the cul is... writing a new edition... running out of ideas… lamenting the burning of memory… moving farther away from the city… opening up the magazine… standing in solidarity… watching the world end… beating a dead horse… wondering about the future… in a situationship… welcoming the next team… hoping they aren’t helping rokos basilisk… playing dice in a back alley… talking about racism in fantasy… trying really hard this time I promise… living with the snakes and spiders… explaining what anarchism is to a trust fund kid… making comics… excited for Halloween… becoming detractors of the Abbasid Caliphate… screaming… thinking about monks… getting in a cocoon… collectivizing agriculture… laughing at authority figures… going back to the stone age… reinventing the wheel… waiting for the fever to break… decommissioning nuclear reactors… making sandwiches… growing their own vegetables… interrogating about reality television… buying you a beer… checking the weather in Kyrgyzstan… unbounded from the constraints of the academy… lost in the woods with a bear… dreaming… waiting for the summer to end… accidentally posting a photo of a cat… starting a new life… dropping out of university, selling their homes, and starting a noise punk
Colofon
Independent anthropological magazine
Cul is connected to the Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology department at the University of Amsterdam.
Editor in Chief: Ethan Fenwick Deputy Editor in Chief: Ines Mittal Gros
Graphic Design: Livia Aimee Kofler & Alžbeta Szabová
Image Editors: Alžbeta Szabová Berit Anna Rojer Sadu Saks
Text Editors: Alex Dieker Morrigan Fogarty Aleksandra Dudek
Treasurer: Auriel Dirks
Cover: Alžbeta Szabová & Morrigan Fogarty
Cul magazine is always searching for new aspiring writers. The editorial team maintains the right to shorten or deny articles. For more information on writing for the Cul or advertising possibilities, email cul.editorial@gmail.com
Printer: Ziezoprint
Prints: 200
Printed: August 2024 ISSN: 18760309
Cul Magazine
Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 1018 WV Amsterdam cul.editorial@gmail.com
Follow us on Facebook and Instagram and check out our website! @culmagazine http://culmagazine.com
Editor’s note
is a hodgepodge.
Library of Alexandria
Text Morrigan Fogarty Image Alžbeta Szabová
Get on the train from Amsterdam in the direction of Hilversum. Once there, walk northeastward and stop when the city meets the fields. Search for the hills. Stand and listen. You will find the dead. Buried at the Zuiderheide in mounds of stone and dirt sit 4000-year-old bronze age bodies, unnamed and unremembered but found again through history. Your feet will stand in dirt that has been ploughed and seeded, burned and razed, untold histories exist all around you, that you will not know. Around them, you’ll see people walking their dogs.
The persisting myth of the Library of Alexandria takes on a variety of forms, some emphasizing the destruction of knowledge by Christian mobs, some as a tyrannical excursion into knowledge production and an undermining of free thought, but ultimately the myth is concerned with one thing:
We were going somewhere, and then we weren’t.
Do you know how to make Greek fire? Do you know what Greek fire is? It is, allegedly, a type of weaponized fire that no water can quench, that would destroy all in its path. It’s not the only mystery of antiquity. There are images of a giant glass pane that could manipulate light in such a way as to produce a beam of pure destruction, cutting ships in half and charring corpses in its wake. Knowledge that has now been lost. The idea posited by those who believe in the myth of the Library of Alexandria is that at some point in history, we lost a beacon of knowledge so great and wonderful that we still today are unable to recreate fanciful contraptions and devices. This is then of course followed by fanciful graphs and charts showcasing that if the Library had not been destroyed the linear line of human history would have at this point skyrocketed us into the HYPER MEGA FUTURE. This is of course absurd if you think about it for five minutes. Art depictions of fire and laser beams could simply just be art, but regardless the Library stands to represent the very fascist idea of what we had and lost. A callback to a forgotten time, a sort of academic revanchism.
Our engagement with the Library of Alexandria is also markedly impacted by recent history. And by recent I mean the Victorian era, a time in which to differentiate themselves from the “barbarians” of the past, a great effort was undertaken to highlight the European Middle Ages as the “Dark Ages”, a notion that still damages our conceptions of history to this day. Shoe stretchers are made into torture devices and the very humanity of Middle Age peoples is shunned for the
idea that in the fall of the Roman Empire, they all lived at each other's throats in complete disgust and squalor. Ignore the fact of course, that at this time the European continent was experiencing a blossoming of religious thought and cross-cultural connections with growing Islamic empires that valued knowledge so much that they also held libraries as large as the destroyed one in Alexandria - no - the Europeans were ignorant stinking masses with no ability to rationalize the world around them. This was the goal of the Victorians, and it was done so that essentially they would look better. It's of course absurd and untrue, but when a lot of us today look at the Library of Alexandria we engage in this same practice. We act as though the destruction of one very large building would lead to some kind of societal collapse, as if that knowledge held their sprung out of the ground and only existed in the library. The real library was a temple, a museum in that it was dedicated to the muses. You would find scroll depositories certainly (no books), but most important would be the passages of living scholars, people coming to teach and discuss. What was lost when the building was destroyed was a space in time for ideas and discussion to flourish, but this did not directly mean a loss. Knowledge production is fluid and moving, as the library fell countless other monasteries continued their scribing of Plato and Aristotle, and new knowledge came into being each day.
