2025-12-18 03:42:00
The original book, Kindred by Octavia Butler is a story of Dana, a 1976 Black Woman who time travels to the 1810s in the slave-holding antebellum South (Civil war was 1861-1865), and must keep herself alive on a slave plantation.
Well Hulu released a Kindred TV show based on the book, set in 2016/1815 instead of 1976/1815.
This post will contain spoilers for the show and the book.
The first episode was good TV, no doubt. And I plan to watch more of the show. BUT, I'm worried that it serves a completely different purpose than Butler's book. Only time will tell.
There are many changes that I'm okay with - I don't mind that we jump forward to present times (fuck 2016 is ~TEN years ago!). I don't mind that there's more relationship between Dana and her Aunt & Uncle. I don't love that the story between Kevin and her is changed so drastically, but it's okay.
In the book, Dana worked at a temp agency and Kevin worked at a mechanic shop (or something, details fuzzy) and they met during their mutual lunch breaks and got to know eachother that way. By the time she travels back to the past, they've been dating for a long while and are living together.
In the show, Dana has gotten dinner with her Aunt and Uncle. They've left. Her phone is dead, so she can't hail an Uber. The (fancy, expensive) restaurant won't let her charge her phone (I call bullshit, but whatever). Kevin is a waiter there, says he has a phone charger in his car, but offers to give her a ride home. She accepts. He's a little BIG (personality-wise), but he's reasonably charming and seems like a good guy.
Dana is black & Kevin is white. This is important in the book as the antebellum south treats whites and blacks very differently, obviously. The show keeps this racial dynamic.
What I dislike about the Kevin/Dana story in the show is just how recent their relationship is when Dana starts traveling to the past. I think it's fine, idk. It will probably lead to some plot changes later on, but we shall see.
I have one slightly bigger gripe with the modern day, and one major one.
The major one - Dana is a working class black woman in 1976 in the book. In the show, she inherited her grandmother's brownstone home in New York, and sold it to move to ... I think California. It seems she got a lot for the house and/or she has other inheritance money too. She is a writer, and trying to get a job writing for TV. In a way, she is still a working class black woman, but she's also benefactor to generational wealth, and she doesn't actually have a job.
I think the modern wealth she has will provide a different contrast to the slave-holding south she time-travels to. I think it could be powerful in a way, but I also find it a lot less relatable. Most people do not have many thousands of dollars sitting around to spend freely while they chase their dreams.
This is my major gripe. I don't like that she's wealthy. She was a writer in the book as well, but she was pursuing her writing career WHILE working a regular job.
The minor gripe is the relationship/conflict between Dana and her Aunt. Her Aunt (and uncle) is mad that she sold the brownstone, is judgemental of her, is accusing her of being mentally unstable. Then when Dana starts traveling to the past, at first, she thinks she might be crazy, like her Aunt was saying.
I'm not interested in the modern drama, and I feel it detracts from the entire purpose of Butler's book. But I also understand that TV is a different medium, and idk. Whatever.
Oh, and there's unnecessary sex appeal. Dana's hot, and they show her off. I always enjoy this kind of stuff, but it's also not what I'm interested in, and once again I feel like it detracts from the purpose. We're not here to ogle a hot woman. We're here to take a critical look at the Antebellum South and to contrast it to modern day, and to see how stark the experience is when a modern woman is suddenly transplanted onto a slave plantation. Yes, we are here to be entertained. But I find this unnecessary. And further, we will likely see rape in the 1800s. I suppose the contrast of modern consensual sex with the rape of the slave-holding south could bring some value. But Idk, I just don't feel like it's a good fit.
And tbh, it's not the sex that I'm criticizing here. Dana takes a semi-dominant position when first bedding Kevin. I think this is a powerful component to contrast against the domination she (and others) will (did) suffer as a slave. the part I'm criticizing is the voyeur-esque shots of Dana.
And the idea that Dana taking a semi-dominant role in bedding Kevin is a powerful contrast to being dominated in the past ... is somewhat undermined by the voyeuristic camera shots, which the show uses to please the audience, not as any kind of criticism of modern-day non-consensual objectification of women. (voyeurism in cinema deserves a whole 'nother post!)
But okay, onto the past.
Dana travels back to the past three times in the first episode. She saves Rufus from suffocation as a baby - turning him onto his back from his stomach. She saves Rufus as a ~5 year old when he's drowning in a creek. And she saves Rufus from the house burning when he is ~8 or so.
