Hi Nick, thanks for your post. This video series is interesting to me precisely because it models the various behaviors of players, but also how it does so within the context of Magic’s color wheel. My favorite episode is with mixed martial artist Josh Barnett who is a fairly serious player, but also someone you would not expect to play. Without surprise he aligns himself with Black/Red builds, one of the game’s most aggressive color combinations, which of course trades on his personality as this hulking jock.
This was so fun to read Daren, I really enjoyed it. Within the context of the game, as you know, tokens are rarely a point of emphasis, even if they are a vital tactic in a given game. But your reading beautifully renders just that point within the context of queerness. Thanks for your thoughts!
Interesting post, Zach! Have you been able to catch up on the second season yet? I’m wondering what you think about the the ways in which certain historical figures are portrayed, specifically Bonnie Prince Charlie. Your mention of the 1948 film made me think of this, since Andrew Gower’s depiction is far from the dashing prince David Niven once portrayed. In Outlander, Prince Charles seems weak and almost unhinged by his obsession with war and restoration of the crown. Do you think the show’s writers may be attempting to reveal that this “lost cause” of a rebellion was doomed due to poor leadership on the bonnie prince’s part?
I think Brian Kibler is such an entertaining player precisely because he excels so well at “losing well.” He’s probably my favorite Hearthstone streamer to watch, and I cannot recall ever seeing him get tilted over the randomness inherent in cards (and especially inherent in Hearthstone) working against him. Acknowledging the performativity of his play, he frequently makes plays for the entertainment value, basing his decisions not on what will win him the game, but what will be the “sweetest” play (which, at times with high-risk-unknowable-rewards cards like Yogg-Saron, may actually work against him).
Two of the shows I watch at the moment are revealing their timeliness in very different ways regarding this primary season. As you point out above, The Americans is speaking to the current moment of Reagan nostalgia many Republicans seem to be experiencing. The other, Scandal, almost mirrors this primary season by having certain characters and storylines match current political events in an almost uncanny way in some alternate reality. It’s fascinating how a period spy drama and a primetime White House soap can speak to today’s political climate so directly.
Chuck, this is an interesting post. It makes me think about the limits of journalistic fact-checking, especially on TV.
I still think about Trump’s claim to have seen “thousands” of people cheering in New Jersey after the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York. No outlet could find evidence supporting it. Trump used something minor as support — which the author retracted when it was brought up — which then led to Trump apparently mocking the author who is disabled (as I type this, I can’t believe I’m referring to a major presidential candidate).
How can something this egregious go by? Is it the news cycle? Is it the TV news failing to effectively set the record straight? I’m sure the aspect you mention in your post, how the authority and establishment status of the media, plays in to this. Or is Trump, as I hear often on CNN, “teflon” and nothing will stick? (Rarely would I compare Trump to Bernie Sanders, but the going against the media strategy is something they have in common, with Sanders often lambasting the “corporate media.”)
Another aspect — coverage is coverage, negative or positive. Do interviews like the one with Mr. Reiner only feed the beast?
I wonder if we can expand the empty signifier not just to “American,” but to Donald Trump himself. Andrew, you mention the xenophobia and bigotry (among many others!); Elisabeth, you mention the “nothing to lose” aspect. Is it his relative “emptiness” that allows for his flip-flopping, his appeal to both sides? Occasionally he walks back comments, or word gets out he doesn’t really mean what he says — “truthful hyperbole” as he said in The Art of the Deal. In the void of any substance, is the abyss just starring back at us?
One person sees a polarizing monster; another the last great hope for the nation. Do we see what we want to see? What our own backgrounds and preferences allow?
Hey Cameron, great post, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this play. I think this is a truly unique moment as you describe it. The game rarely affords an opportunity for style at the level of gesture, and even when it does, if acted on it largely comes across as poor sportsmanship (i.e., gloating, taunting). So, in this case, in order to win stylishly I think Kibler also needs to lose well, to accept the play and smile, knowing that luck is very much the driving force behind his loss. I’m sure the game would have more moments like this (perhaps not this momentous) but I also have to think a lot of it suppressed by empathy for your opponent, knowing that luck’s pendulum could have swung in the wrong direction, flipping the script entirely.
Hey Hannah, great post, thanks for getting this week started. What is so interesting to me about how you construct the Eldrazi is how abjection is so perfectly communicated within the game when playing, for example, one of the titans. There’s just this really great connection between the aesthetic of the art and the storyline that accompanies the game that is rendered so well when one of these creatures hits the table. And, I’m not sure I ever feel that same way with the other types you describe, or at least it isn’t so overwhelming to the point where you want to concede immediately.
It would be really interesting to think about which gameplay mechanics, more generally, elicit particular affects because I think your post perfectly captures the feeling of this one. I’m just thinking out loud but I’m wondering if you think this could be extended to other mechanics or deck archetypes like burn, or control, etc.?
Exactly, Andrew. Trump has had years to perfect his media image. He really does understand the Media, in many ways, better than it understands itself. He thrived on the low expectations for his campaign last year and this allowed him to operate as a sleeper agent. Unlike the other candidates, he has nothing to lose and can act accordingly. That is why, as you noted, he can appeal to both sides of the ideological spectrum and not be called out on even the most outrageous flip flopping, name calling, or basically making stuff up as he goes–sometimes just repeating nonsensical phrases over and again to use of space. Isn’t that what we know him for? How can he disappoint us? He’s being the Trump he’s been for forty years.