#I know too well how these people engage with satire about themselves

[matan4il]

Daily update post:

I've seen the following headline discussed on several news sites:

And most of the discussion surrounded the issue of why are the terrorists shirtless (which takes the gold medal at the "turn a simple answer into a pointless debate" olympics. They're shirtless to make sure they're not carrying suicide vests, that they plan to detonate in the vicinity of the soldiers). What people should be noting about this, is that these armed terrorists were coming out of a hospital. It's another needed piece of evidence that Hamas has been using Gazan hospitals for their military operations. I am once again encouraging you to think about the UN, the Red Cross, the journalists reporting from Gaza, and every "respectable" human rights organization, like Doctors Without Borders, which operated in these places, and COVERED THIS UP for Hamas for the past 16 years.

Denmark's police announced that they have arrested 3 people (with one additional person arrested in The Netherlands) for planning to carry out a terrorist attack against Jews and Israelis.

Israel's top satire show continues to ridicule the inability of the world to have any moral clarity, of even the most basic kind, when it comes to antisemitism.

And that's how you could have done it, SNL.

In the same context, I watched the House debate on the bipartisan resolution calling for the presidents of Harvard and MIT to resign. Some of the arguments against the resolution were absolutely infuriating, either types of "whataboutism" ("But what about all the other things we should be doing to combat antisemitism?" Well, Karen, you can do those, too. There's absolutely no contradiction. At the same time, you say that you've dedicated many years to fighting antisemitism, and yet look at the state of your fight. Maybe holding people in position of educational power personally responsible, maybe making people see that there is a price to pay for taking Qatari money and allowing antisemitism to thrive, would make a difference, on top of those other measures that should be taken to fight Jew hatred) or just repeated, "But free speech!" (as if that line of defence wasn't obliterated during the hearing, when it was demonstrated that other marginalized groups' right to protection has been treated as superseding the right to free speech, on the same campuses where these presidents failed to define a call for the genocide of Jews as harassment, which means that not only did these universities fail to protect Jewish students from antisemitism, they engaged in discriminatory behavior towards Jews themselves).

Thankfully, the resolution passed, 303 to 126.

Here's a reminder of what Jewish students have been dealing with:

On the last day of Hanukkah, I wanna share with you this story. You might have seen this picture before:

This is the Posner family's hanukkiah. In Dec 1931, a moment before the Nazis' rise to power, and when their imminent threat is already well felt by German Jews, Rachel Posner puts this hanukkiah at the window, knowing that the Nazis' headquarters in Kiel, the German city where her husband is the community's rabbi, is situated right across the street from their home. After lighting the candles, she's suddenly inspired to take a picture of the hanukkiah with the Nazi banner in the background. When she gets the picture printed, she writes on the back:

"Judea, drop dead!" says the banner. "Judea will live forever," answers the light.

"Judea, drop dead!" was a part of a common Nazi slogan back then. It went, "Germany, wake up! Judea, drop dead!"

The Posner family heeded the warning signs, and left Germany in 1933, one of the last moments when that was still possible for Jews. The family moved to Israel, and was saved. Once established, they decided to donate the hanukkiah to Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust remembrance authority, to be displayed at our museum. The family only asked for one thing: to get to light the hanukkiah every Hanukkah. Now, museums are not supposed to say yes to this. If you donate something to a museum, that's it. The artifact belongs to the museum, you don't get to ask to use it, and in fact, for preservation purposes, it's not supposed to be used. But YV understood from the start that our museums is not going to be like other ones, and that when people donate artifcats to us, these are not just inanimate objects. These are the remainders of people who are lost, innocence that was robbed, a world that was destroyed. These are reminders of hope and life in the face of hatred and murder. And we can't take that away from people. That's why YV agrees to this type of request.

So, when I take people on a tour of our museum during Hanukkah, and go into our "German Jews room," and I show the corner where a large "window" bears an imprint of Rachel Posner's photo, I have to explain why the display next to the "window" is empty, other than a small note that reads, "temporarily removed." And why Hanukkah is the only time of the year when visitors can't see this hanukkiah.

This year was no exception. Hanukkah came, and we got the Posner family hanukkiah out of the glass display case... Except this year, after the Oct 7 massacre, things are different. The hanukkiah first traveled to Germany, where it was lit by the families of the hostages asking for their loved ones' return, and then it traveled back to Israel, and from there to Gaza, where it was lit by a great grandson of Rabbi Akiva and his wife Rachel Posner.

This is 41 years old Tal Haimi.

Tal was a third generation at kibbutz Nir Yitzhak. He's one of many Israelis, from which there was no sign of life since Oct 7, though there was an indication that they're held in Gaza (most commonly, their cell phone signal was picked up there). Yesterday, his family got confirmation that he was murdered during the Hamas massacre, and it was his body that was kidnapped to Gaza. His wife Ella is pregnant, and was documenting the course of the pregnancy for the past two months, hoping to share that with him, when he returns from captivity. May his memory be a blessing.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

#israel #antisemitism #israeli #israel news #israel under attack #israel under fire #israelunderattack #terrorism #anti terrorism #hamas #antisemitic #antisemites #jews #jew #judaism #jumblr #frumblr #jewish #Youtube

[abimee]

I hope I'm not misinterpreting what you said; your comment on people's reaction to abstract art and things along those lines is how I feel about experimental and abstract music made as a form of art (which some people seem to Hate but is a very important art form to me). I don't have any fancy insightful commentary, but a lot of people just dismiss this stuff because it doesn't instantly draw their attention or makes them uncomfortable for whatever reason. It could be the artist expressing their emotion, trying to showcase a technique, etc any other hundreds of reason. I think regardless of if it's something made in satire, a genuine expression of emotion, or "it just looks/sounds cool!" or anything else they're all worth looking at and thinking about. That person's comment about "I don't think it's worth looking at" makes me a bit sad for that reason

no youve hit it right on the nail. i think a lot of people can be adverse to trying out new genres or even music styles theyre not used to because theyve become accustomed to like, i dont wanna call it ''palatable'' music but music where once again like art they can find something to project/latch onto. like people who refuse to listen to speedcore or lyricless music because they so badly need lyrics/something to attach to and cant feel the emotion within the instruments themselves

im not too well versed in more like experimental music but i know this was peoples reaction to 100 Gecs when they first showed up, because to them it was just ''loud, obnoxous autotune music'' and couldnt see the fact that within the music was laura les' expressions of her identity and emotions. this also just directly happens with classical music. people just wont listen to piano or symphonic music unless its like video game tracks or whatever cause they dont see any worth in sitting through ''long and boring pieces'' and have no concept of like how people express emotions and stories and invigorate a mental image without using words.

i also see this with vocaloid too where english speaking americans just outright refuse to listen to vocaloid/lump it together as an entire genre they ''dont like'' when vocaloid is nothing but an instrument used by thousands of different artists in different genres for different means. like you cant tell me that siinamota's "Metamorphose'' sounds anything like matryoshka by hachi. its all the same people just disrespect art like crazy for the dumbest of reasons

this especially pisses me off with people who only like the ''human sounding AI synth vocaloids'' in a way i cant explain. they cant get over the speed bump of a robot singing to engage with so much beautiful art made by people across the world telling their own emotions and ideas and stories and decide the entire thing is a waste of time. drives me up the wall

[angryteapott-archive]

Why is Goncharov 1973 funny:

I saw something like the goncharov joke stands in direct contrast to the “sometimes the curtains are just blue” post which made me go hm…. Also saw people confused by the joke so now I thought too much and made a three parter on my take

Part 1: shoe movie funny

The original joke is that a pair of shoes invented an obviously fake movie, which is funny because why would a pair a shoes do that. The derivative joke is a person going “wow loser you haven’t seen this fake movie?” Which is a joke stressing how ridiculous it is by pretending it’s normal for shoes to advertise a niche obviously fake scorsese film, who isn’t known for gimmicky advertising, BUT ALSO a joke on how bullies could use fear of missing out to make people just pretend to have seen something that doesn’t exist rather than reveal ignorance (like the classic made up band name jokes).

The next step of the Goncharov joke, and from what i can tell launched it all, is a person making up a poster about the movie and going oh yes this very real movie. It has jokes about the mafia genre tropes (“ice pick joe”, a hot lady side character, mostly male cast, scorsese actors) as well as being funny because it commits highlights the same two juxtapositions as the previous jokes, FOMO and shoe movie funny, while adding the inherent funniness of someone putting in way too much work for a bit. Things like the soundtracks follow on this (they’re mostly funny because they take the shoe movie too seriously) and thus should be categorized as part of the third wave.

Part 2: sometimes the curtains are just blue

The fourth wave of goncharovism, which is the bulk of the posts and the subject of most discussion, is media criticism, content, and derivative works about Goncharov, a movie that doesn’t exist. There’s posts that read like actual film critics, lines that seem like surprisingly good dialogue, themes about time because Film Shows Clocks Means Deep, bad overwrought dialogue, and most critically, the typical tumblr engagement with a piece of media including meta, gifsets, fanworks and snide comments about how other people are misinterpreting the movie. A movie that isn’t real. It’s fake.

The joke here is obviously a love letter to and scathing critique of criticism- the fact that analysis of something that doesn’t exist reads like actual analysis that people unironically post mocks that a lot of analysis doesn’t engage with text but overlays existing biases over it regardless of content, and also that a lot of movies are the same movie tbh. Katya is being held to unrealistic standards makes fun of shallow stock feminism, “homoeroticism” points to tumblrs obsession with gay stuff that isn’t actually that gay, and all the fake and often bad quotes show how we love to feel deeply about stuff we don’t really engage with. It’s also pointing to how silly it is to put in this much “anger” and effort in and how enjoyable it is to do this, regardless of whether it makes sense. Sometimes curtains are just curtains, and sometimes a clock doesn’t fucking exist, but it sure is fun to say what the curtain really means is that humanity is inherently sinful and that the clock means that Goncharov and Andrey, two characters that don’t have personalities because the movie they’re from doesn’t exist, wanna fuck.

