John Dule 5,332nd Post AMA Extravaganza!

[John Dule]

You eff with either Bladerunner?

I love both of the movies, and also enjoyed the book on which the first one was based. The original Blade Runner is a visual masterpiece, and provided that you watch the version without Harrison Ford's bored narration, it's a wonderful and mysterious film. I will say, however, that although I don't like 2049 as much as the original, it does have more richly developed characters in a number of ways. Gosling's character's arc has fascinated me since that movie came out. How many movies have actually had the guts to

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

set up a protagonist as the "chosen one," only to reveal in the end that he really wasn't? And then to top it off, it affirms that Gosling's character's life still has meaning even though he's not as special as he thought he was.

It's really great how the story misleads us with that plotline. I loved it, and it still makes me think to this day-- about narrative tropes in fiction and about life in general.

As for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, I have fond memories of it because I chose it for a project in my AP Literature class and wrote a good essay for it. There were a lot of elements in that book that I wish had been in the movie, though I understand why they were cut. I had a few issues with the sci-fi jargon in the beginning, but ultimately it was very immersive and engaging.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Describe a Marin County Trump voter.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You eff with Dune?

Oh boy. If I recall correctly, you are a fan, so it gives me no pleasure to say this... but I had my problems with Dune. The sheer onslaught of technical terms and proper nouns in the beginning made my head spin, and prevented me from becoming as immersed in the story as I'd have liked. Like Lord of the Rings, it's a book that I respect and understand why people like it, and I periodically revisit it to give it another shot, but I've never been able to overcome my reflexively negative reaction to its writing.

That said though, I love a lot of the concepts in that book. I think its blending of medieval institutions with a sci-fi setting is very clever, and the spice (and the reason why it's used) is a lightning-in-a-bottle sci-fi idea that impressed me to no end. I have no complaints with Herbert's conceptual creativity; the writing, however, just comes across as clunky to me sometimes. I will say that the David Lynch movie probably played a part in poisoning me against it. I normally like Lynch, but I honestly had to turn that film off halfway through. However, I think the new Villeneuve adaptation has serious potential, so I'm looking forward to that as a possible way to rekindle my fascination with that world. Like I said, the ideas at work in that book are among the best I've ever encountered in sci-fi; it's just the prose that I find lacking.

So my claim to being a "fan" is rather shallow. I'd had my brother and two friends independently either recommend or talk to me about Dune. Given my love for Bladerunner 2049, the hype for Villeneuve directing the 2020 iteration of the Dune film finally drove me to order and read the book. I was in love. I'll admit there are features I still do not really understand, even after finally getting around to the appendix, but something about that book grabbed ahold of me. I agree, I also love the aristocracy + space travel, and, probably owing to my upbringing, I also was very drawn to the intense use of religious terminology/messianism. Beyond that, it's very hard to articulate my love of the book, but as I described it to my Boomer aunt and uncle over the weekend--it's politics, it's religion, it's ecology, it's science fiction, it's revenge. The Lynch adaptation is probably only palatable after having read the book; for, while it fails in a lot of aspects--including what IMO is bad special effects even for the time and ridiculously sped-up second and third sections--it helps bring to life scenes that fans could otherwise only dream of and the Baron Harkonnen performance I thought was hysterical.

You eff with either Bladerunner?

I love both of the movies, and also enjoyed the book on which the first one was based. The original Blade Runner is a visual masterpiece, and provided that you watch the version without Harrison Ford's bored narration, it's a wonderful and mysterious film. I will say, however, that although I don't like 2049 as much as the original, it does have more richly developed characters in a number of ways. Gosling's character's arc has fascinated me since that movie came out. How many movies have actually had the guts to

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

set up a protagonist as the "chosen one," only to reveal in the end that he really wasn't? And then to top it off, it affirms that Gosling's character's life still has meaning even though he's not as special as he thought he was.

It's really great how the story misleads us with that plotline. I loved it, and it still makes me think to this day-- about narrative tropes in fiction and about life in general.

As for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, I have fond memories of it because I chose it for a project in my AP Literature class and wrote a good essay for it. There were a lot of elements in that book that I wish had been in the movie, though I understand why they were cut. I had a few issues with the sci-fi jargon in the beginning, but ultimately it was very immersive and engaging.

