#I have a million critiques but clearly I still love the game and I am very happy with how they handled this lmao

[luciana-silentstar]

I decided because I love suffering that everyone gets their own halter.

[popscenery]

Passion Pit, »Take a Walk«

by Jessica Doyle

In the summer of 2010, when I took a leave of absence from my PhD program, my dissertation was a helpless non-thing without a subject. In December 2018, I officially got my PhD, because my dissertation was done: written, revised, defended, revised again, approved, copied, formatted, distributed, carefully archived, accepted as an actual work of scholarship. It is arguably my most important professional accomplishment of the decade, and also arguably entirely inconsequential. The claim that 90 percent of academic papers go uncited is mostly untrue, but it is true for my dissertation, and I have the gaping void of a Google Scholar search return to prove it.

Trust me: as bitter and self-deprecating post-graduate students might be about their research (see previous paragraph), none of us start out planning to write something inconsequential. Certainly the subject of my dissertation was not inconsequential at all. “Take a Walk” is not my favorite song of the past decade, but it is the song that kept reminding me that the topic was worth writing about.

My dissertation examined what makes starting and maintaining a business easier or harder for Latino entrepreneurs in different American cities. Take Miami as an example, where 47% of all businesses are Latino-owned. That’s much higher than the national average (12 percent) and higher than the percentage in other cities with large Latino populations: New York, Los Angeles, Houston. So what’s so special about Miami? Is it because the Cuban population that arrived in the 1960s were often landowners or merchants fleeing Castro, and made wealth-building a priority in their new city? Is it the geographic proximity to Latin America and the Caribbean? Is starting a business in Miami easier than elsewhere? Is it something about Miami’s economy in general, or Florida’s? Finally (and more to the point), if policy-makers in another city wanted to put in policies that would help local Latino entrepreneurs flourish, what would Miami’s example offer as guidance?

To make a 295-page story short: it is much easier to turn immigrants into successful business owners if they come to the country with business experience and/or capital already at hand; and if the local immigrant population doesn’t start with those advantages, then policy-makers should focus on providing business education and access to financing, especially the latter. Latino immigrants in the United States who want to start businesses are more likely than native-born white entrepreneurs to use their own cash (which takes a while to accumulate), credit cards (which charge higher interest rates than do bank loans), or loans from family or friends (which means that loved ones, rather than banks with larger cushions, bear the risks). I’d say read the whole dissertation, but in all frankness you’d be better off checking out the research being published by the Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative, including this report. (It’s more concise and their data is more robust than mine was.)

This all assumes, of course, that you want to encourage Latinos, or other immigrants, or anyone at all, to start their own business. A lot of us--including me; including Michael Angelakos, the artist behind Passion Pit--have immigrant entrepreneurs in our family lineage. In interviews to promote the album Gossamer, Angelakos described “Take a Walk,” the lead single, as about different members of his family. The first verse’s portrait is a classic rags-to-riches, grateful-to-be-in-America immigrant story: I love this country dearly / I can feel the ladder clearly. But in the second verse, the story shifts to a new narrator, and so does the tone: I watch my little children / Play some board game in the kitchen / And I sit and pray they never feel my strife. The final narrator is eventually undone...

I think I borrowed just too much We had taxes, we had bills We had a lifestyle to front

...yet still insists on his participation in the American dream:

Tomorrow you'll cook dinner For the neighbors and their kids We can rip apart those socialists And all their damn taxes You see, I am no criminal I'm down on both bad knees I'm just too much a coward To admit when I'm in need

Apparently at one point a Fox News reporter failed to hear the irony, and asked Angelakos if the song was anti-socialist. But Angelakos told MTV News, “It's about very specific family members, the male hierarchy, and how the men in my family have always dealt with money.... All these men were very conservative; socially very liberal but for some reason, they all came here for capitalism, and they all ended up kind of being prey to capitalism.” He told a different interviewer, “These are all true stories; this is my grandfather and so on.”

Angelakos’s ambivalence is understandable. (Several of the pieces that greeted “Take a Walk” identified it as a direct reponse to the 2008 financial crisis, an interpretation he rejected.) The idea that anyone can come to the United States, start a business, and work their way to financial security and political freedom is an old one--the history of immigrants employing at higher rates than native-born Americans goes as far back as the Census Bureau has been keeping track of such things. But even for the successful it has its costs. The narrators of “Take a Walk” are estranged from their families, anxious about their ability to keep wealth. The theme of risk runs through the song. No one worries about getting fired; they have market investments, business partners, endless complaints about taxes (as one might if one has to pay both ends of the Social Security and Medicare taxes single-handedly.) The risk allows the narrators to make comfortable lives for themselves and their family, and yet Angelakos isn’t convinced, looking back, that they were better off.

Historically, if you were running for any sort of higher political office in the United States and were from a major party, you made sure to say nice things about small businesses and entrepreneurship, especially the immigrant kind. To some degree this is still true: Elizabeth Warren’s campaign platform includes a Small Business Equity Fund that would give grants to minority entrepreneurs. That said, I’m not sure the current dominant political energy on either the American left or right favors small businesses, who tend to hate tariffs. If you read the Green New Deal resolution, though it calls for a more equitable distribution of available financing to such smaller-scale lenders as community banks and credit unions, a lot of what it wants it can only get at a certain scale. It’s easier for a larger company to retool its supply chains to lower environmental costs than it is for ten small businesses to do the same. It’s easier for a firm with a thousand employees to absorb the cost of any one employee needing a higher wage to make rent, or a longer maternity leave, or extended absences due to illness, than it is for a firm with five.

And Music Tumblr in particular can be forgiven for not thinking highly of entrepreneurship. Most creative people--artists, musicians, writers--end up as entrepreneurs simply because decent-paying employment in those fields has never been easy to find. (In 2017, Angelakos spoke of dealing with venture capitalists and deciding to run his mental-health-focused initiative, Wishart, as a combination of for-profit and non-profit.) But no loan officer with a nickel’s worth of sense would approve a loan to enter a market so saturated that marginal revenue is typically zero or close enough, or where thousands if not millions of people seem thoroughly committed to proving themselves, in Samuel Johnson’s eyes, blockheads. Upon hearing, “You can do what you love, but the market won’t reward you,” a lot of people will reply, “To hell with markets, then.”

It all comes down to how you feel about risk. For a long time the dominant American thinking was that higher risk was the price entrepreneurs paid to have the chance to succeed on their own terms. (There’s an ongoing debate in the immigrant-entrepreneurship academic literature about whether any one particular group of entrepreneurs is “pushed” into entrepreneurship--as in, they only start businesses as the best of a bad set of money-making options--or “pulled,” starting businesses because they want to.) More recently has emerged the critique that not all experiences of risk are created equal, and that in championing immigrant or minority entrepreneurship we offload risk onto those people with smaller financial or even emotional cushions. The heightened experience of risk, and its attendant anxiety and feeling of constant scarcity, may be what Angelakos meant when he described his relatives as “kind of being prey to capitalism.”

