Forgive me, elucipher, I have sinned, for I had a short "Ayn Rand is so awesome and amazing and wonderful and objectivism FTW!" phase in high school. Do you have recommendations for philosophical fiction that's actually good?
yes! hereâs some unashamedly socialist reading, i.e. novels about class struggle and collective action and meaningful revolution and the merciless horrors of capitalism and oppression and inequality:Â
peter abrahams, mine boy and this island now
robert tressel, the ragged-trousered philanthropists
david peace, gb84
mcarthur & long, no mean city
christina garcia, the aguero sisters
ngĹŤgÄŤ wa thiongâo, petals of blood and weep not, child
sembene ousmane, godâs bits of woodÂ
toni morrison, tar babyÂ
lewis jones, cwmardy & we live
tom wolfe, bonfire of the vanities
john steinbeck, grapes of wrath
pat barker, union street
marge piercy, woman on the edge of time
george orwell, homage to catalonia (alright, not a novel)
marjane satrapi, persepolis
emile zola, germinalÂ
jack london, the iron heel
ian watson, slow birds
octavia e. butler, parable of the sower & parable of the talents
gioconda belli, the inhabited woman
terry bisson, fire on the mountain
novels about philosophy more generally:
(an anon asked me for books with the atmosphere of a gregorian chant; most are philosophical in some way.)
jostein gaarder, sophieâs world; also the solitaire mystery
terry pratchett, small gods (but really, all discworld novels)
lewis carroll, aliceâs adventures in wonderland (esp. the annotated edition)
iris murdoch, the book and the brotherhood and the black prince and under the net
philip k. dick, do androids dream of electric sheep and ubik and the three stigmata of palmer eldritch and valis
fernando pessoa, the book of disquiet
naguib mahfouz, the cairo trilogy, especially sugar street
samuel beckett, watt; molloy, malone dies, the unnameableÂ
hofstadter & dennett, the mindâs i (a collection of writings on consciousness; includes fiction)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
I. luxuria. the light has been coming in for an hour, a pale heat across your shoulders. his face is gentle but your skin remembers his cardinal mouth and his teeth. when he wakes, his fingers will murmur at your nape and down your soft-strung spine, and heâll say, with the grin of the living, more?
II. gula. there are parties with champagne that tastes as light as laughing; and too much bread and coffee on mornings after; sticky sugared slices of apple pie in a corner cafe; pad thai in hot brown paper, shared while your soul grows fat with love; and the clattering feasts of many brought under one roof: when the evening draws down and the night presses at our windows, we come, we sit, we eat.
III. invidia. the water on the window draws cuneiform glyphs, and you are making coffee and listening to her sing, low and sweet as rain. in a while he will come in, wet and rowdy, and touch her with hands you have failed to hate, and break the pane of this quiet thingâbut not yet, not yet.
IV. acedia. you sleep and sleep, and wake with grey head and bones. the day is lead and sickened, and there are shadows on the surface of things. you falter between the hours. itâs a haunt youâve seen in other faces, before the bearer stows it away, and the words clutter on your tongueâyou too?
V. avaritia. Â ânot yet enough of a sunset after rain and saffron-lit pavements, a hundred evening voices, warm hand tugging your hand, a violin played underground for coins, a train-car and the ghosts that faces wear, all the dark and patient streets to your house, a quarter-moon and silvering air, a scarf unwound red in a hallway, perfume faded on wrists, and your fingers in black hair. you donât know if youâre hollow or heavy with longing. you have always been hungry.Â
VI. ira. after he hurts her, you take her to the hospital. you take her ten roads home. you bring her books and sweet-williams. you wait. on the sixth day she calls: not enough evidence. her voice is colourless. on the ninth day you see him in a courtyardâyou are shouting, and startled to find his blood on your hand. when she asks you about it her mouth lifts, briefly.
VII. superbia.  at the end of the year you will go down, through gorse and salt-stiff grasses, to where the sea drags its torn hem over the sand. you are a tall spine and a head that does not bow, and you have seamed with gold the fissures in your heart (that old idol). between waves the water is like glass; you donât flinch from mirrors. you will go on from there, having armed yourself with brazen love that becomes its own nourishment, unashamed in all your atoms.
what do you think of the bible as a literary text?
