Beyond Anime

In any subculture hobby, the masses will often have a different perspective of things. In the past, for example, anime fans have been thought of as geeks or adults who are still fascinated with cartoons. In the present, anime has perhaps been passively accepted as part of the norm, a product of the current generation.

Reach Out Otaku (ROO), an organization comprised of anime fans, is a good example that beneath all the glitz and the glamour, that anime enthusiasts can be socially responsible and still participate in their hobby. Formed in July 17, 2001, ROO began by visiting street children in Kanlungan, Erma and held some workshops for them. A year and a half later, it would also tie up with the Musmos organization based in Ateneo and would hold “Krismusmos”, a Christmas party for the street children in Katipunan. I interviewed them back in 2002, a few months after their successful Christmas party, but several months before they would host Krismusmos.

Gem, founder of ROO, was initially inspired by watching some street kids play Dragonball Z. “Parang they were imitating the anime character. So why not help, street kids sila eh. Kahit street kids sila, na-aapreciate nila yung anime. So at least natutulungan ko sila.” (“They were like imitating the anime character. So why not help since they are street kids. Even though they are street children, they apprecite anime. At least this way, we are able to help them.”) But it would only be after an anime convention that Gem would make formal plans for the organization. “Basically the idea started after Cosplay Manila. So parang, napag-isip ako, for the December party iyon, at since maraming kids nag-enenjoy seeing people cosplaying their favorite anime characters in costume, why not incorporate it with charity work? Since ‘yun nga, maraming pa lang tao na involved sa outreach programs, para at least magamit natin yung interest in anime, our hobby, as a medium to help other people. So bali iyon yung pinaka idea ko kung bakit na setup yung Reach Out Otaku.” (“Basically the idea started after Cosplay Manila. It got me thinking that for the December party, since a lot of kids were enjoying seeing people cosplaying their favorite anime characters, why not incorporate it with charity work? Apparently, a lot of people were involved in outreach programs and this way, we could at least utilize interest in anime, our hobby, as a medium to help other people. That was the fundamental idea behind setting up Reach Out Otaku.”)

This was far from a solo project though. Gem would depend on Vinnie to choose and coordinate for their venue in Kanlungan considering he had contacts with NGOs. “Ako naman since I’ve been doing that kind of volunteer work before and I have the experience, and then joining up with this group is a good thing to do for me also para maging enlightened din in a way. And to help others din, to guide other people din.” (“For me it was natural since I’ve been doing this kind of volunteer work before and I have the experience, and then joining up with this group is a good thing to do for me to becoming enlightened in a way. And to help and guide other people as well.”)

The activities of ROO wasn’t a one-shot event and Vinnie shares with us his plans back in 2002. “Since nagstart na kami sa Kanlungan para magkaroon ng activity volunteer-type with them, which is naenjoy naming before so we decided ituloy na naming, magkaroon kami ng series of visits na makakatulong din sa kanila for their learning kasi most of the kids there are not going to school for now, kaya ganun. Like recently, some of the available na members ng Reach Out, nagtambak sila ng workshops on fixing, illustrations, animation by using anime as a medium para gawin iyon. And then so far, nafullfil yung expectation na the kids grew interest sa mga recent na visits naming. They’re looking forward to the next visits na magkaroon kami ng activity ulit.” (“Since we started in the Kanlungan area so that we could have a volunteer-type activity with them, we decided to push through with the series of visits since we’re having fun and it aids in their learning considering most of the kids are not going to school. Recently, some of the available members of Reach Out held a bunch of workshops on fixing, illustrations and animation, using anime as a medium to perform just that. And so far, our expectations were fulfilled since the interest of kids grew with our recent visits. They’re looking forward to the next visits, hoping for other activities.)

Despite its popularity, ROO didn’t always start out that way. It began with a small mailing list comprised of cosplayers who then branched out and sought additional members from other anime-related mailing lists. It boasted not only anime fans, but people who are just plainly interested in outreach projects. Even winners of previous cosplay competitions participated in ROO. Not that everything was picture perfect. Coordination proved to be a big hurdle since most of the members were students and had difficulty finding a common time. Finances were another probem but Joy, Gem’s successor after she left for the US, shares this anecdote with us. “The December 15 party, that was one of the craziest and funniest thing to have happened. It was so interesting. We weren’t going to be excited but a lot of things happened, most of them we didn’t expect. And sometimes, we were worried, some of us were crying over the lack of sponsors, the lack of materials and then when the day came, we had too much food on our hands, we had too much food on our hands. And then you realize, oh, we were able to get pala so much stuff. I guess it was really cool because we didn’t expect them to happen. We were medyo discouraged to go on na and it’s already like something happened out of the blue. People started helping each other out, they volunteered themselves, like we had a lot of nonmembers with us and said kami na ang bahala rito. It was very interesting, very different.” (“The December 15 party… And then you realize, oh, we were apparently able to get so much stuff. I guess it was really cool because we didn’t expect them to happen. We were a bit discouraged to go on and it’s like something happened out of the blue. People started helping each other out, they volunteered themselves, and we had a lot of nonmembers with us and said we’re take care of this. It was very interesting, very different.”)

Gem shares with us the goals of ROO: “Our goal is to open the eyes of the people that there’s more to the world than anime. If we can use anime as a medium of helping other people out, of reaching out to the world, so that’s why we’re a bunch of otakus, we rave over the latest anime, we rave over Yue. (laughs) Or some bishonen. But basically we’re still human, we’re still ready to help people out. One of our main goals is to open the eyes of the people into helping each other.” Joy adds to that by saying “Kasi people have this thing na parang they think na, those anime people, wala naman silang ginagawa. They spend all their money, wasting their money on cartoons, and comic books and stuff like that. I guess connected with Ate Gem, we’re out to change that. Sure, we like all the cartoons, the comic books but our lives does not begin and end with them. We want to help other people also. And out to show that we’re otakus with hearts.” (“Because people have this thing, thinking that those anime people, they don’t do anything…”)

Not that outreach doesn’t have its own rewards. “Like when we were like, at the December 15 party, all these children were enjoying themselves. Seeing all the people that we got to help us out that they were enjoying themselves also. It’s really very encouraging because you kinda feel na there are people who are still into this sort of thing, who are still into helping other people,” Gem shares. “After the December party, there was these nonmembers, cosplayers during the EB, they approached me. Ate Gem, sabi nila, naalala ko yung pangalan ng partner ko. Sabi ko buti ka pa, naalala mo yung pangalan niya. Honestly, sa dami nila, I don’t even remember their names, yung mga volunteers, but they remember the names ng partners nila. Yung mga kids na partners nila.” (“After the December party, there was these nonmembers, cosplayers during the EB, they approached me. Ate Gem, they say, we remember the names of our partners. I reply good for you because I don’t remember their names. Honestly, with all their numbers, I don’t even remember their names, but the volunteers, they remember the names of their partners. The kids are their partners.”)

Perhaps one of the basic questions that must be asked from a social organization is whether they’re succeeding in helping their intended audience. “Well sa reaction ng mga bata, I think so. Not in a really big scale pero in the little things, makikita mo rin ang satisfaction nila. Sa workshop naming, makikita mo yung satisfaction nila by showing their talent and actually being recognized. Doon yung nakakatouch, I think, kasi most of these kids were victims of abuse so in their own little ways na-heheal. Wow, may kaya pala akong gawin!” (“Well based on the reactions of the children, I think so. Not in areally big scale but in the little things, you can see their satisfaction. In our workshops, you can see their satisfaction in showing their talent and actually being recognized. That’s what touches me the most, I think, because most of these kids were victims of abuse so in their own little way, they are healed. Wow, there’s actually something that I can do!”)

While ROO never made it to the newspapers, never made it to the limelights, each of its members know that they helped change someone’s life. I think that’s what reaching out is really about: it’s not about the rewards, either financial or social, but more of realizing that there’s something one can do to help those around us. And while anime fans will still probably be perceived as something unproductive by society, ROO will be an example of how any hobby, not just anime, can be made into something socially productive. In the end, it doesn’t matter what other people say, but rather what you believe in.

The Lost Mark Book 1: Marked for Death by Matt Forbeck (book review)

It’s not often than one gets to witness the birth of a new series. Wizards of the Coast, publisher of Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms novels, just released a new novel line set in their new RPG setting, Eberron. Marked for Death is the first taste we’ll have of the series, and it’s pivotal whether this will be a new Dragonlance Chronicles, or merely another piece of crap set in a generic setting.

Forbeck gives little exposition and enters into the fray. Despite Eberron being a new world, Forbeck gives little background on it. Which is just as well since the important parts are explained in the narrative, and there’s a small glossary at the back (which is actually helpful since it has a comprehensive list of the people, places, and terms used in the novel). Don’t fret about the glossary though: it’s short and quick. This isn’t an epic fantasy and more often than not, you won’t really need to check the glossary often.

There’s also an attempt at describing things but it’s standard at best: it’s not as flowery as some writers, but it’s not like the description is sparse either. The language is just plain and nothing striking.

The plot is mediocre. It’s your typical party going solving one dilemma only to enter another. In fact, the whole novel is basically just that: action and adventure from one place to another. There’s an over-aching story but for the most part, the book could have been several short stories featuring the same cast of characters. As an RPG novel though, it’s great since readers get to see the new creatures of the setting (i.e. the Warforged, sentient constructs, the Shifters, which are descended from lycanthropes, and Changelings, a feebler race of doppelgangers), and we get to see famous places and personalities.

Having said that, was does the typical reader end up with, aside from the links to the RPG? Perhaps Marked for Death is a breakthrough when it comes to D&D novels simply because of the angst and the three-dimensional characters. I mean good guys and bad guys both have redeeming as well as dislikable traits, and there always seems to be conflict, even among allies. I mean Dungeons & Dragons has been known for is alignment system, namely that of good and evil, law and chaos. That’s not so present in this book, or at least it’s not that apparent. Good and evil, law and chaos are still pervasive, but the lines aren’t as clear-cut. Each character has their own agenda in the book, and employ various logic to justify their actions.

