#And for anyone who can relate to the struggles depicted within this story- | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

denimbex1986 · 1 year

Text

'Moviegoers turned out in droves this weekend for writer-director Christopher Nolan's new film Oppenheimer, fueling an expectations-shattering domestic box office debut of $80 million. The three-hour-long biopic recounts the life story of J. Robert Oppenheimer (played by Cillian Murphy), the theoretical physicist widely known as the “father of the atomic bomb,” and has been praised by critics for its nuanced examination of a complicated historical figure.

The movie is based on Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 2006 biography American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, one of numerous accounts of Oppenheimer's life and legacy. But according to Oppenheimer's grandson, Charles Oppenheimer, the famous physicist's family has their own their own approach to depictions of him and additional nuance to include.

Charles was born near Santa Fe, N.M., in April 1975, after both his grandfather and grandmother, Katherine "Kitty" Puening Oppenheimer (played by Emily Blunt), had passed away. However, he says he grew up having a very open dialogue about his grandfather's work with his father, Peter Oppenheimer, who spent several years of his early childhood at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project.

TIME spoke with Charles about what Oppenheimer gets right about his grandfather, what he would have changed, and the work he's doing to further Oppenheimer's legacy today.

TIME: How was your grandparents' story told to you when you were growing up?

Charles Oppenheimer: Like most kids, I heard about my grandparents through my parents, and there was a marker at one point that stands out in my memory of speaking about Robert Oppenheimer being a famous person who had done his duty during World War II. He might have been a soldier, but his skills were in science, so he used science to do what he had to do during the war. But within the family, we had very open conversations. So my dad was always there if I had a question once I started hearing more about how we were related to a person that other people were talking about. I was always able to initiate a conversation and I do that to this day, especially with my father Peter.

So there was ongoing, open communication about who your grandfather was.

With a very big dividing line. Within the family, we absolutely talked about it as much as possible. With anyone outside of the family, my father doesn't discuss anything [about him] if he can avoid it.

Do you feel there are misconceptions about your grandfather?

There's such an incredible historical record of him. It's impressive, like every detail of every conversation of his spring break in 1924 is analyzed. If you have that much information and enough people writing and rewriting and interpreting, you can pick up any thread of meaning and narrative. The one that's developing right now is about as positive and as famous of an interpretation of him as you could have. And I find that being related to him and having insight into who he was doesn't always seem that interesting to other people. They're happy to ask a historian or a writer, and it's not necessarily true that my impression of his values is taken as the answer. So I kind of struggle with saying that I have a view of who he is and what he cared about and it not always getting across. That being said, I think with as much attention as is put on him, there is a large understanding of the complexity of the stuff he dealt with and the problems and opportunities of ushering science into the world.

You saw the movie. Were there parts that hit you the hardest, emotionally?

I was bracing myself for not feeling great about it, even though I talked to Chris Nolan and was very impressed by him. I saw him work on the set with an amazing intensity when I visited once or twice, and we had a great conversation. But I didn't know, am I going to love it? Am I going to hate it? I often have that reaction to biographies and pundits when they talk about my grandfather. I feel like they're missing something. And sometimes it really feels personal. Like when somebody wants to start a fight with you on the schoolyard, they'll talk about your family member. But during the movie, I found myself accepting and liking it. I thought it told a compelling story and I could just take it as art that was really engaging. I was really happy to have that reaction. I didn't expect it.

Were there parts that struck you as historically or emotionally inaccurate?

When I talked to Chris Nolan, at one point he said something roughly like, 'I know how to tell a story out of this subject. There are going to be parts that you have to dramatize a bit and parts that are changed. As family members, I think you're going to like some parts and dislike some parts.' That's probably led into my acceptance of the movie, even though I saw it very late, just when it came out. As a dramatized representation of the history, it was really largely accurate. There are parts that I disagree with, but not really because of Nolan.

The part I like the least is this poison apple reference, which was a problem in American Prometheus. If you read American Prometheus carefully enough, the authors say, 'We don't really know if it happened.' There's no record of him trying to kill somebody. That's a really serious accusation and it's historical revision. There's not a single enemy or friend of Robert Oppenheimer who heard that during his life and considered it to be true. American Prometheus got it from some references talking about a spring break trip, and all the original reporters of that story—there was only two maybe three—reported that they didn't know what Robert Oppenheimer was talking about. Unfortunately, American Prometheus summarizes that as Robert Oppenheimer tried to kill his teacher and then they [acknowledge that] maybe there's this doubt.

Sometimes facts get dragged through a game of telephone. In the movie, it's treated vaguely and you don't really know what's going on unless you know this incredibly deep backstory. So it honestly didn't bother me. It bothers me that it was in the biography with that emphasis, not a disclaimer of, this is an unsubstantiated rumor that we want to put in our book to make it interesting. But I like some of the dramatization. I thought Einstein's conversation with Oppenheimer at the end was really effective even though it wasn't historical.

What was your role, if any, in the movie?

The family policy around media, books, and what I'd call the cult of Oppenheimer, is not to participate in it. It's a business to write and talk about Oppenheimer, and the model that my dad chose is: 'It's not very classy, and I'm not going to be involved in publicly representing Oppenheimer in ways that other people do as a business.' But when I saw this movie was coming out, I said, 'Wow, that's going to be really big.' I also have a big interest in representing my grandfather's values for today's world. That's the most important thing in my opinion. So I reached out said, 'Hey, could I get involved?', and Chris Nolan was nice enough to give me a courtesy call through Kai Bird—whose book I just criticized. I do think American Prometheus is really good, I just had a complaint about that one part.

So Chris Nolan gave me a call. He had finished the script and he said, 'I have so much material with American Prometheus.' I explained that my dad probably would be unlikely to talk. But I don't think he needed input from the family. And as an artist, he obviously has every right to do that. You need art to tell this story. And it's just a fact that when somebody writes a biography about our family, we don't have input or the ability to make decisions. The chain of this movie was American Prometheus was published and then Nolan licensed it. I tried to give my perspective, but there wasn't any official involvement.

Is there anything you would have advised them to do differently, had you been asked?

I definitely would have removed the apple thing. But I can't imagine myself giving advice about movie stuff to Nolan. He's an expert, he's the artist, and he's a genius in this area. But one amusing family story is that, if I invited myself to the set, they would entertain me coming, which I did twice. And so one time I visited the set in New Mexico. I saw them film and, in that particular scene, Cillian Murphy walks into a room and part of his line was calling someone an 'asshole.' And when I went back to Santa Fe and told my dad, he was horrified. He said, 'Robert Oppenheimer never swore. He was such a formal person. He would never, ever do that.' And I was like, 'Well, it's a dramatization.' But I was worried that in the movie he would be this swearing, abusive guy. Anyway, I think he said one swear word in the movie and I just happened to be in the room. So there is a chance that if we had been consultants, we could have added some details and depth. But there's such a complete record. It was enough for Nolan to tell the story he intended to.

Did the movie help you come to any kind of deeper understanding of your grandfather?

When I saw how Nolan put this together, I was like, wow, there are thousands of pages of more details than what he put in there. But he was able to summarize it to the effect of: are we going to destroy ourselves as a species? That told as a story is really important. It's not exactly a revelation, but it's an important message. I always look at my grandfather's actual words instead of what other people said about him. And I think his advice is really relevant today, because he was right about how to manage atomic energy. If we had followed his actual hard policy proposals, we could have avoided an arms race right after World War II.

Robert Oppenheimer saw where we should go and he was right at that time. That really counts for a lot. It's not just the fact of like, ‘Oh, I regret something I did.' He put in effort to affect policy that could have literally changed history, and being overruled and discredited, which is what Nolan tells the story of, is important in that light. The way he told this story through [Lewis] Strauss’ perspective was really masterful.

There have always been two facts in tension: on the one hand, Oppenheimer helped create a weapon of mass destruction that was used to kill hundreds of thousands of people. On the other hand, the existence of nuclear weapons has succeeded as a deterrent for nearly 80 years, with superpowers like the U.S., Russia, and China avoiding war for fear of what would happen if those weapons again got into play. What are your thoughts on that complex legacy?

To me, that's the most interesting part and the most relevant today. The movie, while really good, had less emphasis than I would have put on the period of 1945 right before the bomb dropped to 1947, which was the time where we could have avoided an arms race. It is true that he ushered these weapons in, and then we went into an arms race, and we haven't destroyed ourselves. But the difference is him and [Niels] Bohr saw the arms race coming and said, ‘We really must avoid this.' It's not good enough that we just haven't died yet. It was a disaster that we got into an arms race and it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of science, as illustrated in the scene they have in there with Truman where Oppenheimer had been telling people that if we don't co-manage this with our allies, which were the U.K. and Russia at the time, we're going to get into an arms race and it's going to be extremely dangerous.

The gut reaction from Truman and others was, let's just make as many of these bombs as fast as possible and we'll keep it secret and the Russians will never get the bomb. So you have a scientific expert that's telling the government, this is what we need to do, and you have the government doing the opposite. We got into an arms race not because of a hard-nosed, pragmatic understanding of we need to build these bombs, but a scientific misunderstanding that we could keep it secret. Robert Oppenheimer's deepest message is that the world had changed around the atomic bomb dropping. But it wasn't just atomic bombs, it was the fact that the scope of our technologies had increased to the point where we could destroy ourselves and we had to unite in a new way. And that's exactly what he said: Mankind must unite or we will perish. That's the message that we can bring into today's world.

You started the Oppenheimer Project to continue your grandfather's work today. Can you tell me a little bit about what the organization does?

Even though I spent a lot of time in this interview trying to correct some historical detail, you never win that discussion. But if you look at Robert Oppenheimer's values, what he wrote, what he said, how he led scientists, it’s clearly an amazing record. He led scientists to solve a hugely difficult technical problem under the threat of existential risk. And then he talked about, how do we manage the outcome of improving science and technology at that speed? He had a poetic way of talking. So when he spoke about what should we do about it, it wasn't just an engineered answer. He had a really deep, rounded view of it because of his education and interest. And what he said was, we need to unite in a new way—and his policy tried to put that in place.

It's exactly what we need to do today in the world. We can draw dots between the idea that if we hadn't gone into an arms race, we would have actually been able to use that scientific discovery for abundant nuclear energy. The same science could have made unlimited energy. We had a little bit of a push there of making it, but we were making bombs constantly at the same time, and that eventually sabotaged the public acceptance of nuclear energy. Now, we've gotten carbon output and climate change. So if we could use the idea of ushering in technology in an industrial scale effort to affect a really threatening problem, like climate change and lack of enough energy, we could apply the same type of effort that we had in the Manhattan Project towards today's problems. And it wouldn’t include creating a bunch of bombs, because that method of warfare stopped working in 1945. It doesn't work. Our institutions haven't caught up with that insight.'

#Charles Oppenheimer #Peter Oppenheimer #Oppenheimer #Christopher Nolan #Cillian Murphy #American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer #Kai Bird #Martin J. Sherwin #Katherine “Kitty” Puening Oppenheimer #Emily Blunt #Los Alamos #The Manhattan Project #The Oppenheimer Project

3 notes · View notes

alexgrandecoms356 · 10 months

Text

"Dear White People"

Race Analysis

The Netflix series "Dear White People" created by Justin Simien, questions contemporary race relations within the United States. The show centers around a group of black students who deal with issues of race. The series also covers issues of identity as well as cultural appropriation. It is set at an Ivy League university made up of a mostly white community. It critically explores and depicts the complex adversity of identity, privilege, and discrimination. The show is centered around the experiences of multiple Black students. Through the black student's perspectives, the series sheds light on the challenges that Black people face with systemic racism while providing thought-provoking insights into the realities of race relations in current-day American life.

In the TV series "Dear White People," one of its notable strengths is its portrayal of a diverse range of Black characters, each characterized by unique backgrounds, beliefs, and approaches to navigating a predominantly white university. By weaving together their individual stories, the show offers a multifaceted view of the Black experience. The characters, such as Sam White, the biracial radio host and activist, and Lionel Higgins, the introverted journalist exploring his sexual identity, challenge stereotypes and present a subtle representation of intersectionality within the Black community.

The series delves into the pervasive issue of microaggressions and overt racism that occur in a range of settings, from classrooms to social gatherings and administrative offices. The first episode, "Chapter I," follows the protagonist Sam as she hosts a college radio show and brings attention to instances of racism on campus. Her actions elicit both support and backlash, highlighting the challenges that Black students encounter when speaking out against systemic inequalities. This episode sets the tone for the overarching narrative, which sheds light on the struggles faced by Black individuals in expressing their perspectives in the face of discrimination.

Furthermore, "Dear White People" is a television show that explores the intricacies of interracial relationships, shedding light on the tensions that can arise from societal expectations and individual identity. The character of Reggie Green is used to address the issues of racial profiling and police brutality, particularly in the powerful episode called "Chapter V." The series delves into the aftermath of racialized violence, revealing the trauma that can linger in both the individual and the community affected by it.

A strength of the show is remarkable for its capacity to blend serious social commentary with humor, satire, and compelling storytelling. Through this approach, it prompts viewers to examine their own biases and preconceptions. It challenges the idea of a society that is devoid of racial discrimination and encourages discussions about privilege, allyship, and the ongoing struggle for racial justice.

The TV series "Dear White People" is an important addition to the discussion on race relations in present-day America. With its complex characters and intricate storytelling, the show offers an opportunity to talk about racial identity and institutional discrimination. It encourages viewers to reflect on their own actions and beliefs, and to consider how they may be contributing to or fighting against these systems. In conclusion, "Dear White People" is a valuable resource for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of race and racism in the United States.

Scott, A. O. “Advanced Course in Diversity, Depicting ‘Dear White People.’” The New York

Times, The New York Times, 16 Oct. 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/movies/dear-white-people-about-racial-hypocrisy-at-a-college.html.

0 notes

lostiwasbornlonesomeicame · 1 year

Text

The True Fit

Have you experienced that sense of not quite fitting in, where you find yourself putting on a facade to conform to the roles others have assigned you? I've been there too.

But I've come to believe that there's no predefined role we're meant to occupy. We aren't meant to slot into any particular mould. None of us are. We're all unbound on this planet, free to chart our own paths. We can pursue our desires without being confined by judgments. If someone insists, "This isn't who you are," they are mistaking a single brushstroke for the entirety of the canvas. It's like trying to capture the essence of a forest within a single leaf. The truest version of yourself shines through anytime and anywhere, and only you hold that knowledge. Don't permit anyone to alter this.

Realise that even the most seemingly distant individuals possess warmth, the happiest souls can grapple with sadness, and the strongest ones have moments of fragility. None of us are entirely complete. We're fragments seeking our counterparts, searching for the pieces that fit naturally. It's not about reshaping ourselves to fit someone else's mould; it's about finding the right fit and not having to contort ourselves in the process. I understand that some have encountered those pieces at some point, yet they’re hesitant to trust they fit because they’ve grown accustomed to self-sabotage, perhaps due to past experiences. However, I’d like to think that it's inevitable that people enter and exit our lives, and while the endings might be anticipated, we never lament the connections we made, the friendships formed. This is because those connections fit us seamlessly. It's just that the relentless march of time corrodes even the strongest bonds, leading to the eventual disintegration of the once-fused fragments. As a result, the portrait of us remains suspended in eternal incompleteness, a snapshot frozen in an unfinished narrative. While they may be the missing piece that brought wholeness to the image of us at a point in time, they aren't the sole puzzle piece. Seek another complementary fit and forge a fresh depiction. This is how we evolve. Much like a mosaic, where individual pieces come together to form a captivating whole, our journey is enriched by the diverse fragments we gather along the way. As we discover new fragments that resonate with our essence, we expand our mosaic, making it richer and more intricate. Every encounter, every experience, is a new tile waiting to be added, contributing to the intricate artwork of our existence, telling a unique story that celebrates the complexity and beauty of our shared human experience.

