gon

For several years now, I've been paying a lot of attention to the things I own and the things I should to have around me. Here I'm including furniture, utensils, stationary, devices, and even software.

The idea of owning many things doesn't upset me per se but, for some reason, it does raise an eyebrow. Objectively, I need very little to live, and if we were to extend that need to include a fulfilling and comfortable modern life that would still apply. Now, don't get me wrong, the list is actually rather long if we were to list everything, but most of these things (bed, wardrobe, bike...) aren't items that you replace often or even think about all that much. They're the kind of thing you buy and forget about. I still think they're worth mentioning, especially if we're talking about designing a life's itemization---that's what I like to call it---but they're not disposable or replaceable in the same way as say, a phone or a shirt. I think there are different categories of things---I haven't gotten there yet---and there's just a lot of stuff in the big category, and that's not what I want to talk about today. First, I want to focus on the small stuff. Perhaps a mistake, but that's how I feel like doing it.

When there's talk of consumerism, fast fashion bubbles up seemingly immediately, and with good reason. To be honest, my family and I have never subscribed to this fast fashion thing; chasing trends and replacing clothes often is simply something we don't do, though we do often shop at the typical fast fashion brands (Primark, Zara...), not because they have a constantly updating roster of trendy clothes but because they are cheap, and price is very important to organizing your life.

I did a bit of digging, trying to find the best brands and items to buy to put in my wardrobe, and it was surprisingly simple, actually. Black and white shirts, jeans and sweats, a couple hats, some quality shoes, socks and boxers (some people might need bras as well), and that's it. I came up with a few brands:

• Fruit of the Loom
• Wrangler
• Lefties
• Intimissimi
• Merrell

And that's it.

Fruit of the Loom is the brand that basically every shirt you've ever gotten for free at a random event made. They produce in bulk, and you buy in bulk. They're durable and high-quality. Now don't get me wrong, these are good cotton shirts but they're not satin or something of the sort, if you want something top of the top of line then maybe you have to look somewhere else, but they are damn good shirts for very, very cheap. They have different colours, long and short-sleeve, what more could you want?! Nothing, I'd argue.

Wrangler make jeans, and they make them well and for cheap. I've never actually bought Wrangler jeans because I have a single pair of Levi's (recently bough, gift from my mom) and they're holding up very well, so I've seen no need to buy any more. That being said, Wrangler has great reviews and are very affordable. My next pair of jeans are definitely gonna be from them. Levi's is, of course, the other brand in this category that people often talk about. A lot has been said about some loss of quality over the years, but if you buy the 100% cotton 501s you're gonna be fine. They're much more expensive and not because of quality, but because it says Levi's on the pants. I wouldn't recommend based on that alone, but the quality is there. Some jean aficionados might talk about raw or selvage denim, but that's rather unnecessary if we're looking for a good price-quality relationship.

Lefties is a brand that I've made lots of purchases from over the years. They don't make fantastic stuff, not really, but they're good enough. I like their shorts and sweatpants, is what I'm getting at. They're comfortable, cheap, and discreet, which I value quite a lot. I'd like to remind you, at this point, that I'm not looking to separate myself from the trash that is fast fashion, but to take advantage of it to maximize my own life. If a fast fashion company makes good shorts, buy from them, it doesn't matter that they're fast fashion. Just don't compulsively replace them whenever the new ones come out. Buy the good ones, then take good care of them.

Intimissimi is one I found relatively recently. I bought a bunch of Primark underwear before and, while acceptably comfortable, they got holes in them before I knew it. When I looked for good underwear brands online I was thoroughly shocked by not only the disagreements between users and the astronomical prices of the products. Tons of recommendations that got slammed and lots of recommendations that, put simply, obliterate the bank. Intimissimi, I felt, was a nice middle-ground. They have good quality at affordable prices. I can't really recommend them too much on account of seemingly gigantic personal aspect to underwear. I love them, but hey. Their socks are also great. They're much more expensive than, say, Primark and some other brands out there but god the quality is incomparable.

