In life, you will become known for doing what you do. That sounds obvious, but it’s profound. If you want to be known as someone who does a particular thing, then you must start doing that thing immediately. Don’t wait. There is no other way. It probably won’t make you money at first, but do it anyway. Work nights. Work weekends. Sleep less. Whatever you have to do. If you’re lucky enough to know what brings you bliss, then do that thing at once. If you do it well, and for long enough, the world will find ways to repay you. This fall, in a toilet stall in Burlington, Vermont, I saw this scrawled on the wall: “Don’t ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive. The world needs more people who have come alive.” If you’re doing something you love, you won’t care what the world thinks, because you’ll love the process anyway. This is one of those truths that we know, but which we can’t seem to stop forgetting. In America, success is a word we hear a lot. What does it mean? Is it money, power, fame, love? I like how Bob Dylan defines it: “A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do.”

Transom » Jonathan Harris

Harris is good when he talks about his work and his motivations for getting into the things he did. I find him less convincing when dishing out advice such as this. It’s almost as if he hasn’t really learned from his own experiences. The first section of this quote fetishises a work ethic which does not respect anything else in life. (The guarantee it will bring you riches if you toil long and hard enough I find very unconvincing.

The key is in the final section in which he quotes Bob Dylan but fails to interpret the meaning in full. “Doing what you want to do” is as much about doing nothing in particular at all, as it is about “chasing your dream”. And in fact, the former might be the best way to achieve the latter.

That’s what I’ve learned, anyway. But I’m no Jonathan Harris.

Butterfield is a strange choice for a two-time CEO of a gaming company. He’s no Mark Pincus — by his own admission, he’s not that into gaming. As a former philosophy student with a master’s from Cambridge, he was more interested in play as a framework for social interaction than play for play’s sake. “Infinite games are what we collectively do as a species for building culture,” Butterfield explains. “It’s fundamental for human beings, as deep a desire as hunger and thirst and sex.” From an early age, he was intrigued with how online communities like IRC allowed people to experiment with their identities. His then-wife Caterina Fake found the topic compelling too. “There are at least two kinds of games,” Butterfield says, paraphrasing a favorite scholar of his. “The first type is played for the purpose of winning and the second type you play for the purpose of play.” When they brainstormed a company to start, they settled on building “Game Neverending.” Butterfield and Fake spent a year and a half creating it.

Third life: Flickr co-founder pulls unlikely success from gaming failure. Again | PandoDaily

It’s a shame James P. Carce isn’t explicitly referenced in this passage. I never found the finite versus infinite game dichotomy very useful as a design guide, though.

It’s also odd to me that if the aim was to make a “never ending” game with Glitch, why so many of its mechanics were about achieving things and making progress. The game was chock full of things that could be “used up”. Hardly infinite.

I hate hipsters, I hate liberals, I hate rock’n’rollers, I hate the counter-culture, I hate movie people. I want to go somewhere quiet, peaceful and decorous, and be radical in my mind.

James Ellroy – Books – ShortList Magazine

I don’t know, I’m a fan of Ellroy’s LA quartet and hadn’t expected him to be such a reactionary. (Although some of the material in the books should’ve given me a hint.)

And it occurred to me then that fun is only fun when it’s stupid. That there is no joy without stupidity, without abandon, without judgment – that music is best enjoyed in this stupid way, in a stupid place like this, with people you love holding stupid tambourines and playing with strangers amid strangers, who are dancing around to a song about spaceship-people building municipalities without permits or city planners but with pop songs.

Dave Eggers: what’s so funny about peace, love and Starship? | Books | The Guardian

I really did not like how this piece started out, I thought Eggers was being an apologist for state-sponsored gambling, which to be honest I really dislike. But once you get past this, he succeeds wonderfully in conveying the joy of a particularly silly night out.

As a result of “manifest social complexity” and “concealed electronic complexity,” “the plight of members of the technological society can be compared to that of a newborn child …” yet in contemporary technological civilization people “are less fortunate than children” for they “never escape a fundamental bewilderment in the face of the complex world that their senses report.”

On Technology and Human Agency | | Ben BrucatoBen Brucato

Good summary of the positions of a number of thinkers who seem at odds with Latour on the subject of human agency and technology but as it turns out really aren’t.

Meanwhile, the demos of the Bronx was finding voices. One voice was the explosion of graffiti on our subways. I loved it! The kids who made it were thrown into a public transit system that was far more broken down than today’s. They told the world, “We are not helpless; we can make this world colorful, exuberant, exciting.” I was thrilled. I took my mother to the 149th Street subway stop, near where we had lived, with a good view of the trains. She was a very reserved woman, but she said, “It’s a rainbow, in a place where who would expect one?”

Emerging from the Ruins | Dissent Magazine

Beautiful lecture on the destruction of the Bronx and its subsequent resurgence against all odds. I particularly enjoyed the attention devoted to graffiti and rap music as early signs of a turn for the better.

Almost as a counterweight to the lawmakers and media personalities that use a single clinical trial to prove games are fundamentally evil, the evangelists use a single clinical trial to prove that games are fundamentally benevolent. “Play, don’t Replay!” is just another example of games evangelists twisting a study into a nail to advance their own hammer under the guise of saving the world, and it’s something that people should be cynical about. If being a games naysayer means thinking critically about the place of games in society and not overreaching the findings of individual studies, I for one will gladly be a games naysayer.

Games evangelists and naysayers

The even-handed approach to using games for change that is championed here is (sadly) still uncommon in industry.

Easy Riders Talk UFOs (by Bryce Zabel)

Finally got around to watching Easy Rider the other day. Nicholson’s monologue were an unexpected treat. I couldn’t help but observe the parallels between the advanced civilisation he describes here, and the ambitions of current-day adherents of the Californian ideology.