She-Hulk 1X5: Own the name

It's taken 5 episodes and the exact half way mark of a 9 episode series for its title to truly be "She-Hulk: Attorney at Law". Jennifer Walters had previously insisted that her human persona would be the main interest, and it's taken up till now for that persona to finally relinquish control of the narrative and let the rightful titular character, She-Hulk, take over.

Over five episodes, we have watched Jen's human persona being systematically destroyed, at least as far as the "Attorney at Law" title goes. By episode 5, Jen Walters is a client of the law firm she works for, and not even representing herself is the smart move. From prospective DA, to defence lawyer, to character witness, to client making a counter-suit over her own identity, the normal human being she wants to be is visibly shrinking smaller and smaller, just as the character is disappearing into the bland, oversized, corporate suit that She-Hulk wears to work.

To win her case, Jen must prove that she had consistently used the name 'She-Hulk' to identify herself before Titania trademarked it for her cosmetics line. In the previous episode, Jen had used the name She-Hulk to get dates on her dating app, and suffered some very awkward encounters. But despite how badly their dates ended, the guys prove decent enough to testify on her behalf. Their testimonies make it painfully clear that the dates only happened because she presented herself as She-Hulk in name and appearance, meaning that Jen's human persona would not have been as successful. The way Jen humiliated Dennis in court in episode 3, she suffers the same humiliation fourfold here, the undertext being that Jen couldn't get a date to save her life.

Sidenote: Just because we, the TV audience, see human Jen portrayed by the delightfully lovable Tatiana Maslany, the people of MCU Earth-616 probably see a different person, perhaps somewhat more akin to a mousy corporate drone with zero charisma and no appeal. Anyway...

The 'B' story involves Nikki and Pug embarking on a hilarious and embarrassing quest to find She-Hulk a tailor who makes apparel for an exclusive superhero clientele, further underscoring that Jen Walters doesn't dress herself well, either for work, or her social life. It takes some convincing, but Luke (MCU version of Edna) is intrigued by the challenge of making a suit that fits both Jen's tiny frame and She-Hulk's statuesque one. The secret isn't Spandex, but stretch wool, and lots of it. When both 'A' and 'B' stories connect, it's when Jen has won her case and her name, She-Hulk, back from Titania, and is fully prepared to embrace her She-Hulk persona instead of constantly denying and rejecting it. Her new outfit will fit both personas as needed, and hopefully make her look good, whichever persona is wearing it. Luke's genius will only be revealed in the next episode, presumably, so we can only speculate at this point.

Human Jen isn't gone. She, after all, comes up with the winning legal strategy, and is brave enough to character assassinate herself so that She-Hulk can come to life and have agency -- rather than be treated like "a thing that happened" to her -- and the show's title can make sense moving forward. Episode 5 is likewise brave enough to endure fan backlash by 1) having no fan-favourite cameos, and 2) no end credits sequence, suggesting that the show is now confident enough to stand on its own.

Still, we are teased with Luke hastily covering up a familiar horned helmet that's been negligently left exposed. Perhaps the highly anticipated cameo from the trailer is on his way at last!

She-Hulk 1X4: Dennis Bukowski is all of us

There's a repeating pattern in the first four episodes of She-Hulk. Whomever is made the butt of the joke in the odd numbered episodes, Jen becomes in the subsequent episode.

In the first cycle, Jen makes fun of Bruce, then becomes Bruce in the next episode. In the second and current cycle, Jen gleefully takes a huge dump on Dennis for believing that Megan Thee Stallion would date him, but Jen Walters can't even pull herself a mediocre date when she uses a similar dating app in episode 4. Not only that, but the date she does get is too interested in his phone to pay attention to the woman in front of him, and even skips out on paying for their drinks when he cuts their date short. While Dennis rates himself a 'New York 10, and an LA 11' Jen gets an impersonal, in her face (though not to her face) rating of '6, maybe'.

The point episode 4 raises is that everyone is as ridiculously self-entitled and delusional as Dennis, and this fantasy disappoints us when we wake up and see reality for what it is. Let's start with Jen. Seeing as she is having no joy matching anyone at all, she tries her luck using She-Hulk as her profile. Instant success! So many men think they have a shot at dating this fantasy woman, and the ones who do are treated with Jen/She-Hulk's subjective disdain. No one except this hunk of a doctor, who listens to her more than talks about himself piques her interest.

The rest of this episode's cast are living a fantasy too. Failing magician, Donny Blaze, aspires to create real magic. His meagre stint at Kamar-Taj has given him enough magic and a sling ring to do parlour tricks, though he is messing with powers he has no comprehension of. He unwittingly unleashes a demonic infestation, and only when confronted with the reality of how dangerous his powers are does he agree to at least abide by the terms of the injunction brought against him by Wong.

Wong's fantasy is more mundane. He wants to use American law to put an end to Donny Blaze's irresponsible use of real magic. Here we see the first indications that current laws that govern human behaviour are inadequate when governing superhuman activity. Actually, no. We already saw that in shapeshifter Runa's chaotic mockery of the legal process in the previous episode. And in any case, is Wong even entitled to bring a lawsuit against an American citizen? Because 1) is Wong an American citizen himself? and 2) isn't Wong a fugitive from the law for admitting to breaking Blonsky out of his secure facility? There's a difference between real entitlement and self-presumed entitlement.

