Patlabor is a classic. The term comes with a lot of responsibility, and believe me, I truly do not like to take or give it lightly, but throughout the years Patlabor has cemented its name as one of the more well recognized and critically praised mecha franchises of the 80s. Managing to stand not that far away in terms of importance and influence, to the likes of Gundam or Macross. Sadly, my experience with it has been nothing short of underwhelming, basically making for a highly frustrating disappointment overall. On this analysis I will attempt to shed some light to what I consider to be the pivotal structure problem with the series, the characters, which are my main reason for never managing to connect with some of its entries. As references for this I will be using mostly the ova series Mobile Police Patlabor, with some additional commentaries on its continuations, Patlabor Movie 1 and 2.

                                                         (My favorite cast ever)

My issue at heart here is actually philosophical one, on the writing of this OVA. The main ideal of characterization this series seems to be going for is something I fundamentally disagree. On the OVA’s first episode, there is a line by Gotou that describes perfectly, said ideal of character writing. On said commentary he points out how his subordinates, the main guys we follow through most of the episodes, are not the autistic pilots of Gundams, dangaios, Mazingers. This commentary lands a pretty decent joke and reference (you would have to kill me, to make me remember an instance where the jokes in this Ova actually made me laugh) but is also indicative of a bigger view on how these characters were purposefully created. It references a logic of taking out eccentricities, extreme aspects of personality, in order to portray their personalities as more mundane, normal, you could say as “realistic people”. Even in this case where the personas are a bit more expressive and show a wider range of emotions than in pretentious crap like Kara no Kyoukai. The problem being, this attempt at streamlining does not lead necessary to what I would call better characters. In fact, I think it plays the contrary effect on this franchise, the personalities are streamlined, to the point they really lack basic aspects of really basic character writing like engaging conflicts, arcs, motivations, depth, psychological introspection, making they really way less interesting as people to the emotionally unstable autistic pilots, who were portrayed in really exaggerated ways, that were kind of a genre cliché (blame Zeta Gundam for this). This for me is a clear example of confusing subtlety, in having the character aspect being more nuanced, having it to be implied through details and small actions rather than literally explained, for dullness in having barely anything in terms of content to these personas. Patlabor is an obvious attempt of going for the latter, but forgets to give the meaning on the small, in having a good grasp on ideas they were trying to imply, to give us a good enough of a sense as to whom these people really are.

Credit where it is due, at the very least the cast here contains a variety of personalities. Each character has its own unique reaction and characteristic be it Oda’s aggressiveness, Nagumo’s rationality, Noah’s childishness. Such characteristic may never portray or give comprehension to a deeper true character, but the very least they serve to create scenes; each persona adds a unique facet and reaction to situations, which in turn makes for dynamic scenes. The developments in history are made on the basis of their unique personality, not on convenient character writing. But when we look to the foundational aspects of good writing, the characterization quite literally falls apart. How many of the main characters in Patlabor have well stablished and portrayed motivations and goals? The answer is two, them being the guys who have pretty much already accomplished their goals at episode 1(firing guns for Oda, being with Alphonse for Noah). So yeah the joy of seeing someone attempt for a goal, an objective, a thing of desire, and work his way through complications to get to that is completely gone here. This issue is only elevated by the complete disconnect between the conflict and the cast, the conflicts being presented through the OVA (with the exception of episode 5) have completely none personal stakes, they have absolutely no relation with whom they are, what they want, being that their repercussions only matter on a social scale (which also does not matter since the OVA has really bad world building, but this is a topic for later). It is a weird case where characters are not moved from desire, worldviews, personal issues, traumas, but because it is their job, they are paid for that and they just sort of have to do it. I usually prefer characters where the reasoning for their actions are explained and have more to them than simple duty, but hey that is just me. It also creates a weird instance where the lack of stakes or interest for the conflict in the characters themselves, also leaves me really disengaged on what is being presented, since it is through their eyes and perspective that we as audience members experience said events. You would think that in Ova where everyone lacks urgency completely, they would try to get us interested on them as people instead, develop those guys to be really compelling, well written. Which is completely not the case, throughout this entire fucking Ova most main characters never grow much from the way they were initially introduced. Take Shinshi for example, he is a main in this Ova and in the first movie. Throughout the course of both the only things we get to know about him is that he is a really passive scarred guy, and the fact he is married (which manages to be his most notable “trait”). At the end of the day we learn absolutely nothing new about the guy, he is still the same person he was in episode 1 (I would argue he is a worst character at this point, because now we know his existence is limited to that). I am not saying Patlabor needs to give ample characterization, depth, or psychological introspection to everyone, the kinds of basic layout which were being used here can work for simple secondary character. Take Sakaki for example he does not need much more than his gloomy obstinate and oozing in authority personality to work for his function, for the screen presence he occupies, and his relevance in the story, that is good enough. Giving this treatment to a main one or I would argue even less to some, is completely unacceptable though. The instances of character development that do happen are also so bizarrely handled. On its first movie Patlabor sets up what should be Noah’s most important flaw, an aspect that was a clear build up for a future arc in my vision (which I think the OVA was also trying to set up, but they were so incompetent at that I am not sure). Said flaw being her dependency on external objects, she named several things throughout her life as Alphonse, and implies her happiness can only happen in terms of being together with said objects. Of course the narrative has absolutely nothing to do with this flaw (it never does in Patlabor, because who needs conventional storytelling of tying conflict with characters flaws, and making arcs about overcoming those flaws, right). But then what happens in movie 2 really gets the cake as most awkward character moment ever. Said continuation literally starts with a scene of Noah saying she does not need her freaking Alphonse anymore and she is over it. Her infatuation with Alphonse the most important aspect of her personality, being built up and reiterated for an entire OVA series and a movie, and the resolution to all of that is part of a time skip, where what is shown is only the aftermath of said change. This movie in general also has this issue of presenting character change from previous entries with time skips, with barely any context, but it as least gives them new situations to react to and aspects of personality, which was more than I can say for most of the OVA, so well done, I guess.

The bigger issue here is not really the personas sucking (which they do). But in how Patlabor needs way stronger character writing for the narrative it is attempting to work (the films 1 and 2 are exceptions for being a detective mystery and political thriller respectively, more focused on plot). There is a great focus on detailing the day to day of these people, the way they interact and play with each other (was this supposed to be comedy), those moments were really more important than the conflict and surrounding narratives at hand in some episodes. There is a focus on character here, which is really not paying off, and comes mostly as a waste of time. I also do not think Patlabor understands what makes said slice of life like scenes functional. Scenes without conflict are great to show the personality of the individuals, showing how they truly act in the absence of an external force, these are the moments where we truly see characters’ act, instead of react to things like threats to their lives. Those can also be great to show people in a great variety of circumstances, or how mundane habits and values can shape or show the true personality besides facades. It can also be a way of stablishing relatability with characters, showing them as normal humans, which engage in the same kind of regular activities as you do. Patlabor barely uses those to any of those functions, instead opting for repeating the same traits (how many times did we need to see OTA wanting to shoot in his spare time?) repeating the same facts about the characters, repeating the same kind of interaction between them ad nauseam and also the most repetitive and obnoxious attempts at banter and humor I have ever seen. During the entire OVA, the only moments where I felt it put those scenes to great effect was in the start of episode 5. In 13 minutes this episode manages to do more for the characters, than the show had done so far in its entire run. By having they start the episode going home, meeting their family connections, or other relations they are inserted into, giving then an entire new situation, portraying a completely new aspect of their lives, even when one of them choose to do not go and stay at the district, that choice also tells a lot about them, especially in Gotou’s case. We even see hints at motivation and desire being drawn for Shinohara in this episode. It is this entire new, really mundane environment the characters go through this episode, that allows we to know way more about them, than any of their repetitive gibberish banter and constant reaffirmation of traits (because of course when we know something about a character we have to see it repeated eternally to understand he is really like that). Despite this instance of effective character writing being no life saver for the OVA (nothing could at this point) and never translating to some bigger exploration in further episodes, it still leads along with the more personal objective(finally) of a long lasting rivalry, to episodes 5 and 6 having the more engaging moments in the show. Those were the key difference of those episodes, not the change in tone (Ok not having those jokes happening so often surely helped).