I'll admit to two things here: 1) having never read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?; 2) Liking 2049 better than the original. As for the latter point, I'd like to think there's more to it than just better special effects--the production feels all-around tighter, the music feels far more appropriate when compared to the relatively... happy(?) soundtrack style of Vangelis, and there are less inexplicably weird--probably better stated as "goofy"--things about it (probably part of the original's charm for many others, but I digress). Blade Runner 2049, for whatever reason, hit me like a brick wall and, after seeing it Saturday afternoon, it was all I wanted to think about the entire weekend with a midterm coming up on that Tuesday (everything worked out in the end). Beyond the plot itself, which was fantastic, the intensity of the music and visual motifs, and how well they worked in conjunction with one another, was a major part of the appeal for me. I also enjoyed the ongoing "debate" of how to treat what was essentially a captive slave population--let them breed, so they can be of more use, or keep them confined for the sake of social control?--a debate that somehow miraculously overlooks the actual position of the replicants in question. The movie's other charms were its characters--the oblivious way in which K accidentally brushes off the interest of up to three women, the magnetic innocence of "Joy", Robin Wright playing a tough SoB in female form, Love calling down space missiles to save our plucky protagonist, and all the rest. Additionally, the way it adjusted the universe to what we know of our own--ecological collapse, constant stormy weather, etc.--in helping to craft a futuristic and effectively post-apocalyptic universe was wonderful. I try to avoid watching 2049 too regularly so that it doesn't lose the awe it inspired at first viewing; the only people I watch it with anyway tend to be my younger brother and a particular friend of mine. After my first time watching it, it became firmly lodged as perhaps my favorite movie.

Philosophically, I feel like the most notable moment is when K asks of Deckard's dog, "Is he real?" and Deckard almost disregards the question in its entirety--"Ask him."

For me I guess the original suffers from a couple particular issues, some of which have been discussed above--the odd soundtrack, which might have worked well in a more upbeat movie; the goofy-to-creepy qualities of certain features, such as the geneticist's home and Rachael's hair; and the apparent flimsiness of set pieces--like seeing the plastic(?) exteriors of cars rattle at any bump. I think the sequel far more matched my aesthetic expectations, both in terms of color palette and soundtrack, but also in terms of how people looked, which perhaps says more about me than either movie. But I appreciate its role in helping kick off the cyberpunk genre, and how it introduced us to the "futuristic detective story". I think the brightest spot in the film has to be Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty, especially in his conversation with Mr. Tyrell.

Both films are great for quoting at the appropriate moments--"Computer, enhance!", "Time to die!", "Cells within cells, interlinked...", "You have 48 hours to get back to baseline!", "Because you've never seen a miracle," and so on.

[John Dule]

Describe a Marin County Trump voter.

Invisible. The only ones I've met have been edgy high schoolers who are extremely ugly and therefore hate women. You'd think that I'd have met at least some (this county is like 15% Trump voters), but they tend to keep quiet. Even the farmers are generally organic-growing hippies, so there is really no base for Trump here whatsoever.

Option 1. Function over style.

So my claim to being a "fan" is rather shallow. I'd had my brother and two friends independently either recommend or talk to me about Dune. Given my love for Bladerunner 2049, the hype for Villeneuve directing the 2020 iteration of the Dune film finally drove me to order and read the book. I was in love. I'll admit there are features I still do not really understand, even after finally getting around to the appendix, but something about that book grabbed ahold of me. I agree, I also love the aristocracy + space travel, and, probably owing to my upbringing, I also was very drawn to the intense use of religious terminology/messianism. Beyond that, it's very hard to articulate my love of the book, but as I described it to my Boomer aunt and uncle over the weekend--it's politics, it's religion, it's ecology, it's science fiction, it's revenge. The Lynch adaptation is probably only palatable after having read the book; for, while it fails in a lot of aspects--including what IMO is bad special effects even for the time and ridiculously sped-up second and third sections--it helps bring to life scenes that fans could otherwise only dream of and the Baron Harkonnen performance I thought was hysterical.

It might've helped to read the book first before seeing the film, but Lynch's adaptation ranks among a very small number of movies that I was literally not able to finish watching. As you say, a fairly big-budgeted sci-fi movie made post-Star Wars has absolutely no right to feature special effects that terrible. The performances were also absurdly exaggerated; the first Harkonnen scene is so over-the-top I didn't know whether I was supposed to be laughing or not. Not everything has to be a Spielberg/Lucas production-- and I have my own problems with the tropes and story beats associated with their films-- but there's a lot to be said for how they can clearly convey tone, plot elements, and character archetypes with just a few simple storytelling techniques. I'd almost have preferred that sort of mechanical approach to the story if it had netted a result that was less incomprehensible.

Interestingly, I too found the religious aspects of the novel to be some of the most interesting parts. It's an exploration of how legends are born, and what those legends mean to people even if they aren't wholly rooted in fact. Knowing what happens in the end (that Paul fulfills his destiny) might've detracted from the suspense in a different book, but in this particular story it just added to the mythos-- as if we're watching incredible historical events unfold upon the page. In the process, we also come to realize that they mythic, larger-than-life figures we know from our own history lived lives of self-doubt and average human experiences as well. I always saw it as deconstructing religion to some degree.

Nevertheless, I must also say that Herbert's writing is often not what I'd hoped. His dialogue is stilted, and the sheer amount of technical terms he dumps on the reader is insane. Rather than being gradually drawn into the world, I felt like I was taking the ice bucket challenge with fictional nouns. I also had some trouble with the names he chose (I still have no idea how to pronounce "Bene Gesserit").

