Good Posts Obnoxiously Written

The tumblr user formerly known as sidereanuncia, returned from their travels at last.

[galileosballs]

I think they've deleted the tag now, but one person tagged my post about technical vs. nontechnical language with 'good post obnoxiously written' and I just love that phrase. I could not possibly sum up what I try to do here better than that. I'm going to make it my blog title.

[galileosballs]

I want to be extremely clear that I am not dunking on this person or being sarcastic. I love that phrase. And they are not wrong.

[spencerthespacer-deactivated202]

[fox-in-the-wheat-deactivated202]

THIS IS THE HARDEST I HAVE LAUGHED IN SO LONG YOU HAVE CURED MY DEPRESSION

[ywg]

This is one of the greatest posts I’ve ever witnessed. The payoff was amazing.

[randomslasher]

My roommate heard it going and went “OH MY GOD is it EVER going to resolve?” then the payoff hit and she busted up laughing

[prokopetz]

I try not to meme on people I don't know, but sometimes they're just straight handing you setups. I once saw a theatre kid accuse another theatre kid's interest in theatre of being performative.

[dragkingandreweldritch]

[evardstentacles]

fuck everything. whats the media people ASSUME youre into. what are people surprised that you havent watched/played/whatever

[galileosballs]

On some level, the biggest problem with Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey is that it's called The Odyssey. Even Emerald Fennel's scarequotes "Wuthering Heights" did more to cue viewers in to the fact that this was a transformative adaptation that was about to take a whole bunch of liberties with theme and tone, despite the superficial preservation of the setting and characters. With Nolan's Odyssey, it's also 100% a transformational adaptation that's not in any way trying to accurately render its source material. Which is fine on it's own (I'll leave the question of whether Nolan's interpretation produces a good film to the reader's judgement), but does mean that in discussing this version, we're condemned to always always call it 'the Christopher Nolan Odyssey'. It's very important to any discussion to know if your interlocutor is referring to this film or its source material. The title of the film in no way helps you make that distinction. And, of course, by failing to indicate that there is a distinction worth making, Nolan will probably have deceived some people into thinking this isn't as transformative a reading as it clearly is.

When I compare The Nolan Odyssey to, say O Brother Where Art Thou? I don't need to specify The Coen Brothers' O Brother Where Art Thou? every time. But I will have to throw Nolan's name into every version of this conversation I'll ever have in the future.

[redlipstickresurrected]

Erika Lee Sears aka A Tiny Rocket (American, b. Portland, OR, USA) - Smoking Piranha Plant, 2024, Paintings: Oil on wood Panel

[galileosballs]

In retrospect, falling over and hitting my head on a wall was a really bad strategy for a week in which I need to turn around a lot of really precise written work

[second-time-around]

very 🥰🥰🥰 when musicians leave bits in songs where they're saying 'is this thing on?' or 'it's still recording y'know.' chairs scraping, retuning guitars, saying 'let's do that bit again', 'was that take any good?'

[postarcadian]

ok I said I was going to do a Nolan Odyssey review so here goes, although Emily Wilson's review that dropped today covers a lot of similar ground:

First, a few words about what I am not going to do here. I'm not going to catalogue all of the ways that Nolan diverges from the source material and make a case why that's a bad thing. As I mentioned in the post I made on this blog a few days ago, I think it's essential when dealing with adaptations of ancient texts and especially the Homeric epics to keep in mind that the text in the form we have it, as well as the cultural meaning that it carries, is itself a construction of a ~2700 year reception tradition, and does not inherently have some sacred primacy. An adaptation is not necessarily "bad" and does not necessarily "misunderstand" the source material simply because it diverges from it. Neither O Brother, Where Art Thou? nor Derek Walcott's Omeros (both of which are much better Odyssey adaptations than this one) is especially faithful to the source text, and a lot of their power comes from the willingness to engage in a conversation with the source material rather than follow it to the letter.

Now that's out of the way, let me say that on every level but technical this is a terrible film. It's terrible not just as an Odyssey adaptation - although it certainly is that - but because of its own failings.

