You can see the most recently posted comments here, 24 at a time; or, if you prefer, we've got a news feed...
-
Dan H on Return to the Island of the Apes
at 17:16 on 24-11-2013 - link
It sounds simultaneously awesome and fraught with potential utter failure (Reilly, ISTR, is not that hot on portraying other cultures, so I wouldn't really expect a sensitive and nuanced portrayal of the Ottoman Empire).
On Reilly in general, I seem to recall that we found with Contest that his writing very frequently occupies a difficult borderline between "so bad it's funny" and "so bad it just really isn't very good." -
Dan H on Great Social And Political Import
at 17:08 on 24-11-2013 - link
Sorry to double-reply, but I'm actually a little bit angry here. I'm also rather bothered by this:
Also, I can think of over a dozen bisexual characters of varying degrees of monogamousness on just my favourite 5 or 6 shows, even if most of them are just token bisexual and really lean more gay or hetero in the depicted relationships. But I can think of no positive (i.e. not evil) polyamourous characters in mainstream fiction besides Jack Harkness (and maybe the Doctor). So can you give the more marginalised group this one, please?
Firstly, I am not really sure that categorising groups as "more" or "less" marginalised is really appropriate. It seems perilously close to oppression olympics.
Secondly, even if it were appropriate to rank the marginalisation of different marginalised groups (and as I say, I am really not convinced it is) I really don't think "number of portrayals on TV shows" is a good way to do it. I'm pretty sure I can think of ten times as many positive portrayals of black people in mainstream TV shows as I can positive portrayals of people who play MMORPGs. Does this mean that MMO players are more marginalised than black people? - Arthur B on Great Social And Political Import at 16:49 on 24-11-2013 - link I would also point out that you can frame monogamy so that it's not so much about claiming rights over someone else's body so much as asserting rights over your own. "I'm only going to give you access to my soft bits in the context of a monogamous relationship" is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, and saying that people who genuinely feel that way are misguided and should reconsider their preferences in favour of something more acceptable to you opens a whole world of ugly doors. If you're saying it's OK to challenge people for being monogamous, it becomes more difficult to turn around and say that it isn't OK to challenge other aspects of people's preferences.
-
Dan H on Great Social And Political Import
at 16:24 on 24-11-2013 - link
I'd also dispute the idea of monogamy as selfish. The problem there seems like mismatched expectations, rather. Surely it is also - in a sense - selfish for a person to engage in multiple concurrent relationships despite knowing that this will cause their partner(s) pain.
I very much agree with this. The idea that expecting your partner to respect the parameters of your relationship is somehow "selfish" is one I find more than a little offensive.
My former (and in fact late) housemate spent some time in a polyamorous relationship that she did not want to be in, because her partner didn't want to stop having sex with other women. As far as I know this wasn't a particularly central part of his sexuality or sexual identity.
The whole situation caused her *immense* emotional distress (at a time in her life when she was also dealing with clinical depression and suicidal tendencies). Do you really want to tell me that *she* was the one who was behaving selfishly in that relationship? -
Sonia Mitchell on Return to the Island of the Apes
at 22:04 on 22-11-2013 - link
Well, now I'm just disappointed. Cyber gorillas sounded like a great Reilly tool.
I was greatly cheered by the summary of his latest, however.
The Tournament.The year is 1546.
Suleiman the Magnificent, the powerful and feared Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, issues an invitation to every king in Europe:
YOU ARE INVITED TO SEND YOUR FINEST PLAYER TO COMPETE IN A CHESS TOURNAMENT TO DETERMINE THE CHAMPION OF THE KNOWN WORLD.
The English delegation – led by esteemed scholar Roger Ascham – journeys to the glittering city of Constantinople. Accompanying Ascham is his pupil, Bess, who is about to bear witness to events she never thought possible.
For on the first night of the tournament, a powerful guest of the Sultan is murdered, and against the backdrop of the historic event, Ascham is tasked with finding the killer.
Barbaric deaths, unimaginable depravity and diplomatic treachery unfold before Bess’ eyes, indelibly shaping her character and determining how she will perform her future role… as Queen Elizabeth I.