Nothing in this world presents itself exactly as it appears. The struggles and triumphs, the contradictions and layers – they shape us into multifaceted beings. It's the imperfections and vulnerabilities that give depth to our stories, making us relatable and relishing the unpredictable nature of life. Isn't that what lends a touch of magic to everything? This is why each individual is a miracle. If things can be more than meets the eye and appearances can be deceiving, how can we expect ourselves to be accurately perceived?

When one adopts a guise to emulate another fragment, they'll inadvertently attract pieces that don't truly complement their essence. It's like trying to force a puzzle piece into a spot where it doesn't belong – it might fit temporarily, but it distorts the overall picture. So be yourself, as your courage might also grant others permission to do the same. It's a ripple effect that transforms not just your world, but the world of everyone you touch. So, Embrace the messy, imperfect, and beautifully unique individual that you are. Recognise that the pieces of your puzzle will come together in ways that are unexpected but incredibly fulfilling.

0 notes

clovemerablog · 1 year

Text

Monaleo album review: ‘Where The Flowers Don’t Die”

Album published by Stomp Down

Review by Clove Mera, 30 May 2023

I approached Monaleo’s album as a fan drawn to her confident but authentic lyrics and charmingly wide smile, hoping she would be able to surprise me. Across a few of her singles, Monaleo appears to have only one flow. Combining the candid venting on single “Ridgemont Baby” with the title of this album and hazy album art depicting Monaleo as a rose growing out of the pavement, I had faith in her ability to deliver.

“Ass Kickin” and “Wig Splitter” are two confrontational rap tracks. The latter had a catchy hook but both felt like more of the same Monaleo I’ve come to expect. The beat and flow on the latter bored me.

This is why bars on aforementioned “Ridgemont Baby” are needed. Learning about “Me and Keke running from the laws, that’s a true story/ You bitches grew up with family dogs in a two-story” help me understand Monaleo’s struggle and relate to her on a human level.

Authenticity is provably Monaleo’s language and she speaks it across whatever genre she deems applicable. Bookending the album is two ballads, “Sober Mind” and “Cosmic Love”, about protecting one’s mental peace and moving on albeit with spite.

Both tracks showcase Monaleo’s strong vocal abilities, indicating a fluidity that could help her venture further into the mainstream. Such conjures memories of early days Nicki Minaj, outspoken about being a rapper who sings (uncommon at the time). Imagining such as Monaleo’s trajectory renders the album art an apt representation of where she stands today.

Monaleo’s desire to traverse genre is already spotlighted within the album. Such is her true surprise for me. “Return Of The P” and “Goddess (Feat. Flo Milli)” are both self-love rap tracks, top candidates for dominating the internet. Sharp edged bars like “You let a dirty dog off the leash, expect him to roam/ I’m trynna see what goes through n**** heads cause it can’t be a comb” and “‘Cause I ain’t ever known a n**** to make shit but a bad bitch crazy/…Tell a man you wanted a rose, he come with a daisy.” will empower anyone miffed by a man.

Meanwhile, double track “Sauvage (Interlude)” and “Cologne Song” are a confounding R&B package I can’t discern as sincerely flirtatious or a tongue-in-cheek sendup. Even I can be stopped dead in my tracks by a man’s scent, but do lyrics like “What kind of cologne are you wearing/ I could smell it on the way home/…Smells so good that I’m writing this song” ring true? Not enough to sing about.

Monaleo has not cornered herself into any niche and being so young, she still has the world at her fingertips. “Where The Flowers Don’t Die” is a sampler of the 22-year-old’s appetites and although it hosts some skips, it’s also home to a few bops. Her lyrical material is guaranteed to enamour people around the world and I look forward to watching her hone in on her sound and flourish like the rose she is.

You can stream or buy Monaleo’s “Where The Flowers Don’t Die” today.

Watch the music video for “Ass Kickin” now.

youtube

#Youtube

0 notes

existentialmagazine · 2 years

Text

Review: Soheill’s new folk-rock single ‘Savannah’ tells a woefully intimate story in a bedding of building sound

The talented multi-instrumentalist singer-songwriter Soheill reigns out of Nashville, with his musical journey beginning at a young age and only growing through his adulthood. Drawing inspiration from the greats like Radiohead, The Beatles and Pink Floyd, Soheill pieced together his own mesmerising styling that bridges rock, pop and electronic elements into one continually moving journey. His newest single ‘Savannah’ adds another deeply resonant single into his gorgeous discography, telling a heartfelt ode to lost purpose and passion through a touching personal experience.

Setting sail into a soundscape boasting tranquility and a painful aching beneath, ‘Savannah’ almost instantly sets itself up to be a song you can’t help but feel completely and utterly enveloped within for its nearing five minute duration, emotionally connected in the purity and profoundness of its delivery. Brought in by a slow, reverberated electric guitar riff, ‘Savannah’ feels almost afraid in its tentative nature, ringing out into a vast space of sound and leaving every note and word to linger in the air. Progressively building with intermittent added guitar chords that only amplify Soheill’s painstakingly emotive vocals, ‘Savannah’ at first finds solace in a more stripped-down sound for deeper emphasis upon its striking lyrical matter, but it’s not long before it develops into a build of instruments telling a tale of their own. Drum beats push forward, adding a driving element of hope moving forward, only continuing to grow into an intense climax of volume and emotions ran high. This utter tour-de-force is desperate to get under your skin, wielding the heavy weight of its story and taking you along for its heart-wrenching ride, all whilst Soheill’s vocals soar through capturing every haunting line and longing message.

Given its delicate bedding of sound, it’s no surprise that ‘Savannah’ tells a woefully intimate story that draws inspiration from someone close to Soheill struggling with a heart condition. Reflecting upon the burden of losing your purpose and passion when stripped down to doing nothing more than surviving, ‘Savannah’ is a song that bears a weight difficult enough to listen to but even more painful to live through for yourself. As it interweaves a sense of grieving a life lost and feeling directionless, lines like ‘spends her weekends at cemeteries, hoping she can hear from God’ seem to yearn for something more, whether it be answers, guidance or even to find closure through death. Though it particularly takes its message from someone suffering with their health, ‘Savannah’ is a song that carries an open mind and heart, relating to anybody who has lost their way and feels adrift in the vast oceans of life: ‘she knows there is some meaning for all of the days that she’s lost.’ Rather poignantly, ‘Savannah’ is a song that subtly tackles themes of religion whilst feeling loose on whether it truly follows those beliefs, instead seemingly searching for a form of comfort in holding onto the only hope of support from a greater being and depiction of an afterlife available to us: ‘she questions if all of these thoughts are hers, at the cracked steps leading to St. Johns.’ These nods towards themes throughout create such a deep and personal message all through ‘Savannah’, driving a message that many can cling onto as their own form of company and solace in darker days.

"This song is very personal to me," adds Soheill, "I hope that it can bring comfort and inspiration to anyone who is struggling with their own sense of purpose and passion."

Check out ‘Savannah’ for yourself here to understand the impact of Soheill’s resonant experience both in sound and narrative!

Written by: Tatiana Whybrow

Photo Credits: Unknown

// This coverage was created via Musosoup, #SustainableCurator

#music #singlereview #soheill

0 notes

pomodoko · 3 years

Photo

today in my saga of, “a hoard of terminally online ppl decided to use my niki animatic as their stage for performative activism”

read more for rant:

here are some fun points i’d like to make, besides telling people not to go around harassing artists who had zero context of what was going on:

assuming that content creators, especially those in the mcyt community, are all 50 year old white men is not only ageist, but racist and sexist as well! how come a person over the age of 25 is instantly seen as predatory or racist? should all adults immediately destroy all evidence of them enjoying video games and other “childish” hobbies? darn dude, you got daddy issues

AGEISM ASIDE, the most racist experiences i’ve had in the dsmp fandom alone was done by the fans themselves, not really the CC’s. Sure, some CC’s are more controversial than others, but the thing is the fandom would be at their throat at a moment’s notice, and just yelling at random artists that they’re supposedly “supporting racist, sexist, islamophobic, etc... creators” just because you heard of passing rumors, or you’ve never really experience the fandom as a whole... that’s just awful. I really hope they can get over this sort of extremist thinking.

the animatic in particular is about niki nihachu, whom i made the animatic in dedication of her character’s story arc and the cc herself whom has spoken against sexism and misogyny within the streaming community and even the mcyt community itself! none of these people have even seen the animatic and automatically assume i was catering towards the men in the fandom??? for some reason???

I think it's important that anyone can and should enjoy Mitski and relate it to their own struggles in life, not just focusing completely on the single meaning of the song. Every piece of media can and should be interpreted besides its original meaning, because that’s what art is meant to do. You consume the content and learn from the creator, but you should also be able to form your own perspective based on your life experiences. You’re doing artists a great disservice to frame them inside a singular label.

if i made a piece of art with a mitski song depicting a different sort of struggle than what mitski wrote it to be, it's still me being respectful and sending my love and dedication to her and her works, but it's also me creating what's important to me as well

anyway please don’t??? gatekeep creators? this is the sort of bullshit line of thinking where everybody assume that Mitski is going to be your Angsty Comfort Queen or Hozier your Irish Bog King like?? don’t do that? don’t romanticize the artists and get snooty when other people enjoy them differently??? like I get that it’s important to criticize people when they make stuff like Strawberry Cow or whatever, but if someone is expressing their feelings proper to a song, isn’t that good?

#pmdk talks #dsmp discourse #mcyt discourse #racism mention #sexism mention #islamophobia mention #anyway the moral of the story is #when you wanna confront someone over a controversial topic #dont bring the entire circus with you

346 notes · View notes

hope-grace-serenity · 3 years

Text

Let’s Talk About Faith (Really Long Post)

*This is going to be a VERY long analytical post (feel free to just skim), and will talk openly about topics that might make people feel uncomfortable. Please look at the tags before reading. This was a collaboration with the fantastic @intheforest-hides-a-light and wouldn't be possible without her many contributions and support!*

Faith Seed is a character that occupies an odd space in the Far Cry 5 fandom. If she is included in fanon works, her characterization and interaction with the brothers tends to vary wildly. Sometimes, she is depicted as the product of a wholesome adoption, finding genuine love and a family that treats her as one of their own. Other times, she’s shown to act more like a coworker than anything else, discussing cult-related business with the brothers and leaving when her work is done. Sometimes she’s playful and mischievous, other times sweet and deferential. While John, Jacob, and Joseph’s core character traits remain generally consistent in fanon material, it seems almost as if every writer has their own idea of who Faith is, or who they want her to be.

Faith can be a difficult character to write because there’s a certain level of uncertainty to her that is simply not present with the other heralds. Joseph, John, and Jacob have different personalities and outlooks, but they have a shared history and biological relation that act as their foundation for genuine love and affection. Faith, on the other hand, is an outsider who did not meet the Seeds until she was seventeen. What complicates any group interaction even more is the uncomfortable truth that she is not the first Faith--she’s at least the third in a series of “sisters”; a triage of women who share two unfortunate identifiers: they are completely interchangeable and, in the eyes of Joseph, utterly disposable. Wholesome family moments ring hollow with the knowledge that these “brothers” were complicit in the deaths of previous “sisters” and could easily do the same to her. Despite their discardable nature, Joseph clearly believes that the role of “his Faith” is one that needs to be filled, otherwise he wouldn’t keep finding replacements and giving her so much power.

This is not helped by the ambiguity in the game itself. How much of what she says is true, and how much is fabricated or exaggerated? How does the Bliss affect our understanding of her? Is what the resistance says about her fully accurate, or biased? Does Joseph view her as an actual sister? A daughter? A wife? Who is Faith Seed, exactly?

The purpose of this post is to analyze Faith’s role within the family, which at its core explores the complicated and very toxic dynamic between Faith and Joseph Seed. Analyzing Faith’s place in the Seed family requires a willingness to address an uncomfortable aspect of the text that is often overlooked, ignored, or rejected outright: How Joseph exploited Faith physically, emotionally, and--yes--sexually. While part of the beauty of fandom lies in interpreting the text differently, there is a difference between disagreeing and claiming that there is no canonical basis for such an interpretation. We personally feel that, when analyzing the text as a whole, this unsettling relationship is the unfortunate truth that the game presents to us, and it would be remiss for us to discuss Faith without addressing these struggles.

There are varying and completely understandable reasons why some don’t like to imagine a sexual relationship between the two of them. This essay is not meant to be some kind of attack on anyone who prefers to interpret the characters differently, but it may address some possible repercussions of ignoring this side of Faith’s story. This essay will primarily focus on in-game evidence, but the Drew Holmes DMs will be considered under the school of thought that a writer’s intent holds additional weight when interpreting a text

So, without further ado, let’s begin…

The First Faith

Joseph lived through a horrific childhood, living with a violent drunk of a father and a mother who “glided through the house, listlessly...She had never been anything more than a ghost to us, of no help whatsoever, possibly doomed to derangement for all eternity” (Book of Joseph, p.11-28). He was separated from his brothers and went through many foster homes, having difficulty forming connections with others. Until, of course, he met his Faith.

Unlike his mother, who was completely detached, it is safe to assume Faith was the opposite based on the way he talks about her. In Joseph’s monologue to the deputy in Jacob’s region, Joseph recalls, “She had faith that things were going to work out. She always had faith…” His mother’s presence contributed to instability and violence, but his wife’s presence brought stability and comfort, keeping him grounded during his reasonable anxieties about parenthood.

Faith was more than just his wife’s name–it was also a characteristic that she embodied, both in terms of spirituality (as seen from the “God bless” in her voicemail in the DLC) and devotion to her husband. In Joseph’s monologue, after saying that she always had faith, there is a pause, as if reminiscing or reflecting on her and the selfless faith she expressed. Out of all the different aspects of her character, this is the quality that Joseph values the most: her steadfast belief and devotion. For a man who spent the vast majority of his life in a constant state of uncertainty, feeling neglected and unloved by anyone aside from his brothers, this no doubt was something he cherished and valued. Something he cherished so much, that when he lost it and emotionally returned to that empty void, he felt the unyielding need to replicate this sensation.

His Faith: An Examination of the Eulogy

Receiving confirmation in the DLC that Joseph’s wife was named Faith makes his intention towards the other Faiths clear. Although she’s technically deceased, in Joseph’s view, Faith (his wife) lives on through all these women. The “Faith” role guides and soothes the flock, keeping them all moving in the right direction, much like how Joseph’s wife supported him on an individual level through all his personal doubts about money. In her sermons in the cult outpost, Faith (Rachel) emphasizes the importance of having this characteristic, highlighting her role within the group.

Joseph's eulogy is very revealing in terms of how he views the role of Faith. In the eulogy, he praises her based on two things: 1. Her devotion (her “faith”), and 2. How he personally changed her from someone broken into someone who was “angelic” and “perfect.” This change only happened after he “put his faith inside her.” The things he praises her for (how much faith she had in him, and how much he changed her) shows that pride is clearly not a sin he has overcome.

A couple things to note about this: First, this eulogy is a stark contrast with the brothers and is revealing of how Joseph views her and her position in the cult. While Joseph gets very personal in John and Jacob’s eulogy and reveals who they were as people, their feelings, their childhood….Faith is given none of that, because to Joseph, none of that really matters. She’s an ideal, not a person--an interchangeable feminine presence meant to fulfill his needs, emotional and otherwise, that can no longer be fulfilled by his wife.