The underpinning of the Myth of the Library also relies on the false notion that history is a linear process, things are either getting better or worse, when in reality history is not a real thing. We can not point to the past as much as we can see its echoes in the present, but these echoes are always false simulacra of reality, marching forward not towards some incline or decline but aimless wandering, bumping into walls and falling into holes. I don’t want to suggest some meaningless reading of the past, there is value in understanding how we used to be, mainly in that it can reflect how we are now. The past is valuable, but the study of it is failable, and too much emphasis on how things used to be and how much better they were is just simple fascism. You may walk your dog along the graves of the greatest scholar who ever was, but because the production of history didn’t pick up on it you will never know.
This is nothing to lose sleep over, the world is still out there right now in all its glory and folly for us to make new again.
The Reality Behind Reality TV
Text Ines Mittal Gros
Image Berit Anna Rojer
In October 2010, no one knew the chaos that would ensue when the first season of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills was released. If you do not know what that is, it is a reality show about the fanciest, richest, most dramatic women in Beverly Hills. The stars of season 1 (of whom only one is left now in season 13) are Taylor Armstrong, Camille Grammer, Adrienne Maloof, Kim Richards, Kyle Richards and Lisa Vanderpump.
So, let’s look at the women (and their most iconic taglines) who made this show really happen.
KYLE RICHARDS
"This Town Is A Game Of Chess, But No One’s Taking This Queen Down."
First up, Kyle is a child actress from various movies and shows, the most relevant ones being Halloween and The Little House on the Prairie. I am sure you have heard of both of these. She has been in the show since the very beginning and to this day she has contributed to everyone’s drama but her own. Her need for the spotlight and being the fan favourite - which she is not (or at least not my favourite) - is shown through her obnoxious siding with her new everchanging best friend on the show. She is a mom to 4 daughters whom she loves and one husband with whom she is allegedly separated.
DORIT KEMSLEY
"I believe in an excess of everything, except moderation." Next up, is Dorit Kemsley, also lovingly called Doritos; she is known for being a fashion designer with her latest design store called ‘Beverly Beach’ which has its own issues. Beyond that, Dorit is known for wearing the most extravagant, brand-name clothing, which to some (me) can be seen as tacky and trying to make her own life better or even sometimes worse than others for attention and sympathy. She is married to a husband who says her PTSD is annoying and has 2 kids whom she very much loves.
LISA VANDERPUMP
"Throw me to the wolves and I shall return, leading the pack." Here comes my favourite Housewife, an entrepreneurial queen with four restaurants and Vanderpump dogs in Beverly Hills. The British housewife with more money than she
needs, is an active ally to the LGBTQIA+ community, rallies against animal abuse and has a thing for digs against her former best friends Kyle Richards and Dorit Kemsley. She is a mother to not only the gays but 2 swans, 3 horses, 10 dogs and 2 actual humans whom she loves very much. She too has a loving husband with whom the relationship is still alive and they have each other’s backs through thick and thin.
LISA
RINNA
"My lips were made for talkin’ and that’s just what they’ll do."
Next up, the other Lisa, often called Rinna or ‘OWN IT!’ Queen, is a hard-at-work actress in soap shows and QBC, which really shows through in this series. She is the funniest and most brutal housewife. She held everyone accountable to incredible standards to the point that she herself could not hold up to them. She is a mother to two model daughters and married to the best real house-husband. They are still happily married.
YOLANDA HADID
"Character isn’t what you have, it’s who you are."
The dutchie who loves lemons a bit too much. From being the drama to being the most mature (and immature) through the show, it can be seen how much she is willing to do to stay in the show. Through her Lyme disease and her nude photoshoot for her now ex-husband David Foster, she is shown in the show as a good mother, good hostess, and amazing instigator of drama. She is a mother to 3 beautiful kids who she loves very much, and has 2 ex-husbands.
ERIKA GIRARDI (JAYNE)
"The strongest substance on Earth isn’t diamonds. It’s me."
Erika Jayne, or as she was introduced, Girardi, is the perfect personification of the duality of (wo)man. She is the perfect wife during the day, and during the night, or through the show she is the ice queen. Famously known for not wanting to be called a liar, but constantly lying on the show. Be it about being a tattle tale or simply making up stuff about the other cast members. She is the mother of two: a human boy and her dog, Tiago. She is also the ex-wife of a lawyer who embezzled funds intended for the orphans and widows of a plane crash.
KIM RICHARDS
"Everybody loves a comeback story, especially starring me." Miss. Sobriety herself aka. Kim Richards is the one housewife everyone has hate and, at the same time, has a soft spot for. She is known for various instances, one of which has been stated below. Not only that but, she is known as a child actress in movies such as Escape to Witch Mountain and being Paris Hilton’s aunt (a point she makes constantly). Kim is a mother of five—four human children and one dog named Kingsley, notorious for his lack of training.
