#and it wasn't a problem until now when we have a player who exploits to an actually unbelievable extent | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

randomboo256 · 2 years

Text

Pac-Man World 2 Review

If you've been following my recent exploits, you'll know that I recently discussed in detail my thoughts on the classic PS1 Namco platformer Pac-Man World and how much it disappointed me. To recap, I thought the game had a fun basic premise, but the gameplay was simply tedious and unpolished. Pac-Man felt extremely heavy. His basic jump was too short for most jumps and the game essentially forced you to use his inconvenient butt bounce as a substitute 90% of the time. Combined with the difficult depth perception caused by playing as a 2D sprite in a 3D world and the frequent backtracking and awful boss fights, it ended up with a game that I can not recommend anyone play unless they're extremely curious.

But hey, what are sequels for? 3 years after the release of Pac-Man World for the PS1, Namco released Pac-Man World 2 for... EVERYTHING. PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, even Windows PC. Needless to say, but World 2 ended up being the first PMW game for the vast majority of players. When people think of this series, World 2 comes to mind, myself included. I owned all the PS2 titles as a kid and never touched the original until.. well until I wrote that review not too long ago. The general consensus seems to be that this one is the best, so how does the game fair?

Firstly, I'll quickly discuss graphics. They're very good. I'm on Gamecube. The game looks very good overall. There's no widescreen, but we do have a silky smooth 60fps alongside a set of graphics that honestly haven't aged much at all. I'd say Pac-Man World 2 looks about as good, if not better than the upcoming Pac-Man World Re-Pac. That's not to mention the fact that, as always, World 2 looks even better on Xbox with widescreen to boot. Overall, this is very much a good looking game for it's time. That's without mentioning the obvious, which is that Pac-Man is now full 3D model, which alone makes platforming so much easier. That's even ignoring the new camera which accompanies the game's new approach to level design. While World 1 was more so 2.5D, World 2 is a true 3D platformer. The camera can be fiesty, but overall it's solid. What an immediate step up.

Much like the first game, the story here is merely an excuse for gameplay. The ghosts steal some golden fruit then awaken an eviler ghost named Spooky who wants to destroy Pac-Land. So Pac-Man is tasked to defeat each ghost one by one as he collects every golden fruit and eventually defeats Spooky at the end of it all. Unlike the first game, you aren't rescuing your friends. There's no hidden keys or cages in sight here. In fact, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from just ignoring all collectables and exploration outright and just rushing to the goal. The first game encouraged you to explore constantly to find these necessary items, however most things just give you worthless points. In the sequel, the only reason to explore at all is points.

Ok, well that's not entirely true. If you collect absolutely everything in a level in one run, as in every Pac-Dot, Token, and Fruit (a task far easier said than done), you get an additional token. What do tokens do? Well, they unlock some classic arcade games. Collect every token (thus 100% the game) and you'll unlock Ms. Pac-Man. Cool I guess?? I'm sure that was nifty back in the day, but these days that is absolutely not worth the effort. I don't quite like that. The problem with Pac-Man World 1 wasn't that it forced you to explore. The problem was that exploration devolved to backtracking every 10 seconds and the rewards were mostly just extra points. World 2 goes too far in the opposite direction. They cover their levels with fun collectables and places to explore, but there's absolutely no reason to do that unless you commit to doing absolutely everything, and even then the reward is weak. Despite that, I do prefer the World 2 approach. If I can't have good exploration, I suppose I'll settle for optional exploration. So really, just focus on reaching the goal. Nothing else matters.

