Ibibio Sound Machine and Meshuggah

For some reason, I don’t mind talking about TV and Movies at all, and no worry that I am holding myself out as anything other than an enthusiast of TV and Movies.  And yet when it comes to music, I have really anxiety around talk and writing.  I think this comes down to a lack of language to distinguish between the terms.  I know I don’t always use the right word, but mostly I can make myself understood when it comes to the parts; plot, tone, character, etc, and those fit together.  Music is different. I know what a verse and a chorus, that’s really it.  And forget talking about individual instruments and how they work together.  But I love music so much, and I am listening to it a lot, so I think I just have to get over it and talk about what I like.  So I know nothing, but there’s my thoughts on two albums I have been enjoying.

Ibibio Sound Machine are an afro-funk group with a lot of…techno I guess in the mix.  Unless Afro-funk is a type of techno, then it’s just Afro-funk.  I should do research I suppose, but this is already hard with my aphasias and everything.  So, it is a Afro-funk techno/electronica thing coming from Britain, not I don’t know where each member calls home.   Ibibio is a language, and the album switch’s Ibibio, English and pidgin English similar to a lot of UK Grime.  The combination of old-school drums, synthesizes and bass guitar works so well, it’s punchy in the high energy song, and smooth in the more downbeat tracks.  Lyrically, of course if it’s dealing with racial themes from start to finish, but it’s a celebration of those themes too, as in the title track’s chorus: 

What does it mean to me?

All these words

Big, big English, big, big grammar

All these words

Mean so much to some people

To me, it’s all the same

Let me speak from the heart, without love

There’s no, no, no electricity

Let me speak from the heart, without love

There’s no, no, no electricity

I think you could see that as half-empty I guess, but to me, the band is bringing the electricity in spades, the music is just fun. That gives everything an air of positivity throughout.  I will need a lot of listens to really get the nuance, but sonically I love this album.  I can’t speak to the technical ability really, but everyone in the band *SEEMS* good, and the production is good.  That’s all I can really say.  I think overall this is a genre that maybe less people have experienced, it’s a lot of fun, sounds good and it’s produced well.  I recommend this album!

And so now we come to Meshuggah.  I am aware that always no one reading this is interested in metal, especially a very grinding, often miserable type of metal.  I have always been aware of Meshuggah, aware they were big in the death metal circles, but back in the day that wasn’t really my sub-genre of choice.  These days I am enjoying a much wider spread of sounds.  When I looked into Meshuggah, I found out they are also huge in prog-metal, which I don’t even know existed.  Even more strange, historically I haven’t enjoyed using the descriptor prog-thing, so finding this album was a real change of pace.  

Death metal is a bleak genre, and when I do listen to it, I often pick something that has an edge of silly to undercut it.  But when something is done this well, I tend to enjoy it, even if it’s miserable.  Besides, having a sense of misery expressed for you in music can be very cathartic!  

I think if you aren’t already into death metal, this album isn’t going to change your mind, and if you are, you don’t need me to tell you about Meshuggah.  So this isn’t a review aren’t.  Again, I think technically, I think this really good, again that’s based on nothing.  But if it feels like good music, played really well.  

Both Meshuggah and Ibibio Sound Machine are albums outside my usual wheelhouse, and I think that’s great. I never want to stop finding new sounds. Thanks for reading my ramble.

Tagged , , ,

My Life Last Month

I’ve been a little out of touch of everyone for a month or so. I had a hard month emotionally with stuff, but have ended up with a relatively good result. A last month we were told that the MRI results have indicated changes in my brain and it was possible what was happening was new tumour growth, and that the chemotherapy I was going through had become ineffective. And beyond that, if that was the case, it seemed likely that the brain cancer had progressed from Stage 3 to Stage 4, which is why the chemo wasn’t controlling it anymore. It was a hard thing to hear, and we to schedule another MRI or a different kind to get a better picture. As we were waiting for the result, I was noticing more symptoms, like numbness in my extremities and increase in word-finding difficulties, and writing and video games got significantly more difficult. All of it made me think I would looking at the worst outcome from the scans, just because it seemed like things were progressing.

Luckily, today we got very good new, as there was no sign of tumour progression. Obviously I’m not across the full technical details, but my understanding of what the doctor has said was the, “muddy brain scans” are more than likely the result of “tumour necrosis,” which is basically the more sinister term for good news. It basically means the tumour cells were dying, as they die they create swelling around the brain, which is why I have seeing more symptoms. The other option is that there aren’t more tumour cells left, and the “muddy scan” is due to the chemo drugs are inflaming scarring in the brain. Either way, the next steps are continue with the chemo I’m on, plus a course of steroids to calm down the swelling enough to hopefully get a clearer picture.

In some ways it’s a return to a normal holding pattern. I’m not being told I’m cancer free, and I am experiencing symptoms which are making life difficult at the moment, especially not being able to access even more of my former hobbies. But a return to therapy as normal, with a doctor who is invested, clear and compassionate is make a huge difference and I feel like I have dodged a huge bullet. I was honestly starting to trying what I will do if I just had a few years left of my life. This is definitely better. I hope I will be able to engage with my friends again, to experience joy with people soon. I just wanted to let everyone, whether they noticed or not that I sort of ghosted, that that’s what has going on and I’m feeling a lot better now. Love you all 🙂

Thoughts on WandaVision

SPOILERS: WandaVision

WandaVision was an extremely frustrating experience for me overall. To be honest, some of it is probably related to the fact that I have no real experience of the characters of Wanda or Vision up until this point. Somewhere around the first Avengers movie and Captain America: Winter Soldier is where I mostly disengaged from Marvel. After that, I did see Thor: Ragnarok because I love Taika Waititi, and I believe some friends took me to Infinity War. And I sort of half-watched Endgame while doing something else just to see how the whole “Phase 1” thing ended. Wanda and Vision were in that, but there are so many characters in Infinity War and Endgame. They’re pretty much relying on the fact you know the characters from the other movies. So yes, I did go into WandaVision with no real knowledge of the characters in the movies. I figured I knew enough from the comics; I would be okay. I just wanted to mention it.

But I think I would be frustrated either way, and that mostly comes down to the disconnect between my expectations – or really my hopes for the show – and what I got. At the end of the day, I can’t really be too mad at that. It’s mostly a self-inflicted problem. When I started WandaVision, I didn’t know what I was going to get, what sort of show it is, other than some general buzz around the way it was playing with TV conventions. Given how addicted to TV I am, I was definitely going to try it eventually. And I was really impressed with the first two episodes, and I could see what they were doing and how it could be a really, really interesting show.

What I started to get really excited about was the tight, focused exploration of grief, with a meta-narrative examining various TV conventions. I’ll add an extra level of meta into the conversation by quoting a line from one of my favourite TV shows, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend:

“Life is a gradual series of revelations that occur over a period of time. It’s not some carefully crafted story, it’s a mess and we’re all going to die. If you saw a movie that was like real life, you would be like, ‘What the hell was that movie about? It was really all over the place.’ Life doesn’t make narrative sense.”

I have always loved that quote because it’s pretty true that in general, when we watch TV shows and movies, we’re not generally experiencing the reality presented to us in a critical way. So much of our art and entertainment is designed to trick you into forgetting that you are watching something because it FEELS real, so long as you don’t think about it. Wanda creates these realities where everything is fine, only for them to fall apart because one idea of what life is – whether we’re talking about a TV show or an emotional shell where you deal with grief – can really only exist for a short period of time before you have to deal with the reality. Or change the channel, AKA pick another false reality to help you cope. And this works for the character of Vision in this sense too, because in this circumstance, the character of Vision isn’t actually Vision, but a complicated facsimile of Vision created by Wanda. Wanda has such a close, intimate understanding of Vision that for a while you can still pretend it’s real. But eventually, the cracks will show, and reality sets it. Vision becoming aware that he’s a ghost made of Wanda’s memories of him works because it’s Wanda knowing that, subconsciously. She knows she is doing this, and it isn’t healthy. The part of her that knows that is Vision.

At the same time, WandaVision is an exploration of TV itself. Starting with the 50s makes sense, playing with the post-war American Dream sort of family, the Leave it to Beaver. It’s a picture of perfection, but only for a certain kind of person. The undercurrent of the decade of the Beaver is Jackie Gleason threatening to punch his wife in the face in The Honeymooners. The perfection of the 50s was fragile, like Wanda herself. I was all primed for the trip through the decades. I could see the 60s, with Wanda evoking Samantha from Bewitched as she has to take more control, undercutting Vision’s place in the narrative as a breadwinner. As that illusion shatters, we move into the Brady Bunch or Happy Days, broadening the idea of what family and perfection is, as Wanda has to find a way to be okay with new people joining the family. In the 80s, the tension between Vision and Wanda can be seen as Vision and Wanda have different ideas of what family should be. Very Family Ties, very Growing Pains. In the 90s episode, it comes to a head, Vision and Wanda are on a break! Then Wanda starts to heal for real. She finds meaning beyond her relationship with Vision. Scrubs, The Office US, Park and Rec, whatever. Finish it off with an episode where Wanda and Vision come back together, realising the truth, that Vision already died, but Wanda’s life has to move forward. They say goodbye. At each step, there are chances for examining how our changing understanding of love, relationships, loss, and so on have both been shaped by TV and shaped TV.

The only antagonist you need is Wanda herself, representing all the self-sabotage and self-harm we do to ourselves by trying to hold on to something that’s gone. If the show had stayed anything like that, I wouldn’t have just thought it was one of the best Marvel things I had seen in recent memory. I would have said it had the potential to be one of the best things recently full stop. And to be fair, some of that stuff is there. It’s just unfortunate that it’s not 9 episodes of that, that those things are mostly crammed into 4 or 5 episodes.