The joke is that it’s fake deep, but it’s fun to do anyways. The joke is that people are getting mad about “people” who don’t exist being sexist etc because they’re making fun of tumblrinas who don’t look at nuance and assume a very specific form of oppression without evidence AND that people would say that shit because scorsese bros ARE sexist. The joke is that we know it’s fake but people find themselves taking it seriously anyways because it’s fun to make up a movie together and fun to make fun of ourselves. I love it!! It’s great!!! But it’s not a declaration against that the curtains are just blue, it’s a satire making the same point much more joyfully.

Part 3: the reality of goncharov

The fake goncharov movie has trended a fairly specific ways: it has defined characters and relationships, a fairly limited cast in terms of people who matter, homoeroticism, hot girl with a gun, and a lot of foreshadowing. It’s very invested in Katya and Goncharov’s personal narratives despite the wide array of people on the poster. Other than that very funny post about a (fake) shoot out showing the destructiveness and hollowness of nationalism, it’s not all that engaged in systems or the mafia specifically.

And sure, our Goncharov is so narrow partially due to its fake genre- mafia movies are tropey and hero obsessed. It’s fake. We’re making fun of the “best movie” by making a fake tropey movie!! But half the joke is being earnest, and our fake movie is chock full of the tumblr beloved tropes of obsession with romantic relationships, with “themes” that emphasize tragic endings for mutual obsessions, of an absolute lack of engagement with systems while insisting we are engaging , and of a focus on two or three characters instead of an ensemble cast- a million people are writing a movie and yet it has no breadth.

And GET THIS- Goncharov is a real movie. No, I mean it. Goncharov is probably a Google-translate-error-caused misprint of the movie Gomorrah, “presented” by Scorsese while not being directed by him at all. Egbert’s review, so mercilessly parodied in Gonch-posting (or goncharosting, as I like to say), calls it “a curative for the romanticism of The Godfather and Scarface”. Rather than deifying a specific man, it is a series of vignettes about horrible violence that seems unavoidable for its rotating characters. It’s based on real killings, and many of its actors were actually arrested for mafia activities. Forget hollow themes- it’s a movie that’s harrowing due to its reality.

Which is very very funny. Like i genuinely can’t believe we made a fake mafia movie that’s accidentally about a realest mafia movie ever made that proves how much we don’t mentally engage with the important oppressions and systems in our world while insisting that we’re self aware the irony the thematic parallel the sheer “oh fuck for real”ness of it all i was going to try to say something deep but like can you believe it??? God playing is playing 4-d funny chess with every last one of us. Long live goncharov

#goncharov #no one’s gonna read this but istg goncharov is the funniest joke ever made #goncharov meta #goncharov explained #long post #i was going to put a read more but no. this is funnier

[theglguidetowebcomics]

Full review: Girly

What’s Pink, insane, NSFW, hilarious, and somehow heartwarming at points? This comic is a ride and a half, and I’m genuinely surprised more people haven’t heard of this one… I’ve been wanting to talk about this one for a WHILE. 

So let’s talk about the elephant in this room… Because I think it just ate someone’s couch. 

Slightly NSFW review with spoilers below.

Girly, by Jackie Lesnick was a webcomic that ran between 2003 and 2010, (and really has some of those early webcomic hallmarks). Its monochromatic pink, vertical, with a poppy early cartoon feel. It’s also listed as a romantic comedy, which is… correct, but cuts a whole lot of what makes this comic good, short. 

This review was always going to be one of the 4 I really struggled with. And not just because I lost it the first time without a back up in a code glitch, got distracted by a pandemic, then procrastinated my way to finally making a second version in my new backup folder… No, well also yes but no. This was a comic I read when I was younger (and should NOT have read  when I was younger), and have always had a soft spot for. I’ll admit as much as this comic has its flaws or weird moments or just weirdness in general, its one of the few comics I’ve found myself rereading in its entirety more than once. And no matter how much I know it's coming, find myself sobbing, uncontrollably, at the final panel. There’s surprisingly a lot of heart in this comic, and a whole lot of honesty in just the direction the author took this weird little thing. But, first let me take of those rose tinted glasses as much as I can… (actually that might not work too well with a pink comic seriously whats with all these early 2000s lesbian comics being PINK?). And give this old comic a look and a bit of a dust. but , first...

Sex.

Getting to the point - page 3 of “Girly”

Girly is a NSFW comic. It’s not shy about it either. It hits the audience (and the main character) over the head with it literally in the first pages. It has sex positive characters, a sex positive world, some characters with… sex powers almost, and Dildos, a whole lot of dildos. Some even with smiley faces on them. It’s a pretty unavoidable part of the comic that makes up a large core of it’s humour and is baked into its wacky world. So if that’s not your thing, and it’s not really skippable in this case, you won’t like this comic.

But, if you’re alright with that part of it this might just be a hidden gem. Moving on.

Art

Artwork is always interesting in webcomics. They’re usually one man shows, have a weird niche / strong influences, and or usually go on massive journeys as the art improves. Girly is no different here. 

Girly starts out rough. Some poses are wonky and its a bit scratchy. Technically speaking it has a few issues, which is fine. Its a free webcomic, from the 2000s that didn't copy and paste faces. (Won’t name names, you know who you are). You can’t be too harsh on a free comic, though.

However, what the art style does, even early on is set the style and feel of the comic. Anime inspired faces, bold outlines, and blocky silhouettes that were really popular with 90’s and 2000s cartoons. It has a newspaper, manga comedy strip vertical style, too. It fits the style of story well as a poppy wacky story. It's the perfect art style it could take.

Its rough in the beginning, but moves on from its scratchy days, to loose pen brush, to finally a polished free hand poppy style. It gets more technically advanced as it goes along, but it keeps its core style throughout. It’s fun, a little unhinged, and just pares perfectly.

The one issue I have with the art is it comes off as a bit cramped. It certainly matches the energy of the story, but it also feels like it doesn't let the characters have any breathing room in the frame. It comes off as squashed, and can make some character poses hard to read. That’s the only complaint I can find though. The issue even fixes itself later in the story, but just very very close to the end. It looks great there, but the majority of the comic is a little cramped. Still that’s just a small complaint.

Nitpicking here but some panels need a lil more room

This a humour comic foremost. It's the biggest part of what makes Girly specifically Girly.

Humour

The humour is mostly wacky nonsense, playing off its insane characters, physics defying world, everything being dialed up to 11. It also works a lot like satire, poking at what influences it, and playing with cinematic expectations. The first page has Otra shooting someone into space on a rocket because they annoyed them, the first “adventure” the character’s go on is stealing everyone’s pants because they couldn’t find anything else to do. Then there’s the kidnapping adventures, knight trials, and slice of life shenanigans that happen. All of it as wacky as the last. I haven’t really found any other lesbian comics like it. Its not everyone’s tastes, but it is certainly unique.

If you’re into a willy wonka tunnel of over the top characters and plots, you’ll like Girly.

Characters

Girl is a LONG comic, it ran for 7 years. The art evolved, the story writing, jokes, and themes along with it. It was originally meant to run for only 50 strips... and it ended up with 764. 

so, there’s a lot to unpack.

Firstly, the premise of the story is somewhat simple. It focuses on Otra. The kinda straight man to the entire universe. She starts out almost depressed, out of place, and bored of the wacky inhabitants of her world. Until one of those wacky residents smacks her over the head with a giant dildo and won’t leave her alone for the next 7 years of run time. 

What follows is the sullen Otra being pulled around by the always cheery and zany nonsensical Winter as the sidekick for bizarre adventures. Otra’s depressive grounded view keeps the bizarreness funny, while Winter cuts through her negative attitude and causes a lot of the over the top plot. Leaving Otra to warm up to the world, and Winter to get less reckless as they balance eachother out. It’s a fun dynamic, and works as an emotional core of the story. No matter how weird the plot and rules of the world are, their relationship keeps the story somewhat focused and rewarding to see develop.

An example of bold wacky character designs from even early on

The comic isn’t just about them, though. As an ensemble comic there's plenty of side characters that go through arcs and beats as well. From el chubacabre, the man that woman find so irresistible that they sleep with him as soon as they see him; detective Clapjaw the street wise detective who is very bad at his job; Officer Hipbone and police guy from the cute P D; captain fist the ever popular bad at his job superhero who gets all the credit; the news reporter obsessed with captain fist; the woman with babies; Steak;  the elephants that just… appear and eat buildings; among many many others. A lot of whom also have nicely written character arcs and depth in later chapters. Many of the character however are simple and remain simple, which isn’t a bad thing. For such a large cast, having a diverse range of strange characters with strong identities and looks even if a bit simple stops it from getting bogged down. It strikes a good balance. Plus there’s plenty enough of characters with more depth later on. 

 All the character’s are insane, and over the top in a way that really sets up the world they live in and how it works... as dysfunctional as it is. There’s something very Cartoon Network about all the characters, but with some wider influences. something about  dumb characters, with very specific goals and quirks that work on their own physics to feed into the high energy insanity of the world. Its entertaining to read, and leads to a weirdly charming feel of the comic. 

Story and plot

For the bit people actually want to know about. What is it about?

Just a little bit of influences...

