Hearts of Iron Review

Since finally caving in and buying Hearts of Iron 4, I have been quite enthralled with it. That is, until our house’s main computer decided to stop responding to inputs from the keyboards or mice. Near as anyone can tell, the computer is fine, but without it can’t do anything. Left without my game, I have felt compelled to contemplate on what I like and don’t about it. Hence, this review.

For all of the complaints that Hearts of Iron 4 has a steep learning curve, I managed to get a (very basic) handle on the mechanics after only a few hours. Admittedly some of this might be because I have experience in other games, like Age of Empires, or because I’ve seen videos from YouTubers who play the game competently. Also I am what most people would call a history buff, meaning I can tell you not only what the Manhattan Project was, but what the Office of Strategic Services did, what Liberty Ships were, and why the United States was almost unbeatable by 1942, especially combined with other allies; but by the same coin, had to put in extra effort to put their finger on the scales in Europe and Asia.

Needless to say, I played my first game of the United States. Or rather, I started as the United States, but quickly got bored of simply waiting for things to happen while the American people couldn’t be bothered for anything because of the ongoing Great Depression. Democracies, in this game, have all sorts of limitations that limit their early game potential and make them merely reactive. So instead of just sitting and waiting for stuff to happen, in my timeline, by early 1939, revolution was sweeping through the United States. The newly-instated Communist States of America rapidly began rearming the country, preparing to spread the revolution across the continent. Despite lofty promises, the military campaign to liberate the Mexican proletariat proved decidedly more difficult in practice, and the planned encirclement of the Mexican Army failed spectacularly. American forces, who in many places were still equipped with outdated WWI equipment, were forced back into Texas.

The Communist States eventually won the war through sheer numbers, securing Mexican industry and manpower for the Comintern. The CSA continued pushing through Guatemala and Honduras, only stopping at the Panama Canal. Plans to invade Canada in a similar fashion were drawn up, but quickly shelved as Nazi Germany broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Nazi advance was quickly blunted by American air power, and American lend-lease weapons. Nevertheless the eastern front quickly devolved into a stalemate of back and forth while Soviet troops stalled for time as their American comrades worked their way from their ports in Siberia.

The war quickly became one of attrition, and in this, it was colossally one-sided. Whatever the Nazis threw at the meat grinder, the Comintern would match them for. An abortive attempt was made to open up a second front just northwest of the Dutch border, but though the landing went well, and early progress was made, in the excitement and confusion, the landings were never reinforced, and were quickly driven back. The divisions that died in the landing did not die in vain, however. For the distraction in the west gave the Comintern the opening they had needed to begin the march to Berlin.

For some inexplicable reason, Spain under Franco, and Japan, took this moment to throw their lot in with the beleaguered Axis. Perhaps they feared a Europe dominated by the Comintern, and knew that their chances of victory would only grow more slim with each passing day. Perhaps the AI in Hearts of Iron doesn’t understand self-preservation. This needn’t have mattered, except that it was at this point that I learnt a very important lesson about checking whether countries had joined a faction between the time I started preparing an invasion and when I declared war. Apparently Iceland, which I had been planning to use as a new naval base, was now part of the Allies, and in declaring admittedly frivolous war on them, I brought the Allies into the war against the Comintern.

Of course, Comrade Bowder had never really trusted the British anyways. In fact, about half the army was stationed on the Canadian border. In stark contrast to Mexico, the Canadian campaign was a cakewalk. American motorized forces raced around the northern tundra, encircling the confused home guard divisions, who were expecting a mock German invasion as part of Canada’s “If Day” campaign, not a real American one. These triumphs in the north were tempered by news from Western Europe, where advancing American forces, hot on the heels of the remnants of the Reich, suddenly found themselves cut off by the very countries they had been liberating. The European Front became a massacre.

By late 1943, the war had settled in to something of a stalemate, with the Comintern controlling Europe north of the alps and east of the Rhine. In Asia, Mongolia and Manchuria changed hands almost monthly. The Americans kept up a mixed success rate in attempting to seize nearby British possessions by amphibious landings. American ports churned out endless fleets of screen vessels with the occasional capital ship, attempting to keep the routes to its trade partners open. In an attempt to break the stalemate, many of the Canadian provinces were put to work on producing nuclear materials. The first Atomic Bomb was dropped in early 1944 on a small town in the Netherlands where the fighting had devolved into a bitter stalemate. Comintern forces did achieve their breakthrough, but the destruction of major infrastructure prevented the breakthrough from being exploited. Over the coming weeks, dozens more bombs would be used by the Communist States of America across various fronts.

The main bottleneck to my winning was, at this point, production. I had more than six million men ready to be drafted, but nothing to arm them with. I could barely supply the troops I had (insert communism joke here). The bottleneck to production was resources. I lacked access to adequate Tungsten, Chromium, and above all, Rubber. Declaring war on the allies, while it had given me access to Canada’s factories, had cut off my main sources of all three. This problem only got worse when my main trading partner, the Soviet Union, closed their economy to outside trade to fuel their own war machine.

And then I read online that, actually, I could just make more rubber. I could synthesize it, if I built synthetic refineries. Which I hadn’t, because I had gotten it in my head (somewhere) that refineries were for oil, so I hadn’t even researched the technology. I also didn’t have building slots to spare at this point.

