#by the etho comment i mean he described the first point in this in a video once and i think thats what actually changed my perspective!!!

[sleepyyghostt]

some benefits of having one million unfinished projects:

- JUMPING BETWEEN THEM! at any given moment i can work on something completely different as an already established project

- like u can just go back to working on smth from ages ago, pick it back up and you dont even have to do much idea generation(pain) you just Have it

- but having that distance makes it was easier TO make changes and add to ideas in ways that improve it, without the sting of changing something you just made when u freshly remember how long it took

- viewing your half finished stuff from a year and a half ago as still current and valid as one of ur works leads to a greater connection with urself even thorough a bit of time (social media kills this i think esp with demands for constant movement and new art). very good for ur sense of self when you value old art as still very much yours

- im just like ethoslab fr

[fountainpenguin]

Secret Life finale highlights for me:

- "My strategy: Kill Skizz and Tango. Will happen at some point... Or, just maim them and watch them die in a corner." - Scar

- Scott on Grian's loyalty: "I have never seen a man drop a pair of sunglasses faster in my life [than last season after Joel died]."

- I think I reblogged someone's speculation weeks ago that at the dawn of final session, everyone's task book would just say "Win Secret Life." Congrats to them for Apollo's gift of prophecy.

- Martyn's beat of pause before saying to Joel "Welcome to the Out of Context video."

- At the start of the season, Etho said Joel was the first one he wanted to kill because "He's cheeky." When Joel is asked who he wants to kill, he says "Etho." Glad you're enjoying your rivalry, boys, smh...

- Joel, once again giving into his Shrek origins, watching Bdubs' wool globe go up in flames and chirping "My world's on fire; how 'bout yours?"

- Tango does not break his "pathetic death" curse. Just blipped out of existence. Love that for him.

- Spitting, crying... BigB panics and flees into his creepy backrooms for safety. Immediately vanishes into the tunnel maze. Scar pursues and skids to a halt because he hasn't seen it yet and is thoroughly creeped out.

- Scar coming up to surface and trying to describe how BigB disappeared. Martyn looks down at where they're standing and is just like "Oh, that's the backrooms." Mental image of Scar as that meme that goes "The. what."

- Scar describing BigB as a sneaky squirrel. "Squirrel" was the name of BigB's horse in Double Life.

- Joel's anxiety about entering a Nether portal on the final episode, specifically because of how he and Etho perma-died in Double Life

- Whatever was going on with Martyn flinging ender pearls up the ladder seconds before he died

- Additionally, people in the background commenting that they think Martyn's teamed up with Cleo and the only reason he was near them was an attempt to bear down and kill them

- Scar to Bdubs, watching Cleo and Etho from a distance: "Look at this- Mom and Dad are bringing their new ugly stepson to meet us, Bdubs." /camera pans to the warden chasing them

- Bdubs tells Scar that Cleo said he was her favorite son and Scar IMMEDIATELY, without responding or even waiting for Bdubs to finish his sentence, jumps a wall and books it to Cleo to confirm... Mental image of him swinging dramatically over it with one hand, his shawl billowing behind him

- Scar chases Cleo while they're both being pursued by a warden, asking her if he's her favorite son. Doesn't let up until she assures him she "just said it to keep Bdubs happy." what is wrong with the Clocker family.

- Joel somehow pulled off a beautiful PVP kill on Skizz despite having only 2.5 hearts

- In earlier episodes, Joel had people say "The florist sends his regards" on his behalf before striking. Before killing Skizz, he says "Scar sends his regards" since Scar really wanted to kill Skizz but bequeathed the fight to Joel instead.

- Scar trotting up to Etho and Cleo, who are watching him from a cliff, and announcing "I am not up to anything nefarious!"

- Scar's weird spiky wall design is really pretty

- slkdjfskldjfsklj?!?!?!? I had a bullet point on this list that said "Honorable non-finale mention to Scar getting both the Green and Yellow kill on Etho this season" but now I see I need to correct that:

- Shout-out to Scar killing Etho - in Etho's front yard - THREE TIMES this season. Etho rushing back to his base, tripping over his feet and saying "I'm going home, everybody- I'm dying at my home-"

- Scott to Scar: "I went down to BigB - to get him - and I see what you mean; he does just talk his way out of things so you feel bad; you just leave him." / Scar: "That's why you don't let him speak. You just inner monologue. You start talking about Star Wars so you can't hear his charms."

- As Scar drives his sword into Cleo, he says "Good-bye, Mom- This is for you telling Bdubs [he's your] favorite." Geez, dude. Scar killed both his parents; this family is a mess. Bonus points for Joel fumbling in the background like "Oh my gosh- Scar, you savage-"

- I watched multiple POVs until I was caught up to the standoff between Gem & The Scotts vs. The Mounders... So picking up from there with Scar's POV b/c his is the one I randomly started with today: I love how Joel basically went "I am once again throwing caution to the wind and charging into battle with a murderous Red rage in my eyes and no one behind me" like he ALWAYS does.

- Bdubs and Scar decide to back him up... Amazing.

- Scar has gotten 4 kills (Tango, Etho, Cleo, Impulse) and he was super close to getting BigB as well before Scott sniped the kill. Geez... The man is vicious today. During Limited Life, Grian made a comment that went something like "Of course Scar is only destructive / successful when I'm not on his team" and honestly? Yeah...

- Pearl begging Scar to kill her- Pearl warning Scar that if she perma-kills Gem, she'll go up 10 hearts- Scar refusing, insisting that he doesn't want to turn on her because it feels lame...

- Scar got Gem, he got Gem... GeminiSlay is DOWN!

- SCAR SWEEP WITH THE BOW!!

Oh my goodness, I saw his episode title ("Can Villain Scar Win?") and the words that went through my head were "Welp, that's a spoiler that he's dead." I see I was wrong.

GG, SCAR WIN!!! Man who wanted so desperately to have friends, only to trip and fail time and time again... GoodTimesWithVictor!!

My heart, Scar letting that zombie knock him down to half a heart... playing up like he didn't just watch the lightning bolt mark Pearl's demise. He wanders, calling out to Pearl, asking where she went... quietly giggling and muttering to himself as that zombie pushes at him... GG, Scar. GG.

My goodness, is this the only time we haven't seen the winner die in their perspective? Scar slams that success button for winning the game, gets 5 hearts, turns back, and that's it... That's the game. End scene.

What a LAD!!

[irregodless]

so lets talk about that book

ive not read the entire thing yet for reasons ill get into in a minute (FOOTNOTE: this will be explained later)

TLDR: remember if you comment negatively on my review without reading all of it i will report you and also youre wasting your life by saying anything negative ever

the character we are introduced to is venus who seems to vacillate between being pious and believing she is Literal Evil Made Manifest. whenever she is around the prose becomes insufferable to read at best and unreadable at worst using turns of phrases no one has ever even thought to use or stating things that at first seem figurative but turn out to be very literal and the inverse of that

and i do mean WHEN SHES AROUND. the beginning of the second chapter begins with actually competent prose which follows until venus shows up again. her presence also brings with it an annoying amount of footnotes and often for things that dont need them (diablo is latin for devil) while not having them for actually uncommon words or phrases OR are used to describe plot elements in the most egregious example of telling instead of showing possible sometimes even half explaining it and then saying itll be explained later in the book. sometimes the footnotes are given for words that are explained in the rest of the sentence.

because of this izzy and i, while we were reading, labeled her as Narrative Poison, a cognito hazard who fundamentally affects the story on a meta level. now this concept is interesting. if i could trust the author. but the author has ruined her ethos for me even outside of personal interactions

if venus is intended to he bad, this brings new problems with it. the first is that even the competent prose is lousy with evidence it was not proofread well or read out loud for comprehension at all. even if venus is supposed to mark bad narration it should still be enjoyable to experience and not a pain

the next issue is that the book opens with her rambling prose which gives equal attention and detail to everything no matter how inconsequential while treating anorexia and disease as a moral failing, and confusing muscular atrophy with muscular dystrophy. a books opening should serve as a hook and while the opening doesnt have to be perfect you have damaged your trust with your readers. they read that and that is the impression they get. they are unlikely to give you the benefit of the doubt UNLESS they too believe in elegance over readability. and even then they will be blindsided over the head by the sudden and abrupt change in narration styles that do not flow

pb flower includes a lot of cultural references but most of them fall flat instead seeming like they bolster the story. ace just lists some norse mythos words that dont ultimately mean anything together. theres a lot of islamic terminology and references to indic mythology id delight in learning about if at any time they felt a. like they served any purpose other than hey look what words i know and b. didnt usually just amount to shortened wikipedia explanations. few of the cultural references land and some only prove the authors lack of familiarity with them like a certain navajo spirit starting with s that People. Are. Not. Supposed. To. Say.

related to nothing but ace randomly speaks welsh often before repeating himself in english and the way flower presents it makes it seem more like welsh is just a heavy accent than a language not unlike this bitch speaking japanese. thats not like a callout its just the only way it makes sense.

so now lets talk about ethos outside the book. in her blazed post flower is asked if the book is written by ai. she says ai was made by humans so there is absolutely no distinction. after i pointed this exchange out she deleted the comments and began claiming that she, her, she wrote the book. i think she said it took 3 months? which um... it shows.

she has not denied that it was written by ai but she HAS explained that to her there is no difference. i can no longer trust anything she says especially if she DID use an ai and she believes that that constitutes having written it. but when i asked my followers how they felt about a physical book priced at 25 dollars OSTENSIBLY having been written by ai. she, at least apparently she, sends me an anon saying she will report me for "defaming her copyrighted work" and i cannot speak poorly about it if i havent read it. she also makes a post asking if when you review something poorly if it was because it was actually bad or because you didnt gel with it. flower has thus proven a lack of ability to handle criticism maturely or professionally as she didnt even make an attempt to in turn say "hey this isnt ai dont keep spreading lies about my work it was a miscommunication" which even if she did send that to me now.... i couldnt believe her. and yet if she sees this review shes probably gonna try to report me again having proved she cant handle criticism especially since the post seems to imply that the only reason you would leave negative feedback is because youre a sorry little hater.

i would love to believe that venus is actually meant to be narrative poison maybe even that flower used ai to write her and if she did that would actually be quite clever! i MUST admit! but the thing is: i cannot trust her as an author. and so am i willing to give her 200 pages worth of my life trusting in someone who has proven i cannot trust her to prove her concept? to trust that she would even attempt listening to my criticism without just writing me off as a hater? well, to quote her post "lifes too short, move on."

anyhoo itd be disingenuous if i didnt at least share some highlights from my read. perhaps ill add on more thoughts for now but without going into details like "obedient ebony" heres a good place to stop for now

that last one is the most resonant with me :)

[hermitscapes]

BDubs is just a fantastic guy

okay you probably believe me already, but here’s just a thing for me to remember how cool of a dude this guy is. [evidence under the cut] [feel free to add on in the replies]

evidence #1: >during an impulse livestream where he goes through his channel history, he finds a vlog type video at a mindcrack con. he comments on the video saying bdubs had a long line of people waiting to talk to him, and even through all of that, he said that bdubs had given every single person quality time to talk to him, giving each person their special moment. impulse had stated he watched him for hours, never slowing down or giving anyone a worse experience than another.

evidence #2: >bdubs supports his fellow hermits’ endeavors! >>in episode 1, scar describes his plans to create wagons that travel along the server selling goods. he says he’s very, very excited for this. later on in the season, despite being a competitor, who’s the one who continues to buy from the swaggon? bdubs! he even promotes the swaggon in his videos, saying that they’ve got good products and good prices, that even he has to buy!  >>in etho’s hermitcraft video, he describes his longing to become the main character of a shopping harem anime, stealing the attention and sales of all the shopkeeps from across the land. [not verbatim, but close enough!] grian had already made a sale for etho specifically at the G-Train before this statement, but bdubs seems to have created a shopping environment specifically for etho after this passionate request for shop sales! he doesn’t even charge etho for his prettystone, as long as he shops at big eyes, helping establish etho’s shopping addiction ‘character’! >>during season 7, bdubs directly approaches scar to be his little mayor helper! without this little push, perhaps the entire election and mycellium war would never have happened. his persistence and hard work even with scar’s absence was massive!

evidence #3: >bdubs’ pets! >>in the very first hermitcraft season 8 episode, at least, tango’s, bdubs gets an axolotl which he lovingly states: “I’m gonna name him idiot!” after exclaiming: “C’mhere, stupid!” in attempts to catch the axolotl. >>he gives the adorable name of “lulu” to his amazing horse, who he’s quick to brag about at any given chance! “the fastest horse on the server!” he also gives lulu the middle and last name of “stupid” and “moron” respectively.  >>squakers! he makes a “pakeek!” sound and says, not verbatim, “that’s me pretending that he said something.” he talks for his pets. everyone does this. >same vibes as naming a cat “coleslaw” or calling your pets “idiots” because it’s adorable and cute and the animals are stupid and he loves them. 

evidence #4: >every single video he has Ever posted >>just watch one, you’ll understand if you don’t already

evidence #5: >when scar approaches bdubs for some spare copper, he doesn’t end up getting any, but gives bdubs some glow ink anyway. for this, bdubs gives him some copper, feeling bad about not giving him anything in return, like a true gentleman. also, he does this really sweet “yay!” when scar gives him some extra glow ink afterwards. 

evidence #6: >on one of his streams, he literally said he would live his life to cartoon music, if he could. i mean, c’mon. how can you not appreciate someone like that.

evidence #7: >gets absolutely owned by his daughters in the realm of minecraft intelligence and takes it with absolute humility and strength. power father.

evidence #8: >his advertisements >>literally all of his advertisements are amazing. he puts effort into them and makes them actually enjoyable to watch, to the point where for the first time, i’ve actually considered and looked into the products he features. he actually makes them fun and silly for the audience, including his wife, in very silly and dorky ways. 

evidence #9: >in one of tango’s among us videos, proximity mod allows everyone to hear each other in close range. bdubs is shooting asteroids and spits out ad libs like no one’s business. “bang! pow! bam!” even saying, “peek-a-boo!” which is a staple of a fantastic person to say

evidence #10: >is actually good at redstone and understands its components while pretending to be an absolute bafoon. and he plays both parts so well. what a guy.

[ranboo5]

The Syndicate manifesto - a breakdown

I’m seein misconceptions go around again so I’m gonna break down the Syndicate manifesto. It, once again, got long, so ’s under the cut

This Syndicate is formed to serve as a network for fellow Anarchists to meet, exchange information and cooperate in the mutual pursuit of Anarchy and the fight against Tyranny.

We shall have no Leader; no Member shall be compelled to act against their will.

No Member shall reveal information about the Syndicate to outsiders.

Technoblade shall serve as the Recruiter to induce new Members into the Syndicate with Approval from a majority of Members. 

This is not a complicated manifesto; it is a mission statement, a restrictive statement/statement of the members’ rights, a single rule, and a codified procedure 

Please note how the mission statement that describes what the Syndicate is describes it as formed to serve network for fellow Anarchists. It’s a superstructure for people with a similar goal to commiserate if they so choose. What is that goal? The pursuit of Anarchy and the fight against Tyranny. 

It doesn’t even say “government,” technically! It says “Tyranny”! That word choice and sentence strucure is meaningful because it is contextualized: the fight against Tyranny is something that goes with the pursuit of Anarchy, and it’s something that someone who is an Anarchist would choose of their own volition to pursue (italicized pt further supported in next part), because they would want to perhaps join a network of other people who chose the same. Since the Syndicate is explicitly a “network to cooperate,” the implication is woven in that its members will cooperate in helping each other combat and thus identify Tyranny, and seek out and thus further codify Anarchy. These words have meanings not because they’re defined, but because the implication is they will be defined by the members through equal discussion; this is almost certainly intentional, because it gives the power to define those terms to the people and their case-by-case judgement rather than to the superstructure! With this one paragraph it’s immediately clear how the Syndicate is fundamentally different from the other factions on the server, and why it is not a side like people accuse it of being: all the Syndicate is, conceptually, is a superstructure that serves the people within it as a tool. The Syndicate is essentially a table to discuss at for the pursuit of a general goal. It’s a forum. It’s an enjoyers Discord server 

The second sentence hammers this home. They don’t have a leader, they don’t need a symbol, and, most importantly, no member shall be compelled to act against their will. The power is given strictly to the members; no one and nothing has power over any of them in any capacity. They cannot be coerced. The people and their will comes before the side. 

This is also such an important line for peerpressureduo especially -- note that Techno pens the manifesto and Ranboo explicitly comments on this line when it’s given to him. These are such moments of self-actualization when for reasons evident in the duo name these are active things these characters have struggled with! Technoblade who’s had to act against his interests and at least once actively against his will and Ranboo who folds immediately if you ask him firmly enough! 

These two points -- no coercion, and mutual cooperation -- are also points on which the Syndicate puts its money where its mouth is, concretely, in the actual first meeting streams, with Ranboo and Niki respectively 

When Ranboo shows nerves Technoblade backs off from the [backs you into an alleyway] bit he’s doing, saying explicitly that they’re not trying to make him do anything, and even when after the meeting Ranboo still has his concerns Phil reassures him again that no one is going to hold him to any promises irt the Syndicate and that he’s not obligated to anything. Whether Ranboo has fully processed this is admittedly arguable, but he is actively reassured and shown that “no member shall be compelled” isn’t a platitude -- it’s a concrete, actionable standard that will be applied to him 

(This also shows character development that comes with ideological codification and healing from Technoblade! “Technoblade acts coercively sometimes” arguments aren’t wrong he literally did intimidate Ranboo into giving back his armor their first interaction and now that he has explicitly codified an anti-coercion ethos Technoblade is making an active, conscious effort to be aware of the effect he has and not leverage it! The fact that Ranboo is explicitly his friend now as opposed to a govt official who abetted in Techno’s execution also contributes (and wow! Abetting in Techno’s execution... against his will... sounds like smth this is explicitly helpful wi--) (I’m sorry I care peerpressure and I am so, so tired of hearing arguments about Technoblade, one of the most blatantly reactive and dynamic characters, being static))

Meanwhile, when Niki is standing back letting Philza and Technoblade make the pitch, Technoblade actively invites her over to stand with them. She is one of the Syndicate; the members of the Syndicate will actively encourage and enable her to be included and heard and to prevent her from being sidelined. It’s a priority. She’s a priority. An actionable promise has been made her and is being upheld; this is especially important to Niki, considering her history with factions that left her in the dust to die and that never considered her and her agency and empowerment a priority 

The only “rule” the Syndicate has for its members directly is less of an enforced rule and more an agreement, around a point that can easily be explained. Don’t Talk About Fight Club, for security reasons; the last line is really just a detailing of current logistical status quo and not very ideological but is important to how it operates 

Tl;dr: - the Syndicate manifesto lays its mission statement and modus operandi out clearly - anything that isn’t stated outright follows from the clauses, which are concrete and actionable - it’s unique also from most of the other factions on the server in that it explicitly and actionably keeps power in the hands of the individual members, rather than of any particular one or of a system - it doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is: a superstructure meant as a tool to serve the people, like a forum or a table  - you could say it prioritizes empowering people, not sides, 

- 

EDIT: There was a typo in here and also I fucking misremembered what “commisseration” means :freezer: 

[hermitdyke]

Please do go off about metanarratives and colaborative storytelling in LL if you want king, my analisys loving heart is curious and interested

Anon thank you so much I was really unsure to share this. Warning for 3L and LL spoilers.

