Positive Feedback, please

In my video game design class I am working in a group to create, well, a video game. It's a semester long project. Over the past weekend, we prototyped it and in class today, we let our two professors (a dual-teaching threat) and other classmates test it.

Our prototype was a 3D model of the first three levels of our game. We used thick posterboard for the base and thin posterboard for the walls. First we drew the levels out on paper a few times, tweaking the 'flow' of the level and then we assigned appropriate lengths, widths, and heights, to the appropriate walls, pits, switches, and platforms.

We outlined the blueprints of each level with light pencil on the face of each thick piece posterboard. The walls were all four inches high and were between four and sixteen inches long. The posterboard used for the walls was flimsy so we created a support structure for it. We taped toothpicks along the wall three inches apart. We had the pointy part of the toothpick stick out past the bottom of the wall; We were going to treat the wall like a long fence-post, sticking the toothpick bottom into the floor. We didn't want to ruin our thick posterboard by stabbing into it, though, so we placed little globs of sticky tack along the wall and instead stuck the toothpick ends into them.

Props to the female member of my group for figuring out how to do all of this and getting a head start while I was vacationing.

Since the walls were separate pieces, we cut thin pieces of posterboard to acts as joints for each corner. For the switches, we cut 1 inch squares from thin posterboard, drew black borders on both sides of each, and then colored a red circle on one side and a blue on the other. In our game, a switch starts red but turns blue after being hit.

Each level had a title card. One level had platforms and a large pit we colored in with thick, high-inducing, permanent marker. We created a sample HUD and the female member's boyfriend even made our little game character out of toothpicks and scrap poster. The next morning- this morning- we carried it to class.

We got to the classroom early and watched everyone else trickle in. The four other groups assigned to present today set up their prototypes around the room. When class began, everyone not showing a prototype is told to visit each playtesting station around the room.. The two professors walk to our prototype first, saying it caught their eye (how couldn't it?). That was the only nice thing they said.

***

A few minutes later, they've moved on to the next group's prototype, and we're left sitting on the tops of the adjacent desks, heads on our knee, eyes drooping down, gazing at our masterwork that was torn apart as half the class crowded around to watch. I'm doing my best to find something constructive in the notes I made as they played. I realize that they didn't offer anything positive about our game.

It's not like they said it sucked. That it was terrible or boring (which I heard them say to another group). They just didn't point out anything good about it. They didn't even say the prototype looked cool.

Here's a sample of the test. The female professor was the subject and the male professor stood behind her and offered his ideas. On the second level, we told her she was standing in the wrong place and that the she couldn't shoot the switch correctly from that spot. She tried another time from a different angle and we told her it fell short. Then, in sort of a controlled hissy fit- some would call it a condescending joke- she says "All right, I run up here and shoot around for half an hour trying to get the perfect angle to hit the switch"


Not only is that not constructive, it assumes that we are just bad game designers. Like we'll create a game that is intensely frustrating. Hey, maybe we were going to. Maybe we are complete gaming newbs with no sense of the difference between frustrating and challenging a player. Maybe we thought having really hard to get switches would be a just so much fun.

Even if that is the situation, it is bad to treat student game developers, ones in the process of learning; ones that are intensely optimistic about their future with game design (you have to be optimistic to imagine a future in game design, right?); ones that obviously spent a lot of time on a stupid prototype that counts for only a small portion of their grade; ones that enjoy doing this kind of work, creating, thinking, and spending their free time imagining puzzles, levels, challenges, surprises, rewards, and experiences for their beloved players...

Looking back, it was kind of confusing. There was no ceiling and we didn't go so far to create a miniature gun representing the in game gun. We just assumed that they took the best shot available at the certain spot they were standing and told them where it would land and if it hit the switch or not. I understand, now, that was a little confusing and we should fix it for further testing.

This is criticism 101. Say something positive before pointing out something negative. Tell people what they did right and what they did wrong. Offer possible solutions, don't force your own personal answers. Don't make them feel like they've wasted their time or that their ideas have no merit. Don't condescendingly roast their hard work.

Another professor of mine is just the opposite. When I presented a project in her class I always felt like I did a really good job. She always pointed out the weaknesses and potential tripping points of my game ideas in a way that helped me solve them. Sometimes I felt it was just me, that she favored my ideas, until the next person presented and I knew that that person felt the same way I did. She offered us encouragement, not frustration. We didn't want to give up, we didn't feel that our game was hopeless or a waste of time. We realized the good of our ideas and were ready to take the next step.

