throwback to that time in my existentialism class where the professor asked ‘who thinks hell is other people’ and half the class slowly and meekly put their hand up
then the prof was like ‘…i mean who originally said it’
there are some posts that sound utterly made up for the joke or for the notes, but this one I whole heartedly believe
Sounds right to me…
That quote is amazing to me in that it’s quoted completely accurately and yet in a way that means something completely different from what it meant in context.
(Sartre was claiming that Hell was other people. He was not claiming that other people were hell.)
…I can’t actually tell what distinction you’re drawing there. Can you expand?
The line comes from No Exit, which is set in Hell. Spoilers for No Exit follow
In particular, three people who have been condemned to hell are trapped eternally in a room together. And at first they think they got off easy without any pitchforks or fiery lakes or anything. But over the course of the play they discover that they have been chosen very specifically to have neuroses and character flaws that interact with and torment each other.
Each one needs the approval of a second in an unstable RPS cycle so that any time one of them might be satisfied by a second, the third swoops in and ruins it.
And when they figure this out, one of the characters expresses his understanding, that hell isn’t physical torture. “Hell is just—other people.”
So the point isn’t that other people, generically, are hellish; it’s rather that you can build a hell out of other people.
But when I hear people quote it, it’s usually sort of an introvert-pride thing. “Other people are hell; you should spend time alone.” And that’s not the point at all. It’s a statement about how bad unhealthy relationships can be, not a statement about how all relationships are unhealthy!
“hell is other people” has always been misunderstood. It has been thought that what I meant by that was that our relations with other people are always poisoned, that they are invariably hellish relations. But what I really mean is something totally different. I mean that if relations with someone else are twisted, vitiated, then that other person can only be hell.
Reblogging for the original post which was hilarious and also for that explanation which is beautiful
Any X-Files fans going to Montreal Comic Con? What sort of panel questions are people thinking of asking? I’m nervous about this because I really want the chance to ask a question but I don’t wanna waste it on something lame
I also want to believe (hah) that the actors didn’t agree with the writing in the last two seasons. And a movie. Three seasons. Shit, everything after…you know what? Chris Carter is an asshole and his writing sucks and was super fucking offensive and I just want to believe that the actors who played my OTP did the last two seasons purely for the money and not because they thought it was good.
Maybe I’m delusional. Certainly, I’ve avoided reading transcripts from the other recent interviews and panels because at this point, I’m committed (translation: couldn’t get a full refund on all my reservations when Anderson bailed) so may as well make the best of it.
SO.
…thoughts?
I stopped watching the X-Files relaunch when one of the remarks from the script essentially bashed a trans character.
@marvelentertainment: “You want Polaris to be given respect as her own character and have her full potential explored without dragging her down with past bad depictions? Pfft, as if we’d ever do that. Also we refuse to give her any kind of meaningful platform or promotion.”
Also Marvel: “Hey guys, we’re gonna make moving Havok past his past poor depictions into a major facet of his current use, and we’re gonna do it by making him the leader of an important new book we’re actually willing to promote.”
This is not a dig on Matthew Rosenberg in any way.
It’s calling out Marvel for continuing to put Havok on a pedestal and giving him a bajillion different opportunities and promotions while absolutely refusing to give Lorna any support.
Now, if this was Lorna, I might have complained a little about Lorna being written as making a mistake so two men could berate her, but I’m only saying that because I don’t want to mislead anyone on what my views could be in a similar situation.
The fact is that I really don’t know how I would respond if it was Lorna instead of Havok here. Maybe I would’ve been okay with it because she wouldn’t have known, as shown here. I won’t know how I’d react with certainty until Marvel is actually using Lorna and doing the sort of things they do for Havok and characters like him ad nauseum while they refuse to do it for Lorna.
I’m excited for the Resident Evil 2 remake and everything, but you know what survival horror game really needs some love? Parasite Eve. At least as far as the first game’s concerned.
For those who’ve never had the pleasure, in Parasite Eve, you play as Aya Brea, a badass female New York cop fighting her way through mutilated wildlife and other monsters while hunting down the titular “Eve.” Eve, a mitochondria-based parasite residing in a former opera singer named Melissa, can alter the psychology of everything and everyone around her, although she prefers setting humans on fire more often than not. Aya’s immune, but Eve grows more and more powerful by the minute…
Bonus points, Aya changes into non-sexy practical gear as soon as she can after shit hits the fan, there’s no forced romance between her and any of the male characters, and female antagonist looks appropriately horrifying instead of sexy. The sequels… did not meet this low bar, sorry to say. :’D
———————————————————————————————————-
I don’t do coffees or patrons or whatever the kids are into these days, but if you like my art, donate to your favorite charity! They need it more than I do. :3
I’ll always support Aya Brea and Parasite Eve, and what it should be instead of what Squeenix turned it into before abandoning it.
salarta 