Merrell is another one that is very speculative, on my part. I'm one of those people that only buys new shoes when the old ones fall apart, and I mean fall apart. In tatters, unwearable. I bought some Merrell shoes at a discount but they didn't have my size so I ended up having to return them---which worked fine, by the way, their customer support was fast and pleasant---but my little brother (who's an adult) got a pair of sandals and shoes. He wears them daily and has no complaints. As a matter of fact, the first few days of him wearing them he was rejoicing at how comfortable they were. By all accounts, they're also rather durable. He got them on my recommendation, but I ended up wearing the same old beaten old sneakers. Whatever, I'm not bitter. Regardless, my next big purchase is almost certainly going to be shoes. I'm in need of new ones, and Merrel is likely going to be the pick this time around. I've also been looking at some other brands, especially hand-made and not mass-produced shoes. Nothing wrong with mass-produced shoes, but I was simply curious and was happily surprised by the comparable prices to some big brands.

I also mentioned hats. I didn't list a brand for them because I like special hats. I bought a hat from a YouTuber brand a while back and it's served me well, I wear it all the time, and I also have a simple cap from the Kraków Hard Rock Café. I'm sure there's brands out there that make killer hats, I just don't really care for that.

My belt is Levi's brand, bought with the pants. There's plenty of good leather belts around, really, and I'm not big on belts so I didn't look into it enough quite yet. I saw a very interesting American brand a few months ago that seemed to make a really nice product, but the prices were... High, to put it mildly. Maybe I just haven't gotten to the point where I really value a good belt. We'll see how it goes with this one.

I'd also like to talk about digital devices. Personally, I think a laptop/PC (depending on one's needs), smartphone, and ebook reader are great. The only one I find very debatable is the ebook reader; reading physical books is indescribably better than reading EPUBs but the convenience of a reader is ridiculous. So many books, for free no less. Insane. I'm actually thinking of investing in a new laptop, actually, but I haven't gotten a good look at the line-ups just yet, what I have given a lot of thought to, however, is OS. I think Linux is the future, I truly believe that. I've tried a few different distros and the only reason I haven't switched over just yet is inertia. Everything is Windows for me, so changing everything over is a bit of a pain in the ass. I'm the kind of person that likes to personalize things, when possible, and Linux makes everything possible, which is a particular kind of hell and a special kind of heaven for me. Still, I'm convinced. For me, it's purely a matter of time. For phone Android is the only choice. iOS and the iPhone just don't compete on any level, pretty much. I'm not an Apple hater by any means---though I don't really like them because their products are underwhelming---but there are much better Android alternatives. I don't think the top of the line products for either Android of iOS are the way to go, by the way. I'm big on Chinese brands. I have a TCL 20L+ and it works really well. I've had it for a couple of years now and it hasn't failed me, I intend to buy an equivalent when it's life runs out. Ebook readers are easy: just buy the cheapest one for the size you want. I have a second hand basic Kindle from way back, I've had it for years and it works perfectly. Bells and whistles are irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't have the time or the will to write more here now, but I have a lot more to say on this particular topic. I've decided to start writing a Rentry on this. If anyone actually read this all the way through, please do recommend categories of things for me to look into, by the way.

I didn't read Babel at all, yesterday. Instead, I listened to a Timesuck episode on Alexander Hamilton. Very interesting, especially after having watched the musical. I loved the musical, but I appreciated the more realistic approach to his biography that the episode provided.

I hope to read some Babel today. I will read some, the question is how much, but I hope to read quite a bit. Let's see.

That's it.

Cliché, I know.

But really, this upsets me terribly.

Democracy is horrible. People are dumb, easily manipulated, and they don't know what they want. Moreover, the masses are amoral. An individual might discern good from evil (whatever those are) but put them in a group and suddenly they trust the motion of the arms around them, they sway in the sea of sweat, and they lurch and barf and puke into the plate they eat off of if they see their brothers in mass do the same. It's absurd. I'm not immune to this, mind you, but I believe anyone has the right to criticize and point out problems where they stand, regardless of their own personal inclinations and vulnerabilities.

The rule of the people is the rule of beasts, because people are beasts. Simple as that really; there isn't a better way to summarise the sentiment that I can think of, at least. My neighbour isn't a beast and neither am I, but give us the colours of a party, give us the speeches of a demagogue and god-forbid give us the demagogue we are like parrots spouting nonsense after nonsense, sunflowers tricked by an incandescent bulb. To vote is to think, and people don't think. Not even individuals think much at all, really, but people don't think. They go with the flow, they trust that the one next to them thought, but that very person trusts that the one next to them is the one doing the thinking. Count the heads and turns out there's barely a single brain spread between them, it's an embarrassment to humankind, it's a real and true shame.