As for She-Hulk's dream date, he is unbelievably patient when she is suddenly called to an emergency just when they are about to She-Hulk smash! He reads feminist literature while he waits. Such a dream. But when he wakes up and is confronted with the reality of the very human Jen Walters who has kindly made him breakfast, he's outta there. 'Hot doctor' turns out to be just a fantasy for Jen, as She-Hulk is for him.

It's possible that this fantasy theme extends to She-Hulk haters as well. Everyone thinks they understand She-Hulk (and Hulk) better. Everyone knows they can write a better screenplay, keeping better faith with the bi-syllabic monstrosity we all know and love. Everyone knows that they can write more compelling, even more "rousing" courtroom drama than Jessica Gao and her team can, and they even have their fanfics pinned to their refrigerator doors to prove it. But the reality is that it's not their scripts but Gao, et. al.'s they get to watch on DisneyPlus, which proves to be the most galling. This idea is summed up in the closing scene of this episode in which Titania is suing She-Hulk for the use of the 'She-Hulk' moniker as Titania claimed legal copyright over the name first. It's a way for the writers to break the 4th wall from our side to say that they may not be better writers, but Marvel picked their pitch first. Sorry, everyone else!

Madisynn brings quite a contrast to the other characters in this episode. She may be stoned and drunk out of her mind, but she is tuned into reality like no one else, having no fantasies of her own. Donny Blaze unintentionally sends her on this fantastic journey via the portal he opens, not caring what's on the other side, but she just goes along for the ride accepting the reality of all the bizarreness around her, even treating the pact she made with a demon so that she can go home as matter of fact. That she Netflix and chills with Wong later is oddly sweet. She makes no judgements about the company she keeps, and though she annoys him, Wong gives us a glimpse of his human side, watching TV with a date. They are the only couple in this episode who are really together, while the others, including Jen, are really only in it for themselves.

She-Hulk 1X3: Controlling the narrative

Ep 3's linchpin moments are when Jen no longer insists on having her 'lawyer show' but instead just tries to remind us that despite several characters who keep reappearing, it's still Jen's show. Ever supportive, in a later scene, bestie Nikki underscores that Jen needs to 'take control of her narrative'.

Easier said than done, though. She-Hulk has become a media sensation and everyone is running with She-Hulk, while Jen's story goes on the backburner. Despite securing Blonsky's parole release, the media cares nothing of Jen's triumph, but instead presses her on rumors about her Avengers status and her origin story (the "Mafia hit" being a callback to She-Hulk's actual origin story from the comic books). When Jen takes Nikki's advice to control her narrative on a TV news channel, all she is asked about is She-Hulk's diet and exercise regimen. At this point, is this show still about Jennifer Walters?

In her first 4th wall break of the episode, Jen is in her car but suddenly takes her hands off the wheel to talk to the audience. By now, she knows she is symbolically and literally not in control, and despite being in the driver's seat, she really is just a passenger on her show. Jen is also somewhat resigned about her story branching off into Dennis Bukowski's lawsuit, breaking the 4th wall once again at her favourite bar to observe that the two story threads are reintegrating. When Pug asks her to testify on Dennis' behalf, she gladly agrees as she has a story to tell about Dennis that she does have control over. This story will have an impact but, ironically, Jen will be telling it not as a lawyer, but as a character witness.

But many other characters in this episode too have lost control of their narratives. After all, everyone is the hero of their own story. Dennis was 'delusional' enough to believe he was dating Megan Thee Stallion. He regains control by suing Runa, shapeshifting Light Elf from New Asgard for impersonating the latter, hoping to get back the money he had spent on her. Megan Thee Stallion makes an appearance in the courtroom, a victim of identity theft, hoping to see justice done. Runa, believes she has 'diplomatic immunity', defends her actions as  'role play', and impersonates both Dennis and the Judge in a desperate attempt to overturn an unfavourable outcome when the case clearly turns against her. And Wong's story to save Blonsky at his parole hearing inadvertently gets Wong in trouble with the law.

Which brings us to the Wrecking Crew, a gormless quartet of criminals themed as construction workers, wielding powered weapons of some kind. Believing they have a chance to rob Jen on a dark street, they meet She-Hulk instead, much to their regret, 'nuff said. We'll circle back to them in a bit.

Like Jen, none of these characters' narratives they tell themselves lead them to their desired outcome. That's because their narratives are incongruous with their realities. Jen lies to herself that she will regain her 'normal, anonymous' life once 'this is over'. Dennis lies to himself that he is 'a NY 10 and an LA 11'. Megan Thee Stallion is a victim of Runa's lies, while Runa flat out lies. But the Wrecking Crew are lied to! Clearly, some mystery villain knows the power of Hulk blood and wants to get hold of some as part of perhaps a grand scheme to control the overarching narrative, but that's a story for another time.

If there is one narrative that does result in a desired outcome, it's Blonsky's. Blonsky claims to be reformed, and has his Abomination self well under control. The parole board, seeing a demonstration of such control approves his release. Could it be that Blonsky told the truth, and as such got the outcome he wanted? And would that mean Wong somehow lied, seeing as his story backfired?

