#ALSO LEGITIMACY OF THE DYNAMIC ASIDE

[t4tails]

Scarecrow and Mad Hatter actually do hang out in the comics sometimes, that's how that dork squad thing started - people saw those two hang out and for some reason thought they need a third for them so they added Riddler because? He's a dork? I guess? Even though 99% of his interactions with other rogues are with Catwoman or Penguin not those two

??? wait thats even weirder... people cant appreciate the delightful bitchiness of the riddler catwoman dynamic

[emeraldspiral]

Addendum to this post:

The reason Zim's feelings for Dib go unrequited is that they're looking for validation for different things from different people.

Zim comes from a society that only values superficial things like physical appearance and achievement, (which incidentally, is the exact sort of environment that breeds conditions like NPD). Zim needs someone in his life to think he's intelligent or competent because that's the only thing he thinks gives him value. But he's never had anyone in his life who thought he was anything special, aside from maybe Keef, whose validation means nothing to him because he's nothing special himself as far as Zim is concerned. Only Dib and the Tallests' opinions matter to him because they're the only people he respects, the Tallest purely for their superficial status and Dib for having actual qualities that impress Zim.

With Dib though, he grew up recognized as a Gifted Child. Where people have always had low expectations for Zim, Dib's always had high expectations for himself and placed upon him by his father. Dib doesn't care whether or not Zim thinks he's intelligent because everyone else, including his father, the person who's opinion matters most, already does. No one's ever doubted that he was smart and capable. What they doubt is the legitimacy of what he thinks and what he does, and Zim himself doesn't validate that for him, he's just the key to getting validation from other people. Zim considering him a Worthy Opponent does validate his perception of himself as a hero, but even then, that validation relies on Zim being an object; a one-dimensional narrative prop, rather than someone whose good opinion matters to him.

Dib wants to defeat Zim to impress his dad, Zim wants to defeat Dib to impress Dib.

However, there is a way that Zim could conceivably get Dib to reciprocate his one-sided man-crush. By validating his beliefs himself rather than just being the evidence he needs to get validation from others. If you have Zim believing Dib about ghosts and vampires and stuff, or better yet not believing him but then changing his mind when confronted with evidence, that's going to cause a huge shift in the dynamic. Like, Dib's so desperate for anyone to talk to about this stuff he has to pay his sister to joylessly listen to him ramble on about it, or infodump to random hobos. If Zim actually listened to him with genuine interest, treated him like an authority on the subject, or had actual discussions with him about paranormal science, he would get so addicted to Zim's validation so fast. He'd probably also crash just as quickly from Gifted Kid Burnout. He'd be up all hours of the night doing research or stakeouts, trying to get evidence and learn everything there is to know about every kind of cryptid or apparition or unexplained phenomenon because he wants to maintain the image of being an Expert in Zim's eyes.

[stainedglassthreads]

A lot of people seem to think Neuvillette and Furina's relationship is just 'Zhongli and Hu Tao 2.0'. But personally I think that's an oversimplification. Because while Zhongli and Hu Tao are very funny, there's just something so. Simultaneously strained yet tender about what Nuevillette and Furina have going on?

I will admit, I haven't played Nuevillette's Character Quest just yet. But Neuvillette's IS a really complex and faceted character so far, as is Furina. Neuvillette comes off as extremely stoic and impartial, but as we've found out by now, he's a character who cares deeply about others, especially the Melusines. At the same time, he's also the Dragon Sovereign of Water. He wants to someday have his revenge against Celestia, but that's an extremely long-term goal. So being a Dragon and an Immortal, we know that he's very patient, and not prone to rage or impulsive behaviors. He's very driven by a sense of duty to Fontaine, as well.

Despite having a grudge against Celestia, we don't exactly know much of his thoughts on the Archons, as a whole or as individuals. I don't know if he hates the Archons at all, actually. Apep doesn't seem to like them, and Orobashi seemed completely ambivalent to them. However, Dvalin and Azhdaha gladly worked alongside Venti and Zhongli for a very long time. Even now, Dvalin doesn't mind helping Venti and Mondstadt somehow, while a part of Azhdaha deliberately sought out Zhongli to help keep the rest of them contained.

As such, I don't think Neuvillette secrets resents Furina or anything. But there's very much a...'I am doing the minimum of what must be done to keep Lady Furina content, but neither of us need to indulge her aside from that'. He also seems to spend a while keeping her 'in check', at least before the Traveler shows up. As an example of the former, he points out to the Traveler that Furina's been waiting for them to notice her, but tells them after that that they don't need to give her any more attention. He also repeatedly asks Furina at different times if she really, genuinely means an accusation she's making, allowing her opportunities to back out and de-escalate. (Even if Furina is prideful to the point she doesn't actually de-escalate, it does remind her of how, as Hydro Archon apparent, her accusations have immense weight. Especially for something like a murder accusation.)

At the same time, though, he does look out for her. I saw a great post where it was pointed out, even if Furina was unwilling to confess that Arlecchino had tried assassinating her, he notices that something was wrong, and accompanies her anyways. Even when the Primordial Sea is about to burst forth, he takes a moment to ask the Traveler to not leave Furina alone with Arlecchino.

Neuvillette may not like Celestia, but he's either willing to work alongside Furina, even if she's not the easiest Archon to like or collaborate with. Considering what we know of Fontaine's government system, and how the people view the Hydro Archon versus the Iudex, at this time I don't think it's a case of 'I need her to lend my decrees and judgements an air of legitimacy'. Considering how Inazuma and Sumeru acted for some time, and Zhongli's recent retirement, I don't think even Celestia would act if Neuvillette more officially declared himself Fontaine's leader and pressured Furina into stepping down. So at the very least, even if he doesn't really respect Furina, I think he at least feels a responsibility to her.

That's one different from Zhongli and Hu Tao's dynamic, I think. Hu Tao isn't just the boss of Wangsheng Funeral Parlor in name only--for all her eccentricities, she takes funerals VERY seriously, and is very...enthusiastic...about expanding their business. Meanwhile Furina doesn't appear to take her duties very seriously until the Traveler shows up, while Neuvillette and the Oratrice seem to be the main thing keeping Fontaine running.

Furina, meanwhile, seems a lot more obvious about how much she cares for Neuvillette. I do believe Furina really takes Neuvillette for granted in some sense, since she does leave presiding over trials and generally running what should be her country to him But while they outwardly seem mutually annoyed by each other, Furina takes notice and realizes things are serious when Neuvillette checks her with his 'are you SURE you want to press these accusations' things, she turns to him for protection when she feels scared and threatened by Arlecchino, and in Neuvillette's Character Quest she seems happy that he gets out of his office for a day, (I'm assuming) showing that she's fully aware he feels a lot under his stoic facade, and she cares for her happiness. (Again, I haven't actually played the quest, but I care little for spoilers. Sue me.)

I don't think anyone could blame them for disliking each other. But saying that they 'just disliked each other' or 'just like each other' would be a superficial reading, I think. We don't know how much Furina knows about Neuvillette and his feelings for Celestia and the Archons. But I think she legitimately trusts, respects, and cares about him more than anyone, even if she's not always the most grateful. And I think that adds more to the way she acts and makes her a more complex character. Likewise, we've already seen Neuvillette's caring side with the Melusines, but the Melusines are legitimately really sweet and earnest and easy to love. Furina's presence further highlights his sense of duty and responsibility, and how sensitive and compassionate he can be, I think. If it does turn out he wants vengeance against the Archons too, then being able to treat Furina so well when it counts shows off those sides of his personality more, I think.

tl;dr An event where all the Archons get to chat together would be amazing. But you know what would be phenomenal? Dragon Sovereign Family Reunion. Traveler needs to find a location large enough for Dvalin, Azhdaha, Apep, and Neuvillette to have a picnic together.

