#other famous people i was only vaguely familiar with are mentioned in this novel. like diderot. some philosopher or whatever

[vestaldestroyer]

at the risk of sounding extremely stupid, Marquis de Sade isn't just a background character from vnc but a real person?? wrote philosophy books and porn??? the word sadism is partially derived from his name???? how do I not know this! that's Dominique's dad? ough I have so many questions

[yamayuandadu]

Circe by Madeline Miller: a review

As you might have noticed, a few of my most recent posts were more or less a liveblog of Madeline Miller’s novel Circe. However, as they hardly exhausted the subject, a proper review is also in order. You can find it under the “read more” button. All sorts of content warnings apply because this book takes a number of turns one in theory can expect from Greek mythology but which I’d hardly expect to come up in relation to Circe. I should note that this is my first contact with this author’s work. I am not familiar with Miller’s more famous, earlier novel Song of Achilles - I am not much of an Iliad aficionado, truth to be told. I read the poem itself when my literature class required it, but it left no strong impact on me, unlike, say, the Epic of Gilgamesh or, to stay within the theme of Greek mythology, Homeric Hymn to Demeter, works which I read at a similar point in my life on my own accord.

What motivated me to pick up this novel was the slim possibility that for once I’ll see my two favorite Greek gods in fiction, these being Hecate and Helios (in case you’re curious: #3 is Cybele but I suspect that unless some brave soul will attempt to adapt Nonnus’ Dionysiaca, she’ll forever be stuck with no popcultural presence outside Shin Megami Tensei). After all, it seemed reasonable to expect that Circe’s father will be involved considering their relationship, while rarely discussed in classical sources, seems remarkably close. Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women and Apollonius’ Argonautica describe Circe arriving on her island in her father’s solar chariot, while Ptolemy Hephaestion (as quoted by Photius) notes that Helios protected her home during the Gigantomachy. Helios, for all intents and purposes, seems like a decent dad (and, in Medea’s case, grandpa) in the source material even though his most notable children (and granddaughter) are pretty much all cackling sorcerers, not celebrated heroes. How does Miller’s Helios fare, compared to his mythical self? Not great, to put it lightly, as you’ll see later. As for Hecate… she’s not even in the book. Let me preface the core of the review by saying I don’t think reinterpreting myths, changing relations between figures, etc. is necessarily bad - ancient authors did it all the time, and modern adaptations will inevitably do so too, both to maintain internal coherence and perhaps to adjust the stories to a modern audience, much like ancient authors already did. I simply don’t think this book is successful at that. The purpose of the novel is ostensibly to elevate Circe above the status of a one-dimensional minor antagonist - but to accomplish this, the author mostly demonizes her family and a variety of other figures, so the net result is that there are more one dimensional female villains, not less. I expected the opposite, frankly. The initial section of the novel focuses on Circe’s relationship with her family, chiefly with her father. That’s largely uncharted territory in the source material - to my knowledge no ancient author seemed particularly interested in covering this period in her life. Blank pages of this sort are definitely worth filling. To begin with, Helios is characterized as abusive, neglectful and power-hungry. And also, for some reason, as Zeus’ main titan ally in the Titanomachy - a role which Hesiod attributes to Hecate… To be fair I do not think it’s Hesiod who serves as the primary inspiration here, as it’s hard to see any traces of his account - in which Zeus wins in no small part because he promises the lesser titans higher positions that they had under Cronus - in Miller’s version of events. Only Helios and Oceanus keep their share, and are presented as Zeus’ only titan allies (there’s a small plot hole as Selene appears in the novel and evidently still is the moon…) - contrary to just about any portrayal of the conflict, in which many titans actually side with Zeus and his siblings. Also, worth noting that in Hesiod’s version it’s not Oceanus himself who cements the pact with Zeus, it’s his daughter Styx - yes, -that- Styx. Missed opportunity to put more focus on female mythical figures - first of many in this work, despite many reviews praising it as “feminist.” Of course, it’s not all about Helios. We are quickly introduced to a variety of female characters as well (though, as I noted above, none of these traditionally connected to the Titanomachy despite it being a prominent aspect of the book’s background). They are all somewhat repetitive - to the point of being basically interchangeable. Circe’s mother is vain and cruel; so is Scylla. And Pasiphae. There’s no real indication of any hostility between Circe and any of her siblings in classical sources, as far as I am aware, but here it’s a central theme. The subplots pertaining to it bear an uncanny resemblance to these young adult novels in which the heroine, who is Not Like Other Girls, confronts the Chads and Stacies of the world, and I can’t shake off the feelings that it’s exactly what it is, though with superficial mythical flourish on top. I should note that Pasiphae gets a focus arc of sorts - which to my surprise somehow manages to be more sexist than the primary sources. A pretty famous tidbit repeated by many ancient authors is that Pasiphae cursed her husband Minos, regarded as unfaithful, to kill anyone else he’d have sex with with his… well, bodily fluids. Here she does it entirely  because she’s a debased sadist and not because unfaithfulness is something one can be justifiably mad about. You’d think it would be easy to put a sympathetic spin on this. But the book manages to top that in the very same chapter - can’t have Pasiphae without the Minotaur (sadly - I think virtually everything else about Pasiphae and Minos is more fun than that myth but alas) so in a brand new twist on this myth we learn that actually the infamous affair wasn’t a curse placed on Pasiphae by Poseidon or Aphrodite because of some transgression committed by Minos. She’s just wretched like that by nature. I’m frankly speechless, especially taking into account the book often goes out of its way to present deities in the worst light possible otherwise, and which as I noted reviews praise for its feminist approach - I’m not exactly sure if treating Pasiphae worse than Greek and Roman authors did counts as that.  I should note this is not the only instance of… weirdly enthusiastic references to carnal relations between gods and cattle in this book, as there’s also a weird offhand mention of Helios being the father of his own cows. This, as far as I can tell, is not present in any classical sources and truth to be told I am not a huge fan of this invention. I won’t try to think about the reason behind this addition to maintain my sanity. Pasiphae aside - the author expands on the vague backstory Circe has in classical texts which I’ve mentioned earlier. You’d expect that her island would be a gift from her father - after all many ancient sources state that he provided his children and grandchildren with extravagant gifts. However, since Helios bears little resemblance to his mythical self, Aeaea is instead a place of exile here, since Helios hates Circe and Zeus is afraid of witchcraft and demands such a solution (the same Zeus who, according to Hesiod, holds Hecate in high esteem and who appeared with her on coins reasonably commonly… but hey, licentia poetica, this idea isn’t necessarily bad in itself). Witchcraft is presented as an art exclusive to Helios’ children here - Hecate is nowhere to be found, it’s basically as if her every role in Greek mythology was surgically removed. A bit of a downer, especially since at least one text - I think Ovid’s Metarphoses? - Circe directly invokes Hecate during her confrontation with king Picus (Surprisingly absent here despite being a much more fitting antagonist for Circe than many of the characters presented as her adversaries in this novel…) Of course, we also learn about the origin of Circe’s signature spell according to ancient sources, changing people into animals. It actually takes the novel a longer while to get there, and the invented backstory boils down to Circe getting raped. Despite ancient Greek authors being rather keen on rape as plot device, to my knowledge this was never a part of any myth about Circe. Rather odd decision to put it lightly but I suppose at least there was no cattle involved this time, perhaps two times was enough for the author. Still, I can’t help but feel like much like many other ideas present in this book it seems a bit like the author’s intent is less elevating the Circe above the role of a one note witch antagonist, but rather punishing her for being that. The fact she keeps self loathing about her origin and about not being human doesn’t exactly help to shake off this feeling. This impression that the author isn’t really fond of Circe being a wacky witch only grows stronger when Odysseus enters the scene. There was already a bit of a problem before with Circe’s life revolving around love interests before - somewhat random ones at that (Dedalus during the Pasiphae arc and Hermes on and off - not sure what the inspiration for either of these was) - but it was less noticeable since it was ultimately in the background and the focus was the conflict between Circe and Helios, Pasiphae, etc. In the case of Odysseus it’s much more notable because these subplots cease to appear for a while. As a result of meeting him, Circe decides she wants to experience the joys of motherhood, which long story short eventually leads to the birth of Telegonus, who does exactly what he was famous for. The final arcs have a variety of truly baffling plot twists which didn’t really appeal to me, but which I suppose at least show a degree of creativity - better than just turning Helios’ attitude towards his children upside down for sure. Circe ends up consulting an oc character who I can only describe as “stingray Cthulhu.” His presence doesn’t really add much, and frankly it feels like yet another wasted opportunity to use Hecate, but I digress. Oh, also in another twist Athena is recast as the villain of the Odyssey. Eventually Circe gets to meet Odysseus’ family, for once interacts with another female character on positive terms (with Penelope, to be specific) and… gets together with Telemachus, which to be fair is something present in many ancient works but which feels weird here since there was a pretty long passage about Odysseus describing him as a child to Circe. I think I could live without it. Honestly having her get together with Penelope would feel considerably less weird, but there are no lesbians in the world of this novel. It would appear that the praise for Song of Achilles is connected to the portrayal of gay relationships in it. Can’t say that this applies to Circe - on this front we have an offhand mention of Hyacinth's death. which seems to serve no real purpose other than establishing otherwise irrelevant wind god is evil, and what feels like an advert for Song of Achilles courtesy of Odysseus, which takes less than one page. Eventually Circe opts to become mortal to live with Telemachus and denounces her father and… that’s it. This concludes the story of Circe. I don’t exactly think the original is the deepest or greatest character in classical literature, but I must admit I’d rather read about her wacky witch adventures than about Miller’s Circe. A few small notes I couldn’t fit elsewhere: something very minor that bothered me a lot but that to be honest I don’t think most readers will notice is the extremely chaotic approach to occasional references to the world outside Greece - Sumer is randomly mentioned… chronologically after Babylon and Assyria, and in relation to Persians (or rather - to Perses living among them). At the time we can speak of “Persians” Sumerian was a dead language at best understood by a few literati in the former great cities of Mesopotamia so this is about the same as if a novel about Mesopotamia mentioned Macedonians and then completely randomly Minoans at a chronologically later point. Miller additionally either confused or conflated Perses, son of Perseus, who was viewed positively and associated with Persia (so positively that Xerxes purportedly tried to use it for propaganda purposes!) with Perses the obscure brother of Circe et. al, who is a villain in an equally obscure myth casting Medea as the heroine, in which he rules over “Tauric Chersonese,” the Greek name of a part of Crimea. I am honestly uncertain why was he even there as he amounts to nothing in the book, and there are more prominent minor children of Helios who get no mention (like Aix or Phaeton) so it’s hard to argue it was for the sake of completion. Medea evidently doesn’t triumph over him offscreen which is his sole mythical purpose. Is there something I liked? Well, I’m pretty happy Selene only spoke twice, considering it’s in all due likeness all that spared her from the fate of receiving similarly “amazing” new characterization as her brother. As is, she was… okay. Overall I am definitely not a fan of the book. As for its purported ideological value? It certainly has a female main character. Said character sure does have many experiences which are associated with women. However, I can’t help but think that the novel isn’t exactly feminist - it certainly focuses on Circe, but does it really try to “rehabilitate” her? And is it really “rehabilitation” and feminist reinterpretation when almost every single female character in the book is the same, and arguably depicted with even less compassion than in the source material?  It instead felt like the author’s goal is take away any joy and grandeur present in myths, and to deprive Circe of most of what actually makes her Circe. We don’t need to make myths joyless to make them fit for a new era. It’s okay for female characters to be wacky one off villains and there’s no need to punish them for it. A book which celebrates Circe for who she actually is in the Odyssey and in other Greek sources - an unapologetic and honestly pretty funny character -  would feel much more feminist to me that a book where she is a wacky witch not because she feels like it but because she got raped, if you ask me. 

Circe evidently having the time of her life, by Edmund Dulac (public domain)

[aion-rsa]

Do Star Trek Characters Watch Star Trek?

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This Star Trek: Lower Decks article contains spoilers for Season 2, Episode 8 “I, Excretus.”

For Star Trek fans who worry that Lower Decks somehow doesn’t “count” because it’s a comedy, nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does Lower Decks count as real Star Trek canon it also actively explores Trek canon, constantly illuminating that what we think we know about the world of the Federation, Starfleet, the Klingon Empire, etc. The result? What we know is actually very limited by our perspective of what we’ve seen on the various live-action Trek shows. Lower Decks creator Mike McMahan has called Lower Decks a “rosetta stone” of Star Trek canon more than once. And, perhaps there’s no better example of this than episode 8 of season 2, the episode, “I, Excretus.”

Here’s how this episode lays out an entirely new way of thinking about how Starfleet thinks about itself. Does it feel like Starfleet is obsessed with the adventures of the various Enterprises? Well, what Lower Decks asserts is, maybe there’s a good reason for that.

The basic premise of this episode focuses on the crew of the USS Cerritos getting run through a series of holographic drills to determine how good the crew is at their various jobs. The bigger story is, at first, one about social class. The drill instructor — Shari Yn Yem — flips the ranks between the bridge crew and the “lower decks,” which means that each side gets to experience how the other half lives. To that end, the holographic drills that Mariner, Tendi, Boimler, and Rutherford endure are all huge ethical dilemmas, life or death struggles, or, stuff with horses and emotional plagues. In other words, the Lower Deckers do a kind of greatest hits of stories from The Original Series and The Next Generation. At one point, Mariner enters a simulation called “Mirror Universe Encounter,” in which she has to try to infiltrate the Terran Empire. This simulation is basically a remix of the TOS episode “Mirror, Mirror,” and everything Mirror Universe related on Discovery. Later, Mariner enters an “Old West Planet” simulation, which she calls “a Starfleet classic…yeehaw!” This references the TOS episode “Spectre of the Gun,” the TNG episode “A Fistful of Datas” and the Enterprise episode “North Star.” Later, Mariner enters a simulation called “Naked Time,” in which the crew succumbs to a virus that makes them, well, drunk and horny.

While it’s tempting to say that “Naked Time” is a long-hanging fruit joke that comes from 2021, the truth is, the title “The Naked Time,” refers to an episode of TOS in which the crew does succumb to a virus that makes them act drunk and horny. This episode was written by John D. F. Black and was later quasi-remade as the episode “The Naked Now” on TNG in which the crew encounters pretty much the same virus, only slightly different. (For reference, “The Naked Now” is the episode where Data mentions that he is “fully functional” for the first time. In the same episode, Data also corrects Riker about the proper uses of the words “suck” versus “blow,” relative to space problems. You can’t make this stuff up. It’s hard to believe Star Trek is real sometimes, you know?)

Anyway! The point is the simulation is called “Naked Time,” which is very close to the episode title in “our” reality. And, when we see a larger readout of all the simulations running, several, several of them have names almost identical to actual episodes of Star Trek. 

Here’s an example of one prominent moment, in which we see a bunch of the simulation names…

Time Trap (“The Time Trap,” TAS)

Tribble Troubles (“The Trouble Will Tribbles,” OST)

From Q to Q (Any Q episode?)

Borg Encounter (Obvious)

Cause & Effect (“Cause and Effect,” TNG)

Natural Selection (“Unnatural Selection, TNG)

Evolution (“Evolution,” TNG)

Chain of Command (“Chain of Command,” TNG…an episode Lower Decks can’t stop referencing.)

Hero Worship (“Hero Worship,” TNG)

Carbon Based Units (Star Trek: The Motion Picture)

Naked Time (“The Naked Time,” TOS, et al.)

Now on several occasions, Lower Decks showrunner Mike McMahan has said “people on Star Trek watch Star Trek.” The best example of this is when Riker runs a simulation of the NX-01 Enterprise in the episode “These Are the Voyages…” What Lower Decks has done, since Season 1, is take that notion, and apply it more broadly. In the Season 1 episode “Much Ado About Boimler,” a Starfleet officer who has been de-aged, mentions that he is “half a Rascal” which references the TNG episode “Rascals.” The idea here, solidified by the latest Lower Decks, is that various simulations, or logs from big Starfleet missions, become public knowledge to the rest of the Federation. And, most relevantly, all of these famous adventures have names that are very similar to the ones we are familiar with. (Though, in fairness, Barnes doing a simulation called “Whale Rescue,” probably should have been called “The One With the Whales,” right?)

Later in the episode, when Mariner and Captain Freeman figure out that Shari Yn Yem is trying to screw them over, she taunts, “You’re on a California class ship, most of the Federation doesn’t even know you exist.” Now, this statement hammers home the entire point of Lower Decks, insofar as the show is about starships doing less than glamorous work. But, what gets subtly, and smartly established in this episode is that the ships that may go unnoticed, all totally model themselves after the Enterprises, Voyagers, and Defiants of the fleet.

