Around this time every year, activists, community members, doctors, and researchers convene for the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI). Last night, I found myself reading the script for Derek Jarman's BLUE again. It's something I read at least once a year and the emotions and imagery it evokes are just as potent now as when I first came across it almost twenty years ago. BLUE was Jarman's last film. It is simply a blue screen with the audio of Jarman and others reading from his journals and poetry. In his final years, Jarman lost his eyesight from AIDS-related complications. BLUE's lack of visuals connects viewers with Jarman's own experience.
It was a perfect storm of circumstances that inspired me to transcribe BLUE into a Commander deck. The Plague Years presents a narrative of life before highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), a time when folks weren't living with HIV but dying of AIDS.
We have come a long way in a relatively short period of time. And we are here because of those who came before. Those who lived, who died, who created, who protested, who acted up. Those who refused to remain silent.
Silence = Death, but their voices echo from beyond the grave.
DECK CREATION
I was in high school during the later part of the Plague Years. There was a real fear that I, like MTV's The Real World's Pedro Zamora, might contract HIV and die. Magazines catering to the queer community were filled with the names of those who had died in the last week. Columns upon columns of dead. Folks were attending multiple funerals monthly.
This was the era when I sexually came of age. A time when la petite mort could just as easily result in The Big Death.
How to capture that feeling in Commander? Watching everyone around you die, knowing with almost absolute certainty that you'd be joining them?
Black, obviously.
The death of creatures, be it slow or swift, would be the foundation of the deck, along with the ebb of life for everyone.
'At work, at the cinema, on marches and beaches. In churches on their knees, running, flying, silent, or shouting protest.' 1x Slaughter 1x Path to Exile 1x Tainted Strike
'It started with sweats in the night and swollen glands.' 1x Vile Consumption
'Then the black cancer spread across their faces —' 1x Pox
'…as they fought for breath TB and pneumonia hammered their lungs…' 1x Death Cloud
'How did my friends cross the cobalt river, with what did they pay the ferryman?' 1x Land Tax
'We all contemplated suicide We hoped for euthanasia We were lulled into believing Morphine dispelled pain Rather than making it tangible Like a mad Disney cartoon Transforming itself into Every conceivable nightmare' 1x Erebos, God of the Dead
'This illness knocks you for six Just as you start to forget it A bullet in the back of my head Might be easier' 1x Contagion Clasp 1x Contagion Engine
I feel Tainted Strike and maybe infect in general is a bit too forced in this deck (4 creatures + commander) while more stax oriented choices can be both more practical then infect in multiplayer and less of a dead draw (while still keeping the vibe of a slow, agonizing death) Smokestack seems like it would be at home here (also synergetic with proliferate).
I feel Tainted Strike and maybe infect in general is a bit too forced in this deck (4 creatures + commander) while more stax oriented choices can be both more practical then infect in multiplayer and less of a dead draw (while still keeping the vibe of a slow, agonizing death) Smokestack seems like it would be at home here (also synergetic with proliferate).
Tainted Strike isn't for my creatures, but opponents'. I have Staxdecksaplentyalready (and not a one contains Smokestack, coincidentally). Casting Strike on an opponent's creature can either knock another player out of the game immediately or, at the very least, require fewer proliferate activations to bring about their demise.
I've no intentions of locking opponents out of the game with this particular deck, except with Contamination or Infernal Darkness. If absolutely necessary, I have a few different ways to counter spells with the deck's commander. But, I actually want opponents casting permanents, if nothing else. It makes Cataclysm, Pox, and Death Cloud all the more devastating.
The last game I won involved slowly killing off the table with Subversion while using its lifegain to fuel Slaughter's buyback.
In another win for BLUE, finally fired off this combo while at one life. Up to that point, used Contagion Clasp to activate Jace, Memory Adept's ultimate a turn earlier and weaken the remaining opponent's creature; prevented the mono-Red player from doing much thanks to Bitterblossom/Contamination and got a concession from the Sigarda player; had been using Sigarda to keep Call to the Grave around a lot longer than it would've been otherwise and then replaced it with Porphyry Nodes once it got removed.
In BLUE's most recent win, actually cast the commander (a rare occurrence) when Tainted Strike was drawn while up against the last opponent playing Nekusar. Attacked for 4 infect damage and waited for them to tap out before playing Contagion Engine and activating it the same turn. Having a Clock of Omens out plus a few artifacts and enough mana for two Engine activations per turn meant the game would be over on my next upkeep. Seeing this, the opponent made a grievous misplay in an attempt to win the game and actually ended up killing themselves by accident, due to their Spiteful Visions and two Waste Nots (one cloned by Clever Impersonator), when they cast and copied a Wheel of Fortune.
Originally, I wasn't too sure how Contagion Engine and Contagion Clasp would pan out, but every time either has come up, it's been useful, be it to add counters to a planeswalker, weaken a creature, or speed up opponents' infections.
Considering I cried while building this deck, I'm having a lot of fun playing it.
Whoa. I enjoyed your alesha, who smiles at death deck, admittedly moreso for the background and theme. This, however, feels narcissistic, flippant, and belittling. I can't find the right word...
God, I mean to each their own I guess. I don't want to invalidate your experiences.
But, HIV: the edh deck? I don't know how not to feel weird about that.