Perhaps there is one more winner in this episode: the meta narrative. It preempted the IRL She-Hulk internet hate, giving the audience a laugh at the toxic comments aired and posted on the in-show interviews of, uh, persons with a beef against female versions of superheroes. Remember the rumor that She-Hulk got her powers after a botched Mafia hit which was the story in the comics? The TV show reminds us that it's a very different entity from the comics, and what the traditionalist fandom wants, they're not going to get. Reflecting negativity and hate back at itself is really an effective way to control the narrative.

She-Hulk 1X2: Jen learns the difference between ability and agency

 or, just because you can, doesn't mean you, uh, can.

Jen's hubris hits her hard with the greenest of fists to the face. Everything she had chided Bruce for in the previous episode happens to her in this one. Her life as Jennifer Walters has been taken away, though she is still fortunate enough to have family.

The name, "She-Hulk", derives from a quippy newscaster's sound bite, as her new green giant persona begins to take over. Everyone wants She-Hulk at Jen's usual bar, so she must enter as She-Hulk. But her boss is too intimidated to fire She-Hulk, so he asks her to revert so he can fire Jen. Holliway, from GLK and H offers Jen a job, but while he wants Jen's lawyer skills, he wants them hidden behind the physical presence of She-Hulk. She-Hulk attempts to do her job meeting Emil Blonsky, but the Damage Control guard insists she can proceed only as Jen in human form.  Even the post-credits scene shows Jen back in She-Hulk form helping her dad with chores around the house. While Jen demonstrated to Bruce how ably she could change forms at will in Ep 1, in Ep 2 every transformation she makes is not her choice, but due to another person's man's whims.

Although in Ep 1 Jen gleefully departs from Bruce's multi-year Hulk training regime, fully confident of her control over the Hulk in her, by this episode, her office and business cards are gone when she gets fired from the DA's office. After multiple rejections, Jen has given up hope of finding another job as a lawyer as she browses though Buzzfeed-like listicles of unusual jobs like Swiss village mascot. The only lifeline that opens for her via GLK and H is based less on Jen's merit, and more on She-Hulk being the "face" (rather than the Head) of the firm's new superhuman division. Because of the She-Hulk, Jen has lost control over her Jennifer Walters, Attorney at Law narrative.

Talking in the meta, Round 2 clearly goes to the superhero narrative putting the kibosh on Jen's "lawyer show". The former puts Jen through what she acknowledges Bruce had gone through as the Hulk. She has no agency over her transformations, and has lost control of the normal life she was desperately holding on to. But at least she hasn't destroyed a city yet. And the superhero narrative goes a step further by informing us the audience that Bruce has gone off-world, taking away the only person who knows what she is going through and can mentor her through it. This is knowledge that Jen is not privy to, and although she will suddenly find herself abandoned by her mentor, she may never know why.

She-Hulk strong, meta narrative stronger!

 A few hours remaining before the 2nd episode of She-Hulk: Attorney at Law drops. I thought the 1st episode was highly amusing, thoughtful, nostalgic, and complemented with some low-stakes violence, setting the tone for a series that is more light-hearted than usual, and relatable more on a human scale. I'm also very interested in the meta story, and how it shapes the narrative as told by Tatiana Maslany's Jennifer Walters (or Jen) who desperately wants her series to be a "fun lawyer show" rather than a superhero flick.

Jen is probably the first character in the MCU who rejects and denies her powers. Her concerns are entirely human. It's all about job, and recognition for her competence. Friends, and work rivals. And maybe in later episodes, her insecurities dealing with relationships. Perhaps her obsession with Captain America suggests some projection on her own love life -- but I'm speculating here.

As such, when she recaps her origin story to the audience, breaking the 4th wall as she does so, she is a terribly unreliable narrator. Afraid the audience will be distracted from her amazing lawyer super power, she hastily acknowledges her Hulk-ness, reassuring us that she is coping well, and that her condition will not be a further distraction from the courtroom drama she wants to tell. As such, her origin tale is perfunctory and rushed. Accusations that she is a "Mary-Sue" are entirely warranted, because that IS the tale she wants to tell. In the training montage with Cousin Bruce, she passes all her tests with flying colours because she refuses to tell us every painful detail of her learning journey, just enough to justify her return to her law firm and the case she is working on. Her flashback also features cartoonish characters, like the overly helpful bathroom ladies and the pervy males she meets at the Ideal Sports Bar. These people are told from her subjective point of view, and once again, she skims over the details that might have added more nuance to those encounters, while exercising her prerogative to be the hero of her own story. After her recap she reminds us once again that we are watching a "lawyer show".

The "lawyer show" however quickly degenerates into a pile of utter nonsense. Before Jen can even commence her closing arguments on a nondescript case, Jamila Jamil's Titania randomly bursts through a wall Kool-Aid Man style causing havoc. Her ridiculous outfit gives no indication of her identity, her motivation is undefined, and she attacks the biggest, greenest thing she sees, after it declares itself as "Jennifer Walters, Attorney at Law". The whole attack ends with a single punch from Jen, and that's it. Jen reverts to lawyer form, and in her disheveled state announces that she is ready to deliver her closing arguments... immediately cut to black. The "lawyer show" never once gives Jen a chance to shine as a lawyer.