I wanted to argue a bit against the notion popular in reviews that Hearts of Iron has a steep learning curve, because that’s not quite accurate. I actually found most of the controls themselves intuitive enough. The game even does a decent enough job of notifying you when things are going wrong, at least as far as proximal causes go. Where the game has trouble is in tracing these proximal causes back to bottlenecks that can be fixed. For example:

Your invasion… err, liberation… of the United Kingdom has stalled. You know this because your troops are still in marshaling areas at Norfolk instead of London. Okay. You go to find the commander of that task force to give a talking to, and he says he called it off. Why? Because he’s concerned the mid-Atlantic isn’t fully under our control. Why isn’t the Atlantic an American Lake? Because the fleet you assigned there decided to head back to port. Because its ships got dented by those pesky British subs. It’ll be done repairing… soon…ish. So you look to deploy more ships, only to find your shipyards have also been taking a break. Because you lack Chromium. And good luck finding more. Because the only country that has Chromium that’s not at war is Sweden. And Sweden hasn’t delivered. Why? Because there’s an ocean in the way. An ocean filled with British subs. The ones that you need your navy to beat. Your navy that needs Chromium.

Even though the story here is relatively straightforward, every sentence here is buried on a different tab. Once you’ve figured out that it’s a shipping problem in Sweden, and everything trickles down from there, it’s relatively straightforward to come up with a solution (most of them involve invading Norway). But figuring out the issues is, sometimes literally, half the battle.

This problem is somewhat exacerbated by the pace of the game. Hearts of Iron measures in-game time in hours. This is fair enough when tearing through undefended countryside in a motorized division, but gets a little slow during the moments in between, or even along a static front. Of course, part of this may be due to my computer, which, while it meets the minimum specifications (or used to when it still worked), isn’t new by any stretch. The time on my computer doesn’t seem to pass as quickly as it does on videos of other people playing.

Computer issues aside, the game still involves a lot of waiting. You have to wait for factories to be built, for materiel to be produced, for troops to be trained and marshaled, for fleets to be assembled, etcetera. Even on a fast computer, this takes hours, if not days (real time). Hearts of Iron alternates between short, staccato bursts of activity, in which you scramble to give orders to all of your divisions at once, and long periods of buildup and regrouping. You can speed up and slow down time, but in my experience this still isn’t fast enough to power through the slow bits. Indeed, I have played almost the whole game at maximum speed, and in many places it still felt too slow.

In 1944, the Comintern navies finally got the upper hand in the battle for the Atlantic, paving the way for the American invasion of the United Kingdom. Supported by liberal use of nuclear weapons across the European continent, American forces moved from Plymouth towards London. As American motorized forces raced north to secure Scotland and jump into Northern Ireland, the remaining British forces desperately shifted their forces across the Channel, abandoning continental Europe to defend the holdouts in Dover. British forces held firm, but were overrun, as were the remaining western enclaves in France and the Low Countries. By 1946, the Americans had used their nuclear arsenal to force an encirclement, trapping most of the Spanish frontline and what remained of Vichy France, and causing the last major power in Europe to capitulate. The bitter mountain campaign continued, but this was a mere distraction for the Comintern.

The remaining exiled British forces fought on in India, but as American forces arrived in greater number, the front slowly inched closer to the last major allied capital. In the Far East, Atomic bombs rained down on Japan, shattering any pretense of industry. Still, having yet to lose ground in battle, the sole Axis power would not surrender. At this point, a victory on either front would mean an effective end to the war, particularly as killing either the allies or the Axis would allow the Comintern to consolidate their resources. The rubber shortage had by 1946 been mostly alleviated by synthesis, but Chromium remained in short supply.

In 1947, India surrendered, triggering a conference of the major warring powers to divide up the world. For some reason, the Soviet Union decided to take Canada, which I had worked quite hard to build up after liberating it. Despite this, they didn’t seem too concerned about how Europe looked. So I took most of Great Britain, except for London, where the USSR installed a puppet government that controlled the city as well as… Italy, apparently. I took most of costal France, and a few bits and pieces in the balkans, India, and Africa that would give me the Chromium I needed to continue prosecuting the war against Japan.

The Home islands were taken that same year in an amphibious invasion that took the Japanese completely by surprise. That should have been the end of it, but the game decided that the real powerhouse behind the Axis was Reorganized Nationalist China, that is, the puppet government installed by the Japanese. And this is where things bogged down again, because while WWII-era China may not have much in the way of infrastructure, or technology, or planes, or a navy, or logistics, they do have a seemingly endless reserve of men to absorb all the munitions the Comintern can produce, be they conventional or atomic.

Worth noting- the way the game handles atomic bombs is interesting. Rather than act as world-ending weapons, they inflict a decent, if somewhat disappointing amount of damage, and, rather than bring your opponent closer to surrendering, instead they lower the threshold, which is calculated by what percentage of major cities a nation holds. This means that A-bombs are helpful to give your opponent a nudge, but you can’t win a war just by throwing nukes at the enemy while you sit back in your bunker. From a game mechanics standpoint, this is a solid approach. Unfortunately, it means that you can fling scores of bombs at an enemy until you run out of targets, and your enemy is no closer to surrender than when you started. It also means that using nuclear weapons to support a ground advance is only effective in marginal cases.

