#a big example being i believe god is omnipresent

[islam-and-u]

reading about Salafi history is so interesting

what do you mean you were kinda cool (not fully, but definitely some based ideas) but then one dude got a little too into wahabism and so created a whole knew version of salafism which went against original salafism what

what do you mean you were originally a political movement against western imperialism and the authoritarian-esque hiearchies within sufism and spent most of your time preaching for rational discussions and scientific innovation but that was stopped cause OF ONE FRICKING DUDE

idk it's just so funny that the salafi movement's entire point was "lets do stuff from the past" which is textbook conservative but then the stuff in the past was "science is amazing and i love reframing my worldview with every new discovery" which is textbook progressive.

(I do think they're wrong btw, i just think they had a few good ideas sprinkled amongst the weird stuff)

[astralarchilocus]

I’m not normally the type to go on lengthy rants about stuff, but this shit has been frustrating me for such a long period of time that I need to get it off my chest. Biology based misinformation has always been widespread and problematic, but we’re entering a new era of this shit that’s reaching a whole new level of awful. “Pandas and koalas are evolutionary failures!” this, “honey badgers are immortal gods that fight whole lion prides and win” that, it’s all the same bullshit with the exact same set of origins. Carnivora fuckos, TierZoo, NatureIsMetal, Quora, etc. They’re all vile awesomebros or awesomebro infested hellscapes that have managed to successfully misinform a legitimately terrifyingly high amount of people. It’s actually horrifying that you often can’t talk about a lot of these animals without people immediately regurgitating awesomebro tripe straight at your face.

“But is this even a problem, Comet? It just seems like something you’ve been overexposed to because of you being a biology person above all else.” Yes it is, and it’s an enormous one at that! Such a rapid circulation of misinformation like this on such a scale is going to have cascading impacts on the general knowledge around animals and a lot of public perception around biology. And it’s likely going to pose a very legitimate threat to the conservation of a lot of animals. Remember how Jaws worsened already present stigma and misinformation present around sharks, and added to something that became so intense that it actually became a very serious threat to them as a whole? And that Jaws is a fictional story at the end of the day, and still managed to cause such immense misinformation in spite of that? This is literally that situation but with a much wider impact on animals as a whole (given that this insanity applies to animals in general instead of just one specific group), and with the misinformation being much more widely believed to be correct due to it not originating directly from a fictional book and film. Bit of a gross oversimplification, but it’s extremely bad. A prominent example of why this is such a big problem is the situation with cheetahs, who are literally only struggling because of issues (habitat loss and the accompanying population fragmentation and inbreeding) we caused, but are constantly being lambasted as evolutionary failures essentially solely because of the “horribly low hunting success” misconception and the fact they can’t fight predators that either outweigh them considerably, are social, or both, and that cheetahs literally cope fine with kleptoparasitism and just up the amount of kills they make in response to it with pretty little difficulty, on top of generally having the second highest hunting success rate among large-ish African mammalian carnivores. Cheetahs are getting all of their value as a species determined by whether they can fight other carnivores or not, and people try to sneakily obscure that fact by using the actually legitimate inbreeding issue as a strawman to support the “cheetahs are getting outcompeted and would go extinct anyways” bullshit. And this is all going to make conservation efforts to try and protect or save them that much more troublesome, because few are going to bother paying funds for something they deem a useless evolutionary failure. And getting the funds for such conservation efforts is difficult enough as is even without that being considered. Combine that with the fact that said conservation efforts are effectively useless at stopping or at least weakening the actual problems without enough funding to properly financially support such things, and I think it’s abundantly clear how much of a cascading impact this has on everything. And as said earlier, this isn’t only applying to cheetahs, but to so many other animals as well. We are entering what could legitimately turn into a dark age regarding biology stuff, and it is terrifying how omnipresent this shit is becoming. The misinformation is so widespread and commonplace among people currently that it’s almost definitely impossible to properly reverse by now, but that doesn’t mean we should just give up. Now more than ever, we need to fight back against this shit and keep it from getting even worse.

Oh, and to add insult to injury, there is a very strong correlation between awesomebros and bigotry, and most of the stuff just talked about almost definitely has inherent roots in anthropocentrism, general human bias, the aforementioned bigotry, etc. And if fighting back against bigotry isn’t enough of an additional motivator to fight back against this shit, I don’t know what is at this point.

[sukajunin]

Amor fati

I’ve always told myself that everything happens for a reason whenever I needed major consolation. Without truly knowing what that meant, it was somewhat reassuring to me that even the terrible things that happened to me had a genuine purpose. It became almost a stock-standard response to every misfortune I’ve ever encountered. The phrase itself is meant to be said for moments of comfort. But is it enough to brush off everything negative with this one-size-fits-all sort of comeback? I must’ve used it too many times that its meaning has gotten lost, like when you say one word over and over again that it starts to sound funny and you start to question whether it’s actually a real word or not. Now it’s a cliched phrase that no longer provides the same solace it used to.

Despite being overused, everything does happen for a reason. And it’s true: we may not know what that reason is yet. It might come to us in the next minute, the next hour, or years down the line. To me, this saying had always implied that some greater thing has control over our outcomes, our decisions, and everything else in between. That whatever bad thing that just happened to you was all part of a bigger plan.

I used to hear this a lot, too: Do your best and let God do the rest. It was also another phrase that was thrown around when I thought I was going to fail an exam or when I thought I wasn’t going to do so well at my violin recital. It wasn’t enough to be told to just do your best, because it’ll be even better when God has got your back, too. Maybe it was just another combination of comforting words, to let me know that my best was good enough and that a greater being will make sure I see positive results. This higher, omnipresent being, will move the earth to ensure that everything will be okay.

But my secular self refuses to believe that a big man in the sky has a say in how my life will turn out. After all, it was me making the decisions down here on humble earth… 

My partner and I had been struggling for a while with getting a permanent residency in Australia. Ever since we finished up our student visas, it’s been an endless cycle of temporary visa applications. From terrible timing to not finding the right work, getting any sort of temporary visa was a real struggle. Dinner table discussions often included which visa to apply for next in order to stay here longer. But only just recently, did I realise that maybe our efforts of trying to get a PR was the ultimate roadblock that I didn’t know I needed.

Perhaps these plans never came to fruition because they’re not for me… yet. The one thing I love the most about my partner and I - and also my main source of crippling anxiety - is our ability to be… flexible, for lack of a better word. This time last year, we didn’t know where we would be, what our year was going to look like. And surprise, surprise, we still don’t know now. Not knowing where we are going to be in a year from now frightens me a little bit. But it is simultaneously one of the most exciting things ever. I look to my two older sisters as an example, who are both very much settled. Sydney is their definite home. This is their lives and it isn’t a bad thing, but I think, subconsciously, I haven’t thought about settling down in that sense and neither has my partner. 

I want to believe that in some sort of twist of events, that all the decisions I’ve made - big and small - had caused a butterfly to flap its wings and led the stars to align or something for the universe to come up with this path for me. In the end, stories are stories and we love telling ourselves stories to make the unreasonable feel reasonable. But this narrative seemed far more interesting to me than a mastermind somewhere in the clouds was puppeteering my fate. In some way, I still had some control in my outcomes and that, yes - everything does happen for a reason because I subconsciously do things to lead me to this particular way.

Amor fati - a succinct Latin phrase, which means “to love one’s fate”, is probably one that I should tell myself instead when things are tough. And I think I had been headbutting my fate for too long because I had synonymously thought of it as giving up. Sometimes I do think that I’m not trying hard enough to get a PR. Maybe that’s true - there are ways to get it but the way to do it isn’t for me. I could also keep living on temporary visas but the thought of living that precariously haunts me.

On another level, my anxiety and spiraling thoughts stem from a lot of uncertainty. Of course everyone’s future is uncertain - we can die tomorrow and worrying about our pension plan should be the least of our problems - but being unsure of where you are going to be physically, geographically is scary. The thought of having to pack up your whole life that you had built to potentially relocate is incredible, yet stressful. It doesn’t help that being in my 20’s I see friends in very different stages of life. Some are married with kids, some are homeowners. Fuck, some have died. And you can’t help but to compare your very much unsolved life to ones that are seemingly very… solved. 

As cliched as it sounds, your 20’s are absolutely a pigsty in terms of figuring yourself out. There were nights where I could feel my cheeks hot from the anger; my pillowcases soaked from tears. There’s a lot of mistakes being made and that’s okay, and I can’t believe I’m only just figuring that out.  

It’s possible that I’ll never figure it out, so I’ll end this essay as banal as my former mantras - with a quote. Perhaps the answer can be found in the words of Austrian poet, Rainer Rilke: “Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given to you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.”

[aiweirdness]

The next Disney princesses

When I saw the princess from Brave appear unexpectedly in an AI’s attempt to illustrate some misheard sea shanty lyrics (just another day on this blog), I had to look her up to remind myself her name was Merida. I ended up on the Disney Wiki entry for Merida, which got me wondering whether I could generate new Disney princesses.

I used GPT-3, a set of big text-generating neural nets trained on huge amounts of internet text. The GPT-3 models have seen wiki articles before, and there’s a LOT online about Disney princesses, so I decided to see what they could do with just two example entries adapted from the wiki, one on Merida and one on Moana.

Here’s what DaVinci, the largest of the GPT-3 models, generated. After just two short examples it had figured out how to add new entries following the general format, and even knew to generate them about Disney characters. It got many details correct! It also got many details wrong.

Model: DaVinci, temperature 1.0

Name: Snow White

Occupation: Princess of the Kingdom of Tabor

Dietary Needs: Unknown

Powers and abilities: Magic Wand (heighten sensation/emotion/physical strength/physical weakness), Animal friends: bats, squirrels, and birds. Can control them all at once.

Animal friends: Flies, Wolves, and Rabbits

Paraphernalia: Magic Wand, Bearskin cloak, Hair ribbon, fake shoe, Stolen chicken, Dew flies.

Name: Bambi

Occupation: Prince of the Forest

Paraphernalia: None

Likes:His family, The Greater Good, Being outside, Being With His Mothers Friends

Dislikes: Hunters, Caning from His Mothers Friends, deer-flies, Man's interference in nature

Name: Belle

Occupation: Nobody

Powers and abilities: None, save for her intellect and empathy

Paraphernalia: Lantern created by her father Maurice

Likes: Animals, reading, science, inventions, her father's inventions, singing, medicine

Dislikes: Vermin, Horned King, Rourke, McNab, Mr. O'Malley, Gaston, the West Wing, Halloween and those who celebrate it, Tick-Tock the Crocodile, judging people

Name: Nala

Occupation: Queen of Pride Rock, princess-in-exile (formerly), Second in command and leader of the Lion Guard

Paraphernalia: The Lullaby Scepter, Her fleet of gnu, Thorn

Likes: Singing, Taking care of the Pride Landers

Dislikes: Hyenas, disorder, corruption, Scar, feeling complacent, her hyena past

But DaVinci stuck with existing Disney characters, even at the highest creativity setting. That’s technically what I asked for, since its task was to add to the end of a list of Disney characters. But it wasn’t what I wanted. I wanted new characters.

So I turned to the smallest GPT-3 model, Ada, hoping it would be confused enough to fail to come up with existing characters. It worked.

Model: Ada, temperature 1.0

Name: Watercolor Cookie

Object of the represented character's ongoing relationship: Pirate/Scientists

Occupation: princess of a village

Powers: a large amount of ink in her fingers, ability to draw lines with it, vines, chicken

Dislikes: Lots of bugs and anything with legs

Name: Rumpo

Occupation: Soldier in the Lost Bay Mercenary Guild

Powers and abilities: Master archery, Master sword fighting, Her Devil Rumpo Dagger

Dislikes: Recklessness, an extremely bad reputation, private prayers, Rabbits

Name: Banks Afloat

Occupation: Pirate chief in the Tonawanda Swamp

Personality: Combative, passionate, impervious to cruelty and aversion to insanity, does not believe in any of supernatural powers and believes in a new and dangerous Age of Men

Powers and abilities: Superhuman strength, immunity to supernatural influences, flight with a Ten-Foot Pole and built sturdy boat and canoe, omnipresence: taking on the form of anyone, able to fly if called upon by renown indestructible courage skill at coup de grace, supernatural invisibility, unlimited memory and recall, and a super-strength equivalent to that of a God, and replenishing drinks at whim, and magic flutes.

Likes: Her wild and free lifestyle, hiking, canoeing, boating, food, sea shells, her family, magic, pirates, the Bahamas, cookies

Dislikes: Being tied down to a chartered vessel to ensure justice for stealing her crewman's land, her family's dangerous past, pirates

Some of these princesses seem a bit overpowered, but to know for sure, I’d have to see the villains.

I only had room for some of the princess profiles here, since they’re quite long, but I also experimented with the other two GPT-3 models. Become an AI Weirdness supporter to read the rest as bonus content! Or become a free subscriber to get new AI Weirdness posts in your inbox.

[everything-laito]

damn the brain be out here going BRRRRRR here’s the Laito and Cordelia Analysis (with a little bit of Karl sprinkled in) Part III

wow my fingers are freezing but my brain sure isn't! 

aaaanyways, iiiiiit’s trauma time!!! Am I a productive member of society by writing these analyses? No. Do I gain anything by writing them? Kinda, my brain gets exercised and they’re fun to research for. But if you haven’t read the first part or the second part for some reason (I recommend reading them in order), there they are. 