The Bible is difficult to talk about as a work, because itâs so vast and diverse, stitched together from poetry, philosophy, prophecy, mythology, allegory, history, genealogy, and biography. And when I think about the Bible as literature, Iâm mostly referring to the King James Version (KJV), which is a beautiful and strange work compiled over seven years by forty-seven scholars and holy men, and probably the single most influential book in the English language.Â
(All we know of its creation is that there were endless disputes, âmany a storm of gainsaying, or oppositionâ; imagine shouting and pounding on tables and clergymen in ruffs and gowns storming out.) A book written by committee should be terrible and compromised, but it isnâtâitâs full of drama and majesty: âIn the beginning God created the Heaven, and the Earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the watersâŚâ
The translators avoided common idiom, because they knew it would quickly sound datedâthe antiquated language is deliberate, as are the repetitions and heavy pauses. I love its strangeness: the odd punctuation, unexpected pronouns (âOur Father, which art in heavenâ), the verbs that end in â-ethâ (âin the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut downe, and witherethâ), the archaisms (âyea, verilyâ went out of fashion fifty years before it was published; âyouâ was being used in the singular but the writers chose to use âthee/thouâ), and gratuitous use of polysyllabic Latinate words (âiniquityâ, âtribulationâ, âcountenanceâ). Â
Many of its idioms endure in the marrow of our common language: sour grapes and fight the good fight and through a glass darkly and how are the mighty fallen and no peace for the wicked and the salt of the earth and filthy lucre and vanity of vanities and vengeance is mine and a thief in the night. It makes uncanny ways in your mind like Shakespeare doesâand, incidentally, much of it is iambic pentameter (âthe flood was forty days upon the earthâ). It baffles our concepts of origin and authorship; it has so many textures and voices. The Book of Job is beautiful, vast: âIs not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are!â The Psalms speak simply, and unfold in incantatory rhythm, e.g. Psalm 139, best known as âfor I am fearfully and wonderfully madeâ: âIf I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold meâ. The Song of Solomon is joyful and wild and eroticââLet him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wineââand also very strange (âthy breasts are like two young roes that are twinsâ).Â
You hear its rhythms and arcs of language everywhere. Itâs a glorious anomaly and literature is richer for it.Â
hi! if u wouldnt mind, i would love to hear more about ur argument(s) on how films about space arent actually about space?
Wellâbecause the human mind abhors a vacuum: it sees a blank canvas, and rushes to fill it.
Humans are oceanic: below the surface of you there are crowding shoals of impulse and thought, obscure until drawn up to where the nets of your perception can sift them. You experience yourself as vast. The stories you tell of yourself are partial, inadequateâbecause the enormity of all that you are is too much to be reckoned, a deep and unvoiced otherness you could drown in.Â
And we project that confrontation onto the cosmos, as stories. Space is the blank canvas that invites and confounds us because itâs vast beyond compassing: gulfs of swallowing dark, strewn with bright and silent and awful giants. Our stories about space are nets cast into an ocean, candles shone upon the abyssal. We gather the wild reefs of stars into the serene carvings of constellations, we give a name to every astral body, we build maps and models and metaphors. We detect a cometâs subaudible magnetic oscillations and say that it is singing. Often the stories we tell reveal more about us than the objects they describe.
In many stories venturing into space is a journey inward, into the unmapped territories of human souls. In our stories, space is never only empty: itâs transcendence, potential, intention, indifference, infinity, terror, wonder, loss, divinity, and all that we canât perceive but believe to exist. Itâs the unbridgeable distances between us, and our doomed but fullhearted endeavours to reach each other, mind to mind. And stories which paint structures and images upon space are also stories about art and the act of creation and giving order to chaosâand about our own improbable coming-into-being.Â
We canât experience space in its nakedness and vastnessâitâs cold and airless and inhospitable, the exposure would be overwhelming, annihilating. We need structures and metal inches to protect us from the abyss. So stories are like the spaceships we send up: they represent our ambition and curiosity and striving, our efforts to make space knowable, bearable; they also force us to recognise how fragile those efforts are, how dwarfed they are by what they try to describe. Â Â
Thereâs an idea in many space stories, that the cosmos is a place of transformation, a crucible in which things burn, and if humans venture out deep enough they also burn, and become more fully who they areâthat even in the wildest reaches of space, there we are, most pure and dark and bright and realised, somehow coming home. Our bodies come from stars and we find in space all that we areâterror, strangeness, beauty, hope.Â
Thereâs an idea in many space stories, that the cosmos is a place of transformation, a crucible in which things burn, and if humans venture out deep enough they also burn, and become more fully who they areâthat even in the wildest reaches of space, there we are, most pure and dark and bright and realised, somehow coming home. Our bodies come from stars and we find in space all that we areâterror, strangeness, beauty, hope.
elucipher - films about space arenât actually about space (via saintjoan)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
er. alright so you condemned these booksâand by extension, anyone who reads & enjoys themâas unworthy, based solely on internet reviews⌠and now you want another random person on the internet to rescue them by reassuring you that either a) these books arenât misogynist; or b) hugh dancyâs not a misogynist for liking them. all without actually reading the books for yourself?