At the beginning of the game, there were seven countries the game recognized as great powers. By 1949 there were two remaining that weren’t puppet states. Who would’ve won in a showdown is an open question. The USSR had far more troops in the field (in all of the fields, because apparently Zhukov didn’t feel like moving his divisions to the front), but my Communist States of America had more factories, and had lost far fewer men in the fighting so far. I had also already been preparing for a 1984-style betrayal, building fortifications, stationing troops to man them, and keeping enough planes and rockets on standby to begin bombing Moscow if need be. On the other hand, nearly every country was already in the Comintern, and so chances were good that it would be pretty much the whole world versus me. And while I could out-produce the Soviets, I wasn’t sure I could take on the rest of the world combined. I could try and make a bunch of them switch, but that would take time, and the game clock was running out. Also, my computer was already sputtering with the number of divisions it had to render, and I didn’t think it would be terribly happy with opening up even more fronts.

I made a lot of stupid mistakes during my first game. The whole rubber debacle comes to mind, as does accidentally declaring war on the allies before I was ready. I also managed to have multiple amphibious invasions fail spectacularly because I forgot to order them to take a port from which they could be supplied, and as a result by the time I went back to check on them, they were starving to death and couldn’t be bothered to move. My troops had a knack for advancing into places where they could be supplied, and subsequently developed a knack for losing whatever equipment they were issued. Perhaps there’s a way to fix this, so that the largest economy on the planet isn’t struggling to supply its soldiers.

The game does take some patience and willingness to learn, but it is eminently learnable. Much of the minutiae which makes the difference between a smashing victory and a pyrrhic one aren’t fully detailed in the tutorial, and so have to be looked up online or intuited, but despite criticism, the game is intuitive coming from the proper stratego-historical (according to the original Greek declensions, this is the correct way to say that) headspace. This game is not easy, and it is certainly not simple, but it is great fun for the right person. I enjoy it, and as soon as our computer can be brought back into line, or I decide to finally set up my laptop, I shall continue to enjoy playing it.

Projects in Progress

So the other day as I was browsing the Internet in typical fashion, when I came across an embedded YouTube video, which I watched. When I clicked play, I saw, for the first time in about six months, an advertisement. This prompted me to ponder about how having YouTube Red has played out over the past few months. After all, six months is long enough to have perspective, but not so long that one is liable to forget the experience of what came before.

I immensely enjoy having the ability to create playlists that I can download to my phone. I enjoy it more than I thought I would. There is a certain joy in having just the perfect soundtrack for an occasion. So I can have a video game stealth mission soundtrack for prowling the aisles at the supermarket and acquiring the targets from my list, a military training cadence for exercising, the Jeopardy theme for waiting in line, etcetera. Having the proper soundtrack for an activity elevates the experience of it in a way that is difficult to describe in the abstract.

The exclusive content, insofar as I have had occasion to peruse it, has not captured and held my attention. The quality is decent enough; the series are TV quality. But this isn’t necessarily a good thing in my book. I already have access to plenty of TV series; more than I could reasonably watch. I don’t particularly need more series to add to my watch list from YouTube, even if I enjoy the creators behind it.

There is a certain utility in not having to contend with advertisements. It is hard to quantify this aspect, particularly because I do not notice the absence of advertising. Certainly I see far less advertising in total than previously, but so long as I am still connected to television, radio, and so forth, advertising still has a notable presence in my life.

Of course, it’s fair to argue that advertisements in the context of YouTube videos are more impactful, because they are presented when one is actively seeking and watching something rather than merely playing in the background during a scheduled break in program (which in most cases I will try to fast-forward through), and because YouTube advertising is targeted. This plays into a larger theme which has come up repeatedly in my life, regarding the value of my time and attention, through which I have sought to reduce my exposure to advertising.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying that although I haven’t grown completely comfortable with paying for YouTube Red, I also haven’t come to regret my purchase. This is about as decisive a conclusion I am likely to come to in the near future.

While I’m on the subject of follow up, I may as well append a couple of remarks about the new year’s resolutions I posted earlier this year. The first resolution, to switch to 24-hour time, is going more or less according to plan. Phone and iPad have both been set to 24-hour display, as has my clock radio. My smart watch doesn’t have an option for 24-hour time, at least not on the watch face I use to display my medical data (needless to say, this oughtn’t be messed with). Aside from that, I have been working studiously to try and adopt the system mentally as well, stopping short from trying to convert in my head.

But of course, that resolution was the easy one; the low-hanging fruit to motivate me to get started down the list. The other ones have been more of a mixed bag. Exercising is, of course, difficult in wintertime; nevertheless I have made some progress. I have not made any sort of progress on sorting out my excess clothing, but then again, I expected that this would take some time, and I’ve been preoccupied with other matters.

Notes on Descriptivism

There is an xkcd comic which deals with linguistic prescriptivism. For those not invested in the ongoing culture war surrounding grammar and linguistics, prescriptivism is the idea that there is a singular, ideal, correct version of language to which everyone ought adhere. This is distinct from linguistic descriptivism, which maintains that language is better thought of not as a set of rules, but as a set of norms; and that to try and enforce any kind of order on language is doomed to failure. In short, prescriptivism prescribes idealized rules, while descriptivism describes existing norms.