I was mostly down for Monica intruding in the first few episodes. There have to be other people around the characters for it to work, that’s fine. Dealing with grief is all about having meaning outside the relationship you lost. It was episode four that killed my enjoyment of the show. We did not need three characters outside trying to save Wanda, and we definitely, DEFINITELY, did not need a pointless antagonist. We don’t need any narrative outside the bubble. Having to establish all these characters and situations just chews up screen time where we’re not dealing with the primary relationship. And the characters they add aren’t compelling. Jimmy and Darcy could be subbed in for any other generic Marvel scientist and generic Marvel company man. And having so much time outside the bubble kills the creepy sense of unreality they spent the first 3 episodes creating.

There’s a moment in episode 6 where Vision, lying to Wanda, makes his way to the border of the bubble and is upset about by the limits of his reality. And all around him, no one is moving, no one is emoting, because for Wanda, those people aren’t real. The silent, still people around Vision echo the distance you feel to everyone when you’re fucked over by grief as everyone else moves on. It could be, SHOULD be a haunting moment, where a part of Wanda’s mind, the part that knows what is happening is wrong, that part of her that knows that the real Vision would tell her to confront the reality, that part of her that is represented by Vision realises what is happening, or at least a part of it. Maybe he goes to confront her there, without delay. Maybe he tries to sneak around more, getting more information, widening the gap between Wanda and Vision, between Wanda coping and Wanda losing it.

Instead, Vision tries to bust through the wall, and all the soldiers are there, and there’s a lot of yelling, and the bad guy tries to kill NotVision.

I don’t get the point of it at all. What part of the grieving process deals with a third party trying to psychologically lobotomise you in order to get…a piece of your power? I don’t even really understand if the generic Marvel Commander Baddie is trying to get an actual physical piece of Infinity Stone that’s inside Wanda, of it it’s part of her if she’s just in her pocket; that isn’t clear. But narrative speaking, what is the purpose of that character or any of his actions? Once he got involved, it was all downhill, and the big twist in episode 8 made it even worse, at least in my opinion. Adding a second antagonist that late just doubles down on that problem, and also makes the last big confrontation messy, I think there are huge plot holes there. I mean, if the bad witch is trapped in that reality so Wanda can go back to her if she needs it, doesn’t that mean there are versions of everyone else that existed in that reality? Are there faux-children there hanging out with the bad witch? Or is it just her trapped there?

And really, this is why I say there’s a disconnect between what I was hoping for and what I got, and that is my fault, not the creators if WandaVision. Because the fact is they did not set out to make a small scale character piece with haunting visuals and meta-analysis of TV as a medium. They set out to make another part of their gigantic franchise, with characters who can appear in other TV shows and movies, with enough action to keep the largest number of people happy, and to resurrect the real Vision for future properties. And the stuff I liked, the nods to TV and stuff, it was really just winder dressing. At the end of the day, WandaVision is pretty good at doing what it sets out to do. There are some genuinely affecting moments for Wanda, with Elizabeth Olsen doing a fair bit of heavy lifting. The whole “What is grief, if not love persevering?” thing is a really good line, and I can see why Twitter loves it. I wish it were more than a good line. I wish that I cared about the whole, not the moment. But I guess that is what happens when you forget that something can exist outside the meaning you invest in it.

P.S. Watch Crazy Ex-Girlfriend

Thoughts on I Care A Lot

*SPOILERS*

I Care A Lot was a really interesting 40 minute start, then turned into an awful, sloppy, unfunny mess that I did not like at all. If you want a movie with similar themes that works better, try Buffaloed.

I think if you want to do a story about empowered queer women, you can’t spend the first 30-40 mins of the film making it abundantly clear that the main characters are imprisoning, abusing and stealing everything from a bunch of old people. Once you do that, you can’t make me care about her because she’s gay and some misogyny exists. I love female and and queer characters all the time, but those things don’t wash. You’re still an asshole if you are horribly abusing people regardless of your circumstances. And you can make stories about irredeemable characters work, but your art HAS to engage in a critical examination of their behaviors and why they are bad in order to make that character worth following despite the fact that they are are bad. Otherwise you’re just a cheerleader for their behavior. Crazy Ex-Girlfriend or Breaking Bad for instance, do this well. You are made to care about the character, then shown how awful their actions are. By the end, you understand why they did what they did, and it’s up to you with all the information to judge if the end point of their story they earned condemnation or redemption. This movie is not that. I liked the main character as a villain, I hated it when I felt like it wanted me to treat her like the hero. And there is no confrontation of that. They are a villain to the end. Having the corporate goon get shot at the end by of one of the victims doesn’t somehow save the movie given it’s made it’s clear that she didn’t fear death, she died being the person she wanted to be, her corporation will continue to exist, and the guy who shot her has lost everything and will spend the rest of his life in prison.

And if you want to make a movie criticising capitalism and make a clever similarity between corporate abuse and the mafia, you can’t send the bulk of the movie cheering along the corporate wanna-be and wanting me to like her personally. It barely engaged with any of the themes dealing with criticism of capitalism, abuse of the elderly, broken systems, none of it. It just sort of…sits there while the characters, two awful people, fight each other to see who gets to be the worse one. And they LITERALLY both win at the end. The ultimate take-away from this movie is, “Oh by the way, this happens. If you can’t beat it, join it. That’s empowering.” And sure, yeah, she dies at the end. But honestly I feel like we’re meant to be unhappy about that. Or if we’re meant to feel good about it, that is not clear at all, or how that changes anything at all. I know a creator can’t control the reaction of their audience, but understanding how the audience reacted can let you know how well you communicated what you were trying to say. If the point of the last minute of this movie, where the main abuser-in-chief is killed by one of her victims, and a huge part of the audience is so sad that she died and feels like it ruined the movie, you didn’t do a particularly good job of communicating your narrative. And looking at Twitter, a lot of people are very upset by the ending. And sure that might be a bit facile, but even if you don’t care about the audience, I still think that scene does nothing to criticize her actions. She dies feeling justified and happy with her actions. Basically nothing happens to suggest we shouldn’t feel the same.

I think it’s a failure in either direction, either as pro-feminism or as a criticism of capitalism. Either or both done well would be amazing, but this is neither. The all I can say is the film is scattered in too many directions, and delivered only surface commentary on any number of issues it could have explored. It’s well acted, but badly written. There are huge plot holes, and I didn’t find it funny at all. Honestly it made me angry. I would not recommend it.

My Experiences with Depression

I think when I think back about the start of my depression, what really stands out to me now is that the bones of my issues started way before I was really aware of it. I think I was an okay kid, as in happy enough I think? It’s always hard to know how other people see you, but I think I had a bunch of good enough friends and cousins growing up. But I also feel like I was a bit of an…odd kid? Odd probably isn’t the right word probably. I know I played – or attempted to play at least – some games my friends just didn’t get. I tried to essentially attempt to get my friends to LARP in year 6 or 7. I wrote out character sheets for them all and everything, and they did not get it at all. I played a lot of group sports, but was mostly pretty bad, and kids can be cruel when you suck at something in a group setting. In high school, I feel like I was behind people when it comes to a lot of stuff. I remember being at a party where people talking about “losing their V-cards,” and it’s not that I just didn’t have any experience, I literally had no idea what they were even talking about. I mean the point of this isn’t to tell everyone bad things happened to me, and I wanting everyone to feel bad about it or anything. Those are just examples of how I felt out of place.

All I really know is that at some point in my early life, somewhere between sort of upper school primary and the first few years of high school, I moved from being just a kid like any other kid, and became a kid who wasn’t like the other kids. I still don’t know exactly what age it was, and it doesn’t really matter when it happened. I know that every kid sometimes feels like they’re not normal, but at I know at some point I definitely felt it was a constant state, just the fact of my experience. I think there’s a certain kind of person who is okay being different. Well, okay might not be the right word. I certainly don’t want to suggest that if you don’t have some serious mental health problem, growing up and being an adult aren’t difficult things in their own. They absolutely are difficult. There’s a certainly level of pain and emotional trauma I think everyone goes through in their life.

But there are people who, when the someone makes them feel like they’re somehow wrong, or bad or just straight out bully them, their reaction is to defend themselves somehow. It’s something I very much admire in my brother, his sense of self and also his sense of right and wrong. He won’t let himself be treated in a way that is wrong, and if he’s at all able to stop someone else feeling that way, he will. Not that I we didn’t fight as only siblings can. We were often horrible to each other, I’m sure. And funnily enough, Alex is the only person I ever really pushed myself forward and fight for myself. Beyond that, I was the other sort of person. The sort of person who when someone makes them feel bad about something, thinks, “Oh, I’ve don’t something wrong, and I am rightly being punished for doing it wrong.” Obviously, I don’t think that, but that’s what it boils down to. If someone is making fun of you, it’s because you did something to deserve it, and it’s up to you to work out how to make sure it doesn’t happen again by not doing the thing you did to deserve it. The idea that that person is just being an asshole to you doesn’t enter the equation.

It wasn’t a healthy coping strategy for a teenager. I was bullied, not physically, but any kind of pushing myself forward socially would be met with some sort of teasing or ridicule. I won’t go too far into the recollection of all that. Again, that’s not the point of this. I’m only going through all this early sort of trauma because I think it’s important to talk about the person I was very early in my life, because all the pattern of my depression was laid early. And it’s my reaction to that bullying and teasing that really lay down the foundation of my depression. Because, being an person who didn’t fit in, and a person who when attacked, assumed it was a fault in myself, the only way to protect myself is to make myself smaller. Not physically, obviously, and I don’t really feel like going into the food and depression and all that stuff at the moment. When I say make myself small, I meant I avoided people, I avoided situations where I might feel bad.

