#(which is a deliberate characterization device and I am here for it)

[potato-on-your-head]

@priscilla9993’s tags are impeccable

favourite ouat scenes: 77/?

[sizhui]

hello angie i hope this letter finds u well and my inquirie wont be too much trouble for u!

i recently finished jane austen's persuasion and it was a very lovely book. while i was aware of the central theme n tried to take note of the various instances of it perhaps to think of what they said at a later time, i realised i was not veyr sensitive about other aspects of the book. i rlly enjoyed reading the intro which wrote abt austens techniques and portrayals of various themes in the book such as the moral implications of persuasion (and of being persuaded) as well as the pov of the book being squarely within the protagonists senses + head (which creates a lot of intimacy n a unique situation + how characters are portrayed)

and i always find myself enjoying these insights be it articles about an up and coming poet's smart use of auditory imagery, rhyming or an intro about the problematic nature of Shakespeare's plays, but i always realise i never come to these realisations by myself!

the point is i find im not very sensitive or good at noticing details when it comes to literature... as a literature major yourself and prolific reader do u have any advice on how i can become more observant so i can form nuanced readings? (since i could find nothing on the internet)

Hello dear Lab ^_^ i am very berry flattered that you came to me with this question, and that you consider me a capable enough person to answer it! These few pieces of advice that I can offer you are a mix of what I learned in college and my personal experience reading and writing...☺️

My golden rule of reading: QUESTION EVERYTHING! I'm oddly enough the sort of person who naturally takes things at face value, so questioning the "sanctity" of the author's word wasn't always easy for me, but as I started writing myself and becoming aware of the literary devices and procedures that I use myself, I became more attentive of how authors bigger than myself do so too! When I say question everything, I really mean everything: the characters' words - I feel like people in fandom spaces forget way too often that fictional characters can lie, or obscure their true feelings, or simply be unaware of their true feelings up to a certain point. The setting of certain scenes - we had a very eye-opening lecture last year about how characters can be characterized by the environment around them, and while movies and plays are the first thing that come to mind when I say "characters' emotional states can be represented by the landscape and the room around them", it's something that I always pay attention to in literature as well. Forgive me for using my own work as an example, but I find it the easiest to explain like that - think of the beach house by the suicide cliff in BSCTTD! I tried very hard to make that house not only a house, but a representation of a certain defeated state of being. In works of literature better than my own, you'll find this even more often - if a good author points anything about a character or the room out, you should question why they chose to do so and what effect it has, what sort of a sensation that awoke in you! The same lines of dialogue can come off a thousand different ways based on the way the scene moves between them!!!! It's so interesting! The next thing you should question in the story is TIME! What order is the story told in, linear or nonlinear? If it's nonlinear, the order of the scenes is surely deliberate. If it's linear, that is surely deliberate too - perhaps because the crucial thing here is observing the character's growth or decay in real time? Does the author specifically slow time down at certain scenes, or keeps coming back to them? There are a thousand beautiful ways to manipulate time and perspective. Something that comes to mind is a scene from Madame Bovary where Emma suddenly experiences a scene of observing the landscape of the city from a carriage as though it's happening for the first time, even though it's something she's seen many times before, or on the other hand a scene from a Croatian novel called U Registraturi that repeats the scene of the character losing his virginity twice, once early on in the book in a sort of a flash-forward way, and then later on as it actually happens. Choices like these certainly not only make the story more dynamic, but also drive us to ask ourselves WHY!!!!!!! I'm sure there are a thousand answers a thousand people could offer, and that's the beauty of reading. NOW... Perhaps the most interesting thing to question is the problem of perspective! When I was young, I troubled myself a lot by asking "why did the author choose to make this character the POV character and not someone else? Why not the villain? Why not the girl? While everyone's perspective could surely bring something fresh to the story, or even weave an entirely new story, the choice of POV characters is always very deliberate. I like to ask myself, why them? What would change if it were not them? If I saw them from an outside perspective? Am I empathizing with them? Why, or why not? How close is the narration to the character themselves? There's so much to think about, everywhere, all the time!!!!!!!!!

I'll try to summarize the key points to think about while reading:

- Characters (their traits, the ones that are specifically said about them, the ones that are only implied, and how they contradict each others. Their name, living space, possessions... The relationships between characters and how they parallel each other)

- Time (already elaborated above)

- The Narrator (Are the narrator and the POV character the same, or is the narrator a separate entity? How much does the narrator "butt in" with their own opinions? Are they reliable?

- Perspective (elaborated above)

- The historical context (I'm not saying you have to do exhaustive research every time you read an older book, but since I had a subject about literary history where we very pedantically went through every stylistic period, I find it really interesting to do some reading about what conventions were popular at the time when a work was written, how it fits into them or does not fit! It also helps a lot with learning how to read more critically!)

You also mentioned poetry, and I just realized all my advice is pretty specific to prose... I think when it comes to poetry, sound is god. It helps me to first read a poem, and then listen to it out loud (looking for a recording or reading it to myself if I can't find one) and trying to figure out how the sound and the images complement each other! Poets are usually seeking the right sound rather than the right visual scene, but it's a snake eating its own tail. I feel like the shorter the poem is, the more difficult it is to read with understanding, so I truly admire people who can write good short poems...

That's it from me for tonight, I hope it was not disappointing! If I come up with something else, I will message you! Let me know what other things you read and how you like them, I love hearing it!

[nicklloydnow]

“Beyond its obvious preoccupation with the metaphysical, The Stand also explores how personal beliefs (moral, political, and religious) are manifested in compromised and unprecedented social and political situations. The politics don’t kick in until the novel’s about half-way through, and it’s mostly through the character of sociologist Glen Bateman that King explores questions about social organization and the assertion of political authority that organization seems to demand. What happens, King asks us, when a society collapses? Given the opportunity to create a new social order, what rules would you choose? In my Jurisprudence, Law, and Society course, I often challenge students to tell me what five basic laws they would impose upon a newly-established colony on Mars. The less-intrepid repeat Sunday school-type moralisms (“thou shalt not steal” and the like) while the more nimble thinkers suggest procedures for ruling and further rule-making, whether felons should be denied the right to emigrate, what kinds of health requirements should be imposed, and whether or not colonists should be screened for illegal drugs. In other words, these students are not as concerned with laws that regulate behavior, but with laws that determine membership and laws that regulate how to make other laws. Obviously, these are fundamental question for political philosophy, and The Stand explores these when the “good” citizens of Boulder organize to deliberate about how their new society ought to be organized and governed as they transition out of what Thomas Hobbes and John Locke call a “state of nature” or the absence of government.

As every student of political philosophy knows, these 17th century thinkers both used the hypothetical state of nature as a heuristic device for understanding why government and authority are beneficial for human beings. For Hobbes, human life without authority in a state of nature is free, but it’s also “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” because humans are constantly at war with each other over resources on the one hand, or just because of human avarice and greed on the other. Even an overarching or dictatorial state is better than anarchy, so fearful people give up their liberty and entrust it to their government as a way to preserve their own self-interest. For Locke, the state of nature’s actually not that bad: human beings enjoy extensive liberty as ‘self-owners’ and through this they gather together nature’s abundant land and other resources in order to produce goods for the benefit of themselves and others, which they truck and barter for through mutual assent or contract. But Locke recognizes that some people (we’d call them thieves) will not respect the property of others, and despite the fact that each individual in the state of nature is justified in punishing (and even killing) those who transgress against them (or others), this will inevitably lead to blood feuds, revenge killings, and eventually the kind of chaos Hobbes thought would characterize the state of nature. Like Hobbes, Locke thought that individuals give up their individual liberty to the state (here, it would be the liberty to punish), but, contrary to Hobbes, Locke argues that this is because of purely rational considerations such as the need for fair and neutral judges and the establishment of a reliable legal system. (He also talks a lot about God, which I am going to sidestep here).

For The Stand and its extended meditations on good and evil, what’s interesting about the Hobbes/Locke debate about the origins and justifications for government is their underlying metaphysical assumptions about human nature: for Hobbes (whose view of human nature and political organization is echoed in Flagg’s totalitarian Las Vegas), the human being is basically non-moral, unreasonable, and motivated purely by fear and self–interest. Locke, on the other hand, believed that human beings were essentially good-natured, rational creatures who, given the right circumstances, would improve their own lot while also improving that of humankind: cue Abigail’s Boulder Free Zone colony. This debate plays out in The Stand’s final confrontation between good and evil, a literary representation of a battle that, contrary to Hobbes’ and Locke’s more rigid categorizations, probably plays out in every human being based less upon ‘human nature’ than upon their upbringing, socialization, and material circumstances in terms of adequate nutrition, shelter, emotional support, and so forth.

It’s here, I think, where both Hobbes and Locke fail in their attempt to make the state of nature thought experiment work, and where it perhaps also fails in The Stand: the individuals who populate the various states of nature (that of Hobbes, Locke, or King) are always already socialized by their community––perhaps the better term is pre-socialized. Admittedly, the state of nature is hypothetical––there’s no actual state of nature now, and there never was one in the past––but it only works as a thought experiment and learning device if the hypothetical people in it act like real people. Unless they are Tarzan or they were raised by wolves, all human beings are socialized by a community of other human beings. No human being––even a hypothetical one––bursts out into ‘nature’ and then behaves like Hobbes or Locke says they do. They are going to behave, for better or for worse and to varying degrees, within the general boundaries of their community, and it is only a pathological human being who lacks community. The worst offender here, I think, is Locke, who argues that a single, autonomous individual can justify their spontaneous acquisition of a part of the state of nature (their property) by “mixing” their labor with it. Somehow, the other people mulling about simply know that they ought to respect another’s property by not taking it by force, and that the proper way to transfer the property is by contracting for it. In Locke’s nature, people don’t learn this: they just do it.”

[mean-scarlet-deceiver]

QLIR: the forgotten pilot!

asfdjf;asfd;lkjasdf; so I was tagged in a ‘2020 in review’ writing meme and so I started to review my 2020 fic

which is almost all TTTE. also, i never wrote TTTE fic before, like, March of last year. never dreamed of it.

anyway i had forgotten that ‘Quiet Little Island Railway’ once had a framing device!

it took place thirty years after Best Headcanon or Best Headcanon Ever? (which post i only wrote up months later)

and it opened on the eve of the NWR hosting a massive railfan event. one of the exhibitions was going to feature early NWR history.

this was our boys’ cue to start doing some re-considering. of, like… everything.

okay, but.

i am just knocked out, re-reading it, and realizing that i basically had most of my big ideas about the Three Railway Engines era down from the get-go. it’s, like… all right here in one of the first TTTE scenes i ever wrote:

my Tunnel Saga Headcanon

Gordon’s love of both real sleep… and feigned sleep  

Gordon being rather affectionate—in a pompous way—on the daily

Gordon With An Actual Brain

actually all of them having An Actual Brain

but emphasis on Gordon

Henry having massive unresolved FC1 issues (okay, this one doesn’t really surprise me)

the engine shrug equivalent

FC2 being much sharper than FC1 (this one did surprise the hell out of me, i ‘rediscovered’ that later)

idealistic!Edward and cynical!Henry always being at odds

where Percy learned the song about Henry

i don’t think I had a great handle on RWS chronology yet but it looks like I did look up the years that FC1 retired and died?????? (i later forgot this info completely, but it seems clear that i chose ‘1954’ deliberately)

things that are different:

i have much more sympathy and respect for FC1 (despite all his flaws) than I did then

which is probably why I scrapped this framing device. (it was planned to get... bleak. i’m not one of those asshole writers who bothers to do a big project just to leave on a downer ending!)

but yeah.

apart from some exceedingly minor nitpicks characterization-wise… that’s pretty much all that i’ve really changed, headcanon-wise.

1954

“Here on my right, there’s a good fellow,” said Gordon, and there was very nearly an actual plea somewhere in his tone, so it was, for a change, easy to give in.

Still on the turntable, and his face concealed from view, Henry allowed himself a smile. “Given this some thought, have you?”

He backed into the requested berth to find Gordon looking excessively put-upon, which to be fair was his usual expression; there seemed little reason to expect it to be different the night before a holiday.

“I have indeed. We’ve left the middle berth for Thomas—”

“Sentimental in his old age,” Henry told the sky.

“It’s true that with advancing years I need a peaceful night’s rest more than I need my principles.” Gordon was lofty. “Besides, I always did indulge that little tank engine, really.”

“Yes, giving him the berth he wanted after making him wait thirty years is really on the verge of spoiling him, Gordon.”

“Anyhow,” Gordon grumbled, “that leaves the two of them over there. You know they’ll take this little reunion as a cue to reminisce the whole night through, as if we had no real work tomorrow.”

“We haven’t real work tomorrow, Gordon.”

“I suppose you’ve never entertained a crowd of admirers, my dear fellow, and can’t know the responsibility of it. But I owe you one for so very graciously putting yourself right next to them. This way you can join in, very quiet-like, when they get to the part where you come along, and all the while you will be a splendid buffer between them and me.”

Henry snorted. “Right. And you’ll not get drawn in, then? Won’t listen to every word? You’ll be over there, getting your beauty sleep?”

“Well,” Gordon allowed, with a deep sigh and comfortable grumble, resting his eyes, “I suppose it’s possible that I’ll have to correct a record or two. Usually I do, as you're all so unfair to me. And, perhaps, by dawn, I’ll finally understand just what a ‘Coffee Pot’ is, and if they were really in fact as irritating as they sound, and where they all went, and why the first Fat Controller saw fit to put them on his rails instead of proper steam engines to begin with.”

“I’ve definitely listened to Thomas try to explain it to you half-a-dozen times already.”

“Which is why tonight I’ll be sure to insist that Edward does it. And in the meanwhile, my dear Henry, I’ll catch a few winks, if you’d be so good, as we know the unusual quiet ‘round here won’t last the little one’s return.”

Gordon was smiling as he began to truly doze, well-pleased with himself as usual. Henry envied him that easy repose out of habit, and he envied him his clever little scheme rather more acutely. He was right: Edward and Thomas would have an endless amount of do-you-remembers once they arrived. And it seemed to Henry that, of the four, it was him who was the odd one out, and who really ought to have the shelter of the end spot and of feigned sleep. He had not been looking forward to the event the next day, and only now did it occur to him that his shift for grinning and bearing it was going to begin sooner than he thought.

Despite the unusual solitude of the sheds—perhaps because of it—it took some time after Gordon had begun to snore before Henry was able to drop off too. In the end, though, his frame of mind was strong and healthy enough to determine that, after all, it was better to not start remembering sooner than he had to, to resist getting drawn back into the shame and pain and dread of those first few years on Sodor.

When he woke two hours later, he felt much better. The workers had rubbed him down, the sun had set, the moon was bright. Edward had come and was resting one berth over. He had remembered too, and left the center for Thomas. Henry took in the stars and the quiet and his companions. This brought back memories too, though much better ones.

There had been but a brief time when this shed housed only the three of them, but it had been the beginning of everything for him. Things had gotten better after that—a slow, long journey, but it had definitely started there, and, while he infinitely preferred the present to the past, it was pleasant to spend the night with his two oldest friends once more.

Edward had opened his eyes, and they saw each other and watched the night in shared silence for some while.

Eventually, after some frogs began to stir and make themselves known in the ditch, Henry felt a question stir within himself—one he had thought of many times over the years, but they had never been alone enough to say it aloud.

“Do you suppose he knew,” he whispered, “and just, sort of… blinked it?”

Edward smiled, for the sheer childlike pleasure of keeping a secret with a friend, but answered just as quietly and soberly. “I’ve wondered that too. But I always supposed that if he had, and had said anything, it would be you he said it to.”

“Me?” Henry snorted before remembering the hush surrounding them, and quieting. “Not me. If it had been me it would have been because he was angry. If he had decided to allow it… well, you were the one he liked.”

There’s a little twist of the lips that is the engine equivalent of a shrug, and Edward gave it then. “No, and so I think probably not, unless Gordon ever heard something. It wasn’t his style. Our controller now, well, then I’d be sure, he rather…”

“He keeps a much lighter hand on the regulator,” Henry supplied, “but he sees everything.”

“Yes, exactly.” Edward smiled appreciation at the metaphor. “If it’d been him, now, it would be a sure thing that he knew what we were about to do before we knew it ourselves. The old controller… no, Henry, I really don’t think so.”

Henry sighed, and didn’t realize he had till he heard it himself.

“What’s the matter, Henry?”

“Oh, I don’t know. It’s silly, but—well, I suppose, if I’m honest, before this very moment I always had a hope that he did know.”

“We might tell him now,” came an unexpected grunt from Henry’s left.

The other two stared with some shock, and through his still-closed eyes Gordon felt it.

“And why not?” he said, grudgingly, yawning himself awake with a certain amount of theatricism. “The crews involved are all gone now, and, as for the three of us, I hardly think his son would send us packing. Everything’s been well for so long. It worked.”

“It still seems a risk,” said Edward, almost breathlessly, and for one instant Henry thought that they were, for a change, on the same side.

Gordon, however, seemed to be in a peculiar mood after that evening nap of his.  

“An awful risk,” he said bluntly. “He might think less well of you.”

“No!” The others just looked at him, and Edward flushed hotly.

Henry was surprised. To be right about anything, and right on behalf on someone else, and to be right when it came to Edward—all three were very unlike Gordon indeed.

And Henry felt heard. He felt seen.

Edward sighed, conceding. “Very well, I just… heard that… Still, what would be the point of telling? As you say, Gordon—everything’s been well for so long. It worked. It worked beautifully. What more does it need?”

“Hmmph. I’m not sorry we did it—perhaps I’m even a little proud that we kept it dark so long. But the one bit that sits rather ill with an engine of my caliber—it was deceitful.”

“Wouldn’t have worked, without the deceit,” retorted Edward. “How else do you propose we had done it, exactly?”

“No need to be combative, dear boy. I won't be the one to say it—not if you're going to be like this. You should think through it yourself. Just think how if there was a way we could own to it—well, that would make it truly a fine and honorable piece of work, don't you agree?”

“You’re not thinking tomorrow? At the exhibition?”

“Would be a good story,” said Gordon, as if much indifferent, “you can’t deny that.”

“I can,” said Henry flatly.

“Ah… gratitude.”