Once again, trigger warnings still apply; mainly about trauma, isolation, etc 

I’m gonna talk about the trauma and effects it had on Laito and to attempt to extrapolate why he is the way he is. I have a lot of examples I want to go over and stuff to talk about, so I think the trauma part is going to be split between two (or maybe three) parts. I also have a little bit to say about Karlheinz.

As always, big ass rant under the cut! 

Section 6: Neuroplasticity and Trauma

Oh???? More science vernacular??? You BET! Ok, neuroplasticity. I know I’ve talked about it on this blog. But, I seriously doubt that there is a madlad who has read all of my analyses (speaking of which, I should update the master list lmao) and I don’t expect anyone to do that LOL! Anyways, this neurological concept is the ability of neurons to adapt to certain circumstances or stimuli by creating new neurological pathways (through synapses). This basically relates to memory and learning. It’s why we don’t stay the same person as we grow and develop. It’s responsible from mindset changes to response to traumatic events. It plays a huge part in trauma, which is why “repressed memories” occur as well. 

Trauma, taken from Psychology Today, is defined as: 

...the experience of severe psychological distress following any terrible or life-threatening event. Sufferers may develop emotional disturbances such as extreme anxiety, anger, sadness, survivor’s guilt, or PTSD.

It’s a basic definition. And although I’d assume people would know what trauma is already, but knowing the lexical definition of something can be good to know before going into it. 

Obviously, Laito has trauma, there’s literally no refuting that. But, the point I’m getting at, is the reason why he is the way he is today is because of neuroplasticity. As previously stated, we are going to assume the DL vampire brain works similarly or the same as a human brain. So, because of the stress put upon the brain (Cordelia’s actions and Laito’s general upbringing in a stress filled household), Laito’s brain was rewired (neuroplasticity). This section doesn’t really have much new information, but I wanted to give a baseline since there’s many people who don’t know what neuroplasticity is.

Laito’s definitely different than what he was as a kid. He still kind of had his smarts, and might have been  but as we’ve deducted from the first part of this series, he might have been groomed. On top of that, the brain is easily moldable when you’re a child (which is why grooming makes sense for Laito’s case), and continues to snip brain cells off and form new connections. 

Section 7: Little intermission about Karlheinz 

I know I haven’t really talked about Karlheinz yet. So this will be the section that I do it in. I know this part is about Laito’s trauma, but it’s so hard to not just weave other characters into it. Nothing is stand-alone, which is why it was so hard for me to plan this out. I was debating about saving this for another analysis, but I feel like it fits. 

I referenced this in Part II, Section 5 of this analysis series. Basically, Karlheinz throws Laito into the dungeon and locks him up. Not Karlheinz personally, but he ordered someone to do it. We don’t explicitly know why, but there’s several implications. A huge one is that it was part of Karlheinz’ experiment. Before Dark Fate, I was like “wait, so did Karl find out about Laito/Cordelia? And got like jealous or was like ‘nah this shit fucked up no thanks’?” I was really scratching my head on that. But in Dark Fate, you find that Karlheinz knew about Cordelia and Laito, and even really wanted it to happen. Which is all sorts of fucked up. This really put Laito in for a loop. Here’s a scene from Dark Fate: 

Laito: That woman always, always believed in Karlheinz. Laito: She believed he married her because he loved her, wanted her. That’s why she was sure that one day... he will give his love only to her.  Laito: But she was tricked. She wasn’t loved from the start... Laito: -And I’m a victim of this unbelievable mistake... That’s how it is. Laito: I was treated as a vent for her feelings. Yui: ...Laito-kun... Laito: I’m sure he knew that something like this will happen... He is a god after all... Laito: I was hoping that... He just overlooked it up until now... Laito: But... I was naive.  Laito: I was only planned a scapegoat. 

God, when I played this, that just freaking struck me to my core. That’s so awful. Ironically... Karlheinz probably has some high level of emotional intelligence. I don’t believe he could be labeled as a sociopath, considering he has this high level understanding of pathos. He’s not god in a sense that he controls everyone individually himself. He’s so good at manipulation that he basically creates fate itself (whether you believe in it or not). He’s generally intelligent and cunning, and it also just helps with the fact that he’s immortal and can time travel. He knows cause and effect by now, and I believe Lost Eden said something about how he’s done so many different “timelines.” 

The definition of a god in a philosophical sense can be broken down into three words: omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. More wicked cool jargon! Yay! Here’s what they mean for extra clarification:

Omniscient: All knowing Omnipresent: All seeing Omnipotent: All doing

Sure Karlheinz doesn’t absolutely know everything, nor can see everything, and he definitely has limits to his power, but he has gained knowledge through living for so many years and time traveling; he has familiars which add to the whole “all seeing” part; and he has a lot of power. So basically, in the most semi-”realistic” sense, it would definitely be the closest being to any kind of god.

Karlheinz is probably the reason why Laito himself has such contempt towards religion, and the existence of a god in general. Sure, the boys are like “that shit’s made up by humans” in general, but it would make sense for Laito himself to have that specific hatred. It makes sense that these vampires would be like “oh that’s made up by humans” when they’ve been around forever and have seen multiple religions come and go. (I’m mainly talking about in DL’s lore case, not starting a religious argument; please don’t take it as such––just to clarify)

Section 8: Isolation

Originally, the previous part was going to be about Laito’s isolation being locked up. However, I went off the rails and it turned into that little intermission. This is going to be a shorter section, but I still wanted to talk about, and it will weave into the next section. 

There is no implications about how long Laito was locked up (and tortured) in the dungeon. There’s also no implications about why he was tortured. But torture and isolation puts such stress on the brain that there’s definitely going to be some kind of outcome if persisting for a good period of time. So let’s take a look at what that does to a person. 

Once again, taking this with a grain of salt. I imagine vampires don’t need to rely on social interaction as much as humans do, considering they live forever. But we don’t know. However, throwing Laito into a state of isolation implies that it would be some type of torture or harsh punishment for a vampire, which therefore implies that social interaction is a necessity for emotional function. It’s just sound, inductive logic. 

So now, as for isolation, I’m using this article as reference. It’s a pretty interesting one to read. Here’s another extensive article as well. Basically isolation can cause:

Depression/anxiety

Immune system deficiencies (basically more likely to get physically ill)

Sleep cycle changes (if put underground or with limited natural light)

Hallucinations

Paranoia

Issues with processing information and more susceptible to persuasion/manipulation

We have no clue if Laito’s experience fits all of these. Also, the second one can be crossed out because vampires in DL can’t get physically sick in the way we can. Also, unsure about the sleep cycle stuff considering they are used to being in the dark. Hallucinations and paranoia can’t be crossed off nor proven. 

Being isolated physically and mentally exhausts the mind, which is why it’s also a way of torture. Laito implies that he was tortured with physical devices, but regardless, it’s still stress on the mind. This type of stress definitely goes along with what was mentioned with neuroplasticity and trauma, which also supports the last bullet point: issues processing information and being more susceptible to persuasion/manipulation. Take this flashback from Maniac Prologue in HDB that I used in Part II section 5 (but here’s even more context):

Laito: ーー Let me go!! Let me out of here! Butler: I can’t, young lord. We’ve received strict orders from your father. I am deeply sorry, but please stay put for a while. Laito: What’s the point in having me chained up in here!? Butler: ーーI am very sorry. Laito: Hahahaha…You stupid old man! Do you think that this will make repent!? How foolish! That demon! Has his brain finally rotten from spending too much time with humans!? ー Cordelia appears Cordelia: ー Oh? Laito: …!? Have you come to save me? Cordelia: Oh dear. Ufufu…I’m sorry Laito, that isn’t it. Laito: Eh? Richter: ー Why are you here? Laito: …That’s my line. Cordelia: Okay, okay. No fighting! More importantly, Richter…Come here. Laito: …!? Cordelia: Nnn…Hey, Laito. You are a good boy. Laito: …!! Cordelia: Right, Laito? Laito: Yeah, that’s right. I’m…I’m a good boy after all.  ーー Besides, I’m the type of person who only get more aroused from this kind of thing.

Although I also use this to support the whole Stockholm syndrome point, this could also be supported with the trauma isolation also holds. His mind is being re-molded into the facade he holds. Also, note the whole “do you think this will make me repent?!” part. Just a very interesting thing. The word “repent” implies that there’s something to feel guilty about or the person knows that what they’ve done is bad. It just goes to show that Laito has some part of guilt or moral compass still in tact. 

You can also argue that this scene was when Laito just got locked up, or he’s been here for a while. Either way, he could have also been socially isolated before this too, just hanging around Cordelia like it’s implied when he was a child. Remember the whole not being in bed 9/10 times when he was a child? Yeah, controlled social isolation. We also rarely see Laito with other characters in his flashbacks. I don’t believe we see him with his brothers in any of his flashbacks from what I can recall; he’s usually with Cordelia. Just implies (to me) that he’s around her a lot. And being locked up is also a more extreme case of that, which would mold the brain even more. 

I know that was a LOT to process and read. I sure hope this still is cohesive for you all. I’m pretty bad at organizing this kind of stuff; it’s a bit difficult since it all just goes together. Which, kudos on the writers of DL, because that’s just good writing. I was going to put something about gaslighting in this part, but that might be too long, so I’m going to make that a separate part or include it in the next part. 

If you have any questions, feel free to just put it in the inbox. I’m planning on making the last part of this series answering all the Laito/Cordelia questions I’ve received, or just general questions pertaining to this analysis in general, whether it be tangential questions or clarifying questions. 

Hope you all are still enjoying this ride as much as I am!  -Corn

[shifting-lark]

hi.. im really losing motivation on shifting. I think that im just being fooled and this is a big joke. i try my best to believe it and support it, but i feel like people make up stories that they shifted only to be famous. I don’t understand how the CIA documents support shifting yk. im so sorry, but i really need to know if its true or not

TW shifting doubt, possibly negative thoughts, religion mention

Hello anon, and I’m so sorry you’re feeling unmotivated ☹️ I’ve been there, trust me. And SO many shifters experience the same feeling. We just want something so bad and it’s so out of reach and we just start questioning “well is it even real? Am I just making a fool out of myself??” And I 100% understand the feeling.

But just think of it this way: shifting is kinda like a religion. ((I grew up religious, I’m no longer religious, i respect people’s beliefs and I’m not poking fun in any way shape or form))

For example, Christianity: they believe in one God and that he isn’t a physical being but a omnipresent being that is always there to protect or calm or help you when you call for him. Yet you never see or feel him. You have to just believe in him and have faith.

My parents have been dedicated Christians for like 40+ years, and my mom has told me time and time again she’s had doubts and she’s just wanted to “give up” but her faith continued to hold firm.

Shifting is similar in that, no we don’t have physical evidence. No we can’t just show other non-believers a magical portal to the other realities. Shifting is faith based and a personal journey that you have to go through. And you don’t ALWAYS have to believe. You can doubt and have negative thoughts, because we are human and that happens. But you can STILL shift while doubting, just like you can still be a Christian and doubt.

This was kinda wordy and maybe preachy, but just keep your chin up and remind yourself that you WILL shift and it IS real and you just gotta have faith ☺️

Hope this helps, happy shifting! You got this.

[arisaint]

SOME ITEMS YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN CREATING A TOTALITARIANISM FOR YOUR STORY

Is your story a dystopian universe but you don’t know how to begin? Are there some things missing or you feel your totalitarian government is not 1984-ish enough?

Well! I am here to give some tips based on my own experience living under a regime of this kind and reading about these systems. These are some tips for writers and roleplayers who want to create their own totalitarian worlds. So, here we go!

IDEOLOGY & PILLARS

The ideology is the base of the new order of a totalitarianism. Depending on the beliefs of the regime, the way they see the world and how it works, the nation will transform differently.

That’s why in A Brave New World, which pillar is genetics engineering, is built as a society divided in different genetical castes; or the reason why The Handmaid’s Tale world is based in a radical religious ideology that dominates women and punishes those who sin; or why The Man In The High Castle follows the nazi’s philosophy on superior races and idolizes Hitler’s figure; or why Fahrenheit 451’s books prohibition influences the roles of firefighters.

There are plenty of fictional and real (unfortunately) examples. An ideology usually has rules and laws, perspectives, a determined political and social system, a deity or figure it admires and an official truth.

OFFICIAL TRUTH

One of the main goals of a totalitarian system is changing completely the reality as it is known. For this reason, the absolute truth of certain events is a threat for the system.

For a totalitarian government, the truth expressed by the “official sources” is the only and absolute truth. Anything that comes from another voice is a lie or even a delusion. Working hard on building their own reality is the reason why they take over media and spread their own version of a story just to make the rest of the versions look fake.

An innocent man was killed by the system because he was protesting against the crisis? According to the government, “the person was killed because he was a menace to the people, he was an assassin and was trying to foster anarchy within the country. That’s why the brave authorities were obligated to shoot him”. With this version, the government is seen as the hero, conveniently. Because yes, conveniently, the official truth never soils the reputation of those in power. It usually spreads hatred on its enemies (those who oppose the totalitarianism ). The official truth’s goal and function is to change reality completely in order to achieve the absolute anchorage of the people on power. Take this always in mind because it’s probably the most important thing a totalitarianism does to stay in power. The stakes are too high to let people know the truth.

