Charmless Man

manthing2.jpg

Writing at Slate XX, Jessica Grose argues that the ideal of the American male has remained basically unchanged since the ’50s. It was Mad Men’s Don Draper then, and it’s still Don Draper now.

Here’s the catch, though: we don’t love Don Draper because he’s cut from some midcentury mold of masculinity. On the contrary, we love the ways he varies from and complicates that archetype. He’s mysterious. He’s unreliable, unpredictable, and unsatisfied. If Draper were a Platonic shadow on the wall of a suburban three-bedroom, he wouldn’t be anchoring a successful TV drama. He’d be fucking boring.

On the other end of the spectrum, we find the anti-Draper, the “omega male,” exemplified in comedies starring Ben Stiller’s “frat pack” and Judd Apatow’s sad sacks. Grose slags off the man-children of cinema for their general lack of employment and their inability to function in relationships, but her biggest gripe appears to be that they’re not even trying to succeed in these arenas of responsibility. Her central problem with these omega males isn’t their “inability to live up to the demands of the world,” it’s the ease with which they disengage from those demands.

“[T]he omega male has either opted out or, if he used to try, given up,” Grose writes. That lack of effort tips you off that the guys she’s talking about aren’t at all conflicted. They’re aggressively, proudly apathetic toward any form of responsibility, which leaves them without any discernible tension or motivation. That makes omega males every bit as boring as the generic ’50s breadwinner who mutated into Don Draper. We wouldn’t watch movies about these guys if Hollywood writers didn’t force them to meet responsibility head on, with improbably hilarious and sympathetic results.

Back in the world of nonfiction, though, the boring man does exist. Whether he’s an “omega male” with no job or romantic prospects or an alpha frat-bro with a high-paying job and a stale suburban existence, it’s difficult to accept him as our masculine ideal. If there’s a “perfect man,” he’s not someone who’s just going through the motions, any more than he’s someone who refuses to go through them. Grose didn’t pick the wrong target — I agree that there’s something worrisome about the type of guy she’s identified here — but she missed the mark on the reason omega males rub us the wrong way. Blame it on the stultifying lack of passion common to nearly every species in the Field Guide to Undesirable Men.

Don Draper may be a quintessential specimen of masculinity, but not for 1950s reasons. The one-size-fits-all definition of the ideal American man has been stretched, twisted and washed in the wrong detergent. It’s not dead, it’s just become a little bit more complicated. What we demand in 2010 is a complex man. Employable, responsible, sure, but complex. And, above all, never boring.

These Jokes Are Free

sween-2.jpg

I recently contributed a small comedy bit to a video project called “Twitter: The Criterion Collection.” The finished video went up today, and it features several of my friends (and some of my favorite strangers) telling one another’s jokes.

The response has been bigger than I expected. As I’m posting this, the video has around 10,000 views, and it’s been mentioned on boingboing and Laughing Squid. Thanks to Sween and Poeks for coming up with the project and doing the heavy lifting. And to the rest of you jerkstores, well, I’m proud to know you.

Check out the video. You might like it.

The Setup

How does the saying go? The wallpaper on the desktop in the first act must be changed by the third?

I’m a desktop fidgeter, I confess. Really good wallpaper lasts about a day, and finding a lovely new background is usually my first line of defense against getting any work done. Hell, I’ll change every icon in my Dock to deflect a particularly stubborn project. “If I create a perfect, pristine setup,” I tell myself, “I will produce perfect, pristine words.”

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Instead, it’s come to this: the least distracting, least present settings I could achieve on my Mac, without sacrificing a certain aesthetic appeal. It resists fidgety change because I hardly know it’s there. It doesn’t make my writing any better. It just makes my writing possible.

In case there’s anyone else out there with my precise working tics, here’s a rundown of the current settings:

The Menubar


From left to right: that’s Tweetie, Skitch, SMCFanControl and FuzzyClock.

The Tweetie menubar icon will modestly shift to blue when I get new mentions or direct messages on Twitter. It makes a highlighted dock icon or a Growl notification look as audacious as a big-top ringmaster. I’ll get to it when I notice it, thankyewverymuch.

Skitch’s menubar icon serves a practical purpose: you can use it to snap a selection without changing window focus. This turns out to be important in the software-blogging part of my work.

SMCFanControl warns me when my MacBook looks like it might go all Mount Vesuvius on me, and lets me crank up the fans accordingly. I keep the icon there because I find it attractive, and because SMCFanControl offers no option to turn it off.

