Shorthand for Nothing

I have been rather lax in my writing for the past week or so, which has a lot to do with the fact that I really just feel drained lately, in more or less every imaginable way. Normally I would wax eloquent about this subject, but there is nothing poetic about this level of ennui. Most things are going wrong in just about every imaginable way. And the projects I have been working on have either had nothing to show for them, or I can’t link to for various other reasons which I’m not going to go into.

I’m working on finding something actually interesting to work on but it is hard to work on a project when everything you do or say turns out lifeless and uninteresting.

(This is really more intended as a “why I have not posted anything in a while” than anything else. I’m sure at least one person out there was wondering.)

One Response »

And because I like being utterly schizophrenic, hat tip to Jezebel for posting about Burton’s pending version of Alice In Wonderland, which, well, just go to the IMDB page here.

I had not heard about this. Or rather, I think I had, but I had forgotten or dismissed it as the child of an idle brain, begot of nothing but vain fantasy, which is as thin of substance as the air. It’s such an iconic and creepy story that, as far as I’m concerned, really needs a Burton treatment.

In the event you don’t like going to IMDB, here are some of the standout casting choices: Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter; Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen; Ann Hathaway as the White Queen; Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar; Christopher Lee as THE JABBERWOCK!!!!; Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat…

What I am saying is this is more or less perfect in every way.

2 Responses »

So, as those of you who follow my Google Reader feed (which, why are you doing that to yourself?) are no doubt aware, I follow Jezebel, which is Gawker’s feminist blog. Or something like that; I suspect they would take issue with that as a label, but that’s the one I’m sticking with.

They have this recurring feature which they call “Crap Email From A Dude.” In it, they reproduce an email from a dude to a girl, where the guy is doing or saying something they feel is sexist. Sometimes, maybe even frequently, the ones they post are legitimately crap emails. I think I’ve even shared one or two on Google Reader before, because I like to chronicle humanity at its lowest, though I try (probably unsuccessfully) to do so without malice. But this latest one… this latest one really bothered me, and it wasn’t because I sympathized with the writer of the email. (more…)

No Responses »

There seems to be this trend among non-typset geeks who nevertheless want to sound like a typeset geek to arbitrarily hate on some of the more popularly-hated fonts. With some fonts, where the proper application is reasonably uncommon, this is more or less justifiable. I know that Comic Sans is out of place in almost every context, and I know I received one too many handouts in high school written in it. But there’s one I haven’t quite been able to understand: Papyrus. It is not, taken in isolation, a particularly ugly font. There are, naturally, websites collecting its use, and I can even agree that in a good number of examples they could have found a better font. But I’m really of no mind to start hating the font merely because it captures the mind of unimaginative restaurant owners. (Related: I know a comic that uses Comic Sans in its word bubbles. It works just fine.)

The most interesting part of this, for me, is the reaction when Randall Munroe wrote a comic about it. A number of xkcd fanboys were quick to declare their hatred for the font, as well. They were, that is, until someone pointed out that the movie Serenity uses it in its logo. Turns out, most of them couldn’t even identify the font when used relatively appropriately in a logo. Hmm.

Some of the more design-oriented types who complain about it seem to believe they know exactly what the individual is thinking when they select Papyrus as a font. They seem to believe that there is a conscious design decision here, that non-designers put a great deal of forethought into arbitrary selections of fonts. They assume they must weigh all of the options they have available to them. “What does this font say about me/my store/my event?” the design geeks think they are asking.

Here’s what actually happens. The thought process runs roughly like this: “Oh, I need a font. Let’s see what’s available. Oh, Papyrus sounds interesting. Hey, that doesn’t look bad, let’s go with that.”

I’m fine with disliking fonts. The seething disdain, the disproportionate hatred, however, I’m really not cool with. Do try to keep it in perspective.

5 Responses »

When the sun is out, there’s a tree outside my window that looks like it’s been photoshopped. Everything about it just looks wrong somehow, and it really bothers me. I’ll see if I can’t get a picture one of these days or something (apparently not this week, though, because I guess it’s going to be raining constantly and forever this week). It is still weird that we live in a world where we can have this problem. Sometimes reality doesn’t look sufficiently real. Sometimes this is because it’s been ruined by media; that’s what hyperreality is all about. So what do you call it when something looks fake because it looks like a poorly done fake on the internet? Is that hyperreality, too?

No Responses »

Sometimes I feel like I’m the only person who looks around when there’s people present, or at least one of them. Be it on subways or streets with strangers or in meetings or at parties with friends, it seems that people are mostly fixed on one thing. I’m sure this isn’t the case, but it’s a strange thing. It leads to the sensation that, when I’m not talking or drawing attention to myself, I’m mostly invisible. Eye contact is reasonably rare, and most people seem to want to avoid it unless there’s a very specific reason. Even then, sometimes.

While I know other people are probably aware of their surroundings, I still wonder. Where has all the eye contact gone? The curiosity? I look around the subway to see if anyone is doing something interesting. Most people gaze sullenly at the floor. People won’t make eye contact when you pass them in the street. So long as you aren’t making any flamboyant gestures, you can pretty much look terrible and nobody will notice until they have cause to pay attention.

Is this a new development, or has the taboo on eye contact and acknowledging the existence of other humans existed for a long time? If it’s new, why can’t we go back?

5 Responses »