Soup Is Good Food

an internet website

  • “In the drowsy dark caves of the mind dreams build their nest with fragments dropped from day’s caravan.” – Rabinandrath Tagore

    The backrooms in Backrooms could be metaphors for a lot of different things. This reads to me as an intentional choice on the part of the filmmakers, for a couple of different reasons. First, the storytelling meme that forms the basis for its source material has innumerable contributors, each of whom may have imparted their contributions with their own implicit meanings (unintentionally or on purpose), and in honoring this collaborative spirit it makes sense not to narrow down the scope into something that could be easily identified or even totally grasped by just one person. Also, the horror of the “liminal space” phenomenon is just more effective when you don’t fully understand the “how” of it.

    Each individual character, though, brings their own baggage into the recursive reality where they find themselves, through which they interpret what is happening to them. Clark, the movie’s initial protagonist, is trapped in his own self-destructive cycles of alcohol abuse, blame, and isolation long before he stumbles into the pocket dimension in the basement of his store. And Mary, his therapist, has her own pattern of tying her self-worth to her ability to “fix” others, even those who do not want to be fixed, following the trauma of being unable to help her agoraphobic mother as a child.

    The backrooms dimension is made in one way or another out of memories, but the memories are fragmented and fractured, a physical and visual representation of the limitations of our real memories. It’s uncomfortable to see, partially because if you look inward and question your own memories of events and of feelings it becomes quickly apparent how incomplete they are. The incompleteness of a memory, just like that of the environment within a dream, is not to say that it isn’t real (although of course memories can indeed be of unreal things), but a reminder both that a memory records only one individual perspective and that the pieces of it are those elements of the experience that we both observe and find significant, leaving so much undefined.

    When Clark spends his life turning inward, his world gets smaller and smaller as his experiences are defined more and more by his memories of his own memories, which suffer from the copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy degradation that naturally follows stubborn attachment to past events, whether they are positive or negative. The movie visualizes this grandly, showing how distorted and warped a memory-place becomes when the place he is isn’t reality or even a recollection of it, but recollections of rememberings as we move down, layer by layer. I feel like the closest the movie comes to being explicit about this is when we see a flashback to Mary’s childhood memories, followed by slow tilts downward through successive “backroom” versions of her childhood living room, each time with the details more skewed and off even as they seem superficially “safer.”

    It’s the false safety that a retreat into nostalgia promises. This implicit critique of nostalgia is where Backrooms has the most bite. And it applies equally whether one is living in a “positive” or “negative” past period – either way, each cycle of remembering takes the subject further and further from the reality that they only fractionally experienced in the first place, and when this process corresponds with a ferocious attachment to the feelings that those times created (or that one might imagine, in their present state of mind, they felt), it becomes easier and easier to eat the substanceless fluff inside of the dream people who have replaced real friends and family and acquaintances and pretend that it is nourishment.

    Thinking about Backrooms brings to mind Ted Chiang’s short story “The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling, which explores a science-fictional future in which the option of perfect recall becomes available through technological advancement. The story digs deeply into how the incomplete nature of our memories makes us who we are, and makes a life bearable for conscious beings. Sometimes learning and growing as people and in our relationships comes as a result of the limitations imposed by our own individual perspectives. But those blessings can become curses when instead of applying the lessons we learn from our memories and experiences to our lives moving forward, we fixate on our past experiences, either because we love them too much to let them go or because we allow our mistakes to keep their claws sunk into us and drag us back into the same spirals.

    Backrooms is a horror movie, so the growth and satisfaction that can come with leaving behind cycles of nostalgia and regret don’t come for Mary and Clark. If we are fortunate, we can learn from their mistakes.

    This piece was originally published in the Centipede Press Newsletter.

    +
  • They got me again. Jessie’s story coming full circle, with her realization of how much she meant to Emily by way of finding Emily’s daughter Jessie’s time capsule, not only poignantly closed the loop on the very good but devastating part of the Toy Story 2 narrative about how we leave our childhoods behind but also added maturity to the narrative by exploring how, if we’re lucky, toys are there for us when we need them, and for what we need them for, as they help us grow into who we need to become. That this theme was explored in part by Conan O’Brien’s single-mindedly toilet-focused potty training toy beaming with admiration when he sees how his kid grew up and past her need for him, is a credit to how much thought and heart went into this movie that probably would have made tons of money even without it.