The eulogy begins by saying, “My Faith...My Faith.” The repetition brings attention to how he views Faith as belonging to him, as opposed to a person with her own wants, needs, and desires. He then contrasts her to his previous “sisters” by emphasizing how Faith was the “most devoted.” In Joseph’s eyes, how well a Faith shows and experiences that trait determines her value. This is corroborated by the “Confession” letter, in which one of the Faiths experiences fear because she’s afraid Joseph would not forgive her for having doubts--for not being faithful enough. Given the gruesome fate of at least one Faith whose body Joseph “threw into the boiling muck,” this is a very reasonable concern to have.

Joseph describes Rachel as coming to him “broken” and “lost,” but he then says, “I put my faith inside her, and she became angelic. Perfect.” While he says these lines, he gently closes his eyes as if fondly reminiscing, and then pauses for several seconds, before resuming. These types of actions (eyes closing, pausing after remembering key moments) are absent in John and Jacob’s eulogies. Joseph’s eyes begin to close when he describes her as becoming angelic, and they stay closed while he calls her “perfect” and during the remainder of the pause (eleven seconds total). Clearly, he likes whatever he’s remembering.

Finally, he says, “It is Faith that holds us together, and without it, we are lost.” Although it sounds as if he is referring to the concept of faith, the word “Faith” is capitalized in the subtitles, which shows he is referring to the idea of his wife. Joseph needs that support and stability of his Faith in order to remain grounded (relatively speaking, of course).

Echoes of the Past

Aside from their shared name and role, there are other connections drawn between the Faith we see in FC5 and the first Faith.

Perhaps the most obvious connection between Faith and a bridal role is her apparel--a white lace dress with flowers strewn about. White is traditionally a symbol of purity and innocence, and is often used for brides, which is appropriate if Faith is to fill the void his wife left behind. Lace is another traditional material that is used in wedding dresses, and the flower motif is also typically associated with weddings. The overall design of the dress looks very similar to a typical above-the-knee wedding dress.

The design of the dress also alludes to her multiple roles within the cult. The top part is very modest and conservative, high-cut and covering her shoulders, as befitting a stereotypical madonna-like presence whose purpose is to guide and provide comfort to Joseph’s flock. The bottom half of her dress, on the other hand, is purposely short--the front part only goes down to her mid-thighs. What’s more surprising about the dress is that it’s actually longer in the front than it is in the back, which only covers what it needs to, 0:53-1:00). It is not exactly the type of apparel one would expect from a figurehead of a group with a “no fornication” rule. The dress is contradictory because her role in the cult is contradictory; she walks the line between innocence and corruption, youth and maturity, lies and truth. If Joseph had any issue with the style of this dress, as the leader, he can and would have spoken up (much like how he does when John acts in ways he disapproves of, such as during The Cleansing), and Faith would have changed. But he doesn’t, and she doesn’t, because to Joseph, there is no issue. He wants her in that dress. It seems uncouth for a supposedly celibate cult leader to approve of a dress style associated with a sense of sexual desirability or availability, but if we take into account how Joseph views the role of Faith. Her borderline inappropriately short dress fits in with his twisted perspective of her. Her dress is reflective of both purity and sexuality, which he both expects from her, as her presence brings him spiritual, emotional, and physical fulfillment.

We also have this line: “We were just babies ourselves.” While we are not given their exact age, Joseph viewed him and his wife as being very young at the time. In Faith’s battle, she cries out: “I was seventeen..I was just a child...” Years after his wife’s death, he remains fixated on her memory. While he gets older and older, the young woman in his mind remains the same. And as a result, the girl chosen to become Faith and replace that void in his life is at a similar age to that memory. And yes, as a result, the relationship dynamic becomes unsettling and toxic.

Furthermore, we see something of interest written on one of the tablets on The Pilgrimage. It says, “Joseph Seed collects his blood family--John, Jacob, and Faith. He anoints them as his Heralds so that they may help guide the growing family of believers.”

We know for a fact that Rachel (and Selena, and Lana) are not blood family. So there’s only one other way she *could* be blood family— through marriage. Husband and wife are described as being “one flesh” in the Bible, which Joseph quotes frequently throughout the game. And while Faith isn’t literally married to Joseph, it ties into the ideas of him viewing “Faith” (whoever that might be) as a substitute wife--or a spiritual one--in all but name.

Other Examples of Sexual Subtext

There are other indications that Faith’s role is more than simply platonic. Faith’s official title in Eden’s Gate is The Siren. Sirens are mystical creatures who lure men to their doom, and in art are portrayed as beautiful temptresses. They are often depicted in a sexual way, which--much like Faith’s dress--is not something one would expect from a cult with a “no fornication” rule. This title reflects how Joseph views her in a sexual light, perhaps even “tempting” him into sin.

In the “Dirty Crumpled Letter,” the writer of the letter says, “You’re not the first woman he’s used up and thrown away.” The phrase “used up” is often used colloquially to refer to women that have had sex many times (and yes, it’s a very misogynistic term). By saying that Joseph was the one who “used [the Faiths] up,” the implications are obvious. While the Faith position requires a strong emotional center, there is evidently a sexual component to this relationship as well. This makes sense from Joseph’s twisted logic, as his wife provided both emotional and physical fulfillment.

And let’s take a look at this awkward family photo. The fact that Faith’s arm is sprawled across Joseph’s thigh is something that is not unintentional. Her hands could have been placed in her lap, or literally anywhere else, but whoever designed this photo made the conscious decision to have her arm spread out all over his leg. They also made the conscious decision to have Joseph holding a gun pointing between his legs while he’s keeping his other hand holding Faith’s arm in place over his thigh.

The image above is also indicative of the power dynamics between the family and Faith’s perceived role in it. She is not granted the luxury of a chair, or even allowed to stand alongside the brothers. Instead, she is relegated to sitting on the floor like some kind of prized pet. This tracks with the DLC, John’s desire to physically harm Faith like he does others shows that he does not view Faith as an adoptive sister, which was also hinted at by him looking down on her treatment of Angels in FC5. Joseph’s hand is on her shoulder, as if keeping her in place. Her body is leaning into him, with her whole arm resting on the entirety of his leg. Unlike the brothers who are all looking directly forward, Faith is looking off to the side, another sign that she is out of step with them to a certain extent.

This image is an indicator of how Joseph views Faith. He places her in a position of submission and he is the dominant, powerful patriarch. It’s another reminder of his possessiveness towards her, something that we see multiple times throughout the game.

The FC6 DLC also includes several examples of sexual subtext. Most examples below can be seen in these videos.

One memorable moment is the mission objective that involves you finding Faith’s dress. After getting it, he replies breathlessly that it “smells like her,” suggesting some rather intimate knowledge.

In order to “save” Faith, you see her kneeling with her hands bound behind her back, a more mundane scene in contrast with John and Jacob’s supernatural imprisonment. She says, “Why are you leaving me like this? Let me go!” After freeing her, she says, “You kept us close, didn’t you Father? Kept us controlled. Tied down. Was blind but now I see.”

“Do you need a minute to catch your breath, Father?” in a playful tone–alludes to sex, especially given the disparity of their ages and how that might affect, uh, performance

“You liked how that felt, did you? All that power, all that control. We did whatever you wanted.”

“I gave you my heart. I offered you everything. And you took it. You took and took and took until there was nothing left of me.” “No, I gave you so much. A chance, a purpose. We were family.” She is. She’s the replacement for his wife.

“You aren’t my Faith.” “You’re right, I'm not. Not anymore”--Joseph wants her to fit into the role of “his Faith,” his idealized version of his wife. Rachel refuses to play along.

Faith smugly telling Joseph she wants him to “Crawl back to me on your hands and knees”

Joseph saying “I…protected her. I loved her.”

“Your faith has brought you to me. Faith has given you a purpose. A new life. Will you trust me with it?”--shows how Rachel was chosen to become the new “Faith”/wife replacement because she has the characteristic that he valued the most in his wife.

When Everyone is Special, No One Is

Now that we’ve examined how the narrative draws connections between Faith and the wife, as well as looked at some examples of sexual subtext, we will now focus more on the process of the “creation” of the Faiths, and explore how that affects their dynamic and our perception.

Years after his wife’s death, Joseph takes young women and molds them so they can fit his "perfect" ideal and show the same love and faith that his wife once did. This is meant to fulfill the gaping emotional and physical void left behind by her death. The first step is that Joseph makes each woman feel special and unique. Many people who are drawn into cults do so because they have difficult personal situations (bullied/ostracized/abused/etc.), which makes them vulnerable to the cult leader’s charm. We have three different examples of Joseph exploiting this vulnerability. In our Faith’s first cutscene with the deputy, she says that “The father showed her how special she was, that she was full of love and life...She had been given purpose” . The DLC supports this when she tells Joseph “You told me I was beautiful. That I was special.” The writer of “A Confession” relays how she “just wanted to be special. When Joseph came into my life, I felt like you’d given me a true gift, Lord. The man who talks to you would bring me in on your holy conversation…?” In the “Grieving Note,” the writer says how “He told you you were special, but in the end he threw your body in here to disintegrate in the boiling muck.” The last note in particular is significant because it reveals Joseph’s overall hypocrisy in regards to this position. For all the lip service of considering each woman “special,” in reality he views the woman behind the name as interchangeable. He doesn’t actually care about the women on an individual level--instead, he just cares for how well they could live up to the idealized phantom memory of the only woman he genuinely loved. If they no longer fill this purpose, he can and will get rid of them and find someone else who is “special” enough to fill that void.

“A Leap Of Faith”

Once the chosen woman has been drawn in, there is some kind of test where she must prove her faith in him, and he in turn puts his faith in her. So, what was it? The deputy imagines it as an actual leap off a statue of Joseph, which would have been impossible to actually happen for two reasons: 1. The statue wasn’t even built at the time, and 2. Faith is not dead and/or paralyzed. The entire Henbane region is designed to play with perception, both from an in-universe and meta point of view. You see one thing with your eyes, and then it turns out to be another. This extends to its herald, in which even today there are debates about how much of what she says is true and how much is a lie. Sometimes, we see badgers become bears. Other times, we see Faith present one minute and then vanishes into thin air the next. We sometimes hear literal voices inside our heads. When Faith describes her test, we see it as a physical jump, but that’s not what it actually was. The reality lies underneath the surface appearance.

Let’s go back to Joseph’s eulogy, in which he describes how putting his faith inside her turned broken, lost Rachel into angelic, perfect Faith. It was analyzed in the “His Faith” section that Joseph’s words and body language pointed to a clear sexual innuendo, which is what we believe the Leap of Faith actually refers to: It’s the complete and total surrender to Joseph, becoming his Faith by giving him her mind, body, and heart.

In the DLC, Faith describes the process in almost ritualistic terms. She talks about how she was so devoted to him and wanted to give the world to him. Joseph took Rachel up here with the previous Faith, and told Rachel to have faith in him. Joseph wanted Rachel to push the previous Faith–he mentions right afterwards that he needed someone he “could trust, someone obedient.” And Rachel does it, because she wants to prove her love and fully be “his Faith.” And once she does, she is fully his in all ways.

Made Anew: The Final Step

After the “Leap of Faith,” there’s still one final step in the creation of a Faith: the complete rejection of their “former selves.” This remains an ongoing process, but it’s during this stage that they become completely wrapped up in their Faith persona and shed all remnants of their past identity, becoming completely beholden to Joseph and the Project. The “A Confession” note describes how one Faith was “made anew,” the author of the “Dirty Crumpled Letter,” warns Selena against “losing herself,” and the author of the “Grieving Note” asks, “Christ in heaven what they did to you. The fact they could make you believe all that nonsense, make you forget yourself so hard. Forget your own name? How, Lana? What did he say to you? What kind of fucking dirtbag blood ritual could make you think your name was "Faith"?”

In all of those examples, the writers emphasize how the “Faith” role completely devours their past identity. They have a new purpose, a new role--one that is meant to serve Joseph and the Project, one that does not have any room for doubts. The Faith that we see in-game reinforces this by referring to her past identity as Rachel as a separate entity from Faith. In one voicemail, she says, “Rachel's so sad and alone. Once was lost. Never found. She led a faithless life and it brought her low. Faith rose up in her... but Rachel stayed low down. Faith flies divine. And Rachel... Rachel gropes around in the darkness. I left her there a long time ago.” She emphasizes the difference between her and Rachel by saying how Rachel’s faithlessness was the cause of her misery, once again reinforcing the idea that the quality of having faith is the most important quality for a Faith to have. However, it is important to note that Rachel isn’t completely gone (as she is referred to in present tense), but simply staying low in the darkness. Later, we will be discussing a time when the Rachel part of her comes to the forefront.

In another voicemail about babies, Faith says how they are born without souls, and how “You have to give it one. The only soul we ever have, we receive from others. And it is only others who can take it away.” She views herself as being given a soul--purpose and value--by Joseph, which means she views Rachel--her past self--as on the same level of an animal or some other base creature (or “broken,” as Joseph described in his eulogy). Without Joseph, she feels she is nothing. The last line is quite telling, as it subtly reveals a concern of Faith’s--that Joseph is able to take away her position of Faith (which gives her life meaning). She is completely beholden to him because of this, lest she face the same fate as the other women who once shared her name. Alternatively, it could also suggest that her soul as Rachel was taken from her, and that it was replaced by Faith. Joseph has no need for Rachel, only his Faith, and during the years spent in Eden’s Gate, Rachel has become so weathered down due to Joseph’s influence. The individuality of Rachel, Selena, and Lana have been completely stripped away in order to become the ideal, impossible woman.

And with those three steps, the process of Joseph sculpting these broken women into his Galatea is complete. He becomes their maker, and gives them value--a “soul.” And that value is determined by how well they serve him and his purpose. In Faith’s boss battle, she says “You strike, but you cannot destroy what He created.”. In looking at the subtitles, we see that Joseph is referred to as “He” with a capital “H.” This occurs in other lines during this battle as well. The capitalization of “He” is usually used in reference to God, and doing this emphasizes how Faith reveres him, as well as the complete control and power he has over her life. Faith referring to herself as “what He created” shows a level of dehumanization and a low opinion of her own personal self-worth. She’s not a “who,” she’s a “what,” a walking, talking tool that was built to serve his purpose.

During the scene where Faith brings the deputy to Joseph in the Bliss, we see a sermon where Joseph talks about how “those on the outside will see what we have built here together. In our New Eden...the love.” During the pause, Joseph looks directly at Faith, and finishes saying “the love” while he’s still looking at her. The pause--which was written into the subtitles--and him looking at Faith when he says “the love” are not unintentional. He took a broken, lost woman and built into an ideal replacement for the memory of his lost love; she is someone who supports him unconditionally and always has faith. And if the cracks start to show, then he can always toss her out and sculpt a new one.

Remembering Rachel: Tracey’s Recollections

So, how did we lose Rachel? It might make sense that someone would give up their identity if they had no one to live for, but Rachel DID have someone--she had Tracey, a friend who cared about her enough to keep trying to get her out of the cult. So why would she drink the kool-aid and give up her own identity?

Tracey says this about Rachel:

“Rachel... Faith, she was my friend. Like, my best friend. We told each other everything. That only stopped when the Father decided she was his. I did every fucking thing I could to make her realize what she was doing. She made a choice. She chose to play daddy's special flower princess instead of fighting. Don't think for a minute she's innocent, like she didn't have anybody looking out for her. I was there, okay?”

