Reviews of Most Live-Action Resident Evil Adaptations

Last Saturday, I went to see Zach Creggar's Resident Evil. This is not a review of that movie (since I've still got to put my thoughts into some coherent form). But several months ago, I did watch all the other live action Resident Evil Adaptations.

Resident Evil (2002) (and, kind of, the other ones in this film series).

Surprisingly good! I mean, look, it doesn't say anything remarkable, but it's not a bad movie. The film plays with one’s expectations competently. In the opening sequence, set-up and entertaining gorey spectacle are excellently interwoven. There is a particularly well-executed execution involving an elevator, that also develops the Red Queen's character. Overall, the opening sets up the tone and intrigue well.

In the next part, Alice (the protagonist) has amnesia and although this is a bit tropey it’s used to great effect as with the use of well-timed flashbacks, the film highlights how she is left unsure of where her old allegiances lie. Her involvement with Spencer remains a source of conflict for her throughout the film. It evolves from “Oh my god, am I married to this stranger?” to “It’s a fake marriage—but wait, did we have sex? What is he to me?” to “Holy shit, this guy is evil”. She is able to partially resolve these feelings by the end of the film throwing away the fake ring which was the initial symbol of her conflicted feelings.

Spencer is also developed through these flashbacks, although he is necessarily kept more mysterious. His unhinged approach to wooing Alice is a nice surprise twist, and this motivation prepares the viewer well for the final reveal.

Overall, the film has competent plotting, uses symbolism sparingly but to good effect, and managed to develop most of its characters reasonably well over the course of its runtime. It was very helpful to watch Resident Evil: Welcome To Racoon City (2021) shortly after this because, in many ways, it’s exactly the opposite.

There are another five films in this series and ... well, I didn't get anything in particular out of them that I didn't get out of the first one. It's kind of fun to compare them, but they basically just redo the same plot every time, just with a higher budget. Interestingly, the director, Paul W.S. Anderson, is making a film adaptation of House of The Dead (an arcade game I spent far too much money on as a child). 

Resident Evil: Welcome To Racoon City (2021)

Let me start with the good parts. The opening was very strong, leaning into a subtle, creeping horror. The orphanage setting and focus on personal relationships is appropriate to the tone of the newer games, so I commend it. It’s also in the opening that we get introduced to Lisa Trevor, the benevolent escaped experiment who is by far the most interesting aspect of the film. The casting choices were mostly good too—I saw no issue with anyone’s acting, and I feel like everyone embodied their roles quite well. The drive into the town, and the introduction to the main cast was done efficiently, especially in the diner scene. Some of the characters are particularly fun to watch (especially Claire and Irons). The cinematography is often nice, and I really liked the scene of the flaming trucker walking into the police station to the tune of Crush by Jennifer Page. The slow building reveal that everyone in the town has been infected is done well, and the way the zombies are portrayed as somewhat intelligent but utterly deranged is refreshing and adds a layer of sympathy. Of course, it's not too hard to make me sympathetic towards zombies.

Now for the bad. Every character is one note (maybe two notes in the case of Wesker, for some reason), and there isn’t really a plot. By this I mean, we know everything within the first thirty minutes:

1. there’s an orphanage owned by Umbrella where they do shady stuff (experimenting on children)

2. Chris and Claire grew up in this orphanage. They care for each other, but Claire is savvy, independent, and has a strong sense of justice whereas Chris relies on others and is a bit naïve.

3. Jill likes Wesker and Chris likes Jill (although, since Chris and Jill barely interact, this later part is just pure speculation on the part of Claire).

4. Birkin is soulless and devoted to his work.

5. Leon is incompetent.

There is almost no new knowledge or interesting reveals. The characters have essentially zero development. Claire and Chris fight when they first meet, and then are friends again, but the fight never felt that significant in the first place. The most significant development is the reveal that Wesker betrayed Umbrella for cash (and was planning to run away and abandon his friends), but he is such a minor character that this left very little impact. Leon remains useless until he facilitates a deus ex rocket launcher. We know almost nothing about Jill except that she likes her friends and has a crush on Wesker.

The lack of development is particularly highlighted when, upon descending from the orphanage into the secret tunnel connected to the Spencer mansion, Claire finds a file giving some details about the experiments on Lisa Trevor. We had already inferred that she was an escaped experiment by this point, so this file essentially tells us nothing new apart from trivia such as the fact that she was infected with the G-virus rather than the T-virus. Claire, however, is shockingly upset at this. It could be argued she reacts this was since the file brings into focus the atrocity Lisa was subjected to rather than revealing anything she didn’t already know, but it certainly feels like this a failed attempt at a reveal.

Also, while the zombies are creepy and sympathetic, the other bioweapons are not so intimidating. The licker in the orphanage is not bad; the film raises the tension prior to its arrival, and it has a kill count of one, almost two, before Lisa manages to subdue it. Birkin, however, is possibly the worst part of the entire film. The partially transformed Birkin manages to injure Chris but not so significantly and is unable to kill anyone. This leads to a complete dissipation of tension. At no point does he feel like a significant threat, especially after his final transformation which just looks goofy.

There was a lot of potential for this film, and I have no idea how it became so derailed, but it was disappointing. I would love to see a more serious take on Resident Evil (which is not to say I don’t enjoy how over-the-top the original series is). Rather than develop its strongest elements, most of the screen time was spent on spectacle without substance.

Resident Evil (2022 Series)

This was a mess. While it had some of best moments out of all the live-action Resident Evils that I’ve seen [at time of writing], it also had some of the worst. The series splits its attention between two periods of time (2022 and 2036) which are before and after the start of the outbreak in New Racoon City. The past focuses The Wesker family, consisting of Albert Wesker and his daughters Billie and Jade. After Billie gets bit by a dog infected with the T-virus, Albert and Jade attempt to hide this from Albert’s employer, The Umbrella Corporation, while Jade starts investigating a similar outbreak that couldn’t be contained until after a significant deathtoll. The future, I instead, focuses on adult Jade who is researching the zombies (called ‘Zeros’) in an effort to find a way to rebuild society despite them.