I personally agree with that critique, and would throw in that the general perception of Latino immigrants as not-entrepreneurial denies them a road to acceptance (or bourgeois respectability, if you prefer) that their Swedish, German, Jewish, Italian, and more recently Korean predecessors have been able to walk. That was why I wanted to write about Latino entrepreneurship in the first place, and why I ended up writing about North Carolina’s Latino Community Credit Union and associated initiatives as a promising case study. But I would caution against crossing the line from wanting to reduce risk for vulnerable minorities to regarding asking them to bear any kind of risk as imperialist and offensive. Risk can’t be eliminated altogether, and there are costs to scaling risk to higher levels of human activity and trying to diffuse it. A small business committed to a bad idea does a lot less damage than a government policy committed to a bad idea, even if the latter is more equitable in the range and number of people it effects.

Writing a dissertation is a humbling process. I’ve never written and recorded a song, but I imagine that process humbles too. (When “Take a Walk” came out Angelakos was not shy about disliking it, though he seems to have grown fonder of it as time goes on: “I like that it’s so uncharacteristic of me,” he said in 2017.) You work and work and work, all the while knowing you have no control over how your audience will hear your message, or if there will even be an audience. You can never be sure that you read enough, or chose the right method of analysis, or treated your subjects with sufficient respect. You’ll never know if you’re actually on the side of the angels. If the “angels” are metaphorical--if you don’t actually believe in a god, or God, whose love is greater than your human tendency to error and self-deception and treachery--then the risk is even higher. And yet, without that risk, how would you ever be able to say anything worth saying?

[rosecorcoranwrites]

When a Plot Hole is Not a Plot Hole (or, at Least, When It Doesn't Matter)

Much like 45 million other people, I have recently viewed Bird Box. I also watched The Ritual and re-watched A Quiet Place. All of this got me thinking about the horror genre, yet again, but it’s too soon for another “Thoughts on Horror” post. Thankfully I also watched a Youtube video about world building in the Divergent series, which gave me an idea for a more far-reaching analysis not just of horror, but of genre and plot holes in general.

A Matter of Genre

The fact of the matter is that Bird Box, A Quiet Place, and Divergent have gaping plot holes (The Ritual doesn’t. The Ritual is great… but freaking horrifying, so watch with caution). These plot holes, however, are only a problem in one of those stories, and this is due to genre, and I will climb onto my genre-soapbox for as long as it takes for people to realize that different genres work differently, and need to be read or watched differently.

Let’s step back a minute, and I'll explain what I mean. In my senior year of high school, we read The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. My class loved it, not least because it was a welcome break from all the depressing literature foisted on us throughout our high school career. I was also a student aid in another class that read the same book and got to eavesdrop on their class discussions. I sat in the back, filing papers, and heard the students say they didn't like the book because, quote, "It was so unrealistic." The Little Prince? Unrealistic? You don't say! I'm not sure I have ever heard a more idiotic critique of a book. Yes, The Little Prince is unrealistic. It's a children's-book-esque fantasy/fairytale about a prince from another (tiny) planet who's in love with a rose. It's not supposed to be realistic!

A similar phenomenon happens when people—both Christians and atheists—treat the entire Bible as one genre. It's not! It contains poetry, myth, history, genealogy, letters, biography, parables, apocalyptic visions, and law codes. If you read poetry like you would read a law code, or a letter the way you read a myth, you're probably going to miss out on most of the meaning.

Back to my point, different genres require different ways of being read or watched. There are varying amounts of belief one should be required to suspend. Fantasy requires more suspension of disbelief than sci-fi, because the audience needs to accept that magic and magical creatures exist, whereas sci-fi only needs them to accept that humans have advanced to some future scientific point. Both genres, however, need internally consistent world building, no matter what other wonders we are shown. Otherwise, the audience will be taken out of the story, and the point of these genres is to immerse the readers or viewers into a believable, if fantastic, world. If magic works a certain way, it always needs to work that way. If smaller spaceships can’t use FTL, then no little ships should be shown using FTL unless you make a point of saying they have some new type of FTL drive. There is some wiggle-room in this, since "fantasy" and "sci-fi" are big labels that cover a lot of things. Fairytales or magical-realism stories tend to be a little looser about what is and isn’t allowed. These stories still shouldn't break their own rules, but they also don't have to explain themselves as much as other fantasies. Sci-fi that bleeds into fantasy, such as that which incorporates time-travel, other dimensions, or robots with kokoro still needs internal consistency, but don't need to be as scientifically accurate as hard sci-fi.

On the other hand, genres which rely on audience reaction can get by with much less in the way of tight world building and well-thought-out backstory. The two genres to which I am referring are comedy and horror. Obviously, these can intersect with fantasy/sci-fi, but taken as their own thing, they are a different species of genre altogether. They rely not on immersing the audience into a believable world, but on eliciting a reaction from the audience. A comedy is only a comedy if it's funny and horror is only horror if it's scary. Those are the requirements. Thus, a comedy or horror doesn't need unassailable world building to be a successful comedy or horror. Comedy, in particular, often relies on pointing out or playing with plot holes in whatever genre it's in. Horror, on the other hand, often focuses on the scary situation at the expense of backstory and world building.

Plot Holes in Horror

Thus, we come to Bird Box, or A Quiet Place, or Signs, or any other horror that, frankly, doesn't hold up if you think too much about it. People critique these movies by asking things like, “Why doesn't everyone in the world just blind themselves to be immune to the phantoms?”, “Did no one else in all of society think to use sound against the creatures?”, and “Why don't the aliens wear waterproof suits?”. These are valid criticisms for sci-fi or fantasy stories, but… these stories aren’t really meant to be sci-fi or fantasy. They are meant to be horror. Specifically, survival horror. For this genre, backstory is utterly irrelevant. In survival horror, a person or group of people are put into a deadly situation and need to use their wits and whatever they can find to survive it. The end. That's it. Are Sandra Bullock, the family in The Quiet Place, and the family in Signs put into a deadly situation? Check. Do they attempt to survive it? Check. Is it scary for the audience to watch? Check. All three movies pass the survival horror test. They aren’t trying to be good sci-fi/fantasy; they’re trying to be good horror, and do a pretty good job.

