#Norm Gibson

[pedroam-bang]

Black Hawk Down (2001)

“Leave no man behind”

[thirdity]

To say something new (or even to say it well) must always be perceived as oppositional to the thrust of common language.

Samuel R. Delany, "Zelazny/Varley/Gibson — and Quality"

[perfettamentechic]

14 settembre … ricordiamo …

14 settembre … ricordiamo … #semprevivineiricordi #nomidaricordare #personaggiimportanti #perfettamentechic

2022: Henry Silva, attore statunitense. Il suo volto, caratteristico per impassibilità e durezza dell’espressione, si è prestato spesso per la parte dell’antagonista cattivo. In Italia ebbe un certo successo negli anni settanta partecipando a film del filone western e di quello poliziesco. Proveniente da una famiglia povera di origine ispanica ed italiana, figlio di Jesus Silva e della siciliana…

[incesthemes]

thinking about how crozier ordered hickey to be lashed for "dirtiness" and then got so intimate with his crew and especially fitzjames that he homoerotically assisted with his suicide: he achieves the same intimacy he had punished just a few episodes prior. something something the ships represent society and normativity, and leaving them behind a metaphorical act of abandoning that society and its arbitrary rules, thus allowing them to transcend their conditioning and discover their own truths and personhood independent of an oppressive state that denies the self

and as such the most notable act of intimacy aboard the ship was hickey and gibson searching for the cat, and they (mostly hickey) were punished for it, but as they leave the ship behind the displays of intimacy become more pronounced and unashamed

they can earnestly discover themselves unencumbered by laws and shame and punishment, but only once they leave behind all they've ever known and venture out into the unknown

[qbdatabase]

Hello!! I was looking for non-fiction books of butches and femmes that mention bisexual butches and femmes too! I guess that's a very specific thing and difficult thing to ask for but I was hoping if you knew some? In the end, I'll take any and all butch femme non-fiction books you know of please! 👉👈💖

Most of what I have for non-fiction butch/femme culture is centered around lesbians, with bisexuals being a chapter or discussion within a larger book, mainly because women-loving-women historically drew less of a distinction between lesbians and bisexuals (as that would have shoved out a lot of closeted/married women in a time when many women could not afford to not be married). But here's everything I have about butches and femmes, and I'll note if bisexuality is also discussed!

History of Butch/Femme Culture

Femme/Butch: New Considerations of the Way We Want to Go by Michelle Gibson - #1 recommendation, even if it is 20 years old

100 Crushes by Elisha Lim - contributions from butches and genderqueer folks

Challenging Lesbian Norms: Intersex, Transgender, Intersectional, and Queer Perspectives by Angela Pattatucci Aragón - more history of lesbian culture that looks beyond cisgender lesbians, discusses trans, intersex, gnc, butch, and bisexuality

The Life & Times of Butch Dykes: Portraits of Artists, Leaders, and Dreamers Who Changed the World by Eloisa Aquino - can't confirm if it includes any butch bisexuals, but it's from 2019, not twenty years ago!

Unsuitable: A History of Lesbian Fashion by Eleanor Medhurts - #2 recommendation for butch/femme culture, although I can't confirm if it includes bisexuals; published this year

Memoirs by Butch Authors

Leaving Isn't the Hardest Thing by Lauren Hough - butch lesbian

Hijab Butch Blues by Lamya H. - butch queer Muslim

Burning Butch by R/B Mertz - Catholic butch trans / nonbinary

Tomboy Survival Guide by Ivan E. Coyote - butch nonbinary

Pregnant Butch: Nine Long Months Spent in Drag by A. K. Summers - butch lesbian

Butch is a Noun by S. Bear Bergman - butch lesbian who later transitioned as a transgender man

Memoirs / Poetry / Self-Help by Femme Authors

Rust Belt Femme by Raechel Jolie - queer femme

Yoke: My Yoga of Self-Acceptance by Jessamyn Stanley - queer femme

You Grow, Gurl!: Plant Kween's Lush Guide to Growing your Garden by Christopher Griffin - queer femme nonbinary

HoodWitch: Poems / A Map of My Want by Faylita Hicks - queer femme nonbinary

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Red-teaming the SCOTUS code of conduct

Tomorrow (November 18) at 1PM, I'll be in Concord, NH at Gibson's Books, presenting my new novel The Lost Cause, a preapocalyptic tale of hope in the climate emergency.

On Monday (November 20), I'm at the Simsbury, CT Public Library at 7PM

Last April, Propublica's Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski dropped a bombshell: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had been showered in high-ticket "gifts" by billionaire ideologue Harlan Crow, who subsequently benefited from Thomas's rulings in the court:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

This was just the beginning: in the coming days and weeks, more and more of Thomas's corruption came to light, everything from the fact that his mother's home had been bought by Crow, to the fact that Thomas's adoptive son went to a fancy private school on Crow's dime:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

The news was explosive and not merely because of the corruption it revealed in the country's highest court. The credibility of the court itself was at its lowest ebb in living memory, thanks to the two judges who occupied stolen seats – Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett. One of those judges – Kavanaugh – is a credibly accused rapist. Thomas is also a credibly accused sexual abuser:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/01/30-years-after-her-testimony-anita-hill-still-wants-something-from-joe-biden-514884

Then, this illegitimate court went on to deliver a string of upsets to long-settled law, culminating in the Dobbs decision, which triggered state laws that force small children to bear their rapists' babies:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/health/abortion-bans-rape-incest.html

That was the context for the Thomas bribery scandal, which was swiftly joined by another bribery scandal, involving Samuel Alito's improper acceptance of valuable gifts from Paul Singer, another billionaire who brought business before the court:

https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court

This string of scandals and outrages naturally prompted public curiosity about the Supreme Court's ethical standards, and that triggered fresh waves of incredulous outrage when we all found out that the Supreme Court doesn't have any:

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/why-doesnt-the-supreme-court-have-a-formal-code-of-ethics/

When Congress made tentative noises about providing minor checks and balances on the court, the justices erupted in outrage, telling Congress to go fuck itself:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/supreme-court-ethics-durbin/cf67ef8450ea024d/full.pdf

Chief Justice Roberts went on whatever the opposite of a charm-offensive is called (an "offense offensive?"), a media tour whose key message to the American people was "STFU, you're hurting our feelings":

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/roberts-defends-high-court-against-attacks-on-its-legitimacy

To the shock of no one except billionaires and Supreme Court justices inhabiting the splendid isolation from societal norms that is the privilege of life tenure, America didn't like this. The Supreme Court's credibility plummeted. A large supermajority of Americans – 79%! – now support age limits for Supreme Court justices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/18/the-people-no/#tell-ya-what-i-want-what-i-really-really-want

Support for packing the Supreme Court is at an historic high and gaining ground, now sitting neck-and-neck with opposition at 46% in favor/51% opposed. Among under-30s, there's a healthy majority (58%) in favor of appointing more SCOTUS justices.

As Roberts' wounded bleats reveal, SCOTUS is very sensitive to its plummeting legitimacy. After all, the court doesn't have an army, nor does it have a police force. Supreme Court rulings only matter to the extent that the American people accept them as legitimate and obey them. Transformational presidents like Lincoln and FDR have waged successful wars against the Supreme Court, sidelining its authority and turning it into an unimportant rump institution for years afterward:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/26/mint-the-coin-etc-etc/#blitz-em

Now the Supremes are working their way through the (mythological but convenient) five stages of grief. Having passed through Denial and Anger, they've arrived at Bargaining, with the publication of the court's first "code" "of" "conduct":

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

It's…not good. As Max Moran writes for The American Prospect and The Revolving Door Project, the proposed code amounts to "security theater," a set of trivially bypassed strictures that would not have prevented any of the scandals to date and will permit far worse in the years to come:

https://prospect.org/justice/2023-11-17-supreme-court-objectivity-theater/

The security framing is a very useful tool for evaluating the Supremes' proposal. The purpose of a code of conduct isn't merely to prevent people from accidentally misstepping – it's to prevent malicious parties from corrupting the judicial process. To evaluate the code, we should red team it: imagine what harms a corrupt judge or a corrupting billionaire would be able to effect while staying within the bounds the code sets.

Seen in that light, the code is wildly defective and absolutely not fit for purpose. Its most glaring defect is found in the nature of its edicts – they are almost all optional. The word "should" appears 53 times in the document, while "must" appears just six times:

https://ballsandstrikes.org/ethics-accountability/supreme-court-code-of-conduct-hilariously-fake/

Of those six "musts," two are not pertinent to ethical questions (they pertain to the requirement for a justice to get prior approval before getting paid for teaching gigs).

When the code of conduct was rolled out, the court and its apologists pointed out that it was modeled on the ethical guidelines that bind lower courts. In the wake of the Thomas revelations, these guidelines were a useful benchmark to measure Thomas's conduct against. The fact that other federal judges would have been severely sanctioned or even fired if they had engaged in the same conduct as Thomas was a powerful argument that Thomas had overstepped the bounds of ethical conduct.

But as Bloomberg Law discovered when they compared the lower courts' codes to the Supremes' draft, the Supremes have gone through those lower court codes and systematically cut nearly every mention of "enforce" from their own draft. They also cut the requirement to "take appropriate action" if a violation is reported.

If you are a bad judge or a bad donor, all of this is good news. Nearly everything that it condemns is merely optional, which means that if a judge can be convinced to ignore a rule, they won't have violated the code. What's more, even widespread rulebreaking doesn't trigger an investigation. That's a very weak security measure indeed.

But it gets worse. The Supremes' code also omit key definitions found in the codes that bind the lower courts. The most important definition to be cut is for "political organization," which the lower courts define expansively as both parties and "entit[ies] whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties." That definition captures "nonprofits, think tanks, lobbying firms, trade associations, grassroots groups" – the whole panoply of organizations whom federal judges must maintain an arm's length distance from in order to preserve their objectivity. Federal judges may not lead, speak at or donate to these organizations.

By omitting this definition, the Supremes open the door to involvement with precisely the kinds of PACs, thinktanks and other influence organizations funded by the billionaires who have benefited so handsomely from the judges' rulings.

What's more, the Supremes carve out an explicit exemption for speaking to "nonprofits, think tanks, lobbying firms, trade associations, grassroots groups," and to serving as a director, trustee or officer of "a nonprofit organization devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and may assist such an organization in the management and investment of funds."

As Moran points out, this exemption would cover – among other institutions – the far-right Federalist Society, which satisfies all those criteria. That means a Supreme Court justice could sit on the board and raise funds for the FedSoc without raising any issues with this code – not even one of those squishy "shoulds." Nothing in this code would stop Clarence Thomas or Thomas Alito from accepting lavish gifts, private jet rides, or luxury tour buses from billionaires with business before the court:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/justice-thomas-267000-loan-rv-forgiven-senate-democrats-104303972

As Moran writes, these definitional vacuums are a well-understood class of weaknesses in ethics codes. Congress gets a lot of mileage out of this ruse – for example, by narrowly defining "lobbying" to exclude things that most people understand that term to mean, Congress engage in improperly close relations with lobbyists while still maintaining that they hardly ever talk to a lobbyist at all:

https://www.politico.eu/article/jeff-hauser-opinion-watergate-european-union-qatargate/

The same ruse goes for campaign contributions – if you want to accept a lot of campaign contributions that would fall afoul of ethics rules, just narrow the definition of "campaign contribution" until all the money you're receiving no longer qualifies.