Then again, what other choice is there? Sure, people don't think, individuals don't think, there's no way democracy has any merit, but what can we do instead? I can think of many options but they all stink worse than rotten eggs drenched in sulphur.

The first and most obvious solution---at least to me---is monarchy. The idea of a single lineage tasked with governance is nothing short of ideal. It's not a privilege, not really, it's a burden by all accounts. Generation after generation an individual is raised to rule. They are educated in every relevant subject, they are broken down and reshaped into the ideal of a leader, someone that can make the right decisions at the right time, and the populus shall never even think about what needs to be done or doubt if what was done was the right thing, for the monarch knows best and knows more than anyone else. It's a bothersome position and heavy is the head, as they say, but it's really hard to come up with something better. Surround the royal with a court of specialists in the relevant political and social issues of the day and there you go, a perfectly run nation. The only problem, of course, is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. To give a single person---or a single family---that much power and influence is a recipe for disaster. It's not a matter of if but of when the country will fall to bits because a single heir decided they knew best and the best was to live a life of unadulterated hedonism. Then, everything comes crumbling down.

Monarchy is a terrible idea. It sounds good, but power simply cannot be allowed to concentrate on an individual or family.

The next best thing is a technocracy, I suppose. I first heard this word in a song by Samsa, actually, called technocrat. I thought it said techno-rat at first. It was a weird experience. Regardless... The idea is simple: don't let power go to one person that is a specialist in everything, instead let the power go to the court. The court is a group of specialists in a bunch of different fields, and each should be responsible for their own particular portion of the country. This sounds good, at first glance, but it's completely undoable. Who chooses the specialists, who decides what fields deserve representation, oh and worst of all who decides which decisions go forward and which ones don't? Governance is a quid pro quo. If you give to education you have to take from somewhere, if you give to health you have to take from somewhere. Who makes those kinds of calls? If the group makes the calls, well, that defeats the purpose. Why would a specialist in education decide whether or not the nation needs more public transport and how it should be operated? It's a paradox, at the end of the day, and it cannot work without power being given to someone, or worse, the people. Because when the people are given a choice, they choose to behave like beasts.

We're back at square one.

Perhaps a middle ground exists, somewhere. A way to pick a select number of individuals with varied specialisations for the purpose of making these calls. Not the people, not a person, but a group of persons that are individually capable, but not so numerous they devolve to a mob.

I imagine a nation where education is valued. With this I don't mean that everyone has a university degree or something, but that people are informed and in possession of a developed sense of critical thinking. On a side-note, I think university education isn't all it's cracked up to be. Once again, I know, what a cliché. I'm a PhD student on a grant, I'm doing well for myself and I work in research, I'm highly educated, but I don't see how university benefits the vast majority of individuals. If anything, basic education should be extended to include more philosophy and history. I value those very much in my personal life, despite their complete uselessness in my daily activities. But hey, what do I know, and really that's my whole point. I don't know. I'd like someone that does know to make those decisions.

I'm thinking something like the Americans with their whole "a jury of your peers" spiel, but for technocrats. Randomly selected from people that have achieved a certain level of achievement in a given area or several. Of course, whenever merit is discussed we have to consider how economic situation influences accessibility, but that's why I think the nation needs to value education above all else to try and mitigate this as much as possible. Make it so that children and young adults find learning to be a viable way to spend their time.

I don't know, I feel silly even talking about this because of how ignorant I must sound, but I really think that the current system is a failure. Things don't get done, and when they do they're half-arsed and mediocre. We're ruled by a class of idiots and speakalots rather than people that actually have something meaningful to say. There must be a better way, I just don't accept a reality in which there isn't. Lotsa people have given this thought, I suppose I should go out and read what they've written, huh? Hypocrisy flows in my veins like blood.

My hands, especially my left hand, hurt. I have very sensitive skin---and very dry skin---and I ate a bunch of oranges. Peeled them myself, like the swell dude I am, but holy crap those things have a bite. Reminds me of cheese. You know, I was convinced I was allergic to cheese until this very moment. My skin always breaks out in hives when my hands touch cheese for a not-short period of time. It's very uncomfortable. Eating is no issue, just like it isn't with oranges, but I just thought that there was no way that was normal. I had to be allergic, at least partially! Which by the way, is not a thing as far as I know. Now, faced with my orange-stained skin---D...Donnie?!---I must come to the conclusion that I am not allergic to cheese, but rather my skin is simply stupid. Funny how things work.