For the style itself the comic comes off as a mix between early 2000s slice of life-y anime, 2000s cartoon Network, and a dose of 2000s webcomic sarcastic action/adventure flare. It definitely has one of the most pronounced styles that I’ve seen, and even if it's very much a webcomic of it’s time it also goes a bit beyond that into something that feels personal to the author and honest. Its a batshit comic. But, it wears its influences on it’s sleeve and really plays with tropes and ideas the author found engaging at the time. It somehow comes off as refreshing in just how willing it is to go weird or niche for no other reason but because it wants to. It's what I appreciate most about the comic. It’s honest.

The overarching story of the comic is without a doubt about Otra and winter growing together as people. But with a comic that’s run for 7 years a little bit more happens in the journey, at least you hope it would. Girly runs on chapters, 15 in total (with 15 having sub chapters due to being the story’s climax), and each one of those chapters follows a different plot or adventure with Otra’s and Winter’s developing relationship gluing them together. 

The plots themselves are wild and vary a bit in quality. But for a long comic that’s understandable and expected. They go from solving elephant problems, super villains, body swapping, fantasy parodies, and all sorts of strange things. Sometimes a few plots drag and a few character arcs feel a bit bland. It still manages to be entertaining all the way through though. The plots themselves work to get the character’s to play off each other and explore the strange world it takes place in. Exploring evil teddy bears, or an entire town devoted to cheap gags. No matter what, all the plots work in fleshing out the world and pushing character’s out of their comfort zone or forcing them to change. There are some that are less fun than others, but none of them manage to be boring or useless. Which for a long comic such as this, is quite an achievement.

Conclusion

Girly is a hidden gem, Its an insane sex positive comic. A loose style and even looser physics. It’s bold and unabashedly itself. But, at its core it's about the love story of Winter, the wacky insane woman needing to slow down and open up, and Otra, a sullen woman who’s deemed herself only worthy of being on the outskirts of society. It’s two people growing together in a world that’s up to its ears in care bears, sentient dildos, earth shattering cloning, and jabs at 2000’s paste it comics. And somehow it all sticks together.

The characters resonated, at least with me, which may be the nostalgia talking. But by the end of the comic I can’t help but  think back on how long it took them to get there. The bits that made me laugh (a lot of them), the stupid parts, and the character’s arcs, as over the top they could be at times.  It may not everyone’s cup of tea. But it has a lot of heart at its core. (If you get past all the dildos). 

For all it’s flaws and weird bits. I still find myself going back to Girly. 

Maybe now, some more people will too.

#girly #webcomics #review #comic #lgbt webcomics #queer #lesbian

[donnerpartyofone]

reasons my i am probably too sensitive to have anything to do with other people

including other people’s drama that has absolutely nothing to do with me

i started reading this person’s new webcomic on instagram a month or two ago, and what started out as a fun little time killer that i looked forward to every day has started making me so uncomfortable that i wish i’d never heard of it. it takes place right now, in an especially embattled US city, and it’s about the dysfunctional lives of a bunch of shallow millennials, set against the backdrop of an increasingly dangerous country in an unpredictable state of revolt. it’s solidly engaging, convincingly characterized, and rendered in a unique funny animal style; i wasn’t surprised to discover that it’s going to be published soon by the most reputable publisher of this sort of thing. at first, i was impressed by it because i thought the behavior and dialog of its insecure young people was so well observed. it felt like one of the only things of its kind that i’ve read, more or less about real people living right now, that was neither a broad ugly satire, nor a pretentious drama exaggerating the specialness of its characters. the other thing i liked about it was that while it was largely about their sex lives, it didn’t seem at all sexy to me. the artist has a kind of distorted, rough-hewn visual style that i thought put some emotional distance between the overheated state of the characters, and the real consequences of their decisions. then it all got weird.

the artist stuck a really long, graphic sex scene in the middle of story that made me think...oh, maybe i AM supposed to be getting off to this? that’s weird, this all seems really bad to me, like every character is just mindlessly, selfishly bent on destruction and not doing much to make me like them, and i’d been reading along thinking “god i’m SO GLAD i’m not in my 20s anymore and i don’t have to deal with people like this--or with the pressure to act like this, as if using sex to create drama and being ‘crazy’ is the ultimate thing a person can do with their life”--and then suddenly it felt like maybe the comic was actually some kind of celebration of this lifestyle, or at the very least it’s an intensely sentimental portrait of a time of life, and of types of people, that i cannot imagine feeling sentimental about. then something else happened that made the comic even MORE uncomfortable to read, somehow: it had been gaining traction at an amazing pace, with tons of people leaving comments to the tune of “noooo don’t do it!”, the way you would yell at someone in a horror movie not to go back for the cat, as each character made the worst possible personal choice in every daily installment. the “don’t go in there!” response seemed pretty natural to me, but then the artist stepped in and made this announcement threatening to stop doing the comic altogether if the readers wouldn’t stop criticizing the characters. pretty much everyone in the comments was like “???”. many apologized if their comments were offensive, although they had no idea what they could have said that was wrong; other people, who seemed more sure that they were the ones being accused, said that they thought you were SUPPOSED to feel critical of the characters’ obviously bad decisions. that was how i felt, and at that point i was just enormously glad that i never comment on shit online or get involved in any type of community shit, especially when the artist started explaining laboriously that all of the characters represent some facet of the artist themselves and so therefore none of them are meant to be seen in a bad light at all and they’re all meant to be loved unconditionally and if you find yourself thinking mean things about the characters then you are effectively shitting all over the artist as a person. a lot of readers fell all over themselves to be supportive, and i just thought...this isn’t something you should support, though. it sucks that the artist is feeling so sensitive, but they’re about to have a book out in the world where they won’t have any ability to threaten readers who are “reading it wrong” or having incorrect thoughts about it. i mean...life is full of uncomfortable experiences and people you can’t relate to, i really don’t think we should be promoting this hopeless sanitization of all experiences in which trigger warnings used to be something that protected traumatized people from being randomly confronted with traumatic material, and now they’re used to just make sure nobody ever has to hear anything they don’t like, ever. anyone who cares about this artist should be helping them understand that they cannot control how people read their book or how they feel about each character and story in it. or failing that, they should be encouraged to just turn off instagram comments. but because of all this drama, i found myself reading all the comments obsessively--something i did when the blowup first happened, because i couldn’t find anything in there that i thought was mean or offensive, which added to my uncomfortable fascination with the whole thing--and that’s when i spotted a comment where somebody asked the artist is this was a furry comic. i wish this didn’t blow my mind, but it kind of did. i mean, it’s a book where almost all the characters are animals, and they occasionally have a bunch of raunchy sex. i think that if you’re a furry, meaning you’re interested in that sort of thing, this book is completely available for you to enjoy however you want. but this person needed the artist to FORMALLY CATEGORIZE IT as a furry comic. what the fuck is the meaning of that? it struck me as something that people in fandoms do, where they need every single thing to be labeled to death in an intensive and intractable way like it was science, the Final Word on everything in the universe, and they like *argue with each other* about whether they’re *allowed* to ship certain characters together or imagine them doing specific things, which is something you would only worry about if you thought the topic represented a literal material reality that could be adversely affected by people’s improper thoughts. i mean imagine if you felt that way about your jerkoff fantasies about fictional characters? that your horny thoughts are up for debate by hundreds of people you don’t even know? imagine feeling like that about OTHER PEOPLE’S jerkoff fantasies, like it’s worth fighting over and trying to CONTROL? like holy fucking shit you guys, STOP IT. it would even be one thing to ask the artist if THEY were a furry, which may or may not be anybody’s business, but to ask whether interpreting the comic through a furry lens is ALLOWED is like...well, actually, maybe it’s exactly in line with the artist’s recently expressed attitude, that you’re forced to think of the book in exactly the way that they personally think about it, or else you should have your reading privileges revoked. so now i’m still reading the comic, sort of compulsively, because i’m a little addicted to the soap opera of it and i’m ALSO a little addicted to the soap opera of the artist battling the readers over finding the correct orthodoxy for reading the comic--there’s a particular guy i’ve become aware of in the comics community because he is always harassing people with this mix of really caustic sarcasm and really bitter political self-righteousness, and he was surely the main person who was being “mean” to the characters, and HE’S STILL DOING IT IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, because i guess the artist would rather have problems with people than simply block them and eliminate them from the equation? but the whole entire thing is making me so uncomfortable i can hardly stand it. reading about like, dumb hot chicks with no self-control, and smug young shitheads who use the veil of progressiveness to hide or justify their predatory sexual behavior, and grownass adults who start drama with 20 year olds in order to feel relevant, AND being forced to know that the artist intends for me to embrace and adore all of this bad shit--like, people and things i left behind in real life, because it was all bad!--with ultimate love and compassion, or else they reserve the right to claim that they’re being personally attacked, has just become too much to take. it’s starting to make me feel sick. i really need to take the reigns on this thing. as much as the artist needs to forget about this control fantasy and stop being so precious about what they’re doing, i need to stop subjecting myself to something i find painful, embarrassing, and frankly creepy, if i ever wanna get back to a state where i have less to complain about.

tl;dr: stupid hipster is too sensitive to read a webcomic by a stupid hipster who is too sensitive for anyone to read their webcomic.

#NOT simon hanselmann #somebody else! #i will tell you if you chat me i just don't wanna get involved

[sumukhcomedy]

Joe Rogan is a Joke Thief

On February 10, 2007, Joe Rogan confronted Carlos Mencia at The Comedy Store over Mencia stealing jokes from many comedians. I had been doing stand-up comedy for less than a year and, along with Michael Richards’s notorious performance at The Laugh Factory, these were the pinnacle “viral” moments of that year. In 2007, Mencia had more popularity than Rogan. The incident led to Rogan being banned from The Comedy Store at the time.

