Cast of gunsmoke
The home of MusicCast
2018.02.25 19:52 foetusofexcellence The home of MusicCast
The home of Yamaha's MusicCast
2014.06.06 04:34 Show Music for Show People
Cast Recordings for Musicals, Broadway, West End, Film, Off-Broadway, Tours, Concept Recordings, Regional Productions, Concerts and anything and everything else!
2011.08.22 21:24 Spartacus: TV Series
Sub for the Starz TV series 'Spartacus'. Betrayed by the Romans. Forced into slavery. Reborn as a Gladiator. Torn from his homeland and the woman he loves, Spartacus is condemned to the brutal world of the arena where blood and death are primetime entertainment.
2023.03.21 19:40 willrsauls Who do you think are the mainstays of the cast?
Outside the obvious Sol and Ky (though with how Strive ends, maybe Sol is up in the air), who do you think are characters who HAVE to be included in any Guilty Gear game in order for it to feel complete? It definitely feels to me like any game in the series has to have Chipp, Axl, May, and Millia, with May in particular feeling like a character who simply HAS to be there. I don’t really have a reason why May specifically needs to be there. It’s more of just a feeling for me. Like if Sol is the Ryu and Ky is the Ken of the game (in terms of importance more than gameplay), then I almost see May as the Chun-Li.
submitted by willrsauls to Guiltygear [link] [comments]
2023.03.21 19:39 Player121z There's still a bug with q on aurelion sol despite their fixes.
They fixed alot of bugs on asol on 13.4 and it feels amazing now, but there's still one bug with q when you finish flying Q will cast itself. They just put patch notes for 13.6 and there's nothing about any bug fixes on asol. Really annoying bug and i dont know where can i write about this so they'll see it and fix it.
submitted by Player121z to Aurelion_Sol_mains [link] [comments]
2023.03.21 19:38 rickharrisonlaugh11 Questions About Melting Scrap Copper
Recently picked up a junked AC compressoradiator that is loaded with copper. I plan on using most of it to make up some tin bronze and aluminum bronze for various casting projects, but I'm wondering what to do about all of the soldered joints. I'm not exactly making aircraft parts but I'd like to know if the solder is going to have any significant impact on the colostrength of the copper or my final alloys.
And a related question, does anyone know what percent (by weight) of tinned copper marine cable is tin? I've had a large section laying around for some time but haven't known what to do with it without a good guess of the actual tin content.
submitted by rickharrisonlaugh11 to MetalCasting [link] [comments]
And a related question, does anyone know what percent (by weight) of tinned copper marine cable is tin? I've had a large section laying around for some time but haven't known what to do with it without a good guess of the actual tin content.
2023.03.21 19:34 zajazajazajazajaz Did Snape enjoyed...
... killing Dumbledore?
I was just re-reading OoTP, and I came across this scene:
The only Unforgivable whose fuction is to cause direct pain, as far as I know, is the Cruciatus Curse (unless AK hurts the victim for only a fraction of a second before they die?).
With this in mind, do you think that enjoying killing someone is needed to cast Avada Kedavra, or is the enjoyment part only a requirement for using Crucio at its full capacity?
submitted by zajazajazajazajaz to harrypotter [link] [comments]
I was just re-reading OoTP, and I came across this scene:
Hatred rose in Harry such as he had never known before; he flung himself out from behind the fountain and bellowed, ‘Crucio!’The wording is a bit weird; Bellatrix says mean them (in plural, as in all three of the Unforgivables), but then she says you need to really cause pain, to enjoy it.
Bellatrix screamed: the spell had knocked her off her feet, but she did not writhe and shriek with pain as Neville had – she was already back on her feet, breathless, no longer laughing...
"Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?" she yelled. She had abandoned her baby voice now. "You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain – to enjoy it – righteous anger won’t hurt me for long – I’ll show you how it is done, shall I? I’ll give you a lesson –"
The only Unforgivable whose fuction is to cause direct pain, as far as I know, is the Cruciatus Curse (unless AK hurts the victim for only a fraction of a second before they die?).
With this in mind, do you think that enjoying killing someone is needed to cast Avada Kedavra, or is the enjoyment part only a requirement for using Crucio at its full capacity?
2023.03.21 19:34 prolelol I just watched all of The Invisible Man movies from the Universal Classic Monster film series, and here are my thoughts.
The Invisible Man (1933) 10/10
I didn't expect to enjoy it as much as Frankenstein (1931) and Bride of Frankenstein (1935), but I did. The movie creates a fantastic atmosphere with its impressive special effects and entertaining monster story. The lighting, cinematography, and set design are all also fantastic. The transformation of the Invisible Man is stunning. Even though it has some comedic elements, it still works well as a horror movie. The cast is overall great, and it features Gloria Stuart, who played old Kate in Titanic (1997).
Overall, this is a highly enjoyable Universal Monster movie that has become one of my favorite horror films of the 1930s.
The Invisible Man Returns (1940) 6/10
It was supposed to be a direct sequel to the first film, but it ended up having a new storyline, a different cast, and a different protagonist. While the first film was excellent, this movie loses its atmosphere and thrill. The storyline wasn't that interesting anyway, and they made the Invisible Man seem like a different character. The special effects are still good, but other than that, the movie was pretty average.
Even though the movie is only 81 minutes long, I would still say that it's not necessary to watch.
The Invisible Woman (1940) 7.5/10
Wow, this movie! The Invisible Woman holding the cat was adorable. Using a hammer to hit the bad guys' heads was hilarious. Using a machine gun was my favorite moment.
I liked it more than I expected. It was light and funny with fantastic humor and jokes. The whole cast was great, I especially liked the roles of the Invisible Woman, the professor who turned the woman invisible, and his housekeeper who was also the villain from The Wizard of Oz (1939). The characters were funny, the atmosphere was nice, and the set design was also great.
Overall, I think it was a nice short movie, and I found it to be underrated.
Invisible Agent (1942) 7/10
It's about the grandson of the Invisible Man carrying out his mission as an invisible agent to fight against the Nazis. It's important to note that this is not a direct sequel to "The Invisible Man" because the main character was not intended to be the grandson of the original Invisible Man. Instead, it is a standalone film that shares some similarities with the original story.
I thought the idea of an agent being invisible during World War II was cool, and I enjoyed how it had a similar feel to the early 2000s World War games. The movie had a solid cast, a good atmosphere, an impressive set design, and some humorous moments.
While it may not be a film that everyone must see, it's still a well-made movie with good special effects and entertaining moments.
The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944) 5.5/10
It's a standalone film about a man who, after being betrayed and left for dead by his friends, seeks revenge with the help of a serum from a scientist that makes him invisible.
I thought it was okay, but there isn't much else to say. It had its moments, but I didn't enjoy the storyline or the characters. At best, it's not that memorable, and I feel like it was just another reboot of the series.
However, the dog parts were my favorite moments.
Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951) 7.5/10 (I prefer it less than The Invisible Woman)
Although it's not quite as good as Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, it is still quite enjoyable.
The movie was intended to be a comedy spoof of The Invisible Man (1933), rather than scary. It was a silly, light, and funny movie with a cartoonish feel to it. The jokes were childish and sometimes silly, yet they were still funny.
Overall, I had a few good laughs while watching it.
submitted by prolelol to horror [link] [comments]
I didn't expect to enjoy it as much as Frankenstein (1931) and Bride of Frankenstein (1935), but I did. The movie creates a fantastic atmosphere with its impressive special effects and entertaining monster story. The lighting, cinematography, and set design are all also fantastic. The transformation of the Invisible Man is stunning. Even though it has some comedic elements, it still works well as a horror movie. The cast is overall great, and it features Gloria Stuart, who played old Kate in Titanic (1997).
Overall, this is a highly enjoyable Universal Monster movie that has become one of my favorite horror films of the 1930s.
The Invisible Man Returns (1940) 6/10
It was supposed to be a direct sequel to the first film, but it ended up having a new storyline, a different cast, and a different protagonist. While the first film was excellent, this movie loses its atmosphere and thrill. The storyline wasn't that interesting anyway, and they made the Invisible Man seem like a different character. The special effects are still good, but other than that, the movie was pretty average.
Even though the movie is only 81 minutes long, I would still say that it's not necessary to watch.
The Invisible Woman (1940) 7.5/10
Wow, this movie! The Invisible Woman holding the cat was adorable. Using a hammer to hit the bad guys' heads was hilarious. Using a machine gun was my favorite moment.
I liked it more than I expected. It was light and funny with fantastic humor and jokes. The whole cast was great, I especially liked the roles of the Invisible Woman, the professor who turned the woman invisible, and his housekeeper who was also the villain from The Wizard of Oz (1939). The characters were funny, the atmosphere was nice, and the set design was also great.
Overall, I think it was a nice short movie, and I found it to be underrated.
Invisible Agent (1942) 7/10
It's about the grandson of the Invisible Man carrying out his mission as an invisible agent to fight against the Nazis. It's important to note that this is not a direct sequel to "The Invisible Man" because the main character was not intended to be the grandson of the original Invisible Man. Instead, it is a standalone film that shares some similarities with the original story.
I thought the idea of an agent being invisible during World War II was cool, and I enjoyed how it had a similar feel to the early 2000s World War games. The movie had a solid cast, a good atmosphere, an impressive set design, and some humorous moments.
While it may not be a film that everyone must see, it's still a well-made movie with good special effects and entertaining moments.
The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944) 5.5/10
It's a standalone film about a man who, after being betrayed and left for dead by his friends, seeks revenge with the help of a serum from a scientist that makes him invisible.
I thought it was okay, but there isn't much else to say. It had its moments, but I didn't enjoy the storyline or the characters. At best, it's not that memorable, and I feel like it was just another reboot of the series.
However, the dog parts were my favorite moments.
Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951) 7.5/10 (I prefer it less than The Invisible Woman)
Although it's not quite as good as Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, it is still quite enjoyable.
The movie was intended to be a comedy spoof of The Invisible Man (1933), rather than scary. It was a silly, light, and funny movie with a cartoonish feel to it. The jokes were childish and sometimes silly, yet they were still funny.
Overall, I had a few good laughs while watching it.
2023.03.21 19:34 Strange_Usual_4561 the communities weird blind spot about the movie and the OGL
I made a post the day before yesterday about how hearing from everyone about the movie had started to stress me out. And it honestly didnt turn out like i thought it would. Because of my work, I've brought a good number of young people to the game. Many of them have come to me excited, asking if Im excited as well. Then I'm in this spot where I'm trying not to bombard them but I'm also trying to not lie to them. Im trying to explain this complex issue to them but not really having the time to unpack situation. I posted on here because folks are (mostly) adults and might have a basic understanding of the semi-esoteric subject. What I got was a load of comments snarking at me and dismissing my concerns. Folks demanding that I offer proof before I cast any doubt on Hasbros good intentions and the victory we won.
I'm not claiming to have any kind of leaks, I never said I was. I'm basing my concerns off public statements made by the company (link and screen shots below) and the situation in general. If I had some Hasbro internal doc that explained how they were going to screw people over, I would have lead with that. But the thing about people trying to screw you over, they usually try not to broadcast it.
I didn't realize how much of a sore/blind spot some folks have about this. (Also I'm not the paranoid type but I know Hasbro had to have changed up their PR strategies post OGL crisis. They may have changed to a more "hands on approach", its not exactly an original strategy) But most of the comments (not all) were about how ridiculous I was being for even suggesting that this MIGHT not be over. That folks are sick of hearing about this, that I'm beating a a dead horse. That we won and they lost and its over.
But what if it isn't? Hasbro is a for profit company that is struggling to make a profit in anything besides WoTC. The community getting upset doesn't fix their money problems. Our indignation won't pay their bills. They gave us the OGL but what if that was only a piece of the game plan? A few days before the OGL concessions Hasbro made a statement to their shareholders that will things have been rough, they still plan to stay the course with the business model the releases in October 2022. https://imgur.com/a/t5POUfJ https://imgur.com/a/6uY7Fmd https://imgur.com/a/Uo0unP6
They never released any new strategies like when they had a big corporate "fire side chat" about how DnD was "under monetized". They just said here's the OGL and the CC.
I would liken this to the idea that youre on a boat with a friend. Well call him Hasbro. There is an alarm that goes off that the ship is sinking and on top of that there aren't enough life boat. As you both rush to find a life boat, Hasbro trips you. He grabs the last seat and leaves you drown. You mange to get to shore though, maybe another passage name Piazo points you to a spare life boat. Back on shore you confront Hasbro. At first he won't even admit it. Finally he goes to everyone on the beach and asks their opinion. He comes back saying that everyone he talked to seems to think he's a jerk and he's getting a lot of bad attention. He then says, "Sorry about all that but I'm going to make it up to you! Next time we go on a boat ride I'LL pay for your ticket!" Now, are you ever going to go anywhere near that guy on a boat again?
Anyway, TBH, I won't be shocked if I get the same response again. But it's a testament to the situation. I know this isn't fun to think about. I know everyone was looking forward to enjoying the movie. I know this game is a fantasy escape and this is painfully realistic. But it's worth talking about.
submitted by Strange_Usual_4561 to DnD [link] [comments]
I'm not claiming to have any kind of leaks, I never said I was. I'm basing my concerns off public statements made by the company (link and screen shots below) and the situation in general. If I had some Hasbro internal doc that explained how they were going to screw people over, I would have lead with that. But the thing about people trying to screw you over, they usually try not to broadcast it.
I didn't realize how much of a sore/blind spot some folks have about this. (Also I'm not the paranoid type but I know Hasbro had to have changed up their PR strategies post OGL crisis. They may have changed to a more "hands on approach", its not exactly an original strategy) But most of the comments (not all) were about how ridiculous I was being for even suggesting that this MIGHT not be over. That folks are sick of hearing about this, that I'm beating a a dead horse. That we won and they lost and its over.