As a side note, I’m not some Bird Box apologist. Of the four horror movies I’ve mentioned in this post, it’s my least favorite. But the issues I take with it are not with the world-building (unlike some critics, I thought the rules regarding the phantoms were fairly well spelled out), but with the choices on how to induce horror. (SPOILERS INCOMING: SKIP THIS PARAGRAPH IF YOU CARE) From the beginning, we know the rest of the people in the house don’t survive because only Sandra Bullock and the two kids are alive in the current time; that undercuts most of the tension in the house. Also, I thought the first phantom-acolyte they encounter, at the supermarket, was horrifying, as he appeared to be stuck forever in his place, doomed to coax unsuspecting souls to their death. One character even commented, “How is that guy still alive?”, so I wondered if he even was, or if he was sort of an undead thing controlled by the phantoms. Scary! Unfortunately, the rest of the acolytes (aside from the one in the house, who we knew John Malkovich would kill because how else would Sandra Bullock and the kids be alive in the future? The structure of the narrative seriously undercut the tension!) are pretty much your run-of-the-mill murderers in any post-apocalyptic movie. Not scary! Finally, I took issue with the last few minutes, after their boat capsized; I felt it was unnecessary for them to run around in the woods. It would have been scarier if she reached out of the water to feel a person’s foot, making the audience think it’s an acolyte, until he taps a cane on the ground and it’s revealed he’s blind. But, I digress. I don’t mind that the story has a few plot holes; I do mind that it wasn’t as scary as it could have been.

Plot Holes in Dystopia

Where, then, on this spectrum of genre does dystopia fall, and why do so many YA dystopian novels seem to fail? Could not "dystopia" be a sort of parable, requiring little explanation and thus little scrutiny, in the same way that comedy and horror and fairytales can get by on little to no explanations of what, exactly, is going on? Yes. I'll say it again, yes. I think dystopias absolutely could get a pass on world building... if they wanted to. The problem with books like Divergent or Hunger Games is not that they explain too little, but that they explain too much. If they simply set up their messed-up situations—everyone is sorted into a Hogwarts House faction, innocents must fight to the death for the enjoyment of the rich—and left it at that, I think it would be fine. The problem arises when these authors, usually in subsequent books, attempt to hash out the reasoning behind these horrible societies which... kind of couldn't arise for any real reason, or if they did, wouldn’t last very long. The explanations we are given don't make sense, or are at least are very, very full of holes and inconsistencies.

To be fair, other dystopias also offer explanations for why the world is the way it is, but they don’t dwell on it. 1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451 offer lip service for how society got so bad—whether that’s due to government rule or human complacency—but then move on. We don’t need to think too hard about how Eastasia or Eurasia were formed; we need to care that the government keeps switching which one we’ve “always” been at war with. We don’t need to know who’s running the world in Fahrenheit 451, because they’re not the ones who caused Montag’s wife to O.D. or who hit Clarisse with a car or who made Beatty hate books; the society of that book is twisted because individual people are twisted. Though they contain sci-fi elements, these stories are not sci-fi books. They are much closer to horror, in that their events are supposed to provoke a sort of cautious fear in the audience. The idea is that this could happen here, and maybe it’s already happening.

Again, YA dystopia’s could do this, but that’s clearly not what they’re going for. If Hunger Games was only a nod to the dangers of media and decadence, I could get behind it. Instead, it decided to become a story about revolution, with a somewhat Chosen-One-esque figure. It went the sci-fi-fantasy route, following the epic story of a hero who attempts to save society. If Divergent only concerned itself with the idea that humans are sorted into groups based on a single personality trait… well, I would still think that was pretty silly, but I could see a skilled writer making it work. It goes beyond this, though, into this whole backstory involving genetic engineering and human experimentation. It’s a sci-fi. And because both of these stories have decided to be sci-fi, rather than only dystopias, they fail. Because sci-fi stories require a somewhat believable backstory and set-up and current world building, and the worlds of Divergent and Hunger Games could not happen, or at least would not happen like that, even if there were rebellions and mutations and human experimentation. There are too many inconsistencies and plot holes that strain belief, and sci-fi needs to be somewhat believable.

With that, I hoped I’ve converted some of you to my genre-focused cause. Before you criticize a story for having a plot hole or being unrealistic, first consider the genre. Consider what the story is trying to do, and if it does it well or not. The plot holes might not be as big of a problem as you thought.

[sebeth]

Injustice #4

Warning, Spoilers Ahead…

 Injustice: Gods Among Us # 4 by Tom Taylor.

 Dick and Damian spar in the Batcave. Dick critiques Damian: “You keep aiming for that killing blow, you’re trying to hurt me, which I’m trying not to take personally by the way, but it’s not all about the body and head. Your opponent has sticky -outy bits that are easier to reach. Not only does your opponent have sticky-outy bits, they may also have had some bad circumstances that led them to a point where you’re fighting them. Some criminals deserve a second chance. Second chances are harder with a severe brain injury.”

An angered Damian hurls an escrima stick at Dick’s head, which is caught by the newly-arrived Superman.

“That’s not very sporting, Damian.”

Dick assures Clark: “It’s okay, Superman. I knew it was coming. He tries it all the time.”

The opening scene is foreshadowing for later events in the series. Damion’s routine hissy fit with the escrima sticks will end up having severe consequences.

Events before the beginning of the series in this universe are rather vague. We don’t know the circumstances of Damian’s introduction to the Bat Family. I would assume it’s similar to the mainstream universe. Damian appears older than 10, possibly in the 13-14 years old range.

Tim became Red Robin in this universe but we aren’t given details. Did Final Crisis happen? Was Bruce lost in time and presumed dead? Or is Dick’s mentorship of Damian similar to the animated movies?

Superman is at the cave to speak to Bruce. Damian says Bruce is “broodier than usual.”

Damian thanks Clark for killing the Joker: “Not that the Joker’s gone, everything just feels safer, you know?

Dick asks Clark if he’s okay. Clark says he’ll manage.

Clark demands to know where Bruce was when Ma & Pa Kent were kidnapped.

Bruce tells Clark that he has to “stop what you’re doing”.

“I have to stop what? Stop saving lives? Stop bringing dictators to justice?”

“You’re scaring them.”

“They should be scared. They should be too scared to press the button. They should be too scared to pull the trigger. They should be too scared to hurt each other. You taught me that. You’d do exactly what I’m doing if you were me, if you could do what I can.”

“You killed a man, Clark.”

“I did. And every time you let that madman live, how many more did you condemn? Did you even feel responsible? Did you even feel guilty?”

“Every time. But we don’t get to choose who dies.”

“One death. To save millions.”

“One. Death.”

“It always starts with one. That’s how justification works. But once you justify something once, you can do it again and again. It becomes easier. Right and wrong blur.”

I find myself on both sides of their argument. Bruce is absolutely correct on the slippery side nature of taking the law in your own hands. Superman and company have no right to run the world. On the other hand, killing the Joker is something that should have been done years ago. The Joker’s body count is in the hundreds if not more. There is no hope of redemption for him – and even if he suddenly regretted all of his previous actions, there is no way to atone for his scale of murder. And this is before the Metropolis massacre. The Joker – and Harley’s – death toll is now in the millions!

A Japanese fleet harpoons whales in the ocean only to encounter a very angry Aquaman.

Aquaman sinks the ship causing the Justice League to respond.

Diana urges Arthur to withdraw. Arthur refuses – the ocean is his kingdom and he will protect it as he sees fit.

A worried Atlantean soldier blasts Diana, starting an Altantean-Justice League brawl.

