All Art is Political, but not all art is Partisan.

All Art is Political in the sense that all Art will reflect the politics of the time and culture that created it in some way, especially if it’s actively trying not to. What is perceived as Apolitical says a lot about the politics of a given time or culture. 

The conservatives who object to that statement do so because they can only see art as political when it’s loudly taking a side on an actively contentious contemporary political issue.  Which is what I mean by “Partisan” here, might not be the best word to use but it's what I could think of. Because I'm willing to count as "Partisan" here stuff that does condemn both sides depending on how it goes about it, or refuses to fully demonize the other. 

However Conservatives are not the only ones getting the true meaning of “All art is political” wrong. Because a lot of Breadtubers are often citing the true definition only to then justify their very Partisan political reading of something as objectively undeniably the only correct reading. 

This obsession with trying to tell all the reactionaries of the Internet that whatever they are nostalgic for was "always Woke actually" is very misguided. Because even when it is somewhat true it is so usually because of how a lot of what was Woke when the original Star Trek series was airing has become the mostly uncontested Apolitical Status Quo since. 

Most mass produced highly popular Art is pretty broadly Centrist in the grand scheme of things even when taking a few actually Partisan stances. And most Art that is made by Conservatives are not like the cartoonish virtue signaling content Breadtubers dunk on to “prove” all Conservative Art is bad, most of it is actually pretty good at drawing on where in theory Leftists agree with them.

As a Death of the Author advocate, I firmly believe you can make a plausible Woke reading of just about anything. And I believe we should make those readings and keep making YT videos based on them. But those are not objectively the only correct way to read them and we shouldn't pretend they are.  

And the most almost actually Leftist stuff Hollywood has made like Andor can still be read by Conservatives as supporting their world view in ways that engage with the actual text just as much as our reading does, like Feral Historian's Andor videos.  We can’t call it denying reality when they do it but sophisticated analysis when we do it. 

I’ve even seen Breadtubers try to claim Tolkien was Woke actually, and I’m sorry but that’s absurd, being less Racist then the Nazis does not a Woke person create.  

If Ayn Rand hadn’t been so vocal about her politics in non fiction contexts I’m convinced there absolutely would be a group of Internet Leftists arguing her fictions were Woke actually.  Or at the very least if we only had The Fountainhead to go off, a Woke reading of The Fountainhead is absolutely theoretically possible. 

All the time I see people just using the fact that a given story has Nazis be the bad guys as their proof that it's Woke. And every time I feel like yelling “you know better than this”, you know that most Nazi villains in fiction are disconnected from why we Leftists consider them the ultimate Evil and are just being used as symbols of vague Authoritarianism, or purely for the aesthetic. You know full well that Conservatives are constantly calling Leftists the real Nazis. 

Sometimes just the simple fact that a Fantasy or Sci-Fi narrative is doing Rebels against an Empire is seen as an inherently Left Wing position to take  But when these same people are looking at real life history they know better, they know sometimes the Rebels are the Reactionaries, The Confederate States of America, The Beer Haul Putsch, January 6th, Bacon's Rebellion ect.  And sometimes even a person literally holding the title of King or Emperor is, on the issue that created the conflict, more in agreement with modern Leftists then those deposing him, like Pedro II of Brazil in 1889. 

We all know full well that nominally Left Wing Dictators have also worn military uniforms and done big showy military parades.  So let’s stop pretending we don’t and that those visuals are only ever about Fascism ™.

And there is also more to Anticapitalism than just “Rich People Bad”, as someone who has heard people all over the Political Spectrum talk about their perspectives I can assure you that most Conservatives and even most Libertarians firmly believe that the vast majority of Rich People are Evil.  The political disagreement is mainly about what policies serve their interests.  And if you think that is too absurd to be true in some cases, let me give you this very enlightening example.  

I have seen Climate Change Deniers claim that it is specifically the Big Oil Companies who created the Global Warming narrative and fund environmentalist groups opposed to Fracking and Offshore drilling because it helps them control the market and drive up Oil Prices to not be drilling for Oil domestically.

Noel Kahn

A Video I added to my Youtube Chanel recently

Star Wars: Into Darkness

I've seen a lot of people praising how Abrams has been revealing so little in the trailers for The Force Awakens,  Like BrosWatchPLLToo.  And in so doing being quite condescending to people who would like more to be revealed.  Saying this is how it should be.

Problem is, this is in fact the exact same thing Abrams did with Star Trek: Into Darkness.  Choosing to never actually reveal who the Villain was before it came out.

The thing about that is I felt confident all the people speculating it was Kahn were wrong, because to me there was no logic in hiding it if it was Kahn, making who the villain is a twist would be worth it if it was someone hardcore Trek fans knew but not so much the general public, or at least a villain who'd never been in a movie before.  Of if you did want to do it with an Icon like Kahn then don't give away that the villain is a mystery, he should have promoted the film with the stuff about the movie's other Villain then Khan being relevant could make a decent twist but still not a great one.