[hero-israel]

Hello! I've been following your blog for a fairly long while now and I just wanted to say I deeply appreciate the way you write about and discuss the political situation. I'm an Israeli Jew and my feelings about this country and the society here are extremely complicated, particularly with regards to the very bleak outlook of where the current government is going, but talking about our politics anywhere online has been an exercise in frustration, futility, and agony, and at times it can be extremely isolating to hear how the reality I have grown up with and am intimately familiar with because it affects every facet of my life is discussed by people totally foreign to and unaffected by it. I have friends from all kinds of different counties across the globe, cultures, societies, and from all walks of life; I have been lucky enough to find at least a few those who are sympathetic and willing to hear and understand my perspective and put aside their, and those who I simply don't talk about our politics with so we can continue being friends out of a certain mutual understanding that it's a subject best left untouched. But on the wider internet any discussion around the situation has been a nightmare with anyone who isn't other Israelis. I've found it especially frustrating to talk to diaspora Jews because many of them come in good faith, but just cannot grasp the reality of growing up with this as a part of your life, and it gets insanely frustrating to get lectured on why we're in the wrong, what we're meant to do, how we need to be the bigger person because we're stronger, in face of an enemy who prioritizes our destruction and genocide over their own well being, on top of the general colonialist guilt and projection that Westerners like to do out of ignorance and disinterest in actually informing themselves on the topic. And while I have plenty to criticize our country and our leaders for and I would be the first to admit the reality of bigotry and prejudice that is very much present in our society, I rarely see this failing discussed as something that impacts real human lives of the people (especially, you know, mostly Jewish people) who live here, and not as an abstractly humanitarian moral wrong with which to dismiss the legitimacy of our very existence. So, thank you for consistently speaking on this topic with such clarity and knowledge, and staying consistently informed, even-handed and fair.

I am deeply honored by this; thank you for your kind words. And I appreciate the pain that you must go through as you see that it is an active struggle for so many people to care whether you, your neighbors, your family, live or die.

And the issue of "you have to take the risk / be the bigger guy, because you're stronger" does keep coming up on this topic. I think more people need to open their minds to the possibility that the weaker side in a conflict can very well be the worse (Confederacy/Union, Axis/Allies, Al-Qaeda/USA), and also that the strong / weak dynamic is reversed - and the Jews cease to exist - the moment you set foot anywhere past the borders of British Palestine.

Thank you for reading. Stay safe, and I hope you get good news soon.

[ccaptain]

As I told: buckle up. This will either be depressing, or rage-inducing.

Story time: when I was essentially a confused 18yo approaching Tumblr roleplay for the first time, I didn't had much traction, if at all, aside from a few friends who joined me. That's normal, as I was a new blog and things were much more different from the rpc we're currently in. In my non-traction, I start interacting with this person who was really enthusiastical about my portrayal of the muse I was currently playing and would . We'll call them W. for comfort. I was roleplaying with W. and interactions were heading to shipping territory, normal stuff.

So W. comes to me and says ''sam, let's ship! our muses click like crazy'' and I was like oooh okay! this sounds fun! and so they announce on their blog that I was joining their ship rooster. Thanks to this, I get some more interactions and, as busy with life as I am not today, I start to enjoy roleplaying. Everything is smooth sailing.

Some time after, I start noticing a dissonance.

In private with me? Raving, being an absolute lunatic (/pos) about how good our muses were to move together, how good the shipping dynamic we created was, how they were SO excited to try some scenarios we had with me, etc. Most of our interactions were roleplays on Skype where we developed our muses.

Latch your fucking seatbelts, because if you guessed that on their blog it was the polar opposite situation, you win a cookie.

We had a ''ship tag'', if you can call a simple ''[Muse name]!'' that. They enthusiastically came up with it, showed me that they did, and never once I had the joy of seeing it on their blog.

Posts that described our muses relationship perfectly had everyone and their moms in terms of their ships tagged under it, but my muse. My ''ship tag'' was left to collect dust. Songs dedicated to other muses, and that also described our pairing? Musings? Moodboards they were making? Never showing up in my notifications with a tag for my muse. My asks and replies, who were ic-style at the time, so short and easy to get around to? Last of the three-legged cart they were carrying around.

In two years of roleplaying with them, my tag on their blog appeared less than six times, I think I remember.

Prefaction before we continue: my mental illness, at the time, was not as stable as it is today with medicines and therapy. I was essentially an horse loose in an hospital while being devoured by anxiety. One of the symptoms of it is making me question the legitimacy of what I think, so I take noticeably longer to see if an injustice is being done to me because I think I'm just being paranoid- you can see the place this is heading to. With them being so sweet and doing so much with me in private, I felt like I had no room to complain.

In this particular instance, I was not paranoid. The friends I was making even noticed this and asked me what was going on, and I would have not the slightest idea.

The details in the middle are fuzzy, but this entire situationship kept going for two years. I don't think there was some big, ugly drama or it would have stamped permanently on my brain, I just remember this thing dragging on and on.

At this point, some years have passed. With time, I built a stable support network that was pushing me to see what was weird about it, as the mixed messages were starting to affect me, because it was a confusing ordeal to be in: I was being treated very nicely, but also having all proof of our muses relationship swept under the rug on their blog? Being some sort of dirty little secret was weird.

One day, after coming out of a part-time shift at the job I was in at the time, I decide to bite the bullet. I contact W. and ask them the question:

''W., why do you never reply to my asks on your blog? Why am I never on your blog at all, but we do a lot of stuff in private? It feels weird to me because it IS weird. What's up?''

They hem. They haw. They ghost me for several days before popping back up, finally ready to face this question.

You want to know what it was? I bet you do. I bet you're fucking dying to know what it was. Come closer, I'll tell you. Put your face really close to the screen  You're going to want to rip the monitor off your laptop with your teeth once you're done, if you have one.

They confessed to me of being stuck between ''a rock and an hard place'', for two reasons:

- Without me even interacting once with them, following or even mistakenly liking one of their posts, I was apparently a trigger warning with legs for a friend of theirs without me ever treating explicit themes on my blog. At all. So W. couldn't make me appear on their blog too much, not even as tagged with the url to block, because this person would NOT block posts to avoid themselves an huge panic attack, and would predictably see me or anything remotely related to me and have an huge panic attack. This, as bad as it sounds, at the time was a normal thing to do in a passive-aggressive manner to avoid having their favorite people interact with someone they didn't liked, because who would ever question the legitimacy of a panic attack without looking bad? The RPC at the time was THIS bad that this was a tactic to be questioned. - Another friend of theirs, which we'll call P., was insecure. Not the normal (and completely understood) kind of insecure, who needs reassurance from time to time about their portrait and what they're doing, but the toxic, clearly unmedicated and untherapized ass ''I need my main rp partner to aknowledge and give me attention at all times, only to ME, or I'll get depressed'' kind of insecure. W. would come online, and P. would literally hoard them. Make status after status after status getting more and more depressed until W. would drop their threads and asks and interact with them. This would happen almost every day, and even before I showed up. W. told me that, ever since they announced their new ship with me on their blog, P. got even more insecure to the point where even W. was stressed out about the situation.

I remember W. apologizing to me, and telling me that since I was ''the reasonable person in their life'' (this stuck with me) it seemed like a given that they had to calm down their other friends, and that by giving stuff to me in private it would have been an equivalent exchange to make their own rp life a little less stressful without taking anything away from me, as they enjoyed shipping with me.

So, as mature as a tired, overworked 20yo could be, I apologized for contributing to their stress and putting them even more in a situation, and wished them luck with their friends before telling them that this was stressful for me too, and that I had to step back because the entire situation and being gratitiously involved in drama wasn't my style, and they sheepishly agreed that as fun and enjoyable as I was to talk and roleplay with, my presence in their life seemed to stir their friends up in the worst ways.

We parted in good terms, as far as I remember. We never tried to make contact with eachother again, and that was for the best.

[steve-needs-a-hug]

A feminist analysis of the Galadriel vs Sauron confrontation in the finale

After watching the Rings of Power finale twice, I keep thinking about the strong friendship/bond that was forged (hehe) between Galadriel and Halbrand and how much of it is predicated on the theme of power. As we know, this bond has been heavily romanticized by some fans, and while the actors do not exclude this interpretation, I believe the focus on possible romance is obscuring a deeper aspect of their bond - that of power dynamics.

Galadriel is thousands of years old. She has seen and endured much. However, the audience's mixed reception of her portrayal is interesting: some people say they found her unlikable and bossy, she's too arrogant and out of control. These pejoratives are commonly lobbied at women, whether in fiction or in real life, who are clearly strong-willed and ambitious (high in agency) but are perceived to lack sufficient friendliness and social tact (low in communality). The use of the 'Guyladriel' nickname further illustrates that RoP's Galadriel violates some audience members' expectations of how a female Elf behaves.

