
I'd like to start by saying "When I was a kid, I used to draw spaceships on paper". However, that would be a lie. Not your regular type of lie - like why we should bomb so and so, or that the tooth-fairy and Santa Claus are not real. No, this would be a lie of omission.
You see, it is a lie of omission, because I still draw spaceships on paper. I'm doing it right now while writing this. A better statement would be to say that I started drawing spaceships when I was a kid, but that I continue to do so today.
I started drawing spaceships in grade 3. I was bored by my lessons, so I started doodling little planes and tanks and people. They weren't very good - I could never draw thumbs right - I blame my thumbs - I think they are undercover - perhaps hiding from the law. I don't think they want to be recognized by anyone - luckily they aren't too involved in typing this - I don't think they have cottoned on yet - I'll keep you posted.
Anyways, I quickly grew bored of planes - for one thing, you always had to draw the ground - It kind of cramped your drawing space. You also had to spend time putting in houses, trees, ponds, etc. - It just took too long. I hit upon spaceships - If you want to draw a spaceship in deep space, you can save on all the unnecessary bits of the doodle. To fancy up the drawing (say, to get it posted on the art board - I hated that board - very few of my pictures ended up there - damn thumbs), I could quickly tap my pen (I have always liked ink for doodling - it gives a crisp line) and create stars. So you see, I was economizing my doodle time. One could say that I was being efficient. Sadly, my teachers did not see it this way - I think my thumbs had tipped them off.
As I grew older, my doodles became more complex. Hey - why not throw up a space station, or a planet for the ships to orbit? I shared my drawings with my friends. A pattern emerged. I would start drawing a single ship, then add a ship for it to attack (This may be an important psycho-social discovery -clearly of our society's value structure - why couldn't the ships be exploring?). However, I would then add a third ship that would attack the first. A fourth ship would attack both, then a fifth, sixth and seventh ship would join the broadening conflict. Soon, an entire war would be fought on my poor scrap of paper. Ships would burst into flames, bits of wreckage would impact nearby ships - chain reactions of destruction launched from the myriad of vessels engaged in mortal combat. At this point, no possible resolution was available, except total destruction. Inevitably, a massive explosion would rip from one of the damaged ships; none could escape the burning conflagration.
My friends pointed out that the battles lacked logic- "Why would they attack one after the other like that?". I lacked the vocabulary to explain it at the time. Now that I think about it more, I think the pilots of those brave but foolhardy craft were just too excited to get into the battle - It gave them purpose, they were so focused on the battle, they forgot to check their sixes. Their excitement got the better of them.
Think of that picture of the little fish eating a worm, but behind it is a series of larger fishes poised to eat the next in line. None of those fish are thinking they are the target - each thinks they have the game in the bag. Their irrational exuberance drives them forward as it also harkens them to their doom.
Food for thought?