#so i was also mad about that in addition to the central plot conflict

[opendragon]

had a four hour dream where my ex and i were stuck in the same house and arguing there was tension and intrigue and bright colors and family and chickens and people playing irl minecraft and cats. it was wonderful

[yamayuandadu]

Circe by Madeline Miller: a review

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

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

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

[incarnateirony]

The start of a gallery regarding Belphegor and the guys, but including a great deal of meta and extra gifs behind the cut, including relevance explicitly to Dean and Castiel, as well as Belphegor’s mythological relevance.

Edit: Since this post is making the rounds I’ma drop in my Belphegor meta-fanvid too. The meta/extra gifs are below the vid. 

Yeah I know I’m a day late, no I don’t know if anyone has beaten me to this, I know some people beat me to talking about belphegor beyond me vagueblog screaming about him showing up on twitter with livetweets. For those who haven’t seen:

Belphegor - a Moabite god absorbed into Hebrew lore and then Christianity as a major DEMON. The name Belphegor means “lord of opening” or “lord Baal of Mt. Phegor.” As a Moabite deity, he was known as Baal-Peor and ruled over fertility and sexual power. He was worshipped in the form of a phallus. -- that giant rock he talked about worshipping, there you go.

In the KABBALAH, Belphegor was an angel in the order of principalities prior to his fall. He is one of the Togarini, “the wranglers.” He is an archdemon who is part of the demonic counterparts to the angels who rule the 10 sephirot of the Tree of Life; he rules over the sixth sephirah. He sits on a pierced chair, for excrement is his sacrificial offering. In Christian demonology, Belphegor is the incarnation of one of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS, sloth, characterized by negligence and apathy. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, all sins that arise from ignorance are caused by sloth. 

Belphegor also rules misogyny and licentious men. He emerged from HELL to investigate the marital state among humans. For a time, he lived as a man to experience sexual pleasures. Appalled, he fled back to hell, happy that intercourse between men and women did not exist there.-- here’s the big block that I find fascinating.

Gully, Rosemary. 2009. The Encyclopedia of Demons and Demonology. New York: Visionary Living, Inc., pp. 27-28.

(For more discussion of Belphegor’s history and mythology on this blog, click this link (x) but I’m mostly narrowing it down to what’s relevant for address here.)

With that out of the way, I refer you to the gallery above, which is only a fraction of what I’ve clipped from the episode.

(Edit: As new things have come to light with a rewatch, or as new thoughts come up, I’ve been reblogging this post with additions; however, at the end of the post, I’m going to make headline titles for update thresholds and include it in here as a sort of Belphegor introduction masterpost. Any time I get to glance at part of this episode again it just gets LOUDER.)

The camera work is uncanny. Castiel and Dean are repeatedly cast not only as a unit, or Sam blotted off, or divided, but of a point of focus. A few more examples:

Oh wow Belphegor really just staring at them.

Think I’m just choosing frames I like? Check back at the scene. Whenever Sam engages it’s literally from a different, peripheral shot as so:

This filming style isn’t single shots, but the entire scene. Oh, I don’t mean the entire scene, I mean the entire episode. The only place this rule wavers is when literally everybody is packed in the Impala, including when they save the mother and child, and until people decompress it’s impossible to do such controlled shots.

But then there IS when they decompress as I put in the original gallery.

Belphegor sits witness to the pain and upset over Cas, unable to look at him. And, shortly after talking about the giant penis he used to worship and flirting with Dean, asks who the child was to them after Cas has stormed out, finding out about it being their son.

At this point both Castiel and Dean have had their standoffs with Belphegor, which I side by sided in the top gallery. But Dean’s integration with Belphegor goes an entirely extra level.

We’ll handwave any deep readings about the heart of a man being needed -- but the simple fact is, as we know, this is when Dean and Belphegor encounter the white woman.

That alone is a fascinating point;

Whether you take Sam’s encounter as his serial killer fetish, or his clown phobia, or some people’s read of toxic parenting, or a combination of these -- the first two more likely to tickle the general audience -- this is clear.

Whether you take Cas’ encounter with Bloody Mary as the secret about Jack and guilt over Mary, or the secret over the Empty and general guilt over failing Jack, his connection is loudly clear.

The woman in white was a spouse betrayed by her partner and driven to madness where she killed her children and then herself -- something fairly clear if we remember the metaphorical ledge Dean was on at the end of the season that he steered away from, but the argument continues.

Blahblah *heterosexual handwave* just subtext just interpretation only the other two matter for Reasons(TM), we know how that will go. This, or the random divorce drop from the victim girls for totally inoccuous and random reasons aside, is just a worthwhile note to put in here as we consider the framing of Belphegor.

Throughout the episode, Sam has no identifiable major exchange with Belphegor. He happens to be in the vicinity, occasionally mediating Dean and Cas, or in the same car, but there is no forward led conversation, there is no personal tension or banter, and most of all there isn’t even any attempt at directorial focus. If anything, directorial blotting. Sam’s plot shines more in being a forward moving, smart hunter mediating the two here, but if we’re here to look at Belphegor--

As Castiel sadly watches the rescued mother and child go to the school, in the wake of the death of his son, Dean only tersely checks on him. It’s strained, and Castiel is left staggered, only for us yet again to find Belphegor framed into the conversation, observing, as he has through the previous shots.

Belphegor’s placement is right between Dean and Cas, leaving it almost inevitable that as we move forward, he will annex emotional territory if by trust or nuisance to dig a deeper wound and antagonize the marriage he observes dissolving in front of him, a very personal and living manifestation of their struggles for these two to overcome, and inevitably part of what will send Castiel away briefly in 15.3 as he feels himself growing more and more detached from the Winchesters -- particularly Dean, as Sam is actively still engaging with him as is typical of them but like Entertainment Weekly recently put it, Castiel does has his favorite Winchester, and they’re totally-not-going-through-divorce-waves here, just totally heterosexual brovorce, of course. 

Given considering my position of the overt and present canonicity of their relationship please note I’m only writing sarcastically towards the inevitable stupidity that haunts this fandom via anti dialogue and those that internalize it, but here it is, folks.  

If anyone wants to even try to challenge me, I invite them to find Sam drawing belphegor’s focus on any front or being framed in the shots as Castiel and Dean are here. Belphegor is ... going to be a ride, folks. Buckle up. He’s literally been observing the hunter husbands, wracked with pain over the loss of their child, in active conflict despite their lingering stance as a unit, having held his ground with both of them to feel out their pain and rage each to themselves, and left to sit, and watch, and find what dark humor he may watch from them. 

“Wanna talk about it?”

(Suggested reading: check out @tinkdw​‘s post about them dividing Cas from his humanity *ba dum chink* and focusing on his angelicness this episode) 

----

UPDATE 1

A belated addendum a few hours late I forgot to include but intended to: It has not escaped me that Dean and Cas also were both part of Belphegor’s spell casting. The aforementioned heart of a man with the trivial second ingredient of salt (truly not trivial at all in the alchemical scale of it, but that’s a topic for another time--just in SPNverse it seems weirdly easy; breaking down the alchemy in the last few seasons and the use of the salt in spell is its own essay), and the other common graveyard dirt and very conveniently angel blood. These things both created intensely powerful deus ex machinas that fall back to other points I made in the OP that are incredibly suspicious about the arrangement, and I’m more curious on if we should expect multiple parts of a spell eg reverse trials if you will or what. 

I don’t consider these things a lack in SPN spellcasting integrity in writing. I consider these warnings.

UPDATE 2

Along with updates in the original post, someone posted this clip on twitter giggling about Dean’s expression, and something else I somehow missed the first time caught my eye.

Every time Belphegor opts to observe people or turn, while he comments on beauty and appearance (or stone penises or Dean being gorgeous), beyond his individual compliment of Dean – he is turning his head at couples. Or, well, we assume couples. At Units Of Two People. The two people units are:

A woman and a woman A man and a woman A man and a man.

Outside of the vehicle Belphegor is not taking any particular time paying attention to individuals. Only duos. The two women pass in front of the hearts, and one (the woman in khaki) even gestures at it to sort of make the woman in green look.

The man and the women walk by, vaguely locking arms. 

Belphegor looks straight between these units. He leans forward, discussing people on earth being attractive. He turns and looks out the window to observe the two men now walking past the window with hearts.

Drops the comment about worshipping a giant penis, and so forth.

But the direct observation of duos, potentially queer ones literally framed in hearts in case anybody misses it for not being hetnorm, is… well, in lieu of the OP, this is. Yeah. It’s a whole thing. Holy crap.

UPDATE 3

This one isn’t necessarily big enough for a central update, and isn’t even entirely Belphegor focused as Belphegor adjacent. A friend ( @tarend ) had asked passively why bikes were so prominently featured in this episode, so here’s what I’ve found.

The green and blue bikes feature predominantly in the clown victim house from the first scene we see the garage, fairly early in the episode and every other showing until they’re extracted from the house. Often central, doorway, access, or backshadow in most shots. Trying to pin it on a single character would be ignoring the broadness of it, but the presence was enough to take note of.

Various two people units roll around with bikes of different and more muted colors.

The two dudes, one of them has a green bike and one has a grocery sack which I imagine ISN’T fruit from the tree of life.

I do find it weird and, especially since the green and blue bike collectively manage to get several shared minutes of screen time in a busy episode, I have to wonder, but I can’t find anything meaningful here without jumping to the common “green and blue” thing and a random joke-reach towards Queen which isn’t really my flavor of meta despite it even kind of matching the people passing by. The overlap is there and tangible, regardless, and passes in the background of Belphegor, so I’ll leave that here as a general sentiment. 

Compared to the above gold mine of far more overt material, if this ever was intended to be an intentional nod of some sort, I feel like it’s been overshadowed entirely by the other content which might as well have been blasted from a bull horn, but maybe someone else can find use in it in association. Aside from the street highlights in the car while Dean sits by with Belphegor, the prominent double bike placement is best witnessed rather than screenshot into eternity in any scene involving Clown House Garage.

Though I may point out the dynamic impala shot with the paired bikes in the background is immediately followed by a stroller that colllectively haunt the three people in the car, but whether I’d swear to that being intentionally syncretic, I’m unsure. But I do feel it’s worth notating.

I’m sure you all know I’m guarded about things like this fandom’s build on key colors and don’t apply it in meta outside of standard lighting theory, and generally even props are things I ignore unless they’re actual framing and blocking focuses, but the bikes do ride a line. They just lack the overall thematic story use most things I talk about do, like mystic symbols and the ilk. I would probably completely disregard this were it not for the other elements above, but now I’ll be keeping an eye on it.

UPDATE 4

Yet another thought more from @tarend than me, but his ass just about never posts so I might as well plug it into the viral post with some credit.

There seems to be painstaking effort to frame Belphegor with stop signs.

Cough

Crack aside it’s just some angle play that could be coincidence but I’m going to be throwing that out there for meta fodder for others while this spreads around until I can truly rewatch since life is seriously climbing me right now.

Tarend also points out the school was named after The Great Dissenter (Link).

I’m going to have a bit of a comparative study on Belphegor’s and Chuck’s mannerisms for consideration but life didn’t even give me 30 minutes for a video edit today much less a rewatch.

[tes-trash-blog]

So, uh, a while back you mentioned making a post about how Prisoner McNord might affect the player experience/perceptions of the "default" and I would be super interested in reading that

So!

I have a few thoughts already on what is considered “default” in Skyrim to be expanded upon in a future shitstorm rant (it’s on the list, between Almalexia Is Interesting Actually and Even More Crying About Snow Elves Part 17: My Tears Have Become Sentient And Are Also Crying).