We return to the Batcave where Clark accuses Bruce of loving the Joker: “You’re not sitting in the dark mourning Metropolis, are you? You’re mourning him. You’re angry at me for taking the Joker away from you. You loved having him around. Your constant nemesis. The two of you played your stupid game and people died. Why did you let him do this to me, Bruce?”

While the suggestion of a Bruce/Joker love match is disgusting, Bruce should have ended the Joker years ago. Honestly, the Joker should have been killed – and left dead – in the Death of the Family storyline.  After the paralyzing Babs/murdering Jason combo act, the only thing the writers seem to do with the Joker is have him commit yet another atrocity. Boring and redundant.

Clark continues his rant, bemoaning the loss of his wife an unborn child. Clark specifically mentions the loss of his unborn child denying the world of another Kryptonian, “someone who would have made me feel less alone.”

Maybe Clark should try being nicer to Conner!

Clark criticizes Bruce’s parenting skills: “You’re sitting in the dark, ignoring Dick and Damian. How many friends did they have in Metropolis? Have you consoled them? Have you held them? Your parents died and left you, Bruce. What’s your excuse for not being a father?”

I don’t know if the events of a future Injustice annual were planned out at this point but if they were, Clark’s speech is rather ballsy and hypocritical considering his treatment of the Titans in the aftermath of the destruction of Metropolis.

Did Clark ever consider Bruce is “sitting in the dark” at the Batcomputer because he’s searching for his missing son? The one Clark banished to the Phantom Zone?

Dick and Damian wouldn’t normally have “friends in Metropolis”. Jon was never born and Dick doesn’t hang around in Metropolis. Is Clark’s “friends in Metropolis” rant the first clue Bruce has regarding the whereabouts of the missing Tim and the Titans? Is that the reason Bruce punches Clark at the end of his speech?

Clark switches from angry to concerned in a second, examining Bruce’s hand. Normally, I’d say it’s a typical Clark move, but in the Injustice-verse it’s a sign of Clark’s growing instability.

The Batcomputer alerts the duo to the brawl in the Atlantic Ocean. Clark decides to head over there.

Bruce warns Clark: “You can’t yourself above us, Clark. You’re right. I’m not saying I’d act differently if I had your abilities. I’m not saying I wouldn’t try to impose peace but you…you’re a better man than I am.”

Not anymore, Bruce.

Alfred asks “Master Kent” if he’s staying for tea.

“I’m afraid not, Alfred. And you don’t have to call me ‘Master’”.

“Good. Let’s remember that.”

Alfred is not fond of Clark’s shenanigans.

Aquaman has summoned a creature so huge that its arrival causes a tsunami. That’s right, the Kraken has been unleashed.

Batman warns Aquaman via a communicator: “Listen to me. He’s coming. He’s in angry. He’s in pain. You’re hurting his friends. You need to stop or there’s no telling what he may do. Do as he says.”

Superman wants Arthur to withdraw the Kraken.

Arthur does after reminding Clark the League started the brawl. Which they did. Arthur attempted to calm the situation down after his soldier blasted Diana. Diana decided she was “tired of words” and started the rumble.

Arthur and Clark argue.

“I called for a worldwide ceasefire.”

“Even your voice does not reach down into the deep, Superman. If you wish to rule the surface world…”

“I do not seek to rule, only to protect.”

“I understand, with the destruction of Metropolis, you lost your kingdom. But you can’t have mine.”

“I do not want…”

“Superman, whether you see it or not, your reign is beginning. But the sea is mine alone to command.

The League realizes “Atlantean armies are rising in countries across the world.”

Superman: “Arthur, what is this?”

“A reminder. I am not some self-appointed leader of an insignificant country who can be bullied into submission. Every port. Every ship. Everything that flies over the oceans does so with my blessing. Your world would halt grind to a halt if I willed it. Every land mass borders the sea. Your entire world is inside mine. Consider this a show of strength. Now get the hell out of my ocean.”

Bruce fumes: “You idiot. He’s not going to respond to an ultimatum!”

Clark orders Diana, Hal, and Billy to accompany him: “Aquaman is using his strength. It’s time we showed him our strength. It’s time we showed everyone who would threaten the world just how much power they’re dealing with. No more holding back.”

The foursome then lift Atlantis out of the ocean and re-locate it into the middle of the Sahara desert.

That’s the show of strength? Lifting a city containing thousands of civilians, women and children, and putting it in the middle of an environment where they are unable to breathe or tolerate the extreme heat. Sounds more like a murder plan.

It should be noted the panels containing the “rising Atlantean armies” only showed the Atlanteans standing in formation on the coasts – not actually attacking.

I’m not defending Arthur – he, along with Clark and Diana, all acted like immature toddlers having a fit.

The forcible removal of Atlantis is where any remaining sympathy for Clark went out the window. He acted like a terrorist. A “proper show of strength” would have been engaging the Atlantean armies not threatening unarmed civilians. It boggles my mind that the rest of the Justice League has been fine with Clark’s actions.

Diana is clearly a more sinister version of herself in this universe. She’s been egging Clark on the entire team and she is the cause of the Atlantean confrontation.

Hal should know better – Sinestro was removed from the Green Lantern Corps because of Superman-like actions – but he’s shown bad judgement in the past so I could maybe see him siding with Clark. It’s still iffy as Hal hasn’t been traumatized by the destruction of Coast City in this universe.

Hawkgirl – well, if she’s “Hawkworld” version of Shayera then she would be comfortable in a military-run world

Raven – will be shown to have fallen under Trigon’s influence so she’s clearly fallen to the “dark side”

Cyborg, Captain Marvel, and Flash are simply too good/sweet to fall in line with the dictator posse. Boggles my mind to see the trio blindly following Clark and Diana’s orders.

Diana informs Clark that Arthur is ready to speak to him. Clark demurs, stating “I’ve achieved nothing by talking today.”

More like cowardly refusing to own up to his actions.

Arthur urges Diana to steer Clark “away from this course of action”, warning her that “you will have scared a lot of people today. Ordinary people who will not want gods and aliens telling them what they can and can’t do.”

Diana refuses as she believes “this course of action is what’s best for the world.”

Diana returns to Clark and informs him that Arthur “will pull his armies back into the ocean”.

Clark has Billy and Hal return Atlantis to the ocean, nothing “this action didn’t sit well with either of them.”

Diana tells Clark “Don’t worry about what they think. You did the right thing. You did what needed to be done.”

“So you’ve said.”

“I won’t let you doubt yourself.”

“What else?”

“What?”

“Surely Arthur had more to say.”

“No. Nothing.”

Diana omits Arthur’s concers and his expressed sympathies for the loss of Lois.

Diana is quite the sinister manipulator in this universe. She’s all but hurling Clark down the “slippery slope” of his actions.

It’s easy to see the reasons of Clark’s descent. He’s lost his wife, unborn child, and his entire city. He’s isolated his parents in a fortress instead of mourning with them. He has a fierce anger towards his best friend because of the Joker and is unwilling to listen to Bruce. Diana, his other best friend, is urging him to indulge in his worst impulses. And the rest of the Justice League – minus Arthur – is too cowardly to call him out.

