#primitivity and postmodernism

[cognitivejustice]

By accepting as inevitable humanity’s demise by its own hand, post-apocalyptic fiction places no responsibility on the living to course correct.

Solarpunk looks towards a post-capitalist future of renewable energy. It rejects climate “doomerism” and shows what our collective future could look like if we heal our relationship with the natural world.

Far from Star Trek’s “full luxury space communism,” where humans race across galaxies via endless sources of energy, the technology in solarpunk is imminently achievable. In the anthology Future Primitive: The New Ecotopias, science fiction writer and democratic socialist Kim Stanley Robinson describes this genre as rejecting “the inevitability of the machine future.”

Instead [solarpunk] asks, “What is the healthiest way to live? What is the most beautiful?”

Rather than Elon Musk’s tent cities on Mars, these fictional worlds “cobble together aspects of the postmodern and the paleolithic, asserting that we might for very good reasons choose to live in ways that resemble in part the ways of our ancestors.” 

[solarpunk-nightbird]

For decades we dreamed dystopia, and in March of 2020, when COVID crashed upon U.S. shores, it seemed like we had dreamed it so well we wished it into being. While wealthy reactionaries are building actual bunkers and prepping for environmental collapse, fantasizing about which shade of hopelessness our apocalypse will take is a luxury we can no longer afford. By accepting as inevitable humanity’s demise by its own hand, post-apocalyptic fiction places no responsibility on the living to course correct.

These days, climate change isn’t over the horizon, it’s here. The virus that shuts down the globe? We had that, too. Dystopian fiction? That’s so 2012. It’s time we collectively dream of something else. A better world is possible, but if artists and writers are to contribute to that better world, we’re going to need to balance our splendid hellscapes with gardens of earthly delight. We need to envision futures that are livable and happy, and we need to imagine how we get there from here. What’s more, we need to make those worlds as thrilling and engaging as any post-apocalyptic zombie-strewn nightmare.

Fortunately, we don’t need to invent a new literary genre to show us the way to a better tomorrow. Just as there is a left-wing climate movement demanding humanity break from fossil fuels to create a bright future for life on Earth, so is there a parallel climate fiction that allows us to imagine that better world. In steps solarpunk, left-wing literature’s answer to the dystopian novel. Solarpunk looks towards a post-capitalist future of renewable energy. It rejects climate “doomerism” and shows what our collective future could look like if we heal our relationship with the natural world.

Far from Star Trek’s “full luxury space communism,” where humans race across galaxies via endless sources of energy, the technology in solarpunk is imminently achievable. In the anthology Future Primitive: The New Ecotopias, science fiction writer and democratic socialist Kim Stanley Robinson describes this genre as rejecting “the inevitability of the machine future.” Instead it asks, “What is the healthiest way to live? What is the most beautiful?” Rather than Elon Musk’s tent cities on Mars, these fictional worlds “cobble together aspects of the postmodern and the paleolithic, asserting that we might for very good reasons choose to live in ways that resemble in part the ways of our ancestors.” 

-via Current Affairs, March 25, 2024

[brilliantorinsane]

I, Mudd

Not the character I personally would have picked for a return, but I was quite pleasantly surprised by the episode.

Have I mentioned I adore Bones' little bounce? Because I adore Bones' little bounce.

Yeah I know every writer may not have the interesting vs fascinating dichotomy (where fascinating = interesting + surprising) from Gothos in mind every time they put those words in Spock's mouth, but I read it in every time. And so I really really enjoyed when Kirk says “Mr. Spock we seem to be taking an unscheduled ride” and Spock answers “Interesting" and walks away without a single follow-up question. Like yeah a hijacking is something to figure out and deal with, but it's hardly a surprise with the kinda shit they have going on.

The 'control and ease vs freedom and struggle' dichotomy is getting a bit old, and I didn't think this ep added anything particularly new to the discussion, but I was pleased that for once it wasn't the grand civilization of the enterprise delivering enlightenment to a 'primitive'/tribal culture.

Kirk is such a little shit this whole episode, it's great.

I'm always excited when Uhura is on an away mission—even if they don't give her enough to do, Nichelle Nichols' reactions are always a delight to watch—but also scared because I don't trust them with her. That being said on the scale of tos I think she is the best written woman, and so far has less bad plots (such as they are) than just about any others?

In this case, most of the men being bribed with matters related to their knowledge/expertise/interest while Uhura's bribe is eternal beauty is *sighhhhhh* (I'm down with the eternal life part though, we should get Uhura eternal life), but she also gets a key role in the subterfuge and shenanigans.

(side note: Uhura is often close with Spock in fics, which I adore, but in addition I saw someone recently say Uhura and Kirk had one of their favourite friendships in the series. I've been paying more attention, and I get it! Only a little of it is written into the script, but there are a lot of moments of warmth between them regardless.)

Mudd is so tall and the whole crew looks tiny next to him. I find this disproportionately entertaining.

Aaand Kirk talks a computer to destruction part 3.—oh. I was mistaken. The crew dances the computer to destruction via postmodern theatre??? Hell yeah.

I don't have a lot to say about the postmodern theatre portion, but I loved it so much. A highlight of the whole series so far tbh.

Also love that Spock participates, but gets to do it in a way that is so very himself.

[dustedmagazine]

Liam Grant — Prodigal Son (VHF Records)

How does one go about making music not usually understood as “punk” sound like punk? How best to apply the DIY ethos, the construction by destruction, of punk art to other genres? How can the guide-fires that have been lit by past iconoclasts of the underground illuminate explorations in different styles? Maine-based fingerstyle guitarist Liam Grant provides his answers to these questions in the form of his sophomore LP, Prodigal Son (out 2/21/2025 on VHF Records), a collection of anti-tradition-traditional-style music — American Primitive with a capital A and P through a dirtied lens — kindly and perhaps counter-intuitively dedicated to his parents.

The opening track, “Palmyra,” starts with a gong-like bang on the open strings of a Weissenborn lap dobro prior to dipping into a sunny, up-tempo Fahey-style postmodern country blues jam. A typical start for a post-Jack-Rose guitar soli record, except that it sounds like it was run through the same amp and pedals Doyle Wolfgang Von Frankenstein used while recording “Where Eagles Dare”, with the gain on the tape machine dimed à la Bowie recording Raw Power. The disconnect between the refinement of the playing and the fidelity of the recording is striking. It isn’t circumstantially lo-fi, nor is it an attempt to sound vintage like a dusty 78 rpm disc, going back to the source — it’s an intentional push into distortion, taking something pretty and covering it in mud.

This distressed audio technique works well with the blues style music, you can situate the gritty sound of the slide in some kind of smoky Roadhouse scenario — trade out the casual violence for folks talking over each other about obscure records from Western Massachusetts while the guitar wails. It takes on another dimension of abstraction when Grant switches out the slide for the twelve-string and gets in raga mode. The lightning-like knots of fingerpicking on the moody, roughly thirteen-minute eastern-infected journey “Salmon Tails Up The River” dissolve into flattened fields of blown-out tape fuzz, blending with the textured booms of the low end strings to create a speaker-straining mass of sound. Another lengthy twelve-string piece, “Insult to Injury,” opens the B-side with a meditative counterpoint to the sturm und drang of “Salmon Tails”,twinkling riffs cutting through the sonic haze like a gentle ship passing through ocean fog.

The last two songs on Prodigal Son show different ways of approaching folk, in a broad sense, in a punk way, first by paying tribute to an originator, second by an invocation of the DIY lifestyle. “A Moment at the Door” is a take on a composition by a master of boundary-clearing, broke-down blues guitar playing, Loren Mazzacane Connors. The overdriven recording here finds a comfortable middle ground where Grant ably recreates Connor’s minimalist electric guitar style on his six-string acoustic, magnetic hiss filling the stretches between notes. The album closer “Old Country Rock” is a loose and joyous live cut from the Grant/McGuire/Flaherty old-time trio. This is where the DIY lifestyle aspect of Grant’s project comes in. Last year this trio embarked on an extensive Southeastern US tour, booking it and conducting business in a way that would’ve been familiar to Black Flag in 1981, if you substituted phone calls for Instagram DMs. Twenty years ago, the original incarnation of Old Crow Medicine Show were constantly touring road-dogs bringing Beale Street jug band songs from the twenties and thirties to places no one had ever played them before. The *music* wasn’t punk, but they were – not because of how they sounded but because of how they did things. Patti Smith, asked likely for the millionth time what punk was, said “To me, punk rock is the freedom to create, freedom to be successful, freedom to not be successful, freedom to be who you are.” Punk has never been an aesthetic genre. It’s a way of being, and Liam Grant literally slides into it on the first track of Prodigal Son.

Joshua Moss

[evidence-based-activism]

What do you think of the following passage? “Invariably whenever right-wingers on social media starting debating whether they should repeal the 19th it hits them somewhere in the middle of the conversation: "Why are we talking about voting at all?" And really, within a traditional conservative gender paradigm, voting appears to be stereotypically feminine behavior; essentially passive, it seeks comity and consensus, based more on social intuition, the waveform of the opinion poll, than information. "Why did men ever vote?" is the question. The masculine approach to seeking a leader should surely involve some brute, individualizing test of reality rather than opinion, such as trial by combat. But sometimes these elements synthesize, the vote a referendum on some more or less sublimated moment of combat, e.g., a debate—or, for a more graphic example, when Trump's survival of the assassination attempt foreordained his election, as if it would somehow have been obscene not to elect him after that, with a shift in female voters his way despite his female opponent. Even in undemocratic systems, we often or always observe a moment of referendum, as popular cinema has recently instructed of the papal conclave, or as in the absolute monarch's canvass of his privy council. And, in counterpoint, even in democratic systems, a moment of sovereign decision stands outside consensus. Every regime is mixed. The quest for a female president has been a quest to see a woman wield not the plebiscitary power, old hat, but to see her wield sovereign power. Ironically, woman held plenty of sovereign power before the democratic age; an even older hat was the diadem. Democracy, as Burke long ago complained, had its bloody breech birth, the revolutionaries leaping feet first into progressive history from the womb of time, in the murder of the queen; communism is even worse, the princess slaughtered in the cellar (yes, Anastasia). A confusion, then, of my initial categories: democracy, male, a band of brothers; monarchy, female, our great mother. Democracy represents the brothers overthrowing mother and father; feminism is their sisters' demand to be granted an equal share in the power seized. Virginia Woolf said financial independence and the power to wield representational authority were both more important for women than the vote. Political power follows both economic and cultural power; these latter are the true sovereignties. This is how the franchise, originally the rock-paper-scissors of the fraternal horde in a primitive information environment, became archetypally feminine in the media age, the body politic passive beneath the thrusts of media and culture. The double question is what the future holds for this exchange of masculine and feminine partners in the dance of referendum and sovereignty. The monarch telepathically connected to the populace through its collective self-representation in the data stream? Perhaps. And perhaps the monarch will not even be human, will be the emergent intelligence of organized information, and therefore the synthesis of sovereignty and referendum as it is the transcendence of male and female. The 19th Amendment, and the First Commandment, will be therefore fulfilled in such extremity as to nullify themselves in the satisfaction that they have performed their historical roles.”

I think it is an unholy combination of pretentious postmodernism and misogynistic conservatism.

There are some interesting rhetorical tools employed that, if isolated from the whole, could have made for a powerful (if divisive) passage. However, as it is, the language is so convoluted it’s nearly uninterpretable, which may actually have been the goal.

---

A translation {plus commentary}:

Invariably whenever right-wingers on social media starting debating whether they should repeal the 19th it hits them somewhere in the middle of the conversation: "Why are we talking about voting at all?"

When conservative men start debating whether women should get to vote, they end up thinking voting/democracy is actually pointless.

And really, within a traditional conservative gender paradigm, voting appears to be stereotypically feminine behavior; essentially passive, it seeks comity and consensus, based more on social intuition, the waveform of the opinion poll, than information.

Voting is based on consensus-driven decision making (i.e., "majority rules"). Since compromise is actually a "feminine behavior," this means that voting is actually a "feminine behavior". {No evidence for the assertion that opinion and objective information are independent; completely ignoring the fact that they necessarily interact.}

"Why did men ever vote?" is the question. The masculine approach to seeking a leader should surely involve some brute, individualizing test of reality rather than opinion, such as trial by combat.

In contrast to women, men are inherently meant to employ violent and dominating methods of social control. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for men to vote. {"Men are inherently bad at democracy" is a hilarious position to base your misogyny on.}

But sometimes these elements synthesize, the vote a referendum on some more or less sublimated moment of combat, e.g., a debate—or, for a more graphic example, when Trump's survival of the assassination attempt foreordained his election, as if it would somehow have been obscene not to elect him after that, with a shift in female voters his way despite his female opponent.

But actually, modern political debates are a form of pseudo-combat. Also, the attempted assassination of Trump was the pinnacle of such pseudo-combat, and that's why he was elected and why female voters shifted to support him. {Absolutely no evidence provided that such a shift ever happened.}

Even in undemocratic systems, we often or always observe a moment of referendum, as popular cinema has recently instructed of the papal conclave, or as in the absolute monarch's canvass of his privy council.

Also, even in governments that are not democracies, the leader is still concerned with the opinion of those around him (e.g., the selection of a head leader by an unelected group, a monarch getting opinions from his advisory council).

And, in counterpoint, even in democratic systems, a moment of sovereign decision stands outside consensus. Every regime is mixed.

And sometimes democratically elected leaders have to make a final decision before gathering others’ opinions. Therefore, all governments are a mix of democratic and undemocratic decision-making.

The quest for a female president has been a quest to see a woman wield not the plebiscitary power, old hat, but to see her wield sovereign power.

Women want a female president not because they want a democratically elected leader to show a public consensus for supporting women, but because they want to see a woman get to have "final say" in undemocratic decisions. {Again, no evidence provided. Also, no commentary on what this assertion would mean for men's absolute resistance to a female president.}

Ironically, woman held plenty of sovereign power before the democratic age; an even older hat was the diadem.

And also this doesn't make sense, because before democracy there were queens. {Of course, no mention made of the fact that these queens were almost universally subordinate to their male relatives.}

Democracy, as Burke long ago complained, had its bloody breech birth, the revolutionaries leaping feet first into progressive history from the womb of time, in the murder of the queen; communism is even worse, the princess slaughtered in the cellar (yes, Anastasia).

{Likely a reference to} Edmund Burke, who commented on the French Revolution, believed democracy was "born" from violence (revolution) by men too quickly (i.e., he believed the shift from monarchy to democracy was too fast and that people were not ready for such systems of government). Two such examples were the murder of Queen Marie Antoinette (French Revolution) and Grand Duchess Anastasia (Russian communist revolution). {Again, ignoring the fact that both women were subordinate to their male family members, having little actual political power.}

A confusion, then, of my initial categories: democracy, male, a band of brothers; monarchy, female, our great mother.

This inverts the earlier categories of democracy as feminine and monarchy as masculine. In these examples, democratic men were overthrowing monarchical women. {Again, disregarding the historical inaccuracy.}

Democracy represents the brothers overthrowing mother and father; feminism is their sisters' demand to be granted an equal share in the power seized.

So men overthrew monarchies to establish democracy, women now want an equal share of that democratic power. {This time ignoring how the absolutely essential roles women played in every democratic revolution.}

Virginia Woolf said financial independence and the power to wield representational authority were both more important for women than the vote. Political power follows both economic and cultural power; these latter are the true sovereignties.

Virginia Woolf indicated that having a stable source of income was more important to her personal well-being than having the vote. Also, political power comes after economic and cultural power. {Which, yes, of course having a way to provide for her basic needs was more impactful than any political power. This is confusing the impact on individual well-being with the impact on classes of people. Political power makes slow changes to classes, but that does not negate its long-term importance to a group's well-being. This also ignores the tridirectional relationship between these sources of power.}

This is how the franchise, originally the rock-paper-scissors of the fraternal horde in a primitive information environment, became archetypally feminine in the media age, the body politic passive beneath the thrusts of media and culture.

In history, voting was a simple affair between men of the community. Nowadays voting is "feminine" because of the effect media has on people's opinions (i.e., media and culture are determined by the majority opinion which then influences voting behavior, so voting behavior is determined by the general "consensus", which we know is "feminine").

{Begrudgingly, I find the characterization of politics in relation to culture via the imagery of "thrusting" into a "passive body" clever. In a different context, this could have been the beginning of a social commentary on society's positioning of penetration as an act of dominance and comparison between such personal and public/political domination. Unfortunately, given the context it's likely he simply intended to invoke that characterization uncritically to further the characterization of democracy as a "feminine" entity.}

The double question is what the future holds for this exchange of masculine and feminine partners in the dance of referendum and sovereignty.

