Of course, once all the stars wink out, the universe will be very black for very, very long. But no metaphor is perfect.
I feel like very few metaphors account for the heat death of the universe
and really, why would they?
because it's directly relevant to both the tenor and the vehicle of the metaphor and failing to account for it makes it a bad metaphor
Man if your perception of reality is colored at all times by "Yeah but then HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE" then you might have a problem.
It's like "The grass is always greener UNTIL IT'S ASH BECAUSE THE SUN EXPANDED TOO FAR". That's not a great metaphor.
you did not understand my post or my specific criticism of the metaphor in question, I think
the metaphor's vehicle is specifically the fates of the stars, over a cosmically long period of time, as that is the necessary time frame for stars to be born and to die
the metaphor suggests that the battle between light and dark mirrors the stars as they gradually illuminate the void, and are "winning"
but they are not, and their ultimate fate in that cosmic scale of time is annihilation and darkness. there is no sense in which the stars are "winning."
+2
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Metaphors do not draw 100% perfect parallels, homie. They're used to illustrate a point. You've got to be acting purposefully obtuse here, right?
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
That's the most absurd interpretation of stars, the night sky, and the balance of light and dark I've heard in a long time.
He's not referring to stars OVERCOMING the darkness, but that despite the great black void that encompass the enormity of the sky, there's still light. That even though there's so much to despair, there's still hope.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Mmmmm....toasty.
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Seriously, you can break down any metaphor by adding "...but it doesn't matter because we'll all die eventually", or "...until the universe comes to a cold, dark end and all life ceases to be."
But, uh, that would be dumb.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
That's the most absurd interpretation of stars, the night sky, and the balance of light and dark I've heard in a long time.
He's not referring to stars OVERCOMING the darkness, but that despite the great black void that encompass the enormity of the sky, there's still light. That even though there's so much to despair, there's still hope.
This is very specifically not what he's saying, if I recall - he says the words "the light is winning," does he not?
The parallel being drawn is "stars vs void" and "light vs darkness," on a cosmic scale, and on a cosmic scale the stars are doomed. He's not saying "treasure the light we have now despite the looming dark," he's saying the light is overcoming the dark. Which is not borne out in the show's narrative or in the vehicle of the metaphor, which is specifically cosmological.
Kristen Stewart would win an emmy for it if she just played an abused woman who has shrunk down in her shell and can only make one face because of her inner anguish. She'd slay that role.
Kristen Stewart would win an emmy for it if she just played an abused woman who has shrunk down in her shell and can only make one face because of her inner anguish. She'd slay that role.
So you're saying she's the perfect Lifetime actress.
That's the most absurd interpretation of stars, the night sky, and the balance of light and dark I've heard in a long time.
He's not referring to stars OVERCOMING the darkness, but that despite the great black void that encompass the enormity of the sky, there's still light. That even though there's so much to despair, there's still hope.
This is very specifically not what he's saying, if I recall - he says the words "the light is winning," does he not?
The parallel being drawn is "stars vs void" and "light vs darkness," on a cosmic scale, and on a cosmic scale the stars are doomed. He's not saying "treasure the light we have now despite the looming dark," he's saying the light is overcoming the dark. Which is not borne out in the show's narrative or in the vehicle of the metaphor, which is specifically cosmological.
It is born out in the show's narrative. It's largely the point of the show's narrative.
What you are actually saying is "it's not a scientifically accurate metaphor". Which is irrelevant.
Pizzolatto was just saying doing what he's doing now, writing every episode single handedly and having an entirely new story to tell every season isn't something he thinks he could do beyond 3 seasons. I can't imagine who could blame him. I mean, even the greatest TV like Sopranos, Breaking Bad, etc. all happen with a full writer's room and they get to use the same characters over the span of seasons. To do what Pizzolatto did with True Detective is pretty unreal.
Honestly, I'd rather see them stop True Detective after 2 or 3 great seasons anyway. Doing a new story every year, it's only a matter of time until one of them doesn't stick the landing and then you don't have any investment in characters or anything to carry the show through a weak season.
Pizzolatto should just do how much TD he wants, then try to get a development deal to be a showrunner on a regular type cable drama. Just being in the writer's room and not having to be so hands on involved every day, ala Gilligan or others would probably feel like a cakewalk to him after doing TD the way he is.
I hope they'll continue with the Yellow King stuff. They did a pretty perfect level of understating any mythos influence and weaving it into the narrative plausibly.
