I haven't actually seen the movie Twilight (the three girls who would have gone to see it with me all went and saw it long before I got around to it) and although I enjoyed the book for its moody, moony adolescent angst-y qualities, I admit that Bella did not strike me as the type of protagonist whom one would actually want to root for. What is Bella? As her name suggests, she only exists as an object of beauty, of desire, and a murderous desire at that. She doesn't seem to have any skills or strengths or, for that matter, interests (does she like baseball? knitting? romance novels? who knows!?!) She's just...beautiful. Like a princess in a fairytale. Why does the hero fall in love with her? She's beautiful, what other reason does he need?

Not like my dear Buffy. I am a rabid superfan of the ass-kicking ex-cheerleader, because she shows surprising depth of character and complexity under her perky blond exterior. It's clear from the way the character is written that her creator, Joss Whedon, is a feminist, by which I mean not that he necessarily subscribes to some dogma or other, but that he believes women are fundamentally equal to men, and as deserving of interesting actions and personalities in a TV show setting.

This remix video is playfully done, but it showcases the essential difference between the two approaches to the female characters. While Buffy also has a romance with a vampire (ok, with TWO vampires!), she can also hold her own, and she is as in control of the progression of that tragic romance as is her lover. She is, essentially, an equal -- different, to be sure, but a match for her supernatural boyfriend. Poor little Bella is utterly swept away by forces far beyond her control, bending to Edward's will when he, the devouring alpha male, demands. She is resolutely not his equal, and in fact, the book relishes their inequality -- it becomes the very foundation of their romance.

Congratulations, Phil and Jason! Let's party!

My close association with several Canadians qualifies me to be your interpreter, American reader, and your guide to Canadian culture. Below follow some important facts about Canada.

Did you know...

...that a Bloody Mary is called a Bloody Caesar? And comes with Clamato juice and a celery salt rim? (Of course some recipes for Bloody Marys suggest Clamato)?

...that Canada Day was originally called "Dominion Day"? and that in Quebec it coincides with "Moving Day"?

...that the "Maple Leaf" national flag was adopted on February 15th, 1965, a day that is now commemorated as National Flag Day?

...that Canadians (except those from Quebec) look and, in many cases, sound almost exactly like Americans?

In any case, remember to buy your favorite Canadian a refreshing beer this evening in honor of Canada Day. If you're not sure which of your friends is secretly Canadian, try this simple test: Announce, "I'm going to Tim's, want anything?"

If they reply, "Who's Tim?" they are American.

But if they say "Oh, get me a donut," they are TOTALLY CANADIAN. You're welcome.

O Canada! Happy Birthday to you!

Check it out.

Wowza. It says something about the confidence in the official currency that the government is worried about getting destabilized by a virtual currency.

Of course, it also says something about how many people are playing online games!!

While that's a rather clumsy way to put it, it's true. Reactions to art are subjective, and critics are right mostly, solely, because they believe they are. But what's interesting to me is not their final judgment but the path by which they arrive there. And there for to say "I'm right because I am" is utterly uninteresting.

Jones is right that there is a need for criticism and judgment in art. There *is* good and bad; although we might disagree over which fits in what categories. But even "bad" art can tell us volumes about various fascinating forces at work in society, in the art world, in the artists' personality and mind, even in how we decide to judge art.

My approach to criticism is, I think, not really about identifying good and bad for the benefit of the consumer or the future of the art; I think I prefer criticism that takes a more sociological approach: why is this art bad, why is this good, what values do our judgments reveal? Why is this piece popular? Why does this apparently crappy piece of art resonate so powerfully with mainstream culture?

1. Tension between Immersion and Transparency.
What I think of as Big Media -- giant, big-budget movies, games, TV Shows -- seek to really *immerse* people in a spectacle of scale and sensation. And we say that we love that feeling of being utterly transported -- but at a My Bloody Valentine show I went to recently, what did I see? People were texting on their phones! Taking video of the band! Twittering! I was doing it too. We were *layering* these ambient communications transparently on top of what was supposed to be this overwhelmingly big experience, because we wanted to *share* this experience with others, we wanted to record it for ourselves. This has to do with what Linda Stone calls "continuous partial attention." I call this "transparent" because I don't believe it in any way diminishes the experience of, say, a rock show; it's simply a new way of experiencing it.

Future entertainment will find clever ways to accommodate, even encourage, this behavior.

2. Asynchronous Instant Communication.

Most of my friends have embraced Twittering, text messaging, Facebook, and the like. One of the things that is really new and intriguing about these forms of communication is that they are simultaneously instant and asynchronous. The update happens instantly--and the recipient can read or answer at her leisure. Or not. Facebook status updates are absolutely brilliant ways for expressing an immediate state, and allowing someone else to browse the "immediate states" of friends. Entertainment will increasingly make use of these styles of communication in the backbone of the product itself.