Whoa. I enjoyed your alesha, who smiles at death deck, admittedly moreso for the background and theme. This, however, feels narcissistic, flippant, and belittling. I can't find the right word...
God, I mean to each their own I guess. I don't want to invalidate your experiences.
But, HIV: the edh deck? I don't know how not to feel weird about that.
lakebottom, I want to acknowledge the obvious validity of your emotional reaction to the deck. HIV/AIDS has impacted the world and its effects on individuals and their reactions to it are more diverse than the number of clades the virus has. HIV/AIDS has and continues to have a tremendous impact on my life, the lives of known loved ones, and the lives of my communities. From your response, I gather that HIV/AIDS has impacted you as well. Without knowing more about your personal experiences, I will not try to guess what you found "narcissistic, flippant, and belittling" about the deck, but I welcome more elaboration on your part to increase my understanding of your perspective and perhaps be challenged by it. I appreciate that you responded and more so that you responded by sharing your emotional reaction rather than attacking me or the deck.
Now, to address your points as best as I can (without more elaboration from you on why you feel the way that you do):
narcissistic:adjective, 1. having an undue fascination with oneself; vain. I don't know why you feel that any fascination I have for myself is undue. As for any charges of vanity, I hope that it's apparent that I do take pride in my actions.
flippant:adjective, 1. frivolously disrespectful, shallow, or lacking in seriousness; characterized by levity. I take HIV/AIDS very seriously. I thought that was patent. I designed a deck as an homage to the experiences of not just one of my heroes, but of my elders both living and dead. I transcribed my favorite work of art into a deck format of a game that holds a lot of meaning for me. I've been playing Magic almost as long as I've been carrying around quotes from Derek Jarman's BLUE in my head or on my person. (I take the script to the film with me wherever I go.) Magic is many things to many people. To me, it is something that acknowledged and validated my identity, my heritage, and my experiences. Jarman's works don't acknowledge and validate my identity, heritage, or experiences, they reflect it. I combined two things I love dearly, BLUE and Magic. I don't expect to control your perceptions, but I can assure you that they don't match my intentions.
belittling:verb (used with object), belittle, belittled; 1. to regard or portray as less impressive or important than appearances indicate; depreciate; disparage. I don't know what to make of this one, either. I'm wondering if you actually read the entirety of my original post. Do you know what I find belittling? The dozens of Skithiryx decks with titles referencing HIV/AIDS that take the virus/syndrome out of context. Here, I present a deck transcribing a great work by a great filmmaker about HIV/AIDS beneath a banner featuring the art of another of my heroes, Keith Haring, containing one of the greatest rallying cries of a generation wiped out, "SILENCE = DEATH", along with my own personal experiences. What about any of that do you find narcissistic, flippant, or belittling? You mention enjoying my ALESHA: Trans*gender WARRIOR deck, which makes your reaction to BLUE utterly baffling to me. In the former, I present a trans* narrative of becoming stronger in the face of oppression, and in BLUE, I transcribe Jarman's narrative of becoming weaker in the face of a virus ravaging him and those around him. Both narratives are realities. They are not the only realities, to be sure, but some trans* folk do get stronger whereas some folks infected with HIV do get weaker.
If I haven't already challenged you enough, I challenge you to examine the difference in your reaction to the two decks. Is my Tasigur BDSM deck narcissistic? Is my Joan of Arc deck flippant? Is my Ward 5-West B: An Experience in Schizophrenia deck belittling? Each of the aforementioned five decks calls attention to something that some in my audience might be unaware of:
Frankly, I don't see how calling attention to any of the above in the way that I have done is narcissistic, flippant, or belittling. Furthermore, I don't think you would either if you looked at my contributions to MTGS as a whole. My avatar increases visibility for gender variant folks; the quote in my signature reminds folks that we're all one people; some of my deck lists are quite political; and I've championed mental health awareness in the Water Cooler forums here.
Let me be clear(er), I've done nothing on this site with the intention of being narcissistic, flippant, or belittling about sociocultural issues I take quite seriously. And it's not my intention for any part of this response to you to be taken as dismissive. Quite the contrary. I welcome further dialogue and invite you to, again, take a closer look.
Namaste,
} lark {
P.S. lakebottom, I saw that you posted in a thread with "Crackhead" in the title. I read your post and didn't find any mention that the OP was being flippant or belittling to folks struggling with addiction.
Had another close game. Got down to one life and cast Repay in Kind with lands in hand and Bloodghast in the graveyard against final opponent with no creatures on board. However, opponent had Humility in play along with their own Sorin Markov. The loss inspired the following changes:
ADDED
Utter End (thematic, poetic, and functional)
Return to Dust (see above)
REMOVED
Hero's Downfall (Utter End is almost strictly better)
Necrologia (already have plenty of other ways, including opponents' hate, to reduce life total)
Lim-Dûl's Vault and Plunge Into Darkness are more than worth their weight in gold. Using the latter requires skill and close attention to what might be exiled forever. Am still looking forward to entwining Plunge with several Bitterblossom tokens in play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There are no divisions: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. -Galatians 3:28
After a bit of reflection I decided that I could not convince you the idea of an HIV themed deck was in poor taste. A part of that was based on the conclusion that if you were ever likely to feel that way, then you would never have posted it in the first place. This may seem fatalistic, or like some sort of an a priori argument, I know. Nevertheless, I'm prefacing my reply here by aknowledging that I'm not completely confident in my position.