I read lots of Babel yesterday. Finished Book 2. It was thoroughly enjoyable. I really, really loved it! This R. F. Kuang fellow has something of a talent, I'd wager. She's puh-retty good. Really, I mean that. I'll read more today, most likely.

I started writing the novel I mentioned a few days ago. Just the scaffold, and I didn't even finish that, but I like how it's going so far. I appreciate seeing something come together slowly but surely. Not bad, not bad indeed. I think I need to work on that even, but I like that I at least managed to get to it. Today there was no stream, so I had a bit less fun than usual, but it was still a fine day. I played Battlegrounds. Won a few, lost a few. My rating barely changed if at all. It's whatever...

I don't have much so say. I haven't read too much Babel, which sucks honestly, I should get to it, but I'm really stressed out with the start of the academic year; classes got delayed and whatnot, some problem with the administration or something, I don't know, but it fucking sucks. I have other shit to do, you know?! Why do I have to worry about this kinda stuff as well? Once again, it's whatever.

I wanted to make a post just so I can say I kept it up. If I stop, I feel I won't ever pick this up again, and I think it's doing me some good.

I hope to read some Babel today.

I've been thinking about music a lot. I love music---shocker, I know---but I always find it hard to pin down, to narrow down exactly what I love about it and to find artists that fill that me niche. Maybe there is no such artist, after all, I'm the only me, but then again, there's so many musicians you'd think there's at least one out there that doesn't miss. The closest I've come to finding musical perfection is MF DOOM. He's unmatched, in my opinion.

For a long time I've had this idea in my mind, it's not crazy or anything but it's a bit weird. It's this band, I call it "Rouge, it's the colour of the mask" and it'd be two people---a writer-vocalist and a producer---and they'd make hip-hop about the current state of affairs.

I think that peak music is made when people are united in the pursuit of a vision. DOOM and Madlib, BROCKHAMPTON... I'm sure there's others but I'm blanking on it right now. There's plenty of amazing individual artists (Michael Jackson, to name perhaps the greatest) but I really do think that bands are just better. I guess because there's more humanity, more people so it's more people-like, and that's what makes music (art) great; people make art. That's really all that needs to be said.

Still, this hypothetical band would make conscious hip-hop, as it's called. I love Kendrick Lamar and he's notorious for operating in this space; he's really good at it too, but there's something missing from his music that I just can't put my finger on. I think it's that he works alone. I say alone but really, he's never alone, he has tons of featured artists on his stuff and he's not a producer at all, as far as I know, so there's always gonna be someone working with him to make the final track, but that's not good enough to be truly great. It's great, yes, but it's not truly great. I think the issue is the consistency. Because he works with several producers on any given project, they can feel disjointed, even if not at the surface level---Kendrick is amazing at keeping his albums feeling connected---but when you delve deeper it feels disjointed, like it was made by a bunch of people that didn't really talk about what they were doing, that didn't have a same, unified vision. It's one person's vision being executed by a bunch of talent, rather than a bunch of talent executing a shared vision.

Topics that could be tackled include the environment, the rise of the alt-right in Europe (and world-wide), and living a comfortable life in a fundamentally unfair system---living with the reality that some suffer so that you may thrive, and the questioning of whether some must suffer for others to thrive. Stuff's complicated, but I think music is a fantastic platform, or medium, for these topics to be breached. See, music is something you can put on in the background and let wiggle itself into your subconscious, but it's also something you can sit down and dissect. I really feel like literature doesn't have this, it misses this big aspect of inertia. You really need to focus when you read, the medium demands attention. Good music will make you pay attention, but it'll never require it. This reminds me of that one Outkast song, Hey Ya I believe, wherein André3000 says something along the lines of "you don't want to listen, you just want to dance," and he's right. People don't want to listen, they just want to dance. You can't write a book that people will dance to, but you can write a song. That's the difference, that's what makes music such a powerful tool for both dissemination and the exploration of complex topics. You can write a song that people dance to, but that as they listen they may just understand what you're saying, they may engage with it even as they engage with something else. I love music.