I'll start with what I believe the film is about, which is a white male American Christian war veteran on a long journey home haunted by guilt for the war crimes he committed overseas against a populace that mostly remains faceless. This is not a joke - it's my best attempt to make sense of the moral universe of the film, in which Homeric/archaic Greek religious concepts like xenia have been replaced with "Zeus's law" (Christianized as the Golden Rule) but also in which Odysseus fears that by devising the Trojan Horse, he has essentially caused the Fall of Man via the breakdown of "Zeus's law." Alissa Wilkinson writing for the NY Times and plenty of others have noted that the film is thematically a companion piece to Oppenheimer, but that might actually be underselling the extent to which Damon-as-Odysseus might as well be Oppenheimer. It's ancient Greek dressing on a story that makes no real sense outside of a 20th-21st century American Christian framework, a point that is uncomfortably driven home in a scene in which Odysseus' comrades tell an elderly man who does not speak their language that "we're Greeks. from Ithaca" in the film's koine of burly American-accented English as his village burns. Of course, the elderly man who has just lost everything is speaking Modern Greek - a hell of a metaphor for the way in which this film is so deeply assured in its rewriting of the Achaeans as Americans and its claiming of the ancient Mediterranean world as terra nullius for an American-war-veteran-going-home story, an ethos that also seems to have pervaded the filming process.

There are, of course, other consequences to the portrayal of Odysseus as a proto-Christian war veteran haunted by guilt and PTSD. My lovely mutual Mal ( @gaius-sempronius-grackle) points out in this review that Nolan clearly wants to be adapting the Aeneid, an observation I completely agree with, and the Odysseus we get is far more pius than polytropos. But there's also not a single character in the entire film that is polytropos or even seems to show much hint of complexity. Excellent actors like Lupita Nyong'o and Elliot Page are wasted in poorly-scripted roles that give them nothing to work with, and Penelope is not the complex, tactically-minded woman of the Odyssey but an utterly one note character. Tom Holland's Telemachus likewise doesn't really do much of anything, because no one in this film does except for Matt Damon.

Emily Wilson's review also points out another crucial issue with the film - its complete sexlessness. The removal of any material from Books 23 and 24 from the film means that we don't get any real emotional resolution to Odysseus and Penelope's arc - much has been said about whether and when sex scenes are "necessary" (a framing I mostly reject), but it's hard to argue that there's a more necessary sex scene in all of ancient literature than the one in Odyssey 23. But we also have no sex between Odysseus and Calypso (who, because she's not a goddess, puzzlingly just seems to be a woman living alone on an island who feeds lotus to passers-by) or Odysseus and Circe. At the same time, for a movie that seems to be extraordinarily keyed into a certain aesthetic of male homosociality, we don't even get any spark of eroticism or emotional connection between men, either. In fact, from this blogger's perspective as a bisexual man, it's striking that a movie with this many sweaty men manages to feel this utterly sterile, sexless, and uninterested in the human body and embodied experience.

This all brings me to one of the few moments that bizarrely enough does work, which is the Circe scene. Mostly this is because of Samantha Morton's performance, but the actual portrayal of the transformation of Odysseus' men into pigs is notable both as one of the most unnerving things I've seen in a recent film (and most of the cinema I watch is horror!) and as a bizarrely erotic scene. It's one of very few moments where you actually feel the uncannyness of the Odyssey's apologue, and one of few moments where the lack of faithfulness to the source material actually seems generative (side note: if you are at all sensitive to emetophobic triggers or body horror, I would recommend fully walking out of the theater for this scene). The Polyphemus scene is similarly unnerving, with creature design that reminded me quite a bit of the Pale Man from Pan's Labyrinth, although it's held back by its refusal to sit with the implications of Odysseus and his companions' violation of xenia and (ok, I said I wouldn't list infidelities as flaws but just this once) its decision to make Polyphemus incoherent rather than allowing one of the most famous exchanges in the poem to play out.

I could go on about some of my other least favorite aspects of this film, including the complete removal of Achilles, whose conversation with Odysseus is one of my favorite moments in the entire Odyssey, and the refusal to let any of the recognition scenes but especially those involving Eurykleia and Argos breathe. But all of these things are relatively minor compared with the film's biggest issue and the true reason I think it cannot be taken seriously, which is the "civilizational" framing of the story. Much has been made of the absurdity of the film's characters being aware of their own existence in the Bronze Age, but ultimately the obsession with the end of the Bronze Age and the constant references to the Sea Peoples etc. are all symptomatic of the fact that it's a film that is both deeply American and utterly obsessed with imperial decline. And while it's one thing for an adaptation to speak to its own era and its own audience - something that all adaptations do - the film's utter lack of curiosity about the Homeric world at anything more than a surface level turns it into a giant, bombastic, and deeply boring mess.