CHANGING THE PAST

As a consequence of the official truth, spreading the painted version of a current event is not enough. It’s also necessary to change the past and rewrite history. And, of course, with the same and convenient goal: making the system on power look like a hero and savior. So, any symbol, event or element that says the contrary or represents a confusion of this understanding, is erased from history books, removed from town squares (statues and sculptures are victims of the government if they don’t fulfill the new order’s values) and are eventually forgotten by future generations. Everything that belongs to the past and threats the totalitarianism ideology, even the slightest littleness, will be erased from the collective consciousness to reconfigure the thoughts of society about the past.  

Is there a hero from the past of the nation who doesn’t follow the ideology of the regime? Their name will be erased from history books and their statues will be replaced by a more convenient hero that follows the government thoughts. Eventually, the first hero is forgotten and never named again.

NEW LANGUAGE

Words are powerful weapons and totalitarianisms well know that. For this reason, they’ll always opt on adopting the “new language” that will be part of the new order with the objective of killing the unnecessary past and controlling the society even in the way they speak and what they hear.

As it’s perfectly and clearly stated in Orwell’s 1984, the Newspeak replaces the Oldspeak so the regime can dominate people’s thought. When creating a totalitarianism, it’s important to have that in mind: they will always want to control what their people say, do and think. Because that’s the safe way to stay in power, if nobody thinks different, nothing different will happen.

The new language, in many regimes, is shown as a war one. Always using words such as fight, battle, soldier, comrade, brigade or troop to make their people believe there’s a constant war, that peace can only be found through battles and that those who think different are enemies.  

BIG BROTHER

The totalitarianism needs to show a face, the face of a savior who will replace God or any other idol of the people. Even if it’s real or not, dead or alive, it’s the face of the government and its’s an obligation to pay respects to it. Propaganda fuels the omnipresence of this character, even if it’s human, they make sure the people think otherwise: that it is a deity, the hero of the society. The ideology of the regime seeks for the exaltation of this leader and make it be loved by people.  

PROPAGANDA

The official truth, the new order and the exaltation of the Big Brother of the system is diffused exclusively through propaganda. It is the precious tool of every totalitarianism and is always used to the point of being abusive and invasive. It will be on billboards, television, newspaper (if there are), bulletins, everywhere. And of course, this propaganda is designed with the new language of its governors. It’s supposed to have the same personality of the whole system. And the goal is evident: brainwashing. The propaganda of a totalitarianism has one or several messages to send to the people, and eventually, make them repeat it and believe it.

For example, the famous 1984’s phrases “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength” are meant to send that precise message to their people and make them believe these statements are actually true (official truth).

SECRET POLICE

This kind of governments eventually create their own police. And the goals of this service is not to protect people even if that’s the “official truth”. The reality of this agency is to safeguard the system and get rid of anyone who means a threat to it.

Murders will be covered as accidents or suicides, prison will be filled with protestants and detractors, there will be torture centers to make people confess valuable information for the police. This is how they act. They are hitmen, feared by the people because, sooner or later, society learns the real function of that police. Being a cop of this service turns you into the guard dog of the government, and of course, betrayal is also punished within the members of the secret police.

The Gestapo, KGB and Thinkpol are clear examples of how the secret police of a totalitarianism work. Of course, it’s not an ethical duty. On the contrary; they only care about those who order and pay them, not the people. For example, the Thinkpol’s duty wasn’t to protect the citizens of Oceania, but arresting those who attempted against the Inner Party.

CENSORSHIP

In order to spread only, but only the messages the totalitarianism needs, there has to be a censorship of the media and people. This kind of regimes will aim on media because of its influence on people. They’ll take newspapers, TV channels and radio stations and regulate what they say. There’s usually an official (TV or radio) channel from the government that announces bulletins of news and the propaganda of the regime.

Not all totalitarian governments have total control of media, some clandestine and rebel mass media outwit the regulations and censorship. But, of course, depending on how effective is the secret police, those acts will have consequences.

Regarding political parties, the definition of totalitarianism doesn’t allow the existence of opposition parties, for there can be only one, the unique political party.

BRAINWASHING & INDOCTRINATION

A totalitarian regime always needs to maintain the sheep inside the farm, and it doesn’t want questioner sheep. That’s why they recur to brainwashing, to avoid any risk that could overthrow their government.

The main reason of propaganda and censorship is precisely brainwashing. Propaganda exists to spread what the government wants their people to think and censorship exists to eliminate any tergiversation and “lie” that could confuse them. If the totalitarianism is well established, their people will be completely brainwashed.

Another way this kind of regime use to indoctrinate is schools. Spreading the messages to the youth when they still haven’t built their own opinions it’s a key strategy for totalitarianisms. This is how they secure the brainwashing of new generations.

There are many ways to indoctrinate a society, and it’s always a priority for the regime. Because people who think, will eventually oppose you. They can’t let that happen.  

OPPRESSED SOCIETY

How does a society under a totalitarian system behaves? It all depends on how strict is the system, what they promote through their new order and laws and how established are they on people (brainwashing). What we have to understand it’s that these regimes do not recognize human dignity and the person as an individual. They are just tools for their system and objectives. And, for this society, freedom doesn’t exist.

In a totalitarianism, the people blend with the rest of the collective, becoming idiot masses that just repeat the propaganda they consume. They are a collective, a mass, a medium for the government. They have no rights, they are just instruments with no dignity nor individuality. That’s why the duty of the society it’s to obey and never complain.

Do not limit yourself on making one kind of society, they all react differently to these regimes. Depending on how well established is the new order, it will be harder for people to think by themselves, and become slaves of the system, obeying the regime.

Nevertheless, if you want to create a conflict, there’s always exceptions: citizens who still think for themselves, understand there’s something wrong with the system and will fight it.

RESISTANCE MOVEMENT

And that conclusion bring us here: the main conflict of a totalitarianism it’s a —usually clandestine— group of resistance. Even the toughest totalitarianism has a resistance counterpart, because that’s how human nature is: always looking for a little hole to freedom even in the deepest caves.

Again, the size and quality of the resistance movement depends of how strict it’s the totalitarianism and how efficient it’s their secret police. However, there’s always, ALWAYS, someone who thinks differently and becomes the enemy of the regime. If you want a conflict for the government, there needs to be a resistance group, even if it is small. Also, there are many types of groups, they can be violent, pacifistss, anarchists, etc.

If your story doesn’t involve a coup against the totalitarianism, I suggest you to equally include this group, because they always tend to exist. Besides, a totalitarianism feeds itself from the drama of having enemies, so even if there’s not a big resistance group, they’ll create their own fictional enemy and blame all their problems on them. 

As a final suggestion, if you want to get involved into dystopian worlds and totalitarianisms, read a lot about them, especially I recommend you to read George Orwell’s 1984, for he portrayed a totalitarianism perfectly clear and it’s probably the most emblematic example. Also read a lot of history and real totalitarian regimes! Learn a lot from reality! It’s more akin to 1984 than you think.

Reminder: use this knowledge and write stories to always condemn totalitarianisms! Because we need to use power of literature to fight against what’s unfair. And believe me, as a person who lives in a regime like this, it’s not funny to see a story glorifying a totalitarianism.

Hope these tips are helpful for your stories!

[botslayer]

Octodad: Not-so-dark theory

From top to bottom, Octodad looks like a fairly innocent game, A simple story about an Octopus trying to survive in suburbia. But, through subtle hints and references, and inconsistencies with that premise, it is revealed that Octodad is no mere cephalopod. He is, in fact, something far more horrifying, on paper at least... What do I mean?

Octodad is not, in truth, an Octopus, He's a Cthulhi. For those not familiar with the works of H.P. Lovecraft, Cthulhi are also called "The Starspawn of Cthulhu" and "Xothians," and are a race that looks like Cthulhu who's true origins, as with everything in the Cthulhu mythos, are debatable and vague as sin, the only things known for a fact are that they look like Cthulhu (Or, in their first appearance, like Octopi), worship him, followed him from their home dimension/universe into ours, and then perished en masse while what remained of them went into a death-like sleep, same as Cthulhu.

Now, Star Spawn aren't often seen in the works of Lovecraft, but they do have a sliver of popularity in the fandom. Not as big (in the popularity sense) as Deep Ones, but not as unknown as the humble Penguins of Leng. Now, again, it's worth noting that common interpretations of Star Spawn are basically baby Cthulhus, just tiny versions of their dark and malevolent master, but to start with, they were described as "a land race of beings shaped like octopi and probably corresponding to the fabulous pre-human spawn of Cthulhu," in the story "At the Mountains of Madness." 

Octodad highly RESEMBLES an octopus, but with some interesting tweaks. Namely: His eyes, two of his Tentacles, and something we'll talk about in just a minute. But let's talk about Octodad's anatomy when compared to another octopus, namely, the one in the "Wold of kelp" at the Aquarium.

Now, this is Octopus is a giant, climbable sculpture one might see at a water park, so in a technical sense, some liberties could have been taken with its anatomy, but it looks semi-accurate to real octopi, down to the slit-like pupils and the tentacles all being at roughly the same spot despite them spreading out for kids to climb on. Now, if you pay attention, a patron of the Aquarium will note that the "World of kelp" was something else before it was the world of kelp, though they THINK it was "Squids or something" before. Based on how the section played out, I have to believe the whole affair was either cephalopods in general given how many bases of just kelp they went over, or just Octopi because HOLY CRAP there are lots of octopi out there. Failing that, I don't think the statue was a squid to begin with, the eyes are far too forward on the head, what can be seen of the tentacles makes them all look the same, and most species of squid have circular pupils and irises, not slits/rectangles. 

Octodad, in contrast to the sculpture, has vertically ovular pupils, far rounder than the slits on the larger statue, on top of that, his eyes take up a slightly larger portion of his head. Then we take a look at Octodad's tentacles, namely the two that form his mustache. These two tentacles are set away from the other six in a way that makes no real anatomical sense for an octopus. Not to mention that the two are preposterously shorter than the others, it's less like another pair of tendrils and more like a strange growth coming out of the middle of his head. Moving on from that, there's also a certain disparity with his other limbs, his "arms" are shorter than his "legs" when he stands, however, when he enters water, his limbs, save for his mustache, are all of equal length, this strange effect carries over to when he's buck-ass naked, so no, he isn't just scrunching two up while he's in the suit... Speaking of naked octodad:

What the hell is that THING in the midst of his tentacles? It's a lighter color than the others, he's still using two tentacles per leg, one per arm, and his mustache is basically vestigial. Octodad's anatomy makes no fucking sense unless you consider the idea that he has some level of shapeshifting power... and wouldn't you know it, Cthulhi have just that. To what end is a little shakey, as with most things in the Lovecraft universe, but still.

Also worth noting is the church Octodad got married at, a Church dedicated, at least partly, to Cthulhu himself. Now, we only see one window with any kind of figure on it, Cthulhu, wereas the others are all decked out with a strange symbol, as are a few paintings lining the walls of it. These paintings may be of religious significance to the practitioners of this particular faith, but a lot of it looks like some minimalist "If you get it you get it" kind of stuff, and then one is literally a crayon drawing of a child with a smiling balloon. The last vaguely Lovecraftian thing in the church is the treasure chest Octodad gets his wife's ring from, all the coins within have a squid/cuttlefish-like creature printed on them, In the story "Shadow over Innsmouth," the people of a town called "Innsmouth" start breeding with fish people. They did it specifically for the undersea gold the fish people (called Deep Ones) give out for the service. Deep Ones worship multiple gods, cheif among them are their great parents, Mother Hydra and Father Dagon, though worship of Cthulhu isn't against their laws or anything. 

The game takes a break from the hints of Eldrich horror while the family is at home, though it is worth noting that we don't REALLY know where Octodad's children came from. Hell, the game makes a joke about it at the end, Tommy asks, plain as day, "If dad's an octopus... Then where did me and Stacy come from?" While his parents laugh the question off, it has a few possible answers: The two of them (Or just Tommy) are leftover from a failed relationship/marriage Scarlet was a part of before Octodad came in, the two (Or just Tommy) are adopted, or, in a manner not dissimilar to deep ones, Cthulhi may just be able to breed with humans in this universe. 

Now, I say Tommy may be adopted/Not Octodad's specifically because Stacy says something concerning in the "Deep sea" exhibit at the Aquarium. She apparently has dreams wherein a deep, dark spot in the ocean seems to call to her. This turns out to be a sea horse ranch. Cute as that is, dreams are a recurrent theme in Lovecraft's work, sometimes compelling people into the service of Great old ones like Gla'aki, for example. Or there was that one story when a guy met Yog-Sothoth, the omniscient and omnipresent god of the universe just because he dreamed that deeply. Also "The Dreamlands" are a place in Lovecraft's fiction. I could keep going down that rabbit hole, but I'm lazy and I think that point is made.

There is also another reference (Possibly) to "Shadow over Innsmouth" and "Dagon" with the character of Chef Fujimoto. Now, Fujimoto himself is not a reference to anything in particular, but his backstory has some Lovecrafty bits. Namely, Fujimoto was once a soldier (Dagon) who cut open a combatant. Instead of human guts, "Piles of fish" were inside. (Shadow over Innsmouth.) This one might be a little more of a stretch but remember that Fujimoto is OBSESSED with Octodad and believes very firmly that there are fish people everywhere. ("Why is everyone fish!?") There are several Lovecraftian stories where the character feels he is being pursued or is surrounded in some way. Call of Cthulhu ends with one of the characters feeling that the cult is gunning for him, partly because some dude looked at him funny, and Dagon ended with the main character fearing that a servent of Dagon was coming up his stairs after him, so he threw himself out a window. The crippling paranoia experienced by Fujimoto is another hint that SOMETHING Eldrich is happening in the universe of Octodad. 

