J. Cole

To me, now that I've heard some early mixtapes and every solo studio album once, J. Cole is elite and indistinct. Masterful, passionate, consistent beyond compare, yet somehow blending into the background. Obviously this connects to the fact that I literally didn't notice him for so many years. Was that my fault, his, or pure circumstance? Maybe it's on him that he didn't force universal awareness a la Taylor Swift, but that's hardly a bar he needs to meet. Barring that, it's not his fault I didn't catch on to him, as I never tried a single song. I think there's some pure circumstance here; had I been surrounded by Cole advocates in high school, I might have zealously adopted. Bon Iver is an insightful case: he never forced universal awareness, and I don't blame him for it; he also isn't a top-tier artist, yet I love him, because I was around him (literally) in high school and carried him all these years. It's an extreme example -- the bias actually runs too strong -- but Cole is extreme in the other direction -- unusually low favor-bias.

I'm not hearing him at my most sympathetic time. I'm not sure where I'm at with rap these days. Within a standard deviation, rap may have the highest floor of any genre for me, yet the ceiling out to a couple of standard deviations is low. In other words, most rap is decent to me, little is standout. Cole himself is standout, for quality and consistency, but the music doesn't spark much for me.

My taste in rap has changed a little too. I used to love sad rap -- humble, conscious, sentimental. Cole's introspection and Ville love would have hit me just right in middle and high school, maybe even college. Now I'd rather hear a wicked beat from him, polyrhythm, creativity in the theory rather than authenticity in the purpose. I probably still like soft rap, but Cole's early albums are a bygone style, still good but no longer inventive. I guess I need invention, and Cole is disadvantaged by my hearing him so many years too late. He has such a hill to climb to sound inventive so many years later. His later albums sound more inventive, although even those aren't standing out to me like the best rap used to. Will any rap? I still pay a lot of attention to Kendrick, but is he really standing out to me or do I just care because it's Kendrick? Again, I'm not drifting away from rap -- it's such a high floor -- but maybe even the best of it will have a hard time striking me going forward. I don't think I've been amazed by any rap since Kendrick in college, nor distinctly pleased by much since Coloring Book and Flower Boy shortly thereafter (I'm excluding Kendrick there since at this point he's just my guy and I'm generally pleased anytime he does something).

In summary, Cole is so impressive, yet strikes me as unoriginal, partly because I'm too late for him, partly because rap has such a hard time amazing me now, and perhaps partly because he's just a quintessential rapper in good and bad ways. Good because his product is just so solid and captures the spirit of hip hop. Bad because his blending of everyone else's qualities causes him to blend in. Maybe that last bit wasn't true at the time of each album's drop, but it feels true now, in this retrospective.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

What a transition after La La Land! A real Target -> Walmart maneuver. Not that Kate Winslet is actually the Walmart Emma Stone, but it feels like it in this movie, and much else is a downgrade in glamor. It was almost brutal how unattractive I found the larger part of this movie. Maybe over a decade since I watched it. In high school it was a contender for my favorite movie. What did I see in it? Honest beauty in the relationship. Abandon. Whatever Joel says about the meteor. I loved the music too, which is merely fine to me now. If I liked the high-concept narrative, which stands out to me now as the film's legacy, it was subconscious. I didn't nearly understand it the first two or more times. As such, I missed arguably the best part of the movie, and still called it a favorite. I just loved the honesty.

Now Joel and Clementine are immature to me. I started feeling this way in college. I realized it was odd I loved this movie so much without really liking the characters; I mean that's nothing new, but it's odd for a movie that I love because of the characters... yet I don't like the characters. Joel and Clementine are typically either irritated or irritating. It's hard for me to root for them now.

One thing I pondered this time: they were compelled toward Montauk after science did its best to erase all trace of the relationship. Either the science was imperfect, or the science must be imperfect due to some indeterminate force. Lacuna erased all conscious memory of the relationship but could not touch the subconscious drive. They both race to Montauk without knowing why.

It's not a pretty romance. I'm not sure I'm even happy for them. I'm not sure they'll be happy. La La Land had more romantic potential; even if the cards fall right for Eternal Sunshine, it's not going to be an enviable relationship. But it's real, and they're doing their best. Neither is super compatible with anybody. So either they grow up and manage a mature relationship or they make it work as they are. There's something beautiful about that, even if it's never quite joyful.

The script is really good, from its concept to its dialogue. I just don't love the characters, as people.