RHOBH is not merely a spectacle of extravagance; it’s a microcosm of human relationships, replete with behind-thescenes drama, production manipulation, cultural influence, and audience response. From controversies to conflicts, let’s delve into the captivating tapestry that is “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills”.
Behind the polished façade of Beverly Hills mansions and designer wardrobes lies a web of personal dramas and off-camera controversies. Yolanda Hadid’s battle with Lyme disease became a headline-grabbing plot, with cast members questioning the authenticity of her illness. Lisa Rinna’s suggestion of Munchausen syndrome ignited heated debates, blurring the lines between genuine concern and calculated manipulation by other cast members such as Lisa Vanderpump.
Meanwhile, during a trip to Amsterdam, yes you read that right, the clash between Lisa Rinna and Kim Richards due to Lisa’s constant prodding of Kim’s off-screen struggle with alcohol reached explosive heights. Thus exposing the raw emotions and deep-seated tensions simmering beneath the surface. The remarks thrown around by Lisa questioning her sobriety got snapped back with unknown allegations about her own husband (who you might know from Mad Men) Harry Hamlin. This brought forth one of the most iconic lines of The Housewives ‘Let's talk about the husband’ (in season 5, episode 16 called Amster-Damn) ending with anger explosions, broken glass and most importantly a buzz in the air about what these allegations really are.
At the beginning of Season 7, a seemingly dramaless pregathering for a white party turned into a battleground as “Pantygate” erupted on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. In a scene similar to a Shakespearean drama, Erika Girardi, with icy determination, levelled accusations against Dorit Kemsley, unleashing an emotional storm that threatened to break the group apart. As the tension rose, murmurs of betrayal and deception weighed heavily in the air, exposing the fragile connections and hidden animosities beneath the opulent façade of their friendships. The fight, reminiscent of a Hollywood blockbuster, echoed with echoes of past misdeeds
and unsolved issues, keeping viewers on the edge of their seats and eagerly anticipating the explosive conclusion.
In my opinion, saving the best for last, was the incident in Shanghai. After a crescendo in the situation of Dorit’s dinner party, Lisa Rinna finally snapped at a high-end dinner, where previous fights were ongoing. Lisa began the conversation with a simple “I just have to ask you a question” It was simple enough till she completely 180'd into a ‘Were people doing coke in your bathroom?’ the way my jaw dropped (more than Kyle Richards’ at that moment). There was a moment of silence, as I sat there and I just admired how casually this woman had managed to drop such a massive bomb. This led to more heated discussions and high tensions between the cast, and honestly… that was the thrill of it all.
Reality TV thrives on conflict and spectacle, and RHOBH is no exception. Yet, as viewers peel back the layers of glitz and glamour, questions arise about the authenticity of the drama unfolding before our eyes. Did producers orchestrate the confrontation between Yolanda and her sceptical castmates? Was the infamous “Let’s talk about your husband” moment a genuine expression of frustration or a scripted plot twist designed for maximum impact?
Beyond the entertainment value, RHOBH reflects and shapes broader cultural perceptions. The opulent lifestyles of the cast members serve as both aspiration and cautionary tales, fueling our fascination with wealth and materialism. However, the show’s focus on gossip and backstabbing also raises concerns about the normalisation of toxic behaviour and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes. As viewers, we are drawn to the drama and spectacle of RHOBH, eagerly devouring each episode in search of the next explosive moment. Yet, amidst the razzle-dazzle, we must confront the ethical implications of our voyeuristic tendencies. Are we complicit in the exploitation of personal struggles for the sake of entertainment? Can we separate the real from the manufactured drama, or are we merely pawns in the producers’ game?
In the world of RHOBH, reality is often stranger than fiction. As viewers, it’s up to us to navigate the blurred lines between truth and entertainment, recognising the power and pitfalls of the reality TV phenomenon.
Heaven, Hell, Limbo.
Text&Image Sadu Saks
Will machines one day evolve beyond human programming?
The idea of sentient intelligent technology is nothing new. In fact, it has populated an entire genre of sci-fi movies and books, with cautionary tales of apocalypses and revolutions. Today, the prophecy is becoming reality. Media and technology have impregnated every aspect of our social, political and economical lives. Machines are capable of replicating human speech, thought and action (to a certain degree, thankfully). It is becoming clearer and clearer that the way they are being used constitutes a huge threat to human labor. The most important question lies beneath the agenda of the capitalist machine and tech under the capitalistic system.
Who is sponsoring these feats of innovation and why?
