So this is Christmas?

I should be clear upfront: I hate that John Lennon song. In fact, I hate the vast majority of Christmas Carols written after 1950, and most genre covers of the ones written before (read: an R&B version of Baby it's Cold Outside, cough cough, Vanessa Williams, cough cough). In fact it was my dismay at the idea that my hatred for most Christmas music that inspired this blog.

I should also be clear: I am not one of those people that hates (or even merely tolerates) Christmas music generally. I love it. During December, my radio station is tuned to KOST, Los Angeles' own easy listening drivel factory which goes all out with Christmas jungles from Thanksgiving to New Years. I will defend the importance of Christmas music to the death. But it is in increasingly narrow band of it that I bother to listen to and it got me thinking about Christmas and it's personal meaning and whether or not I had tapped into something larger or was just recapitulating every meaning of Christmas cliche blah blah blah.

All Christmases are pastoral: mis-remembered, idealized versions of some distant, indistinct childhood Christmas, now longed for but unrepeatable. My own unachievable Christmas is a conglomeration of the celebrations between four and seven: old enough for me to remember my parents together, young enough to believe in Santa Claus, consistent enough to seem like an immutable tradition. 

It is probably all related to my dad's attachment to Santa Claus. My family is not at all religious (my sister and I were raised as secular humanists by ex-Catholic parents) and Santa was one of the few nods to any kind of spiritual understanding of the world. My father and mother went all out with the tradition of his visits: thethank you note for cookies and milk written in flowery script, jingling sleigh bells on our roof, presents from Santa wrapped exquisitely in rich, velvety paper with pine nettles and holly sprigs. This was supplemented by an obsession with Alden Perkes' The Santa Claus Book, a kids primer on Santa that included daily routines, floor plans for his North Pole Compound and (my personal favorite) a slightly terrifying anthropological record of the various sub-species of elves (the ancient Egyptian Cyclops Elf was particularly frightening to me).

We did not have a specific family mythology of Santa Claus. The Alden Perkes book made for a good foundation, but it did not map directly on to anything I knew from other media sources. Santa Claus was not St. Nicholas, nor was he the Archbishop of Spain, or even the Clement Clark Moore Santa who rode in a red sleigh, finger on his nose etc. He was, if anything, closest the Santa Claus envisioned by L. Frank Baum in his 1902 novella, The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus. I never read the novella but I was enraptured by Rankin and Bass' 1985 claymation version. In it, Santa is raised by fictional pagan gods and faeries and sent into the world with the desire to improve the lot of his fellow mortals. He is rewarded by the gods with the mantle of immortality that transforms him into a woodland spirit who can deliver toys to children through the ages of eternity.

I haven't really ever settled on what vision of this Santa is. He is vaguely Germanic or Scandanavian, not un-related to Dickens' Ghost of Christmas Present, a feral spirit, living in the deep snowy woods, dressed in green, swaddled in furs, sometimes adorned with antlers or a wreath of candles and holly. He is not a fearful figure, but he is not entirely of this world. The toy-delivery thing often gets lost in the shuffle. He is a manifestation of my fantasy of woodland winters: of the space of light and homely hearths that is nestled in a cabin, snowed in by monstrous drifts. I suppose, in that way, it parallels the christian spirit of Christmas  out of dark times comes the brightest light etc etc. It's really an antler based thing for me, however.

Psychologically, I am sure that this somehow is a need for the safety  of my family, unbroken by divorce. I transplant the wholeness of the house to the image of a space of comfort holding out against the cold, snowy darkness without. But it exists, in a very real way, outside of that need. My parents, after all, spend Christmas together now. The need to create a fantasy space is gone. But the fantasy is too powerful not to endure.

Perhaps that is why I throw a yearly "Victorian Gothic Christmas." It's an attempt to aesthetically reconcile that childhood Christmas with an adult, non-saccharin celebration of the holiday. In bringing out the holiday's intrinsic darkness, perhaps we can summon an evening of light, even light phrased as drunken debauch.

My dad and I recently, independently heard a story on This American Life wherein a family takes this kind of care and concern for perpetuating the Santa myth to a somewhat distressing extreme. My dad apologized to me after listening, fearing he had done the same to me. I listened to it thinking "there is no way I won't turn into that father."  