And as always, keep in mind that Skyrim is coming up on 9 years old, elements of it have not aged well, and this is in no way, shape, or form meant to be a “If you like Skyrim then you’re Bad” rant. In case you haven’t noticed, I kind of love that game. It has flaws; all games do, and frankly it’s a miracle this game is as solid as it is. The writers are that, writers. They had deadlines to make, hardware limitations to consider, and above all else, worked for a company that wanted to make money.

To keep this relatively short I’ll focus on how your perception of Skyrim is influenced by the first few minutes of the game via Ralof, the Nordiest Nord to Nord since Ysgranord, and how the writers really, really really wanted you to hold on to that perception.

Overanalysis and spoilers (Metal Gear Solid, Borderlands, and Bioshock respectively yes this will all make sense in context) under the cut.

Part 1: How To Make A Perspective In Three Easy Steps

As the saying goes, first impressions are lasting impressions. This is evident in.. well, every bit of media you can find. The first chapters of a book, the first episode of a show, the first 15 minutes of a video game, all as a general rule:

1.) Introduces the setting, a part of the main plot, and with these two, sets the tone of the medium (high fantasy movie, light hearted TV show, mystery series, horror game, etc.). Exceptions exist, especially in horrors, mysteries, and certain visual novels, but even these exceptions rely on setting a tone so they can subvert your expectations later on.

2.) Give you an idea of what is going on. This is normally accomplished with exposition of some sort; Star Wars had its famous screen crawl expositing the dark times in the Galaxy, Borderlands literally begins with “So, you want to hear a story..”, Metal Gear Solid briefs Solid Snake (you, the player character) on a vital mission to save two hostages and end a terrorist threat, so on and so forth. And again, there are exceptions: Bioshock purposefully disorients you with a plane crash in the middle of the ocean so you’re inclined to trust the first person who talks to you.

This all serves to suspend disbelief, immerse you, and earn your trust. This is a new world, you have no idea what’s going on, so you’re gonna take cues from someone who does. Combine points 1 and 2, and that..

3.) Gives you an idea of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Damn near every story has a central conflict, you gotta pick a side, and there’s gonna be a bias as to which one is superior or morally just. Using Bioshock again, this mysterious man named Atlas guides you through the first level, and tells you how to fight and survive in the hostile environment of Rapture; meanwhile, Andrew Ryan taunts and belittles you, and also has a giant golden bust of himself. The shorthand is: Atlas is humble, helpful, and good, while Andrew Ryan is a megalomaniac who wants you dead. Leaning on Borderlands again, the first voice you hear is literally a guardian angel telling you not to be afraid, and that you are destined to do great things. Once more with Metal Gear: Your organization and your commanders are good, you are good because you’re saving innocent people, and FOXHOUND is bad because they’re terrorists who have the means to launch a nuclear warhead.

Keeping all this in mind, let’s do a quick runthrough of the first, let’s call it 15 minutes of Skyrim. No commentary on my end, just a play by play of the beginning of the game.

Part 2: First Impressions In Action

You wake up on a cart. Your vision is hazy, and you are clearly disoriented. You see a man bound and gagged, another man in rags, and several men dressed like soldiers. Everyone on the cart is tied up, and the people driving the cart are wearing a neat, vastly different uniform.

Then comes the famous line: “You! You’re finally awake! You were caught trying to cross the border, got caught in that Imperial ambush same as us, and that thief over there!” The thief bitterly remarks how these damn Stormcloaks had to cook up trouble in a nice and lazy Empire. The Nord who first spoke with you nobly says that we’re all brothers and sisters in these binds.

The presumed Imperial tells you all to shut up. Undeterred, the thief and the Stormcloak provide more exposition: The gagged man is the leader of the resistance, is supposedly the true High King, and since he’s on the cart, it’s clear that everyone on board is bound for the executioner’s block. The thief is terrified; the Nord accepts his fate, but takes a moment to opine on better days when he flirted with girls and “when the Imperial walls made him feel safe.” There is also a remark about General Tulius and the Thalmor agents; the Nord, in a rare bit of anger, damns the Elves and insinuates they had a hand in this capture.

It’s execution time. General Tulius gives a speech about how Ulfric started a civil war and killed the former High King; Ulfric, being gagged, cannot say a word in defense. A Stormcloak is executed to mixed reactions (“You Imperial bastards!” “Justice!”, etc.). The thief runs away; he is shot by Imperial archers, demonstrating the futility of escape. It’s your turn. The Nord in Imperial armor states you’re not on the list; the Imperial captain doesn’t care and orders you to the block anyway.

You see the headsman’s axe rise up when, as if the gods intervene, a dragon appears and interrupts your execution. In the chaos, you run with the Stormcloaks. The game does not give you the option to run away alone, or with the Imperials; until you meet Hadvar again in the fire and death, you take orders from Ulfric.

Part 3: The Crux

A lot happens in the first few minutes of Skyrim. You’re disoriented from being unconscious, and that’s compounded by your two near death experiences (point 2), the first person you meet is a calm, almost reassuring mouthpiece of exposition while the other side, at best, doesn’t care if you die (points 2 and 3), one major aspect of the plot is revealed (point 1, and the tone is that this is a classic Rebellion story).

And people love rebellion stories. Americans especially; we spend billions on the day when a bunch of white guys said “fuck you” to a bunch of other white guys. With the additional layer of when Skyrim was developed, by who, and in what landscape it was written.. Yeah. There may be two ways to go for the Civil War questline, but for most players (myself included!) their first gut instinct is going to be “side with the guys who didn’t just try to kill me.”

It’s the same song and dance. In Bioshock, your instinct is to trust the Irish guy who wants to help you get out of Rapture alive, but he needs your help first. In Borderlands, your instinct is to trust the woman who is literally called a guardian angel, and she shows her compassion by asking you to help the people of Fyrestone and the poor robot who got hurt in a gunfight. In Metal Gear, your instinct is to shut down the threat because terrorists are evil and these ones are not just terrorists, they’re deserters. Hell, even in other Elder Scrolls games the plot is laid out by helping hands: you’re a prisoner being contacted by your murdered friend, and given the goal to stop Jagar Tharn (Arena), you’re a Blades agent tasked with putting a vengeful spirit to rest that leads you to a weapon that can secure the Empire’s power (Daggerfall), Azura literally tells you not to be afraid, and that you destined to stop an old threat (Morrowind), and a soon-to-be-assassinated Emperor voiced by Actual Grandpa Patrick Stewart recognizes you in a prophetic dream (Oblivion).

Where Skyrim departs from these games, and even the other Elder Scrolls titles, is how much it enforces the first thing you see as solidly good and evil, and how little it tries to subvert that perception. Remember point 2, when the game makes it clear that this person is trustworthy? Therein lies the bread and butter of psychological horror, mysteries, and heart wrenching plot twists: that trust gets tested, and often broken.

The rebel leader Atlas? He’s somehow more evil than Andrew Ryan, and has subtly controlled you the entire time with a command phrase (“Would you kindly..?”). You are unable to stop yourself when you bludgeon Andrew Ryan to death at Ryan’s command. “A man chooses,” he tells you. “A slave obeys.” His final words are him telling you that you are a puppet, only able to obey.

The end of Borderlands reveals that “Angel” was watching you the entire time.. from a Hyperion satellite. You were tricked into opening a Vault holding back a dangerous monster, and you don’t even know why. Borderlands 2 goes further into just what (or rather who) Angel is: a teenage girl and a powerful Siren, used by her own demented, evil, father, Handsome Jack, to manipulate the Vault Hunters and gain more power for himself. Her final mission given to you is simple: she wants you to set her free and end her father’s mad march to power by killing her.

Metal Gear Solid ultimately plays it straight in that you stop the terrorists and disable the nuclear threat, but you don’t emerge from the rubble as an action hero; you’re forced to kill your own brother, the terrorist cell is revealed to be composed almost entirely of people exploited by your organization, and you secretly carry  a virus designed to kill the people you were trying to save. War, as it turns out, is not as clear-cut as “we good, they bad”. The people you’ve killed without thinking are your genetic brothers. Sniper Wolf, the assassin who shot your commander’s niece, survived a genocide and has never known a life outside of war. Psycho Mantis’ telepathic gifts were exploited by both the KGB and FBI until he lost his mind. Ocelot is Ocelot.

Oh, but those are other games. What about The Elder Scrolls? Well..

In Daggerfall, your search for hidden correspondence leads you to finding the Mantella, a sort of soul gem that can power the superweapon everyone wants: The Numidium. There are six entities total who want the Mantella, some for their personal gain, one to make a home for his people, and one so he may finally die; the Underking’s soul is in that gem, you see, and he’s been trapped in this misery since the days of Tiber Septim.

In Morrowind, Dagoth Ur recognizes you not as a schlub with a dummy thick journal, but as his oldest and dearest friend. The Empire who guided you for so long? They’ve manipulated you into taking down the Tribunal, destroying the one weapon that could stand against their might, and depending on your interpretation of “then the Nerevarine sailed to Akavir”, have possibly killed you.

And what of everyone’s favorite game in the series to mock? Surprise! Oblivion isn’t even about you, hero! It’s about the actual chosen one, Martin Septim! Sure you can join the Thieves’ Guild and cavort about as Grey Fox, or uncover the traitor of the Dark Brotherhood, or run off and become the Mad God.. but none of those events actually acknowledge you. To be the Grey Fox is to literally be forgotten, by the time the Dark Brotherhood questline is complete there is effectively no more Dark Brotherhood, and to become Sheogorath is to lose yourself entirely. The Hero of Kvatch is one who is ultimately forgotten. Your actions were important, have no doubt, but such is the fate of the unsung hero: they’re not sung about.

Even Arena plays a little bit with your expectations in that the Staff of Chaos alone isn’t enough to stop Jagar Tharn; you need friendship (just kidding it’s a magic gem in the Imperial Palace). Skyrim.. kinda glosses over that. They land a few punches, but for them to stay with you, you have to keep an open mind.

Part 4: Why does that matter?

Because if your expectations are never subverted, your trust never tried in any meaningful way, then your perception of a very specific, spoon-fed worldview is never challenged. The trust you build with a group that is, in essence, a fascist paramilitary cult is never shaken in any way that’s meaningful. You get some lines intended to evoke sadness when you sack Whiterun, but by then it’s too late. Not that it matters; at the end of the Stormcloak questline, there’s not much question about who was in the right. You never lose friends or allies; the Jarls in the holds change, but is there much difference between Idgrod Ravencrone and Sorli the Builder? You might feel a little guilty when you see the Dunmer forced to live in the slums, but then the haughty High Elf says that she didn’t laze around and instead made a name for herself, or the Dark Elf farmer who complains about his snowflake kinsmen harping on about “injustices”. The Argonians seem decent until you meet the skooma addict/thief, and the Khajiit.. let’s just say that even if we disregard the two Khajiit assassins sent to kill you, there exist a lot of extremely harmful stereotypes that none of your friends dispel. They commit no horrific war crimes in your presence, the worst you hear is a Nord (normally a bandit) yell “Skyrim is for the Nords!”, or the clumsy Welcome to Winterhold script where a Dunmer woman is harassed by two Nords; one’s a veteran, by the way. Got run through the chest by an Imperial craven, or so the story goes.

