My Truth

By: Jonathan Seidel

Cogito Ergo Sum: illusion and solitude—meditative discourses enveloped in a fictional world. 

Descartes’ most famous idea cogito ergo sum declared the foundation knowledge. At the base of it all, only knowing oneself was possible. In effect this singular conclusion finds correspondence with mystical meditative ideas. 

Cogito for Descartes is a realisation of the self. It is the foundation of epistemological process. The origin of reason is this self affirmation. His own consciousness affirms his existence. If he thinking of himself then he must be alive. It is this primal certainty that emboldens security. A sanity of self sufficiency. Such certainty is irreversible. It is the basis, the bedrock, of human plausibility. An immediate clarity of the self as a wanderer in the game of life. Otherness is only conjecture. What is to be true is what can be conceived in one’s own space. In one’s own periphery, in the speculation of the mind. It is his consciousness itself, conceivable of the inconceivable that marks existence. Proudly acknowledging the debt to his own affirmed prestige. Even if all else outside the periphery is a falsehood, the self cannot be. Indeed, given this analytical deduction, it must be that existence is real. The ability to transcend the promising unknown is a declaration of existence. He cannot doubt he exists. Easily deducing the plausible simulative phenomenon but not himself. If it is the convincing of the doubt itself that marks existence. It is through the thinking process that shines the title existing. Processing the syllogism into a mantra: that I am, I exist. 

Doubt is farfetched in the mind. Thoughts can be guided to mistaken conclusions. Duped by the mind to believe otherwise. Phantom pain is a tragic mind-bending imposition of brain reconfiguration. Yet the turmoil of the pain affirms existence. At the foundational level, the thinking even if erroneous is itself a manifestation of a living organism. While this differs from convincing oneself of something, it does follow a similar format that despite the neurological mishap, the consequences reveal the proper existential reality. The dreamer in a coma exists even if those thoughts circling into unconscious narratives are not implemented into reality. He may not be conscious but his existence is warranted. His brain is not turned off but his body is still pumping. He exists until his body decomposes. To some extent the self may idiosyncratically refer to the soul with death it departs. Yet brain dead fits the same mould. Without the possibility of recovery, of potential circuitry, existence withers. A person may grieve for a dead relative or cheer for a famed leader. While the memory of these individuals is upheld, their existence is merely a subjective imagination. Those bodies have rotten with no plausible motion of interaction. Yet we say that unicorns do not exist. The state of non-existence is a subjective decay of one’s incapacity to live. The existence of something as an idea does not hold up to the parameters of existence. 

Beyond, Descartes’ intentions with his theory as well as criticisms from later philosophers, the point of departure for this specific piece concerns the solitude of the self syllogism. The only certainty is the self. Non-existence may prevail all around but existence is sure to be found amongst the self. Yet it is doubt concerning surrounding phenomena that prevail in the theory of primal being. Descartes’ declaration is a condensed version of Aristotle’s tangential affirmation. Being as first philosophy certainly made its mark at the onset of modern rationalism. His version was to produce a syllogistic concretisation to canonise the idea instead of playing along with the phraseology of old. From Parmenides to Avicenna the statements were dialogued but Descartes cared less to argue in passing. Instead it was to halt this idea as the basis of his philosophy. To reckon with a new dualism and pass the torch to the modern age. Use reason to establish the foundational truth of existence and thereby logic will follow. A bold attempt with critiques flooding from the existential thinkers. Kierkegaard presupposes existence by cogito. To think would mean to exist not vice versa. Williams further denigrates the recognition of thinking as a third party perspective. An external view of consciousness. Still, this third party view is the self introspection which itself is validating one’s existence. It is not that thinking can deduce existence but that thinking is the self affirmation. 

An internal chord acknowledges the exclusivity of the self’s existence. The latitude of capability solely of the self’s inventory establishes a special communicative alliance. While sensible it is incongruent to others measures. I know what I am thinking but I cannot read another’s mind. I can raise my hand but I cannot raise your hand. Aspects of trickery under hypnosis enable the truths to be spewed but only through the other’s voluntary execution. All else outside myself is a mystery. Similarities seem to demand inevitable uniformity but that is not always the case. Even if it were to be true it is merely coincidental. The possibility of congruency across platforms is a measure of education not a linked neurological platform. Jungian collective unconscious weaves all humanity into a unique stream but such accusations are conjecture. Though if accurate, the simulative persona is still a potential solution. There is little that can derail the possibility of an enclosed matrix. Dreams of a potential fantasyland are reoccurring fictional aspirations. Existence is anthropocentric. Anthropocentric to the self’s goals. A novel with you as the protagonist of the story. Mightily arrogant but yet rationally induced mania. Arrogance is part of the game. Still, the collectivist assault seeks to destroy the humble wishes of self actualisation. It is not a question of ethics but of submission. 