FuzzyClock: because you don’t actually need to know the time down to the minute, so you may as well stop being a self-important jerk about it.

You may notice some missing icons:

Volume: I already controlled it via keyboard 9 times out of 10, so I ditched the icon.

Airport: When I’m in-office, there’s no need to quickly change my wifi settings.

Bluetooth: Why?

Spotlight: I never use it. Instead, I use Quicksilver. Disabling the Spotlight icon takes a little more work than the previous three I’ve listed — which all have checkboxes in their respective preference panes — but you can get rid of it. Try this tip from MacOSXHints. (It’s labeled 10.4, but works on Leopard and Snow Leopard, too.)

Continue reading

Farewell, Click Opera

Momus has long been one of the devils on my shoulder. I give him credit for introducing me — through his blog, Click Opera — to an alternate universe of culture that I somehow missed in college. Sure, Momus’ taste in ideas and fashion leans conspicuously toward Tokyo, but that only makes his perspective more compelling in the midst of the usual blogroll of young, trendy Brooklynites. Without Click Opera, I might have missed out on Shibuya-kei, Cornelius, Bertolt Brecht, Erving Goffman, and Jacques Dutronc. Now, the idea of putting myself together without those pieces seems impossible.

Click Opera passed away calmly and peacefully from natural causes last Wednesday. For six years, Momus ran his blog with a winking, endearing brand of narcissism, easy to forgive and fall in love with. I could disagree with what he had to say, but not without giving it serious thought. He’s the type of older, cleverer (and, let’s be honest, sexier) guy whose experience I could accept or reject, but never ignore.

While Momus’ music, performance art and emerging career as a novelist will continue, and they all have their charms, Click Opera was a way of life. And not just for the devoted readers, it turns out. Momus decided to retire the blog because it had swallowed too much of his own life for too long, and he wants to direct his energy toward other things.

Fair enough. My blog already gets kicked around and treated as second-best when I have paying gigs or opportunities with bigger, more respectable online publications. I understand Momus’ reasons for dropping Click Opera, but his consistently fine writing there during the back end of the aughts makes a solid case for the blog as a medium.

Sure, I’ll miss Click Opera, but I’ve learned enough from it to get along on my own. It was a starting point, not a sealed box. Of course, I’ll keep an eye on whatever its author creates next, but I also want to take what Momus did — reporting on things he found fascinating or problematic — and run with it. I’d be proud to put out something even half as provocative.

Some Favorite Click Opera entries

These aren’t necessarily the best, most important, or most representative posts from Click Opera. They just happened to grab me personally, for various reasons:

Photo: simplifica

Jacked Up

Flickr Photo Download_ Jack in the Box.jpg

I don’t usually put on my graphic designer hat to write this blog, but tonight, the power of fast food compels me. While eating at a Jack in the Box for the first time since college, I spotted a history of the company logo on a placemat. The old logos had character! More than that, they actually had — get this — Jacks-in-the-Box! Somewhere between 1951 and today, Jack in the Box managed to pretty much screw the pooch when it comes to corporate identity.

Problem number one: I had no idea Jack in the Box had even changed its logo. A quick trip to Google reveals that the current abomination has been in play since late 2008. The exterior signage of the locations in my area hasn’t been changed, so this new logo was effectively invisible to me until I found myself craving a patty melt … more than a year later.

Problem number two: This logo suffers from severe multiple personality disorder. We’re not talking about mild, real-life, DSM-IV multiple personalities, either. This is a case of played-by-Jim-Carrey-in-the-movie-version multiple personalities.

The friendly, red six-sided figure and the inviting, old-school script evoke the kind of neighborhood hamburger joint my parents probably visited when they got good grades in elementary school. So far, so good. Then we come to the type for “in the box,” which blatantly aims for cool and contemporary. If the script “Jack” is 1962, the squarish sans serif “in the box” is 2002. It’s less Jack in the Box, more Jack in the XBox.

Conclusion? Jack in the Box has no idea what it really wants to be. Sure, they’ve got the cheeky spokes-clown who’s supposed to signal that they’re less stuffy than other burger places, but he’s asking you to believe a very 1950s proposition: that you should buy these burgers because they’re actually pretty good.

