When Best Friends Aren’t Best Friends Any More

Relationships, Social Networking, Writing, , , , , , , , , ,
lilduane1
Back when things were a lot different

I’m sure my story isn’t that different from everyone else’s story. Most of us grew up with a best friend or two (over the years) and then life may or may not kept us together. If you watch a lot of the movies that get released starring the usual suspects of male friends, you get the impression that these friends stay close friends forever, basically until they reach middle age and go through their middle age crisis moments together.

Unfortunately for me, that didn’t happen. And strangely enough I kind of wish it did. Let me explain.

I’ve had two really close best friends over the years. One was my friend Roland, who I believe I met when we were both about two or three years old. We lived across the way from each other in a low-income apartment complex, and my first memory of Roland was a fight we had where both of us went home crying to our parents. Immediately after that, I remember his mom and my mom conducting some kind of UN conference where the two of us were forced to become friends again. We remained friends from that moment forward, proving that, yes, the UN sometimes DOES work.

Our friendship lasted most of our childhood. Both of us bought the same blue Schwinn bicycle and we rode miles and miles on those things together. It was not unusual for the two of us to race 26 miles down the beach to Redondo Beach, California and then back to Santa Monica. For us, the enjoyment was the journey of traveling down the bicycle trail together, back in the days when you could actually ride down those paths without running over a million girls on roller skates.

Some of my most memorable moments were with Roland, including when we would run into Dom Deluise at the local department stores and then at McDonalds shortly after. We explored the world together and learned about the world as a shared experience only friends can truly appreciate.

When I was a young teenager, my mom died after a horrible illness that slowly drained her of life. When she died in the hospital, I remember calling Roland because he was the only person I wanted to talk to. Shortly after, he showed up with his mom and dad to the hospital, making sure that I wasn’t alone on that horrible day.

Soon after, I moved in with my older sister and her husband, which forced me to move away from Santa Monica. Roland and I kept in touch by phone, and every now and then I’d figure out a way to take the bus for a few hour trip to visit him, and sometimes he’d do the same to come to me. But as we were further and further away, we sort of drifted apart until we stopped calling and then never saw each other again. It’s one of those things I regretted deeply over the years, but life takes you where life takes you.

In Moorpark, my new home, I made friends with the person who was to become my next best friend, Ken. While we didn’t have the history that Roland and I had, we quickly built a friendship and quickly made up for the lack of history by inventing all sorts of adventures together. One of my favorite moments in high school was when the two of us were taking a Spanish class, and we were the two students who had already finished alll the lower level Spanish stuff so we were kind of put into a corner by ourselves to study on our own because they didn’t have a high enough level class for us to take. Because we were always together, we made a lot of noise and had a lot of fun. So the teacher felt she had to separate us. Therefore, we did what any normal duo of friends would do: We invented a sign language that allowed us to communicate from across the room from each other. We learned it quickly and immediately really pissed off the teacher who decided she wasn’t going to win this battle, so she let us sit next to each other again and never tried to separate us again.

A few years later, after graduation, I joined the Army and Ken joined the Air Force. At one point, we were both in Germany at the same time, so I decided to hop into my Volkswagon Scirroco (sic), pick up Ken and drive the two of us to Paris, France. It was a wild, fun adventure that involved some young girl we found to help us find a hotel (because neither of us could speak French) who the hotel owner thought was a prostitute because she was negotiating the room for two American GIs (and then left with a smile right after she secured us the room, which caused the old woman working the hotel to suddenly realize she had played the wrong cards in her assumptions).

That was pretty much our last get together. Ken ended up being accepted to the Air Force Academy and is a colonel today, probably going to be a general one of these days. I wish him well, but I regret that our friendship faded and we really don’t talk any more.

Strangely enough, both Roland and Ken have connected with me through Facebook, so every now and then I see what’s going on in their lives, which when I think about it is actually kind of sad because at one time I was very close to both of them, and like that one hit wonder song “now they’re just somebody that I used to know”.

