In 400 words, describe and analyse a short sequence of no more than 3 minutes from a film or television programme of your choice. How does the sequence contribute to the overall meaning of the work it is a part of?
Mr Robot (USA Network, 2015-Present) arguably presents an archetype of masculinity in crisis following shows such as The Sopranos (HBO, 1999-2007), Dexter (Showtime, 2006-2013) and Breaking Bad (AMC, 2008-2013) which signified a shift away from the popularised portrayal of the metrosexual male, which what Simpson has argued as being “a commodity fetishist: a collector of fantasies about the male sold to him by advertising.” (marksimpson.com, Online)
However, the ways of which the protagonist Elliot is presented provides not only an insight into the ways of which masculinity has shifted from a subverted male gaze but to one of vulnerability, embodied by capitalistic ideology. In particular, the scene in which Elliot explicitly explains how modern society annoys him to his therapist (‘eps.1.0_hellofriend.mov’, 2015) epitomises how vulnerability, specifically through the aspects of mental illness, is depicted through a masculine lens as the show progresses. Throughout the scene Elliot deconstructs how society has regressed to a desensitised, paralyzed state due to the ways of which those who “[hold] the means of material production” use the “control...of the means of mental production”. (Marx Engels Archive, Online) Depicting icons such as Steve Jobs and Bill Cosby in a negative light, Elliot essentially adopts the persona of John Nada from Carpenter’s They Live (1988), metaphorically unveiling the monstrous repercussions of consumerist ideology in modern society.
Although while Nada is presented as a stereotypically masculine heroic figure, one which attacks the monsters of modern consumerist society head on, Elliot projects the means of which he is trapped by. Commenting on how society ‘masquerades insight’ through the means of social media, Elliot inadvertently presents how he applies the same ‘cowardly’ approach to his own mental psyche. This thematic of isolation is inherent to Elliot’s character as the show progresses and it shows much of what shows such as The Sopranos, Dexter and Breaking Bad attempt to create through their representations of masculinity.
The ways of which mental illness and vulnerability are presented through Elliot’s characterisation owes very much so to the portrayal of an encumbering consumerist driven society in comparison, one which rejects the heroic capabilities which Elliot seeks to employ and instead replaces them with dissociative identity disorder through the way which Elliot addresses the audience by breaking the fourth wall instead of having the freedom which Nada has in They Live. Disregarding masculine vulnerability and projecting a heavily authoritative driven masculinity, Nada’s character arguably presents a polarised opposite to that of Elliot, one which is troubled and isolated by the perceived inflictions which consumerism has had on his mental well-being.
Bibliography
Breaking Bad (2008-2013) AMC, January 20 (2008) - September 29 (2013).
Dexter (2006-2013) Showtime, October 1 (2006) - September 22 (2013).
‘Eps.1.0_hellofriend.mov’ (2015) Mr Robot, Season 1, Episode 1, USA Network, 24 June.
Marx Engels Archive (no date) The German Ideology Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm (Last Accessed: 20/04/2017).
Mr Robot (2015-Present) USA Network, June 24 (2015) - Present.
Simpson, Mark (no date) Here Come the Mirror Men: Why The Future is Metrosexual Available at: http://www.marksimpson.com/here-come-the-mirror-men/ (Last Accessed: 22/04/2017).
They Live (1988) Directed by John Carpenter [Film] USA: Universal Pictures.
The Sopranos (1999-2007) HBO, January 10 (1999) - June 10 (2007).
With the terms EDM (Electronic Dance Music) and IDM (Intelligent Dance Music) so liberally used in contemporary music journalism to segregate electronic music further than ever before, one inherently important question comes to mind; are the terms EDM and IDM legitimately defined and are they required?
