Archive for the 'Watching' Category

Oct 10 2008

The Global Pool of Money

Published by saalon under Watching

This American Life rocks.  By now, you’ve realized that, right?  You haven’t?

Well.

How about this: Do you think you know why the mortgage crisis happened?  Have you listened to the This American Life story about it?  No?

Well.

The Giant Pool of Money might be the best episode of This American Life ever.  It’s the most lucid, fascinating and informative story about the mortage crisis you’re likely to find.  It should win a Pulitzer, or a Peabody, or whatever they give audio news programs.  It’s that good.

Check it out.  Please.

No responses yet

Oct 02 2008

Glenn Beck Stupids Up A Reasonable Point

Published by saalon under Voting, Watching

This seems to be a popular genre for fear mongers these days.  Write an essay pretending to be a traveler for a future (or describing an encounter with one) that warns of a dire apocalyptic collapse of our world that we could have prevented if we weren’t so damn stupid.

It goes something like this.

Imagine that that future I have made up whole-cloth with minimal research is not fiction in the slightest.  See all the scary demons that live in my made-up future world?  Don’t you think you might have nightmares about them?  Your kids will be miserable or dead.  Socialist Islamofacists will urinate on your grave while inserting foreign objects into the orifices of your granddaughters.  Everyone will wear turbans but nothing else, because our soft, socialist economy will have left us with nothing save our newly adopted Islamist faith.  If only someone in your day had been smart enough to realize all of this!  If only he could have written some pseudo-fiction, we could have all been saved!

The good writers do a decent job of it.  Simmons’ time-travel terror tale was as well constructed as it was overblown.  He’s one of the best horror-fantasists I’ve ever read, and even when he’s delivering a dubious message he’s capable of doing it well.

Glenn Beck is no Dan Simmons.  (He’s not even an Orson Scott Card).  His core point is actually sounder than Simmons’ is: this Wall Street bailout is very likely to hurt us more than it will help.  Unfortunately, he has run out of ways to deliver this message and has fallen back on 60 year old Red Scare tactics and moronic time travel hyperbole to get his point across.  It’s the kind of article I’d expect to see linked on p1k3 as “Asshattery.”

It’s probably not worth breaking the thing down point by point - I mean, it’s signed “Worker 2744A” for God’s sake  - but I should at least give something other than a vague head shake at it.

It didn’t take long before so many of our tax dollars were going toward interest payments that we couldn’t fund even the most basic of government programs without massive tax increases on everyone. People now work most of the year just to pay Uncle Sam (or, as we now call him, “Comrade Sam”).

Hmm, yeah, ok, interest payments for our debt are going to become overwhelming.  Not a bad point, Glenn, not bad at–

–wait, Comrade Sam?! Sigh.

At least he avoided a Fear The Muslims rant, right?

You might want to spend a little less time worrying about carbon and a little more time worrying about Iran. We’re now in a new mini-Ice Age but, believe me, Iran isn’t using their nukes to warm any homes. (PS The International Atomic Energy Agency just revealed to you that Iran appears to be refitting their long-range missiles to carry nuclear payloads. Did you think they were joking or were you just too busy with lipsticks and pigs to notice?)

Oh.  Never mind.

Meanwhile, he uses one of my favorite devices of this genre:

Good call on not worrying about protecting our borders. That works out really well for you in 2019.

Note how the specific date-dropping makes it sound like the author has actual knowledge about the future, and that you should maybe have a few nightmares about what occurrence he’s referring to in 2019.

Here’s my question.  Did he pick the date out of a hat, or did he spend a couple of hours employing fake logic to go along with this fake time travel story?

In closing, remember this golden rule and you should be fine: Your Constitution will never fail you, but your leaders will. Be wary of anyone who tries to convince you that it’s the other way around.

