Monday, 18 January 2010

My Name's Katie and I Hate Icebreakers

It's not by the way. But I do. First day back at uni and you've got a wild eyed psychopath who would eat her own eyes to make a good impression on the first people she's been allowed to talk to in three years. Here's a tip: if you ever find yourself in this situation, please don't go around the room asking people their names and hobbies. It's icky. People don't like it.

I mean, what is the point of icebreakers anyway? They don't break the ice. They don't even thaw the tension. You don't know me and I don't know you. Nice and simple. The only function of breaking this unspoken agreement is to make everyone feel so awkward that they feel obliged to retreat into their own private inner well of despair. 'What are your hobbies?' she shrieks in cackling fits of madness. 'I haven't got any hobbies' you scream silently to yourself while those who have gone before you lie foaming on the floor.


Or maybe icebreakers are little chunks of necessary evil for our own good, disguised as awkward time wasting rituals . Perhaps subliminally they help us delve into the deep set hidden emotions of our co-students. Perhaps by talking about crap that nobody really cares about (good preparation for a literature module) we're simply learning to open ourselves up to the group. Perhaps it's 'rapport.' Perhaps it's just a good way for our demented overmistress to learn names.

Bull, bull, bull and bull. Nobody's listening to anything anyone else is saying. We don't care that Paul can ride a motorbike or that Jelly-Legs-Jimbo is doing a PGCE next year. We're too busy either bricking ourselves over what we're going to say next or regretting what we've already said. As if anyone could learn anything from a person's hobbies. 'I sew uncooked brussel sprouts into the eyes of dead animals so that the stalks look like pupils...' Nobody cares.


It's not rapport either and it's certainly not a good way of learning names. Rapport is when you say something and someone says something back. Icebreakers are when you say something and your words are swallowed into a void of ambivalence. As for name-learning, it's not as if you can look at someone and immediately associate them with whatever self-commending toss they've spouted earlier in the year. You've got your own little prejudices for that haven't you? It's not Jeremy the fun loving rascal who spends his time at the hospital singing to terminally ill puppies, it's Jeremy the blatant ket addict who pours jugs of peanut oil over himself for twenty minutes every day in an attempt to get it up. That's you Jeremy and don't you forget it.


My point (I think) is that people shouldn't be pressured into formulating a public image for themselves when they don't really want one. Don't be fooled, this is exactly the sort of brainwashing that icebreakers foster. If you don't have a hobby besides drinking and reading (again prerequisites for an English degree) you had better get one soon. And you can't choose horse riding because that's already taken.


The same goes for blogging. It's apparently impossible to create and maintain a blog without some sort of public image manifesting. Which is why I want to take this moment to apologise. I'm sorry world but this isn't me. This is merely a reflection of me mediated through the distorting lens of the written word. In real life I'm actually quite a nice person. Except when I'm drunk. Then I'm a tyrant.


You'll forgive me then (I'm sure) for criticising Seth Rogan's Zak and Miri Make a Porno because I actually quite like it.

If you haven't seen it, here's the craic. Zak and Miri are flatmates who always forget to pay their bills. They're grown up together around a completely platonic relationship with seemingly zero tension, giving an impression of the ideal no strings friendship. When they finally run out of money however, Zak's zany scheme to make a porno flick forces the pair's repressed emotions to surface, culminating in bizarre romance all round.

So far so good. The strengths of the comedy lie in pornography's innate inability to depict meaningful sex. That, some metacommentary about Rogan directing himself acting directing himself acting, and some good old fashioned poo humour. Hilarious.


There are some weak parts though. Don't get me wrong, I respect Seth Rogan. I respect the way he takes hard hitting contemporary issues and deals with them as delicately as a baboon with a jackhammer. I'm not being sarcastic, I think it's integral not only to the comedy but to dispelling all those nasty little taboos that any upstanding film producer wouldn't dare talk about. My problem with Zak and Miri isn't its disregard of taboo, it's that it doesn't go far enough. All the pornstars are depicted as happy-go-lucky scamps who seem genuinely interested in creating a work of art. I don't want that, I want soulless whores who participate only to fuel their hunger for cocaine. I suppose that would make for some pretty dreary comedy, but still, it's slightly more realistic than them all clubbing together to pay the bills at the flat.


Feeling reletively jolly all of a sudden, I also took it upon myself to read Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Winsor. Yes, Shakespeare, yawn.
Actually, it's pretty hilarious, if not in language, certainly in plot. The trick to reading Shakespeare of course, is to replace the character's names with those of family members or celebrities, especially when said character is a fat, arrogrant, sweaty lecher with about as much chance of seducing a woman as an anthropomorphic dog turd. The entire play consists of two women playing tricks on poor old Falstaff, including burying him in dirty clothes and hitting him. Hilarious. Needless to say I was picturing Gordon Brown at the butt end of all this, failing miserably to bed Michelle Obama behind wacky old Barrack's back.

Perhaps that's unfair. I mean, Brown's a largely annoying political abomination, but he's probably not a First Lady stealer. Maybe you should have told us this in the icebreaker Gordon. Then we'd all be your friend.

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

'Ava tart

Well ladies and gents this all seems to be going rather well doesn't it? Christmas is over, New Year has been and gone and it's noses back to the mundane old grindstone for everone. Now there's nothing but hardship and misery before the next brief season of celebration rolls around and we can all shop ourselves to exhaustion and bathe in glorious mutual disappointment.


On the bright side I've had a bit of an epiphany regarding the art of blogging. As far as I can tell no one wants to read a ten page essay on fourteen different books per month, so it's probably better to either break it down into weekly segements or whittle it down to the best of a bad bunch. Those are your two options. VOTE NOW!