Weirdly enough, when I made contact with them on Facebook, I immediately had this feeling that I had found a long, lost friend and then things were going to be great again. And we rarely even communicate, which forces the “You Can’t Go Home Again” by Thomas Wolfe to play through in my head (which is funny because it’s probably one of the most often quoted titles of a book that people have never actually read themselves, so when they pretend to have read it, I always say “Stop Twampling!” just to see if there’s a reaction, which when there’s none I know they’re bullshitting me about having read it). Wolfe’s idea is somewhat true, and you never really understand it until the events play out that show you how true it really is. I read that book a decade or so ago, yet until I made contact with those two former friends, I never made the connection to what he was truly saying.

Has Been Viewed (since August 20, 2021): 694

Amazon’s Business Practices Discriminate Against the “Out of Money” Class

Business, Economics, , , , ,
Often, us poor people have to live in places like this, such as my Summer resort, where cable isn't fee!
Often, us poor people have to live in places like this, such as my Summer retreat, where cable isn’t fee!

Today, I was thinking of buying a book that I don’t really need, but for some reason felt I had to have it right then and there. So, I went onto Amazon’s site, put in the information for the book and found out that I could purchase it used for $7.54. I went through the full process of buying, but when it came to the last stage (well, the stage before I give my address to send it to), I was halted by a statement indicating that my credit card could not process the transaction. So I immediately checked my checking account and discovered that my balance was 32 cents. So I then went back to Amazon, realizing that my bank had no more funds in my account and tried to figure out how they could accommodate me.

It turns out that Amazon has no contingency plan for those who do not have enough money to afford their products. In other words, I was proverbially screwed.

This immediately inflamed me because all companies should have resources in place to assist those of us who are “financially challenged”, which, according to an Internet search I just did that brought up lots of lesbian pornography, I discovered that the financially challenged are quite often the most overlooked disenfranchised class of people in American society. It’s almost as if businesses think that people need to “work” for the things they wish to buy and aren’t too proud to not say so.

So, I contacted several loser friends of mine to inquire whether or not they have ever been discriminated like this before, and four of those five friends indicated they had (the fifth could not answer as he was suffering from a severe case of “Cheetos-overimbibing”). I was shocked to discover this was not just an isolated incident.

This has inflamed me to no end, and I decided that I would send out the word to everyone that these practices must be stopped immediately, or we would use our financial clout in massive protest and show them that without our inability to pay for goods backing up their company, they’d…um…um, you know maybe I haven’t thought this through enough.

Let me get back to you, and when I do, boy am I going to have something for you to rally behind!

Has Been Viewed (since August 20, 2021): 742

Avoiding the religious aspects of counseling

Religion, , , ,

A short while ago, I decided to seek out counseling for some personal matters. If anything, I figured it probably wasn’t a bad idea to have someone to talk to. Unfortunately, when I went through my health plan trying to figure out who to see, they were able to give me a generic list of local counselors, but they really couldn’t offer me any information. So, I kind of went on blind faith, choosing one of the names based on the different (but very like sounding) choices they gave me.

Turns out, it was a bad choice. The person I chose was one of those “you kind of need to figure it out yourself and then I’ll take credit for actually accomplishing something” types of therapists. I saw that the moment I first arrived. When I noticed that her people skills were pretty lacking (it probably doesn’t help that I teach AND analyze interpersonal communication), I tried a few sessions, hoping I was wrong, but it turns out I wasn’t.

The first sign that something might have been wrong stemmed from when I sat in their lobby. I started to notice a lot of religious (specifically Christian protestant) stuff throughout the place. Even the generic slogans on the wall were more of a “Let Christ figure out how to make you better” kinds of rhetoric than anything else. As I started talking to the counselor from the beginning, I sort of got the feeling that she and I weren’t on the same wavelength. As a matter of fact, we weren’t in the same hemisphere.