3. Credible Advertising with Integrity.
For a child of the 80's like me, this seems like a ludicrous notion. Advertising in that decade was so transparently slick and false that we quickly grew inured to it and scorned it. It seems designed to trick people into buying things they didn't need. Arguably that is still, at base, the aim of advertising. But it doesn't have to be that way. With targeted ads there is a chance to serve the consumer with something that she actually *wants* to see. The ad becomes both a form of entertainment and a service to the consumer.

Media companies that accept advertising should become increasingly picky about the ads they accept. They will accept ads that align with their values and their mission.

As an example, look at Penny-Arcade: the creators of the popular web comic have stated that they will only accept advertising for products that they themselves believe in. That endorsement is a HUGE win for both the consumer, who is a fan of Penny-Arcade and of their values, and for the advertiser.

4. Tools *are* the Content.
"Content is king." Well, there's about to be a revolution and some regicide. The consumers of tomorrow want content for free. And they will make their own content. That is potentially more fun and more interesting than consuming carefully planned, carefully made, well-mannered content from a professional. Films and TV are already at that point where they are consumed and remixed freely by consumers. Music was there long ago. Games will be there soon.

The content of the future will be in tools. Tools like the ones shipped with Little Big Planet (although I suspect it's still too early for that game to start a true paradigm shift.) Tools that will let consumers engage directly with the content.

Actually, this is the tipping point when "consumers" become "users". Consumers are passive. Users, active.

So, these are my initial thoughts. I need to work on them some more and flesh them out, but I think there is something to think about here.

The Unfinished Swan - Tech Demo 9/2008 from Ian Dallas on Vimeo.

Then in the town square of Bowerstone I found him: Cyrus the Traveler. His facial hair is a bit odd, certainly, but he was solidly middle-class and had a pleasant speaking voice. His moral standards, too, are high -- perhaps annoyingly so since he refused to go to bed with me even after we were engaged. But I respected his decision.

I took him with me to Oakfield, where I had bought the charming Luminous House cottage, where I thought we could live. Alas, he was a bit too middle-class... he told me he didn't really care for the house and wanted something better. What could I do? I asked him to wait for me and took off to gather some more money to buy a nice townhouse in Bowerstone.

After a few adventures I thought I should return to spend some time with my fiancé fearing that he would be lonely and less in love with me. I hurried back to Oakfield, splurging 8 gold on a carriage to get there faster.

But he was nowhere to be found! I ran all over the place frantically. Perhaps he had gone back to Bowerstone? I raced back to the city and spent hours walking the streets. I even waited in the pub for a bit (where we first met) in case he should drop by for a pint.

But no. Cyrus had disappeared.

Has he run off with some floozy? If so, I can forgive him if only he'll come back. Is he on a trip? He is, after all, a "Traveler" and I'm afraid our conversations didn't really reveal much about his line of work. Has something -- god forbid -- horrible happened to him? Has he been murdered by bandits or devoured by balverines? Shall I ever find out his fate?

I've tried getting over him. I even proposed marriage to a new man, after a time. He's fun, romantic, bubbly; but he has a large mustache and a silly speaking voice and he is quite stout and... frankly, he's just not Cyrus. We're still engaged but I really ought to break it off. I just don't feel the same way about him as I did about Cyrus.

Besides, what if Cyrus comes back one day? What if he reappears next time I turn on my console, with the silver ring still there like a halo over his head, symbol of his faith and loyalty while I went off proposing marriage to some other, inferior, lesser man?

The life of a hero, I am finding, is hard in more ways than I could have imagined.

Any other tips? Or, if you know of good books/websites that I might not be aware of, please pass them along to me. Thanks!

PAX redeemed that all, bringing back the excitement without, miraculously, the sleaze and cheese factor that E3 sometimes dripped with. What I've always loved about PAX is that it is so authentic -- it's for the fans; there's no bullshit. And I love it for that.

It's growing so massively, too. The first year I attended, which was 2005 (PAX's second year), I think there were about 4-5,000 attendees. Last week's show had 50,000 pre-registered, with many more tickets sold at the door. I'm excited by the growth and it's great for the folks who run PAX, but I do miss the nerdy intimacy of three years ago.

Still, I think PAX has the potential to become a homegrown Leipzig -- a split consumer/trade event. What would be neat is if the trade folks had a couple of days before the show, like they do at TGS, so some of the suits can clear out before the fans arrive Friday afternoon. You don't need the corporates milling about on the weekend. (...I say, being one, technically, myself.)

No matter what happens, though, I'll always have a huge soft spot in my heart for PAX and the folks who run it and make it all work. It's a miracle! So, thanks, Jerry, Mike, Robert, Kristin, Jeff, and other folks I don't yet know. Thanks for a really good time.

Plus, any time I get to hang in Shorty's is all right by me. ;)