#David originally refused it's power but eventually gave in

[maxpaulll]

David is little spoon whether he likes it or not (he moved in his sleep and Angel was determined to stay attached)

[epona610]

A Comparison of OUAT Redemption Stories

So I was DMing with someone about a different show entirely, and I brought up OUAT because I loved/hated this show so much and it’s largely based on redemption stories. I was going to briefly explain why I find Hook’s arc so compelling (though not without its flaws, of course) and Regina’s so lacking, but it turns out that I still cannot write briefly about this subject. So I’m posting this here because this is what my blog was originally about, and I find I still feel very much the same way even after a few years have passed. I want to preface this by saying I haven’t rewatched the show since it went off the air, and I certainly could’ve forgotten some things. And I’m obviously biased in that I loathe the character of Regina so much, although here I’m trying to explain exactly why I can’t stand her.

Hook and Regina were both motivated by revenge for the deaths of their first loves. Rumple murdered his ex-wife and Hook’s current lover/partner/co-captain, Milah, so Hook set out to kill Rumple himself, the Dark One, who is one of (if not the) most powerful beings in their world. Hook caused a lot of harm to innocent people as collateral damage, but eventually he gave up on the idea of revenge and basically peacefully coexisted with the guy who had murdered his first love and chopped off his hand. Regina’s mother was the one to kill her first love, but did she go after her? No, she went after the ten-year-old child (Snow) whom her mother had manipulated into telling about her first love (by playing on Snow’s feelings for her dead mother, whom Regina’s mother had murdered). Regina was going after an innocent person from the beginning because she was afraid of her mother. 

Then there’s the scale of the harm done. Regina: literally slaughtered at least two whole villages, sent countless children to be literally eaten by a cannibal, cursed an entire population by permanently altering their minds, has murdered so many people and taken so many hearts she lost track of whose was whose, illegally adopted a child whom she knowingly raised in a town where no one else grew or aged and then gaslit him when he caught on, murdered her father in order to cast the curse. Hook: was a pirate so he has killed people (we learn that his rings come from murder victims, whose names and circumstances he remembers) killed his own father (who had sold him into child slavery) thereby orphaning his little brother, killed David’s father, backhanded Belle across the face once, shot her so she’d cross the town line and lose her memories, sort of turned Baelfire over to Peter Pan (but only after Bae refused to let Hook hide him so I never got why he felt guilty over that honestly). No indiscriminate mass murder that we know of. 

And of course there’s the remorse or utter lack thereof. Regina is constantly defending her actions. I’ll use her own words to illustrate. She at one point says to Snow: “To be fair, I was threatening you. Everyone else just became collateral damage.” And then later we get this infuriating exchange:

Regina: Need I remind you I dedicated years to knocking you down? But nothing could stop you. 

Snow: You took my kingdom, cast your curse, I lost my daughter for 28 years.

Regina: And then you found her. 

Clearly no remorse or recognition for the fact that she stole Emma’s entire childhood from her and her parents. And the classic, said as she was escaping a tree that attacks people’s regret: “I did cast a curse that devastated an entire population. I have tortured and murdered. I’ve done some terrible things. I should be overflowing with regret, but I’m not.” 

I feel that I should add that she ends that last statement with “because it got me my son”. And that sounds lovely, but that means that she doesn’t regret the harm she’s done since getting him (continuing to enslave and sexually abuse her victims, murdering Graham, attempting to murder the entire town so Henry would have nobody else to love) or even more notably, the harm she’s done to Henry (raising him in a psychologically unhealthy environment, cursing him in an attempt to curse his mother, gaslighting him, attempting to murder his entire family, altering his memories, etc.) Regina says time and again that she “gave up on revenge” against Snow, but as far as I can tell, she only decided she was satisfied because she’d succeeded in irreparably harming Snow. She took away her chance to raise her daughter, who ended up being raised in an abusive foster system and felt obligated to give up her own child. 

And then I compare that to Hook’s apologizing and making things right with people he’s hurt, like Ursula, his younger brother Liam, and David. And then he and Belle become close friends and eventually they have this conversation:

Belle: I’m sorry, I can’t stay here. If Rumple finds you harboring me...

Hook: His wrath will be an added bonus.

Belle: I don’t understand. Why would you risk your life for me?

Hook: Long ago, I... I tried to kill you in the queen’s castle once. I failed. But along the way, I did something I can live with no longer. I laid a hand on you. And there’s the matter of my shooting you at the town line.

Belle: Yeah, well. You’ve changed since all that.  

Hook: Maybe. I have a long road to travel before I can be someone I can be proud of. Despite the forgiveness of others, I must forgive myself, and I’m not there yet.

So yeah, that’s a summary of why I find Hook’s redemption arc to be (somewhat) believable and satisfying and Regina’s to be... basically nonexistent. The show tells us she’s a hero and a good person now, but she never apologizes or shows remorse. She makes it abundantly clear that she’s doing good only in the hopes of getting happiness for herself, which she absolutely feels entitled to even though she’s taken it from so many others (the amount of times she complained about not getting what she wants despite occasionally doing the right thing is incredible). She still even has a bunch of hearts whose owners she apparently forgot! There’s no indication that guilt weighs on her at all, or that she even feels any guilt. I can’t buy a “redemption” from someone who never shows remorse or accepts responsibility.

Note: these quotations weren’t taken from memory, nor did I go back and watch the episodes. They came from the OUAT transcripts found here.

[ryanmeft]

Movie Review: The Green Knight

The Arthurian legends memorialize a time and place that never existed, using characters whose origins are lost, in order to teach lessons about a kind of Christianity-based chivalry that was never truly practiced. Yet filmmakers, even those transmuting the cycles into action-heavy CGI-fests, tend to treat them with a kind of reverence: formal speech, grand and majestic castles, high-minded ideals. David Lowery has taken a step back and asked himself “OK, but what was it really like?”

The world Lowery has settled on is, if you’ll allow me to be a history nerd, more reminiscent of post-Roman Britain, a time of mud huts, dirt streets and dueling warlords from which the legends of Arthur actually emerged, than the 14th century chivalric milieu that gave birth to the original poem. Our hero is pulled for Christmas celebrations from a brothel full of ale-besotted louts languishing on the floor with their bought women, and ushered into a raucous court in a cramped, almost lightless room. Instead of a lot of forsooths and forsakes, people talk like we do, making lewd comments about their preferred women, tossing casual insults back and forth. They make light-hearted jokes about the ideals of knighthood, and even Arthur (Sean Harris), though maintaining a slightly more regal bearing, slumps a little in his chair, looking old and tired and speaking to Gawain as an uncle to a nephew, not as a king to a vassal. Despite being filmed in two-well preserved Irish castles, Andrew Droz Paterno’s camera brings everything in for a claustrophobic feel. There are no gleaming spires or knights assembled in shining ranks here.

You may know the plot: during revelries, a knight in green shows up to court, insults the queen (Kate Dickie, playing the most upright person at court but still sympathetic) and offers his challenge: if anyone can land any blow on him, they will win his axe, but in exactly one year they must go to his chapel to have the blow freely returned. Lowery and his WETA team have turned the knight’s original green skin and clothes into a fully vegetation-based creature, whose presence and effect make it instantly clear he is not of this world (the original was eventually revealed as a cursed human). He offers his head without resistance and Gawain takes it, but of course the knight only picks it up, reattaches it (a neat trick) and reminds him of their deal.

Now let us think about this scene. The poem makes little of it, as though this is just something that happens sometimes. In the film scene, Dev Patel is playing Gawain, and having been primed for a more worldly character, we now see him react to the challenge with a mixture of youthful bravado and strutting, naked fear of the knight’s apparent powers, reluctance to behead an unresisting man, and inflated pride despite the ease of the act. It’s a sensual scene in which the very reality of taking a life seems to provide a sexual satisfaction. Indeed, later, while in bed, Gawain’s commoner mistress Essel (Alicia Vikander) begs him to tell her what it felt like, affirming something the cycles would never acknowledge: chivalry isn’t nearly as hot as we make it out to be.

Sexuality is key to the film, and to Lowery’s treatment of these people as humans, rather than caricatures in service of religious and social propaganda. Essel may seem like a small role for an actor of Vikander’s talents, but she’s absolutely essential. The original story portrayed Gawain as an untemptable paragon of absolute virtue, refusing even the ready attempts of a lonely noblewoman, but Lowery establishes him from the start as a man of, well, appetites. Essel is not obedient to him, and she, too, enjoys sex, shock of shocks, and getting what she wants in bed. At no point does this feel salacious. It feels like two people doing exactly what people tend to do when they’re attracted to each other.

This is also important in establishing Gawain as a man, not a legend. He is not endlessly brave. He is not unselfish. Lowery has invented several adventures to be placed between Gawain and the Green Chapel. In one, he is asked to help a helpless woman recover something precious, and wants to know what’s in it for him. In another, he is waylaid by bandits, immediately crumbles into fear of his life, and is defeated without a fight. The only one of these adventures to have been in the original poem, a stopover at an estate run by a mysterious Lord and Lady (Joel Edgerton and Vikander, the latter in a dual role), sees him have a decidedly different reaction to the lady’s flirtatiousness.

Modern audiences cannot relate to a perfect man. Were Gawain to keep his foible-free original character, his meeting with the Knight would have had no meaning to us. Instead, Patel has given him life as our human equal. When he walks into that chapel, we fear for him, despite having seen him do unkind things, because we know deep down that we are not, in fact, as chivalrous or honorable as we believe ourselves to be.

The accomplishment of Lowery is that he has told us something about our own lives and times using something more ancient. His England is a place of lusty knights, aging kings, petty thievery and lifestyles that after all revolve around violence, however well-intentioned men have told themselves that violence is. At one point, Gawain passes through a battlefield strewn with corpses. No one can tell the story, because everyone is dead. He pays it little heed---no doubt such horrors are commonplace. The anonymous poet of Sir Gawain and The Green Knight was in reality trying to escape the political and war-torn violence of a morally compromised era by casting his imagination back to a fictional time of perfection. That has been the staying power of Arthur for centuries: an undying need to believe in a Golden Age. Lowery takes the opposite approach. Outside the cloistered revelry of Arthur’s court, life is nasty, brutish, and short, and we notice how little these self-proclaimed leaders do about it. We are not surprised.

Verdict: Must-See

Note: I don’t use stars, but here are my possible verdicts.

Must-See

Highly Recommended

Recommended

Average

Not Recommended

Avoid like the Plague

You can follow me on Twitter here, if you want more posts about film and video games and sometimes about manscaping:

https://twitter.com/RyanmEft

All images are property of the people what own the movie.

[gwynsplainer]

On The Grinning Man and the De-Politicization of L'Homme Qui Rit (a Spontaneous Essay)

Since I watched The Grinning Man I’ve been meaning to write a post comparing it to The Man Who Laughs but I have a lot of opinions and analysis I wanted to do so I have been putting it off for ages. So here goes! If I were to make a post where I explain everything the musical changes it would definitely go over the word limit, so I’ll mostly stick to the thematic. Let me know if that’s a post you’d like to see, though!

Ultimately, The Grinning Man isn’t really an adaptation of the Man Who Laughs. It keeps some of the major plot beats (a disfigured young man with a mysterious past raised by a man and his wolf to perform to make a living alongside the blind girl he rescued from the snow, restored to his aristocratic past by chance after their show is seen by Lord David and Duchess Josiana, and the interference of the scheming Barkilphedro…. well, that’s just about it). The problem I had with the show, however, wasn’t the plot points not syncing up, it was the thematic inconsistency with the book. By replacing the book’s antagonistic act—the existence of a privileged ruling class—with the actions of one or two individuals from the lower class, transforming the societal tragedy into a revenge plot, and reducing the pain of dehumanization and abuse to the pain of a physical wound, The Grinning Man is a sanitized, thematically weak failure to adapt The Man Who Laughs.

I think the main change is related to the reason I posit the book never made it in the English-speaking world. The musical was made in England, the setting of the book which was so critical of its monarchy, it’s aristocracy, and the failings of its society in ways that really haven’t been remedied so far. It might be a bit of a jump to assume this is connected, but I have evidence. They refer to it as a place somewhat like our own, but change King James to King Clarence, and Queen Anne to Angelica. Obviously, the events of the book are fictional, and it was a weird move for Hugo to implicate real historical figures as responsible for the torture of a child, but it clearly served a purpose in his political criticism that the creative team made a choice to erase. They didn’t just change the names, though, they replaced the responsibility completely. In the book, Gwynplaine’s disfigurement—I will be referring to him as Gwynplaine because I think the musical calling him Grinpayne was an incredibly stupid and cruel choice—was done to him very deliberately, with malice aforethought, at the order of the king. The king represents the oppression of the privileged, and having the fault be all Barkilphédro loses a lot thematically. The antagonism of the rich is replaced by the cruelty of an upwardly mobile poor man (Barkilphédro), and the complicity of another poor man.

The other “villain” of the original story is the way that Gwynplaine is treated. I think for 1869, this was a very ahead-of-its-time approach to disability, which almost resembles the contemporary understanding of the Social Model of disability. (Sidenote: I can’t argue on Déa’s behalf. Hugo really dropped the ball with her. I’m going to take a moment to shout out the musical for the strength and agency they gave Déa.) The way the public treats Gwynplaine was kind of absent from the show. I thought it was a very interesting and potentially good choice to have the audience enter the role of Gwynplaine’s audience (the first they see of him is onstage, performing as the Grinning Man) rather than the role of the reader (where we first see him as a child, fleeing a storm). If done right, this could have explored the story’s theme of our tendency to place our empathy on hold in order to be distracted and feel good, eventually returning to critique the audience’s complicity in Gwynplaine’s treatment. However, since Grinpayne’s suffering is primarily based in the angst caused by his missing past and the physical pain of his wound (long-healed into a network of scars in the book) [a quick side-note: I think it was refreshing to see chronic pain appear in media, you almost never see that, but I wish it wasn’t in place of the depth of the original story], the audience does not have to confront their role in his pain. They hardly play one. Instead, it is Barkilphédro, the singular villain, who is responsible for Grinpayne’s suffering. Absolving the audience and the systems of power which put us comfortably in our seats to watch the show of pain and misery by relegating responsibility to one character, the audience gets to go home feeling good.

If you want to stretch, the villain of the Grinning Man could be two people and not one. It doesn’t really matter, since it still comes back to individual fault, not even the individual fault of a person of high status, but one or two poor people. Musical!Ursus is an infinitely shittier person than his literary counterpart. In the book, Gwynplaine is still forced to perform spectacles that show off his appearance, but they’re a lot less personal and a lot less retraumatizing. In the musical, they randomly decided that not only would the role of the rich in the suffering of the poor be minimized, but also it would be poor people that hurt Grinpayne the most. Musical!Ursus idly allows a boy to be mutilated and then takes him in and forces him to perform a sanitized version of his own trauma while trying to convince him that he just needs to move on. In the book, he is much kinder. Their show, Chaos Vanquished, also allows him to show off as an acrobat and a singer, along with Déa, whose blindness isn’t exploited for the show at all. He performs because he needs to for them all to survive. He lives a complex life like real people do, of misery and joy. He’s not obsessed with “descanting on his own deformity” (dark shoutout to William Shakespeare for that little…infuriating line from Richard III), but rather thoughtfully aware of what it means. He deeply feels the reality of how he is seen and treated. Gwynplaine understands that he was hurt by the people who discarded him for looking different and for being poor, and he fucking goes off about it in the Parliament Confrontation scene (more to come on this). It is not a lesson he has to learn but a lesson he has to teach.

Grinpayne, on the other hand, spends his days in agony over his inability to recall who disfigured him, and his burning need to seek revenge. To me, this feels more than a little reminiscent of the trope of the Search for a Cure which is so pervasive in media portrayals of disability, in which disabled characters are able to think of nothing but how terribly wrong their lives went upon becoming disabled and plan out how they might rectify this. Grinpayne wants to avenge his mutilation. Gwynplaine wants to fix society. Sure, he decides to take the high road and not do this, and his learning is a valuable part of the musical’s story, but I think there’s something so awesome about how the book shows a disabled man who understands his life better than any abled mentor-philosophers who try to tell him how to feel. Nor is Gwynplaine fixed by Déa or vice versa, they merely find solace and strength in each other’s company and solidarity. The musical uses a lot of language about love making their bodies whole which feels off-base to me.