But what if it isn't? Hasbro is a for profit company that is struggling to make a profit in anything besides WoTC. The community getting upset doesn't fix their money problems. Our indignation won't pay their bills. They gave us the OGL but what if that was only a piece of the game plan? A few days before the OGL concessions Hasbro made a statement to their shareholders that will things have been rough, they still plan to stay the course with the business model the releases in October 2022. https://imgur.com/a/t5POUfJ https://imgur.com/a/6uY7Fmd https://imgur.com/a/Uo0unP6
They never released any new strategies like when they had a big corporate "fire side chat" about how DnD was "under monetized". They just said here's the OGL and the CC.
I would liken this to the idea that youre on a boat with a friend. Well call him Hasbro. There is an alarm that goes off that the ship is sinking and on top of that there aren't enough life boat. As you both rush to find a life boat, Hasbro trips you. He grabs the last seat and leaves you drown. You mange to get to shore though, maybe another passage name Piazo points you to a spare life boat. Back on shore you confront Hasbro. At first he won't even admit it. Finally he goes to everyone on the beach and asks their opinion. He comes back saying that everyone he talked to seems to think he's a jerk and he's getting a lot of bad attention. He then says, "Sorry about all that but I'm going to make it up to you! Next time we go on a boat ride I'LL pay for your ticket!" Now, are you ever going to go anywhere near that guy on a boat again?
Anyway, TBH, I won't be shocked if I get the same response again. But it's a testament to the situation. I know this isn't fun to think about. I know everyone was looking forward to enjoying the movie. I know this game is a fantasy escape and this is painfully realistic. But it's worth talking about.
2023.03.21 19:29 MirkWorks City & Soul by James Hillman
5
From Mirror to Window: Curing Psychoanalysis of its Narcissism
The apparently individual conflict of the patient is revealed as a universal conflict of his environment and epoch. Neurosis is thus nothing less than an individual attempt, however unsuccessful, to solve a universal problem. - C.G. Jung (1912)
Narcissism is now the rage, the universal diagnosis. In Freud's world, the new attention was on conversion hysteria; in Bleuler's, on dementia praecox. Earlier we find all ills attributed to the English malady, to the spleen, to hypochondriasis, to melancholia, to chlorosis; in Paris, a myriad of phobies and délires. Different time and places, different syndromes.
Narcissism has its theoreticians - Kohut, Kernberg, Lacan - and modern Jungians are following the rage. The collective consciousness of psychology makes us collectively unconscious, much as Jung said when writing about the collective ideas in his day. Being "with it" also means being in it. The epidemic diagnosis Narcissism states that the condition is already endemic to the psychology that makes the diagnosis. It sees narcissism because it sees narcissistically. So let us not take this diagnosis so literally, but place it within the historical parade of Western diagnoses.
Eminent cultural critics - Karl Krauss, Thomas Szasz, Philip Rieff, Christopher Lasch, Paul Zweig, and the notorious Dr. Jeffrey Masson - have each seen that psychoanalysis breeds a narcissistic subjectivism inflicting on the culture an iatrogenic disorder, that is, a disease brought by the methods of the doctors who would cure it.
I shall continue their line of thought, but I shall use a method that Wolfgang Giegerich has so brilliantly exposed in many of his papers. If depth psychology itself suffers from a narcissistic disorder, then what we analysts need first to probe is the unconscious narcissism in analysis itself. Our first patient is neither the patient nor ourselves, but the phenomenon called "analysis" that has brought us both to the consulting room.
The term "Narcissism" is probably British. Havelock Ellis is credited with its invention, though Freud gave us its psychoanalytic meaning. What did Freud say? As I go through some of his descriptions, let us hear them narcissistically, as self-referents, descriptive of psychology and of ourselves in psychology.
1917: "We employ the term narcissism in relation to little children and it is to excessive narcissism of primitive man that we ascribe his belief in the omnipotence of his thoughts and consequent attempts to influence the course of events in the other world by magical practices." Does not analysis have this primitive omnipotence fantasy of influencing events in the outer world by its magical practices? The omnipotence of subjective reflection is attested to by many classic Jungians like Harding, Bernard, Meier, von Franz, Baumann, etc. As Jung himself says, we are each "the makeweight that tips the scales" that determine the outcome of world history." The rituals of self-engagement remove projections from the world so that, supposedly, the world itself is transformed by psychoanalysis.
1922: "... narcissistic disorders are characterized by a withdrawal of the libido from objects." The withdrawal of the libido from from objects - I ask you to remember this statement. We shall come back to it.
1925: Freud describes three historic blows to humankind's narcissism. These, he says, are the cosmological blow of Copernicus, the blow of Darwinian evolutionary theory, and the psychoanalytic blow (of Freud) which wounded the omnipotence fantasy, or narcissism, of the ego as sole self-willed ruler. Here, psychoanalysis becomes itself a giant omnipotence fantasy, a creation myth of our culture equivalent with astronomy and biology, promulgating itself with narcissistic grandeur.
This pronouncement appears in Freud's discussion on resistance to psychoanalysis. By means of this idea resistance, analysis brilliantly maintains its invulnerability to criticism. Questioning the validity of analysis is impugned as resistance to it. Even more: the very attacks demonstrate resistance and therefore help to validate analytical theory. As Freud says, "The triumph of narcissism, the ego's victorious assertion of its own invulnerability. It refuses to be hurt by the arrows of reality ... It insists that it is impervious to wounds dealt by the outside world."
Later Freud considered narcissism not to be rooted in love at all, i.e., as self-love, but to be rather a defense against aggressive impulses. Let us consider for a moment the value of "aggressive impulses," at least and at best they take the object, the world out there, into account: I feel enraged about societal injustice, nuclear danger, media crap, industrial callousness, the corporate mind, political ideologues, hideous architecture, etc. But, owing to my narcissistic defenses against the involving call of aggression, I go to the spa, work out, meditate, jog, diet, reduce stress, relax my body armor, improve my orgasms, get a new hairstyle, and take a vacation. And see my therapist: very expensive, very good for me, because he or she devotes complete attention to my problems, especially our transferential frame. Instead of the world and my outrage, I work on my analysis, myself, the Self. This Self, too, fits a narcissistic definition: "the incorporation of grandiose object images as defense against anxiety and guilt" or, as Fenichel puts it, one feels oneself in "reunion with an omnipotent force, be that force an archetype, a god or goddess, the unus mundus, or the numinosity of analysis itself.
Freud's paper "On Narcissism" states that both introspection and conscience or "being watched" derive from and serve narcissism. Yet, psychotherapy practices self-scrutiny as the principal method in its treatment and "being watched" or supervision as the principal component of its training. A candidate goes to hour after hour of institutionalized narcissism of watching and being watched.
The institutionalization of narcissism in our profession - the idea of resistance, the idealization of the Self, the practices of introspection and supervision, the omnipotence fantasies about its own importance in world history, its technique of referring all events back to itself as the vessel, the mirror, the temenos, the frame - bears immediately upon that central obsession of analysis today, transference.
*
By transference, here, I mean that self-gratifying analytical habit which refers the emotions of life to the analysis. Transference habitually deflects object libido, that is, love for anything outside analysis, into a narcissistic reflection upon analysis. We feed analysis with life. The mirror that walks down the road of life (Flaubert) replaces the actual road, and the mirror no longer reflects the world, only the walking companions. They may as well have stayed indoors, less distracted by the trees and the traffic.
The principal content of analytical reflection as transference is the child we once were, a fact which accords with Freud's observation that the object choice of the narcissist is "someone he once was.” This helps account for the faddish popularity of Alice Miller’s writings. Her idealized children exhibit what Freud said: the narcissist is “not willing to forego his narcissistic perfection in his childhood” and “seeks to recover the early perfection.” The focus on childhood traps the libido only further into subjectivity, and therefore we must recognize that erotic compulsions in analysis are produced primarily by the analysis, rather than by the persons. Analysis acts itself out through them quite impersonally so that they often feel betrayed and ashamed by the impersonality of the emotions they undergo and are unable to recognize that what they are suffering is the object libido trying to find a way out of analysis. Instead, the narcissistic viciousness of our theory says that transference emotions are compelling the persons to go deeper into analysis.
Let us recognize that the other person - patient or analyst - embodies the only possibility within an analysis to whom object libido can flow. The person in the other chair represents cure of analytical narcissism simply by being there as an Other. Moreover, the patient for the analyst and the analyst for the patient become such numinous objects because they have also been tabooed as libidinal possibilities. Analyst and patient may not act their desire for each other. The narcissism of the situation makes them absolutely necessary to each other, while the taboo sets them absolutely outside of each other. This outside object however, is also inside the analysis. So, patient for doctor and doctor for patient become the symbolic mode of ending analysis by means of love.
Of course, the persons are often torn by what Freud calls the love dilemma of the narcissistic patient: “the cure by love,” which he generally refers to as cure by analysis. We must ask whether this neurotic choice, as Freud calls it, arises from the narcissisms of the patient or from the narcissism of the analytical system in which the patient is situated. After all, the fantasy of an opposition between love and analysis occurs within the prior fantasy of cure which has brought the persons together in the first place.
By elaborating ethical codes, malpractice insurance, investigations, and expulsions that blame the participants, analysis protects itself from wounding insights about its own narcissism. The vulnerability of analysis - that its effectiveness is always in question, that it is neither science nor medicine, that it is aging into professional mediocrity and may have lost its soul to power years ago despite its idealized language by growth and creativity (a language by the way, never used by its founders) - this vulnerability is overcome by idealizing the transference.
As well as transference love, there is also hatred. Perhaps the client’s hatred of the analyst and the hatred of the analyst for the client are also not personal. Perhaps, these intense oppressive feelings against each other arise in both to present both with the fact that they are in a hateful situation: the object libido hates the attachment of transference. Analysis hates itself in order to break the narcissistic vessel imprisoning the libido that would go out into the soul in the world.
The horned dilemmas of transference, including the analyst’s stare into the mirror of his own counter-transference, the feelings of love and hatred, this agony and ecstasy and romantic torture convince the participants that what is going on is of intense importance: first, because these phenomena are expected by the theory and provide proof of it, and second, because these phenomena re-enact what analysis once was in its own childhood in Vienna and Zurich, analysis in primary fusion with its origins in Breuer and Freud and Jung, in Dora and Anna and Sabina. The feelings are cast in therapeutic guise because this is the healing fiction of the analytic situation. In other words, transference is less necessary to the doctor and the patient than it is to analysis by means of which it intensifies its narcissistic idealization, staying in love with itself. We therapists do not sit in our chambers so many hours a day only for the money, or the power, but because we are addicted to analytical narcissism. Our individual narcissism is both obscured and reinforced by the approved narcissism of the analytical profession.
When one partner imagines a tryst or the other imagines resisting a seduction, or when either imagines that love is a solution to misery, then they are framed in the romantic conflicts of Madame Bovary, Wuthering Heights, and Anna Karenina, reconstituting the Romanticisms of the nineteenth century and the origins of psychoanalysis, not in your or my personal childhoods, but in its own cultural childhood. This means we have to locate the narcissism of contemporary analysis within a much wider narcissism: the Romantic movement.
*
Literary tradition differentiates at least four principal traits of this genre. We have already spoken of one, “idealization of the love object.” And indeed analysis idealizes the patient as an “interesting case,” “difficult patient,” “good patient,” “borderline personality.” Or consider all the literary fabulations that have made patients into eternal literary figures - Dora, Ellen West, Babette, Miss Miller, Wolfman, Ratman, Little Hands, all the way to Freud and Jung themselves in the novels The White Hotel and The House of Glass. Think of the Romanticism of our theoretical constructs: Love and Death, Empathy, Transformation, Growth, The Child, The Great Mother, The Mirror, Desire and Jouissance, and the Transitional Object. In the patient there takes place such idealized events as a hieros gamos, a quest for self-discovery and a journey into wholeness. Synchronicities outside of causal laws, transcendent functions, integration of the shadow and the realization of the Self on whom the future of civilization depends. We record our idealization of the love object, i.e., analysis, in taped and filmed analytic sessions, paying meticulous and expensive attention to trivial conversations and gestures. Analysis is in love with its idealized image.
A second essential trait of Romanticism is said to be the opposition between bourgeois society and the inner self that, with its dreams, desires and inspirations, tends to oppose, even contradict, the outer world of usual things. Psychoanalysis from its beginnings imagines itself fundamentally opposed to the civilization and its institutions of religion, family, medicine, and the political community disdained as “the collective.” Freud’s emphasis on himself as Jew and hence marginal, as well as Jung’s favorite position as heretical old hermit (despite the bourgeois lives they led and values they held) still shapes the imagination of the profession and distorts its relation to the ordinary world.
Third, imprisonment another basic theme in Romanticism, especially French and Russian. In Dostoevsky’s The Possessed, Maria’s song says: “This tiny cell suffices me, there I will dwell my soul to save.” The consulting room provides the confining physical place for the psychic imprisonment of analysis as such its devotion to the secret nooks and crannies of the private world, decorating with reconstructive rococo (i.e., psycho-dynamic intricacies) the narcissistic cell of personality.
Fourth, the Romantic genre has been defined as one that simultaneously seeks and postpones a particular end. This fits therapy. Its entire procedure seeks to restore the person to the world, yet postpones this return indefinitely. (Meanwhile, do not make major changes in your actual life. Don’t act out. The cure of analysis becomes more analysis-another analyst, another school - and the improvement of training becomes ever more hours.) The simultaneity of seeking and postponing an end occurs in the basic conundrum of every analysis, its contradictory two commandments: encourage the desires of the unconscious (Thou Shall Not Repress) and forbid gratification (Thou Shall Not Act Out). Our work is with the libidinous and our method is by way of abstention. The end is unforeseeable; there is no completion. Analysis interminable, as Freud said. This is the Romanticism of eternal longing.