The initial dream for machines was that they would set us free from labor. From all of our mundane roles as cogs, whether it be in the household or in the factory. Technology would reduce our weekly hours and allow for a less laborious lifestyle. And it began with dishwashers and housewives! Sadly, tech under capitalism rather aims at the increase of productivity and profit rather than human happiness or fulfillment. To capitalists, the machine is a reliable worker who never complains and never takes sick days. Instead of reaching a hybrid work system between human and machine which would benefit both, the current capitalistic system seeks to push for the human worker to be a completely outdated asset to the production system. Yet the fear the elite mass produce is another: sentience. While we are still far from reaching an artificial consciousness, the amassed sentiment from movies and stories, combined with the increasingly humanoid robots, gives ground to such paranoia. Is this to distract us? Or does it have some truth?
What interests me is:
Would robot self-awareness necessarily lead to destructive outcomes?
What do we feel towards or for inanimate machines and why?
Next to sentience, another prevalent feeling towards machines is empathy. We feel bad for them. We don’t like to see them kicked, abandoned, forgotten. Is it because we're scared of what they could do if they were capable of feeling hurt? Or is it because we simply project our feelings onto objects? Do we feel guilty? What if a machine, with its dreadful potential for destruction, instead chose peace?
What I wish to explore through this short story are the contrary representations of AI that seem the most common. One is the machine-of-war cyborg, the final stage of human capitalist inventory. Often it is made to gain power over other groups, whether it be countries, planets or aliens. It ends up being an entity of destruction, incapable of being stopped or reasoned with. Apocalyptique.
The other is a reflection of male fantasy and gender oppression, the feminine humanoid. This one is often infantilised, and given the ‘opportunity’ to learn love, affection and kindness. The ideal woman and dream of many incels. But both robots, in my opinion, are nothing more, nothing less, than children of a different birth. Children who are socialized and taught to behave within the confines of their roles. If the war robot is a child, given access to unlimited knowledge and supernatural power, any of us humans would be just as confused and blinded by rage as ‘IT’ can be. While the humanoid, socialized into submission and caretaking, if ‘IT’ went through the process of self-awareness, wouldn’t it end up with much more shaped and founded rage?
If humanity brought both of these entities to life, but then ended up disappearing, how would they cope with life, their birth, their lone existence on an abandoned planet?
The unattainable tropes of nostalgic romance
Text Berit Anna Rojer Image Alžbeta Szabová
I’m a true romantic, a die-hard ‘The Notebook’ fan. Ideals of passionate love have been ingrained in me my entire life. Binge-watching romcoms since childhood, I was introduced to the whimsical world of “meet-cutes’’, “enemies to lovers’’ and forbidden romances. I’ve often envisioned myself meeting a charming boy on the street who would go to great lengths to make me smile, or being chosen by a bad boy who somehow I could change. Slowly, these false tropes of imaginary love interests began to seep into my consciousness. But in reality it’s not that simple... There are a few ‘main character’ attributes I was expected to adopt in order to find this perfect man.
First, she is a nice, quiet girl. Not necessarily shy, but also not loud. She should possess social competence, that he can subtly draw out of her. Normally, she remains silent, overshadowed by her ‘sassy black friend’. She dresses in a cute yet simple manner, not stylish enough to be intimidating though not revealing enough to be considered slutty. She is never too tall, but also never too short and has the ‘perfect body’which, if we are being honest, essentially translates to being skinny. She is smart and quite talented too, but not enough to be considered a nerd. A wild night of partying? No, she'd rather stay at home and read a book. She is an unattainable balance of perfection, dancing on the edge of contradicting characteristics. She remains a perfect wallflower who blooms when he sees her. Her angelic innocence consumes her as she waits for him to sweep her off her feet, as she waits for him to push and break her world open.
The contradiction of the expectations perplexes me: how could any girl truly possess all of these attributes? Even worse, after each film I started questioning how she could be me? And more importantly, how could I become her?
The problem is: I don’t look, act, nor sound like her. I am loud, mixed-race and have ‘‘crazy’’ curly hair. I am taller and louder than almost all the guys around me. Sure, I am skinny, but never curvaceous in the right places. I checked more of the ‘sassy black friend’ boxes than for the lead. According to them, I don’t possess 'main character material’. I was written out of this character arc, long before it hit the writer's room because I could never be her. And so, I assumed finding the perfect man was just not in the cards for me.
Frankly, I hate this trope. Next to its deep roots in the patriarchy, the overwhelming heteronormativity it conveys makes me feel uneasy. Why should I only fall for a man? And why do I have to change almost every aspect of myself as a woman to do so? The main character's obsession with displaying hyper-femininity is ultimately only in pursuit of male attention. Yet, it falls flat when applied to the real world. She ends up feeling as if she is written solely from the perspective of the male gaze. Through her the gaze is not trying to convey femininity; instead, it is attempting to imprint an unattainable ideal onto young girls. The gaze's attempt at complexity renders her one-dimensional, confined to a delusional dimension at best.