That's the most absurd interpretation of stars, the night sky, and the balance of light and dark I've heard in a long time.
He's not referring to stars OVERCOMING the darkness, but that despite the great black void that encompass the enormity of the sky, there's still light. That even though there's so much to despair, there's still hope.
This is very specifically not what he's saying, if I recall - he says the words "the light is winning," does he not?
The parallel being drawn is "stars vs void" and "light vs darkness," on a cosmic scale, and on a cosmic scale the stars are doomed. He's not saying "treasure the light we have now despite the looming dark," he's saying the light is overcoming the dark. Which is not borne out in the show's narrative or in the vehicle of the metaphor, which is specifically cosmological.
It is born out in the show's narrative. It's largely the point of the show's narrative.
What you are actually saying is "it's not a scientifically accurate metaphor". Which is irrelevant.
hey i forgot about this argument!
(i imagine a chorus of groans here)
one of my objections to the show is that it is very much not borne out in the narrative, and the show's "point" being that good is triumphing over evil is a huge problem - because the whole thing is them discovering a vast conspiracy of sexual abuse and murder, and managing to kill one particularly vile member involved therein. that's not "winning"; that's a small, personal victory, one which doesn't really protect many people and leaves dozens of children and young women vulnerable to horrifying abuse.
that fits into the sort of desperate, tragic struggle we saw earlier in the show, and fits into the fatalistic or resigned mentality Rust has early on; you fight on against the horror you see because it's all you can do, even though you can never win.
there's no cause for optimism in the show, and there certainly isn't any sign that they're "winning."
so 1) the tenor of the metaphor is already flawed. it fails to mesh with the show's narrative/atmosphere/tone. it's a nice message that seems a bit hamfistedly crammed in there.
and then 2) even if we were to accept the metaphor's tenor and say "sure, good is winning," how do the stars in the night sky represent that at all? in what way are the stars in the void of the night sky analogous to good winning over evil? you've accused me of being pedantic, but I would ask anyone to explain how the vehicle of this metaphor at all relates to the explicitly stated theme of good winning over evil.
I have already explained how I believe it works very well for good never truly winning, and evil eventually destroying everything - hopeless, pessimistic fatalism rather than optimism. That would also match the early tone of the show! Other people have objected by saying it's not about good "winning," though that's exactly what Rust says: "Once there was only dark. If you ask me, the light's winning." The metaphor would work far better if it meant the opposite!
It's, honestly, a horrible metaphor. It's a goddamn mess. If I were grading a paper or piece of short fiction, and someone tried a metaphor as clumsily constructed as that, I would circle it in red ink.
+4
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Plus, I don'o think, cosmological, speaking that there ever was only dark.
The universe started off opaque due to there being too much light/energy.
Then it dimmed and stars coalesced. Perhaps just prior to coalescence it was darkish. But still.
It's heading for dark though,
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
one of my objections to the show is that it is very much not borne out in the narrative, and the show's "point" being that good is triumphing over evil
NOOOOOOOOPE
thing a character said in a scene =/= the show's point
and then 2) even if we were to accept the metaphor's tenor and say "sure, good is winning," how do the stars in the night sky represent that at all? in what way are the stars in the void of the night sky analogous to good winning over evil? you've accused me of being pedantic, but I would ask anyone to explain how the vehicle of this metaphor at all relates to the explicitly stated theme of good winning over evil.
I have already explained how I believe it works very well for good never truly winning, and evil eventually destroying everything - hopeless, pessimistic fatalism rather than optimism. That would also match the early tone of the show! Other people have objected by saying it's not about good "winning," though that's exactly what Rust says: "Once there was only dark. If you ask me, the light's winning." The metaphor would work far better if it meant the opposite!
*cracks knuckles*
Rust: “Light versus dark.”
Marty: “Well, I know we ain’t in Alaska, but it appears to me that the dark has a lot more territory.”
Rust: “Yeah, you’re right about that.”
*Rust insists that Marty help him leave the hospital, and Marty agrees. As they head to the car, Rust makes one final point to his former partner.*
Rust: “You’re looking at it wrong, the sky thing.”
Marty: “How’s that?”
Rust: “Well, once there was only dark. You ask me, the light’s winning.”
Dark as hopeless, pessimistic fatalism.
Light as hope, optimism, meaning.