    +
  • We had a massive hail storm yesterday. It damaged the roof and broke a basement window. When we went outside to see how the garden held up (not completely obliterated), I saw a little bird sitting stock still on the fence rail. It didn’t move when we came close to it, just looked at us and breathed. It was probably in shock. Alicia took it inside and put it in a little cardboard box with a towel for warmth and a crack for air. It sat there, breathing, for a long time.

    This morning when the rain finally stopped she took the box outside and opened it and the little bird flew away.

    +
  • “It seemed to him the problem was he was smart enough to ask the question but not smart enough to answer it. Then he thought maybe that goes for the entire human race.”

    A little boy named Harold sits in his third-grade classroom in the mid-1960s and daydreams, when he’s not being interrupted by distractions like his teacher asking him questions. Harold has a grandfather he loves and admires very much, who fought in a war and who learned a lot from his Lakota friends which he taught to Harold during his summer visits. He also has a window in his head that birds fly through, carrying his thoughts.

    Over the course of his afternoon, he imagines a sweet romantic walk with Elizabeth, a smart girl in his class, and then a trip to the moon with her and Carl Sagan where they talk about, among many things, the pale blue dot photo (the anachronism is acknowledged by the narrator with a “none of your business”). He makes mundane observations about life and school and his classmates, and he thinks about big questions, the kinda that people are smart enough to ask but not smart enough to answer.

    Harold’s reveries are absolutely real to him, as much as anything that matters is real, and they matter more to him than much of what’s going on outside of his mind. The pretend grade-school courtship of his crush (or more accurately, his imagined version of her) means so very much to him, and he seems to really learn from the imaginary conversations they have. I’m sure I’m not the only person who read this book and was reminded of how much of their lives they used to spend living in their own little worlds, if we’re being honest with ourselves, how much even as adults we still do. Wright takes Harold’s imagination-world seriously because the experiences he has there have real meaning, and compels the reader to consider doing the same.

    +
  • The Empire has fallen, but its remnants cling to power on the Outer Rim of the galaxy. The job of mopping up these remnants has been left to Republic Colonel Sigourney Weaver, and she’s gonna need all the bounty hunters and their adorable sidekicks/surrogate alien children she can find to get it done.

    This is all the setup you need for The Mandalorian & Grogu, a refreshingly lighthearted space adventure that also happens to be a Star War. We meet up with Din Djarin and his little buddy on a Hoth-like planet where they have been sent to capture or kill the leader of an upstart Imperial rump state, in a Bond-esque cold open mission with gunfights, standoffs, infiltration and vehicle chases, the destruction of a couple of AT-ATs, and a last minute escape.

    They return to pick up their payment at the Republic base/video game hub world where they get their missions from, and soon find themselves blasting off again, this time to “rescue” Rotta the Hutt from a gladiator ring where he’s being held captive. Rotta (Jabba’s son, the farting baby hutt from the terrible Clone Wars movie, now played by hot guy Jeremy Allen White) thinks he’s gonna be a big star after one more fight, so he doesn’t want to go, and turns our heroes in to his boss instead.

    You can imagine where things go from here, and I don’t mean that with any shade. The story beats in this movie are as predictable as the ones in the western and samurai adventure movies that precede it, and the paths we take to get from beat to beat are just as fun and satisfying as they are in any of the best of them. The joy of Mandalorian and Grogu is found moment to moment, as you follow this space lone wolf and his space cub through their trials, and there are so many moments of joy to be found.

    Dave Filoni and Jon Favreau have been working with these characters for the better part of a decade, and they seem to be having great fun with their opportunity to widen the scope as much as their tentpole budget will allow. We travel through jungles, cities, deserts and tundra, witness pit fighting and swordplay and shootouts and car chases and spaceship dogfights, meet weird aliens of the friendly, hostile, and toyetic varieties, and throughout all of it there’s a palpable feeling of enthusiasm radiating off of the screen, as if the filmmakers have clearly wanted a chance to put together a big-screen version of this kind of story and almost feel like they’re getting away with something. These are the kinds of guys who get a kick out of having bad-guy robots who move the same way as a Ray Harryhausen stop-motion creature, down to the limited frame rate, and they made a movie for fans who do too.