EVEN A PAWN CAN BECOME A QUEEN
I really don't know where to begin commenting on that. -
Daniel F on Great Social And Political Import
at 02:17 on 22-11-2013 - link
Feel free to call me out here, but I can't help but understand it as inherently problematic to set about categorising people into those who are 'naturally polyamorous' and those who are 'naturally monogamous'. Not only am I pretty sure that people are more complicated than that, part of my understanding of what it is to be in a relationship is to have to make some effort.
That is, to me, there is a difference between affirming that it is natural and healthy to have any number of sexual instincts, and affirming that it is equally healthy to give expression to any or all of them. It seems intuitive, to me, that a person in a monogamous relationship, who consciously wishes to be monogamous, might occasionally feel a desire to sleep with a third party; but that this person also has some moral obligation to refuse that desire. I don't think it's shaming, necessarily, to say that sometimes people have sexual desires that they should not express.
I can't help but be suspicious of a line of argument that starts by distinguishing between 'them' and 'your kind'. Whatever tendencies exist are surely - as Janne points out - much vaguer than that?
I'd also dispute the idea of monogamy as selfish. The problem there seems like mismatched expectations, rather. Surely it is also - in a sense - selfish for a person to engage in multiple concurrent relationships despite knowing that this will cause their partner(s) pain. The distinction drawn seems to be about whether a person can have a right over someone else's body, but - to me, personally - I can't help but think that giving someone else a claim on your body is, um, part of what it means to be in a relationship. When it comes down to it, if one person feels that monogamy and some sort of mutual possession of each other's bodies is essential to a relationship, and if another person feels that it is morally wrong to ever make a claim on someone else's body... those two people probably should not be in a relationship.
And as far as bisexuality and stereotypes go, it seems to me that it is a legitimate complaint if bisexuality is universally associated with promiscuity. If I were bisexual, I can imagine being very irritated by it. -
Janne Kirjasniemi on Return to the Island of the Apes
at 15:23 on 21-11-2013 - link
Schofield:
"I hate every ape I see,
from chimpan-a to chimpan-z,
no you'll never make a monkey out of me."
*Gets zapped with a beam that causes the chip to malfunction*
"Oh my god! I was wrong,
I was an ape all along.
You finally made a monkey..."
gorillas:
"Yes we finally made a monkey..."
Schofield&gorillas:
"You finally made a monkey out of meeeee..." -
Janne Kirjasniemi on Great Social And Political Import
at 15:15 on 21-11-2013 - link
Also, it might be worthwhile to point out, that while polyamorous people no doubt suffer from prejudice, saying that someone refusing to engage in a polyamorous relationship can surely be something else than jealousy or just selfishness, or maybe such jealousness is not purely a result of prejudice. If polyamorousness is a matter of how a person is, then monoamorousness is too and if such people seek a relationship together, the matter needs to be resolved by the people in question, without either of them having the option to just condemn the others feelings on the matter as selfishness(since a person's needs are selfish anyways, no matter their sexual preferences) and demand them to submit to the others wants. I mean, isn't that the whole problem with shaming, just from another point of view? People seek different things from relationships and if either party has to deny themselves something they want to appease the other then surely that is a problem in itself? Of course compromises need to be made and people will no doubt keep making them, but if polyamorous people have a right to their feelings, then surely so do those with different feelings on the matter. And while systematic abuses or restrictions to people need to be stopped(or removed), regular people will need to come to terms with each other and their various needs and wants.
It is strange though that polyamorousness as such is seen as a binary matter. Like most forms of human sexuality wouldn't it be more like a fluctuating scale? But in any case, perhaps the situation is not improved by just turning the tables but rather more acceptance of our own and other's feelings.
This whole thing about whether bi is poly and whatnot does illuminate the problem of trying to categorize human sexuality into neat categories, when actually the names we use are always just vague groupings of similar seeming behaviour. Which is not really surprising when most of the terms used in the discussion were originally popularized as medicalized terms for sexual deviancy and the neologisms always try their best to sound like the old terms, implicitly validating the existence of these clear distinctions even if the discussion itself seeks to be different. But that is a different matter altogether. -
Arthur B on Return to the Island of the Apes
at 13:14 on 21-11-2013 - link
"No! I must kill the apes" he shouted
The radio said "No, Schofield. You are the apes"
And then Schofield was a gorilla. - https://me.yahoo.com/a/pwQl65QjyO_qKzMVXCk4NkWmA93bTB40uqFXg0tjtoso59j2K3E-#74262 on Return to the Island of the Apes at 11:48 on 21-11-2013 - link This sounds like it would be a much better story with the gorillas as the heroes.