[you and me, anon, we probably wouldnât get along.]
to butcher oscar wildeâs phrase, all art is quite problematic. a text is formed by the cultural movements and intellectual foment and material conditions of its time, as alchemically mingled & fused in the mottled crucible of its authorâs skull. thatâs part of its joy, recapturing in language a human mind pitched in its alien historical moment.
some texts are more hateful and disquieting than others. you can engage with a problematic text & enjoy it while being critical of its manifold faults. you can engage with it & condemn it for its gross ideological construction. you can choose not to engage with it at all. all are right and valid choices. but if we erased from view every problematic text in the long history of humans making art, weâd have very little left. and in turn future generations would look upon our art as unworthy, and erase that too.
iâve got thresholds that delineate art i wonât experience because its too corrupted and offensive and dissonant with how i perceive the world. my thresholds are completely subjective to me. any thinking feeling person who experiences art should decide what they will & wonât tolerate.
iâm not going to tell you what i think about those books. i could tell you that, for example, d.h. lawrence was a notorious misogynist who wrote a frank, radically explicit novel about intimacy & sexuality which broke taboos on depicting female experience & pleasure and was banned by courts as âobsceneâ and he wrote books with young strong-willed independent-minded women as central characters and espoused progressive attitudes to women like this; he also wrote about working-class exploitation by the elites, the need to preserve regional dialects & cultures, corrupt capitalist materialism, his vehement opposition to the war &c. misogyny is loathsome and inexcusable. but it doesnât erase artistic achievement.
prejudice isnât complicated. misogyny isnât complicated. human beings are complicated. art is complicated. you have no idea what relationship a person has with a work of artâwhat philosophy or inspiration or comfort or pleasure they gain from it. go and read them for yourself and make up your own damn mind. [and then if youâre going to criticise people for the art they love donât do it in my inbox. cheers.]
the prejudices & faults of artâtheyâve got to be part of the conversation about it. got to. if youâre not talking about them, youâre not getting to grips with a text. but theyâre not the whole conversation.
what would you suggest for a "Hannibal"reading list ?
oh god so many things
The canon: Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, Hannibal Rising.
Mythology: Hesiod, Theogony; Ovid, Metamorphoses; the Bible [e.g. Genesis 3, Deut. 28, John 6, 1 Kings 14, Ecclesiastes 1, Book of Job, Revelation]; Satan [x]; the Devil in Christianity [x]; Catchism of the Catholic Church: The Fall [x]; John Milton, Paradise Lost; Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy: Inferno & La Vita Nuova; cannibalism [x], the wendigo [x x], Michael Kinnucan, âIncest, cannibalism, and the godsâ.Â
Philosophy & psychology: Marcus Aurelius, Meditations; Kurzban & Leary, âEvolutionary Origins of Stigmatizationâ [probable inspiration for Hannibalâs "social exclusionâ paper]; Kristen Guest [ed.], Eating Their Words: Cannibalism and the Boundaries of Cultural Identity; Jennifer Brown, Cannibalism in Literature and Film;Alexandre Dumas, Grande Dictionnaire de Cuisine.
Criminology: Kevin Dutton, The Wisdom of Psychopaths; Robert D. Hare, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us, Douglad & Olshake, Mind Hunter and Journey Into Darkness; J.C. Oleson, âThe Criminological Theories of Hannibal Lecterâ [one; two; three]; Bettina Gregory, âThe honey in the lionâs mouthâ; Holmes & Holmes, Contemporary Perspectives on Serial Murder.
Serial killers: Hannibal Lecter; Ted Bundy, Ed Kempner, Eddie Gein;Â the Yorkshire Ripper, The Monster of Florence, Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrei Chikatilo, Albert Fish, Jason Ricketts, Dykes Askew Simmons, Dorangel Vargas.
Literature: William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, Europe a Prophecy & Songs of Innocence and Experience; Mary Shelley, Frankenstein; Bram Stoker, Dracula; Robert Louis Stevenson, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov; Flannery OâConnor, Wise Blood & A Good Man is Hard to Find; Truman Capote, In Cold Blood; Davis Grubb, The Night of the Hunter; Cormac McCarthy, No Country For Old Men, Child of God & Blood Meridian, Roberto BolaĂąo, 2666; William Faulkner, Sanctuary.
Thomas Harris: Wikipedia; Jason Cowley, âCreator of a monstrous hitâ; David Sexton, The Strange World of Thomas Harris [excerpt]
Cultural criticism: Elvis Mitchell, âThe cannibal who evolved into a stereotypeâ; Kim Newman, Review of Hannibal; Philip L. Simpson, Making Murder: The Fiction of Thomas Harris; Benjamin Szumskyj, Dissecting Hannibal Lecter; Michelle Leigh Gompf, âThe Erotic Pull of Hannibal Lecterâ; Daniel Shaw, âThe mastery of Hannibal Lecterâ; Harriet Hawkins, âMaidens and monsters in pop cultureâ; Linda Mizejewski, âStardom and serial fantasiesâ; Christina Gregoriou, Language, Ideology and Identity in Serial Killer Narratives; Steven Lloyd Wilson, âThe abyss stares backâ; Shana Mlawski, âThe socioeconomics of Hannibalâ.
âMy [scattered] thoughts on Bong Joon-hoâs Snowpiercer. This was originally just a defence of the filmâs endingâwhich Iâve seen widely criticisedâbecause I think itâs brilliant and necessary and worth defending. But⌠then thereâs everything else.