Your only chance to rattle the Nord-driven story is to go against your gut feeling and side with the Imperials (the plotline is pretty weak, not gonna lie), or complete the optional quest No One Escapes Cindha Mine where you see what a Stormcloak sympathizer does to the Forsworn. Even if you complete that quest, the Forsworn still attack you. “They’re savages,” say the Nords, and the game isn’t too inclined to say otherwise.

When it comes to portraying the Nords in any light that’s not negative, Skyrim doesn’t deliver like it did in other games. You saw what life is like in Morrowind under Tribunal rule; it’s not great. The Houses are almost universally awful and they have slaves. You see the destruction in Cyrodiil and hear the rumors on how much the Empire is flailing with the Oblivion Crisis. Hell, even Arena tells you that life in Tamriel kind of sucks, but it’ll suck a little less when Tharn is dead.

That doesn’t happen in Skyrim. You are encouraged to join the sympathetic Stormcloaks, you find out your destiny as Dragonborn, and you set all these things right. Of course you do. You’re a hero, baby. Others have gone on about how storybook the Dragonborn questline is so I won’t go too much in, but that’s it exactly: Storybook. You’re Neutral Good. You’re going to kill the bad dragon that wants to do its job and eat the world. 

And that refusal to really examine the nuances and horrors of war, to consider what it means to be a hero that is never morally challenged or forced into a Total Perspective Vortex, to never challenge an extremely biased perspective or even explore its “logical” conclusion?

It leads to extremely dangerous ways of thinking if unchecked.

[kinetic-elaboration]

December 29: The Wrath of Khan

Today’s movie watching was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

My overall impression versus TMP is that this is clearly a smoother and more consistently entertaining film. It has a definite story with very little filler, good pacing, a lot of great little dialogue and character moments, and a strong conflict at its center.

But its sci fi bona fides are much weaker. Like by a lot.

Mom and I are talking a bit about Genesis and the more we talk, the weaker it appears to me. First, it’s not really as believable, imo, as a lot of Star Trek. Maybe it’s because it’s not alien based, but I just have a harder time suspending disbelief to think this is possible. Second, it’s not clear why anyone thought this was a good idea. I mean, as McCoy immediately pointed out, it just seems so CLEARLY dangerous: an object meant to foster creation that could so easily be the worst weapon the universe has ever known--nothing could go awry there! Third, the reason for creating such a device isn’t obvious at all. Carol mentions the “growing population” and “food scarcity” but nothing we’ve ever seen of the Federation implies they’re running out of space. Or, frankly (Tarsus IV aside), food. And fourth, there really isn’t any point to Genesis in all its particulars in this film. Like, obviously, its actual purpose is a plot device to resurrect Spock. Within just this film, it doesn’t do anything. Khan wants it, for some reason I’ve already forgotten even though I just saw the film, and he gets it, but I didn’t even notice that happening, because it was so unimportant. His REAL mission is his single minded revenge fantasy on Kirk. Genesis is just a McGuffin/space filler/plot device for the next film.

And honestly that’s not such a big deal, except that when you compare it to TMP, ,and its central idea of a human made probe that gained so much knowledge, doing what we taught it to do, that it became sentient and then started searching for the meaning of life, and how this relates to the search for meaning experienced by the main alien lead, and how his search, in that film and throughout the series, is a mirror for humans and OUR need for purpose... well it just seems really weak. “We made this really dangerous and unrealistic thing for no reason whoops!”

Mom is now criticizing Kirk for being too slow on the uptake when he first encounters the Reliant, which is fair. That’s pretty OOC of him. The idea that he’s too old for space is both one that I must personally disregard, and one that the film would have you discard, since we’ve already heard from TWO characters, the people who know him best, that his best destiny is as a starship captain, and command is his proper role. And that he might be a little rusty is also not a great explanation imo, because the rust was supposed to have come off in TMP. So, plot hole probably.

We were trying to do some math--TMP is at least 2 years post 5YM and TWOK is at least 10 years post TMP, so at least 8 years post TMP. I can understand more rust growing but like... he was already an Admiral in TMP and the idea that he was out of practice with actual command was a big part of his arc there. So it doesn’t seem warranted to do that again.

Also, the way he was commanding poorly in TMP was very IC: he was pushing too hard, trying too much, caring too much about the mission and not enough about...the laws of physics. That’s very Kirk. Being slow on the uptake, caught with his britches down--that’s not Kirk. Plus, with no one to call him out on it, like Decker did in TMP, his poor command doesn’t seem like a big character obstacle to overcome but just like...sloppiness all around.

I thought Khan was over all... just not that interesting. I guess I’m just not into the obsession/revenge plot. Also...idk man he didn’t seem that super to me. He outsmarted Kirk, like, once, and Kirk outsmarted him like 4 times. He tortured some people--but regular humans can do that. He used those sandworm thingies, which is also something humans could do. Overall, he didn’t seem to have any particularly special skills. The only time he really seemed like a worthy adversary for Kirk was when Kirk wasn’t really being IC himself.

I’m also not into the fridging of his wife. Think how much cooler it would have been if she’d still been alive! The only non-super human in the bunch and she’s still there! Ex-Starfleet and bitter!

The K/S in this film is very soothing. Imo they are clearly together here, and the whole film is better if you assume they’re boyfriends and everyone knows. That Vulcan convo that Spock and Saavik have? Waaaaay funnier if you think she’s talking about his boyfriend (”not what I expected....very human” “Well no one’s perfect”). Every time they call each other ‘friend’ like ““friend”“? All the Looks? The birthday gift?

Also the “I have been and always shall be your [friend]” scene is a wedding I will not be taking criticism on this opinion. Could it have been written more like a vow? I think not. It’s not quite This Simple Feeling but it’s the best this film has in that regard.

I liked Saavik and I do think she’s one of the better later-movie additions (though I only like her, as far as I can remember, when played by Kirstie Alley). She didn’t necessarily strike me as super alien, though, at least not at first... But I appreciated how persistent she was about the stupid test, and her regulation quoting. I enjoyed her. I also liked how she was obviously Spock’s protege, which makes her Kirk’s step-protege, and they had just a little bit of that awkward dynamic going on. (”Did you change your hair?”)

The Bones and Kirk relationship was great in this film. You can really feel their friendship and their history with each other. Bones knows him so well and can be honest with him, just when Kirk needs it most.

I also love how Kirk has the SAME conversation with both Bones and Spock (re: being a captain again) but with Spock it’s sooooo much flirtier. In case you weren’t sure what the difference in these two relationships is.

Bonus: this bit of dialogue: Spock: “Be careful, Jim.” / Bones: “WE will.” Lol Spock people who aren’t your boyfriend do exist.

Obviously, I cried during THAT scene. Honestly AOS should have taken note about how to do emotional scenes like that: they come after the main action is over and the villain is defeated. Then they hit at the right time and to the right degree. Kirk just slumping down after Spock dies....like he’s boneless...like he doesn’t know what to do... I CANNOT.

I feel so bad for him that I’ll even forgive him that awful eulogy. Spock died for Genesis? Uh, no, he died for the Enterprise, and for YOU. Spock is the “most human”? You shut your whoreson mouth

I remember hating both Carol and David but I actually hated them less this time, Carol especially. My mom is being really harsh about her, though, which makes me feel less confident in my assessment. I mean first off, she’s the inventor of Genesis, which is a pretty big strike against her. Second...pretty lame to keep Kirk from David. Although I did some vague math and Kirk would only have been about 21, still in the Academy, when David was born, so you can see how that would work out. Also, she distinctly says “Were we together?” which means they were not--this was a fuck buddy arrangement for sure. More complicated. But it still feels weird to retcon that, like, he’s known THIS WHOLE TIME that he’s a dad and we’re only learning about it now, as an audience.

Anyway I’m getting off track. Carol. What to make of her? Is she unstable? Is she still mad at Kirk? My mom points out that she just decided on her own that David would want to join Starfleet if he knew Kirk was his father--whereas what seems to have happened instead is he didn’t just become a civilian scientist like his mom but became her specific protege--working on a project where everyone was probably handpicked by her? I would assume? Also..he hates Starfleet. Not to put everything on the mom, but how did that happen?

Also...going down the rabbit hole of this and feeling awkward about it... but David KNEW Kirk. As “that guy you hung around with.” That means Kirk was in his life for quite a while, long enough for him to have memories, and long enough for those memories to still be with him even into his 20s. But he was never allowed to know who Kirk was. That means Carol’s rule must have been “You can see your son but you can’t tell him who you are” which in some way seems meaner to me than just “please don’t contact us again.” If he was already on his way into space, that could even make sense--”I know you’re not going to be able to be a family with us, so let’s not pretend, let’s make a clean break now.” But that wasn’t what happened!

Anyway whatever not to be HAICG!Kirk about this or anything lol

David is mostly annoying because he’s so anti-Kirk lol. I found him least annoying when he came around to Kirk at the end. Another big strike against him: he wore his sweater tied over his shoulders in such a Preppy manner. I honestly don’t see what about him is supposed to be reminiscent of Kirk.

David/Saavik was definitely happening lol. I wish I could have heard that conversation. It sounds like she told him a lot!!! Not sure why she attached herself to this particular annoying human so fast but I guess she did.

....I think that might be all. The uniforms and general styling were much better than TMP (though less funny/entertaining), and it was certainly an enjoyable overall yarn. A lot to pick apart and critique but in a fun way. Will probably watch The Search for Spock soon.

[mittensmorgul]

Do you think Chuck made Sam and Eileen like each other? Are you sure? Because that is not exactly the truth. They had a legitimate attraction since s11, when they met. Chuck just manipulated the situation, using a spell and helping her to reach the bunker. He didn't need to do anything else. Chuck knew that the two of them together in the bunker would undoubtedly result in a romance. Because their attraction is real. Their feelings are real. Chuck didn't manipulated it.

*sighs heavily and then looks into the endless depths of your sunglasses and wonders why we’re still doing this three months on*

If you see it that way, more power to you, honestly. I wish I could. 

but also, and perhaps most importantly:

The fact that I am incapable of seeing it that way has no bearing on whether or not *you* see it that way.

Seriously. You are free to carry on with that cheerful and unproblematic view of events. Please feel free to continue to enjoy the ship as you see fit. You do not need the permission of randos typing on the internet to enjoy the show in whatever way pleases you best.

Here’s where I’m personally hitting a wall with it that nothing in canon has enabled *me personally* to climb over. To me, this isn’t something I can personally engage in a debate over, because everyone attempting to debate me on this point insists that the only satisfactory resolution to a conversation here is my unconditional acceptance of Sam and Eileen’s relationship as incontestably pure and free from the stain of Chuck’s influence. And I’m gonna put this next bit in its own paragraph, because I really, really need people to understand this, because it’s not about *you* it’s about *me*:

Because of experiences in my own life, I am incapable of seeing it that way.

Please reread that last sentence, and really, really think about what I’m telling you here. And then reconsider this campaign to convince me that I’m somehow wrong here. If I’m wrong, if canon is headed toward a Sam and Eileen happy endgame scenario, that will play out on screen in a way that I won’t be able to deny, with both of them making choices out of their own free will, untainted by Chuck’s control going forward.

If you can truly see them as already romantic, then please consider yourself lucky. Understand that some of us do not have that luxury.

As to your other points, I have never said that Chuck “made Sam and Eileen like each other.” Of course Sam and Eileen liked each other before. That’s literally what I said in the post I made about this *yesterday*:

On the surface, it’s different because Sam and Eileen actually LIKED each other before, years in the past before her untimely death.