I'll admit to two things here: 1) having never read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?; 2) Liking 2049 better than the original. As for the latter point, I'd like to think there's more to it than just better special effects--the production feels all-around tighter, the music feels far more appropriate when compared to the relatively... happy(?) soundtrack style of Vangelis, and there are less inexplicably weird--probably better stated as "goofy"--things about it (probably part of the original's charm for many others, but I digress). Blade Runner 2049, for whatever reason, hit me like a brick wall and, after seeing it Saturday afternoon, it was all I wanted to think about the entire weekend with a midterm coming up on that Tuesday (everything worked out in the end). Beyond the plot itself, which was fantastic, the intensity of the music and visual motifs, and how well they worked in conjunction with one another, was a major part of the appeal for me. I also enjoyed the ongoing "debate" of how to treat what was essentially a captive slave population--let them breed, so they can be of more use, or keep them confined for the sake of social control?--a debate that somehow miraculously overlooks the actual position of the replicants in question. The movie's other charms were its characters--the oblivious way in which K accidentally brushes off the interest of up to three women, the magnetic innocence of "Joy", Robin Wright playing a tough SoB in female form, Love calling down space missiles to save our plucky protagonist, and all the rest. Additionally, the way it adjusted the universe to what we know of our own--ecological collapse, constant stormy weather, etc.--in helping to craft a futuristic and effectively post-apocalyptic universe was wonderful. I try to avoid watching 2049 too regularly so that it doesn't lose the awe it inspired at first viewing; the only people I watch it with anyway tend to be my younger brother and a particular friend of mine. After my first time watching it, it became firmly lodged as perhaps my favorite movie.

Philosophically, I feel like the most notable moment is when K asks of Deckard's dog, "Is he real?" and Deckard almost disregards the question in its entirety--"Ask him."

For me I guess the original suffers from a couple particular issues, some of which have been discussed above--the odd soundtrack, which might have worked well in a more upbeat movie; the goofy-to-creepy qualities of certain features, such as the geneticist's home and Rachael's hair; and the apparent flimsiness of set pieces--like seeing the plastic(?) exteriors of cars rattle at any bump. I think the sequel far more matched my aesthetic expectations, both in terms of color palette and soundtrack, but also in terms of how people looked, which perhaps says more about me than either movie. But I appreciate its role in helping kick off the cyberpunk genre, and how it introduced us to the "futuristic detective story". I think the brightest spot in the film has to be Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty, especially in his conversation with Mr. Tyrell.

Both films are great for quoting at the appropriate moments--"Computer, enhance!", "Time to die!", "Cells within cells, interlinked...", "You have 48 hours to get back to baseline!", "Because you've never seen a miracle," and so on.

While I still have a soft spot for the original film, I'll concede that it's hard to reason out exactly why it's better than 2049. Villeneuve's version has more developed characters, and as you say, it's more aesthetically interesting than the original. The scenes in the desert are especially visually creative. Not only does it add a lot to the world's lore, but it also neatly sidesteps the error that Star Wars so often makes (creating planets that are literally all one biome). I will say that while I'm not the biggest Gosling fan, his acting style is well-suited to this role. He plays things pretty deadpan, but he also manages to convey his psychological turmoil in subtle and effective ways.

I assume no one else is reading this at this point, so I won't worry about getting into spoilers: The way the plot misleads us with regards to the origins of Gosling's character is one of the most ingenious pieces of sci-fi I've seen in years. I was so impressed by the balls that Villeneuve and his creative team had in actually following through with that; it was the perfect antidote to every "chosen one" movie from The Matrix to the Harry Potter series. The first hour or so of the movie perfectly establishes K's loneliness and isolation from the rest of humanity, so that when he's presented with the possibility that he's not just some lowly less-than-human worker drone, he jumps at the prospect (and the audience does too). To then snatch that away from him (and us), and to then go on to show that-- despite the fact that he isn't a special snowflake-- he can still do things that have value, is a wonderful message that is expertly conveyed.

Do you generally enjoy sci-fi, Cath? What other stuff in the genre have you been reading/watching?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Comments on the BR49 plot agreed--I didn't discuss them much since I felt you perfectly described what was happening. Real gut punch on that one, m'boy.

Do you generally enjoy sci-fi, Cath? What other stuff in the genre have you been reading/watching?

***Forewarning: I began writing the below thinking that I had very little to say; turns out I'd read more than I thought. For that, I apologize.***

If you took the entire volume of what I read, fiction would be a minority compared to non-fiction (history and political science in particular). What I do read in fiction tends to be fantasy, but if I were going to choose two genres to spend the rest of my life reading it'd be fantasy and science fiction. Dune was my most recent conquest in that area and I may order the sequels. I'm hoping to read Neuromancer at some point. I did pick up a used copy of Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, but I did not stick with it. Perhaps someday.

