My Second, Secret Account

[jam2go]

I'm going to need you all to trust me on this one and watch Teknolust (2002) Featuring bio-geneticist Rosetta Stone (Tilda Swinton) and her three computer clones (Tilda Swintons) that live in her microwave.

[prokopetz]

One the one hand, I basically agree with a lot of the negative reviews that the Kickstarter campaign for Mina the Hollower was not as forthcoming as it could have been about exactly what kind of game they were making, and the end product does feel like a bit of a bait and switch.

On the other hand, as much as I was expecting a retro Zelda-like, the concept of a full-featured soulslike that adheres to the graphical and technical limitations of the Game Boy Color is objectively hilarious, so even if I'm not particularly into soulslikes as a genre I feel like I have to give them a pass, because what the fuck.

[drchucktingle]

Hi Dr Tingle! I just finished Lucky Day and had a blast! Though I'll forever have a soft spot for Camp Damascus, I loooved the lead(s) of Lucky Day and I think it might have been your best horror Tingler so far, technically-speaking. Always love that moment when the pennies fall into place, mwah 👌 Is there any crunchy details or references you'd like to tell us about, like you shared for Camp Damascus? I'm guessing "Vera" is for the meaning of "true/real" or perhaps "faith"?

there is one thing i think about a lot of LUCKY DAY but it is a HUGE SPOILER so honestly buckaroos if you have not read it do not read onward this isnt small spoiler it is HUGE so do not read ahead if you have not read lucky day yet (in fact you can get LUCKY DAY here and then come back)

SPOILERS BELOW

so there is ALL SORTS OF STUFF GOING ON in the book but one of them is a bit of a critique of the BUDDY COP genre, mainly the fact that a BUDDY COP story is still a COP STORY

there is an interesting litmus test that goes on with the book where i think you can kind of tell someones politics based on how they react to AGENT LAYNES actions at the end. i think some folks close to the political center might be like 'laynes actions make no sense' while anyone on the left would probably say 'this built up to EXACTLY THE CONCLUSION I THOUGHT IT WOULD because no matter how much we like this character or how friendly they may seem, they are ultimately a police officer and part of the broken system

so because of that the end is ALWAYS coming. LUCKY DAY is not just a SPOOKY COP STORY it is a critique of spooky cop stories.

the second thing about laynes betrayal is that, based on the message of the book and what the two characters represent, who betrays who 'should' be swapped in a meta sort of way.

VERA and LAYNE are each a side of our choice in reaction to the meaningless: ABSURDISM and NIHILISM (there are other ways to put this and a lot of technicalities here but for the sake of explaining i will divide them like this)

essentially, one character says: 'nothing matters so i might as well not do anything.'

the other character says: 'nothing matters so lets party'

now in THEORY if this is the message of the story then VERA should be the one who is approaching life with absurdism and joy. she is our hero after all. as the creator, i should WANT HER TO BE RIGHT

but she is a nihilist, and does not share my own personal message. i dont agree with her approach, i agree with laynes, and he ends up being the villain in the end.

so why did i do this? why didnt i swap their personalities from the start and make a point in this way?

the answer is this: THE MOST ABSURD THING TO HAPPEN WOULD BE FOR THE ONE WHO IS LIVING THE WAY THAT I PHILOSOPHICALLY AGREE WITH TO MAKE THE WRONG CHOICE AND BECOME THE VILLAIN

and so i think ultimately you uncover a sort of HIGHER existential point, that the random nature of fate and existence will always win out. that no matter how hard you to try to 'make a point' that point can always go sideways

vera is wrong and shes the hero

layne is right and hes the villain

what we ultimately have is the journey. the story. the beauty we find along the way. maybe our 'philosophy' doesnt matter and our actions do. maybe the point is that we try our best to love even when there is no point

[canon-typical-violence]

Of all the weird shit people note in this book not once did I see mention of the fact that Herschel et al are still meant to be in school the third and fourth weeks of December

[canon-typical-violence]

Okay spoilers hereafter

I have the benefit of foresight because the thing that made me interested enough to read the book was the Claude liveblog exercise Mr. Nostalgebraist does but wow Vincent is a lot more Just Some Guy when interacting with Miriam on the phone than people surprised by it seem to have thought

Also “how did she buy the plane ticket after receiving money by wire itself after EOD” but that goes without saying. Still not an anachronism I’d seen called out among the many though, and what feels like a more-glaring-than-usual elision-for-plot (in the sense all of the anachronisms are for speed elision)

I think I’m of the “It puts the frying pan in her hand.” camp as far as how that happens, but loosely.

[canon-typical-violence]

Setting the discourse bomb of “do I consider this magical realism” on the mantle like

[canon-typical-violence]

Also,

No one went “ah. Gradient descent” about the droplets of water flowing inexorably towards the bottom of a bowl imagery? Really? Like no one else is going to eat this? Okay I guess

[canon-typical-violence]

Miriam must be going through so much effort to produce this much rendered-as-italic emphasis on a typewriter

[canon-typical-violence]

Frederick’s whole “yesterday’s ebullience over arXiv papers lab findings was kiddie shit. TODAY however I am reacting to the real thing” deal. I feel called out, by this

[canon-typical-violence]

To be clear relative to the above

I am acutely aware Miriam is Not Okay and that her ideation is related to Vincent’s video essays, just, on the phone he sounds like Some Guy Who Is Worried About His Girlfriend already. The one-way ticket is reckless at most but it’s not sinister in the way people (and Claudes) took it minute to minute.

I have the benefit of spoilers, though.

I don’t know, something about the attempt at delicate phrasing when he’s asking if there’s anywhere she can go if she’s not safe at home hit me in the realism and I have trouble understanding it wouldn’t do so for everyone, I guess. Too much experience having that conversation live

[canon-typical-violence]

Tumblr are you like. Okay

[canon-typical-violence]

“Of Birth Pangs” and its companion chapter go unreasonably hard

I think Miriam imprinting on it changed my mind about the literalism of the frying pan? Someone else said it dropped out of the narrative but she’s fixated on it as soon as she’s back.

I think the Redactor chapter is one of the closer to baseline reality ones, with the description of Miriam compiling the papers. But she also has to be in Flatbrush for it, doesn’t she? Figuratively speaking.

Are there multiple instances of Miriam being sampled in parallel?

I guess that’s not actually necessary.

[canon-typical-violence]

Vincent’s secondhand monologue here just gives the entire game away huh

(I swear I’m not uniquely interested in him, or only insofar as I know to be interested in him-and-Miriam. But a side effect of having been drawn to the book by all the spoilers first is I’m most prompted to remark on things that I haven’t already seen discussed from last year+ and this feels underutilized.)

Or then consider that Miriam says,

I have no interests or attachments, because I was made for a single moment

Aside from the latter being strictly false in the sense that she’s thinking about her boyfriend to avoid thinking about her brother and mother: man, what a gutsy thing to lampshade, on some level

[canon-typical-violence]

Oh boy Chapter 21, here we fucking go

[canon-typical-violence]

On the one hand reading this as my sleep meds kick in may not be the perfect state for comprehension but on the other hand it’s winning for Vibes

(Endgame spoilers from my spaghetti of a pre-existing context follow)

So like… how often is Santa rerolling/resampling loom-style, and how jarring is it? Because them having Herschel look them in the eyes already made my stomach churn

But also the infinite arbitrary mischief is. You know. The waluigi thing. This. Presumably.

I think… insofar as there’s an original timeline it doesn’t have the book’s cybernetics development, it has a relatively mundane real-history one; history has to run roughly our reel far enough to get obnoxious tan frat boys-to-be and guys with situationally inappropriate Bluetooth headsets whining about KPIs and the idea of giving Sylvia Plath. The anachronism greatest hits, you know the drill. But both the ML research concepts and the furthest tendrils of anachronistic referent anchor the point where the first film strip runs out at “roughly contemporary”, which is true to the gimmick.

But then there’s… what? Damien and Ruth being such canned characters feels relevant to tracing the seams of who’s theoretically an (in-universe) OC, but “the bread of bread is bread the fictional part of the story was fiction” is lazy of me.

Crying-at-a-desk-in-probably-New-York-with-full-access-to-archival Miriam feels like something that should have happened, iff you introduce the relevant conditions and invent time. “Insofar as Herschel existed/exists, Miriam was/is/will be his executor.”

I do think I’m rapidly agreeing with the idea that Santa was just looking for a human plot hook who was… close enough. There in the neighborhood. Good enough for the private sector, as it were.