Flash forward now 14 years and things are dramatically different for both Rogan and Mencia. Mencia has been outed as a joke thief and perhaps a sociopath and his career has never been the same as he travels around the country doing shows that last long enough that comedy club staffs are likely falling asleep. Rogan, on the other hand, has become the most influential comedian in the business to the point that somehow he was considered a legitimate debate moderator by former President Donald Trump.

How did we get here? How did Joe Rogan go from being a man that stood up for joke authenticity and the “code” of stand-up comedians to a man encouraging you to not get vaccinated and giving a platform to voices that are everywhere from conspiracy theorists to flat out racists?

Rogan’s rise from basically the host of a show where people eat disgusting stuff to an actual influential political voice is admirable. He was on the forefront of comedy podcasts and his The Joe Rogan Experience aligned perfectly with the rise of UFC and his status as a commentator with that sport. In its early days, The Joe Rogan Experience was an impressive show. I was amazed at Rogan’s ability to have an engaging conversation that led to podcast episodes lasting sometimes over 3 hours. But, with the right guests, the listener didn’t get bored. That’s a skill in a medium where 1 hour is usually sufficient before a listener starts tuning out a voice or subject matter. Rogan brought on his quality friends in comedy or even within UFC and had conversations specific to those topics. Sure, he’d have the occasional alien talk with some sort of expert in that field or would get inquisitive about mind-altering drugs, but for the most part, it was a grounded, casual conversation.

At some point, things went off the rails. Part of that came with Rogan, for reasons that are unclear to me, no longer taking responsibility for what was being said on his podcast as if he was unaware of its huge popularity. The early days of The Joe Rogan Experience were over. No longer could Rogan simply have casual conversations with his guests, be “too high,” or any other such relaxed excuses especially as Rogan began to discuss far more serious issues in the political and social spectrum and doing so with guests completely unqualified to be talking about those subjects. Rogan’s guests included his certain stable of comedians from Tom Segura (hilarious) to Tony Hinchcliffe (WTF?) to Brendan Schaub (he is not a comedian). And, yet, Rogan continued to do that. He continued to have free-flowing conversations with no fact-checking under the idea that it is comedy but was actually having a serious, influential impact on his hardcore fan base.

This is, depending upon who you ask, more insulting and offensive than the joke theft Rogan so prided himself on exposing. Forget Denis Leary dancing on Bill Hicks’s grave. Forget Mencia taking a small, hackneyed joke from Ari Shaffir. This is now as if Leary is telling you not to vaccinate yourself based off no facts. This is now as if Mencia gives a stage to racists and anti-trans speech without any counterpoints. Rogan has become worse than what he supposedly once stood for in the comedy community.

The disciples of Rogan who have no doubt found success due to their connection to him and his podcast only have continued the lack of responsibility. Bryan Callen and Brendan Schaub toured during the pandemic spreading COVID-19 to themselves and others while spreading conspiracy theories on the topic. Andrew Schulz’s Netflix special (which I admit I’ll never watch) apparently contains a bunch of material lacking facts and blaming China for COVID-19. Chris D’Elia took no real accountability for his sexual misconduct, chalking it up to addiction and thus insulting all addicts in the process of trying to resurrect his career. And then there’s Tony Hinchcliffe who recently was simply racist towards his host (a.k.a. co-worker) on a show in Austin.

When you offer no rules to individuals lacking rules to begin with, you bring out all the worst of the Wild West components to comedy. Lenny Bruce may have opened the door but now Joe Rogan is shitting on it. Yes, it’s amazing to have “free speech” but if we take no responsibility for what we say and do no research on what we’re speaking on, then comedy might as well just be a lunatic screaming on a park bench. And, in some ways, it has become that. There are no punchlines, just random insults with no actual joke structure. Give Mencia credit. At least he stole jokes that had punchlines. Rogan is just endorsing garbage to be spewed under the guise of comedy.

It saddens me because I actually like Rogan but I like a Rogan from another era in comedy. I like a Rogan that stood up for the younger comedians. I liked a Rogan that stood up for the ethics of comedy. I also like a Rogan who is an intelligent, analytical UFC commentator who clearly knows his stuff on mixed martial arts. That Rogan has taken a back seat to whatever he is now as a podcast host and political influencer. Now this Rogan is the one that punches down, is one that makes no effort with his mind or with his humor, is one that honestly will keep the money rolling in for the more ridiculous, the more inaccurate, and the more controversial.

To this day, just as I did when I started doing comedy in 2006, I research what I talk about in my jokes. It’s important to me that, given the opportunity to have a stage, I provide an audience with accurate details related to my humor. It’s a matter of authenticity and it’s a matter of respect. But with the nature of how comedy is operating now where the lines have become so blurred that the satire has now become the actual comedian, that kind of responsibility and mutual respect is disappearing. I’m actually more incentivized to spew inaccuracy, hate, and confusion. How that is considered beneficial for society and entertainment is beyond me but I suppose that’s what happens when you operate more on “clicks” than laughs and more on “freedom” than responsibility.

Joe Rogan was once the stalwart for the code of stand-up comedy and its ethics. He’s now a podcast host that’s defied everything he once was. 

#joe rogan #tony hinchcliffe #stand up comedy #comedy #carlos mencia #bryan callen #brendan schaub #ufc #mma #joe rogan experience #podcast #podcasts

[mamcollection]

Artist Gina Beavers Satirizes Our Insatiable Appetite for Personal Beauty in Her New Show at Marianne Boesky

Makeup as Muse: Gina Beavers

November 28, 2020

Despite my art history background and general love of art, I am less than eloquent when writing about it.  Nevertheless I will continue soldiering forward with the Museum's Makeup as Muse series, the latest installment of which focuses on the work of Gina Beavers in honor of her recent show at Marianne Boesky Gallery. Beavers' practice encompasses a variety of themes, but it's her paintings of makeup tutorials that I'll be exploring.  Since I'm both tired and lazy this will be more of a summary of her work rather than offering any fresh insight and I'll be quoting the artist extensively along with some writers who have covered her art, so most of this will not be my own words.

Born in Athens and raised in Europe, Beavers is fascinated by the excess and consumerism of both American culture and social media. "I don't know how to talk about this existence without talking about consumption, and so I think that's the element in consuming other people's images. That's where that's embedded. We have to start with consumption if we're going to talk about who we are. That's the bedrock—especially as an American," she says.  The purchase of a smart phone in 2010 is when Beavers' work began focusing on social media.  "[Pre-smart phone] I would see things in the world and paint them! Post-smartphone my attention and observation seemed to go into my phone, into looking at and participating in social media apps, and all of the things that would arise there...Historically, painters have drawn inspiration from their world, for me it's just that a lot of my world is virtual [now]."

But why makeup, and specifically, makeup tutorials?  There seem to be two main themes running through the artist's focus on these online instructions, the first being the relationship between painting and makeup.  Beavers explains:  "When I started with these paintings I was really thinking that this painting is looking at you while it is painting itself. It’s drawing and painting: it has pencils, it has brushes, and it’s trying to make itself appealing to the viewer. It’s about that parallel between a painting and what you expect from it as well as desire and attraction. It’s also interesting because the terms that makeup artists use on social media are painting terms. The way they talk about brushes or pigments sounds like painters talking shop."  Makeup application as traditional painting is a theme that goes back centuries, but Beavers's work represents a fresh take on it.  As Ellen Blumenstein wrote in an essay for Wall Street International: "Elements such as brushes, lipsticks or fingers, which are intended to reassure the viewers of the videos of the imitability of the make-up procedures, here allude to the active role of the painting – which does not just stare or make eyes at the viewer, but rather seems to paint itself with the accessories depicted – literally building a bridge extending out from the image...Beavers divests [the image] of its natural quality and uses painting as an analytical tool. The viewer is no longer looking at photographic tableaus composed of freeze-frames taken from make-up tutorials, but rather paintings about make-up tutorials, which present the aesthetic and formal parameters of this particular class of images, which exist exclusively on the net."  The conflation of makeup and painting can also be perceived as a rumination on authorship and original sources.  Beavers is remaking tutorials, but the tutorials themselves originated with individual bloggers and YouTubers.  And given the viral, democratic nature of the Internet, it's nearly impossible to tell who did a particular tutorial first and whether tutorials covering the same material - say, lip art depicting Van Gogh's "Starry Night"  - are direct copies of one artist's work or merely the phenomenon of many people having the same idea and sharing it online.  Sometimes the online audience cannot distinguish between authentic content and advertising; Beavers's "Burger Eye" (2015), for example, is actually not recreated from a tutorial at all but an Instagram ad for Burger King (and the makeup artist who was hired to create it remains, as far as I know, uncredited).

Another theme is fashioning one's self through makeup, and how that self is projected online in multiple ways.  Beavers explains: "I am interested in the ways existing online is performative, and the tremendous lengths people go to in constructing their online selves. Meme-makers, face-painters, people who make their hair into sculptures, are really a frontier of a new creative world...It’s interesting, as make-up has gotten bigger and bigger, I’ve realized what an important role it plays in helping people construct a self, particularly in trans and drag communities. I don’t normally wear a lot of make-up myself, but I like the idea of the process of applying make-up standing in for the process of self-determination, the idea of ‘making yourself’."

As for the artist's process, it's a laborious one. Beavers regularly combs Instagram, YouTube and other online sources and saves thousands of images on her phone. She then narrows down to a few based on both composition and the story they're trying to tell. "I'm arrested by images that have interesting formal qualities, color, composition but also a compelling narrative. I really like when an image is saying something that leaves me unsure of how it will translate to painting, like whether the meaning will change in the context of the history of painting," she says.  "I always felt drawn to photos that had an interesting composition, whether for its color or depth or organization. But in order for me to want to paint it, it also had to have interesting content, like the image was communicating some reality beyond its composition that I related to in my life or that I thought spoke in some interesting way about culture."  The act of painting for Beavers is physically demanding as well: she needs to start several series at the same time and go back and forth between paintings to allow the layers to dry.  They have to lay flat to dry so she often ends up painting on the floor, and her recent switch to an even heavier acrylic caused a bout of carpal tunnel syndrome.

