Palmhenge yes, Greenland no.
I have posted before about duality. I tend to see things in pairs, maybe because I'm a Gemini. When I buy TCG cards, I always buy two, because that way one will be better than the other and I'll feel good about that.
I've also posted about albums that disappointed me that were saved by another subsequent album in my way of looking at things. I was much looking forward to the first real studio album from my favorite band Cracker in four years, Greenland. It wasn't very good.
I found out that Johnny Hickman, the co-founder/guitarist of Cracker, made his own album called Palmhenge. I couldn't find it anywhere, but Planet Music, a local store, ordered it for me. It's great. All the off-beat lyrics and tasty guitar parts are there, and I couldn't be happier. I wonder if Johnny put all his good stuff on his CD and didn't have enough left for Cracker.
To me, this is how things work. I got a bad one, but later I got a good one to make up for it, so it's all cool. I guess batting .500 is good enough for my league.
9 comments:
I dunno if this is an "allowed" topic, but for those of us who weren't there, could you rank the projects you worked on at The Company, saying which (if any) were in your opinion ultimately "turkeys", and then which then made up for those turkeys?
Well, there goes the music thread.
Yes, it's certainly "allowed," and no, I'm not gonna do that, and thanks for saying games I designed were "turkeys." Please tell me what you do for a living so I can make disparaging comments.
That was NOT what I meant. I was trying to stick to your topic, your assertion that there is a natural balance for you. Perhaps that's too tangential to your point about music, but I was trying to draw an analogy.
It was not meant to disparage your work. For every WARS, where you may have put blood, sweat, and tears into it, only to have the decisions of _other_people_ sink the thing, there might have been other projects that exceeded your expectations (how that might have manifested itself, I have no idea -- it's why I asked. Perhaps "the license" pushed for things in LOTR that you didn't really agree with, yet that boundary forced (inspired) you to create a really good mechanic that might not have been born otherwise).
There was no insult intended. I'm sorry it came off that way.
[I HAVE tried emailing you in parallel, received no response]
[scratch "in parallel" -- I meant separately, it was not email in relation to this thread]
Ok, setting aside Mr nonymous - you're right. If I buy spec CDs I get about .500 on the return. But I think I'm ahead on the deal as the pleasure I get from the good'uns (which I play repeatedly) far outweighs the turkey (:-)) CDs (which get played once at best).
Maybe that's just my sunny disposition?
Dude, what's with the threadjack?
I just double-checked "tangential" in the dictionary (no, I really did, because I really don't like getting called out on this kind of stuff) and, to quote Inigo Montoya:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
For it to be tangential, it has to be "...only superficially relevant; divergent..."
So, you either completely threadjacked to ask a question about The Company, or you meant to draw the same analogy with CK's work at the company as he drew with Johnny Hickman/Cracker. It either doesn't diverge at all (if your stance is that you wanted CK to divide his own work and the work of his co-workers into "crap" and "not crap", which is a direct analogy) or it's not even superficially relevant and was just used as an excuse to force someone to look at things they spent years contributing to, just to see if they think something you privately think is crap, was crap.
I maintain also that if you thought it was a completely natural extension of his post, it wouldn't have been posted anonymously.
That's just my analysis. I acknowledge the possibility that I'm wrong, but I really feel like I've got Merriam-Webster on my side in this case.
(I looked for the CAPTCHA box for at least five seconds before I remembered that it's gone on CK's blog now. Damn. Just when I have both hands free (baby's napping) and I can easily type those wacky letters, I don't have to. Now that's ironic, isn't it.)
(Scurries to look up "ironic" to make sure I'm not pulling an Alanis.)
(I think I'm all right.)
Did you even read what was written past the first paragraph?
"not meant to disparage (his) work", "no insult intended".
I guess because Chuck painted the "GAC" picture, it's been decided that everything I wrote was meant negatively.
When you expect the worse, that's usually what you get.
To be clear: I love Chuck's work. I believe I own at least SOME of nearly every card game he did; and I like it so much that I check here on occasion for insight towards what went into it. But, two things: (1) Those issues aren't talked about much here (that's where the "allowed" point came in -- I don't get the impression that he likes to talk about such subjects, I'm getting that, cool enough) (2) I have seen him (you, if you're still reading this, Chuck) make slightly disparaging remarks about this or that aspect of this or that game, such that all wasn't necessarily perfect (there are always limits on time, budget, whatever, that's how all Works are: imperfect, especially in the eyes of their creative masters). *I* have felt irritation at some of those remarks, perhaps from an overwrought sense of fanboy-ism, perhaps -- but the point is, I'd be the last to cry foul on the work.
I took the last paragraph of the post, to wit, "To me, this is how things work. I got a bad one, but later I got a good one to make up for it, so it's all cool. I guess batting .500 is good enough for my league.", and wondered to myself whether there would be interesting stories to hear/read if that "filter" (if you will) were applied to the time at The Company.
My interest was genuine and well-intentioned, I thought there'd be a good story in it. I was interested in reading something I figured would be a fascinating, interesting read (had my point been properly made, which it obviously wasn't).
I apologize to Chuck for the misunderstanding, and to you Kathy for the threadjack.
Intentions: 10, Aim: 0
Look, here's the deal. Why do I allow anonymous posting when I call anonymous posters foul names? Because I have reconnected with two old friends who posted on this blog anonymously, and I don't want to close down that avenue.
However, Mr. A, I can tell you that we might treat you much more graciously and understandingly if you would simply tell us WHO THE FUCK YOU ARE.
You might consider that option the next time you post anonymously. I like people who have attachments large enough to put a name to their comments.
One more thing: I hate Latin phrases like "to wit."
To wit is not Latin, it's Middle English.
Thank you, good night.
Post a Comment