#every piece media says involving gods and mortals is a bad idea

[asexuallucanisdellamorte]

me the second freyr turned up:

[sabbathism]

People don’t like season 2, and here’s what they have to say :

tl;dr: I answer the web’s most vehement complaints about season 2 of American Gods. If you happen to recognize yourself in one of those, then I suggest thinking about it really really hard and, perhaps, giving the show another chance. If you recognize yourself in several of those, please drop the show. It’s not worth wasting your time and especially not ours. (I put a list of helpful cast and production related facts at the end.)

Hi, Nelle here, I’m but a humble fan who wishes to have fun seeing gods bicker and argue among mortals, complete with the craziest of situations, stellar cast and great visuals. And yet I can’t help but hear things when I start browsing this hellsite in quest of juicy fanworks.

Although I’m no Joan Of Arc, I hear voices from above and here’s what I have to shout back (lest I get burned at the stake)  :

“The pacing is all over the place ! It’s too slow !”

Is it tho ? Pacing has been “all over the place” (really meaning: different from what we avid show-viewers are accustomed to) since season 1, we’ve never gotten straight answers out of anything unless we started listening and paying attention to details. 

The book (you know, the source material) has four parts, the fourth serving as an epilogue to the whole story, season 2 is most definitely meant to close part 1 which, allegedly, had the slowest of pace to begin with. And it doesn’t even have half the new narratives the show has been creating. So no, it’s not slow. I promise you things are happening.

“It needs to follow the actual book more !!”

What’s a good adaptation ? Is it something that is 100% truthful to the source, down to every word ? Is it something that should offer something for people who don’t know the source ? Or, on the contrary, be something inseparable from it ?

American Gods as a TV show offers new things for people who have read the book and for those who haven’t, while keeping the beloved moments and aspects from the original material.

Why add or change stuff ? Well because, if you’re a book reader, you get welcomed into the state of existential dread that comes with not knowing what happen next, I promise it’s part of the fun. But also because author Neil Gaiman believes that he can do more, do better, with something that was written 20 years ago and needed the changes in a lot of places. He’s aware that he has, in fact, a show to make, and not a carbon copy of the book, as well as a fanbase that deserves to be challenged and entertained.

“Why taking the focus off Shadow ? He’s barely the protagonist anymore !”

Because there are..... characters ? who are also part of the story ? Like, actual stories need characters ? But alright, I know it can get confusing when you have a lot of those, here’s how you can still tell Shadow is the protagonist : months of advertising and the entirety of season 1 which was spent following Shadow with only minor breaks allowing other characters to breathe. Trust me they need the development too, or then we’ll really have reasons to complain.

You want a narrative focusing solely on staying in Shadow’s head ? Alright. Try the book. But here’s my take on its narrating choice, as a graduate in english literature : it’s boring. To the point where Neil Gaiman himself got sad that he couldn’t follow other characters.

“They’re not giving the POCs enough space ! Where are the coming to america segments ? At least they gave actual insights.”

Out of every piece of fiction, I truly don’t think you want to get angry at American Gods for how much room it’s giving POCs... (a 20% white cast ensemble, POCs and especially WOCs writers and directors on production, ethnically accurate casting and writing, diversity positive messages, etc) Really I’m sure there are many other places in the fictional industry were the question of diversity is more than legitimate. American Gods has yet to be one of them, by far.

As for the Coming To America stuff, well, there’s not that many in the book to begin with. There are a whole bunch for sure, but we’ve got over quite a few of them in season 1. If there’s more believers you want, we’re served with the latest episode 4, with humans worshiping both Old and New, and interacting with gods. I’m sure we can review that point again once the season is over.

“Those white directors don’t even know how to read or write POC characters !”

*cough*

here’s a list of the POC directors and writers on episodes 2 to 5 of season 2 only :

Deborah Chow (director)

Aditi Kapil (writer)

Salli Richardson (director)

Rodney Barnes (writer)

Orlando Jones (writer)

That’s half the entire director-writer team for these episodes, with Neil Gaiman being involved. You’ll have to point out to me exactly what you mean by “not writing right”.