Next issue: It gets worse. Of course, that could be the summary for every issue.

[greenandhazy]

YO! I’m back! and I came back to a Hanukkah card, thanks @canadiansuperhero <3

I’m going to post a bunch of pictures tomorrow probably, but some thoughts and memories beneath the cut

(fair warning, this is fcking long)

I LOVED our tour guide. his name was Boaz and he was chill, funny, and super informative. he addressed us collectively as “beautiful people” or “bubbelech” and presented info in a very nuanced way

like he addressed the whole glorification of the suicide at Masada and how that’s a little bit Problematic, and before we talked about Mt. Herzel he led a conversation about narratives--why they’re constructed, how, how they might be biased or helpful--and he was very frank when asked about various Israeli conflicts (Palestine, Arab-Israelis, Orthodox vs non-Orthodox, etc).

he also took us on an optional museum trip on Shabbat just because he loves museums. man after my own heart. (the Israel Museum in Jerusalem is AWESOME, by the way. perhaps a little traditional, but still very well done.)

holy shit the Negev desert. took my breath away. driving through the mountains was incredible, and I’m sad that I really don’t have very many good pictures of it because it was through the bus window, but damn was it something

on a related note, we spent that night in a Bedouin camp and even though it was totally designed for tourists, the head dudes really did treat us like guests and we learned some really cool stuff and ate a lot of delicious food with our hands, so overall a win.

I hate that I’m going to That Person who’s always like “yeah well to get REALLY good hummus and falafel you have to actually go to the Middle East, you just can’t get it in America.” but like. it’s the truth. Hummus Abu-Hassan in Tel Aviv and Jaffa. for reals.

also, I was planning on buying zaatar anyway because it’s mentioned in the Jerusalem cookbook, but then I tried it on a bagel and also in this Yemenite flatbread and it’s SO GOOD, I got a huge bottle of it.

on our first Shabbat we visited Ramat HaNadiv, which is a garden complex in Zikhron Ya’akov, and it was a really beautiful way to spend the day. there was also a garden section specifically designed for blind people that had only plants that had strong fragrances or interesting textures, that was cool.

we had eight Israelis traveling with us for half the time and I made two friends:

Ayelet, who almost immediately taught me a Hebrew pun. “koreha” means “hilarious,” but she insisted that we always pronounce it as “koreHAAAA.”

and Alon, who was quieter but we visited his family’s home as part of the trip, and he played Hallelujah on the piano while his sister sang, so later on we talked about music and swapped recommendations. he was super into the Tracy Chapman I played him

I also made friends with some people I don’t think I ordinarily wouldn’t have talked to, including an 18-year-old guy from NYC who thinks I’m very mature and wise (which was SUPER gratifying bc this was otherwise a mansplaining-heavy trip) and two brothers who taught me a very fun, very evil card game called King Mao.

there was a geopolitical talk session, which overall I think was quite good--the speaker gave a nuanced talk, and my only critique was that it was a little too nuanced for some of the people who came in with very strong pro-Israel (pro-IDF? pro-Bibi? not sure which term is most accurate) views. like, I think those of us who were moderate or left-leaning understood the sympathy for Palestinian civilians in his portrayal, but it went over some people’s heads, which was unfortunate

I did find it hilarious when he played this Hamas song, and four of the Israelis, including our tour guide, started singing along because it’s so catchy that people used to play it in clubs all the time.

Hannah Senezc’s grave is on Mt Herzl--I realized that it would be about five minutes before we came upon it, and that was very meaningful for me. Hannah isn’t my Hebrew name anymore, but she was a not-insignificant part of the reason I chose it in the first place, so I left a stone.

I  had a lot of thoughts at the Western Wall--I might make a whole separate post about that. it moved me, but not in the way I expected.

we visited the Mehane Yehuda Market in Jerusalem on Friday afternoon. it wasn’t my favorite place to shop, but it was a great place to people-watch as people prepared for their Shabbat. I liked that a lot.

the Holocaust History Museum was very moving--I appreciated it as both a visitor and as a public history student. two things I think stuck out for me. the first was Yad VaShem. I was prepared for the wall of names, which I had seen photos of, but I was caught off guard by the huge gaping hole in the mountain below it--“the gap that six million people have left in our community and our history” was how the tour guide put it. and the second was the tour guide, who connected the Holocaust to the violence in Syria (and other modern human rights abuses) several times. she started the tour with the book burnings, and--I remember very clearly--said to us “in 1933, no one could see Auschwitz.” then, as she took us through Hitler’s rise and the development of the reich, she kept asking “do you see Auschwitz yet? do you see us getting closer?” it was incredibly powerful

a couple negatives:

like I said, I don’t think people talked enough about the oppression of Palestinian civilians specifically. the geopolitical talk covered discussions about Gaza, Syria, and Jordan, and it tended to focus on governments; I think the tour guide gave a great discussion about the spectrum of Israeli politics, but the geopolitical speaker discussed Palestinian civilians in relation to Hamas, not in relation to Israel, which was quite a gap.

there were ~28 guys and ~12 women and holy shit men can be the worst. so much casual mansplaining, and I didn’t even REALIZE how much until I found myself being told that ancient Germans and ancient Romans actually spoke different languages, which explains the difference between French and German. then I frigging snapped, and realized how much it had been happening throughout the trip.

(aside from sexism, 18-22 y.o. boys can just be super disrespectful, fyi. it sucks. some of them were late a lot of the time and they drank way too much, even on the nights when we were explicitly told we should not be drinking. it was v uncool.)

twice we had rabbis speak to us, and both times they were Haredi rabbis who... were just slightly too black and white for my tastes. like, I was probably the only religious person in the group, and among the most educated about Judaism, so I understood a lot of their points, but they were often phrased in a way that was very off-putting to the secular Jews in the group (exacerbated by communication issues with one of the rabbis whose English was not quite as strong), which put me in a weird position of wanting to defend Judaism as a whole even while I disagreed with the specificity of the position under discussion.

related: I have developed a specific frustration with secular Jewish men who criticize the separation of men and women in Orthodox Judaism (and pre-denomination Judaism) as sexist without a) recognizing their own sexism and b) acknowledging that, in some cases, women actually derive personal satisfaction from elements of that separation, and that women can have their own distinct spirituality that does not depend on men. (I feel like my status as a traditionally-women’s-college alumna is showing here.)

overall, I’m glad I went. I had hoped to have had more spiritual conversations with my peers, which didn’t really happen, but other than that I think it fulfilled my expectations. I’m more confident explaining where I stand with regards to Israel; I’m more familiar with its flaws as well as its strengths, and in the future I think I will be able to engage in politics surrounding it with more confidence. (That doesn’t mean I’m going to want to discuss it all the time, but I don’t think I will cringe whenever the topic comes up.)

on a religious level, I’m glad I saw it. I’m glad I visited the wall. seeing so many Jews being unapologetic about it has given me more confidence in how I want to express myself, and I am confident in my choice of name: Yocheved. It felt right when I was holding the Torah, it felt right at the Kotel, and it feels right now.

so yeah. good trip.