There is no way out of Romanticism’s consulting room and the subjectivism of its eros, unless we turn to what is beyond its purview, turn to what narcissism and romanticism leave out: the objects, the unidealized, immediately given, actual world of dull and urban things. By turning psychological attention from the mirror of self-reflection to the world through the window, we release “object libido” to seek its goal beyond narcissistic confinement in analysis. For “object libido” is but a psychoanalytic name for the drive which loves the world, the erotic desire for Anima Mundi, for Soul in the World.
Perhaps it becomes clearer why I have been emphasizing John Keats’s remarkable phrase; “Call the world … The vale of Soul-making. Then you will find out the use of the world.” Also, you will understand why I have held myself back from that side of Jung which expounds upon meaning, Self, individuation, unus mundus, wholeness, mandalas, etc. . These large and introverted ideas envelop me and usually my patients with a grandiose, invulnerable aura. As well, I keep a distance from the current Kohut craze and Lacanian mystique. Although recognizing narcissism as the syndrome of the times (even if the groundwork for this was prepared long ago in the metaphysical catastrophe of Augustinian and Cartesian subjectivism); yet, Kohut attempts its cure by the same means of narcissistic obsession: an ever more detailed observation of subjectivity. And a subjectivity within the oppressive confines of a negatively reconstructed childhood. The child archetype dominates contemporary therapy, keeping patients (and analysts) safe from the world. For this archetype feels always endangered by the actual world, lives not in the present but in futurity, and is addicted to its own powerless infantilism. By so focusing on the child, analysis disenfranchises itself from wider realm of soul-making in the adult community of polis.
Nevertheless I must confess to a serious long-standing error on my part regarding Keats’s phrase. I always considered the world out there to be useful for making one’s own soul. Narcissism again. My soul, your soul - not its soul. For the Romantics, however, ensouling the world was a crucial part of their program. They recognized the traps of narcissistic subjectivity in their vision. Hence, they sought the spirit in physical nature, the brotherhood of all mankind or Gemeinschaftsgefühl, political revolution, and a return to the classic gods and goddesses, attempting to revivify the soul of the world with pantheism.
We must therefore read Keats as saying we go through the world for the sake of its soul-making, thereby our own. This reading suggests a true object libido, beyond narcissism, in keeping with Otto Fenichel’s definition of love. Love can only be called such when “one’s own satisfaction is impossible without satisfying the object too. If the world is not satisfied by our going through it, no matter how much beauty and pleasure our souls may receive from it, then we live in its vale without love.
There is a way out, or I wouldn’t be standing here. For my specific style of narcissism, my pose before the mirror, today is heroic. My style insists on resolution of the issues raised. The method I shall be using here follows the method which I usually empty for resolving issues. First, we look back into the history of psychoanalysis for a model; second, we turn to some peculiar bit of pathologizing for a clue; and third, we resolve problems by dissolving them into images and metaphors.
So, let us turn back to the first psychoanalytic case, Anna O., and her doctor, Josef Breuer, who, with Freud, wrote Studies in Hysteria. As you recall, after a year of almost daily sessions often of several hours, he suddenly terminated. You recall also the intensity of her transference, that she developed a hysterical pregnancy and childbirth, after Breuer tried to end the treatment. He, according to Jones, after a final visit to her “fled the house in a cold sweat. The next day he and his wife left for Venice to spend a second honeymoon which resulted in the conception of a daughter.” Whether fact or not, and Ellenberger says not, the fantasy shows a founding patron of our work escaping both cure by analysis and cure by love for the beauty of Venice and the conception of a daughter. His object libido returns from the oppressive narcissism of psychoanalysis to the Romanticism of the wider world.
This wide world remains merely that, merely a place of escape or acting out, so long as the world “out the window” is imagined only in the Cartesian model as sheer res extensa, only dead matter. To show more vividly how that world is, as Keats said, a place of soul, let us go straight through the window into the world. Let us take a walk in a Japanese garden, in particular the strolling garden, the one with water, hills, trees, and stones. While we walk, let us imagine the garden as an emblem for the peripatetic teacher or the therapeutic guide (psychopompos), the world itself as psychoanalyst showing us soul, showing us how to be in it soulfully.
I turn to the garden and to Japan because of insights given while in Kyoto gardens several years ago, and also because the garden as metaphor expresses some of the deepest longings - from Hesperides, to Eden’s paradise, and Maria’s hortus inclusus - for the world as home of the soul. So by entering into the Japanese garden now we shall be stepping through the window into the anima mundi.
First we notice that the garden has no central place to stand and view it all. We can but scrutinize a part at a time. Instead of overview and wholeness, there is perspective and eachness. The world changes as we move. Here a clump of iris, there a mossy rock. Instead of a center (with its etymological roots in the Greek kentron, “goad” or “prick,” and being compelled toward a goal by means of abstract geometric distancing), there are shifts of focus relative to the body’s location and attitude.
Second: as one strolls, each vista is seen again from a different perspective. The maple branching down to the pond edge, the floating leaves appear less melancholic after the path bends. These shifts of seeing again are precisely what the word “respect” means. To look again is to “respect.” Each time we look at the same thing again, we gain respect for it and add respect to it, curiously discovering the innate relation of “looks” - of regarding and being regarded, words in English that refer to dignity.
Third: when the garden, rather than the dream or the symptom or the unconscious, becomes the via regia of psyche, then we are forced to think anew about the word “in.” “In” is the dominant preposition of all psychoanalysis - not with, not from, not for, but “in.” We look in our souls, we look in a mirror. "In” has been utterly literally, as an invisible, spacelesss psychic stuff inside our skins, or meanings inside our dreams and symptoms, or the memories locked in the past. Interiority of the garden, however, is wholly present and wholly displayed. “In” holds the meanings of included, engaged, involved, embraced. Or, as Jung said, the psyche is not in us; we are in the psyche. This feeling of being in the psyche becomes most palpable when inside the ruins of a Greek temple, in an Egyptian tomb of a king, in a dance or a ritual, and in a Japanese garden. Jung’s phrase “esse in anima” takes on concreteness then, as it does in a clear-cut forest, a bombed city, a cancer ward, a cemetery. Ecology, architecture, interior design are other modes of feeling the anima mundi. Instead of the usual notion of psyche in body, the body strolling through the garden is in the psyche. The world itself is a psychic body; and our bodies as we move, stand, look, pause, turn, and sit are performing an activity of psychic reflection, an activity we formerly considered only mentally possible in the mirror of introspection.
Fourth: the idea of individuality also changes, for in the Japanese garden trees are trimmed at the top and encouraged to grow sideways. Rather than an individuality of the lone tree, towering (and Jung said the single tree is a major symbol of the individuating Self), these trees stretch their branches toward others. Individuality is within community and, takes its definition from community. Furthermore, each tuft in the soft branches of the pine trees is plucked by gardeners. They pull out needles, allowing emptiness to individualize the shape of each twig. It is as if nothing can be individualized unless it is surrounded by emptiness and yet also very, very close to what it is most like. Individuality is therefore more visible within the estrange separateness and close similarity, for instance, of family than in trying to be “different” from family.
Fifth: not only are aged trees supported with crutches and encouraged to flower - blossoming belonging therefore not only to youth - but also the garden includes dead trees. What more wounds our narcissism than these images of old age, these crutched, dependent, twisted and dead trees? < “At least Aurora didn’t reject Tithonus, old, didn’t allow him to lie there lonely in the House of Dawn. She often fondled him, descending into her waters, before she bathed her yoked horses with care. She, when she rested in his arms, by neighbouring India, lamented that day returned too soon.”>
Sixth: the Karesanui gardens, or Zen-inspired gardens, present mainly white sand and found stones, rarely trees. In this bare place the mind watches itself making interpretations. The nine rocks in the raked sand are a tiger family swimming through the sea; the nine rocks are mountain tops peaking through white mist and clouds; the nine rocks are simply rocks, aesthetically placed with genius. One legend after another, one philosophy, theory or literary criticism, or psychological interpretation rises to the mind and falls back into the white sand. The garden becomes wholly metaphor, both what it is and what it is not, presence and absence at once. The concrete koan of the rock garden transforms the mind itself into metaphor, its thought transient while image endures, so that the mind cannot identify with its own subjectivism - narcissism overcome.
‘“Hegel introduces this notion of ‘oppositional determination” in his logic of essence, when he discusses the relationship between identity and difference; his point there is not only that identity is always the identity of identity and difference, but that difference itself is also always the difference between itself and identity; in the same way, it is not only necessity that encompasses both itself and contingency, but also - and more fundamentally - it is contingency itself which encompasses both itself and necessity. Or, with regard to the tension between essence and appearance, the fact that essence has to appear within the domain of appearances, as a hint that “appearances are not all” but are “merely appearances.”’ - Zizek, Less than Nothing>
*
Finally, I shall insist that the garden is not natural; nor is psyche natural. The garden was designed and is tended to maintain an artificiality that imitates nature. In Fort Worth, Texas, a large and marvelous Japanese garden was constructed years ago. But since adequate funds were not set aside for gardeners from Japan, nature slowly destroys that garden. Without the pruners’ perverted twist to each inch of nature, the garden declines into merely another part of the forest. A garden’s elaborate display of soul-in-the-world is an opus contra naturam, like alchemy. Like alchemy, the garden is a work of intense culture. Unlike alchemy, its matter, its body, is out there, rather than inside the glass vessel.
Because the garden is artificial, as the alchemist was called artifex, all conceptions of soul must be plucked of naturalistic fallacies. The soul as opus contra naturam will not be served adequately by fallacious comparisons with organic growth, cyclical process, and myths of nature goddesses. Nor does the garden shelter the child from which grows the creative person as psychotherapy is found to believe. By insisting upon the artificiality of our work with soul, I am trying to keep us from the Romantic error of confusing the ideal (Eden and the Elysian fields; Horaiko, in Japanese) with the natural. The garden as metaphor offers a romantic vision that saves us from Naturalistic Romanticism by twisting and sophisticating nature through art.
This twist to nature that wounds idealizations of garden is presented in our culture, as in Roman culture, by our ancient god of gardens and gardeners, Priapus. Priapus is neither young nor beautiful. Unlike lovely Narcissus, unlike the semi-divine figures of Adam and Eve, Priapus is mature, bald and paunchy, and so distorted that his mother, Venus, deserted him at birth. His very presence repels romantic idealizations and the gaze into the mirror of Venusian vanity as well as Narcissus’s rapt reflection. Priapic reflection starts the other way around; his preposterous swollen condition reflects the vitality of the world. The same force displays in him as in the buds and germinating pods. By means of distortion which deceptively seems “only natural,” Priapus invites the grotesque pathologized disproportions of imagination - and imagination, says Bachelard, works by deformation.
So, when I invoke Priapus, I am not speaking of priapismus; I am not speaking of machismo; and I am not anti-feminine. Let me be quite clear. I am speaking of the generative artificiality that is the essence of the garden and of the psyche. Each dream, each fantasy, and each symptomatic complication of natural health and normative humanity bears witness to the psyche’s libidinal pleasure in exaggeration, its fertile genius for imaginative distortion. If this god of gardens is also a god of psychoanalysis - and from Charcot through Lacan the priapic has been invoked - he brings to its work an archaic reflex beyond the romantic or baroque, a rousing urgency forward and outward. (Priapus was not permitted indoors in Hestia’s closed rooms where his presence becomes only violent and obscene.)
Moreover, this god needs no mirror to know himself, for his self is wholly displayed. His nature cannot be concealed within, so he is quite free of hidden meanings and subtle innuendos that keep psychoanalysis hopefully addicted to one more revelation, one more transformation, interminable. Priapus knows no metamorphosis, no transfigurations. Priapus is without ambiguity; metaphor is forbidden to him; he displays all, reveals nothing. Like the garden, all there. The rocks are the rocks.
<"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16:18>
submitted by MirkWorks to u/MirkWorks [link] [comments]
From Mirror to Window: Curing Psychoanalysis of its Narcissism
The apparently individual conflict of the patient is revealed as a universal conflict of his environment and epoch. Neurosis is thus nothing less than an individual attempt, however unsuccessful, to solve a universal problem. - C.G. Jung (1912)
Narcissism is now the rage, the universal diagnosis. In Freud's world, the new attention was on conversion hysteria; in Bleuler's, on dementia praecox. Earlier we find all ills attributed to the English malady, to the spleen, to hypochondriasis, to melancholia, to chlorosis; in Paris, a myriad of phobies and délires. Different time and places, different syndromes.
Narcissism has its theoreticians - Kohut, Kernberg, Lacan - and modern Jungians are following the rage. The collective consciousness of psychology makes us collectively unconscious, much as Jung said when writing about the collective ideas in his day. Being "with it" also means being in it. The epidemic diagnosis Narcissism states that the condition is already endemic to the psychology that makes the diagnosis. It sees narcissism because it sees narcissistically. So let us not take this diagnosis so literally, but place it within the historical parade of Western diagnoses.
Eminent cultural critics - Karl Krauss, Thomas Szasz, Philip Rieff, Christopher Lasch, Paul Zweig, and the notorious Dr. Jeffrey Masson - have each seen that psychoanalysis breeds a narcissistic subjectivism inflicting on the culture an iatrogenic disorder, that is, a disease brought by the methods of the doctors who would cure it.
I shall continue their line of thought, but I shall use a method that Wolfgang Giegerich has so brilliantly exposed in many of his papers. If depth psychology itself suffers from a narcissistic disorder, then what we analysts need first to probe is the unconscious narcissism in analysis itself. Our first patient is neither the patient nor ourselves, but the phenomenon called "analysis" that has brought us both to the consulting room.
The term "Narcissism" is probably British
1917: "We employ the term narcissism in relation to little children and it is to excessive narcissism of primitive man that we ascribe his belief in the omnipotence of his thoughts and consequent attempts to influence the course of events in the other world by magical practices." Does not analysis have this primitive omnipotence fantasy of influencing events in the outer world by its magical practices? The omnipotence of subjective reflection is attested to by many classic Jungians like Harding, Bernard, Meier, von Franz, Baumann, etc. As Jung himself says, we are each "the makeweight that tips the scales" that determine the outcome of world history." The rituals of self-engagement remove projections from the world so that, supposedly, the world itself is transformed by psychoanalysis.