To begin with, my life has all sorts of interesting variations that might work okay in a pagan environment, or even in a Unitarian like atmosphere, but what I’ve discovered over the years is that even though Christians talk a lot about forgiveness, they’re not really good at forgiveness when it comes to counseling. Back in San Francisco, when I tried to see a counselor about relationship issues, I had an obviously religious counselor try to “save” me from my lifestyle rather than help me figure out how to come to some sort of happiness. I kept trying to tell her that I wasn’t trying to “fix” myself but to be happier about myself. When someone is convinced that your lifestyle is against something they find acceptable (or normal), healing to them is conducted only by fire rather than helping you through the reasons why you chose therapy in the first place.

That’s the feeling I had when I went to a counselor this time around. From the initial conversation, I realized that we were never going to see eye to eye on what makes me tick, and once she found it out, I suspected we would be “working through my problems”, which would consist of trying to change me to something normalized instead of accepting I”m a strange guy and just try to get me to be happy being as strange as I might be.

After leaving that counselor, I received an email today (which I never signed up for) with tons and TONS of religious information about how the director of that counseling place saw God in the successes she perceived brought many of her clients to health (and God). I was reminded of a time years ago when I was in the Army and we were granted a “weekend retreat” during training, which consisted of the most vicious religious dogma I’ve ever experienced with evangelists yelling at us on a bus for two hours, convinced our souls needed saving before this weekend retreat was over. I’ve always been against captured audiences unless the members of that audience consent to being captured, which is rarely the case when evangelists act the way they do in the circumstances I’ve experienced with them in my lifetime.

The strange thing is: I’m not even against religion. I’m just very specific about my own, which doesn’t cause me to recruit others to it but to just be happy experiencing my own my own way at at my own time. Yet, I find religions that try to recruit me to be the most dogmatic and unyielding of those that exist.

This is the problem of living in a semi-Bible belt area of the country. I even receive this sort of attention at work where my old boss used to send out religious messages to her staff, convinced that they were appreciated. I still have a co-worker who does that as well. When you explain that your religious views are not similar, you basically get a blank stare and no change of behavior. So, I’ve stopped even trying to talk about it.

Anyway, I’m kind of rambling now, but I wanted to point out that sometimes I appreciate what religion does do for people. I just don’t like being lumped in with people who automatically seem to assume my beliefs and behaviors without actually asking me about them first.

Has Been Viewed (since August 20, 2021): 693

Companies that seem intent on selling you stuff you know you don’t need…and RIGHT NOW

Business, Technology, Television, , , , , , ,

A few weeks ago, I read the circular for Best Buy, and they were announcing they were selling “back to school” stuff. For some reason, a big screen tv seemed to be one of the important things they felt people would need as part of back to school. The ad on the back page advertised Best Buy as the “techfitter” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) and that this was important for back to school. All I kept thinking was “I have never been in a school where I needed a big screen tv for any rhyme or reason”.

Fast forward to the next few weeks, and the ads have been advertising nothing but the need for a big screen television for the “big game”. Two weeks in a row. And it shows football players on the screen doing whatever it is that football players do. And all I could think to myself was, “well, if I bought a big screen television because I needed it to go back to school” why the hell are you advertising one for me to watch the big game? Am I only allowed to watch the back to school big screen TV when I’m working on school stuff, but if I’m planning to watch “the big game”, I have to get a specially bought big screen TV from Best Buy that just lets me watch “the big game”? Next week, will there be a big screen television set for me to watch old episodes of Rosanne, and then the week after that a new set to watch the “new” season of television that will be airing for the new fall season? Do you kind of get my point here?

I’m a huge advocate of discontinuing the hype of advertisement that so many companies do. I used to love it when a company sent me a flyer advertising good prices. But that was before those companies started adding “buy this now before this price is gone” to the wording. I don’t know if you’ve noticed this but everything seems like it’s a crisis when it comes to sales and prices. You don’t have a discount sale any more. You have a “blow out sale!”. Offers are going to disappear if you don’t act now, and I mean FREAKING NOW!!!!!!! Because there’s no way in the world that that discounted television that they dropped ten dollars off the price will EVER POSSIBLY comes down ten dollars again, and you will completely missed out on the one chance of your freaking lifetime!