Now I don't hate Into Darkness as a movie, when I finally saw it on DVD I found it better then I expected.  But like the prior film I like far less, it still did not feel a True Trek film to me, and what was Trekish about it was all via rehashing what came before.  Like Nemesis it aped Wrath of Kahn, and the things about the movie that weren't like TWOK, dealing with corruption in Starfleet, felt like a DS9 plot being done with pale imitations of TOS cast.  But I can understand why the general Public thought that was something Trek never explored before, and maybe Abrams was one of those.

I know the trendy thing online is to complain about Trailers revealing too much.  Well I did a post on that before, and I guess you can consider this a follow up.

When a movie is supposed to breath new life into an old franchise, I want to be reassured there will be something truly new.  I don't want to know the whole plot, but some reassurance that the movie isn't running solely on mechanically churning out more of what we've seen before.

Jurassic World's trailers kept plenty from the audience, but made it absolutely clear we were seeing something different.  And it was able to provide that Nostalgia factor at the same time.

So what I've learned from Into Darkness is that trailers trying too hard to hide what the movie is about, are hiding that they have no real creativity.  And TFA being the same director means it's not likely to be an exception.

I'm a Prequel fan, I don't care if TFA throws any bones for Prequel fans, I've said before the test of the new Movie is if it can bring in new fans.  But what that does make me though is someone who can provide somewhat more of an outside perspective on these trailers.  The people who worship the OT as God's Gift to Mankind keep going on about how these trailers were soooooo awesome and mind blowing.  To me the teasers were adequate teasers, but for a full trailer this latest one did not strike a cord with me at all.  I can honestly say I'm less sure I'll bother to see the movie then I was yesterday.

I know, people love to mock those who threaten to not see something.  Well I'm not making any threats, I'm just saying I have opted out of seeing sequels to movies I liked in theaters often. And right now I might not be able to afford to see TFA even if I 100% wanted to.  I greatly fear I may lack the finances to see BvS in March, which is the movie I want to see more then any other.  So I may very well decide not to waste money on a film in December that is sending me all the wrong messages.

So far all I get from the trailers is a bunch of obvious OT Nostalgia , a female lead who was clearly cast at least partly for her resemblance to Portman and Fisher, two villains who people think are "Soooo Cool" because they were masks, just like Vader and Boba Fett.  And some narrators saying lines they clearly wish they had Alec Guinness to say.

The only things remotely innovative are the Cross Guard Lightsaber, a few new Droid designs, and having a male lead who's African American.  I find it interesting how all the people complaining about Boyega being Black are also Prequel haters.  It reaffirms my suspicions that Prequel haters simply hate change.

Gundam 00 and Classic Science Fiction

Gundam 00 is the only Gundam series I've watched thus far.  I first checked it out when the SciFi channel aired Anime on Monday nights years ago.  I wish they'd bring that back.  I only recently completed it however.

I know enough vaguely about Gundam to know that it does not seem very representative of the Franchise in general.  It's not part of the original Continuity, and is the first to use dates clearly linkable to our real life calendar.

I enjoy it for reasons similar to why Code Geass is one of my favorite Animes.  Tense battles, complicated geo-politics, with good people on each side and moral ambiguity.  And lots of eccentric and quirky interesting characters.

What I want to comment on today is how Gundam 00 draws inspiration from a lot of classic works of Western Science Fiction.

Another thing it has in common with Code Geass is it clearly modeled it's 3 major Superpowers after the three Geroge Orwell envisioned in 1984.  These aren't nearly so blatantly Dystopic however.  The main variation is both put Japan (the native country of their creators) in Oceania rather then Eastasia.  Why (in universe) it's there is different however, in Code Geass it's conquered by Britannia, but in Gundam 00 Japan being in the Union seems much more consensual.

The logic behind putting Japan in the same Power Block as America, rather then with China and Russia I fully get, Japan has becomes a very Westernized and particularly Americanized nation.  Thing is that same logic in my mind ought to put South Korea with them as well, but Korea seems to be ignored in Anime.

I also recently before revisiting Gundam 00 began familiarizing myself with Isaac Aismov's Foundation series.  And immediately I thought of Aeolia Shenberg as Hari Seldon's plan was revealed.  That's largely what inspired me to return to Gundam 00.

But what's really meaty is all the Arthur C Clarke.  Clarke interests me, even though I firmly reject the logic behind Clarke's third law.

The first Clarke connection is of course the Orbital Elevators which are evocative of The Fountains of Paradise.  It's a shame more writers don't draw on that concept, a Christian writer drawing on Biblical Themes could easily go for a Tower of Babel reference with one.

Throughout Series 2 as the metaphysical and Trans-humanist aspects of the story became more and more apparent, I started wondering whether or not a comparison to works like Childhood's End would be accurate.  Then the series ended with a quick little promo for the movie saying that "Humanity's childhood is about to end", so that settled that.

