Series Review: Monster Hunter International

Some authors are very much your typical "I grew up the sensitive intellectual and my writing is my means of sharing my ideas to the world" kind of people who spend their time making prose. Then you have Larry Correia: a former FFL (that means he sold guns for all you gun newbs), a SWAT instructor, a tabletop RPG nerd, a licensed firearm instructor, a cow farmer, a competition shooter... The list goes on. There's been a lot that people have said about him, and while not all of it could be considered flattering, one thing is for sure: he's absolutely unique and breaks the mold more than just about any other individual. Correia's Monster Hunter International series is an action-packed, balls out ridiculous universe pumped up with so much pulpy monster lore it may need triple heart bypass surgery.

For those who don't already know, I am a HUGE fan of Larry Correia's genre blurring Grimnoir Chronicles series. Since Grimnoir Chronicles and MHI are Correia's two most accomplished series, it raises the question: How do they stack up? This is difficult to answer. Whereas Grimnoir Chronicles is a more general story and one meant for more audiences, MHI is more niche. In fact, Grimnoir Chronicles the book series I recommend to everyone (along with Patrick Rothfuss's K'vothe series). Does this mean MHI should be overlooked? Absolutely not.

Edit: I met Larry Correia recently when he was touring his newest installation of the Monster Hunter International series, so I felt I'd revisit this and update it for the new book. I talked with him a good bit and he signed the new book for me.

Larry Correia's style of writing is extremely straightfoward. Like, here are the antagonists, here are the protagonists, now here is the action. This isn't a bad thing, as he doesn't spend any downtime on mercurial aspects which can trap a lot of writers. Everything is clearly established, but he focuses on what is actually happening in the story. The final result is that there is a constant flow from one direction to the next without really looking back. It's like being in a river (or, more accurately, being caught in class 5 rapids with a fuckton of gunpowder to go along with the adrenaline rush of a ride you're in for).

There is always has at least one aspect of his writing that's done exceptionally well in all his books, a shining example to writers of all types. In MHI, it is the supporting characters. Enter: the Shackleford family. Between being shrewd businessmen, they're also badass mercs who clawed their way to the top of the lucrative trade of monster hunting. Along the way, they employ whoever they find with 3 exceptions: 1) They must watch each others' backs no matter what; 2) They need to understand that just as there are good and bad people, there are also good and bad monsters; and 3) They can't be afraid to tell the federal government to fuck off. Several characters employed by the Shacklefords include Sam Haven, a testosterone fueled cowboy, and Milo Anderson, a heavy weapons supergenius and devout Mormon. As outlandish as these characters are, the main character's best friends are the ones who will resonate with you the most.

There's Holly Newcastle, who I honestly empathize with which is extremely rare for me. She was doing what she needed to in order to survive before a traumatic incident with monsters. Holly is a survivor though, instead of letting a victim mentality get to her she strives to be as capable as possible so she can help others. Then there's Trip Jones, who's like a black Gordon Freeman on steroids (except he uses a pickaxe to brain zombies instead of a crowbar). Beneath his extreme physical prowess and high intellectual capacity, Trip demonstrates a lot of loyalty despite the personal things he's dealing with. He'll never turn his back on a friend in need, which is the one thing that keeps him, Holly, and main character together.

The main character, Owen Pitt, is a seamless mix of lovable doofus and gun toting badass. We can guffaw at his social ineptitude without feeling like he's ever underqualified or incapable of getting the job done. I can definitely see influence from Jayne Cobb in Owen's character, but then again Correia does have Adam Baldwin narrating some of his audiobooks (the Tom Stranger series). With as many colorful characters, it's a testament to the books' quality how we never lose sight of the main character.

This artwork's source is here and the picture is called "Down Boy"

The entire crew of characters isn't the only thing that makes overlooking MHI's flaws easy, either. There are tons of fantastical monsters such as orcs, gnomes, and elves, but Corriea hasn't written a single traditional monster in the series. He takes something familiar and does something unfamiliar with it. Though, you will certainly see some lesser known monsters such as a Go Dakkaebi, golems, and assorted fey to compliment the more mainstream stuff like werewolves, vampires,  and your Lovecraftian Great Old Ones. Similarly, there's a ton of gunplay. As I mentioned at the start, Correia has a lot of experience with firearms (I even cited him as a source in my post combining a bunch of information on conceal carry for people looking to get into guns). As a result, the gunplay is fantastic. It's very clear and easy to follow, the ballistics are accurate, it's utterly devoid of hollywood logic... To give you an idea, Correia has gone out of his way to include the characters' earpro they wear when shooting the monsters so that they don't go deaf. This is something people who aren't familiar with guns overlook- standing next to a jet engine is quieter than listening to most types of gunfire, you need hearing protection or silencers to avoid blowing your eardrums out. (Yes I believe silencers, or more accurately suppressors, are necessary safety devices and I live for the day integrated suppressors are the norm for commercially available compact handguns for every day carry.)

A valid complaint about MHI is how it can seem too samey. However, I don't think that's a bad thing- Correia's writing flows incredibly well and remains incredibly pulpy throughout the series. Again, it does have its flaws but his style avoids any common traps you'd usually see good writing fall into.

I wanted to talk about each individual book in the series, as well:

International: This is his first book, so one would expect it to be a lot rougher around the edges than it actually is. Everything is clearly established, there isn't any wasted time, and the eBook version is free on Amazon.

