#CW Phrenology

[sokkagatekeeper]

Hey uh this might be a weird question (and cw for eugenics and racism mentions, feel free to discard this ask if you don't want to engage with those topics) but i saw an old post of yours abt the antrophologist guy who measured aangs skull. And like. That was always so INCREDIBLY jarring to me. I'm swedish and here those things are p exclusively known as a symbol of eugenics (specifically the "racial hygiene" aspect of eugenics, including things like forced sterilisation of indigenous people) Like, in school history books, the eugenics section is p much always illustrated w pictures of sami (indigenous) pp being forced to have their skulls measured. And idk if those devices are less known in america? If they have different associations? Or at least not the same symbolic value/immediate eugenics association? Because i WANT to believe that they didn't actually intentionally throw in an eugenics symbol like that. Especially for a character that's supposed to be somewhat sympathetic. Avatar might handle some heavy topics but this was just thrown in there so flippantly, I was legitimately shocked the first time i saw it. Idk it's just insane that i've never seen anyone talk about it, so surely that association might not be as prevalent in other countries or something?? Right???? Or how have people just brushed over this???? What the fuck actually

oh i mean i've definitely seen discussion of this in the fandom before, if mostly somewhat flippant references to how bad that was. yes, phrenology has been used as a tool of racist oppression in far more places than just sweden. it's possible that it's less known in other places, but i'm american and was able to recognize it. my inclination is to believe that the scene with professor zei measuring aang's skull was written thoughtlessly, by someone who had seen references to skull-measuring at some point but didn't actually know what it implied. it's possible that they were trying to subtly imply something about zei (maybe that he cares more about knowledge for knowledge's sake than about how that knowledge is applied and who it harms). that would also go along with the fact that he refers to aang as a "living relic"—a truly insanely offensive thing to say to him—and really does seem to think of him as an object of study rather than a person. he then, of course, ends up being buried in the library, because of the very fact that he values "knowledge" in the abstract without caring about being able to accomplish anything material with it. but again, this may be too generous of a reading; even if this is what the writers were going for, i still think it's pretty distasteful to show a skull-measuring scene completely out-of-the-blue like that in a children's show without properly addressing it. like you said, atla handles heavy topics, but this really only works if the audience recognizes the device for what it is and what real-world history it has, which many of the children for whom the show is intended would not.

[bookshelfdreams]

Ok, let's try this: Middle-European skull, 58 cm circumference, high forehead, not very promiment temple indentations, rather flat cheekbones, brow curves drooping outward. Go!

ok first of all, I appreciate the detail, but I would much rather see for myself. The energy you're sending is blasting through my walls I have no problem envisioning your skull exactly as it is. The facial bones aren't all that important. I'll have to do a little bit of psychokinesis, but I assume you're okay with being touched. My hands can be a little cold, please try not to flinch. Concentrate and hold very still as you're reading this.

Your temples are indeed a bit dented, the left one a tad more than the right and a little oval, but right off the bat I'm noticing a certain bumpiness to your sutura sagitalis. You sometimes find it difficult to speak to strangers, don't you? Especially in professional settings, or situations where you feel like you might get judged. Your occipital bone is very well-rounded, one of the nicest I have ever felt, it lays in the hand beautifully. This means you're really in touch with your subconscious mind. It's the mark of artists. Your temple dents also speak to this; your thinking is more creative than mathematical, you can get lost in the details easily, but here, this ridge right above your ear: for someone with such dents you're actually quite organized.

Oh and here, a bump on your parietal: there's a health issue you should deal with.

If you want to learn more I can make you a special offer to one of my online seminars. They're normally 3000€ per person but if you book today, it'll only cost you 1499,99€!

[atundratoadstool]

How do you think the story would play out if Mr. Hawkins never got that attack of gout and was the one who went to Castle Dracula?

[CW: General spoilers]

There's so little in the text as it stands about Peter Hawkins that it's hard to predict what would have happened. Stoker clearly seems to have contemplated making Hawkins (or some version of the character) have a bigger role in the text, however. I've seen other posts circulating that draw attention to the fact that the Hawkins of the notes originally agreed to sent the Count a clerk who did not speak German, which one might read as giving the character some sense of complicity in what eventually befalls Jonathan, and I recall that I saw one headcanon pre-DD that Hawkins' decision to make Jonathan his heir is informed by some feeling of guilt--justified or unjustified. If you take the notes as a means to read Hawkins a character perhaps a little more willing to ignore some potential red flags with a client somebody else is dealing with (and as somebody who's already been corresponding with the Count and might have a better feel for him), you might be able to envision a different trajectory were the characters swapped. I can see Hawkins, given this characterization, being a little less naive at the onset and a little less willing to defy the Count once things get hairy--somebody a little more likely to adhere to professional distance and make more excuses for the unfolding horrors of the castle as misunderstandings or bad dreams.

This is all an extraction, however, from a page or two of Stoker's abominable scribbling, and another direction in which I think you might be able to take those scribbles is an observation that Hawkins' earlier name was Abraham Aaronson. Virtually every character Stoker writes has some element of himself (Mina's brain/heart division, Seward's workaholic nature, Jonathan's legal training), and I feel that it probably signifies something that Hawkins originally had Stoker's first name... particularly given that the text as completed contains a character named Abraham who also has Stoker's physical attributes down to the phrenological forehead bumps (Van Helsing). If we read Hawkins as yet another Stoker self insert, I think you can end up with a really fascinating story in which the guy being menaced and gaslit by Count "looks very similar to Henry Irving" Dracula is much closer to Stoker's age and position in the world. I can't say what direction, precisely, that would go, but you could suddenly have a text that is a lot more overtly and painfully biographical.

Lastly, if one wants the author firmly dead and to undertake readings that remain only within the confines of the text, I think that Peter Hawkins is a figure--like many of Dracula's parental figures--whose primary skill is dropping dead very suddenly. I think a very boring but very realistic Watsonian option is that he arrives at Castle Dracula and suddenly drops dead, leaving the Count with less cooking to do as he completes his real estate transaction.