Shoujo tsubaki review

Have you ever experienced a perfect movie? As an avid anime watcher I am always looking for these titles, the one where seemingly everything clicks. Works of such transcendental quality, with impeccable theming and symbolism, that join extremely effective storytelling with gigantic personal and emotional impacts. Shoujo Tsubaki is for me(and for everybody who does not have shit taste) one of those, a piece of fiction without an equal in any media. This review basically is my embarrassing attempt to spread my love for the work, while also trying to prove as flawed, many of the retarded claims made by most of its detractors. Alsospoiler free review, there are thing in life that need to be experienced in full glory, without spoilers slightly altering(ruining it is just not possible here) the experience.


Will start with the technical aspects because good Lord, those sure are spectacular. I am writing about a work mostly done by a single guy, that took 4 long years to be finished. Yes a single guy, the genius Harada Hiroshi, animated the whole thing, frame by frame while also directing the work and writing the script. The movie is the result of 4 long years of hard arduous work by this guy, pouring his heart and soul into the script and every frame he was drawing. Honestly it just singlehandedly redefined my own definition of an auteur work and of a passion project. It just oozes the dedication, effort and passion that went into every line, moment, onto every scene. Really the aesthetic it reaches for is something completely different than anything me(or you reader)has ever seen before. The complete lack of movement, the static main frames with barely any in-betweens, the really lazy transitions all of which people complained as cost saving techniques also add a lot to the look and feel of the work. You can just simply be shown any moment in the movie, and you will immediately get something truly wrong is happening(yes it is that remarkable), that of course adds a lot to the disturbing nature the craft is trying to subtly show. Same can be said about the drab muted color design, bad composition, lazy usage of angles. Many detractors still find reasons to complain about this artistic unique style of aesthetics and directing with the really retarded logic of comparing it with other works, most notably Hoshi no Koe, another one man project made by the legend, Makoto Shinkai himself. What those idiots apparently can not figure out is how the gigantic difference, the 10 year gap between both works can create in the animation craft. Shinkai when working in Hoshi no Koe had it his disposal the most recent computer animation techniques, which was in fact a technique with little usable skills at the time only being used to fix a little the artwork and actually made the production project slower. Never forgetting how it is that movie experimentation with newer technologies that made for its worst visual aspects, like it's awful usage of depth of field, the weird lightening that randomly turned characters into ghosts. So yeah really unfair and totally off the mark comparison. This method just in general loses completely the idea of how this work of fiction should be appreciated and judged. We cannot compare the quality of this movie production by seeing its nonexistent qualities in comparison with literally anything you ever watched. No, no, no, you need to look at the effort, the dedication shown by spending years and lots of money just to make this project. It is in recognizing that for someone in this conditions he achieved a really impressive result(even when that is not the case). Is this concept of just forgetting anything about the quality of the work at hand and just focusing on the artist, his experience, what crazy lengths he must have gone to manage something of this magnitude truly that hard to grasp. Even when limited the animation is used to really great affect here, it just gets how to pass tension and terror so well. It understands how what is shown is never what is really terrifying, a person with a knife trying to kill us, sure, that can be a little scary. But a creature you cannot see, something you cannot understand, an unknown and highly dangerous threat you cannot understand or define, this is way more disturbing. It gets how not showing can be the most effective tool, by always showing everything, the schlocky gory scenes with its weird animation style, in all its glory, hilariously full of itself.


But since the production cannot amount to much else than pretty colors, I will talk about the concepts, the several thematic threads found in the movie. Out of the bat I have to say this work has a fascinating style of thematic exploration. People who cannot believe how short term duration fiction can represent broad interesting topics in a though provoking manner, should definitely watch Shoujo Tsubaki. It is the exception that proves said though as flawed. An analogy with the way ideas are debated in general, the dialectic can help to explain the brilliance found in here. The movie's thesis is really simple, it represents a truly pessimistic view on world and society. Suffering, moral degradation and nihilism are the core of this world, having hope on happiness, or in the possibility of a better life, can only leave you to dreadful disappointments. The movie presents a fully formed worldview, one that resonates with universal feelings in the hearts of many, the fear the malice, the distrust, everyone has at least one moment in their life's when they think of the world as an awful place. But of course nothing in a debate is simply self provable, its veracity and worth only given by how it interacts and disproves other ideas. Here comes the movie counter thesis, that finds its representation in the mentality of the protagonist, her naivety, her hopeful dreams and love and happiness, the belief of those feelings as an important part of life, and that her situation will improve in the future. The film goes for a really fascinating method to argue for its main thesis, instead of having much of any arguments for the counter thesis, showing its positive aspects, how Midori's view of the world may make sense under a certain perspective, the film goes for nothing of that. It does not want to make you belief in the thesis, by making it ultimately defeat, prove as flawed a strong and well constructed opposing argument, ultimately making you even unwilling come to an understand or even an agreement, with an idea the viewer could otherwise despise. No, the dialectic process at work here is really different, it is one that involves proving your thesis, by having most of your world, characters and events, as just more evidence of what you are trying to say. Having the character sadism and cruelty becoming more and more extreme, happening frequently in most scenes, their acts yelling in every way possible of the unfairness of this world, the more extreme the act the better, as evidences for your thesis. There is no need for a strong contrast, like showing in detail the calm everyday life that serves as base for Midori's way of thinking and actions, which would make both the counter thesis better supported, and the horrible things happen to her more shocking(yeah I know it would probably not work doing this either)by contrast. But just start with rats eating a certain someone and that is all we need to see. Really having something really good happening, allowing for different changes in value betweens scenes other than from bad to awful, would do a lot to improve this work. So if we extend the comparison with debates just a little further, let's make a though experiment, to imagine a certain debate where Shoujo Tsubaki would be one of the guys discussing. The person Shoujo Tsubaki, will act in this debate by barely acknowledging any of the people arguing with him, instead opting to yell what he means all the time, and showing with truly great conviction, the truth of what he is saying, even when he has basically no evidence or reasoning for it. Can you believe someone will end up disagreeing with this guy? It surely was not the case with me.