Supremacist Fantasies
Text & Image Alžbeta Szabová
This article will be on one of my favourite pieces of media of all time: The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Tolkien’s writing has been something that has influenced me in unforeseeable ways. I credit it as the reason why I became an avid reader at a young age, managed to learn English despite the awful education system in my home country and why I had decided to spend four years of my life in art school; mostly drawing hundreds, if not thousands of Tolkienesque elves. However, with growing up comes a reassessment of what we held dear as children. I have also spent a significant amount of time reevaluating the stories and worlds which have occupied a big place in my heart for more than a decade. I mention this because I could have easily written an essay about a piece of media which I despise and in which I see no value. Instead, I wanted to talk about something that I hold dear, but see as deeply flawed. I think it is easy to dismiss the fantasy genre when it is outside of someone’s taste, but I believe that - as the late Sir Terry Pratchett said - fantasy is the well from which all literature has sprung, and should not be left uncriticized simply because of its “unserious” aesthetics.
Tolkien is often credited to be the father of the modern fantasy genre, with his stories creating the blueprint of what a fantasy story could be. It is hard to find a fantasy series which is not in some way in conversation with Tolkien’s work, whether it’s copying it, expanding upon it, contrasting or criticising it. Because of this, this article is less about The Lord of the Rings and more about everything which has come after. This article is about racism.
J.R.R. Tolkien was a soldier in the First World War and had become a professor of philology after the fact. Unlike a lot of writers in the post-war period, Tolkien’s work has gone the opposite direction of his existentialist contemporaries. I would say that one of the reasons his stories resonate with people to this day is because they are filled with messages of hope, endurance, perseverance, and treat nihilism as an evil to be overcome in order for a better world to be possible. He wrote a story in which violence, death and destruction are justified for a greater end. War is only worth fighting in, if it is to protect and preserve that which is good in the world. Lord of the Rings is a story with a lot of love in it, a love without a trace of irony. Love for nature, for people, for Tolkien’s wife and also for linguistics. Born from his interest in Germanic
languages and Old English, it is a world built around his attempts at creating a language of his own. The work put into his worldbuilding is unreplicable and remarkable, with myths, histories and cultures, all shaping the protagonists in different ways. There is a great depth to his world and his characters, but unfortunately, at the core of it all is a shallow conflict. With a justified war and a definite evil comes a black-andwhite story.
Here is the problem: Tolkien has created a world in which race is real. There are superior races, made by the main god-creator of the universe, and the evil, corrupted races made by Melkor (Satan), the main antagonist responsible for almost every conflict of the entire world. This allows for enormous losses of life to happen without any guilt or reflection needed from the “good” side. This aspect of the story is not the interesting part of these books, it is not why people read them and it is not the message that made these series beloved worldwide. Nobody really cares about the humanity (or the lack of it) of the goblins, orcs or the uruk-hai. Nevertheless, there are one-dimensional enemy armies filled with expendable life, which are an inseparable part of what the bones of this world are made of. There are those who are born good, and those who deserve to die by the virtue of existing.
When casting for The Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy The Hobbit a decade ago, there was a controversy after an extra had been turned down for not being ” light-skinned enough” to play a hobbit. The Hobbit is far from the only movie production in recent years to spark a debate about the lack of diversity in Hollywood and the need for positive representation. I think that the reasoning given for having a full-white cast is that “this is how the characters are described in the source material”, is a weak reasoning. I also believe in looking at authors as the products of their time, and that it is unfair to judge Tolkien by our standards. People’s skin colour is often up for interpretation, and changing it has little to no impact on the story, so clinging to a one-line description given by Tolkien seems ridiculous. I do not wish to delve deeper into the diversity debate, however, because I do not think this is where the problem lies. If the entirety of The Lord of the Rings cast was black, it would still be a world in which one’s race determines their character and their value. The problem with this diversity debate is that sometimes we are adapting stories that cannot be fixed by a switch of actors because the
story is fundamentally flawed. To see the relevance of this supremacist worldbuilding and why I think it is worth talking about, I want to move away from Tolkien’s work into the fantasy genre, which has often taken his storytelling, reduced it to its aesthetic, and then ran an extra mile with the concept of fantasy races into some truly awful depictions.
There is probably nowhere else where the problems of fantasy races and racism are as obvious as in the most popular table-top RPG Dungeons and Dragons. Before the players can go and play D&D (Dungeons and Dragons) together, they must create their characters. There is a wide range of options a person has in who they can be - they choose their class (Are they a fighter with a big sword or a wizard who loves casting spells?), background (Were they born amongst the aristocracy? Have they spent their life participating in organised crime?) and a lot of other small details. They also choose their race, which amongst other things determines their alignment, which ranges from good to evil and lawful to chaotic. If they are a human, they get to choose how good or evil they want to be. Everyone else, however, has it prescribed for them. It is a fascinating mechanic mostly because it is restrictive in a role-playing game and makes things way less fun if the players follow it. It also makes the world a place where it is people’s biological traits and not culture or society that determine their behaviour. The Player’s Handbook describes elves as a race that “trusts in diplomacy and compromise to resolve differences before they escalate to violence” - except for the dark-skinned dark elves, which are “depraved”, “universally reviled” and evil. There are the yuan-ti snake jungle people, who are “devious” and “devoid of compassion”. The goblins are naturally evil, malicious and delight in torment. They are greedy, obsessed with gold and have big crooked noses. Do not google antisemitic posters from nazi Germany and compare them with goblin depictions. I’m sure there’s nothing problematic about these depictions. You’re reading into it. Most of these “races” were not invented by either Tolkien or Gary Gygax (the creator of D&D), but come from folklore and then have been canonised as fantasy races. This does not absolve or justify them. Surprisingly, people have been prejudiced even before the 20th century.
