Your razzmatazz and the nights on the town (Security, 9-1-1)

In England, culture is rather monotone. Figures of focus include Je-sus Christ, Shakespeare, and Socrates. All with effectively the same name. People are generally hence introduced to the same sound for 'exemplary' figures - suggesting that perhaps it is the 'sound' that perseveres, not the people.

Likewise, pop music in English - though often American - tends to feature heavily people involving an 'ay' sound: Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Hayley Williams, Hailee Steinfeld, Lana Del Rey, etc. This has increased since the mid-2000s. In films, 'eh' sounds like Jessica or Jennifer are more prominent. Heavy metal, for the sake of variety, can trace its way back to 'Black Sabbath' - although admittedly many other bands could have led in the same directions. It also happens coincidentally to resemble 'Hitler,' a figure who admittedly leads to most metal bands seeming tame and hand-wringing by comparison. What is counted as 'heavy metal' in say Black Sabbath's title track is closer to Fates Warning's 'A Pleasant Shade of Gray' - 'heavy' notes interspersed with softer segments with vocals. A lot of it is 'rock.' In some ways, the heavy metal derives like punk from musical simplification. However, perhaps in part due to the radical historical resonances of the name, it has gone in other directions which separate it from rock and 'milder' or 'false' music; these might go beyond the earlier aim.

Christianity, like plays, often encouraged passivity. Plays are a world of characters that pretend to be normal, but unlike actual people are held by the author like a puppet on a string. The author wants to construct people different from them, all they end up with are absurdities and chimeras in the attempt.  If you look at these from the perspective of forms of government or social organisation, it should be evident that the societies constructed are an absurdity - the author holds a fictitious authority that obscures or renders farcical any governmental structures or social order. In a novel, despite the pretence of characters the true nature of things is that the author could have characters walk upside down, fly, etc., in the next sentence if they wanted to. These are the actual characters, as the novel form construes them - without the pretence that they aren't characters in a book. Nonetheless, plays prospered in a time of monarchy, when as a format they could easily seek to allure people with a passive, hopeful world of puppets. They should therefore be seen as a format appropriate to an age with an established monarchy.

Nonetheless, they tried to avoid interfering with certain things. Capital still requires passivity, the subjection of man to objects. Hence, novels have caused the infiltration of these passive characters - albeit of far less worth - into schools. They specialise In the fictitious arts that are actually fictions of the author and give the format of passive adherence to author the form of a way of life or 'magic.' Hence, passivity is encoded and enshrined, what is in truth 'going with the flow' of the author is instead pretended as 'magic.' This was in many ways a new low for literature.

Also disturbing is when these passive pseudo-people engage in glorified love affairs, which people assume to be normal - often accompanied with things like 'shipping.' This isn't possible unless people actually relate intimately as passive and empty beings, and take this form of existence as normal. Hence, they are an extension of the 'magic' previously mentioned. Hence, popular examples include 'Twilight,' 'Naruto,' 'Love Hina,' and other things with similar themes. Also troubling is when authors pretend to set passive characters against 'dystopian' and totalitarian regimes, as if they have a right to do so with these characters. That may be referred to as a suicidal novel, and in general it substitutes strange but incorrect things for politics. The historical novel is also an amusing triviality - the author purporting to control a society in a way they didn't. At no point did Henry IV die and leave historical novelists in charge of their kingdom.

The novel form is at its best when it is an overlay or satirical, when it takes events or articles and adds a poetic gloss. However, it is still an inferior form.

The play form is in some ways more constrained, however despite this it is obviously inferior to many things. If performed, it could do so many things as to be amorphous - serve republicanism or monarchism, serve any cause and hence in truth serve no cause besides passivity. Hence, considering performance primary while praising a playwright is hollow - not only do modern renditions in all likelihood not represent an authentic presentation of the historical author, people having other concerns, but it is an empty vessel that can be filled in any manner. Hence, in some way an author's popularity here has to do with other facts. As a text, or insofar as the author wrote it (though still limited by the need to perform it), it is usually too dry. Performed organically, without females for instance, it is still too dry and besides has a different context. In any case, the play form - less honest than the novel form where the author tries to announce their presence or is allowed to issue warning - is a form probably out-moded. Films also have problems, however they are the manipulation of colours on a screen and need not have the same problems as novels or plays. These are both in any case usually chimeras, worthwhile only for when they are self-critical - and there they are inconsistent, for they do not end and cease to exist.

Christianity often deals in strange ways: God separates from Himself, then feels betrayed by Himself. It is ultimately polytheism. Nonetheless, Jesus tries often to separate the divine from earthly matters like the government, actions, etc., and dies in obedience. They are a suicidal 'God.' Likewise, Shakespeare does all that they can to obscure themselves in characters, however these characters are not only creatures below animals - creatures with no semblance of human traits or self-determination in truth - but they are nothing and merely represent Shakespeare in a senseless form. Nonetheless, Jesus acts more definitively: they wish to also make demands on the world, and undermine aspects of passivity by showing people the demands of the kingdom around them.

