My Final Word On Whether Lego Building Sets Damage Kids' Creativity

There's a new study out that purports to show that Lego building kits undermine children's creativity by providing them with only one option for the pieces included. Over at MetaFilter, the usual suspects are coming out to decry the loss of the freedom and creativity they experienced as children ("all we had were rectangles...and we liked it!"), and to share their observations about how The Youth of Today know nothing more than how to follow directions in an endeavor that requires no skill at all.

I tried to stay out of it. I didn't read the linked article, and I resisted as long as I could the temptation to read comments. I failed. But I now promise I have said my final word on the subject. This is what I wrote. Sections in italics are quotes from comments I'm responding to.

My kid was into building these elaborate Lego kits for a while. Basically, following the instructions. But once they were finished, that was it. There's no incentive to take them apart again and create something from imagination.

I hear things like this, and my answer is always: It depends on the kid. Our 14yo, The Lego Savant, loves the elaborate kits in part because he admires the way designers use pieces. He loves to see a new building technique. We got him a MOC Kit for his birthday—this Pegasus automaton—and he was fascinated by the gearing, and excited that the designer had used a couple of specific pieces in ways that had never occurred to him, that he can incorporate into his building. But that's how his mind works. He's fascinated by building, by structures, by engineering-type things. He used to always take his sets apart and toss the pieces into the general building pool, but a couple of years ago started keeping some of his more special sets on display. He told me that he can do this because his collection finally got big enough that he didn't need the pieces from the new sets. He builds all the time. He recently made a Bioshock-inspired enclosure for our Apple TV remote out of Lego; it looks very cool and helps solve the lost remote problem endemic to those things.

A lot of adults, myself included, treat LEGO sets as model sets that don't require any real skill. I don't think there's anything really wrong with that.

Lego building instructions are a gold standard. And yet...I've built many sets along with my son over the years, and it's surprisingly easy to get them wrong. Because he is better than me at that kind of thinking and perceiving, sometimes he's had to interpret instructions for me, and they are perfectly clear to him but not to me. Or he's had to look the thing over to spot a mistake I've made, and fix it. Things only seem to require "no skill" to people for whom the specific skill required is trivial.

At the same time, I don't think there's anything wrong with treating Lego as a satisfying model-building experience. If kids were building model airplanes, people would say, "What a nice old-fashioned non-screen hobby they're engaging in!" rather than "But doesn't this stifle their incentive and ability to design and build their own airplanes?" Some folks are never going to design their own airplanes, and it's fine for them to have a way to enjoy the building experience. When I was a kid and all we had were rectangular Lego, I could take the little rectangles and build a bigger rectangle out of them. That was the limit of my inspiration. Now, I miss doing sets with my son, who builds on his own these days. I might, at some point, get myself a kit just to enjoy.

It's like how, when I was a kid, I was thrilled to discover blank books. This one in particular, which hit bookstores when I was 9. More than just a plain notebook, a book that explicitly said, "This is for you to write" was inspiring to me. The Lego Savant would not be interested in this. On the other hand, our 11yo, Word Boy, carries a little moleskine with a pen quiver. And our 8yo, the Tiny Tornado, is not especially interested in either of those things, but saved up last year to buy himself a unicycle.

The thing is, no tool can invite creativity if it's the wrong tool. It is possible, through discouragement, disparagement, or punishment, to damage a child's creativity. But a Lego building kit isn't the thing that's going to do that. Small-mindedness does it. Too many rules do it. A failure to appreciate what pleases and drives the kid can do it.

This whole endless debate about whether Lego building kits are good or bad for children's creativity strikes me as one of those situations where people invest an incredible amount of energy into fretting, arguing, and judging, despite—or perhaps because of—it being trivial and beside the point. Lego is only one thing that a kid who is into creative building can and will build with; it is only one thing that a kid who likes building models can or will build; it is only one thing that a kid whose inspiration flows in the presence of a blank page, or music, or a physical challenge, will ignore in favor of other stuff.

