Argobot

So I agree that it's wrong for people to conflate all white males with "The Patriarchy." The Patriarchy is a word that refers to a specific set of economic, political, and social institutions, not all white guys everywhere. I think we're on the same page in that regard. What I don't understand is why there's a need to define "the Patriarchy" as distinct from sexism and racism as you say. Many of the institutions of "The Patriarchy" (and the more I type this word the more it starts sounding like nonsense to me) are in fact, sexist and racist. It's all part and parcel of the same terrible system that currently exists.

That was your first mistake... But seriously, that's a really good point to raise that people toss around the word "Patriarchy" and "Feminism," without really understanding what either of those words mean. For me, the idea of 'patriarchy' has never been interchangeable with all men ever. Anyone can participate in the patriarchy, men and women, and both groups can even benefit from that participation (although obviously it overwhelmingly favors men). Conversely, men are harmed by patriarchal ideas just as much as women are, which is why it's possible to be a man and also a feminist (not suggesting that anyone on this forum thinks this way, but I'm constantly amazed at how many people believe that being male instantly disqualifies you from feminism).

I can only assume that by 'bland female design' they mean the tendency for all female video game characters to be slim with big breasts, so in order to push the boundaries in aesthetic design they made a lady...who is slim....with big breasts... This whole thing just makes me so overwhelming sad. The trailer is no where near as dumb as the Hitman trailer, and I was completely prepared to just laugh this off and move on to more egregious issues, but then the creators feel the need to justify their decisions under the guise of this pseudo artistic vision bullshit. You put the pretty lady in the trailer because you like pretty ladies. That's fine! Just be honest about it.

Sure, I guess? Sigh. Also, 'pushing the aesthetic boundaries of the typical female form,' is the douchiest statement ever.

I get that your friend was the one who said this not you, but I really think it's wrong when the argument gets distilled down to: 'just don't give crazy people guns!' In many of the more egregious instances of gun crime in this country, there was no obvious link between the shooter and any kind of mental disorder. God knows that people try to make up that link though (like the initial media reporting after Sandy Hook where people were seriously trying to make the argument that because the shooter may or may not have been mildly autistic, that somehow explains why he did what he did). If we have a weird relationship towards guns in this country (and we do) I think we have an equally weird relationship to mental health problems.

Talking about reading to much into something, if I was a more paranoid person, I'd probably be suspicious of the fact that so many of book cast selections have been books set in or near San Francisco. What could it mean?

Sigh. Remember how in 2012, people actually started to have intelligent conversations about sexism in video games and it really seemed like the community at large was tired of games pandering to a really specific, straight, male demographic? Remember how I actually felt hopeful that games were headed in a more progressive direction? http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01/15/deep-silver-promote-dead-island-with-appalling-statue/ Sigh.

Maybe he's the brother of the one guy who's making all the video game trailers.

That's so great. Dialogue options in games are so strange. Usually, I have no desire to replay a game for the conversations options I didn't choose the first time, because usually I can guess more or less how those other options will play out in the game's narrative. Games like this one, and I think the Walking Dead as well, do such a great job at making legitimately divergent story lines that they more than justify going back and reexamining everything. Impatiently waiting the second Act now.

That was the one aspect of the novel (novella?) that rang a little false to me. I enjoyed the majority of the 60s political references, but I could have done without 'The Paranoids.' I understand culturally what they're supposed to represent and also the significance of their name, and even though the characters themselves were wildly funny, every time they showed up in the story it just felt a little off. Like, oh here's Pynchon making fun of the Beatles, that's amusing, now get back to the story. Minor quibble I suppose. Thanks! That makes a little bit more sense. I guess I understand what the principle of the theory is, but I still don't understand why anyone would dream up this scenario in the first place if it's supposedly impossible to create in real life.

Finished this a few days ago and am now attempting to parse out my thoughts on it. Pynchon has this weird place in my reading history. I’ve read a lot of authors who were clearly influenced by him, but I’ve never actually read his work before. While I was reading Lot 49, I couldn’t shake this weird feeling of déjà vu, because I was recognizing a lot of the style or narrative choices that I’d seen other writers try to recreate. I was really amazed by how readable this book was. Impenetrable is how most of Pynchon’s stuff is described, but I found this book really easy to get into. Sure there were aspects of it that I still don’t understand (I spent 30 minutes reading the Wikipedia entry on Maxwell’s Demon and I’m still not confident I know what it means, so if someone wants to try and explain that to me…), but the narrative was fairly straightforward. It was also absurdly funny. Every bit with Mike Fallopian was perfect and the Jacobian revenge play was this ridiculous, absurdist story that I absolutely loved. I also love that the main character was a woman—it makes a perverse, Biblical sense that a woman is the one who is searching for some unobtainable or possibly nonexistent knowledge. Post-modernist writing has this reputation of being purposefully meaningless and needlessly esoteric, and maybe Pynchon’s other books are like that, but Lot 49 I think does a good job of balancing an absurd, surrealist structure with an actual story that is clearly trying to convey a certain idea about life. I’m really curious to hear what people think of the ending. For me, it works perfectly, but then again I’m a sucker for open-ended narratives.