Christmas isn't a religious conviction. It is not a space to reconnect with family. It is a set of aesthetic imperatives, to stand against the oncoming dark and live.

Mass Effect 3: Stories and the Fans who Ruin Them

So I’ve just heard about the Bioware decision to alter the ending of their wildly popular Mass Effect series after a sustained outcry by fans. As someone who himself recently finished the game and was haunted, but certainly not outraged, by the ending I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think revision makes everything better and Bioware gets an opportunity here to build upon the concepts of their initial ending in order to (perhaps) make something that is, in the long run more satisfying. On the other hand, and this is the more dominant hand for what it’s worth, I do not, in any way, believe that the precedent set by this kind of fan pressure speaks well for the future of artistic integrity in games.

First and foremost, I think it is worth remarking upon the ending of Mass Effect 3 in order to contextualize and categorize the fan outrage, as near as I can figure it. This will contain lots of spoilers if you haven’t already played the game through the end so be forewarned. Essentially, I think the problem with the ending comes down to its abrupt shift in tone, given the third game in the series. It’s a dark shift. Your character, some iteration of Commander Shepherd (in my case the middle-aged, openly gay, morally ambivalent Hippolyta Shepherd), hero(ine) of the galaxy and uniter of various races jumps from Malkuth (earth) to Yessod (the dues ex machine) quite literally. (S)he sees the inner workings of the god machine that powers the galactic extinction event against which (s)he rails and is forced to make a choice. (S)he can A, destroy the Reapers, those diabolic machines that threaten civilization, but in doing so (s)he will kill off an entire race of sentient machines whose rights (s)he has fought for and kill her/his own AI buddy, the spirit of her/his ship with whom her/his pilot has a relationship (it’s not as hokey in the game). (S)he can B, sacrifice her/his life to control the Reapers and force them to abandon their mindful killing but leaving the fate of organic/synthetic life uncertain. Lastly (s)he can also C, use her/his life energy to power a galactic wide synthesis of organic and synthetic life in the hopes of creating a new order that bypasses the cycle of uncertain chaos and cruel order that has defined the entirety of the galaxy’s history.

All three endings are about sacrifice and uncertainty: whether it’s personal sacrifice or the sacrifice of one race to ensure the survival of others, or the sacrifice of all history and all the natural order in an attempt to create something better. None of the choices sit well, especially when most of the game has been spent uniting organic races (and one synthetic race) to fight off their own extinction and put aside old hatreds. Even more, all these revelations come in the last 5 or 6 minutes of the game, the information being delivered by a spectral, artificial intelligence, implied to be a ghostly echo of some unnamed god-like race of individual. So, yeah I suppose I get it. No ending is purely happy. The information is overwhelming and abruptly delivered and, even if it makes sense in the context of the game (all of this is revealed once Shepherd enters the inner sanctum of an alien space station that, for three games, has always been built up as mysterious and full of secrets), seems to be something of a literal dues ex machine. It’s a concern that the player did not know about or understand until seconds before and though thematically congruent with the rest of the series, had virtually no set up.

I personally chose the “synthesis” ending; it made sense with the long narrative of Hippolyta Shepherd’s struggle for redemption. She made many questionable snap judgments over her long career, and giving the galaxy a chance to start over, sacrificing herself in the process seemed fitting. This ending also seems to be the one that the developers prefer, seeing as one had to be particularly thorough and attentive throughout the game in order to “unlock” it. I was surprised in trolling youtube that numerous people refer to the “destroy” ending as the “best” one. To my mind it’s the least heroic. It allows Shepherd to live—barely scrape by—but at the cost of many other individuals. Granted, that may be the value system you play with. One of the best parts of the whole franchise is the ability to make decisions that dynamically alter the plot. It’s not by any means user generated, but it’s very involving. Still, even given the difference in play style I was dismayed by the use of the word “best.” There is this niggling thought that I can’t shake that it’s the best ending solely because the main character survives. That somehow, the outrage of fans is, in part, because there is no way to live and also do the right thing for the galaxy.

