Memorable Super Robot Moments

Luis has this recent entry on Mekanda Robot which is actually one anime which I've been pondering on for the past decade (I remember a mecha show wherein three vehicles would attach themselves to the robot's back) but couldn't quite remember the details or the title.

Anyway, as much as super robots are cool, there are those moments where you think either the protagonists or the villains are acting stupid. This isn't an entry about those. My memorable super robot moments are when either the heroes or the villains are acting smart. Let's start with...

5) Go Lion (a.k.a. lion team Voltron): Akira Kogane (Keith) is nearly assassinated by Honerva (Hagar) and is instead saved by Takashi Shirogane (Sven) who dies in the process, leaving no one to pilot the blue lion unit. No blue lion = no giant robot.

4) Getta Robo G (a.k.a. Starvengers): The enemy sends several robots that combine to form one menacing beast. Combined, they attack Getta Robo G. After a heated battle near the ocean, Getta Robo G finally uses his finishing move (Getta Beam!) hoping to destroy the monster. The monster disassembles just before it gets hit and flees into the ocean, making it appear as if the monster was destroyed.

3) Voltron movie: The Japanese studio made a Voltron movie for the US market featuring both team-1 and team-3 Voltron (i.e. space team and lion team). Near the end of the movie, the two super robots face off against their enemy: four robeasts who surround and nearly defeat both robots. It is only spoiled by the fact that a few minutes later, Lotor in his own robeast appears and combines with the four other robeasts to form one huge robot which easily gets dispatched (never trade your numerical superiority!).

2) Mazinkaiser OAV: Mazinger Z eventually gets overwhelmed by wave after wave of robots. One of them aims for the spaceship atop Mazinger Z's head, where the cockpit lies and breaks through the glass and nearly harms the pilot. Now that's what every villainous robot should do!

1) Shin Getta Robo OAV: Shin Getta Robo is comprised of three vehicles that combine in various permutations to form a specialized super robot. It faces off against its villainous doppelganger which also has the same capability. The fight goes on, with one robot getting the upper hand until the other robot changes forms to gain the advantage. After several minutes of this hi-tech rock-paper-scissors game, the good guys finally smarten up and just before the enemy finishes combining to form a new robot, they get in between two of the vehicles to prevent them from combining into a new form.

Honorable Mention: Although not strictly a super robot, in the live-action show Justirisers, the alien invaders send in a necromancer kaiju (giant monster) to face off against our heroes. He is accompanied by two previously-defeated kaiju so it is a three-on-one fight. Despite the numerical disadvantage, the Justirisers manage to defeat two of the kaiju, only to be shocked when they get revived. Perhaps the only more adrenaline-pumping moment is near the last episode where the alien invaders act like actual alien invaders and send in wave after wave of paratrooping giant robots against Earth.

Reading, Edutainment, Comics, and Audiobooks

Perhaps in the past couple of days, I’ve been pushing my thesis that people do read. It just so happens that they don’t read books or rather novels. And this is a more striking phenomenon rather than simply stating that people don’t read altogether. Why do people read other stuff but not novels? In my opinion there are two reasons. The first is that novels are intimidating. People can imagine themselves reading one sheet of paper but not four hundred pages from a book. It seems too out of their league. It’s the second reason, however, that I think is the more significant factor: novels don’t appear to be entertaining. For me the second part is the key because once you’ve solved that problem, the first won’t become too much of a problem. Yes, it’ll still be there, but the cliché is where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Not too long ago, the term edutainment was termed. It’s basically fusing education and entertainment. Personally, for me novels are more of the latter rather than the former, but the misconception is that books are supposed to educate. I don’t think some books are so much educational as much as they are boring, at least initially. (Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s lots of things that can be learned from novels. It’s just that their message is left to the reader to decide rather than some textbook simply stating out the facts for you.) Some people say that’s where edutainment comes in: by producing something that’s both education and entertaining, not just simply one or the other. Of course it’s not a perfect theory. Those against it claim that a lot of knowledge isn’t supposed to come out as entertainment. And to a certain point it’s true. If one only keeps reading the books that they’ll find entertaining, they’ve limited themselves to what they can learn. The best example is simply reading books of one genre: you’re limiting yourself to the myriad of possibilities. And this goes for the people who scoff at genre books too, who simply insist on reading just “fiction”. But in terms of getting people to start reading, edutainment seems like a good method as any.

Of course having said that, I don’t think we should limit ourselves to reading books. There are a lot of other venues for reading, one that espouses edutainment. At the simplest level, we can take the formula of children’s books: words and pictures. Honestly between the two, as children, the latter frequently has more appeal. And while some people, as they become older, do learn to appreciate the former, pictures do hold a certain appeal. In my opinion, in adult reading, this best comes out in magazines. Photos and illustrations augment the articles. And perhaps more importantly, the pictures pique your curiosity with regards to the article at best, or at worst simply gives you some breathing room between the blocks of text. I grew up reading magazines instead of books which is why I think it’s a good vehicle to promote reading. And the best part is that there’s lots of magazines of various subject matters, from science to music to nature. That’s not to say that all magazines are good reading—like most things, some are bad but some are similarly good. And perhaps the same rule about books applies to magazines: don’t judge it by its cover (or content). I mean people joke about Playboy magazine: we don’t read it for the articles. But you’d be surprised at the actual articles Playboy has. Or its fiction. The likes of Harlan Ellison and Kurt Vonnegut Jr. have published stories in Playboy. So you should think twice before gasping in disbelief that people actually purchase Playboy for the articles.

The second avenue I’m proposing will perhaps shock conservatives. Strangely, my youth was filled with reading thanks to video games as well and it’s perhaps more relevant now that two decades ago. I say that not because of the proliferation of video games but because of the proliferation of RPGs. Anyone who’s played an RPG, whether on the console or on the PC, will realize that the game has huge blocks of text. I read in a magazine once that RPGs were once termed as interactive novels. And it does have elements of novels: dialogue between characters, plot, and sometimes even a long exposition. Of course right now the RPG genre is changing, thanks to MMORPGs which is changing the dynamic. But that’s another subject matter altogether. Of course it’s not just RPGs when I talk about video games and reading. There’ve been games wherein reading has been pivotal, especially from PC games like Maniac Mansion and Monkey Island. Again, I’m not saying that all video games encourage reading, but there’s a couple of them that do. And perhaps what makes them appealing is because the reader isn’t merely a spectator but rather seems to take an active hand in plotting the course of the story.