The comic presents a decidedly descriptivist worldview, tapping into the philosophical question of individual perception to make the point that language is inherently up to subjective interpretation, and therefore must vary from individual to individual. The comic also pokes fun at a particular type of behavior which has evolved into an Internet Troll archetype of sorts- the infamous Grammar Nazi. This is mostly an ad hominem, though it hints at another argument frequently used against prescriptivism; that attempts to enforce a universal language generally cause, or at least, often seem to cause, more contention, distress, and alienation than they prevent.

I am sympathetic to both of these arguments. I acknowledge that individual perceptions and biases create significant obstacles to improved communications, and I will agree, albeit with some reluctance and qualifications, that oftentimes, perhaps even in most cases, that the subtle errors and differences in grammar (NB: I use the term “grammar” here in the broad, colloquial sense, to include other similar items such as spelling, syntax, and the like) which one is liable to find among native speakers of a similar background do not cause significant confusion or discord to warrant the often contentious process of correction.

Nevertheless, I cannot accept the conclusion that these minor dissensions must necessarily cause us to abandon the idea of universal understanding. For that is my end goal in my prescriptivist tendencies: to see a language which is consistent and stable enough to be maximally accessible, not only to foreigners, but more importantly, to those who struggle in grappling with language to express themselves. This is where my own personal experience comes into the story. For, despite my reputation for sesquipedalian verbosity, I have often struggled with language, in both acute and chronic terms.

In acute terms, I have struggled with even basic speech during times of medical trauma. To this end, ensuring that communication is precise and unambiguous has proven enormously helpful, as a specific and unambiguous question, such as “On a scale of zero to ten, how much pain would you say you are currently experiencing?” is vastly easier to process and respond to than one that requires me to contextualize an answer, such as “How are you?”.

In chronic terms, the need to describe subjective experiences relies on keen use of precise vocabulary, which, for success, requires a strong command of language on the part of all parties involved. For example, the difference between feeling shaky, dizzy, lightheaded, nauseated, vertigo, and faint, are subtle, but carry vastly different implications in a medical context. Shaky is a buzzword for endocrinology, dizzy is a catch-all, but most readily associated with neurology, lightheadedness is referred to more often for respiratory, nausea has a close connection with gastroenterology, vertigo refers specifically to balance, which may be either an issue for Neurology, Ophthalmology, or an ENT specialist, and faintness is usually tied to circulatory problems.

In such contexts, these subtleties are not only relevant, but critical, and the casual disregard of these distinctions will cause material problems. The precise word choice used may, to use an example from my own experience, determine whether a patient in the ER is triaged as urgent, which in such situations may mean the difference between life and death. This is an extreme, albeit real, example, but the same dynamic can and will play out in other contexts. In order to prevent and mitigate such issues, there must be an accepted standard common to all for the meaning and use of language.

I should perhaps clarify that this is not a manifesto for hardcore prescriptivism. Such a standard is only useful insofar as it is used and accepted, and insofar as it continues to be common and accessible. Just as laws must from time to time be updated to reflect changes in society, and to address new concerns which were not previously foreseen, so too will new words, usages, and grammar inevitably need to be added, and obsolete forms simplified. But this does not negate the need for a standard. Descriptivism, labeling language as inherently chaotic and abandoning attempts to further understanding through improved communication, is a step backwards.

Heroes and Nurses

Since I published my last post about being categorically excluded from the nursing program of the university I am applying to, I have had many people insist that I ought to hold my ground on this one, even going so far as filing a legal complaint if that’s what it takes. I should say upfront that I appreciate this support. I appreciate having family and friends that are willing to stand by me, and I appreciate having allies who are willing to defend the rights of those with medical issues. It is an immense comfort to have people like this in my corner.

That firmly stated, there are a few reasons why I’m not fighting this right now. The first is pragmatic: I haven’t gotten into this university yet. Obviously, I don’t want the first impression of a school I hope to be admitted into to be a lawsuit. Moreover, there is some question of standing. Sure, I could try to argue that the fact that I was deterred from applying by their online statements on account of my medical condition constitutes discrimination in and of itself, but without a lot more groundwork to establish my case, it’s not completely open and shut. This could still be worth it if I was terribly passionate about nursing as a life path, which brings me to my second primary reason.

I’m not sure whether nursing would be right for me. Now, to be clear, I stand by my earlier statement that nursing is a career I could definitely see myself in, and which I think represents a distinct opportunity for me. But the same thing is true of several other careers: I think I would also find fulfillment as a researcher, or a policy maker, or an advocate. Nursing is intriguing and promising, but not necessarily uniquely so.

But the more salient point, perhaps, is that the very activities which are dangerous to me specifically, the reasons why I am excluded from the training program, the things which I would have to be very careful to avoid in any career as a nurse for my own safety and that of others, are the very same things that I feel attracted to in nursing.

This requires some unpacking.

Through my childhood my mother has often told me stories of my great-grandfather. To hear all of the tales, nay, legends of this man portray him as a larger than life figure with values and deeds akin to a classical hero of a bygone era. As the story goes, my great grandfather, when he was young, was taken ill with rheumatic fever. Deathly ill, in fact, to a point where the doctors told his parents that he would not survive, and the best they could do was to make him comfortable in his final days.