And that’s where the toxic cycle really starts. Because when you feel about yourself when people are cruel to you, you avoid social situations. And when you avoid social situations, you make yourself stranger to others. Because you’re not at the parties. And the kid who sits alone is strange. And you develop have interests that aren’t standard. So it just keeps going around and around. You’re attacked because you’re different. You’re different because you’re attacked. That’s how the cycle starts. But it’s not how it remains either. Because you’re not just a passive passenger in your own life. You know that you have control of what you do, theoretically at least. You know that you’re missing out on things. You’re aware that you’re different. And that now it’s not just other people’s actions that are making you feel bad about yourself. Your actions – or your inaction more accurately – are the problem. And because you’re not the kind of person who fights for themselves, when you feel due to your own actions, you don’t think, “I need to try harder,” or, “It’s hard, but maybe next time I’ll be better.” You think, “I’m a bad person.”

And that makes sense to you, absolutely. Because people are cruel to you, and people aren’t supposed to be cruel each other. But people don’t really care if you’re cruel to a bad person. And people are cruel to you, so you must be a bad person. So you’re a bad person, you feel like. And you don’t know how to get better. And people continue to be cruel on top of that. And then you get older, and you get extra responsibilities. The pressure of every day life that everyone experiences increases, on top of knowing you’re bad person.

And this is where the really fucked up shit really starts. Because you know from exeriences that making yourself smaller sort of works. I mean, it really doesn’t, but it at least makes the pain less. And what you end up trying to do is making yourself smaller within your own mind. Which for me at least, I would use the word numb. The emotional experience of feeling all that negative energy in my own mind was just way too much. Feeling bad about how people treat you, and feeling bad about how you react to it, and having to deal with being a person with responsiblities was just too much, and so I just to just not feel. You know that if you completely collapse, then people will know how you have failed to be a functional person. So you don’t let on to anyone that you’re struggling. You do the best you can to maintain a normal outward appearance. You go to school, go to work, you talk to your family and friends. But it’s too much, so you just shut down emotionally inside.

And that works, sure. For a little while at least, you’re okay. There’s nothing to feel bad about, but you also don’t really experience anything good either. You just sort of…maintain existence. And when you’re in that state, anything that might make you feel anything becomes overwhelming to the point that it feels like a threat. And by now if you haven’t grasped how this works, how do we deal with a threat? Well you blame yourself for failure to not being good enough to avoid it. So the overwhelming sense is that your own brain is attacking you. And that you can’t numb that forever. You can for a while, but it just builds and builds behind your attempts to shut it down and be normal. And the cycle of depression becomes another layer more complicated.

By this point it doesn’t matter at all whether people are cruel to you on a day to day basis. Because even if they’re not, because you will go over them again in your head. I feel like my memories of all my good times sort of become fuzzier over time. The details become less distinct. But I can remember moments in my life where I was feeling bad in shocking detail. Not just the bullying either, I mean just…times I was awkward. If you and I have spent any time together socially, chances are there’s at least one memory where I can remember in exquisite detail exactly how awkward and awful I was in that moment. And it absolutely doesn’t matter if you felt I was awkward or not. In my head, it was the worst thing, apart from all the other awful things that happened.

DISCLAIMER: I want to say, I know I keep saying things like “at this point you feel bad” and it’s a bit strange. I know some people who also experience depression or anxiety, etc, also have these experiences. But just to be clear, I don’t mean that when I say, “you,” because I think everyone’s experience of this stuff is pretty individual, being made up of thousands and thousands of moments that go badly, and probably millions on millions fleeting feelings. Again, this is just my experience with it. I know there are common things that people do get. I know a lot of people who tell me that feel numb, for example. But I do want to make sure everyone knows, I’m not trying to speak for others.

So. At this point I guess in the story I was finishing high school. People were still pretty cruel often. I had a nickname I didn’t like, let me say that. But it didn’t really matter really at that point anyway, the cruellest person in my life was myself, and it had been for a few years. I suppose you could say at that point I sort of rallied. I guess I would have had to, otherwise I’d probably be dead by now. I came out to a few people at school. I came out to my parents. I went to Canning College, meaning I was a year older when I went into uni. And I actually made friends at uni! It helped that I didn’t have to hide the fact I was gay/bi or had that I liked stranger than normal things, because they did too and that was great. If you’re reading this there’s a good chance you’re those people in fact.

I think there were two big problems though. The first is the obvious and massive problem, which is that I already hated myself to the core, and while I found people who could help me feel okay, I was entirely reliant on them to feel okay. And also, less importantly but still significantly, I was basically socialising for the first time. I hadn’t gone to a party really, or sneaked a beer or smoked weed or went to a concert or…basically anything. If it wasn’t quietly reading, playing Nintendo and Runescape, or secretly hating yourself, I was basically a novice. Things like drugs and alcohol were mostly new to me, and being unfamiliar with it, I drank or smoked too much, too often. I hadn’t dealt with any of my issues from high school at all, and had no emotional ability to focus on uni at all, which I eventually failed out of after a year or two. And that’s unfortunate because the reality is, if you hang your new sense of happiness on other people, they can’t possibly be what you need. Other people don’t exist for your sense of sense, and also funnily enough, aren’t static beings who never change or surprise you. And even if they want to be there for you, they can’t be there all the time. And, of course, you have a brand new way to hate yourself, because there’s always a new way to hate yourself. Because you know you’re a bad person, you if people care about you, you feel like you’re tricking them. Because, if only they knew what you were really like, they would abandon you immediately. And they haven’t, which shows how much you’ve fooled them.

You might think that it makes sense no sense to feel like you’re awful at everything, while at the same time being so able to fool your closest friends. And well, yeah, that’s really stupid. But also, it’s really not that hard to convince yourself that they just are such good people that they can’t imagine how bad you really are. Because after years of hating yourself, literally anything can be turned around into being a negative. It’s literally the only thing you’re amazing at. So after getting better, things got worse in new ways. All the same self-hatred came back, but having experienced feeling good, I now felt even worse about myself now that I felt like I was looking it. And now being way more social, I felt intense anxiety whenever depressive stuff happened and I felt like I was fucking my happiness. And social groups fracture, as they do as time goes past. In some cases I just didn’t know how to deal with the cracks and just felt awful about it. Other times, I inserted myself, trying to make it better, which was even worse for me when it exploded anyway. And anyone who stuck around, trying to help me, I feel intense guilty that they have to take care of me, and all of the worthlessness that compounds on top of everything whenever someone might have a chance of understanding what you’re going through.

And I think that’s probably the core of my experience now, and what I want to talk about. Because I think a lot of the time when we talk about mental health, people try and summarise. Or they to talk at length, but it becomes a much more of a clinical discussion, because frankly, opening all your pain out to the world is scary and fucking awful. So we use metaphors, and neat little phrases that give people a sense of what you’re actually experiencing, without actually having to deal with the intensity for yourself, or forcing them to deal with it. You say things like, “I feel numb today,” or, “I’m not doing so well.” If people are trying to help you, you need them intensely, and at the same time you feel awful for putting them through it. And that’s why people don’t get why depression can literally leave you unable to move or clean yourself. With all of that going on in your head at once. I have used the word cycle, that’s not really a situation where one of these things happens, and then another, and then another. You feel bad ALL THE TIME. You are constantly fighting the urge to shut down entirely, emotionally and physically, ALL THE TIME. Any social interaction, no matter how positive it seems, has to go through that process of your mind tearing it down into a negative. You need people intensely, and also can’t reach out and feel awful when you do.

And if you want any kind of happiness, you also have to fight that feeling. And you have to get up out of bed in order. Any time you ask for help, you have to fight the self-loathing for having asked for help at all. And again, everything is happening, all the time.

Is it any wonder people don’t always manage it? That sometimes they can’t get out of bed, or make it into the office? And how many times can you explain this to anyone before the process of explaining it all becomes in itself traumatic? And then if even that experience, of someone wanting to know everything, to really get you, is traumatic, what to do you do? I haven’t even talked about self harm, or suicide. I’m not going to talk about my experiences. But is it any wonder that sometimes people don’t manage to reach out when they need it, and end up doing that instead?

The point of this isn’t to talk about the worst times in my life. And it’s not about the good times either, though I did eventually get some good years in before the brain cancer. I’m talking about the fact that all the times between those highs and lows are that experience I have just imperfectly tried to summarise. All of that happening, all the time, all at once, every day except my extreme good and bad times, and that’s what people need to know about depression. Or any mental illness. When someone with depression says, “I’m struggling today,” they don’t mean they haven’t been struggling before, and now they are. They mean it’s got so bad, they are risking talking to you, in the hopes it might get a little better.

And I’m talking about this not so that people can understand me, or feel bad for me, or to praise me about how well I’m doing now. I have made so much progress, and I am doing really well. I was lucky to work out a way to have the cruel voices be joined by some positive voices telling me, “Fuck that, you’re doing fine.” I don’t know how or why I managed it. Some days the cruel voices might win, but at least these days it’s an even fight. And part of that victory is I don’t need anyone else to tell me that I’ve achieved it. But today I’m not talking about that here, just like I’m not talking about the best times in my life, or the worst times times.

I’m talking about it because I know other people have experiences like this and don’t have the sheer dumb luck I had to find ways out of the dark places yet, and they can’t talk about how hard, how complicated, how twisty and self-defeating this all is. People don’t know that people trying to help them can make them feel worse. I am not arrogant enough to think that this might help people directly, but I think these conversations have to happen more often. Otherwise it will always be a conversation that happens in safe little metaphors, or clinic understanding. People will think that an R U Ok day or a mental awareness month are a solution instead of a reminder that this happens every day, all the time. Today, this year, I feel strong enough to have the conversation that maybe we need to have more often. So I wanted to tell you how it felt, not at its worst, but at it’s core. Maybe it will translate. Maybe it won’t and this is a waste of time. But it was worth trying it.