For example, she would critique game ideas that were too large for the time frame of the class by calling them great, but ambitious ideas. A game that was good enough to be pursued as a capstone with her if they wanted. Then she offered ideas to slim down their game to something that could be done within the class's time frame.

Constructive feedback is important in all fields, but not offering it in games seems plain counter-intuitive. (Most) games are supposed to be fun. If you suck the spirit of fun from the game's designer, how does the spirit of fun enter the game?


In the words of Flight of The Conchords... "Why? W-why? Which-Why? Why exact-ly? Be more constructive with your feedback. Please. Why? Whhyyy?"

Burned After Watching

I feel like the Coen Brothers invited me over for dinner and some board games, strapped me in a La-Z-boy, and then repeatedly punched me in the face. Thanks, you two. It's been a wonderful evening.

Usually I feel quite the opposite after a Coen Brothers film. I'm laughing, relieved- excited that I saw something fresh. Not this time.

Burn After Reading is so aggravatingly over the top; so flooded with Coen conventions; so utterly stupid and irreasonably violent; that it forces a revelation on me. I can take a look back on all of Coen movies and say "They really do write the same stuff over and over." This movie functions like the twist at the end of every M. Night Shamalan film. Now, it is clear what to expect from them. Now, they are predictable. This movie bombed the illusion.

So, what is it? What is the core of the Coen Brothers' filmic lifeblood? Stupid, greedy people screw up eachother's lives. That's it. To be honest, it makes for a great movie. It has worked very well until now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Spoilers. Don't even think about it. Seriously, I will spoil the shit out of this movie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The movie began slow and that is mostly the trailer's fault. The plot as revealed by the trailer starts forty-five long minutes into the movie and, while we wait, we are introduced to a wide cast of characters and four unrelated factions of the main plot.

Unfotunately, this is the catch 22 of commercials. They exist to guage interest, but they spoil scenes and may prime audiences for a totally different movie (see The Fountain).

Eventually the stupid characters arrive to make stupid decisions. Let's talk about stupid characters.

Generally, I HATE stupid characters. I have recently realized that, really, it just depends. When a stupid character is done correctly, it can work. Can you tell that I'm reluctant to say that? Sometimes stupid characters make great jokes. Sometimes smart characters fall into follies that we can relate to. That's also reasonable.

But. In most movies, ignorant characters exist solely to move the plot to places that the director would have a hard time moving it to without thinking creatively. I'm saying stupid characters and their stupid decisions are a cop-out. Instead finding a solid plot point, directors just throw in a fucking moron.

Babel has a perfect example. In one scene, a Mexican man, his aunt, and two American children she is watching over are trying to cross the border into the U.S. The racist border patrols are giving them trouble, but seem like they will let them through. Yes, even they would have made it over BUT THE FUCKING MORON DIDNT LIKE THE OFFICERS LIP AND TALKED BACK. DUDE SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO PEOPLE ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO GET ACROSS THE BORDER.

Of course, he gets arrested, the plot gets worse, I get angrier, I throw a bowl of plums out the window. Whatever. I hate dumb characters.

Unless we're talking about, say, the cast of Tropic Thunder. It's a picky subject.

So, typical of most Coen movies, the cast in Burn After Reading is a bunch of morons. Fortunately, Brad Pitt makes half of his lines funny. Unfortunately, the female lead, Lilly, was WAT TOO DUMB. SO DUMB.

"You never go full retard." - Kirk Lazerus, Tropic Thunder.

I'm serious. There's dumb and there's 'I want to choke you with a queen-sized pillow soaked in ammonia'. There's 'I want to send the Coen Brothers a hot water bottle filled with bacon and bird shit.'

This woman bitches the entire movie. "I want surgery!" "I want surgery so I can begin a new life." "This will at least put a dent in the cost of my surgery." "This money will be a great start to pay for my surgery." *sob* "I've taken this body as far as it can go." Bitch. Shut. Up.

sigh

You know. I really only had two problems with this movie. Camerawork was excellent and dialogue was appropriate- as it always is in a Coen film. So, other than annoying characters, what was it?