So weak was he that each carriage and motorcar that passed on the normally busy street outside wracked him with pain. His parents, who were wealthy and influential enough to do so, had the local government close the street. He languished this was for more than a year. And then, against all odds and expectations, he got better. It wasn’t a full recovery, as he still bore the scars on his heart and lungs from the illness. But he survived.

He was able to return back to school, albeit at the same place where he had left off, which was by now a year behind. He not only closed this gap, but in the end, actually skipped a grade and graduated early (Sidenote: If ever I have held unrealistically high academic expectations for myself, or failed to cut myself enough slack with regards to my own handicaps, this is certainly part of the reason why). After graduating, he went on to study law.

When the Second World War reared its ugly head, my great grandfather wanted to volunteer. He wanted to, but couldn’t, because of his rheumatic fever. Still, he wanted to serve his country. So he reached out to his contacts, including a certain fellow lawyer name of Bill Donovan, who had just been tasked by President Roosevelt with forming the Office of Strategic Services, a wartime intelligence agency meant to bring all the various independent intelligence and codebreaking organizations of the armed services under one roof. General Donovan saw that my great-grandfather was given an exemption from the surgeon general in order to be appointed as an officer in the OSS.

I still don’t know exactly what my great grandfather did in the war. He was close enough to Donovan, who played a large enough role in the foundation of the modern CIA, that many of the files are still classified, or at least redacted. I know that he was awarded a variety of medals, including the Legion of Merit, the Order of the British Empire, and the Order of the White Elephant. Family lore contends that the British Secret Service gave him the code number 006 for his work during allied intelligence operations.

I know from public records, among many other fascinating tidbits, that he provided information that was used as evidence at the Nuremberg Trials. I have read declassified letters that show that he maintained a private correspondence with, among other figures, a certain Allan Dulles. And old digitized congressional records show that he was well-respected enough in his field that he was called for the defense counsel in hearings before the House Un-American Activities Committee, where his word as an intelligence officer was able to vindicate former colleagues who were being implicated by the testimony of a female CPUSA organizer and admitted NKVD asset.

The point is, my great grandfather was a hero. He moved among the giants of the era. He helped to bring down the Nazis (the bad guys), bring them to justice, and to defend the innocent. Although I have no conclusive evidence that he was ever, strictly speaking, in danger, since public records are few an far between, it stands to reason that receiving that many medals requires some kind of risk. He did all this despite having no business in the military because of his rheumatic fever. Despite being exempt from the draft, he felt compelled to do his bit, and he did so.

This theme has always had an impact on me. The idea of doing my bit has has a profound, even foundational effect on my philosophy, both in my sense of personal direction, and in my larger ideals of how I think society ought work. And this idea has always been a requirement of any career that I might pursue.

To my mind, the image of nursing, the part that I feel drawn to, is that image used by the World Health Organization, the Red Cross, and the various civil defence and military auxiliary organizations, of the selfless heroine who courageously breaks with her station as a prim and proper lady in order to provide aid and comfort to the boys at the front serving valiantly Over There while the flag is raised in the background to a rising crescendo of your patriotic music of choice. Or else, of the humanitarian volunteer working in a far flung outpost, diligently healing those huddled masses yearning to breath free as they flee conflict. Or possibly of the brave health workers in the neglected tropical regions, serving as humanity’s first and most critical line of defence against global pandemic.

Now, I recognize, at least consciously, that these images are, at best, outdated romanticized images that represent only the most photogenic, if the most intense, fractions of the real work being done by nurses; and at worst are crude, harmful stereotypes that only serve to exacerbate the image problem that has contributed to the global nurse shortage. The common denominator in all of these, is that they are somehow on the “front lines”; that they are nursing as a means to save the world, if not as an individual hero, then certainly as part of a global united front. They represent the most stereotypically heroic, most dangerous aspects of the profession, and, relevant to my case, the very portions which would be prohibitively dangerous to an immunocompromised person.

This raises some deep personal questions. Obviously, I want and intend to do my bit, whatever that may come to mean in my context. But with regards to nursing, am I drawn to it because it is a means to do my bit, or because it offers the means to fit a kind of stereotypical hero archetype that I cannot otherwise by virtue or my exclusion from the military, astronaut training, etc (and probably could not as a nurse for similar reasons)? And the more salient question: if we assume that the more glamorous (for sore lack of a better word) aspects of nursing are out of the question (and given the apparent roadblocks for me to even enter the training program, it certainly seems reasonable to assume that such restrictions will be compelled regardless of my personal attitudes towards the risks involved), am I still interested in pursuing the field?

This is a very difficult question for me to answer, and the various ways in which it can be construed and interpreted make this all the more difficult. For example, my answer to the question “Would you still take this job if you knew it wasn’t as glamorous day to day as it’s presented?” would be very different from my answer to the question “Would you still be satisfied knowing that you were not helping people as much as you could be with the training you have, because your disability was holding you back from contributing in the field?” The latter question also spawns more dilemmas, such as “When faced with an obstacle related to a disability, is it preferable to take a stand on principle, or to cut losses and try to work out a minimally painful solution, even if it means letting disability and discrimination slide by?” All big thematic questions. And if they were not so relevant, I might enjoy idly pondering them.