It is unknown how men and women's relationship to consensus-driven or singular political power will evolve in the future and also how the difference in political power between men and women will play out.

The monarch telepathically connected to the populace through its collective self-representation in the data stream? Perhaps.

Maybe there will be a single person in power who makes decisions based on the majority opinion, as defined by what people (or the media) say. {Thoroughly amazed that he seems to think this is possible.}

And perhaps the monarch will not even be human, will be the emergent intelligence of organized information, and therefore the synthesis of sovereignty and referendum as it is the transcendence of male and female.

Except actually, maybe this monarch will be an AI (which is based on the data given to it) and so political power won't be male or female. {This displays a complete ignorance of how AI works. Even if there exists a future in which such an AI could exist, it would still have been built off of existing data, and, therefore, any biases will be propagated into it.}

The 19th Amendment, and the First Commandment, will be therefore fulfilled in such extremity as to nullify themselves in the satisfaction that they have performed their historical roles.

Such a system will mean we don't have to vote anymore and also it will function as a sort of "god" (as an ultimate authority) with its decisions made based on the populace's opinion and therefore to be accepted unquestionably by that same populace.

---

Summary

When misogynistic men start debating whether women should get to vote they end up thinking voting is actually pointless and both a feminine (undesirable) behavior that simultaneously, paradoxically only exists because of men. However, this doesn't matter, because media and culture are way more important and also we will eventually be ruled by a gender-less AI.

Conclusion

The only thing more ridiculous than the ideas espoused is the purple prose he wrapped them in.

I'm not sure if this is what you were looking for Anon, but I hope it helped. (Heads up to others that I probably won't be answering similar "translation" asks in the future; at least not ones this long.)

[ushamartinuniversity]

BA (Hons.) English Degree Overview – Subjects, Scope, and Opportunities

As a field of higher education, the Bachelor of Arts in English Honors is a course of immense significance and enduring value. If you are interested in literature, language, and communication, then the BA English Hons course might be the ideal educational journey for you. From Shakespearean drama to postcolonial literature, from literary theory to contemporary media writing, this course doesn’t merely teach you texts—it trains your mind to think, interpret, and communicate with clarity and creativity.

This article goes through the entire expanse of the BA English Hons course—its subjects, job prospects, contemporary relevance, and why it could very well be the wisest thing you do for your future.

What is a BA (Hons.) English Degree?

The BA degree, especially honors in English, is a three-year specialized undergraduate program. It is a part of the broader category of the Bachelor of Arts and is very much focused on English literature, language, critical theory, and literary history. BA English Hons students learn not just mastery over the language but also the analytical and critical reasoning ability required in a content-driven, communication-centric, and culture-oriented world.

This course is perfect for those who find reading, writing, and interpreting texts fascinating. It’s just as good for students who are passionate about studying media, education, publishing, creative arts, civil services, and more.

Topics Taught in BA (Hons.) English

The course of BA English Hons is structured to give students a comprehensive knowledge of English literature from its primitive origins to modern-day global fiction. The course generally includes the following topics:

British Literature—Spans major literary eras from Chaucer to postmodern authors, including Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth, and Eliot.

Indian Writing in English—Deals with literature written by Indian writers in English, such as authors R.K. Narayan, Arundhati Roy, and Amitav Ghosh.

American and World Literature—Exposes students to global writers, widening their literary horizon with works from Africa, Latin America, and Europe.

Literary Theory and Criticism—Assists students to comprehend different theoretical paradigms such as feminism, post-colonialism, structuralism, etc.

Language and Linguistics—Helps comprehend the development, form, and purpose of the English language.

Creative Writing and Communication—Fosters hands-on practice in writing for media, advertising, fiction, and nonfiction.

Drama, Poetry, and Fiction—Provides a thorough study of various literary forms and their role in society.

These courses together help to develop critical thinking, cultural sensitivity, emotional intelligence, and solid language skills—all necessary for personal and professional achievement.

Scope and Career Opportunities Following a BA English Honors Degree

The career scope following a BA English Hons degree is both broad and wide-ranging. It’s a widespread misconception that English graduates can only teach or take up writing careers. In reality, they are usually favoured in a broad range of industries due to their distinctive skill set: communication, understanding, analysis, convincing, and sympathy.

Following your BA degree in English (Hons.), here are some of the most promising directions for you to take:

Education and Academia: Further pursue courses like an MA, MPhil, or PhD in English and become a school or college teacher. Alternatively, consider language training or soft skill development positions.

Civil Services and Government Jobs: The Bachelor of Arts foundation, particularly in English, proves useful for competitive examinations such as UPSC, SSC, or State PCS because it lays emphasis on reading comprehension and essay writing.

Journalism and Media: Content writing, journalism, editing, and news reading are natural outlets for English graduates. Media organizations, online portals, and newspapers always look for people who can write and communicate well.

Publishing and Editorial Work: If you are detail-oriented and a bookworm, publishing might be a good fit. It includes the jobs of editor, proofreader, content strategist, and literary agent.

Corporate Communications and PR: Numerous firms hire BA graduates in corporate communications executive, PR officer, or training manager positions due to their good language skills and presentation ability.

Creative Writing and Copywriting: Regardless of whether you aspire to be a novelist, poet, screenwriter, or copywriter, a BA in English provides you with the skills to communicate ideas effectively and imaginatively.

Translation and Interpretation: If you happen to be bilingual or multilingual, English graduates are needed in translation, transcription, and language interpretation services.

Digital Marketing and Content Creation: With the boom in digital, the need for good content has increased by leaps and bounds. Blogs, websites, social media platforms, and ecommerce websites require talented content developers and strategists.

Skillsets Gained from BA English Hons

A student who graduates with a BA English Hons degree doesn’t merely go out with a degree—they go out with a skillset that’s in demand across industries and geographies:

Advanced reading and comprehension

Analytical and critical thinking

Good verbal and written communication

Cultural awareness and emotional intelligence

Research and interpretation skills

Teamwork and cooperation

Creativity and innovation

These skills render English graduates extremely flexible for new-generation professions in business, arts, education, and public services.

Eligibility and Admission Procedure

Usha Martin University requires for BA admission in English Honors:

Successful completion of 12th grade from a recognized board.

Minimum percentage (typically 45–50%) as per the institution.

All stream students are allowed to apply for BA (Hons.) Admission at UMU.

Always verify the Usha Martin University’s individual eligibility criteria to which you are applying for BA admission.

Why Choose Usha Martin University for BA (Hons.) English Admission?

When it comes to pursuing the BA in English Honors, Usha Martin University (UMU) in Jharkhand is a preferred choice. Here’s why:

Specialized Coursework: UMU’s BA English Hons course is a combination of classical literary coursework and contemporary applications such as communication and online writing.

Specialized Faculty: Get trained by seasoned instructors and industry experts who provide individual attention and mentoring.

Job-Oriented Education: UMU’s program has modules in creative writing, public speaking, media writing, and more to make graduates employable.

Industry Exposure: Periodic workshops, guest lectures, and seminars with journalists, writers, and educators bridge the gap between theoretical study and practical application.

Modern Infrastructure: A well-facilitated campus with a digital library, smart classrooms, and language labs contributes to the overall learning experience.

Affordable Fee Structure: Usha Martin University provides high-quality education at a competitive and reasonable price, making it feasible for students from all walks of life.

Striking Career Guidance: The university offers personal career guidance, internship assistance, and placement facilities to equip students with the confidence to kick-start their careers.

Conclusion

A Bachelor of Arts in English Honors is not merely an educational degree but a portal to comprehend the world, convey ideas well, and succeed in various professional avenues. The BA English Hons course refines your analytical skills, writing skills, and cultural awareness, preparing you for the challenges of the contemporary workplace. If you dream of becoming a writer, a teacher, a civil servant, a marketer, or an entrepreneur, a BA in English provides the perfect launchpad. And if you opt to take this path with Usha Martin University, you opt for quality, innovation, and possibility. Therefore, if you are thinking of BA admission, this is the best time to make an investment in your future with UMU.

[normally0]

In the Breezeway of Hansaviertel

In the heart of Berlin, where rivers flow,

Where once the ravages of war did sow

Destruction, now rises a tale anew,

In Hansaviertel, dreams are built and grew.

Alvar Aalto's vision, a sanctuary for the wind,

Columns in white, where the breezes rescind,

A hall of light, of openness and grace,

Where East meets West in a sacred space.

The ceiling above, with patterns in blue,

A dance of the sky, a celestial hue,

Reminds of Finland, near the Arctic's cold,

Where nature's geometry, ancient and bold.

Here, a dialogue of past and present unfolds,

In shapes and forms, the Bauhaus mold,

Yet Aalto's touch, a softer hand,

Brings the comforts of home to this urban land.

A mirror of community, an architect's dream,

In the breezeway's embrace, a gentle theme,

That whispers of unity, yet holds the line,

Between distinct identities, classical and fine.

Before the rush of postmodern haste,

Where ideas ran free, a complex taste,

Aalto's sanctuary stands, a mindful pause,

A lesson in form, a subtle cause.

In this covered space, let us understand,

The primitive echoes of Finland's land,

Where nature's voice speaks of what must be,

A call to heed, for our climate's plea.

For architecture here, in shapes and light,

Can make a statement, bold and bright,

A testament to what we must become,

A future where harmony and care are one.

#Hansaviertel #BerlinArchitecture #AlvarAalto #ModernistDesign #PostWarReconstruction #Interbau57 #ArchitecturalHeritage #UrbanSanctuary #BreezewayDesign #EastMeetsWest #ClassicalDialogue #ClimateConsciousDesign #FinnishArchitecture #ArtisticPatterns #BuiltEnvironment #CulturalIdentity

[christophe76460]

DIRE LA VÉRITÉ DANS L'AMOUR

Parfois, la meilleure façon d’aimer son prochain est de remettre en question une fausse croyance qui le maintient dans la confusion, le découragement ou dans un pire état d’esclavage spirituel. L’idée selon laquelle défendre la vérité ou affronter les mensonges n’est pas aimant. C’est l’une des opinions arrogantes de cette époque postmoderne qui doit être démolie (2 Cor. 10 : 5). L'amour authentique « se réjouit de la vérité » (1 Cor. 13 :6).

L'amour et la vérité sont parfaitement symbiotiques. L'amour sans vérité n'a aucun caractère. La vérité sans amour n’a aucun pouvoir. Nulle part dans l’Écriture le lien essentiel entre ces deux vertus cardinales n’est plus clairement mis en évidence que dans 2 Jean. Amour et vérité sont les mots clés de cette brève épître de treize versets.

Jean est l’apôtre parfait pour écrire sur ce thème. Jésus avait surnommé Jean et son frère Jacques « Boanerges, c'est-à-dire les Fils du Tonnerre » (Marc 3 : 17), sans doute à cause de leur zèle ardent pour la vérité. Au début, leur passion n'était pas toujours tempérée par l'amour, et nous en avons un aperçu dans Luc 9 :54, lorsqu'ils voulaient faire descendre le feu du ciel sur un village de Samaritains qui avaient réprimandé le Christ.

Cependant, au cours des années suivantes, Jean se distingua comme l'apôtre de l'amour, mettant particulièrement en avant le thème de l'amour dans son évangile et dans ses trois épîtres.

Et pourtant, comme nous le voyons dans toutes ses épîtres, il n’a jamais perdu son zèle pour la vérité. Il a cependant appris à le maintenir lié à un amour véritable, semblable à celui du Christ. Sa deuxième épître est adressée à « la dame élue et à ses enfants » – très probablement une matriarche chrétienne estimée qui avait les moyens et le désir de mettre sa maison et son hospitalité à la disposition des missionnaires itinérants, des implanteurs d'églises et des enseignants de l'église primitive. Offrir une telle hospitalité était une manière tangible pour elle d'accomplir le nouveau commandement du Seigneur (Jean 13 : 34).

Elle connaissait probablement la première épître de Jean, où il avertissait « que l'antichrist vient, et maintenant plusieurs antichrists sont venus. C'est pourquoi nous savons que c'est la dernière heure » (1 Jean 2 :18 ; voir v. 22 ; 4 :3). ). Ces hommes étaient de « faux prophètes », des enseignants qui prétendaient être croyants mais dont l’enseignement sapait la vraie foi. Et beaucoup d’entre eux étaient déjà allés dans tout le monde connu (4 : 1).

Pour quelqu’un dont le ministère consistait à faire preuve de gentillesse envers les étrangers, ces paroles étaient troublantes. Ne pouvait-elle plus faire preuve d’hospitalité sans discernement ? Quelle a été la réponse aimante à quelqu’un qui prétendait être un frère en Christ mais enseignait la doctrine de l’Antéchrist ?

Elle avait manifestement écrit personnellement à John pour lui demander. L'épître est sa réponse. Les versets 1 à 5 décrivent la nature symbiotique de l'amour et de la vérité, et Jean affirme la primauté de l'amour : « Tous ceux qui connaissent [véritablement] la vérité » aiment (le v. 1 est un écho de 1 Jean 3 : 14 et son texte). références croisées). L’amour lui-même est au cœur de toute vérité parce que l’amour est ce qu’exige la vérité. L'amour est l'accomplissement parfait de tous les commandements de notre Seigneur (Rom. 13 :10 ; Gal. 5 :14). Ainsi, Jean ne veut en aucun cas que cette femme ou tout autre lecteur de l’épître pense que ce qu’il s’apprête à dire dénigre l’importance de l’amour.

L’épître prend alors une tournure dramatique. Jean réitère la nécessité de se garder des trompeurs et des antéchrists, car il y en a beaucoup (v. 7). Il explique comment distinguer ces personnes des croyants authentiques (v. 9).

Tout cela répète sous forme abrégée des choses qu’il avait déjà dites dans 1 Jean. Les versets 10 et 11 constituent le seul contenu entièrement nouveau de cette épître. C’est donc le point principal que John souhaite aborder dans cette lettre. C’est la réponse inspirée de John à la question qui semble l’avoir poussé à écrire en premier lieu :

Si quelqu'un vient à vous et n'apporte pas cet enseignement, ne le recevez pas dans votre maison et ne le saluez pas, car celui qui le salue participe à ses mauvaises œuvres.

Il appelle à une séparation stricte entre le peuple de Dieu et quiconque vient au nom du Christ mais nie l'enseignement essentiel du Christ.

Jean ne parle pas de simples sujets de désaccord entre frères et sœurs en Christ. Il ne donne pas pour mandat de parler grossièrement aux gens, d'être haineux envers ses adversaires théologiques, ou quoi que ce soit d'autre qui violerait le principe de 2 Timothée 2 : 24-26 : « Le serviteur du Seigneur ne doit pas être querelleur, mais gentil avec tout le monde. ... corrigeant ses adversaires avec douceur.

"Mais il n'y a pas de mots ici. Il demande à la femme de refuser l'hospitalité et l'honneur aux enseignants itinérants qui nient les questions essentielles de la foi chrétienne. Elle ne doit pas leur ouvrir sa maison; elle ne doit pas non plus leur accorder aucune faveur. ou un hommage qui pourrait les encourager dans leur mission maléfique.

L’amour – pour la vérité et pour les âmes – exige une telle réponse aux mensonges dangereux. Pour l’esprit postmoderne, cela peut sembler n’être aucun amour, mais cela incarne le meilleur et le plus profond amour pour le Christ. Puissions-nous apprendre ce que signifie fonder notre amour sur la vérité, et puissions-nous ne pas succomber à la pression de notre époque pour rejeter ou soumettre la vérité du Christ à une notion fausse et brumeuse de l'amour.

- Phil Johnson

[myfriendtheurbanlegend]

The film's most intelligent detractors criticize the excessive violence, and the lack of any real substance beyond the violence. They criticize the film for being too Medieval, for not portraying the Christ of the Gospels (or at least the glorious Renaissance Christ of Caravaggio, or the meek Modern Christ, or the multi-faced Postmodern Christs). They believe the film's Dark Age sensibilities are numbing to modern American audiences. The film's greatest strength is, for them, its greatest weakness. They argue that the film reflects an older, more primitive worldview, and has no relevance to us. But they fail to recognize that, while the film's emphases may reflect another era, its spirit and its passion reflect all eras. The sufferings of Christ are as universal as his teachings.

Nice article with some really insightful and level-headed commentary regarding the Passion. This paragraph sums up my feelings. The suffering was the point. You participate in it. I find it not too dissimilar to the customs of Orthodox Christianity where during the Holy Week prior to Easter, the Passion is acted out by the priests and the laity, a station each day.

A long but immensely insightful review of The Passion of the Christ - worth reading!

“THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST” USA, 2004

  Part One: A Cinematic Context for “The Passion of the Christ”

When he visited an art gallery, Ludwig Wittgenstein confessed that he’d rather spend several hours studying a single painting than spend those hours casually browsing every painting in the building. Mel Gibson takes Wittgenstein’s approach to the Christ story in “The Passion of the Christ.” He doesn’t provide an overview of Christ’s life, highlighting the key points, emphasizing certain others, and ultimately giving his own slant on Jesus’ legacy. Instead, Gibson takes one story from the Gospels and shows it to us. The film begins and ends with those pivotal hours before Christ died and was buried. Not once does he stray from his subject - flashbacks are used to accentuate the Crucifixion, not to provide a context for it. The context of Christ’s death is his life, his ministry, and the complicated world of first century Palestine. Most “Jesus movies” struggle to cover it all; the best versions succeed by using unconventional methods. For instance: Zeffirelli’s “Jesus of Nazareth” is over 370 minutes in length, and spends hours providing the context of Christ’s life and death. Pasolini’s “The Gospel According to Matthew” ignores all contexts and subtexts, relying instead on the most literal and realistic methods of adaptation (to simplify the task even more, Pasolini relied on only one Gospel). Gibson’s film shares much with these earlier masterpieces. With Zeffirelli, he shares a fascination for the politics and people of Roman Palestine. Though Gibson’s Sanhedrin are little more than Jesus-hating villains, his Romans (who are more than just the brutes they appear to be) and his Jews (who are more than just a crowd) are portrayed with nuance and detail. Gibson’s costumes and sets are designed with the care and astuteness we see in Zeffirelli. Gibson’s actors resemble Zeffirelli’s on many points. When Jim Caviezel’s Christ speaks, it is with the softness and compassion of Robert Powell’s Jesus. But it’s Pasolini’s vision that Gibson most exudes. Gibson is admittedly a great admirer of the Italian master, and purposely shot “The Passion” at a location Pasolini used in his “Gospel According to Matthew.” Like Pasolini, Gibson has portrayed Christ with intense realism and physicality. Yet these similarities only underline the differences between the films. While Pasolini avoided symbolism and traditional imagery, Gibson’s film is a cinematic tapestry of familiar images, borrowing heavily from the Christian iconography that Pasolini’s film totally lacks. And while Pasolini’s realism seems almost documentary, Gibson’s portrayal of the wounded Christ verges on hyperrealism. Pasolini’s Christ inhabits a physical reality unusual among portrayals of the Messiah - he moves, breathes, walks, and speaks like a man. Gibson’s Christ is similarly physical, but his physicality is twisted and beaten “beyond human recognition.” Pasolini brings us Christ as a man; in Gibson, he is barely that. Of course, what most separates “The Passion” from Zeffirelli and Pasolini is that it doesn’t attempt, as do those films, to tell the story of Christ. It’s not “Jesus movie” proper, but rather a Passion Play on celluloid. It’s a “Crucifixion movie.” While other films struggle to create Christ’s context, Gibson assumes that audiences will enter the theater with that context in their hearts and minds. It’s somewhat surprising that “The Passion” is the first film to deal exclusively with Christ’s death. Many directors have tackled the story of Jesus, but none have devoted an entire film to his death, the single most filmable (and most famous) part of Christ’s life. Do any other movies so exclusively and intensely portray the last hours of Christ’s life? D.W. Griffith’s “Intolerance” comes to mind, but that film uses Christ’s trial as one of several episodes, each exploring the larger theme of human injustice. There is E. Elias Merhige’s “Begotten,” which certainly matches “The Passion” in its relentless portrayal of Christ’s suffering. But “Begotten” is a symbolic film, and distances itself from the person of Jesus. “The Passion” cites the Gospels directly (along with church dogma, Christian tradition, and historical record). It stands alone among portrayals of Christ in cinema - a film like this has never been made.

  Part Two: “The Passion” As Art and Meditation

      “The Passion of the Christ” isn’t a narrative so much as a meditation - a Catholic prayer, full of hallowed incantations and repetitions. The incantations are Christ’s moans, the repetitions his beatings. If the film’s use of dead languages (Aramaic, Latin) is meant to evoke an old-style Catholic Mass, the elements (flesh, blood) are fresh and alive. The portrayal of Christ’s sufferings reverberate new life into old ideas. With each whipping, each cry, each spasm, the reality of the Crucifixion is made utterly clear. This film is the most vivid recital of the Stations of the Cross most Christians are likely to experience.

                              The intensity of Christ’s suffering is the film’s greatest strength. It calls itself “The Passion of the Christ,” and the title is appropriate; Roger Ebert points out the Latin origins of “passion,” which refer to pain. Furthermore, this is the Passion “of the Christ,” a phrase that exemplifies how Jesus is portrayed in the film. He isn’t really personified. Aside from a brief flashback of the Sermon on the Mount, and some flashbacks of the Last Supper, he doesn’t speak (at least not in human terms). He is presented as “the Christ,” both the literal Messiah and the abstract concept of the Christ. Whatever human terms we attach to this concept, we bring them to the film ourselves. Gibson has given us a canvas on which to infer our own ideas about Jesus; if many Evangelical leaders are more comfortable with this film than with others about Jesus, it is not because this film advocates their views - the film merely gives them permission to have those views by not strongly advocating any of its own. Is this a weakness? Hardly. This sort of objectivity is why so many have (mistakenly) described the film as “documentary” (a term slightly more appropriate to Pasolini’s vision, not Gibson’s). Through this ideological objectivity, Gibson has given us the least nuanced portrayal of Christ ever committed to film…which isn’t to say it lacks scope. Unlike most films about Christ, there aren’t levels of meaning or multiple layers to unravel…which isn’t to say it lacks depth. It’s just that there aren’t many ways to read this film…there aren’t many vantages from which to view it. Well, that’s not entirely true. One could explore in depth the portrayal of Mary and her relationship with Jesus (“The Passion” is the first Jesus movie to feature a great, and not merely adequate, Mary). Their relationship is the most human aspect of this film, and silences the critics who claim that “The Passion” possesses no warmth, no hint of humanity. I could probably devote an entire column to the duality of Pilate and Ciaphas, the two most pronounced characters in the film. There are several instances when the Apostles (particularly John) respond to Christ in ways that will foreshadow their Epistles. Just because the film is singular in its vision doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot between the lines. But after seeing “The Passion” three times in one week, it’s apparent that the film is really about one thing, and one thing alone - Christ’s death. Gibson has taken this singular aspect of Christ’s ministry, and has portrayed it better than any filmmaker in history. It amazes me that many Christian leaders (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, et al) who criticized “The Last Temptation of Christ” for focusing too singularly on Christ’s humanity praise “The Passion,” which focuses just as singularly on his suffering. They deride the first film for not focusing enough on the Gospels, while applauding the second for adapting only a few sentences. But while they seem to want a film that encompasses the totality of the Gospels, Gibson hasn’t given them that (whether they realize it or not is another matter). Gibson delivers a mere sliver of the Christ story - he dodges the impossible task of meeting Evangelical expectation, instead creating a brilliant and masterful work of art.

                                         We first see Jesus in the Garden, alone and in turmoil. Already Satan has launched the last temptation - the temptation to deny the Cross. The disciples are sleeping - Christ wakes Peter, Mark, and John, and asks them to keep watch. After meeting the Sanhedrin (a dramatic use of editing that begins with Peter looking at the moon, cuts to a shot of the moon, and returns to Ciaphas looking at the moon), we return to Christ in the Garden. This time Satan is physically present, an androgynous being who taunts Jesus, and then releases a snake toward him. The significance of the snake can’t be overstated, but it was likely missed by many viewers. While the reference to the Garden of Eden is obvious to most, there is another layer of symbolism hidden within the image - the snake is a python, a constrictor, a species not necessarily common to Palestine…if Gibson were searching for a snake to taunt the historical Jesus, he’d choose a viper, a poisonous snake that inhabits the area. By choosing a constrictor, Gibson has evoked the concept of physical constriction, of being crushed and suffocated. Jesus was not killed by a single wound, but by a process of being physically and spiritually broken; when a person is crucified, it is their inability to breathe while hanging from the cross that usually kills them. This, along with the torture Christ will endure throughout the film, is predicated in the snake that visits him in the garden. Gibson employs this sort of symbolism throughout the film - during the flagellation, Satan appears to Christ with a demonic child (perhaps signifying the Antichrist, or possibly mocking Christ’s birth). The Sanhedrin are shown riding donkeys, an visual representation of their stubbornness (and a nice contrast with Christ’s entrance into Jerusalem). Donkeys make another key appearance during Judas’ suicide, another brilliant scene. The film also uses direct symbols, such as a Divine Tear that falls after Christ’s death, and even an appearance by the Shroud of Turin. Symbolism is used most strongly when the Romans are onscreen. Though Gibson portrays them as innocent dummies who, nevertheless, are clearly the torturers of Christ, Gibson is keenly aware that the Romans (not the Jews) will be the true inheritors of Christ’s legacy. In the most visually symbolic scene in the film, a Roman solider spears Christ (now dead) through the side, and the blood rains down. The Romans, awed by the sight, seem to kneel as the blood showers on and around them. Meanwhile, the Jewish Temple is ripped apart by an earthquake; not only is the curtain torn, but the whole building seems decimated, and the Holy of Holies is violated by Ciaphas’ hands. The message here is clear - the Old Way is gone, a New Way has come.

    This use of symbolism, along with the film’s style and structure, links “The Passion of the Christ” to its closest aesthetic kin: the painting and sculpture of the late Middle Ages. Indeed: to find a portrayal of the Crucifixion that matches Gibson’s for ferocity and veracity, you’d have to go back several hundred years to the great Medieval religious paintings of northern Europe, particularly Matthias Grünewald’s breathtaking “Isenheim Altarpiece” and Hieronymus Bosch’s “Christ Carrying the Cross” and “Ecce Homo.” Not only does “The Passion” resemble those works in terms of violence and savagery, but in terms of structure as well. Gibson has used nonlinear narrative to organize his film much as painters like Grünewald and Bosch organized their famous altarpieces. Consider the use of flashbacks throughout the film. They don’t add to the narrative so much as underline it. They remind me very much of the panels Grünewald uses in his altarpiece - they organize around the central image, which is the main narrative, but the painting would be incomplete without them. In “The Passion,” the central narrative is Christ’s last 12 hours; within that narrative, the centerpiece is the flogging of Jesus, a nine-minute sequence that is the most powerful scene in the film. Gibson also invokes Grünewald in preferring the visceral over the intellectual. There are many instances, early in the film, when unexpected objects startle the audience from off-screen (in Gethsemane, Peter jumps out at a Roman; later, a demonic spirit leaps out at Judas). This technique may seem more appropriate in “Jaws” than a film about Christ, but it has a purpose. Gibson is conditioning his audience, preparing them for the carnage to follow. Using these startling moments early in the film, he builds the foundation for a visceral experience, a film that affects the gut more than the mind. This follows the pattern set by Grünewald, who created violent images of impact. There’s nothing subtle about either Gibson’s film or Grünewald’s paintings - they startle their viewers, sometimes to the point of nausea. The film’s most intelligent detractors criticize the excessive violence, and the lack of any real substance beyond the violence. They criticize the film for being too Medieval, for not portraying the Christ of the Gospels (or at least the glorious Renaissance Christ of Caravaggio, or the meek Modern Christ, or the multi-faced Postmodern Christs). They believe the film’s Dark Age sensibilities are numbing to modern American audiences. The film’s greatest strength is, for them, its greatest weakness. They argue that the film reflects an older, more primitive worldview, and has no relevance to us. But they fail to recognize that, while the film’s emphases may reflect another era, its spirit and its passion reflect all eras. The sufferings of Christ are as universal as his teachings. — For more on “The Passion of the Christ,” read Kate Bowman’s brilliant analysis of the Evangelical reaction to the film. From another perspective, Pat Robertson wrote an article concerning his views on the film and its impact. Roger Ebert wrote an insightful four-star review of the film, while David Denby wrote an insightful negative review. For more on the Isenheim Altarpiece and Matthias Grünewald, click here. For examples of the artwork of Hieronymus Bosch, including the paintings mentioned, click here.

  source: http://www.vagrantcafe.com/christiancinema/2004_03_08_archive.htm

[rf-times]

I don't know why people think that a place or culture that shows Goddess worship is matriarchal. As an Indian, worshipping Goddesses and celebrating fertility of women are very common here. There are plenty of rituals here that celebrate the first time a girl has her period(I myself have experienced this), where we are gifted with new clothes, gold, sweets, etc. None of this means that the culture is in anyway matriarchal. In hindu temples, you can see images and sculptures of warrior goddesses who are slaying demons(who are always men) yet it is still a very misogynistic society.

I have actually read the book that anon took the passage from. It's called Philosophical trends in the feminist movement by an Indian Maoist named Anuradha Ghandy. It's strange how the author makes such claims despite knowing that Goddess worship and all exist even now in our culture.

I've mainly seen this book recommended as a valid criticism against radical feminism but the truth is the author would've been called a "swerf" or "terf" by them if they read the entire book. At one point, she makes the mistake of assuming radical feminists support prostitution and criticize them -"The radi­cal trend by supporting pornography and giving the abstract argument of free choice has taken a reac­tionary turn providing justification and support to the sex tourism industry promoted by the imperial­ists which is subjecting lakhs (100.000s) of women from oppressed ethnic communities and from the third world countries to sexual exploitation and untold suffering."

However, her criticism of liberal and post-modern feminism is spot on.For eg:" In effect post-modernism is extremely divisive because it pro­motes fragmentation between people and gives rela­tive importance to identities without any theoretical framework to understand the historical reasons for identity formation and to link the various identities." So I'd say it's a good reading for those who want to know why liberal feminism and postmodernism are problematic.

Interesting, I'd never heard of this book before. I wonder when it was written because there were strands of second wave feminists who did support porn and the "sexual revolution" (i.e. Ellen Willis) but surely not enough to constitute referring to supporting porn as a tenet of radical feminism. I think there's so much ahistoricism in regards to prehistory because so many feminsits operate under the assumption that matriarchies prove that patriarchy is unnatural and evil and therefore go to ridiculous lengths to interpret anything as being matriarchal. By the same token, many misogynists love to see matriarchies as proving the opposite, that there were these primitive backwards "nature based" societies run by women that had to be defeated for society to progress. So there's no wonder the idea of prehistorical matriarchy is so prevalent. And like you say, we are so much more skeptical and realistic when it comes to putting women on a pedestal in our modern societies and cultures being indicative of how women are treated, but put these same artefacts or ideas a few thousand years ago and suddenly it's proof of matriarchy!

I like her passage on postmodernism.

[denisearef]

Orientalism, as explained by Edward W. Said, is intricately linked to popular media. These mediums often perpetuate and reinforce Orientalist stereotypes by portraying the "Orient" as exotic, primitive, and inherently different from the West. Such representations serve to exoticize and "other" Eastern cultures, reinforcing Western superiority and justifying colonialist attitudes and actions. Additionally, standardization and cultural stereotyping in media have intensified the academic and imaginative demonology of the "mysterious Orient" by perpetuating simplistic and one-dimensional portrayals of Eastern cultures and peoples. As Said argues, "One aspect of the electronic, postmodern world is that there has been a reinforcement of the stereotypes by which the Orient is viewed. Television, the films, and all the media’s resources have forced information into more and more standardized molds. So far as the Orient is concerned, standardization and cultural stereotyping have intensified the hold of the nineteenth century academic and imaginative demonology of 'the mysterious Orient'" [1]. These mediums often rely on familiar tropes and stereotypes, such as the submissive geisha, the dangerous terrorist, or the wise sage, which not only fail to capture the complexity and diversity of Eastern societies but also contribute to a distorted and essentialized view of the "Orient."

Stereotypes play a significant role in shaping the representation of people in film and television. They reduce individuals to fixed, often negative characteristics based on their cultural or ethnic background, reinforcing harmful biases and prejudices. However, film and television also have the power to challenge and change these perceptions through more nuanced and authentic portrayals of diverse cultures and identities. As stated by Shohat and Stam in Unthinking Eurocentrism, "Many oppressed groups have used "progressive realism" to unmask and combat hegemonic representations, countering the objectifying discourses of patriarchy and colonialism with a vision of themselves and their reality 'from within.'" [2]. By depicting multifaceted characters with agency, complexity, and humanity, filmmakers and television creators can subvert stereotypes and offer audiences a more accurate and empathetic understanding of different cultures. Moreover, by amplifying marginalized voices and perspectives, these mediums can contribute to a more inclusive and equitable representation of diversity, challenging dominant narratives and promoting cultural exchange and understanding.

Works cited:

[1] Said, “Orientalism,” 34.

[2] Shohat and Stam, “Stereotype, Realism, and the Struggle Over Representation,” 180.