I feel that the Coen Brothers, for the first time, forgot about their audience. They forgot about what we care about. They were so absorbed in their black comedy that they ignored the effect of the movie. The movie is undoubtedly disturbing and to me, it is depressing. To put it shortly, they murder everything we could care about in the movie.

Brad Pitt's character, as I said, was pretty funny. He's lively, young, and George Clooney shoots him in the face half way through the movie. Why? Shock value, I assume.

It's not the kind of shock that makes you say 'Oh Damn! I didn't see that coming. Wow, what a twist.' That's how I felt watching The Departed. This is the kind of shock that makes you say 'What the fuck? What the shit just happened? Grr...'

The movie has one redeeming character. The boss at HardBodies who loves Lilly. He tries to get her to recognize her true beauty, forget about the surgery, et cetera, et cetera. He's a nice guy; an innocent, patient, grandpa figure with light-blue eyes. How does this sad teddy bear die? First, John Malkovich shoots him above the heart. Still alive, he tries to get away, but Malkovich chases him outside with a small hatchet and hacks into his chest, his head, and the back of his neck. The blood spreads as the scene fades out.

Did I mention that this is the same way Steve Buscemi dies in Fargo? Even the angle was similar.

Not only did the Brothers Coen kill off both likable characters, the annoying one gets rewarded in the end. In the last scene, we are told that Lilly will get her surgery.

You know, what can I say? I agree that movies niether have to include redeeming characters nor that all likeable characters should survive. I just think it was a very poor choice. No, it was tasteless. It's Fuck You embroidered on a wedding dress; gift from daddio. Well, fuck you, Misters Coen.

I mean, do you think we're going to stop caring about your characters? Just because this is black comedy? Just because the movie is so obviously not supposed to make sense, I'm not supposed to take it seriously? Not supposed to be affected by it?

It's like they're telling me, "Look, buddy, this is just a movie, these characters are stupid, this plot is wild and unbelievable, it's ok if disturbing things happen, it's ok if we murder whomever we please. It shouldn't matter to you. Take it for what it is. A joke."

That's where I think they got it all wrong. I can't take it for what it is. I invested emotions into these characters. I knew crazy things would happen but I never thought they would bloody their hands so much for a gory joke. Nor that they would tear apart my investments by sending a parasite through the umbillical cord with which I fed from the movie.

That's why I feel burned after watching.

Burn After Reading

There are no good ideas. There are no bad ideas.

Check out this great idea. So this young actress comes to Hollywood. It's tougher than she thought. It's scary. She falls in love with another actress. The other actress wins a part over her. The young actress gets jealous and hires someone to kill her. K. And it's all going to be represented in a dream.

Sounds like a piece of shit, right? Wrong. It's Mulholland Drive. And it's incredible.

How about this one: A poor guy and a rich girl fall in love on the Titanic. Then it sinks. That's a 600 million dollar idea.

So, the next time you have an awesome idea and someone sighs at you when you explain it; just get over it. They can't see what you see.

Most video games that suck don't inherently suck. Teams get focused on the wrong attributes; they underestimate how hard it is to accomplish all of the initial ideas; they overestimate their budget. If companies had as long as they wanted to make every game, and they stayed focused, all games would be fun.

Games, unlike movies and television shows, can always be fun. Raking your yard can be fun. Make it competitive- that's easy. Make it a puzzle game, you have to change direction every time you hit a boundary. (Alright, that's easy - just rake in a spiral). Or with two players, play Isolation while you rake. Yes, I just linked my homework assignment. Scroll down for the game's description.

As Mary Poppins says:

In ev'ry job that must be done
There is an element of fun
We find the fun, and snap!
The job's a game!

This is my game professor's email sig.

This is why we are taught to pitch games. Good ideas can sound bad. All ideas can sound good. Witty lines do wonders for shitty ideas. (See: The 'Three Strikes and You're Out' Law)

I said there are no good ideas and no bad ideas. Well, there are a few really good ideas. For example, Crank's pitch sounded so good, they got funding immediately. It was something like: 'A guy is injected with a poison that will kill him unless the he keeps his adrenaline up.' Is there any better way to frame an action movie? 'Guy must do awesome shit from the beginning of the movie 'til the end.' It's like Speed, which was very successful, except it's a person instead of a bus. And the bus only had to stay over 55 mph. That's the speed limit.