Why? Well, Shari Yn Yem did not invent these simulations. As she reveals, she simply “goosed” the difficulty levels, to try and make the crew of the Cerritos look bad. When the crew is supposed to “steal the Cerritos and rescue Spock from the Genesis planet,” the audience (probably) knows that’s a reference to Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Shari Yn Yem calls it a “classic,” just like Mariner called the “Old West Planet,” a “classic.” The implication here is clear. The adventures of the various Enterprises (or Voyagers or Defaints) aren’t just canonical to Star Trek fans, these adventures have been translated to other (future) media for a very long time within the Federation itself. People do know about the Enterprise in the big world of the 24th century. Even Seaon 1 of Picard proved that — in the very first episode, reporters were in Jean-Luc’s house!

Appropriately enough, this outcome might be what Gene Roddenberry intended. In the forward to Roddenberry’s wild novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Kirk reveals that he is aware of various forms in which the adventures of the Enterprise have been made available for mass consumption in 23rd century media. In the only Star Trek book penned by the creator of Star Trek, people in Star Trek apparently read or watch Star Trek. Before Lower Decks, the only examples of this meta-fiction were the Enterprise finale “These Are the Voyages,” and this vague assertion from Roddenberry in the TMP novelization. 

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

But now, Lower Decks has made all of it very clear. The canon of Star Trek is comprised of stories from starships that have become famous over time. Even in the egalitarian world of Trek, in the far future, there’s still pop culture, which means some space stories are more popular than others. And it turns out, the true-life stories of people on ships called Enterprise are hits with the general public. Every. Single. Time.  Lower Decks airs on Paramount+.

The post Do Star Trek Characters Watch Star Trek? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3F01Utj

[bilbao-song]

heres an ask because i too am desperate to engage with people. i know u dont care about roxy music but you did say you would accept something as incoherent as a keysmash so here is an equivalent: admittedly i find the dynamics between ANY band and their fans very interesting, but roxy music in particular. there is a peculiar divide between those who are staunch bryan ferry fans (these people typically dont give half of a shit about anyone else in the band), those who are fans of the group as a whole and dont particularly care about individual members at all, and those who are most interested in phil manzanera and andy mackay and sometimes the other guys, who generally quite dislike bryan (i being the latter)- and often there is resentment between the groups. i think its so interesting that a group of people can be presented with the same exact material, love it and enjoy it for years, and yet latch onto different parts of it and make it such a part of their identity that should you confuse one with the other they become insulted, or if nothing else will tell you "no no, i like roxy music but i REALLY like bryan, i think hes the best", or "no no, i love roxy music and im a fan of andy and phil in particular but i dont care for byran much at all, dont get it twisted", etc. are there bands you're more familiar with who have this sort of divide amongst the fanbase? do tell me about them, if you like :>

first of all i absolutely love that u sent this ksdhgkshg this is like. exactly the kind of thing i wanted

sorry for taking 39485949 years to post this lmao. i wrote like FIVE entire paragraphs and then had to edit it but it was getting super late and anyway it’s still absurdly long (as in, i can say whatever i want in the below text bc no one is going to want to read it) and definitely devolved into a huge general rant about the annoying and creepy behaviors of some people within band fanbases (specifically ELO-related bc of course) as well as vagueing about my own controversial opinions but......nonetheless.

anyway!!! i find this kind of thing really interesting too!! and i know EXACTLY what you’re talking about. there are just sooo many facets to this, and i guess it’s different for every band. on the one hand i do think it’s kind of an interesting phenomenon bc if you think about it, they’re basically enjoying the same thing but taking wildly different/opposing stances on it. as a whole i would find it a lot more interesting/amusing and less frustrating if people could like...manage these kinds of differences without turning it into some kind of overly vitriolic/super hostile opposition that you would think is about politics or something and not a band we r supposed to be listening to for entertainment purposes. i mean, i 100% get that things don’t have to be Extremely Important to be worth discussing, but it just seems wild the way some people get SO intensely angry about these things, sometimes to the point of being kind of inappropriate. i have a lot of issues with the way some people within band fanbases tend to behave lol

.......anyway the Full Rant is below here (idk why i wrote this bc it’s long enough to be turned in for a grade and it’s only partially relevant. read at ur own risk):

so!! thankfully with most bands i enjoy i just kind of watch the fanbase from the sidelines and don't get too involved in or even aware of all the drama. like...i know about the band and enjoy the music but just manage to not get involved in whatever the community happens to be collectively freaking out about at any given moment. i feel like the kind of divide you mentioned is actually pretty common within band fanbases (i think there are things like this with like...styx and three dog night? among others? but i don't know all the details 👀) but like, FORTUNATELY with most of them i just would not know. that's very nice because i unfortunately do not always have that kind of luxury with the ELO fanbase...idk i have a lot of very strong ELO-related opinions that i usually don't like to discuss in great detail bc i get disproportionately frustrated but yeah basically what you described does kind of happen among ELO fans, although thankfully i'd say it's to a somewhat lesser extent? people are commonly at each other's throats about a variety of topics including (but not limited to) who they support or don't support, but there are still plenty of people who (thankfully) are not so aggressive lmao. there is sort of a divide within the fanbase but i feel like it's probably not so 50/50 as what you're talking about...maybe more like 85/15

THAT SAID, i have frequently commented on the fact that the ELO fanbase is largely a dumpster fire and there is a whole entire sector of the fanbase that is comprised of people who i absolutely cannot stand, and most of them do fight a lot lmao. this is only partially related to the subject at hand, but a good portion of the bickering is relevant to The Divide. like, i'm 100% okay with having a different opinion than someone else as long as they aren't acting like a complete freak about it, but idk, aside from the fact that most of these people are like?? needlessly aggressive?? there are certain opinions held by certain members of the Greater ELO Community that just give me that vibe of like...hmmmm this is a person i probably would not want to associate with at all, even in matters completely unrelated to this. Unsavory Person Vibes. i mean like, “opinions” that just boil down to "i am very very entitled and also incapable of seeing anyone else's perspective on literally anything ever BUT that isn't going to stop me from openly whining about this absolutely whenever possible." like!! it's one thing to have some kind of legitimate, reasonable criticism of an individual or band but some, if not most, of the things i've seen people losing their minds over within this fanbase have been so hilariously trivial that i just CANNOT understand how these people actually managed to get to be (presumably) functional adults who are probably like 50+ years old. i mean like, full-blown tantrums and calling someone all sorts of nasty things over something that shouldn't even be an issue because without exaggerating i cannot fathom how anyone could even be majorly upset about it in the first place. to give an example: someone once had a whole entire little strongly-worded, excessively presumptuous freakout because a guitar was no longer on loan to the rock and roll hall of fame. like...it was there for quite awhile and two out of four inductees loaned absolutely nothing but you're whining because one who DID loan something eventually took it back? do we not know what the word "loan" means? anyway the best part is that basically every time something like this happens, if someone tries to point out that the person is overreacting or perhaps just needs to look at a situation another way, they will then go off on that person bc god forbid we try to be level-headed about things. everything has to be Very Horrible All The Time or we’re doing something wrong or being stupid or something. idk i'm convinced that some people just want to be angry

also just...some of these people do some really shady things that i personally feel are morally questionable but there's nothing i can do about it so i try to just kind of avoid dwelling on it lmfao. like, it's not okay to violate people's privacy just because they're famous and you're overly entitled/nosy/desperate for clout/blatantly trying to profit off of them? i know in the Sane World that's a completely non-controversial idea but band fanbases apparently often aren't based on sanity skhglkshgks idk i could probably write a small novel on this and make a specific list of all the things they do that are just like...bafflingly tone deaf and kind of appalling but i digress. idk the worst part to me is the way they'll be like, saying/doing something that's just awful or like, maybe even totally factually wrong while acting like they're in the right. absolutely wild

to at least somewhat bring this back to what we were ATTEMPTING to talk about!!! personally i've reached a point where i pretty much no longer care about like 90% of anyone who has ever been in ELO (jeffrey/richard/roy/mike de albuquerque supremacy) but i'm not like, actively a Hater of the others lmao. i appreciate that they were there and enjoy the nostalgia(? i wasn’t alive) of it and i’m glad they’re out there existing but i just...don’t really care about anything they do at this point?? a good portion of it is a result of me taking issue with certain things some of them have done, which has impacted the way i feel about them, but MOST of it is really not that deep and it’s just that some of them just don't particularly interest me on that kind of level/i don't feel the need to get that invested in like 927509257 different people (fun fact: during the 1970s every third person in existence on earth was, at least briefly, a member of ELO). there's really only one ELO-adjacent person who i actually very strongly dislike and a) luckily i feel like they barely even count as a member b) the reasoning is kind of its own Thing and has very very very little to do with anything related to the band so it's kind of another subject entirely. anyway that’s as close as i’ll ever get to actually getting involved with any of the Drama sgsdgsdgfhdh. my primary beef is with the fanbase anyway because, as previously mentioned, there are too many insane people. i guess what i’m getting at here is that yeah there’s a divide and it does affect me BUT i also don’t really get why people allow this to make them act in a way that goes beyond just having a difference in opinion and is so overly hostile towards each other as well as the people they’re discussing. like...if anyone involved is a serial killer or something even remotely similar then yeah, being outraged on an extreme level and absolutely hating them even as an outsider makes sense. otherwise? calm down!!!!!

anyway. to wrap up this mostly incoherent rant that i hope no one read: i have always suspected that band fandoms kind of attract certain kinds of very distressingly weird people and i just think it's funny how there's always like, a little cluster of people within the fanbase who basically seem like they actually hate the band (those are almost always the Weird Ones bc i can’t tell you how many times i’ve witnessed a person who is like, into a band to a CREEPY extent and then one day they just flip and become a hater). at that point i'm just like, okay? so why are you still here lmfao. i guess that's the Main Idea of all of this lol. i just don't get why these people stick around when 98% of all they ever do is complain and act overly judgy? i just feel like if my so-called favorite band was making me that miserable i would try to find another band to like instead of becoming a menace to society. that’s just me tho

to bring all of this together i guess i just assume that some kind of phenomenon like this occurs within basically every band fanbase. idk it just seems pretty universal for some reason. certain kinds of people just love drama i guess and will turn any difference of opinion into some kind of shitshow

tl;dr: yes

[talesofafangirlwithadvr]

MAY PICKS!

WELCOME BACK TO ANOTHER MONTH OF TV/MOVIE WATCHING! 

Does it feel like it was just April or that it can’t even be May and yet it is coming to an end? I get it. Quarantine is doing weird things to my head and I can’t believe how far in the year it’s been. Looking back on my picks for this month I noticed that I have seemed to escape the world through historical period shows or movies. But that isn’t the entire bulk of the month (just half of it). Without further ado, here we go!

As always..spoilers....

THE HALF OF IT

This Netflix original movie was an early watch for me during this month and it came at the right time. I was looking for a movie, rather than a TV show, and something that was contemporary and not overly serious (although, there are serious themes in this film). As it repeatedly says, “it’s not a romance” yet it has that YA/teen romance feel. (Yes, I used YA/teen in the same description.) I really loved the Elle Chu and Paul Munsky friendship. While watching the trailer, I could tell this film would be highlighting a healthy friendship as its focal point and how your other half doesn’t have to be a romantic soulmate. A lot of times, these kinds of stories can seem very repetitive, but with the new plot of Elle and Paul in love with the same girl we encounter a new kind of obstacle. I think the resolution was pretty solid for both plot lines and I liked the train scene at the end. Certain shots felt long at times. There were lots of pauses, which I didn’t 100% like. Also, the awkwardness could feel pretty cringey. Overall, it is definitely worth the watch. I liked it and would watch it again. Paul might be one of my heartthrobs of 2020. I’m always a sucker for a sweet jock with a heart of gold. 

THE OFFICE LADIES

Yes, I know I’m late to the show as this podcast started last year, but better late than never and what better time than quarantine. Plus, I don’t have to wait each week for a new episode (even though know I’m catching up, so eventually...) At first, I was worried when I would have time because of not spending as much time in the car for commuting, but I found it’s really soothing to listen to as I’m cleaning. It feels like I’m in the room with Angela and Jenna and we’re all BFFs. I love how they’re best friends in real life and how close they are. They give the trivia you really can only get from two people who were on the show. They also have several guest stars from actors on the show to writers, directors and producers. One of my most recent listens had Creed Bratton in the studio with them and they talked about the Halloween episode. It was great. Listening to their podcast is really making me want to rewatch the series for the 100th time. As an uber fan, I already get all of their references, but with the new Easter eggs I can’t wait to go back and see them.   

STAR WARS RISE OF SKYWALKER

Not just in honor of May the 4th, but to finish up the Star Wars watch through that I was taking with my sister. I hadn’t seen it yet and while not a die heart fan, I still wanted to see the conclusion. I liked the Force Awakens a lot, but felt eh about Last Jedi. In ways this one kind of felt like a stand alone. It had a different vibe compared to the previous two. After watching I heard there was a different director for all three movies, so that makes sense-I guess. (It’s weird they wouldn’t have kept at least one to do two of them.) It also had a kind of fan fiction feel. SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! Bringing Palpatine back reminded me of Lord Voldemort having a kid in Cursed Child. BACK FROM SPOILERS! I’m happy that Rey’s parentage/lineage was revealed because it was such a major point in this series. I loved the Rey/Finn/Poe relationship. It was great to see them in the same story line and reminded me of the original three: Luke/Han/Leia. Leia :( It was so sad, but I always knew it had to happen, due to Carrie Fischer. It didn’t make it any easier to watch. MORE SPOILERSSSSS! I knew Kylo would turn back. It was nice to see that his mom was able to spark that. I did like his fight scene. I just didn’t love the connection him and Rey have/had. LOVED the ending. I’m cool with her taking the Skywalker name and the suns shot with the force them at the end had me screaming. 

OPHELIA

From one Daisy Ridley film to another. This movie just recently got added to my list when I was channel surfing. I vaguely remembered it being advertised, but it felt like a while ago. I’m a sucker for a re-telling, so I was immediately intrigued to watch it. This film was adapted from a novel by the same name. It follows Ophelia from Shakespeare’s Hamlet and gives her more of a story and character development. If you are familiar with the original, you know that Ophelia is only briefly mentioned and her character’s motives are really driven by her love for Hamlet. Even her famous death scene is very ambiguous. When this film begins, a voice-over narration by Ridley immediately brings us to her death scene and tells the audience “that there is more to the story than we think we know.” I really loved the twist and re-invention of this story through her point of view. I think Daisy Ridley was fantastic in the role. I haven’t seen her in a lot of other things, so it was great to see her here in a completely different role from Star Wars. The re-telling is very creative and very feminist. You get to see how Hamlet and Ophelia meet and then see him off to school. With this addition you can really get behind this relationship and see the mutual attraction and feelings between them. When relating back to the original, I like how they cut out scenes that Ophelia was not physically apart of and instead rely the events that happened. (Specifically with Polonius’ death.) I also enjoyed the new perspective of scenes. You really can tell that Ophelia is not mad, but it is the mask she must put on to survive. The ‘get thee to a nunnery’ scene takes on a whole different meaning now. There’s also a lot echoes to other Shakespearean plays and tropes which were fun to explore. Whether you’re a Shakespeare/Hamlet fan or not, I would definitely check this one out if you’re a fan of the time period, re-tellings or a strong female lead.   

MEDICI THE MAGNIFICENT SEASON 3

I literally just finished this show this afternoon and I couldn’t wait to write about it. (Sorry if this post is pretty long, but that just shows you that you need to watch it.) I was very excited for the third and final season of Medici because I enjoyed season 2, so much. While this one might have taken me a little longer to watch, it was still a good time and I’m sad it’s over. 

Watching this season I was super impressed by Daniel Sharman’s acting. He has great range as he goes from a young Lorenzo in season 2 to an adult and father and then an elderly man. I think he was convincing throughout each stage and I’m happy they kept the same actor. His make-up to help him age looked a lot more natural, compared to Richard Madden’s, in my opinion. I feel on shows like this it’s often hard seeing a jump in time (it helps with seeing the kids grow up), so when Lorenzo starts to get sick/age I at first, was like whoa, but then it was further explained (by inheriting his father’s illness, etc.) 

Compared to season 2, I definitely liked the previous more. I not only enjoyed watching the more idealistic Lorenzo, but also plot-wise. In season 2 the Pazzi are the main antagonist/objective. Here in season 3 there were several obstacles/antagonists: The Pope, Riario, and Savonarola. Every time we thought there was a moment of peace...nope. Now, I get this is based on history and we need drama so you can only change so much, but I missed the Medici being at the top and being respected. I also know we covered A LOT of time. (I guess that shows you how connected I felt with them and the show.) 