“I’m sorry, Gordon,” said Henry, through gritted teeth, as those three words were perhaps some of the hardest on the whole island to utter, and fortunately very seldom called for, “it’s just… I have nothing at all in this story to be proud of. You want credit, and Edward wants to have it both ways at once, but for me… I’m just as ashamed one way as another, as I didn’t really play any part in it.”

“You played the biggest part, Henry,” said Edward firmly, “it just came after.”

Henry moved his gaze over him very slowly and very deliberately. “Are you,” he asked, “referring to the spectacular predawn wreck? They call those accidents, Edward.���

“You know what I mean… I mean all the months and years before it… you were really very brave, Henry.” Edward looked troubled. “Perhaps we ought to tell, if only for that. I do hate to hear the version of the story about rain and paint.”

“Funny that. Don’t I have you to thank for teaching Percy that song?”

“No thanks are needed.” But Edward was several shades more flippant than Henry, who had really growled the accusation. “In my defense, you were being awful to us at the time.”

“Right then,” said Gordon, cutting off Henry’s retort, “let’s not rehash all the petty squabbles of the past three decades. It’s a nice night, and it was merely a thought. I see I’m outvoted.”

“I’m not voting never,” said Edward, “just… not tomorrow, surely. Goodness. It could use some thinking. Who hears it first? Where does one even start?”

“By blowing up more than one happy Sodor family,” said Henry, who was way ahead on thinking through that question. “I’m not going to have that on my wheels. I’ll take the ‘never’ vote. I know what you two did. That’s enough for me.”

[autumnblogs]

Day 44: Preoccupied about the same things as Trolls, revisited

Welcome back y’all! Before we get into this, I want to talk about the Condesce/Meenah as a parallel character to Mom Lalonde/Roxy. You can read a bit about @mmmmalo​‘s takes on Openbound, and why they think that Meenah is symbolically Roxy’s Doppelganger here.

I want to call attention to some specific similarities between them, and while I think it’s a bit of a stretch, Homestuck draws parallels between characters all the time.

Both the Condesce and Mom Lalonde are matriarch figures estranged from their potential offspring by dire circumstances and servitude to a patriarchal authority and his time-spanning plan - for the Condesce, that’s English obviously, but for Mom Lalonde, that’s Grandpa Harley - servitude to his design renders her a wreck of an alcoholic forced to endure the end of days with no means to stop them from happening, living with a daughter who wants nothing to do her.

Both Meenah and Roxy are rebels against a repressive order, inclined to shirk their assigned Role in service to someone else’s master plan, but ultimately, through some roundabout means or another, give service to it anyway (for Meenah, scratching the game, and ultimately ending up English’s glorified slave for eons in the end; for Roxy, at first refusing to play Sburb in hopes of spiting the Batterwitch, but ultimately ending up playing into her schemes anyway).

They are both rebellious spirits who are repeatedly forced to participate in Paradox Space’s Alpha Timeline all but against their will by hegemonic forces, slaves to a system that they exist in perpetual rebellion against, and by the end of the comic, they both get to help strike a decisive blow against the ultimate foe. Unfortunately, unlike Roxy, Meenah is ultimately the kind of person who chooses at practically every occasion to continue cycles of abuse instead of breaking them. There is ultimately no possibility of reconciliation between these estranged sisters.

So, I see a lot of the Alpha Kids in the four Alpha Trolls who appear in this flash. As the Faux Heroic Himbo, the parallel between Rufioh and Jake is obvious. I don’t think that it’s fair to characterize Jake’s relationship with Dirk as being “cheating on Jane,” though that’s probably how Jane feels about the whole situation; I’ve always gotten the impression she feels entitled to him.

More after the break.

The imagery here is an obvious parallel between Jake and Dirk’s big damn kiss, and Rufioh and Horuss’s - but between Rufioh’s bravado and general obliviousness, and Horuss’s clear triangular parallel with Dirk and Equius, we should expect that the situation is switched here - Dirk = Horuss, Rufioh = Jake.

While it could easily just be a bit of extraneous characterization, I’m inclined to regard Rufioh’s characterization of the women in his life as “Dolls” especially because of his symbolic proximity to Lord English. (He is at best one degree of separation from him, as Jake English’s Alpha Troll Doppelganger) - and the fact that Puppets and Dolls are pretty much synonymous with each other in terms of the way that English interacts with them.

More extremely obvious parallels.

Both of the Zahhaks have hangups about dating down the Hemospectrum, and as long as we’re examining Dirk through the lens of the Zahhaks, allow me to speculate; I think that part of the reason Dirk chooses not to directly identify with the label of gay is less aloofly progressive futurism, and more that he is uncomfortable with his own sexuality.

As a guy who repeatedly appeals to reactionary ideals and rhetorical devices like “Western Civilization,” “Reason,” “Logic,” maybe there is a degree to which we can read Horuss and Equius’ self-repression through the haemospectrum into Dirk suffering from internalized Homophobia.

This is a real long shot, but I’ve always gotten the impression that Dirk is a bit of a bottom. Maybe his desire in building up Jake into a powerful counterpart, like English’s desire to transform Jake into a powerful rival, is built out of a desire to be Oedipally usurped by a former pupil - to have his Eromenos turn the tables, and become the Erastes in turn, in power-dynamic terms.

In Classical Civilization, homosexual relations weren’t unheard of, and were pretty reasonably common, but it was seen as shameful to bottom, especially for someone of a lower social standing than you were (Julius Caesar was mocked as the Queen of Bithynia when it was rumored that he bottomed for Nicomedes IV, which was a serious attack on his political career).

Wild speculative tangent over.

Now this is interesting; Meenah is unwittingly drawing a parralel between Damara and Vriska. The main commonality between them is that, like Vriska (and also like Rose, and also like Jane - who is the fourth and final character in this particular set) her spite and resentment is used as the vector for English’s manipulation of their setting.

Like Vriska, Damara deliberately sabotages the ability of her session members to win, helping to create a powerful foe who forces a session to be scratched.

Like Rose, Damara descends into nihilistic substance abuse to cope with feelings of emptiness.

Like Jane, Damara’s actual feelings of emptiness come about as a result of feelings of rejection in relation to betrayal from within her close friendship circle.

Ironically, while Damara’s reaction is far worse than Jane’s, her anger is actually probably far more understandable - Jane is not entitled to Jake.

The situation between Horuss and Rufioh is also similar to what will resolve between Jake and Dirk shortly - they are just basically incompatible, or at least they will be until both parties do some work on themselves, but a combination of an oblivious party who can’t stop talking about himself, and social timidity on the part of the other prevents the situation from resolving amicably.

“As Long As I Know That I Am Free”

Sometimes, encountering our ancestors doesn’t have to be a source of tension, anxiety, expectation, and fear. Porrim models parental love for Kanaya in a way that, unusually for ancestors in Homestuck, is purely beneficial for her younger counterpart.

It’s okay to identify with roles and identities that have been corrupted or hegemonized by our culture. There’s nothing intrinsically bad about being a man, or about being a woman, as long as our embodiment of those roles is emancipatory to us.

Kanaya can still be a Mom, if that’s what she wants to be. Violence and money aren’t the only form that power can take.

Sometimes, learning the right lessons is just a matter of pausing for a second and being critical of all narratives; deciding for ourselves what we want to be. It’s the lesson that Porrim has to teach Kanaya.

This is just objectively true.

Aranea positions Rufioh as both a foil to Cronus, and to herself, further strengthening the Jake as Rufioh parallels.

What I think is really interesting about all this, is if we want to read the other three trolls as Jake, Dirk, and Jane, that makes Meenah the Roxy of this group! And while Roxy has never been vicious or deliberately cruel, there’s a certain resonance between her persistent hassling of Jane, her meddling in the Jake English Sweepstakes, and the disaster that it provokes, and Meenah’s bullying - I even early on in my first readthrough took a disliking to Roxy because of what I viewed as exactly that - bullying her counterparts, assertively trying to get them to behave the way she wanted.

https://homestuck.com/story/5401

Oh man, where to even begin with Karkat riding off into the Penis Sunset. Like, the Sun in relation to Dave is persistently an icon of Bro’s surveillance of him, and then there’s his burgeoning affection for Karkat (he mentions story time with Karkat in the third Openbound suggesting that he actually took Karkat up on his offer to read through trashy Troll Romance).

Like, there’s probably something in Dave’s troubled psyche that’s on display here but damn if I know what it is. Maybe he’s ruminating on the fact that Bro would probably not be too accepting of his relationship with Karkat, hence the juxtaposition of the symbol of Bro’s hostility with the imagery of Karkat riding a dick?

https://homestuck.com/story/5404

I don’t really need to explicate much on what Rose is trying to say, I think but just in case, here’s a little rundown of what she’s trying to explain.

The apple is a symbol of an irreducible idea. Many ideas are reducible - as molecules are reducible to atoms, and atoms are reducible to quarks and stuff, so are ideas reducible to increasingly more abstracted and basic units.

The closer to notionally irreducible a thing becomes, the more difficult it becomes to express an idea, until at last, that which is truly irreducible resolves, and reveals to us the true, intrinsic nature of reality. For every complex idea, we can refer to more fundamental ideas, until at last, we arrive at an idea, which when probed, responds back simply, “It just does that.”

This, I think, is that to which we ought to give the name of God; that force so fundamental that it truly does just do that.

In the world of Homestuck, Symbols, and with them, Rituals - stories! Are manifestations of the primeval and irreducible ideas. Everything else is a universe in orbit around the Divine - the Aspects themselves, perhaps, or something more fundamental than the Aspects even.

What makes reducing these stories to the irreducible principles that they allude to so difficult is that you’re effectively trying to explain the electromagnetic force by comparing it to rubber bands, when in fact, the electromagnetic force is what makes the rubber bands behave that way in the first place.

As a Ritual, Rose’s drinking is pretty similar to John’s Dad roleplaying - an attempt at unity with Her Mom. Another empty signifier.

https://homestuck.com/story/5405

Dave is already really embracing his new role as the actually most sincere and straightforward member of the party. Lovin’ it.

It’s kind of nice that Aradia and Vriska are getting along now. That’s gratifying for personal reasons.

Ah yeah, I forgot that was ever addressed officially.

https://homestuck.com/story/5435

The man

HASS the ring.

https://homestuck.com/story/5440

And with the depressingly empty Void session established via a single flash, we shall conclude for the evening.

Tomorrow, we’ll get to know our little villain.

For now, it’s Cam signing off, Alive, and a little Annoyed that I wasted a couple hours playing the Outriders Demo this afternoon. Seriously, what an aesthetically bleak and kind of mediocre-looking class-based cover shooter.

[iatheia]

EDA reviews Part 6 - books 47-55

Previous part 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5

47) The Slow Empire - Uh, couldn't really follow this one at all. There are books when the first person narration works, but not here - too many jumps in setting, too little connective tissue, most of it told from the POV of a person who is barely connected to the protagonists? And that's even before they started repeating chunks of text wholesale between various parts - and I couldn't figure out if it was intended, or if it is the ebook was acting out on me. More than half way through the book, I still couldn't entirely tell what the story is supposed to be about, or if the plot has even started yet. Even having finished it, I find myself somewhat aghast. There are a few glimpses of something interesting, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what. 4/10

48) Dark Progeny - Also not really feeling it. It's not a bad story, but I do rather prefer a Doctor Who story to actually feature the Doctor and the companions front and center, whether they are POV characters or not. Here, though, they are barely in it - it's even more egregious than the previous one in actually giving the supposed protagonists stuff to do, and even on rare occasions we do switch back to them, it is all pretty generic. Anji developing telepathic abilities and the Doctor trying to calm her down all the while Fitz is freaking out in the background? Yes, please, more of that. Following around 20 interchangeable OCs that have nothing to do with the trio? No thank you. 6/10.

49) The City of the Dead - If you are invoking magic in a sci-fi universe, you need to be able to handwave it. It doesn't need to be awfully complex, "something something aliens, something something energy" is usually enough, but without it, you can't just throw magic about willy nilly. There are rules.

There are moments when it is a beautiful story, evoking a lot of dream-like wonder, and if it managed to remain a hazy dream, it probably would have been better for it. At the same time there is something very uncomfortably cynical about it, to the degree it left a bad taste in my mouth. There is a narrow line between not shying away from the ugliness of the world and deliberately making something ugly just for the sake of it, and often it felt like it was leaning towards the latter. Dunno, I started out wanting to like it, and feeling rather conflicted about it, but by the end became utterly indifferent. 7/10

50) Grimm Reality - Pure crack. Mind Robber wishes it could be as hilarious and off the wall as this story is. It throws every cliche fairy tale narrative device in the book at the characters and expects them to take it with the straight face, all the while realizing that the rules of the world are completely bonkers. And it manages to sustain this energy throughout, which is a no small feat. It's actually pretty exhausting by the end of it. Fairy tales stories do not belong to a lengthy literary genre, and even taking time deconstructing them, at 95K words becomes it becomes just too much - figuratively, and, on occasion, literally. Still, pretty great, I wish more books had its energy 9/10.

51) The Adventuress of Henrietta Street - *sigh*. My expectations were pretty low to begin with, and I still am somehow disappointed. Credit where credit's due - it is probably most coherent of the books from Miles. And at least it's better than Interference. That's really not saying much, though.

Honestly, if you've read any story about prostitutes, murder, satanic sex rituals bordering on blatant pornography, eastern culture and "mysticism of female sex" used for fetish fuel, written by a dude who clearly gets off on all of this - you've read all of them. There is really nothing revolutionary or compelling about it. On the list of "plots I never want to see in Doctor Who", they are definitely up there. And the Doctor is dying again, because it wouldn't be Miles's book without it. And he's, uh... living in a brothel, trying to marry someone, in order to, uh..... ritualistically tie himself to Earth, for, reasons? Did I read that right? After over 100 years of living on Earth and wanting to do nothing else than seeing the back of it, right. And writing books not quite about sex but definitely about sex. Because that's the thing the Doctor apparently does now. Self insert what self insert. And Fitz and Anji are just... there. On an occasion. All of it exposed on in a dull faux academic style without a shred of characterization, all the while absolutely nothing of note is happening, despite being a singularly longest EDA.

Just, if you hate the characters so much. If you don't understand what makes them tick to this degree. If you don't even care to learn. If you consider any established emotions they should have about the plot you are putting them through beneath you. Why are you writing in a shared universe to begin with? 2/10

(I did have an unintentional moment of hilarity with it, though. There is a character that is referred to as Lord ______, as if his name is censored. TTS would always pronounce it as Lord Underbarunderbarunderbar. Always gave me a chuckle).

52) Mad Dogs and Englishmen - A hilarious story, a very easy read, flowing from scene to scene. There are several occasions of fridge horror treated with levity that I would have rather have avoided. Plus, it is as incestuous as a book about books can get, and yet.... It is just absurd enough to work.

Plus, the whole, “His books are full of black magic, mind control...and perversion - moral and ethical and sexual. He is polluting the atmosphere of our group”, “What’s next? Rewrite War and Peace so it’s about guinea pigs?” - Oh, the shade. It is a good book in its own right, but just for this alone, 10/10

53) Hope - It's a pretty average book. Not outstanding, not horrible. Would have made a decent episode, all things considered, in a bread and butter sort of way. It does have some great ideas - the refuge of humanity, the conflict between Anji and the Doctor finally coming to light - not quite the type of conflict I was hoping for, though. If only it had a bit more nuisance, without neatly delineated black and white, if the antagonist didn't end up being a mustache twirling villain, if the Doctor didn't end up strong-arming everyone in a much more macho manner than he normally goes for (with a rather clunky dialogue). It had potential, even if it didn't end up being realized in full. 8/10

54) Anachrophobia - Very meh. The set up was fairly contrived, it never made me care about any of the characters, including whatever the hell the Doctor and co were doing, not to mention any of the secondary characters. Not terribly engaging, after a point I was mostly flipping through it. There is some big conflict brought up at 95% mark, and it is resolved in just couple of pages via a deus ex machina and a paradox. Overall, I might have said that I would have liked it better if I was in a mood for existential horror, but I took a break in the middle to listen to the Lease of Life - and it actually touches upon several similar themes, but with and outstanding character drama and much more graceful execution, which made this book look even more poor in comparison. 5/10

55) Trading Futures - I will give the author all the points for keeping an eye on the future. Perhaps, in 2002, predicting tablets being used as menus in fancy restaurants wasn’t that big of a reach, but I absolutely had a spit take when TTS has read to me something about “eye-phones”. There are some modestly clever moments throughout the book. Too bad that the rest of it is a complete rubbish. Not terribly original, either - a lot of ideas are copied directly from other books and other franchises. Reasonably entertaining, all things considered, but in a much more slapstick sort of way than was probably intended. 7/10

Overall impressions so far - This batch is, for the most part, fine. Some stories are worst than others, some better. With one exception, nothing horrendous, but nothing to write home about, either. They are, for the most part, serviceable. Individually, they have decent enough plots. But. There is very little character work. They can generally be read in any order, or dropped entirely, and you wouldn’t miss anything. The Doctor is mostly coasting from the excellent streak in the last batch, always in a spot light. I am starting to tire of the whole amnesia arc, though - it was good, but it ran its course, and at this point, with everything functionally back to norm, with barely a stray mention of it here and there, we are starting to be overdue for some semblance of resolution of all that. Henrietta Street is entirely a step in the wrong direction - not only it does nothing worthwhile for the characters, it’s just getting unnecessarily further into the weedworks, adding yet another plot thread that is forced on other writers to carry (they mention it occasionally, but it’s not like there is much to build upon) - rather viciously reminding of the previous mess of an ark “don’t you dare to think that it is over”. And I am so over it. Just, move on.

The companions fare rather worse. They are decent enough, they participate in action, in each book, they are mostly staying in character, with a handful of neat moments here and there (in a blink and you’ll miss it sort of way, though), they aren’t written off as an unnecessary burden to carry, which is an improvement. There is nothing meaty given to them though - they ask the necessary questions, do the things required of them, and generally stay out of the way when they are not needed. I guess Anji has at least some character driven moments, even though most of them are reduced to “I miss my dead boyfriend”. Which is... fine, we’ve all lost people, we all mourn them in our own way, but it has been 14 books since her introduction, and she is leaving in another 10. To have her character reduced to just that bit from her first book, with barely anything else to offer.... Plus, all the while, she rarely felt like she integrated into the team - because she is constantly eying her exit and returning to normality (even though she always decides to stay just a little while longer due to circumstances), it’s like from the very beginning she had one foot out of the door.

