aditantimedh on July 28, 2008, 07:00:30 pm
Okay, everyone, now that LA MUSE is finished, I'm opening this thread to any discussions, debates and questions you might have from having read the whole story. 

Thoughts?  Questions?  Bring 'em on.



Rocketman on July 28, 2008, 07:50:10 pm
It seems to me that one superpowered individual like Susan simply couldn't change things as much as the comic seems to think that she could.  There would always be individuals "behind the scenes" as it were influencing things to the way that they want people to think.  Google "Joseph Newman's energy machine" to get a better idea of how a revolutionary invention can be kept from the market place.  Back in the 1980's I strongly supported Newman by writing Congress and Senators to no effect because the fix was in.
 >:(

aditantimedh on July 30, 2008, 09:00:21 pm
You're correct when thinking on a human scale.

Susan is utterly capable of rewriting all of Reality if she wanted to. 

If there's anyone "behind the scenes" by the end, it's Libby.

Basically these two are the most powerful and frightening figures in the universe by the end of the story.

Neocon on July 30, 2008, 10:51:47 pm
Okay, everyone, now that LA MUSE is finished, I'm opening this thread to any discussions, debates and questions you might have from having read the whole story. 

Thoughts?  Questions?  Bring 'em on.




While we are flattered that the Libertarian movement apparently thinks that the only way to remove neoconservatives from power effectively is to draw on someone with all the power and capriciousness of the ancient Greek gods, we assure you: we're not that good.

aditantimedh on July 31, 2008, 12:36:18 am
Neither Susan nor I are Libertarian.

LA MUSE is not a libertarian story.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 12:41:20 am by aditantimedh »

Rocketman on July 31, 2008, 09:02:32 pm
"Neo-con"
     You flatter yourself sir.  I can't speak for anyone else other than myself but I think what is most likely to occur in the real world is that after the term of this "president" is that in the near future the fortunes of those who believe as you do are likely to take a long turn downward.  >:(

aditantimedh on July 31, 2008, 09:44:40 pm
Thing is, anyone who considers themselves a "neocon" but who isn't extremely rich is no less screwed than everyone else not sitting at the big table.



Monkt on July 31, 2008, 10:33:13 pm
Neither Susan nor I are Libertarian.

LA MUSE is not a libertarian story.
Labels are stupid anyway.

aditantimedh on July 31, 2008, 11:24:40 pm
Exactly.  If there's one thing LA MUSE pushes, it's that labels are too narrow to encapsulate people and their contradictions.


Rocketman on August 01, 2008, 04:43:56 pm
Thing is, anyone who considers themselves a "neocon" but who isn't extremely rich is no less screwed than everyone else not sitting at the big table.

Aditantimedh:  Good point.  While reading that I was struck by a term that Lenin used to describe those who believe in the Communist system of government but were not going to be receiving the "rewards" when the communists took power.  "Useful idiots".  ;)

enemyofthestate on August 01, 2008, 07:55:50 pm
Exactly.  If there's one thing LA MUSE pushes, it's that labels are too narrow to encapsulate people and their contradictions.
Not to mention that language is an important tool human use to organize thoughts.

Sean Roach on August 01, 2008, 10:51:06 pm
Do you mean like "save the rainforests", and "It's a jungle out there"?
Or "wetland" and "swamp"?

I'll stay away from the moving target of the labels that have been used for different human groups over the years.

Scott on August 02, 2008, 01:42:12 pm
Here is my take on LA MUSE. Actually, two takes.

What we have is a character possessing not only an assortment of "progressive" political values -- saving the environment, ending poverty, fighting bigotry -- but also omnipotence and thereby the means to realize those values in just a year's time.

1) Which brings up the question, which "Neocon" above alluded to -- would it really take being able to alter the laws of physics and "re-wire" people's consciousness to finally solve these vexing challenges? What does this mean for real-world progressives who can't realistically hope for a god-like champion? Or should Susan be viewed more metaphorically, as an expression of progressives' collective will, and the story is simply an allegory showing what that will might accomplish somehow, someday?

2) Is Susan a hero or a monster? Adi uses the term "monster" early in the script but the story certainly seems to make Susan a sympathetic character. Yes, she kills people, but in every case we saw, her victims were themselves murderers who "needed killing" as Texicans used to put it.

Susan is beautiful, hip, wise, powerful -- how can we not want to identify with her? And yet, she essentially becomes Queen of the Universe, the Court of Final Appeal and Judge of Us All, treating humanity as her own favorite Bonzai plant to carefully groom to her liking.  And people are indeed enamored of beauty, of glamor, of appearances, and will indeed embrace beautiful monsters, until the monsters actually start eating them in large numbers.

Look at all the beautiful monsters people are embracing in the real world right now. These real-world monsters might be movie stars careening down destructive life-paths, or genius self-promoters with no sense of boundaries or appealing ideologies which promise utopia and deliver bloody disaster.

The Monster Susan LaMuse does deliver utopia -- but what will it cost us?

KBCraig on August 02, 2008, 02:41:59 pm
Look at all the beautiful monsters people are embracing in the real world right now.

For years the goal of the major political parties --especially the DNC-- has been to find someone attractive enough, bright enough, free enough of known warts, uncontroversial enough (in other words, a slate that is blank enough, a suit that is empty enough...) to sweep into office on a purely visceral election.

Bill Clinton partly filled that role. Although his warts were well known, he was largely elected by women who found him handsome and charismatic.

While the GOP nominee has never been Obama-esque, many have certainly tried: cf. Elizabeth Dole's run, or the failed coronation of Mitt Romney.

I'm torn by the ending. I'm saddened that the heroine is yet another monster, although I was never a fan of her methods.

Rocketman on August 02, 2008, 02:52:05 pm

What we have is a character possessing not only an assortment of "progressive" political values -- saving the environment, ending poverty, fighting bigotry -- but also omnipotence and thereby the means to realize those values in just a year's time.

1) Which brings up the question, which "Neocon" above alluded to -- would it really take being able to alter the laws of physics and "re-wire" people's consciousness to finally solve these vexing challenges? What does this mean for real-world progressives who can't realistically hope for a god-like champion? Or should Susan be viewed more metaphorically, as an expression of progressives' collective will, and the story is simply an allegory showing what that will might accomplish somehow, someday?


Scott, the way I see it in a perfect world it wouldn't or at least shouldn't be up to anyone to "rewire" anyones brain, at least anyone over the age of say six.  Life gives you experiences that if your halfway smart about allows you to learn from your mistakes at least enough that you don't do it again.  Unfortunately, common sense as it used to be called has less and less an effect on the average person thanks in no small part to this increasingly socialist government.   Look at the subprime loan mess, anyone who was thinking at all should have realized that it was a house of cards that was sooner or later going to fall apart.  Now it has and so far eight banks have failed because of it and hundreds more are going to follow.  And what has our government decided to do to safeguard the financial system?  It has decided to funnel billions and billions of dollars into Fannie May and Freddy Mac and is likely to bail out GM, Ford and Chrysler when they start to go belly up, and that day is closer than you think.  By the way I read that everyone's bill for Freddie and Fanny is going to be something on the order of an additional $18,000.  So what had the American public learned from this?  If you spend your money recklessly then you end up eventually getting it back.  And it your careful it's taken away from you through inflation, exactly the opposite lesson that government should teach.  >:(  >:(  >:(  >:(  >:(  >:(

 

anything