I must also note how deeply subversive the book was for making him actually happy: despite the pain he feels, he is able to enjoy his life in the company and solidarity he finds with Déa and takes pride in his ability to provide for her. The assumption that he should want to change his lot in life is not only directly addressed, but also stated outright as a failure of the audience: “You may think that had the offer been made to him to remove his deformity he would have grasped at it. Yet he would have refused it emphatically…Without his rictus… Déa would perhaps not have had bread every day”

He has a found family that he loves and that loves him. I thought having him come from a loving ~Noble~ family that meant more to him than Ursus did rather than having Ursus, a poor old man, be the most he had of a family in all his memory and having Déa end up being Ursus’ biological daughter really undercut the found family aspect of the book in a disappointing way.

Most important to me was the fundamental change that came from the removal of the Parliament Confrontation scene, on both the themes of the show and the character of Gwynplaine. When Gwyn’s heritage is revealed and his peerage is restored to him, he gets the opportunity to confront society’s problems in the House of Parliament. When Gwynplaine arrives in the House of Parliament, the Peers of England are voting on what inordinate sum to allow as income to the husband of the Queen. The Peers expect any patriotic member of their ranks to blithely agree to this vote: in essence, it is a courtesy. Having grown up in extreme poverty, Gwynplaine is outraged by the pettiness of this vote and votes no. The Peers, shocked by this transgression, allow him to take the stand and explain himself. In this scene, Gwynplaine brilliantly and profoundly confronts the evils of society. He shows the Peers their own shame, recounting how in his darkest times a “pauper nourished him” while a “king mutilated him.” Even though he says nothing remotely funny, he is received with howling laughter. This scene does a really good job framing disability as a problem of a corrupt, compassionless society rather than something wrong with the disabled individual (again, see the Social Model of disability, which is obviously flawed, but does a good job recognizing society that denies access, understanding and compassion—the kind not built on pity—as a central problem faced by disabled communities). It is the central moment of Hugo’s story thematically, which calls out the injustices in a system and forces the reader to reckon with it.

It is so radical and interesting and full that Gwynplaine is as brilliant and aware as he is. He sees himself as a part of a system of cruelty and seeks justice for it. He is an empathic, sharp-minded person who seeks to make things better not just for himself and his family, but for all who suffer as he did at the hands of Kings. Grinpayne’s rallying cry is “I will find and kill the man who crucified my face.” He later gets wise to the nature of life and abandons this, but in that he never actually gets to control his own relationship to his life. When I took a class about disability in the media one of the things that seemed to stand out to me most is that disabled people should be treated as the experts on their own experiences, which Gwynplaine is. Again, for a book written in 1869 that is radical. Grinpayne is soothed into understanding by the memory of his (rich) mother’s kindness.

I’ll give one more point of credit. I loved that there was a happy ending. But maybe that’s just me. The cast was stellar, and the puppetry was magnificent. I wanted to like the show so badly, but I just couldn’t get behind what it did to the story I loved.

[cdt12345]

We've been friends many years but I've never thought to ask; Top 10 gay OTPs?

1.) Ian & Mickey (Gallavich) - Shameless us

What can I say about these two that we haven’t already said about them?! They are my absolute all-time favorite couple ever! Gay or straight. They perfectly complement each other, they love each other on a level I feel like I’ve never seen before (and I have watched a lot of tv/movies), they’re like a comedy duo, they support each other, understand each other better than anyone else ever will, they fell in love as kids, they bring out the best in each other, and they’re each other's best friend. I’m a sucker for opposites attract, who are also best friends. Gallavich really fits that bill. I wish they didn’t have to struggle so much to get their happiness, but I’m happy they finally got it. When they got married, it felt like the biggest victory ever! We went through those years of struggle with them, rooted for them, mourned for them when John Wells let Noel go after season 5. So much has tried to keep these two apart, even real-life circumstances tried to keep them apart. The chemistry between these two characters and between Cameron and Noel was so powerful, they were brought back to the show. That kind of thing doesn’t happen very often. When an actor leaves a show, they don’t usually come back as a series regular, let alone two actors who have already left the show. It felt like a miracle! I will never forget getting the news that Noel was coming back from you @luckyshazmrsmonaghansblog I was crying with happiness bc we wanted this for so long and I never believed we would get to see both Cameron and Noel back on the show. Or that they would get their happy ending outside of a jail cell. Especially after Cameron left the show in season 9. With their return we got a wedding, an entire season of them as a married couple, we got to see them dance with each other twice, we got them singing together, we got to see them start a lucrative business together, we got to see them free and happier than we’ve ever seen them before, and we got to see Terry get what he deserved after putting them through hell. We are only halfway through season 11, but I already feel so fulfilled with this extra time with gallavich that we were never supposed to have. JW tried to take that away from us. I will never understand why, but he failed. I am not surprised this is the one I wrote the most about. I can go on and on about gallavich!

2.) David and Patrick - Schitt’s Creek

This was everything I ever wanted to see onscreen, where there was zero homophobia. The pansexual character didn’t need to have a big coming out or tell everyone in the town of his sexual orientation, except his best friend. The gay character had a coming out with parents who loved and accepted him for who he is and was only upset that he felt he couldn’t tell them sooner. I dreamt of a day where I could see this kind of representation onscreen. The casual treatment of their sexuality was so refreshing and something I’ve been waiting for. There is no darkness or huge struggle they had to overcome to be together or a sad ending for them. They were allowed to be together without the major conflicts most LGBTQ characters have to go through. Once David made the first move Patrick was comfortable allowing himself to fall for David and start a relationship with him. He was so sure of his feelings for David after that first kiss, he never looked back and I loved that. They had such an adorable love story. Truly one I have been waiting to see for so long between two LGBTQ characters. They made me smile every time they were on screen. They are another of my OTPs that are exact opposites who complement each other perfectly. Patrick was welcomed into David’s family and blended in with them so well, even when he and David had very different upbringings. Patrick serenading David with Tina Turner and then Mariah Carey at their wedding is one of the most romantic things I have ever seen!

3.) Holt and Kevin - Brooklyn Nine-Nine

Captain Holt and Kevin are strange men on their own but together they are the perfect pair. They get each other in a way no one else does. The best part is their adorable fur baby, Cheddar! They seriously make the cutest family! I was so nervous when they went through a rough patch for a while because I didn’t want them to split up. Thankfully, they made it through and are still going strong!

4.) Will and Vince - Will & Grace

On the show's first run, Will and Vince were in a serious relationship and Vince was Will’s longest relationship on the show. They broke up a few times but were together by the series finale. The two reunite during the funeral of Will's father. There was a time jump on the series finale. Though I didn’t love everything about the last episode, I did love the fact that Will and Vince had been together for 20 years and raised a son together, who was conceived through in vitro fertilization with a surrogate. After the time jump, nearly twenty years later, their son goes to college and meets Grace's daughter, whom he would eventually marry. Though I wasn’t happy with the fact that Will and Grace didn’t stay close over the years, it did allow for their kids to one day meet, fall in love, and get married. I did like that outcome out of the finale. My family and I used to watch the original show, but we refused to accept or watch the 2017 revival because they completely changed everything from the original series finale. The second I found out they were changing everything; I knew I couldn’t watch it. They even wiped the existence of their kids from the first series finale. The revival was an attempt to cash in on the reboot craze and I wasn’t happy about that already, but even more so when they were going to break up one of my OTPs for easy money. Bobby Cannavale, who played Vince, has become even more famous since starring in Will & Grace. So, I already figured he wouldn’t be back for the show as a regular, but I know he did guest star. I won’t accept the revival and to me, Will and Vince stayed together, and their son married Grace’s daughter. THE END!

5.) Albert and Armand - The Birdcage

Miss Albert and Armand were the earliest gay couple I remember ever watching onscreen when I was eight years old. I have watched this movie more than I can count over the years. It is a family favorite that we quote often. Their son is planning to marry a girl whose father is in politics and is very conservative. They have to hide the fact that he has two gay fathers for one night, but everything goes awry, and comedy ensues. Nathan Lane and Robin Williams give a wonderful performance without resorting to using the stereotypes that are often used on gay characters, especially back then. It’s a classic!

6.) Stefon and Seth - Saturday Night Live

Okay, hear me out on this one! They’re not the most conventional OTPs on my list, but I really do love them so much! Stefon started doing a correspondent segment on Weekend Update on SNL. The first time Stefon came on, he flirted with Seth Meyers. The second he did I was like ooh they would make a cute couple! Stefon the wild party guy and Seth the serious news anchor. It was a match made in heaven for me. Before Seth Meyers left SNL to do Late Night with Seth Meyers, Bill Hader came back to play Stefon for Seth’s last episode. I didn’t expect what happened next to happen at all! They gave Seth and Stefon the ending that I haven’t even gotten from some actual scripted shows. I never expected Stefon and Seth to have this big ending, but I could not be happier that they did. I’m posting the link to the six-minute skit/ending and I hope it works. It’s worth watching. Though the video says it’s Stefon’s farewell it was really Seth’s farewell episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj-wYWMdWNk

7.) Mr. Simmons and Peter - Hey Arnold!

Anyone who grew up watching this show already knew that Mr. Simmons, Arnold’s teacher, was probably gay. It was hinted at in the Thanksgiving episode. Arnold and Helga visit Mr. Simmons on Thanksgiving at his house and his family and “friend” Peter are there. Mr. Simmons mother says she didn’t know Peter was coming to dinner and Peter responds with the infamous line “There’s a lot of things you don’t know.” When Mr. Simmons mom tries to get him to take a woman friend to the ballet, he says he loves the ballet and Peter gives him a disapproving look and Mr. Simmons immediately declines. Those were enough hints for us fans to decide Peter was his boyfriend. Years later, the show's creator Craig Bartlett finally confirmed Mr. Simmons is gay and had them together in the 2017 Hey Arnold: The Jungle Movie. It was so exciting to finally get the confirmation years later, even though I was already certain of it for many years. I was happy that the cartoon no longer had to settle with vague hints about it.

8.) Callie and Arizona - Grey’s Anatomy

I was very happy to see a lesbian couple on prime time tv and I really liked both characters. I was excited to root for them but sadly as most couples on this show, their relationship took a turn, and I wasn’t thrilled about it. I was disappointed that it came to an end. By then I was already getting tired of watching the show. It was starting to feel like a chore to watch it every week. I tried to stick it out because I don’t like to give up on shows in the middle of it, but I just couldn’t do it anymore. I’m glad I did though because the shocking events with Derek Shepard, is something I’m glad I wasn’t around for. Anyway, I heard things between Callie and Arizona got even worse, so I was even happier I left when I did.

9.) Sherwin and Jonathan - In a Heartbeat

This was one of the cutest things I have ever seen! I wish this got the full-length movie treatment instead of a short film. But it was still a step in the right direction for the LGBTQ community. Gay characters in cartoons always bring me such joy and that was the focus of this short. A boy with a crush on another boy with a cute ending. What is not to love?!

10.) Mitch and Cam - Modern Family

Another show I had to give up on in the middle of the series. The show began to be less funny and more annoying to me. Another reason, that really has nothing to do with the show itself, that used to annoy me was that this show repeatedly beat out Parks and Recreation during award season. Parks and Recreation is a superior show when compared to Modern Family. This show won almost every year for years and it got really annoying especially when the quality of the show started slipping and they kept winning. After a few years, they finally stopped winning all the time. But before all that, I was a fan of Cam and Mitch. They were a great couple who I loved watching on the show. They were the best part of the show most of the time. But sadly, my annoyance of the show no longer being as funny as it used to be, was enough for me to stop watching.

[thesigilsofbaphomet]

Lucifer Wants What’s Best For You

(And God is Your Enemy)

So... I touched on this in my response to someone talking about using Micheal in Catholic Folk Magic as a protective, social justice spirit. But I cut my overall take short, because it was off topic. But I wanted to talk about it, so, it’s time for one of my rare non-reblog posts on this blog.

I’ll begin by restating my overall premise- If you look at both canonical and folk-loric sources on Satan, you see a figure who simply desires to help people.

The Snake in the Garden

It is important to note that The Serpent in Genesis is not Lucifer/Satan/The Devil. It’s just... a serpent. Like, it’s not even, specifically, a demon. But the serpent, being a magical talking animal who convinces humans to act contrary to the will of God, is commonly seen as a demon. And I’ll go with that.

So, God creates the whole universe. This includes The Garden of Eden, the paradise that God rents to the first humans in exchange for their obedience. They’re allowed to eat from any tree in the Garden, except the tree in the center, known as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (The ToKoGaE).

Note- God created Eden for Adam and Eve. God is omniscient, meaning all knowing, thus he knows that Adam and Eve will eventually eat the fruit of the tree. The general Christian take is that the tree is a test. However, if you know that the test takers will fail a test, and you know you will give them a rather extreme punishment for that failure, is it not extremely cruel to present that test?

So the serpent talks to Eve, and there’s an exchange, and eventually, the snake convinces Eve to eat ToKoGaE fruit. Giving her knowledge of Good and Evil. And there’s some really weird thing here where suddenly she knows she’s nude, because she ate fruit that gives her moral knowledge, and apparently there’s a moral weight to nudity? And it’s bad? But God made them nude? So God explicitly create humans in a state of Sin and this whole original sin shit doesn’t really fucking hold up if they were created in a state of sin to begin with? I digress. Eve gives Adam the ToKoGaE fruit, now they both know their nude, so they start gluing leaves to their skin with sap or something (I refuse to believe they had any actual knowledge of how to weave leaves into clothes like it’s just a thing you can do and not something you have to learn how to do, and there’s literally no reason for them to have done that prior, so this is literally the first time they’re trying to use leaves as cover).

And the usual Christian take is that the snake is wrong in this. But... knowledge is good, and God was specifically withholding knowledge from Adam and Eve. So the Serpent was helping them.

Satan Scares a Guy’s Ass

No, literally. A guy named Balaam is riding a donkey and Satan appears to scare the donkey to stop him.

This story makes no goddamned sense, even when you read it in a vaguely modern dialect. But, basically, the Israelites leave Egypt and settle, and the guy who rules the land next to them says “holy shit, that’s a lot of guys, they might come take my shit.” So he sends some messengers to a seer, Balaam, to ask him to curse the Israelites so he can beat them in battle. Balaam says “Ok, sleep here, I’ll tell you what God says in the morning.” In the morning, Balaam’s like “Bad news, guys. God says I can’t go with you. The Israelites are blessed.” The king sends more messengers who are more official looking and they say “Look, dude, our lord will give you SO MUCH HONOR if you come curse these guys for us”

So Balaam says “Look, I don’t care if your king sucks my dick gives me his palace and all his money, I can’t go against God. But stay here, I’ll tell you if he says anything more in the morning (and on reflection, it almost seems like this is explicitly acknowledging that God is just extremely capricious). God tells Balaam, “Ok, go with them, but do exactly what I tell you.” So Balaam saddles his ass up, and goes with them.

And God gets pissed off? Because, I’ll repeat, God is a capricious asshole. So Satan (or, An Angel of the Lord, depending on the translation you read, but the original Hebrew says it’s Satan, who, in Judaism, is an angel of YHWH, and basically exists to test humans) appears, only visible to Balaam’s donkey, and the donkey says “oh fuck that, I’m gonna go to this field over here.” Balaam hits the donkey and the donkey goes back to the pass. So Satan appears again, this time in a narrow pass, so the donkey say “eeengghh...” and tries to, like, slide past Satan by scrapping the wall, and scrapes Balaam’s foot, so, again, Balaam beats his ass. Finally, Satan appears on, like, a narrow bridge, and the donkey can’t turn, can’t just scrape against a wall, and so just lays down. Balaam is, again, pissed off, and Satan opens Balaam’s eyes and asks him why he’s beating his donkey, and God opens the donkey’s mouth so the donkey can be like “no seriously, what the fuck, dude?”