3rd Life and by extension, Last Life is a great example of a Metanarrative and an Emergent Narrative. The definition used of metanarrative for this is “An overarching account or interpretation of events and circumstances that provides a pattern or structure for people’s beliefs and gives meaning to their experiences”. An Emergent Narrative is “any video game storyline that is not written into the game by its developers, but emerges from the player’s interactions with various gameplay subsystems”.

Taking these definitions and placing it in the context of a collaborative Lets-Play series with multiple creators recording and taking part, allows us to analyze a complete storyline and find relevancy and meaning to the things the characters do/say/own, even if seemingly inconsequential from the start.

Multiple Perspectives and Metanarrative

The collaboration of 14 and 17 creators for each series is crucial in understanding how the story functions as it does. The individual’s viewing of a single point of view or POV of any single player reveals an amount of new information, interactions, and conflicts. The viewer’s knowledge of the single character’s experiences is about the same. When viewing multiple perspectives, the story expands significantly, showing different relationships between everyone and provides context to events that one may not have seen in the single POV.

For example, in viewing Impulse’s finale episode for 3rd Life, viewers may be confused or lost on why Bdubs attacked and took Impulse’s final life over a clock that Scar had given him. If the viewer had not seen Bdub’s first episode, they would not have realized the relevance between Bdubs and Scar with a clock, being that one was given to him at the very beginning from Scar during an early mining session. Viewers would also not know unless they had viewed Scar’s finale that the clock that was given to Bdubs was taken off of Impulse after losing his yellow life.

Immediately, the lack of viewership on multiple perspectives limits the scope on why the event is relevant, and the viewer may find the story ending dissatisfying, when in fact it is incredibly false. The cross-analysis of perspectives and events gives meaning to this otherwise simple event and forms a narrative from a simple item in the game- an Emergent Narrative.

Emergent Narratives, Lives, and Boogeymen

The term “subsystems” in the definition of Emergent Narratives is another way of describing a game’s mechanics. 3rd Life and Last Life differs from vanilla Minecraft in that they’re playing in a limited life, hardcore system, with the random threat of the Boogeyman and a proximity voice-mod. Without these, the narrative would be dramatically different, although it is possible to form an Emergent Narrative using vanilla Minecraft (DSMP!Eret’s Betrayal is a popular example). Because of these features and players interacting using these features, a narrative emerges from what in any casual Lets Play, could be considered a “bit”. This is what makes 3rd Life and Last Life stand out.

In 3rd Life, an emergent narrative is formed when Ren asks Martyn to kill him, despite Martyn being green and him being yellow. Ren’s use of the red life mechanic provided him a way to protect Renchanting under the threat and pressure of Scar. Ren (the player) judged being able to attack anyone at will overruled the safety of having multiple lives, and that he now poses as a new threat to the server. They also use a vanilla mechanic in renaming the Red Winter axe so all members could recognize their newfound power and creating a desirable item in their alliance. In “proving his loyalty”, Martyn and Ren’s storyline really kicks off and starts to conflict with the other members as a new power on the server.

A recent example in Last Life is from Scar’s perspective and goes to show just how possible it is that Last Life can/will follow a similar route as its counterpart. Bdubs in his first episode asks Etho, “if you were the Boogeyman and I died to a mob in here, would you be like, ‘man”, is that a consideration you’d make?”, “..like I missed my chance, should’ve taken them when I could. (Timestamp: Bdubs Last Life Episode 1, 17:20-17:38)

This is ironic, considering that Bdubs at the time was the Boogeyman. An episode later, one of the two boogeymen of the session, Joel leads Lizzie into a trap, getting in a few hits, only to fail and lose a life himself. The damage that he dealt to Lizzie weakened her was only after killed by a mob, and brings the scenario Bdubs suggested into reality.

Without the use of the limited lives, Boogeyman system, and the limited Enchanting table resource, this narrative thread would not have worked. And in the Metanarrative of the story, unless the viewers both viewed Bdub’s and Joel/Lizzie’s perspectives, they would not have found relevancy in this scenario.

Lack of Script

The most important part of the Metanarrative and Emergent Narrative is that no one knows that these events are important or are going to amount to something in the end. It is the viewer’s knowledge and creators’ forethought of the series to see the narrative emerge from just a couple of friends playing a video game and starting a war, to developed characters with an overarching storyline in a limited episode run. At the start, none of the stories was intentional. The individual’s interpretation of the events and forming these connections between one or more perspectives is the real storyline, and if the creator wants to support this discovered story, they can (Martyn and Scott’s 3L endings).

A great example of this inability to script events is in Bdubs’ 3rd Lift perspective. In his first episode, he passes by a cliff face with a pond below. As he approaches and looks down the cliff, he says, “Nobodies against each other, y’know, it’s just kinda hanging out.” As he passes by and down the hill, “Eventually, once we get down lower, like once you’re on your third life, I think then its vengeance time.” (Timestamp: Bdubs 3L Episode 1, 12:41- 12:51)

Because of his experiences and the events unfolding in 3rd Life, the irony is not lost when he is killed just at the bottom of the exact same cliff by Grian and Scar as revenge. These seemingly irrelevant events in the moment form patterns across the entire series, with some underdeveloped locations, suddenly becoming relevant. A seemingly irrelevant moment is now much darker and holds so much more meaning to the character.

What does this mean for Last Life’s story? Is there an Emerging Metanarrative?

Narratives can be found anywhere, and in collaboratively playing an open-world sandbox game, there’s almost no avoiding it. With the start of Last Life, any of these seemingly casual conversations or collected items could have any sort of meaning in the future. This happened in Scar’s episode this week where he worries that he’ll drop from 5 to 1 life and get boogeyman “Oh no- we’re gonna lose all of our lives, aren’t we? We have five lives and by the end of this I’m gonna be a red life.”(Timestamp: Scars LL Episode 2, 4:54-4:59)

Only in the end, for both him and Joel to be Boogeymen, and for Joel to drop to red and lose his alliance with Scar. The catastrophe of the episode essentially avoided Scar, even though he was constantly at the forefront of the conflict. These small off comments, seemingly inconsequential are now made relevant and active conflicts between the characters.

And there’s plenty more of these events across 3rd Life, and predicting what is to come is nearly impossible (though I do have my own ideas).

-Comments made towards Etho’s tree and wool base, only for both to be burned multiple times, and all of Etho’s deaths being related to fire.

-Martyn to BigB in early episodes, wanting to track down Ren and their relationship and building of Renchanting/Dogwarts

(Personal theory- there are currently 3 wither skulls on the last life server, belonging to Grian, Etho, and Pearl/Scott. Currently, they are irrelevant, but there are THREE WITHER SKULLS, with the entire server having easy access to soulsand.)

[animartiin]

This got kind of unnecessarily lengthy and rambly and possibly nonsensical, so I put it under a read more. And, no, I didn’t know where I was going with this and decided to post it before I forgot about it and left it lying in my drafts till the end of time.

In regards to my previous post, since then I've watched the POVs of Scar, Grian, Scott, Jimmy, Ren and Cleo, and I'm currently very slowly working through Etho and BigB's (though I do plan to watch everyone’s eventually).

It's been a lot of fun, to be honest, and it's been interesting seeing the different perspectives of events, both stuff I was already aware of and stuff I didn't know.

Not just in the information side of things (although that's nice too) but also regards to how different POVs of the same event can feel very different, like, due to factors such as the CC's editing style (e.g. whether or not they include specific scenes, the sound effects they choose to add or not add, etc.) or the way in which through the process of this POV, you've been almost seeing it through their eyes so you often find yourself sympathizing or just in general understanding their side more than in the previous POV/s you've watched of this particular event.

Somewhat related to this point, but I introduced my brother to Third Life first with Jimmy, then with Ren, and, aside his rather memorable comment of describing Jimmy as having “excellent hair”, his view on the events of the series are fairly solidly on the side of Dogwarts, in the sense of the Desert Duo having wronged them and them getting their own back and what not, albeit with some disappointment on his part from what happened with Pizza. While, from my viewing, I feel like, though I still sympathise with Dogwarts and enjoy their whole thing a lot, I support Scar and Grian just that little bit more. 

Although that’s to a limited extent, partly since I tend to think of myself as a rather indecisive person, prone to (perhaps clumsily) attempting to weigh in both sides of things, unable to make a definite choice between options ninety percent of the time. I’m not sure where this is going, but I thought it was a tiny bit interesting, at least to me, how my brother knows for a fact whose side he’s on while I’m still like “eh, I’m not sure, both sides have points”. 

But that’s part of the fun, I think; seeing how people interpret things and what they choose to create as a result.

Also, on a less serious (?) and waffly note, I had no clue who basically everyone on the server was before seeing this series in Joel's recently released videos so that's been super cool too. Learning about new CCs, I mean.

*pointedly ignores the fact that, in hindsight, I already knew Jimmy and Scott from X-Life but just didn't pay adequate attention to this fact until I was watching Jimmy's X-Life series and recognised scenes from Lizzie's, and that I also was vaguely aware of Martyn from half-remembered Yogscast episodes when I was younger*

(Another thing, if I’ve screwed up with the tags, my apologies)

[flying-elliska]

one of the most impactful things I have read lately are two of French author Edouard Louis' books, Pour en finir avec Eddy Bellegueule and Qui a tué mon père (translated into English as The End of Eddy and Who Killed my Father). It's been two months and I'm still thinking about it.

The first book is an 'autobiographical novel' about the author's childhood growing up as an obviously gay boy in one of the poorest areas of France, until he leaves and reinvents himself as a writer. It's fraught with bigotry, abuse, bullying, violence, deprivation and social despair, and it's one of the most harrowing things I have ever read. It reads as many things as once : a recognition of trauma, an angry exorcism, a cry for society at large to pay attention, and to be honest, as a horror story.

It was criticized by some in France as portraying the working class in a manner that was too negative, which tells me they missed the point entirely...ironic for a book by someone who actually grew up poor - one of my least favorite things ever is progressives telling a marginalized person they can't talk about their own experiences because they don't fit the desired mold. (The French love to romanticize the working class and I'm pretty sure it's often an avoidance mechanism.)

The point of the book is so obviously not about 'look at how terrible and bigoted those poor people are'. Little Eddy spends a big part of the narrative trying to escape - himself at first, then his family/circumstances and the persistent homophobia everywhere. In the end of the book, he finally manages to get accepted into a fancy high school in the city on a scholarship and tries really hard to fit in. The last scene of the book is a bunch of his - educated, upper/middle class - classmates throwing homophobic taunts at him, starting the cycle anew. I can't think of a clearer way to say 'this is not a story about a sad gay boy escaping the evil bigoted countryside for the city and then everything was wonderful!!!! this is a story about a systemic, pervasive problem.'

One of the key arguments of the book, to me, is how homophobia, sexism and bigotry in general are both a product and a reproduction mechanism of social and economic exclusion. For instance, he describes how the norms around what it means to be a man in his village (being tough, disobeying authority, quitting school early to go work at the factory, drinking alcohol, neglecting your own health, fighting over women, repressing your feelings, etc) perpetuates the cycle of poverty ; but again this isn't 'oh these people are so stupid' and more 'these people are trapped'. Because he makes it evident how degrading and dehumanizing poverty can be, this masculinity reads as a desperate attempt to cling to a certain amount of dignity - it's an extremely dysfunctional coping mechanism. At the same time, anyone falling outside of the mold is violently ostracized (like Eddy, who tries and fails to fit in). So the system keeps reproducing itself.

In Who Killed my Father, the author makes his political argument clearer. This is more of an essay, centering on his father, arguably the most complex figure in the first novel. The man is an angry, bigoted alcoholic who makes his family miserable ; at the same time he is the son of an abusive father who makes a point of honor to never hit his kids or wife even though it's very normalized in this context. In this essay the author keeps talking about the moments of almost tenderness with his father that haunt him, the picture he has of him doing drag in his youth, the fact that the father tried to leave the village when he was young to find a better life for himself with a close friend but failed and had to come back - the moments of what-ifs, of trying to struggle free from the cycle, when the system appears almost fragile and not so unbreakable after all, that the son kept holding close like a sort of talisman.

The narrative is structured around the fact that his father injured his back working in a factory and that he had to keep doing physical labor afterwards for money, instead of resting to recover, until it completely destroyed his body. Now he finds himself bed-bound at 53. Louis inquires into who is responsible for this premature 'death'. After considering individual choices, he turns towards political decisions - the successive governments, left and right, who have been destroying the French welfare system for decades and accelerating inequality. The point is to step out of the neoliberal obsession with personal responsibility and who is guilty and who is a bad or good person, and look at systems.

An element that isn't focused on but hovers over the story constantly is that this village is one where the majority of the population consistently votes for the extreme right National Front party in most elections. The book is too angry and nuanced to be some stupid "it's not their fault that they're racist because they're poor!" argument. It doesn't make any excuses for how awful this is but instead illustrates how dehumanization replicates itself, how people being denied basic dignity leads to them wanting to deny it to others. If you want to really understand the rise of the far right you have to look at where the inequality comes from in the first place, and how easy it is for people in power to wash their hands of it by blaming the bigoted masses. (Just like you can blame societal ills on minorities ! Two for one strategy.)

Towards the end of the essay, the author talks about how proud his father is of his son's literary success - for a book who clearly depicts him as a horrible person ! And this is a man who has spent his life openly despising anything cultural, because it never showed him a life like his own. But maybe now he feels seen, now he knows people want to read about these things. Maybe there is a reclamation of dignity through looking at the horror head on. Maybe his son somehow slipping through the cracks of the cycle gives him more room. The man stops making racist comments, and instead asks his son about his boyfriend. Most importantly, he asks his son about the leftist politics he's engaged in. They talk about the need for a revolution.

I think what strikes me the most is this attitude of "wounded compassion" that permeates the book. What do you do when your parents are abusive but even after you grow up, you can't help but still love them, and you know they've been shaped by the system that surrounds them ? Recognizing, speaking the harm is essential. You need to find your own freedom, sense of worth, and safety. You need to dissect the mechanisms at hand so they lose at least some of their power over you. You need to find people who love and believe you. But then what? Do you dismiss your persistent feelings of affection and care for those who hurt you as a sign you're just fucked up in the head ? You could just decide to never speak to them again, and it would be justified, but is that really what is going to heal you the most? It's important to realize you have the choice. But there are no easy conclusions.

This makes me think of a passage I have just read in Aversive Democracy by Aletta Norval. The essential ethos of radical democracy, she says, is about taking responsibility for your society, even the bad parts, instead of seeing them as a foreign element you have to cleanse yourself of. It's too fucking easy for queer progressives, especially the middle class urban kind, to talk about dumb evil hicks, to turn pride into a simple morality tale, and forget that any politics that don't center the basic dignity and needs of people are just shit. The injury is to you and by you and you have a duty of care just as much as a duty of criticism. (And this is obviously not only applicable to class matters.) You can't just walk away and save your sense of moral purity. (This is not an argument that the oppressed are responsible for educating the oppressors ; it's about how privilege is not an easy simple ranking and it is too damn easy to only focus on the ways in which you are oppressed and forget the ways in which you may have more leeway.)

There is no absolute equivalence between political and family dynamics but the parallel feel very relevant somehow. Several truths can coexist at once : you needed help and it was not given. You were let down. It's important to recognize that people are responsible of how they treat each other. You need to call out what isn't ok and stand up for yourself. At the same time, there is a reason why things are like this. Making people into villains is often bad strategy (within reason!), and in the end, easy dichotomies are often an instrument of power. The horrors you have been through might have given you a very specific wisdom and grace you do not have to be afraid of ; you are not tainted by your compassion (it is very much the opposite of forced forgiveness ; it has walked through the fire of truth.)

To me these books fit into what French literature does best, sociological storytelling a la Zola or Victor Hugo - the arguments aren't new and they can come across as heavy handed, even melodramatic. But I'll argue that the viscerality is the point, how the raw experience of misery punches through any clever arguments about how exploitation persists for the greater good of society. Really worth reading if you can do so with nuance.

[jamestaylorswift]

My giant goes with me wherever I go: a study of the geographic metanarrative of folklore

This topic has been rattling around in my brain ever since I first heard folklore and I think it’s endlessly fascinating. Cue this lengthy but (hopefully) intriguing piece.

I’m afraid the title may not be an accurate reflection of this essay’s content, so here’s a preview of talking points: geography, existence, metanarrative, making sense of the theme of death, the “peace”/“hoax”/“the lakes” trio, history/philosophy, and exactly one paragraph of rep/Lover analysis (as a treat).

I make the standard disclaimer that analysis is by definition subjective. Additionally, many thanks and credit to anyone else who has written analysis of folklore. I am sure my opinions have been influenced by yours, even subconsciously.

Questions, comments, and suggestions are always welcome, and thank you for taking the time to read :)

——

“Traveling is a fool’s paradise. We owe to our first journeys the discovery that place is nothing. At home I dream that at Naples, at Rome, I can be intoxicated with beauty and lose my sadness. I pack my trunk, embrace my friends, embark on the sea, and at last wake up in Naples, and there beside me in the stern Fact, the sad self, unrelenting, identical, that I fled from. I seek the Vatican, and the palaces. I affect to be intoxicated with sights and suggestions, but I am not intoxicated. My giant goes with me wherever I go.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

——

If Taylor Swift’s music is anything, it is highly geographic. Taylor has been a country, pop, and now alternative artist, yet a storyteller through and through—one with a special knack for developing the aesthetic of songs and even entire records through location. The people and places she writes about seem to mutually breathe life into each other.

It is plausible that Taylor, as a young storyteller, developed this talent by using places as veritable muses just like she did anything else. Furthermore, her confessional storytelling became much more geographic as she shifted to pop because of factors including (though certainly not limited to) purchasing real estate, traveling more, writing in a genre that canonically centers coastal cities, and dating individuals with their own established homes. The geographic motif in her work is so identifiable that all of the corresponding details are—for better or worse—commensurate to autobiography.

However, folklore is not autobiographical in the way that most understand her other albums to be. The relationship between people and places in folklore is likewise much less symbiotic.

The first two songs on the record illustrate this. We are at bare minimum forced to associate the characters of Betty and James with New York: the lyrics about the High Line imply a fraction of their relationship took place in this city. Even so, this does not imply Betty or James ever permanently resided in New York, or that Betty is in New York at the moment she is narrating the story of “cardigan.” Taylor places far more emphasis on James and the nostalgia of youth, with “I knew you” repeated as a hook, to develop the emotional tone of the song. Rhode Island also comes to life in “the last great american dynasty” because of Rebekah Harkness’ larger-than-life character. But Taylor, following Rebekah’s antagonism, states multiple times throughout the song that the person should be divorced from the place. folklore locations are never so revered that they gain the vibrancy of literal human life. Taylor refrains from saying a person is a place in the same way that she has said that she is New York or her lover is the West Village.