But it's precisely the thick quality of the paint that return some of the tactile nature of makeup application.  This is not accidental; Beavers intentionally uses this technique as way to remind us of makeup's various textures and to ensure her paintings resemble paintings rather than a photorealistic recreation of the digital screen. "The depth of certain elements in the background of images has taught me a lot about seeing. I think I have learned that I enjoy setting up problems to solve, that it isn't enough for me to simply render a photo realistically, that I have to build up the acrylic deeply in order to interfere with the rendering of something too realistically," she explains.  Sharon Mizota, writing for the LA Times, says it best:  "Skin, lashes and lips are textured with rough, caked-on brushstrokes that mimic and exaggerate wrinkles and gloppy mascara. This treatment gives the subjects back some of the clunky physicality that the camera and the digital screen strip away. Beavers’ paintings, in some measure, undo the gloss of the photographic image."

Beavers also uses foam to further build up certain sections so that they bulge out towards the viewer, representing the desire to connect to others online.  "Much of what people do online is to try to create connection, to reach out and meet people or talk to people. That is what the surfaces of my painting do in a really literal way, they are reaching off the linen into the viewer’s space," she says.  This sculptural quality also points to the reality of the online world - it's not quite "real life" but it's not imaginary either, occupying a space in between.  Beavers expands on her painting style representing the online space: "It’s interesting because flatness often comes up with screens, and I think historically the screen might have been read like that, reflecting a more passive relationship. That has changed with the advent of engagement and social media. What’s behind our screen is a whole living, breathing world, one that gives as much as it takes. I mean it is certainly as 'real' as anything else. I see the dimension as a way to reflect that world and the ways that world is reaching out to make a connection. Another aspect is that once these works are finished, they end up circulating back in the same online world and now have this heightened dimensionality – they cast their own shadow. They’re not a real person, or burger, or whatever, but they’re not a photo of it either, they’re something in between."

Let's dig a little more into what all this means in terms of makeup, the beauty industry and social media.  Beavers' work can be viewed as a simultaneous critique and celebration of all three.  Sharon Mizota again: "[The tutorial paintings] also pointedly mimic the act of putting on makeup, reminding us that it is something like sedimentation, built up layer by layer. There is no effortless glamour here, only sticky accretion.  That quality itself feels like an indictment — of the beauty industry, of restrictive gender roles. But an element of playfulness and admiration lives in Beavers’ work.  They speak of makeup as a site of creativity and self-transformation, and Instagram and other social media sites as democratizing forces in the spread of culture. To be sure, social media may be the spur for increasingly outré acts, which are often a form of bragging, but why shouldn’t a hamburger eye be as popular as a smoky eye? In translating these photographs into something more physical, Beavers asks us to consider these questions and exposes the duality of the makeup industry: The same business that strives to make us insecure also enables us to reinvent ourselves, not just in the image of the beautiful as it’s already defined, but in images of our own devising."

This ambiguity is particularly apparent in Beavers's 2015 exhibition, entitled Ambitchous, which incorporated beauty Instagrammers and YouTubers' makeup renditions of Disney villains alongside "good" characters.  Blumenstein explains: "So it isn’t protagonists with positive connotations which are favoured by the artist, but unmistakably ambivalent characters who could undoubtedly lay claim to the neologism ambitchous, which is the name given to the exhibition. Like the original image material, this portmanteau of ‘ambitious’ and ‘bitchy’ is taken from social media and its creative vernacular, and is used, depending on the context, either in a derogatory fashion – for example for women who will do absolutely anything to get what they want – or positively re-interpreted as an expression of female self-affirmation.  Beavers also applies this playful and strategic complication of seemingly unambiguous contexts of meaning to the statements contained in her paintings. It remains utterly impossible to determine whether they are critically exaggerating the conformist and consumerist beauty ideals of neo-capitalism, or ascribing emancipatory potential to the conscious and confident use of make-up."

More recently, Beavers has been using her own face as a canvas and making her own photos of them her source material, furthering her exploration of the self. "Staring at yourself or your lips for hours is pretty jarring. But I like it, because it creates this whole other level of self,” she says.

This shift also points to another dichotomy in Beavers's work: in recreating famous works of art on her face, she is both critiquing art history's traditional canon and appreciating it, referring to them as a sort of fan art.  "I think a lot of the works that I have made that reference art history—like whether it's Van Gogh or whoever it is—have a duality where I really respect the artist and I'm influenced by them, and at the same time I'm making it my own and poking a little fun. And so, a lot of these pieces originated with the idea of fan art. You'll find all sorts of Starry Night images online that people have painted or sculpted or painted on their body. It comes out of that. And I just started to reach a point where I was searching things like 'Franz Kline body art,' and I wasn’t finding that, so I had to make my own. Then it started to get a little bit geekier. I have a piece in the show where I am painting a Lee Bontecou on my cheek, that's a kind of art world geeky thing—you have to really love art to get it."

Ultimately, Beavers perceives the intersection of makeup and social media as a force for good.  While the specter of misinformation is always lurking, YouTube tutorials and the like allow anyone with internet access to learn how to do a smoky eye or a flawlessly lined lip.  "I think for a lot of people social media is kind of like the weather. We don't have a lot of control of it, it just is. It gives and it takes away. There's no doubt that it has connected people in ways that are great and productive, allowing people to find communities and organize activism, it can also be a huge distraction...I approach looking at images there pretty distantly, more as a neutral documentarian, and I come down on the side of seeing social media as an incredibly useful, democratic tool in a lot of ways," she concludes.

On the other side of social media, Beavers is interested on how content creators help disseminate the idea of makeup as representing something larger and more meaningful than traditional notions of beauty. "I was super fascinated with makeup and all of the kinds of costume makeup and things you can find online that go away from a traditional beauty makeup and go towards something really wild and cool...I also had certain paintings in [a 2016] show that were much more about costume makeup, that were going away from beauty. That’s the thing that gives me hope. When I go through makeup hashtags on Instagram, there will be ten or twenty beauty eye makeup images and then one that’s painted with horror makeup. There are women out there doing completely weird things, right next to alluring ones." In the pandemic age, as people's relationships with makeup are changing, "weird" makeup is actually becoming less strange. Beavers' emphasis on experimental makeup is more timely than ever.  I also think she's documenting the gradual way makeup is breaking free of the gender binary.  She says: "I mean with makeup, and the whole conversation around femininity and makeup—I think for a long time when I was making makeup images, there were people that just thought, 'Oh, that's not for me,' because it's about makeup, it's feminine. But it’s interesting, the culture is shifting. I just saw the other day that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did a whole Instagram live where she was putting on her makeup and talking about how empowering makeup is for trans communities...some people see make-up as restrictive or frivolous, but drag performers show how it can be liberating and life-saving."  Another point to consider in terms of gender is the close-up aspect of Beavers's paintings.  With individual features (eyes, lips, nails) separated from the rest of the face and body and removed from their original context, they're neither masculine nor feminine, thereby reiterating that makeup is for any (or no) gender.

All I can say is, I love these paintings.  Stylistically, they're right up my alley - big, colorful and mimicking makeup's tactile nature so much that I have a similar reaction to them as I do when seeing makeup testers in a store: I just want to dip my hands in them and smear them everywhere! I also enjoy the multiple themes and levels in her work. Beavers isn't commenting just on makeup in the digital age, but also self-representation online, shifting attitudes towards makeup's meaning, the relationship between painting and makeup, and Western art history.

What do you think of Beavers's paintings? 

[latenightcinephile]

#745: ‘Kiss Me Deadly’, dir. Robert Aldrich, 1955.

“I wrote it fast because I had contempt for it. It was automatic writing. Things were in the air at the time, and I put them in.” - A. I. Bezzerides, screenwriter of Kiss Me Deadly

One of the rarely-spoken about aspects of film noir is how conservative it is as a genre. Society is falling apart due to rampant decadence; the vanquishing of fascism has highlighted the lack of an outlet for rage in civilised society; capitalism has bred greed and a failure of domestic structures. At some point, the conservative worldview moved to embrace capitalism, but at least in the 1940s and 1950s the unspoken expectation of society was that socially mandated displays of masculine strength were the chief line of defence against the effeminate forces that sought to weaken society. By the middle of the 1950s, when Kiss Me Deadly was released, it was clear that a good American society needed to strike a middle ground: capitalist but law-abiding, respectful and progressive but traditional and rigid when it needed to be. Nothing in the real world exemplified this better than Joseph McCarthy’s hunt for Communists, which this film was a contemporaneous response to.

Mickey Spillane’s detective Mike Hammer (played here by an apish Ralph Meeker) was already a right-wing hero, dedicated to rooting out Commies using whatever means possible. While earlier detective novel protagonists were able to defend themselves in a fight but were almost never the instigators of violence, Hammer quite happily murders his enemies, a “self-righteous avenger”, safe in the knowledge that their political ‘crimes’ justify the most extreme of responses.

Bezzerides’ script takes the Mike Hammer of the novels and strips away even more of that human morality from the character: he demotes Hammer from private eye to divorce investigator, and Hammer’s fiance Velda becomes a co-conspirator: she seduces the husbands and he seduces the wives. In order to get information out of witnesses, Hammer resorts happily to property destruction, intimidation, and physical assault, even in instances where it’s not necessary. His response to a request for a bribe is to nearly sever a man’s fingers in a desk drawer. Hammer’s motivations are similarly reduced: rather than the kind of interest in crime-solving that animates most other detectives, or out of retaliation for the death of Christina (Cloris Leachman), Hammer is driven by vengeance for his own ill-treatment, and out of a deep-seated suspicion of Christina as well.