But, so, in Numbers, Satan appears to just stop a guy from doing what God told him not to (and then to) do.

“They go through houses — they go up, they ring doorbells”

In Chronicles, David, king of Israel, decides to have a census. Or Satan tells him to. It’s not clear. In Samuel, David has the idea independently, but in Chronicles Satan tells him to. But anyway. David wants to have a census, which is a pretty reasonable thing. Censuses have a purpose, they tell a government how many people there are, and where they live, and, in America, give data that can be used to decide where and how to spend tax money. But for some reason, authoritarians don’t like censuses.

I want to say more about this, but... it’s literally just “Satan tells David to take a census, God doesn’t like that.” and then God sending an angel to tell David “pick a punishment!”

The Outlier--Job

I feel like a broken record, but, again, this story makes no fucking sense. Job’s super devout, and God’s blessed him. Satan walks up to God and says “Dude, he’s only devout because you gave him shit. Let me take his shit, and you’ll see how devout he really is.” And God says “Ok, sure, but you can’t kill him.”

So Satan just absolutely shits on Job. He gives Job boils, he kills his family, he financially ruins him, and through it all, Job refuses to reject God, so Satan is forced to concede, and God’s like “Haha, told you. Now, Job, how’d you like a new wife?”

This is the one story I’m aware of where Satan is legitimately just screwing with a guy and not trying to help him.

And Satan’s There, Too!

Satan next appears in Zechariah, in, like, a vision, and he’s just sort of there? This is another “The Satan” thing, where Satan is an angel of God whose purpose is to test humans. He doesn’t really do anything, he just gets mentioned as being there.

Then there’s a mention of Lucifer in Isaiah, and, literally, it’s just a reference. He’s not even there, it’s just a throwaway line saying “Lucifer was cast out of Heaven.”

Satan Asks Jesus Out to Some Beers

The last three mentions of Lucifer in the Bible occur in the New Testament, two of them are just Lucifer tempting Jesus.

Mark just mentions that Satan tempted Jesus.

Luke actually describes the temptation. So, Jesus goes out into the desert and fasts for forty days. Lucifer shows up and says “dude, you’re the son of God, just turn this stone into some bread, and have something to eat.” Jesus rebukes him in a “completely missing the goddamned point” way. So Lucifer takes him up to a mountain and says, “Look, dude, come with me, and can rule over everything you see here. It’s all mine, and it’s mine to give to who I choose. Just worship me.” And Jesus rebukes him. So Lucifer takes Jesus up to the top of a temple and says “God gave the angels to you, they’ll protect you, jump off and they’ll catch you.” And Jesus rebukes him again, and Lucifer disappears in a poof of exasperation.

Now, what’s the purpose of this? Well, there’s the standard Christian reading that Satan is trying to lure Jesus away from serving God’s plan because he’s EVIL and his SOLE PURPOSE IS TO OPPOSE GOOD AND THAT’S GOD. But... Ok, so Jesus is the son of God, he’s divine, and, it’s reasonable to assume that he can’t die unless God allows it, because it’s part of God’s plan for him to die in a specific context. So.... why does he fast for forty days? It’s not like he can starve, and he’s divine, so it’s not like he can suffer the pangs of hunger, unless he chooses to, so... is there any meaning in his fasting? I argue not. It’s exactly as meaningless as the act of turning a stone to bread and having a bite.

Then, there’s the second temptation. If we assume that Jesus is benevolent, and divine, and I argue, even as a Satanist, that Jesus is benevolent. I also believe that Lucifer is benevolent and the creator god is the standout as the not-benevolent one in the game. But I expect Christians believe that Satan is evil and Jesus good. Therefore, in Luke 4, Satan says “this world is mine, to give to they who I see fit.” And Jesus refuses to even pay lip service. Despite the fact Jesus ruling the world would presumably be better for people than a world rules by Satan. And Satan is offering that, maybe as a fuck you to God, but he is freely offering up his temporal power to someone who would make the world a better place.

The final temptation, I would argue, is Satan trying to free Jesus from God’s plan that demands he suffer torture and death. He’s trying to show Jesus “you have power of your own, you don’t have to subject yourself to this plan that ends in your death.”

If we interrogate the narrative from it’s own perspective, then Jesus is both God and human, and Satan is appealing to him as a human, saying “you’re a god, you don’t have to do this. You don’t have to die.”

Luke 22 is the last mention of Satan in the Bible, and it just says that Satan entered Judas (not in a sexy way), and Judas went out to talk to the pharisees about how he could betray Jesus. But...well, ok, literally the line is-

3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

Like... it makes me think that a lot of the time, when Satan is mentioned in the Bible, they don’t mean a literal figure named Satan, and they’re using the name poetically to refer to people working against God or Jesus. Because... Jesus’ death is foreordained. It’s part of God’s plan, so why would Satan be involved in Judas’ betrayal of Jesus? Unless this is going back to the Judaic idea of Satan as an angel of God who acts as an adversary of humanity, in which case, Satan is acting on God’s orders to make Judas betray Jesus.

To Infinity and Beyond

So, that’s the extent to which Satan is mentioned in the Bible in anyway, either as a figure never called Satan but often conflated with him, to The Adversary, to Lucifer.

After that, you have to look at folk lore and media, and this is simultaneously difficult, because pretty much anyone can make a story up and it can get traction, and actually kind of easy in this particular case, because... most folk lore is one a single track when it comes to Satan.

Most folk lore involving Lucifer/Satan/whatever you want to call him-

I hear he misses the old names, so, special shoutout to “Little Horn”

-involves a human who wants something, and Satan showing up to give it to them for their soul.

And this comes to a realization I made last year- In these stories, if you take the Christian worldview, Satan is actually... giving these things away for free, not for people’s souls.

I’m pretty sure I talked about this on this tumblr, but I’ll go through it so you don’t have to hunt it down.

In Christianity, your soul is not yours, it belongs to God, so you can’t actually give it away or “sell” it

However, to do so, if your could, would be a sin

In Christianity, or at least Catholicism, conceiving of a sin with full intent to commit it is the same as committing the sin.

Therefore, even if you can’t, technically, “sell your soul to the devil,” if you decide to do so, you have immediately sinned, and in fact, you have committed pretty much the biggest sin there is in Christianity, Apostasy, one which cannot be forgiven by any temporal power, and the forgiveness of is the sole domain of God himself.

ie, If you commit Apostasy, you are immediately condemned to Hell, unless God himself intervenes. If you decide to sell your soul to Satan, you have already committed apostasy, even though that’s not a thing you can actually do.

Thus, when a person resolves to trade their soul for something, they are immediately condemned, their soul already destined for Hell, simply for deciding they would give it to Satan instead of trusting in God. Satan should obviously know how this works, he should be aware that a person just deciding to trade their soul is sufficient, and Satan has no reason to actually give the person anything.

So, given that, here’s what happens- A person wants something, they want it so badly, they decide to sell their soul to Satan for it. Satan is fully aware that at that moment the person’s soul is already his. But then he goes and gives them what they want.

The only possible way to interpret that is that Satan literally wants to help people.

But What About Hell?

So, how does one suppose that Satan just wants to help people if those people are still condemned to Hell for accepting his help?

Well, again, we’re going to go back to my background of having been raised Catholic.

In the Catholic tradition, Hell is not a place of fiery torment, it is not a place where demons break out the medieval torture shit and rend your soul. The torment of Hell, in the Catholic tradition, comes from the fact that God is absent. The Catholic tradition believes that Hell is painful because God’s presence is not there, that those who are in Hell are cut off from God.

Obviously, Catholics believe a lot of stuff is the natural consequence of this, they probably believe that without the presence of God, people are more malevolent in Hell, and so there are probably plenty of “mundane” torments there in addition.

However, I believe that the presence of God is not a perceivable thing. If it were, there should not be any atheists, or even non-Catholics. If you could perceive the presence of God, then why would you ever not believe in that God? Therefore, Hell should not feel any particularly different from life on Earth. But even if it does, that is, even if the absence of God is apparently despite his presence not being so, I contend that the human spirit can become accustomed to anything.

Therefore... Hell is not a place of torment, especially for the sinful who reject God in the first place.

Aside: Is God’s Presence Desirable?

If we look at the figure of God from the Bible, I contend that God is worthy of nothing but contempt and hatred.

God is said to have created the universe and all life in it--so that it might adore and adulate him.

God is, supposedly, Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent (The Three Omnis). But he created a world of pain and suffering, and not all of that is the consequence of free will on the part of the person who suffers. You can argue that pain and suffering is a consequence of people choosing to do evil, but that does not explain the presence of suffering innocents. An omniscient being would know that free will would result in some people choosing to harm innocent children. An omnibenevolent being would wish to prevent that. An omnipotent being, creating a world ex nihilo, could create a world where the natural consequence of trying to harm a child prevents or punishes that attempt. It would not affect free will to create a world where trying to hurt a child caused the would-be perpetrator to burst into flames or have an immediate heart attack--just like it does not infringe on free will that we as humans cannot naturally fly and the natural consequence of jumping off a cliff trying to do so is to fall. It would not affect free will to create a world where children are immune to harm. God created a world where children can be harmed, and he chose to do so, knowing it would happen.

God paid disobedience with exile and painful death--when he would logically know that it would happen to begin with, due to his omniscience.

God looked at his “children” and murdered them in droves for disobedience.

In fact, God killed around 25 million people in the Bible, and that’s only counting adult men. Satan is responsible for about 10 specified deaths in the Bible (Job’s seven sons and three daughters), but the number of Job’s servants aren’t given, and they were slain at his prompting as well. But Job likely wouldn’t have had more than a few hundred servants, and even if he had ten times that number, even if he had 10,000 servants, God is responsible for at least 2,500 times as many, in adult men alone.

Altogether, the Bible itself paints an image of God as an abusive, selfish authoritarian who throws his “children” away in a fit of pique, or boredom, or to win a bet. Is this a figure deserving of worship? Of adoration? Of love? Christians seem to believe yes, believing that their creation at his whim is all that is needed to earn such. It is the position of an abused child who loves their toxic parent simply because of their relation, and despite their abuses.

An Image of Satan

So, on the other hand, we have this figure who staged a rebellion against a heavenly authority, who rules over a land eternal where the only torment is the absence of his foe, who we have already examined and found to be an abusive authoritarian.

A figure who has killed not even 1% of the people this authoritarian did, and who freely gives what is needed to those who, essentially, pledge themselves to his domain.

A Matter of Interpretation

In the end, it comes down to interpretation and belief, since we actually don’t have any kind of primary source on, well, anything to do with the Bible, or religion in general, to be honest. Personally, I think that if you’re looking at the Bible as any kind of authoritative source, then this is the only possible honest conclusion. If you believe that God is any way not reprehensibly abusive, then you can’t view the Bible as any kind of authoritative source, at least as regards God.

I’m a Satanist, so of course I’m given to a more sympathetic view of Satan, but given that there is no particular authoritative source for Lucifer (even the Bible would have been written by his enemy), the character of Satan can only really be inferred from non-authoritative sources, and interestingly, whatever a person says about their enemy, those statements are incredibly revealing of the speaker, as well.

I don’t, necessarily, believe that all Christians follow such a reprehensible creed, I don’t even think all Christians who view the Bible as, if you’ll pardon the pun, gospel, do. But I think a lot of Christians do not take any time to honestly evaluate the Bible and what it says about their God.

[lilaccatholic]

Ugh, this article from Vanity Fair (copied below the cut for those of you who have run out of free articles for the month) about how many old Hollywood stars were forced into abortions to keep up their “images”—with some of them being absolutely destroyed by the procedure—is absolutely horrifying. How anyone can look at this and not see how these poor women were abused and manipulated is beyond me.

Abortions were our birth control,” an anonymous actress once said about the common procedure’s place in Hollywood from the 1920s through the 1950s. While patriarchal political powers connive to block women’s legal access to abortion in 21st century America, in Old Hollywood, abortions were far more standard and far more accessible than they often are today—more like aspirin, or appendectomies. How and why did a procedure that was taboo and illegal at the time become so ordinary—at least, among a certain set? 

Much like today, in Old Hollywood, the decisions being made about women’s bodies were made in the interests of men—the powerful heads of motion pictures studios MGM, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros., and RKO. As Aubrey Malone writes in Hollywood's Second Sex: The Treatment of Women in the Film Industry, 1900-1999, “If you want to play in this business, you play like a man or you’re out. And if you happen to be a woman, better not mention it to anybody.”

From the very infancy of America’s film industry, abortions were necessary body maintenance for women in the spotlight. Birth control, including prophylactics, were about as new as “stars” themselves—movie performers who went overnight from being “Little Mary” or “The Vitagraph Girl” to “America’s Sweetheart” or “Sex Goddess.”

“These newly wealthy men and women didn’t know how to control their money, their bodies, or their lives, spending, cavorting, and reveling in excess,” writes Anne Helen Petersen in Scandals of Classic Hollywood. In the working environment of the Hollywood studio system, society’s 19th-century sexual segregation had fallen away. Women—flappers, It girls, sirens and seductresses—were spared their destiny in the kitchen, and for the first time, they earned large incomes they could spend on whatever and whomever they wished. Many believed the publicity they read about their own erotic powers, and they went toe-to-toe professionally with men. Sparks were bound to fly.

And so it became necessary for the studios to implement reformatory measures to prevent stars from destroying their value through scandal. In 1922, Will H. Hays Hays collaborated with studios to introduce mandatory “morality clauses” into stars’ contracts. Consequently an unintended pregnancy would not only bring shame to these top box-office earners—it would violate studio policy. “[I]t was a common assumption that glamorous stars would not be popular if they had children,” writes Cari Beauchamp in her book on powerful women in Old Hollywood, Without Lying Down.

These clauses may have extended to an actress’s right to marry. According to Petersen, rumor had it that “Blonde Bombshell” Jean Harlow couldn’t wed William Powell because “MGM had written a clause into her contract forbidding her to marry”—a wife couldn’t be a “bombshell,” after all. When Harlow became pregnant from the affair, she called MGM head of publicity Howard Strickling in a panic. Shortly thereafter, according to E.J. Fleming in The Fixers: Eddie Mannix, Howard Strickling and the MGM Publicity Machine, “Mrs. Jean Carpenter” entered Good Shepherd Hospital “to get some rest.” She was seen only by her private doctors and nurses in room 826, the same room she had occupied the year before for an “appendectomy.”

In the 1930s, vamp and man-eating thespian Tallulah Bankhead got “abortions like other women got permanent waves,” biographer Lee Israel quips in Miss Tallulah Bankhead. When virtuous singing sensation Jeanette McDonald found herself pregnant in 1935, MGM studio boss Louis B. Mayer told Strickling to “get rid of the problem.” McDonald soon checked into a hospital with an “ear infection,” according to Fleming’s The Fixers.

Many of these Silent Sex Goddesses either fell victim to their own hedonism, fell out of favor, or burned out, such as Theda Bara and Clara Bow. Others, like Joan Crawford, kept going. Kenneth Anger writes that Crawford was a “gutsy jazz baby” who marched through the “twin holocaust of the Talkies/Crash unscathed” to escape her dirt-poor origins. “Joan knew where she came from,” he continues, “and did not want to go back there.”

Get 1 year for $15.Join Now In 1931 Joan Crawford, estranged from her husband Douglas Fairbanks Jr., became pregnant with what she believed was Clark Gable’s child and Strickling arranged for an abortion. Rather than reveal the truth, Crawford told Fairbanks that during the filming of Rain on Catalina Island, she slipped on the deck of a ship and lost the baby.

