#its tame its just referencing the meme

[headspace-hotel]

Just spent a couple hours digging into this book. I'm not even sure what has worse environmental impacts, the paper the book is made of or the opinions printed within.

Is "post-colonial" literary theory a joke? It's distressing that a book printed in 2021 by a reputable academic press can be so painfully Eurocentric, and I mean PAINFULLY. The philosophical and literary frameworks drawn upon in most chapters are like what some British guy in 1802 would come up with. In most of the chapters, every framework, terminology, and example is inseparably fused to Latin, Greek, and/or Christian philosophers, myths and texts, even down to the specific turns of phrase. You would think only Europeans had history or ideas until the 20th century.

Don't get me wrong, non-european and even specifically anti-colonial sources are used, and I don't think all the writers are white people, but...that's what's so weird and off-putting about it, most of the book as a whole utterly fails to absorb anything from non-European and in particular anti-colonial points of view. The chapters will quote those points of view but not incorporate them or really give their ideas the time of day, just go right back to acting like Plato and Aristotle and Romantic poets are the gold standard for defining what it means to be human.

In brief, the book is trying to examine how literature can shed light on the climate crisis, which is funny because it completely fails to demonstrate that literature is good or helpful for the climate crisis. Like that is for sure one major issue with it, it shows that people *have* written stuff about climate change, but it sure doesn't convince you that this stuff is good.

Most of the works quoted are rather doomerist, and a lot of the narrative works specifically are apocalypse tales where most of Earth's population dies. The most coherent function the authors can propose that literature fulfills is to essentially help people understand how bad things are. One of the essays even argues that poetry and other creative work that simply appreciates nature is basically outdated, because:

“One could no longer imagine wandering lonely as a cloud, because clouds now jostle in our imaginations with an awareness of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants” (Mandy Bloomfield, pg. 72)

Skill issue, Mandy.

The menace of doomerism in fiction and poetry is addressed, by Byron Caminero-Santangelo, on page 127 when he references,

the literary non-fiction of a growing number of authors who explicitly assert, some might even say embrace, the equation between fatalistic apocalyptic narrative and enlightenment…they are authoritative in their rejection of any hope and in their representation of mitigatory action as the cliched moving of deckchairs on a sinking ship

He quotes an essay “Elegy for a country’s seasons” by Zadie Smith, who says: “The fatalists have the luxury of focusing on an eschatological apocalyptic narrative and on the nostalgia of elegy, as well as of escape from uncertainty and responsibility to act." Which is spot-on and accurate, but these observations aren't recognized as a menace to positive action, nor is the parallel to Christian thought that eagerly looks forward to Earth's destruction as a cathartic release from its pain made fully explicit and analyzed. Most of the creative works referenced and quoted in the book ARE this exact type of fatalistic, elegiac performance of mourning.

I basically quit reading after Chapter 11, "Animals," by Eileen Crist, which begins:

The humanization of the world began unfolding when agricultural humans separated themselves from wild nature, and started to tame landscapes, subjugate and domesticate animals and plants, treat wild animals as enemies of flocks and fields, engineer freshwater ecologies, and open their psyches to the meme of the ‘the human’ as world conquerer, ruler and owner.

This is what I'm talking about when I say it's dripping Eurocentrism; these ideas are NOT universal, and it's adding nothing to the world to write them because they fall perfectly in line with what the European colonizing culture already believes, complete with the lingering ghost of a reference to the Fall of Man and banishment from the Garden of Eden. It keeps going:

“Over time, the new human elaborated a view of the animal that ruptured from the totemic, shamanic and relational past.”

Okay so now she's introducing the idea of progression from shamanic nature-worshipping religions of our primitive past...hmm I'm sure this isn't going anywhere bad

“While humanity has largely rejected the colonizing project with respect to fellow humans, the occupation of non-human nature constitutes civilization’s last bastion of ‘normal’ colonialism. A new humanity is bound sooner or later to recognize and overthrow a colonialism of ‘nature,’ embracing a universal norm of interspecies justice.” (pg. 206) 

OKAY????

Not only denying that colonialism still exists, but also saying that humans' relationship with nature constitutes colonialism??