To start with the good, the modernization of RE was done fairly well. References to COVID, Zootopia, etc. were surprising, but not jarring. The soundtrack was not entirely to my taste but appropriately chosen for the modern feeling. The split between past and future seemed unnecessary and didn’t really give much depth to the characters who are still alive in the future (except one who we hardly see until the end).

That said, the best moments are mainly in the 2022 scenes, and are mainly carried by Lance Reddick and Paola Núñez whose characters (respectively Albert Wesker and Evelyn Marcus) had amazing chemistry and fascinating backstories. Albert is efficient and practical, and cold-hearted, except to his daughters who he priortises even when they really mess up. The question of whether he priortises them because he needs their blood, or because he genuinely cares for them, is mostly handled well (until it’s clumsily explained by Bert, anyway). He’s also got a very human side, revealed by, for instance, owning a guide to dating for older people. In contrast, Evelyn is a totally #GirlBoss CEO (and she doesn’t just talk the talk, she is actually very capable). Her motivations are never so explicit as Albert’s, but it’s heavily implied that she’s torn between her family and her legacy. This makes the scene where she shoots her infected son, rather than give Albert a chance to cure him, incredibly affecting since one can interpret as a prioritisation of either of her main two desires: either she shot him to “save him from becoming a monster” as she claims, or to save herself from a difficult decision. Also, by this point in the series, the extent of her need to control everything, including her family, is revealed to be much worse than before and one feels almost ill watching her manipulate others (especially her wife).

This depth is unfortunately missing when it comes to the main character, Jade, and in fact most of the 2036 scenes which focus on her. As an adult, throughout the entire series, she makes incredibly avoidable mistakes and comes across as incompetent (even though she’s meant to be a genetically engineered genius). Her survival, every time, comes down to good luck and leads to the death of much more interesting, competent characters. Which is very frustrating because it’s confusing why they couldn’t do the same for Jade.

It would feel too much like CinemaSins to point out all her mistakes and lack of foresight, so I’ll just give three: 1) she observes the zombie horde from like 5ft away. Even though she explains that they generally only sense by smell now, this is still an unnecessary risk for no reward. Why not just set up a camera or something and get to high ground? 2) she throws an old grenade, and when it doesn’t go off, she steps towards it, only for it to go off when a door toppled by encroaching zombies lands on it. 3) Before she gives herself over to Umbrella tells her child to get off the relatively save boat and run away, only to completely forget about this. Granted, she did just have to deal with an onslaught of zombies but her convenient forgetfulness lasts a little too long.

The worst part is that Jade is very almost a good character and not much would need to change to make her one. Some of her actions are reckless and impatient, but much better motivated. For instance, rather than wait two weeks for approval for a zombie test subject, she pulls one out of the water herself to test the zombie repellent on immediately. This is a bit stupid, for sure, but I totally get her wanting to know if the repellent actually works because it has massive ramifications for the survival of humanity. Before this, she refuses to give up the head that contains the repelling enzyme in order to save someone, which is cruel for sure, but makes her come across as selfish, which is an interesting character flaw. The show leans into her recklessness, and her selfishness a lot in the later episodes, having two separate characters explain these flaws to Jade. The problem is that these explanations come across as forced and incongruous with what we’ve seen of her so far: the moments that successfully characterize her as reckless and selfish, rather than just purely incompetent, are too few and too late into the series, and it’s hard to shake initial impressions. I don’t know if the script was rushed or if no-one read through it after the first draft, but it baffles me that Jade as a character is so poorly handled while almost every other character is not.

And this is a fairly minor complaint all things considered, but when Jade throws down the zombie attractant, in a closed tent, there’s no way that it only takes a few seconds for all zombies on the entire island to start heading towards her. It doesn’t matter how sensitive they are, I just can't imagine that the molecules would travel that fast (especially when, as I said, it would be impeded by the closed tent).

Despite the heavy-handed attempts to emphasise a more interesting interpretation of Jade, this did indicate that the show was heading along the right tracks and had a lot of potential. I’m not sure if it was truly salvageable, but I would watch another season just to see. Of course, I think I’m in the minority. 

Thoughts on Every Song I Have Ever Liked* Part 3

*on Spotify or YouTube

Update 1

... so much has happened since the last update to this. Suffice it to say: my life is interesting in ways I'm very grateful for and I love it.

On the writing side, progress is steady. I'm sure I've already gone past many of my internal deadlines, but the work is finishing at a moment that feels very (symbolically) correct.

 

And now for the weather**!

**music

Dream State by Son Lux, added 3rd October 2018

I’ve still never heard anything quite like Son Lux which is why I own this album. Maybe the closest I can imagine is Arca (…. who I actually prefer due to her darker aesthetic). My body reacts to this song with goosebumps, although my head doesn’t seem to respond much at all. I appreciate the artistry though: The intentionality is so clear.

Jenny by The Studio Killers, 4th October 2018

… oh. This song.

This is the song an almost romantic partner showed me to represent their feelings shortly before nipping our blooming relationship in the bud. Amusingly the fact that the prospect of being “lovers” was “ruined” leading to our becoming friends instead is pretty much the inverse of the song’s key line: “I want to ruin our friendship, we should be lovers instead.”

(I don’t really vibe with the idea that trying romantic stuff ruins friendships. Maybe I’m just built different).

Despite the fact the months up to around that point were probably the saddest of my life (so far ...), I actually look back on those days fondly. At least in my memories, I feel things.

The song is a bop. Hope you’re doing well, E.

Synthesizer, Five Clowns, and Child of Hunger by Electric Six, added 21^st November 2024

There are a few more Electric Six songs in the modern era but I don't have much more to say about them so I'll aggregate my thoughts: Synthezier remains one of my favourites. I’m in awe of the chaotic confidence frontman Dick Valentine embodies … I’d quite like to feel like what it’s like to emit that kind of charisma, if just for a day.