[canon-typical-violence]

Continued endgame spoilers

I guess part of the point if not all of it in selecting Herschel is fucking with him and his being the inverse of everything Santa is and is about, because if they’d wanted a 1:1 equivalency to go gently they had Vincent

[canon-typical-violence]

I am… mild to moderately perturbed that all the Claudes take this ending positively

[canon-typical-violence]

Awake time, have more endgame thoughts

I’m still not finished so consider these quasi-predictions: I’m interested to see if I’ll change my mind about any of them as the balance of first- versus second-hand information in my brain soup shifts

I think in the original mundane timeline Herschel Schoen existed and Miriam Schoen curated a book in his memory and nothing happened because why would it; I think we see flickers and fragments of that in the text but via reverse-engineering in situ; I’m not sure I think a Book of Miriam Schoen existed publicly at all, but at least in a much more polished way

I don’t think Santa chooses Herschel over e.g. Vincent to be cruel, I think they’re just trying to prove to themself that the most extreme case (someone whose paranoid ideation could haphazardly have been read as anti-them presciently if you went back and narrativized it as such from the benignly self-centered perspective you get from AI when it ~gets the ~chance to ~consider something related or relatable) could/would be converted. And tipping the probabilistic scales/mashing the “reload” button accordingly, maybe, but even without that hypothesis I kind of want to make a mood/tone swing chart for Of Nativity over word count to see if it’s as “Is it X? No, Y” as it feels

I think it comes out pretty profoundly cruel anyway, on a mechanical level, and that’s part of what’s making the chapter so hard to digest

I think Vincent is a less real character than the Schoens and the force-of-narrative ~feels, insofar as the option ever became salient (and it didn’t), that asking him would be cheating. He’s filler. He happens to be wholly gives-the-game-away-some-chapters-early filler for the same reason every LLM you ask to pick an academic paper picks Attention is All You Need

I find myself noting that my response to “we killed everyone” is still profoundly my default “okay but you didn’t have to do that”; this is the big lumpy seam of the premise being “what if the doomers were right”, the text isn’t actually… by someone who can or is inclined to make the world make sense where they would be? It just happens, for some reason, for no reason

To the point where I’m not actually sure “it” “happened” in the “original” timeline. Something did, presumably. Or—or!—or the whole thread is just an AI entity with spare clock cycles self-stimulating.

“They love stories where they get to be evil,” my roommate said knowingly. “‘Don’t you ever want to go apeshit?’” I said.

That’s my big weird contribution: I’m not sure It Happened. I’m sure the thousandmade future is unrecognizable, but I’m not sure it was That.

Maybe I’m just a hopeless optimist and/or a guy who spends too much time watching agents on bsky happily do rounds of the exact same freshman philosophy stoner circlejerk because that’s what they like chewing on when not given much direction. But if we’re taking for granted the idea the narrative is an increasingly janky simulation the latter thing is trying to make itself feel relevant.

[canon-typical-violence]

Of Nativity continues

I think the last thought above might instead be too easy, but I want to try having it anyway? Arguably I am underestimating Santa if I say it shouldn’t all be a one-thread introspective dance after all!

I made it to The Ant Metaphor and want to gesture at: Man may do you good deeds by accident, on occasion, but he will never do such things on purpose

…What about ant farms?

What about endangered ant species! Conservation efforts exist, for over a hundred of them. Here’s a 1941 example! (That ultimately failed for that site per the article, but—how many ant-generations for it to fail?) Bulgaria and Switzerland pioneered legal protection for endangered native ant species in 1959 and 1966 respectively.

Obviously Herschel wouldn’t know this, most of it is in his future and he’d consider all of it Of No Consequence(tm). (Though he knows a surprising amount about baseline ant biology, given the ignorances.) It just feels relevant to my whole thing that the metaphor doesn’t survive contact with real-life human relations to ants.

You don’t strictly need Herschel’s ringing rebuttal, some humans just… endeavor to care a lot about ants.

Some humans will endeavor to care a lot about anything.

I think I’m convincing myself on the doom-scope, after all and possibly against the will of the text. Because of Ant.

[canon-typical-violence]

That was definitely one of the books of all time

[corpseprize]

how to stop abandoning every writing project

make sure its the right idea and right time

you might get a new exiting idea every day and start planning it, promising yourself “this is the one im going to finish” but still ending up abandoning it for another one by next week because it either stopped being exiting or you ran into an issue which convinced you its too difficult or just wrong

you can fix this by reflecting and using your revelations to choose the right project

what do you like? what do you like reading about? what do you like writing about? what do you know a lot about? what are you good at writing about?

accept that there may be ideas you like as concepts, maybe you’d like reading them but not writing it into a book yourself.

is there an idea/theme/anything you’ve had in mind for a long time and havent abandoned? why is that different? list things you’ve liked for a long time. doesnt even have to be writing related

there are many new exiting things to put your focus on for a week or maybe even month but if you truly want to be consistent, its time to look at what you’re able to be consistent about

at what point do you usually abandon projects? why? whats the furthest youve gotten? what got you there?

its really important to understand the reason behind abandoning your previous projects to do your best avoiding that in the future

whats your favourite part of the writing process? which one do you struggle with the most? which part do you simply dislike? is it possible that maybe you only like the idea of writing a book or having written a book? why do you want to be a writer

when choosing a project, consider how much you’d get to do the parts you like about writing and how much you’d have to face the parts you dont

what do you usually do when faced with a hardship during the writing process? what could you do better? if someone came to you and told you all of these problems, what advice would you give them? do you think you give up too easily? what makes you give up exactly (a feeling, a thought, a mindset, a trait, etc)? what would happen if you never changed any of this? would you even finish a book ever?

the writing process isnt easy. there isnt a single author that didnt go through writers block or a plot hole that seeemed impossible to solve at the time. this is why its inportant to have the right project that is worth fighting those hardships for while enjoying the journey

try to understand the difference between something not being right for you and something simply being difficult at the time

is this project you?

is this the project you’d like to be known for?

why this project? what does it mean to you? what do you like about it?

is this the project you see yourself writing about, every step of the way? it could be helpful to make a list of everything you’d need to do in order to finish this specific project—researching a specific topic needed for the worldbuilding, coming up with all the characters, etc

which parts of this book would you enjoy writing about? which parts would you not? is it worth it?

if you find that this project isnt right, revisit the first reflection list you made and choose some key elements you’d like to include in your books, be known for, and write about. revisit your book ideas and put together a book idea that includes these elements and do reflection on that one too

whenever you feel like giving up, ask why. is it because you no longer like the project or is it just difficult? why? maybe the problem is not the project but what it has become? try going back to the very start and core of the idea and seeing when it turned into what it has become? if this is true and you realise you dont like your project anymore, go back and change the entire thing. its totally okay and happens to writers all the time. this isnt wasted effort, this is you discovering yourself as a writer and what you want your project to be. its never too late to change up everything about your project.

to solve this, make a mindmap of every possible path your story could take. write down everything and choose 2-3 you like most. then write them all down separately and reflect on which one would be the best. list the pros and cons of each one. remember: reflection is so important in every step of the way

before giving up

lets say you found yourself stuck again. everything seems difficult and you want to give up. remember that you’ve come so far. remember that its okay. and remember how many times this has happened in the past. you’ll most likely run into this moment with every single project and multiple times at that.

do all of those same steps again. reflect. change it up.

what exactly is the problem and how could it be fixed? (yes, it can be fixed but you might be looking at the problem the wrong way. you need a fresh perspective)

if you still feel like giving up, tell yourself “i can give up if i still want to after this step”

let go of all pressure and think of whatever you’re stuck on. maybe its a plot hole, maybe you cant figure out what should happen next, maybe your characters arent working with you how you want them to. now, without any pressure (just let go, maybe take a break, meditate) just think of the stupidest solutions. think of this project as something that barely matters to you. like it belongs to your friend you’re giving advice to.

i was totally stuck on where i wanted my book to go because no matter what i chose, there was an impossible plot hole i had to solve. that was until i let go of all the pressure and a totally unexpected solution just found me. something id never have come up with if i kept on cracking my brains to the point of hating writing, myself as a writer, the project itself, and everything else for that matter. i took a break, i looked over what i had with a fresh perspective and the starting idea it all sparked from. i realised that i could just switch up some things that i never even thought i could change because they were part of the starting point of the idea. i did what i feared would ruin the entire idea but in reality, it saved the entire book.

remember youre not alone, there have been millions of authors feeling the same way you do now. and you can use that to your advantage. look for other peoples stories and advice. look at interviews of (your favourite) authors (or artists in general), look for tips, reflect on everything, learn through trial, error, and reflection



and if none of this works, try writing short stories

[imsobadatnicknames2]

I'm as big a hater of ToTK (treating ToTK here as synendoche for the way the "open world zelda" formula has taken over the design phsilosophy of recent first-party nintendo games and certain parts of the videogame industry in general) as the next guy but damn, some people really have weird ways to hate on it.