Before I get underway, let me say alarm bells went off when I read your response to my use of the word "narcissism". I could read it as ironic or humorous (even flippant? hey!), but, if serious, rebutting a charge of narcissism by objecting to the qualifier "undue" is basically - well - ironic and humorous. Because, when you write that your level of self-fascination is not undue, that your level of vanity is warranted, it reads to me like you are undermining your position with the statement that marks it. I guess one or both of us could be biased on this topic.
To pursue that further though, I think this particular word may actually sum up what about this deck caused me to react the way I did. I find something very basic about making and posting this deck narcissistic, and for that matter the other adjectives I tossed out. The AIDS crisis simply seems too important to me to be represented in fantasy-themed card game form. Taking this recent historical event and pulling it apart so you can shrink it down into pocket size and play out emotional catharsis looks like a sign of self-fascination. This is because it feels like taking too many other people's pain and struggle and making it too much your own. Additionally your postings suggest that your knowledge of your intentions and the power of your emotional involvement with your actions protects you from being offensive.
Is this opinion of mine compromised by your apparent devotion to the topic, as evidenced by you carrying a copy of BLUE's script "wherever" you go? Well, yes, probably. Is this opinion of mine countered by your claim that you "can assure" me that my perceptions don't match your "intentions"? Potentially.
To try and sort that out I'll look at and expand some of your examples.
Would describing a decklist as being for a combo "crackhead" be alright if the person who posted it was also a user of the drug? Well, I think not.
Would creating a deck designed to reflect the experience of mental illness be in bad taste? But lets say in this case it was done by someone who had just seen "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and had no other experience with it. You know, I would tend to feel it was in bad taste. Yes.
This is headed towards a discussion of intent and reception now. I don't actually think I have enough energy to follow that way for very long, but let's see what happens. On the one hand, experiencing something or identifying a certain way doesn't necessarily grant that one's opinions or statements about it are authoritative or inoffensive. If, for example, I'm a gay man and I say, "Gay men are all weak willed" then my identity doesn't give my ideas very much legitamacy at all, because my intentions outreach my identity. One can't speak for all, and especially no one wants to listen to mass degradation. On the other hand, if I've never used drugs or known anyone who has and I say, "Being a drug user isn't a personal flaw, it's a disease that they have no control over", It doesn't matter what my intent is. I may intend to forgive or pity people, but probably no one wants or needs that from someone who thinks they understand something they don't. Now, as for consistency, I just don't feel called to police the good-taste of every person here, regardless of their identities or experiences. Additionally I don't think you really want to me to put your deck in the same category as the "combo crackhead" deck, and I don't
I'll just go ahead and bring things back to my first paragraph now. I don't expect to convince you of anything. A big reason for that is indeed the seeming intensity of your emotional connection to the movie BLUE and to the issue it deals with. I no longer feel very interested in trying to get you to question yourself. If you were an AIDS survivor I would feel even less interested in challenging the good taste of this deck. That seems instructive and elusive to me at once. I would still feel it's in bad taste, but I would doubt the relevance of my reaction even more.
My intention with this post here is to explain why I felt it necessary to post my earlier reply. I would like asterisk my original post and footnote most of the words I've written here. Which is to say that I don't entirely hold with them now at the time of their posting. I believe that may be somewhat apparent.
It's clear that, to you, using a fantasy-themed card game to discuss topics doesn't immediately diminish the seriousness of those topics. I think it's understandable that I responded to your decklist with a different opinion. Finally, it may be that opinion is undercut by the seriousness I took in this forum devoted to that card game.
ok,
l
p.s. Pardon my lack of effective quotes, my browser crashed everytime I tried to quote from your posts. Also, my time to engage in a serious dialogue like this is limited so I may be some time in responding further.
After a bit of reflection I decided that I could not convince you the idea of an HIV themed deck was in poor taste. A part of that was based on the conclusion that if you were ever likely to feel that way, then you would never have posted it in the first place.
Before I get underway, let me say alarm bells went off when I read your response to my use of the word "narcissism". I could read it as ironic or humorous (even flippant? hey!), but, if serious, rebutting a charge of narcissism by objecting to the qualifier "undue" is basically - well - ironic and humorous. Because, when you write that your level of self-fascination is not undue, that your level of vanity is warranted, it reads to me like you are undermining your position with the statement that marks it. I guess one or both of us could be biased on this topic.
"Could be biased"? When you call someone's work narcissistic, the bias is clear. You're making a judgment on what you consider due and warranted. I like myself and find myself fascinating. If you don't feel the same way about yourself, that's between you and your therapist.
The AIDS crisis simply seems too important to me to be represented in fantasy-themed card game form.
Ice Age - climate change
Urza's Saga - eugenics
Scars of Mirrodin - colonialism / genocide
Theros - theology
And that's just a sampling from Magic. Are you writing impassioned letters to the game designers of Pandemic, Twilight Struggle, and Settlers of Catan?
Taking this recent historical event and pulling it apart so you can shrink it down into pocket size and play out emotional catharsis looks like a sign of self-fascination. This is because it feels like taking too many other people's pain and struggle and making it too much your own. Additionally your postings suggest that your knowledge of your intentions and the power of your emotional involvement with your actions protects you from being offensive.
No.
