to be a run-down of my favourite media released in 2013. Favourite film, game, TV show, you get the idea. But the more I thought, the more I realised that I never exactly indulged many of my great loves last year (comic books, music, books, for example) and it would feel criminal to leave them on the wayside, and also that this year wasn't really a year defined by those things. I want to look back at the things that were exciting, that helped shape the year for me, that defined the trends that crept their way into my life. After all, last year was kind of a strange one because it's caught between two of the biggest trips I've undertaken in my adult life. The first to Tucson in 2012, and the second to Seattle and beyond this year. By comparison, it would be easy to write last year off as the dull one - The inbetween days. Well, let's see how the old girl did, shall we?!
The Man-Ape Cometh!
You know what, for other people this may not even register - And considering all I said about about excitement! And meaningful events! This... May leave you scratching your head. But let me tell you something, as I look back upon the year? This little metal guy up here may have had a deceptively big influence on it.
So, let's break things down, shall we? Back in February last year, I decided to pitch in for a Kickstarter campaign for an expansion to West Wind's Empire of the Dead line of miniatures. Now, at this point I hadn't painted or even been a part of the modelling hobby in years. I was an old Games Workshop victim, having put together armies of Space Marines, Chaos Marines, Orks and dabbled in other things in days of yore, but recently? I mean, I knew where all my modelling material was, but hadn't truly touched a paintbrush or modelling file for a good, long time.
But there was something about Empire that just reeled me in. It's a Gothic horror skirmish game with steampunk elements that draws heavy on pulp fiction, penny dreadfuls and Victorian literature. I threw far more money at it than I should, and have since received a good sixty to eight minis to work on as a result, but during that time I thought 'I should get something to work on to make sure that, you know, I can still actually do this!'
So I picked up Man-Ape. A special character from the line, who is an escapee from the Circ Du Noir. Why Man-Ape? Well, he's a great gorilla in a top hat, so why wouldn't I?! And you know what, I not only had a blast, but really surprised myself as well. I decided to be brave and go completely off the suggested colour scheme and paint him as an Albino gorilla instead, and although mine looks nowhere near as good as the sample above - He turned out so well that I gained a new found confidence in my abilities. Miniature painting became a great source of stress relief and pride for me, and although not everything I've painted has turned out all that grand and I feel like there's more I could do to improve, it's thanks to this first success that I gained a hobby that would, in it's own small way, become an important refuge for me last year. One that I certainly look forward to picking up with a vengeance in the this new year.
International Tabletop Day
Another thing that would have probably been a blink and you'll miss it moment in other people's year, but upon looking back came to symbolise some good times last year! 2012 was, most definitely, the year that Tabletop gaming came to creep into and dominate my leisure time, especially when hanging out with my friends, and that was something that stayed very strong in 2013. International Tabletop Day, though? Was honestly one of the most eye-opening gaming sessions I had last year. To set the scene, International Tabletop Day is the creation of Felicia Day, Wil Wheaton and the team over at Geek and Sundry, it's a yearly event where everyone gets together and plays tabletop games and has ridiculous amounts of fun in the process. Last year it fell on the 30th of March and... All my friends were otherwise engaged.
So I took myself down to my local Forbidden Planet, and had a day gaming with a very small group of people (I think only three of us actually stuck it out until closing time, with another couple ghosting in and out) and some very charming, very dedicated staff. Let me tell you, it was a blast. I got introduced to some great new games, enjoyed a whole different dynamic compared to when I was playing with my friends and got to fight for the honour of Real Cheese in a game of Resistance, and who could really ask for more than that? Why is this so important, aside from being a really fun day? Well, mainly because it really gave me the confidence to go forth and enjoy several more gaming days, with a wider variety of people, since and to be honest, acts as my representative for all of those great gaming days throughout the year. Even when I was at my lowest, recovering from an operation, having not left the house in weeks - My friends were still good enough to get together, crack open Betrayal at the House on the Hill, order some pizzas and just have a fantastic time. Because that, at the end of the day, is what tabletop gaming is all about - One of the most fun ways to connect with people, even if those people are complete strangers to you!
Going Down to Dublin...