The metaphor hinges on "once there was only dark". In a cosmological sense, Rust's view is that being / light was spawned ex nihilo. Prior to that moment, there was darkness, nothing, hopeless meaningless void. The common state of affairs, normalcy, is that there are no affairs. Empty, void, nothingness.
Then within that void comes light, hope, meaning. Despite the void, being / hope / light begins.
That instant conflicts with normalcy, conflicts with the original non-conditions. In this sense, light is winning merely by existing. It is not a quantitative sort of winning, a 51% majority winning. Light is winning simply by persevering despite the pull of reality towards nothingness, towards void, towards non-being.
Think of the first episode where Rust says, "I lack the constitution for suicide." The phrasing is that Cohle lacks constitution, is devoid of constitution. He phrases his inability to commit suicide as a failing. If he were better, if he had that constitution, he would commit suicide.
Now he's reversed his position. Existing, maintaining his life, is a form of victory, a kind of winning. It's not that he "lacks a constitution" but rather he "has a drive" or "has an urge" to continue existing in this world. He's switched from "suicide is preferable" to "life is preferable".
That is the sense of winning. When reality is oriented towards darkness / nothing, any modicum of light / being is winning simply by persevering despite reality's pull towards void.
If an inch of cleanliness can exist in a world composed of shit, then that inch is winning merely by persevering.
That's the most absurd interpretation of stars, the night sky, and the balance of light and dark I've heard in a long time.
He's not referring to stars OVERCOMING the darkness, but that despite the great black void that encompass the enormity of the sky, there's still light. That even though there's so much to despair, there's still hope.
This is very specifically not what he's saying, if I recall - he says the words "the light is winning," does he not?
The parallel being drawn is "stars vs void" and "light vs darkness," on a cosmic scale, and on a cosmic scale the stars are doomed. He's not saying "treasure the light we have now despite the looming dark," he's saying the light is overcoming the dark. Which is not borne out in the show's narrative or in the vehicle of the metaphor, which is specifically cosmological.
It is born out in the show's narrative. It's largely the point of the show's narrative.
What you are actually saying is "it's not a scientifically accurate metaphor". Which is irrelevant.
hey i forgot about this argument!
(i imagine a chorus of groans here)
one of my objections to the show is that it is very much not borne out in the narrative, and the show's "point" being that good is triumphing over evil is a huge problem - because the whole thing is them discovering a vast conspiracy of sexual abuse and murder, and managing to kill one particularly vile member involved therein. that's not "winning"; that's a small, personal victory, one which doesn't really protect many people and leaves dozens of children and young women vulnerable to horrifying abuse.
that fits into the sort of desperate, tragic struggle we saw earlier in the show, and fits into the fatalistic or resigned mentality Rust has early on; you fight on against the horror you see because it's all you can do, even though you can never win.
there's no cause for optimism in the show, and there certainly isn't any sign that they're "winning."
You contradict yourself. They are winning. They achieved a victory against all the things wrong in the world, that the show goes over. Did they end all evil? Nope. But as Marty says "We did our part". They made the world a little bit better. They ended an evil man and in doing so Marty has gained acceptance from his family and Rust has been able to come to terms with his issues. They achieved a small victory. That they can win is a source of optimism in the face of Rust's former nihilism and depression. Once it was all darkness, now there's pinpricks of light.
This all fits perfectly with the show and what it was saying.
and then 2) even if we were to accept the metaphor's tenor and say "sure, good is winning," how do the stars in the night sky represent that at all? in what way are the stars in the void of the night sky analogous to good winning over evil? you've accused me of being pedantic, but I would ask anyone to explain how the vehicle of this metaphor at all relates to the explicitly stated theme of good winning over evil.
I have already explained how I believe it works very well for good never truly winning, and evil eventually destroying everything - hopeless, pessimistic fatalism rather than optimism. That would also match the early tone of the show! Other people have objected by saying it's not about good "winning," though that's exactly what Rust says: "Once there was only dark. If you ask me, the light's winning." The metaphor would work far better if it meant the opposite!
It's, honestly, a horrible metaphor. It's a goddamn mess. If I were grading a paper or piece of short fiction, and someone tried a metaphor as clumsily constructed as that, I would circle it in red ink.
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. The black is bad. The light is good. Once is was all bad (ie - all dark). Now there's bits of good up here (ie - tiny bits of light, also known as stars) The light is pushing back the dark, bit by bit. It's that simple. It's gone from 100% bad to only, like, 98% bad. Light is winning.