Crawford’s rival Bette Davis also willingly chose to have abortions for the sake of her career. Davis was the breadwinner for her entire family—her mother and sister, and her husband, Harmon Nelson, whom she married in 1932. If she’d had a child in 1934, she told her biographer Charlotte Chandler in The Girl Who Walked Home Alone, she would’ve “missed the biggest role in her life thus far”—that of Mildred in Of Human Bondage, which earned Davis her first Oscar nomination. Other great parts—“Jezebel, Judith, Elizabeth, Charlotte, and Margo Channing”—may not have followed, either. “But I didn’t miss any of these roles, and I didn’t miss having a family,” she said. Later in life, Davis had three children.

Her first child, Barbara Davis Sherry—known as B.D.—was born when Davis was 39. As biographer Whitney Stine notes in I’d Love to Kiss You: Conversations with Bette Davis, “she was proud of the fact that, after her abortions, she could have a baby at last and a career, because her mother had always insisted that she couldn’t have both. She never tired of reminding [her mother] that she could be a mother and an actress.”

“A child could wait; her career could not.” That’s the reasoning Jean Harlow’s mother gave about her daughter’s own abortion at age 18. Ava Gardner, too, expressed a similar sentiment when discussing her abortion, which she had when married to Frank Sinatra—unbeknownst to him. “‘MGM had all sorts of penalty clauses about their stars having babies,’” Jane Ellen Wayne quotes Gardner saying in The Golden Girls of MGM. “‘If I had one, my salary would be cut off. So how could I make a living? Frank was broke and my future movies were going to take me all over the world. I couldn’t have a baby with that sort of thing going on. MGM made all the arrangements for me to fly to London. Someone from the studio was with me all the time. The abortion was hush hush . . . very discreet.’”

But things didn’t work out quite so well for Judy Garland. Famous primarily for playing Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz and struggling to maintain both her weight and her image as an ingenue, Garland was never free to make her own choices.

“Married or not, the MGM girls maintained their virginal image,” Wayne observes, and this was especially true of Garland. In 1941, at age 19, she married the bandleader David Rose without the approval of MGM, and within 24 hours was ordered back by to work. When she became pregnant by Rose, her mother, Ethel, in cahoots with the studio, arranged for Garland to have an abortion. Audiences loved her as a child—not as a mother. In 1943, Garland became pregnant from her affair with Tyrone Power, according to Petersen. Strickling arranged for her to have an abortion. Arguably, these incidents affected Garland psychologically; eventually she became the first public victim of stardom.

Tyrone Power also got Lana Turner pregnant. Again, Strickling arranged for an abortion. Power was one of a constellation of male stars—such as Errol Flynn, Clark Gable, and Charlie Chaplin—whose unbridled dalliances left women paying the price, according to The Fixers. (The phrase “In like Flynn” alludes to Errol’s ease at bedding women—and his good fortune at being acquitted of statutory rape of two teenage girls.)

Strickling, who was by now referred to as a “fixer,” had his hands full with Turner. The “Sweater Girl” allegedly found herself pregnant by bandleader Artie Shaw in 1941, and Strickling arranged an abortion during her publicity tour of Hawaii. The procedure took place without anesthesia, on her hotel bed. Turner’s mother covered her mouth with her hand to stifle her daughter’s cries. A studio doctor, paid $500 that was then deducted from Turner’s paycheck, performed the procedure. A week later, she was back on set filming Ziegfeld Girl, according to The Fixers.

Some actresses struggled with whether or not to keep their child. Mexican screen siren Lupe Velez committed suicide in 1944 because she was pregnant by her lover Harald Ramond, who wouldn’t marry her. A devout Catholic, she declined to call “Doctor Killkare” (“the joke name for Tinseltown’s leading abortionist,” according to Kenneth Anger in Hollywood Babylon), and downed 75 Seconal instead, according to Hollywood Babylon.

The decision was equally tragic for Dorothy Dandridge. Otto Preminger had directed her in Carmen Jones and made her a star. When she became pregnant by him in 1955, he refused to divorce his wife and marry her. Dandridge was forced to have an abortion; the studio demanded it, according to Scandals of Classic Hollywood, not only because a child would compromise her image as the sexy Carmen Jones, but also because Preminger was a white man. And, while miscegenation laws were repealed in California in 1948, nationwide they were still very much in place.

Ironically, the rebel of her day was Loretta Young—not because she had an abortion, but because she refused to have one. A devout Catholic, Young journeyed abroad in 1935 to recuperate from a ‘mystery illness,’ after she found herself with child by Clark Gable under shady circumstances—and avoided the press. She gave birth to her daughter at home in Los Angeles. Young initially gave the child up for adoption—and then, a few months later, officially adopted her, according to The Fixers.

In the heyday of the Hollywood studio system, women were at their most desirable and their most powerful—but it still didn’t afford them the right to choose when it came to governing their bodies. Hollywood’s production codes extended to women’s reproduction. In the hundred years or so that have passed since the birth of American cinema, everything has changed—though, then again, perhaps nothing has.

[michaelfoote2000]

David Lynch & Surrealism: When the Non-Traditional Becomes Traditional

Often described as “one of the most unique visionaries working in cinema today,” it is not hard to see why director David Lynch and his unusual catalogue of work have garnered a lot of attention since the 80s (ScreenRant). Looking at his career holistically, it is evident how little his style has actually changed. Meanwhile, public perception of him and his productions has fluctuated quite a bit from decade to decade. After a somewhat uncertain start in the 1970s, he eventually rose to become arguably one of the most popular directors in the 21st century, which brought about strong implications for the world of independent cinema. The rise in popularity of David Lynch’s small but strong category of films brought about a wider acceptance of surrealist storytelling, as more audiences embraced the non-traditional storytelling so often associated with independent projects, further blurring the lines between industries and individuals.

David Lynch’s directorial debut, Eraserhead, actually serves as a perfect microcosm of his cinematic style and approach. First and foremost, it is utterly and proudly surreal. The entire film takes place in an ambiguous and unsettling interpretation of America – as many of his projects do – operating within a world that manages to both feel very familiar and very foreign at the same time. The film’s plot, focusing on a man and his grotesque, barely human child, is incredibly vague; Lynch keeps the purpose of the story open to interpretation, simply leaving the viewer with the shock and confusion at what they just watched. Eraserhead does not hold back: like many of Lynch’s films that follow it, it is gruesome, graphic, and sexual (ScreenRant). In other words, it had many of the characteristics that defined a number of flicks as independent cinema. Taking the risk of making such an off-putting movie did not come without its consequences, though.

Released to limited audiences in 1977, the film initially received a good amount of backlash. Variety denounced it as “unwatchable” due to the vagueness and brutality of its content, and since Lynch is notorious for refusing to give any clarification on most of his projects, interviewing him about the project provided no satisfying answers (Variety). It has since become something of a cult classic, embraced by fans of such dramatic and stupefying cinema (Chion 3). But it is easy to see why Lynch did not fit in with mainstream cinema at first. He made it clear that the kind of work he wanted to make did not have accessibility or comfort in mind. If Lynch wanted to be a surrealist director, it seemed he would have to accept that he would inevitably fail to capture the hearts of the average American viewers.

And yet, despite such a baffling first project, Lynch managed to break into Hollywood rather quickly. He found himself directing an adaptation of the science fiction novel Dune only seven years later in the mid-1980s. Much unlike his first work, Dune turned out to be very slow and boring. Its story is far more concrete, given it is drawing from a popular source text in a genre proven to have reliable appeal. The appeal did not transfer over, though; Dune was a commercial and critical flop (Hollywood Reporter). Lynch was not happy with it either; famously, there were a multitude of clashes and complications with the studio that led to the final release of the film differing greatly from his original four-hour vision. The disconnect is not only felt by Lynch, as Dune does stand out like a sore thumb amongst the rest of his filmography. It is considerably less obtuse and unusual than everything that came before and after, and yet still audiences refused to embrace it. The mainstream had rejected Lynch once again, who refused to be deterred.

Lynch stuck with his comfort zone and returned to writing and directing projects that outright ignored the mold in favor of the atypical (as independent filmmakers are known to do) (Nochimson 11). For instance, Blue Velvet was another clear example of Lynch’s untethered approach to storytelling, a late-80s suburban tale that was much more in line with his personal stylings than that of the mainstream movie circuit (Nerdist). Blue Velvet was a success, much more so than Dune or Eraserhead, but still did not become a Hollywood-level hit (Far Out Magazine). At this time, independent cinema had not quite reached the heights of popularity that it would soar to by the turn of the century. Audiences were not used to his level of surrealism…that is, until the arrival of a certain TV phenomenon. David Lynch’s first major foray into television was the mystery series Twin Peaks, premiering in 1990 on the ABC network. The opening episode was actually shot as a movie in case the show did not get picked up – and was even released as one outside of America with a more ‘concrete’ ending (well, concrete by Lynch’s standards). This premiere is arguably the most important work of David Lynch’s entire career, as it kickstarted what was his first project to really achieve true mainstream success. Its original run only lasted two years before a swift cancellation, but it made a huge impression on the audiences it did reach, especially after it took a hard turn into supernatural elements and had a massively ambiguous ending. Audiences were enthralled and intrigued after being hooked with the more mainstream premise of a teenage girl’s murder; Lynch had finally found a way to hook more viewers on to one of his non-standard projects (Nerdist). Thus, the attention achieved from the original finale of Twin Peaks (the only episodes he directed outside of the opening few of the first season) naturally had a very tangible impact on Lynch’s career.

After writing and directing another mind-bending independent film that came in the form of 1997’s Lost Highway, David Lynch signed on to direct the G-rated Disney romp The Straight Story (Filmmaker Magazine). This 1999 film is easily David Lynch’s most mainstream work. However, miniscule touches of his style are still prominent throughout the film. While it is the kind of saccharine story one would expect from Disney, it has a colorful cast of side characters (reminiscent of the residents of Twin Peaks) and its camerawork shares some broad similarities with Blue Velvet (Variety). All of this makes sense, given that The Straight Story was the first feature film that David Lynch directed while having no hand in the writing. Still, Lynch’s involvement in the project proved that Hollywood was finally recognizing his talents and seeking his unique style.

Ever since then, David Lynch has remained in the peripheral vision of mainstream audiences. While not quite a household name, his works have propelled him to being one of the more well-known American directors of the past half century or so. People retroactively began to look back on his older works and find renewed interest, turning Eraserhead and Blue Velvet into strong cult classics among film nerds alongside Twin Peaks. Concurrently, Lynch worked on a number of short films and shows across the 2000s, 2010s, and even into the 2020s. One of his most intriguing and baffling productions was a short, 60-second commercial he made for a Sony video game console, dubbed simply PlayStation 2: The Third Place. It is no more nonsensical than the rest of Lynch’s work, but it stands out because of its role as a promo for what would go on to be one of the best-selling video game consoles of all time. Even though it would be misguided to credit that all to Lynch’s advertisement, it nevertheless left a sizeable impact on a widespread audience, remaining in the memories of gaming communities for decades to come. In part thanks to the opportunity to reach wider audiences due to advancements made in the internet age, surrealist art was touching more people than ever and finding new audiences. Along with the rising popularity of independent film around the turn of the century, where non-traditional storytelling almost became its own miniature fad in Hollywood, David Lynch’s style was on its way to becoming mainstream.

What really cemented David Lynch in the hearts of cinephiles was his 2001 film Mulholland Drive. It felt like a perfect companion piece or spiritual successor to Twin Peaks with its interweaving plotlines, otherworldly side characters, and unclear lines of reality. The ending of Mulholland Drive is perhaps one of the most debated story moments of Lynch’s career because of just how surreal and non-linear it was. The film was quickly labeled one of the best films of the decade and has remained on many such lists in the following two decades (Nerdist). Since its release, Lynch has shifted his attention to television and other short-form content. He has continued to make surrealist short films like What Would Jack Do? that ended up on Netflix among other originals that became some of the most popular mainstream media of the decade. Meanwhile, he has used his YouTube channel to produce loads of short videos colored with his signature oddities, which consistently draw in thousands of viewers (Far Out Magazine). But the ultimate evidence of cultural power that Lynch managed to achieve – despite his rejection of mainstream filmic practices – was the story behind the Twin Peaks revival season that aired in 2017, known simply as The Return. A season that almost did not happen when executive and budget limitations stopped him from making the project, Showtime gave David Lynch completely free reign to make the 18-episode story he desired. It was slow, raw, abstract, uncomfortable – everything his works have come to be known for (Nerdist). And it was a massive success. Fans tuned in every week for to watch some of the most bizarre, dream-like television ever produced, proving that Showtime’s permission of creative liberties paid off.

Although Lynch may permanently shift mediums going forward, his surrealist style of storytelling will likely never dissipate. Not only is it essential to building the character of his works, it has become widely embraced across the nation as the appeal of his films (Creed 2). Lynchian surrealism brought him from the world of independent cinema to mainstream eyes, demonstrating how non-traditional storytelling has found popularity and widespread success with film audiences in recent years.

Want to learn more? My sources:

David Lynch by Michel Chion

The Passion of David Lynch: Wild at Heart in Hollywood by Martha P. Nochimson

The Untamed Eye and the Dark Side of Surrealism: Hitchcock, Lynch and Cronenberg by Barbara Creed

ScreenRant: https://screenrant.com/david-lynch-eraserhead-established-director-style/

Nerdist: https://nerdist.com/article/david-lynch-filmography-streaming/

Far Out Magazine: https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/david-lynch-career-eccentric-master-cinematic-surrealism/

Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/dune-review-1984-movie-953878/

Variety (1): https://variety.com/1999/film/reviews/the-straight-story-1117499811/

Variety (2): https://variety.com/1976/film/reviews/eraserhead-1200424018/

Filmmaker Magazine: https://filmmakermagazine.com/110889-theres-so-much-darkness-so-much-room-to-dream-david-lynch-on-lost-highway/#.YJK4JrVKiM9

[covrtofnightmares]

&&. cauldron above, ( james deerling ) was just spotted in the fae lands — word has it ( he ) is affiliated with ( the spring court ). ( he ) is a(n) ( 650 / appears 38 ) year old ( warrior fae ). it’s been said that ( he ) resembles ( david gandy ). ( he ) has been said to be ( loyal & courageous ) but also quite ( ferocious & stubborn ). ( he ) is currently serving as ( the deerling patriarch / consort of the spring court ).