Each of these times, she is seen by others on the plantation.
In the book, she is not seen when she goes back to rufus-as-a-baby. She is seen and has a near-death encounter when saving him from the creek. This is almost identical to the book. When she saves him from the fire ... Well in the book, she threw burning drapes out the window, iirc. In the show, the fires is much larger and she runs out of the house with him.
I think the differences here are basically fine.
But after saving Rufus from the fire, she goes to the free black woman's house. (In the book, I don't remember if this was the same trip or if she went there on the next trip) And this is where things are significantly different, and an entirely different plot line is introduced.
We will have to see how it plays out, but I do not think this change is a good one, especially not if we want to honor Butler's original work.
Butler's book was almost entirely focused on the experience of a modern working-class black woman suddenly appearing in the slave-holding south. The sci-fi component was unimportant, except to enable that contrast.
This show seems far more interested in interpersonal drama, and perhaps the time-travel sci-fi stuff.
So anyway, she gets to the freed black woman's house and HER MOTHER IS THERE.
It turns out, when her mom and dad died in a car crash 13 years ago, her dad DID die, but her mom was teleported to the past and has been living there for 13 years.
A confrontation then happens with one of the white patrol-men. He almost kills Dana and so she travels back to the present where Kevin - her one-day lover, not live-in house partner - is.
The confrontation with the patrol-man plays out differently than it did in the book - I believe it was a group before, and that the freed black woman was raped in the book, but I don't remember for sure. The free woman also had a lover (a slave from Rufus's dad's plantation iirc) and that component was entirely left out here. I think these changes are mostly fine, and i also don't like how shows and movies typically portray rape scenes, so leaving that out is probably a positive in a lot of ways.
But I'm just so deeply skeptical of the component where she finds her mom has also traveled to the past. In the book, she didn't know anybody in the past, except sorta-kinda Rufus from her multiple visits to save him.
I just think it's going to be a really big distraction and diminish the story that Butler told, the story that people actually lived in America, one that Butler portrayed.
WE SHALL SEE.
Who knows if I'll cover more episodes. Idk, I just watched this one last night. I enjoyed the show (even with all my criticisms). And I didn't feel like playing much video games this afternoon before the gym, so I wrote this.
2025-12-17 04:04:00
I think this book is fantastic. I really enjoyed it. I think it is wonderfully written. It's a very interesting story. The character development is excellent. The subject matter is thoughtful and critical.
I'm reluctantly not including this book in my favorites. A big part of me thinks it belongs there. It definitely stands out when compared to books like Holly by Stephen King (which I liked) or The Library at Hellebore by Cassandra Khaw (which I didn't like or finish).
And I HIGHLY recommend reading this book.
But it doesn't make my favorites, because it doesn't make me feel good. The setting is so convincing, so profound, when I get done with a reading session (it was three sittings, maybe four) I feel like I'm in that depressing, awful, terrible world.
This book makes grateful for what we do have. Yes, I'm hella critical of much of what's going on in our modern world. There are so many problems. But for me, I'm safe and fed and sheltered. I don't have to worry about the kinds of things that are happening in Parable of the Sower. (It's a different story for Palestinians or many people in the middle east that my country bombs)
So yeah. You should read this book. It's fantastic. Objectively one of the best books I've read. It pulled me in, was absolutely enthralling, I didn't want to put it down.
But I felt unhappy and dark when I finished a reading session. So, I guess it doesn't quite make my favorites.
I do plan to read the second book, Parable of the Talents, iirc. But first, I'm going to read book 2 of series started by The City We Became by N.K. Jemisin.
2025-12-17 03:51:00
OKAY, so it's NOT FAIR that every book (series) I read by Jemisin is one of my favorites. But this one is, yet again.
So. It's weeeIRD. At first. The first chapter is confusing and hard to follow, but then chapter 2, things start getting explained (sorta) and making sense. The whole premise of the book is extremely interesting, and the magic system of the book is wholly unique (in my experience).
I don't spoil much here. I will tell you a nickname of the enemy. I will tell you about the premise of the book, which you learn in the first ... 50 pages? Maybe less. I will yap a little about the characters. AND I SUPPOSE, some of the details about how the ... premise works ... are spoiled here, whereas they are sprinkled throughout the book.
Discovering WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON is part of the joy of this book. So maybe don't continue reading this if you wanna read it. But there is so much more to the book, so starting it out knowing what it's about ... you'll still love it.