Reading Notes 10: Said to Shohat and Stam

To wrap up our studies of visual analysis, Edward W. Said’s “Orientalism” and Ella Shohat and Robert Stam’s “Stereotype, Realism, and the Struggle Over Representation” provide critical paths to understanding the roles of race and representation play in our production and consumption of film, television, and popular culture.

How is orientalism linked to film, television, and popular media, and in what ways has standardization and cultural stereotyping intensified academic and imaginative demonology of “the mysterious Orient” in these mediums?

What role do stereotypes play in the representation of people, and in what ways can film and television change the perception of cultural misrepresentation?

@theuncannyprofessoro

[comrade-meow]

The Marxist left finds itself confronted by three insidious big lies that threaten the revolutionary and emancipatory foundation of the Marxist project, all related to undermining women’s liberation; they are:

1. Transwomen are women.

2. Sex work is work.

3. Feminism is bourgeois.

Misogyny in its many forms has long been a challenge for the left; not just the misogyny of the reactionary right, but misogyny coming from within the left itself. But it has not been until recently that this leftist misogyny has sought to portray itself as being inherently progressive. By engaging in revisionism of the most blatant kind, reactionary elements within the left have managed to posit themselves as the agents of progress. Much has already been written about the harms caused by these three lies, but no attempt has yet to be made to debunk them from a solidly Marxist standpoint. That is what we are out to accomplish here; to demonstrate definitively that these big lies are not just regressive, but inherently revisionist and anti-Marxist to the core.

The first of these three big lies, “Transwomen are women”, might well be the most damaging, because it directly contradicts the heart of the Marxist method: dialectical materialism. There are two main definitions used by proponents of transgenderism to explain their narrative. The first is that gender is an identity; the state of being a man or a woman (or any one of the other numerous “gender identities”) stems not from biological sex (to the extent that transactivists acknowledge the existence of biological sex), but from an internal identity, i.e. personal feelings, personal consciousness. The second definition says that transpeople are not really the sex they physically are, but the sex they say they are, because they really have “male” or “female” brains. Both of these definitions are rooted in the personal, not the material. One of the patron saints of queer theory, Judith Butler, says:

“It’s one thing to say that gender is performed and that is a little different from saying gender is performative. When we say gender is performed we usually mean that we’ve taken on a role or we’re acting in some way and that our acting or our role-playing is crucial to the gender that we are and the gender that we present to the world. To say that gender is performative is a little different because for something to be performative means that it produces a series of effects. We act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman.”[1]

Though queer theory is a postmodernist philosophy, its roots go far deeper than just postmodernism; rather, this statement of Butler’s is an example of the dialectics of idealism. Marxism, as a philosophy, was formed in reaction to the idealist dialectics of the Young Hegelians. The dialects of idealism posit that reality flows from consciousness. Marx, on the other hand, argued “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”[2] That is, it is not our thoughts that shape material reality, but material reality that shapes our thoughts. In fact, Marx’s first major work, The German Ideology, is exclusively dedicated to explaining this.

So what is the materialist definition of gender? And how does the embrace of the idealist definition under the guise of Marxism harm the Marxist aim of women’s liberation? The foundational Marxist text dealing with the oppression of women is Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. According to Engels, while there has always existed a sexual division of labor in human society, it is not until the rise of private property that this division becomes hierarchical. Before the rise of private property, society was organized under what was called “mother right”, i.e. a person’s family is traced through their mother, given the difficulty of identifying with certainty the father in primitive communist society. But because private property grew out of male labor, and became concentrated in male hands, mother right gave way to “father right”. In order to bequeath his property to his son, the father needed to know with certainty who his sons were. This meant controlling the reproductive labor of the female sex, and its subordination to male supremacy; thus the advent of patriarchy. In Chapter II of Origin of Family Engels calls the overthrow of mother-right “…the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.”[3] Note that Engels here is dealing with sex, with biology. Women are not oppressed because of some abstract gender identity, but because of their sex. Class society and patriarchy, the two of which exist in a symbiosis, need to control women’s reproductive labor to sustain themselves. To put it more bluntly, they need to control the means of reproduction. Thus, women’s oppression has its origin in material reality.

But we have not yet dealt with the concept of gender. In the current queer theory dominated discourse, sex and gender are increasingly become conflated to the point that they are being used as synonyms for one another. Engels analysis of patriarchy is in many ways incomplete, but it forms the basis of future materialist explorations of sex and gender. The second-wave feminists who developed much of the thought around gender did not revise these fundamentals, but expanded on them, the opposite of what today’s revisionists are doing. Gender, according to the radical feminist Rebecca Reilly-Cooper, is “the value system that prescribes and proscribes forms of behaviour and appearance for members of the different sex classes, and that assigns superior value to one sex class at the expense of the other.”[4] Gender is therefore not the same thing as biological sex, but a kind of parasite grafted on top of biological sex to maintain the current sexual hierarchy, and ensure continued male control over reproductive labor. Gender non-conforming, as well as homosexual, men and women are therefore “exiled” from their gender community not because of some abstract identity, but because they do not fulfill their proscribed functions as members of their sex class; they are essentially class traitors. Intersex people, which form a distinct material category, are also lumped into this community of “exiles” because they too are unable to fulfill the goals of the patriarchal sexual hierarchy. Such communities of exiles have existed throughout history, and continue to exist to this day in all parts of the world, from the hijra in India to the two-spirited people of the Native Americans to the contemporary shunning and violence directed at gender non-conforming individuals. But to reiterate, none of this has to do with identity, but with the material structuring of class society.

While transactivists have started to turn against the biomedical explanation for transgenderism, it is very much alive and well in the medical and psychological community. Victorian-era theories about “brain sex” that would have earned the ire of Marx and Engels are now making a comeback. At best, these theories are chimerical pseudoscience which have not even come close to being conclusively proven in any legitimate scientific study. The standards by which gender dysphoria is diagnosed falls back on the constructed tropes of masculinity and femininity already discussed. Such theories risk misconstruing gender roles as being rooted in nature as opposed to constructions that reinforce ruling class control. Rather than being seen as the disease, dysphoria should be seen as the symptom of the sexual hierarchy. The pressures of gendered socialization are ubiquitous, and begin at birth. Very often we are not aware of the subtle forms socialization exerts upon us. For those who reject this socialization, it follows that they would experience levels of extreme discomfort and anguish. Gendered socialization is not just some abstract phenomena, but is, again, literally grafted onto us. Under this system of socialization, the penis becomes more than just the male sex organ, but the symbol of male aggression and supremacy, in the same way the vagina becomes the symbol of female inferiority and subjugation. Sensitive individuals who struggle against this socialization often hate their bodies, but not because their bodies are somehow “wrong”, but because of what they are drilled into believing their bodies are. What they suffer from is the inability to tear away the curtain that has been placed in front of material reality and to see reality in an objective manner. The fields of medical and psychological science are not immune from the influence of the ruling class. This is especially the case in the world of psychology, where a method of analysis is employed that isolates the individual from the wider society around them, preferring to view internal struggle as the result of some defect as opposed to the result of material and social forces exerted on the individual.

While capitalism has broken down certain elements of patriarchy, and allowed for women to make some gains, it has not dismantled patriarchy completely. Capitalism, being a class system, still needs to retain control of the means of reproduction. For example, laws that restrict access to abortion and contraceptives, while having negative repercussions for all women, have the most negative impact on poor, working-class women. These laws may be cloaked in the terminology of moralism, but have a far more base logic; they ensure the continued production of future proletarians for the benefit of the capitalist machine.

By shifting the definition of “woman” away from a materialist one to an idealistic one, we lose the ability to define and fight the causes of women’s oppression. In its most extreme form it erases women as a class, and makes it impossible to talk about patriarchy as an existing force. Why, then, are Marxists, who are supposed to be dialectical materialists embracing a set of ideas the very opposite of dialectical materialism? To answer this, we need to look at the nature of patriarchy; it is a system that predates capitalism. As already stated above, patriarchy and class exist in a symbiosis with one another. The one cannot be eliminated without the elimination of the other. Overthrowing capitalism is not the same as overthrowing class. As Mao pointed out, class dynamics still exist in the socialist society, and require continuous vigilance and combat on the part of revolutionaries. This is why many socialist states still restricted women’s rights to certain degrees, such as the draconian anti-abortion laws of Ceausescu’s Romania. All males benefit in some way from patriarchy, even males in a socialist society. It therefore follows that socialist males fighting capitalism also benefit from patriarchy. While men and women may be in solidarity with one another as workers, working class men also belong to the male sex class, a class that predates the existence of the modern working class. Class allegiances run deep. This is why so many socialist and “feminist” men are quick to defend and even endorse the violent language and actions perpetrated by some gender non-conforming men against the female sex class, regardless of how these gender non-conforming men identify themselves. This is not to deny that gender non-conforming men are discriminated against, and face harassment and violence themselves, but even as exiles from the male sex-class, they still benefit from some of the privileges awarded to this sex class. Note that I do not use privilege in the manner it’s currently used by the regressive left, i.e. as some abstract notion that needs to be “checked”. Rather, it is an actually existing force that must be combated, just as white revolutionaries must actively combat white supremacy, and first world revolutionaries must actively combat “their” state’s imperialism.

Opportunism and the “fear” of being on the “wrong side of history” are also driving forces behind this embrace of revisionism. The Anglophone left, especially in the United States, given its weakness in the overall political arena, has long sought to be seen as “acceptable” and “polite”, and is often eager to jump on any bandwagon it believes can advance it. This desire to be accepted also drives the fear. It is true that communists have made serious errors in judgment in the past, but that is not an excuse to rebel against core philosophies and hastily embrace ideas and movements without fully analyzing their beliefs and goals. This is not to say that communists should not be on the forefront in defending gender non-conforming individuals. A thoroughgoing socialist revolution requires that these existing oppressive structures be cast aside. But it is possible to defend gender non-conforming people without embracing misogynistic pseudoscience and revisionism.

Women are not just oppressed, but thoroughly exploited. Working class women make up what is possibly the most thoroughly exploited section of human society. By embracing philosophies that not only erase their ability to define and explain their exploitation, but also deny them the agency to organize as a revolutionary class, these “Marxists” have proven that they are in direct contradiction to Marxist philosophy and ideas. They are engaging in revisionism.

In the next part, we will examine the second big lie plaguing the left today, the notion that “sex work is work”.

[normally0]

Reimagining Narratives: The Intersection of Architecture, Confectionery, and Cosmetics

Hans Hollein's Strada Novissima, showcased at the Venice Biennale of 1980, emerged as a striking embodiment of postmodern architectural ethos. Amidst the backdrop of diverse architectural styles scrutinized during the 1960s and 1970s, Hollein's creation stood as a beacon of pluralism and reinterpretation.

The street of styles, as Hollein dubbed it, featured columns adorned with various elements, ranging from brick and concrete to classical ruins, seamlessly blending the primitive with the modern. This architectural journey through time offered a profound reassessment of history, inviting viewers to navigate through physical permeability and experience the communicative power of built environments.

Collaborating with esteemed architects such as Ricardo Bofill and Frank O. Gehry, Hollein orchestrated a symphony of diverse voices, each contributing a facet to the urban landscape. This plurality of perspectives, manifested in full-size facades lining the Strada Novissima, re-appropriated the past while embracing the complexities of contemporary architectural discourse.

However, amidst the celebration of postmodernism, criticisms arose. Philosopher Jürgen Habermas, in his address at the Biennale, lamented the departure from the tradition of modernity, cautioning against the allure of historicism. He underscored the imperative of preserving the unfinished project of modernity amidst encroaching conservatism in politics and culture.

Beyond the realm of architecture, parallels emerge in the worlds of confectionery and cosmetics. Just as architecture communicates narratives, sweets and makeup carry layers of symbolism, masking deeper meanings beneath their surface allure. From the ancient origins of sweets to the charged symbolism of red lipstick, each embodies allure, power, and the complexities of human expression.

Drawing inspiration from Hollein's columns, one might reinterpret architectural motifs with symbols of motherhood juxtaposed against elements of childhood desire. Ice lollies, sherbet fountains, and red lipstick become icons of maternal care, interwoven with the architectural fabric, challenging perceptions and evoking intrigue.

In this intricate tapestry of symbolism, the convergence of architecture, confectionery, and cosmetics reveals a common thread of masking and reimagining narratives. It is a reminder that behind the façade lies a deeper complexity, inviting contemplation of the masks we wear and the stories we construct in the built environment.

[tilbageidanmark]

Movies I watched this week - 33

Toni Erdmann - An off-beat German comedy about a daughter and her weird father. The daughter is s a high-flying business woman in Bucharest, and her old father is a bizarre prankster who surprise-visits her there, trying to pull her out of her stiff comfort zone. 

At nearly 3 hours, it’s a bit long, but is fresh and original. 6+/10

✴️  

First glorious watch - Wong Kar-Wai’s romantic Chungking Express, with Tony Leung & Faye Wong.

I always thought it was an action flick, (probably because it “was Tarantino’s favorite movie”) so I avoided it until now.

Here is Dinah Washington explaining why it was a mistake not to watch it!

Best film of the week!

✴️

Michelangelo Antonioni X 2:

✳️✳️✳️ Back to my classics: Antonioni‘s The Passenger, with doomed Jack Nicholson as David Locke, AKA Robertson. Based on  W. Somerset Maugham's ‘Appointment in Samarra‘. This is why I love movies. 10/10.

When you travel to the very end of the world.

✳️✳️✳️  Blowup - In Swinging London, a selfish photographer discovers that, while shooting a couple in the park, he recorded a murder in the background. Shoutouts to David Hemmings’  convertible Rolls-Royce and his white Jeans. With a performance by the actual Yardbirds. 9/10

“Nothing like a little disaster to sort things out”...

✴️

Tom McCarthy’s latest film, Stillwater, got quite a bit of pushover for using the Amanda Knox saga as inspiration without proper acknowledgement or credit. So that is legitimate. However, the sentimental story of father and daughter’s fraught relationship is clearly fictionalized and the background of the murder is secondary to that.

Like all of McCarthy’s slow and tender films (with the exception of ‘Million Dollar Arm‘), I liked it a lot.

✴️

2 about old people at the end of life:

✳️✳️✳️ Diane Keaton, dying of cancer, starts a cheerleading squad at a retirement community at Poms. A predictable, cheesy story that worked for me.

✳️✳️✳️ Re-watching all of Alexander Payne’s previous films: Next - About Schmidt. John Joseph Nicholson was one of the screen’s greatest actors. Now an old man at the end of his career, he discovers that his mediocre life had been meaningless, but for one little act of kindness (Photo Above).

8/10

✴️                                                 

I also saw Alexander Payne’s last film, Downsizing. It was so disappointing, that I felt the need to write a longer critique of this muddled turd.

First, I liked Alexander Payne: He was a great filmmaker who made 6 small, personal art films. But as always, when studios eventually give such artists big budgets, they screw up.

Where to start? First it was ‘Honey I shrank Matt Damon’ for environmental reasons, then you build a gated community for the Tiny, rich Americans. Then his wife Kristen Wiig leaves him and disappear from the story. Then he takes ecstasy at a disco party (The only fresh line of dialogue in the whole movie, when he’s under the influence - ‘I’m going to take off my shoes’.) Then he discovers an underclass of tiny, poor Mexicans who clean and maintain the middle class and lives outside the gates - just like in ‘Real’ America. Then there’s a political subplot where he becomes active helping those poor servants. Then he falls in love with a one-legged Vietnamese ‘Refugee-Saint’ with a fake limp, and even faker Vietnamese accent. And finally, at (1:35) the world as we know it is about to end, and he must choose between joining the Norwegian survivors into the Tiny People’s ‘Seed Vault’ of the future, or flying with his Vietnamese lover back into the present, to help the poor, before everybody eventually dies.

In short, it was terrible.

✴️ 

Gifted, about a cute 7 year old mathematical genius living with her uncle, after her mom committed suicide. It’s a light and fluffy tear-jerker that has a kernel of sweetness. The court drama part of this (or any other family drama) doesn’t work. 5+/10

✴️

Philip Seymour Hoffman X 4:

✳️✳️✳️ PT Anderson's 2012 masterly The Master, with masterful performances and precise score. Re-watch.

The first half, which was mostly about tortured drifter Joaquin Phoenix, was terrific. The Scientology cult of charismatic conman Philip Seymour Hoffman was less compelling. And the two stories converged exactly in the middle, (1:07) at the strange “Go Roving” naked dance. 8/10

✳️✳️✳️ 

Sidney Lumet’s last film Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007). Another train wreck of a hack job: It’s always about money, crimes, robberies, death.

✳️✳️✳️ Charlie Kaufman’s “postmodern” Synecdoche, New York - I hated everything about it.

It made me regret everything I ever thought was important in my life, and come to realize that I’m sorry about everything.