You don't know [CENSORED] about my "emotional catharsis" nor my pain and struggle. Your presumption is staggering. Don't confuse your biased perceptions with whatever you think I'm suggesting. I don't bother suggesting my intent. There's no need to read between my lines. If I have something to state, I state it outright. Offense is subjective. I'm not so naive to think anyone's protected from offending someone.
This is headed towards a discussion of intent and reception now. I don't actually think I have enough energy to follow that way for very long, but let's see what happens. On the one hand, experiencing something or identifying a certain way doesn't necessarily grant that one's opinions or statements about it are authoritative or inoffensive.
Taking this recent historical event and pulling it apart so you can shrink it down into pocket size and play out emotional catharsis looks like a sign of self-fascination. This is because it feels like taking too many other people's pain and struggle and making it too much your own.
Is this opinion of mine compromised by your apparent devotion to the topic, as evidenced by you carrying a copy of BLUE's script "wherever" you go? Well, yes, probably. Is this opinion of mine countered by your claim that you "can assure" me that my perceptions don't match your "intentions"? Potentially.
If you were an AIDS survivor I would feel even less interested in challenging the good taste of this deck. That seems instructive and elusive to me at once. I would still feel it's in bad taste, but I would doubt the relevance of my reaction even more.
My intention with this post here is to explain why I felt it necessary to post my earlier reply. I would like asterisk my original post and footnote most of the words I've written here. Which is to say that I don't entirely hold with them now at the time of their posting. I believe that may be somewhat apparent.
Sorry for the long wait on a reply from me.
I know my last post was disorganized, so above i've highlighted some parts I think are important.
The sequence of events occured, as I see it, like this:
-I read your original post
-I had a negative reaction and commented on it
-I read your response which mostly sought to very politely disagree with the charges in my first comment - but which also called on me to elaborate on my first comment - and as an afterthought seemingly charged me with hypochrisy or inconsistency
-I tried to elaborate on the feelings and thoughts which inspired my first comment
-my elaboration fairly well offended you
None of which is very surprising when I look back on it. As you say HIV has had alot of impact on many communities, a vastly negative impact I'm sure we'd agree. So, yeah it's going to be a charged topic with alot of the "I don't know your experience and you don't know my experience" prefaces. Basically alot of sincere effort not to offend someone while trying to own one's right to the topic. If my best effort at this wasn't very good, as I'm willing to admit, I apologize.
I do think, though, that I managed to elaborate on my misgivings about the concept of your themed deck. It took a couple of paragraphs, some hemming and hawing, and lacked some grace I'm sure. Ultimately it's clear, we don't agree on the weight a game can give such a serious topic (I acknowledge your points about other topics certain blocks have covered, and topics other games have used, but remain unconvinced). That's fine I'm sure. We can disagree on that, afterall I was not suggesting that you can't have this deck, just that I saw it as in bad taste. Where the problem came - where your ire originated - I imagine, was where I suggested that, beyond the appropriateness of covering HIV in a game, a person covering HIV in a game might be a narcissist. And that person was you.
So I've thought more about that. Was it still just about it being a card game? Did I feel like narcissism was relevant because it seemed like someone was turning a tragedy into a game they could play? Or was it about the "bad taste" I felt the whole idea was in? For example, could Derek Jarman's movie about HIV/AIDS be considered narcissistic if other relevant people found it tasteless? I couldn't work it out. But, as I'm doing again here, in my last comment I was examining and elaborating on my first comment. Which is to say that I wasn't reasserting those charges, merely explaining where they were coming from. I will say I disagree with what seems like your idea that all self-fascination falls short of narcissism. There is a line which can be crossed. It certainly seemed to me like it had been when I first posted in this thread.
Again, as for hypochrisy. I responded to a thread that I engaged with emotionally. That doesn't mean that I have to respond to every thing I could see as tasteless. It also doesn't mean that by not responding to every thread this way I'm undermining my comments in the thread I choose to respond to. Actually, even if I were clearly being a hypochrite (not to say I'm not from time to time) it wouldn't invalidate my criticism or responses. Those should be invalidated only by whether their accurate or relevant to their target or not.
Derek Jarman's BLUE: The Plague Years, 1981 - 1996
- STARRING ERTAI, THE CORRUPTED -
DECK ORIGINS
Around this time every year, activists, community members, doctors, and researchers convene for the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI). Last night, I found myself reading the script for Derek Jarman's BLUE again. It's something I read at least once a year and the emotions and imagery it evokes are just as potent now as when I first came across it almost twenty years ago. BLUE was Jarman's last film. It is simply a blue screen with the audio of Jarman and others reading from his journals and poetry. In his final years, Jarman lost his eyesight from AIDS-related complications. BLUE's lack of visuals connects viewers with Jarman's own experience.
It was a perfect storm of circumstances that inspired me to transcribe BLUE into a Commander deck. The Plague Years presents a narrative of life before highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), a time when folks weren't living with HIV but dying of AIDS.
We have come a long way in a relatively short period of time. And we are here because of those who came before. Those who lived, who died, who created, who protested, who acted up. Those who refused to remain silent.
Silence = Death, but their voices echo from beyond the grave.
This was the era when I sexually came of age. A time when la petite mort could just as easily result in The Big Death.
How to capture that feeling in Commander? Watching everyone around you die, knowing with almost absolute certainty that you'd be joining them?
Black, obviously.