All of the history Easter Eggs were cool. Obviously, the Renaissance was extremely relevant, but it was cool seeing the big names like Botticelli (especially with his painting at the end, which I recognized), Da Vinci, and Michelangelo. I can’t get over how many of these famous painters were recognized by the Medici family. It just shows you how important and influential they were. Also, when Nico revealed his last name as Machiavelli. JAW DROP! This show has continually brought me back to researching (and mainly using Wikipedia). The writing at the end was accurate to what I found. Wish we had another season with the legacy to see it continue. I’m surprised I got teary eyed at the end. 

WORLD ON FIRE

It may be listed last once again, this month, but it is definitely not least. The show may have finished its season a few weeks ago, but I still have two episodes left on my DVR. The last one I watched was when they were in Dunkirk and that was an intense time. I knew it was going to be, but it still didn’t prepare me. In this episode, we see many characters FINALLY meet up and join each other’s plot lines. I think that was one of my favorite parts of the episode/series. Some already knew each other, while others were meeting for the first time. While I am excited to see how it all turns out, I’m also not ready to say good-bye. Right now, I saw a potential for a season 2, but not sure if that was a fan made article or not. I’m hoping all of my favorite characters survive and get what can be considered a happier ending than what they are currently experiencing. I also hope we don’t end on too much of a cliffhanger. Either way, I’m happy I checked this show out. 

RE-WATCHING

iZOMBIE

Currently I’m in the beginning of the second season. Sometime last month I felt the pull to start re-watching this show. It’s one that I have tried once or twice to watch again from the beginning, but now that it’s been finished for almost a year, it felt like time. It was a great decision, although right now there’s some character plots that are frustrating me and that I forgot about. But there’s some great brains that Liv has experienced and it was great seeing Lowell again (for as short-lived as it was). I’m excited to continue re-watching. 

I DIDN’T DO IT

The re-watch for I Didn’t Do It basically began when it hit Disney Plus a few months ago. I just recently made it to season 2, which I remember enjoying more than season 1. One reason for this was because they get rid of the flashback format for each episode. I’m really early on, like episode 4, so I still have many more to go. Once I finish it I don’t know if I’ll explore a new Disney Plus show or watch another that I’ve seen before. 

I also have a few things on DVR that I’m still finishing up. I haven’t watched the finale of Batwoman yet and I know it’s going to be weird now that Ruby Rose has left the show. I just finished the Flash and felt blah about the whole season, so I’m unsure if I’ll watch next season. But I am enjoying Stargirl. You can find my thoughts on the first episode here. I’m excited to see the rest of the season. 

[jbrentonparker]

Plotting Method #3: The Snowflake Method

Ah, the Snowflake Method! You’ll hear this one mentioned a lot if you’re looking for help with plotting, and it can be very helpful if you have a vague outline of an idea, but are struggling to expand upon it. However, it does involve coming up with elements like main conflicts and character motivations very early on in the plotting process, which some writers prefer to let emerge later after they’ve had the chance to actually familiarize themselves with the characters. In short, this method works for a lot of people--but not for everyone. Give it a try, but if it’s not your cup of tea, don’t worry about it. Here’s the quick and dirty:

Snowflake Method:

Developed by Randy Ingermanson, this is one that’s popular with many writers, especially because if its pick-and-choose nature in which you can skip steps, only using what works best for you. Step 1: Write a one word sentence, 15 words or less, describing in broad terms the subject of your story (”a young boy learns he is a wizard and goes to  a magical school”). Step 2: Turn one sentence into five: the first describes the set up, the next three describing the main conflicts, and the last describing the conclusion. Step 3: Write a one page summary of each main character, describing their major goals, motivation, conflicts, and epiphanies, as well summarizing the story from each of their respective points of view. Step 4: Take the five sentences from step 2 and turn each one into a paragraph, fleshing out the details of the set up, conflicts, and climax in the form of a one page synopsis. Step 5: Write one page for main characters and half a page for supporting characters describing the story from their point of view, expanding on step 3. Steps 6 through 10 continue to add more to the previous 5 steps, so I’ll skip over that for now. I’ll discuss it in more detail in the post devoted to the Snowflake Method, but you can google it to check out the other steps for yourself.

Now to expand upon it a little.

Step 1 is easy if you barely have an idea at all (“all I know is I want to write a book about a talking dog who solves mysteries”), and much harder if you already have a more in depth idea of your novel. Condensing a 150,000 word novel into a 15 word summary is hard for most writers, but it’s an important skill to have, and it does become easier with practice. This 15 word summary is frequently called an “Elevator Pitch”, the idea being that is you end up in an elevator with a big name agent, you could pitch them your novel in a single sentence (maybe three at the most) that will catch their interest. A really good Elevator Pitch covers the core element of your novel. The conflict in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is the search for the stone and Harry’s eventual confrontation with Voldemort, but a large portion of the book is about Harry’s experiences at Hogwarts and learning about the Wizarding World. If you were writing a 15 broad description of The Sorcerer’s Stone using the Snowflake Method, you could either writer “a boy discovers he is a wizard and is sent to a magical school”, or “a wizard boy tries to uncover the mystery of a magical artifact before and evil wizard can”. Okay, my examples aren’t the prettiest, but you get the idea, both are accurate, succinct descriptions of the book. So if you don’t have a concrete conflict in mind to begin with, that’s fine, start with the general subject of your novel instead. Don’t get too comfy though, because figuring out your conflict comes next.

Step 2 is expanding the single sentence you just wrote into five. The first describes the set up, the next three describe the conflicts, the last describes the conclusion. Here’s an example: Original sentence: “A boy discovers he is a wizard and is sent to a magical school.” Expanded 5 Sentences: “1) An orphaned boy is raised by his ordinary aunt and uncle until his 11th birthday, when he discovers he is actually a wizard and is sent to a magical school. 2) He learns his parents were murdered by an evil wizard and his survival has made him famous, which comes with challenges from both his peers and his teachers. 3) He suspects one of his teachers is trying to steal a magical artifact for the evil wizard, and decides to investigate. 4) The evil wizard enacts his plan to steal the artifact, and the boy and his friends are forced into action themselves to save the day. 5) The boy and his friends get through a series of challenges, the boy faces the evil wizard and defeats him, saving the artifact and gaining respect and glory by winning the house cup for his bravery.” Don’t feel forced to come up with 3 conflicts, or feel limited to 3 conflicts. On the other hand, having a main conflict and two conflicts for subplots can help add a little extra depth to your story, and having too many competing conflicts can make your story muddled and confused. If you don’t have much experience with writing long novels, stick to 3 if you can until you have a good feeling for building a workable plot. Now, if you’re more of a panster, this is a good point to stop and just jump into your novel. You know how your story begins and how it ends, and you know the main conflicts to guide you, but how you will get to each point is still up to you to discover during the writing process. If you like more structure to work with, continue on. That’s the beauty of the Snowflake Method, it’s made to be picked apart, so you can use only what elements work for you, and drop those that don’t.

Step 3 shifts from plot to characters. It asks for a one page summary for each of the main characters. That’s one page total, not one page each, so just a paragraph or three, depending on how many main characters you have. Stick to main characters here (e.g. Harry, Ron, and Hermione; maybe Voldemort and Quirrell since their motivations affect the story so drastically). You really want to nail down their motivations before you start delving into secondary characters, because it’s character motivations that drive the plot. For each character, briefly describe their  major goals, motivation, conflicts, and epiphanies, as well summarizing the story from each of their respective points of view. For example: HARRY POTTER-- Goals: to find his place in the wizarding world and a place where he feels like he belongs, and to keep the Sorcerer’s Stone safe from Voldemort. Motivation: He always felt like an outsider in his life with the Durselys’ and had no friends; and he is horrified by the idea of the man who murdered his family coming back into power. Conflicts: characters like Draco Malfoy and Severus Snape make him doubt himself and feel like an outcast; and getting the Sorcerer’s Stone involves overcoming challenges related to what he has learned during his year at Hogwarts. Epiphanies: Bravery is about doing the right thing to help those you love even if your are afraid. And the summary would just be a brief summary of the your five sentences from above from Harry’s POV. Since the book is in third person limited, it would be pretty much the same as your summary--but imagine a summary of the book from Quirrell’s POV. That’s going to be a very different summary, and can help give you an idea of how Quirrell (or your own antagonist) would react to certain parts of the plot and conflicts.

Step 4 turns back to your summary. Take the five sentences from step 2 and turn each one into a paragraph, fleshing out the details of the set up, conflicts, and climax in the form of a one page synopsis. So you are turning five sentences into one page by adding in more details, going more in depth to the set up and the conflicts, a paragraph for each. This is when you (if you were writing Harry Potter) might add in that Dumbledore drops Harry off at his aunt and uncle’s after his parents are killed, and that it’s Hagrid who shows up on his 11th birthday. You would mention the characters Snape and Malfoy as being the ones who give Harry the hardest time integrating into the wizarding world. You might describe a little more exactly what Harry has to do to discover the Sorcerer’s Stone. What you won’t have are the minor subplots yet, like Norbert or Hermione and the Troll, or any Quidditch stuff. All the subplots will come later. By the end, you will have a one page synopsis that covers all the main conflicts and the climax/conclusion of your novel. This is extremely helpful to have, since many agents want to see a one page synopsis in the query letters you send them. You may end up tweaking it once the novel is actually finished since it’s quite rare that a completed novel totally reflects the outline, but hopefully all the bones will still be there.

Step 5 returns to characters. Now you’ll take your one paragraph for each main character and expand it into one page. Really go into depth here and try to get a good handle on their personalities, goals, and motivations. You want to have a clear vision of what they want, and how they would go about getting what they want. Nothing is quite as disconcerting in a novel as reading a character acting wildly out-of-character, just because the author decided they needed “A” to happen and made the character behave in a way that doesn’t align with their previous established personality to make it happen. This part, especially writing a summary of the novel from each character’s POV, can help keep that from happening before you’re knee deep in the climax and realizing that your main character’s motivation shoots a big ol’ plot hole in the life raft that is your story. This is also the part where you get more into subplots and supporting characters. You may have mentioned in step 3 that Hermione is not friends with Harry and Ron until the rescue her from a troll, and here is when you’ll really go into more detail about that, and about all the ways she specifically helps during the search for Nicholas Flamel and the Sorcerer’s Stone, as well as what she brings to the table during the climax. You’ll write about a half a page for Neville, Hagrid, Filch, and all the other supporting characters who appear to the story, and nail down their roles and motivations in relation to the plot and any subplots.

Feel free to stop here, but if you like to plot every scene down to the dialogue, continue on with steps 6 through 10. I’m going to copy the descriptions of steps 6 through 10 from the Advancedfictionwriting.com article on the Snowflake Method, which is Randy Ingermanson’s (the guy who invented the Snowfl;ake Method) own website, because he clearly does a better job of explaining it than I do, and because I have guests coming over soon and need to rush through the rest of this post. Check out the original post, it’s a good one.

“Step 6) By now, you have a solid story and several story-threads, one for each character. Now take a week and expand the one-page plot synopsis of the novel to a four-page synopsis. Basically, you will again be expanding each paragraph from step (4) into a full page. This is a lot of fun, because you are figuring out the high-level logic of the story and making strategic decisions. Here, you will definitely want to cycle back and fix things in the earlier steps as you gain insight into the story and new ideas whack you in the face.

Step 7) Take another week and expand your character descriptions into full-fledged character charts detailing everything there is to know about each character. The standard stuff such as birthdate, description, history, motivation, goal, etc. Most importantly, how will this character change by the end of the novel? This is an expansion of your work in step (3), and it will teach you a lot about your characters. You will probably go back and revise steps (1-6) as your characters become “real” to you and begin making petulant demands on the story. This is good — great fiction is character-driven. Take as much time as you need to do this, because you’re just saving time downstream. When you have finished this process, (and it may take a full month of solid effort to get here), you have most of what you need to write a proposal. If you are a published novelist, then you can write a proposal now and sell your novel before you write it. If you’re not yet published, then you’ll need to write your entire novel first before you can sell it. No, that’s not fair, but life isn’t fair and the world of fiction writing is especially unfair.

Step 8) You may or may not take a hiatus here, waiting for the book to sell. At some point, you’ve got to actually write the novel. Before you do that, there are a couple of things you can do to make that traumatic first draft easier. The first thing to do is to take that four-page synopsis and make a list of all the scenes that you’ll need to turn the story into a novel. And the easiest way to make that list is . . . with a spreadsheet.For some reason, this is scary to a lot of writers. Oh the horror. Deal with it. You learned to use a word-processor. Spreadsheets are easier. You need to make a list of scenes, and spreadsheets were invented for making lists. If you need some tutoring, buy a book. There are a thousand out there, and one of them will work for you. It should take you less than a day to learn the itty bit you need. It’ll be the most valuable day you ever spent. Do it.Make a spreadsheet detailing the scenes that emerge from your four-page plot outline. Make just one line for each scene. In one column, list the POV character. In another (wide) column, tell what happens. If you want to get fancy, add more columns that tell you how many pages you expect to write for the scene. A spreadsheet is ideal, because you can see the whole storyline at a glance, and it’s easy to move scenes around to reorder things.My spreadsheets usually wind up being over 100 lines long, one line for each scene of the novel. As I develop the story, I make new versions of my story spreadsheet. This is incredibly valuable for analyzing a story. It can take a week to make a good spreadsheet. When you are done, you can add a new column for chapter numbers and assign a chapter to each scene.

Step 9) (Optional. I don’t do this step anymore.) Switch back to your word processor and begin writing a narrative description of the story. Take each line of the spreadsheet and expand it to a multi-paragraph description of the scene. Put in any cool lines of dialogue you think of, and sketch out the essential conflict of that scene. If there’s no conflict, you’ll know it here and you should either add conflict or scrub the scene.I used to write either one or two pages per chapter, and I started each chapter on a new page. Then I just printed it all out and put it in a loose-leaf notebook, so I could easily swap chapters around later or revise chapters without messing up the others. This process usually took me a week and the end result was a massive 50-page printed document that I would revise in red ink as I wrote the first draft. All my good ideas when I woke up in the morning got hand-written in the margins of this document. This, by the way, is a rather painless way of writing that dreaded detailed synopsis that all writers seem to hate. But it’s actually fun to develop, if you have done steps (1) through (8) first. When I did this step, I never showed this synopsis to anyone, least of all to an editor — it was for me alone. I liked to think of it as the prototype first draft. Imagine writing a first draft in a week! Yes, you can do it and it’s well worth the time. But I’ll be honest, I don’t feel like I need this step anymore, so I don’t do it now.

Step 10) At this point, just sit down and start pounding out the real first draft of the novel. You will be astounded at how fast the story flies out of your fingers at this stage. I have seen writers triple their fiction writing speed overnight, while producing better quality first drafts than they usually produce on a third draft.You might think that all the creativity is chewed out of the story by this time. Well, no, not unless you overdid your analysis when you wrote your Snowflake. This is supposed to be the fun part, because there are many small-scale logic problems to work out here. How does Hero get out of that tree surrounded by alligators and rescue Heroine who’s in the burning rowboat? This is the time to figure it out! But it’s fun because you already know that the large-scale structure of the novel works. So you only have to solve a limited set of problems, and so you can write relatively fast.This stage is incredibly fun and exciting. I have heard many fiction writers complain about how hard the first draft is. Invariably, that’s because they have no clue what’s coming next. Good grief! Life is too short to write like that! There is no reason to spend 500 hours writing a wandering first draft of your novel when you can write a solid one in 150. Counting the 100 hours it takes to do the design documents, you come out way ahead in time.About midway through a first draft, I usually take a breather and fix all the broken parts of my design documents. Yes, the design documents are not perfect. That’s okay. The design documents are not fixed in concrete, they are a living set of documents that grows as you develop your novel. If you are doing your job right, at the end of the first draft you will laugh at what an amateurish piece of junk your original design documents were. And you’ll be thrilled at how deep your story has become.”