For an album undeniably with the most concrete references to location, it is highly irregular—even confusing, given that personification is such a powerful storytelling device—that Taylor does not equate location with personal ethos.

Regurgitating the truism that geography equals autobiography proves quite limiting for interpreting Taylor’s work. How, then, should geography influence our understanding of folklore?

I submit that the stories in folklore are not ‘about’ places but ‘of’ places which are not real. Taylor’s autobiographical fiction makes the settings of the songs similarly fictionalized, metaphorical, and otherwise symbolic of something much more than geography. It is this phenomenon which emotionally and philosophically distinguishes folklore from the rest of her oeuvre.

——

As a consequence of Taylor’s unusual treatment of location, real places in folklore become signposts for cultural-geographic abstractions. Reality is simply a set of worldbuilding training wheels.

Prominent geographic features define places, which define settings. The world of folklore is built from what I’ve dubbed as four archetypal settings: the Coastal Town, the Suburb, the City, and the Outside World.

Each has a couple defining geographic features:

Coastal Town: water, cliffs/a lookout

Suburb: homes, town

City: public areas, social/nightlife/entertainment venues

The Outside World serves as the logical complement of the other three settings.

Understanding that real location in folklore is neither interchangeable nor synonymous with setting is crucial. Rhode Island is like the Coastal Town, but the two settings are not one and the same. The Suburb is an idyllic mid-America setting like Nashville, St. Louis, or Pennsylvania; it is all of those places and none of them at the same time. The City may be New York City, but it is certainly not New York City in the way that Taylor has ever sung about New York City before. The Outside World is just away.

Put simply, folklore is antithetical to Taylor’s previous geographic doctrine. While we are not precluded from, for instance, imagining the City as New York City, we also cannot and should not be pigeonholed into doing so.

Note:

This album purports to embody the stereotypically American folkloric tradition. “Outside” means “anywhere that isn’t America” because the imagery and associations of the first three cultural-geographic settings indeed are very distinctly American.

While Nashville and St. Louis are relatively big cities, they are still orders of magnitude smaller than New York and LA, the urban centers that Taylor normally regards as big cities. In context of this essay, the former locations are Suburban.

In this essay, the purpose of the term ‘of’ is simply to replace the more strict term ‘about.’ ‘Of’ denotes significant emotion tied to a place, usually because of significant time spent there either in the past or present (tense matters). Not all songs are ‘of’ places—it may be ambiguous where action takes place—and some songs can be ‘of’ multiple places due to location changing throughout the story. (This does not automatically mean that songs with more than one location are ‘of’ two places. A passing mention of St. Louis does not qualify “the last great american dynasty” as ‘of’ the Suburb, for example.)

Each of the four archetypal settings must instead be understood as an amalgam of the aesthetics of every real location it could be. Setting then exists in conversation with metaphor because we have a shared understanding of what constitutes a generic Suburb, City, or Coastal Town.

Finally, by transitivity, the settings’ metaphorical significance entirely hinges upon the geographic features’ metaphorical significance. This is what Taylor authors.

The next part of the essay is concerned with deciphering geography in folklore per these guiding questions: how is an archetypal feature used as a metaphor? By proxy, what does that say about the setting defined by it? What theme, if any, unites the settings?

The Coastal Town: Water and Cliffs

The Coastal Town is defined by elemental features.

The first (brief) mentions of water occur on the first two tracks:

Roarin’ twenties, tossing pennies in the pool

Leavin’ like a father, running like water

“the last great american dynasty” introduces the setting to which the pool (water) feature belongs, our Rhode Island-like Coastal Town. It also incorporates a larger water feature, the ocean, and suggests the existence of a lookout or cliffs:

Rebekah gave up on the Rhode Island set forever

Flew in all her Bitch Pack friends from the city

Filled the pool with champagne and swam with the big names

//

They say she was seen on occasion

Pacing the rocks, staring out at the midnight sea

“seven” and “peace” also have brief mentions of water; however, note that these songs remain situated as ‘of’ the Suburb. (More on this later.)

I hit my peak at seven

Feet in the swing over the creek

I was too scared to jump in

But I’m a fire and I'll keep your brittle heart warm

If your cascade, ocean wave blues come

“my tears ricochet” and “mad woman” with their nautical references pertain to the water metaphor:

I didn’t have it in myself to go with grace

And so the battleships will sink beneath the waves

Now I breathe flames each time I talk

My cannons all firin’ at your yacht

“epiphany” also counts, though with the understanding of “beaches” as Guadalcanal this song is ‘of’ the Outside World:

Crawling up the beaches now

“Sir, I think he’s bleeding out”

“this is me trying” and “hoax” reiterate the cliff/lookout geography:

Pulled the car off the road to the lookout

Could’ve followed my fears all the way down

Stood on the cliffside screaming, “Give me a reason”

Finally, “the lakes” features both water and cliffs:

Take me to the lakes, where all the poets went to die

//

Those Windermere peaks look like a perfect place to cry

//

While I bathe in cliffside pools

With my calamitous love and insurmountable grief

In folklore, water dovetails with permanent loss.

“epiphany” is the most egregious example. Crawling up the beaches of a war zone proves fatal. “the lakes” describes grieving in water, perhaps for the loss of one’s life because there exist cliffs from which to jump. “this is me trying” and “hoax” mirror that idea. On the other hand, in “peace,” death does not seem to have any connection to falling from a height.

Loss can also mean loss of sanity, such as with the eccentric character of Rebekah Harkness or Taylor as a “mad woman” firing cannons at (presumably) Scooter Braun’s yacht.

Subtler are the losses alluded to in “my tears ricochet” and “seven,” of identity or image and childhood audacity, respectively. And in the opening tracks water is at its most benign, aligned with loss of a relationship that has run its course in one’s young adulthood.

The most fascinating aspect of water in folklore is that it is an aberration from water as the symbol for life/birth/renewal, derived from maternity and the womb. folklore water taketh away, not giveth.

As of now, the greater significance of the Coastal Town—the meaning to which this contradiction alludes—remains to be seen.

The City: Nightlife, Entertainment, and Public Areas

Preeminent in Taylor’s pop work is the City; New York City, Los Angeles, and London are the locations most frequently extolled as Swiftian meccas. This archetypal setting is given a more understated role in folklore.

“cardigan,” ‘of’ the City, illustrates this setting using public environments and nightlife:

Vintage tee, brand new phone

High heels on cobblestones

//

But I knew you

Dancin’ in your Levi’s

Drunk under a streetlight

//

I knew you

Your heartbeat on the High Line

Once in twenty lifetimes

//

To kiss in cars and downtown bars

Was all we needed

“mirrorball” paints the clearest picture of the City’s nightlife/social venues by sheer quantity of lyrics:

I’m a mirrorball

I’ll show you every version of yourself tonight

I’ll get you out on the floor

Shimmering beautiful

//

You are not like the regulars

The masquerade revelers

Drunk as they watch my shattered edges glisten

//

And they called off the circus, burned the disco down

“invisible string” briefly mentions a bar:

A string that pulled me

Out of all the wrong arms, right into that dive bar

In addition, “this is me trying” implies that the speaker may currently be at a bar, making the song partially ‘of’ the City:

They told me all of my cages were mental

So I got wasted like all my potential

//

I was so ahead of the curve, the curve became a sphere

Fell behind all my classmates and I ended up here

Pouring out my heart to a stranger

But I didn’t pour the whiskey

It goes almost without saying that the City at large is alcohol-soaked. Indeed, alcohol will help us understand this location.

Each of the aforementioned songs has a distinct narrator, like Betty in the case of “cardigan” or Taylor herself, at the very least in the case of “mirrorball” or at most all songs besides “cardigan.” And because the narrative character is so strong, I posit that the meaning of this geography is tied to what alcohol reveals about the speakers of the songs themselves.

“invisible string” and “mirrorball” are alike in the fact that the stories extend well beyond or even completely after nightlife. Meeting in a dive bar in “invisible string” is just the catalyst for a relationship that feels fated. Taylor, in her “mirrorball” musing, expresses concern about how she is perceived by someone close to her. Does existing after the fact (of public perception, at an entertainment venue) constitute an authentic existence? Alcohol, apparently a necessary part of City life, predates events which later haunt the speakers. Emotional torment is then what prompts the speakers to recount their stories.

On the other hand, alcohol directly reveals the emotional states of the speakers in “cardigan” and “this is me trying.” “cardigan” is Betty’s sepia-toned memory of her time with James, in which James’ careless, youthful spirit (“dancin’ in your Levi’s, drunk under a streetlight” and “heartbeat on the High Line”) inspires sadness and nostalgia for their ultimately temporary relationship (“once in twenty lifetimes”). “this is me trying” is tinged with the speaker’s bitterness; hopelessness and regret lead them to the bar and the destructive practice of drinking just to be numb.

These observations suggest that the City is also a site of grief or loss, though not for the same reason that the Coastal Town is. Whereas the Coastal Town is associated with a permanent ending such as death, the City reveals an ending that is more transitional and wistful, tantamount to a coming of age. There is a clear ‘before’ and ‘after’ to loss related to the City: life, though changed, goes on.

The Suburb: Homes and Towns

Noteworthy though the City and Coastal Town may be, the former in particular concerning the pop mythology of Taylor Swift, it is the Suburb which Taylor most frequently references in folklore and establishes as the geographical heart of the album.

The Suburb is defined by a home and town. A “home” encompasses entrances (front/side doors), back and front yards (gardens/lawns/trees/weeds/creeks), and interiors (rooms/halls/closets). The “town” is pretty self-explanatory, with a store, mall, movie theater, school, and yogurt shop.

Observe that the folklore Suburb is the aesthetic equivalent of the “small town” that provided the debut and Fearless albums’ milieu and inspired the country mythology of Taylor Swift. While Taylor primarily wrote about home and school on those albums (because, well, that was closer to her experience as a teenager), the “small town” and the folklore Suburb are functionally the same with regard to pace, quality, and monotonicity of life. Exhibit A: driving around and lingering on front doorsteps are the main attractions for young adults. (From my personal experience growing up in a Suburb, this is completely accurate. And yes, the only other attractions are the mall and the movie theater.)

The Suburb becomes a conduit for conflict.

Conflict that Taylor explores in this setting, including inner turmoil, dissension between characters, and friction between oneself and external (societal) expectations, naturally can be distinguished by distance [1] between the two forces in conflict. As an example, ‘person vs. self’ implies no distance between the sides because they are both oneself. ‘Person vs. society’ is conflict in which the sides are the farthest they could conceivably be from each other. Conflict with greater distance between the sides is usually harder to resolve. One must move bigger mountains, so to speak, to fix these problems.

The folklore Suburb is additionally constructed upon the notion of privacy or seclusion. We can imagine a gradient [2] of privacy illustrated by Suburban geography: the town is a less intimate setting than the outside of the home, which is less intimate than the inside of the home.

I combine these two ideas in the following claim: the Suburb relates distance between two forces in conflict inversely on the geographical privacy gradient. Put simply, the more intimate or ‘internal’ the setting, the farther the two sides in conflict are from each other.

(I offer this claim in the hopes that it will clarify the nebulous meaning of the Suburb in the next section.)

Salient references to the Suburban town can be divided into one of two categories:

Allowing oneself to hope

Allowing oneself to recall

“august” clearly belongs in the first category. Hope is central to August’s character and how she approaches her relationship with James:

Wanting was enough

For me, it was enough

To live for the hope of it all

Canceled plans just in case you’d call

And say, “Meet me behind the mall”

If we interpret the bus as a school bus then “the 1” also belongs in this first town category:

I thought I saw you at the bus stop, I didn’t though

//

I hit the ground running each night

I hit the Sunday matinee

“invisible string” indicates that the yogurt shop is equally innocent as Centennial Park. The store represents the hope of Taylor’s soul mate, parallel to her hope:

Green was the color of the grass

Where I used to read at Centennial Park

I used to think I would meet somebody there

Teal was the color of your shirt

When you were sixteen at the yogurt shop

You used to work at to make a little money

“cardigan” and “this is me trying” alternatively highlight the persistence of memory, with a relationship leaving an “indelible mark” on the narrators. These songs belong in the second category:

I knew I’d curse you for the longest time

Chasin’ shadows in the grocery line

You’re a flashback in a film reel on the one screen in my town

James’ recollection qualifies “betty” for the second category as well. This song shows that emotional weight falls behind the act of remembering:

Betty, I won’t make assumptions

About why you switched your homeroom, but

I think it’s ‘cause of me

Betty, one time I was riding on my skateboard

When I passed your house

It’s like I couldn’t breathe

//

Betty, I know where it all went wrong

Your favorite song was playing

From the far side of the gym

I was nowhere to be found

I hate the crowds, you know that

Plus, I saw you dance with him

The surprising common denominator of these two categories is that conflict is purely internal in public spaces. Regardless of whether the speakers feel positively or negatively (i.e. per category number), their feelings are entirely a product of their own decisions, such as revisiting a memory or avoiding confrontation. This gives credence to the theory that the Suburb inversely relates conflict distance with privacy.

On the other extreme, the home is a site of conflict larger than oneself, and often more conflict in general. Conflict which occurs in the most private setting, inside the house, is conflict where the two sides are most distanced from each other. Conflict near the house, though not strictly inside, is closer, interpersonal.

“my tears ricochet” is just an ‘indoors’ song. The opening line depicts a private, funeral-like atmosphere:

We gather here, we line up, weepin’ in a sunlit room

There are multiple interpretations of this song floating around. The two prevailing ones are about the death of Taylor Swift the persona and the sale of her masters. In either interpretation, society and culture are the foundation for the implied conflict. First, the caricature of Taylor Swift exists as a reflection of pop culture; second, the sale of global superstar Taylor Swift’s masters is a dispute of such magnitude that it is not simply an interpersonal squabble.

For the alternative interpretation that “my tears ricochet” is about a dissolved relationship, “and when you can’t sleep at night // you hear my stolen lullabies” implicates Taylor Swift’s public catalogue (and thus Taylor Swift the persona) as the entity haunting someone else, as opposed to Taylor Swift the former member of the relationship.

“mad woman” is just an ‘outdoors’ song because of the line about the neighbor’s lawn:

What do you sing on your drive home?

Do you see my face in the neighbor’s lawn?

Does she smile?

Or does she mouth, “Fuck you forever”

It’s clear Taylor has a lot of vitriol for Scooter Braun. Though it’s probably a bit of both at the end of the day, I am comfortable calling their feud more of the ‘person vs. person’ variety than the ‘person vs. society’ variety.

Consequently, the privacy gradient claim holds for both songs.

“illicit affairs” is one of two songs with a very clear ‘transformation’ of geography:

What started in beautiful rooms

Ends with meetings in parking lots

In context, this represents the devolution of the relationship. External conflict, the illegitimacy of the relationship, defined the affair when it was in “beautiful rooms.” Relocating to the parking lot (i.e. now referencing the Suburban town) coincides with discord turning inward. Any external shame or scorn for both lovers as a consequence of the affair is replaced by the end of the song with anger the lovers feel towards each other and, more importantly, themselves.

“seven” is the best example of how many types of conflict are present in and around the home:

I hit my peak at seven

Feet in the swing over the creek

I was too scared to jump in

//

And I’ve been meaning to tell you

I think your house is haunted

Your dad is always mad and that must be why

And I think you should come live with me

And we can be pirates

Then you won’t have to cry

Or hide in the closet

//

Please picture me in the weeds

Before I learned civility

I used to scream ferociously

Any time I wanted

The first few lines exemplify ‘person vs. self’ conflict, a fear of heights. The third segment introduces a ‘person vs. society’ dilemma, shrinking pains as a result of socialization into gender norms. (I am assuming that the child is a girl.) The second verse indicates strife between a child and a father. It leaves room for three interpretations:

The conflict is interpersonal, so the father’s anger is wholly or partially directed at the child because the father is an angry person

The conflict is sociological, so the father’s anger is a whole or partial consequence of the gendered roles which the father and child perform

Both

Is curious that we need not regard sadness and the closet in “seven” as mutually inclusive. The narrator says the child’s options are crying (logical) or hiding in the closet. Both the father’s temper and the closet are facts of the child’s life, either innocuous or traumatic or somewhere in between.

But we might—and perhaps should—go further and argue that conflict in “seven” is necessarily sociological, and specifically about being civilized to perform heterosexual femininity. For, taken to its logical extreme, if only gender identity and not sexual identity incites anger, then men must be socialized to become abusive to women, who must be socialized to become submissive to that abuse. Screaming “ferociously” at any time would also denote freedom to be oneself despite men, not freedom to be oneself for one’s own gratification. Yet the child surely enjoys the second freedom at the beginning of the song. While the patriarchy is indeed an oppressive societal force, the interpretation of the social conflict in “seven” as only gendered yields contradiction. This interpretation is much more tenuous than acknowledging that the closet is, in fact, The Closet.

(Mere mention of a closet, the universal symbol for hiding one’s sexuality, immediately justifies a queer interpretation of “seven” notwithstanding other sociological and/or semantic technicalities. A sizable chunk of Taylor’s extensive discography also lends itself to queer interpretation by extension of connection with this song—for instance, by a shared theme of socialization as a primary evil. To me it seems silly at best and homophobic at worst to eschew the reading of “seven” presented here.)

It is undeniable that “seven” represents many types of conflict and places them inversely on the privacy gradient. The father embodies societal conflict larger than the young child and introduces that conflict inside the house. The child faces internal conflict (i.e. a fear of heights) and no conflict at all (i.e. freedom to act fearlessly) outside.

Reconciling “august,” “exile,” and “betty” with the privacy gradient actually requires a queer interpretation of the songs. To avoid the complete logical fallacy of a circular proof, I reiterate that the privacy gradient is simply a means of illustrating how the Suburb functions as an archetypal location. Queer interpretation is a sufficient but not necessary condition for an interesting argument about Suburban spatial symbolism. Reaching a slightly weaker conclusion about the Suburb without the privacy gradient would not impact the conclusions about the other three archetypal locations. Finally, queer (sub)text is a noteworthy topic on its own.

“betty” situates the front porch as the venue where Betty must make a decision about her relationship with James:

But if I just showed up at your party

Would you have me? Would you want me?

Would you tell me to go fuck myself

Or lead me to the garden?

In the garden, would you trust me

If I told you it was just a summer thing?

//

Yeah, I showed up at your party

Will you have me? Will you love me?

Will you kiss me on the porch

In front of all your stupid friends?

If you kiss me, will it be just like I dreamed it?

Will it patch your broken wings?

Influencing Betty’s decision is her relationship with her “stupid” (read: homophobic) friends who don’t accept James (and/or the idea of James/Betty as a pair), her own internalized homophobia, and the trepidation with which she may regard James after the August escapade. The conflict at the front door is external/societal, interpersonal, and internal.

The garden differs from the front door as an area where James and Betty can privately discuss the August escapade. By moving to the garden, the supposed root of their conflict shifts from the oppressive force of homophobia to James’ behavior regarding the love triangle (“would you trust me if I told you it was just a summer thing?”). Much like in “illicit affairs,” motion along the privacy gradient underscores that micro-geography is inversely related to conflict distance.

