#[ which was also refuted later by a writer who *did* ] | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dailyanarchistposts · 9 months ago

Text

G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?

To some extent, Stirner’s work The Ego and Its Own is like a Rorschach test. Depending on the reader’s psychology, he or she can interpret it in drastically different ways. Hence, a few have tried to use Stirner’s ideas to defend capitalism while others have used them to argue for anarcho-syndicalism. For example, many in the anarchist movement in Glasgow, Scotland, took Stirner’s “Union of Egoists” literally as the basis for their anarcho-syndicalist organising in the 1940s and beyond. Similarly, we discover the noted anarchist historian Max Nettlau stating that ”[o]n reading Stirner, I maintain that he cannot be interpreted except in a socialist sense.” [A Short History of Anarchism, p. 55] In this section of the FAQ, we will indicate why, in our view, the latter, syndicalistic, interpretation of egoism is far more appropriate than the capitalistic one.

It should be noted, before continuing, that Stirner’s work has had a bigger impact on individualist anarchism than social anarchism. Benjamin Tucker and many of his comrades embraced egoism when they became aware of The Ego and Its Own (a development which provoked a split in individualist circles which, undoubtedly, contributed to its decline). However, his influence was not limited to individualist anarchism. As John P. Clark notes, Stirner “has also been seen as a significant figure by figures who are more in the mainstream of the anarchist tradition. Emma Goldman, for example, combines an acceptance of many of the principles of anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism with a strong emphasis on individuality and personal uniqueness. The inspiration for this latter part of her outlook comes from thinkers like … Stirner. Herbert Read has commented on the value of Stirner’s defence of individuality.” [Max Stirner’s Egoism, p. 90] Daniel Guérin’s classic introduction to anarchism gives significant space to the German egoist, arguing he “rehabilitated the individual at a time when the philosophical field was dominated by Hegelian anti-individualism and most reformers in the social field had been led by the misdeeds of bourgeois egotism to stress its opposite” and pointed to “the boldness and scope of his thought.” [Anarchism, p. 27] From meeting anarchists in Glasgow during the Second World War, long-time anarchist activist and artist Donald Rooum likewise combined Stirner and anarcho-communism. In America, the short-lived Situationist influenced group “For Ourselves” produced the inspired The Right to Be Greedy: Theses on the Practical Necessity of Demanding Everything, a fusion of Marx and Stirner which proclaimed a “communist egoism” based on the awareness that greed “in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society.”

It is not hard to see why so many people are influenced by Stirner’s work. It is a classic, full of ideas and a sense of fun which is lacking in many political writers. For many, it is only known through the criticism Marx and Engels subjected it too in their book The German Ideology. As with their later attacks on Proudhon and Bakunin, the two Germans did not accurately reflect the ideas they were attacking and, in the case of Stirner, they made it their task to make them appear ridiculous and preposterous. That they took so much time and energy to do so suggests that Stirner’s work is far more important and difficult to refute than their notoriously misleading diatribe suggests. That in itself should prompt interest in his work.

As will become clear from our discussion, social anarchists have much to gain from understanding Stirner’s ideas and applying what is useful in them. While some may object to our attempt to place egoism and communism together, pointing out that Stirner rejected “communism”. Quite! Stirner did not subscribe to libertarian communism, because it did not exist when he was writing and so he was directing his critique against the various forms of state communism which did. Moreover, this does not mean that anarcho-communists and others may not find his work of use to them. And Stirner would have approved, for nothing could be more foreign to his ideas than to limit what an individual considers to be in their best interest. Unlike the narrow and self-defeating “egoism” of, say, Ayn Rand, Stirner did not prescribe what was and was not in a person’s self-interest. He did not say you should act in certain ways because he preferred it, he did not redefine selfishness to allow most of bourgeois morality to remain intact. Rather he urged the individual to think for themselves and seek their own path. Not for Stirner the grim “egoism” of “selfishly” living a life determined by some guru and which only that authority figure would approve of. True egoism is not parroting what Stirner wrote and agreeing with everything he expounded. Nothing could be more foreign to Stirner’s work than to invent “Stirnerism.” As Donald Rooum put it:

“I am happy to be called a Stirnerite anarchist, provided ‘Stirnerite’ means one who agrees with Stirner’s general drift, not one who agrees with Stirner’s every word. Please judge my arguments on their merits, not on the merits of Stirner’s arguments, and not by the test of whether I conform to Stirner.” [“Anarchism and Selfishness”, pp. 251–9, The Raven, no. 3, p. 259fn]

With that in mind, we will summarise Stirner’s main arguments and indicate why social anarchists have been, and should be, interested in his ideas. Saying that, John P. Clark presents a sympathetic and useful social anarchist critique of his work in Max Stirner’s Egoism. Unless otherwise indicated all quotes are from Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own.

So what is Stirner all about? Simply put, he is an Egoist, which means that he considers self-interest to be the root cause of an individual’s every action, even when he or she is apparently doing “altruistic” actions. Thus: “I am everything to myself and I do everything on my account.” Even love is an example of selfishness, “because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me.” He urges others to follow him and “take courage now to really make yourselves the central point and the main thing altogether.” As for other people, he sees them purely as a means for self-enjoyment, a self-enjoyment which is mutual: “For me you are nothing but my food, even as I am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use.” [p. 162, p. 291 and pp. 296–7]

For Stirner, all individuals are unique (“My flesh is not their flesh, my mind is not their mind,”) and should reject any attempts to restrict or deny their uniqueness: “To be looked upon as a mere part, part of society, the individual cannot bear — because he is more; his uniqueness puts from it this limited conception.” Individuals, in order to maximise their uniqueness, must become aware of the real reasons for their actions. In other words they must become conscious, not unconscious, egoists. An unconscious, or involuntary, egoist is one “who is always looking after his own and yet does not count himself as the highest being, who serves only himself and at the same time always thinks he is serving a higher being, who knows nothing higher than himself and yet is infatuated about something higher.” [p. 138, p. 265 and p. 36] In contrast, egoists are aware that they act purely out of self-interest, and if they support a “higher being,” it is not because it is a noble thought but because it will benefit them.

Stirner himself, however, has no truck with “higher beings.” Indeed, with the aim of concerning himself purely with his own interests, he attacks all “higher beings,” regarding them as a variety of what he calls “spooks,” or ideas to which individuals sacrifice themselves and by which they are dominated. First amongst these is the abstraction “Man”, into which all unique individuals are submerged and lost. As he put it, “liberalism is a religion because it separates my essence from me and sets it above me, because it exalts ‘Man’ to the same extent as any other religion does to God … it sets me beneath Man.” Indeed, he “who is infatuated with Man leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook.” [p. 176 and p.79] Among the many “spooks” Stirner attacks are such notable aspects of capitalist life as private property, the division of labour, the state, religion, and (at times) society itself. We will discuss Stirner’s critique of capitalism before moving onto his vision of an egoist society and how it relates to social anarchism.

For the egoist, private property is a spook which “lives by the grace of law” and it “becomes ‘mine’ only by effect of the law”. In other words, private property exists purely “through the protection of the State, through the State’s grace.” Recognising its need for state protection, Stirner is also aware that ”[i]t need not make any difference to the ‘good citizens’ who protects them and their principles, whether an absolute King or a constitutional one, a republic, if only they are protected. And what is their principle, whose protector they always ‘love’? Not that of labour”, rather it is ”interesting-bearing possession … labouring capital, therefore … labour certainly, yet little or none at all of one’s own, but labour of capital and of the — subject labourers.” [p. 251, p. 114, p. 113 and p. 114]

As can be seen from capitalist support for fascism, Stirner was correct — as long as a regime supports capitalist interests, the ‘good citizens’ (including many on the so-called “libertarian” right)) will support it. Stirner sees that not only does private property require state protection, it also leads to exploitation and oppression. As noted in section D.10, like subsequent anarchists like Kropotkin, Stirner attacked the division of labour resulting from private property for its deadening effects on the ego and individuality of the worker:

“When everyone is to cultivate himself into man, condemning a man to machine-like labour amounts to the same thing as slavery … Every labour is to have the intent that the man be satisfied. Therefore he must become a master in it too, be able to perform it as a totality. He who in a pin-factory only puts on heads, only draws the wire, works, as it were mechanically, like a machine; he remains half-trained, does not become a master: his labour cannot satisfy him, it can only fatigue him. His labour is nothing by itself, has no object in itself, is nothing complete in itself; he labours only into another’s hands, and is used (exploited) by this other.” [p. 121]

Stirner had nothing but contempt for those who defended property in terms of “natural rights” and opposed theft and taxation with a passion because it violates said rights. “Rightful, or legitimate property of another,” he stated, “will by only that which you are content to recognise as such. If your content ceases, then this property has lost legitimacy for you, and you will laugh at absolute right to it.” After all, “what well-founded objection could be made against theft” [p. 278 and p. 251] He was well aware that inequality was only possible as long as the masses were convinced of the sacredness of property. In this way, the majority end up without property:

“Property in the civic sense means sacred property, such that I must respect your property … Be it ever so little, if one only has somewhat of his own — to wit, a respected property: The more such owners … the more ‘free people and good patriots’ has the State. “Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on respect, humaneness, the virtues of love … For in practice people respect nothing, and everyday the small possessions are bought up again by greater proprietors, and the ‘free people’ change into day labourers.” [p. 248]

Thus free competition “is not ‘free,’ because I lack the things for competition.” Due to this basic inequality of wealth (of “things”), ”[u]nder the regime of the commonality the labourers always fall into the hands of the possessors … of the capitalists, therefore. The labourer cannot realise on his labour to the extent of the value that it has for the customer.” [p. 262 and p. 115] In other words, the working class is exploited by the capitalists and landlords.

Moreover, it is the exploitation of labour which is the basis of the state, for the state “rests on the slavery of labour. If labour becomes free, the State is lost.” Without surplus value to feed off, a state could not exist. For Stirner, the state is the greatest threat to his individuality: ”I am free in no State.” This is because the state claims to be sovereign over a given area, while, for Stirner, only the ego can be sovereign over itself and that which it uses (its “property”): “I am my own only when I am master of myself.” Thus the state “is not thinkable without lordship and servitude (subjection); for the State must will to be the lord of all that it embraces.” Stirner also warned against the illusion in thinking that political liberty means that the state need not be a cause of concern for ”[p]olitical liberty means that the polis, the State, is free; … not, therefore, that I am free of the State… It does not mean my liberty, but the liberty of a power that rules and subjugates me; it means that one of my despots … is free.” [p. 116, p. 226, p. 169, p. 195 and p. 107]

Therefore Stirner urges insurrection against all forms of authority and dis-respect for property. For ”[i]f man reaches the point of losing respect for property, everyone will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they no longer respect the master as master.” And in order for labour to become free, all must have “property.” “The poor become free and proprietors only when they rise.” Thus, ”[i]f we want no longer to leave the land to the landed proprietors, but to appropriate it to ourselves, we unite ourselves to this end, form a union, a société, that makes itself proprietor … we can drive them out of many another property yet, in order to make it our property, the property of the — conquerors.” Thus property “deserves the attacks of the Communists and Proudhon: it is untenable, because the civic proprietor is in truth nothing but a propertyless man, one who is everywhere shut out. Instead of owning the world, as he might, he does not own even the paltry point on which he turns around.” [p. 258, p. 260, p. 249 and pp. 248–9]

Stirner recognises the importance of self-liberation and the way that authority often exists purely through its acceptance by the governed. As he argues, “no thing is sacred of itself, but my declaring it sacred, by my declaration, my judgement, my bending the knee; in short, by my conscience.” It is from this worship of what society deems “sacred” that individuals must liberate themselves in order to discover their true selves. And, significantly, part of this process of liberation involves the destruction of hierarchy. For Stirner, “Hierarchy is domination of thoughts, domination of mind!,” and this means that we are “kept down by those who are supported by thoughts.” [p. 72 and p. 74] That is, by our own willingness to not question authority and the sources of that authority, such as private property and the state:

“Proudhon calls property ‘robbery’ (le vol) But alien property — and he is talking of this alone — is not less existent by renunciation, cession, and humility; it is a present. Who so sentimentally call for compassion as a poor victim of robbery, when one is just a foolish, cowardly giver of presents? Why here again put the fault on others as if they were robbing us, while we ourselves do bear the fault in leaving the others unrobbed? The poor are to blame for there being rich men.” [p. 315]

For those, like modern-day “libertarian” capitalists, who regard “profit” as the key to “selfishness,” Stirner has nothing but contempt. Because “greed” is just one part of the ego, and to spend one’s life pursuing only that part is to deny all other parts. Stirner called such pursuit “self-sacrificing,” or a “one-sided, unopened, narrow egoism,” which leads to the ego being possessed by one aspect of itself. For “he who ventures everything else for one thing, one object, one will, one passion … is ruled by a passion to which he brings the rest as sacrifices.” [p. 76]

For the true egoist, capitalists are “self-sacrificing” in this sense, because they are driven only by profit. In the end, their behaviour is just another form of self-denial, as the worship of money leads them to slight other aspects of themselves such as empathy and critical thought (the bank balance becomes the rule book). A society based on such “egoism” ends up undermining the egos which inhabit it, deadening one’s own and other people’s individuality and so reducing the vast potential “utility” of others to oneself. In addition, the drive for profit is not even based on self-interest, it is forced upon the individual by the workings of the market (an alien authority) and results in labour “claim[ing] all our time and toil,” leaving no time for the individual “to take comfort in himself as the unique.” [pp. 268–9]