You mean, like George W. Bush?  Who you compared favoribly to Batman in The Dark Knight, in particular to  how he breaks laws to catch evil terrorists?  You mean leaders like that, right?  Because it sounds like you’re saying that even though you don’t like Bush much,  you respect that he’s willing to go outside the bounds of our laws (or, if you will, our Constitution) to fight terrorists.

If you want a fictional view of the future, I advise sticking with actual science fiction that doesn’t cloak itself in essay form to scare you into agreeing.  Your average episode of The Twilight Zone is both scarier and more plausible than this kind of crap, and it didn’t need to dredge up antique Red Fear or remind us of the perils of Islamofacism to make its point.  Hell, WALL-E is smarter than this, and that guy’s last film was about talking fish.

As a side note, Beck might want to rewatch The Dark Knight for subtext.  Just saying.

2 responses so far

Sep 19 2008

An Open Letter to Tim Kring

Published by saalon under Watching

Dear Mr Kring,

I have been very critical of your show, Heroes, over the past two years.  Even when many were praising it during season 1 I found it to be slow moving and derivative.  There was enough promise to keep me watching, though, so I stuck with it through a disappointing end of season 1 and an even more disappointing season 2 run.  I say this so that you understand this is not the critique of a Heroes fanboy who’s looking for the show he loved to come back.  It’s the critique of a genre lover who sees the resources you’ve been given being squandered on uninspired and pretentious storytelling who wants your show to live up to its potential.  That’s the context.

Now the critique.

I’ve heard you say that you never read comic books and don’t know anything about the genre in which you’re writing.  You say this as if it’s a good thing, a badge of honor.  It’s not.  Working in a genre with which you are not familiar does not give you a leg up on the competition, but almost guarantees that you will walk walk ground already well explored.  When Alan Moore wrote Watchmen, one of the many works Heroes mirrors but fails to live up to, he was responding to a genre he knew well.  It was a seminal work precisely because he had done his homework, and his understanding of the genre did not chain him to following conventions.  In fact, it allowed him to brilliantly subvert them.

Heroes, meanwhile, is to me like someone playing the melody of a symphony without knowing the harmonies, counter-melodies and rhythms.  You see the plot devices you’d expect from the genre, but they play out in entirely conventional ways.  There are characters that fit into the mold of a superhero story, but without the development they’d need to be anything other than archetypes.  There are the powers we’re familiar with, but no invention as to their use.  It has never ceased to be a superficial retread of ideas better explored thirty years ago.

Take, as an example, your most persistent villain, Sylar.  If you were more familiar with the genre, you might have seen a very similar villain in J. Michael Straczynski’s Rising Stars.  The similarity isn’t the problem, but that Sylar reuses a plot idea that was more deeply explored in the previous work.

In Rising Stars we learn that whatever power is behind the supers of that world is finite, and that with every use the strength of all supers decreases.  Yet, if one super dies, their power redistributes, boosting everyone else.  The power-thief in Rising Stars goes into action out of fear of losing their own power, while Sylar simply does it out of egoism.  One deals with an interesting and believable human motivation while the other gives us a one-dimensional villain.  I’m sure that your writing staff is capable of a more nuanced and interesting villain that is still as evil as you’d like him to be, but so long as you try to hold yourself apart from your own genre you risk being a faded copy.

Another example, this one from the upcoming season.  I  hear you’ll be introducing a serum that grants people powers.  I hope that you can find something interesting in that plot, as the already similar 4400 tackled this very idea a few years ago.  4400 was by no means a perfect show (and this idea is by no means original), but it explored the ideas behind its genre conventions in interesting ways.  I’m concerned that you are not using this idea because you saw it and believe you can do it better, but because you simply did not know someone already went there.  Not to say this is a new premise in the genre, but considering other similarities I admit to some concern.

I am also worried about your reuse of your own story hooks.  I hear that we’ll be seeing a dark future again, which now makes three seasons out of three driven by the exact same device.  A hero goes to the future, sees something bad, and has to try to stop it from occurring.  I admit that the best part of season 1 was seeing that mushroom cloud in the first episode.  The power of that came from its unexpectedness, and that power is gone after the first use.