Next, the implied settings of “august” are a bedroom and a private outdoor location such as a backyard:

Salt air, and the rust on your door

I never needed anything more

Whispers of "Are you sure?”

“Never have I ever before”

//

Your back beneath the sun

Wishin’ I could write my name on it

Will you call when you’re back at school?

I remember thinkin’ I had you

The backyard holds a mixture of ‘person vs. self’ and ‘person vs. person’ conflict. August’s doubts about James manifest as personal insecurities. However, James, by avoiding commitment, is equally responsible for planting that seed of doubt.

The song’s opening scene depicts a young adult losing their virginity. The bedroom can thus be conceptualized as a site of societal conflict because the queer love story expands this location to the geographical manifestation of escapism and denial. James runs off with August as a means to ignore externalized homophobia from a relationship with Betty, who has homophobic friends. Yet they eventually ditch August for Betty, either because of intense feelings for Betty or internalized homophobia—the relationship with August was too perfect, too easy.

“betty” and “august” are consistent with the gradient theory provided we interpret the love triangle narrative as queer. Identity engenders conflict in these songs. The characters then confront the conflict vis-à-vis location. ‘Indoors’ becomes the arena for confronting issues farther from the self, namely concerning homophobia. ‘Outdoors’ scopes cause and therefore possible resolution to individuals’ choices.

Last but not least, consider “exile,” the song with strange staging:

And it took you five whole minutes

To pack us up and leave me with it

Holdin’ all this love out here in the hall

//

You were my crown, now I’m in exile, seein’ you out

I think I’ve seen this film before

So I’m leaving out the side door

“I’m in exile, seein’ you out” and “I’m leaving out the side door” contradict each other. The speaker, “I,” seeing their lover out means that the speaker remains inside the house while their lover leaves. But the “I” also leaves through the side door. Does the speaker follow their lover out? If so, then whose house are they leaving? It is most likely a shared residence. They plan on coming back.

Taylor said in an interview [3] that the verses, sung by different people, represent the perspectives of the two lovers. The “me” in the first segment is the “you” in the second. So our “I” is left in the hall too. Both individuals  in the relationship are implied to leave and stay at different times.

An explanation for this inconsistency lies in the distinction between doors. A front door in folklore is symbolic of trust, that which makes or breaks a relationship (see: Betty’s front door and the door in “hoax”). It also forces sociological conflict to be resolved at the interpersonal level, lest serious problems hang out in the open. Fixing the world at large is usually impossible, and so front doors only create more issues. (The mountains, as they say, are too big to move.) The main entrance is thus a site for volatility and high stakes.

“exile” suggests that a shared side door is for persistent, dull, aching pain. This door symbolizes shame which is inherent to a relationship. It forces the partners to come and go quietly, to hide the existence of their love. Inferred from a queer reading of “exile” is that it is homophobia that erases the relationship. Conflict with society as evinced in individuals is once again consistent with the staging at the home.

Note that few (though multiple) explanations could resolve the paradox between intense shame in a relationship and the setting of a permanent shared home. Racism, for example, may be a reason individuals hide the existence of a loving relationship. Nevertheless, the overall effect of Taylor’s writing is that it is believable autobiography. It is unlikely that she’s speaking about racism here, least of all because there are two other male characters in the song. So a slightly more uncouth name for “exile” would be “the last great american mutual bearding anthem.”

To summarize, the Suburb is an archetypal setting constructed upon the notion of privacy. Taylor makes the folklore Suburb the primary home (no pun intended) of conflict of all kinds. Through an intimate, inverse relationship between drama and constitutive geography, Taylor argues that unrest and incongruity are central to what the Suburb represents.

The Outside World

The final archetypal setting is the complement to the first three—a physical and symbolic alternative.

The Guadalcanal beaches in “epiphany” (which are also alluded to in “peace”) contrast the homeland in “exile” through a metaphor about war. The Lake District in England is opposite America, the setting of most of folklore. The Moon, Saturn, and India are far away from Pennsylvania, the setting of “seven.” India quantifies the lengths to which the speaker of the song would go to protect the child character, while astronomy abstracts the magnitude of the speaker’s love.

This archetypal setting is symbolic of disengagement and breaking free from limitations. Moving to India in “seven” is how the speaker and child could escape problems at the child’s home. Analogizing war with the pandemic in “epiphany” removes geographical and chronological constraints from trauma.

The Lake District is where Taylor, a poet, goes to die. The line “I don’t belong and, my beloved, neither do you” could also suggest that this location is where Taylor and her muse break free from being outcasts (i.e. they find belonging). Regardless, the Lake District is where she disengages from the ultimate limitation of life itself.

——

How is an archetypal feature used as a metaphor? By proxy, what does that say about the setting defined by said feature?

Analysis of each archetypal feature yielded the following:

The Coastal Town is representative of permanent loss/endings

The City is representative of transitional loss/endings

The Suburb is the site of character-defining conflict

The Outside World is freedom from the constraints of the other settings

What theme unites these settings?

Though the majority of songs in folklore are anachronistic, the album has a temporal spirit. Geography seems to humanize and animate folklore: the meanings of the settings mirror the stages of life.

(The theoretical foundation for this claim is a topology of being; that the nature of being [4] is an event of place.)

The City, characterized by transition, is the coming-of-age and the Coastal Town, characterized by permanent endings, is death.

The Outside World, an alternative to life itself, is hence a rebirth. (After all, Romantic poets experienced a spiritual and occupational rebirth upon retiring to the Lakes to die. We remember them by their retreat.)

Outwardly, the Suburb is ambiguous. It could be representative of adolescence or adulthood—before or after the City. Analysis shows that this setting is nothing if not complex. Adult Taylor writes about the Suburb as someone whose opinion of this setting has unquestionably soured since adolescence. Yet she also approaches the Suburb with the singular goal of creating nuance, specifically by exposing unrest and incongruity which the setting usually obfuscates. This setting, ironically one that is (culturally) ruled by haughty adolescents, is where she explores the myriad subtleties and uncertainties coloring adulthood. The Suburb thus cannot be for adolescence because James is 17 and doesn’t know anything. Taylor intentionally situates the Suburb between the City and Coastal Town as the geographic stand-in for a complicated adulthood.

Despite genre shifts, Taylor has always excelled at establishing a clear setting for her songs. She is arguably even required to establish setting more clearly for folkloric storytelling than for her brand of confessional pop. If we can’t fully distinguish between reality and fiction, we must be able to supplement our understanding of a story with strong characterization, which is ultimately a byproduct of setting. Geography is a prima facie necessity for creating folklore.

This further suggests that the ‘life story’ told through geography is the thing closest to a metanarrative of folklore.

I use this term to refer to an album’s overarching narrative structure which Taylor creates (maybe subconsciously) in service of artistic self-expression. Interrogating ‘metanarrative’ should not be confused with the protean, impossible, and distracting task of deciphering Taylor Swift’s life. True metanarrative is always worth exploring. Also, though some conclusions about metanarrative may seem more plausible than others, at the end of the day all relevant arguments are untenable. Only Taylor knows exactly which metanarrative(s) her albums follow, if any. It is simply worth appreciating that folklore allows an interesting discussion about metanarrative in the first place; that it is both possible to find patterns sewn into the fabric of the work and to resonate with that which one believes those patterns illustrate. I digress.

folklore is highly geographic but orthogonal to all of our geographic expectations of mood or tone. Through metaphor, Taylor upends our assumptions about the archetypal settings.

The Outside World is usually a setting which represents a brief and peaceful respite for travelers. Here, it is the setting for complete and permanent disengagement. Hiding and running away was a panacea in reputation/Lover, but in folklore, finding peace in running and hiding becomes impossible.

The City is usually regarded as a modern Fountain of Youth and, in Taylor’s work, a home. However, the folklore City’s shelter is temporary and its energy brittle, like the relationship between the characters that inhabit it. The City has lost its glow.

One would expect the Coastal Town to be peaceful and serene given its small size and proximity to water. Taylor makes it the primary site of death, insanity, permanent loss. The place where one cannot go with grace is hardly peaceful.

The Suburb is not the romanticized-by-necessity dead end that it is in a Bildungsroman like Fearless. Rather, it is the site of great conflict as a consequence of individual identity. The American suburb is monolithic by design; Taylor points the finger of blame back at this design for erasing hurt and trauma. By writing against the gradient of privacy, she obviates all simplicity and serenity for which this location is known. Bedrooms no longer illustrate the dancing-in-pjs-before-school and floodplain-of-tears binary. Front porches become more sinister than the place to meet a future partner and rock a baby. Characters’ choices—often between two undesirable options in situations complicated by misalignment of the self and the world at large—become their biggest mistakes. It is with near masochistic fascination that Taylor dissects how the picturesque Suburban façade disguises misery.

If we have come to expect anything from Taylor, it is that she will make lustrous even the most mundane feelings and places. (And she is very good at her job.) folklore is a departure from this practice. She replaces erstwhile veneration of geography itself with nostalgia, bitterness, sadness, or disdain for any given setting. folklore is orthogonal to our primary expectation of Taylor Swift.

Yet another fascinating aspect of folklore is the air of death. It’s understandable. Taylor has ‘killed’ relationships, her own image, and surely parts of her inner self an unknowable number of times. Others have tarnished her reputation, stolen her songs, and deserted her in personal and professional life. She perishes frequently, both by her own hand and by the hands of others. The losses compound.

I’ve lost track of the number of posts I’ve seen saying that folklore is Taylor mourning friendships, love, a past self, youth…x, y, z. It has literally never been easier to project onto a Taylor Swift album, folks! At the same time, it is very difficult to to pinpoint what, exactly, Taylor is mourning. To me, listing things is a far too limited understanding of folklore. The lists simply do not do the album justice.

Death’s omnipresence has intrigued many, and I assert for good geographic reason. Reinforcing the album’s macabre undertone is nonlinear spatial symbolism: each setting bares a grief-soaked stage of a single life. From the City to the Suburb, Coastal Town, and Outside World, we perceive one’s sadness and depression, anger and helplessness, frustration and scorn, and acceptance, respectively. folklore holds a raw, primal grief at its core.

The geographic metanarrative justifies Taylor’s unabridged grieving process as that over the death of her own Romanticism. For the album’s torment is not as simple as in aging or metamorphosis of identity, not as glorified or irreverent as in a typical Swiftian murder-suicide, not as overt as in a loss with something or someone to blame. folklore is Taylor’s reckoning with what can only be described as artistic mortality.

——

To summarize up until this point: geography in folklore is not literal but metaphorical. The artistic treatment of folklore settings evinces a ‘geographic metanarrative,’ a close connection between settings and the stages of a life spent grieving. I propose that this life tracks Taylor’s relationship to her Romanticism. folklore follows the stages of Taylor’s artistic grief, so we will see that the conclusion of the album brings the death of Taylor’s Romanticism.

It is important to distinguish between the death of Romanticism in general and the death of Taylor’s Romanticism. folklore presents an argument for the latter.

A central conceit of Romanticism is its philosophy of style:

The most characteristic romantic commitment is to the idea that the character of art and beauty and of our engagement with them should shape all aspects of human life.…if the romantic ideal is to materialize, aesthetics should permeate and shape human life. [5]

Romanticism is realized through imagination:

The imagination was elevated to a position as the supreme faculty of the mind.…The Romantics tended to define and to present the imagination as our ultimate “shaping” or creative power, the approximate human equivalent of the creative powers of nature or even deity. It is dynamic, an active, rather than passive power, with many functions. Imagination is the primary faculty for creating all art. On a broader scale, it is also the faculty that helps humans to constitute reality…we not only perceive the world around us, but also in part create it. Uniting both reason and feeling…imagination is extolled as the ultimate synthesizing faculty, enabling humans to reconcile differences and opposites in the world of appearance. [6]

Imagination then engenders an artist-hero lifestyle [7]. This is similar—if not identical—to what we perceive of Taylor Swift’s life:

By locating the ultimate source of poetry in the individual artist, the tradition, stretching back to the ancients, of valuing art primarily for its ability to imitate human life (that is, for its mimetic qualities) was reversed. In Romantic theory, art was valuable not so much as a mirror of the external world, but as a source of illumination of the world within.…The “poetic speaker” became less a persona and more the direct person of the poet.…The interior journey and the development of the self recurred everywhere as subject material for the Romantic artist. The artist-as-hero is a specifically Romantic type.

Taylor’s Romanticism is thus her imagination deified as her artist-hero.

Moreover, the discrepancy between perceptions of grief in folklore is a consequence of the death of her Romanticism.

We (i.e. outsiders) naturally perceive the death of the Romantic as the death of Romantic aesthetics. Hence the lists upon lists of things that Taylor mourns instead of celebrates.

Taylor seems to grieve her Romantic artist-hero. Imaginative capacity predicates an artist-hero self-image, so conversely the death of the Romantic strips imagination of its power. The projected “fantasy, history, and memory” [8] of folklore indeed unnerves rather than comforts. The best example of this is from a corollary of the geographic metanarrative. Grief traces geography which traces life, and life leaks from densely populated areas to sparsely populated areas (it begins in the City and ends in the Outside World). Metaphorical setting, a product of imagination, aids the Romantic’s unbecoming. So, imagination is not a “synthesizing faculty” for reconciling difference; it is instead a faculty that divides.

Discriminating between the death of Romanticism in general and the death of Taylor’s Romanticism contextualizes folklore’s highly individualized grief. It is hard to argue that Taylor Swift will ever be unimaginative. But if we assume that she subscribes to a Romantic philosophy, then it follows that confronting the limits of the imagination is, to her, akin to a reckoning with mortality, a limit of the self.

——

folklore follows the stages of Taylor’s artistic grief. The album ends with Taylor accepting of the death of her Romanticism and being reborn into a new life. The final trio of songs, set ‘of’ the Suburb, Coastal Town, and Outside World in turn, frame the album’s solitary denouement.

In truth, “peace” is hardly grounded in Suburban geography. The nuance in it certainly makes it a thematic contemporary of other songs belonging to the Suburb, however. And consider: the events of “peace” are after the coming-of-age, the City; defining geographic features of the Coastal Town and Outside World are referenced in the future tense; an interior wall, the closest thing to Suburban home geography, is referenced in the present tense:

Our coming-of-age has come and gone

//

But I’m a fire and I’ll keep your brittle heart warm

If your cascade ocean wave blues come

//

You paint dreamscapes on the wall

//

And you know that I’d swing with you for the fences

Sit with you in the trenches

Per tense and the geographic metanarrative, “peace” is Suburban and is the first story of this trio. “hoax” and “the lakes” trivially follow (in that order) by their own geography.

The trio is clearly a story about Taylor and her muse. Understanding perspective in these songs will help us reconcile the lovers’ story and the geographic metanarrative.

We must compare lines in “peace” and “hoax” to determine who is speaking in those songs and when. Oft-repeated imagery makes it challenging to find a distinguishing detail local only to the trio. I draw attention to the affectionate nickname “darling”:

And it’s just around the corner, darlin’

'Cause it lives in me

Darling, this was just as hard

As when they pulled me apart

These two mentions are the only such ones in folklore. Whoever sings the first verse of “peace” must sing the bridge of “hoax” too.

“hoax” adds that the chorus singer’s melancholy is because of their faithless lover:

Don't want no other shade of blue but you

No other sadness in the world would do

Augmenting Lover is an undercurrent of sadness to which Taylor alludes with the color blue. By a basic understanding of that album, Taylor sings the “hoax” chorus.

The fire and color metaphors in tandem make the “hoax” verse(s) and bridge from the perspective of the lover who is burned and dimmed by the energy of their partner, the “peace” chorus singer:

I am ash from your fire

//

But what you did was just as dark

But I’m a fire and I’ll keep your brittle heart warm

Finally, a motif of an unraveling aligns the “hoax” verse(s) and bridge singer:

You knew it still hurts underneath my scars

From when they pulled me apart

//

My kingdom come undone

The “hoax” verse(s), chorus, and bridge are all sung by the same person.

In sum: Taylor sings the first verse of “peace” and her lover sings the chorus of “peace.” (See this post for more on “peace.”) Taylor alone sings “hoax.” “the lakes” is undoubtedly from Taylor’s perspective too.

Now let’s examine “peace” more closely:

Our coming-of-age has come and gone

Suddenly this summer, it’s clear

I never had the courage of my convictions

As long as danger is near

And it’s just around the corner, darlin’

‘Cause it lives in me

No, I could never give you peace

But I’m a fire and I'll keep your brittle heart warm

If your cascade, ocean wave blues come

All these people think love’s for show

But I would die for you in secret

The devil’s in the details, but you got a friend in me

Would it be enough if I could never give you peace?

Taylor’s lover has the temerity to die for her in secret. We can infer from the first verse that Taylor’s coming-of-age brings not the courage her lover possesses but clarity about an unsustainable habit. She realizes that she cherishes youthful fantasies of life (such as “this summer,” à la “august”) for mettle. This apparently knocks her out of her reverie.

The recognition that being an artist-hero hurts her muse frames the death of Taylor’s Romanticism. It is impossible for Taylor to both manage an unpleasant reality and construct a more peaceful one using her Romantic imagination. The rift between her true lived experience (“interior journey”) and the experience of her art (“development of the self”) is what fuels alienation from Romance. The artist is unstitched from the hero.

“hoax” continues along this line of reasoning. In this song, she admits that she has been hurt by herself:

My twisted knife

My sleepless night

My winless fight

This has frozen my ground

As well as by her lover:

My best laid plan

Your sleight of hand

My barren land

I am ash from your fire

And by others:

You knew it still hurts underneath my scars

From when they pulled me apart

The bridge marks is the turning point where she lets go of of her youth and adulthood, both of which are tied to her Romanticism through geography:

You know I left a part of me back in New York

You knew the hero died so what’s the movie for?

You knew it still hurts underneath my scars

From when they pulled me apart

You knew the password so I let you in the door

You knew you won so what’s the point of keeping score?

You knew it still hurts underneath my scars

From when they pulled me apart

Of utmost importance is the very first line. The muse to whom Taylor addresses “hoax” is said to have been present at Taylor’s side through all of her struggles (“you knew”). The first line reveals that the lover did not know that Taylor left a part of herself back in New York (“you know [now]”). Taylor is only sharing her newfound realization as she stands on the precipice of the Coastal Town.

Nearly imperceptible though this syntactic difference is, it is an unmistakable reprise of the effect of the verses and chorus of “cardigan.” (Coincidentally, references to New York connect the songs.) “Knew” and “know” in both songs underscore a difference between what a character remembers (or had previously experienced) and what they understand in the current moment (or have just come to realize). Betty realizes at the very moment that she narrates “cardigan” that it was a mistake to excuse James’ behavior as total ignorance and youthful selfishness. Taylor realizes in “hoax” that she can no longer cling to youth, the romanticization of her youth, or romanticization of the romanticization of her youth. The youth in her is gone forever because she is no longer attached to the City. The adult in her has also matured for she is past the Suburb as well. The Coastal Town thus very appropriately stages the death of her Romantic.