Vendetta: Everything a good sequel should be, using what was in the first as a jumping off point. I especially liked how it provided closure for certain characters without coming up with half assed explanations like "This was just magically here the whole time".

Alpha: Great for people who want delve deeper into the series, but it doesn't stand out to me like the first 2 books did. Earl Harbinger is already a well enough established character that the book had to spend more time getting the wheels spinning than any other in the series. Because of that, I'd say this one is the weakest.

Legion: Much like Alpha, this isn't bad by any stretch but doesn't really stand out the way the first two books did. You could probably skip these 2 and not miss terribly much.

Nemesis: While Earl Harbinger is an interesting character, his entourage is characters we already regularly see. Having to move him to an entirely different location bogged down Alpha a lot. Franks on the other hand has his own entourage that can be expanded on, and I'm glad that it gave more exposition to characters who wouldn't have gotten it otherwise. Much like with Toru in the Grimnoir Chronicles, Correia has demonstrated that a villain can be as dynamic and profound as the hero and that conflicts usually aren't as simple as someone just being the bad guy. Though it probably provided Correia with the greatest challenge of his life- make people sympathize with government agents.

Siege: And here is where we get to the falling action! In Nemesis everything was reaching a climax which is why Correia chose to divulge Franks's true identity. Everything from here onwards is going to be the pieces falling into place. The real bad guy gets revealed, we have a confrontation, we have loose ends being wrapped up in preparation for a final battle. In spite of all this, there are still personal stakes. Correia is smart enough to understand that assembling an army only for the main character to mono y mono with the bad guy would be a little contradictory for all the themes in the series.

This is still an ongoing series, and I'll be updating this as it completes. And on that note: Correia will be retiring from writing soon. He is finishing up MHI and has a new trilogy focusing on magic (first one in the series is Son of the Black Sword which I highly recommend to anyone who has more than a passing interest in dark fantasy). Then that will be it for his run as an author. I'd highly recommend Grimnoir Chronicles but MHI is by no means worth overlooking, especially if you're into shooting like I am.

The last thing I wanted to add to this is that there have been talks of a television adaptation or similar, so I wanted to shamelessly plug some actors who I think would fill some of the rolls perfectly.

Owen Pitt - Tait Fletcher
Julie Shackleford - Lizzy Caplan
Agent Franks - Dave Bautista
Agent Myers - Ethan Hawke
Skippy the Orc - Vin Diesal
Milo Anderson - Fran Kranz
Grant Jefferson - Chris Pine
Dorcas Peabody - Linda Hamilton

A Response to Andrew Sullivan's "The Offense Industry On The Offense"

For those of you who haven't read Sullivan's article, it can be found here. I suggest reading it, but not just for you to have an idea of what I'm responding to. True, it would help to know the biggest picture possible, but the real reason I recommend Sullivan's article is because it's a fantastic piece about a popular addiction to outrage.

Sullivan talks about how people are quick to attack someone, almost on reflex, by calling them sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. in an attempt to shut down valid conversation. He did a fantastic job describing this. However, I want to address something that I think Sullivan, and many others, are missing. That is: why people fall into these self righteous views in the first place.

Before I begin, let me differentiate between the many people on the internet who need clearly defined targets to aim their perpetual outrage at. These people can't do much harm if us sane, rational human being ignore them. Those aren't the people I wish to address. The people I wish to address are the ones who genuinely believe they're in the right to call out someone's "hate" (which is usually purposefully misinterpreting what someone is saying as racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.). Currently, this is seen most commonly in the people fighting for social equality.

Now, as many people are aware, there is the term "social justice" floating around on the internet. Most of what I've seen pertaining to social justice goes along the lines of something like this: "I think social justice warrior is a cool term. Who wouldn't want to fight for social justice? Literally everyone benefits from it." For those of you who have read my blog post about rabbit holes in human thinking, you know that I'm about to rip this to shreds.

Isn't it a remarkable coincidence how everyone is a victim fighting oppression, or speaking up against oppression on the behalf of victims? (When you see these people, ask them which victims specifically they're defending and which oppressors exactly they're fighting. I guarantee they won't be able to give you a clearly defined answer for either.) People have a bad habit of putting themselves on the side of the greater good and equality (absolute good) and they're opposition on the side of oppressors and tyrants (absolute bad). When people get into this mindset of absolutes, it's easy to shrug off your own behavior. Good and evil are relative terms; neither is an absolute and neither can be clearly defined. People seem to forget that everyone thinks they're the benefactor in their own minds. No side goes into an issue or conflict thinking they're the ones at fault.

Another flaw is how people see themselves as heroes and knights in shining armor, and in doing so they fall all over themselves to help others. It's an elitist, condescending viewpoint to think it's necessary for you to stand up for someone. For example: I am pansexual and have high functioning autism. People have breathlessly said how saying the words "faggot" and "retard" are hurtful to people like me and how it hurts nobody if they don't say the words. Yet when I say it doesn't bother me and that they shouldn't worry so much about what someone on the internet says, it's a surprise to them that I can manage my own feelings as well as offer comfort. Some people have a nasty habit of looking down on the people they're trying to help, and this fuels their self righteous behaviors even more. This also makes the people who actually are helping look bad. (It would be nice that people want to help me if they weren't so surprised in my ability to do mundane things. Thanks for applying to me the very double standards you are supposedly fighting against, you insufferable cretins.)