You can read that whole (long) post here, because pulling statements out of context doesn’t serve anyone:

https://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/post/190972379710/mad-as-a-box-of-frogs-mittensmorgul-i-just

But canon has also informed us that despite having LIKED each other when they met in 11.11, Eileen did not become a major part of Sam’s life until we saw her again in 12.17. That’s fanon. The assumption that when we did see her again, that she and Sam had been carrying on a year-long relationship offscreen. We WANTED it to be true, because how many times has Sam had someone in his life like that? But canon has told us that despite that initial chemistry, they had not had that sort of relationship. Between 11.11 and 12.17, Sam never once mentioned her. And within a few episodes of 11.11, watching in real time, most of us accepted the fact that she was-- as a hunter and a legacy MoL-- a potential future ally, but like every other one-off episode hunter, not someone who had become central to Sam’s story. The vast majority of us... accepted that and moved on.

There was a LOT of excitement over the potential for her return in 12.17, but with the power of hindsight, and s15 literally doubling down on the fact by literally making Eileen’s return a direct manipulation by Chuck for this exact purpose, when she died in 12.21 for Sam’s pain, we took our outrage at that ending for her and began writing fix-it fic, headcanoning that she couldn’t really be dead, and inventing a mythical romance between her and Sam filling in that entire year between the two times they’d actually interacted in canon. Because we were ANGRY. Rightfully so.

But canon has told us again that this did not happen. That wasn’t real.

Did they like each other? OF COURSE THEY DID!

Did they have the potential to have become a romantic couple? It really seemed possible back in 12.17, yes.

Did it actually happen that way? Canon says it did not. Sam himself repeatedly said it did not. That their relationship wasn’t like that. The fact that Eileen felt she had to leave after the events of 15.09 confirms it did not. If she knew for a fact that her feelings for Sam were real, if they’d established a romantic relationship before she died in 12.21 and therefore already had a solid foundation for their feelings for one another, she wouldn’t have felt conflicted about staying.

Look at it this way, and try to understand why--in addition to everything else I’ve written about s15, about Chuck’s manipulation, about the specific story he wants to unfold, about all the rest of what canon has been working through this season regarding Fate and Free Will and Chuck’s Will controlling the events of the story, how Chuck not only had Eileen stashed in Hell for two and a half years but then brought her back and arranged it so she was literally the only soul to escape hell to also escape Belphegor’s containment spell AND Rowena’s death spell, only to show up at the exact right moment after Chuck’s previous “lessons” to Sam and Dean had brought Sam to his lowest moment of hopelessness and tormented him with horrific visions only to give him a moment of reprieve, and then orchestrated the entirety of 15.06 specifically to give Sam yet another false sense of hope before ultimately breaking him in 15.09-- I can’t ignore these facts, or convince myself that they somehow don’t apply, or can be overlooked for the convenience of insisting that there aren’t any seriously complicating factors in this singular case.

Again, if you’re able to do that, seriously, please, consider yourself lucky. And maybe try to understand how the phrasing of your message feels like it’s doubling down on the gaslighting. 

I don’t know how many times I need to reiterate that I have zero objections to Sam and Eileen together as an endgame couple, but I can’t see them as already having established a romantic relationship. They literally had one kiss, and in context it was a “goodbye, but please know that I actually do like you, that part was real” on Sam’s part.

I mean... Dean canonically gave Jo a similar kiss in 5.10 right before she died. I don’t really see Sam and Eileen’s kiss any differently. I can’t. Because of ^^^ all of that. Dean and Jo’s kiss wasn’t the acknowledgement that they’d been carrying on a romance up to that point. It didn’t prove a canon romantic pairing here. It was a “if only this had happened differently, maybe we could’ve had a chance.” The difference here is that Eileen... is no longer dead. They do have a potential chance in the future, and I have never denied that. I have no idea what you believe you need to convince me of here, but until canon actually has Sam and Eileen express their desires and intents to pursue a romantic relationship in a way that isn’t inextricably tied to Chuck’s plot manipulations, I’m gonna stand on what I’ve already said. Please stop trying to convince me that Chuck’s manipulation isn’t very, very real. Because in my personal experience here, the manipulation is very, very real. Waaaaayyyyyyy too real for comfort.

And that is EXACTLY all the truth I need.

[rooneywritesbest]

NANCY D?EW: 2019 The CW

By: Brendan Rooney & Cory Dominic

Nancy Drew is a show like no other. It may not try anything new in the sense of structure or plot, but it does update the story of the source material which was written back in 1930. What was once a story about a teenage sleuth dealing with teenage problems and solving cases that could be always be solved by pointing at an adult is now tackling issues like loss of a parent, murder or even the supernatural.

The CW’s Nancy Drew, a story about a modern-day outta high school girl working at the local diner the Claw; torn between two realities of life leaving for college, and putting her troubled past behind her.

 On the other hand, Nancy still plagued with the guilt of losing her mom and knows that nothing will ever be the same decides to stay in the desolate rural society of Horseshoe Bay for the concern of her father. The more she looks into the people of the town she notices the darkness within.  

 When one of the town socialites is murdered she and her friends are the suspects, but she must now try to uncover what actually happened. The B plot of the season is about a girl who died 20 years ago ala Dead Lucy; absentee Lawyer father Carson, and a whole lot of “CW Fog” this is new sexy Nancy Drew. 

 One of the flaws of Nancy Drew is that it tries too hard to fit into too many genres. The first distinction that many would think when they watch the pilot is that the screenplay is reflective of Pretty Little Liars, and the many other teen soap operas tangled with the mystery of murder.

However, the thing that makes Nancy Drew stand above from their predecessors is the spirit of character direction.

The beautifully stunning Kennedy McMann a fairly newcomer when it comes to the small screen shines as she perfectly plays the loveable too good for her own good Nancy.

McMann also brings a sense of conflict to the role of the sleuth with the plot-driven by inner monologues while she puts up a wall of emotions to keep everyone she holds closest away from her due to her tragic past of mortality not being a case she could solve with the loss of her mother.

Acting as a catalyst that keeps her trapped in the prison of Horseshoe Bay, and a schism that tears her family apart.

The supporting cast is Scott Wolf who plays Nancy’s Dad. Wolf brings a certain fresh take on a blue collared workaholic father. He is no stranger to the small screen though as he played Bailey Salinger on the hit 90’s sitcom Party of Five. Though he plays an adult on ‘Drew’ he plays it as such as if it were my own parents. A CW parent, but a parent nonetheless.

In addition to the stacked cast, I noticed from observation is that one of the bigger plot devices is based around loss, and in fashion, the five stages of grief.

The first stage is Denial. On the show, Nancy doesn’t come to grips with the cold truth that it was her mother who died was holding her back as if since her mother died she wasn’t able to live her life thus she put it all on hold and settled in her cozy life in Horseshoe Bay.  

The second stage of Grief is Anger. Nancy definitely shows anger, she might not be mad externally but you can tell that the anger drives her from the first time Nancy mentions the loss of her mother. It’s a powerful acting ability displayed by McMann who captures the determination while also showing her softer sides in every scene she’s in.  

The next stage of Grief is Bargaining. In Ep 4 Nancy is at her Mom’s grave. Somewhere she would never go to. Repressing the very thought of her mother being gone. However, the interaction McMann puts on display is triumphant. Her passion and emotion can be felt through the screen of someone who has lost everything and is now willing to ask for one more day with the deceased. In closing the show is still new it may not be a hit with everyone, but it does have a little something for everyone it has drama, star-studded cast, great writing. So tune in to the CW Wednesdays 9 pm 8 Central

[zyzzyva1936-blog-blog]

“Lemma the Librarian - The Last Dance”

Published: 14 April 2018*

http://www.mcstories.com/LemmaTheLibrarian/index.html

“The Last Dance” brings an end to the episodic nature of the series. Everything from here on out is welded quite tightly into the main plot - or, rather, the main plot constitutes what happens in the last three stories. Spoilers for “The Last Dance” from here on out. What seems like a straightforward get-the-book smash-and-grab (which involves Lemma and Iola going undercover in a harem, because @midorikonton knows which side her bread is buttered on) turns into the return of fairy murdergoblin “Red” for his third and final confrontation with Lemma. Red loses, although mostly thanks to Iason and Rhoda and Rhoda’s Machamp rage-demon Sonneillon. (Rhoda being, of course, the person Lemma used the ghost last time to call for.)

Lemma’s desire to be enslaved is something she’s been dealing with, more or less successfully, up until this point, but it’s something Iason and Iola don’t actually know about yet. That reticence is now coming back to bite her in the ass. The most important conflict in this story isn’t the fight against Red, or Lugal’s** magic clothes; it’s between Lemma and Iola over what the right course of action while trapped in the palace is. Lemma wants to give in, of course, but Iola’s experience with mind-control has been a lot more traumatic than Lemma’s, and she has a very strong personal/cultural “go down fighting” ethos, and she doesn’t seem to have this particular kink on any level anyways. We were reminded just last story of all of Iola’s trauma around the whole magical mind-controlled sex thing. But unlike that time, Lemma, for strategic reasons, doesn’t feel like she has to room to let Iola do her own thing. So she doesn’t just go along with the enchantments, she actively throws her magical weight behind glamouring Iola too. Iola doesn’t know the actual reasons Lemma did this, but I’m not sure it’d make a difference anyways: she would understand it, correctly, as just as awful a betrayal either way.

The party - now up to four with the addition of Rhoda - is off to Hattush to find the last, most apocalyptic book, and it’s all very dramatic. But what sticks with me the most about the end is Iola’s refusal to tell Lemma everything’s ok.

*Look, it was supposed to be out this week, but the EMCSA (my canonical reference for links and dates) is on a one week break, I’m travelling next week, and its been posted to Tumblr now. Also it’s been burning a hole in my drafts folder for nearly a month now. ;P

**His death at the hands of Red is a little abrupt, but he’s enough of a controlling jerk I can’t brink myself to feel too sorry for him. Plus, you know, dying abruptly is a peril of kingship. (If Red had murdered, say, poor Simta, I’d be a lot angrier; but Jenny seems to have learned her lesson since the Vamp!Brea business***.)

***Yes, I’m still mad. ;P

When The Fuck Are We? 🤷

For the first time, we’re further back in time than the Bronze Age Collapse! “Possession with Intent” is set in Khemeth, which is clearly K•m•t, Egypt*. Ancient Egypt is one of those things everyone at least knows a little about** so I’ll focus on two slightly more obscure points.

The first is Iason’s reference to Khemeth being “the breadbasket of the Inner Sea”, which is both true and false in an interesting way. Egypt, being spectacularly fertile, essentially one-dimensonal, and laid out on a lazy, easily navigable river, is indeed just about the optimum imaginable setting for extracting massive food surpluses with ancient technology and governance. But it wasn’t a big export from Egypt (Egypt’s main ancient export was papyrus, thanks to its ecologically-enforced monopoly). Rather, it was mostly used to pump up Egypt’s own population, and in particular the showpiece capital cities such as Memphis, Thebes, or Alexandria. In the ancient world, having an unnecessarily - nay, infeasibly - large capital was a point of pride, which is where Egypt’s actual role as a breadbasket comes in: after it lost its independence in 30BCE, the Romans told Alexandria to get stuffed and began exporting Egypt’s wonderful easy grain surpluses to Rome, instead***. But of course, there’s not much here to imaginably suggest that we’re in the Roman Empire, timeline-wise.

Which brings us to the other point: the party being around for the invention of pyramids is obviously just for the joke, but even discounting that Egypt is old. The usual comparison is to note that when Augustus began redirecting the Egyptian grain surplus to Rome, the pyramids at Giza were already older than Augustus is now. The Egyptian state that survived the Bronze Age Collapse was the already declining New Kingdom, third of the traditional old/middle/new kingdoms division of ancient Egyptian history; it’s the heir to a polity stretching back into the 31st C BCE. Egypt is old. 