Ultimately, Joseph offers something Tracey does not--a chance for her to change herself into something that she views as better. While Tracey clearly cared for Rachel, Tracey was into the same hard drugs and drifter lifestyle that Rachel was, whereas Joseph offered her a chance to improve herself. While the audience might see it as some kind of Faustian bargain, for Rachel, Joseph Seed was able to see something in her that no one else could. He believed in her in a way that no one else has. No longer would she be Rachel, the druggie--instead, she’ll be Faith Seed, her savior’s “special princess.” And for Rachel, that was an opportunity she couldn’t afford to lose.

Tracey’s words emphasize the possessive way that Joseph views Faith by showing how Joseph “decided she was his.” He’s the one making the decision, another indicator of power and influence. He wanted her, and in order to get her, he made her feel “special,” like all the others. Another example of ownership can be seen in reference to Faith playing the role of “daddy’s special flower princess.” If someone describes a young woman who is almost a legal adult as “daddy’s special princess” when referring to her relationship with an unrelated older man roughly twice her age, the sexual undertones should be apparent. Tracey tries to get Rachel to realize what she was doing, but Rachel chooses to continue the relationship.

Tracey makes it clear that Rachel actively made the choice to be with Joseph. While this is no doubt unethical on Joseph’s part due to the massive imbalance (double life experience, coming from a clear position of power vs. Rachel’s position of emotional weakness), we cannot remove Rachel’s sense of personal agency. However, it is extremely important to note that she made this decision at a time when she was emotionally and physically vulnerable, at an age when she was too young to understand the danger this situation could put her in. She ignored Tracey’s concerns and started drinking the Eden’s Gate kool-aid, getting so wrapped up in feeling special and being treated like a princess by Joseph. Despite her friend’s support, she gets sucked into the cult and rejects her best friend and confidante in favor of a strange man twice her age that she just met. And because of this, she willingly gives in to Joseph instead of “fighting.”

So, what does “fighting” refer to? Here’s another quote by Tracey that mentions this idea:

“Faith was always too nice, back before... when she still called herself Rachel. She was always keeping the peace, agreeing, avoiding fights instead of realizing when a fight needed to happen. You can't talk it out with people who don't see you as human. 'Course, I got painted as the aggro bitch. But good ain't nice, and Rachel didn't get that. It was the only thing we ever fought about before. And she couldn't fight even when it was to save her own damn skin. Sucks to be right.”

The second quote helps give us a greater understanding of Rachel (as opposed to Faith) by painting her as a polite, kind, passive individual. And that passivity and agreeability is what made her easy prey for those who wished to take advantage of her. This quote also shows us that Rachel conflates being good with being nice, which has a lot of implications. Because Joseph acted nice, she thought he was good, which made her trust him. While it’s clear from her behavior and longevity as Faith that she had to have an inner strength that allowed her to succeed where many others have failed, Rachel also had personal vulnerability and naivety that was exploited in order to mold her into his ideal woman.

We also have this line: “You can’t talk it out with people who don’t see you as human.” If there’s one line that encapsulates the Joseph-Faith dynamic, this is it. Joseph doesn’t care about Rachel. He doesn’t care about Lana. He doesn’t care about Selena. He only cares about Faith. He viewed Rachel as broken and was only fixed by giving up her identity and sense of self. Joseph convinces these young women that they are “special" and gives them a place of honor in the cult. They receive his attention and all that comes with it, but when Joseph starts to lose that attachment, he allows them to be disposed of and replaced, covering up their disappearances. While he might genuinely feel--in the moment--that loves these women, his interest is ultimately fickle, as he cares for what she can do for him. He doesn’t actually care about her as a person.He cares for the ideal she represents, that generic feminine presence that can fulfill any role. A madonna figure, a lover, a spiritual child...she’s whatever he needs her to be. The dream woman who will love him unconditionally and be forever loyal. And when the cracks start to show and disrupt that fantasy, he gets rid of the doll and replaces it with a new one.

In both quotes, Tracey expresses that she thinks Rachel should have fought. Fighting in this context refers to a fight for personal agency, fighting Joseph’s power over herself. Following in the footsteps of her predecessors, she chooses Joseph over a friend who genuinely loves and cares for her, and refuses to listen to the warnings. But the key is that she believed Joseph genuinely loved and cared for her. He was nice, so she thought he was good. Her own weakness and need for approval causes her to get sucked into the cult so deeply that she loses herself in order to become Joseph’s love. Anyone who has seen a close friend get wrapped up in a toxic relationship and blindly refuse to see anything wrong with it can understand and empathize with Tracey’s frustration.

Believe Women: The Myth of the “Perfect Victim”

So now that we established that Rachel was willingly drawn to Joseph, we have to examine how this matches up with Rachel’s words during her fight with the deputy.

The first time we are given any information about Faith is in Dutch’s bunker. On Dutch’s board, we see a note that says this about Faith: “She’ll spin you a sob story, but Faith is a LIAR and a MANIPULATOR.” Various Resistance NPCs throughout the game claim that Faith is a liar as well.

Faith’s reputation as a liar is sometimes used as a means of dismissing anything she says in the game, particularly her claim of being drugged and threatened by Joseph at the age of seventeen. Even though Joseph has a known history of warped views on women in the Faith position, and is--at the very least--complicit in violence against them, Faith’s words are often interpreted as purely a manipulative ploy for sympathy or attention. Certainly, it’s easy to want to believe she’s lying--to believe otherwise would have massive implications for Joseph, to the point where some might find it understandably difficult to enjoy his character or even the game itself. And on first glance, her claim of being drugged seems to contradict Tracey’s recollections, so it might seem logical to side with the resistance NPC over the one who has a reputation as a liar.

However, there is enough in-game evidence to reasonably conclude that she is--unfortunately--being truthful with this particular claim. Automatically assuming that Faith can’t be telling the truth because she's manipulative is problematic, as it exonerates the perpetrator and villainizes the victim. There’s no such thing as a “perfect victim”--anyone can be sexually abused, regardless of how much power they currently hold. Faith being known as a liar and manipulator does not automatically mean her claims are false, especially when it matches up with what is presented in-game.

It’s important to remember that these claims about Joseph’s actions could be true without exonerating all of Faith’s behavior. Accepting Faith’s sexual relationship with Joseph does not diminish her power as a herald, but it does add to the complexities of her position in the cult as the highest ranking woman and as Joseph’s “special flower princess”. Faith’s culpability is similar to that of the Manson girls: Responsible for her own actions and participation in the crimes, but at the same time, exploited and taken advantage of by the cult leader in order to serve his purpose. We see that she exhibits a casual cruelty towards her Angels and the people who walk the pilgrimage and take the physical leap of faith, as evidenced from the dead bodies. It is clear that on some level she does want to be involved, and most certainly played a huge role in the Henbane region’s horrors. However, this doesn’t mean she couldn’t have been mistreated by Joseph. A victim can easily turn into one who victimizes and abuses others, as we see with all the Seed brothers.

During Faith’s battle with the deputy, the mask slips and she starts to lose her composure. In the beginning, her persona is very similar to how we’ve been interacting with her throughout the game. She’s calm, controlled, and speaks in a soothing tone. She discusses how the Sheriff was acting like a wall between the Father and the deputy, and says the Sheriff will soon accept the words of Joseph into his heart. In what is perhaps a reference to her own experience, she says that “when he does...there’s no coming back from that…” As the battle progresses, she lets her anger show. She uses Joseph’s message about the Collapse to try to get the deputy on her side, but to no avail.

The final part of the battle is where her Faith persona unravels completely and her composure is fully shattered. She acknowledges that the Project is doing something that requires blame, but rejects responsibility and yells, “It’s not my fault...None of this was my fault! You think I wanted this?” She attributes blame to Joseph by saying, “He plied me with drugs...He threatened me...I was seventeen...I was just a child.” Other lines during this phase of the fight express a sense of fear and helplessness in regards to Joseph, such as “He is more powerful than you know,” “You don’t know what He’ll do,” and “You cannot cross the Father.” She alludes to a deeper understanding of him and what he is capable of when she says, “You will never know what I know.”

Some people believe the entire battle was pure theater, and that Faith grows more and more desperate and creates increasingly outlandish lies in order to make the deputy feel guilty and stop attacking her. Our belief is that the battle is a slow descent from Faith back into Rachel, as she finds that her fabricated Faith persona no longer offers the strength, security, and protection that it once did. Out of a sense of self-preservation and panic, she relapses into Rachel, becoming more open with the deputy possibly for the purpose of--just as in the first interpretation--getting them to feel guilty and stop attacking her. But because of all the atrocities she committed in the name of the Project and all her past manipulation, it rings hollow and the deputy does not stop until she can no longer fight back.

Something that leads to this interpretation is how Faith acknowledged that the Rachel part of her still exists. Earlier in the essay, we mentioned how Faith views the Rachel side of her to be something separate, yet still present, albeit locked away. She said how “Faith rose up in her... but Rachel stayed low down. Faith flies divine. And Rachel... Rachel gropes around in the darkness.” Clearly, Faith crashed and burned, so lost, broken Rachel needed to crawl out of the darkness and take her place. The Rachel side of her was mentioned to be faithless, so she’s the side that can be negative about Joseph, without the Faith filter distorting reality to paint Eden’s Gate in the best light possible. Faith might be a liar, but is Rachel? Rachel, the girl who was “too nice” and “told Tracey everything”? The girl who is said to have stopped confiding in Tracey only after meeting Joseph?

The claims made by Rachel during the fight mirror Faith's first conversation with the deputy. While Faith portrays Joseph bringing her “here” (i.e, the Bliss) as a wondrous experience, Rachel calls it what it is: drugging. Faith then mentions being afraid after Joseph asks her if she was willing to die for him, which takes a much darker tone when Rachel’s words are taken into consideration. Whereas Faith recalls it as a request for devotion, Rachel interprets his questions as having a threatening undercurrent. Faith’s conversation with the deputy ends when describing how she closed her eyes, trusted Joseph, and lept. Rachel’s cries of being “seventeen...just a child” become more significant and tragic when remembering what the Leap of Faith symbolizes.

Something else that leads us to believe that Rachel is telling the truth in her claims about Joseph is that we see her being completely honest with the player immediately after. Before dying, she warns the player of what will happen in the future. The Deputy makes the choice on whether to resist Joseph at the end or not, and if they resist, then the bombs fall, in fulfillment of the Revelations prophecy. Rachel does not have to tell this to the deputy, but she does anyway, giving them a final warning of the end. There’s nothing for her to gain at this point, no last-minute manipulations. At the end of her life, after years of lies and manipulation, she is finally truthful and upfront.

But perhaps the biggest reason we believe Rachel is that we feel this is perfectly consistent with what has been shown to us regarding Joseph’s character, which will be fully discussed later. For now, we will address how this does not contradict Tracey’s claims of Faith went with Joseph willingly. In doing so, we will discuss the content of these letters, one which was written by Tracey to Faith, and vice versa (711628)

First, we have to keep in mind that both Tracey and Rachel can be telling the truth. Rachel clearly was drawn in by Joseph and wanted to become Faith, but that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have done the things she said he did. Sometimes victims of grooming don’t realize how fucked up things are at the time. A lonely, abused teenage year old girl might feel flattered and honored by the attention that a prophet of God is showing her; he has faith in her and thinks she, of all people, is special and unique. That same person, now a grown woman in her mid twenties, could look back on that same event and see it for what it was: a man using his power and influence to emotionally and sexually take advantage of a homeless, drug addicted teenager. Just because Rachel didn’t see problems with it at the time doesn’t mean there were no problems at all. Faith’s letter to Tracey could have easily been written at a time when she was fully sucked into the glamor of Eden’s Gate and the feeling of being the prophet’s “special princess.” If Rachel felt any misgivings, it’s also entirely possible that she would mentally suppress them or feel they were not worth leaving over, especially due to a fear of going back to her old lifestyle where she’s no longer special.

The fact that the writers made a point to include the line indicating that Joseph reads their correspondence is not coincidental. Faith would have internal pressure stopping her from confiding into Tracey, as well as external pressure coming from Joseph. It’s easy to imagine her being gaslighted or coerced into thinking certain things are normal, even if they’re not. We know that Joseph goes through Faiths like he does tissues, and Rachel knows for certain what happens when they displease him.

Being exposed to the Bliss drug may have exacerbated the discrepancy between Faith’s recollection in her first cutscene and her remembrance during the boss fight. The DLC shows us with 100% certainty that Joseph made Rachel dependent on drugs, which is part of how she maintained her role as Faith. The Bliss drug warps one’s perception of reality and makes one canonically more pliable to suggestion, to the point where Rachel/Faith herself might question or be unsure of how she really felt. Also, keep in mind that a threat or drugging does not HAVE to be overtly violent for it to have happened. Threats can be subtle or passive aggressive. Drugs can be slipped in a drink or given over an extended time in order to cloud judgment and increase dependency, and Faith might very well have willingly taken them at the time.

The DLC also confirms that Rachel tried to run away from Eden's Gate at least once, showing she knew it wasn't all sunshine and rainbows. Whether it was before she wrote the letter or afterwards is unclear.

So by the time the novelty and glamor began to fade, Faith was in too deep. The cracks started to show, but there was nowhere else for her to go. She pushed away her only friend, and it’s not as though talking honestly with her “savior” would help. After all, as Tracey says, “You can't talk it out with people who don't see you as human.” And it should be apparent at this point that Joseph does not, in fact, view her as such.

Faith chooses to remain entrenched in Eden’s Gate and works within the framework available to her in the cult in order to carve a niche for herself and make herself as valuable as her role allows. She’s able to compartmentalize and push aside any personal reservations and devotes herself fully to the Project, as expected of a Faith.

Joseph’s Sin

The “Faith” position is important to Joseph because it offers him something precious that he yearns for: a feminine, accepting essence that exists outside of his traditional family dynamic that loves him unconditionally, filling his spiritual, emotional, and physical needs. But does he return this unconditional acceptance to his Faiths? On the surface, it seems like he would. That’s what the Project promises, right?

Nope.

The previous sections have touched a bit upon how Joseph views the actual woman behind the Faith name as an interchangeable body, more of a “thing” than an actual person. This section will elaborate on those views and focus on addressing two points that are frequently used to claim that him and Faith couldn’t possibly have a sexual relationship: 1. That he is a true believer and would not break his no fornication rule, and 2. That it would be out of character for him to act so callously as Faith depicts him.

In regards to the first point, we have some examples of the Seeds at least occasionally being hypocrites and holding themselves to different standards than the rest of their congregation. Tracey--who was once a member of the cult--gives an observation of how the Seeds sometimes showed a “rules for thee, but not for me” approach.” She says, “Know how I sniffed out Eden's Gate's bullshit early on? Only the Seeds were allowed to be angry, everybody else had to be calm--even though we all had our asses in that church because we were mad at the same shit too. But now everybody gets to be angry, 'cause it's a weapon pointin' where the Seeds want it. Protect the project. Transparent motherfuckers.” This tells us that Joseph and his brothers are not adverse to applying different rules to themselves than what they ask of their followers.

As John says, “Even the Father knows deeply of sin.” He has “Lust” prominently carved into his body, which shows that it’s a sin he struggles with. And there is clear, undeniable proof that he has a weakness for this sin due to the existence of everyone’s favorite addition to canon: Megan, one of Joseph's spiritual “children” that he canonically has sex with.

Their relationship is by no means on equal footing. He is in a clear position of power, and she reveres him and refers to him as “the Father” in two of her notes. At no point throughout the game does he express any regret or guilt in having sex with someone who practically worships him, perhaps because he might not view what he did as something wrong, which can be extended to how he views his relationship with Faith.