Leviathan by Gost, added 1st Nov 2024

I actually saw this band live! They were one of the opening acts for HEALTH. It was a great show. My friends and I got a hug from John Famiglietti (who is very pretty and tall …). I also got a shirt (I had my sights set on a particular one that says “Sad Music For Horny People” on the back. My friend R. got one first, though, and I had to decide whether it would be too awkward to get the same one …).

Really enjoyed hearing this live. The streamed version of course couldn’t match that energy but it comes surprisingly close!

I Think Your Boyfriend Likes Me Too by The Radium Dolls, added 29th October 2024

For some reason, I got quite into Australian rock (actually I think this song is from the resurgence of that interest rather than the first time). I don’t actually like this song so much: I wish it were gayer.

The perspective is too obviously teasing and some sincerity would have been fun. We’ll get to the better comical Aussie rock next time I think …

Feels by Calvin Harris, Pharrel Williams, Katy Perry and Big Sean, added 5th October 2018

Another one from the E. era, lol. I was actually really opposed to pop songs even at that point (… except for Katy Perry. I don’t even know why – maybe I just liked her voice? Her cover of Hackensack is still my favourite thing she’s made. I’ll probably listen after this is finished). Since this was recommended by someone I was into I gave it more of a chance. There’s at least something of merit here, although I probably won’t listen it except when it very occasionally shows up in the shuffle.

Note: ... so I didn't actually know Hackensack was by Fountains of Wayne. Then I had five minutes between learning that fact and learning that Fountains of Wayne also wrote Stacey's Mom!

No Embrace by The Dirty Projects and Björk, added 6th November 2018

Wow, this was the first song by The Dirty Projects I ever listened too! Thanks to Björk for collaborating with them since otherwise I might not have given them a try (they’re now one of my favourite bands). Another band whose doing something no-one else is able to. This presents a striking contrast to the previous entry …

The Dirty Projectors always seem to have quite cryptic lyrics but actually this one has some direct lines

“You won't say why you would deny me your embrace

Swimming in the sea

I think I understand why you hate me

For what I've done, for what I haven't done”

I don’t think anyone hates me, but I understand this sort of rumination … and how understanding of other people can be as transient as images in water. 

Thoughts on Every Song I Have Ever Liked* Part 2

 *on Spotify or YouTube

We actually got to the part 2 of something, yay! 

This project is also a good place for small updates. Skip to the next part if you're not interested. 

Update 1

I feel like I'm behind on many things like finishing S=0+, replying to certain friends, enjoying their recommendations. I try not to feel too bad about the last two since I fortunately have very understanding friends.  

And in fairness to myself, I don't think I've been using my time that unproductively; I've been focusing on things that are also important to me.  

I'm currently on vaccation and overestimated how much spare time I would have amid other activities. However, I've got a free afternoon now so I'm going to spend some time on this project.

Update 2

Considering making a new blog site ... I feel like I have enough experience with HTML that I don't want to be restricted by blogger any more. But this is something that's at least three weeks from even starting (and I should finish S=0+ first).

Songs!

 

Rewind featuring bladee by Charlie xcx, added 16th December 2024

I think when I listened to this and added it to the playlist I did it because I felt I finally "got" this sort of music. Apparently this was not a permanent effect since I don't really get it this time ... I do find it sonically pleasant but I don't really react to it beyond that.

 

Ramona by Jukebox The Ghost, added 2nd December 2024

I actually really like the name Ramona. I also really like this band's whole ouevre. Musically delightful and one of the few bands whose lyrics actually resonate with me; in this case those lyrics are fairly simple but I really enjoy "Take a little, take a little, take a little time, from the world". It's not an entirely original idea to wish the entire world just stopped/you could be separated from it for a bit, but it is one I often come back to. It's also very sweet (and comforting?) that the perspective of the song is from someone who wants to provide that for someone else.

I suppose part of me finds the idea of taking the people you love away from all the harshness of reality romantic but I also feel hestitant since, at least right now, I believe it's more important to confront and subdue that harshness. 

Inked in Blood by Sigh, added 11th Feburary 2018

Intense, relentless and dynamic, how do they do it? I think it's the fact that they switch between very different feeling types of intensities: from shredding guitar solos, dramatic laughter, right into melodies. I'd say the melodies are possibly the weaker part but I appreciate that they're included anyway (and to be fair, I'm comparing to Dir En Grey's Kyo who has a somewhat unreal vocal range).

Forgot how much I liked Sigh. 

 

[Okay so the next 12 songs are Kero Kero Bonito's entire Time 'n' Place album. I think it's best to comment on the entire albumn in that case]

 

Time 'n' Place by Kero Kero Bonito, added 2nd October 2018

This is one of the few times I felt like I was part of a cultural moment. The day this album came out I was shocked that the band that made songs like Flamingo and Pocket Crocodile also put out something like Only Acting. It's the sort of thing people posted about immediately in the Facebook groups. I had to message my friend who also a fan to ask if it was real (hope you're doing well Harpreet). I remember asking "Is Sarah [the lead singer] okay?" 


Memories are vague and often incorrect but I do remember shivering after listening to it. Is there a French phrase for desiring an abyss into which to release the echoes of an incredible experience (to avoid the alternative which is that they'll after reverberate and destroy you?). If not what about the probably grammatically incorrect "L'appel du vide (pour le raison de self-presevation)"?



Take Me To The Sugar by Electric Six, added 22nd November 2024

It certainly scratchs the Electric Six Itch. Sonically interesting, fun word play "Gravity, the solar wheel = brevity, the soul of wit" and bizzare visuals "Today's child actors are tomorrow's evil clowns". I'm actually not sure how interpret this song, but I appreciate the attempt to approach more obscure topics (or at least to have more cryptic lyrics) compared to their older albums. I think I didn't enjoy this as much as their earlier work at first, but coming back to it now, I really like the cool confidence and low-key vibes. 