Maybe I’m wrong about that. Maybe, at the end of the day, the other complaints (more legitimate to my mind) about the abrupt shift in tone are what really get under the skins of fans, and not just the inability to live with honor. But there is this part of me that suspects that its about not being able to perpetuate and not being able to end the game entirely on their own terms. And that strikes at the heart of the problem for me. The ending of Mass Effect may be good or bad or somewhere in between, but it does not merit the response from fans. I’ve read a few articles from legitimate and less legitimate news sites trying to encapsulate the debate for the non gamer audience. Invariably, the irate gamers are described as “passionate fans” and though it may technically be correct, I think that characterization speaks to part of the problem. Somehow, being dissatisfied enough with the ending of a story to mount a campaign to get the authors to change it and, in one shameful case, attempt to report Bioware to the Federal Trade Commission for “false advertising,” makes you “passionate,” more involved with the game—more invested in its outcome. I say, it makes you whiny, it makes you misunderstand what storytelling is about, and it sets a very, very bad precedent for how creative endeavors are handled.

I’m a Victorian literature scholar by trade and, as luck would have it, my field has two examples of this kind of fan outrage having an effect. The first is the ending of Charles Dickens’ 1861 Great Expectations which was altered, at the suggestion of monumental hack, Edward Bulwer Lytton, to be happier. The second, an example more similar to our current, Mass Effect, situation, is Arthur Conan Doyle’s capitulation to fan pressure to resurrect Sherlock Holmes after having killed the character off in the short story “The Final Problem.” In both cases artistic intent was subverted by the will of the reader, forcing the author to compromise their original vision. As a literary scholar, both of these instances produce a lot of fascinating scholarship. In the case of Dickens, the two endings can now be compared for endlessly fascinating permutations of theories of novelhood. In the case of Conan Doyle, it produced many, many more Sherlock Holmes stories to write on and enjoy, even if the artistic integrity went over Reichenbach Falls alongside the great detective.

The downside of both of these instances, however, is the laying bare of the power of the fan-base to interfere with the works they purport to love. Much like the 19th century, we are again, living in an age of serialized fictions. They may not come out in monthly papers, but they are broadcast weekly on television and are released yearly in endless sequels to both movies and games. This 20th and 21st century serialized form differs from its 19th century predecessor in one critical way: the stories often do not have endings. We’ve built all kinds of terms into our lexicon for this. “Jumping the shark” for instance, refers to the moment when a story has outlived its usefulness and believability, when we realize that it’s just stalling for time. Furthermore, in the age of outdated Nielson’s ratings, and cruel, artistically bankrupt networks and cable channels pulling the plug on shows before they can even start eyeing their water-skis, fans feel as though they must flex their Jacobin muscles in order to save those stories they think are worth finishing. And lately, they’ve been winning. Arrested Development is set to return. Firefly got its big screen dénouement. Community looks more and more likely to be renewed for a fourth season after a weirdly amorphous hiatus.

But as I said before, there is a downside here. Fans feel like they own the properties they fight to save. And it’s true, in this free market, consumer society where women’s rights advocates can vote with their checkbook and get obnoxious right wing radio show hosts to tremble as sponsors drop like dominoes, we do all “own” a bit of the stories we support. I bought Mass Effect 3 (and 1 and 2) and I watch Community (and bought the season 1 and 2 DVDs) and went to see Serenity and will continue my Netflix subscription, in part, so that I can see the new season of Arrested Development. I’ve paid my money and I’ll be entertained for doing so. But leaving behind this depressing capitalist model, I don’t own any of these stories. They are stories that someone else told and that I happen to enjoy. Just because I invested time in Firefly, doesn’t mean I get to have any effect on its narrative outcome, and, honestly I shouldn’t. I’m not Joss Whedon or any of the writers of the show, or any of the cast and crew members who contributed to its ethos. I’m just someone who liked that ethos and even when I didn’t like where they took it, I have no right to be outraged that I didn’t like it.