But absolutely don’t force someone you know to have that conversation. Just know that whenever someone deals with mental health in any way, it’s not neat. It’s all consuming and people going through it, who are still pushing themselves, and trying to be better people for themselves and the people around them are goddamn trying to do something fucking hard. Stay with them where you can, when they are capable of reaching out. It helps even if it doesn’t seem like it ❤

Fool’s Assassin by Robin Hobb: It Could Be Better

Fool’s Assassin by Robin Hobb is the most disappointing book I’ve ever read as quickly as I could.  Robin Hobb’s original Assassin series was arguably the first truly “adult” fantasy series I ever read, and it’s safe to say I’m a huge fan.  Her writing is powerful and at her best, the characters read as fully fleshed out people; every emotion is nuanced, and we learn about the world from their perspective in wonderful detail.  Fitz is one of the most enduring fantasy characters in my memory, and I’ve read a lot of fantasy in the past decade.  The appeal of her prose remains, and it’s that power that dragged me through this novel so quickly when everything else slowly, and I do mean slowly, goes wrong.  Despite the quality of the writing, the majority of the writing is about Fitz’ day to day life as a very minor lord on an estate of no importance.  It’s a hell of a comedown from the assassin, Catalyst and master of two magics that we have watched grow up across two trilogies.

 

I’d like to emphasise that though I’m going to be quite critical of this book, I’m still greatly anticipating the second in the series.  The problems with the book was primarily one of pacing.  There are problems with character and plot, but these invariably stem from the fact that the pacing of the book is just entirely off.  Events that should be exciting are drawn out far beyond the point where logically they should have concluded, which ends up turning the book into a prologue the length of a novel.  It takes so long to get to what will eventually be the greater conflict of the series that it only occurs in the last hundred or so pages despite being hinted at constantly – and obviously to the reader but seemingly not to the characters – throughout the novel.  Fool’s Assassin is set a decade or more after the events of the Tawny Man trilogy, and the book itself spans nearly 15 years which should give you some idea as to just how ridiculously paced it actually is.  The reason for such an extended time period is tied up with one of the two perspective characters, which I’ll deal with after a spoiler warning, but it could have been avoided with a few sensible changes and not actually losing much.

 

SPOILER ALERT.  WHAT I WRITE BELOW DEALS WITH SPECIFIC STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS OF THE NOVEL.  WHILE I WILL TRY NOT TO BE TOO SPECIFIC THERE ARE STILL POTENTIAL MINOR SPOILERS AND AT LEAST ONE MAJOR SPOILER CONTAINED BELOW.  THERE ARE ALSO SPOILERS FOR PREVIOUS NOVELS.

 

The most glaring issue is the character of Fitz.  We’ve been with Fitz for six novels now, since he was a small, nearly feral child, to the triumphant end of Fool’s Fate where, as a man in his middle years, he conquered all before him through his hard won skill, and sheer willpower.  We left him wresting power away from Chade and handing it over to secure Prince Dutiful’s reign.  He was a man at the prime of his life, successful and dangerous.  Over the course of his life we’ve seen him isolate himself out of anger or self-pity, act impulsively and cause more problems than he solves, and retreat into periods of depression over the state of his life, and accomplish the seemingly impossible through sheer bloody rage.  What we’ve never seen is a Fitz like the one in Fool’s Assassin.  This is a Fitz so unfocused, so inert, that events that should be the obvious precursor to some major plot movements arrive…and Fitz doesn’t notice.  Or else he dithers, and the opportunity for some action, some story, some something happening drift away and we are stuck still watching Fitz go about his day to day life.  It’s not just that this is frustrating because the novel is slow, but because as it goes on and on, it starts to ruin his character.  Don’t get me wrong, there’s potential for an interesting character turn in the idea of an assassin who retires and allows his skills to fade, his constant alertness slacken into complacency, it just doesn’t make sense for so many opportunities for Fitz to remember himself to arise…and pass. Mysterious messengers arrive…and he leaves them waiting in a sitting room while he goes to a party all night.  And when that messenger is murdered and the culprits evade him he just…forgets about it.  You might think I’m overusing the ellipsis here, but that was my reaction multiple times throughout the novel:  “…”

 

It makes no sense that instincts he honed over 40 plus years and six novels to fade so much that he is oblivious to everything happening around him, and it’s utterly infuriating by the end of the novel when he still needs to be told by another character about events that have been unfolding around him for a decade.  He bungles nearly every interaction with other people despite decades of experience with the politics of court and also with just, y’know, talking to people.  Also notable is the absence of Fitz’ Wit in this novel.  When Nighteyes died at the end of the first book in the Tawny Man series, the Wit was still a major aspect of Fitz for the remaining two novels.  He had to deal with the raw wound of his wolf’s death, but his Wit also gave him a connection to other people, and a special awareness of animals that characterises the magic.  In Fool’s Assassin it’s implied that Fitz has given up on ever having another Wit partner, which is fine, but his Wit sense is apparently permanently dulled as well.  Horses, dogs, cats and other rural animals abound on his estate, but they’re just animals to him.  He’s not aware of them in the Wit, or if he is we’re rarely ever shown this.  The Skill is still present, but the Wit is MIA until towards the end of the novel.  It shouldn’t be a major issue, but it’s just one more dimension of his previously rich character which has gone flat and uninteresting.  If the absence of the Wit was used as an explanation for why he’s so seemingly incompetent with other people, if it was demonstrated that it was missing because he was unconsciously removing himself from the world, it might mean something.  But it’s not like that, it’s just missing.  It was a part of him before, and now it’s not, no moral.

 

The other major issue is the major spoiler mentioned above, and it concerns the second perspective character; Fitz’ new daughter, Bee.  I don’t have a problem with Bee’s character at all.  I’ve seen other reviews complain that Bee’s character is too cold and emotionless for a child or for a character we’re expected to sympathise with, but to me it makes perfect sense.  After all, Bee is a White.  The problem with Bee isn’t with Bee herself, I think she’s an interesting character with a lot of potential.  The problem with Bee is what Bee implies for Fitz and for the novel.  First of all, Bee is the reason the book takes place over such an extended period.  We need to be introduced to the mysterious circumstances of her conception and birth and then wait for her to grow up into a character that can be more than a passenger in anything that happens.  Secondly and more importantly, she’s a goddamn White but somehow Fitz doesn’t notice.  How could Fitz, after such a long and incredibly intimate relationship with the Fool, fail to notice his daughter’s pale, colourless skin and slender form or her incredible capacity for learning?  Even if he managed to miss all of that, when she starts demonstrating prophetic dreams, you’d think he would have clued in to the fact that she’s a White and apply even a tiny piece of his knowledge to understanding her.  Instead, he continues to blunder his way through fatherhood of this obviously unique child.  He veers randomly between treating her like an eight year old and treating her as his only confidante in the world.  He missteps so often as a father and as a former assassin and Catalyst, his Wit is so mysteriously absent, that it seems like for the majority of the book, Robin Hobb has forgotten how to write her most iconic character.

 

Fitz and Bee’s lack of engagement with the world around them also renders most other characters shallow and impotent.  We get to see Chade, Kettricken, Dutiful and Nettle throughout the book, but we seem them from the perspective of these two utterly detached, completely inert characters, and across a badly paced decade long story, that they seem to be caught in a limbo where even the business of the Five Kingdoms isn’t mentioned and their interesting and long established richness of character are largely absent.  And then in the last hundred pages, everything seems to happen at once.  Fitz seemingly regains his Wit, his pride, his self-awareness in one glorious and satisfyingly bloody moment.  Bee starts to grow from an isolated child White into a slightly more relateable teenager White just as the Fool re-enters the picture, enemies are gathering in the shadows around Fitz and Bee and finally we’re off and running.

 

And then the book ends.

 

It’s incredibly frustrating and a huge relief all at once.  Incredibly frustrating because I slogged through 300 pages of Fitz getting his house renovated and teaching Bee how to dress and manage his estate staff just to get to the exciting part, only to have it end before it got started.  And a relief because it gives me some hope that book 2 of the series won’t be mired in such a boring, badly paced mess.  I’d still recommend this book to fans of Robin Hobb.  It’s got more potential than the Dragon Keeper novels which never managed to be more than just okay, and the nostalgia I have for Fitz means I’m willing to be patient with it.  Even with all the problems listed above, it’s still better than Soldier’s Son.  The less said about Soldier’s Son the better, really.  It’s an interesting place for a new series to start, it’s just a shame it had to start at the end of the novel instead of at the beginning.

Red Country by Joe Abercrombie or “Why Shy South is the coolest lady ever”

In my last review, I said that Amaranthe Lokdon seemed like an attempt to create a fantasy lead who had personality traits we more commonly think of as feminine than masculine, and lacking some of the traits we think of as masculine which are present in most fantasy protagonists.  I realised I probably should have articulated this idea more, as it’s dangerous territory to start talking about masculine and feminine traits.  I don’t think any quality of a person’s character – whether they’re fictional or not – depends on their gender.  What there is is cultural association of certain qualities with gender, and while I think it’s bad, I think a work which highlights the qualities we devalue that are associated with women, and shows those qualities as a strength rather than a weakness, is a good thing.  It would be better if we associated no qualities at all, but well, we’re not there yet.  Something to work towards, but also not the reality.  I found Amaranthe a positive character in that regard.  Leadership is often characterised by making hard decisions, and so we tend to think leaders have to be able to not focus on caring about the wellbeing of every individual when it’s necessary to make a decision for the greater good, and for some reason this ability is expected more in men than women.  We’re now running into the problem that a lot of modern leaders are seen as disengaged, willing to write off any number of groups who face discrimination because it’s expedient to do so.  We’ve devalued caring to the point where it’s often seen as a liability in a leader, and we associate women with caring and judge women less capable of leadership.  There’s probably a whole essay worth of material on the subject of expectations of mothering instincts and leadership, but that’s not what I’m looking to write about.