So how is that process? For most of the game, it's very good! Pac-Man's controls have been completely overhauled. His basic jump is now about as high as his bounce and the mid-air control is very precise. His neat Pac-Dot projectile move was cut though. I thought that move was kinda fun, even if imprecise. Oh well. We do get a move in its place, being a little mid-air kick. The kick isn't super helpful, but it has an amazing animation and combined with the tight controls I ended up trying to use it constantly anyway. His Rev-Roll though is somehow even less useful. Pac-Man doesn't have momentum, so jumping after a rev is no different from jumping from a standstill. Even ignoring that, the move is almost never used. In the original, it was almost exclusively used on rev platforms that got old fast, but at least it was used frequently. Here it just feels like they forgot about it. You do some jumps here and there, but overall it feels like missed potential. Oh well. Once again, despite my complaints, I still prefer the World 2 approach. I'd rather a mostly forgotten Rev-Roll than a Rev-Roll exclusively used for tedious stop-and-go puzzles.

As for level design, it's a mixed bag. Most levels are feel too short, like they ended 2/3 of the way through. Despite that, they're fun, mostly because the base gameplay is so fun. Some levels aren't though. There aren't that many bad ones, so I'll just list them all here:

One of the tree levels has a confusing map layout that makes it easy for you to run in circles.

Red Ghost* has an awful boss fight. The fight is simply chaotic with tons of places to get hurt and awkward as hell collision with both the platforms and the boss itself. The boss can reach a state by the end where you're supposed to be damaging him but for some reason it does nothing.

The entire water world (coincidentally right after the awful Red Ghost* fight) is complete dogshit. It's tedious on rails gameplay. The submarine level took like 15 minutes to beat and it was the same shit over and over again. It felt like the game was in an endless loop.

Most of the levels of the final world (coincidentally right after that dreadful water world) are bad. I like the first dock level, but the other two were awful. The second had me stuck running around a maze with a really up close camera desperately searching for some fruits to progress and the third had me spend the whole time wandering back and forth on narrow rock platforms with awkward collision.

*his name is Blinky but for some reason in this game they call him Clyde??

Yeah.. as you might've noticed, most of garbage in this game comes right at the end. I'll be honest, if you stop playing right before the "Clyde" fight, you'll miss almost nothing of value. Just about everything afterwards is not worth playing, adding up to about 2 worlds worth of content that's simply bad. That's a real shame honestly, but hey at least we have 4 worlds worth of good content, right? 4 out of 6 is two thirds. That's not bad.. I guess.

I'm mixed on Pac-Man World 2. It seemed to take a "throw the baby out with the bath water" approach when it came to the original's flaws. Although while that's disappointing, I'd rather have them gone even if it meant sacrifice. The core gameplay here is very good, but levels can feel short and the final 2 worlds are a trainwreck. However, I must commend them for improving the original as much as they did.

Overall, I give Pac-Man World 2 a 7/10. It's a pretty flawed game, especially by the end, however it's still pretty darn fun overall. I recommend this game to any platformer fan, however it shouldn't be high on your priority list.

0 notes

urupotter · 3 years

Text

So while I've said before that I don't like the HP subreddit, I still frequent it because occasionally I read something insightful. This is one such case, where I read a reading of Lupin that I'd never seen before in response to a comment of mine analyzing the shrieking shack confrontation between Snape, Remus, Sirius and the golden trio, where I mentioned that Lupin was a gaslighter so I wanted to share. It was created by reddit user u/UsuallySiSometimesNo and is posted here with his permission. We had a little conversation in the comments. Read it under the cut

UsuallySiSometimesNo: That struck a cord with me, too. I didn't think about that on a conscious level before, but when I read it, it felt instantly true.

Honestly, I think the strongest examples of Lupin gaslighting are actually done to himself. The biggest, character-defining example, I think, is that after finding friendship with James, Sirius, and Peter, he becomes so desperate not to be ostracized from them (due to his issues of self-worth and his personal brand of impostor syndrome) that he deliberately and routinely feeds himself false narratives about their behavior until he can no longer tell fact from fiction, even as he's experiencing it.

Their relentless bullying of Snape? A childhood rivalry.

Their casual bullying of other students? Kids being young and stupid.