Who is Titania (if you didn't already know who she was, you would never have known who she was)? What does she want? Who does she work for? How evil can she be? None of these questions are answered and the main antagonist in this episode is summarily dispatched with ease. It doesn't matter. In this establishing episode, whomever she was, she is not the most significant villain Jen is facing. Torn between the lawyer that she wants to be and the She-Hulk who keeps getting in the way of her lawyer-ing, Jen's true conflict is against her own narrative.

Is Jen a good lawyer? Her interactions with Bruce do suggest that she has impressive skills. She keeps getting the better of him not because she is a better Hulk, but because she is a "better lawyer than she is a Hulk". Unfortunately for her, her narrative, her story, is equally determined to prove otherwise. 

377A, the potential political hot potato nobody wants

So in the National Day Rally 2022, PM announced that Section 377A is finally being repealed. It's been a slow, gradual process laying the groundwork for the dissolution of a legacy law that we inherited from the Brits, made in times long past from which society has grown and changed. To put it simply, 377A criminalises the act of sex between men, and in these more open times is seen as an oppression of homosexuality, although the same law makes no provision for lesbian sex.

Despite times being more inclusive, there are still strongly vocal components of our society who believe same-sex sex is unacceptable, hence the need for years of groundwork: discussions, consultations and reassurances that all interested parties on both sides of the divide will get a fair hearing. For a time, the status quo held that although the law exists, it would not be enforced. But now, this archaic law is about to become moribund, with the compromise that only heterosexual marriages will be recognised and protected by our Constitution. One step forward, and one step back.

But is it, though? Because what I see is a mistaken conflation between the repeal of a defunct law and the implied support for the group the law penalised. The next step on this slippery slope would be that if this once-penalised group has gained even implicit support from the authorities, then the upholding of its asserted rights (in this case to marriage) should follow. That is not what's happening here.

Repealing 377A has nothing to do with supporting homosexuality. Rather, it simply gets rid of a potential political hot potato that creates unnecessary division between people who feel they must draw a line in the sand over the issue. As long as the law exists, no matter how much it is promised to be 'unenforceable', at any time, any zealot from either side wanting badly enough to make a statement could make a big enough fuss over an incident, and demand prosecution. Given how divisive the issue is, and that there are respectable, contributing members of society on both sides of the fence, any decision the courts are forced to make is bound to favour one side over the other, splitting society over a rift of no return.

To repeal 377A is nothing more than a pragmatic decision. It is a recognition that whatever goes on sexually between consenting adults in private is their own business, and not the government's. If someone gets injured, or dies during the act of whatever variety of sex, there are laws that deal with assault or murder. If a sexual act is done in public and is complained about, there are laws governing public nuisance. With 377A gone, anyone charged with such crimes makes for a clearly criminal case, instead of being charged with a law designed to target a specific group of people, raising accusations of unfairness, repression and the violation of human rights. For a Democratic society, such repercussions can be severe and difficult to recover from.

The LGBTQ+ community are disappointed that their right to marriage remains denied to them for now. But this discussion is for another time and cannot be a logical follow-through from the decision to repeal 377A.

Run free, Momo!

Saturday, 6 August 2022.

Mocha has left to run with her ancestors. Vet records say she was over 21 years old, though we've really lost count ourselves. It wasn't like we adopted her, more like she adopted us. Back at our old place, we heard a commotion outside our front door. We opened it to find our big ginger block cat bullying this tiny white furball. He'd probably scratched the tip of her nose and she was never able to get rid of the scar after that. Of course we chased the bully away, and in walked this little one looking like she already owned the place. I've never seen markings like hers, all white with coffee-coloured saddlebags on both flanks, heart-shaped helmet, and the tail, all fluffed up like a squirrel's from her previous altercation. She owned us right then.

She's seen a lot with us since. We moved to our new place, which isn't so new any more. She outlived a couple of our previous other pets. Once we tried entering her in a "biggest cat" contest, at 4 whole kg, but she protested so much at being brought outdoors, so we left her at home. She would never have won, anyway. We thought she was big, but we had no basis for comparison. She would only have measured a quarter the weight of the champion.

Recently, the signs of her ageing slowly started showing. She looked increasingly fragile and unsteady as she walked. Her incontinence indicated a failing kidney situation, though she did make an effort to pee in the same spot which we lined with absorbent mats. There were the occasional accidents, but you know, old people. We took her to the vet two weeks ago hoping that she was just fighting a UTI, but on the follow up visit, she had visibly deteriorated. This time, the vet confirmed what we'd already suspected -- that she just needs to be comfortable while we wait out the inevitable.

We placed her on a towel in the living room floor so that she would still be in the midst of family activity. Personally, I hoped that she would pass in the house she had lived in for so long, in familiar surroundings, with familiar beings around her. And so, she did. I sat with her in her last moments, stroking her fur, keeping her assured that she wasn't alone. I kept at it, not knowing exactly when she'd gone. But the dog knew. All this time the dog sat apart from us, but just as I began to question Momo's lack of responsiveness, the dog quietly walked over and sat on my lap. I let her sit for a while then moved when I needed to stretch my legs. When I settled, the dog immediately sat on my lap again. Dogs seem to pick up and respond to human emotional cues. The other two cats were off doing their own thing.

