Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "Overly Sarcastic Productions"
channel.
-
2800
-
85
-
76
-
70
-
70
-
63
-
Douglas Adams, in "Life, the Universe, and Everything":
“The alien ship was already thundering towards the upper reaches of the atmosphere, on its way out into the appalling void which separates the very few things there are in the Universe from each other.
Its occupant, the alien with the expensive complexion, leaned back in its single seat. His name was Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged. He was a man with a purpose. Not a very good purpose, as he would have been the first to admit, but it was at least a purpose and it did at least keep him on the move.
Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged was --- indeed, is --- one of the Universe's very small number of immortal beings.
Those who are born immortal instinctively know how to cope with it, but Wowbagger was not one of them. Indeed he had come to hate them, the load of serene bastards. He had had his immortality thrust upon him by an unfortunate accident with an irrational particle accelerator, a liquid lunch and a pair of rubber bands. The precise details of the accident are not important because no one has ever managed to duplicate the exact circumstances under which it happened, and many people have ended up looking very silly, or dead, or both, trying.
Wowbagger closed his eyes in a grim and weary expression, put some light jazz on the ship's stereo, and reflected that he could have made it if it hadn't been for Sunday afternoons, he really could have done.
To begin with it was fun, he had a ball, living dangerously, taking risks, cleaning up on high-yield long-term investments, and just generally outliving the hell out of everybody.
In the end, it was the Sunday afternoons he couldn't cope with, and that terrible listlessness which starts to set in at about 2:55, when you know that you've had all the baths you can usefully have that day, that however hard you stare at any given paragraph in the papers you will never actually read it, or use the revolutionary new pruning technique it describes, and that as you stare at the clock the hands will move relentlessly on to four o'clock, and you will enter the long dark teatime of the soul.
So things began to pall for him. The merry smiles he used to wear at other people's funerals began to fade. He began to despise the Universe in general, and everyone in it in particular.
This was the point at which he conceived his purpose, the thing which would drive him on, and which, as far as he could see, would drive him on forever. It was this.
He would insult the Universe.”
35
-
20
-
19
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
One thing about these old gods (stories generally, for that matter), is they're a network of resonant intuitions. A storyteller has an idea that came from who-knows-what intuitive connections, and the audience says, "Yeah, that sounds about right."
The ones that sound the "rightest" (presumably having the most in common with how the world seemed to work to most people), and the stories people are most curious about or eager to hear (maybe dealing with problems that they still haven't figured out the best way to deal with), end up being told often enough and similarly enough, to be made "canon".
If something like the "true" story of a chaos god is incoherent, well, maybe it's just incoherent, because it grabs a patch from here and a patch from there as different aspects of an idea are explored.
Imagine the parable of Plato's Cave, where the thing that's casting the shadows on the wall is in itself a mosaic of a multitude of shadows, in an infinite regress.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexemy2463 "Already wealthy"? Europe was anything but that, at the beginning of the colonial era. More technologically advanced, sure, more capable of organizing effective people across the globe, sure, but not wealthy. The whole reason India and China (and parts of Africa and the Americas) were attractive to European adventurers is specifically because those regions were wealthier than Europe.
Of course, that changed quickly because of that technological edge. It's worth noting that the countries that got the richest (notably Spain) were actually hamstrung in the long-term great power competition by a lack of attention to capitalism and technology.
When other parts of the world (Japan in the mid-19th century, China in the late 20th-early 21st) changed their entire societies to follow the Western model -- science / technology, plus market capitalism, if a very authoritarian form -- that those parts of the world started to be able to deliver a Western standard of living to their people.
The rising authoritarian / militaristic power of Japan had to be stopped by force, which (along with their subsequent integration into a constructive global system that benefits them as well as everyone else) are more lessons we need to keep in mind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mentors die so much because human life is multi-generational. One generation gains wisdom with age, and another rises in an ever-replenishing fountain of enthusiasm, ignorance, and yes, potential. In many cases the whole point of stories is to show how aged wisdom combines with youthful energy (in a realistic way), not just because a mentor / student trope is the best way to bring that across, but also because older people die in the real world, and passing on that wisdom before that happens is just a much of a problem to be explored as anything else that might happen in a story.
