Musings on ‘Doom Eternal’

Rip and tear until the inevitable sequel.

Although I’m not a gamer, I’ve long felt a certain affection for the Doom franchise, so even I was interested when the reimagined game, known by fans as Doom 2016 to avoid confusion with the original game, appeared four years ago.

Doom had already seen a reboot with Doom III, which reinvented the game as a survival horror with more-or-less the same concept as the original but considerably more plot. Although generally praised, it was sometimes accused of building too slowly.

Doom 2016 triumphantly returned the franchise to its roots as an all-out blood-and-guts actioner and also created a new story line while keeping the basics of the premise.

Doom Eternal, which will appear in March of 2020 (having been delayed after a planned October release) is a direct sequel to Doom 2016 and is loosely based on Doom II: Hell on Earth, which appeared in 1995 as the sequel to the original game. The developers have promised that this sequel will contain even more lore and backstory as well as some huge areas to explore. Available footage indicates that it will also have a heavier focus on platforming than earlier entries in the franchise, and that the combat will require a lot of quick thinking.

The game is already being praised by those who have had the chance to play it. The only criticism, fairly mild, is that it is more cartoonish than its immediate predecessor: Its levels are no longer logical in layout, featuring instead a lot of floating floors and flaming chains like something out of Super Mario, and the obtainable items such as weapons and armor are brightly colored. The designers have defended this latter choice by arguing that they don’t want players to struggle to find items in the game’s environments.

Easily the most anticipated game of the last couple of years, Doom Eternal has stirred up some controversy (in a franchise familiar with controversy) because the early teasers hinted that the game’s final boss enemy might be God.

Continue reading “Musings on ‘Doom Eternal’”

On Lolicon: An Addendum

My series of essays, Why I Hate Cardcaptor Sakura, is probably still my magnum opus in the world of blogging. Recently, I noticed a comment, though now almost a year old, that I think deserves some discussion.

For obvious reasons, I’m not linking the comment or stating the author’s name, and let me say clearly that this is not an invitation to dox, harass, or otherwise act like an ass.

Here is the comment:

That’s the issue with people like you today. You focus on too much on what is bad instead of why it’s bad. Why do you find th3 “pedophilia” relationship bad? It’s immoral, it’s disgusting it’s whatever. But please realize why it is bad to begin with. Pedophilia is bad not because a person likes a child, but because a child isn’t mentally prepared enough for any sexual relationships. They are also prone being exploited. Imagine a world where these negatives doesn’t exist, where every person is just borned matured and so on. Naturally in that world, pedophilia is not considered bad. That’s why in my opinion, we should never immediately see fictional pedophilia as some disgusting, evil, ugly, horrible things alone, but also by their context. I’m not saying the context in this is anywhere justified since I didn’t look too deep into it. But I really hope people learn not think so simply.

Curiously, this reinforces the point I was making with that over-long series of essays. “Imagine a world where pedophilia is good, akshually,” is, I agree, the entire premise of Cardcaptor Sakura—which is why I loathe it.

However, having said that, I will admit that the commenter makes a statement that, like the argument of a Sophist, takes some time to think over before we can understand exactly what’s wrong with it. Our instinct is to recoil in disgust, certainly, but instinct isn’t enough.

So here is my best attempt at a rebuttal:

First, I seriously doubt pedophiles’ good will; that is, I am not convinced they will be willing to keep it in the fictional world. “They’re just drawings” is the constant refrain of lolicons, something I have addressed previously. The problem with that is that, although they are indeed drawings, they are nonetheless drawings that represent something, in this case children. If those drawings of children are treated as sexually desirable for adults, that will naturally lead their viewers toward the opinion that children are sexually desirable for adults. This will hold true regardless of whether those child-drawings have a fantasy setting or a realistic one.

Second, the technical term for the detrimental effect to children when they are sexually exploited is “scandal.” Unfortunately, within the last two centuries or so, that word has lost both its original meaning and its original severity. To “scandalize” someone is to drag him into evil and thus into hell. Exploitation of children is particularly heinous because of scandal. That is why it is needful to tread with extreme care in this area, and I speak as one who has sweated and fretted over this subject, since I am myself a writer of coming-of-age magical-girl stories.