When people put themselves into the mindset of "I'm fighting oppression" they also make it easy to dig their heels in on issues or have a predetermined conclusion of what they want to achieve. Either of those two routes they take, they ignore contradicting evidence, logical rebuttals, and dissenting views when they fall into this mindset. (But don't just take my word for it! I'm a sophomore in college blogging about my political and social stances to an audience that isn't even in the 4 digits. Why not see what professionals have said about this issue here and here?) They head on a one-way course to not only self-destruction, but also setting back the end goals they hoped to achieve for social issues. For example: There are so many feminists addicted to outrage that it now needs to be differentiated between the feminists who actually respect women and the feminists who patronize women as victims. This tunnel vision can destroy any movement. As Serj Tankien has put it: Trust in my self-righteous suicide.

Now at first glance, it seems a bit drastic to say that people are suicidal when their motives are social justice and the greater good. But when the equality movement is as out of control as it currently is, whipping up shitstorm after shitstorm on the internet, there is no better description of their efforts than suicidal. People fall down, down, down into rabbit holes of thinking while attempting to drag as many others with them as possible. Dissenting viewpoints (which are a crucial component of diversity) are being withheld because people are too afraid of offending someone and coming under attack. As Sullivan said, "This should be called out for what it is: a full-scale assault on the integrity and freedom of writers in the name of social liberalism."

The Dangers of Rabbit Holes

Looking at Rabbit Holes and How Deep They Go

I've been over how I disagree with feminism and egalitarianism (not everyone's struggle is the same so equal rights don't work, and equality can't exist in sameness). I've said how I ardently disagree with the current feminist/equality movement. What I haven't really gone over, however, is the dangers of egalitarian methods of thinking.

What is the current feminist movement? It's about eliminating "rape culture". The equality movement is also about removing "gun culture", and other "cultures that lead to violence". This is the overt danger in its thinking. Historically, the "get rid of bad cultures" method of thinking as lead to nowhere good. I can guarantee this thinking will end up in the exclusion of entire groups and the policing of what people say. Policing people's speech under the guise of tolerance and equality happens a lot with egalitarianism. On top of that, it splashes the label of equality all over everything it's doing. We have extreme examples of how twisted the "get rid of bad cultures" thinking has been with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Movement. Remember: Hitler actually thought he was doing what was right. There are many traps of thinking people can fall into. Hitler just happened to take it to the extreme.

I see many mistakes being made with the current equality movement, the 2 biggest being: 1) They think they exist a parallel society that is free of biases and 2) They aren't getting rid of what is bad, they are getting rid of what they define to be bad.  These are the fatal flaws in the current equality movement. These narcissistic methods of thinking are very insidious, too. The policing of what people say is a perfect example of this insidious thinking. They define rape jokes to be bad, so they police what people say to get rid of it. (I grew up in an abuse household, and I don't find child abuse jokes offensive in the slightest. I also don't see how making child abuse jokes would fuel child abuse or a supposed culture of child abuse in any way. The key part of a joke is that it's not serious. To quote Ricky Gervais: "Stupid people treat jokes about bad things with the same fear and loathing intelligent people treat the actual bad things.") There are tons of traps and rabbit holes of thinking people can fall down. Just like being in a rabbit hole, most don't get out. Instead, they go deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole until they go somewhere unrecognizable. Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx... All thought they were doing good while going down that rabbit hole more and more. Now, most don't go the extreme Adolf Hitler went to, but that's not the point. The point is that this method of thinking leads nowhere good.

I already stated earlier why the "get rid of bad cultures" thinking is a dangerous rabbit hole. However, people need to be careful around these methods of thinking for another reason: we run the risk of falling into those rabbit holes ourselves. Remember, Hitler convinced those around him that he was doing something good. Again, most people don't go the extremes Hitler went to but that's not the point. The point is that others fell down that rabbit hole of thinking.

We can see the major examples of rabbit holes in history (Marxism, Nazism, Communism, etc.) but what is less known are the finer examples. While I could link a bunch of dry-ish history facts, I know most people don't study history as much as I do. (I attribute my feverish studying of history to my high-functioning autism and resulting mannerisms.) I will say that there are countless examples in the political history of countries about rabbit holes people can fall down. 

I fully expect reactions like "you don't know our struggle" or "I need feminism because of [this]". I can knock out both of those arguments easily. Number 1: the "you don't know our struggle" argument. I have high-functioning autism, so you don't know my struggle either. I'm okay with you criticizing it, though. The right to dissent is a part of a free society. Number 2: the "I need feminism because of [this]" argument. I'm not saying that the problems don't exist, just the opposite in fact. What I'm saying is that feminism isn't the solution. While these 2 arguments are fallacies, there's something deeper than that. When someone says "you don't know my struggle" or "I need feminism because of [this]" they are trying to shut down valid conversation. They think they're the only ones with problems because again: they think they exist in a parallel society free of biases.