The last fact about video games I think is why back in the day, the Choose Your Own Adventure line were successful. They were books that, aside from the fact were easy reading, had a level of interaction between the story and the reader. You were the hero in the book, not just following somebody else’s journey. And to a beginning reader, I think it’s an important point. It’s perhaps why some people play video games—so they can transpose themselves into someone heroic. And perhaps the best part of the Choose Your Own Adventure line and its derivatives was that it had replay value—we could reread the book over and over again and it’ll still be enjoyable and fresh (an aspect which is now the trend in most video games).

In case you didn’t notice, games are a great way to promote reading, simply because the main point of a game is that it’s fun. Perhaps if reading could be presented in such a method, a lot more people would be interested in reading. Take for example the reality TV show The Amazing Race. A lot of reading goes on, from navigating maps, poring over travel guides, interpreting signs, or simply looking for clues. What makes it all worth it is that it’s a game (well, the cash prize is lucrative too…). Perhaps some of the contestants would even be motivated to learn a new language, either because it will be relevant to the competition, or their curiosity was piqued thanks to an experience they had in the game. Simply put, reading in such an environment is sheer fun.

Some people might point out to me an obvious alternative: comics. Of course as much as I am a fan of comics and manga, I’d also like people to stress the importance that comics are no substitute for novels. Are they great vehicles for reading? Yes. And as much as I’m all for looking for alternative sources of reading such as video games and magazines, they aren’t the same as reading a book. That’s not to say that novels are superior to say, magazines, video games, and comics. All I’m saying is that they’re different mediums, each with its own strengths and limitations. As for comics, its nature varies. Some can end up being as wordy as any book (whether that’s a good or a bad thing, I’m leaning more towards the latter). On the other hand, I’ve seen comics with no words at all (except for the title). More likely however it runs somewhere in between. But the fact of the matter is, comics aren’t novels. Take for example a mystery story. If it were fiction, one could easily write it from the murderer’s perspective without giving away the identity of the murderer. If this were to be done in comics, we’d either reveal the murderer or transform him into a silhouette, which I don’t think is an effective method. Then there’s the inner voice of the character. In fiction, this would be simple. In comics, you’d end up with a comic with either too many word balloons or narrative boxes. Of course you can also play up the strengths of comics. In fiction, you might give something away to the reader by describing each and every item in the crime scene, giving more importance to some and giving less details to others. In comics, you can easily have an entire page of art portraying the crime scene. Keen readers will either find the clues there or they won’t without giving too much away. But again, the senses being stimulated are different. For fiction, it’s more of our “textual” senses. For comics, it’s both our textual senses and our visual senses or at least some proportion of both.

Having said that, comics is nonetheless a great platform to motivate people to start reading. Much like the children’s book formula, comics has both images and text although a good comic should be able to use one to complement the other rather than a mere substitute. One should also be aware of the diversity of comics—it’s simply not limited to children as depending on the publisher (especially in Europe and Japan), it can cover a lot of subject matter ranging from simple to complex.

Finally is the subject of audio books. They’ve been around for quite some time now, usually in the form of self-help and business books, but novels are starting to get the audio book treatment too. I’m not too confident about my assessment on audio books because I’m relatively unfamiliar with them but I’ll take a stab at it. For me the biggest advantage of audio books is that it’s a time-saver: I can listen to audio books while doing other activities that keep me preoccupied from reading, such as driving a car, jogging, or simply resting my eyes. Whether this can be used to encourage reading I’m not sure. Listening to audio books, after all, is simply just that: listening. Personally, I retain more of what I read than what I hear so I’m not so sure about the effectiveness of listening to audio books. Maybe it’s an acquired skill. It’s a great tool to practice active listening however. The closest contribution I can think of is that hopefully people will be interested in the subject matter that they’ll pick up the actual book. But that generalization applies to a lot of things, including adaptations of novels, be it movies, comics, and video games.

Then there’s the idea of thinking audio books are a substitute for books. They’re not. Sure, you get the same story but again, it’s different senses. Reading is more of a textual sense while audio books are more of an aural sense. Again, neither is more superior to the other, they’re simply just different. Although perhaps less so with audio books. Because unlike the other aural mediums such as radio, which is specifically designed for the listening medium, audio books are perhaps best described as adaptations of existing novels. They work great for self-help and business books because most of them involves stating facts and telling the listener (of course they also lose out on the occasional diagram but…) but for fiction, it’s a different atmosphere depending on the writer. Of course audio books play to its medium’s strengths as well: you don’t just get anybody to read out loud a book. One listens (at least theoretically) to an eloquent speaker who can deliver the lines with right inflection and tone. But it’s similarly not a radio drama either where various roles are picked up by different actors and actresses. In an audio book, most likely you’re just dealing with one speaker, pretty much in the same way your parents might read to a child a children’s book. I think my one biggest complaint about audio books is that it’s a passive act (which, again, isn’t a bad thing but is a big point of contention when it comes to reading novels vs listening to them via an audio book). Reading, for example, begins and ends with the reader. If I stop reading, the reading simply stops. With audio books, I can probably choose not to make sense of what I hear and merely relegate it to as mere “noise” but the audio book will go on playing. In some cases, I just need to listen with minimum effort to understand the story. In some cases, I’ll need to use more active listening skills. So the two aren’t exactly interchangeable although audio books do serve their purpose if what you’re interested in is simply getting the gist of a story or if you prefer to have our stories read to you.

Reading, I think, doesn’t have to be boring, at least not at first. I’ll be honest: I’ve read lots of books and eventually, I’ll come across a good book that has either dragging or boring parts. But I read them anyway. Perseverance is a skill I developed through reading. But I think the important part is that not every reading experience should be like this. Read what you want to read and eventually you graduate to some of the more tougher material. Edutainment is a fine mentality to live by but like most things, if we simply stick to that one philosophy, we’ve limited our growth. Of course having said that, it’s also a good thing to branch out. Reading is not the be-all and end-all of life. As much as I want people to cultivate their textual sense, I’d expect people should cultivate their other intelligences as well. It could be musical sensitivity, aesthetic appreciation, physical fitness, or some other aspect. But perhaps the beauty of reading is that it can be applied to all those things too: I might read about an urban adventure, satiate both my visual and textual appetites with comics, or engross my aural and poetic sense with music and its lyrics.