Embracing limitations means scaling down the human presence on demographic and economic fronts…(pg.207)

ope, there's the "we have to reduce the human population"

Embracing limitations further mandates pulling back from vast expanses of the natural world, thus letting the lavishness of wild (free) nature rule Earth again” (pg. 207) 

aaaaaaand there's the "we have to remove humans from wild nature so it can be freeeeeee"

don't get me wrong like I am a random white person with no particular expertise in anti-colonialist thought but I think this is an easy one. I'm pretty sure if your view of nature is that colonialism involving subjugating humans doesn't exist any more and actually humans existing in and altering nature is the real colonialism so we should remove humans from vast tracts of earth, your opinion is just bad.

Anyways y'all know I have an axe to grind against doomerism so it was probably obvious where this was going but good grief.

[wardenofthecoast]

Skyrim and Civil War

You know, there are ways to make good morally grey conflicts, but Skyrim's Civil War is not one of them. However instead of talking about how undercooked it was (it was), I want to talk about the underlying concept of it. Sometimes just saying "add more content" isn't a reasonable critique when it comes to a product that needs to come out (there are graveyards of games that never stopped developing).

The issue with Skyrim's civil war -

It puts a lot of emphasis on Talos, a god that tbh I don't think needed it and wasn't referenced until the third game. IDK this is more personal but I'd prefer Talos just be a hero-god of Cyrodiil/Skyrim you know? (Oh that guy who conquered you all and forced you into his empire, which some of you are old enough to remember? worship him pls)

It's morally grey, but in the "I hate both of these options way". There historical precedents for a nationalist movement opposing imperialism, and there are precedents for rebellions occurring from princes or nobles who want take power. However the conflict feels more like neoliberal democrat versus libertarian republican, aka I hate em both and the difference is minimal. It's like if someone wanted to do the US civil war but they really thought it was about states' rights. It's like Braveheart but worst.

It's both the impetus for the plot (the dragonborn prophecy) and shows up in the main quest, but ONLY if you don't interact with it (too much). And there's incentive not to, as it provides a cool quest that is optional and you can remove a jarl or two you don't like depending on how it goes. Otherwise you can really ignore it, and you're standing with any guild or city isn't really referenced except when the new Jarl takes over.

It's an excuse for chuds to make stormcloak memes after they're done making Morrowind slavery memes.

OK i know what I said about content but yeah the gameplay aspect isn't great with one or two exceptions (the siege of Whiterun and Solitude/Windhelm). The lack of say and options as a nation's folk hero truly shines here. It's like if during the US civil war Jesus showed up, killed the devil and then everyone said "thank you but we need you to blackmail a secretary".

You could make it work. There's a phrase the comes up in the game, Season Unending, which the nords used to mean war. You could put an anti-war theme or something regarding the cyclical nature of violence, even if people didn't agree it would be saying something. Personally, I'd use the 30 years war as inspiration - a religious and political conflict about an empire with multiple actors, all of which causing mayhem to the countryside.

Here are my solutions which don't involve any additional content, but instead changes/removal.

The Civil War ended at the beginning of the game. You see Ulfric die, his forces are scattered and the jarls with him are left picking up the pieces, but the Empire doesn't have the funds to restore control nor pay its soldiers. This helps explains why forts are ruined and the high number of bandits - they are soldiers/deserters looking for a payday. It also creates a narrative of trying to see who Ulfric Stormcloak was using unreliable narrators and maybe a bit of tragedy for a guy who thought he was The Guy (but in fact You're The Guy).

The Civil War ended years ago. Same as above, but make it more tamed. This would be the closest to just removing it entirely.

Make it a rebellion and have the player be a part of it. It would be so interesting a contrast to be against the empire after four games directly or indirectly aiding it. Now you could either try to do something thoughtful about revolutions and violence and the character of that rebel army, or you could just do Braveheart, but either way people would probably be more invested in it.

Don't let us join either side. The Empire's rulers claim the title dragonborn, and having some shmuck say he is would not be in their interest. Ulfric claims tradition and his power of the voice, not saying but implying a connection to Talos, and so he would not want you as a threat to his power. Have both groups be awful, and hammer home how these nobles might all claim to be different, but they slaughter the peasants all the same.

These aren't perfect solutions, and tbh the quality and quantity of the writers on board a project are going to impact any idea. But still, I think I'd prefer these options than what we got in game.

[aclockworkfilmsnob]

Why do you think clockwork orange is growing in popularity?