Why not put a moratorium on time traveling for a season and find a new, surprising way to set the stakes of your season.  I know you believe season 2’s weakness was waiting too long to show Peter the virus-decimated future, but I disagree.  The problem was showing him that future at all.  The Shanti virus could have been built up through your existing characters, instead of showing us an X-Men Days of Future Past style apocalypse.  The stakes were certainly missing through much of season 2, but another bout of time travel was not the way to set them.

Finally, please stop predicating so many of your plots on the gullibility of your characters.  Mohinder is tricked by Sylar for far too long in season 1, and Peter has the same problem with Adam in season 2.  There is no narrative meat to seeing our heroes be so easily mislead for episodes at a time.  Trickery is like mind control; it often plays as a lazy shortcut to getting your characters into conflict with each other.  Giving them strong, developed motivations would be more satisfying and would let us continue to respect these characters in the morning.

In Heroes you have one of the best budgeted, best known superhero series ever.  You have a certain amount of creative freedom and a national audience.  I don’t need another Watchmen, but I’d like to be surprised by the show instead of frustrated by how often I can see what’s coming episodes away.  I hope season 3 is the success I’ve been waiting for, but if it’s not I hope you have the time to right the ship before it’s too late.

Sincerely,

Eric Sipple

No responses yet

Sep 14 2008

Story Minus Character: Dresden Codak

Published by saalon under Watching

This is one of those things that’s Brennen’s fault.  I’m pretty sure I found out about Dresden Codak from his LinkDump, and if I’m remembering correctly, it was a link to the Childhood’s End strip near the end of the “Hob” plotline that just wrapped up.

Dresden Codak is a webcomic, and so that I’m starting off with the positive, I should note that it’s a fairly unique webcomic.  Unfortunately, my ability to describe it ends there.  I’d say what it’s about, but it’s not really about anything.  I could mention that it’s a fusion of very academic scientific ideas with occasionally whimsical humor, but there are a lot of times where that fusion is not a positive thing.  For the first half of its run it was a disconnected series of single shot strips.  It eventually developed a recurring cast, but just barely.

Then, in January 2007, Aaron Diaz began a longer story called “Hob.”  Like most webcomics, it promised a weekly schedule it not only did not meet but might as well have thrown out the window.  The finished story, running 25 chapters, took a year and nine months to reach its conclusion.  A schedule of approximately a page a month is neither good for the audience nor the author.

I was frustrated with Codak the first time I read it, but I couldn’t put my finger on why.  I reread the full run a couple of times since July, when I followed the link from Brennen’s site, and every time came away strangely put off by the whole thing.  The art was beautiful, and I liked the ideas fueling the story, but each page felt so disconnected from what came before and after that I kept worrying I had accidentally skipped a section.

It was the disconnection that ate at me.  Every page was so packed with scientific musings that there was often very little room for characterization.  Then, the next page would jump to another idea in such a way that whatever minor character work had been done was lost as I tried to reorient myself in the next bit.  This got especially bad near the end, as Kimiko is seemingly killed before resurrecting as the man/machine “Mother” that we’ve been hearing about for most of the story.  Huge developments take place with no examination whatsoever.  At the moment I needed to be caring, I don’t even know what I was supposed to care about.

It clicked for me this morning.  The Big Ideas are good enough, and the art is great, but Dresden Codak uses its characters very poorly.  The main character, Kimiko, gets a lot of screen time, but most of that is spent explaining wormhole theory.  Her friends step on long enough to use cool powers and drop that Kimiko’s lack of compassion for humanity is scary, but two pages later have been captured by villains and a page later have been saved.  All of that last stuff without saying more than a line.  It’s like being given Cliff Notes for a Philip K. Dick novel.  Without reading it the actual work, it just looks pointlessly weird.