-
Arthur B on Great Social And Political Import
at 09:18 on 21-11-2013 - link
I agree with a lot of your points, Cheriola, but I think it is a slight oversimplification to ascribe the idea that the "promiscuous bisexual" stereotype is negative exclusively to slut-shaming. I mean, the concept does relate to slut-shaming of bisexuals, that's definitely a factor, but I think it is also born in the bizarrely common misconception that bisexuals *can't* be monogamous - that because they can potentially sleep with both men and women, they can't ever be satisfied with just one.
Of course, there's room to discuss whether or not Torchwood makes room for monogamous bisexuals or whether it falls into the "bisexuality is a type of poly" trap, having not seen it I don't know whether it also features happily monogamous bisexual characters. But I don't think objecting to a well-established stereotype of promiscuity means that those who are objecting to that stereotype are themselves engaged in slut-shaming. -
Cheriola on Great Social And Political Import
at 01:46 on 21-11-2013 - link
Also, I know this is necro-ing and probably pointless, but it's a pet-peeve, so please forgive me:
I'm iffy on Jack as a bisexual character. On the one hand, he obviously doesn't discriminate in regards to gender. On the other, he hits on everything that moves, and even when he was in a relationship, he wasn't exactly emotionally faithful.
Wow, slut- and poly-shaming much? First off, the only time Jack was in anything approaching a committed relationship onscreen was during Torchwood season 2 and 3. Do we know he and Ianto had even made any promises of exclusiveness? It's not unusual for an unmarried gay couple to have an open relationship, you know. And even John Barrowman's real-life husband seems perfectly okay with his verbal flirting and chaste kissing. (Apparently they draw the line at french kissing, which Barrowman won't even do for the camera. At least that's what he told Matt Rippy (the 'real' Jack Harkness))
Now, I've given up on Torchwood after the first couple of episodes in the 2. season, so I don't know if Ianto was the jealous type once they got around to talking about their feelings and started having an actual relationship instead of casual office sex. But even if he was: You do realise that you're prioritising one partner's selfishness and possessiveness over the other partner's right to self-determination and you're judging Jack for emotions he can't help feeling, because he's not naturally monogamous and therefore being in love with one person doesn't automatically make him incapable of having romantic and/or sexual feelings for other people.
Yes, I said selfishness - jealousy means not wanting the person you supposedly love to be happy if it's with other people, and not wanting them to spend time and attention on other people, and acting like you have a right to make decisions over their body. It's a controlling impulse born of emotional insecurity (having so little self-worth that you can't trust your partner to enjoy someone else's company and still come back to you) and cultural entitlement. Patriarchal values meant for most of human civilisation that the man owned his wife's sexuality, reproductive capacity and time/attention (love was very much optional until about 200 years ago). And the wife was economically dependent on her husband, so she suffered when he left her or fathered a child with someone else. Though the wife having any moral right to expect her husband to be sexually exclusive is actually a fairly recent cultural development. And since our culture's romantic scripts are still overwhelmingly heteronormative, LGB people sometimes have the same entitlement issues even though it makes little rational sense for them. Plus, lots of people are very insecure and selfish like little kids when it comes to romance, because everything about the way our society teaches teenagers how romance works encourages this kind of behaviour. Just look at YA literature and the ubiquious love triangle. It's all about "You MUST decide between them" and no-one ever asks "Why? Why do I have to suffer losing one positive relationship in my life just because you two can't play nice together?" And almost every show and movie out there acts like jealousy is a cute 'proof of love' and a natural reaction for everyone, and that it's always justified and not at all immature or emotionally abusive, even if it leads the jealous partner to spy on their lover or try to sabotage their opposite gender friendships, good relationships with ex-spouses, or work partnerships. (I was really surprised when the main character of "Defiance" was perfectly willing to accept that his sort-of girlfriend was a sex worker and wasn't going to stop working just because she started a relationship with him. The show even briefly featured a poly married triad in one episode, as a socially accepted option in this fictional world. Though one of the main characters still got rather judgemental about it and the whole thing turned out to be a marriage of convenience situation between one evil woman and two young pretty 'trophy husbands' in need of a meal ticket and possibly more into each other than into her.)