[major spoilers, of course]
THIS IS AN ALLEGORY
A lot of discussions of Snowpiercer Iâve seen have been very literal, which I think is a terrible way to read this film when so much of it is densely allegorical. The train at its centre is a clear allegory for capitalism [Iâve seen this rejected so hereâs the director saying it himself this is a film about capitalism]. Itâs capitalism: what was promised as an ark of salvation but became a barbaric prison for all but the very privileged.
And itâs a capitalism so advanced that the illusory crutch of money has disappearedâthis system deals directly in human flesh. The âalienated labourâ of Tail Section is a constant supply of children fed to the machine. At the same time, the system tames the body politic by literally marking and mutilating the underclass: the flesh of almost every soul in Tail Section bears the scars of being âconsumedâ by each other and the regime.
That anti-capitalist sentiment concentrates around Tilda Swintonâs Mason, a character that without doubt invokes Margaret Thatcher, the widely abhorred UK prime minister who ushered in neoliberal capitalism in the 1980s. Thatcher was born to a northern British lower-middle-class family, and was mocked for her jutting teeth and large nose; she spoke with a broad loamy Lincolnshire accent until elocution lessons got rid of it [x]. Thatcherâs policies crippled British industries [including, yes, the railways] and caused incredible suffering to working-class people.
In the film Mason originally boarded the train as a lower-class citizen and over the years was groomed by Wilford to become minister [x]âsheâs also a class traitor. Mason presides over the the violence & suffering inflicted on Tail Section inmates, as Snowpiercer accelerates the system so that capitalismâs slow violence becomes bloodsoaked brutality in real time.
Within capitalism crisis isnât an accident; itâs endemic. Capitalism is untenable and inevitably manifests cycles of boom and bust; the illusion of harmony followed by violent rupture. Itâs almost like clockworkâand the train itself is a clock, circumnavigating the earth once every year, ticking down to the next scheduled uprising.
Capitalismâs genius is its ability to co-opt every attempt at resistance; every revolution is engineered within the system, with the permission of the system, according to terms defined by the system. Which is why the exploitative conditions of capitalismâits visceral and mundane horrorsâhave persisted for so very long: they seem to be driven by a âsacred engineâ which will run perfectly forever.
"We control the engine, we control the world."
But revolutionâs not impossible. Curtis is an honest Marxist revolutionary who believes in the righteousness of his cause, setting out to seize âthe means of productionââthe engine itself. And as a creature of the train he knows how to topple from the inside, how to turn the systemâs material reality against itself.
Snowpiercer lets you see only what Curtis sees as he moves forward and forward. Maintaining an artificial hierarchy relies on an artificial realityââfalse consciousnessââin which none of the classes perceive the material reality of other classes. The lower classes are socialised to keep their place, to âbe a shoeâ. The upper classes are socialised to believe in their natural superiority to the underclasses. By breaking down divisions & doors, remaking the train into one long continuous system, Curtisâfor a momentâcollapses the artificial hierarchy. Heâs the first person to walk the full length of the train.
HEâS NOT THE MESSIAHâŚ
â âMy friend, you suffer from the misplaced optimism of the doomed.â
Curtis is essential to the revolution: he plots with Gilliam, he drives it forward, he realises that the guards have no bullets, itâs his strategy that gets the rebels to Prison Section; heâs on the frontline of the Battle, and he temporarily halts the bloodshed by capturing Mason. He makes the ugly decisions: heâs willing to keep others ignorant about the reality of the system, to censor what the Artist draws [i.e. whatâs really in the protein bars], to seize political gains at the cost of lives [sacrificing Edgar to capture Mason; one life for many], to make brutal choices in service to The Idea.
At first Curtis is sold to the audience as an American hero, the noble but reluctant leader of the rebellion [the casting of âCaptain Americaâ in this role is slyly ingenious]. But Curtis is a creature of the train: he remembers nothing before it; he came into being as the man with the knife, the man who killed Edgarâs mother and was ready to butcher a baby, to extract use-value from something sacrosanct.
Consciously or not, he absorbed & replicated the systemâs brutal exploitative logic. And even as he moves forward heâs looking back; heâs never moved beyond that horror seventeen years ago [x]. Heâs still âthe man with the knifeâ. Heâs still the train.
Snowpiercer quickly collapses the idea of Curtis as a messianic figure. When heâs called upon to leadâin the Battle of Yekaterina Bridge, by Wilford at the Engineâhis face & image blur, or heâs reduced to a faceless silhouette shot from behind. Curtis isnât marked for greatness or âchosenâ in any sense; heâs thrust into that role by a system which demands white male figureheads to elevate as false prophets. Heâs not special; heâs just next in line.
Curtis isnât the hero. Curtis is the inevitable crisis within the system. His chaos is as essential to the order of things as the brutalised lower classes and the debauched upper classes, and all the bureaucrats and apparatchiks and military thugs in between.
"Yes, Wilford knows you well, Mr Curtiss Everett. Heâs been watching you."