1922: "... narcissistic disorders are characterized by a withdrawal of the libido from objects." The withdrawal of the libido from from objects - I ask you to remember this statement. We shall come back to it.
1925: Freud describes three historic blows to humankind's narcissism. These, he says, are the cosmological blow of Copernicus, the blow of Darwinian evolutionary theory, and the psychoanalytic blow (of Freud) which wounded the omnipotence fantasy, or narcissism, of the ego as sole self-willed ruler. Here, psychoanalysis becomes itself a giant omnipotence fantasy, a creation myth of our culture equivalent with astronomy and biology, promulgating itself with narcissistic grandeur.
This pronouncement appears in Freud's discussion on resistance to psychoanalysis. By means of this idea resistance, analysis brilliantly maintains its invulnerability to criticism. Questioning the validity of analysis is impugned as resistance to it. Even more: the very attacks demonstrate resistance and therefore help to validate analytical theory. As Freud says, "The triumph of narcissism, the ego's victorious assertion of its own invulnerability. It refuses to be hurt by the arrows of reality ... It insists that it is impervious to wounds dealt by the outside world."
Later Freud considered narcissism not to be rooted in love at all, i.e., as self-love, but to be rather a defense against aggressive impulses. Let us consider for a moment the value of "aggressive impulses," at least and at best they take the object, the world out there, into account: I feel enraged about societal injustice, nuclear danger, media crap, industrial callousness, the corporate mind, political ideologues, hideous architecture, etc. But, owing to my narcissistic defenses against the involving call of aggression, I go to the spa, work out, meditate, jog, diet, reduce stress, relax my body armor, improve my orgasms, get a new hairstyle, and take a vacation. And see my therapist: very expensive, very good for me, because he or she devotes complete attention to my problems, especially our transferential frame. Instead of the world and my outrage, I work on my analysis, myself, the Self. This Self, too, fits a narcissistic definition: "the incorporation of grandiose object images as defense against anxiety and guilt" or, as Fenichel puts it, one feels oneself in "reunion with an omnipotent force, be that force an archetype, a god or goddess, the unus mundus, or the numinosity of analysis itself.
Freud's paper "On Narcissism" states that both introspection and conscience or "being watched" derive from and serve narcissism. Yet, psychotherapy practices self-scrutiny as the principal method in its treatment and "being watched" or supervision as the principal component of its training. A candidate goes to hour after hour of institutionalized narcissism of watching and being watched.
The institutionalization of narcissism in our profession - the idea of resistance, the idealization of the Self, the practices of introspection and supervision, the omnipotence fantasies about its own importance in world history, its technique of referring all events back to itself as the vessel, the mirror, the temenos, the frame - bears immediately upon that central obsession of analysis today, transference.
*
By transference, here, I mean that self-gratifying analytical habit which refers the emotions of life to the analysis. Transference habitually deflects object libido, that is, love for anything outside analysis, into a narcissistic reflection upon analysis. We feed analysis with life. The mirror that walks down the road of life (Flaubert) replaces the actual road, and the mirror no longer reflects the world, only the walking companions. They may as well have stayed indoors, less distracted by the trees and the traffic.
The principal content of analytical reflection as transference is the child we once were, a fact which accords with Freud's observation that the object choice of the narcissist is "someone he once was.” This helps account for the faddish popularity of Alice Miller’s writings. Her idealized children exhibit what Freud said: the narcissist is “not willing to forego his narcissistic perfection in his childhood” and “seeks to recover the early perfection.” The focus on childhood traps the libido only further into subjectivity, and therefore we must recognize that erotic compulsions in analysis are produced primarily by the analysis, rather than by the persons. Analysis acts itself out through them quite impersonally so that they often feel betrayed and ashamed by the impersonality of the emotions they undergo and are unable to recognize that what they are suffering is the object libido trying to find a way out of analysis. Instead, the narcissistic viciousness of our theory says that transference emotions are compelling the persons to go deeper into analysis.
Let us recognize that the other person - patient or analyst - embodies the only possibility within an analysis to whom object libido can flow. The person in the other chair represents cure of analytical narcissism simply by being there as an Other. Moreover, the patient for the analyst and the analyst for the patient become such numinous objects because they have also been tabooed as libidinal possibilities. Analyst and patient may not act their desire for each other. The narcissism of the situation makes them absolutely necessary to each other, while the taboo sets them absolutely outside of each other. This outside object however, is also inside the analysis. So, patient for doctor and doctor for patient become the symbolic mode of ending analysis by means of love.
Of course, the persons are often torn by what Freud calls the love dilemma of the narcissistic patient: “the cure by love,” which he generally refers to as cure by analysis. We must ask whether this neurotic choice, as Freud calls it, arises from the narcissisms of the patient or from the narcissism of the analytical system in which the patient is situated. After all, the fantasy of an opposition between love and analysis occurs within the prior fantasy of cure which has brought the persons together in the first place.
By elaborating ethical codes, malpractice insurance, investigations, and expulsions that blame the participants, analysis protects itself from wounding insights about its own narcissism. The vulnerability of analysis - that its effectiveness is always in question, that it is neither science nor medicine, that it is aging into professional mediocrity and may have lost its soul to power years ago despite its idealized language by growth and creativity (a language by the way, never used by its founders) - this vulnerability is overcome by idealizing the transference.
As well as transference love, there is also hatred. Perhaps the client’s hatred of the analyst and the hatred of the analyst for the client are also not personal. Perhaps, these intense oppressive feelings against each other arise in both to present both with the fact that they are in a hateful situation: the object libido hates the attachment of transference. Analysis hates itself in order to break the narcissistic vessel imprisoning the libido that would go out into the soul in the world.
The horned dilemmas of transference, including the analyst’s stare into the mirror of his own counter-transference, the feelings of love and hatred, this agony and ecstasy and romantic torture convince the participants that what is going on is of intense importance: first, because these phenomena are expected by the theory and provide proof of it, and second, because these phenomena re-enact what analysis once was in its own childhood in Vienna and Zurich, analysis in primary fusion with its origins in Breuer and Freud and Jung, in Dora and Anna and Sabina. The feelings are cast in therapeutic guise because this is the healing fiction of the analytic situation. In other words, transference is less necessary to the doctor and the patient than it is to analysis by means of which it intensifies its narcissistic idealization, staying in love with itself. We therapists do not sit in our chambers so many hours a day only for the money, or the power, but because we are addicted to analytical narcissism. Our individual narcissism is both obscured and reinforced by the approved narcissism of the analytical profession.
When one partner imagines a tryst or the other imagines resisting a seduction, or when either imagines that love is a solution to misery, then they are framed in the romantic conflicts of Madame Bovary, Wuthering Heights, and Anna Karenina, reconstituting the Romanticisms of the nineteenth century and the origins of psychoanalysis, not in your or my personal childhoods, but in its own cultural childhood. This means we have to locate the narcissism of contemporary analysis within a much wider narcissism: the Romantic movement.
*
Literary tradition differentiates at least four principal traits of this genre. We have already spoken of one, “idealization of the love object.” And indeed analysis idealizes the patient as an “interesting case,” “difficult patient,” “good patient,” “borderline personality.” Or consider all the literary fabulations that have made patients into eternal literary figures - Dora, Ellen West, Babette, Miss Miller, Wolfman, Ratman, Little Hands, all the way to Freud and Jung themselves in the novels The White Hotel and The House of Glass. Think of the Romanticism of our theoretical constructs: Love and Death, Empathy, Transformation, Growth, The Child, The Great Mother, The Mirror, Desire and Jouissance, and the Transitional Object. In the patient there takes place such idealized events as a hieros gamos, a quest for self-discovery and a journey into wholeness. Synchronicities outside of causal laws, transcendent functions, integration of the shadow and the realization of the Self on whom the future of civilization depends. We record our idealization of the love object, i.e., analysis, in taped and filmed analytic sessions, paying meticulous and expensive attention to trivial conversations and gestures. Analysis is in love with its idealized image.
A second essential trait of Romanticism is said to be the opposition between bourgeois society and the inner self that, with its dreams, desires and inspirations, tends to oppose, even contradict, the outer world of usual things. Psychoanalysis from its beginnings imagines itself fundamentally opposed to the civilization and its institutions of religion, family, medicine, and the political community disdained as “the collective.”
Third, imprisonment another basic theme in Romanticism, especially French and Russian. In Dostoevsky’s The Possessed, Maria’s song says: “This tiny cell suffices me, there I will dwell my soul to save.” The consulting room provides the confining physical place for the psychic imprisonment of analysis as such its devotion to the secret nooks and crannies of the private world, decorating with reconstructive rococo (i.e., psycho-dynamic intricacies) the narcissistic cell of personality.
Fourth, the Romantic genre has been defined as one that simultaneously seeks and postpones a particular end. This fits therapy. Its entire procedure seeks to restore the person to the world, yet postpones this return indefinitely. (Meanwhile, do not make major changes in your actual life. Don’t act out. The cure of analysis becomes more analysis-another analyst, another school - and the improvement of training becomes ever more hours.) The simultaneity of seeking and postponing an end occurs in the basic conundrum of every analysis, its contradictory two commandments: encourage the desires of the unconscious (Thou Shall Not Repress) and forbid gratification (Thou Shall Not Act Out). Our work is with the libidinous and our method is by way of abstention. The end is unforeseeable; there is no completion. Analysis interminable, as Freud said. This is the Romanticism of eternal longing.
There is no way out of Romanticism’s consulting room and the subjectivism of its eros, unless we turn to what is beyond its purview, turn to what narcissism and romanticism leave out: the objects, the unidealized, immediately given, actual world of dull and urban things
Perhaps it becomes clearer why I have been emphasizing John Keats’s remarkable phrase; “Call the world … The vale of Soul-making. Then you will find out the use of the world.” Also, you will understand why I have held myself back from that side of Jung which expounds upon meaning, Self, individuation, unus mundus, wholeness, mandalas, etc. . These large and introverted ideas envelop me and usually my patients with a grandiose, invulnerable aura. As well, I keep a distance from the current Kohut craze and Lacanian mystique. Although recognizing narcissism as the syndrome of the times (even if the groundwork for this was prepared long ago in the metaphysical catastrophe of Augustinian and Cartesian subjectivism); yet, Kohut attempts its cure by the same means of narcissistic obsession: an ever more detailed observation of subjectivity. And a subjectivity within the oppressive confines of a negatively reconstructed childhood. The child archetype dominates contemporary therapy, keeping patients (and analysts) safe from the world. For this archetype feels always endangered by the actual world, lives not in the present but in futurity, and is addicted to its own powerless infantilism. By so focusing on the child, analysis disenfranchises itself from wider realm of soul-making in the adult community of polis.
Nevertheless I must confess to a serious long-standing error on my part regarding Keats’s phrase. I always considered the world out there to be useful for making one’s own soul. Narcissism again. My soul, your soul - not its soul. For the Romantics, however, ensouling the world was a crucial part of their program. They recognized the traps of narcissistic subjectivity in their vision. Hence, they sought the spirit in physical nature, the brotherhood of all mankind or Gemeinschaftsgefühl, political revolution, and a return to the classic gods and goddesses, attempting to revivify the soul of the world with pantheism.
We must therefore read Keats as saying we go through the world for the sake of its soul-making, thereby our own. This reading suggests a true object libido, beyond narcissism, in keeping with Otto Fenichel’s definition of love. Love can only be called such when “one’s own satisfaction is impossible without satisfying the object too. If the world is not satisfied by our going through it, no matter how much beauty and pleasure our souls may receive from it, then we live in its vale without love.
There is a way out, or I wouldn’t be standing here. For my specific style of narcissism, my pose before the mirror, today is heroic. My style insists on resolution of the issues raised. The method I shall be using here follows the method which I usually empty for resolving issues. First, we look back into the history of psychoanalysis for a model; second, we turn to some peculiar bit of pathologizing for a clue; and third, we resolve problems by dissolving them into images and metaphors.
So, let us turn back to the first psychoanalytic case, Anna O., and her doctor, Josef Breuer, who, with Freud, wrote Studies in Hysteria. As you recall, after a year of almost daily sessions often of several hours, he suddenly terminated. You recall also the intensity of her transference, that she developed a hysterical pregnancy and childbirth, after Breuer tried to end the treatment. He, according to Jones, after a final visit to her “fled the house in a cold sweat. The next day he and his wife left for Venice to spend a second honeymoon which resulted in the conception of a daughter.” Whether fact or not, and Ellenberger says not, the fantasy shows a founding patron of our work escaping both cure by analysis and cure by love for the beauty of Venice and the conception of a daughter. His object libido returns from the oppressive narcissism of psychoanalysis to the Romanticism of the wider world.
This wide world remains merely that, merely a place of escape or acting out, so long as the world “out the window” is imagined only in the Cartesian model as sheer res extensa, only dead matter. To show more vividly how that world is, as Keats said, a place of soul, let us go straight through the window into the world. Let us take a walk in a Japanese garden, in particular the strolling garden, the one with water, hills, trees, and stones. While we walk, let us imagine the garden as an emblem for the peripatetic teacher or the therapeutic guide (psychopompos), the world itself as psychoanalyst showing us soul, showing us how to be in it soulfully.
I turn to the garden and to Japan because of insights given while in Kyoto gardens several years ago, and also because the garden as metaphor expresses some of the deepest longings - from Hesperides, to Eden’s paradise, and Maria’s hortus inclusus - for the world as home of the soul. So by entering into the Japanese garden now we shall be stepping through the window into the anima mundi.
First we notice that the garden has no central place to stand and view it all. We can but scrutinize a part at a time. Instead of overview and wholeness, there is perspective and eachness. The world changes as we move. Here a clump of iris, there a mossy rock. Instead of a center (with its etymological roots in the Greek kentron, “goad” or “prick,” and being compelled toward a goal by means of abstract geometric distancing), there are shifts of focus relative to the body’s location and attitude.