“New Media ? 1. she’s a bitch, 2. her actress is just plain bad, 3. she’s a hurtful stereotype.” 

And here comes perhaps the trickiest one of all... I’m gonna have to bear with you, as much as you’re gonna have to bear with me :

1. Yes. 2. No. 3. Yes, and it’s a problem, but not for the reasons you think.

First of all, and let’s get it out of the way : actor =/= character nor writing. You think the writing is bad and/or that the character is annoying ? Well, it’s certainly not on the actor. You wanna know the actual level of Kahyun Kim’s acting ? Starring in an Alan Cummings play alongside him. We’ve got a lot to discuss but please keep her out of this.

Second, New Media is an absolute bitch of a character. She’s mocking, manipulative, and too ambitious for anyone’s good. A lot of people seem to love her tho and to that I say good ??? I mean, great if you like her, because she’s got as much potential as the rest of these crazy characters, I’m not here to tell you who you should hate and who you should love.

But there’s a problem you shouldn’t ignore, and that its so far she’s not well written. It’s a terrible thing to say in such a show but she’s really not : because we barely see her talking, because we barely got any scene with her (remember what I said about letting character breathe ?), and because what we’ve seen of her so far is the stereotype of the hypersexualized naive asian girl. Complete with tentacle porn scene. (Whether you felt weirded out, amused or utterly disgusted by this is your own valid opinion.)

The character has been officially described as “the goddess of global content”, “a cyberspace chameleon” and “a master of manipulation.” In recent addition to that, actor Bruce Langley (Technical Boy) has said : “New Media’s willing to be perceived as naive because if she’s being underestimated, when she does make her move, you’d never see it coming, but she knows way more than she lets on.” He then goes on to compare her to Gillian Anderson’s Media.

This proves that the way New Media comes off isn’t a problem of intent (the naive part is calculated and they want the character to be duplicitous, falsely seductive), but of handling, and it’s just as bad. Sure, Gillian’s Media also knew more than she let on for about as much screen time -I’m sure New Media will get to her four scenes in one season-, but she had been grounded in the narrative as her own character, she’s had her exposition speech and time. (See her meeting with Shadow in S01E02) We’ve yet to see that much of Kahyun’s New Media.

Because they do not give her what she needs to be more than a two dimensional character, we find ourselves with a shallow character who doesn’t give too many signs of the thought process everyone seemed to have put into crafting her beforehand, including Kahyun’s acting. This is a serious issue that needs to be handled before the season ends, or she will just stand out like a nasty spot in an overall incredible piece of fiction. Hell even Laura (another very unlikable character) manages to be a great addition to the narrative. Come on people.

You can of course argue that they could have gone for another type or personality for her, other than naive and sex-oriented, for a korean actress to play. You’re right, there’s a lot of aspect of social media that could have been put to work, but not only are we gonna need more than two scenes (at least the tentacles aren’t a regular occurrence so far), but it’s just like they could have not made the Technical Boy hang Shadow. 

The New Gods appear as the ‘general bad idea’ we promote through and associate with their element. Mr. World is gonna be the creepy looking government dude, Tech is gonna be the lanky rude geek, they’re gonna be cold, insensitive and selfish. They’re gonna be the things we don’t like. Throughout season 1, Tech Boy was in the same place we find ourselves in with New Media : he was the loud white racist teenager hating on anon on the net, he was unlikable from start to finish, and it’s only once we got inputs from his actor, the writers, and then now that they’re showing more of his story and personality well after season 1 that we see him as the fully complex and interesting character he is.

Let’s all keep our wits about us, not engulf ourselves in blind hate or love, and encourage the writers to prove us all that this character is worth the while like her actress says.

(I still won’t forgive the bitch, but at least she won’t stick out like a sore thumb.)

(if you want Kahyun’s input on her character and experience, here’s a lengthy interview)

"They don't even know how to write their own character, period !"

By all means, tell me your basis of characterization to declare that characters who didn’t even have enough screentime to have much substance in season 1 (except Shadow, but strangely no one complains about him) aren’t written right when their creator is literally hovering over the writers and actors shoulders, because he wants them to be developed and written right.