Their clear disinterest verging on contempt for Peter, someone less fortunate and vulnerable with whom they're supposed to be good friends? Just mates being mates.

Even actions taken against Lupin, himself, are revised in his memory to be 'no big deal', because he desperately needs that to be true. Let's pretend for a moment that Snape indisputably deserved to be slaughtered by a werewolf the night Sirius told him how to get past the Whomping Willow. Sirius did not send Snape to be killed by any old werewolf. What happened that night was that Sirius - one of Remus' best friends, if not his actual best friend - attempted to use Remus' curse/illness against someone (which is a big enough betrayal on it's own) without ever telling Remus that when he woke up in the morning (covered in blood and in the presence of a shredded corpse) it would be to find that he had committed the act he was most petrified he might one day commit. In setting Snape up to be killed by Lupin, Sirius, at the very least, risked Lupin's sanity, and, at the very most, risked Lupin being sentenced to death.

Now, I understand that Sirius wasn't thinking about all of that when he did what he did, and I, as a someone removed from the situation (and armed with the additional character/situational knowledge granted to a reader) can even understand why Sirius' own trauma led him to grant such a blind death sentence to Snape (which I think is related to a point you made elsewhere, u/Adventure_Time_Snail, about Sirius' "violence towards those who trigger his fundamental fear of wizard fascists" because of his abusive upbringing). But Lupin's perspective is not one of an unbiased observer. And once James found out what was happening and pulled Snape back before it was too late (which, I would think, was more to save Lupin than to save Snape) and once Remus awoke the next to day to discover everything that transpired the night before, I find it hard to believe there wasn't at least some conversation about the true gravity of the situation. And yet, even all these years later, Lupin doesn't bat an eye when Sirius not only doesn't display shame when the event is mentioned in POA, but offers something akin to regret, NOT at the fact that his actions could have gotten Lupin killed, but that that they DIDN'T get Snape killed: "It served him right...", he sneered. etc. etc.

I think the obvious question here, is 'Even disregarding what Sirius did to Snape - how can Lupin be okay with the knowledge that Sirius has no regret, at all, for what he did to him, even now that they're adults?' Well, we're not in Lupin's point of view in the books, which means we can't hear his internal monologue, but I think a satisfactory answer to the question is that he's done a substantial amount of internal gymnastics in order to get to a point where he doesn't see this as a big deal, or even as something that he has a right to be upset about.... just like a gaslighter does to their victim.

Again, because we're not in Lupin's POV, we can't point to the exact instances that such internal gaslighting took place, but, based on what we do observe from Harry's POV (and based on external knowledge of gaslighting as a true-to-life concept) I wouldn't be surprised if Lupin so desperately needs everything to be okay that he derides himself for feeling bad or betrayed, that he calls himself stupid for thinking terrible things that have happened to him are a big deal, that he wars with himself about how people who are his friends and who are so good to him and who are better friends than he thinks he deserves could possibly do something to harm him/others, and that he beats down whatever emotions and senses and gut feelings he has that tells him something his friends have done might be very wrong. What we see in the books is a man who makes excuses for his friends and harbors a warped perception of reality in much the same way victims of gaslighting do, and he seems to exploit his own insecurities in order to instill doubt in his own experiences in much the same way perpetrators of gaslighting do.

I can't help but think that, by the time Lupin tells Harry that Snape harbors a particularly strong hatred for James because James was a better Quidditch player, Lupin has become so adept at gaslighting himself that he actually believes it.

tl;dr: One of Lupin's defining characteristics is that he gaslights himself out of a desperate need to be liked by others, since he has a difficult time liking himself and seems to believe all of his relationships are incredibly fragile.