Second: as one strolls, each vista is seen again from a different perspective. The maple branching down to the pond edge, the floating leaves appear less melancholic after the path bends. These shifts of seeing again are precisely what the word “respect” means. To look again is to “respect.” Each time we look at the same thing again, we gain respect for it and add respect to it, curiously discovering the innate relation of “looks” - of regarding and being regarded, words in English that refer to dignity.
Third: when the garden, rather than the dream or the symptom or the unconscious, becomes the via regia of psyche, then we are forced to think anew about the word “in.” “In” is the dominant preposition of all psychoanalysis - not with, not from, not for, but “in.” We look in our souls, we look in a mirror. "In” has been utterly literally, as an invisible, spacelesss psychic stuff inside our skins, or meanings inside our dreams and symptoms, or the memories locked in the past. Interiority of the garden, however, is wholly present and wholly displayed. “In” holds the meanings of included, engaged, involved, embraced. Or, as Jung said, the psyche is not in us; we are in the psyche. This feeling of being in the psyche becomes most palpable when inside the ruins of a Greek temple, in an Egyptian tomb of a king, in a dance or a ritual, and in a Japanese garden. Jung’s phrase “esse in anima” takes on concreteness then, as it does in a clear-cut forest, a bombed city, a cancer ward, a cemetery. Ecology, architecture, interior design are other modes of feeling the anima mundi. Instead of the usual notion of psyche in body, the body strolling through the garden is in the psyche. The world itself is a psychic body; and our bodies as we move, stand, look, pause, turn, and sit are performing an activity of psychic reflection, an activity we formerly considered only mentally possible in the mirror of introspection.
Fourth: the idea of individuality also changes, for in the Japanese garden trees are trimmed at the top and encouraged to grow sideways. Rather than an individuality of the lone tree, towering (and Jung said the single tree is a major symbol of the individuating Self), these trees stretch their branches toward others. Individuality is within community and, takes its definition from community. Furthermore, each tuft in the soft branches of the pine trees is plucked by gardeners. They pull out needles, allowing emptiness to individualize the shape of each twig. It is as if nothing can be individualized unless it is surrounded by emptiness and yet also very, very close to what it is most like. Individuality is therefore more visible within the estrange separateness and close similarity, for instance, of family than in trying to be “different” from family.
Fifth: not only are aged trees supported with crutches and encouraged to flower - blossoming belonging therefore not only to youth - but also the garden includes dead trees. What more wounds our narcissism than these images of old age, these crutched, dependent, twisted and dead trees? < “At least Aurora didn’t reject Tithonus, old, didn’t allow him to lie there lonely in the House of Dawn. She often fondled him, descending into her waters, before she bathed her yoked horses with care. She, when she rested in his arms, by neighbouring India, lamented that day returned too soon.”>
Sixth: the Karesanui gardens, or Zen-inspired gardens, present mainly white sand and found stones, rarely trees. In this bare place the mind watches itself making interpretations. The nine rocks in the raked sand are a tiger family swimming through the sea; the nine rocks are mountain tops peaking through white mist and clouds; the nine rocks are simply rocks, aesthetically placed with genius. One legend after another, one philosophy, theory or literary criticism, or psychological interpretation rises to the mind and falls back into the white sand. The garden becomes wholly metaphor, both what it is and what it is not, presence and absence at once. The concrete koan of the rock garden transforms the mind itself into metaphor, its thought transient while image endures, so that the mind cannot identify with its own subjectivism - narcissism overcome.
‘“Hegel introduces this notion of ‘oppositional determination” in his logic of essence, when he discusses the relationship between identity and difference; his point there is not only that identity is always the identity of identity and difference, but that difference itself is also always the difference between itself and identity; in the same way, it is not only necessity that encompasses both itself and contingency, but also - and more fundamentally - it is contingency itself which encompasses both itself and necessity. Or, with regard to the tension between essence and appearance, the fact that essence has to appear within the domain of appearances, as a hint that “appearances are not all” but are “merely appearances.”’ - Zizek, Less than Nothing>
*
Finally, I shall insist that the garden is not natural; nor is psyche natural. The garden was designed and is tended to maintain an artificiality that imitates nature
Because the garden is artificial, as the alchemist was called artifex, all conceptions of soul must be plucked of naturalistic fallacies. The soul as opus contra naturam will not be served adequately by fallacious comparisons with organic growth, cyclical process, and myths of nature goddesses. Nor does the garden shelter the child from which grows the creative person as psychotherapy is found to believe. By insisting upon the artificiality of our work with soul, I am trying to keep us from the Romantic error of confusing the ideal (Eden and the Elysian fields; Horaiko, in Japanese) with the natural. The garden as metaphor offers a romantic vision that saves us from Naturalistic Romanticism by twisting and sophisticating nature through art.
This twist to nature that wounds idealizations of garden is presented in our culture, as in Roman culture, by our ancient god of gardens and gardeners, Priapus. Priapus is neither young nor beautiful. Unlike lovely Narcissus, unlike the semi-divine figures of Adam and Eve, Priapus is mature, bald and paunchy, and so distorted that his mother, Venus, deserted him at birth. His very presence repels romantic idealizations and the gaze into the mirror of Venusian vanity as well as Narcissus’s rapt reflection. Priapic reflection starts the other way around; his preposterous swollen condition reflects the vitality of the world. The same force displays in him as in the buds and germinating pods. By means of distortion which deceptively seems “only natural,” Priapus invites the grotesque pathologized disproportions of imagination - and imagination, says Bachelard, works by deformation.
So, when I invoke Priapus, I am not speaking of priapismus; I am not speaking of machismo; and I am not anti-feminine. Let me be quite clear. I am speaking of the generative artificiality that is the essence of the garden and of the psyche. Each dream, each fantasy, and each symptomatic complication of natural health and normative humanity bears witness to the psyche’s libidinal pleasure in exaggeration, its fertile genius for imaginative distortion. If this god of gardens is also a god of psychoanalysis - and from Charcot through Lacan the priapic has been invoked - he brings to its work an archaic reflex beyond the romantic or baroque, a rousing urgency forward and outward. (Priapus was not permitted indoors in Hestia’s closed rooms where his presence becomes only violent and obscene.)
Moreover, this god needs no mirror to know himself, for his self is wholly displayed. His nature cannot be concealed within, so he is quite free of hidden meanings and subtle innuendos that keep psychoanalysis hopefully addicted to one more revelation, one more transformation, interminable. Priapus knows no metamorphosis, no transfigurations. Priapus is without ambiguity; metaphor is forbidden to him; he displays all, reveals nothing. Like the garden, all there. The rocks are the rocks.
<"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16:18>
2023.03.21 19:26 One-Yam2819 Sneakers = Hell
 | submitted by One-Yam2819 to u/One-Yam2819 [link] [comments] |
2023.03.21 19:25 2_look_again did friends set out to create a cast of 6 jim carreys?
courtney cox, who worked with him on his first big hit movie "ace ventura" is like a masterclass of jim carrey over-the-top-ness. i think she holds the entire show together, and is the most talented one, even though they give her some of the worst storylines.
let alone the rest of the cast, almost immediately from the season 1, and especially so in the later seasons. all completely zany
submitted by 2_look_again to NoStupidQuestions [link] [comments]
let alone the rest of the cast, almost immediately from the season 1, and especially so in the later seasons. all completely zany
2023.03.21 19:24 External-Recipe-1936 This is my favorite cast pic, even though BBG is not in it, I love the pic of Lucy. Oddly, she was the only character not at that year’s Oil Baron’s Ball. What if your favorite cast photo?
 | submitted by External-Recipe-1936 to Dallas_TV_Show [link] [comments] |
2023.03.21 19:24 WorriedAmoeba2 American cast lead bullet with metal balls inside. Unstable center of mass will create unpredictable ricochet when hitting an obstacle
 | submitted by WorriedAmoeba2 to ForgottenWeapons [link] [comments] |
2023.03.21 19:24 Jeyannar Homebrew spell: Repulsion
Hi to everyone! In my dnd group we came up with this spell and wanted to share it with you. Moving characters can be a bit anoying, specially if this is used against players, but i think it can bring a lot of funny situations to the table.
Let me know your thoughts about this spell! And sorry for any mistakes in my writing. English is not my main language
Level: 1 School: Transmutation Casting time: Reaction Range: 15 feet Components: V, S Duration: Instantaneus Classes: Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard, Rogue (Arcane Trickster), Ranger, Fighter (Eldritch Knight)
DAMAGE ENVIRONMENT CONTROL
This spell can be used as a reaction when a criature comes closer than 15 feet from the caster. This spell must target the creature that triggered this spell, and can be casted in any part of the target’s movement as long as the target is in range.
When this spell is casted, the target must make a strength save. In a failed save, the target gets pushed back (1d4 x casting lvl) x 5 feet away from its current position and take 2d6 force damage. If the target passes the save takes have the damage and doesen’t move.
If the target is pushed against a wall or a heavy object, the target stops here, takes 1d6 extra bludgeoning damage and falls prone.
If the target is pushed against an other creature, the second creature must make a dex save against the caster’s dc. On a failed save this second creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage aswell and both fall prone. If the second criature passes the save, this isn’t afected in any way. The pushed creature continues it’s path and doesen’t suffer the collision effects.
CAST AT HIGHER LEVELS: If you cast this spell with a higher spell slot, add 1d6 to the damage and the damage on collision for each slot higher tan 1.
submitted by Jeyannar to dndnext [link] [comments]
Let me know your thoughts about this spell! And sorry for any mistakes in my writing. English is not my main language
Level: 1 School: Transmutation Casting time: Reaction Range: 15 feet Components: V, S Duration: Instantaneus Classes: Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard, Rogue (Arcane Trickster), Ranger, Fighter (Eldritch Knight)
DAMAGE ENVIRONMENT CONTROL
This spell can be used as a reaction when a criature comes closer than 15 feet from the caster. This spell must target the creature that triggered this spell, and can be casted in any part of the target’s movement as long as the target is in range.
When this spell is casted, the target must make a strength save. In a failed save, the target gets pushed back (1d4 x casting lvl) x 5 feet away from its current position and take 2d6 force damage. If the target passes the save takes have the damage and doesen’t move.
If the target is pushed against a wall or a heavy object, the target stops here, takes 1d6 extra bludgeoning damage and falls prone.
If the target is pushed against an other creature, the second creature must make a dex save against the caster’s dc. On a failed save this second creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage aswell and both fall prone. If the second criature passes the save, this isn’t afected in any way. The pushed creature continues it’s path and doesen’t suffer the collision effects.
CAST AT HIGHER LEVELS: If you cast this spell with a higher spell slot, add 1d6 to the damage and the damage on collision for each slot higher tan 1.
2023.03.21 19:24 RaiderCane A (now) average/moderate fan's review (s1)
Take me back to the start. 2001, the last of the good times for a lot of us who were relatively grown up and not tiny kids at that point due to a certain horrific event we would all witness that year. Watching this season was a nostalgia trip for so many reasons; social media wasn't a thing, cell phones were still in their infancy especially compared to now, the internet was a thing obviously but not to the point where there was a massive presence for any of the contestants, the show was in standard definition, Phil?... actually, that dude hasn't aged much, WTF lol. It's almost like this was just a big experiment, considering all the changes made since and in some cases the very next season. The overall aesthetic was peak 90's - early 00's, the editing, cinematography, etc felt very much like The Real World (makes me wonder if there was some crossover in terms of people working on both shows), and as a 90s kid this made me smile. You get the sense there was a general attitude of "To hell with polish, just film it and whatever shakiness there is we'll leave it, even if it's an awkward super zoom into a contestants face). Plus, another ode to the time period is that there was a particular focus on the interpersonal dynamics within the teams and between them as opposed to more strict focus on the race itself which happened later on, which has its good and bad merits. Bottom line is this felt like a gamble that the producers and network took to take advantage of the reality tv boom, I remember how Survivor premiered and EVERYONE was watching it at some point, even I wound up watching the final few episodes of that first season. After that, it just exploded and how ironic that a few decades later, out of all that came from that time specifically that it is these 2 shows that are still going. One very creepy thing which almost happened was the finish line being the top of the World Trade Center, but they couldn't get the needed permits, and the show premiered 6 days before 9/11, so as I alluded to at the very start, it really is like watching a completely different world when you watch this season for many reasons and the nostalgia hit me hard a lot of times in good and bad ways. But what about the season itself?....
Rob/Brennan - The first winners are photogenic attorney friends. I have to admit, these 2 didn't make much of an impression on me at all. It's not that they were bad racers, or bad people, as they actually seemed rather kind and intelligent (lawyers, so of course), but I felt they were rather bland TBH. After they won the first ever leg in show history thanks to the fastforward (which was available in every leg, something they thankfully changed), they hit a snag in Tunisia and were on the verge of being eliminated and were one of the teams which got infuriated at airportgate (which I will get into later), but then they really hit their stride once they hit Asia, and wound up winning 4 of the last 5 legs. I know it doesn't seem like I have a ton to say about them, but the truth is they weren't particularly charismatic or even featured in a starring way til it got down to the end legs. A great all-around team, but not really one I ever got behind. I found it interesting that post-race, Brennan was with Emily for a time, unlike other seasons I never got those vibes from any interactions between them but they must have been there. I do know they had befriended both Nancy and Emily during the race and were a part of the airportgate situation and were pretty pissed off about it; like they said, you don't treat women like that if you're a guy.