“The Last Dance” takes us to the one city-dwelling society even older than Egypt. Lagasch/Lagash is a Sumerian town, and Sumer (the south end of Mesopotamia, so modern-day south-central Iraq) has recognizable cities all the way back into the fifth freakin’ millennium BCE, and a historical record stretching patchily into the late fourth. Lagash ceased to exist as in independent city-state in the late third millennium*****, so about as long before our stop in Etruria as that was before Mercia, or Mercia is before the present day (and this story doesn’t seem to be taking place at the end of Lagash’s time as an independent polity, either). Based on some truly shoddy historical research******, we might slap this with a date of 2500 BCE - old enough to actually start getting close to the invention of the pyramids.

Sumerian, like Etruscan, is a language that seems to be unrelated to every other known language. (Before you come up with a brilliant theory that will revolutionize ancient history - no, they don’t seem to be related to each other, either.) Unlike Etruscan, we have such a huge corpus of text that we can translate it fairly reliably. (It helps that Sumerian remained in use as a record-keeping language for centuries after it had stopped being spoken - rather like Latin in Medieval/Early Modern Europe.) I’ve already mentioned the problems with king lists and such, but one of the great things about Mesopotamia is that unlike the logistical records of Mycenae, or the glorifying propaganda of Egypt, we have all of that and also preserved letters, and that lets us look so much further afield into the culture, you don’t even know. We even have recognizable preserved jokes: a regional administrator writes the central palace complaining that his requests for supplies to repair a dangerously deteriorating wall have been ignored, and it’s going to fall over and hurt someone. He demands supplies again, “and if you can’t send those at least send a doctor”.

Also, despite what Neal Stephenson will tell you, Sumerian is not glossolalic and you can’t use it to mind-control people.

*Look, you try transliterating Coptic into Latin characters! Like its distant relatives the Semitic languages, Coptic is based around consonantal root-words, into which vowels are slotted to make verbs, adjectives, and so forth. It makes for somewhat awkward transliterations.

**He says, and then panics trying to figure out how much people who aren’t actually historians have read about ancient Egypt. Tutankhamen’s weird Sun cultist dad is common knowledge, right?

***Rome’s peak in the Augustan period at a couple of hundred thousand, maybe a million****, was almost entirely on the back of the annona, a massive subsidized bread ration distributed to the Roman civic populace, and supplied in large part by Egypt. (It’s not terribly comparable to modern food stamps or other social welfare; in an ancient context, it’s more like spiking the football.) The population cratered between then and the burned-out husk the Goths and Byzantines squabbled over in the 6th C CE, but not because of the “fall of Rome”. Rather, the 4th C CE founding of Constantinople and the redirection of the Egyptian grain surplus there (so the new capital would bulk up to an appropriately prestigious population) was what really did it for Rome; and all of that happened when the Roman Empire was still riding high. The state of Rome was closer before and after the Visigoth sack than either was to Augustus’ city of marble. 

****The brilliant if wildly opinionated historian Colin McEvedy had a great turn of phrase arguing for 250,000. (He has a great turn of phrase for everything, you should read him.) After laying out the more archaeological arguments about land use and suchlike, he notes that the one solid literary record for the annona we have, around the time of Augustus, gives a little less than a quarter of a million rations, and “who ever heard of a dictator who put a smaller figure on his largesse than he needed to. If [Augustus] had fed a million Romans he would have said so.” 

*****We can peg it to exact years relative to related dates - the Mesopotamians were pretty through chroniclers, so we know how long kings ruled, in what regnal year they went on what campaign, and so forth, but they’re floating around in a little bit of a void. There are a couple of different possible chronologies depending on which recorded astronomical events you make line up with which calculated astronomical events.

******To wit, googling “Lagash king list dates” and looking for names that resemble “Lugal”. My historiography prof just shuddered and doesn’t know why.

~

Next time: the thrilling climax! Oh, man, does Lemma do some climaxing.

[rhetoricandlogic]

ESCAPE FROM BAGHDAD! BY SAAD Z. HOSSAIN

T. S. MILLER

ISSUE:

6 APRIL 2015

With an unembarrassed exclamation point to punctuate its classic pulp adventure title, Saad Z. Hossain's explosive first novel announces itself as something other than entirely serious. But readers in the early 21st century immediately understand that the desire to escape from Baghdad is the desire to escape from an unending nightmare, a geopolitical cataclysm that cannot be reversed—and perhaps can only be laughed at. Self-consciously outrageous and at times silly to the point of becoming sophomoric, Escape from Baghdad! achieves its true emotional impact through expressions of genuine wit bound to powerful meditations on the inanity of war, and on the special inanity of a particular 2003 war.

Of course, Hossain is not the first novelist to approach the traumas of armed conflict with a strong sense of the absurd—Vonnegut and Joseph Heller will spring to mind as obvious precedents—but, if a single modern war deserves to receive this kind of darkly satirical treatment, it would certainly have to be the Iraq War. Although I doubt that, for example, Hossain's farcical depictions of the dysfunctional bureaucracy of the American military command bear any resemblance to historical fact, these scenes finally seem no more outlandish than, say, Dr. Strangelove's portrayal of the same dysfunction, and operate similarly as a critique of power and violence. In terms of both sheer hilarity and profounder insight on war, Hossain's novel never quite rises to the heights of a Slaughterhouse-Five or Kubrick's inimitable melding of existential terror and absurdist humor in his 1964 film. Even so, Escape from Baghdad! remains an honorable new entry in this same tradition, and also refreshingly brings us a war story that focuses largely on civilians, civilians who, for instance, find that their financial assets have become "fictional" (23), and whose interpersonal relationships dissolve into nothing as family members become collateral damage and neighbors and acquaintances of all kinds begin to doubt one another's allegiances. Hossain ingeniously links the brutal chaos of post-invasion Iraq to the carnivalesque as a mode: a nation at war is necessarily a world turned upside-down, so why not turn it over to a few drinking, swearing, and wisecracking Lords of Misrule?

The opening chapter introduces us to Kinza and Dagr, two black-market "purveyors of medicine, gossip, diesel, and specialty ammunition" (9). The former is a natural criminal, and the latter an unassuming professor of economics who is still able to playact, when some American infantry grunts come knocking at the door, "the exact composite of the innocent Iraqi these farm boys from Minnesota had come to liberate" (12). These soldiers strike Dagr as "big, idiot children [ . . . ], capable of kindness or casual violence as the mood took them, unreadable, random, terrifying" (12), an assessment perhaps not so different from the standard portrayal of the Iraqi Other in recent narrative treatments of the war as an unpredictable, even capricious unknown, a generous and smiling ally who might reveal a suicide vest at any moment. One of the great achievements of the novel lies in Hossain's ability to find plausible threads that unite all of the very differently motivated and differently professing groups occupying the contested space that is "postwar" Baghdad. The novel's main American character, Hoffman, is just as aimless and self-annihilating as the Iraqi civilians who have lost their old lives, and is unpersuaded by the lofty rhetoric of his own high command and the jingoism that carried his nation into yet another Middle Eastern war. A fellow black marketer himself—a "market parasite" (10), as Dagr would say—Hoffman declares himself nothing but a "cog" in the American war machine (75); although he becomes, nominally, a commando on special assignment to hunt down weapons of mass destruction (what else?), he remains content just to get by. In the past, Hoffman has helped protect his friends and business partners Kinza and Dagr from the American military, but their entanglement with a high-profile political prisoner whom they have "inherited" necessitates a quick departure from their old black market beat (9). This prisoner, Hamid, becomes an unlikely third wheel on Kinza and Dagr's mad flight out of Baghdad: we learn that Hamid, as a part of the ancien régime, had been a "star striker on the torture pitch" (9), but was not deemed sufficiently important to the Americans to merit inclusion in the famous deck of 52 playing cards (he might rank about 56th on the list, we hear). But Hamid can offer Kinza and Dagr something that they desperately need: a destination to give their journey purpose.

The plot takes innumerable twists and turns as the characters weave their way past official checkpoints and across hostile Baghdad neighborhoods, such that it begins to take on an almost labyrinthine shape—not by coincidence a recurrent architectural motif in the novel. In fact, new plot developments often carry the novel into entirely new generic territory, resulting in a rich collision of genres. Hossain alludes overtly to Dumas, the Sandman comics, medieval alchemy, and Greek mythology, but also mashes up private military contractors and secret police with djinni and semi-immortal magicians; cryptographic police procedural with twisted buddy comedy; hallucinogenic drug trips with a healthy dose of Islamic occultism; and the science fictional possibility of life extension via telomere manipulation with an enigmatic alchemist named Avicenna, a Rappaccini in his desert garden. And, at one point, we turn a page and suddenly find ourselves on the island with Dr. Moreau. I suppose we could attempt to pin down the genre of the novel as a kind of highly ecumenical urban fantasy, but the novel doesn't simply examine the legacy of the Iraq War using the lens of urban fantasy. Instead, in some way it posits the Iraq War as urban fantasy, an intimate rather than epic space in which layers of suppressed history combine with widespread irrationality to produce a simultaneously surreal and very grittily realistic experience.

Or perhaps the medieval romance is the historical genre that best matches the shape of Hossain's narrative, even a specifically Arthurian strain of romance. After all, Kinza and Dagr agree to take on various quests even before medieval alchemy and its promises of temporal riches and everlasting life become more central to the plot. Hoffman, too, leaves on his own perverse version of a Grail Quest, seeking the WMDs that would finally justify the Iraq War to the international community and to the individual consciences of the "boots on the ground" that he represents. (He doesn't find any.) Kinza's whimsical acceptance of these quests—as well as his increasingly irrational, borderline suicidal devotion to completing them despite increasingly adverse circumstances—can then be understood as part of his efforts, as a hero of a neo-chivalric romance, to cobble together a crude code of honor: "I said I'd kill this man, and so I will" (31); "He [Kinza] was manic about words once uttered and would never, could never, back down from a declaration like that" (87). Above all, Kinza's pseudo-chivalric quests and oaths reflect a desire to impart meaning on his hollowed-out shell of a life, in a bombed-out city, on a perpetual battlefield that, as readers in 2015 can't help but remember, will remain a battlefield for years to come, an unstopped arterial flow of new horrors.

As the pages turn, the novel's emphasis on the American occupation fades as the supernatural and the science fictional dimensions of Hossain's world rise to the surface: we come to understand that the American invaders had blundered into something they didn't understand here in Baghdad in many more ways than one. But Escape from Baghdad! is far from merely a one-dimensional critique of the American invasion and occupation: the Iraqi characters can become victims of self-delusion just as easily as an American colonel (or president). For instance, a local thug, sensing a power vacuum that he imagines he could occupy, "began to remember additional truths" about his role in various conflicts, "giv[ing] birth to a new truth" (89). Every side in every conflict proves as self-deluded and self-deluding as the next, and—the events of the novel taking place in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq War—there are many sides and many conflicts. By and large, the novel does not delve too deeply into the particulars of any given group's ideology, and indeed seems curiously uninterested in religious difference as a contributor to ideological difference, despite the constant reference to Sunni and Shia populations. With the important exception of the self-admittedly fanatical imam/strong man Hassan Salemi, the other characters, major and minor, tend simply to scoff at the idea of a God. Hassan, by contrast, becomes a kind of God-lashed Ahab, and Hossain creates an especially vivid image of murderous fanaticism as that which reshapes the world "into a single terrifying image, like the barbed tongue of a lion scraping off the ghostly remnants of fur, skin, and meat from bleached-white bone" (156). More usually, the novel sacrifices a more probing analysis of specific ideologies for a more detached satirical take on the observable effects of ideologically motivated violence: its most felicitous phrase may be "confused gun," a weapon passed through many hands, issued and reissued by various military bodies that may even be in conflict with one another (11). This intriguing concept also suggests the extent to which the individuals involved in the Iraq War may themselves become reduced to tools wielded by larger institutions, confused guns all of us.