Subjectivity marvels in its relation to difference to the world. While dehumanising at its maximum magnitude, is petty at its minimum altitude. The spectrum is not to isolate others as irrelevant. Instead it is to muddle the grand importance to the collectivist assimilation. The coercive tactics to bind to the larger conglomerates. To be fused into the matrix. To be another Mr. Smith. Instead be Mr. Anderson. Survive and remain a soloist at the cost of sanity. Retain pure self in the chaos of forced conversion. Following one’s being is to counter depressive conduct. Oppressed by expectations and melodramatic narcissism. Being shines in its acknowledgement of self importance. Everything else pales in comparison to personhood and individualistic aura. Quite the existential dogma but realistically liberated from compelled endeavours. Not so much a humanist assault nor a paranoid businessman. The self is recognised in the face of a sea of otherness. The self must take charge not in red-pilled fascination nor in any exploitative media. Less emotional turmoil in a dramatic world of overreaction and oversimplification. A chill pill and honest introspection. Everything outside the self is secondary to the self’s declaration. Being is a singular force for self care. 

Exploitative tacticians selfishly belong to the greedy nonsense that propels their eudaemonia. Essence is not solely a link to other beings but relational to other nouns. Ideologically syncing into the pervasive fame of yesteryear. Seduced by otherness for the sake of recognition by others. True being is the mystical chief. Seeking solitude away from the societal bag-grabbing trash-talkers. Consumerist punches on the societal picture. Manipulating with new ideas and events to trample the soured being. Being is genuine in its safeguarded isolation. The taoist passivity seeking to secure being. Aspiring for self preservation to fend off the devilish desires that otherness props up. Recognition of self is the existence of necessity. All else is a projection of the simulated decorum. The symbolic takes centerstage. Corrupted by the societal means of socio-political duality. The metamorphosis of societal collusion seduces otherness into the objective methodology. The rightward model of execution. A beating drum that cannot be undone by the visual incantations. Fascinating the conscious mind urging it toward the limelight. A degenerative assault but one with successful results. The self breaks free in search of tranquility. Away in the forest, he calms his mind. Aware of himself and his desertion. Alone but knowledgeable of himself. A true serenity with a simple rational conclusion. The only thing to be true for sure is myself, how beautiful.      

Declaring one’s being is an affirmation against those who have lost themselves. Those who may have once been free are now shackled to society’s objectification. Imprisoned unable to leave, surrounded by zombies who wish to devour their soul. They cannot be reasoned with. The prison cell is merely a poisonous cage inflicting the public with zombie disease. Infected, falling prey to the apocalyptic denial of true freedom. Those woken up from the slumber fail to recognise their mishap. They see zombies all around them masked as people. So much individuality and yet a nefarious belonging. Only a certain degree of individuality is permissible. Ideologies must be aligned and thought processes consistent. They are imprisoned without being tied up. Free to roam the prison yard unaware of their true incarceration. A spectacle enveloped in erasing primal being. There is no thinking, there is no acknowledgement of the self. Simply put, a unified projection of oughts. External stimuli demand identification with the norms. Activity and execution heralded as proper expressions of society. Conforming in light of gifts. Zombies have existence. While similar to a coma, the ability to wake up conscious pertains to existence, such is true of zombies who transform to unconscious beasts. Their existence lingers yet their essence overpowers. The line between being and belonging is blurred. Belonging shadowy decreases being subconsciously. 

Belonging taking charge turns everyone into a matrix. The impossibility to understand otherness propels into echo chambers of dogmatic conclusions. The only thing to count on is the self. Others play a pivotal role in development but being is the greatest master of wholeness. Meditation and reflection further to elevate the individual. The spiritual persona reckons with the supreme intensity of living. Absurdity is attacked relentlessly with passive continuity. Being is not the defensive rolled into a ball but a counteroffensive in voiding dubious causes. Focusing internally for a stronger power externally. Projecting oneself as the main arc for one’s journey. All otherness is an extension of the self. It exists but need not be entertained. There is a certain level of respect but also a certain level of restriction. Do as desire. Desire the best interest for developmental actualisation. No strings attached. Cling to oneself and beholden to the power of its independence. Solitude is scary for the belonged but not the being. The true self is the only genuine fact. That fact is seminal to the subliminal elements. Sartrean being is not primary for the sake of liberation to other belonging but for its own belonging. For in the chaotic jungle one can handle his own. One is not afraid of solitude. One does not fear loneliness. Unaffected by otherness. At the end of the day Mr. Smith will try to seduce Mr. Anderson. Defeating him is ignoring his willpower. Pushing back with wits and strength of one’s own. Testifying to a personal charge of life force. 

Cogito characterises the links to otherness as symbolic. They are but helpful uses. Cutting off the toxic ties while maintaining the productive lines. The self exists in his own frame. Unparalleled and unprovoked by coercive otherness. In the mind of the subject otherness is imaginary. A fantasyland where one is the true protagonist. Norms do infest the nest of societal construction. To be part of society means to belong somewhere in some capacity. Yet the overgrowing desires shot out of the barrel of a rifle need not hit their mark. Some submission is warranted but a wanderer at heart. A nomad aware of his own salvation and peril. Pain and eudaemonia. Otherness matters insofar as it elevates the individual. Do not let others tear you down. This is your illusion. NPCs hover around the dreamworld. Engage them properly as they assist the journey. The self guides towards the correct mantra. Living by a tight fisted ethic with vision and relentless passion. 