It's Never Too Late

Ever heard of this phrase? “I’m too old to learn.” My personal variation is “I’m too busy to learn.” I heard it a million times before and I heard it yesterday again while eavesdropping when someone asked the other person if she thought of going to college again. Of course I’m aware of all the other factors into making the decision: time, expenses, and opportunity costs. So maybe let’s narrow it down to something more specific. It’s never too late to start being reader. Got that? Okay let’s move on.

I’m sure some of you have heard some stories about readers (and perhaps even would-be writers), at how they’ve read this much books by age ten and so on and so forth. Quite frankly, I’m not one of those people. At age twelve, I can name you the books I read: some Choose Your Own Adventure books, the modern (at the time) Tom Swift books (for those who don’t know, Tom Swift is pretty much like Hardy Boys except with a sci-fi bent), and Nintendo’s Worlds of Power series (which was adaptations of popular video games like Blaster Master and Bionic Commando). They aren’t exactly books that are required reading for anyone nor are they thick or substantial (by now I could probably read them in 30 minutes). It was only a year later that I’d tackle an actual novel, Jurassic Park, and that took me like two weeks to read.

That’s not to say I never read for twelve whole years, those simple juvenile books aside. And perhaps what I had in common with most people was that I did read—just not books. As a kid, I was a video game fan, so I read video game magazines (FYI they were Nintendo Power and GamePro). I was also haphazardly into comics (which explains the original Dark Phoenix saga in my collection) although honestly, half the time I was reading manga that I couldn’t understand (because it was translated in Chinese). So there wasn’t any “serious” reading done aside from what was required at school (and honestly at age thirteen, there really was little required reading of fiction books in class—in fact I can’t remember any book offhand).

And then at age thirteen, me and a friend on a whim picked up a fantasy book. The problem was that it was part of a series so we had to buy the entire series and perhaps more importantly, read the entire series. So suddenly from my record of reading one book, it suddenly turned into five (I read a four-part series while my friend read a trilogy by the same author). It all pretty much started from there. Once you do one book, you realize that you can do another. And another. And another after that. With each book you go through, you practice your reading muscles. It’s actually a skill. As I said, Jurassic Park took me around two weeks to finish, even if I struggled at it every day. Reading the same book now takes me around two days if I allot time for it. It begins with practice.

At age fifteen, I met other people like me: people who love books. But unlike them, I was a newcomer. I met people who read The Chronicles of Narnia and Xanth and Dragonlance and Lord of the Rings at the grade school library. I didn’t even know those books were at our grade school library (because as much as we visited the library often, it was mainly due to the air conditioner rather than a genuine interest in reading). My introduction to literature took a different course from what was expected. I didn’t exactly read the classics but I read from what was on the shelf in the local bookstore. And that was where my book collection began.

I think people have to remember that if you plan on having a book collection, it has to start from somewhere, even if it’s just one book. I did start with one book. Now it’s hundreds of books (and perhaps hundreds more in misplaced areas and unreturned novels). But it didn’t come easy. Doing the math it took me ten years. I honestly feel like a millionaire: I was thrilled when I realized I had a hundred books… and stopped keeping counting after that. Perhaps what’s important is to remember to take it one step at a time. You’ll get there eventually.

My thoughts on writing even came later. It was probably one fluke after another. When I was thirteen, on a whim, I tried out for the school paper. I failed. The next year, when we all entered high school, I gave it a try again. I got into the news section. After three years of writing nothing but news articles I wanted to transfer to the literary section of the school paper but couldn’t, partially because I was needed in the news section, partially because my writing quite frankly sucked. Of course I don’t think I would have been interested in writing a story if it weren’t for the books I was reading at the time. It struck a chord in me. And for me this is the turning point when I became more than just a reader but a writer. I failed at being a writer but I didn’t give up. Soon I found myself applying for the Creative Writing program in various colleges even if I had no writing background at all aside from the basic English classes we had.

Eventually I went to college pursuing Creative Writing but honestly at the start, I was ill-equipped. To show you how ignorant I was, I applied for the literary publication at school and the person interviewing me was Quark Henares himself. The first question he asked me was what was the difference between prose and poetry. I knew what poetry was. I didn’t know what prose meant. (Imagine a stuttering seventeen-year-old unable to state the differences between prose and poetry.) It’s no surprise why I didn’t make it to the literary organization. It only reinforced into me how much more I had to learn.

I think the important part was that I just kept at it. During my entire first year in college, I couldn’t see myself as a professional, successful writer. The same goes for my second year. It was only in my third year that I caught a glimmer of hope. And then by my fourth year, there was a form of resignation of my fate—I’m not talented but I can still be a writer if I work at it. So that’s my motto: work, work, work. Honestly effort can only take you so far. But even the most brilliant of people are toppled by a lack of effort on their part. And at least effort is something in my control.

So when you have thoughts of being either a “serious” reader or, gasp, a writer, I think one thing to bear in mind is that it’s never too late. It wasn’t too late for me. And one thing going for the former is the fact I sincerely do believe that we all read—just not books. As for being a writer, well, people in general do love telling stories. Even blog entries are stories of some sort, they just don’t have the structure for fiction. The seeds are there and all we need is to nurture it. And some of you might even think I started early. Well I heard stories from my professors of newcomers in the field entering competitions and writing workshops and excelling in them. And these are from people who’ve never written in their entire lives. One story that caught my attention was such a woman in her thirties. When I first heard the story I was filled with jealousy, at how a newcomer could easily write an award-winning story with no prior experience whatsoever (compared to me who’s been struggling for years). But that only goes to show how it’s never too late to start writing… or reading.