— ❝  you have to be a little bad to make history. ❞

name: james henry deerling

birthday: june 11th | gemini

scent: juniper, mandarin, oakmoss, cedar greens, fresh blooming roses, gentle seabreeze + ( SIGNATURE COLOGNE: light blue - dolce & gabbana )

appearance: james towers above most at a whopping 6′3″. naturally muscular and strong, both from being born into the warrior fae heritage and from years of training, james easily dwarfs most who stand around him. with a thick head of dark, wavy hair and his signature groomed beard, james looks every bit the rugged, rogue, wild warrior fae descending from the mountains.

current familial / relationship status: james is married to faun deerling who, up until recently, was presumed to be dead in astralis. he is aware of two children he bore legitimately with her, aurora and arielle, but is unaware at present that ares and apollo are his natural-born sons and believes them to be his step / adopted children.

biography: james henry deerling doesn’t know much about his origins. his mother, a warrior fae who had been cast out from her family for refusing to adhere to some of the more rigid, violent guidelines of their people, turned to prostitution in order to feed and clothe herself. she developed an affair with a highly regarded warrior fae among the spring court, giving him pleasure in return for coin, and when marietta discovered she was pregnant, she begged and pleaded with her lover to provide financially for the baby she was carrying. she did not believe she would make a fit mother, and when her lover--henry deerling--begrudgingly accepted to take james into his home, marietta left the child on the warrior’s doorstep and disappeared without a trace. henry deerling was a revered knight in the high lord’s army, responsible for training young recruits around the castle, and believed he had little to no time for a child. he intended to raise james as a servant, or similar to the way noblemen handled their bastardized children. but, as a widower with no close relatives, he soon came to love having a child about the house and made james his official heir.

growing up with a knight for a father did not make things easy for james with other warrior children who lived in the outskirts of the spring court. they often referred to him as a bastard, the son of a whore, or dirty blood, due to his unknown mother’s exile from their people. james was often assumed to be weak, due to his mother’s own fickle nature and his father’s strange behaviors, so when one boy shoved the young child into the mud while another, older child attempted to carve james’ wings off his back, telling the deerling heir that he didn’t deserve the wings of a warrior, something inside of james unleashed itself, his magic and might striking out against the other children around him.

children stopped making fun of james henry deerling after that night.

though his father was a knight, james earned no special favors among the spring court. he had to earn his keep, and after refusing to allow the other warrior children to demean his bloodline any longer, james took to the training field. honed fighting was a skill his father had always hoped james would take an interest in, and the two bonded over their sessions with great fervor. henry deerling trained his only son everything he knew about fighting and protecting their people, raising his child to become a man of great strength, power, and passion dedicated solely to protecting the spring court. he fought and clawed his way to a title of honor, first as a guard, before eventually making his way up the ranks to serve as the spring court’s official captain of the guard by the time he was in his mid to late twenties. it was a title he revered with great honor. after his induction ceremony, when james realized that his father had not been present at his ceremony, the deerling boy slipped into his quaint family home to find his father on the ground, his wings crumpled beneath him and his face purple. an empty goblet lay askew on the ground, indicating ingested poison, along with a letter henry held clutched in one hand. james, desperate and consumed with grief, was barely able to read the letter that had been addressed to him.

the elders in his clan had not forgotten the child born out of wedlock, a surprisingly severe crime among their particular branch of warrior fae, nor had they forgotten that the child had been borne from an exiled member of their pack. henry was subsequently punished for allowing the child to live, and not sacrificing him, as any good member of the family ought to, and for the first time in his life, james deerling felt overwhelming grief, loss, and guilt.

james deerling is a good man, but not every story has a happy beginning. so when the deerling heir composed himself, steely resolve had him track down every last member of his mother’s clan. with a burst of magic and a fury of wings and might, killed every last remaining member of his matriarchal clan, until he was the only one left aside from the mother who had abandoned him.

james devoted himself entirely to the protection of the doefoot clan and the high castle following the death of his father. grief was something james had not yet been accustomed with, so losing the only person in the entire world he had ever loved felt like walking through a forest blindfolded. several decades would pass before james learned to properly love another creature. faun doefoot, the glittering princess of the spring court, was sunshine and daisies; she was a warm spring breeze and the color of sunflowers and cherry blossoms. the spring court princess was a delight among astralis, and so when she approached james one day and begged him to teach her how to train herself in combat and self-defense, even stoic james deerling failed to be immune to her charms. james thoroughly believed learning combat techniques was important, given his own colorful background, and spent evenings training faun on how to best to defend herself in case of a siege, royal duel, or even against a random attacker. she became his closest friend and, along the way, something clicked into place deep inside of james’ chest. there was no denying it every time he exchanged furtive glances with her at balls or galas he worked for the royal family: he was desperately, hopelessly, achingly in love with faun deerling. she was stunning, of course, but it was not just her beauty that james became enamored with; it was the strength of her character and the passion in her soul. it was the way that he looked at her and the rest of the world seemed to stand still. he had imprinted on the crown princess of the spring court. and fiercely.

the two began a passionate, whirlwind love affair, each privately acknowledging that his rank and profession did not make him a suitable consort for an heiress who was meant to rule an entire kingdom. but whatever his reservations might have been about his own questionable lineage, faun was determined to tell her parents she would take no other suitor than james deerling; her captain, her confidant, her closest friend. 

that’s when erik newblood happened.

the siege on the spring court was bloody, and though james and the rest of the guard and knighthood tried valiantly to defend the doefoots, they failed. they were outnumbered: in men, in power, in brute strength. it was a devastating loss, and faun was left in the hands of a monster. he wished, desperately, to be able to free faun from the marriage she now found herself in, but his mate informed him that anything he was thinking would be too risky to perform. hell descended upon the spring court, and the only moments of comfort and solace he found in the terrifying darkness that hovered over the spring court were the times he spent alone with faun. erik, in his vainglory, ordered james to the front of the line as the spring court’s war general, choosing to exploit their shared heritage as warrior fae for militant prowess. but while erik was a creature who consumed everything in sight, james preferred to preserve. still, more often than not, james had an inkling that the real reason erik promoted the captain of the guard to a high and prestigious position was so he could keep an eye on him.

it was much easier to keep an eye on a dog you’d leashed to you, after all.

presently, james has no idea that the two boys faun gave birth to, ares and apollo, were not sired by erik, but by himself. though he worried about their patriarchal heritage, james loved the boys as fiercely as if they were his own children, if only because they belonged to faun. he helped raise them in private, without the knowledge of erik, and slipped the boys gifts every solstice and birthday. sometimes, james pretended that the boys were his own; if he looked at ares and his sweet, chubby cheeks long enough, he even thought he saw something of himself in the dark-haired beauty that had captured the hearts of the spring court. perhaps if he pretended they were his sons, it would be enough. perhaps, though he’d never be a father to them, he could be something.

but faun was nothing if not resilient and strong, and through the skills he had helped her hone over the years, was able to covertly destroy the beast who had shackled himself to her. erik newblood was no more, and though james was petrified that faun had behaved so recklessly without him there as support, he felt overwhelming relief flood his system as a semblance of normalcy returned to the spring court. he and faun wedded, after so many years loving and mating in secret, and began to repair the damage erik had wreaked over their home since the regicide of faun’s parents. the two wed, in a beautiful ceremony praised and applauded by all of astralis, and james deerling rose from the role of war general to high lord and consort.

this was his home--anywhere faun, ares, and apollo were. though james still believes ares and apollo are not his children, he spent his rule treating them as if they were his own children by flesh and blood. when the time  came for them to expand their family, however, james was only all too eager. and thus...their first baby girl was born: aurora deerling, the crowned jewel of the spring court, and a princess who had carved out a piece of james deerling’s heart and kept it for herself. james became a dutiful father, and when arielle was born not three years later, james swore he had never been happier in his entire life. four children, two of which were even his by blood, and his treasured mate by his side. perhaps the gods had forgiven him for failing his father so many centuries ago; perhaps they had told him he deserved to be happy.

or perhaps the gods were still angry.

when faun was taken from james this time, with great force and jarring suddenness, james felt something inside of him wither away and die. erik newblood was dead again, this time at the hands of an enraged ares, and james blamed himself. it was difficult to face his family, realizing that he had, once again, failed to properly protect that which belonged to him. unable to face a throne that did not belong to him, james left the spring court and fled to the mountains. grief consumed him, shaping james into a vengeful creature, the likes of which he had not seen since his father’s untimely passing. he was not the monster that erik newblood had been, but he was his own manner of beast.

most believe that james deerling escaped to the mountains solely due to the loss of his wife. and while grief consumed him, james deerling was also a man of hard-headed, stubborn ferociousness. he spent the next two decades researching--faun’s body had never been properly buried, nor did he have clues about the whereabouts of his missing child. he inhaled books, ranging from modern to ancient texts, about enchantments, curses, and loopholes in the very fabric of astralis that could explain the things james refused to look in the face: death. and still, he trained: not just with himself, but with others. there were other warrior fae who lived in the mountains, clans who had despised his mother’s family for their rigid, cruel, and archaic ways, who recognized the man who had slaughtered the spring court’s most notorious warrior clan without the bat of an eye. their children and grandchildren, having grown up on the fable that was james deerling, poured forth and offered their services to him.

if james deerling was going to take on astralis with his bare fucking hands, he’d need to rally an army.

his nights were spent in loneliness, craving faun’s absence, but his days were filled with research, training, and questioning leads he uncovered that led to any possible clues about his wife’s death and his missing child. finally, after years of digging and training, and the solstice hanging above their heads, james held a breakthrough: he knew where faun was. it was just a matter of returning her where she rightfully belonged. and if he could get faun back, then he’d be able to find out what had happened to his sweet aurora, as well.

james deerling is coming back from the mountains. and unbeknownst to his son, he’s bringing with him an entire army of trained warrior fae who plan to serve the spring court unfailingly as they wipe out their enemies.

affinity: as a warrior fae born into the spring court, he possesses some of the natural affinities of spring, though james’ strength is almost exclusively in his combat abilities

wings: as is typical with the warrior race, james has durable wings perfect for flight and combat. his are large, taloned black wings, similar to that of a dragon, marking him as a strong predator in the sky. james’ regal wings are built for endurance, battle, and instilling fear into those who dare to oppose him.

[aion-rsa]

E3: 20 Best and Worst Moments, Reveals, and Announcements

https://ift.tt/3pIBKUD

E3 may have started as an industry show designed to give developers and publishers the kind of public platform that they were previously denied, but over the years, it’s become clear that the show is really all about memorable moments.

It’s sometimes easy to confuse one E3 event for another or forget which games were revealed in which year, but the thing you never forget are those moments that nearly stopped the show. While said moments certainly include shocking reveals and incredible trailers, anyone who has watched E3 over the years knows that this event is also often defined by moments so bad that they bury themselves in your brain and refuse to leave.

From wonderful presenters who remind us why we love video games to the horrors of giving Jamie Kennedy a microphone, these are the best and worst E3 moments ever:

20. Konami’s Unbelievably Bad Press Conference (E3 2010)

Konami hasn’t exactly been at the top of their game lately, but with the possible exception of the Hideo Kojima fiasco, the company’s lowest public moment has to be this truly terrible E3 2010 press conference. 

It’s like Konami gave all of their presenters different drugs, a live microphone, and only the vaguest hint of what they were actually supposed to be talking about. Between the luchadors that start slapping each other for a few minutes and Thomas Nagano pretending that he had been decapitated, this conference is nearly impossible to watch if you’re at all opposed to acts of public speaking awkwardness.

19. Ikumi Nakamura Delights the World (E3 2019)

While it’s understandable that so many companies heavily script their E3 press conferences, that strategy sometimes results in the entire event coming across as frustratingly disingenuous. Nothing kills the buzz around a big new game quite like having to hear another executive dryly talk about quarterly reports and insider tech jargon.

That’s what makes Ikumi Nakamura’s speech during Bethesda’s E3 2019 conference so special. Nakamura may have described herself as “nervous,” but the energy that she brought to the stage that night can only be described as genuine. I don’t know why more speakers can’t have this much fun with their E3 presentations, but then again, most speakers aren’t Ikumi Nakamura.

18. Keanu Reeves Takes Our Breath Away (E3 2019)

The history of celebrity presenters at E3 is…not great. While most E3 celebrities try their best (with some notable exceptions we’ll discuss in a bit), it’s hard for them to shake the vibe that they are there for a paycheck and that we all just need to get through this together. 

Then there’s Keanu Reeves. Moments after the world learned that Reeves would play Johnny Silverhand in Cyberpunk 2077, the star walked out onto the E3 2019 stage and received the kind of applause pop typically not heard outside of pro wrestling arenas. This was just the perfect combination of timing, star power, and delivery that most E3 celebrities couldn’t hope to match.

17. “Mr. Caffeine” Takes Awkward Presentations to a New Level (E3 2011)

Look, Aaron “Mr. Caffeine” Priceman might just be the worst E3 presenter ever. His strangely offensive humor and forced energy have inspired some to compare him to The Office’s Michael Scott, but that honestly gives this guy too much credit. There is not a moment of genuine entertainment to be found in his entire speech. 

What’s really fascinating about Priceman’s presentation all these years later, though, is the popular belief that Ubisoft or Priceman may have actively been trying to troll the audience for reasons that remain unknown. Maybe Priceman went rogue on the live mic, or maybe someone at Ubisoft just wanted to get fired. There just has to be an explanation for…whatever this was. 

16. Davide Soliani Reminds us Why We Love E3 (E3 2017)

Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle may not have been the biggest reveal at E3 2017, but watching creative director Davide Soliani cry when Shigeru Miyamoto took the stage to praise him and the game he worked on will rightfully remain the most memorable moment from that event. 

While most of us would cry if Miyamoto addressed us during the biggest show of the year, the genuineness and suddenness of Soliani’s reaction really helped sell Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle in a way that no trailer or speech ever could have. It certainly didn’t hurt that the actual game eventually captured the joy of this pure moment. 

15. Microsoft’s Painfully Long Kinect Reveal (E3 2010)

You can’t talk about defining E3 moments without including at least one botched peripheral reveal, but which botched peripheral reveal to choose? Joe McHale awkwardly suffering through a game of Ubisoft’s Battle Tag? Sony almost sinking their brand with the infamous Wonderbook? Wii Music…Wii Music?

In the end, this honor goes to the Kinect reveal for the simple fact that Microsoft chose to devote so much of their 2010 E3 stage time to show off a device that clearly wasn’t ready for primetime. It’s one thing that the Kinect often didn’t work properly during the presentation – that’s fairly standard for E3 failures – but the moment that a parade of unenthusiastic participants bombarded the stage to participate in awkward white water rafting, fake popcorn eating, and extended yoga sessions, Microsoft ensured that everyone in attendance was not going to buy a Kinect out of sheer spite.

14. Gabe Newell Appears During Sony’s E3 Conference (E3 2010)

The word “surreal” has joined the likes of “epic” in the category of “Words that the people of the internet have collectively watered down.” Whereas surreal used to be used to describe a situation so out of the ordinary that it’s almost dreamlike, now surreal can be used to describe seeing someone eating a Whopper at McDonald’s.

So far as truly surreal E3 moments go, however, Gabe Newell’s 2010 appearance has to be near the top of the list. At a time when Valve was considered to be one of the most clandestine game studios in the world, the god of the PC master race himself took the stage at a Sony press conference of all things to announce that Portal 2 was coming to the PlayStation 3. While the sight of Gabe at E3 on a competitor’s stage was odd enough, this moment has only become even more surreal as time wears on and Valve slowly shuffles away from the whole game development thing.

13. Bethesda Hosts the Perfect Press Conference (E3 2015)

While non-console manufacturers getting their own E3 conference wasn’t entirely unheard of by the time that Bethesda took the stage at E3 2015, it was a bit unusual for all but the industry’s most powerful manufacturers to get their own stage time at the biggest event of the year. Sure, Bethesda was a fairly beloved game developer, but an entire E3 press conference devoted to the studio? How was that going to work?

Bethesda showed everyone exactly how it was going to work by pulling off what could arguably be described as the perfect E3 press conference. It began with shockingly good footage of Doom, continued with the much-anticipated debut of Dishonored 2, and concluded with a Fallout 4 reveal that was made all the more shocking by the announcement that the game would be released in a few months. Bethesda’s 2015 presentation set a new gold standard for game-focused conferences and proved that the right studio could steal the show from anyone.

12. Reggie Fils-Aime Introduces Himself to the Gaming World (E3 2004)

It’s not that there hadn’t been memorable Nintendo E3 moments before 2004, but rather that many of the studio’s most memorable E3 moments earned that distinction for all the wrong reasons. Nintendo had long struggled to properly present themselves within the constraints of the E3 format while Sony and Microsoft were well on their way to mastering the subtle art of the E3 press conference.

That all changed the very moment that Reggie Fils-Aime kicked off Nintendo’s E3 2004 press conference by saying, “My name is Reggie. I’m about kicking ass, I’m about taking names, and we’re about making games.” Fils-Aime gave Nintendo an undeniably charismatic on-stage presence that none of their previous E3 conferences had benefited from. While many of Reggie’s quips would go on to become internet memes (most notably, “My body is ready”) there is no denying that he became the centerpiece for one of the greatest E3 presentations any major studio has ever given.

11. Kevin Butler Delivers the Only Funny Presentation in E3 History (E3 2010)

For a brief period of time, the world got to enjoy the genius that was the Kevin Butler marketing campaign. For those who don’t remember, Kevin Butler was a fictional PlayStation executive who starred in a series of commercials that featured him answering various questions from PlayStation fans. They were genuinely funny and clever adverts that broke the mold of awkward video game commercials in a big way.