Another way I've seen the egalitarian movement try to shut down valid conversation is to accuse someone of "victim blaming". No well adjusted human being thinks things like "the clothing you were wearing is why you deserved to get raped". (In fact, if someone seriously thinks a person deserves to get raped, they should be removed from the gene pool ASAP.) Like "equality," "victim blaming" is another buzzword. People are meant to focus on that and have it reverberate with them- and public speakers know this. The reaction is: Bing! Bing! Bing! Buzzword! We have a victim! We should side with then because they're a victim! VIIIII-IIIICTIM!

This is another reason why I oppose the egalitarian movement. People are stuck in the victim mentality, which I believe to be the core of the problem. People can't move on when stuck thinking "I'm a victim!" It's the antithesis of progress. This also leads into a minor but irritating enough issue on the internet: People are competing to be the most oppressed group (like that somehow invalidates other peoples' struggles). Sure, I, as a pansexual, face oppression, and in some areas I would face religious persecution for being a Heathen, but if someone like a trans person or a woman, or anyone else for that matter, is being oppressed, I'd fight for their rights, too. But I wouldn't just say I am oppressed. "Oppression" is another buzzword. (See the trend here? You have be wary of how public speakers and others can be manipulative like this.) How is this person in question being oppressed? For example: me being a pansexual, in some parts of the world, wouldn't be able to marry another man (if that's who I wanted to spend the rest of my life with). On top of that: some places consider it a crime punishable by imprisonment or even death. While this is an example my oppression, it kind of obscures the point I'm trying to hammer home, which is: You have to probe further into peoples' stories and scrutinize them. Don't be afraid to ask "Why?" Here's a perfect example (and is also a true story, my friend being the aggressor in this example): There's a man in the hospital. Why? He was attacked. Okay, we know why he's in the hospital. But you can't stop there. Probe further. Why was he attacked? He tried selling drugs to an 11 year old girl so her 20 year old brother beat his head in with a 2x4 for it. Someone might try to obscure that last detail, though. They might just keep it as "He was in hospital because he was attacked." Maybe the person wants people to support the man and feel bad for him, so they purposefully use partial facts. This is why a keen, investigative mind is one of the most valuable things anyone can have in our modern society. (We also need an armor of being a tad cynical in today's society where media permeates EVERYTHING, but that's better than needing a coat of chain mail as armor to protect from the swords of invaders, don't you think?)

This isn't to say I hate feminists, however. Feminism, like all egalitarian ideologies, is inherently flawed, but not all feminists are bad. In fact, most want to create a positive impact on society and remove the social gap that currently exists. But like I said earlier, equality can't exist in sameness. This is why things like Socialism fail. If everyone was given the same amount of money every year, some would wind up rich and others would wind up living in the gutter. The cream always rises to the top, but egalitarianism puts counterweights on the exceptional to pull them back down. According to egalitarianism, everyone must be made the same and that will create fairness. How long do you think the ones who excel are going to put up with the lazy ones getting treated the same as them? Equality can't exist in sameness.

See, with egalitarianism the lazy ones are benefited instead of facing repercussions. With meritocracy, a system that values hard work and skill, people get as many benefits as the work they put in. There is still equal opportunity and class mobility (as any system ought to have) but this values people's usefulness and contributions. It pulls some of the poor up from being poor and makes them a middle class. A middle class must exist for social gaps to be bridged, and egalitarianism will never create a middle class. While there are still many flaws in it, there isn't a system that works better than the current one based off of meritocracy, equal opportunity, and class mobility a.k.a. Capitalism. (People seem to think removing capitalism will magically solve social inequality. It won't.) I find a quote from Sir Winston Churchill rings true: "Capitalism is the worst, most terrible system. Except for all the others." (Oh, and Sir Churchill is one of my heroes whom I have undying respect for, so I'll be quoting him a lot.)

How was egalitarianism countered? Western Society is the birth of ideas such as equal opportunity and class mobility. I am EXTREMELY grateful to have been born in Western Society, a mindset that instead of rigidly adhering to tradition, translates the aspects of society worth conserving into modern times. Sure, there have been instances like Laissez-Faire and the Invisible Hand, as well as other rabbit holes one can fall down. There is still the ever ongoing struggle to guard one's own thoughts, no matter where they live. The ideal, Utopian society does not and never will exist. That being said, the systems implemented in Western Society are working systems. Sure there are flaws, but it's made by humans so it never will be free of flaws. Compared to the other systems out there, which end up with a small elite rich class and a massive poor class, Western Society boasts some incredible systems.

Western Society is an apparition. When America is gone, there's a good chance things will go back to how they were: a small, elite rich class and a large poor class. The times are changing after all. The West is weakening and The East is growing in strength. China and Russia are itchin' to compete with America, and I have no doubt in my mind that the world will experience mass change within 100-150 years as Eastern Society comes into power once again. (My only hope is that I kick the bucket before that happens, because it ain't gonna be pretty.) For the time being, though, I am not ashamed to call myself a capitalist and an American. I always have and always will oppose egalitarianism.

Your Name Tastes Like Asparagus

This essay is my English mid-term. I revised it and posted it to here because I think it does a very good job explaining my synesthesia and shows a lot of progress I've made between this essay and my Window Into Synesthesia essay.