Anyone who listens to Taylor’s music has been trained to connect geography to the vitality of Romantic artist-hero Taylor. In short, aestheticized geography renders Taylor’s Romantic autobiography. By letting go of the parts of her connected to geography, Taylor abandons the Romantic aesthetics both she and listeners associate with location. Divorcing from aesthetics also pre-empts romanticization of location in the future. The bridge of “hoax” is thus most easily summarized as the moment when any fondness for and predisposition towards Romance crumbles completely.

Lastly, we must pay special attention to micro-geography in the “hoax” chorus. We recall from “the last great american dynasty” and “this is me trying” the insanity that consumes the characters who contemplate the cliffs. The Coastal Town is not a beautiful place to die; one is graceless when moribund:

They say she was seen on occasion

Pacing the rocks, staring out at the midnight sea

I’ve been having a hard time adjusting

//

Pulled the car off the road to the lookout

Could’ve followed my fears all the way down

From “peace” we know that Taylor’s lover is willing to die for her, in particular if Taylor’s sadness becomes too great (i.e. if she goes to the sea).

But I’m a fire and I'll keep your brittle heart warm

If your cascade, ocean wave blues come

All these people think love’s for show

But I would die for you in secret

The “hoax” chorus is when Taylor’s sadness balloons. Taylor the Romantic is ready to die:

Stood on the cliffside screaming, "Give me a reason"

Your faithless love’s the only hoax I believe in

Don't want no other shade of blue but you

No other sadness in the world would do

Remember Rebekah, pacing the rocks, staring out at the midnight sea. Taylor is in this same position, on the cliffs, facing the water. Why is she screaming? Taylor is yelling down at her lover, who has already died (in secret, of course) and is in the water below waiting to catch her. (“I’m always waiting for you to be waiting below,” anyone?) Taylor’s singular faith is in her lover, and Taylor wants them to promise to catch her when she falls. In the end, though, the inherent danger nullifies what the lover could do to convince Taylor that the two would reunite safely below.

Taylor examines the water and realizes that her lover’s hue is combined with the blue of the sea. The sea cannot promise to catch her. Already mentally reeling, the admixture of sadnesses—in the setting which represents the culmination of life—makes Taylor recalcitrant. The Coastal Town has too much metaphorical baggage. It is not the place Taylor leaps from the cliffs. The first line of the “hoax” chorus uses “stood,” which implies that Taylor is reflecting on this dilemma after the fact.

The outro reinforces that the Coastal Town is where Taylor the Romantic comes to term with death but does not actually die:

My only one

My kingdom come undone

My broken drum

You have beaten my heart

Don’t want no other shade of blue but you

No other sadness in the world would do

Romantic imagination cannot protect Taylor from all the hurt she has suffered in reality. A calm settles over her as the chords modulate to the relative major key. She reflects on her journey: “my only one” corresponds to the first verse which introduces her solemn situation; “my kingdom come undone” ties to the self-inflicted hurt that froze her ground; “my broken drum // you have beaten my heart” supplements the second verse about suffering from her lover’s duplicity. The last lines are again her rationale for not jumping from the rocks. Finally, after the album-long grieving period, Taylor the Romantic has made peace with her inevitable death.

Romanticism is Taylor’s giant which goes with her wherever she goes. Running, hiding, traveling, and uprooting are indeed the fool’s paradise in her previous albums. Impermanence of setting—roaming the world for self-culture, amusement, intoxication of beauty, and loss of sadness [9]—engenders an impermanence of self, which fuels the instinct to cling tightly to what does remain constant. Naturally, then, Romanticism is Taylor’s only enduring companion. It becomes the lens through which she understands the world, yet the rose-colored one which by virtue inspires problems on top of problems. Forevermore does her Romantic inspire a cycle of catharsis that plays out in real life. Thy beautiful kingdom come, then tragically come undone.

Taylor chooses to go to the Lakes to escape from the constraints of this cycle:

Take me to the Lakes where all the poets went to die

I don’t belong and, my beloved, neither do you

Those Windermere peaks look like a perfect place to cry

I’m setting off, but not without my muse

Of the death story in the “peace”/“hoax”/“the lakes” trio, it is impossible to ignore the mutualism of Taylor and her muse. Neither of them belong of this life—and ‘of’ American geography—anymore. Taylor’s last wish is to go to the Outside World and jump (“[set] off”) from the Windermere peaks with her muse, who is ever willing to both lead Taylor to the dark and follow her into it.

Taylor bids a final goodbye—appropriately, in the tongue of Romance—to the philosophy which has anchored her all this time:

I want auroras and sad prose

I want to watch wisteria grow right over my bare feet

'Cause I haven’t moved in years

And I want you right here

Romanticism, her art and life in tandem, brought Taylor what she values: union with her muse in the privacy of nature and her imagination. The final ode holds respect.

Finally, her death. The journey of grief concludes with Taylor both accepting death and, fascinatingly, being reborn into a new life:

A red rose grew up out of ice frozen ground

With no one around to tweet it

While I bathe in cliffside pools

With my calamitous love and insurmountable grief

In keeping with metaphorical geography, old life dwindling in water is exactly concurrent with new life flourishing on land.

Observe that the rebirth concerns ice frozen ground, an element of “hoax,” which is set in the Coastal Town. The rebirth must happen back in America even though the death happens at the Lakes.

Despite the imagery, this is not a Romantic rebirth. Begetting a new life is the juxtaposition of two things Taylor once romanticized toward opposite extremes—a red rose for beauty and an ice frozen ground for tragedy—with her simple refusal that either be distorted as externalities of her experience.

This final stanza is wide open for interpretation with regards to the story of the two lovers. It allows a priori all permutations of Taylor and/or her muse experiencing rebirth as the red rose and/or the frozen ground:

Taylor and her lover experience a rebirth together

Taylor is the red rose and her lover is the ice frozen ground

Taylor is the ice frozen ground and her lover is the red rose

Taylor and her lover are indivisible: they are both the rose and the frozen ground

Taylor alone experiences a rebirth

Taylor is the rose

Taylor is the ice frozen ground

Taylor is the rose + ice frozen ground

The lover alone experiences a rebirth

The lover is the rose

The lover is the ice frozen ground

The lover is the rose + frozen ground

(2) and (3) make death at the end of “the lakes” purely sacrificial. This is inconsistent with the disproportionate emphasis placed on the lovers’ mutualism. I am thus inclined to dismiss (2) and (3) as consequences of combinatorics.

There are also two interpretations of the final lines of the bridge:

Taylor the Romantic is the implied ‘I’ overcome with grief; her muse is her calamitous love with whom she bathes

Taylor the Romantic possesses both calamitous love and insurmountable grief; her lover, as per usual, dies with her in secret

It is unclear which is the truth. Still, (1) is relatively straightforward: there are two entities said to bathe in the Lakes and two entities said to be involved in reincarnation.

There need not be ‘parity’ between old life and new (reincarnated) life with respect to the lovers’ relationship status. If Taylor’s muse dies, does her relationship dissolve? Or must her muse, who dies at Taylor’s side, be reborn at her side too? If Taylor declares her devotion to her lover before her death, does that ensure that they are together in perpetuity? Or is that sentiment purely a relic of her past life, in which case her love disappears anew? Perhaps the invisible string tying the lovers together bonds them in eternal life. Perhaps the string snaps. Which is the blessing and which is the curse?

Whatever you make of ‘parity’ in reincarnation, it is important to remember that Taylor insists the relationship between her and her muse is at least a spiritual or divine one—if not also a worldly one—for it exists in conjunction with her own metaphysic.

How does reincarnation betray Romanticism?

A. Taylor is the red rose and the lover is the ice frozen ground.

Taylor as the rose does not trivially align with a bygone Romanticism, for the rose epitomizes Romance. Key, therefore, is the line about tweeting. Taylor abhors the practice of cataloguing and oversharing in service of knowing something completely—effectively ‘modern’ Romanticism.

Digital overexposure is an occupational hazard [10], but Taylor refuses to let ‘modern’ Romanticism to become invasive this time around. New life shall not be defiled by social media. It shall remain pure by individual will. Though Taylor’s rebirth into a new life happens on land in America, that it does not become a hyperbole of local Twitter is the proverbial nail in the coffin of Romanticism, distortion in service of aesthetic.

Rose imagery also draws a direct parallel to “The Lucky One,” Taylor’s self-proclaimed meditation [11] on her worst fears of stardom. The “Rose Garden” in this song contextualizes the “lucky” one’s disappearance from the spotlight:

It was a few years later

I showed up here

And they still tell the legend of how you disappeared

How you took the money and your dignity, and got the hell out

They say you bought a bunch of land somewhere

Chose the Rose Garden over Madison Square

And it took some time, but I understand it now

Emphasis on individual choice in the aforementioned star’s return to normalcy bears a striking resemblance to the individualistic philosophy of “the lakes,” as exemplified by Taylor and her muse choosing to jump from the Windermere peaks and Taylor keeping her rose off social media. Mention of a “legend” that describes disappearance and simultaneous return elsewhere is another connection to the “the lakes.”

Taylor as the rose could alternatively represent a chromatic devolution of true love (“I once believed love was burnin’ red // but it’s golden”). That is, becoming a rose suggests she may have changed her mind back to believing that love is burning red. This more generally represents returning to the beginning of a journey that began in the Red era. Perhaps Taylor sees Red as the beginning of her calamitous Romanticism. She realizes by folklore the fears which she surveyed in “The Lucky One,” so choosing a new life presents an opportunity to protect post-Speak Now Taylor from self-inflicted wounds which fester and prove fatal to her Romantic. (In essence…time travel.)

Taylor’s lover, ice frozen ground, is reborn frigid not blazing, the opposite of their raging fire. Taming the lover’s wild essence renders it impossible for them to be a Romantic muse in a new life. If the two lovers do indeed share an eternal love, then death reveals a conscious choice not to glorify it.

Additionally, Taylor’s artist-hero imagination has no power in her new life. Taylor and her lover have effectively switched spots. All we previously knew of the lover’s secrets and secret death was from what Taylor wrote, so Taylor (for lack of a better phrase) concealed her lover. The lover, ice frozen ground, is now the one concealing Taylor, the rose. As a smothering but not razing force, Taylor’s lover thus is reincarnated into the role of a public protector. Reincarnation reveals that the death of Romanticism is abetted through the death of secrecy, which always allows distortion of truth.

Another possibility: the secrecy surrounding the lover is that they were the ice frozen ground. If Taylor confirms that the lover was something ‘tragic’ before, then after the death of Romanticism they counterintuitively may become beautiful. Or, the lover continues to be tragic, and paramount again is Taylor’s choice not to sensationalize her muse.

B. Taylor is the ice frozen ground and the lover is the red rose.

Many of the themes above apply to this interpretation too.

Taylor reborn as ice frozen ground does not change her essence from “hoax.” By not ‘shaking off’ a sadness with her rebirth, she subverts the usual expectation—a product of the many years devoted to fixing any and all criticism [12]—of artist-hero Taylor Swift.

The lover reborn as the red rose means their being surfaces where they once were hidden and/or that they are not the golden love they had been in reputation, Lover, and “invisible string.” New life brings the bright, burning “red” emotions. Either what was once very bad is now very good and vice versa, or these emotions are simply not very anything because Taylor doesn’t want to sensationalize them as a pastiche of Red. If Taylor’s love is eternal, then she will be more subdued when sharing it; if it is not eternal, then she will simply move on.

This interpretation implies that Taylor’s Rose Garden is eternal love without the necessity of elevating her partner to Romantic muse status. No one being around to tweet the rose bursting through the ice means that Taylor alone gets to appreciate her lover for their pure essence before modern society does—lest the lover be perceived at all.

C. Taylor and her lover are indivisible: they are both the rose and the frozen ground

Taylor’s “twisted knife”/“sleepless night”/“winless fight” froze her ground but her lover’s “sleight of hand” made the land barren, unable to sustain life. The two lovers are emotionally at odds, but Romanticism acts as the “synthesizing faculty” which unites them in their old life.

The metaphor of the rose and frozen ground does not work without each part. It is possible that the lovers remain equally united in their new life; the lovers’ spiritual connection yields unity after reincarnation. Abiogenesis is therefore the phenomenon which betrays Romanticism. The lovers exist alongside each other naturally, not because they are opposites which Romanticism has forced together.

This is probably the most lighthearted interpretation of the last stanza in “the lakes.” Extreme hardship helps the lovers grow, and they remain intertwined through eternity.

——

The geographic elegy of folklore is that for Taylor’s giant, her Romantic, something both treasured and despised right until its end. (How appropriately meta.)

This raises the question: what replaces it?

Nothing.

folklore can—and perhaps should—be understood as a Transcendental work rather than a Romantic one. From this angle, Romanticism is that which prevented Taylor from connecting with something deeper within herself, something more eternal.

“Transcendental” does not mean “transcendent” or beyond human experience altogether, but something through which experience is made possible. [13]

Transcendentalism and Romanticism were two literary and philosophical movements that occurred during roughly the same time period [14].  Romanticism dominated England, Germany, and France in the late 18th and early 19th centuries slightly before Transcendentalism swept through America in the mid-1800s.

The two movements heavily influenced [15] each other. Transcendentalists and Romantics shared an appreciation for nature, doubt of (Calvinist) religious dogma, and an ambivalence or dislike of society and its institutions as corrupting forces. We see Taylor align herself with these ideas by the end of the album. “the lakes” holds a reverence of the natural world, disregard of predestination, and contempt for Twitter.

But Transcendentalism sharply diverged from Romanticism along the axis of faith. Transcendentalism thrived as a religious movement that emphasized individualism as a means for self-growth and, in particular, achieving a personal, highly spiritualized [16] understanding of God:

For many of the transcendentalists the term “transcendentalism” represented nothing so technical as an inquiry into the presuppositions of human experience, but a new confidence in and appreciation of the mind’s powers, and a modern, non-doctrinal spirituality. The transcendentalist, Emerson states, believes in miracles, conceived as “the perpetual openness of the human mind to new influx of light and power…”

Romantics, for instance, viewed nature as a source of imagination, inspiration, and enlightenment, whereas Transcendentalists saw nature as a vessel for exploring spirituality. Transcendentalists believed in an innate goodness of people for possession of a divine inner light [17]. Occupied with the perverse and disparate, Romantics believed people were capable both of great good and terrible evil.

It’s tempting to scope Taylor’s shift from Romanticism to Transcendentalism to this album alone. It’s true that folklore is filled with individualism, a hallmark of Transcendentalist philosophy. However, I argue that spirituality reveals a journey towards Transcendentalism that began well before folklore.

Consider the evolution of faith from reputation to Lover. Taylor places more emphasis on personal spirituality as she becomes increasingly disillusioned with organized religion/religious dogma. In “Don’t Blame Me,” Taylor defies religious convictions in favor of chasing the high of her forbidden love. Then her quiet and private life with her lover in “Cornelia Street” advances whatever traditional religious beliefs she possessed towards a self-defined spirituality (“sacred new beginnings that became my religion”). Individual spiritual enlightenment and religious conviction become mutually exclusive by the end of Lover, for the lovers would still worship their love even if it is a “false god.”

The final scene proves most important for establishing the album’s philosophy. In the end of “the lakes.” Taylor chooses death and is reincarnated into new life, kept pure also by individual will. (It should be noted that Transcendentalism was heavily influenced [18] by Indian religions, of which reincarnation is a central tenet.) Choosing reincarnation—to the extent that one even can—reflects a greater understanding of oneself. Choice, the ultimate power granted in the self, engenders spirituality. It is the means by which one follows a divine, guiding spark (i.e. “inner light”) in search of connection with others and the natural world. The album’s ending marries individualism with spirituality, which makes Taylor a true champion of Transcendentalism.

——

Transcendentalism is considered one of the most dominant American intellectual movements. Exploring the significance of Transcendentalist Taylor Swift is a rather unimaginative end to this essay. If we try hard enough, we will always be able to connect its philosophy to any art that exists in conversation with American culture.

Perhaps a more gripping conclusion comes from the assertion that philosophy doesn’t matter…

…at least, not in the way this essay regards philosophy as the ultimate Point.

So identifiable is the geographic motif in Taylor’s work that it is nearly impossible to ignore. This is especially true for folklore, an album that would literally not be folkloric if not for the blending of reality and fiction, real location and setting elevated as metaphor. So moving, moreover, is the grief at folklore’s core that it is natural to wonder what else it could represent. Hence, this essay’s charade of poking around both to see if they convey a deeper meaning.

A strong philosophical foundation establishes the ethos of art, that with which we resonate. However, we will never know to what philosophy Taylor subscribes. The interaction between her beliefs, creative spirit, and innate sense of self will always be a mystery. Any and all conclusions about the philosophical foundations of her art thus (1) are highly subjective and (2) reveal more about the ones making them than about Taylor herself.

Ironically, it is paramount to appreciate Taylor’s (Romantic) style above all else. The ways she uses basic building blocks of literature—theme, imagery, mood, setting, to name a few—piques curiosity. After all, without those building blocks, one would not be able to cultivate (should they so desire) an interest in the metaphorical, philosophical, or otherwise profound.

——

Disclaimer: this essay references (explicitly and implicitly, by way of citing expanded theoretical work) the ideas of Emerson and Heidegger, two preeminent thinkers whose ideas have had especially deep and lasting impacts on society. They are also two individuals noted to have had poor and even abhorrent political/personal views. I do not condone their views by referencing any ideas connected to these individuals (done mostly in service of rigor). I furthermore leave the task of generating nuance to those who dedicate their lives to critical examination of these individuals’ personal philosophies and the impact of their work on society.

