This is a little bit of an alternative character interpretation, and not something I usually do, but I've had this thought lately, and I feel like the only way to get it out is to write it down.
Basically, the thought is: what if Princess Peach (of Mario franchise fame) isn't all that interested in Mario?
In the main series, Peach and Mario have very little interaction with each other directly. Peach gets kidnapped, usually by Bowser, Mario comes to the rescue, and she's saved, sometimes offering a cake back at the castle, a kiss on the nose and then the credits roll. That does not necessarily scream romantic interest to me. Gratitude, yes, romance...not quite. There is an argument there for the game's intended audience and how anything else could be inappropriate for a family-friendly game, however.
In the RPGs and other 'side games' we get to see a little more of Peach as a person. In Paper Mario (N64), she works within the confines of being captured to get Mario more information on how to beat Bowser (thus rescuing her and restoring the kingdom to it's normal state). In Super Paper Mario (Wii), she's a playable character in her own right, standing beside Mario, Luigi and Bowser to help save the day.
Small romantic gestures can be written off as obligation in this way - stuck between a captor who repeatedly abducts her and proclaims romantic intent, and her consistent rescuer, there's a certain sense of obligation to repay him in some way for his efforts. Especially as, inevitably, she will be kidnapped again - it's in her own best interests not to snub the one man who reliably rescues her, when her own staff and seemingly no one else in the kingdom is even willing to try.
There's also her position to think about. As Princess of the Mushroom kingdom, there are all kinds of people apart from her invested in this relationship. Talking to many of the NPC Toads in the Paper Mario, and the Mario and Luigi games reveals that her relationship to Mario is the subject of a lot of gossip around the Mushroom Kingdom. Simply declaring that she has no interest for Mario won't work, not when so many others are invested in the outcome.
The only other notable time when Peach is approached in a romantic/sexual way by anyone apart from Bowser or Mario that I'm aware of is in Super Paper Mario, where Francis (gross butterfly collecting dudebro) talks to Peach as though she is a character in a romantic visual novel. This goes about as well as can be expected, and Peach, gratifyingly, doesn't pander to his expectations, but it does come some way to explaining how the few people who don't see Peach as an untouchable figure treat her as a mute object to possess. With that in mind, how many other options does Peach really have?
In Super Mario 64, the game opens with Peach's letter, asking Mario to come to the castle because she's baked a cake for him. This could be read as a romantic gesture, but it's not as though Mario is alone in having had Peach cook for him. Gourmet Guy in Paper Mario also receives a cake from Peach, albeit in order for her to get more information about Bowser's schemes. Even Bowser receives a cake for his part in saving the Mushroom Kingdom in Bowser's Inside Story (DS). Maybe she just likes baking?
Mario is invited to numerous events, such as the Star Festival in the Super Mario Galaxy games (Wii), tea parties in New Super Mario Bros. U (Wii), but usually with others present (like Luigi or Toads), so it's rarely them together alone. To me, this reads more as inviting friends to events, over inviting a significant other to a date.
This is, by no means to say that this is true or it's the best interpretation of her character. Merely an alternative to the obvious and easy plot of damsel in distress falls in love with her rescuer. There are other possibilities, too. Perhaps she doesn't have romantic affection for him, but a sisterly affection? There is nothing to say that she doesn't hold platonic feelings towards him, just as there's nothing to say that her feeling aren't romantic, despite everything I've just said. Characters are open to interpretation of subtext and events and especially in a franchise like Mario's, small details are often the only clues we get about a much more complex character than we initially thought.
Monday 24 August 2015
Sunday 23 August 2015
Hating on Banksy: A New Trend
With the opening of Dismaland, there's been a trend on some social media networks to badmouth Banksy. I went into this with a reasonably open mind - while I've seen and enjoy a lot of his pieces, I wouldn't consider myself an avid fan, and I was perfectly willing to listen to the arguments against him. If he were genuinely problematic, I'd prefer to know about it and inform myself. But the more I listened to other people's genuinely angry discourse, the more I felt like they were wrong. They bought up a variety of points, some which were nonsensical, and others which, while they had a very strong point, felt somewhat unfair to use as an attack on a person, when they were addressed to a culture as a whole. So, for my own benefit, I'm going to look at the key arguments against and explain why I feel this isn't a constructive movement to criticise both Banksy himself and the wider art world.
He's marketable and successful
On the surface, this almost makes sense. After all, his art is openly and repeatedly critical of capitalism and how it hurts people, so how can an artist profit from the system they despise? Except the problem is that we live in a capitalist society. You can't dismantle a system from within without using the tools of that system. In order to change anything, you need power. And for the most part, in a capitalist society, power comes from money. Now, you can be critical of what Banksy does with his money - does he use it as a force to help others or not? But I haven't seen anyone touch on this, possibly because of Banksy's own anonymity. However, while researching, I did come across this story of how he helped a homeless man who was displaced by his art. I'd like to believe that's typical of his actions, but I have no way of knowing for sure. Just as I have no way of knowing that he doesn't do more actions like this.
By being marketable, his art is getting into the hands of the people who should, by all rights, be the biggest proponents of capitalism. Banksy's works have been sold in Sotheby’s in London (extremely upper-class auction house for art). They were selling for hundreds of thousands of pounds. Not exactly pocket change for the buyer - this is the kind of money that could outright buy a house in most areas of the country. These are people who have greatly profited from capitalism buying anti-capitalist art...there's a certain level of irony there. His success has given his anti-capitalist ideas a platform that he wouldn't otherwise have had. You can bemoan the evils of capitalism all you like, but if no one listens, what's the point? This way, at least people have thought about his art, and maybe gone on to learn more and work towards making a change. Art is a starting point for discussion, but no one can discuss it if they never see it.
So at the end of the day, this is an argument that goes roughly: I don't like that this artist gets paid for his art. I don't like that his career is successful and that he can afford to support himself on the back of his art. And that feels like nonsense to me, especially when said by the same people who openly support artists, stop art theft and think artists should be paid reasonably for their work.