It’s not Harry Potter, Neil isn’t making up facts about them to make himself look better, maybe accept that the vision you had in your mind wasn’t entirely accurate to the truth of the characters and that’s okay ? You can still write them yourself however you want, tell the stories you want to tell, Neil has made it very clear that he doesn’t consider fan ideas less valuable than his.

“Bryan has such as specific, unique vision ! They’re just trying to copy it and they’re failing.”

Definitely. No really, you’re right, I’m a big fan of Bryan’s work, I lost my mind like everyone else when he said he wasn’t giving up on Hannibal season 4.

But you know who else has a unique vision ? The seven directors who took over (four of those are women) and the show-runner who had already worked with him beforehand. They’re not trying to copy his style, they’re trying to make a smooth transition so fans like you don’t have a hard time mourning the terrible loss of Bryan and Michael. And for every person who noticed the changes, there were just as many who haven’t even paid attention to it.

Concept : some people may watch shows/movies for the story and the characters, not just for who’s behind the camera. (As far as I’m concerned, I actually like the image better. Everything was killer in season 1, and I think it’s even nicer in season 2.)

“Bryan gave us Salim and the Jinn, and now they’re just gonna be cast aside because those directors lack the LGBT+ sensibility Bryan has !”

Alright, yup, sure. As a member of the community myself, I totally recognize that someone who’s also part of it will know firsthand of the subtleties and details to give the best representation possible on screen. The example of Salim and the Jinn is perfectly fine, since the entire segment was indeed beautifully made. But if we cannot allow people from outside to ponder and think about our lives through writing (which is probably the best way for them to start understanding and broadening their mindset), how can we expect wide representation to improve in any meaningful way ? Especially considering that the show has been casting LGBT+ actors, in an environment where the cast is listened to and solicited on their opinions. 

And especially when Bryan was not the one who gave you Salim and the Jinn. (Because I’ve seen people genuinely believe it.) Neil Gaiman did. He wrote a gay muslim couple in his book 20 years ago, way before it was considered a political statement. He’s also the one who gave strict and specific directions as to how these very characters should be handled. Because if he expanded Salim and his fire boyfriend Jinn’s story from a one-shot to a full story integrated into his entire narration, then it’s certainly not to pull a “bury your gays” or make them miserable. No need to be LGBT+ to be a decent writer and human being.

“Production was a mess anyway, I knew it’d turn out like this. It sucks without Bryan.” 

Define “mess”. Because all the incendiary reports we got throughout early production had been utter bullshit.

Showrunners being “fired” ? Bullshit. “Disastrous” organization ? Bullshit. “Screaming matches” between directors and actors ? Bullshit. Actors “refusing” to come back ? Bullshit.

Every report that wasn’t made through direct input of the cast or production team was not only wildly exaggerated, but also fake ? But please, hear it from Neil himself :

It was weirder for me to read some of the stuff online that said, “Oh, my god, American Gods, behind the scenes, is all falling apart.” I was going, “But they just shot four episodes, and everything is fine. They’re doing some re-shoots, but they’re doing less re-shoots than they did in Season 1.” [...]

I was reading Steven Bochco’s biography on the tube, going into work on Good Omens, every morning, and learning about what went down on Hill Street Blues, and then on NYPD Blue. That was worse, by a factor of thousands, than anything that happened on American Gods. A showrunner came, and a showrunner left. That’s not even an unusual thing. [...] The weirdest thing for me was putting out a thing on Twitter on Season 2, and having a bunch of people go, “We thought this was canceled.” No, it’s not canceled. In its own mad way, it’s on schedule.  

(Source)

The show was never in any danger, much less in jeopardy. It's overreactions to false rumors and dramatic assumptions that can kill a show faster than a showrunner leaving. You want to be critical of a production ? Go ahead, and check your sources and facts. Please. I promise most of the time it’s not worth the worry, much less losing all hope.

“Bryan cared, they’re just ruining what he’s built.”

I dare you to watch any cast interview and tell me these people don’t care about the show, and that they do not value the work everyone else (from hair department to makeup artists, producers, writers, directors and costume team) puts into it as well.