So, aged wisdom dies, not to dismiss that wisdom, but to reflect the fact that that's the way it goes in life. Also, love interests die because up until modern medicine, childbirth was incredibly dangerous and stories are a way to explore ways to deal with this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The canonical modern Western revenge story is the Count of Monte Cristo, where the title character is wronged by villains A, B, and C.
Dumas made the Count heroic and not simply selfish, by pairing him up victims X, Y, and Z, who villains A, B, and C had also wronged subsequent to the wrong that they did to the Count -- demonstrating both the villains' villainous character, and giving the Count's revenge a dimension of magnanimity.
Interestingly, Shakespeare twists and turns the idea of a revenge story -- Othello is absolutely wrong to seek revenge, Romeo's vengefulness (and the vengefulness of the two families generally) causes the whole problem of the play, Hamlet is wracked with doubts, non-vengeful Brutus is noble while vengeful Cassius is petty (and the reprisals from Pompey onwards crash the Republic), and Titus Andronicus is basically a monster.
About the only time vengeance is seen as laudable, is when it's against a main character -- MacBeth's end is seen as morally justified,
On the lighter side, Prospero is arguably a good guy because his "revenge" plot is generally just toying with his enemies, with an eye to a happy ending. Oberon and Titania's feud is a prank war played up for laughs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The deal here is you're picking the term "strong" as the character trait. Strength is cognitively linked to physical strength, and men are typically physically stronger than women. I would think the solution would be, to pick a descriptor rather than "strong" if you want to have a positive trait that maps to women as often as men. "Smart", "Wise", "Witty", "Charming" - these all have their own associations, but they're more gender-balanced than (perhaps physical) strength.
As far as why there are so many straight white males as characters out there...
- The vast, vast majority of people are straight.
- About half of people are male.
- Chances are if you're writing in English, you're white.
- If someone is writing what they know, chances aren't quite fifty-fifty they're going to pick a white, straight man, but they'll be much, much higher to be that than any given specific intersection you could imagine.
So..... Yeah.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi, Red, this is Christianity. You know how there are some people who are atheists? (They don't believe in Allah, Zeus, Odin, Horus, Vishnu, and the rest? I get the idea you're one of them, by the way.)
Well, we're a lot like that, except there's one God we DO believe in (atheists but for one god less, as it were), and we think that there's probably some naturalistic explanation for the rest of them, mainly that they might be garbled stories of historical figures from pre-literate societies. (As opposed to, say, the extensive written records we have starting with Greco-Roman times that exist in a reasonably intact chain up through the last two thousand years. Thanks to the medieval Irish, among enough other independent groups that (for example) we have a wealth of evidence that Julius Caesar was assassinated, and even MORE evidence that Christ was crucified, etc.)
Anyway, sure, there are references to demons and such in stories like the Prose Edda, but those are probably a gloss / hybrid / bastardization of the aforementioned garbled stories of pre-literate history, with some Jungian archetypes mixed in because that seems to be just what humans DO when we write stories that last for centuries.
So, yeah.
And also, sorry not sorry, we burned the stories of jaguar-raining snake demons who demanded human sacrifice because these are CLEARLY so demonic that they made a violent psychopath like Hernan Cortez look like the GOOD guy, replacing the old ghastly collection of feathers and fangs with God who sacrifices *Himself*.
I can only imagine ancient South Americans, seeing a crucifix for the first time, and asking, "So is that how you sacrifice people to your gods?" and a priest replying, "No, that's God, who sacrificed Himself for us, so that he suffers instead", to which the South American replies, "I'm intrigued by this new theology, and would like to hear more."
So again, yeah.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nikajika4635 Joker moves on all the time. He's so moved on from whatever situation made him the way he is, that it's not clear (or even all that important) what that situation even was.