Before I end, I’d like to share how going blind is one of my fears. Without sight, I can’t read. But that’s not exactly true. Blind people read: they use Braille. That, perhaps, should show us the persistence of the human will. Reading is both a visual and a mental act. One would assume if you took out the visual aspect it’d be impossible to read. Braille allows us to read by substituting touch. It’s certainly not easy nor is it as convenient as sight but it’s there. So we should take this to heart. Blind people technically shouldn’t be able to read but they do. What more for people like us who have two eyes (albeit perhaps mine has bad eyesight)? I’ll even make do with one if I have to. But it all begins with a choice. It’s not about disposition or upbringing. Choosing to read is much, much easier than choosing what career to pursue. All it takes is some time and effort.

Nerds and Bullying

I’m certain bullying still occurs in schools. No one grows up with the perfect childhood nor are we surrounded by the perfect people. What I’m curious however is the criteria for being bullied. Two decades ago, being smart made you the target of insults, teasing, and harassment. Of course I’m speaking from my own childhood experience and the social dynamics then might have been different from what it is now (in addition to the fact that I went to a Catholic all-boys school). These days, however, especially with the proliferation of mainstream shows that feature not just smart characters but genius protagonists (C.S.I., Numbers), I wonder if the kids of today still pick on their smart classmates or have they become the modern day jocks?

Television has changed. I suspect it’s because the nerds of yesterday are now writing the scripts of our population TV shows. I remember back in the 80’s and earlier, while there were so-called nerds on TV shows, they were rarely the main characters. Supporting cast yes, main hero no. At best, they occupied vital consulting positions, such as Q in the James Bond movies or even Spock in Star Trek (who would occasionally get the chance to save the day but if you run the numbers, Star Trek is a Captain Kirk show). At worse, they were the comedy relief (anyone remember Urkel from Family Matters?). There were exceptions of course, such as Doctor Who or MacGyver, but these were the exceptions rather than the norm. These days however, you have shows like C.S.I. and its derivatives which actually feature an entire cast of nerds or you can have a show like Prison Break where viewers fall head over heels over the genius main character, Michael Scofield. And then there’s the Internet phenomenon and the sudden growth in consumer electronics. Suddenly, being smart or at least technologically savvy is one of the in-things.

I remember as a kid I frequently got bullied, more so in later years. It’s interesting to note that during first year grade school and second year grade school, a lot of my classmates (including those who would later become the bullies and the jocks) were on the honor roll. It was only later, perhaps when we all realized how boring studying can be, that being smart made you stand out. The practical minded in our class excused their lacking by saying that they’ll inherit their family business anyway or that they were rich or they had other methods of making money. Just goes to show how most parents compel their kids to study: by making them believe that it’s the path to financial success. But us kids didn’t buy into that. And then there were those who weren’t inclined to be smart. They honed their other talents, whether their physical or mental gifts. These were usually the type—but not the only ones—that bullied the smarter kids, either physically hurting them or simply making them emotional punching bags (since I attended a private school, no one really asked for people’s lunch money because most of us were well-off).

The problem with getting good grades was that it drew attention to yourself. The bullies would say you’re just craving for attention at best or at worst claiming that you make everybody else look bad. The honor rolls students were also prime targets for cheating so that those failing in class would pass the semester…and the semester after that and so on. The bullies may not have been knowledgeable but they were cunning. Through this method of getting low grades but somehow managing to pass (and let’s be honest, what teacher wants to fail their students?) thanks to cheating (or sometimes just plain hard work and effort), they’ll move on to the next batch, practicing the same tactics, preying on the same people. The bullied students either learn to live with it or try to transfer to a different class or another school (which unfortunately has its own share of bullies). The easiest thing to do was not to be smart, to not draw attention to yourself, to not be part of the honor roll. At least that’s how it should work in theory.

I don’t consider myself smart, at least not at first. If you look at my grades, they’re average. I wasn’t an honor roll student and I had several subjects that were close to failing (and in fact I did fail a few subjects). But I was bullied nonetheless and this should clue in students on the nature of bullying. I wasn’t bullied because I was smart, I was bullied because I looked smart. I had the typical characteristics: glasses, small and thin, and a bag with everything in it. And perhaps for me what was more interesting was that the honor roll students weren’t always preyed upon. Some managed to stay bully-free for several school years thanks to social maneuvering, bribes, or sheer politicking.

If you’re a nerd and you’re being bullied, the truth of the matter is, you’re not being bullied because you’re smart. You’re being bullied because you’re different. One merely needs to look at who was being bullied. Because as much as nerds were being bullied in school, other types of students were similarly being bullied. You could be the dumbest kid in school and get teased often. You could have a physical defect and get bullied (I once had a classmate whose head was always leaning to the left and so he was on the receiving end of many jokes and insults). People are more tolerant now but before in my school, if you were even suspected of having a different sexual orientation you were also bullied. And the reason why some of the smart kids never got bullied was because they were friends with the bullies or they got well with people in general (i.e. they blended in). People bully you because you’re too different from them. And the fact of the matter is, the bullies are probably insecure about themselves. That’s why they feel so strongly about “normalizing” the rest of us, of making us feel deviants unwelcome. This phenomena isn’t limited to just the school environment. In happens in real life. We might not get physically hurt per se but there are other ways of coercing us to be part of the norm: getting ostracized, peer pressure, or even social sanctions. That’s what might happen when you visit a group of religious fanatics or when you join a party of a different social class or simply visit a foreign country.

Even if the world has indeed undergone a paradigm shift and the nerds of yesteryear are today’s jocks, where being smart is cool, bullying will still probably occur. At worse, it’s the nerds who are now doing the bullying, piling dense insults on those less astute. At best, the smart kids in school might be part of the apathetic norm who merely watches bullying occur but are afraid to interfere lest they attract attention to themselves. And perhaps what’s more horrifying is the fact that it’s a perpetuating cycle and those who witness it (be it teachers, parents, or simply strangers) feel helpless in stopping it. Sure, some of your peers might interfere but anyone who’s been bullied knows that this is only a temporary solution. Your teacher or parent or best friend won’t always be there to protect you. Worse, you lose the respect of your peers by depending on someone else to rescue you (or maybe this is just a guy thing). Some people might tell you to stand up to bullies. I’ve stood up against bullies and it’s not as easy as TV makes it seem to be. Sometimes I win. Sometimes I lose. But the bullies will still be there tomorrow no matter where I go. Bullies are pretty much like politicians: they’ll come in a variety of faces and sometimes it’s just the names that change. Is there truly a solution to bullying?