What I’m trying to say is that since fantasy protagonists are more often thrust into positions of leadership where that kind of emotionless decision-making might be required, we’ve seen a lot of male characters.   The female characters we do see often have that quality of expediency, ruthlessness, whatever you feel like calling it.  The reason I liked Amaranthe is that that wasn’t a part of her character.  Amaranthe struggled with making the hard decisions, choices that would lead to people dying, even when those choices were necessary.  She spent more time than most fantasy characters thinking about her supporting character’s emotional well-being.  I liked it a lot.  And that’s why I’ve chosen Red Country by Joe Abercrombie for my second review, mostly because it’s a contrast to the Emperor’s Edge series.  I don’t want to inadvertently advance the argument that female characters who are ruthless decision-makers are somehow invalid as female characters, that they have been artificially masculinised, because that’s just not true.  That trait, and the dozens of other traits that make a good leader or a good fantasy character, are not male traits.  Case in point; Shy South.

Red Country is the sixth book by Joe Abercrombie, and since his breakout series, First Law, he’s made a name for himself with the grubbiness of his settings; the brutality, the coarseness, the intensely grey morals.  I don’t generally like using the following words to describe books because I think they’re overused: gritty, grim, and visceral.  But you’re almost compelled to when you talk about a Joe Abercrombie book.  Every character is to some extent an asshole.  Everyone is wrong, everyone ends up killing people almost indiscriminately because it’s almost unavoidable.  He’s also very, very good at writing his characters with all the complexities and flaws of real people.  His characters aren’t all assholes because they’re indiscriminate murderers and rapists with no morals, but because they’re consumed with mundane flaws, indulging their own selfish desires and their petty jealousies.  They don’t WANT to kill everyone who gets in their way, but well, if they’re in the way…you get the idea.  It wouldn’t have surprised me to find writing that features this sort of brutality to come with no female characters at all and I’ve read a lot of low fantasy which has no female characters, probably because male writers and male readers don’t think women are feasible in a book that’s all about brutal violence.  But all of Abercrombie’s books have come with female perspective characters, and all of them stand alongside his male characters as entirely appropriate to the story, to me at least.

In First Law, it was Ferro Maljinn, an ex-slave on a quest to bloodily slaughter every member of the civilisation that enslaved and murdered her family.  In Best Served Cold it’s Monza Murcatto, who starts the book by being betrayed by the lord she has loyally served because her popularity and military skill is a threat to his power, and again, she cuts a bloody path to revenge.  Although unlike Ferro, she is only aiming to kill a handful of people, not an entire civilisation.  Both characters are great, but I chose not to write about those books because while both of them are great, I feel like First Law and Best Served Cold are both the story of someone else.  For First Law, despite the five or so different perspectives it covers, I really think it’s Logen Ninefinger’s story.  He was the breakout character in the authors breakout series.  In Best Served Cold, Monza’s story is more central, but I think Caul Shivers is closer to being the focus.  The Heroes is a little different, not so much a character story as it is a story about the brutality of war.  I quite liked the female perspective here, that of Finree dan Brock, because unlike Ferro and Monza, she wasn’t so focused on getting her way through force of arms and sheer willpower, instead she was represented as a consummate politician, constantly maneuvering to enhance her husband’s status, and thus her own.  Outwardly she would seem like a typically powerless female character, except that she ends up enduring more and getting what she wants with more success than most male characters.  I probably could have happily written extensively about Finree and what she represents for this, but I enjoyed Red Country more, and I think Shy is a more interesting character than Finree.

Finally, I get to talk about Shy.  Red Country opens with Shy taking her farm’s crop to market in a nearby town, accompanied by a farm-hand/surrogate father called Lamb who is immensely strong, but as Shy puts it, “some kind of coward.”  People who read Abercrombie’s books in chronological order will note the number of fingers Lamb has pretty quickly.  I loved Shy’s character almost instantly.  She’s unapologetically abrasive, getting in everyone’s face and calling it how she sees it with no concern for social nicety, and especially no concern for a woman’s place in the western-style frontier setting.  As the story moves forward, we learn that in her youth, Shy fled the boredom and toil of working on a farm to become a bandit, carving a fairly bloody reputation for herself (of course) before retiring from the life after an innocent girl was hung in her place due to a passing similarity.  When Shy and Lamb return to their farm with the money from their sale, they find it burned out and her younger siblings (who she is a parent to after her mother’s death) have been taken by slavers.  They immediately set out in pursuit, eventually joining a caravan headed to a Deadwood-style frontier town where the children are being taken.  The way Shy is written is perfect.  As I said, she’s confrontational and abrasive, but only because she doesn’t have any tolerance for people who aren’t getting on with what needs doing.  Unlike Ferro or Monza, she’s not the presented as incredible with a sword, a genius tactician, or some incredible warrior.  But she’s no stranger to violence and bulls through most of the violence thrown her way through sheer determination.   And it’s noted many times, and highlighted by events, that Shy isn’t what’s expected of women in this universe.  There’s a great scene about halfway through which comments on this directly which I’ll put below.

This scene is from a throwaway perspective, one of the women in the caravan with Shy, Luline Buckhorn, who is a part of a large group of women as they all stand in a circle, taking turns letting each other urinate while the rest provide a human wall so that the male members of the caravan can’t see them pee.  As she stands in the circle she reflects bitterly on a woman’s lot:

Sometimes she hated her husband, with his grinding ignorance of her struggles, and his chafing assumptions of what was woman’s work and what was man’s.  Like knocking in a fence-post then getting drunk was real labour, but minding a crowd of children all day and night was fun to feel grateful for.

Then later:

Did it never occur to him that she might want to ride, and feel the fresh wind, and smile at the wide-open country, and rope cattle, and consider the route, and speak up in the meetings while he trudged beside the wagon and changed the shitty wrappings of their youngest, and shouted at the next three in line to stop shouting, and had his nipples chewed raw every hour or two while still being expected to have a good dinner ready and do the wifely duties every bloody night, sore or not, tired or not?

She’s reflecting on how the Far Country, this frontier, is a leveler, as all the women in the party whether she’s a prostitute, a farmer’s wife like herself, or a noblewoman like the lady beside her are all forced to ‘make water’ in the circle of women, hidden from the prying eyes of the men.  Then Shy enters the scene:

“Will you look at that?” murmured Lady Inglestad.  Shy South had swung down from her saddle not a dozen strides from the column and was squatting in the long grass in the shadow of her horse making a spatter, reins in her teeth and trousers around her ankles, the side of her pale arse plain to see.  “Incredible,” someone muttered.  She pulled her trousers up and gave a friendly wave, then closed her belt, spat the reins into her hand and was straight back in the saddle.  The whole business had taken no time at all, and had been done exactly when and how she wanted.  Luline Buckhorn frowned around at the outward facing circle of women, changing over so that one of the whores could take her turn above the bucket.  “There a reason we can’t do the same?” she muttered.  Lady Inglestad turned an iron frown upon her.  “There most certainly is!”  They watched Shy South ride off, shouting something to Sweet about closing the wagons up.  “Although, at present, I must confess it eludes me.”

That scene pretty much says it all about how Shy deals with any expectations placed on her by her gender.  Shy breaks all those expectations because of her driving need for independence.  Shy wants to be the only person who has any say in what Shy does, and if anyone says otherwise she’ll probably laugh in their face.  And if someone tried to force her to do otherwise, they’ll probably get stabbed.  If you’re still reading at this point, well first of all thanks a lot.  I know this is already really damn long and I don’t think I’m even halfway yet.  But you’ve also probably picked up that I’m a huge fan of this character.  That’s because Shy’s independence isn’t a simple personality trait that says “strong character” or “strong woman.”  Her independence is characterised as both her greatest strength and her greatest weakness.  Yes, nobody dictates to her, but she is also virtually alone in the world except for a taciturn old man who barely talks because she pushes away anyone who gets too close.   She’s abrasive because she’s opinionated, but also as a defense against anyone who looks to penetrate into the places she might be emotionally vulnerable.

Red Country is most definitely Shy’s story, and while the first half of the book spends time setting her up as I’ve described above, her character growth is tied up with the introduction of another character into her life; Temple.  Temple is an ex-mercenary, actually a mercenary’s lawyer, who fled because he was sick of his own moral cowardice, and then his lack of any kind of competence sees him thrown into a raging river and washing up near Shy’s caravan.  While no one else in the caravan is willing to take in the dying man because their resources are already paid, and only people who pay their way can join the caravan, Shy fronts the money for him and saves his life.  Once he’s nursed back to health, she tells him she basically owns him until his debt is paid.  It’s the first time Temple has been forced to front up to a responsibility placed upon him; every other time life has thrown a challenge his way he’s fled.  This means he’s a man of many talents because at various points in his life he’s been a priest, a carpenter, a lawyer, all sorts of things, but while he’s been competent at them, he’s never actually invested himself in anything.  Basically, Temple is a shyster, through and through, and Shy recognises this instantly.  And she scorns him mercilessly for it, showing up his weakness at every turn and constantly expecting him to run from his debt to her.  But as the story progresses they get closer, with Temple surprising her (and himself) by sticking at something for the first time in his life, and also threatening her by slowly getting closer to her.

Eventually they arrive in Crease, the Deadwood-esque town I mentioned earlier.  Here Temple manages to hire out as a lawyer and pay off his debt to Shy instantly, and they’re both surprised to realise they regret there’s nothing tying them together anymore, and Temple surprises them both by not leaving, but taking a job as a carpenter and doing it well, and with pride.  This leads to this books sex scene, which almost every Abercrombie book (not sure if The Heroes does) has.  In First Law, Ferro and Logen are kindred spirits, supremely deadly and emotionally damaged to the point of emptiness.  They fuck because they’re thrown together and have nothing better to do.  They both get something out of it, but then part ways with little to no emotional strain.  Monza sleeps with Caul Shivers, and while their relationship is more emotionally fulfilling, that too fizzles out very quickly.  This time there’s some emotional fallout as they’re both bitter, and end up virtually hating one another.   When Shy and Temple sleep together though, there’s meaning to it.  For Temple, he’s found something worth caring more about than his own skin for the first time.  For Shy, she’s finally opened up and let someone in, let herself be vulnerable to someone for the first time.  They’re also both raging drunk at the time.  Sex in Abercrombie books, as I mentioned before, is as visceral as everything else in his books.  Here’s part of the scene, which starts with a dance while we’re still with Temple’s perspective:

“Never thought you’d be a dancer,” he shouted in her ear, “Too hard for it.” 