He's popular/He creates art that takes no skill
Much like the argument above, it attacks him personally for something he has fairly little control over. It also comes with the implication that there are other artists more deserving. But mostly it smacks of 'hipsterism' to me. Liking things because they aren't mainstream, even if that means abandoning artists once they achieve a level of notoriety. And that's ridiculous.
However, the implication that other artists deserve more attention is actually a good one. Because I can't argue. Art is subjective; people are never going to agree on who the most 'deserving' artist is. There are almost certainly artists with better ideas than Banksy, and greater technical skill than Banksy. It's not fair that he makes a lot of money off his work while others don't. It's not fair that there are artists who are living in abject poverty while he isn't. The world isn't fair.
If you really feel that strongly that other artists deserve more attention/exposure/money, then rather than hate on one artist, and tear him down, love on the artists you like. Elevate them up. Blog about their art. Buy their work. Recommend them to friends. Make a positive difference.
He creates art that's too easily accessible
I've seen this alarmingly often. It has the smack of artistic gatekeeping to me. My inability to agree with this argument is the same reason I really dislike a lot of modern art. I really hate what I feel is pretension around art. I have a degree in film, and I can't stand this. This is a very personal one for me, and I'm fully willing to admit I'm wrong on this point.
Basically, if you have a message in your art, and it's an important message, why would you ever want to make it more difficult to understand?
Modern art is apparently full of hidden depths and means. I use the word 'apparently', as I wouldn't have guessed without reading the caption besides the piece. There's actually a lot of pieces that I wouldn't have guessed were art without reading the captions besides the pieces. That's okay. I've long known most modern art isn't for me. I'm still convinced that the modern art world is something of an 'emperor's new clothes'-style delusion, and that by interpreting new 'meanings' to a piece, we somehow aren't meant to see its lack of skill or originality or intent.
All this means that I really don't mind that an artist's work is easy to understand. At least I am sure that they had a meaning and a driving force behind creating it.
He is celebrated for making art when other artists (predominantly black) are criminalised for exactly the same thing/He's white and male
This is a genuine problem. It's racism, and it's all kinds of hypocrisy to reward one person for their behaviour, while criminalising the other, based solely on the colour of their skin. However, this is a cultural problem, not an individual one. This isn't helped by attacking the artist who benefits. Bring up an awareness of it, definitely. Point it out. But you don't need to be hostile towards the people who can't control it.
Again, take constructive actions. Get involved in politics. Write letters to politicians. Form petitions. Raise awareness. On smaller levels, look into local arts projects and see how they systematically exclude certain types of people. Raise awareness of gentrification of areas and what that means for many types of people. Notice who profits from the system being organised in this way.
Banksy made graffiti art popular and a lot of businesses are employing artists to decorate their buildings as a result. But they predominantly only want graduate artists. Why? It systematically cuts out a large proportion of artists. Write to them. Ask why they wouldn't hire an artist who hasn't been lucky enough to afford a degree. Put pressure on them to change.
He built an art exhibition on that site when he could have done something useful, like build a home for poor people
He's an artist. He has the skills and experience and contacts needed to set up an exhibition. I doubt he does have the relevant contacts to get a building planned, approved and built. Even if he did, the cost of a safe, permanent building would be many times more expensive than a temporary 5 week exhibition, much of which is outdoors.
Even setting that aside - Dismaland has drawn people from all over the world to go to Weston-Super-Mere. That's insane. For those who don't know, Weston-Super-Mare used to be a popular seaside town before budget holidays meant you could go to Spain as easily and cheaply. Now it's a rundown town with a small population and a sizeable drug problem. It's not a place you travel to, you travel through it. I've gone through Weston-Super-Mare more times than I can count, but I've never stopped there. And now people from all over the world want to go there. Not to mention that where there are people, there's money. Dismaland is estimated to result in £6 million being spent in the area from the influx of people. An extra £6 million in 5 weeks. That's phenomenal. That's actually going to make a good deal of difference to a lot of local businesses in the area.
If he'd built housing there, even assuming that he got planning permission to build a permanent structure and everything else that's so unrealistic: how many people would have benefited? Maybe 4000, in a block of flats. How long would the benefits have lasted for? Who would be responsible for maintaining the housing? How are the people who're going to live there going to eat? What jobs are available in the area? It's run-down and has very little industry. It would be a temporary fix to a very longterm and complicated problem.
-------------
In short: are any of these reasons worth attacking an individual over? By all means, don't like his art. Discuss the issues surrounding the art. No art exists in a vacuum, and it's good to have these discussions. But can't we be civil about it? Can't we just have the courage to say we dislike something, without personally attacking the creator for it? Or can we at least direct the anger to where it actually belongs - upwards.
One last point that I didn't feel were relevant to any particular argument, but relevant as a whole:
Dismaland isn't filled with Banksy's work. He has 10 pieces in there. He's displaying work from other artists, including people of colour, and if anything, he's using his name as a way of promoting the exhibition. I can virtually guarantee you that only the most dedicated of art buffs would have trekked out to Weston-Super-Mare for an art installation if his name hadn't been attached, and it wouldn't have attracted national news, let alone international news.
He's marketable and successful
On the surface, this almost makes sense. After all, his art is openly and repeatedly critical of capitalism and how it hurts people, so how can an artist profit from the system they despise? Except the problem is that we live in a capitalist society. You can't dismantle a system from within without using the tools of that system. In order to change anything, you need power. And for the most part, in a capitalist society, power comes from money. Now, you can be critical of what Banksy does with his money - does he use it as a force to help others or not? But I haven't seen anyone touch on this, possibly because of Banksy's own anonymity. However, while researching, I did come across this story of how he helped a homeless man who was displaced by his art. I'd like to believe that's typical of his actions, but I have no way of knowing for sure. Just as I have no way of knowing that he doesn't do more actions like this.
By being marketable, his art is getting into the hands of the people who should, by all rights, be the biggest proponents of capitalism. Banksy's works have been sold in Sotheby’s in London (extremely upper-class auction house for art). They were selling for hundreds of thousands of pounds. Not exactly pocket change for the buyer - this is the kind of money that could outright buy a house in most areas of the country. These are people who have greatly profited from capitalism buying anti-capitalist art...there's a certain level of irony there. His success has given his anti-capitalist ideas a platform that he wouldn't otherwise have had. You can bemoan the evils of capitalism all you like, but if no one listens, what's the point? This way, at least people have thought about his art, and maybe gone on to learn more and work towards making a change. Art is a starting point for discussion, but no one can discuss it if they never see it.