La La Land

Like Barbie, it's a slightly confused whirlwind of intentional cheese, unintentional cheese, and indie authenticity. Is this the future of movies? Whiplashing between bubble gum Hollywood and raw reality? La La Land delivers all facade you could ask for of the former, but really shines in the latter.

Its glitz does not run deep. I'm really not impressed by the music in the movie, which is a huge whiff. The original score honestly kinda sucks for a major musical. However you orchestrate it, however many times jazz purist Sebastian plays it, it's not jazz. But it thinks it is, meaning it won't actualize in pop either. I think I would love this movie with a good score.

Another whiff on glitz is Gosling. I've always liked Gosling, but he's drama or he's grounded charisma for me, he's not a showman, he's not a stud. He's not a very good singer. I didn't believe him in Crazy, Stupid, Love either, and the trailers for The Fall Guy look intolerable. I don't buy Gosling like this. He works in humbler ways. He works in the "raw reality" angle I mentioned. In fact, he kills, in that way, like always.

Emma Stone also doesn't work for me as a glamorous singer. During her uncut solo piece, I could only think of how much more I believe Anne Hathaway in hers, in Les Mis. There are polished singer/actors out there, and there are ones who work in humbler, quirkier charisma; Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are the latter, yet the film tries to use them for both.

The other time I saw this movie, I feel like I was devastated at the end. Now I get it in a way... they missed the mark on each other, but they fulfilled their dreams elsewhere. What are the chances you fulfill your dreams AND end up with the perfect person? Not likely unless that's your only dream. I'm happy for Mia and Sebastian. Those dreams lived with them long before the other person did. The dreams are probably more authentic for them than the relationship is. The relationship is just fun and satisfying, not destiny.

Nothing about Ryan Gosling or his presence in the movie makes me believe he really digs jazz. Another big whiff for the movie, potentially inevitable in that casting. Maybe I'm biased as someone who actually plays the piano.

Ignoring all musical stuff, the film is excellent in many ways. The visuals, the acting, the climactic conflict at dinner... really good stuff. Emma Stone is awesome. Again, all of this is ignoring music. I wish I could love this movie.

Game of Thrones

Which position in Westeros would I want to hold?

Prove every bracket of 2^n entries is good, where n is a positive integer, while not every bracket outside 2^n entries is good.

Suppose n is a positive integer and a bracket has 2^n entries. Since (2^n)/2 = 2^(n-1), which is still an integer (I don't want to prove it), 2^n is even and every game in the first round has two participants i.e. is a good game. If we enforce one winner per game (coin flip tiebreakers), the next round contains (2^n)/2 = 2^(n-1) entries. 2^(n-1) will be even by the same proof as 2^n (I don't want to show it), so the next round is good as well. This will progress as n steps down to 1, the lowest positive integer, in which case 2^n = 2, which I already said was a good game, and one with one winner, who wins the bracket cleanly.

Now suppose a bracket has 3 entries. 3/2 is not an integer, so it can't be in 2^n (I don't want to prove it). By axiom, a game can only involve 2 entries, so there's a remainder. The same can be said of brackets of any odd positive integer (I don't want to prove it). If there's a remainder, and a game can't be formulated, the bracket is bad. So not every bracket outside 2^n entries is good. [square]

Seeds:

1. King of Westeros
2. Hand of Robert
3. Hand of Dany
4. Hand of Bran
5. King in the North
6. Lord of some house+castle
7. Lord Commander of the Nights Watch
8. Younger brother of some ruler
9. Knight
10. Maester
11. Master of Coin
12. Lead Ranger
13. Septon
14. Brother of the Brotherhood
15. Common bannerman
16. Small folk

1v16: Small folk. The King is dethroned instantly. King of Westeros involves so much pressure, so many enemies, control of so many problematic and inter-disputing houses. The pleasure in the power can never offset the pressure in the power for someone like me, nor can I sleep easy thinking I'm saving Westeros, as it'd be hard for me to be a great king, without applying so much pressure to myself to offset said pleasure. Maybe I'd be a good king without much pressure on myself, but it'd be a hurtle in itself to learn to accept I'm a good king and I don't need to be great and I don't need to stress too much.

2v15: Hand of Robert. I just have to go with my gut here. A Hand represents so much of what I covet: competence, intimate respect from the people who matter, and an interesting, substantial occupation. My occupation right now isn't very substantial. The outcomes aren't tangible, the passion is artificial.