Byronic Major

I’ve tried to write some version of this post three times now, starting from a broad perspective and slowly focusing in on my personal complaint, bringing in different views and sides of the story. Unfortunately, I haven’t managed to finish any of those. It seems the peculiar nature of my grievance on this occasion lends itself more easily to a sort of gloomy malaise liable to cause antipathy and writer’s block than the kind of righteous indignation that propels good essays.

Still, I need to get these points off my chest somehow. So I’m opting for a more direct approach: I’m upset. There are many reasons why I’m upset, but the main ones pertain to trying to apply to college. I get the impression from my friends who have had to go through the same that college applications may just be a naturally upsetting process. In a best case scenario, you wait in suspense for several weeks for a group of strangers to pass judgement on your carefully-laid life plans; indeed, on your moral character.

Or, if you’re me, you’ve had enough curveballs in your life so far that the pretense of knowing what state you’ll be in and what to do a year from now, let alone four years from now and for the rest of your life, seems ridiculous to the verge of lunacy. So you pull your hair and grit your teeth, and flip coins to choose majors because the application is due in two hours and you can’t pick undecided. So you write post-hoc justifications for why you chose that major, hoping that you’re a good enough writer that whoever reads it doesn’t see through your bluff.

Although certainly anxiety inducing, this isn’t the main reason why I’m upset. I just felt it needed to be included in the context here. While I was researching majors to possibly pick, I came across nursing. This is a field in which I have a fair amount of experience. After all, I spent more time in school in the nurse’s office than in a classroom. I happen to know that there is a global shortage of nurses; more pronounced, indeed, than the shortage of doctors. As a result, not only are there plenty of open jobs with increasing wages and benefits, but there are a growing number of scholarship opportunities and incentives programs for training.

Moreover, I also know that there is an ongoing concerted effort in the nursing field to attempt to correct the staggering gender imbalance, which cake about as a result of Florence Nightingale’s characterization of nursing as the stereotypically feminine activity; a characterization which in recent years has become acutely harmful to the field. Not only has this characterization discouraged young men who might be talented in the field, and created harmful stereotypes, but it has also begun to have an effect on women who seek to establish themselves as independent professionals. It seems the “nursing is for good girls” mentality has caused fewer “good girls”, that is, bright, driven, professional women, to apply to the field, exacerbating the global shortage.

In other words, there is a major opportunity for people such as myself to do some serious good. It’s not as competitive or high pressure as med school, and there are plenty of nursing roles that aren’t exposed to contagion, and so wouldn’t be a problem for my disability. The world is in dire need of nurses, and gender is no longer a barrier. Nursing is a field that I could see myself in, and would be willing to explore.

There’s just one problem: I’m not allowed into the program. My local university, or more specifically, the third-party group they contract with to administer the program, has certain health requirements in order to minimize liability. Specifically, they want immune titers (which I’ve had done before, and never not been deficient).

I understand the rationale behind these restrictions, even if I disagree with them for personal reasons. It’s not a bad policy. Though cliched to say, I’m not angry so much as disappointed. And even then, I’m not sure precisely with whom it is that I find myself disappointed.

Am I disappointed with the third-party contractor for setting workplace safety standards to protect both patients and students, and to adhere to the law in our litigious society? With the university, for contracting with a third party in the aim of giving its students hands-on experience? With the law, for having such high standards of practice for medical professionals? I find it hard to find fault, even accidental fault, with any of these entities. So what, then? Am I upset with myself for being disabled, and for wanting to help others as I have been helped? Maybe; probably, at least a little bit. With the universe, for being this way, that bad outcomes happen just as a result of circumstances? Certainly. But raging at the heavens doesn’t get me anywhere.

I know that I’m justified in being upset. My disability is preventing me from helping others and doing good: that is righteous anger if ever there was a right reason to be angry. A substantial part of me wants to be upset; to refuse to allow anyone or anything from standing in the way of my doing what I think is right, or to dictate the limits of my abilities. I want to be a hero, to overcome the obstacles in my path, to do the right thing no matter the cost. But I’m not sure in this instance the obstacles need to be overcome.

I don’t know where that leaves me. Probably something about a tragic hero.

2017 in Review

Author’s note: I started writing this at the beginning of December, and then promptly got distracted. As a result, most of this piece is written from a while back.

In many ways, my 2017 has been a sort of contrasting reflection of my 2016. My 2016 started off okay, got slightly better, before bottoming out in the end. My 2017 started at a fairly low point, but got better; incrementally at first, and then in larger strides. All in all, though, it is probably too soon to call 2017, for a few different reasons.

First, and most immediately relevant, is the fact that I am currently in the midst of trying to pull together college applications. This process probably should have been started with more time before my New Year’s deadline (Author’s note: We got it submitted in time). In my defence: I was told that the software my school uses would make the process streamlined and simple. It might have worked, if the school computers didn’t insist on purging my account from the registry no matter how many times it’s reactivated. Maybe I should have anticipated such problems ahead of time. Alas, I am too often too trusting.

I should say that whether or not I am accepted, or even whether or not my application comes together in time to be submitted will not have a great impact on my overall morale and views of the achievements of the past year. I should say this, but I would be lying. If I get accepted, likely then I will look back on this year as a moderate success overall. Else, I will probably view this year as equivocal; it had its good moments, and it had its bad moments.