It’s to the point where every time I go to a store, I’m expecting to have a stroke because the pressure is on to make sure that I act right then and there, because if I don’t, Jack Bauer isn’t going to be there in time to diffuse the bomb from going off. I was playing an online game the other day, and an ad came over the interface, telling me that if I didn’t upgrade my account right then and there, I would lose the opportunity to play the great content that was obviously right there in front of me if I only acted fast enough. I signed out of the game, deleted it from my hard drive and will probably never take advantage of that game again. I mean, honestly, the pressure is too heavy on me to have to do the right thing at the right time, and if I don’t play it, and maybe read a book, that pressure seems to be a lot less pressing.

As I started to pay closer attention to this stuff, I started to realize that there were a lot of products I’ve bought over the years that I don’t need to buy again, or don’t need to upgrade. I’ll be honest. When the Best Buy ads started playing into my subconscious, I actually started thinking that my 32 inch television wasn’t big enough, that I might need to upgrade to a 55 or 60 inch television. And then it dawned on me. I never watch my television. Like ever. I’ll play a Blu-ray on it, and I might watch Netflix stuff on it every now and then, but mostly I tend to watch shows on my computer, which has a 27 inch screen, and I’ve never had a reason to complain that it was too small. I don’t ever watch “the game”, so I don’t care one iota for seeing “the game” when it comes across the screen. I don’t even know when it airs, other than a faint memory of Monday because of the old reference of Monday Night Football. I can’t even tell you if that’s still the night, or even what station that used to represent.

What I have started doing, and I wish more people would do it as well, is to stop buying things from companies that try to convince me there’s a hurry for me to purchase their junk. Purchasing should be a well thought out course where you’ve considered all of the alternatives and whether or not you need the item. We’ve come a long way from those days, and I feel that way too many of us do most of our shopping in the quick lane aisle, buying things placed in that aisle for us to foolishly think how convenient it might be to buy that.

 

Has Been Viewed (since August 20, 2021): 368

Why the U.S. needs to stay the fuck out of Syria’s conflict

Politics, , , , , , , , , ,

Sorry for the vulgarity, but sometimes it just seems like it’s necessary.

Anyway, as the U.S. is getting ready to start up a new campaign of military violence against some place most people in the U.S. can’t point out on a map, I just wanted to offer my rationalization for why we shouldn’t be involved in any way, shape, or form. My reasons could be the expected ones, which involve:

1. We have nothing to gain by killing people in Syria. They don’t matter to us. They’re having a civil war. Either make it about us, or do your own thing in your own miniscule corner of the world. We need to stop thinking our input is really all that important to people who generally don’t like us anyway.

2. Syria has never been a great friend to the U.S. anyway, and after we bomb them, they’re not going to suddenly think “You know, those Americans who dropped those bombs on our local hospital and killed many of my relatives seem like pretty okay guys. Maybe we should start conducting trade with them tomorrow after I visit everyone I’ve ever known in the hospital.”

3. All lists require a third item, and I hate being seen as someone who doesn’t do what other people do.

No, my reason is different, and it’s simple. As a matter of fact, I can sum it up in one word: Emus. And Australia.

emu

You see, in 1932, there was this war that was fought in Australia between the government of Australia and, well, emus. Yeah, those dorky looking birds that look a lot like ostriches but are called emus. Their most redeeming value and attribute is they make a really ridiculous sound when they speak. That’s about it. Oh, and they shit a lot.