[animemisogynist]

The End of Anime Misogynist?!?!

I’m writing to you from a secret underground bunker somewhere in North Dakota, not far from the Canadian border. I have only 7% battery left on my Kindle Fire, and getting this post out in time may be my last hope. Any moment now, the forces of the Matriarchy are going to break down the door. I’ve eluded them for over a year, but they’ve hunted me like an animal, determined to make me pay, both for my heinous crimes against all womynkind and questionable use of semicolons. When they find me, they’ll probably strangle me with one of my many dakimakura covers, hopefully the Hestia one--

--Oh, right, I was supposed to end this now.

Hi, I’m Karen, and I’m the Anime Misogynist. Normally, I blog about otaku stuff and other fun things over at Otakusphere. Now, I can’t be absolutely certain, but I’m pretty sure I’m not really a misogynist. I do however take issue with feminist criticism, both of anime and pop culture more generally, when it’s ill-informed, illogical, and myopic. There is good feminist criticism out there, but unfortunately, the type that seems to be popular online right now-- particularly on major anime websites-- is the ill-informed, illogical, myopic type. I created this site to illustrate why this is a poor way to critique anime…or, well, anything.

Does Anime Misogynist seem like mean-spirited trolling? I hope not, because that was never my intention. I believe that a viewpoint should be able to stand up to mockery, and if it can’t, people should be given the opportunity to see that (yes, I am one of those tedious “the best remedy for bad speech is MORE speech” people.) I also believe that critics should avoid using terms cribbed from academia that they don’t fully understand, which is perhaps the biggest problem with current feminist criticism of pop-culture. Most of these critical pieces make the same couple of mistakes over and over again, hence I find myself making the same jokes over and over again; that’s why I’m closing up shop.

Still, before I go, I’m left with the concern that some people misread Anime Misogynist to be a mockery of the very idea that misogyny exists in media, which it isn’t. I myself have found certain shows misogynistic at times; I don’t then make the leap to calling all fans of said show misogynists, but that’s bringing up a separate issue. No, some media is sexist or misogynist (they are not the same thing), and there isn’t anything wrong with sharing your opinion on that. However, you know what is wrong? Constantly using terminology that undermines your goals right from the start.

Why would you use the term “male gaze” when it’s completely heteronormative? Not only does it ignore the existence of lesbians, it also ignores the fact that even straight women sometimes enjoy looking at images of attractive women. The repeated use of that term assumes a male-centric worldview that’s probably more harmful than whatever the show in question is doing.

Why would you use the term “Objectification,” when it clearly doesn’t work in practice the way it does in theory? The alleged problem with objectification is that once someone becomes an object to you, you cease having sympathy for them as a human being. Putting aside the fact that anime characters aren’t real human beings to begin with (which has always seemed like a pedantic argument to me), if you’ve ever talked to an anime fan, you should know this isn’t how most fans operate. Fans have incredible passion for their favorite characters, and can simultaneously enjoy looking at sexy images of these characters, while still caring a lot about their storylines and character development. I’m sure there are instances where objectification does work as advertised, but why would you bring that concern to anime fandom, where it’s completely out of place? If anime fans are objectifying characters, wow, we sure are TERRIBLE at it.

Why would you use the term “male fantasy,” with its implicit criticism that men shouldn’t have (or perhaps, do not deserve) a fantasy life? Are only women entitled to fantasies? That makes it seem like we must need them more than men do, because we’re less engaged with reality; a firmly anti-feminist position to take.

Why would you talk about “oppression,” without acknowledging that it’s highly context-sensitive; the same person is likely an oppressor in one scenario, the oppressed in others. If you label women (or any group) as an oppressed group without further elaborating what you mean, you’re engaging in such a gross oversimplification of how the world works that it makes anything you say on any topic appear suspect.

Why would you use the term “Patriarchy,” unless you’re writing some kind of paranoid conspiracy thriller…in which case, why are you wasting your time on anime crit? You have a novel to write, let’s see some ambition!

Why would you use the word “problematic” for anything ever? It is the most useless word.

In addition to all the other problems with them, the constant use of these kinds of terms in anime criticism makes it all seem very cookie-cutter; like people are cutting and pasting from a template rather than forming their own thoughts. Even if I was more inclined to agree with the points these critics make, I would still find this approach boring as shit. We don’t need even one article that complains that an erotic anime is catering to the male gaze; we certainly don’t need 300 of them.

Do you want to actually talk about sexism and misogyny in a given work of fiction, without resorting to using your standard issue Third-Wave Intersectional Feminism Magnetic Poetry Set? Please do! Please talk about how a given show makes you feel, using your own words, your own logic (although try to refrain from the “this show is so misogynistic it made me cry for 17 hours” school of doing this; it becomes a game of perverse misery one-upmanship that doesn’t do anyone any good.) Talk about why specific creative choices appear to be promoting misogyny, as opposed to examining or undermining it; sometimes, the shows that are the most insightful in their critiques of misogyny get labeled as misogynist, simply because they address it, which is just unfair. Write about your own experiences, without speculating on what other fans must think, especially if you’re not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

If a critique comes from a place of sincerity, without the need to kiss the ring of any particular ideology, then I respect it, even if I strongly disagree. Everyone is entitled to have their own unique take on what they watch; even if you think that Revolutionary Girl Utena is the most misogynist anime ever made, then by God, that is your right as a viewer. But don’t lecture me using language you don’t understand, don’t promote the very ideas you claim you’re trying to discredit, and don’t claim to know what’s going on in MY head when I watch something; that’s for me to know. I care about your opinion, not your opinion of what you think my opinion would be if I were a very dumb person.

And if you feel the need to talk about how you think a given show effects society at large, then acknowledge that you’re engaging in something extremely complex, where there are about a million lenses to look through and each have their own limitations. Broad assertions like “Big boobs in anime condition men to hate women” are an insult to everyone’s intelligence, pure and simple.

I’m not the criticism police; it’s not my job to tell everybody how to do their anime criticism, and I realize I’m being a hypocrite right now, since that’s basically what I’m doing. However, if you write really poor, illogical criticism, I probably won’t take what you say very seriously. If you write really poor, illogical criticism and then act extremely pompous and condescending on top of that, then I’ll probably mock you for it, because it’s comical. This site exists because so many of the people who write bad anime criticism are also pompous and condescending to other fans; I don’t know why that is, but it’s true at the moment. I don’t know if my efforts have any chance of changing that, but it seemed worth a try, at any rate.

So, what’s next for the Anime Misogynist? Well, “he” might pop up from time to time on Otakusphere, when a show needs to be examined through a rigorous, misogynist lens; it’s a service I rather enjoy providing. I’ll leave this site up for the time being, although I doubt I’ll be adding more to it. To all of you who were in on the joke and enjoyed my posts, thank you; to those that weren’t in on the joke, or were just confused, I hope reading this post has at least shown that I’m not a horrible, woman-hating slimeball who deserves to burn in hell.