So last year, one of my best, and most charismatic, quirky and creative, friends got married. Now unless you go to dozens of weddings a year, which I don't, this would be enough to be a highlight of anyone's year - But oh no! It doesn't end there. For you see, it seems like it's impossible for me to go to a wedding that's actually local. In fact, the day I do go to one I'm going to be disappointed, because I've done such a marvellous job dodging the whole thing. My next wedding, for example, is in Denver, which for the trip alone is sure to be extraordinary. Last year, however, was only slightly more mundane - As it took me to both Dublin and Kildare in Ireland.
Now, I'd never been to Ireland before - In fact, I've never been to a European country before outside of the United Kingdom itself. I'd set my expectations at 'A lot like Britain, but with more Irish stuff' and to a degree that was true, but to an even greater degree it wasn't. Dublin was a beast all it's own, with more in common with other European capitals (according to my good friend and travelling companion, with the appropriate moniker of Wanderlust) than anything in the UK. I found it somewhat surreal and disorientating at first, especially as when we arrived they were celebrating the last days of Oktoberfest (at the tail end of September, yeah, work that one out!) and the city was full of Germans. Literally. More Germans than Irish people. Can you imagine such a thing in the UK? Even if it were for a few days, the Daily Mail would be wringing it's hands over this clear show of dominance from Brussels! But it went deeper than that. They had an overground tram system that, while not always reliable, was easy to access and stopped at every place of importance along a clearly marked out route. Newsagents, cafes and shops doubled up as sandwich bars - Often with a branded subway and a not-at-all branded Irish deli counter that served the same style of food, only looking significantly more edible, under the same roof. I can't help but feel we have things we could learn from Ireland, just... No adopting the currency. Not because I'm scared for our financial independence, but because it all looks so dull and boring and fake. The notes, in particular, are re-purposed Monopoly money and most of the coins are roughly the same shape and colour so you can never find the change you're looking for, but I digress.
After a couple of days we moved away from Dublin, and up to Kildare where we eventually made our way to the place that would be housing the main event - The Village at Lyonns, as pictured above. I'm not usually a person for natural beauty or getting away into the country, I'm far too big a fan of being connected to my friends all around the world for that, but The Village was truly a place of wonder, beauty and both natural and man made extravagance. I don't believe I have ever been somewhere quite so fancy in all my life, and certainly never stayed at such a place. I won't go into too much detail, but to paint you a picture of what we're talking about here - The teabags? They were silk. Silk! I mean, the tea itself was only of average quality, but still, that's a lot of effort for something ultimately destined for the bin.
As to the wedding itself, it was a night and day to remember. The ceremony was touching and sweet, I got to meet up with some fantastic new people, as well as some treasured old friends, including a friend I had never met face to face before. The reception was... Well, it was wild and unexpected. The entire night was set to the backdrop of a crashing waterfall outside, and featured such delights as a fire juggler, an Xbox gaming room, a balloon manipulator and an elderly magician who had the most wonderful personality. By the end of it, I was completely and utterly worn out. So I did the only smart thing, returned to Dublin and ventured to the local Goth club! Sadly my only Goth outing last year, but a good one! Most everyone was very friendly and kind, with some great music played and a huge buffet brought down from the pub above. Not an entirely wise way to round off the trip considering how done in I was, but a great one otherwise. What I ultimately got out of the Ireland trip though, was a desire to see more of Europe, especially Germany. Perhaps we can pencil that in for 2015 sometime. Yeah, sounds like a plan!
Where's Neil Gaiman when you need him?
And so we get into early October, and my major, solo outing for the year. Months before, at two or three am in the morning, a post had gone up on Neil Gaiman's facebook page, stating there would be a reading of his new children's book - Fortunately the Milk - In London. Now usually, I over think these kinds of things and talk myself out of going. I wanted to go to the Doctor Who Proms for example but panicked over the logistics of getting there, finding a place to stay, travelling, etc. and in the end had a good time watching it on TV with my mum instead. But not quite as good a time as if I'd been there, I'm sure. But for this one, my tired brain took full reigns, and before I knew it the whole thing was booked, with a special edition book thrown in, and suddenly I was going to London.