Anyway, Australia was having this real problem with emus back in 1932 and decided it needed to stop them from eating all of their crops, so they did what any industrial nation would do and declared war on a bunch of stupid birds. So, mobilizing their army of soldiers and cannons, they went on a safari in the outback, put one on the barbie and then unleashed holy hell on the emu terror. Only, they discovered something they didn’t know before. When you shoot at a bunch of very fast moving birds, they run. And they run fast. They also hide. So, after the first skirmish, which I like to call The Battle of Waterfowl One, they discovered a few of them died, but most of them lived and ran away. This caused the Australian army to have to chase emus across the land, and they discovered that they didn’t do it very well. They also discovered that no matter how many times you shoot an emu, they tend to not die. They just take the shots and continue running. And the ones that are shot are now angry, so they come at you like, well, emus very angry after having been shot.

The war didn’t go well. By most accounts, the Australians lost this war, and it’s forever been considered one of the biggest military failures in all of history, right up there with Stonewell Jackson being shot by his own troops because he forgot to tell them he was returning from intelligence gathering and not to shoot at their own guy who might be coming at them from enemy lines really fast.

The point: War is quite often unexpected. Great nations were destroyed in the past because nations thought they were incapable of failing at military maneuvers. If you look at the Gulf War, that’s exactly what happened. We went in with the hubris of a nation that can’t be defeated and then after a great military campaign (fighting emu equivalents of enemies) we then ended up bogged down in a decade of minor skirmishes that continued to take the lives of American soldiers. We’re still there now.

So, we should be very wary of just jumping into a conflict because we heard they did bad things. Sure, we don’t want the next German Hitler running around, but not every conflict is Nazi Germany running around the world trying to enslave the population. Sometimes a regional conflict is just that: a regional conflict.

Just ask the Australians. I’m sure they’d love to talk about their great Emu War.

Has Been Viewed (since August 20, 2021): 806

Why Continuum May Be the Most Subversive Television Show Ever to Air

Politics, Television, , , , , , , , , ,

The story is pretty interesting. It’s about a female police officer from the future of about 60 years who travels back in time to today, following a group of fugitives who are hell bent on causing terror. My friend Teramis wrote about the great writing of Continuum a few weeks ago, but I wanted to go in a different direction, mainly talking about the political implications of the show.

What makes the show so interesting is that the group that comes back in time, while being a terrorist organization, is also doing what they’re doing for the betterment of society. Which, when you think about it, is somewhat subversive on its own. The group, filled with really bad people, uses its evil tactics it used in the future to do its evil to the civilization of the past (today’s time). Their purpose is to change the past in hopes of providing for a better future.

The future is pretty interesting in this show, in that what has happened is that corporations have taken over everything, and people are now minions of the overseers, not the other way around. Freedoms are gone. People live their lives in futuristic splendor, but it’s pretty obvious that to get to that future, a lot of rights were trampled on, and a lot of people were made to live some pretty crappy lives at the expense of those who benefited.

What makes it really interesting is that when the main character returns to today’s time, her purpose is still to stop some very evil people from doing bad deeds in today’s time. But her eyes start to open up to the evil that exists in today’s time. This evil is the sort of thing that leads to the oppressive society that will one day emerge, and she is very much a cog in that wheel that uses the tools of technology to act as an enforcer of some very draconian rules.

What is interesting about the show is that there’s a real grey area here where I’m not sure she’s ever going to recognize that she’s actually the problem that came back in time. She thinks she’s doing the right thing, but as she’s doing it, the police agency she’s working with (in today’s time) is slowly becoming very much more oppressive.

I’m reminded of the whole very recent incident where the British government decided to haul in the domestic partner of a reporter it was targeting over the whole Snowden case. Without a warrant, or even a reason, the government hauled him in and imprisoned him for 9 hours (the maximum amount of time it was allowed before being forced to make a charge). What’s interesting is that no one seems to even recognize that a man’s rights were completely ignored for some kind of governmental vengeance. And no one will ever be held accountable.

That is exactly what Continuum is all about. The good guys in this show are the usual cops and white hat wearing people who always save the day. Yet, they are required to do some really horrible things in order to “get the bad guys”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such grey area in a show before. There are times when I’m watching it when I start to lose focus on who I should be rooting for, even though the show maintains its narrative in a way that keeps you thinking the oppressors are still the good guys.