Whatever my feelings about Jack in the Box’s food (for the record: a Sourdough Jack, once a year, tops), the typography doesn’t lie. Jack’s a total schizo, and the dude needs to get his act together.

On this count, I can’t blame Duffy & Partners, the designers of the new identity. The brief they were working with asked for something more in line with the mascot, Jack Box. They delivered the design the client wanted, but because Jack is all over the place, so is the logo.

jackfail1.jpg

Essential reading if you’re curious about this sort of thing:

  • Underconsideration’s branding blog, Brand New, on the new Jack in the Box logo. They’ve even got some images from Duffy & Partners.
  • Bnet’s Jim Edwards is also not a fan of the new logo.

How We Roll

howweroll.jpg

“Prisons can restrict the rights of inmates to nerd out, a federal appeals court has found.”

That’s not the opener for a Cory Doctorow screed on BoingBoing. It’s the first sentence of a New York Times story about Kevin T. Singer, a prisoner and fantasy role-playing aficionado who’s serving out a life sentence in a maximum-security facility in Nowhere, Wisconsin. Kevin has been into Dungeons and Dragons “since childhood,” so when the prison confiscated his books and dice back in 2004, he sued. An appeals court finally decided the case last week, ruling against Kevin and gaming.

The thing is, Kevin isn’t necessarily the ideal spokesmodel for tabletop roleplaying. The reason he’s in prison for life has nothing to do with anti-nerd undercurrents in society, and everything to do with bludgeoning his brother-in-law to death with a sledgehammer. Wisconsin led the charge to abolish the death penalty 150 years ago, and any state employee who’s bitter about that can only hurt a guy like Kevin by taking away everything that keeps him going while he serves out the rest of his days. Unfortunately, in their haste to punish a killer, Wisconsin officials threw a pretty great game under the bus.

Life is a long time for a guy in his early 30s, and it’s even longer when the guards take away your favorite mental escape because they think it might inspire a physical escape attempt. On top of alleging that gaming might cause a prisoner to go all Count of Monte Cristo, the state also brought in a gang specialist, who somehow managed to keep a straight face while connecting Dungeons & Dragons to dangerous gang activity. If by “gang activity,” you mean “cooperative play,” or “Fun-yuns,” then okay. But if you actually mean “gang activity,” give me a break.

It’s been a good 30 years since the peak of anti-D&D hysteria. Back in the ’80s, Dungeons & Dragons was accused of causing everything from Satanism to suicide. The poster child for that period in the game’s history was James Dallas Egbert, III, a teen prodigy whose disappearance and subsequent death were blamed on D&D in the media, even though gaming had nothing to do with his depression. [See the timeline after the jump for a brief history of ass-backwards anti-gaming mania.]

pennyarcadeprison.jpg

This prison fiasco doesn’t have to mean a return to the bad old days. Even though Kevin doesn’t offer the most sympathetic face you could hope to put on the game, there are still some gleaming role models out there, reminding the world that tabletop role-playing geeks aren’t all violent or clinically depressed. You don’t have to look any further than the guys who just did a hilarious comic strip about the prison D&D ban: Penny Arcade’s Gabe and Tycho.

The Penny Arcade guys are leading by example by starring in the official D&D podcast, along with another prominent webcomics artist, PVP’s Scott Kurtz. Even better, they’ve got actor/author/poster-geek Wil Wheaton on board. It’s one thing to make jokes and hyperbolic accusations about D&D, but it’s another thing entirely to hear it played by a bunch of the nicest, most entertaining guys around. It puts a more fun, less sledgehammer-murdery spin on the whole thing.

So, here’s to our contemporary geek heroes. Thanks for showing everyone how you roll.

[dice photo: ciroduran]

Continue reading

Welcome to the Pie Decade

piedecade.jpg

The New York Times recently ran a piece about the increasing speed of generation gaps. Because life-changing gadgets have much speedier development cycles than they did when I grew up, sociologists think people in their twenties have become the new out-of-touch grownups. Apparently, someone 5 years my junior relies a lot less on email and a lot more on IMs than I do, and that makes me a prematurely-old curmudgeon. A Pew researcher quoted in the article explains that “[c]ollege students scratch their heads at what their high school siblings are doing, and they scratch their heads at their younger siblings. It has sped up generational differences.”

Fellow twenty-somethings, we have apparently passed our expiration date.