So at the end of the day, this is an argument that goes roughly: I don't like that this artist gets paid for his art. I don't like that his career is successful and that he can afford to support himself on the back of his art. And that feels like nonsense to me, especially when said by the same people who openly support artists, stop art theft and think artists should be paid reasonably for their work.
He's popular/He creates art that takes no skill
Much like the argument above, it attacks him personally for something he has fairly little control over. It also comes with the implication that there are other artists more deserving. But mostly it smacks of 'hipsterism' to me. Liking things because they aren't mainstream, even if that means abandoning artists once they achieve a level of notoriety. And that's ridiculous.
However, the implication that other artists deserve more attention is actually a good one. Because I can't argue. Art is subjective; people are never going to agree on who the most 'deserving' artist is. There are almost certainly artists with better ideas than Banksy, and greater technical skill than Banksy. It's not fair that he makes a lot of money off his work while others don't. It's not fair that there are artists who are living in abject poverty while he isn't. The world isn't fair.
If you really feel that strongly that other artists deserve more attention/exposure/money, then rather than hate on one artist, and tear him down, love on the artists you like. Elevate them up. Blog about their art. Buy their work. Recommend them to friends. Make a positive difference.
He creates art that's too easily accessible
I've seen this alarmingly often. It has the smack of artistic gatekeeping to me. My inability to agree with this argument is the same reason I really dislike a lot of modern art. I really hate what I feel is pretension around art. I have a degree in film, and I can't stand this. This is a very personal one for me, and I'm fully willing to admit I'm wrong on this point.
Basically, if you have a message in your art, and it's an important message, why would you ever want to make it more difficult to understand?
Modern art is apparently full of hidden depths and means. I use the word 'apparently', as I wouldn't have guessed without reading the caption besides the piece. There's actually a lot of pieces that I wouldn't have guessed were art without reading the captions besides the pieces. That's okay. I've long known most modern art isn't for me. I'm still convinced that the modern art world is something of an 'emperor's new clothes'-style delusion, and that by interpreting new 'meanings' to a piece, we somehow aren't meant to see its lack of skill or originality or intent.
All this means that I really don't mind that an artist's work is easy to understand. At least I am sure that they had a meaning and a driving force behind creating it.
He is celebrated for making art when other artists (predominantly black) are criminalised for exactly the same thing/He's white and male
This is a genuine problem. It's racism, and it's all kinds of hypocrisy to reward one person for their behaviour, while criminalising the other, based solely on the colour of their skin. However, this is a cultural problem, not an individual one. This isn't helped by attacking the artist who benefits. Bring up an awareness of it, definitely. Point it out. But you don't need to be hostile towards the people who can't control it.
Again, take constructive actions. Get involved in politics. Write letters to politicians. Form petitions. Raise awareness. On smaller levels, look into local arts projects and see how they systematically exclude certain types of people. Raise awareness of gentrification of areas and what that means for many types of people. Notice who profits from the system being organised in this way.
Banksy made graffiti art popular and a lot of businesses are employing artists to decorate their buildings as a result. But they predominantly only want graduate artists. Why? It systematically cuts out a large proportion of artists. Write to them. Ask why they wouldn't hire an artist who hasn't been lucky enough to afford a degree. Put pressure on them to change.
He built an art exhibition on that site when he could have done something useful, like build a home for poor people
He's an artist. He has the skills and experience and contacts needed to set up an exhibition. I doubt he does have the relevant contacts to get a building planned, approved and built. Even if he did, the cost of a safe, permanent building would be many times more expensive than a temporary 5 week exhibition, much of which is outdoors.
Even setting that aside - Dismaland has drawn people from all over the world to go to Weston-Super-Mere. That's insane. For those who don't know, Weston-Super-Mare used to be a popular seaside town before budget holidays meant you could go to Spain as easily and cheaply. Now it's a rundown town with a small population and a sizeable drug problem. It's not a place you travel to, you travel through it. I've gone through Weston-Super-Mare more times than I can count, but I've never stopped there. And now people from all over the world want to go there. Not to mention that where there are people, there's money. Dismaland is estimated to result in £6 million being spent in the area from the influx of people. An extra £6 million in 5 weeks. That's phenomenal. That's actually going to make a good deal of difference to a lot of local businesses in the area.
If he'd built housing there, even assuming that he got planning permission to build a permanent structure and everything else that's so unrealistic: how many people would have benefited? Maybe 4000, in a block of flats. How long would the benefits have lasted for? Who would be responsible for maintaining the housing? How are the people who're going to live there going to eat? What jobs are available in the area? It's run-down and has very little industry. It would be a temporary fix to a very longterm and complicated problem.
-------------
In short: are any of these reasons worth attacking an individual over? By all means, don't like his art. Discuss the issues surrounding the art. No art exists in a vacuum, and it's good to have these discussions. But can't we be civil about it? Can't we just have the courage to say we dislike something, without personally attacking the creator for it? Or can we at least direct the anger to where it actually belongs - upwards.
One last point that I didn't feel were relevant to any particular argument, but relevant as a whole:
Dismaland isn't filled with Banksy's work. He has 10 pieces in there. He's displaying work from other artists, including people of colour, and if anything, he's using his name as a way of promoting the exhibition. I can virtually guarantee you that only the most dedicated of art buffs would have trekked out to Weston-Super-Mare for an art installation if his name hadn't been attached, and it wouldn't have attracted national news, let alone international news.
Saturday 22 August 2015
How to Buy Chocolate (A Layperson's Guide to Luxury)
A small disclaimer about me - I don't work for any company, and I am by no means an expert in the field. This is just a small selection of tips I wish everyone knew about buying and tasting chocolate.