Then I found a quote from an interview with the creator:

I really don’t want to have a comic that’s appealing mainly because of its cast. There’s nothing wrong with that, people do it, but I’m always afraid people will come back only out of continuity and “what are the characters doing this week?” Even with this big story, I wanted to make sure that the universe itself and the ideas presented are kind of the star of the show. It’s helpful to balance.

So I was right.  To be fair to Codak, based on the quote above, it’s obvious he was actively avoiding a lot of characterization.  The problem - and I know this is my opinion - is that this is sort of the wrong way to tell a story.  The ideas presented can be and are the star of non-fiction, but the story is the star of a fictional work.   A story about the gestation of the Earth-Fetus is a pretty cool idea, but there needs to be a character, even if its not a human character.  It can be the earth itself, but even then we need to get some sense of causality resulting from the character’s actions.  “Hob” comes across as 25 random snapshots of a larger story, one in which I’m not sure what I’m supposed to care about.

These are problems I can see in the earlier strips as well, where more time is given to dissertation than it is to giving me a sense of who these people are.  The artist is clearly very, very smart, but I can’t help but think his intelligence and interest in vast topics isn’t a detriment to his storytelling.  I’d be very interested in a non-fiction webcomic about his ideas, like Scott McCloud has been doing for the past decade or so.  But I see a bunch of characters on screen and I expect…I don’t know, something from them besides pedantic dialog.

This is something I can only imagine is exacerbated by his posting schedule. Having been there myself, I can confirm that time away from actively writing a story separates you from the heart of it.  You get back and you remember the skeleton, but you’ve lost the vital fluids.  I wonder if that’s what’s happened to “Hob.”  If in his head he had found a balance for the story, but was unable to maintain it over the on and off schedule he maintained.

Still, I’m scratching my head at the quote above much as I scratched my head at the story itself.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen an author say that he didn’t want people coming back for his characters or for continuity.  I suppose that’s a bold, experimental thing to say on one level, but as a writer I find it perplexing.  Why would you write characters with whom you don’t want your audience to connect?

All that aside, you should check it out.  It’s definite its own thing, and unique work should never be ignored.  Something like Dresden Codak challenges you to respond to it, which is perhaps the most successful part about it.  A good challenge is nothing to sneeze at.

2 responses so far

Sep 03 2008

Le Guin on Goro Miyazaki

Published by saalon under Watching

I apparantly have Ursula on the brain today.  Her quiet but passionate response to Ghibli’s adaptation of her Earthsea novels is worth the read, even if you’ve read or seen neither.  An excerpt to prove my point:

The moral sense of the books becomes confused in the film. For example: Arren’s murder of his father in the film is unmotivated, arbitrary: the explanation of it as committed by a dark shadow or alter-ego comes late, and is not convincing. Why is the boy split in two? We have no clue. The idea is taken from A Wizard of Earthsea, but in that book we know how Ged came to have a shadow following him, and we know why, and in the end, we know who that shadow is. The darkness within us can’t be done away with by swinging a magic sword.

No responses yet

Sep 03 2008

Le Guin on Rowling

Published by saalon under Watching

I thought this was sort of interesting:

Le Guin has claimed that she doesn’t feel Rowling “ripped her off”, but that she felt that the books were overpraised for supposed originality, and that Rowling “could have been more gracious about her predecessors. My incredulity was at the critics who found the first book wonderfully original. She has many virtues, but originality isn’t one of them. That hurt.”

4 responses so far

Sep 03 2008

Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Album

Published by saalon under Watching

I’m not sure how many of you got to watch Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog when it hit a couple of months ago, but if you didn’t you should make the time and check it out.  It’s 45 minutes long and it’s just a blast.  I mean, it’s co-written by Joss Whedon.  What else do you want?  Plus: Music!

If you have seen it, you should be informed immediately that the soundtrack is now available on iTunes.  Its geek prowess is so great that it’s currently the #2 album there, and your purchase may help push it to #1!  Not that you should buy it for that reason, but you maybe could pretend that getting it over the hump will cause confetti to rain down like you’re the millionth customer.  Fun, right?