The death of creatures, be it slow or swift, would be the foundation of the deck, along with the ebb of life for everyone.
1x Ertai, the Corrupted
'O Blue come forth
O Blue arise
O Blue ascend
O Blue come in'
1x Mystical Tutor
1x Enlightened Tutor
1x Idyllic Tutor
1x Demonic Tutor
1x Vampiric Tutor
'…all that concerns either
life or death is
all transacting
and at work within me.'
1x Palace Siege
1x Subversion
1x Sorin Markov
'But what if this present
Were the world's last night?'
1x Contamination
1x Infernal Darkness
'The worst of the illness
is uncertainty.'
1x Necrotic Plague
1x Porphyry Nodes
1x Spreading Plague
'My vision
will never come back…'
1x Plunge into Darkness
'The virus rages fierce.'
1x Call to the Grave
1x Nettlevine Blight
1x Wave of Terror
1x Kuon, Ogre Ascendant
'I have no friends now
who are not dead
or dying.'
1x Repay in Kind
1x Martyr's Bond
'Like a blue frost
it caught them.'
1x Jace, Memory Adept
'At work, at the cinema,
on marches and beaches.
In churches on their knees,
running, flying, silent,
or shouting protest.'
1x Slaughter
1x Path to Exile
1x Tainted Strike
'It started with sweats
in the night and
swollen glands.'
1x Vile Consumption
'Then the black cancer
spread across their faces —'
1x Pox
TB and pneumonia
hammered their lungs…'
1x Death Cloud
'…and Toxo at the brain.
Reflexes scrambled…'
1x Descent into Madness
1x Gibbering Descent
'Voices slurred —
and then were lost forever'
1x All Is Dust
1x Austere Command
1x Cataclysm
1x In Garruk's Wake
1x Toxic Deluge
1x Liliana of the Dark Realms
1x Liliana of the Veil
'My pen chased this story
across the page…'
1x Phyrexian Etchings
'I shall not win the battle
against the virus…
Awareness is heightened by this,
but something else is lost.'
1x Bitterblossom
1x Phyrexian Arena
'Hell on Earth is a waiting room…
Here you have no name,
confidentiality is nameless.
Where is 666?'
1x Lim-Dûl's Vault
'My mind bright as a button
but my body falling apart'
1x Necropotence
'There is death in the air here
but we are not talking about it.'
1x Wound Reflection
'Blue
protects white from innocence
Blue
drags black with it'
1x Azorius Signet
1x Talisman of Progress
1x Dimir Signet
1x Talisman of Dominance
'Blue
is darkness made visible'
1x Orzhov Signet
1x Coalition Relic
1x Chromatic Lantern
1x Darksteel Ingot
1x Gilded Lotus
1x Manalith
1x Obelisk of Esper
1x Vessel of Endless Rest
the light from reaching us.'
1x Clock of Omens
1x Crucible of Worlds
'To be going and to have
are not eternal…'
1x Utter End
1x Return to Dust
'How did my friends
cross the cobalt river,
with what did they
pay the ferryman?'
1x Land Tax
'We all contemplated suicide
We hoped for euthanasia
We were lulled into believing
Morphine dispelled pain
Rather than making it tangible
Like a mad Disney cartoon
Transforming itself into
Every conceivable nightmare'
1x Erebos, God of the Dead
'This illness knocks you for six
Just as you start to forget it
A bullet in the back of my head
Might be easier'
1x Contagion Clasp
1x Contagion Engine
'You know, you can
take longer than
The second World War
to get to the grave.'
1x Bloodghast
1x Reassembling Skeleton
'For our time
is the passing
of a shadow
And our lives
will run like
Sparks
through the stubble.
I place a delphinium,
Blue,
upon your grave'
1x Watery Grave
1x Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
1x Adarkar Wastes
1x Boseiju, Who Shelters All
1x Cabal Coffers
1x Caves of Koilos
1x Flooded Strand
1x Glacial Chasm
1x Godless Shrine
1x Inkmoth Nexus
5x Island
1x Myriad Landscape
7x Plains
1x Polluted Delta
1x Reliquary Tower
1x Strip Mine
8x Swamp
1x Underground River
BY CARD TYPE
1x Ertai, the Corrupted
Enchantment (20)
1x Bitterblossom
1x Call to the Grave
1x Contamination
1x Descent into Madness
1x Gibbering Descent
1x Infernal Darkness
1x Land Tax
1x Martyr's Bond
1x Necropotence
1x Necrotic Plague
1x Nettlevine Blight
1x Palace Siege
1x Phyrexian Arena
1x Phyrexian Etchings
1x Porphyry Nodes
1x Spreading Plague
1x Subversion
1x Vile Consumption
1x Wave of Terror
1x Wound Reflection
Sorcery (10)
1x All Is Dust
1x Austere Command
1x Cataclysm
1x Death Cloud
1x Demonic Tutor
1x Idyllic Tutor
1x In Garruk's Wake
1x Pox
1x Repay in Kind
1x Toxic Deluge
1x Enlightened Tutor
1x Lim-Dûl's Vault
1x Mystical Tutor
1x Path to Exile
1x Plunge into Darkness
1x Return to Dust
1x Slaughter
1x Tainted Strike
1x Utter End
1x Vampiric Tutor
Creature (4)
1x Bloodghast
1x Erebos, God of the Dead
1x Kuon, Ogre Ascendant
1x Reassembling Skeleton
Planeswalker (4)
1x Jace, Memory Adept
1x Liliana of the Dark Realms
1x Liliana of the Veil
1x Sorin Markov
Artifact (16)
1x Azorius Signet
1x Chromatic Lantern
1x Clock of Omens
1x Coalition Relic
1x Contagion Clasp
1x Contagion Engine
1x Crucible of Worlds
1x Darksteel Ingot
1x Dimir Signet
1x Gilded Lotus
1x Manalith
1x Obelisk of Esper
1x Orzhov Signet
1x Talisman of Dominance
1x Talisman of Progress
1x Vessel of Endless Rest
1x Adarkar Wastes
1x Boseiju, Who Shelters All
1x Cabal Coffers
1x Caves of Koilos
1x Flooded Strand
1x Glacial Chasm
1x Godless Shrine
1x Inkmoth Nexus
5x Island
1x Myriad Landscape
7x Plains
1x Polluted Delta
1x Reliquary Tower
1x Strip Mine
8x Swamp
1x Underground River
1x Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
1x Watery Grave
CHANGE LOG
ADDED
Austere Command
Path to Exile
Return to Dust
Utter End
REMOVED
Virulent Wound
Caress of Phyrexia
Hatred
Necrologia
I've no intentions of locking opponents out of the game with this particular deck, except with Contamination or Infernal Darkness. If absolutely necessary, I have a few different ways to counter spells with the deck's commander. But, I actually want opponents casting permanents, if nothing else. It makes Cataclysm, Pox, and Death Cloud all the more devastating.