Good chocolate should be a luxury. This whole article isn't about cheap little bars you find in the corner shop or newsagents. And there's nothing inherently wrong in liking them, either (I have a soft spot for mint Aeros, despite knowing how cheaply they're made, and about some really questionable ethics that Nestlé as a company has). But while most people know about cheap, 'everyday' brands, when it comes to luxury brands of chocolate, people often don't know what it is they're actually looking for.
In my opinion, the perfect luxury chocolate comes down to a few elements: taste, ethics, technique and ingredients. These elements are pretty interlinked, too - good quality ingredients very often come from a strong ethical drive behind the company, and this leads to a better technique when combining the ingredients, resulting in a fantastic taste.
A good bar of chocolate has a 'shiny' appearance - this comes from the chocolate being properly tempered - and will give an audible crisp 'snap' when broken up. (If you're interested in the tempering process and the science behind it, this website explains it far better than I could ever hope to.) These are excellent indicators that the maker knows the science behind making good chocolate, and that it has also been stored in the best conditions to ensure you get the chocolate tasting exactly as the maker intended. 'Blooming' is a technical term that refers to chocolate looking dusty/powdered with white. It occurs when chocolates have been stored incorrectly - usually at changing temperatures. It isn't necessarily an indicator that the chocolates haven't been tempered properly, but it definitely shows that storage conditions aren't quite what they should be at that particular store, for any variety of reasons (too hot, too cold, too humid...chocolate is a fickle beast!), and to perhaps think twice about buying from that store, and consider the brand a little more carefully in future.
If possible, I would try to taste the chocolate before I bought it. Obviously, in some places this could be impossible, but many places will offer samples of their products, and who better knows your taste buds than you? If you can't get a sample, consider buying a small bar to try before you commit to a larger purchase. How a maker treats it's cheapest product is indicative of how they make chocolate as a whole, so if you don't like a small sample of their product, you're unlikely to like their more complex products.
A chocolate ingredient's label can (and should) be a pretty easy read. The only essential ingredients to bar of chocolate are cocoa mass and cocoa butter. That's it. That's should be all you see on a 100% cocoa bar (as the name suggests - it's all cocoa). If you like your chocolate a little less rich, sugar is acceptable and if you prefer milkier chocolate, milk/milk solids is the way to go. And that's all that belongs in your standard bar of chocolate. If you see (and you probably will) soya lecithin/emulsifier...ask why. Similarly, vegetable oils (in particular, palm oil) shouldn't be a part of the process. Both of these cheapen the process and act as a filler. Not only that, but palm oils are terrible for you as a person, and even worse for the environment and the people that harvest it. Unfortunately, both are quite common, not only in chocolate but in many other types of food. There are makers that do keep it simple, but they may take a little hunting down. They're well worth it, though.
While we're looking at ingredients, check the expiration date. This depends on the type of chocolate you're buying, but you're looking for an expiration date that is as far into the future as possible, for the freshest possible product. Some makers do put a date of manufacture on their chocolate, which I love and wish more makers did, after all, if you have nothing to hide, you would, ideally, give your customers as much information as possible about how and when it was made. Plain chocolate can last for years in the right conditions, but after a month or so, with most brands there is a noticeable drop in flavour, and when fillings are involved, this can happen even sooner.
As a general rule of thumb, I like chocolate makers who are proud of where their ingredients are from. Why? Because they are being open and honest about their sourcing. It means that, with a little digging, practically anyone can look into the process, and find out how workers are treated and paid. Luxury products do not need to be made at the expense of other people, and I don't want my pleasure to come as a result of someone else's pain. It's such a simple thing, but a quick search of many companies can show that this isn't always as widely practised as we would like to hope.
If you've bought your chocolate, keep it in a cool, dry environment. A fridge can be too cold (and introduce moisture to the chocolate, which will make it bloom), so unless your home is particularly hot, a cupboard would suit it better. And while chocolate, even without preservatives, should have quite a long period of time where it is safe to eat, all chocolate tastes better the fresher it is.
If you'd like to read reviews of particular brands, of chocolate, I'd like to recommend Pleasure in Good Measure as a blog to follow. The writer behind the blog taught me a lot of the points about chocolate that I've bought up here.
So, this has been a quick guide to luxury chocolate. There's obviously a lot more to this, and any single paragraph could be an essay in it's own right. Any single one of these points could be a starting point for more research (and I do recommend you research and not take my word for any point here). If I can distil this article down into one, more general point: be aware of the food you're eating and the products you're consuming. Ask questions. Research. Assume that most companies are not doing things for your best interest, they're doing it to make money. Be sceptical.
Good chocolate should be a luxury. This whole article isn't about cheap little bars you find in the corner shop or newsagents. And there's nothing inherently wrong in liking them, either (I have a soft spot for mint Aeros, despite knowing how cheaply they're made, and about some really questionable ethics that Nestlé as a company has). But while most people know about cheap, 'everyday' brands, when it comes to luxury brands of chocolate, people often don't know what it is they're actually looking for.
In my opinion, the perfect luxury chocolate comes down to a few elements: taste, ethics, technique and ingredients. These elements are pretty interlinked, too - good quality ingredients very often come from a strong ethical drive behind the company, and this leads to a better technique when combining the ingredients, resulting in a fantastic taste.
A good bar of chocolate has a 'shiny' appearance - this comes from the chocolate being properly tempered - and will give an audible crisp 'snap' when broken up. (If you're interested in the tempering process and the science behind it, this website explains it far better than I could ever hope to.) These are excellent indicators that the maker knows the science behind making good chocolate, and that it has also been stored in the best conditions to ensure you get the chocolate tasting exactly as the maker intended. 'Blooming' is a technical term that refers to chocolate looking dusty/powdered with white. It occurs when chocolates have been stored incorrectly - usually at changing temperatures. It isn't necessarily an indicator that the chocolates haven't been tempered properly, but it definitely shows that storage conditions aren't quite what they should be at that particular store, for any variety of reasons (too hot, too cold, too humid...chocolate is a fickle beast!), and to perhaps think twice about buying from that store, and consider the brand a little more carefully in future.