Itâs hard to know if Gilliam did conspire with Wilford to bring about Curtisâs revolution; if Gilliam intended the revolution to fail but changed his mind after the Water Section, if he always intended Curtis to take Wilfordâs place; or if all that was Wilfordâs lieâGilliam warned Curtis,donât let Wilford talk, cut out his tongue. Wilfordâs knowledge of their conversation about having two arms strongly suggests that Gilliam conspired with Wilford.
But the ambiguity is the point: within capitalism youâre never certain that any âresistanceâ hasnât already been co-opted and repurposed and undermined by the system youâre trying to escape.
When Curtis reaches the Front Section he falls to his knees before the Engine, overwhelmed and awed and horrifiedâthe same quasi-religious fervour shown by Wilford and Mason. Itâs reminiscent of Coppolaâs Apocalypse Now and Conradâs Heart of Darkness, when the journey up river culminates in a view of the unseen tyrannical figurehead, an awesome and shameful creature. Curtis is the train; is the system; is Wilfordâs natural & inevitable successor, the white-man heir to his throne. The man who can ensure the systemâs survival and oversee the next generation of subjugated souls. Edgar inadvertently predicts this at the very beginning:
"What I mean is heâs gonna die someday. And when that happens youâre gonna have to take over. Youâre going to have to run the train [âŚ] I think youâd be pretty good, if you ask me."
Curtisâs revolution serves the system it threatensâhelps to fulfil the killing quotas to keep the population down. Keeps the fishtank in equilibrium.
By sacrificing his arm to stop the train and free Timmy, Curtis begins to make amends for his crimes seventeen years ago. But heâs only ever half-redeemed. He canât ever escape, and his violence will always be reabsorbed back into the social order, drained of all its subversive power.
Most crucially, Curtis doesnât believe in life outside the train; that survival is possible, that the result would be anything but death and annihilation. He can only imagine the train. The irony of the word ârevolutionâ is that it describes a circle, like the endless turning of the Sacred Engineâround and round and round, forever. That would be the legacy of Curtisâs revolutionâif it werenât for Nam.
CHILDREN OF THE REVOLUTION
Fundamentally, Snowpiercer is a film about parents and children, the legacies of generations. Parents should strive to leave their children the best possible world; but todayâs children inherit the ideologies and inequalities and injustices of morally bankrupt predecessors. They inherit a world threatened by global warming and environmental collapse, thanks to the rapacious plunderings of capitalism.
Worse, children are taught to adore that monstrous world. Perhaps the most disturbing sequence in Snowpiercer takes place in the school car, a grotesque hypersaturated parody of a classroom environment.
You see the next generation of Front Section children taught to worship the Engine and its messianic Conductor, immunised to the violence and horror that system wreaks [in the first shot of the classroom all the children are faceless; dehumanised, as though not real children at all].
And the hand gestures they make in reverence to the Engine are the same gestures made by Tail Section children who become dehumanised organic-mechanical parts of the Engine. This is how propaganda works: it condenses an entire ideology into a few visual or verbal signs that can be replicated ad infinitum. And these privileged children are unwittingly complicit in the subjugation of Tail Section children. The system dehumanises everyone, front to tail. Â
The teacher responsible for âbreedingâ this ideology is pregnant, a symbol of perverted maternalismâa next generation already corrupted. She parallels Wilford, who sought to make Curtis the son and heir to the corrupt system. Curtis, too, is a failed father: he sacrifices his symbolic âsonâ Edgar in order to capture Mason; and the ânew worldâ he intends to create for the next generation will look identical to the last. [Had Curtis died at Yekaterina, it seems clear that Edgar wouldâve been groomed by Gilliam to lead the next revolution.]
On the other hand, Tanya is a brave and brilliant mother who fights and dies for the cause.
But sheâs never reduced to a maternal figure: sheâs a fierce revolutionary who fights and survives the Battle of Yekaterina Bridge [where dozens die], and who drives Curtis onward. Her beating by the soldiers is meant to invoke the beating by police of Rodney King which sparked the LA riots of 1992, another citizen uprising against oppressive violence [x]. In Tanya the personal and political are wound together: in her mind, political resistance and freeing her son are one and the same goalâshe wants his liberation, in every sense.
And Namgoong is the real father of the revolution, Snowpiercerâs radical imagination. Before Curtis finds them, he and his daughter Yona exist in a liminal countercultural space within the train, taking hallucinogenic drugs rather than experience its horrific reality.
Namgoong is not interested in the Sacred Engineâhis ideas are âabove Curtisâsâ [x]. Nam cares to see the world beyond the train; he knows that the conditions which ârequiredâ the trainâs creation have begun to recede. Nam protects Yona at all costs; and once they pass the Water Section he begins to plan their escape. He demands more for his daughter than the same system in new [white] hands. Â
[This was the moment I knew that Yona was going to escape the train.]
The Front Section children, brainwashed and monstrous and overwhelmingly white, contrast with the young people and the âtrain babiesâ of Tail Section, who are brave and brilliant and largely not-white. These children of the underclass have also been lied to: they believe the world outside canât be survived; that the mutilated world of the train is all there is. Edgar even hero-worships Curtis, the man who murdered his mother and tried to take a knife to him.