Within the past few years I've read Brave New World and Farenheit 451, both of which I appreciated. In high school and/or early college I also read 1984, This Perfect Day, and A Canticle for Leibowitz. The second of those three books is one of your classic stories that starts out in a dystopian, authoritarian future and has the character attempt at escape. In case you ever get around to reading it, I won't spoil it for you. The latter is a very Catholic story--Nathan is a good guy on the forum to talk to about it--that depicts the cyclical rise and fall of civilization from the perspective of a monastery in what used to be the SW United States in the centuries following a nuclear war, and chronicles the re-discovery of the material sciences. I love Canticle, though I have yet to fully reread it.

In terms of films, I'm a fan of both Alien and Terminator (important note: while Terminator II is also awesome, I haven't seen the entirety of either franchise, which is fine). The former is by far a much better film than Ridley Scott's later science-fiction classic, the aforementioned Blade Runner and is, I think, an objectively good film. There is apparently a majority consensus that Alien's immediate sequel is better. This, in my opinion, is hogwash. Alien is a true horror story, filmed perfectly in terms of its use of light and, more importantly, darkness. Aliens, on the other hand, demystifies the xenomorphs. What once took an entire starship crew of people and a substantial amount of luck to kill can now be downed with a few gunbursts--a narrative necessity because there are so many of them this time! Another classic is Planet of the Apes, a franchise I also have yet to fully explore. It's also the source of one of my favorite television lines.

Outside of conventional mediums, I do watch some anime (emphasis on "some") and read comic books--both American and, more recently, some Japanese. I enjoy the cyberpunk environments of films like Ghost in the Shell (I didn't even mind the live-action version) and Akira, even though the stories themselves don't really have a hold on me. I'd be interested in reading the comics for either, though I hear that the GITS manga really degenerates in later issues and for that reason I nixed a possible plan to just buy the boxed set. Right now I'm reading the boxed set of Hayao Miyazaki's Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, which I guess could count as science fiction--it is set far in the future, following a cataclysmic event called the "Seven Days of Fire", and chronicles warring human tribes as they fight over the last scraps of arable land even as a sea of toxin-exhaling fungus threatens humanity's very existence. There was a movie of the same name put out, but well before the comics' conclusion. The movie and comic merge anti-war and environmentalist messages in a way that is classically Miyazaki. Cowboy Bebop is a late 1990s manga cartoon series that follows a starship crew of bounty hunters in the ~2070s as the negotiate situations riddled with terrorists and criminals. I overall am not too keen on the plots themselves, but visually and musically the episodes are masterpieces. I guess kind of in the mangasphere, but also very much in American comics was Frank Miller's Ronin, which, pioneer of weebdom that he was, he consciously made in a manga-esque style. Whether intentional or not it very much anticipates the Samurai Jack cartoon, with both telling the story of a time-displaced samurai fighting a demon in the future. Ronin suffers from both Frank Miller's sloppy drawing and from a story that seems like it gets out of hand, but is enjoyable. It also is firmly within "science fiction", as the story is mostly told in a futuristic New York that is in effect run by a cybernetics and weapons corporation. As long as we're talking eighties comics, Watchmen, which, again, technically sci-fi, is a long-standing favorite of mine (proof I'm not unique and special), and posed to teenage me a very significant moral conundrum.

Overall, I've definitely got an appetite for some more science fiction, particularly if it involves plots centered around cyberpunk, crime-fighting, and authoritarianism. I'm somewhat attracted to comics and animation as mediums in this context in that they can deliver visually and can also do so in a way that is not dependent on what time period they were produced in. As a former comics geek they definitely hit a soft spot for me as well (a major downside of anime is that it's almost entirely in black-and-white, if you're into color).

BTW, if you'll tolerate adult animation, the tenth and most recent season of Archer (assuming that S11, due any day now, has yet to come out as of this writing) is set in space and is full of every space-based science fiction trope imaginable, including what I believe are multiple Alien references.

[John Dule]

If you took the entire volume of what I read, fiction would be a minority compared to non-fiction (history and political science in particular). What I do read in fiction tends to be fantasy, but if I were going to choose two genres to spend the rest of my life reading it'd be fantasy and science fiction. Dune was my most recent conquest in that area and I may order the sequels. I'm hoping to read Neuromancer at some point. I did pick up a used copy of Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, but I did not stick with it. Perhaps someday.

Wow, I'd forgotten about Slaughterhouse Five. That's a book I remain torn on to this day. The structure of the story is memorable and at times brilliant, but the main character is such a wet blanket at times it becomes hard to be involved in his arc. The more he becomes unstuck in time, the more the reader becomes unstuck in the narrative. I have never heard of Neuromancer though. I tried reading Stephen King's Dark Tower a couple years back too, but if I recall I found it a bit tame.

Within the past few years I've read Brave New World and Farenheit 451, both of which I appreciated. In high school and/or early college I also read 1984, This Perfect Day, and A Canticle for Leibowitz. The second of those three books is one of your classic stories that starts out in a dystopian, authoritarian future and has the character attempt at escape. In case you ever get around to reading it, I won't spoil it for you. The latter is a very Catholic story--Nathan is a good guy on the forum to talk to about it--that depicts the cyclical rise and fall of civilization from the perspective of a monastery in what used to be the SW United States in the centuries following a nuclear war, and chronicles the re-discovery of the material sciences. I love Canticle, though I have yet to fully reread it.