While the book ain’t no Dragonlance Chronicles (and it can’t be since the Eberron novels shouldn’t have world-changing effects), it’s a decent enough novel. As a fantasy novel, it’s okay: nothing really outstanding, and nothing really horrifying. As an RPG novel, it fares better than most of its ilk simply because it gives life to the setting in which it was based on, and doesn’t interfere too much with the game (unlike Dragonlance wherein we endure one cataclysm after another). Again, this isn’t intellectual material. But if you like a fantasy atmosphere where morality is grey, and where your heroes aren’t overpowered, this is probably the book for you. If you’re a fan of the Eberron game, it might score some additional points for you. But aside from that, if you really want bang for your buck, there are probably other fantasy novels out there for you.

Understanding Gamers: Console Gamers

There are essentially two kinds of gamers. There are those who play games once in a while perhaps as leisure or a break from their daily routine, and those that eat, breathe, and sleep with gaming. What I’m going to talk about is the latter. They’re the subculture in society that non-gamers don’t understand. This series of articles will try to explain gaming from a gamer’s perspective.

Ironically, while the gaming console is perhaps the most mainstream of games, some people might not know what a console system is. I mean everyone knows what a PC is, but when you mention a game console, you might get a “huh?” Perhaps you might be more familiar with gaming consoles if I mention the specific brands, such as the Xbox and the Playstation 2. Essentially, gaming consoles are computers you play at home that are dedicated to gaming. They’re already pre-assembled as it is and no major tweaking is involved.

I mentioned that gaming consoles are the most mainstream of gaming systems. Why? Well, the masses are the main target of gaming consoles. You don’t need to be tech-savvy to play a Playstation 2 or an Xbox. Before Microsoft coined the term “plug and play”, that’s essentially what a gaming console did: you plugged the unit into your television, insert the cartridge or CD, and viola! No need to check for system requirements, install the program, or bother about hardware and software compatibility. A game for the Xbox will work on the Xbox, no questions asked. The same goes for the controller: I don’t need to configure my hotkeys, figure out if this button will work or not, etc. And in the case of peripheral accessories (such as mice, joysticks, guns, or dance pads), I just need to plug it in. I don’t really need to figure out which plug goes into which socket. A gaming console is built to work with itself with the least of hassles.

Of course while it’s easy to get into console gaming, talking about the topic isn’t as easy. Because honestly, console games have been around for the longest time and it’s surrounded by lots of genres, from sports to action/adventure to strategy. Each one has its own style of gamers and subculture. However, there are some notable trends when it comes to console gaming.

The first trend is that console games are played with two or less players. Sure, some games allow several players to participate (thanks to some peripherals like a modem or a multitap) but most console games involve the participation of one or two players. Right now, while there is movement towards online gaming, gaming consoles haven’t really reached that point yet. For two-player games, the interactivity between human beings is either you’re allied with the other player (as can be witnessed in some action/adventure games), or you’re playing against the other player (like some sports games). However, for the most part, I think that console games tend to revolve around solo play. I mean whereas a PC gamer would spend hours in his room by himself yet talking to several people around the world, a console gamer will probably spend hours alone in his room, playing against one opponent: the computer. And perhaps this is the biggest asset of gaming consoles. Gaming consoles were designed to be played at home and when you’re at home, and that usually means you don’t have a lot of company. There’s just you and the computer. Strategy games and RPG games fall under this category, where players pit themselves not against a live opponent but against the computer. When you’re bored and have no one to play with, a console game is perhaps a good alternative.

Another trend is that a gaming console isn’t peripheral-heavy. I mean sure, there are rifles, dance pads, and steering wheels, but for the most part, they aren’t part of the basic set-up of a gaming console. Those peripherals only come into play when a gaming console is trying to simulate the arcade experience (which itself is diverse since an arcade machine is designed to excel in one thing, while a gaming console has to support a lot of needs) and is keyed to specific games (i.e. a dance pad is only useful for games like Dance Dance Revolution, while a rifle is only supported by certain shoot-em-up games). The beauty of the basic controller is that one becomes familiar with it yet playable across multiple games. Of course since you don’t need to be upgrading your gaming console with new parts every six months, the good thing about console games is that the playing field is more or less equal. That’s perhaps why players spend lots of time playing video games, because the only thing that you can really nurture in console games are your skill.

The third trend is the ability to save games. I mean two decades ago, the only games that had a save feature were strategy games and RPGs. Now, nearly every game has a save feature, whether it’s a sports game, an action/adventure one, or first-person perspective games. You might be asking why this sudden development. Well, first, the earlier games were really quick and short. If you were good at it, a game could be finished in less than a day. Those games that took longer than that had a primitive save feature called passwords (and 80s gamers know how much of a hassle it was to jot down passwords and remember them). The second development is that games now are geared towards customization. I mean in sports games, your personal stats can now be recorded and ported over to someone else’s gaming console. The same can be said for your customized car for racing games, or your customized character for action/adventure games. The third important development is that of replayability. Unlike PC games where the same game can be played over and over again, thanks to competition from other human beings, the same can’t be said for console games. For the most part, it’s you against the computer. In time, that gets too repetitive. That’s why game designers nowadays try to insert additional features into their games, whether it’s finding secret items, multiple-endings, or recruiting special characters. Even RPGs, which are lengthy games in themselves, now have mini-games in them just to retain the attention of the console gamer. And to take advantage of that, you need some sort of way to track your progress. The save game feature rewards players who invest their time and effort playing those games.

The fourth trend is that console games are built with the latest hardware and possess state-of-the-art graphics. As much as gameplay is important, console gamers look for the whole package, such as good graphics, good sounds, good controls, and having a really fun game. I mean haven’t you noticed that most console games are now in 3D? As much as an important factor gameplay is, some video game companies are hesitant to promote certain games by that factor alone. It needs the other aspects as well, especially considering gaming consoles are nearly as powerful as your PC.

Having said all that, what does that leave us with? Well, console gamers spend lots of time playing video games, because it provides quick and easy entertainment (i.e. you can play alone with it), you improve your skills by playing often, and one gets to keep track of their progress thanks to the ability to save games. But as impressive as console games are, it has less replayability than other games. I mean whereas you could keep on playing the same PC game for the next six months (at least those with multiplayer capabilities), the same can’t be said for console games. A console game is only good until you unlock all its secrets (whether that takes you a week or a year, depending on how frequent you play it). Once you reach that point, unless you’re playing against another human opponent, it’s time to buy a new game and move on (although it’s refreshing to come back to an old game once in a while).

Console gamers favor variety. Instead of just playing the same game on and on for several months, a console gamer is more likely to breeze through a plethora of games. And console systems find it more convenient to adapt various genres of games, offering a more diverse selection.

Understanding Gamers: PC Gamers

There are essentially two kinds of gamers. There are those who play games once in a while perhaps as leisure or a break from their daily routine, and those that eat, breathe, and sleep with gaming. What I’m going to talk about is the latter. They’re the subculture in society that non-gamers don’t understand. This series of articles will try to explain gaming from a gamer’s perspective.

Before I start with PC games, I’d first like to point out two trends in the industry. One is the prominence of multiplayer games, or games that can be played over a network (whether that means your local computer café or online via the Internet). Let’s face it, PC games aren’t as anti-social as they used to be. You may be facing a computer screen but there’s probably someone on the other end. And of all the other gaming mediums, PC games are probably the most prevalent when it comes to using the Internet. Another trend is real-time playability. Most games now, whether they’re RPGs, strategy, or action/adventure are played in real-time. That means every second that passes in real life is also one second gone in gaming time. Take note of these two trends for they will play a significant role in the modern gamer’s psychology.

One thing about PC gamers is that they’re competitive. It’s not just me versus the computer anymore. Nowadays, it’s evolved to me versus everyone else. I have a living, breathing, thinking opponent on the other end. And both of us keeps score (whether that’s your current ranking in the community, the number of kills you’ve made, your winning streak, or simply your character level). Having said that, the focus of nearly every serious PC gamer is to win. And winners will try to gain every possible advantage as possible.

Perhaps the most important commodity in a gamer’s arsenal is speed. Since games are played in real time, reaction time becomes a crucial factor. Perhaps the biggest factor that can drastically change a person’s gaming speed is their equipment. Okay, if I have the latest video card, not only does it enable me to play the latest games, the graphics are also smoother. Having lots of memory can speed up games, and having a broadband connection is a necessity. I mean it’s one thing to lose a game due to negligence. It’s another to lose a game because your Internet connection was too slow, or your computer didn’t process your commands on time. That’s why most serious gamers shell out money to buy state-of-the-art technology (or at least make it their goal not only to buy the latest games but try to get the best equipment). It’s also why gamers would prefer to go into an Internet café with better equipment than a place with inferior equipment.

Since gamers are constantly looking for that extra edge, controls are another important factor. A gamer’s best friend is his keyboard and mouse. The former gives you access to hotkeys, or shortcut commands that enable the player to do something that would otherwise take several commands to perform. Normally, this wouldn’t be too much of a problem. I mean when using Microsoft Word, I can save my document by pressing Ctrl + S or Alt + F then press S. Ctrl + S saves me time but there’s nothing wrong with opting for the latter. In PC gaming, the lost time means everything. It could mean switching from your sniper rifle to your knife, or drinking that potion before your hit points hit zero. The mouse is just as important as the keyboard. While the keyboard gives you access to supplementary actions, the mouse is the most basic method of how your character navigates in the game. Without the mouse, you’re a sitting duck. A faulty mouse results in flawed movement. A gun shot to the head might miss and draw the attention of your opponent. Or it might mean heading straight into the jaws of danger when you were trying to flee from battle. Precision is key to winning a game and that’s how important a mouse is. A true gamer either owns an optical mouse, or spends lots of time cleaning his mouse ball (or uses a trackball). Some mice also have shortcuts built into them, such as the right mouse button, or the scroll button.