Most importantly, theyâve been lied to about the Engine. Itâs not perfect and divine and eternal; itâs a broken defective thing that survives only by the subjugation of train-babies. The Front Section children are bred to prop up the system, the train-babiesâbred to be actual cogs in its diabolical machineryâare its downfall. They are the heart & life of the revolution: when Grey is murdered, itâs with the knife thatâs stabbed through his handâhe dies with his hand over his heart.
At Yekaterina Bridge, where the revolution was supposed to die, the spark of resistance comes from Chanâs little hands striking a match in the deep dark at the very back of the train.
He passes the torch to Andrew, but itâs Grey who multiplies the burning torches until the fireâs hurtling along borne by many hands of many rebels.
The desperate cage of the downtrodden written in Greyâs tattoosâsurrender or dieâbecomes the choice he presents to his oppressors when he rises up against them.
YONA
And most important of all is Yona [âYonaâ is a form of the name âJonahâ, the biblical prophet]. That revolutionary fire begun in Tail Section becomes explosive in Yonaâs hands when she blows up the gate to the outside world. Itâs Yona, not Curtis, that the brutal implacable killer Franco the Elder tries to shoot through two windows when the train curves.
Yona is Namâs revolutionary legacy. Her clairvoyant eyes see through the barriers heâs made, see through the bars of the cage, see the coming violence. Psychologically, she is already âoutsideâ the system. And with the Kronol Nam & Yona create the means to physically escape the train. Â
That escape means blowing up the door, the event which triggers an avalanche and destroys the train. The new world comes at terrible costâand Snowpiercer doesnât flinch from that. This is the radical message of the film: ideology is never just abstractâits injustices & brutalities are decreed by human mouths and wrought by human handsâand the adult revolutionaries who can bring down the system are too compromised to do anything but replicate the very thing they destroyed.
Curtis canât be part of the new world. He has to die with the train. So does Nam: he created the protective inter-carriage doors which allowed class segregation to last for so long. Snowpiercer is determined to show the kind of sacrifices that might be demanded to bring down a system as resilient and as monstrous as this. This film is not remotely fucking around.
The only survivors of this collapse are the train-babies Yona & Timmy, who emerge from the burning wreckage of the train like phoenix-children. A clean break from the dominance of the old order and its white patriarchs. Theyâve never touched the earth; and when they step outside the train itâs as though theyâre the very first humans alive. This is the real âsacred engineâ of Snowpiercer: nature itself. A beautiful brutal state of chaos and freedom and life and death. Cold and cleansed.
The end of Snowpiercer seems like a desolate vision: in literal terms, the childrenâs chances of survival are almost zero. But the film is an allegory, and in those terms the escape from the train is hopeful: these two children, a new Adam & Eve setting foot on frozen pristine ground, can repopulate the earth [x].
The polar bear which stares them down is a threat; but itâs also proof of life outside the prison of the system. [Bong originally intended the animal to be a deer, but the polar bear is a contemporary symbol of global warming and its consequences, making its survival a happy irony.]
This last scene suggests that white Westerners are too compromised and complicit with the capitalist system to bring about its downfallâinevitably, they will shore it up as âthe lesser evilâ. True revolution against capitalism must come from elsewhere. [Yonaâs words to Curtis could be the filmâs words to America and the West at large: âyouâre fucked.â]
Snowpiercer is one of the very few films willing to imagine what might be necessary to bring down capitalismâif not literal fire and blood, then real destruction and sufferingâand to ask, honestly, if itâs a price the generations currently in power are willing to pay for the sake of a planet staring down ecological catastrophe; and for their children, the real-world âtrain babiesâ who will inherit the earth.
Hi! I hope this isn't too much trouble, but I'm currently studying abroad in London and was wondering if you have any recommendations of places/things to see. Usually, I wander about and stumble across some really interesting things, but I wouldn't mind a few recommendations. :)
london is so big and strange and ancient and horrifying and wonderful, this list could have been ten times as long.Â
amazing food: e pellici, bethnal green. tayyabs, whitechapel. book club, shoreditch. beigel bake, brick lane. mahogany bar, wiltonâs music hall. fish central, king square estate [oh god best fish & chips in london]. mr. felafel, shepherdâs bush market [palestinian felafel to die for]. cafe in the crypt, st. martin in the fields [incredible atmosphere]. prospect of whitby, wapping [ancient pub on the river]. pie in the sky, bromley-by-bow.Â
books: collinge & clark [second hand books; this is where black books was filmed]. word on the water [a book-barge, usually in paddington]. southbank book market. foyleâs on tottenham court road. forbidden planet, shaftesbury avenue. persephone books. london review. ripping yarns, highgate. 56A, crampton st. [great anarchist bookshop & archive].Â
landmarks: floating gardens. john keatsâs house. highgate cemetery [karl marx, douglas adams, christina rossetti, george eliot, et al]. doughty street [disappearing georgian london]. speakersâ corner. cross bones graveyard [paupersâ burial ground]. burlington arcade. freemasonâs hall, holborn. the actorâs church. brixton windmill. canal paths. hackney marshes. aldwych, the abandoned tube station. art in the park. battersea power station [apocalyptic icon]. prince charles cinema [quentin tarantinoâs favourite cinema]. rivoli ballroom [gorgeous 1950s music hall]. southwark cathedral [ancient & beautiful; shakespeare came here]. brompton cemetery. kyoto gardens. southbank graffiti tunnel [leake street]. old bailey.