Ok poll closed, I voted yea to both since it's inevitably going to be easier on your eyes and my hands. From now on: more regular updates about not so very much. Except not today, since I need to catch up on all the Decemberage that I've missed. Well, some of it.



Kicking off then, the film that's currently burned onto everyone's retinas in 3d!

I have dreams about Avatar. Sometimes they're wet dreams. Most of the time they're psychodellic trips into a universe where societies function with either utopian synchronicity or downright bastardness. No in between. No middle ground. You're either a giant azure hippie or a mechanical tyrant. It's actually a tough choice when you think about it.

What annoyed me about Avatar (and don't get me wrong, my eyes were in a constant state of orgasm the entire time) was the sheer preachiness of it all. Not just the fact that the all-consuming capitalist army tossers were consciously exploiting the pretty blue people. Not just the fact that the pretty blue people were a thinly veiled allegory for every single victim of imperialism from the days of the British Empire right up to the Iraq war with a fair few allusions to Vietnam thrown in for good measure. No I don't mind any of that: it just reconfirms my original suspicions that the real world is built around the sort of cut and dried morality you might find in a Famous Five novel. What really annoyed me... what really left me feeling disappointed... what really... what really got my goat... Ok well I don't really know what annoyed me about Avatar. It's very hard to pinpoint anything specific in a film so uncompromisingly enjoyable that a stony-faced Victorian schoolmaster would have trouble keeping a straight face. Perhaps it was the fact that all the preachiness didn't seem to be aimed at anyone in particular. While the film had all the makings of a manipultive political agenda, I'm not really sure what the agenda actually was. What does Cameron actually want from us? Should we be planting trees? Researching liberating if ultimately trippy cyberpunk technology? Halting our invasions of countries full of blue indigenese? No, he wants us to buy a pair of 3d glasses, throw them away and buy another pair. And we all know what our glasses are made from. Cheap plastic made with cheap oil made with cheap foreign labor. You hypocritte Cameron, you pointless, self-aggrandising hypocritte.

Perhaps Avatar 2 will be different. I foresee a cast of bad guys named after oil corporations travelling to Pandora (recently renamed 'Nam.2) aboard a giant floating spacecraft version of the Vatican City in an attempt to hook the locals on heroine and convince them to pursue careers in Neo-Christian porn. Just to make it all that more realistic some of the Na'vi actually go along with it, leading to moral dilemmas of an unthinkable magnitude. Does Jake Sully fight against these turncoat space-whores in an attempt to preserve his newfound way of life or does he let bygones be bygones and top himself there and then? I can picture it now, armies of zealous pterodactyl-riding junkies defending their rights to live life by their own rules while a resurrected Richard Dawkins shows up with an array of Greenpeace atheists whose annoyance towards everything and anything proves the deciding factor in .

Obviously I'm joking. Everyone knows that Dawkins doesn't need to be resurrected. He's immortal, he just doesn't want anyone to find out. Anyway, you can brand the US Army as baby-murdering imperialist pigs all you want, but criticise religion? Never.

Well Assassin's Creed 2 would appear to argue otherwise.

Turning on your 360 (or PS3 if you swing that way) you'll be confronted with a desperately apologetic message claiming that the development team consist of a multi-ethnic-multi-faith-multi-pack of token programers so into tolerance it makes you feel bad for sneering at paedophiles. If you think the content of the game is a call to arms, you're mistaken because this is a game of tolerance. We're not attacking your worldviews. Tolerance you see. We're all about tolerance. Intolerance? No: tolerance.

To cut a long story short, you have to kill the Pope. Well you're supposed to, except after brutally murdering hundreds upon hundreds of people in your quest to exact revenge upon your family's killers, your character decides to wimp out. Years of relentless bloodletting rendered moot. 'I guess killing you won't bring my family back.' Sure it's never to late for forgiveness, but Ezio takes it a bit far. It's not noble when the one person you don't mindlessly slaughter turns out to be the one person who really deserves it.

Ezio himself is a freerunning renaissance dickwad if ever there was one. In between climbing impossible buildings to find opportunities to pose, Ezio spends his time emoing it up batman style, nicking Venetian gondalas like a kid who's played too much GTA and justifying his vigilanteism by arguing that most of his victims are slightly bigger arseholes than him. Arguable Ezio. Very arguable.

Perhaps I just didn't understand what was really going on. As far as the storyline goes, it's like Dan Brown and an Italian phrasebook have gone back and time and decided to start killing people. The Templars are definitely the bad guys, I'm just not sure why. I think it's because they assassinate people. Which is also your main occupation... Maybe I should have played Assassin's Creed 1 first.

On the bright side the gameplay was quite enjoyable. As with all great games your character is effectively a regenerating jumping machine with infinite stamina and a sleepless body clock. Fall from a thousand feet and you'll end up miraculously landing in a bale of hay, but run into someone at ground level and you'll probably fall over. Just nod your head and accept it. It's fun. Except when you convince yourself that it's a good idea to collect all of something. There's 66 Viewpoints for example, tall structures to masturbate over in HD. Get one and there's a bit of text saying 'Viewpoints Synchronised 1/66.' Awesome, something to collect! Collect all 66 and... nothing happens. No gamer points. No cutscene. No nothing. I'm talking hours if not days of hopping, skipping and jumping all for the pleasant feeling of NOTHING. If you can't appreciate the severity of such a betrayal I suggest you go outside and throw your 360 (or PS3) at a slab of concrete full force. There's a bunch of diamonds inside. Honest.

Oh yeah. Spoilers above.