It’s an interesting premise, and it’s definitely an interesting experiment. If they play it out as the are already doing it, and SyFy doesn’t cancel it, this could turn out to be one of the most important shows to be on television.

Has Been Viewed (since August 20, 2021): 627

Why Politicians Do The Things They Do

Politics, , , , , , , , ,
Little Brucoe knows exactly why politicians do what they do. They want to hug him because he's so cute.
Little Brucoe knows exactly why politicians do what they do. They want to hug him because he’s so cute.

For those who have been following the exploits of New York politicians, specifically one who seems to text graphic pictures of his private parts to random women and the other who was laughed out of office for paying for high priced hookers, it leaves one wondering how either one of these individuals actually thinks he has a chance in hell of ever regaining a political career. Senator Barbara Boxer mentioned yesterday that Warner needed to drop out of the race, and chances are pretty good that even though the highest ranking Democrat (his party) wants him out, he’s probably not going to comply.

Which leaves one wondering how they can actually imagine they have a chance of serving their constituents again. Critics of these two have been making statements about how both are incapable of providing their constituents with service, yet neither one of them seems all that concerned about the criticism. Sure, they don’t like that they’re being criticized, but at the same time they’re not planning to go away any time soon.

This leaves me wondering how this fits into the greater schemes of political science itself, and by that, I mean how does this make any sense to the central axiom of American government theory, which is that politicians do everything they do in hopes of being elected and re-elected. Everything else is irrelevant. If this were the case, then we should expect that one of them wouldn’t have pursued expensive hookers while the other one would stop sending pictures of his cock to random women. Or at least stay faithful to his wife, who happens to be an insider with the Clintons. But instead, we keep getting very interesting, and titillating stories from these two.

And they’re not the only ones. The mayor of San Diego seems to have a problem dealing with just about any woman he comes across without looking for a hook up from her. If he followed the central axiom of political theory, then he’d stop trying to score with every woman he comes across. But that hasn’t happened. He won’t resign either, because he doesn’t seem to think it’s a detriment to his serving in office.

Which brings me to something I brought up a long time ago while pursuing my doctorate in political science. It was understandably laughed at back then, and probably will be again, but a colleague and I came up with this joke of a theory that perhaps the central axiom of political theory is not incorrect, but that it isn’t finished. If you follow the logic, you would come to the conclusion that politicians want to be elected and re-elected after being in office. The theory my colleague and I played around with was essentially the next step. If they get elected, so what? What does that lead them to? Does serving in office give you the ultimate satisfaction you’ve been seeking all your life? Or does it allow you to provide for satisfaction because of the results of that office?

Let’s explore that. Our theory was a joke back then, which I’ll mention now and then get back to seriousness. We postulated that the reason why politicians do what they do is not to become re-elected, but to get dates. In other words, the reason they do what they do is to appeal to the opposite sex (or same sex if that’s their thing). When they score, they have effectively achieved all that they have sought out to do.

Yes, it was a joke, and no one took us seriously. But what if it was somewhat true? What if the reason why politicians did what they do is to achieve some ultimate goal? For some, like the ones mentioned in this article, maybe it is about getting dates or appealing to the opposite sex. For others, perhaps the end goal is power. And for even more, perhaps it is the accumulation of wealth. We’ve seen over and over again that people in power are easily corrupted in the end, even if we don’t always know what it is that’s going to corrupt them.