But while Anji is a bit of a one trick pony, at least she has that much. Poor Fitz gets absolutely nothing to do. The last meaningful book that addressed his character in any way was all the way back around book #42-43, and even that was just catching up on plot after his prolonged absence. He’s been essentially frozen since early 30s books. He is generally a fun character to have around, and does good supporting work, but can he please get something more impactful any time soon? Heck, by this point I’ll even take the recurrence of “finding a new love interest number 20 who will inevitably die by the end of the book” - it has been overdone, and it is certainly not a very exciting plot, not to mention reductive, but at least it’d be something. Though, I guess only one companion is allowed to carry that staple at the time, and right now Anji is it, two dead lovers is just an overkill.

And it is an absolute shame - especially when considering that on the other side, Big Finish was in the middle of streak of some of the best stories. Over the same time that these novels were published, we had audios such as Project Twilight, Eye of the Scorpion, Colditz, One Doctor, Chimes of Midnight, Seasons of Fear, which were full of character.

[recentanimenews]

Random Reads 2/18/21

Are You in the House Alone? by Richard Peck Are You in the House Alone? came out in 1976 and though I totally could’ve read it when I was a teen—and thus still a member of its target audience—I never did.

Gail Osburne is a sixteen-year-old high school junior and native New Yorker who’s not at home in the quaint Connecticut village her family relocated to several years back. I knew that the plot involved Gail receiving menacing anonymous notes and phone calls, and I was expecting these events to get started quickly and the suspense to remain high throughout. But that doesn’t happen.

Instead, the story is told retroactively, so we know Gail survives. Also, obvious culprit is obvious. (I hope the reveal wasn’t intended to be a surprise, but perhaps readers were less savvy about such things in 1976.) Initially, much more of the focus is on Gail’s relationships with her parents, boyfriend, and best friend, and in particular how the latter two are in the slow process of dissolution. Eventually she receives some threatening notes and creepy phone calls, gets scared, is let down by people in positions of authority, and comes face-to-face with said obvious culprit. That happens halfway through this slim novel. The rest of the book is about Gail’s recovery from her ordeal.

I thought Are You in the House Alone? was going to be fun, suspenseful fluff, but it turned out to be fairly serious and occasionally (intentionally) infuriating. I really appreciated how Peck was able to weave in a couple of threads that seemed very random at first and make them integral to the denouement, too. Ultimately, I didn’t love the book, but I kind of… respect it, if that makes sense. It didn’t go the cheap route.

The Automatic Detective by A. Lee Martinez Mack Megaton is a hulking robot who was created to destroy. He developed self-determination, however, and went against his programming. Now, he’s a probationary citizen of Empire City, where mutagens and pollution have created a very diverse population. While some “biologicals” are still “norms,” others have been physically transformed (like rat-like Detective Alfredo Sanchez) and others have been changed in not-so-visible ways (like Mack’s friend, Jung, a talking gorilla with refined literary taste). Mack works as a cab driver and is trying to keep a low profile, but when his neighbors are abducted, he can’t help but try to rescue them. This gets him into all sorts of trouble, of course.

Despite its name, The Automatic Detective isn’t really much of a mystery. I suppose it’s more… sci-fi noir. Mack meets various thugs, beats some of them up, gets beat up himself, etc. Slowly, he makes progress on uncovering a huge conspiracy. At times, I felt like Martinez was a little too enamored of the gimmick he created, and places in the middle dragged a bit as a result, but the ending is pretty satisfying and overall the book was enjoyable enough, even though it’s quite far from the sort of thing I usually read.

As a final note: I really liked that Martinez limited himself when it came time to invent universe-specific profanity. Instead of the text being liberally sprinkled with words like “frell” or “frak,” the phrase “Oh, flurb” appears but once (during a moment where the meaning is 100% apparent) and made me laugh out loud.

I don’t know if I’m necessarily eager to read more by Martinez, but I’m glad I read this one.

The Inimitable Jeeves by P. G. Wodehouse When I read My Man Jeeves back in 2010, I was somewhat disappointed because so much of it was repetitive. While there are some common elements that recur within the eleven stories that comprise The Inimitable Jeeves, it is still so very much superior that I’d now say… forget about that first book. Start here. Go back and read My Man Jeeves for completist purposes, if that’s your inclination, but start here for the best introduction to these characters and Wodehouse’s uniquely charming and amusing writing.

First published in 1923, The Inimitable Jeeves contains a linked set of stories that typically involve affable Bertie Wooster being imposed upon by either his eternally lovesick friend Bingo Little (who is “always waylaying one and decanting his anguished soul”) or his mischief-making younger cousins, Claude and Eustace. One plot thread involves convincing Bingo’s uncle (who provides him with an allowance) to agree to Bingo marrying a waitress. Jeeves comes up with the idea to ply the uncle with romance novels featuring class differences to soften his heart, and it ends up that Bertie is compelled to go visit the old fellow and claim to be the author. In addition to containing the most elegant description of sweat I’ve ever seen—“The good old persp was bedewing my forehead by this time in a pretty lavish manner.”—this situation is referenced a few times in subsequent stories until Bingo succeeds in getting married to a different waitress who really is the author of those romance novels.

So, even though you’ve got episodic happenings, it’s rather a satisfactory conclusion. Bertie is endearing, Jeeves is competent, the writing is excellent, and it made me laugh. (I especially liked when a character was described as resembling “a sheep with a secret sorrow.”) I’m so glad that I didn’t give up on the series after the first book; now I feel as though I finally see what the fuss is all about. I’d also like to give credit to the fabulous narration by Jonathan Cecil. I’m not sure if it’s deliberate, but I hear echoes of Fry and Laurie in his performance, and I heartily approve. I will certainly seek out more unabridged versions read by him.

The Murders of Richard III by Elizabeth Peters This is the second in the Jacqueline Kirby series of mysteries. I haven’t read the first, and wouldn’t normally begin with the second, but the book promised an English country mansion plus “fanatic devotees of King Richard III” so my usual routine flew right out the window.

Even before university lecturer Thomas Carter likened himself unto Watson, I’d noticed the similarities between how this tale is told and the Sherlock Holmes stories. We are never permitted inside Jacqueline’s head. Instead, we see her how Thomas, hopeful of one day securing her romantic affections, views her. It’s fairly interesting, actually, because Thomas’ opinion of her fluctuates, sometimes peevishly. “You drive me crazy with your arrogance and your sarcasm and your know-it-all airs,” he says at one point. And though he soon after claims “I’m no male chauvinist; I don’t mind you showing off,” the fact is that earlier he was grumbling inwardly about her feigning “girlish ignorance” to reel in mansplainers and then walloping the “unwitting victim” with a cartload of knowledge. It’s true that Jacqueline isn’t especially likeable sometimes, but for remorselessly trouncing the sexist louts she encounters throughout the book, I must commend her!

The mystery itself is somewhat bland, unfortunately. The leader of a Ricardian society has received a letter purportedly written by Elizabeth of York, which would exonerate Richard of the deaths of her brothers, the “princes in the tower.” He calls a meeting of the society, with each attendee costumed as one of the historical personages involved, and summons the press, planning to unveil his find with much fanfare. But someone begins playing practical jokes on the Ricardians reminiscent of the fates of the people they are pretending to be. The book isn’t a long one, and soon the pranks start coming right on the heels of one another. Because of the swift pace—and some shallow characterization—the solution is rather anti-climactic.

Still, while I’m not sure I’ll seek out any more Jacqueline Kirby mysteries, this was overall a decent read.

A Perfect Match by Jill McGown The series of books featuring Detective Inspector Lloyd (whose first name is a secret for now) and Detective Sergeant Judy Hill begins with a short yet enjoyable mystery in which a wealthy young widow is found dead in a small English town on property she’d just inherited from her recently deceased husband. Unlike some mysteries of which I am fond, there’s no preamble where readers get to know the victim or the circumstances of their life. Instead, immediately there’s a policeman discovering the body and then Lloyd turns up to question the victim’s next of kin. This same lack of character development hampers the romantic tension between Lloyd and Hill, leaving me with no idea what motivated Hill to finally decide to act on her feelings for him, betraying her marriage vows in the process.

The mystery itself is interesting enough, however, involving long-married Helen and Donald Mitchell who have ties to both the victim, Julia—her late husband was Donald’s older brother and Helen thinks they were having an affair—and chief suspect, Chris, originally a friend of Donald’s who has fallen in love with Helen. I can’t claim to have mustered anything more than a mild curiosity as to what the outcome would be, but neither did I guess the specifics, so that was good. I liked the interrogation scenes, too.

McGown’s writing had some fun moments. I loved the super-evocative imagery of Lloyd telling Hill that her new perm makes her look like Kevin Keegan. I also really appreciated a recurring bit where each chapter ends with the point of view of wildlife. When Chris is eventually brought in by the police, his arrest is depicted from a bird’s perspective, for example. There are also ducks, a moth, a fly, a cat… I don’t know if this device recurs in later books in the series, but I look forward to finding out.

Reconstructing Amelia by Kimberly McCreight This is the second mystery/thriller I’ve read in which a single mom who is a lawyer with a cold and unfeeling mother of her own attempts to work out the mystery of what happened to a family member (the other being Girl in the Dark by Marion Pauw). Is that some kind of trend these days?

Kate Baron has a demanding job at a swanky firm, but she’s trying her best to be a good mom to her fifteen-year-old bookworm daughter, Amelia. She’s shocked to get a call from Grace Hall, the prestigious private school Amelia attends, saying that her daughter has been accused of cheating, and by the time she makes her way to the school, Amelia has evidently jumped to her death from the school roof. The police are only too happy to classify her death as a suicide, but when Kate gets a text that says “Amelia didn’t jump,” she starts trying to put together the pieces of what happened.

Reconstructing Amelia has quite a few problems. Despite her better judgment (and a promise to her best friend), Amelia joins a clique of bitchy girls at school who end up publicly humiliating her and trying to get her expelled when she falls in love with someone deemed off-limits. It’s hard to muster sympathy for what she ends up going through when one remembers the cruel prank she was willing to pull on someone else as part of the initiation process (largely kept off-camera to keep us from disliking her too much, I guess). We’re repeatedly told about the great relationship Amelia and her mom share, but never shown it. The subplot about Amelia’s dad is the literary equivalent of wilted lettuce. And the fact that the new detective who gets assigned to the case allows Kate to question suspects is absolutely ludicrous.

And yet, I couldn’t hate the book, largely because of Amelia’s friend, Sylvia. For much of the book she comes across as shallow and self-absorbed, but when Amelia really needs her, she’s there. She gives Amelia this tour of “great moments at Grace Hall” to cheer up her impressive pal, right before breaking down about her own legitimate pain. I never would’ve thought at the outset that I would have such immense sympathy for Sylvia, but I do. I find myself hoping that she’ll be okay.

Shutter Island by Dennis Lehane It sure is nice going into a book unspoiled, particularly one as twisty as Shutter Island. I was quite happy with the book as it began, with U.S. Marshals Teddy Daniels and Chuck Aule taking the ferry to Shutter Island to track down a patient missing from Ashcliffe Hospital for the Criminally Insane. It’s late summer 1954, and these guys are manly but accessible, and surprisingly funny. Consider this relatiely early exchange that cracked me up:

Pretentious Doctor: *makes remarks on the lives of violence the marshals must lead* Chuck: Wasn’t raised to run, Doc. Pretentious Doctor: Ah, yes. Raised. And who did raise you? Teddy: Bears.

For a while, all seems straightforward. Then Teddy confides to Chuck that he’s actually come there looking for a patient named Andrew Laediss, who was responsible for setting the fire that killed Teddy’s wife two years before. Gradually, one starts to doubt everything (and there was a point where all of the uncertainty got to be a little much for me) but the ultimate conclusion is a very satisfactory one.

Why Did You Lie? by Yrsa Sigurdardottir Set in Iceland, Why Did You Lie? starts out with three different storylines taking place a few days apart. The first involves a photographer on a helicopter journey to take pictures of a lighthouse on a rock in the middle of the ocean, the second is about a policewoman whose journalist husband has recently attempted suicide, and the third is about a family who returns from a house swap with an American couple to find some of their stuff missing and weird footage on the security camera. Of course, as the book progresses, these storylines converge, and it’s pretty neat when the police activity the helicopter flew over in chapter one turns out to be almost the culmination of the policewoman’s plot thread.

For some reason, I can’t help wondering how Ruth Rendell might’ve written this book. I think Rendell would’ve done a lot more with characterization, for one thing. There’s certainly some here, especially for the anxious husband who struggles to make his wife admit something really has gone wrong with their houseguests, but the primary concern seems to be getting on with the suspenseful action. Quickly, each plot features some kind of creepy lurker and then ominous notes (variations on the “why did you lie?” theme) figure in to all three, as well. Nina, the policewoman, digs around and talks to people and works out that everything connects to a supposed suicide from thirty years ago.

The result is certainly an entertaining book, but not one I could really love. One major issue I had is being able to predict something very significant. The number of characters who could’ve been angry enough about the 30-year-old lies in question to terrorize people in the present is very small. And once the existence of a certain person is oh-so-casually mentioned two-thirds through the book, I thought, “Oh, well, it’s them, then.” And then a little later, I figured out which of the characters it must be and I was right. This made for an anticlimactic ending that was clearly meant to be a shocking one. Also, I would’ve liked to have cared more that one character ends the novel poised to move on with life but, in reality, still in jeopardy.

I still would read more by this author, though.

By: Michelle Smith

[pamphletstoinspire]

The Cost of Discipleship: Readings for the 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

One of the most famous German opponents of Adolf Hitler and Nazism was the Lutheran pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whom the Nazis executed by hanging in April 1945 for his involvement in a plot against Hitler himself. Bonhoeffer’s most famous work was a meditation on the Sermon on the Mount entitled (in English) The Cost of Discipleship. In it, Bonhoeffer parted ways with a Protestantism that understood “salvation by faith alone” as some kind of easy road to heaven. Bonhoeffer criticized “easy-believism” as “cheap grace”

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.

Costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. It is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: "My yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Bonhoeffer was a Protestant, but there is much in his writings that a Catholic can affirm, including the passage above. I can’t help thinking of Bonhoeffer as I meditate on the Readings for this coming Sunday, which stress the high cost of discipleship to this mysterious man Jesus of Nazareth, who is nothing other than the Wisdom of God in the flesh.

1. Our First Reading is Wis 9:13-18b:

Who can know God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the LORD intends? For the deliberations of mortals are timid, and unsure are our plans. For the corruptible body burdens the soul and the earthen shelter weighs down the mind that has many concerns. And scarce do we guess the things on earth, and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty; but when things are in heaven, who can search them out? Or who ever knew your counsel, except you had given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high? And thus were the paths of those on earth made straight.

There is little controversy over the date and authorship of the Wisdom of Solomon. Strictly speaking, the book makes no claims about its own authorship, although the first-person “voice” of the book clearly cloaks itself in the persona of the biblical Solomon. The Church Fathers recognized this as a literary device. St. Augustine’s remark is representative: Next are the … three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.

The Wisdom of Solomon is heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and rhetoric. It gives every evidence of having been composed originally in Greek, and a variety of factors, including the dominating concern with matters Egyptian in the second half of the book, suggest that the large Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt, was the location of composition, at some time between 250 and 100 BC. Since the author seems to be responding to a campaign of persecution against observant Jews, scholars often propose either the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-204 B.C.), or Ptolemy VII Physicon (145-117 B.C.) as likely periods of composition.

A major contribution of the Book of Wisdom is to the theology of the Holy Spirit. The book characterizes divine wisdom as a person and virtually identifies her with the spirit of God, i.e. the Holy Spirit:

For wisdom is a kindly spirit (1:6)

In her there is a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique … all-powerful, all-seeing (7:22)

She is a breath of the power of God, and pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty (7:25)

Who has learned your counsel, unless you have given Wisdom, and sent your Holy Spirit from on high? (9:17)

So there is progress in revelation in the Book of Wisdom. In this late Old Testament work, we see further articulated a reality hinted at previously, namely, that there are multiple persons in the Godhead, and God’s Spirit is a Person.

In Patristic exegesis, these passages about Wisdom are often taken as describing Christ, whom the New Testament identifies as “the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24). Although the more natural application of these passages of Wisdom is directly to the Third Person, the Holy Spirit, their application to the Second Person is justified inasmuch as he is the Christ, the “Anointed One,” who is anointed with the Spirit and thus shares the Spirit’s attributes.

Focusing on this Sunday’s Reading, we note that the sacred author stresses how difficult the attainment of wisdom is, even in relation to material concerns, much less to supernatural and transcendent truth. Our physical needs and appetites confuse and cloud our thinking, because we are strongly motivated to reason to conclusions that allow us to satisfy our bodies, rather than to conclusions that are strictly true. In humility, the sage acknowledges that the attainment of truth about ultimate reality is really a superhuman effort. It is something beyond our strength, truly a miracle. Without the help of God, we would all but despair of coming to the truth about the reality of things. But God makes it possible by the gift of the Holy Spirit:

Or who ever knew your counsel, except you had given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high?

The sage here reflects a biblical theme that wisdom is the gift of God’s Spirit. This can be seen in the accounts of notable wise men in salvation history.

For example, Joseph, the visionary and royal steward over the land of Egypt, derived his wisdom from the Holy Spirit:

Gen. 41:38

And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find such a man as this, in whom is the Spirit of God?” 39 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as you are …

Likewise Daniel:

Dan. 5:11 

There is in your kingdom a man in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him …

And the Messiah who is to come will be marked by similar wisdom: 

Is. 11:2

And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.

2. Our Responsorial Psalm is Ps 90:3-4, 5-6, 12-13, 14-17

R. (1) In every age, O Lord, you have been our refuge.

You turn man back to dust, saying, “Return, O children of men.” For a thousand years in your sight are as yesterday, now that it is past, or as a watch of the night. R. In every age, O Lord, you have been our refuge.