If Galadriel was male, or even if her appearance reflected the darkness within her, she would most likely be seen as a tragic anti-hero whose trauma adds a sympathetic or even romantic appeal to an otherwise stoic character (as we commonly see with the reception of edgy and/or male characters who display the same traits). She acts like Robert Pattinson's Batman (actually showing a more murderous desire for vengeance at times), but she looks like (for lack of better words) a 'nice girl', smaller in stature with soft facial features, intentionally not dissimilar to the serene and gentle Galadriel we're familiar with from the LotR movies. You can't 'see' her darkness the way that we're used to it being visually coded (dark hair/clothes, brooding, ominous presence, etc), yet it is threatening to completely consume her.

Within the show, it's also interesting to consider her reactions to the way people treat her. I'd like to make one thing clear: her soldiers, Gil-Galad, and Elrond were objectively quite justified in their reactions to her behaviour. She is clearly blinded by her singular focus on bringing Sauron to justice. My aim here is not to excuse her behaviour, but to offer an interpretation of her distress when she feels dismissed, disrespected, and not taken seriously by others.

While it is the greatest honour and reward an Elf could receive to be granted passage to Valinor, it was also a simple solution to Gil-Galad's problem - Galadriel. Her insistence on finding Sauron had become a nuisance at best, a danger at worst. And in Númenor, where she expected to be treated with reverence, it quickly became clear that Elves were being held in contempt rather than in high esteem. The Númenoreans mock her and want to send her back to where she came from. This undoubtedly worsened her feelings of everyone being against her. She expresses the isolation of being 'the only one who knows' to Míriel in the hopes that someone will finally believe her when she says the threat of Sauron is real.

TL;DR: Galadriel, who would be expected to command awe and respect, feels disrespected and cast aside. Halbrand, on the other hand, is effortlessly charming and persuasive. Although he has the appearance of a common 'low man', a grimy Southlander, Galadriel (and the audience) quickly begin to sense that there's more to him than meets the eye (comparisons to the rugged-yet-heroic Aragorn ensue). Galadriel sees potential for greatness in him, and uses it to her advantage for her own goals. He knows full well that she's using him, and her own ambition reawakens his ambition to rule over people.

In their big confrontation scene in the finale, he expresses that he wants to 'redeem' himself by healing what he helped ruin, and he wouldn't be a Dark Lord if Galadriel was by his side, binding him to the light. He is seeking moral legitimacy for his ambition to rule. It could be argued that Saurbrand is playing on age-old heterosexual narratives: The wayward man who needs to be reformed by a virtuous woman.

In exchange, he offers Galadriel what he believes she is seeking: authoritative legitimacy. While it's true that as an ancient and legendary being Sauron is literally more powerful than her, he also offers her a form of credibility, the chance to change how people see her and treat her. The alliance that Sauron proposes to her is based on the assumption that Galadriel will never be respected on her own. "All others look on you with doubt; I alone can see your greatness...your light." He preys on her feelings of isolation and being misunderstood, and tells her she needs him. As his Queen, she would be obeyed without question, loved and feared. She recognizes that despite her desire for respect, tyranny will not be the solution she needs.

Rather than complementing or completing each other, Galadriel and Halbrand are remarkably similar - they seemed to recognize each other as kindred spirits, for a time. Their confrontation in the finale really revealed where they differ on what matters most.

In summary, Saurbrand offering Galadriel access to power while wanting access to Galadriel's virtue mirrors the classic tropes of an ambitious woman who won't be taken seriously without the help of a man, and an ambitious man who needs his rough edges softened out by a good woman. These gendered power games are far from romantic in my estimation, but I'll leave that open to individual interpretation ;) Thanks for reading.

[bitter-limelight]

Anti-Marius arguments in a nutshell:

"what will the straights (homophobes) will think" + "queer childhood is being tainted" + Jeffrey Dahmer.

It's 6:51 am and I had to read that about twenty times to have it settle in. Ilu Anon

I think it's especially poignant your remark about queer childhood being ruined because it addresses a brand new segment of society; queer childhood has never really existed before, at least not in any acceptable manner. There have always been people who've known they are queer young, of course, but not who have been able to be out about it and speak about it. Multiple generations of queer people have grown up reading Anne Rice and seeing something special in her work they relate to, but now suddenly we have to protect the poor baby tenderqueers from the vampire romance fiction?

It's not only self infantalizing but it's infantalizing to the entire queer community. "Oh my poor delicate bi sensibilities can't handle this romance between a minor and adult in 1497". K don't read it then. Don't go on about how it's endangering children when by children you mean teenagers who have full access to tagging, rating systems, and the internet. Stop treating youth, especially queer youth, like babies. If you wanna be a smol sad pwecious gay bean news at 11, go for it, but don't wail Think Of The Children about it.

Also lol at the Dahmer ref. Yup, they have to full on make shit up about Marius (they NEVER get Armand's age right for example) to make him look as bad as they want him to look. Or they have to pathologize him somehow, making him the abusive parent in a narcissist family dynamic because if you wave some psycho mumbo jumbo at it and armchair diagnose a fictional character then you give fake legitimacy to your hate.

As an aside Evan Peters in Dahmer was fucking amazing and he would have made an AMAZING Daniel. I mourn.

[horizon-verizon]

The Green cause is marked since the start by the betrayal of the rightful heir. The irony of the Green faction ending with Jaehaera’s murder by Unwin Peake, a former Aegon II’s supporter, is simply the natural conclusion to a recurring motif. Aegon II was murdered by his own men. Their pursuit literally ate itself from the inside out because a heritage of betrayal will always come back to haunt you.

Within the context of the feudalxabsolute monarchy of Westeros and for the purpose of this world's creator's artistic vision, yes. (That is what GRRM wanted to convey about the Dance and to presage Daenerys' own pursuit of the Iron Throne vs the Lannisters and other contenders. What is different there is that Aerys really was one of the worst people to sit on that throne, that the character of a King also matters. And further complicated is that the character of those closest to the King and any person they deal with regularly matters, as well as how the monarch arranged their own relationships and dynamics. Rhaenyra's story, above all, sets up Daenerys' rise and is the ethical precedent for Daenerys' story, while Dany's story is also the more developed and improved version. Apart from how Dany's story was created and developed by Martin before Rhaenyra's.)

What happened with the greens is that they set themselves up to fail. Even with Alicent being as politically active by:

gathering followers and developing a faction to go against her stepdaughter for years

mprisoning that stepdaughter's followers to make room for the green council

in that same council convincing and forcing the men there to crown her oldest son

same council, planning how to legitimize his ascension and build an image of his legitimacy before all the other lords with all the ceremonies and such

same council, of involved in the terms set for Rhaenyra's (expected and betted-on) continued refusal of terms

uncited but probable, doing public charitable works and devotions to the Seven

Why? I list so HERE. Aside from pitting her kids against Rhaenyra.

[fantasiesandfolklore]

The Phoenix Queen — Historical & Mythological Influences on Lunaruz & Queen Relta [Part I]

Relta is heavily inspired by both Queen Mary I of England & Ireland and her half-sister, Queen Elizabeth I of England & Ireland — along with Eleanor of Aquitaine.

A quote by Queen Mary I of England & Ireland greatly inspires Relta’s outlook on her dynamic with Lunaruz. Essentially, she views herself as married to her kingdom and “mother” to her people. The quote can be found [here]

Relta’s unmarried status and refusal to marry was inspired by Queen Elizabeth I of England & Ireland, along with seeing her parents’ marriage fail and her father gaining the throne, despite her mother having been the heir to Relta’s maternal grandparents who ruled Lunaruz approximately one-hundred and fifty years before Relta’s own reign began.

Relta’s artistic talents are inspired by a young Queen Mary I of England and Ireland, as she was: a known polyglot; skilled dancer; skilled musician; and decent politician.

Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine’s influence on Relta’s Phoenix Queen verse include: (1) she rules a duchy in her own right in otherwise unclaimed territory near Lunaruz, aside from being heir to the throne of Lunaruz; (2) she ruled Lunaruz as regent during her father’s last ten years of reign; (3) Relta ruled in her own right without a spouse, though she did have lovers.

The myth of [Atalanta] partially inspires Relta’s determination for being an independent ruler, along with Queen Elizabeth I’s insistence upon being “The Virgin Queen”. She doesn’t want to be ruled by a man, having suffered a bit under her father’s reign’s later years as he’d become more…misogynistic admittedly, even toward Relta and her younger half-sister, Aislin.

Like Queen Elizabeth I, Relta’s claim to be an unwed queen was questioned. She was believed to have married one of her lovers in secret, like Queen Consort Elizabeth Woodville and King Edward IV had before their official wedding. It was untrue, as Relta would never risk being tied to a male consort who could usurp her. However, she exchanged non-binding, and platonic, vows with one of her close friends as to ensure the woman was protected in court despite not gaining power from the vows.