Of course you can have the best stuff that money can buy but in the end, it’ll come down to skill and knowledge. The former can be gained by experience and playing the game repetitively. Hey, parents also wanted their kids to study so that they can get high grades. The same goes for gamers. We play, play, and play some more in order to become good at what we do. We’re also racking up prestige along the way, whether it’s because we’re increasing our ranks or gaining levels. Of course sometimes, skill alone is not enough. You need knowledge to back it up. That’s why gamers often participate in message boards, mailing lists, and surf gaming-related websites. Tips, tactics, and strategies always helps the PC gamer, which is why we try to update ourselves on the latest news and patch releases. When you combine both factors, you end up with a pretty impressive player.

Not that the PC gamer is merely an aggressive, competitive person. PC gamers are social persons too. They fraternize within their gaming groups, and gaming rivals become good friends and vice versa. Some gamers group together, and can take the form of guilds, teams, or clans. Heck, gamers from a particular city or country can unite against a common foe (usually another city or country). Some of the most popular games even involve teamwork. I mean Counterstrike must be played in teams (you’re either the terrorist or the anti-terrorists), real-time strategy games can host as much as a dozen players at any one time (at the time of this writing), and RPGs encourage the building of parties. While gamers are competitive, they’re also cooperative. Along with bringing in sentient adversaries, multiplayer gaming also brings in intelligent allies.

The Importance of Jargon

As a writer, I try to keep things as simple as possible, at least when it comes to words and explanations. I mean a good rule of thumb has always been to treat your readers as if they knew nothing (that’s not the same as talking down though). Unfortunately, one can’t do this all the time. And sometimes, you have to use jargon, whether that means a foreign language, a technical term, or just a rarely used word.

Some people have a misconception that just because you use complex (or hard to pronounce words), you’re shrouding your intellect through incomprehensible vocabulary. That’s not necessary the case. I mean if people use jargon, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s because they want to complicate things. I think as writer (or as a speaker), it’s important to know who your audience is. The more educated they are (or rather, the more aware they are of your topic of discussion), the more tools you have available. Take, for example, this essay. If I knew my readers could only understand English, then I’d stick to English. But if I know a bulk of my readers are also aware of the other languages I’m familiar with, such as Filipino, Chinese, or Japanese, then that would be a helpful thing to know and gives me more flexibility in my essay since I could use words from those languages. Take anime for example. If I knew my readers were familiar with Japanese, instead of saying “anime fan”, I’d use “otaku” (with all the nuances that go along with it). Because while “anime fan” and “otaku” have similar meanings, the latter has some connotations that the former doesn’t have (such as the fact that “otaku” can be interpreted as being obsessive over something rather than just being a fan, or even avoid the whole topic of anime). And while I could certainly define “otaku” in English, it would take too long (as evidenced by my use of parenthesis).

Which brings me to the other advantage of jargon. It helps me be more precise and accurate without spending too much time explaining something. I mean if I were around people familiar with computer terms, instead of using the word “memory”, I’d use RAM or HD. I mean both RAM and HD refer to memory, but if the other reader was uninitiated, I’d have to explain what the differences between the two were. But if the other person is more or less familiar with computer terms, I’d just say RAM when I mean RAM, and HD when I mean HD, especially considering both can be considered “memory” yet performs two entirely different tasks. Not only does it saves me and the reader time, it also saves me space. Honestly, longer is not always better. If I can save time and space, I’d do it. I mean why bother describing that the person is jumping all over the place to get to his destination when I can use the word “hop” or “skip” to describe his or her movement?

Perhaps the third use of jargon is for the complete opposite of the second: we want to prolong our narrative. Unfortunately, it gets boring when we keep on using the same words over and over again. That’s why sometimes, we use complicated words or words not often utilized. I mean there are several ways to describe a person walking fast: briskly, quickly, suddenly, hurriedly, vigorously, rapidly. If I were to write an entire paragraph describing the same running motion, the reader would get tired if I just keep on using “fast”. And let’s face it, jargon can add color to the text. I mean the words “paradigm shift” certainly sounds more intellectual than saying “the person had a change in beliefs”. Or perhaps the movie Arachnophobia wouldn’t be as horrifying if its title was named “Fear of Spiders” instead.

Jargon, in the long run, is just another tool. I mean I certainly wouldn’t use jargon to the uninitiated. But if I know my audience (or at least most of them) will be able to understand the jargon I’m going to use, then it’s nice to have the option to do so, since it gives me more flexibility. That’s not to say I should use jargon every opportunity that I get, nor does it mean I totally avoid using jargon at all, but rather there’s a time and place for each.

Seduced by Moonlight by Laurell K. Hamilton (book review)

The third book in Hamilton’s Merry Gentry series, I was interested in seeing if Hamilton would be able to pull off what she did in the first novel. The sequel lacked a certain oomph and I was hoping this book would remedy that.

Perhaps the biggest difference between Merry and Hamilton’s other character, Anita Blake, is the fact that the former is more open about sex. Seduced by Moonlight perhaps goes the extra mile by adding more men (and complications) to the protagonist’s life. And again, Hamilton executes this by delivering conflicted characters, powerful people yet with their own sets of strengths and weaknesses.

Despite being barely four hundred pages long, a lot of things happen in this book (and even a lot more is hinted). There’s been some good build up, although the end is definitely far, far away. While perhaps not as erotic as the first book, Seduced by Moonlight has its own share of good scenes (at least there isn’t any goblin sex in this book).

The plot remains surprising with the twists and turns the story takes. But what’s admirable about Hamilton is that her characters still retain their personalities, although I find it too coincidental for everything to center around our lovely protagonist (but then again, this is probably the equivalent of a romance fantasy, so that’s forgivable). Description remains another of Hamilton’s stronger points and she does get to exercise it a lot in this book.

Much like her Anita Blake novels, read Seduced by Moonlight because it’s fun, not because it’s the greatest piece of literature ever written. And while the Merry Gentry series is not even half as long (so far) as Hamilton’s Anita Blake books, in several ways, it’s superior to the latter, in terms of writing, storytelling, and execution. Hamilton also shows you how to tell a good stand-alone story that also leaves you wanting for more.

Whining About Whining

The biggest gripe I have about whining is the fact that, well, aside from letting off steam, it serves no purpose. In fact, it can even be detrimental at times.

First and foremost, we must realize that it's so easy to complain. I can complain about the weather, about the government, about my teachers, about my coworkers or classmates, and in the end, it'll serve no purpose. Whatever problems I have will still be there once everything's said and done. What did I gain? Absolutely nothing. In fact, I just wasted my breath instead of doing something more productive, such as taking steps to solve the problem. Whining is pretty much like masturbation: it's pleasurable initially, but in the long run, it's not practical and you're diminishing something within you.

Second, whining is actually detrimental. I mean when we whine, more often than not, we're criticizing someone other than ourselves. If that's the case, we're badmouthing someone else. It's well and good if the other party never gets to hear it. But more often than not, our past comes back to bite us in the ass. Whining publicly is just inviting that danger. Heck, whining publicly and keeping a record of it (such as blogging) is tempting fate. I mean thieves know that they must cover their tracks in order to avoid detection. Whining is like screaming "here I am, come after me!"

Okay, maybe you're not criticizing someone else. Maybe you're criticizing yourself. You might be saying I should have done this or that. Or telling yourself how much an idiot you are. Aside from wasting your breath, what does that do? You might be saying it's not hurting anyone. Wrong! You're hurting yourself. You're hurting your self-esteem, your self-confidence. Now occasional doubt and accepting your mistakes is good. But doubt and accountability is different from berating yourself. With the latter, you're tearing up your own persona, reducing your accomplishments to insignificance. Let's put it this way, you're not only hurting yourself, but you're also broadcasting it to other people. If you're fishing for compliments or looking for comfort from your friends, that's one thing. But if you honestly think that you're the scum of the earth, well, your friends will eventually start believing in that if you don't change soon.

Third, there's also this idea in economics called opportunity costs. The premise is simple: I give up one thing to gain another. When you whine, you just gave up something in order to rant. Take blogging for example. What did I expend in whining? There's bandwidth, memory, Internet fees, and time. Honestly, rather than spending the last 20 minutes bitching about my day, it could have been spent doing something else productive (like downloading mp3s… not that I condone that, just using it as an example). And let's face it, no one really thinks that whining is good. When you whine, it's like you're paying someone to kill you slowly by slowly (well, we do that by smoking and excessive drinking but you don't really need to add another vice to the list). There are probably cheaper poisons in the world.

Fourth, whining is contagious. When I start whining, other people start whining as well. As I said earlier, nothing is easier than to criticize. It doesn't take intelligence, it doesn't take creativity, and it certainly doesn't take empathy. Whining is like gossip: once you start it, other people start sharing their own gossip as well and it spreads. I mean the proverbial story is that some guys go out and have a drink so that they can free themselves from their woes. What they end up doing is spilling out their guts to each other, each one trying to best the other person's hardships in life. Honestly, that's not really uplifting. And the best-case scenario is that you realize that while you're not at the bottom heap, you're still considered trash. Don't drag other people into it. It's bad enough when you go about it solo.

Fifth, whining doesn't do much for your social life. You'll most likely turn off a lot of people and those that you do attract are either whiners themselves or people who pity you. While being pitied is disgraceful, at least those kinds of people will try to change you. But if you're stuck with whiners, well, don't expect your life to take a drastic change anytime soon. Whiners aren't winners for a reason: instead of spending their energy getting back up, all they do is complain.