 

Turquoise by Electric Six, added 22nd November 2024

Similar feelings as to the previous song. I'm impressed how the vocalist is able to embody quite different characters. I get a strong impression of a very cynical old man who's too confident in his own opinions (e.g., wearing Turquoise to protect himself and assuming others ought to do the same if they want to live). I think what this song is getting at is media-induced despair and how people cope with it. Possibly how easy it is to believe you're doing something when you're not? Or, a more optimistic interpretation, that we find ways to cope (even if they're not that directly useful) and that's independent of actually doing anything about the world.

 

Thoughts on Every Song I Have Ever Liked* Part 1

 *on Spotify or YouTube


I've had the idea to put down my thoughts on every song I ever listened to for a while. But it's basically impossible, so I'm going for this much more restricted set instead (which is 932 "liked" songs on Spotify, not counting playlists which consist of songs that I did not "like".) It's also an attempt to get me back into music.

The best way to do this, I think, is to go chronologically and anti-chronologically at the same time. This is mainly to add more variety since the first lot of songs are mostly Kero Kero Bonito. I'll put the date I added it the playlist next to each song.

Fish Bowl by Kero Kero Bonito, added 11th February 2018

The lyrics are delivered so casually, but YES I do pine for the sea, and I haven’t even thought about what I’d do if I reach the ocean. Songs like this inject a bit wonder into the mundane. It reminds me to (try to) stay humble enough to see my reflection in a goldfish. 

 

Flamingo by Kero Kero Bonito, added 11th February 2018

Definitely the most iconic song KKB ever produced. The first time I heard this song it was so entirely unlike anything I’d heard before. I think what I liked about it, and this era of KKB as a whole, is the idea of taking non-serious things seriously. I felt it fit into my aesthetic (of the time) of being predominately serious but very casually into silly things at the same time.

Once, I went to stay over at a friend’s house for an indoor sleepover, they put on this song as I arrived. That was one of the first times I felt truly loved by my friends. 

 

Try To Believe by Oingo Boingo, added 29th December 2024

Really enjoy the sax-guitar combo. The lyrics are (mostly) pretty simple (except for the final few), but delivered with a very relatable conviction. The simplicity only makes sense since optimisim, at it’s core, is very simple: you just carry on believing. Although it’s the song is more so about regaining optimism, rather than having it in the first place (even though you could argue that wanting to be optimisic is already quite optimisitic). But seeing base-level optimism as something which can go away and come back is quite comforting—in the times where my optimism has left me, I’ve certainly felt dissapointed with myself, while this song makes me feel like that’s okay.

It’s the sort of thing that should probably go in my playlist “The Unyielding Optimism Which Permeates the Foundations of My Being” which I listen to when I do feel that void of optimism.

Seven Lines, Mechanical Symphony by In Strict Confidence, added 19th December 2024

Not going to lie, I don’t remember this one at all, but I see why I liked it. It’s so dramatic.

OH, when the chorus started I got chills. THIS is definitely why I liked it. I think I definitely enjoy very long songs with a slow build up like this.

Is this what they call an eargasm?

I also really enjoy the darkly confident delivery of the lyrics. If I ever decide to go to the gym, this is definitely going in the playlist. The line “If you kill me, break my neck. Seven Times I resurrect” sticks in my head. I wonder if it’s a reference to something specific—it definitely feels Biblical.

 

Break by Kero Kero Bonito, added 11th February 2018

I definitely cried about this at some point when I was overworking myself. I also remember using it as a reminder to myself to take breaks (somehow it alleviated the guilt before I was able to do that more effectively by internal mechanisms).

Casting Agents and Cowgirls by Busdriver, added 11th February 2018

Busdriver’s rapping style really vibes with my brain for some reason. I think his style is what would typically be classifed as “lyrical miracle”. I’m not sure if the surrealism is par for the course, but I appreciate that too. There’s probably a lot of allusions I can't get here, but it’s a fun song to listen to. I can tell that it’s at least a very scatching critisism the the hedonism of celebrities and the culture that supports that.

Here’s a fun chain of links:

Busdriver (Regan Farquhar) has collaborated with both Islands (on their album Return To The Sea) and also David Firth (yes, that David Firth, of Salad Finger’s fame). Regan potrayed a news presenter in a movie called Kuso which honestly grossed me out too much to finish watching the first time (but maybe I’ll come back to it). David Firth and Flying Lotus (Steven Ellison, who is primarly known for his music which I admit I’ve never listened to before now) co-wrote Kuso, and also co-directed the music video for his own song Fire Is Coming which features none other than David Lynch (yes, that David Lynch). Well, I only just found out this last connection, so I had to look the video up, and ... what the fuck did I just watch (/positive). 

Merry Christmas and Writing Updates

Merry Christmas! 

Every Christmas, I send messages to my friends and loved ones at midnight. It's been a tradition since … I don't even know. Certainly, before I turned 14. I prepare a Christmas Playlist, set it to start at exactly midnight, and try to send everyone a message before 00:01. So far, I have not failed in this task. I permit myself to be exceptionally sentimental in these messages and it's a genuinely ecstatic experience.

This post is kind of that but to whoever reads these blogposts. I started posting my writing online during the Golden Days of Wattpad and met my best friend there (who I am still in contact with today, and whom I still love dearly). Sharing writing with my friends and getting feedback has continuously been a wonderful motivation to meet up and hang out. Two people have spoken to me about FDOTG specifically which, in each case, led to distinct, long, and fulfilling conversations. Apart from the writing itself serving as a connection between me and others, it's also been the initiation of other kinds of connection too.

Reader, your anonymity makes it difficult to say anything personal, but what I can say is that I appreciate you. And if you've read anything else I've written, I appreciate you even more. I am unsure there is anything more intimate than experiencing another's inner world and art is the closest one gets to that. 

Updates 

So if you're here, presumably you're at least somewhat interested in my writings, so you may want to know the status on my current main project (Solipsism=0+).