While actor Jerry Lambert’s appearance at E3 2010 as the one and only Kevin Butler could have been an utter disaster, it instead turned out to be one of the few attempts at a funny E3 presentation that was actually funny. Actually, it might be the only comedic E3 presentation to not completely bomb. Butler quip that “Gaming is having a ridiculously huge TV in a tiny one-bedroom apartment” and still lives in infamy.

Read more

Games

E3 2021 Predictions: Big Announcements That Will Steal the Show

By Matthew Byrd

Games

E3 2021 Leaks: Nintendo Switch Pro, Battlefield 2042, Final Fantasy Origin, Marvel, and More

By John Saavedra

10. Jamie Kennedy Secures His Status As the Worst E3 Celebrity Presenter Ever (E3 2007)

On the complete opposite end of the Kevin Butler presentation, we have Mr. Jamie Kennedy. Now, some of you fortunate souls may have never heard of Kennedy. If that is the case, just know that Kennedy was a self-stylized comedian who specialized in mocking other people. For instance, if he noticed you were a larger individual, he may make a remark about your excess fat and proceed to make a 50-year-old observation about how it could affect your daily life. He presumably made millions of dollars doing this.

Kennedy’s career low point may be the moment that he drunkenly took the stage at Activision’s E3 2007 conference and proceeded to put on a miniature comedy spectacle that only those with an abnormal tolerance for awkward comedy will ever be able to watch in full. It was bad enough that Kennedy wasn’t funny (“Neversoft…wasn’t that the first name for Viagra?”), but when he resorted to insulting the audience and industry, he ensured that he would become the gold standard for awkward E3 celebrity presenters.

9. The Final Fantasy VII Remake Genuinely Surprises Millions (E3 2015)

At a certain point, video game wishes turn into inside jokes. The most obvious example of this phenomenon is certainly Half-Life 3, but there are many games which fans dream of and talk about for so long that they eventually become memes. For years, Final Fantasy VII‘s remake was such a game. Square Enix had used footage of such a title as part of a tech demo, but fans long stopped believing the studio would actually make it.

That is until E3 2015 when Final Fantasy fans across the world were suddenly looking at a very real remake of Final Fantasy VII. This is a deceivingly simple moment in the history of E3 that is amplified by just how rare it is for a game like Final Fantasy VII to actually appear at E3. While the remake still isn’t out yet – which is rarely a great sign – the moment of the reveal itself really summarizes why E3 is sometimes a very special event

8. Half-Life 2 Exceeds Impossible Expectations (E3 2003)

In 2003, Half-Life 2 was about as mythical to the average gamer as Half-Life 3 is now. Most people knew that Valve was going to release a new Half-Life, but few felt that there was any chance of the sequel surpassing the standard the original had set. Half-Life was one of the most revolutionary games ever made. To convince everyone that Half-Life 2 was going to be just as special, Valve would have needed to put together quite the presentation.

So, that’s what they did. The first Half-Life 2 footage showcased things that gamers simply had never seen before. True physics-based combat, the innovative gravity gun, A.I. that felt dynamic, and seamless cinematic storytelling all highlighted a roughly 20-minute video that left gamers feeling like they’d just seen the exciting future of the industry play out before their eyes. It’s everything you hope a major game reveal will be.

7. A Single Battle Nearly Determines the Xbox One/PlayStation 4 Console War (E3 2013)

At E3 2013, Microsoft and Sony were scheduled to reveal their respective next-gen consoles. Microsoft, who was coming off the wildly successful Xbox 360, kicked off the festivities with an Xbox One presentation that many have since described as the company’s biggest failure. The initial Xbox One design was not only expensive and reliant on the controversial Kinect but required users to always be online, wasn’t backward compatible, and may or may not have allowed people to play used games. It was a spectacular PR disaster.

Sony followed that up with a PS4 reveal that was simply sublime. Not only was the PlayStation 4 cheaper than the Xbox One, but Sony even modified its planned conference in ways that allowed them to take plenty of shots at Microsoft’s failed Xbox One reveal. It was a presentation designed to please the masses and it succeeded in every way possible. While many E3s feature console war battles, few battles have ever ended up dictating the success of individual consoles quite the way that this one did.

6. For Better and Worse, the Halo 2 Reveal Sets a New Standard (E3 2003)

You had to be around for Halo to truly appreciate what Halo meant. Halo not only gave millions a reason to buy the Xbox; it showed those same gamers that consoles could offer up a first-person shooter experience largely free from compromise. It was a unique title that became a true phenomenon in a matter of weeks. Needless to say, the hype surrounding an eventual sequel was at a fevered pitch by the time E3 2003 rolled around.

The Halo 2 reveal represents the good and bad of E3 game reveals. The good is obviously the moment of the reveal itself. The first footage of Halo 2 received an audible “pop” of applause typically reserved for major moments during championship games. It was a wave of relief and anticipation just gushing out at full force. On the bad side of things is what happened after the incredible footage aired. Bungie later admitted that they could not replicate the footage that they showed at E3 and had to basically rebuild Halo 2 from scratch. The success of the Halo 2 reveal and the unreasonable hype it generated has come to be all too typical.

5. The Zelda: Twilight Princess Trailer Caps off Nintendo’s Greatest E3 Presentation (E3 2004)

It’s easy to make fun of Nintendo. Fun, too. For instance, one could say something like, “Why did Nintendo cross the road? Because it was the least efficient way possible of getting to where they were going.” For as many, many mistakes as Nintendo has made at E3 over the years, the company’s 2004 presentation stands as the company’s one perfect presentation. Not only did it feature the aforementioned Reggie Fils-Aime introduction, but it introduced gamers to the Nintendo DS (arguably the greatest handheld gaming device ever made) and even offered up the first public reference to the console that would become the Nintendo Wii.

However, the best was certainly saved for last. At a time when many Zelda fans were still upset that Nintendo had abandoned a more mature style of Zelda game in favor of Wind Waker’s Saturday morning cartoon visuals, Nintendo came along and debuted the decidedly mature and dark first trailer for Twilight Princess. The reveal was topped off by Shigeru Miyamoto gracing the stage with shield and sword gleefully in hand. It was the kind of moment that only Nintendo could deliver.

4. Killzone 2’s First Footage Kicks Off 12+ Years of Trailer Controversy (E3 2005)

In many ways, E3 is about hope. Those that watch it are certainly hoping they will see great games revealed for the first time, but they also hope that E3 will show them something entirely unexpected. Not a game or a console necessarily, but rather a brief glimpse into an unimaginable future. In 2005, Sony offered that window into the future when they revealed the first trailer for Killzone 2. To say that Killzone 2 looked better than any other game on the market at that time would be a drastic understatement. Killzone 2 looked like it was hand-delivered from 10 years into the future.

Actually, that’s not too far off. Right after the Killzone 2 footage stopped rolling, speculation concerning the authenticity of the footage began. The conversation that followed included phrases like “in-engine footage” that have now become all too commonplace in a world where doctored trailers are perfectly normal. For better or worse, the Killzone 2 footage was a true innovator.

3. Sony Almost Kills the PlayStation Brand with One Awful Presentation (E3 2006)

We’ve picked on Microsoft’s bad E3 presentations a couple of times throughout this list – with good reason, mind you – but in the interest of complete fairness, let’s talk about why no company’s E3 presentation will ever be quite as disastrous as Sony’s E3 2006 spectacular. Sony’s 2006 E3 conference revolved around the formal reveal of the PlayStation 3. Given that the PlayStation 2 was far and away the world’s most popular console, the reveal of the PlayStation 3 should have been a simple way for Sony to retain its market dominance.

Instead, they seemingly went out of their way to sink the PlayStation name. It began humbly enough with the reveal of the PlayStation 3’s gaudy $599 price point (for the top tier model) and continued when the Genji development team promised to show us a game based on authentic Japanese history before revealing footage of players attacking a giant enemy crab’s glowing weak point for massive damage. This is also the conference that gave us the “Riiiiiiddddgggee Racer!” meme, the world’s dullest tech footage, and the promise of a gimmick-free console that was immediately undone by the introduction of three or four major console gimmicks.

2. Metal Gear Solid 2 Makes Games the Star of E3 (E3 2000)

In its early days, E3 was much more of a traditional industry trade show. While early E3 conventions featured occasional surprises, big announcements, and all the usual spectacle, the first E3 shows didn’t really emphasize the excitement of individual game reveals. Generally speaking, technology and industry ruled the day.

In many ways, Metal Gear Solid 2 changed that dynamic. The Metal Gear Solid 2 trailer shown at E3 2000 was long (over 19 minutes), traditionally cinematic, and entirely devoid of developer voiceover. It wasn’t quite the kind of trailer you’d expect to precede the release of a major film, but it was certainly different from any game trailer released before it. Even people who didn’t care about Metal Gear Solid walked away from the event talking about this footage. From that point on, developers knew that a single game could dominate E3 headlines.

1. Sony Establishes Two Dynasties with a Single Number (E3 1995)

In some ways, it’s appropriate that the very first E3 featured the definitive E3 moment. Then again, given how much E3 has evolved over the years, it’s also somewhat surprising that no moment has ever topped this showstopping reveal.

It began with the Sega Saturn. Sega took to the humble E3 1995 stage and debuted a sizzle reel of all the great things the Sega Saturn could do and how it would change the world forever. It was your standard E3 presentation complete with awkward live-action segments. Shortly thereafter, a Sega exec informed those in attendance that they could purchase the Sega Saturn right now for the low price of $399. He then confidently exited the stage at which point the gentleman from Sony took to the platform, said “$299,” and exited. By undercutting the Sega Saturn by $100, Sony sealed the fate of the Sega Saturn in North America. In the process, they kicked off an entirely new era of gaming and established E3 as the one must-watch show every year.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The post E3: 20 Best and Worst Moments, Reveals, and Announcements appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3xgfp34

[verilyruth]

The Jacobs at home (but mostly David and Sarah):

Okay so we all know that Davey comes out of his shell during the strike

This boy goes from literally bowing to Medda when he meets her to yelling at one of the most powerful men in New York in his own office

But he didn’t change his personality at home

At home, Davey is David

Les gets into the habit of calling him Davey when they’re working but he knows not to at home

Davey would be too American for his parents

Not even Davey originally liked being called Davey

He does now though because Jack is the one who gave him the name

One time David was walking with his father and he heard Romeo call his name

He ignored it because he didn’t want his father to know that “Davey” was referring to him

He apologized to Romeo the next day and he understood

David is quiet and respectful at home, leaving Sarah and Les to do most of the talking

He may have accidentally started one of the most talked about strikes of the last decade and shut down New York for almost twelve hours but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t follow orders at home

David and Sarah know how hard their parents work and they do their best to take the burden off of them

When they get home from selling/school/the factory, they take over the patchwork their mother takes in, insisting she lies down before dinner

(I have a whole series of headcanons to do with Esther but they’ll come in another post)

The twins are often up very late finishing this work

The thing David says at home most often is probably some variation of “yes, Ima” or “no, Aba”

This boy is SHY at home

It’s not because he’s nervous around his parents

It’s because he doesn’t want to cause them any stress at all

And despite his job and how he acts around his friends, he’s an introvert and likes to not have to speak

Sometimes he and Sarah take their sewing up to the roof and he doesn’t have any qualms about talking her ear off then

She loves it though

Katherine is actually the first of their friends to visit them at home, not Jack

Les wanted to go to the lodging house after selling but David had chores to do and promised to pick him up later

Katherine was there too and Les got tired so she offered to walk him home

David isn’t happy about it but Les doesn’t know that his brother is a little self conscious about where he lives when it comes to Katherine

Esther invites her in and she’s shocked at the dynamics of the family

David barely speaks above a whisper and if she wasn’t seeing it with her own two eyes, she never would have believed it

In fact, Jack doesn’t believe it when she asks him about it, assuming he had already been there

When Jack finally visits, he stops on the way home to see Katherine and they have a wtf moment together

David and Sarah do their best to mind Les

They read him a bedtime story every night

David reads the narration and Sarah does the characters’ voices

They don’t have many books so they often read stories Les has heard a thousand times

He doesn’t care though because he just likes to listen to his siblings’ voices as he drifts off to sleep

David helps his mother cook and clean (although there isn’t much to clean in the two room apartment)

Sarah does too but she knows David likes cooking (it’s a quiet, calm activity with their mother telling him exactly what to do; it gives his brain a rest and just lets him do without thinking) so she gets ahead on the patchwork while he helps make dinner

After the injury, David is the one who helps Mayer get up and down the five flights of stairs

This usually happens about four times a day and it’s exhausting

But he never says a word about it because he knows his father would just feel guilty and he doesn’t want that

There’s only one bed in the Jacobs’ apartment

It’s not small by any means but it can’t fit all five of them

Their parents sleep on it with Sarah and Les

Sarah always tries to get David to take her spot but he refuses

He would literally rather lay on the floor next to Sarah than take her spot on the bed

Sarah gives up eventually because there’s no use in both of them being sore and achy all the time

Les sleeps on the bed too but once he gets bigger they’re going to have to figure something out because four full grown people can’t fit on it

David has a thin pad to sleep on and a pillow

Sometimes he’s so tired that all he wants to do is collapse on the bed with no one else on it but he would never say anything

Their parents already feel guilty about it and he won’t let himself add to it

Sarah and David do everything in their power to protect Les from knowing just how dire their situation is

Sure, he knows they had to drop out of school to sell papers but he doesn’t know that it’s a struggle to put food on the table

Some weeks are better than others

During the weeks that every headline is boring or rent is due, David and Sarah secretly take turns eating

They would both rather let the other one have all the food but they don’t argue over it much because they know that if one of them isn’t eating that meant that one of them isn’t going to be able to work

They eat in the morning with the family and then switch on and off who eats depending on the day

This doesn’t happen all the time but it happens more frequently than they’d like to admit

Their mother doesn’t leave the tenement much (again, I’ll explain in another post) so the twins do most of the shopping

Because of this, they can trick their parents into thinking they ate something they didn’t

“Sarah, you’re not eating dinner?” “Sorry, Aba, I was so hungry that I ate an apple and a lot of bread on the way home. I’m not hungry anymore. Maybe I’ll eat later.”

“David, you only put out four plates.” “Jack and I had a late lunch at Jacobi’s, Ima.”

Sarah sometimes gets into heated arguments with their parents if she thinks something is unfair

The twins don’t fight often but when they do they make sure no one else knows

They wait until everyone else is asleep and go up to the roof

The maddest Sarah ever gets at David is when he doesn’t stand up for himself to their parents

“You led a rally of hundreds of newsies and you can’t tell Ima that her expectations are unfair?” “None of those newsies gave birth to me, Sarah.”

But at the end of the day they’re a team and they know their job is to take care of their family

I have a lot more but this is already too long so I’ll do them another time

[pavys-originals]

Fandoms I will be writing for + the original characters within

Including a brief summary of each. 

Birds of Prey Valerie Steward - Crime boss, rival of Roman Sionis, has Renfield Syndrome, usually likes the most expensive and lush possessions. Has very large circles beneath her (In a social/hierarchical sense).  Can be incredibly eccentric, and very passionate.

One/Omni- The first of the Blackcoats, a large group of highly trained marshal-like operatives. Omni himself usually does not get involved in combat, and pays close attention to details. 

Two/Hyinth- The second in the first thirteen/High Council of the Blackcoats. Isn’t quick to rush to violence, though they will do what they must to get things done. 

Three/Cettie- The financial backer of the council. Doesn’t usually get involved with the violent sectors of the organisation, she finds it a waste of time. 

Four/Aven- Pure bodyguard material. That’s it, that’s Aven. Not himbo- he’s to smart and sharp for that- just muscly man who will protect at all costs.

Five/Aretha- Now when I tell you that this woman knows how to kill someone and get away with it, I mean it. She trained to be Valerie’s understudy in a sense, and has perfected her own technique in disposing of people when asked.