museums: tate modern [matisse!]. v&a [always something great here]. science museum. design museum. museum of childhood. charles dickens museum. british library [exhibition iâve had earmarked for months, âcomics unmasked: art & anarchy in the ukâ].
oddities: the old curiosity shop. dr. john deeâs magical items at the british museum [elizabeth iâs court magician]. the old operating theatre. the london dungeons. the london tombs. the wellcome collection [artificial limbs, mummies & bizarre medical ephemera from history]. hoxton street monster supplies. also, if youâre into the macabre, declan mchughâs bloody london is a great guide to historic sites of horror and the occult.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
learning to analyze literature is also sort of like the matrix in that once you learn how to see all the patterns, you never get to un-see it.
everything is shakespearean or greek or fairytale or arthurian or jungian.
everything.
and the cake is a lie.
(âŚor rather the cake is a symbol meant to evoke an idea of cake, specifically cake as a treat, associated with birthdays and dessert and celebrations of achievement, which is why the joke works because you have this cultural consciousness of cake and what cake means and so the game can play with that without ever having to actually tell you what itâs doing because literature is fucking tricky that way)
there is no âmatrixâ for literary analysis. there are countless ideological and methodological lenses through which to view a literary text. often competing and conflicting and diverging. one is no more ârightâ or âtrueâ than another. trying to perceive them all simultaneously would probably cause your brain to melt.Â
& reducing literature to a series of narrative typologies and structures is a terribly impoverished & clinical view of art, particularly linguistic art. english studies already went through that phaseâitâs called formalism, nobody really does it any longer because itâs so blind to the material and biographical and cultural and ideological contexts of literature. itâs horribly reductionist.
i mean, saying that james joyceâs ulysses and derek walcottâs omeros are both âhomericâ is perhaps the least interesting thing you could say about these two wildly different and astonishingly ambitious and beautiful texts.Â
and youâll never see âall the patternsâ. texts are not closed; theyâre open, forever provisional, continuously producing new meanings, connecting with other texts. ultimately, the text will always elude you. thatâs half of the fun.Â
1. Oedipus: incest, patricide, and the Theban king who sought knowledge at any cost and was utterly undone by the truth of himself, stabbing out his eyes to never see his shame.
2. Icarus: itâs a tale of hubris and overreaching our mortal grasp, yes, but itâs also about the height of human imagining, the desire for the impossible, the searing instant of youth and joy and striving and wonder, the glorious flight that comes before a terrible fall.
3. Medea: fearsome martial-speaking witch-queen who will be soft and meek until she makes every part of herself a sword.
4. Prometheus: the trickster who deceived Zeus and saved humankind, and proof that no good deed goes unpunished (he also warned Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha that Zeus planned a great flood to sweep mankind away, so that they might be spared and repopulate the earth)Â
5. Ariadne and Dionysus: the girl who helped Theseus to bring down her fatherâs regime only to be betrayed by him, and was so wild and furious and unbounded that the god of madness and ecstasy fell for her on the shore of Naxos
6. Penthesilea, daughter of the god of war, and queen of the Amazons, who fought for King Priam in the Trojan War and slaughtered so many men that the armies were awed by her. she was finally killed by Achillesâwhen he lifted her helmet he fell in love with her, and buried her with his own hands.Â
7. Eros & Psyche: traces of Beauty and the Beastâthe girl so beautiful men worshipped her instead of Aphrodite, made love to Eros but was never allowed to see his face (while her two wicked sisters tried to steal him). she endured three near-impossible trials, even descending to the underworld to entreat Persephone, and was finally married to himÂ
8. Agamemnon & Clytaemnestra: Agamemnon is a bastard in every text ever, and his great hubris before the House of Atreus is the last and most damning act of a guilty man who will die ingloriously, stabbed in the bath by his proud vengeful charismatic queen, and never see it coming.Â
9. Elektra and Orestes: the children of the above, joined in love and ferocious desire to avenge their father. after years apart, they recognise each other at their fatherâs tomb, and plot their course: he is the sword, and she is the willâin Euripides they slay their mother together by stabbing a sword down her throat.