Stirner also turns his analysis to “socialism” and “communism,” and his critique is as powerful as the one he directs against capitalism. This attack, for some, gives his work an appearance of being pro-capitalist, while, as indicated above, it is not. Stirner did attack socialism, but he (rightly) attacked state socialism, not libertarian socialism, which did not really exist at that time (the only well known anarchist work at the time was Proudhon’s What is Property?, published in 1840 and this work obviously could not fully reflect the developments within anarchism that were to come). He also indicated why moralistic (or altruistic) socialism is doomed to failure, and laid the foundations of the theory that socialism will work only on the basis of egoism (communist-egoism, as it is sometimes called). Stirner correctly pointed out that much of what is called socialism was nothing but warmed up liberalism, and as such ignores the individual: “Whom does the liberal look upon as his equal? Man! …, In other words, he sees in you, not you, but the species.” A socialism that ignores the individual consigns itself to being state capitalism, nothing more. “Socialists” of this school forget that “society” is made up of individuals and that it is individuals who work, think, love, play and enjoy themselves. Thus: “That society is no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an instrument or means, from which we may derive benefit … of this the socialists do not think, because they — as liberals — are imprisoned in the religious principle and zealously aspire after — a sacred society, such as the State was hitherto.” [p. 123]

Of course, for the egoist libertarian communism can be just as much an option as any other socio-political regime. As Stirner stressed, egoism “is not hostile to the tenderest of cordiality … nor of socialism: in short, it is not inimical to any interest: it excludes no interest. It simply runs counter to un-interest and to the uninteresting: it is not against love but against sacred love … not against socialists, but against the sacred socialists.” [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 23] After all, if it aids the individual then Stirner had no more problems with libertarian communism that, say, rulers or exploitation. Yet this position does not imply that egoism tolerates the latter. Stirner’s argument is, of course, that those who are subject to either have an interest in ending both and should unite with those in the same position to end it rather than appealing to the good will of those in power. As such, it goes without saying that those who find in egoism fascistic tendencies are fundamentally wrong. Fascism, like any class system, aims for the elite to rule and provides various spooks for the masses to ensure this (the nation, tradition, property, and so on). Stirner, on the other hand, urges an universal egoism rather than one limited to just a few. In other words, he would wish those subjected to fascistic domination to reject such spooks and to unite and rise against those oppressing them:

“Well, who says that every one can do everything? What are you there for, pray, you who do not need to put up with everything? Defend yourself, and no one will do anything to you! He who would break your will has to do with you, and is your enemy. Deal with him as such. If there stand behind you for your protection some millions more, then you are an imposing power and will have an easy victory.” [p. 197]

That Stirner’s desire for individual autonomy becomes transferred into support for rulership for the few and subjection for the many by many of his critics simply reflects the fact we are conditioned by class society to accept such rule as normal — and hope that our masters will be kind and subscribe to the same spooks they inflict on their subjects. It is true, of course, that a narrow “egoism” would accept and seek such relationships of domination but such a perspective is not Stirner’s. This can be seen from how Stirner’s egoist vision could fit with social anarchist ideas.

The key to understanding the connection lies in Stirner’s idea of the “union of egoists,” his proposed alternative mode of organising society. Stirner believed that as more and more people become egoists, conflict in society will decrease as each individual recognises the uniqueness of others, thus ensuring a suitable environment within which they can co-operate (or find “truces” in the “war of all against all”). These “truces” Stirner termed

“Unions of Egoists.” They are the means by which egoists could, firstly, “annihilate” the state, and secondly, destroy its creature, private property, since they would “multiply the individual’s means and secure his assailed property.” [p. 258]

The unions Stirner desires would be based on free agreement, being spontaneous and voluntary associations drawn together out of the mutual interests of those involved, who would “care best for their welfare if they unite with others.” [p. 309] The unions, unlike the state, exist to ensure what Stirner calls “intercourse,” or “union” between individuals. To better understand the nature of these associations, which will replace the state, Stirner lists the relationships between friends, lovers, and children at play as examples. [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 25] These illustrate the kinds of relationships that maximise an individual’s self-enjoyment, pleasure, freedom, and individuality, as well as ensuring that those involved sacrifice nothing while belonging to them. Such associations are based on mutuality and a free and spontaneous co-operation between equals. As Stirner puts it, “intercourse is mutuality, it is the action, the commercium, of individuals.” [p. 218] Its aim is “pleasure” and “self-enjoyment.” Thus Stirner sought a broad egoism, one which appreciated others and their uniqueness, and so criticised the narrow egoism of people who forgot the wealth others are:

“But that would be a man who does not know and cannot appreciate any of the delights emanating from an interest taken in others, from the consideration shown to others. That would be a man bereft of innumerable pleasures, a wretched character … would he not be a wretched egoist, rather than a genuine Egoist? … The person who loves a human being is, by virtue of that love, a wealthier man that someone else who loves no one.” [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 23]

In order to ensure that those involved do not sacrifice any of their uniqueness and freedom, the contracting parties have to have roughly the same bargaining power and the association created must be based on self-management (i.e. equality of power). Only under self-management can all participate in the affairs of the union and express their individuality. Otherwise, we have to assume that some of the egoists involved will stop being egoists and will allow themselves to be dominated by another, which is unlikely. As Stirner himself argued:

“But is an association, wherein most members allow themselves to be lulled as regards their most natural and most obvious interests, actually an Egoist’s association? Can they really be ‘Egoists’ who have banded together when one is a slave or a serf of the other?… “Societies wherein the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the rest, where, say, some may satisfy their need for rest thanks to the fact that the rest must work to the point of exhaustion, and can lead a life of ease because others live in misery and perish of hunger, or indeed who live a life of dissipation because others are foolish enough to live in indigence, etc., such societies … [are] more of a religious society, a communion held as sacrosanct by right, by law and by all the pomp and circumstance of the courts.” [Op. Cit., p. 24]

Therefore, egoism’s revolt against all hierarchies that restrict the ego logically leads to the end of authoritarian social relationships, particularly those associated with private property and the state. Given that capitalism is marked by extensive differences in bargaining power outside its “associations” (i.e. firms) and power within these “associations” (i.e. the worker/boss hierarchy), from an egoist point of view it is in the self-interest of those subjected to such relationships to get rid of them and replace them with unions based on mutuality, free association, and self-management. Ultimately, Stirner stresses that it is in the workers’ self-interest to free themselves from both state and capitalist oppression. Sounding like an anarcho-syndicalist, Stirner recognised the potential for strike action as a means of self-liberation:

“The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once become thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves here and there.” [p. 116]

Given the holistic and egalitarian nature of the union of egoists, it can be seen that it shares little with the so-called free agreements of capitalism (in particular wage labour). The hierarchical structure of capitalist firms hardly produces associations in which the individual’s experiences can be compared to those involved in friendship or play, nor do they involve equality. An essential aspect of the “union of egoists” for Stirner was such groups should be “owned” by their members, not the members by the group. That points to a libertarian form of organisation within these “unions” (i.e. one based on equality and participation), not a hierarchical one. If you have no say in how a group functions (as in wage slavery, where workers have the “option” of “love it or leave it”) then you can hardly be said to own it, can you? Indeed, Stirner argues, for ”[o]nly in the union can you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but you possess it or make it of use to you.” [p. 312]

Thus, Stirner’s “union of egoists” cannot be compared to the employer-employee contract as the employees cannot be said to “own” the organisation resulting from the contract (nor do they own themselves during work time, having sold their labour/liberty to the boss in return for wages — see section B.4). Only within a participatory association can you “assert” yourself freely and subject your maxims, and association, to your “ongoing criticism” — in capitalist contracts you can do both only with your bosses’ permission.

And by the same token, capitalist contracts do not involve “leaving each other alone” (a la “anarcho”-capitalism). No boss will “leave alone” the workers in his factory, nor will a landowner “leave alone” a squatter on land he owns but does not use. Stirner rejects the narrow concept of “property” as private property and recognises the social nature of “property,” whose use often affects far more people than those who claim to “own” it: “I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I ‘respect’ nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!” [p. 248] This view logically leads to the idea of both workers’ self-management and grassroots community control (as will be discussed more fully in section I) as those affected by an activity will take a direct interest in it and not let “respect” for “private” property allow them to be oppressed by others.

Moreover, egoism (self-interest) must lead to self-management and mutual aid (solidarity), for by coming to agreements based on mutual respect and social equality, we ensure non-hierarchical relationships. If I dominate someone, then in all likelihood I will be dominated in turn. By removing hierarchy and domination, the ego is free to experience and utilise the full potential of others. As Kropotkin argued in Mutual Aid, individual freedom and social co-operation are not only compatible but, when united, create the most productive conditions for all individuals within society.

Stirner reminds the social anarchist that communism and collectivism are not sought for their own sake but to ensure individual freedom and enjoyment. As he argued: “But should competition some day disappear, because concerted effort will have been acknowledged as more beneficial than isolation, then will not every single individual inside the associations be equally egoistic and out for his own interests?” [Op. Cit., p. 22] This is because competition has its drawbacks, for ”[r]estless acquisition does not let us take breath, take a calm enjoyment. We do not get the comfort of our possessions… Hence it is at any rate helpful that we come to an agreement about human labours that they may not, as under competition, claim all our time and toil.” [p. 268] In other words, in the market only the market is free not those subject to its pressures and necessities — an important truism which defenders of capitalism always ignore.

Forgetting about the individual was, for Stirner, the key problem with the forms of communism he was familiar with and so this “organisation of labour touches only such labours as others can do for us … the rest remain egoistic, because no one can in your stead elaborate your musical compositions, carry out your projects of painting, etc.; nobody can replace Raphael’s labours. The latter are labours of a unique person, which only he is competent to achieve.” He went on to ask “for whom is time to be gained [by association]? For what does man require more time than is necessary to refresh his wearied powers of labour? Here Communism is silent.” Unlike egoism, which answers: “To take comfort in himself as unique, after he has done his part as man!” In other words, competition “has a continued existence” because “all do not attend to their affair and come to an understanding with each other about it.” [p. 269 and p. 275] As can be seen from Chapter 8 of Kropotkin’s Conquest of Bread (“The Need for Luxury”), communist-anarchism builds upon this insight, arguing that communism is required to ensure that all individuals have the time and energy to pursue their own unique interests and dreams (see section I.4).

Stirner notes that socialising property need not result in genuine freedom if it is not rooted in individual use and control. He states “the lord is proprietor. Choose then whether you want to be lord, or whether society shall be!” He notes that many communists of his time attacked alienated property but did not stress that the aim was to ensure access for all individuals. “Instead of transforming the alien into own,” Stirner noted, “they play impartial and ask only that all property be left to a third party, such as human society. They revindicate the alien not in their own name, but in a third party’s” Ultimately, of course, under libertarian communism it is not “society” which uses the means of life but individuals and associations of individuals. As Stirner stressed: “Neither God nor Man (‘human society’) is proprietor, but the individual.” [p. 313, p. 315 and p. 251] This is why social anarchists have always stressed self-management — only that can bring collectivised property into the hands of those who utilise it. Stirner places the focus on decision making back where it belongs — in the individuals who make up a given community rather than abstractions like “society.”

Therefore Stirner’s union of egoists has strong connections with social anarchism’s desire for a society based on freely federated individuals, co-operating as equals. His central idea of “property” — that which is used by the ego — is an important concept for social anarchism because it stresses that hierarchy develops when we let ideas and organisations own us rather than vice versa. A participatory anarchist community will be made up of individuals who must ensure that it remains their “property” and be under their control; hence the importance of decentralised, confederal organisations which ensure that control. A free society must be organised in such a way to ensure the free and full development of individuality and maximise the pleasure to be gained from individual interaction and activity. Lastly, Stirner indicates that mutual aid and equality are based not upon an abstract morality but upon self-interest, both for defence against hierarchy and for the pleasure of co-operative intercourse between unique individuals.

Stirner demonstrates brilliantly how abstractions and fixed ideas (“spooks”) influence the very way we think, see ourselves, and act. He shows how hierarchy has its roots within our own minds, in how we view the world. He offers a powerful defence of individuality in an authoritarian and alienated world, and places subjectivity at the centre of any revolutionary project, where it belongs. Finally, he reminds us that a free society must exist in the interests of all, and must be based upon the self-fulfilment, liberation and enjoyment of the individual.

13 notes · View notes

kudosmyhero · 8 months ago

Text

The Amazing Spider-Man (vol. 3) #13: Spider-Men: No More

Read Date: July 03, 2023 Cover Date: March 2015 ● Writer: Dan Slott ● Penciler: Giuseppe Camuncoli ● Inker: Cam Smith ● Colorist: Justin Ponsor ● Letterer: Chris Eliopoulos ● Editor: Nick Lowe ◦ Devin Lewis ●

**HERE BE SPOILERS: Skip ahead to the fan art/podcast to avoid spoilers

Reactions As I Read: ● oooo, Otto’s gonna hear some stuff about himself he won’t like… ● and there’s Pavitr Prabhakar without his mask! I just read Spider-Man: India issue 1 right before this, in which I saw him without his mask for the first time. ● also, Spider-Gwen and Silk? I’m here for it. ● uh-oh

● did the Inheritors forget they can’t regenerate themselves? ● YES, fucking finally ● Otto-Spidey here with a much-needed, fairly savage pep talk! ● ok, now we’re getting somewhere! ● 👏👏👏👏👏

Synopsis: On Loomworld, the Inheritors convene and Jennix apologizes to Solus for failing to stop the destruction of the cloning facility, while Brix and Bora reveal that the Spiders have taken refuge on the one world they cannot go to. Solus dismisses them, saying that as long as they have the Scion, the Bride and the Other will come to them, stating that it is time to exterminate the Spider-Totems once and for all.

On Earth-3145, Uncle Ben explains that after being bitten by the spider, he became his world's Spider-Man, wearing a costume from his nephew. All went well until his nemesis, the Emerald Elf, figured out who he was and bombed the Parker household, killing May and Peter. Ben quit being Spider-Man, and when Ezekiel Sims told him he was in danger from Morlun, accepted his offer to stay in the bunker.

Peter and Otto press Ben for further details as to why he let the world fall into ruin, and Ben reveals that his world's Otto Octavius held the world at ransom with nuclear weapons, but there had been a mistake and the device detonated prematurely. While Otto expresses disbelief and dismay at his counterpart's actions, Peter takes out the scrolls Jessica sent them. Silk, feeling guilty for having gotten Jessica trapped, sneaks away, but is tailed by Gwen, who offers to join her in a rescue mission.