“Never thought you’d be one,” her breath hot against his cheek, “Too soft.”

Then things progress quickly, and we transition to Shy:

Bloody hell things were spinning by then.  She was fumbling in her trousers for the key and laughing and then she was fumbling in his trousers and they were up against the wall and kissing again her mouth full of his breath and his tongue and her hair then the door was banging open and the two of them tumbling through and across the dim-lit floorboards.  She crawled on top of him and they were grunting away, room reeling, and she felt the burn of sick at the back of her throat but swallowed it and didn’t much care as it tasted no worse than the first time and Temple seemed to be a long way from complaining or probably even noticing either.  He was too busy struggling with the buttons on her shirt and couldn’t have been making harder work of it if they’d been the size of pinheads. 

She realised the door was open still and kicked out at it but judged the distance all wrong and kicked a hole in the plaster beside the frame instead, started laughing again.  Got the door shuddering shut with the next kick and he had her shirt open now and was kissing at her chest which felt all right actually if a bit ticklish, her own body looking all pale and strange to her and she was wondering when was the last time she did anything like this and deciding it was way too long.  Then he’d stopped and staring down in the darkness, eyes just a pair of glimmers.

“Are we doing the right thing?” he asked, so comic serious for a moment she wanted to laugh again.

“How the fuck should I know?  Get your trousers off.”

She was trying to wriggle free of her own but still had her boots on and was getting more and more tangled, knew she should’ve taken the boots off first but it was a bit late now and she grunted and kicked and her belt thrashed about like a snake cut in half, her knife flopping off the end of it and clattering against the wall, until she got one boot off and one trouser-leg and that seemed good enough for the purpose.

There’s more, but I’m not going to transcribe a whole chapter and you probably don’t want to read it.  I liked this scene based on the writing alone.  The use of run-on sentences with no punctuation does a good job of getting across the feeling of being drunk as you read, and it doesn’t romanticise the sex even though it’s actually fairly emotionally significant for both characters.  This is well in keeping with my own experience of sex as something which is as ridiculous and fumbling as often as it is romantic and magical.  But I’m really happy the actual sex takes place from Shy’s perspective.  By writing the scene from her perspective, Abercrombie avoids objectifying Shy with long descriptions of her body as Temple looks at her, and we don’t have to rely on his interpretation of her actions to know that everything happening is consenting.  This is sex that I don’t think would satisfy much in terms of titillating a male reader.  Instead this scene seems more about the journey both characters have travelled to get to this point, and the emotional release for Shy who has been holding herself closed and pushing everyone away for the entirety of the book.  It also makes the seriousness that sex gets treated in both fiction and reality seem silly against the fumbling mess we’re presented with.  The complete lack of romance is entirely suitable to Shy who has no time for anything as useless as romance, and having Shy being the one fumbling with her belt and catching her knife on the bed frame while Temple worries about the implications is a nice touch.

I think it’s important when a female character is sexualised in a fantasy novel that it adds to them in some way.  If a female character is present only as a part of a male character’s journey, and especially if they and the sex itself is seen only from the male character’s perspective, the female characters are there as a part of an exclusively male fantasy.  By this, I don’t mean that all sex in a fantasy novel has to be from a female perspective, and can only be positive and consenting.  I enjoyed the Deed of Paksennarion novels by Elizabeth Moon, and the female perspective character in that series goes through a rape, which is most definitely not positive.  But that rape isn’t viewed through a male lens, with male assumptions about what it means, but happens exclusively through a female character and its impacts are felt for a long time.   The way Red Country shows sex for Shy is as the physical act being a bit farcical, but the emotional revelation of the experience being more significant because of the person she is.  That’s what all fantasy novels should aim for when they include sex; not smut for smut’s sake, not because it makes the character feel good or because it makes the character seem more well-rounded if they have a love interest, but because sex is a natural part of the journey the character is experiencing.  And it shouldn’t reduce the woman’s role in the act to that of a prop.  It’s not inherently bad to have a male-focused fantasy but we have a lot of that now, thank you.  We need fantasy and sex in fantasy to start to be equalised, and I think that’s what this novel does.  The sex is part of Shy’s growth from someone who is strong, but isolated, into someone who is strong and content with the things that strength has won her by the end of the novel.

At this point in the novel there’s a fair way to go, including Shy being kidnapped and sort of half-escaping, half-being rescued, but mostly it’s all blood and action working up to a final conclusion.  I won’t spoil it entirely, except to say that Shy lives through it.  What makes Red Country my favourite Abercrombie novel, and one of my favourite fantasy novels maybe ever (let’s say top 10) is how multi-faceted Shy is.  She’s strong and vulnerable at the same time, physically competent and emotionally driven, but struggles sometimes with social interaction.  She feels guilt for her past and slowly grows to accept it.  She finds meaning in a relationship, but she finds it on her own terms and in her own time.  As I said when discussing Amaranthe in my last post, there are a lot of ways to write a good woman, but if you want a woman who steps into a world of male power and male privilege and makes that fucker her own, Shy South is how you do it.  I loved every second of it.  Abercrombie is a fantastic character author and I highly recommend reading all his books if this review has you interested, but it’s not mandatory to the understanding of Red Country that you do.  Just a lot of the characters present have history in the previous installments, which all take place in the same universe, and it enhances the journey a little for you if you know what those events in their past are.   And if you’re STILL reading at this point, thanks for reading the whole thing.

Tagged , ,

The Emperor’s Edge by Lindsay Buroker

It’s been a little while since I’ve read The Emperor’s Edge series by Lindsay Buroker, and it’s about a six book series that’s still waiting on the final novel, so I might overlook some elements of it in the review.  But I think it’s a good place to start as it’s main protagonist, Amaranthe Lokdon, is written a little differently for a fantasy protagonist and a lot of the things that characterise her make for good discussion of both feminist issues, and how well this works as a piece of fiction.  At the same time, it’s not a very serious series and I can work myself up to talking about feminism and gender without having to jump straight into complex issues like male gaze, rape culture, abortion, etc.

The series opens with a tight focus on Amaranthe, who is one of the first female Enforcers (police) in an empire that dominates the world’s political landscape.  Right off the bat the novels deal with a lot of serious issues as Amaranthe reflects on the difficulties of being an Enforcer in a culture steeped with male dominated martial valour.  She faces outright discrimination from colleagues and is passed over for promotion due to her gender.  I was actually a little disappointed with the first book in the series, as circumstances quickly drive Amaranthe to abandon her position as an Enforcer and become an outlaw, and I really would have liked at least a novels worth or even the whole series of focus on Amaranthe working in these circumstances and dealing with them.  It would have been a much more serious and interesting exploration of gender in fantasy.  As it is though, the emperor of this empire is an unknowing puppet who is being drugged and kept compliant by his closest advisor and former regent, and when Amaranthe catches the emperor’s eye, this advisor uses his position to set Amaranthe against the world’s most notorious assassin, Sicarius, expecting her to die so that she can’t become a problem.  Instead, she uncovers the truth about what’s going on with the emperor and strikes up an initially uneasy alliance with Sicarius who has his own reasons to want to protect the emperor, and sets out to foil him.  She ends up being framed as a traitor, and forced flee.  She then gathers a relatively ragtag group of mercenaries with a variety of abilities; Sicarius, the assassin, Books, an alcoholic history professor, Maldynado, a pretty-boy nobleman who has been kicked out of his place of privilege and makes his way based on his good looks, and Askyr, a street-rat with an interest in magic.  She forms them into a mercenary group called the Emperor’s Edge, so called because they work outside the law to aid the emperor against his enemies in the hopes of winning a pardon and restoring the emperor to his rightful rule.

What I found different and most engaging about Amaranthe and the series concept overall was the way in which Amaranthe inspires the loyalty of her group.  In a lot of the female POV fantasy I’ve read, the female characters inspire loyalty in much the same way a lot of male fantasy protagonists do; they’re competent, deadly, and people follow them because their ability inspires confidence.  It’s a repeated theme of the novels that Amaranthe doesn’t inspire the loyalty of such a diverse group of men because she’s deadly or charismatic, but rather because she invests in them emotionally.  Amaranthe genuinely cares about each of the men who follow her, and given all of them are dispossessed in some way – Askyr is an orphan, Sicarius a nearly autistic pariah, Books’ family was murdered and he’s an alcoholic, and Maldynado was disinherited – her faith in them, and her genuine concern and belief in them compels them to follow her into crazy scheme after crazy scheme.  All of the supporting characters are conscious of what she’s doing at one point or another, but they all accept that her belief in them is genuine and it only fuels further loyalty.

I liked this character thread a lot.  If Amaranthe had been more of a cliched fantasy leader the series would have fallen extremely flat.  But I found Amaranthe’s style of leadership fairly unique across the fantasy I read, and it drew me in to keep reading more, even when the writing itself is a little ordinary and the plot is pretty thin on the ground in each successive novel.  Thinking about it as I read, I realised Amaranthe was an attempt – either consciously or not – by the author to create a female fantasy protagonist who finds success through application of traits more commonly associated with women than men, rather than “masculinising” her to make her a more traditional fantasy protagonist.  Not that I think that the approach of making a female character have a lot of traditional fantasy traits of deadly swordsman, tactitian, etc, is a bad thing and it works in a lot of the books I’ll be reviewing.   Those books work because they feature female characters being just as competent as men in areas that have been dominated by male characters, which is a very good thing.  But I don’t think that’s the only way to make an effective female character.  Amaranthe is both chatty and emotional in her dealings with other people, and rather than this being contrasted as a weakness against a more action-oriented, decisive male character like it is in a lot of fantasy, it’s turned into a strength.  Amaranthe gets her way a lot by talking her way through situations and clever application of the information she gets out of conversation, and I’ve already mentioned the way she gives people a sense of self-worth that inspires loyalty in her.

