Why This Element Of Desktop Computers Is A Feature – And Not A Flaw – These Days

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I thought that I’d talk about why one so-called “flaw” of desktop computers is actually more of a sanity-saving feature in the modern age. I am, of course, talking about the fact that these computers aren’t portable. Unlike a smartphone, tablet or laptop, you can’t just carry them around literally everywhere.

And, as someone who only uses a desktop, this is actually a feature. Yes, I get that this isn’t practical for everyone but – if you can – there are advantages to just having a desktop.

The main one is that, because the computer isn’t portable, there’s much more of a clear separation and balance between the online and offline worlds. Even if it’s just when you have to go to get food or whatever, there are “built-in” breaks from the internet. And, don’t get me wrong, the internet is an amazing place. I spend a lot of time there for all sorts of good reasons. This blog exists because of the internet. I really like the internet.

But the idea of it constantly being with me everywhere would probably get stressful after a while. And, with a traditional desktop computer, you actually get a bit of time away from it. You get time without social media or algorithms or whatever. Time to actually think. There’s no need to buy silly puritanical “apps” that set time limits or whatever. The time limit is built into the technology itself, since you’ll probably need to get up from your desk for one reason or another every now and then.

This is a really subtle thing, and it was seen as totally normal two decades or more ago, but it’s something that I’m glad that I’ve kept. Because, again, even if you spend a lot of time online when you use a desktop – because the internet is often a more interesting place than real life can be – there are still these built-in breaks from it because you can’t carry the computer around everywhere. Again, these give you time to think and daydream. They give you either undistracted thinking time or time when you have to distract yourself in more old-fashioned ways (eg: daydreaming, which is good for your imagination).

This also pushes you to think for yourself a bit more as well. Yes, you can remember to do an online search for something when you return to the computer but – unless you’re actually sitting directly in front of it – you actually have to think about things a bit more. The answers aren’t just there at your fingertips instantly wherever you are. Again, this was totally normal and ordinary twenty years ago, but it’s more uncommon these days.

And I’ve seen a ton of Youtube videos about how, for example, A.I. chatbots apparently make you stupider by just instantly giving you answers (not always even the correct answers…) to questions, without allowing you to think or to do any sort of self-directed research. Because why would you think or research if the answers are literally just a quick prompt away? Of course, over time, this means that you think less and don’t really do research or feel the need to remember things etc… and this – allegedly – makes you stupider.

Because a desktop computer, by its very nature, means that you’ll have at least some “offline” time every day (other than sleeping), this also helps you to get to know yourself a bit better as well. Yes, one of the cool things about the internet is its “something for everyone” nature – how there’s your favourite type of music on there, how you can learn about virtually any random or obscure topic that you want to, how there are Youtube videos about old 1990s computer games etc….

But, because a desktop computer forces you to step away from the internet – even just for a few minutes – because you can’t carry it around with you, there’s less distraction. You get more time to feel your emotions, to daydream and to think. You get more undistracted time where you can get to know yourself a bit better.

And, whilst this helps you in all sorts of other ways too, it also improves the time that you spend on the internet. Because whilst recommendation algorithms are very popular on sites like Youtube, the site still has a search bar where you can seek out whatever interests you. Traditional search engines still exist as well. So, by spending even a relatively small amount of time “offline” – which you’ll do if you use a desktop – you’ll be able to take a bit more control and actively look for whatever actually interests you, rather than just mindlessly following what algorithms tell you to look at.

So, yes, desktop computers are awesome 🙂 And it’s hilarious that, twenty years or so ago, the whole “This computer isn’t portable!” thing was actually seen as a “flaw” – rather than the feature it actually is.

————————-

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Today’s Art (19th January 2026)

To my delight, I was feeling mildly more inspired and this digitally-edited painting turned out better than I expected 🙂 And, yes I was in the mood for an “Abandoned mall” type painting, with a hint of “retro horror movie” to it too 🙂

As usual, this painting is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence. Click on the painting to see a larger version.

“Lost Mall 2001” by C. A. Brown

Nope! Not Falling For THAT One! Here’s A “Work In Progress” Art Preview Instead!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I’ve decided to ditch today’s article before publication. It was originally going to be a critique/review of an extended seventeen-minute rock opera music video I found on Youtube in mid-July last year…

…. But the music video was a fairly clever piece of pro-A.I. propaganda (initially disguising itself as an anti-A.I. video) and, as much as I want to study and critique it, I also don’t really want to give it any publicity.