1. Write Part 0

2. Light edits to Part 1

3. Moderate edits to Part 2

4. COMPLETE REWRITE OF PART 3

    4.1. Re-read and extract all the best elements
    4.2. Write new plot connecting Parts 2 and 3
    4.3. Write the damn thing

5. Minor edits to Part 4

6. Write Part 5

To give a bit of background, I decided that the story was better off being grounded in something more realistic to start with (although it doesn't stay that way for very long, unlike FDOTG). I actually had a blast writing the new Part 0, and experimented with giving the two more POV characters. 

It worked really well. Almost too well. The pacing in Part 0 ended up being a lot more exciting than the rest of the novel, so I had to tighten it up in Parts 1 and 2. Using Writerly Magic, I managed to put in enough foreshadowing in Part 0 that it elevates those parts even without the further edits. 

There was also a pretty major scene that always bothered me and I finally figured out how to improve it, and that required a fairly heavy edit + writing new material. I think the new material has much denser world-building and also connects better to one of my favourite scenes in the whole novel.

I had enough fun writing the different POVs that I realised Part 3 would be better off in one of those other POVs which means I have to scrap almost all of it. Which is okay because it is probably the weakest part overall. Not a lot happens, at least to the former POV character, and that was kind of the point, but since I've introduced new POVs anyway, I reckon it's much more interesting to see that former POV character from an outsider perspective. This is my next major task and I'll probably get it done before I have to go back to work (Jan 19th). 

In fact, I'm hoping that I'll get everything done by then, but no promises. I know more or less what I want the final part to do, and that it doesn't have to be very long to do that, but I don't yet know what that looks like and what stumbling blocks I might hit.

Polyamory: Internalities and Externalities

Note: since this is really a blog post and not an academic paper, I’m choosing to cite my sources by putting in links rather than having A Standard Format bibliography.

____

This was originally a “response to bad takes on the internet” kind of post, specifically about the definition of polyamory from r/polyamory. I wanted to get this out on November 23^rd, which is apparently World Polyamory Day, but then I realised I hadn’t really done the topic justice and found interesting new sources, and so it got pushed back to now. While missing that opportune timing is unfortunate, I’m glad this has turned into something more than just internet drama.

Here are some definitions/descriptions of polyamory:

A) “Polyamory is openly, honestly, and consensually loving and being committed to more than one person.”— r/polyamory subreddit.

B) "the practice, state[,] or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved." – Zell Ravenheart (person who wrote the first article in which the word appeared, according to Wikipedia).

C) “Polyamory describes a form of relationship where it is possible, valid and worthwhile to maintain (usually long-term) intimate and sexual relationships with multiple partners simultaneously” – Poly/logue: A Critical Introduction to Polyamory.

D) “the practice of consensually and with mutual interest negotiating desire for more than one [loving] relationship” – Alexis Shotwell, ‘Ethical Polyamory, Responsibility, and Significant Otherness.’ [This is a great title].

Although getting at similar things these, are quite different and grounded in the description polyamory as actions/potential for actions. For instance, the r/polyamory description explicitly requires (active) commitment to more than one person, whereas the other definitions only require that this is a possibility. The Alexis Shotwell definition is the only one which references an internal state (desire) but still emphasises the action of "negotiating". That said, she also elaborates that she doesn't believe one stops being polyamorous just because they are not involved in a relationship. We can read "negotiating" as also allowing for self-negotiation in that case.

To turn these into identities we have to assume something like "A person can describe themselves as polyamorous if they engage in the activity of polyamory" in which the identity, under definitions A) and C), require external world activity. Conversely, definition B)  requires only the “ability” of having more than one “sexual loving” relationship but this can still be read to excludes those whose circumstances prevent them from establishing such relationships even though they want to (and includes those who could establish such relationships even if they didn’t want to). As for definition D), the presumed self-negotiation could be an internal activity.

The other thing that bothers me about most of these is the way they emphasise consent as if that’s not already implicit. This is the same reason I don’t like the term “ethically non-monogamous”. These definitions anticipate protests from people who believe “engaging in multiple romantic/sexual/intimate relationships” = “cheating” and in doing so center other's comfort and understanding. It’s a definition that doesn’t serve the people to which it applies. While I understand the practical reasons for such a definition (e.g., optics, gaining acceptance) it is still unsatisfactory. Particularly because polyamory is also not so fringe an idea as it once was. The sentences “Sarah is dating both June and Jack. She is …” is most naturally completed by the world “polyamorous”. Or maybe non-monogamous (but this feels much more clinical and, as an aside, still centers monogamy as the default). If someone finds themselves questioning whether they want to be intimately involved with multiple people, they’ll likely come across the word “polyamory” before anything else. Despite being particular it’s also the generic word one would use to describe being romantically involvement of multiple people even though this situation could work in very different ways.

This said, having read more of Alexis Shotwell's paper, I feel like her definition is by far the best of these. This is because her definition includes monogamy since monogamous relationships also requires negotiation over one's potential desire for other relationships and I find this encompassing very satisfying in some ways. That said, I would argue that a lot of the examples she uses as the example of questions that come up in these negotiations aren't really about desires for relationships. For instance hook-ups, thinking anime characters/celebrities during during sex, and watching porn aren't necessarily (or even usually [citation needed]) about a desires for a relationship (except under a very broad definition of relationship at which point the original definition becomes too fluid to be usable). Rather, they're often [citation needed] purely about the stimuli and one need not necessarily desire a relationship rather than just the fantasy of one.

Also, while I like that the definition D) includes monogamy, this also makes it ill-suited as an identity label. Indeed, if it is not distinct from monogamy, but rather encompasses it, then one cannot distinguish themselves meaningfully by claiming to be 'polyamorous'. This is not a criticism of this definition; I understand that it's a function of the definition in that it forces one to see relationships as a whole in a new light and I think that's valuable. But, similarly, it is also valuable to be able to identify oneself which also requires differentiation.