I’ve watched my fair share of shows, I’m curious about production and behind-the-scenes material in general, and I’ve never seen a group of people being so genuinely happy and passionate about what they do and create together.

Neil took time out of preparing Good Omens (which he was showrunning himself) to be more active because he knew things would be different between season 1 and 2. Ricky Whittle (Shadow) had his contract reviewed to better accommodate shooting and planning. Orlando Jones (Nancy) contributed to writing episodes (especially regarding Black history and representation) and brought inputs on characterization. Ian Mcshane (Mr. Wednesday) participated in directing when he explicitly said during season 1 that he wasn’t interested in working as a director on this kind of show.

And that’s for the well-known names only. Go on the American Gods hashtag on instagram, you’ll find all the various artists who participated in crafting all the details found in new episodes. They’re out there talking about how excited they were to work on it all, how they did it, the love they have for the show and crew. They’re active and positive in every way you can be, please tell me how much they don’t care.

Production made the choice of taking its time making this season rather than rushing it when it’s been very clear that delaying can cause massive loss of viewers, because they care more about how the show comes out than what people actually think. They took in stride whatever problem a show of this magnitude could naturally encounter (again guys, no disaster happened) and worked to solve it the best way they could because they were perfectly aware that we fans care. And somehow that’s what made some of yall disappointed ??

If you seriously think Bryan (and Michael, some people forget about him smh) cared more about American Gods than these people -when he, in fact, cared just as much-, then by all means, leave right with him.

(Also uhm, idk if you noticed, but they’re both still credited in the fucking opening. Because, you know, they’re going by the bases they’ve settled.)

Some (hopefully) helpful facts :

+ Bryan and Michael weren’t fired, they walked out of the show after mutual understanding with the rest of the production that they weren’t agreeing on budget and realization. They concluded that pushing it would just be harmful to the show.

+ Likewise, Jesse Alexander (second showrunner) wasn’t evicted but stepped out once disagreements rose as to how to handle the end of the season. Again, they found a solution fairly quickly.

+ Gillian Anderson had only signed for season 1. Whether her character will ever be seen again (probably in flashbacks) is entirely up in the air. No promises, no impossibilities.

+ Both Kristin Chenoweth (Ostara) and Chris Obi (Anubis) have not been able to contribute to season 2 due to conflicts in their schedules.

+ Neil Gaiman has been much more involved in the production of season 2 as he had finished shooting Good Omens, something which took up most of his time when season 1 was produced.

+ Taking time producing a show =/= production being a disaster.

+ Always go for the reports/articles involving interviews and/or inputs of the persons actually working on the project (cast members, producers, writers, directors). Those are the most reliable sources you can fight. (Just remember that there’s always a possibility for fake news/drama online !)

[theathenianinspector]

Ancient Greek history and aesthetics have found their way in many art-forms, whether that be in painting, sculpture, film or theater, but one medium that it distinctly unique is video gaming. I would definitely agree that games have grown to be an art-form in themselves, totally different by virtue that the audience is both spectator and participant in this medium. Therefore, I believe that it would be a good idea that classics enthusiasts should begin a conversation about how this form of media can reach and immerse people into the ancient world, as well as how it represents it.

  In all the games I’ve examined, the majority have something or other to do with combat or violence. That is wholly unsurprising, games generally centered on combat and ancient Greece was a brutal place. Most of its history involves city states warring against each other and most of its myths involve heroes slaying monsters or Zeus sleeping with mortal women. However, it would not be untruthful to say that the genres of slash-and-hack and real time strategy are more or less the only representations of ancient Greek culture. And what I want to ask is: why?

  On a basic level, it is simply because there is more source material about wars and heroes, thus games are made easier and the developers make more money quicker. Also, the public are definitely going to be more familiar with minotaurs and gorgons than with the more obscure pieces of classical history and mythology like Diogenes and his pithos. And it’s not to say that this is necessarily a bad thing, games like Rome Total War and Age of Empires Mythology have already proven themselves excellent gateways into engagements with the classical world. And the God of War series is to this day insanely fun to play. However, what I wish to ask is, why end there? Surely reducing the classical world to pike phalanxes, Spartan warriors and Armored War Elephants does not reflect the dynamic environment of ancient Greece?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Nostalgic and familiar interpretations of antiquity in games.