Relta’s fears of losing lovers also stemmed from many myths she learned in childhood, along with seeing her parents’ “divorce” at a young age. It influenced her avoiding “falling in love” and acting on it in an official, legal way.

Relta also related to Mary, Queen of Scots, in being the sole heir, and a woman, with her mother supposedly having neared the age in which women stopped bearing children when Relta was born. Relta’s half-sister, Aislin, is not a legitimate heir despite Relta declaring Aislin’s eventual children in line for the throne.

Unknown to Relta, her father had a number of illegitimate children, including a son who he tried marrying to Relta to give the son legitimacy. Fortunately, Relta saw the resemblance and cornered her father on the topic and sent her illegitimate half-brother packing in shame. King Henry VIII had tried the same with one of his bastards and Princess Mary (future Queen Mary I).

Relta is, surprisingly, fond of children and very maternal - similarly to Queen Mary I. She often dotted on her ladies-in-waitings’ children, spoiling the children of those close to her. She secretly wished to be a mother herself, but the implications of a father would have undermined her sole claim to the throne.

Relta also had a fear of dying in childbirth, as Queen Consort Elizabeth of York with her final child by King Henry VII did, and considered adoption, yet feared a conspiracy against her to put an enemy’s child on the throne after her, or claiming she was secretly the mother.

Relta studied the queen consorts who came before her, not only in Lunaruz but in similar (culturally) nations/kingdoms, and was slightly paranoid she would die and be replaced like many other queen consorts had been.

[deathlessathanasia]

“It is significant that the Greeks chose for Zeus not a submissive spouse but a genuine partner endowed with a strong sense of competitiveness and a rank comparable to his. Their preferred image is of a sovereign couple bound together in a dynamic of conflict in which disagreements and reconciliations, separations and reunions alternate with each other. The very fact that Hera defies Zeus and sets traps for him shows how close she is to him and that she knows him better than anyone else does. On the other hand, one must not forget that it is almost always Zeus who wins the day in the end and that Hera’s hostility contributes to realising his designs.

Among the things that interest Hera most and that are most often at the centre of her disputes with Zeus, as we have mentioned several times already, are rank and status, issues involving the birth of children, and the question of who legitimately belongs to the oikos. Hera herself is firmly rooted in the paternal oikos and she demands that the sovereign rank to which she is entitled by birth and marriage be recognised and flies into a rage at anything which seems to her to constitute a slight to her timē. Although the Homeric Hymn to Hera (12) ascribes to the goddess a perfect isotimia with Zeus, when one turns away from this static and idealised formula of praise and looks carefully at the actual content of what is recounted in the narratives, this purported equality  turns out to amount to a series of confrontations between Zeus, a sovereign who defends the autonomy of his power, and a Hera who is aspiring to an equal share of it with her brother-husband. Hera decides to beget and bear Hephaistos and Typhon less because of jealousy than because she is irritated by Zeus’s actions in giving birth to Athena and wishes to compete with him. Her reaction is thus not at all comparable to that of a woman who has been betrayed: she is suffering primarily because her timē has been affronted when Zeus puts her aside, withdraws from her, and acts on his own and, by so doing, disregards the couple which the two of them are supposed to form. Hera’s anger at the mortal mistresses of Zeus and the severe trials she imposes on the children born of these mixed unions can also not be adequately explained if one tries to reduce it to the stereotypical idea that Hera is a jealous wife and fierce protector of the legitimacy of marriage. As we have seen Hera almost never gets upset when Zeus has children by another goddess, and even among the children of mortal women, she directs a particularly relentless hostility at those sons of Zeus who, like Herakles and Dionysos, are destined eventually to join the company of the gods on Olympus. She even submits her own son, Hephaistos, to  a kind of probation, by removing him from Olympus before eventually allowing him to return from good. Love rivalry is, then, certainly not Hera’s exclusive motive, nor even her principal one. She is, in fact, much more concerned with determining which status exactly each Olympian is to have, and in general, with questions of rank and legitimacy, and to that end she watches over the integrity of the oikos carefully and presides over the integration of new members.”

- The Hera of Zeus: Intimate Enemy, Ultimate Spouse by Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge and Gabriella Pironti

[antiloreolympus]

5 Anti LO Asks

1. Whoever sent in that message about unhealthy dynamic and romance tropes hit the nail on the head. I don’t understand the obsession a lot of romance media has with older powerful man and younger sheltered girl couples (age gaps and power differences aren’t always bad, but they’re almost always done badly). At best it’s a tired trope, and at worst can get problematic. Plus, if the more confident, icy type women that usually are rivals/villains in these types of stories were ever written to be (1)

in a good, healthy relationship (aka not genderbent 50 Shades/Twilight lol) with, say, an adorkable, less experienced young man without a power imbalance or forcing the woman to give up things she loves (like her career), THAT would be different and perhaps quite interesting!

(Hope you didn’t mind that little rant but seeing that type of relationship constantly is a little annoying, I’m glad that other people think so too!)

2. LO would have been much better if it was slice of life tbh. no need for deep characterizations, no need for overarching plots and handling of irl issues, no need for pacing or keeping track of plot threads, etc. it could have just been the misadventures of them being married and making myth references & thats it. it would have been way more to RS's writing skill and remove so many of the actual issues w/ its current state of trying to be something bigger and deeper than she can handle.

3. On the topic of Persephone having blue eyes instead of red - I think the blue eyes look much better - because Persephone is a shade of bright pink the blue really helps to contrast the rest of her meanwhile the red eyes just kinda blend in with her skin. Also the red eyes aren't exclusive to Persephone (other characters have them so it seems kinda eh in terms of when she gets them).

Like design wise (aside from wearing white half the time and her hair style constantly changing - which I do like btw. I like the hair changes) - Persephone doesnt really have any stand out features that would mark her as the main character (especially considering how half of Demeters nymphs are pink as well).

4. no one cares if LO is using the popular power imbalance tropes it's the fact Rachel and co. keep claiming its this "reclaimed feminist and empowering' and narrative that its like ...? that's not what it is? more so it also claims to be super researched on actual mythology, so it's claiming legitimacy in what it says on real cultural and religious figures, yet at the same says its allowed to make up whatever it wants and you're not allowed to critique it. It wants it cake and to eat it too.

5. lo persephone is like UGH IM SO MAD >:( but still makes sure her ass is sticking out and her legs are pointed like a sexy pin up.

[rockislandadultreads]

Black History Month: some reading to get you started

Celebrate Black excellence with these titles

A Black Women's History of the United States by Daina Ramey Berry, Kali Nicole Gross

A vibrant and empowering history that emphasizes the perspectives and stories of African American women to show how they are--and have always been--instrumental in shaping our country In centering Black women's stories, two award-winning historians seek both to empower African American women and to show their allies that Black women's unique ability to make their own communities while combatting centuries of oppression is an essential component in our continued resistance to systemic racism and sexism. Daina Ramey Berry and Kali Nicole Gross offer an examination and celebration of Black womanhood, beginning with the first African women who arrived in what became the United States to African American women of today. A Black Women's History of the United States reaches far beyond a single narrative to showcase Black women's lives in all their fraught complexities. Berry and Gross prioritize many voices: enslaved women, freedwomen, religious leaders, artists, queer women, activists, and women who lived outside the law. The result is a starting point for exploring Black women's history and a testament to the beauty, richness, rhythm, tragedy, heartbreak, rage, and enduring love that abounds in the spirit of Black women in communities throughout the nation.

Black Detroit: A People's History of Self-Determination by Herb Boyd

The author of Baldwin’s Harlem looks at the evolving culture, politics, economics, and spiritual life of Detroit—a blend of memoir, love letter, history, and clear-eyed reportage that explores the city’s past, present, and future and its significance to the African American legacy and the nation’s fabric. Herb Boyd moved to Detroit in 1943, as race riots were engulfing the city. Though he did not grasp their full significance at the time, this critical moment would be one of many he witnessed that would mold his political activism and exposed a city restless for change. In Black Detroit, he reflects on his life and this landmark place, in search of understanding why Detroit is a special place for black people. Boyd reveals how Black Detroiters were prominent in the city’s historic, groundbreaking union movement and—when given an opportunity—were among the tireless workers who made the automobile industry the center of American industry. Well paying jobs on assembly lines allowed working class Black Detroiters to ascend to the middle class and achieve financial stability, an accomplishment not often attainable in other industries. Boyd makes clear that while many of these middle-class jobs have disappeared, decimating the population and hitting blacks hardest, Detroit survives thanks to the emergence of companies such as Shinola—which represent the strength of the Motor City and and its continued importance to the country. He also brings into focus the major figures who have defined and shaped Detroit, including William Lambert, the great abolitionist, Berry Gordy, the founder of Motown, Coleman Young, the city’s first black mayor, diva songstress Aretha Franklin, Malcolm X, and Ralphe Bunche, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. With a stunning eye for detail and passion for Detroit, Boyd celebrates the music, manufacturing, politics, and culture that make it an American original.