He's chaos, without a past, destroying institutions and causing pain just because he feels like it, always moving on from one episode to another. He constantly causes trouble, with a new scheme or gang all the time which he abandons or betrays for the least of his selfish whims, or for no reason whatever. Hey, at least he's "true to himself", right?
Has Batman moved on, at all? Isn't his primary motivation to make sure no one else suffers what he suffered? He has at least one foot firmly planted in the past. He's obsessed enough with that past to dress up like a bat for a hobby and devote his life to Gotham's crime problem.
No... "moving on" is so far from the lesson of that story, I have to wonder where you pulled that in from. Could you clarify that? Something preoccupying you from personal experience, maybe?
I'm not sure "rebuilding" is a theme either. Batman is doing his best to keep the chaos at bay, but there isn't really anything in those stories to point to Batman (or Bruce Wayne, who certainly has the resources) rebuilding anything. Could you also clarify where you got that from?
The scars and the tragedy run deep. What Bruce Wayne could have been, what he could have built, if the foundation of his family hadn't been senselessly shattered, isn't even addressed.
A hilarious aside... when Val Kilmer's Batman hooked up with a psychiatrist, audiences hated it. I figure if she looks like Nicole Kidman they should give him a break, but audiences know what does and doesn't resonate, in a story.
Seeing a shrink won't work, for Batman. Returning Gotham into the sort of smoothly-functioning city that old Commissioner Gordon represents, finally undoing Joker and the rest of the Rogue's Gallery, returning Justice and Order, is how that story is supposed to wrap up.
At least, if Batman gets a happy ending. There isn't much in the way of setup, for that kind of payoff. I'm not sure it's that kind of story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mary Sue doesn't have to work at anything. No hero's journey at all. (That's why Rey catches so much flak, by the way. Rey's powers are properly Hero's Journey powers, not Mary Sue powers.)
But this doesn't explain why the trope is gendered, or even why it's a trope in the first place.
Let's play with the trope a little bit and see what variants of it are more palatable to the parts of the Internet (sadly, aka Humanity) that do not accept Rey as a valid story element.
Instead of a special miraculous ability to (as a complete newb) out-swordfight a veteran swordsman with a clearly overwhelming advantage in weight, reach, and upper-body strength, let's make it a life-giving ability. Healing or something. A healing ability that she can do without any practice, no consultation with wisdom, etc. The complaints would subside, and no one would bat an eye.
Could we add, maybe, a tendency to get damselled on a semi-regular basis, particularly when using this miraculous ability? Sure. Maybe even show that she runs the risk of serious injury or death by using this ability (but she heroically does it anyway, because LOVE). Some people might call this "more balanced", but they'd honestly be missing the point.
And, what if in addition to not having to work for this miraculous ability, she doesn't even want it? The trope still holds. Bonus points if (in more modern stories) she complains that it's the only focus of her life and she wants something more than that.
Oh, extra super bonus points if this miraculous ability first manifested when she was a teen.
Now let's come back around to the idea that everyone loves Mary Sue for her miraculous abilities. Everyone makes a fuss over her for them. Her biggest problem is life is deciding what hunky guy is going to get the opportunity to make the biggest fuss. Does it still work with the trope? You bet.
But why oh why is it gendered? Is this somehow a valid exploration of an actual aspect of the human experience that women undergo and men do not?
(Let me know when the penny dropped for you.)
By the way, for powers like beating people up or otherwise imposing beneficial order on the external chaotic world, you really should have a Hero's Journey to accompany the development of those powers, because that's how the world *is*. Rey would have been a LOT more accepted if she had done so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John Cleese, sort of: "What have the British ever done for us?"
Michael Palin, etc: "sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the British ever done for us?"
Blue: "Irresponsibly left their Empire"
Graham Chapman: "There's just no pleasing some people."
Monty Python's Life of Brian: Even more subversive, iconoclastic, and heretical to the current crop of self-righteous moralists, than it was when it was first filmed!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1