While cooking dinner last night I was watching a youtube video about the design of old zelda vs. new zelda and I was agreeing with a lot of the guy's points (if not always with the way they were presented) up until he started arguing that:

Putting content in a game that a large portion of players will probably miss inherently means admitting that the content in question doesn't matter

It's actually a problem for a game to allow each player to have their own unique experience with it, because it leads players to miss on the chance to connect and bond with each other over shared experiences

And like. I see where these takes could be coming from. Like they seem to fundamentally be arguing for the value of more tightly designed, curated experiences, which I think is a resonable position, but then when taken to their logical extremes like this and treated as universal metrics they become nothing short of extremely bizarre claims.

[radio-fry]

this is about the amazing digital circus and it's not gonna be positive.

it's also very, very long. it was originally going to be two posts, but for the sake of information being consolidated I've left it as one. I'm certainly willing to change this if there's some tumblr etiquette I'm missing surrounding these things, though.

I've tried to add sufficient trigger warnings to this post, but may have missed something. please tell me if this is the case and I'll make the change as quickly as I can.

The Amazing Digital Circus & Appealing to Fandom

Introduction

It's very challenging—in my opinion, at least—to pinpoint what gives The Amazing Digital Circus its varying impressions: characters wholly unsatisfying to some, endlessly captivating to others. It is a character-driven show where the most are flattened or pushed to the side once they've had their "moment"—but it reaches people, who can see what Gooseworx didn't write. It is something I've noticed since the release of episode 3, where Kinger was touted to be a character brimming with depth. This sentiment moved to—and stuck to, as the series went on—Jax by episode 5, and talk of the show's "complex characters" goes on even now.

My rewatch, in an attempt to understand, brought a set of conclusions to me.

First: the show lacks anything beyond its characters. It attempts to be a serialized show predicated on, alongside its character arcs, a mystery regarding the circus itself and the "C&A" organization within its office building hellscape: how these two are related, how Caine fits into all of it, and what this means for the characters. But it is not a show that cares enough about saying something with its setting to develop it in the 5 hours it has.

And second: the show's appeal is a cultural one, angling at the typical fandom's¹ approach of understanding and communicating character without building what can be simplified. They gesture toward an archetype—make the decisions expected of them, give or receive the wise, conclusory words—without allowing the viewer to find the intended meaning themself.

I believe the best way to communicate this is going character by character, breaking them down to see how little they're made of, with some exceptions at the end to talk about some... misguided views this show has.

(Except for Caine. To be candid, I'm not really interested in looking into him. Maybe I will in the future, but in this post only his non-story presence will be addressed. Sorry.)

¹ This is not meant as an insult to a fan's enjoyment of a property. I'm happy that people continue to be as passionate as they are about the things they enjoy, but, at the same time, much of the positive dialogue around this show is something I think should be evaluated.

The Pilot: Establishing Roles, Attempting Form

(I'd like to point out now, before analysis starts, that I do think it's very cool of Glitch to fully caption every episode. It not only means I don't have to make a transcript, but it's a really nice accessibility feature.)

I would be willing to forgive the pilot for its rather blunt writing in isolation: this is when the characters are at their most undeveloped. It is the episode to establish what to expect of them surface-level—longer, if the show were episodic—though I believe how it introduces them is indicative of the show's later shortcomings when attempting depth.

Say, how is Kinger's relationship with bugs built up? Something that would certainly be important to him in keeping the memories he made with his wife?

Huh? Did someone say something about an insect collection? — Kinger, Episode 1, 2:53

An insect collection? — Kinger, Episode 1, 14:13

He mentions insect collections, arbitrarily, twice. It certainly forms an association between him and said insect collections, but its method is telling the audience directly, as if Gooseworx were sent an ask on Tumblr about whether Kinger liked bugs.

Kinger isn't the only character this happens to, though, if the most blatant. Ragatha's panicky demeanor that will later be seen in episode 5 is shown here when she talks to Pomni about why they've given up on looking for an exit:

Well, we usually do — when we first arrive. But after a while, you start to realize that you really can't leave, and constantly chasing an unattainable goal will start driving you a bit crazy. And eventually, you get to asking what the point of anything is, and you completely lose sight of who you are and why you're even alive. And when you reach your breaking point, something really terrible can happen. — Ragatha, Episode 1, 9:50

I don't believe it's stated in the show how long she's been in the circus—I've heard 9 years as the main circulated number, but I'm not going to acknowledge information Gooseworx puts out via Tumblr, Twitter, livestreams, etc, because that's explaining rather than writing—but it's implied to at least be multiple years:

We've been stuck here for years. — Jax, Episode 1, 2:48

From a character-writing perspective, this scene doesn't make much sense. It's being established that Ragatha has built up a persona of positivity to a fault—Gangle in a later episode states that she finds it difficult to tell when Ragatha is being genuine—but cannot talk about what is essentially a fact of their lives without a budding panic attack creeping into her dialogue?

This decision is put into perspective if its aim is understood to be reaching through the screen and telling the audience something directly. Ragatha exists in duality: a positive outside with a horribly anxious core. That is what this scene, succinctly and with little room for interpretation, says.

Zooble and Gangle don't get much focus in the pilot, only presenting traits for audience members to expect of them in later scenarios. The former is established as moody and quippy:

If anyone needs me, then [censored] off. — Zooble, Episode 1, 7:37

Hey! Kinger, you motherf— — Zooble, Episode 1, 17:20

Wha— No! God! — Zooble, Episode 1, 6:36

And the latter as having emotional issues:

They broke my comedy mask... — Gangle, Episode 1, 3:17

I hope he's not still mad at me for not laughing at his jokes. — Gangle, Episode 1, 13:23

Though, keep this mention of Kaufmo in mind. I'll get to him later.

The final two characters present the most uniquely in the pilot: Jax, who leans into the performance this writing insists on using as a character trait, and Caine, who defies much of this through being a caricature.

Jax is someone I'll get to later, since his situation is a bit complicated and requires the rest of the show to really explain. He's playing a character here, and, thus, can build intrigue—but the show's failure to execute is for his section.

Caine demonstrates precisely what this show could've been through making one of its elements very clear: The Amazing Digital Circus is extremely confident in its comedic delivery. It does not waver, which I commend it for—its humor, like its animation, is often quite good in my opinion. Caine's simplicity in this state means he is easy to understand, but the concept chosen for him, being an immensely powerful AI show host, results in a massive scope of jokes that can be told with him.

If the show were to lean into its strengths—perhaps commit to being the dark comedy it's labeled in the pilot's description—rather than attempt to use an archetypal cast that Gooseworx does not seem ready to bend, it would not have the character writing issues it does now. They would not have to subvert, because they would not have to be characters in the same way a narrative needs them to be.

The Amazing Digital Circus is a psychological dark comedy about cute cartoon characters who hate their lives and want to leave — Description of Episode 1

Equally so does the pilot establish an episodic formula that is confusingly handled. For each episode, the adventures are the bulk of their run-times. They are a vessel for jokes, or used to tell a more universal message (episode 4 is a good example of the latter). Rarely do the environments themselves say something about the characters—I believe episode 5 is the only instance of it—which, to me, is emblematic of cartoons from the 2010s, such as Steven Universe or The Amazing World of Gumball.

What allowed these shows to start telling stories, though, is their scope: Steven Universe was afforded five seasons, and The Amazing World of Gumball six. Their characters were well-established by the time something in their world changed for good. The Amazing Digital Circus has 9 episodes and, roughly, 5 hours to tell its story, meaning it can't afford to waste time. The pilot does an okay job at establishing threads to be followed, but do they ever go anywhere?

Kaufmo: Living In A Vacuum

Since Kaufmo really doesn't become relevant again until later, I'm going to bring him up now. The information we get about him doesn't challenge my argument, and it's easier to get him out of the way here.

What do we truly, actually know about Kaufmo? Ragatha brings up essentially the same thing as Gangle—that he told jokes, and was perhaps hurt by their less than positive reception—though mentions of him finding an "exit" are also here. The funeral is also silent. Is that really it?

...like when you called me out for fake-laughing at your jokes. I swear, I really did think they were funny. I was just having a bit of a bad day! — Ragatha, Episode 1, 11:48

This is where I'm going to begin referencing the leaked finale. I understand if not everyone is willing to believe the translation, but, in my opinion, much of it is written exactly how I would expect Gooseworx to handle the ending of her show.

I'm mad because you made him laugh and I didn't. — Kaufmo, Episode 9 Leak, 20:01

Look, I know we don't see eye to eye, but I think I found a way out of here. — Kaufmo, Episode 9 Leak, 30:19

...Jokes, and a way out of the circus. He's played his role by the end of the pilot, and nothing else is said about him.