In any case, it is difficult for me to internalize the year coming to a close while I have yet to wrap up my last great project of applications. Indeed, this difficulty in coming to grips with the rapid onset of the holiday season has led me, as it often does, to unknowingly procrastinate on gift acquisition. Here I must add that in addition to the considerable distraction of college application, and the unprecedented stress and anxiety which hath befuddled me amidst this process, I have also seemed to have taken ill with viral symptoms.

Among all this equivocating and qualifying, there are a few solid events and conclusions about the year with which I am reasonably comfortable. For one, I received my diploma (I still struggle to grapple with the term “graduation”, as that term carries implications which I believe are misleading), and ceased formal enrollment at my high school. Typing this sounds like I am underselling these events, but in all honesty the formalities were surprisingly anticlimactic compared to the struggling before it.

I traveled a fair bit, spending an appreciable proportion of time at Disney World, visiting the White Mountains and Bretton Woods, and seeing the eclipse, which, even with all the hype, did not disappoint. I attended a record number of Nerdfighter-related events, going first to NerdCon: Nerdfighteria, and then later to the release party for Turtles All The Way Down. Such events are invariably never what I expect, yet still good. Most recently, I embarked on a Disney Cruise which departed from New York and traveled to the Bahamas and to the Disney parks. And though I have not yet been able to fully collect and organize my thoughts on the subject, I must add that for what is otherwise a multi-day car trip, cruise ship is an excellent alternative.

Of course, I traveled a fair amount in 2016 as well, so it’s hard to call the travel record-breaking or year-defining. Nor has the sociopolitical convolution been particularly distinct from yesteryear. Certainly things have been active; chaotic even. But to a large extent this feels like an inevitable consequence of the momentum generated from past events. Indeed, many of the political items which I am inclined to focus on as being of singular historic importance – the mass demonstrations, the special counsel investigation, even the surprising turns of events in elections both domestic and abroad – seem more like reactions to the current conditions than like actions in themselves; and therefore do I feel that they are less relevant to considering this year separate from others.

What has been defining about 2017, at least the latter half of it, has been the appearance of free time in my life for the first time in recent memory. This has had two principal effects.

First, it has led to a proliferation of personal projects, ranging from simple items such as setting up a gallery page, and a crowdfunding campaign, to more ambitious endeavors such as restarting my creative fiction writing, and building a prototype board game. Even though only a handful of these projects have yet been achieved, and none have been the runaway success that my wildest enthusiasm might have daydreamed, I do believe that I am better off from having tried all of them.

Second, I am happier now than in school. Even though the process of wrangling college applications has caused a minor relapse into some of the less healthy mental patterns, and it is difficult to make meaningful data out of the minute to minute fluctuations in mood and happiness, I can say without reservation that I am happier on balance now than at any point since my first year of high school.

Like I said previously, the determination of how 2017 compares will likely be one made in retrospect, partly because the events which are likely to define it in retrospect are still ongoing, and partly because it’s nigh impossible to judge this year in particular devoid of its proper context. That being said, this year has defied my expectations, and has been, if not quite as good as my wildest hopes, then at least, better than the trajectory of the end of 2016 had led me to fear.

2018 Resolution #3

2018 Resolution #3: Get back to exercising

Around spring of this past year I began, as a means of giving myself some easily-achievable goals, a loose program of regular exercise, chiefly in the form of regular walks. Although this simple routine did not give me, to borrow a phrase from the magazines I pass at the checkout counter, “a hot summer bod”, it did get me out of the house at a time where I needed to, and help build my stamina up in order to withstand our summer travel itinerary.

Despite my intentions, I fell out of this new habit after mid-November, and have not managed to get back into it. In my defense, my normal walking route from my house through town lacks sidewalks, and the lawns which I normally walk through are covered in snow. Our house is populated and organized in such a way that even if I possessed proper exercise equipment, there would be no place to put it.

Going to a gym does not strike me as a practical alternative. To put it simply, there is not a gym close by enough to drop by under casual pretenses. This is problematic for two reasons. First, an intense routine on a set schedule that requires a great deal of preparation and investment is more or less contraindicated by my medical situation, which has a distinct tendency to sabotage any such plans.

Secondly, such a routine would clash with the lies that I tell myself. In executing my more casual routine, I have found in motivating myself, it is often necessary, or at least, helpful, to have some mental pretext that does not involve exercise directly. If I can pitch getting out of the house to myself instead as a sightseeing expedition, or as a means of participating in town society by means of my presence, it is much easier to motivate myself without feeling anxious.

Accordingly, my resolution for the coming year is to exercise more later in the year when I can. Admittedly this is a weak goal, with a lot of wiggle room to get out of. And I might be more concerned about that, except that this was basically the same thing that I did last year, and at least that time, it worked.

2018 Resolution #2

2018 Resolution #2: Remove unused clothes

At present, I have an overabundance of clothes. In my case I define overabundance as having reached a point at which some 65% of my clothes have not been worn in six months, and some 35% have not been worn in a year. On the one hand this statistic is slightly misleading, as most of that 35% are clothes have never been properly catalogued and entered into my organizational system in the first place, probably because they were given to me in a large bundle all at once, and I simply never got around to sorting them, because I never found myself wanting for anything from those particular bundles.