But does this jumble and juxtaposition of different speculative genres and different literary modes hold together in the end? For the most part, Hossain demonstrates good sense in knowing when to dial up the humor to bitingly sharp satire, and when to preserve the high seriousness appropriate to certain scenes of violence. Despite the new absurdities that crop up every few pages, the novel contains several gripping portrayals of brutality, and is capable of inspiring real terror. For this reader, it was actually the humor that sometimes fell flat: for example, the stray weak lawyer joke; some excessively puerile banter in the Hoffman-focused chapters; and a handful of crass asides about rape, homosexuality, the mentally ill, and certain ethnic groups. Finally, the grand conclusion of the novel, an extended action sequence that would be the envy of any director of a big Hollywood action movie, also failed to meet the expectations raised by the rest of the book: the great crescendo to which the novel builds turns out not to be philosophical or satirical, but simply action-packed and explosion-filled. In the novel's last lingering scenes, is Hossain reveling overmuch in the violence and hero-narratives that his novel elsewhere dissects and critiques so well? In spite of some such imperfections and distractions, Hossain has succeeded in producing a haunting portrait of a city and a populace rich in history and potential for the future, but trapped in a long moment when tragedies and traumas could make it easy for anyone in Baghdad to feel, as Dagr does, "unmoored from either past or future" (52). The novel encourages us to escape from—or challenge—the nightmare of the present with the aid of comedy: on the subject of war, one character memorably quips, "[t]he important thing is to have a sense of humor about it" (59). Escape from Baghdad!, by turns infectiously riotous and deeply disturbing, has left me pondering just what possibilities adhering to this advice might offer us going forward, and what it might distort.

[imyobe]

HOW TO Creating Characters for Fictional Stories BY imyobe

INTRODUCTION:

It requires skill, practice, and staying power to expand realistic characters. It is similarly hard or almost not possible to craft a story without a dwelling being, even if or not it's a personified animal, as takes place in Richard Bach's "Jonathan Livingston Seagull."

DEFINITION:

"Stories often arise out of a deep consideration of how person is shaped and how it's miles pulled apart," consistent with Mark Baechtel in "Shaping the Story: A Step-via-Step Guide to Writing Short Fiction" (Pearson Education, 2004, p. 79). Characterization arises from the features of someone's psyche and personality, both of which make him what he's and therefore motivate him to do what he does within the tale or novel, whether or not or not it's exact or bad. It is not merely what the individual seems like. Instead, this portrayal is maximum efficiently achieved via demonstration or the proverbial "show, don't tell" philosophy of literature.

PERSONALITY:

From a psychological perspective, personality implies a consistency or continuity of actions, ways, thoughts, and feelings inside someone. Whatever he does, feels, or thinks originates from inside him. It becomes a reliable technique of predicting conduct. "The first-class predictor of destiny conduct is beyond conduct." Personality also implies that a few normally exhibited traits serve as the precis of what someone is like.

"Describing someone's personality is making an attempt to seize the man or woman's essence," in line with "Perspectives on Personality" ((Allyn and Bacon, 1992, p. 3). "It includes crystallizing something from various bits of knowledge you have got approximately the individual. Describing someone's personality nearly continually method taking a incredible many behavioral traits and decreasing them to a more limited set of characteristics or attributes. Evidence approximately personality comes partly from what human beings do and say at various times, but it's also partially a depend of how people do what they do-the fashion that brings a unique and private contact to their actions."

"Personality has been a topic for theologians, philosophers, artists, poets, novelists, and songwriters, and lots of those humans have had essential insights about personality," the textbook continues (p. 9).

CHARACTER CATEGORIES:

There are several individual categories, as follows.

1). Protagonist: The protagonist is the story's principal or principal individual. It is the one round which the plot revolves and to whom all of the action and adversity is directed. It is the person who faces the limitations and conflicts he ought to conquer to attain his goal.

Ideally, a story should have a unmarried protagonist. He won't usually be admirable-for instance, he may be an anti-hero; nevertheless, he should command involvement on the a part of the reader, or higher yet, his empathy. He is the individual inside the story or ebook with whom the reader sympathizes or for whom he roots. Protagonists should be complicated and flawed. They do not, with the aid of definition, need to be likeable, however they need to be relatable and believable. The reader have to recognize their choices.

2). Antagonist: The antagonist serves because the protagonist's opponent and can regularly be taken into consideration the "terrible guy" within the tale, whose action arises from the struggle among the . This is aptly illustrated in "The Wizard of Oz "wherein the conflict between Dorothy and the Wicked Witch of the West performs out till she triumphs over her together with her loss of life and brings her broom to the wizard.

The antagonist does not have to be someone at all, but may be an animal, an inanimate object, or even nature itself. For instance, the antagonist of Tom Godwin's story, "The Cold Equations," is outer space.

An antagonist must also be a "round man or woman." Simply making him evil isn't always as interesting as making her or him conflicted. Pure evil is difficult to believe in fiction, since human beings are multi-faceted and stimulated by means of their personal situations and back testimonies. Therefore, placing time into describing your antagonist and showing his or her personal struggles will create a richer and greater complicated narrative. Just as a protagonist need to now not only be good, an antagonist ought to now not most effective be awful.

3). Round individual: A round person is one who is complex and possibly even contradictory. "The check of a round man or woman is whether or not he's capable of unexpected in a convincing manner," in step with E. M. Forster. If a flat person can be summed up in a sentence or two, a round individual might in all likelihood take an essay.

4). Static man or woman: A static man or woman is one that does now not develop. Most characters in a story should be static, in order that the reader isn't always distracted from the great adjustments the author desires to illustrate and demonstrate in relation to his most important or central individual. Static implies constant, without trade. It does not indicate boring.

5). Stock individual: A inventory character is both a stereotypical one and a distinct kind of flat individual who is right away recognizable to most readers, as inside the Brave Starship Captain or the Troubled Teen or the Ruthless Businessperson. In the palms of a clumsy author, the inventory person never rises above the card stereotype, that is unfortunate. Even as clichés encapsulate a kernel of fact, so do stock characters replicate aspects of actual human beings. Courage, for instance, is needed of army personnel, while people in business act ruthlessly at times so one can survive in that Darwinian world.

6). Cardboard man or woman: A cardboard character may be considered a stereotype, mannequin, drone, or an otherwise uninteresting illustration of a actual man or woman.

7). Developing character: A person can be considered "developing" if he changes over the route of the tale, the prime example of that is the protagonist, who have to always be subjected to this novel-lengthy metamorphosis.

8). Flat person: A flat man or woman is one who's portrayed as having only one or developments. He can, in essence, be summed up in a single sentence. Do no longer be put off via this definition, however, since every tale needs a number of these to guide the plot and the protagonist. Many successful ones, together with Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, have nothing however flat ones.

9). Sympathetic character: A sympathetic person is one whose motivations readers can understand and whose feelings they can conveniently proportion. This is the kind of individual of whom naive readers will say "I could pick out with her." The protagonist is often, however now not usually, sympathetic. Note that a sympathetic person does no longer always should be a top individual. Despite the reality that Winston Smith betrays Julia and his very own values via embracing Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984, for instance, he stays a sympathetic man or woman.

10). Unsympathetic person: An unsympathetic individual is one whose motivations are suspect and whose emotions make the reader uncomfortable. The boundary between sympathetic and unsympathetic characterization isn't always necessarily truely defined, however.

CHARACTER REVELATION:

"In fiction writing, individual emerges thru the writer's skillful presentation of the emotional meaning present in what the individual does, says, and sees or responds to conditions, events, and other characters within the story,," in line with Beachtel (p. 92).

CHARACTER TYPES:

Although characters, like the real human beings they ought to suggest to the reader, must be precise individuals, there are various stereotypical characters, which rob the tale of its integrity and realism. They encompass the nosy neighbor, the drunken Irishman, the dumb blonde, the absent-minded professor, and the mad scientist, among others. Avoid the usage of them at all costs.

TYPE VERSUS CHARACTER:

No man or woman is about in stone and may be taken into consideration a black-or-white, all-or-nothing-at-all human being. If you create someone including this, you handiest mould a type to your paper. The very term "human being" implies that he's a aggregate of all things, emotions, and emotions, right or horrific.

A "bad" man or woman who abuses others, for instance, may also express "goodness" by constantly on foot elderly ladies across the street. You should reconcile this dichotomy at the stop of your story by using revealing that his act results from his subconscious try to connect to the mom who used to abuse him and this is his very last effort to advantage the approval of those he equates together with her later in lifestyles.

As in life itself, all characters are and need to be complex below the floor and your readers, like you, have to ultimately come to a few sort of know-how of what motivates them, whether it be a effective or negative thing or, more ideally, an intricate mixture of both.

If you turn out to be skilled at crafting characters, they'll tackle a lifestyles in their own. Carly Phillips as soon as wrote, "A writer begins through breathing existence into his characters. But in case you are very lucky, they breathe life into you."

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT:

The degree of character development is a feature of the role each plays in the story. The one-time point out of the bank teller with a five o'clock shadow who accepts a deposit slip need be evolved no in addition than this.

"Some (characters) will stroll onto the story's stage, speak a line or , transact the quick business the tale assigns to them, then exit," in step with Beachtel (p. 94).

SLOW, PROGRESSIVE REVEAL:

Think of your exceptional friend. Did you realize all about him the moment you met him or did you "click" as time discovered your commonplace views, developments, beliefs, interests, emotions, and experiences? Similarly, story man or woman foundation need to be laid as quickly as possible and next scenes will allow his character tendencies to be discovered and supported.

CHARACTERS AND SCENES:

Tantamount to the portrayal of a individual is the tale's scenes, wherein he can act out and reveal the trends that make him uniquely who he's. He have to, however, have numerous other elements.

1). The individual need to be appropriate to the scene and the tale.

2). He ought to be believable, convincing the reader that he's or can be a actual individual inside the actual world.

3). He have to be constant in his actions, attitudes, and behaviors from scene to scene during the story. An 80-year-old grandmother who attends church every Sunday and contributes to charity would now not possibly embezzle money at different times, unless you reveal what lies under her surface and occurred in her beyond to motive any such dichotomous character.

4). There have to be battle. Nothing reveals a person's man or woman extra than the conflicts which either take a look at him or tear him apart.

KINDRED SPIRIT:

One of the many motives that readers immerse themselves in tales and books is to view factors of life they can become aware of with and possibly catch a glimpse of themselves in one or extra in their characters in an identity which has them silently conclude, "That's me." This is mainly illustrated by using Wallace Stegner in his tale, The Traveler.

"Along a road he had never driven, he went swiftly towards an unknown form and an unknown town, to distribute in keeping with some wise law, a part of the load of the boy's emergency and his very own; however he bore in his mind, shiny as moonlight over snow, a bright wonder, almost in awe. Far from the most chronic and incurable ills, identity, he had regarded outward and for one unmistakable instant diagnosed himself."