Urupotter:

This is a fascinating reading on Lupin that I've never seen. I don't read him the same way, in that I think Lupin actually does know that what he's doing is wrong, he just doesn't have the moral courage to act on his conscience. (I view him as the anti Snape, great conscience, but abysmal moral courage, while Snape had unbelievable moral courage but a shitty conscience. Their arcs are about growing their moral courage and their conscience respectively) Realizing that his negligence almost got Harry killed is what triggers his arc, concluding when he goes back to Tonks and Teddy after running away, taking responsibility for his actions for the first time.

But this reading is so interesting that I'll have to reflect on it. Do you mind if I post it on my Harry Potter tumblr blog? I'll credit you of course, I would just like to discuss it with my followers. Of course if you don't want to I won't.

UsuallySiSometimesNo:

Honestly, I think the lack of in-depth conversation about Remus Lupin (at least compared to fan favorites Sirius Black and Severus Snape) is a missed opportunity and a shame. Don't get me wrong, I can discuss Sirius and Snape until blue in the face, but Lupin's arc is just as powerful in an understated (and often underestimated) way. The muddy, oversimplified truth is, without the fatal-flaw decision making of all four Marauders throughout their lives, the series of events proceeding the first chapter of the first book don't happen, and the story we all know and love never comes to be.

And speaking of sparking a discussion about Lupin...

I think Lupin actually does know that what he's doing is wrong, he just doesn't have the moral courage to act on his conscience.

You know what? I agree. And that's what makes him so interesting, I think. He is constantly and dependably full to bursting with internal conflict. When his friends are wrong/do something wrong/say something wrong, he can and does immediately identify the situation as wrong. When he does something wrong, or when he does nothing in the face of something wrong, in that moment I believe he knows the full weight of the situation. Like you said, he has a strong conscience, as well as a deeper, perhaps more nuanced understanding of right and wrong than do, for example, James and Sirius. Now, Lupin needs his friends. They're not just people to hang out with, they're a lifeline for him. He's not going to engage in conflict with them if there is even the slightest chance that he might lose them (for a variety of reasons, he lacks, as you said, the moral courage to do so). But he's also a generally decent human being, and with a strong conscience comes the capacity for sincere guilt and remorse. So, not only will he not confront his friends, he needs it to be okay that he doesn't confront them. And it's at that point that I think the self gaslighting is triggered.

But Lupin is intelligent and nobody's fool, so the gaslighting creates only a thin layer of ice over the problem. Just enough of a cover that he can live with the things he would otherwise deeply regret. I do think he believes the alternative reality he makes for himself to be accurate as long as it isn't really challenged. Crack the ice, though, and we see him express remorse and reveal an underlying awareness of past and present truths. But then the moment is over, and the war between the uncomfortably and full weight of the truth and his need for the companionship of his friends returns, and then the gaslighting begins again, allowing him an easier return to his closest friends (and eventually his closest friend, singular, after the others have been taken from him as was his fear all along) without conflict and with minimal strain on his conscience.

Once Sirius, the last of his original chosen family is gone - truly gone, as opposed to 'located elsewhere' as he was when in prison - following OOtP, suddenly Lupin's arc takes off at a greater speed than at any point prior. He's now literally lost all of the people he'd been terrified of figuratively losing. Although there are still people and things he cares about, he isn't as dependent on any of them as he was on those foundational friendships, and the finality of their absence allows him to finally grow beyond his stifling cycle of reality shifting, confront the truths of his reality and his circumstances, and, as you said, finally take responsibility by returning to Tonks and Teddy - a decision that, ultimately, triggers his death (I don't mean to imply that it was a bad decision or that it's the sole cause of his death, but Rowling has said that being 'out of practice' contributed to his loss at the Battle of Hogwarts, which makes for a fantastic tragedy).

I don't mean to overstate the importance of this theory or imply that it's always present when he's on-stage, and, as with anyone, many other elements, of course, factor into his actions/words/motives. But I think it's a fascinating potential component of his character all the same. If you have more thoughts on this, I love to hear them - and I look forward to reading the discussion on your blog!

So what do you think? Is this a valid reading of Lupin? I'd say it is, but I'm interested in reading my followers thoughts!