If I'm against whining so much, why am I whining? Because this serves a purpose. This is a message that's to be publicized. Hey, if you whine less because of this, I've already done my job. If you still whine and whine, well, at least you can't whine about ignorance. Take it from a professional whiner: do yourself a favor and get your act together. Instead of whining, all that frustration could have been channeled to something more productive.

It's Always About Politics

At one point or another, we've all probably blamed politics as the cause of a problem. I mean how many times have you heard people claiming that they quit because of office politics? Or perhaps blaming certain authority figures for being too political? Or simply sick and tired of how in a certain social group, you have to be careful of what you say for fear of being socially ostracized? It all boils down to politics, and I for one hate it.

Yet as much as I dislike being political, I'm guilty of it at times. I think in the end, acting "political" can't be avoided. In fact, it's a part of life. No matter what you do, no matter what you say, it'll certainly be interpreted in the wrong way by someone. I mean just the other day, I was just giving a counter-argument to a certain idea when the discussion blew up in my face and the other person got angry at me. I certainly wasn't intending that to happen but let's face it, some people take things personally. And since we each have our own unique preferences, whether it's likes, dislikes, or preferences, somebody somewhere will always be offensive to us.

Actually if you want to remove politics in any equation, then you'll have to remove a person's individuality, their personality. I mean computers and robots don't have political problems. Then again, they don't have emotions (at least at this point in time) or egos. They simply exist and do their job. As much as we wish people to simply to do their job, whatever that may be, they'll always be doing something else. It may be daydreaming while the teacher is lecturing, or as complex as gossiping while you're on the opposite end of the cash register. Whatever the case, we're human, and we'll almost never act mechanically. Heck, I was in a call center before and despite the heavy multitasking involved, some employees manage to do something else on the job, whether it's nibbling a snack or surfing unnecessary websites.

So what's the solution other than "get used to it". I mean isn't there anything we can do to reduce politics? While it's perhaps impossible to remove the politics and intrigue that arises in a situation, its adverse effects can be controlled. I mean some politics exists because we want to appease too many people (and more often than not end up pleasing none). I think it should begin there: we can't please everyone. Accept that fact. Someone, somewhere in the world, will always find your opinion objectionable. If you can't deal with rejection, this is the time to learn it. If you're too cautious around people, afraid of showing your true self, you might end up being a non-entity. I mean the world will like and dislike people who have strong opinions, but they tend to forget those with average dispositions. I don't know but honestly, there are worse things than being disliked. Like being ignored.

Perhaps the second lesson there is that it's not personal. I mean someone will always be disliking someone else. At different points in time, it'll be you. It's not because you're you that they dislike you, but rather their own sentiments about you. Of course if you happen to dislike that other person as well, conflict will soon arise. But if that's not the case, then there's nothing you should fret about. Don't take it personally. And perhaps that's also the third most important lesson: don't take things as a personal attack on you. I mean what's the difference when an African-American calls another African-American nigger from a Caucasian American calling a dark-skinned American nigger during a pre-civil war America? In the end, it boils down to intent. The former certainly doesn't mean to insult the other person (or perhaps merely in a jesting manner rather than a wholehearted attempt to degrade the other person). Here in the Philippines, we Chinese are called Instik. It was intended as a derogatory name initially but nowadays, I don't really mind people calling me Instik. I mean if I wanted to act politically correct, I'd tell them to call me Filipino-Chinese (because that's who I am). But even my friends call me Instik and they don't mean anything derogatory about it, so it's fine with me. That's one step of not taking things personally; I'm judging the intent rather than the inherent meaning of the word (and in the end, we decide what a word really means). One of the reasons why political maneuvering is necessary is because people take things personally. As much as I love to live in a world where people can freely debate ideas and philosophies, that's not always possible because people tend to act in an irrational manner. Emotions such as jealousy, anger, denial, and pride enter the picture, and you get results like people shooting each other over a silly argument, or even losing friendships. No one wants to get shot or lose friends, and so we practice the art of politics as a barrier to prevent outward hostility (and the other side retaliates with similar political tactics). Does it work? Well, at least enemies who meet each other in public don't always result in cat-fights. There's an insult or two, a thinly veiled criticism, and then they move on. While that's not exactly an optimistic view of things, at least while there's life, there's hope.

So what does this all mean? Well, one is that as long as there is human emotion, there will always be politics. If you bitch about it, you're only digging your own grave. No matter where you go (short of finding yourself a deserted island), it'll always be there. The second is that we can control it. Politics is a product of our emotions and if we can control that, well, we can minimize the tension and conflict we might receive from such experiences. No one's promising a turmoil-free life but at least this way, one feels more confident about one's self, and we can realize who we truly are rather than keep on wearing a façade just because we're afraid of offending someone.

Cerulean Sins by Laurell K. Hamilton (book review)

As mediocre as the first book in the Anita Blake series was, Hamilton has managed to turn her Anita Blake stories into a successful franchise. While perhaps it won’t win any Nebula or World Fantasy Award, Hamilton’s series has always been fun and even insightful at times. I think the big question for her latest novel, Cerulean Sins is whether Hamilton will take her series to a new level, or merely stall to cash in on her fame.

Hamilton is more or less consistent in her writing. She still excels in what she does best, which is down-and-dirty, no nonsense characterization. Her characters, for all their strengths, continue to be conflicted characters with their own sets of flaws and short-sightedness. And of course, there’s the sex.

Perhaps what intrigues me is that for a main character who doesn’t want to have sex, she gets a lot of it from a harem of beautiful men (be it vampires, werewolves, werehyenas, and uh, more vampires). Compare that to her Merry Gentry series where the main character is more open about sexual intercourse, and doesn’t really mind having a legion of would-be lovers. But of course, I’m sure this is what appeals to many of her readers, as well as the fact that it’s a fantasy of many women.

For me Hamilton steps up in this book by hinting at something larger. The vampire council has made a few appearances in the previous books but this novel gives us clues to something larger. While it’s not resolved in this novel, the potential is there and hopefully Hamilton resolves it in the next few books.

Perhaps one weakness I found in the current book is the plot. What I thought would be the sub-plot turned out to be the main plot (which is a break from her typical writing style for the series since more often than not, the investigation is usually the priority) while the episodic plot for this novel was short and brief. Perhaps it’s a sign of things to come (in terms of story) that Anita’s otherworldly exploits take center stage rather than her day job. Still, it surprised me that Anita’s detective work was given less attention and detail, more so than the book that preceded this. But this is just a perspective complaint more than a criticism of Hamilton’s writing style.

Much like my previous Hamilton reviews, the book can be recommended to people who’re looking for one of the following: fun and guilty entertainment, romance, and conflicted characters. Aside from that, don’t expect Hamilton’s writing style to change for her to churn out something like Lord of the Rings. Anita Blake’s cool because she’s blunt, direct, and will kick your sorry ass if you piss her off.

Fan Fic Musings

Over the past few years that I’ve been logging on to the Internet, one thing that seems to keep on growing is the fan fiction community. While I don’t see fan fic as something new (I think every person has had an urge to write their own take on a particular story at one point in time or another), its dominance its perhaps rooted with the popularity of the Internet. Perhaps the greatest asset of the Internet is that anyone can use it (and even remain anonymous), and best of all, publishing is free (more or less, although perhaps a century from now, there will be no “free web space” and web hosts will start charging for virtual rent). A writer a hundred years ago could perhaps write their own take on Sherlock Holmes, for example, but the manuscript would be lying in a desk somewhere, never to be read by anyone else. Nowadays though, once the idea pops into your head, you can easily jot down your ideas, upload it to a website somewhere, and immediately have millions of potential readers (and of course, immediate feedback is also a boon to some people).

Some people might be asking what went wrong there. Zealous fan fic writers, on the other hand, might get excited at that very question and immediately claim that there’s nothing wrong, that fan fiction is literary, and that it’s a valid art form. So what’s the real issue here?

Several teachers of my writing class (themselves accomplished writers) claim that there’s no real true story to tell, that everything is merely revamping or dressing up old stories. To a certain extent, that’s true (and it certainly is harder to come up with an “original” story nowadays than it was a thousand years ago not because our minds are less imaginative or refined, but perhaps due to the fact that modern publishing has disseminated more information [and that means more works and stories] than was previously available). But that’s not to say that every thing you read, every piece of work you see, is merely a copy of another. There is some skill, there is some creativity, and there is some talent involved in creating a good story (irregardless if it’s an original work or fan fiction). I mean I just need to look at the bookstore’s fantasy section and certainly not all the novels there are derivatives or clones of Tolkien (author of Lord of the Rings).

I think the real issue is in defining the borders. I mean if I write a story based on Greek mythology, for example, does it automatically mean it’s a fan fic? Or perhaps I write a vampire story, what line do I cross that determines what I’m writing is a homage to Bram Stoker and not just a fan’s take on the existing story? My take on it is that the two (Greek myth and Dracula) are first and foremost public domain, which is why writers have more or less a free hand in incorporating the characters present in those texts into their story. But even then, if your story is more or less parallel to the original, it’ll be classified as a fan fic (if it’s not published), or just a badly written derivative (if it gets published in print [but we may have to change our standards considering the rise of Internet “publishing”]). Perhaps a good example I can give are the Arthurian fantasies. I mean the King Arthur story, for the most part, is based on Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur (which in turn is based on Celtic myth and Christianity). But what separates novels like Mists of Avalon and Once and Future King from the original Malory story is its take on it; I mean both books can easily be classified as a fan fic considering it has the same set of characters and perhaps follows the same timeline. But there is certainly something in their writing that makes them “cross the border”, to move from fan drabble to something original. I think the same goes for Neil Gaiman, who bases a lot of his stories from existing myths. There’s a line that he crosses that makes his work similar yet different from the original. In a certain sense, a writer might begin with fan fic, but end up with something different in the end.