Paviitr Prabhakar and Billy Braddock have an existential discussion, with the former taking note of the overwhelming number of similarities between himself and the other Spider-Totems, especially the Peter Parker of Earth-616. Paviitr states that it feels like he and the others are echoes or distorted reflections of Earth-616 Peter, and therefore expendable in the coming battle. Billy refutes this, stating that while there are thousands of members in the Captain Britain Corps, each one is unique and special in their own way.

Otto, angered by the actions of his counterpart and frustrated by the others' inability to translate the Master Weaver's scrolls, furiously snatches the scroll away and activates his holographic assistant. When Peter notes that it has a striking resemblance to Anna Maria Marconi, Otto abruptly realizes that Peter is from later in the Earth-616 timeline and therefore that he regains control of his body, with Otto losing everything. Before he can do anything, Anya Corazon reveals that, due to her original powers having come from a cult that worships the Spider-Totems, she can read the text, stating that the first scroll contains a prophecy that the Inheritors will lose to the Spiders in 1000 years in the future, and that the only way of averting this fate is by sacrificing the Other, the Bride, and the Scion, which will stop new spider-totems from rising. Mayday furiously demands they travel to Loomworld and rescue her brother, and at that point the Spiders realize that Cindy has run off again. Peter contacts her to find her in the middle of a brawl with multiversal pirates, one of whom destroys her teleporter.

On Earth-802, Kaine angrily rebukes Earth-1610 Jess' attempts to console him over Ben's sacrifice, traveling to Loomworld. The Inheritors, sensing the presence of the Other and the Bride, go on the offensive. On Earth-3145, Anya states they can use the contents of the second scroll, which contains Karn's life story, to sway him to their side and turn things in the Spiders' favor. Peter contacts Kaine, who reveals he is on Loomworld and intends to kill the Inheritors himself before tapping into the Other's full power. Peter contacts his away teams, ordering them to rendezvous at Loomworld ASAP, shouting down Miguel O'Hara's protests. Earth-1610 Jess reveals that she's stuck at Jennix's base, but Miles calls in and says his squad will pick her up.

On Loomworld, Kaine transforms into a massive Man-Spider as the Inheritors arrive. Morlun remarks that the last time he faced the Other, when it was hosted by Peter, it was nowhere near as powerful, and Solus remarks it is due to it being in the Center of Reality. The Other impales Solus on multiple spines mid-boast, killing him, and Morlun attacks in a rage, ripping off one of the Other's legs and stabbing it through the head, stating that they don't need it alive, only its blood.

Elsewhere, Jess berates Cindy for destroying two teleporters in a single day. Gwen tries to break up the argument, but Verna, Brix, and Bora attack with multiple Green Goblins.

On Earth-3145, Mayday snaps at Peter to leave Uncle Ben, who refuses to suit up, behind. Despite Ben dejectedly remarking that Mayday is right, Peter reminds him that "with great power must also come great responsibility", revealing that he kept the costume and stating that his Uncle Ben made all the difference. Otto angrily snaps at Ben to toughen up, stating that he lost more times than he won but that didn't keep him from fighting. Otto's rant inspires Ben to put the costume on one last time, and the Spider-Army sets off for the final battle.

(https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Amazing_Spider-Man_Vol_3_13)

Fan Art: Spiderman: Into the Spider-verse by Hammling

Accompanying Podcast: ● Amazing Spider-Talk - episode 13

#marvel #marvel comics #my marvel read #podcast recommendation #comics #peter parker #spider-man #comic books #fan art #fanart #amazing spider-talk

4 notes · View notes

cannoli-reader · 11 months ago

Text

Also, when Nynaeve & Elayne freed the damane, in order to take a sul'dam captive to infiltrate the kennels to rescue Egwene, the sul'dam gets hit. With a slight but major difference.

In the book, it's the damane who does this, punching her former captor. Elayne overcomes her need for stealth to shout "good for you" to the woman who has not let her captivity and conditioning break her, as Egwene tells Min has happened to so many women, as Egwene fears is happening to herself. It's an example of the triumph of the human spirit, and a refutation of the Seanchan claims that their way is for the best and the damane really get this and prefer being held safely against causing harm, and are happier for having accepted their status. And it's justifiable, in even the strictest moral accounting, since the sul'dam's first inclination when she recovers from the surprise, is going to be to collar the damane again.

On the show, it's Elayne who decks the sul'dam. Not an actual victim, but a wealthy, privileged girl, who has no reason other than her own vicious impulse. Elayne hits the sul'dam with an object, after Nynaeve has her collared, when she is effectively helpless. There is no reason for Elayne's blow, the woman has done nothing to her, and cannot even try to raise a hand against Nynaeve. She did not have a damane with her.

What's more, Nynaeve leaves their captive collared beside Egwene's tormentor, in her sentence of justice, leaving them alive, but dangerously exposed to the same fate they had imposed on others. And this is practically superior for two different reasons: The first is that it forces the Seanchan to confront the reality of the sul'dam, which, later in the series, a knowledgeable Seanchan officer believes could tear apart the Empire and shatter their trust in the institution of the a'dam. It's the first crack in the damn, that Suroth will try to patch up, but future efforts will keep tearing down. And secondly, it is the first link in a chain of events that will lead to Bethamin's defection, Egeanin's realization of the truth, and conversion in her beliefs, and eventually, cause the rescue of three Aes Sedai from Seanchan hands, as well as give Mat the opportunity to free a Windfinder and allow the Escape to take place. So much good comes out of Nynaeve choosing justice over murder.

But the show chose to forego all of this, by having Nynaeve & Elayne abduct a sul'dam for no reason, lead her to her death (Nynaeve & Elayne are morally responsible for her death as she was their captive - they are absolutely guilty of murder even if it was a stray arrow or bolt that killed her, because they compelled her to be in that situation) and then have Egwene murder Renna in a way that breaks the mechanics of the a'dam. In the books, Nynaeve needed an a'dam and sul'dam outfit in order to infiltrate the kennels to get to Egwene. Their plan was for whichever woman least fit the sul'dam's dress to wear gray and the collar and pose as the other's damane. But they already had a collar on the show, and could easily have carried out the ruse they planned on the books. Furthermore, they had no way of knowing that the a'dam would hold a sul'dam. It's something they discover works on the spur of the moment, and that they use because Nynaeve is reluctant to use the a'dam on her friend. The plan makes no sense, and puts a murder on their accouonts for no reason, and to no purpose.

In the book, the male hero's good intentions to rescue Egwene comes to naught because Nynaeve & Elayne already have her rescued, but the important thing is, he tried, and his determination brings a Darkfriend to the Light and leads to the defeat and driving off of the Seanchan. On the show, Nynaeve & Elayne's intentions to rescue Egwene come to naught because of random chance and a fluke of the course of the battle. There is no lesson there, no positive good side effects. Just spiteful killing of characters the writers had decided were Bad, and Deserved to Die.

In the words of the father of epic fantasy novels, whose works were the first great, and best to date, screen adaptation in the genre, without which, WoT might never have been written or adapted, respectively:

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least.”

The Justice of Nynaeve ruled the fate of many, just as did the pity of Bilbo. But the show writers have no pity for those they deem Other, and understand Justice as poorly as they do the books they bastardized for the screen (while adding the word "bastard" to the lexicon of Wheel of Time).

Justice

Disclaimer. This post has no point to change minds. Your mind is already made up and no one will change it. This is written for the sake of my own mind.

THE GREAT HUNT

Before anyone else could move, Egwene snatched the pitcher from her washstand and smashed it into Renna's midriff. The pitcher shattered, and the sul'dam lost all her breath in a gurgling gasp and doubled over. As she fell, Egwene leaped on her with a snarl, shoving her flat, grabbing for the collar she had worn where it still lay on the floor, snapping it around the other woman's neck. With one jerk on the silver leash, Egwene pulled the bracelet from the peg and fitted it to her own wrist. Her lips were pulled back from her teeth, her eyes fixed on Renna's face with a terrible concentration. Kneeling on the sul'dam's shoulders, she pressed both hands over the woman's mouth. Renna gave a tremendous convulsion, and her eyes bulged in her face; hoarse sounds came from her throat, screams held back by Egwene's hands; her heels drummed on the floor.

“Stop it, Egwene!” Nynaeve grabbed Egwene's shoulders, pulling her off of the other woman. “Egwene, stop it! That isn't what you want!” Renna lay grayfaced and panting, staring wildly at the ceiling.

Suddenly Egwene threw herself against Nynaeve, sobbing raggedly at her breast. “She hurt me, Nynaeve. She hurt me. They all did. They hurt me, and hurt me, until I did what they wanted. I hate them. I hate them for hurting me, and I hate them because I couldn't stop them from making me do what they wanted.”

“I know,” Nynaeve said gently. She smoothed Egwene's hair. “It is all right to hate them, Egwene. It is. They deserve it. But it isn't all right to let them make you like they are.”

Seta's hands were pressed to her face. Renna touched the collar at her throat disbelievingly, with a shaking hand.

Egwene straightened, brushing her tears away quickly. “I'm not. I am not like them.” She almost clawed the bracelet off of her wrist and threw it down. “I'm not. But I wish I could kill them.”

“They deserve it.” Min was staring grimly at the two sul'dam.

“Rand would kill someone who did a thing like that,” Elayne said. She seemed to be steeling herself. “I am sure he would.”

“Perhaps they do,” Nynaeve said, “and perhaps he would. But men often mistake revenge and killing for justice. They seldom have the stomach for justice.” She had often sat in judgment with the Women's Circle. Sometimes men came before them, thinking women might give them a better hearing than the men of the Village Council, but men always thought they could sway the decision with eloquence, or pleas for mercy. The Women's Circle gave mercy where it was deserved, but justice always, and it was the Wisdom who pronounced it. She picked up the bracelet Egwene had discarded and closed it. “I would free every woman here, if I could, and destroy every last one of these. But since I cannot…” She slipped the bracelet over the same peg that held the other one, then addressed herself to the sul'dam. Not Leash Holders any longer, she told herself. “Perhaps, if you are very quiet, you will be left alone here long enough to manage to remove the collars. The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills, and it may be that you've done enough good to counterbalance the evil you have done, enough that you will be allowed to remove them. If not, you will be found, eventually. And I think whoever finds you will ask a great many questions before they remove those collars. I think perhaps you will learn at first hand the life you have given to other women. That is justice,”

When I read this chapter for first time back in 2002 as 14 years old teenager I did not make any remarkable notice for the scene. I thought that the scene is cool and the morale of the lesson being common sense and that’s why I haven’t thought any big deal about it for years and even decades.

Till last year when in my horror I witnessed that no, that insignificant scene, which is barely spoken about in the fandom because everyone agrees with what Robert Jordan is explicitly saying, is not common sense at all.

When I watched Egwene murdering Renna in TV show, I couldn’t help myself (who was disappointed so many times) that surely, this is the time when finally WoT fans will express their criticism towards that essentially wrong decision.

Robert Jordan made it clear what is his position, he explained the moral dilemma like for a toddler. And being war veteran the decision that Renna must not be murdered is essential choice for RJ and for his story.

We cannot even have different interpretations or analysis here, it is that crystal clear cut what the author wanted to say to the reader. The only difference is if you agree or deliberately choose to not agree with him. So as “the show cares about the essentials of the story” argument had strong hold among show fans, the logical conclusion was that this time going against such essential choice which truly mattered for the author, is gonna be widely received with negative response as a big No-No. *inserts clown face*

And we know the end result – the timeline was covered in constant flow of people who cheered Renna’s murder and screamed with full lungs: “SLAY, QUEEN!”. People explaining how the show did it better and how the books (and Robert Jordan) suck for not murdering Renna.

We can guess why the TV show made such drastic change as they wanted more action and more drama for the audience who they thought cannot comprehend such “complex” moral dilemma. Yeah, from unaware audience that cares only for its consummation, I can expect to not know better. But from people who claim to have read the Great Hunt and who have read the above paragraph where Robert Jordan explains in detail why such choice is disaster, to join in the cheering is bizarre sight.

Why you would support Renna’s murder? Oh, because you hate and despise the Seanchan so much, they are so evil, they deserve it, they must suffer, you want revenge for poor Egwene and you want justice.

What book have you read actually? Because it is written right there in the Great Hunt: “But men often mistake revenge and killing for justice. They seldom have the stomach for justice.”

Are you men? Do you often mistake revenge and killing for justice? Why you fulfill the exact warning that Robert Jordan was explicit about? Do you think that Robert Jordan was unaware of the option Egwene to murder Renna in revenge? Do you think that you know better than active war veteran? It speaks volumes how war veteran who has witnessed the torture, the guilt, the anger and the fear for himself and for his close comrades, who has seen enemy’s evil without the façade, chose to nail the narrative that MURDER IS NOT THE ANSWER. Robert Jordan did not paint some hypothetical scenario where he dreamt naively for better humanity. He.Was.There. He was Egwene and he still chose MURDER IS NOT THE ANSWER. Such powerful move that is barely touched in the fandom’s meta.

To choose otherwise is to spit in Robert Jordan’s face and to demand that this choice covers the essential of his story.

It is amazing for me personally because this act of disaster changed my perspective on that simple scene. I haven’t realized how important and how Robert Jordan formed me as a person. This was most certainly the first time when an author taught me that lesson which I naively thought to be basic opinion among many readers. Who would oppose the divine touch of humanity in this scene against the beast’s lust for blood and murder?

And for final note, I want to be clear. I do not attack if you choose othwerwise. You are free to not agree with Robert Jordan or myself. My disclaimer above is pretty clear that this won’t change your mind. My concern is not to change your mind but it is about the reaction and the response when I state that Renna’s murder was wrong choice made by incompetent writers. With such statement I become immediately bookcloak, I want 1 to 1 adaptation, I do not understand how adaptations work, etc. This is the true horrifying detail in the story – the people doing what is expected and what is considered to be the normal thing then to be labeled crybaby (for the mere act of understanding why this choice is important) by other people who deliberately made the choice to ignore or hate it. I have the same choice to criticize this scene as just as choosing to not agree with Robert Jordan. But somehow agreeing with Robert Jordan, agreeing with the author, is worth mocking and name calling instead. The strong hypocrisy here is much more worrying rather than having different opinions.