I remember reading 1984 and Brave New World in high school; I liked and disliked different parts of each. I think 1984 is better-written, but Brave New World's conception of the future is probably more plausible (and looks more likely every day). I think I prefer Animal Farm to both of them, partially because I think its allegorical Aesop-ian style is better suited to the argument it makes, and also probably because I enjoy books more when they aren't assigned reading.

Canticle sounds interesting. The blending of sci-fi with ancient history is something I've always enjoyed, and I like novels that speculate about what the future of North America post-US will look like (heck, I even appreciated The Handmaid's Tale to a certain extent because of that). I don't mind religious themes in my books, though I've found that I cannot write from the perspective of religious characters when I try to.

In terms of films, I'm a fan of both Alien and Terminator (important note: while Terminator II is also awesome, I haven't seen the entirety of either franchise, which is fine). The former is by far a much better film than Ridley Scott's later science-fiction classic, the aforementioned Blade Runner and is, I think, an objectively good film. There is apparently a majority consensus that Alien's immediate sequel is better. This, in my opinion, is hogwash. Alien is a true horror story, filmed perfectly in terms of its use of light and, more importantly, darkness. Aliens, on the other hand, demystifies the xenomorphs. What once took an entire starship crew of people and a substantial amount of luck to kill can now be downed with a few gunbursts--a narrative necessity because there are so many of them this time! Another classic is Planet of the Apes, a franchise I also have yet to fully explore. It's also the source of one of my favorite television lines.

Alien and Terminator II are both among the greats, and they'll be appearing on my 100 Favorite Films list sometime soon (probably in the top 25). I agree that Scott's take on the premise is miles better than Cameron's; Aliens is a decent film in its own right, but as you say, it's a very conventional action movie and it fails to exploit the franchise's greatest asset-- the apparent invincibility of the xenomorphs-- to its fullest potential, as the original does. I have not finished the Terminator franchise either; I saw Genysis and immediately decided never to watch another film in the series again. The choices made in that film, and the efforts it went through to "update" the world of the franchise for the digital age, were unbelievably cringeworthy. Oh, and that woman from Game of Thrones has the charisma of a wet sack of potatoes.

I haven't seen the original Planet of the Apes in years. I did watch the recent three films, and I actually found the second two to be quite good, if a bit unmemorable. Andy Serkis is far and away the best element of the new franchise, whereas the human characters are somewhat lacking. Overall, I was impressed by how well they managed to update the franchise in such a dignified, un-campy way.

Outside of conventional mediums, I do watch some anime (emphasis on "some") and read comic books--both American and, more recently, some Japanese. I enjoy the cyberpunk environments of films like Ghost in the Shell (I didn't even mind the live-action version) and Akira, even though the stories themselves don't really have a hold on me. I'd be interested in reading the comics for either, though I hear that the GITS manga really degenerates in later issues and for that reason I nixed a possible plan to just buy the boxed set. Right now I'm reading the boxed set of Hayao Miyazaki's Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, which I guess could count as science fiction--it is set far in the future, following a cataclysmic event called the "Seven Days of Fire", and chronicles warring human tribes as they fight over the last scraps of arable land even as a sea of toxin-exhaling fungus threatens humanity's very existence. There was a movie of the same name put out, but well before the comics' conclusion. The movie and comic merge anti-war and environmentalist messages in a way that is classically Miyazaki. Cowboy Bebop is a late 1990s manga cartoon series that follows a starship crew of bounty hunters in the ~2070s as the negotiate situations riddled with terrorists and criminals. I overall am not too keen on the plots themselves, but visually and musically the episodes are masterpieces. I guess kind of in the mangasphere, but also very much in American comics was Frank Miller's Ronin, which, pioneer of weebdom that he was, he consciously made in a manga-esque style. Whether intentional or not it very much anticipates the Samurai Jack cartoon, with both telling the story of a time-displaced samurai fighting a demon in the future. Ronin suffers from both Frank Miller's sloppy drawing and from a story that seems like it gets out of hand, but is enjoyable. It also is firmly within "science fiction", as the story is mostly told in a futuristic New York that is in effect run by a cybernetics and weapons corporation. As long as we're talking eighties comics, Watchmen, which, again, technically sci-fi, is a long-standing favorite of mine (proof I'm not unique and special), and posed to teenage me a very significant moral conundrum.

I have been told by multiple people over multiple years that I should watch Cowboy Bebop, as it apparently served as a partial inspiration for Firefly, which is possibly my favorite TV show of all time (I would absolutely recommend it if you haven't seen it; it's much better than Joss Whedon's other ventures). If you enjoy storylines that involve authoritarian governments operating in the background, I think that series is for you.