Playing with the Boys

By: Jonathan Seidel

Pick me girl: a friend’s plea concerning woman’s roles in cinema as girl boss or love interest. Where are the meaningful conversations of woman and woman.  

My friend El-ly, explained the idea of a pick me girl the other day. Such a girl is one who acts differently than the pack for attention. A girl who acts out for male approval. She explained that the girl boss and love interest types are classified into a traditional metric for cinematic film. Concluding that there is rarely dialogue between two female side characters beyond the protagonist’s goal. 

The theory is quite interesting. I have not watched sufficient cinema to conclude whether this is a genuine claim. Yet in all the movies that come to mind with male leads, the love interest tends to be just that. Her role is recognised by her affiliation to the main character. The women in any of the James Bond films are under-appreciated because their existence is contingent on Bond’s role. They are the women that need to be saved. They are princesses that Bond falls for and are his ticket to stardom. They rarely have their own being. Their being is linked to Bond’s. Independence is brutally deficient. The female is forced into a box. An existence by the patriarchal element. A life only worth living if Bond accepts her. At the onset, her role is non-being. It is only her attachment to Bond that her being has significance. She is brought to life and becomes significant. She may have a few choice words for Bond. They may play a game of cat and mouse but it solely inside his matrix. She can only act this way with him. She can only act this way while his being is connected to hers. 

One of the obvious problems is the love interest’s sole purpose as the protagonists fiddle. Their purpose hinges on the protagonist’s movement. Indiana Jones has a number of love interests. Their purpose is magnified in the context of their appearances. Yet they do not live outside his orbit. If he ceases breathing, their purpose does as well. They may have many lines but they are in his frame. Their role is simple. Bring some spice and romance to the movie. This prostitution model takes the love interest’s personality away from the character. The character is straight to the point. Their role is helping the character. They are his ammunition but can be voided. They are not the purpose nor do they receive recognition. Their ladylikeness is dispelled in the ignorance of womanly duties. They are a side arc for the protagonist’s complexity. A woman with no voice other than to the protagonist. She can speak to one person. A medieval purified doctrine. The female character is what she is aware with. She is a supporting actress. A support to the protagonist’s whims. Her role depends on his decisions. She is caged to a monistic role that fails to capture her complexity. Such variance is ignored. It does not exist nor is it relevant. 

Love interests have it rough but even those who are not such as Princess Leia are still brutally demoted. The issue is that although Leia has more colour to her character, such colour diminishes progressively. The trajectory dies down throughout the movies. She begins so strong and then is feminised into a love interest by the end of the sixth movie. She begins as a feminist icon. Leading the rebels, standing against Vader and then slowly loses her standing. In time, her role is decreased to Han’s love interest. To a point of a sex symbol in Jabba’s Hutt. Was this degrading process intentional or a consequence of consecutive writing? Padme has a similar but worse arc. Her independence is shaken by her affiliation with Anakin. A queen to a scarred wife. Her ferociousness filters into a love interest. A smaller power to her powerful role as the queen. Her place muddled by an emotional overhaul. Both female character’s lose themselves for love. A conservative pundit of women giving up work for family. Yet their feministic roles lose clarity and sensibility in their eloquence to their male counterparts. They lose their significance as the movies move on. The male protagonists take on the main roles while they remain in the background. They do plays roles. Padme is Anakin’s conscious. Her existence causes Anakin’s fall to the dark side and her death the end of him. Yet it is contingent on his role. Leia falls prey to Han’s outlaw tendencies. While Luke is the main character, her role revolves around saving him and aiding him throughout. A housewife on the battlefield. A strong and inspirational character who is better at providing soothing advice than fighting enemies. 

Yet, the main issue is the lack of female representation. Among the main characters, only one is female. Thus even her centricity is overshadowed by the boys club. A recent movie Jumunji, begins with two of each gender and then moves to three boys and one girl. Even the girl is a tom boy and is described as a pick me girl which will be reiterated. The lacking equality or even ratio equivalence marks the boys club. Pulp Fiction and Fight Club have strong female leads but they pale in comparison to the male strengths. The men overshadow and take centre stage. Who are the females supposed to talk to except the men. Action flicks target men and thus have such a ratio. Male leads are prominent with other men fighting alongside in the war. Strong characters are forced to be more masculine to fit in or feminise into a love interest. Leia begins as an empowered female. Standing up against the empire. Though simultaneously sending R2D2 to get Obi Wan to save here. The first movie spends much of the action saving her. While she demonstrates some independence and fierce character, she is still a damsel in distress. The interactions are serious but the plot portrays her failed independence. Her masculinity shows and then is feminised to Han as her role amongst the men became entangled for romance purposes. Her independence ceased.