Black Against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party by Joshua Bloom, Waldo E. Martin Jr.

In Oakland, California, in 1966, community college students Bobby Seale and Huey Newton armed themselves, began patrolling the police, and promised to prevent police brutality. Unlike the Civil Rights Movement that called for full citizenship rights for blacks within the U.S., the Black Panther Party rejected the legitimacy of the U.S. government and positioned itself as part of a global struggle against American imperialism. In the face of intense repression, the Party flourished, becoming the center of a revolutionary movement with offices in 68 U.S. cities and powerful allies around the world. Black against Empire is the first comprehensive overview and analysis of the history and politics of the Black Panther Party. The authors analyze key political questions, such as why so many young black people across the country risked their lives for the revolution, why the Party grew most rapidly during the height of repression, and why allies abandoned the Party at its peak of influence. Bold, engrossing, and richly detailed, this book cuts through the mythology and obfuscation, revealing the political dynamics that drove the explosive growth of this revolutionary movement, and its disastrous unraveling. Informed by twelve years of meticulous archival research, as well as familiarity with most of the former Party leadership and many rank-and-file members, this book is the definitive history of one of the greatest challenges ever posed to American state power.

Satch, Dizzy, and Rapid Robert: The Wild Saga of Interracial Baseball Before Jackie Robinson by Timothy M. Gay

Before Jackie Robinson integrated major league baseball in 1947, black and white ballplayers had been playing against one another for decades--even, on rare occasions, playing with each other. Interracial contests took place during the off-season, when major leaguers and Negro Leaguers alike fattened their wallets by playing exhibitions in cities and towns across America. These barnstorming tours reached new heights, however, when Satchel Paige and other African- American stars took on white teams headlined by the irrepressible Dizzy Dean. Lippy and funny, a born showman, the native Arkansan saw no reason why he shouldn't pitch against Negro Leaguers. Paige, who feared no one and chased a buck harder than any player alive, instantly recognized the box-office appeal of competing against Dizzy Dean's "All-Stars." Paige and Dean both featured soaring leg kicks and loved to mimic each other's style to amuse fans. Skin color aside, the dirt-poor Southern pitchers had much in common. Historian Timothy M. Gay has unearthed long-forgotten exhibitions where Paige and Dean dueled, and he tells the story of their pioneering escapades in this engaging book. Long before they ever heard of Robinson or Larry Doby, baseball fans from Brooklyn to Enid, Oklahoma, watched black and white players battle on the same diamond. With such Hall of Fame teammates as Josh Gibson, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, Oscar Charleston, Cool Papa Bell, and Bullet Joe Rogan, Paige often had the upper hand against Diz. After arm troubles sidelined Dean, a new pitching phenom, Bob Feller--Rapid Robert--assembled his own teams to face Paige and other blackballers. By the time Paige became Feller's teammate on the Cleveland Indians in 1948, a rookie at age forty-two, Satch and Feller had barnstormed against each other for more than a decade. These often obscure contests helped hasten the end of Jim Crow baseball, paving the way for the game's integration. Satchel Paige, Dizzy Dean, and Bob Feller never set out to make social history--but that's precisely what happened. Tim Gay has brought this era to vivid and colorful life in a book that every baseball fan will embrace.

[dabistits]

To talk about Twice and villainy is to talk about class and criminality (III)

Masterpost

Class in BNHA

Returning to my earlier point that BNHA should be read alongside the social concerns of real-world Japan, I want to note that these events almost surely affected and remained within Horikoshi’s awareness. Horikoshi was born in 1986, and thus lived through the economic downturns of the 90′s and 2000′s as a child and young adult. In 2010 when Sugimoto’s article was published—not in the least the first of its kind—Horikoshi was 24 years-old, more than old enough to remember the public discourses about Japan’s kakusa shakai. In 2008, only two years earlier, an award-winning film dealing with the financial struggles of a Tokyo family, Tokyo Sonata, was released, and 2012 saw an infamous starvation case involving a family that made international headlines. In 2014, BNHA began serialization. Without speculating on the political leanings of the author himself, it seems remiss not to posit the likelihood that these events and the atmosphere they engendered can be connected to Horikoshi’s writing and the kind of story he intends to tell. While BNHA isn’t what I’d necessarily call class-conscious, the ways it delves into class is noticeable even outside of Jin’s backstory and are worth a discussion.

If not exactly class-conscious, there nevertheless seems to be an awareness of class in BNHA. Not even our heroes are able to fully escape it, and in 1-A, there are small distinctions drawn between the experiences of more wealthy students and ones that are less well-off. For example, Yaoyorozu Momo wows classmates with her stately house, brings expensive furniture into the dorms, and exhibits naïve joy at shopping at an outlet store; Todoroki Shouto’s family home was shown to be a large, traditional residence, and a secondary house has since been built on the income of his formerly abusive, currently estranged father. Both students come from established hero families, and both were admitted to U.A. based on recommendation. On the other hand, Uraraka Ochako comes from a working-class family, and explains that a big part of her decision to become a hero is to support her parents’ business. She’s also been shown to be amazed at U.A.’s dorm facilities, and has frequent jokes made about her thriftiness in bonus material. When it comes to villains, these issues manifest with much more distinctiveness. Aside from Jin, a couple members of the Shie Hassaikai also bring up issues of class and exploitation when they explain their decision to join Overhaul: one was indebted, and the other had his Quirk exploited by an unethical boss. When Overhaul found them, they were “rotting away on the streets.”

On another level, BNHA is certainly hierarchy-conscious. As I’ve brought up before, many of the antagonist groups we see are strictly hierarchal, and more importantly, the lower-ranking members are often commanded to live and die according to their leader’s desires. From the members of the Shie Hassaikai to the Meta Liberation Army, we continuously see them lending their bodies and Quirks to the causes of their superiors, only to be discarded at the most opportune moments: Overhaul directly uses one of his followers as a meat shield, and the Meta Liberation Army decides to put their members in the path of danger, just to steal some glory from the LOV. Geten, from the MLA, has no qualms about enacting such wide-scale destruction that the members of his own organization get caught in the crossfire.

It seems relevant to mention that Yotsubashi Rikiya “Redestro,” the wealthy CEO of Detnerat and successor to the revolutionary Destro, makes his official appearance in the series through an advertisement, a medium tied to the capitalist drive for production and consumerism. Advertisements can also be understood as a medium for misrepresentation, an idealized image created to maximize sales, and sure enough, Redestro’s friendly façade gives way when he kills his assistant, Miyashita, for a mildly disparaging comment about Destro’s ideals. Before the murder, Redestro asks Miyashita whether he has a family or a significant other, making sure that his absence will not be missed, but the pointed question also seems to work as a stand-in for the invisibility of those who “serve” the rich, who can be discarded without hardly a blink of an eye. Miyashita, despite his proximity to wealth and to the wealthy, despite being on all counts a hardworking, model employee, remains expendable in the eyes of his boss. Furthermore, this act of violence occurs not in the supposedly crime-ridden streets—it happens in a swanky office building, where both killer and victim are supposedly working in civilian capacities. It suggests that hierarchies are not something that only belong in the villain world, but that these cycles of exploitation and expendability proliferate throughout society down to our offices and homes.

Quirks as determiners of worth.

In fact, home is where we bear witness to one of the greatest feats of exploitation: in the marriage between Rei and her abuser. Of course, the greatest foundation in this dynamic is patriarchy, wherein the woman is treated like the property of her husband, but there’s a subtle twist in this arrangement thanks to the introduction of Quirks. Rei’s marriage was not simply considered an “arranged marriage,” but specifically a “Quirk marriage” meant to strengthen the Quirks of the following generation by choosing a suitable partner. The Quirk marriage between Rei and her abuser was facilitated by his wealth and fame—acquired through his work in the line of pro heroes—therefore placing a price tag on her Quirk and on her person. I consider this to be an indication of the commodification of Quirks—“commodity” meaning roughly, in the Marxist sense, something that can be “bought or sold” or “exchanged in the market.”