If possible, I would try to taste the chocolate before I bought it. Obviously, in some places this could be impossible, but many places will offer samples of their products, and who better knows your taste buds than you? If you can't get a sample, consider buying a small bar to try before you commit to a larger purchase. How a maker treats it's cheapest product is indicative of how they make chocolate as a whole, so if you don't like a small sample of their product, you're unlikely to like their more complex products.
A chocolate ingredient's label can (and should) be a pretty easy read. The only essential ingredients to bar of chocolate are cocoa mass and cocoa butter. That's it. That's should be all you see on a 100% cocoa bar (as the name suggests - it's all cocoa). If you like your chocolate a little less rich, sugar is acceptable and if you prefer milkier chocolate, milk/milk solids is the way to go. And that's all that belongs in your standard bar of chocolate. If you see (and you probably will) soya lecithin/emulsifier...ask why. Similarly, vegetable oils (in particular, palm oil) shouldn't be a part of the process. Both of these cheapen the process and act as a filler. Not only that, but palm oils are terrible for you as a person, and even worse for the environment and the people that harvest it. Unfortunately, both are quite common, not only in chocolate but in many other types of food. There are makers that do keep it simple, but they may take a little hunting down. They're well worth it, though.
While we're looking at ingredients, check the expiration date. This depends on the type of chocolate you're buying, but you're looking for an expiration date that is as far into the future as possible, for the freshest possible product. Some makers do put a date of manufacture on their chocolate, which I love and wish more makers did, after all, if you have nothing to hide, you would, ideally, give your customers as much information as possible about how and when it was made. Plain chocolate can last for years in the right conditions, but after a month or so, with most brands there is a noticeable drop in flavour, and when fillings are involved, this can happen even sooner.
As a general rule of thumb, I like chocolate makers who are proud of where their ingredients are from. Why? Because they are being open and honest about their sourcing. It means that, with a little digging, practically anyone can look into the process, and find out how workers are treated and paid. Luxury products do not need to be made at the expense of other people, and I don't want my pleasure to come as a result of someone else's pain. It's such a simple thing, but a quick search of many companies can show that this isn't always as widely practised as we would like to hope.
If you've bought your chocolate, keep it in a cool, dry environment. A fridge can be too cold (and introduce moisture to the chocolate, which will make it bloom), so unless your home is particularly hot, a cupboard would suit it better. And while chocolate, even without preservatives, should have quite a long period of time where it is safe to eat, all chocolate tastes better the fresher it is.
If you'd like to read reviews of particular brands, of chocolate, I'd like to recommend Pleasure in Good Measure as a blog to follow. The writer behind the blog taught me a lot of the points about chocolate that I've bought up here.
So, this has been a quick guide to luxury chocolate. There's obviously a lot more to this, and any single paragraph could be an essay in it's own right. Any single one of these points could be a starting point for more research (and I do recommend you research and not take my word for any point here). If I can distil this article down into one, more general point: be aware of the food you're eating and the products you're consuming. Ask questions. Research. Assume that most companies are not doing things for your best interest, they're doing it to make money. Be sceptical.
Monday 17 August 2015
Gaming and the Future: Are Physical Stores Dead?
As the E3 hype train leaves tantalising new games to preorder in it's wake, tempting gamers to think ahead about what new purchases they want to commit to, I cannot help but wonder what the future of the game industry will look like.
There are fewer and fewer places to buy physical games at, here in the UK. Game is still our major video game retailer, despite closing many stores over Easter 2012. Other places to buy physical copies of games here are relegated to second hand shops, HMV (who primarily sell music and films) and supermarkets. Other than those options, gamers can turn to online outlets to get their games. So, what's the problem?
I spent a lot of my childhood in physical game shops. I couldn't buy anything online without going through a parent's account. As a young gamer, my main source of news from the gaming industry was checking out physical games in a shop, reading the blurb and asking around for recommendations. Between this and print magazines, I found some of my favourite games of all time.
I worry that in a 'digital and online only' market, only large triple A game releases are going to get noticed by general gaming audiences. The studios that can afford to pay for advertising will be the only ones with games being bought.
But the issue isn't as simple as 'support physical stores'. Most video game retailers make their money on preowned games. The math is pretty simple - if a store buys a game back from a customer, they can pay what they like, and generally aim to get twice that back for the resale of the product. By offering more in-store credit than cash ensures that many customers will choose instore credit, so the store is making a profit on two fronts - the game they just bought back and the customer who will continue to buy from them with the credit they've just been given. Preowned games are vital for physical stores to stay in business.
But that brings forward an ethical concern - game developers make no revenue from preowned games. Especially for smaller studios, this is a big concern, as they might have a large number of people who have played the games, but see a disproportionate amount of revenue from it.
Some developers have started providing incentives for buying new over preowned, such as one time DLC codes to unlock content (and occasionally, and controversially, to unlock the entire game). Other incentives can include limited editions and merchandise to people who preorder the game.
I feel like pushing for preorders has a more sinister agenda to it, however. Preorders often get taken before a release date is even set, and people are pressured into preording based only off a trailer, with no real guarantee of the quality of the game. It guarantees a certain amount of revenue for a game without the pressure to actually make it good. It encourages people to buy games before any critique can be made public, so if a game were to pan badly, they have still made some money off the idea of the game, rather than the result.
Another issue with physical stores is that some console manufactures pay to have a certain amount of space in store represented by products for their consoles. It becomes a bidding war for space to be occupied by particular brands, regardless of the quality of the console or games. This can push out the few developers who either can't afford to or don't see the need to promote themselves like this. I hesitate to name names, but if you walk into a game store, work out the preportion of the shelves being taken up by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo respectively, and the placement of those shelves (ones easily accessible to the store entrance over the ones towards the back, for example). It should give a clear indication of what I'm talking about.
It is a complex issue, with no simple solution and many smaller problems within it. I haven't even touched on digital gaming as a whole, from Steam or any of the main console's online stores, and how we can now physically buy online codes and credit from highstreet retailers. Or how smaller developers are getting involved with crowdfunding and how that is both a positive and problematic move for gaming as a whole.