Let the Light keep you safe. LightOne

P.S. I make deliberate choice to use “murder” instead of “death”.

#wot on prime #season 2 #books vs show #The Great Hunt

29 notes · View notes

yr-obedt-cicero · 2 years ago

Note

I have been reading varying opinions as to the question of whether or not Alexander Hamilton was a Freemason. Like other questions regarding his life, this seems riddled with controversy. Do you know anything about this? Thank you.

Hamilton wasn't ever a Freemason, but he did have associations with Masons; especially with Washington.

The confusion sprouted from when - Masonic writer and the historian of the Grand Council of Connecticut Royal and Select Masters - James R. Case, claimed Hamilton was a Mason in 1955. In his essay The Hamilton Bi-Centennial, he said Hamilton visited the American Union Lodge in 1779 and 1780. When actually it was Lieutenant John Hamilton — of the first Maryland regiment, and member of Lodge 6 in Maryland. Hamilton was a later member of Military Lodge 29.

Case also noted in his essay;

“Since the appearance of the Halsey story, the identification of Alexander Hamilton as a Freemason has been made a matter of record in many articles and publications. The 1946 edition of Mackey's Revised Encyclopedia of Freemasonry goes so far as to state that it was Alexander who was present at Morristown, ‘identified because [he was] the only one of that name then holding a commission in the army.’ This broad statement can readily be refuted by reference to Heitmann’s Register of Continental Officers where no less than twenty-two Hamiltons are listed. The DAR [Daughters of the American Revolution] Ancestral Register contains at least forty Hamiltons and SAR [Sons of the American Revolution] records have more than twice as many. The Hamiltons were extensively patriotic.”

(source — Masonic Perspective, by William O. Ware Lodge PDF)

Although in 10,000 Famous Freemasons, Denslow also discredits the belief about Hamilton being a Mason, but does point out that Philip Hamilton II - Hamilton's youngest son - who was an assistant district attorney in New York, was indeed a Mason. He was also a member of Albion Lodge 26, and Master of the same in 1829.

Even in The Petition by John Ward Dunsmore, which is a painting depicting the 1779 of American Union Lodge, (Which was a meeting where The Lodge met to consider a petition to create a General Grand Lodge for the United States with George Washington as the General Grand Master), Dunsmore inaccurately included Hamilton in the painting besides Washington on the left side;

The Petition, by John Ward Dunsmore, c.1926

#amrev #american revolution #american history #alexander hamilton #historical alexander hamilton #freemasons #queries #hampye #cicero's history lessons #history #philip hamilton ii #founding fathers

17 notes · View notes

divinum-pacis · 3 years ago

Text

Perichoresis

Perichoresis (from Greek: περιχώρησις perikhōrēsis, "rotation") is a term referring to the relationship of the three persons of the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to one another. Circumincession is a Latin-derived term for the same concept. It was first used as a term in Christian theology, by the Church Fathers. The noun first appears in the writings of Maximus Confessor (d. 662) but the related verb perichoreo is found earlier in Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389/90). Gregory used it to describe the relationship between the divine and human natures of Christ as did John of Damascus (d. 749), who also extended it to the "interpenetration" of the three persons of the Trinity, and it became a technical term for the latter. It has been given recent currency by such contemporary writers as Jürgen Moltmann, Miroslav Volf, John Zizioulas, Richard Rohr, and others.

Since Christians believe humans are made in the image of God, a Christian understanding of an adequate anthropology of humans' social relations is informed by the divine attributes, what can be known of God's activity and God's presence in human affairs. Theologians of the Communio school such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, and Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) locate the reciprocal dynamism between God and God's creatures in the liturgical action of sacrament, celebrating the sacred mysteries in Eucharistic communion, in a hermeneutic of continuity and apostolic unity.

The relationship of the Triune God is intensified by the relationship of perichoresis. This indwelling expresses and realizes fellowship between the Father and the Son. It is intimacy. Jesus compares the oneness of this indwelling to the oneness of the fellowship of his church from this indwelling. "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us" (John 17:21). The great 12th century Cistercian reformer St. Bernard of Clairvaux spoke of the Holy Spirit as the kiss of God, the Holy Spirit being thus not generated but proceeding from the love of the Father and the Son through an act of their unified will.

If, as is properly understood, the Father is he who kisses, the Son he who is kissed, then it cannot be wrong to see in the kiss the Holy Spirit, for he is the imperturbable peace of the Father and the Son, their unshakable bond, their undivided love, their indivisible unity. – St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in Sermon 8, Sermons on the Song of Songs

The Cappadocian Fathers described the Trinity as three individualities in one indivisible being, asserting that Christian community is an analogy:[citation needed] that the social trinitarianism is—in Eastern Orthodox terminology—an "icon" or sign of God's love. Such a conception refutes the adoptionism which some attribute to the Anomoeans (an "Arian" sect) and other anti-trinitarians, which reduce the conception of the unity of God in Christ to a purely ethical concept, strictly comparable to a human relationship between two (or three) individuals. In contrast, the basis for human relationship pointed to by the Cappadocian Fathers is within God as such, not in God in relation to another that is not God.

[Source]

#religion #christianity #theology #perichoresis #holy trinity #god #divinum-pacis

10 notes · View notes

cool-lets-try-this-again · 2 years ago

Text

I Have so Many Modern Betsy Braddock Thoughts:

In my preparation for BB:CB, I have been re-reading a lot of Betsy appearances. So I just have a lot of thoughts!

I understand that Tini Howard is not a perfect writer (I personally find her dialogue a little purpley - heh, get it? - sometimes), and that Betsy’s current direction is controversial. I do not think that people who do not like Betsy should suddenly like her and I’m not going to try to convince people to like a character just because I do...

…Putting aside that a lot of it has to do with Marvel continuing to market the Jim Lee design of Psylocke as the ‘real’ Psylocke... and that a 26 issue run on a book post 2010 is not easy to do...

What I don’t understand is the tendency to lay all of the changes to Betsy’s character post Mystery in Madripoor at Tini’s feet. A lot of the things people cite as changes to Betsy that the current X-Office made actually predate Krakoa.

Using a psionic broadsword and shield instead of a katana. This comes from Disassembled.

No longer using the psychic knife. This starts before the body-swap-back as she starts to develop more psionic weapons she also stops relying on the knife.

Also, the knife is now being implied to have begun as a manifestation/offensive application of Kwannon’s empathic powers, not Betsy’s telepathy. Something that she found in Kwannon’s body, which is why Kwannon also uses it now.

Onset of depression, body dysmorphia and a lack of self confidence. Hunt for Wolverine: Dead Ends and Age of X-Man: X-Tremists.

Guilt over the body-swap. Implied to be the case multiple times by villains like Cassandra Nova and The Future.

Seems to lose a lot of fights. Psylocke getting her shit-wrecked is just a common “We have to use a character to show how powerful the villains are,” trope. That’s also how she died.

Lacks her ‘edge’ or whatever. I don’t know what this means so I can’t refute it. But I would also point back to Disassembled? When Betsy is not in a fight, she is portrayed as very weighed down. Having to break Warren also really fucked her up.

The three things that I think Excalibur/Krakoa definitely added, however, were:

Lack of Butterfly.

Dislike of the Psylocke codename.

Doesn’t use her psychic powers as much as her magical ones.

I’ll get the last point out of the way fast: her telepathy is mostly ineffective against fae in Otherworld, she says this in her first outing as CB. The one time it is effective, in an anti-magic field, that is the only power she uses and she wins. In the previews for BB:CB she uses her telekinesis to shatter earth. Nice throwback!

Now, the Butterfly: I’ve seen people say that they only added the butterfly back to Betsy because of fan backlash. If you read through Excalibur again though, it’s definitely a story beat decision:

She has the butterfly in Disassembled. This is before she (or anyone else) knew that Kwannon was alive. When she comes back from Age of X-Man, Kwannon has revealed herself. Krakoa happens; suddenly no more butterfly. We see her powers manifested in a curved shape but never the complete butterfly.

When does the butterfly come back? The first time Betsy’s body manifests the butterfly again, it’s when Malice is in possession of the husk she stole from Jamie. Something else of note with Malice!Betsy? She uses the psychic knife! Malice knows enough about Psylocke that she uses her greatest hits to show everyone else that she is who she claims to be. But she doesn’t know about where Betsy really is right now as a person. I just think that’s neat.

Anyway, Kwannon shows up and implies directly on panel that Betsy is missing the butterfly for a reason. That reason being the changes and the guilt she has experienced since coming back to her body in Madripoor,

“I think she won’t fit back together because pain shapes us. It changes us so we don’t fit where we once did. We lose parts of ourselves we don’t even miss until we reach for them later and they’re gone.”

In Excalibur #13 (best single issue of the run, do not @ me), the art and narration imply that Betsy has "reached for” the knife and the butterfly and subconsciously rejected them both. We see her meditate, and her power signature is rendered in pieces. It’s broken.

After coming back and dealing with the Malice arc - and, by extension, beginning to accept that her guilt is self-serving, self-sacrificing and unproductive - guess what? Butterfly’s back!

Second, the codename: While we don’t know this for sure because no one will flat out say it... this is almost one-hundred percent a marketing thing because of the Jim Lee design being the one people associate with the name Psylocke. They are not going to take what most people at a glance see as an Asian superhero and give “her title” to what appears to be a random white lady.

Yes, I know that the name predates the body-swap. Most people (who do not read comics) do not.

However, if we want to give it an in-universe decision... it’s not really that difficult. The name Psylocke was not a name that Betsy chose for herself, it was given to her. By Mojo. When she was his slave. She reclaimed the name because that’s what Betsy does: a role is forced upon her, she accepts it and makes it her own. But just like with the butterfly, at this point in the story, she is tired and worn down and just isn’t able to muster that same “fuck me? fuck you!” attitude.

But by the time we reach Excalibur #25-26, and Betsy is facing down Arthur without the Starlight Sword or her CB powers, using only a sword and her telepathy: “I don’t need the Citadel’s power to stop you. I never have.”

“Fuck me? Fuck you!”

Finally, she is Betsy Braddock, she is Psylocke, she is Captain Britain.

That was a lot, but like I said I have been reading and re-reading a lot of Betsy (and Rachel, and Rachel/Betsy together) books in preparation for BB:CB. It has only made me love her more.

#Betsy Braddock

4 notes · View notes

dwellordream · 3 years ago

Text

“An archetypal narrative of folklore centers on the “man-with-fairy-mistress” theme. A mysterious lady encounters a young noble whose passion she arouses and, wishing to hide a dark secret, will not agree to become his lover until she extracts a promise of secrecy from him. Then when her beloved breaks his promise, she suddenly disappears without a trace. Eventually this fairy mistress would receive the name Melusine, and she would be transformed from a fairy into a demonic creature. Such tales became attached to Eleanor by the early thirteenth century, allegedly deriving from accusations voiced at the time of her divorce from Louis VII.

No doubt the image of womanhood that Eleanor presented seemed so contrary to the subordinate role that society assigned to medieval women that the conclusion was that she could only be of diabolical descent. The first written accounts of such a demon mistress appear in books by Walter Map and Gervase of Tilbury, two writers who were among Henry II’s courtiers. Walter Map in his book on courtiers’ follies includes an account of such a mysterious lady, “that beautiful pestilence,” the bride of an eleventh-century Norman baron “who always shunned the sprinkling of holy water.” Her curious mother-in-law spied on her after she left the church and watched her go into her bath, where she turned into a dragon. When her husband and a priest arrived to sprinkle her with holy water, she vanished through the roof.

A few years later, Gervase of Tilbury, who had moved on to the court of the German emperor, completed a book of anecdotes that he had begun for Henry the Young King in which he included a similar tale. Gervase set his version in Provence, where the lord of a castle near Aix, out riding one day, came upon a beautiful lady whom he desired greatly, but she would not give in to his desire unless he agreed to marry her. She warned him that “he would enjoy the utmost earthly prosperity in his wedded life [only] as long as he did not see her naked.” The lord agreed never to attempt to see her unclothed, but finally his curiosity overcame him, and he spied on her in her bath.

When his lady became aware that he had seen her, she turned herself into a serpent, plunged beneath the bath-water, and was never seen again. About the same time that Gervase of Tilbury was writing in the Holy Roman Empire, Gerald of Wales in England was spinning another version of the demon bride tale, this one featuring an early countess of Anjou. Gerald wrote of an ancestor of Henry Plantagenet who very seldom came to church and showed little or no devotion during the service, always leaving immediately after the reading of the gospel and never remaining for the consecration of the host.

Eventually the count, concerned at her strange conduct, had her forcibly restrained by his men when she attempted to leave the church. She took under her arm two of her young sons, and flew out of an upper window of the church in the sight of all the congregation, leaving behind two other sons. Gerald concluded, “And so this woman, more fair in face than in faith, having carried off her two children with her, was never afterwards seen there.” According to him, Richard Lionheart often told this Plantagenet family legend as an explanation for his and his brothers’ quarrelsome natures. Richard allegedly joked that “all had come of the devil, and to the devil they would go.”

Gerald’s tale had the subversive purpose of “placing a she-devil at the very heart of the Plantagenet dynasty.” In the decades following Eleanor’s death, if not earlier, these older legends of women of demonic ancestry came to merge with tales told of her as her reputation steadily worsened. Matthew Paris listed among the reasons for Louis VII’s divorce of Eleanor that she “was descended from the devil.” Two little-known Norman vernacular histories dating from the early thirteenth century also take up the demon legend, applying it to Eleanor. Both include an account of her after leaving Louis VII’s court disrobing before her Poitevin subjects to prove that she was no devil.