[thoughtportal]

[ominous-signs]

Official ominous sign (apparently translates to "Sorry", in a sincere way)

[soul-of-a-ghost]

pathetic wet beast on the brink of tears

[ominous-signs]

OH MY GOSH LOOK AT THEM

[galileosballs]

The 'ingredients you can pronounce means it's healthy' line implies a world in which the kind of nutrition a person requires scales with their biology education and grasp of phonics. Which isn't true, of course, but sure would imply some interesting worldbuilding if it were

[galileosballs]

George W. Bush is immune to guns and bombs, but specifically not nuclear weapons

[galileosballs]

Also, please do not listen to how people talk about cover letters on this site. Cover letters are important, and in many industries you can be damn sure they'll be read. And no, they're not 'fanfic about working in your office', or just re-stating the resume contents in a fancier guise. If you treat them like that, then of course they're not doing much for you. That makes you sound like a syncophantic windbag, and it's not doing anything else to help.

I was trained in the dark arts of the cover letter by my mother, who is a hiring manager. And her training has paid off: I've been consistently told my cover letters are excellent. Let me pass on the wisdom.

The job of a cover letter is to give a prospective employer strictly more information than is on the resume. This is where you take the resume contents and put them into context. You look at the job requirements (you are looking at the job requirements before applying, right?) and look at your resume and ask the question (in your head) "why would a person think this candidate would be good for this job?" and your cover letter is the answer to that question. If you don't answer that question, the hiring manager is going to have to do it themselves, and you have way more information to work with than they do.

This is especially important if you're moving from one industry to another, because then the relevant connections aren't obvious. It's also very important if you're overqualified, because then you can use the letter to say "I know it looks like this job would be too entry-level for me, but I'm interested to pursue it for reasons x, y, and z". You can also use this space to explain away something that might otherwise be disqualifying, like job-hopping or a long break in employment. The tone to strike here is always matter-of-fact and constrained to topic - don't go into detail about health stuff or personal tragedy, just tell them what they need to hear: that this period of your resume was affected by [bad thing] but that it's now in the past and you're looking forward to the next chapter. Remember, one of the things they're trying to learn is whether you'd be content in this role, or whether you'd be miserable and leave after 2 months, which would force them to do all the work of hiring again. You're trying to establish that you will fit right in and not cause problems. Knowing what drew you to this job in particular (and don't just say 'money', that's true for everyone) helps with that.

And the other mistake? Everyone writes cover letters that are too long. One page is fine. Two is the absolute maximum, and that's if you have a lot of specific things to say. It's a waste of your time and theirs to pad it out with fluff. Of my two most recent successful cover letters (i.e. jobs for which I was interviewed) one was 390 words and the other was 550. That's the length of this post. How long did it take me to write this post? About 15 minutes to write, 5 to proof and edit. That's how long you should be spending on a cover letter, maximum.

[buam]

Cover letters are the first thing I look at. Poorly written cover letters are an instant rejection - how can I trust someone to communicate well or take the job seriously if they can’t write a couple paragraphs about their background and why they want the job? Strong cover letters, on the other hand, can earn someone with a so-so resume an interview.

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

Off topic for this blog but an important skill I think we teach people so little about!

Cover letters are your elevator pitch. Why you, over anyone else with the same qualifications? What things can you advertise yourself with that can’t go on a resume? It’s literally self-advertising. Tell an employer a persuasive narrative about yourself that will make them want to interview you.

For a quick example: this blog led to me getting my first fact-checking gig, which has become my Real JobTM.

My resume shows the blog, that first client (which I still work for, eight years in!), and subsequent professional advancement. It’s not a bad resume these days.

Every cover letter I send tells the story of how I tried to do education on the internet and got so frustrated by incorrect/contradictory/unsourced information that I taught myself how to fact-check to find some dang correct facts. That I’ve dug so deep looking for accurate answers that my work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, cited in law articles and other academic literature, and influenced the trajectory of legislation. And that I still love it! A decade later, it is a joy every single day to dig my teeth into the newest topic and make sure everything is right. This, I say, is what I will do for them.

That’s the story my resume could never convey.

You don’t want to make things up or exaggerate, but everyone has some sort of narrative to build around their history. Even if it’s not conventionally “impressive” it will still give potential employers a sense of who you are, where you’re coming from, and if you’d be a good fit.

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

#ugh... i can't self-advertise to save my life... tags from @rubytactician

I have a trick for this! It's called ask someone else.

No, really. Someone in your friends / family / favorite colleagues from that last job is going to be your biggest supporter, so make use of that!

Ask them how they'd pitch you to someone else. Insert theoretical scenario of them somehow socially encountering someone hiring for the perfect job for you - what would they say to make that person interested? What about your work history do they think would be compelling? What skills do they think you should promote?