This is the part where I have to admit, Shoujo Tsubaki does not contain the best cast of characters in the world(it is high up there though). But this far from a problem is also one of the work`s greatest qualities. Because really the objective quality behind these characters really do not matter. Their function in the history is not to have depth, likeable traits, motivations or backgrounds, but to represent perfectly the ero guro genre stereotypes. Following rules and genre clichés do not represent shortcuts, when the author shows the laziness of writing unique personal developments for his history. These constructions and clichés are in fact the end all of fiction, the author should be looking and trying to replicate exactly those. Between developing characters, situations and themes which would propel his craft, the piece of fiction he is trying to make, or trying to simply follow genre rules and expectations, it is pretty obvious what should be the creator priority. So complaining about the lack of character depth makes completely no sense already, but let's look a little deeper into the characters. With the exception of the protagonist they are group of completely deranged malicious people, most them shows signs of cruelty, sadism, greed, mistrust, luxury, lack of empathy, they also usually lie a lot, really they make for a fine representation of the ugly aspects of mankind this movie is attempting to portray. There is another argument for the lacking personality in most characters consisting of a flaw, which is that the focus in showing the unpleasant side of humanity, with no insight or introspection to the people making those acts can only amount to that feeling, unpleasantness. It can never be shocking(people saying the violence in here is for shock factor are idiots, there is no way to be shocked with what is being presented), sad, disgusting, terrifying. They do not emerge here because the characters have no personality to react to the cruelty, we cannot see aspects of our personality in them, which would makes us at least feel empathy for the people suffering and making others suffer, see aspects of our ourselves and our life's, identifying them as human beings kind of not so different from us. This would really make us care in a lot of ways for the fucked up shit they do. It is not this is some really difficult stuff to pull out, just give the characters unique perspective and worldview, a personality that can react in a unique way or think differently about the violence. As it is in the best of cases you get a slight feeling of distaste for the events at play, or at the worst you can laugh maniacally at all the ultra gory scenes. I truly applaud those that managed the latter.


When you are dealing with this level of artistry in the making of a show, you can expect it be noticeable in all of its aspects. Of course the world building is no exception, instead of going for lazy exposition and adding countless of useless details to a setting, that would otherwise not affect characters plots or themes, shoujo Tsubaki goes for a more minimalistic route. Sure we may not know much about this world and city at the end of the day, but every bit and ounce of information adds something in a symbolical or character level, making for really effective storytelling. The whole thing manages to portray the state of Japan after world war 2 way better than overrated classics like Godzilla, Akira, or others critically beloved but otherwise garbage titles like Billy Bat. Really if you are looking for a complete understanding of this period, the complicated sociopolitical situation, the harsh living conditions of the population, this, right here, is the work you should be looking for. Just the way they tie the analogy of western domination and the affects of the bomb with my favorite character, Wonder Masamitsu(mito), is superbly done. His ability, an incredible magic from the west is obviously a reference to the atomic bomb, the complete dominance it establishes over other characters also showing the state of Japan at the period. In one of the show more fantastic surreal sequences, it even plays imaginary pretty similar to people being burned to death, an iconic image of effects of the atomic bomb. This kind of symbolical representation can be seen in several aspects of the setting, where the simply generic representation of hellish places, filled with poverty, crime and really hard to live by, is not a lazy generic portrayal of any place having a disaster, or just difficult social times. No, it actually has lot of symbolical value, which of course I know of, but will not say here, for simplicity sake.


Let's get a bit controversial here and talk about specific scene. Also really important spoiler warning, if you do not want to be spoiled just jump to the next paragraph. The infamous rape scene between Tokkuriji Muchisute(you will be missed) and Midori will be my topic. A lot of people question the necessity of its inclusion since it does nothing to progress plot(having Midori suffer even more horrible things adds what exactly?), character(having this character do even more awful things to Midori adds what exactly?), it gives no further context or new view on their relationship, has overall no greater structure or thematic effect, just one nonsensical reason after another. But there is an important question to make, why was this scene necessary, why was this disturbing really sensitive topic chosen to be displayed here. In regards to choosing topic of grand social significance, specially controversial ones, there needs to be a care in the what and how you are portraying said aspects. Sure there is a gigantic difference between portrayal and endorsement, showing a rape scene does not equate in any shape or form to any sort of argument or defense of this practice(it is usually the other way around). In fact as a general stance I am all in favor of free speech, put all the things and topics you want in your work of fiction, but the question of why is important. Why does your story needs sexual abuse, the most tired and cliché imaginable way to establishing characters as likeable/unlikeable(Sugou sends his hello), good/bad, why does it need to have this act which constantly shows and spreads toxic gender roles, that is mostly used as a cheap shortcut to create sympathy for characters. What kind of purpose or vision do you have for putting any of it in your story, especially when it deals with topics really sensitive for millions of people everywhere(there is even a term rape culture going around goddawmnit) being really uncomfortable for a lot of people out there. There is no way to just simply see the scenes totally disconnected from the act`s social significance in society, so maybe for the author as a member of society to pay a little attention to that, and put some fucking though in what he is putting in his story would be not so much to ask. And as a matter of response to this criticism, I do have a general stance of not even bothering with social justice faggotry, and I sure will follow it here.


So concluding if you were looking for an awfully looking movie, with terrible characters, dialogue, theming, plot, directing, than please look somewhere else. On this review I simply cleared some surface elements, just skin deep details that represent a tiny fraction of what this movies has to offer. There are so many great details I can write about in length here, like the way the effective usage of the soundtrack, like playing a melancholic love music during sexual abuse, the occurrence in several instances of symbolism connected to xintoism based religions, which of course adds another entire layer to the whole movie. The style of narrative that utilizes techniques of Japanese traditional storytelling to achieve new heights by using really interesting, creative ways to tell this narrative. So would I recommend this? Yes, yes, yes, just do yourself a favor and spend your next hour checking this masterpiece out, I guarantee it will not be like anything you have seen before.


Score: Wanting to die/10

Black Panther, Thor Ragnarok and Marvel shit.

Come, you are invited to call me a sellout. I just did the most appealing shit possible, to write about a marvel movie. Seriously in what way, making the 10 thousand one review for those, could add literally anything to the discussion? Besides everyone knows the only reason why I am doing this. Because of the fact more than 5 people read or watched the thing I am talking this time, maybe someone will actually see this horseshit I have to say(what, I can have hopes right?). So in order not to increase the painful pointless thought exercise any longer, this will be a comparative analysis between the movies Black Panther and Thor Ragnarok. So you have that to look forward, in the worst case scenario, where you are still reading this. Excited already?

The first thing that comes to my mind when looking at both movies is how really similar they are at core. Sure one has spaceships, an entire world blowing up, and the other is kind of a down to earth (get it) political thriller mashed with a superhero story. This is not in a sense all Marvel movies are the same shit, but in how both are very traditional coming of age stories (think of lion king for the structure here) of an young prince, having to grow, find their values, deal with conflicted views on their successors in order to surpass them, rise to a throne and save their people. The flaws in former leaders also serve as a commentary on really broad and culturally significant historical events, on Odin`s case they clearly are a meant to evoke colonialism. The wealth and splendor of Asgard being the result of a past of strong militarism, in generally submitting and oppressing others realms and people, and the eternal cycle of hatred, chaos and destruction that brings. In T`chaka`s case the flaw being called upon is his isolationism, which is a display of nationalistic prejudice, the view Wakandians possess, of only people of their own country mattering. The identity as human they have is based on nationality, so while the entire world suffer, and they have the power to do something about it, they ignore it and do nothing. Killmonger is the result and consequence of this practice (which is weird because he also perfectly displays the colonialist approach Thor commented upon).