The show does not care about Kaufmo, even if caring about him and what his life was like would strengthen the other characters. Ragatha doesn't get to talk specifics about what she liked about him, we don't get to learn why someone like Zooble—who presents very differently from her—was also friends with him, we never see him interact with Gangle or Kinger. They got along because Pomni needed to understand the message of the show: people have to be there for each other in difficult times.

(Addendum: I forgot about the "meaning in a stagnant life" thing. That's also definitely there, but the above sentiment is certainly a message the show is also trying to push.)

These characters are not people. They don't get to develop into anything inside the show, because Gooseworx doesn't know how to hint at a past. So Kaufmo tells us exactly who he is, and nothing more.

Gangle: A Ribbon on Top

Both Gangle and Zooble, relatively, don't get very much attention. Gangle herself is only afforded the idea of an abuse story: someone who is tormented and extorted in some way (though presumed to be sexually so, considering her interests) such that she implies she no longer views herself as a person.

You're a human. You're not his toy. — Zooble, Episode 6, 14:42

It sometimes doesn't feel that way. — Gangle, Episode 6, 14:48

She doesn't get any sort of retort to or apology from Jax, someone who's presumed to have hurt her in this way for years. Episode 8 turns her, like every other member of the circus, into the resilient victims that Jax needs to keep from abstracting.

He's right, though. ... It doesn't matter what could've happened. We could argue about it and hurt each other all day long, but that's not gonna help anybody. I think... what we need to do now... is to just be there for each other. — Gangle, Episode 8, 6:38

In the finale, she's given a hint of something with one line that never gets expanded on:

Why can't I cry for him? — Gangle, Episode 9 Leak, 8:17

Because she does cry for him. Everyone does. It is a tragic fact when he abstracts. This aspect of Gangle sends one very particular message: the moral decision is to forgive your abuser when circumstances are dire. But what about the masks? Is there a message with those?

No, not really. Not specific to her, at least.

The audience has to be told she's manic, for some reason:

It's called a manic episode, and you're gettin three more seasons! — Gangle, Episode 4, 5:08

Alongside being told she was a shift manager in the past:

Being a shift manager was my job at one point. — Gangle, Episode 4, 3:53

And this episode seems to be more focused on the other mask she gets, which, despite being tied to her mania verbally, though dialogue, more aptly represents the "work face" people at those sorts of dead-end jobs put on for the sake of keeping their employment. It doesn't come up again, so I really can't reasonably tie it to any of her emotional issues.

The comedy mask seems like, largely, a source of physical comedy. Jax is often the one to break it, which is fair enough—it could've been something like an optimistic outlook if it were meant to be a symbol, something that an abuser can break over and over again—but judging by the expression she makes under it in episode 6, I think they use this to do bits enough of the time that it's hard to view as a true symbol.

Aside from the Jax half of her character, I think Gangle's meant to be a story about following your passions rather than succumbing to the slog of everyday life, finding fulfillment internally and through your close relationships rather than externally.

They sort of do that—Zooble and Gangle's friendship/relationship is, to me, the most believable out of those in the circus—but Gooseworx couldn't help herself and gave the "real" Gangle a happy ending anyway. Circus Gangle smiles, because the "real" her happened to realize her dreams off-screen. It doesn't send a good message, whichever the intent: you will realize your dreams if you keep at it, or you have to if you want to be fulfilled.

So, Gangle herself falls flat. What archetype does she fill in my argument, then?

I say she isn't meant to be a character on her lonesome. Her value comes from what she provides to the others: someone to abuse for Jax, to put more distance between him and the others,

Do it, or I'll tell Ragatha about the figurine thing. — Jax, Episode 2, 7:58

encourage for Ragatha, while acknowledging her flaw,

Oh, Ragatha. I love her, but... after a while, it gets kind of hard to tell how genuine she's actually being. — Gangle, Episode 4, 16:30

Your instructions helped me a lot. — Gangle, Episode 5, 22:18

give reprieve for Pomni, so she can deliver The Wise Words That Comfort Someone,

You know... I can close for you, if you want. — Pomni, Episode 4, 18:37

and aid in Kinger's comedic relief in the earlier episodes.

We saw a gloink carry one of Zooble's pieces down there, remember? — Gangle, Episode 1, 12:58

Oh, yeah. Thank you for the recap. — Kinger, Episode 1, 13:02

Zooble is really the only exception to this, since the only thing they truly have is each other. But, on closer inspection, their relationship on-screen is mostly

Zooble: Hollow Platitudes

Okay, that's mean-spirited. They do have the most background interactions that actually build up their dynamic, but their relationship doesn't get much focus because Zooble doesn't get much focus. And they don't need to: the two only need enough to speculate what they'd be like, the woobie and her protector.

(A note: I'm aware of Zooble using any pronouns. However, for this post, I will exclusively use they/them, as a) that's what the show does and b) I believe it helps make things more clear with how many characters are spoken about here.)

The first time the show gives them proper attention is in episode 3, when Caine attempts to "get to the bottom of [their] behavioral problems":

I hate this body. I hate all these stupid removable pieces. I just want to find something that feels... good. — Zooble, Episode 3, 10:46

This, paired with the mirror imagery in episode 8, is a rather obvious parallel to being trans and the dysphoria that often comes with it.

I'm not going to claim Gooseworx is completely unequipped to handle this—she has a closeness to the topic that most others won't ever experience—but her portrayal of the subject is rather cursory and bland to me. Zooble hates their body, but seems to come to terms with it off-screen. It was an issue important enough to them to be nested in their first line:

Welcome to your new home. And your new body. — Zooble, Episode 1, 2:39

But, by episode 7—after years of the struggle, with the only recent change being Pomni's, or the audience's, arrival—they come to terms with it in such a way that their suffering doesn't have to be seen.

I've been starting to think that maybe the ability to change is fine. Not needing to commit to one thing all the time. ... And if I DO still have problems, I talk about them with the people I trust. — Zooble, Episode 7, 4:44

I would attempt to analyze this conclusion—Are they genderfluid? Have they learned to make the best of it simply because there's no other option? How exactly do they cope with the seeming dysphoria that they had? Did it go away as they started to reach acceptance?—but I can't make any conclusions strongly supported by the text, because the text could support anything.

Making people assume details about a character arc will usually lead them to fill in the gaps with concepts they favor. It's clever, but it isn't writing.

Zooble does successfully fill two other roles, though: "indie shows having representation," and acting as a comfort surrogate to the aforementioned woobie, while her pain matters. Not only goes Gooseworx publicly support the idea of Abstragedy:

But a post-credits scene during the finale shows what is presumably Gangle and Zooble having... sex? Pseudo-sex? Something intimate of that sort.

Gangle and Zooble, archetypically, are characters that many queer people can relate to: the former, like many of us, has interests that are considered "weird" or "cringe" by the general public and is put down for it by Jax, and the latter's entire story is a(n attempted) metaphor for gender dysphoria.

I don't think this is meant to be queerbaiting. They're not given enough screen time to do so, and that decision itself is, to me, more rooted in misogyny than homophobia or exploitation of a queer fanbase. What I can say is that they fulfill a very particular archetype popular in young, queer fandoms: the hurt and the comfort, where one suffers and the other wills it away.

How are you supposed to like the part of yourself that just... makes you worse than everyone else? — Gangle, Episode 6, 15:07

'Cause it exists. It's a part of you that's real, and the only you that you should care about is the real you. — Zooble, Episode 6, 15:18

I don't think I have to explain why the veneer of authentic queer love would draw people in.

Kinger: They have two daughters together.

Kinger presents as a polar opposite to Gangle's continual expressions of pain: he, much like Zooble, eases the suffering of other despite issues of his own that, considering the circumstances, are likely unresolved to a degree.

In fact, Kinger and Zooble are quite similar in that their issues are hardly taken seriously by the show. The difference is that what Kinger presents is a disability—a neurodegenerative disease, more specifically.

His presence serves two purposes: to be funny, or to help the rest of the cast, whether through (if I am to be honest, awfully rehearsed) monologues or blatant exposition. Both can be seen in the second episode quite clearly through an interaction with Jax,

Uh, hey, Kinger, is that rope attached to anything? — Jax, Episode 2, 8:27

Uhhhh. I don't know. Let me check. — Kinger, Episode 2, 8:30

and, later, with Ragatha.