✳️✳️✳️ My first Todd Solondz’s - the ironically misnamed, and depressingly morbid Happiness. It’s about 3 unhappy sisters and all the depraved people around them (including creepy masturbator Philip Seymour Hoffman).

Fortunately, my copy was truncated at the half mark. Big ouch.

✴️

I haven’t re-visited The good, the bad and the ugly for over 40 years until now, but I found Max Tohline’s analyses of Leone’s Editing style to be superior to the 3 hours film slog itself.

✴️                           

Before the Flood, Leonardo DiCaprio’s 2016 documentary about climate change. Before Greta Thunberg, and before trump, and before the End of The World.

Climate-deniers of the world, Unite in hell!

✴️

Wim Wender’s The end of violence: A big time Hollywood producer decides to become a simple Mexican gardener in LA. Unfortunately, he’s Bill Pullman.

I watched it because a scene in the film recreates Edward Hopper’s Nighthawks, but the film was terrible all over and for many reasons.

Nighthawks, explained.

✴️

Sallah Shabati ( סאלח שבתי ‎), a 1964 satirical Israeli film, the original Borat. Stereotypically primitive and unfunny. 1/10

- - - - -

Throw-back to the art project:

Nighthawks Adora.

- - - - -

(My complete movie list is here)

[oberlincollegelibraries]

Weekend Edition: Short Stories, Part 1

It’s the homestretch, Obies! We’ll keep this short, because we know you’re busy with exams. Below are some new collections of short stories. See here to learn how to check them out!

Contemporary Macedonian Fiction translated and edited by Paul Filev

The stories that Paul Filev has collected in this anthology of Macedonian fiction introduce English-language readers to a literature that has long been overlooked. Ranging from melancholy realism, such as Rumena Bužarovska's "Lily," to surreal fantasias, such as Tomislav Osmanli's "Strained," in which a stressed-out businessman eats his own computer, these texts provide a portrait of a country in constant transformation, still haunted by the Yugoslav past but quickly hurtling into the technocratic future. Comic and tragic, po-faced and hysterical, Contemporary Macedonian Fiction allows us to discover some of the most exciting young writers at work today. 

Going for a Beer: Selected Short Fictions by Robert Coover; introduction by T.C. Boyle. 

A collection of the best short fictions from the grandmaster of postmodernism. Robert Coover has been playing by his own rules for more than half a century, earning the 1987 Rea Award for the Short Story as "a writer who has managed, willfully and even perversely, to remain his own man while offering his generous vision and versions of America." Coover finds inspiration in everything from painting, cinema, theater, and dance to slapstick, magic acts, puzzles, and riddles. His 1969 story "The Babysitter" has alone inspired generations of innovative young writers. Here, in this selection of his best stories, spanning more than half a century, you will find an invisible man tragically obsessed by an invisible woman; a cartoon man in a cartoon car who runs over a real man who is arrested by a real policeman with cartoon eyes; a stick man who reinvents the universe. While invading the dreams and nightmares of others, long dead, disrupting them from within, Coover cuts to the core of how realism works. He uses metafiction as a means of "interrogating the fiction making process," at least insofar as that process, when unexamined, has a way of entrapping us in false and destructive stories, myths, and belief systems. These stories are riven with paradox, ambivalence, strangeness, unrealized ambitions and desires, uncertainty, complexity, always seeking the potential for insight, for comedy. Through their celebration of the improbable and unexpected, and their distinctive but complementary grammars of text and film, Coover's selected short fictions entertain by engaging with the tribal myths that surround us--religious, patriotic, literary, erotic, popular--often satirizing the mindsets that, out of some obscure primitive need, perpetuate them. The thirty stories in Going for a Beer confirm Coover's reputation as "one of America's greatest literary geniuses" (Alan Moore).

The Future is Female!: 25 Classic Science Fiction Stories by Women, from Pulp Pioneers to Ursula K. Le Guin edited by Lisa Yaszek

"Bending and stretching its conventions to imagine new, more feminist futures and new ways of experiencing gender, visionary women writers have been from the beginning an essential if often overlooked force in American science fiction. Two hundred years after Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, SF-expert Lisa Yaszek presents the best of this female tradition, from the pioneers of the Pulp Era to the radical innovators of the 1960s New Wave, in a landmark anthology that upends the common notion that SF was conceived by and for men. Here are 25 mind-blowing SF classics that still shock and inspire: Judith Merril and Wilmar H. Shiras's startling near-future stories of the children of the new atomic age; Carol Emshwiller and Sonya Dorman's haunting explorations of alien otherness; dystopian fables of consumerism and overpopulation by Elizabeth Mann Borgese and Alice Glaser; evocations of cosmic horror from Margaret St. Clair and Andrew North (Andre Norton); and much more. Other writers here take on some of SF's sexist clichés and boldly rethink sex and gender from the ground up. C. L. Moore and Leslie Perri introduce courageous, unforgettable "sheroes"; Alice Eleanor Jones sounds a housewife's note of protest against the conformities of life in a postapocalyptic suburb; Leslie F. Stone envisions an interplanetary battle of the sexes, in which the matriarchs of Venus ward off unprovoked attacks by barbaric spacemen from Earth; John Jay Wells and Marion Zimmer Bradley wonder how future military men will feel about their pregnancies. The Future Is Female! is a star-spanning, soul-stirring, multidimensional voyage of literary-feminist exploration and recovery that will permanently alter your perceptions of American SF."--Publisher's website

The Handsome Monk and Other Stories by Tsering Dondrup

Tsering Döndrup is one of the most popular and critically acclaimed authors writing in Tibetan today. In a distinct voice rich in black humor and irony, he describes the lives of Tibetans in contemporary China with wit, empathy, and a passionate sense of justice. The Handsome Monk and Other Stories brings together short stories from across Tsering Döndrup's career to create a panorama of Tibetan society.With a love for the sparse yet vivid language of traditional Tibetan life, Tsering Döndrup tells tales of hypocritical lamas, crooked officials, violent conflicts, and loyal yaks. His nomad characters find themselves in scenarios that are at once strange and familiar, satirical yet poignant. The stories are set in the fictional county of Tsezhung, where Tsering Döndrup's characters live their lives against the striking backdrop of Tibet's natural landscape and go about their daily business to the ever-present rhythms of Tibetan religious life. Tsering Döndrup confronts pressing issues: the corruption of religious institutions; the indignities and injustices of Chinese rule; poverty and social ills such as gambling and alcoholism; and the hardships of a minority group struggling to maintain its identity in the face of overwhelming odds. Ranging in style from playful updates of traditional storytelling techniques to narrative experimentation, Tsering Döndrup's tales pay tribute to the resilience of Tibetan culture

[homespork-review]

Homespork Act 4, Part 2: Flight of the Paradox Groans

BRIGHT: Remember Spades Slick being bizarrely aware he was in a comic, back in the Intermission? Buckle up, things are about to get even more fourth-wall-breaking. Appropriately, this starts by the comic focusing on an actual fourth wall, which activates to show...Andrew Hussie.

Hussie’s MS Paint avatar notices the audience watching him, laments that his side of the wall doesn’t have an off switch, and then recaps the first year of Homestuck.

Now, in all fairness: The recap is thorough, full of links, and explains things fairly well. It’s quite long, but given how much territory it has to cover I’m not sure it could be any shorter. So it does its job well, and it’s a boon if you’re getting lost with the plot.

As for the author insertion...on this occasion I don’t mind it. It comes across as tongue-in-cheek, but framed more as the author talking to the reader than as the author inserting himself into the narrative. It’s definitely very Homestuck.

Anyway, AH gets back to work, and after a couple of false starts we return to John!

John is still flying around with his jet pack. GC trolls him to offer him a world map of LOWAS and tell him she feels awful about killing him, although in literally the next line she tells him that technically he never even died so she doesn’t understand why he’s so upset. John understandably finds this disturbing. They have a brief nonsensical discussion about Jesus/Jegus, and then John agrees to go take a look at what’s on the other side of his Second Gate. Yes, on the advice of someone whose previous advice got him killed.

CHEL: Almost a shame we didn’t set up a Too Dumb To Live count, but then to be fair that was a separate timeline and he’s probably not thinking of it as something that “really” happened. This is supported by his later dialogue.

FAILURE ARTIST: The word Jegus is really popular in the Homestuck fandom, used far more often than it is in the canon. Gets quite annoying, in my opinion. Actually, a rather Jesus-like figure does appear, but he’s not called “Jegus”.

CHEL: Yeah, I think only Terezi, John, and Dave ever use the term, but it somehow became latched onto as an actual term used by trolls in general, even though in canon it isn’t.

BRIGHT: Fortunately, this time GC appears to be playing nice. John flies though the Second Gate and emerges...into LOLAR?

FAILURE ARTIST: Hussie does an amusing trick where he has what looks like a loading screen for a flash but it’s actually a still image eternally at 2%.

BRIGHT: Yes, it’s LOLAR. John promptly crashes into Rose’s house, smashing through a wall and into her bedroom, where Rose is still snoozing in her knitting pile. Apart from briefly being stuck upside down, he does not appear injured by this collision.

Rose has somehow slept through the commotion. John decides to let her rest and borrows her computer to talk to Dave.

The first one he talks to is actually Davesprite, who points out how moronic John was to listen to GC again. No arguments here! Then he explains how the Gate system works: Odd-numbered Gates, above players’ houses, lead to somewhere on their planets. Even-numbered Gates lead to other players’ planets, exiting over their houses. Normally they aren’t meant to go through even-numbered Gates until the houses are built up, so they don’t fall to their deaths, but fortunately John has a jetpack workaround. So far Davesprite is living up to his promise of being straightforward.

John realises he’s talking to Future Dave, and asks “do you think i could talk to the real dave for a second?”

...ouch, John.

Davesprite goes off on a tear, ranting that he is a real Dave — arguably the realest Dave, since he’s been running around LOHAC for months trying to get enough information to save everyone. John apologises sincerely.

CHEL: This won’t be the last we hear of this theme, though.

EB: i think i pissed off your future self. TG: what did you do EB: i said he wasn't the real dave. TG: ahahahahaha EB: i think i might have really hurt his feelings though! TG: pff TG: dont worry about it EB: why not? TG: cause i wouldnt give a shit TG: and hes me

BRIGHT: Not a hundred percent sure I believe Dave, there.

CHEL: Dave uses John to snoop around Rose’s room and get the captcha code for her journals. Classy, Dave. Not a SLAMMER point, however, as this does come back to bite him very soon.

Rose’s dreamself has awoken on Derse, the purple planet, and flies across to the opposite tower. Dave’s dreamself appears to be awake, sitting upright in his computer chair; the room is entirely an unsettling bloody red colour apart from the SBaHJ cartoons on the walls, and… oh shit, there’s Lil Cal again, now in a long purple nightdress and hopping around the room on his own. If Rose was having nightmares because of dreamself issues, I can only imagine how Dave’s nightmares must look. Rose throws a ball of yarn at Dave’s dreamself, alerting him, and causing the awake Dave to pass out.

Back in Rose’s room, it seems that Charles Barkley quote was not misattributed:

FAILURE ARTIST: Another SBaHJ reference in the book quote. Is that where Dave got it?

Still, I don’t recall this book ever coming up again. Just another item that seems like a Chekhov's Gun but isn’t.

CHEL: John feels guilty about opening his birthday gift from Rose, but reasons that it’s technically now his anyway, so he does, finding another bunny, this one black and filthy-looking except for the pristine knitted purple patches repairing it, though its shape is eerily familiar.

The gift in this box is a resurrection. I used your present to thread life anew into a tattered heirloom. As long as I can remember, its black, greasy appendages have been tethered limply to its ratty, porous carriage. Too delicate to wash, too dear to discard. I used to love this rabbit. Now he's yours. I trust you'll find this to be adequately sentimental. Happy birthday.

Oh my gosh, awwwwww. Even if you don’t ship them romantically how can you not love their interactions? Definitely one of the comic’s strong points. Also I need to go hug my childhood teddy bear.

John puts the bunny back in the box again and the box in his sylladex, freeing Casey the salamander while he’s at it. And let’s just take a minute to feel utter horror because dead John still had Casey in his sylladex, so the best option is that she died too, and the worst is that we have an And I Must Scream situation on for a baby salamander. Gah.

FAILURE ARTIST: Thanks, I’d never thought of that and I never want to again.

You aren't actually sure if she is a girl though. You don't even know if salamanders can be girls. Aren't they hermaphrodites or something?

CHEL: No, for the record. Though some frogs can switch from one to the other.

FAILURE ARTIST: Casey is very popular as a name for an OC child of John (often having Rose as the mother).

CHEL: John answers Rose’s Pesterchum, upon which GA is half-heartedly sending antagonistic messages. John answers on Rose’s account, saying that Rose is asleep, which GA takes for Human Sarcasm, prompting John to pretend to be Rose.

GA: I Should Figure Out How The Viewport Feature Of This Application Works GA: So I Can See What Such A Primitive Creature Looks Like TT: haha, well i know what you guys look like. TT: you look kind of like... TT: howie mandel from little monsters.

Wait, how does he know? Am I forgetting a point at which he saw them?

BRIGHT: I always assumed that he was just goofing around and his guess happened to land in the right ballpark, but thinking about it, I’m not sure the kids ever express surprise at the trolls’ appearance.

CHEL: John, pretending to be Rose, talks about how awesome John is.

GA: He Is Either The Leader Of Your Party Or You Hold Whatever The Human Equivalent Of Mating Fondness For Him Is

CHEL: Both. Both is good!

FAILURE ARTIST: Knowing what we do of troll culture later this is an odd statement. Heck, it’s just an odd statement. Maybe this is why people think trolls don’t do friendship.

CHEL: John apparently confuses GA by saying it’s because Rose is thoughtful and John appreciates his gift, and suggests GA talk to John.

TT: why don't you pick the time that will make the most complicated mess out of everything imaginable?

GA sounds very annoyed, and leaves, intending to have the conversation with John that she had previously. We see her, GC, and the horns of AT and an unknown troll in the grey room, now revealed to be a computer laboratory. For some reason she chats via Pesterchum with another troll instead of just walking over to talk to them. This new troll is twinArmageddons, an appropriate name for the circumstances, who type2 iin yellow text liike thii2; he is, as it turns out, the hacker guy GC mentioned earlier. TA is busy setting up the network and seems irritable in general, and is not willing to help GA work her viewport.

TA: iif ii 2ee one more 2narl of wiire2. TA: kiind of juttiing out and beiing tangled or whatever. TA: ii am goiing two perform 2ome 2ort of athletiic fuckiing 2omer2ault off the deep end and get a call from the pre2iident or 2ome 2hiit.

Nice callback, but trolls, as we’ll later find out, don’t have presidents.

WHITE SBURB POSTMODERNISM: 14

GA wonders why TA doesn’t want to talk to her, and TA complains that he knew in advance the trolls were doomed and no one believed him. He refuses to troll the humans himself but is setting up the system so the others can in order to get them to leave him alone. GA asks again for help, to no avail.

TA: iif you cant fiigure 2hiit out by fuckiing around you dont belong near computer2. TA: kiind of liike wiith regii2tered 2ex offender2 and 2chool2. TA: iif you move two a new town you have two go up two your neiighbor2 door and warn them about how 2tupiid you are. TA: and giive them a chance two hiide all theiir iinnocent technology. TA: and vandaliize your hou2e.

Ooh, a threefer plus one! Tacky simile for the Problematykks. As for WSP, we’ll later find out that 1) trolls kill all their criminals, 2) trolls don’t give a shit about the welfare of their children, and 3) trolls don’t appear to actually go to school. These two counts are neck and neck in the lead now!

CLOCKWORK PROBLEMATYKKS: 17 WHITE SBURB POSTMODERNISM: 17

BRIGHT: As with much of Homestuck, the trolls give the impression of being made up as Hussie went along. That’s not entirely a bad thing -- it certainly makes the comic pretty unique -- but it does lead to some out-of-place slip-ups.

Anyway, GA chucks her F1 key at TA’s head and then starts poking him. We also see CG in the lab.

FAILURE ARTIST: I think I recall GA/TA were a popular ship before we learned more about GA. It does seem like they have a Rose & Dave dynamic going on.

BRIGHT: Back on Derse, Rose and Dave have a dance party to Dave’s music while accompanied by some crows and Lil Cal, who keeps teleporting around the room. Rose eventually gets tired of Cal’s shenanigans and hurls him out of the window, to the relief of many.

FAILURE ARTIST: The flash originally included music by Bill Bolin. In fact, it was his unfinished music being included here that caused all the drama in the first place.

BRIGHT: Time for some random interludes! First up is Maplehoof the pony, who is following Rose’s mother through a large cave which, judging by the grist lying around, recently contained very dangerous monsters.