Of course, the horrific thing about purchasing Quirks is they are attached to humans. Quirks are genetic mutations, and are stated in-text to specifically be biological attributes; without a human with the appropriate genetic mutation, a specific Quirk doesn’t exist. If the past serves as any lesson, it’s likely that as Quirks (and the humans who wield them) began to be seen as increasingly valuable, the ruling class soon caught on to the fact that Quirks needed to be controlled, regulated, and diverted to serve the interests of capital. Thus, Quirk regulations were born to prevent a potentially cataclysmic disruption to the means of production, as were pro heroes—a superpowered arm of law enforcement to deal with superpowered criminals. Contemporarily, heroes are largely those whose Quirks are considered the most valuable, and they’re paid for wielding said Quirks in defense of the rule of law; in other words, they sell their Quirk-wielding expertise. While Quirks themselves can’t yet be bought and sold (at least not on a wide scale), the humans attached to them can be. 

This leads to yet another societal dysfunction. Because some Quirks are considered more valuable than others, and because Quirks are attached to persons, some people are considered more valuable than others. This comes through even more clearly in the original Japanese word for Quirk: 個性 (kosei). Kosei can be translated as “individuality” but also as “personality” or “character,” e.g. she has a strong personality (kosei), [source] a meaning that inevitably implicates the human behind the personality. But in the world of BNHA, a strong kosei no longer simply means a strong personality—it can also mean a strong Quirk. In the linguistic realm, personality and Quirk have become indistinguishable, and this has two effects: one, Quirks are presumed to influence personality (as in the cases of Toga and Shinsou), and two, that which makes us individual, our personalities, has become entangled with Quirks-as-commodity. That is to say, one’s kosei determines one’s worth under capitalism.

Of course, people with “good” or “valuable” Quirks (and thus presumably “good” and “valuable” personalities) are funneled into law enforcement and encouraged to uphold the status quo—the very status quo which increases their chances of gaining wealth, fame, and prestige that they can then pass down to subsequent generations. However, the policing class must justify its existence—if there is no crime, then there’s no need for policing. In one respect, this “need” is manufactured by criminalizing poverty (as discussed above), and other harmless acts (such as drug possession), and by creating the adverse, alienated conditions in which violence is not considered only necessary, but normal for both the policing class and those who are policed. Under the classification of value, however, there’s another easy scapegoat: people with “bad” or “worthless” Quirks.

While no Quirk is explicitly criminalized, there are many Quirks that carry a stigma, including the likes of Transform and Brainwash (whose wielders are regarded with suspicion for fear of “bad” personalities); some Quirks walk the line between “criminalized” and “stigmatized” altogether. Consider the Quirk wielded by the indebted member of the Shie Hassaikai, which allows him to transfer any object on another’s person into his hands: the Quirk is called “Larceny.” The naming is telling; it draws a direct link between indebtedness/need, and theft as a crime and as a kosei. With some people presumed “destined” for crime, and those presumptions becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy as they’re shut off from opportunities for advancement, law enforcement is endowed with legitimacy. Heroes and villains become two sides of the same coin—one unable to exist without the other, both socially-constructed categories to perpetuate the ruling class.

[mmmmalo]

@overtrolled-liveblog‘s recent post on Gamzee made me realize that Gamzee’s first interaction with Terezi (Terezi attempting to hurt Gamzee and being angry when he doesn’t react) is also the basic dynamic of Terezi’s ill-fated attempt to “avenge” herself upon Gamzee around Game Over. I never understood why Terezi’s was manifesting for Gamzee in that interaction, but the repetition seems like a good lead. So here’s an attempt:

Aranea’s mind control is being juxtaposed with whatever allowed Gamzee to maintain his composure in Act 5. Sopor is an obvious candidate, as is his general early interest in avoiding conflict, but there might be something else to it...

2018. When Gamzee remarks (in the narration) that "it is dangerous to leave unarmed", the commentary has this to say: "It's probably not actually that dangerous to leave unarmed. This was probably something his goat dad told him a long time ago. But only to scare him, and make sure he stayed inside so no one would ever see him, because he was so embarrassed by him. Goatdad is probably one of the most sympathetic characters in the story. If Gamzee was your son, wouldn't you abandon him too?" Glib dismissal, veering sharply into needless cruelty. But it nonetheless draws attention to the narration's unreliability, moored as it is to Gamzee's POV.

2017. Speaking of unreliable: "You aren't supposed to eat that slime. It does funny things to a troll's head. // But you were never taught that on account of a lousy upbringing. Your custodian was always out to sea." Gamzee is evidently thinking the very thing he was never taught, but he attributes that thought to a higher power (the narrator) and thereby pleads ignorance of it? Or it could be read as an expression of shame: as Gamzee eats his pie, he imagines a stern voice admonishing him from over his shoulder. OR you might more literally parse the contradiction as the voice of two separate Gamzees sharing the brain space in some kind of daze...or you could call it simple memory loss. These are inclusive ors, btw.

2019. Anyway, Gamzee reaches the beach and we get this line: "You leave your hive and head out to the beach. There is no sign of your custodian. // You should not stay out here very long. The SEA DWELLERS are quite hostile." Commentary on his custodian's absence, followed by a voice of authoritative behavioral cautioning, as though a guardian were living in Gamzee's head. Immediately following this, Terezi manifests for Gamzee, though he doesn't answer immediately... so I suspect Terezi's manifestation will be an elaboration this internal division?

2020: "You're always down for shooting the wicked shit with anyone that who'll put up with you." Man... Act 5 is misery. The Miracle Modus is a picture of Gamzee's brain being fried to a point of being nearly inaccessible. Vivid flashing colors (like Jade's rich scents) are a mark of unfiltered EXPERIENCE sans language/reason (which is probably why Lord English's eyes are flashing), but here that means disorientation -- difficulty organizing sense experience...

2022: Gamzee says a prayer and Faygo gets launched out of his sylladex... is the Faygo the prayer? Jane launched wishes into the sky with the balloons on LOCAH -- but the balloon shape was inverted and transformed into Gamzee's bottles of "potion"... that association seems to be expressed more concisely here. Jane's case was also related to decapitation motifs, which I don't really see with Gamzee here... (aside from Terezi's general association with going for the neck) But at any rate, what is he wishing for?

2023. Gamzee standing in front of his sylladex is getting to me, even more so that his reaching into the sylladex. You are not SUPPOSED to be on that layer of the image. What are you doing. Is that safe? Are you okay?

2024. The conversation itself...continues to evade summarization. I'm going to just describe it piece-by-piece and see if I get anywhere.

Terezi deliberately misspells Gamzee's name in service of a joke: from 'gamzeez' to 'gamezez', highlighting its phonetic proximity to 'games'. Though I wonder if this disguises another sort of exchange: Gamzee goes down to the beach to find his dad, but instead finds Terezi. I'm humoring the idea that she is effectively functioning as the fatherly authority in Goatdad's place. But as the preceding panels indicates, that very notion of authority occupies a place in Gamzee's head that he remains somewhat...detached from? If Terezi gives voice to this aspect of Gamzee, the word blurring could obfuscate that she is saying "Gamzee" /twice/, such that her invitation to play games is an offer for Gamzee to pilot himself? (Which in the parent:child::head:body paradigm is not entirely ridiculous?)

Come to think of it, this is the second time Terezi has harassed someone on a waterfront (hi, Rose) and even then main subjects were a) haha your guardian abandoned you because you're terrible and b) a sense of hearing imploring voices in your head...

Terezi implies that she doesn't like Gamzee and is only inviting him in service of a joke. Gamzee ignores the ulterior message and accepts the given reason as justifiable... after which Terezi gets angry. But she doesn't seem angry that the implication was misunderstood (and her disdain ignored) but is rather angry that the arbitrariness of his selection wasn't itself objectionable -- /after/ which she confirms her own disdain by saying "no wonder Vantas can't stand you". The motivation for the joke became the effect of the joke...

"BUT WHO C4R3S 4BOUT H1M, W3R3 GO1NG TO H4V3 SOM3 MOTH3RFUCK1NG SH1TTY B1TCH3S PL4Y1NG TOG3TH3R!" as Rose said, "Still not sure if I'm being courted or trolled here." Terezi is making fun of how Gamzee talks but nonetheless seems to be attempting to bond with him here...?