The rest was procedural. We took her back to the vet to get her certified and arrange for cremation. We never keep their ashes since they have spent their lives keeping us company, so now they've earned the right to run with their ancestors.

Speculating on the MCU with She-Hulk: Attorney at Law

It's just a trailer, but some quarters are concerned with how Ms Walters seems to be so much better at Hulking than the Hulk. Is She-Hulk the Mary Sue these folks see her as? Lets see...

She tosses a boulder further than the Hulk, but notice that Hulk is using his recently recovered hand -- previously severely injured from his counter-snap in Endgame -- and he is using a wrist toss, while She-Hulk throws from the shoulder, giving her greater leverage in this 'contest'.

She demonstrates greater agility in the 'balance' contest, but it's likely that when she was still just Ms Walters, she was already quite an advanced yoga student (benefit of the doubt here).

And with the other tests, it's just superhero physics. 

I believe what's going on in this tropical island Hulk testing facility is that the Hulk is being a sexist, overprotective big brother type, and greatly underestimates what she can do. So his 'tests' are pitched insultingly low for one thing; and for another, She-Hulk is probably an overachiever and highly motivated to learn quickly so she can get off the island and back to her normal life ASAP.

As for her 4th wall breaking asides, She-Hulk has been doing that since the 1980s. And she has done more than just talk to the audience. Fully aware of being a character in a comic book medium, she has ripped her way through pages of her own comic book, walked across non-narrative frames of advertising, and taken issue with her own writers and artists. I wonder if they would go that far in this TV series, perhaps taking us behind the camera, and continuing the narrative outside of narrative space, effectively blending her universe with the audience's. I relish the possibility of how meta this show can get.

Oh, and in case you worry about how violent she gets with the four puny thugs in the trailer, they're the Wrecking Crew and they have powers so they won't bruise easily.

Where might this show be taking us in the MCU? For a comedy, it could be taking us down a pretty dark path: The world is quickly becoming overpopulated with super-powered beings, and the "Book of American... uh... Laws" is becoming increasingly less useful in maintaining peace and order. When Phase 5 hits, I speculate the build-up of paranoia among powered and non-powered people groups with Avengers: Secret Wars breaking the camel's back. Phase 6 will begin a "Days of Future Past" type conflict, and an ideal time to finally introduce The Mutants, though hints of their existence will continue to be dropped throughout Phase 5.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. The recent Marvel offerings have been reflecting a light-hearted comedic tone and I'm looking forward to having a few laughs with She-Hulk and her entourage of supporting characters, some well-known, others obscure. Let's laugh now while we can. I see dark days ahead.  

Low-bar predictions for Wakanda Forever

 

A bit late to the party. The official teaser trailer for Wakanda Forever dropped days ago at SDCC 2022 and I've been watching so many reaction videos responding to Ryan Coogler's latest masterpiece. For a trailer, the shots are beautifully composed and the way they are cut together is powerfully emotive. The focus is on the real life loss of Chadwick Boseman, the entire trailer a loving tribute to the Black Panther character who has done so much for African representation in the mainstream movies. Marvel not recasting him tells us there can be no other who can fill his traditional sandals. Whomever is going to be the new Black Panther will have to create and own a new mythology by themselves, and make us care as much. I do not envy the actor or actress who will accept the mantle.

What I wish to do, now that this movie has been so hyped, is to temper my expectations with low-bar predictions and hope that I am totally wrong. Last thing I want is to enjoy the trailer more than the actual movie, and I really enjoyed the trailer. So, my hopefully wrong predictions are as follows:

1) There won't be a single Black Panther replacement, but rather a 'Spartacus'- style Black Panther Squad

2) Namor looks like the main antagonist, but the action-packed conflict will brief as Atlantis and Wakanda team up against a common enemy

3) Queen Ramonda's (Angela Bassett) powerful speech about her "entire family is gone" is a flashback to the snap (do we know if Shuri and T'challa both dusted?) and not referring to current events

4) It won't be just T'challa we will be mourning, but Wakanda itself, along with its vibranium will be destroyed in the conflict with the Atlanteans. The title, "Wakanda Forever", as well as Kendrick Lamar's "Alright" which accompanies the second half of this trailer, building excitement, anticipation, and hope, are both ironic. Perhaps at the end of the movie, there remains a seed from which Wakanda can rebuild and reinvent itself from scratch -- a sort of cliffhanger to end Phase 4 and bring in Phase 5 of the MCU saga.

TIFO: how to appreciate a sundae

Whenever we go to Swensen's for ice-cream, the wife will invariably order her Coit Tower sans strawberry and hot fudge sauce toppings. I always assumed that she didn't like strawberry and hot fudge toppings. Today, she ordered the same thing, but the order got garbled in the kitchen. Both our sundaes arrived sans strawberry and hot fudge toppings. Small error, so I let it go. As I dug in, I realized what the wife had known for the last couple of decades of being married to me: ice-cream sundaes taste so much better without the intrusion of oversweet flavoured sauce toppings that are only added on as eye-candy, but overwhelm the subtler and more varied flavours of the ice-cream underneath. The brightness of plain vanilla blending with rich chocolate awoke in my mouth, and now I know what I've been missing all this time we've been going to our favourite San Francisco-themed dessert joint. From now on, it's going to be naked sundaes. Less is truly more.