Another of Amaranthe’s traits I found a little more bizarre; she’s obsessed with cleaning.  It’s a running gag that each time the group moves into a new hideout – invariably a dilapidated warehouse – she goes on a cleaning spree to remove years of buildup of mould, rust, dust, whatever needs to be cleaned she immediately does it.  This could have been stupid very easily, boiling down to women like to clean and are good at it, but it’s worked into Amaranthe’s character as a very deliberate, everything in its place to the point of obsession kind of person in such a way that it doesn’t read as insulting.  It’s remarked on by all of the men surrounding her, sometimes its the subject of affectionate jibes between her and them, but she’s never mocked.  And a few times she leverages this ability to good effect; things like getting a cheaper price on explosives because she helps the store owner reorganise and clean her workshop, or coincidentally the water pump Amaranthe obsessively cleaned becomes useful in a daring escape when the authorities catch up to them.  Other traits didn’t come off as quite so bizarre.  Her investigative ability makes sense in light of her previous profession as an Enforcer, and it makes for good interplay between her and Books, the ex-history professor, and also makes her very effective at foiling the schemes of the hidden group working against the emperor.

Another fun thing these books do is the use of Maldynado as eye candy.  I’ve lost count of the number of times a female off-sider in a fantasy novel gets the group through a tight spot by flirting with a guard or something.  This series flips that on its head a little with Maldynado.  While the empire is ruled by a male-dominated warrior/noble class, the merchant class is a traditionally female occupation, and the huge majority of stores in the series are owned by women.  Maldynado is regularly sent out to do the shopping, because he’s just so handsome and pretty that he gets a discount by throwing a little flirtation in with his bartering.  He’s openly objectified by the female merchants, and occasionally on the receiving end of casual ass grabs. He’s also obsessed with fashion, meaning he gets sent out to buy all the disguises the group uses.  It’s not a big thing, but I thought it was a neat little subversion.  Having a female-dominated merchant class was also good, and a social balance is struck between the male dominated noble class and the economically powerful and female dominated merchant class.

It should be noted that this series definitely fails the Bechdel test.  Amaranthe is the only female character until the introduction of another disaffected female Enforcer, Sergeant Yara, in around book 5.  She doesn’t talk to any other women until then, and when she does talk to Yara some of their conversation actually is about men.  But I don’t think this book fails on that element alone.  For one thing, Amaranthe has all the power in her relationships with men around her.  She’s in charge, and her authority is never questioned by her men.  None of them ever objectify her, though Maldynado does encourage her to get out there and get laid, even buying her a skimpy outfit, but despite being a bit of a playboy himself, never seems inclined to flirt with Amaranthe.  Amaranthe eventually develops a romantic relationship with Sicarius, but even here she mostly holds the power.  Sicarius was raised as an assassin practially from birth, and has almost no social graces.  Amaranthe teases him constantly, trying to get a rise out of him, and leads every conversation.  The romance develops as she draws him out and starts to humanise him.  The fact that he’s the deadliest guy around doesn’t give him the power you’d think it would, as Amaranthe shows him far less fear than he’s used to (and pretty quickly shows no deference to his ability to kill anyone he wants at all), and he’s often retreating in the face of Amaranthe’s mile a minute conversation style and unsure of how to deal with her.  I really think Bechdel is more useful for looking at a work that follows male characters.  When the focus is a male POV character, or if a male is the leading character when it comes to television, Bechdel is a handy way of trying to work out if women are represented significantly at all, or whether they’re sidelined and kept relatively unimportant.  With Amaranthe being the main POV we get the story through, and with her position of power, it’s a little less important that she doesn’t have female offsiders. Though when Sergeant Yara does get introduced it is a nice addition to the group, and Yara herself is a fairly positive, though minor female character.  But mainly, Amaranthe is the story, so it works.

Overall, Emperor’s Edge is a flawed series.  The writing could be stronger and the plot more engaging, and some of the time Amaranthe comes off as more goofy than competent, but I think this was a deliberate choice.  As a series, it seems to be written with fun in mind a lot more than anything else, so some of the issues are a little less hard hitting than they could be.  By steering Amaranthe away from the position of being discriminated against in her job, it avoids a lot of issues that would be pretty compelling if they were explored.  But I don’t think writing a fun, kind of silly series is necessarily a bad thing.  What makes it a little disappointing at times isn’t a flaw in the work so much as a flaw in the genre; I wanted it to take issues that arise out of Amaranthe’s gender more seriously because there’s a lack of that in the genre.  What worked for me was that every character bar Sicarius is a little goofy,  Amaranthe wasn’t taken less seriously because of her gender but because that’s just what the author was going for overall.  The setting is a murky, kind of ill-defined mix of fantasy and steampunk, and could have used a little more development.  But in terms of gender, there’s as many incidental female characters as male, and the power balance in the society seems about equal.  Even though power traditionally resided with men, women dominate economically and the empire is going through a slow decline of its traditional society.  A lot of the antagonists are female as well, with the plot being dominated by a shadowy group called Forge, which ultimately turns out to be a group of powerful female merchant queens who want to overthrow society using ancient alien technology.

It’s a self-published series, so you can pick up the first book for free on kindle, and probably from the author’s website as well for other devices.  It seems like the series is very hit and miss with people, I’ve seen a lot of reviews for it that say it’s not particularly compelling, and I can see that.  I think I was in the right mood for a little silliness when I read it though, and the little subversions and the fact that Amaranthe was so unusual kept me coming back when I probably would have got bored otherwise.

Tagged , ,

Thoughts on feminism and fantasy

I’ve kept up my exploration of the fantasy section in the kindle store and while I’ve been doing so I’ve tried to seek out books that feature a female protagonist as the main POV character.   Sometimes out of impatience I’ve picked some books that don’t fit this bill, but by and large that’s what I’ve been going for.  Female protagonists have been absent from a lot of big name fantasy for a while, but it’s cheering to see that there are more and more cropping up in both the bestsellers lists and in the more obscure fantasy books that you have to go to page 15 to find.  I’m going to review a series of the best and worst and try to talk about what I liked and what I didn’t like about the presentation of these female characters.

For the purposes of full disclosure, I consider myself a feminist, but I am also a white dude so if there are any missteps in my analysis in terms of “is this book female positive,” try to understand that they’re coming from a place of genuine attempts to be objective and understanding but filtered through a lens of relative privilege.  I’ll be happy to engage in any discussions about how I’m wrong, but I’ll probably shy away from replying to comments that are more vitriol than an attempt at genuine discussion.  But I hope people do call out places they disagree with me.  I have my own views on what feminism should be, and those ideas can only grow if they’re properly tested.  Finally, I’m bi, in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner which may also be relevant to understanding where I’m coming from, but I don’t think LGBT issues and feminist issues can be conflated in every circumstance.  Disclaimer ends.

The biggest reason for the disclaimer is that some of the books I’ve read feature female protagonists having sex and being involved in romantic relationships.  I don’t think this is a bad thing, sex is a natural part of life (the lack of asexual characters in fantasy is a separate issue I don’t feel even remotely qualified to talk about at this time) and so having your female characters have sex and fall in love is fine.  It can be problematic when it occurs in a genre as male-dominated as fantasy though because it raises issues of whether it enriches the character or is there to satisfy the expectations of a male audience.  It’s a difficult question because it’s really a subjective thing whether a sexual relationship in a book will come off as the natural sexuality of the character or if it’s exaggerated by the need to satisfy the male gaze.

A good example of this is a book I will review, though not immediately, called Red Country by Joe Abercrombie.  Abercrombie’s books are characterised by a particularly harsh and brutal world, and in keeping with that gritty style (all the gritty viscerals, also grim) the sex in his novels is best described as fucking.  But he also has a reasonably good record of having strong women alongside his strong men.  Red Country is one of his novels that puts the female characters in a position of greater prominence than the male ones, unlike say the First Law Trilogy, and features Shy South as the main perspective character.  At one point in the book she gets drunk and fucks one of the male (but less prominent) POV characters.  I say fuck and not sleeps with, because words like cock and cunt get thrown about all over the place.  To my mind, there’s nothing wrong with strong women having aggressive and active sexualities, and that matches some of the women I know in real life.  But I could also see how a strong but emotionally damaged woman jumping into bed with a guy and finding some emotional fulfilment – as happens in Red Country – could read to a lot of women as that character needing the man to be happy.  It also can’t be ignored that aggressive and active sexuality is not the only kind of female sexuality, but that’s the one a male author chose to write.  Anyway, I will go into more detail about Red Country in a later post, it’s probably not a good idea to try and encapsulate the whole issue in a single paragraph.  I do think Red Country ends up being both female and sex positive, but I’ll go into reasons why in that review.  My point is, the use of sex in fantasy novels with a female protagonist is subjective and opinions may differ.  Hence the disclaimer.

As for why I’m choosing to take this focus with my next run of book reviews, mostly it’s because I find it interesting.  I’ve read so many of these low-cost fantasy novels by now that a lot of them start to blur, and I find as I’m reading them I am thinking about how the characters are put together and what they’re saying a lot more than I’m really being absorbed into the story.  I could talk about fantasy tropes and their uses because those things jump out at me a lot too, stuff like the use of a Chosen One as a plot element is central to my latest read, but that’s a very broad topic and it would be easy to become rambling.  Or at least, more rambling than this post.  The increasing prominence of female POV in fantasy is relatively new, something I care about, and something I find myself thinking about as I read.  Though that’s not why I started seeking these novels out specifically.  That’s more to do with just wanting something different from the 30th dude with a sword book in a row.  Anyway, that’s enough talking about what I’m going to do and why.  I just wanted to preface these reviews with these few thoughts on what I’m doing.  Hopefully people enjoy!