    I hate to have to address the discourse around this movie, but it seems like you can’t talk about Star Wars these days without it coming up. So here we go: after the last movie in the series more than earned its terrible reputation by dipping into bone-dry creative wells trying to service fans who didn’t even know what they wanted, there was plenty of chatter to the effect that future movies in the franchise should dial down the stakes and tell more character-focused stories that don’t all revolve around the people from the original trilogy. That’s exactly what this movie is: it’s about a guy trying to take care of a kid and figuring out how to do the right thing along the way, and it’s the only Star Wars movie that doesn’t feature any characters from the OT. And the responses (from the complainier side of the Internet) have zeroed in on these qualities as a negative, whining about how the fate of the galaxy doesn’t hang in the balance and etc etc. You don’t have to like this movie (you don’t have to like any movie, as a matter of fact), but the degree of whiplash here suggests that there is also a contingent of people who just don’t want to be happy with anything.

    Thankfully, those people’s opinions about the movie matter just as much as my opinion of them, which is to say, not at all.

    I liked this movie quite a bit. It might not quite hit the highs of Last Jedi or Rogue One, but it’s a solid entertainment through and through, and easily the most fun movie that Disney has produced since taking over the galaxy far, far away.

    +
  • Trapped in a meaningless cycle of work, commuting, and isolation, a young worker in a busy Japanese city notices a man on his subway car brutally berating a young mother for her baby’s crying. Disturbed by the display, but paralyzed by fear and inertia, he turns away and blocks out the sound with his earbuds. After stepping off the train, he winds his way through a labyrinth of platforms and concourses and finds himself in an endlessly looping series of identical corridors, marked by a sign reading:

    Thus begins the liminal-space horror of Genki Kawamura’s Exit 8, an adaptation of the Kotake Create video game of the same name. Our protagonist, who we only know as The Lost Man, must pay close attention to the little details that make up his sterile purgatory – faces on advertisement posters, a pile of trash heaped next to a bank of subway lockers, the presence or absence of doors and lights and access panels, and the Walking Man, who moves obliviously along the same path every time he enters the hallway – in order to navigate his way back to the real world he has left behind. Each time through the passageway he gets a chance to move one exit forward, from zero to eight, as long as he’s been perceptive enough to notice whether or not anything anomalous appeared. A mistake in either direction sends him back to square one (that is, Exit 0).

    Exit 8 recreates the environment of the video game that preceded it meticulously. The set and lighting design work together to communicate the feeling of postmodern industrial alienation which was first popularized by internet users sharing photos of empty hallways and abandoned stores and offices, and star Kazunari Ninomiya sells the claustrophobic panic that his Lost Man feels more and more acutely as the story progresses.

    Where Exit 8 stands apart from many of its game-adaptation peers is in the way that it uses not only the setting and characters but also the core gameplay mechanics of its inspiration to communicate its story and themes. The video game does not feature a narrative, just a creepy environmental puzzle for the player to solve, but the endless loop of the subway tunnels and the soullessness of the environment in which the player spends all of their time prove metaphorically fertile for telling a story about the kind of powerless limbo that many modern workers feel locked into.

    The narrative makes it clear that the Lost Man was lost long before this story began. He is cut off from contact with other human beings, including the woman who may be carrying his child, he’s isolated from the natural world by his work and long commute and from his immediate surroundings by the pacifying glow of his smartphone, and he’s losing touch with his very humanity as is evidenced by his inability to take action when he sees a fellow human in need. The path that he must take to free himself involves looking and listening to everything around him, seeing and noticing and choosing to take an active role in his life and his progress, without which he will remain stuck in the same meaningless loop until what remained of his soul has faded completely (we get a window into this possible path when we learn more of the Walking Man’s story).

    The ending of the movie even has a “new game plus” feeling to it, when it becomes clear that after “escaping” his ordeal, he must continue to act with the courage and humanity that he learned underground or his life will return to the meaningless cycles that defined it before, and his humanity will be truly lost.

    If all Exit 8 had going for it were its surface-level accomplishments in production and lighting design and immersive cinematography, it’d still be among the stronger video game-to-movie adaptations around. But in using the structure of its inspiration to tell a very human story with a message that resonates strongly in the world where we find ourselves today, it sets itself apart as something special.