SO.
Cities are alive. Well. Some of them. New York has been birthed, and there is an avatar who is an individual person but also the embodiment of the entire city. Then there are also 5 boroughs, and for each borough of new york (Manhatten, Brooklyn, Bronx, Staten Island, Queens), there is another avatar.
The borough-people are suddenly discovering that they are now A CITY and navigating the mess that comes with that.
It. is. INTERESTING. It. is. WEIRD. It. is. GOOD.
I find all the characters likeable in their own ways, and some of them can be pretty frustrating and unlikeable at times too (though, likeable wins out).
I think Jemisin is a great character writer. I mean her plots are excellent, and the fantasy is super interesting. But I am genuinely impressed with her characters.
I recently read A Drop of Corruption by Robert Jackson Bennett, and one of my biggest issues with that book is the characters. They just don't feel complete enough. Not enough character development, not enough backstory, not enough emotional depth.
But Jemisin's characters FEEL LIKE PEOPLE, whom I can connect with - Some more than others, but this is because of WHO THEY ARE and WHO I AM, not because of HOW THEY'RE WRITTEN.
She just fucking rocks dude. GO READ SOME JEMISIN. You can start with any of her series. My favorite is still Fifth Season, but The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms is excellent too, and this one is also fantastic.
I started reading the 2nd book of this series, too, and am loving it so far (50 or so pages in)
Oh and they call the enemy SQUIGGLEBITCH and it fucking cracks me up.
2025-12-15 09:22:00
It is a mystery murder detective investigation book, but it is set in a fantasy world where people are augmented and have special abilities, like the perfect recall, or inhuman skills of deduction, or enhanced sight and hearing.
I won't be spoiling much about the book. I won't be telling you any major plot points or details that you don't discover very early. I am going to discuss the characters and their likeability. I will discuss characters and their motivations. I will spoil things about character development.
I like the book well enough. It's not one of my favorites, but it was reasonably good. The book starts as a simple murder mystery, but progresses into a more complex story line that goes beyond just an individual murder. I appreciated this, because the last two murder mysteries I read were more singularly focused on the actual crime/criminal, without much of a broader plot. They were good books, but I honestly felt like I got my fill of that style. So this book expanding beyond the initial crime was interesting and I'm glad it was there.
So. The characters. I think the characters were reasonably well written. They talked kind of weird, but it felt like it was the characters that were weird, not that the writing was bad. (unlike The Library at Hellebore by Cassandra Khaw). But I am somewhat critical of the characters themselves as well as their overall development.
The two main characters are Ana (smart detective) and Din (remembers everything) and ... they're fine? There's nothing particularly endearing about either of them. Ana is weird and obnoxious. Din has a somewhat shallow character - he doesn't love his job but he needs it to pay off debts. The job he does want is combat-related, FOR HONOR. It's just ... bland, boring, no real depth there. Ana is ... I don't know really what to say about her, because she doesn't really get developed at all. We don't get her backstory. We just get this obnoxious brilliant caricature of a person. Idk.
The relationship between Ana and Din is also under-developed. And then there's ... oh i don't remember her name ... but she assists Din with his investigation, and she is also minimally developed.
There's just no strong, meaningful relationships in the book. They all feel surface level and shallow. There's no warmth in it.
So then the main draw, really the only draw of the book is the story - the bigger plot that goes beyond the simple murder mystery concept.
That plot IS interesting, but it just isn't enough. The book just needed more. More character depth, more likeability, more endearing-ness, more meaningful relationships, more backstory.
I started to lose interest about middle-book, but I kept with it and was glad I did. My interest was recovered. But idk, some books just make me feel like "Yeah, but what's the point?" This did that for a little bit.
Do I recommend this book? Eh. It's worth a read if you just need something to read. I'm not crazy about the murder-mystery genre, so maybe if you are then this will be more likeable to you. I am super fond of scifi (almost every book i read is scifi or nonfiction), and this had ... almost enough to satisfy me on that front. Not quite enough. But close. There were definitely some really interesting magic-adjacent things - science seemingly so advanced that it seems like magic, but it is distinct from magic.
If you're looking for an actual book recommendation, Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin is my all-time-favorite book/series. Everything by Jemisin is fantastic. Black Sun by Rebecca Roanhorse is another favorite of mine.
