Book Review: Player One

Writers throughout history have foreseen the apocalypse in many forms. The coming of the Four Horseman was a popular image during the Middle Ages. During the Cold War, nuclear annihilation was the popular vision of the end of humanity. In more recent times, hordes of zombies have signalled the end of the world in both print and film. Douglas Coupland has a much more pragmatic idea of how the apocalypse will descend on Earth. In Player One: What Is to Become of Us, Coupland portrays the world coming to an end when the world hits a state of “peak oil”. The price of oil rises to $250 per barrel and all hell brakes loose.

Coupland's alternative take on the apocalypse should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with his work. The author, who the London Daily Telegraph described as “one of the greatest satirists of consumerism”, has made a career breaking the literary mold. He's been a trendsetter of post-modern literature since his first novel, Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture was published in 1991. That novel coined the terms “McJob” and “Generation X”, implanting both in the popular culture lexicon. Coupland's 2006 novel, Jpod, deconstructed the lives of adults living in the modern, digital culture. Player One continues Coupland's constant examination of culture, with an exploration of human identity and religion thrown in for good measure.

The novel was written as the 2010 submission for the prestigious Massey Lecture Series. In the past, such dignitaries as Martin Luther King Jr., Noam Chomsky, and Michael Ignatieff have been Massey Lecturers. Coupland presented Player One as five one-hour lectures on CBC Radio, earlier this November. The novel was also on the long list for the prestigious ScotiaBank Giller Prize.

Player One begins in a very banal manner. Four strangers converge on a dingy, second-rate hotel bar, on the outskirts of a Toronto airport. There's Rick, a recovering alcoholic working as a bartender. Rick has lost everything in his life thanks to his addiction and is waiting for a visitor to come and bring him all the spiritual enlightenment that $8,500 will buy. Karen, a single mother from Winnipeg, has flown all the way to Toronto to meet a man she met in an online “Peak Oil” chat room. Luke has made his way to Toronto from a small town in Northern Ontario. A preacher who has lost his faith, Luke is on the run with $20,000 he stole from his church's renovation fund. The fourth stranger is Rachel, a beautiful blond teenager with a flaw that prevents her from being human. She has come to the bar in an attempt to find a man for reproduction, in order to show her father that she is not an uncaring robot. All four of these characters come to this bland, poorly lit lounge.

Watching over this motley group is the mysterious Player One, a disembodied voice that provides a fifth perspective on the events of the novel. Player One is Rachel's online alter-ego, her avatar from the online simulation Second Life. This alter-ego represents Rachel, free of the limitations of the conditions of her autism. Player One's voice acts as Rachel's second viewpoint on the events that are taking place in the lounge.

When the price of oil hits $250 per barrel, chaos envelops the world outside the bar and slowly the realization that the world is coming to an end sinks into the four desperate souls on the inside. As madness and death invade the bar, in both human and chemical form, Rick, Karen, Luke, and Rachel are left to contemplate the meaning of life and their place in the world. They question their religion, if there is an afterlife, and the basic tenets of society, as the world comes crashing down around them.

The problem with Player One is that the discussions on deep emotional and human issues that take place between the characters comes off as extremely hollow. Their conversations and thoughts do not seem believable in the context of their characters, but are more obviously the transparent thought process of the author. A prime example is Luke's thoughts about where society has evolved to and where it has to go from there. “What are we evolving toward? Do we just go along, day by day, drinking coffee, building golf courses, making photocopies, and having wars until we all mutate and turn into a new species? How long are we supposed to keep on doing all this stuff we do?”

Coupland has been railing against the modern consumer society in the majority of his novels, beginning with Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture. By this point it has become sort of cliched. Reading this passage, it is tough to see these thoughts as being those of the character and not the rantings of an author who has been hammering home the same point for almost 20 years.

Another issue that Coupland cannot overcome is his use of the titular character. Player One is intended to give an objective view of the events that are shaping the novel, but instead it just reiterates what the other characters are thinking and doing. It's a totally unecessary plot device that does not further the plot and adds little to the theme of the story. Coupland makes use of Player One in the denouement of the story, after things go to hell in the bar, just like they have in the outside world. His use of the Player One to tie up the stories loose end and provide a “happy ending” to the story seems contrived and pointless.

Coupland closes up Player One with a glossary of terms that will be used in the post-apocalyptic world. While the “Future Legend” is interesting and quite humourous, it lacks connection with the rest of the story. It almost seems like Coupland had written this glossary and then decided, “Hey, I've got this interesting piece of writing, why don't I write a novel to go along with it?”