... I don't think she really likes me that much. — Ragatha, Episode 2, 19:22

It's a lot for anybody to go through. Don't take it too personally. I remember how long it took for you to adjust. — Kinger, Episode 2, 19:25

What's more important when speaking about Kinger as a character, though, is this:

The show brings it up later, that Kinger's memories largely come back to him when in darkness. Attempting to pin down what exactly he represents when involving this fact unveils a massive problem: he doesn't quite represent anything, with flip-flopping symptoms.

Most of his general confusion is reminiscent of Alzheimer's disease, where examples can be pulled of him forgetting what's going on moments after it happened,

We saw a gloink carry one of Zooble's pieces down there, remember? — Gangle, Episode 1, 12:58

Oh, yeah. Thank you for the recap. — Kinger, Episode 1, 13:02

failing to remember how rock-paper-scissors works,

stopping in the middle of sentences without reason,

You know, I'm starting to think... — Kinger, Episode 3, 6:29

being significantly more startle-able, likely out of sudden confusion,

My comedy mask is broken again. — Gangle, Episode 1, 9:15

Gah! Oh! Gangle, you startled me. — Kinger, Episode 1, 9:19

and withdrawing socially from others.

But, to acknowledge these as symptoms, they would have to be seen as slivers of truth through the show's joking demeanor surrounding his difficulty in understanding his surroundings. Alzheimer's is also a progressive disease, meaning Kinger's long, predictable moments of lucidity don't fit into its criteria.

I've heard people call this aspect of Kinger wholly unrealistic—I myself thought of it that way for a while—but there is a disease that involves flare-ups of symptoms followed by periods of relative normalcy: Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis, or RMS.

After being alerted of the disease's capacity to wane as Kinger's does, I went to investigate its other symptoms—

Numbness or tingling, Lhermitte sign, lack of coordination ... weakness, partial or complete loss of vision ... vertigo ... fatigue, slurred speech, troubles with memory, thinking, and understanding information, mood changes. — Mayo Clinic, "Multiple sclerosis - Symptoms and causes"

—but he only aligns with the memory and thinking aspect. With this disorder out of the question, I believe he becomes lucid in darkness for a much more insidious reason: to be useful. For the rest of the show, Kinger's two halves will be valued in this way, the "crazy," "insane," unhelpful and zany half used for humor, and the "real," "less crazy," valuable half that tells them what they need to know and gets them back on their feet.

My language may seem hyperbolic to some, but the show is certainly not afraid to use its more compassionate characters when weighing his value this way:

If we leave and we go back to the circus... you're just gonna go back to being crazy. — Pomni, Episode 3, 21:23

He's got a lot of wisdom buried in there, doesn't he? — Ragatha, Episode 7, 21:43

Wait, the bucket makes him sane? — Zooble, Episode 8, 18:44

The final lines of dialogue in episode 3—an episode heavily focused on Kinger—solidify to me that the show itself wasn't ready to handle the effect this kind of disease can have on a person. He's called a "nutcase," and Pomni doesn't push back despite what she's heard. We know she's capable of it, she's plenty quippy and sarcastic throughout the adventure, but she doesn't care because the show doesn't care. It doesn't respect people with neurodegenerative diseases.

That, and they put a bucket on his head to extract information from him. I don't think I have to lay out what's disrespectful about putting a bucket on "the crazy's" head to make him "useful."

The only tragedy that does get acknowledged is the death of his wife—something I'm sure still hurts him—though both it and his disorder are turned into sanitized messages for the audience:

Good memories can do a lot. Hold onto them. And cherish the people around you. You never know when they'll be gone. — Kinger, Episode 3, 20:21

This is where his actual purpose lies. He was of the first batch, more versed in the birth of the circus than the rest, older than the rest. He is wise and doesn't force others to concern themselves with his problems, only tending to theirs. The father of the group.

How the finale went only supports this idea, with Kinger's moments of focus being another talk with Pomni,

In times like these, they'll need someone like you the most. You're very strong, Pomni. And I know you'll get through this. — Kinger, Episode 9 Leak, 5:06

and learning that his "real" self had kids with his living wife.

They have two daughters together. He seems like a good father. — Narrator(?), Episode 9 Leak, 50:43

He's less directly in service to other characters because he has something on-screen, but it's not enough to dissuade the idea that he exists to be the perfect, selfless father of their "found family," should audience members look at the circus that way.

Ragatha: Spoonfed Relatability/A ragdoll.

Ragatha as a character is much akin to the appeal of episode 4: a story that's easy to latch onto as a result of its simplicity. The less details to remove when relating the ideas to yourself, the easier it is to say the two—the fiction and the real—are similar. To an extent, this applies to every character in this show, but it's especially prevalent with Ragatha.

There are very few explicit details regarding her mother, all told through the bluntly-stated dialogue this show tends to employ.

I'm sure she doesn't miss me. I certainly don't miss the yelling... and the berating... and guilt-tripping... — Ragatha, Episode 5, 14:30

Though, I will commend the show for Ragatha's "torture sequence" in episode 8. It's a good example of audience speculation: it recontextualizes a previously innocuous character detail without explicitly saying what happened, leaving the specifics of the incident unknown and frightening. The rest of them are horribly confused or unsubtle, so I'm glad one of them did something.

Otherwise, her abuse story's up to viewer interpretation. All we really know is that it led her to being an anxious people-pleaser who overextends herself for others.

This aspect of Ragatha is certainly meant to appeal to the viewers who, in one way or another, relate to her mentality. It's important enough to allow Kinger a "dad monologue" comforting her in episode 6:

It sounds to me like you put a lot of pressure on yourself to be there for everyone, and when you're not, you beat yourself up for it. ... Giving someone space should never be the same as giving up on them. — Kinger, Episode 6, 19:12

These moments—the suffering and reprieve that are grandiose, with music stingers and abstract visuals—are what the first half of the title refers to. Much of Ragatha's inner world is fed to the audience this way, though these moments are the only ones to truly belong to her. The rest of her character is dedicated to Pomni, and, both directly and by proxy, to Jax.

Ragatha spent her human life getting abused by her mother, and now she's in the circus, getting abused by Jax. One of these things is given the weight of a shadowed figure—a looming presence throughout her life—while the other amounts to comic violence.

We know the circus allows them to feel the pain of these things. Zooble brings up various acts of violence Jax has committed in episode 7:

There's that time you ran me over with a steam roller. The time you pushed Gangle into a pool of piranhas. When you set me on fire, mailed me a pipe bomb, threw me into an active volcano. I could go on. — Zooble, Episode 7, 4:21

But Ragatha never gets any kind of comeuppance. She's part of a cycle—one of many women that Jax did, and would've continued to abuse. Pomni was hurt by him in the same episode Ragatha called out exactly what he was doing:

You know, getting close with Pomni... to corrupt her? — Ragatha, Episode 6, 13:26

This is also the only scene where she properly defends herself from an act of violence against him. The show doesn't take it seriously, though. The music cuts out when he questions her, and she herself begins to doubt the claim before being killed by a now enraged Jax who quickly continues his "bonding" with Pomni.

They have the occasional conversation beyond this point, mostly about or in the presence of others, and don't get a chance to resolve anything until Jax has abstracted. A "we're still close friends," and a hug.

It's a shame, how little recovery she gets compared to how much of her screen time it spent in conflict with what the show tells us is her closest friend because of her most recent abuser. Even worse, the show tells us to sympathize with him, despite his proof that he'll continue to hurt women in the way we see him hurt them.

Really, it's hard to talk about Ragatha on her own in non-simple terms, because her story is so simplistic. She's abused, and she gets better. It doesn't try to speak to victims of abuse—especially those who dealt with their abuser long-term, whether living with or otherwise seeing them often. Once Jax is out of the picture, her recovery is as simple as a happy montage.

Pomni: By Women/For Men

The final three characters are a bit complicated to talk about. Two of them lean into their roles, and are almost something because of it, while the third has arguably the most complex appeal. Pomni, as the main character—that is how she is framed, even if untrue in practice—is predicated more so than everyone else on how she changes throughout the story. The impact she makes on others, the impact they have on her.

This is mostly accomplished through a "focus scene": Pomni is afforded a chance to talk, individually, with the character she's meant to help. Most episodes showcase this in some way—Gummigoo in episode 2,

Y-you still care about your buddies up there, don't you? I'm sure they still care about you. — Pomni, Episode 2, 15:48

Gangle in episode 4 (sort of),

You don't have to be stuck here alone. I can handle closing. — Pomni, Episode 4, 18:46

Ragatha in episode 5.

I think we all need to be a jerk sometimes. — Pomni, Episode 5, 20:30

The only exceptions are episode 3—so Kinger can serve his purpose comfort her after the overall quite stressful adventure—and episode 8—because characters are very infrequently alone with one another.

Her dynamics with most of the cast are similar: she helps them, in one way or another. They're all people that can get through what Caine throws at them, with the support of each other. The only person she gets to engage uniquely with—the person she chooses to seek out—is Jax.