-Randy Ingermanson, “The Snowflake Method for Designing a Novel”

[doctorwhonews]

The Witchfinders

Latest Review: Written by Joy Wilkinson Directed by Sallie Aprahamian Executive Producers: Matt Strevens and Chris Chibnall Producer: Alex Mercer Starring Jodie Whittaker Bradley Walsh, Mandip Gill, Tosin Cole Alan Cumming, Siobhan Finneran, Tilly Steele, Tricia Kelly Stavros Demetraki, Arthur Kay A BBC Studios Production for BBC One First broadcast on BBC One, Sunday 25 November 2018 Running time: 46 minutes 31 seconds (source: BBC iPlayer)   The Witchfinders is Doctor Who's third foray into history this series, and on first acquaintance it's the closest to the model introduced with The Unquiet Dead and seen almost annually thereafter until (arguably) Robot of Sherwood. The Doctor and friends find themselves in a period setting familiar from school or heritage sites, but where the details aren't congruent with the record. There is a famous historical figure involved, presented in a knowingly self-conscious manner. An alien or aliens turn out to be behind events. There is an effects-laden climax which is cathartic for the historical personality concerned. Human history as known to the Doctor and his companions is guaranteed. While following this precedent, The Witchfinders follows hard on the heels of Demons of the Punjab and Rosa; and where the historical adventures of Doctors Nine to Twelve often revelled in subverting history, The Witchfinders carries forward the educative function of its predecessors this series, though in less direct a fashion.  Like Vinay Patel before her, Joy Wilkinson has posted a picture of some of the books she used to research her story on Twitter. There are differences in that where Patel's choices were squarely set in historical scholarship and the literary novel, Wilkinson's have ranging roots, from books she read when growing up - such as Arthur Douglas's accessible, well-researched and unsensationally readable The Fate of the Lancashire Witches (1978) and Robert Neill's novel Mist Over Pendle (1951) - to modern scholarly discussions of what the Lancashire witch trials meant at the time and how they have resonated since, and James VI and I's own Demonologie. Writing at greater distance from her subject than the authors of Rosa and Demons of the Punjab were from theirs, Wilkinson inevitably takes account of the centuries of transmission which have seen the Lancashire witch craze find many meanings for successive ages. While not necessarily less immediate than Doctor Who's depiction of Montgomery, Alabama, 1955, or the partitioned Punjab in 1947, time leads to fragmentation and the ways in which the TARDIS 'team, gang, fam' relate to events and characters are consequently more diffracted. As Wilkinson's sources indicate, the episode is as much a response to fictionalization, mythology and a mood struck by witch trials in the collective imagination as it is to the judicial pursuit of supposed witches in Lancashire in the reign of King James. No specific date is given for the events in The Witchfinders, and there is no mention by the seventeenth-century characters of the historical Pendle witch trials. Only Graham (Bradley Walsh) relates the setting of Bilehurst Cragg to the Pendle Witch Trail which he's walked. Presumably the story is set not long after the trials of 1612; or is it set earlier, and are we being asked to imagine that the persecution initiated by Becka Savage is the erased context for the historical accusations levelled against Alizon Device and her family in Pendle in 1612?   The presence of King James in the story might suggest an earlier date. Following his visit to Norway and Denmark to marry their king's sister Anna in 1590, James VI had become obsessed with witchcraft, finding guilty several accused from North Berwick in East Lothian (presumably inspiring the 'Berwick' referred to in this episode) guilty of using sorcery to try to sink his ship on the way home. The James of The Witchfinders expresses his belief that he is protected by God against extraordinary adversity, and his survival of a satanic plot against his own life, his wife's and the possibility of their having descendants encouraged this well before the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. However, during the 1610s the king became increasingly sceptical about witchcraft and wary of condemning accused witches. It's possible that one might look at a post-1612 setting for The Witchfinders, with the king here being confronted by his own fears and (with his agreement to suppress the memory of Bilehurst Cragg) learning to move past them even if this means a continued degree of personal and political repression. Beyond specifics about dates, The Witchfinders follows the pattern of other post-2005 pseudohistoricals by finding authenticity in impressionistic use of detail. Having witchcraft allegations arising within a family echoed the Lancashire witch trials of 1612, but its relation to female social mobility mirrored the case of Joan Flowers, one of the Belvoir witches of 1619. Where Becka Savage's status had risen by marriage, Joan Flowers's fell on her widowhood; before we learn that Becka has been infected by the Morax, her accusations of witchcraft, frequent duckings and horse-shootings invite the rationalist assumption that she has instigated a reign of terror in order to defend a precarious social position. Meanwhile her grandmother and cousin represented a power which could complement or oppose that of the local lord, that of the 'cunning woman' (sometimes cunning man) who in benign cases practised healing by seeking to bring the sick back into alignment with the four classical elements of earth, fire, water and air. The chanting of these elements as an invocation by Old Mother Twiston (Tricia Kelly giving a rounded performance in a few lines so we can believe in her as someone to mourn when in the earth and possessed by it) before her ducking encourages the viewer to see the Twistons as potential wielders of magic forces, with vague echoes of Shakespearean ambivalent or malign magic, but it's also a transmission of social identity within the village collective, with Willa (a forceful and grounded Tilly Steele) taking over her grandmother's role. In Doctor Who terms one might think of the assumption of Panna's identity by Karuna in part four of Kinda. In The Witchfinders it serves as a reminder that women were accepted as the gatherers, keepers and conveyors of useful knowledge in this period. The discussion the Doctor and Yaz have with Willa at the Twiston family home about her grandmother and magic incline the viewer to see Willa as the nearest the setting has to a rationalist, showing sympathy to the Doctor's unbelief in Satan; she crumbles before James and Becka soon after the Doctor explodes that if she was a man she'd have no problem furthering her investigation. Becka (a believable woman of faith and fear in the hands of Siobhan Finneran) imagines that the Doctor's authority is that of a witchfinder-general and does not scoff at what the psychic paper tells her. The arrival of King James, with his prejudices about male superiority and his belief that God works directly through him, disturbs the equilibrium of this corner of 'Merry England' as much as the witch-duckings displace the time-honoured Sunday ritual of apple-bobbing. Even assuming the early cultivation of different strains of apple which ripen at different times of year, and the maintenance of cold cellars for storage, I'm not sure that there would have been enough apples to bob every Sunday in a year, but the line (even if revisiting the scene 'this' is probably only the Sunday 'party') was a good way of suggesting that this was a time when long-established patterns of life were being disturbed.  There were no witchfinders-general in the time of James VI and I, nor did the king maintain a witchfinding hierarchy. The use of the title appeals to what the viewers might think they know - the spurious office is associated with Matthew Hopkins, who was active in the 1640s, a probable three decades after events here - but it also places The Witchfinders in a tradition of fictional accounts of seventeenth-century witch hunts which would take too long to explore here. However, the identification of the Doctor and her friends as the episode's eponymous witchfinders is a neat confirmation of the Doctor's complicity in events. Where the Doctor interfered in Rosa to correct the distortion of history, to the extent of not intervening in Rosa Parks's defence when ordered to surrender her seat on the bus, here her sense of what is right compels her to attempt to rescue Willa's grandmother, but fails. The Doctor's dilemma is played, shot and edited well, encouraging the sense that the Doctor's preaching of non-interference has been leading to this point. Interference means feigning friendship with a mass murderer. Although brought into the heart of local and then national society by their proximity to both Becka and the king, the Doctor is still acted upon as much as she acts upon other people. More than in any episode so far, the Doctor's freedom of action is constrained by her gender. It's been widely remarked upon that this is the first episode of the series where the Doctor explicitly identifies with womankind, and the first where she notes that she wouldn't have had this trouble when she was a man. James only regards her as a potential equal once she is accused of witchcraft: God's representative facing the Devil's.  On first viewing I found Alan Cumming's portrayal of James VI and I problematic. I was apprehensive following a report of his claim that he'd based his accent on Conservative politicians Malcolm Rifkind and Michael Forsyth - "from Scotland, but trying to pretend they’re from England with this strange hybrid accent" - which imports current debates about the politics of Scottish identity into a Doctor Who story which already promised to have much to carry. Whatever one thinks of James (or for that matter Rifkind and Forsyth) he never pretended to be from England; but what we had was a more generic 'Morningside' accent which worked as a parallel for a Scottish king seeking acceptance by the English elite. Choices in Cumming's establishing scenes made me sympathetic to observers who thought it an overly mannered, even homophobic performance and for a while I was one of those who thought this James would turn out to be an impostor. On the other hand Cumming emphasised the king's love of drama, acknowledged in the script; the characterization was strong, with 'modern' characters in Ryan and the Doctor inspiring some very twenty-first century therapeutic conversations to provide background to what one could already infer from text and performance. James's confrontation with the Doctor shows him to be a worthy adversary, able to turn the Doctor's interrogation against her in defence, but his attack on the Morax queen makes him a less than worthy ally, the divisions in his identity still unreconciled. Slaying a dragon as the sovereign of the Garter and bearer of St George's cross might be fitting, but in doing so James mistakes the nature of his foe, lets prejudice betray his claims to empiricism, and removes both the possibility of the queen's redemption and the recovery of Becka from possession (not entirely closed off by the insistence of the queen that nothing remains of Becka). The Arthurian echoes in the imprisonment of the Morax, a king with a mighty army sleeping under a hill, mocked the historical James's barely fulfilled wish to make Arthurian legend real as king of a unified Britain, just as the Morax queen and her court of corpses mock this James's fragile masculinity by intending to 'fill' him with their king. The latter too draws from M.R. James's treatment of seventeenth-century witch-hunting in The Ash Tree, as a wronged woman blights a landed dynasty of men over generations. The Witchfinders succeeded at creating mood, with its mists, winter berries, cold grey water and wet earth. I might have wished for more oppressive dark to accompany the shuffling of the mud-filled corpses, though perhaps this might have been thought too directly drawing upon latterday zombie television for an early evening audience. I'd thought of this series as made of spaces and silences, but here Segun Akinola's score suggested that there was something in the silence, knocking on wood to seek form, whispering in the wind. There were touches of the uncanny in ordinary design, too - the stylized ducking stool seemed oddly fashioned but hinted at the revelation that this was alien technology. Transformed into the Morax queen, Siobhan Finneran's make-up suggested a woodland creature as much as a mud entity, with a little of Rupert Bear's forest sprite Raggety about her.  The 'flat team structure' of the current Team TARDIS is evolving well, with this episode showing the roles of the different characters to advantage. Ryan's empathic side was brought out by the quietly assured Tosin Cole, Graham was authoritatively avuncular, and Yaz (a determined and energetic Mandip Gill) was professionally investigative but also humane in her treatment of the bereaved Willa. The Doctor has increasing room to display her edge, too, with Jodie Whittaker unquestionably in command of a chastened and reflective King James in the final scene. The regulars are enduring a slow build and makes me wish the series had more time, both with some more minutes to show off the abilities of the regulars and more episodes in which to get to know them.  There's so much more that could be unpicked in this story, so many layers did it invoke. The Witchfinders was an accomplished and very enjoyable episode on the whole - but why, Doctor, that dig about pockets? Seventeenth-century women apparently enjoyed more of them about their clothing than their twenty-first century successors do... http://reviews.doctorwhonews.net/2018/11/the_witchfinders.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr

[xuer]

when I wake up, let's pretend it was just a dream

the title of this fic is actually a translated lyric from a very famous drama (danmei adaptation) ost. I'm sure many people are familiar with it, but it has nothing to do with the plot, and I don’t like comparing danmei to each other, so I won't mention it by name. I just felt that my personal interpretation of the song's melancholic and nostalgic air that yearns for the past/something no longer attainable fits this fic very well, and I was listening to the song on repeat while writing.

the song is unrestrained from the cql ost.

I didn’t want to mention it by name in my end notes because I was a bit afraid someone would see and start drawing comparisons to mdzs. and I hate comparing danmei to each other, but I’ve always wanted to write out my thought process and I figured it would be safe here. cql spoilers ahead

a big part of mdzs (or at least a part of it that resonated really deeply with me) is how utterly and completely different wwx’s life is in the present compared to the past. for one, a lot more people were alive. when I was watching cql and cross-referenced, say, episode 3 (where wwx’s biggest worry was sneaking alcohol into the cloud recesses and disliking jzx) with episode 32 (jyl’s death), episode 33 (wwx’s death/suicide), and episode 38 (xxc’s demise), it’s blatant how much has changed for the worse. I only mentioned a few excerpts from the show, but you get my point. maybe it was something only I felt as a viewer, but there were so many times during my watch that I sighed and went “I wish things could go back to how they used to be.” there’s that sense of yearning for the past. in lovely allergen canon, things get worse before they get better, and during those series of chapters where yzs’s and sy’s relationship degraded for a while, I got that same feeling, at least on the behalf of yzs. although wiwu is written in third person, the first half of the fic is from yzs’s perspective in the same way lovely allergen is. the first half of lovely allergen takes place during yzs’s high school years, which was the happiest time period for him pre-chapter 56.

unrestrained, the song, has a similar nostalgic feel to it, and it’s about a similar theme, so I drew some vague hand-wavey parallels from cql and lovely allergen to come up with the fic title.

I also read the mdzs novel a while ago and have been slowly making my way through the cql drama for the better part of 4 months (when I wrote wiwu I wasn’t done watching it but I am now), so it’s been slow going, but the entire time I was watching the ultra-long flashback section I kept getting the feeling that I was watching a train wreck happening in slow motion. I knew horrible things were going to happen, and I couldn’t look away. I also wanted to emulate that same feeling with my fic.

I’m writing this tumblr post on my phone in bed at 3 in the morning, so I’m not quite sure if any of this made sense.

you can listen to unrestrained here.

[contre-qui]

Book 6 of 2021: The Birth of Venus

The Birth of Venus by Sarah Dunant

(paperback, 391 pages, historical fiction, romance, adult)

I am like Icarus without wings. But the desire to fly was very strong in me. I think I was always looking for a Daedalus. (11)

I didn't really enjoy this book, but I feel I should also mention I wasn't aware that this book was extremely historical romance, and focused a lot on a very specific point in history I know basically nothing about. Also I think the blurb was kind of misleading because it sort of implies one of the characters is a famous artist but he's not there yet when the book takes place, and that's just not the case at all.

First things first: the title makes no sense. The actual painting The Birth of Venus - the one everyone knows - was painted at least ten years before this book takes place and has no relevance to the plot or characters. Again, I think it was misleading because the title paired with the blurb made me think this mysterious young artist was going to be someone like Botticelli (who painted the big famous painting), and he just wasn't. He was just a random artist who wasn't famous and didn't do anything big. I think that's still a cool premise because I like reading about 'normal' or 'forgotten' people from history, but honestly this guy was so irrelevant I couldn't even tell you his name. I think they only use his name once or twice, anyways. I think Dunant could have done a lot with the anonymity of this painter and what that meant for him and for the main character, but she just didn't because the book wasn't really about him and he was more of a plot device than an actual character anyways, in my opinion.

The Birth of Venus is about teenage Alessandra, the daughter of a wealthy textile merchant in 1490s Florence. When we first meet her, Alessandra is resisting the idea of marriage and is only getting out of it because she hasn't started menstruating yet. Her father hires a promising young artist to paint their family's chapel walls, and Alessandra - who draws in secret - is immediately intrigued. She tries to to convince him to teach her how to paint, but he refuses because of the impropriety of the request. Eventually, Alessandra begins menstruating, but the political climate of Florence is becoming charged and dangerous, especially for unmarried women. Faced with a difficult decision - marriage or a convent - Alessandra agrees to marry a slightly older man who seems interested in her intellect more than her looks. On their wedding night, however, she discovers her husband is gay and she is to be his beard now that the Catholic Church is looking more closely at its parishioners. Alessandra also discovers that her husband has been maintaining a long-term relationship with one of her older brothers, who she also did not know was gay. The political climate continues to tighten, Alessandra has to figure out her opinions on her husband and brother's particular sin, and she continues to think of the artist in her father's home.

This keeps happening to me, but this was such an interesting premise with such a disappointing execution. I get that it's historically accurate or whatever, but I'm honestly so tired to reading about straight people trying to figure out if queerness is a sin. It just sucks to read, and the way queerness is presented in this book was just odd. Alessandra never came to any definitive conclusions about it - which is fine - but I could have used a little less of the vague villainization of queer people and the way it felt like her husband was taking advantage of her. Everyone sort of 'assumed' Alessandra knew about her brother, and they paint it as this phase they expected him to grow out of once he got married. Because of that, Alessandra is presented as this innocent and clueless teenager who is startled by queer sexuality. Honestly, it's tiring. It felt like some straight lady patting herself on the back for representation. This book was written for straight people, and that is so obvious. Her husband gives Alessandra permission to see other men, as he does, as long as she's quiet about it - and that feels like some straight lady fantasy for women who aren't happy in their marriages and would rather pursue some grungy young artist than their husbands. It was annoying, and I don't like having my community debated, even if it is thinly veiled as historical accuracy.

I was also super turned off by an uncomfortably graphic description of Alessandra's wedding night (meant to be uncomfortable I'm sure, but just kind of unnecessary in my opinion) and by an equally graphic description of Alessandra later giving birth. I get it, these things are part of life and weren't very pretty, especially in that time period. But I think Dunant could have given the reader the same sense of discomfort and frightened urgency, respectively, without the graphic descriptors. They were just really gross and hard to read for me, personally.

Let's not even get into Alessandra's maid, a Black woman whose portrayal gives me mixed feelings.