Video games are a cherished form of escapism (and I would know!), therefore I’m by no means arguing that games set in classical Greece should only portray dystopian slave societies or boring olive farmers, although I would personally play a Farmville set in ancient Greece. Yet if the point of classics is to learn more about the ancient world which often involves examining its distasteful aspects, and video games a medium through which we escape our own demons outside of the console, then surely using games as a mode of learning should be unrealistic? Is ancient Greece just too big for the genre? I don’t think so.

  I believe that a little creativity and daring is needed to expose the bits of antiquity that don’t get much attention and that players might be new to. Discovering new parts of classics means new content which means happier players. And we can certainly see that with the recent successes of Assassins Creed Origins. I can safely say that it was a surprise to see a game set an Egypt under the Ptolemies, especially from a native Egyptian perspective. Not many games about Egypt involve the Hellenistic dynasty, despite them being a major period in the region’s history with it being under Greek occupation. We get to see the streets and markets of a Hellenistic kingdom rather than just the palaces and forts and we can interact with people that aren’t kings and generals.

Bayek walks down a dirt street in Sais, Assasins Creed Origins 2017.

What is more promising is the approaching release of Assassins Creed Odyssey which is set in the Peloponnesian War. A conflict that is also under represented in the media compared to the Persian Wars before it; when the conflict between Athens and Sparta was the ancient Greek equivalent of a world war that raged from Sicily to the Turkish coast. Am I a little apprehensive that its focus on Sparta will perpetuate the Spartan Mirage and the perspective that fifth century Athens were the bad guys despite inventing democracy? Sure, a little bit. But any discussion about portraying the Peloponnesian War in games cannot miss out Rome II Total War’s DLC: Wrath of Sparta, where players are able to play as the Athenian Empire, Sparta, Corinth and the Boeotian League which allows them to see every perspective and strategy of the war. Also Sparta has helots in the game, a demographic of Spartan society that doesn’t get talked about enough! That’s not to mention the other DLCs of the game that bring Scythian tribes, the Odrysian Kingdom, Syracuse and several other factions into the limelight. In many ways, real time strategy games (when done well) enable us to see both the points of view and limitations of each of the factions we read about in our weathered history tomes at the same time as bringing their struggles back to life in real time battles. Classicists have already noticed the potential of RTS games to enhance education about ancient battles while Chrisesten and Machado have called for more classicists to become involved in game design to create experiences with more pedagogical potential.

Does this Spartan kick remind you of anything?

Yet a final question to ask is: if war is the dominating feature of ancient Greek historical and cultural memory, then surely that limits our experience of it to its violence? That again I would disagree and advocate creativity in the genre. One game that is worth bringing up is Okhlos. The player is not a hero or a commander, but an anonymous philosopher who speaks out against the Olympians and forms mobs that riot and break stuff with the objective being to overthrow the gods. That still involves violence, but it doesn’t fall into the archetypes that we so often see.

Okhlos, 2016.

Also remember how I suggested Ancient Greek Farmville? Well why not? How about a farm game in which players can grow their crops and tend to their flocks while banding up with other players to create villages/communities that occasionally go out to raid other farms? You know, like the Greeks did! Or better, mystery and puzzle solving games either cracking murder cases or searching for artifacts. Even rally style chariot racing would be amazing! Violence shouldn’t be totally outlawed, but there must be more to gaming than hacking down Persians. Video games are a fantastic way and accessible to pique interest in antiquity and it appears that developers are catching onto the fact that ancient Greece is pretty damn cool.

  Dan Tang

The Athenian Inspector

  Christesen, P. and Machado, D. (2010), Video Games and Classical Antiquity, The Classical World Vol.104, pp. 107-110

Reinhard, A. (2012), Classics Pedagogy in the Twenty-First Century: Technology, The Classical World Vol. 106, pp. 121-124

  If you want to learn about the Romans, check out: https://romanimperium.wordpress.com/

Ancient Greece Gone Virtual? – Classics in Gaming Ancient Greek history and aesthetics have found their way in many art-forms, whether that be in painting, sculpture, film or theater, but one medium that it distinctly unique is video gaming.