FAILURE ARTIST: Apparently pets can collect grist for their masters...and know what grist is despite being a normal(?) animal.

BRIGHT: First Mom, and then Maplehoof, stand on a transportaliser platform and disappear. Second is Dad, who has just acquired a replacement shoe and hat (which showed up in the walkaround game, way back at the beginning of the Act), when he encounters a familiar-looking stranger with a Colonel Sassacre book, who leads him to another transportalizer platform. Both of these interludes do become relevant later, but at the time they seem a tad unnecessary.

Meanwhile, John uses Rose’s alchemiter and a code Davesprite gave him mid-rant to produce a truly epic hammer called FEAR NO ANVIL. It’s far too big for John to wield, but fortunately he can use the scaling upgrade on the alchemiter to reduce it to a more useable size. ...wait. When did Rose’s alchemiter get a scaling upgrade? Dave and Jade added a lot of modifications to his, but Rose’s should be the original edition. Sigh.

EB: so what is this? EB: the thing the code made... TG: really powerful hammer EB: how do you know? EB: i thought you couldn't use hammers. TG: i cant TG: better be though TG: got it from hephaestus EB: who's that? TG: really tough to kill dude EB: you killed him for it? TG: nope EB: how'd you get it then? TG: shenanigans EB: ok.

...and we’re back to sprite evasiveness. Davesprite is being less than forthcoming here, although it’s less obvious than with Nannasprite because it superficially imitates John and Dave’s bantering.

CHEL: Now, this would be a good way of keeping us interested if we were eventually going to see how he did it, and also they have a time limit, so not going off into a long anecdote would be understandable. However, we’ll see how his evasiveness level proceeds in the future.

BRIGHT: Dream Rose and Dave see John using Rose’s alchemiter on Dream Dave’s computer. Rose wakes up.

FAILURE ARTIST: It is interesting how early Homestuck avoided having characters have face-to-face conversations. Would have been unique if it kept up throughout the entire comic.

BRIGHT: Back in the meteor, GA hassles TA into opening the viewport on her computer. This turns out to be as simple as clicking on the point in Rose’s timeline that she wants to see. No wonder TA was frustrated!

Of course, by this point, the only one left in the room is Rose, now awake, and the young salamander. Rose hurries to catch up with John, but he blasts off to explore before she can reach him, taking her mutated kitten with him.

CHEL: John renames Vodka Mutini to Dr Meowgon Spengler, and Rose renames Casey to Viceroy Bubbles von Salamancer. Interesting link to the themes of identities which are starting to crop up, though it’s not really a direct analogue. The animals are the same animals with different names; the alternate timeline characters have the same names and superficially the same identities, but are they really the same people after their new experiences?

BRIGHT: Back on Derse, Lil Cal inexplicably lands on a stray rocket board, catching the attention of AR.

You're not sure which laws are being broken, but it is probably a lot.

AR follows Cal to yet another transportaliser, and they both dematerialise.

We jump back to John, who spies a boat on one of the islands dotting LOLAR and lands to investigate. He follows hoofprints in the sand into a subterranean hallway filled with monsters. Fortunately his new hammer has time powers, which stun the monsters long enough for John to kill them. Further on, he finds the transportaliser Mom used. John, naturally, stands on it, and is transported to a meteor in the Veil.

Actually, it’s not just a meteor; it’s one of the laboratories where the Skaian troops are produced. John, along with the cat and Maplehoof, finds a bunch of chess guys being grown in glass jars on a giant podium. Most of them are the standard carapaces we’re familiar with, but there are also a few larger pieces, apparently based on knights and rooks. He also finds a JUNIOR ECTOBIOLOGIST’S LAB SUIT, and another of those strange house-shaped sets of monitors.

On Prospit, PM is preparing to board a shuttle to Skaia when a COURTYARD DROLL sneaks up behind her. Unaccountably, she fails to notice him, despite the fact that he’s wearing a hat larger than he is. CD successfully pickpockets the White Queen’s ring, and PM departs for Skaia, none the wiser.

CD radios the DRACONIAN DIGNITARY to report mission success, and is told that he doesn’t need to keep wearing his ridiculous outfit, per orders from Jack Noir, who is now going by the SOVEREIGN SLAYER. CD says he’d rather keep wearing the outfit. Apart from the sword-through-the-chest part, it is a very nice outfit, so I’m with CD on this one.

Catastrophe is averted by Jade delivering a flying kick to CD’s head and following up with a very efficient smackdown. Her robot body replicates this back on Earth, beating the stuffing out of her mummified grandfather. Jade retrieves the ring, and puts it on her fingers to remind herself to give it back to PM later. Unfortunately, this doesn’t cause Jade to sprout wings and tentacles. Seems the rings don’t work on humans like that.

Meanwhile, in a Timeless Expanse, a WARWEARY VILLEIN is getting tired of the battle between Derse and Prospit. The next animation is called “WV?: Rise Up” and it’s one of my favorites! When I first read Homestuck I had to watch it a few times before I understood what was going on, but it is a very neat video.

Watch on YouTube

The Battlefield has been prototyped three times, and is now spherical. The forces of Derse and Prospit meet. The usual carapaces with swords are backed up by larger pieces -- some of them very strange -- and by battleships clashing in the sky. In the chaos, WV, who is farming peacefully on Skaia, has his home and farm burned down. He raises a flag and addresses the troops of both armies. Elsewhere, Jack Noir appears, flying over the Battlefield in search of the Black King.

WV rallies the armies and tells them that their real enemies are the monarchs, who are responsible for the war. Encouraged, the Dersite and Prospitan troops band together and march on the Black King.

Meanwhile, PM has reached the White King and discovers that she no longer has the White Queen’s ring. The White King listens to her and hands over his scepter, which seems to represent Skaia and serves a similar function to the Queens’ rings. Behind a nearby hill, the Hegemonic Brute radios somebody to report the transfer.

As WV and the united armies reach the Black King, Jack arrives and slices the Black King’s scepter in half, nullifying its powers and turning the Black King back into a normal carapace. PM is attacked by HB, who knocks the White King’s scepter out of her hand; it falls down a waterfall. Jack Noir beheads the Black King and turns to WV, and the animation ends.

...okay, much as I love it, I have to admit there’s a glaring question here: Namely, the kids started playing the Game less than a day ago and Dave’s kernelsprite has been prototyped for a few hours max. The second prototyping made the Battlefield more complex and the third took it into its current form. That’s a very short time to instigate a cross-faction revolution, organise the troops, and march on a monarch. For that matter, how long has WV been a farmer? The inhabitants of Derse and Prospit have obviously been doing their thing all the kids’ lives, but the Battlefield was supposedly a static, rudimentary space until John entered the Medium, so what gives?

Then again, the timeline in the Medium is supposed to be distinct from the timeline on Earth, so maybe that explains it?

CHEL: An interesting point is also raised by WV’s revolution. Namely, Derse is presented as a kingdom of darkness and evil by the game, while Prospit is presented as good. However, while PM is good, WV and AR are demonstrably not bad people either. In this animation, we see carapaces of both sides apparently don’t want to be involved in the war and are willing to rise up against the Black King. The rank-and-file carapaces on both sides, it seems, are decent people who are just following orders. (Not to mention very cute.) Jack Noir and his gang are nasty pieces of work, except CD who’s also just kind of going along with it, but there’s nothing saying white carapaces couldn’t also be… And is that a Problematykks point, presenting the black-coloured people as bad and the white-coloured ones as good? I know they’re chess pieces, but still.

This raises the question, however, what’s Derse’s motive? Are its rulers and archagents simply destroying for the evulz? I wonder. I also wonder how much Skaia itself is involved in this and how aware it is. Skaia is called the crucible of creation, and it’s responsible for the creation of the carapaces too. References are made to it “seeing” and “knowing”; it’s quite possibly sentient, though maybe not sapient. On top of that, SBurb is specifically a game, and a game needs an objective, and an adventure-type game needs enemies. Derse, it seems likely, was created and presented the way it is in order to give the players something to battle against even if its people don’t want to be their enemies. No wonder WV’s pissed!

BRIGHT: Yup. Hmm, thinking about it...the imps and other enemies we saw attacking John’s house early on were obviously Dersite, but the ones we’ve seen in Rose’s seem to be Prospitian, if anything? The colour scheme looks that way, at least. But Nanna said earlier that Derse was the enemy, nothing about Prospit.

Perhaps it has something to do with Rose being a Derse dreamer, while John is a Prospit dreamer? But in that case I’d have expected it to come up in the text. Instead it just goes unremarked.

Rose goes on a massive alchemising spree and ends up creating the Thorns of Oglogoth, a pair of wands.

The needles seem to shiver with the dark desires of THE DEEP ONE. Any sane adventurer would cast these instruments of the occult into the FURTHEST RING and forget they ever existed.

Instead of throwing the wands away, Rose takes on the enemies camping all over her house, with style.

Meanwhile, Dave goes on another, less visibly productive alchemising spree.

GET ON WITH IT!: 18

FAILURE ARTIST: The SBaHJifier could be considered productive in that it provides foreshadowing cartoons. Wish Dave’s Brain in a Jar came up again.

BRIGHT: Once he’s done creating smuppet variations to disturb the monsters encroaching on his house, he sits down to take a look at those two journals he copied from Rose earlier. One of them is called ‘MEOW’, and is literally just those same four letters, repeated over and over in different orders. The second is ‘Complacency of the Learned’.

There is no way to adequately recap the beauty of ‘Complacency of the Learned’, so we’re just going to show the whole thing:

Frigglish bothered his beard, as if unkinking a hitch in a long silk windsock. A more pedestrian audience would parse the exhibit as nervous compulsion. Behavior to petition contempt among the reasonable. He was however not surrounded by the reasonable, but the wise, a distinction in men that would forever be the difference in history's garland of treasured follies. As a matter of fact, his cadre of fellow wizards were all putting similar moves on their beards as well. The practice would evince thoughtfulness - sagacity, even - if they didn't do it all the time. Standing in line at the bank. Shooing squirrels from bird feeders. Few occasions were safe. Zazzerpan inspected the clue. A single piece of evidence cradled in his coriaceous old man palms. It was a human bone, not striking in the tale it told alone so much as that told by the thousands like it festooning the marshy soil of the mass grave. The grisly expanse bore the texture of a decadent dessert, like one of Smarny's formidable custard trifles wobbled out on wheels for the holidays, to the dismay of a small nation. "You're certain of this?" asked Frigglish. Despite what he was doing with his beard, he was, in fact, immersed in meaningful contemplation. "I am afraid I am becoming more so with each terrible tick groused by that gaudy timepiece slung around your neck." In case it wasn't clear, Frigglish wore a clock Zazzerpan didn't care for. It was magic. "The massacre of Syrs Gnelph was not as written." "What has you convinced it was the hand of our disciples in this blackness?" Executus chimed in. "I believe... I..." a fat face stammered, eyes darting with the guilt of a thief in the throes of an unraveling alibi. "I can summon a... more pressing line of inquiry..." No, Smarny. Nobody was in the mood for a sticky bundt loaf just now. Zazzerpan's ears fell insubstantial to any line of inquiry, pastry-oriented or otherwise. His abstruse contour carved a pondering shape in the fog carpeting centuries-dead. His eleven contemporaries too embraced the muted consternation of their great Predicant Scholar. Few wizards kept sharper adumbratives or read them with such lucidity. When Zazzerpan treated men with silence it was seldom unrepaid by the wise and reasonable alike. It was harrowing to entertain. Zazzerpan the Learned's storied Complacency of Wizards was marked for grander descendence. Disciples hand-picked, vetted by Ockite the Bonafide and tested by Gastrell the Munificent. The twelve sweetest, most studious children a pair of elderly eyes could give their sparkle. Not the ragged guttersnipe so oft-harvested by the common Obscenity, those vituperative little beggars with hearts to corrupt as dropped bananas brown. That these chosen youngsters would turn was not merely unthinkable, but something of a roundhouse to the temporal bones of the Upper Indifference's high chamber of Softskulled Prophets. His wisdom-savaged brow pruned further with recount of his many lessons to wouldbe successors. Lessons to advance humanity's elucidation and prosperity, an outcome this bleak trail now painfully obviated. There were few puzzles The Learned could not suspend and dissect in the recondite manifold beneath his extremely expensive pointy hat. Daring to pitch his cherished pupils in with the foul melange of history's rogues, the heretofore abstract scourge that built up civilizations with ungodly magic and tore them down with joyful malice, would prove an intellectual trespass to make his calcium-deficient bones quake. And more daring yet was the only question that now mattered. Could a bunch of bearded, scraggly old men in preposterous outfits hunt them down? He didn't have an answer. Only a simple observation so blunt and uncharacteristically jejune for the lauded sage it was breathtaking in its selfevidency. "We're going to need more wands." (Wow. Think of something better.)

Wow.

Dave is understandably intimidated by this, and decides to stop reading for now. He puts his copy of the SBURB Beta in the notebook to act as a bookmark, and leaves both books in his room for later.

Then he checks in on Rose, who is burning her version of the MEOW book.

CHEL: Dave inquires about the wizard story.

TG: i thought you hated wizards TG: whats the deal with that TT: I like wizards. TT: What I don't like is my mother's obsession with feigning interest in them to antagonize me. TG: oh man thats so messed up TG: that you think that TG: she probably digs wizards for real just like you and youre blowing shit out of proportion like pretty much always

Once again, we see exactly how fucked-up Rose’s relationship with her mother is. Mom Lalonde has somehow managed to raise a child in such a way that Rose interprets everything her mother does as an attempt to mock and provoke her.

ARE YOU TRYING TO BE FUNNY?: 16

TIER: The Lalondes are pretty damn dysfunctional as a family unit, and considering the zany nature of early Homestuck and its world's weird logic that is saying something indeed.

CHEL: As for the MEOW book, it turns out the gods from the Furthest Ring informed Rose while she was sleeping that the book’s contents are highly dangerous and must be destroyed. Said gods dwell in the sky above Derse; Dave’s never heard or seen them, but Rose points out his dreamself is always wearing shades, listening to music, and distracted by Cal.

TT: You're the prince of the moon. TG: ........ TT: I'm sure they've been meaning to seek a royal audience. TG: ..........................

Davesprite chats to Rose next. She protests at being spied on by two people, but Davesprite asks her why she burned the codebook. She didn’t need to in the future, but according to her future memories of the gods absorbed from her future dreamself, Davesprite appeared to make it relevant by traveling to the past. A sinister and familiar face watches through Dave’s window, soon proving to be the Draconian Dignitary, while Dave and Davesprite awkwardly spout elaborate mixed metaphors about how safe they are, until Dave, embarrassed, says "so i guess ill go back down and burn that book".

As any savvy reader could guess, he’s too late. The prompt suggests that he should go back in time to stop the books from being stolen, but, well...

It looks like you already tried that. GORE GALORE: 10

Dave looks completely undisturbed, but whether he is undisturbed is a different matter. He flings the corpse out the window into the lava, claiming it would freak Jade out.

John, in the lab, presses a button, causing the first monitor to depict his town, shortly before his birth. There is a Betty Crocker factory and a shopping mall, neither of which are in the town now. Zooming in locks a target over Nanna Egbert, who is taking a stroll with Dad. A meteor looms; this looks like it’s going to go very badly, considering the target lock, but it hits the factory instead. When John presses the glowing blue button, a PARADOX GHOST IMPRINT of Nanna is created; refer back to Rose’s experimentation in the lab and the green slime blobs. This time, the slime is sucked into a tube.

The next monitor does something similar with Grandpa Harley on his ship, and the next the same with Bro Strider, who stands over a meteor crater on an unseasonably warm day; something of an understatement, as the sky is the same lurid red and the sun the same glowing spiral that they were during the Strider bros’ battle even though it’s December. Bro is, regardless, prepared for the occasion with a small pair of outrageously awesome shades. What he needs these for will soon be revealed.

The fourth monitor goes back to John’s home town, a gigantic crater where the factory once was. In the shopping mall, Dad Egbert stands outside a joke shop, while Nanna apparently remains inside, busying herself with a tall bookshelf, a ladder, and a rather hefty unabridged joke book.

Mom Lalonde, clutching the infant Rose and wearing a rather snazzy long Jaspersprite-pink scarf, has come to town to study the meteor impact at the request of Grandpa Harley while he explores elsewhere. Unfortunately, now is the time a meteor chooses to strike Nanna’s location, destroying the shop.

An old mother lost today, but a new son gained.

Wait for it.

Mom Lalonde flees, dropping her scarf, which Dad Egbert picks up and slightly creepily sniffs. The monitor continues tracking her, and John captures her paradox imprint too, starting the machines whirring away...

Four babies abruptly appear on the pad, already diapered and bespectacled and old enough to sit up unaided. Convenient, no?