So I found a reasonably priced train, managed to find a hostel on the opposite side of Westerminster Bridge to the venue - Which to my surprise and delight, was only a ten-fifteen minute walk away! Then promptly forgot about it until it was nearly time to go. I have to say, right from the off, it was an experience. To focus on the event itself first, I was worried about finding the venue. I knew it was near Westminster Abby, for example, but I had no idea *where* in all that it might be. Eventually I spotted a gaggle of quirkly dressed folk forming a line that went around the block (baring in mind I was, at this point, three quarters of an hour early!) and thought 'Yep! This must be the place!'. So I joined them, got chatting to a rather charming gentleman who became my friend for the night - Sadly I don't remember his name, but we chatting about book and TV series and Ipads for primary school children (new initiative at his son's school, I don't get it either!) and even had a drink afterwards. But the main event, oh! The main event! It was wonderful. Truly. Neil Gaiman has a voice that's made to read books, and all his co-conspirators (who were also responsible for bouts of stand-up comedy and musical interludes) rose to the occasion with their readings. The biggest surprise of the evening was Lenny Henry, playing a T-Rex at the end. The entire venue erupted in cheers when they heard him, and I think the highlight of the entire thing may have been Henry's enthusiastic interpretation of the Doctor as a dog - Before the quip to end all quips, 'The BBC would sooner cast a dog as the Doctor than a black man!'.
Overall, a magical experience capped off well by the not-quite-so-surprise appearance of Gaiman's wife, Amanda Palmer, who sang a rendition of Ukulele Anthem which... May not have been the best choice for a family event like this one. The only regret I have is one I share with Neil Gaiman himself, that there weren't more children in the audience to enjoy such a vibrant and imaginative reading themselves.
The rest of the trip was a decidedly mixed bag. The hostel I stayed at, while in a good location and with the friendliest staff I've ever encountered, was missing very basic things like sinks in their bathrooms and light switches to see what you're doing of a night. There was also a rather large kerfuffle on the train involving downed trees across overhead lines and general dishonesty and incompetence for Virgin in sorting the matter, which doubled the time of my three hour journey home. But aside from that, I had one of my most pleasant trips to London proper in a long time. I found everything I set my heart to going on, including Forbidden Planet and the Sherlock Holmes museum, never getting lost once and handling travelling on the Tube almost like a native. Almost. I also picked up my now legendary Sherlock Holmes pen, which is perhaps one of the tackiest things I bought last year but I still love it! Overall this was a great boost to my confidence, as it was proof that when I set my mind to something, I could be as independent as I ruddy well pleased and get where I needed to go. I just hope, in 2014, I bare that in mind much more often.
Operation: Ark Reactor.
So, something relatively big that I don't wish to dwell on too much - On the seventh of November, I went in for major surgery. Now for most people, that would be a life changing and no doubt scary event that they would probably tell war stories of for the rest of my life. My poor mother, in fact, has recently broken her arm and it was a rather harrowing experience for... Well, both of us, especially as there was a good chance she could lose it. For me though, it was simply something I have come to regard as routine - I needed my pacemaker changed. Now, this is my... Fifth or sixth device I've had installed, the most recent being about seven or eight year ago, and while there was some measure of anxiety over the whole thing, it had almost become routine. Something I was sure they were going to get right, and they did. I'm now three months into the healing process, and although my scar is still sore, I can honestly say that the procedure seems to have gone off without a hitch.
The biggest question, however, is will it increase my quality of life? And to be honest with you, I don't know. 2013 was marked by a distinct lack of energy, frequent bouts of illness and a general sluggishness on my part. Now, I'm always struck down by bout of illness, I have no immune system, that's nothing new - But the lethargy? That was particularly pronounced. I think, had I been in better condition, I would have more exciting ventures to put on this list. I would have been to more live events, travelled to that Doctor Who prom, seen my friends in Luton a lot more often and maybe done more Goth stuff. But as it stands, that was not the case, and now I'm stuck pondering the question - Am I any better? I think the tenuous answer is yes. When I'm fit and well, I seem to be able to do more and suffer less for it, but ultimately only time will tell. Let's see how well, or poorly, I fare in this coming year and hope that being sliced and diced open for replacement parts has done me a world of good. Even if it hasn't though, this is still an important one that I can't ignore - If only for the reason that it's kept me alive! Alive to enjoy everything that's coming in the future, and alive to enjoy our last entry in this look back...
The Day of the Doctor!
Yeah, yeah. I know. Figurines! Tabletop gaming! A TV episode?! This hardly ranks alongside 'Got Married', 'Visited the Great Wall of China', 'Skydived out of a plane into a tank of sharks!' in terms of significance or excitement. But do you know what? Sometimes the smallest things can cast the brightest light, and even putting aside all the hype and the historic significance of this episode (and also putting aside the fact I'm a huge Doctor Who nerd, see last post for reference!) Day of the Doctor was one of the things last year that I got a huge amount of pleasure out of.