Online media can be a good way of spreading the word about obscure releases and information, and it's far easier to access now than when I was young. Blogs, YouTube channels, social media websites can all help people spread the word about the games they're passionate about. Do we even need physical stores to buy games in? I know I'd miss them. I miss being able to have conversations with likeminded people who are knowledgeable about gaming. I miss browsing through titles. I miss making a decision and getting to go home with the case in my hands, full of excitement over my new purchase. But I can't help but feel like high street stores for books, films and video games are soon going to be a thing of the past. And if that is the case, I really hope the future will have some better tools to help gamers make better choices to support the aspects of the industry they love.
There are fewer and fewer places to buy physical games at, here in the UK. Game is still our major video game retailer, despite closing many stores over Easter 2012. Other places to buy physical copies of games here are relegated to second hand shops, HMV (who primarily sell music and films) and supermarkets. Other than those options, gamers can turn to online outlets to get their games. So, what's the problem?
I spent a lot of my childhood in physical game shops. I couldn't buy anything online without going through a parent's account. As a young gamer, my main source of news from the gaming industry was checking out physical games in a shop, reading the blurb and asking around for recommendations. Between this and print magazines, I found some of my favourite games of all time.
I worry that in a 'digital and online only' market, only large triple A game releases are going to get noticed by general gaming audiences. The studios that can afford to pay for advertising will be the only ones with games being bought.
But the issue isn't as simple as 'support physical stores'. Most video game retailers make their money on preowned games. The math is pretty simple - if a store buys a game back from a customer, they can pay what they like, and generally aim to get twice that back for the resale of the product. By offering more in-store credit than cash ensures that many customers will choose instore credit, so the store is making a profit on two fronts - the game they just bought back and the customer who will continue to buy from them with the credit they've just been given. Preowned games are vital for physical stores to stay in business.
But that brings forward an ethical concern - game developers make no revenue from preowned games. Especially for smaller studios, this is a big concern, as they might have a large number of people who have played the games, but see a disproportionate amount of revenue from it.
Some developers have started providing incentives for buying new over preowned, such as one time DLC codes to unlock content (and occasionally, and controversially, to unlock the entire game). Other incentives can include limited editions and merchandise to people who preorder the game.
I feel like pushing for preorders has a more sinister agenda to it, however. Preorders often get taken before a release date is even set, and people are pressured into preording based only off a trailer, with no real guarantee of the quality of the game. It guarantees a certain amount of revenue for a game without the pressure to actually make it good. It encourages people to buy games before any critique can be made public, so if a game were to pan badly, they have still made some money off the idea of the game, rather than the result.
Another issue with physical stores is that some console manufactures pay to have a certain amount of space in store represented by products for their consoles. It becomes a bidding war for space to be occupied by particular brands, regardless of the quality of the console or games. This can push out the few developers who either can't afford to or don't see the need to promote themselves like this. I hesitate to name names, but if you walk into a game store, work out the preportion of the shelves being taken up by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo respectively, and the placement of those shelves (ones easily accessible to the store entrance over the ones towards the back, for example). It should give a clear indication of what I'm talking about.
It is a complex issue, with no simple solution and many smaller problems within it. I haven't even touched on digital gaming as a whole, from Steam or any of the main console's online stores, and how we can now physically buy online codes and credit from highstreet retailers. Or how smaller developers are getting involved with crowdfunding and how that is both a positive and problematic move for gaming as a whole.
Online media can be a good way of spreading the word about obscure releases and information, and it's far easier to access now than when I was young. Blogs, YouTube channels, social media websites can all help people spread the word about the games they're passionate about. Do we even need physical stores to buy games in? I know I'd miss them. I miss being able to have conversations with likeminded people who are knowledgeable about gaming. I miss browsing through titles. I miss making a decision and getting to go home with the case in my hands, full of excitement over my new purchase. But I can't help but feel like high street stores for books, films and video games are soon going to be a thing of the past. And if that is the case, I really hope the future will have some better tools to help gamers make better choices to support the aspects of the industry they love.
Monday 10 August 2015
Final Fantasy XIII - How to Tell Stories (and What Not to do)
I often find myself thinking about how stories work in games over other media, particularly in JRPGs, which naturally have a bigger emphasis on story and character development over other game genres.
I'm haunted by Final Fantasy XIII in this regard, not because it does it well, but quite the opposite - the series does it horrendously.
A little history - when Final Fantasy XIII was announced, the focus was mostly on the new physics/graphics engine they had used for it - the Crystal Tools engine. Hence they announced off the bat that there would be 3 games in the series, to maximise the use of this engine. I'm not opposed to the idea of a trilogy - it works so well in novels and films. However, this means that before they even released the first game, and gauged critical/community reactions, they were committed to developing and releasing 3 games. They were also in a tricky position - generally, fans of Final Fantasy and JRPGs want to like a new release, and want it to be successful in their territory - it increases the chance of more games from the series and in general being released. However, after the general disappointment of Final Fantasy XII (a fun game to play: find people who have played it and ask them how far they actually got in it. I've yet to find someone who has actually completed it), there was always the possibility of another flop.
That being said, the first game was just about playable. The storyline is, when boiled down, relatively simple - the characters are drawn together by a powerful being to destroy their home, but they fight to rebel against these orders while discovering things about themselves and their companions. The problem is that in order to draw this out into a full-length game, the story is told in a convoluted and messy way, with a lot of jargon that makes it more difficult to follow, and the visuals, while very pretty, fail to help the story in some very significant ways. I spent a good 40 hours not realising that Cocoon - the home for many of the characters and a central element to the plot - was floating above Pulse, and the characters lived on the inner layer of the construct. That could have easily been shown with an establishing shot in the first five minutes. And that's only a minor issue. The character's internal dramas play out like episodic soap operas and are all over the place. I sense some of that issue was the desire to prove the graphics engine, so they wanted a variety of different locations. The easiest way to do that would be to split up the characters and this their stories. Combining this with dull gameplay, confusing subplots and needless jargon...the game failed to impress. On one level, there was entirely too much going on plot wise, which meant 'big' moments tended to be forgotten about as other moments take precedence; and the gameplay bored even gamers determined to see the mess through to its end.