2025-12-14 11:46:00
Cop shows portray justice as catching the "bad guy" and locking them up. The investigations and car chases and shootouts are incredibly entertaining. The incarceration is often satisfying. But it is insufficient, and in real life things are often much more complex than the narratives portrayed in TV shows, or even in news reports of real events.
Justice is not punishment, either. When we see someone do vicious things like rape children, it's easy to turn to and justify further violence. I hate prisons, but some people do need to be segregated from society. The child rapist shouldn't be free to commit more violence. But if the goal is to reduce violence, we should not be seeking it either.
The purpose of imprisoning them ought not be to hurt them, nor to take out our rage upon them. If we want to build a better world, where people are treated with dignity and allowed freedom, we must not re-create the traumas we seek to eliminate. When we imprison, it must be for justice, not for spite, not from anger nor hate. It must be to keep others safe, and we must not stop at that and say we've done our job. Protecting other children is a step toward justice, but it is not complete.
We must support any victims and help them to heal, but we must go further, and seek to end the conditions that lead an innocent child to grow into a violent rapist. We must also be realistic and understand that none of our efforts will be perfect, that we may never achieve the ideal world where no-one ever harms a child again.
But this is the world we should seek, and in pursuing it we must move with compassion. You may struggle to extend compassion to the child rapist. What about the murderer? What about the cop who feared for his life? What about the drug addict who stole the stereo? What about the school bully who's abused at home?
We must understand that all of these people started roughly the same as us - in a womb as a clump of cells. Just like us, they were born, lived as a baby, grew as a child, and became an adult.
In some rare cases, they were wired to do terrible things - I do believe this happens. But I believe it is the gross minority of cases. I don't think most murderers or child rapists were born that way.
So let us consider how they turned from being an innocent baby into being our worst nightmare, and let us consider how we can prevent this from happening to other children - how we can prevent other children from growing into adult monsters.
I wish to avoid speaking of who deserves compassion. First of all, because I will win no-one over by telling them a child rapist deserves compassion. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, because the individualistic notion of any one person "deserving" anything is already flawed.
It's easy to look at a loved one who's practiced for many years to become excellent at their sport, to go to a competition, and to win ... then say "they deserved it". It is human, and it is loving, and it is supportive. But what of those who lost? Did they not work hard? Do you not wish for them to experience joy? At the end of a sports competition, the world got nothing. The world did not win, nor lose. One team won. The other team lost. The world is no better for it. Joy is shifted, concentrated, not shared. There is not more joy in the world.
Winning at Tennis or Basketball and "deserving" the victory seems vastly different from raping a child and "deserving" punishment. But punishment does not reduce violence in the world - it increases it. And while you harm the child rapist, you too have become violent. You have become one more violent person in the world.
Yes, your violence seems justified. It seems fair. It seems worthwhile, especially if you believe it will deter others from harming children in the future. But what of children who see you enacting this violence? More little soldiers being grown to believe there is a Right Time to hurt others. An ever bigger army ready to go to war. A growing crowd who believes justice is pain, who forgets about prevention, who forgets about change.
2025-12-14 10:45:00
It starts as a relatively normal econ-focused game, where you're building your empire, making money, etc. As you progress, you unlock new mechanics, and in doing so, the game becomes progressively more realistic - both in its graphics and its realism.
The one scene in my mind is this:
You unlock an advancement to Dairy farming.
You switch to a first-person view where a cow is giving birth, and the baby cow goes to feed on the mother.
It is your task to take away the baby cow, and the game will not let you proceed until you do.
The baby moos, crying. So does the mother.
As the cyring (distressed moos) continue from the mother, you walk the mother to the dairy machines to be milked, overhearing banal conversation from your co-workers. It's just another day at the office.
No background music. No ability to skip the scene. For a minute, you just wait, and listen to her cry.
Then you return to business as usual, growing your empire, until you're met with the next unlock, which shows yet another example of the utter torture we put animals through with modern farming.
This is an idea I had today. I'm not a games dev and will not be pursuing this. I think this concept could be effective at communicating the cost of eating animals raised under modern farming practices. It would rope people in with the promise of a good game (which somebody else would need to figure out). If you are interested in this idea, please use it, no attribution required. The idea is dedicated to the public domain.
This is inspired by Everyone Should Watch Andrea Arnold’s “Cow”. The phrase "It's just another day at the office" is directly copied from their writing.
This is also somewhat inspired by Inscryption, a roguelike game that begins with much realism and immersion then progresses into more game-like worlds.