[donewithcapitalistfrayers]

my translation of Hananya Vanda's 2016 article "This is How We Love Our Ethiopians" (i have added scarequotes around obviously ironic/satirical comments for clarity) 

The recent appointment of Ethiopian judges demonstrates the emergence of a new bureaucratic discourse ostensibly expressing change, but in fact it is the same lady in a changed robe. The bureaucracy maintains its relations with a thin layer of Ethiopians serving in it, but strives for repositioning in response to the determined wave of criticism from young Ethiopians The statement on the eve of Rosh Hashanah by Ayelet Shaked, the Minister of Justice, regarding the appointment of judges in a new way, is an excellent opportunity to talk about the relationship between the bureaucracy and Ethiopian olim. This statement is part of recent exciting changes for Ethiopians. This of course is not done in a vacuum; In the last decade, there has been a significant turning point among Ethiopians in The Land. They have returned to being a self-acting subject, from a long process of scientific objectification that they have undergone since the early 1980s. If desired, for them this decade is the Ethiopian Renaissance, and for their researchers–their downfall. Of course, they do not mean that they ceased to be the subjects of journalistic reporting or of doctoral dissertations inside and outside israel, but for the first time in this decade, the Ethiopian artists for the first time in their history turned their spotlight on what is now known as 'fringe anthropology'. In this sense, it's a real revolution. We have no intention here of referring to the anatomy of 'fringe anthropology', a fascinating world in itself, but to presenting some expressions from the new discourse created in the last decade and especially to the process of re-establishing relations between the bureaucracy and those who see themselves as "representatives of the Ethiopian" community. It is worth noting here that this re-establishment was done without the mediation of those previous "experts" for Ethiopians. This time, in this context, an opportunity was given for the emergence of new experts and consultants following a tripartite contract created between them and various "community representatives" and the bureaucracy. Anthropology Absorbs Aliyah The relationship between the bureaucracy that absorbs Aliyah and the Ethiopians in israel began in the early 1980s, with Aliyah from Ethiopia. Its formation was described in a chilling way by the anthropologist Esther Herzog, one favorable exception in the total academic darkness. Today, on the eve of the start of the fifth decade, this relationship is on its last legs but its anachronistic expressions persist. Until the previous decade, this hierarchical system has been maintained and renovated and today a thin layer of Ethiopians can be seen in the bureaucracy, whose language and course of action express the many-years-long process in which it was cast. The language of this system is certainly not novel, but an almost exact reproduction of relations that have already been successful in absorbing the so-called "Mizrahim." The same sociology absorbs aliyah was copied by a new generation of experts who emerged following the encounter with the Ethiopian olim. Even the discourse that surrounded the absorption remains intact, but one major difference can be found - the treatment of Ethiopians was based on "good intentions". As befits an anthropology-absorbing aliyah, the lingua franca of the absorption system, in order to interpret and explain the situation of Ethiopians in Israel, is based internally and externally on the difference between the background of Ethiopian olim and the 'receptive modern state' (from its perspective). The "cultural gap", "tradition versus modernity", "role model" and the developmental concept "from a remote village" or "shepherd" in Ethiopia to "something" in Israel, are used interchangeably as an important component of this international language, which of course aims to realize their "well-being". In the previous decade, fortunately, there has been a sharp, well-prepared and unapologetic criticism, especially in the face of the most prominent representatives of this system - the anthropologists. The ethnographic product of these is called "fringe anthropology" and the same thin layer of Ethiopians who serve in it are called "storytellers". This critique, of the variety of violent appearances of the bureaucracy, could be found on the YES [Young Ethiopian Students] blog which is no longer running. This language, which began with a small handful of Ethiopian students, has become widespread and popular. This critique did not remain a virtual text, even if well-worded, but was translated into deeds, hence its power. For instance, a distinction was made between Ethiopians who actually serve in the system or those who support the system from the outside and Ethiopians who see themselves as a "free public." This expression, which is apparently derived from Ethiopian politics, is expressed in a group calling itself the "Popular Front for the Liberation of Ethiopians from the Ministry of Immigration and Absorption." This group worked vigorously with the Ministry after identifying a problem. It turned out that tens of thousands of students of Ethiopian origin were not under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, but under the responsibility of a representative on its behalf who was from the Ministry of Aliyah and Absorption. The ministry he headed was responsible for defining new olim and yet, for no apparent reason, students of Ethiopian descent, even those born in The Land, were under its responsibility. In a successful action that included the defining of the problem and a number of short demonstrations by a handful of young men and women, a long-standing bureaucratic structure was abolished, which was an expression of a distinct category introduced in relation to Ethiopian olim. From Cute Ethiopians To Radicals For example, Ms. Amy Palmor, director general of the Department of Justice, recently stated that the "most radical group in the community" was involved in compiling the report against racism . Palmor is referring to the members of the "Joint Forum for Combating Racism." Despite the beautiful name, this group expresses the confusion that exists among young people who are full of good intentions, but who have a problem understanding the forces at work. Defining them as "radicals" is a bit puzzling. First, what radical group could cooperate with the authorities, who see racism as only a particular phenomenon for Ethiopians? Suppose there is a connection between racism and police actions - are there no laws in Israel to treat abusive police officers? And the main thing - what is so radical about cooperating with the authorities when they will eventually compile a report whose whole essence is to create more monitoring and control mechanisms for the Ethiopians? The radicalism of this group is also reflected in the strange demand to integrate the stories of the aliyah of Ethiopians into the "Zionist rescue ethos" narrative. This phrase has indeed appeared a lot on the YES blog, but unfortunately these young people use it in a foul way that negates the original critique. This group is one expression out of the margins for collaborating with the authorities, but now they want to have a new relation with the bureaucracy in pseudo-critical packaging (here it is worth mentioning that they are a bit reminiscent of the new Mizrahi movement "Golden Turn - now our turn "). In any case, the use that Palmor makes of the group and its labeling as "radical" stems not only from a desire to obtain a seal of approval for the realization of the report but also for the purpose of re-establishing relations with these "radicals" in response to the new criticism that has emerged. From A Remote Village To A Judge: The latest announcement regarding the appointment of judges is but another manifestation of the same phenomenon: the preservation of the relationship between the bureaucracy and the thin layer of Ethiopians who serve in it. This appointment and the announcements on it fit the well-publicized wave of "good news" following a protest by Ethiopians: an outstanding Ethiopian officer who rose to greatness, who even participated in an Israeli rescue mission in a natural disaster that befell Third World residents; A beauty queen who met Obama; The first Ethiopian officer in the Israel Police; And recently, we were even informed of one Ethiopian [IOF] officer who rose to greatness and became deputy station commander. The "dazzling" news of Rosh Hashanah Eve are two judges - as usual, this was accompanied by an assertive statement, which was repeated in all the [zionist] media. This time it is Ms. Haimovich and Ms. Gerdy. Apparently to avoid doubts, a headline appeared in the article, accompanied by a picture for illustration, with a statement: "I, who was born in a remote village, was privileged to be a judge in Israel." It turns out that Ms. Haimovich is not a girl from a remote village in western Poland, but from the remote villages of Ethiopia. "A remote village," as mentioned, is a common currency in the miraculous relationship that exists between the bureaucracy that absorbs immigration and that thin layer of Ethiopians, who even when they become Haimovich, the sense of remoteness is not released from them. For those unfamiliar with Ethiopian affairs, Haimovich was among the "representatives of the community," who, following the 2015 Ethiopian protest [aka Black Lives Matter uprising in '48], organized an injera meal as part of reconciliation efforts between the Israel Police and "community representatives." Reconciliation, in the language of bureaucracy, is nothing but a cultural product embodied in a rite of passage that ends with eating the food of the "other," just as the food of the "other" is an immediate target of the racist's mockery. The reconciliation meeting took place even though those “leaders” are not really leaders but self-appointed despite having nothing and a half to do with the protesting public. The search for leaders is another expression, like eating, of how the system perceives Ethiopians. In the end, Ms. Haimovich was among the same "leadership" that awarded a certificate of appreciation to the police commissioner, on the very day it was announced that the policemen who attacked the Ethiopian soldier who ignited the 2015 protest would not stand trial. Finally, in a rather symbolic way, Ms. Haimovich is photographed against the background of the National Insurance Institute, a governmental institution that expresses real violence against many israeli subjects in general and Ethiopians in particular. Despite this, there is room for optimism, even if cautious, regarding Ethiopians in israel. The language of bureaucracy is no longer foreign to them. 

[diarrheaworldstarhiphop]

According to a narrative that’s currently popular in the mainstream media and the more lowbrow end of academia, the recent surge in popularity of the American nationalist right was caused by the radicalization of nerds. Dweeby white manchildren, so the story goes, retreated into video games, the science fiction fandom, and anonymous online forums like 4chan, and formed misogynistic, resentment-fueled subcultures within them. These neckbearded neo-Nazis gradually coalesced into the ‘alt-right,’ an internet hate machine that contributed greatly to Toupee Hitler’s otherwise inexplicable rise.

There are many versions of this narrative. The common feature is the ascription of Trump’s electoral victory — and, in some cases, the surge in right-populism all across the Western world — to the vile machinations of movements of fascistic, internet-based nerds; but the details vary. One version, laid down in a popular Tumblr post (at the time of writing, it has over 22,000 notes), ascribes the rise of the alt-right to a successful campaign by Stormfront to turn 4chan Nazi. Another version blames it on Gamergate, allegedly a hate campaign born out of a misogynist’s attempt to “punish his ex-girlfriend” that served as a breeding ground for far-right extremism, and as the petri dish that they organized in before taking over America. The Z-list Youtube celebrity Zinnia Jones has described Gamergate as “one of the worst things ever to happen” because it “enabled Trump” — apparently, a piece of fandom drama ranks up there with the Spanish flu pandemic, the Mongol conquests, the Black Death, the invention of the nuclear bomb, the post-Columbian plagues that depopulated the Americas, and the unfortunate events of the 1940s.

Deployments of the narrative abound. A popular Medium “32-minute read” bears the headline, “4chan: The Skeleton Key to the Rise of Trump.” Politico insists that “the Trump campaign … paid rapt attention to meme culture from the start.” CNET helpfully explains that “what began as a backlash to a debate about how video games portray women led to an internet culture that ultimately helped sweep Donald Trump into office.” Chris Grant, editor-in-chief of Polygon, complains that “the overlap between Gamergate and Trump(ism) is astounding. GG was like the trial run for this whole mess.” The Independent, a British paper, speaks out against the “very geeky” Trump supporters of the alt-right, and claims that “The uncomfortable truth, that should worry anyone praying for a Trump defeat, is that the Alt-right following he has tapped into are more numerous and unpredictable than traditional political commentators understand.” And so on. And for every article that explicitly draws a connection between internet-based youth countercultures and Trump, there are a dozen more that simply make a point of mentioning them in the same breath, and let the reader work out the connection for himself. Trump… Gamergate… Trump… neckbeards… Trump… 4chan… Trump!

At this point, it’s worth taking a step back from the phenomenon of heavy internet users failing for the first time to line up in lockstep behind the Democrats, and looking at the bigger picture. Trump’s electoral success was not driven by the alt-right; it was driven by the usual factors. To make a long story short, Trump won because Clinton ran a bad campaign and took unpopular positions on the issues. Insofar as the election was unusual, it wasn’t because Trump posted a picture of a cartoon frog — Clinton made her own bids for pop-cultural relevance, as did her husband when he took out his saxophone on Arsenio Hall’s show in 1992 — but because Clinton, in violation of a long-standing norm, directly insulted large swathes of the voting population with her “basket of deplorables” line.

Trump’s success is also not unusual in a global context. In recent years, Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz won a supermajority in Hungary and proceeded to rewrite the Hungarian constitution to declare Hungary a Christian nation and ensure the electoral dominance of Fidesz for the foreseeable future. Britain voted to leave the European Union, and politicians like Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, and Andrzej Duda became household names among the set that pays attention to international politics. Trump is not a uniquely American phenomenon; if anything, he’ll likely prove to be a more moderate parallel to the trends sweeping Europe, just as FDR paralleled the European extremists of the Depression years. Of course, these trends are not just sweeping Europe, as is proven by the victories in Asia of politicians like Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Duterte.

This global trend simply could not have been caused by an obscure piece of American fandom drama. Gamergate and 4chan cannot have contributed to the rise of the right, because the rise of the right happened to approximately the same extent in countries outside the Anglosphere and outside the cultural reach of Anglosphere nerd culture. Even Vox, which once described Trump as “the first Republican nominee whose ethos owes more to 4chan and Gamergate than it does the Bible,” has found that “polarization is accelerating fastest among those using the internet the least.”

Nor could Trump’s rise to power have been substantially helped along by pictures of cartoon frogs. A full analysis of Trump’s victory is beyond the scope of this article, but it borders on delusion to believe that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were flipped by 4chan trolls, rather than by such ordinary factors as Trump’s more popular positions on the key issues of immigration and trade and Clinton’s failure to run a functional campaign.

The internet has, however, reshaped American politics; just not in the way pundits say it has. The main effects have been on the left, not the right.

The most obvious effect is that leftists, especially those in the fields that shape and promulgate leftist doctrine, spend a lot of time online. Journalists spend less time cultivating networks of sources and more time ‘building their brand’ and interacting with other journalists; academics network on Twitter; and so on. Connection matters more than ever, and the internet has weakened local scenes and replaced them with placeless ones. Indie game developers from all over the world, for example, can compete for the attention of the largely U.S.-coastal ‘mainstream’ games journalism industry, whose writers are of course all on the same mailing lists, not to mention following each other on Twitter. Journalists, academics, political advisors and the like disappear into their own world — a world where it’s acceptable to wage war on large parts of one’s own audience, or to lead a mainstream presidential candidate to insult a large part of the voting population. And the scenes that are best able to capture the attention of this world will gain power, influence, and the propagation of their norms.

One scene that has been markedly successful in capturing the attention of the journalistic world is the one that developed from the pay-to-post forum Something Awful. Originally a humor site, it became one of the most influential sites on the internet — you probably know that 4chan was created by a Something Awful regular, and that its initial userbase drew heavily from SA. Its influence on politics, however, extends far beyond 4chan. Buckle up, folks: you’re in for a long, confusing, and terrible ride.

In the essay “Exiting the Vampire Castle,” Mark Fisher, who was roundly condemned for writing it and killed himself three years later, attacked not only the identitarianism that has metastasized in academia since the ’60s, an identitarianism in which “the sheer mention of class is now automatically treated as if that means one is trying to downgrade the importance of race and gender,” but also the “paralysing feeling of guilt and suspicion which hangs over left-wing twitter like an acrid, stifling fog” and the “kangaroo courts and character assassinations” that are, as anyone who has observed the state of the left today, overwhelmingly common. This guilt and suspicion, these kangaroo courts and character assassinations, need not have anything to do with politics; in one memorable instance, a once-popular Tumblr communist blogger with the sadly real URL of “fuckyeahmarxismleninism” was dogpiled and laughed into irrelevance for admitting to watching My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic with his daughters. This was seen as a far worse faux pas than even his support of North Korea. I am, unfortunately, not making this up; I saw it all happen firsthand.

These aren’t the kangaroo courts of Stalin. What they are is the schoolyard courts of Helldump, a Something Awful subforum created for the strange purpose of being a schoolyard court. The Something Awful wiki speaks for itself here: “The official birth of Helldump 2000 spawned a new creative outlet for pedophiles, racists, bigots, Ron Paul supporters, gun zealots, defenders of anime and otherwise crap posters to be outed in a thorough, convincing manner by an astute civilian task force. Essentially, it checks and balances the stupidity that seeps its way into the forums as a whole, although (unfortunately) it does not function as a preventive treatment (shit posters still propagate at an alarming rate). Rather, the modus operandi of Helldump is to profile and insult the (assumed) poor goon for his questionable views, and in turn function as a virtual tourniquet in an attempt to stop the bleeding, as well as force said shit poster into online anonymity and/or reclusiveness.” In practice, most of what Helldump did was dogpile furries.

As a side note, internet lore has it that the population of Helldump regulars itself skewed furry. This is not terribly out of the norm for Something Awful, the admin of which employed Shmorky for ten years before firing him on the sensible grounds that he was “secretly into pedophilia incest diaper shitting roleplay” and allegedly “would get way too excited over [SA admin Lowtax’s kids] coming to the office.” (Shmorky has also been reported to at least have once been friends with Rebecca Sugar, the creator of the TV show Steven Universe, which has a remarkably Shmorky-like art style and has as its target demographic the same Tumblr crowd that Shmorky fell in with.)

Zoe Quinn herself was a SA member under the username Eris, and participated in at least one Helldump dogpile. It’s often believed that Gamergate began when her ex-boyfriend posted a ‘callout’ of her abusive behaviors, cheating, and so on — the “Zoe Post” — on 4chan, but he actually joined Something Awful to post it there first. He was quickly banned for it, and the ban message reads: “Thank you for joining the Something Awful Forums in order to post a giant loving psychopathic helldump about your ex-girlfriend in the forum about video games.” (The original phrasing was “giant fucking psychopathic helldump,” but SA has wordfilters.) The belief in a connection between Helldump and ‘callout culture’ is held by the SA moderators themselves.

Helldump was closed after two years, and many of its regulars migrated to a different subforum, Laissez’s Fair, “the original Dirtbag Left.” The SA wiki entry for LF helpfully explains that it was “opened up to put all the Ron Paul shit” and became a “refugee holding bay” for Helldump after the latter was closed. “Over time people started making effort posts about such things the nightmare that is our criminal justice system, social justice in general, as well as the ideas of Karl Marx. The lack of moderation was made up for by basically shouting people out of the forum who were stupid MRAs and concern trolls. Gradually the complexion of the forum shifted from liberal to socialist.” Eventually, LF was closed, because “LF posters went internet detective on mods and posted death threats,” including several to then-President Obama.

At least two regulars on Helldump and LF went on to get careers in journalism. Jeb Lund, who wrote a vague and rambling essay about his posting career for Gawker, went by “Boniface” and “Mobutu Sese Seko” on Something Awful. Under the former pseudonym, he threatened a Helldump victim: “how about you promise never to post here again on pain of being permabanned, otherwise there’s no reason for all the posters here with lexis-nexis to stop at just your email addresses and not go straight for driver’s license photos and info, tax records… the list goes on and on.” Sam Kriss was (or at least was widely believed to be) Dead Ken, as well as Red Ken, Dub Mapocho, Agenbite Inwit, Dead Skeng, and presumably other accounts. After LF was removed from SA, its regulars established and migrated to explicitly Communist forums offsite; he was a regular on one such forum, “tHE rHizzonE”, which was later given some sort of contest by the leftist magazine The Baffler, whose editor was “a fan” of said forum. (Sam Kriss has written for the Baffler.)

Many people from the more leftist parts of SA went on to become “Weird Twitter,” which was puffed by outlets like Buzzfeed. John Herrman and Katie Notopoulos, the authors of the linked piece, gravitated toward LF superstars on Twitter and tried to replicate their style. Some of them, such as Lund, Kriss, David Thorpe (who had a regular column on SA and is now a music journalist), Virgil Texas, Jon Hendren (who was, as docevil, once an admin of the “Fuck You And Die” (FYAD) subforum, but was shamed off the site after a bizarre incident involving a charity event featuring Smash Mouth and Guy Fieri), and Alex Nichols, parlayed those connections into posting careers.

Herrman also profiled a Weird Twitter poster, @CelestialBeard, whose claim to fame was tweeting a lot, and being followed by Herrman on Twitter. @CelestialBeard has since become a transgender brony.

From Weird Twitter, which attracted and assimilated people who weren’t active in SA’s leftist cliques (such as Felix Biederman and Virgil Texas, who just lurked), came Chapo Trap House, darling of every obscure Slate clone from Brooklyn to Queens. Chapo has featured several SA regulars, including Alex Nichols (@Lowenaffchen), who was active on LF as Golden Lion Tamarin (his Twitter username used to be @GLDNLNTMRN), and Dan O’Sullivan (@Bro_Pair), a now-banned former SA moderator whose username is now Fat Curtain Dweller. It’s interesting that a podcast heralded for ‘actually giving a shit’ comes from a subculture that began as pure trolling.

Providing a precise accounting of the impact of Something Awful on the Anglosphere left is difficult, as it would be with any subculture. The history is oral, largely lost, deliberately obfuscated, and shrouded in irony. It is likely that nothing will come of it, and that, in the end, it will be the farce mirroring the tragedy of neoconservatism: an insane political movement that developed out of a bizarre and insular clique in a world where having the right connections matters above all else, writing things that very few people care about but doing a great deal of damage along the way. It seems that the norms of Helldump have become callout culture, SA users’ trolling of the libertarians corralled in LF have become the dirtbag left, and some of those responsible have written for not only Gawker and Buzzfeed, but also The New York Times.