Six/Giga- The techie. Honestly, they know so much about random stuff they will RAM it down your throat. They’re also kind of jokey, hence the pun. 

Seven- Seven gave up his name when he was fairly young, and is now one of the most powerful and down-to-earth of the Blackcoat high council, as he is the one who oversees the training regimens.

Eight/Axel- A total wild card of the group. Rarely follows orders, and lashes out with violence fairly frequently. He’s honestly a big softie though. 

Nine/Jerra- Usually the one that gets sent in when they need an undercover job done, or a mole of some description. He’s a phenomenal actor. 

Ten/Rocsas- One of the youngest. He’s very ‘in’ with the word on the streets of Gotham,and often informs the council of riots/coups that are being planned by the gangs of the city of crime.  

Eleven/Ixi- Iris/Thirteen’s twin. They are very detached, and don’t often show emotion in the work place. It is suspected that they show lots of affection in a domestic setting though. 

Twelve/Brutus- As his name suggests, he is the strongest of the group, naturally born this way and has honed his skills in since starting training. He is very protective, and follows orders. Not always the brightest spark though, but occasionally he will get a good idea. 

Thirteen/Iris- Sometimes referred to as the ‘softest’ of the High Council, as she is much more compassionate than the majority of her peers. She doesn’t mind it all that much, and often interjects in debates with the more emotional side of the story. 

Twenty-Six/Kalmiya- Almost an entirely blank slate, she is seen as the perfect soldier. Little room for emotions, much room for logic. However, she does seem to learn social cues and expressions very quickly off of other people. 

CATS  A note- about the cats ocs; Just because they are stated to have mated with another Tom/Queen does not mean I won’t write for them. If I write for the children, the bond between parents is not usually mentioned.  

Ariadne-A witch’s cat. She is quite mysterious, but once she warms up to you she’ll adore you like there’s no tomorrow. She is able to teleport over a short distance, has slight telepathy, and sometimes has visions of the future. 

Graciette- The pub cat. Daughter of Skimbleshanks and Jennyanydots, younger sister to the mischievous twins Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer, and older sister to the young kitten Electra. She is always on  time, and is very enthusiastic about overseeing the games in the pub. 

Leviticus- The oldest triplet, son of Ariande and the Rum Tum Tugger. He is very close with his grandfather, Old Deuteronomy, and very wise. 

Squiggletigs-The middle triplet, second son of Ariande and the Rum Tum Tugger. He is usually found with Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer, he is much more playful than his older brother. He’s like the middle ground between Leviticus and Pixietrick.

Pixietrick- The youngest child of Ariande and the Rum Tum Tugger, and their only daughter. She’s very much like her father, both in appearance and in personality. 

Fantasma- The inventor’s cat, and daughter of Graciette and Alonzo. A lot of her time in the junkyard is spent finding random little trinkets and other doo-dads to use for her inventions, or just random collections she has. She’s very shy, and very sweet. 

Zilke- The blind cat, mother of Quaxo/Mistoffelees and Victoria. She tried to stick by Macavity when he was kicked from the tribe, her love blinding her to the near regicide that was committed. Eventually, she became actually blind. 

Seattine- One of the two pirate cats, rumoured to be descendants of Growltiger himself. They rarely come ashore, but when they do, they play many a shanty for old Gus. Seattine favours the concertina as her instrument, and is usually very upbeat.

Hurdeon- One of the two pirate cats, rumoured to be descendants of Growltiger himself. They rarely come ashore, but when they do, they play many a shanty for old Gus. Hurdeon favours the hurdy gurdy, and is a lot calmer than his twin sister. 

Doctor Sleep  Elva Warren- The owner of a sweet little antique shop in New Hampshire. She is always welcoming to new faces, and she knows just what cheers them up when she meets them, what to say to make them smile, all because of her Shine. 

IANOWT  Marilyn Higgins - An uncool kid like Stan and Sid, though a lot of people consider her to be less cool then them. Mostly because of all the morbid facts she spouts, especially during Science class. Probably also doesn’t help that she knows a fair few ways that the world could end that make some people uneasy.

IT  Melissa Farley- A British exchange student from a small village in Norfolk. She is very kind to those around her, even willing to take them in and introduce them to her family’s traditions and interests. She has even offered to tutor some of the Losers, should they ever need it.  Tiffany Crandall- A farming gal from Ludlow, Maine. She moved to Derry with her grandmother and grandfather after her parents were hit by a speeding Orinco truck. She is neughbour’s with Mike Hanlon, and has very little fear when it comes to brawls. It’s traffic and roads she doesn’t like. 

Moulin Rouge  Celine Bisset- A dancer in the Moulin Rouge. She is usually quite gentle, unless her client asks for her to be rougher and more assertive. She ended up becoming a dancer there because her fiance left her stranded when he ran off with another woman. 

Overwatch Asteria Murphy- After surviving an omnic siege where Blackwatch was sent to free the inhabitants of an apartment block, Asteria joined Overwatch to try and make sure nothing like that happened again. 

Mars Virgil- Son of Asteria Murphy, and Jesse McCree. Grew up in Deadlock Grange with his mother, and Robert Virgil- the man he assumed was his father. He joined Overwatch after  an attack on his mother’s diner, and found out his true family soon after.

Resident Evil Village Ihrin Moreau- Sister of Salvatore Moreau. Unlike her brother, her experience with the Cadou did not mutate her into a fish at first glance. It is when she comes into contact with water that her first stage mutation reveals itself, and her true mutated form shows when she is critically injured. She is vain and practically unfeeling unless something catches her eye.

Aeolus Aetos- Self proclaimed “Lord of the Wing”. Aeolus is a man who’s mutation made him think so highly of himself that he only concerns himself with his own problems. He is vain, and keeps himself the most pristine he can. Being mutated to appear part eagle gives him both his pride and his expert hunting skills

Mori Russell- One of the village hunters, who survived the lycan attacks by fleeing into the forests, and hiding out of sight. 

Lena Vaughn- Daughter of the local brewer. Also survived the lycan attacks, but because of her skill with a shotgun rather than running away. 

Shallow Grave Deirdre Sullivan- A failing artist who moved from her family home in Ireland to chase her dreams. She’s partway there, she’s just lacking in the money.Money that she has a hand in keeping away from David. 

Star Wars  Alaana Rohiikshuul- A Jedi consular/seer. She is very down to earth, and tries her best to have the mysteries of the Force reveal themselves to her so that she may write of them. It is this constant search for knowledge that has her meditating for days on end, lost in her own thoughts. Alessandro  Rohiikshuul - Alaana’s twin brother, and the slightly more impulsive of the two. This is not to say he is outwardly violent. Like Alaana, he makes sure to exhaust all other options beforehand. He is much more openly passionate.  Othkiir Rohiikshuul- A young, feline force sensitive from Alaana and Alessandro’s home planet, Tmryn. He can be a little all over the place sometimes, but he tries to do everything he  can for the greater good. 

Daesha’Tiatkin- A Twi’lek force sensitive who deserted the Jedi Order in her late teens- opting to live a scoundrel’s life. She does what betters her, and usually her alone, though you should not mistake this for having no moral compass. She is impulsive, and almost always optimistic. 

Kyden Kenobi- Son of Sith!Obi-Wan and Sith!Alaana. Captain/Commander of the Night Witches squadron in the Empire’s fleet. Usually incredibly goofy and sweet. 

Trainspotting Ava Byrne- (First film)- A philosophy student who got stuck in Edinburgh when she left her home. She got stuck in the same apartment building as Renton and the other boys, but refuses to divulge in their illegal activities.  (Second film)- Ava didn’t end up leaving Edinburgh, the best thing she managed to do was write “The Ethics of Drug Use”, which was of course inspired by the boys’ old lives. She hasn't properly seen the boys since Mark left, though she will occasionally pass Simon or Daniel in the street, and give them a semi-respectful nod.

Misc  (Special Ingredients- my original story in the works) Tex Hudson-  The eldest brother of the trio of brothers, and he was the one to change his name when he got married the first time, as if it would help him in his family’s “business”. He has quite a temper, and is usually rather gruff. There are occasions where he can be sweet, they’re just growing exceedingly rare. Sloane Sawyer- The middle brother, and arguably the most elegant of the three. Always in a suit, he acts like the perfect gentleman in front of others, however when there’s no one else around, he tends to gloat about how many kills he has under his belt.  James ‘JJ’ Sawyer- The youngest brother, but also the tallest. Standing at a whopping six foot nine, Jamie may seem like a beast of a man, but he actually quite gentle. He’s a little slower than the others when it comes to figuring some things out, but he doesn’t let that slow him down anywhere else. He is incredibly sweet, quite passionate, and not afraid to show his vulnerable side when his brother’s aren’t around. 

Victoria/Victor Farley- A pirate captain who sails within the Devil’s Ring (more on that in their first piece), and acts however they so please within the pirate code. Born as Victoria Farley on mainland England, they followed their father through to the centre of the Devil’s Ring- becoming one of his crew in the process. From there they fought on and on, till they became a ship’s captain themselves. 

Scenarios/genres I will write -Fluff -Angst -Smut* -Horror -A combination of those stated above *This will only be written when I am in the mood. Bear in mind these may take longer than usual because I have to be in the correct mindset. I will edit this when necessary

Character Q&A is currently open! 

I will include trigger warnings and such at the beginning of each Oneshot/imagine/headcanon list.

[ofreggie]

[ aron piper, twenty two, male, he/him ] ━  did y'all see [ reginald “reggie” ponce ] walkin’ into [ fox & hare ? ] don’t think i’ve seen ‘em too much around here, they must’ve gotten here about [ two years ], but i think you can catch ‘em around town working as a [ waiter . ] I reckon they’re pretty [ vehement & adaptable ] but I hear they can also be kinda [ zany & explosive ]. best make ‘em feel welcome. ━ [ ooc: cosmo, 24, est, they/them ] [ drugs/alcohol tw / verbal abuse tw ]

inspiration.

david rose. schitt’s creek.

carl gallagher. shameless.

harry bingham. the society.

nate jacobs. euphoria.

stats.

full name. reginald “reggie” arthur ponce.

birth-place. bronx, new york.

age. twenty-two.

dob. 12/21/1996.

zodiac. capricorn.

orientation. homosexual.

spanish / english.

about.

       the son of a frostford native father and a new york mother, reggie was born into immediate chaos. his mother gave reggie her last name and refused to leave new york, the city life being made for her. she originally was born in mexico and moved to new york as a child with her family -- - a large family that reggie grew up with. his father, however, was a southern man through and through, and while up in new york for business, happened to create reginald before departing back to alabama. 

        growing up with a single mother, reggie immediately began violently acting out once he started elementary school. no one was sure if it was because of the lack of parental guidance in his life, because the young boy needed some attention, ( tw violence ) or if he was just suffering from undiagnosed mental issues. in elementary school, he was stabbing peers with pencils, throwing chairs, playing pranks on teachers, cutting off girls’ ponytails, and a whole list of other things.  ( end tw violence ) there were multiple occasions in which reggie was almost expelled from school, but pity was more powerful. eventually, however, reggie began to appreciate everything his mother did for him to excel in life and he went on to clean up his act to try and lessen his mom’s burden.

       his father would often come up to visit when he was young, but soon began to realize that reggie was nothing like the son he wanted. reggie was very animated, loved make-up, dressing up, watching soap operas with his mom, and all-around was not very physically active or into any sports. his father pushed sports on him, though, and reggie started to play baseball once he entered middle school. this was where he made most of his friends, but where he began to lose himself. reggie no longer felt comfortable wearing make-up or gossiping with his mom about cute boys, so he dove head first into sports and excelled at that too.

        he was never in the closet around his mother’s side of the family or anyone in his city at home - new york was more accepting of that - , but when he flew down to alabama to visit his dad ( which happened often once he was in his teen years ) , reggie threw on a football t-shirt or a basketball hat and became the perfect son to an athletic father. it all changed one night when reggie was at his dad’s in frostford when he was about sixteen years old. reggie was at a party, some party with kids he didn’t know in a town he wasn’t extremely familiar with, when he was hooking up with a boy in one of the spare bedrooms. he wasn’t sure what happened or how it happened, but his dad tracked his location and barged in on him in a compromising situation. ( tw verbal abuse ) he very calmly asked reggie to get into the car so the male did just that. his dad told him he was worthless, he was useless, he was a mistake -- everything under the stars a son couldn’t bear to hear -- and was immediately sent back to new york on a red eye. ( end tw verbal abuse ).

       getting back to life in new york was busy, yet amazing. he forgot about his father’s existence because it was clear that his father had forgotten about him. he stopped paying child support so reggie decided to get a job at a little boutique in order to help his mother out. he became more so withdrawn and angry after that, but still the same reggie beneath everything.

       so when his father passed away while reggie was twenty years old, he received a letter stating that he was now the owner of a beautiful apartment that his dad had left in frostford, alabama. little to nothing keeping him tied to the southern town, reginald decided he’d fly down to try and sell the place quickly. he kissed his mother goodbye, kissed his grandparents goodbye, and kissed all of his cousins goodbye, before departing for what was supposed to be a few weeks.

           two years later, reggie is still living in frostford where he now calls home. he has a few close friends, a decent job waiting tables at fox & hare, and skypes his mother on a weekly basis. he’s content with the life he has built for himself in alabama ; now all he needs is to find that love he so desperately craves.

wanted connections.

his few close friends !!!

sometimes reggie can be very strange and introverted. basically this person would have to be bubbly and help him really become more confident and happy with himself. kind of like a harold and maude relationship without the romance ( or with ) .

some familial connections, his dad’s side, prob cousins or another child that his father had and reggie didn’t know about bc he lived in ny.

apartment neighbors

a possible love interest in the form of two stumbling over their words, goofy, yet adorable messes around each other. could definitely blossom into something!

the person he slept with as a teenager that his dad caught them !!!

maybe someone that charms/annoys him on his way home from work every late night at 1/2 am. lol he’s probably super grumpy and this person has to be like.. super bubbly ?? walking their dog ?? idk.

maybe some m/m bros that are actually into each other, but they’re too good of friends to say anything to each other, etc.

i also have more located at this wanted connections tag and i love brainstorming ! angst.

head canons.

animated. very zany. loud and brash at times. 

VERY TOUCHY and affectionate to those he loves

probably has fallen in love x300.

speaks fluent spanish

would definitely storm area 51.

low-key ashamed of himself

often tipsy or high or both

isn’t exactly mean, but he’s not rly the nicest person in the world and he prob wouldn’t go out of his way to do anything decent for someone he didn’t know.

deals drugs as a side hustle

has never been in a real relationship before, but definitely has hooked u p a lot ( i mean look at him ??? ) now he just wants to be loved tbh.

he LOVES love. he believes being in love is the meaning of life and is getting depressed about never having been loved.

he’s a video gamer, a basketball lover, and a chain smoker.

could be a lovable dumbass once he’s comfortable around someone.

does lack common sense at times.

does not have any social media platforms.

leaves clean laundry on his bedroom floor for a week

prob doesn’t drink enough water

constantly wears dr. martens

will always be found with taco bell bags in his car.

[the-mira-life-project-mtf]

A Yearly Gender Dysphoria Review for 2019

A Yearly Gender Dysphoria Review

December, 2019

(Taken February 2019 - 10 Months On HRT)

Abstract: The purpose of this yearly review is to track my progress as being transgender. I theorize that being transgender isn’t only a biological change; but a mental change that is brought on by chemical and cultural adaptations. It is very difficult to measure one’s transformation on a daily scale and after conducting two years of this review, I hope it will yield that I am not only changing physically, but also mentally.

Many of the questions are very personal…but for the purposes of scientific research, I’ve written questions to form a baseline over the years and questions that dive into my physical changes, Physical desires; sexual changes and sexual desires.

In five years, it is the hopes of this review to compare and contrast my evolution from male to female and to see how closely I stayed at my goals.

 ***

BASELINE QUESTIONS

Given Name: David

Desired Name: Mira

Legal Name: Mira Carleen

Desired Gender: Female

Legal Gender: Female

LGBT Status: Transgender

Relationship Status: Dating

1) How did you choose your name?