As we continue to discuss Megan, the examples here will overlap with “2. That it would be out of character for him to act so callously as Faith depicts him.” In Megan’s first letter we see that, despite being his lover, she is afraid of him and what he is capable of. Instead of asking him about why there’s a new Faith, or what happened with his wife and child, she feels like the safest course of action is to leave with her baby. That is massively telling. It shows us that she feels uncomfortable speaking up and voicing her concerns to him due to fear of his reaction, and that someone with a sexual relationship with him thinks that he’s capable of violence towards Faith.

Joseph does not show any regret regarding his relationship with Megan or their dynamic. In fact, the only time he mentions Megan is when discussing Ethan’s pride. He says that he should learn from his mother, because she “put aside her pride and it saved [Ethan’s] life.” And by “putting aside her pride,” Joseph means returning back to him. He views her leaving him due to worry and fear for their child as “pride,” which is another illustration of a warped view of relationship dynamics, which extends to his treatment of Faith and his expectation of absolute loyalty.

Let’s look at Megan’s letter that was sent after the Collapse:

In the last paragraph, Megan expresses concern that Joseph would hate Ethan because she “ran away and wasn’t brave enough to stand by [Joseph].” While Joseph obviously doesn’t hate Ethan in the game, we see his reservation about Megan’s actions seventeen years later by framing her desire to leave and not trust him as being an example of pride. This further emphasizes the degree that Joseph prioritizes loyalty and his twisted view on what constitutes loyalty, which we see reflected in how he throws away Faiths who are not loyal enough.

In Far Cry 5 itself, we have seen that Joseph has no qualms with harming others if it serves his purposes. While Joseph is completely earnest in his beliefs and often acts out of love and desire for a perceived greater good, it does not make everything he does actually good. He is completely capable of making justifications for awful things and limiting his sense of empathy when needed. Our first glimpse of Joseph is when we see him gorge a man’s eye out with his bare hands. He watches silently while his younger brother--whom he knows has sadistic urges--tortures people and flays the skin off unbelievers. He sees his older brother keep humans in cages and put them in life-or-death trials. He allows for the cult’s enemies and “disciples full of fear and doubt” to have their minds and sense of identity destroyed, be fed dog food, and render them incapable of speech. In Inside Eden’s Gate, he chases after Alex with a gun. He does all of these things while fully believing he is doing this out of a sense of righteousness.

At the end of New Dawn, Joseph says, “My soul has become a cancer. I am a monster. I only spread suffering and death in the name of God.” Joseph himself acknowledges the evil actions he has committed, despite his earnest intentions, to the point where he feels he is no longer worthy to live in the new world and wants to face God’s judgment.

We’ve seen him do many awful and questionable things, yet the idea that he is incapable of having a sexual relationship with Faith has arbitrarily been deemed by fandom to be a line in the sand that he wouldn’t cross.

Perhaps the most relevant example of Joseph’s potential for callousness is his treatment of the previous Faiths, where we see that Joseph is not adverse to bringing harm (even against noncombatant women) if he feels it is justified.By saying that Joseph threw away the other women, it points to his direct involvement in their deaths, which we see evidence of quite literally with Lana. He “threw her body in here to disintegrate in the boiling muck like a common Angel,” not even affording her the decency of a proper burial. The “Dirty Crumpled Letter” tells us that a previous black-haired Faith (Lana?) was with the project for years, but even her longevity did not protect her from the same unfortunate fate as the others.The writer of “A Confession” expresses fear of Joseph and a belief that he won’t forgive her for having doubts. If he had no moral issues with having harm come to the previous women, why would he be reluctant to do the same to Rachel?

An example of this fear can be seen after the deputy destroys the statue and Faith’s personal copy of the Book of Joseph. Faith tells the deputy, “What have you done? His words. Don't you understand what He'll do to me?” Here we see another example of “He” being capitalized, once again showing a sense of reverence and submission. Some people feel like this line is a manipulation tactic by Faith, but we don’t think it’s likely in this case. The reason why is because up until the final moments of her battle, Faith’s whole spiel is about how wonderful and loving the Father and Eden’s Gate is. She does not present herself as a damsel in need of rescuing. Showing fear of the Father would be antithetical to her goals. Furthermore, Tracey says how “Faith is gonna feel the heat now... She'll need to answer for that burned book and mangled statue.” This confirms that Faith would genuinely have to face Joseph after the deputy’s actions. And it’s also quite telling that the only time throughout the entire game that Joseph calls the deputy directly based on what they’re doing is when the statue gets attacked. Joseph says, “I'm not angry, but I'm disappointed. My people are coming to show you my displeasure.” After this, a bunch of Chosen attack the deputy. Despite his claims otherwise, Joseph is obviously pissed that his statue is destroyed, which makes it logical that he would be angry at Faith, and also logical that she would be afraid of his anger.

Other examples shown in the DLC that show that Rachel was being truthful and Joseph was being abusive are as follows:

Joseph raises his hand to strike Rachel in a vision, and she cowers, not acting surprised or shocked that he’s being violent. Joseph then intimidates her by saying “If you truly knew [what I did to the other Faiths], you would not dare strike me.” She already knows for certain that Joseph wanted the Faiths that displeased him to die. This shows that there was OTHER disturbing treatment and abuse happening behind the scenes that was unknown to Rachel.

“I was a victim. And that was exactly what you were looking for, wasn’t it?”--she’s calling his manipulative ass out

“In the beginning, before I tried running away, I wanted to give the world to you.”--As mentioned previously, Faith tried to run away at one point, proving that she wasn’t as happy with Eden’s Gate as she appeared to the deputy in FC5. This definitely supports the idea that she wasn’t being truthful to Tracey in her letters.

“To execute God’s plan I needed someone I could trust, someone obedient. I was only trying to find that.” “What’s the point of lying now, Father?”--Faith calls him out again here, stopping his attempt to justify his actions in getting a new Faith and having the old one killed.

“That’s the Father I remember. Strong, powerful, terrifying.”

“Faith respected me, feared me.”

We see that Joseph did and does, in fact, keep Faith “plied with drugs” in order to stay “Faith” and not “Rachel.”

That Rachel harbors a lot of anger towards Joseph and how he views her as a disposable, replaceable woman

Outside Support

While the focus so far has mainly been on FC5, there are external sources that lend support to this type of dynamic between Joseph and Faith.

While Joseph is stated to have been inspired by many different cult leaders, his primary inspiration is the “sinful Messiah” himself, David Koresh of the Branch Davidians. Both cult leaders have a philosophy that hinges around Revelations and breaking the seven seals, both involve a violent showdown between law enforcement and the cult, both have visual similarities, both stored a significant amount of firearms, and both lived separate from the rest of society in a compound. And according to the lead writer of FC5, both leaders also slept with several of their followers. He met his legal wife when she was a teenager, and she became a faithful and devoted follower to him, supporting even his more depraved actions. And her name...was Rachel. While this does not address Joseph’s specific actions in-game, it’s mentioned because these games are not written in a vacuum. When we interpret art, we bring our knowledge of the real world into it. Knowledge of communism affects our understanding of Animal Farm, for example. And the knowledge of the Branch Davidians and David Koresh allows us to gain a deeper insight into the life of our fictional Rachel.

Another leader of a doomsday cult with a unique take on Revelations is perhaps the most (in)famous: Charles Manson, the cult leader who ordered his female followers to brutally murder several individuals. Like Koresh, Manson and his followers lived in a communal living situation where they were kept apart from most of society. ABC’s Truth and Lies: The Family Manson special contains interviews with former followers of Manson. It is described how he would “remold” girls by breaking them down and building them up in his image. Leslie Van Houten describes how she thought Manson would lead to a “positive change” in her life but instead became “an empty shell of a person filled with Manson rhetoric.” The documentary also discusses how Manson would encourage his followers to use drugs, which put them in a more pliable state of mind. “Then, the questions would begin: Would you die for me? Will you be my finger on a hand?” The documentary also discusses how during Manson’s trial, there was a sharp contrast between the “savagery of the crimes and carefree nature” of the girls, who would do things like sing cheerfully in court and wear pretty dresses. All these examples are very reminiscent of Faith Seed, and the dynamic between her and Joseph. Rachel was remolded into Faith and believed that Joseph could save her from a life she wanted to escape. Like Van Houten, Faith expresses an emptiness that Joseph fills by giving her purpose--”a soul.” She was exposed to drugs and expresses a willingness to die for him, and becomes an extension of him through her position as a herald. Her innocent demeanor and aesthetic is a clear contrast to the dark and brutal side she expresses throughout the game.

The final point is that the lead writer (Drew Holmes) confirmed it. According to the Far Cry 5 Prima Collector's Edition, Drew Holmes was in charge of “overseeing the story, script, and characters.”

When asked directly about Faith and Joseph’s relationship, this is what he answered via the infamous DM: "Like most cult leaders, Joseph took advantage of his followers. His relationship with the Faith you meet in the game was very similar to the others. This Faith was probably more fanatical and loyal to him... Though I think he was probably frightened of her and saw her as someone with the potential to take over the cult from him. Depends on what you mean by "exploit"...they had a sexual relationship for sure. Joseph slept with a lot of his followers."

The fact that Holmes answered these questions after the game was released adds a degree of certainty about the nature of Joseph and Faith’s relationship. While it is common for a story and characters to go through changes during the development process, Holmes did not say “we toyed with the idea of giving them a sexual relationship” or “they might have had a sexual relationship”, he said: “they had a sexual relationship for sure”. Based on this wording, there is nothing pointing to the idea that this was a developmental change or an afterthought: they had a sexual relationship “for sure”. It does not get more explicit than that. Granted, the amount of explicit detail of their sexual relationship is limited in the FC5 base game, but this acts less as evidence against a sexual relationship between Joseph and Faith and more as an artistic choice to enable the player to draw their own conclusions. Holmes is not a rogue writer breaking away from the rest of his team to add in new, random information to an already-existing product. He’s the LEAD writer of the game who is responsible for the creation and development of these characters and their dynamics.

Possible Counterarguments and Questions

“But she’s his sister!”

No, she’s not. They’re not biologically related, and Joseph’s parents did not adopt Faith in order to make her his sister in a legal sense. She’s on a different level than the rest of her “family,” and she knows it. If Jacob disappointed him, Joseph wouldn’t be complicit in his mysterious disappearance the next day. If John died, Joseph wouldn’t pick out a random cultist, give him John’s jacket, and start calling the new guy John. Everyone in Eden’s Gate refers to each other as brothers and sisters. It’s a title, like how nuns are referred to as sisters. Faith being given the last name emphasizes her importance in the cult, and in the eyes of Joseph. They obviously don’t view her as an actual sister, otherwise she wouldn’t be viewed as so disposable and replaceable.

“Don’t some NPC’s say he treats her like a daughter?”

Yes, they do. As “the Father,” he takes a paternal role towards the entirety of his cult, including his biological brothers (John even says how he “found a new Father” in Joseph). The age difference between Faith and Joseph exacerbates this view to NPC outsiders who aren’t familiar with their past. But as we see with Megan, Joseph has no qualms with sleeping with one of his spiritual children, so there’s no reason to believe he would feel any differently with Faith.

“Faith has control over the Bliss. If Joseph mistreated her, why couldn’t she have overthrown him?”

This is like asking someone who was abused, “Why don't you hit back against your spouse/parent? You’re taller than they are and can probably physically take them down in a fight.” It fundamentally misunderstands the level of complexity abusive dynamics can have, and the psychological hold the abuser can have on a person. Faith views Joseph as her savior. He gave her purpose and she feels she is nothing without him. Putting the Bliss’s likely influence on her aside, if she’s not Faith, then she’s back to being lost, broken Rachel, which she wants to avoid since the Faith position is the first time in her life where she actually feels special and has some degree of power. Faith can be a dangerous person while still being vulnerable and endangered by Joseph.

If she wanted to leave the cult, there is nowhere for her to go since she was abused by her parents and cut off the only friend she had. She lived on a cult compound as a teenager and has no education or job prospects. Faith has shown no signs of ambition in-game in terms of wanting to wrestle control of the cult from Joseph, but let’s play devil’s advocate and assume she did want to leave. How exactly would that work? Eden’s Gate is a cult of personality that ultimately centers around Joseph and his visions. Would John and Jacob happily go along with their brother dying at the hands of the newest Faith? Would his followers? How exactly would the cult sustain itself? She’d basically need to be the queen of an army of braindead, perpetually drugged-up zombies, which is a cool visual, but ultimately a hollow one that gives her no purpose.

“Why doesn’t anyone in the game mention this?”

There are a couple layers to this question. Firstly, we think the relationship is, in fact, mentioned--albeit indirectly--by various characters, as explained above, and the DLC especially lays it on pretty heavily.

Secondly, if we look at this from an in-universe perspective, we have a couple possibilities. The first one is that the relationship was kept a secret. Joseph AND Faith are figureheads, and as previously mentioned, Eden’s Gate has a “no fornication” rule. It would be a bad look for two of the figureheads to be breaking that rule while expecting others to follow it. That by itself is reason enough, but if we take New Dawn into consideration, the pressure to keep it secret may have been increased due to Megan. Her note “Goodbye” isn’t addressed to a specific person, but she calls the reader her “precious family,” meaning there is more than one intended recipient. It can’t be directed at her parents, since she says, “You’ll understand if you’re a parent.” Context clues tell us this is likely directed towards some of her spiritual brothers and sisters in the commune, some of whom may have children and some may not, who know about the pregnancy. If Joseph sins with one person then it could get passed off as a slip up, but if it becomes repetitive then people will start to think he’s a hypocrite and lose faith. It’s better optics to keep it a secret.

Another possibility is that cultists know about it, but just don’t mention it where the deputy can hear. It would be a weird thing to bring up randomly if you’re a cultist guarding an outpost. “Hey, do you guys think The Father and Sister Faith are still a thing?” They wouldn’t want to gossip about the personal lives of The Father or the heralds. It would be disrespectful, and they revere these people. OR it could just be something everyone in the cult is aware of and doesn’t need mentioning.

From an out-of-universe perspective, there are again a couple different possibilities. We’re obviously not privy to behind-the-scenes discussions, so we can only speculate, but there may have been a fear that making their relationship more explicit would eclipse Faith’s personal agency and role in the story. Faith chooses to turn people into Angels, chooses to orchestrate the deaths of others, chooses to take on a leadership role during the collapse, and chooses to produce and spread a dangerous drug all across the county. She’s a villain, and the player isn’t supposed to sympathize with her to the point where they no longer want to defeat her, or stop thinking of her as an enemy. Her exploitation is part of her history, but it does not define her, and I think the writers were afraid that it would if they made the relationship too explicit.

Another possible reason is that Ubisoft might have been trepid about inviting possible controversy. Ubisoft is not a particularly daring company. The fear of seeing articles titled, “Far Cry 5 Requires Player to Kill a Sexual Abuse Victim” would have been enough to pull back and have the relationship be shown to us through subtext instead of overt text. There could have been concerns that being explicit might come across as exploitative or tasteless, and this company has had criticism regarding its treatment of female characters in the past.

“I can’t enjoy the game or Joseph’s character if I think that this happened.”

Completely understood--this is a very sensitive topic. The goal of this essay is to analyze Faith’s position in the family, which--according to Drew Holmes--does contain a sexual component, and we feel that absolutely needs to be addressed in order to fully and honestly explore her character and the personal struggles she experienced, as well as her dynamic within the group. We’re NOT trying to say that anyone’s a bad person if they don’t like this interpretation, or force anyone to address this topic in their writing. We’re just hoping that reading this essay will make people realize that Faith and Joseph being in a relationship isn’t some fringe idea thought up by a bored writer months after the game was released, but was instead a core idea that made it into the finished product and affects characterization and dynamics. Years after the original game’s release, the history of the Faiths remains at the forefront of the FC6 DLC. Not interpreting the characters this way is fine, but please don’t act like there’s absolutely no basis for it. We wanted to give the fandom some food for thought, even if people might not like the taste.