So, the bigger question that should be asked is what exactly is it that a particular politician seeks as an ultimate result. If it’s sex, then we look for that arena. If it’s money, then we should expect just that. And so on. The point is: If this theory is correct, then perhaps our motivations we put behind political science are a bit premature, in that they lead to something, but they aren’t the thing that actually point the final finger. An example is a politician who is leaving office after a set of years having served. Political scientists tend to ignore the individual from this point on, figuring they’re nothing more than a lame duck and not worthy of further exploration. But my theory looks at them as even yet another variable that needs to be studied, because something caused them to realize that politics was no longer worth their effort. It’s all an end game sum type of situation where there are intricate cost-benefit analyses being played out before our eyes. Sometimes, we can see it clearly, as we can see when a politician is outed for some behavior that goes contrary to stated intentions. Other times, it’s not so easy to see.

But studying politics from this direction means we might actually start to find the true motivations behind why politicians do what they do. This is what the intelligence services have done for as long as there have been administrators. They find out what the person really wants and then provide that for them. That usually leads to the beginning of a long, lasting relationship. But they’d never have succeeded if they went into the situation convinced that all administrators do what they do because they’re interested in keeping their job tomorrow. Yet, that’s exactly how political theory deals with this issue. If you think it through, that’s exactly what we do.

Anyway, so from now on I think I’ll be looking at politics from the angle of “what’s in it for me” or for the politician himself/herself. What I suspect I’ll find is that the answers aren’t that much different from the expectations. What I do believe I’ll find, however, is that we might stop being so stubborn about actually studying the real reasons why people actually do what they do.

Has Been Viewed (since August 20, 2021): 543

Why Barnes & Noble’s Nook Failed

Books, Business, Technology, , , , , , , ,
"I read all of Duane Gundrum's books because he's so dreamy...."
“I read all of Duane Gundrum’s books because he’s so dreamy….”

Unfortunately, it’s been predicted for some time that Barnes & Noble was going to distance itself from the Nook, and thus, the e-book market. So, it seems that moment is coming to pass. Speculators assume that Barnes & Noble will attempt to continue on as a brick and mortar (physical presence only) store and sell off all of its e-book stuff. Well, in case it’s not readily apparent, the problem with that is that without an actual device to continue to hype the market of products, the Nook is going to die out as people are going to see the Kindle as a continuing vehicle and the Nook as dead in the water. Sure, they can survive on apps for awhile, but eventually people are going to see the writing on the wall and choose to go with a platform that looks like it is going to survive the next wave of changes.

But the point of this post isn’t to talk about the future of Barnes & Noble, because to be honest, I have no idea what is going to happen to that company. However, what I can do is talk about what happened to the company, specifically as to why the Nook didn’t become the all-winning vehicle they were hoping it would be. To understand this, we have to use our little go back in time feature and see what was happening when the Nook launched with all intentions of challenging the new kid on the block, the Kindle.

Back then, Barnes & Noble was the big kid on the block. He’d already beat up every brick and mortar store that existed before him, and he was rearing to go after the next challenge. Only, the next challenge wasn’t another physical store, but an online one that promised to lower prices and produce a better shopping experience. Now, I wish to harp on the latter of those intentions because Barnes & Noble stupidly focused only on the first: Lower prices. And unfortunately, Barnes & Noble didn’t handle that one well either.

The Kindle offered books at lower prices than you could buy them at retail stores. This was huge. When the Nook launched, it attempted to “discount” prices as well, but if you held up both side by side (and I used to do this a lot), what you discovered was that most of the time the Kindle price was exactly the same as, or cheaper, than the Nook price for a book. And then you started to see more and more choices being offered on the Kindle, which made having a Nook kind of a stupid purchase because if you couldn’t find everything, and couldn’t find it cheaper, you bought a pretty stupid device.

But the second point is the one I want to talk about the most because that’s where I truly feel that Barnes & Noble failed with its Nook. What Amazon offered with its Kindle was not only lower prices, but it offered a better customer experience, meaning that if you were looking for something, the Kindle actually cared about helping you find it. This meant that as you bought more books, the algorithms that worked within Amazon served to make recommendations to help you find things that you might want in the future. The more you bought and searched, the more likely the device was going to serve to help you find exactly what you might want, even if you didn’t realize you wanted it.