Expose kids to a lot of things. Make resources available to them. Let them choose; don't judge their choices. Allow their interests to guide yours. Assume that if they value it, it has value, and let them show you what they value about it. Don't assume that if your kid never takes apart their Lego sets to build something new, that the set is to "blame" or that the set damaged their creativity. Accept that there are many "right" ways to use Lego, or any other tool; honor the enjoyment they get from it; watch for opportunities to support other activities that may be more inspiring for them.

My Night of Gay Romance: I Find Myself in the "Steamy Romantic Drama" Section of Netflix

As the summer draws to a close, I find myself desperate for peace, quiet, and solitude. A couple of times lately I have simply given in to it, and not even pretended I was going to go to bed when the rest of the family did. Instead, I have sat up late—even all night—crocheting and watching movies. As I told Raider, “I need a day to myself, and the only way to get it right now is to do it at night.”

Last night, I found myself exploring the byways of gay romance on Netflix. I have returned from this journey to report on what I found.

These are the six movies I watched, in the order I watched them.  If that seems like a lot, keep in mind that many independent films run short. 

Longhorns
US, 2011; 74 minutes

A college student who thinks he’s straight has to deal with his feelings for another boy.

Production values: I think they made this movie with $40 and an expired coupon for pizza rolls. For much of the film, I thought it had only two sets: a cheap-looking dorm room, and a cheap-looking dorm lounge. Later, however, it added a porch, a cabin, and a field, so maybe they found some change in the couch or were able to borrow 20 bucks from somebody’s mom. The sound is intelligible but cheap-sounding, and sounds noticeably different in different locations.

Romance cliches: “Take your clothes off so I can draw you for my art class.”

Swish factor: Turned up to 11. Derek Efrain Villaneuva plays the campus gay activist who has a weakness for boys in denial. He is petite, fey, flaming, and so beautiful and charming I would watch two hours of him doing…well, anything really.

The Sex: Not explicit. Because the movie is exploring the boundaries of gay/not gay, it features a heck of a lot of scenes of boys jerking off while watching porn together; the action is entirely under-the-blanket.  

Why I Didn't Like It: The opening scene is so tasteless and excruciating my eyes bled. If it had lasted another 40 seconds, I'd never have watched the rest of the movie. I am embarrassed to have you know I watched that scene and didn't immediately take myself to the mikveh. Much of the humor is crude. For some inexplicable reason, we get full frontal nudity from just about every member of the cast; I don't object to this, exactly, but I wasn't sure what the point was. On the other hand,  my very limited knowledge of what penises look like has been significantly advanced.

Why I Liked It: Villaneuva, primarily. The acting ranges from wooden to serviceable for the most part, but some of the scenes between the two leads are well-done. There's a break-up scene where they're on the phone, both crying while trying not to let on to the other that they're crying, and it's quite good. This movie wins my Night of Gay Romance award for Sweetest Post-Coital Cuddle. Also, I have an inexplicable affection for the parts of the country where people wear boots and cowboy hats unselfconsciously and unironically, so I liked that. The protagonist's denial about his sexuality is both funny and familiar—after having sex with a boy for the first time, he lies there and thinks, "There is a homosexual in my bed!" And he can't figure out why it keeps happening.

You Will Like It If: You have nostalgic memories of your own coming out in college, are a big supporter of independent cinema, carry a soft spot the size of Texas for young flamers,  or will watch anything if it includes two boys kissing.

Happy Ending: For everybody.

Derek Villaneuva. See what I mean?

Free Fall

German, 2013; 1 hr 40 mins

A police officer who is in a happy relationship with his pregnant girlfriend has an affair with another officer.

Production Values: High.

Swish factor: There is no swishing at the police academy.

The Sex: Excellent. Director Stephen Lacant has a talent for directing sex. Both an early scene between the protagonist and his girlfriend, and a later scene between the two men, are beautifully done, capturing the emotional as well as the physical intimacy. The sex is realistic, though generally not explicit. I was impressed by Hanno Koffle's sex noises; "totally into this but distressed to be totally into this" seems like a tough mood to play and he did it well.

Gay Story Cliches: Cartoon homophobes. Somebody gets beat up. Somebody gets beat up again. Somebody else gets beat up. They go dancing at a club where the other patrons are much more flamboyant than them. People have sex in the bathroom of a gay bar.