The last game I won involved slowly killing off the table with Subversion while using its lifegain to fuel Slaughter's buyback.
I haven't had to combo off yet with Wound Reflection and Repay in Kind, though I look forward to it.
Hero's Downfall
Austere Command
Path to Exile
REMOVED
Virulent Wound
Caress of Phyrexia
Hatred
Won a close game with the last opponent almost at full life and BLUE down to 2 life. Had Wound Reflection already out and had just used Lim-Dûl's Vault while at 4 life to stack deck with Contamination followed by Sorin Markov. Held potential attacking creatures at bay with Reassembling Skeleton, Kuon, Ogre Ascendant, and Erebos, God of the Dead on the battlefield. Played it safe by casting Contamination first and only then casting and activating Sorin for the win.In another win for BLUE, finally fired off this combo while at one life. Up to that point, used Contagion Clasp to activate Jace, Memory Adept's ultimate a turn earlier and weaken the remaining opponent's creature; prevented the mono-Red player from doing much thanks to Bitterblossom/Contamination and got a concession from the Sigarda player; had been using Sigarda to keep Call to the Grave around a lot longer than it would've been otherwise and then replaced it with Porphyry Nodes once it got removed.
In BLUE's most recent win, actually cast the commander (a rare occurrence) when Tainted Strike was drawn while up against the last opponent playing Nekusar. Attacked for 4 infect damage and waited for them to tap out before playing Contagion Engine and activating it the same turn. Having a Clock of Omens out plus a few artifacts and enough mana for two Engine activations per turn meant the game would be over on my next upkeep. Seeing this, the opponent made a grievous misplay in an attempt to win the game and actually ended up killing themselves by accident, due to their Spiteful Visions and two Waste Nots (one cloned by Clever Impersonator), when they cast and copied a Wheel of Fortune.
Originally, I wasn't too sure how Contagion Engine and Contagion Clasp would pan out, but every time either has come up, it's been useful, be it to add counters to a planeswalker, weaken a creature, or speed up opponents' infections.
Considering I cried while building this deck, I'm having a lot of fun playing it.
God, I mean to each their own I guess. I don't want to invalidate your experiences.
But, HIV: the edh deck? I don't know how not to feel weird about that.
Now, to address your points as best as I can (without more elaboration from you on why you feel the way that you do):
narcissistic: adjective, 1. having an undue fascination with oneself; vain. I don't know why you feel that any fascination I have for myself is undue. As for any charges of vanity, I hope that it's apparent that I do take pride in my actions.
flippant: adjective, 1. frivolously disrespectful, shallow, or lacking in seriousness; characterized by levity. I take HIV/AIDS very seriously. I thought that was patent. I designed a deck as an homage to the experiences of not just one of my heroes, but of my elders both living and dead. I transcribed my favorite work of art into a deck format of a game that holds a lot of meaning for me. I've been playing Magic almost as long as I've been carrying around quotes from Derek Jarman's BLUE in my head or on my person. (I take the script to the film with me wherever I go.) Magic is many things to many people. To me, it is something that acknowledged and validated my identity, my heritage, and my experiences. Jarman's works don't acknowledge and validate my identity, heritage, or experiences, they reflect it. I combined two things I love dearly, BLUE and Magic. I don't expect to control your perceptions, but I can assure you that they don't match my intentions.
belittling: verb (used with object), belittle, belittled; 1. to regard or portray as less impressive or important than appearances indicate; depreciate; disparage. I don't know what to make of this one, either. I'm wondering if you actually read the entirety of my original post. Do you know what I find belittling? The dozens of Skithiryx decks with titles referencing HIV/AIDS that take the virus/syndrome out of context. Here, I present a deck transcribing a great work by a great filmmaker about HIV/AIDS beneath a banner featuring the art of another of my heroes, Keith Haring, containing one of the greatest rallying cries of a generation wiped out, "SILENCE = DEATH", along with my own personal experiences. What about any of that do you find narcissistic, flippant, or belittling? You mention enjoying my ALESHA: Trans*gender WARRIOR deck, which makes your reaction to BLUE utterly baffling to me. In the former, I present a trans* narrative of becoming stronger in the face of oppression, and in BLUE, I transcribe Jarman's narrative of becoming weaker in the face of a virus ravaging him and those around him. Both narratives are realities. They are not the only realities, to be sure, but some trans* folk do get stronger whereas some folks infected with HIV do get weaker.