Hilariously, having watched the video, the algorithm later showed me posts from the band saying stuff along the lines of “ThE aLgOrItHm Is CeNsORiNg Us!!!!!” and complaining about low views. Given other cynical videos I’ve seen – like this Ellen Rose one – about Youtube apparently trying to push A.I. “tools” onto creators, the idea that Youtube’s algorithm opposes A.I. certainly made me laugh…

Anyway, as a replacement for this article, here’s a “work in progress” preview of a couple of pieces of real human-made art that will be part of an art series which I hope to post here early next year (in late January 2027 and in February 2027). Click on the paintings to see larger versions of them. Enjoy 🙂

“Coast 1977 Daydream Part 6 (Work In Progress Version)” by C. A. Brown

“Coast 1977 Daydream Part 10 (Work In Progress Version)” by C. A. Brown

Sorry about this quick replacement article. Normal daily articles should resume tomorrow 🙂

Should You Specialise Or Make A Wide Variety Of Art?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I thought that I’d talk about whether you should focus on making one type of art or on making a wide variety of art. Of course, this is something of a trick question because the answer is “both”.

When you are new to making art, then it makes sense to learn how to draw a wide variety of places, people, plants, things, clothes etc… It makes sense to practice monochrome, greyscale and limited-palette artwork. It makes sense to look at as many art tutorials as you can find.

It makes sense to practice making art from life or reference and also to practice making art from imagination (you’ll put in twice as much effort for art that is half as good, but drawing or painting from imagination is a skill that’s worth having!). It makes sense to practice making studies of famous paintings. It makes sense to learn colour theory, shading, perspective and all of that to at least a basic level. And, unless you’re instinctively drawn to one art medium, mess around with as many art mediums as you can until you find one medium – or a combination of mediums – that works for you. When you are new to making art, variety is your friend!

Not only will all of this help you to build confidence in your own art, but it’ll also help you to find out more about yourself. You’ll begin to develop your own style and, most importantly, you’ll learn which types of art you feel the most motivated and inspired to make. And, once you’ve at least learnt the basics and can either make other types of art or at least make art about more than one theme or subject, then it makes sense to specialise a bit more. Because it’ll make you feel more inspired and motivated, and your art will mean more to you.

This was something I ended up thinking about in mid-July last year when, after an uninspired day or two, I realised that I was still thinking too much in terms of “variety”. Instead, I just followed my instincts and let myself focus on making the exact sort of art that I thrive on when I’m making.

During the past year or two, this often – but not always – tends to be artwork with a slightly more gothic and/or eerie atmosphere. Art with vintage/retro fashions, vaguely historical settings, gloomy weather and mild horror elements. This style of art is just emotionally satisfying to make – The autumnal atmosphere! The melodramatic visual storytelling of the horror genre! – and I often tend to make better art when I focus on it.

Case in point, here’s a full-size preview of the small digitally-edited painting (a watercolour pencil/waterproof ink painting that I scan and then edit with GIMP 2.10.30 and MS Paint 5.1) that I made on that morning in mid-July 2025.

(Click for larger image) This digitally-edited painting should hopefully appear here in early January next year.

It was made from imagination and it was originally supposed to be more of a “1970s horror” painting, set in a creepy old tiled leisure centre, but it ended up going in more of a stylised “late 1950s horror” type direction instead. This was mostly because, when I was sketching, the character’s outfit reminded me slightly of a late 1950s “beatnik”. Plus, vintage 1950s horror comics are really cool 🙂

And this was the best painting that I’d made in over a week! Not only was the perspective a bit more dramatic, but I also ended up including a dynamic pose as well. And this was a relatively quick painting too. It maybe took me an hour at most. Yes, the small size helped here, but I also used the time-saving trick of shrouding most of the background in darkness. Although I added some green areas, I also just made the lazy choice of going with the well-worn blue/orange-brown palette as well.

Even so, for a “medium-effort” painting, it turned out a lot better than I expected. And this was because I focused on making the type of art that I currently feel best making. I ignored the part of my mind which said things like “Horror? Again?” or “You should paint more men!“.

Of course, having had practice with other types of art beforehand, I can paint in other genres, and I can also paint a wide variety of men if I need to. But, by focusing on the type of art that felt best to paint, the type of art that gave me the most emotional satisfaction and self-expression, the type of art which felt a bit more meaningful to me, I was able to make better art. I was able to make my daily original art practice feel interesting rather than like a chore. So, once you’ve practiced a variety of stuff, don’t be afraid to specialise.

Also, over time, your specialisation might change too – so, having general skills can be useful when this happens. For example, during the mid-late 2010s and early-mid 2020s, cyberpunk art was my “go to” genre – but, these days, I often either only make it when I’m feeling uninspired (since, thanks to the practice, I can draw and paint it in my sleep…), when I’ve seen something cool in the genre or when I’m feeling nostalgic for the art I made between about 2015-2023. Occasionally, I’ll actually feel genuinely inspired to make cyberpunk art – but it happens a lot less often than it used to.