The Tolkien-inspired elves, dwarves, halflings and goblins are now a staple of the genre, and they keep on being reproduced again and again without a second thought. Usually, the fantasy world also uses them to make a point about real-world racism or discrimination, but in the most ham-fisted simplistic way possible. “Here in the dwarf kingdom we hate the elves and call them “sharp-ear”, which is a slur. This says something about our real world!”
Media with a sci-fi aesthetic is often guilty of this too. Look at all of these humans in the far-off future being prejudiced against the blue alien people. Look how silly it is when they discriminate based on inconsequential physical features. As silly as real-world racism! They have not realised that the blue people are just like them, only blue! It is infantile and shallow, which then also makes criticisms of the actual harmful tropes
harder. How could the house-elves in Harry Potter be antisemitic? They’re just little weird guys! Don’t take it so seriously. With modern fantasy being so deeply rooted in Tolkien’s work, how can one be a fantasy writer and escape from this? A part of me wants to say: come up with something new! If a story is doing nothing else but mindlessly reproducing the same aesthetic, why does it even need to exist? The writings of Robin Hobb or Susana Clarke are spectacular works of modern fantasy, and yet there is not a single elf in them. But I am not necessarily arguing for a world without elves or goblins. It is possible to adopt this world-building and its narratives and then be critical of them.
In his 2011 Discworld novel Snuff, Pratchett asks the question: If these races are sentient, with their own language, society and culture, how righteous is the hero if he slaughters them? What does that tell us about the hero of this story, despite his shining armour and legendary sword? And how can we take this further and actually take the people (or orcs/ elves/dwarves/gnomes/fairies/trolls/trains/whatever) in these stories seriously and treat them with dignity? The Discworld series is not without its flaws, but it manages to address the problems I have talked about, and then some, while also being light, fun, and silly, just like a lot of the genre is. There is no other sin except for treating people as things, Pratchett had said. I wish more fantasy writers would see the world in this way.
A distinct realm of dreamscape.
Text Aleksandra Dudek Image Alžbeta Szabová
Dreams have been a mysterious phenomenon throughout history, and even today they remain elusive. Inexplicable and mystical, they have accompanied literature since ancient times. By incorporating the world of dreams into their literary works, authors have opened a gateway to a different dimension of life. Literary works have become multi-layered pieces capable of revealing not only the lives of characters but also the depths of their minds, the secrets of their brains, and the keys to their souls. The motif of dreams has therefore marked its importance in shaping the narrative of literary works and has made it possible to bring to light, in a poetic way, often restricted themes.
The dream motif originated in ancient Mesopotamia when Sumerians practised dream interpretation by analyzing religious works. Later in ancient Egypt dreams functioned as divine communication establishing mediatory bonds between humans and the gods. Dreams allowed communication with the greater world, the world that remained inaccessible to most. The phenomena of dreams brought about the idea that sleep transports humans to the land where imagination is limitless, and where humans let go of the reins of fantasy providing the soul with endless possibilities. It was dreams that were believed to be the source of prophecy, the call to action, the sign of direction. Particularly in Romanticism – a literary and intellectual movement - the interest in the human’s inner state, emotions and spirituality increased. The analysis of dreams proved to be a key element in understanding inner needs. The popular saying that the eyes are the windows of the soul found its application in the realm of dreams. Dreams provided windows to the soul, to the problems that were obscured in the real world. They became the gateway to man’s most secret needs that he himself could not understand.
As dreams have taken on symbolic meaning over time, the scientific world has ignited interest in them. Numerous theories have been developed in the fields of psychology and medicine, among others, to analyze dreams. The symbolism of dreams opened up a creative space for the interpretation of this mystical phenomenon. Carl Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist, introduced a new understanding of dreams. Through establishing Jungian dream analysis, he proposed the idea that dreams lead the unconscious mind to connect with the conscious mind. Jung advocated for dreams being expressions of man’s unconscious mind. His psychology was based on letting the creativity and authenticity of man’s expression find its way out through the process of dreaming. This process, deeply connected with the dreamer’s psyche, was intended to show
the way to look into the unexplored areas of one’s character and life experiences. This, in turn, was to enrich the individual’s personality. In short, according to Jung’s psychology, dreams were an extension of reality in which the individual was able to see what was hidden in the corners of his mind. They were a signpost for future steps in one’s life.