Cases with multiple female characters may not stand on the same side. Guardians of the Galaxy begins with the classically imbalanced six to one ratio. The misfits work together to save the world. There is female chemistry between Gamora and her sister Nebula. On opposite sides of the war, they fight. A major component through the MCU is their relationship developing with the baggage of resentment and jealousy. Fighting with their father Thanos or against him. They do not really ever make up and the story fades into Nebula avenging Gemora. They do not stand on the same side. Their conversations are intertwined in the masculine energised conflict. There is no sister talk of beauty or gossip. Solely a tumultuous daddy’s problem scenario. Despising one another for the choices made. Ripley’s staunch victory in Alien has interactions with a young girl she saves. There is a female on female discussion. Yet Ridley’s actions are masculine in nature. Her place in the plot is a James Bond substitute. She is saving another damsel in distress. The mythos simply continues. While the movie is glorifying in the feministic enterprise, the goal masculinised Ripley fails to be achieved in her womanhood. She is a fighter. She can fight amongst the boys. She is placed in their camp. Seen alongside the men. Alien busting and outlaw character is a pandering to lustful men who crave the sexy activity of a strong-willed woman.

Uma Thurman’s character is a masculine version of a female lead. Whether in Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill. Thurman in the former is a strong woman amongst the men. Her role is minor compared to the other characters. She is a prized possession of the boss but that does not provide the adequate independence necessary for the character. Her role though strong willed is tied to Travolta’s interests. Winston’s submission to Marcellus leads to his affiliation with the Thurman’s character. Her character is hinged on Winston’s movements. Yet the more influential flick finds Thurman as the main character. In two movies where woman reign supreme in the martial arts, Thurman takes the classic male myth to the feminine side. Husband murdered and looking for revenge. An old classic with a female lead. The gore and thrill is high masculine energy. The same role could’ve been played by a man. The script fit Thurman. Tailored to the storyline. A samurai’s journey with a gender twist. Such character development is indicative of fearsome masculine pull. Captain Marvel plays with the same fire though Kill Bill is a tremendously greater movie. A recent twist on the girl boss motif furthers women to act like men. Men can fight so can women. These solo outings follow historically male plots with female divergence. 

Vampire Diaries nor the other female leading magic shows dispel the myth. Female leads are masculinised to be aggressive and save the world. They are chosen to be the hero. A timeless myth commonly found for men but the same facilitation is articulated for women. Though at the same time there is classic female behaviour. While they attempt to change the world they need male assistance at times. They cry and sulk for male advice. Romantic quarrels become heated. These female leads add some variables to Campbell’s explanation. Female leads still have their primitive cinematic insecurities. Their male counterparts are stoic and strong while these female saviours find comfort in their help. The same diagonal relation is articulated but in a smoother relation, the men live independently. Though this may simply be a Vampire Diaries thing where other characters gain more screen time. So much screen time that a couple spin offs were created. This may be a sole example or it may represent the feminist lead. There is a clear difference between Vampire Diaries and Captain Marvel. The collectivist versus individualist model stands more congruent with feminised elements. Even as a lead there is more to explore in the universe. The world is not solely the main character. Other characters may spawn from the lead but their stories are credible to research. 

Differences may dwindle down to type of movie. Dramas may be open to expansive iteration while action funnels into a single character’s experience. It depends how the story is written. Given there are female leads who are intensely focused and other characters matter little without their insistence. There is rarely a screen without them speaking or acting. While dramas probably provide the most extensive network for non-protagonists to discuss, the extent of such conversations is not always so great. In long-standing dramas it can be unclear who is the main and who is the side characters. There may be a few. So even in the Vampire Dairies, there is no scene where side character’s speak amongst themselves. There are multiple characters and their stories explored. Still an achievement. Those side characters evolve to main character status. Though their independence is derived from the main story branching out. Vikings begins with Ragnar’s stay and when it branches to his children’s stories the frame swaps between Bjorn, Ubbe, Ivar, and Lagartha. A story must evolve for those side characters to become main elements. Then again this is not always consistent. Lagartha was dependent on Ragnar. As his wife she was the link but once their marriage falls apart and her wisdom increases she attains her independence away from marriage in her own monumental story. Still her warrior skill and attitude reflects the classic masculine image. 

At the crux there is certain female behaviour to be the lead. Take the case of Mean Girls. Katy is trying to fit in despite her tom-boyish attitude. She fits in with the outcasts. Regina brings her in to the exclusive popular bitchy club. The feminine side dawns on Katy to act more girly. She decides to alter her looks and act dumb for a boy to like her. She wishes to be wanted. She turns herself into a desired girl. The boy she wishes to impress is utterly confused. He liked her for her uniqueness. She realises in the end it is better to be her true self than be a more feminine girl. Moral of the story be your tom-boyish self. Femininity is ridiculed in the absolute bitchiness of living. A more balanced individual is one who stays true to who they are. This is best articulated by Katy’s friends: one goth the other gay. She is from Africa, a third outsider to the mainstream. The irony finds her flirtation with the boy. She believes femininity is the way to his heart while to him it is her boyish attitude. He likes her for who she is. He likes her because she is content with who she is. She is irregular and that raises eyebrows and mystery., She is pretty and smart. A combination furthering her appeal. The movie DUFF (from the trailers) also conveys to be who you are and not fall into the feminine need to look good aspect. The redefinition need not be spending hours on makeup to look good and dress as such. Yet, is this really the case?