Okay, that may be the case for public domains, but what about works with licenses? A number of writers do make it into the canon by asking permission from the holders of the copyright. I mean many writers in comics have immortalized themselves in giving their own take to Batman, for example. And while fans certainly have their own ideas for this iconic superhero, what differentiates the official writers from the fans is that the official writers have the right (as decreed by law) to do so. And it’s an accepted part of the canon from that point on (sometimes to the chagrin of future writers). Falling short of that, it’s going to be a messy, legal issue. My take on it though is that it’s okay to write a fan fic for personal use (as it is a good way to exercise your writing talents). I think the real problem arises in conjunction with the Internet, where free publishing is available, and uploading a fan fic isn’t personal use anymore (since the public gains access to it). I’m not saying it’s evil to do so, but sometimes, the original author loses something in the deal (but on the other hand, it can also boost the author’s popularity or sales by feeding the flames of fandom) because his or her work is being used without permission. I think everyone agrees that fan fic for profit is unethical (since you’re earning from pirating someone else’s work), but some fans might claim, to their defense, that they’re not earning anything from writing fan fics. But as Terry Pratchett (author of the Discworld series) put it in an interview, copyrights and trademarks are there for a reason. Whether it’s because the fan fic is not faithful to the author’s vision or depriving him or her of a potential source of income, in the end you’re depriving something from the original author (Pratchett in the same interview even told an anecdote of a fan telling Prachett “I wrote some fan fiction and you must have seen it because the plot [of one of Pratchett’s books] uses one of my ideas. I think we should have a conversation about this” despite the fact that Pratchett’s original manuscript was made months before the fan published it on the Internet). That may be an extreme example but it is a possibility (and has actually happened in Pratchett’s case).

As for the act of writing fan fic itself, a good fan fic (since there are bad fan fics, and is perhaps the trade-off of having access to free publishing) does entail some creativity, skill, and talent. No one denies that and some great writers do start out with fan fics (just as some artists begin with mimicking another artist’s style and eventually developing their own). But for the long haul, if one wants to take their writing seriously, they must venture out and write something original, or at least something not based on someone else’s work. I mean in business, purchasing a franchise is perhaps the safest thing to do because they provide you with all the things you need in order to have a successful business (assuming the franchise is itself successful). In a way, that’s like the art of fan fic writing, since a lot of the essential elements are already present and you just need to revamp and rehash it. Starting up a successful business on your own from scratch, on the other hand, is perhaps infinitely more difficult: one has to experiment, one has to take risks, one has discover a winning formula. The same goes with writing something original.

Not that writing fan fic doesn’t have its own challenges. I mean I’ve had experience in editing and sometimes, a work is too convoluted that it’s better to start over rather than fix an existing document. While that’s potentially true for fan fic, where a writer breathes in new life to a failing title, that’s seldom the case (since a good number of fan fics are based on successful and popular works rather than unpopular ones). But honestly, if a fan fic writer tells me that writing a fan fic is on par (or superior) to writing an original piece, the only reply I can give that person is for them to write a good original piece of fiction. Because honestly, if writing pieces of good fiction was that easy, people would do it (although there aren’t any shortages of people who do try to come up with good fiction). Perhaps the charm of writing a fan fic is that it already has structure, it already has form; one merely needs to tweak the details to suit one’s writing style or desire. Creating a wholly original piece of work, on the other hand, is more difficult.

When I was still studying, one of the easiest times I could write was when I was given a topic: I knew what to write about and I knew what the limits were. I found writing more difficult when I was given free reign, when there wasn’t an assigned topic or theme. One could write about anything, and the options seemed endless. I think the former is more akin to fan fic writing: it requires skill as well, but one knows the limits or the direction one needs to go. With the latter, it’s perhaps more difficult because you start with nothing and expect to come out with something mind-blowing. Now this might not be the same experience for everyone, but this is the way I see it. In the end, everyone is entitled to their own opinion after all.

Duality of Life and Faith

There are some things which we can't separate from our personal lives. Some people say "I mix business with pleasure" while others claim that "it's not personal", whether it's related to business, faith, or whatsayyou. Now I'm not here to debate whether you can indeed mix business with pleasure, or whether you should take everything personally (or not, depending on how you see things). But I do believe that your faith is integral to your life, whether you're Christian, a Buddhist, or whatever your religion may be.

I'd like to clear that I'm a Christian so I'll take it from the perspective of my faith. I think one thing I notice is that many Christians suffer from "Sunday Christianity", or acting religious only on Sundays (or whenever you go to mass). Since I grew up in a Catholic school, I also see other extensions of this, such as me and my classmates behaving right after a recollection or retreat, but no longer than the immediate duration (which ranges from several hours to a few days). First of all, I don't think any religion asks you to be "part-time" in your faith. It's a 24-hour, 7 days a week ritual. Sure, there are specific times when you're required to worship (such as Sunday mass) but faith is not about those particular times. Faith isn't just about duties; it's about living your life in a particular kind of way. It's like saying you're vegetarian when you only eat vegetables once a week and eat meat the rest of the week. To be a real vegetarian, it has to be part of your regiment, an integral factor in your daily existence. The same goes for your religion. You don't really get to choose your time to be a practitioner of your faith; as long as you live and breathe, you're devoted to your faith (even if your belief is, say, atheism, the same principle applies).

Perhaps another good reason why your life and faith can't be really separated is the fact that your personality determines your faith. Let's face it, our personality shapes our religious preference and those who are truly zealous in their faith sometimes alters their personality to suit their religion. In the bigger picture, we chose a particular religion because we think it's the best one for us. And to a certain extent, the reason why we want to spread our faith is because people in general want to share a good thing. For example, if your friend was living an unhealthy lifestyle, wouldn't you want him or her to eat good and healthy food? The same goes for our faith; we offer something which we think is good. Of course in the end, it's up to the person to either accept it or reject it. I personally don't think religion is something we can force on other people, but we can provide them with the necessary information to make an educated judgment call and perhaps nudge them in the right direction (people seldom change for the sake of doing so; it usually requires another motivation, such as a guy practicing good grooming habits because he's meeting his crush or behaving in front of a teacher who you're infatuated with).

Many students complain that they don't get to practice what they learned in school. But strangely enough, when it comes to faith, I see many people doing the opposite. I mean it's in real life that we get to apply our belief, the tenets of our religion. Yet when the opportunity arises, many of us shy away from such circumstances. We become "undercover" practitioners. My advice to you is that there's no such thing. I live in a Catholic-dominant country and perhaps the biggest problem with that is that one assumes everyone else is a Christian even though not everyone acts like one. In a crowded bus or street, I really can't identify if the other person is a Chrisian or not. If, on the other hand, there was a devout Muslim (probably because of their attire) or perhaps a Buddhist (buddha beads and shaved heads fad aside), I'm sure I can identify them in a crowd of undercover Christians. I think what's essential here is to stand out and perhaps the only way to do that is to practice what you preach. I don't mean preaching literally, by the way, but it can be seen in your behavior, in the way you talk, in the way you act towards other people. And perhaps in a country that's dominantly Christian, that's difficult to do so because we take Christianity for granted, something that has reached the status of mundanity. Missionaries smuggling Bibles into China probably get more excitement and adrenaline rushes, but it's no less important than living out a life of piety in a country where your religion is already prevalent.

I personally follow the rule of multiple agendas. I mean when I meet a person, I intend to be their friend. But along with intending to be their friend, I also want them to share in my faith if that's possible. That doesn't mean I get preachy to people the first time I meet them but given the right opportunity, I'd probably take the time to share my faith (which is also why I have this essay in the first place). When we meet people, faith has to be a priority, but it's not necessarily a priority we act on immediately. And sometimes, we also have to learn to let go. As I said before, we can only provide the opportunity, but it's up to the other person whether to accept it or not. Intruding on their right of choice might jeopardize the friendship, for example, and friendship is a top priority of mine as well.

Rather than seeing faith as a separate part of living, I see it as an essential element, just as our personality or emotions are part of who we are. Many people have a misconception that they can separate it from who they are but what's actually happening is that they're not really being true to their religion, or to who they are for that matter.

Shadow Game by Christine Feehand (book review)

I honestly purchased this book by mistake so I was now stuck with this romance novel with a sci-fi twist. Despite the indicators on the cover that it would be otherwise, I hoped against hope that this would be a good read. After all, Feehand did some vampire romance books.

To be honest, Shadow Game was indeed a mistake. It’s shallow and filled with all the tropes and clichés of a romance book, from the insecure heroine who thinks she’s not attractive to the overprotective male who desperate wants the girl. Oh, did I mention that the villains are two-dimensional, and even the sci-fi twist which involves psychics was shallow?

Honestly, it’s not my first time to read a romance novel but this novel is just too formulaic. Even the sex scenes aren’t as enticing as they should be, and there’s not really much else to expense from the novel. Everything is just so predictable and expected, which I think is really the biggest downfall of the book.

In the end, Shadow Game is just your off-the-shelf romance novel with a big name author attached to it. Honestly, it’s not even that good a romance book. But well, if you want formula and prefer to stick to predictable material, this is probably it.

Exclusivity

One of the thing that surprises me is that even today, in a world where we have access to more options than in the past, people still think in terms of opposites: either you’re one or the other. We still cling to the idea of exclusivity, that there’s only one stance you can take (or that you can only be good at one thing).

I attribute this theory of exclusivity to two things. The first is that it provides a simple answer. Things are either black or white, good or bad, positive or negative, right or wrong. Let’s face it, people love simple concepts: it’s easy to understand and provides us with quick solutions. I’m not saying that we should always look for complexity in our lives, but while the statement “the simplest solutions are often the best” is true, not all problems can be solved by simple solutions. If a simple solution exists, then well and good. If not, forcing a simple solution to a complicated problem might not always produce optimum results. And I think we all know that life, if anything, is far from simple.