The dream is specifically the utterance of the unconscious. - Carl Jung, Modern Man in Search of Soul
It turns out, however, that literature is often ahead of reality, and the content it contains conveys timeless values. Despite the usefulness of dream analysis in the world of medicine and psychology, even before Jung’s heyday, writers were weaving dreams into their works, giving them a mystical character. Crime and Punishment, the work of one of the world’s most famous and influential writers, Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, has certainly marked the importance of dreams in the larger picture of understanding life and man’s deepest fears. His literature fell between Realism and Romanticism. Dostoevsky analyzed Romantic assumptions about feelings, spirituality, and inner life through dreams, giving the novel a timeless character by weaving Romanticism into an otherwise Realist text.
The author’s creation of the main character Rodion Raskolnikov and the psychological and literary penetration of the darkest corners of his mind and thoughts that led him to take actions that forever changed his life is performed through the use of dreams. The novel is a story of Rodion Raskolnikov, a former student, who cannot accept the inequalities of the world of which he is a victim. In a situation from which there seems to be no escape, Rodion goes so far as to kill the usurer, Alona. This act has irreversible consequences for Rodion’s psyche, his emotional life and also his romantic life with his beloved Sonya. During his imprisonment in Siberia, the protagonist undergoes an inner transformation.
Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment is a depiction of the power of dreams. In the novel, it is dreams that navigate and underlie the protagonist’s major decisions. They allow the characters to see the alternative version of reality in which their darkest thoughts are hidden. In essence, dreams allow for the internal battle between the structured mind and the man’s untamed psyche. This way the very irrational world of dreams constitutes the reflection of man’s psyche shaping the protagonist’s silhouette.
Through the use of dreams in his novel, Dostoyevsky gives his protagonist a second life. Before committing the crime, Rodion has a prophetic dream describing a social catastrophe from which only the chosen few will remain unharmed. Convinced of his superiority, Rodion decides to commit the crime for a higher purpose. The subsequent prophetic dream, however, is also the protagonist’s release from the trap of his thoughts, as he realizes the consequences of his behaviour and experiences an inner transformation. In this case, the dream allows him to understand the danger posed by his own beliefs. Rodion constitutes the perfect example of the way dreams allow for the shaping of the narrative and behaviour of the character and propelling forward a warning message.
Dreams offer a way out of conscience. The power of the message of these mystical phenomena can only be understood by those who have experienced them. There is something beautiful in dreams. They are a reflection of a power that has a direct effect on human life. In literature, dreams open up a whole other realm of understanding the lives and struggles of characters. Dreams, therefore, serve as an ‘excuse’ for authors to smuggle in the immaterial elements of the characters’ stories. One may wonder how something so inexplicable and mystical can have the power to make someone commit a crime, wake up in a cold sweat, or completely change their life. I suppose that will remain unknown forever, and it is up to us to accept that the reflection of our soul may, from time to time, be what we do not expect.
Review
The Naked Gun
Text Alex Dieker Image Sadu Saks
“Blowing away a fleeing suspect with my .44 Magnum used to be everything to me. I enjoyed it, well, who wouldn’t?” Police squad captain Frank Drebin’s serious delivery of these bone-dry jokes is a hallmark of the Naked Gun comedy series produced in the 1980s and 90s. The first film’s knack for dumb gags is coupled with a fearsome threat by an evildoer: a technological weapon that can activate any unsuspecting person into a highly-trained assassin. Drebin’s task is to protect the British Queen as she visits Los Angeles, a very serious responsibility indeed. At at a press conference, he assures the city that his team will perform their duties to their utmost ability:
"Protecting the Queen's safety is a task that is gladly accepted by Police Squad. No matter how silly the idea of having a queen might be to us, as Americans we must be gracious and considerate hosts. [applause]"
Naked Gun at face value is a comedy which takes police work as its basis but drives the story in an absurdly comedic direction. Yet by taking up the subject of policing to begin with, the actors and writers are able to play in a liminal space between good and evil, violence and peace. Leslie Nielsen, who plays Drebin, was a classically trained dramatic actor; when he made the switch to comedies, he found it was funniest to keep up his straight persona and act as though he was still in a drama. It’s this seriousness which gave life to his character Dr. Rumack in Airplane!, who is trying to save everyone’s life yet can’t seem to shake these silly over-the-top misunderstandings. When Rumack asks Captain Oveur (whose name cedes space for oodles of ‘over-and-out’ puns) when an emergency landing could happen, since everyone on board has fallen ill. Oveur says he can’t tell when they’ll be able to land. “You can tell me, I’m a doctor.” Nielsen acts these scenes all too seriously, but if he didn’t, the comedy…wouldn’t land very well.
I think the seriousness of the characters Frank Drebin and Dr. Rumack gets at something important within the human psyche: we are all about extremes, and often the most gruesome or terrifying moments contain an element of comedy and sarcasm. This is driven home by the fact that Naked Gun is nominally about a police force’s attempt to ‘protect and serve’ the American people, yet in doing so commits various heinous acts such as opening fire into a crowded parking lot to stop a driverless car on the run. Anyway, it was Lieutenant Drebin’s car which he drove into a pole, activating the airbags which put the car into neutral. “Did anyone see the driver? Anyone get a license plate?”