I mean, hey, maybe I do deserve to burn in hell (no sense in ruling anything out), but not for that reason.

Love,

Karen

[supified]

A long winded introduction

Who am I and why should you care?  To say that I’m a nobody is a pretty big understatement.  There are over seven billion people in the world and everyone is a perfect snowflake.  And when everyone is a snowflake no one is.  Clearly, I’m not important in the grand scheme of things and yet, you’re reading this.  That is the only thing I can be sure of is if someone is reading this than they’re reading this.  So why should you care?

 The first thing about this blog that I ought to make clear is what the point is.  This is a blog entirely built around reviewing and discussing the craft of writing and story books.  I am not an author, at least not when I wrote this, but I do read a lot of books and try to help other people filter through the endless mass of books to find the ones they will enjoy.  Think of it as a service I provide for the satisfaction of sharing my passion.  If you’re reading this blog then you should be interested in either my point of view on books or reading books yourself at the very least and maybe writing, although there are probably better blogs for that.  Probably better blogs for all of this.

 Now to the million-dollar question still unanswered, why should you care who I am. What books someone enjoys will depend on several factors and quality is only one.  The fact is a very high-quality book may yet still be unenjoyable to you specifically as determined by your taste.  I can go into what I think makes a book quality and for the sake of argument, let’s pretend I’m right.  Does that mean you will enjoy the book…? Not necessarily.  Taste matters.  Take any genre and there is going to be master works in those genres and people who won’t enjoy them.  I for one do not enjoy the romance genre at all, or the regency, so books like Jane Austin, who is unquestionably a master writer, wouldn’t particularly interest me. While my reviews are aimed to express my point of view while exposing the lens I view it through to help anyone reading them to know if they share my point of view and may enjoy the same sorts of things I do.  The fact remains my lens and point of view matters if you are reading my review.  It matters because without knowing what that lens is you won’t know if the view you are getting is distorted to your taste. It’s kind of like eyeglasses that way I guess.

 That isn’t to say a good reviewer who likes stuff you do not won’t be useful. I will express why I dislike something or like it and then if you’re already reading my review you might be able to say, huh, they didn’t like that but I like that in books so maybe this book is for me even.  I have a friend who loves romance for instance, and she doesn’t particularly mind if a book sub plots to include it.  She’ll enjoy stuff I won’t and I try to keep that sort of thing in mind when I critique a book.  So if I’m going to include that explanation, why then again should you care who I am? Well because if a book is Jane Austin, whom I recognize as good but not down my alley I simply won’t read it to begin with.  So that is why it matters who I am.

 Now that I’ve got that out of the way, who am I?  Well, I’m not actually going to tell you that.  Rather I’m going to tell you what I like and appreciate and look for in literature.  This is where you put your taste against mine.  First, I like female inclusion if not female protagonists.  Media is over whelmed with male leads and male oriented stories. Most fiction, games, movies, tv, ect. . will include this magic number of thirty percent or less female inclusion. Just count the characters and you’ll see it is this bizarre trend that for whatever reason goes across lines, even cultures.  It is like all content creators got together and agreed on this in advance.  Obviously, it isn’t -all- media, but it is very pervasive. So one thing about me is I try to find the stuff that doesn’t follow that.  For me to want to read something I will generally look for fifty percent or greater female inclusion (because to make up for all the times the opposite was true we need to head in the other direction).

 Second, I care a lot about stories telling the truth.  What is telling the truth?  In a nutshell, it means an action or event shouldn’t happen that doesn’t fit the world that the story already established or character motivations.  Dues ex Machina (hand of god) are great examples.  When the author forces an outcome and it just doesn’t fit this sort of thing bothers me and I will always attempt to call them out. Why this bothers me is because to put it simply it isn’t any fun to read about something with shifting rules.  You can’t speculate about the world if there are no criteria with which to speculate on and if the author demonstrates willingness to break rules they themselves set then there is a problem.  Examples might include having a character cliff hanging involve falling into deep water in full armor and somehow swimming to escape anyway.  If you don’t want your character to die, don’t put them in a situation they can’t escape, it cheapens the experience and the story.  

 Third I care a lot about guiding principal.  I realize story telling is an art and not a science really, but I think everything should be built on something.  If you are designing anything you should have a purpose in mind and stories are no different.  Sub plots are a great example of a violation of this, something tossed into the story that doesn’t belong or have anything to do with what the story is about.  The most common subplot is romance, many stories will include this for the sake of a quick fix for the reader, like taking a drug. Instant gratification may sell, but it rarely makes for quality.  I find sub plots to be distractions and often detracting from a story.  Since this is the third thing on my list I’ll also mention these are in order of importance to me.  Generally, I’m more willing to forgive something farther down on the list than earlier.  Rules are made to be broken, right?  Just make sure if you’re breaking them you know what you’re doing because if you just think rules don’t apply to you than you’re probably just a bad writer.

 Lastly, I prefer there to be modern elements to the story, like LGBT awareness. This isn’t to say everyone in every world has to be gay or what have you.  No, this is more a comment on the author themselves.  If the author is homophobic I probably won’t read their stuff. If their work simply doesn’t touch the subject, okay, but I would rather that in some ways it is at least acknowledged. Once again, this doesn’t have to be by making a character non-het norm, tokenization can be worse than exclusion, but for instance same sex characters should be able to have meaningful friendships with each other.  For me the LGBT issue goes beyond simple sexual preference but it goes into gender identity and comfort with members of the gender which someone is not attracted to. A great example of being anti-lgbt in my view is if a character only truly interacts with potential partners and ignores everyone else and treats same sex characters purely as romantic rivals. In those hyper het-norm settings I find my interest quickly wanes.

 So now in a nutshell you know what kind of books I’ll be considering.  The last thing to touch on is genre.  The only one I don’t particularly like is romance. Why don’t I like the romance genre? Mostly because I feel it focuses a little too heavily on one aspect of human nature.  Stories usually exclude description of the main character when they shower.  Most people shower every day, see themselves naked every day.. ect.  These things are not parts of stories, why?  Well one it doesn’t usually have anything to do with the guiding principal, but two it’s just gratuitous.  I feel many or maybe most romance novels to be gratuitous. There is probably lots of good ones in the genre, but I’m not prepared to dig through the others.  It is unlikely I will review many, if any, romance novels.

 Now that you have a feel for me, you can keep reading my blog, or you know, not.  Also, my reviews are available on Amazon.  I try to review everything I read, though the stuff that is already reviewed to death I may just skip.  Happy reading!