You make an end of them in their sleep; the next morning they are like the changing grass, Which at dawn springs up anew, but by evening wilts and fades. R. In every age, O Lord, you have been our refuge.

Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain wisdom of heart. Return, O LORD! How long? Have pity on your servants! R. In every age, O Lord, you have been our refuge.

Fill us at daybreak with your kindness, that we may shout for joy and gladness all our days. And may the gracious care of the LORD our God be ours; prosper the work of our hands for us! Prosper the work of our hands! R. In every age, O Lord, you have been our refuge.

Psalm 90 is the only Psalm attributed to Moses, and the it has a decided melancholy tone, as a meditation on human frailty immediately after the disastrous ending of Psalm 89, in which all the hopes of Israel pinned upon the Davidic dynasty are dashed in tragedy and destruction. The Israelite reader of the psalms, having been brought to despair over the apparent failure of the covenant with David, now “goes back to Moses” for advice in Psalm 90. Moses observes the utter lack of power on the part of human beings, and recognizes that the only lasting things are those granted by God. He leads Israel in prayer: “Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain wisdom of heart!” Much like the sacred author of the Book of Wisdom, Moses acknowledges that wisdom is beyond our reach, and is ultimately a gift from God.

3. Our Second Reading is Phmn 9-10, 12-17

I, Paul, an old man, and now also a prisoner for Christ Jesus, urge you on behalf of my child Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment; I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you. I should have liked to retain him for myself, so that he might serve me on your behalf in my imprisonment for the gospel, but I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that the good you do might not be forced but voluntary.

Perhaps this is why he was away from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloved especially to me, but even more so to you, as a man and in the Lord. So if you regard me as a partner, welcome him as you would me.

From now to the end of the liturgical year, the Lectionary reads semi-continuously through St. Paul’s letters to individuals (Philemon, Timothy, Titus), starting with St. Paul’s shortest letter, the one-chapter epistle to Philemon. This is the only reading of Philemon on a Sunday or Feast Day in the Church’s calendar.

The Letter to Philemon concerns a runaway slave, Onesimus, whom Paul met, converted, and discipled while he was in prison. When Onesimus was finally released, Paul sent him back to his master Philemon (already a Christian) with a letter asking Philemon to free Onesimus and allow him to return to assist Paul in his ministry. The letter is an important testimony to the Christian belief in the equal human dignity of all persons, despite societal structures (like slavery or abortion) that deny dignity to some.

Onesimus was Philemon’s legal “possession”, but Paul is asking Philemon to “renounce his possessions” for the sake of the Gospel, that is, for the sake of the success of Paul’s preaching ministry. Jesus will call all his disciples to “renounce their possessions” in the following Gospel Reading.

4. Our Gospel is Lk 14:25-33:

Great crowds were traveling with Jesus, and he turned and addressed them, “If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

When speaking of “hating” one’s family, Jesus is not speaking literally, but using a common rabbinic literary technique we now call “hyperbole,” that is, a dramatic overstatement that attracts attention and provokes thought. What does it mean to “hate” one’s family? It means one needs to be willing to break family ties if one’s family opposes the call of Christ on one’s life. One never stops loving one’s family, though, because love of God and love of neighbor are the summation of God’s law, and one’s family certainly counts as one’s “neighbors.” Furthermore, elsewhere Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for using a loophole in the law to justify not caring for their parents (Mk 7:11), and Paul rebukes Christians who do not care for their own family (1 Tim 5:8). So we know that under ordinary circumstances, love for family is mandated (as in the Fourth Commandment). Nonetheless, if the choice is between honoring family and following Jesus, one must choose Jesus. The Muslim convert Joseph Fadelle faced this choice and writes about it in the riveting book, The Price to Pay, available from Ignatius Press.

Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

This is absolutely shocking language, whose original effect is lost on us who now where crosses around our necks as jewelry. The cross was an instrument of execution and torture, like an electric chair but much worse. The use of crosses was almost unique to the Roman Empire, which liked to employ them to make awful spectacle of the agonizing deaths of anyone who opposed Roman power. Jews hated the cross, because a curse was attached to anyone who died “on a tree” according to Deut 21:22-23.

The condemned man carried his own cross to the site of his execution, so “to carry one’s cross” meant that you were on death row, there was no chance of appeal, you would certainly die soon. Let’s keep in mind that Jesus says this during the Lukan “Travel Narrative”—that is, while he is on his “death march” to Jerusalem to experience his passion (Luke 9-19). Jesus knew he was going to his death, and anyone who followed him also risked death. As it would turn out, everyone abandoned Jesus at the end, so he went to the cross alone. But in years afterward, many of his disciples would share the cross with him.

Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.’ Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops?

But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms. In the same way, anyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.”

Jesus’ method of preaching is so different from methods I was taught or have witnessed at megachurches or on TV. Much of contemporary evangelism relies on some variation of “come to Jesus and your troubles will be solved.” But Jesus seems here to be encouraging people to leave and go away, telling them that they don’t realize what they are getting into. Following Jesus will cost everything that you own. If there is any possession you won’t give up for the sake of Jesus, you have not attained discipleship.

Can the renunciation of your material goods really be the way to salvation and communion with God? This seems paradoxical, difficult to accept. This is the Wisdom that does not follow human logic, that defies natural reasoning. To see the wisdom and beauty of poverty and renunciation requires a gift of insight from God, a reception of his Spirit.

Several times in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is shown to be the bearer of God’s Wisdom:

Luke 2:40 And the child (Jesus) grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.

Luke 7:34 The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”

Luke 11:31 The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.

Jesus now tells us that the path to salvation requires us to embrace death and renounce our family and material wealth in order to follow him. That is not the path to salvation we would have reasoned out for ourselves! But it is the Wisdom of God which transcends our categories, the Wisdom of God that we prayed to receive with “Solomon” the sage and Moses the psalmist.

Many even in the Church would have us believe that we can be saved without repenting of our sins, even that we can receive the Eucharist in good conscience without repenting of mortal sin. Don’t believe that lie. No one will enter heaven without acknowledging and renouncing every sin they have ever committed. This is necessarily the case, because attachment to sin is attachment to that which is not-God and not-love. And no one in heaven will be or can be still attached to not-God and not-love. Therefore, no one will still be attached to sin in heaven. If we do not repent of and renounce our sin in this life, there is purgatory for those sins that are not mortal, and hell for those who have truly rejected God and the kind of love he represents. It is a sobering thought, so let us make a good examination of conscience before coming to this Sunday’s Eucharist.

From: https://www.pamphletstoinspire.com/

[nadziejastar]

Xemnas: A heart is never lost for good. There may have been variances in our dispositions, but a number of us unquestionably showed signs of a burgeoning replacement. Once born, the heart can also be nurtured. Our experiments creating Heartless were attempts to control the mind, and convince it to renounce its sense of self. But understand, one can banish the heart from the body, but the body will try to replace it the first chance it gets, for as many times as it takes. And so I knew, even after we were divided into Heartless and Nobodies, it was just a temporary separation.

Sora: Why, then? Why did you lie to them and tell them they had no hearts?

Xigbar: Xemnas and Xehanort formed the Organization for a specific reason–round up a bunch of empty husks, hook them up to Kingdom Hearts, then fill them all with the exact same heart and mind. Translation–they were gonna turn all the members into Xehanort.

I suppose. But I’d still say it was more likely that they were being experimented on in the lab that day. That was the Heartless Manufactory. Xemnas said that the experiments creating Heartless were attempts to control the mind and get it to renounce its sense of self. And Xehanort formed the Organization in order to take the empty husks and fill them with Xehanort’s heart and mind.

“I can’t claim to know the outcome of this venture, either. We are dealing with hearts, after all—unpredictable at best.” Ansem aimed the end of the device at Kingdom Hearts. The one great heart—Kingdom Hearts. But what was a heart? For all that, I never did find the answer, Ansem thought.

When a person’s heart was taken from them, a Heartless was created, a thing with no sense of self, while the body and soul left behind would become the makings of a Nobody. But what if someone deliberately released their heart from their body through the strength of will alone? Sora and Xehanort had managed to retain their selfhood even after becoming Heartless.

In other words, it sounds like Xehanort thought that Nobodies would make the perfect vessels.

Ansem’s Report 13

Where does the body go when it separates from the heart? If the soul remains within the body, is it still considered to be deceased? When the heart returns to the Heartless, the physical form disappears. But that is merely true in this world. Perhaps the body exists in another form in another world. If that is the case, then it is possible for one to exist in two worlds. A being that is neither darkness nor light; belonging nowhere; abandoned by its heart; a mere shell of its former self. The relation between the heart and body is complex. However, I am certain that if your self exists here, then by definition, the other cannot truly “exist.” The other, the one which does not exist, shall be dubbed, “Nobody.”

Xehanort apparently is the one who discovered Nobodies during these experiments. He probably assumed that they would have no sense of self, like the Heartless.

The group called the Organization is a group of nobodies who gathered together. Nobodies–beings who don’t exist. Beings who lost their hearts to darkness, Heartless. And then, when strong-hearted beings become Heartless, the body and soul exist separately from the heart, and receive life in this land. That’s a Nobody. And then, Nobodies born from the owners of especially strong-hearted beings fall into birth still retaining their human shape. That means, the Nobodies gathered as Organisation members once held strong hearts. Really? Axel wondered to himself. Did that self in my memories really have a strong heart? Don’t really know. And then, Nobodies without hearts wish for only one thing. A heart. If I was asked if I wanted a heart, I guess I’d answer that I did. But, do I really want a heart? Can a heart really fill this hollowness I’ve carried since I fell into existence as a Nobody?

Most Nobodies that are born are like Dusks. Only a very strong-hearted person creates a Nobody that retains the same shape as its former self. That seemed to be the ultimate goal of the experiments, at least at the end. Xehanort wanted to find strong-hearted people, create humanoid Nobodies by turning them into Heartless and then he’d have perfect vessels. And he apparently tricked the apprentices (except Braig) into willingly becoming Nobodies. They’d be exactly the same, just without hearts. And of course, he’d use the test subjects from the experiments who didn’t become corrupted by darkness. They would obviously have strong hearts and if he forcibly extracted their hearts like he did with Braig, then they’d create special Nobodies.

“I am Lexaeus. You’ve done well thus far. But to possess your powers and yet fear darkness… What a waste.”

Riku scowled. “I do not…fear it!” he said as if to convince himself. “I’m—”

“I sense that you do,” Lexaeus interrupted, quite unperturbed. “You’re also capable of controlling the darkness. Cast away your useless fear. Open your heart and embrace the darkness.”

“And if I don’t?” Riku retorted, steadily closing in on Lexaeus.

If he embraced the darkness, he would become stronger—but he didn’t need that kind of strength. He only wanted to use his own strength.

Lexaeus absolutely talks like becoming a Nobody was a choice he made. He looks down on Riku for being afraid of darkness.

Lexaeus gave him the briefest of smiles and raised his heavy ax-like sword. “Then, you lose both light and darkness—and disappear!” Enormously powerful darkness radiated from him, fierce enough to make Riku think of Ansem. Riku grunted as the pressure of it slammed against him.

“I, Lexaeus, will not yield to the frail heart of an infantile coward! Now, stop resisting—and let the darkness in!”

“Never!” Riku brandished Soul Eater and rushed at Lexaeus. “I am not afraid of the darkness!”

“Ha! Nonsense! You can become stronger… But if you do not accept the darkness…you will be destroyed!” Lexaeus’s sword knocked Riku back and came down on the floor with enough force to cleave it, scattering chips of marble, which Lexaeus crumbled in his fist.

These bits from the CoM novels are sadly the most characterization Lexaeus gets. 

“Rgh… To think…you had so much power…” Now Lexaeus dropped heavily to his knees.

Riku jumped back to put some distance between them, also out of breath. “What’s the matter, Lexaeus…?” he said between gasps.

Even without using the darkness…I can still defeat you.

“Darkness isn’t…all it’s cracked up to be, huh?” Riku told him. “This fight…is mine.”

But you can tell that he is really obsessed with strength.

Lexaeus gave him a cruel smile. “Hmph…so I must accept my defeat here. But do not make the mistake of underestimating the darkness in me! As I am destroyed, it will leave this ruined vessel and drown you!”

Then there was a terrible shock wave far greater than what Riku had felt from the darkness that Lexaeus radiated before the battle.

“Wh…what’s happening?!” A relentless swirl of darkness surrounded him, swallowing him up until he disappeared into it.

Lexaeus laughed madly. “This is my strength… I, number five in the organization… I who was once his favorite pupil!”

Those were Lexaeus’s final words before he vanished into the darkness.

We do get a particularly interesting bit of info. He was a favorite pupil. Given the way he talks about fearing the darkness, it sounds like he’s referring to Xehanort. Aeleus was lured in by the promise of greater power.

When Zexion thought back on their erstwhile research, the “plan” seemed to him like a contradiction in terms—trying to reclaim what they had lost through their own actions. He didn’t believe they had done anything wrong by studying and producing the Heartless. It just so happened that in that process, they had forfeited their own hearts.

Zexion said that they lost their hearts while studying and producing Heartless. Of course, he was a kid, so I don’t expect him to know everything that was going on with Xehanort. But he and Even lost their hearts around the same time. Ienzo doesn’t talk like Xehanort personally extracted his heart like he did with Braig. He speaks like it was the result of the experiment they were doing.

“I tell you, the project failed,” Marluxia repeated. “And I must report that failure to our leader.”

Their leader—a man who had once had another name with other memories… He was the actual fake. The one who had stolen the identity of Ansem.

“What— No, wait! Don’t tell him that!” Vexen sounded as if he might fall to his knees and beg.

Marluxia made a small cruel smirk and told him quietly, “Perhaps we can work something out.”

“How?” Vexen looked up.

And all I can really say about Even is that he doesn’t like going down into the basement where the experiments took place, because apparently he has bad memories of being there. And he is absolutely terrified of Xehanort. I don’t think he was ever a willing participant in what was going on. But he seems to have gone along with what the others were doing due to fear and probably a desire to protect Ienzo.

Day 119: Hearts and Emotion

Author: Xaldin

Watching that foolish beast flail about only deepens my disdain for humans and their incessant need to be pinned down by feelings. We became Nobodies precisely to avoid the shackles of emotion. It was only later that we realized the scale of that loss: that some things simply cannot be done without a heart. Nonetheless, I see nary a pleasant thing about it.

Xaldin flat-out states that he chose to become a Nobody to escape emotions. When they were recompleted, Even, Ienzo, Dilan, and Aeleus were inside of that transporter area. This is what let the MCP warp Sora into Space Paranoids. And Braig was already with Young Xehanort when he was recompleted.

“We’re Nobodies. We have no one to be—we just are. But now you don’t have to be at all. No more existence, no more memories.

You’re off the hook.”

Axel didn’t seem to be paying attention to Sora and the others. He only looked at Vexen.

“No one to be?” What could that even mean…?

But Lea and Isa were outside of that area, and they were the only two “apprentices” wearing the black robes. Lea looks like he was going towards the computer and Isa looks like he was going towards Lea. And Axel never talked at all like someone who ever planned to lose his heart like all the other apprentices. He clearly was not in on whatever plan they had. Axel treats the apprentices far differently than the other Organization members. He’ll happily play cards with Luxord, and he defends Demyx when Roxas makes fun of him for being useless. But he delights in taking out Vexen and Zexion. And those two seemed like they were the apprentices who were the least morally responsible for what happened.

“Nothing less from the great Ansem—that’s what I should say, isn’t it? Or maybe—”

“You don’t know what you’re talking about! I’m protecting those islands!” Riku rushed into range, but this time the Claymore, Saïx’s sword, was there to block Soul Eater.

“How do you expect to protect anything when you’ve cloaked yourself in darkness? You sold your soul for power. Was it worth it?”

“Shut up.” Soul Eater pushed back the Claymore with a terrific clang.

When Saïx faces Riku in KH2, he acts absolutely disgusted with him for giving himself over to darkness in order to gain power. He was furious when Naminé told him he had a heart. He wanted one more than anything.

The human form of Xigbar, one of Organization XIII’s members. He became a Nobody during a certain experiment.

The journal in KH3D said that Braig became a Nobody during a certain experiment. And in KH3D, all of the Nobodies who have been recompleted have separate journal entries. Lea, Braig, Even, Ienzo, Aeleus, and Dilan all have journal entries for their regular selves. But Isa didn’t get one. Just Saïx. It implies that he wasn’t even recompleted as Isa at all. And when Braig and Young Xehanort retrieve him, he’s still unconscious. Young Xehanort calls him “Saïx” before he’s even retrieved. There was just nothing to ever indicate that they were apprentices before KH3. And it still feels implausible at best.

[amazildoessomethingstupid]

Character Re-imagined: Sandy

Well kids, we’re still doing our time for artist hiatus crimes so let’s move on to the next chapter! Chapter 100: High Expectatio-

OH FUCK RIGHT, I’M SO SORRY I DID NOT FORGET ABOUT YOU SANDY!  I SWEAR!

Okay, for those who haven’t dug too into this rant series.  A while back, I did a half-rant on the chapter Model Girlfriend, which of course was the chapter where Sandy came back to Roseville for a day.  I ended up not really finishing it because I found most of the talking points that I’d use, and the complaints I had with the chapter, weren’t necessarily with the chapter itself as much as it was with the characterization of Sandy.  And my problem with the characterization was more to do with how I wrote Sandy in comparison to how the canon wrote her.  And simply saying that my problem with a character was that she wasn’t how I wrote her just isn’t a fair critique by any measure.  And no matter what people may think about the rants, the one thing I don’t want the rants to be perceived as, is unfair.  

So I decided that I would do something similar to what I had done before, which was a Character Revisited which was for Paulo.  Where I talked about Paulo’s characterization before Boy Toy and how much of a difference was done to his personality, and demeanor in the recent chapters specifically Table for One (Actually, is it still technically “recent” if these chapters are 3 years old? Man this shit is long).  Anyway, I wanted to something similar for Sandy but be more of a Character Reimagined, talking about what I ended up having to do with the character and how I wrote them for January and False Idol.  It was SUPPOSED to be after the Pit Stop but I kind of forgot about it, and uhh…

I got distracted.  But nonetheless, we’re here now so let’s dive right into it.  This is Sandy Re-imagined.