#remus lupin #lupin #severus snape #sirius black #moony #padfoot #the marauders #marauders #harry potter #hp #mwpp

259 notes · View notes

auskultu · 7 years

Conversation

Yardbird Jimmy Page says, 'Open Your Mind'

Hit Parader magazine: WHEN YOU were a session man, were you playing bass or lead guitar?

Jim: Lead guitar.

HP: Was it difficult to switch to bass when you joined the Yardbirds?

Jim: It was at first because I tended to play it like a guitar. With the bass you just play a sort of root thing. I was just leaping around all over the place with great speed and I had to stop doing that. I managed to simplify it. But at first I was playing far too quickly.

HP: I read somewhere that you were going to play lead soon?

Jim: I already have because Jeff was taken ill. Chris took over bass.

HP: Who were some of the other people you have accompanied?

Jim: Them, the Kinks, Georgie Fame, I did some stuff for the Rolling Stones. Actually, we just did a lot of things for fun for Andrew Oldham. In fact, it really was good fun. But I've never been on any of their records. I was on the Who stuff. Petula Clark, P.J. Proby. Nearly everybody who didn't have their own backup group.

HP: How would you describe your style of guitar playing?

Jim: My style has always been very similar to Jeff Beck's. We knew each other for about 9 years. We've always liked the same music and we had the same tastes. As a result, it's been quite easy to fill in for him. When we get the two lead guitars going, it should be pretty good. Because it'll be like two identical people playing together.

HP: What's your opinion of the Paul Butterfield Blues Band?

Jim: I haven't seen them live. But their album is pretty good. As a harp player, Butterfield is really great. He's better than anybody in England. Lots of people speak of Mike Bloomfield, but there are a lot of guys in England who play that stuff.

HP: Beck is an excellent guitarist, but why isn't more of his solo work heard on records?

Jim: How far can you go? We've been told our latest album is too far advanced. There's too much electronic stuff on it. But I think it's all basic. We cut a single with Jeff. It's a Bolero thing. It's very exciting and strange. It's either going to be a monster or a bomb. It's an instrumental based on the classical Bolero piece. Beck's guitar-playing is exploited quite a bit there. But how much can you do that the public will accept? You either make a commercial record or a musicians' record. You've got to draw the line somewhere.

HP: Are there some good blues bands in England?

Jim: There's one called John Mayall's Blues Breakers. Mayall himself is terrible. And then Eric Clapton is good, but he's in the Mike Bloomfield bag, and that's that. And there are lots of good guitarists in minor bands.

HP: Would you say blues is still a big rage in England?

Jim: No, not really. It's still got a market; it's the same thing as in America.

HP: Are you basically a blues guitarist?

Jim: Before the Indian thing was exploited, everyone said I played like an Indian. Mainly because I was interested in the music so many years back. I had the albums and I sent to India for a sitar. I had one long before George Harrison. I tried to learn the actual classical music. It's very difficult. There are so many sides to it. I tried to adapt that to my guitar playing.

HP: Why have musicians latched on to these Indian sounds?

Jim: Because it's so esoteric. Everybody thinks they understand. They get a new sound and they say this is it. But really, they don't know what's going on, I'm sure. I've heard people in groups playing sitars and they don't know what's going on. They don't even tune them up right. Apparently, George Harrison has become deeply interested in it. He plays a sitar on their new album and he was getting along very well. People like Brian Jones just got it for the one record and I doubt if they'll ever use it again.

HP: There are a lot of Indians living in London, aren't there?

Jim: Yes, there are quite a few. Strangely enough, when you speak to them of Indian music, they don't seem to know anything about it. The only thing they know is the western music or the Indian film music, which is completely different from the classical. When you ask them about it, they recommend you to the Asian society or something. I met Ravi Shankar and that's how I got my information on how to tune up the sitar.