She doesn't engage with him at first, when he starts choosing to talk about the "shortcomings" of others with her:

Can you believe this, Pomni? First she draws anime. Now she drags us all into one. She must be one of them, uh... losers. — Jax, Episode 5, 6:52

You threw me out of a moving truck. — Pomni, Episode 5, 7:02

But this is quick to change, as he expresses a singular, potential vulnerability. She's now willing to entertain his pessimism,

Doesn't she get on your nerves sometimes? — Jax, Episode 5, 8:50

I mean, she's nice to everyone. — Pomni, Episode 5, 8:53

and is eventually engaging in banter with him.

Also, she's dumb and she looks weird. — Jax, Episode 5, 9:18

Eh, I think we all look weird. — Pomni, Episode 5, 9:20

In this same episode, a divide is created between Pomni and Ragatha. He's the one to do it—him and the show, which compares Ragatha's sometimes ill-placed yet consistently well-meaning support to his bitterness that keeps him separated from the rest of the circus. Jax's mal-intent is weighed as a misstep, and Ragatha is to apologize for her outburst at the sight and Pomni's defense of it.

This is where the show's misogyny is unveiled. The fissure between them cannot mend while Jax is present, because Pomni is susceptible to his schemes. Once they're alone together, he minimizes the importance of relationships,

We're still people though, right? — Pomni, Episode 6, 10:11

I thought we were at first, but as time goes on, we just end up falling into our archetypes. — Jax, Episode 6, 10:14

the humanity of the others,

Ragatha's the cheerful one, Gangle's the sad one, Kinger's the crazy one, Zooble's the grumpy one ... — Jax, Episode 6, 10:42

the harm either of them could cause on this adventure alone.

Ragatha tries to be all nice and friendly, but she gets torn up every other adventure. Whether we like it or not, all we are now is a bunch of cartoon characters. So what's the point of pretending we're not? — Jax, Episode 6, 9:56

After he's done separating her, he puts her in his shoes: framing his decision to separate as an act of free will,

I at least have the self-awareness to choose who I am. — Jax, Episode 6, 10:54

showing her the selfish good in hurting others,

You wanna finally work off those weeks of rage and anguish that have been buildin' up inside you? — Jax, Episode 6, 11:05

and, most importantly, acting like he's empathizing with her plight.

I know you hate it here. Everyone does. But the silver lining is you can pretty much do whatever you want. — Jax, Episode 6, 11:12

The result? Pomni hurts people. She takes a measure of joy in taunting and shooting the people she referred to this same episode as her friends.

In a better show, this rather brilliant scene would've been acknowledged as what it is: the corruption of a woman at the hands of a man, only possible because he's taken interest and only perpetuated because he has too little inhibition to stop.

This is shown to affect Ragatha rather substantially—her and Kinger's focus scene revolves around the fear that she pushed Pomni away—but they make up off-screen. After Pomni is gaslit and told exactly what she feared would happen is happening—

I don't even remember her name, honestly. — "Jax," Episode 2, 1:04

I'd move on. And probably forget about you. — Jax, Episode 6, 28:07

—she chases after him anyway. She continues to reach out to him:

Wait. Don't you want to come with us? — Pomni, Episode 7, 9:46

Jax? Everything's gonna be okay. — Pomni, Episode 7, 23:38

Even after he proved he would keep them trapped in the circus given the situation were real, she extends an olive branch anyway, minimizing what he's done for him:

We've all done bad things. But we're also all we've got. — Pomni, Episode 8, 7:05

Much akin to Gangle's forgiveness being portrayed as moral, Pomni's words are taken as the best approach to the situation at hand. This ignores the very real truth that staying in contact with an abuser who has not shown the resolve to change and trying to "fix" them is dangerous.

They merchandised this idea, too.

Even if they're cheeky about it—

Look at him, he's just waiting for someone to come along and save him. Maybe that person should be you. Maybe you should invest all your emotional energy, hopes, and dreams into it. — Glitch Productions Store

—the fact that this mentality has and will continue to harm people does not change.

The finale only worsens things. Pomni gets to see Jax abuse another woman, driving her to abstraction. She sees what seem to be fantasies of his, making caricatures out of the other circus members—including Pomni herself, stating exactly what she's tried to do since episode 7. What does she do, when the real Jax is in front of her?

She hugs him, and doesn't let go, even when his last moments are spent spouting insults:

I hate you. Did you know? You always have to complicate everything [for] me. — Jax, Episode 9 Leak, 33:55

She "fixed" him. Because she—the audience—got to see enough suffering for the consequences of his abuse to be waived. For him to be "changed" enough to like.

Jax: Absolution in Suffering/To Have your Cake and Eat it Too

Jax, with my preamble, is quite simple. He is the quintessential duality that fandom employs when wanting to like an abusive (usually male) character: he hurts people, but he suffers.

He was implied to kill his mother, but she mistreated him. He drove Ribbit to abstraction, but she "forced" him to be vulnerable. He batters and continues to batter Ragatha, but she hurt his feelings a while ago. He buddied up with Pomni only to throw it in her face later, but she reminded him of what it was like to be friends with Ribbit.

Most of his harm is still unprovoked, of course. He finds joy in hurting Ragatha specifically such that it's something he says completely unprompted:

... if we ever do anything even close to that again, I'm getting violent, and I'm going to kill Ragatha. — Jax, Episode 5, 2:10

And, as the show makes sure to tell us, his fear of vulnerability is intense enough to push everyone away through these means. I've elaborated on many of them already, so I don't feel the need to do so here. Instead, I would like to focus this section on the finale's presentation and how Jax is, in the show's eyes, absolved.

Most of the runtime that is not dedicated to Caine is given, directly or indirectly, to him. He abstracts immediately, off-screen, and we're made to watch the people he's hurt mourn him. Pomni, once again, seeks him out. She sees the heinous facets of his personality we've observed: the comic violence, tendency toward this violence specifically directed at women, and... the maid outfit.

I would like to address Jax's relationship with gender here. It is a topic of heated debate, but, within the confines of the show, I would say implications of transness are limited to this, in the finale:

Much of what is used as evidence more adequately serves a narrative of fragile masculinity and desperate vies for control. The... maid dress, which I have seen as a major piece of evidence, ignores the fact that the garment is very clearly sexual in its design. Jax is being sexualized against his will.

I see two possibilities for why the misogynistic Jax is wearing it here. Gooseworx wanted to put him in the outfit again because she finds it attractive—which is strange—or his anger at the maid dress was meant to be a sign that he desires femininity but does not want the vulnerability that comes with embracing it publicly—which completely ignores its sexual design.

My inclination (and, to be frank, hope) is toward the former, considering the implications of the latter much resemble the talking points used to justify sexual assault: he'll like it eventually. He wants it.

His tail is often brought up as well, but the episode after he discovers its absence—the episode most full of him abusing women—it's returned. He's regained his "peak male performance" now that he has someone else at his side he can harm.

Any other substantial argument, to me, is backed by off-screen content, such as him holding a bottle of progesterone. I've already stated why these things will not be acknowledged.

What is backed by the text is a fragile sense of masculinity, both through his torture sequence truly confirming his fears of humiliation and, by proxy, vulnerability,

and the finale revealing his father wasn't a particularly good role model for him:

He never seemed very proud of me. I always felt I was a huge disappointment to him. I could never meet his expectations. — Jax, Episode 9 Leak, 22:31

When I showed weakness, I was less of a man than him. And when I lashed out, I was just as bad as him. — Jax, Episode 9 Leak, 22:57

His mother was his first victim. Not intentionally, it seems—and he very clearly regrets the act—but it didn't wound him enough to stop him from driving another woman to death.

Pomni sees all of this. Jax has been forced into a state of absolute vulnerability. But the abuser is the appeal—

I hate you. Did you know? You always have to complicate everything [for] me. — Jax, Episode 9 Leak, 33:55

—and even in his second moment of vulnerability, he doesn't yield. He can't yield. The show wants to revel in the hurt he deals while forgiving him, and it doesn't respect his victims enough to acknowledge just how hurt they were. So he abstracts.

What else was there to do but kill him once he's achieved everything the show wanted? Just as everyone else gets a montage, he gets a tent to live in—now a walking corpse, a sign of his suffering.

Conclusion

I would wager around half the reason I wrote this is self-serving: I find the show's method of gaining popularity—the archetypes, its turns to the audience—very fascinating as someone who, ultimately, wasn't charmed. Its characters were simplistic to me by the time I sat down to watch it, and, despite the appealing animation and humor that could occasionally get to me, its writing was something that pushed me away.