Even in the early formations of progressive rock, Jim Morrison of The Doors undertook a very bold speculation on the future of music in the 1960’s, claiming that eventually there would be ‘one person with a lot of machines’ [1] to produce popular music. Ironically, the dawn of electronic music started ever so soon with the birth of artists and bands such as Neu! and Kraftwerk in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, hailing their use of synthesisers to produce melancholically progressive tracks such as “Autobahn” [2] to what could perhaps be perceived as colder, more robotic sounding tracks like “Numbers.” [3] With such artists eventually circuiting Europe and beyond, a popularisation of producing music through a heavy use of electronic equipment emerged quite rapidly leading up to the 1990’s. Take “Love Will Tear Us Apart” [4] by Joy Division for example. Although defined by post-punk aesthetics of rock, the song essentially owes itself to its heavy use of synth to maintain its melodic rhythm throughout the song. Stephen Morris, the drummer of Joy Division, even went as far as stating that “if I ever start a band, I’d like them to sound like this” in reference to his first listening of the Krautrock band, Neu!. [5]
Following this circulation of what has been formally labelled as Krautrock & electronically infused artists from Germany, the production of music through an electronic means, to me, seems like a fusion of differentiating, or even similar genres to form new styles of sound through electronic instruments; the likes of which can be seen in bands experimenting with genre, much like Joy Division throughout the post-punk period of rock. However, although this defining structure of genre may hold true, for example, with rock being a fusion of country and blues music, the popular use of the terms ‘EDM’ and ‘IDM’ as genres promotes a certain ignorance of genre classification the music industry has never seen before. When I say ignorance however, I don’t necessarily mean to undermine the intelligence of certain electronic music journalists, but instead to promote a certain awareness to the origins of artists placed under these umbrella genre definitions. As an example, FACT published a list relative to the usage of the ‘IDM’ term with what they claim to be the best ‘IDM’ tracks to have emerged from the music industry since the genre’s supposed conception. [6] One of the many artists thrown into this pile known as Aphex Twin made it abundantly clear that he finds such a term to be “really nasty to everyone else’s music” and that “it’s basically saying ‘this is intelligent and everything else is stupid.’” [7] To an extent I believe Aphex Twin is correct. Labelling one kind of music as ‘intelligent’ and another outside the genre creates a certain snobbishness surrounding what could be seen as a ‘higher’ form of music with a much more acquired taste. That’s not to say the genre was born with no reason. I can understand why the music journalism world required such a term when artists such as Aphex Twin emerged with tracks like “Come To Daddy” [8] and even Squarepusher with “Come On My Selector.” [9] Tracks which, although produced through electronic means, do not conform specifically to genres such as ‘Detroit Techno’ or Chicago House’ which were becoming popularised around Europe during this period. Genre terms such as ‘Drill n’ Bass’ have been used to an extent in relation to such tracks, but when referring back to such artists, the term IDM is unrightfully so used as an umbrella genre term. With the term being so liberally used in music journalism today however, a certain skepticism surrounding such a dumbing down of genre classification comes to mind. It is this, I propose, which is stifling musical growth inside and outside of the mainstream music industry. Think of it through the eyes of a massively popular artist like Aphex Twin; if you were a musician of such a calibre, would you like to be thrown into a pile of other musicians, whose music may not even remotely sound like your own? Or be labelled as ‘intelligent’ compared to other musicians who you may enjoy listening to? When EDM as a genre term is considered, it fall under the same problems which IDM suffers in terms of classification alone; why is EDM labelled as ‘electronic’ dance music rather than just dance music? If this is such a concerning feat, why aren’t most popular forms of rock considered just dance music rather than rock? I alone have been to countless live rock gigs such as Echo and The Bunnymen this year and there were countless people dancing. Although I’m understanding (to an extent) of the genre classification of dance, it serves as an injustice to, once again, label certain artists under an umbrella genre when they may not sound remotely similar.
Artists such as Emancipator are more often than not labelled under the EDM genre term, when their sound is much more ambient and atmospheric than the kind which you’d want to get up and dance to. Seeing them in 2013 in Leeds, everyone around me demanded an encore of “Soon It Will Be Cold Enough To Build Fires,” [10] which may seem strange based on the fact they don’t project a ‘dance’ sound through their tracks, but this is essentially why these people came to see them; to become lost in their music. Drug culture played an inevitable role in this through the smell of weed lingering in the air near the stage, but this aspect alone rejects the notion of the all-encumbering EDM classification through a relaxed vibe in the crowd. There was even a rejection of what is often seen as a mindless set through a willingness to be physical with their instruments; one playing an electric violin, and the other furiously hammering buttons to produce ambient drones. In my personal opinion, as totalising terms ‘EDM’ and ‘IDM’ seem counter-intuitive to what they set out to achieve. Music journalists who use such terms should be ashamed of their own lack of respect and knowledge of the genres of music which they classify as these terms rather than what they’re actually influenced by. It’s a massive shame to see artists like Aphex Twin and Emancipator be viewed through a lens which distorts what their music is about, to what it’s not.