When the kitten jumps on a green button, the slime is blended in pairs; Nanna’s and Grandpa’s, and Mom’s and Bro’s. More blinking lights ensue, and another four extremely familiar-looking babies appear.

BRIGHT: I will say this: These kids are adorable.

While babies clamber over him, John vaults up his echeladder to the rank of Ectobiolobabysitter, acquiring one million Boondollars in the process. This automatically converts itself to a Boonbuck, the weight of which smashes his Porkhollow.

Finding out just what is going on here will have to wait, as the comic takes a brief detour to a battleship navigating the Medium nearby. There’s someone very familiar at the wheel…

An old man has much to do before he returns to Earth, dies, gets stuffed by his adopted-yet-biological daughter-slash-grand-daughter, and stuck in front of a fireplace.

Also aboard the ship are Dad Egbert and Mom Lalonde. Dad returns Mom’s scarf, and the two of them hold hands as Grandpa Harley pilots the ship towards Skaia.

We return to the lab, where John has his hands full with the babies. One of them has managed to break one of the paradox slime jars from earlier, but appears uninjured. Also, CG’s trolling him again.

CHEL: CG makes mention of the ULTIMATE RIDDLE, but John is confused because CG hasn’t told him about that yet. He uses an ableist description in explaining.

CG: SEE I KIND OF PAINTED MYSELF INTO A CORNER. CG: I STARTED TROLLING YOU AT THE END, JUST BEFORE THE RIFT. CG: AND THEN JUMPED BACK A LITTLE. CG: AND NOW I GUESS I'VE BECOME RAILROADED INTO WORKING BACKWARDS HERE. CG: UNLESS I WANT TO DO THE SORT OF DUMB SCHIZOPHRENIC HOPPING AROUND LIKE THE OTHERS. CLOCKWORK PROBLEMATYKKS: 18

… why wouldn’t you just hop right back to the start and work in a linear fashion from there?

TIER: Because CG excels at making things complicated for himself and is fundamentally rather stubborn and set in his ways/actions. Like he's made his bed, he's gonna lie in it.

CHEL: Anyway, CG banters with John for a bit, and then informs him that he (John) has arrived in the Veil and created infant versions of the players and their guardians.

EB: so they are like cloned copies of us? CG: NO. CG: THEY ARE LITERALLY YOU AND YOUR GUARDIANS. CG: PARADOX CLONES.

A paradox clone, we are informed, is A CORRECTLY CLONED DUPLICATE THAT WILL INEVITABLY GO BACK IN TIME AND BECOME THE ORIGINAL TARGET THAT WAS CLONED. The game worlds contain many clues hinting at the ultimate destiny of the players to create their own selves through the game, and the only way things could possibly go involved the players creating themselves, or else the game session would never happen.

CG: WHICH IS ESPECIALLY PATHETIC SINCE PARADOX SPACE APPARENTLY WENT TO ALL THIS TROUBLE TO MAKE YOU JUST TO HAVE YOU FAIL AND DIE. CG: REALLY THERE'S NOTHING MORE TRAGIC THAN THESE NULL SESSIONS FULL OF KIDS ENTERING THE GAME AND FULFILLING SOME COSMIC DESTINY SHIT JUST TO GET WIPED OUT AND LEAVE BEHIND AN EMPTY POINTLESS INCIPISPHERE FOR ALL ETERNITY.

Tragic and completely unnecessary, when there are millions of perfectly good humans already in existence who could just as easily create winning game sessions without this aspect of it. Here we see another aspect of Homestuck which hasn’t come up quite so clearly before; an extremely weird take on determinism. I’m not sure if this is meant as a parody of Chosen One plotlines or if Hussie just thought it sounded cool, but it’s uncomfortable. As it turns out, only clones created by SBurb have a hope in hell of winning the game, and even they fail most of the time. Regular people who enter the game to save themselves from the destruction of the planet will fail and die there, which honestly is not really selling this game as a good thing, since it’s what causes the destruction of the planet in the first place. I’ve had actual, legitimate, honest-to-God nightmares about this aspect of SBurb, and I’m not ashamed to admit it.

FAILURE ARTIST: I think many fans wish to play SBurb. There’s lots of fan sessions and fake GameFAQs and custom Lands. Yet in reality SBurb is not a fun time. This is cosmic horror. I think Hussie is sometimes playing it for horror and sometimes he ignores the implications.

Then again, some people want to live on the troll planet, which is straight-up dystopia.

CHEL: Again, it isn’t really clear what he’s going for. Is it supposed to be terrifying or did he just think it would be clever? Does even Hussie know what he was going for? While it’s not exactly a joke, I think it’s worth another point here:

ARE YOU TRYING TO BE FUNNY?: 17

It might be a joke. As I said, I could see it as a parody of or playing with the Chosen One narrative. In this case, literally only the chosen ones have any hope, for reasons that are not down to any merit of their own. But if it is, there isn’t really much made of it.

Of course, the reasons people want to live on the troll planet are reasonable when taken alone, but a) contradicted every alternate scene and b) not a fair trade for everything else that’s going on there. But we’ll get to that when we actually see it. And I admit, SBurb powers would be fun, but not worth the loss of my entire species.

TIER: To me at least it's fun in the same way wondering how I'd fare as a wizard during Harry Potter's years at Hogwarts, or a ninja in Naruto is. Fundamentally you'd rather want to never encounter this sorta stuff even if you get some swanky I guess powers, but the mental exercise of it is quite honestly, really fun. The game has quite a lot of interesting things to poke around with, from lands to quests to what your co-players are up to. And I'm def guilty of playing trollsona games, because the world presented is just really fascinating in its gruesome glory.

Never want to have to actually go through it, Lord knows I'd be dead within the first ten minutes if I'm super lucky, but stories about it are pretty neat.

CHEL: That’s true, but the paradox clones thing seems almost to be taunting us for having that mentality. We can pretend we’d be the super-smart strong competent ones who make it, but in this universe if we demonstrably have parents we’re doomed to die for nothing and there’s nothing we can do about it.

BRIGHT: Another fun thing about this is that it fundamentally isolates the players from the rest of humanity. If you think about it, unless they have children with a non-player, they are completely unrelated to anyone else on Earth.

CHEL: And they can’t have kids with a non-player unless something thoroughly horrible happened, because as is stated later SBurb specifically takes its players away and destroys their planet around the point of their puberty.

BRIGHT: Although I think John is actually related to Dad — as far as we’re told, Dad is in fact Nanna’s biological son, which makes him genetically John’s half-brother.

They also miss out on (going by how active the babies are) the first couple of years of life. Those two years are crucial in terms of brain development. SBURB probably controls for that, but it wouldn’t be surprising if there were negative consequences.

Oh, and if you’re a player, your existence means your civilisation is doomed. Lovely!

CHEL: And do the players ever feel any guilt or conflict over this? Do they hell. It doesn’t even occur to them, and I’m pretty sure it didn’t occur to Hussie either.

TIER: Welcome to the hell game that is SBURB; it's fundamentally pretty fucked up! It runs on a hellish scale of "things have already been predetermined" and I am Big Fear™.

CHEL: That’ll come up later, too, but there it’s obviously intentional nightmare fuel, and not at all a bad use of time travel as a story device.

CG, meanwhile, explains that he was the one to create his session’s players. With twelve of them it was a bit more complicated, but troll lineages are complicated anyway, and we’ll find out how later.

The babies are still getting all over the lab. Note that they're repeatedly referred to as "little pink monkeys". Then again, calling a non-white child a monkey really wouldn't be good.

WHITE SBURB POSTMODERNISM: 18

John’s infant self has latched onto the Sassacre book, while his infant Nanna is sitting in Dad Egbert’s old hat. Baby Bro is napping in the lap of Lil Cal; that baby’s braver than I am, I can tell you that. Baby Dave is sitting on Maplehoof, and baby Grandpa has found a pair of pistols. John does not take them away from him, or even seem to notice he has them.

HURRY UP AND DO NOTHING: 7

BRIGHT: Earlier baby Bro broke one of the paradox slime cylinders and was sitting in it. John is pretty astoundingly bad at keeping babies away from obvious hazards.

TIER: That or the equipment is probably not sturdy enough to make it past an inspection into faulty management.

CHEL: But then he’s distracted by CG trolling him again, at least this time moving forward in time from the last conversation.

CG, like GA, apparently fails to grasp sarcasm...

EB: we had this great dare going. EB: to see who could be the least helpful and informative. EB: and you totally lost, dude! EB: you were hella helpful. CG: I WAS OBVIOUSLY JUST SPITING YOUR STUPID POINTLESS HUMAN DARE. [...] CG: ANYWAY, HOW COULD WE HAVE MADE A DARE IF I'M MOVING BACKWARDS ON YOUR TIMELINE.

… which is weird because moments later he uses it himself.

EB: do you even have elves? CG: YES, LET'S COMPARE WHICH FANTASY CREATURES THAT DON'T EXIST WE BOTH DO OR DON'T NOT HAVE. CG: WHAT A GREAT FUCKING IDEA, JOHN!

Hussie seems to waver back and forth a lot on whether trolls get sarcasm or not, in general. Since he’s contradicting himself with troll worldbuilding, that’s a point.

WHITE SBURB POSTMODERNISM: 19

Banter aside, he informs John that the babies are sent to Earth via meteors during the Reckoning.

BRIGHT: How do they survive the impact? Some of those meteor strikes destroy buildings. Those are some ridiculously resilient kids.

CHEL: Cut to AR, who is still having fun on the rocketboard, until he runs into a frog temple atop a meteor. This is apparently horrifying and illegal by his standards.

You are going to throw whoever is responsible into the slammer. You always call jail the slammer when you are extra angry at crimes.

Inside, he finds an empty time capsule, like Jade’s, some complicated machinery, and a monitor screen showing a greyscale house with a very familiar bespectacled female infant and dirty old hat in it. The year depicted, says the monitor, is 1910. Enter none other than Colonel Sassacre himself.

Eight days prior, the orphan girl was taken in by an aristocratic southern colonel and legendary humorist. He recovered the young lady from a crater where a bakery once stood, operated by the man's wife, a notable baked goods baroness.

An explosion outside leads them both to a crater, where once stood the doghouse of the colonel’s pet, Halley, but before the Colonel can investigate further he’s shot through the heart.

This is exactly why babies should not be allowed to dual-wield flintlock pistols.

BRIGHT: I remain baffled as to how Baby Grandpa can even lift those things, let alone pull the triggers.

CHEL: Baby Grandpa crawls from the crater, and Halley the dog turns out to be alive.

The young boy has difficulty pronouncing the name though. Sounds more like "Harley" when he says it.

How does he know it? The colonel died before he even noticed the baby was there. Is baby Nanna speaking well enough to tell him yet? I guess he could be told later, as Sassacre wasn’t in fact their only sapient guardian...

Thirteen years later, the boy develops a taste for adventure. He and his guardian bid farewell. His sister is sad. She will be left all alone with the wicked pastry baroness. She can handle it, he tells her. He believes in her.

It isn’t clear why she didn’t go with him, or leave under her own power. They don’t seem to be imprisoned, as the panel depicts them outside on grass with no restraints or guards over them, so it’s not a matter of only one of them being able to get out. That’s a point for Nanna not trying and a point for Grandpa not bringing her:

HURRY UP AND DO NOTHING: 9

That dog is also remarkably lively, considering it, unlike Bec, is an entirely normal dog, it was an adult thirteen years previously, and it’s somehow supporting the weight of an entire teenager on its back (again, please don’t try this at home, you can break the dog’s spine that way).

FAILURE ARTIST: As we’ve said, Colonel Sassacre is a thinly-veiled Mark Twain expy. The real Mark Twain died in 1910 at the same time Halley’s Comet was in the sky. It’s a cute historical gag having him be literally killed by a comet but it does muck up the timeline. Nanna must have been a senior citizen when Dad was born. Perhaps he’s adopted?

CHEL: The other option is that Dad is a senior citizen now, but surely John would have wondered why his dad is so ridiculously old. I think it’s just that thing in mainstream comics and cartoons where adults are split into Old and Not Old, and the parents are normal ages for parents but the grandparents would have to be in their hundreds going by the gags. See how Scrooge McDuck in the DuckTales reboot is over a hundred and forty years old yet his sister’s son is still a youngish adult.

AR notes that the appearifier is centred over Halley the dog, but hears someone coming. It proves to be the Draconian Dignitary. AR hides and watches, noting that DD is carrying Rose’s notebooks and Dave’s beta envelopes. DD keeps the MEOW book, but throws away the other items. Complacency of the Learned lands on the floor, and the envelopes land in the time capsule, which sets to bloom in four hundred and thirteen million years.

Meanwhile, John talks to CG while infant Mom Lalonde pets the mutant kitten. John asks if there’s any way to delay the Reckoning, but nope; CG warns him that the smallest meteors will start going in only a few minutes.

EB: ok, well you keep saying how doomed we are and how all this bad stuff happens sooner, but you never say why! EB: what happens in our game that's different from yours that makes things go so badly? CG: JACK NOIR.

The Jack Noir from the trolls’ game session allied with them and helped them dethrone and exile the Black Queen, while the one from the humans’ session, as you may recall, killed the Black Monarchs and gained their powers, and is currently rampaging through the Incipisphere. John asks if it’s the same Jack Noir, but CG explains.

CG: SO LET'S SAY YOU PLAY YOUR BANDICOOT AND I PLAY MY BANDICOOT. CG: THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME BANDICOOT, SAME APPEARANCE AND DESIGN AND BEHAVIORS. CG: BUT THEY ARE STILL COMPLETELY SEPARATE BANDICOOTS ON SEPARATE SCREENS. CG: SO WE BOTH HAVE OUR OWN ASS BANDICOOTS TO OURSELVES, THE SAME BUT DIFFERENT. CG: OUR JACKS ARE THE SAME BUT DIFFERENT TOO. CG: SAME GUY, DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND OUTCOMES. CG: OUR JACK TRUMPED THE QUEEN, BUT GOT NO FURTHER. CG: YOUR JACK GOT THE BEST OF BOTH OF THEM, AND IS NOW SOMETHING HIGHER THAN A QUEEN OR A KING… EB: like an ace? CG: SURE OK.

The trolls don’t know what went so differently to cause the two Jacks to behave so differently, but CG doesn’t think it matters by now. John interrupts him, deciding to do yet another Con Air ending re-enactment.

Watch on YouTube

Recap: montage of Con Air posters and images to the tune of “How Do I Live Without You”. John hands the thoroughly disgusting Con Air bunny to the protesting baby Rose, while CG watches huffily on his monitor. Jade demands a toy too, so John hands her the bunny he received from Rose in an excessively dramatic fashion. CG frustratedly hits himself in the head. In scribbly crayon-like drawings, Casey the salamander performs a drum solo with glowing blue mushrooms for drums and the Con Air plane crashes. More Con Air imagery, John embraces baby Jade and the baby Lalondes while sobbing; GC points and laughs at him over CG’s shoulder and they have a slapfight. John imagines himself in Nic Cage’s iconic wifebeater and mullet and performs an air guitar solo.

TIER: Lemme tell ya, as someone who's only experience with this darn movie is whatever pops up courtesy of John this sequence is just a trip and a half. Possibly a higher number.

CHEL: Cut to end-of-act curtains; they open on the next page, declaring a PSYCHE; there are more pages to go.

Cut to Dave’s hands, covered in the dead Dave’s blood. I… guess he’s supposed to be staring at them in shock? It’s impossible to tell through his shades. For all I know he could be worried about the cleanup. GC trolls him and they banter creepily, with her demanding to know what his blood smells like and him taunting her about her blindness.

TG: just him and me TG: havin a see party TG: like a couple of eagle eyed bros peepin shit up into the wee hours GC: D4V3 GC: C4N 1 COM3 TO YOUR S33 P4RTY? TG: i guess but youll have to be careful not to stumble around bumping into all the gorgeous masterpieces hanging around everywhere TG: god so beautiful to look at with my perfect eyesight GC: C4N 1 L1CK TH3 P41NT1NGS? TG: yeah thats fine

Neither of them seems to take it particularly hard. If there was narrative around the dialogue, I think we’d get a better grasp of how Dave feels. Lacking much body language or punctuation, tone is a bit tricky to get.

FAILURE ARTIST: There’s a character later who gets a lot of grief for insulting her blindness but reading what John, Dave, and CG say I don’t know how that character could be worse.

CHEL: AT, meanwhile, is trolling Jade, rather politely. He even takes time to ask if she’s having a good nap. She’s worried about John’s dreamself not waking, and AT scrolls into his view of the future timeline, but can’t find John awake, nor see into his dreams. Jade, however, will wake up soon, and she thanks him for this report. Unfortunately, when Jade wakes up she will be in danger, and AT can’t see any further. He tells her CG wants to talk to her about her exploding robot. He can’t see whether it exploded or not because there are a lot of explosions, but asking future Jade shows it did, and that she declared CG to be a pretty nice guy, which surprises AT since he doesn’t think CG is particularly nice. Jade says she thinks AT is nice too, and asks why he’s the only one who talks to her while she’s asleep.