Moran closes by calling on Congress to formulate a real, meaningful code of conduct for the Supremes, one that orders Supreme Court judges not to accept corrupting gifts and to maintain the arm's length neutrality that the rest of the federal judiciary is required to keep. Rather than this new code of conduct constituting proof that SCOTUS can be its own oversight, its gross deficiencies should put to rest any question about whether the Supremes can be trusted to regulate themselves.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/17/red-team-black-robes/#security-theater

Image: Senate Democrats (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Supreme_Court_Building,_July_21,_2020.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

[lyledebeast]

Thugs, Gentlemen, and Queers: Braveheart's English vs The Patriot's British

Another bewildering part of audiences seeing The Patriot as the spiritual, if not the literal, sequel to Braveheart is the idea that the first film already did all the work of making the English despicable. And they are indeed all English, even the one in the latter film whose surname could not be more Irish. The conflation of the English and British villains, and I use the term loosely regarding The Patriot, is even more egregious than the comparison of Scots and South Carolina Colonials. While the English in Braveheart are mostly on the same page throughout, there is a more sustained ideological conflict among the antagonists of The Patriot than among its heroes.

The English, in general, are brutal thugs who function as oppressors of the Scots on multiple levels. The main villain of the film is the King of England, but his edicts empower the lowest of English soldiers as well as lords to see the Scots as existing for their personal use. Not all the English characters are pure evil. Wallace's executioner beheads him rather than leaving him to suffer disembowelment and dismemberment alive even though he does not--and I cannot stress enough how much he does not--say the magic word! But enough of them are that the Scots' opinion of them feels warranted. Meanwhile, British officers in The Patriot, almost the only British characters who speak, are gentlemen by action as well as title, with one notable exception. The one who thanks Martin for helping wounded British soldiers is far more representative of the norm than Colonel Tavington, but once Tavington shoots his son, Martin's memory of that man is deleted. He's the first of many officers Martin has killed as proxies for Tavington while leaving Tavington alone to go through Colonial children like a smallpox epidemic. All the while, the remaining officers view Tavington as a pariah and are angrier with him for failing to stop the militia than with Martin until they discover how Martin has abused their trust.

All this aside, the single thing about The Patriot that justifies my watching it in part or whole every single year, as I unfortunately do, is its main British villain. Occasionally I do run across a commentor who describes Tavington and Longshanks as though there is no difference between them, and I can only assume that person watched both films with their Mel Gibson blinders firmly in place. Not only is Jason Isaacs significantly younger than Patrick McGoohan, but Tavington as a dragoon colonel has significantly less power than the fucking king. Longshanks is an old man nearing the end of a life spent accumulating as much power as possible by being as ruthless as possible to all his subjects. His fear is that his son will lose it all once he takes the throne, not by being kind but by being weak and gay, attributes Longshanks refuses to distinguish, and the film does nothing but back him up on this. Young Edward is a sniveling little nothing of a character, and I need to rewatch Derek Jarmon's Edward II (1991) with its joyously queer titular character to get that taste out of my mouth. Meanwhile, Tavington is a comparatively young man who actually has nothing but the opportunity to win lands for himself. There is a disapproving older man, but he is General Cornwallis, and his relationship with Tavington is far more interesting than that between the two Edwards in Braveheart.

While Longshanks fears what Young Edward will lose, Cornwallis fears what Tavington will take from him, namely his good reputation as a gentleman and a skilled field commander. Tavington's treatment of surrendering Colonial troops and Colonial civilians alike threatens that reputation, but so do his dramatic charges across the field of victory. While Longshanks verbally and physically abuses Edward, Cornwallis tries to reason with Tavington about the consequences of his brutal tactics. But then he changes his mind. Not only does he allow Tavington methods he originally condemned, but the fateful charge he orders at the end of the film is a product of his own vanity. His change from a man who values gentlemanly restraint to one who, like Tavington, values victory at any cost not only makes him more complex than Longshanks but more complex than Benjamin Martin.

The scene that most clearly underlines the differences between The Patriot's antagonists and Braveheart's is the final confrontation between Tavington and Martin. Wallace and Longshanks never meet, on the field of battle or elsewhere, and that is far more owing to Longshanks than Wallace. He pursues the king when he leaves the field at Falkirk only to be apprehended before he can reach him. At Cowpens, Tavington and Martin charge straight at each other. One part of this scene is clearly a call-back to Wallace's anti-cavalry strategy in Braveheart, but Martin unhorsing Tavington does not--and I cannot stress enough how much it does not--help him win that fight. Rather, Martin needs to be rescued from the outcome of that fight by plot contrivance like a damsel in a tower guarded by a dragon (with two "o"s this time).

Anyone who argues that Martin is more badass for stabbing a horse than Tavington for getting up from his fall, taking a bullet in the arm, and still beating Martin to his knees has put an additional pair of Mel Gibson blinders on over the first one. However, I'm going to suggest that there is another, less obvious nod to Braveheart at play here, and that is the contrast between Tavington and Young Edward. Throughout the film, the British are presented as effete, vain, loquacious aristocrats compared to the manly, plain-speaking Colonial "rustics." There is a heavy dose of queer-coding at play here, and Tavington is not exempt from it. Indeed, between his obsession with catching a man he first sees dressed only in his undershirt to his own seduction of his superior officer, I would say he has more than his fair share. The Tavington of Robert Rodat's 1999 script has far more in common with Braveheart's Edward II than he character who appears in director Roland Emmerich's The Patriot. Rodat's Tavington is a cowardly snob who throws his pistol aside when Martin confronts him at the film's end, hoping he will not shoot an unarmed man. Almost all the changes Jason Isaacs suggested and Emmerich implemented have the effect of making Tavington more physically imposing and courageous. He may be cruel, selfish, and greedy, but he is hardly weak. That he is the best fighter in the film while being no less refined and theatrical than his British brethren feels very pointed.