So if we’re going to talk about my Sandy, and her development as a character we of course have to start with January, and January’s take on Just Beautiful.  And if you don’t know what January is, I’m not going to get too into it but it’s essentially my fancomic which is a faithful (as possible…) alternate take of the whole January arc, following the timeline from December to Happy Hour. And at its rough and rebellious beginnings, it was very run and gun in terms of writing.  I didn’t care as much about building characters outside of setting scenes, and focusing on Lucy and Susan…until…

I had to do Just Beautiful. A chapter that I hated, featuring a character that I hated, that was centered around a ship I didn’t care about, and had little effect on what was happening in the story aside from just making Mike remorseful, because of…

Yeeeah back then, I figured out that Sandy is more of a plot device, than an actual character (an opinion that still holds water today, and I swear to god I will get to that chapter). So I really did not care about her, or give her character any thought until I had to do this segment for January. Because, I cornered myself to do the chapter and realized something… “Hey, fuckface!  You’re a writer!  You don’t think this is interesting or fun?  Then just make it interesting and fun for you!” Sandy is such a blank slate of a character that I could kind of do anything I wanted for her outside of what’s established, and since there wasn’t much established it meant I had to…

Get creative! The first part of writing Sandy was tackling the issues I had with her character in comic, specifically how little we know of her personality, how she interacts not only with Mike, but with people outside of her relationship.  How does she take to adversity, how does she tackles problems, what problems does she face, how do they conflict with her relationship, and how does her relationship clash with that? And in January I couldn’t really dive too deep into that, especially because the story isn’t about her; it’s about Lucy.  But I wanted to at least give something, or hint at that with her little scene just to show that there is at least something there.  But more importantly, I wanted to establish one very key feature about Sandy. Something that I felt the comic left out, and it seems will never come true.

Sandy feels the distance too.  If you look at the scene in January, this is the one bit of dialogue (except on bit at the end) between Mike and Sandy that isn’t directly from the canon to stick to the canon.  And It is the main part of Sandy that I keep at her core because it is one of the one things we knew about Sandy which is that she loves Mike (aaaaand then Model Girlfriend came along and threw a wrench into that…) but at least for me this is what makes up Sandy.  And since we’re talking about Sandy as a character I am going to spoil False Idol quite a bit, because False Idol is essentially a story about finding out about Sandy.  Who she is, what her life is like, and how Mike plays into that.  But one of the main things about Sandy, that I changed about her is brought up in this one bit in January.

Sandy doesn’t tell anyone about Mike.  The more I thought about how little we know about Sandy as a person, the more I thought about how little Mike knows about Sandy as a person.  Which helped to expand her character more as a person.  Looking at Model Girlfriend the whole idea of “Mike really doesn’t know Sandy as a person” was realized…but taken to a more bitter end. Whereas I still held onto the idea of Sandy really loving Mike, but she doesn’t share that with anyone.  She keeps her romantic life separated from her co-workers and classmates, which is also touched on in False Idol.

And more importantly, it goes both ways.  In this way, there’s a lot more intrigue and options in Sandy’s character.  Why is she keeping Mike a secret?  Why did Sam have to steal Sandy’s phone to find this out? Is she ashamed of people knowing Mike’s her boyfriend or is there something more?  And Why haven’t we heard anything about these guys?  And the answer is something I won’t tell you, because that’d be too much of a spoiler, but what I will say is, that at her core the main statement I want to define Sandy is this: Sandy loves Mike.  She loves him as much as Mike loves her. BUT when creating a character, and understanding a character there is one big factor to consider which I found the most fun in writing Sandy and what elevated her into a character that I found myself very engrossed in as a writer.  To the point where even after 3 years I am still dedicated to writing her story in False Idol!  And the one thing to always remember is that no matter what as strong, complex, or emotional your character is.  They are only as interesting as the environment you put them in.  That’s why if you look at the Just Beautiful scene in January, the first time we see Sandy say anything, before she sees Mike; the first interaction we see to give us an idea of how she is outside of Mike is her talking to her best friend.

Sam!  Who has grown on me like an aggressive tumor, and will probably be the death of me.  The big part about writing Sandy and trying to make this character more interesting was building the environment around her.  Brainstorming ideas, and thinking about what her life is like outside of Mike. There is a joke song I wish to make someday parodying Avenue Q and BCB, called There is Life Outside of Your Plot Line, and that’s basically what I wanted to explore with Sandy.  Specifically her and the models.  It’d be easy to assume that the modeling business is cutthroat, and her coworkers are bitchy people, and it’s so taxing, and she hates it, and all that jazz.  But I wanted to take it in a different direction where her work environment isn’t actually that bad.  Her co-workers are nice and down to earth people, with their own personalities and viewpoints.  The first model to get expanded on like this of course being Sam, and her dynamic with Sandy.  This is where of course False Idol comes in and brings out that world more. To give us a better understanding of the kind of people that Sandy hangs around with. But in order to flesh that out I’d need more than Sam which is why in False Idol!

We get a slew of new characters!  In order: Charlie Hartman, Daniel “Dan” Mercado, Samantha “Sam” Cartwright, Ashley “Ash” Clements, Alice McCarthy, and Jason “Jay” Cartwright.  Oh and sadly I couldn’t fit him in here, but I would be doing my man a disservice by not mentioning him,

Tyrone the lovable meathead beefcake!  The only one who I didn’t make a last name for.  Because he doesn’t need it.  He’s just Tyrone.  Although I can only take half-credit for him, because he’s more of a shared joke between me and a friend that we both had a lot of fun working on.  All of these characters help to build the setting and world that Sandy lives in, with their own different personalities.  Sam being a spunky, rebellious, and surprisingly mature scamp; Alice being a very prideful, conceited, yet down to earth, and caring person; Ash being a grounded soft, cute, but hardened and smart girl.  All of the characters help to give us an idea of not only Sandy, but an idea of what she deals with and the people she associates with.  And one important thing about these characters, is the fact that I deliberately wrote it to where not one of these characters were assholes.  I didn’t want to fall into the trapping of having Sandy’s life outside of Mike be some like horrible mean world and Mike’s her only escape, or make it where “Oh little did we know that Sandy’s suffering from this one HORRIBLE MESSED UP THING! SO NOW YOU HAVE TO FEEL BAD FOR HER AND SYMPATHIZE WITH HER OR ELSE YOU’RE AN ASSHOLE!” No, I wanted Sandy to have a fairly average life.  So if you were thinking False Idol was gonna do some fucked up heel-turn like “OH BOY, LITTLE DID YOU KNOW THAT SANDY IS ACTUALLY A DRUG ADDICT AND WHORED HERSELF OUT TO GET THE JOB!” I’m sorry that’s not happening…Actually, fuck you I’m not sorry because that’s fucked up I’m not going there.  AND I SWEAR TO GOD IF TAESHI DOES SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE IT TURNS OUT OH NO, SANDY HAD SOME FUCKED UP SHIT GOING ON WE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT AND NOW WE ARE FORCED TO FEEL SAD!  I am going to be fucking fuming mad.

The main thing I wanted to do when writing Sandy, given how little we know about her and the setting she is in.  Is to show this setting she’s in and give us an idea of what her life was like.  I wrote Sandy and False Idol, in a way where you can look at her and the characters that surround her and feel like there was another comic going on at the same time.  And we’re just coming in after they’ve gone through their own different mini story arcs and this is some big moment in their story too.  I mean imagine if Mike suddenly went missing, running away from home and then Sandy comes to Roseville to get answers.  And then she learns more about everyone, and all the stuff Mike’s been through…

Actually that’d be pretty damn cool honestly.  Damn. Taeshi should steal that.  That would be fucking awesome and turn this ship around quick…sigh…if only.  Anyway, what I’m trying to say here is this.

Sandy is a character that I hated.  She was a character that I did not care about at all, and didn’t think anything of.  I saw her in the comic as a plot device and nothing more.  But with creative thinking, care, and love for the comic I reinvented her to be more than that.  To be a good character in her own right.  With her own message, with her own story to tell.  And I believe she has the potential to be just that.  To be more than what she is.  I didn’t want her to be a lie, or a complete fake of what Mike thought she was.  I wanted her to be nice, caring, wholesome, naïve, mature, a little selfish, sneaky, clever, but full of love and surrounded by love and support.   She loves her friends, she loves Mike, she loves her job.

And to see her in canon I just…

I feel disappointed to see her as nothing but a plot device to stab the reader in the gut with and make them feel bad.  I wish she was more.  More than an enigma, more than a bitch, more than another person to make Mike feel bad. Sandy could’ve been better.  She could’ve been so much better.  And I just wish Taeshi did better.  

As someone I looked up to, as someone who inspired me… I wish she’d be better than me.  

[fivewrites]

That’s Not How Child Abuse Works: Todoroki Enji Edition

Let’s talk about character design and child abuse in BNHA.

Let me be clear: Enji Todoroki is a bad person. Full stop. This is not a defense of him, or an excuse of his behaviours in any way. This is, however, an examination of the specific ways in which he is a bad person, and why I feel a fair portion of the fandom gets him and his relationship with Shoto Todoroki wrong.

So, who is Enji Todoroki?

Trigger warning for discussions of physical, emotional and sexual abuse, as well as domestic violence under the cut

Also, spoilers

Alright, let me start off with a preface. It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. This is not a strict do-and-do-not of writing. No one is stopping you from writing whatever you want. If you want to write rape as a plot device or cheap shock-value characterization for your villain, I literally cannot stop you. No one can stop you. Go ahead. 

As well, this post contains hypothesis and conjecture that are not proven as fact by the canonical text, but may or may not be inferred through examination. In no way am I trying to state that my assumptions or suggestions are true or canonical, they are merely that - suggestions on how to write realistic portrayals of familial abuse.

Thirdly, there is a very good resource out there for examining abusers. I have found the text Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men by Lundy Bancroft invaluable to understanding the patterns of abuse. You can read the whole PDF for free here.

Have fun and be creative, pals.

From what we know of the story, Enji Todoroki is the #2 hero in the world, and has been for quite some time. He is deeply jealous and insecure about this. About the fact that he has never, and probably will never take the number one spot away from All Might. And so, at some point in his life, Enji came up with a plan. He was going to have a son who would do it for him.

Flash forward a bit; Enji paid off the family of Shoto’s mother in order to marry her and have access to her quirk. He was going to produce what would be, in his mind, a perfect heir. (This is bad. He is a bad person for doing this. Full stop.) Enji had several children before Shoto, whom he considers to be “failures” and presumably has little to no relationship with them. However, Shoto’s mother was eventually able to bear a child hybridized with both their powerful quirks. Happy with the result, Enji has since taken it upon himself to form Shoto into his perfect heir.

Enji has done this through abusive means of control and dominance, and in doing so has created a highly toxic relationship between himself, his wife and his son. Much of the problems in the Todoroki household are because of Enji’s actions. He is an abuser. But what kind of abuser he is is not random, and the abusive acts he performs are not random, either.

So who is Enji Todoroki?

Simply put, he’s a Stage Mom. He’s an asshole, abusive, controlling stage mom who treats his son more like a Pokemon than a person.

He is the kind of parent that will drag Shoto out of bed for practice, force him to eat and study, control every minute of his schedule and make sure this kid is going to become, by any means necessary, the man he could never be. That is Enji’s logic. He wants Shoto to succeed where he failed, by any means necessary. 

However, Enji has a logical plan for his son. All of his abusive actions have a purpose. He’s not going to meet his desired goals by harming Shoto to the point of total physical and emotional destruction. He would only be sabotaging himself.

What does Enji Todoroki want?

Power - Enji wants to be the number one hero instead of All Might. Barring that, he wants his son to be #1 in his stead Respect - from his family, and the general public, Enji wants to be seen in a positive light Control - Enji wants to be in control of himself, his family, his work and his destiny Legacy - Enji wants to extend his power beyond just himself, into his children so they continue projecting his power even after he dies

What is Enji Todoroki afraid of?

Losing power - physically and professionally, Enji cannot handle being seen as a weak man, or have Shoto be seen as a weak son. Losing respect - Enji needs his family and the public to treat him as the man he sees himself as Losing control - Enji cannot allow his son or anyone else to disobey him and prevent him from realizing his goals Losing legacy - If Shoto does not become who he wants, Enji will have wasted a huge portion of his life and resources on a failed project

Enji, being a logical and sane* person is going to pursue actions that lead him towards his desired goals. He is also going to avoid actions that will cause him to lose his desired goals.

(*Sane in this case simply meaning “capable of rational thought”. Not moral or ethical thought. Sane people can choose to lie, steal, murder, rape, etc. They are deliberately choosing bad choices, but they are still sane.)

At this point, I would also highly recommend reading the section in Bancroft’s book on the types of abusers in chapter 4, page 219. You can decide for yourself which one (or several) Enji fits under.

Knowing Enji’s goals and mindset, here are a few common tropes I see in Todoroki fic and why I feel they’re not all that logically plausible

Enji beats Shoto within an inch of his life

Simply put, Enji has no reason to do this. Enji sees his son as an extension of himself and his own accomplishments. Shoto is, to him, a prize pig. Physically brutalizing Shoto would be Enji brutalizing himself.

Remember, Enji has an image that he wants to project to the outside world. He is a public figure. A celebrity. He wants the public to see him, and by extension his family, as powerful, united, untouchable and also a traditionally conservative Japanese family. 

The media and public would likely become suspect of Enji’s power and likability if they saw his son consistently covered in bruises. Or worse (for Enji) they might assume that Shoto has been losing a bunch of fights and is a weak hero. Enji absolutely would not want the world to think this, and would not let his perfect son be seen as weak or defeated.

While it is reasonable to assume that Enji might use corporal punishment for misbehaviour, there is no reason to assume that he assaults Shoto to the point of hospitalization or death.

It is also reasonable to assume that Enji overtrains Shoto, and pushes him beyond his physical limits in pursuit of shaping him into the perfect warrior. We saw him train Shoto until he vomits as a child. However, this still follows Enji’s logical purpose of making him “better”. It is unlikely that he would physically attack Shoto for frivolous reasons, like his own amusement or anger. It would undercut his goal of turning Shoto into a miniature version of himself.

Enji starves Shoto

Again, there is no reason for Enji to do this. He wants to project to the world that he is strong, and by extension, his family is strong. Starving Shoto would seriously harm Enji’s plans for him.

Shoto would struggle physically and mentally in school, and Enji wants a top performer

Shoto wouldn’t develop properly physically, and Enji wants a big, strong son to prove he is a big, strong father

Enji wants to project to the world that he is powerful and in control. If the public saw Shoto as small and shrimpy, they would seriously question his strength and authority as a patriarch. What, this powerful man is so broke he can’t afford food for his son?

Now, as an asshole stage mom who tries to control his son’s life, it would probably make more sense to put Shoto on an extreme health food diet in order to improve his performance. But outright starvation? It doesn’t make sense.

Besides. Have you seen this 5’9” 155-pounds-of-muscle kid? He is not starving.

Enji locks Shoto in his room for extended periods

Maybe when Shoto was younger and misbehaved? It’s not an unlikely punishment by an abusive parent, especially for a younger child, but Shoto is a teenager now. And, as we can see in the current story, Shoto has fairly free movement, both inside the household and out. 

He regularly visits his mother in the hospital, is out long after dark in the hideout raid arc, and basically goes wherever he wants whenever he wants. At 15, Shoto isn’t being locked up anywhere by his father. He is a dutiful and obedient son and Enji doesn’t seem to worry about him running away from home.

Another point to consider is that a lot of this freedom is still predicated on Shoto’s conditional obedience to Enji overall. Enji allows Shoto freedom because he believes that Shoto is following in his footsteps, even if he deems his son “rebellious” at times. If Enji decided that Shoto was at risk of running away or betraying him, his punishments may become much more severe.

See: Why He Stays section below

This is also why Shoto’s rebellious compromise in the first two seasons is an incredibly clever survival mechanism. He is, technically, still following his father’s plan for him. However, by choosing to ignore his fire side, he is still disobeying his father. But his father cannot reasonably punish him for that since Shoto is still a top-ranking student and a powerful quirk user overall. It’s a brilliant power-play when all the power rests in Enji’s hands.

Enji verbally abuses Shoto to make him feel bad about himself

Yes and No? It’s likely that Enji does say a lot of really terrible things to his son. The way he speaks in the manga and anime suggest a man who has very little respect for those he considers to be beneath him, and only begruding respect for those who are above him.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Enji insults or even threatens Shoto. But he does it for a purpose. As stated above, Enji wants to maintain control and power, and to continue his legacy through Shoto.

He doesn’t want Shoto to feel weak or degraded or to become a pushover in life. He wants Shoto to become strong and impenetrable, a perfect recreation of toxic masculinity. If Shoto were to break down crying from insults, Enji would have failed in creating Shoto into someone who is hard and emotionless. Therefore extreme verbal abuse to the point where Shoto is crying is less likely than just casual bullying.

Shoto is untouchable and has never, ever been touched or hugged

His mother loved him. When Shoto was a young child, we see her in the anime hugging and cuddling her son. So that’s out.

In the present, Shoto lives with other people than just his father. In the anime, we see that Fuyumi still lives at home, and cares about what Shoto does, as shown when he goes to visit his mother in the hospital. I find it highly unlikely that siblings in a reasonably amicable relationship never, ever hug, even if they are generally busy in their separate lives.

It is unclear if Shoto still lives with his brothers, or the older woman who was taking care of them in the flashback panel of the manga, but again, it would be stange if these people, who are presumably not abusive, never, ever touched Shoto in any affectionate way ever. Shoto isn’t cursed.

While it is reasonable to assume that Enji is an old-school patriarch who doesn’t show much, if any, physical affection to his son, he still gives him some attention, and provides Shoto with everything he needs to be a successful hero. (whether Shoto wants to follow this path or not is another story. Fortunately, Shoto does)

Enji likely still trains with Shoto, sparring with him and showing him fighting technique. He may not hug his son, but he doesn’t ignore him. He might even pat him on the back if Shoto does something that Enji approves of, such as boosting the family profile in public. 

We saw at the sports festival how proud Enji was of Shoto using his fire half. Yes, it was a selfish pride, and Enji was really more congratulating himself than his son, but we saw that Enji doesn’t just hate Shoto for the sake of it. 