In the Movie, the ESLs have a Lovecraftian vibe to them at first.  But they ultimately aren't really Evil.  And in the end the 2001 and Childhood's End aspects of the story fully come to fruition.  I also suspect where it ultimately goes is something Gene Roddenberry would appreciate.

So it's an Anime I recommend checking out if your into Hard SciFi.

Tolkien and Final Fantasy

Warning! This post will discus spoilery plot points from some Final Fantasy games.

J.R.R. Tolkien looms over the entire modern Fantasy Genre, and doesn't lack influence on other genres either.  However Japanese RPGs seem to be one corner where Tolkien' influence is mostly indirect, with the key middle man being Tabletop Role Playing Games like Dungeons and Dragons (which originated in my home-state of Wisconsin) and it's imitators.

With Final Fantasy in particular, what's cosmetically Tolkien like about it has decreased heavily since the original game which could have been accused of outright plagiarizing D&D.  And even in that first game the race refereed to as Elves aren't like Tolkien's Elves at all, they are more like Santa's helper Elves.

Still translations of The Hobbit, LOTR and the Silmarilion into Japanese had all been done by 1982.  So the potential for some direct influence isn't impossible.  Generally however Fantasy games in a non RPG format (like Zelda) seem closer to Tolkien to me, maybe simply because the way RPGs use Magick doesn't exactly fit Tolkien's use of it.

With Final Fantasy, what is surprising is that the Final Fantasy game that seems the most like a story I think Tolkien would appreciate, is not one of the classic games with a Medieval High Fantasy setting, but rather Final Fantasy VII, the first futuristic FF game.

Some of that could be because of FFVII's Norse mythology influence.  Midgar and Middle Earth are both names that derive from Midgard.

First of all I think of the Cetra as being the most like Tolkien's Eldar of any race appearing in Final Fantasy.  For starters, Tolkien never described or depicted his Elves as having long pointy ears,.  Physically they look like Humans, though often idealized ones.  Their difference is all in lifespan and a more mystical connection to Arda.  I don't recall if the Cetra had any longer lifespans, but essentially they look like Humans but had a mystical connection to Gaia via the Lifestream.
[Update correction:  I've since learned Tolkien did describe the Elves as having points ears in his letters.]

Aerith is Cetra on her mother's side and human via her father, which fits the pattern of all Tolkien's Half-Elven.  But Tolkien's Human-Elf Maiden pairings always resulted in males, a line mingling descent from both Idril and Luthien happened because Beren and Luthien's son Dior had a daughter, Elwing.

But on a more thematic level.  While I hesitate to label Tolkien completely Anti-Technology, he was very concerned about industrialization, and the fear of nature being harmed by it.  So technology in his Legendarium tends to be villainous, Sauron and Saruman were both Maia of Aule after all.

Final Fantasy VII is likewise very much about fears of technology going wrong and hurting The Earth, with all the SciFi cliches commonly used to symbolize that.  Sephiroth is a Frankenstein Monster, and Shinra is an evil energy company destroying the Earth's life force for profit.  And of course there is a Mad Scientist.

This aspect of FFVII is notable because later FF games particularly X are all about deconstructing and rejecting the technology is bad for nature attitude.  In Final Fantasy X the belief that the evil monster tormenting them is a judgment for their loosing touch with nature by letting technology get out of control is commonplace.  But in fact it's an evil corrupt hypocritical religion (not as Christian as you might assume) advancing that viewpoint.  And in the end they use Technology (Cid's Airship) to help destroy the beast permanently.

One of the reasons I think the story of Final Fantasy X would appeal to Gene Roddenberry.  Another would be destroying a God figure who turns out to be pathetic.  So Final Fantasy VII is for Tolkien fans and X for Star Trek fans (II and XII are for Star Wars and Indiana Jones fans and Tactics is for Game of Thrones fans).

Also the fact that Sephiroth's plan is to sort of merge with the Earth is arguably reminiscent of the premise of Morgoth's Ring.

I want to talk about FFVII's ending, so consider this paragraph another spoiler warning.

That ending where the Meteror is still coming even after they killed Sephiroth fully activating the Holy spell and everything seems hopeless....... then Aerith and the Lifestream suddenly show up to save the day....... is exactly the kind of moment Tolkien coined the term Eucatastrophe for.

Do other FF games have moments that could qualify as a Eucatastrophe?  Eucatastrophes don't lend themselves to Video Games well because we want to feel like the victory is because of the player's work.  In the entire Zelda franchise the only example I can think of is in Wind Waker, when Ganondorf is about to touch The Triforce but somehow out of nowhere The King beats him to it.  (The Rito showing up at the Forsaken Fortress also makes me think of the Eagles).

The only other FF example that even comes close is the end of XIII, and I'm familiar with the endings of I, II, Legend, Mystic Quest, VI, X, X-2, Tactics and XII.