Has the word sharp ever tasted salty? Has the number 9 looked like the color orange? Does Mozart's music take the shape of a square? To individuals with synesthesia, these are all distinct possibilities. Having synesthesia myself, I've always wondered if people could taste my name as I've tasted theirs. I thought this was how everyone perceived the world, but this was not the case. Just as it's normal for the sky to be blue to some, it's normal for me to see and taste a conversation. Therefore, normal is a subjective term. Nobody is exempt from this. Just as it's normal for me to have synesthesia, it isn't to someone else.

For those that don't know, synesthesia is a brain disorder (I prefer to think of it as a difference, since "disorder" has a negative connotation to it) in which certain stimuli cause one's sense to blend together. In my particular case, music and words (either spoken or written) cause me to see colors and shapes as well as get taste sensations. This is especially true for guttural spoken languages and words with hard vowel sounds. I also get strong sensations from brass and string instruments as well as electronic music. There are many bands that trigger my synesthesia pleasurably, but I'm going to stick to 3: Gorillaz, Crystal Castles, and Explosions in the Sky.

Gorillaz is probably the most powerful of of any sensation. Boasting an incredibly diverse sound, I get incredibly diverse sensations. For example: their song El Mañana tastes crunchy to me, whereas Fire Coming Out Of The Monkey's Head is green and wavy, while Every Planet We Reach Is Dead is very purple and gives me the sensation of standing in fog. A much more defined sensation, Crystal Castles is very linear, brightly colored, and short lived to me. For example, their song Knights gives me cadet blue lattice structures that taste like popcorn. In stark contrast, Explosions in the Sky is very deeply colored, flowing, and liquid-y to me, like a Tai Chi of music. The First Breath After Coma is very scarlet and washes over me, coming in waves. While all this is very remarkable, keep in mind that I can't turn these sensations off.

Synesthesia is very intrusive in day-to-day life for me. Constantly reading signs and billboards, as well as conversation and music played in a public store can be very overwhelming for me. I've learned to cope with it (since I've had it my entire life) but there are still some obnoxious sensations that can be very stressing. It's possible for me to go from completely relaxed to completely agitated, so in that way I'm very fickle. I don't expect people to understand my idiosyncrasies, which can also be stressful when someone asks why I get agitated at something. Remember: Normal is a subjective term. Everyone has their own ideas of what normality is.

Just like the flip side of a coin, synesthesia is amazing in personal life. When I go home and crack open a book, play a vinyl, and burn some incense... Man alive nothing beats that feeling. It also comes alive when I write, making wordplay fun. Even right now, there are colors and tastes firing off in my mind. I honestly couldn't image life without my synesthesia, either. It's all a matter of finding a balance, like Yin & Yang. Both on their own is bad, but balanced together they create a harmony.

Conformity (not over-conformity) is something everyone strives for, whether they notice it or not. It means functioning in society, which is survival. While it gives me a unique perspective, I don't think my synesthesia makes me special or anything. (I mean good God, I'd be the worst kind of special snowflake if I did.) I have a different challenge but the same goal as others: fake it until you make it. I reserve judgement because normal is a subjective term. We all face the struggle of conformity, though.

Normality is what we define it as, not an absolute truth. Think before you judge someone else for being "weird". There's a good chance they can turn around and say the same thing about you.

Other Synesthesia Essays/Pieces:

A post on Wordpress
A student study on synesthesia
A good brief review that showcases other sources

The Canvas of Pixels

A Look Into the Artistic and Educational Values of Video Games

A video game is often times a group of pixels that kill other pixels. The pixels beep and flash to make a form of entertainment. But that’s only on the surface. Behind a video game, someone has put in a lot of time and effort to create a world just for an audience to explore (and often times destroy). Something is created and others are given a set of controls to operate inside of it, and through that exploration a story can be told. Many people see video games as merely a form of entertainment. I say that video games have more value than solely entertainment. If video games were seen in a different light, it could help people to see more value in them, both artistically and educationally.

For starters: What is art? It's hard to get an official, solid definition of art, so I'm not going to focus on THE definition of art. One possible definition of art, the definition that I myself prefer to use, is 'expressing oneself with materials, leaving something physical behind in the process'. Media is one of the most common methods people use to create art. Instead of telling story through dialogue, media uses graphics. Video games do this as well, and they do it in a very hands-on way. In fact, video games are unrivaled in their ability to tell a story without saying a word because they tell it through the element of discovery. For example: In the game Left 4 Dead, the environment and zombies’ clothing tell the story of how the infection in that area went down. While one could argue that films also do this, in a movie the audience’s view in restricted to the scripted motion of the camera.  In a video game, the audience is offered something that no film, and few other sources of media, can match: the ability to explore at their own pace. Video games have a massive level of interaction and immersion. Rather than being shown a zombie-infested environment, it becomes infinitely cooler if one explores a city block and happens across a building with the zombie-infested environment inside of it. This is the element of discovery and it is a form of storytelling unique to video games. This is one of the biggest reasons why I argue that video games can have a lot of artistic value.

