Crunchysmoothdigitalanalog.
Scott pinged this in the comments to an earlier post and I thought I’d drag it out here into the light. (Just to clear this up: he isn’t talking synthesizer criticism.) We will trust the reader is familiar with the concept of alignment in Dungeons and Dragons and its ilk? You don’t need to be able to write a disquisition on the semioitics of alignment tongues, mind; just get that there’s law and there’s chaos and there’s good and there’s evil, and the various combinations (plus the neutral shadings between them) give you nine broad classifications for the ethics and morals of your role playing character: lawful good, chaotic neutral, neutral evil, whatever.
—At any rate. We (being a variety of people including but not limited to myself, Scott, Emily, Vince, Meg, Barry, Chas, and others whose names doubtless rhyme with all manner of words I can’t remember were hanging out in a disused Hampshire College dorm lounge at some point crawling out of the winter of ’91 – ’92, when Clinton was still a longshot and Bush’s lips were read and found wanting), and found our various selves to be bored with this rather clumsy and granular system (to say nothing of prejudicial; quick: what do you think of a character labelled “chaotic evil”? Hmm? And how far do you think they will get in this life?). So we hemmed and hawed and hashed and hammered out a artfully nimble little alternative: an alignment system based on whether you’re crunchy peanut butter or smooth peanut butter, and whether you’re digital or analog. Which gives us a system that’s more coarse that AD&D’s, with four steps rather than nine, but, because it’s far less prejudicial, far more open to late-night bull sessions and radical reinterpretations (if not cheekily outright misreadings), it’s perversely much more flexible. (And anyway, Neutrality is a mug’s game. Off the fence, boyoh: which side are you on, already?)
For instance: Scott writes, “If Bush I was smooth-digital, then what is Bush II? crunchy-digital, that rarest of alignments? food for thought.” Aside from quibbling minorly with his hyphenation (it is not so much an adjectival phrase as it is “digital” being modified by “crunchy,” much as “good” is modified by “chaotic”), well—but I see a point being raised by the pedant in the back, who wishes to inform us that digital is crunchy by definition, as digital media and models deal with discrete, irreducible bits, those 1s, those 0s, those flashing bars on your graphic equalizer, while analog is again by definition smooth, since its data rolls off sillyscopes in rounded, unstepped waveforms, so what’s all the rumpus? —Yes, and thank you, but: remember that we aren’t talking about smooth qua smooth and crunchy qua crunchy; we’re talking about peanut butter. Pause for a moment to reflect on how much easier it is with a digital tool-kit (and thus more native) to render the texture of smooth peanut butter than crunchy. (See? Long-winded radical reinterpretations and misread bloviations may now commence.)
Bush 41? Smooth digital, yeah. There’s something faintly Agent-Smith–sinister about flustered tortured-syntax Poppy, who nonetheless headed up the CIA for 10 days shy of a year. And Bush 43 as crunchy digital fits for me, given the above example of how much more effort it takes to dummy up a convincing crunchy texture out of nothing but 1s and 0s. So I don’t think I’ll quibble with his characterization much. Me? I’d say I’m a smooth analog: more concerned with surface than with an “authentic” peanut taste, and anyway, I hate the bits that get caught in your teeth, and while I love the current incarnation of the computer as much as the next guy, I’ve got an unhealthy fondness for liminals, for things that aren’t one thing or the other, or both, and for obscure old gadgets made well (and heavy). —So. Which side are you on? Eh?
Commenting is closed for this article.
Now that Bushes 41 and 43 (I love those appellations) are designated smooth digital and crunchy digital, I don't dare try and characterize myself. I'm fairly sure I'm digital, and the crunchy/smooth dichotomy might only be characteristic of who is perceiving me. Of course, the same is probably true of good/evil, law/chaos, and digital/analog. Heisenberg alignments, anyone?
All I really know is that now I want a Twix.
this has nothing to do with what you posted, but i think it's just so strange that our paths may have crossed in the past. i graduated from hampshire in may, 1991. 12 years ago. can't believe it.
