Part II of an article series examining themes from the British dystopian series Years and Years that have become pertinent following the Russia-Ukraine War.
Part II of this article series begins by establishing the concept of Limited Nuclear War and highlighting its enduring significance as a sociocultural theme. I then examine the depiction of limited nuclear war in the British prophetic fiction series Years and Years, the predictive significance of which being the basis of this article and series. From this context is presented the following thesis: that the international developments ensuing from the Russia-Ukraine conflict are likely to provide the catalyst for the fulfilment of the nuclear threat born from the Cold War—specifically, in the form of limited nuclear war.
What’s the meaning of this? Who’s to say? (Certainly not me…)
I don’t know what this is. Maybe it’s an inane mixture of things. Or something novel and deep. Guess it depends on who (or what) is reading it. Maybe it’s nothing but with something in it. Or something but with nothing in it. It’s not for me to say, even though I’m the author. Actually, because I’m the author. Just technically ‘the author’. See I wrote this here thing, I did, but who’s to say I am the authority of its meaning? (That question may or may not be rhetorical, according to preference.) As a matter of fact (technically just an expression, BTW), it’s each reader that decides the meaning of what(ever) he/she/it is reading, as determined by the law of Intertextuality (and quite authoritatively at that, FYI). See, this fantastic law ‘deconstructed’ (as it likes to say [not that I really know what it means]) the myth of ‘authorship’ by revealing that the actual producer of meaning is [drumrole]… thereader! Ergo (just using this word ‘coz I like how The Architect said it in Matrix 2), each ‘meaning’ is equally valid(praise the law of Equality!)—and, ergo, implicitly untrue. Case in point: commenter says this “post” is “garbage”. Therefore, he/she/it (‘they/them’ from now on) is actually right on both counts—provided only that they meant what they said. Then again… …what they said might be totally untrue—who knows? (Rhetorical?—who knows?)
An uncut, feature-length discussion about the movie medium; packed with bonus content––and LOTS of movies.
Part 1 Embedded-Archetype Recycling
More so than any other medium, the motion picture – also known as film, cinema, and most commonly, movies – has the capacity to convey ideas and themes whilst bypassing the viewer’s awareness of having done so; meaning that even the reception of the content generally remains unperceived, i.e. let alone its affect and techniques thereof. This principle can be observed by the substratum of archetypal themes from which movie* narratives are constructed upon; by the industrial recycling of these archetypes, evident in movies that are differentiated by time and genre; and by the common obliviousness to embedded elements and the pervasiveness of this practice.
*Although most of this article concerns movies, the discussion generally applies to television fiction too, particularly since it has become more cinematic in recent years. Movie narratives, however, are the primary form of embedded-archetype recycling.
I have termed the principle behind this practice ‘embedded-archetype recycling’, where “archetype” refers to a type of character or theme that is ancient, or at least pre-modern (hence being adapted into modern form); where “embedded” refers to the concealment of the archetypes within the overt narrative; and where “recycling” refers to the institutional practice of reapplying these archetypes to the narratives of “new” movies (hence, archetypes pervade the medium irrespective of era divergences and genre differences between movies).
A discussion of the role of the Conductor in both music and society, beginning with my casual impressions (complimented with satirical examples); and followed by critical insights from a socio-musicologist, as well from conductors and composers themselves.
Although I have yet to acquaint myself with orchestral performance, which does interest me; the passive familiarity I have with it has nevertheless left me with a particular impression—specifically, regarding the role of the Conductor, which appears to be strikingly suspect. Upon casual contemplation, I had formed some substantial thoughts about it, from which I felt the subject would be would worthwhile to investigate one day. And due to this question of the Conductor being brought up by someone in a group conversation, that day eventually arrived.
This article features a discussion of the book “Homo Deus”, including an explanation of its use in this article Series; followed by the list of points I made from the book, each of which will be expanded on in the subsequent articles.
This article series is based upon the book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, by Yuval Noah Harari (2016), which I read last year. More specifically, it is based on the notes I made whilst reading the book, in which I encapsulated (in list form) the many substantial points raised and discussed by Harari; and so this series is more of a multi-part ‘study’, as I expand on the various significant themes I took note of.
To concisely state the most significant aspects of Harari’s thesis: Humanity is sleepwalking towards Post-Humanism; and to elaborate, this means that Society—above all its citizens—are blindly following the trends of ‘technological progress’, i.e. without truly examining these trends, in order to question, debate, and then make informed decisions in the direction this technological development should be taken for the betterment of Humanity.
This article features a concise introduction on the significance of music; followed by a succession of interesting books and media relating to its cultural influence; then more media relating to its symbolism; and concluding with a list of the relevant links.
Of all the arts, music is the one that has the most influence on society—be it a primitive or a civilized one. Music is intangible: it is not felt, or seen, which makes it a more potent form of subliminal influence than visual and physical forms of entertainment.
Furthermore, rhythms of sounds do seem to affect humans on an intrinsic level. And I find it striking how many songs that sound so impressive (and even profound) suffer from an impoverishment of meaning—if not a subversion of meaning—when one simply reads the lyrics. For these reasons, it can be rewarding to become more conscious of the ways in which music influences society.