“Sexual abuse of female characters is such a tired trope. Why are you even writing this? Why would you want this to be the backstory? The story is so much better without it.”

This isn’t an issue of “want,” it’s an issue of what was intended by the writers. We think that by ignoring or refusing to discuss this aspect of Faith’s character, a disservice is done to her. According to the lead writer, this is something that happened, whether it’s “cliche” or not, or whether it “ruins” our perception of Joseph or not. Yes, it is gross and immoral. Yes, it is fucked up. But this is the character’s experience. The game was written with the intention that they had a sexual relationship “for sure,” which provides context to all these hints that show up. Ignoring the story of a sexual abuse victim, fictional or not, is something that really does not sit right with us, especially if the reason why it’s ignored is because it makes the abuser look bad.

Faith’s experience is something that can resonate with a lot of people for different reasons. And while we know some prefer this to be a topic that’s not discussed at all, there are others who connect with her character and the experiences she went through, and would prefer for there to be the possibility of open discourse about the idea without it getting shut down for being “baseless” or “out of character.”

Conclusion

Rachel’s story is one that’s unfortunately reminiscent of many real-life women who get drawn into cults. Rachel was abused, directionless, suicidal. She finally finds someone who sees something beyond the miserable drug addict everyone else shunned. She’s told she is special and believes it, and becomes incredibly devoted to this man who saved her from herself and finally gave her purpose. Because she loves him, she gives him every aspect of herself--her identity, her heart, her mind, her body. He puts his faith inside her, and she becomes angelic. Perfect. And she feels nothing but honor that out of all the other girls, he would choose to put his faith in poor, broken Rachel.

But then the glamor starts to fade and the cracks start to show. She comes to the realization that he doesn’t actually view her as special. Instead, he doesn’t actually care about her at all--all he cares about is the role she plays, the person he wants her to be. Like the other girls who were “used up and thrown away” by him, Rachel--by herself--is worthless. Rachel can be killed without a second thought. Rachel can get replaced with a new girl if she’s not devoted enough. All that matters is “his Faith.”

If she wanted to leave, there was nowhere to go. Her real family abused her, and she pushed away the only friend she had. All letters are monitored. So the only choice is to submit and play the role she is given.

As Faith, she has a pull and presence that Rachel never did. She embraces her status as a figurehead and gets fully involved with the Project. She carves a niche for herself through her production and distribution of the Bliss, and through using her natural talents of manipulation. She makes herself valuable so this Faith can’t be replaced as easily as the others. Faith has the power and control Rachel never had, and she revels in it. She loves how powerless the Bliss makes others, and how powerful it makes her. She enjoys the strength that comes with being a herald, and the complete and utter obedience of the angels, which are her own sadistic creation. She captivates and maintains the interest of the most powerful man she knows. Faith in the game is the “witch” and “demon” people say she is, but that sinister siren would not exist without Rachel. The Rachel who was abused, exploited, and transformed by the fantasies of her professed savior. The Rachel who had nothing, who wanted everything Joseph could give her. The Rachel who, at seventeen years old, sacrificed everything, even her identity, so that she could be born again as “Faith”.

Rachel’s story is a really complex, fascinating story to tell, and while her sexual history is simply one aspect of that, it IS part of her story, and it deserves to be told. Like many women who get sucked into cults, Faith was taken advantage of--both mentally and physically--but something that sets her apart from a lot of women in these situations is how she uses her own skills and cunning in order to go from brainwashed victim to cunning and cutthroat leader. Her past abuse is part of her story, but it does not define her. Ultimately, ignoring the abuse she suffered at the hands of Joseph flattens her character because it gives her nothing to overcome once she becomes a herald. What makes Faith so compelling is not her “sob story” of drug abuse and bullying, but her ability to overcome that as well as the compromised, contradictory position she found herself in once she became Faith Seed.

#faith seed #joseph seed #far cry 5 #john seed #jacob seed #tw: grooming #tw: abuse #tw: drug use #why the fuck did i write this much

139 notes · View notes

babyjakes · 2 years

Text

forever and a day | 43. where she belongs.

〈 disclaimer: this blog posts content not suitable for individuals under the age of 18. minors are strictly prohibited from viewing, sharing, or interacting with this blog. for more information on this blog's commitment to protecting minors, read our full statement here. 〉

← last chapter | series masterlist | next chapter →

summary | a story in which america’s favorite captain gives a new life and family to a five-year-old girl who has suffered well beyond her years at the hands of hydra.

characters | dad!steve rogers, girl/willa rogers (original character)

warnings | AU similar enough to OU to include spoilers to many Marvel movies (Age of Ultron and beyond). action and fight scenes with violence and killing. injuries/mild gore. mature themes related to and semi-graphic depictions of child abuse/neglect, past CSA and CSM, and their aftermath (emaciation, wounds, scarring, etc). medical abuse and experimentation. ptsd/trauma symptoms in a child (developmental discrepancies, de-humanized behavior, detachment, extreme fears). medical treatment of CSM and other aftermath of abuse.trauma-informed therapeutic treatment of ECT. minor mentions of disordered eating. themes relating to abuse of power/authority and immoral interrogation tactics including SA (with brief depictions.) evil!Tony Stark.

[Steve]

The screen that flashes in front of me is blurrier than usual, images appearing and fading in and out every few moments. Light is distorted through a skewed lens, beams and shadows dragging across my vision. I can feel the fear and confusion coursing through Willa’s veins as our collective sense of sight tries to focus on what’s in front of her, and to my utter horror and disbelief, when the picture finally becomes stable enough to identify who it is, I find Tony Stark’s deep brown eyes staring back at me.

“Now- remember what we said, kiddo? Cap can’t hear a word about this,” he warns in an unsettlingly sweet voice, a serious threat clearly lurking just below the surface. As more of Willa’s surroundings come into focus, I realize that she’s tied down to some sort of padded seat, in some ways similar to a car-seat- only this seat is set up in Tony’s familiar laboratory in the tower, a place the little girl was never supposed to see again. “This is probably the last chance I’ll have at figuring out what you’ve got going on inside you, so we don’t have any time to waste,” the scientist continues, stepping away from Willa and beginning to prepare things at his station that I can’t identify.

“D-Daddy,” the tiny girl whimpers, struggling weakly against the restraints. Tears fall freely from her eyes as the man snorts darkly at her plea, shaking his head in disappointment and frustration.

“‘Daddy,’” he mocks sickly, “how pathetic. That son of a bitch doesn’t know the first thing about being a father. And yet here you are, begging for him, just like you’d beg for anyone who showed the slightest interest in you. It’s amazing to me how much of an animal you are. Just a sick, kicked puppy, waiting for someone to finally come along and pull you out of the mud.” Tony’s words spark anger deep within me as Willa continues to sob, trapped in the strange contraption of a chair.

“Please, don’t h-hurt me, please- Daddy, I-I want my d-daddy,” she pleads fearfully.

“Sorry kiddo. I don’t want to hurt you, but sometimes we gotta do things we don’t like for the sake of science. And would you quit calling for Steve already? He can’t hear you; he’s fast asleep. Plus, I’m doing him a favor. Walking out with some mutant kid is a pretty risky move, and I’m sure he’s well aware of that fact. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was planning on bringing you into some third-party lab company in the morning, just to get an overview of what he’s really working with. That would be moronic, of course, since he has access to the country’s best equipment and brains right in this very tower, but I’ll give him a break. He is like- what? A hundred years old?” Waves of panic begin to flow through Willa at Tony’s rambling, and anger builds up within me at the worries he’s planting in the child’s fragile mind. How dare he say these things to her? He knows exactly what he’s doing: scaring the life out of her.

“P-please, please!” my poor Willa begs desperately, her breathing beginning to falter as her levels of anxiety rise higher and higher.

“You know what? I was originally against the idea of gagging you- just for, you know, ethical reasons- but with what you’re about to go through, it might not be a bad idea. Wouldn’t want anyone to hear what’s going on if you decide to get too vocal,” Tony speaks casually, rummaging through a drawer and pulling out a rag. He walks over in front of Willa and rips her mouth open, ramming the wadded up fabric in before she can do anything to protest. She lets out a muffled sob into the gag as he ties it around her head securely, her airflow being partially compromised due to the blockage. “There you go, nice and quiet,” he says happily, patting her on the head.

“Alright kiddo, I think we’re all set to get started on the trials. Feel free to scream into the gag. No one’s gonna hear you,” he laughs as he begins starting up a set of machines positioned beside the chair, gathering various wires in his hands. Securing them onto various places across Willa’s skin, he taps more at his monitors as the gadgets roar to life. “We better get you shifted into equilibrium, too. Could you do that for me? Or am I gonna have to do it manually like last time?” he questions. Willa only whimpers into her gag in response, but I can tell that internally, her mind has been made: she’ll shift for Tony. Her thought process is that hopefully, he might show her some mercy this way. Seeing the changes he’s looking for on the monitors, he smiles. “Good choice,” he nods. “I was able to create a set of compatible simulations to observe your healing capabilities, so this time I won’t have to hurt myself,” Tony explains further as he keeps working at one of the screens. “This first one is a set of broken ribs. No idea what that feels like, but it probably isn’t good. Here we go,” he says, tapping at a few more buttons before turning back to face the little girl, and suddenly, an overwhelming burst of pain ruptures from within her torso.

Before I can experience anything more through Willa’s mind channel, my contact with her is abruptly cut off as she pushes my hand away from her face, throwing me back into the present moment. The small child is convulsing in the car-seat, an acute expression of agony drawn onto her face, and yet, through the pain, she was somehow able to break herself away from me. “N-no!” she exclaims, her skin still glowing a deep shade of red. Eyes clamped shut, tears roll down her cheeks as she holds her hands out in front of her to keep me away. “Stay-… aw-way-” she sputters. “N-not s…” she struggles, barely able to force her words out. “Not s-s'pposed to t-tell.” My heart sinks into the pit of my stomach as I realize she’s trying to keep me from seeing what Tony put her through.

“Sweetheart,” I murmur, my hand still held out in front of her, inches away from her scarlet skin. “Willa, baby,” my voice cracks as I watch the little girl choke and heave through her flashback, trying to process everything I’ve just witnessed. The fact that Tony once again went behind my back and abused Willa, my daughter, in an experimental setting sets an angry fire ablaze within me. Learning this only confirms that my decision to move us out was much needed; she clearly isn’t safe anywhere near Tony Stark. Another part of me is furious with myself for allowing this to happen again. He hurt her, and I had no idea. Even after it happened, I was too stupid and blind to see that she had been once again put through such an incredibly traumatizing experience.

Willa’s pain-stricken body spasms violently against the straps of the car-seat as she sobs pitifully; out of pure heartbreak, my hands find their way to the black buckles holding her into the seat, releasing them swiftly. She crumples forward with the sudden lack of restraint, her writhing body folding in on itself as she collapses onto the floor of the car in front of me. “Oh sweetheart,” I breathe out, tears building in my eyes. Still glowing strong, the child lifts her head slightly, seeming to be able to somewhat glance around and take in her position while simultaneously reliving her experience. With as much strength as she can muster, she throws herself forward, to my surprise, and stumbles out of the car, landing painfully in a ball at my feet. In an instant, I’m bent down beside her, cooing, “Willa, hey- it’s alright, you’re alright…” My hands reach out once more to try to help her, but she lurches back instantly, holding her own arms up again in front of her.

“N-no! N-no, please,” she whimpers as she scurries backward fearfully, her body beginning to duck under the car.

“Willa, baby, please,” I try, “it’s okay, sweetheart. It’s okay; you can let me see. Please let me see, doll. I need to know what he did to you.” My hand draws near her cheek and she flinches back, a terrified whimper escaping her lips.

“C-can’t see, can’t,” she cries in reply, her mangled body curling further into itself as the pain of her memories seems to intensify even more. Her hands fly up and grab onto her hair, pulling down hard in distress.

“Sweetie, sweetie, hey,” I coo sadly, hating to see her so distraught. “Please Willa, come here- let me hold you. Let Daddy hold you, sweetheart. I’ll make it all better, I promise.” But she just continues to cry and cower away from me, and in the end I don’t have the heart to go against her wishes, so I keep my hands off of her, even though my strongest instinct is to wrap her up as tightly as I can and never let her go.

After several more minutes of agony, Willa’s cries eventually begin to die down, and to my relief, the bright red glow surrounding her slowly starts to fade away, leaving her a tearful mess on the parking garage floor. Once all the flush has left her skin, she lifts her tired body up slightly, her head rising up to look at me warily as I kneel down in front of her, concern and heartbreak still written all over my face.

“Sweetheart, hi,” I breathe. “Come here, baby,” I murmur gently, opening up my arms for her. The child drags herself slowly over to me, her shaking form resting gingerly against my chest at last. As carefully as I can, I wrap her up in my embrace, shifting so that I’m sitting cross-legged on the ground, cradling the little girl in my arms. Though her flashback is over, Willa still continues to cry, big warm tears rolling down her cheeks steadily, not showing any signs of slowing. “Shh-shh shh, it’s okay,” I hum, stroking her messy hair back from her face. “You’re safe now; I’ve got you. I’ve got you, sweetheart.”

Through the commotion, I can see that her light green shift has lifted slightly up on her tummy. And though no part of me wants to see just how hurt my sweet baby girl has become, the need to know wins out in the end, and my hand trails down to the hem of the shirt, lifting it up to get a better view. “Oh my god,” I let out, sucking in a breath. Dark, angry marks litter her entire abdomen, spanning all the way up through her shoulders. Without thinking, I lift up one of her sleeves as well, devastated to find similar marks covering her arm. Reaching down to the ankle of her leggings, I pull back the fabric, and am met with a similar sight. Tony’s set of simulations didn’t seem to miss a single part of her body that would be covered by clothes. More anger burns within me, but I’m quickly shaken out of my thoughts by a soft, terrified voice.

“P-please,” she begs, sounding weakened to the point of absolute exhaustion. “D-don’t hurt me; I’m sorry. N-no more. C-can’t take it.” Pulling her clothes back down to cover her damaged skin, my hand finds its way back up to her cheek; whimpering, she flinches, clearly anticipating a blow.

“Hey, you’re okay, Willa-bug. I’m not gonna hurt you; Daddy won’t hurt you, baby,” I croon, rubbing my thumb gently over her tear-stained cheek. “Willa, I- I don’t know how I could ever show you how sorry I am, but today is the day, sweetheart… I’m finally taking you home. And no one will be able to hurt you there, not Tony, or Hydra, or anybody else. This ends now, Willa. No more hurt for you. No more experiments or labs or anything like that.”

“No lab, p-please no lab,” she sobs quietly, and for some reason, as she says this, I’m thrown back to the very first day that we met back in Korea. As I was carrying her out of the base and onto the ship, she feared the exact same thing. And it just destroys me, to know that I still haven’t been able to ease her fears about my intentions with her.

“No lab,” I promise, continuing to stroke her cheek softly, and in the process, her own little thumb trails up and finds its way into her quivering mouth. “You’re my sweetheart, my baby, my doll. You don’t belong in a lab; you belong in a home. With me, in my arms. Just like this.” And as gently as I can, I begin rocking the small girl back and forth, a hint of relief settling in my chest as her sobs begin to die down.