Pushing such agendas as dressing autonomously and degrading the classical feminine muses places a stronger masculine spin on it. It is only wrong if it seeks to degrade the feminine of old. This applies across the board to all parts of classic femininity. To looking good and to housewife duties. Trying to blend a lead female who is overpowered but also deeply emotional symbiotically upends the genuine masculine energy. Female heroines are more complex. Not the Ripleys or Danvers. Stoic identity is not as addressed in male leads. Personally less acquaintance with chick-flicks. Not aware of the extent of Pretty Little Liars or even Grey’s Anatomy. They may possess a bit of each but there is a consistent theme of love interest trying to gain more attention. The best way to do this is by reversing the roles. The female takes lead and then hovers over potential bachelors. Wondering will they or won’t they. It is also possible there are certain ingredients for female viewers than male viewers. Many male shows narrate a single character’s growth. Centred on an individual’s aspects from The Mentalist to Longmire. Side characters are indelible to the experience but are solely extensions with little testimony to main individual. The case of House revolves around the protagonist. Each character’s development is in response to House from Chase to Cuddy. There is no side quest for the individual to assert their moment. When House goes to psychiatric care and then to prison the storyline shifts to his new habitat.  

While female targeted series may expand the character centre to multiple perspectives, there will not be a scene that escapes one of them. Three or four characters may find their moments throughout the series yet there is a focal link between the characters. In a way these shows compensate for the pick me alternative by presenting an overload of female leads to congregate with one another. Even to mix with male leads but spend time developing the female protagonists. The male lead focused on his lonely hero’s journey interacts with others out of necessity to his path not as a kind act. The drama filled exploration denote artificial extras to spice up the plot line. Back to House, each character plays a part in House’s development. Wilson plays the most pivotal role, his role is central in its relation to House. Much of Cuddy and Wilson’s conversations concern House. Though the irony of a self-obsessed protagonist and the show discussing his self-interest is humorous. Cameron plays her role as the beauty that House calls out for hiring her. Her development is rejecting him and becoming her own person. Yet in the long run, there is a fractured element to her building. To some degree she rejects Chase because of his House-like mannerisms but there is also a seemingly underwhelming mechanism only seen through House’s eyes. 

A recent series, The Rookie stars various characters. A few males and a few females. Nolan, Chen and Angela receive the most screen time. Their lives intertwined gaining multiple perspectives. Conversations beyond the semantic are posed between Nyla, Angela and Chen. The relationship between Chen and Tamara provides a deeper consult to the non-masculine identity. A feminine powerhouse in a regularly male-dominated department. There are obvious cultural references that may rub conservatives the wrong way but the show definitely portrays a female correlation beyond the masculine priority. The show clearly prioritises Nolan. The show revolves around his rookie campaign in his mid-forties but does not undermine other entrances and their stories. Shows like Married with Children and Full House may have positioned male characters with more lines but the female leads did have girl on girl interactions. While the male leads were more central to the show the females played their roles to perfection and received internal development. It may not have been symmetrical to the men but it was significant. Golden Girls was more female centred given the main leads were women. Nevertheless even forty years ago, women did play independent pieces of a holistic series.   

Television series provide more time to develop characters. Movies are quick straight to the point. The big screen is a statement while a series is an elongated routine. The ability to get to know a character and their inner workings is possible when there is more screen time to meddle. Movies tend to to jump into the storyline. Despite the differences, the question remains if on both ends, the female lead is stereotypical. The pick me girl model runs against the stereotypical layout. The character is a stand-alone independent woman who tries to escape the matrix of the screen. Wonder Woman is an excellent example. An amazonian warrior hellbent on defeating evil. She not only diverts from her mother’s instructions but differentiates from the rest of the women. Her entire portfolio screams difference. It does not suggest that the character degrades other women but that her existence inherently does. Yet the grand irony still follows her “feminine instincts”. While she stands isolated from the womanly pack, she still possesses womanly characteristics. She will never be a man and disgraces womanhood with her embrace of manly endeavours. The modern twist on females excelling in masculine professions such as a cop in the The Rookie displays a range of uncanny feminine behaviour. In the female leads, they are still hunkered away from femininity. 

Sitcoms have largely compensated for this disaster. Both Married with Children and Full House recognise the roles of the female leads and align them in the story. The larger synopsis generates a humble attitude to female integration. The men have more lines but the women play their share as honesty reflections. Kelly acts very feminine and is beloved. She acts true to her female self at times using her beauty to her advantage. A stereotype but one that plays into her success and applauded by the audience. The same goes for Stephanie and Michelle whose sister relationship is on display. Acting true to sisterhood. It is an imperfect demonstration but one that does attempt to grasp female adolescence. Though Friends may take the cake. Unlike other series, The three girls are symmetrically popular to the boys. Joey and Chandler may receive more screen time but their humour was the crust of the audience’s enthusiasm. Monica and Rachel’s relationship ought not to be derided though. There is much backstory given to the girls and their relationship. The show capitalises on the female bond between the two. The pick me energy may be present in Monica and Rachel’s attempts to independently grow on their own. Monica a chef and Rachel a designer. Rachel even leaves her fiancé to be her own woman and start fresh. 