Gaming strategy of the GCE H1 General Paper

This post is inspired by the GP Paper 2 timed exercise I gave today:

Here's the premise: An 'A' in GP translates to a band between 70-100 marks. So even if we lose 30% of the total mark, we still score an 'A'. And to pass, we can afford to lose 55% of the mark.

The paper comprises 1 section of short questions (17 marks total), 1 summary (8 marks), and 1 Application Question (AQ) or short essay (10 marks) based on a given set of 1 or 2 short texts about a topic of general interest. The marks from the questions total to 35 marks, with an additional 15 marks for language. Altogether, they add to a grand total of 50 marks. Assuming most students get 10 marks for language, losing 10 marks from the questions alone will still score an 'A'.

The short questions in the first section comprise a mix of questions that have to do with 1) vocabulary, 2) finding lists of linguistically-related things, and 3) finding lists of evidence supporting a claim. Higher-order questions involve 1) inferences, 2) or otherwise intuiting further meaning from the given text. Or we can break the short questions into translation and interpretation types, that is, those asking to extract meaning from what is written, and from what ISN'T written, respectively.

The current strategy employed by my students is that of a side-scrolling platformer: tackle every obstacle or every enemy sprite in sequence. Their threat-boards are lit up in red everywhere as they take on all-comers on the field one at a time. But this method slows them down significantly. There is a fixed time limit, and when they eventually clear their way to the boss monster of the AQ they run out of time, and the mission is incomplete, resulting in poor performance all round.

I'm proposing a different strategy now, that of an Action Role-Playing Game (ARPG). In these games, a few high-value targets are mixed in with a hoard of low-value targets. To survive, we prioritize our targets, even to the point where we decide to ignore a few. It's tempting to go after the high value targets first, but we underestimate how much damage low-value targets can cause en masse, so the smart thing to do is to avoid the Elites and clear the trash mobs first. When we have sufficiently thinned the herd, then we go after the Elites, ensuring we have time remaining to slay the Boss at the end. And if there's still time remaining, we circle back to mop up the remaining trash and Elites that have survived our onslaught.

In GP Paper 2 terms, the trash are the simpler questions involving vocabulary and lists, while the Elites are the inferential questions. The summary is nothing more than a long list of things. The Boss, that's the AQ. The game is to chalk up as many points as possible, as early as possible, even if we need to dodge the Elite questions at first, then going back to take them on, time permitting. Since there are 3 sections to the paper, each section maxes out at 30 minutes. On each 30th minute, regardless of how many questions are answered, port out to the next section. The AQ needs to be engaged on the 60th minute, latest. AQ done, cycle back until the full 90 minutes are up.

Spreading out the point acquisition reduces the risk of losing huge chunks of marks for a missed section, so knowing that some questions, or parts of questions, can be avoided or ignored until a more opportune time presents itself should improve performance moving forward.

My Prince Phillip story

It was '72.  I was 6. Their Majesties dropped in on our sunny isle to see how their old colony was doing. Mom was preggers but was nevertheless excited to have a chance to look at royalty up close and personal. They were scheduled to make an appearance at the then Singapore Turf Club (now Turf City). Somehow, Mom bundled me there and got close to the barricade bordering the red carpet on which the Royals would walk back to their motorcade. However, where we were standing, Mom may have been barely tall enough to see, but not me. All I saw were the legs of the union jack-waving throng lining the carpet. Determined not to miss a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see characters I've only read about come to life, I pushed forward and inched my way to the front. Perhaps I was too determined, but to everybody else's horror, I found myself ON the red carpet. Just then, a man patted me on the head and said, "Ho, ho, ho, look at this little boy!" and carried on walking along with a bunch of other people. Then nothing else happened. The royal party had walked past me, and I didn't get to see the Queen.

I was disappointed. All that effort, gone to waste. When Mom finally caught up with me, she revealed that the man I encountered was Prince Phillip himself! But my 6-year old mind could not comprehend that royalty did not dress in crown, gown, and scepter as they did in my picture books. They wore people clothes, and I didn't recognize them as what I saw did not match up to what I expected to see.

And maybe that, too, is the story of my life.

It's not an exam, it's an opportunity

There are no exams to take for learning to ride a bicycle, or any other skill we pick up in childhood. Either alone, or helped by friends, we play, fall, mess up, and play some more until we develop an appreciable facility that need not be validated by an external moderator. What keeps us going is how much fun we are having while we practice, and the sense of empowerment we get 'levelling up'.

What is left when we strip away the exam component from the H1 General Paper (GP)? For most of the fraternity, and practically all GP students, the paper and the exam are sadly indistinguishable. None would take the subject voluntarily, so it is compulsory for everyone to take. Since the exam IS the thing, no one looks beyond the exam, and every student is happy to drop it as soon as the final exam at the end of second year is taken and passed. No one forgets how to ride a bike, but GP is one and done.