I just wanted to make a post stating how thankful I am to everyone who's been keeping an eye on this; I reached 1,000 page hits today (whom have fully read the posts,) so thank you all who've been viewing the blog...From home and afar.
In the past 24 hours the persona known on YouTube as "Athene" posted a video concerning mass entertainment and the ploy of democracy; please view said video below before continuing reading.
Democracy & Self-awareness; the 'revolutionary' new-age ideal
Though the ideal of a democratic environment has been thrown around for centuries around the world the questioning of such an ideal has only very recently come into effect. When I state this however, I don't imply that democracy has been absent in the world until now, but the questioning of whether or not democracy is in favour of the masses or the upper-classes. Since the early 2000's revolution upon revolution has occurred around the world; Syria, Egypt, the list goes on. Obama both indirectly and directly has supported these movements with militarised jurisdiction and word of mouth through the media; arguably, it's a good move made by Obama to enforce his campaign as President but the application of his ideals are anything but precise in his jurisdiction elsewhere around the world and even in his home country. Protectionism has been the game for years and people are only just noticing, which disturbs me somewhat.
I see people on Facebook, Twitter and Reddit everyday, claiming that they're making changes in society through their application of willpower, but it's laughable from my perspective. Here's a very real example which has very recently happened with more or less the majority of people I know from my University; we received our results from our first year of University and for some foundation year yesterday, and upon realisation of these results everyone felt the need to inform everyone they had on the social network that they had passed. Now, taking the knowledge that such years are the easiest of the degree and have such a low pass percentage and effect on the final grade of these degrees into account, it baffles me why everyone is so appeased by such a discovery. This is what's been happening in society today; people are very gradually becoming more open about ideals which don't even need to be expressed, yet they are...Maybe to look good by agreeing with a majority decision; either way it's annoying and quite frankly agitating to know that society is becoming more and more relaxed with their opinions, and even becoming sheep like drones to the appealing aspect of obedience to opinions forged by others.
Right and wrong; where opinionated morality blurs
You're probably thinking that if I'm arguing against the opinionated majority, surely there would be a reason why such ideals would be acceptable; and it's correct to an extent, however each person is able to forge their own opinion regardless of whether another deems it right or wrong, yet peer pressure of some sort creates a following towards the same opinions for the same reasons; it's dull, boring and what I regard as boastful. IF you care about something, DO something. I don't want to sit here and read the same bullshit over and over again. Be content with your achievements; improve; learn. Act upon your judgements and the world will be a better place...for all of us.
Very lately I've been ever so sceptical of the structure of modern society; how it is, how it conforms, even how it adapts and has adapted for the mass population. It's ruthless, ruthless of those with an inability to use the structural system for their own gains. However, I'm not taking a far left perspective of this, because of course, how can I mock a structured society which has successfully catered to my needs thus far? This would be selfish and the first person who would read this would immediately point the finger at me to say "But socialism/communism/whateverism doesn't work. It never has and never will. We need to stick with the system we already have because it works." No, I am attempting to look at this from a non-biased approach as much as I can as I have come from a working class/lower class background and thinking from a linear perspective would be anything but fair. I am trying to convey what I see as the truth; some of you might state that some truths from this are "obvious" but you'd be surprised how many people fail to understand me or even shoot me down when I state that capitalism does not work to an extent, and also can be changed and even will change as humanity progresses.
Capitalism; A Long, Narrow Road To Freedom
It's true! Adhering to a capitalist system gives you freedom to an extent, but where does the line stop? Does it stop? It's a blurry line at best. Blurred by those, as most people already know, with the power to reach out to the population of the world on a mass scale. Let me give you an example; television licensing. Everyone who wishes to watch live television must own a television license. Okay, I don't watch television, but I still get constant reminders to alert the system for licensing that I don't. But say I do, and I pay the tax...Where does this go? Apparently it goes towards governmental schemes such as the right to non-commerical broadcasting. Okay, so I've paid the tax to view my television...What do I get from this? You get to watch television, without the right to choose how things are broadcasted of course. But, again, it's not fair to choose what is broadcasted to millions of people, is it? This is where the capitalist lines blur; moral obligations are anything but precise in a world which the few who are powerful rule.