Also worth noting is that a magazine entitled "Inquisitor" can be found at Gervason's, Octodad is on the cover, and they think he's an alien. Which begs the question: Why is it that most humans will let an obviously strange man do things without much concern at all? Hell, there are three lines present in both the main game and one of the extra shorts that imply EVERYONE sees something is wrong with Octodad. And I quote/paraphrase:

"I thought he was a lawyer?" "He's slimy enough to be one."

"Is it just me or did the captain look jigglier than usual?"

"Hmmm, I don't see a blurblerulb on the list." 

These lines imply on some level that people recognize SOMETHING is wrong or different with Octodad but they don't carry the thought far enough to do anything with it... Unless perhaps at a distance, hence that cover of “Inquisitor.” 

Another thing that tends to happen in Lovecraftian horror is the mind not making proper sense of things. For example: Canonically in the mythos, the image of Cthulhu mankind sees, humanoid body, octopus head, draconic wings, etc, is not what he really looks like, it's just our perception of Cthulhu because our minds aren't equipped to comprehend the real deal. Looking too long at just what we can see of Cthulhu will unravel your mind, causing both insanity and death if exposed even longer. I think that's part of Octodad's effect. When he's dressed, the humans around him perceive what their mind makes sense of. He's in a shirt and pants, therefore he is appropriately dressed as a human, therefore their minds SEE a human even if he's not QUITE right. We see, rather obviously, that he doesn't have human hands, he has tentacles with suckers, but Scarlet refers to it as a "Hand" still, this implies she and others see his appendages as hands or feet when he's disguised or doing something "Human enough." Only really undone if he's naked or does too many strange or seemingly malicious things like accidentally smack someone with a bag of doughnuts.

This is why you can get away with randomly dragging things across the floor, their minds are telling them something is a little off, but their ability to perceive might be telling them he's just got a medical condition or something. It's nothing to judge him for, he's just got a disability. 

So at the end of that trail, what are we left with? Octodad as a Xothian/Deep one hybrid? Does that fundamentally change the game's story? Does this mean Octodad is a dark horror from beyond? Does he secretly seek to kill and maim and destroy all the things we hold dear? Will he one day help awaken Cthulhu and usher in the new age of the great old ones? No. See, Octodad, despite his horrifying inspirations, is a benevolent creature. He "blubs with a love for all mankind" in the ending for Dadliest Catch. He still obviously loves and cares for his family, whether they know his secret or not. He's just an alien from another dimension... or at least he has ancestry from another dimension. 

Now, why is that? I've got two little ideas for that: It's an often found interpretation that most of the original writings of Lovecraft focus on the idea that "It is different, therefore it is bad." Xenophobia of an extremely high sort. Mind you, I often find this interpretation lacking, but we can probably discuss that later. I feel Octodad may be a natural extrapolation of the idea that it isn't bad because it's different, in fact, Octodad, despite keeping a secret, is an all-around "good" guy. Upstanding, moral, all that garbage, he just happens to be non-human.  Something supporting this being a running theme is the scene with the Snugglefish. For those who have yet to play Dadliest catch, a section of the game takes place when the power in part of the Aquarium goes partially out. During this event, Octodad and Stacy come upon a large sculpture of a creature called a “Snugglefish.” which is covered by the dark. We shine lights at the supposedly malevolent creature, complete with monstrous teeth and evil red eyes, partially with the intent to “Blind it” despite the fact that its obviously a statue. That whole section up to then is nothing but fumbling in the dark, looking at the strange and some might say “alien” life living in the deep ocean, you can also learn some stuff about them if you pay attention.  The whole thing ends when you fully light up the spots on the statue, revealing it to BE a Snuggle fish as opposed to some giant monster. As a result of revealing this, Stacy’s fears of it go right out and she feels she understands the creature better, as with most things, learning and understanding quiet one’s fears. when we learn what something is, we stop seeing it as an immediate threat is the take away from that section, I think, which is, again, I’d say, a call to Lovecraft's writings and his fear of that which was different and unknown and how it’s so easily thrown out with just a LITTLE understanding.

Another plausible explanation for Octodad’s kindness may be that Octodad is not a Star Spawn of Cthulhu, but of Kthanid. Kthanid is not an original creation of H.P. Lovecraft, but a bloke by the name of "Brian Lumley." Lumley's creation is the brother of Cthulhu, and is considered the main reason Cthulhu is sealed away these days. Kthanid is said to look almost exactly like Cthulhu but to have "Golden eyes that radiate peace." He's a loving, benevolent "Elder God" that wants the best for not just Humanity, but for all things. It would logically follow that if a creature dedicated itself to Kthanid, or was one of his spawn, it would be at least mostly as loving and kind. So, if Octodad, or "blurblerulb" if you prefer, was a purely hypothetical Kthani instead of Cthulhi, his disposition may well fit within the actual mythos.

So, what do y'all think? Does this theory hold water? Or does it sink harder than Cthulhu going back down for a nap?

[ibtk]

Book Review: THE SEVENTH MANSION by Maryse Meijer

(Full disclosure: I received a free e-ARC for review though Edelweiss. Trigger warning for sexual assault, homophobia, violence against animals, and disturbing sexual content.)

-- 4.5 stars --

There is this person I love. And he’s not even a person.

After Xie's parents split and an environmental disaster sends his already precarious mental health spiraling, Xie and his father Erik relocate from California to an unnamed town in the rural south, in search of the proverbial fresh start.

At first, Xie is your garden-variety teenage outcast: melancholy. goth. vegan. an outsider. friendless. forgettable. Yet he's quickly "adopted" by the only other vegans in the school - girlfriends Jo and Leni, who together make up the entirety of FKK.

The group's animal rights activism slowly evolves from leafleting to direct action: the trio breaks into a local mink farm, freeing as many of its captives as they can. Xie is nabbed during the getaway, and suddenly he goes from "nobody" to "that freak who vandalized the Moore farm". Instead of silence and indifference, Xie is met by hostile sneers, gossip, and relentless bullying. He takes a leave of absence from high school, instead getting one-on-one tutoring at the local library. His parents are forced to pay restitution, and Xie's placed on probation.

Xie's only respite is nature: his burgeoning vegetable garden; the small but pristine forest behind his house; and, eventually, the mysterious light, nestled among the branches, that leads him to a tiny church - and his beloved. St. Pancratius, who was martyred in 304 A.D. and whose remains are on covert display in a one-room church in the middle of nowhere.

He traces the image with his finger. The story the same in every version: A boy on a road, refusing to lift his sword against the lamb, losing his head every time the story is told, again and again and again.

Still, all of this comes with a cost: loving nature, whether animal, vegetable, or mineral, means saying goodbye to it one day. Relationships can be messy, even when they're with clean bones. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in our own shit that we're oblivious to what our loved ones are going through. Maybe your tutor shows up to work one day piss drunk and tells you about her abortion. Or your friends drag you to a backwoods meeting of environmental activists, where one of them sexually assaults you. Or you show up to a mass protest that is even more massive than you anticipated, and find you're unable to protect yourself, let alone the 55 billion+ land animals slaughtered for food every year in the US alone (animalclock.org).

The problem is too big, even when it's one of the smaller ones. The problem is impossible.

While disturbing, Xie's theft of a skeleton is not the worst crime he'll commit in his teen years. As FKK becomes involved with a local animal rights group, and Xie's sanctuary is threatened, he careens toward an inevitable (????) collision with the outside world, which neither understands him - nor cares to. (Fuck capitalism.)

THE SEVENTH MANSION is one weird-ass book; I mean, the main character has sex with a skeleton (!). This is certainly the wildest aspect of the story, but it's not alone. For example, take the narrative structure, which has a kind of stream-of-(Xie's)-consciousness vibe. Many of the sentences are fractured, even forced, as though we're pulling them from the depth's of Xie's tortured soul. His thoughts. Are broken. Up. Like this. Conversely, there are no chapters, and so many of the paragraphs are just huge, unbroken blocks of text - almost as though Meijer is framing Xie in opposition to the larger world around him.*

I suspect that THE SEVENTH MANSION is one of those love it or hate it dealios. Personally, I loved it, even as some parts proved excruciatingly unbearable to read.

I don't know whether Meijer is vegan, but she gets so much right; sometimes it felt like she was rooting around inside my head. I went vegetarian my freshman year of college (1996, not to date myself) and vegan about 9 years later. Reading Xie was like having a mirror held up to my own depressive, anxious, vegan psyche. One thing carnists probably don't realize about walking around this world as a vegan is: it takes a ton of mental work, of suppression and dissociation, just to get through the day.

Animal suffering is omnipresent, and largely accepted. From Carl's Jr. commercials to classroom trips to the zoo; leather car seats to team lunches at non-vegan restaurants, where you'll be forced to watch your coworkers and friends devour the corpse of a once-living creature - someone's mother, brother, or child - we are constantly forced to bear witness to the oppression of animals. Worse, to pretend as though it's of no consequence: just to get along, or because doing otherwise would quickly devour your time, your prospects, your relationships. To say that it's depressing is an understatement.

Whether Xie is living through the oil spill that finally made his world "snap," or gazing into the eyes of caged mink, I was right there with him, trying not to cry. Not to break. There's so much suffering in the world; if you try to take it all in, to truly understand its scope, it will swallow you whole.

Speaking of the oil spill, which was the impetus for Xie to go vegan - Meijer's description of this moment in Xie's life brought back so many memories. When I decided to stop eating meat, I was working at a local grocery store. Every now and again, they had an employee appreciation dinner (in lieu of a raise, natch), which basically consisted of all you can eat burgers and hot dogs in the break room. Everyone would stuff their faces, taking in as many free calories as possible. Not because they were hungry, but to get as much of a leg up on our cheap ass employer as possible. The sheer gluttony and waste of it all is what finally did it for me. No one needed to eat seven hamburgers in one night; we did because we could, because not doing so would be to lose out. The working class eating the chattel, and no one eating the rich.

Point being, that's a singular moment in my life that I'll never forget. It stands out in stark relief, right alongside the deaths of my husband and furkids (six dogs and one cat down and counting). If I close my eyes, I can almost transport myself back there, white starched shirt, demo table, 7PM Friday fatigue, and all.

The last time he ate meat he was twelve years old, after the spill: Xie was Alex then. Even miles from the beach, they could smell something off; at first they thought it was the sandwiches, ham pressed hot in the pockets of Erik’s windbreaker, but the closer they got to the beach the stronger the smell became, noxious, chemical. They parked at their usual spot, yellow tape blocking access to the beach beyond. A black ribbon flat against the horizon; that was the water. No trace of blue. On the rocks below the lot a half dozen pelicans huddled together. Coated from beak to foot in oil. Don’t touch them, his father said. Someone will come wash it off. But there was no one. The black sea lapping the sand. Those bewildered eyes. He watched as one of the birds collapsed, its head twisted sideways against its folded neck. His father pulled him away. The fire on the water burned for two weeks; the beach remained black for a year. Sea turtles, dolphins, whales, gulls, crabs, otters, fish, birds rolled up by the waves in the tens of thousands. Oil on meat on sand. No stopping it. Xie got headaches, bloody noses; he was always tired, couldn’t sleep. His mother standing in the doorway, Stop playing games, you’re fine. But his father was never angry. Scared of what he saw. Xie in the dark. Unable to make it from one room to another. The people who used to go to the beach just went somewhere else. Life as usual. Slumped in the backseat as his father fed gas into the truck he suddenly couldn’t stand it. Stopped standing it. He opened the back door, started walking. Alex, his father called, but he was not Alex anymore. He poured out all the milk in the house and fed the meat to the dogs next door and rode his bike everywhere.

So yeah, our circumstances may be different, but Xie's conversion sure hit me in the feels.

Meijer also does an excellent job capturing the heartbreak and urgency of Millennials and Gen Z. As tormented as I might have been in high school, at least I had the luxury of not thinking too much about climate change - at least until Al Gore came along. Xie and his peers, on the other hand, will bear the brunt of their predecessors' unchecked greed. Nowhere is this divide more eloquently laid bare than in Jo's post-march argument with Erik (who is likely around my age):

Didn’t you see how he just folded up out there? He can’t protect himself, he won’t. You don’t know what he was like, before we came here, okay, you didn’t watch him, lying in bed day after day, ready to cut his goddamn throat because of all this shit, this constant litany of doomsday statistics, he just takes it in and he can’t—he doesn’t know what to do with it, and you want to keep shoving it in his face, when it’s—it’s enough! Staring at Jo, who stares back. Look, whatever you’re afraid of, whatever he’s afraid of, it’s already happening, okay? And he knows it, he’s living it, and he wants to do something about it. If there was some other option, some fantasyland where everything is going to be fine as long as we bury our heads in the sand, then believe me, I’d take it. But there’s not. Not for me and not for Leni and not for Xie and if you think you can protect him by denying that then you’re just—wrong. I’m sorry. She holds Erik’s gaze; he nods, the first to look away.

My gods, that scene just cuts me to the bone. As bleak as things are now, I cannot imagine going through all this - climate change, COVID-19, a Trump presidency, Democratic ineptitude/complicity, *gesturing wildly* - as an adolescent. Their elders cut them down before they even started crawling.  

