Honestly I wouldn't really categorize SOTL as a deconstruction per se, because it really doesn't actually engage with its perceived targets all that much. Any such jabs mainly serve to enhance the pervading atmosphere of discomfort the game creates, but they aren't really the game's theme. Bioshock it ain't.
I realized after recommending it to a bunch of my friends just how hard it is to describe accurately. A lot of the expected tropes don't really come into play or don't work as expected- saying stuff like the PC being the "real villain," for example, is really reductive when placed in the context of the actual game and really only serve as a pitch. "Play this game, it's a deconstruction of Modern Warfare where you're the real bad guy!"
It plays on certain player expectations but on the whole it is its own work with its own goals, not just dark send up of shooters or a flash game-esque experiment in fucking with the player.
“Every sign, linguistic or nonlinguistic, spoken or written (in the usual sense of this opposition), as a small or large unity, can be cited, put between quotation marks; thereby it can break with every given context, and engender infinitely new contexts in an absolutely nonsaturable fashion. This does not suppose that the mark is valid outside its context, but on the contrary that there are only contexts without any center of absolute anchoring. This citationality, duplication, or duplicity, this iterability of the mark is not an accident or anomaly, but is that (normal/abnormal) without which a mark could no longer even have a so-called “normal” functioning. What would a mark be that one could not cite? And whose origin could not be lost on the way?”
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
There's this comic, called 'The Secret History of Jenny Sparks', about a superhuman with that name. She's a foul-mouthed eternal twenty-year-old anarchic Brit who embodies the Twentieth Century, born at the first strike of the clock on the 1st of January, 1900, and has played a hand in every big event in it, unknowingly.
Sparks also likes having sex with Albert Einstein.
At some point in the eighties, a UN group asks her to lead a team of very many superheroes against an incursion of future humans trying to wipe them out. Sparks refuses, and demands several things, among them the death of Ronald Regan and the removal of his administration. (I think, it's been a while)
What I don't get is why she cares. All her demands are centered around the US.
When the moon is full and golden, And bathtubs fill the air; And they hardly full of water, You should say your prayers.
Cause we have this wicked pastime, Its always in our dreams; Is to drop electric stuff down there and watch you scream.
With a toaster or a blender, or any power tool; Doesnt matter what we use as long as it looks cool. First we hear that sickly buzzing, You wriggle like a pup.
Then we see your little skeleton and it cracks us up!
Now we dont go in for theme parks, or any kind of ride, Cause we rather watch your face whenever you get fried. If you need more information, from Finland to Guam; You can reach us on the Internet at rat dot com!
YOOOURE AAAA-
-Wimpy little sucker who doesnt stand a chance; We are clearly way too good for you so dance, boy, dance!
Have you bathtubs, have you lasers, most every time they drop, And youre such an easy target that we just cant stop!
You can try and beg for mercy but we just, cant, stop!!!
Honestly I wouldn't really categorize SOTL as a deconstruction per se, because it really doesn't actually engage with its perceived targets all that much. Any such jabs mainly serve to enhance the pervading atmosphere of discomfort the game creates, but they aren't really the game's theme. Bioshock it ain't.
I realized after recommending it to a bunch of my friends just how hard it is to describe accurately. A lot of the expected tropes don't really come into play or don't work as expected- saying stuff like the PC being the "real villain," for example, is really reductive when placed in the context of the actual game and really only serve as a pitch. "Play this game, it's a deconstruction of Modern Warfare where you're the real bad guy!"
It plays on certain player expectations but on the whole it is its own work with its own goals, not just dark send up of shooters or a flash game-esque experiment in fucking with the player.
“Every sign, linguistic or nonlinguistic, spoken or written (in the usual sense of this opposition), as a small or large unity, can be cited, put between quotation marks; thereby it can break with every given context, and engender infinitely new contexts in an absolutely nonsaturable fashion. This does not suppose that the mark is valid outside its context, but on the contrary that there are only contexts without any center of absolute anchoring. This citationality, duplication, or duplicity, this iterability of the mark is not an accident or anomaly, but is that (normal/abnormal) without which a mark could no longer even have a so-called “normal” functioning. What would a mark be that one could not cite? And whose origin could not be lost on the way?”
I have
No idea what your response here is supposed to mean
A determination or an effect within a system which is no longer that of a presence but of a différance, a system that no longer tolerates the opposition of activity and passivity, nor that of cause and effect, or of indetermination and determination, etc., such that in designating consciousness as an effect or a determination, one continues - for strategic reasons that can be more or less lucidly deliberated and systematically calculated - to operate according to the lexicon of that which one is de-limiting.
Honestly I wouldn't really categorize SOTL as a deconstruction per se, because it really doesn't actually engage with its perceived targets all that much. Any such jabs mainly serve to enhance the pervading atmosphere of discomfort the game creates, but they aren't really the game's theme. Bioshock it ain't.