This passage echoes humanity's shared burden-or those elements which we unknowingly percentage with one another-by permitting the character to view himself out of doors of himself for the primary time and glean insight into a perspective only others have of him.

CHARACTER COMPLEXITY:

Characters aren't and have to now not be stick figures. They have to be portrayed as complex, multi-dimensional humans, whether or not they're fictionalized or actual, so that the reader can agree with that they exist. Their physical appearance can be a beginning to that man or woman, but also the least important part. What motivates them, what lurks in their pasts and psyches, what makes them tick and grow to be who they're, can be the maximum important.

"The characters in our stories, songs, poems, and essays encompass our writing," consistent with Rebecca McClanahan in her book, "Word Painting: A Guide to Write More Descriptively" (Writer's Digest Books, 1999, p. 114). "They are phrases made flesh. Sometimes they even speak for us, sporting a good deal of the load of plot, theme, mood, idea, and emotion."

CHARACTER MOLDING:

Consider a lump of clay. As you work it together with your fingers and tools, you start to mould it in order that it slowly takes form. You do the identical with characters thru physical descriptions, feelings, attitudes, and gestures. Here, above all, show, do not inform! Do not country, for instance, that Billy was indecisive. Demonstrate, through scenes, his problem in making selections through consulting with numerous buddies, doubting his selections, and sooner or later identifying to do one factor best to reverse his selection an hour later. This demonstration would have a reader conclude, He can not seem to make up his mind.

If you defined your exceptional pal to someone, might you say, "He's six-foot-tall and has sandy hair" or "he is funny, witty, loves to philosophize, is aware things underneath the floor. We're sort of a match. He's like a kindred spirit." Would his peak now without a doubt count number? The more intensity illustrates the character behind the physical shell.

CHARACTER DISCUSSION:

"We establish characters through direct bodily description, with the aid of choice of sensory and extensive information about the person and his surroundings, and thru description of a character's moves and speech," in keeping with Rebecca McClanahan in her ebook, "Word Painting: A Guide to Write More Descriptively" (Writer's Digest Books, 1999, pp. 115-116).

By describing a person thru his very own eyes, the writer allows the reader to go into his unique world.

"Characters screen their internal lives-their preoccupations, values, lifestyles, likes and dislikes, fears and aspirations-by way of the objects that fill their palms, houses, offices, cars, suitcases, grocery carts, and dreams," in line with Rebecca McClanahan in her ebook, "Word Painting: A Guide to Write More Descriptively" (Writer's Digest Books, 1999, p. 126).

GIVING BIRTH TO A CHARACTER:

1). Choose the ideal name, designation, and/or title.

2). Provide enough of a physical description so that the reader can visualize the individual's distinguishing traits, however now not sufficient to color a portrait. They need to now not all be delivered at once, however one distinguishing function can serve as the character's hallmark, consisting of an arrow-formed scar on his forehead or a slight lisp or a repeated expression, like "or what now not" at the stop of the whole thing he says. Other examples might also include, "That he reeked of grease indicated that he labored in an automotive repair shop" or "His persistent cough cautioned that he turned into a heavy smoker."

3). Be cognizant of the electricity of a character's surroundings has to demonstrate or shed light on him. Settings can frequently say a terrific deal. For example, "I don't assume his kitchen ground ever have become buddies with a mop." What does Laura's glass collection say about her in Tennessee Williams' The Glass Menagerie?

CHARACTER FUNCTIONS:

Characters have to carry out the subsequent functions:

1). They permit the reader to live vicariously thru them.

2). They supply the reader a sense of time accurately invested within the tale or e-book.

3). They give the reader someone with whom to connect, leaving him to experience as if he walked away from someone or buddy with whom he had been in detail familiar.

4). They allow the reader to comply with his adventure, illustrating how they deal with, extricate themselves from, and in the end triumph over, the boundaries encountered at some stage in the work.

5). They allow the reader both to become aware of with, but at the identical time explore, trends, approaches, and solutions with which he does no longer become aware of in his own existence, imparting an "alternate angle" approach.

CHARACTER ANALYSIS:

By web page 50 or so of a longer story or book, the writer need to be able to breathe sufficient lifestyles into his essential character. One-dimensional or paper characters offer no surprises to the reader, permitting him to recognize his profile with out even watching for his next motion or speak. They can be taken into consideration "stick figures."

The fundamental man or woman must be inside the throes of change and need to be quite complicated. He may not necessarily even recognise how he will take care of pending situations. Theoretically, there need to best be one primary individual.

A well-crafted novel must start whilst and where the principle person unearths himself within the midst of monumental life modifications, consisting of happens with the loss of a spouse, dying, or even prevailing the lottery. Even in life, people seldom research or develop except they're challenged and confronted with adversity. They frequently endure large developing pains, stumble, and find themselves in a nation of flux.

Any novel or short tale will provide a single most important person or protagonist and several aspect characters, which serve as the forged and provide guide, interaction, and input. They turn out to be the riders of the plot's ebbs and flows.

By the end of the work, the primary individual need to go through a alternate or modifications, even as the facet characters seldom want to. The reader need to ideally root for the main individual.

Stories have two forms of conflicts: the internal struggle, which involves morals, rights-versus-wrongs, demons, and insecurities; and the outer war, which deals with human beings, parents, process situations, money, and social issues.

Character facades can either replicate the truth or conceal it. Take, for instance, Colombo, who outwardly appeared bumbling and clueless, but who cleverly controlled to put all the portions together with a view to determine who had committed the particular crime. He similarly portrayed a diploma of unpredictability.

Every character ought to conceal some thing, as most humans in actual existence do.

REAL LIFE CHARACTERS:

Real existence characters can and should be used for inspiration, however should most effective function the jumping off point from which the author can create a person who's bigger than existence. Their excessive developments may be tragic, memorable, and/or funny. They facilitate the following.

1). They offer the writer with a wealth of trends, making it clean to write approximately them.

2). They can equally restrict, because they should not be used as verbatim, textbook cases: the writer must have the freedom and flexibility to create someone who extends past the actual existence individual's traits.

CHARACTERISTICS:

There are several traits the writer have to do not forget before he names his characters, however.

1). Their age.

2). Their heritage or nationality/religion.

3). Their region of birth (geographic location).

4). Their own family traditions, including Harrington III.

MINOR CHARACTERS:

Method actor Stanislavsky once said, "There aren't any small parts, most effective small actors" and he become correct. The identical philosophy ought to practice to the writer's story or novel. The richness and credibility of the tale will depend upon the supporting solid of characters. They can bring comic relief, add to the tension and drama, flow the motion, add intrigue and complications, or carry out all of these purposes. In essence, minor characters must play major roles.

However, minor characters can frequently be reduced to clichés, in that the reader already forms a pre-judged opinion approximately them due to their stereotypical nature. Examples of those sorts of characters encompass the dumb blonde, the unbearable boss, the inconsiderate neighbor, the human doormat, the troublemaker, the soapbox, the complainer, and Weird Al.

In order to deviate from this cliché-trap, the author should remember the following tips:

1). Identify the characters' defining moments-that is, the experiences that modified them so they too are three-d and now not stick figures.

2). Establish early on the purpose they may be inside the tale. Are they there to help or rescue the hero, throw issues in his path, confuse him, be the comic foil that screws up his plans, or arrive abruptly to add mystery.

3). Set up the connection between them: is it personal, professional, familial, neighbor-related, a schoolmate, romantic, or adversary? Consider uncommon approaches for them to have met, or to preserve meeting.

4). Describe their differences, together with bodily developments, age, sex, cultural background, political, spiritual background, education, interests, and desires.

THE SUPPORTING CAST:

Describe as a minimum five fundamental characters so that it will play an crucial part of the story. If you've got extra than five, honestly broaden them. State their names, relationships to the principle person, why you realize about them, how they'll engage with the primary person, and in the long run the motive(s) they may be in the story.

GETTING TO KNOW YOUR PROTAGONIST:

In order for a writer to realize wherein his most important man or woman is going, he first ought to recognise wherein he has been: The instances and attitudes that shaped his destiny earlier than he was confronted with a life changing, inciting incident. And the exceptional manner to capture his history is through in-depth interviews that ask probing questions. Start with the ones under and then upload your personal. You will now not only be surprised by way of the responses, however you may meet the supporting forged as well.

1). What changed into your childhood like? Small family or large? Was it a happy domestic life?

2). Did you grow up in an urban place of a small town? Where was it located?

3). What religion(s) had been your parents? Was the own family tied to a house of worship?

4). Who was the disciplinarian? Mom or dad? Neither? Both?

5). Where had been you inside the beginning order? Only child? Eldest? The baby? The middle?

6). What is your astrological sign? Do you accept as true with in astrology?

7). What are your greatest hobbies, passions, and abilities?

8). Are you currently married? Single? Divorced? Widowed? Kids? Step kids?

9). Do you see your self as e-book-smart or street-clever?

10). What become your highest stage of education?

11). Describe your high faculty experience. Were you a loner? Popular? Wildly popular?

12). Describe your bodily tendencies. Attractive or homely? Short or tall? Thin or fat?

13). Can you inform a joke? Can you take a joke?

14). Describe the only thing you want in existence that has eluded you up until now and describe the barriers in your way.

15). What is your largest secret-that is, what is the component that no one, or almost no one, knows about you?

CREATING THE PERFECT VILLAIN:

After the hero (protagonist), the villain (antagonist) is the next maximum vital individual. No one is all excellent or all evil. To make a villain believable, readers must recognize his motives. (Consider Dr. Smith in Lost in Space, for instance).

It is once in a while easier to create a villain than a hero, due to the fact the villain can have a couple of flaws. While the hero must watch his manners and be cautious that he does no longer say or do things that could alienate the reader, the villain can pretty much do or say something he wants. In truth, the extra objectionable he's, the extra powerful he's.

In many approaches, the villain is a reversal of the hero. While the hero desires a flaw or to make him seem actual, the villain can gain by a suitable great or to make him appear human. To cite a well-known example, in Star Wars, Luke Skywalker has flaws, but his desire to do the right element makes him a hero. Darth Vader commenced out with the same hazard and background, however have become evil due to temptation, leading him to willingly make incorrect choices.

UNDERSTANDING YOUR VILLAIN:

Not even villains are all terrible. It allows to get into the individual's psyche and find out what made him the way he's. When creating a villain, a little sympathy for the satan is in order. Did he have a horrific childhood? Did some trauma or loss cause him to travel down the incorrect path? Would he be a nice guy if he have been now not being eaten up by way of jealousy, anger, or a need for revenge? In part, Darth Vader is understandable because the lack of a loved one is one component that prompted him to end up bitter and include the dark side. Most villains, regardless of how wrong they're, suppose that they are right. In truth, they consider themselves the best true heroes within the tale.

GIVING THE VILLAIN HUMAN TOUCHES:

The villain need to no longer be all evil. There have been many serial killers, both in fiction and in actual life, who have been committed to their other halves or mothers or who took gentle care of a beloved pet. Somehow, it makes it even greater horrifying while a man or woman has the functionality of showing mercy and sympathy, but due to some quirk in his nature, chooses no longer to in certain conditions.

In Ruth Rendell's novel, The Lake of Darkness, the hit man Finn is an even greater formidable person because he is dedicated to his mom and hides newspaper clippings of his severa murders so she will not see them in the papers and end up upset. The fact that he is capable of this little act of conscience offers him an uneasy connection to the relaxation of us-who has not hid his misdeeds from his mom-and makes him even greater frightening whilst he chooses to do evil.