On a lighter note, Xie's scenes with his clueless mom and her equally clueless new husband (Jerry!) brought a(n admittedly wry) smile to my face. If I had a penny for every times this scene has played out in my life, I'd have enough cash monies to start my own animal sanctuary.

Don’t you want some vegetables, Xie? Jerry asks. I don’t eat animal products, Xie murmurs, and Jerry, confused, staring at the green beans, How is this— Butter, Xie interrupts. Butter is from milk, which is from cows, which are animals. Jerry blinks. Gosh, I didn’t even think of that. Sorry. Xie shrugs.

There's so much to obsess about here: I love Jo and Leni together, and their opposing circumstances just make the relationship so much more complex - and potentially fraught. Erik and tutor Karen (I wonder if the name choice was intentional?) are interesting supporting characters, and their relationships with Xie are so beautiful and nuanced; they both support him the best they know how.

Xie's interactions with his phantom lover are a little more confusing and difficult for me to comprehend. Perhaps P. represents Xie's inability to connect with the human world around him, or at least not as well as the more abstract, ephemeral natural world. Possibly P. is Xie's ideal human: one who would rather die than raise a finger against an animal (or one who cannot disappoint you by voicing their own opinions). Or maybe it's simpler than that, and Xie's hallucinations are just that: hallucinations. In any case, it made an already odd book absolutely bizarre, but in a good way, so I can't complain.

* This could just be because I was reading an early copy in need of further editing - but, seeing as how some formatting was already present, I think it was intentional. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3672191091

[marginalgloss]

the republic of heaven

Back in 2000 when The Amber Spyglass came out I feel like there was not so much news in the world. At the turn of the millennium we seemed to be entering a more optimistic time. Tony Blair was elected in 1997 at the head of a liberal Labour government, and while it may be true that Blair would never be so popular again as he was in the opening years of his premiership, the Tories seemed hopelessly outdated by comparison. They were still the nasty party of old, while the country was ambitious, outward-looking, internationalist. Explicit racism and homophobia were no longer tolerated. We were Europhiles, but we weren’t part of Europe. There seemed to be a lot of money about.

At home there were occasional horrors — the murder of Jill Dando, the homophobic pub bombings in London, Harold Shipman — but they were somehow isolated, disparate, inexplicable. They were exceptional. There was the war in Kosovo, which set a template for liberal interventionism in years to come. The economy was trucking along; unemployment was low; for the first time there was a national minimum wage. I skim the headlines today and it seems like such a comfortable time by comparison. Perhaps I am remembering it wrong. But when the years to come would bring a spiral of endless war, recession, and one of the most significant declines in relative generational living standards, I’m not sure there is any need for rose-coloured glasses.  

Into this comes The Amber Spyglass, which is basically quite an optimistic anti-authoritarian novel. It was also the book which, for a handful of reasons, really brought Philip Pullman to the world’s attention. It was this which ensured that his name still lurks around the list of authors most frequently ‘banned’ in America, and which in the years after its publication would attract scores of avid cheerleaders and detractors. Inevitably most of those had no interest with engaging with the substance of the book itself. Instead, it became a sort of battleground: on one side, those convinced that religion was under attack from an educated elite; on the other, those who were committed to reducing the role of religion in public life, discourse, education, and so on. It is worth revisiting this typically excitable interview and profile by Christopher Hitchens for an example of how these novels were talked about. 

To call the novel ‘optimistic’ might seem surprising, because much of it is shrouded in scenes of gloom and suffering. But when I think of the tone of the novel as a whole, it is pastoral. When the world isn’t tearing itself apart the language seems more lyrical than in either of the two preceding books. Some of that is to do with the perspective, which now has at least three (and sometimes more) main characters to follow. This means that a sense of distance, of floating high above the many worlds of the story, becomes necessary. But it’s also that the reader has a sense that this book is going to be about the promised war against the heavens outlined in The Subtle Knife, and it’s likely the reader will also understand that this is a war that must be won. 

It feels like a world of binary opposites. Even characters who seemed villainous in the previous novels are here redeemed (at least in part) so they can be mustered against the ultimate figure of the ‘Authority’. A certain amount of good versus evil is likely in any book for children, but here things are now cast explicitly in terms of these two sides squaring up against each other. And taking sides is a matter of decision, not of belonging. This is a book where angelic figures can decide to fight alongside men, and where demonic harpies can be convinced not to consume the souls of the dead because they want to hear their stories instead. It’s plausible in terms of oldest storytelling traditions, where it is possible to talk one’s way out of anything — where the role of storyteller gives a person the ultimate kind of authority.   

Is the capital-A ‘Authority’ in these novels intended to be absolutely synonymous with God? I’m not sure. The book is explicitly anti-religion in the sense of being anti-church, but the forces of the Authority (and the being himself) do not seem to represent any kind of absolute power in the universe. The Authority is not omnipotent nor omnipresent, nor is he very much of a creator or a father-figure any more — he is a despot, but he is also somehow irrelevant. Like a shrivelled relic, he is vastly reduced when we finally meet him. The worst aspects of his regime seem like the calcified remnants of decisions long since made and now barely remembered, like the afterlife that has become a giant prison camp. In fact it’s the abolition of the afterlife, not the death of its creator, that’s the only really significant consequence of the fall of the Authority. 

So if God isn’t in the Authority, then where is he? In spite of the tendency for atheists to want to claim the author for one of their own, it seems like the heart of these novels is not in pure humanistic rationalism, but in a broader sort of pantheism. The idea of ‘Dust’ is the closest thing to a true divine presence here. It could be characterised as something akin to a spirit which moves through all things. It is ‘conscious’, and though it’s hard to determine what this means in practice, we know that it is not indifferent to humanity. It’s not like a host of little thinking homunculi (although Mary did have a whole conversation with it on a computer back in The Subtle Knife). But it wants to persist. It would seem to be the force that drives the Alethiometer. It has intentions.  

The counter-argument to this would say that Dust isn’t divine at all — it exists at the bleeding edge of science, and has nothing to do with faith. It’s a material thing. It’s not a spirit. But I don’t know that this is especially convincing. The books often try to equate Dust with quantum mechanics, but this doesn’t entirely seem to add up — these are particles which are somehow small enough to slip through gaps between universes, but big enough to see with the naked eye. Everything about Dust seems too convenient from an authorial perspective. It’s as though someone took everything indefinable and unique about evolved human (and non-human) consciousness and made it into a quantifiable thing and then said: there, without this thing we are no longer what we are. It’s an easy solution to the hard problem.

It the article linked above, Hitchens described the Alethiometer and Will’s knife as ‘tools of inquiry and struggle, not magic wands’. This is only half-right. Clearly they aren’t tools like a microscope or an X-ray machine. Both items are bonded to their owners through an innate sensitivity that has little to do with rational enquiry or rigorous method. The Alethiometer is even compared to the I Ching at various points. It seems wrong to mistake ‘inquiry’ here for the scientific method; it has much more in common with ‘negative capability’, a term which is actually quoted in The Amber Spyglass — the ability to pursue truth and beauty via one’s innate sensibility, to ‘see feelingly’ through a fascination with a sort of natural mystery, and not to depend exclusively on reason and knowledge.  

This leaves the reader in an odd sort of no man’s land between the armies who supposedly either adopted or despised this novel. A hypothetical arch-rationalist might find it difficult to accept all of what they find here without rolling their eyes at some of it. Negative capability does not sit comfortably alongside the scientific method as a tool, but nor does it have much to do with priests and popery. And yet it is a sort of inspiration, and in that respect I think it comes closer to a religious experience than it does a rational one.  

The problem with this is that it is not possible to get any sense from this novel of what it means to be religious, or to believe in a higher power, or to be ‘spiritual’ (choose your own euphemism). There is Mary Malone, but while I like Mary’s story here, her account of her early life in cloisters and later conversion/defection is unsatisfying. We have no sense of doubt, of anguish, of guilt — it is an all-too-straightforward seeing of the light. Will is arguably more complicated, more conflicted, but for the most part he never seems to have to make any difficult compromises. If he ever loses out on anything by abandoning his mother to travel through a whole set of alternate universes, we aren’t told about it. 

What if Will made the wrong call? What if he weren’t so trustworthy? He is, in a way, the lynchpin of the whole story. For all Lyra’s good intentions and inner strength, if it weren’t for Will, Asriel would have failed and nothing would have changed. So Will must be made to work. Yet it often seems as though he doesn’t want anything for himself, except perhaps to be with Lyra. It’s interesting to wonder what might have happened if Will weren’t quite so faithful (for want of a better word). 

But it’s inconceivable in the world of these books that anyone could possess negative capability and then use it for anything other than a pursuit of — well what exactly is being pursued, anyway? What is Asriel’s goal, above and beyond the overthrow of the Authority? There is vague mention of something called ‘the Republic of Heaven’ — a heaven on Earth, as it were — but today that phrase can only make me recall the idea of ‘Outer Heaven’ in the Metal Gear Solid games. It’s difficult to discern any latent irony lying in wait for the reader in this case. Will whatever replaces the Authority be just as bad, eventually? Perhaps, but again, the vibe of optimism in this novel is so strong it feels odd to impose doubt on it from elsewhere.   

The paradox of The Amber Spyglass is that while the explicit ‘moral’ of the novel is set against organised religion, it cannot help but describe the world in terms originally set by religion. (A very basic reading might declare the novel invalid for this reason, for much the same reason as a socialist might be declared hypocritical for buying a smartphone.) It isn’t just that there are angels, or that the story of Adam of Eve is central to the thing. It is the journey through the world of the dead and back. It’s the arc of redemption and overthrow. 

At times it feels like this book is re-fighting a battle that was begun hundreds of years ago in the English reformation. In the pursuit of humanistic knowledge, a godlike figure is re-cast in the guise of an Authority who can be overthrown, and cast out of our land, and even killed. And all for the sake of nothing especially certain, nothing at all new in political or ideological terms, except a sense that we would be more free — that we would be better off without. Is it better to eject the columns of the dead into a kind of oblivion than to consider any improvement to their position? I don’t know. Perhaps things seemed simpler twenty years ago. 

[whimsicalethnographies]

My Thoughts on Endgame

Major spoilers and a TL;DR on how it all collapsed under its own wibbly wobbly timey wimey logic

So, to start, it was fine.  Like, it was just fine.  There were parts I liked, parts I hated, parts I refuse to except as canon (and may not have to), and parts that just didn’t make any damn sense.

And at the bottom of it all, is how the movie was “a gift to the fans” and, while unspoken, a swan song.  The fan service was TOO heavy, and it really felt as though they thought of their fanservice moments, and then built the story around those, rather than building a story and finding fanservice moments to sneak in.

Ok, things I liked:

There were genuinely funny moments, most of which didn’t feel smushed in.  Nobody likes the stairs Hulk, and I’m glad that Steve has accepted that sometimes his Cap lines are a little Too Much.

While I hated the death, I do like that Tony Stark is literally the messiah of the universe.  He didn’t owe anybody anything anymore, but he still took the step and made the sacrifice to protect his wife and his reality and his children.  Plural.

I did like Tony being done, wanting out, yelling at the group.  He was at his end and couldn’t do it anymore, and while there are legit discussions to have about CW--I think they were both wrong in a way--but the fact is he was right about the greater threat and nobody believed him.

I can’t believe a dorky photo of Peter Parker looking like a fish and messing up bunny ears and Tony Stark not smiling saved the universe.

Tom Holland is gonna win an Oscar some day.  I knew what happened going in--I HATE not knowing--so while I got teary during several points, I started blubbering when he said, “we won, Mr. Stark.  Mr. Stark, we won.  You did it, sir.”

RDJ should win an Oscar for this.  There were moments that were OOC but he still put everything into it.  Him, Nat, and Peter were really the only ones I *felt* in this movie.  

Their reunion hug--Peter coming back and being Purely Peter, and Tony looking at him, like oh my god, he’s exactly the same and I can’t believe he’s rambling like this I missed him so much.”

“Activate Instant Kill!”  Oh, my sweet baby boy Peter.  You kept the gauntlet safer than longer than anyone.

Tony Stark has been my Pretend Superhero Dad since I first saw Iron Man in 2008 in a dollar theater while munching on a sneaked-in Whopper.  He is Iron Dad, both to Morgan and his Spider-son and he took an extra step, one he didn’t have to do, to make sure they both made it ok.

Also, and I love Carol, but Thanos yeeted her the fuck off the field with the power stone.  Tony Stark withstood the power stone using his nanotech shield on Titan.  Most Powerful Avenger.

Scott is a joy.  

Cap and Mjolnir was an okay scene I enjoyed, but it was a prime example of writing the story around fanservice.  Yeah, it was fun, but it was better to imagine he couldn’t fully lift it in AoU because he knew about Bucky and the Starks, so he wasn’t fully worthy.

Now, the things I *didn’t* like:

How did Carol find the Benetar?  And how did she get it back?!  Like, I know because she’s the embodiment of the Space Stone she technically has omnipresence and/or is capable of light speed, but does that extend to other objects?  Wouldn’t it have torn the Benetar apart?  

The time jump was *off.*  And I have a hard time believing Tony would have just moved on like that.  I think he would have tried, but it was too easy, considering.

The strange mismatch between desolation--NYC, arguably the most important city in the world, is a ghost town, while other places are fine?  More on infrastructure problems later.

Hulk dabbing.  Come on.  Was that a joke on Bruce being old and out of touch, or are people still dabbing in 2023?