It's easy to see Braveheart as the better overall film of the two because its heroes are compelling, and we spend far more time with them. The English antagonists are serviceable, but Longshanks is the only one who is really memorable. The antagonists in The Patriot are inspired, largely because of excellent performances by Jason Isaacs and the late Tom Wilkinson. There is nuance in the antagonists' relationship that is largely absent from any the film's hero has because he is presented as infallible. It's as though Mel Gibson's performance in Braveheart is so powerful that The Patriot's filmmakers relied on him to carry their story in spite of a lackluster script. For Gibson, playing Benjamin Martin is a vanity project, a place to trot out his well-established fighting and emoting skills in an American setting. Tavington is Jason Isaacs' breakout role, and the difference that makes speaks for itself. That performance is the best thing about The Patriot, and considering it as a response to the worst part of Braveheart puts it a rung above the older film, at least in my ranking.

[telekinetictrait]

"How the sparks fly – here and there, downward and upward – souls! Shooting stars! Before I struck a light, one could see the grass and a streak on the horizon..." (Frühlings Erwachen – Frank Wedekind, 1891)

woohoo we're in a decade i know at least semi well – and we're closing out the nineteenth century.

in this decade, we saw the return of puff sleeves, eventually forming the iconic leg o' mutton shape thats synonymous with women's fashion in the 1890s. the shape of the skirt started close to the body, and then widened out into a "bell", with hemlines nearly always reaching the ground or just above it. the hat craze continued, and hats would often be made to match the outfit or the circumstance one would wear it. while there was an intense amount of social norms regarding dress, restrictions loosened as the decade went on. why, some women were even wearing trousers as they played sports! we also saw the rise of the iconic gibson girl, a fashion icon that would persist through the 1890s and the 1900s.

1800-1809 / 1810-1819 / 1820-1829 / 1830-1839 / 1840-1849 / 1850-1859 / 1860-1869 / 1870-1879 / 1880-1889

cc links under the cut!

see my resources page for genetics

jasmine : saurusness' granny bun / gilded-ghosts fine feathered hat / sychik's 1890s womens jacket / gilded-ghosts victorian visions skirt

jeanie : gilded-ghosts fine feathered hat / the romantique riding dress

jhansi : vintagesimstress's hats / linzlu's calico dress / chere-indolente's accessory puff sleeves

jieva : ivkasims charlene hair updated / simverses' hat with plumes, bow, and roses / simsfromthepast's 1890s walking suit

j'marie : ivkasims charlene hair updated / pinkpatchy's sunless walks hat / linzlu's alice dress (download here)

joan : buzzardly28's imogen hair + accessory / hanalinori's aas dress conversion

jrelle : ivkasims charlene hair updated / vintagesimstress' 1896 puffy spring dress

j'tella : simstomaggie's becky hair / gilded-ghosts victorian visions hat / jewishsimming's gibson girl vest / gilded-ghosts perfectly plain skirt v1 / historysims4 victorian shoes

judith : birksche's fanny hair updated / simverses mistress mysterium hat / vintagesimstress' 1898 spring day dress

jyd : ivkasims charlene hair updated / marigold's frill boater / gilded-ghosts victorian visions shirtwast / gilded-ghosts rather ravishing skirt / waekey's crochet collar

thank you to @saurusness @gilded-ghosts @sychik @vintagesimstress @linzlu @losts4cc @chere-indolente @blueplumbbob @simverses @simsfromthepast @pinkpatchy @buzzardly28 @hanalinori @simstomaggie @jewishsimming @historysims4 @birksche and @waekey !!! woohoo yall, we made it through the 1800s!!

[cyberpunkonline]

The Power of Names...

In the shadow-drenched alleys of cyberpunk landscapes and the rhythmic beats echoing through urban streets, names carry weight far beyond simple identifiers. This essay delves into the powerful role of street names and pseudonyms in cyberpunk and rap cultures, while also exploring how names function within magical practices as symbols of power and transformation.

Identity Concealed, Power Revealed

In cyberpunk, a genre steeped in advanced technology and societal decay, pseudonyms act as both armor and weapon. These names provide anonymity and protection from authoritarian eyes and hint at a person's technological prowess or hacking skills. For example, Case from William Gibson's *Neuromancer* uses his name as a shield, safeguarding his real identity while suggesting his expertise in navigating cyberspace.

Rap artists adopt pseudonyms to craft personas that resonate deeply with their personal narratives and artistic ambitions. These aliases, like Tupac Shakur’s Makaveli or Notorious B.I.G.’s Biggie Smalls, serve as both protective veils and powerful branding tools, encapsulating the essence of their bearer’s style and story.

The Magical Power of Names

Names hold significant power in various magical traditions across the world. In many cultures, knowing the true name of an entity or person is believed to grant control over them. This concept is evident in historical grimoires and modern magical practices, where summoning spirits or casting spells often requires the true names of entities to effectively harness their power. This belief underscores the idea that names are not just labels but containers of essence, imbued with the ability to influence and alter reality.

Within both cyberpunk and rap, the act of naming can be seen as a form of modern magic—creating a persona that can protect, define, and empower its holder, much like how witches and wizards use names to control supernatural forces. This symbolic practice emphasizes the transformative power of names, echoing ancient traditions while remaining firmly rooted in contemporary cultural expressions.