But wait! While I was sipping Ovaltine in my rocking chair and passing out some delicious Werther’s Originals, I happened on another article. The Philadephia Inquirer asked kids between 7 and 13 to predict what significant developments this new decade might bring. Great! Another chance to feel old! Surely these intrepid junior futurists would hold expectations far beyond anything my senile 26-year-old brain could make sense of. I pushed back my fears, put on my glasses-on-a-chain and started to read.

The article shocked me, but not because kids born in the ’90s are growing up as unfathomable cyborgs. On the contrary, my 7-year-old self would have made the same totally awesome predictions these kids did. The overwhelming concern for the well-being of animals, the robot monkey butlers, and the hope for an end to divorce are straight out of my childhood. Unrelatable? Hardly.

Sure, maybe the iGeneration will one day process my remains into fuel for their jetpacks, but we still get excited by the same fascinating stuff. I’d like to add my endorsement to this prediction by Marly, age 8: “Chefs may create new recipes, such as new flavors of pie.”

Some things are so timelessly cool that every effort to explain their appeal using grown-up language comes off as overly-academic and weird. You can try to translate that feeling in every kid’s gut into studies and essays, but they’re never going to be as exciting as dinosaurs and robots. Attempts to analyze the magic are dated before they’re ever finished, but pie will never lose its relevance. Just be cool, okay? I think you’ll find you still know how.

Welcome to the Pie Decade.

[Photo: varktherebel]

Cold Content Farm

winterfarm-1.jpg

It’s more reliable than any bus in town.

“What do you do?”

Me, I write. Constantly. Nights, weekends. If I am not currently holding a drink and being asked what I do, I’m writing. So I say, “Me? I write.”

Then comes the look. I’m hoping for a little interest, somewhere around the corners of the mouth. A quick chorus-line kick of the eyebrow will do. That’ll get me going, because it lets me know you love words, and I absolutely must know which words you love. I’m hoping we can do the dance of giddy reminiscence, about novels, about stories and, hell, even about blogs. It’s one of my favorite dances.

Lately, it’s been the other look that shows up more often. The rolling eyes, the slumping shoulders, the scan around the room for someone in a respectable profession. Now we’re doing another dance altogether. Now you’re stepping on my feet. Now you’re asking me, “Oh, so you do content?

Content: that most formless, most beige, most indifferent of nouns. You’re comfortable with “content,” because what’s actually contained is irrelevant to you. You don’t wonder whether it’s writing, because you don’t intend to read it. You don’t care whether anyone else reads it, either. Words aren’t for reading; they’re for indexing, clicking on, optimizing. They fill that space under the banner and left of the text ads. They’re not even fast food, they’re bot fodder.

Perhaps there’s good money to be made shunting keywords around, writing articles that aren’t meant to be read, but that’s money I’m leaving on the table. I want to write something honest, something inexpert, something search-engine-unoptimized. I want to write what makes me hurt, what gets me off, what gets me out of bed every morning, and what makes me stay longer than I should. I want writing with skinned knees.

You want me to sell advertising.

Do you know how many keyword-grinding, content-farming replicants it takes to equal a Gruber or a Rands? How about a Haruki Murakami? Trick question. When Murakami describes the pleasures of owning a perfect sofa, or when Rands explains how geeks approach games, they’re not writing for a teeming nest of Google spiders. Writers don’t “create content,” they fucking write. What’s contained does matter to them. The right words matter. Not the keywords, not acai berries or vacuum cleaners or whatever the ad people can “monetize” today. Sometimes, the right words keep them up nights.

You may be a writer if: the right words keep you up nights.

I’m not Murakami, I’m painfully certain. I’m not Faulkner or Kerouac or Gruber or Rands or Mark riverboatin’ Twain. Everyone’s got stories, though, and I’m thrilled and terrified at the possibility that I might have it in me to tell one deftly and honestly. You advise me against that, though, because it probably wouldn’t be good for my pagerank, and you’re not sure how I intend to profit from these messy aspirations of mine.

I’m not sure, either, but I promise I won’t do it by leaving the web — or the print publishing world, for that matter — worse than I found it. Resolved, then, as I look away and pretend to be infinitely fascinated by the way the light hits my glass: I will keep working to get better at what I do. I will keep losing sleep, keep looking for the right words, keep reading real writing. I will stick by the people who love a good story. Life’s too short to dance with ad hucksters, get-rich-quickers, bot-feeders and human acronyms.

“Oh, so you do content?”