I realized after recommending it to a bunch of my friends just how hard it is to describe accurately. A lot of the expected tropes don't really come into play or don't work as expected- saying stuff like the PC being the "real villain," for example, is really reductive when placed in the context of the actual game and really only serve as a pitch. "Play this game, it's a deconstruction of Modern Warfare where you're the real bad guy!"
It plays on certain player expectations but on the whole it is its own work with its own goals, not just dark send up of shooters or a flash game-esque experiment in fucking with the player.
“Every sign, linguistic or nonlinguistic, spoken or written (in the usual sense of this opposition), as a small or large unity, can be cited, put between quotation marks; thereby it can break with every given context, and engender infinitely new contexts in an absolutely nonsaturable fashion. This does not suppose that the mark is valid outside its context, but on the contrary that there are only contexts without any center of absolute anchoring. This citationality, duplication, or duplicity, this iterability of the mark is not an accident or anomaly, but is that (normal/abnormal) without which a mark could no longer even have a so-called “normal” functioning. What would a mark be that one could not cite? And whose origin could not be lost on the way?”
I have
No idea what your response here is supposed to mean
tbh if tropers and comic book fans are just going to throw around the word 'deconstruction' to mean 'edgy and subversive' then Derrida copyspam is what they deserve and should expect
tbh if tropers and comic book fans are just going to throw around the word 'deconstruction' to mean 'edgy and subversive' then Derrida copyspam is what they deserve and should expect
tbh if tropers and comic book fans are just going to throw around the word 'deconstruction' to mean 'edgy and subversive' then Derrida copyspam is what they deserve and should expect
What did I do and how do I begin to decode his response
Honestly I wouldn't really categorize SOTL as a deconstruction per se, because it really doesn't actually engage with its perceived targets all that much. Any such jabs mainly serve to enhance the pervading atmosphere of discomfort the game creates, but they aren't really the game's theme. Bioshock it ain't.
I realized after recommending it to a bunch of my friends just how hard it is to describe accurately. A lot of the expected tropes don't really come into play or don't work as expected- saying stuff like the PC being the "real villain," for example, is really reductive when placed in the context of the actual game and really only serve as a pitch. "Play this game, it's a deconstruction of Modern Warfare where you're the real bad guy!"
It plays on certain player expectations but on the whole it is its own work with its own goals, not just dark send up of shooters or a flash game-esque experiment in fucking with the player.
“Every sign, linguistic or nonlinguistic, spoken or written (in the usual sense of this opposition), as a small or large unity, can be cited, put between quotation marks; thereby it can break with every given context, and engender infinitely new contexts in an absolutely nonsaturable fashion. This does not suppose that the mark is valid outside its context, but on the contrary that there are only contexts without any center of absolute anchoring. This citationality, duplication, or duplicity, this iterability of the mark is not an accident or anomaly, but is that (normal/abnormal) without which a mark could no longer even have a so-called “normal” functioning. What would a mark be that one could not cite? And whose origin could not be lost on the way?”
is this Derrida?
it's a lot more comprehensible than i thought it would be, but it kiiiinda loses me at the end there
tbh if tropers and comic book fans are just going to throw around the word 'deconstruction' to mean 'edgy and subversive' then Derrida copyspam is what they deserve and should expect
What did I do and how do I begin to decode his response
basically he is saying that anything with a meaning beyond itself (signs) can be removed from its context and put into other contexts, but that doesnt mean that it will always make sense in those contexts. but he then stresss that the sign wont always make sense in these new possible contexts, and that this ability to be cited and put into other contexts is a crucial feature of signs.
at least i am pretty condident that is what he is saying
Q: Do I have to kill the snake? A: University guidelines state that you have to “defeat” the snake. There are many ways to accomplish this. Lots of students choose to wrestle the snake. Some construct decoys and elaborate traps to confuse and then ensnare the snake. One student brought a flute and played a song to lull the snake to sleep. Then he threw the snake out a window.
Q: Does everyone fight the same snake? A: No. You will fight one of the many snakes that are kept on campus by the facilities department.
Q: Are the snakes big? A: We have lots of different snakes. The quality of your work determines which snake you will fight. The better your thesis is, the smaller the snake will be.
Q: Does my thesis adviser pick the snake? A: No. Your adviser just tells the guy who picks the snakes how good your thesis was.
Q: What does it mean if I get a small snake that is also very strong? A: Snake-picking is not an exact science. The size of the snake is the main factor. The snake may be very strong, or it may be very weak. It may be of Asian, African, or South American origin. It may constrict its victims and then swallow them whole, or it may use venom to blind and/or paralyze its prey. You shouldn’t read too much into these other characteristics. Although if you get a poisonous snake, it often means that there was a problem with the formatting of your bibliography.
Q: When and where do I fight the snake? Does the school have some kind of pit or arena for snake fights? A: You fight the snake in the room you have reserved for your defense. The fight generally starts after you have finished answering questions about your thesis. However, the snake will be lurking in the room the whole time and it can strike at any point. If the snake attacks prematurely it’s obviously better to defeat it and get back to the rest of your defense as quickly as possible.