Rebellion and Reclamation Through Renaming

The practice of adopting pseudonyms in cyberpunk and rap stems from a need to stand out and declare autonomy from societal norms. In cyberpunk, names are tools of rebellion against oppressive systems, helping characters avoid detection and persecution. Similarly, in rap, pseudonyms empower artists to shape their identities and articulate their resistance to socio-economic marginalization.

Unity and Identity in Subcultures

Pseudonyms in cyberpunk and rap transcend their functional use, becoming symbols of unity within these cultures. These names forge bonds among individuals who share similar struggles and values, creating a shared identity that strengthens community ties. Similarly, in magical practices, groups or covens often adopt magical names that signify their spiritual connection and collective power, enhancing the group’s cohesion and shared magical efficacy.

Conclusion: The Enigmatic Power of Names

As digital and physical worlds increasingly intersect, the relevance of pseudonyms drawn from cyberpunk and rap only intensifies, paralleling the enduring significance of names in magical traditions. These practices illustrate a universal truth across cultures and epochs: names hold the power to protect, define, and transform. Understanding the depth of this power offers insight into not only cultural and subcultural dynamics but also the fundamental human need to define and control our identities and destinies.

[pterobat]

I want to talk about some of the tie-in stuff featuring Lance Bishop that I took in recently.

“Broken” by Rachel Caine, in the anthology Bug Hunt.

The idea that a previously-established character has to be special—bothers me a bit, and I can’t say why. I do know that I felt, after years of pushing back against the mechanistic/deterministic view of the Zentradi in Robotech and Macross fandom, it was time to accept that a character might lack something in the way of “free will” and might not be one of a kind—but still be sympathetic

However, Bishop didn’t put that egg on the Sulaco, Your Mom did, and he asked to be euthanized for firmly "human" reasons, not utilitarian ones.

Anyway, “Broken”, states that Bishop having a stronger altruistic drive than the AP norm, which very briefly leads to the possibility of him being scrapped, and then later lets him disobey orders and save some people in his non-actiony way.

It’s still mostly satisfying, except for two things: Bishop has “brothers” named after other chess pieces (except "Queen" because of cowardice), and while that’s cute, it’s at the expense of the Frankenstein-ish story in the novel below, where he shares the name with his "Father".

Secondly there’s the groaner when the last scene of the story leads right into Bishop meeting Apone’s unit after being repaired by Hudson and the Knife Trick getting brought up already.

William Gibson’s Alien 3 (Novel and Comic Version):

To steal from Dostoevsky, all versions of Alien 3 are stupid in their own way. It’s hard to think of where to go from Aliens, though it’s not my job to do so, right?

At least there’s no chance of Gibson’s version being lionized as a course-correction or a bold strike against some imagined saccharine future. Instead we get something that’s readable and likeable enough, but pretty bland. Kind of like Hicks as the main, really—nothing against the dude, but there’s just not much going on with him.

Part of it’s not the fault of Gibson: he had to write out Ripley, but man, you don’t have to give it a gold star just for otherwise trying. I can also see how the Xenomorphs as a Thing-esque virus would occur to writers, but it just doesn’t feel right.a

Also, for what’s supposed to be a riff on the Cold War and MAD, the Union of Progressive Peoples are cartoonishly silly, constantly thinking about “capitalism” while capitalism doesn't think of them, while the narrative makes a point of how run-down and crappy their tech is.

Even Bishop notices that without any spite, while the UPP are harsh towards him out of an understandable vision of worker’s rights, but in a Dolyist sense is only there to make them more unsympathetic and caricatured.

As for Bishop, he’s fun to follow because I like reading about him just being totally chill about everything, still without coming across as heartless. But he doesn’t have much of his sense of weirdness or of that awkward kindliness that makes his character more interesting than the average friendly AP.

Two more things: I was first harsh on the idea that an ovomorph would grow from Bishop’s exposed guts, but I came around when I realized it was an example of a slightly-more grounded Xenomorph evolution/adaptation than the virus, just putting more of the mechanical in bio-mechanical—plus it was the only example of gender fuckery to be found for miles.

Secondly, I liked his quiet little monolgue at the end that humanity ought to destroy Xenomorphs for their own good. It’s the usual trope of having a heroic character fascinated by monsters, who must prove they are still heroic by killing or opposing them.

Aliens: Bishop by T.R. Napper

It’s funny that this book came out last December, like it was waiting for me to start thinking about the character again.

Sadly, the original characters were not so entertaining, which is often but not always the curse of tie-in fiction. It’s another reason why it’s hard for me to be fannish about the larger Alien-a-verse besides not much of it sounding interesting.

It doesn’t help that the story starts out with a USC Marine mission lead by an Apone, with a male corporate stooge on board, and our new MC gets the nickname “Cornbread” within a few pages—come on with this. Otherwise, she’s like Hicks in the sense of readable and serviceable.

To go back to Alien 3 for a second, and franchising in general—they repeat themes and motifs because that makes the selling easy, and you can make a keen case for “The Real Enemy is Man” being a theme of the Alien universe.

Because of that, having Michael Bishop be who/what he said he was makes the most sense if you want not only a thematic through-line but the Frankenstein-ish subtext of the book which is like catnip to me.

Normally resurrection is thematically cheap in fiction, but given that Alien 3 comes off as cheap (lazy) to begin with, and we’re dealing with an AP, and the results are interesting, it doesn’t take much to win me over.