The sequel improved on a lot of this. It focused on two characters, with the cast of the first making supporting appearances, but it was never about them. It had a refreshing plot on time travel that actually got me curious. As one character is from the very end of human existence, and they are changing time to prevent that from happening, what will happen to him? Yes, it still had elements of a plot that was a little chaotic, and could have been stripped down a little further and would have become something really impressive, but on the whole, told its story far better than its predecessor. However, the plot was difficult to follow if you hadn't played and completed the first game. It cut out a whole section of potential audience simply for that. There were text recaps that no one would really read hidden in the game's menu, but that is such a lazy way to introduce people to the story and the world. I am still very critical of the ending - it was designed to have cliffhanger written on it in glowing neon letters, and sidestepped all the interesting questions I had about time travel and how they were going to resolve the plot. They also give an illusion of choice to the ending - yet no matter what you do, the outcome is the same. This is the worst kind of betrayal to a gamer, to give the illusion of choice but no actual power to influence the plot in any meaningful way. The DLC released for the game also expanded on some of the original character's backstories and filled in the gaps of 'what were they doing while everything kept going on without them?' However, the fact that they were relegated to DLC means a significant chunk of the fanbase - already fractured by the first game to the point that they might not play the sequel, let alone buy extra content for the sequel - would be left out of these stories.
The third game, in my opinion, is the best. They strip the world down to focus on a few vital areas, but within those areas, you can explore and do the plot and sidequests in whatever order you choose. It encourages you to be as non-linear as you like...and you only have one playable character. The world itself focuses on one theme - the world is dying, and people are falling into entropy. And it portrays this so incredibly well, from the city where wealthy people endlessly party and enjoy themselves before the end, to the earthy people who hunt and live off the land as a last chance to get back in touch with nature, and the somber people clinging to religion as their last hope...and none of this needs directly explaining to you. You aren't working to save the world (which, incidentally, is only dying because of your actions in the two previous games); you're working to save the people to bring them into the new world. And honestly, that concept is strong enough to stand alone as a game. I honestly think that if they'd removed the complex backstory or allowed you to discover it in game, they could have released Lightning Returns as a stand alone game, and it would have done far better than simply as a conclusion to a trilogy.
The whole series does this, though. There is a lack of confidence in the strength of the story, so they throw budget at graphics and complicate the entire thing, essentially cheapening the emotional experience.
Because, as most writers know, the most effective part of the story is what is shown to you, not told. We don't need to be told the father is sad, we can figure that out from the fact that his son is out of his reach emotionally and physically and his face tells us everything else. Make us empathise with characters, and the rest will follow.
Agree? Disagree? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below!
I'm haunted by Final Fantasy XIII in this regard, not because it does it well, but quite the opposite - the series does it horrendously.
A little history - when Final Fantasy XIII was announced, the focus was mostly on the new physics/graphics engine they had used for it - the Crystal Tools engine. Hence they announced off the bat that there would be 3 games in the series, to maximise the use of this engine. I'm not opposed to the idea of a trilogy - it works so well in novels and films. However, this means that before they even released the first game, and gauged critical/community reactions, they were committed to developing and releasing 3 games. They were also in a tricky position - generally, fans of Final Fantasy and JRPGs want to like a new release, and want it to be successful in their territory - it increases the chance of more games from the series and in general being released. However, after the general disappointment of Final Fantasy XII (a fun game to play: find people who have played it and ask them how far they actually got in it. I've yet to find someone who has actually completed it), there was always the possibility of another flop.
That being said, the first game was just about playable. The storyline is, when boiled down, relatively simple - the characters are drawn together by a powerful being to destroy their home, but they fight to rebel against these orders while discovering things about themselves and their companions. The problem is that in order to draw this out into a full-length game, the story is told in a convoluted and messy way, with a lot of jargon that makes it more difficult to follow, and the visuals, while very pretty, fail to help the story in some very significant ways. I spent a good 40 hours not realising that Cocoon - the home for many of the characters and a central element to the plot - was floating above Pulse, and the characters lived on the inner layer of the construct. That could have easily been shown with an establishing shot in the first five minutes. And that's only a minor issue. The character's internal dramas play out like episodic soap operas and are all over the place. I sense some of that issue was the desire to prove the graphics engine, so they wanted a variety of different locations. The easiest way to do that would be to split up the characters and this their stories. Combining this with dull gameplay, confusing subplots and needless jargon...the game failed to impress. On one level, there was entirely too much going on plot wise, which meant 'big' moments tended to be forgotten about as other moments take precedence; and the gameplay bored even gamers determined to see the mess through to its end.
The sequel improved on a lot of this. It focused on two characters, with the cast of the first making supporting appearances, but it was never about them. It had a refreshing plot on time travel that actually got me curious. As one character is from the very end of human existence, and they are changing time to prevent that from happening, what will happen to him? Yes, it still had elements of a plot that was a little chaotic, and could have been stripped down a little further and would have become something really impressive, but on the whole, told its story far better than its predecessor. However, the plot was difficult to follow if you hadn't played and completed the first game. It cut out a whole section of potential audience simply for that. There were text recaps that no one would really read hidden in the game's menu, but that is such a lazy way to introduce people to the story and the world. I am still very critical of the ending - it was designed to have cliffhanger written on it in glowing neon letters, and sidestepped all the interesting questions I had about time travel and how they were going to resolve the plot. They also give an illusion of choice to the ending - yet no matter what you do, the outcome is the same. This is the worst kind of betrayal to a gamer, to give the illusion of choice but no actual power to influence the plot in any meaningful way. The DLC released for the game also expanded on some of the original character's backstories and filled in the gaps of 'what were they doing while everything kept going on without them?' However, the fact that they were relegated to DLC means a significant chunk of the fanbase - already fractured by the first game to the point that they might not play the sequel, let alone buy extra content for the sequel - would be left out of these stories.
