Wesley Osam

@mwosam.bsky.social

My site is at https://www.superdoomedplanet.com .

The problem here is that it actively erases the agency of the original cartoonists, because it takes for granted that they were no higher than admen, and that they had no subtext already built into the comics that Lichtenstein was simply noticing

Besides the fact that not enough people realized that he was directly tracing these things with no real creative additions, the case for Lichtenstein depended on him adding a perceived level of contempt for the source material, which was what supposedly made it 'high art'

Ste Jormur@stejormur.bsky.social · last mo.

I'd never seen this Roy Lichtenstein painting before, but it's incredible how he manages unfailingly to make his copies worse than the original comics he's ripping off.

A drab pop art painting of a sinister man driving a car, watching a stoic blonde in leopard print fur. The proportions of the guy's face are off

Could probably come up with many with more thought, but: I was startled at how Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death anticipated some of where the culture was headed. Russell Hoban's Turtle Diary is thoughtful about dealing with feeling directionless.

N.S. Dolkart is gathering signatures@nsdolkart.bsky.social · 2mo ago

We talk a lot about books that were formative in our childhoods and young adulthoods, but we never actually stop forming ourselves, so what are some books that were formative in your post-college adulthood?

This is bizarre, but also an exemplary demonstration of the confusion and PR fog surrounding LLMs. The writer is incensed about LLM watermarking because he wants his LLM "to choose the very best, most precise words". But LLMs can't do that! They don't know what words mean!

Anthropic’s ‘Watermark’ Text Adulteration in Claude Is a Perversion of Writing

It’s unacceptable for a tool to sacrifice an iota of clarity, coherence, meaning, quality, etc. for the purpose of embedding hidden clues within the text to suggest its provenance. The idea that anyth...

daringfireball.net

My problem with online SFF book discussion is that it's obsessively present-oriented: recent releases, hot new writers, this year's award shortlists. Not many conversations recalling or reevaluating work from 30, 20, even just 10 years ago. (Except maybe Omelas, every six months.)

Reactor Magazine@reactorsff.bsky.social · 2mo ago

We've talked about DNFing. And audiobooks. And "The Classics." And performative reading. @mollytempleton.com suggests we find something new:

I find Omelas gets more interesting when you realize it's less about "what do you do when you realize your society is built on suffering," and more about "why do we resist imagining a society not built on suffering?"

I think at one point in semi-recent history there was a kind of accepted cultural canon of literature that everyone learned in school, and that allowed a kind of shared framework for discussion. We don't have that as much anymore, and so the few common touchpoints get really oversaturated.

Why are people laundering inoffensively anodyne political opinions through the mouths of AI-generated simulacra of beloved cartoon characters, and why is Bugs Bunny's head on the body of an eagle?

Perhaps also we've attached so much sense of personal stake and identity to individual works, and get offended by any criticism of them, because we ourselves are not sailing in a meaningful and ongoing cultural flow, but rather are clinging to our shipwreck debris in water gone swampy.

Perhaps we've fallen into the insidious Great/Terrible binary for aesthetic judgment because in a culture where real art *doesn't* matter, where each book/movie/song/whatever is a singular product separate from a meaningful and ongoing cultural flow, hyperbole is the only way to claim importance.

There also wasn't as much of the current sense of binary hyperbole: art & lit is only either Great/Terrible. From our vantage, it's weird to read serious reviews from 100 years ago, because there's less sense that something must be proclaimed either a timeless masterpiece or crime against humanity.

A tangential thought about this is that it can be interesting when DW's regeneration and the related shift in style/mythology don't sync up perfectly—sometimes Doctors feel out of their element because their era starts late, or ends early.

Wesley Osam@mwosam.bsky.social · 2mo ago

My Doctor Who take is that it works best when every regeneration is a soft reboot, every Doctor getting their own mythology. A crucial part of is that every Doctor ought to be a different kind of character who could be the lead of a series like this.

I continue to find it distressing that substack has managed to capture such a big chunk of literary discussion/energy--mainly lit fic but some genre focused folks as well We need something that's open source, easy to spin up, more communal/connected than blogs, but less messy than discord servers

My Doctor Who take is that it works best when every regeneration is a soft reboot, every Doctor getting their own mythology. A crucial part of is that every Doctor ought to be a different kind of character who could be the lead of a series like this.

I was also getting deep into music at that point, and the Crisis occupied a very similar space to punk, a year zero event which had Changed Everything by resetting the clock. But after an initial burst of creativity, the risk was that you'd just Repeat Everything trying to sneak old stuff back

Starting to come across the idea that Doctor Who might do a full reboot in the wild, and I am here to say no-one is going to do that. Reboots and regeneration solve the same TV problem: you don't need to use one if you've got the other, and reboot involves more risk than regeneration.