I keep drifting away from the point. The band I was talking about, it would make conscious hip-hop tackling relevant, current topics. Well, that's all dandy, but so what? I guess the what I'm wondering is why is that not already a thing? I mean, is it such a niche interest? It doesn't feel like it, then again, I'm me so nothing about me feels particularly niche even when it obviously is. The most likely possibility seems to me to be that I have just not found---come across---this band. It's out there, I just haven't heard of them yet. I don't know, I'm holding out hope, at least. I'm a musician actually, not by profession or vocation but just in a matter-of-fact sort of way: I know how to play music and I have played music for a long time. Maybe I could make the band. Then again, I don't have a producer and I don't know how to produce. As I spent some time establishing, at least one other individual would be required for this to work at all, and my antisocial nature is rather unlikely to result in me coming across that particular golden goose.

There's also something else, and reading Babel is getting my mind wondering about this more than usual: language. I speak a couple languages and, while similar, they are categorically different. I find English poetry to be dreadful, simply put. I would hate to write in English. The problem with that is accessibility. English is the de facto lingua franca (sorry about the Latin) of the world, so writing music meant to be for the world in any other language feels like a missed point. How to reconcile English's barbaric lack of grace with its reach? Mayhaps impossible.

Speaking of Babel, I'm actually reading a translated edition of the novel. Hilarious, I know. It's not even a very good translation, or at least it hasn't been up to now. The problem with bilingualism is that I can imagine what the original might've been and the translation really upsets me at times. It's not terrible, mind you, it's just clearly imperfect. It's beautiful though, which in a way I can almost excuse the technical shortcomings. Technical. Really, talking about this after reading Babel makes me feel so silly; there's so much discussion about what makes a good translation and they never seem to reach a meaningful conclusion. I already knew this, to an extent, but having it shoved in my face is rather painful, especially when I have to read the discussion about translation via a translation.

By the way, look at this monstrosity: twelfths. That's 5 consonants in a row. Crazy. I saw that on TikTok a few days ago.

I'll read more Babel today again.

It's hard to come up with good reasons to speak. People say "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all," which makes sense, I think, but I would go one step further: "if you don't have anything of substance to say, don't say anything at all." José Saramago once said that writing when you have nothing to say is a crime. I'm inclined to agree.

There is, however, a wrinkle here. I want to be able to say or write what I have to say or write properly, I want my message to come across, I want my words to mean something and for that meaning to be understood by those who come across it. How can I make sure that is the case? I can't, of course, but I'd argue the closest I can get to that is practising. Write even when you have nothing to say, so that when the time comes when you do have something to say, you'll know how to say it. I'm not sure if this makes much sense, but it's what I feel.

I read some Babel yesterday and loved it. I'm really loving this exploration of what it means to live (and thrive) within unfair systems. When I read I often look forward to the end because I want to feel that sense of completion; I love reading because I love knowing, I love understanding a story from front to back, to internalize everything about it. I take great pleasure in that, but Babel is shaping up to be a different monster entirely. I don't look forward to the end as much as I look forward to the journey. People say the journey matters more than the destination, but of course it really depends on the journey. Babel is a journey, it seems.

I've always had these conflicting feelings about the world as it is, society and whatnot. I feel like it always sounds cringe to talk about these things, but I'm also aware that it would benefit the status quo to make it cringe to talk about these things, because if they're not discussed, they're not challenged, if they're not challenged, they remain. So despite how tough it is, I'll put this in writing.

I don't like the way things are. I think it's unfair that the some people have so much when others have so little, I think it's unfair that some people starve to death in the streets while others gorge themselves on overpriced delicacies. How brave of me! No, but really. It's easy to say these things are bad, but I always imagine rolling eyes and exasperated sighs followed by a look of pity... "Yes, but what can we do about it?" I think there are things we can do about it. I think the capitalist system, the profit-driven, growth-obsessed, selfish system that we live under and live by is wrong. It can't be right that for some to thrive others must suffer. It seems to be that there's enough for everyone, and it also seems to me that it is natural for us to look out for one another.

Maybe I really have nothing to say.

Still, I'll blabber on. I live a cushy life, all things considered. I have a great social net, I know things will work out even if I fail, and fail, and fail. I know that. I have money, freedom, independence. I lead a good life, a privileged life. I could give so much, but I don't. The truth is that I'm not willing to sacrifice my comfort for the good of others. Yes, to a certain extent it can be said that helping others isn't the easiest thing in the world; it's actually surprisingly convoluted to give provide assistance to people in need. In a way, this is a sign that things are actually pretty good, where I live, because people in need aren't that easy to come by. Then again, maybe even if they were easy to come by it would be hard to help. Regardless, I have to look out for myself, don't I? I deserve a good life, because everyone deserves a good life. Is living in misery worth keeping some other out of death? That sounds so absurd. The answer is yes, I think, but it's a damn hard choice to make.