I would imagine that cars are meant to symbolize the new technological modernity that was forcing itself on to America at the beginning of the 20th century. You see trains used in similar ways in Russian literature, where the train was meant as a symbol of the scary and destructive power of the future (it's no coincidence that Anna Karenina uses a train to commit suicide, just like I think it's no coincidence that someone is killed by a car in this novel). The wheel coming off the car shows how little control people have over this new technology and how unknowably dangerous it can be (and it also indirectly shows what a terrible idea drunk driving is). The vehicular murder part of the story was actually that point I had the hardest time believing. I was completely willing to accept that no one would show up to Gatsby's funeral, that he was the type of man to surround himself with people but form no real connections, but the idea that Daisy/Gatsby accidentally kill Tom's mistress (in Tom's car no less!) was a little bit too much.

I was really looking forward to this episode and man it did not disappoint. Regarding the fruitlessness of a labeling something as a 'great American novel,' fair point! That's usually how people frame their discussions of this novel, and it probably does detract from how the reader should critically approach it. After rereading the book, I certainly have a better understanding of why it's still considered a classic, and the praise that was heaped on it during the podcast kind of makes me want to reread it a third time, maybe with a little bit more of an open-mind (because if I'm being completely honest with myself, I went in to rereading this book expecting to dislike it, and that's a horrible why to read something). You guys didn't really talk about Daisy/Jordan and I'd be curious to hear what your opinions are of them. I suppose that they're both relatively minor characters, but I actually found myself empathizing with them more so than with Gatsby or even Nick. I continue to enjoy this podcast because it really helps me get over some of prejudices about literature that I learned in high school and than later ossified while I was in college. It's really helping me to become a better reader, so, good job for that.

Correction: she didn't flip out, she went 'psycho:' Cyberpunk 2077 Debuts Psycho Squad.

When I lived abroad, I bought a Nook so I bring books with me without weighing down my luggage. I think I read two books before the stupid thing broke completely. That was my first and last real experience with ebooks. It's actually completely reversed with my BF and myself. He's a big believer in ebooks and I prefer physical ones (which is fine because our apt does not have the space to contain all those books). Personally I like being able to physically see what my progression is when I'm reading a book and I actual prefer the weight of a physical book versus a kindle/nook/iPad. I do envy the ability to impulse buy books though. Although, maybe it's better for me that I don't have the ability to instantly purchase whatever book I want.

Oh that's so awesome! I'll have to go back and play through the first Act again.

What happens if you do what you're describing in the spoiler tag? I never even thought to do that while I was playing through that section.

Maybe unnerving was not the right word to use, but there were few points in the episode that definitely made me feel a slight chill. It's spooky in an other-worldly way while also coming across as non-threatening. Dream-like is a great way to describe it.

Really interesting points about Triple A development being a vertical-shaped industry. The games industry is fascinating to me, because in a lot of ways its rise and fall mirrors what is currently happening in the publishing and film industry, only at an exponentially higher rate and without the benefit of cultural legacy that has helped keep movies and books afloat. There was an article written a few years ago (link here for those who are interested) that was about the slow decline of the mainstream film industry and I think a lot of the points are relevant to what is happening with games (namely that as games/movies become more financially expensive to create, developers/studios will be less likely to take any creative risks for fear of lost profits). Oddly enough, I think games as a medium is more likely to survive this kind of vertical integration than books or movies, because good games don't necessarily need the big studios to be successful, whereas it would be a little bit more financially difficult to distribute a book/movie without the support of a studio or publisher. Anyway, great podcast, glad to have everyone back after the break!

Both? It definitely has an eerie, supernatural atmosphere. I don't think the intention is to scare, however, more just unnerve.

Randomly saw this posted in Salon today: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/was_nick_carraway_gay/ Don't necessarily agree with the author's interpretation. I think modern readers too often want to see sexual subtext that just doesn't exist or is their unintentionally (essays written about Holmes and Watson's sexual relationship, for example), but I still enjoyed reading the article.

YES! I went to college in Colonial Williamsburg and our local NPR station used to air that program all the time (even though Jefferson famously left Williamsburg to go found the University of VA, he's still really popular in Williamsburg). For years I thought only people in Williamsburg knew this show existed, glad to hear that's not the case.

I also just finished the first Act last night and I agree, the driving/map is the best part of the game. The story itself is really great too; it goes along well with the way the game looks. I love 'magical realism' style narratives and stories that are set in the Appalachia region, so this game feels tailor made for me to enjoy. (My only gripe, and it's really my fault more than the game's, is that I keep calling it 'Zero Dark Thirty.' People tend to act confused when I tell them I'm playing the 'Zero Dark Thirty' game).

I am intrigued by the fact that one of the montage settings looks suspiciously like Mars... Also, I bet they're kicking themselves for not thinking of the X/Y title back when they first introduced gendered pokemon.