Third, although this is not well understood today, a thorough understanding of sexual ethics (indeed, of all ethics) requires an understanding of final cause, that is, that toward which things tend or that for which they exist. The primary final cause of sex is reproduction; there is much effort to deny this nowadays, but it is obvious to everyone and requires no defense. The sex act can of course have secondary ends such as pleasure or health or mutual good, but reproduction is still primary. As such, any sex act that necessarily precludes reproduction falls outside the category of the morally permissible, and this includes sex with sexually immature children even if the reality of scandal is denied or ignored as it is in Cardcaptor Sakura.

It is mainly for these second and third reasons that consent has become primary in today’s discussions of sexual ethics. It was around the eighth century that Christian theologians recognized that, because Christian marriage is a sacrament and not merely a natural institution, it requires the full consent of both spouses. From there, theologians refined their position, determining that, as a natural institution ordered toward child-rearing, marriage requires its participants to be of reproductive age and, as a sacrament, also requires that they be mature enough to consent to it.

Like it or not, these theological conclusions underpin all current discussions of this touchy subject.

With My Real-Life Waifu

I really must apologize for my lack of posting and for my lack of meaningful content. Quite a lot of real life is coming at me right now.

My fiancée has finished her work in Memphis, so she has moved up here and will be starting her new job next week. I spent the weekend helping her move, and there’s a funny story about that … for another time.

Anyway, she’s here, and our wedding is now two months away. It’s kind of bizarre to think that I’m actually getting married soon, but so it is.

I’m afraid I have no other updates at the moment. Too much is going on, but I am getting to my writing when I can.

The Latest on the State of the Books

Featured image: “Art Challenge” by Sonya Fung

So, as I earlier reported, my publisher has gone out of business. I disappeared after that for a few different reasons, mostly because I immediately dived into the next steps for my books.

I have, just today, sent both Jake and the Dynamo and Rag & Muffin out the door. I sent Jake and the Dynamo to another indie publisher that is interested in the orphans of Superversive Press, but after consulting with my editor, I’ve decided to shop Rag & Muffin with larger publishing houses.

It would be imprudent to name names. All I can say is, the books are out of the house, and I’m working on my rejection slip collection.

This means a couple of things for my current projects: First, Dead to Rites, the sequel to Jake and the Dynamo, is in limbo until further notice. It will get picked up when (if) Jake and the Dynamo does.

Second, I have no idea of release dates anymore because my submissions could get rejected. Rag & Muffin probably will be, since I’m aiming higher with it.

Third, I’m right back where I started a few weeks ago, working on Son of Hel, which I will submit somewhere when I’m done with it.

Fourth, I’m getting married in April, so I disappeared partly because I was working on arrangements for that. In a couple of weeks, I’ll travel back to Memphis to help the magical girl move, as she’s starting a new job soon in my current town of residence. Then we’ll get married a couple of months after that, and then I’ll have to move again because I’ll be moving in with her.

So that’s what’s up. I’m afraid I’m way behind on watching, reading, and reviewing stuff because my own projects and personal life have taken precedence.

Superversive Press Shutting Its Doors

I have been sitting on this information for a while, but I have seen it posted publicly in another space, so I think I can say this: Superversive Press, which published Jake and the Dynamo and was planning to publish Dead to Rites and Rag & Muffin, is shutting its doors.

I am not party to the reasons, though I assume they are financial (small-press publishing is always a risky business), and I am highly allergic to office politics and the like—so if any of that is involved, I am ignorant of it. I can only tip my hat to Jason Rennie, the publisher, and L. Jagi Lamplighter, my editor, and thank them both for taking a chance on my enthusiastically written but extremely niche work.

I am starting over from here. The future of my books is uncertain, but the novels I have completed will be published, somehow or some way. I believe Jake and the Dynamo deserves a complete arc, mostly because I know how it ends and it’s kick-awesome.

As for Rag & Muffin, it is probably foolish to say this in public, but I have long sensed that a higher power wanted it written and would grind me into powder if it wasn’t, so I think it will somehow be published too.

I will keep you posted.