I don’t know how much research the author did, or if it’s just serendipty, but Henriksen said he played Bishop as an abused child, as a being who knew he was disposable but consoled himself by knowing he’d outlive those who could hold that over him. And even though they look the same age, the abusive-father subtext is all over this. Michael is nice enough until he doesn’t get what he wants after being “patient” and “giving”.

And speaking of franchises and theming, something about creator/creation in the Alien series no longer feels out of place in post-Prometheus world, even if the execution in those movies was a letdown.

Transhumanism also comes into the picture, and while it first seemed Michael would steal Bishop’s new body, instead Michael wants to transfer his body digitally and succeeds. It also feels out of place in the larger franchise, but I might check out a sequel.

I also wish the book were more creative about trying to do something with the Xenomorphs. Michael pretends it’s about something different as part of his manipulation, but alas it’s the same old militarization.

It’s kind of funny that Bishop meets the captured Morse who quirkily tells him a few things about how humans don’t value other humans. It helps Bishop get rid of the last vestiges of attachment to his Shitty Dad, and Bishop otherwise returns to the same place he was before, just with a new unit.

I was waiting for some other shoe to drop, but the Apone #2 unit appeared to have no ulterior motivations when it came to finding Bishop. Returning to a quiet status quo does suit him in a way, since Bishop is so chill about everything.

The book also establishes that Bishop asked to be euthanized because of grief. I didn't want a purely utilitarian reason like reaching a damage threshold that cheapie W-Y labelled unsalvageable--that doesn't work narratively/tonally/emotionally--but it was enough to think poor Bishop decided on death because he couldn’t ever reach adequate quality of life.

So a lot of fun here, even what with the brief moments where Bishop is emotionally demonstrative or fights physically and it’s cringe-inducing rather than an extrapolation of the character.

[caroliimeh]

[Long post]

Being trans is so cool and fun and rewarding and I wouldn’t live my life any other way. There’s something inherently beautiful about crafting your own identity; about rejecting societal norms and prejudices and blazing your own path forward through this fucked up world we live in. I was raised religious; my dad is a pastor. I was always told that God makes no mistakes and that I should be content with the way I was created. But if there is a God, I like to think that they gave us free will for a reason - so that we as humans can share in the act of creation.

I’ve known I was a girl as long as I can remember. Up until a few years ago, I was too terrified to tell anyone. I’m so glad that I did. It was never a decision about whether or not I was a girl. It was a decision I made to accept what I knew about myself and begin to participate in the divine act of creation.

I’m happier now than I have ever been in my life. It’s not easy being trans, especially in the current social and political climate. Trans people are constantly being demonized, stigmatized, and bullied by so many in positions of authority. Every day the news shows a new story about how trans women are either biologically advantaged or confused men; or how the worst thing an AFAB person can do is cut off their boobs and “pretend “ to be a man. Not a day goes by where I don’t feel targeted or threatened; either by awful people on the internet, by people’s nasty looks at me just for existing around them, or from the government trying to make me illegal. That being said, it’s still infinitely better to endure all of that than to try and live as a man.

Being trans is awesome. Every morning I wake up and I feel lucky that I get to live this life. If I could go back and tell five-year-old me anything, I’d tell that frightened little girl that life does get better. That it’s okay to be scared, but it’s better to speak out and make her voice heard. That trying on Mom’s high heels and makeup in the bathroom with the door locked wasn’t a thing that most boys did. That, yes, being a girl is actually an option. It would have saved me so much trouble later on.

Being trans saved my life. It has saved many other lives throughout the span of history and it will continue to do so for as long as we as humans exist. To any trans people reading this: You are beautiful. You are validated. Your existence is not a burden on anyone who truly matters. Your story is not over. It is of the utmost importance that we do not lose hope in the face of prejudice and malice; instead, we must all support each other through times like these.

The poet Andrea Gibson once said, “I suppose I love this life, in spite of my clenched fist.” My hope for anyone who sees this post is that you will love your own life; and that you also will not be afraid, like I once was, to clench your fist in spite of the world. Exist unapologetically. Spread love. Everything will get better, I promise you. You are not alone in this.

[mechangelx]

wait. is Ethel... going through the circles of hell in Preacher's Daughter?

first circle: limbo / family tree (intro) Ethel isn't quite an actor in the album yet, but is in a transitory state ("remind me of who I used to be")

second circle: lust / american teenager though not exactly lust, the central theme of american teenager feels like longing. Ethel wants an america that doesn't exist.

third circle: gluttony / a house in nebraska this one lines up the least. if I'm stretching (this is a stretch), gluttony is bigger yearning than lust is, and this is the song with the most overwhelming sense of desire.

fourth circle: greed / western nights bank robbery

fifth circle: anger / family tree "I'm just a child but I'm not above violence / my mama raised me better than that"

sixth circle: heresy / hard times I THOUGHT this one lined up the least initially, but heresy (betrayal of doctrine or norms) makes a lot of sense -- this is a kind of abuse that goes against every single moral, legal, religious, and familial idea.

seventh circle: violence / thoroughfare kidnapping

eighth circle: fraud / gibson girl this is where it becomes apparent that Isaiah had lied about who he was

ninth circle: treachery / ptolemaea lots of people have already said this song is about the ninth circle of hell

so.... when Ethel dies in august underground / televangelism, is that also her escaping hell? much to think about.

[demi-shoggoth]

2024 Reading Log, pt 7

31. The Curious World of Bacteria by Ludger Wess. I actually read this book before most of the ones in my previous reading log… and forgot about it. Not a good sign. The most curious thing about this curious world of bacteria is how narrowly focused it is. Most of the species discussed are extremophiles, and/or species that can live and gain nutrients from human created materials. The author is clearly obsessed with panspermia—the idea that life has traveled from planet to planet—and is so more eager to discuss the bacteria that could theoretically survive such a journey as opposed to those that cause disease or are integral in ecological processes. Also, I learned from this book that the claim that bacterial spores were recovered from the gut of a bee fossilized in amber and then brought back to life has never been refuted, which I would have sworn it was along with all of those other amber DNA studies from the 80s and 90s. Going down that research rabbit hole was much more interesting than this book itself, I’m afraid.