Is this cosmologically accurate? No. But that's pedantic and irrelevant. The scientific accuracy of Rust's statement is not relevant to the show. And there's no reason to think Rust would know that anyway.
This is a perfectly simple and straightforward metaphor. Your inability to grasp it seems born of silly goosery or a lack of understanding of basic writing. This is dead fucking simple.
Your problem again seems to be that you can't accept that the show's whole point is that Rust's earlier statements exist to be overturned. The point of the dark tone of the early parts of the show is to establish a tone of bleak and nihilistic despair so that when the leads win and come to their own personal epiphanies, the victory feels earned. That's how conflict in a narrative works. You first have to establish that something is wrong before the heroes can set it right.
You say the metaphor doesn't work not because it actually doesn't work but because you are disappointed in the ending for not going the nihilistic way you wanted it to. Either that or you are a hardcore pedant who can't accept that the scientific accuracy of the metaphor is irrelevant.
Posts
you did not understand my post or my specific criticism of the metaphor in question, I think
the metaphor's vehicle is specifically the fates of the stars, over a cosmically long period of time, as that is the necessary time frame for stars to be born and to die
the metaphor suggests that the battle between light and dark mirrors the stars as they gradually illuminate the void, and are "winning"
but they are not, and their ultimate fate in that cosmic scale of time is annihilation and darkness. there is no sense in which the stars are "winning."
He's not referring to stars OVERCOMING the darkness, but that despite the great black void that encompass the enormity of the sky, there's still light. That even though there's so much to despair, there's still hope.
Mmmmm....toasty.
But, uh, that would be dumb.
Shut your mouth about my boy Channing.
But seriously, I think he has some pretty good acting chops.
Just because the last one might make you want to watch and suffer through the previous two.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
This is very specifically not what he's saying, if I recall - he says the words "the light is winning," does he not?
The parallel being drawn is "stars vs void" and "light vs darkness," on a cosmic scale, and on a cosmic scale the stars are doomed. He's not saying "treasure the light we have now despite the looming dark," he's saying the light is overcoming the dark. Which is not borne out in the show's narrative or in the vehicle of the metaphor, which is specifically cosmological.
You're a monster.
You wanted the worst - that was truly plumbing the depths of the greatest horror my mind could think of.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
Oh, no, I mean Walter White Jr.
Wait.....this isn't the Captain Marvel fancast rankings thread?
NO MATTER.
Still works TD Season 2 Captain Marvels LETS GO.
Still better than Sandler.
Lillard plays a mean Shaggy and is a fantastic dramatic actor, like on The Bridge.
She'd fail HBO's boob test, I think.
So you're saying she's the perfect Lifetime actress.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
It is born out in the show's narrative. It's largely the point of the show's narrative.
What you are actually saying is "it's not a scientifically accurate metaphor". Which is irrelevant.
https://i.imgur.com/MvpYmhD.gif
FOUR LEADS, not three now! plus no one has been cast yet despite hilarious rumours. straight from the horses mouth.
also he casually mentions that his involvement might not go beyond 3 seasons.
Honestly, I'd rather see them stop True Detective after 2 or 3 great seasons anyway. Doing a new story every year, it's only a matter of time until one of them doesn't stick the landing and then you don't have any investment in characters or anything to carry the show through a weak season.
Pizzolatto should just do how much TD he wants, then try to get a development deal to be a showrunner on a regular type cable drama. Just being in the writer's room and not having to be so hands on involved every day, ala Gilligan or others would probably feel like a cakewalk to him after doing TD the way he is.
So many breakfast related mysteries to solve.
hey i forgot about this argument!
(i imagine a chorus of groans here)
one of my objections to the show is that it is very much not borne out in the narrative, and the show's "point" being that good is triumphing over evil is a huge problem - because the whole thing is them discovering a vast conspiracy of sexual abuse and murder, and managing to kill one particularly vile member involved therein. that's not "winning"; that's a small, personal victory, one which doesn't really protect many people and leaves dozens of children and young women vulnerable to horrifying abuse.
that fits into the sort of desperate, tragic struggle we saw earlier in the show, and fits into the fatalistic or resigned mentality Rust has early on; you fight on against the horror you see because it's all you can do, even though you can never win.
there's no cause for optimism in the show, and there certainly isn't any sign that they're "winning."
so 1) the tenor of the metaphor is already flawed. it fails to mesh with the show's narrative/atmosphere/tone. it's a nice message that seems a bit hamfistedly crammed in there.
and then 2) even if we were to accept the metaphor's tenor and say "sure, good is winning," how do the stars in the night sky represent that at all? in what way are the stars in the void of the night sky analogous to good winning over evil? you've accused me of being pedantic, but I would ask anyone to explain how the vehicle of this metaphor at all relates to the explicitly stated theme of good winning over evil.