I’ve heard that some video games are just pure violence, and because of this their artistic value is reduced. However, video games being violent don’t necessarily mean that they are not artistic. The violent video games often still tell a story. A story doesn’t have to be meaningful in order to be entertaining and worth telling. Now, many meaningful stories with strong morals are told every year, including in video games. (More than a few of the meaningful games I played were very violent, too.) There are layers of symbolism and metaphor that can be found in video games, and these can be used to tell a meaningful story. Some meaningful games which are well known are No More Heroes and BioShock. However, I’m going to talk about the meaningful game Lollipop Chainsaw. For those that don’t know, Lollipop Chainsaw is a game about a lollipop sucking, scantily clad cheerleader dicing up zombies with, you guessed it: a chainsaw. It’s a bloody, action packed, undead brawling video game. I chose it because it fits with the example of “it’s just pixels on the surface”. There is very little meaning at face value in Lollipop Chainsaw. To quote professional video game journalist Jim Sterling, “Lollipop Chainsaw is dumb as a bag of very stupid hammers." But if one delves deeper, they can also see that Lollipop Chainsaw is a social satire lampooning sexism. The main character (Juliet) is completely and utterly objectified, despite her having a dynamic personality. When her boyfriend gets bitten, she doesn't want to leave him. When her sensei dies in her arms, she feels obligated to fulfill his last request. When her father sacrifices himself for her, she breaks down crying at his loss. She is a thinking, feeling human being. But she’s still objectified. When she goes to pick an object up, she bends way over and camera zooms up her short skirt. When it’s in front of her, the camera goes from an upward angle to show off the cleavage of her big breasts. She is an object for people to get their rocks off to. This can be a social commentary overtly exposing sexism through satire. (How many various types of media have used an over sexualized female character as their selling point?) But there’s also a deeper, more subtle layer: Juliet’s boyfriend, Nick.

(In case you can't read the text, it says "I am not an 'it'".)

It’s hard not to repeat a lot of what Jim Sterling said in his article “Objectification and Lollipop Chainsaw” (which is a great read about the game’s symbolism). I mention that Nick gets bitten by a zombie. This happens at the start of the game, after Juliet hacks through a bunch of the undead and comes across Nick. Screaming her head off and attracting zombies, Juliet causes Nick to jump into the fray. The gallant white knight, Nick tackles a zombie to save Juliet, the damsel in distress, and suffers a bite in the process. Fully aware he is going to turn, Nick and Juliet decide to have final words (which are along the lines of “I’m sorry I ruined your birthday, sweetie”). As he’s ready to die, Nick gets decapitated by Juliet, who decides abruptly to do so without even taking into consideration Nick’s thoughts on the matter. Bringing Nick’s head back to life, she carries him around with her against his will for the rest of the game. Along the way, Juliet and her sisters torment Nick, who’s helpless since he’s a severed head. The girls (and their father, who's the authority figure of the group) are all entirely indifferent to Nick and even go as far as to blame him for his negative reactions to them doing something terrible to him. When the youngest sister applies makeup to him, Nick starts to voice how he doesn't deserve this treatment. The rest of the sisters and the dad tell him to stop complaining, and when Nick pleads with them to leave him behind or kill him, Juliet says no and carries him with her anyway. This is just one of the ways Nick is objectified and tormented throughout this game. Now, what audience might initially be drawn to a game like Lollipop Chainsaw which features a half-naked cheerleader who just turned 18? Men who most likely objectify women. Upon playing through the game, and seeing what Nick endures, they will most likely be outraged. How dare they treat him like that! He’s a human being! And then it clicks: This is exactly what many women face every day causing them to feel helpless as a result, and it’s symbolized by this role reversal. These storytelling merits in video games can drastically increase their artistic value, even if the video game is very violent like in the case of Lollipop Chainsaw.

With all the artistic value that can be found in them, one might overlook potential educational value in video games. Let me say video games can absolutely be educational. I can say for a fact that if I hadn’t played certain video games, my understanding of the world wouldn’t have the thought put into it that it does today. Video games teach a slew of new skills, especially puzzle solving. The physics based Portal video game series teaches about experimentation and how there are often times more than one way to approach a problem. The player is also given a special gun called a Portal Gun, which (big surprise) creates portals on certain types of surfaces. The player can pass through these portals in either direction, carrying any momentum they have with them. This simple tool is what all the puzzles in the game are built around. One such example of this is shooting a portal up across from a high ledge. There is no way to climb to this ledge. The player must jump off of a cliff and shoot a portal directly below oneself. Using the speed of the fall, the player launches themselves through the portals and up to the otherwise unreachable ledge. This unique, hands-on problem solving works perfectly with video games. It encourages players to come up with different plans and test them out. It gets the player thinking by interacting with the world around them.

The Pikmin video game series teaches strategizing through the use numbers and coordination in order to overcome otherwise impassable obstacles and slay otherwise invincible beasts. These beasts are the indigenous wildlife of the planet that the Pikmin series takes place on. They are very hostile and very dangerous, aside from one race of the indigenous wildlife: plantlike little men called Pikmin (hence the title name). The Pikmin come in different colors and have various abilities. Commanding the forces as a whole or in specific groups, the player uses them to achieve feats in a world they’d surely perish in without aid from the Pikmin. The Pikmin can be thrown, marched in lines, swarmed around objects/enemies, harvest plants, and haul objects around, making them fully useful tools. This full versatility of the Pikmin and their abilities is needed, as the Pikmin series is one of the most unforgiving video game series ever created. Rather than go into detail on how the game screws with you the player, I’ll just state one of the feats needing to be overcome in the game. An electric fence is blocking your path and it sits across a body of water, which the electricity-resistant yellow Pikmin can’t cross. Using blue Pikmin, the player must figure out a way to get their yellow Pikmin across the body of water and beat down the electric fence to pass on to the next area. Things are rarely this simple, though, as a slew of other complications get thrown in as the player advances, often times completely out of the blue. Suicide monsters could drop down on your Pikmin squad, boulders could come in and crush you if you get caught underneath them, a group of enemies could appear that send you Pikmin team into a tizzy, and so much more. This game really hones one’s ability to not only strategize, but think on their feet as well. It also implements high risk/high reward strategies, encouraging people to try daring feats after they have become more skilled in certain aspects.