31a. The Invention of Prehistory by Stefanos Geroulanos. This book has gotten a lot of positive press from book people, written up by the New Yorker and the New York Times on their “best of the year so far” lists. It’s fucking miserable. The book is about how archaeology and anthropology have been used to promote white supremacy, colonialism, and imperialism. This is true, and the book does contribute some excellent detail to that. But. This book starts from the supposition that the purpose of archaeology and anthropology is to promote white supremacy, colonialism and imperialism, and that the true extent of the past is impossible to know. I cannot stand post-modern “well, everything is up to interpretation” solipsism, and this book is clearly coming from the viewpoint that the vast majority of archaeologists and anthropologists, to the present day, are evil or useful idiots at best. For a book about bias, the author sure can’t see past his own nose about his own biases, and I gave up on it about 150 pages into a 400 page manifesto.

32. Pockets: An Intimate History of How We Keep Things Close by Hannah Carlson. On the subject of “books about bias”, but good, is this cultural history of pockets in Western fashion, from the Middle Ages to the modern day. It’s the author’s argument that the modern trope of women wanting pockets in their clothes but them being not provided long predates the development of premade clothes as the norm, and goes basically as far back as pockets being attached to clothes in the first place. The book discusses tie-on pockets, sewn in pockets, and how a purse is not the same thing as the latter, even to the point of recent (patriarchal) Supreme Court decisions. The book is an in-depth look at a topic a lot of people probably haven’t thought about from a historical perspective, and is well illustrated as well.

33. Frogs of the World by Mark O’Shea and Simon Maddock. Princeton University Press’ X of the World series has been a recurring favorite in this feature, and this volume is an excellent example of the form. As usual, the first 1/3 or so of the book discusses the group in general (anurans in this case), and then the rest of it is articles about families, sorted in phylogenetic order from basal-most to newest diverging (or thereabouts). A lot has happened in frog taxonomy since I took a herpetology class, and a lot of species I didn’t know about were discussed alongside popular taxa. And of course, the photography is amazing.

34. Witchcraft: A History in Thirteen Trials by Marion Gibson. Possibly the best book I’ve read this year, this book discusses witchcraft and witch trials specifically as a historical phenomenon for suppressing dissent, especially from women, especially during times of religious and political upheaval. The book starts with Heinrich Kramer, author of the Malleus Malificarum, whom the author explicitly compares to a modern incel, and progresses up to Stormy Daniels’ persecution while her accuser, Donald Trump, compares himself to a witch. This book is insightful and progressive, as well as offering a phenomenal look into what accused witches actually believed and said.

35. Unnatural Habitat: The Native and Exotic Wildlife of Los Angeles by Craig Stanford. This book covers the ecology of the Los Angeles basin and its surrounding mountains, and how it is a mosaic of native and introduced species that sometimes work well together, and sometimes don’t. This book is decidedly a mixed bag. Some of the local lore is quite fun, relating stories that Angelenos tell each other about where exactly their palm trees, pigeons and parrots come from. And it goes into how beloved American institutions like green lawns and outdoor cats pose a hazard to the health of an ecosystem. But the author is clueless about matters of phylogeny and deep time (something that I find is common with books about nature, alas) and so says some pretty weird things while talking about evolutionary relationships. And there are a few outright falsehoods in the book, like the truly baffling assertion that spiders kill more people than venomous snakes do. The result is a book that I wanted to like more than I did.

[thedreadvampy]

I think a huge amount of my issue with how people (leftoids) recieve (leftist, countercultural or similarly aligned) art online is:

a) a lot of it seems to be based on a perceived failure of the art to live up to some radical ideal of Changing The World. this is an issue to me because I don't think art is for changing the world. creating art isn't an act of direct revolutionary praxis the way like, blowing up pipelines or drafting new legislation or building mutual aid networks are. art is there to change you so you can change the world. no art whether it's Disney Film #284367 or some indie antiart installation piece is sufficiently threatening to the status quo in and of itself to Be The Revolution - revolution comes about through connection and unification and art can help us do that. or can help us believe in fucked up shit. but like. it's happening in us not in the art. getting mad bc a piece of art isn't Sufficiently Changing The World is missing the point imo. the question is does it change you?

b) the closer a piece of art is to challenging the hegemonic art institution the more critical we are of it, and I don't think that's down to corporate capture or a failure to notice the institutional issues as much as that people's reactions to institutional art is 'well what can you expect' whereas there's a much more personal betrayal from indie or countercultural art sources. a version of this might be how people have responded to shitty corporate exploitation and abuse at say CDPR vs Ubisoft, or to the value of art made by A24 vs Disney. Or like, in general the reception to artists like Neil Gaiman or Amanda Palmer or Lil Nas X or Rebecca Sugar or Contrapoints who are engaging imperfectly but nonetheless engaging with stuff like race, sexuality, gender, colonialism, capitalist power etc. Like the criticisms levelled are usually valid, it's not that they're wrong or necessarily disproportionate, it's that there much more often levelled at people who are trying to say something we broadly agree on than they are at people who aren't. you know? and I think it's a fatigue thing. like the entire mainstream arts establishment is fucked and full of people and institutions who hold awful beliefs or have done awful things and we can't get mad at all of them. but the annoying impact of that is that collectively that energy seems to land more with, you know, Taika Waititi than Mel Gibson. More with A24 than Marvel Studios. More with Contrapoints than The Quartering.