Thor.  Oh Thor.  His PTSD was treated as a joke--save his convo with Frigga--and it sucked, especially since they did so well with Tony’s PTSD.  That’s the writers, who we all know have had their noses up Cap’s butt since forever.

The fact that it’s implied Pepper knew Tony wasn’t really happy when he went to talk to her about solving time travel.  That he wasn’t settled, that this still weighed on him, even when it was hopeless.  Why’d she let him build that life then?  

“You can rest now.”  Yeah, ok.  Suffer so much, finally get what you want in your grasp, then your reward is death.  See above.  It cheapens his sacrifice because it’s implied he was never fully immersed and happy with his life.

Nat got done dirty.  I wasn’t ok with it.  I know it was supposed to be the final, “erase the red in her ledger” moment but why?  Like Tony, she already had. 

The infrastructure issues.  The universe was halfed, then doubled, five years apart.  Even if we accept that all of Peter’s friends and Flash were snapped, still doesn’t fly.  See below for a possible out.

Cap.  Oh Cap.  My guy is dead but at least he’s The Hero.  But they ruined Cap’s character.  I don’t for a second believe he’d just sit and hide with Peggy.  And they discussed heavily what happens when you subtract something from a timeline, and the splits, but what happens when you ADD something?  I know the implication is that he was always Peggy’s husband, but it still doesn’t work, for the timelines stuff AND his character.  And who’d he steal the shield from?  He took something!  And I don’t for a single second believe he went to Vormir.  Nope.   This was Steggy fanfic.  And I don’t honestly care, but the fact is that he’s been working on moving FORWARD.  A man out of his time trying to find himself.  He literally took a step backwards.

Ok, adding on to that, the timey wimey nonsense.  The movie spent SO MUCH TIME explaining the logic of their own rules and then don’t follow them.  Here are some diagrams from my childhood bestie who gets time shit more than I do.

Apparently here is what they were trying.

They seesaw back and forth, but in the end Timeline F is the same as Timeline A, or the one they started from.

BUT, here’s her diagram of what actually happened:

It’s a big fat mess, and if the End Timeline is F, then the timeline where Tony snaps is D, and it got very confusing very fast.  She’s going to type it up for me, but apparently the last third of the movie can’t exist per their own logic, least of all the end, especially because we don’t know exactly what Tony wished for.  Was it the destruction of Thanos?  What happens when you add a past to a future then delete that past?  Where’s that timeline?  What happened with Steve’s stuff?  LOKI? A1 never ended because they literally took it. It’s not there anymore.  Steve stealing the Pym Particles?!  He took something and didn’t put it back. Another branch off.  Did Tony wish, “give me what I need to fix this?”  IF he did that, she posits, he smushed the timelines together to make everything coherent, AND potentially fix the infrastructure issues, so while A Tony’s BODY may have died, which Tony was it?  Did he have a moment in the soul stone, like Thanos?  Is that a requirement?  What did he do/say there?  (Also, just pointing out, never trust a funeral without a body, and the power of the Soul Stone is literally that no death is permanent.  That’s its canonical power!!)

There’s so much mess and I’ll have more when my friend sends along her stuff.  But I have NO problem deleting most of this from my mind, and I already have ideas to fix it, but I’ll leave those stories in the hands of people better able to tell them (I’m looking at you, @iron--spider) because I’m a dialogue bitch myself. 

I told @iron--spider last night I felt adrift, and typing this out I know why.  I’m not mourning, I’m not excited.  I’m devastated by Tony’s death but there’s so many logic holes my brain isn’t even struggling to see a way around it.  I’m livid about Steve, because he went backwards.  Thor’s trauma was played for laughs.  I have no satisfaction because of ALL THE HOLES, and because they literally wrote a story around fanservice--a huge amount of it their own--instead of writing the story and then adding fanservice to it.  

It was fine.  I’ll probably buy it when it’s released, but I don’t need to see it again.  And I’m curious about Far From Home because of the infrastructure but I don’t know if I’ll wait until it’s out on video just because I don’t have any urge to watch Peter Parker mourn another parent.

In the meantime, until the fix-its start rolling in, here’s a ready-made fix-it that Iron--spider wrote last year, to hold us through:  https://archiveofourown.org/works/15183011/chapters/35211239

It was fine.  And so full of holes it doesn’t even cement its own canon, despite what Disney officially decided to put on the big screen.  

“I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it’s a stupid-ass decision, I’ve elected to ignore it.”

[stokan]

Top 20 Things of 2018

1.) Beychella How do you make a long awaited surprise album between two of the biggest names in music that is also one of the year’s best feel like complete afterthought? Set the bar as high as Beyonce’s Coachella appearance.

First awards show performances, then music videos, now music festival gigs: is there anything that Beyonce CAN’T turn into high art?

2.) Explained by Vox The most exciting development in the world of television in 2018 was radically breaking the rules on episodes length. We saw 30 minute dramas, and hour long comedies. We got shows like Maniac where episodes were as long as 49 minutes and as short as 27 minutes. Now television creators can tell exactly the stories they want to tell in however much time they want to tell them in. And perhaps nowhere were these loosened restrictions taken better advantage than Explained, Vox’s documentary series for Netflix. Many topics cant sustain a full length documentary, but, say, 14 minutes explaining cryptocurrency to me? Sure! 17 minutes on designer DNA? Sounds great! 20 minutes on the origins of K-Pop? How do you say “yes please” in Korean? Every episode has a different narrator, a different look, a different feel, and varies wildly in subject matter. Yet they are all exactly the length they need to be. The only thing left I really need explained to me is why no one thought to make this series before.

3.) Serial Season 3 If Explained was a great example of the latest evolution in television, then the new season of Serial is at the front line of the evolution of our newest artistic medium: podcasts. Serial’s third season was nothing like its second, which was in turn nothing like its first. It’s a series still figuring out what it CAN be, while now defining forever what it NEEDS to be. Serial this year explained a deeply important topic in a way that wouldn’t have been possible through any other medium. They always say if you’re a writer you have to ask yourself what form of writing your idea needs to be. Don’t write a play that’s really a TV show, or a movie that should be a book. And now we can add to that don’t make a TV series that’s really a podcast. As Homecoming proved this year, the two mediums are very different and better equipped to tell different stories. And after hearing Serial Season Three I can’t imagine there will ever be a better way to explore the current American criminal justice system. It was 2018’s version of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. It may not change national food safety standards, but it hopefully will do something perhaps even more important: it will make us never again take lightly the election of local judges and sheriffs. It was a podcast for the heart, the head, and the time capsule.

4.) Black Mirror - “Hang the DJ” I know this technically came out December 29th 2017 but I’m counting it here because nothing was more 2018 than this. The sadness, the isolation, the uncertainty, the living in a world you don’t understand the rules of anymore, the unfairness of modern life, but the ultimate perseverance of hope and love: it’s all there in the best episode of Black Mirror’s third season. It made me cry out of sadness and happiness in equal measure. Could anything be more 2018 than that?

5.) Kesha at the Grammys Ok so maybe one thing was more 2018.

The Grammys, an organization led by Neil Portnow, a man who said this year that “women need to step up”, and an organization that didn’t offer its one female Album of the Year nominee a solo performance spot, also offered us 2018’s most powerful show of female solidarity and one of the most moving moments of the Me Too era. It all amounted to the perfect encapsulation of this year. Kesha scream crying and then collapsing into a sea of strong supportive women WAS 2018.

6.) Eighth Grade My favorite movie of the year was also the year’s best horror movie. It was so real, and visceral, and intense, and frightening that at times I literally had to remind myself to breathe. I watched at least half the movie through my fingers and on the edge of my seat. Proving what everyone who has lived through it already knows: there’s nothing in the world more terrifying than being in junior high.

7.) Big Mouth Speaking of junior high, the other side of the pain and trauma of growing up is humor, so why it took this long for someone to make a comedy series explicitly about puberty is beyond me. I guess, of course, making a show like this work is a fine needle to thread. It wouldn’t work without being animated and being on a streaming service that lets them go as far as they did. It wouldn’t work without writing that is both laugh out loud funny and deeply compassionate and human in equal measure. And it wouldn’t work without one of the best voice casts on TV, including a true tour de force from Maya Rudolph. But work does it ever. In a just world junior high health class homework would be simply watching this show.

8.) Emma Gonzalez speech Here’s how long 2018 was: this was from 2018.

Finishing off my personal 2018 Growing Up Trifecta is the most powerful 12 minutes of the year. That high school students could be more inspiring, articulate, and better leaders than the President of the United States is sadly, at this point, a given. But that they are now more effective and efficient than him at starting genuine political movements still feels revolutionary. The kids are our future, and our future has never looked brighter.

9.) Childish Gambino - “This is America” video 100 years from now if theres only one cultural artifact that still exists and is still remembered from 2018 this will be it. A “you know where you were the first time you saw it” level cultural event. No song will ever be more closely associated with its music video, and no music video will ever be more of an avatar for an entire cultural moment than this. THIS is, of course, a truly shocking and horrifying (in a good way) music video from the former fifth lead of the TV show Community. A profound and brilliant piece of art underscored by a fun-sounding dance song. The year’s most complex and important social-political message delivered in 4 minutes via YouTube. This is America indeed.

10.) Drake - “God’s Plan” video While Donald Glover may have perfected the music video as art form, it goes without saying that long ago Drake mastered the music video as promotional tool. And in that sense the music video for “God’s Plan” seems like minor failure. It seemed to sort of come and go from the culture, especially in light of the success of the In My Feelings Challenge. But for me, there was nothing more heartwarming and human this year than watching Drake give away almost a million dollars to strangers. It was an idea so simple it’s shocking no one had ever done it before. And so affecting I was shocked it didn’t seem to penetrate the public consciousness more. There’s so much going on at all times now it’s hard for anything to truly break through all the noise, but this really deserved to. It’s impossible to watch this without smiling, and is there anything 2018 needed more than that?

11.) Nanette The dumbest debate this year was whether or not Nanette was stand up. Form and genre aren’t delineators still worth discussing in 2018. It’s now only about the message and the messenger, everything else is just details. An important fresh voice, the most timely, and sadly, timeless message imaginable, delivered in a way that reached and deeply affected seemingly every person you knew? What is there to debate? Nanette may or may not be stand up comedy, but it’s definitely RISE UP comedy. And in the end, that’s all that matters.

12.) Amber Says What Please click on the link above. The final two minutes are by far the best comedy of 2018. It still makes me laugh so hard that it causes me physical pain. You’ve been warned.

13.) A Star is Born trailers A Star is Born is maybe a perfect film. The performances, the songs, the direction, the fact that there’s literally no human being on earth who could have played her part and made the movie work like it did other than Lady Gaga. It was all perfect. But there was actually something better than watching A Star is Born: anticipating watching a A Star is Born. Before the first A Star is Born trailer came out I thought the whole project sounded dumb and unnecessary. After I finished watching the first trailer I knew I was going to see A Star is Born opening night. True story: I was at a movie where the same A Star is Born trailer got played three times in a row for some reason. And it was riveting every time. There was no grumbling at all in the audience, and I for one was sad when it didn’t replay a fourth time. So as much as I loved A Star is Born what I would really love is be able to still want to see A Star is Born for the first time.

14.) Ariana Grande - “thank u, next” It’s genuinely impressive that a song released in November could be the song I listened to by far the most this year. Somehow it took less than two months for this song to feel completely ubiquitous. Hell, even the PHRASE “thank u, next” is omnipresent now. Forget Song of the Summer, this was maybe our first Song of the Winter. Which is perfect because has a hit pop song ever sounded more winter? It’s cold, but it keeps you warm. It’s the sadness of the holidays with the life reaffirming joy of the holiday season. It’s a sweater for you to wear on the dance floor. And it’s clearly exactly the song so many of us needed. No matter how many times I’ve heard it (and as I said, I’ve listened to it, uh, A LOT) its existence feels like a holiday miracle. Having a new and fresh take on the breakup song in the year 2018? That shit IS amazing.

15.) The proposal at the Emmys This is literally the only thing anyone remembers about this year’s Emmys. It was amazing, and special, and made anyone who watched it believe in true love. But for me it still cant touch the most heart-melting awards show moment of all time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCJrku4fSxk

(Was this whole entry just an excuse to link to one of my absolute favorite YouTube clips? Perhaps.)

16.) Succession When I saw the promos for Succession I literally made the sound UGH out loud. The last thing the world needs is another show about rich white people behaving badly, I thought. How could there possibly be anything original left to say on that topic? Who on earth is still greenlighting shows like this in The Year of our Lord 2018?

People much smarter than I am clearly, that’s who.

Because from writing, acting, production design, direction - whatever element you want to focus on - this was the best and most exciting new show of 2018 by a wide margin. People have been saying for years that TV is the new movies; this show made movies look like the old TV. It was the most vibrant and perfectly crafted big budget feature film of 2018, stretched out over 8 episodes on HBO. Did it have anything new and important to say about the world? Probably not. And turns out, I couldn’t have cared less. The phrase compulsively watchable might have been invented just to describe the world these actors and writers created. I would watch the team involved with this show dry paint. 