Ha! Double Ha! I knew I could get you to write something on the alignment system! Ha ha!
Ahem.
A few points:
a) I myself remember including "neutral" in the alignment system. I think at the time I had decided I was "Neutral Digital". Which brings me to:
b) We may have set an order crunchy/smooth then analog/digital, but I think I prefer alignment order to be more fluid. Memory fails me on this point (as it often does in general.)
c) This applies to analog/digital, but even moreso to crunchy/smooth: They are not preferences, but essences. We don't care what kind of peanut butter you like, or whether you listen to CDs or LPs (or 45s (or 9mms)). We can't describe quite precisely what "smooth" or "crunchy" means in this context... you just have it, or you don't. Remember, we rejected many dichotomies such as dog/cat because they were based on preference.
Sadly, I don't have as much time or will for "long-winded radical reinterpretations and misread bloviations" as I once did. Best left in the college dorm, or perhaps the upstairs of a pub.
And I've moved solidly into crunchy-digital. Which puts me diametrically opposite yourself, K. Irony? Don't touch the stuff.
Wantonly Deconstucting pretty much whatever comes to mind.
Scott is quite correct with regards to essence as opposed to preference; in defence of my horridly misleading oversimplifications and deliberate debate-fudging, I'd just note that (especially for a style over substance guy like myself) preference precedes essence.
But your mileage may very well vary. --And neutrality is for wimps.
Kirsten: my own dalliance with Hampshire is, aside from one or two late-night bull sessions in late '91 - early '92, limited to appearances in two student films over the course of late '92 - '93. Well, that, and really liking Tangelo Pie.
I wish I'd graduated from Hampshire, but I know I was there. (89-91-ish, plus some haunting) But I don't recall being there for the aforementioned conversation.
I like the texture of crunchy peanut butter.
Oh, and... I had the distinction of actually appearing in a Tim Sniffen cartoon. I just wish I could find it. Not to mention having something vague to do with one of those student films -- do not cross me, Kip, for I still have the images on file! (Somewhere. I think.)
I just remembered more about that fateful night at Hampshire.
One of my high school buddies (James Harold) went to Oberlin (more about which another time) where he roomed with Kevin, who was friends with Vincent, who had recently hooked up with Meg. Emily and I had just moved to Amherst that year, met Barry on the bus because he looked just like he does in his cartoons, and he lived with Kip in the same apartment complex we did. Then James came to visit, bringing Kevin with him, who wanted to visit Vincent at Hampshire. I don't remember where the Asian girl came in, but she was there. I think.
And I haven't even mentioned the stuff Paul has been telling me about Barry and Jenn and Scout McCloud.
And to complete a circle (not THE circle) Five-card Nancy now has an entry on boardgamegeek.com. It's the only result of a search for "Nancy".
Paul has decided that he's crunchy-hybrid, meaning both digital and analog. I don't even know if that's allowed. It adds another axis not perpindicular to anything, and is way off the D&D metaphor, but I'm in an expansive mood. I say go for it, Paul!
Cheers.
Oddly enough, my best friend from high school also went to Oberlin. And then I just noticed today a car sticker for Oberlin on a coworker's car. I must prepare for the world to get a little bit smaller.
Isn't crunchy hybrid just crunchy neutral? It would make sense, I think, for druids to be crunchy.
neutral is neither, hybrid is both.
The Asian girl was Kevin and James' Oberlin friend Emily, I do believe.
I recently came across a couple photos of the night in question, believe it or not. I'll see if I can find them again and put them online.
Can't find 'em. Sorry.
I don't remember if the D&D rules bothered to talk much about neutral, but the way I played it was as accepting the necessity of both good and evil, chaos and order and acting for balance in all things.
Of course I was studying Buddhism at the time...
I think a hybrid axis is useful, although it can be just a marking point along Scott's continuum. Duality is essentially a dead concept from the early days of Christianity (she said provokingly ;-^).
I need more mental stimulation in my life; I'm taking this way to seriously. %-D
Emma