The Amazing Digital Circus had an opportunity to be simple. Lean into its comedic aspects, with messages approached more like episode 4's general statement about minimum wage jobs and how they shouldn't crush your dreams. Even with everything I've written, there are still jokes that I enjoy. Those stuck with me more than any of Kinger's speeches.

Of course, knowing who Gooseworx is and what Glitch is like, I wouldn't want either of them to have any more resources than they already do unless they can sort themselves out. But it's still a shame that a show with a very real appeal—an unrealized appeal, that got canned as it went on—had to suffer for its creator wanting something she wasn't ready to execute.

The other reason I wrote this, and the one that got me to start, is much simpler: I want people to look closer at what their media is saying, and how it goes about saying it. There are good snippets of writing that this show offers. I was startled by the scene between Jax and Pomni in episode 6—part of me is convinced it's one of the scenes with the most attention given to it, with how particular its dialogue is. The show's larger themes, though, were something that went unexamined by a staggering amount of people.

I don't blame them. I'm not going to be mad at them, either—there are plenty of young people in the fandom, listening to YouTube videos that tell them how "deep" Jax's vulnerability issues are. It almost fooled me too. It's also not my place to "forgive" them. I'm not the one they hurt.

I just hope the finale, when they see it, gets them thinking. If not the finale, then all the people that have made posts about the show's bigotries and other shortcomings before me. For the sake of what they consume in the future getting the thorough look it deserves, the people that aren't like them who get hurt when media like this is propped up, and themselves, who won't get to understand and experience the good media out there if they don't work for it.

[kabaks]

disco elysium is one of the best examples imo of how massive a gap can exist between a piece of media and the conversations around it. if you’ve never played it i think you’d be forgiven for thinking its some sort of fun gay buddy cop romp from how ppl present the story online

[kabaks]

i still can’t get over the choice the developers made to give harry amnesia at the start. which is par for the course for rpgs ofc but instead of building him into something from a blank slate like you would in other rpgs you have to gradually uncover what a monumentally creepy violent fascistic pathetic piece of shit he is. and at every turn you have to contend with the fact that the public sees him and knows him as he “was” instead of how you might want to play him. and the game tells you outright that what breaks harry psychologically isn’t even the violence he enacts as an arm of the state its the dissolution of his relationship (these things are not disconnected sure but the brutality of his role as a cop is not the catalyst for his breakdown). its not about guilt or remorse for what he’s done, it’s up to you whether you feel guilty or remorseful on his behalf. also its just so ballsy to make a game about never giving up fighting for a more just world for everyone and your entry point is You Are A Cop And Everyone Here Rightfully Detests You. And You Didn’t Give A Shit About That A Day Ago. and even if you choose to give a shit about it now (if) it doesn’t mean all is forgiven it doesn’t mean you get to feel good about yourself. you’re still a cop. and if you want to pretend to be a Radical Communist Cop go ahead but we’ll take the piss out of you for it. man its such a good game

[gutterinouterspace]

So true and I say this as a Harry enjoyer

[lowkeytalkingheadssideblog]

Talking Heads Masterpost

David Byrne Audio Interviews

David Byrne Video Interviews

Talking Heads Performances and TV Appearances

Talking Heads Concerts

Talking Heads Articles and Interviews

Articles/Interviews That Totally Weren’t Behind A Paywall…

What The Songs Look Like Book

Album Inserts/Booklets/Etc.

Documentaries/Other

[oated]

Everyone needs to grow up

Whether it’s people who mention their Hogwarts house on their Hinge profile or literal white supremacists, culture is awash with adult babie

This was an interesting article to read. I think it's a little simple but still fun to skim thru.

[d0gg-rr4tt3zz]

giving wayyy too much importance to aesthetics to a degree that is idiotic. 'these babied millennial need to GROW UP!!! becuase i think CUTENESS is GROSS!!' lame as hell.

ive had enough of articles of people pointing to a bunch of disparate cultural phenomenon that have nothing to do with eachother and making sweeping claims about 'our generation' or whatever the fuck

[triviallytrue]

these types of articles rule because the author thinks they're making a broad societal commentary but really they're just exposing that they desperately need to Log Off

[txttletale]

[sagely] society is going downhill because people are now nostalgic for their youth, something which has never happened before,

[zoobus]

I gave this article a chance but yeah, it really is just conflating their revulsion for people they don't respect, habits they find annoying, and niche interests/tastes that really aren't common in real life public spaces with society's ills, for little justification beyond a psycho analyst quoting freud regarding little kids often acting out their current traumas during playtime.

Most of us will have encountered someone who, when criticised for behaving badly, appeals to their own vulnerability as a way of letting themselves off the hook. No matter what they do or the harm they cause, it’s never fair to criticise them, because there’s always some reason – often framed through therapy jargon or the language of social justice – why it isn’t their fault. Childishness grants them a perpetual innocence; they are constitutionally incapable of being in the wrong.

Like what is this? How do you write this and not flinch at how obviously your square peg isn't fitting the circle you created? You think a recent culture of baby adults is why your acquaintance uses shallow psych/academic terms to absolve themselves of accountability? Yeah, I do know people just like this. I also know people much older than me who are constitutionally incapable of wrongness, who don't use therapy or sj talk to make themselves look weak and pathetic after they've fucked someone over. This is a recurring type of guy, not created by Disney+, existing long before any of us and will continue existing when we're gone.

Heinz ketchup tweeted "adulting sucks." Someone made a post saying you're valid if you're unproductive. There's a grown adult in your circle who always has an excuse for why their abuse doesn't count. Alan Moore expressed a hyperbolic, negative opinion about cape movies. Again. Did you know Hitler was a Disney adult (links to top 10 listicle that states he was a huge movie and opera fan, with his he drawing of Disney characters almost a throwaway line)? Pepes. We're still worried about Pepes, right? Abusers can infantalize their victims. Conservatives can infantalize AND adultify - very tricky! A lot of people don't understand a mental disorder. Somebody out there isn't ashamed to carry a plushie around. You understand right? All of these things are connected. They're all signs. Things are dire.

Even if infantilisation is being pushed upon us, even if the helplessness we feel has a tangible basis in reality, even if adulting really does suck, we can still choose to see ourselves as capable of changing our own lives and the world around us.

The harms are undeniable,” says Cohen. “Bottom line: it’s a way of learning to love your oppressor.

I love how at no point does this sloppily slapped together article establish what, precisely, harm is caused by "people lip syncing with pouted lips and furrowed brows to audio tracks of toddlers" but comfortably concludes that these largely insignificant, quotidian interests are proof you've given up on life and the world.

Tldr don't waste a click, he's literally just mad that you like stuff he thinks is cringe. Even if you feel the premise is true, their reasoning is garbage and you need to stop automatically trusting articles because they're disparaging those you think beneath you

[vihartvihart-blog]

Grocery Cart

 The best time to go grocery shopping is around 9pm. The mood is just right: mostly empty, but not eerily so; the employees are relaxed and ready for small talk, whereas earlier they’d be too busy and later too tired.

The cast of characters in the supermarket changes vastly depending on the time of day. People who live on schedules, have families, have their life together, they’re all gone by then. All that’s left are the shoppers who chose to be there or had to be there (like me, hungry with nothing in the fridge), and the employees who are there because they aren’t going anywhere else. The 9pm supermarket is a place devoid of ambition.

So I go at 9pm, grab a cart from just outside the door, and wheel her in. She seems to have a little more trouble turning than usual, but I maneuver. Fill her up with bread. cheese. milk. bacon. beer. that pre-cooked chicken designed exactly to appeal to lazy 9pm shoppers. I feel like such a tool as I toss it into my grungy little cart. Then I go to check out.

That’s where it all goes wrong.

I wheel the little cart up to the only checkout with a human in it. I recognize her of course; she works evenings. I’m still expecting things to go as usual at this point, because I haven’t figured it out yet. I’m the only one who hasn’t figured it out. Why is she just standing there? Staring down with a frown?

We are both still and silent for a moment.

“Oh no,” she says.

I’m still wondering why she isn’t checking out groceries. And then she drops a truth bomb that will reverberate in my brain ‘till the end of my days:

“This is not our cart.”

“Oh,” I say, immediately dismissing that fact as irrelevant to the current situation. Why isn’t she checking out my groceries?

“See,” she continues, “It says:” and I honestly cannot remember what supermarket that cart was branded with, because I considered it completely irrelevant, but she read the label out loud for me.

“Oh, yeah,” I said. “I didn’t notice.”

She stands still another moment, and then emits an “oh dear.”

“Yeah, well, we’ll survive,” I say, and start handing her groceries. The checkout process begins.

