Argobot

I am also super interested in playing this game, despite the many, many 'this game will ruin your life' warnings.

Empire of the Summer Moon might be worth checking out, although it sounds like the focus is less on mythology and more on the history of the Comanches in general. Still, I remember it got a lot of good reviews a year or two ago when it came out.

For more reading on the exhaustive research Mantel did/is doing for this trilogy, here's the text of a speech she recently gave on British royalty (the speech is actually more about Bring Up the Bodies than it is Wolf Hall, but it's really worth reading and gives you a good idea of how much thought Mantel has put into these books): http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies

Remember? It was going to be called Idle Thumbs or Hands or something? Shame it never really worked out.

Anyone else notice that the ruined recording also had Jake introducing himself first? Possible connection, maybe? (Sorry Jake)

Something I really love about this book, is how realistic the political motivations feel. Usually in Henry VIII stories, the king's motivation is either based on his desire for a male heir or on his desire in general. You never get a sense for any grander ambitions beyond having a son, which is why I generally dislike stories based off of this time period. But Mantel manages to make you understand why it's so important for Henry to have an heir, by showing what a tenuous grasp he and his family have on the throne and how obsessed he is with his legacy. Cromwell is set up as the perfect foil to Henry's lofty, kingly goals; his pragmatism is a stark contrast to Henry's idealism and it makes all the political machinations feel so much realer.

Gravity Bone has an ending that improves everything that came before it, at least for me. Probably one of the better endings I've ever seen in a video game, or any medium really. Endings by default are always going to be weaker than the other parts of a story. That's why it's so much easier to think of 'bad' endings than it is to think of 'good' ones. I try to not put a lot of stock into the ending of a story, because I know it's already an uphill battle to pull off a satisfying ending and if the ending manages to not completely ruin everything that came before it, I tend to consider it a success.

I feel really conflicted on the pronoun usage, and I know I've mentioned this in other discussions on the forums about Wolf Hall. Using 'he' makes Cromwell this huge, inescapable presence, which I'm sure is what Mantel was going for. But sometimes I think it gets away from her. There's a difference between making your dialogue challenging to force the reader to pay closer attention and unnecessarily obfuscating the text, and I think sometimes Wolf Hall falls into that latter category. To be clear: I'm not trying to disparage the pronouns; I'm glad the book was written this way. I just think that Mantel has a few lapses with the pronouns in Wolf Hall where the writing could probably have been a little sharper.

Hmm, if I'd wanted to be villainous, I would have sent everyone a copy of Super Sad True Love Story.

That show is the reason I waited years to actually read this book. I absolutely hate the Henry VII story, because of how gratuitously it's often handled by stuff like The Tudors, and I was fully expecting Wolf Hall to be more in line with that kind of story. But Mantel's writing is so amazing, and her Cromwell is so well-thought out, that I ended up loving this book despite myself.

Balloonists? -- well I'm sold.

Jeeze Chris.

Inspired by Sean's confession on why he read Cosmicomics in the first place, I'll confess that in college I read a series of Phillip Roth books because one of my professors (who I had a huge crush on) said Roth was his favorite author. It's hilarious to me now, because here I am criticizing Calvino for his objectification of women, when the way Roth writes his female characters is so much worse. Anyone else have some good (bad?) books they read because a crush told you to?

It's kind of silly, for sure, but I just don't like feeling intellectually bested. Failing to finish a challenging book is a reminder that maybe you're not as smart as you think you are, and that's a feeling that I absolutely despise. All vanity is ridiculous and my vanity happens to be about my reading ability. Again, super silly, but it's a real fear that I have when facing books that have a difficult reputation like 2666 does.

I keep meaning to pick up 2666, but honestly, I'm feel extremely intimidated about reading it. But this sounds a little bit more digestible, so maybe I'll start here first before diving into the deep end.

Really enjoyed the cast guys! Although, the comparison of Cloud Atlas and Cosmicomics was maddening, probably because of how accurate it was. Mitchell really rode that line of becoming too gimmicky for his own good, but I still love that book.

It's not easy for people to raise their issues with representation in video games, because it's often met with a dismissive, even angry, attitude. Just something to keep in mind.