Other times it is because The clothes no longer quite fit me comfortably, or I have simply not had occasion to wear them, or that the clothes are not even mine, but merely reside under my jurisdiction because on the day that specific item needed to be stowed away, I had space where others did not. Consequently I have acquired several stacks of clothing and apparel in closets and against walls.

This problem is exacerbated by the nature of our household’s gift economy, which is such that clothes which survive to no longer fit me are given to by brother, who has much the same problem, as he has clothes coming in both from gifts, same as I do, and from me. So in order to clear the backlog in my room, there has to be room in my brother’s room, and so on.

This task does not represent a terribly large physical difficulty, nor a particularly prolonged period of execution that would necessitate a major time commitment. It does however represent a challenge of both logistics and cooperation, in that it requires several parties to work on the same page.

2018 Resolution #1

2018 Resolution #1: Standardize to 24-hour time

A year or so ago, one of my resolutions was to finally iron out the problem of writing dates. For context: I grew up in Australia, where the default is DD/MM/YY. But in the US, where I now live, the default is MM/DD/YY. Now if I had to pick one of the two, I would probably lean towards the former, since it seems slightly more logical, and more natural to me personally. But since everyone around me uses the latter, taking that avenue would only cause more confusion in my life, perhaps not for me, but certainly for those around me.

For a while I would switch between the two systems depending on what purpose I was writing the date for. Items such as school assignments would be dated in the American fashion, while things for my personal consumption would be done in the commonwealth manner. Until after several years I started going throug my own files of schoolwork, particularly artwork, and encountering dates such as 9/10. What does that mean, in the context of a pencil marking in the corner of a sketch, jotted down as an afterthought? Does it mean the tenth of September, or the ninth of October? Or was it completed during the month of September, 2010? Or perhaps it is merely the ninth piece of a series of ten? Or perhaps it received a score of 90% that I wanted to record for posterity.

I knew that the dualistic system was untenable, but I also knew that I would likely fail in the mental self-discipline necessary in forcing myself into either of the two competing standards; especially given that there remain certain contexts where it is necessary that I use each. I therefore decided to adopt a whole new system, based on ISO 8601.

Henceforth, where I was given the choice, I would record all dates in YYYY-MM-DD format. This would make it abundantly obvious that I was recording the date, and the format I was using. It was also different enough that I would not confuse it. Where compelled by outside forces, such as stringent academic standards for school assignments, I would continue to use the other formats, but there it would be clear which format I was using.

Despite skepticism from those around me, this system has worked out quite well, and so I am expanding the project to include having time displayed on my devices in 24-hour time.

Secret of Adulthood

For the entirety of my life until quite recently I was utterly convinced of the idea that all “grown-ups”, by nature of their grownupness, had the whole world figured out. It seemed to me essentially up until the week of my eighteenth birthday that there was some intrinsic difference between so-called “children” and these “adults”, where the latter categorically knew something the former didn’t and never the other way around.

I was never quite positive what it was that gave adults this intrinsic knowledge of how the world worked. I assumed it was something covered in a particular school class, or perhaps the secret was contained within those late night broadcasts only over-eighteens were permitted to watch. Whatever it was, I was confident that by the time I reached that mystical age of eighteen, I too would have the world figured out. After all, how else would I be able to consider myself qualified for such important duties as voting, paying taxes, and jury duty.

While I am still open to the fact that one of these days I shall wake up in bed and find myself suddenly equipped with all the knowledge and skills necessary to make my way in the world, I am becoming increasingly convinced that this is, in fact, not how it works. Rather the growing body of evidence is pointing towards the conclusion that all of my intrinsic abilities, which in truth I do not feel have grown significantly since about six years old, are the only toolset with which I will ever be equipped to deal with the world.

This quite terrifying conclusion has been cemented by the relative ease (compared with what I might have imagined) of registering to vote. There was no IQ test, barely any cross-examination of my identity papers, and most shockingly, no SWAT team descending from the heavens to inform me that, no, sorry, there must’ve been some mistake because I can’t possibly be qualified to genuinely help decide the future of our country and the world at large.

Despite being nominally an adult, I still have this habit of basically assuming that every other adult still knows something I don’t. So when, for example, my brother gets into the car to drive to Florida without sunglasses and wearing wool clothing, I broadly assume that he is aware of all these issues, and has some plan to combat them. It is then frustrating when he realizes later that he left his sunglasses on the counter and asks to borrow my backup pair.

This habit also makes it annoyingly easy to believe that anyone acting with confidence must have some grounds for acting so. While I have come to accept that I am merely faking this whole adulthood thing, it is a whole other matter entirely to convince myself that not only am I flying by the seat of my pants, but so is everyone else.

There has been one minor silver lining in this otherwise terrifying revelation. Namely, it is the realization that, with no intrinsic confidence to distinguish those who genuinely know what they’re doing from those who haven’t the foggiest clue, nine times out of ten one can get away with whatever one desires provided one can act sufficiently confident while doing so. That is to say that with few exceptions, it is fairly easy to convince others that you know better than they do what needs to be done.

Overall, while I wish it were true that adulthood brought with it some intrinsic wisdom of how to make it in the world, I also recognize that, this not being the case, I should at least try to work on my ability to look like I know what I’m doing. Because that is the secret of adulthood. It is all an act, and how you act determines whether people treat you as a know-nothing little boy or a wise young man.