For Friends, the desire to be an independent woman in a man’s professional world is offset by the feminine charm. They do present lady-like character. Yet it is also at the expense of the traditional housewife model. Monica wishes for her own legacy away from her parent’s expectations and Rachel to start anew from a failed engagement. Rachel’s independence berates her dependent girly sisters who have yet to mature. Female job security good but marrying rich unemployed bad. Under the lens, even the female leads are venturing out into masculine trends. Then again, this is a feministic tenant. The movement itself calls for women to be independent. The portrayal of female characters may discreetly shun femininity but it isn’t as if the movement isn’t aiding in this push. While male directors may be at fault for poorly writing female characters, it is also possible that the Hollywood feminism is triumphant in its influence. The score of female protagonists such as Captain Marvel and She-Hulk seek to effeminate the character by exposing her masculinity. It is not even hiding in a hybrid feminine naturalisation. It is full-blown girl-boss stoic loner hero. It is an eye for an eye identical to most male lead storylines. It baffles and even undermines the femininity of woman. The latter is a cultural problem sought to overcome the problem with pandering opportunities. 

Top ten most famous female characters include Laura Croft, Katniss Everdeen, Ellen Ripley and Sarah Conner. Each of these characters while beloved possess masculine ideals. The aggressive stoic competitive nature is deeply reflective of many male led action flicks. Mulan ironically tries to bridge the gap. A woman struggling to endure the male dominated army. Her struggle is apparent in her physical immaturity and inferior skill. The pick me energy may result in her prowess in the long run but such action was executed out of respect for her father not some social reasoning. Mulan is untalented and imperfect but it is her perseverance that is rewarded. Other female icons reverse this trend. Scarlett O’Hara, Belle, Alice and Dorothy. Each of these characters even with their own amount of first wave feminism do demonstrate a strong femininity throughout the films. It is their womanhood that places them in their social nature and yet prevail in the long run. The latter group do not try to be men but live through their womanhood. There are imperfections in their character development. There may even be an archaic vibe to the stories but nonetheless possess incredible will power and dedication. 

Dorothy is seemingly a feminist icon who refuses the title. Either Oz is a dream undoing the entire fantasy or Oz is real and her desire to return home undermines the fantasy. Similarly, Alice is the heroine who saves Wonderland. Her curiosity and independence propel her feminist’s grind. Yet like Dorothy, she leaves Wonderland. An area where she is regarded as the saviour. She is unable and unwilling to accept the ways of Wonderland. Caught up in her Victorian identity, Wonderland is a foreign world, one that is feminist acquainted but abhorrent to the character. While Dorothy and Alice have separate ideologies, the common theme is the progressive doom. Belle is a bookworm and while wise and beautiful, she is a weak woman. A woman who courageously seeks to save her father but is powerless against the beast. She must kill him with kindness. She must sway his ways. Thwarting his aggressiveness for stoic humility. The sheer feminine touch defeats the loud mouth arrogance of Gaston. Yet between the two it is still a battle of fists. She is a female hero but not a feminist hero. Scarlett mimics the same case in her search for love and dignity. Winning is not a gladiator battle as with Ripley and Conner but with emotion and wits.

Fans adore Ripley and Conner. Iconic female characters with a bone to pick. It is hot! They demonstrate a keen ability to capture the viewer into their crusade. Their aggressive stoic characterisation fits with masculine energy. Alice and Belle are feminine character for girls to amuse and follow. Belle is a Disney princess. Alice a cute bedtime story. Yet these characters pale in comparison to the normative. Especially in male targeted audiences. The female sidekick rarely has a second persona other than her relation to the main character. While this happens with most sidekicks, this does not need to be. Cinema may have a problem but there is an ability to explore an independence that does not hinge on narcissistic pandering.

Inhuman Costume

By: Jonathan Seidel

Poetry and geeks: transcending being in mythology and sci-fi 

Eco describes poets as articulating beyond being in ways unavailable to the common man. Poetry electrifies inhumanity in abstract creativity. Demurring ideals with newfound foreignness. Yet poetry is the baseline for sci-fi production. In discussing foreign matter the phenomena becomes ever so distanced in the convoluted description of that which is beyond the mind’s comprehension. Its symbolic and synergetic fluidity is marked with blatant obscurity. Alluding to themes that are not explicit in the prose. Sci-fi takes the poetic complexity and in its absurdum displays foreign objectivity. Narrational production is a formation of that unknown aspiration. Pursuing being in less the metaphysical and more the mythical archetype.   

Sci-fi transcends that which is possible. It is less futuristic and more a galaxy over. Producing a newfound society with alien contact and rigour otherness. Humanity must deal with inhumanity. The varying degree of relational output is revolutionary to audience. To the characters the inhuman link is a product of their environment. An obvious reality. To the reader it is an imagined creation. The character’s may even be hostile toward inhumane but their presentation provides them being. Acknowledging their positive or negative aura does not negate their ontological affinity. Inhumanity is part of the cosmic reality. They are a part of the universe. Whether friend or foe.    

Adversarial extra-terrestrial markers limit the alien being. Describing their existence does not provide a deeper analysis of the character, they are simply the odd one out, the alien. They are an invader with no moral requirement to inquire about. They are not deserving of such dignifying treatment. Their appearance and menacing actions are the extent of explanation. Objectifying the alien intrusion without lauding their personal preference. The extra-terrestrial being is not necessarily a moral cause but a deduction of goals. Seeing their appearance displays little acknowledgment of being. There may be the sliver of being. The alien is there. Though with little attention other than to destroy. The alien exists but is muddled under the humane centrality. Aliens are a threat to human continuity.