“Y-your sweetheart,” she mumbles quietly, her head tucking in beside my chest as I lean down to plant a kiss in her hair. “Your baby, your doll. Y-yours. Daddy’s. Belong w-with you.”

← last chapter | series masterlist | next chapter →

#faad #faad: where she belongs #eun's writing #steve rogers #steve rogers fanfiction #steve rogers series #steve rogers au #steve rogers angst #steve rogers fluff #hurt/comfort #steve rogers x child!oc #dad!steve rogers #the avengers #avengers fanfiction #mcu #mcu fanfiction #captain america #captain america fanfiction

40 notes · View notes

wordsnstuff · 4 years

Text

Guide To Writing Historical Fiction

PLEASE REBLOG | Tumblr suppresses posts with links :/

Patreon || Ko-Fi || Masterlist || Work In Progress

–

Finding Credible Sources

This can be a major struggle, especially for those who don’t possess a lot of skill in writing research papers or writing informative works. I could write an entire article on this subject alone, but instead I’ve decided to link a few helpful articles that can help you identify credible sources. A good rule of thumb is to pay attention to how recent the information is, who wrote it (what are their credentials), and who/which organization published the information. If you’re unsure of whether one or all of these things indicates a lack of credibility, cross-reference against other material, and always keep the list of sources you’ve used handy for future reference.

Familiarity vs. Accuracy

The ultimate goal of writing historical fiction is creating an immersive experience for the reader, which takes place during a period in time they didn’t live through, or in a location they didn’t experience during that time. It’s about immersion, and it’s important that you don’t sacrifice that experience in an effort to make the material as factual as possible. You are an artist, and you have the room to pick and choose where accuracy is necessary, and where familiarity can supplement it.

Write For Your Reader

When choosing which information to include in your writing, you need to keep the reader at the forefront of your mind. What do they need to know? What can be omitted in the interest of individual interpretation? Where does specificity take away from the excitement of a moment in the story. There should never be a scene that is completely focused on unpacking the research you’ve done on the time period. You do the research and learn the information to aide in your ability to tell an immersive story, and you edit include information sporadicly with the intention of keeping the worldly aspects fresh in their mind. Each piece of information is a reminder to the reader’s imagination of where and when they are. It’s not about teaching them anything. That’s why it’s fiction.

Authenticity vs. Accessibility

A lot of historical fiction works become problematic when the author prioritizes factual accuracy over accessibility to the everyday reader. The majority of readers come for the taste of another time or another culture, or both. If they wanted to read a history paper, they would. If they wanted to read a 120 page report on 16th century Japan, they would. Keep this in mind. Accessibility is a deal breaker for most readers. If they can’t see the story through the information, they’ll put your story down, because they want what’s been advertised.

Differentiating Between Classes

Class is one of those things that, when imagining what it’s like to research for historical fiction, you forget to consider. In most cases, the experience of lower classes or the middle class were not documented or recorded in the past because it wasn’t considered worth remembering. Be mindful of who your characters are, because if you’re writing about a time period that predates modern methods of recording life and events, you may struggle to find information on anyone other than royalty and the general upper-class.

Common Struggles

~ Being a detail-oriented writer who struggles with efficiency… Here’s the thing. Write down the questions you come up with while writing, put a signifier in your draft, and then move on. Continue writing, because in all reality, it’s not worth your time to squeeze all of that minuscule detail into a first or second draft. Get the actual story done with a solid foundation of information about the relevant subjects, and then when you’re confident in your current draft, move onto the little things.

~ How far should I go when taking artistic liberties?… Make the time period and the location familiar and make the characters fit logically into it. Beyond that, nitpicking is not your responsibility. It’s historical fiction. Unless you’re wildly misrepresenting a serious issue or an important detail, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t take liberties where you see fit. It’s one thing to decide tomatoes did exist in Italy during the 14th century and another to erase a minority struggle in your historical fiction story. It’s fairly simple.

~ Speech patterns and vernacular of different time periods… Speech patterns are difficult to smoothly incorporate into text anyhow, but if it’s relevant to your plot, there are a lot of resources on speech during different time periods and the dialects in various areas of the world. The vernacular of languages are more important to research, especially for dialogue, but this is also something you can hire an specialized editor to work with you on. I would use texts of the time period as a jumping-off point, translated into their original version but in whatever language you speak, and then compare patterns you see between them.

~ Portraying historical figures… This is subjective, and whether the figure is dead or alive is also important to consider. Unless they’re an integral character in your story, my best advice would be to portray them with the enduring attitude of the majority, such as neutrality for a figure like John F. Kennedy, or negativity for figures like Adolf Hitler. This is highly subjective to your story and their role in it.

~ Depicting more recent time periods… If you have no experience with that time period and the events within it, and you have the option of asking someone you know, I recommend doing so. However, take bias and perspective into account when incorporating the information you glean into your story. Try to depict them with more nostalgia than stereotype.

Other Resources

Resources For Writing Royalty

Commentary on Social Issues In Writing

Describing Setting

Resources For Worldbuilding

Resources For Describing Physical Things

Things To Know About Your Real-Life Setting

Guide To Political World Building

Tips on Introducing Political Backstory

Resources For Writing (Global) Period Pieces : High Middle Ages & Renaissance

Resources For Writing (Global) Period Pieces : 1600s

Resources For Writing (Global) Period Pieces : 1700s

Resources For Writing (Global) Period Pieces : 1800s

Resources For Writing (Global) Period Pieces : 1900-1939

Resources For Writing (Global) Period Pieces : 1940-1969

Resources For Writing (Global) Period Pieces : 1970-1999

Writing Other Eras

World Building In Historical Fiction

Historically Accurate Dialogue

Accuracy vs Relatability

Guide To Writing Historical Fiction

–

Masterlist | WIP Blog

If you enjoy my blog and wish for it to continue being updated frequently and for me to continue putting my energy toward answering your questions, please consider Buying Me A Coffee, or pledging your support on Patreon, where I offer early access and exclusive benefits for only $5/month.

#writing #writeblr #writespo #writing advice #writing resources #resources for writers #resources for writing #writing help #writing tips #writer #writblr #authorblr

2K notes · View notes

oflosechesters · 4 years

Text

for anyone curious, the following meta and the elaboration below are in relation to this post. i posted this to another blog of mine, but i felt i should share it on my personal as well.

okay, i actually genuinely don’t wanna shut up about the significance of miracle because it’s possibly one of the most redeemable qualities of the spn finale. it’s actually really important, even if you don’t like the circumstances surrounding it.

at first i just sort of went off about it in some tags:

#this is the only good thing about that entire finale #it is the one thing i actually loved from a meta perspective in terms of dean's archetype #so i gotta have the puppy snuggles on the blog i'm so sorry #other than that this is largely a finale free blog lmao #i actually have a Lot of feelings about dean being given a dog #and naming the dog miracle #am i gonna end up writing meta about a dog? possibly #in broad strokes: dean has always been the archetype of a soldier #but never once has he been allowed to be a veteran #the dog very much is representative of that #it's very commonplace for veterans to have emotional support animals #dogs in particular #the way miracle launches into dean's arms after dean's just woken up is indicative to me that it's commonplace #likely after nightmares #which means that (for me) dean's PTSD is being subtly addressed #which means when i retcon the disaster of a finale for my portrayal miracle is absolutely staying #spn 15.20

but there’s so much more to it than that.

the thing about the dog, if we’re staying within the context of the canon, is that this is a dean who has lost everything (keep that wording in mind, because we’ll be coming back to it). the war is won, and he's come home, but the cost was high. we also know that dean has canonically suffered from PTSD since the end of s3, though it’s not always been explicitly addressed in the following seasons. regardless, it's an aspect of his character that is widely established and recognized.

much like in s4, and after the purgatory storyline in s8, dean’s PTSD is shown to manifest itself largely through substance abuse, anger management struggles resulting in bouts of extreme violence, and nightmares. it’s a thread throughout the narrative whether it’s consistently addressed or not. more importantly in terms of the dog: dean is never allowed to heal, because the war wages on.

by the series finale, the war is won, but the cost is castiel’s life. what does the dog have to do with castiel, you ask? more than you might first think. i don’t want to get too deep in the paint, so i’m going to focus primarily on 13.01, dean’s grief arc in early s13 in general, and some key aspects of s15.

returning to the concept of being left with a dean who has lost everything, i want to point out a choice of dialogue in 13.01. the following is said during a scene of mourning, after they’ve lost castiel, and dean is left to wrap his body for burial.

dean [voice breaking]: we’ve lost everything. and now you’re gonna bring him back. okay? you’re gonna bring back cas.

this scene is the beginning of a several episode long grief arc where dean is depicted classically as a mourning widower in terms of cinematography (viewed on bended knee from above, distant and distraught after the death scene itself at the end of s12), and is then shown to slip into apathetic suicidal tendencies. his substance abuse reaches such a low that he quite literally drinks himself to death, but death will not take him, despite his wishes. he rages at sam for being able to move on so easily, in 13.03, patience:

dean: and what about cas? sam: what about cas? dean: he manipulated him, he made him promises, said, “paradise on earth” and cas bought it. and you know what that got him? it got him dead! now you might be able to forget about that, but i can’t!

the grief arc firmly establishes castiel as being representative of dean winchester’s hope, and the will to live. this is reinforced throughout s13 – s15, as it is further mirrored in later episodes, such as in act 3 of 15.09, the trap, in which sam is shown alternate futures. in every future where dean has lost castiel, he is shown to have lost his hope, and his will to continue on.

dean: no, sam. it doesn't matter. sam: what are you saying? dean: what i've been trying to say for months. it's time... time to stand down. sam: you want to quit? what's happened to you, dean? ever since— dean: ever since what? we lost pretty much everyone we’ve ever cared about? ever since the mark made cas go crazy? ever since i had to bury him in a ma’lak box? ever since then?

these follow an old tradition within the writing of spn that can be pointed at as early as 5.04, the end (“cas, too?”): castiel is always singled out apart from the rest. castiel, an angel, who saw worth in dean when dean couldn’t see it in himself. an angel who became his best friend, and loved him when dean couldn’t love himself. castiel, who saved him the moment they met, and saved him in death, as seen in 15.18, despair. given everything preceding this, it’s evident that this is not a small loss for dean. when they lose cas, dean loses the will to go on.

in losing cas that final time, cas’ confession — his assertion that dean is full of love, not anger — finally seems to break through. when fighting the main antagonist of s15, he is called “the ultimate killer.” at one time, dean would’ve agreed with this. but after cas’ confession, he denies it, and firmly says, “that's not who i am.” because that’s not who cas fell in love with. point being: castiel’s sacrifice affects dean enormously.

at the end of all things, when dean crosses the threshold from soldier to veteran because the war is won, he has a dog and he names him miracle; which harkens back to a scene when dean indirectly referred to cas as ‘his miracle,’ because truly: who’s been performing miracles in dean’s life over the past 11 seasons? the name holds a heavy weight and bears a large significance in the face of his loss.

by the end of s15, we now have a dean that is allowed to rest, and in resting, he is allowed to begin to heal. and the thing that is representative of this crossing of the threshold from soldier to veteran is giving the veteran an emotional support dog. that dean names miracle. something that is saving him, day by day, even in small ways. it’s just not only important for dean's development and healing after finally making that transition, it’s also the lasting influence castiel still has, even in death. it’s absolutely heartbreaking, especially when one considers how many of dean’s nightmares, stemming from his PTSD, canonically revolve around losing castiel — as is shown in early s8 through the purgatory storyline; therefore it is not incongruous to assume similar nightmares would crop up after the events of 15.18. and we’re shown this.

the dog jumping into bed for cuddles after dean wakes up is just so telling. but the way dean wraps around the dog, clinging? it’s the most telling.

granted, there is every possibility that i am giving the show too much credit (as it’s been shown we, as fans, are wont to do). but the concept of death of the author was quite literally pushed into the narrative of s15, and i personally like to think that no matter what else happened in 15.20, certain things remain significant and have bearing on the story, even if unintentionally so. that’s sort of just always been spn’s way of doing things.

289 notes · View notes

elias-veturius-laia-of-serra · 3 years

Text

Why Elias And Laia Mean So Much To Me

Okay so I’ve been wanting to write this for a while but knew it would be long and that I’d need some time to get my thoughts in order. So without a further ado here is my attempt:

Why is Elaia so important to me. Well to start off, Laia Of Serra in particular is very important and inspirational to me. She is not only a brown girl who is a hero but she is the most realistic hero I’ve ever had the honor of meeting. I’m so used to white female main characters that are badass warriors who are smart, beautiful, strong, special, that everyone is attracted to, and who fight for their people. I grew up on books like that. In which don’t get me wrong I still greatly enjoyed those stories and some of them are still my favorite to this day.

However I could never relate to those characters and it really solidified the belief that I most likely could never be a hero cause I could never fit that mold. And for the longest time I thought I was okay with that and I never really understood how much physical and emotional representation could mean to me until, Laia Of Serra.

Laia is a brown girl that is afraid, insecure, oppressed, sheltered, poor, weak, with no fighting experience, kind, emotional, girly, and self deprecating. She’s scared and second guesses herself all the time. It’s hard for her to phantom that she’s good enough to make the right choices or save anyone or anything. Which is exactly what I struggle with on the daily let alone in the middle of a war. I first read aeita when I was 17, the same age as Laia. So meeting a heroine that made mistakes, berated herself, cracked under pressure, had no clue what she was doing, let herself cry, understood that in a place filled with skilled deathly warriors she was weak, and let people trample over her. It was so relatable and heart wrenching. Especially when I’ve been wired to think girls like her are useless and typically the first to die or used as a stepping stool for the real hero.

Seeing her continue to fight with what she can and however she can made my heart soar. There were so many times she wanted to give up and feared death. However in time she grew and instead of fearing death she embraced the possibility of it in order to fight for what is right and for the people she loved. She stayed true to herself and became a badass without the need of having to kill people. Laia detested killing people especially after having to see how her people got killed all the time. She’s filled with understanding, love, forgiveness, sensitivity, kindness, and determination. No matter how many times she got knocked down she kept getting back up.

She gave and still gives me hope. Hope for who I am today and who I can grow into the future. She’s a symbol that you can be strong in other ways. That physical strength isn’t the only way to be a hero. Her bravery to face things head on, her compassion towards everyone, her determination to reach her goal, and her heart always willing to accept others is what makes her a hero. Even when it came to the final battle. It wasn’t her powers or weapons that got her to win the war. It was her kindness and understanding and love.

I understand people are disappointed that she wasn’t as “brutal” or stabby as other heroines. I love stabby women as well! But I think her depiction of strength and heroism is so important. It really shines a light on the meek and shy and scared and shows that it’s okay to feel like that. How that doesn’t automatically make you weak and how you can be just as important in the world.

I also love that Laia isn’t reduced or or shown as “not like other girls”. Laia loves to dress up, she likes to look pretty, she does think about boys, she is bossy, she is emotional, often has break downs, and she’s just so human. I find that a lot of the most badass heroines are always the ones that don’t like dressing up and finds it a waste of time, doesn’t fit in with other women, is stoic, cold, good with swords but not with words, and violent. Im not saying that these characters shouldn’t be allowed, but I feel like it reinforces the idea that the normal things a woman feels or behaves is considered weak. Not saying that all women are emotional, but we do feel. We do stress and some of us do love to put on make up and dresses. That shouldn’t be demonized or looked down upon.