I Like The New Facebook

I like how my wall, my feed, whatever it is now, is all in one place.My info is in one place. My pictures are in one place. I'm not scrolling down 6 kilometers to find out who doodled on my super wall. Not that I ever had one. Which is another reason the new facebook rocks. All those FUCKING BOXES are out of the way. THANK GOD.

Not only that, the important, simple information - my basic information, my friends, my notes, my badge - if I'm not worried about privacy issues - are neatly lined up on the left, always there to see.

Like most, I was taken aback at first. I thought it was messy and I couldn't find anything. It's like the first time you use a Mac. It's annoying for a bit, but as you learn the system you realize that everything is organized better, everything is easier to use, everything is pleasant. Deny it if you want, it's an aesthetic machine.

I like that the adverts are still unobtrusive. I like how the 'Twitter' box is still at the top. I've started using that a lot lately.

I understand that the 'wall' is harder to read now. I mean, everything is posted there now. The feed became the wall. I miss scrolling through all the messages I've gotten. Having them all stored in one place. The new facebook is focused less on the sentimental accumulation of wall posts and instead on the hear and now. Wall posts are now voicemails; no longer birthday cards stored in a shoebox. It's not as sweet or nostalgiac (or whatever if you never gave a flip about it), but it is what it is.

My only beef is that at the top. Clicking 'facebook' and clicking 'Home' bring me to the exact same page. I wish there was just one button. I mean, the links are right next to each other. It wasn't a problem in the old facebook where my only two options were 'home' and my 'profile.' Much more efficient. Less annoying. The such.

That's it.

Well, lastly, now that I'm single I'm getting ads targeting single guys. They are super annoying, especially because some of them lead to malicious websites. I know you make money facebook, so, if you could, would you please screen your ads? I don't want to chat with millions of singles at photoshoppedbreasts.net.

Haruki Murakami

Writes books I've been reading. Books I love reading.

I don't agree with everything Haruki Murakami writes. Some of his ideas annoy me. His characters think a lot, sometimes too much, sometimes to the point where they are so self-referential it is bothersome. Sometimes I say to myself, "I've thought of that." And I don't enjoy reading too many things I've already thought about. But, his characters don't cross into the aggravating zone of over-self-consciousness as often as they could, which is surprising because a lot of characters in a lot of books do.

Each of Murakami's characters openly offers their impressions of the other characters either from the outside-in or the inside-out. Sometimes descriptions will start with a physical symbol - maybe a pair of mismatched earrings - and the observing character describes what the symbol means. He or she will explain how the mismatched earrings define the other person. He or she may comment on how the observed keeps her shoulders mostly upright, yet slouches slightly when sitting. She wants to be seen as strong, he will say, but when she is away from the crowd, sitting and eating, she lets her shoulders rest. He says "She is not an inherently strong person, but she tries."

Murakami takes his time and I admire that. I have so much appreciation for those auteurs that take their time. They aren't pressured by standards and they don't conform to what is expected of them, as defined by their job: novelist, director. They aren't trying to rebel, they are just comfortable - and insistent - on doing it their way. They spend time on the details and the mood. They move through stories at the pace they want. They are bold. Their films have the utmost effect on me. David Lynch is an example of an artist that takes his time.

We all know that modern fiction, be it movie-making, novel-writing, screen-writing, etc., is pushed to be fast paced. Pushed by the businessman, the producer, the dollar and all its associated charts and calculations. Rule 1 in writing to get published is writing to keep the story going. Every action has an effect; an effect that moves the story. It's Hollywood, it's books, it's how you get paid.

Murakami spends time describing almost everything: characters, settings, feelings, words, thoughts, glances, hand shakes. Unlike wordy filler or incomprehensible symbolism that fill the pages of every book on the high-school AP Literature reading lists - Dickens, Dickinson, the lot - Murakami's words are not hard. No Old English, large words, unforgivable run-ons, layered analogies - though surely their are metaphors - are road blocks not included. All that I listed are undoubtedly important - Shakespeare is a genius, right? - but they take training to read. I'm new to the art. And even after training, it takes so much energy to read through.

I'm not saying Murakami's books are easy, like they are stupid, for young adults, or not thoughtful. They are definitely thoughtful. Most of all, though, they are relaxing.