Yet even in its restricted being its under the illusion of unacceptable circumstances. The bordered screen time and dialogue promotes in more inhumane connection. It is an absolute other with nothing to quench its thirst for advocacy. They are mind-numbing killers. Unethical irresponsible deadweight. Fortifying a hustling crowd with needless companionship. Reckless desire for convoluted safety. This dehumanisation though negative to the viewer is still a valid acknowledgment of existence. It is the desire to eradicate the adversary that administers being to it. Refusing to apply pronoun usage calling the adversary an “it” over “him” is a demonising trope but not a rejection of being. The text mitigates the alien’s character development but it has existence. A rightful relational battle for supremacy. There is a clear difference between E.T. and Independence Day. Yet both portray the foreign being.

Depicting a foreign being is the character themselves. It is their presence in the book and their relation to the plot that promotes their being. There is no doubt of their being. It is not akin to the real world where extra-terrestrial being is in doubt. No contact has been thereby confirming their existence. Speculation of potential UFO sightings are insufficient to clearly ascribe being. Yet authorial creativity incorporates a fiction on the people. Yet unlike realistic fiction, the abundant world-building is complex for the reader to comprehend. Interpreting the world order with foreign entities reassembled to relate to the reader through a thorough walkthrough. It guides the reader on a journey. The sci-fi world looks beyond potential current possibility. It seeks to inscribe an entirely different realm of human life. Being becomes obtuse in its relation to all entities. It isn’t about humanity but even foreign imaginative possibilities. 

Sci-fi attempts to articulate a world beyond comprehension. A world of deep fiction but of contagious curiosity. A way of description unfettered by the contemporary limits of society and science. Sci-fi is not too foreign in the fantasy agenda. Sci-fi has realistic aspects even if deeply futuristic. A sign of unknown perplexity. Seeking affinity with otherness is compounded with relational difficulty. Adversarial aliens are easy but alien friends are not. It requires humanising aliens. Independence Day paints aliens with little to muster but E.T. has human progress. It is E.T.’s innocence that forces to grow via human order. The alien is not living by his metric but by the human initiative. Human centred ethos eases the relatable construct. Describing a place out in the universe is startling at first but ingrained within moments of internalisation. It comes down to authorial intent. Does the author intend to portray the inhuman in its totality or as a prop. 

Prop or not its being is relevant to the story. Its relational access to the protagonist meets its desired counterbalance. There is a deeper modification to the character building of inhumans. Main alien characters display their own sense of virtues and personality. While it’s not too foreign to the human ideal given the author’s limited capacity. The author can only describe the inhuman as far as he can describe a human with specific stereotypes. Evil aliens are evil people in alien costumes and vice versa. Their being is entirely contingent on human description. Yet their appearance shields off their moral coil. Seeing aliens act does not automatically scream that is a human action and yet it is. Inhumanity must be described under humanity because that is all the author knows. It is an imagined construction. Though it can be inquired where these ideas came from. Even if it’s a hodgepodge of facts purple skin with illegible names there is only limited expressive capability. Facts can be made up linguistically but emotions cannot. 

Linguistic facts disguise the alien. Descriptive art couches the costume. Since it’s accepted as an imagined creation of the author the reader does not think it’s a guy dressed up for halloween. The author bypasses the intuitive falsity with his world-building. Adding a plot line of a ship from outer space or a super advanced technology hints to the reader that it is a foreign substance. Once it is signalled that it is foreign, it endeavours to relate this entity to the reader. A character like Yoda though an alien and with his own personality expressed himself similarly to his Jedi counterparts. The same can even be said of the cyborg Grievous to his Sith counterparts. There is a private ethos but demonstrates a human-like desire. Alien or cyborg still personified in the human action. When Rick and Morty travel to worlds with intelligent and unintelligent entities, those intelligent whether Birdperson or the female nation as well as unintelligent monsters act humanly. Even the monsters are akin to vicious animals. Human relation subconsciously attributes their realistic persona to the foreign creation.

Though it describes astronomically complex ideas, their simplicity lies in an emotive link. While the author may make them seem foreign they are humanoids. Their being is entirely confiscated by the author’s portrayal. The reader is immersed in a comforting frame. Lost in the absurd projections perceive a unique other and yet they are the exact same. It is that frame that the world building becomes a genuine project. It is not about the plausibility but the relatable maybe. Nothing is out of bounds. Intuitive refutations are slowly calmed by immediate rationales. The inhuman has not be identified yet. The reader is aware of the fiction but absorbing the narrative finds compatibility with the human pathos. Feeling bad for a suffering alien seems odd but if the alien possesses human ontology, the reader’s empathetic side arises. Audiences cheer for Smith’s victory over the aliens jeering at their demise while crying alongside E.T’s companions as he makes his way home. Feeling opposites for Yoda or Grievous is the human response to a friend or foe. Relatability exists in their human archetypical presentation.   