Anyway, the actual thing I want to talk about is the debate over whether "polyamory" should be used as descriptive of what you do (external) vs what you feel (internal). It's used in both ways, and this inconsistency is seen both between individuals and within individuals (see this paper). The more common view (at least on Reddit) is that it should only be used as descriptive of what you do, e.g., “I am polyamorous” should only mean “I am actively participating in multiple romantic relationships”, but this sort of attitude is also quite evident in definitions A) - C) and, at least partially, D) too.

In Mia Mulder’s recent video about identity, one key point was that some people more or less consider all identities as “descriptive” rather than “aspirational”.  As another aside, this is the reason I use any pronouns: I feel like if someone does truly have a very narrow understanding of gender then, personally, I’d rather let them describe me in whatever words fit their own mental model. (However, I will find it very weird if their mental model amounts to undue concern over my genitalia and probably won’t interact with them much. And, of course, people should respect other’s choices for how they’d like to be described.)

In view of this, I don’t think it’s weird that some people take a hardline stance either way over whether one can use “polyamory” as descriptive of externalities vs internalities, but more so that it appears as if this applies specifically to polyamory compared to other possible identities. It’s not that they believe that all identities should be descriptive of one’s actions, but rather that polyamory is somehow special. As Meg Barker puts it, “The way in which people conduct their relationships (monogamous, polyamorous, or otherwise) seems to have a more complex relationship to self-identity [than sexual orientation does].” This is discussed by Christian Klesse here who argues against viewing polyamory as a sexual orientation. On a practical level he criticizes a biological essentialist view of sexual orientation, since (among other things) it offers limited practical benefits (citing, for instance, the difficulty in demonstrating persecution asylum seekers face when presenting a bisexual history). He also argues that the sexual orientation framework "arrests the multi-directional flows of desire" in that ascribes to a group people an unchangeable characteristic.  I’m inclined to, somewhat, agree; I’m not fond of the biological essentialism in general. That said, I don’t view sexual orientations this way in the first place and (although now I’m wondering if this is the ‘default’ way to view them and if I should abandon the concept entirely). However, that paper is based around political and legal frameworks for identification, rather than personal identification, which is what I’m focused on so it may be that the meaning shifts between these two modes of thoughts. In any case, let me clarify how I think about identification.

Words such as “bisexual” or “polyamorous” could (in principle) be used to describe not just “what you do” or “what you feel” but also “what you do (external world)” (e.g., engage romantically with multiple genders) or “what you do (internally)” (e.g., experience romantic attraction to multiple genders) or “who you are (self-identity)”. It seems that “bi”, and most orientation labels, are used in the latter two senses almost interchangeably (although I know of people who do not identify by the attraction they experience).  All identities possess this duality: there’s a base level descriptive meaning and an associated cultural context which coexist and inform each other. To further illustrate this point, consider how orientation identities are based around gender rather than any other characteristics like “tallness” or “musical ability.” It’s normal to say, “I’m straight/gay/ect.,” but it would be weird to say, “I’m musician-attracted” (even though musicians are typically quite attractive). This is because “musician-attracted” does not have enough cultural context communicate nearly as much orientation labels do. There’s a shared understanding of experience of having certain types of attraction and saying “I’m lesbian/bi/ect.,” suggests that maybe you share other characteristics with individuals who identify themselves similarly. It’s a showing of solidarity rather than functioning purely as descriptive.

To summarize, for me identities are words with both a foundational descriptive use and a cultural context which mutually inform each other. Although identification with sexual orientation labels has roots in biological essentialism, I think we’re at a point where these identifications can be used without any such assumptions about ‘innateness’.

Bearing in mind this framework: if it is reasonable to claim the bisexual identity because they experience attraction to multiple genders then is it also reasonable to claim the polyamorous identity if they experience a desire and willingness to have multiple romantic connections at the same time? I think it is. The external world alternative seems too restrictive, and it would difficult to delineate the boundaries in such a case. 

For each of the definitions A) - D) consider if a person could claim to be "polyamorous" if their dating interests and history were completely described by following situations.

a) You were in an (enjoyable and unregretted) polyamorous relationship but you’re now either dating at most one person. You may be open to polyamorous relationships in the future.
b) You're interested in dating more than one person, but are entirely unsuccessful.
c) You engage in romantic-seeming activities with several people, such as going on dates, and appear as if you practice polyamory but really all these acts are non-romantic for you. 

I suggest that the definitions give the answers as in Table 1. The r/polyamory definition A) requires external world activity and that the relationships are loving (i.e., romantic) so it's a no all around. The Zell Ravenheart definition B) requires that the relationships are loving but also that one has the ability to have more than one. The Poly/logue definition also requires possibility but does not specify that the relationships need to be romantic (only intimate and/or sexual). Finally D) allows for self-negotiation of desire for multiple (loving) relationships. I think it's only the last that aligns with my own sense of what counts as a polyamorous relationship and the reason it can do this is because it allows for qualification based on what is internal. 

           A            B            C            D

a          N            Y            Y            Y

b          N            N            N            Y


c          N            N            Y            N

Table 1

 As discussed, definition D) is too general to be used as a basis for identity, but it does highlight value of internality, and especially whether that internality should be internal activity (which is intentional) or internal desires (which are automatic). At this point I'll throw my own hat (definition) into the ring (list of definitions)

E) polyamory is state of desiring, and being willing to engage in, multiple simultaneous romantic relationships

I believe a definition grounded in internalities, such as D) or E), is best for the following reasons.

Consistency

Taking the word to describe internalities is that this is more consistent with how we generally view identities related to attraction. Granted, the sort of person you’re attracted to is a different thing to the sort of relationship style you’re willing to engage in, but these things are still within the realm of describing romantic interests. 