If Christ's kingdom has not come, and communism is considered dismissed for less, there is still much specious about claims of Christianity. Christianity often diverged from and vulgarised the capitalist social system, it could claim with Three Days Grace that, 'This house is not a home.' If it contained an anti-capitalist element, in general it just preached collaborationism or that virtually anything could be forced to serve the capitalist order. If the Catholic hierarchy inverts and distorts the capitalist order eerily, subverting its lust for accumulation and hence consumption (money is nothing outside of its universal purchasing power) with a hierarchy involving stringent measures to the contrary. Nonetheless, this stubborn anti-capitalist element is mediated by the need for these to serve the 'external' capitalistic society, and hence to serve the capitalistic order and ultimately capital. Thus, there is the assurance that elements in opposition can be tamed, that people can go on in social activity in peace and without acknowledging opposed social forces. These would undermine the things they aim for and are passionate about, so it is no surprise.

Intimate relations like marriage tended to rely on the economic system's fancy and hence on the favour of capital. Hence, the distinction between a Church and a whorehouse was often subtle. And once a Church gives in to most capitalist governments, what more can it submit its religion to? It seems that it takes a fundamentally empty religion to achieve this.

Mostly, then, religion under capitalism was identical. It had to accomodate an irreligious order, and hence eliminate or tone down its distinguishing features. However, while Christianity prevails where it is 'at peace' or comfortable with itself, 'Islam' is often the form taken in more war-like or conflicting elements of the world order. They are nonetheless similar things expressed differently. However, Christianity and Islam are of course different religions, although Islam likes to pretend that it can accommodate Jesus. They have different bases, and people associated with them. Nonetheless, they are ultimately identical in capitalism. This hence diverges slightly, in a positive or negative direction. If capital is 'conservative' or retreating from religious demands, it will seek to pacify this or regress from religion to comfort opposed elements; if there is an insurgent or uncomfortable society, it will seek to go beyond religion or transcend this accommodation of opposed elements. Of course, any religion must involve elements of this accommodation, to survive in capital in a familiar fashion. Sometimes, they will turn against this, or seek to go further. This is implicit, as religion contains resistant elements. However, they contain them like flowers kept in a book, as things that are apologetic about this and are preserved in such a silenced state.

Of course, religions can be dragged further into something comfortable, as Baz Luhrmann can adapt Shakespeare plays. However, these need not be definitive or without controversy, as by that point each loses their overall point. One could go elsewhere if one wanted a film like that, but with an appropriate text that does not come across as comical - and with half-decent people in the main roles. Likewise, a religion mostly involving doing other things would soon give way to these things. The explicitly polytheistic religions sought to limit this, however they eventually pointed to too many alternatives to retain any substance or strictness. The most notable parts of such religions were often things like emperor-worship, which integrated religion with law and gave it some authority and unpredictability. The Caesars, for instance, were associated with this, after taking on the name of the dead Julius Caesar. Eventually, they could dissipate to allow in more 'monotheistic' religions. A religion which habitually deifies things is conservative. It is likely to dissipate, and is idle. A religion which deifies everything, like monotheism often tends towards, can also be so and in a more notable way. Nonetheless, monotheism can contain efforts at limiting this tendency, which Christianity attempts most thoroughly.

Football players are named after Messiah figures, albeit with some doubt implied as to the piousness of their religious beliefs. That could be put down to the laughter of the gods.

Hence, capitalism generally selects for examples of these things which distance themselves from what they are. The fields, such as art, can express some resistance to the commodification of activities and their formulation as abstract labour. 'There is no poetry in money' - and such things. Nonetheless, examples of them where they cede ground and draw the fields back to give way for civil society to carry on uncaring and as it is, tend to be found most secure. Nonetheless, they require some identification with this field and relegate others from it, hence they are inconsistent figures. In any case, this inconsistency and their problems are generally focussed on in their reputation under capitalism, their strengths obscured. Hence, their role has generally gone in this direction.

Hence, on the one hand they need to identify with the terrain and keep others out, on the other hand they let others act freely. They cannot necessarily do all of these things at once, so there is often some forgery around them. However, if they cannot happen at once, they can be represented in a story. This is still slightly inconsistent. Nonetheless, it would imply that someone secures a position or can repel others freely, nonetheless they eventually decide to give in to them and take on their viewpoint. Hence, from a story along these lines, appropriate figures might be generated. However, these are still self-limiting figures, ultimately. Further, they essentially secure a position - they keep others at bay, they do not place obviously shiny propositions that could be attacked and trouble them. They do not try to offer possible weaknesses, or things upon which their appeal clearly hinges, rather they remain secure. Hence, they are 'serious' or 'classics.' Hence, their adherence to a given field is important, as it staves others off - however, this only applies to those specific others. It is nonetheless a weak adherence. Religion, like art, has several elaborate and complex ends that aren't easily subordinated to the uniformity of value - and can subsist in a Masonic suspension which allows them to avoid undue subjugation. The hollowness of popular formalism is merely the subjugation of this to the 'content' of capitalistic society, which is so empty that only formalism can truly advocate it. In any case, then, these tendencies need to have a basis in something that staves things off, perhaps in a direct conflict, albeit with this accompanied by a general story. They control the terrain, and later are not defeated but submit and agree with the other. This is the basic format, and is not suicidal. Some of these stay closer to it than others.

In any case, then, clearly some uniformity prevails between fields. It continually infests them. Nonetheless, this is not to be taken as actually granting them priority of any kind. In general, the forms which these drew on were limited - some more than others. As they are hollow, things like plays resolve to garbled poetry. Marlowe accurately figured with Faustus - despite the play's own flaws - how the playwright gives themselves up to speak directly for others they cannot speak as, and yet it is ultimately fruitless. It is a rather dark message, for a play: a place where the playwright thinks they can play God because they have a pen. Nonetheless it accompanies some interesting religious portrayals to foreground a notable play.