Taking this example further; say I wish to choose what is broadcasted, so I decide to make my own television programme which takes up a slot on a channel. It would take decades of my life to make such a show appealing to a mass audience, as I don't have the sufficient funding to do such a task. Instantaneous gratification is a thing of the past; where we used to come together to promote our ideals in such a way, that they would be accepted as having an impact on our lives for performing the objective we set out to do...We are no longer able to do this on such a scale where we can accept that we have made a significant change to our lives. It only takes a lifetime to create such an impact now; going through the educational system and deciding at way-points whether you want to pursue an educational goal, a practical one or live a solitary life, and even then, through the solitary path of confinement the impact which you set out to achieve is personal, not external. So how is freedom meant to be understood from living in this structured society? Limited, but emancipating to an extent? This is where educational circumstances takes its toll; not everyone is educated the same way, i.e. not everyone in such a society benefits from an education. Some fail very early on, some go on to pursue and improve their educational life.
Education; A Right Or A Privilege? Now, this is the part where many people may disagree with me on and probably the part which is going to be biased, but it must be in order to understand how these perspectives are formed. Coming from a working class background I've followed the idealistic renaissance perspective where I have attempted to work my way out of the lower classes into a middle ground, so to speak anyway. My parents don't have the power to manipulate the system, so I've had to use what I can to further myself to accomplish my goals. This hasn't been easy in any respect as I've had to take hours of my life into travelling to and from college and school in order to achieve what I originally couldn't where I live, due to the population being working class, and their offspring following suit into the system. This is where modern capitalism fails to accept the lower class; the backgrounds which they come from manipulate their way of viewing the world, and as such their strive to achieve what they originally wanted from life. Instead, they view the instantaneous gratification of living a quiet life in the working class as such gratification is hard to come by unless you're blessed by the system of being born into the upper end of the spectrum of classes.
Again, we are free to choose whether we wish to stay in the lower end of the hierarchy of classes, but our surroundings and society in which we are born into provokes and promotes a pacifist nature. This is also why people refuse to talk about such a subject; seen but not heard is a statement which best defines the failure to invoke a strive in today's generation of youth.Of course, it's in Human nature to strive to be accepted, and a pacifist outlook on such a system promotes a certain acceptingness to the lower class, however at the same time it promotes the ideal of a modern capitalist society to stay the way it is. But, I digress; class systems are what form capitalism. Without class, there wouldn't be a way to put currency into perspective, and as such the lower classes would be without an incentive to do their jobs to please the upper classes.
Freedom; Strictly An Ideological Concept Or A Very Real Force?
In whatever perspective you take on the idea of freedom, it is both a force and a concept; blurred lines, as I previously stated and this modern structural society dictates how free someone can be. In relevance to modern capitalism, it provokes the question of if you are free to abstain from such a system, you lose out on purchasing and the currency system, so how do you live freely this way? Marx promoted the idea that capitalism relies on the class system in order for production to work for the rich, but not for the poor.
The idea of maintaining a classless system, however, has thus far proven to be driven by greed and famine through the means of Leninism, Stalinism and even the dictatorship of Hitler to name a few. Can it ever be successful? Such an ideal cannot work with such a populated world; such Science-Fiction ideals represented on screen such as populated planets in Star Wars show that in the far or perhaps near future (If space exploration gets any funding at all...) populated planets could extend to represent certain ideals; as an example, we have video games which use certain races to promote differentiating ideals...Such as Dwarves being seen as capable warriors; elves being knowledgeable through their extended lifespan...The list goes on. Perhaps then we can be free from the bonds of a capitalist society which holds back many dreams and wishes.
EDIT: I somehow feel this is incomplete. I will most probably return in the near future to expand on capitalism and the emancipation of society...I feel as if I didn't expand on my points properly enough to have the desired effect I hoped for...
A recent blog post by Oxhorn (Blogging with class) which I engaged with thoroughly drove me to post what my thoughts are surrounding the topic of self satisfaction, and if it is indeed an evolutionary failure when we relate the action of one sexually satisfying himself to the epitome of manliness and of course, what Oxhorn has time and time again related with as being 'Classy'. However, as I am relating such a broad topic which many people are aware of to something which is admired on many levels I'd like to define what manliness actually is from my perspective.