[nothingman]

Two vastly different figures have come under fire in the past week for challenging the political establishment. The first was Father Patrick Conroy, a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest and House chaplain who was abruptly fired by Paul Ryan after allegedly criticizing GOP tax cuts during a prayer session.

The second was comedian Michelle Wolf, who was widely critiqued for negative comments about press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. The controversy over Wolf’s speech centered around her reference to Sanders’s “perfect smoky eye” — apparently perfected with the help of ashes of “burning facts.” The speech prompted a written apology from the White House Correspondents’ Association.

The media criticism around both figures centered not just on the content of their alleged misconduct: Conroy’s seemingly left-wing views and Wolf’s supposed anti-feminist attacks on another woman’s appearance. They also pointed to the problematic, ambiguous natures of both the House Chaplain and the White House Correspondents’ Dinner as institutions.

Echoing the sentiments of many on Twitter, Vox’s own Matt Yglesias tweeted that there “probably shouldn’t be a House chaplain.” After all, what is a religious figure doing in such close proximity to senior lawmakers?

There probably shouldn’t be a House chaplain.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) April 27, 2018

Meanwhile, over at the Washington Post, journalist Margaret Sullivan critiqued the “insider” nature of the White House Correspondents’ dinner: saying: “[T]his festive night, always unseemly, is now downright counterproductive to good journalism’s goals. It only serves to reinforce the views of those who already hate the media elite.”

Despite their different jobs and roles, Conroy and Wolf occupy similar positions. Their job is to exist in the liminal space between complicity and opposition, at once being part of the establishment and challenging it.

Both positions come with their own sets of challenging ethical questions. What role should a religious figure have in a country with a separation of church and state? And at an event like the Correspondents’ Dinner — designed to elide the differences between government and press — what is an entertainer’s role? And are her targets and her audience the same people?

But ultimately, both Conroy’s and Wolf’s roles are vital precisely because of their ambiguity. Their concerns and goals are opposed to the institutions with which they are affiliated at a structural, rather than an ideological level. This gives them a blueprint for serving as a different — even radical — kind of opposition than, say, a political party. Having them physically as well as psychologically close to those in power is a feature, not a bug, of the role they play.

A House Chaplain has different concerns from politicians — and that’s a good thing

Let’s start with Patrick Conroy. As far as we know, Ryan’s opposition to the chaplain was based on the idea that Conroy was too ideological in his prayers. In one November session, he prayed that there “are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans.” (According to Conroy’s interview with the New York Times, Ryan told him “Padre, you’ve got to stay out of politics.”)

Jonathan Chait at New York magazine made a fair point when he noted that, perhaps, Conroy should have been fired for espousing what seemed to be a political view. After all, he pointed out, the chaplain is supposed to be nonpartisan. Democrats, he pointed out, would probably be up in arms if Conroy had led a prayer in favor of, for example, the Christian glory of the free market.

But nonpartisan doesn’t mean apolitical. And having a faith leader — of whatever faith (as chaplain, Conroy brought in a rotating cast of prayer leaders, including an imam) — means having someone who has a structured value system.

Furthermore, that values system, by definition, stands in opposition, for better and for worse, to the one demanded by the political process. To generalize just a bit here, most faith traditions — particularly those that are highly represented in America — involve a reasonably high proportion of demands made on the individual, and on individual ethical behavior. They include don’t lie, don’t murder, and other commandments and directives along those lines — demands that conceive of morality in stark, black and white terms.

While of course there are significant political and communal elements to many of these theological systems (from different interpretations of the “kingdom of God” in Christianity to versions of political Islam), ethical demands are largely made on the individual and are, by and large, straightforward, and binary. There is good and evil, right and wrong, and it is up to individuals to choose correctly.

By contrast, the political system by its very nature requires more than a little grayscale morality. No reasonable person assumes that even the most moral government tells the truth all the time, for reasons diplomatic as well as self-serving. Every single “good” government in history — to say nothing of the less-good ones — has made decisions that, in improving the lives of some, worsen (or end) the lives of others.