Is Shoto touch-starved? Possibly. He has probably seen less physical affection than someone with loving parents like Izuku or Ochako, but I doubt it is so extreme to the point of him breaking down into tears because he’s never had a tender hug.

Any form of sexual abuse

No. Look, I get it, Enji is an asshole and we hate him. I won’t deny this. But you can be an asshole and not be a child molester. And it is, quite frankly, lazy writing to take a character whom you want to show is an Evil Bastard™ and just write him off as “child rapist”. Because that’s not who Enji is. Enji Todoroki is a lot of things. He’s a bad person. But he is not someone who molests his own son.

Now, if you want to talk about marital rape, there is certainly enough evidence to believe that Enji’s relationship with Shoto’s mother was non-consensual, and probably violent. I will not argue this point. But Enji feeling entitled to women’s bodies and using Shoto’s mother to produce the perfect child still doesn’t make him a child molestor. These are two very separate forms of Evil Bastardry.

Enji’s pattern of abuse follows a logical train of thought. It’s not ethical, and it’s not kind, but it does make logical sense for his character. What doesn’t make sense is him trying to create a perfect superhero offspring, and then seriously damaging that child with sexual abuse. That’s not Enji’s purpose or plan. Enji used Shoto’s mother to produce Shoto. He has no reason to attack Shoto in this way, beyond “hurr hurr I’m evil”. It would sabotage Shoto’s chances at becoming the national hero that Enji desires

Ways to accurately examine and portray the abuse that happens in the Todoroki household

Because, absolutely, there is abuse. And it is serious. Just because Shoto isn’t being locked up or starved or beaten doesn’t mean he is not being abused or hasn’t been abused in the past. But the abuse needs to follow Enji’s logical train of thought. He has a very specific goal in mind, and he is willing to do anything to accomplish that goal, even if it means everyone in his life suffering for it.

This following section contains my own opinions regarding portrayal of domestic abuse and violence. It is not a set of must-follow rules, merely suggestions based on personal and professional experience.

Physical abuse

Physical striking as a form of specific discipline for misbehaviour make sense, but not random, extreme violence

Enji wants Shoto to be obedient, but also strong. He would not be not above using violence to control his son, but it would need to be in connection to direct misbehaviour, and relative to the infraction Shoto has committed.

Abusers, despite what they claim, generally do not “lose it” or not understand their own strength. They know what they are doing and how hard they can hit. A professional fighter like Enji especially knows how hard he can hit a person and what damage he can cause. Any damage done to Shoto would be deliberate, and Enji would have to deal with the consequences of extreme violence.

Shoto cannot continue to train under Enji if he is constantly dealing with serious injuries and needing hospitalization to recover.

Overtraining Shoto and ignoring his physical and verbal needs for rest

This is actually more emotional and psychological abuse than physical, because it shows Enji cares about his own trajectory for Shoto more than Shoto himself. 

And again, the physical abuse needs to follow the logical sense of making Shoto better in Enji’s eyes. For example, he’s not going to make Shoto scrub all the floors in their house, because he takes pride in his creation and likely believes Shoto would be above such menial tasks.

Controlling Shoto’s diet

While I don’t think it’s logical for Enji to starve Shoto, It would be more reasonable for him to develop Orthorexia, a condition similar to anorexia where someone is obsessed with health and purity of foods. He would make sure Shoto is eating entirely healthy food that he approves of, while prohibiting anything he sees as unhealthy, like sugar or candy.

Controlling Shoto’s rest schedule

Same with food, in his household, Enji probably controls when Shoto trains and sleeps. However, by 15, Shoto is probably used to this and sees it as completely normal and not abusive. Human beings are amazing at normalizing the worst things.

Controlling Shoto’s study and free time

In order to min/max his Pokemon son’s fighting stats, Enji probably wouldn’t let Shoto waste his time with things children do like “hobbies” or “fun”.

Not allowing him to play with his siblings

Not allowing him to play with friends outside the family

Not allowing him to pursue anything that isn’t about becoming a hero, such as art or video games. Part of Shoto’s awkwardness is likely because he’s not terribly up to speed with pop culture references, seeing as how he likely has very little time to consume these things that Enji would see as frivolous

Using any and all free time Shoto has to train him into becoming a hero

Verbal Abuse

When abusers use their words, they use them very specifically. While they may make excuses like “I didn’t mean it” or “I didn’t know what I was saying at the time” this is a lie. They know what they are saying and they know why it hurts. They specifically want to instill fear or shame in their target in order to keep control over them. When giving Enji Todoroki dialogue, it is important to remember what his (fucked up) goals and values are, and how he is trying to achieve those (fucked up) goals and values.

Instead of just calling Shoto names randomly, Enji would likely make everything about himself.

“You’re no son of mine”

“Why can’t you be more like me?”

“You’re my son, Shoto, act like it.”

Enji would likely try to shape Shoto’s world view to be extremely similar to his own, giving Shoto biased information, no matter its accuracy

“Your mother was a weak woman who didn’t raise you correctly”

“All Might is a fool and you’d be a fool to admire him”

“Those kids at school are just trying to drag you down. Don’t spend time with them.”

Praise and affection would be given in relation to how Enji personally feels and how Shoto is living up to his father’s demands

“You’re becoming the man I knew you could be”

“I’ve worked so hard to create you”

“You’re strong, like me”

Psychological Abuse

This is probably the biggest factor in Enji’s abuse, far more than anything physical he does to Shoto. And while writers may think physical acts such as beating and starvation make for good story, I would argue that these more subtle acts in the relationship are more realistic, and can prove far more damaging in the long run.

Enji treats Shoto like an object, not a person.

This is the biggest single factor of abuse, and is the core of their relationship’s toxicity. Enji does not see Shoto as his own person with his own thoughts, opinions or desires. He sees Shoto as a miniature extension of himself that he can use and control in order to be more successful as a hero, and eventually take the number one spot from All Might.

Enji does not allow Shoto the freedom to grow and develop as his own person, and pursue any interests beyond those interests of himself.

Enji only supports his son’s confidence in relation to him becoming a hero.

Shoto has been denied a normal childhood and normal development in pursuit of his father’s goals

Shoto can see his friends at school hang out and talk and laugh and watch movies and play video games and be kids. Shoto was likely not allowed to do any of that and he can feel incredibly isolated, lonely and bitter about not being able to relate to his peers

Shoto can have confidence issues, even when he is #1

Enji has built a kind of fragile confidence in Shoto. He needs his son to be #1 all the time. #2 just isn’t good enough. Many child prodigies have spoken out about how parental pressure crushed their self-esteem and destroyed whatever passion they had for their chosen subject (art, music, dance, sports, being a hero)

Being raised in an environment of constant pressure and criticism can lead a person to develop a highly critical self-image and OCD tendencies. They constantly feel “never good enough” because to the parent they looked up to, they never were. There was always something that needed improvement.

Enji is living through his child

Because Shoto has been denied his own childhood, he is being used, physically and psychologically, by his father as a way to live out his own unfulfilled dreams of success. This is incredibly damaging for Shoto because he cannot feel like a whole person in and of himself. Children who are used b their parents in this way often feel like a kind of mask that the parent wears, rather than a child who is loved and nurtured.

Children who are used by their parents also tend to have a poor or underdeveloped sense of self-image, and Shoto may have difficulty separating his own choices and desires from that of his father.

Unable to mature emotionally

Because Enji controls so much of his son’s life, Shoto is unable to grow emotionally and unable to make important decisions for himself, from picking out his own clothes, to saying no to peer pressure

Shoto will probably have difficulty forming intimate relationships (romantic or platonic) because he has very little reference of how to behave in a non-abusive way.

He may unconsciously replicate his father’s abusive behaviours with a partner

Even if Shoto can recognise abusive behaviours and not want to replicate them, he would struggle because he does not know what else to do

Potential psychological things Enji might do

Ignoring / Discouraging Shoto from pursuing anything Enji does not approve of

“Hey dad, look, I drew a bird!” “That’s nice son, how many criminals have you fought today?”

Forgetting important milestones like birthdays or good grades

Enji is self-absorbed with his own goals and does not take interest in his son’s personal life beyond how it would benefit him, personally. Shoto has grown up feeling like he owes his father and his family success and that a lot is riding on him to be the best. Shoto does not get a reward for getting perfect grades, he gets a “This is what I expect of you.”

Imbalance of power amongst siblings

One very common tactic amongs abusers is splitting the power dynamic of the household in order to maintain and control power for themselves

Abusers will often pick a “golden child” that they place all of their expectations upon, and then compare all other children to that child.

“Fuyumi, why can’t you be more like Shoto? He’s doing great and you’re doing terrible.”

This builds resentment between siblings and prevents them from allying with each other against the abuser.

It places the “golden child” in a difficult position of conditional acceptance between allying with the abusive parent, or allying with the rest of the family and risk losing their ascended position.

(See Azula from ATLA: Azula’s power came from the fact that she was “not a failure like Zuko” and saw favour in her father’s eyes only when compared to the child he did not like)

Refusing to acknowledge the relationship Shoto had with his mother, or misrepresenting it to the public

Enji knew that Shoto loved his mother, and saw her psychological breakdown / attack on Shoto as her own failing, and not related to his own abusive behaviour. Even when abusers absolutely know they are in the wrong, they do not take responsibility for their actions, and find ways to shift blame to someone or something else so that they are never forced to change their behaviour. This would build huge resentment in Shoto if his father never acknowledged that his mother’s breakdown was his fault

To the public, Enji still wants to project that powerful, traditional family ideal. He probably either didn’t say anything to the media and they don’t know that Shoto’s mother is gone, or he lied, making it again sound like her breakdown was some sort of freak accident and not a direct result of his abuse.

Why does he stay?

Why does any abuse survivor stay? Why not just run away and go live with Midoriya or Aizawa? The simple answer is, it’s safer to stay than to leave.

The truth about abuse is that there is no easy solution. There is no adoption rescue. Even calling the Japanese equivalent of child protective services is not an instant fix, and cases can take months, if not years to resolve.

For Shoto to be taken away from his family, Enji would have to prove he is unfit as a parent in the court of law. Unfortunately, courts very often side with the parent. If Enji is not starving, beating up or molesting his child, the court system would likely justify his custody of his child. Being a terrible asshole is not enough of a reason to be taken away from your parent, in a legal sense

If Shoto leaves, who becomes the target for blame?

In abusive relationships, there is often a protector, a sort of shock-absorber, who mediates the abuse. This may be the spouse / wife, or an older sibling protecting the younger ones. If Shoto leaves, his other siblings, including Fuyumi may be at much greater risk for Enji’s retribution. Abusers are often at heir most violent and unpredictable when their victim is trying to break away and leave

Shoto does not love his father, but he does grudgingly respect his skill

Shoto has his own goals. He wants to be a powerful hero, just as Midoriya and Bakugou do. And, in Shoto’s mind, his father is part of that goal. Shoto willingly chose his father’s agency to intern with, because he acknowledges that Enji is still an accomplished professional, even though his methods and attitude are shitty and abusive.

Is Shoto brainwashed / gaslit / controlled? Probably not insignificantly. If Shoto had been raised in a different environment, he may not feel compelled to apply to his father’s agency, but his choice shows that he is still actively attached to his family and not yet ready to leave.

Shoto may have an inheritance, or other resources at risk if he disobeys

Abusers often use financial control as a way of keeping their victims in line and unable to escape. If Shoto were to run away, he might very likely have no financial way to support himself, and may even have to drop out of an expensive school like UA, preventing him from achieving his goals of becoming a hero.

Enji has a lot of friends and resources

Enji, as a professional hero, has been working within the justice department for decades. He probably knows a lot of police officers, DAs, prosecutors, judges, etc. It is well known that cops are willing to commit crimes in order to protect one another within the system. If Enji’s son tries to accuse his father of child abuse, he is facing a hugely biased system where his father could influence or bribe the outcome. 

And as we know with his mother, Enji is not above corruption or bribery. Shoto is at great risk if he goes to the cops.

In Shoto’s case, the best solution in his mind seems to be to “bear it out” and wait until he comes of age in order to leave, rather that running away or getting the courts involved. This is not an uncommon strategy for many abused children. Whether or not it is the best one, no one can say. One can only hope that Shoto has the strength to make it through until he ages into legal adulthood and is able to move on from his abusive situation.

Other considerations: Dabi

If you a believe in the theory that Dabi is actually an older Todoroki child, there are other factors to take into consideration with Enji’s behaviour.

If Dabi was Enji’s first attempt at creating an heir, and Enji lost him, this means that Enji has already spent considerable time and resources on his plan to create the perfect son.

If he has already failed once, Enji might possibly not be as extremely harsh on Shoto if he believes that Shoto might run away or turn against him

Enji could see his failure with Dabi and try to correct his “mistakes” with the way he is raising Shoto.

Enji may still be in his prime, but not for long. He is aging, and probably doesn’t have much more chance for success to raise a child from birth if he is not successful with Shoto. Shoto is pretty much his final big investment, and after losing Dabi, Enji is going to take every precaution to make sure Shoto turns out the way he wants, for better or worse.

In conclusion

I feel like a stronger take on the abuse that Shoto survives is one that takes his father’s goals and neurosis into account, rather than just relying on the shock of extreme physical behaviour in order to draw empathy out of the reader. Shoto’s situation is bad, but it’s also sadly common and relatable in our world. Portraying Shoto’s abuse as more realistic is better writing than putting him in an easily solvable fantasy world here he is hit or molested and then adopted by a rescuer. 

Part of the reason I wrote this is because I see a lot of extreme examples of physical abuse in fiction and fanfiction, but few that go into or validate the subtleties of psychological abuse. Rather, these dangerous behaviours are often obscured or treated as tolerable or even romantic. I often walk away from a story feeling like the only “valid” abuse is that of the extreme kind.

But I want to press to readers and writers: subtle abuse is abuse. You don’t need to be beaten or starved or raped to be abused, to speak up, to pronounce that relationship as toxic and try your best to leave. It can be incredibly difficult, feeling trapped in a family that suffers from the generational trauma of abuse, and I can only give those of you who are living and surviving in these situations my deepest empathy and support.

http://www.thehotline.org/ https://ncadv.org/resources http://makeitourbusiness.ca/resources/internet-resources-for-domestic-violence

[gaymafia]

I’m legitimately curious why people didn’t like the last Jedi? I saw it and thought it was okay? Is there something I missed or? Like it wasn’t great but it was passable?

ok so i wasnt gonna do this here bc nobody fucking asked but u asked so thank u but also strap in ur ready for a while ride

TLJ spoilers, obviously. also my issues are going to be numbered in no particular order bc my thoughts on this movie are so fucking scrambled but here we go

1. Kyle Ron. First of all fuck Ryeanne for making me see so many goddamn closeups of Adam Driver’s ugly ass face. I did not need to see all that he is so goddamn ugly especially that fucking shirtless scene where he looks like a block of pasty ass pale wood.

But for real, Kylo Ren. I don’t actually take issue with his existence, because Kyle really does excellently represent rich ass white boys who have everything handed to them but throw a hissy fit when they face the slightest adversity an throw tantrums all the time. It’s nice to see a villain that represents most people real-life nightmares instead of like, a Sexy Temptress or Old Evil Man or whatever. That being said, kyle is not given the villain’s treatment in this movie. if you cut out all the scenes where ryan is not actively sucking adam driver’s dick and jizzing all over himself over kyle’s angsty white boy angst, the movie has virtually no real plot (”oh no we are in space with no fuel, nobody is going to do anything except get mad at each other, miscommunicate, and deliberately make all the characters of color worthless while separating Finn and Poe bc fuck the gays”). So much of the movie is spent not just establishing how kyle became kyle (which is good! backstory for villains is good!), but trying to get us to like, sympathize with him? which is the shitty part. I dont care that Luke “”””tried to kill”’’’ (he didn’t) kyle. kyle had turned to the dark side before luke’s mistake. kyle had a million and one chances to change his mind from the start of TFA to the end of TLJ, and he never did. Kyle is an evil guy. We need one of those. He’s a great evil guy bc he’s got so many shitty qualities. But ryin doesnt want us to hate kyle, even tho hes the villain. why the fuck doesnt reean want us to hate kyle? bc rayan is also a shitty little man who thinks giving ur white boy a sob story makes him a sympathetic villain and sidelining ur characters of color will help.

also again the fucking shirtless scene what the shit man that was so gross

2. Will be broken down into A, B, C, etc. bc TLJ treats its characters of color like SHIT. 

2A. Finn. Finn gets put in a coma bc why would anyone want to write anything interesting for john boyega its not like hes the MOST BEAUTIFUL MAN and the MOST TALENTED ACTOR who is being sidelined bc ryun hates black people. Yeah Finn is totally into Rey and he wants to save her and is willing to desert the rebellion for her. that happened in the first movie but why give your characters real arcs when you can recycle old ones to jerk off to kyle ron. the rose thing happens, shes like “we can disable the tracking” and like TWO SECONDS after he was dead set on desertion he’s totally down to risk his life for the rebellion at rey’s expense? that sure is a quick 180 with no real reason why and no writing to explain it! then there was the whole “separate finn and poe” thing ryain pulled for the shits and giggles.

2B. Rose. I was pretty chill with Rose, she had a dope backstory, her sister was badass, and I liked that they made that connection off the bat. I’m not mad about anything rayn did with her character but i genuinely believe thats only because i havent thought about it enough yet. give me a week and i’ll figure out how rain fucked it up. open to suggestions.

2C. Poe. Full offense but was I supposed to be mad at Poe for coming up with a plan when that bitch Holdo was like “I’m not gonna tell you my plan sit tight and be convinced we are all going to die :)” i legitimately did not understand how I was supposed to be mad at poe for doing what he thought was best for the rebellion after he asked holdo what the plan was and she was deliberately obstinate and refused to even be like “dont worry i have a plan” she was just like. so dumb. Also poe got thrown around a lot and i am A Little Suspicious of how much physical violence he experienced compared to many other characters.