Nevertheless, I admit I've never really watched much anime, though I've seen some Miyazaki lately as my girlfriend is a big fan of his films. She introduced me to Porco Rosso and Howl's Moving Castle, and while there are techniques in the storytelling that I still have difficulty following, I really enjoyed the whimsy and atmosphere of those movies. His movies are very libertarian (in the anti-authority sense, not the economic one), and they seem to typically revolve around an outcast or a group of outcasts who are excluded from a homogeneous, uniformed, authoritarian society. It's interesting to me how those films manage to tackle subjects like war and fascism without treating those elements as the centerpiece of the storytelling.

I also saw both Ghost in the Shell films, and like you, I didn't have a huge problem with the live-action adaptation-- though I think that story is one instance in which the visual style of anime is a big asset, as the original movie created some really memorable body horror moments that remain stuck in my head. Cyberpunk is a genre that interests me too, especially given that we're already having to tackle some of the questions it deals with in the real world. I think I overall prefer the aesthetic of sci-fi/fantasy stories more than cyberpunk, but the former is often not structurally capable of dealing with the sorts of themes that cyberpunk is equipped to.

Overall, I've definitely got an appetite for some more science fiction, particularly if it involves plots centered around cyberpunk, crime-fighting, and authoritarianism. I'm somewhat attracted to comics and animation as mediums in this context in that they can deliver visually and can also do so in a way that is not dependent on what time period they were produced in. As a former comics geek they definitely hit a soft spot for me as well (a major downside of anime is that it's almost entirely in black-and-white, if you're into color).

BTW, if you'll tolerate adult animation, the tenth and most recent season of Archer (assuming that S11, due any day now, has yet to come out as of this writing) is set in space and is full of every space-based science fiction trope imaginable, including what I believe are multiple Alien references.

I was actually a big fan of Archer for a while, but I stopped watching around Season 5. It was getting a little repetitive, and while I know they shook things up with Archer: Vice and things like that, those seemed pretty gimmicky to me. I might revisit it once my law school applications are done, though. I'm planning on turning my brain off and vegetating for about two weeks in mid-November, so if you have any suggestions now would be the time, lol.

As for comics, my favorite series has to be Bone, which is the most richly imagined and genuinely funny comic book I think I've ever read. Comics have their drawbacks, but the suspension of disbelief that's possible in them lends itself to very creative, wholly original storytelling. As a kid, I was more a fan of the weekly newspaper strips like Bloom County, and comics like that played a big part in my growing interest in politics. I think those comic strips are an underrated art form; sure, most of them are crap, but every so often a Calvin & Hobbes comes along to make up for it.

[Kingpoleon]

I certainly respect Ayn Rand. She presented a philosophy and morality based entirely around evolution. As far as I am aware, she is the sole atheist who really understand the terrifying reality of what that means - what it means to be in a world without meaning, without purpose, and the terrible conclusion one must then come to. To me, it’s an objectively immoral worldview, but it is at least a coherent one. The natural product of an astounding intelligence and no soul.

A few questions:
1. Have you read John Carter of Mars, the series? It’s the best sci-fi I have ever read, and the inspiration for Superman.
2. You said you liked myth as the portrayal of much deeper meanings. Have you ever read the first half of Genesis or the Book of Job in this context? If not, is there a particular reason for that?
3. Have you read any of Rose Wilder Lane’s works? She is perhaps the least read of your philosophy’s Three Mother’s, but in my opinion, she was by far the best writer.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

What is your best "S019, you are the kind of person who..." comment ever, in your opinion?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not a question, but in response to the conversation between you and Cath, I'd highly recommend Neuromancer to both of you.

[John Dule]

I certainly respect Ayn Rand. She presented a philosophy and morality based entirely around evolution. As far as I am aware, she is the sole atheist who really understand the terrifying reality of what that means - what it means to be in a world without meaning, without purpose, and the terrible conclusion one must then come to. To me, it’s an objectively immoral worldview, but it is at least a coherent one. The natural product of an astounding intelligence and no soul.

Agreed. I think she's generally hated by people who are simply incapable of setting their personal biases and values aside for a moment and appreciating a take on the world that is wholly against traditional morality. You don't have to agree with it, but it is definitely fascinating. I'll take ideological consistency over particular opinions any day of the week.

A few questions:
1. Have you read John Carter of Mars, the series? It’s the best sci-fi I have ever read, and the inspiration for Superman.

I have had two John Carter books on my shelf collecting dust since the movie came out. If I recall, I bought them because I was sympathetic to the fact that the movie (apparently) represented the story so poorly, and I wanted to give the author's original intent a fair shot. I never really took a serious crack at reading them, however. But now that you've reminded me, perhaps I should go back to them at some point.

2. You said you liked myth as the portrayal of much deeper meanings. Have you ever read the first half of Genesis or the Book of Job in this context? If not, is there a particular reason for that?