3v14: Brotherhood. If you take Dany of Season 6-7 (the real Dany?) I may change my answer. Aren't the Brotherhood always on the lam? I've never been interested in a wanted life, though I enjoy the badassery of ex-knights who look like peasants. I already stated my case for Hand, but Dany in the end is intolerable, and I never liked her too much beforehand anyway. She has good moments, where I'd be proud to serve her, and I could be her close friend, but her proud moments are never pretty.

4v13: Hand of Bran. I already stated my case for Hand, and Bran is a sound king. Not the best king to be Hand for (it must be weird advising a god) but the septons such in GoT. Actually monastic life is not furthest from me, but the septons get a bad rap, and religion in GoT is usually cringe. I doubt the Seven would be my choice.

5v12: King in the North. As in the NCAA, 5v12 is fierce. I love the image of the Lead Ranger, be it Benjen, Jon, or otherwise. Ranger is the coolest job in the Watch, and Lead Ranger is the best of the cool. At the same time it's a miserable life, in the cold, with no women (okay even if I'm sworn to celibacy it's nice to have some variety around), in rundown castles, with little respect from the rest of the realm, and just waiting for horror to arrive. Is King in the North any better? Didn't I already denounce kingship? I did at King's Landing, but Winterfell is different. Northfolk are different. They're more loyal because they can feel winter coming at all times. They're like Wisconsinites. I'm probably biased because I loved the Starks and didn't love many important southerners. But I'm going to ride the Winterfell/Wisconsin image.

6v11: Lord of some house+castle. So many good options, whereas Master of Coin sounds so unheroic.

7v10: Lord Commander of the Nights Watch. Look, some people might call me a nerd. That's not what I want to be. I want to be a light leader, not King of Westeros, but a light leader, charismatic, versatile not just in brains. The maesters of GoT don't give maesterhood a great name, even Samwell, who is such a nerd. I could be more well-rounded. But I'd still be treated as one of the nerds. As I mentioned, Nights Watch is a miserable life, and this was a tough decision. I just went with my gut, because I like the Old Bear and I like Jon, and I respect the position. Maester is a better life, but Lord Commander is more respectable... I probably should have chosen Maester, but oh well, neither of these will win the big dance.

8v9: Younger brother of some ruler. Knights are so stale. All they do is stand around, feigning purity, until it's time to get sliced open. If you're a great fighter, and the crown has many enemies, you could be doing more fighting than standing around, but that's no consolation, however valiant. Fighting and waiting silently to fight is not a great life. If my brother ruled, I could be a trusted advisor and trusted commander without all the weight on my shoulders. And I could live, when I'm not fighting.

New seeds:

1. Small folk
2. Hand of Robert
3. Brotherhood
4. Hand of Bran
5. King in the North
6. Lord of some house+castle
7. Lord Commander of the Nights Watch
8. Younger brother of some ruler

1v8: Younger brother of some ruler. I want to be consequential.

2v7: Hand of Robert. However I admire the Watch, symbolized in Jon and Benjen, it's an unhappy life. However volatile Robert, he's a good man with the right council.

3v6: Lord of some house+castle. So many good options, while the Brotherhood is always running.

4v5: King in the North. Bran doesn't need a Hand other than to make decisions he doesn't have time to make. I'd rather be an important complement to the king, not just a worse second king for when the king doesn't have time. I'd rather be king of a good land than bitch second king of a bad land.

New seeds:

1. Younger brother of some ruler
2. Hand of Robert
3. Lord of some house+castle
4. King in the North

Now we're talkin. These are all options I would have considered if you asked me out of the blue which position I'd like to hold in Westeros. Is Robert the ideal monarch to be Hand for? No, but he may be the best in GoT.

1v4: 

2v3: 

Game of Thrones

The first season is sharp, political, plot-intensive, light on its feet. The last seasons are heavy, dark, personal. The first is cheesier in a Sorkin kind of way, the last cheesier in a James Cameron kind of way. There's so much good writing to squeeze into the first; there's no writing to squeeze into the last, just events, and it shows.

I should write a post solely on the direwolves.

The Long Night and the final War for Westeros should be in separate seasons

The Long Night : Minas Tirith and Mordor : Odysseus slaughters suitors in his home : dark climax

The massacre of King's Landing : The Scouring of the Shire : that weird second battle with the suitors : odd second climax

Ned's death is a stellar collapse, forming a black hole that reverberates throughout the series like gravitational waves.

