Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.
The Modern Warfare stuff is interesting but the Hulk schtick makes it really hard for me to read articles that long, to be honest. Plus I can't really approach his wider argument because I don't share his axiom of art-as-thematic. I mean, portraits are generally considered to be art, and certainly any definition of art which excluded portraits would seen wobbly, but most of the portraits we have exist because some rich fucker in history decided they wanted an image of themselves to hang on the wall and stare at their grandchildren's grandchildren. Sure, there's portraits which slip in all sorts of allegorical and thematic allusions both to the image the subject wanted to put forth and to wider themes, but there's also really top-notch portraits which are just a well-executed painting of someone from History. Hulk's definition doesn't seem able to handle this unless it's open to themes as thin as "Here is a picture of my employer", at which point "theme" becomes so thin as to be useless.
Also, any consideration of MW which ignores the multiplayer aspect literally discards the very reason the games exist in the first place. It's like analysing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel without paying attention to all the Churchy stuff.
(Also, Excelsior class is best starship. If anyone tells you differently, they're wrong.)
Unfortunately, the film makers were so focused on the spaceship they skimped out on the characters. And the plot. And, well, everything else. It's a shame that a movie this gorgeous looking that does such interesting things with lighting is otherwise completely lifeless. I mean, there's some action sequences jammed in (that I think the film would have been better off without), but it was impossible to feel anything for the characters because the camera kept swinging away to show moar spaceship. I guess I could give +1 for having a non-sexualized female main character in it but we barely learn anything about her and then there's this HILARIOUS bit of space ballet at the end that had me cringing.
So yeah, not recommended unless you really like spaceships.
In 1999 Bacigalupi also wrote this, so here's to his consistent racism.
This is why we can't have nice things and this is why, despite the ridiculous brouhaha of racefail '09, the genre is still not a safe and comfortable place for me to navigate.
Really? I'd heard amazing things about Bacigalupi and that work specifically from one of my professors (who's African American, female, and got her degree in the 60s/70s, so I'm surprised to hear that it's racist).
At a guess? It's because she's not SE Asian. Being of color isn't a monolith, you know.
May I introduce you to Texts From Bennett? The titular Bennett is a wonderful, glorious human being. By which I mean "a foul-mouthed fool".
Goddamn I'm stupid.