Obviously, cheating by going behind the primary partner's back is extremely unethical, because it endagers your partner's health and life through possible disease transmission. It should be their decision whether or not they consider the outside partner too much of a health risk to continue the primary relationship. And partners who are economically linked (for example through children) have a right to say "I'm not cool with you sleeping with that other person if there's any possibility of another mouth to feed resulting from it."
But no-one, ever, has the right to forbid their partner to have feelings for or spend time with other people - and the attempt to repress these feelings doesn't work anyway, it just leads to resentment.
In this case, if Ianto is insecure enough to require Jack to be exclusive in the later seasons, Jack is clearly indulging him and refraining from having sexual relationships with other people, just like he presumably bowed to poly-phobic social norms when he agreed to say marriage vows sometime during the early 20th century. But you can't expect him to supress who he is - somebody who communicates through flirting due to having been raised in a different culture, and somebody who falls in love / lust easily or just enjoys the banter very much.
Besides, why would you want to burden Ianto with having to fulfil ALL of Jack's physical and emotional needs? In season 1, it certainly seemed like Jack had a much easier time emotionally opening up to and trusting women (Gwen and Tosh) - no wonder, given the masculinity requirements in our culture (i.e. men having trouble offering or responding to emotional intimacy because it's seen as 'girly'); and the fact that Ianto had kept his entire identity a secret and betrayed Jack twice, before they even started officially dating.
If you're naturally monogamous and lose all interest in other people once you fall in love - great! Go for your 'one and done' relationship (hopefully with another monogamous person)! But don't try to force your perspective on life on those who are naturally polyamorous. And do not presume to judge and shame them just because the dominant culture privileges your kind.
And by the way, Jack does not hit on "everything that moves". He seems pretty limited to young and pretty cis men and women and a few, mostly humanoid aliens. He did not appreciate Donna hitting on him, IIRC. In fact, on Torchwood, he's probably the character who sees the least actual action, and he's had remarkably few mentioned lovers for someone with such a long life. (Compared to, say, the "Highlander" immortals. Or the "New Amsterdam" guy and his 609 girlfriends/wives and 63 kids in 400 years.) And just because he happily flirts with a lot of people doesn't mean he actually wants to take them to bed, as well. The show even makes the point that for Jack, flirting is like small-talk.
Yes, I know bisexual people consider the 'promiscuous' bisexual character a negative stereotype. Honestly, that seems like slut-shaming to me. There's nothing inherently negative about promiscuity if it's done ethically, and Jack is the embodiment of the Ethical Slut trope. He never cheats, and his flirting, at least as far as I've seen, is usually refreshingly easy-going, non-harassing and doesn't ping as creepy. (As long as he's not being written by Moffat, though Barrowman did his best to save Jack from character assassination even then.)
Also, I can think of over a dozen bisexual characters of varying degrees of monogamousness on just my favourite 5 or 6 shows, even if most of them are just token bisexual and really lean more gay or hetero in the depicted relationships. But I can think of no positive (i.e. not evil) polyamourous characters in mainstream fiction besides Jack Harkness (and maybe the Doctor). So can you give the more marginalised group this one, please?
(... This got to be a rather longer rant than I initially expected. Sorry. I'm insomniac again.) - Arthur B on Return to the Island of the Apes at 22:52 on 20-11-2013 - link Five Greatest Warriors is part of the series which starts with Seven Ancient Wonders, which I can confirm is stuffed to the gills with silliness.
-
Cheriola on Great Social And Political Import
at 22:37 on 20-11-2013 - link
I was uncomfortable with "Lost Girl" because there was so little reflection about the fact that the main character's superpower was essentially date rape. She forces people who do not want to have sex with her for various reasons (at one point, it was a security guard who was trying to stop her, IIRC) to be irrestibly attracted to her through magic / special body chemistry, and then she sexually assaults them. I mean, you can make a story about that if you want, about how she has to do this to survive, but I would expect an non-villain character to be at least as conflicted about this as your standard woobie vampire. But no, as long as she doesn't kill her victims, it's apparently fair game.
I waited and waited for the show to do some character development in this regard, but then I rage-quit at the end of season 1, because when the main character's boyfriend was assaulted in the same way by her mother (also a succubus; and the boyfriend clearly didn't want to have sex with her), everyone on the show treated this as if he had been cheating. It was all about how horrible this was for the main character and how big it was of her to forgive him. At that point I realised that the writers of this show genuinely don't think it's rape as long as the rapist is a pretty woman.
