When survival is touted as an aspiration, sacrifice becomes a virtue. But a hero is not a person who suffers. A suffering person is a person who suffers.
If you suffer in the proper way - silently, or with proclaimed fealty to institutions - then you are a hard worker “paying your dues”. If you suffer in a way that shows your pain, that breaks your silence, then you are a complainer - and you are said to deserve your fate.
But no worker deserves to suffer. To compound the suffering of material deprivation with rationalisations for its warrant is not only cruel to the individual, but gives exploiters moral licence to prey.
Individuals internalise the economy’s failure, as a media chorus excoriates them over what they should have done differently. They jump to meet shifting goalposts; they express gratitude for their own mistreatment: their unpaid labour, their debt-backed devotion, their investment in a future that never arrives.
And when it does not arrive, and they wonder why, they are told they were stupid to expect it. They stop talking, because humiliation is not a bargaining chip. Humiliation is a price you pay in silence - and with silence.
People can always make choices. But the choices of today’s workers are increasingly limited. Survival is not only a matter of money, it is a matter of mentality - of not mistaking bad luck for bad character, of not mistaking lost opportunities for opportunities that were never really there.
I think five years ago you probably peaked and now you’re waiting around wondering if something’s going to happen before it gets embarrassing. Am I right?
You don’t think you can do it. You think it’s over and you’re afraid to try. I mean, that’s normal, I’ve seen it. And I’ve seen it turn around.
Look, Louie. We’re talking about the big game here so I’m gonna use big terms…. You’re circling failure in a rapidly decaying orbit. That’s the reality we’re talking now. But you can change that. It’s in your power to change that. Yes, you’ll have to work hard, you’ll have to do things you haven’t done before. And still, your chances are very slim. But you could change it. I’m gonna ask you one more time: David Letterman is retiring. Do you want his job?
Louie S3E10: Late Show (Part I)
The “Get Out of Comics, Free” Card, which we gave out to creators at cons in the 90’s. If you’ve seen if before, just kindly ignore…
Anonymous asked: It was nice of them to finally give Pantha an origin after she died.
To be honest, Anon, Pantha’s origin kinda annoys me because
WHY WAS IT IN AN ALTERNATE TIMELINE!?
1. It may not be the same in the main timeline. Details can differ between timelines so there’s a possibility hers might. In fact, it did change one of the few things that was known about her main timeline origin (alt she’s a failed Wildebeest Society experiment, main she was the only successful one).
2. Main timeline Pantha might have never found out who she was. Which would be frustrating enough anyway but is made even more so because that was her fear. ;-;
3. They killed her again in the alt timeline. >:(
They could have revealed her origin in the main timeline. Or maybe have Booster (who met her alt timeline self) realize main Pantha didn’t know her origin so he goes to at least tell Red Star and Red Star can say that main Pantha had already learned it. Or had the Redthabeest family interaction they were planning for Blackest Night and have somebody mention her origin. Any of those would have been better. Plus not killing her off again (or in the first place).
What’s more is that it’s almost the laziest way to attempt to fix the huge mistake they made.
It’s two panels, all in exposition. That’s it. And why the hell was it decided to let Green Arrow, for some reason, tell her entire story? They couldn’t bother putting Pantha in her own story to show (that would take too much precious effort, I assume) her origin, so they just drop a talking head into this other Booster Gold/Blue Beetle one to tell it for her and be done with it. They were more concerned with the busy work of tying up loose ends in continuity. And it doesn’t help the problem with diversity in superhero comics when she’s still dead in the comics and only widely known for an infamously humiliating death.
It’s less a benevolent gesture as it is a dashed-off attempt to cover one’s own ass.
If depression were as physically evident as, say, a broken limb or cancer, it would be easier to talk about. The pain could be marked, quantified, obvious to the observer. You would feel justified in saying, “I’m sorry that I haven’t returned your email but you can see the huge hole in the center of me, and I’m afraid it has made such dialogue impossible.” But the stigma of depression is that it comes with the sense that you shouldn’t have it to begin with. That it is self-indulgence or emotional incompetence rather than actual illness. This brings on attendant feelings of shame and self-loathing, which only exacerbate the pain, isolation, and hopelessness of the condition. “I cannot share this,” the depressed person thinks. “It is too embarrassing, too shameful.” And so, you swallow it down, until it feels that your heart is a trapped bird beating frantic wings against the pain you’ve shoved up against it. Depression isn’t like being sad or blue or wistful. It is crippling. It is a constant whine in your head, making it hard to hear yourself think.
The other trouble is that it is often incredibly difficult to articulate the pain you feel. Words prove inadequate, and the distance they must travel from this deep well of grief and loneliness up to your mouth seems impossible to traverse. It is miles and miles of no-man’s land. How can you communicate something so without form? Depression is a vengeful ghost you see from the corner of your eye always but you know that no one else can see it. So how do you alert anyone to its presence in the room?
That’s pretty much how it is.
I’ve discussed before how Dan Harmon (creator of Community, co-writer for Monster House) has distilled the Joseph Campbell’s Monomyth into a very basic tool for describing the arcs of a story. Harmon prefers to see his story structure as a circle, whereas I believe that it is in fact a Cosine Wave. Since I’ve posted the above gif I’ve gotten quite a few notes about it and I thought I’d expand on my idea of why Harmon’s circle best fits a Cosine.
Hey, maniac, every point that travels the circumference of a circle can also be mapped to a cosine wave
Anyway, you should get into Dan Harmon’s story circles (“embryos”, as he calls them). All screenwriting principles you get taught are just tools, and like all tools you can use them as much or as little as needed, but Harmon’s circle technique has really helped me become a better writer.
Plotted out as a wave, it reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut’s story graphs:
Kesh Angels by Hassan Hajjaj
Photo Source: Elitism
Another photo gallery: OkayAfrica
Marking the artist’s first exhibition in New York, ‘Kesh Angels presents a unique take on the vibrant street culture of Morocco and pays tribute to the biker culture of the young women of Marrakesh in a series of photographs, limited edition objects, an installation, and a video.