Manliness and Class
A Man, being of sound health and manner, as well as coming from a Darwinist perspective should be accepting of change in order to survive, of course, this isn't always the case as we have seen in our modern society. People have created their own sub-cultures, and from this their own definition of manliness, and indeed class. Classiness is subjective in this regard rather than, as an example, conforming to the classical Hollywood film view of class...Perhaps the image of an upstanding gentleman in society; kind to women, and from this, fellow men as a form of respect all of which employed alongside a silently pitiful mannerism towards those who are unable to attain such class. As an example of said manliness, let me take a moment to use the image of James Stewart in Hitchcock's masterpiece 'Vertigo' to present this notion of masculinity.
James Stewart; Hitchcock's classical Hollywood hit "Vertigo"
Of course, this representation of manliness is subject to change through time, as has been seen through the many sub-cultures of the youth of today. We fear that they are to be the future of mankind because man is ever chiefly so nostalgic and unforgotten of the past; each man, through his own experiences, define manliness in a different way; as Julius Caesar rightfully stated "Experience is the teacher of all things." So from this we can never be accepting of what manliness means to the youth of this generation...But, of course, we can relate the image of manliness with our elders, because they are the ones who brought us up to view manliness in this regard....An example of which can be observed not many years before the production of 'Vertigo' is 'Rebel without a cause' portraying what the youths of that time period viewed as 'Classy' and 'Cool', the flick knives and leather jackets being seen as 'manly,' which is anything but laughable now. Alongside Goddard's portrayal of Michel being rude to women and offensive to authority in his film 'Breathless' it is no surprise that the aspect of classiness and manliness is an ever-changing position. As examples of this changing position, allow me to take a moment of your time to view these portrayals of men through time.
James Dean; Rebel without a cause
Michel; Goddard's French New Wave film "Breathless"
Through the changing aspects of manliness and class through time, it's not so hard to see that it's easy to point the finger at something such as self-satisfaction being anything but manly. It is indeed true that as a species we have evolved to procreate and advance our species to the next generation, but one factor that was not programmed into the language of evolutionary behavior is over-population. Through generation to generation we have over-populated the Earth in the last century more-so than we have ever populated this planet, and from this is it not hard to view the act of self-satisfaction, and even homosexuality in this case (although debatable; see here.) Such a hetero-normative perspective on homosexuality however has fuelled a need to classify it as 'unmanly' - as to what end is homosexuality a means of population control? Heterosexuality is fed to the masses through a lens which normalizes such behavior and as a result of this homosexual behavior has become somewhat 'othered' even though it is completely and utterly normal.
Human Nature and Biology
Before using this as a basis for my argument let me take a moment to state that although the aspect of classiness and manliness attain no such link with Human biology it must be noted that we are the custodians of the meaning of class, and from this we must observe that our biological structure plays its part in determining this. Evolution has aided us into becoming self-aware, and has even granted us the ability to view an argument from both sides; the opposing side to our argument and the accepting side, whilst still being accepting of said sides.
Such changes, however, also have their downfalls. New diseases and disabilities have been discovered to infect and take control of the biological structures of young children; effectively disabling them before they are self-aware enough to realize what is happening to them. Disabilities such as multiple sclerosis have been observed to take control of an entire hosts body, leaving them helpless to act. As an example, I have provided a lovely picture of the young Stephen Hawking for you to observe.
Stephen Hawking; world famous physicist
How then, can one maintain such a standard of 'Class' or 'manliness' in an ever-changing society whose own standards appeal to the upbeat but ignore the downtrodden? Surely, it is then better to live isolated than have your own company of a woman who would not respect the way you look, act, touch, taste even smell...Not that I would have had the chance to smell Stephen Hawking to begin with. The fact of the world today is that evolution itself is a failure in many terms, however such failures can also be seen in a successful light. Stephen Hawking once stated that he is 'accepting' of his disease simply because it allowed him the time to study and observe the universe as it was meant to be; in all its magnificence. Here he states that his disease has effectively allowed him to research in such depth rather than be distracted by meaningless debates in modern society.