The second reason I think exclusivity is popular is due to the fact that it’s easy and appeals to our pessimistic view of ourselves. I mean life is already difficult as it is. We want to cling to something simple. And when we “specialize” or choose one particular vocation, it seems like we finally have an answer to all our problems. And no matter how optimistic a person you are, people will always have doubts about themselves. Sticking to one particular thing seems more believable to us compared to being good in several things, especially coming from ourselves. My undergraduate degree was in Creative Writing and my class needed money to fund our projects. Of course that meant starting up a business but many of my classmates were hesitant or lacked the will to do so. Why? Their excuse was that they were “creative” and that they were “artists”, hence they wouldn’t do well in business. That’s not necessarily true. I mean a lot of creative and artistic people are engaged in business (and are successful in it), and people with good business sense explore their creative and artistic side as well. I think we cling to the idea of exclusivity because it provides us with a simple answer to life, that as long as we stick to what we’re good at, we can ignore the rest and enjoy success.

For me, what’s sad is the fact that the latter can be prevented. I mean we cling to exclusivity because we think it is true, we think that we’re only capable of so much. I think the reason why we’re more susceptible to learning at a younger age is because we don’t think we have limits yet. As children, we think that we can do anything, that nothing is impossible. It’s adults that tell us you can’t do this or can’t do that. Sometimes, the advice of adults remain true. Sometimes, they’re refuted. I mean in the past, people told us that men wouldn’t be able to fly, that we would never walk on the moon, that it would be impossible to communicate with people around the world in an instant. Yet one has only to look around to notice that things that were once deemed impossible is now a reality. I’m sure some of you have heard that statement that you can’t teach someone who doesn’t want to learn. I think the disease of exclusivity is linked to that. I mean some of my writer friends think that they can’t do well in Math or Science because they’re good in English. And they tell this to me even before the lesson starts. For me, they’re already providing a hurdle to their learning by their sheer disbelief in their own abilities.

My parents often fight. When I was a child, they’d compete for my affection and whenever one got into a conflict with the other, they ask us children who we sided with. Of course they also practiced the exclusivity rule, which is you’re either with one or the other. I often try to look at it from both sides, and when I criticized one, they immediately exclaimed that I was on the side of the other. Which wasn’t true, since I was neither or both on their sides, depending on how you see it, since I criticized and praised both of them. And strangely enough, this is a prevalent way of viewing things. I mean lately, we have a series of conflicts locally and some of the Muslims threaten the lives of innocent Filipinos. I think it again boils down to exclusivity. They think that just because some Filipinos aren’t with them that they are against them. And similarly, some people immediately think that just because some Muslims are attacking innocent civilians, that all Muslims are evil. Now that’s just a big misconception that will only give birth to larger conflict. People are complex and you can’t really “box them” or demonize them. Sometimes though, the “boxing in” isn’t done by other people but by us, especially when we think that we’re limited to this set of capabilities and the like.

In my previous line of work, I was supposed to be able to multitask. I was working in a call center and I had to do a lot of things, all the while talking to the person on the other line and keeping them happy. Was it impossible to do so? No, of course not. Was it difficult, yes. But it was also at that time that I discovered that I was capable of a lot of things, some of which might seem initially unrelated. The bottom line is that as human beings, we all have potential to do what we want, no matter how many they are. What limits that potential is usually our lack of confidence in our own abilities, especially when we heed what other people have to say about what we can and cannot do. The fact of the matter is, we can do lots of things, excel at many different aspects. I mean as a human person, we don’t have “just one personality” and in fact show different faces of who we are to different people at different times. The same goes for our attitudes, beliefs, and set of skills.

Now I’m not saying that exclusivity is bad or that it doesn’t apply to everything. Some things in our lives need to be exclusive, such as our faith, or our relationship with our significant other (i.e. monogamy), or even where our ultimate loyalties lie. But while there are things that need to remain exclusive, there’s also a lot of things that need not be so. I think the keyword here is potential, and we all have it. When we actualize our potential though, most of us stick to one thing and think that it’s enough. But my answer to that is why settle for less when we’re capable of more?

The Twin Forces of Personal Development

Wanting to become a better person is perhaps the first step in personal development. Without it, everything else will be meaningless. You can’t teach someone who’s unwilling to learn, and that includes you. But even if you’ve accepted the fact that there’s room for change and growth in your life, that still doesn’t give you concrete advice on how to grow. What do you do next?

If you ask other people that question, they’ll probably give you one of two answers. The first one is probably for you to expand your horizons, to learn new things. For me, that can be summarized as patching up your weaknesses. For example, if our knowledge is too specialized and there’s a lot of things we know little about, taking the time to learn about all those other stuff we’re clueless about aids us in making our ignorance less evident. I mean if you’re good in only Math, taking the time to study other subjects you’re weak in such as History or Science makes them less of a weakness.

The other answer people might give you would be to specialize, to become better at what you’re currently doing. I call this developing your strengths. In the example above, if you’re already great at Math, be even better at it. If in the past you merely got a B+ on the subject, strive for an A this time. This advice too has merit since people who stand out are usually the ones recognized by people. I mean let’s face it, people, be it our teachers, our employers, our coworkers, or even our friends, pay attention to the extreme qualities of a person. Pinocchio, for example, drew much attention to himself when his nose was very, very long. The same goes with our strengths. Sometimes, it doesn’t suffice to be “just good enough”, but rather one must be excellent. A person who does his job well, for example, is well and good, but if you want to catch the attention of your boss, you sometimes have to go beyond the call of duty and exert initiative or be extremely good at what you do (whether that means finishing a deadline ahead of time or delivering something of superior quality, or even a consistent optimistic demeanor).

With that in mind, your initial impulse might be to ask which one is right. Personally, I think they’re both right. If you want to be a better person, you must at the same time compensate for your weaknesses and improve your strengths. For me, exclusivity or having only one answer is a myth perpetuated by those who want simple answers and don’t think things through, or those who aren’t willing to commit the needed time and effort. But I will concede priority must be given, since we can’t always work on both things at the same time. As for the answer to that, it depends on you. For some people, it’s advisable to work on their weaknesses. I mean when you’re in school, for example, it’s not enough to excel in one subject only to fail in the rest. If you want to graduate, one at the very least must be competent in all your subjects. On the other hand, if you have a specialized job such as graphic design, working on your weaknesses isn’t as important as developing your strengths since the latter is your main output. I know someone who’s a graphic designer but has other skills as well such as the ability to write and edit. But make no mistake, he recognizes the fact that people pay him for his skills in graphic design more than for his two other skills; if he wasn’t competent in the first, they wouldn’t hire him. It’s nice to offer bonuses such as his ability to write and edit but first and foremost, he has to be really good at graphic design.

Be that as it may, one can realize their true potential by working on both strengths and weaknesses. One example I have is the basketball player Shaquille O’Neal. His biggest advantage is perhaps his size, which enables him to catch rebounds. That’s his strength, and it’s because of this skill that he’s a great basketball player. Never mind the fact that he’s not so good at the other aspects of basketball but because he’s so good at rebounding (which has both offensive and defensive potential), he’s often one of the starting players in the team he’s in. His rebounding ability compensated for his other weaknesses. Yet there was also a time that free throws were one of Shaq’s weaknesses. Because of that, rivals would often prefer to foul Shaq rather than allow him to get the rebounds because Shaq had a lesser chance of success when it came to free throws. Of course later on, Shaq would work on his free throws, making it less of a weakness. Whenever he’s fouled, he’s still not as good a free throw shooter as, say, Kobe Bryant, but around half of the shots he attempts sinks into the basket. If Shaq wasn’t good at his strengths and never overcame his weakness, he wouldn’t have enjoyed as much success as he did.

Another example I have shows synergy. Jim Lee is a great artist in his own right. His ability to draw is one of his greatest assets. Yet there was a time when he studied medicine, something that seemed totally unrelated to his existing strength. But it was because of his experience in medicine that he became the renowned comic artist that he is now, since one of the benefits of studying medicine is that one learns about anatomy and how the body works. Jim Lee was able to utilize his knowledge of medicine in his art, drawing realistic characters and body movement, with muscles and joints fitting perfectly.

A final example I can cite is working in a call center. As a call center agent, you must be able to multitask and excel in several things, such as communicating to the person on the line, empathizing with them, satisfying their needs, and recording all of this in the company’s database. At the very least, you must be competent in all four and capable of executing them, even if you’re not really good at it. But even if you’re not particularly adept at three of those requirements, if you’re particularly good at one, such as empathizing with the customer, you can enjoy recognition and success. When I was working in the call center industry, I heard this story about an agent who wasn’t really good in communicating but because he was able to empathize with the customer and solve their problems, he eventually got promoted. Similarly, there was also this person who didn’t have much technical knowledge but because he excelled in delivering his point across, got recognized as well. And of course, every call center agent is expected to work on their weaknesses and become better people; there doesn’t necessarily have to be extreme change in your performance, as long as there’s an improvement.

While exclusively honing your strength or weakness is good, it’ll never be as effective as working on both of them. I mean an overspecialized person might be in a precarious situation once his knowledge becomes either outdated, or placed in a field he’s unfamiliar with. Similarly, if you’re too spread out in your resources, you might enjoy moderate success but you’ll never stand out of the crowd, never enjoy the benefits of being a paragon in a certain field. If you want to grow as a person, you better start thinking of your own strengths and weaknesses (and no matter how much you deny it, you have your fair share of both), and how you can work on both of them.

Book Review: Rhapsody by Elizabeth Haydon

One of two unknown writers from the fantasy anthology Legends II, I decided to pick up the Symphony of the Ages series which Haydon wrote. The first book is entitled Rhapsody, named after one of the main characters in the novel. It doesn't take much imagination what the theme of the seris is about, especially when you get words like "symphony" and "rhapsody". So, how does Haydon fuse elements of music and fantasy, and is she successful?