Now, last year was a pretty exciting one for television, no doubt. Misfits took it's final bow, in a series that got off to a rocky start but reminded me exactly why I loved it in all it's cringe-worthy,highly inappropriate glory by the end. Dexter also came crashing to it's grand finale, which seemed to divide the fanbase into more pieces than the killer does his victims, but I found enjoyable enough - Even though it was utterly ruined by those last few seconds. Black Mirror came back for three more interesting, if slightly less savage than last series, stories of satire and woe and early to mid-2013 also saw Utopia and In the Flesh. Two thought provoking, engaging, yet highly disturbing in parts creations with a real point to make. As an aside, if you've yet to watch In The Flesh, do yourself a favour and hunt it down. It's characterisation, world and plotting is the finest in the zombie genre and the story twists pack such an emotional punch it hurts. There was also plenty for my comic book geek side to sink his teeth into, with the superb second series of Arrow and the steadily improving Agents of Shield to enjoy - And you know what? Doctor Who was no slouch last year either!
So what makes Day of the Doctor so special that I'd want to single it out as one of my top moments of the year? Especially when, for my money, Adventure in Time and Space is by far the best Who related piece of media televised last year.
Well, it's because I had the great privilege of seeing Day of the Doctor in the cinema!
Now, on it's own this isn't very significant. I went to the cinema a lot last year, and I'm sure for many people it's just your average day out. But when it came to Day of the Doctor, it was different. For one thing, it was packed. And I mean packed. Our cinema is never full, at any time of day, but for this one? I am so glad I picked up my ticket early, because the queues for the till were so long that they had to set up a concessions stand in the theatre itself. It was also an absolute joy to see so many different people from so many different walks of life there, some of them in costume, some of them (like myself) in a variety of Doctor Who themed t-shirt and one woman even wandering around in a TARDIS onesie. Ultimately though, in contrast to what I was saying about Neil Gaiman's book reading, it warmed my heart to see so many children there. The thing with geek culture is that, while it's great to see it thriving of late, we've also allowed it to become rather dominated by adults. All you have to do is look at the most recent Superman movie to see what an absolute sorry state we're in right now. We have Superman, the world's first superhero, the character on which the morality of the entire genre was built on - Starring in a film that's so far removed from what an audience of children could enjoy, that it just makes me sad. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think dumbing down for children is the way to go - Quite the opposite! But I think this is always a line that Doctor Who has walked well. It knows that the true meaning of mature isn't to just make everything grim and gritty, to have every character scowling, to wreak massive amounts of destruction because that's the only possible way to up the stakes - It's smarter than that. And it shows. Because throughout the entire episode, despite being in a cinema packed to the rafters with people, a good number of them children, do you know how many times the showing was interrupted?
Not once. Everyone was glued to that thing, wooping and letting out the obligatory 'Yes!' during the bits they were supposed too, but otherwise it had their full attention. And that, my friends, is part of the reason why the day was so magical - It showed that one piece of media could capture the imagination of so many people, of so many age groups, and ultimately touch their hearts. Soppy, but true, and an experience that will stick with me for a good, long while.
Of course, part of the reason is also the company I was in. Last year was a year of fantastic cinema outings with a very good friend of mine. We've seen everything from Thor 2, to Man of Steel, to Pacific Rim, sadly missing out on seeing the Hobbit together but again, this is a trend I very much hope to keep up in 2014 and if you're reading this, thanks for being such good company over the year, my friend! It's been a real pleasure, and like I said, long may it continue!
So, that was the year that was. There are, of course, other things that have shaped this year - Rather more tragic things that I'd rather not address in what, should be I feel, a celebration of everything good that's come and also smaller things. I was asked to be the godfather to a good friends child, who I hope to finally meet this year, and was very touched to accept. I had plenty of smaller adventures with friends old and new, and quiet, relaxed time with my family. I like to think I grew closer to my eldest brother, which is nice, and on an even smaller, but still significant note, there was blind draw and Celebrity avatars. Two wonderful, weekly endeavours with friends - One where you draw a subject with your eyes closed, the other where you change your facebook pictures to that of an actor or theme picked by another in the group. Simple things, but also things that have allowed me to engage with some very good friends of mine.
So that was 2013! What does 2014 hold? Who knows! But I hope, this year, whatever life throws at me, I can share it here and bring whoever might be reading it along for the ride. :)