These skills aren’t just for the sole purpose of progressing through a game; they have the ability to change the way one physically sees the world they live in. After all, it can affect the way one approaches problems, causing them to look from an entirely new angle. It can also help with holistic thinking, and abstract thinking. I can attest to the impact video games had on my abstract thinking: I have a much easier time visualizing a scenario where there are many variables in play, such as a massive strategic battle (much thanks to a certain game about commanding little plantlike men). Some might argue that the skills in video games can be learned elsewhere, but video games almost always give a trial & error aspect to them in the form of play. As said by professional video game journalism/discussion group Extra Credits, “Play is nature’s way of getting us to learn.” The player gets to practice the skills they learned throughout the world created for them, and they many times combine those skills with new ones they acquire later on. In doing so, the player’s problem solving is tested repeatedly throughout the game. I like to think of it a much more engaging test or exam. (It’s no wonder why many students would much rather play video games than do homework then, huh?) There’s so much that video games can give, too. Just as many different cultures produce films and literature, many different cultures also produce video games. Different cultures have different mindsets. There is an audience from all over the planet shares a common interest in video games. As a result, that audience is subjected to different ways of thinking when they play the video games other cultures create. What this means is that video games are a part of cultural diffusion, and can be a huge melting pot of creativity and ideas. The educational value of video games should never be underestimated.

If one looks deeper than just the pixels they can find an amazing world in video games. Video games can be highly artistic, highly engaging, and highly educational. Video games can utilize the element of discovery to not only tell a story without saying a word, but also tell the story in a way that is unique to their form of media entirely. Video games can offer a massive vein of creative ideas ready to be tapped as well as potential new ways to look at the world, both physically and abstractly. I say it’s time to start looking at video games in an artistic and educational light, and realizing their value in those respective areas.

Future Readings/Discussion

Josh Loomis's review of the game Journey does a good job delving into the specifics of artistic storytelling in video games.

Extra Credits is a great area of discussion about video games. I highly recommend everyone check them out, regardless of their stance on gaming.

Jim Sterling's review of The Walking Dead, another one of the biggest reasons why I am adamant that video games can be a form of art.

Extra Credits providing useful videos about how video games can be powerful tools in the classroom here here and here

Growing Up In An Abusive Household

Note: Before you begin reading, this was an essay assignment from an English class I'm currently taking. I feel like posting this here for those curious. The prompt was "Write about empowerment or disempowerment".

I grew up in an abusive household. This is something I’m very open about. I was abused and neglected as a child, and all the way into my teen years. Growing up, I felt a lot of confusion and frustration. While I thought I was alone, I realized that every child faces confusion and frustration. It doesn’t matter what it is that the child is dealing with; the inability to understand their feelings (and as a direct result, articulate their thoughts) is a lack of power that all children face and need help with. Therefore, it’s not only the child’s problem, but the adult’s problem as well.

Before I go into the subject of childhood anger, I must first explain what reciprocality is. A reciprocal response is putting out what gets put in. This can be applied to many different scenarios, including anger. It’s what happened to me, my family members, and my friends. If a child constantly takes in angry behavior, it’s only a matter of time before a child starts outputting angry behavior. On top of that, it’s often the child reciprocating this behavior that gets punished because they’re the end result, and what people tend to only see. Too many times I’ve seen a punishment blindly carried out with nobody bothering to understand the child and why they might be acting the way they are. The child is unable to understand why they’re the only ones getting punished in this situation, too. This only fuels the confusion the child faces, and, invariably, the frustration and anger they feel. As a result, the whole cycle repeats itself, almost certainly worsening, too. Patience and understanding can save a child. But it’s not just children who feel anger; adults feel it, too.

Anger doesn’t magically go away. If anger is put into a child and never resolved, they will be reciprocating anger all the way into adulthood. For example, my dad had impatient parents who didn’t listen to him. This caused him a lot of grief and anger, and he didn’t get it resolved. So, when he had me, I was often on the receiving end of that misplaced anger. As a result, I myself developed misplaced anger. Anger and silence are a bad combination for anyone, regardless of the situation they’re in. This is why it’s imperative that children get help as soon as possible. Taking the time to understand leaves a profound impact on the child. Even if it seems late, listening to someone makes all the difference. My dad is listening to me now, when I’m 20. While everything that happened between us was from ages 7-14, I’ve been set free from a lot of inner demons. Not only do I have a working relationship with my dad; I have connected emotionally with him, too. I would still be reciprocating anger if he didn’t start trying to understand me. It’s never, and I reiterate: NEVER too late to listen to someone.

Listening is something everyone could use to work on. For example, this essay: Are you simply nodding along as you read it, or are you trying to process the points I’m trying to make? One must understand and apply information when it’s presented to them. I’m not writing this for someone to add to a list of mindless responses. I’m writing this to make a profound impact on parent-children relationships and the upbringing of children. I’m not one to get on a high horse and tell others how they should interpret my writing, but I really hope people take this essay to heart.