I've never held a book that felt so much like gentle meditation. I find myself picking up the book just to relax. It's a new concept to me, a child in the Age of Technology - you know. Most books I read for the knowledge they have, i.e. the non-fiction I have around. How to Use Your Camera and Not look Like a Fool. That sort. Otherwise, I enjoy books that are intelligent, witty, and exciting, like Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. But I sink into Murakami's books. I rest my head in them. I don't have to think if I don't want to. I could, the book offers much to learn from, but I'm not forced to. Most of it comes naturally.

Murakami writes a lot in passive voice - something I've always been told not to do. That's his style. He shows when he wants, then goes when he wants.

Maybe I don't always want to be in the middle of an action verb. Maybe I don't have the energy to follow a jumping, fighting, rocking, socking, pick-pocketing, master of movement.

When Murakami describes a room, I don't have a hard time imagining it. To me, this is unusual. When most writers start describing something, I usually start skimming the page until something important happens. His storytelling creates a whole new frame of mind. I am not rushing to the action, I am wading in the water of a pleasant stream on a sunny day explaining to five year old brother how much I enjoy the yellow glint on the clouds and the pink haze over the daisies. His book sets a mood that you fall into. Like a dream. Like a good night's sleep, I've never had a problem falling in.

Sometimes I say to myself: 'He puts too much Murakami in his characters.' His writing is too easy, he just writes about himself. I say, "His characters are all the same. They think a lot and are very intuitive, just like an author." But then I read more of his characters. Though they all possess the gift of keen people-watching, they are much different. They all have different back stories. They come from different places, eat different foods, and wear different clothes. And then again, they all contemplate loneliness and the importance of social interactions. Many have similar goals in life. To get away for a night. Or forever. They are different. They aren't. I don't know. They are so compelling, though.

Sometimes I think: "Does he rewrite anything?" His books feel like rough drafts. He just seems to go with flow. He just says what feels right at the moment. He moves on when he's ready to move on. I think, "Does he even plan?" I'm sure he does, he is a professional writer, he must plan. I can't imagine it, though. His writing style conflicts with planning.

If I wrote a book and I knew that my character was on his way to a train, he would be there pronto. I don't have the patience to detail the scenery. But, if I never specify where my character is heading, I feel that I would have no problem describing the scenery. I could explore my character's setting and also his path. The details arrive from the lack of a goal.

But this can't be how Murakami works. It wouldn't work. He must plan or the book would never have a satisfying ending. It would just end and nothing would have happened. That isn't necessarily bad, see Godard, see Neo-Realism, but I just don't think that's how Murakami works. Plus, he usually tells two or more stories at once and then ties them together as the book progresses.

I don't think he writes a few hundred pages and then quits when nothing is left to write. This made me realize that this man is really smart. I'm in awe of him; his self-control, his care. He cares about everything.

But all writers care about heir writing, right? Maybe to a certain extent, but I mostly disagree. Most have money, publication, and other people's ideas lingering in the back of their mind. Ideas that work. Ideas that sell. At the end of the day they can say "I wrote that" and "I know my writing inside and out" but it isn't pure. It isn't them. Or it is them but they are just someone else.

Murakami writes softly.

Incidentally, he is associated with the man who created my favorite video game, Earthbound. Shigesato Itoi isn't a video game guy and he only worked on four games: the Mother series and a bass-fishing game. He's a journalist and essayist. The pair co-authored a book of short stories called Yume de aimashou ("Let's meet in a dream"). I think I'll pick that up next.

The short list of Murakami's books that I've read or am currently reading. And he's already inspired a blog post.

After the Quake.
After Dark.
Kafka At the Shore.

Links:
Haruki Murakami

Shigesato Itoi
Earthbound

Logical reason why writing ideas down is important

It's arithmatic, actually.

So, you're thinking of ideas for a project, a game, a story, etc. You're thinking all day, but at a certain point, it becomes hard to build off your ideas. 

You're wasting mental storage space- and energy - on remembering the ideas you've already thought. It's overloading your short-term memory. It doesn't always go to your long-term memory, that's why we can recall plenty of times where we can't recall a great idea we've had.

So, as soon as you can, write those first ideas down, clear out the freezer, fridge, safety-deposit box, washer, dryer, whatever. 

I would say, 75% of the time, at the very least, you'll come up with more ideas while you're writing down the ones you have. Your brain automatically starts making connections to more ideas. It won't do this, most often, if it risks losing previous knowledge.

So, yeah. It's math, baby!