Seriously, though, the music is pretty good and how often are you going to see a musical about comic book characters?

No responses yet

Aug 19 2008

In Fact It Does Me Bad

Published by saalon under Watching

I love This American Life a whole awful lot.  I’m not even a big radio show freak, but from the first moment I listed to it almost 10 years ago I knew it was something special.  At that point, I didn’t even know what I was listening to, I just knew I had hit upon something special.  It helped that the first thing I heard of the show was Sarah Vowell’s brilliant American Goth bit, where she lets a bunch of goth kids dress her up for a night on the town.  Until I connected that bit to the title “This American Life,” I had thought it must be some treacly piece of Americana, where wholesome stories of wholesomeness were foisted upon people in need of restoring their image of their nation.

If you remove the treacly part and the wholesome part, I guess the rest of my conception was sorta right.

If you didn’t know, “This American Life” is now putting out a weekly free podcast on iTunes and on their site.  If you haven’t given it a try,  you should, and I have a place to start (if you haven’t already listened to “American Goth”, in which case…yeah, start there).

This week’s episode - which hopefully is still posted - is called “Break-up.”  I’m hoping you can guess what the subject is.  As is their form, the show examines the issues of breaking up from a couple of different angles.  The best is the first.  Act 1.  “Dr. Phil.”

No, not that one.  Better than that.  See, this act is the story of writer Starlee Kine’s breakup with her boyfriend, in which lyrics of Phil Collins songs were inadvertantly tossed out during an arguement.  In her desire to let go of the pain, Starlee decides to write a pop love song.  And somehow convinces Phil Collins to give her advice.

Starlee Kine

The result of all this was a song called “The Three Of Us.”  I kept expecting not to hear the song at all, because there was no way it was going to turn out well.  And then she played it - both for our benefit and for Phil Collins’ - and, egads, it was kinda awesome.  In that amateur but heartfelt song way.

But wait, there’s more!

Try to listen to the story itself before you follow my next link.  If not, it’s cool.  The producers realized that the emotions of the song they had constructed changed depending on the arrangement of it, and decided that they would hold a contest.  Send in the best arrangements or covers of the song and they’d post the winners.  As you’d expect some of them are meh, but a few are bloody awesome.  Especially that cover by We Were Pirates.

It’s a great example of the kind of amazing stuff that comes out of “This American Life,” which on top of being a great show is also the best source of writing inspiration I’ve found.  Check it!

I’m ok with second best.

Just love her more and love me less.

I don’t know why I love you, but I do.

I really do.

It doesn’t do me any good, In fact it does me bad.

‘Cause you’re oh so gone, and I’m oh so sad.

- “The Three Of Us” Lyrics by Starlee Kine; Music by Joe McGinty and Julia Greenberg

One response so far

Aug 11 2008

Sandman

Published by saalon under Grand Illusions, Watching

There are works that I love.  That I think are perfect and magical and wonderful and move me every time I watch, read or even think about them.  They are the cornerstones of my ideas about art and what it’s supposed to be able to do.

Then there are a few - only a few - works that have completely defined who I am (or at least, who I want to be) as an artist.  They answered some kind of lingering, unspoken question within me about what kind of art I want to create, and the way I want my own works to feel.  If I had to list them right now, I could only think of a half dozen or so.  If I tried harder, I’d be surprised if I broke ten.  They aren’t the best things I’ve ever seen.  They’re just the most important.

Neil Gaiman’s Sandman is one of them.

I’m not sure it’s the best comic story ever told.  I’m sure you could end up in a vigorous debate defending it at such, at least, but I could think of a handful of others than deserve the crown just as much.  But there isn’t a single other work in the medium that hit me harder, that defined my view of comics more than Sandman.  When I think about wanting to write comics, I think about Sandman.