Everyone is capable of making an impact, positive or negative, and this is magnified on children. Blindly enforcing rules or punishments get nowhere. One must first question and understand before applying, otherwise, they create a wretched cycle, and if left unresolved, the repercussions are felt years and years down the line.

A Window into Synesthesia

Before I begin, let me clarify that I’m writing this with the assumption that you, the reader, already know what synesthesia is. If you don’t, I implore you to look it up before reading any further (you DO have the internet, so it’s not that difficult to Google it right now). Now that that’s covered, let me first explain what my synesthesia is.

          My synesthesia is a combination of sound-taste, color-auditory, and color-graphemic. In other words, words and sounds give me tastes and color sensations. This happens when I listen to music and read or hear words (especially words with hard vowel sounds). Music gives me more color sensations and words give me more tastes. For example, I find think the word 'sharp' tastes like Palestinian rock candy and is very pyramidal in shape, and the name 'Aaron' is very brown to me and looks like rocks.

          Do I find it intrusive in day-to-day life? Yes and no. Sometimes it’s enjoyable and relaxing when I’m doing something, but mostly it’s irritating and uncomfortable. For example, it’s a royal pain in the ass when trying to hold a conversation because I have to push the sensations to the back of my head while trying focus on the cohesion of the conversation. There is a flip side to this, however: it’s highly enjoyable in private life. For example, when I get home, playing music fuels my creativity when free writing as I the sensations make it very easy to have something to write about and describe.

          To help get an idea of what it’s like for me, I’m going to describe some of the sensations I get from bands. These bands are Crystal Castles, Explosions in the Sky, Mogwai, and Gorillaz. The reason I’m choosing these is because they give me stronger sensations which makes it easier to describe. See, it’s exhausting for me to articulate my synesthesia because of the layers of complexity behind it.

For starters, I’m keeping the image and taste of a sensation in my head for an extended period of time. On top of that, the words I’m articulating are giving me fresh sensations that I have to push away. (It’s one thing to do it when focusing on something entirely different like a conversation. It’s another thing entirely to focus on something similar. Imagine trying to focus on a riff in a song and play it while other songs play in the background.) The last part is less difficult but a challenge nonetheless: Finding right words to concisely articulate what I’m saying. It’s easier to do this as I mature, but still difficult because I’m attempting to convey something the other person often times has a very difficult time understanding. I’m not saying this to make a sob story; I’m saying this to help better understand what it’s like for me as a synesthete. Now, on the bands themselves.

I’ll start with Crystal Castles. I get very linear sensations from this band, along with crackling colors and tastes. My favorite song of theirs is Knights, which gives me rigid, icy blue vertical and horizontal lines that flash and disappear. They don’t flash in a particular pattern like a lattice structure or anything; they appear at random. In the background behind the lines, there’s a constant crackling and softly glowing yellow, almost like popcorn. It doesn’t taste like anything in particular; just a very bland spice at times. Next is Explosions in the Sky.

Explosions in the Sky is very red to me, often a deep scarlet and liquid-y. It’s very brightly glowing at times and very smooth as a texture. My favorite song of theirs is First Breath After Coma. There’s no real taste to me; the sensations of this band wash over me like waves, too. It’s very flowing, almost like a Tai Chi of music. Mogwai, on the other hand, is on the opposite end of this.

Mogwai is very rough and green to me. It’s very solid in the shapes it creates, and rather than it washing over me, it’s like I have to come over to it to observe it. My favorite song of theirs is Sine Wave. There isn’t any particular taste to their music, either (again, words trigger my tastes more than music does). I do see highly defined patterns on the surface of the shapes. For example, Sine Wave is rough and scaly, kind of like a pineapple mixed with an iguana.

Lastly, on to Gorillaz. There is no one set sensation I get from this band. They’re so experimental that I get many different sensations from them. My favorite song of theirs is 68 State. Some of their music is very unique to me. For example, their song Every Planet We Reach Is Dead is very purple. No other song has given me purple colors. On top of that, the taste and sensation I get is like standing in fog. It’s not as solid as other bands. On the other hand, their song Fire Coming Out Of The Monkey’s Head is very green and wavy. It’s like a solid stream coming at me in the frequency of waves. Their song Empire Ants is very yellow and minimal in the shapes that it makes. It’s more like spots of color being pushed around on a board than actual highly defined shapes.

There’s a lot of other music that gives me strong sensations, like Pink Floyd, Meshuggah, Sun Araw, Mahlor, YES, Stravinsky, Chopin, etc. but again, the ones I listed were the easiest to describe. There are certain instruments that give me certain sensations, too. The most powerful ones come from brass instruments and more powerful sensations come from violins, acoustic & bass guitars, gu-zhengs, and pianos. However, certain things, such as synths, can give me entirely different sensations. This is why I’m not a big fan of electronic music. Most of it irritates me in some way or another. Of course, the ones that do appeal to me are very powerful, such as Sun Araw and Crystal Castles. But for the most part, I dislike electronic music.

I hope this painted an idea of what it's like for me to interpret sensations. If you're a professional looking to perform research on synesthesia, I'm more than happy to help in any way I can, so hit me up.