They offer, however, a version favorable to the newly divorced queen, demonstrating that she was indeed no demon and refuting tales circulating of her devilish descent. The shorter of these two histories appears to have been written no later than a generation after Eleanor’s death, or even earlier. A manuscript of it seems to have belonged to the Abbaye aux Dames at Caen. Perhaps the nuns there, some of them noble ladies from distinguished families, cherished a more sympathetic memory of their last duchess of Normandy than other tales of her circulating at the time.

This history tells of how, after men of Poitou had come to take her away after her separation from Louis, she disrobed and said to them, “Lords, what sort of beast am I?” And they told her, “By God! There is no more beautiful woman living in this age.” She then replied to them, “I am not the devil that the king of France called me just now.” The second vernacular history from Normandy, dating from early in the second half of the thirteenth century, is much longer, but its story is essentially the same. Clearly the Norman historians who included these two stories intended to salvage Eleanor’s reputation, not to sully it.

They seem unlikely to have meant that Eleanor exposed herself naked to her nobles, but that she only removed her outer garments to demonstrate the beauty of her entirely human body, lacking any demonic characteristics. A few years later, Philippe Mouskès in his Chronique rimé also shows Eleanor, stung by her repudiation by Louis, gathering her Poitevin nobles together and disrobing before them. She asks them, “Is not my body delightful? And yet the king says that I am a devil.” Her barons reassure her of her beauty and that she will soon find another husband. Mouskès, nonetheless, connected Eleanor to the demonic legend through her mother.

After reciting the story of the rejected queen’s undressing before her barons, he adds an account of her parentage. He tells how the “count” of Aquitaine while out hunting met a beautiful lady; married her, and had several children with her, including Eleanor. Then after a time the countess suddenly disappeared as usual in such tales, flying off through the church roof. In the mid-thirteenth century, the anonymous minstrel of Reims gave an account of Louis after his return from crusade, seeking his barons’ advice about what to do with his queen, to which the French nobles replied, “Truly, the best advice we could give you is to let her go; for she’s a devil, and if you keep her much longer we’re afraid she’ll have you murdered.”

The king took their advice, although the minstrel commented, “He would have done better to have her walled up, so that he would have had her great land all his life.” A direct borrowing from the Reims minstrel appears in the fifteenth-century Chronique normande by Pierre Cochon. His account also depicts the French king seeking his barons’ counsel about Eleanor’s fate after the couple had returned from the crusade. This late chronicler also records the barons’ advice “to let her go to the devil . . . where she had come from.” Cochon copies the minstrel’s suggestion: “That was bad advice because it would have been better if he had walled her up. And besides, he had no child from her.”

The Middle English romance Richard Coeur de Lion, composed in or near London around 1300, continues the conflation of Eleanor with earlier tales of a demon bride. This romance does not give the name of the hero’s mother as Eleanor, but names her Cassodorien. Like the demon-countess of Anjou, Cassodorien had the mysterious habit of always leaving mass before the elevation of the host; and when forced to remain for that high point of the mass, she had suddenly flown out the window of a chapel never to be seen again.

In the romance, likely based on an earlier Anglo-Norman poem, Henry II married Cassodorien, the beautiful daughter of the king of Antioch, after she and her father had sailed to England, inspired by a vision. After fourteen years of marriage never daring to let her eyes fix on the consecrated host, one Sunday the king forced Cassodorien to remain in church while the priest elevated the host. At that moment, “She took her daughter by the hand, nor would she be without her son. She made her way out through the roof in full view of them all.” Young John fell, however, and broke his thigh; but she and her daughter flew away, and were never seen again.”

- Ralph V. Turner, “Overwhelmed by a Black Legend.” in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of France, Queen of England

#eleanor of aquitaine #eleanor of aquitaine: queen of france queen of england #history #medieval #high middle ages #medieval literature

33 notes · View notes

obsessivelollipoplalala · 3 years ago

Text

Submission

Hey there, long time no see!

I've been dipping in and out of Tumblr the last couple of weeks and have been keeping up with all your interesting discussions with anons (sorry, stalkerish I know, but I find it both insightful and entertaining.) I couldn't help but notice @just-a-poor-boy-queen posted about our good old friend on Instagram spouting her usual bullshit, only this time she apparently has proof that her claims are real from Lying Ass Jerkoff , sorry, Lesley Ann Jones' latest book. According to her, as you already know, she claims that Lesley denounces Jim and Freddie's relationship and Jim apparently confessed to her that he never loved Freddie, that he used him for fame, etc. etc.

Which is...very interesting. Because LAJ's biography, Bohemian Rhapsody, claims the exact opposite.

While I was out in town today, I visited my local bookstore and unintentionally stumbled across the book in the biography section. My first instinct was to ignore it - I know for a fact it's trash - but curiosity got the better of me and I ended up having a flip through.

First off, the amount of stuff she gets wrong is hilarious. Some of them were minute errors, others the average Queen fan could tell you is fake. I'm pretty sure she talked about Freddie taking Princess Diana out in drag and the party with the midgets carrying bowls of cocaine on their heads, which we know never happened. There was also a picture of Freddie and Mary (one where Freddie is leaning on Mary while she's smoking a cigarette,) that was captioned "the happy couple relaxing together," which made me laugh out loud because it was allegedly taken in 1975 when Freddie was dating David behind Mary's back. Relationship goals, ammirite?

And don't get me started on the Barbara stuff, I stg, LAJ seems low-key obsessed with her.

Anyway, I ended up skipping to the end where she talks about Jim; she does indeed claim that she stayed with him in Carlow (not sure what year,) and that she interviewed him while she was there. This is what she had to say:

On Jim's motivation for writing M&M: (Jones) "Jim Hutton later explained that it was anger, not money, that prompted him to write his memoir. He wanted the world to know the truth, and could see no other way."

(Jones) "There is no doubt that Jim, the bereft lover, embarked upon his selective 1994 biography with the intention of creating a tender tribute to an adored partner. This was blurred by a co-writer who dwelled more on sensational aspects of the relationship, as well as on intimate details of Freddie's final days."

(Jones) "Given Jim's Catholic background, and the fact that his mother was still alive when he published, it must have taken immense courage to write the book."

About the GL boys being erased by Jim Beach: (Jim) "I think Jim Beach was angry that my book ruined the myth of Freddie. All it did was return him to his original status of a human being. It told the truth. Beach wanted fans to believe that sweet Mary Austin was the love of Freddie's life, and what a great, tragic, romantic tale it all was."

(Jones) "Jim was consequently banished from the Queen camp." (She goes on to explain it's likely because everyone was grieving, but I don't buy it.)

(Jones) "Freddie's will raised countless questions, some of which would never be resolved." (I thought this was interesting, given that I've seen speculation that Freddie might have been influenced over what to put in his will before.)

On Dave Clark: (Jones) "The press reported that Dave Clark had said he was the only person in the bedroom when Freddie died. 'He was not the only person in the room,' Jim stated. 'But it was quoted all over the place.' The error must have been perturbed the sensitive and caring Clark, for on his birthday, Jim received a beautiful card from him. 'The inscription he wrote inside read "you were there.' " (Jim goes on to recount the exact same version of events written in Mercury & Me about Freddie's death. He speaks highly of Clark, saying he was brilliant when Freddie was ill and would sit with him for hours. Jim seems more angry at the press spreading lies than at Dave himself. I've seen people argue that Dave was the one spreading the rumours to the paper or he did nothing to refute them, but who knows, perhaps he was a victim of the tabloids too.)

Phoebe testifying to Jim's character: (Phoebe) "Those concerned have to live with themselves. Mary once said of Jim that he had 'a very vivid imagination.' I knew Jim a very long time, and never knew him to be anything other than totally honest. Jim's conscience, like mine, will always be clear." (Given how Phoebe now makes a point of saying that Jim "exaggerated" stuff in his book, I find this a tad hypocritical. Still, I appreciate him sticking up for Jim and saying that those who are trying to change Freddie's legacy will have to live with that on their conscience. Also, fuck you Mary, if you did say that about Jim.)

On Jim's love for Freddie: (Jones) "There are still times when I can be pottering around in the garden, and Freddie's facial expression when he died will come into my mind," he told me in Ireland, "I can blank out what happened consciously but not subconsciously. It is impossible to forget. I learned so much from him, not least a positive outlook. Freddie's attitude was always, 'But you can, don't you see? You can do it. Put your mind to it, you'll see what you can do' That was one of the loveliest things about him."

(Jones) "During the time I spent with Jim in picturesque County Carlow, there was no doubt that the love Jim claimed to have felt for Freddie was genuine. He was a warm and decent man who was content with his lot. He was eternally grateful, he told me, for having experienced the superstar lifestyle through Freddie."

(Jones) "Jim would never truly recover from the loss."

I took screenshots of all the quotes above, which I'm happy to submit if anyone is interested. I would love to have seen what else she said about Jim, but taking pictures of book pages in the middle of a shop isn't the best look, so I kept it brief.

So, overall, Lesley seems to have a very high opinion of Jim, and believed the love between he and Freddie was genuine. Which is quite surprising, given that she downplays all of Freddie's other relationships with men in favour of promoting his fictional "romance" with Miss Valentin. Of course, this could all be complete bullshit and she never met Jim at all, but if she is telling the truth for once in her life, then she's one of few biographers who was very much supportive of Jimercury.

As one of the anons correctly stated, we have two possible scenarios.

A) If crazy lady is telling the truth, and Jones does make all these negative claims about Jim in her new book, then she was either lying in Bohemian Rhapsody or she's lying now in her latest cash cow. In this scenario, she's a liar either way. But tell us something we don't know.

B) Crazy Lady is pretending to have read the book, or read it and was angry there was nothing bad about Jim, and is fabricating quotes to suit her anti-Jim agenda, knowing her thick-as-bricks followers will just take her word for it and not bother looking for evidence. This is the most likely scenario.

I know most people with a brain know not to trust the word of either of these women, but I thought it would be fun to dismantle some of Insta lady's claims regardless, in case there was anyone out there having doubts.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

-------------

Hi there! It's good to see you again.

This...is a lot to think about lol. Since LAJ is such a liar, it's hard to believe she really sat down with Jim, or that most of what she said was from primary sources. However, it is strange that she spoke so highly of Jim given...everything else she's ever said lol. The quotes above do fit with what other people have said about Jim and Garden Lodge as a whole, though. It's very strange because it's either she decided to be factual with this, or lie about getting these quotes but decide to stick up for Jim, anyway. Weird, weird, weird.

It's really hard to know who's lying in the new book, LAJ or the hater lady. They're both so unreliable. It does seem too convenient that what LAJ supposedly says lines up with the hater lady rhetoric, but idk. Apparently LAJ blocked the hater lady on twitter, too lmao. So maybe it's the hater lady who's lying? But I can believe LAJ suddenly changing her tune, too.

I don't know. Thank you for sharing this information. I have more questions than answers now lol but still

#submission #queen #long post

21 notes · View notes

ladymacbex · 4 years ago

Text

🍆Mmm, Angel🍆

It is canon that Angel is a sex god. In this post I, Elle Woods, will prove to you beyond reasonable doubt (legal term, even Wolfram & Hart cannot refute my case) that the writers of BtVS/Angel want you to know unequivocally that Angel is extremely good at sex no questions asked like don’t even bother attempting to argue this. 💦 As part of my evidence I will have to show you a scene in which Angel is post-coitus 🐍 with someone other than Buffy and for this I apologise; if you are sensitive to such content then pls do not scroll!! The good news is that in the aforementioned scene we are reminded that only Buffy can give Angel Perfect Happiness, and that is a Team Bangel win (500 points to the Hogwarts house of your choice), and also is it confirmed in this scene that Angel is a sexual wizard so all in all I feel the highly sensitive non-Bangel content is justified. Don’t @ me!! (Or do - I need the engagement. 💍) I present the following evidence to the court: Exhibit A1: Angel has had some sexcapades with the Transuding Furies and if Cordy wants the anti-violence spell lifted from Caritas on Angel’s behalf then Angel is gonna have to pop in to “pay” for that service with his tight little bod. When and how did these sexcapades occur? We will literally never know. I demand justice for the fandom! Tell us the exact details and positions that took place! 🕺🏼In the meantime we can only speculate. See this speculation from another Bangel: ‘In my mind he went on some EPIC bender in the 1920s, I'm talking some Hemingway/Fitzgerald shit - who now that I think of it he was probably paling around with - banged the ever loving God out of those Furies and got his tattoo.’ Lock it in guys 🔑 this is canon as far as I’m concerned.

Exhibit A2: Angel became human for one beautiful day (pls sign my change.org petition to turn it into a national holiday or day of mourning, you choose) and on that day he lost all of his vampire prowess/powers but it didn’t matter because he got to spend that day having just, like, constant sex work the Love Of His Life™️ who also happens to be Da Slayer. And you might assume that Human!Angel would have a hard time keeping up with Da Slayer who, in case you’re new here, is endowed with preternatural strength and stamina. But no, sorry - actually the opposite happened and he simply exhausted her. I repeat: Angel in human form without any of his powers, banged the strongest person on the planet until she was “pleasantly numb.” ⚰️ Excuse me? You guys!!!