like we give more critique to artists we expect more of and that's fair enough. except a) this is the internet so it's often not really so much critique as CANCELLED CANCELLED CANCELLED NONE OF YOU ARE FREE FROM SIN but also b) idk. it feels like when we're waiting for the Perfect Piece Of Radical Art To Lead The Revolution and will accept no less from any art that tries to make any kind of critique of the world as it is, but don't hold the same expectations towards art which is fully hegemonically aligned and within the expected norms, what we've ended up with is a world where

let's say for example

a fun murder mystery about evil rich people defeated by the cleverness of a working class heroine is Bad because it criticised capitalism and racism in a broadstrokes and milquetoast liberal way that won't Change The World, and this makes it Counterrevolutionary Pro Capitalist Propaganda That Is Making You Stupid

but a Disney film about how the US military is great actually and the only problem with it is that you don't believe hard enough in yourself!!!! and in reifying that punching things will fix the world and anyone trying to enact change from the status quo is de facto evil regardless of how correct their complaints are? that's just a fun film, it's Disney, you can't expect it to be radical, just have fun!

Idk it's very wearing.

[echofromtheabyss]

There's always been an analysis that visibility of homosexuality killed homoromanticism and cast a shadow on homosociality. The thing is, I think it's the visibility of sexuality in some ways that is a unique 20th century thing and that this created some interesting social dynamics probably. I think a big thing that happened in the 20th is that sexuality became much more brazenly open over the course of the century. Or it may be that it was suddenly more VISIBLE. And accessible. But visible is a big thing, thanks to the rise of mass media, and among other things much that mass media is originally not made for the tastes of the elite and it is made by people from social classes with more heterosocial norms than the elite have. "Lowbrow" culture actually became a strong broad mass culture norm. Twentieth Century mass media does not actually have an elitist history. A chunk of your favorite fandoms and songs were originated by working class people, by veterans, by people who don't really make it into the public eye now. Counterculture people, and even people who would never be heard now because they would've been siloed up into a fringe political pipeline by now. It was actually a lot harder to escape seeing porn mags and nudie posters in the 1970s and 80s than it is now. Porn went online since then and now it is even leaving the commons. A ton of the mass media a Twentian grew up with, would be social content now. Social media and meming are the shape of that in the 21st century. And that stuff is on platforms that have nanny rails. In the 20th century, there starts to be ample physical record of the tastes of people far, far outside what we get from the tastemakers. (And part of the vibe change we all feel - is media consolidation and siloing, and the massive changes to mass culture over the last thirty years.) In the 20th, sexuality becomes visible. People have more reason to worry about what their daughters are getting up to. And oh noes they might be riding in those SIN WAGONS and mingling with... the... wrong... people... (Speaking of sin wagons, this is another way a part of the culture is actually kinda pre-Twentian. The same people who don't like cars. Twentians love the sin wagons, though they're too small to sin in now) And the arguments between Freud and Jung as the century opens are practically one of the central arguments of the 20th. But anyway one thing that happens during this very very horny century is that practically everything starts to be sexualized. Every interaction with anyone, over time, starts to be sus for potential screwing. Stuff that's borderline pornographic by others' standards starts to be very visible and we start to have rapid churn on modesty standards. And to truly comprehend the culture change that happened between 1900 and the 20s, consider that the distance between Gibson Girls and flappers is roughly... emo kids and now. The 20th century is an openly bawdy century. And the culture struggles to contain it. The 20th is like someone sitting in the corner who is desperately struggling not to touch themselves. Its sexual energy is like me when I'm trying not to stim or pace (because I'm a human perpetual motion machine). It may BE all the chaos that Deco Twentians lived through over the course of a very violent, disease-ridden, war-ravaged period of history of absolutely colossal technological and infrastructural change. I mean... all of that uncertainty would make me want to live for the moment, too.

[campgender]

from “Female Fem(me)ininities: New Articulations in Queer Gender Identities and Subversion” by Melanie Maltry & Kristin Tucker

published in Femme/Butch: New Considerations of the Way We Want to Go (2002) ed. Michelle Gibson & Deborah Meem

While many read cross-gender performance as the primary means for subversion, Butler’s acuteness in describing the “sexual regulation of gender” requires a focus not merely on visual signification, but on the entire discursive situation of a given subject. And this allows for far more subversive interpretations of the femme gender.

[Quoting Butler:] “The idea that sexual practice has the power to destabilize gender emerged from my reading of Gayle Rubin’s The Traffic in Women … it sought to establish that normative sexuality fortifies normative gender. … Briefly, one is a woman, according to this framework, to the extent that one functions as one within a heterosexual frame and to call the frame into question is perhaps to lose something of one’s place in gender … I belabor this point because some queer theorists have drawn an analytic distinction between gender and sexuality, refusing causal or structural link between them. But, there is a sexual regulation of gender.” (xi)

When Butler cites a “causal and structural link” between sex, gender, and sexuality, she allows for theorizing methods of gender for the femme. Her assertion that “sexual practice has the power to destabilize gender” through the way in which gender and sexuality produce one another, locates the femme outside of the heterosexual construct. The femme, though sometimes appearing as a heterosexual woman, is really no “woman” at all. She is, instead, a body signifying queer acts from a queer space. Therefore the context for her sexuality and thus her gender expression is shifted entirely. Simple politics of visibility are insufficient in determining or establishing subversion. A shift from the politics of visibility to a focus on queer acts is fundamental in exploring a femme position of subversion in that such a shift gives specific attention to the position where the femme is discursively situated.