The book was also a little more historical than I expected, which was kind of interesting to read about because I'm not super familiar with Savonarola's rise to power in Florence and the subsequent religious and political fallout, but it was pretty dry. As much as some of the impacts did affect Alessandra, she was upper class so it wasn't that big of a deal for her. And though her father's business was heavily impacted, she was out of the house pretty quickly when things started going downhill, so she missed most of those ramifications. I don't think the artist really added that much to the story if I'm being honest. His inclusion felt like straight woman fantasy about cheating on their husbands or pursuing some secret passion for art or something. It was weird. And the conclusion of the novel with his impact on Alessandra's life felt kind of random with where the book had been going. I just wasn't that impressed.

Trigger warnings for weird/homophobic descriptions of queerness and queer relationships, heavy Catholicism and older Catholic teachings, murder, descriptions of murdered bodies, self-injury, injury mentions of blood, medical care, illness/vomiting, pregnancy, graphic descriptions of uncomfortable sex, graphic descriptions of childbirth, and mentions of racism and slavery.

My overall opinion: This book was not written for me, and that was abundantly clear throughout the entire thing.

[ruminativerabbi]

Bad Karma/Good Karma

Even the President’s fiercest critics were able—at least for the most part—to choke out at least some version of a get-well wish when the positive results of his COVID test were announced. But in most cases it didn’t take long for the writer (or speaker) to get to the real point.

There was Joe Biden’s wish for a “swift and successful” recovery for the President, followed by his acerbic observation that, of course, he wasn’t at all surprised that the President fell ill since he failed to follow the most elemental rules for fending off infection. Then there was the New York Times’ “Get Well, Mr. President” lead editorial in last Sunday’s paper, a wish the Editorial Board then felt the need to justify in twelve different ways lest anyone think they were motivated merely by sympathy for a sick person infected with a potentially deadly virus. Even better, at least in my opinion, was Bret Stephen’s column in Tuesday’s paper. (I admire Stephens and read his columns with great enthusiasm and interest, so I mention him in this context merely to illustrate a point.) He began by using a quote from John Donne (“Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in Mankinde”) to explain his wish that the President have a “full and speedy recovery,” then, lest anyone think he actually had any actual sympathy for the actual patient, went on to justify his get-well wishes in as many ways as he could think of (including the remarkable thought that we should wish the President well because, should he die, Mike Pence would make an even worse President). Stephens’ wrap-up line said it all. We should wish the President well, he wrote, “because it’s the right thing to do.” I’d just love having someone visit me in the hospital—poo poo poo—and tell me they had come to wish me a speedy recovery “because it’s the right thing to do.” Hah!

As far as I can see, however, there lies a single concept at the core both of all the editorial pieces I read and all the late-night TV hosts’ hilarious comments regarding the President’s illness: the concept of karma. What goes around comes around. You reap what you sow. At least in the end, you get what you deserve. At the end of the meal you prepare, you eat your own just deserts!

The concept of karma derives from the Hindu notion of rebirth after death and in that context means that the circumstances of your next life will be a function of the way you have conducted yourself in this and previous lives. Most non-Hindus will find the concept of endless reincarnation at least unlikely, but the underlying principle that—one way or the other—you eventually get what you deserve remains resonant with the public. I’d certainly like to believe it myself! The President mocked his own advisors who called for the nation to wear face masks in public. The President made a public display of the degree to which he refused socially to distance himself from others. The President repeatedly encouraged people not to take the possibility of infection with the novel coronavirus too very seriously, including at White House receptions hosted by the President himself. And so the universe finally took matters into its own hands and baked the man the cake he surely earned.  The universe, according to this line of thought, does not like being mocked and has no problem addressing the issue forcefully and, if necessary, virally.

The President’s comment the other day that his infection was a kind of “blessing in disguise” would work well with this line of thinking if his point had been that now, having experienced the terror of infection and the relief of recovery, he had learned to take the pandemic very seriously and was encouraging precisely the correct kind of behavior that the experts feel could go miles towards reining this crisis in. But that isn’t at all what he meant.

You don’t have to embrace Hinduism to seize the concept here. A famous verse from Proverbs (22:8) reads “Those who plant injustice will harvest disaster.” That sounds clear enough. But the prophet Hosea is even clearer: “You have sown wickedness,” he says to his wayward countrymen, “and now you shall reap evil.” Lady Wisdom herself steps forward in the Book of Proverbs and sums the whole concept up in three Hebrew words: v’yokhlu mi-p’ri darkam, she declares: In this life, you eat the fruit of the trees you plant along the way. Much later on, the first-century Sage Hillel would offer his own version in a much-quoted lesson from Pirkei Avot (2:6). Seeing a human skull floating on the water of a nearby stream, Hillel addressed the skull directly: “Because you drowned someone else, you yourself have now been drowned. But not to worry—the people who drowned you will eventually be drowned themselves.” That’s how it works in the world, Hillel was teaching. You harvest what you plant. You reap what you sow. You eat the cake you bake. You become what you make yourself into. You don’t always get what you want…but you always—at least eventually—get what you deserve.

Arguing to the contrary are all those people who smoke for decades and don’t end up with any of the various diseases associated with smoking cigarettes. And what about the righteous who suffer grievously in the course of their lives—if karma is such a thing, then why doesn’t the universe grant them the boons they deserve for living decently and behaving justly? And the corollary question also bears asking: if those who sow badness reap the disastrous consequences of self-made bad karma, then why does there seem to be now obvious correlation between moral bearing and wealth or, even more to the point, between moral bearing and good health? If karma is a thing, then how can decent people ever meet bitter, miserable ends? Maybe the Hindus are right that this only works in the very long run.

It’s a bit amusing to be pondering these thoughts with Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur so close in the rearview mirror: if one single idea underlies both holidays, it is that human beings are judged with respect to their ethical bearing, moral rectitude and fortitude, and commitment to justice and decency…and then, if found worthy, are granted another year of life suffused with God’s blessings. We sing it out with great gusto (or did in a pre-pandemic world), but we certainly don’t take it to the point of really thinking that the people who die in any given year were personally responsible for their own demises because of the bad karma they brought personally to their own life stories!

In the end, the President didn’t get COVID because of bad karma or because the universe wished to make an example out of him. He tested positive because he failed to observe the most elemental rules of safe conduct in this pandemic age we are living through and ended up hoist with his own petard.

When the psalmist wrote, “I was a lad and now have become old, yet I have never seen a righteous person abandoned or the child of such a person begging for bread,” he was giving into the same urge to believe that we are the authors of our own karma and then either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences in the context of our lifetimes. That line, familiar to all traditionally minded Jewish people because it concludes the Grace after Meals, is surely the most famous expression of the idea in the context of Jewish liturgy. Less well known—although invariably observed by myself—is the custom, also quite old, of reciting those words sotto voce, thereby nodding to their supreme logic at the same time we accept as obvious the fact that they are not literally true.

In the end, we are the masters of our destiny and fragile, brittle things that suffer in all sorts of ways that we have specifically not brought upon ourselves. Our own tradition lives with that paradox, with that discrepancy between what we believe and what we know. We say that the fate of all is written up in the great Book of Life on Rosh Hashanah and the judgment sealed on Yom Kippur—but we also know that people die between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, which should be impossible if their verdicts are only made final on Yom Kippur!

In the end, we live our lives seeking to control our own destiny through the creation of good karma and submitting to the will of God and knowing that in the fragility of human life inheres the arbitrariness of our personal destinies. Still, why tempt fate? If wearing a face mask is responsible behavior and socially distancing myself from others is the sign of decency and conscientiousness, then I will do those things to keep myself and others safe. I won’t say no to good karma. But I also drop my voice at the end of Birkat Hamazon lest I hear myself saying something that sounds vaguely pious but which is ultimately not a truth I can actually discern in the world.

[carlkandutsch]

Identity Politics and the End of Privacy

By Carl E. Kandutsch

Lynn Casteel Harper’s essay called “The Color of my Character” (http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/02/the-color-of-my-character/) begins by quoting Martin Luther King’s famous speech: “I have a dream my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

I have always understood King’s words to provide a reminder of something we already know – that the color of one’s skin is the most arbitrary and contingent of a person’s qualities, and because it is arbitrary and contingent, one’s racial identity cannot be relevant to the criteria we use to judge another person’s character. It would follow that the color of my own skin is equally irrelevant; because it is not an expression of my character, someone who judges me based on my race is not really judging me at all. What King calls “character” would be something like personal identity against the backdrop of our common humanity. Personal identity is a matter of who one is, and “who one is” is a determined by what one does, for which one bears responsibility – it is in deeds (and words are deeds) that we show our attitudes toward the world and other people. This seems to follow from the concept of privacy; just as I am responsible for declaring who and what I am, so it is not up to me to determine who another person is. Acknowledging another person’s privacy means acknowledging his or her separateness from me, where separateness has nothing to do with differences (which may be entirely superficial, like differences in skin color) but with the fact that her life is hers just as my life is mine. If the other is separate, it follows that she is autonomous – like me.

Now suppose that I, as a white person and insofar as I am able to control my own attitudes and behavior, do not as far as I can tell judge people based on their race. That doesn’t matter. According to Harper, I must take responsibility for my “implicit” and “systematic” racism, and my racism is established by the fact that other people judge me based on the color of my skin, which happens to be “white.” In a racist society (that is, in 21st century America), other people tend to view me as a good and pleasant and trustworthy person not because I really have any of those qualities but solely because of my race. Harper provides some examples:

I have not been spotlighted on nighttime strolls, or tracked in stores, or denied housing or employment —not because people and institutions have examined the content of my character, but because they have reacted favorably to my skin, believing its color indicates sound character.  My white ancestors were also deemed trustworthy and good—not only in social settings but also under the formal structures of the law—simply because of their whiteness.  As a reward for their pigmentation, they received loans to buy houses and land, attended properly-funded schools, gained entrance to colleges, voted in elections and held public office, applied to and received any number of jobs, and even enjoyed superior seating in theaters, churches, and trains.  Even my most disadvantaged white ancestors, at the very least, lived free from the persistent psychic and physical threat of lynching, fire bombs, and burning crosses.

The matter of who I am is determined by how other people see me, and what they see is my “whiteness”; accordingly, I am offered various privileges historically associated with white people. This is my “white privilege”, and it has penetrated my soul and it determines the content of my character: “A comfortable beneficiary of this state of affairs, I have been unable or unwilling to see what was right before my pale face—how deeply my color has formed my character.  My free movement, my easy access, my ample opportunities, my open interactions have tricked me into confusing societal privilege for personal virtues.  The gig is up: it’s been the color of my skin all along.”

The point I wish to extract from Harper’s analysis is her assumption that my personal identity is determined by how other people see and treat me. What to do? It is here that Harper’s analysis becomes a little vague. Those of us who by accident of birth happen to be white must begin by “assessing the damage” that our white skin has inflicted upon our characters. The results of this self-assessment are known in advance: we are “passive” and “in denial”, “apathetic” and “cowardly”, “morally docile”, “fragile”, “defensive”, and “childish” – we are mired in what Harper calls, alluding apparently to Henry David Thoreau, a state of “quiet despair”. Taking responsibility for the character flaws that follow from other peoples’ perceptions is like recognizing that we live in a state of sin, having been expelled from a racially naïve Garden of Eden. But what follows upon this acknowledgment? Where does it lead?

Underlying Harper’s way of thinking is a particular conception of personal identity, a conception that has become widespread and nearly pervasive, and which girds the discourse of “identity politics” that has come to absorb what remains of classical liberalism. No story better illustrates the prevailing conception of personal identity than that of Rachel Dolezal, the former civil rights activist and president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People chapter in Spokane, Washington, from 2014 until June 15, 2015, when she resigned following allegations that she had lied about her racial identity and other aspects of her biography.

According to interviews and a recent memoir, Ms. Dolezal decided rather early in her life to “identify as” a black person. It is worth emphasizing how recent and novel is the notion of “identifying as”, starting with its grammatical structure. We are familiar with “identify” as a transitive verb, whether referring to oneself (“When the police stopped me, I identified myself and provided my home address”) or to others (“I immediately identified my brother as the culprit”). I remember a time when people began to use the word intransitively as an expression of empathy for others, as in “I can identify with those who lost their homes in the last tornado”. But what is new is the idea of identifying [myself] as … a member of some particular racial, ethnic or religious group, or by way of gender or sexual preference. Here, “identify as” is used intransitively, not as an expression of empathy but as a mode of self-assertion. I suspect (but do not know) that the idea of “identifying as” comes from the common experience of being expected to select one of several options on one of innumerable forms that we are routinely called upon to complete and file with some government agency, credit department, doctor’s office or similar institution. The logical coherence of “identifying as” seems to require at least two assumptions that are philosophically significant: First, that each of us has the ability (not to mention right) to choose his or her personal identity (as Dolezal’s case sadly illustrates), and second, that choosing consists of selecting among various universally understood, pre-packaged options.

These two assumptions are related: to “identify as”, for example, white, is quite different from staking your existence on your commitment to a chosen course of action – in which case you can be said to discover who you are by learning what you can do in the world, that is, by achieving something. In a world where each of us must “identify as”, personal identity is not an achievement but a selection. Identifying as means picking from an array of available options that are presented to you like desserts on a restaurant menu. The consequences of your selection are rather clear. To our way of thinking, one’s selection of a personal identity brings with it an array of rights – in particular, the right to be respected, which in practice means, a right not to have your sensibility offended, and this right may or may not be codified in the law.

The significance of “identifying as …” lies in the rights that come with one’s selected identity. This hypothesis explains how we have arrived at a position from which we talk about (for instance) enforceable “safe spaces” and about obligations imposed on teachers to provide students with “trigger warnings” prior to assigning books that might infringe on the set of rights that go together with the student’s selection of an identity. And how we have ended up with concepts like “white privilege”, which amounts to a requirement that the one possessing the privilege justify in advance, as it were, not so much what he or she has to say but one’s right to speak at all on certain subjects rather than remain silent. In other words, our contemporary concept of personal identity goes together with a vast expansion of the concept of “rights” over the past twenty years approximately. The question I would like to ask is this: is it coincidental that the expansion of “rights” to include the right to “identify as” and to have one’s selected identity respected, seems to happen at a time when there is a simultaneous contraction of rights that until recently were taken more or less for granted, such as the “right to privacy”? Because it is hard not to notice that the rise of “identity politics” coincides with the universalization of warrantless government surveillance.

I suspect that the source of Lynn Casteel Harper’s discovery, and of Rachel Dolezal’s tragedy is to be found in an ever-expanding sense of shame that pervades “post-modern” existence in so-called advanced societies in the West. It is as if without or prior to the palliative of identifying as, a mere person, a human being, has no right to be acknowledged at all, because merely existing is shameful. Shame is nothing new. It is in fact the same kind of shame that Ralph Waldo Emerson identified in passages like this (in the essay published in 1841 called “Self-Reliance”): “Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say ‘I think,’ I am,’ but quotes some saint or sage. He is ashamed before the blade of grass or the blowing rose.” And a generation or so later by John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty”:

In our times, from the highest class of society down to the lowest, everyone lives under the eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship. Not only in what concerns others, but in what concerns themselves, the individual or the family do not ask themselves, what do I prefer? Or, what would suit my character and disposition? Or what would allow the best and the highest in me to have fair play and enable it to grow and thrive? They ask themselves, what is suitable to my position? What is usually done by persons of a station and circumstance superior to mine? I do not mean that they choose what is customary in preference to what suits their own inclination. It does not occur to them to have any inclination except for what is customary. Thus the mind itself is bowed to the yoke: even in what people do for pleasure, conformity is the first thing thought of; they live in crowds; they exercise choice only among things commonly done; peculiarity of taste, eccentricity of conduct are shunned equally with crime, until by dint of not following their own nature they have no nature to follow: their human capacities are withered and starved; they become incapable of any strong wishes or native pleasures, and are generally without either opinions or feelings of home growth, or properly their own. Now is this, or is it not, the desirable condition of human nature?

How can it be that (returning to King’s words as interpreted by Harper) one’s “character” is judged – first of all by oneself – based on the color of one’s skin, if not under severe pressure to conform to norms and expectations that are imposed by a society that is unable to find a way out from under a long history of injustice and exploitation? Or rather, a society that seeks a way out from under that burden through the adjustment of sensibilities rather than through correction of the injustices themselves?

It is as if the mere fact of being born is not enough to establish one’s existence at all, I mean, as opposed to non-existence. Existence as a human being in 21st century America requires, as it were, proof – and the only proof imaginable comes by way of “identifying as” a particular type of human being, viz., a black, white, brown, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, male or female or straight or gay person. Evidently, seeing someone as a mere human being, prior to and independently of that person’s racial or ethnic or religious or gender identity, is problematic.