Exhibit A3: I have personally been dead since this moment, in which post-coitus Nina asks Angel where he learned how to do that, and he asks which part. Because. How can he not know which part? Exactly what sort of variety show is he putting on?! 🎪 Ok king! A moment later Nina jokingly reaches into his bedside drawer for a wooden stake and finds something in there that is “not a stake.” Toys, ladies. Angel has a bedside drawer full of toys. This man is fully committed to his self-pleasure practice. 👑

Closing Statement: The audacity of these writers making Angel a Sex God and simultaneously making Buffy, The Love Of His Life™️, the one person he is not allowed to bang... the times they could have had! THE FUCKING AUDACITY!!! Please write to your local MP about this grievous injustice. I am taking this straight to the top. 😤🦒 Thank you, ladies and gentleman of the jury, for your time. In this my closing argument I would like to posit that if death is Buffy’s gift, then sex is Angel’s. 💝

youtube

#i submit my evidence to youtube #bangel forever #atsedit #btvs #angel the series #buffy x angel #otp #first love #i mean the bar was set ludicrously high for my sex life #this man does not exist #but we can dream #bangel #sex is his gift #ok king #Youtube

23 notes · View notes

lany-d-flow · 4 years ago

Text

A Note on Cherry-Picking: Some Concerns

As someone who is new to engaging in discussion with fandoms, there are plenty of perspectives, views, and original authorities (typically the writers/developers) for me to both observe and learn from. Having a space for fans to discuss the intent, the story of an artist’s work is an important part of not only understanding the message the artist wanted to tell its readers as they draw their conclusions, but also for fans to tell interpretations of their own. Not every story has a concrete, objective outcome for events and dynamics that unfolded in the plot. Some stories have an outcome, yet authors choose to be subtle about what happened and could choose not to specify their message in interviews and commentary, allowing readers to comprehend the story on their own until they eventually see what conclusion makes the most sense in the text. In other words, the canon outcome/the outcome intended by the authority of the text, the author. The result of this practice may cause fans to spend a bit more time reading through the text before connecting the dots, and perhaps sharing their own interpretation even if it is not the writer’s outcome. Such a practice is pretty much fine, if not encouraged to help folks gain some inspiration and use their own creativity for what could have been written.

I have some concerns about one either over-extending their interpretation or forgetting to use the main source and only using a supporting source, though.

By this, I mean intentionally spreading their interpretations over one or multiple platforms as canon, even when the creator’s original work, continuity, and supporting texts would say otherwise. This is something potentially dangerous not just for new folks of the same audience, but even to the creator themself if the fan’s interpretations imply that the creator has a twisted mindset/agenda, which would very likely not be the case.

To make matters worse, some might choose to take singular moments, phrases in text and supporting texts, and creator comments out of context to support their narrative, even though taking a look at said scenes in proper context would help readers see otherwise. But this actually is not limited to the interpretation-spreaders alone, as one who understood the proper message/canon outcome of a work could also use the previously mentioned sources to support an incorrect interpretation of the creator’s work, even if this was not their intention in the first place.

I have especially seen instances of this in a fandom I actively participate in. While the actions of few do not represent the thoughts of many, I believe it is still important to make a distinction of this behavior, to not only help understand what could be a negative influence on the media you appreciate, but also to hold those who want to support the creators’ work to a higher standard, that we may stay true and respectful to the creator’s intent, the context of a text and its key moments, and instead of pulling quotes out of a paratext alone, using them to support an argument that’s using the text to make a more cohesive case.

So, I would like to focus on a specific logical fallacy that connects with what I am talking about, and use examples of this fallacy that could be seen in fandom.

Definitions

To start, I’d like to define some key terms related to what I have previously mentioned. These would be paratext, epitext, and of course cherry picking. @themelodicenigma has written comprehensive work on the subject of paratext and epitext, and cites a text named The Peritext Book Club to define these terms:

The concept of paratext was defined by Gérard Genette as common elements provided within a book (peritext) and elements outside of the book that refer to it (epitext); these elements can affect individual, as well as cultural, perceptions of a text (1997, 4–5). Peritext includes elements that surround the body of the text, such as the foreword, table of contents, index, and source notes. Epitext refers to communications outside the text that can also influence whether and how the text is read. Examples of epitext include book reviews, interviews, author websites and letters, and critical literary analysis. [source - pg. 2] (Gross - Peritext Book Club).

Another way to define paratext, as also mentioned in Enigma’s work, is that of which supports and communicates something about the text. In other words, what the paratext states is an analysis of what one can understand from the original text. Although there is a chance that paratext can have some extra information about a story for worldbuilding purposes, what it generally states about scenarios is what we should be able to discern from the text itself. Therefore, if one wants to strengthen their case for why something is as the author intended, it’s usually best if you analyze key moments from the text, followed by usage of a paratext. However, this is not always done, and we will look at it later.

The other key term is cherry-picking. If we want a good definition, we can refer to the Oxford English and Spanish Dictionary:

Cherry-pick(ing): Choose and take only (the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc.) from what is available.

This is a common logical fallacy, often used intentionally or unintentionally in practice. Typically, when one wants to prove their point, they will find a source of relevance or semi-relevance that says what they want to hear. Then, they will cite that source as the ultimate Word on what is true, whether or not that is the case. Also, this fallacy can also invite confirmation bias to the user, making their case more fallacious than intended. The problem with this fallacy is that it most often does not address the full context of what the statement is about in the first place. There is also a chance that the source and quote cited are either not officially proven, taken from an outside source that may not be relevant to the topic, as well as taken out of context and warped to the user’s meaning so that their narrative may be supported. If one wants to determine the strength of the source used, they need only check the source cited in the first place and read the material themselves. From there the reader can determine how valid the source actually is to the topic, and continue to point out to other readers why that source is not entirely valid and does not cover the full context of the topic. We can actually see this fallacy in practice with any form of text, whether it’s a paratext, epitext, or the text itself. This is why it’s important for us to fact check what we are telling people and cover the original text when we are making our case.

Unfortunately, some folks in fandom circles end up cherry-picking sources when discussing media--video games, movies, TV shows, books, music, artwork, and so on. Engaging in one particular fandom recently, there is an ongoing debate that fans themselves choose to keep ongoing. Even with texts, paratexts, and epitext(s) supporting one side of the argument, there are plenty of attempts to ignore what the plot of the story ultimately gave us, leading some to attempt to refute what the text gave us and what the creators intended by taking any conceivable scene, line, and written text from the text, paratexts, and epitexts out of context to support their narrative. If one wants to tell whether or not an argument is cherry-picking, they can:

1) find the original source

2) get the rest of the information from the original source, then…

3) discern the context of what’s actually going on in the first place, and see if what the original user was talking about actually lines up with the intent of the creator/original source.

However, this practice is not restricted in this type of scenario alone. If a group has found the answer themself, they could make a case using the original text to discuss what’s going on. However, I have found that there are many instances where only quotes from a paratext and epitext are addressed. So while paratexts and epitexts may support what the user is trying to claim, the user overlooked the main text in the first place. This could raise the question of, “Did you actually look at the scenes in the text?” or “did you NEED to use those supporting texts in the first place?”

And really, I am addressing two sides of this to set a better standard and show that we are not always free from fallacy. It is not necessarily our intention to use a logical fallacy like cherry-picking, but besides twisting original intent it can end up weakening our arguments for questions about the text because we did not actually bother to address the original scene. The text is supposed to provide the full context and cover what grounds it needs to. Using a paratext and epitext alone often don’t cover the full context of a text since they simply provide some support. It’s important to correspond supporting texts to the original media also, not just because of what’s mentioned before, but simply because that’s another important part of preventing misconceptions.

So, I want to provide some examples of how I’ve seen this fallacy being used that’s caused me to raise concerns. Hopefully by the end of this, you’ll understand where cherry-picking ends up being used and how we can do better to stray away from it. For reference, I will try to refer to epitext as “paratext” to avoid having to use both nouns in every sentence. But if the only paratext in question is something like an interview, I’ll use “epitext”.

And yes, I will be specific about the game and characters. I thought about being vague by making the subjects indirectly about the characters, but I do not think my point would be as effective that way. Ultimately, the intent still remains the same, so here goes.

Media to Observe

Game: Final Fantasy VII/Final Fantasy VII Remake

Book: Final Fantasy VII: On The Way To a Smile

Movie: Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children Complete

Paratext(s): Ultimania Guidebook, Interview(s)

Topic: The Nonsensical LTD between three characters (Cloud, Tifa, Aerith)

Examples

Claim: Cloud is obviously in love and prefers Aerith over Tifa because he is miserable and pining for Aerith in Final Fantasy VII Advent Children and avoiding Tifa and their family. We saw him away from his family in the beginning of the movie, and we saw Aerith appear in his head and ask for forgiveness from her. He must be asking her to forgive him for having a relationship with Tifa!

Response:

Types of Media/Text to observe: Movie, Game, Book.

Watch the movie and draw your interpretation. Then, check the prequel of the movie (In this case, On The Way to A Smile). Find any guidebooks and previous texts lining up to this continuity. In the case of this moment, there is a book and game that take place before the events of the movie. In the game, Aerith died and Cloud feels guilty about this. Later in the game, Cloud breaks down due to an identity crisis when he believes Tifa lost faith in him being real, and later in the story Tifa enters his subconscious. In this moment, as we help validate Cloud’s memories, we find out the reason Cloud did everything he did before the events of the game was for Tifa to notice him. After validating the truth of Cloud’s memories and the two of them revealing they indeed held feelings for each other, we eventually reach a scene where, before the final battle, the two of them confess their feelings for each other (will come back to this later). After the game, we have a text that covers the limited point-of-view of the game’s characters, one of them being Tifa. We learn from Tifa’s story that Cloud has tremendous guilt for not being able to protect Aerith. However, this actually is NOT THE ONLY REASON for Cloud’s guilt. In the book and movie, we get information that a new disease is spreading. Finding out there is no cure, while caring for a child with this disease, Cloud’s guilt starts to build up even more. The last straw for Cloud is when he himself contracts this disease. Ultimately, feeling guilty for not saving an important friend, feeling guilty for not being able to find a cure for the child he and Tifa care for, and receiving it himself makes him feel so worthless that he believes the best way to handle the situation is to stay away from his family, that they may not see him suffer and eventually die.

Feeling guilty for Aerith is definitely intentional by the creators and it does represent her importance to Cloud. However, when one chooses to take that one piece of writing and interpret it as the one and only reason for why Cloud is behaving the way he is, then try to interpret it as romantic, that completely neglects the full context for why he was straying away from the people he cherished. Cherry-picking one person and posting that narrative on platforms may make an audience feel inclined to take that as fact, that is why it is important that we look at the rest of the text for Cloud’s behavior, because his internal conflict revolves around failure, guilt, anxiety. Specifically, failure to protect the people he cherishes, and this does not have to be--and is not--romantic to be true. And as if this was not enough, eventually the movie received a more fleshed out version that added another very important person that Cloud feels guilty for: his close friend and comrade, who also ended up being the first love of Aerith.

Also, this is a case where you can use the paratext to support your argument against this cherry-picking. TheLifeStream contains a “3N” Interview, where the three main creators of FFVII Advent Children provide commentary about the movie. In one of the questions, Scenario Writer Kazushige Nojima has this to say about Cloud’s behavior:

At the end of FFVII, Cloud saved the world and was on the way to a happy ending but, in the two years towards AC, he returned to the way he was in the past. What happened to him?

Nojima: Cloud never had a boring personality in the first place so when he started living with Tifa and started out his job, the peaceful life that he had never experienced before made him anxious. During that time, he also contracted Geostigma so it’s to protect the ones precious to him or not, he had to face death and ran away.

Nojima: Even though it’s become peaceful, Cloud has lost many people precious to him. And from Cloud’s background, it was the first time he was in a “peaceful” environment. He’s a character that likes to think about what’s going on around him often.

Here, we are given some context on Cloud’s anxiety and guilt. Context that, in other words, is relevant to the narrative of On The Way to a Smile and FFVII Advent Children as it provides ground for another aspect of Cloud’s guilt. If what was mentioned was not enough to make Cloud feel guilty, he feels anxious for getting something he never had before: a peaceful, happy life with his family. It’s pretty easy to recognize that anxiety is not going to help with Cloud’s aforementioned problems, and all of these issues come together to tell a story about a life after conflict, and handling inevitable issues that will arise regardless. It is important to recognize all of these themes and not just cherry-pick one, because it not only misleads the audience, but also reduces the impact of the message the writers wanted us to tell us.

Claim: The Director of the game in an epitext (an interview) said, “When Cloud is around Tifa, a bit of his true self emerges. There is no other source that says this, and it shows that Cloud is only himself when he is around Tifa.

Response:

Types of Media/Text to observe: Games, Paratext.

Source for reference. Director Tetsuya Nomura’s comment:

In a similar fashion, we made it so that the way Cloud talks is dependent on who he's talking to. While talking to Aerith he stands taller and tries to act cool, with Tifa he acts more like himself, and with Jessie you can see his annoyance. Specifically with Aerith he overthinks things and ends up acting a little strange.

There are several different translations of this comment, with the sentence in question varying between “...a bit of his true-self emerges”, “...he loosens up a bit”, or “...he acts more like himself”. While there is some truth to this statement and is well-observed by one of the creators of the game, the interpretation of this epitext is generally taken too far, and doesn’t cover the full context as to what constitutes Cloud’s “true self” in the first place. This is where it’s necessary to look through the text. In this case, the text is a video game.

The truth in this statement stems that Cloud feels most comfortable around Tifa, and generally does not try to put up a facade around her. From here, one should observe traits that represent Cloud’s “true self.” When we see this side of Cloud’s character, we can observe that other characters also see through his facade, and while Cloud tries to keep distance from other characters, either fails to do so or starts to loosen up around the distanced folk. A better way to read this epitext is to take it symbolically, and see how Cloud’s loosened behavior is toward Tifa, then observe how he interacts with others. The bit of Cloud’s “true self” more or less refers to the traits of his true self’s behavior, as the game follows a plot where Cloud made up a false identity that prevents the truth of his memories from connecting with himself. Tifa is the only one who can help Cloud with this, Since this has not yet taken place in the game--which is a remake of the original game--it’s not exactly best to assume the epitext means that Cloud’s true self can consciously choose to come out around only Tifa or whenever he wants.

Similarly, there is a quote from a paratext that says Aerith “melts Cloud’s icy exterior.” This has been cherry-picked by some to tell readers that only Aerith is capable of making Cloud lose his hard-edge. Once again, if we look at scenes within the text itself, it’s pretty easy to see that Cloud’s “rude” and “icy” remarks are not constantly shown throughout the text. What this quote means is that Aerith does a remarkable job at making Cloud be a better individual to those he interacts with in communities along with his friends. It’s best to care more about what impact these characters have on Cloud than trying to perpetuate a narrative that every single one of Cloud’s moments with Tifa and Aerith are romantically motivated, whether or not they are (More often, they are not).