With "keeping an eye out" and "you know how it is with family" back-to-back with Terezi's aggression, it kind of feels like Gamzee is likewise (successfully) attempting to bother Terezi... but his defense is his forgetfulness, like a taboo subject just slipped... the same is true of Gamzee's claim that he was never taught that sopor is dangerous, the legitimacy of which depends on Gamzee forgetting?

"The Bard of... fuck, i forgot" is literally a joke on Gamzee "forgetting" his way around anger and aggression, by way of the omission of Rage? Also, it's a generic phrase but John uses 'fuck i forgot' when reminded of his birthday in the Epilogues... topic of birthdays is significant since Gamzee parses his state of mind as 'spacing out' and 'losing track of time' -- a birthday is, in that context, a reminder of time's progression.

Twice in Gamzee's conversation he asks Terezi for a little bit more time before he plays the game with her. This again reminds us of Rose's procrastination -- which among other things represents a deferral of encounter with the Truth, again bringing us to forgetting. 

2028. But interestingly enough, the motif of procrastination continues in the section with Karkat that follows: Karkat expresses apprehension about meeting his guardian before the narrative segues to Terezi, which is structurally resonant with Gamzee going to the beach for his guardian, only to find Terezi? Which again associates her with unseen authority figures... 

Oh shoot, and the panel cuts from Karkat looking down through the hole in his floor to a low-angle shot of Terezi's skylight? As though she were below like crabdad. That seals it for me.

2030. Actually, I mentioned how Gamzee's flashing modus is related to the unmediated sensory bouquet that Lord English sees ALL THE TIME by having flashing eyes, but Terezi's room? Is set up to be exactly that sensory bouquet, all the time, with loud colors plastered and mixed haphazardly. I've mostly focused on Terezi's relation to English by way of their shared association with the Law (x)(x) but this is a fresh angle...

And since it becomes apparent that the scenes that /follow/ Gamzee's conversation inform the way it should be read, I would be remiss to exclude the Karkat/Sollux conversation between the Gamzee and Terezi sections... in which the ~ATH (til death) code is brought up, which proves central to Lord English's creation.

2026. "later on you would run this code in a fit of stupidity." Creepy! I always assume the narration to be bound to the present tense, like the character's POV, so this sudden interruption from the future is really unnerving. How does Karkat know this? Is that just a miserable self-assessment, like he knows he'll harm himself when he gets worked up? Is this Karkat planning to curse everyone, but renouncing his decision as a product of fate? I feel like this confusion nicely complements the paradoxical ~ATH code on screen (Sollux's double reacharound virus)

2027. "Speak of the devil" Sollux has manifested for Karkat... yeah I still can't make sense of this as far as manifestation goes. BUT I think the fact that chatlogs are likewise two-colored might mean that Sollux and Karkat's conversation is in some sense analogous to the code...? The architecture of the conversation is... accusing eachother of self-loathing and then agreeing upon mutual self-destruction (of the conversational log), which at least superficially resembles a program that exists to destroy itself and the medium in which it resides? Maybe...

Shot in the dark: the (much procrastinated) march unto Truth is a march unto Judgement, which means both God and Death. Thus Gamzee (the procrastinator who avoids truth) transitions to Karkat/Sollux (vaguely suicidal gesture in their conversation) transitions to Terezi (judge and executioner, associated with ultimate authority and thus God). That's my best assessment of the proceedings thus far.

[matterofperception]

MUSTAT LESKET FINAL MUSINGS

Okay, so I finished the second (and last) season of Mustat Lesket (Black Widows) a little while ago. It ends on a significant cliffhanger, and with a number of loose ends, but the series was never renewed despite the success of its first. Excuse me while I rant into the void, because there is zero fandom here for me to bounce things off (it’s an old show, 2014/16 AND not in English, so...) and I have so many thoughts...

Firstly, I actually really enjoyed the first season of Mustat Lesket, and would recommend it based on that (and because I think Pihla Viitala is wonderful). It had just the right balance of mystery/thrills and drama, but also black/dry humour (I laughed a lot in S1). A lot of it was far-fetched and beyond belief, but you could kind of let that slide because the show never took itself too seriously. As far as character introductions went, I loved Veera and Johanna, and could understand the trajectories that had led them to feel like killing their husbands was a viable way out. Kirsi, well, she just felt like a necessary caricature, designed to milk the drama for everything it was worth. The dynamic between sweet, gentle Veera, emotional, crazy Kirsi, and strong, wilful Johanna somehow worked in S1.

And when Jukka returned, his redemption arc in S1 was done fantastically. Suddenly, you could understand (although not necessarily condone - same as with the widows and the boat) why he’d been such an asshole, and you could also see Veera start to come to that realisation too. The build up to their reconciliation at the end of S1 was the most authentic and believable in the entirety of the series (with the possible exception of Johanna and Petri, though they didn’t have the romantic chemistry that Veera and Jukka had).

S2 however, was an odd and fragmented ride. With the truth of the boat blast that bonded them no longer a looming threat, suddenly the widows were thrown into very separate storylines. Kirsi, despite Veera and Johanna inexplicably taking her back into the fold after her betrayal, spends half the season away from them locked in a genuinely abusive marriage to a man she’s known for about half a minute. She pushes so far past the point of what is forgivable in terms of her friendships with Veera and Johanna, and becomes increasingly difficult to sympathise with. The bulk of Veera’s storyline is focussed on her weird open relationship with a high-profile MP/author who she has absolutely no chemistry with (I used to think Pihla would have chemistry with a rock - she’s had it with basically everyone else I’ve ever seen her paired with - but I don’t see it at all with this guy) while her own husband becomes a mere inconvenience, and Johanna...well I can’t even remember what Johanna was doing half the time, besides the will-they-won’t-they dance with Petri. The widows then intersect at the tiniest dribs and drabs to talk about the DVD. That’s really it.

And Jukka, oh my god, did they write him into the ground or what? S1′s redemption arc shows him falling back in love with his wife, so much that he’s willing to leave her to make her happy, and then to go to jail to keep her and their daughter safe. And S2 opens with him trying to drown her, not even stopping to question the legitimacy of what Kirsi - who has just been coming on to him behind Veera’s back - is saying? He then spends half the season locked in a basement, and when he does finally get free and worms his way back into Veera and Siiri’s lives, there isn’t a single proper conversation between him and Veera about all that’s gone down between them. Yeesh. By the end of the season, he’s gone legitimately off the rails. Even if there had been a S3 (and Jukka hadn’t been shot in the S2 finale), it would’ve been really hard for him to redeem himself.

I honestly don’t know what drove the storyline decisions here. You’d think that logically, the Veera/Jukka conflict and relationship would have the most potential for drama and rich storytelling (not to mention the strongest bond to the underlying trigger plot of the show - the boat blast). We saw nothing of it in S2. Nothing. It was just swept under the rug. They barely even interact.

I guess I’m just really disappointed in where they took this. I wonder if even the writers/actors were in the dark about where they would take that relationship in S2, because the way they played Veera and Jukka’s reconciliation in S1 was just so…emotionally romantic? In that post-sex scene where they’re talking by the fire, Jukka looked like he absolutely adored her, like he’d have done anything for her. The show had also made an interesting decision to not show them having sex (only the prelude, which was incredibly loving and tender), in contrast to Veera/Erno and Veera/Anttu who we quite graphically see having sex... For a while I’d wondered if they were using the whole ‘making love vs having sex’ contrast to highlight that her relationship with Jukka was special, but that quickly got blown out of the water in S2.

(An aside - it’s interesting that Veera and Anttu barely ever kiss throughout the whole relationship, and I wonder if there was a recognised chemistry issue between Pihla and the guy who plays Anttu).

Based on what they’d shown us about their feelings, realistically both Jukka and Veera should’ve been way more devastated by Kirsi’s reveal. Surely, he would’ve wanted to understand. Surely a part of him wouldn’t even believe it until hearing it from her (especially bearing in mind Kirsi has just been coming on to him behind Veera’s back)? Surely he’d have been heartbroken as well as angry? And surely Veera would’ve been more hurt by his reaction, would’ve understood his anger, and would’ve wanted to explain things to him (they basically wrote S2 as if she didn’t care enough to try)? S2 made a huge mockery of the redemption arc of S1. It made Veera look fickle and unattached and Jukka regress into the volatile asshole he’d been presented as at the start of S1. And perhaps most significantly of all, it denied Veera of a redemption arc of her own. The reality, is that she should’ve wanted that redemption - she was wrong about him, and had nearly killed him because of it. Why didn’t the writers address that?? It really pissed me off that they just had Veera brush that whole thing under the carpet.