If I haven't already challenged you enough, I challenge you to examine the difference in your reaction to the two decks. Is my Tasigur BDSM deck narcissistic? Is my Joan of Arc deck flippant? Is my Ward 5-West B: An Experience in Schizophrenia deck belittling? Each of the aforementioned five decks calls attention to something that some in my audience might be unaware of:
- the experiences of some trans* folk
- the experiences of an artist dying from AIDS-related complications
- the fact that not all sex workers have sex with their clients (not to imply that those that do are wrong for doing so)
- the history behind a woman in the military during medieval times
- the experiences of my former partner managing their schizoaffective disorder
Frankly, I don't see how calling attention to any of the above in the way that I have done is narcissistic, flippant, or belittling. Furthermore, I don't think you would either if you looked at my contributions to MTGS as a whole. My avatar increases visibility for gender variant folks; the quote in my signature reminds folks that we're all one people; some of my deck lists are quite political; and I've championed mental health awareness in the Water Cooler forums here.Let me be clear(er), I've done nothing on this site with the intention of being narcissistic, flippant, or belittling about sociocultural issues I take quite seriously. And it's not my intention for any part of this response to you to be taken as dismissive. Quite the contrary. I welcome further dialogue and invite you to, again, take a closer look.
Namaste,
} lark {
P.S. lakebottom, I saw that you posted in a thread with "Crackhead" in the title. I read your post and didn't find any mention that the OP was being flippant or belittling to folks struggling with addiction.
What gives? Where's the consistency?
ADDED
Utter End (thematic, poetic, and functional)
Return to Dust (see above)
REMOVED
Hero's Downfall (Utter End is almost strictly better)
Necrologia (already have plenty of other ways, including opponents' hate, to reduce life total)
Lim-Dûl's Vault and Plunge Into Darkness are more than worth their weight in gold. Using the latter requires skill and close attention to what might be exiled forever. Am still looking forward to entwining Plunge with several Bitterblossom tokens in play.
After a bit of reflection I decided that I could not convince you the idea of an HIV themed deck was in poor taste. A part of that was based on the conclusion that if you were ever likely to feel that way, then you would never have posted it in the first place. This may seem fatalistic, or like some sort of an a priori argument, I know. Nevertheless, I'm prefacing my reply here by aknowledging that I'm not completely confident in my position.
Before I get underway, let me say alarm bells went off when I read your response to my use of the word "narcissism". I could read it as ironic or humorous (even flippant? hey!), but, if serious, rebutting a charge of narcissism by objecting to the qualifier "undue" is basically - well - ironic and humorous. Because, when you write that your level of self-fascination is not undue, that your level of vanity is warranted, it reads to me like you are undermining your position with the statement that marks it. I guess one or both of us could be biased on this topic.
To pursue that further though, I think this particular word may actually sum up what about this deck caused me to react the way I did. I find something very basic about making and posting this deck narcissistic, and for that matter the other adjectives I tossed out. The AIDS crisis simply seems too important to me to be represented in fantasy-themed card game form. Taking this recent historical event and pulling it apart so you can shrink it down into pocket size and play out emotional catharsis looks like a sign of self-fascination. This is because it feels like taking too many other people's pain and struggle and making it too much your own. Additionally your postings suggest that your knowledge of your intentions and the power of your emotional involvement with your actions protects you from being offensive.
Is this opinion of mine compromised by your apparent devotion to the topic, as evidenced by you carrying a copy of BLUE's script "wherever" you go? Well, yes, probably. Is this opinion of mine countered by your claim that you "can assure" me that my perceptions don't match your "intentions"? Potentially.
To try and sort that out I'll look at and expand some of your examples.
Would describing a decklist as being for a combo "crackhead" be alright if the person who posted it was also a user of the drug? Well, I think not.
Would creating a deck designed to reflect the experience of mental illness be in bad taste? But lets say in this case it was done by someone who had just seen "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and had no other experience with it. You know, I would tend to feel it was in bad taste. Yes.
This is headed towards a discussion of intent and reception now. I don't actually think I have enough energy to follow that way for very long, but let's see what happens. On the one hand, experiencing something or identifying a certain way doesn't necessarily grant that one's opinions or statements about it are authoritative or inoffensive. If, for example, I'm a gay man and I say, "Gay men are all weak willed" then my identity doesn't give my ideas very much legitamacy at all, because my intentions outreach my identity. One can't speak for all, and especially no one wants to listen to mass degradation. On the other hand, if I've never used drugs or known anyone who has and I say, "Being a drug user isn't a personal flaw, it's a disease that they have no control over", It doesn't matter what my intent is. I may intend to forgive or pity people, but probably no one wants or needs that from someone who thinks they understand something they don't. Now, as for consistency, I just don't feel called to police the good-taste of every person here, regardless of their identities or experiences. Additionally I don't think you really want to me to put your deck in the same category as the "combo crackhead" deck, and I don't
I'll just go ahead and bring things back to my first paragraph now. I don't expect to convince you of anything. A big reason for that is indeed the seeming intensity of your emotional connection to the movie BLUE and to the issue it deals with. I no longer feel very interested in trying to get you to question yourself. If you were an AIDS survivor I would feel even less interested in challenging the good taste of this deck. That seems instructive and elusive to me at once. I would still feel it's in bad taste, but I would doubt the relevance of my reaction even more.