Claim: The Writer stated in an epitext (interview) that things would have gone better with Aerith. This is proof that Aerith was the intended couple and the one that Cloud deserved, but instead Cloud had to have Tifa as a secondary choice.

Response:

Types of Media/Text to observe: Book, Epitext, Movie.

Link to Source analysis and translated comment from FFVII Scenario Writer Kazushige Nojima:

‘Episode Tifa’… first off, there’s the premise that things won’t go well between Tifa and Cloud, and that even without Geostigma or Sephiroth this might be the same. I don’t really intend to go about my views on love or marriage or family (laughs). After ACC, I guess Denzel and Marlene could help them work it out. Maybe things would have gone well with Aerith, but I think there is a great burden from Aerith.

It is important that readers themselves read the epitext in question, as this statement is a cherry-picked sentence from a writer’s entire interview comment taken out of context. In this epitext, the writer is talking on the premise that the relationship between Cloud and Tifa has friction even without the events leading to the movie. He gives some thoughts, hoping that Cloud and Tifa’s foster children can help them work out the issue causing friction between their foster parents--in this case, Cloud’s guilt. After this, the writer gives a hypothetical possibility that, “Maybe with Aerith things would have gone well, but her responsibility is a burden, I think.” In other words, the writer is giving nothing more than a hypothetical outcome that was never in the written text, and thinks that maybe if he wrote out a relationship between Cloud and Aerith there could be a great outcome, but he also uses a keyword: “maybe.” Not only is he speaking on a hypothetical, he is also not stating objectively that Aerith and Cloud are best for each other. This is something a writer has to think about as they write their story, as what they would love to see may not necessarily be the best way to strengthen their story. Ultimately, this epitext should be treated as commentary that can leave some room for one’s own interpretation. But it does not change anything that has happened and will happen in the text.

Claim: Cloud loves Tifa because it’s stated in all of the paratexts relevant to the game, the Ultimanias. Every Ultimania that refers to Cloud and Tifa confirms that they are in love with each other. Therefore, Cloud and Tifa are the canon endgame couple.

Response:

Types of Media/Text to observe: Games, Book, Paratext, Movie.

While this statement does hold truth, it is still an example of cherry-picking; this is simply pulling quotes/referring to words in a supporting text without actually looking at what happens in the text and continuity. Specifically, any scenarios in the text that focus on Cloud and Tifa’s relationship. This is not the best way to tell your audience that the creator wrote the two folks as a canon couple because it’s not looking at the original text. As mentioned before, a better approach is to refer to scenes in the text, analyze them, and then use paratexts to support what you found in the text. As a matter of fact, take a look at the scenes in the text that make people question the canonicity, and if able, actually discuss how one of the scenes is not what some people try to deem it as (in this case, a rejection).

There is one scene that comes into mind that focuses specifically on Cloud and Tifa. Dubbed the “Highwind scene” by fans, the day before the final battle, all the other characters go to their homes to remember their main reason for fighting, leaving Cloud and Tifa with each other. They then talk about how they do not have any other place to go to or call “home.” After questioning if their mission is actually being noticed by outside forces (figurative language for, “is this fight really worth it?”) they recall their past experiences and, depending on Tifa’s affection level, give implications for what they did that night. All paratexts referring to this moment state it as a moment where Cloud and Tifa realize the depth of the feelings the two have held for each other. For the sake of transparency, I will list the quotes from several paratexts here:

When Cloud proposes that the group separates temporarily, she (Tifa) remains behind at the airship and communicates her feelings together with Cloud. The next morning, she departs for the Northern Crater along with her companions, who returned.

“Words aren’t the only thing that tell people what you’re thinking.......”

-Said to Cloud, when he is at a loss for words while they’re alone

Pg. 27 of FFVII Ultimania Omega, Tifa’s profile.

She communicates her feelings together with Cloud in the final stages of the story, and in AC and DC they live together.

Pg. 33 of Crisis Core Ultimania, Tifa’s profile.

Cloud and Tifa, who remain, reveal their feelings for each other and clarify them together.

Pg. 118 of FFVII 10th Anniversary Ultimania

Words aren’t the only thing that tell people what you’re thinking...

--Prarie: What she said to Cloud the night before the final battle when he said there were many things he wanted to talk about.

Pg. 195 of FF 20th Anniversary Ultimania File 1: Character Guide

I will cut the quotes here, but if you’d like to see a much deeper analysis on this nonsensical debate, along with these quotes and the original JP text from the paratexts, check out Squall_of_SeeD’s essay here on TheLifeStream.

Now, these all reference a very intimate moment within the game...

However, in the game there are two outcomes depending on how you treated Tifa in Disc 1 of Final Fantasy VII : One where Tifa says that words are not the only way to express your feelings, and another that does not give the same implications, instead follows Cloud saying they should get some sleep. It is the latter scene that is labelled by some as “a rejection scene,” leaving some to interpret the outcome of Cloud and Tifa’s relationship as “up to the player” whether or not Cloud ends up with Tifa. Disregarding continuity that says otherwise about the previous statement, it is important that we look at what happens in both scenes. Both Cloud and Tifa sleep together no matter what, and Tifa asks Cloud to let her embrace this moment. After this, both scenes have the two wake up and confirm that they have each other, even if no one decides to come back. Not only do the duo’s friends return, they also catch a glimpse of the duo sharing the night. Depending on what scene you get, the reaction from the crew is different, with the “good” one having Tifa collapse in embarrassment and Cloud and crew rub the back of their necks in embarrassment. With the “bad” one, Tifa walks away in frustration, while Cloud rubs the back of his neck in embarrassment. After analyzing these scenes, then you can use the paratext to support your case that regardless of the scene the player got, this was a special night for Cloud and Tifa. The depth of which they take these feelings is what changes, not their feelings for each other, as we know based on previous scenes in the game (Lifestream sequence, Cloud’s “very personal memory I have” as his reason for fighting, etc.) that the two have not only held feelings for one another, but also they made their feelings aware in some form during the Lifestream sequence, with Cloud’s sealed up secret wish revealed to us that he wanted to protect Tifa and wanted her to notice him while Tifa reveals to Cloud that she spent the last 2 years after Cloud’s departure from their hometown thinking about him, hoping to see some mention of him in the press. The big issue with claiming the Low Affection Highwind scene as a rejection scene/canon scene is that it does not provide any evidence in the game’s narrative that everything Cloud thought of Tifa and did for her is suddenly thrown out the window, especially when, despite the difference in what happens between the two scenes, a special moment between them is still shown on-screen. If this was not enough, continuity of the game has this pair, as previously mentioned, deciding to live their lives together and eventually care for foster children, forming a family of their own. If one is going to talk about the canon outcome, it is important to bring things full circle and use the text and paratext together instead of referring to paratext as the Word of God, as being a material that supports what you can already discern from the text, it is the reverse. What this claim all comes down to is the potential to become oblivious to what the text offers. Some folks may be new to the fandom, and seeing people throw around quotes from a guidebook could leave the new fans confused if one does not address what the paratext is supposed to do and how much authority it holds over the text, as if the paratext holds more authority than the text, which we know is not the case.

Conclusion

Without going through every single argument involved in this debate, I believe the examples above give an idea of what this fallacy is, how it can be identified, and how it is not doing justice to the creator’s work. The same concepts apply to any other media, and are likely practiced, intentionally or unintentionally, by fans of said media. What is important is for us to understand how to set an importance of the relationship between the paratext and text, then act accordingly for understanding the context. By doing this, we can minimize the chances that sources are being cherry-picked for the sake of spreading a warped message. OR, in some cases, corresponding sources to a main source being cherry-picked without actually referring to the main source. From here on out, let’s try to take the rest of the cherries off the branch instead of going for the prettiest pairs alone.

Special Thanks

@themelodicenigma

For reviewing my rough-draft and providing constructive feedback on the ideal approach for a topic like this. If you haven’t, I recommend checking out his essays and analyses. He has written exhaustive work on the concept of Canon and subjects of canonicity. Along with that, he also wrote about the subject of paratext, epitext, and Japanese epitext so quite a bit of inspiration from this post came from his work. Seriously, go check out this guy’s blog!

#context #cherry picking #fallacy #concerns #nonsense

15 notes · View notes

lesbianrobin · 5 years ago

Note

Do you think the fandom exaggerates Steve's daddy issues? As someone who likes talking about his family life a lot I personally think its a 50-50 situation, because he does seem to have a strained relationship with his dad but based on whatever very little info is canon about his father its hard to tell if its because his dad is really neglectful or if hes actually a well meaning but strict dad whos spoilt son doesnt get him. I wanna know your thoughts about it.

So to start off: Thank you for sending this ask! It’s a fun question.

I wouldn’t personally use the term “exaggerate” in this situation, because it implies to me the twisting of canon events for dramatic effect. In the case of Steve and his father, we don't have much that is actually canon, and the canon that we do have leaves room for a wide range of possible scenarios. Rather than exaggerating Steve’s daddy issues, I think that it’s more accurate to say that people are choosing whichever interpretation of canon best suits their own personal desire. Some of these interpretations are more dramatic than others, but for the most part, they tend to be within the realm of canon possibility.

First, let’s go over what we actually have in canon.

Steve's mother doesn't trust his father not to cheat. Tommy says she shouldn’t trust him, which tells us that Steve’s father has cheated in the past. Tommy’s the one who says it, which tells us that either Mr. Harrington’s infidelity is an open secret in Hawkins, or Steve found out about his dad’s cheating at some point in his life and vented about it to his friends.

During the party in S1, Tommy and Carol go up to Steve’s mom’s room. Not his parents’ room, but his mom’s, meaning that their marriage has been rocky for long enough that they have established separate bedrooms in the house. Steve tells them they can go use her room as long as they change the sheets and Tommy/Carol mention that the room has a fireplace, meaning that since the establishment of separate bedrooms, his parents have gone out of town enough times for Tommy and Carol to be familiar with his mother’s room and know where her spare bedsheets are.

At first, Steve is more worried about getting in trouble with his dad than he is about Barb. Later, when he goes to apologize to Nancy for this attitude, he tells her that he did get in trouble with his dad. He’s still able to move about Hawkins freely and he seems to be physically and emotionally fine, so we don’t know what getting in trouble with his father entails, besides the fact that he either isn’t grounded or he’s disobeying his father to go see Nancy.

Steve spends Christmas with the Wheelers rather than with his own family. This isn’t a big point, maybe his family doesn’t celebrate, or it was a “spend the 24th with these people and the 25th with these other people” situation, but it’s also a possible indicator of extreme tension and distance within his family.

Steve’s only comments about his father have been negative, calling him an asshole or a douchebag. He only speaks about his father in reference to punishments and the fact that he could “work for his dad” after high school, presumably in some sort of office job or profession, an offer that his father turns out to not extend as evidenced by Steve’s minimum wage job hunting in S3.

Most importantly to personal interpretation of their relationship: Steve is the only main character in S1-S2 whose parents we never see. The only other underage character whose parents we haven’t met is Robin, who’s only been in one season so far and whose family life hasn’t been referenced. The fact that we never see Steve’s parents in the course of three seasons (during which Steve gets incredibly visibly injured three separate times and spends entire nights away from home on multiple occasions) fosters a sense of distance, even if it's unintentional on the writers’ part, and implies that they are very uninvolved in him and his life.

Cheating on a partner doesn’t automatically make you terrible at being a parent, but it doesn’t indicate strong morals and implies that Steve’s dad isn’t as committed to his family as he should be. Steve’s parents are sleeping in separate rooms and Steve knows about his dad’s infidelity, which implies that his parents either don’t try or don’t do a very good job of keeping their marital issues from affecting him.

Getting in trouble with his dad might mean just getting a stern parental talking-to, or it could mean some form of emotional/psychological abuse, or some classic 80s corporal punishment, or perhaps Steve got grounded and was actually digging himself a deeper hole by running around town to see Nancy, Carol, and Tommy. We don’t know! They’re all possible! All we have to go on is Steve’s word. Maybe Steve is just a spoiled teenager who gets pissy when he has to face consequences. Maybe his dad is neglectful, or cruel, or maybe he’s just a middle-of-the-road dad who sometimes sucks and is trying his best.

The thing is that, as viewers, we don’t know Steve’s dad, but we do know Steve. We know that S1 Steve was a little sad and pathetic, and he hung around with friends who he knew were assholes because he wanted to be popular and cool. We’ve seen Steve spend over 48 hours away from home (hunting Dart with Dustin in S2, the elevator situation in S3) without ever mentioning that he has to lie to his parents or that they might be concerned about him. We’ve seen him get his ass beaten to hell and back without any adults ever taking a second to ask if he’s okay. We’ve heard him call his dad an asshole and a douchebag.

I think that the writers probably intend for Steve’s dad to be a pretty “normal” dad, just a little too strict and not quite involved enough in his son’s life, or they intend for Steve to sound like an ungrateful spoiled kid. These interpretations, however, are a bit charitable to a character we’ve never met at the expense of invalidating the perception of a character we know and love. They’re perfectly valid interpretations! Steve is a spoiled rich kid! It’s also completely reasonable, though, to choose less charitable interpretations.

Since our only information about this character is negative and we never actually meet him, we have no way of invalidating or refuting Steve’s perception of his father. All we really know is that Steve doesn’t like or respect him, that he cheats on his wife, and that he’s rich, which is plenty to then extrapolate that he’s an incredibly shitty dude,and boom, we’re writing emo fics all about Steve’s extreme daddy issues!