- Jules V.O. on Peacast X: Cave of Forgotten Themes at 16:19 on 19-11-2013 - link So, the pre-Lindelof script has made its way online. And yep, it makes a *lot* more sense.
- http://scipiosmith.livejournal.com/ on Great Social And Political Import at 18:23 on 18-11-2013 - link I've never actually watched the first episode, so I can't comment there, but I agree that it takes a few episodes to work up a head of steam. The first season steadily improves peaking at either episode six or eight, and subsequent seasons improve on the first in their own way (in particular the Nadia arc in season 2 is a very necessary corrective to Lauren's rather silly 'I sold my freedom for the chance to study the Fae' motivation in season one).
- Robinson L on Great Social And Political Import at 18:06 on 18-11-2013 - link I watched the first two episodes of Lost Girl on Viorica's recommendation, but didn't watch any further because I found those two, well, mediocre and kind of dull. Certainly not bad, and I appreciate all the feminist/queer-friendly stuff, it just didn't suck me in on a narrative level.
-
http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/ on Babylon 3 1/2
at 12:15 on 17-11-2013 - link
"Angel One": that's an interesting case. It's kind of hard to tell what the original intent was beneath the awful writing and execution (combine first season TNG flaws with the kind of drivel Hollywood comes up with when it tries to write matriarchies and the result is not pretty), but unlike "The Outcast," I never got the sense that the episode was trying to argue against the prejudice it reversed. On the contrary, it strikes me as a story that plays into reactionary fears about feminism - if women's lib goes on, men will be locked up in harems, etc.
But who knows, maybe I'm just playing out the dynamic I described in my previous comment and not giving the episode enough credit. But it is such a horrible hour of television, and in some ways so blatantly misogynistic even for its era, that it's hard to believe it was written to make a progressive point.
(Abigail is fine, by the way. I should probably get around to requesting a FB account but I'm too lazy.) -
http://scipiosmith.livejournal.com/ on Great Social And Political Import
at 18:22 on 16-11-2013 - link
can anyone think of any bisexual characters / relationships in fiction that have been well handled?
Just necroing this thread after arriving here via Robinson's B5 comment to mention Bo from [i]Lost Girl[/i], who is definitely helped by the fact that the show is almost structured to support it.
Basically, for those of you who haven't watched (and you should because this is an awesome show) there are four main characters: Bo, a bisexual succubus, Dyson, a burly wolf-man cop, Lauren, a hot blonde doctor and Kenzi, the perky goth girl. There's also Trick, Bo's grandfather, but for obvious reasons he plays no role in the romance plotlines.
Bo sleeps with both Dyson and Lauren at different points in the first three seasons (while I wouldn't describe it as a YA show, there is a YA sensibility to its treatment of romance and none of the three participants in the love triangle stray outside of it for very long), depending on the various upheavals and betrayals of the plot, her emotional commitment to each of them is equally valid and equally strong even when their commitment to her is somewhat more doubtful. She also at least attempts to be monogamous with each of them during their periods together, even when maintaining her fidelity to Lauren causes her to almost die of internal bleeding. Meanwhile Bo's relationship with Kenzi is kept strictly platonic, despite being the most emotionally committed and faithful of all the show's inter-personal relationships, specifically to avoid the 'everything that moves' stereotype.
I'd be amazed if someone here didn't watch it considering it has a very strong female fanbase (I went to meet some of the stars at London Comic-con last month and I was astonished to see fourth fifths of the audience were women) but no one ever brings it up during discussions of shows with feminist-friendly sensibilities. -
Robinson L on Babylon 3 1/2
at 15:06 on 16-11-2013 - link
Dan: Trek writers are on record as observing that they *couldn't* have any openly gay characters on the show, because the only way to have a gay character in a TV show in the 1990s was to have Very Special Episodes About Gayness, which wouldn't have worked in a Trek context.
David Gerrold (to the best of my knowledge, a white queer male) also submitted a script for Next Gen's first season with a gay romance subplot (one of whom dies, and the other probably would've never showed up again), and an AIDS theme. It was rejected for reasons unknown (but feel free to speculate).
