The goats!!! Any guesses!? I just wrote a piece examining the series from a Lacanaian/psychoanalytic framework and reviewed eight different fan theories — none explain the goats!
You are not only an outstanding thinker, but can back up your thoughts with excellent sources. To be a great writer, though, I think you need to edit and rewrite until you arrive at the precise amount of words needed to communicate your insightful ideas.
Fair, Tony! I'm well aware - unfortunately, I work on a tight clock around a weekly rollout with a demanding full-time job on the side so my priority right now is to get the thoughts out in an accessible/fun way. I could absolutely use an editor/do multiple rewrites but the time/resources are not there, I'm afraid. I'm doing my best.
I haven't seen Severance myself and I'm not sure when I will, but the lines you draw between rebellion, discourse, and "the maze" fascinate me here.
We could read discourse on the maze as an extension of that maze and what it represents (in this case, real and fictional corporate institutions), but is the endgoal of understanding that maze the only possible function with that discourse? I wouldn't say so. I've repeatedly banged the drum about the necessity of discourse about media, and I do so because that discourse leads us to understanding each other as human beings. Just like the emotional core of these shows give way to spectacle-packed, salivatingly Sisyphean puzzle boxes, we forget the real-world attachments that the show itself is now (and perhaps always been) indirectly trying to replace. The real-world human element that could be driving our discourse is shuffled to the side.
And where I tie rebellion into this - and maybe this is solely derived from my terrible sickness that is my unwavering faith in humanity - is that there can be no legitimate motive to rebel if there is only something to rebel against and nothing to rebel for. I'd certainly argue that the desire to conquer the puzzle box comes from a desire to conquer the system that produced it, but then the thesis of that rebelling becomes rooted in conquering rather than emotional/humanistic liberation. In doing so, rebellion sets the stage for cannibalizing itself the way that Manifesto-equipped startup does, because what are these corporations doing right now if not engaging in unceremonious conquering?
Whereas if the discourse utilizes the subject/puzzle box as a means to understand each other rather than treating the subject/puzzle box as the thing to be understood, then the human capacity for emotion and love and being becomes the endgoal of the rebelling rather than the conquering of the system. All of a sudden, there's something worth fighting for, and I think that motivates us far more than having something we want to fight against.
The latest episode was actually the perfect through-line that explained a lot for me.
Yesss, we got somewhere! A devastating episode 😞
The goats!!! Any guesses!? I just wrote a piece examining the series from a Lacanaian/psychoanalytic framework and reviewed eight different fan theories — none explain the goats!
You are not only an outstanding thinker, but can back up your thoughts with excellent sources. To be a great writer, though, I think you need to edit and rewrite until you arrive at the precise amount of words needed to communicate your insightful ideas.
Fair, Tony! I'm well aware - unfortunately, I work on a tight clock around a weekly rollout with a demanding full-time job on the side so my priority right now is to get the thoughts out in an accessible/fun way. I could absolutely use an editor/do multiple rewrites but the time/resources are not there, I'm afraid. I'm doing my best.
Please consider my remarks as wishing you well rather than criticizing. I wish you had the time you need.
I haven't seen Severance myself and I'm not sure when I will, but the lines you draw between rebellion, discourse, and "the maze" fascinate me here.
We could read discourse on the maze as an extension of that maze and what it represents (in this case, real and fictional corporate institutions), but is the endgoal of understanding that maze the only possible function with that discourse? I wouldn't say so. I've repeatedly banged the drum about the necessity of discourse about media, and I do so because that discourse leads us to understanding each other as human beings. Just like the emotional core of these shows give way to spectacle-packed, salivatingly Sisyphean puzzle boxes, we forget the real-world attachments that the show itself is now (and perhaps always been) indirectly trying to replace. The real-world human element that could be driving our discourse is shuffled to the side.
And where I tie rebellion into this - and maybe this is solely derived from my terrible sickness that is my unwavering faith in humanity - is that there can be no legitimate motive to rebel if there is only something to rebel against and nothing to rebel for. I'd certainly argue that the desire to conquer the puzzle box comes from a desire to conquer the system that produced it, but then the thesis of that rebelling becomes rooted in conquering rather than emotional/humanistic liberation. In doing so, rebellion sets the stage for cannibalizing itself the way that Manifesto-equipped startup does, because what are these corporations doing right now if not engaging in unceremonious conquering?
Whereas if the discourse utilizes the subject/puzzle box as a means to understand each other rather than treating the subject/puzzle box as the thing to be understood, then the human capacity for emotion and love and being becomes the endgoal of the rebelling rather than the conquering of the system. All of a sudden, there's something worth fighting for, and I think that motivates us far more than having something we want to fight against.
Totally feel you! I share v similar feelings. I hope they eventually pull what The Leftovers did.