When in the course of my ordinary life I encounter a chair, I do not see it as a chair. It just is a chair. If on the other hand, I am walking in the forest, feeling exhausted and hungry, and I encounter a stump with a more or less level and flat surface about two feet above the ground, I may see it as a chair – that is, I am able to imagine various possibilities of sitting on it and resting while eating my lunch. Do we have some kind of problem with recognizing other human beings – I mean, recognizing them as human? As opposed to what? Do we require, as a condition of acknowledging another person, that he or she possess some special quality or surplus that happens to be the most arbitrary and contingent of all conceivable qualities such as skin color or gender or religious or ethnic affiliation? And if so, how could we be so deluded as to assume that demanding or legislating respect for this kind of utterly arbitrary “identity” could possibly compensate for our fundamental inability to see others as like us in all of those respects that are not completely arbitrary and contingent?

I close with the suggestion that there is a deep connection between our need to “identify as” and the all but complete obliteration of personal privacy in our world thanks to the technology of universal surveillance as implemented by our allegedly liberal-democratic government and simultaneously by our neo-liberal digital economy, in which our online viewing and reading histories have become a commodity for purchase and sale within the network of digital content providers and distributors. In Mill’s words, our human capacities have become so “withered and starved” that “by dint of not following [our] own nature [we] have no nature to follow”, and so have come to rely on conformity to the perceptions and expectations of others as a way of proving to ourselves and to others that we exist at all. In this circumstance, it is not at all surprising that we not only accept but actually welcome the kind of affirmation that comes with having our intimate conversations scrutinized or capable of being scrutinized by anonymous government bureaucrats combing through email and telephone transcripts – if only because the fact that this is happening provides proof that we at least matter to someone, somewhere.

[aion-rsa]

Star Trek: Discovery Season 3 Episode 3 Easter Eggs & References

https://ift.tt/3kFWI2V

This Star Trek: Discovery article contains spoilers for Season 3, Episode 3. Read our review of the episode here.

As the USS Discovery starts to explore the galaxy in Star Trek: Discovery Season 3, the first stop is, understandably, to check-in on how the Planet Earth is doing. Unlike Battlestar Galactica searching for Earth forever, Discovery decided to get the whole Earth thing out of the way right away. In Episode 3, “People of Earth,” the crew returns to the home planet of the Federation and learns things are not remotely similar to how they left it.

Along the way, “People of Earth” references a long-running TNG-Douglas Adams joke, a quip from Kirk in The Wrath of Khan, a famous DS9-era alien species, and more! 

700 years after we left…

Burnham’s opening narration fills in new details we previously didn’t get about the Burn, including the idea that prior to the Burn, about “700 years after we left, dilithium reserves dried up.” This means that around the year 2957 or so, the Federation was “trialing alternative warp drive designs.” We don’t know much about the 30th century in the existing Trek canon, other than Daniels from Enterprise had knowledge about that era. To put it in perspective, this time period would still be 500 years in the future for Star Trek: Picard. The idea of the Federation trying to change the way warp drive operates vaguely references the TNG episode “Force of Nature.”

47

When Burnham talks about being a courier, someone hands her a sliver containing the Starfleet registry NCC-4774. We don’t know what ship this belongs to, but it seems like this is a visual joke which references the long, and intentional inside joke about using the number 47 (or 74) throughout all of Trek which began around TNG Season 4. There are literally hundreds of appearances of the numbers 47 or 74 throughout the franchise, so many that there is actually a “47 project” devoted to finding all the occurrences of 47 throughout the franchise. 

The origin of the joke references the number 42 from Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. In that novel, “42” ends up being the answer to “the life, the universe, and everything.” Burnham is searching for similarly vague answers in this montage. In the ‘90s, “47” became the “42” of Star Trek canon, and Rick Berman joked once that 47  was “42, adjusted for inflation.” The number “47” is also an Easter egg of sorts for alums from Pomona College, sprinkled throughout TV and film history.

Terralysium and Burnham’s mom

Burnham tells Saru that during the year she’s spent in this future, she’s connected the planet Terralsyium and that “they had never heard of my mom.” This references Season 2 of Discovery in which we learned Burnham’s mother, Gabrielle Burnham transported humans from the 21st Century to a planet called Terralysium in the Beta Quadrant. In theory, Terralysium was supposed to be the tether location where Burnham and the USS Discovery ended-up. In “Perpetual Infinity” Burnham’s mom was sucked into a time vortex, which, in theory, could have deposited her into the future version of Terralysium. So far, though, that’s not the case.

Captain Saru

Saru is promoted to captain in this episode. This is a long time coming for Saru. He’s been a First Officer for two captains thus far, Captain Lorca and Captain Pike. And, in the Discovery novel Desperate Hours, Saru was upset that Burnham was promoted to First Officer over him prior to the Battle of the Binary Stars. This 2017 book by David Mack is slightly non-canonical, but it did establish Detmer’s first name as Keyla, and doubled-down on Number One’s name as Una. Anyway, the point is, Saru has been working for a long time to become Captain.

DOT-7 Bots

We briefly see the outside of Discovery’s hull being repaired by DOT-7 robots. We first saw these little bots in “Such Sweet Sorrow” in Season 2, when they emerged from the Enterprise and effected some repairs. One of these bots, of course, was the star of the Short Treks episode “Ephraim and Dot.”

“Galavanting”

Georgiou mentions that Book has been “galavanting through space with Michael.” This could be a reference to The Wrath of Khan in which Kirk says, “galavanting around the cosmos is a game for the young.” 

Saturn 

Although the planet Saturn is famous to us here on Earth — not counting the opening credits for Star Trek: The Next Generation Seasons 1 and 2 — this is seemingly only the fourth time Saturn has appeared during an episode or movie of Star Trek. Previously, Saturn appeared in the TNG episodes “The Best of Both Worlds,” and “The First Duty.” In Star Trek (2009) Saturn appears when the Enterprise hides near Titan. 

“One aye”

When Booker sarcastically says “aye, aye” commander, to Burnham, she replies, “One ‘aye,’ we’re not pirates.” This might reference the original TNG episode “Lower Decks,” in which Riker tells Lavelle that “One aye is sufficient acknowledgment, Ensign.”

Georgiou pretends to be an Admiral

When the Discovery is inspected by the Earth ships, Georgiou dons an Admiral’s uniform to “make it believable.” This is the second time Mirror Geogoiu has worn a Starfleet uniform even though she is not really in Starfleet. The first time was in Discovery Season 1 when she was authorized to impersonate Prime Georgiou to lead the mission against the Klingon homeworld. 

Generational ship

Saru’s cover story for why the USS Discovery is still in operation in 3188 is the idea that they are a generational ship and are crewed by their own ancestors. This concept actually occurs in the Enterprise episode “E²,” where the crew of the NX-01 meets an alternate version of the ship crewed by their descendants. 

Synthehol 

Book is furious to discover he’s not drinking actual booze, but instead, synthehol. To be clear, in Trek canon, synthehol can get you drunk, but mostly if you’re an alien or a former Borg. In the TNG episode “Relics,” Scotty complained about having to drink synthehol in Ten Forward

Quantum torpedoes 

It’s briefly mentioned the Wen’s raiders have “quantum torpedoes.” This tech was first mentioned in Star Trek: First Contact, which, at the time, made it very new. 

Starfleet does not fire first!

After Georgiou suggests Saru take swift and aggressive action, Saru remonstrates her by saying “Starfleet does not fire first.” He’s actually quoting… Georgiou in the very first episode of Star Trek: Discovery. Though, in that case, the Georgiou who said “Starfleet doesn’t fire first” was the Prime Universe Captain Georgiou, not the Mirror Universe Georgiou who we’re more familiar with.

Titan

After it’s revealed that Wen (Christopher Heyerdahl) is actually a human, we also learn that he’s from the Titan. In real life, Titan is the largest moon of Saturn, and, unlike most moons, boasts an atmosphere. Trek canon has mentioned Titan a bunch. In “The First Duty,” Wesley was training near Titan, and again, in Star Trek (2009), Chekov hid the Enterprise behind Titan.

Adira’s revelation 

We learn very quickly that Adira (Blu del Barrio) is a human joined with a Trill; specifically a symbiont called “Tal.” Burnham and Sura discuss their general ignorance of Trill symbionts, but Saru tells Burnham everything he knows about the Trill comes from the “Sphere Data.” This references the giant alien sphere Discovery encountered in the Season 2 episode “An Obol for Charon.”

The fact that Burnham and Saru don’t know much about Trill symbionts makes sense. It’s not clear that in the 2250s that the Trill were open about being a joined species, but by the time of The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine the Federation obviously learned about them. In fact, in the first TNG episode “The Host,” a human, Will Riker, was joined with a Trill. But, Burnham and Saru wouldn’t know about that because it would have been in their future back in 2257, and certainly, the Sphere didn’t know about that either.

Captain Georgiou’s telescope 

Saru unpacks Captain Georgiou’s telescope and puts it up in his new ready room. This telescope was presumably salvaged from the USS Shenzhou and given to Michael Burnham as part of Georgiou’s will in “The Butcher’s Knife Cares Not For the Lamb’s Cry.” But, after that, Burnham gave it to Saru instead. Saru and Burnham both used this telescope for practical purposes in the first Discovery episode ever, “The Vulcan Hello.”

Read more

TV

Discovery Season 3’s Latest Twist is Straight Out Of Star Trek: Insurrection

By Ryan Britt

TV

Did Star Trek: Discovery Just Tease the Michelle Yeoh Section 31 Spinoff?

By Ryan Britt

Which Quadrant?

Burnham says that Book has “a fresh start, in a new quadrant.” We know Earth is located in the Alpha Quadrant, which seems to imply Book and Burnham were previously operating in the Beta Quadrant. 

Starfleet Academy and Picard’s favorite giant tree

Although Starfleet is no longer operational on Earth, the crew visits the grounds of Starfleet Academy in San Francisco. There, they find what seems to maybe be a huge elm tree. If so, this tree was actually referenced by Jean-Luc Picard in the TNG episodes “The Drumhead” and “The Game.” In theory, if this is supposed to be the same tree, it was tended by Boothby in the 24th Century which would imply it existed at least 100 years before that, in the mid 23rd Century, too.

Golden Gate Bridge 

The final shot of the episode pans out to show the 32nd Century version of the Golden Gate Bridge. The last time we saw this bridge chronologically, was in Star Trek: Picard in 2399. Though, prior to that, the bridge had been partially destroyed in the Dominion War in the 2370s. That is if you believe Changelings are real…

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Star Trek: Discovery airs new episodes on Thursdays on CBS All Access.

The post Star Trek: Discovery Season 3 Episode 3 Easter Eggs & References appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/34Ev5BW

[benrleeusa]

[Eugene Volokh] Lindsay Lohan, Grand Theft Auto V, the First Amendment, and the Right of Publicity

[Lindsay Lohan attends DailyMail.com & DailyMailTV Holiday Party with Flo Rida on December 6, 2017 at The Magic Hour in New York City. (Photo by Steven Ferdman/SIPA USA)]

The popular Grand Theft Auto V computer game has two characters allegedly based on Lindsay Lohan and on Karen Gravano (Mob Wives). Lohan and Gravano sued the game company (Take Two Interactive Software), claiming that this violated what is generally called their "right of publicity" (but "right of privacy" in New York). That right is often labeled the exclusive right to control the use of one's name, likeness, and other attributes of identity for commercial purposes -- but that shorthand can't be entirely accurate, since that would ban a wide range of First-Amendment-protected speech, such as unauthorized biographies and even newspaper articles about people (since movie, books, and newspapers are generally commercial ventures).

The New York intermediate appellate court rejected the claim, based on New York precedents that have narrowly read the relevant New York statute; the New York high court then agreed to consider the matter for itself. Shortly before Christmas, my Scott & Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic students -- Alexandra Gianelli and Tracy Yao -- and I, with the indispensable and generous help of our local counsel, Daniel Schmutter (Hartman & Winnicki LLP), filed an amicus brief supporting the narrow view of the right of publicity, and a broad view of free speech protections. (The brief was on behalf of fourteen law professors who are knowledgeable on First Amendment law and intellectual property law, Profs. Eric M. Freedman, Brian L. Frye, Jon M. Garon, Jim Gibson, Eric Goldman, Stacey Lantagne, Mark A. Lemley, Raizel Liebler, Barry McDonald, Tyler Ochoa, Aaron Perzanowski, Betsy Rosenblatt, Rebecca Tushnet, and David Welkowitz.) Here's a quick summary of the case, from the intermediate appellate court decision:

[E]ach plaintiff alleges that defendants violated her right to privacy under New York Civil Rights Law § 51 by misappropriating her likeness for use in the video game "Grand Theft Auto V." This video game takes place in the fictional city "Los Santos," which itself is in a fictional American state of "San Andreas." Players control one of several main characters at various points in the game, engaging in approximately 80 main story missions as well as many optional random events. Plaintiffs allege that during certain optional random events, the player encounters characters that are depictions of plaintiffs.

Gravano alleges that in one of the optional random events in the video game, the character Andrea Bottino is introduced, and that her image, portrait, voice, and likeness are incorporated in this character. Specifically, Gravano argues that the character uses the same phrases she uses; that the character's father mirrors Gravano's own father; that the character's story about moving out west to safe houses mirrors Gravano's fear of being ripped out of her former life and being sent to Nebraska; that the character's story about dealing with the character's father cooperating with the state government is the same as Gravano dealing with the repercussions of her father's cooperation; and that the character's father not letting the character do a reality show is the same as Gravano's father publicly decrying her doing a reality show.

Lohan alleges that defendants used a look-alike model to evoke Lohan's persona and image. Further, Lohan argues that defendants purposefully used Lohan's bikini, shoulder-length blonde hair, jewelry, cell phone, and "signature `peace sign' pose" in one image, and used Lohan's likeness in another image by appropriating facial features, body type, physical appearance, hair, hat, sunglasses, jean shorts, and loose white top. Finally, Lohan argues that defendants used her portraits and voice impersonation in a character that is introduced to the player in a "side mission."

Here is the Summary of Argument from our brief, though you can read the entire brief here:

Using characters based on real people in works of fiction is a longstanding practice protected by the First Amendment. Creators often try to make their works true to life, and a large component of that life is celebrities. That has been done in a vast range of works, such as Brave New World, Forrest Gump, Midnight in Paris, and Seinfeld. The creators of video games, which are as protected by the First Amendment as are books and films, must have the same right.

When the state legislature enacted § 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law, it did not intend to restrict this commonly used artistic technique. Section 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law provides a limited right of privacy that prohibits the nonconsensual use of a person's voice, picture, name, or portrait for "advertising" or "trade" purposes. And New York courts have generally narrowly construed the statute as applying only to commercial advertising, to avoid conflicts with the First Amend­ment.

Because videogames are constitutionally protected creative works, like books and movies, the right of privacy statute does not apply to them, or to advertisements for them. Thus, Gravano's and Lohan's claims that Take-Two impermissibly used their likeness in Grand Theft Auto V, or in material promoting Grand Theft Auto V, must fail. (We accept for purposes of our argument the plaintiffs' assertion that the characters were indeed deliberately based on Lohan and Gravano -- though they appeared under other names -- and that viewers would recognize them as such. Of course, if that assertion is incorrect, that is even more reason to reject liability in this case.)

And this historical limitation on the right of privacy has helped New York avoid the problems faced by other jurisdictions, which have interpreted the right of privacy more broadly -- and, as a result, inconsistently, unpredictably, and with unacceptable subjectivity. Different courts applying rival tests have reached widely varying results on virtually identical facts. And both the predominate purpose test (urged by Gravano) and the transformative use test (urged by Lohan) have proved vague, too speech-restrictive, and open to discrimination in favor of what judges view as "high art" and against what they view as "low art." This court should continue reading the right of privacy as limited to commercial advertising, and thus affirm the judgment below.

And here's Part I, which argues that authors have long based characters on real people, and have a constitutional right to do so:

Creators have long worked real famous people into their fictional stories, and they have a First Amendment right to do so. "Fiction writers may be able to more persuasively, more accurately express themselves by weaving into the tale persons or events familiar to their readers.... No author should be forced into creating mythological worlds or characters wholly divorced from reality.... Surely, the range of free expression would be meaningfully reduced if prominent persons in the present and recent past were forbidden topics for the imaginations of authors of fiction." (Guglielmi v Spelling-Goldberg Productions, 25 Cal 3d 860, 869, 603 P2d 454, 460 [1979] (Bird, C.J., concurring) (concurrence endorsed by four of seven Justices).)

