Genres

The Lazy Self-Indulgent Book Reviewer has a few words for [futuristic television characters](http://lazybookreviews.tumblr.com/post/6993696856/get-better-flashlights-futuristic-television):

> Why are, like, graduates of Starfleet Academy lugging around physical cylinders that emit light from one end? Why don’t they all have chip implants in their palms that glow when activated?

> I mean, my iPhone has a better flashlight app than I’ve seen used by an actual Time Lord, and the iPhone’s flashlight app sucks.

Glowing palms are an ergonomic disaster. Try it.

But her point is well-taken. Characters generally want to light an area, not simply a narrow cone. The wizards in the Potterverse seem to have a good solution: use your wand like a torch, or fling the sphere of light where you want to see. (But they’re magic, yo. So they could also probably cast a spell to make it less dark, or give themselves ultravision.)

For sci-fi, a good choice would be hovering drones that light the area. As a bonus, keeping the light physically separated from the characters makes them less of a target.

And the best iPhone flashlight app is my friend Troy’s [InfinitLight](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/infinitlight/id399277601?mt=8).

Tad Friend examines female characters in comedies and finds an [unsettling pattern](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/11/110411fa_fact_friend):

> Funny women in movies must not only be gorgeous; they must fall down and then sob, knowing it’s all their fault.

Nerve has a super-cut to demonstrate:

Friend’s article — a lengthy piece on Anna Faris — looks at a lot of the issues surrounding female roles in comedy. It’s easy to point fingers at screenwriters (“Write better parts!”) or studios (“Make better movies!”), but the real obstacle is of course the audience, voting with dollars.

The more money female-driven comedies make, the more female-driven comedies will get made. In the short term, the success of Bridesmaids should make studios less gun-shy about spending money to produce and market these movies.

But will they be any good? I worry we’ll learn the wrong lessons and just make more comedies about women in wedding dresses.

A few months ago, I was approached to write a movie about Google. The producer had rights to a book, but more importantly seemed to have access to significant people with connections in the company, both at its founding and today. I was intrigued.

I think Google is one of the most fascinating success stories of the last few decades, and certainly worthy of big-screen (or small-screen) exploration. The producer wanted to focus on the early days, which is understandable: it’s an underdog story, with scrappy geniuses inventing the future. He was particularly keen on Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” philosophy.

I jumped in: “And then, of course, the second act is about how they become evil despite themselves. It’s like Animal Farm. The pigs make all these noble rules, and then systematically subvert them.”

*Crickets.* I won’t be writing the Google movie.

But it’s remarkable how much my appreciation for Google has shifted over the last year or two. I use their products, but I don’t love the company anymore. In fact, I’m kind of nervous about them. It’s a small thing, but I stopped syncing my address book through Google. I don’t want all of my stuff in their cloud.

Some of what I’m feeling may just be the need to have a technology villain. As an Apple user, that’s long been Microsoft, but it’s hard to feel threatened by a company that keeps tripping over itself. When Microsoft has a big success — Kinect, for example, is amazing — I find myself rooting for them.

I’m not the only one noticing something has changed about Google. They [cozy up with Verizon](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html) on net neutrality. While cheering for openness, they embrace Adobe’s proprietary Flash format. They have valid competitive reasons to do both, but it’s inconsistent with their stated philosophy.

They launch services that seem under-thought and over-engineered, like Google Wave and Buzz. Meanwhile, they’ve actually become worse at the thing you mean when you say “google.” For example, Paul Kedrosky tried to compare dishwashers, and found nothing but [spam and gibberish](http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/12/dishwashers_dem.html):

> Google has become a snake that too readily consumes its own keyword tail. Identify some words that show up in profitable searches — from appliances, to mesothelioma suits, to kayak lessons — churn out content cheaply and regularly, and you’re done. On the web, no-one knows you’re a content-grinder.

How do these content-grinders make money? Largely through Google ads. It’s created a situation in which inferior search results make more money for Google. Yes, they still want to organize the world’s information, but it’s become easier to see the gray text after it: “…so we can sell ads next to it.”

The Android operating system it makes for mobile phones has become a viable challenger for Apple’s iOS. But for all the talk about it being “open,” they’re not giving it away out of the goodness of their hearts. Explains [Kyle Baxter](http://www.tightwind.net/2011/01/android-isnt-about-building-a-mobile-platform/):

> Android isn’t an attempt to build the best mobile platform and sell it on its merits; it’s a play to control the vast majority of the mobile market, secure eyeballs for Google advertising and eliminate any threat to Google.

At Google board meetings, do they discuss whether they should aim for smaller market share? I doubt it, though if asked about any other industry, they would stress the importance of robust competition.

Narratively, that’s the story I find most interesting about Google. At a certain point, do you become so large and powerful that evil is unavoidable?

I love the United States, but it’s easy to see why many actions our country takes in its own self-interest appear evil to other parts of the world. We want to raise the standard of living worldwide — but not at the cost of American jobs. We believe strongly in human rights, unless we’re talking about suspected terrorists, in which case we go Jack Bauer in a hurry.

Espousing freedom is easy except when it threatens your own dominance. That’s the conundrum Google is in at the moment, though I wonder if they even recognize it.