Player One: What Is to Become of Us will interest anyone who is familiar with Coupland's previous efforts. For those who have never picked up one of his novels before, start with Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture. You'll be much more satisfied with your decision.

I got edited

As some of you may already be aware of, my luscious mustache recently graced the front cover of The Projector. The photo, a head shot cut off just above the nose, complemented the headline, "Movember: Recapping the month of the furry upper lip".

The interesting part of the cover photo is that the Projector staff decided to edit out part of my facial hair growth. Besides a mustache, I had also grown a "soul patch" or "flavour saver" underneath my bottom lip. This piece of facial hair had been edited out, with the help of Photoshop.

When asked about it, a representative of The Projector said that they had chosen to edit it out because they were afraid it might be mistaken for a goatee. I guess I can understand where they were coming from. I just found it interesting that my likeness had been edited.

Photoshop Help

Just a quick blog post today, as I'm in the process of trying to reach the surface from under a wave of homework. It's a little bit off topic from what I usually blog about, but my mind is feeling a little bit off topic as well.

I recently (finally) got myself a copy of Adobe Creative Suite 5 and I'm still in the process of familiarizing myself with the new features of the different programs. There are some really cool ones associated with the new version of Photoshop. That coolest one is the Content Aware function. If you want to remove someone or something from an image, all you have to do is select the object with the quick selection tool, select edit < fill < content aware and boom the object is gone and the background has been filled in to look like the existing background. It's not 100 per cent perfect, but it works pretty well. No more extensive clone stamp marathons are necessary anymore.

I found a couple of interesting Photoshop CS5 tutorials and figured I would share them.

Editing a Martyr (or a Madman)

Louis Riel, patriot or traitor? This has been a question that has been asked since he was hanged 125 years ago. The topic of pardoning Riel comes up from time to time and it being the 125th anniversary of his hanging, it's news again.

There's an interesting editorial piece in yesterday's Globe and Mail by the great-grand niece of Riel. She argues that Riel should not be pardoned and that his hanging and an subsequent talk of pardoning were all for political purposes. Her belief is that pardons imply "guilt, mercy, and forgiveness" and that they are usually for political purposes.

The most interesting aspect of this editorial is how the author discusses how Riel has become an "adaptable martyr - martyr, rebel, mystic, poet, statesman, madman, traitor". She talks about how the Riel legend has been reshaped throughout time and often for political purposes. In general terms, Riel has gone from a traitor to Canada all the way to someone who many believe was one of the fathers of Confederation.

His legend is in a constant state of edit in the minds of Canadians. Quebecois have always looked to him as a martyr and the embodiment of the death of a French Western Canada. In Ontario, many still believe him to be a traitor. In Manitoba, he has been accepted as the province's founding father and a Metis icon. Throughout Canada, people have made numerous attempts to clear his name.

When each new round of Canadian history books come out, Riel's legend often sees a thorough editing. From a "traitor" and a "madman" to a "father of Confederation", history and changing opinion can edit a legend permanently.

Movember

November is no longer November.

Thanks to an idea dreamed up in Australia seven years ago, November has been re-christened as Movember.

Back in 2003, a group of men in Melbourne, Australia decided that they wanted to raise awareness of men's health issues. They decided to take the mustache, a symbol of masculinity, and use it bring awareness to the issue of prostate cancer. From this small group of guys, the idea spread like wildfire. One year later,432 "Mo Bros" raised over $55,000 for the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia.

Over the next few years, the idea spread around the world, to Canada, the US, the UK, Ireland, Spain, South Africa, and the Netherlands. In 2009, over 255,000 men around the world participated in Movember and raised over $47 million. In Canada alone, 35,000 participants raised $7.8 million.

It's amazing how fast the concept and level of donations has spread. The Movember Foundation has done a great job at spreading its message and using public relations to further a great cause. They've used both traditional and social media to spread the idea. They have corporate sponsors, like Canadian Club, Schick, and Mercedes Benz on board. But they've effectively used word of mouth to spread the concept. A few years back, when Movember was getting off the ground in Canada, anyone with a mustache would be asked why they were growing one. That person would be likely to give a rundown about what Movember is and how it was raising awareness for prostate cancer. This word of mouth has spread like wildfire over the last few years and so has awareness of the dangers of prostate cancer.

In 2010, Movember is huge. Celebrities, athletes, and just regular people are rocking 'staches and its all for a good cause. So forget about November, it doesn't exist anymore. Make a donation to Prostate Cancer Canada. Support the 'stache. Support Movember.