I've actually spent quite a lot of time reading the Bible; I used to listen to it on audiobook for hours on end (skipping over the genealogy bits, however). I think the stories are objectively interesting-- heck, it's incredible that such a text still even exists today. It's a fascinating window into the value systems of the past, and the things that they considered most important. Nevertheless, I think that its continued significance in our culture effectively neutralizes our ability to analyze it in a truly literary way. Its themes have penetrated our storytelling to the point that we take many aspects of it for granted. Most people, from atheists to Christians, do not think critically about what they read in that book (if they even read it). Quite a lot of Christians are told Biblical stories from a young age, and these stories become ingrained in their minds to the point that they never question the morals and perspectives advanced by the book. Other people-- including many atheists-- deny the factuality of the Bible while still (subconsciously, perhaps) accepting at face value the morals and ethics that it preaches. There are many aspects of the Bible that reflect basic principles that I often find myself living by, but at the same time, there are many messages implied in the book that must be challenged if one is to forge one's own moral path. The claims that knowledge represented the downfall of man, or that God deserves our worship simply because he created us, or the themes presented in the Tower of Babel, should all be questioned (at the very least). They aren't just "fairy tales," as many atheists present them. They outline a moral code that-- like any moral code-- has its strong and weak points. The failure of atheists to engage critically with the morality of those stories, and their insistence on discussing only the factuality of faith, I think is perhaps the greatest failure of atheism (both intellectually and as a means of converting others to the cause).

Also, weird anecdote: When I was a kid, I loved Veggie Tales. I had never been to church or read the Bible, so I just thought it was a show about animated vegetables teaching history. I didn't even realize it was Christian propaganda until much, much later in life when something clicked in my brain.

3. Have you read any of Rose Wilder Lane’s works? She is perhaps the least read of your philosophy’s Three Mother’s, but in my opinion, she was by far the best writer.

Hmm, I have not. I will say that I don't typically re-read libertarian-leaning writings, Rand's included, because (as you may have noticed) I much prefer the role of the contrarian and there just isn't enough for me to disagree with when it comes to someone like John Stuart Mill. Still, I will read a bit about her now that you've mentioned her.

[John Dule]

What is your best "S019, you are the kind of person who..." comment ever, in your opinion?

Maybe the one about bikes and crosswalks? I dunno, I feel like he and I have developed a nice double act these days. He's just much more subtle about his trolling than I am (which I have to give him credit for).

[Continential]

What is your best "S019, you are the kind of person who..." comment ever, in your opinion?

Maybe the one about bikes and crosswalks? I dunno, I feel like he and I have developed a nice double act these days. He's just much more subtle about his trolling than I am (which I have to give him credit for).

He believes in his views, back when he was a “conservative”, he had a town hall in Atlasia and it was gold

[John Dule]

What is your best "S019, you are the kind of person who..." comment ever, in your opinion?

Maybe the one about bikes and crosswalks? I dunno, I feel like he and I have developed a nice double act these days. He's just much more subtle about his trolling than I am (which I have to give him credit for).

He believes in his views, back when he was a “conservative”, he had a town hall in Atlasia and it was gold

Wow, that thread is an absolute goldmine of blind obedient authoritarian gibberish.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Do you have an opinion on Hugo Grotius?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I want you to know that I didn't stop our convo... I had an effortpost that evaporated, and I haven't been browsing the Forum via laptop recently.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Aight Dule, I feel I owe you some sort of fuller reply:

Neuromancer: Considered one of the foundational pieces of media for cyberpunk, it centers as I recall around a hacker who joins up with a criminal group in order to fund some sort of medical procedure or enhancement.

Cyberpunk: I don't know that I could consider it fully distinct from science fiction--casting the latter as a broader genre in which cyberpunk is nested as a sub-genre. I view it as a form of sci-fi that places emphasis on (a) potentially growing or incipient present-day social problems; (b) visually-speaking, a lot of darkness juxtaposed with neon lights; (c) urban environments with seedy underbellies; (d) body enhancements and virtual reality; and (e) often some form of detective story, or a plot that in some other way involves crime, the state, big business, and so on.

Archer: I tend to treat Archer as having three eras thus far. What I consider the "golden age" of seasons 1-4, and then two subsequent periods of declining quality in seasons 5-7 and then seasons 8-10. 10, while still in the "dream sequence" series of seasons, experienced what I considered a notable uptick in quality, with consistent humor throughout and references I could appreciate. I think S11 may be coming out by now so I should find a way to watch it.

Bone: This is a fortunate coincidence. I reread Bone over the summer, the first time I'd touched it since I finished(?) the series years ago. So far as I was aware until recently, my brother was the only other person I knew who'd heard of Bone.