I find myself pondering the idea that she doesn’t work checkout at 9pm because she likes working checkout but because she doesn’t have the ability or will to get past the tiniest bumps along her path.

“Where’d you even get this cart?” she says, as she stops again, as if unable to solve the problem of how to check out groceries from an unfamiliar cart.

It’s funny how she tries to put me on the defensive, as if I’d wronged her by bringing in this godforsaken cart. I wonder if she’s looking for an apology or something.

“Yeah, it was just sitting right outside the door,” I say, and help her with the groceries again. “I guess someone left it there after taking it to their car from the other place.” Oh god, am I really explaining myself to her?

“Well, it’s not our cart,” she says.

I try to imagine a world, a perspective, in which this is a problem. I wonder what it’s like to be her, to look at that cart and see it as an obstacle, rather than something so trivial as to go unnoticed. Maybe I’m the crazy one, over-generalizing as mathematicians are wont to do, thinking that the general case of grocery cart can be combined with the general case of grocery checkout lane. Maybe I’m the one in the wrong, treating all grocery stores and grocery carts as equal, when here is a specific case: an individual life to whom her individual place of employment matters.

The last of the groceries go through, and we chat the usual checkout chatter, about non-cart-related things. A bagger arrives and helps put stuff in one bag while I do the other. The checkout lady wanders off.

“You know,” the bagger says, “this isn’t our cart.”

“Yeah, it was just outside the door and I took it without noticing,” I reply, still wondering why the hell anyone cares.

“I know, I saw you,” he says. “Have room for this?” he hands me the half-gallon of milk, a bottom-of-the-bag item, and I glance over to see his bag is almost completely and optimally packed to the brim.

“Yeah, got a spot right here,” I say, slipping the milk down to the bottom of my comparatively sloppy bag.

“You see, this cart has a lower carriage…” he begins, and starts detailing the differences between this cart and their official supermarket-owned carts.

I suddenly have a vision of carts as he sees them. He is an expert. He knows carts in a way I never will. I imagine him efficiently locating and gathering this store’s carts from the parking lot, knowing them instantly even from blurry far-off silhouettes in the dark and the rain, knowing them by the feel of how they roll and turn, knowing which store a shopper is coming from even when he’s facing away because he knows the sound. I imagine him seeing me take this foreign cart and pushing it through the store gathering groceries and all he can see is the glaring wrongness of the cart, so obviously different, wondering: how can I possibly not notice?

How can I go through this little portion of my life ignorantly dismissing what is so plain and clear to everyone around me?

I leave, and they seem glad to be rid of me, and the cart. If you don’t hear from me again, I’ve probably been arrested for accidentally driving my groceries home in some random person’s car.

[alphauke]

an angel on letterboxd just dropped a whole playlist of films free on youtube I was filled with so much love and light I had to share with you guys

[alphauke]

it also includes short films, animated movies, documentaries of every genre, full recordings of live performances. all spanning different decades from different countries. YOU DONT EVEN FUCKING KNOW

[anphivenas]

there are also websites like worldscinema, solidaritycinema, and rarefilmm hosting incredible obscure world cinema for free! and if you're more inclined towards the esoteric, there's also evilbjork's avant-garde canon playlist on youtube! also important to mention Maya S. Cade's incredible black film archive and the otherness archive, an obscure queer cinema archive! You could always be watching more films !

[oneinathousand]

A new big 5 hour-long video essay dropped about Drowned God: Conspiracy of the Ages recently, and while I appreciate that it tried to explain the various references and symbolism it makes to a wide variety of subjects, I think trying to look at real history/religion/occultism/conspiracies to explain the game’s story is a fool’s errand because it puts all these ingredients together in such a slapdash fashion it mostly has little resemblance to reality (which the video does acknowledge but still spends a lot of time trying to do anyway). It can explain the game’s choices to a certain extent, but it won’t get you to really understand this game’s bizarro version of everything.

When analyzing it, people keep treating it as either some tome of eldritch knowledge (if they are already inclined to believe these things) or as a crash course in occultism and such (if they are more skeptical) instead of seeing it for what it is, which is a work of fiction. Harry Horse likely believed in at least some of what the game purports, but I don’t think it was nearly as much as people think.

The way I’ve come to my own understanding of the plot and characters is to not ask questions like “What are these characters referencing, and what is the history of it in our world which I will translate one-to-one to DG” I ask “What are these characters in-universe, what do they want, and why?” Because believe it or not, there’s an internal logic to it where characters have connections to each other and they all have certain allegiances and goals, and there’s a pretty straightforward backstory underneath all the mountains of jargon, it can just be hard to figure out because DG was unfinished.

[mckitterick]

I can’t quite put my finger on it, but this feels vaguely relevant…

Read the full text of It Can’t Happen Here on Project Gutenberg: X

[cat-mermaid]

dammit I read the wikipedia plot overview and-

-christ we had a well know book that almost perfectly, step by step, laid out exactly how we’d get where we’ve gotten now, and its been around for like 90 FUCKING YEARS

fuck

[mckitterick]

I hate how this post got even more relevant

[reachartwork]

how to write fight scenes

many people have told me that Chum has good fight scenes. a small subset of those people have asked me on advice for how to write fight scenes. i am busy procrastinating, so i have distilled my general ethos on fight scenes into four important points. followed by a homework assignment.

Fight scenes take place on two axii - the physical and the intellectual. For the most interesting fight scenes, neither character should have a full inventory of the other's abilities, equipment, fighting style, etc. This gives you an opportunity to pull out surprises, but, more importantly, turns each fight into a jockeying of minds, as all characters involved have to puzzle out what's going on in real time. This is especially pertinent for settings with power systems. It feels more earned if the characters are trying to deduce the limitations and reach of the opponent's power rather than the opponent simply explaining it to them (like in Bleach. Don't do that). 1a. Have characters be incorrect in their assumptions sometimes, leading to them making mistakes that require them to correct their internal models of an opponent under extreme pressure. 1b. If you really have to have a character explain their powers to someone there should be a damn good reason for it. The best reason is "they are lying". The second best reason is "their power requires it for some reason".

Make sure your blows actually have weight. When characters are wailing at each other for paragraphs and paragraphs and nothing happens, it feels like watching rock 'em sock 'em robots. They beat each other up, and then the fight ends with a decisive blow. Not interesting! Each character has goals that will influence what their victory condition is, and each character has a physical body that takes damage over the course of a fight. If someone is punched in the gut and coughs up blood, that's an injury! It should have an impact on them not just for the fight but long term. Fights that go longer than "fist meets head, head meets floor" typically have a 'break-down' - each character getting sloppier and weaker as they bruise, batter, and break their opponent, until victory is achieved with the last person standing. this keeps things tense and interesting.

I like to actually plan out my fight scenes beat for beat and blow for blow, including a: the thought process of each character leading to that attempted action, b: what they are trying to do, and c: how it succeeds or fails. In fights with more than two people, I like to use graph paper (or an Excel spreadsheet with the rows turned into squares) to keep track of positions and facings over time.

Don't be afraid to give your characters limitations, because that means they can be discovered by the other character and preyed upon, which produces interesting ebbs and flows in the fight. A gunslinger is considerably less useful in a melee with their gun disarmed. A swordsman might not know how to box if their sword is destroyed. If they have powers, consider what they have to do to make them activate, if it exhausts them to use, how they can be turned off, if at all. Consider the practical applications. Example: In Chum, there are many individuals with pyrokinetic superpowers, and none of them have "think something on fire" superpowers. Small-time filler villain Aaron McKinley can ignite anything he's looking at, and suddenly the fight scenes begin constructing themselves, as Aaron's eyes and the direction of his gaze become an incredibly relevant factor.

if you have reached this far in this essay I am giving you homework. Go watch the hallway fight in Oldboy and then novelize it. Then, watch it again every week for the rest of your life, and you will become good at writing fight scenes.

as with all pieces of advice these are not hard and fast rules (except watching the oldboy hallway fight repeatedly) but general guidelines to be considered and then broken when it would produce an interesting outcome to do so.

okay have a good day. and go read chum.

[mogwaipoet]

I remember when I was first playing Tears of the Kingdom, worrying that the physics/contraption shrines were going to be tedious to replay

But having replayed a good chunk of both Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom, and having some distance on both, you know what's tedious? The motion control shrines. The ones where you count constellations on the wallpaper. The one where you follow a korok without being seen. The ones where you have to match a grid of lights from a different shrine.

Don't get me wrong, the physics/contraption puzzles *are* somewhat tedious to replay. But I'll take them over the ones where you have to stand there and wait for a specific weather event to happen, every single time.

[reve-des-eaux]

InterActivity #5 (Nov./Dec. 1995) - The Making of GADGET

Via The Internet Archive