:'( Ned tells Arya and Sansa "we're going home"... if only!!! It's so terrible watching season 1 progress, knowing how it turns out. Sickening.

Reflecting on the Red Wedding, one year later... Yes, it was shocking. Yes, I expected Robb and Cat to scaffold the show for seasons to come. Yes, it was a massacre. But what singed it on my memory more than any of this was the style of the killings. First was Robb's bride, stabbed out of nowhere. Okay so immediately the imagined future of this house is toppling in sudden fashion. Next is Robb. That's crushing, yet he dies a main character's death, shot by many arrows, refusing to fall, finally ended with a quiet knife in the heart. Crushing, but comprehensible. What floored me was Cat's fate. We're forced to witness an innocent woman's utter despair, and then her utter debasement. Her throat is cut. There's something about that for me. Does everyone feel the same? Even when she delivers the Frey girl the same treatment, I'm stunned. There's something about opening a human's throat. It has to be one of the most dehumanizing deaths. So many deaths would serve Cat better. Not only is her throat cut, the show doesn't even show her falling in slow motion, doesn't play any music, does nothing to romanticize the moment. This woman, full of life, love, legacy, reduced to blood and skin all over the floor in one second. And we have to watch all of that escape her like she's a pig. I felt similarly about her husband's death: shocking from a plot perspective, for sure, but so much more sickening by its execution. The show's very protagonist is dealt like an extra, like an animal. In one bare, blunt moment it's over, all heroism in him collapsed to a heavy body on the floor. It's like observing a quantum -- all of the potential and richness of the wave collapsed at once to a single point. Anyway, all of Cat's humanity spills out in that memorable image. She's treated like an animal not just by the Frey's but by the show. We witness all of her pain.

Taliesin

Three complaints:

• The Eastern decor. I'm not just talking Eastern influence, but pieces pulled straight from Japan and China. If such a central idea to Taliesin is it sprouted organically from the landscape, these pieces are a betrayal, a fetish. I'm using extreme language, you get it.
• The quotes carved into several rooms. Isaiah, Thomas Gray, Whitman, I don't think the text blends well. It's not the content of the text, it's that it's text.
• Structural insecurity. His bedroom is visibly caving in. I'm surprised he didn't know or didn't care about structural standards.

There were moments of wonder, entering a room that's more beautiful and more interesting than any you typically enter, imagining living there, implicitly imagining you're living there without your least favorite parts of your current life. One of the mini houses up by the windmill we passed and the guide said sometimes you can see guests in their robes drinking coffee... I longed for that. Throughout the estate one envisions pleasure and peace, pleasure via peace and peace via pleasure.

The tour was super. I did the four-hour option which was not too long. It was a joy.

SABLE,

That was tough. I hope none of this ends up on any LP. Speyside was the one I'd heard, I thought it fine, and it's the highlight. Otherwise there's some poor writing: lackluster lines of lyric and melodies that miss the mark.

Speyside, though forgettable, was encouraging in its For Emma stylings. I hope we see more of that, and I hope he relearns how to write songs. Since For Emma, he's had at least one good song on every outing, and Big Red Machine was really encouraging despite its stylistic departure. SABLE, is discouraging in that it's the style I wanted but so clearly inferior to how he used to do it.

Game of Thrones

Rewatching the final season, I can see some potential complaints, but they're subtler than the universal disgust would suggest. Maybe that means I was an unsubtle fan when I first watched it. Usually I would consider myself among the subtler side of the mainstream.

Was the Long Night too short?

Would Jaime really side with Cersei in the end?

How can they get away with calling Jon "Aegon"? 

How tragic is Jon's fate?

What happens after the finale?

Would Dany really massacre King's Landing while it surrendered?

I doubt it, but here are some possible motives. Cersei executed Missandei. Jon, soon before, kind of refuses to say he romantically loves Dany, and Dany knows Westeros loves Jon more than her, so she concludes her reign will have to be one of fear rather than love. The first time I saw the final season, I thought Dany just kind of went nuts, improbably so. I guess I can see the motives now, but I still doubt she'd do it. What happened between her massacring her enemies in King's Landing and completely razing the city? She's just sitting on her dragon, listening to the bells, somehow getting angrier... What's going through her head at that moment? If she's a point of view character in the final book, Martin might say. In the show, it seems senseless, and I don't interpret Dany as being senseless, even in her late state of desperation. Varys and Dany's comments about destiny are interesting though. She thinks her destiny is to save Westeros for future generations -- not necessarily for this generation. This generation is expendable for innumerable futures' sake. Kind of true, kind of insane. Varys said the gods flip a coin every time a Targaryen is born. If Dany is the bad side, her transformation is too rushed to feel believable.