I Have Found the John Wick Bourbon

When it comes to hard alcohols, I prefer bourbon, though I cannot call myself a genuine expert or connoisseur. Knob Creek is my bourbon of choice because it’s the best one I can both get at my local liquor store and pretend is within my budget.

I also like John Wick movies. Bourbon is John Wick’s drink of choice, and I am not alone in having noticed the distinctive whisky bottle that repeatedly appears in the films, and which I suspected was a real brand.

While looking up bourbons, I happened to run across the very bottle: It is definitely Blanton’s. In John Wick Chapter 2, it is clearly Blanton’s Green Label, as shown in the screenshot at the top of the post.

The official Blanton’s website claims that Blanton invented single-barrel bourbon, and  the Green Label is the Special Reserve, described thusly:

At 80 proof Blanton’s Special Reserve is ideal for those new to single barrel bourbons. It has a slightly floral nose that conveys whispers of cedar and raisin in between soft vanilla notes.

The palate has a light airy feel to it. The taste of vanilla and toffee dance around subtle notes of dried fruit and white pepper. Its smooth consistency makes it perfect for a premium cocktail or served on the rocks. Bottled at 40% alcohol by volume.

For whatever reason, the Green Label is unavailable in the United States. This arguably shows a certain attention to detail in the John Wick films, since Wick is seen drinking the Green Label only while in Rome, whereas he appears to drink the original Blanton’s while in New York.

Although not the most expensive stuff on the market, Blanton’s is unsurprisingly pricey, running about ninety bucks a bottle. Given the premise and culture of the films, of course, it would be shocking if Wick didn’t drink something that’s out of the price range of most of us. In fact, I’m halfway surprised he doesn’t drink something even more outrageously expensive.

Here’s a review of Blanton’s drink.

Although Blanton’s produces the whisky bottle used repeatedly as a film prop, there is also an official John Wick bourbon, along with commemorative tumblers, produced by Silver Screen Bottling Company.

Commemorative John Wick 3 whisky and tumblers
Offical whisky, as pictured on Slash Film.

The “official” liquor claims to be “Continental Straight Bourbon Whiskey.” Given that the films are not very old, I suppose the bourbon is probably not very old, so I’m a little skeptical, but it runs for eighty bucks. How much of that is paying for the whisky and how much is paying for the commemorative props, I’ve no idea—but for ten dollars more, you can have the real deal from Blanton’s.

In any case, I pass this along as a bit of interesting trivia. I’m not buying Blanton’s bourbon or anything like it unless I win the lottery or something.

Update on ‘Jake and the Dynamo: Dead to Rites’

I’ve received some images indicating the progress on the cover art for Dead to Rites, the next volume in the Jake and the Dynamo series.

I don’t think it would be any of my business to give details, but the talented artist doing the work has encountered a lot of problems in the process, almost as if some unseen power doesn’t want the book published. (I say that because I ran into strange trouble of my own while writing it.)

Anyway, things are moving along even if more slowly than I would have preferred. I have received a few images of the art, but post only the one here, as I figure I shouldn’t spoil it.

Anyway, Pretty Dynamo is still looking good. I absolutely love this interpretation of her outfit.

Further Reflections on ‘Krampus’

On my interpretation of the ending of Krampus, a reader has given a thoughtful commentary that deserves to be quoted in full:

A Christmas Carol can be seen as an early post-Christian artifact, with firm roots in Christianity that late Victorians and early Edwardians were beginning to see, in the light of scientific materialism, as a mythology like any other. This idea of religion as a source of moral guidance, exhortation, and cultural identity is the reason, in my opinion, for the enduring appeal of Dickens’ tale for us today. We are all post-Christians now, [or] at least we swim in a sea of post-Christianity. If we are anti-spiritual, we tend to be children of de Sade, doing good or bad depending on how we feel, because nothing is true and everything is permitted. If we figure “there must be something out there”, we are usually children of Crowley, and we syncretize whatever myths and legends suit us so we can justify whatever we want to do. We can dream of heaven, and aspire to be angels by our own efforts, but our home is hell, really, and most of us make our peace with it sooner or later.