(The script was subsequently re-tooled for Star Trek Phase II, but that didn't go so well.)Arthur: (One could lament that the Trek that was all "fuck the police, we're going to show an interracial kiss" was nowhere to be seen in the 1990s.)
Yep, and one could also lament that the J. J. Abrams reboot has, if anything, dropped the ball even more. At least the 90s gave us Commander (later Captain) Sisko.Wrong Questions / Abigail / (How would you like me to refer to you?): That's an occupational hazard with these kinds of reversal of prejudice plots.
Wasn't that (one of) the downfall(s) of the season one episode Angel One? -
http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/ on Babylon 3 1/2
at 10:09 on 12-11-2013 - link
one of those episodes that could very easily be read as making the exact opposite point to the one it sets out to make
That's an occupational hazard with these kinds of reversal of prejudice plots. The implicit assumption is that the audience obviously supports (either explicitly or simply because they've never thought about it) the kind of prejudice being addressed, but that reversing it - white people are the subjects of racism, heterosexual relationships are outlawed - will blow their little minds and force them to reexamine their assumptions. But even leaving aside the fact that a modern audience probably won't share those assumptions, these episodes end up plugging into the persecution complex that a lot of prejudiced people seem to suffer from - the kind of people who see affirmative action as racism against white people, for example. So while an episode like this can encourage empathy and open up new points of view for some people (or maybe did when it was first aired) the fact that it implicitly treats a heterosexual relationship as good (and non-heterosexuals as evil for trying to ban it) starts to feel like it's reinforcing prejudice rather than challenging it. -
Dan H on Babylon 3 1/2
at 20:37 on 11-11-2013 - link
It's pretty cringe-worthy if you watch it now - there's a total failure to separate gender and sexual orientation, the episode is rooted in weirdly regressive ideas about gendered behavior, and the whole thing is pretty much ruined by the choice to cast a woman as the supposedly androgynous love interest
I haven't watched that episode in *years* but while I could see what was *trying* to do, I seem to recall it being one of those episodes that could very easily be read as making the exact opposite point to the one it sets out to make. Although the point of the episode is that it is wrong to persecute a person on the basis of their gender identity/sexuality (as you observe, the episode doesn't really distinguish between the two), I seem to remember it coming across more as suggesting that it is wrong for a society not to include the assumption of binary gender and heteronormative relationships. Of course it has been literally decades since I saw the episode, so I might be misremembering. -
http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/ on Babylon 3 1/2
at 19:34 on 11-11-2013 - link
Indeed I seem to recall that Trek writers are on record as observing that they *couldn't* have any openly gay characters on the show, because the only way to have a gay character in a TV show in the 1990s was to have Very Special Episodes About Gayness, which wouldn't have worked in a Trek context
That's actually what ended up happening on TNG, in the episode in which Riker falls in love with a member of an androgynous species who defines herself, in deviation from the norm, as female. It's pretty cringe-worthy if you watch it now - there's a total failure to separate gender and sexual orientation, the episode is rooted in weirdly regressive ideas about gendered behavior, and the whole thing is pretty much ruined by the choice to cast a woman as the supposedly androgynous love interest (apparently Jonathan Frakes pushed for a man in the role) - but you have to at least acknowledge the good intentions, and the episode's boldness in articulating them. I remember my mother being very moved by the episode when we first watched it.
At the other end of the scale, I know that the TNG production planned to make Geordi gay, but held back either because of their own timidity or interference from higher up. -
Arthur B on Babylon 3 1/2
at 17:22 on 11-11-2013 - link
Although at this point we're basically arguing over which set of heterosexual white men get the most/fewest minority points, which probably isn't a helpful avenue to be going down.
Oh, entirely, I think both shows were both extremely constrained and extremely timid. (One could lament that the Trek that was all "fuck the police, we're going to show an interracial kiss" was nowhere to be seen in the 1990s.)
I guess I think that if shit happens off-screen on a TV show and is subtexted to the point where people can fail to realise it happened (or flatly deny it existed) then that's inherently pushing the envelope less than presenting something which definitely did happen, can't be missed, and which you can't pretend didn't happen, even if the latter is filtered through faily metaphors. But on the other hand, we are still talking about very, very gently pushing the envelope as opposed to shoving it out of the room so nobody gets to claim to be revolutionary here.