Because it's a timeless tale that will forever remain relevant. Malcolm McDowell once said that new generations own it in different ways, they always manage to make it their own, and there are so many reasons for that. Even though it will never be as disturbing as it was to mainstream audiences in 1971, it still taps in to off putting ideas that will never age. Never being safe in your own home, the human attraction to violence, the illusion of morality, the ideas of free will, the exploitative government, opposite ends of the political, religious, and moral spectrum ultimately being inherently awful. Yeah, it's not as filled to the brim with gore as any of the Saw sequels are, and it's not as heavy on the rape and ultraviolence as something like A Serbian Film is, and for that reason people label it as "tame in comparison." But I'm about 99% sure that 50 years from now, the new and edgy stuff that only exists for shock value will be laughed at and mocked by future standards, and Clockwork will still have that chilling edge that sends eternally shivers down people's spines.It fits so well with what's going on in our society now between gang violence on the rise (especially here in NY), and corrupt politicians as far as the glazzies can viddy. It's this perfect kind of story that exposes the harsh reality of it all and still invites us to laugh at its absurdity and revel in its insanity, which adds an extra dimension of nightmare fuel, the idea that we can connect with and enjoy such a terrifying ordeal.Not to mention, on a purely cinematic level, it seems as though it could have come out today with all of the dark comedies coming out. Quentin Tarantino, The Coen Brothers, and Martin McDonagh put out films that have the same demented sense of humor that ACO has, and for that it can be accepted on a different level than it has been before. With movies like American Psycho and Reservoir Dogs so celebrated and beloved in the mid 90's to today, it's kind of mind boggling to think that Stanley Kubrick made something so god damn similar such a long time ago, and with complete intention, as Malcolm McDowell and even the film's original trailer insisted that it was made with the intention to be funny. So many of Kubrick's films are completely timeless, easily everything he made post Lolita, with the obvious inclusion of Paths of Glory. They cement cinema as an art form, I think at this point, to ask why we still talk about A Clockwork Orange is like asking why we still talk about The Mona Lisa. It's a masterpiece with a gigantic cultural impact and it's fundamentally impossible for the film to become irrelevant as long as humanity remains alive. I do think there's a degree of pseudo intellectualism with Clockwork's recent influx in popularity, somewhat similar to the Rick and Morty fandom, where people insist on citing and referencing it to seem like they're smart and have a brilliant taste in cinema, I've noticed it in a lot of video essays on irrelevant topics. I appreciate a great Clockwork reference but a lot of these are redundant and forced. I think like Rick and Morty, it is smart, but you do not have to be smart to enjoy it, or even to get it for that matter, it's very on the nose. Something always has to exist to fuel our egos, whether it's every political talk radio station mentioning how they read 1984 once, to people who have to insist on how much they like Clockwork and how superior that seems to make them feel. Things like that will always exist, there's nothing we can do about it, but I think it adds to how popular it has become among a myriad of other things. For whatever reason I can't escape the feeling that maybe I played a very minor role in something of a spike in popularity, between a few memes I've made on the film becoming popular, and some thesis points I've cited on the film's themes and visual language that I previously found no one talking about before, but recently they've become the subject of every clockwork analysis video, from the recent screenprism essay to a Part 2 of Rob Ager's analysis… I don't know, I'm probably just being paranoid, but from the long history of large YouTubers stealing from smaller content creators, I'm not so quick to accept that it's nothing. Hundreds of people have stolen my memes, they can steal my ideas too. But does that have anything to do with why people love it so much? No, because it's more about the film's entertainment and replay value. It's fingerprints are all over cinema today, references to it are seemingly placed everywhere in the entertainment industry. Yet it still feels so new and fresh when watching it. What kind of film has that kind of power, where you can see it quoted and referenced so many times to the point of almost seeing the whole movie through tribute, yet watching it for the first time still feels like something completely new? Not many films, I can tell you that.It has had copy cats since its conception, but it will outlive all of them. I know I've basically gone this whole post without mentioning the book, but keep in mind, I've read the book only twice and I've seen the film over 20 times. Not to mention the fact that the story has been eternalized through the film, even if the book itself has a timeless quality to it, and my feelings towards it are very similar towards the film, I think it will remain relevant as well. We as humans are fascinated by what we refuse to accept. I can't imagine there will ever be a point in time where it's not worth talking about, it's always a conversation worthy work of art. Between my tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theory as to why I am the key to all of this, and the objective truth that ACO taps in to eternally relevant themes, there are so many things that keep the story fresh. And that's why perpetuates the popularity, I dare say it will forever go in a Clockwork direction.