Babel is going to explore this further, I think. I really hope Kuang doesn't drop the ball on this. At this point, I need to understand why every choice is made, I need to understand their motivations and their reasons. If I can't understand the why, then Babel is a failure in my eyes. There's plenty of book left to achieve this, but I don't have complete confidence. Kuang's prose is too good for me to give her the benefit of believing she can pull an impeccable narrative together as well. How good can a writer be?! I hope I'm not overhyping her.

I listened to a lot of music today, but it was mediocre music, unfortunately. I wanted to become familiar with the work of a particular rapper, TiaCorine. She's good, but nothing about her discography really wowed me. I suppose I have a type, even if it that type actually does encompass a bunch of different styles and genres, and she's simply outside the circle. Still, I don't regret listening, giving her a fair shot. I'll keep an eye on her regardless, see if she actually ends up coming up with something that changes my opinion.

I also watched a livestream today. It was lovely. It's always great, but today was really good. A lot of laughter... It was just delightful. I won't be able to catch it tomorrow, I suspect. A shame, but that's how it goes sometimes.

I intend to continue reading Babel today. I'll be getting into chapter 8, I believe. Looking forward to it.

I found out about her after her feature on Denzel. I'd heard some of her songs before randomly but never got curious enough to look her up until her verse on HOT ONE.

Her music sounds a bit samey IMO, but her talent is undeniable; she's got flow, lyrics, and charisma. Also... She's newgen, no denying that.

I strongly dislike the majority of mainstream fem rappers out right now (Cardi B, Megan, Sexxy Red) but I think Tia has some gems.

Thoughts?

Give No Fuck

I found out about her after her feature on Denzel. I'd heard some of her songs before randomly but never got curious enough to look her up until her verse on HOT ONE.

Her music sounds a bit samey IMO, but her talent is undeniable; she's got flow, lyrics, and charisma. Also... She's newgen, no denying that.

I strongly dislike the majority of mainstream fem rappers out right now (Cardi B, Megan, Sexxy Red) but I think Tia has some gems.

Thoughts?

Give No Fuck

I found out about her after her feature on Denzel. I'd heard some of her songs before randomly but never got curious enough to look her up until her verse on HOT ONE.

Her music sounds a bit samey IMO, but her talent is undeniable; she's got flow, lyrics, and charisma. Also... She's newgen, no denying that.

I strongly dislike the majority of mainstream fem rappers out right now (Cardi B, Megan, Sexxy Red) but I think Tia has some gems.

Thoughts?

Give No Fuck

I think I've been brainwashed. Sometimes it's really hard for me to break out of the spell that has clearly been cast on me and makes me think inside a tiny little box. It's very frustrating, especially when I'm thinking through things and I end up reaching some roadblock, I realize my own misconceptions and discordances. In a way, that's great, that I'm able to think things over and realize something's wrong about what I thought, on the other hand though it's a pain in the ass.

I think digital piracy is an objectively good and moral thing to do.

That's a bit of a hot take, I realize, but I really believe that. I've always been a pirate and I'll probably continue to sail the digital seas until my death, but I've done it flying a couple of erroneous flags. The first, was the simple fact that I had no access to the things I was pirating. I couldn't afford them! My parents wouldn't buy them for me and I had no way to make money, so I couldn't buy them. There were no movie theatres where I lived, no CD or DVD shops, no game stores, and the online services that were available were either too expensive or too inconvenient to be of any use. The only way for me to get these things was to pirate them. This is a ridiculous notion, of course. The reality is that I could buy these things if I really wanted to, it's just that I prioritized other investments. There's also the rather obvious fact that I could just... Not get the things at all. I mean, even if I couldn't afford something, maybe I just shouldn't have it! I think that particular rebuttal is terrible and wrong, but it is something I hadn't even considered for a long time, as a kid. The second flag was something I ended up thinking a bit later in life, when I developed a more advanced (if still weak) sense of reason. It was that it was wrong to pirate, period, but I just didn't care.

"Yes, I'm a bad person, but I don't care."