HP: Will you be writing material for the Yardbirds now?

Jim: With them, not for them. When one of us has an idea, we all chip in on it until it's finished. I wasn't on the last two, but 'Shapes of Things' and 'Over, Under, Sideways, Down' were all made up in the studio.

HP: What kind of equipment do you use?

Jim: When Chris is on rhythm guitar, we use any old amplifier because it isn't that important, but on bass we have a big set-up with 2 or 3 speakers.

On this tour, we've been given Jordan equipment. It's all transistorized equipment. We're sort of experimenting with it. It hasn't worked out properly on the lead guitars. But it's been sufficient on the bass. On bass, we've got 6 speakers to 8 speakers. In England I've been using a Showman Fender amplifier. And a Fender concert amp which is a smaller one with 4 ten-inch speakers. I link them up together so I get double the power. Through one you get the bass frequencies and through the other I use feedback and the treble frequencies. This is about the best set-up I've had so far. But Jordan is working on some new equipment which should prove to be great. I play a Gibson Les Paul guitar, Chris has an Epiphone bass and there's another Gibson floating around. Eventually, it will be all Gibson because we bought them and never bothered to change them. They're quite adequate.

HP: How did you finally end up with the equipment you've got now?

Jim: We just worked on it. I've been playing guitar for a few years now and I just work on this certain line. You do as best you can. The only problem being we blow up quite a few amps. We did one show and I had 4 amplifiers all linked up. It must have been about 400 watts all together. Those were Vox amps. They just can't take the volume. The speakers blow and then you don't get any sound at all. The Jordan ones didn't blow up, but they don't have enough volume. I've never broken a guitar, but I've been through nearly every make. I've never found a guitar which is exactly what I want. At the moment, I'm happy with this Gibson. I've also got a Fender Telecaster. I find every guitar's got a sound of its own and you can use them all and get something out of them. I haven't used the Telecaster on stage yet. Actually, all my guitars are in England because I came over playing bass. I switched to Jeff's guitar. His is very close to mine because they're both Les Paul models. Normally, we all travel by plane and the equipment goes by van. We have two road managers, one for the equipment and one for us.

HP: Have you found a big difference in British youth and American youth?

Jim: The Americans are a little more narrow-minded. The English, at the moment, are completely broad-minded. This wasn't the original concept of the English, was it? You can shock people in America very easily. If people are shocked, that's their bad luck. They should open their minds. In England, you could walk around in the nude and you wouldn't shock anyone. They'd think you should be put away, but they wouldn't beat the guts out of you. Also, the age of consent is 16. You can marry at 16. The attitude over there is completely free, just like the attitude toward clothes.

HP: Are you really that concerned about how you look?

Jim: I'm not really concerned with clothes. People put that on my shoulders. In actual fact, I'm pleased to see people walking around in outrageous things. They're throwing off the chains of a society that was. It's probably making England completely decadent, but so what. Billy Graham was just over there in England and if you walked around with him, you'd have seen it look all pretty decadent. I'd have to agree. He didn't make any impact at all. Actually, it's a forecast of the end of society. But I don't care because I'll be dead before it ends. If we've come this far in five years, it should really be something in another five. I'd like the new society to be a peaceful one but it won't be, because violence seems to be the answer to every problem. Every fringe society must be experiencing this. We walk around with long hair and someone shouts something, so you give them an answer back which is a little sharp and which they don't quite expect. Then they can't give you an answer, so they come to fists. What sort of mentality is that? I can't argue with a person like that.

It must be terrible for someone to have to fight in a war. I haven't had to think about wars. It's just something I haven't had to contend with, really, I hadn't realized what a big problem it is. I've just seen the horrors of it.

HP: Well, England doesn't have any big thing going now.

Jim: No, this is it. We have no conscription whatsoever. I'll never be drafted or anything.

HP: They won't send you over to Africa to beat up some people or anything?