Frank/Margarita - Maybe the loudest team, at least he was. Seriously, the guy must have been a mute when he was a child, cause his natural tone was LOUD lol. Anyway, they were the top team going by the composite average score and by the fact they were either 1st or 2nd in the final 8 legs. Their story was an interesting one, while at the same time not ridiculously frustrating. A separated couple with a small child who part of the reason for getting on this was to work on their relationship. You immediately saw why there were issues with them; as he is constantly yelling and flexing, ultra-competitive, making alliances which last just a few minutes before his massive pride has him essentially saying to hell with that. And at times, he even shouted and yelled at her, not necessarily out of anger but his way of motivating, and she showed her disdain for that often. But; there was actual growth from him, as he wound up apologizing when he reached maximum dickhead mode, something I am not accustomed to seeing on here. And, they wound up falling for each other all over again, which was shown more than once, which even if you weren't a fan of theirs, was a bit heartwarming. I thought they had it in the final stretch, going to their literal backyard for the finish line, and they felt it too which may have been their undoing. Thanks to the production and camera work, you literally saw as they were jogging to the finish line the emotions on their faces go from joy and relief to downtrodden when they saw the team they were head-to-head with for what felt like most of the race with how the final legs were strung out, already there. I was not surprised to find out they did indeed reconcile, but then split for good and remained friends, which is cool to know.
Joe/Bill - Team Guido, sigh. I love that they named their team after their dog, but beyond that, ugh. The ego and smarminess oozed off these guys almost from the start. They made multiple alliances but were so full of themselves that they would break them almost instantly, constantly bragging about how they had lived in Paris, they spoke French, they had traveled a lot. They truly thought they were better than everyone else, even saying out loud at one point that they had no competition. This behavior would be obnoxious enough from a team that was winning constantly, but they weren't. They actually only won 1 leg. Namecalling the New Yorkers by referring to them as 'The Fatties' wasn't exactly classy either. But the moment which cemented them as true douchebags was airportgate as I call it. They flip out when they find out that 3 teams managed to get a flight which would get them to the next destination first, ahead of them, when they had just been beaming over getting what they thought was gonna be the earliest flight. And their response was the mature thing to do obviously; going to the entrance as they were getting ready to board and blocking them and causing a massive commotion to try and keep them from getting on the plane. Security gets involved and at some point one of them pushes/physically restrains the smallest and oldest member of those 3 teams in Nancy, almost knocking her down. That was a scummy and cowardly thing to do, bottom line. They tried to retcon it afterwards, talking about how Kevin/Drew started it with their sarcastic yet threatening talk of breaking their legs earlier that day, and yes that was a bit much and I would be inclined to give them some benefit of the doubt there, except they didn't put hands on either of them and just so happened to target the physically weakest member in that crowded confined space. Now, due to it being so confined, we could only see so much and thus didn't experience the whole thing, but at this point it went from these guys are jerks in terms of strategy or whatever to they are massive pieces of shit. And they were treated as such basically the rest of the race, except by Nancy and Emily of all teams (I don't get that, Emily seemed like she wanted to push them off a cliff and then a few legs later they are hugging?). Their egos were their downfall, as they won a fastforward in Thailand and proceeded to almost get eliminated anyway by taking their sweet time to get to the pitstop. After that, they were hours behind the top 2 teams and as far back as an entire day before getting the clue that told them the race was over as they were still out in the wilderness. They were good sports about it, and even when they won the fastforward, tried to help out Nancy/Emily a bit which was shocking, but they left a bad taste in my mouth, and at times it seemed like they were a little too inspired by the first Survivor winner in fellow gay man Richard Hatch, they even talked a lot like him in terms of vocabulary and their approach to the race. I know they did pop up again in another season, and I admit they were certainly memorable, though not for good reasons.
Kevin/Drew - I know from looking into this season afterwards that they were the fan favorites this season, and while they weren't my favorite I can see why. They weren't deceivers, they didn't hide their true feelings, they were who they were and loud about it. Their preferred form of talking to each other was insults and putdowns, true guy friends there lol. They were all over the place in this race; at the bottom, at the top, in the middle. Their elimination basically came from the dreaded luck of the taxi driver, even if they had survived they were destined for third place with how far apart they were from the top 2 teams. There was a charm in their upfront attitudes, but some things made me shake my head, like saying Paris was nothing special, being a little too upfront about their disdain for India and them jokingly (maybe) telling Team Guido they would break their legs. But also, like Rob/Brennan, they befriended Nancy/Emily and almost saw them as their own mother and sister. I know they said it would be more beneficial to keep them around than one of the stronger teams, but you could tell by basic body language it wasn't just strategy and that they truly liked them. They were infuriated more than anyone after airportgate, and they made sure Team Guido knew it. I know they came back for an all-star season and also know Drew has had a variety of ailments and injuries unfortunately.
Nancy/Emily - They might have been my favorite team. Nancy reminded me a lot of my Mom in terms of her kindness but was really most similar to a great Aunt of mine, extremely faithful, prudish but not in a judgmental way but more of a hearing so much cursing and such made smoke go out her ears cause she is that innocent lol. I got to admit, Emily was someone who if I had been watching at the time I would have had a major crush on and even now I thought she was really cute and before anyone comes at me, I am actually several years younger than her and she was an adult at the time and is now a 43 year old wife and mom (way to make me feel old after seeing her be like a kid at times on here lol). Maybe the original underdog story, they even had a little faction on the show they called 'The Underdogs'. It was an interesting switch on the usual dynamic, as Emily took the lead role on the team as Nancy was rather meek and got flustered easily, though as the end neared for them they both were showing signs of having nothing left in the tank. I pointed out Emily was quite cute, even when she had that drastic hairdo change a few legs in (my biggest remaining question of this season is did she do that herself or did someone else do it and if so, why? Boredom? Early-00s fashion? I wasn't a girl at that time, I was busy dressing like a nu-metal punk with spiked hair and playing Playstation, female fashion trends didn't come on my radar lol). She pulled it off, but I remain curious. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was about her being the attractive one there, and it played into things in a good and bad way. Good and sweet when in Tunisia a whole horde of guys her age and younger volunteering to help the team out and Nancy being quick to point out it was probably because they thought she was cute (they weren't nearly as enthusiastic to help out any of the other teams). The bad coming in, sigh, India, where Emily gets propositioned on the street by a guy asking how much she charges. Holy shit, India was a major issue from the very beginning on this show in regards to female contestents, as they were repeatedly refused train tickets as well just because they were women and women are below rats there in terms of rights and importance. And this was where the beginning of the ned came for them, as they were both being swarmed by these males with zero boundaries as well as being deeply affected by the massive poverty, seeing dirty impoverished kids and babies coming up to their taxi, begging, staring, they were barely holding back tears. All of the teams dealt with seeing these things, and being hounded by people begging, but it really hit these two the hardest which was only amplified by the sexism and Emily cracked, she was calling them stupid out of frustration and it didn't get better in Thailand, as Team Guido once again prevailed over them, this time in a race for the fastforward and then they walked around for a few hours trying to find the vehicle the next clue directed them to and no one was being of any help and she just plain and simply says "Screw you" to one of the Thai people and they wind up giving up and taking a taxi to the pitstop. You could call them out for all of this, but it was just a buildup of stress and anxiety which finally broke them. Think about it; the airport incident which really upset Emily, as she was saying do what you want to her but not her Mom (whose biggest concern afterwards was the image this put out of American tourists, not even thinking about herself), they kept on coming in at the back of the pack, the India degradation and claustrophobia-inducing chaos there, coming in 2nd to Guido yet again and then not being able to find anyone to assist them. I said to myself a few legs prior that Emily was showing some fight still but they both just seemed completely battered and defeated and Nancy even admitted as much. And the saddest thing is, they would have moved on if they had just persisted with the task in Thailand due to Bill/Joes epic mistake, they would have finished ahead of them. And making it extra heartbreaking was finding out afterwards that Nancy died in 2011 of Lou Gehrigs disease, which is just among the worst ways to go. Thinking back on it, Nancy may have been showing a few early signs of it during this :-( Just a sad story, Emily is apparently doing fine, she was with Brennan for a while after the race (which raised my eyebrow, considering in interviews before the race she talked about her boyfriend at home more than once, I hope she didn't screw around on him during the race). But still, hard to not root for them and if I had been watching at the time, Emily would have been my first crush on the show FWIW lol.
Lenny/Karyn - This was a frustrating team to watch as it went on. I am just thankful they weren't married or engaged before this, cause they found out they were not meant to be during this. She says she was ultra-competitive, I say she was the definition of a nag, just incessantly chastising him and the longer it went on it spread to drivers and other public people as well. He wasn't innocent himself; routinely mocking her and being a complete dumbass, like in Paris he goes up to look for the monument and just immediately gives up and then just guesses (wrong) and they would have been gone right then and there if Emily hadn't inadvertently helped him find it. Talk about coldhearted though at the end, where she proceeds to end their relationship and lists every reason why. On national TV. I mean, damn that was brutal, you could see him just leaving his body as she went on and explained basically all his flaws and failings, WTF. They did indeed break up right after, though they said it wasn't because of the race, which I kinda agree with since these fissures were gonna explode regardless of what they were doing. He got married and has a few kids and she started a law firm, so I'm sure she isn't hurting for $$$ lol.
Paul/Amie - They were opposites, which made me wonder how they got engaged. She was competitve and he wanted to quit every five minutes. That was the tale of this team, and I wanted to genuinely smack this guy. Every leg, he is bitching and whining about wanting to go home, wanting to quit. Struggling to get a taxi? Let's quit. Taking too long at a task? Let's quit. Pulled a muscle? Time to quit. Hard time taking a dump? Let's go home, I quit. It was like a cuckoo clock set to go off every hour with this douchebag. He tried to make excuses a few times during it, saying he was only saying things like that cause he hated to see her get upset, BS dude, you just are being a little bitch, trying to break the telescope in Paris and kicking things as you threaten to, what else, quit. If she had an equal partner in this, this team would have gone much further. Instead, she had a big baby who said he didn't want to do this and was only there for her (to what, make her miserable?). Their end came via getting lost in the Sahara Desert, talk about nightmare fuel there, and they were so lost they wound up driving to the back of the pitstop somehow. She's throwing up in the back of the car, it was torturous to view. They did indeed get married several years later, but are no longer together (damn, none of these couples survived, kinda sad to see). Her near-catfight with the teachers was humorous though, even yelling at one point "You're a fat bitch!" (somewhere, Nancy turned beet red lol).
Dave/Margaretta - Probably the first team in TAR history to inspire the "Awww" feeling. Immediately, you saw it was gonna be a struggle for them physically due to the age differences, in the very first leg they could have gotten the fastforward but they got outpaced by Rob/Brennan and had to struggle their way back up after struggling all the way down. They continued to persevere though, and continued to struggle, like completely passing the clue in Paris and getting penalized at the start of the next leg as a result. Along the way, they did inspire the other couples with their amazing relationship and love, and provided some insight I actually hadn't thought of before, specifically about how these are all good people who are thrust into an intense, super-competitive, high pressure situation which is also exhausting and that will bring out the worst in people. They were truly kind people to the very end, which was frustrating to see it end sooner than it probably should have, as their taxi driver was an asshole for lack of a better term and was refusing to take U.S. money and arguing with them. And seeing a bunch of the teams at their elimination saying their goodbyes and paying their respects to them (which happened several times this season, can't recall seeing that in any other seasons) just drove home the point these were good people. Finding out that several years later, Dave would lose his soulmate to after a multiyear battle with cancer and pulmonary fibrosis was quite sad to hear, he is still going last I checked but you could tell they were 2 peas in a pod so that was extremely sucky news.
Pat/Brenda - The first team to go from 1st to eliminated in the span of 1 leg, not a great achievement. They never exhibited the mental togughness I think you need to really compete in this though, as they were freaking out at the airport prior to Paris over issues with flights. They had the fastforward, like, no reason to flip your lid. Unless you get there 10 hours after everyone else I think you'll be fine. But then, they made the huge mistake of going to the wrong Pantheon and get eliminated. They seemed like solid enough people, but I never thought they were a threat in this.
Kim/Leslie - They were teachers and yet repeatedly did stupiud things and said they were stupid... that makes one feel so secure about the countrys future lol. They weren't good, came off as mean girls (to Amie anyway, though I found out afterwards they were quite the class clowns during their time on there), and were lost on both legs. And yet their run ends because of a damn taxi driver arguing with them over change. Nancy/Emily seemed friends with them, and they both attended one of their weddings a while later. I know Leslie is married with 3 kids and Kim has 2 kids, I assume she is married too judging by her last name being different. They just went on to normal lives it seems.
Matt/Ana - Forever famous for being the very first elimination in TAR history. Hard to say a whole lot about a team that is gone after one leg, I do know they did get divorced at some point later on. They did get pretty testy with the locals in Africa though for not being able to tell them where a location was. They wouldn't have been eliminated, but they got really lost on their way to the pitstop and thus arrived last. If they hadn't gotten so lost, I would have been deprived of the Nancy/Emily team which would have made this a worse season for sure.