For me bullying is like poverty. You want to eliminate it but you can’t. As long as human beings have free will and are capable of emotions both positive and negative, there’ll be bullying. As long as people will have egos and insecurities, there’ll be bullying. As long as people will be individuals with unique traits and quirks, there’ll be bullying. And even if we manage to build a perfect society, one that is intolerant of bullies, all we’ve managed to accomplish is create a paradox and merely transformed ourselves from victim to agressor. But if there’s anything hopeful I have to say it’s this: we’re all human and the one constant thing is change. Some bullies from my past I don’t care to meet. Some I’ve made peace with. There are even previous bullies who I now call friends. If I gave up on living early on, I wouldn’t be here today. Bullies are indeed a malignant threat to society but they’re not the only threat we face. If we can’t face them, how can we face the other challenges in life? And deep down, we must remember that bullies are like us: human.

Basic Arithmetic

As a ten-year-old, I remember managing to sneak into a PG-13 movie (it was a Jackie Chan flick [probably one of the Super Cop movies], nothing too explicit). The person manning the theater relied on two things: honesty on my part and knowledge of mathematics. The first question they asked of course was how old I was. The second, which I found funny, was them asking me what year I was born. And perhaps every movie theater practiced this method for screening juvenilles that by the time they asked me the second question, I had already done the math in my head.

Science and Humanity

I just came from a literary convention and one of the forums I attended was from a group entitled Café Scientific and the discussion revolved around science and how it relates to the world we’re living in. One of the points mentioned was how science appears to the layman—an accepted branch of knowledge that is only understood by a special few. And then there is the schism between the scientist and the artist, as if these two vocations stood on the opposite end of the spectrum and how they are distinct from each other. But for me, these are simply misunderstood notions. How different really are the schools of science from the school of humanities? And should there be a distinguishing line dividing the two?

My thesis challenges the norm. I mean for most people, nothing can be more different than the arts and the sciences. The former is more in touch with one’s creativity and one’s emotions while the latter seems to be comprised of cold logic and deduction. I’d like to think, however, that this is simply an oversimplification brought about by modern views. Currently in the 21st century, the concept of specialization has been nurtured more so than in the past. Mass production for example relies heavily on specialization, with one person focusing on merely one skill. And specialization is a comforting idea; rather than diversifying, one merely needs to concentrate on one area of expertise. It’s a lot simpler and arguably easier. Yet us being human beings, we aren’t exactly creatures born with simply one purpose, nor can our entirety of being can be summarized in just one word or adjective. We are complex, driven by not just one emotion or need but by various factors. For example, I might like person not because I find him or her simply pretty but for a lot of reasons such as their companionship, the way they talk, their habits, their social stature, and yes, their appearance. There could be one reason why we pursue something or there could be several. Personally, language is another example. As a Filipino-Chinese, I speak three languages: Chinese, English, and Filipino. I may not be adept at all three but I do use all three to one extent or another. The rest of my countrymen are usually familiar with English and Filipino. There is a plurality of languages in our culture and it is not limited to us: look at Canada, look at France, look at Singapore. As much as one single language might be applied so that everyone might understand each other, some people are born bilingual, trilingual, or even more. And the same goes with our other talents. There are tri-athletes, people with resumes that list themselves as singer/songwriter/composer, or even people who are able to play several musical instruments. Specialization, as much as it makes life a lot simpler, isn’t necessarily true for everyone. People are pluralities, multi-faceted beings that are endowed with a wide variety of talent and skill.

All that brings me to art and science. Yes there are people who choose either art or science as their vocation. But that doesn’t mean it’s always an either/or proposition. Look at Leonardo da Vinci, a man who was both driven by the sciences and the arts (and in fact I dare, based on pure speculation, that it’s perhaps his interest in science that has influenced his art and vice versa). Of course a rebuttal some might say is that Da Vinci is the exception rather than the norm. But if we look back in history, one of the world’s earliest human scientists didn’t begin as scientists—we called them philosophers and philosophy currently is known as a branch in the school of humanities. Yet the contribution of philosophers in the field of science has been astounding. Democritus, for example, is one of the people who first conceptualized the atom. Aristotle has also been known to pursue scientific inquiry even if they are currently proven to be inadequate or erroneous.

I think most people expect science to be useful and relevant. The former quality is debatable; sometimes scientific inquiry is simply there to sate our curiosity. Whether it is relevant, it is. But how I arrive at that conclusion is not via the results of science but rather at the beginning of science: we ask the question of why and how. And when we ask those two questions, it’s only then we begin to see how science relates to the other fields. Philosophy for example similarly asks why and how although the approach is different. Even religion results from the question of how and why and again, the methodoly is different but the fundamental question remains the same. Science, philosophy, and religion seeks to understand our world—at least that was the case in the beginning. Now in its modern forms, these three fields might appear different, more “evolved” from its original incarnation. Which is why people distinguish between philosophy and science and religion. But again, if you look at their roots, they are not so much different.

And then comes the artist. They fall under a wide category: the fictionists, the poets, the singers, the illustrators, the performers, the musicians, and the list goes on. What do they have in common? They see their output as works of art. But before I start asking the question of what is art, perhaps it is important to look into why these people make art in the first place. In certain ways, their creative output is the result of the need they have to express themselves, to sort out the feelings and emotions and ideas they have. In a certain way, they are also asking within themselves the question of why and their art is their way of doing so. The form their answer takes might be unfathomable at first but to the artist, there is some sense of release, a relief that can only come from discovering more about themselves. That is not to say, however, that the scientist and the artist are the same. Whereas the latter focuses more on internal questions, the scientist is usually interested not in what lies from within but from without. And the way each answers their questions is significantly different. Whereas the artist might employ a subtler, metaphorical method, the scientist is usually direct and forthcoming. Which method is more effective, on the other hand, is subject to a different discussion altogether.