Would Jon really slay his queen?

No. He no longer believes in her, understandably, but there's no way murder is the only option, and Jon would weigh the options. Murder wouldn't even be AN option for him, I think. He murders and he revokes his vows, both utterly uncharacteristic. I didn't really think about this the first time around. I thought about "is Jon right to lose faith in Dany? Probably" but not "is it characteristic that he murders here". That's a deeper question for which it helps to read the book. Deeper, but no less obvious: it's uncharacteristic. Losing faith in Dany might even be Jon's flaw -- he's unwilling to make necessary sacrifices (this generation) for greater good (future generations) -- but it's characteristic: he can't support the massacre. Yet he supports deceptive regicide? I doubt it. He's too true to his word and too opposed to criminal killing. He kills Thorne, Slynt and co, but they were the criminals, he was the law.

Which Stark fate do I like most?

Sansa as Queen in the North, Bran as king, Arya as explorer, Jon as (hopefully Lord Commander of the) Night's Watch... While I love to imagine Arya exploring, it's sad she's leaving home and family and it doesn't quite fit her character. She's a killer, a warrior, and a defender of her people. Why is she suddenly so adventurous, at the others' expense? I'd love to be in Arya's shoes: competent, versatile, and exploring. But I feel I'd want a companion or my whole family. Her fate is exciting but sad and slightly off. Sansa's is great. She continually fights for the North, and she gains it. She can stay home, care for what she cares for, see family and friends on occasion but always feel perfectly at home... Rule kindly. I just can't like Sansa as much as Arya and Jon, but her fate is sweet. Jon's is of course quite sad. He deserves all of Westeros and he gets the Wall with no enemies left?? What's the Watch without the Walkers? Just cold? If there's anything to do up there, it's not the worst place for him, but what wrongs can he right up there? Anyway he's a Northman, raised in snow, and there he remains. It's okay, but it's such a fall from kingship and family.

I'd love to try answering more of these questions here... No time at the moment.

Regarding the quality of the final season, I can also see how the dialogue seems a little cheesier than earlier seasons i.e. than Martin.

Game of Thrones

I can see how my sister considered the end of the Long Night anti-climactic. I actually thought the confrontation was great -- though deserved more than one episode -- but once it's over, it doesn't feel like we just saved the world. Things turn quickly to politics and intra-human war, like The Scouring of the Shire after the salvation of Middle Earth.

Watching the Long Night again, I'm remembering how much I like Arya. She was waylaid a while, but she comes back strong in the final two seasons. I said my favor rises and falls with my two favorite characters -- Ned in the first season, Jon in the final 2-3 -- though I could frame it with Arya too. In the first season she's involved in the core action. In the final two she returns to Westeros, returns to the North, returns to her family, and makes a difference. Seasons 1, 6, 7, 8 are my favorites. Season 1 might be the best season, but I really like a lot of what happens in 7-8. My hopes and loves are finally satisfied, after many seasons of despair.

I'm sure Jon is the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar. But how could he be Aegon? Even if Aegon was smuggled out and another baby killed in his place, isn't Aegon's mom Elia Martell? Can't we be pretty confident Elia gave birth to that kid, not Lyanna?

Maybe he isn't Aegon in the books, he's a separate Rhaegar son. Maybe the climax is Aegon, son of Rhaegar's marriage, vs. Jon, son of Rhaegar's true love.

How did the show get away with calling Jon Aegon, when Aegon's mom is Elia?