I can see why this became a sensation of its own, though not on the level of the absolutely top tier of reality/game shows, in terms of ratings and buzz that is, like Survivor, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and (ugh) Big Brother. A pretty good and challenging path, though no trip to South America, and there was certainly a novelty and uniqueness of taking these teams from all kinds of backgrounds and forcing them to travel the world as fast as possible, culture and language issues be damned. A bonus in some eyes would be a lack of stars or 'celebrities' or stunt casting, save for Team Guido who really seemed like they were trying to be what Richard Hatch was to Survivor. You had everyday friends, family and couples racing for the million dollar prize but also being friends for the most part, I think in part because they were enjoying this unique experience and in part because they knew they were a part of something special. Just seeing the way a lot of teams would gather at every pit stop to say their goodbyes and pay their respects to whoever got eliminated was such a departure from the likes of a Survivor, where you had people doing everything but wish death on the other (and I think even that happened once) and that is as much of a reason for TAR thriving and survivng as anything else. So much has changed since then; HD is the standard now, everyone is on about 5 different social media platforms, so many of the casted are already known figures in this era of no anonymity, cameras are always on you somehow, and have it ingrained in them to have a motto of "how many likes can I get and what will generate the most clicks?". Such a different world, and seeing the ages of the contestants from this season now makes me feel old lol (the youngest is now in her 40s and married, I see her on here and she's a college kid who looks like she is still in high school). This was far from a perfect season, a lot of drag in the latter stages due partly to the massive separation that developed between the top 2 teams and bottom 2 teams and later with the top 2 and 3rd place team and partly due to what seemed like an attempt to get to 13 episodes by any means necessary which led to a bit too much filler content which easily could have been trimmed and just felt like they were desperately trying to reach the episode quota. Also had a string of production issues and errors which led to teams placements getting changed, time credits being given, a pit stop being moved due to dangerous weather conditions (which they had no control of obviously, but it counts) and it was not exactly the most challenging in terms of roadblocks and detours, as they really seemed to make it so that the biggest challenge of the race was the actual traveling part, luckily in future seasons they managed to get a better balance so that you had to put max effort into everything and not just the tasks. But for several endearing people and teams, seeing some amazing sights around the world like the Great Wall and that waterfall in south Africa which you didn't get to see unless you read or watched National Geographic up to that point, the final sights of a simpler and better world for a lot of us millennials, the groundbreaking nature of the show, the camaraderie between a lot of teams, knowing with hindsight this was the start of something awesome and a flashback and massive shot of nostalgic warmth to days where I didn't have gray hairs popping up or injure my back from sleeping the wrong way (too many mosh pits lol), I give this inaugural season a 3.75 out of 5. As you can see, that puts it pretty high up there, but it comes up short of reaching my upper echelon. Next time, it will be a later season, since you can't go earlier than S1 lol.
Ratings:
S5 - 4.75/5
S15 -4.5/5
S13 - 4.5/5
S1 - 3.75/5
S27 - 3.5/5
S25 - 3.25/5
S21 - 3.25/5
S23 - 3.25/5
S2 - 3/5
S19 - 2.5/5
S29 - 2.5/5
S16 - 1.75/5
S32 - 0.25/5
submitted by RaiderCane to TheAmazingRace [link] [comments]
Rob/Brennan - The first winners are photogenic attorney friends. I have to admit, these 2 didn't make much of an impression on me at all. It's not that they were bad racers, or bad people, as they actually seemed rather kind and intelligent (lawyers, so of course), but I felt they were rather bland TBH. After they won the first ever leg in show history thanks to the fastforward (which was available in every leg, something they thankfully changed), they hit a snag in Tunisia and were on the verge of being eliminated and were one of the teams which got infuriated at airportgate (which I will get into later), but then they really hit their stride once they hit Asia, and wound up winning 4 of the last 5 legs. I know it doesn't seem like I have a ton to say about them, but the truth is they weren't particularly charismatic or even featured in a starring way til it got down to the end legs. A great all-around team, but not really one I ever got behind. I found it interesting that post-race, Brennan was with Emily for a time, unlike other seasons I never got those vibes from any interactions between them but they must have been there. I do know they had befriended both Nancy and Emily during the race and were a part of the airportgate situation and were pretty pissed off about it; like they said, you don't treat women like that if you're a guy.
Frank/Margarita - Maybe the loudest team, at least he was. Seriously, the guy must have been a mute when he was a child, cause his natural tone was LOUD lol. Anyway, they were the top team going by the composite average score and by the fact they were either 1st or 2nd in the final 8 legs. Their story was an interesting one, while at the same time not ridiculously frustrating. A separated couple with a small child who part of the reason for getting on this was to work on their relationship. You immediately saw why there were issues with them; as he is constantly yelling and flexing, ultra-competitive, making alliances which last just a few minutes before his massive pride has him essentially saying to hell with that. And at times, he even shouted and yelled at her, not necessarily out of anger but his way of motivating, and she showed her disdain for that often. But; there was actual growth from him, as he wound up apologizing when he reached maximum dickhead mode, something I am not accustomed to seeing on here. And, they wound up falling for each other all over again, which was shown more than once, which even if you weren't a fan of theirs, was a bit heartwarming. I thought they had it in the final stretch, going to their literal backyard for the finish line, and they felt it too which may have been their undoing. Thanks to the production and camera work, you literally saw as they were jogging to the finish line the emotions on their faces go from joy and relief to downtrodden when they saw the team they were head-to-head with for what felt like most of the race with how the final legs were strung out, already there. I was not surprised to find out they did indeed reconcile, but then split for good and remained friends, which is cool to know.
Joe/Bill - Team Guido, sigh. I love that they named their team after their dog, but beyond that, ugh. The ego and smarminess oozed off these guys almost from the start. They made multiple alliances but were so full of themselves that they would break them almost instantly, constantly bragging about how they had lived in Paris, they spoke French, they had traveled a lot. They truly thought they were better than everyone else, even saying out loud at one point that they had no competition. This behavior would be obnoxious enough from a team that was winning constantly, but they weren't. They actually only won 1 leg. Namecalling the New Yorkers by referring to them as 'The Fatties' wasn't exactly classy either. But the moment which cemented them as true douchebags was airportgate as I call it. They flip out when they find out that 3 teams managed to get a flight which would get them to the next destination first, ahead of them, when they had just been beaming over getting what they thought was gonna be the earliest flight. And their response was the mature thing to do obviously; going to the entrance as they were getting ready to board and blocking them and causing a massive commotion to try and keep them from getting on the plane. Security gets involved and at some point one of them pushes/physically restrains the smallest and oldest member of those 3 teams in Nancy, almost knocking her down. That was a scummy and cowardly thing to do, bottom line. They tried to retcon it afterwards, talking about how Kevin/Drew started it with their sarcastic yet threatening talk of breaking their legs earlier that day, and yes that was a bit much and I would be inclined to give them some benefit of the doubt there, except they didn't put hands on either of them and just so happened to target the physically weakest member in that crowded confined space. Now, due to it being so confined, we could only see so much and thus didn't experience the whole thing, but at this point it went from these guys are jerks in terms of strategy or whatever to they are massive pieces of shit. And they were treated as such basically the rest of the race, except by Nancy and Emily of all teams (I don't get that, Emily seemed like she wanted to push them off a cliff and then a few legs later they are hugging?). Their egos were their downfall, as they won a fastforward in Thailand and proceeded to almost get eliminated anyway by taking their sweet time to get to the pitstop. After that, they were hours behind the top 2 teams and as far back as an entire day before getting the clue that told them the race was over as they were still out in the wilderness. They were good sports about it, and even when they won the fastforward, tried to help out Nancy/Emily a bit which was shocking, but they left a bad taste in my mouth, and at times it seemed like they were a little too inspired by the first Survivor winner in fellow gay man Richard Hatch, they even talked a lot like him in terms of vocabulary and their approach to the race. I know they did pop up again in another season, and I admit they were certainly memorable, though not for good reasons.
Kevin/Drew - I know from looking into this season afterwards that they were the fan favorites this season, and while they weren't my favorite I can see why. They weren't deceivers, they didn't hide their true feelings, they were who they were and loud about it. Their preferred form of talking to each other was insults and putdowns, true guy friends there lol. They were all over the place in this race; at the bottom, at the top, in the middle. Their elimination basically came from the dreaded luck of the taxi driver, even if they had survived they were destined for third place with how far apart they were from the top 2 teams. There was a charm in their upfront attitudes, but some things made me shake my head, like saying Paris was nothing special, being a little too upfront about their disdain for India and them jokingly (maybe) telling Team Guido they would break their legs. But also, like Rob/Brennan, they befriended Nancy/Emily and almost saw them as their own mother and sister. I know they said it would be more beneficial to keep them around than one of the stronger teams, but you could tell by basic body language it wasn't just strategy and that they truly liked them. They were infuriated more than anyone after airportgate, and they made sure Team Guido knew it. I know they came back for an all-star season and also know Drew has had a variety of ailments and injuries unfortunately.
Nancy/Emily - They might have been my favorite team. Nancy reminded me a lot of my Mom in terms of her kindness but was really most similar to a great Aunt of mine, extremely faithful, prudish but not in a judgmental way but more of a hearing so much cursing and such made smoke go out her ears cause she is that innocent lol. I got to admit, Emily was someone who if I had been watching at the time I would have had a major crush on and even now I thought she was really cute and before anyone comes at me, I am actually several years younger than her and she was an adult at the time and is now a 43 year old wife and mom (way to make me feel old after seeing her be like a kid at times on here lol). Maybe the original underdog story, they even had a little faction on the show they called 'The Underdogs'. It was an interesting switch on the usual dynamic, as Emily took the lead role on the team as Nancy was rather meek and got flustered easily, though as the end neared for them they both were showing signs of having nothing left in the tank. I pointed out Emily was quite cute, even when she had that drastic hairdo change a few legs in (my biggest remaining question of this season is did she do that herself or did someone else do it and if so, why? Boredom? Early-00s fashion? I wasn't a girl at that time, I was busy dressing like a nu-metal punk with spiked hair and playing Playstation, female fashion trends didn't come on my radar lol). She pulled it off, but I remain curious. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was about her being the attractive one there, and it played into things in a good and bad way. Good and sweet when in Tunisia a whole horde of guys her age and younger volunteering to help the team out and Nancy being quick to point out it was probably because they thought she was cute (they weren't nearly as enthusiastic to help out any of the other teams). The bad coming in, sigh, India, where Emily gets propositioned on the street by a guy asking how much she charges. Holy shit, India was a major issue from the very beginning on this show in regards to female contestents, as they were repeatedly refused train tickets as well just because they were women and women are below rats there in terms of rights and importance. And this was where the beginning of the ned came for them, as they were both being swarmed by these males with zero boundaries as well as being deeply affected by the massive poverty, seeing dirty impoverished kids and babies coming up to their taxi, begging, staring, they were barely holding back tears. All of the teams dealt with seeing these things, and being hounded by people begging, but it really hit these two the hardest which was only amplified by the sexism and Emily cracked, she was calling them stupid out of frustration and it didn't get better in Thailand, as Team Guido once again prevailed over them, this time in a race for the fastforward and then they walked around for a few hours trying to find the vehicle the next clue directed them to and no one was being of any help and she just plain and simply says "Screw you" to one of the Thai people and they wind up giving up and taking a taxi to the pitstop. You could call them out for all of this, but it was just a buildup of stress and anxiety which finally broke them. Think about it; the airport incident which really upset Emily, as she was saying do what you want to her but not her Mom (whose biggest concern afterwards was the image this put out of American tourists, not even thinking about herself), they kept on coming in at the back of the pack, the India degradation and claustrophobia-inducing chaos there, coming in 2nd to Guido yet again and then not being able to find anyone to assist them. I said to myself a few legs prior that Emily was showing some fight still but they both just seemed completely battered and defeated and Nancy even admitted as much. And the saddest thing is, they would have moved on if they had just persisted with the task in Thailand due to Bill/Joes epic mistake, they would have finished ahead of them. And making it extra heartbreaking was finding out afterwards that Nancy died in 2011 of Lou Gehrigs disease, which is just among the worst ways to go. Thinking back on it, Nancy may have been showing a few early signs of it during this :-( Just a sad story, Emily is apparently doing fine, she was with Brennan for a while after the race (which raised my eyebrow, considering in interviews before the race she talked about her boyfriend at home more than once, I hope she didn't screw around on him during the race). But still, hard to not root for them and if I had been watching at the time, Emily would have been my first crush on the show FWIW lol.
Lenny/Karyn - This was a frustrating team to watch as it went on. I am just thankful they weren't married or engaged before this, cause they found out they were not meant to be during this. She says she was ultra-competitive, I say she was the definition of a nag, just incessantly chastising him and the longer it went on it spread to drivers and other public people as well. He wasn't innocent himself; routinely mocking her and being a complete dumbass, like in Paris he goes up to look for the monument and just immediately gives up and then just guesses (wrong) and they would have been gone right then and there if Emily hadn't inadvertently helped him find it. Talk about coldhearted though at the end, where she proceeds to end their relationship and lists every reason why. On national TV. I mean, damn that was brutal, you could see him just leaving his body as she went on and explained basically all his flaws and failings, WTF. They did indeed break up right after, though they said it wasn't because of the race, which I kinda agree with since these fissures were gonna explode regardless of what they were doing. He got married and has a few kids and she started a law firm, so I'm sure she isn't hurting for $$$ lol.
Paul/Amie - They were opposites, which made me wonder how they got engaged. She was competitve and he wanted to quit every five minutes. That was the tale of this team, and I wanted to genuinely smack this guy. Every leg, he is bitching and whining about wanting to go home, wanting to quit. Struggling to get a taxi? Let's quit. Taking too long at a task? Let's quit. Pulled a muscle? Time to quit. Hard time taking a dump? Let's go home, I quit. It was like a cuckoo clock set to go off every hour with this douchebag. He tried to make excuses a few times during it, saying he was only saying things like that cause he hated to see her get upset, BS dude, you just are being a little bitch, trying to break the telescope in Paris and kicking things as you threaten to, what else, quit. If she had an equal partner in this, this team would have gone much further. Instead, she had a big baby who said he didn't want to do this and was only there for her (to what, make her miserable?). Their end came via getting lost in the Sahara Desert, talk about nightmare fuel there, and they were so lost they wound up driving to the back of the pitstop somehow. She's throwing up in the back of the car, it was torturous to view. They did indeed get married several years later, but are no longer together (damn, none of these couples survived, kinda sad to see). Her near-catfight with the teachers was humorous though, even yelling at one point "You're a fat bitch!" (somewhere, Nancy turned beet red lol).