But, again, making a wide variety of art is great when you are new to making art. It helps you to learn basic stuff and, more importantly, to learn which types of art that you feel best making. It gives you some basic underlying confidence and general skills. But, once you’ve got at least some basic skills, then don’t be afraid to focus on the types of art that mean the most to you and feel the most meaningful to make. It’ll keep you inspired and motivated, as well as resulting in better art too 🙂

——————–

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Today’s Art (17th January 2026)

I was still feeling mildly uninspired, so this digitally-edited painting ended up being inspired by random Aztec/Mayan-themed “Doom II” WADs that I played during the 2010s (like “Ancient Aliens“, “Temple Of The Lizard Men IV” etc…).

As usual, this painting is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence. Click on the painting to see a larger version.

“Temple Of The Skull” by C. A. Brown

Why So Many Indie Horror Games Are Similar To Each Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, although the “game drought” continues, I wanted to write at least one stand-alone “Horror Videogames Series” article this month.

This was mostly because, in mid-July last year, I found myself watching a ton of indie horror game “let’s play” and/or reaction videos on Youtube, lest the British goverment’s upcoming “online safety” regulations later that month resulted in these videos being censored on the grounds of “Youtube must be like the 1950s and/or a Disney movie, unless you give up lots of trackable personal information“. Hopefully, I was just being over-cautious but, at the time of writing, I had no way to tell. [Edit: It’s mid-August 2025 and I can still watch horror game videos 🙂 ]

Anyway, I was surprised to notice that I was getting “indie horror fatigue” from these videos. So many of them were just the same sort of first-person perspective walking simulators – set in the same sort of gloomy abandoned buildings, illuminated by the familiar circle of torchlight. With the same sort of jump-scares and the same sort of ghosts. And I thought that I’d talk about some of the reasons why many – but certainly not all – indie horror games can be like this.

The first reason why so many indie horror games are like this is because of “P.T.” (2014). People who owned a PS4 back then got to play a “Playable Teaser” for an upcoming Silent Hill game (“Silent Hills”)… which never got released. In fact, Konami even later removed this demo from the PS4’s store as well. But it made an impression! Vaguely inspired by the second and fourth Silent Hill games, this was a first-person perspective game where you are implied to be a murderer who has been cursed to walk around the looping hallway of a house whilst being haunted by the ghost of your wife, Lisa.

Whilst – from all of the footage I’ve seen, and a fan remake  – the game scared the player in all sorts of sophisticated ways, many indie developers just took the lesson of “Walk around and get jump-scared” from it. And, with “P.T.” (2014) gone, there was a lot of demand for games similar to it. Whilst the developers of an early game in the style – “Allison Road” – released some genuinely scary trailers and preview footage, this game was also never finished. But, this was around the time when game creation tools were becoming cheaper and more accessible. So, by the mid-late 2010s, lots of low-budget “walking simulator” indie horror games gradually began appearing.

The “haunted building” setting and first-person perspective were obvious choices for a number of reasons. The building is a small self-contained location, which is easier to make. Pre-made assets for houses and buildings were probably also fairly common and cheap as well. The use of a first-person perspective meant that the developers didn’t have to make and animate 3D model for the main character – and the ghosts also could just be pre-animated in fixed patterns as well.

Not only that, by getting rid of any actual gameplay – whether this is a combat system, puzzles or a “run and hide” system – this also simplified the process of making these games. No need to balance the game, no need to work out and program puzzles, no need to program decision trees or A.I. for a more intelligent ghost or monster that the player has to evade etc…. No, the player just walked around and pre-scripted scary things happened at pre-determined intervals. This has an obvious appeal to developers with beginner-level skills (which are more than I have...) or limited time and/or funds to make their horror game.

Then there were also sites like Youtube and Twitch. One of the best ways for these indie horror developers to get free advertising was to give copies of their games to game-streamers and let’s players, who could entertain everyone by reacting to the jump scares. There was also the chance that some viewers would go “Hmm… I want to play this game!” and buy a copy.

(Though, on a side note: Horror games are much scarier when you’re playing them alone than when you’re watching someone else react to them. I learnt this lesson via “Outlast”  (2013), of all games! I absolutely loved the old early-mid 2010s Yogscast “let’s play” videos for this game, and I bought a copy for myself in 2020… but didn’t complete it until 2022 because I was just too scared to play it for two years. It’s a terrifying game!)

Anyway, Youtubers and Twitch streamers also absolutely loved these low-budget indie horror games because they are the ultimate low-effort content. Without any actual real gameplay – any decision-making, puzzle-solving and/or combat – there is absolutely zero skill required on the part of the player. You just literally walk around and get jump-scared. What this meant is that Youtubers and Twitch streamers could focus more of their attention on entertaining the audience and less on having to play a challenging game, resulting in an easier video. Not only that, these games were also often fairly short as well, which probably saved on editing time.