It is really hard to figure out how to market yourself. Especially these days when there's a more performative aspect to job applications than just having the right skills. Make use of the people who love you want to see you do well.

I think this sort of thing used to be easier when written letters of recommendation were more common, honestly, because those were literally someone else advertising you to someone else.

Another thing you can do - which will feel so awkward but is worth it - is to ask friends, colleagues from previous jobs (maybe not your current one), or past/current clients to give you a blurb! If you have a professional website, those are a great thing to use to flesh them out to prove you are a real person with real skills. If not, you can keep them to look at when you need inspiration or can't remember to save your life what you're good at and why someone should hire you.

My best suggestion if you're like uh, no, I cannot write something cogent is... don't. Barf everything vaguely relevant onto a sheet of paper. Do a free-writing exercise with no constraints. Write down all the silly, ridiculous, egotistic shit you'd like to tell an employer about why they should hire you. Get it all out on paper without censoring yourself so you can get any of it on paper - and this this important, do not send it. Read it back, and draw from it to make your actual cover letter. If you're struggling, show it to someone else and ask them what they think is important/interesting/marketable.

Drafting things like cover letters and even your resume with the support of your community will seriously make them so much better. You get eyes on for spellchecking and grammar, but also to help make sure it flows and that you're not using jargon or technical language a hiring manager might not understand. It can be hard to ask and I totally get that. It's something where I think it's worthwhile to sit with the discomfort. Applying for jobs successfully really isn't a skill that's taught these days! So we succeed best when we support each other.

I practice what I preach here. This is hard for me too - I am successful because I lean on community. I don't remember the last time I wrote a cover letter without having someone else preview it, even though I have a solid template I've worked from for years. I literally just asked @kaijutegu to help me cobble together a bio for a client that wanted to include me on their website (aaaaaaaa). I read and give feedback on cover letters for my friends as well, because it's got to be a two way street.

I won't say that writing cover letters isn't hard, because it is, but it is a skill that can be learned. And you don't have to do it alone.

[exxos-von-steamboldt]

[mxalexwhat]

But it’s also hysterical because its like, what if a guest on your favorite twitch stream turned out to be in the middle of a one-man military operation and now the markiplier has to help him save the entire universe from the greatest evil ever conceived? And then the show just ended like normal?

[galileosballs]

The thing about switching to linux is that 90% of the time you will have no problems and everything will be great, but that 10% is always going to come from the place you least expect

[galileosballs]

For context I just wasted two hours of what was supposed to be Crucial Deadline Crunch over a fucking font

[galileosballs]

Do I need to write a unique cover letter for each job application? I'm currently out of work and I find the application process deeply frustrating because I have no idea of the efficacy of tailoring particular applications or if it's even getting in front of a human.

Yes and no. You do need to prepare something specific for each job, but you don't need to write it from scratch every time. The same discussion of how your experience doing x translates into context y works for every job in which there is a context y. So, you can re-use a lot of material.

For kinds of jobs I apply to a lot, I have one 'basic' letter prepared that discusses all the non-specific stuff I'd expect to be present in every One of Those jobs. I usually only write one new paragraph for each job of that kind to which I apply, in which I talk about more specific stuff (and you always want to have the specific job title and company for the relevant position in your cover letter). And I'll always do a quick check through the stated requirements to make sure my letter matches their needs and wording.

For times where I'm applying to a different type of job than one I've applied to before, I will just write a new one from scratch. A letter that doesn't fit the job well won't help you. But that's basically the only time I do that.

One thing that helps is that I'm a very fast writer, which is a skill I intentionally built for (amongst other things) this reason. You certainly shouldn't be spending hours tailoring a cover letter! (although, on the 'viewed by a human' point, I think most of the time people only use AI summaries to make the first cut, not to do the whole process, since they'll have to prep for the interview anyway. If you get to the final round, someone probably will read the thing). It's still onerous, I know, but focusing on speed and accuracy, however that works for you, will make it a whole lot less onerous.

[lichposting]

I’m really enamored with the dynamic of two characters who work perfectly in tandem, like pacific rim drift compatible level, but they don’t like each other. It’s not even as strong an emotion as hate it’s just a very neutral-negative dislike, but they still act in perfect concert and their individual abilities are fully complementary

[lichposting]

[galileosballs]

The thing about switching to linux is that 90% of the time you will have no problems and everything will be great, but that 10% is always going to come from the place you least expect