At the very least, the overlap in population is clear and suggestive. Someone can go from being repeatedly banned from a pay-to-post forum for something involving the word “nigger” to writing for the Guardian, the Atlantic and the New York Times, largely on the dubious strength of his Twitter account and forum fame. There are few lessons that can be drawn from this; the obvious one is that perhaps the media rewards expertise less than connectedness.

I’m told that this is what Gamergate was about. But there are many things I’ve been told Gamergate was about. The internet is something awful indeed. And it’s only going to get worse.

[playunderground]

Introducing OVERSOUL: An Interview with Derrick Saladino

Last month, I had the pleasure of sitting down with Derrick Saladino to talk about his brand, OVERSOUL. When he pitched OVERSOUL to me in his initial email, he described it as “a lifestyle brand created from identity crisis,” and that “counterculture/subcultures like anime, gamer, emo-punk, euro-techno, and underground hiphop/b-boy culture heavily influence the brand’s creative direction.” I stared hard at the first two influences, and then stared not-as-hard at the rest of the influences, wondering how these various subcultures could overlap.

My brain being comprised of worms and dirt, I assumed that the anime and gamer influences meant that the designs were going to look like Bart Drinking Lean or Sasuke Wearing Supreme. (In other words, a caricature of anime-inspired Instagram ad streetwear.) This assumption changed quickly after taking a look at OVERSOUL’s site. Their first collection, ISEKAI, is comprised of three pieces. The logo tee and hoodie both look great, but the third piece was what really caught my attention: it’s a button-down tee adorned with daggers. At a glance, it looks nothing like anime- or gaming-inspired clothing. This was the point at which I snapped out of my irony-poisoned haze; the world of memeified, ironic-but-not-quite-ironic hentai tees and Goku Smoking Weed edits had calcified my expectations of what forms of inspiration a brand could and couldn’t pull.

It makes sense in the context of the rest of his influences and the ethos that he operates under – to get ahead of myself for a second, Derrick had this to say of his interest in various countercultures:

"When people express their passions or life to a certain degree, it just pulls me in. It’s like, ‘Okay, I don’t know what the fuck it is, but show me. Let me indulge.’ That’s really how I get into things."

In talking to Derrick, on and off the record, I saw a talented designer who was unapologetic about what he was interested in and passionate about. He’s also a huge geek that runs a bi-weekly Smash tournament at a local nightclub.

(This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)

"Okay, wait, first and foremost, my name is Derrick Saladino and I am a fucking gamer. Before being a designer or anything, I am a fucking gamer. "

Daniel: What is OVERSOUL? 

Derrick: OVERSOUL is about identity crisis. It’s my experience dealing with that personally. Growing up, I never really fit in to particular popular groups. Every time I would attempt to make new friends, I would stumble upon the randomest shit: anime culture, gamer culture, I’d end up becoming friends with a lot of emo-punk kids, techno. Nothing that I fell into was mainstream, popular culture. It was a lot to do with being lonely and trying to make friends. With OVERSOUL, thinking about all that kind of shit, dealing with identity crisis – obviously there’s a lot of people who’ve been through that – I want to create a new identity or community of people who share similar values and, you know, take pride in it? 

I mean, even the name, OVERSOUL, I ripped the word from this really old anime that I used to watch growing up, Shaman King.

Shaman King? What the hell, like 4Kids shit?

Yeah. That wasn’t the first anime that I ever watched, but it was something that I was really into. From being like 12 to even later in my high school, I just loved it. The concept was so cool – taking a soul and imbuing it in an object to make it powerful. It just looked fuckin’ sick. When people wear my clothes, I want them to feel empowered. That’s how I want people to see it. Soul being clothing, putting it on yourself, there you go.

Spirit Integration is, I don’t think the tagline to the brand, but it’s also part of it. Spirit Integration is mind, body, and spirit, and for anyone into the spiritual side of life, that’s what makes us. Our thoughts and mind and DNA – that makes us who we are.

When I read the description on your site, I noted that you referred to OVERSOUL as not just a startup streetwear thing or a brand, but a conceptual design experience. What does this encompass, and why did you pick this specific wording?

None of the stuff I make or have made in the past is very conventional. It’s been pretty avant-garde, I would say. I’ll have an idea, and regardless of whatever trend is going on right now, I just fucking do it. When I make clothes, I’m not making clothes for the public, really. My mentality is more like, “You know what would be sick in a game? If the costume looked like this.” That’s why I say it’s a conceptual design experience.

Has being involved in the industry and working behind the scenes affected how you understand your own brand after launching? What about how you understand customers and other brands, now that you know what the design process is like?

First-off, let me just back up and go over a history of what I did before OVERSOUL. In high school, I made clothing because I hated what everyone else was wearing. This was 2011-2013. During that time, that’s when I had a brand and brands like Obey, Diamond Supply, and The Hundreds – literally peak Tumblr hypebeast, Zumiez, starter pack shit – were around. I looked around at everyone else and was like, “I can’t click that, it’s not resonating with me.”  I had two other brands after that, and then came OVERSOUL. So I have this history of kind of knowing the market, even being a consumer, and evolving as a businessman and designer. I don’t think anything has changed. I think I’ve always stayed true to doing my own shit, rather than trying to compete with everybody else. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll notice what other designers are doing and some things I’ll take note of or inspo from but I hardly think about other people, to be honest. I respect everyone’s hustle, I just can’t be doing the same shit.

Give me your top 3 video game fits.

Top 3, oh my god. Snake from Metal Gear Solid V – very techwear, utility as fuck. My previous brand before this was techwear, and I had to stop it because techwear is so hard to sell. 

I’m really into draping fashion. Cloud, Final Fantasy VII, it was the movie Advent Children – you play Smash, right? There’s two costumes in there: the black, and like this, not really skirt, but it covers up somewhat? All-black, huge sash going on, it reminded me of Yohji Yamamoto.

Something that I’m going to make in the future is inspired by Naoto from Blazblue. His outfit, I looked at it and I was like, “Yo, this could be fucking, like Chrome Hearts, like what the fuck? I’m just gonna abuse this character design, it looks amazing.” I think that fashion right now, what really gets people’s attention on social media, is just some crazy shit, I don’t mean dumb shit, but like, just has to be very bold, and I think that’s what Naoto’s character design is. His pants have this huge cross on them. I think that’s one of the most crazy things I’ve seen in awhile.

Let’s talk about Anime-den! It’s this thing that we started roughly 5 months ago. One of my best friends here, he actually works at Fortune [Sound Club, a nightclub in Chinatown], and he’s a music producer. We really bonded over clothes, anime and gaming, and we had this idea – I think we were just high as fuck one day – and I’m like, “Yo, you know what would be fucking dope? If we brought weeb shit into the club.” I think he was just joking around, but he was like, “That would be really fun to set up, we can do it.” 

[Weeb being short for weaboo, a pejorative term referring to those obsessed with Japanese culture to the point of fetishization and idolization. It’s been ‘reclaimed’ by some fans of anime, used ironically as a form of self-deprecation.]

So, the next day happens, we’re talking, and he asks me, “Do you actually wanna do it?”, taking it seriously. I’m astonished. I was fucking joking, you know? We were just some high guys. He pitches the idea to Fortune and they approve it. At this point, we’re like, “Okay, we gotta actually invest all our effort into this,” because we’re actually gonna do something that I personally haven’t seen anybody do before – bringing a game into a club, anime into the club.

It’s really cool. Just yesterday, the commentator from Vancouver Street Battle came to Anime-den. Pride? He commentated for Battle of BC 3 and Pinnacle. He has ties with Animebae, too. [Animebae is a local anime-inspired startup streetwear brand.] Who would’ve thought that this guy would come through? And he brought his friends. He was telling us that what we’re doing is sick, and hearing this from a guy of that calibre in the gaming or Smash community, it really shook us. We’re actually bringing in people who play the game seriously here. 

How has setting it in a club made it different from other tournaments that you’ve been to? How does the dynamic change?

It’s a little different because when it comes to actual competitive events, people have a different mentality when they enter. They’re there to win and they practice hard for it. As for Anime-den, it’s the total opposite. It’s very casual, we’re all just drinking, blazing, whatever. It’s just the environment where, you know, dim light in a club, there’s music going on in the back –I guess to some gamers it can seem distracting? But I think people, they don’t care. They just play. They’re just there to have fun. Totally different dynamic from an actual event. 

I think that the purpose of Anime-den is to bring people together. That’s literally what Anime-den is for.

Yeah, I just noted here that I think it’s consistent with your brand, in that you’re translating the intangibility of these digital spaces like anime and gaming that people bond over, and you’re putting it into a physical space and letting people actually further develop what these subcultures would look like in person. Like, when you think of anime or gaming in real life you think of Anime Expo or cosplaying or some shit – and that’s fine, people have fun with that [Editor’s note – I think it’s fun!] – but it’s not the only mode of expression. With events like this, I think it’s cool that you’re saying, “If you’re a gamer, there’s another avenue for you. You don’t have to dress up or anything…”

I mean, walking in today and meeting you, you wouldn’t have gotten the idea that I was super into anime or gaming. I just look like a regular dude, right? And my clothing gets inspired by it, but I don’t really look like I’m cut from the legit anime cloth. Choosing these lifestyles and putting it into this real aspect, I think it can appeal to everybody. People tend to judge a lot of things, but once you step into the Anime-den room, whatever perspective you have about anime to begin with, I’m pretty sure that changes. Man, the crowd, they look all the same as you do too. We’re all normal people, we just like cool shit.

I think we should talk about ISEKAI.

OVERSOUL’s first small collection was ISEKAI. Translated to English, it would be ‘a better world,’ and I named it that based off of the anime genre, isekai. When you watch these sort of things, it’s usually someone going to another world. For my first collection, I wanted to welcome people to my world. That’s why I chose ISEKAI. One of the big graphics for the brand was the blade shirt. [On the site, it’s name is the Beginners Dagger Shirt.] My reference for that was playing MMORPGs. Typically, the first weapon you get [in MMORPGs] is a short sword or dagger. I wanted to be like, “This is the start of my brand.” This is your starter item. It’s funny, when I tell people this – they’re always like, “I never thought…”

[laughs] It’s really cool!

That’s why I went with ISEKAI. This is what my world is. One of OVERSOUL’s long-term goals is actually establishing ‘my world,’ if that makes sense? There’s only a handful of designers who have, like, captured a signature silhouette. For example, Rick Owens. When you see [a Rick Owens piece], you know it’s Rick Owens. If Zara did the same shit as Rick Owens, you would look at it and be like, “That’s Rick Owens.” You wouldn't call it Zara. That’s what I’m trying to establish for myself, to create that silhouette for myself eventually in the future.

What’s up next for OVERSOUL? 

Hmm, how should I put this... should I leak something? I’m going to drop an accessories part sometime soon. That’s in the design process right now, but I’m looking forward to doing my next big collection.

There’s this one song that I found in the past during my peak weeb days: Plastic Love by Mariya Takeuchi. A couple of months ago, they released the first official music video for it, after like 35 years, which is fucking insane – they should have done that a long time ago. I totally forgot about the song until I saw the music video. It’s something that I could relate to before and can relate to now, and I definitely want to build my next collection based on Plastic Love.

I think Plastic Love works really well because I’m surrounded by that scene in Vancouver – I work in Yaletown, and that’s the Yaletown lifestyle. It’s very lustful, but you don’t care. It’s all fake shit, really. That’s what Yaletown culture sorta is. I wouldn’t say that I’m like that, but I think that I could definitely expand on the topic through my brand. It’s not necessarily identity crisis, but the genre and artist kind of make it a subculture.

There’s also a few collabs on the way. One with a music group, another with a tattoo artist. What I really wanna do with the tattoo artist – he does anime tattoos – is ero art. Like, erotica. I think it’s a slept-on art style. It’s not generally for the public, per se, so I think that it would be something worth making. Super ecchi, maybe line art. I want it very exaggerated, even bondage-type shit. 

There’s a lot of things where people are like, “Oh, that’s too much!” But you know what, it could be sick! This is why I do things solely for myself. As long as I get a reaction from somebody, I’m happy with that. Wanting a response, not even approval, just being acknowledged, that this shit exists, it motivates me to keep doing what I do. 

I thought about doing graphic design shit; anime erotica art goes really well with techno. That kind of scene, the way that European style posters are, if you take the art and fuse them together, it works really well. I’m like, “How come no one has done this yet?” 

So you’re treating it more like art and not just a part of anime culture?

I view anime as its own respective art, and with art, there’s no rules, so I can just take this and this, and bang. At the end of the day, everybody wants to see new and cool things. People are always going to have their own subjective opinions, but as long as you have their attention, you’ve already won the battle. That’s the mentality that I carry, that everyone has their own opinions. 

Last question: what are your top 5 video games?

You know, I was trying to prepare for this interview – I didn’t even think this would come up.

[laughs] Come on, man.

I’m gonna put Super Smash Bros. Melee on there – I’ve been playing it for so long, it’s literally been bonded with my DNA. 

I don’t wanna say Ocarina of Time, because I think that it’s everyone’s favourite, but I mean, it’s still up there. It’s an all-time masterpiece, but I enjoyed Majora’s Mask a lot more. The concept of the world being blown up by the moon, in-game time, the moon crashes in like 3 days, and you keep going back in time, skipping whatever, I think it was so much fun, so yeah. 

I really like Fire Emblem: Three Houses. It’s very recent, but I have so many hours on it already, and I can’t stop. I haven’t felt this way about a game in a long time. It’s so replayable. Once you finish Ocarina of Time, you probably don’t touch it for a while. When you play FE, you’re like, okay, let’s do the next one. There’s three houses! Even after doing all three, it’s like, “Oh, I’m gonna try again, but I’m gonna make this character like this.”

I grew up playing a lot of Roller Coaster Tycoon, unfortunately, but it’s fun. It’s not a typical gamer thing, but I love it. 

I might put Final Fantasy VII on there, too – when Aerith died, I real-life teared up, like, “Dude, no way, you’re really gonna kill her off like that? You gotta save her!”… and then she dies. I’m pretty sure after that happened, I didn’t touch the game for a week. I was actually emotionally harmed. I’m really into RPGs – being able to emotionally attach yourself to characters, I think it’s a beautiful thing. 

Any last things you wanna say?

I want my brand comparable to Chrome Hearts, MISBHV or Rude [Vogue]; when they have their own aesthetic and that’s what they do, that’s what I want to build as well. The idea that I take a lot of inspiration from gaming, it really shows.

Maybe I’m hungover, so I can’t really find the words right now, but for anyone trying to do fashion, music, whatever, as saturated as the community seems at the moment, you just have to get your foot in the door and start. Yeah, there’s competition, but to be honest, with all the people here who have brands, I’m friends with all of the people who make them, and I have no judgement about if their clothes are wack or not. Some things I don’t agree with, but everyone’s on the same hustle.

OVERSOUL’s ISEKAI collection is available now online at oversoul.online. 

[gothprentiss]

i know this (the whole post i’ve screenshotted) is like probably, as discourse goes, quite helpful and compelling, if we assume that anyone still participating in the Queer vs Q Slur Discourse is doing so in good faith rather than to merely spell out their immovable beliefs in increasingly condescending terms but every time i see this i do think— are you sure this is what’s at stake?

like yes, sure, on one hand queerness is a great way to explore how difference is constructed against a nonexistent but enforced ideal. every oversimplified intro to theory book will tell you this— we’re all a little bit queer, proclaims some self professed Theory Expert who then will go on to say shit which wouldn’t pass even the most glancing homophobia smell test in the vacuum of space. and it’s true that some dude who only learned about bisexuality last year can also confidently describe himself as queer and claim that you are, too, because plenty of straight men very fruitily think strong women are hot. i promise i’m not making this up. any disability studies intro of any theoretical complexity should make the same central point: the normative body is not one which is actually common to all abled people, and the categories of the different and the other are constructed and enforced. i agree with this principle and am not trying to be dismissive but i do also want to point out that a lot of the time this is not being treated as an ethos or a political impetus but rather as an analytic. now you might say the three overlap— sure— but largely what’s going on here forms a larger scale deconstructionist project, which strikes me as being its own underlying ethic.

but my actual beeves are two.

first, i’m wary of the practice of— even just as an offhand comment— aligning queer as a broad term of identity— and now, irrevocably, of demographic— with queer theory. there are the obvious problems (which in this context are, i think, kind of beside the point but still relevant) of accessibility and anti-intellectualism. there is also the problem of what queer theory largely does. this is of course malleable and debatable but it is genuinely a project of deconstruction, which does not seek, ultimately, to assert difference as a unifying factor, except to the extent that it unifies all as different. this creates quite a notable difficulty as a way of stating or claiming an identity, because the binary of “normal” and “different” being invoked here is what this strand of theory is a useful tool for undermining. treating queer theory as synonymous with queer as a term of identity is like the new electric hummer (i’m being flippant). obviously there is also the fact of like— queerness means different things for different people. queer theory has different aims and philosophies. in all settings you run into the problem of a universal which also atomizes. this is probably a very useful thought process for a lot of people! as i’ve said, the capacity to accept difference without articulating frankly arbitrary ‘bad’ kinds of difference (i mean ‘don’t talk to me if you support he/him lesbians’ not like ‘i block pedos and terfs’, these being two distinct kinds of policing the conceptualization and expression of gender and sexuality, i have zero probz with the latter) is one that is really underdeveloped even among the Different community. but the problem is that that’s not the trajectory of queer theory— it’s a singular basic assumption for its practice.

the second thing isn’t really a beef so much as like… a thing to say. it’s that, okay, we’re articulating ourselves as different. we do so in order to insist on the importance, value, and normality of that difference. there is a widespread societal construct of normal, which is Good and Right and Moral. we seek to assert that we, too, are Good and Right and Moral, or that Good and Right and Moral do not meaningfully inhere in the practice or performance of sexuality and gender, or other things about these categories. does this identity have any meaning or coherence outside of that? now you might be like, jesus christ, who cares, this is our political reality and the discourse is still too much of a shitshow to be spitballing about our utopian gender and sexuality future. which is true! but think of it this way: out of gay and lesbian studies, out of gender and sexuality studies, we get the largely deconstructionist tool of queer theory. queer theory itself comes from a history of sexuality (both in the general sense that it’s enabled by the capacity to construct one, and it’s heavily enabled by foucault’s), and specifically from the fact that sexuality’s history is one which precedes and exceeds our labels and our capacity to assign them. so the question of what outcomes we imagine and desire in this coalition is also the question of our ability to articulate, beyond what we are, what the parameters of that we are. like this is just blah blah can we call sappho a lesbian-style discourse but at a more annoying lexile level. like if, and when, i call myself a lesbian, and queer, those are two different labels, with two different sets of implications for me and how i find community. how am i to conceptualize those identities beyond how they relate to me and my world? what sorts of histories can i construct or claim for myself and my community as a result? i’m kind of unconcerned with the issue of labeling as it relates to the past and the consent of those who we now perceive as voiceless, insofar as the problem there isn’t merely of labelling but of the ethics of historiography as a whole, on one hand, and the ethics and articulation of that label on the other.

and the other thing is that, like, are we required across history to identify ourselves in the negative space of society’s various enforced norms, and only ever by the impacts of its cudgel? (not conflating the two but) an interesting point of comparison is the work of someone like saidiya hartman, who i think would identify her work as african american studies well before calling it critical race theory, but also whose work is extremely formative in both fields and their intersections + collisions + entanglements(?). the legacy of enslavement is a historical record which extends in its effacement beyond the typical one-sidedness inherent in all historiography, and the critical practice hartman develops in response to the violent construction of this archive is fabulation, which is creative and generalizing. again, not conflating race and sexuality. different tools and methods and histories. the point really is just that theory produces histories in ways which are extremely important to how we conceptualize both community & justice, and what futures we imagine for those concepts, & i think hartman’s one of the more important examples of this.

this is long bc i’ve always kind of thought queer as in identity and queer as in theory are functionally different terms but with obvious and far-reaching interconnections, and i’m trying to substantiate that. maybe my point is that i don’t see the point of being like “i’m queer and that entails theory” when what you seem to mean is that, like, all labels have an underlying theory, rather than like, actual queer theory, or the obligation to engage in/with theory. arguably the point here is that in practice is not in theory, and the problem with theory is always of moving between the general to the particular, which i think is too rarely considered as a matter of time/history as well. what does articulating queerness mean going forward, and looking back? and if you’re like this Literally doesn’t matter then like, cool, awesome, so we agree they’re separate concepts because the question of history is inextricable from our capacity to engage in queer theory. as you were

[pavspatch]

No lack of a plan at Celtic, says enthusiastic new boss Willcock

EVEN the supporters compare the job to a poisoned chalice. It's 19 years since the club won a trophy, and ten since they seriously challenged for a title. Managers of the ilk of Jim Harvey, Steve Burr and Liam Watson have tried, failed and left sadder and wiser men.