Tagged , ,

In defence of the informal vote

Whenever Kevin Rudd decides to call an election, Australians will be called upon to exercise their vote and make a statement regarding who they think best suited to run the country.  For me, and increasingly more Australians, this presents a problem; we don’t want anyone.  We’re caught between three viable options, each with their own drawbacks, and a number of minor parties representing fringe interests.  If you favour economic and social conservatism, at least your choice is clear and you can vote for the Coalition with a reasonably clear mind.  If you are reasonably far to the left, you might happily vote Greens.  Both of these are valid choices if that’s the way your politics fall.  I might not agree with your politics and would argue them with you if we were discussing them, but I respect entirely your right to vote whichever way you think would be most representative of you.  The issue is largely for the people who reside somewhere close to but to the left of the centre.  Historically, this group has voted for Labor, but the last three years has seen both a severe lurch to the right from Labor, and a general lack of moral leadership that has many of these voters disillusioned.  Some in this group may turn to the Greens but for many, myself included, the Greens economic policy is lacking and their willingness to accommodate Labor in a minority government undermines their usually firm moral stance.  In these circumstances, we can choose to vote for a minor party or vote informally.  Personally, I’m choosing to vote informally.

I have two major reasons for choosing informal over a minor party.  I’m outlining them here because I’ve been told variously that I’m being irresponsible by not voting, that I am throwing my right to complain about the state of my country away, and that I’m deluding myself if I think it’s a way to get my voice heard.  This post is a post in defence of the informal vote, and of those who choose to vote informally when presented with a range of bad options.  By voting informally, I hope to achieve two things; I hope to make a statement that I am unhappy with every option on offer in the slim hope that it will be heard and something will change, and I also want to avoid endorsing any policy or moral stance that I find completely unpalatable.

First, the exercise of my voice in favour of change.  Voting informally is often seen as the same as not voting, but under the mandatory voting system of Australia, I disagree.  When a person chooses not to vote under the American system, their voice is entirely disregarded.  American politics cater entirely to likely voters, and election campaigns are as much about energising the base as they are about presenting policy.  Voter turnout means that who governs is decided by generally between 50 and 60 per cent of the population.  In 1996, it was 49 per cent; less than half.  Australia employs a different system, mandatory voting, which ensures that every person makes some decision when it comes time to cast their vote.  Informal votes are counted each year, and while they are disregarded in regards to which party will form government, the numbers are still made public.  This means that each time an election rolls around, the vote of every person is up for grabs.

That brings me to my first goal of hoping to make a statement and enact change.  The informal vote is somewhat lacking when it comes to making a statement, at least directly.  The votes of people who vote informally out of protest are indistinguishable from those that are cast by people who are entirely disinterested.  What we do have are the numbers of informal votes recorded for every election since Federation, and a free and active political media.  I’m voting informally because I think that if the number of informal votes rises sharply in the wake of the last three years of particularly bitter and repugnant politics from all sides, there’s a chance parties will get the message that such behaviour is only going to lose them votes they could have won.  This will be especially telling if numbers of informal votes are recorded by electorate.  I’m not sure if they are, but if numbers of informal votes rise sharply in swing seats where the difference is in the hundreds rather than thousands, the chances both sides of politics will sit up and take notice is increased.  It won’t be hard for them to work out the reason either, as voter dissatisfaction has been a much remarked upon issue in the media.

It’s arguable that because your informal vote is non-specific, there will be no way to guide any change which occurs as a result of this statement.  That is true, there’s no telling if politicians will try to become more grounded, less partisan and more policy focused just in response to increasing numbers of informal votes.  They might choose to go in another direction entirely.  It’s also arguable that casting a vote for a specific party has limited capacity in this regard, especially when it comes to the two major parties which have habitually changed their stance on any number of issues – and sometimes their leader – when they deem it politically expedient.  It’s quite a long bow to draw to say that voting informally has a chance to enact change, but from where I’m standing it’s the best chance I’ve got of any change happening.  The form that change takes, even if its something I haven’t envisioned at all, is more palatable to me than the continuation of the current political dynamic.

However, getting my message of dissatisfaction across and encouraging change are secondary goals at best next to my desire to not endorse policy or people who I disagree with.  In the same way that an informal vote makes a non-specific statement, voting Labor isn’t voting just for their stance on education for instance, but endorsing every position the party and its members have taken.  It provides whichever party is elected with, as Tony Abbott was so fond of saying during the 2010 election and immediately after, a mandate.  For some voters, particularly those left-of-centre I mentioned before, the idea of Tony Abbott at the head of the Coalition in power is so off-putting, it verges on downright frightening.  Voting for Rudd just to keep Abbott out might seem like a good idea in these circumstances.  By the way, (YES, I am aware that you don’t vote FOR Rudd or Abbott but your local member, you don’t need to point that out.  But come on.  We all know what’s going on.)

I hope every person who reads this and is considering voting Rudd just to keep Abbott out remembers that when they cast their vote for Labor, they’re endorsing it all.  They’re endorsing the new Pacific Solution, which sees refugees resettled in a poverty-stricken country where cholera, tribal warfare, corruption, religious intolerance and violence against women are commonplace.  That’s my biggest issue with the Labor party.  Australia’s treatment of refugees under this government is incredibly cold and inhumane, essentially sentencing people trying to escape prosecution to imprisonment where they are in danger of severe mental illness, completely lack personal liberty, and in many cases are the victims of sexual assault and poor care.  Not to mention it’s an international embarrassment.

You might be passionate about gay rights, and admittedly Rudd has changed his stance on gay marriage, but it’s still unclear whether he means to stick to his guns when it comes to any movement, and even if he does he’s proposing a referendum that will see anti-gay advertising boil out of the woodwork.   You might think the NBN is a ridiculously overblown, overfunded endeavour that’s being poorly managed in a time of economic uncertainty.  You might be fed up on Labor’s constant vacillation on global warming in their attempt to find a solution where they will avoid any criticism.  I don’t know what reasons you might have for supporting or hating Labor, but your vote is a vote in favour of it all.

The point is, when you vote Labor to keep Abbott out, or because you like Gonski and the NDIS, you’re endorsing Labor’s jump to the right wholesale.  You give Labor a mandate to continue or extend these policies.  To my mind, a vote for Labor is a vote approving of the imprisonment and abuse of people for seeking asylum in our country of incredible wealth and privilege.  That’s something I can’t and won’t in good conscience put my name to, even if it is done anonymously.  I have no faith in the Greens to do anything other than win a few seats and give supply to Labor, plus I generally find their environmental policy too extreme and their economic policy incredibly naive.  Every minor party represents at best a fringe issue, and I don’t care about censorship enough to vote for the Sex party.  That will put me in a box as someone who cares most of all about censorship and the Sex party’s driving philosophy, which is not representative of my views at all.  I don’t actually care about censorship at all, I think Australia is doing fine in that regard.  The same is true of every other minor party, even the ones on the left.  None of it is representative of my priorities, and we’re voting to elect members for the House of Representatives.  The problem should be obvious.

From a purely political strategy standpoint, it should make no sense for Labor who relies on its base on the left, to jump to the right in an attempt to win votes, but they have done it anyway.  That’s because they feel comfortable taking the left for granted.  They know they can disregard the left and the vast majority will still vote for them, simply because the only alternatives are the Coalition, who won’t get any votes from the left, or the left will vote Greens who will support Labor in parliament regardless.  The idea of the Coalition with Abbott at the helm might scare the hell out of you – it does me – but I would rather stomach Abbott for the next three years than tell Labor I support their refugee policy.  And I would much rather stomach Abbott for the next three years, even six, if it means there’s even a chance that Labor understands it can’t jump right and continue to rely on the support of the left just because our politics have been locked into a two-party dynamic for so long.

Ultimately, there are people out there for who Labor is representative of their views, just as the Coalition is relatively safe in its appeal to conservatives.  But it’s increasingly not the case, and what I’m saying is don’t settle.  You’re not voting for the party you disagree with the least, you’re not voting for Not Abbott, you’re voting for someone to represent your ideas on how the country should be run.  If we keep voting for the least distasteful option, our politics will be locked between Labor and the Coalition indefinitely.  Politics will keep moving towards simplified takes on issues, three word slogans that are intended to capture the maximum amount of passion with the least amount of detail.  Efforts to demonise the Other Guy will be increasingly more important than having your own substantive policy.  If you’re dissatisfied, vote for a minor party whose issues you care about if there is one.  But if there isn’t, vote informally.  It’s not ideal, it’s not specific and it might not work, but at least you’re not putting your name to what we have.  At least you’re doing the best you can with your vote to say what represents you most, not what represents the least distasteful option.

And if you’re lucky enough that one of the major parties is close enough to representative of your views to get your vote, I’m happy for you.  But don’t look down on the people who have, through careful thought, come to a different decision.  Voting informally is my last refuge this election, and it might be for many others.  There should be no pressure to vote for someone, anyone just because it’s harder to see the value of an informal vote.  The value is still there and I can at least walk out of the polling booth with a clear conscience, even if I will inevitably be unhappy with the result.

**

Postscript: There may also be some people who are choosing to vote Abbott to keep Rudd out.  I haven’t written this post with your views in mind because it’s in part a personal statement, but the same arguments apply across the board.  If you’re fed up with Labor’s weak leadership, if you think they’re bad economic managers, so much so that you’d rather turn to the Coalition to at least get sound economic management – well, I disagree with you. But again, remember you’re voting for someone who thinks gay marriage is a threat to children, that gay people are incapable of being parents.  And for a party who also thinks refugees should be treated as badly as possible within the letter of the law.  Look at every facet of their policy and the implications for the country before you vote.

Tagged , , ,
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started