    +

  • I’ve been using search engines for nigh on three decades of my life at this point. A search engine is a tool you use to help you find something that is true. Truth, because it has meaning, cannot be delivered by a machine, it’s got to be arrived at via something that can perceive meaning, and as far as I know living consciousness is the only thing that can do that. But what a search engine can do (what good search engines do very well) is provide information that can be processed by the user into knowledge, which can then be used to seek out truth.

    LLMs claim to provide truth, in the form of answers to questions. This rubs me the wrong way from the outset. I don’t want to imagine that I’m in conversation with another intelligence when I’m interacting with my computer, because I am not. When you use a search engine, you (whether you realize it or not) are operating a machine via the input of logic operators, and the output that you receive is a deterministic one, based on intentionally crafted elements of that machine’s algorithms. As a user of that tool, you can develop your skills and learn to use it better, until the tool becomes an invaluable part of your search for something real, but the tool doesn’t purport to provide you with truth. It serves you platters of information, based on what you ordered from its menu. It’s up to you to synthesize that information into knowledge and understanding.

    The way you operate a large language model is different. So much so that I feel like I’m stretching the word “operate” to even describe what it is that you’re doing. Since you input instructions in natural language and receive your output in natural language, the results that you wind up with have gone through at least two black boxes on the way to your eyeballs. First, a complicated and unpredictable algorithm reads the natural language input that you provide, and then translates it into instructions for the machine to produce some kind of output. But what are the instructions that it takes into its database of training data? You, the user, don’t know, and even if you programmed the darn thing yourself, you still wouldn’t know, because the way the language is processed is always changing based on the other inputs the machine receives. Then, in order to provide your output in the form of natural language as well, the same basic black box word guessing machine is applied to the machine’s findings in reverse.

    When I first started using the LLM search tools, I was not impressed with them at all. Sometimes they produced correct answers, and sometimes they didn’t, but the correct and incorrect answers tend to be delivered with equivalent levels of certainty, and even when you click the “show your work” button there are sometimes baffling leaps between what the machine claims its source is and the output that it gives you. But really, why wouldn’t there be? The machine doesn’t “understand” either inputs or outputs in a way that means what it means for a conscious human being. It just has billions of words and connections between them in its guessing engine, and selects the ones that it thinks would be most likely to please you, then does the parlor trick of arranging the ones you receive into tidy sentences. How, I thought, could anything worthwhile be gleaned from incorporating these into my workflow?

    The answer turned out to be (much to my chagrin) playing the game they present on its own terms. By relentlessly badgering them with rephrasings, requests for clarifications, and most importantly challenges on what they got wrong or didn’t provide evidence for, I was able to take the complicated questions I arrived with and hammer out some actual answers, which I then used to synthesize knowledge in my brain, with my organic consciousness (whatever that is) and arrived at something approximating a true answer for the problem I was trying to solve, which I was finally able to write up for my customer.

    Do I think that this workflow is better than what I was doing before? No, not really. But if my employer, like so many others, is going to require that these tools be a major part of how I get my job done, I can at least figure out a way to do it well.

    +
  • Bosnia AND Herzegovina? In this economy?

    +
  • AI cannot hunger or thirst. It can only regurgitate.

    So claims an insightful piece by Eleanor Russell, which illuminated to me a lot of the problems I have with the idea of “art” being generated by an unthinking and unfeeling machine, not to mention whether there could be anything worthwhile to experience in such a product. Says Russell:

    The concept of AI actors reveals a malevolent paranoia. Rather than risk being confronted by a work of art that throws into question your way of living, you can have a lithe and large-eyed AI gyrate on the floor in exactly the way you have prompted her to. You will never be tricked into believing something you have not decided in advance you want to believe. AI is compelling to tech billionaires and their minions because it offers the fantasy of total control. They have found a way to conquer their phobia of humanity, which is by turning it into a malleable simulacrum. Of course, it looks like total shit and has, thus far, mainly been used to facilitate taking selfies with various action movie characters. The imagination of the average AI booster is so impoverished that they do not even dream of going on a high seas adventure with Captain Jack Sparrow, or assisting a heist with Ethan Hunt from the Mission: Impossible movies, or doing blow with Leonard diCaprio as whatever character they wish. The most they dream of is a selfie, a gesture to feeling included in a creative community they do not have the intellectual or creative capacity to ever really belong to. And so their greatest dreams look like total ass, because they lack the theory of mind to imagine anything but ass. It can’t create anything new, and therefore what these people are trying to call “AI performance” isn’t that, it’s a failed and abject imitation.