Thus, for instance, the creators of Seinfeld often introduced storylines where the main characters interacted with New York cultural icons to make the show's New York setting more realistic. The character "George Steinbrenner" repeatedly appears as George's boss; in one episode, Steinbrenner asks George to go to Cuba to recruit some of the country's best baseball players. In other episodes, "John F. Kennedy, Jr." meets Elaine at a fitness club and almost goes on a date with her, and "Calvin Klein" asks Kramer to model underwear for him. Similarly, the Tony-Award-winning musical Avenue Q includes Gary Coleman, the 1980s child actor, as a character. (All these characters were played by actors, not by themselves.)

Likewise, Aldous Huxley used Henry Ford's name as a deity-like reference in his 1931 novel Brave New World. The fictional society in that book reveres Ford as its creator: They celebrate Ford's Day and use his name in swearing (e.g., "Oh, for Ford's sake!"). When the book was published, Ford was a celebrity famous for revolutionizing mass production; in the late 1920s, he even tried to build his own utopian city, Fordlândia. By invoking Ford's name, Huxley instantly conveyed to his readers the principles underlying his fictional world -- efficiency, mass production, and consumerism.

Similarly, in one scene in Forrest Gump (Paramount Pictures 1994), Elvis Presley watches as Forrest begins dancing unusually because of his leg braces, and this ends up being the inspiration for Presley's signature gyrating dance moves. In other scenes, Forrest gets the Medal of Honor from Lyndon B. Johnson, and meets Richard Nixon and uncovers the Watergate scandal. [Footnote: Though New York does not recognize a post-mortem right of privacy, many other states do....]

In Midnight in Paris (Sony Pictures Classics 2011), the hero is an aspiring novelist who is transported to 1920s Paris, where he meets Zelda Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, and Salvador Dalí. These characters make the setting more realistic, and also advance the plot as they offer the hero advice and help him finish his novel.

The creators of the HBO show Silicon Valley similarly based a quirky character on Silicon Valley mogul Peter Thiel, co-founder of Paypal. Both the character and Thiel started fellowships to support young geniuses to leave school and start businesses; both built islands; and both are said to have similar speech patterns and personalities. The show also often mentions Mark Zuckerberg and other tech industry leaders to bring the culture of the modern computer business to life.

It is possible that the creators of some of these works could have gotten licenses from the people to whom they were referring -- or, what could be more difficult, from those people's scattered heirs. But they should not have to, and do not have to, get such permission (which in any event may be unavailable if the portrayal is not entirely flattering, or if the work is likely to prove controversial). Unauthorized biographies are as constitutionally protected as the authorized ones; likewise for unauthorized references to celebrities within broader works.

This case appears to involve the same literary trope as in the works discussed above: A video game set in contemporary Los Angeles may include characters based on actual celebrities -- Karen Gravano, a mob boss's daughter turned reality television star, and Lindsay Lohan, a child actress whom many grew up with -- to realistically evoke Los Angeles celebrity culture. These artistic choices shape the message that creators are trying to convey, and broadly construing the right of privacy would unduly limit First Amendment expression.

As courts have repeatedly recognized, the First Amendment must protect the right of creators to incorporate celebrity images in their creative works -- and thus must protect Take-Two's right to create a vivid, realistic portrayal of Los Angeles celebrity culture:

[*] "Because celebrities are an important part of our public vocabulary," "[r]estricting the use of celebrity identities restricts the communication of ideas" (Cardtoons, L.C. v Major League Baseball Players Assn, 95 F3d 959, 972 [10th Cir 1996] (upholding the right to use celebrity baseball player images in parody trading cards)).

[*] Celebrities "are widely used -- far more than are institutionally anchored elites -- to symbolize individual aspirations, group identities, and cultural values. Their images are thus important expressive and communicative resources: the peculiar, yet familiar idiom in which we conduct a fair portion of our cultural business and everyday conversation." (ETW Corp. v Jireh Pub., Inc., 332 F3d 915, 935 [6th Cir 2003] (upholding the right to use Tiger Woods' image in prints).)

[*] "Because celebrities take on public meaning, the appropriation of their likenesses may have important uses in uninhibited debate on public issues, particularly debates about culture and values. And because celebrities take on personal meanings to many individuals in the society, the creative appropriation of celebrity images can be an important avenue of individual expression." (Comedy III Productions, Inc. v Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal 4th 387, 397, 21 P3d 797, 803 [2001].)

The right of publicity thus "has the potential of censoring significant expression by suppressing alternative versions of celebrity images that are iconoclastic, irreverent, or otherwise attempt to redefine the celebrity's meaning" (id.). And this Court should avoid this consequence by narrowly construing the right of privacy statute in a way that leaves creators free to build characters based on celebrities.

Later parts argue that

video games are as protected by the First Amendment as other expressive works,

New York state cases have largely (with some exceptions not relevant here) read the relevant state statute as limited to commercial advertising,

New York cases have read the statute as limited to explicit use of a person's name or likeness, and

the court should continue to narrowly construe the statute to avoid First Amendment problems -- problems that have amply manifested themselves in those jurisdictions that have used less speech-protective tests for the right of publicity.

[tanmath3-blog]

Christopher Motz is a new writer for me but man can he tell a story! He is awesome to talk to and is so very passionate about what he is doing with his writing. It has been awhile since I have met someone so excited. He has a great sense of humor and always makes me giggle. Christopher is very smart and is always up for a chat with a friend or fan. I have seen him help others and is always glad for a review or feedback on his books. He is beyond a doubt a good guy and someone to watch. If you don’t know him or haven’t read one of his books I suggest you change that! Please help me welcome Christopher Motz to Roadie Notes………

  1.How old were you when you first wrote your first story?

–I wrote my first story when I was about 8 years old. It was titled “The Battle of Crystantine” and it was pure fantasy: dragons, elves, your typical sort of tale. I showed it to my mother at the time, but I think I may have worried her with some of the gorier bits.

2. How many books have you written?

–I’ve published 3 so far: 2 novels and a novella. I’ve written several others that date back to my High School days, but they’re confined to a hidden cardboard box in the back of my attic. It’s strange, because when I looked at them not so long ago, I realized there were some great ideas in there.

3. Anything you won’t write about?

–I don’t believe in taboo. Any and every topic should be fair game in fiction writing. Some things I will stray away from, as they simply don’t interest me, and/or I’m self-admittedly ignorant on certain subjects. No religion, nothing politically motivated, and no monsters that sparkle!

4. Tell me about you. Age (if you don’t mind answering), married, kids, do you have another job etc…

–I’m 37 years old (I’m not sure how that fucking happened) and I’ve been married for 6 years. I met my wife in Junior High School in 1992 and we dated on and off for the next 6 years. After losing touch after graduation, a chance meeting in 2008 sparked that fire from so many years ago, and lo and behold, we’ve been together ever since. I have a 16-year-old step-daughter to remind me how uncool and disconnected I am.

–I’ve been concentrating purely on writing and getting my name out there. Before I worked from my computer I had a silly amount of awful jobs (factory work, postal worker, supervisor at my local Wal-Mart), but they were never enough. I wanted to do something creative. Between 1995 and 2014, I was a drummer for a number of local bands, playing hundreds of shows, writing material, etc. When I knew I wanted to write full-time, I put my drums away and haven’t played in 3 years. Who knows, maybe someday I’ll form a band with only horror authors!

5. What’s your favorite book you have written? –That’s a tough question! I like everything I’ve written, and I hate everything I’ve written. The curse of the artist! My first novel, ‘The Darkening’, holds a special place because it’s my first published work, warts and all. It stands as an introduction to my multiverse, my mythology, one that will be revisited in future works. I could say my newest novel, ‘Pine Lakes’, is my favorite, but that would be a cop-out. Certainly, I’ve seen my writing grow in this book, but I’ve been sitting with it for the last four months. I’m still too close to it to make that call!

6. Who or what inspired you to write?

–I was reading horror novels at an early age: Stephen King, Robert McCammon, Dean Koontz. Later on I delved into hard science fiction and extreme horror. Extreme horror blew the doors open for me: Edward Lee, Brian Keene, Kyle M. Scott…stories with substance, but with an elevated gore level! Even as a kid I was a storyteller, and so it seemed like a natural choice to put pen to paper and craft my own tales.

7. What do you like to do for fun?

–MUSIC! That’s the easy answer. Music has been my life since I was 10 years old and it never ceases to amaze me what a therapeutic effect a good song can have on me. I’m an avid concertgoer, constant reader, and late-night host of an occasional get-together where alcoholic beverages are the rule rather than the exception. So, what do I do for fun? I have fun, that’s my answer. Live it up with good friends and good music and leave tomorrow’s troubles for tomorrow.

8. Any traditions you do when you finish a book?

–Oddly enough, no. When I finish the manuscript I put it away for a week and get back to the real world. I don’t have a special bottle of aged bourbon or a symbolic cigarette; I close my laptop, order some pizza and binge watch Netflix!

9. Where do you write? Quite or music?

–My wife and I bought a house in 2015; a 120 year old Queen Anne Victorian with a rather large attic that seems to have been used as living space in the early 1900’s. When I first saw it, I knew this would be my office. I decorated with music posters, brought a stereo up here, and ran high-speed internet to make this a place I could spend hours at a time in front of a computer. The mini-fridge doesn’t hurt either. There’s always music on; even if it’s quiet music, I need something in the background to keep me company while I’m writing. Now and then, a song lyric will give me an idea. You can see in all my writing, music plays a part, even if just mentioned in passing.

10. Anything you would change about your writing?

–I think every writer wants to improve on his or her craft. I wish there was a magic button I could press to tighten up some of my grammar issues, but unfortunately it hasn’t been invented yet. The only way to get better at writing is to keep writing.

11. What is your dream? Famous writer?

–Well of course I want to be rich and famous, who doesn’t!? Honestly, I don’t need to reach the heights of Stephen King, but I’d be thrilled for people to read and enjoy my books. The dream is to do it full-time and have the ability to write as much as I want, when I want. I’m not a materialistic person; I don’t need a million dollars to be happy, but I certainly wouldn’t be returning any checks that come my way.

12. Where do you live?

–A small town in northeast Pennsylvania, USA. I was born here, grew up here, went to school here. My hometown is part of who I am, and my fictional town of Elmview is largely based on this.

13. Pets?

–I have a miniature Morkie – yes, that’s a real dog – that we named Oy, based on a character from Stephen King’s ‘Dark Tower’ series. It’s short and sweet, like him, and it rolls off the tongue easier than Freddie Mercury. Yes, I would have named him Freddie Mercury. Maybe someday…

14. What’s your favorite thing about writing?

–The escape, not only for the reader, but for myself. When writing, there are no boundaries. You tend to see yourself, your friends, and your family in your characters; you notice familiar locations and situations, combining them in any way you see fit to carry on your narrative. Watching your characters take on personalities of their own is simply fascinating to me. I may be the one writing the story, but they are the ones directing my hand. Seeing a tale start as a vague idea and slowly grow into a world is exciting beyond measure. There are so many stories yet to be told…

15. What is coming next for you?

–My latest novel ‘Pine Lakes’ will be available to the public on June 9th in digital and paperback! The second half of the year, I’ll be finishing my collaboration with horror author Andrew Lennon, a novel titled ‘The Pigeon.’ With a little luck I’ll see another of my short stories published in an upcoming anthology, and a new novella based on the mythology of my first novel. I’m calling this ‘an alternate Elmview tale’ as it continues the themes from that book, and even has some of the same characters. It will not be a sequel, but rather a sideways look into one of a million parallel realities that border our own. I’m pretty excited for that one, as it will begin broadening my mythology in bizarre and horrifying new ways!!

You can connect with Christopher Motz here:

Official Website: christopher-motz.com Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/15998163.Christopher_Motz Twitter: @authorchrismotz Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/authorChristopherMotz/

    Some of Christopher Motz’s books:

Getting personal with Christoper Motz Christopher Motz is a new writer for me but man can he tell a story! He is awesome to talk to and is so very passionate about what he is doing with his writing.

[cbilluminati]

Sometimes you wanna go where everybody knows your name. And they’re always glad you came.

That’s a really awesome reference that you should Google. No, don’t worry about it, I’ll drop a Youtube link. It’s time for yet another edition of Top o’ the Lot (or TotL pronounced “TOTAL” by the kids), Outright Geekery’s weekly listicle. This week’s countdown examines all the great bars, taverns, clubs, and dives from my favorite TV shows, movies, comics, and more. While Cheers may not have made the list, nothing beats that song. So, without further ado, we hit all (or most) major forms of media, make it a double, and everybody sing along, with Outright Geekery’s Top o’ the Lot: 15 Fictional Watering Holes.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-mi0r0LpXo%5B/embedyt%5D

Honorable Mention: The One from Every RPG Ever

Including video games, table top games, and the occasional board game. You know the one: Where there’s always someone selling the exact stuff you need for the upcoming journey, the bartender is burly (probably a bastard), the bar maidens are hot and ready (and probably rogues), and (in too many cases) there always seems to be an NPC or PC ready for a team up.

This one is ridiculous in almost every single case. It’s cheap storytelling, hinges primarily on nostalgia, and none of that matters at all. Seeing the local Inn in video games like World of Warcraft or Elder Scrolls is often such a terrific feeling. It denotes discovery and familiarity in brilliant ways. But there’s way too many, so it gets a Honorable Mention.

15. The Bar with No Name

Ok, try to keep up. In the Marvel Comics Universe there is this bar…or maybe it’s a series of bars, where the badguys meet up for planning world domination, cementing their criminal networks, or celebrating good times (Kang’s birthday party was a true rager), and they do this in a place known only as The Bar with No Name.

This is the one that should be getting an Honorable Mention. What a cheap way around getting some bad guys talking. But it’s throwback, it’s subtle and dark, and some really cool things have started in these Bars with No Names…or whatever. And it’s comics. Comics get a pass.

14. Kadie’s Club Pecos

This is the bar from Sin City. A lot of things happened there. Dwight and Ava meetup, The Long Bad Night, Nancy’s Last Dance. What an amazing way to tell a story, and what a terrific scene.

Only hits this low on the list because so many others are just better. It should be on here, but 14 is as high is it’s getting. The dance is really good though…but NSFW.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yUWO2PFVF4%5B/embedyt%5D

13. Gaston’s Tavern

What a lovely little town. Too bad the only bar is run by this douchebag. But there’s no denying that Gaston’s Bar from Beauty and the Beast is THE happening place in that provincial little town. Everyone loves the owner too.

Gaston is the man, and he knows it. Why shouldn’t he run his very own tavern? But it’s that song! Although, a good tune can only carry you so far. And he’s such a jerk. Calm down, dude! Grab a drink, go lift some weights, and get with one of those other honeys. I mean, you own a bar. He should just move on.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuJTqmpBnI0%5B/embedyt%5D

12. The Bada Bing

The Bada Bing is the fictional strip club owned by Silvio Dante, second hand to crime boss Tony Soprano, and it was a crazy place. Topless girls, alcohol, and gangsters 24 hours a day. The back room was a gentleman’s club, where New Jersey’s finest criminals ate sandwiches, played poker, and counted money.

The Bing makes the list because it was just a cool place. The setting worked to help define the backdrop of this series, and it was one of my favorites. I picture myself walking in, spreading around the cash to all the fine “ladies” dancing, and being invited to the back room for a late night poker game, which inevitably leads to Outright Geekery becoming a front for the mob, my wife’s fingers being cut off as a warning, and me ultimately floating in the Hudson River. Worth it!

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lonfT9ITxhk%5B/embedyt%5D

11. Swerve’s

In IDW Publishing’s Transformers titles, there’s a story about a group of ragtag Cybertronians – loners, castoffs, shut-ins, socially inept etc. – who decide to leave Cybertron and search the galaxy for the fabled Knights of Cybertron. Things have not gone well. Despite that, however, one standout of this series in the context of this list is Swerve’s Bar. Swerve is a wise-cracking smartass of a guy, but he’s just looking to have a good time. And Swerve’s Bar is THE place to go on the spaceship The Lost Light should you have the need for some Energon Ale.

While Swerve’s doesn’t break into the top 10 o’ this Lot simply because it’s such a vague and relatively unknown bar, it makes the list overall because I just love these robots, their stories, and their relationships so damned much. I know, these are plastic toys from the 1980s. But their real to me.

10. Quark’s

Although it’s not the coolest bar from the Star Trek universe, Quark’s is easily the one that looks more like your traditional western frontier saloon, which is what Deep Space Nine was going for. Set right off the main hub in the promenade, Quark’s offered food, drink, fellowship, but most importantly it offered gambling and holosuites.

Having hookers and gaming was a real departure for the series as the Federation tended to frown on such things, but it added a sense of realism to the fell of the entire series. Real frontier stuff, unrestrained by the laws of the Federation. And the cast of regulars, including the ever-silent Morn, were fantastic additions. A great place that deserve to break the Top 10 in a list with so many great entries.