If we forget the exam and stop worrying about the results, we could stop teaching 'skills' that are only relevant to the exam. Without things like 'question types', and the nit-picky 'close reading', and the excessive paraphrasing, and many other limiting, rule-bound redundancies, GP as a skill would be rather therapeutic, at the very least.

If learning skills is about fun and empowerment, then GP combines current affairs with language to the effect that our young students can grab humanity by the collar, give us a good shake, and show us how we've messed up the world for ourselves, for the planet, and for the future. The subject presents a unique opportunity for teenage angst, frustration, anxiety, and despair to have a legitimate, yet positive outlet. And when the students are done railing at humanity, they can say, 'Do you see what you've done? Do you understand what you've done? And now, you know what you need to do to make it right!'

Students are tired of being told what to do, so let's have a little fun with the exams. The questions on the exam are not for the students to answer, but rather for them to make humanity answerable for so much that has gone wrong in the world today, and to make restitution and amends thereafter. That's empowerment. And if the students can see the opportunity instead of the exam, the results will speak for themselves.

The difference between 'woke and 'cancel'

is that 'woke' engages an issue, whereas 'cancel' is an ad hominem attack on a person. How have we not figured that out yet?

Hurry up and wait

A pair of Karens behind me in line for COVID-19 shot. They are berating the poor employee who's just managing queue order about how they made the effort to "rush" down to their 9am appointment only to find that they'd have to wait in line with the rest of us plebes to get poked. They appear horrified that all of us seem to also have a 9am appointment. And now they are lamenting the inefficiencies of a system that cannot precisely tell them exactly when the doctor will see them. All this while, the employee is resignedly letting them rant in his face. And now, in a huff, they've cancelled their appointment saying they have other appointments to attend to today.

Has this precious duo never been to a clinic before? The appointment time indicates the time you are eligible to queue with everybody else. You queue to get a get a queue number, then queue some more while waiting for it to be called. When you hear your number, then it's your turn to see the medical professional for the jab. Then, as a precaution against adverse reactions to the vaccine, there's another wait for 30 mins in an observation area before being discharged. The whole process takes slightly more than an hour and a half.

So now we have a pair of loose Karens who have given up their shot at immunity from a global pandemic. There's always gotta be a few.

Almost, Impossible

Ah, Impossible meat. Served at Swensen's, the cheeseburger version is finally affordable enough to sample. Supposed to "taste like meat", I'd say it's close, but still not quite. Perhaps if a friend served it at their backyard BBQ without saying what it was, I'd unquestioningly nom it down. But seeing the item on the menu inevitably raises a comparison to the real thing. And where burger meat tastes like cow, Impossible tastes like beans.

What saved this one for me is the generous serving of cheese, fresh lettuce and raw onions between the buns. These additional flavours distracted from the veggie patty enough to simulate an authentic burger experience, but not enough to make me a convert.

A pity, since I'm at a stage when I'd gladly chow down on a veggie-based meat substitute to avoid animal slaughter, but that product is still a ways off yet in terms of cost and deliciousness.

Upsetting the balance (and everyone else in the fraternity)

We who teach argumentative writing are constantly aware of the requirement to present a 'balanced' argument. Perhaps it's the way this requirement has been phrased that we teach 'balance' as the primary objective of the written argument, but that is so out of touch with reality. As such, the way we teach kids to write arguments feels unnatural, and useless for any purpose other than for grading papers.

So we assume that arguments identify a subject in a state of disequilibrium, and that the purpose of argumentation is to return the subject to equilibrium. And perhaps the nature of our jobs contribute to this misconception, because that line of logic is less of an argument, and more of a scolding -- the kind that mollifies everybody and tells them to shake hands and make up at the end of it.

In reality, arguments exist to shake up equilibrium and cause disruption to what we assume to be 'normal'. In a state of equilibrium, there is no argument. Everyone agrees to not rock the boat, to maintain stability, and keep the status quo. Arguments arise when someone is no longer satisfied with the way things are, and raises a ruckus in hopes of making a change. Arguments advance a position to upset an existing balance, instead of forcing everyone back into a state of compliance and conformity.

Our mistake in teaching argumentative writing is in making balance the objective, rather than treating it as a means to an end. Instead, we need to teach that balance is important only so far as we are prepared to knock it all down. Balance is a pyramid of cans in a carnival game stall. Nobody approaches it to admire how well it is balanced. The attraction is to toss a ball at it and watch it explode into bits on impact. And collect the stuffed toy prize after.

Achieving balance is a lot of work, and yes, the effort is appreciated in the writing of the essay. But the fun part is in demolishing the balance which we have worked so hard to build. So, unfairly stacking the argument, as the kids like to do with the 'three points "for", one point "against"' conceit is like the same carnival pyramid of cans being nailed down on their pedestal -- no fun at all since the outcome is a foregone conclusion. So if that's what we're teaching the kids to do, ironically, what we call 'balanced' is ultimately biased from beginning to end.

Perhaps our mistaken approach is what turns off the kids from writing. We make them work for balance, but deprive them of the joy of demolishing what they have so carefully built, and sifting through the remains to find the prize: some discovery that brings a new understanding or insight to the subject of their discussion.