Kinship

By identifying with a word, it suggests not only that you have a shared experience with others but also that this experience is meaningful enough to you that you want others to know about it. It also suggests possible secondary characteristics you might want to align yourself with. That’s not to say everyone who identifies a particular way is the same but rather than you’ve seen enough people using with that identity that you’re willing to say “these are my people.” I believe merely having the desire to engage in multiple romantic relationships is a distinct enough experience that it’s worthwhile to identify with regardless of whether one is actively in such relationships.

Expanded Utility

While both polyamory (as identity related to externalities) and polyamory (identity related to internalities) promotes kinship based on shared experience, the latter is far more inclusive. Inclusivity alone isn’t enough, though, because if one were to be perfectly inclusive the word would be meaningless. However, I don’t see any drawbacks in this case; one is still able to focus in on more specific experiences related to what one has does externally after establishing a shared identity based on one’s internal experience. The orientation labels “gay”, “bi”, “straight” remain functional while being based on a description of one’s internal state.

All this said, these musings are somewhat inconsequential. I’m not really asking anyone to use the world polyamory differently. There may well be some utility for those who use it as an identity grounded in the description of external states which I’m unaware of precisely because it’s a much more internal thing for myself. Moreover, as mentioned at the start, the term has historically not served the people who it describes, and based on my experiences online, it seems to retain that legacy. Consequently, I don’t really want to apply it to myself.

Ultimately, my issue with the definition of polyamory isn’t really about the word, but rather about a lack of community to identify with based on my own experiences regarding non-monogamy more generally. Since as far back as I can recall having romantic desires, I’ve also found myself attracted to the idea of being romantically involved with more multiple people. The exception to this is that, between the ages of about 14 – 20, extreme possessiveness and jealousy somewhat repressed those desires. However, I got over that and almost immediately felt again a powerful desire to seek out multiple romantic relationships. This desire hasn’t gone away since then. This experience, and the feelings that resurfaced following, is integral to who I am. I’m proud of the fact I don’t get very jealous, especially since I used to, and of the fact that when I do, I’m able to deal with it well. I take great pleasure in even one-sided crushes, and I want people to be aware that I crush on others easily, especially if I have a crush on them. I enjoy being thought of as a very amorous person. I consider my encouragement of romantic and sexual freedom as one of the main benefits of being in a relationship with me. Non-monogamy is a core part of my identity, but I’ve so far failed to find any sort of community with whom I can feel a true kinship.  

A bit of a sad note to end on, I suppose, so let me emphasise some optimistic points: although I haven't found kinship with groups, I do have polyamorous friends with whom I have at least related somewhat (although I have no idea what they think of this particular topic). Also, I am satisfied that I understand  my own romantic desires in great detail, and the lack of people who get them exactly is also a reflection of that fact. Is there a name for that phenomenon, where the better one understands oneself, the less they feel understood by others?

Other updates:

I will eventually write a part 2 to the previous post about immortality.

I finished writing the new Act 1 for Solipsism=0+. Editing the rest should be a much quicker process.

There are a few updates (aesthetic changes mainly) which are upcoming to FdotG. 

I've been reading a webcomic called BreadAVOTA. I read a good chunk of it years ago, but I 'get' it a lot more this time around I'll say more about that soon too (possibly on the website itself).

I've been really enjoying a manga called After God which has narrative density like I've never seen in a manga before. 

An Immortalist's Apology, Part 1: Why do you want to die?

Introduction

I strongly believe that

(P1) "Some people would enjoy eternal health more than a finite health," 

and 

(P2) "It is at least, morally neutral to accept eternal health,"

where 'eternal health' I mean either agelessness or true immortality. While I believe that stopping aging is in principle possible (although, sadly, we are not very close to this reality) I can't really imagine how one could be truly invulnerable to damage. That places this discussion very much on hypothetical grounds, but I still think it's a discussion worth having.

I think that (P1) - (P2) are perhaps the most easily defensible positions ever. Essentially they are the same as saying

"Some people would enjoy continuing to breath and it is, at least, morally neutral for them to do so." 

If you're now aware of your own breathing, apologies.

There are many common objections to (P1) - (P2)  and I will give my answers to them, but those answers will be brief and are included only for the sake of completeness. This is because I doubt there is any benefit to looking at this as an issue which could be resolved through reasoning . The 'debate' about the desirability of immortality, about whether mortality or immortality is 'better', has gone on for a very long time and you'll find staunch defenders of either side both among professional philosophers and your neighbors. See, for instance, the classic essay by Williams (1973) (which argues immortality should be universally undesirable because an immortal life would be meaninglessness) and its numerous citations, or this YouGov poll which suggests among the general British public the split is roughly even.

If a sound and valid argument was going to persuade objectors, it would have done so already. Therefore, although I will comment on the larger debate, my main intention is to invite objectors and proponents into conversation. I believe that there is an emotional core to the debate, which must be understood made explicit, if we are to gain anything useful out of it.

This first part of this essay focuses on (P1). Since it is more personal in scope, it's more greatly affected by subjectivity and thus the most likely to lead us to the emotional core. The next part will focus on (P2) which requires greater nuance to discuss.

Firstly, however, since I am going to try an engage with the emotional core of the opposition, it is only fair that I also lay out my own emotional core. If you're more interested in academic philosophy arguing for why immortality would be desirable, I rather like this essay by Corliss Lamont.

Why I Don't Want To Die

Life is short and there's lots to do

For as many experiences that you get to have, there are infinitely more you do not get to have. You have to continually make choices and reject life paths, sometimes permanently. If you dedicate 8 hours per day to practicing mathematics in your 20s, then you don't get to practice piano. If you read one book a week until the day you die, you still haven't read most books (nor even most good books).

Just as it's euphoric to become yourself and embrace the pleasures of life, it's agonising to think about what you might be missing. We come to terms with this, the same way we come to terms with any other tragedy. But what if this wasn't necessary? What if you could spend a lifetime becoming a musician, another focusing on activism, and another on raising a family? What if you wanted to get into game development at age 95 and that was fine because you still had eternity ahead of you? 

I love living.