This is a painful structural necessity of the political process. Politics is, even in its ideal state, about choosing the least bad option for the fewest people. The problem is, it becomes all too easy to elide the human cost of that in favor of the bigger picture.

That’s where Conroy comes in. Having a figure from a tradition whose moral absolutes are, well, absolute, provides lawmakers with a necessary, daily reminder of the human faces of those affected by even the most well-meaning policies. Insofar as a faith leader serves as structured opposition, he does so not in a partisan sense, but as an ideological one: Conroy’s values should be reckoned with by those in power, even if they are ultimately ignored.

(And, for what it’s worth, I’d say the same thing if Conroy had made similar comments about, for example, the “sanctity of life,” to use an example of a common Christian attitude more favorable to a GOP party platform.) Indeed, most of the time, they should be ignored — nobody wants, or, at least, should want, a government run by theocrats. But they should be contended with all the same.

Now, crucially, I don’t think this leader should necessarily be Christian. (I’d, personally, advocate for a rotating cast of faith leadership figures, including secular humanists and — sure, why not? — members of the Satanic Temple. But I think having voices speak, if not truth, then at least conviction, to those in power is a necessary corrective to the structural utilitarianism of the political process.

(Just think, for example, of that famous scene in The West Wing, when President Jed Bartlett, a Catholic, confesses to his priest after allowing a federal execution to be carried out — something that he thought was necessary, but which defied his own church teaching.)

It’s vital that such a chaplain-like figure would have structured rules in place to avoid partisanship, something lacking in, say, Trump’s troublingly untransparent evangelical advisory board, which has collapsed into sycophancy. But the presence of such a figure is a necessary challenge to an institution.

Comedians and chaplains alike use their “intimate” social position to pose necessary challenges

So too Michelle Wolf, and the White House Correspondents’ Dinner more generally. Like Conroy, Wolf and other comedians who have performed at the dinner exist in a liminal space. They’re physically and socially close to their audience and targets. They’re literally breaking bread with the people they’re about to challenge.

It’s more than fair to critique the traditional coziness of journalism and the White House, if not, exactly, this White House, as Sullivan did in her Washington Post piece. But the structure of the dinner and, more importantly, the unifying presence of the comedian at the roast both risks complicity and allows directness.

The comedian is a kind of intermediary between the press and the White House. She can skewer everyone in the room, as Michelle Wolf did, telling the press, “You helped create this monster, and now you’re profiting off of him.”

And the presence of a comedian in that very room — as a real, tangible human person, rather than an abstract “criticism” — is vital to the strength of that critique. To criticize someone face to face is a very different, far more intimate, act than criticizing someone, say, on MSNBC or Fox News.

Wolf’s goal, like Conroy’s, isn’t political. And, unlike Conroy’s, hers is to entertain as well as to provoke. But, like Conroy, the structurally adversarial nature of her position serves as a powerful corrective to the system itself — she’s there to cross the line, to challenge the whole political and journalistic system, to point out its flaws on left and right alike.

And to stand or sit there and take the heat, publicly, is to contend with those criticisms. For Sarah Huckabee Sanders to be forced to sit there and look Wolf in the eye as she hears criticism about “burning the facts” (for that infamous “smoky eye” or not), is for her to face, publicly, personally, and intimately, the direct consequences of actions that political formalities can all too easily explain away.

In Ancient Rome, several sources cite generals returning from battle for their triumphal parades with an enslaved man tasked with the job of whispering in his ear “remember that you are mortal.” Shakespeare’s plays are full of designated Fools whose job it is to stay close to kings — King Lear, for example — and say the things they least like to hear.

And sometimes, historically, it’s been priests who play this social role, too: Just look at “meddlesome priest” Thomas À Beckett, whose conflict with Henry II over the role of the church led to his murder.

Proximity is necessary for challenge as well as complicity.

Of course, those who need to hear “fools” most are the ones least likely to do so: Donald Trump has skipped both this and last year’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner, making him the first president in 36 years to do so. House Republicans almost unanimously refused to investigate the circumstances of Conroy’s firing.

Our problem isn’t ambiguous figures like Wolff or Conroy. It’s a lack of leaders to hear them.

via Vox - All