Then we come to the question of what is art. It is an important question because it usually seems like the polar opposite of what is scientific. Art is usually accepted as something impractical, non-utilitarian. Science, on the other hand, seems like something important, something vital, something useful. I will not debate whether art is utilitarian—that is a discussion of a different sort. But I do want to point out that science in itself isn’t as utilitarian as most people assume it is. Knowledge of science is just that—knowledge. Awareness or ignorance of the laws of gravity, for instance, won’t make the pull of gravity any stronger or weaker. It applies to us all equally. That’s not to say, however, that science doesn’t have a practical application. It does but that is putting science into action and not science in itself. A physicists, for example might know the forces and the mechanics empowering a plane to fly but that does not mean that given the chance and the materials that he will be able to build himself a working plane. A scientist and his discoveries is necessary, no question about it, in crafting the plane but the scientist himself is not necessary in the reproduction and piloting of the aircraft (that job is presumably left to the more “practical” professions such as laborers and technicians who might not necessarily understand what they’re doing on the level a scientist understands the laws of physics but they nonetheless are able to successfully construct a working airplane). Science enables us to find the answers but what we do with the answers (and its practical applications) is a whole different thing. The value of art is similarly like science. Art per se isn’t necessarily useful (except perhaps to its creator who finds fulfillment in the very act of creativity) but later on, people do attach significance to it. For example the Mona Lisa, in the end, is simply a painting. It becomes valuable (aesthetically and financially) because of the significance people attach to it. In itself, it has no value. Without humans to appreciate it, it is just paint on paper. The same goes with science. All the theories and discoveries remain in the form of knowledge until someone transforms it into something useful.

Speaking of usefulness, one of the speakers in the forum mentioned that scientific inquiry doesn’t need to be useful in itself. We pursue scientific experiments not because we think it will be useful but because we do not know if it will be useful or not. I think that leads us back to the foundations of schools of thought such as science, philosophy, and religion. A scientist doesn’t set out to be useful at the start. Its usefulness is merely a byproduct (and it is a great byproduct indeed considering how science has shaped our modern world). First and foremost, they set out to satiate their curiosity, to find the answers to why and how. The artist is placed in a similar situation. When they create their work of art whatever form it might take, the primary concern isn’t to be useful or to be profitable or to even be entertaining—art is merely one way for the person to express themselves. What we do with art later on is another matter entirely and often, it’s not even in the control of the artist what happens to it. And science is in a similar plight. One just needs to look at our findings regarding Global Warming. Several scientists have warned us about it yet few are actually acting against it. The US government for example have either ignored the reports or try to suppress it. In such a scenario, the awareness, the knowledge of Global Warming seems useless. The end result is just the same if we were ignorant of the phenomenon. So it takes human action to make science—and art—practical. (Of course for the record, I’d like to mention that people are acting on Global Warming thanks to the discoveries and publishing of science on the topic. Whether it is enough to stave off the impending catastrophe is another matter. And perhaps the words of my college professor ring true now: it is not for the Earth’s sake that we should take care of our environment for the planet Earth will go on for centuries even amidst disasters both natural and man-made; we should do it for ourselves for it is we humans who are inhabiting this planet and the inhospitable environment we are creating is merely inhospitable to ourselves and the creatures living on the planet.)

Having said all that, the line between art and science seem tenuous. But I do think there is a difference between the two, just not as huge and encompassing as people originally thought it to be. I’m not here to say art and science are the same for while they might share a common origin, their methods, the way they express themselves, are obviously different, in the same way that we do not relegate science, philosophy, and religion to the same field. The difference might seem minute or huge, depending on what perspective you choose to view it in, but it is these differences that makes it relevant to us humans. However, I would like to point out that the gap isn’t as difficult to bridge as most people imagine it to be, and it is conceivable for one to choose both paths. Art and science aren’t exclusive—they’re both part of the human condition. Whether we pick one road or both roads is up to you (or if we should even pick either of those paths; perchance maybe there is even an undefined third option or even a fourth or a fifth… the possibilities are endless for human beings are pluralities). And perhaps a part of us relishes and wonders what if we instead chose the other path. I’m here to ask then what’s stopping you now? If there’s anything we should realize by now, the two share certain elements in common, and sometimes the leap of faith isn’t such a huge leap at all.

Booktopia Sale

In the recent Read or Die convention, Booktopia sponsored a talk by the lit-critters. In addition to that, they'll also be having a sale at their bookstore starting today until next week, so you might want to pay a visit to this independent bookstore.

P.S. Tell them I sent you, hehehe.

P.P.S. Purchase a copy of Philippine Genre Stories!

Book Finds Two Weeks Ago

I was at the Read or Die literary convention yesterday and as much as I'd want to claim that I came home with some new books that day, that's just not the case (although make no mistake, there were some good finds there). Anyway, here are a couple of well-designed books which I bought from Fully Booked around two weeks ago and they're reprints of some science-fiction classics given the European book cover treatment. Oh and rounded corners too! Too bad I only managed to snatch half of the set.

Injured Feet

The streets of Manila aren't smooth. They're jagged and rough. I was running yesterday, on my way to the Read or Die convention when my shoe flew off and for several steps, I was running at high speeds barefoot and eventually tripping. My feet didn't bleed although it had this reddish/bluish mark in the middle. And it hurts like hell.

Is Reading Truly Essential?

There is this modern myth that people who read books are smart. It is only reinforced by the fact that a lot of people don’t take (or don’t make) the time to read books unless it is a requisite in school or simply a fad that strikes their fancy. But make no mistake, the world is not without readers. In this era where information is the key to many industries, reading is a skill that is developed by most people—perhaps even I dare say the illiterate ones. The problem that arises is not whether people read or not—because people do and I can hardly conceive of a human being living in this technological age and not be familiar at least with the basics of language—but whether they read books. If were to consider simply reading per se, people do read. Even in a third world such as the Philippines, millions of people are reading, whether it’s your mundane street signs, newspapers, magazines, Friendster profiles, or the annoying text message lingo that is utilized by cell phone users. The concept of reading an entire book, on the other hand, is treated as if only certain people are capable of such a feat, the same way non-practitioners imagine never having the necessary talent to pursue a career in medicine, in art, in poetry, or simply running a huge corporation. The task is daunting and the real question one can’t help but ask is whether the chore of reading a book is essential to human living.