SIDE CHARACTERS AND MINOR CHARACTERS:

Although the hero and the villain play the most crucial roles, stories and novels also want well-advanced aspect and minor characters, which play many critical assisting roles with the aid of complementing the plot's hero and villain. They are frequently essential to impart useful data to or approximately the primary characters. Minor players inside the tale also assist reveal the genuine nature of the hero or the villain. There are numerous sorts of aspect characters.

THE BEST FRIEND OR SIDEKICK:

Sherlock Holmes had his Watson to soar thoughts off of, and except your hero is a loner, it could advantage him to have the sort of buddy or accomplice with whom to speak about his thoughts, dreams, and theories. Such a person makes the protagonist appear actual and can help move the story along through putting long passages of the main individual's thoughts into active communicate. The villain may additionally have this type of sidekick off of whom he can soar his evil schemes.

RIVALS:

Aside from pals, many people have competitors or what can be considered "friendly competitors" in their lives-that is, the individual they try to equal, if no longer exceed, in many endeavors, which include in jobs, promotions, wealth, and fabric possessions. This idea is expressed by means of the "retaining up with the Joneses" cliché. Perhaps there's someone who always tries to conquer him to the merchandising or to the first-rate deals. The villain, needless to say, may be the primary challenge, however a minor rival for the hero at home or inside the place of job also can make a tale extra thrilling.

RELATIVES:

Few humans live in vacuums: they have parents, aunts, and kids. Creating a circle of relatives for your man or woman can make him seem real. Readers can identify with the fun and trials that come from having a meddling aunt, a trouble brother or sister, or an aging figure who needs care.

It is wise to limit the dimensions of an extended own family unless this element is fundamental to the tale line.

Choosing one "problem relative" can be sufficient. One or two essential family individuals can constitute the others. The more names the reader has to remember, the greater frustrated he will grow to be, specifically if the facet characters do now not pass the story along.

CHARACTER DO'S AND DON'TS:

Characters can once in a while be taken into consideration your children. You assume you very own them due to the fact you created them, you matured them, you believed in them, and you taught them the whole lot you already know. But, like children, at some point they expand their very own mind and beliefs. They can not be reined in or directed. And, trust it or no longer, that may be a accurate issue for a author. You want your characters to be unpredictable and to chart their own courses. This method which you have performed a terrific task of breathing life into them and now their journey could be a thriller to both of you. If, for example, there aren't any surprises for the author, then there aren't any surprises for the reader.

In order to develop strong, memorable, compelling, and empathetic characters, right here are numerous recommendations.

DO'S:

1). Make the heroine larger than existence. Exaggerate his/her tendencies, eccentricities, and functions.

2). Share secrets, information, and desires.

3). Make certain that your hero has the maximum at stake and has to take the best risks.

4). Give your hero the exceptional lines.

5). Fall in love along with your hero in order that the reader will as well.

Don'ts:

1). Use actual people. Be inspired with the aid of them, but do now not scouse borrow from one source. Make a composite.

2). Make your protagonist a wimp-there's a cause he's referred to as a "hero."

3). Forget whose tale you're telling.

4). Keep your hero out of hassle for very lengthy.

5). Let your individual be a windbag or monopolize the conversation.

6). When it comes to sharing your knowledge, use it. Don't abuse it.

FROM CHARACTER TO OUTLINE:

After creating an fascinating important individual, it is time to take him on his adventure. Here is a way to develop an outline or story board that connects that person and his helping forged with an equally intriguing plot. After mapping out the key info in every scene, it is time to start writing. But earlier than you do, keep in mind the following points.

1). What is the inciting incident or turning factor?

2). What is revealed about the character(s) and/or their conflicts?

3). Where does dialogue serve the best top? Narrative precis? Description? Flashback?

4). How does the story circulate forward?

[thedeadshotnetwork]

Lady Dynamites brilliant second season is openly hostile toward Netflix

Lady Dynamite’s brilliant second season is openly hostile toward Netflix, its platform

Maria Bamford’s surrealist comedy parodies the streaming service as ‘MuskVision’

by Nov 15, 2017, 8:30am EST

Beth Dubber / Netflix

Maria Bamford’s Lady Dynamite, created in collaboration with Arrested Development’s Pam Brady and Mitch Hurwitz, was the most interesting addition to Netflix’s original content catalog in 2016. It’s a bizarro-world show-biz sitcom with three timelines, a smattering of animation, Candy Land production design, talking pugs, and a heroine who explains that, physically, she can only speak in “baby voice” or “rich lady at a cocktail party” voice. It’s a more immediately lovable iteration on 30 Rock’s entertainment-industry satire. Lady Dynamite has the same ability to pull apart popular culture and command impressive guest turns. (Season 1 has Ana Gasteyer, Jenny Slate, and Judd Apatow; season 2 adds Andy Samberg, Judy Greer, and Weird Al Yankovic.) But its lead is far less interested in posturing as Pinterest’s idea of a mess, and far more interested in struggling to keep her shit together for real. Season 1 has about a thousand plot lines, but to put it simply: it follows a character named Maria Bamford, played by Maria Bamford, as she tries to move forward with her comedy career and take care of her mental health at the same time. This involves turning down a Judd Apatow movie over and over, offending him deeply. Season 2 is both stranger than the first and more aggressively meta. Between all the usual antics (the first episode’s A-plot is about a raccoon named Randall), it’s a dissection of how a TV show gets green-lit in the streaming age — through consideration of how it fits into a catalog, a recommendation algorithm, a brand, etc. Lady Dynamite directly addresses how a struggle with bipolar disorder is worthy of series-length exploration, even while implying that Netflix is taking advantage of it to win brownie points with subscribers and critics. The second season’s structure is just as odd as the first, with frequent time jumps back to Bamford’s 1987 adolescence in Duluth, Minnesota, and forward to a jarring, dystopian future in which she’s turning her life into a TV show (called Maria Bamford is Nuts!) for a content farm called “MuskVision.” MuskVision is an Elon Musk property, but it has the Netflix branding and color scheme. (There are also several side plots that involve a malevolent autonomous Tesla.) Maria Bamford is Nuts! — a science fiction reimagining of her life, in which she, again, plays herself — is green-lit after a small robot named Don Jr. (I’m still struggling to figure out that part of the joke) scans her face and feeds her through an algorithm. MuskVision needs more mental illness content, Don Jr. declares! Ana Gasteyer, playing a Hollywood agent whose flame-adorned office building looks like the gates of Hell, explains why: “I want to tell the story of your fucking life in bingeable fucking installments! It will be so inventive and groundbreaking in its comedy that alt-comedy Twitter will choke on its own jizz! And here is the cherry on the streaming sundae: we will focus on mental illness, and we will destigmatize it, forever!” In a recent interview with the AV Club, Bamford explains that the second season of Lady Dynamite gave her the unexpected opportunity to critique the first. In a brain-busting twist, some of the examples she uses in this interview double as lines her character says on Lady Dynamite, in a handful of direct addresses to the camera. Bamford — as either the real Bamford or the show-within-a-show Bamford; it’s hard to tell which fourth wall she’s breaking at any given moment — takes a sidebar to say that her first season (of Lady Dynamite or of Maria Bamford is Nuts!, it isn’t clear) had too many blowjobs, and that it “wasn’t cool” to have an entirely white writers’ room collaborate on an episode about race. She isn’t just critiquing her streaming platform, she’s critiquing the show it let her produce.

Photo by Beth Dubber / Netflix

The new season of Lady Dynamite also has a lot of strange 30 Rock-esque plotlines that initially seem like distractions. Bamford’s character finds out that her manager Bruce Ben-Bacharach (Fred Melamed) tricked her into a production deal involving half a dozen reality competition TV shows starring children in the Philippines. They have sinister titles like Kids Have to Dance, Can You Beat Up a Fifth Grader? and Shark Tank. Hoping to atone for her involvement, Bamford tries to ingratiate herself at a Filipino community center in Los Angeles, and ends up accidentally letting a bunch of strangers plan her wedding. What they come up with involves a stranger in red glitter walking her down the aisle, six-foot wings with portraits of every Catholic saint glued onto them, and an atmosphere that her mother declares “like a Mad Max movie without the dust.” This season also introduces the “Hollywood Ladies Club,” a Skull and Bones-like organization led by Transparent creator Jill Soloway. Its goal is to lean into and exploit Hollywood sexism, keeping men distracted by keeping them “jacking it” all the time. This involves sending Maria on a quest to unleash a “hive-queen” named Ranlith. “Have you seen the Matrix trilogy?” Maria is asked, two or three times, as part of her introduction to this bonkers conspiracy. “No I haven’t, and I really don’t want to,” she keeps muttering, “It just looks so boring.” Later, en route to the core of the Earth, she has to use her boobs and tongue to jump-start a magical elevator. This probably sounds like incoherent, over-the-top storytelling. It’s true that Bamford doesn’t actually arrive at a digestible critique of Hollywood sexism, or the whiteness of writers’ rooms. But eventually, both of these plotlines are revealed as spinoffs from the show’s central conflict, like Bamford’s tendency to take on more and more responsibility and emotional obligation until it threatens to destroy her. She presents that as the result of a pathological fear of hurting or disappointing anyone for even a second, and she pushes both plots to absurd lengths to show just how irrational the fear is.

Photo by Beth Dubber / Netflix

In the same AV Club interview, Bamford speaks diplomatically but disconcertingly about how the 17-hour production days on her Netflix series were almost unmanageable for her. She was told that doing 10-hour “child actor days” would be too expensive. Of course, that production schedule isn’t unique to Netflix, but you don’t have to guess at how it threatened Bamford’s mental health; this risk is literally the plot of the second season of her Netflix show. Lady Dynamite’s frank hostility toward Netflix may be less satisfying for the average viewer than it is for me, a culture writer trying to keep up with a dozen original series releases each month. But anyone navigating the age of peak TV has likely felt a twinge of the feeling Bamford expresses here: that all life experiences exist to be pushed through an algorithm and come out the other side as money and laudatory headlines. It’s a sharp twist on Nora Ephron’s famous “everything is copy” philosophy — everything is content. And the books Ephron created out of her life experiences were her books, but Bamford’s show belongs to Netflix. Bamford has spoken plainly about her bipolar disorder outside of the series, often in her standup, and recently in a column for The New York Times, in which she detailed how she met and fell in love with her husband, the artist Scott Marvel Cassidy. (At age 43, this was her first long-term relationship.) The character of Maria’s husband on Lady Dynamite is based on and named after him, and the unassuming ease of their banter is the show’s emotional core: it can slip between silly and serious, but never comes off as anything but 100 percent attentive and affectionate. Their relationship is what eventually gets her out of her Hollywood dystopia, and it’s the only plotline that abstains from all the surrealist elements that swirl around everything else. The love story Bamford wrote in the Times is short, told with matter-of-fact prose, and organized around a plainly stated but harrowing story. It’s a great supplement to the show, which ultimately sneaks something human into a confusing collage of societal critiques. Not that anyone should care about this part, but the love story even somewhat redeems Netflix: Bamford clearly resents the algorithmic approach to content — or at least, she thinks it’s worth challenging and mocking, but she contorted around it to tell a deeply personal story. Describing a show with as many bizarre moving pieces as Lady Dynamite makes it sound like a joke, and watching it in “bingeable fucking installments” is sort of tiring. But it’s the gradual piling and eventual shucking of absurdities that makes the end of the second season so rewarding and, strangely, elegant. The second season of Lady Dynamite is currently available on Netflix.

Tags: November 15, 2017 at 01:34PM