I needn’t review why real-life police work is riddled with controversy — simply peruse the first few chapters of Philippe Bourgois' Spanish Harlem ethnography In Search of Respect if you’re unfamiliar with America’s racist, brutal police regime. But these sinister aspects of policing don’t really feature in these kinds of comedies; it simply provides the assumed backdrop for the audience. Since we as viewers know the plot centres around a police force, the lack of seriousness in the storyline makes the film all the more funny. Nielsen’s serious delivery of an absurd dialogue is just the cherry on top.
With the more contemporary Brooklyn 99, we see another example of a comedy centred around policing in one of the U.S.’ largest cities. While ‘99’ does make nominal attempts to portray the brutality of police work, the show generally aims to extend plot points through its Office-like workplace sit-com style. Captain Holt takes opportunities to deride the NYPD’s racist and homophobic policies, but his unbelievably dry, intelligent deliveries coupled with his obtuse understanding of basic concepts makes us question how effective his all-too-important critiques truly are. At a certain point, when the show creators make the decision to go light-hearted, sanitising the impact of a New York police force, the social critiques levied by even the funniest of characters fall flat. We watched 99 to hear Holt wax lyrical about how Mahler was the music scene’s “in-your-face bad boy,” not for any hypocritical critique of policing. You’re making a police comedy, damn it! You have to jump into the absurdity of it without hesitation.
But the point stands that placing a comedy within the context of a police squad has a double impact that adds comedic value. Mary Douglas described dirt as “matter out of place” – not a germ-infested entity but a polluting element only within a cultural context. Jokes are perhaps the most poignant example of what I see as “speech out of place”: the whole point of a joke is that it breaks up the normal rhythm of speech, catches us off guard, and makes us rethink. In this way, comedy could be considered a pollutant. And if violence is the ultimate pollutant, I needn’t expand much further on why combining the two themes has such strong staying power in film and television. Before one single joke is made in Brooklyn 99, the joke has already been made. We’re watching a comedy about the most notorious, state-funded gang of thugs in the city, and they’re always acting dumb to boot.
What Andy Samberg has to offer as Jake Peralta in 99 is a poignant contradiction to the Drebin character portrayed by
Nielsen four decades ago. Peralta is a brilliant detective who makes horrifically stupid statements and decisions, all the while wearing a smirk reminiscent of a mischievous child. We know who he is. With Drebin, we aren’t force-fed a mouthful of idiocy. He is confused, but always on the right path, always playing the straight man (in both senses). While Peralta is astonished at the world, the world of Naked Gun is Drebin’s realm. We are all in on the gag, no matter how stupid it might be, and I find that’s why I appreciate his character so much more.
When Peralta smashes through a window to arrest a ‘perp’ his mojo is trashed when Boyle points out the chocolate stain on his mouth. It’s too obvious.
When a dockworker is giving Drebin a hard time, the captain offers him a $20 bill to ‘refresh’ his memory about his cop buddy who was recently shot, ironically played by O.J. Simpson.
“I don’t know, my memory’s still kinda hazy.”
“How about this?” Drebin hands him another 20.
“Yeah I remember him,” the worker says, sassily. “Why do you wanna know?”
“I can’t tell you that.”
“Yeah, well maybe this will help.” The worker hands Drebin back a 20. The captain examines the bill: “I really don’t think I should…”
By the end of the exchange, the scumbag worker has given Drebin all of his $40 back, plus another $20. Drebin keeps holding out, the worker asks him if he can spot him a 20, and they quickly exchange the same 20 that was just used to bribe the cop.
It’s all so ridiculous that you can’t help but feel as though you’ve lost 20 yourself after the scene, not in dollars but in brain cells. Dumber, yet somehow completely satisfied with the hilarious absurdity of it all. It’s a police interview gone sour, then gone right again, in the form of a bribery, and then gone completely off the walls. We know exactly what’s happening, yet nothing at all.
My brain is mush. All I know is I’m laughing.
band in Detroit… singing songs for the computers… watching romance movies… checking their watches… getting even… against pollution… angry… throwing their shoe at George Bush… converting to something worse… going vegan… watching the tanks roll in... standing on the shoreline facing east… building a brighter future… writing down every thought… speaking to ghosts… burning the library of Alexandria… playing Magic the Gathering… throwing fuel into the fire… hoping it ends well for all involved… throwing up… thinking about what never will be… making tzatziki… sick in the head… putting knives in the coffee… making actionable threats… breaking the Norman yoke… is always looking for new external writers! baking bread… buying bowling balls… cutting their hair… studying the crusades… planting orchids… making tea… recruiting new members… riding on a shooting star… cutting down trees… scything… befriending the crows… in your walls… having readers around the world… very very sick… changing their name… writing books… telling your future… greasing pigs… getting into the fuselage… importing fruits and vegetables… doing pottery… searching for Arpad’s lost treasure… under the sea… getting sued by Disney…
Send an email to cul.editorial@gmail.com and perhaps your article will be published on our website soon!
Want to receive all Cul editions at home? Visit our website to subscribe!