Krampus is clearly a post-Christian film, and eager to mine the riches of Western Christianity for entertainment. As our culture falls further and further from the idea that there can be such a thing as the truth, and a God who is merciful enough to guide us to it, my hope is for signs of Grace. Will God truly lead the blind on their journey, by paths unknown? In presenting a version of hell as a place of punishment for evil, even in jest, does even a trashy movie like Krampus serve the truth unwittingly?

I don’t want to trivialize the plight of atheists and modern pagans who have no malice, but are simply following the indications of intelligent people who have concluded that there is no God. In the face of a seemingly meaningless universe, is the basis of morality simply the skill and persuasiveness of one’s own meta-narrative? One of our foremost moralists is Oscar Wilde, who wrote one of the best post-Christian fables ever written—”The Selfish Giant.” He converted on his deathbed, but during his life, he could not gather the strength to fight past the prevailing materialism of his day. As our peers engage in the same struggle, it seems heartless to think that pop art cannot have some role in turning our thoughts to the eternal. Maybe Krampus can do that, in a way, while not pandering to “Hallmark” Christian sensibilities.

My Comments:

There is a lot to unpack there. However we approach these dense three paragraphs, I think he is correct that Krampus is a “post-Christian” film. As I argued in my last commentary upon it, Krampus is a deeply Christian character (hypothetical pre-Christian roots notwithstanding), but the film is careful to avoid mention of any specifically religious purpose to the holiday that celebrates the birth of Christ. The movie also deliberately detaches Krampus from the plainly ethical purpose that he previously served: His job, as with most of the companions of Saint Nicholas, was to whip or at least threaten naughty children. In the horror movie, however, his job is to mercilessly destroy anyone who loses some nebulous “Christmas spirit.”

Ironically, this revamped and secularized role for Krampus is more in keeping with the maudlin and commercialized notions of Christmas that the movie artfully skewers in its opening scenes than it is with the original purpose of the holiday. After the filmmakers mock Christmas for becoming crass and commercialized, they might have pointed out what Christmas is really about—and what role Krampus might play in it. But they didn’t have the guts for that, or maybe didn’t have the knowledge or insight, so the result is a schlock horror film with a few laughs and a few thrills but not much of a point.

As for the notion in the final sentences of the comment, that Krampus might turn our thoughts to the eternal, I will say that I found its image of the mouth of hell to be quite frightening—but I am also aware that I say that as a Christian. I similarly found the image of hell at the end of The Mummy Returns frightening. Someone of a different background and different viewpoint, however, might find these images of hell merely thrilling in a theme-park or horror-movie kind of way.

Yes, we can maybe dig some deep themes out of Krampus, but I think it is next to impossible if we don’t already have an understanding of the mythological character and the religious basis of the Christmas holiday. As it stands, the movie is mostly an undemanding and shallow thrill ride.

Television Review: ‘Miraculous Ladybug,’ Season 3, Part 1

Miraculous Ladybug, Season 3, Part 1, directed by Thomas Astruc. Written by Nicky Baker et al. Zagtoon, 2019. Rated TV-Y7. 13 episodes.

I have previously reviewed the first and second seasons of Miraculous Ladybug, the surprisingly entertaining magical girl show out of France. At the time of writing, the first half of the third season is available on Netflix, with the second half presumably coming soon.

At least so far in this season, the show appears to be trying to revert to the formula that made it popular in the first place: While the second season introduced a slew of new animal-themed superheroes, the first half of season 3 puts the focus back on the two main characters, Marinette and Adrien, who are also the heroes Ladybug and Cat Noir, and their increasingly complicated love triangle.

Continue reading “Television Review: ‘Miraculous Ladybug,’ Season 3, Part 1”

Interpreting the Ending of ‘Krampus’

A few days ago, I posted a review of that cult classic of Christmas horror, Krampus, an exploitation of the recently popular Austrian Advent bogeyman. As I said before, I think the movie is a missed opportunity, a chance to delve into some intriguing lore that instead sticks to the familiar conventions of B-grade horror movies.

The ending of the film, however, is wonderfully ambiguous, so much so that it has led to some online arguments. I refrained from discussing the ending in my review, but I’d like to do so now. I will give the customary spoiler warning, though I will add that nothing I’m about to describe will surprise you.

Continue reading “Interpreting the Ending of ‘Krampus’”