There sure are issues with how both movies approach those ideas though. Black Panther is kind of a mess in that regard, with long segments adding barely nothing to the main idea being presented. Like what the hell is that segment, where the characters go after the dude who stole Vibranium, even about? Any connections you can make to the main commentary at hand are tangential at best, where it consists of an argument for the whole isolationist attitude because this one dude fucked then over. And even if that is this case, the question never leaves my mind, would it not be better to show him actually betraying Wakanda, than doing something completely unrelated? Even to what I believe are the secondary ideas in the story, the conflict tradition x change and racial identity x national identity (all of which brought and commented in the Killmonger arc), this parts enforces none. And it gets better, the only plot relevant thing that happens because of this, is that one dude believes and follows Killmonger more easily, so yeah great consequences indeed. Although not awful by itself, taking out this part would make for a way better movie overall.

Despite not to this degree, Thor Ragnarok presents the same issue. The sad thing is, this really did not need to be the case. The subplot of leaving the main characters abandoned in the wasteland of Sakaar, despite presenting lots of potential shy away from what it could had been. We have this world specifically and clearly designed to present a commentary on colonialism, along with a totalitarian oppressive government, a coliseum (not coincidentally the symbol of the most famous colonial empire of all), generalized slavery, this is the full plate for this kind of topic. The whole thing should mash perfectly with the main idea and conflict, in dealing with the past of conquering and oppression of Asgard. But bizarrely the connection is never made, Sakaar is not on this precarious state, as a result of any kind of asgardian conflict. Its misery does not originate from looting of conquers. Segments like the dictator saying he is alive and ruling for millions of years, gave me such strong vibe of some secret link, relevant ancient event was in the heart of things. However absolutely nothing comes out of it. Think how brilliant it would have been, with the dictator was a preposterous from Odin`s government. If the people that come to the rescue of Asgard in the end, where the same groups that suffered oppression, and hardships because of events directly connected to such world`s wealth. Some parts of this movie give me the sense of a perfectly logical and ideal development there, but I guess the creators never had complete sense of the story they were making. Which is a shame actually.

The way the main ideological conflicts are presented and resolved also differs heavily between movies. The main ideological compass of Thor Ragnarok contrasts, Thor and Hella`s ideals of leadership. In hella`s case ruling means conquering, exerting power over others, accomplishing great deeds in order to prove yourself, find recognition. Stopping at no ends in the pursuit of your goals. Thor`s leads with his altruism, trying to act in the interest of the subjects, to serve instead of commanding, going to the extreme means of sacrificing himself for the sake of others. Honestly the whole thing is really underwhelming, none of the characters gain a better understanding or learns something new from the other (Thor`s arc and growth of finding his own value has absolutely nothing to do with the conflict at hand). There is no midterm possible between both points of views, and no compromise comes from any of it. Actually that Skurge (or as I like to think of him destroy guy) character is the only who struggles, has story that is about him being challenged by both ideals, and actually choosing in the end. And even in his case the whole thing consists of him flip flopping between the two opposites without much reason. The conflict also comes off as each side simply affirming what they believe, while the other barely cares. That is until consequences of Hella`s ideal and Thor`s sacrifice save the day. An external solution which added nothing.

Black Panther undertakes a way more interesting approach to the central conflict. The thematic template of the movie, has T’chala being challenged by his father isolationism and its issues, and by the ideal of aggressive conquer from Killmonger. His answer to both is never simply to choose one and one sidely vilify the other, he chooses to go for a compromise, accept the merits and issues in each ideal and try to improve upon both. His main take away from it, is to find a middle ground, still act to protect Wakanda and its citizens, while also trying in every way to offer some of the help this world needs. It consists of coming to terms that, even the people you disagree with may have something valid to say. Because Killmonger amidst all his madness in fact had a solid point about the issues of racism and the ideological isolation of Wakanda, it was how far he was willing to undergo. The way he always tried to portrayed any argument on extreme dichotomies, a fake Manichaeism where no half measure could exist, on which only extremism could be accepted as answers. This was his flaw.

Perhaps the whole reason for my points stated above mostly come from the difference in antagonists. Sure we may get hints to Hella`s motivations in her desire to prove her worth and find recognition, and she serves her part in displaying the consequences of colonialism and its cycle of endless violence rather well. But as a character, she has absolutely nothing going for her, making for a more clichéd and cartoony representation of those ideals, rather than a more empathetic (and thus more terrifying) showcase of them. Killmonger is completely different. Many criticized some of his actions like killing his girlfriend just to get a little tactical advantage, or the blatant hypocrisy in his ideals. However those arguments come for me, from misunderstandings about the core character, and what was being said thorough him. Because what makes him special compared with other villains with ideals of destroying the world, is how self-aware he actually is. When played straight, that his supposedly ideals of racial identity and attempt to help people, can only lead to the destruction of the world, he barely blinks an eye. Because he is all too aware of it, how his plans are not set to motion in order to help the people he says to care about. They come from a place of knowing there will only be carnage, endless destruction and massacres, on his path. Nevertheless, he keeps moving on, following this path, because his anger of everything and everyone is all too great for him to actually stop and forgive. The hallucinatory sequence where Killmonger interacts with his father, portrays perfectly the person he is. As a child, we actually get to experience Killmonger cry, lament, show sadness and an inner fragility. But as an adult, those feelings come to the surface only as rage, a desire to hurt everyone around him, while repressing everything else. Killmonger has feelings, but they only can manifest as a deeply ingrained hatred, against the world that denied his dreams, the people and country that killed his father, because of the life he was forced to go through, as an orphan in such world. Despite having a slight empathy with people that had the same experience, what comes first in his mind is always to destroy. Sure lots of people may die in the process of what he wants, but that is just the undeniable reality everywhere for him. Maybe when the entire world is in ruins, everyone forced to experience death in the same ways as him, maybe than he can appease his damaged soul. So yeah we actually get to understand and see everything about the character, in a way that makes the horrible acts he takes, not only understandable but way more powerful, and unsettling. He is a perfectly dramatized and empathetic display of the ideals he presents. And this is not even getting to the topic of just how much the guy, adds to the ideological debate of the movie, the conflict regarding tradition, and the ideal of national identity first, where core aspect the character commented upon. If there was an aspect on both movies, I absolutely loved, and though it deserved any of the large praise it gets, Killmonger`s character is definitely it.

Moving on, the federal flaw in Black Panther is definitely the plot structure. We start with a 20 minute coronation, which besides giving some insight to T`Chala’s situation, presenting the main characters (some of them at least) and the setting is overlong, and did not do much for the movie. Then the story becomes about the pursuit for that Ulysses guy, which I literally have absolutely no idea what is that supposed to do for the story. Like the major contribution we get from that, is the fact of some guy following Killmonger’s rule because of it. So hooray for consequences. So we have an unbelievably overlong first act, where barely nothing of significance happens, sure things do pick up when best boy arrives, but that is no excuse. Thor Ragnarok is way better in the sense, there is a strong degree of causality, each turn in the story being a result, direct consequence of what comes after it. The movie understands the basics of storytelling really well, there is a significant pay off to everything that is established, even the opening sequence that seems like filler at first. No aspect is simply forgotten, usually affecting the plot in more ways than one. You do get clear narrative purpose from every segment, and none of them fells unnecessary long, or overstretched. So yeah, it gives a lesson of effective storytelling, at its finest.