AT: bECAUSE YOU HAVE A ROBOT, tO LET YOU SAY THINGS THAT HAPPEN, oN PROSPIT, AT: aND i'M CURIOUS, AT: bECAUSE THE ONLY TIME i EVER HAD FUN PLAYING THIS GAME WAS WHEN i WAS ASLEEP, AT: bUT NOW ALL OUR DREAM SELVES ARE DEAD, AT: }:'(

AT happily remembers his own time on Prospit, and we cut back to Rose, being trolled by GA despite the fact that Rose is obviously in the middle of an epic magic battle. The conversation is understandably chilly, and GA still hasn’t figured out that “Dumb Rose” as opposed to “Smart Rose” was John rather than a bizarre roleplaying scenario.

GC continues trolling Dave. He asks her how she operates a computer without sight.

GC: 1M SORRY D4V3 TH4T YOU W1LL N3V3R 3XP3R13NC3 TH3 S3NSORY BOUQU3T TH4T 1 3NJOY 3V3RY D4Y GC: TH4T 1 3NSCONC3 MYS3LF 1N L1K3 4 W4RM 4ND COMFY B4THROB3 M4D3 OF FL4VOR 4ND M3LODY TG: oh ok TG: so the dumbest and most far fetched explanation imaginable ok got it

Yes, pretty much. This brings me to a Problematykks point; GC is supposed to be blind, but it really doesn’t seem to affect her in any way at all. Its workaround is ridiculously convenient and effective, and while I’m not blind myself, I know many people with physical disabilities hate it when fiction does this. I know I would be pissed off if a piece of fiction showed an easy and convenient way to not have autism anymore. (Horrible, horrible memories of someone back in the days of Livejournal’s Fanficrants of a fic in which autism was somehow cured by having a foursome. I don’t remember how that was supposed to work.) “She’s a space alien” only goes so far in explaining it. Why even bother making her blind if it’s not going to affect her in any way?

CLOCKWORK PROBLEMATYKKS: 19

FAILURE ARTIST: She’s the least blind blind person in media. Characters like Daredevil from Marvel Comics and Toph from Avatar the Last Airbender have a Disability Superpower but at the end of the day they still can’t do things like read printed text. GC has no disadvantages.

BRIGHT: She can apparently smell and taste photons.

Which raises the question why none of the other trolls ever show a heightened sense of smell or taste. If GC can learn to interpret smells as colours, her sense of smell must have been that strong all along, and there’s no indication in the text that she’s biologically more sensitive than her companions. Trolls must be better at following a trail than bloodhounds.

CHEL: Synaesthesia which makes one strongly associate colours with smells is a thing, and synaesthesia is generally the word the fandom uses to explain Terezi’s ability, but you still have to actually see the colours for that to work. If she was only mostly blind and was picking up blurry colour patches, I could buy it (and that is how the fandom tends to do it with human AUs), but not if she’s supposed to be completely blind, and she still wouldn’t be able to read text that way.

BRIGHT: Time for another animation, and for a hop back into the recent past.

Watch on YouTube

As the meteor locked onto Dave’s house approaches, Dave climbs up the tower to retrieve his cruxite egg from the nest his sprite made. Unfortunately the sprite attacks him, knocking him and the egg off the tower. Bro Strider appears on top of the approaching meteor and slices it in half with his katana; the two halves are diverted by the blow and strike different areas of the city. Dave’s fall is broken by a rocket board, which is presumably how Bro got up to the meteor in the first place. (How did he manage to aim it to intercept Dave’s fall? Wouldn’t it take longer to get from the meteor to Dave than it takes for Dave to fall from the top of the tower to the roof of the building? We shall never know.) The egg hatches, and Dave is transported into the Medium. There’s no sign of what happens to Bro.

CHEL: Yet more cartoon physics around the Strider bros.

BRIGHT: I don’t know if we mentioned this earlier, but although Dave and Bro live in an apartment block that presumably housed multiple people, only Dave’s apartment gets transported into the Medium. Everyone else in the complex is left to die on Earth. SBURB is sociopathic.

Elsewhere in the Medium, back in the present, Grandpa’s ship is approaching Skaia, with Mom Lalonde and Dad Egbert on board.

Down on Skaia, Jack Noir draws his sword and slaughters the army WV raised to march on the Black King. WV cowers, but Jack leaves him alive. He then uses the Black Queen’s ring to send some sort of giant red tentacle attack through Skaia, slaughtering Dersite and Prospitian forces indiscriminately.

CHEL: Are they tentacles? I always thought of them as some sort of lightning lasers.

BRIGHT: That makes a lot more sense!

In the ectobiology lab, as the clock ticks down to the Reckoning, the babies are teleported to asteroids around the lab. There must be an air supply in this asteroid belt — characters are consistently shown as being able to survive outside.

CHEL: Maybe it’s just the players’ natural badassery. Batman Can Breathe In Space.

BRIGHT: On Skaia, CD makes his way through Jack’s slaughter fest, which has now ravaged a sizeable chunk of planet, and hands him the White King’s sceptre. Jack raises the sceptre and initiates the Reckoning. The meteorites start to vanish into Skaia’s defence portals. In the frog temple, DD somehow combines the MEOW genetic code with a paradox clone of Halley, creating Jade’s guardian Bec. Bec’s creation damages the laboratory equipment in the temple.

Cut to Jade, who is snoozing peacefully while her dream self explores Prospit. She looks up at Skaia, to see Jack’s shadow passing in front of it. Jack launches his tentacle attack on Prospit, slaughtering the inhabitants, then severs the chain attaching Prospit’s moon to the planet. The moon begins falling towards Skaia.

Jack then flies to LOHAC, where he encounters Bro Strider on one of the turntable mesas. Unexpectedly, Bro is able to give Jack an even fight. After a few exchanges, he drives his katana into the mesa; some sort of golden light emanates from the crack, and Bro absconds.

Wait, how did Bro get onto LOHAC? How did he survive the meteor impacts?

TIER: The ol' "rule of cool". As long as something is sufficiently "absolutely kickass!!" the rules of reality and physics can go sit on the bleachers twiddling their thumbs for all they fucking matter. There's a reason early fandom pinned down Bro as an unorthodox but immensely cool older brother type guy for so long. Because with what little information was available before we got bludgeoned with "No actually he was the absolute fucking worst thing to happen to Dave and fucked him up for life" that was the general impression he gave off.

CHEL: This and the meteor splitting are yet more reason not to take Bro’s treatment of Dave seriously; this is a world in which ludicrous animesque badassery rules the day, and physically impossible feats of battle occur every five minutes. Forcing a child to go through extensive and excessive sword training in brutal heat in a precarious place, possibly every day, ought by rights to be normal there, and I can’t believe he was physically hurt by swordfighting when he survived a meteor collision as an infant. Besides, training that extensive quite possibly could be the only thing that would keep Dave alive in these circumstances.

ARE YOU TRYING TO BE FUNNY?: 18

BRIGHT: There’s a random Squiddles interlude, and then we return to Skaia.

John’s unconscious dream self has fallen out of Prospit’s moon as it plummets towards Skaia. Jade tries shaking him awake, and then slaps him, but to no avail. At the last moment, she throws him out of the path of the moon, and her dream self is then killed when it lands on her. Back on Earth, her dreambot overloads and explodes.

CHEL: Taking her tower room with it; Jade’s sleeping body plummets towards the earth.

BRIGHT: The moon leaves a gigantic crater in Skaia. John’s now-conscious dreamself hovers above it.

The babies vanish through the defence portals to Earth.

CHEL: Each takes an item with them. John takes the Sassacre book, Rose the first Con Air bunny, Dave rides Maplehoof, Jade takes the bunny Rose gave to John (which is in fact the Con Air bunny plus several years and repairs), Nanna sits inside Dad’s old hat, Mom takes the mutant kitten, Bro sleeps in the lap of Li’l Cal, and Grandpa dual wields the flintlock pistols he should not be allowed.

BRIGHT: Dave and Rose reach the Gates above their houses and set out to explore their Lands. We close on an eerie shot of Bec outside the frog temple on Jade’s island at night.

CHEL: Jade’s tower room is blown to bits, and a truly enormous meteor hovers over the scene.

Curtains close. End of Act 4. Before Act 5, we receive a message from Rose, via her GameFAQ.

[ZZZZ] Rose: Egress. This is my final entry. My co-players and I have made every earnest attempt, with occasional relapse, to play this game the right way.

Really? You haven’t been in the game for more than a couple of hours and Jade still isn’t in at all! Maybe consider that the fact that not all your players are in the game yet when you wonder why it isn’t working?

I have been meticulous in documenting the process to help our peers and successors through the trials should we fail. In my hubris I believed these classes were relegated to the Earth-bound, but in even this quaint supposition I was in error. Our otherworldly antagonists have assured us of our inevitable failure repeatedly, while the gods whisper corroboration in my sleep. I believe them now. I just blew up my first gate. I’m not sure why I did it, really. I am not playing by the rules anymore. I will fly around this candy-coated rock and comb the white sand until I find answers. No one can tell me our fate can’t be repaired. We’ve come too far. I jumped out of the way of a burning fucking tree, for God’s sake.

I can see her point. The game is horrible and should be stopped. On the other hand, I’d at least attempt to spend more than one day investigating it before trying to break it. Randomly destroying shit is more likely to make things much worse than anything else.

I have used a spell to rip this walkthrough from Earth’s decaying network, and sealed it in one of the servers floating in the Furthest Ring. The gods may disperse the signal throughout the cosmos as they wish. Perhaps it will be of use to past or future species who like us have been ensnared by Skaia’s malevolent tendrils. In case it wasn’t clear, magic is real. Pardon my egress. You’re on your own now.

This note is signed with a glowing multicoloured “RL” and revealed to be emitted from a purple box with an aerial, floating in space. It seems that’s how their internet’s still working.

FAILURE ARTIST: The internet seems to be a magical dimension in Homestuck and not something that’s part of physical infrastructure.

CHEL: Hours in the future, WV lands in the desert remains of Earth, wrapped up in John’s old ghost-patterned bedsheet, which is still white. A villein becomes a vagabond. In his memory, he tears up an effigy of Jack Noir… where’d he get it? Did the game create it for some reason? Anyway, John’s blanket falls on him from the sky as Prospit plummets; WV calls it a RAG OF SOULS. Adorably melodramatic.

John’s awoken dreamself gazes sadly at Jade’s deceased one, which for some reason isn’t actually under the rubble of Prospit and appears to still be three-dimensional. There’s no excessive blood splatter like with the dead Dave, which is good, not too over the top. He retrieves the Queen’s ring from her hand. Was he told at any point that it’s important? Because if he doesn’t know, I’m not sure robbing the dead is very heroic. He sees an image of himself flying over the battlefield in a large cloud above him; in the vision he’s near a castle, so he goes to seek it out.

On Earth, PM wraps herself up in an old Prospit banner. A mistress becomes a mendicant. In her memories, she has beheaded the Hegemonic Brute and is arranging a meeting with Jack Noir. He arrives and she presents the crowns; smirking evilly, he honours their bargain, and the Courtyard Droll brings her the green parcel. She brings it to the castle from John’s vision as he arrives there, hands over the box, and angrily walks away.

FAILURE ARTIST: She’s Honor Before Reason (maybe she’s programmed that way) but she has the right reaction. This is a lot to go through to deliver a package.

CHEL: Inside the box is a letter from Jade’s unknown pen pal, who writes in dark green and a distinctive jolly-hockey-sticks dialect, with a tendency to ramble off on tangents about movies and wrestling.

Anyway you should listen to jade from here on out john because she sure seems to know whats best for you. Whatever your adventure throws at you im sure shell tell you you can handle it. She believes in you.

And another letter from Jade.

even though its super late and you probably went through a lot of trouble to get it, i really hope this present cheers you up! you looked so sad while you were reading my letter. um... which is to say, the one you are reading now.

She explains that in her dreams she goes to Prospit and John’s sleeping dream self is there, and that’s where she gets her visions. She hopes he likes his present, and says her penpal is fun…

john i am REALLY looking forward to seeing you when you wake up!!!!! its been nice playing with my prospitian friends and all, but also kind of lonely knowing you were in the other tower sleeping and having lousy dreams. :( im not sure where i am when you are reading this but im sure ill make it down to where you are soon! (jeez how did you get down there??? oh well ill find out) i cant wait to fly around the moon with you and show you all my favorite places. itll be so much fun!!!!!!!!! :D <3 jade

Ow. I think this is the only time John cries in the entire comic.

A Single Tear(™) is a bit of an understated reaction to the death of one of your best friends who you just recently learned is also your twin sister, but to be fair, John isn’t left with very much time to react, as next panel Jack Noir’s sword is pointed at his face.

BRIGHT: John knows about dream selves and waking selves by now, I think?

CHEL: He knows they’re a thing but I don’t think he knows they count as backup lives. AT told Jade dream selves can die separately from regular selves but I don’t think anyone told John.

FAILURE ARTIST: Jack Noir wants the ring, but then he’s stopped by Jade’s gift: a robotic bunny wielding multiple weapons.

They line up for a fight.

Hours in the future, on a destroyed planet, AR wraps police tape around himself and becomes a Aimless Renegade. Before the disaster, he went to the Veil, where he found a sleeping John. He saves John by putting him on a rocket board.

Back to the robotic bunny. Jack Noir flies away from the fight. Grandpa’s battleship lands and Grandpa takes away Jade’s body. Mom and Dad disembark the ship and wave goodbye as it leaves. Grandpa cries a Single Tear as he transports Jade’s already taxidermed body. Did he have a machine?

CHEL: For that matter, why isn’t he helping anyone who’s actually still alive while he’s there?

HURRY UP AND DO NOTHING: 10

FAILURE ARTIST: Nope, transporting a dead body is more important.

Again going back, White Queen leaves Prospit. On landing, she becomes Windswept Questant and wanders the Earth. We go forward years later. She repairs the laboratory and meets up with AR, WV, and PM. WV’s homemade spear hides the ring.

John watches this scene through the clouds of Skaia. He looks at the ring in his hand. In another cloud, there’s Jade’s laboratory. We close in on it and inside is The Fourth Wall. It isn’t turned on, but we are still lead to Andrew Hussie, banging away on a computer keyboard as he recaps the plot for a second time.

CHEL: Which we shall do as well when we’re done with this section, because it’s insanely hard to keep track of everything.

FAILURE ARTIST: Andrew Hussie says Nanna’s comet landed 99 years before John’s “birth” so he has some clue about the age but still doesn’t see it odd that a woman that age has a son who is probably only in his thirties.

CHEL: As I said, it’s also possible Dad was really old too, but that’s never really suggested. Not to mention, since they were brought into existence as toddlers, shouldn’t the kids be noticeably older than the ages given for them? John should be biologically fourteen to fifteen by now and at that age that can make a visible difference. I know the art style doesn’t really give clues, but no one I’ve seen has ever pointed that out in fanfic either.

FAILURE ARTIST: Newborns aren’t distinctive looking and can’t really do the cute things toddlers do. People in TV and movies regularly give birth to six month old infants so it’s not strange.

CHEL: True, but this isn’t TV, it’s a comic, and they don’t have to use an actual infant as a prop here.

BRIGHT: Possibly it’s intentional. Among other things, we see the newly-created players survive short trips through vacuum, crash-land on Earth without even minor injuries, and handle weapons they shouldn’t be able to lift for another four or five years. This could work if players have superhuman abilities (that is, beyond the classpect system). If that was the intent then it really should be made more explicit, though.

Of course, what it really boils down to is that Homestuck runs off Rule of Cool and Rule of Funny, and occasionally breaks down on examination as a result.

On the whole this is a solid Act, I think! We have a lot of new stuff happening, more characters get introduced, and we find out some more about the trolls. It’s much less rambling than Act 1.

COUNTS ALL THE LUCK: 0 ARE YOU TRYING TO BE FUNNY?: 18 CALL CPA PLEASE: 8 CLOCKWORK PROBLEMATYKKS: 19 GET ON WITH IT!: 18 GORE GALORE: 10 HOW NOT TO WRITE A WEBCOMIC: 15 HURRY UP AND DO NOTHING: 10 IN HATE WITH MY CREATION: 0 RELATIONSHIP GOALS?: 1 SEND THEM TO THE SLAMMER: 1 SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS: 0 WHAT IS HAPPENING??: 9 WHITE SBURB POSTMODERNISM: 19 TOTAL: 127