2D. You guessed what was next! The slaps! Super awesome how the two men of color were slapped by white people!!!! So deep!!!!!!! For real tho uh the second time i saw this movie someone in the audience laughed when poe got slapped by space hitler hux and uh??? not funny. not funny or cute or clever to use the guy you built your entire nazi imagery on to slap the one black man on your cast. i dont care if it was supposed to make us “hate hux” or whatever more. i already hated hux reyn. you could have used that screentime in your 3 fucking hour long movie for something valuable, like giving finn a character arc, or literally anything else besides that goddamn slap. i was livid watching that.

and then with leia and poe? i get that part of the conflict was internal in the resistance and one of the major themes was how failure is the best teacher and all that but like? maybe stop physically assaulting all your characters of color? maybe uhhhh at least think about that first??

2E. like i mentioned before one of the obvious themes was how failure is the best teacher so naturally all the major characters had to fail at something, and then learn from their mistake to be better next time. with luke it was fucking up with kyle, with rey it was being naive enough to think kyle could turn, with poe it was the dreadnaught thing, finn was left out of this because raan dooesn give a shit abt finn bc hes a racist bastard, etc. but it was incredibly transparent how all of the white characters’ mistakes meant either personal losses or something small scale with one person, while the mistakes of the characters of color (poe/finn/rose) were all ones that cost the rebellion the vast majority of their forces. rey got out of her fight with kyle and snoke unscathed. luke got a lot of guilt and character development. What did finn poe and rose get? the deaths of like 99% of the resistance on their shoulders. A little too coincidental that even though rey LITERALLY GAVE HERSELF OVER TO SNOKE she was totally fine a-ok no real scars, finn and poe and rose doing their best to save the rebellion while admiral holdo refuses to tell them anything costs the resistance so fucking much. rey does the DUMBEST FUCKING THING with no real consequences and finn and poe and rose try their best and are punished severely for it.

2F. Really convenient how everything finn, poe, and rose did ended up being useless and just cost the rebellion lives, whereas at least rey’s mishap got snoke killed and taught her a lesson. reeeeaaaalllllyyyyyy convenient how finn, poe, and rose’s plan was a huge waste of time. it would have been much better for us to see an actual plot line with them that contributed to the story and their characterizations instead of “send them on a goose chase, make it pointless in the end, physically brutalize them along the way.

3. R*yl* bullSHIT: ryyn had a really fun time with a lot of very rape-y scenes in this movie. the whole force-connection thing with kyle and rey was soooooo uncalled for, it reeked of non-con fantasies, catered to the r*yl*s like nothing ever before, and was so goddamn gross. the obvious invasion of privacy and lack of consent was nasty, using it as a shitty device to make rey “come around” on kyle was NASTY and that whole thing was nasty. i know im not articulating this well but there was so much about that whole thing that bothered me. i just know reyhan was so fucking into it, inserting kyle into rey’s life, forcing her to completely drop all of her characterization in the first movie to suddenly thing kyle can be good, acting as if rey hasnt seen all the shit and known what hes done. the whole thing was gross and a really obvious example of why men shouldn’t be allowed to direct movies.

4. killing snoke was a dumbass fucking mistake. kyle is a tantrum-throwing temper-losing toddler. snoke was evil and mysterious and shit idk. we knew he was powerful as fuck, he looked like a testicle which is a great villain imo, he was the darth sidious and they killed him off while kyle is still in like. ep2!Anakin levels of angst. i get that kyle is already powerful or whatever but like. hes not cold and calculated the way snoke was. kyle is a good villain, but a weak main baddie bc hes dumb as fuck. he let the rebellion get away bc he was pissed at luke. that was dumb as fuck. kyle is ruined by his emotions, and snoke was a scarier main baddie bc he wasnt so fucking dumb lol

5. it was so fucking long. there were so many scenes that could have been cut or shortened. why did we need to see luke milking the tiddy of that weird alien cow thing. why did we need to see kyle ron shirtless. why did we need so many goddamn shots of the fucking porgs.

6. ya the porgs are cute or whatever but like. that whole “look at how sad the cute big-eyes porg is when chewie is eating his friend” thing was so dumb. i dunno why but i hated that the most. that was the worst thing the porgs did. they were cute but like chill disney u know they like ran algorithm after algorithm to make that porg the cutest it could be with science or some bullshit and like? thats dumb.

7. i get that the humor in star wars movies is shifting but i felt like there was too much of it and it was dumb. a lot of the riffs werent funny and there were too many of them for a star wars film. star wars usually doesnt take itself too seriously, but this one was a little too much for me.

8. there were too many plot twists for shock value. the story went on too long. it should have ended earlier but it didnt. i dont know why ryenn decided to have like 6 different climaxes but it was too much. should have let there be one climax buddy. thats it.

9. holdo. besides holdo being the white feminist icon why didnt she just fucking tell poe the plan. why. why was so deliberately obstinate when it was doing no good. like yeah of course poe sent out a crew to try to save the rebellion all u told him to shut up and let you handle it! obvously what she did in the end was badass or whatever but like uh hun next time dont be a piece of shit and then get mad when people react to you being a piece of shit. i would have been okay with all that happening if holdo wasnt treated like some hero who never made any mistakes. she did make a mistake, and that was refusing to tell poe what her plan was when she knew he was absolutely the type to do whatever he could to save the rebellion whether he had her permission or not. also apparently holdo is a lesbian or bi or not straight or something in like the comics or whatever and like 1. classic bury ur gays but also 2. no more word of god gay characters if a character is not gay in the movies i will not give you the gay cred for it sorry homophobes

10. i didnt buy the story w luke and kyle at lukes jedi training facility or whatever. surprisingly, i was ok with lukes story line and character development, and actually agreed with it for the most part, but i just like. i dunno i didnt feel like that was something luke would do. not because luke is infallible (even tho he is my gay dad who has never done anything wrong ever) but because the entire original trilogy is luke believing darth vader could be saved. and while im not opposed to luke changing his mind about whether or not everyone could be turned away from the dark side (luke was young and optimistic in the original trilogy, and as he grew older he would learn more about the jedi and their history like the whole speech he gave rey about how the jedi have to end bc theyre lowkey shitty). i actually kind of liked luke’s hot take on the jedi, because it was lowkey my hot take on the jedi (esp the prequels jedi who were shitty as Fuuuuuck but we are ignoring the prequels for now lbr) but also because i could believe it was a view luke would come to as he aged. but impulsively drawing his lightsaber to kill kyle before he had actually done anything bad, after suspecting that kyle had darkness in him for a while, even though he felt like he had failed? it just didnt feel like luke to me. i felt more like raeyn had chosen that particular backstory to try to make kyle a more sympathetic villain rather than give a believable and in-character back story for the characters. i understand that luke’s failure ultimately has to lead to the creation of kyle ron in this story line, but that didnt feel like the right failure to me. maybe this is just me being nitpicky but that felt off to me too and i dont know if i can quite pinpoint why.

11. rey was a dumbass fucking bitch in this movie. rey could not be a dumbass fucking bitch to survive as a scavenger who was orphaned at birth on jakku. rey would have had to be smart and not as fucking DUMB as she was in this movie. now im getting heated so i cant articulate this well but she just did so many dumb things that anybody who had to raise themselves would have never done. she would never have delivered herself over to kyle ron like what a dumb fucking idea. who wrote this goddamn movie. fuck u ryeen.

12. why did yoda come back as a force ghost. where is anakins force ghost. he would be so fucking pissed at kyle right now. he would be mad as hell. he would have ended this thing. he would have called kyle out like the shitdickbitch he is and put him in his place. i get that yoda is more like ancient and orginal star wars jedi knowledge shit or whatever and like more of an authority on the jedi but like anakin is off in like force ghost hawaii drinking force ghost martinis while his shitty fucking grandson is being a piece of shit?? nah man anakin would have shut that shit down they better bring him back for ep IX and i expect hayden christensen himself to show up to bitch at kyle about what a fucking dumbass he is.

tbh theres probably more like i know there’s a ton of little things i hated but as scathing as this review is there were things i liked. visually speaking it was a very beautiful movie when we werent getting atrocious close ups of adam drivers ugly ass face. i originally hated but have come to appreciate the darker tone, since it mirrors the mood of TESB in that the rebellion seems dead but obviously isnt bc this is star wars. i liked luke. i dunno. i had a lot of issues with the movie obviously. to be quite honest i cant actually think of anything else i liked atm which is telling.

anyway if anybody actually reads this long ass fucking post feel free to respond with what you hated abt TLJ

[greysnavalesgatilago]

Blog no. 3

 Hundreds of holes

Heavy plate carried alone

Crying bird

Giant cheese

Heavy brain

Nail on the Head

 A million of eggs in one basket

An ocean of food in one plate

Time flies so fast

Heart was played like a card

Silver words came out from his mouth

Eyes filled with emotion

A waterfall beans

Ear Tied

Time is Gold

I had the cat by the tail

Fish out of the water

 It’s raining cats in the city that’s why I got one

 His walk was as noisy as a fallen metal can

Walking on pins and needles

Finding shadows

Cherry in a piece of cake

Heel  to the ground

Walking with a pointed toe

Drag feet one’s

Broken leg by suffering

Chasing Grace

     Notes: Most Commonly Used Figure of Speech

1.     Alliteration is the repetition of initial sounds in neighboring words.

Example: Fresh fern fronds from the forest

2.     Allusion is a figure of speech that quickly stimulates different ideas and associations using only a couple of words, thus making an indirect reference.

Example: Describing someone as an “Adonis” makes an allusion to the handsome young shepherd loved by the goddess of love and beauty herself in the Greek myths.

3.     Anaphora is a stylistic device that consists of repeating a sequence of words at the beginning of neighboring clauses to give emphasis.

Example: You are lovely, you are gorgeous, you are pretty, you are glorious, you are, you are, you just are!

4.     Anticlimax refers to a figure of speech in which a word is repeated and whose meaning changes in the second instance.

Examples: He got his dignity, his job, and his company car.

In the car crash, she lost her life, her car, and her cell phone.

5.     Antiphrasis is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is used to mean the opposite of its normal meaning to create ironic humorous effect.

Example: She is 65 year young.

6.     Antithesis is a figure of speech that refers to the juxtaposition of opposing or contrasting ideas. It involves the bringing out of a contrast in the ideas by an obvious contrast in the words, clauses, or sentences within a parallel grammatical structure.

Example: To many choices, too little time.

7.     Apostrophe is an exclamatory rhetorical figure of speech in which a speaker or writer breaks off and directs speech to an imaginary person or abstract quality or idea.

Example: Oh, moon! You have seen everything!

8.     Assonance is a figure of speech that refers to the repetition of vowel sounds to create internal rhyming within phrases or sentences.

Example: A certain purple curtain, captain. (note: cer in cetain, pur in purple, and cur in curtain. Also tain in certain, curtain, and captain.)

9.     Climax refers to the figure of speech in which words, phrases, or clauses are arranged in order of increasing importance.

Example: Three things will remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.

10.  Euphemism is a figure of speech used to express a mild, indirect, or vague term to substitute for a harsh, blunt, or offensive term.

Example: saying “passed away” for “died”

Saying “in between jobs” to mean “unemployed”

11.  Epigram refers to a concise, witty, memorable, and sometimes surprising or satirical statement.

Example: Oscar Wilde’s “I can resist everything but temptation,” or “I am not      young enough to know everything.”

12.  Epiphora (or epistrophe) is a rhetorical device that consists of repeating a sequence of words at the end of neighboring clauses to give them emphasis.

Example: “…a government of the people, by the people, for the people. (Note: The phrase the people is repeated twice after it was first mentioned.)

13.  Hyperbole is a figure of speech that uses exaggeration to created emphasis or effect; it is not meant to be taken literally.

Example: I told you a million times to clean your room.

14.  Irony is a figure of speech in which there is a contradiction of expectation between what is said and what is really meant. It is characterized by an incongruity, a contrast, between reality and appearance.

Example: The explanation is as clear as mud.

15.  Litotes is a figure of speech consisting of an understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by negating its opposite.

Example: Instead of saying that someone is “ugly” you can say that someone is   “not very pretty.”

Instead of saying that the situation is “bad” you can say that it is “not       good”.

16.  Merism is a figure of speech by which something is referred to by a conventional phrase that enumerates several of its constituents or traits.

Example: saying “young and old” to refer to the whole population

Saying “flesh and bone” to mean the whole body

17.  Metaphor s a figure of speech that makes an implicit , implied or hidden comparison between two things or objects that are poles apart from each other but have some characteristics common between them.

Example: The planet is my playground. The Lord is my shepherd.

18.  Metonymy is a figure pf speech in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with the thing or concept.

Examples: Using “Malacaňang” to refer to the president or the government

Saying “a hand” to mean “help”

19.  Oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines incongruous or contradictory terms.

Examples: open secret, virtual reality, sacred profanities

20.  Personification is a figure of speech in which a human characteristics are attributed to an abstract quality, animal, or inanimate object.

Example: Red punctuates and makes bold statements, says something, and means it like an exclamation point!

21.  Simile is a figure of speech directly comparing two unlike things, often introduced the word, like or as.

Examples: A smile as big as the sun. She prays like a mantis.

22.  Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part of something is used to represent the whole of something is used to represent part of it.

Examples: Sixty hands voted. (The part “hand” is used to refer to the whole person)

The country supported the president. (The word “country” is used to refer to               the people.)

23.  Understatement is a figure of speech used by its writers or speakers to deliberately make a situation seem less important or serious that it really is.

Examples: A nurse to give an injection saying, “It will sting a bit.”

To describe a disappointing experience, a participant may say, “It was …different.”

                                              LITREADITURE!

Look for literary pieces and take note some lines in it that expresses figures of speech listed below. Write your answers on the space provided. (One example for each)

 1.ALLUSION: “You’re acting like such a scrooge!”      Title: A Christmas carol

Author: Charles Dickens

 2.ANAPHORA: “ In every cry of every man, In every infant’s cry of fear, In every voice, In every ban, The mind – forg’d manacles I hear.    Title: London

Author: William blake

 3.EUPHEMISM:” When the present has latched its postern behind my tremulous stay, And the may month flaps its glad green”.   Title: Afterwards

Author: Tom Hardy

  4.EPIGRAM: “So all my best is dressing old words new”.     Title: Sonnet    

 Author: William Shakespeare

  5.LITOTES; “Though I have seen my head brought in upon a platter, I am no prophet- and here’s no great matter”.               Title: The Love song

Author: Alfred Prufrock

 6.METONYMY: “The pen is mightier than the sword”.         Title: Richelieu

Author: Edward Bulwer Lytton

  7.OXYMORON: “Down the close darkening lanes they sang their way to the siding-shed, And lined the train with faces grimly gay. Their breasts were stuck all white with wreath an spray as men’s. dead”.      Title: Romeo and Juliet

Author: Romeo and Juliet

8.MERISM: “There is a working class- strong and happy- among both rich and poor; there is an idle class- weak, wicked and miserable-among both rich and poor”.

Author: John Ruskin

 9.ANTITHESIS- “Love is an ideal thing, marriage is real thing”.    Author: Goethe

 10.IRONY: “I will not marry yet; and, when I do, I swear it shall be Romeo, whom you know I hate, rather than Paris”.                    Title: Romeo and Juliet                    

Author: William Shakespeare

                                         JOURNAL WRITING:

                                                 Sonnet 130

                                       William Shakespeare

                     The tone of sonnet 130 is sarcastic and insulting. The speaker is taking a risk by wooing his woman through insults. The speaker compares his lover’s body to a series of beautiful things, shows that the speaker is telling that the body of the love of his life is less beautiful that the things being compared. These comparisons revealed that the girl is not that appealing. The diction of sonnet 130 or the language being used is all about comparisons, that is obvious from the start till the end of the poem that he’s comparing the love of his life to the things that surrounding him. The poem shows the standard of beauty and the speakers definition of beauty. Throughout the poem, he talks about the physical appearance of his mistress that do not match the standard of the speaker. The figures of speech being used in the poems are, alliteration, consonance, hyperbole and imagery. The poet emphasizes how unlike his mistress’s attributes are to various tropes of romantic poetry. Most of the time the speaker uses simile just like what he says “Mistress eyes are nothing like the sun”. The speaker seems to be very visual in a way that he’s always comparing his mistress in anything that he sees.

[realitista]

Very interesting article. I think a 70-80% upper tax bracket achieves much the same thing, but the analysis of societal effects of wealthy people and the response of a healthy society has a very interesting and enlightening perspective.

Why the Rich are not 'Job Creators'

It is sometimes thought that the rich are necessary to the flourishing of a free market economy, that because they have more wealth than they need for their own consumption it is their investment of capital that makes the economy spin around and create jobs. Thus the claim that there is a trade-off between democracy and material prosperity. But that ‘job creator’ thesis is out of date and back to front.

First, while in Adam Smith's time it might have been true that economic development required capitalists to reinvest their profits this was because everyone else was too poor. But these days the economies of democratic societies are characterized by a broad middle-class whose savings are quite sufficient for funding business development and expansion (such as through the share-ownership of our pension funds or the bank loans backed by our deposits).

Second, the greater the wealth inequality, the worse we may expect the economy to perform. A flourishing economy requires customers as well as investors. If the gains of economic productivity are overwhelmingly transferred to some small group (as profits) that means that they don't go to ordinary people (as wages). (For example, since 1979 all the productivity gains of America's economy have gone to the richest 1%.) The implications are, first, that economic growth does not increase national prosperity because it does not increase the economic command of ordinary people to satisfy our wants (which is how Smith defined the wealth of nations). And, second, economic growth itself will eventually suffer since high inequality limits the extent of the market (fewer customers) and thus the scope for innovation.

But the biggest problem is the capitalists themselves, who use their dominance of politics to legitimate and entrench their momentary competitive advantages into de facto quasi-monopolies and effectively levy a redistributive tax on society as a whole. The interest of the plutocratic elite is to widen the market but limit the competition; to do what Bill Gates did to Netscape and Carlos Slim did to Mexico's telecoms industry. Consider the re-construction of America’s financial services industry over the last 30 years. As the number of firms went down, favourable laws went up, converting the industry into a rentier system in which the costs of financial services to the economy as a whole rose, profits rose, and risks were socialized.

This rentier capitalism doesn't have the same virtues as the free market kind proposed by Smith and endorsed by most contemporary economists. It undermines the policing required to maintain real – fair and rivalrous - competition. It misallocates the country's wealth and talent, by funnelling it away from productive enterprises and into rent-seeking enterprises that harvest the productivity of others.