17.) Angels in America on Broadway Angels in America is the best play of the past 30 years and its not even close. So the fact that it would get a production that’s this good is just unfair for everyone else on this planet who makes theater. It was so good it made all other plays I’ve seen since seem small and cheap and unimportant. It was such a towering achievement that it has made the entire rest of theater as an art form seem insignificant by comparison. When you hear old people talk about seeing Brando in Streetcar or watching the original production of Death of Salesman I now can relate to what they are talking about. I’ll be thinking about Andrew Garfield’s final monologue for the rest of my life. It was unfair that we the audience had to all leave the theater when the lights finally came up and that we couldn’t all just live in that feeling forever. The eight hours I spent watching this play are what art is all about.

18.) Jesse Plemons in Game Night If dying is easy, and comedy is hard, then they should cancel the Oscars and give Jesse Plemmons Best Supporting Actor right now for his work in Game Night. And ok, maybe it wasn’t the BEST performance of 2018, but it was DEFINITELY the best performance relative to what it needed to be. It should have been a dumb throwaway part in a big-budget mainstream ensemble comedy. But Jesse Plemmons crafted a performance so strange and singular and memorable that it elevated the entire movie into something way better than I’m sure even its creators expected. I legitimately don’t know how everyone didn’t break in every one of his scenes. It’s a master class in the comedic power of silence. It should be studied in acting classes everywhere. And 20 years from now when Game Night is considered a comedy classic, Jesse Plemmons will be the main reason why. You heard it here first.

19.) The 1975 - A Brief Inquiry Into Online Relationships Saxophones? Electric guitar solos? Backing choirs? A concept album about being uncomfortable with the internet? Dumb pretentious song titles? This album couldn’t be any more in my wheelhouse if I made it myself. Its best song is basically a modern reimagining of “We Didn’t Start the Fire” for God’s sake!

For me this wasn’t just an album, it was an experience. It was big music to get lost inside of. And I did. At age 36 it’s nice to know that sometimes I can still feel 16. And it’s fitting that a band named The 1975 would be the ones to make music that’s so transporting.

20.) Emma Stone Ok so as someone who once argued in this very space that Emma Stone deserved an Oscar nomination for Easy A, it’s clear I’m pretty deep in the tank for Emma Stone. But even an Emma Stone hater would have to admit than this was a banner year for Emma Stone. Signing up for the insane acting challenge that was Maniac and completely acing it while totally exposing two-time Oscar nominee Jonah Hill in the process? Going toe to toe with Olivia Colman in the battle of the best acting performances of the year in The Favourite? Coming across as more charming than Jennifer freaking Lawrence ?!?

2018 was Emma Stone’s year, we were all just living in it.

[1nkweaver]

Pick and opal pick and opal 1. Are they easily impressed? 2. Who do they look to for guidance? 3. What do they want most in life? 4. How do they handle being alone? 5. Who would do the most to help random people? 6. Which of them feels like they are constantly underestimated?

1. I think Pick is easily impressed but it’s very hard for him to like -let you know- he’s impressed, if that makes sense. He takes a bunch of things and notes them internally, but you gotta do something REAL good for him to let you know about it.

 Opal is really hard to tell bc he always seems impressed with everyone? It’s in his nature to just kinda exude “I believe in you” energy.

2. Normally all my characters are built with having one person that they look to for everything, for good or bad. For Pick it was Anders, and without him Pick had a period of his life where he was really really lost. He was like the companion to a “main character adventurer” that was Anders, and then he had to learn how to be the adventurer himself. So now a lot of Pick’s actions are him applying the things that Anders had been secretly teaching and preparing him for all along.

Opal looks to Zemtris for all of his guidance, I mean he’s completely and utterly devoted to his god, but isn’t unquestioning. Part of Zemtris’ teachings is that Gods are not perfect, and that mortals need to step in sometimes and act for -themselves- instead of just on behalf of Gods. In this sense Opal also has to really trust in himself for guidance so as to be able to guide others. He needs to be prepared to make the decision himself, or even question Zemtris on something if he feels theres a better way. This is what Zemtris wants Opal to do anyway however, look for a better way.

3. Opal first for this one. His goal is simple and yet really complicated. It is to truly live the absolute most fulfilling life possible- not the most heroic, or the kindest life, but to literally live a life where he has done everything possible, everything good and bad, but moreso in the name of the “greater good”, so he wants to help others live their most freeing, full lives as well. That’s the virtuous half of it. The other half of it however is Opal has a very strong opinion of Gods that try to command the lives of mortals, specifically those that command the power of life and death. Opal doesn’t think that should be a power a god has, and so he wants to unseat those gods and place Zemtris in their place, giving mortals true control over their own fate- whether they believe in destiny or not.

Pick is really conflicted in what he wants most right now, he’s torn completely down the middle of “I need to find my friend” and “I need to enact my revenge”. He’s afraid he -can’t- do both, that somehow doing one will remove the possibility of the other happening.

4. Opal believes he is never able to be alone. He spent a lot of time alone in his past and that’s how he first connected with Zemtris, but from that moment on Zemtris’ presence has never left Opal. Since Opal is the only current true believer of Zemtris, they are not omnicient or omnipresent like other gods would be, and travels with Opal almost exclusively as a spirit- though their knowledge does go beyond Opals perceptions. Many will often think Opal is going off alone and doing things- but he is always actually spending htat time with Zemtris. For example, if he goes on a picnic or sits at a table to eat, he leaves a seat for Zemtris with their own food and drink.

Pick on the other hand is HORRIBLE being alone, he literally cannot stand it. When Anders first disappeared it was the first time Pick had been truly completely alone for a long time and it almost honestly drove him crazy? Though Pick acts independantly and has strong opinions and such he is very clearly a dependant person, and I think this really just goes down to being a Goblin thing. They’re pack creatures, and they’re weak on their own, stronger together. Anders recognized this, and though he wants Pick to find his own strength, he understands Pick right now needs others, and so he told him to find friends. This is why Pick sought out the party in the first place and attached onto them so quickly- he needs them.

5. I think it’s quite obvious, but I realize that both Pick and Opal are very charitable. However, Opal definitely takes the cake for me on this one because the entire point of Opal as an adventurer is that he’s not looking for money or fame, he’s looking for people. He’s trying to find people that need help, either something as simple as they need money or something incredibly deeper like a troubled past. Opal helps that person, and then Opal leaves, that’s all he was ever meant to do as a member of a party. Opal wasn’t written to be a character that “makes friends” and “becomes attached” he’s meant to be a temporary friend, a guide, and then when his job is done he’s supposed to leave, that’s all.

Pick though he wants to help oftentimes doesn’t really understand how to. He’s not good with words and he’s not good with comfort, the two things he does know is “protecting” in fights, and throwing money at problems. That’s why he so often just gives gold away bc he knows that it is just a really simple thing that helps people? However in very specific situations where specific problems are happening Pick will literally drop anything and anyone to stop it, but it needs to be from a particular list of things.

6. I would feel like initially Pick is the one that is underestimated more often right, because he’s the small wise cracking goblin. You think he’s weak bc he’s a small weak race, you think he’ll be timid, and that’s how he wins fights. The bigger thing for Pick is someone underestimating how smart he is. He doesn’t have more that a +1 int, but that’s a goblin that is smarter than the average human, which I think is a lot more considerable. He’s a tactician for sure and has a great understanding of monsters and alchemy. To take some words from Sansa Stark since GoT started again, “I’m a slow learner, it’s true. But I learn.”

Opal is...tough. He’s so big that I feel people are immediately threatened by him, but his whole demeanor is very calm and so, so chill. Opal makes you comfortable and uncomfortable at the same time. He can be unsettling and he can make you feel...really at home, enough to open up to him. I think that while Pick is the physically underestimated one, Opal is the socially underestimated one. He seems like he doesn’t ever have personal motives, and people open up so easily to him, but what they dont realize is they can tell Opal their whole life story, their darkest secrets, and not even really come to realize that they really dont know a lot about Opal at all. Opal is not smart by any means, but he is -wise- and he knows -people-, he knows how they work. You cannot lie to him, you cannot put on your false persona. He sees through you, but he meets everything you do with a smile so really do you know if he’s happy?

[candleheartwitch]

don’t mind me, posting my comparative religion final essay here for sharing and archiving purposes.

Polytheism, Choice, and You

        Across the world and throughout human history, people have relied on religion for comfort, aid, and purpose. The type of religion one is drawn to can vary wildly depending on culture, lifestyle, personality, and many other factors. The biggest conflict in religion is the question of God: is there one god, two, or more? Are they all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present? Are they some or none of those things? We will most likely never have satisfying, concrete answers to those questions, but we can still choose our own path and decide what religion, if any, we want to follow. The choice is easy for some, and yet some people don’t think they have a choice at all. The biggest dichotomy in religion is mono- versus polytheism. Some are neither, like Buddhism, while Hinduism seems to be both. In Hinduism there are countless deities, each serving a purpose—there are house spirits, family gods, and community gods on top of the “basic” gods of the religion. Each is important to different people. Each Hindu devotes themselves to different deities, even though they all believe roughly the same things. In our Western, Christian-centric culture, it can be hard to understand why anyone would choose to worship in that way. We can find it difficult to wrap one’s head around polytheism and transactional worship at all. Why would someone worship a god that isn’t necessarily all-powerful, that doesn’t necessarily care if you worship them at all? Every polytheist would give a different answer to that question, but there seems to be one consistent reason. Polytheism and transactional religions preserve a person’s agency and grant choice—many people find it easier to be fully devoted to a god or gods they chose themselves.

           People who leave Christianity often say that they did not enjoy the feeling of subservience and inferiority impressed upon them by the religion. Christianity and Islam view religion as a system of debts and inherent superiority—God has already given humanity his love and help, and worshippers spend their lives trying to repay Him and stay in his good graces. Not only that, but god is worthy of worship simply by the fact that He created the world; He is the perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent force that keeps everything running. One is supposed to worship Him simply because He is the One True God. In polytheistic religions, the deities generally aren’t portrayed as perfect, not are they imperfect—rather, they are simply forces of reality that should not be questioned. In Hinduism, it is often much more a transaction-based relationship between devotee and deity. Worship is part of a deal struck with a specific god; the devotee performs a ritual or makes an offering in exchange for a service from the god (or insurance for the future). Of course, the relationship is not totally heartless. Many polytheists feel a deep personal connection with their gods, some even claiming gods have communicated directly with them. A Hindu might bathe a god’s likeness in milk, or present a priest with food to be blessed; these are done in service to a god, as the “price” of devotion. If a polytheist does not fulfill certain things, they might be able to count on their deity when they need something, or incur the righteous wrath of a higher power. In contrast, a religion like Buddhism that has no deities sees the self as both a natural force and a perfect being, and requires neither subservience not payment. A Buddhist might see the worship of a deity as a crutch keeping someone from realizing the true potential of the individual.

           In Hinduism, the gods are much more involved with the gritty, every-day realities of life. They make up every force in the universe, with little regard for morality. Often, one god has both “good” and “bad” attributes; this is why polytheistic religion does not tend to apply such concepts to their gods or to their practice. For example, the Greek god Apollon is the god of both medicine and plague—when people begin to get sick, worshippers wonder what they did to anger Him, and try to appease Him to He will heal the afflicted. The plague is not seen as an “evil” phenomenon. Rather, it is simply the way things are, or even a punishment for not worshipping correctly. In Christianity and Islam, Good and Evil are separate forces, and only the Good is worshipped. The Abrahamic God is transcendent; He is perfect and good, and thus rarely delves into the world of men, which is imperfect, dirty, and at risk of evil. That idea is another thing that leads many people to convert to polytheism—they feel like the Hindu, Greek, Egyptian, Norse, or other deities are more relatable, and thus make more attainable role models. In Christianity specifically, it is Satan’s proximity to the base desires of humanity and temptation that give him Evil characteristics; he fell from Grace to Imperfection. This creates the narrative that it is impossible for human beings to every truly be good while they are human, and that the only way to do good is to get as close to God as possible. For some people, this mindset is helpful—it aids in the search of goodness, and helps people to kick harmful habits and behaviors. In a tradition where the end result is to be as Perfect and Good as possible, temptation away from Perfection is temptation toward Evil. The only way to become perfect is to remove oneself from Earthly desires. As it stands, humans are sullied by Sin and dissatisfaction, neither of which plagues the perfect God. In pagan polytheism, the gods are not guides in morality, and neither do they preach arbitrary rules for behavior. Very little is black-and-white, good-or-evil, do-or-die; this allows people to worship casually without getting bogged down in grand questions of morality. Hinduism is complicated, however, as there is a destiny or code that is ascribed to each person (called dharma), but it is not dictated by the gods; this is why Hinduism is considered both mono- and polytheistic. The universe determines a person’s dharma, and their gods determine everyday worship and behavior. The two concepts are inextricably entwined, and a discussion of gods in Hinduism is not complete without at least a mention of dharma as well.

                       The problem of idolatry is also a major division in religion. At one extreme, Islam does not allow any images of God or the divine, and images of the prophet are only allowed sometimes. As a result, mosques tend to use calligraphy of Quran passages as décor, like Christian churches may use images of Jesus. Christianity forbids idolatry, though it is defined as the worship of things other than God (which includes polytheism). Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox churches permit the use of religious images, and Catholics often claim patron saints, thought they claim they simply honor the saints. Protestants generally prohibit “worshipping” imagery or saints, though they often use the image of the cross as a symbol. This extreme aversion to icons is why many people in the West have trouble understanding Hindu practice; Hinduism is all about icon worship. In temples and in home shrines, each god honored there must have a likeness, generally a statue or figurine. This figure is known to be a vessel for the deity, and thus must be taken great care of. It is washed, “fed” by placing offerings of food on its altar, dressed, and sometimes carried to different places in the temple or home. This is a physical symbol of worship; as devotees honor the icon, so are they honoring the god. It is also known that if one has an icon in one’s home, the god has a presence there. These symbols only become real, however, when they are consecrated by a priest. The home becomes sacred once a priest performs a blessing upon it. This allows temporary symbols: as long as a priest blesses an object (which might be a carving, a drawing, a tree, or other), it is believed to be the deity incarnate. It is considered inappropriate to view an idol without its ritual adornment, as that deity is not ready to be seen.

