Katie & Scott & Simon & Cecily.

Category: year26 (Page 74 of 92)

I posted an entry each day during my 26th year of life.

Day 73: advice column

What type of person does it take to think, “I’d make a good advice columnist!”

I read Dan Savage’s sex advice column off and on during college because it was published in the back of the free local newspaper that left in some of the restaurants and bus stops around town.

I also tend to read advice columns in most papers I pick up, even if I’ve never heard of the person writing them (or even if it’s specialized advice, like only homebuying questions).  I don’t know why, but I find them addictive.

But, what determines whether someone is qualified to give advice to other people?  Well, I suppose being a good writer is a common thread; to communicate advice well, you have to communicate well in the first place.

Beyond that, I think a person has to have a certain amount of confidence, of vanity, and of arrogance (or perhaps arrogance is too strong a word, but certainly strongly believing in your opinions).  It’s a bit like being a baseball umpire: you have to make your calls and you have to stand behind them, even if you don’t necessarily have all the knowledge.

And I think, like a lot of jobs that involve some amount of creativity, you need a certain X factor.  A certain charisma, charm, or simply empathy.  Something that both makes you “easy to talk to” and stand out from all those other advice columnist.

But, what do I know?  I’m not an advice columnist, and I certainly don’t feel qualified to give advice columnists advice on what they should and shouldn’t be doing.  I just think it’s rather revealing what advice columnists say.

Because, in the end, every time you give someone advice about a certain situation or problem, it reveals a tiny bit more about yourself.  Until, after years of writing answers to life’s many questions, you’re standing in front of all of your readers, naked.

Metaphorically, of course.

Day 71: radio play

I took a class in college called Radio Play.  It was probably one of the most fun I’ve had for a semester.  It was not a class that was required for my major or minor, and about half the people in the class were good friends of the theatre organization which I was a part of.

In the class, we learned about creating audio stories or, as the title of the class indicated, “radio plays.”  With this, we became familiar with both the technical aspects of this – working with DAT recorders, various microphones, and learning how to use multi-track audio mixing software – and tips on how to create compelling narratives through sound.

I was remembering this today because Katie and I went to see This American Life Live tonight and I was reminded how much I love the idea of telling stories on the radio.  Sure, the actual event was in movie theaters and had visual elements, but I always fancied that I would be a good fit at WBEZ Chicago, palling around with Ira Glass.

Back around the tail years of college, I remember looking over the WBEZ website several times, contemplating applying for the This American Life internship, but ended up not going for it because it required a lengthy time commitment in Chicago and was based on skills that I hadn’t been honing for four years – only in one small semester.

Although it’s probably too late now to apply for the This American Life internship, I’m sure that if I was motivated enough, I could find work within the expanding field of audio work within the video game industry and use that as a launching pad.  If I didn’t already like what I was doing so much, it’s something I would seriously consider.

I like working with audio, being a part of that interesting mouth-to-ear relationship (although, when I put it that way, it sounds a little creepy), and working late into the night to get the right edit points to make a piece sound natural.

If I had time and access to solid recording equipment (but more so, time), it’s a hobby I’d consider as well: creating my own sporadic series of radio stories, both fictional and non.  But, we all know that probably won’t happen, just like my oft-mentioned but completely unstarted Youtube series.

In the meantime, you can check out one of the pieces I created in Radio Play, which is a bit of a This American Life-style story that I’m relatively proud of.  It’s about 10 minutes and speaks for itself.

[audio:TheLittleGuy.mp3]

Day 70: puzzling

Good puzzles are hard to craft, challenging to solve, and give the person who does eventually figure them out a great sense of satisfaction.

Good puzzles are also hard to come by. Back in college, Microsoft would sponsor a yearly puzzle competition that required a full-day commitment and a team of 3 or 4 people. I only participated in it one year, but it was a very fun day.

I have, since then, judged puzzles against the ones that were a part of that competition. There are, to me, several factors that take an OK puzzle and make it great. Here they are, in descending order of importance.

Minimalism: the best puzzles are ones where every element is integral to the solution, meaning that by definition, it is a minimalist puzzle. Put another way, this could read “no red herrings.” Not every aspect of the puzzle has to point directly toward its solution, but no part of the puzzle should be there for no reason. Even more importantly, no part of the puzzle should be there to intentionally throw the puzzle-solver off-track. That’s mean and, for a good puzzle, completely unnecessary.

Multiple Epiphanies: all good puzzles should contain moments when the solver suddenly understands something; a certain code or representation will suddenly click, or the relationship between two elements in the puzzle suddenly becomes clear. The trick is to have multiple epiphanies. Conventionally, these will build upon each other, but if solving portions of the puzzle independently also has its own reward. Solving one code and applying it three times isn’t too fun. Solving three integrated codes and having to apply each one differently is much more rewarding.

Strong Causality or Interlocking Parts: so your puzzle has multiple parts to give the solver multiple chances to discover things. Take it up one more level, and create a way to interconnect them, so that a solver will be given hints on how to solve section B after solving section A. If you’ve designed the puzzle really well, solving section B first will also give hints on how to solve section A.

Originality: this is the X factor and isn’t something that is as easy to engineer as some of the other factors. But the most brilliant puzzles are those that use mechanics and hooks that haven’t been seen before. Or, perhaps, a mechanic that has been used before but tweaked in a new way. At the very least, you want to avoid a puzzle that makes something think, “oh, this is just like that other puzzle.”

So, go make me some puzzles! And maybe I’ll make you some.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 It's Dai Time

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