And that would be so much more rewarding for us to read, as well. There's always a sense that a balanced argument feels unfinished or incomplete. Like it's missing a 'so what?". Well, here's your 'so what'.

Education, the MMORPG

After the review session yesterday, from the fragments of observations other people talked about, I pieced together an analogy of how education works here, as in how it seems so successful at the early stages, then successes taper off at higher levels of development.

Our education system is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). All our kids play, or at least participate in the same game together. There are monsters to defeat, quests to undertake, and rewards to gain for every success. But it's quite a challenging, and punishing game in that it's a grind, meaning that we spend a lot of time doing repetitive, meaningless tasks to accumulate experience points (EXP) as we level up. Leveling up unlocks harder, but more rewarding challenges. Everybody wants to level up as quickly as possible to 'farm' the best rewards the game can dish out.

Most MMORPGs work this way, but our version comes with an online trading system. Advantaged players with the most resources at the start of the game immediately source out and buy the best Unique or Legendary items with which to equip themselves, even before encountering their first low-level rat-monster. Armed with the most powerful level-permitted weapon, and the toughest body-armour money can buy, players blaze through the earliest tutorial stages with ease. Their achievements are impressive, leveling up faster than the other players around the rest of the world. While most other players are still struggling with basic arithmetic, our players are already tackling rudimentary algebra. Collectively, we continue wowing the education world with players constantly topping the academic Olympiad and PISA leagues.

Our successes are based on the pay-to-win strategy that we are all complicit in. All the extra tuition, all the best assessment books, all the best IT equipment, everything money can buy that will give our players a leg-up we willingly spend on. We even pay for dubious 'cheat codes', as some tuition centres purport to offer. We believe in advantaging our players early so that they can have the best start in life. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Well, if our rapidly unlocked 'Achievements' are dependent on our money-bought equipment, then our players aren't really learning to play the game. They won't need to think around a task or puzzle, or figure out how to defeat a boss monster. You don't need to develop a strategy if you can just bludgeon a problem to death. Many of our players won't even need to consider co-op play -- since they can solo everything, why bother with the complexities of working with other people, and sharing the rewards after?

And so, for our players, education is a game in which they do nothing else but grind, level up, trade for new equipment, rinse and repeat until they max out their characters at the Level Cap -- that is, the level at which there are no higher levels to attain. At this level, our players believe they have attained "Education", and the game is over. After all, what's there to do when there are no more levels to grind for?

The thing with Education, the MMORPG, is that -- as with most MMORPGS -- the real game begins at the level cap.  At the End Game, the other players who have been learning the game instead of being 'carried' through start to shine. Having understood their characters inside-and out, and figuring out the game mechanics as they struggled through their levels, the real fun begins. They've learned to optimize their randomly-dropped equipment, and strategise around what they have instead of what they've bought to take on the toughest challenges. At this point of the game, the really good rewards are incredibly hard to find, but the sense of accomplishment is real, whereas those with a sense of entitlement are constantly frustrated by the rarity of the drops. Another reason to 'rage quit', since the game was never really very interesting for them to begin with.

What this analogy hopes to explain is how Education today seems to develop young minds so quickly and with so much promise, and yet in later life, most of them are stuck in unfulfilling, mundane job mediocrity, and are wondering where it all went wrong. So it's possible that we parents who so want to provide our children the advantages we never had growing up, could be killing their "joy of learning" with our good intentions instead.

The Black Panther: Lion King recycled?

Is it just me, or does The Black Panther seem like Disney's The Lion King in reverse?

Spoiler alert:

Mufasa (T'chaka) kills Scar (N'Jobu).

Scar's son (Killmonger) is exiled thereafter and makes friends with the Jackals (Ulysses Klaue and gang).

Meanwhile, Simba (T'chaka) becomes king, supported by his mom (Ramonda) and the spiritual Rafiki (Zuri).

Simba has a love interest in Nala (Nakia), and is friends with playful and inventive Timon (Shuri+Everett K Ross), and stubborn, charge-into-battle Pumbaa (Okoye).

Crisis happens when the exile returns to the tribe and challenges the incumbent for the throne.

In the end, House Mufasa still prevails over House Scar.

Not to take away from a great movie presenting strong nuance and food for thought, but perhaps there really aren't any new stories to tell.

The replacement

Behold the the new ride! Design-wise, it's still the same basic shape as the previous, so in a way, I feel I'm keeping the same old car, just with a heap of upgraded components.

Only got to drive him home from the dealership today, so there's not enough driving for a strong first impression. Still, there's a sense of more cabin space internally, while externally it feels slightly longer and the tiniest bit wider in bulk than I'm used to. And while the old car gave off a free-wheelin' fun vibe, this new model feels more mature in the upholstery, the safety features, energy efficiency, entertainment system, and the clean, functional dashboard display.

And because it's Chinese New Year, the dealership sent along a box of Goodwood Park pineapple tarts in the shape of ancient Chinese gold taels, each topped with a sliver of gold leaf. They offer a satisfactory bite, not crumbly and not too sweet. Best shared over a steaming pot of tea. Thanks, Mazda!