I think this one isn't that bad, actually. It's cringe and self-aggrandizing, sure, but it does make a fair point. The idea that lays in this sentiment of willing-evil is that piracy is good, actually, I just can't put into words why it's good. I believe that what makes something bad is our unwillingness to do it. First of all, I see morality as relative and individual, and that if we do something and don't feel bad about it, then it cannot be wrong, by our own personal standards. Even as I said that piracy was bad, but I just didn't care, I was admitting that piracy wasn't bad, actually, because I didn't care.

Still, it was very poorly worded.

Now, I fly what I believe to be the correct banner: the nobility of art. Art is meant to be shared, internalized, analysed, explored, understood, and appreciated. If art isn't any of that, then it isn't art, it serves no purpose it has no place it is nothing. Now, me watching a pirated show doesn't give it any more value than some rando watching it legally, but allow me raise the point that what I'm doing by enjoying a piece of art is not a bad thing, no matter how you put it. I'm doing what is supposed to be done. How I get there doesn't harm anyone, doesn't cause pain or distress, and, simply put, I don't feel bad doing it, so how can it be bad? Well, I think it isn't. So no part of what I'm doing is bad, so what I'm doing as a whole cannot be bad. So it's not bad. There!

I don't deny the fact that piracy may contribute to shows getting cancelled when they don't pull in enough capital, that not paying small artists for their work can lead their passion to become unsustainable, yes all of that is true. Then again, I raise the question of whether that should be true. Sure, what I'm participating in can have negative consequences, but should it? Should the free sharing of art have negative consequences? Should someone's livelihood depend so intensely on selling something that should be shared regardless? Should my dollars staying in my pocket mean that a movie that should be made, isn't? I don't think so. I think that the way things are set up is the problem, I think that, if digital piracy causes problems, then something is wrong with the system. The way art is created and the way artists make their living is wrong. That's what I think.

I don't want this to sound like I'm blaming artists somehow, that's not the point. The thing is that art should be valued, yes, but not commodified. Art shouldn't be gate-kept by dollars it should be open and free. The fact that it isn't is a problem. The fact there's a debate about whether or not digital piracy is bad is indicative that there's something out there---the way things are done---that's bad.

Hopefully I managed to get the point across.

I realize it sounds a little weak. Some people might even think that it sounds like an excuse to continue something good, a sort of double-think. I disagree. I really think that digital piracy is a good thing for being a vehicle for the sharing of art, and that every complaint laid against piracy should be redirected towards capitalism, I guess. Not sure if capitalism is the right culprit here, necessarily, there's a lot that capitalism can be and good is one of those things, in my opinion, even if it often fails its people. Whatever.

Yesterday I read just a bit of Babel. I liked this chapter much more, but for some reason I just didn't finish it. Maybe I got a bit anxious and had a hard time getting through it? Not sure, not sure. Today I'll try and give it a solid go.

Also, I came across this podcast called Timesuck. Seems really cool, though I haven't listened to enough of it to make a definite judgement.

I had a lot of fun today.

I end up thinking about The Magnus Archives pretty often. My best guess as to why is that the show is a mix of narrative storytelling and anthology, which by their very nature collect disparate and unique experiences into a single story. In other words, there's just a lot of stuff in MAG so there's a lot of stuff that can remind me of MAG.

Still, it pains me. Every single time, it pains me. The Magnus Protocol isn't as good as MAG, not even close. Well, that's an unfair assessment, I suppose, but I don't like it nearly as much. What made MAG great to me were the stories, not the plot. The plot was great, don't get me wrong, but it was the cherry on top, not the main dish. The many characters, the fears being slowly introduced, weird interpretations of classic tropes, that's what made MAG amazing, that's what makes it my favourite audio drama of all time.

Then I'm left thinking: How? I love character depth. I love exploring the minutiae of a person and laying bare their flaws, their inconsistencies, I love learning about what makes them tick, what makes them human or monstrous, or both, but the anthology side of MAG isn't good at that. Sure, there are recurring characters that get gradually explored at a snail's pace, but the best episodes tend to be the ones where we learn very little about the characters. The answer is the world, that's what carries MAG. Learning about this weird and terrifying world, one episode at a time, illuminating its darkest corners, crossing the most dangerous intersections.

The world is the main character.

Maybe they caught lightning in a bottle and MAG simply can't be replicated. I'd like to think that's not the case, but it's hard to keep up hope after searching for so long and finding nothing that even comes close. The typical recommendations are good, sure, but they're not The Magnus Archives.

I'll keep looking, I'm always looking.