You meet and talk to and sometimes kiss interesting people. You see an adorable dog on the train. You go on long walks in the woods, or watch the stars, or tell dirty jokes with your friends at a New Years party. You eat the best strawberry you've ever tasted. You fall in love and out of love over and over again. You cry because someone gave you a gift you've always wanted. You yearn and obtain and fail to obtain and yearn all the harder for it. 

You see hope win against the forces of evil. You see evil rise and somewhere you find within yourself the will to fight back, and push back, and bring back goodness to the world.

You condense all these experiences into art which you can share, and experience other people's lives through their art too. You cry at a beautiful line in a novel, or scream at a twist reveal in a movie. 

And then ... you wake up the next day and realise there's so much more life still in front of you, and you're so immensely grateful.

Transcendent experiences are rare and they're what I love for.

Once, just a few weeks before I got married, I was laying on my wife's lap as they sang to me. I felt as if all of Heaven had been condensed into that moment as their melody stitched together the parts of my soul I didn't even know were frayed.

Even though I want to live forever, and I think death is a tragedy, I feel as if my life has been worth it already because of that one moment. These kind of transcendent experiences are pretty rare and the longer you live the more you have.

Naturally, given these beliefs, I struggle to see why anyone wouldn't desire an immortal life. That said, I can appreciate there are certain risks to immortality that not everyone would be comfortable taking. What I truly thing is absurd is the suggestion that no-one would enjoy immortality, that it is fundamentally a bad thing for an individual to experience. That's kind of like saying no-one would enjoy vanilla ice-cream. 

In the interest of trying to piece apart the emotional core that desire, let's take a tour of the common arguments against the desirability immortality.

The arguments against the desirability of immortality

These arguments essentially have the same core problem: an immortal life would be overall so bad for you as an individual, whoever you are, and so (P1) is false.

Seeing loved ones die.

Argument: If you (and only you) get to live forever then you'd have to contend with an infinity of death.

Response: It isn't a necessary part of the premise that only you get to be immortal. Your friends could be too. And yes they might refuse, but if the only thing holding each of you back from living forever is that the others might not, then there isn't really anything holding you back. 

Also, even in our finite lives, we see loved ones die. I don't believe this makes a finite life not worth living, so why should it make an infinite life not worth living? Indeed, if your immortality means your loved ones never need to worry about you dying, isn't that perhaps a bonus?

If indeed we're arguing about a particular and unshareable immortality, I agree there would be a tinge of tragedy to that. I still think it would be worth it, if not only because in this case you have infinite time to try learn alternative routes to immortality.

Boredom/meaninglessness

Argument: Eventually, you'd run out of things that give you any joy and would spend eternity bored. Even if you did manage to merely entertain yourself, you'd then run out of meaningful things to do.

Response: This is one I really struggle to understand. Regarding pure boredom, there are infinitely many things to do (infinitely many books to read, for one).  Regarding meaninglessness - I have enough meaningful pursuits to last me several lifetimes, and I doubt that I would ever run out since new ideas are constantly emerging. Nevertheless, one could say that "I doubt" isn't really good enough when it comes to a choice with such potentially dire consequences. 

To those that are concerned that there are only finite reserves of meaning, I say do not worry. Spending time with friends is meaningful now and nothing would make it not meaningful. Making art and developing scientific ideas is meaningful now and forever. The universe and human mind together are a meaning producing engine.

What if you get stuck in a hole for 10^6 years and go mad?

Argument: An infinite life means that, with high probability, you'll eventually end up in a very bad situation for a very long time. 

Response: Firstly, the idea that given an infinite amount of time, everything will happen is a fallacy. I do accept that given an infinite amount of time it's overwhelmingly like that something terrible will happen. However, isn't it equally reasonable to say that an infinite life also entails  the certainly something very wonderful will happen? In that case, an immortal life is offers greater risks but also greater rewards.

I am personally willing to tolerate the risk. After all, even in my probably finite life, I'm not about to avoid all pleasure for the promise of safety. 

It is my personal opinion the rewards of life scale (at least) as fast as the risks as lifespan increases. However, I can definitely understand that others might see it differently. 

Heat death of the universe. 

Argument: Eventually the universe will be a cold-dead void and you'll be all alone. The suffering/boredom you experience over that final eternity nullifies any benefit you might experience up to that point.

Response: This is not really a pure argument against (P1). Given that the universe will experience heat death, an immortal life is unphysical and so impossible. Therefore we could take this argument as ma rejection of the idea that an immortal life is even conceptually coherent, rather than a rejection of its desirability. 

And to that I say ... sure. I mean, that's so far in the future that I have no idea what we'd be able to do by then. But I know that it would be a tragedy if all life was doomed to end.

A more fun response is to accept that apart from your immortality the universe is physically consistent. Do your finger nails still grow? Your hair? Does your microbiota reproduce and do you salivate? Are you still generating heat? Then as long as you live, the universe is not dead. You're a perpetual motion machine, baby, and moreover a font of hope. From you, new worlds will emerge.

Conclusion

After considering these arguments, I'd like to propose that the emotional core of objections to (P1) is pessimism. It's the belief that fundamentally life is unpleasant and the future is scary. 

There is, for sure, unpleasantness in life, and some people are given an unfair share. But to believe that given infinite time, one has no hope to recover is to believe in a universe that is not just unfair, not just uncaring, but truly cruel. Is this how you see the world? Am I close or way off the mark? If I am close, I'm sorry that you've suffered so much that it's made you give up. It seems all the crueler to me if life is both finite and unpleasant because it means those unpleasant years are something one can never get back. I hope, in the time you have left, that you can at least make up for them.

I acknowledge that I've probably suffered less than the average person, and that may well be the cause of my optimism which is naturally the emotional core of (P1). However, I'm not so sure; perhaps the seed of optimism was planted in my materially pleasant childhood but it blossomed in the moments when I was powerless, alone, and faced with an uncertain future. I wish only that I could propagate this feeling.