The cutting room floor

Here's the latest promo for the Media Production students' denim social. Editing was essential to the making of this video. Of over an hour of footage, with tons of jokes about nuns, double rainbows, nerds, etc., Jeremy Williams and Caitlin MacGregor distilled it all down to a hilarious minute of promotional video.

It got me thinking about how much editing goes into make videos and film. Having made a few short videos for class, I know the precision and time that needs to be put into editing a video. For a feature length film, the editing process goes on for months upon months. Even years, in the case of a movie like Apocalypse Now.

There's a great film about Hollywood movie editing and the history of this art called The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing. It features interviews with directors like Steven Speilberg, Quentin Tarantino, and Martin Scorsese and some of the most successful Hollywood editors. It's definitely worth renting at the video store.

Potash and PR

I'll preface this blog post with the statement that I know don't claim to be an expert on economics or business and I know even less about the potash industry. With that said, I think the Canadian government's prevention of the foreign takeover of Potash Corp. Of Saskatchewan Inc. provides some interesting public relations issues for the government.

Minister of Industry Tony Clement's communications team has a few questions to answer to stakeholders both nationally and internationally. While many key stakeholders in the issue, including the Saskatchewan and Manitoba governments and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, will be happy with the decision. Other stakeholders are likely to be confused or troubled by the decision. They will be looking for answers.

Foreign resource-extraction business will be interested to know if this is the beginning of a new Canadian economic nationalism and how their Canadian investments may or may not be effected. Potential foreign investors will also be interested to know if Canada is still “open for business” when it comes to investment in resource-extraction or if this is the beginning of a Canadian version of “Buy American”. The government must outline clear key messages to these stakeholders to clarify how this decision effects or doesn't effect the investment policy arena.

Canadian corporations will also be interested in knowing if the Canadian government will now be interested in protecting more corporations in the future. Will the government protect an oil company or forestry corporation from hostile, foreign takeover? How will the government judge corporations' value in terms of national interest. This move opens up a huge can of worms that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible.

The minister's communications department will likely be working in overdrive in the next few days to make sure that the government's key messages are delivered quickly and clearly to these stakeholders.

Editing a Perception

Perceptions of reality apply to the way we see every aspect of our lives. We see people, events, and places through our own eyes and develop quick judgments based on how we perceive things.

These perceptions are prevalent everywhere, including the sporting arena. Athletes can be perceived by viewers in a positive or negative manner, which they often can't shake.

Positive:
- Wayne Gretzky is the "Great One"
- Muhammad Ali is the "Greatest"

Negative:
- Bill Buckner is a loser because of one play
- Randy Moss is a cancer in the locker room

What's interesting about these perceptions, are not the perceptions themselves, but how sometimes the result of one event will often change our perception of someone and edit out the past perception. One turning point in an athlete's career is often enough to make us forget about the past, as it often edits the biography of the athlete.

There are a few examples that highlight this. Michael Jordan was a man that built a myth through his play and his drive to win. The perception of Jordan was that he was a winner and that he was one of the greatest, if not the greatest player of all time. This was not always the perception of Jordan. Prior to his breakthrough NBA title with the Bulls in 1990, most people had a different perception of Jordan. He was considered to be one of the best players in the game, but he was considered to be a selfish player. People saw him as a showboat, who put his own stats ahead of his team. He was the opposite of the Lakers, Celtics, and Pistons teams that dominated the NBA in the 80s. These teams were built around a collective of players that worked together cohesively to win championships. Jordan and the Bulls were the complete opposite of this.

Then Jordan matured. The Bulls added coach Phil Jackson and the ultimate sidekick, Scottie Pippen. Jordan began to play a more team-oriented game and the Bulls finally came together for a playoff run in 1991. They defeated the Pistons in the Eastern final, after two failed attempts, and then dispatched the Lakers in the final.

Jordan had forever altered the public's perception of himself. He went on to win six championships, while erasing the perceptions that the public once had of him. It's rare that anything negative is written about his pre-championship career now.

The same is true for John Elway and Peyton Manning. Both had the negative perception early in their careers that they couldn't win the big game. Elway's Denver Broncos lost three Super Bowls in four years, while Manning could never lead the Indianapolis Colts past the New England Patriot juggernaut. Both QB's erased this perception by finally winning the big game later in their careers.

It's interesting how quickly perceptions about athletes are formed and how quickly they can be edited and re-written. Events change these perceptions and old perceptions are quickly edited out of our collective memory.