Stephen Hawking; discussing the aspect of God and his personal life
Surely then, it could be debated that Porn and Self Satisfaction are in fact natures way of granting humanity the chance to satisfy sexual cravings rather than failing oneself by being unable to in fact attract a mate. However, porn itself could be regarded as 'pathetic' in the regard of a lack of imagination rather than being somewhat lazy in not attaining the class to attract a mate, but the fact is that people who have and will never be able to do this arguably makes this point invalid through imagination simply not being enough through having not experienced having Sex.
Porn and Self Satisfaction; an affront to a Human's enjoyment?
Pornography itself has been with us for a long time and thus has become a means to an end for our sexual satisfaction. However, in the past century we have began to question pornography's place in society; why don't people experience 'the real thing' rather than masturbate to it? The fact is that if we were 'created to procreate' from a darwinist perspective, or even so to survive in order to create the next generation of our species we would be nothing more than primates. The definition of 'class' which has been present in modern society dictates that a man should be nothing less than a type of Renaissance everyman; one who rises from nothing to gain class and etiquette in society through respectable means...The application of 'survival of the fittest' cannot be applied to such means. Although there are 'classy' and 'non-classy' people as Oxhorn has rightfully stated here, on his youtube channel, the aspect of class itself has changed into a much more modern sense.
Leonardo Da Vinci; the idealistic renaissance man
Individualism reigns supreme in modern society; we are no longer held back by the aspects of hierarchical class systems of wealth in order to express ideas, such as Leonardo was not, but the majority of society views porn as something to be pitied; a means to an end, and from this, an addictive behavior to satisfy this end. However, how can one view such an act as an addiction where we are already programmed for this? It is a highly snobbish and frankly ignorant view to see masturbation as an addiction which pales in comparison to sex for this reason alone. We see children making jokes about sex, giggling about how rude and abstract the topic is for their discussion, but we are not children anymore so surely we can view masturbation as a serious subject, but still people argue that it is pathetic; masturbation itself is not lesser or superior to sex, it has its place in society just as pornography does. To weigh one against the other is foolish and, if one can argue, 'climbing on your high horse,' trying to mock someone who partakes in such an act for his worth. One can maintain a position of manliness and class without engaging in sex, in fact, in can be argued as respectable in many regards such as the spread of HIV and AIDS and the view which other people see them as through partaking in such acts.
50 cent; how modern society views a hetero-normative man craving sex
To use a Darwinist perspective to argue that porn as a use to sexually gratify oneself is meaningless in its application to a modern society; the world does not need more people. We are already over-populated, as I stated before, as it is. A Darwinist perspective also argues that it is 'survival of the most adaptable'; surely, from this we can view masturbation as an adaptable action to satisfy oneself rather than going head-long into society to prove you are a MAN.
Although many argue that porn is pitiful and pales in comparison to sex, and from this men (though everyone can participate in the observation of porn...) should get the real thing in silent dignity, I believe that I have affirmed the position of porn in society; it is no longer a means to an end, it is something which we can enjoy in leisure. No longer are we living in caves and the dark ages, we are able to freely communicate our wants and desires with the world; this does not make us any less 'classy' or 'manly' than the next man simply through the fact that everyone comes from different backgrounds and individualism has reign over modern society.
Alongside all of this, as a little note, it should be stated that I believe masculinity and this notion of 'manliness' to be foolish; gender is a social construct through any sociological lens. Masculinity and femininity are employed by ALL gender categorizations. Capitalism has fuelled these notions of men and women to separate each from the other as a binary construct. This post regarding 'manliness' should be viewed through a willingness to conform to the blog this is in response to; a way to engage the matter on the same level of phrasing and tone.
I'd like to thank Oxhorn for giving me the idea for this blog post; his enthusiasm for class, as seen here, and his position on the topic of this post seen here encouraged me to make my position on this topic clear, and hopefully learn more about his position on such a topic; it was a challenge to make my viewpoint respectable in such a judgmental society on the internet.
With the eventual rise of opinions and perspectives over issues which seem to be causing a sort of disturbance in society today, I thought I'd re-light the fire of blogging once again. Hopefully this time I won't be as ignorant towards this as I was previously, and just maybe be able to conjure an audience of sorts to respond towards my views and ideals of different subjects which attain my interest.
Without disregarding how dead this blog may be, I hope to have at least one person respect the work I put into this in the near future; so, without further compromise I present to you my new canvas for my thoughts.