Newspaper Comics: I haven't regularly read newspaper comics in ages, but late 1980s Bloom County was hysterical. I picked up a compilation of ~1987 Bloom County from an antique store when I was in high school and it was a riot--heavy metal hearings, shady trades with the Russians, and so on. Doonesbury is I feel possibly up there, though I couldn't tell you for sure given my perceptions of it during the late Bush era were tinged by my own politics. That said, I enjoyed the style in which Bush was presented in his final years--a battered, damaged Roman helmet. Calvin & Hobbes is of course a classic, and back in the day my brother and I pooled our resources and bought the complete set. One too many readings of it while eating cereal damaged the books as I recall. Might be something worth investing in repurchasing...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What is your best "S019, you are the kind of person who..." comment ever, in your opinion?

Maybe the one about bikes and crosswalks? I dunno, I feel like he and I have developed a nice double act these days. He's just much more subtle about his trolling than I am (which I have to give him credit for).

He believes in his views, back when he was a “conservative”, he had a town hall in Atlasia and it was gold

Wow, that thread is an absolute goldmine of blind obedient authoritarian gibberish.

Supporting warrantless strip searches of schoolchildren...oof. Talk about an authoritarian NUT position.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What is your best "S019, you are the kind of person who..." comment ever, in your opinion?

Maybe the one about bikes and crosswalks? I dunno, I feel like he and I have developed a nice double act these days. He's just much more subtle about his trolling than I am (which I have to give him credit for).

He believes in his views, back when he was a “conservative”, he had a town hall in Atlasia and it was gold

Wow, that thread is an absolute goldmine of blind obedient authoritarian gibberish.

Supporting warrantless strip searches of schoolchildren...oof. Talk about an authoritarian NUT position.

Holy Hell, I don't know if I've every loved Mr. Reactionary so much.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

What is your best "S019, you are the kind of person who..." comment ever, in your opinion?

Maybe the one about bikes and crosswalks? I dunno, I feel like he and I have developed a nice double act these days. He's just much more subtle about his trolling than I am (which I have to give him credit for).

He believes in his views, back when he was a “conservative”, he had a town hall in Atlasia and it was gold

Wow, that thread is an absolute goldmine of blind obedient authoritarian gibberish.

Supporting warrantless strip searches of schoolchildren...oof. Talk about an authoritarian NUT position.

Holy Hell, I don't know if I've every loved Mr. Reactionary so much.

Getting criticized ""from the left"" (scary quotes) by someone who goes by the name of Mr. Reactionary is quite an achievement.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Did you concentrate or lean towards any particular sub-discipline of political science while at UCB? Based on what you post, I'm guessing it was political theory, though maybe dabbling in comparative politics/political economy.

[John Dule]

Did you concentrate or lean towards any particular sub-discipline of political science while at UCB? Based on what you post, I'm guessing it was political theory, though maybe dabbling in comparative politics/political economy.

Dang, I forgot this thread was here. Anyways, you're spot-on; I focused in political theory but also took classes in PoliEcon and statistics. I also took a number of international politics classes, though mostly because I was interested in specific regions/countries, not because I wanted to focus on IP as a major. Hardest class I took in the Poli Sci department was easily Data Analysis and Quantitative Methods; that shit is bananas.

[Kingpoleon]

Dang, I forgot this thread was here. Anyways, you're spot-on; I focused in political theory but also took classes in PoliEcon and statistics. I also took a number of international politics classes, though mostly because I was interested in specific regions/countries, not because I wanted to focus on IP as a major. Hardest class I took in the Poli Sci department was easily Data Analysis and Quantitative Methods; that shit is bananas.

Are you familiar with Nassim Taleb’s work and his commentary on statistics and economists? If so, do you generally agree with his takes there?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Did you concentrate or lean towards any particular sub-discipline of political science while at UCB? Based on what you post, I'm guessing it was political theory, though maybe dabbling in comparative politics/political economy.

Dang, I forgot this thread was here. Anyways, you're spot-on; I focused in political theory but also took classes in PoliEcon and statistics. I also took a number of international politics classes, though mostly because I was interested in specific regions/countries, not because I wanted to focus on IP as a major. Hardest class I took in the Poli Sci department was easily Data Analysis and Quantitative Methods; that shit is bananas.

Haha, I'd say you should consider yourself lucky to have been challenged in undergrad. Most of what I know is from my own recognizance; part of the reason I want to go into higher education.

[John Dule]

Dang, I forgot this thread was here. Anyways, you're spot-on; I focused in political theory but also took classes in PoliEcon and statistics. I also took a number of international politics classes, though mostly because I was interested in specific regions/countries, not because I wanted to focus on IP as a major. Hardest class I took in the Poli Sci department was easily Data Analysis and Quantitative Methods; that shit is bananas.

Are you familiar with Nassim Taleb’s work and his commentary on statistics and economists? If so, do you generally agree with his takes there?

I haven't read his books, but I am familiar with Black Swan theory and (from what I've gleaned) the arguments he makes are sound. Building a "robust society" that can withstand these kinds of things is easier said than done, though. I acknowledge that part of the problem with a libertarian state is that it lacks the resources and efficiency to quickly confront these kinds of crises when they arise. In order to deal with Black Swan events in the long term, we have to rethink the basics of how our hierarchies operate.