What to do about the rich

I think it is clear that the rich are a burden and a danger to our democratic society as a whole. (If you're still not convinced, read the now classic essay Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% by the economics Nobel prize winner, Joe Stiglitz.) But that doesn't tell us what to do about them. Some people would say that we should tax the rich into the middle-class, but this proposal has never really got off the ground because it seems punitive and unfair, and not only to libertarian moral philosophers. After all, the rich got rich by playing - and ‘winning’ - the economic game according to the rules we set. It's not their fault that their wealth is toxic to democracy. Fortunately I am not concerned here with fairness and social justice, but with the somewhat simpler but more urgent existential threat that the presence of the rich poses to a democratic society. I'm against the rich, but I don't care about their money. And that allows me to advance a different kind of proposal than one normally sees in this debate: the simple rule that no-one can be both a member of our democratic society and rich.

A good way of thinking about what a democratic society is and should be, and how its members relate to it, is through the device of the social contract. A social contract is a hypothetical agreement to form a political association for the mutual advantage, security, and justice of all its members. The significance of this idea is that it allows us to scrutinize whether our current social arrangements resemble what we would have deliberately chosen to create if we had had the chance. Or whether we would have chosen something better (John Rawls' project). In Rawls’ hands the social contract is a device for generating a unique agreement on the basic structure of a just society by making explicit our intuitions about what a just democratic society requires.

But one can also use the social contract device more crudely, to draw our attention to the preconditions for and legitimate authority of a democratic society. Though we may not follow Rawls’ controversial argument for what an ideally just democratic society would look like, we may all readily agree that some features are incompatible with the persistence of any democratic society in which such questions of justice might be debated. Plutocracy seems such a feature, since it is incompatible with freedom from domination between citizens or political equality in social choice.

The idea of the social contract also directs us to think of our democratic society as a kind of private club for the mutual benefit of its members. (Indeed, this is explicitly how we often analyse it when thinking about immigration [previously].) Such a club has the legitimate authority to enforce its constitutional commitment to democracy and take action against members who undermine it. Hence my modest proposal. We should first identify with some precision the category of what it seems reasonable to call the rich i.e. those people whose capabilities for independence from and command over the rest of us crosses the threshold between enviable affluence and aristocratic privilege. Then, when anyone in our society lands in the category of the problematic rich we should say, as at the end of a cheesy TV game show, "Congratulations, you won the economy game! Well done." And then we should offer them a choice: give it away (hold a potlatch, give it to Oxfam, their favourite art museum foundation, or whatever) or cash out their winnings and depart our society forever, leaving their citizenship at the door on their way out. Since the rich are, um, rich, they have all the means they need to make a new life for themselves elsewhere, and perhaps even inveigle their way into citizenship in a country that is less picky than we are. So I'm sure they'll do just fine. Still, we can let them back in to visit family and friends a few days a year - there's no need to be vindictive.

[microsstinatir-blog]

Thanks to Scoot, we recently had the opportunity to experience the best that Berlin had to offer in terms of dining, shopping and history during our 5 day trip to Berlin and not have to bust our airfare budget. Yes, you heard right – Scoot – a low cost airline flies non-stop to Berlin from Singapore and this is not the first time that they are doing long haul flights (Scoot is also doing long haul flights to Athens in Greece and Honolulu in Hawaii, USA).

Over the next few blog posts, I will be sharing with you our various interesting experiences in Berlin but for this post, I have some suggestions for the foodies who are keen to check out the diverse dining experiences in Berlin and I have 11 of them!

But before we talk about dining in Berlin, I just want to share some tips on enjoying a long haul flight on Scoot. Being a low cost airline means we get bargain fares with Scoot (one way fare to Berlin from Singapore starting from S$239!) but that also means that the usual amenities that we would expect with a full-fare airline e.g. meals, in-flight entertainment, will not be complimentary. But if you add up the costs of buying these extras, you have still scored a huge bargain for a flight to Berlin!

The flight to Berlin from Singapore is almost 13 hours long so do preorder your long haul meal bundle or else you can get quite hungry during the flight. Preordering ensures that you get the meal you want and there are usually discounts or certain perks (for example, you may get a complimentary Haagen Daaz ice-cream or cookies with your meal). The flight departs from Singapore to Berlin at 12.25am and the first meal service (where a light meal of chicken sandwich wrap was served) will start around 1 hour+ after take-off (around 2am). There is no seatback inflight entertainment – you will have to bring your own entertainment or sign up for the ScooTV access (US$11 or about S$15) for the duration of the flight (but you will need to bring your own device e.g. iPad, phones and if you are using Apple devices, ensure that you had downloaded the ScooTV app before boarding your flight; for android devices, you can download the app from the Scoot Wi-Fi portal for free during the flight). If you need to charge your devices (nowadays whose phone can last for 13 hours on a single charge right?), you can buy in-seat power for about US$7.

To help yourself get as comfortable as possible and to sleep well during this long haul flight, I would recommend getting a Scoot Snooze Kit which comprises a very comfortable blanket and eye mask and inflatable neck pillow. Pre-purchasing this snooze kit before your flight will save you S$5 – otherwise you can buy the Scoot Snooze Kit onboard for S$23.

Our second meal service came in at around 3 hours before we landed at Berlin and it was roast beef with potatoes (there are other choices too – chicken, vegetarian etc.). This tasted very good as the beef is very tender. The sides include a potato salad and yoghurt. Scoot’s long haul meal bundle for flights to Berlin comes in non-vegetarian and vegetarian options and includes:

Premium Meal Combo which includes a deluxe meal, 2 sides and a drink.

Light Meal Combo which includes a light meal, a snack and a precupped juice.

This long haul meal bundle is available for preorder only.

Our Scoot flight to Berlin from Singapore landed at Berlin Tegel Airport at 7.20am – perfect timing to start a long day of fun at Berlin. The best part about landing at Berlin Tegel Airport is the airport’s proximity to the Berlin city centre. After clearing immigrations and collecting your baggage, you can be at your hotel in the city centre within 20 minutes! Our basecamp for our trip to Berlin was Capri by Fraser Berlin – we had a great staycation at Capri by Fraser Singapore (the one beside Changi City Point) and the Berlin one was just as good an experience.

Now, back to the topic at hand – Interesting and Diverse Dining Experiences in Berlin, we will of course start with German cuisine:

If you love desserts, don’t miss the Chocolate Lava Cake served with ice-cream served at The Grand.

Address: The Grand, Hirtenstraße 4, 10178 Berlin (nearest U2: Rosa-Luxemburg-Platz)

Address: Brauhaus Lemke am Alex, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 13, 10178 Berlin (nearest S+U: Alexanderplatz)

From the dizzying height of its viewing platform, you have spectacular 360-degree panoramic views out across the entire city – and beyond. You can also chill out with cocktail from Bar 203. You can also have dinner at the rotating restaurant just one floor above the viewing platform

Address: Panoramastraße 1 A, 10178 Berlin (nearest S+U: Alexanderplatz)

The Currywurst has an interesting origin: During 1949 in Berlin, a resourceful German housewife, Herta Heuwer, traded some spirits with British soldiers for ketchup. She then created the dish – composed of German sausage, or wurst, sliced and doused in ketchup and sprinkled with curry powder and created the currywurst which became an overnight success and eventually a staple, mainly amongst construction workers who valued its high protein content and low cost.

Address: Curry 36, Hardenbergplatz 9, 10623 Berlin (this is near the Zoo or the BIKINI Berlin which we will talk about later – nearest U2: Berlin Zoologischer Garten)

or

Curry 36, Mehringdamm 36, 10961 Berlin Kreuzberg

TIM RAUE serves Asian-inspired cuisine that can be characterized as a blend of Japanese product perfection, Thai aromas, and Chinese culinary philosophy. The aim of his dishes is to provide energy and joie de vivre. Guests are invited to a deliberately simple ambience influenced by the urban atmosphere of Berlin. The Michelin guide awarded Tim Raue’s restaurant with two Michelin stars.

We started our dining experience with the Ikarimi Salmon served with buttered stock of tomato juice & marukan rice vinegar, compote of tomato & star anis and green anis. The dish is served lukewarm, keeping the salmon tender – the salmon is soft and melts in your mouth. The various flavours of vinegar, tomato gives you a mix of different tastes with each bite.

Next we had the Langoustine served with wasabi mayonnaise cantonese style. This is like our Singaporean equivalent of wasabi prawn – those that you can order from zi char stalls at hawker centre, although the quality at Tim Raue is a lot better – instead of prawns, Norway lobster meat (langoustine) is used and it tasted very fresh. The wasabi mayonnaise sauce is perfect with the langoustine – some zi char stalls in Singapore makes the wasabi sauce overwhelming (as if you are swallowing wasabi) but here at Tim Raue, its just gives a tinge of wasabi taste and that is good enough.

Next, we had Sate Chicken – or we call it Satay Chicken. I am very surprised to taste such familiar tasting food all the way in Germany. The chicken is tender and when eaten with the satay sauce, it tastes so good!

We wrapped up our meal at Tim Raue with dessert which comprises Quince sherbet, macadamia nougat and passionfruit. It is a good mix of taste – sweet and sour.

A 4 course menu for lunch at Tim Raue like the above will cost 68 Euros + 19% tax. You get a choice of dishes to make up the 4 courses – the 3 course menu is the cheaper option at 58 Euros. Do note that if you select the wasabi langoustine, that will cost an additional 12 Euros to the 68 Euros for a 4 course menu.

Address: Restaurant Tim Raue, Rudi-Dutschke-Straße 26, 10969 Berlin (near Checkpoint Charlie)

Address: Night Kitchen, Oranienburger Str. 32, 10117 Berlin (nearest S-station: Berlin Oranienburger Straße station)

Address: Casalot, Claire-Waldoff-Straße 5, 10117 Berlin

Just a short aside on the THE ONE Grand Show at Friedrichstadt-Palast, if you want to catch one of the most lavish show in Europe on one of the biggest stage in the world, then you should not miss the ONE Grand Show. An iconic part of the ONE Grand Show performance is the more than 500 daring, extravagant, and glamourous costumes designed by Jean Paul Gaultier, one of the great stars of Parisian haute couture. The scale of this performance is massive in many ways – more than 100 artists on the world’s biggest theater stage and a production budget of more than eleven million euros.

Most of the singing is in German but you should be able to interpret from the music and costumes what is going on but in case you don’t, here’s my quick take on the performance. THE ONE Grand Show blurs past and present in a vibrant, euphoric waking dream. You will follow a young man who struggles with his inner emotions – anger and curiosity as he rekindles the splendour and glamour of times past in his mind’s eye while everything dissolves, floats, and spins in front of him, all leading back to the one person who means everything to him – THE ONE. I know very chim (deep-meaning in local Singaporean colloquial terms) but this is a show where you get amazed and surprised by the myriad of costume and death defying acts by the performers. It is a good mix between a typical circus act and dance performance and musical (the latter you will appreciate better if you know German).

Address: Bikini-Haus, Budapester Str. 38-50, 10787 Berlin (nearest U2: Berlin Zoologischer Garten)

For a more traditional food market, don’t miss Markthalle Neun (Market Hall 9) in Kreuzberg on Thursday because of Street Food Thursday. On Thursdays from 5pm to 10pm only, the various stalls compete with each other with their culinary delicacies, but it is you who are the winners. This is truly an international event as you get to experience British pies, Thai tapioca dumplings, Mexican tacos, Allgäu cheese spaetzle or Nigerian FuFu. It gets really crowded though so seats are very limited.

If you need help navigating the culinary gems that Berlin offers on this exciting street food tour through the district of Kreuzberg, check out the Food Tour with Fork & Walk by Dov Selby. If you check out his website, you will notice that there are lots of different food tours to meet your needs, be it whether you are a vegan or coffee connoisseur, there is a food tour for you.

We went on a Evening Food Tour with Dov where he showed us some of the best street food stalls in Markthalle Neun, for example – these tofu burgers by Tofutussis and …

… amazing cheese sandwiches by Alte Milch

Adana Kebap Yogurtlu – Minced meat on the skewer with yogurt, tomatosauce, gegrilled tomatoes, pepper and special bread

Künefe – Pastry mozzarella cheese doused with sugar syrup

Künefe is a crispy cheese-filled dessert made with kadayıf, which is a traditional shredded wheat dessert with pistachio filling. Native to the southeastern parts of Turkey in a area named Hatay. This is a very sweet and addictive dessert

Address: 37, Admiralstraße 36, 10999 Berlin, Germany

Berlin WelcomeCard gives you access to all public transport as well as discounts on selected tours and museum. Ranging from 2 – 6 days, these will definitely come in handy when exploring Berlin. Just remember to validate your ticket before you take your first ride with the bus /U-bahn.

Our spacious @berlin apartment with kitchenette and comfortable bed and refreshing rainshower – perfect rest stop after a long flight from Singapore to Berlin with @ @visit_berlin

A post shared by Zhiqiang and Tingyi (@passportchop) on Jun 20, 2018 at 2:04am PDT

Read on if you would like to know what we ate on our Scoot flight back to Singapore from Berlin. Our flight took off from Berlin at 9.40am and the first meal service is Currywurst and…

… for our second meal service (a few hours before we arrive at Singapore) – Turkey meatloaf with rye bread.

[thinktosee]

AN OPEN LETTER TO UNITED STATES’ PRESIDENT, Mr. Donald Trump

Dear Honourable Sir,

A blessed New Year to First Lady, Mrs. Trump and to you and your Family.

RE : DEVELOPMENT AS A MEANS TO DETER UNBRIDLED MIGRATION

Image courtesy ThoughtCo

A. OPENING

It would be in America and the world’s best interest to bring political, economic and social development, and hence, peace to dysfunctional countries. Unbridled migration is a product of failed states, characterized by conflict, widespread political corruption, and ineptitude of a ruling class, who is self-serving and inward-looking.

The United States of America has been a beneficiary of migrant labor for centuries. These good folks have and continue to help sustain the American Dream.

Image courtesy Antioch University, Santa Barbara

B. The making of a Wall or living in Fear?

The subject of thousands of migrants crossing the border into the U.S. is presently a major political issue. This is understandable, particularly on two related fronts :

1.  The American economy is mature, requiring a controlled flow of acceptable and law-abiding migrants to assure a constancy between domestic and foreign labour needs.

2.  Related to the first, your appeal during the presidential campaign to Make America Great Again (MAGA) with a strong emphasis on optimizing domestic resources, especially American labour, resonated with many voters. You are intent on keeping to the promises you made during the campaign. This is your prerogative as President, to which you have said you are duty-bound.

However, many more migrants will continue to make the journey to the U.S. This is inevitable so long as their native countries remain dysfunctional or are under-performing. Whether this is deliberate or not, to suit the labour needs of the developed economies, is for the professional pundits to debate. For our purpose here, I would prefer to address solutions to reconstructing dysfunctional or under-performing economies as a way to stem migration. A Win-Win, if you will.

C. SOLUTION TO MASS MIGRATION

Image courtesy The Intercept

“Endless wars, especially those which are fought out of judgement mistakes that were made many years ago, and those where we are getting little financial or military help from the rich countries that so greatly benefit from what we are doing, will eventually come to a glorious end.”

-         U.S. President Trump, Jan 08, 2019 @ Twitter

This statement by you, Sir is one of the most astounding admissions by a U.S. President. I cannot agree more. America has been in more wars than any nation in her relatively short history. The question which begs to be asked is this – Why is that? Why are you fighting in wars so far from home, sacrificing your young soldiers? How is a Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan an existential threat to America? I will reiterate a point I made to your Ambassador previously – these wars are fought because American leaders define the national interest within very narrow limits, seemingly excluding the interest of the general population of the United States. The humanitarian crises these wars create, including the outflow of refugees from a previously stable and relatively prosperous country like Iraq or Libya, are avoidable if political and moral leadership had existed in the Atlantic Alliance, to which America leads.

Image courtesy Cartoon Movement

You have offered a wonderful solution to the issue of uncontrolled migration – stop the wars. That’s a great first step. The next step then is to work with the international community to create conditions for the political, economic and social development of every dysfunctional or under-performing country in the world. It never ceases to amaze me how China, whose economy trailed most countries thirty years ago could out-perform every one thereafter. She continues to this day. This says much about the modern-day leadership of the Chinese, as it does about those perpetually under-performing economies’ of the world. In this respect, I appeal to you to use the great influence of the United States to help under-performing and war-ravaged economies to re-construct and to develop diligently for the general benefit of their people. Corruption, self-serving ruling elites, exploitative labour and predatory financial practices, must all be eliminated or at least diminished. Question is, do we have the political will to do this on an even-handed way, without fear or favour to friendly or unfriendly nations alike? 

D. CONCLUSION

Image courtesy TEDxGhent

Mr. President, migrants and refugees are victims of bad circumstances, mostly bad or corrupt government and environment in their native lands. Their choices if any, are dire. I am sure you are well aware of this. The law-abiding migrant deserves better.

A Wall is admittedly a separation device. It offers security, comfort and privacy. We all live in rooms shielded by walls for this purpose. We also recognize that at times, in fact, most times, we step out of the room to mingle with family, friends and other folks. Our sanity and self-interest demand we do this, for to permanently separate or isolate humanity is to ignore our civilizational origins and to undermine our very diverse spirits and inclinations for community and social contact.

It is said that America is a country of immigrants. I am sure your forebears agreed with this statement, having originated from the European continent. They arrived in America seeking a better life. I am also sure they would never have dreamt that a descendant would one day become the President of the great country they had adopted. But that’s the beauty of America. It is a Land where anyone could fulfil her dream, with hard work and passion.

America was built on its egalitarian values. A wall however, is a symbol of divisiveness, bred on FEAR. It didn’t stop the “barbarians” from invading China over the centuries. What it did do though at that time was to make China an in-ward and in-bred civilization, and that ultimately caused her downfall.

Dear Mr. President, I apologize for this lengthy letter. As a foreigner who got my priceless college education in America, I have the highest regard for your great Nation and her People. I remain optimistic about America’s future. Perhaps that’s because I was infused with American optimism during my college years.

Thank you, Sir.

In the Spirit of David Cornelius Singh

Harmohan Singh

David’s father

Email : davidnfather@gmail.com