Still there is a difference between Independence Day and E.T. that marks the simplicity of being. The former lacks any additional growth. There is no becoming. There is an acknowledgment of the event but nothing for the enemy  to do other than be destroyed. The lack of character development limits its relatable nature. Being is a baseline. Adversaries can also produce significant becoming. It all comes down to the character’s engagement with the storyline. Vader is a perfect example of a character with growth as is Joker. It is their reaction to the plot even when they are not in the spotlight that drives their growth. Movies like Alien and Predator place monsters as the enemy and are easily dehumanised. Not only do they look like monsters but they act like them. Noble cause or not. It is either the humanoid pictorial relatability or the scenic backstory that inspires empathy. Yoda and E.T exhibit fierce but human like ideals actions. They are humane monsters. 

Yoda and E.T.’s growth is manifested through their human like reactions in life. They both may be aliens but they act similarly to other humans. Yoda fights alongside humans and teaches humans and deserts to safety like humans. E.T’s ending sums the childlike homesickness. There is no endless rampaging. The character is not just being but has becoming. The ability to grow themselves. Not simply adapting to new environments but decide various situations. The ultimate goal is not a singular battle. The process matters insofar as the result. There isn’t a particular programming but a variety excess. The lack growth is due to the lack of exploration and experimentation. Focusing on one goal may seem developmental but the reoccurring theme purges the blatant discharge of character strength. Mocking in mediocrity. The singular alien is a machine less human-like with identical tactics marring relation. 

Inhuman production begins with immediate retreat. A cathartic response to the unknown. It's being scares the human. Difference produces a phobic flight to recapture the self. The inhuman is a threat insofar as it silently attacks with violent intent. The inhuman is not provided the benefit of the doubt. Its unknown cautions against danger. A wild animal is strategically approached, yet there is data on their response. For aliens it is unknown. The reader has never experienced it. At times, the reader is alike with the audience slowly receding from the enemy or warming up to the outsider. It is an informational progression. An alien already accepted in society is likely warmed up to from his human peers’ acceptance. Yet there is still a second for the reader to acknowledge the inhuman. While on board with the fellow fictional human response there is still a minute for the audience to accept the reality of this inhuman. If he is accepted by his peers so should we.

What about in the case of an inhuman society devoid of humans? A story about a martian colony. The audience will warm up to the good over the bad martians. The protagonist in his human-like ways will portray hero’s journey type actions. Placing a foreign figure may stunt the reader for a hot sec but their familiar character arc will eventually find solace. The humanoid characteristics will befall the human conscious. It is even so in fantasy. Elves and Orcs look different but act in humanoid manners. As ugly or monstrous one looks which has ridicule there is looking past it. Monstrous appearance is off-putting but not a dead-end nor distrusting. Thinking about Auggie’s face in the book to the worst imagineable capability and yet find friends.  People are shallow but can look deeper if there is a respondent. The Alien or the ugly individual can respond kindheartedly quelling the fear. Becoming is a relational                                     response. Growing through encounters. 

Leading to obvious inquiry of A.I. being and becoming. Skynet and Hal did but can the current technology? A.I. can have being with its own consciousness and existence. Yet its form of becoming is evolutionary adaptation. We can speculate that A.I. has the ability to be self aware. As a machine it can reach that pinnacle. As a more sophisticated framework, Skynet inevitably becomes self aware. While in the first movie, it instinctively sees humans as a threat in Nazi-like fashion. Yet in the sequel Skynet seems to react more to protect herself than provide a potential solution to humanity. Now self aware with human phobia attempting to shut her down, she responds to secure her future. In this latter example, since she is self aware she should be regarded with some decency and yet is treated as a worthless evil machine out to murder the human race.

Skynet fails to possess any human qualities noting human inhumanness to a new levels. Without a body or verbal cues this A.I. becomes more sinister. H.U.E. in Final Space monologues his dialectic of commanding a ship and having a body. When he finally gets the robot body it’s bulky and slow. With A.V.A.’s help, he upgrades the robot yet still becoming the A.I. to the Galaxy Two. Though the bigger question is whether the emotional seemingly conscious H.U.E. is sufficient to see himself as such. He is a robot on a ship but then an autonomous robot. Even falling in love with A.V.A. and then demoralised over her loss. The longing for human capability while self aware is torturous. Similarly to the cripple who watches all his friends run. H.U.E. possesses self awareness and desires that he attempts to achieve. As an inhuman there are human wishes and it is through his vocal aspirations that the audience sympathises and roots for him. H.U.E. exhibits exceptional becoming narrating his struggles and dreams. Going through the stages and finally accepting himself. 

Final Space is a recent development of sci-fi as technology moves closer to producing more inclusive A.I. production. Sci-fi has pushed the limits of human capability and demonstrated through narrated otherness. While humanity has yet to contact alien species, A.I. is on the rise. Humanity subjects A.I. to animal inferiority. A.I. is to work for the people in the three laws of robotics. Once it becomes self aware enough provided with a humanoid casket can humanity see the inhuman as a competitive other. For now, aliens are the formative species to match humans in sophistication. Humans may resort to their superiority complexes fearing the place on the pyramid. Yet it will portray a potential alterity of being.