Before I begin, I must clarify that there are a lot of bibliophiles in the world. One merely needs to look at my circle of friends and one would be astounded why I am posing the relevance of book reading in the first place. But an all-too human mistake is to assume that my world is always true on a macro level. Yes, the social circle I move in is composed not just of book readers but book lovers. But I would dare say that I am not the norm, and it is only natural that a bibliophile would hang out with fellow bibliophiles, the same way a basketball player might be friends with fellow basketball players. I have no evidence or statistics to prove my theory but I will assume that in every country, there will be a percentage of that population that devours books on a regular basis, people who go out of their way to buy and actually read the books that they purchase. These people need no incentive to read the books they read but simply do so for the love of it. No fad is necessary, no movie adaptation of a popular (or obscure) title, no controversy is required to stir their curiosity. Yet they seldom make up majority of the population, or at least it seems so in my country. There will be exceptions of course as the Filipino masses have been known to voraciously devour romance stories, be they in the form of cheap paperbacks, radio dramas, or telenovelas. Personal experience also edifies my question on a nation’s readership. Strangers usually seemed amaze to find me reading a book, my bookmark somewhere in the middle of the novel. They are even further surprised to see me the next day with a different book by a different author and assume, for simplicity’s sake, that I am smart when in reality, I’m not or rather I’m not so much intellectually superior to them as they would have me (and others) believe.

Reading is an act of communication. Some writers even claim that the act of reading is an act of telepathy. And to a certain extent, it is as it lets us convey our thoughts to other people without needing to speak it out loud with our own voice. If there is something that is superior to reading in terms of communicating with other people, it is probably the act of speaking and listening. Every creature, be it human or animal, makes sounds whether it’s a simple grunt or a complex mating call. If there is a primordial act of communication, my best bet that it was probably through the act of speaking (of course one could content that body language and touch played a part, and in the case of some animals, scent, but that is diverging from the topic at hand). Reading merely evolved out of this, or at best, a skill that was developed later on in the stages of evolution. There is, however, one advantage reading has over hearing. Adult humans tend to rely more on sight than on sound. Even human mnemonics support this theory for people are most likely to remember something they saw rather than heard (and one is reinforced by the other). Sight has played a huge role in the human paradigm. And while others are sensitive enough to utilize their aural faculties, humans tend to rely more on sight which is why even the act of composing music Is committed to notes on paper rather than simply playing back a song or tune over and over again.

Human beings are visual creatures and the act of writing is perhaps our most primitive way of keeping track of records. There have been, of course, the tradition of sheer memorization and the passing down of knowledge from one generation to another but the disadvantage of such a method aside from the inevitable inaccuracy that arises from it is that it requires two humans to participate. If one were to simply leave a message that warns of danger, it would be impractical to have a human being watch over a particular area for all eternity, simply to warn off potential wanderers when a simple sign would do. And that does not address the question of a human being dying prematurely before he can convey all his knowledge and ideas to others. So the act of writing becomes essential to human beings history it facilitates communication without needing other humans as a medium.

Of course while I can defend the essentialness of reading, the act of reading books is another matter. Books are a luxury but they are by no means the only way we use the written language. They come in all forms, from signs, documents, broadsheets, magazines, or even on electronic screens that is neither paper nor a book. A human could live his entire life reading a lot of things yet never pick up a book and read it from cover to cover. Such is the modern way of living thanks to all sorts of devices that facilitate telecommunication but that is not a curse of the modern age. In fact, the only reason books nowadays are prevalent is due to the invention of the printing press which made publishing accessible to the masses. Before that, books surely existed but the only way to create or replicate one was to manually write it or copy it by hand. Thus books were a rarity and only accessible to a privileged few. And when you get right down to it, how essential is reading to a pauper’s life when you have other skills to hone: farming, fishing, hunting, cooking, and animal husbandry.

The educated might cry foul and mention that books empower readers with knowledge and wisdom. But my retort there is that just because I read does not mean I am smart, nor does it mean that all smart people read. Philosophy has tackled this and one proof is that every person is capable of philosophizing, of wondering and debating about the mysteries of the world. The well-read man is no different than the masses when it comes to discussing philosophy—the only significant advantage one has over the other is that one of them might be more fluent and precise in describing his or her thoughts. And even then, the result does not always lie with the well-read individual. If we look at history, there is also the likes of Socrates. I’m not claiming that he never read a book but Socrates wasn’t really fond of the written word. Instead, he favored the act of living dialogue, or two intelligent souls having discussion. It is in fact a limitation of the act of reading. Speaking and hearing are actions that come in pairs but not so with reading—information travels in a one way street and a reader can’t immediately communicate with the author. There are also the other informal ways of attaining wisdom and knowledge: simply listening to the advice of your elders, exploring the world on your own, or even the philosophical act of debating upon the world in isolation. Reading a book is by no means the only requirement although the faculty of being able to read helps a great deal. It is even conceivable that the smartest scientist in the world never needs to pick up a novel in all of his adult life, merely concentrating on reading academic papers, scientific journals, and email correspondences with his peers. In such a scenario, why read books then?

The answer perhaps lies not in such a profound or noble reason but in a simpler one. The first time I picked up a book to read willingly, it was not in the quest for knowledge or perhaps a need to understand the human condition better. Rather, I did it because I thought it would be fun and enjoyable. It is the same reason I would go out and play a sport, or go to the theater and watch a movie, or turn on the computer and play a video game: entertainment. In the end, as much as people will claim the greatest contributions of books are the advancement of human knowledge, or bringing about peace in the world, or perhaps even making a breakthrough in technology, people read because it is a pleasurable act.

Make no mistake, this epiphany does not diminish the relevance of reading books. It is commonly believed that humans have basic needs—food, water, shelter. However, I beg to differ if that is merely enough. They are all we require to survive perhaps but we need more to be human: we need companionship, we need work, we need something to pass the time. For a soccer player, a basic “need” he has might be the ability to play soccer. For a cook, the ability to cook. For a teacher, the opportunity to enlighten and teach others. If all humans needed to survive was simply food, water, and shelter, the concept of prison or simply living in a box wouldn’t be so scary. All the basic necessities are addressed yet it’s certainly no way for a human being to live—and can in fact drive a person insane. For me, reading a book is one such need: it does not have the same urgency as food, drink, and shelter, and by no means does every human being depend on the ability to read books to survive. But for certain people, reading a book is surely a necessity they can’t live without or else they will end up living a life that is less than human.