My intention with this post here is to explain why I felt it necessary to post my earlier reply. I would like asterisk my original post and footnote most of the words I've written here. Which is to say that I don't entirely hold with them now at the time of their posting. I believe that may be somewhat apparent.
It's clear that, to you, using a fantasy-themed card game to discuss topics doesn't immediately diminish the seriousness of those topics. I think it's understandable that I responded to your decklist with a different opinion. Finally, it may be that opinion is undercut by the seriousness I took in this forum devoted to that card game.
ok,
l
p.s. Pardon my lack of effective quotes, my browser crashed everytime I tried to quote from your posts. Also, my time to engage in a serious dialogue like this is limited so I may be some time in responding further.
It didn't.Obviously."Could be biased"? When you call someone's work narcissistic, the bias is clear. You're making a judgment on what you consider due and warranted. I like myself and find myself fascinating. If you don't feel the same way about yourself, that's between you and your therapist.
- Ice Age - climate change
- Urza's Saga - eugenics
- Scars of Mirrodin - colonialism / genocide
- Theros - theology
And that's just a sampling from Magic. Are you writing impassioned letters to the game designers of Pandemic, Twilight Struggle, and Settlers of Catan?No?
Didn't think so.No.
You don't know [CENSORED] about my "emotional catharsis" nor my pain and struggle. Your presumption is staggering. Don't confuse your biased perceptions with whatever you think I'm suggesting. I don't bother suggesting my intent. There's no need to read between my lines. If I have something to state, I state it outright. Offense is subjective. I'm not so naive to think anyone's protected from offending someone.Thank you so much for stating the obvious.I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.In case you missed it the first time:
- Ice Age - climate change
- Urza's Saga - eugenics
- Scars of Mirrodin - colonialism / genocide
- Theros - theology
And that's just a sampling from Magic. Are you writing impassioned letters to the game designers of Pandemic, Twilight Struggle, Settlers of Catan?No?
Didn't think so.
Thoughts?
Sorry for the long wait on a reply from me.
I know my last post was disorganized, so above i've highlighted some parts I think are important.
The sequence of events occured, as I see it, like this:
-I read your original post
-I had a negative reaction and commented on it
-I read your response which mostly sought to very politely disagree with the charges in my first comment - but which also called on me to elaborate on my first comment - and as an afterthought seemingly charged me with hypochrisy or inconsistency
-I tried to elaborate on the feelings and thoughts which inspired my first comment
-my elaboration fairly well offended you
None of which is very surprising when I look back on it. As you say HIV has had alot of impact on many communities, a vastly negative impact I'm sure we'd agree. So, yeah it's going to be a charged topic with alot of the "I don't know your experience and you don't know my experience" prefaces. Basically alot of sincere effort not to offend someone while trying to own one's right to the topic. If my best effort at this wasn't very good, as I'm willing to admit, I apologize.
I do think, though, that I managed to elaborate on my misgivings about the concept of your themed deck. It took a couple of paragraphs, some hemming and hawing, and lacked some grace I'm sure. Ultimately it's clear, we don't agree on the weight a game can give such a serious topic (I acknowledge your points about other topics certain blocks have covered, and topics other games have used, but remain unconvinced). That's fine I'm sure. We can disagree on that, afterall I was not suggesting that you can't have this deck, just that I saw it as in bad taste. Where the problem came - where your ire originated - I imagine, was where I suggested that, beyond the appropriateness of covering HIV in a game, a person covering HIV in a game might be a narcissist. And that person was you.
So I've thought more about that. Was it still just about it being a card game? Did I feel like narcissism was relevant because it seemed like someone was turning a tragedy into a game they could play? Or was it about the "bad taste" I felt the whole idea was in? For example, could Derek Jarman's movie about HIV/AIDS be considered narcissistic if other relevant people found it tasteless? I couldn't work it out. But, as I'm doing again here, in my last comment I was examining and elaborating on my first comment. Which is to say that I wasn't reasserting those charges, merely explaining where they were coming from. I will say I disagree with what seems like your idea that all self-fascination falls short of narcissism. There is a line which can be crossed. It certainly seemed to me like it had been when I first posted in this thread.
Again, as for hypochrisy. I responded to a thread that I engaged with emotionally. That doesn't mean that I have to respond to every thing I could see as tasteless. It also doesn't mean that by not responding to every thread this way I'm undermining my comments in the thread I choose to respond to. Actually, even if I were clearly being a hypochrite (not to say I'm not from time to time) it wouldn't invalidate my criticism or responses. Those should be invalidated only by whether their accurate or relevant to their target or not.
That's what I've tried to provide 4lark. I'm sorry it awoke your ire, but I certainly understand why it did.
Alright,
l