The third game, in my opinion, is the best. They strip the world down to focus on a few vital areas, but within those areas, you can explore and do the plot and sidequests in whatever order you choose. It encourages you to be as non-linear as you like...and you only have one playable character. The world itself focuses on one theme - the world is dying, and people are falling into entropy. And it portrays this so incredibly well, from the city where wealthy people endlessly party and enjoy themselves before the end, to the earthy people who hunt and live off the land as a last chance to get back in touch with nature, and the somber people clinging to religion as their last hope...and none of this needs directly explaining to you. You aren't working to save the world (which, incidentally, is only dying because of your actions in the two previous games); you're working to save the people to bring them into the new world. And honestly, that concept is strong enough to stand alone as a game. I honestly think that if they'd removed the complex backstory or allowed you to discover it in game, they could have released Lightning Returns as a stand alone game, and it would have done far better than simply as a conclusion to a trilogy.
The whole series does this, though. There is a lack of confidence in the strength of the story, so they throw budget at graphics and complicate the entire thing, essentially cheapening the emotional experience.
Because, as most writers know, the most effective part of the story is what is shown to you, not told. We don't need to be told the father is sad, we can figure that out from the fact that his son is out of his reach emotionally and physically and his face tells us everything else. Make us empathise with characters, and the rest will follow.
Agree? Disagree? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below!
Saturday 8 August 2015
A London Primer For The Curious
To be honest, I wrote this more for my fiancée than anything. I wanted to make a list of the things people should know about London but never really get written down anywhere. Of course, if this helps the curious, from people who want to move or visit here to a writer looking for more information, then I'm happy to help (and if you have any more questions, please let me know below!)
 |
| View of the City of London at Dusk - Amelia Springett (2011) |
The Newspapers
'City AM', 'Metro', 'Evening Standard' and the magazines 'The
Stylist', 'TimeOut', 'The ES' and 'ShortList' are all free and
distributed outside most Tube stations. The magazines are a really
good way of keeping up to date on new events and fun things to do in
the city. Feel free to take these when offered, or help yourself to
one from the pile that usually lurks outside if there isn't a person to hand them out.
Be wary about
accepting anything else a person is handing out on the street. This
can be anything from religious dogma to a begging tactic (people will hand you an item like a flower and then try and get you to pay for it).
Supermarkets are
where most local people buy food. From cheapest to most expensive, generally speaking,
these are:
- Aldi/Lidl
- Asda/Morrison
- Tesco
- Sainsburys
- Marks & Spencer
- Waitrose
Eating out is
really easy – virtually anywhere where there are people, there are
restaurants and cafés of various cultures. It's also really
expensive – even 'cheap' fast food is comparatively more expensive
than some other countries. In many restaurants, service is not included on the bill, and it's considered impolite to tip under 15%. In most cafés, change is greatly appreciated as a tip.
Travel can be
really expensive in London. From most expensive to least, generally speaking, your
options are:
- Owning your own car/vehicle
- Taxis
- Mainline trains
- The underground/Tube/Overground network
- Buses
- Cycling
- Walking
Always use an oyster card in London. They can be bought at all ticket windows and some machines, and it's a card you preload with money to pay for tube and bus travel. Given that buses have recently stopped taking cash, your options are oyster or contactless credit/debit card or paper tickets. Paper tickets are ridiculously expensive and totally unneeded - if you are doing a lot of travelling in a day, and oyster card will cap off at the equivalent day roamer price, and every journey after that is effectively free. (For example, a single paper ticket for zone 1 is £4.80. On an oyster card, it cost £2.30 - under half! And if you make journeys after spending £6.40 on journeys that day, your oyster card will not be charged any more money, and you travel for free until midnight that day.) In theory, a contactless credit/debit card should work in exactly the same way as an oyster, except you don't need to preload it. I haven't tried it out for myself, yet.
Generally speaking, within central London, if a place is only one or two stops on the tube, then it will be faster to walk than get public transport.
Buses can't be hailed from any point on the route and they can't stop at any point on the route except at designated bus stop, unless in exceptional circumstances. Luckily, bus stops are quite distinctive and very common, as below. They always have a list of the buses that will stop there, the rough direction they're travelling in and the name of the stop itself. There is occasionally, but not always, a shelter along with the stop, which often has a map of local bus routes and what nearby stop they can be found at, and a map of night buses. They've recently added codes that can be texted to find out when the next bus will be, if there isn't an electronic display built into the shelter.
 | ||
| Picture sourced from here |
There is also the option of taking a boat up/down river. Of course, both locations would have to be near the river, but theoretically you could commute from North Greenwich to Blackfriars or Westminster. For infrequent journeys, it's about 4 times more expensive than the tube, but if you were to make that journey every day for a month, it's very similarly priced to the zone 1-2 travelcard for a month. Of course, the tube services more stops and a wider area, so it's unlikely to be better value, but in exceptional circumstances, perhaps!
A smartphone is a great tool to have in London. Lost? You have maps. Want to know if there's a bus route going where you want? There are many free apps available, usually with a tube map in there, too. Want to know if there's a branch of your favourite store nearby? Search for it. That being said, if you are lost in central London, there are helpful little posts with maps and directions to local landmarks quite commonly dotted around.
Most people live outside of central London and commute in to work. Generally speaking, if you can afford to live in zone 1, you are making quite a bit of money. However, there are little pockets of local council houses dotted around central London which are cheaper to live in, but are difficult to get and are becoming rarer.
Generally speaking, west and north London are more affluent areas than east and south London. There are exceptions - Brixton was formally seen as quite a rough area, but lately it's been revitalised as an art/culture/food hub. Similarly, Old Street was run down and shabby, but it becoming quite trendy.
Camden Lock is a great place to visit if you like alternative culture, street markets, music...even just fancy a canalside walk. Places of note include Cyberdog - a cyberpunk clothing/accessories store with the atmosphere of a nightclub; and the Horse Market - named for all the metal horse statues and the fact it once was a stables, you can find vintage clothing, intricate leather work, unique hand made gifts...and a fair bit of tourist-y garbage, too, to be fair. I would recommend taking a canal boat from Little Venice into Camden on a nice day - it's a relaxing journey that takes you through London Zoo and gives you a chance to see an entirely different side of London.
 |
| Camden Lock - By Amelia Springett (2011) |
So, hopefully this is a helpful short guide for you. If you have any questions, or tips of your own to add, please don't hesitate to comment below!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)