In regards to style, the movies are incomparable. Praise the noir like fell, of the casino sequence all you want, it simply does not even compare to the amount of energy and creativity, found on the smallest action set pieces of Thor Ragnarok. There is a sense of aesthetics, a visual stylization, with the vibrant usage of colors bringing back the glory of 80’s comics, which just come off as glorious. This aspect is not helped by noticeable usage of badly integrated CGI (this just simply is not the setting to attempt to contain so much of it) in Black Panther. The scene of T’Chaka and Killmonger struggling underground, just looked like the most ridiculous thing ever.

About the world building, it is important to notice, this is usually the least important aspect in a Marvel movie. What I mean is, those usually do not care at all for this aspect, only consisting of contemporary settings, where heroes and impeding world threats sometimes appear. Both movies are better in this regards, Wakanda represents an interesting mixture of the most advanced technology in the planet, with archaic traditions and practices. Which is funny for breaking misconceptions and prejudices, of the futuristic society in fiction. The attention to detail in the representation of diverse cultures, and populations of Africa, through the architecture, the practices, the clothing, is truly praiseworthy.  It is far from ideal though, because we have barely any scenes that displays the details and lives of normal people in this setting. The showcases of Wakanda are usually only about the actions of our main characters, never presenting the society divorced from them, making the whole world feel a bit hollow, and only being there for them. Thor Ragnarok struggles a bit more from balancing the two settings the story takes place in, making Sakaar way more interesting than Asgard (which I believe is actually deliberate). Also if you are one of the assholes, who keep complaining about how Wakanda is never discovered, more power to you than. It just beats me how you can rationalize and make sense of every bizarre and implausible act that marks the very fabric of MCU.

Concluding, as part of phase 3 MCU movie, these ones are marked for being a bit (focus on the bit) more experimental and putting thematic exploration at the forefront. Which are things I actually appreciate, but do not change the fact both are just half of a good movie. Take the narrative, structure and style of Thor Ragnarok, with the antagonist and theming of Black Panther, then I could be discussing what a freaking great movie that would be (actually having a better MC than either would also help). As it stands they are movies I kind of enjoyed but will probably never really care about, or try to watch again. As far as Marvel is concerned, the only movie from them I actually considerer great is Guardians of the galaxy 2. However with their recent track record being frankly better than what it used to be, one can only wait and hope for what they come up next.

For Takver

Dispossessed review.

This review will contain spoilers, so proceed with caution if you care.

Just deciding an approach for this work is a pain in the ass. Seriously, I just cannot decide. There is just such a wealth of ideas being explored all in great detail, that I could spend pages just doing a rundown of the main ones. Which still would not fix my problem, since a lot of what makes the thematic exploration is how pretty much every concept is interconnected, is related to others. I could talk about character, but the dispossessed follows the rare case of personal journey and character exploration for our protagonist, where you can find a progression and certain meaning being drawn for all the encounters, the endless varied substantial(and not so much) experiences with people. How can there be a discussion about Shevek, our protagonist, without going into detail about his relationship with Takver, Rulag’s abandonment, Tirin and Bedap friendship? I would have to describe the entire plot in order to give the sense of who Shevek is. Maybe what I am feeling is a deeply rooted anxiety found within myself. The deal is, when you see excellence manifested to this degree, a book, which lends itself to so much scrutiny of analysis of its qualities, the feeling of not being up to the task of writing about them is undeniable. The concept of my inadequacies as an individual, someone that is supposed to critique a book about human interactions, while never sure of what his own relations really represent, or if ever managed to truly stablish one. However nothing is simply going to pass, really leave if I only rest my pen and stop, so without further ado, this is my dispossessed review.

For starters, forget every preconceived notion or idea the sci-fi label may give you. There are no sentient robots, no time machines (sort of) and the space ships appear for only one or two chapters and barely matter. This is a story about human beings first and foremost. The various sets of technology being presented only matter on the terms of creating meaning, informing something about character, psychology the cultures (If you do not believe me, just look for Ursula Le Guin, the author, usual reaction when people label her works as sci-fi). What is being attempted here is not a guesswork of how the future would be like, the focus is on how every technology affects and informs character. There is varied wealthy of topic being studied, and all are grounded and serve to say something about human mentality. Take the detailed descriptions of architecture, while in every other book those would consist of the meaningless details people call great world building nowadays, in here, it helps the narrative, shows a lot of the mentality and situation of both the men, and the society who build and lived in such buildings. They are in a way about psychological repercussions on the individuals at the center of it all. By propelling both themes, narrative and character with her world building, Ursula le Guin achieves some of the most functional attempts at crafting a fictional world. Instead of having the creating of a fiction world interrupt and take away from her history, ideas and characters, they complement each other perfectly. You cannot imagine the personality of anyone in this tale, outside of the societies they are born into. Take Vae for example, her overtly exposed sexuality, the way she uses sex as a mean in little power games, how she displays all the futility and vanity of the rich wife archetypes, while despising that shallow view. The bitter resentment laying in the core in regards to Urras’s power structure based on gender. One, which she helps to reinforce with actions. The connection being character and world is so clear, she only makes sense, can exist in the setting being created, and the setting is also shown and built through her, which also tells a lot of the ideas and topics being explored(which are insanely vast). A perfect union of form and purpose, and guess what, It could be said the same for lots of other characters. In effect, having the main ideas so closely tied to character action, setting, narrative, is what allow the thematic to be way more than simple lip service to some arbitrary philosophical argument, but something way more grounded and intricately constructed.

On its journey of deep exploration of the human condition, the grandest and most important question being made is about how individuals form connections. You may find the wall motif repeated ad nauseam in the narrative (usually to great effect though, being evoked with new contexts) always highlighting the distance between individuals. Be it the real terrifying wall, splitting the arbitrary border between, two worlds Urras and Anarres, or the figurative ones, the protagonist’s mother standing on dream wall, which he can never reach, in light of her early abandonment. The feelings of only seeing walls everywhere in the situation of never making connections with others. The task of surpassing the gap, finding the means to truly communicate and understand is a feat of amazing proportions in this book. Even the ways, means to do so are object of questioning. Words, languages subject themselves to such a degree of interpretation, limited by arbitrary cultural signifiers; you just end up with feeling that have no way to be expressed in any language. This happens in instances like when facing the truest despair, on the day of worst separation of your life. Being misunderstood is such a common occurrence when using such, whatever we say is subject to an enormous degree of interpretation from people we know nothing of, or really get.  What comes off as a surprise is, how we usually can get just the basics clear in conversation. This should not be so tough, as our simple status as humans, growing up in a sort of similar society and environment, should allow what we share to greatly outweigh our differences. Circumstances feelings, thoughts, appearances, there is an extensive degree of resemblance between everyone. In reality, the consciousness of difference, self far outweighs that, though. Shevek gains at a very young age, the denial, the abandonment when faced with his mother decision to leave him and his father forever. This amounts to be the second most important event in the narrative, and dictates a lot of young Shevek’s personality. By opening up with this particular occurrence, it displays precisely the potential of being hurt, the rift between the will in the desire of contact, when opposed by another. In the eyes of this young child, with no idea of who he is, but which needs to come with terms with the fact the most important person in his life so far is never coming back. Throughout his youth, the degree of alienation of the child growing up is only emphasized. By occurrences such as, facing humiliation in class, finding no one interested, willing or capable of discussing the same topics and feelings having your father unable to understand or offer any advice on your situations, all this sets an image of a Shevek very marked by isolation. Perception of difference plays a big part. Intellectually Shevek is miles apart from any of his peers, but this rather than pride or strength is a painful reminder of how different, isolated he feels in this world. Having no one around, caring or able to follow his thoughts was maddening, not liberating. The rather passive instance when trying to reach others also makes complete sense in light of his trauma. He has a mentality that simply waiting, never trying to reach others is the normal reaction (after years just desperately waiting for an image of a half remembered mother) this comes with an awareness and consciousness, maybe he does not deserve, has any right to ever make this connection. Giving sense and reason to a low self-esteem, and truly self-deprecating nature, all starting on the fact, Rulag never came back for him.