           Perhaps the biggest draw to polytheism is the customization, so to speak. Many people who grew up in Christianity describe that they felt trapped; they wanted to do good, and to be a good person, but felt that Christian rules weren’t the right way. They were taught that there is one way to be, and if someone strays from the path they are doomed. People who convert to polytheism say they were drawn to the freedom to choose what and how to worship, as well as what and how to be. In an informal interview on Instagram, young adults expressed their displeasure with the stringent regulation in Abrahamic churches. Instagram user Cassandra (@im_a_cas_tastrophe) said that monotheistic religion “didn’t appeal to my need for freedom in spirituality and sexuality…. It’s more like apprenticing myself to an amazing, reputable teacher and dedicating myself to learning about them and their craft.” User @imtherealest_mermaid talked about the expectation of worship: “…because yes I want to worship and devote myself to them but I’m also not about that blindly follow with nothing in return sort of thing [sic].” User @deathbydivination exhibits how varied polytheism can be: “For myself it’s a very deep mutual partnership…I actually have equal footing in my relationship with my deity and unlike monotheism where it almost feels like they hold ultimate power over you….” In pagan polytheism there are certain rules, but the devotee is free to choose which pantheon, deities, and rules fit their idea of religion. Worship in Hinduism is a bit more prescribed—the religion is thousands of years old, after all—but individuals are still welcome and expected to choose a personal deity they feel the most connected to.

           Religion is the “big question” of human history. Atrocities, miracles, and good deeds have all been committed in the name of every religion under the sun. Humanity will never agree on which tradition is “correct,” nor will we ever decide if religion is “real” or not. Despite the growing numbers of atheist and non-religious people, religion will continue to give people comfort, purpose, and a sense of community, just as it has for thousands of years. While monotheistic, Abrahamic religions are still the largest populations in the world, polytheism continues to restore agency to those who feel left behind by other traditions. Hinduism as well will continue to endure, and as more Hindus emigrate from India the religion will spread, and who knows—maybe it will gain a large convert population.

[jamesjilhaneycorner]

God is Nothing; Nothing is God

Literally me whenever I think about god and his philosophical implications.

As an atheist, it is only natural that I base my beliefs on scientific and empirical evidence. After all, "One is what one does", right?

The presence of widely accepted scientific theories such as the big bang , does not support the traditional concept of a theological god. If anything, it disproves it. Despite that, I am not here to argue the existence of god against the scientific bases of these theories, as I believe am neither competent enough to explore and explain this type of argument.

I am here, however, to argue the existence of god as being (the essence of) nothingness.

Whereas majority of atheists would flat out deny the existence of a higher power, I do not follow this line of thinking.

While I agree that the idea of an all-powerful being that cares for tiny specks of spacetime dust that are humans is nothing but a humanized distillation of celestial forces unknown to us, I do think it is quite possible to have a higher power.

Despite the chances of that being slim, it is not impossible - at least not the way something can be in essence a triangle without having 3 sides - for something to exist that is outside our plane of understanding. Our understanding of what is around us is limited to what we can perceive after all.

And if we did not have the ability to smell, we would not be aware that the presence of scents existed.

That being said, in this argument, I will follow the concept of the "omni-god" as imagined by St Thomas Aquinas and expanded upon by St Anselm. To reiterate, this defines god as someone/something that is:

Omniscient (all-knowing);

Omnipotent (all-powerful);

Omnipresent (existing everywhere); and

Omnibenevolent (possessing perfect goodness)

Now, as what has been discussed in both the module, and from what I have researched, there are a lot of issues that come up with these predicates. An example of which would be the rock parable, wherein the problem challenges god's omnipotence by having him create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it; either way god contradicts his omnipresence.

However, I think that this line of thinking puts what something, which we define as above and beyond our limited human understanding, into ironically enough, a very human line of thinking. Of course if we base an entity like god on our understanding as humans, what we get is a walking contradiction.

I argue that in order for us to fully understand the concept of god, we must go outside of our understanding of logic and truths.

If god is god, then he should not follow the rules of anything else but himself's.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves, "What is something that breaks the laws of logic and physics as how we understand them?"

Nothing.

Or rather the essence of nothingness.

How could we have missed it? It has been right under our nose this whole time.

God is nothing and nothing is god.

Only nothing can break the laws of physics.

Only nothing can be omnipotent and can do something that it is incapable of doing.

Only nothing can be at the past, present and future all at once, at the same time.

What do our consciousness become after we die? Nothing.

Truly, it is difficult for one to understand this concept. Much like how it would be almost impossible to create a new color or perceive something that we simply are not equipped to sense or understand.

But it is the only justification of a god that I can support and see as logical as an atheist.

If a god does exist, then he is beyond our comprehension and understanding; beyond the tiny little speck of knowledge that we have in the dark sea of the universe's context. Such is the only acceptable way that god can exist.

[crapfutures]

Careless whispers

In a previous post we mentioned the story of the infamous conflict between King Henry II and Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 12th century England. It’s a familiar story of two powerful and egotistical men clashing over issues of status and pride. After a series of altercations over clerical privilege, Henry finally loses his temper; what he actually said to the assembled courtiers has been lost to history, but the most likely version comes from the biographer-monk Edward Grim, who recorded it as follows:

What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?

Whatever Henry said, four of his knights (Richard le Breton, Reginald FitzUrse, Hugh de Morville, and William de Tracy) interpreted the utterance as a royal command. They rode to the Normandy coast, took ship for England, and confronted the Archbishop. What happened next was described by the aptly named Grim, who was on the scene and actually wounded in the attack:

The wicked knight, fearing lest Becket should be rescued by the people and escape alive, leapt upon him suddenly and wounded this lamb who was sacrificed to God, cutting off the top of the crown which the sacred unction of the chrism had dedicated to God.

More terrible blows followed, and eventually the Archbishop succumbed. Was the king’s statement interpreted correctly? We’ll never know. But we can perhaps read parallels to our own time in the complex motivations and agendas that informed the knights’ collective decision to commit murder.

Another story, more recent. This one takes place in Dallas, Texas, where a six-year-old girl asked her family’s Amazon Echo: ‘Alexa, can you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?’ Alexa promptly complied, ordering a $300 KidKraft Sparkle Mansion doll’s house from one of Amazon’s suppliers. She also ordered (for reasons known only to the internal logic of the system) nearly two kilograms of sugar cookies. The story doesn’t stop there: the following day, when a San Diego news programme reported the story, a number of Echos were roused by the wake word ‘Alexa’ coming from proximate television sets, and they in turn followed the command to also purchase dolls’ houses.

What inspired Alexa to order the biscuits? A flawed system or a very smart one?

In 560 BC, King Croesus of Lydia set a challenge to the world’s oracles to determine who provided the most accurate prophecies. His emissaries were sent to seven sites to ask the resident oracle what the king was doing at that precise moment. The winner was the Oracle of Delphi, who correctly reported that the king was making a lamb-and-tortoise stew.

Oracles were seen as conduits to the gods, speaking and giving advice on their behalf. Divination came in many other forms: augurers would follow the flight paths of birds (legend has it that the location of Rome was decided through this approach). Haruspices would read the entrails of sacrificed animals. Today, however, reading the future is much less exotic or gruesome, being mostly about data and statistics.

The next story starts back to front. A man walks into a Target outside Minneapolis and demands to see the manager. He’s got a handful of targeted coupons that had been sent to his teenage daughter, and he’s angry. ‘My daughter got this in the mail!’ he said. ‘She’s still in high school, and you’re sending her coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are you trying to encourage her to get pregnant?’ In fact the daughter actually is pregnant. Target knows it before the girl’s father, thanks to a hunch based on its analysis of online searches and product purchases - in this case a particular lotion often used by pregnant women in the second trimester.

One more story. In happier times for Facebook, the social media giant played a significant - if unevenly distributed and still debated - role in the Arab Spring by facilitating communication between protesters. The April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, for example, used Facebook to launch a successful call for protests in the aftermath of the Tunisian Revolution that preceded the spread of uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East in 2011-12. Events of the Arab Spring demonstrated that social networks provide a perfect mechanism through which to disseminate information broadly and quickly, as long as you have access to the internet.

So far this is a familiar and well-trodden tale; the more interesting story, however, happened when Arab states began to shut down internet access. Activists in Cairo found the solution in a different kind of social network - not screen-based, but via the city's taxi drivers. The activists realised that if they could direct conversations towards the planned anti-Mubarak gathering on 25 January 2011 in Tahrir Square, taxi drivers might spread the word and the protest would be a success. Initially, the activists tried to talk directly to drivers. 

But they soon discovered that due to the highly politicised nature of their subject, conversations would quickly turn into arguments rather than dissemination, and their objective would fail. The solution was found in exploiting the human tendency to gossip. Instead of engaging in direct conversation, the activists allowed the taxi drivers to overhear a mobile phone conversation where they would disclose the details of the protests. The taxi drivers eavesdropped, and believing they had overheard a gossip-worthy secret, they began to spread the message.

‘Technology is making gestures precise and brutal, and thereby human beings.’ - Adorno

In one of our very first posts, The Pleasures of Prediction, we described the daily experience at our local cafe - where the gestures of interaction were not always precise, sometimes brutal (depending on the mood of either ourselves or the people behind the counter), but mostly genial and surprisingly seamless. More recently, our colleague was telling us how his landlady keeps track of the number of bottles of alcohol he consumes each week by counting his recycling - a sort of small island version of a fitness tracker like the Fitbit. ‘She’s not judgemental’, he said. ‘Well … not really.’ Of course surveillance and tracking - mediating, amplifying, interpreting - have always been present in society; in the past they were just more social, or at least more analogue.

These examples raise some big questions, such as: Would you rather be monitored by a human being or a machine? If machine, why? Why don’t we trust humans? For that matter, why don’t we trust ourselves? How have we been shown to be untrustworthy and unable to control our own self-destructive or anti-social impulses? For the past two years we have been collecting stories that relate to the interpretation of information - tracing the shift from human beings to technological mediation as translator and interpreter; who is making important decisions, on whose behalf, and why.

There is certainly precision and brutality in Cambridge Analytica’s use of Facebook data for micro-targeting and psychological profiling. Likewise Amazon Echo, a data-based Trojan horse mediating our personal lives in increasingly precise but also brutal ways. There is a tendency to understand and evaluate technology according to old-fashioned notions of progress: faster, easier, more efficient and so on. But digitisation, the data that it creates, and the vast networks of dissemination also facilitate the augmenting of darker aspects of human behaviour, targeting our deepest vulnerabilities. How we examine the implications, embrace the ethics, and understand the complexity of these systems are some of the fundamental challenges we face.

Real Prediction Machines

Shortly before the Echo appeared on the market in 2014, Real Prediction Machines addressed many of the issues Amazon’s new device (and others like it) would raise. The speculative project was developed by James Auger in collaboration with designer Jimmy Loizeau, artist Alan Murray, and Edinburgh University data scientist Ram Ramamoorthy, who at the time was developing predictive modelling systems combined with machine learning to predict when professional athletes might sustain an injury through overtraining.

James, Jimmy and Alan began by asking Ram what kind of other things might be predictable through such techniques, such as ‘Will my child become a professional football player’, ‘Will Labour win the next general election’, and ‘Will I suffer a heart attack?’ The words inside the circles of the Bayesian network diagram represent potential variables. In relation to a heart attack they could correspond to something like diet or exercise, the data coming from a supermarket loyalty card, or the accelerometer in your smartphone. Or more finite information such as family history, for example data coming from a genetic testing service like 23andMe.

These variables combine to create a live and ongoing feed into the predictive algorithm. The heart attack example seemed a little too banal due to its obvious connection to wellbeing and the huge growth of data and tracking methods, so the group suggested another question to Ram: Will I have a domestic argument?

The Bayesian network shown above looks similar to the earlier one, but in this instance a microphone was added for live sound input (anticipating the omnipresent Echo). Using machine learning, the system would become better at predicting arguments through the statistical analysis of keywords, tone, and frequency - identifying particular subjects that a couple might commonly fight about.

The output was translated into an object - not an app but something more symbolic, sympathetic. They settled on an ambient device sitting in the background, providing information when you might need it. 

The device essentially has three states:

Clockwise means that the argument is moving into the future;

Anti-clockwise means that the argument is approaching, and the slower the rotation the more imminent it is;

When the rotating stops, the argument starts.

Projects like Real Prediction Machines work when it is not completely clear whether the idea is a ‘good’ one or not. Is it too invasive? Is it genuinely helpful? This is how we should think about all potential technologies, but we rarely do.

What happens next? How far away are we from Alexa ordering not biscuits, but a councillor? How much control will we have in the future, and how much do we want to have?

Images:

All diagrams by James Auger; photo of Real Prediction Machines by Sophie Mutevelian.