The same holds true for Mass Effect. The situation is confusing. Mass Effect 3 is the third in a series of games where the decisions of the players have dramatically altered the story being told. I chose not to kill the insectoid queen of a forgotten alien race in the first game and, as a result, I am rewarded with her support in the third game. I own the decisions but not the outcomes. Bioware wrote a game where both possibilities existed and I just chose what I wanted most. The vast spread of different stories that are possible in the Mass Effect series is not, as I said before user-generated. I didn’t come up with the situations and Bioware owes me nothing as to what choices are offered. Their decision, to rewrite the ending and release it for their fans, is theirs to make, but I am disappointed that they made it under duress. The ending good or bad, was the ending Bioware originally wanted—the ending the story was supposed to have. That people are unsatisfied with that ending is fine, but it’s not okay to demand it be changed. We aren’t storytellers in our role as gamers. We are involved in enjoying the story, but not in producing it.

Gaming is a young industry, much like the novel was when Dickens wrote Great Expectations. It has barely had thirty odd years to establish its story telling conventions and figure out how the bounds of its artistic integrity. What Bioware fans who railed against this ending have done, essentially, is bullied the storytellers into taking back what was intended. I don’t blame fans alone for this. After all, it was Bioware’s decision to change the ending. But it only got to that point because fans demanded that the story be compromised. It will not fix Mass Effect 3 when the new ending is released. A hundred and fifty years from now, we will look back (as we do with Dickens now) and say, look, here are two endings to one game. How do they play off against one another? Mass Effect 3 will never, as a result, have a real ending now. Just a long discussion about why the ending was changed.

I’ll play the new ending. I may even like it more. But why it exists will never sit right with me. I don’t believe I know what a better ending is. And that’s not really the point is it. These aren’t angry fans writing fan fiction to satisfy their need for closure. That would be a creative endeavor and a therapeutic one. Instead, these are fans expressing their dislike for the end of a story and demanding that they be given a better one. The end result of that is Glee. Ryan Murphy takes fan input seriously. As a result, his show has gone from being interesting and intricate and important, to a naratological mess: its characters are wildly inconsistent, its plotlines end too quickly, its excessive desire to please is its own undoing. In the end, the public is fickle, and you really can’t always please everyone. I’ve respected the storytellers at Bioware for years. I really hope this move isn’t the beginning of a long descent into fan service at the cost of well told stories.

Beginnings are Overrated

Clearly. I've never really understood the exact role of blogging and I suppose that's because it doesn't have a particularly narrow one. I kept a regular blog through blogspot in college that was basically a space to rant. Before that I had a livejournal which was more or less a private diary that was somehow comfortably open to the public. As to what this is? Who knows.

Mostly this is a forum to write casually. Its a luxury I haven't had much in the past four years or so. My graduate program keeps me on my toes for formal writing. I'm limited by my subject matter (English) and my areas of expertise (Victorian and Gothic 19th century literature) and my academic interests (the Gothic valence of children). I suppose this blog is a liberation from that.

Don't get me wrong, I love Academia. In many ways, I prefer the formal writing to the casual: I like speaking from a place of authority; I like contributing new ideas to a community rather than rehashing the arguments of others; most of all, I like the things I write formally about. But every once in a while I get the urge to break with formality and research and expertise in order to write thoughtfully and thoroughly from a place of speculation, relative ignorance and on subjects I know little about. I suppose, in that way, this is a pretty standard blog.

But I guess its appropriate to write about the title and theme of the blog in a first entry, not that this blog has a particular theme. Harold Skimpole, in my estimation, is the greatest villain in literary history. In Dickens' novel Bleak House, he's a grown man, masquerading as an eternal child and banking off of his wit and feigned innocence to charm his way into the pockets of many innocent philanthropists. The quote that serves as my header refers to his perverse justification of his notions of charity. By being a charity case, he allows those with generous hearts an object on which to lavish their gifts.

I'm not into mooching, per se (though the budget of a grad student does make the lifestyle tempting), but I am into the perversity of his inversions. He manages to deftly reverse expectations and remain the beneficiary of his friend's naive charity with nothing more than the suggestion that his poverty isn't a state but a service.

I love low culture. Through Skimpole I see a world in which the base becomes exalted and worthy of our attention: a world where trashy TV is the window to our psyche, where fast food becomes a kind of postmodern art and where I can ramble about both with some semblance of insight. This blog is my informal, uninformed and formulaic attempt at perversely reveling in my cultural bottom-feeding. Its a blog of gilded refuse.

So please, don't show me any vulgar gratitude. I rather think you ought to be thanking me.