The isolation is not actually literal though, on the institutions and places where he spends his youth and adolescence there is a variety of people he can speak. Fraternity is the trademark of the odonian society, there is such a strong social consciousness where every one of them is part of a group, brothers that always help, coming to very organic view of society, guided by mutually beneficial actions. When having such a variety of souls, calling him brother, which would welcome him with open arms whenever he requested, even still the loneness was unescapable. Their voices were unreachable, the sounds only adding agony. Possessing the solitude, which does not go away in the best of circumstances, is hell. Can you imagine the idea of self this leads? One where you cannot even accept your own humanity, your awareness of uniqueness and difference is far too grand for that. Closing the individual in a wall so thick, the mere thought of getting to know somebody is absurd and preposterous, not even cogitated, for not even coming to the realm of possibility.

There is a great deal of duality, when looking the ways human interacts throughout the book. Which manifests in the differences between of depth in connections.  Shevek dad is someone that is usually always physically there for his son, always going to his company whenever possible. On a basic, level both manage to form a bond; he likes his father straightforwardness, having a kind of reliability in terms of pending personal insecurities. The relation was mutually beneficial for both, as it was their mean to deal with Rulag’s abandonment, the feeling of frustration and loneliness, which arose there, while also being generally enjoyable, and a good time for father and son. However, there lays the issue, each comes to the other looking to run away from their problems, finding surface level pleasure. The connection that is born from that can never go beyond it, an enjoyable but hollow state. Palat never opens up, truly faces the son, the closest relative he has, in order to talk, complain, share his everlasting suffering caused by Rulag. Shevek tells literally nothing about what I wrote above, or can even get relief on his father on terms of a role model, someone whom he could try to be like. The tragic death of the father not being shown only briefly mentioned is very representative of the kind of bond; one that while not pointless (in every instance you can take and learn something from others in this book) was not determinant, truly meaningful.

When coming to the second, society we are introduced in Urras, we actually find out Anarres is kind of the ideal place for human relations (seriously, believe me). At Anarres even at direst of situations, there is this basic feeling of fraternity, everyone is naturally predisposed to help, to trust and expect the best of those around them. This is a society that abolished concepts like property and political power, where no one really owned or had nothing, and trying to exercise power or dominance over others was truly fawned upon(even though those ideals were subverted in several instances in the odonian world). There is this notion that even to just survive on this wasteland of a moon, the help and perseverance of the group is absolutely necessary and vital. In Urras, we have this entire logic flipped. There is just so much, social inequalities, nationalism, gender, political structures, just so many differences, structures ideals getting between people. All these culturally constructed ideologies, which only serve to split humanity, make it harder to see the individuals, the flesh and blood souls that actually exist and are suffering completely alone. A culture that thrives on individualism, submitting others for personal gain, and trying to obtain power on every level. How can you make a sense in this madness, to even get a hold of yourself, so much less of the person next to you?

Eventually the protagonist finds a path, not a definitive answer, but a general way, in order to get closer with the world. In the characters path, dispossessed makes a dichotomy between two ways, as general guides for living your life. You can follow the pleasure, look for the pleasure the positive feelings and satisfaction in life, to make those the guiding principle in your actions. But by doing so, you get lost in an infinite cycle, of finding pleasure, getting frustrated, dissatisfied with the thing obtained, the boredom settling in, and the whole thing only accomplishing diminishing results. Then you restart the same cycle follow another goal of desire, which can only give momentary satisfaction. Doing this only amount to half measures, a constant need to self-indulge, to look only for enjoyment in life, which by our infinite desire, tendency to look for more, and get used to any current situation, can never bring true joy. Shevek finds another guiding principle, in following the pain. This is the universal feeling, the whole of humanity truly is united upon, all of us in deepest corners of our minds, have this occult painful truth about ourselves. This is ultimately, what makes us human, the profound desire and suffering we share. It is the core of the individual, whatever brings true grief, are the matters, which really do matter. Which is bizarre because those are exactly the topics people never talk about, never on a casual conversation, discussion it will be brought up,  a formal talks would completely shy away from any such matters. However, those are still the true things worth discussing, getting worried, and suffering about, the universal pain, which connects all of humanity. Although using this principle allows for a path filled with strife, struggle and anguish, there is no way to get lost here, as long as you can withstand the suffering, the boredom, the rejections, the indifference, all those negative feelings and memories in the back of the mind. Because these topics are no longer something to run away from, undesirable truths which should be avoided at any cost, but gain importance, meaning. By convicting and facing those feelings, the individual can better known himself, get a true grasp of what he truly wants, allowing for a greater drive, motivations, for the self to never get lost in the empty search of indulgence.

So, can I say Shevek achieves self-realization and peace through the embracing of those ideals? Not really, in fact he comes to the doors of suicide thorough doing so. In trying to live by the aforementioned principle, he becomes completely isolated from the world (yes even more so), as in living alone for his grandiose goals. While harboring all the pain, the suffering of live onto himself. The closure in regards to the world is so completely he talks to no one, sees no one, living becomes a matter of studying physics, lying in bed sleeping, while nothings happens or changes, the same old routine, the same bubble of alienation every day . There is no space for anyone through this wall; human relation is barely if ever attempted. Which only becomes more tragic because, even as the means for an end, the whole thing just does not work. It is not self-sustainable, the emotional instability it brings, in having short euphoric moments, followed by a melancholic depressive states on a constant basis. How could anyone come to support the loneliness, even strive for something in this state. The end of following the pain in this case seemed to be to death itself, which he comes very close to enacting.

Yet to get to the bottom of what Dispossessed has to say on this topic, we have to go beyond the denials diving deeper, behold the other end of a duality. Which means I can finally start writing about what is arguably the most important, person in Shevek`s life, and narrative, Takver. Her arrival literally changes everything, their first two encounters are off hand marked by each offering something intrinsically important, fundamental to the others existence.  On their first meeting, Shevek offers the ideals, I wrote down in the paragraph above, something that Takver intimately cherished, and came to believe. However, something always ringed hollow in such ideas. Despite talking about the importance of sharing the suffering, he never really truly attempts to do so, living in complete isolation. There is this contradiction between the consciousness desire of connection, which is never acted upon, and the gigantic fears of being rejected, harbored because of damaging personal insecurities, which in his worst moments come to a terrifying certainty that nobody could come to accept, or even look to him as human. Takver goes to the person I have spent paragraphs trying to give a sense of, and offers the connection he always looked for. An ultimate attempt at a human relationship.  Two individuals that barely know each other, set the compromise of attempting to form the most ambitious bond ever, a promise to always try to understand, look the individual right next to them. While also consisting of sharing, trying to tell, show discuss and truly expose all the feelings through every method and way possible, most notably the suffering, but also the pleasure, the joy the fulfillment. All of this in service of building a connection, even if just a little having each getting a better grasp, while always trying to understand and bond. It consists of something deeper and more subtle than love, being motivated by the intimate desire we all have in common, of seeing our pain, desires, wishes, being acknowledged, recognized, seen by others. It also is everlasting, more relevant than simple desire, by not being a pursuit of momentary pleasure, but of something that could lie way beyond that, more intimate and heartfelt. Of such class is the nature of the bond we see at play here.