In other words, the script of Kiss Me Deadly functions almost as a satire of Spillane’s novels (although it’s a deadly serious satire, played with a straight face - more Animal Farm than High Anxiety!) The lack of redeeming qualities in this vicious and dumb version of Mike Hammer didn’t endear the film to Spillane at all, but what it did do was examine some of the worst tendencies in American humanity that previous film noirs had not dared to examine in any depth.

Perhaps one of the things that distinguishes the ‘Macguffin’ of the crime film - that object that everyone seeks - is that its interest is disproportional to its physical form. The Maltese Falcon is a rare object, but not a practical one, because its desirability is the only important thing about it. If it were merely golden, the plot could easily be waylaid by curiosity about its use. In Kiss Me Deadly, the ‘Great Whatsit’ that everyone is seeking is the most impractical of items. The mystery surrounding it makes the drive to acquire it even more potent, which is somewhat unfortunate. As anxieties surrounding the aftermath of the Second World War declines, and anxieties surrounding the nascent Cold War began, Aldrich’s film suggests that the most intriguing of rewards in that era is the power of destruction.

The ‘Great Whatsit’ turns out to be a nuclear isotope that irradiates almost anyone who looks upon it. The reveal of the radionuclide in the film is pitch-perfect, with Hammer commenting in confusion “It’s hot,” when he finally stumbles across the metal case containing it. But this isn’t the only example of the film’s ambivalence towards science in the film: the villains rely heavily on the “potent effects” of sodium pentathol. There is a dark new world of science and technology in its early stages here, and the perspective of Kiss Me Deadly seems to be that engaging with it requires a certain kind of recklessness and amorality. Those who know best the perils of messing with science are likely to keep a safe distance away, which means that capitalising on it requires haste. It’s a perfect illustration of ‘Step Two: ??? Step Three: Profit’.

The tragedy of this film is that communication becomes impossible. Legitimate law enforcement can’t investigate the crimes here as easily as they ought to because Mike’s sense of urgent vengeance keeps getting in their way - he harasses witnesses, hides suspects and flat-out kills people. They have more information about what’s going on than Hammer does, and could protect him from exposure to the Whatsit, but they can’t afford to share the information, given how close Hammer is to every suspect, and there’s little chance that Hammer would listen anyway. He has to have it spelled out to him - “Trinity. Manhattan Project” - before he can grasp the immensity of it all. By this stage, it’s too late, and Mike has to return to confront the villains of the film once more, just in time to see it (literally) all go up in flames.

Refreshingly, the female characters in this film seem to be miles smarter than the men, although they can’t totally shed the femme fatale characteristics of the genre. Although they’re curious and conniving, they’re also rational in a way that the other gender isn’t. Dr. Soberin talks almost exclusively in literary and mythological references, which go completely over the head of anyone listening, and almost single-handedly result in the apocalyptic destruction we see.

By the end of the film, Kiss Me Deadly is a series of collapsing riddles and philosophical questions that prove just how far the genre had come. The old ideals from a decade ago were no longer effective in the face of new threats and ideologies, and society as a whole was reduced to standing in the waves like Mike and Velda in the closing seconds of the film, alive (perhaps) but incapable of response. Metaphorically, the whole thing rang true for the genre as well: without a clear arc of moral responsibility, film noir dissipated soon after, and wouldn’t reemerge for another twenty years, in a new and more jaded form.

#1001 movies #robert aldrich #kiss me deadly #film noir

[gg-astrology]

I was wondering what you could tell me about sagittarius sun with an aries moon? Love your blog btw !!

Hey there!! 💜💜💜 Ahh thank you so much!! 💜💜 I’m so sorry you have to wait so long skdjnf but here YOU GO 💜

[Below Cut: Sagittarius Sun - Aries Moon 💃]

They’re cats

Jump on your lap and doesn’t care what you’re doing, if they need something they’ll scream/swat at you until you wake up

When they want something you give it to them. If you want to pick them up? Good luck buddy maybe for like 5 seconds before they’re off again. 

Will swat things off the table, if they’re feeling playful they will bite your ankles. 

Honestly? The way I treat my cat is with absolutely patience. But if you want to exorcise the demon out of them, spray them with water or try to restrict them (hold them) and they’ll wriggle out immediately.

sknfdjknksnk anyways I just thought I should share! 

I think most people underestimate the standing power of Sagittarius/Aries honestly

Like sure they’re impulsive, moves fast, irritation flares easily, alone time is relax time. 

They’re never pretentious about their feelings/how they’re doing right now (you can See that they’re tired or if their mood is down) --- but underneath all that they also determined, very self-directed and self-assertive as well

See they might often project this aura of an adventurous spirit (kinda cautious sometimes/awkward) come across as wise/understanding and of being philosophically profound. 

But underneath all that they’re outspoken and blunt. They’re concentrated and concrete. Aries grounds the Sagittarius placement, they face things heads on. 

These people are critical, sometimes cynics but through that-- they understand the importance of projecting positive energy onto the atmosphere.   

Like all fire signs, especially with Sagittarius-- not liking to be touched unexpectedly because they’re unused to it (Aries) -- so the thing they do is that they project/raise energy in the room. 

In order to cheer others up, motivate people or just--- put themselves in a better environment/condition to work from/in. 

Fire signs are responsive, so making sure they get responses from others. Or projecting/engaging or enabling that kind of energy in an otherwise stifled/stagnant atmosphere is important for them (mutable/cardinal)

Sagittarius/Aries hesitance sometimes, mostly comes from Aries’s grounded nature, they don’t know what is ‘too much/not enough’-- how others respond. Just because they know themselves, doesn’t know they can easily predict or make others respond a certain way.

That uncertainty of ‘are they responsive?’ is what causes Sagittarius/Aries to be slightly awkward with people. They like routine, or rather something stable they can ‘fall back’ on with people more than they’d admit. They’re always thinking they’re better off on their own (individual) rather than think they’re a sociable person. 

Social setting isn’t a place of ease, they pushed/worked hard and actually have to use energy/effort in order to be successful/overcome their own awkwardness socially.

Still-- within that, the independent streak that they have often causes them to feel isolated/alone sometimes. While they may relish those times where they need it (away from people) -- sometimes it makes them feel like their hardships are all on them, that it’s because of them, or because they have a hard time being/sharing vulnerabilities in general (Sagittarius/Aries deflects attention away from that into humor too)

Prone to satirical or witty humor, their energy is devilish and mercurial and they may strive on surprising others, actively showing a different ‘side’ in order to enact different ‘responses’ from people (fire signs) 

They like being unexpected and surprising-- they’re enterprising people, but within that they like to tie informality/casual-ness with sharp, intuitive intelligence. 

The kind of person who thrives on having a defense mechanism (or just a mechanism) of pointing out things others are avoiding/ignoring. Things people don’t like to confront. They may act ‘bratty’ at times, because they can also be hypocritical sometimes (they’re emotional, but understanding that emotionality/thinking about it frustrates them if it goes on for too long)

These Sagittarius/Aries people are the type to act casual/normal and then suddenly jabs someone with a pointed comment. They’re blunt, forth-right and direct. 

Most of the time-- because they don’t understand the deeper currents of their own emotions (doesn’t like self-analyzing themselves to that point, thus they’re only aware of it when demonstrated. Like letting it flare up/provoke them constantly) --they’re unable to provide support for other’s emotions/beliefs.  

They may be tactless when they lash out, thoughtless in their comments because they really don’t ‘get’ why other people are ‘hurt’.

It has to do with seeing within themselves the things that may hurt others, and thus they’ll know when to avoid it.

Try learning how to be more thoughtful/contemplative, before you say things out loud try to think if it’s respecting other’s emotionality. Will it hurt them? Is it necessary?

Sagittarius/Aries has a mindset that if it’s practical, constructive, then others should hear it regardless of emotional ties to it.

It can make them lose/hurt those around them, and no matter how charming they are they’ll eventually have to learn how to be more connected/intune with their emotionality too. 

There’s a belief that ‘it doesn’t matter what others think’ as long as they voice their thoughts/feelings/perspective out earnestly/truthfully-- and because that’s how they treat themselves>others, that’s how others get treated as well. 

Oof onto happier stuff maybe?  

As much as they like adventures and experiencing something new, they also need time to recover/be away. I think most of us forget that-- Sagittarius as the oldest fire sign combined with Aries as the youngest, makes for a personality who would often need to be alone in order to recover/recuperate from projecting energy sometimes.

Another thing is also their astuteness, Aries is efficient, practical and sharp. Combined that with Sagittarius perception, self-expression. You have someone who can pick a part a bad plan/intentions from a mile away.

Although sometimes they can be naive in their younger years, they learn largely from their experience, hardship and mistakes. The more and more I talk about this placement I keep thinking of Capricorn or Aquarius.

With your love of drama, of showing yourself off a little (despite your awkwardness). You may sometimes enjoy wry deep-thinker/people, yet at the same time you need autonomy away from controlling/socially-able people as well (remind you of what you’re bad at and you don’t like to be reminded) 

Sagittarius/Aries assert themselves socially through honesty and weighing themselves, they let themselves express their honest thoughts/intentions/feelings (but still hides/avoids showing vulnerabilities to people). 

Sagittarius/Aries are also largely adaptable and very assertive when they’re on their own. When they have their own space/control to be in a position of helping/commandeering someone else, when they aren’t under someone’s rule or in a position of power-- these people are decisive, influenced a lot by their gut feelings/hunches. But often make brave choices (although they may often sacrifice a lot of their niceties and hurt others feeling while doing so)  

The head and the legs -- Aries and Sagittarius, once your head says/comes to a conclusion about something you don’t waste time working/getting on it. You’re a fast thinker, sometimes very responsive.  