I read only 1 chapter of Babel last night. Time played a role, but really I just didn't enjoy that one chapter very much. It was technically good---R. F. Kuang has fantastic prose---but narratively it left something to be desired, or at the very least it leaned on a part of the narrative that I'm less interested in.

It did leave me thinking about secret societies and shadow organizations. I love the idea of villainous cabals (forgive the pleonasm). Really, there's too much good in the world... Weird thing to say, seeing how much evil there is, but I think there's an odd sort of middle-ground that we've yet to strike.

Here's my take: if there was a terrible organization focused on causing chaos (rather than pain) without any motive, the world would be better. It would be more... Whimsical, to have a force of actual evil. Not a terrorist organization with a goal or some sentiment for this or that, but a group of individuals focused on inconveniencing at the institutional level. Wouldn't that be funny? I'm a strong believer in quid pro quo. I believe that if such an organization were to arise, an equal and opposite force for good would also spring up. That would be delightful, I think.

I've thought up something about that story I've been thinking about. I'll go ahead and make a skeleton, a scaffold I can build on. Basically, I'll write up the story without the majority of details and then go back and fill them in. I'm aware this isn't a novel idea (pun intended) but if it works, it works.

I'll be reading more Babel tonight.

I've been thinking about this for a very long time. Many years. I suppose that's really not that long, in the grand scheme of things, but it feels like a long time to me.

I read a lot, I always have. In recent years I've been reading less than I once did, but every so often I get back into the habit, especially when a new book comes out (or I finally learn of a book that has been out) that interests me.

I started reading Babel, by R. F. Kuang a couple of days ago and I've been loving it. I read Book I and found it contained everything I love about fiction. There was whimsy, passion, intrigue, but also depth, politics, and social commentary. I love books that talk (and criticize) the way things are.

Still, as I read it I just couldn't shake the drive to write something myself. It's not that I have that much to say, not really, though I do have some things I think are worth reading, but it's more that I love the written form so much that I feel a need to contribute to it. I feel the need to write something because otherwise it's like I took without giving back, I read without writing. I know this is silly, totally and utterly silly, but I can't help it.

I have story ideas, some of which I've tried to put to paper (pixel), but I always end up dropping the undertaking before anything gets going. The worst part of this is that I know I need to write to get better, but writing is so hard I find it almost impossible to force myself to push through my painful mediocrity to reach the promised shangri-la of tolerable prose.

At the end of the day, I manage to convince myself there will be other people that see the world the same way I do, or at least close enough that the differences are negligible, and they can be the one to write what I want to. That's terrible, that's such a terrible way to think, even as I write this I see how terrible it is but the notion has dug itself a very comfortable home in my mind. Is this what Orwell meant when he spoke of double-think? The conviction that something is wrong and yet the knowledge that it is right? Maybe I'm stupid. Or sick. Both are equally bad.

Today was a decent day, I didn't really do much. I watched a livestream, as I usually do, had a mediocre lunch, ate a pack of cookies, drank enough water to drown a small child, and did some work. I should've done more work, but I have time, and time lets me push things back, and back, and back, until I don't have any more time.

There was a clock in the game the streamer was playing, but she could move the hands at will.

The back tire of my bike was deflated, somehow. I'm not sure if there's a hole or not.

One story idea I've been itching to get out is kinda like Groundhog Day meets Love is War. A guy is forced to relive the same day until he manages to get a girl to fall in love with him. The twist is that the girl is already in love with him and she simply refuses to admit it, just as he refuses to admit he's in love with her. It's not a fantasy setting, but I always imagine lots of fantasy elements... I'm not sure if the guy is going insane or what, but I love the idea of him seeing the world as very magical. The girl has a witch hat and casts spells. They don't really work, but he feels like they work. It's comedic, whimsical, I love that. Eventually, he just confesses to the girl, desperate, and she decides to go on a date with him. The loop breaks.

I don't know, I think it could be really cool. I suppose what really makes or breaks a story, especially a romantic comedy, are the small things. The secondary characters, the tiny interactions, the small words and little sentences, the shrugs and the sighs, so delineating an idea has no merit whatsoever. I have to write it.

Whatever.

The day isn't over just yet, I might write a bit. Or not. I'll think about it. I will read though, of that I'm pretty sure. A couple chapters at least. I'm really loving Babel.

I've been listening to Opus, by Ryuichi Sakamoto. It's really good. Recommended.

I think this meme is really funny...