Other Observations: Both leads smoke constantly throughout the whole movie. They roll their own cigarettes, which often left me confused about whether they were smoking tobacco, pot, both, or something else I have never heard of.

Why I Didn't Like It: Surely there are other stories to be told than "guy who thinks he's straight comes out, and it sucks." I could have done with less of watching some guy's poor family reeling in shock, and with much more of watching the two leads enjoy sex their relationship. Watching an experienced gay man pursue an adulterous relationship with a man who is, if not straight, at least not out even to himself is much like watching the doomed teenagers go into the dank and cobwebby basement of the haunted house. I wanted to take him aside and say, "Dude, you know better ways to meet men.  Let somebody else get shredded in Closet Case's Big Bloody Buzzsaw of Denial."

Why I Liked It: The leads are beautiful and have great chemistry. The acting is very good. If you like romances for the long slow build-up of attraction, you will very much like the first half of this movie. German men, when filming a dance scene in a gay bar, can actually dance.

You Will Like It If: You miss the days when movie stars could smoke like chimneys; you love men in police uniforms; you like being reminded that Germans are not all evil blondes; you like watching as smoldering glances ignite into fiery passion; you love it when the second half of a movie is all about emotional pain; you are a big supporter of movies in which gay men suffer.

Notes: You can see Max Riemelt, who plays the boyfriend, in the Wachowskis' series Sense8, on Netflix.

Happy Ending: For whom? And for what values of "happy"?  This is not Hollywood! You insult us with these questions!

Boys
German, 2014; 1 hr 17 mins

Two boys on the track team fall in love.

Production Values: High.

Swish Factor: Low. Sometimes it's hard to tell if somebody is gaying or just European.

The Sex: No sex; this is a movie about teenagers. But the kisses are nicely done.

Gay Story Cliches: Not so many.

What I Learned From This Movie and Free Fall: When casting for a German film about gay men, the ability to smolder and look yearning is much more important than the ability to deliver dialog, of which there will be very little. German men and boys flirt by running on paths through picturesque woods; I'm not sure what they do if they live in a city. 

Other Observations: I only recently learned that eating sprinkles on buttered bread is a thing people do in some parts of Europe, so I was delighted to see a character do it in this movie. The teenagers are played by actual teenagers. They are, therefore, almost unbearably beautiful, but also gangly and kind of awkward. They look like men in one shot, and like children in another. It adds a lot to the film to have teenagers in these roles instead of people in their 20s pretending to be teenagers.

Why I Liked It: The boys are very sweet. The angst is minor; one of the boys isn't previously out to himself, and there are some hurt feelings as he gets himself sorted out, but nobody has to cry in an alley. The growing attraction is well-done.

You Will Like It If: You like beautiful boys and German scenery, are fond of sweet coming-of-age stories, enjoy romance, and would like a break from boy/girl stuff.

Happy Ending? Yes.

Tiger Orange

US, 2014; 75 minutes

A man whose life has fallen apart in some way returns to his childhood home, where his sibling still lives, and they spend a bunch of time dealing with their family shit, lurching through a couple of epiphanies without really solving anything. You might have seen this movie when it starred Mark Ruffalo and Laura Linney and was called You Can Count on Me, and they were both straight; you might have seen it when starred Bill Hader and Kristin Wiig, and was called The Skeleton Twins, and he was gay; and now you can see it with two actors you've probably never heard of, and they're both gay.

Production Values: Fair-to-middling. Nothing fancy happens in the camera work, editing, or sound, and the film uses limited sets, but it looks good and sounds good; you won't be distracted by cheapness.

Swish Factor: Varied from character to character, and, because of code-switching, from scene to scene. Nicely done.

The Sex: Since I accidentally watched a movie that is not a romance but actually about brothers, it is certainly for the best that there was no sex.

Gay Story Cliches: Somebody gets bashed. A park is cruised for anonymous sex, but only because the character is too self-hating to be out and have a real relationship. Dad hates sissy boys.

Why I Didn't Like It: I have already seen this movie too many times, and making both the Responsible One and the Reckless One gay was not quite enough to render the story fresh.