Q: Would someone who wrote a bad thesis and defeated a large snake get the same grade as someone who wrote a good thesis and defeated a small snake? A: Yes.
Q: So then couldn’t you just fight a snake in lieu of actually writing a thesis? A: Technically, yes. But in that case the snake would be very big. Very big, indeed.
Q: Could the snake kill me? A: That almost never happens. But if you’re worried, just make sure that you write a good thesis.
Q: Why do I have to do this? A: Snake fighting is one of the great traditions of higher education. It may seem somewhat antiquated and silly, like the robes we wear at graduation, but fighting a snake is an important part of the history and culture of every reputable university. Almost everyone with an advanced degree has gone through this process. Notable figures such as John Foster Dulles, Philip Roth, and Doris Kearns Goodwin (to name but a few) have all had to defeat at least one snake in single combat.
Q: This whole snake thing is just a metaphor, right? A: I assure you, the snakes are very real.
Comments
It's Time Warner, I believe the latter
Sparks also likes having sex with Albert Einstein.
At some point in the eighties, a UN group asks her to lead a team of very many superheroes against an incursion of future humans trying to wipe them out. Sparks refuses, and demands several things, among them the death of Ronald Regan and the removal of his administration. (I think, it's been a while)
What I don't get is why she cares. All her demands are centered around the US.
And bathtubs fill the air;
And they hardly full of water,
You should say your prayers.
Cause we have this wicked pastime,
Its always in our dreams;
Is to drop electric stuff down there and watch you scream.
With a toaster or a blender, or any power tool;
Doesnt matter what we use as long as it looks cool.
First we hear that sickly buzzing,
You wriggle like a pup.
Then we see your little skeleton and it cracks us up!
Now we dont go in for theme parks, or any kind of ride,
Cause we rather watch your face whenever you get fried.
If you need more information, from Finland to Guam;
You can reach us on the Internet at rat dot com!
YOOOURE AAAA-
-Wimpy little sucker who doesnt stand a chance;
We are clearly way too good for you so dance, boy, dance!
Have you bathtubs, have you lasers, most every time they drop,
And youre such an easy target that we just cant stop!
You can try and beg for mercy but we just, cant, stop!!!
How
No idea what your response here is supposed to mean
a double
thank you, popular culture
it's a lot more comprehensible than i thought it would be, but it kiiiinda loses me at the end there
...maybe come context would help (*rimshot*)
at least i am pretty condident that is what he is saying
Q: Do I have to kill the snake?
A: University guidelines state that you have to “defeat” the snake. There are many ways to accomplish this. Lots of students choose to wrestle the snake. Some construct decoys and elaborate traps to confuse and then ensnare the snake. One student brought a flute and played a song to lull the snake to sleep. Then he threw the snake out a window.
Q: Does everyone fight the same snake?
A: No. You will fight one of the many snakes that are kept on campus by the facilities department.
Q: Are the snakes big?
A: We have lots of different snakes. The quality of your work determines which snake you will fight. The better your thesis is, the smaller the snake will be.
Q: Does my thesis adviser pick the snake?
A: No. Your adviser just tells the guy who picks the snakes how good your thesis was.
Q: What does it mean if I get a small snake that is also very strong?
A: Snake-picking is not an exact science. The size of the snake is the main factor. The snake may be very strong, or it may be very weak. It may be of Asian, African, or South American origin. It may constrict its victims and then swallow them whole, or it may use venom to blind and/or paralyze its prey. You shouldn’t read too much into these other characteristics. Although if you get a poisonous snake, it often means that there was a problem with the formatting of your bibliography.
Q: When and where do I fight the snake? Does the school have some kind of pit or arena for snake fights?
A: You fight the snake in the room you have reserved for your defense. The fight generally starts after you have finished answering questions about your thesis. However, the snake will be lurking in the room the whole time and it can strike at any point. If the snake attacks prematurely it’s obviously better to defeat it and get back to the rest of your defense as quickly as possible.
Q: Would someone who wrote a bad thesis and defeated a large snake get the same grade as someone who wrote a good thesis and defeated a small snake?
A: Yes.
Q: So then couldn’t you just fight a snake in lieu of actually writing a thesis?
A: Technically, yes. But in that case the snake would be very big. Very big, indeed.
Q: Could the snake kill me?
A: That almost never happens. But if you’re worried, just make sure that you write a good thesis.
Q: Why do I have to do this?
A: Snake fighting is one of the great traditions of higher education. It may seem somewhat antiquated and silly, like the robes we wear at graduation, but fighting a snake is an important part of the history and culture of every reputable university. Almost everyone with an advanced degree has gone through this process. Notable figures such as John Foster Dulles, Philip Roth, and Doris Kearns Goodwin (to name but a few) have all had to defeat at least one snake in single combat.
Q: This whole snake thing is just a metaphor, right?
A: I assure you, the snakes are very real.