Avatar Updates

NICK LAUNCHES AVATAR GAME

Nickelodeon announced it will launch a new online game based on its super hot series Avatar: The Last Airbender next week on February 3. If that isn’t enough, they will also include a lot of other stuff to keep hardcore fans salivating until the third season starts later this year.

The new content, in the form of an animated online comic book from Avatar creators Michael DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko, will be revealed within a four-week online gaming event called “Avatar: Escape from the Spirit World” on a dedicated website, www.avatarescape.com.

To help them move forward in the game, players can tune into Nickelodeon on Saturday mornings in February, from 10 am to noon (eastern), and gather cheat codes that unlock the next level. During the final week of the event, on February 24, a special cheat code will be announced on-air which will unlock a special brand new Avatar short online, entitled "School Time Shipping.” Produced in the super deformed style of animation, which uses a style similar to caricature, this brand new short form content offers Avatar fans an opportunity to see their favorite characters in a whole new way.

The “Escape from the Spirit World” game will also be supported with an on-air promotional sweepstakes (in the U.S. only) featuring new winners each weekend over the four weeks of the event period, producing a total of 50 winners. Partners supporting the sweepstakes include Mattel, Paramount, Simon & Schuster, Tokyopop, THQ, Upper Deck and Lego.

From: Newsarama

Something Wicked This Way Comes by Ray Bradbury

I picked up the book mainly for two reasons: one is that it is Ray Bradbury after all and his contributions to fiction (and not just the genre) have been huge, and the second is that it was recommended by Stephen King in his nonfiction book Danse Macabre. True enough, Something Wicked This Way Comes lives up to its expectations, delivering a wonderful story, beautiful prose, and chilling moments. Bradbury doesn’t bore readers—his fiction is short but sweet. And at the heart of this novel are its protagonists and Bradbury develops them fully, making them sympathetic avatars. But Something Wicked This Way Comes also tells us the story of the folly of man and this is where the horror originates for as much as the terror arises from something supernatural, it is also something that originates from within us… and is already here. I expect young adults will eagerly consume this book for its child-like simplicity while adults can enjoy the books many layers and the childhood it rekindles in them.

Rating: 5/5.

Cell by Stephen King

If you think that zombies are antiquated monsters of the horror genre, Cell is probably the book for you as King updates this old horror trope and gives it a modern look. Having said that, for me the biggest strength of Cell is its concept—namely people turning into zombies when they receive a signal from their cell phones. The plot, the horror, and the characters are okay but not mind-blowing. To his credit, King tries to terrify the reader not through visceral images (although he does try and one realizes one should be reading a Palahniuk book if one wants to simply be disgusted) but through psychological horror: what choices people make in times of crisis, what humans are capable of when we’re down, and finally the source of the zombie epidemic. It’s honestly not the best King work and settles somewhere in the ho-hum pile of books. As I said before, Cell is more of a concept book and the rest is mediocre writing.

Rating: 3/5.

Taxi Ride

One of the more interesting anecdotes from last week (and I'm still busy busy busy! this week) was the taxi ride from Ortigas to The Fort. I was late (through no fault of my own of course) and since I didn't know how to get from where I was to the Fort (i.e. I haven't walked the distance), I hailed a cab.

The driver of course was pleasant enough. But there were moments when I wished I had just gotten a different cab. There was the time when we missed the fly-over (the US equivalent of the highway) in C-5, thus turning a 15-minute trip into 45 minutes of getting stuck in traffic. There was also the time when the empty fuel sign started blinking and the driver didn't bother refueling, claiming we'll make it in time (and we did). Although for a few moments, my heart stopped when the engine died in the middle of traffic (I thought it was due to the lack of fuel). It was quickly solved by pouring water into the engine. I never expected to feel the extent of Murphy's Law in one mundane taxi ride.

Book List 2006

A bit delayed but here's the books I've managed to finish reading in 2006.


2006 (38 books)

January (9)

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus by John Gray, Ph.D.
N.P. by Banana Yoshimoto
The Shadow Road by Sean Russel
Smaller and Smaller Circles by F.H. Batacan
A Model World and Other Stories by Michael Chabon
Lust by Simon Blackburn
Lullaby by Chuck Palahniuk
In the Forest of Serre by Patricia McKillip

February (2)

Masterpieces in Miniature: Stories by Agatha Christie by Agatha Christie
Resurrection by Paul S. Kemp

March (4)

A Feast for Crows by George R. R. Martin
Veniss Underground by Jeff Vandermeer
The Girl in the Glass by Jeffrey Ford
Magic for Beginners by Kelly Link

June (1)

Salamanca by Dean Francis Alfar

July (5)

Invisible Monsters by Chuck Palahniuk
Jake and Other Stories by China Mieville
Tanequil by Terry Brooks
Straken by Terry Brooks
The Empire of Ice Cream by Jeffrey Ford

August (2)

A Stroke of Midnight by Laurell K. Hamilton
The Lions of Al-Rassan by Guy Gavriel Kay

September (5)

The Last Hero by Terry Pratchett
The Girl Who Played Go by Shan Sa
Promise of the Witch-King by R.A. Salvatore
Adventure in the Dream Trade by Neil Gaimaan
The Changeling Sea by Patricia McKillip

October (9)

Shadow of the Giant by Orson Scott Card
Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman
Waiting by Ha Jin
The Etched City by KJ Bishop
The Iron Dragon's Daughter by Michael Swanwick
Daughter of the Blood by Anne Bishop
Heir to the Shadows by Anne Bishop
Queen of Darkness by Anne Bishop
The Dying Earth by Jack Vance

November (1)

The Prestige by Christopher Priest

Overall, I'm surprised at how I managed to sneak in a few local books and how I managed to go through some non-fiction books, me not being the type of reader who reads those kind of books. Didn't meet my goal of 60 books in a year and as you can see, my reading habits in 2006 have been quite erratic.