9. Club Rockit

Club Rockit was an actual, real-life place that writer Bryan Lee O’ Malley used to model the fictional punk rock venue in the wildly successful and fun Scott Pilgrim series of comics. It was described as cramped, ugly, and terrible by its creator, but we loved it for a lone reason: Sex Bob-Omb played there!

If you have a club in a comic book and there’s a cool band that plays there it’s going to be an awesome place. The club shows up in every instance of this license including comics, movies, and video games, and really just goes to show you how damned popular this series is. Sequel? I sure hope so!

8. The Leaky Cauldron

Founded by Daisy Dodderidge in 1500 to serve as a doorway between the non-magic Muggle World and the Wizarding World, The Leaky Cauldron is a pub and inn from the Harry Potter Universe. It was one of the first introductions readers and viewers had at what the new magical world we were stepping into truly had to offer.

Whimsy filled both the book and movie scenes that introduced The Leaky Cauldron, and it only got better from there. Beyond that, however, The Leaky Cauldron was a portal of sorts from the real to the imagined, a mainstay in scores of fantasy titles. Subtle and fun, it was a great anchor early on in the series and just neat in its own right.

7. The Prancing Pony

Another one from both famous books and popular movies, The Prancing Pony is in the village of Bree in Middle-Earth from The Lord of the Rings series of novels and films. This is where Frodo and his group meet up with the Ranger Strider in what became one of the most amazing adventures of all time.

More occurs at this inn and bar than just the meeting of Frodo and Strider, but it’s the most famous by far, and this meeting represents a ramp up in the adventure of the story. And it’s a terrific moment. Thorin Oakenshield and Gandalf meet up here at one point, as well, but it’s just not mentioned as much. While the Honorable Mention spot in this Lot may be a stereotype, this is the inn that created it.

6. Moe’s Tavern

When you visit Springfield there’s only one place where the Everyman goes after a long, hard day of running the nuclear power plant. Moe’s Tavern. The cold Duff on tap, terrific music, fun regulars, and, of course, Moe, our lovable bartender. There may not be a more well known bar on this list.

A lot of people know about Moe’s because so many people have been forced to watch so many seasons of The Simpsons. I guess it deserves it – I haven’t watched since season 5 or 6 – but Moe’s is still very worthy of making this list.

5. The Hellfire Club

I’m not really quite sure if this entry even qualifies, as the Hellfire Club is more of a group of people than a building where people drink, but I don’t care. The perennial X-Men villain, the Hellfire Club is a fictional society bent on obtaining power, but they do often have an actual club.

Sometimes a bar isn’t about the where, but the who. The place is terrific, but The Hellfire Club is really made up of really interesting – and often very evil – characters. And those cool Chess piece nicknames? So cool!

4. The Iceberg Lounge

Barely missing the Top 3 is the relatively new aspect of DC Comics Gotham City, Penguin’s Iceberg Lounge. The iceberg shaped nightclub, conveniently located in Gotham Harbor, acts as a legitimate business front for the Penguin’s criminal dealings, and also works as a place for Batman to use his makeup kit.

My favorite parts of the Iceberg Lounge are when Batman disguises himself as a criminal, goes to the lounge incognito, all in an attempt to overhear some underworld information that may help him solve the next crime. And it’s just really cool to see it floating there on Gotham’s Skyline.

3. The Ink & Paint Club

Yes, breaking into the Top 3 is the nightclub run by cartoons from the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, The Ink & Paint Club. In a world where toons are real, this nightclub takes the best parts of that animated world, puts them to wrok, and provides quality entertainment as well as superb nightclub services.

Opening on the Duck vs Duck piano duel, Jessica’s solo in the middle, and ending on that gorilla of a bouncer, the Ink & Paint Club not only left an impression on anyone who watched this movie, but it made viewers want to go there for a Saturday night of drinking, dancing, and drawing.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv24TJ8iXcs%5B/embedyt%5D

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy5THitqPBw%5B/embedyt%5D

2. Mos Eisley Cantina

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

But, man, they play such good music! Like many things in the Star Wars Universe, less was more when it came to this Outer Rim bar on the mudball that is Tatooine. Is was rightfully a dangerous place. Who goes to Tatooine if they aren’t in trouble and laying low? That’s a recipe for smugglers, pirates, and, yes, nerf-herders.

Again, less was more here. Lucas understood that an audience will fill in their own gaps, and usually an audience will fill it with better stuff than a writer ever could. So many alien races with absolutely no explanation whatsoever about who or what they are. It was perfect. Oh, and that house band is the best in the galaxy.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stbYF6XpTYE%5B/embedyt%5D

1. 10 Forward

Wait! They put a bar in a Federation Starship? Yes, they did, and it was awesome! Deck 10 in the forward section of the U.S.S. Enterprise-D was just that: A bar. A place where weary Starfleet officers could relax, eat, fellowship, drink, listen to music, and otherwise have an awesome time. It was weird for a while. There’s a bar on a Federation starship? But it ended up working so well for so man reasons.

#gallery-0-4 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-4 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 50%; } #gallery-0-4 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-4 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

The primary reason was the bartender, Guinan, played by acting legend Whoopi Goldberg. But all of the little things fell right into place over a very short period of time to make 10 Forward one of the most popular place in the entire galaxy. Sometimes there’s a hostage situation, some days it’s a birthday party. Other days there’s a funeral wake, yet others there’s an emergency baby delivery (thanks, Worf!), and still others see the entire crew trying to beat each other to a pulp. Business as usual on the Flagship of the Federation.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWaguilvSrY%5B/embedyt%5D

See a mistake? Disagree with the choices? Let us know!

Send emails to OutrightGeekery@Gmail.com Find us on Facebook at the Outright Geekery Page Join the discussion at the Comic Book Illuminati Leave us a comment below

TotL – 15 Fictional Watering Holes

Sometimes you wanna go where everybody knows your name. And they’re always glad you came. That’s a really awesome reference that you should Google.

TotL – 15 Fictional Watering Holes Sometimes you wanna go where everybody knows your name. And they're always glad you came. That's a really awesome reference that you should Google.

[outright-geekery]

Sometimes you wanna go where everybody knows your name. And they’re always glad you came.

That’s a really awesome reference that you should Google. No, don’t worry about it, I’ll drop a Youtube link. It’s time for yet another edition of Top o’ the Lot (or TotL pronounced “TOTAL” by the kids), Outright Geekery’s weekly listicle. This week’s countdown examines all the great bars, taverns, clubs, and dives from my favorite TV shows, movies, comics, and more. While Cheers may not have made the list, nothing beats that song. So, without further ado, we hit all (or most) major forms of media, make it a double, and everybody sing along, with Outright Geekery’s Top o’ the Lot: 15 Fictional Watering Holes.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-mi0r0LpXo%5B/embedyt%5D

Honorable Mention: The One from Every RPG Ever

Including video games, table top games, and the occasional board game. You know the one: Where there’s always someone selling the exact stuff you need for the upcoming journey, the bartender is burly (probably a bastard), the bar maidens are hot and ready (and probably rogues), and (in too many cases) there always seems to be an NPC or PC ready for a team up.

This one is ridiculous in almost every single case. It’s cheap storytelling, hinges primarily on nostalgia, and none of that matters at all. Seeing the local Inn in video games like World of Warcraft or Elder Scrolls is often such a terrific feeling. It denotes discovery and familiarity in brilliant ways. But there’s way too many, so it gets a Honorable Mention.

15. The Bar with No Name

Ok, try to keep up. In the Marvel Comics Universe there is this bar…or maybe it’s a series of bars, where the badguys meet up for planning world domination, cementing their criminal networks, or celebrating good times (Kang’s birthday party was a true rager), and they do this in a place known only as The Bar with No Name.

This is the one that should be getting an Honorable Mention. What a cheap way around getting some bad guys talking. But it’s throwback, it’s subtle and dark, and some really cool things have started in these Bars with No Names…or whatever. And it’s comics. Comics get a pass.

14. Kadie’s Club Pecos

This is the bar from Sin City. A lot of things happened there. Dwight and Ava meetup, The Long Bad Night, Nancy’s Last Dance. What an amazing way to tell a story, and what a terrific scene.

Only hits this low on the list because so many others are just better. It should be on here, but 14 is as high is it’s getting. The dance is really good though…but NSFW.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yUWO2PFVF4%5B/embedyt%5D

13. Gaston’s Tavern

What a lovely little town. Too bad the only bar is run by this douchebag. But there’s no denying that Gaston’s Bar from Beauty and the Beast is THE happening place in that provincial little town. Everyone loves the owner too.

Gaston is the man, and he knows it. Why shouldn’t he run his very own tavern? But it’s that song! Although, a good tune can only carry you so far. And he’s such a jerk. Calm down, dude! Grab a drink, go lift some weights, and get with one of those other honeys. I mean, you own a bar. He should just move on.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuJTqmpBnI0%5B/embedyt%5D

12. The Bada Bing

The Bada Bing is the fictional strip club owned by Silvio Dante, second hand to crime boss Tony Soprano, and it was a crazy place. Topless girls, alcohol, and gangsters 24 hours a day. The back room was a gentleman’s club, where New Jersey’s finest criminals ate sandwiches, played poker, and counted money.

The Bing makes the list because it was just a cool place. The setting worked to help define the backdrop of this series, and it was one of my favorites. I picture myself walking in, spreading around the cash to all the fine “ladies” dancing, and being invited to the back room for a late night poker game, which inevitably leads to Outright Geekery becoming a front for the mob, my wife’s fingers being cut off as a warning, and me ultimately floating in the Hudson River. Worth it!

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lonfT9ITxhk%5B/embedyt%5D

11. Swerve’s

In IDW Publishing’s Transformers titles, there’s a story about a group of ragtag Cybertronians – loners, castoffs, shut-ins, socially inept etc. – who decide to leave Cybertron and search the galaxy for the fabled Knights of Cybertron. Things have not gone well. Despite that, however, one standout of this series in the context of this list is Swerve’s Bar. Swerve is a wise-cracking smartass of a guy, but he’s just looking to have a good time. And Swerve’s Bar is THE place to go on the spaceship The Lost Light should you have the need for some Energon Ale.

While Swerve’s doesn’t break into the top 10 o’ this Lot simply because it’s such a vague and relatively unknown bar, it makes the list overall because I just love these robots, their stories, and their relationships so damned much. I know, these are plastic toys from the 1980s. But their real to me.

10. Quark’s

Although it’s not the coolest bar from the Star Trek universe, Quark’s is easily the one that looks more like your traditional western frontier saloon, which is what Deep Space Nine was going for. Set right off the main hub in the promenade, Quark’s offered food, drink, fellowship, but most importantly it offered gambling and holosuites.

Having hookers and gaming was a real departure for the series as the Federation tended to frown on such things, but it added a sense of realism to the fell of the entire series. Real frontier stuff, unrestrained by the laws of the Federation. And the cast of regulars, including the ever-silent Morn, were fantastic additions. A great place that deserve to break the Top 10 in a list with so many great entries.

9. Club Rockit

Club Rockit was an actual, real-life place that writer Bryan Lee O’ Malley used to model the fictional punk rock venue in the wildly successful and fun Scott Pilgrim series of comics. It was described as cramped, ugly, and terrible by its creator, but we loved it for a lone reason: Sex Bob-Omb played there!

If you have a club in a comic book and there’s a cool band that plays there it’s going to be an awesome place. The club shows up in every instance of this license including comics, movies, and video games, and really just goes to show you how damned popular this series is. Sequel? I sure hope so!

8. The Leaky Cauldron

Founded by Daisy Dodderidge in 1500 to serve as a doorway between the non-magic Muggle World and the Wizarding World, The Leaky Cauldron is a pub and inn from the Harry Potter Universe. It was one of the first introductions readers and viewers had at what the new magical world we were stepping into truly had to offer.

Whimsy filled both the book and movie scenes that introduced The Leaky Cauldron, and it only got better from there. Beyond that, however, The Leaky Cauldron was a portal of sorts from the real to the imagined, a mainstay in scores of fantasy titles. Subtle and fun, it was a great anchor early on in the series and just neat in its own right.

7. The Prancing Pony

Another one from both famous books and popular movies, The Prancing Pony is in the village of Bree in Middle-Earth from The Lord of the Rings series of novels and films. This is where Frodo and his group meet up with the Ranger Strider in what became one of the most amazing adventures of all time.

More occurs at this inn and bar than just the meeting of Frodo and Strider, but it’s the most famous by far, and this meeting represents a ramp up in the adventure of the story. And it’s a terrific moment. Thorin Oakenshield and Gandalf meet up here at one point, as well, but it’s just not mentioned as much. While the Honorable Mention spot in this Lot may be a stereotype, this is the inn that created it.

6. Moe’s Tavern

When you visit Springfield there’s only one place where the Everyman goes after a long, hard day of running the nuclear power plant. Moe’s Tavern. The cold Duff on tap, terrific music, fun regulars, and, of course, Moe, our lovable bartender. There may not be a more well known bar on this list.

A lot of people know about Moe’s because so many people have been forced to watch so many seasons of The Simpsons. I guess it deserves it – I haven’t watched since season 5 or 6 – but Moe’s is still very worthy of making this list.

5. The Hellfire Club

I’m not really quite sure if this entry even qualifies, as the Hellfire Club is more of a group of people than a building where people drink, but I don’t care. The perennial X-Men villain, the Hellfire Club is a fictional society bent on obtaining power, but they do often have an actual club.

Sometimes a bar isn’t about the where, but the who. The place is terrific, but The Hellfire Club is really made up of really interesting – and often very evil – characters. And those cool Chess piece nicknames? So cool!

4. The Iceberg Lounge

Barely missing the Top 3 is the relatively new aspect of DC Comics Gotham City, Penguin’s Iceberg Lounge. The iceberg shaped nightclub, conveniently located in Gotham Harbor, acts as a legitimate business front for the Penguin’s criminal dealings, and also works as a place for Batman to use his makeup kit.

My favorite parts of the Iceberg Lounge are when Batman disguises himself as a criminal, goes to the lounge incognito, all in an attempt to overhear some underworld information that may help him solve the next crime. And it’s just really cool to see it floating there on Gotham’s Skyline.

3. The Ink & Paint Club

Yes, breaking into the Top 3 is the nightclub run by cartoons from the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, The Ink & Paint Club. In a world where toons are real, this nightclub takes the best parts of that animated world, puts them to wrok, and provides quality entertainment as well as superb nightclub services.

Opening on the Duck vs Duck piano duel, Jessica’s solo in the middle, and ending on that gorilla of a bouncer, the Ink & Paint Club not only left an impression on anyone who watched this movie, but it made viewers want to go there for a Saturday night of drinking, dancing, and drawing.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv24TJ8iXcs%5B/embedyt%5D

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy5THitqPBw%5B/embedyt%5D

2. Mos Eisley Cantina

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

But, man, they play such good music! Like many things in the Star Wars Universe, less was more when it came to this Outer Rim bar on the mudball that is Tatooine. Is was rightfully a dangerous place. Who goes to Tatooine if they aren’t in trouble and laying low? That’s a recipe for smugglers, pirates, and, yes, nerf-herders.

Again, less was more here. Lucas understood that an audience will fill in their own gaps, and usually an audience will fill it with better stuff than a writer ever could. So many alien races with absolutely no explanation whatsoever about who or what they are. It was perfect. Oh, and that house band is the best in the galaxy.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stbYF6XpTYE%5B/embedyt%5D

1. 10 Forward

Wait! They put a bar in a Federation Starship? Yes, they did, and it was awesome! Deck 10 in the forward section of the U.S.S. Enterprise-D was just that: A bar. A place where weary Starfleet officers could relax, eat, fellowship, drink, listen to music, and otherwise have an awesome time. It was weird for a while. There’s a bar on a Federation starship? But it ended up working so well for so man reasons.

#gallery-0-4 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-4 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 50%; } #gallery-0-4 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-4 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

The primary reason was the bartender, Guinan, played by acting legend Whoopi Goldberg. But all of the little things fell right into place over a very short period of time to make 10 Forward one of the most popular place in the entire galaxy. Sometimes there’s a hostage situation, some days it’s a birthday party. Other days there’s a funeral wake, yet others there’s an emergency baby delivery (thanks, Worf!), and still others see the entire crew trying to beat each other to a pulp. Business as usual on the Flagship of the Federation.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWaguilvSrY%5B/embedyt%5D

See a mistake? Disagree with the choices? Let us know!

Send emails to OutrightGeekery@Gmail.com Find us on Facebook at the Outright Geekery Page Join the discussion at the Comic Book Illuminati Leave us a comment below

TotL – 15 Fictional Watering Holes Sometimes you wanna go where everybody knows your name. And they're always glad you came. That's a really awesome reference that you should Google.