#long post #em talks #asks #stranger things #steve harrington #lesbianrobin.canon

67 notes · View notes

relatablegenzwriter · 5 years ago

Text

30-Day Writing Challenge (for novelists)

this challenge is intended for novel writers who have had a strong novel idea for a while and know their story fairly well, or who have already made a little progress on a novel, and are stuck on it. i’m not an expert so i don’t know how much this is actually going to help you get out of that rut, but the hope is that you’ll spend a month immersing yourself in the world of your story and you’ll get some motivation out of it. i’d suggest taking about 30 minutes (at least) to do each activity, and to do everything completely distraction-free, with your phone in another room and your computer on do not disturb (if you’re writing on a computer). enjoy you nerds.

1. Write out your entire plot, even if you’ve already done it. This will re-familiarize you with your project.

2. Get the basic information on your main character. Write their backstory up until the point where your novel begins, make note of characteristics, and get their basic appearance down. Got multiple main characters? Great! You get to write more. (That’s what you get.) For all characters, make sure you know:

your character’s wants

your character’s values

at least five character flaws

the role your character will play in the story

how you want them to change over the course of the story

optional but recommended: cultural aspects like race or religion, which will help you develop their background and values a lot better.

3. Do some basic worldbuilding: what year is this novel set? Country? Planet? What are some traditions or norms? Is there magic or new technology? What’s up with the government? If your novel is set in our current world, work out the specifics of the characters’ neighborhood, home, city, etc.

4. Without allowing yourself to see any previous versions that may exist, write the opening scene.

5. Do what you did on day 2, except for your antagonist. No clear-cut antagonist? Pick whoever’s closest, or do the prompts for a supporting or minor character.

6. Research day: go through what you’ve already written and highlight everything you wanted to look up later, then spend some time researching it. You’ll probably find out more things that you’ll want to add to the plot.

7. Character day: you’ll have four of these, so divide up your characters accordingly. Do some of the character work you did for your main and antagonist for however many . You can go into less detail if they’re less important, but make sure you still know the six main points that you got to know about the more featured characters.

8. Pick a few parts of your worldbuilding exercise that you want to go more in-depth into (i.e. political systems, technology, cultural traditions) and spend about thirty minutes writing, brainstorming, and researching things to flesh them out. There will be three worldbuilding days, so make sure to save some material for the others!

9. Look through the plot you wrote out and see if you can find any plotholes, concepts you want to flesh out more, or parts that are unclear or missing. Really take some time to understand what the problems are, and come up with some possible solutions. It’s great if you figure out what you want to do, but if you don’t, that’s fine! You still made progress.

10. Without allowing yourself to see any previous versions that may exist, write the ending scene. Spoiler alert: this is going to be really hard. You can try writing a couple contenders, or even outlining a scene if you’re not quite sure where to go. Don’t worry about trying to make it pretty, because it’s not gonna be pretty: you don’t have all the details that you would if you were writing in chronological order.

11. Character day

12. Write your favorite scene. If you have a strong story idea in your head, you most likely know the one: you daydream about it when you wish you were doing something else, it plays like a movie in your head, it’s probably located somewhere around the middle of the book, and you probably haven’t let yourself write it because you “haven’t gotten there yet”. Today’s the day. Go nuts.

13. Rewrite the opening scene from a different character’s perspective. I know this sounds really cliche, but even if it doesn’t give you more insight on the story, it’s fun to do.

14. Worldbuilding day

15. Research day: research new stuff that you hadn’t written last time, plus anything over from the first research day. Not sure what to research? Characters’ cultures, the history of your setting (if in our world), famous fictional worlds, language development… if you sit and think for a little, you’ll figure out something you want to know.

16. Pick a few of your favorite character relationships: romantic, platonic, familial, whatever you want, and spend some time sketching them out. Think about their arcs, how they met (if they’re not related), what they think about each other, how they interact… basically anything you want, as long as you come away knowing more about the relationships between your characters. Also, please make only half (or less) of these romantic! It’s super important to develop the other relationships in the story.

17. Pick up from where you left off in your opening scene and write the next scene. Again, don’t look at any previously existing drafts.

18. Character day

19. Emotion break! Make a list of everything you don’t like about your book. Get all your insecurities out onto the paper, then refute everything you don’t like. If it’s specifics like “I don’t like that x happens”, figure out how to make x not happen. If it’s general doubts like “This has been done before and I’m unoriginal,” refute that too! Everyone doubts their work all the time and I can guarantee that we are all more critical of our own work than others will be. Finish today’s unconventional activity off by writing a list of everything you love about your book.

20. Pick any scene you’ve written for this book, whether it be from this challenge or something you had before, and rewrite it in some form of AU. Change the genre, time period, location, context… you are a god.

21. Worldbuilding day

22. You know those books that are stories told entirely in poems? You heard me. (Start anywhere you want to, write at least five or however many you can get done in 30 minutes. No one will ever read them, so don’t complain that you’re not a poet.)

23. Find a list of dialogue prompts and pick a few to do with your characters. Want a challenge? Choose two characters at random. (I mean using a generator or drawing names out of a hat. COMPLETELY random.)

24. Pick up from day 16 and write the next scene.

25. Last character day :(

26. Write, or at least, begin, a very short story in your world. Try to include no characters from your actual story. If your novel takes place in our world, focus in on the characters’ neighborhood, time period, workplace, school, etc. This exercise will help you get to know your world through a different perspective. Don’t stress too much about this! It doesn’t have to be very long or even to be finished.

27. Fun day! Pick three of these activities to do with your novel:

Make a playlist about the novel as a whole, or make some character playlists

Design the cover

Cast actors in the film/TV version

Draw: character portraits, scenes, maps, landscapes…

Put together a moodboard for the novel or a character

Write that completely unrealistic scene you love so much but can’t put in the novel for plot reasons

Make memes about your characters

Sit and daydream for a solid 10 minutes about the Vibe of the novel

Anything that falls into a similar category

This is a callout activity for all you ””””””””writers”””””””” who spend more time daydreaming about novel ideas than actually writing. (this is 100% a joke because this is 100% me)

28. Rewrite your opening scene from a different narrator. If you wrote in first person, use third. If you wrote in third, use first. You can also mess with second person if you feel like you have an artist superiority complex and aren’t like other girls.

29. Pick your favorite activity from so far and do it again.

30. List everything that you need to do before you can jump right into the first draft. Then do it.

#writing #writers #writing tips #writing prompts #writing challenge #imma do this too yall #hopefully it actually works oops #my advice posts

1K notes · View notes

bigskydreaming · 4 years ago

Note

You're totally right. I literally cannot read "Jason finds out about Tarantula" fics anymore. I find the way they generally filter what's considered in fandom maybe Dick's biggest trauma, through the lens of " isn't Jay just so awesome for caring (even though Dick's always been such a dick to him)", rather that Dick's needs, pretty gross. And why does Jay's revenge on Tarantula usually matter more than Dick's feelings on the matter (like, Dick could have revenge himself if he wanted, you know?)?

This is DEFINITELY a thing and it bugs a ton.

Like, I get the projection element of using Jason killing Dick’s rapist to act out or process the revenge fantasy of wishing someone would do that for you with your rapist, for writers or readers for whom this is part of the catharsis, and so this isn’t like, a moral judgment of him for doing so, the problem is it never in ANY story has ANYTHING TO DO WITH DICK OR WHAT HE WANTS.

Never have I ever seen a single story about Tarantula or Mirage where Jason kills them after ASKING Dick if that’s what he wants, if that will help him, bring him closure or comfort or relief.

Its just Jason going off and doing his thing, and that’s 100% entirely about Jason, and that’s....annoying, in a fic and an issue that’s supposed to be about hurt/comfort for Dick for something that happened to him.

Like, if Jason was actually acting on Dick’s behalf and fulfilling his wishes, that’d be totally different, but there’s not a single thought ever spared about the fact that if Dick blamed himself for Tarantula killing Blockbuster and thought HE failed HER by not putting her on a better path, then how in the hell do you think he’s ACTUALLY going to feel about Jason then killing Tarantula, supposedly on his behalf?

I’ve talked extensively about how I think Dick has a lot more nuanced and complicated perspective on killing than most people assume of him, and I’m not refuting that here.....but even Dick being willing or tempted to kill someone who’s hurt him or taken someone from him like he was with Zucco and later with Two-Face and then with Joker.....like, this is not remotely interchangeable with how Dick might feel about killing being done in his name, and I don’t for a second believe that’s what he’d ever want from any of his siblings, and thus this would IMO only make things WORSE for his mental and emotional state, rather than bring him any sort of catharsis at all.

Like, its not even about the morality of killing itself even....there’s so many other factors such as Jason’s complicated history with Bruce on this very issue, and like, the last thing in the world Dick would want is to be the reason for even further conflict between Bruce and Jason because Jason killed someone on Dick’s behalf.....ESPECIALLY when its not even on Dick’s behalf because at no point, as I said, is Jason shown thinking through the thought process of ‘is this actually what Dick would want and would it make him feel better, or is this wholly about making myself feel better and venting my anger and aggression about my brother being hurt on the one who hurt him, regardless of how he’s going to feel about it if and when he finds out.’

Like, say what you will about Dick killing the Joker in Last Laugh, but there was never any illusions about him going that far and beating the Joker to death because he thought it would bring either Jason or Tim (who he thought at that point the Joker had killed too) back, nor did he ever during or in the aftermath express any kind of idea that he was doing it because its what they would want. Ironically of course, this ended up being exactly what Jason DID want, just not from Dick specifically, but the point is, this never came up as part of Dick’s thought process either during or after. It was always 100% clear that this event, that moment, was about Dick and his hurt and rage over the Joker taking away his loved ones, just like with Zucco it’d been about his hurt and rage over him taking his parents away and not at all because he was of the belief that his parents would actually want him to kill Zucco.

Even with Two-Face in R:YO, Dick being tempted to kill Two-Face was less about him having been hurt by Two-Face when he almost beat Dick to death....it really was about him holding Two-Face and that whole situation to blame for Bruce firing him and in Dick’s mind no longer needing or wanting him....he wanted to kill Two-Face not because of what had been DONE to him, but what he blamed Two-Face for having lost, what he felt he’d taken from him....even while knowing full well that this would in no way make things better or right with Bruce, and its the last thing Bruce would want Dick to do.

There is a difference between avenging and revenge, and one of the interesting things about Dick’s stance and history on killing has always been that it always ONLY comes up in the latter. Like, there’s never any point in Dick’s history where he views killing as a valid way to avenge a loved one......the times when he struggles with the desire to, its 100% about his wanting revenge on a personal level.

And that’s the honesty and directness I’m missing from so many Tarantula or Mirage fics these days. Its the disconnect, how Jason is framed and even celebrated as though he’s AVENGING his brother and acting on his behalf, justice for Dick being hurt by these people.....

But the reality is, there’s little to no thought or attention paid by Jason or the narrative as to what Dick’s ACTUAL wishes in this matter are, and what he actually wants and needs in order to be helped along in his recovery.

Its really just about Jason getting revenge for someone hurting someone he cares about and thus feeling hurt and pain by proxy......just twisted and made to look like something it’s not, by saying its FOR Dick even though its likely Dick would actually be worse off for knowing what Jason was doing/had done, as Dick’s guilt complex makes it all but inevitable that he’d now additionally blame himself for being the reason Jason felt he had to do that.....when ironically and obnoxiously, the reality is Jason did it in those stories because its what Jason wanted and what Jason felt HE needed to cope with his feelings and emotions about what had been done to his brother. It really ultimately has nothing to do with Dick, he’s just the excuse, but he also just so happens to 100% be someone who would shoulder the burden of guilt and blame and remorse for even just being the excuse for someone going to those extremes.

If a story is about Dick’s trauma and Dick’s recovery, leaving out Dick’s actual expressed wishes or Dick’s feelings about what other people do or want to do as a result of this is a huge, gaping, annoying as hell oversight.

And for the record, I’m trying to keep this general and not speak to specific fics because I’m aware that for many survivors, the act of projecting onto Dick and what he suffered there can and does mean that for some people, Jason’s actions there are viewed as almost actually being on behalf of the readers/writers who project themselves into Dick’s position in that narrative. I get that, and that’s why this issue is always going to be messy.

As with most things, my true gripe is the overwhelming SAMENESS of the takes on Tarantula/Mirage stories, and the fact that no room is hardly ever left for those who ironically are NOT projecting onto Dick so fully that they feel avenged by whatever Jason does here.....but rather who are simply relating to Dick and thus are actually just looking for the catharsis of him being able to seize back control over his own life and what happens to him and because of him, by the narrative prioritizing the other characters focusing on what HE wants and needs for HIS recovery rather than going off to enact revenge of their own.

Sorry not sorry, but I am always gonna be hardcore gung-ho about the fact that I think that stories that are ABOUT a specific character’s rape should always center and prioritize THEM and what THEY want and/or do, rather than just use them and what happened to them as a catalyst to then showcase someone else acting out a revenge fantasy in their name.

The desire to avenge a loved one, the desire for personal revenge against someone who hurt a loved one, and the desire to act as little as possible on your own personal feelings about what happened and instead be there to help enact whatever that hurt loved one says they want or need to help get better....

Each and every one of these desires has validity....the problem is, depending on the characters involved, they absolutely ARE at times mutually exclusive and not compatible, and thus not keeping a firm awareness on the distinction between these and which are the primary motivations for which characters, like.....it often brings these into direct conflict....but without a lot of writers and readers ever perceiving any conflict exists, because they’re completely centered on Jason’s actions and choices rather than Dick’s wants and needs, to the extent that in a lot of fics, the latter never even comes up for a mention.

And that’s the part that just will never work in my eyes. If its about what happened to Dick, it needs to be about what he wants or needs as a result. There can be other elements in play as well, by all means Jason and others can absolutely have their own conflicting views about what happened and wants/needs for revenge that are at odds with what Dick himself wants, and this doesn’t make them bad or wrong, but there’s so much room for intricate and complicated dynamics and insights there....whereas there’s just none of that in narratives that use harm done to Dick as a catalyst for character choices.....just without Dick’s character choices ever then entering the narrative as being considered at all relevant.

21 notes · View notes