I understand the larger point you're making -- I just don't agree with it. Being represented in a video game (or a book or movie) is a reminder that you exist, that there are other people in the world who are like you. It's an incredibly powerful feeling and I really don't see the problem with underrepresented groups wanting more representation.

I guess it is true that your tastes will not always line up with those of other straight white males, because straight white males are not a giant amorphous blob, they're individuals with different opinions, just like how not all queer women share the same opinions. But as a white male, you're much, much more likely to share similar opinions/tastes with other white males, because that's the perspective you're most accustomed to. As a straight woman, I'm more likely to understand the viewpoint of other straight women than I am to understand the views of queer women. Which is normal! But that's why it's important to seek out content or criticisms written by people who have different identities than your own, especially if its a marginalized identity. While you may share many of the same opinions or tastes, reading a review written by a queer black woman will probably also introduce you to a completely new perspective that's impossible for you to have as a straight white guy. (As a larger point, it's cool that sites like The Border House exists and that people are interested in actively seeking out a website whose content almost exclusively consists of reviews written by minorities or women, I just wish that those reviews weren't automatically relegated to a 'special interest' site. It'd be cool if one day a black woman's take on Infinite could appear on a site like Kotaku or IGN or whatever and not have it be a thing.)

Avoiding the Prague Cemetery spoiler tags because I do eventually want to read that book, but even if it delves into similar conspiracy theory ideas that Foucault's Pendulum handled, I won't have a huge problem. Eco is inhumanely talented at introducing historical fact (or fiction) in his novels without it feeling like a giant wikipedia info dump and I got a perverse kind of pleasure when he'd go off on an absurd historical tangent in Foucault's Pendulum (there are even a few mentions of the Prague cemetery, which made me stupidly happy), so if Prague Cemetery repeats any of that I'll be happy to read it. Besides, my reading of the ending of Foucault's Pendulum is that the book was trying to make a larger point about how we create narratives about ourselves and our history, and not just explicitly about the madness of conspiracy, so (hopefully) Prague Cemetery won't feel like a retread.

Yes! Such a good site.

The discussion on video games criticism was so great. Maybe it's because I'm more used to book reviews -- where it's pretty obvious that the majority of reviewers haven't actually finished the book their reviewing -- but I have never assumed that video game reviewers actually finished the game. Or if they have, it was on a super fast playthrough where they probably missed a lot of content. I guess that's because I don't really believe that you need to get to the ending of a game to know if it's good or not; usually that's something you can tell in the first few hours of game play. Expecting someone to have finished the game just puts way too much of an emphasis on the ending, which I often find to be the weakest part of most games.

I can understand that, but I still think its dishonest to withhold criticism just because Infinite made an attempt to try and handle a complex topic. This game has a lot of really interesting, great ideas that are sadly not executed very well and I don't see what the problem is with pointing that out.

Infinite clearly is not meant on a commentary on racism in America, and if it is, it only presents a very shallow commentary at best. That's never more apparent than in how the Vox Populi thread of the game is handled, where Comstock and the people who are rebelling against him because he's a huge racist are both painted with the same 'their terrible, power corrupts' brush. If Irrational was afraid of making too much of a political statement with their treatment of the Vox Populi, that's fine -- a video game, book, movie doesn't have to be directly political for it to be intelligent or meaningful, but if the point of the white supremacy/minority rebellion didn't serve a larger commentary on anything, why was it even in the game? That's what frustrates me: the game sets up these really interesting, complicated aspects of American history and then fails to do anything with it. I completely believe that any video game is capable of smartly handling huge topics like this, I just don't feel that Infinite was successful. And it is kind of insulting, because these events really did happen, they really were horrible, and they continue to have real, painful affects on American culture to this day. Chris is absolutely correct -- you can't include something as huge as 'racism in America' as nothing more than a set piece in your game and not expect people to criticize you for it.

Completely agree. I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a game for introducing some really weighty topics and then failing to do or say anything meaningful with them. It's frustrating that people want to give this game a completely free pass because it's better than a 'typical shooter.' Looking at it that way shuts off any possibility of ever critically examining games, which is a huge shame disservice to the medium in general.