When I say everything changes after this, I truly meant. The encounter could be easily explained as the most important event in the life of the man who changed the entire universe. It comes off as a source of motivation, help, and guide. When alone in the middle of the place, which closely resembles hell on earth, in the character’s mind, all he can think of is Takver. Calling her in the middle of his agony, wondering what she would say, feel, her presence and advice being what he seeks in the worst of moments. Managing to build this great source of motivation, relief, just really knowing there is someone by your side, who will hear your worst thoughts, feelings, accept and truly try to share the burden with you. Even the separations are not seen as complete martyrdom, they gain meaning by the existence of the connection, and there being a relief in the mere fact, of knowing there is someone waiting for you, a place to call home and long for. In addition, of course the joy of coming back, rejoining with this connection is impalpable. To clarify, this is not to say we are talking about a perfect idealized relationship, human relations are ruled by the same chance of finding yourself hurt in here, as everywhere else in the book(or in life). Potential of causing pain to an individual through connections is always there, sometimes appearing even involuntarily. Not finding ways to express what you really mean, your true feelings, is the most natural reaction after all.

Nevertheless, meaning in the compromise both are willing to undertake is undeniable, the enterprise of simply going on this wild impossible to predict search of others is admirable. The walls of the self are impossible to truly climb; to get a perfect understanding of anyone around is impossible (in fact doing so would be really close to gaining power over someone, which is diametrically against these narrative morals). But the effort in attempting to do so, to gain understanding, not power, to get a single grasp at the core humanity that join us all, the possibilities and wonder in all that, is something the dispossessed lays down masterfully. The chance of finding sorrow, anguish, suffering all of it is worth it, before the potential of a true connection, finding that brief insight or moment.  It ultimately constructs a relationship that can only be portrayed as unique, special, and magical. When Shevek express this as the one thing he has been looking for his entire life, while never managing to put in words or in a coherent though, both the feeling of always longing for it, and finding it finally expressed, came to me as well. Coming to see a reflection of deeply resonating desires is something I always find alluring in fiction. I just love whenever a writer get an idea with such personal weight explained, better than I myself could. Which is to say most of the stuff between the two, made for easily the best parts of the narrative.

In regards to narrative structure, the dispossessed truly displays an ingenious idea. The book has a circular pattern of sorts, the ending echoes the beginning, meaning the story comes full circle by the end. But it goes beyond that. Instead of a singular chronological telling of Shevek actions, the narrative is split into 2 simultaneous sequences, one showcasing the story of the beginnings of his life in Anarres, while the other being about his entire stay in Urras. What is fascinating is the strong correlation, an almost perfect parallelism between both stories. Take the initial aspect, one starts with Shevek’s birth, the second has him experiencing a new birth, after facing a worse than death destiny, when being disconnected from his community. The Takver betrayal has this thematic complement and parallel when Vea does the same. The ending display of events, in trying to rebel against the organizations which rule society in both worlds, also has the exact same consequence. What I am trying to get here, is there is strong correlation between both narratives going on.  A strong sense of both being intrinsically connected, actually complementing, and correlating at all points. Which also drives the point home, of Urras and Anarres being polar opposites, each needing something the other desperately has. In each telling you can find a new facet, perspective on what amounts to really closely resembling events. You can only sparse the complete meaning, all the implications being made, the greater thematic and character importance in the occurrence, when you tie it into the grander context, narrative of the book. Which sounds simple, but to masterfully manage to tie together all of her story in such a structure, with such purpose to the way events are told, is something I barely have seen done to this extent.

What always impress me in Le Guin’s works (not the only thing ok) is her ability to instill nuance, negative and positive points onto every system of power she presents. It is no coincidence she describes the world of this book as an ambiguous utopia. You would be excused for not getting that the system which is being presented as superior, is actually the anarchy of Anarres(I am actually not sure on this myself). Really, the actual society of Anarres is just so flawed; there is this general lack of organization in the production forces, which makes though to meet even some of the population most basic needs. Idealists starving to death in their supposedly world saving utopia, does not represent commies in this universe but the anarchists. On bad years, the situation of lacking resources is generalized in Anarres. The society also comes with lot of both personal and systemic corruption, to the odonian ideal this world is supposed to entail. We have syndicates applying and gaining authority, almost becoming a bureaucracy, power structure. Lots of people just generally trying to gain power, influence over others. Being an odonian also just represents such, a strict social consciousness, to only act according the good of the community, comes off as a strong belief for everyone. Moral rules also have such a binding force, there is no need for law and government enforcement here, the individuals internalize the community rules, and all act as little tyrant oppressors even of their most deep desires, all for the greater good of the whole. Even when unhappy and hating the whole thing, the individual always takes these ridiculous self-sacrificing actions, all because of how conscious they are of their duty as member of a society. Moreover, never mind the imminent threat in extinction of this entire planet; because of the shitty natural environment, they are placed. 

Nevertheless, you know what, nothing I wrote above really matters when we see the alternative (please do not take this shade as literal). On Urras, the location that is explored is the country of A-io, as it stands for a direct parallel to a first world country during the cold war. There are other countries like the communist Thu being mentioned, but they lack the careful exploration and intricacies found in Anarres or A-io(btw if you are interested on seeing Le Guin’s take on a sort of capitalism x socialism conflict parreling the cold war, just read her book, the left hand of darkness, a boring as fuck masterpiece if you believe such). Nevertheless, what we see is a market economy in its prime. Prosperity is the rule in this country, the effervescent economy allows for a variety of products and services being offered, while the human ingenuity and creativity are able to reach new heights, frontiers under this regime. What is presented there is the biggest extent of development, and capacity to change and model the world, that exists in the entire fictional universe. Most of the more severe social, inequality issues were solved( on this country at least, the rest of the world apparently has to take the burden for much of this splendor, having a relation which is pretty similar to what third world countries represented in our society). Poverty exists, but in such a way that the rich are extremely rich, and the poor are in no way miserable, or that worst of anyways. For a physicist of Anarres looking to work, on a first glance, this was a dreamland. Luxury, comfort both could be found in spades. Then you start thinking, what could possibly be wrong, why is this not heaven on earth? To answer that, you need to look beyond the surfaces, see the cracks on the perfect mirror of society, placed deeply into the heart of the people inhabiting it.  To actually form a functioning satisfactory relation with another person in Anarres, is simply put impossible. Everyone you can find just consists of masks of normalcy, merely more than appearances. Hiding anything else on the back ends of their minds, like Oiee when facing the biggest humiliation of his life, at the face of Shevek. Their words and gestures are all about meaningless formality (the difference in social standards being the recurrent one). Citizens are only guided by self-interest, looking and reaching for others as means, tools to get a better standing. For someone completely alien to such culture and way of life, this appears in even worst manners, every gesture or action most people take, are towards taking advantage, moving a personal agenda based on his persona. Relations always mirror the way society is organized, and in no place this is truer than Ayo. They follow the same hierarchies (just look at the submissive almost humiliating actions a butler has to take) while also being based on the same kind of power dynamics which rules the whole. They come with a notion of being exerted in a way to subjugate, strip the person away of every free will or trace of individuality he may have. While also making mistrust, the fear of the other, expecting only the worst in everyone around you, as the default mindset. Deceit to gain profit and benefits is not a bizarre sign of madness, but the behavior, that should be encouraged. It is no surprise real life great businessperson, usually have way higher levels of sociopathy than the average joe, just look what kind of behavior is the rule to achieve success on the system.  This world is impossible to understand for an individual like our protagonist. He extends his thoughts to everyone, tries to understand, trust, really look and listen as he did in Anarres.  Amounting to nothing, as no one is willing to do the same, his never-ending pointless encounters with individuals, consisting of a complete madness where no actual communication happens. The poor, the oppressed seem to be different for a period, revealing the pain and sharing the anguish in their conditions. However, there is a difference of purpose about the discussions done here, and between Shevek and Takver for example in Anarres. On Urras, they come not from caring about who Shevek is, establishing a connection, but also as means to an end. A goal of finally getting the long lasting grandiose protest occurring, with an Anarres representative, ahead of it all. You can have ideological disagreements with what Ursula Le Guin has to say in this book, but her thorough exploration and showcase of all facets, aspects in regards to the ideals and arguments she decides to explore is simply unmatched. Simply selling a point of view, showing an idea is simple enough. Le Guin is going for something more nuanced, complex, multifaceted, in her representation, of politics, societies and individuals, which for me she pulled off with flying colors.