Combining Sagittarius generous nature with Aries assertiveness, you have someone who can often time feel ‘alone’ or pull themselves away from others. Autonomy is important to them, it’s always crucial to search for the ‘thrill/feeling’ that every second matters, that everything is alive. 

I wouldn’t call it competitiveness, but rather a survivalist at their core?

It’s that ‘thrill-seeking’ element again, like if something gets you running faster, gets you moving at a rapid pace. You ride that wave you know?   

While that may be true, they’re very disciplined and let themselves go for things that ‘don’t matter as much’. These people often think the way they act/behave towards things that ‘dont matter’ is just fun and games. But again, it tends to upset/impose or hurt others unexpectedly. 

Learn how to be more emotionally sensitive and less defensive towards others around you offering advice. You may sometimes be so self-defensive you hurt others you care about and isolate yourself even more because of it.

Alrighty! 💓 THanks for asking I did my Best!! 💓💓

#sagittarius #aries #sagittarius sun #aries moon #uGH #this took me so long #sagittarius-aries #anon #asks

[37h4n0l]

would you please go on an excessive rant about kawoshin? i got a pack of popcorn to microwave i got time

Alright, there’s a whole variety of topics to address here. I think I’ll just make a long bulletpoint list. I’m trying to be reasonable in my saltiness but I’ve lost my patience with the anti-kawoshin stuff. Though if I’m wrong about anything I say on a technical level, I apologize.

[[MORE]]

I’m not surprised by the presence of dudebro fans per se. I’ve never been in a fandom with some level of mass appeal where they didn’t appear. What I’m baffled by is that they don’t just hate Eva considering that, for all the debate around whether ep24 was gay, it’ certainly something they would find gay for two guys to do and the mental gymnastics to no homo kawoshin are way more convoluted. I guess I’m becoming tired of this type of person. And of the fact that every meta community requires one to never say the word ‘gay’ even once, or everything else will be instantly dismissed. Eva is where I officially lost it regarding this topic because it’s so very obviously gay that denying it sounds like straight-up satire. But what do I know, they’re the Serious Fans and I’m just some delusional fangirl, I guess. Let them keep being smug, because clearly, “realism” is acting like lgbt people don’t exist, they got us, it was all a conspiracy to fuck with them.

What is up with the wiki’s editing? Don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful for the work that went into compiling all the information but the ep24 first draft’s wiki page? The exaggerated emphasis placed on it being ‘Just a draft that was rejected!!!!’ And the added commentary on how a lot of draft materials are ‘ABSOLUTELY NOT ANNO’S AUTHORIAL INTENT’ which begins to diverge from the article’s topic itself. They went as far as bolding the phrase. All of this, after explaining that Satsukawa’s drafts are written based on a general outline Anno gives him... Question of the day: what outline did Anno give Satsukawa that led to him writing that draft? The 1-2 episodes’ worth of homoeroticism, you know. Not to mention the actual ep24, the one that was okayed by Anno, which is still, frankly, really gay. Truly, whoever edited that article was the shining star of intellect. Congratulations!

And, about the quest to prove Shinji’s straight, I find it intriguing that every. single. person. brings up the fact that he jacked off to comatose Asuka. Because any normal display of being attracted to women or any of his erotic mental imagery couldn’t have done, you had to pick that as the typical behaviour to represent straight people. Interesting. I don’t understand their rituals, unfortunately. I figure they just wank to unconscious people on the regular since they love talking about it so much.

Meanwhile bisexual people let out a soft sigh at this whole discussion.

My favourite phenomenon, and the one I was originally going to complain about, is the group of people who took the step of admitting kawoshin is canon, but because they’re sore losers they’re trying to demonstrate how it’s unhealthy. I don’t like having to say all of this because some of the analysts on board with this, I actually like a fair amount. But sorry, if it’s a stupid idea, then it’s a stupid fucking idea and I can’t act like it’s not. So, apparently, Kaworu=bad because he’s too idealized and conforms too perfectly with what Shinji wants, and that’s impossible for human beings so that’s — allegedly — why he turns out to be an angel and has to die. I think the second half of this interpretation has elements that make sense. Maybe. In that I agree that having to kill Kaworu was relevant to the plot and Shinji’s character development (‘unraveling’ might be a more accurate word...). But it’s not because there was any problem with kawoshin as a relationship; it’s because Shinji has to learn not to rely on outside factors for self-worth. That doesn’t say anything about how good those outside factors are for him in themselves, just that he has a tendency of making his own value depend on them whether they’re healthy things or not. Declaring Kaworu to be a negative influence because he’s ‘not a Real Person’ is akin to saying Shinji would be better off hanging out with the ‘Real People’ in his life. The choices for healthy bonds are then: 1) Misato, who has issues with drinking and sex and has made moves on Shinji while being twice his age 2) Rei, who is debatably even a single entity and is a clone of Shinji’s mother that he occasionally sees as a substitute for her 3) Asuka, who continuously talks shit to him, beats him up, expects him to fulfill her desires for precocious sexual maturity and is completely insensitive to anything bad happening to him, including the time he almost died 4) Gendo. I’m being harsh. I appreciate all of these characters and it’s independently from their individual complexity that I observe how they keep trying to dump their own issues on Shinji. I don’t know if it’s about gender. I’m never quite sure.

I can’t say much about the Netflix dub that hasn’t been said already. For one thing, changing ‘love’ to ‘like’ makes no sense in terms of the plot. For another, I agree that phrasing means little to nothing with the visuals on screen. But, just to add something to it, the next time I see someone piggybacking on this discourse to express their “sympathy for how the translators are being treated”, I want them to know that it’s really transparent. Also that anyone from the staff could have said “I did this because it’s my job but I don’t think it was a good choice to translate it like that” at any point. But, for all I know, maybe Netflix is some kind of corporate dictatorship where you can’t express mild disagreement with your colleague’s work or you get instantly fired. I don’t quite care what emotional state translators are in because of the backlash. With this attitude, we’d be obligated to suck it up with any divisive higher decision, lest we hurt someone’s feelings by disliking it. It would have been so easy to keep the phrase in. Absolutely no effort. This was done, I believe, intentionally to pander to dudebros because a lot of people involved probably had no clear understanding of what Eva is and which people it attracts, so they went with ‘eh, it’s probably the average mecha fans’. Companies like this want you to sit back and stay comfortable and amoebic, never being exposed to anything that pokes at your sensitivities — so lgbt content needs to be in a segregated place, available for The Gays while everyone else can peacefully avoid it. And we’ll all be content and appeased and really fucking dopamine-hooked on online streaming. It’s gonna be really, really funny when everyone finds out Eva is centered around subversion with or without the homosexual undertones.

To make it clear, I have no way of knowing what goes on in Anno’s head and I would never blame him for anything considering he created kawoshin and Eva as a whole, things that had a positive effect on me. It needs to be said though; are we sure that and only that which he says publicly is an accurate canon fact about the show? Do we really think his public statements don’t go through any filters, especially when it’s about topics like homosexuality? He already got so many death threats over the tv ending that he got pissed and made EoE. Can you imagine what would happen if he declared kawoshin to be canon? Just ponder on this before taking it for granted that him not saying there was a romantic relationship between them means there wasn’t.

Tangentially related; Anno’s “it wasn’t carnal” as well as the draft rejection seems more related to how the ep24 draft would have, according to the staff, looked like borderline porn. I think our perspective on how far Eva goes is a bit skewed by the clusterfuck in EoE. None of the kids really had carnal desires in the original series — no, not even Asuka, she thought she did because of her issues but it’s fairly clear from her introspection and breakdown that she likes only the idea of being physically intimate but is kind of disgusted by the reality of it (washing her mouth after just kissing Shinji), as people normally are at fourteen. I take Anno’s statement more as “Shinji wasn’t blushing because he was turned on”, not that he didn’t like Kaworu romantically.

I find a lot of discussion around representation formulaic and word salad-ish. The same niche terms with no distinct meaning thrown together in random combinations. But I think I understand it somewhat now, to a small degree. I was so happy about kawoshin. I was genuinely so, so happy. Granted, my expectations for canon lgbt are so low they’re approaching the Earth’s core, but this ship gives me so many positive feelings that I don’t want it taken away from me. I don’t have it in me to engage in anyone’s intricate debates on whether it’s canon or not and I have absolutely no time or care for straight fans’ gaslighting on the issue.

[rhywhitefang]

It’s the end of the year (Well, not quite, but I’m not gonna get any reading done tomorrow)  - and we all know what that means... Looking back at what you read and evaluating your favorites. And no, I did not contain myself to just 10 - but that’s also because I did read a lot this year. Why are they eleven books for the first two categories? Any excuse to include one more book It looks better on the graphic. Although, before someone asks why the Broken Earth Trilogy isn’t on here - Rereads don’t count and I read those in 2017. For a more detailed look at each of my lists, links to the books, and more of my thoughts, look under the cut. For a list of all of my favorite books look here. 

Now, on to these...

The best new releases of the year

Now, obviously, I did not read every single book that was released this year - duh. This is just a list of the best 2018 releases that I read this year. Ranked, they look like this:

Girl Made of Stars by Ashley Herring Blake. Why I loved this one: It’s a really honest, well-written, gentle, well-done, nuanced, and detailed examination of what rape does not only to a person but also to a community from a perspective I’ve never seen considered before. 

Darius The Great Is Not Okay by Adib Khorram Why I loved this one: Because I love well-done coming of age narratives and this one was excellent. It’s a very quiet, introspective, slow moving book with a softer main male character. I also really appreciated the setting of Teheran. 