Again, not all indie horror games are like this. There are a ton of awesome and creative indie horror games with actual gameplay – like “Remothered: Tormented Fathers” (2018), “Alisa” (2021-22), “Homebody” (2023), “Withering Rooms” (2024) and “Labyrinth Of The Demon King” (2025) – but a lot of the “walking simulator” style ones are there because of “P.T.” (2014), because they are easier/cheaper to make and because they are easier for online streamers/Youtubers to record themselves playing.

—————-

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Review: “Printer’s Devil Court” By Susan Hill (Novella)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don’t worry, I haven’t gotten back into binge-reading again… but this novella took less time to read than I expected it to. Anyway, I’ve been meaning to read another Susan Hill book ever since I read her 1983 gothic horror masterpiece “The Woman In Black” back in autumn 2020. And, last year, I found a cheap ex-library hardback copy of her 2014 novella “Printer’s Devil Court” – described simply as “a ghost story” – online and decided to give it a go.

So, let’s take a look at “Printer’s Devil Court”. This review may contain SPOILERS.

This is the 2014 “Profile” (UK) hardback edition of “Printer’s Devil Court” that I read.

Set in the 20th century, the novel begins with a letter about how a mysterious hand-made book was found amongst the personal effects of the recently deceased Dr. Hugh Meredith. Of course, what follows is the contents of the book itself. Hugh’s story begins in the late 19th/early 20th century when he takes up lodgings with three other doctors – James, Walter and Rafe – in a house in Printer’s Devil Court in London.

One night, when the four of them are sitting by the fire, Walter and Rafe start talking mysteriously about whether it is possible to raise the dead….

One of the first things that I will say about this novella is that, whilst it doesn’t quite reach the perfection of “The Woman In Black” (1983), I still really liked it 🙂 It’s a short – but atmospheric – old-school ghost story with fun Victorian-style narration and some decent “old-world London” atmosphere to it too. There are hints of H.P. Lovecraft to it as well, with the way that the story is framed as a dead man’s final writings, and it also does something vaguely innovative with the ghost story genre as well.

Whilst experienced horror fans are unlikely to too be frightened by this story, it contains a mixture of the macabre, ghost-based horror, gender-dysphoria horror and scientific/medical horror. A lot of the horror comes from the consequences of a secret experiment that aims to collect the departing spirit of a dying old man and transplant it into the body of a comatose girl. There are hints of “Frankenstein” (which I really need to read sometime. I’ve only seen the 1994 film adaptation…) and the excellent horror movie “Flatliners” (1990) to it. Not to mention that part of the creepiness comes from the fact that Hugh doesn’t actually actually see the consequences of the experiment until decades after it was performed.

Hill’s narration is the sort of Victorian-style narration that you’d expect from her legendary novel “The Woman In Black” (1983). It is slightly faster-paced and more concise than some actual Victorian narration, whilst keeping a lot of the historical flavour. Whilst this narration is very atmospheric, I was surprised to see references to the Blitz (in the 1940s) later in the story. Still, the historical atmosphere is really good – although the story’s short length means that Hill doesn’t have the chance to build the exquisitely desolate and gothic atmosphere, or slow-building dread, which made “The Woman In Black” (1983) such a memorable masterpiece.

Even so, the story’s delightfully mysterious and ominous ending fits in with this style of ghost story personally. Not to mention that the “book within a book” structure also allows for rotating first-person narration in a way that doesn’t feel annoying or disconcerting. Seriously, whilst I usually despise multiple first-person narrators in a book, it actually makes sense in context here (since, technically, the whole novella consists of Hugh’s step-son reading his book) and it’s quite a clever way to structure the story.

Whilst there isn’t a single wasted chapter or scene here, this is a shorter story than I was expecting it to be. It’s almost more of a novelette than a novella. The text is printed in a slightly narrow column, there are blank pages between parts of the book and there are also a few pages with cool-looking Victorian-style illustrations, vaguely reminiscent of Sidney Paget’s classic “Sherlock Holmes” art (and Hugh seems like a vaguely Watson-like character, an observer, as well) – but with the sort of gloomy lighting that you’d expect from a gothic horror story 🙂 And, at 106 pages, this is the sort of book that will take even a mildly experienced reader maybe an hour or two at the absolute most to read.

All in all, whilst not exactly terrifying, this is a pretty atmospheric and compelling gothic novella. An old-school ghost story with a Victorian atmosphere, a Lovecraftian structure, a subliminal hint of “Sherlock Holmes” and some gnarly old illustrations. There are hints of “Frankenstein” and “Flatliners” (1990) to it as well, and there’s a slightly clever twist with the ghost as well. On it’s on merits this is a cool little story which can be enjoyed in maybe an hour or two at most. Yes, it isn’t as good as Hill’s “The Woman In Black” (1983), but it’s still a really decent novella 🙂

If I had to give it a rating out of five, it would get four and a half.