Jim: Well, they don't do this. People wouldn't do this. If they had a mass conscription now, I dread thinking how many people would go. Because it would only be 40% of those who would have gone before they dropped conscription. People don't want to know about it anymore. They think, well, why should I waste two years of my life and probably lose my life in the process. They just don't want to know anymore.

They've got a regular army where you join and you jet paid every week for doing it. And you just do maneuvers and things.

HP: They have that here, too!

Jim: Yeah, sure, but yours is more of a reality because they get drafted over to Viet Nam. Basically, I must be a coward, but I just couldn't shoot someone. I guess it's different if they're looking at you with a gun and you're looking at them with a gun. You'd have to do it, though. I'd just be violently sick afterwards. I'd never forgive myself, anyway. I'm not the sort of person who's the violent type. I've never never had a fight in my life. I've never put my fists up to anybody. I've never needed to. Only, as I say, through the long hair problem people have said things. But it's never developed. Even if you say come on then, they still won't do anything. Basically, they've still got no guts. But even if they did, I'd run a mile. It's funny because you think, well, what are they going to do, and they don't do anything. So they just wasted the whole time laughing at you. Perhaps they just laugh to reassure their own masculinity.

HP: Why do you think there's such a big concern with clothes?

Jim: I don't know. It's a projection of one's character, I suppose.

HP: Is Carnaby Street a real madhouse?

Jim: It's so easy to send that Carnaby Street thing up. It really is. It's really a street with lots and lots of clothing shops. It's quite a revelation if you've never seen anything like it before, and I'm sure nobody over here has. There's nothing like that. It's just teen-age fashions, bizarre styles. You go there on a Saturday and the kids are there spending money. This is all part of the game, I suppose. Yeah, they spend a fortune on clothes. I don't know where some of the young ones get it from. You see them walking around and they must have spent twice what they've earned.

HP: Do they have things like charge accounts over there?

Jim: No. Not on Carnaby Street, anyway. They won't take checks or anything, not from the kids. Not unless they know you. But there is a big leaning towards clothes and fashions. It's an extension of their character. People have become more aware of the fact that, if they dress up and they look really elegant, I'm not saying Carnaby Street, but if they've got a very clean-cut suit on and still look pretty hip with it and not just sort of middle class, it has the affect on a girl.

HP: What's the biggest thing you dislike about America?

Jim: You see, the only thing that I've seen is violence, but I've only been doing concerts. I don't get out to walk around and meet people very often. If I was walking around the street, I probably wouldn't see any violence whatsoever. So, it's difficult. You see, I haven't seen much of America on this tour. But, when I had my holidays before in Hollywood, I enjoyed it. I thought it was great.

HP: You spent your holiday in Los Angeles?

Jim: Before I joined the group, I spent my holidays for the last couple of years in Hollywood.

HP: What are some of the things you enjoyed in Hollywood?

Jim: The weather. The weather's pretty bad in England. I met quite a few people and made some good friends. I liked the Sunset Strip; there's quite a bit happening there. I got to see groups I could never see in England.

HP: If you had a choice, where would you like to live?

Jim: Miles away from anybody. That's what I'm going to do when I get back. I'm buying a house. It's about a half a mile from anybody else. It's got a river, five bedrooms. That's for when the group slows down a bit. But we'll be working hard for the next year. There's so many things I'd like to do that I don't have the time for now. Things which are very important to me, like painting. But it's best to work now and make all the money I can.

HP: What kind of books do you like to read?

Jim: I used to study religion when I was in art school. But I stopped.

HP: Was that how you got interested in Indian music?

Jim: It may have been subconsciously. But I didn't just read about it and then go onto it. At the moment, I read sort of very strange things like I, Jan Cramer. Things which are a social comment. This Cramer is a beat painter in Holland. I like Henry Miller, too.

#yardbirds #jimmy page #hit parader #1967 #1960s #sixties #60s

80 notes · View notes