I have already explained how I believe it works very well for good never truly winning, and evil eventually destroying everything - hopeless, pessimistic fatalism rather than optimism. That would also match the early tone of the show! Other people have objected by saying it's not about good "winning," though that's exactly what Rust says: "Once there was only dark. If you ask me, the light's winning." The metaphor would work far better if it meant the opposite!
It's, honestly, a horrible metaphor. It's a goddamn mess. If I were grading a paper or piece of short fiction, and someone tried a metaphor as clumsily constructed as that, I would circle it in red ink.
The universe started off opaque due to there being too much light/energy.
Then it dimmed and stars coalesced. Perhaps just prior to coalescence it was darkish. But still.
It's heading for dark though,
NOOOOOOOOPE
thing a character said in a scene =/= the show's point
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
I finally got mine back from the framing place
#unf
*cracks knuckles*
Dark as hopeless, pessimistic fatalism.
Light as hope, optimism, meaning.
The metaphor hinges on "once there was only dark". In a cosmological sense, Rust's view is that being / light was spawned ex nihilo. Prior to that moment, there was darkness, nothing, hopeless meaningless void. The common state of affairs, normalcy, is that there are no affairs. Empty, void, nothingness.
Then within that void comes light, hope, meaning. Despite the void, being / hope / light begins.
That instant conflicts with normalcy, conflicts with the original non-conditions. In this sense, light is winning merely by existing. It is not a quantitative sort of winning, a 51% majority winning. Light is winning simply by persevering despite the pull of reality towards nothingness, towards void, towards non-being.
Think of the first episode where Rust says, "I lack the constitution for suicide." The phrasing is that Cohle lacks constitution, is devoid of constitution. He phrases his inability to commit suicide as a failing. If he were better, if he had that constitution, he would commit suicide.
Now he's reversed his position. Existing, maintaining his life, is a form of victory, a kind of winning. It's not that he "lacks a constitution" but rather he "has a drive" or "has an urge" to continue existing in this world. He's switched from "suicide is preferable" to "life is preferable".
That is the sense of winning. When reality is oriented towards darkness / nothing, any modicum of light / being is winning simply by persevering despite reality's pull towards void.
If an inch of cleanliness can exist in a world composed of shit, then that inch is winning merely by persevering.
That's the point.
You contradict yourself. They are winning. They achieved a victory against all the things wrong in the world, that the show goes over. Did they end all evil? Nope. But as Marty says "We did our part". They made the world a little bit better. They ended an evil man and in doing so Marty has gained acceptance from his family and Rust has been able to come to terms with his issues. They achieved a small victory. That they can win is a source of optimism in the face of Rust's former nihilism and depression. Once it was all darkness, now there's pinpricks of light.
This all fits perfectly with the show and what it was saying.
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. The black is bad. The light is good. Once is was all bad (ie - all dark). Now there's bits of good up here (ie - tiny bits of light, also known as stars) The light is pushing back the dark, bit by bit. It's that simple. It's gone from 100% bad to only, like, 98% bad. Light is winning.
Is this cosmologically accurate? No. But that's pedantic and irrelevant. The scientific accuracy of Rust's statement is not relevant to the show. And there's no reason to think Rust would know that anyway.
This is a perfectly simple and straightforward metaphor. Your inability to grasp it seems born of silly goosery or a lack of understanding of basic writing. This is dead fucking simple.
Your problem again seems to be that you can't accept that the show's whole point is that Rust's earlier statements exist to be overturned. The point of the dark tone of the early parts of the show is to establish a tone of bleak and nihilistic despair so that when the leads win and come to their own personal epiphanies, the victory feels earned. That's how conflict in a narrative works. You first have to establish that something is wrong before the heroes can set it right.
You say the metaphor doesn't work not because it actually doesn't work but because you are disappointed in the ending for not going the nihilistic way you wanted it to. Either that or you are a hardcore pedant who can't accept that the scientific accuracy of the metaphor is irrelevant.