What’s most interesting about Sandman to me is that it’s so unsure of itself at its outset.  It’s clear that Gaiman understands his hero, Dream, and the fatal flaw that will be his undoing.  That’s the very core of Sandman, and Gaiman certainly had that down.  As for the texture of the story, it takes most of its first arc - “Preludes and Nocturnes” - to really coalesce.   And it’s the texture that hit me the most.  There’s something extra-magical about that to me; that its greatest success was something it discovered along the way.  If that isn’t the power of telling an episodic tale, I don’t know what is.

Sandman is the story of Dream, one of the Endless.  He doesn’t control dreams so much as personify them; like all of his brothers and sisters, he is a cosmic force that serves as the heart of his domain.  It is a tragedy in the classical sense; we are given a hero who is so hamstrung by a character flaw, and so unable or unwilling to change that he is doomed to fail because of it.  That’s what Sandman is really giving us.  The fall of Morpheus, Lord of Dreams.

When we join Dream, we don’t realize that, though.  Yet the success of “Preludes and Nocturnes” is in the way it carefully gives us a  hero utterly unwilling to allow himself to change who has, without realizing it, begun to change.  Though the Endless are powerful, they are not omnipotent, and Dream accidentally allows himself to be captured by a mortal.  He stays in that captivity for years before finally escaping and taking vengeance upon his captor.  In fact, it is his punishment of Alexander, the mortal who had held him for decades, that gives us a look at the kind of man Morpheus was.  Cold, cruel and unfeeling.  The kind of being that could send a woman to hell for refusing him.  For all eternity.  And never look back.  That is who Dream was, and who he believes himself still to be.

From that point, Sandman meanders through tales both personal and epic.  There are single issue stories on topics as diverse as a sultan of Baghdad who gives his city at its height over to Dream so that it can exist forever in some form to whimsical fluff like the story of the Emperor of America.  Or how about the one where Augustus Caeser goes out dressed as a beggar once a year and muses on how to set the boundaries of his empire for all time in defiance of his uncle’s will?  Or the one where there’s a story of someone telling a story where someone tells a story?  And those are just the one offs, that give us the flavor of what the Lord of Dreams is all about.

Sandman is everything a long-form story should be.  It grows in the telling, becoming something grander and more meaningful as it continues.  What begins as the focused story of Morpheus spreads out into one about his family - the other Endless, like Death and Despair and Delirium who was once Delight - and the mortals his path has crossed - such as Rose Walker and Lyta Hall.  And then it turns into something else entirely.  A story about stories. A tale about the dreams and hopes and desires that make us want to put words down on paper, or paint on canvas. 

Sandman gives us a peek at any angle of stories and dreams Gaiman can think of, even when they seem to have nothing to do with the story or even its main character.  There are large sections of Sandman where Morpheus is barely present or absent altogether.  And it works.  It’s necessary.  It’s the reason the story is so amazingly good.

Then, somewhere about halfway through, it explodes into brilliance.  The sort of brilliance that only exists in stories that are getting published as you go, forcing you to live with decisions you’ve already made and find a way to wave them together into something that works.  I’m not saying Gaiman had no plan.  I’m sure he did.  But the way those plans get executed when half of the ship is already out of port is very different than when you can go back to the beginning and make things line up.

The moment of brilliant explosion is “Brief Lives”, where Dream goes on a reluctant journey to find his brother Destruction who had abdicated his duties long ago.  Destruction is the very opposite of Dream;  even when it would be better for everyone around him, Dream simply cannot turn away from his responsibilities.  Destruction is foreign to him.  The sibling who offended the entire clan by thumbing his nose at the family business.   And yet, in Destruction may lie Morpheus’ only hope for happiness.

And underneath all that?  “Brief Lives” is about death, and how we deal with it and how random and unfeeling it be.  We see human who has been in most respects immortal finally face death and his final thought was something like “Not yet!”  Its musings on death and loss and acceptance and forgiveness hit me in such a personal place that Sandman became more than excellent writing to me.