And Anttu, oh my gosh I don’t even know what angle they were going for with this storyline? Were we supposed to be rooting for him? Because I was really not. First off, I don’t believe that Veera would ever be so desperate to seriously pursue the relationship in the first place - she is fiercely protective of her daughter (to the point she was willing to kill her husband to protect her) so I doubt she would’ve engaged in a relationship that she knew would never provide any stability for Siiri. 

And Anttu himself, what the hell? He takes her out for a public dinner, and then everyone acts like it’s such a shock when the media snaps them out together and reports on it as gossip? Veera’s humiliated and hurt, but doesn’t even have enough pride to walk away from a) him b) the job she has working for his wife until way later on? All the while, her own husband is popping in and out of her life and it’s like she’s just flicked the off switch on her feelings for him? It just makes no sense to me! 

And then there’s the fact that we aren’t shown any great emotional connection between Veera and Anttu. They basically had no emotional or sexual chemistry. We’re meant to believe that the pull between these characters is so strong, and the audience is told by way of the characters that Veera and Anttu are supposedly so attracted to each other, but the chemistry is so non-existent that we don’t see it. The clincher though, is that he was actually kind of an asshole. The show tried to present him as this wholesome guy, but he didn't actually seem to give two shits about her wellbeing at all - he showed up at her house the first time she broke it off basically to convince her to keep sleeping with him on the side (telling her how attracted he was to her while her kid was in hearing distance, wtf), took her out to dinner knowing that people would likely talk, brushed off her concerns about the photos, outed her name to the press against her wishes, stood by his wife and basically belittled her and treated her like the other woman on live television, then when she tried to break it off for good he kept pursuing her because he wanted her, like she was some kind of trophy (and ‘I’m not used to being dumped’ - OH PLEASE!). He had no regard for her feelings or wishes at all. The scene where he shows up at her house with the party invite and wouldn’t even let her speak raised my hackles - I mean, was that supposed to be romantic? Him constantly stalking her despite her saying ‘no’ on multiple occasions, and showing up at her house (and scaring her kid) despite her wishes? Honestly, it just about killed me seeing Veera allowing herself to be treated like that. She deserves so much better, and it was really unsatisfying to see the series end with her going back to him (the fact that he left his wife is really the least of the issues).

So maybe I wrote all that just to come to the conclusion that - I’m actually kind of glad that we’ll never see beyond the ending of S2. Perhaps I’ll just pretend that this universe concluded at the end of S1, before Kirsi had the chance to make that phone call. I’ll pretend that Veera eventually told Jukka of her own accord, that they fought and got angry, and made up and were able to understand each others’ circumstances. That they talked and kissed and made love at the villa, and plotted a way to keep the police off Veera’s back. And then they lived happily ever after with Siiri. Sigh.

[hellzyeahwebwielingessays]

‘The Absent Father and Spider-Man’s Unfulfilled Potential’: Rebuttal Part 6: Tony Stark

Master Post

It’s time for another confession.

I actually began writing this essay series a long while back but took a hiatus for various reasons. Back then I was summarizing Fettinger’s own words and responding because I had no access to a digital edition of his essay.

Now I’ve got (a little) spare time on my hands and so can finally finish what I started. But since my time isn’t limitless I’m going to save myself time and energy by just use screengrabbing passages s of his essay from Google books.

Where Google books has blank pages I have improvised and taken photos of the pages myself. It’s not a neat or tidy solution I admit but it was the best I could do on such short notice.

Notice here how Fetinger acknowledges Peter had to struggle for financial support whilst Tony never had that problem. It’s almost like he’s pointing out a huge difference between them which makes his initial comparison to them back in parts 1-2 a massive false equivalency or something.

Again with this bullshit. Yes peter would benefit from an upgraded outfit but he never had access to the tech and resources that Tony had. He was never in a position to construct a nanotech suit.

Peter was 30 YEARS OLD during Civil War. Fettinger even did the math on that himself in one of his articles that’s been lost to time.

How the fuck is 30 a ‘young man’??????

Not to mention, the example Tony set is a false equivalency. Tony didn’t have any loved ones particularly vulnerable if people knew his secret identity. They would’ve been in slightly more jeopardy at worst. But Peter had school students, a young godson and dozens of civilian friends and acquaintances that didn’t have the same protection Tony could offer Pepper, Rhodey, Happy, etc.

Not to mention there was less than 18 years between Peter and Tony. Hardly a father/son dynamic is it. Big Brother/Little Brother maybe. But it never made sense in the comics Fettinger is referring to.

HORSESHIT!

Let’s put aside how Peter wouldn’t be as impressionable as Fettinger makes out because he was a 30 year old married man who’d shouldered an adult’s responsibility for half his life and matured fast as a result.

Fettinger frames the discussion disingenuously. He plays it as though Peter is actively opposed to authority or somehow resents it. On the contrary, Peter tried to join the police force in Untold Tales #1; a fact Fettinger himself referenced   in the George Stacy segment of his essay. He changed his mind specifically because  he’d have to reveal his identity.

Spider-Man is only subtextually  an anti-authority figure, and even then it’s never been consistent. Peter clearly holds a certain belief in law and order as he makes it his business to catch criminals and protect the public from threats.

He respects the police in general in spite of their disdain for him. Even that’s not wholly consistent because figures like Captain Stacy, Detective Jean DeWolff, her partner Stan Carter, Arthur Stacy (brother of George) and (in JMS’ run) Detective Lamont were more tan willing to work with the wall-crawler.

Peter hasn’t got a problem with authority nor does he have a craving for acceptance by them. If he did he had various options to obtain it. He sabotaged his own chances to join the Avengers in ASM Annual #3. He has used alternate identities that received a better public reception than his Spider-Man persona but actively chose to remain as Spider-Man instead.

He respects authority but he just values his independence too highly is all. Which is another reason why Fettinger’s point about Tony taking Peter AND Spider-Man under his wing doesn’t fly. Peter isn’t some kid looking for legitimacy. He was a respected teacher to children. He was a mature adult who’d cared for his family off his own back for years. He was a happily married man. He’d come of age and self-actualized as an adult long before Tony showed up to be his benefactor.

This would’ve maybe added up for a 25 (at most) year old single Peter not too long out of college. But as things stood Fettinger’s assessments are totally hollow.

Tony didn’t even give Peter legitimate employment considering Peter was still a teacher  at the time. His employment under Stark was for appearances sake. Peter was also too old to care anymore about his stature or legitimacy. Maybe it might’ve irked him but he wasn’t going to sell out for the sake of it.

Indeed ASM #532 depicts Peter unsupportive of unmasking until Aunt May  convinces him. Even then he changes his mind the next day before changing it back.

But this change, along with the over all decision, is simply ridiculous.

Peter teaches children. He has a pre-teen godson. His friends are predominantly normal civilians, many of whom are middle aged at least. His aunt was in her 70s and his wife has been targeted by various super villains throughout the years. His first love was murdered because a single lunatic learned who he was.

Simply put Peter would never agree  to unmask. Not for Tony or anyone. It’s simply not the responsible  thing to do. In a contest between his stature/legitimacy and loyalty to his (very  new) benefactor Tony vs. the lives of his loved ones (including his mother and wife, both of whom he’s believed dead before) the latter will always win.

Indeed Peter alludes to this mentality in ASM #530.

The idea that 30 year old married man Peter would compromise on that because a man not old enough to be his father (who had never had as mature a relationship with a woman as he had) took him under his wing is…well…it’s a broken interpretation of the character.

That’s not a hero. That’s not responsible. That’s not even flawed. That’s a man without his own mind and agency who can be swayed and sell out with ease.

And baby, that ain’t   Spider-Man!

According to Fettinger this  is Spider-Man.

Oh and you know Peter himself!

This is yet another reason why Peter siding with Tony was horseshit. He’d be inclined to support Cap much more than the guy who took him under his wing for a few months.

It’s almost like Peter holds higher values that trump any affection or ‘gifts’ Daddy Stark bestowed upon him.

It’s almost like there is less than 18 years between them or something?????????

Fettinger can’t seem to make up his mind.

Is Peter going to alter his value system to comply with Tony’s desire for him to unmask? Or is Tony’s value system incompatible with Peter’s?

Because if it is the latter then why would he endanger his loved ones by unmasking!

Master Post