The Book of Essie by Meghan Maclean Weir Why I loved this one: Look, it’s one of my very specific favorite tropes of all time (I’m not going to spoil it) that I almost never see, the main character is interesting and strong in a mental way I really enjoy, and it’s a deconstruction of conservative family culture. Yay. 

The Adventure Zone - Here there be Gerblins by Griffin McElroy Why I loved this one: I jumped on the hype train and listened to the podcast - and like, this is a comic adaptation of the first arc? Which is so much fun?

The Air You Breathe by Frances de Pontes Peebles Why I loved this one: I loved the main character who was bitter, and passionate, and jealous and lovin, and complicated and determined and stern and regretful. It was great. If you loved Evelyn Hugo, this one should be your next read. 

The Cabin at the End of the World by Paul Tremblay Why I loved this one: This thriller was very unique in the way that it put its focus on just one family, and the whole rest of the world was not really present. Instead we get a very closed, and isolated narrative where everything but the characters we follow and the relationships they have with each other is called into question.

How Long Til’ Black Future Month? by N. K. Jemisin Why I loved this one: I refuse to comment on claims that I light a candle of my very own N. K. Jemisin shrine every night before I fall asleep. If you haven’t read The Fifth Season - go read them right now. My favorites from this collection include: Valedictorian, The Storyteller’s Replacement, Walking Awake, and Henosis.

Circe by Madeline Miller Why I loved this one: I’m a huge slut for greek myth retellings, if you’re a semi-competent author retelling any greek myth, I’ll eat it up. And Miller is more than just semi-competent.

The Poppy War by R.F Kuang Why I loved this one: Listen, listen, listen - you know how to get me as a reader? Training sequences and school settings. This has 250 pages of training sequences in a school setting. It made me very happy. 

Hurricane Child by Kheryn Callender Why I loved this one: Everyone’s excited for this author’s other book, which is like, a YA romance and to be fair, I haven’t read that one yet, but still - why is this one so underrated? It’s a magical realism coming of age story of a young girl and it’s stellar. 

Inkmistress by Audrey Coulhourst Why I loved this one: I wasn’t the biggest fan of the author’s debut, but this has a lot of things I love - “be careful what you wish for” style blood magic, dark self-fulfilling prophecies, and a female characters journey from hero to villain. Also dragons. 

The best backlist books of the year

Meaning, the best books I read this year that were released in 2017 or before that. Pretty simple, really.

In Other Lands by Sarah Rees Brennan Why I loved this one: It has been a long time since I was this attached to a group of book characters that quickly. They’re instantly relatable, even if they’re not instantly likeable. And beyond that, the whole book is a wonderfully satirical take on the portal fantasy genre. But seriously, guys, there’s not enough of fanfiction for this book - I’d know it, I read them all.. C’mon, where’s my soulmate AU?

Radio Silence by Alice Oseman Why I loved this one: One of the best YA novels out there and not only one of my favorite’s of this year, but also one of my favorite books of all time. Alice Oseman understands the teen coming of age story on a spiritual level, and manages to be so wonderfully affirming in this one.

The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo by Taylor Jenkins Reid Why I loved this one: Listen to the hype, everyone, listen to the hype. Evelyn Hugo is an amazing character and I’d 100% believe you if you told me she was a real person. PLUS, this one also has the trope. The one I talked about with the Book of Essie. 

Strong Female Protagonist by Molly Ostertag Why I loved this one: Well-done, deconstructionalist superhero narrative are my jam. This webcomic is not that action driven, instead it focuses on the main character identity crisis, and her reconsidering what it means to be a hero and what her responsibility as a human is.

The Miseducation of Cameron Post by Emily M Danforth Why I loved this one: Do you think the owner of this blog might like coming of age narratives? I’m not super sure, like, maybe if she had “I love coming of age narratives” tattooed on her forehead, it would be a little clearer... but like this? It’s a mystery. 

Whichwood by Tahereh Mafi Why I loved this one: No, I did not read the first book in this series, and I don’t think you need to in order to enjoy this. Here, I just really appreciated the friendship aspect of the book and the healing power of reaching out to others and letting them into your heart. Also death magic. That too.

Long Way Down by Jason Reynolds Why I loved this one: I think the slam poetry style this was written in, often novels written in verse don’t work for me because it feels like more distance being put between you and the narrative, but in this case it really elevated the story. And of course, this was a very introspective read with a focus on character development.

One Hundred Nights of Hero by Isabelle Greenberg Why I loved this one: The artwork here is just gorgeous, just like in the first one The Encyclopedia of Early Earth. Its beautiful and has a lovely fairytale vibe.

An Unkindness of Ghosts by Rivers Solomon Why I loved this one: This has a very sharp, very unique voice to it and a protagonist unlike anyone I ever read. And the spaceship setting was really cool as well.

Under the Pendulum Sun by Jeannette Ng Why I loved this one: This is a fae book that gets fucking dark, and truly fucked up as any proper fae book should do. Some parts of it read almost like a trippy nightmare which is just delightful. And the premise itself? Just wild, man

Girl Mans Up by M-E Girard Why I loved this one: Say it with me everyone 📣: Coming 👏 of 👏 Age 👏 Narrative

Honorable Mentions

Yes, I have a whole entire seperate list of honorable mentions. What’s it to you?

A  Very Large Expanse of Sea by Tahereh Mafi Why I loved this one: The writing is beautiful and engaging. The protagonist is refreshing, lively, realistic, and I loved her perspective. Her internal journey was wonderfully rendered. The issues she dealt with were important, timely, and needed to be put into the forefront. It had a lyrical, atmospheric quality to it and I thoroughly enjoyed my experienced reading it. Why it didn’t quite make the list: It almost, almost made the list because it was really good. There was just one thing that bothered me. I get that the point of this book was that the protagonist was really isolated in the beginning, but even so... she had a romance with a guy, she had her brother and his friends whom she hung out with. But she didn’t seem to know any other girls... at all. The only other real female character I remember is her mother. And then there’s one interaction with another girl and that girl is a racist bitch. So I didn’t like that portrayal.

Geography Club by Brent Hartinger Why I loved this one: Teenagers finding themselves.... friendship..... clubs.... gay people.... I mean, come on.  Why it didn’t quite make the list: The writing style isn’t the best.

And I Darken by Kiersten White Why I loved this one: This was a great first book in a trilogy with a historical setting I haven’t read about before. It has court intrigue, sultans, assassins and political imprisonments. The main character’s brother, Radu, is one of my favorite characters I read about this year and I liked the way this tackled religion. Why it didn’t quite make the list: Being the first one in a series, this feels more like...a prologue, than anything that could stand on its own.

When I Hit You - A Portrait of the Author as a Young Wife by Meena Kandasamy Why I loved this one: It’s an unflinching look at an abusive marriage, power dynamic, and coping with the more patriarchal aspects of your own culture. It’s also really well written and extremely believable.  Why it didn’t quite make the list: It had an odd framing device, and because the protagonist was a writer, this caused it to be kind of pretentious at times.

Here to Stay by Sara Farizan Why I loved this one: This is a very realistic depiction of high school, and the social dynamics most teenagers for. Teenagers aren’t wise or mature, most of them have a lot of growing to do. And I liked how flawed everyone there was. They just wanted to keep their head down, or they overcompensated for their insecurities, and they dealt with their own issues. I liked how the topics in here were handled. Why it didn’t quite make the list: The plot was a bit too simplistic for me. 

Into the Drowning Deep by Mira Grant Why I loved this one: Killer mermaids! Need I say more? I’ll say it again - killer mermaids! Why it didn’t quite make the list: Despite the title, this isn’t really that deep. Just a fun monster horror.

The Emperor’s Soul by Brandon Sanderson Why I loved this one: The one thing that Sanderson does consistently well is develop magic systems, and I really liked this one. And because this one was so short, there wasn’t some epic (or even cosmic) overarching plot, but a rather clear and relatively small narrative of a specific task that needed to be completed, which I found absolutely fascinating. I think I like this story even more than the Mistborn trilogy. It’s my favorite from him. Why it didn’t quite make the list: Everytime Sanderson writes a female character, you can tell he feels so proud of himself for being such a feminist. 

I Was Born for This by Alice Oseman Why I loved this one: This surprised me. Even though I loved Radio Silence by Oseman and had read that one before, the subject matter of this book didn’t really seem appealing to me, but it was still really fun. I loved the friendship dynamics and the discussions of fame. Why it didn’t quite make the list: I just very much wanted this one to go more in depth and really dive into that character development, and these relationship dynamics. I just wanted a little more of that. 

A History of Glitter and Blood by Hannah Moskowitz Why I loved this one: I loved most things to do with the fae - the dark fae of folklore, mind you, not whatever SJM is doing. Now, these fairies aren’t really traditional, but the setting is definitely dark. Also, there’s an unreliable narrator which I love.  Why it didn’t quite make the list: I was kind of iffy about some of the racial implications with the goblins. 

The Monster Baru Cormorant by Seth Dickinson Why I loved this one: We stan a ruthless, traitorous accountant. Love that dark character development, bitch.  Why it didn’t quite make the list: While I loved the first one, this one really lacked a clear sense of structure or direction. The pacing was kind of off. 

Girls of Paper and Fire by Natasha Ngan Why I loved this one: I loved the worldbuilding here, and the setting of concubines in a castle, quiety rebelling in themselves. Yay.  Why it didn’t quite make the list: It felt a bit juvenile at some points, some things were rushed, and I would have liked a bit more depth to the characters, especially the love interest.

#favorites 2018 #books #best books of 2018 #best books of the year #bookblr