By the time we reach the story’s climax in “The Kindly Ones” we’ve come to know Morpheus better than we’d expect to know some immortal embodiment of a cosmic force.   We really care about him, and as the choices he’s made since his escape start to close in on him we hope fervently that he can accept the person he’s become and just frakking change.

In fact, “The Kindly Ones” is another one of those things that only happens in really good episodic stories, where all those tangents and digressions that seemed neat but inconsequential can add up to something much more.  Would we accept the odd little side story of the escape of Loki and Dream’s offer to allow him freedom as long as Loki remembered that he owed Morpheus something if this had been a novel?  I don’t know, but in a story broken up into nice chunks we take it in and allow it to pass away, expecting it never to return.  And we’re fine with that.

And then when, as it does in “The Kindly Ones”, it returns full force, we get a chance for that surprise/delight that stories strive desperately for.  When one of the forces arrayed against Morpheus turns out to be Loki, and when his reason is simply that he can’t stand owing anyone anything, we feel like this big tapestry has come together better than it seemed it could.  All of “The Kindly Ones” is like that, pulling together tiny strands that were just thematic grace notes way back when and revealing them to be the point of the whole damn story.

It leads us all to a quiet moment between Dream and Death on a cliff, where Dream accepts that he’s either going to have to change or die.  And he chooses.

There are a thousand other little things in Sandman that I couldn’t possibly cover that made this so important to me.  The way each of the Endless not only embody their domains, but come off as actual characters in the process.  The beautiful relationships you can find in unlikely places, like between Morpheus and his raven Matthew.  The way the mortals are important even after they stopped mattering to the story, like Rose Walker and her tiny moment of heartbreak in the middle of the big honking epic of “The Kindly Ones.”  Or Delirium, who was so genius of a character that she’s tainted comics with pale likenesses ever since.

When I write fantasy, I want it to feel in my readers like Sandman felt to me.  When I write episodic stories, I want to have that planned/unplanned magic that seemed to be the engine of Gaiman’s work.  When I think of comics, I want to feel the way I did when I was reading Sandman, even though I never have since.  Sandman is the very definition of what great storytelling should look like, even if that’s not how it looks to everyone else.

Sandman changed how I look at my own writing.  Kudos, Mr. Gaiman.

No responses yet

Jul 17 2008

The Brett Favre of Development Platforms

Published by saalon under Coding, Watching

I’m not a big podcast nut, but I’ve become hooked on the Stack Overflow podcast recently.  It’s done by Jeff Atwood of Coding Horror and Joel Spolsky of Fog Creek and Joel On Software as they work on their new programming message board/wiki/Knowledge Base project, and it’s pretty good.  It’s good even if you, like me, find Joel somewhat annoying in the way that he seems to pick fights just for the sake of it.

Brennen has referred to Joel as a professional troll before and at times like this I have to agree.  On episode 13 of the podcast, Joel - seeking and succeeding to inspire posts like this - analogized ASP.Net to driving a Lexus SUV and PHP to riding a bicycle.  This was to illustrate his claim that ASP.Net is a generation beyond PHP in power, functionality and, I suppose, status amongst the soccer MILFs you may want to hit on.

I’m not going to get into this too far, mostly because it’s a silly comment that has no basis in fact (though ASP.Net does come standard with air conditioning and leather interiors), but also because it’s a worn out, circular, boring topic.  Use whatever platform works for you.  Get your project done and meet your own requirements.  I only want to say one thing.

You may want to be careful with your analogies, lest you come up with one which can be interpreted thusly: So what you’re saying, Joel, is that ASP.Net is inefficient, uses up limited and expensive resources and is purchased more often as a badge of economic success than because it’s actually the best car on the market.  And PHP is the world’s most efficient method of locomotion, destined to become the new standard of transportation once we’ve gone broke keeping our Lexus SUVs running.

Did I get that right?

One response so far

Next »