The novel opens with a prophecy (an ancient trope in fantasy) and actually had an interesting prologue involving time travel and manipulation. However, as I read on, I feared that the book will descend into the stereotypical plot a lot of fantasy stories fall prey to. And to make a long story short, it did. Haydon follows all the stereotypical techniques of most fantasy novels, inserting prophecy, destiny, ancient evil, magic, and even romance into the mix. If you're looking for a groundbreaking fantasy novel, this isn't it.

Not that the book doesn't have its own share of originality. As I mentioned earlier, Haydon weaves the theme of music and song into the formula. It was interesting at the start but later on, the music theme feels too contrived. I mean there was a portion when Rhapsody and her companions found a secret passage with a puzzle. And guess what, the puzzle involved musical notes, when it really didn't make much sense (at least to me). And if you're looking for melodious interweaving of text, well, this isn't it. You're probably better off with the likes of Patricia McKillip. Haydon though does have some good lines and gorgeous descriptions along the lines of Jordan narration, but it's nothing too spectacular or anything I haven't seen before.

Character development is quite okay. You have the stereotypical naive protagonist who wields great power, the skeptical anti-hero, and a firbolg general with a British accent. They're actually quite okay, although I'm more fascinated with their "coolness" factor more than their original personality.

At a certain point though, the book degenerates into something that a couple of fantasy writers like Eddings and Feist is prone to using, namely that of giving the main characters too much of an edge when it comes to planning and everything seems to fall into place.

Thankfully, there's plot although by the end of the novel, you still have a lot of unanswered questions. Despite the length of the book, there's still a longing for more, since the reader catches only a glimpse of the setting and a hint of the adventures of the characters. I'm curious enough not to regret purchasing the other books in the series, although a more critical reader might want to pass on this series.

Ultimately, Haydon is more or less the typical mass-market fantasy fanfare. It's good mass-market fantasy but it's not breathtaking. It's slightly a step above being a book of guilty pleasures but don't kid yourself thinking that this book is a must-read. If you need some entertainment (nothing too simple but nothing too complicated either), this is probably it. The book shows potential, but it was never developed in the first book. Still, Rhapsody is better than a lot of fantasy I've read in quite awhile and might be a fantasy book I'd recommend to others if they want romance and intrigue.

Emotional Rewards

Let me ask you a question. What do you want? Most likely, your answer will be one from the following list: riches, health, independence, a better world (i.e. developing a cure for aids, ending world hunger, etc.), spreading your faith, popularity, success (whatever that may be for you), or happiness. They're diverse answers coming from diverse motives, or so we think. We're all human beings and no matter how much we might try to suppress it or deny it, we have emotions. And in the bigger picture, it's emotion that fuels our desires.

For example, let's take riches. Do you think you really want wealth? Ultimately, a person's desire for wealth is rooted in emotion. For example, think of your dream job. Most likely, it's one of two things: either it pays well, or it's emotionally rewarding. The latter merely proves my theory. If you chose the former, well, when you think about it, you want a high-paying job because of the money it can give you. And money in itself is actually worthless. It's only when you spend it does it have value (I mean there’s really no difference between a person who has no money and a person who’s not willing to spend his or her money, except perhaps for the psychological confidence the latter has). When we spend for something, we feel happiness because we were able to obtain it. I mean when you purchase your Ferrari or your house and lot, you bought it because doing so gives you a positive emotion. And of course, when you cherish whatever you bought, that’s emotion again. My point? The goal of obtaining riches is merely the means to an end, and the end, of course, is personal happiness.

So let’s tackle health. Let’s say you want to live longer. What’s life anyway? For each person, their life has a different and unique meaning, but one thing you can’t deny is that they’ll have experiences (both good and bad ones). And whenever we experience something, we always have a reaction thanks to our emotions. More often than not, we want to go on living because of the pleasant emotions we’re capable of feeling. I mean why do some people want to commit suicide? Because most of their experiences are unpleasant. If you take away their negative emotions, they might want to go on living. Another aspect of health is having a better body. There could be several reasons for this, ranging from wanting to impress other people or simply to be able to do more stuff (such as the ability to carry heavier weights or to run faster). What you might not realize is that the end product of working out (or dieting) is not just developing your body but developing your confidence. I mean when you have a great body to impress other people with, you can’t help but feel proud of yourself. The same goes when you’re able to do more, whether it’s due to your bulging muscles or your agile reflexes. People who work out tend to have more confidence in themselves than those who don’t. It’s an emotional reward more than it is a development of your physique. No one works out for the sake of doing so; there’s always a drive, an inner need for them to do so (and let’s face it, working out requires effort and discipline; without your incentive, you’d simply stop).

Independence is also closely tied to working out. Why do we want to be independent? Because of the options it gives us. I mean when you’re living with your parents, for example, there are some things you’re not capable of doing. The same goes when you’re not financially independent, emotionally independent (i.e. when you need the approval of others), or physically independent (in the case of those with physical disabilities). What happens when you’re independent? You have more confidence in yourself, you know that you’re capable of doing this and that on your own. Achievement becomes something you treasure more because you know you did it through your own efforts alone. I mean there are children of rich parents who move out of their comfortable homes to strike out on their own. Living the independent life is far from cozy yet when they’re presented with the opportunity to go back home, they don’t always take it. Why? It’s obviously not because of the finances because the financially smart thing to do would be to move back in with their parents. But why do they live alone? Because of the emotional satisfaction they get of being “free”, or not depending on someone else. It’s harder, but it’s definitely more emotionally rewarding. Also, former president of the Philippines Manuel Quezon said “It is better to live in a government run like hell by Filipinos than living in a government run like heaven by the Americans." It’s far from the most logical thing to say but hey, it’s emotion that drives people.

Wishing for a better world is usually attributed to humanitarian acts. But honestly, why do we wish for a better world? I mean more often than not, it’s not for our benefit but for others. When you want to end world hunger, it’s not because you yourself are suffering from hunger, but rather you witness other people suffering because of it. We basically empathize with those people who are suffering. We want them to be rid of the unpleasantness in their lives, be it sickness, poverty, or some other ailment. We want them to be happy. And when they’re happy, we’re happy too. Happiness is contagious after all. Or maybe you don’t have empathy. You just want to take credit for solving an epidemic that plagues the world. It’s because of pride. Either way, your motivations are driven by emotion. People don’t go out looking for solutions to problems that don’t exist: we already have our own share of “unsolvable problems”. We want to solve them, either to help other people out or to boost our own ego. Either way, you can’t take the emotional factor out. Just because you get something out of helping other people doesn’t mean you’re selfish. I mean look at Jesus Christ; we can’t really say he came to save the world for the sake of doing so. He did it because he had one important emotion: love. Or I personally, I don’t help other people out just for the sake of doing so. I have ulterior motives and actually get something in return for my efforts. What are they? Well, I either get to befriend the person (or deepen our friendship), or I simply see them smile and lighten their burden. Having an agenda isn’t wrong. Having a selfish agenda is. But in either case, it’s still driven by a desire to appease our emotions.

Perhaps the same can be said with spreading our faith. I mean most religions believe that they’re the one true religion, and everyone else is more or less damned. And obviously, our innate altruistic natures don’t want other people to be damned, at least not our friends and loved ones. So we make it our mission to spread our faith as much as we can. But why do we do so? Much like wishing for a better world, it’s to help other people, or at least we perceive it be so. And the underlying reason? Well, we all don’t want to be alone in the world. I mean even Heaven or Paradise or Nirvana wouldn’t be so great if you were the only one living in it. Moreover, what’s the best telltale sign of a serious believer? Well, it’s obviously their belief and passion. When you’re vehement about something, people say that you have faith. But ultimately, faith is an emotion just as its opposite, doubt, is. I can only rationalize religion up to a certain point. After that, the rest depends on belief. And you can never remove emotion from that equation.

Popularity is perhaps one of the easiest to defend. Why do people want to be popular? On a certain level, people who crave for popularity are insecure about themselves. They look for signs from other people. When you’re popular, you’re happy. When you’re not, you’re sad. We all know we can’t please everybody yet we continue to try to do so. The best reward we can get from popularity is when we get the approval of a lot of people. It’s not a financial reward but an emotional reward. It strokes our egos, it makes us more confident about who we are. It makes us feel loved (irregardless of whether we truly are loved or not), it creates artificial happiness in some people. Ultimately, popularity is a competition on who can elicit emotion from other people. If you have more charisma, more beauty, and more confidence, the easier it is for you to sway people in your favor. But similarly, when your popularity goes down, so does your charisma, your beauty, and your confidence. It’s all a matter of perception, after all, and no one is totally unbiased as to not let their emotions cloud their judgment.

As for success, what is success? It’s probably one or all of the things mentioned above. But ultimately, success can be summed up as achieving our goal. Ever heard of the cliché statement it’s not the destination that matters but the journey? We go back to experience, to emotions. During the journey, we’re bombarded with all sorts of emotions, both good and bad. Yet we sustain ourselves from the negative emotions by keeping our goal in sight. And once we’ve attained our goal, we nurture two things: one is we nurture our confidence, since after the arduous journey, we succeeded in the endeavor of our choosing. The other thing we nurture is happiness. I mean since when did you hear of a person who pursued a goal that he or she thought wouldn’t have made them happy. Whatever our goals are, we all think that it will give us happiness. It’s the basis for choosing something as a goal. Success is obtaining happiness, and a byproduct of that is confidence.

Obviously, happiness is an emotion. Much like success, happiness is something abstract. The other things we perform are present merely to provide us with a means to obtain this emotion. Most of us yearn for happiness. It’s perhaps the ultimate goal, the ultimate reward any of us can receive. Unfortunately for many people, happiness is an ever-elusive emotion. Some of us know what we want but not how to obtain it, hence we feel sad and lonely. Or sometimes, we simply want to avoid pain. When we’re not in pain, that’s happiness for us. Either way, our goal is an emotional state. One isn’t simply classified as “happy” or “unhappy” but rather we’re in a constant flux of emotions, sometimes feeling happy during the good times, or feeling sad during the bad ones. I think there’s no question as to which emotion we want to be feeling. And it’s this desire that motivates us.