Also, if I did not make sure already by the first paragraph, please be assured not to think, what I will be attempting in this paragraph, will be an exhaustive roll of themes in this series. Such a task would be the job for someone way more qualified than I would. When representing society, the tendency, which can be found in the work, is to complicate everything. Meaning that, there is no simple dichotomy explaining what the conflict in any given society should be. Which is the mark of most modern ideologies. Take communism for example (totally not the cliché example, that is the only one I can describe in passible terms) how would a capitalist society be presented, what conflicts would arise from it, according to a Marxist perspective? Sure there could be a majority of possibilities, but all would be entrenched, have some sort of deep rooting in a proletariat x bourgeoisie conflict. There is no such thing in the capitalist world of this book, all its conflicts come from a multitude of symbols, origins, ideals, surpassing a typically modern worldview. However, they also have a strong interdependence, amounting not only the start a new issue, but help inform and complement others, give part of an understandable picture of the whole. You cannot make a sense in regards to what Urras consists of, with easily identifiable conflicts, there is no single aspect defining the entire structure, everything matters. Sex, religion, social inequality and hierarchy, government forms, economic systems, natural and ecological conditions, all of it matters, and takes center stage in defining what each setting actually is. Which consists of the fragmented, hard to define ideal of the postmodern society.

A concern with the importance of language, and how it creates meaning is also tied with said ideological conceit. The usage of language differs heavily between the groups being presented. In Anarres, we have pravic, the biggest human made language. Its rational creation and usage tells a lot about the odonian society and their ideals. For example, there is a lack of possessive pronouns in the entire language, which makes complete sense; this is the society that wants to abolish completely the ideals of property and possession, so of course people would not be taught to think in these terms. When we have a rational society, which wants to improve and encourage the feelings of social fraternity and union between people (these are matters of life and death here), of course words like curses should not be used, and could you guess it, those are not found in pravic. Although an efficient form of social control, those weirdly also represent the limitations of communicating ideas, in moments like Shevek finding himself with no words to describe feelings in pravic, like the truest of despairs. The two complete different languages spoken emphasize the social hierarchy in Anarres. The rich have the sophisticated, scientific, dialectic, while the miserable have their barely understandable, confusing dialectic to communicate. Which also makes a great way to enact social control, limit the ability to exchange ideas, gain knowledge, and organize the lower class. To simply control how the ideas are conceived is way more ingenious than using actual censure, which is (formally) forbidden on the country. A surpassing of language as simply the means ideas are passed upon, but the study of its true importance as perhaps the greatest creator of meaning is evident. Can you picture every one of the topics I listed above, dealt and explored in a variety of implications and meanings, usually globally relevant, and complimentary? A truly multidisciplinary and endlessly complex work, was drawn upon my eyes, and my mind never stops returning to learn more.

So would you say it is coincidence, that despite the narrative following the greatest physic of this universe, none of his work or the physic being presented, has nothing to do with real word science(scientific exploration, and hard sci-fi concepts are really not what this book is about). Nevertheless Shevek`s life long work is actually really relevant to this narrative. Over simplifying (grossly) what he is attempting, it consists of trying to understand how time works, and is experienced by humans in the universe. There are two dichotomous view on the subject; the simultaneity theorem, under which every event, in past, present and future is, was and will happen simultaneously, giving then, the idea of sequence to reality our consciousness see, as only an illusion, a human mind by product. Which is counterfeit to the sequence theorem, where reality is advancing in time, happening on the same kind of logical moving forward as our minds. One dictates determinism, the other allows for free will. Shevek sees no contempt in both, making flawed ways to explain the world, incomplete methods, understandings, as explained with the rock, tree path dilemma. A recurrent motif (it is weird how in every time the differences in how he explains the same logical problem, show exactly the whys and how of Shevek`s growth). You could try to read the issue and its solution with dialectic Hegelian thinking, but doing so is not satisfactory. There is no synthesis between opposites happening here, no middle ground, union of both ideas to form a new one. In order to surpass the dilemma Shevek has to maintain both as separated equally valid ideas in his mind. Each explaining its own event, parts of the universe. To find answers on his field of though, the search for certainty, scientific precision and method (the freaking kid wanted to describe everything with numbers, because of how hard words and people were to understand) had to be abandoned. Only through acceptance of the illogical, unexplainable, an internally unsolvable contradiction, truth can be reached. Allowing for the creation of an ultimate theory on time. What is the result of that, you may question? The annihilation of space, an universal wall breaker.The creation of the ansible enables a new dawn for mankind, a communicator able to transmit instantaneously messages to any place anywhere, to everyone simply by means of its possession. This is the ultimate democratization of knowledge, allowing for groups even thousands of miles apart to exchange ideas, thoughts feelings. While also not enabling the transportation of troops, armies that would only travel as tools of domination between societies. This mark the beginning of a new universal order, the Ekumen, which is the topic of Le Guin’s earlier work, the left hand of darkness. The federation Shevek’s actions gave the impulse to initiate, is one not based on government or armed forces, but in ideals of a mutually beneficial trade in knowledge. On the conceits of general fraternity, union and help between every population. All in service of the wellbeing of its inhabitants.

I think you just need to stop, when your analysis is nine pages long with no signs of an ending. Hopefully, I could get the point across, and offered some insight into such a fascinating piece of fiction. Certainly the tale of this insecure, preachy, moralizing, self-deprecating to a fault amongst his undeniable merits, obstinate, incredibly melodramatic (omg, what a horrible self-insert), fool always looking for the value and how to build interactions with others will not leave my thoughts so soon (if ever). In addition, I would be delighted if someone had this experience based on what I wrote. Although my anxiety and anguish kept unsolved by writing this, I stand offering to you, my art, myself, on the hopes someone may find it acceptable, take something out of it. Perhaps such a thing is enough, or all anyone can ever achieve, to which with no a