No.

[Photo: James Jordan]

I Got A Little Sad and Made Something

keepcalm1-1.jpg

I’m a fan of the iconic WWII-era British propaganda campaign, KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON, which has been commercialized in the form of prints, posters, t-shirts, bags, and practically anything else you can think of. It’s a reassuring sentiment and a clean design.

excitedmake.jpg

Matt Jones — of Dopplr, among other things, and one of my favorite people to read online — took it one step further. He created a design that resonates even more powerfully with me. Don’t keep calm and carry on, GET EXCITED AND MAKE THINGS. The Get Excited design replaces the classic Keep Calm crown with one made of wrenches, nuts and a chain. It’s the ultimate reminder to get up off your ass and do something with your best ideas. Matt’s design was picked up by Mike Monteiro and Co. over at Mule Design, and became a fantastic t-shirt. Even better, they decided to donate $5 of your $20 shirt purchase to smallcanbebig.org, a site that distributes money to strategically help families in poverty or emergency situations.

As much as I love getting excited and making things, sometimes the best things we make don’t come from an excited place. Sometimes the impetus to create something meaningful comes from being a little sad. I decided there was room for excited makers and sad ones to coexist, and that maybe the more somber segment of the creative population deserved a design, too.

getalittlesad-3.jpg

Hence, GET A LITTLE SAD AND MAKE THINGS. Instead of looking staid or sturdy, this crown is weeping a little bit.

I’m making the design available as a tee through Spreadshirt, and I bought the first one myself to confirm it printed properly. Anyone who’s interested can buy one for a pretty reasonable price. If you want a discount, get in touch with me via Twitter (@strutting), and I might know a Spreadshirt code for you. Also, to acknowledge the inspirational debt I owe Matt and Mike for this one, and put a little sadness to good use, I’ll donate the commission on each shirt to Small Can Be Big.

So, grab a shirt if you’re interested, and then get right back to making things.

Webcockery and Flirting at Barcamp Seattle

I gave a little talk about webcockery at BarCamp Seattle over the weekend — “webcock,” of course, being Dean Allen‘s “naming convention for online-marketing, web-strategy, killer-startup cheerleaders/water-carriers.” Instead of tearing down webcockery directly, I tried to give a cock’s-eye view of the ideal social media marketing expert. Retweets! Hashtags! Auto-following! With these simple tools, you can ruin Twitter faster than ever before!

webcockery101.jpg

The session was called “Webcockery 101: How to Leave Twitter Soooo Much Worse Than You Found It. Ugh. Jesus Christ.”

Unfortunately, there’s no video of these shenanigans. Just in case people are curious, though, I’ve uploaded a PDF of my slides. Also, thanks to Tara Hunt for posting a good play-by-play of the discussion to Twitter. It went something like this:

# Now onto Webcockery! ……I don’t know either. ;)
# “The webcock toolkit includes linking to urself relentlessly, only reading ur @ replies, following everyone back, followfridays, etc”
# “Retweeting is the webcock reach around.” LOL
# “If you don’t provide a place for people to see popular links on the internet, who will?” #webcockery
# “Only follow people who automatically follow you back.” #webcockery
# “Refer to yourself to a ‘______ ninja’ in as many profiles as possible.” #webcockery
# “You might just want to tap that star”
# .@catherinegordon ‘Webcockery’ is NOT a positive term. It means you are a douche. These are tongue in cheek.
# p.s. If ur following the #webcockery tag, it’s tongue-in-cheek. Webcockery is douchery. The ppl who are using twitter for the wrong reasons.
# In other words…DON’T BE A WEBCOCK. ;)
# He’s creating a venn diagram of where Webcockery overlaps with Douchebaggery. Nice.

rtwebcock.jpg

Afterward, Chris Downie, who ran a morning discussion about “social microgames,” offered $10 to anyone who would “retweet” my talk later that day. Dylan Wilbanks took him up on it and put on a version of the presentation that was as deadpan as I wish mine could have been.

On Sunday, we did a live Q&A for Am I Flirting?, the flirting blog I write with Melissa Gira. Melissa co-presented via Skype, to talk about some of the situations that led to AIF? posts and take questions from the audience. A lot of fun people showed up, and we had a great time with it (despite some problems with the patchy conference wifi). I have nothing but good things to say about doing a live version of your blog, especially if you write to a fairly narrow theme, as we do with AIF.