Yet Chris Willcock not only wants the Stalybridge Celtic job, he fully believes he can be the one to achieve a change in fortunes. And while he says he wasn't one of the applicants who called Celtic a sleeping giant at the interview stage, he doesn't disagree with the description.

He also rejects any suggestion of a lack of ambition at Bower Fold or of a plan to move forward. What's more, he says it's an honour to get the chance to manage his hometown club.

"I didn’t use the term 'sleeping giant' but the team I’ve just left, Workington, could be described as one, too. They’re a former Football League side and you could make the same comparison. They haven't had too many good seasons over the last decade," said Willcock.

"Every club I’ve been at was in a similar situation to Stalybridge but I was able to pick them up, get the place back on its feet, kick on and have some success. That’s what I plan for the future at Bower Fold.

"Stalybridge Celtic is my hometown club and I’m looking to rejuvenate it and create an input and an imprint on them going forward.

"Things haven’t gone well in previous years, so the fans will have their opinions. I aim to come in and sweep away the cobwebs. But my plan is to do that with a little broom as I set out to create a new ethos."

Willcock joins Celtic from Workington, whom he led to second place in the Pitching In NPL first division west last season. Pacesetters for most of the campaign, they finished second to big-spending Warrington Rylands by a single point having lost only four league games.

He also managed at Ramsbottom and Mossley, but is perhaps best known for his four years at Glossop North End when he led the Hillmen to the North West Counties League championship in 2015, the NPL first division north play-offs in 2016, and most memorably the 2015 FA Vase final at Wembley.

Pointing out he has never been in charge of a club that finished in the lower half of the table, Willcock believes he can do the same at Stalybridge and put an end to the run of seasons where Celtic have "ended up where they don't want to be".

Willcock says he has clear, achievable goals for next season and a competitive budget, adding: "It’s not for me to comment on the previous manager’s time in charge, but I understand the feeling was that there was no plan for going forward in the short, medium or long term. That’s not what I’ve found.

"There are some really exciting things going on in the background which I’m certain the chairman will elaborate on during the season as I will with team matters. I'm really looking forward to it.

"The way it works with me is that I’m generally given a club’s expectations and then try to exceed them, even over-exceed them. The club sets a target, I set a bigger target, and we meet somewhere in between."

True to his small-broom philosophy, Willcock plans to give the current squad every chance. He is in the process of contacting all the players to seek their thoughts on last season and see whether they want to be part of a new era with a new manager.

"If I find I need to add in some areas then I will do, or they may all want to leave which would mean I'd have to do a total rebuild. Until I’ve spoken to everyone I can’t say. I want to use a small broom but it might have to be a big one. I’ll wait and see what the reaction is before I make any adjustments."

Willcock is open to meeting the fans but in a different way. Rather than the traditional question-and-answer session he wants them to join him in pre-season work parties at the ground.

"I’m looking to do something that benefits the club," he explained. "I’ll be there getting stuck in with everyone else, and as we work there’ll be plenty of chance to discuss Stalybridge Celtic and other football matters."

As a Stalybridge resident for the last 27 years, Willcock sees it as an honour to manage his hometown club.

He said: "You don’t often get the chance to do that. I’m really looking forward to rejuvenating the place. We need the supporters back in there and I want to create a real legacy where we’re competing at the right end of the table.

"When Celtic were in the Conference and Conference North I used to be on the terraces. I remember those derbies with Hyde and Droylsden. All three clubs had great managers and great teams, and there used to be packed houses at Bower Fold.

"They were really special times that have left me with lots of very good memories. Stalybridge Celtic is a club that’s very close to my heart."

[grapevynerendezvous]

The Byrds - Fifth Dimension

The album Fifth Dimension took flight following two ground-breaking albums that had melded the innovative essentials of the British Invasion with the burgeoning folk-pop music scene happening in the U.S. With the release of their first album The Byrds blended those styles into what came to be known as folk-rock. Although they may not have been the only ones to do this, nor the actual first to produce it, they became the most influential artists to do so. With Fifth Dimension, things took a left turn straight into the stratosphere of psychedelia and toward Raga as well, plus a bit of a right turn toward country music. The album contained all that, although it was perhaps not so well executed as their first record.

In March 1966 the single Eight Miles High b/w Why was released for take off. It turned people, as the saying goes, on their ears. The band and their manager Jim Dickson recorded the two songs at RCA Studios in December 1965, and those songs were a creative leap for them. According to Columbia all recording had to take place at the label’s studios and, with their house producers. The re-recording took place in January. The bulk of the song was written by band member Gene Clark, who had become the band’s primary songwriter, but Roger (Jim) McGuinn and David Crosby were co-writers. By the time the song came out Clark had departed. The “official reason given for his departure was it was due to his fear of flying which prevented “him from fulfilling his obligations with the group”, according to Johnny Rogan in his book, The Byrds: Timeless Flight Revisited. The reality was that it also had something to do with general anxiety issues. Of course, there was that little affair with a certain “Mama” in another up and coming band as the year progressed.

The remaining quartet, McGuinn, Crosby, Chris Hillman and Michael Clarke were left to complete the album which was recorded over the next three months and released in July. The other single that was released, 5D (Fifth Dimension) b/w the instrumental, Captain Soul, came out one month before the album. The two singles were victims of being banned due to alleged drug references by certain stations and markets. This, in part at least, helped prevent them from going higher on the charts than they did. Eight Miles High, which topped out at No.14 on Billboard and 24 on UK Singles, was also cited for being comparably noncommercial and complex for the average listener. 5D (Fifth Dimension) was another, perhaps even more psychedelic track, that only reached 44 on Billboard and never charted in the U.K. The composer, Jim McGuinn, was being cerebral and metaphysical in his approach to the song, trying to explain Einstein’s theory of relativity while also citing Don Landis’ book 1-2-3-4 More, More, More, More as inspiration. Yet a large amount of the audience was interpreting the abstract lyrics as relating to an LSD trip. The other songs written by McGuinn for the album were also eclectic. Mr. Spaceman, which got some radio airplay in some areas, was definitely a lean into country music with by no means typical country style lyrics. 2-4-2 Fox Trot (The Lear Jet Song) was novelty song. The main characters of the song were a Lear jet and a pilot preparing to take off in it while the band sang a ten-word phrase repeatedly throughout the entire song. The next song on the album, I See You, co-written by McGuinn and David Crosby, has a jazzy feel and contains some effective 12-string guitar solos. What’s Happening!? is David Crosby’s lone solo composition on the album and presaged his hippie ethos rants to come. Crosby was also the catalyst for including his version of the garage rock song Hey Joe that The Leaves made into a Top 40 hit. The Leaves version came after hearing both The Byrds and Love play it at shows in the LA area. It is a song that is said to have been written by Billy Roberts. There are other claims to its’ authorship as well, but Roberts holds the copyright. Crosby brought it to the band in the first place and wanted to record it before they had gone into the studio. The rest of the band was not excited about it, but by the time they were in the Fifth Dimension session Crosby was was so angry because The Leaves already had a hit and Love had also recorded it, that they agreed to let him sing it on the album. Wild Mountain Thyme, credited as a traditional song, is more directly associated with the song adapted by Belfast musician Francis McPeake and first recorded by his family in the 1950s. The source was an Irish/Scottish folk song, the lyrics and melody being a variant of  Robert Tannahill and Robert Archibald Smith’ The Braes of Balquhither. The McPeake basis of this was related to me by Belfast musician, and former band member with Van Morrison, Kevin Brennan, who had personally known the McPeakes. All four band members were responsible for the instrumental Captain Soul, and they are also credited for arranging the other traditional song on the album, John Riley, which is derived from Homer’s Odyssey and interpreted through 17th century English folk ballad tradition. It was recorded by Peter Seeger in 1950. I Come and Stand at Every Door is the closing song on the first side. It originated as a 1955 poem by Turkish poet Nâzım Hikmet (Ran), called Kız Çocuğu (The Girl Child). It was a plea for peace from a seven-year old girl who had died in the atomic bomb explosion in Hiroshima and has, of course, an anti-war message. The only composer in the album credits is Çocuğu, but he was only responsible for the Turkish poem he had written. The roots of the American song version emanate from a non-traditional melody composed by Jim Waters in 1954 to fit the lyrics of Child 113 ballad The Great Silkie of Sule Skerry. Pete Seeger describes the story behind his version of the song in his Where Have All the Flowers Gone: A Singer's Stories, Songs, Seeds, Robberies (A Musical Autobiography) (1993):: “Jeanette Turner did a loose English "singable translation" of the poem under a different title, I Come And Stand At Every Door, and sent a note to Seeger asking "Do you think you could make a tune for it?" in the late 1950s. After a week of trial and failure, this English translation was used by Seeger in 1962 with an adaptation of "an extraordinary melody put together by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology student James Waters, who had put a new tune to a mystical ballad The Great Silkie which he couldn't get out of his head, without permission." Seeger wrote in his Where Have All the Flowers Gone: A Singer's Stories, Songs, Seeds, Robberies (A Musical Autobiography) (1993), ”It was wrong of me. I should have gotten his permission. But it worked. The Byrds made a good recording of it, electric guitars and all.” Tom Clark, a poet who had a blog called Beyond the Pale, posted the poem with photos referencing Hiroshima and further discussion. Per his response further down in the comments 7 August 2015 at 03:32, “…… rest assured the credit situation had long since been settled up fair and square by the time Pete Seeger, at 90, did that amazing a capella version for Democracy Now. The song is now and forever copy(r)ighted c: Nazim Hikmet/James W. Waters.”

Eight Miles High was the last piece in the puzzle which determined if I was finally going to accept rock and roll as my musical lord and savior. Well at least one of my musical saviors anyway, jazz was already in my head. It came on the heals of music I was listening to in 1966 from the Animals, Outsiders, Young Rascals, Troggs, Syndicate of Sound, Kinks, Paul Revere & The Raiders and particularly The Yardbirds, with Shapes of Things. When I first heard Shapes of Things I knew I was hooked, and Eight Miles High confirmed it. Looking back, it appears I was wide open to the ideas of psychedelic music because both these songs have been identified as pioneers in that genre. My true turning point came when a classmate of mine and I were hanging out at school and he started asking me about my musical likes. This was not long after I had started hearing Eight Miles High on the radio and I finally admitted that I was getting hooked on rock music. I had that undeniable "gotta have it" experience going on, but I wasn't into buying 45s at that point and frankly thought it surely must be on an album. It turned out that album took an another four months from the single release to be issued. It felt like an eternity, especially since it still took me a few more months to finally buy Fifth Dimension. It is generally recognized that the Yardbirds’ song, with Jeff Beck’s Asian/Indian-Raga feedback-laden guitar solo, and the anti-war/pro-environmental lyrics, was the first popular psychedelic song. Eight Miles High, is likewise considered the first American popular psychedelic song, with The Byrds next single, 5D (Fifth Dimension), following up a few months later. What followed was a two to three-year period in which the new psychedelic music scene was explored from top to bottom, and sideways. Psychedelic music incorporated new playing techniques, use of unusual or unexpected instruments, new ideas in thought and expression. It most certainly was influenced by the growing use of drugs, particularly those labeled as psychedelics such as LSD. As was mentioned, both Eight Miles High and 5D failed to reach higher chart plateaus, at least at part, because of what was alleged to be drug references in the songs. Eight Miles High approximates the height at which jet airliners fly and was a reference to that experience. Latently both Roger McGuinn and David Crosby admitted that their own drug use had influenced their contributions to the song. McGuinn however, who wrote 5D (Fifth Dimension) as a reference to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, was disappointed by much of the listening audience assuming it was about drugs. What did he expect? It was 1966 after all, and perhaps that’s what they wanted it to be. Despite the psychedelic feel and abstract lyrics of 5D, McQuinn still somehow managed to make it sound country as well. The album ended up being a continuation of the folk-rock sound that The Byrds had helped pioneer with their first two albums. It also found them exploring what came to be known as country-rock.

A notable difference between Fifth Dimension and The Byrds’ first albums is that the band had five original compositions with four by Bob Dylan in each of them while Fifth Dimension contained eight by The Byrds and none by Dylan. The reviews of the album have been mixed, with some, such as New Express Magazine calling it "faultless" and a work that "heralds a newly psychedelic Byrds hung up on the archetypal acid-fixation with the unknown”, while others were disparaging. The general direction of criticism of the album was that it fell below the standards set by their first two albums, that it lacked energy, that it was “wildly uneven” per Richie Unterberger, or as Barney Hoskins in Mojo put it, "can't quite decide what sort of album it is”. On the other hand Billboard Magazine, later called it “their most under-rated album”. I, for one, was quite happy to not be some jaded critic. My mind was being opened up by new music, new ideas, and I could not get enough. Since I hadn’t obtained the first two albums, Fifth Dimension became my compass point for the Byrds, even though I had heard and enjoyed their first two hit songs. Fifth Dimension, with its’ various styles, was perfect for me and I listened to it repeatedly for quite a long time. It still remains one of my favorite albums. I even found a way to enjoy 2-4-2 Foxtrot (The Lear Jet Song) when I finally listened to it from the perspective of someone sitting in the co-pilot seat. Must have been at LAX.

One cut on the album had a resounding affect on me, "I Come and Stand at Every Door". I was still developing my own perspective on what was going on in the world and this song helped me look at many things differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Byrds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Dimension_(album)

https://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-byrds-mn0000631774/biography

https://www.allmusic.com/album/fifth-dimension-mw0000200612

https://www.britannica.com/topic/the-Byrds

https://www.discogs.com/artist/215471-The-Byrds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Mountain_Thyme

http://tomclarkblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/nazm-hikmet-ran-i-come-and-stand-at.html?m=1

Pete Seeger Aug. 9, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9qzZ0-qkac

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1ql_ADlWoY

LP15

[articlesofnote]

a rant about bad teaching

So I recently started school again - taking a community college class called “Intro to Engineering” to start the ball rolling on getting a M.S.Ch.E. down the line.

The book for this class is called “Studying Engineering: A Roadmap to a Rewarding Career” and ostensibly describes how to be a good engineering student.  Frankly I’m a little leery of it at this point, having had to read the first chapter for our first week’s homework, and I took a shit-ton of notes on it which I might work up into other posts later.  However, this passage provoked a more immediate reaction from me:

> Does the following dialogue sound familiar to you? Over the years, I’ve had a variation of it with many of my students: Landis (textbook author): How’s everything going? Student: Fine! L: What’s your hardest course this term? S: Physics: Electricity and Magnetism. L: How are you doing in that course? S: Fine! L: What score did you make on the last exam? S: Forty-three. L: What grade is that? S: I don’t know. L: Is it an “A”? S: No. L: A “B”? S: No. L: A “C”? S: Probably not. L: A “D”? S: Maybe. L: Sounds like an “F” to me. How many hours are you putting into your physics course? S: About 15 hours a week. L: How many hours have you studied today? S: I haven’t done any studying today. L: How many hours did you study yesterday? S: None. L: How about over the weekend? S: I meant to, but just never got to it. L: So you’re planning to study physics for five hours a day for the next three days to get your 15 hours in this week? (emphasis mine) This goddamn "gotcha" shit is so irritating - do you want to help the student or not, Landis? OK, great, you "boom roasted" him and pointed out where his efforts do not line up with his statements - now what?  You just going to leave it hanging there?  Because what the student has learned here is that being honest with you is going to be both painful (perhaps necessary pain, but pain nonetheless - very few people like having their hypocrisies pointed out) AND unhelpful.  Or was there more to this dialogue that didn’t make it into the book?

In this dialogue the student is clearly not proud of their performance (one wonders who initiated the dialogue in the first place - my money would be on Landis, as I suspect the student has already learned not to talk to this guy if he needs help) AND Landis knows that the student needs help or else he wouldn't be asking the questions he's asking.  However, his response as a mentor and engineering education expert is to ask the final question, where it's implicitly indicated that Landis does not believe the student is capable of doing the work required!  That is some goddamn demoralizing shit. And yeah, within the context of the chapter where student mindset is discussed as an important determinant of student success, you could say "oh ho ho, but the student needs to have a growth mindset and understand that this setback is within their power to overcome" - but you know what?  It's the mentors in this students’ life that are supposed to help develop that mindset in the first place!

Landis, here in this situation as he's described it, has not even come close to doing that.  In fact, I’d say he’s done the opposite and communicated the following message to the student: "I, a figure of wisdom and authority, know that you are struggling and doubt your ability to succeed in that struggle." It’s clear from the students’ responses that he IS struggling, and having that struggle validated by Landis via the questions he’s asking just mean it's all the easier for the student to then think: "Gee, if Landis knows I’m struggling he might also be right about me not being able to keep my commitment here..." and boom, it’s now harder for this student to find the motivation to succeed.  Way to inspire, Landis!

Even keeping the rest of the dialogue the same, the last comment could be shifted to something like "Ok, so, that means you've got a lot of work ahead of you - I be that seems pretty intimidating but I think we (WE!) can figure out a plan to help you get there..."  You're not giving the student any answers or solving their problems for them, but you ARE modeling the process they need to go through to get past these roadblocks on their own while also validating a) that they're struggling and b) that you think they can master this challenge! This passage is particularly galling because earlier in the chapter, Landis talks about how demoralizing and unsupportive a traditional engineering program can be; clearly he thinks it’s a problem, and he explicitly states that he wrote the book to try and fight that “sink or swim” ethos.  Hopefully the rest of the book is better in this respect, but this piece sure left a bad taste in my mouth.