Today I'm Just Writing

Otherwise known as, "No one wants to read an emo post," because no one does, or "Reminding myself that the only obstacle between me and having something written, is myself writing it." And all that. Write away. Right? Got it.

Man, I haven't written but once in the last two weeks, and only to finish up a month-old game review. It's stoppage, a block, it's creating a block between me and creativity. The more I write, the more creative I feel, the looser I feel, the more verbal I am, the better words I choose - in writing and everyday communication. I talk better when I write. The stop between myself and what I want to be is 'not writing.' I do it, I did it, I'm better. Just do it. Kabam. Done. 

This is a weird post, because it's purely for me. I have some form of audience out there because this is a blog, but this is not for anyone but myself. This is not for you. That's not true, I'm just reminiscing an opening page from the book, House of Leaves. "This book is not for you" it says. Let me check. Nope, I had it right the first time. "This is not for you." This paragraph is for you though. For a minute, I'll acknowledge you're there, possibly, reading this post, which has nothing to do with you, and connecting with you, so neither of us is confused. This is not for you, even though it's a blog post, not a personal post, not in a private diary, nor sticky note, nor Moleskine pad, if you like those, that name brand of art books imo, yes, imo, in my opinion, like a text message, im or forum post. 

Honestly, I wouldn't read one god damn bit of this post. Self-referential shit makes me throw up. It really does. See my comic-strip Post Modern Throw Up. Not even a comic, but now it's out there, an unofficial release, I have another blog where I post what I will call really bad drawings, and you'll say I'm being self-deprecating, and then I'll say, look at them. It's on purpose. Or I'll at least draw them worse than I could because I don't think I can draw, which is self-deprecating.

Who can read this kind of stuff? Self-referential is a new kind of emo. You just want to say "Hey, shut the fuck up." Get over it, get over yourself, stop thinking so much, stop questioning your existence and your medium. The paper, pen, keyboard, screen, film, that you exist on and just be. Just be. Just be yourself. Tell a story or teach something important. You're on a screen, I'm on a screen, we're all on a screen, now do something. Stop talking about it.

It's old to be postmodern now. It's cliche. For the first time, thanks to those terribly unoriginal ____ Movie directors, even parodies are cliche. Since when is making fun of something cliche? Now. Now it is. And that's really all I do in this blog. It's time to step it up. When? How? Do I have the vision to become a writer for the future, or just the maturity to stop using so much obscene language.

See what writing does for me? Wonders, apparently. All these jumblings, excuse such a messy word, you- audience, come out clean, for the most part, in writing. Granted they'd read much clearer if I would reread them, but that's not for today. Today is free writing. To reference the title, I'm just writing today. No backspace, unless I misspell. I've used it once or twice, but never went back farther than a sentence.

I'm too honest, I think. When I'm writing, like now, as you may even be able to tell, I want to sayeverything that I'm thinking. I can't have a thought that may or may not add interest or important information and leave it out. I thought it, it's fair for me to say it. For you. Looking back at my writing I can say, that's everything I was thinking. That's all of it, everything on my mind. I'm not too ashamed. This is the case in real life, too. I always say what's on my mind. Correct that, I always want to say what's on my mind. I have been taught courtesy and, mostly, when to hold our tongue. So, yes, I won't say everything. But then I don't know which direction to go. I can't usually get it out of my head. If you're hanging around me, we're in a conversation and you find my conversation has died out, I haven't been moving forward as rapidly as usual, it's because something is on my mind and I don't want to say it.

Talking too much can be bothersome at times. I mean, let's say that everyone likes talking so talking a lot in itself isn't annoying. It's bothersome when I want to explain a new concept to a person, or a concept they already know about. I give some information, and they get it. I think of something else to add, and I genuinely think it will add, but they get it, I don't need to go on. Sometimes I have a hard time discerning if what I'm saying will really add something or if I'm just elonging (?) - what is that word... - making the conversation inappropriately longer. There's people in class that don't know when to shut the fuck up.

I feel a little better already. Say What. Talk it out, now talk it out. Talk it out now talk it out. Haha, I've been wanting to write that line all week I was thinking of writing this post. It's referencing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU3N5c2Kxnw. 

Just talk it out, just talk it out. Write, talk, Freud. One of the ways he helped or 'cured' people with emotional problems was by getting the to just talk. Talk and talk and talk. Say whatever, the first thing to come to your mind, all the things that come to your mind. Let it out.