Packers

I'm invested in Watson. His rise correlated with my rising enthusiasm for the Packers. Caused? Not really, but correlated. It all started with the Love draft. I was disappointed. When Davante was hurt we struggled without a reliable replacement, and the Love pick symbolized for many a denial to give Rodgers a backup weapon. As the first round of the Watson draft expired, it felt like yet another slap in the face to anyone begging for Rodgers targets as a path to the Super Bowl. But hopes turned at the turn of the round. The Packers traded up, if I remember right, for Watson, almost deliberately scaring and then soothing viewers. That he came out of North Dakota made it better; I envisioned midwest D2-ish humility. I was quite pleased with that pick. It all fell down literally and figuratively that first play against the Vikings. It was a bad omen for the season. Watson symbolized resurgence, redundancy with Adams, fresh blood. That's why they threw that pass (in my preferred interpretation) -- to introduce Watson as our fast, very fast track to offensive superiority. Watson flat-out dropped it, and the offense dropped the ball for weeks afterward. Then we played the Cowboys. I was at a bar in Minneapolis watching with some cousins I don't often see. It was so good to watch the Packers with them. Watson caught 3 TDs and it was one of the best Packer memories I cherish. Not only was I growing again as a fan, sharing a moment with fellow adult fans, I was rooting for Watson from the moment he was drafted, and begging for Rodgers to connect with anybody. The Cowboys, I believe, were supposed to be great. Instead the Packers were great. They made a run. I was at that game vs the Vikings. Another lifetime Packer memory. The next one against the Lions was one for the annals of disappointment.

Anyway I'm still invested in Watson. His TD this week was big (I was in attendance and joyous). He's been my favorite Packer receiver since Davante. Is he the best one? I don't know. His performance hasn't been flawless and obviously he's been hella injured. But he's my guy. I'm still rooting for him.

I like Doubs a lot too. He's been so consistent, zero personality on the field, just catching tough balls.

People seem to love Reed. He's not really the body type I like in playmakers. I like slightly meatier running backs than him, and slightly taller receivers. Watson is actually too big; Doubs is close. Reed is small and thin. I've enjoyed having him available, he just hasn't struck me as he seems to have many others I speak to. I need some longevity or personality from him before I'm really calling him a favorite.

No opinion on Melton, Heath, Wicks. I liked Lazard quite a bit as a selfless and reliable #2-3 receiver.

Packers

I know almost nothing about Josh Jacobs. I can't confirm I ever heard his league-leading name before the Packers picked him up (that's how irrelevant the Raiders are to me), and since they picked him up, I've essentially only seen his gametime. I'm not over-the-moon -- Aaron Jones to Josh Jacobs is such a downgrade in excitement, if the first five games are any indication -- but I guess I'm pleasantly surprised that he's just quietly doing his job. In losing the thrill of Jones, what better consolation than a guy who's playing tough, picking up hard yards, and not making any drama about it? If he keeps on like this, I'll appreciate him. I haven't seen ego, that's the thing.

It can all change so fast though. Doubs, the humblest on-field presence, skips practice in dissent of his targets. I seem to remember Clinton-Dix was released because of some locker room complaining; that incident stuck with me as a key development in my emotional distancing from individual players. The best you can hope for is to pretend a player's legacy is immortalized in purity, like Donald Driver's -- always a Packer, always a team player. You can't even hope Driver was actually always a team player, but at least he gives you the pretense to pretend. More likely you can remember players but only attach to the organization. Or maybe the aura of the organization. Even the organization is ugly. Do I really admire Gutekunst? What an ugly name. "Lambeau" -- that's a name. It's all about the facade.

Favre unretired, went to the Vikings, lied about some money, was addicted to some drugs, and supposedly assaulted some women. I haven't read much into these off-field allegations. Why would I? So I can confidently wear or tear my old Favre jersey? I'll just keep remembering Favre as the facade of my young fandom.

Favre: faith in the facade

Doubs: doubt in the double-cross

Lombardi: mythical creature. Soon no one will know Vince Lombardi ever again; only his myth will survive.

Even watching the Packers is pure invention, like math. Axiom: we all care whether the Packers come out on top. If Packers lose, then analyze their playoffs hopes. If they miss the playoffs, then analyze next season's prospects. You can always pretend next season looks good, at least as a Packer fan in the 21st century. If they win the Super Bowl... this is almost worst case scenario, since there's nowhere to go but down, and you're inarguably confronted with the emptiness of your hopes -- not the empty likelihood they're fulfilled, but the emptiness once they're fulfilled.

All I can count on is my desire to watch the games, desire to soak in the culture, and the hazardously ill-defined camaraderie I experience around the idea of the Packers. Is it more positive than negative? I have no idea. Does it depend on whether they're winning? Probably. It depends on whether they're on the up or the down, meaning every game every season roughly averages out, but to a different average depending on their win/lose ratio over the years. ChatGPT says the Packers have won ~63% of their regular season games in my lifetime. I think it's slightly off but in the right ballpark.