That’s why I adore Laia. She’s a normal teenage girl that IS like most girls. And she gets praise and stronger because of it. Also people need to realize that at the start of the series Laia is a 17 year old girl with zero survival training skills. Elias and Helene have been training since they were literal children. Their whole lives revolves around fighting. Laia’s didn’t. So it makes sense and is realistic why she isn’t as “strong” or “skilled” as them.

To expect her to be at their level within the three year timeline between these books is impossible. I feel like people are so used to heroines that know how to fight or learn to become the most badass fighter through mere chapter montages that seeing a realistic depiction of a teenage girl that’s never fought in her life is displeasing. But I love that about her. She always becomes stronger in spirit, braver at heart, but at her core she is still Laia. A teenage girl trying her best.

Her needing help or needing a team to fulfill her goals shouldn’t be looked down on. It’s shown through even real history some of the best fighters or leaders needed a team. Needed support, right hand man, etc. Which is why I feel so connected to her and wish she wasn’t so underrated or looked down upon. Cause I feel like she’s a voice for girls like us that so desperately needed a way to be heard. She’s someone I can look up to and remember and find comfort in when times get stressful or dark.

Now as for why Elias and Laia’s relationship mean a lot to me. It’s simple. They’re a healthy brown couple and I love finally seeing a girl that looks and acts like me get praise and love. I love that Elias sees her strength and admires her for who she is. And how he actually finds comfort in a person like her. How he views her at times even stronger than him and everyone else.

Girls/characters like Laia are always reduced to a side character, the best friend, the second choice for the love interest, the death that motivates the main character, and or the character that pops in and out to give moral support. However under Elias’s eyes she IS the main character. She IS the only girl for him. He loves everything about her and was the first to believe she’s strong. He chooses her above all. Above anything and anyone else.

As a brown girl as shallow or dumb as it may sound it really does feel touching to see us described as not only just strong and desirable but loved and wanted by the warrior. The main love interest. That in his eyes this brown girl that others deem as weak, useless, boring, and a waste of time. To him she is everything. She is brave, smart, powerful, beautiful, admirable, and perfect. It means the world to me. Especially with how characters like her especially in fantasy is seen as never good enough or tossed aside.

I also love that Elias shows the struggles on what it means to be “strong”. How a lot of learning to be the best fighter happened through a lot of trauma, shame, and guilt. He does show how physical strength isn’t the only way to be strong. Which is why Laia is his balance. She is the peace and freedom he yearns for while Elias is the strength, power, and love she’s always yearned for. Where she falls in believing herself he is always the first to count his vote on her. They compliment each other perfectly. Countermelodies. True loves.

They show me a healthy version of love. One of the purest and sweetest kinds of love. Elias is always soft, kind, and patient with her. He’s proud of her even if she feels like it’s undeserved. She sees the good in him even if he feels like he’s a monster. They see each other for who they are and love that about each other. They love each other so much and I’d never seen two characters be as in love as these two are. They are utterly devoted to each other and constantly fought for their way back to each other. It’s been five years and rereading their scenes still makes me smile and feel butterflies, like it’s the first time all over again.

Even now seeing any content of them is like a shot of straight up serotonin. They are my comfort ship. Despite the stress these past five years of being with them and shipping them has brought me. They also bring me great happiness and excitement and I wish I never had to say goodbye.

Though here’s to hoping that maybe we can have an Elaia novella, at the least, in the future 👀🤞

♥️♥️♥️ Elaia Forever ♥️♥️♥️

#an ember in the ashes #a torch against the night #a reaper at the gates #a sky beyond the storm #aeita #atatn #aratg #asbts #sabaa Tahir #laia of serra #Elias Veturius #Elias x laia #elaia #otp #Elias laia #emberling #ember quartet

43 notes · View notes

tcm · 4 years

Text

Reframing Films of the Past: An Interview with TCM Writers

All month long in March, TCM will be taking a look at a number of beloved classic films that have stood the test of time, but when viewed by contemporary standards, certain aspects of these films are troubling and problematic. During TCM’s Reframed: Classics in the Rearview Mirror programming, all five TCM hosts will appear on the network to discuss these issues, their historical and cultural context and how we can keep the legacy of great films alive for future generations.

Also joining in on this conversation are four TCM writers who were open enough to share their thoughts on their love of classic movies and watching troubling images of the past. Special thanks to Theresa Brown, Constance Cherise, Susan King and Kim Luperi for taking part in this conversation. Continue the conversation over on TCM’s Twitter.

What do you say to people who don’t like classics because they’re racist and sexist?

KL: There are positive representations in classic Hollywood that I think would blow some peoples’ minds. I always love introducing people to new titles that challenge expectations.

That said, anyone who broadly slaps a sexist or racist label on a large part of the medium’s history does a disservice to cinema and themselves. That mindset keeps them ignorant not only of some excellent movies and groundbreaking innovation but history itself.

I think people need to remember that movies are a product of their time and they can reflect the society they were made into a variety of degrees - good, bad, politically, culturally, socially. That’s not to excuse racism or sexism; it needs to be recognized and called out as such for us to contend with it today. But it’s important for people who say they don’t like classics for those reasons to understand the historical context. In particular, we need to acknowledge that society has evolved - and what was deemed socially acceptable at times has, too, even if sexism and racism are always wrong - and we are applying a modern lens to these films that come with the benefit of decades worth of activism, growth and education.

SK: I totally agree K.L. For years I have been encouraging people to watch vintage movies who keep proclaiming they don’t like black-and-white films or silent films. For every Birth of a Nation (1915) there are beautiful dramas, wonderful comedies and delicious mysteries and film noirs.

These films that have racist and sexist elements shouldn’t be collectively swept under the rug, because as K.L. stated they shine a light on what society was like – both good and bad.

CC: First off, fellow writers may I say, I think your work is amazing. I'm continually learning from the talent that is here, and I am humbled to be a part of this particular company. Similar to the prior answers, for every racist/sexist film the opposite exists. Personally, classic musicals attracted me due to their visual assault, creativity and their unmistakable triple-threat performances. While we cannot ignore racist stereotypes and sexism, there are films that simply are "fantasies of art." There is also a review of evolution. In 20 years, what we now deem as acceptable behavior/conversation will be thought of as outdated and will also require being put into "historical context." What we collectively said/thought/did 20 years ago, we are currently either re-adjusting or reckoning with now, and that is a truth of life that will never change. We will always evolve.

TB: I would say to them they should consider the times the movie was made in. It was a whole different mindset back then.

Are there movies that you love but are hesitant to recommend to others because of problematic elements in them? If so, which movies?

TB: Yes, there are movies I’m hesitant to recommend. The big one, off the top of my head, would be Gone With the Wind (1939). The whole slavery thing is a bit of a sticky wicket for people, especially Black folks. Me, I love the movie. It is truly a monumental feat of filmmaking for 1939. I’m not saying I’m happy with the depiction of African Americans in that film. I recognize the issues. But when I look at a classic film, I suppose I find I have to compartmentalize things. I tend to gravitate on the humanity of a character I can relate to.

KL: Synthetic Sin (1929), a long thought lost film, was found in the 2010s, and I saw it at Cinecon a few years ago. As a Colleen Moore fan, I thoroughly enjoyed most of it, but it contains a scene of her performing in blackface that doesn’t add anything to the plot. That decision brings the movie down in my memory, which is why I have trouble recommending it.

Also Smarty (1934), starring Warren William and Joan Blondell, is another movie I don’t recommend because it’s basically about spousal abuse played for comedy, and it did not age well for that reason.

SK: Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961): Audrey Hepburn is my favorite actress and I love her Oscar-nominated performance as Holly. I adore Orangy as Cat, as well as George Peppard and Buddy Ebsen, who is wonderfully endearing. And of course, “Moon River” makes me cry whenever I hear it. But then I cringe and am practically nauseous every time Mickey Rooney pops up on screen with his disgusting stereotypical performance as Holly’s Japanese landlord Mr. Yunioshi. What was director Blake Edwards thinking casting him in this part? Perhaps because he’s such a caricature no Japanese actor wanted to play him, so he cast Rooney with whom he had worked within the 1950s.

CC: I cannot necessarily state that I am in "love," but, a film that comes to mind would be Anna and the King of Siam (1946). It is an absolutely beautiful visual film. However, Rex Harrison as King Mongkut requires some explanation.

Holiday Inn (1942), and the Abraham number...why??? Might I also add, there were many jaw-dropping, racist cartoons.

How did you learn to deal with the negative images of the past?

KL: I often look at it as a learning experience. Negative images can provoke much-needed conversation (internally or with others) and for me, they often prompt my education in an area that I wasn’t well versed in. For instance, blackface is featured in some classic films, and its history is something I never knew much about. That said, seeing its use in movies prompted me to do some research, which led me first to TCM’s short documentary about blackface and Hollywood. I love how TCM strives to provide context and seeks to educate viewers on uncomfortable, contentious subjects so we can appreciate classic films while still acknowledging and understanding the history and the harmful stereotypes some perpetuated.

SK: It’s also been a learning experience for me. Though I started watching movies as a little girl in the late 1950s, thanks to TCM and Warner Archive I realized that a lot of films were taken out of circulation because of racist elements. TCM has not only screened a lot of these films but they have accompanied the movies with conversations exploring the stereotypes in the films.

CC: As a Black woman, negative images of the past continue to be a lesson on how Blacks, as well as other minorities, were seen (and in some cases still are seen) through an accepted mainstream American lens. On one hand, it's true, during the depiction of these films the majority of Black Americans were truly relegated to servant roles, so it stands to reason that depictions of Black America would be within the same vein. What is triggering to me, are demeaning roles, and the constant exaggeration of the slow-minded stereotype, blackface. When you look at the glass ceiling that minority performers faced from those in power, the need for suppression and domination is transparent because art can be a powerful agent of change. I dealt with the negative images of the past by knowing and understanding that the depiction being given to me was someone else's narrative, of who they thought I was, not who I actually am.

TB: I’m not sure HOW I learned to deal with negative images. Again, I think it might go back to me compartmentalizing.

I don’t know if this is right or wrong…but I’ve always found myself identifying with the leads and their struggles. As a human being, I can certainly identify with losing a romantic partner, money troubles, losing a job…no matter the ethnicity.

In what ways have we evolved from the movies of the classic era?

KL: I think we are more socially and culturally conscious now when it comes to stories, diversity and representation on screen and behind the scenes, which is a step forward. That said, while there's been growth, there's still much work to be done.

SK: I think this year’s crop of awards contenders show how things have evolved with Da 5 Bloods, Soul, One Night in Miami, Minari, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, The United States Vs. Billie Holiday, Judas and the Black Messiah and MLK/FBI.

But we still have a long way to go. I’d love to see more Native American representation in feature films; more Asian-American and Latino stories.

CC: There are minority artists, writers, producers, directors, actors with the increasing capacity to create through their own authentic voice, thereby affecting the world, and a measurable amount of them are women! Generally speaking, filmmakers (usually male) have held the voice of the minority narrative as well as the female narrative. I agree with both writers above in the thought that it is progress, and I also agree, more stories of diversified races are needed.

TB: One important way we've evolved from the movies made in the classic era by being more inclusive in casting.

Are there any deal-breakers for you when watching a movie, regardless of the era, that make it hard to watch?

KL: Physical violence in romantic relationships that's played as comedy is pretty much a dealbreaker for me. I mentioned above that I don't recommend Smarty (1934) to people, because when I finally watched it recently, it. was. tough. The way their abuse was painted as part of their relationship just didn’t sit well with me.

SK: Extreme racist elements and just as KL states physical violence.

Regarding extreme racist elements, D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation (1915) is just too horrific to watch. I was sickened when I saw it when I was in grad school at USC 44 years ago and it’s only gotten worse. And then there’s also Wonder Bar (1934), the pre-code Al Jolson movie that features the Busby Berkeley black minstrel number “Goin’ to Heaven on a Mule.” Disgusting.

I also agree with KL about physical violence in comedies and even dramas. I recently revisited Private Lives (1931) with Norma Shearer and Robert Montgomery based on Noel Coward’s hit play. I have fond memories of seeing Maggie Smith in person in the play when I was 20 in the play and less than fond memories of watching Joan Collins destroying Coward’s bon mots.

But watching the movie again, you realized just how physically violent Amanda and Elyot’s relationship is-they are always talking about committing physical violence-”we were like two violent acids bubbling about in a nasty little matrimonial battle”; “certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs”-or constantly screaming and throwing things.

There is nothing funny or romantic about this.

KL: I try to put Birth of a Nation out of my mind, but S.K. did remind me of it again, and movies featuring extreme racism at their core like that are also dealbreakers; I totally agree with her assessment. I understand the technological achievements, but I think in the long run, especially in how it helped revive the KKK, the social harm that film brought about outdoes its cinematic innovations.

CC: Like S.K., Wonder Bar immediately came to mind. Excessive acts of violence, such as in the film Natural Born Killers (1994). I walked out of the theatre while the film was still playing. I expected violence, but the gratuitousness was just too much for me. I also have an issue with physical abuse, towards women and children. This is not to say I would not feel the same way about a man. However, when males are involved, it tends to be a fight, an exchange of physical energy, generally speaking, when we see physical abuse it is perpetuated towards women and children.

TB: I have a couple of moments that pinch my heart when I watch a movie. It doesn’t mean I won’t watch the movie. It just means I roll my eyes…verrrrry hard.

-Blackface…that’s a little rough; especially when the time period OF the movie is the ‘30s or ‘40s film.

-Not giving the Black actors a real name to be called by in the film (Snowflake…Belvedere…Lightnin’). I mean, can’t they have a regular name like Debbie or Bob?

-When the actor can’t do the simplest of tasks, i.e. Butterfly McQueen answering the phone in Mildred Pierce (1945) and not knowing which end to speak into. What up with that?

Are there elements they got right that we still haven’t caught up to?

KL: I don't know if the pre-Code era got sex right (and sensationalism was definitely something studios were going for) but in some ways, I feel that subject was treated as somewhat more accepted and natural back then. Of course, what was shown onscreen in the classic era was nowhere near the extent it is today, but the way the Production Code put a lid on sex (in addition to many other factors) once again made it into more of a taboo topic than it is or should be.

One thing I particularly hate in modern movies is gratuitous violence, and it perplexes and angers me how America weighs violence vs. sex in general through the modern ratings system: films are more likely to get a pass with violence, mostly landing in PG-13 territory and thus making them more socially acceptable, while sex, something natural, is shunned with strictly R ratings. Obviously, there are limits for both, but I think the general thinking there is backwards today.

CC: The elegance, the sophistication, the precision, the dialogue, the intelligence, the wit. The fashion! The layering of craftsmanship. We aren't fans of these films for fleeting reasons, we are fans because of their timeless qualities.

I'm going to sound like a sentimental sap here, ladies get ready. I think they got the institution of family right. Yes, I do lean towards MGM films, so I am coloring my opinion from that perspective. Even if a person hasn't experienced what would have been considered a "traditional family" there is something to be said about witnessing that example. Perhaps not so much of a father and a mother, but to witness a balanced, functioning, loving relationship. What it "looks like" when a father/mother/brother/sister etc. genuinely loves another family member.

I was part of the latch-key generation, and although my parents remained together, many of my friends' parents were divorced. Most won't admit it, but by the reaction to the documentary [Won't You Be My Neighbor?, 2018], the bulk of them went home, sat in front of the TV and watched Mr. Rogers tell them how special they were because their parents certainly were not. We don't know what can "be" unless we see it.

#Reframed #TCM #Turner Classic Movies #representation #racism #sexism #inclusion #diversity #cinephile #film #old Hollywood #Theresa Brown #Kim Luperi #Susan King #Constance Cherise

110 notes · View notes