The Nook, on the other hand, basically offered you whatever the publishers were selling, and it put its placement completely determined by the legacy model of the highest bidder (or largest publisher with more prestige). After a few purchases on a Nook, if you were looking for a new book, every new search was like starting out from the very beginning again. In other words, you were screwed. If you didn’t want only the most popular book out there, you had to figure out what you wanted on your own.

The problem B&N made was that it assumed that cheaper prices (less than you’d pay for the hard copy of the book) was more than enough to produce decent profit. But they didn’t take into account that they had to be cheaper than the competition, not just cheaper than their own posted price for the retail version of the hard copy. And then they made the customer experience as bad as an Internet search could be back before Google was invented. You basically had to do a search with the intention of hoping to get lucky in order to find the thing you were looking for. This was great if you were looking for a copy of 50 Shades of Gray, but it wasn’t so great if you were looking for new, independent writers who might be making a splash in an obscure genre, but a genre of which you often spent a lot of money. The Kindle, however, did this extraordinarily well.

So, it shouldn’t come as any surprise which device, and which company, won the battle. The war isn’t over, but quite a few of the initial battles were quite decisive, so the outcome seems somewhat conclusive.

Has Been Viewed (since August 20, 2021): 1,134

Lord of the Rings Online – the adventure continues

Computer Games, , , , , ,

Recently, I started playing Lord of the Rings Online (LOTRO) after a very long hiatus. A friend on a message board recommended getting back into the game (when I was looking for something new to play), and that’s exactly what I did. Thus, it has given me something to write about.

I should point out that I first started playing LOTRO nearly five years ago when it was in early release. I remember enjoying the game back then but around 25th level, my hunter became too difficult to play, so I quit. There were always so many other choices.

Now, the game is free to play with Turbine making its money from microtransactions and players who choose to pay regularly as VIP members. When I came back to LOTRO, I chose the VIP route, and here I am there today.

A couple of thoughts right after the start: The game is still very immersive, and you definitely feel like a part of Middle Earth. The Hobbit lands are very immersive as you feel as if you’re in one of the movies themselves. The game is also very early Everquest-like, meaning that unlike World of Warcraft, the game rarely holds your hand as you try to figure things out. And there’s a lot to the game, so you have to pay attention or you just might miss something important.

As for the story, that’s where I have mixed feelings. It’s definitely Lord of the Rings, which means it is quite epic. But at the same time, you know Frodo and the gang are the ones saving the day, so where does Argolwar (my elf hunter) fit in if the true quest involves only those people? Every now and then, a hero from the story will come along to recruit me for a mission, like Strider does in the beginning to help him fight bandits. But all I kept thinking was: “Strider, or may I call you Aragorn, good sir? Um, you have much more important things to do than recruit this lowly hunter to beat up bandits. Go stop Sauron. I’ll be fine here shooting arrows at nondescript bad guys who have absolutely no significance to the greater scheme of things.”

And then the game allows me to learn trade skills like farming and cooking. So, as I’m farming for either Shire taters or Shire apples, I’m thinking, “man, there must be more to life than just this.”

Which brings me back to my recognition that I’m in a game that les me be an unimportant cog in the wheel of a, well, a wheel of time of Tolkien perspective in a world where I should be contributing so much more than I’ll ever be capable.

But the game does have a certain amount of a catharsis purpose, as the characters in it appreciate you, even if you realize how insignificant you are. In the Shire, I joined the Bounders, which is the civilian problem solvers for Hobbits. The npcs recognize this and thank me every time I walk by them. If only I had that happen to me just once at work or in my regular life.

The one thing I really like about the game is how much there is that I still don’t know. With World of Warcraft, the game spoon feeds you through each and every stimulation. This game doesn’t do that. I’m always convinced that right around the corner is another needy soul who is going to ask for my help. And as the Hobbits discovered, all they have to do is ask, and I’m there with my bow, my sword, or my axe.

Has Been Viewed (since August 20, 2021): 627