[theworstbob]

the thing journal, 7.23.2017 - 7.29.2017

documenting how i enjoyed things i watched or listened to. in this post: jackie brown, weather diaries, burn your fire for no witness, kiss me once, body talk, the outsiders, the happiest day in the life of olli maki, and my krazy life

1) Jackie Brown, dir. Quentin Tarantino: One item among the long list of my Cool Guy demerits is that it took me 20 years to watch the Tarantino adaptation of an Elmore Leonard novel. Once you set aside the fact that low-key fuckboy Tarantino pretty much only wrote this movie so he could write the n-word as many times as he pleased, this is just incredible fun. Pam Grier is amazing in the lead role, it’s just such a joy watching that character get forced into this situation then slowly start to realize she’s smarter than everyone else in the situation. Also, Samuel L. Jackson in a ponytail. I don’t know whose choice that was, but whoever decided that Samuel L. Jackson’s character needed the scummiest ponytail of all time, they are a hero and deserve a national holiday dedicated to them.

2) Weather Diaries, by Ride: So one fun thing about Amazon Music’s recommendation system is, it sucks and. Amazon Music keeps recommending I listen to good kid M.A.A.D. city, an album I bought four years ago on Amazon. So I don’t know why I trusted it when it said I might enjoy this because I enjoyed Sheer Mag. I was in the mood to rock again. Need to Feel Your Love is great! This was boring Britrock nonsense, and not the dreamy ethereal London Grammar kind, not something I could get behind, just intermittently captivating slowscapes that were nothing at all like the classic rock offered by Sheer Mag. And, I mean, I guess I get it, the people who are listening to Sheer Mag are the people listening to indie rock, and Ride is the sort of band the indie rock people usually listen to, and I should have realized they were basing this selection off the tastes of indie rock people and not what Sheer Mag actually sounded like. And I guess the album isn’t bad, I just don’t need something like this in my life.

3) Burn Your Fire for No Witness, by Angel Olsen: If I learned anything from my journey through notable 2014 releases, it’s that it takes something way strong to transcend my disinterest in indie rock. Like Weather Diaries, this is fine, but this genre just isn’t for me. You wanna know what is for me? You wanna know what gets me going, what gets my brain a-thinkin’ and my fingers a-drummin’?

4) Kiss Me Once, by Kylie Minogue: Fuck. Yes. I am not ashamed to admit that I am always going to be into the trashiest pop music you can dredge up. Give me someone singing over electronic beats. Give me an album which has three songs of eleven with the word “sex” in the title. I am not concerned with sounding music smart. I think it’s really neat that Ride and Angel Olsen are able to convey complex emotions with their music, and I’m sure if I ever gave them a true sit-down and really thought about them I might find something to like, but how come we always think sadness is more complex than happiness? Kiss Me Once is no less authentic just because it has more electronic elements and has songs about things that are nice. I will make this point until I am red in the face and hoarse from the screaming: it’s way harder to express positivity than negativity, and I am always going to be more drawn to works with positive and hopeful thoughts than I will be to sad dark souls.

5) Body Talk, by Robyn: Unless that music is made in Europe. When I say I was disappointed in this album, I am sort of lying, because no album with “Dancing on My Own” can be disappointing. “Dancing on My Own” is a perfect song, and any album with it on it is a phenomenal goddamned album. (You know how hard it is to make a sad song with a beat that hard? Listen to all the plodding-ass sad-sack covers that completely miss the fucking point. Kings of Leon should be banned from music for what they did to this song.) I just couldn’t connect with the rest of the album. Maybe it’s because I listened to this the day after Kiss Me Once and it felt redundant, or maybe I’m just a little too accustomed to American music and had trouble adjusting to anything remotely foreign. But I really liked the Kylie Minogue album? ...Was this just not gay enough for me? Like, Kiss Me Once sounded like a missing piece of the Scissor Sisters oeuvre, and this sounded like electronic pop music with precision producing. I don’t know if I have any right to make this critique as a straight cis white male, but I think my main problem with this album was that it wasn’t gay enough. It’s like Cameron and Mitchell on Modern Family. Yeah, the show is funny, it’s being made by professionals and the years they’ve spent honing their craft shines through on occasion, but those characters aren’t nearly as compelling as they could be. Same thing here, the album’s just a little too reserved, a little too afraid to let go and travel to the Kylie Minogue place.

6) The Outsiders, by Eric Church: Setting aside the silliness of a dude on a major label calling himself an outsider (he performed the title track during halftime of a Dallas Cowboys Thanksgiving Day game played on the Fox network. Tru rebel hours), Eric Church is still one of the few men in country music making ambitious and engaging songs. I’m willing to put up with occasional snoozes like “Talladega” if they’re gonna come between songs like “A Man Who Was Gonna Die Young” and “Give Me Back My Hometown.” Are there men in country music who’re more creatively engaging than Church? Yes, of course, and certainly none that  pose a pro-marijuana stance as a bad boy credential. (”Oooh, I’m such a rebel, I smoke ganja.” Yeah hey so does my mom. Drugs are boring and you’re boring for liking them.) But Eric Church is a fine enough access point to those cooler things. He’s definitely several notches up from the bro country cohort, but he’s just dull enough that you’ll be willing to search for more.

7) The Happiest Day in the Life of Olli Maki, dir. Juho Kuosmanen: This film offers an intriguing counterpoint to Creed. Creed is all about a man punching (swish!) over his head and trying to prove himself in the highest-pressure situation imaginable. This film is about a man who gets put in that high-pressure situation and realizes he wants no part of it. I think this society praises people who rise to the occasion and do their hometown proud and pull off the upset, but no one makes movies about the underdogs who end up losing, the Directional Michigans of the world what get throttled by the Dukes, and this film gives some shine to the people who’d rather be amateurs, who neither need nor want the adoration of millions and the intensity of fame. Olli Maki is clearly uncomfortable having to be a symbol for Iceland’s hopes and dreams, never more relaxed than he is when he’s in the country with the woman he’s fallen in love with, and this film treats it like a victory when he ends up getting beaten down by the champion boxer. (I love the other boxer. “Hey. Y’all just gotta stand there and smile and not say words. Look like you don’t know where you are.” Role of a lifetime. Dude nailed it.) It’s a unique take on the typical sports movie. Someone decides they’d rather not push themselves to greatness and remains ordinary, and you’re left saying, “Yeah, that makes sense. She’s a good woman, and getting punched heckin’ hurts! Way to go, Olli!”

8) My Krazy Life, by YG: Man, this guy is not entirely cool with the concept of women, is he? There was one song on Still Brazy I have to skip because it makes me so uncomfortable, and there’s nothing here quite that gross, but there’s more than a few lines that completely jar you from the album. Like, if you push through, there’s a lot of good. YG just slugs some of these beats, particularly “Really Be (Smokin N Drinkin)” (which also contains one of the better Kendrick guest spots). He can take these electronic bleep/bloop beats and pound them into the ground until they’re ugly enough to be gangsta rap, and the production is just glossy enough to smooth over some of the rougher edges of YG’s personality. It’s a really cool album, but man, it’s almost not worth the amount of effort it takes to enjoy it. Still worth, but you gotta ask some difficult questions about what you value from your music.