Why I Liked It: Gay men I recognized as gay men. Including multiple men allows for a Variety Pack approach, so if you like them flaming and dressed like hipsters, there's a guy for you; if you like them right on the line of trying, and failing, to contain their swish, there's a guy for you; if you like them in business casual with just a touch of inflection and wrist, there's a guy for you.

You Would Like It If: You haven't seen You Can Count on Me, The Skeleton Twins, or any other iteration of the prodigal son lately, you're in the mood for it, and you think it would make for a nice change if everybody was gay; you support independent cinema; you think one or both of the leads is hot; you think it's refreshing when the tattoo'd and pierced Bad Boy is played by an actual Bad Boy with actual tattoos and piercings; you've always wanted to see a porn star make his Legitimate Cinema debut; you've always wanted to see a porn star but are the only person in the world who doesn't know how to find porn on the internet.

The porn star. via 

Is It Just Me?
US, 2010; 89 mins

Painfully unfunny romantic comedy about a gay writer who finds love online.

Production Values: Medium-to-poor. Sound is noticeably lower quality than you're used to; has a cheap look.

Swish Factor: Low, mostly met by the aging queen one of the characters rents a room from. Protagonist's roommate surprisingly non-swishy despite his work as a go-go boy.

Romance Cliches: Protagonist wants love but all available men interested only in sex; misunderstanding that could be cleared up easily in 20 seconds is instead dealt with via unsustainable deception.

Why I Didn't Like It: Painfully unfunny, supra.

Why I Liked It: I didn't. I mercy-killed it about ten minutes in. Its only redeeming quality was the online boyfriend, who couldn't act but whose single note—a crinkly-eyed smiling good humor—was adorable.

You Will Like It If: You will not like it.

It hurts just looking at the poster.

Weekend
British, 2011; 1 hr 37 mins

Two men hook up two nights before one of them is leaving the country, and spend the weekend together.

Production Values: Just fine. Limited sets, straightforward camerawork, but nothing that will pull you out of the story.

Swish Factor: Nobody swishes, per se, but both leads read gay in a very satisfying way. As you know, I like gay-presenting men, and this is another movie that knows "queeny" and "straight-acting" are not the only two settings.

The Sex: Excellent and realistic. I figure the top four ways that men get each other off are handjobs, blowjobs, frottage, and anal sex. This movie featured all four (Free Fall also had realistic sexual variety). I liked that they communicated during sex; there's a bit of "this OK?" and a bit of "go ahead," and one awkward position change that doesn't detract from the overall hotness of the interaction. I have never seen a movie in which one guy hands his partner a jizz rag in so matter-of-fact a manner; in fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen post-coital cleanup in any movie ever.  I think things like that, and the awkward position change, are important from an educational perspective. I'm not even kidding.

Miscellaneous Notes: Both this movie and Boys feature the two leads riding double on a bike. This is another one where people rolled leaves in cigarette papers and smoked them; sometimes these guys had a tobacco cigarette and a joint going at the same time. They don't have packs of cigarettes in the European Union?

Why I Didn't Like It: These two used so many drugs that I got uncomfortable watching it. There is a lengthy and tedious coke-fueled conversation about assimilation v. radicalism in the context of marriage equality; it's nice to have characters who know and care about this kind of thing, but boy howdy listening to them go on about it was dull. I wanted both of them to please, please, please clean up their scruffy beards.

Why I Liked It: Recognizable gay men. Both leads out and experienced; no coming-out angst (though there's some difference of opinion about PDAs). A nice acknowledgement that attractive people come in more than one flavor, in that one of the leads likes "little" men, and the other lead is a slender little guy.

Awww, baby.

You Would Like it If: You like realistic sex in a romantic context; English accents rev your motor; you like gay men who remind you of actual gay men; you like the pace and tone of independent films; you don't mind bittersweet.

Happy Ending? Take a look at this poster and tell me what you think.

If You Were Going to Watch One, and Only One, of These Movies

Boys, for sure, though I am sad you won't get to see the beautiful flaming miracle that is Derek Villaneuva; if you want the sex, go for Free Fall, but feel free to fast forward or quit in the second half.