10. Cassandra and Apollo: Iâve already written about Cassandra of Troyâthe prophet who refused her god and was cursed to speak truth and go unheeded. itâs a story about how womenâs voices have been demonised and othered, gagged by accusations of madness and hysteria. thereâs no one braver in all Greek mythology than the woman who lives through the Trojan War twice, first as distant thunder and then as lightning, her life and city and family torn apartâwho warns and warns until she has no more breath. Â
Please talk forever about Helen and ancient greek you are so enpoint
in the iliad helen speaks the last lament for hector. the only man in troy who showed her kindness is slainâand now, helen says, ĎΏνĎÎľĎ Î´Î ÎźÎľ ĎÎľĎĎίκιĎΚν, all men shudder at me. she doesnât speak in the iliiad again.
homer isnât cruel to helen; her story is cruel enough. in the conjectured era of the trojan war, women are mothers by twelve, grandmothers by twenty-four, and buried by thirty. the lineage of mycenaean families passes through daughters: royal women are kingmakers, and command a little power, but they are bartered like jewels (the iliad speaks again and again of helen and all her wealth). helen is the most beautiful woman in the world, golden with kharis, the seductive grace that arouses desire. she is coveted by men beyond all reason. after she is seized by paris and compelled by aphrodite to love him against her willâin other writings of the myth, she loves him freelyâshe is never out of danger.
the helen of the iliad is clever and powerful and capricious and kind and melancholy: full of fury toward paris and aphrodite, longing for sparta and its women, fear for her own life. she condemns herself before others can. in book vi, as war blazes and roars below them, helen tells hector, on us the gods have set an evil destiny: that we should be a singerâs theme for generations to comeâas if she knows that, in the centuries after, men will rarely write of parisâ vanity and hubris and lust, his violation of the sacred guest-pact, his refusal to relent and avoid war with the achaeans. instead theyâll write and paint the beautiful, perfidious, ruinous woman whose hands are red with the blood of men, and call her not queen of sparta but helen of troy: a forced marriage to the city that desired and hated her. she is an eidolon made of want and rapture and dread and resentment.
homer doesnât condemn helenâand in the odyssey sheâs seen reconciled with menelaus. sheâs worshipped in sparta as a symbol of sexual power for centuries, until the end of roman rule: pausanias writes that pilgrims come to see the remains of her birth-egg, hung from the roof of a temple in the spartan acropolis; spartan girls dance and sing songs praising one anotherâs beauty and strength as part of rites of passage, leading them from parthenos to nĂ˝mphÄ, virgin to bride. cults of helen appear across greece, italy, turkeyâas far as palestineâcelebrating her shining beauty; they sacrifice to her as if she were a goddess. much of this is quickly forgotten.Â
every age finds new words to hate helen, but they are old ways of hating: deceiver and scandal and insatiate whore. she is euripidesâ bitchwhore and hesiodâs kalon kakon (âbeautiful evilâ) and clement of alexandriaâs adulterous beauty and whore and shakespeareâs strumpet and proctorâs trull and flurt of whoredom and schillerâs pricktease and levinâs adulterous witch. her lusts damned a golden world to die, they say. pandoraâs box lies between a womanâs thighs. helen is a symbol of how menâs desire for women becomes the evidence by which women are condemned, abused, reviled. Â
but no cage of words can hold her fast. she is elusive; she yields nothing. she has outlasted civilisations, and is beautiful still. before troy is ash and ruin she has already heard all the slander of the centuries; and at last she turns her face awayâas if to say: i am not for you
edward thomas, âlights outâ: i must enter, and leave, alone, /Â i know not how.
gabriele dâannunzio, âthe rain in the pinewoodâ: rain falls on your black eyelashes / so that you seem to weep / but from pleasure
evie shockley, âwhere you are plantedâ: we settle into still pools of humidity, moss- / dark, beneath live oaks
amy gerstler, âbon courageâ: a forest appears /Â to a young girl one morning as she combs /Â the dreams out of ââher hair.Â
richard levine, âin a blue woodâ: the faceless couple in van goghâs blue wood, is walking / where there is no path
siegfried sassoon, âdream-forestâ: where sunshine flecks the green, / through towering woods my way / goes winding all the day.
robert frost, âstopping by woods on a snowy eveningâ: and miles to go before I sleep, / and miles to go before I sleep.
mary oliver, âsleeping in the forestâ and âblack oaksâ: and you canât keep me from the woods, from the tonnage / of their shoulders, and their shining green hair.
john keats, âode to psycheâ: far, far around shall those dark-clusterâd trees / fledge the wild-ridged mountains steep by steep
r.s. thomas, âforest dwellersâ: who called them forth to walk / in the green light, their thoughts / on darkness?Â
lĂŠonie adams, ârecollection of the woodâ:Â toward that caress of the boughs a summerâs night / illimitable in fragrance and in sound.
gabriela mistral, âpine forestâ: the night watches over its creatures, / except for the pine trees that never change.
kenneth rexroth, âfalling leaves and early snowâ: between the black pines lie narrow bands of moonlight, / glimmering with floating snow.
william carlos williams, âepitaphâ
h.d., âthe helmsmanâ: we forgotâwe worshipped, / we parted green from green
cole swensen, âfive landscapesâ: the trees are half air. they fissure the sky;
pablo neruda, âlost in the forestâ: wakening from the dreaming forest there, the hazel-sprig / sang under my tongue
atsuro riley, âthicketâ:Â for darkling green; /Â for thorn-surround.