    It’s hard to come up with a precise definition for “art.” To me, a non-negotiable part of the definition is that art is the creative expression of a human being’s unique perspective on the world they observe. When I approach a piece of art, I want to be challenged by it. Often, but not exclusively, in a way that causes discomfort or reshapes how I see the world.

    There’s plenty of room, of course, for art that provides comfort and relief. But even artistic comfort food poses to its audience an inherent challenge, because it’s coming from another human being who is different from you. Their perspectives will at times contrast with yours. Their ideas will sometimes be alien to you. The way they look at the world is different from how you look at the world, and the friction of your perspective encountering another human’s creates both growth and pleasure. Conversely, encountering the product of a prompt designed to scrape together bits of data that it has been “trained” on in order to please the reader/viewer is solipsistic, sycophantic, and emptily masturbatory, providing neither the edification that comes with experiencing another’s creativity nor the pleasure that comes from an intellectual or emotional interaction with another being.

    Creativity is work. To create anything demands that you open yourself up to the friction between your ideas, your outlines, your thumbnail sketches, and the exterior reality of what you can make with your hands and fingers and voice. Expressing (pushing out, like juice from a lime) your thoughts and feelings requires energy and strength and commitment. It’s hard! Many people who fancy themselves creatives recoil from the discomfort inherent in this process. Some feel that the ability of a large language model to whip up a simulacrum of human creativity based on an idea they wave at it is liberatory, freeing them from the work that would otherwise be required in order to be the artist they think they are. But an artist, a writer, isn’t something you can “be” in a static capacity. You are only an artist to the extent that you do art. You are a writer only to the extent that you write. The idea that you can be a creative who has freed yourself of the work of creation fundamentally misunderstands the meaning and the value of creativity as a human process.

    Russell continues:

    Figuring out what and who to believe is harder than it has ever been. If we are to find it, we have to do it together. Typing “make a pop song sung by a beautiful woman” into a prompt window, to the AI booster, is equivalent to writing “Call Me Maybe” by Carly Rae Jepsen. “Call Me Maybe” is a miracle of God. The reason these two things are equivalent to them is because they do not actually like pop music, because AI guys don’t actually like anything. They are anti-life. If art is to survive at all, we cannot cede an inch of ground to these fascist idiots. It’s a shame that the figure of the sociopath in popular culture is genius-coded, because the sociopaths who are attempting to structure our reality–art included–have rocks for brains. We have to remember this at all times.

    Her usage of “anti-life” recalls Darkseid, Jack Kirby’s personification of crushing fascist evil in his insane and wonderful New Gods comic book series. Darkseid is obsessed with solving the “anti-life equation”, a formula which will allow him to eradicate not breath, heartbeats, or the self-replication of DNA, but free will and thought. This is what Kirby recognized as vital to life: individual thought, feeling, and self-determination. The most evil being he could imagine devotes himself to snuffing out the capacity to create and express ourselves based on the ineffable essence of our unique souls.

    Let’s not do it for him.

  • it’s not gonna happen.

    Pictured: some bullshit.

    Every Saint Patrick’s Day, grade schoolers across America arrive to school bummed out to find that the leprechaun traps that they painstakingly worked on with their classmates have failed. The leprechaun(s) have once again broken out, leaving behind shamrock-shaped glitter and (if the kids are lucky) a chocolate coin or two.

    Of all the holiday mascot traditions, this has to be the most disappointing one. They put their work, not to mention hopes and dreams, into finally catching one of those little fuckers, only to come up with bupkis year after year.

    Santa Claus brings you presents. The Easter Bunny leaves a basket full of candy (and now also presents, apparently). The leprechaun leaves a mess for you to clean up. Fun.

    I specified above that American children have this annual round of glitter sweeping to look forward to. This is because Ireland doesn’t have time for that kind of bullshit.

    Elf on the shelf-ass made up tradition. SMDH.

    +