So what’s the point in all this? I think some people lose sight of their ultimate goal. More than the riches or the better body or a better world, what we’re actually looking for is self-contentment, an emotional reward. As human beings, we don’t desire things for themselves but rather we desire it because we’re motivated by what we feel. And of course, since we do have free will, we also exert a certain control over what we feel and what our emotions will be; it’s just a matter of acknowledging them and exerting self-control. Let’s not lose sight of who we’re really pleasing: we might rally to a cause but in truth, we’re rallying to our own sets of beliefs and emotions. If we lose sight of that, we become blinded to our own passions, and might end up losing ourselves to what we feel rather than what we should feel. Happiness, after all, is a state of mind.

What It Means to be Part of a Team

We've all heard cliche statements like "no man is an island" or "man is a social being", whether it's from our teachers, movies, or books. They then associate the individual with the community and how each person has his or her own responsibilities and duties. For me, I think community is too heavy a word. True, we do belong to communities, but I feel that "communities" don't always act like communities. Rather, I'd like to go back to something more basic, namely the concept of a team.

Why a team? Well, it has a flexible definition. People usually associate teams with sports but it goes beyond that. Your class is a team. Your organization is a team. You and your coworkers are a team. Heck, your family is a team. For me, as long as you have someone else along the ride, whether it's your sibling, a best friend, or a business partner, that can potentially be a team. As long as you're not alone, a team is in existence.

There are several reasons why teams exists. Sometimes, it's just a means to socialize with each other. If you have a group of friends or a clique, that's basically what happens. Others, on the other hand, band together for a different purpose, such as a common goal. Business organizations and sports teams pretty much fall under that category. The people involved in those teams aren't necessarily friends to begin with, but they are all interested in achieving a certain dream or goal, and so they unite and pool their resources and talents in order to actualize that dream or goal. Sometimes, the dream or goal is so big that it goes beyond the people involved in the project. Many outsiders might be interested in joining that group because they believe in the concept or principle. For me, this is when a community develops. People are usually attracted to the ideology behind the community rather than the just the people behind the project. That idea that binds them need not be something so profound, but it is an idea that many people share and believe in. A country, for example, is a community united by something huge (whether it's the physical territory of the nation, what the nation stands for, or the cultural aspect of that nation, is up to debate, but no one can argue that there is something that unites people from a certain nation and makes them identify themselves with that community). Or a fan club to, say, Harry Potter, is a community as well. The concept of Harry Potter might not be as essential as the concept of a nation but it's a community nonetheless.

So what value is there in a team compared to an individual? I mean isn't it one of our values that each individual human being is important and unique? Well, I obviously can't deny that. I mean teams are made up of individuals. If individuals didn't exist in the first place, there wouldn't be a team to speak of. But it's also been my experience that a team can achieve more than an individual can. For example, take the simple reality of building a structure. If I were to build a house by myself, it would probably take me months, if not years, to actually build one. But when I'm part of a team, the house can be built faster as well as better. Because it is the fact that we are individuals that limits us: as individuals, we have a limited set of expertise and manpower. When you're part of a team, you can multiply the manpower and get a wider (and better) set of skills. I'd also like to point out that individuals are products of teams: our families raised us and that surely has had an effect on who we are. The institutions which we patronize also have an effect on us. Schools and universities are comprised of teams as well and they surely have given us education (even if its unwanted education). My religion has also shaped my beliefs and I belong to that team as well. The same goes for my occupation and any organizations I joined. Yet despite those facts, there’s usually something that stops us from truly being part of a team.

For one thing, there's pride. Most of us has this "superman" complex. We think that we can do everything, or at least achieve our dreams through our methods alone. It might be limited to a field of expertise, such as a writer thinking that he can write the great novel through his or her own efforts alone. Or an aspiring entrepreneur who thinks that an entire organization can be built from his ingenuity alone. And in a certain way, that's understandable. Everyone wants to take credit, after all. But the flaw in this thinking is that something big can be achieved from someone so small. Let's face it, as individuals, we have potential, but that potential has a limit as well. If we were part of a team, our potential can be complemented by other people's potential as well, or at the very least, things would be quicker and easier. And as mentioned earlier, we're actually part of an existing team, whether we're conscious of it or not. For example, as I'm writing this essay, I might think that this is the product of my genius alone. It's not. I'm actually part of a team. I can cite several people who inspired me to write this. There's also the fact that I'm typing this on a computer and someone had to build the computer in the first place. If I'm going to publish this, there are several teams involved in the process, whether it's the publishers, the printing press, and staff if this was going to be published in print, or my ISP provider and web host if this was going to be published on the Internet. And since I'm a Christian, I believe that God had a role in this as well. As much as I want to take full credit, I really can't. Because without the aid of those other people, this essay wouldn't be possible. So the reality of the fact is that as much as we want to take 100% credit for what we've accomplished in our lives, we can only probably take 10%. Because we really have to take into account the aid that other people have provided us and the services we are utilizing in order to accomplish what we are undertaking. And it's simply impossible to do it alone.

Another reason might be because we're resistant to give up control. I mean if you're a parent, I'm sure you want to monitor your child 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We don't want strangers talking to our kids, especially when we think about the possible harm (both emotionally and physically) they can possibly inflict. The same goes with our goals and dreams. They're our babies, pet projects that we don't want to entrust to others because of the possible changes they can inflict. And in a certain way, that's true. Someone else's vision of things will always be different from ours, even if it's just a minor deviation. But just like the actual child who gets influenced by his or her environment, there will be good changes and bad changes. My main point is that if your team is comprised of good people, then hopefully good changes will come out on top. Of course if your team is comprised of bad people, there's a good chance that your dream or goal will transform into something horrible. For me, purity of vision is next to impossible. Because just like a parent's inability to monitor their child during their entire life, the same goes for our dreams and goals. They will be affected by the changes around us, and sometimes, letting go is for the best. A parent has to let his or her child grow up on his or her own. Our goals and visions similarly have to grow up. A long time ago, I wanted to be a policeman so that I could nab all the bad guys and gain acclaim from my peers. If my dream didn't grow, I'd probably still be hoping for the same thing. But since I've matured and grown up, I now know that the world isn't merely black and white, and instead of punishing others, perhaps the best thing one can expect from other people is for them to change for the better. I can't always bottle up my ideas. And if I'm going to fulfill that idea, it's also best to recruit the aid of other people. And honestly, when a team strives for that common goal, there are more options available.

Then there's fear. It's a natural tendency for some people, especially the insecure ones, to think that if they become a part of a team, they lose their identity. I mean if I constantly concede my wishes for the sake of other people, how can I claim to possess free will when I always allow other people to make the decisions for me? I think the keyword in team is common goal. A true team has members that strive for that common goal. Sometimes, the members must go out of their comfort zone and make sacrifices. That doesn't mean you lose your identity. I always believed that everything has a price and sacrifice is just one of the prices you pay in order to achieve your goal. Of course if it's a goal you don't want, you don't have to make that sacrifice. But if it is, then you can't accomplish it until you pay that price. It's not a loss of identity more than a willingness to pay the price. It's true though that sometimes, your own desires are repressed for the good of the team. If that's the case, the question you should ask yourself is if the team is worth it. If it is, swallow your pride and stop your whining. If it isn't, then perhaps it's time you find yourself a new team. And make no mistake, we are all part of a team. The only question is which team we'll join, and whether we'll remain there or not. The pit trap many people fall is that in their decision to "not join a team", they join the community of people who are unwilling to join any group or organization.

Of course we've all had our share of bad experiences when it comes to groups or organizations. Some didn't meet our expectations. Others made us feel that we were merely used. Not all teams exist for the benefit of each of its members. And there's also a misconception that in a team, the leader is always on top. A good team doesn't have leaders on top: they have their goal on top. Leaders lead the team but they are not 100% responsible for the success or failure of the team. The leader and the members of the team are 100% responsible for their success and failure.

I've joined many organizations in my life and one of the surprising mentalities many people have is that the question they ask from the organization is what can the organization do for them. Of course I'm not saying that potential recruits should always think of what they can do for the organization. It's actually a relationship of mutual benefit: what can I contribute to the organization, and how can I benefit from it? One of my previous organizations had a workshop. The workshop exists so that the members would get better, and they in turn would be in a better position to help the organization. Of course what happened during the workshop was that only a few members showed up. The following year, previous members wouldn't reapply because they'd claim they never got anything from the organization. Well, all I can say is obviously, they didn't get anything because they didn't volunteer. I mean when you apply for a job, you don't ask your employer what the company can do for you. There's a mutual agreement, that you do this and that work, and the company compensates you this and that way. If one of you fails in that commitment, the other party can also back out of the agreement. The same goes with joining organizations: don't expect your other team members or leaders to give you what you need to grow and achieve your goals. They're only there to present you with opportunities. If you don't take advantage of that opportunity, don't expect to get anything out of the deal. And similarly, it's also your responsibility to make that organization grow. It's easy to lay the blame on the leaders, saying that they're doing a bad job and the like. Well, if you really feel that way, then volunteer to be a leader or start something. Remember that when the organization grows, you grow too. The more opportunities your team has, the more opportunities you have. The individual and the group build on each other. When one falters, it's the responsibility of the other to help the other party, or else both of you will eventually collapse.

I wrote this essay not to belittle the efforts of individuals. As I mentioned earlier, teams are only possible because of the individuals themselves. Without unique and talented people, the team has no value. But the beauty of being part of a team, and don't make any mistake, you are part of a team whether you realize it or not, is that you are capable of significantly much more. But that's only possible if you actually take the time and the effort to participate in the team and help it achieve its goal. The team is not there merely to help you, but you're there to help the team, and the team in turn gives aid and provides you opportunities for growth.