Dave/Margaretta - Probably the first team in TAR history to inspire the "Awww" feeling. Immediately, you saw it was gonna be a struggle for them physically due to the age differences, in the very first leg they could have gotten the fastforward but they got outpaced by Rob/Brennan and had to struggle their way back up after struggling all the way down. They continued to persevere though, and continued to struggle, like completely passing the clue in Paris and getting penalized at the start of the next leg as a result. Along the way, they did inspire the other couples with their amazing relationship and love, and provided some insight I actually hadn't thought of before, specifically about how these are all good people who are thrust into an intense, super-competitive, high pressure situation which is also exhausting and that will bring out the worst in people. They were truly kind people to the very end, which was frustrating to see it end sooner than it probably should have, as their taxi driver was an asshole for lack of a better term and was refusing to take U.S. money and arguing with them. And seeing a bunch of the teams at their elimination saying their goodbyes and paying their respects to them (which happened several times this season, can't recall seeing that in any other seasons) just drove home the point these were good people. Finding out that several years later, Dave would lose his soulmate to after a multiyear battle with cancer and pulmonary fibrosis was quite sad to hear, he is still going last I checked but you could tell they were 2 peas in a pod so that was extremely sucky news.
Pat/Brenda - The first team to go from 1st to eliminated in the span of 1 leg, not a great achievement. They never exhibited the mental togughness I think you need to really compete in this though, as they were freaking out at the airport prior to Paris over issues with flights. They had the fastforward, like, no reason to flip your lid. Unless you get there 10 hours after everyone else I think you'll be fine. But then, they made the huge mistake of going to the wrong Pantheon and get eliminated. They seemed like solid enough people, but I never thought they were a threat in this.
Kim/Leslie - They were teachers and yet repeatedly did stupiud things and said they were stupid... that makes one feel so secure about the countrys future lol. They weren't good, came off as mean girls (to Amie anyway, though I found out afterwards they were quite the class clowns during their time on there), and were lost on both legs. And yet their run ends because of a damn taxi driver arguing with them over change. Nancy/Emily seemed friends with them, and they both attended one of their weddings a while later. I know Leslie is married with 3 kids and Kim has 2 kids, I assume she is married too judging by her last name being different. They just went on to normal lives it seems.
Matt/Ana - Forever famous for being the very first elimination in TAR history. Hard to say a whole lot about a team that is gone after one leg, I do know they did get divorced at some point later on. They did get pretty testy with the locals in Africa though for not being able to tell them where a location was. They wouldn't have been eliminated, but they got really lost on their way to the pitstop and thus arrived last. If they hadn't gotten so lost, I would have been deprived of the Nancy/Emily team which would have made this a worse season for sure.
I can see why this became a sensation of its own, though not on the level of the absolutely top tier of reality/game shows, in terms of ratings and buzz that is, like Survivor, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and (ugh) Big Brother. A pretty good and challenging path, though no trip to South America, and there was certainly a novelty and uniqueness of taking these teams from all kinds of backgrounds and forcing them to travel the world as fast as possible, culture and language issues be damned. A bonus in some eyes would be a lack of stars or 'celebrities' or stunt casting, save for Team Guido who really seemed like they were trying to be what Richard Hatch was to Survivor. You had everyday friends, family and couples racing for the million dollar prize but also being friends for the most part, I think in part because they were enjoying this unique experience and in part because they knew they were a part of something special. Just seeing the way a lot of teams would gather at every pit stop to say their goodbyes and pay their respects to whoever got eliminated was such a departure from the likes of a Survivor, where you had people doing everything but wish death on the other (and I think even that happened once) and that is as much of a reason for TAR thriving and survivng as anything else. So much has changed since then; HD is the standard now, everyone is on about 5 different social media platforms, so many of the casted are already known figures in this era of no anonymity, cameras are always on you somehow, and have it ingrained in them to have a motto of "how many likes can I get and what will generate the most clicks?". Such a different world, and seeing the ages of the contestants from this season now makes me feel old lol (the youngest is now in her 40s and married, I see her on here and she's a college kid who looks like she is still in high school). This was far from a perfect season, a lot of drag in the latter stages due partly to the massive separation that developed between the top 2 teams and bottom 2 teams and later with the top 2 and 3rd place team and partly due to what seemed like an attempt to get to 13 episodes by any means necessary which led to a bit too much filler content which easily could have been trimmed and just felt like they were desperately trying to reach the episode quota. Also had a string of production issues and errors which led to teams placements getting changed, time credits being given, a pit stop being moved due to dangerous weather conditions (which they had no control of obviously, but it counts) and it was not exactly the most challenging in terms of roadblocks and detours, as they really seemed to make it so that the biggest challenge of the race was the actual traveling part, luckily in future seasons they managed to get a better balance so that you had to put max effort into everything and not just the tasks. But for several endearing people and teams, seeing some amazing sights around the world like the Great Wall and that waterfall in south Africa which you didn't get to see unless you read or watched National Geographic up to that point, the final sights of a simpler and better world for a lot of us millennials, the groundbreaking nature of the show, the camaraderie between a lot of teams, knowing with hindsight this was the start of something awesome and a flashback and massive shot of nostalgic warmth to days where I didn't have gray hairs popping up or injure my back from sleeping the wrong way (too many mosh pits lol), I give this inaugural season a 3.75 out of 5. As you can see, that puts it pretty high up there, but it comes up short of reaching my upper echelon. Next time, it will be a later season, since you can't go earlier than S1 lol.
Ratings:
S5 - 4.75/5
S15 -4.5/5
S13 - 4.5/5
S1 - 3.75/5
S27 - 3.5/5
S25 - 3.25/5
S21 - 3.25/5
S23 - 3.25/5
S2 - 3/5
S19 - 2.5/5
S29 - 2.5/5
S16 - 1.75/5
S32 - 0.25/5
2023.03.21 19:22 Jeyannar Homebrew spell : Repulsion
Hi to everyone! In my dnd group we came up with this spell and wanted to share it with you. Moving characters can be a bit anoying, specially if this is used against players, but i think it can bring a lot of funny situations to the table.
Let me know your thoughts about this spell! And sorry for any mistakes in my writing. English is not my main language
Level: 1 School: Transmutation Casting time: Reaction Range: 15 feet Components: V, S Duration: Instantaneus Classes: Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard, Rogue (Arcane Trickster), Ranger, Fighter (Eldritch Knight)
DAMAGE ENVIRONMENT CONTROL
This spell can be used as a reaction when a criature comes closer than 15 feet from the caster. This spell must target the creature that triggered this spell, and can be casted in any part of the target’s movement as long as the target is in range.
When this spell is casted, the target must make a strength save. In a failed save, the target gets pushed back (1d4 x casting lvl) x 5 feet away from its current position and take 2d6 force damage. If the target passes the save takes have the damage and doesen’t move.
If the target is pushed against a wall or a heavy object, the target stops here, takes 1d6 extra bludgeoning damage and falls prone.
If the target is pushed against an other creature, the second creature must make a dex save against the caster’s dc. On a failed save this second creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage aswell and both fall prone. If the second criature passes the save, this isn’t afected in any way. The pushed creature continues it’s path and doesen’t suffer the collision effects.
CAST AT HIGHER LEVELS: If you cast this spell with a higher spell slot, add 1d6 to the damage and the damage on collision for each slot higher tan 1.
submitted by Jeyannar to DnD [link] [comments]
Let me know your thoughts about this spell! And sorry for any mistakes in my writing. English is not my main language
Level: 1 School: Transmutation Casting time: Reaction Range: 15 feet Components: V, S Duration: Instantaneus Classes: Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard, Rogue (Arcane Trickster), Ranger, Fighter (Eldritch Knight)
DAMAGE ENVIRONMENT CONTROL
This spell can be used as a reaction when a criature comes closer than 15 feet from the caster. This spell must target the creature that triggered this spell, and can be casted in any part of the target’s movement as long as the target is in range.
When this spell is casted, the target must make a strength save. In a failed save, the target gets pushed back (1d4 x casting lvl) x 5 feet away from its current position and take 2d6 force damage. If the target passes the save takes have the damage and doesen’t move.
If the target is pushed against a wall or a heavy object, the target stops here, takes 1d6 extra bludgeoning damage and falls prone.
If the target is pushed against an other creature, the second creature must make a dex save against the caster’s dc. On a failed save this second creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage aswell and both fall prone. If the second criature passes the save, this isn’t afected in any way. The pushed creature continues it’s path and doesen’t suffer the collision effects.
CAST AT HIGHER LEVELS: If you cast this spell with a higher spell slot, add 1d6 to the damage and the damage on collision for each slot higher tan 1.
2023.03.21 19:22 exit3x3 Returning to Origins [dao spoilers]
I first played DA:O back in 2011. I was only 12 at the time and I felt like I was able to appreciate the game even more after doing some growing up. And after a comprehensive playthrough, I can confidently say that Dragon Age: Origins is one of the best RPGs I've ever played. It truly felt an epic adventure that kept me engaged from beginning to end, and it gave me a sense of accomplishment that few other games have ever managed to achieve. Everything, from the character interactions to the world-building, kept me engrossed like nothing else. I can't think of another game with such a diverse cast of companions, each with their own unique personalities, backgrounds, and motivations. These characters are integral to the story, and the relationships you build with them feel genuine and can have a real impact on the game's outcome. I romanced Leliana and was moved by her story to the point that I avoided every bit of infidelity possible and was as loyal to her as possible. A far cry to when I was a kid and was enamoured by Morrigan.
Finishing the game and moving on feels almost bittersweet, like I don't want the adventure to end yet but I'm looking forward to playing Dragon Age II and Inquisition as soon as I finish Awakening and Witch Hunt DLCs. Thanks for reading!
submitted by exit3x3 to dragonage [link] [comments]
Finishing the game and moving on feels almost bittersweet, like I don't want the adventure to end yet but I'm looking forward to playing Dragon Age II and Inquisition as soon as I finish Awakening and Witch Hunt DLCs. Thanks for reading!
2023.03.21 19:21 djminze My kind of office, really
| | submitted by djminze to Sneakers [link] [comments] |
2023.03.21 19:20 SpencerEntertainment How long to correct router IP geolocation?
During the recent California storms, I’m guessing Xfinity had to reroute some of their data trunks. In doing so, and as of three days ago, my router now seems to think it is in various parts of California. It should identify as the Sacramento market, but has geolocated to Fresno and more commonly San Francisco market (Atherton, San Jose).
Normally, I wouldn’t care, except we stream Hulu + Live TV which requires that geolocation for local channels. I cannot receive my CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX programming now through any streaming box (Apple TV, Google TV, Amazon Fire) because they think I’m somewhere outside of my home.
For about 3 hours I received the Bay Area broadcasts, but for local news that wasn’t very helpful.
I’ve tried reseting the route in hopes it would pull a new IP, but that’s not working. It’s Xfinity’s box, so spoofing the MAC address to force a new one isn’t really possible.
Because my phones and tablets have cellular + GPS, they allow me to get the correct feeds. I cast them to my TV, but still frustrating.
I’ve read Comcast has little control over this, but shouldn’t they be the one telling 3rd party services the correct location of their IP blocks?
submitted by SpencerEntertainment to Comcast_Xfinity [link] [comments]
Normally, I wouldn’t care, except we stream Hulu + Live TV which requires that geolocation for local channels. I cannot receive my CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX programming now through any streaming box (Apple TV, Google TV, Amazon Fire) because they think I’m somewhere outside of my home.
For about 3 hours I received the Bay Area broadcasts, but for local news that wasn’t very helpful.
I’ve tried reseting the route in hopes it would pull a new IP, but that’s not working. It’s Xfinity’s box, so spoofing the MAC address to force a new one isn’t really possible.
Because my phones and tablets have cellular + GPS, they allow me to get the correct feeds. I cast them to my TV, but still frustrating.
I’ve read Comcast has little control over this, but shouldn’t they be the one telling 3rd party services the correct location of their IP blocks?
2023.03.21 19:15 Megameca04 NPC avoiding walls in Top-Down View.
Hi, I need a CharacterBody2D to detect the walls around it from a certain radius, I tried using a For loop for making a Raycast2D to cast all around in that circle using an angle:
submitted by Megameca04 to godot [link] [comments]
for i in 360: var cast_to = Vector2(cos(deg_to_rad(i)),sin(deg_to_rad(i))) $RayCast2D.target_position = 15*cast_to if $RayCast2D.is_colliding(): wall_reflection = Vector2(-cos(deg_to_rad(i)),-sin(deg_to_rad(i)))But for some reason it just stays at the angle 0/360 and doesn't detect walls in any other direction. Is there any way of making it detect them in all 360 degrees correctly in just a frame?
2023.03.21 19:15 08830 The cast of “Schmigadoon” at today’s photo call
 | submitted by 08830 to tvPlus [link] [comments] |
2023.03.21 19:15 topredditbot Pedro Pascal bought Five Guys for the whole cast and crew of The Last Of Us [r/pics by u/Smoothlarryy]
![Pedro Pascal bought Five Guys for the whole cast and crew of The Last Of Us [pics by u/Smoothlarryy]](https://preview.redd.it/mgbuql6js5pa1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=06c52203dd6f377131ce6f7531136fce9f7f9637 "Pedro Pascal bought Five Guys for the whole cast and crew of The Last Of Us [pics by u/Smoothlarryy]") | submitted by topredditbot to topofreddit [link] [comments] |
2023.03.21 19:14 Bingdingus SnEaKeRs
 | submitted by Bingdingus to VaushV [link] [comments] |
2023.03.21 19:14 Mazzywazz Quick question about balancing a home brew druid subclass
Hey there, just needed a second opinion on whether this would be too OP for a level 6 5e circle of the city home brew druid i’m helping a new player of mine create.
(At level 6, you gain the ability to cast cantrips that only require somatic components while in wild shape)
My thought is that restricting verbal components and limiting to cantrips would make it fair, as well as the fact they’re limited to lower CR city beasts earlier in the subclass, but do you think there are any unforeseen consequences or imbalances?
submitted by Mazzywazz to DMAcademy [link] [comments]
(At level 6, you gain the ability to cast cantrips that only require somatic components while in wild shape)
My thought is that restricting verbal components and limiting to cantrips would make it fair, as well as the fact they’re limited to lower CR city beasts earlier in the subclass, but do you think there are any unforeseen consequences or imbalances?