A: Mira was a name that I have gone by secretly since I was seven years old. Oddly, the name came to me during a drowning event at Copalis Beach. I hallucinated that I was saved by a mermaid who told me that her actions would have profound implications on my life. She wasn’t incline to return me to the surface, wanting me to remain with her and she gave me a new name that sounded like ‘Mer-a’. I begged to return to the surface to be with my family and she reluctantly took me to the surface while telling me that from this point forward, I’d no longer be male, but a female mermaid and that the change will happen if I like it or not.

To say the least, the origin of my name sounds something mythical. By for my family’s beliefs; it is quite likely that I was saved by a mermaid as our family has been entangled with mermaids since the 1500s.

Oddly, the name Mira has more implications then I could have ever imagined! Many of the meanings behind the name Mira speak to my personality (Wonder, Wonderful, Goodness, Peace, Kindness, Helpful, Beautiful, Prosperous, Ocean, Sea, Limit, Boundary, Light, Princess, Soft Like Velvet Rose, He/she Watches, Exalted, Star of the Ocean).

As for Carleen, that name was chosen in January of 2019 in remembrance of Amanda who set me on track to preserve my life from an unknown respiratory disease that almost killed me in 2015. Without the knowledge of cystic fibrosis, I would have continued on the wrong therapy and most likely died from lung failure.

2) What other names were you thinking about using and why?

A: My top five were Mira, Delenn, Kathryn, Harmony and River. Mira eventually won over all the names as it meant the most to me. Delenn was a fascination of grace and power from the Croatian actress, Mira Furlan. Kathryn’s origin is unknown, just a name I used a lot in the 2000s in my stories. Harmony and River both have ties to water.

The expanded full list looked like this:

Mira (Chosen name, given by a mermaid)

Amira (Version of Mira)

Arimira (Version of Mira)

Nanette (A name I used in my stories)

Ananette (A name I used in my stories)

Kathryn (A name I used in my stories)

Kathren (A name I used in my stories)

Kristin (A name I used in my stories)

Sirena (Uncertain…Ocean related name)

Harmony (Harmony Falls, Mount St. Helens)

Delenn (Babylon 5 Character)

Rain (Androgynous Name)

River (Androgynous Name)

Tia (Uncertain)

Bri (A name I used in my stories)

November (My birth month)

Aura (Lovely name)

 3) How long have you been on HRT?

A: 15 Months (Enrolled In The Program) and 13 Months of compliance with HRT.

4) How long have you been Mira?

A: 28 Years

5) How long have you been ‘Mira’ legally?

A: 9 Months

6) How long have you identified as female?

A: About 28 Years

7) How long have you’ve been legally female?

A: 9 Months

8) Do you regret your decision to become Transgender (Woman)?

A: No. I only wished that I have became transgender much sooner. My life as a female, as Mira has been a blessing. Much of the social pressure that I felt as being David is gone; and since my transition, my relationship has improved.

There is still concern about what I am doing, but I’ve had 28 years to figure this all out. The only difference now is that my whole name is different and I am finally looking like the woman I’ve always imagined myself becoming.

9) How long have you known you were Transgender (LGBT)?

A: This is a difficult question as I’ve struggled with the label ‘transgender’. I was raised to believe that those that were lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender were mentally disturbed. So, accepting that I fall under the LGBT umbrella has taken some time to get use to.

If I had to be honest, I began to truly realize I might be transgender when I signed that Consent form to begin HRT. So, roughly a year and three months.

***

LGBT QUESTIONS

1) On the LGBT spectrum, where do you fall; gender?

A: Transgender Woman

2) On the LGBT spectrum, where do you fall; sexual?

A: Lesbian

3) When did you realize that the term Transgender referred to you?

A: At the beginning of 2019 when I began considering legally changing my name from David to Mira. The catalysis that solidified the term was when I decided to make a full gender transition from male to female and began considering surgical intervention. Because of these changes, I feel that I no longer can label myself neither ‘gender-fluid’ or ‘non-conforming’.

4) When did you realize that the term Lesbian referred to you?

A: Around February 2019 when I rekindled my relationship with my girlfriend. We considered the aspect of our relationship. And because I yearn to become female legally, physically and sexually…it would transform our relationship status from male & female to female & female. By April 2019, I legally changed my gender from male to female, making our relationship as lesbians.

5) Are you comfortable with the term ‘LGBT’ or calling yourself Transgender and/or a Lesbian?

A: No. I’ve never liked labels…they are too restrictive to a person’s true identity.

Like the labels of male and female; they are terribly flawed! One truly can not be pure female or pure male. For females, their bodies convert excessive estrogen into testosterone; aiding in secondary male characteristics like facial hair. And males, they are first conceived as females before a mutated gene switches them into a male.

I find that society, which is now much more accepting of the LGBT; still has an unwillingness to fully accept them as being a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender on the basis of not understanding what makes us ‘different’ from a normal cis-woman or cis-man. This ignorance can lead to cis-people acting out in flight-or-fight responses when confronted with something that isn’t like them.

Over the months however, I have slowly come to terms to accept that is am no longer a cis-male by birth, but transgender, as I will have both cis-male and cis-female physical characteristics and biological functions (minus a uterus or ovaries).

6) Are you currently active in the Trans Community or LGBT Community?

A: No. Not physically. I do write about my experiences at a Transgender Woman battling gender dysphoria. I update two blogs to catalogue my journey (Tumblr & DeviantArt. With case-sensitive images not allowed on Tumblr’s platform).

As of lately, I work with my transgender physician to catalogue medical changes and correlate my research with what she knows to bring the most accurate information possible.

7) Have you reached out to a LGBT center for help?

A: Yes. I reached out to the Ingersoll Gender Center in Seattle twice for help finding a doctor and information on psychologists capable of diagnosing gender dysphoria…but I’ve never heard back from them on both messages.

Since then, I refuse to use any LGBT accredited resources as they are unreliable.

8) Who was the first person you told about being Transgender?

A: Unofficially, it would have been my girlfriend, Ruth. Before I started HRT, I mentioned to her that I thought I might be gender-fluid or gender nonconforming. She replied that she had suspicions that I might be transgender as I always associated as female. She also thought I might be asexual in sexuality due to my displeasure in intimacy.

9) What are something positive about being Transgender?

A: Personally, for me, it is like finally healing from a long-term wound that no one can see. I can finally blossom, open up and be the person I truly am without the risk of being of being called emasculate terms.

Being transgender is something rare. Most humans will only experience one half of their potential, whereas trans individuals like myself, we experience both halves of our soul; knowing what it is like to be both male and female at the same time.

10) What are some fears about being Transgender?

A: My biggest fears seem to surround what other cis-people think of me. There is always the fear that someone unstable will perceive me as a threat to their ideology and act out irrationally.

Using the restroom is still terrifying to me! I’d rather risk an ‘accident’ then place myself in a situation where I might get harmed. Even calling myself female can be scary depending where in the country I am, or the age of the crowd I’m in.

I hadn’t considered how ‘vulnerable’ I would feel being female until the day I was tormented by an intoxicated gentleman, alone in an elevator. This experience opened a whole array of thoughts of dangers that I am now susceptible to: ie: mainly sexual harassment and after GRS, rape. I however feel confident I can defend myself in these situations.

11) How do you manage your dysphoria?

A: At this time, with Hormone Replacement Therapy. With a great reduction in testosterone, many of the mental symptoms of gender dysphoria have faded away. I still have the physical dysphoria that I deal with from time to time.

However, I hope to treat the four major causes of my dysphoria with treatments and surgery. The biggest one was my dysphoria of body hair. I have begun laser hair removal of the face and am considering laser hair removal of the chest (mainly breasts) once my face is fully treated (also, these treatments are terribly expensive! Almost 1,500$ for just the face and neck). The second surgery is FFS which is being determined by the insurance company (Jan 2020) and breast augmentation sometime late 2020 to 2021. The last surgery will be GRS to complete my transition.

12) What are you doing to stay healthy for transitioning mentally and physically?

A: Looking at the positives is a must!

My MtF~HRT Journey hasn’t been easy and very costly!

Dealing with the toxicity of female hormones at the beginning was tough, but now that I am chemically female, it is much better.

One of the things that can be a put down is not transitioning fast enough. I always tell myself: Puberty lasts for years, and my coming of age took four years to finalize when I was 17 years old. So, HRT isn’t going to happen overnight.

Sometimes I look in the mirror and become annoyed as I still see a male face looking back at me, but I remind myself that this is a process. It can take the face 5-10 years to finalize on hormones! 12 months to finalize after FFS.

Then there is the aspect of surgery. I am no fan of pain; but living with CF has given me somewhat of a tolerance to it. I look at surgery as milestones that I must achieve in order to live my life to its fullest and to write down in this blog that hundreds of perspective LGBT individuals are reading and following.

Mostly, I get through this all as playing the scientist role in this journey. My training and background in geology gives me a constantly curious mind and when I looked for answers across the internet and found jumbled information with very little scientific approach, I knew that my transition must be for a greater good.

Mentally, I am living my life as Mira. I never look back on my life as David…I’ve pretty much separated everything that made me David for Mira, going in a whole different direction with my life…literally born anew.

13) How have you’ve embraced your Transgender identity?

A: I haven’t really.

I’ll tell people I’m transgender when I feel that I have been called-out. But most of the time I am just embracing my womanhood.

I’ve been invited to a few LGBT support groups and have been invited to a Gay parade in Bremerton, but I’ve kindly declined each time.

If I am anywhere close to embracing my Transgender identity, it is probably in this blog. And if I am being truthful with myself, my identity as Mira makes me equally transgender.

18) How do you feel about the LGBT laws where you live?

A: As a resident of Washington State, we have some of the most aggressive LGBT laws (besides California) that protects the Transgender. Pride parades are very common here and even the city of Seattle has elected its second LGBT mayor.

Yet, we still have some serious grey areas!

I live in the rural area of Kitsap County which has an older population and a military population what is quite resistant of the LGBT. So being openly transgender in my hometown isn’t wise.

Under Washington Law, same-sex sexuality was legalized in 1976, anti-discrimination laws passed in 2012, same-sex marriages legalized in 2012, lesbians, gays and bisexuals allowed to serve in the military in 2011 (transgender people are forbidden). We have the right to change of gender without GRS, and LGBT options are available on birth certificates as of 2018. Our schools have an LGBT anti-bullying policy and we can donate blood if desired.

19) What are your views on the cis-gendered community?

A: As a previous cis-gendered individual; I have only come into knowing the LGBT community since I attended college. While at South Kitsap, the term LGBT was unknown to me. And even then, I only began to understand my place in the grand scheme of Cisgendered vs. Transgendered nature.

I’ve seen and experienced both sides of the cis-gendered community; from the accepting to the un-accepting to the ones that wish to do harm.

Being transgender, I know what it is like to deal with gender dysphoria and to watch a few cis-gendered individuals say that it is all a mental disease isn’t only hurtful…its pure ignorance.

I do my best to align myself with the friendly, accepting cis-women and cis-men who see me as Mira and not a Transgendered Woman.

 ***

BODY-TYPE (DYSPHORIA) QUESTIONS

Facial Features (Desired)

I envisioned my face being rounded ‘oval’ in shape…which is classical for an ideal ‘feminine’ feature. My upper cheek bones are pronounced to make my cheeks fuller in appearance, my jawline smooth without its sharp ‘masculine’ features. My lips are filled out, but not changed much from my male lips. My nose thinned in appearance and my face has no visible facial hair. My brow thinned back, opening up more of my eyes.

Hair Features (Desired)

I envision my hair being shoulder blade in length, blonde with silver highlights. The tips of my hair dyed aqua-blue. Light wavy texture and shiny and healthy.

I prefer my hair only layered (lightly), my bangs natural and swept over to my right side. My hair parts down the left side of my head as it always has. I hardly tie back my hair, only using clips on the long bangs to keep it out of my eyes. I picture my hair parted in two ways, half hanging over my shoulders, embordering my facial features as it rests between my clavicles and breasts. The other half resting down my back.

Neck Features (Desired)

Slender, the structure pretty much unaltered from the physical neck on my previous male form.

I envision no visible facial hair on the upper portions of the neck (to chin and jaw).

Shoulders Features (Desired)

Maintain their masculine shape, but thinned down.

Relearn to reposition my shoulder blades to feminine stature to support the spine and make room for my breasts.

Upper Arms (Desired)

Feminine in muscle mass and tone. This is a must if I plan to wear feminine clothes, thanks to the stitching in the fabric to support the breasts which makes the arms sometimes tight.

The skin should be devoid of any body hair.

Lower Arms (Desired)

Feminine in muscle mass and tone. 70% of the time my lower arms will be exposed and can give me away as transgender if not maintained. The skin should be always devoid of any body hair at all times.

Back (Desired)

No visible body hair

Chest & Breasts (Desired)

No visible body hair, smooth.

I have two C-Cup breasts, firm and dome-like in appearance. My mammary glands fully formed with appropriate amount of fat. Nipples are feminine in appearance with darkened areolas about quarter size.

Belly And Waist (Desired)

No body hair, smooth.

Belly is rounded (being realistic), but fat is redistributed to my hips, making only one belly roll when I sit down. Waist is narrow in appearance (between my chest and hips).

Genitalia (Desired)

I envision myself without my penis or testicles (as they are part of my gender dysphoria). They will have been repurposed into a functionable feminine ureteral and vagina. It is a must to rid of the male genitalia (physically) to pass officially as female. Until then, my favorite activity like swimming will always be a lingering fear…and relationship-wise, it is the only way I can become ‘sexually’ active as I feel that my male genitalia are an abomination; only serving in one function: low UTI risk which can be managed with proper hygiene as a female.

Buttock (Desired)

I envision myself with a feminine buttock in size and proportion. Rounded and firm, but not overly large. My buttock should gently blend in with my hips.

Upper Thighs (Desired)

Maintain my muscular mass. Body hair here is acceptable if it is light brown or blonde in color (with blonde being ideal).

Lower Legs (Desired)

I envision them feminine in form, but maintain a lean muscle mass as I wish to return back to hiking and swimming after my transition. Body hair here is not acceptable due to wearing dresses and skirts.

Feet (Desired)

Not really a top priority. My feet will retain their size 13 form; however, my nails shall remain painted in gel polish.

Hands (Desired)

Not really a top priority. My fingers have always been slender, long and feminine. I envision always having my nails painted with gel polish; my body hair shaved.

 ***

MENTAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Feminized Brain

1) Have you’ve grown fond of the color pink?

A: No. I still do not find hues of red attractive. Especially pink.

In my updated ‘feminine’ wardrobe; I’ve avoided all colors of red, orange and yellow and prefer colors in the hue of blue. I like both black, white and grey.

I’ve noticed that I have taken on a liking of purple…which I never wore before my HRT.

2) Have you’ve noticed any new scents coming off your body?

A: Yes. At first it wasn’t quite noticeable. In my first few months of HRT. I guess when you’ve been a cis-male for over 33 years of your life, you become ‘blind’ to your natural pheromone odor.

However, about a year into my HRT, I began detecting something ‘off’ about the way I smelled. Now, it isn’t anything like body odor created by sweat-devouring bacteria, it was something that lingered after a shower, or went with you throughout the day.

Oddly, when I began detecting this scent, I noticed that I wasn’t alone. This was about the same time when I began getting unwanted sexual gestures from men. Even my mother noticed the change about three months ago when we were at a casino.

Even now, I still struggle to explain it; to me, it is like a scent of freshness…but when I seem to enter a ‘pseudo-cycle’ from my hormones, those scents seem to increase to the point that it can be over bearing. Secondly, I have noticed that if I use secondary scents like fragrant body wash or perfume, it only increases the scent.

3) Have you subconsciously used ‘female pronouns’ in describing yourself?

A: It varies from time to time. I’d say, maybe 60% of the time I think of myself in female pronouns. I remember how odd it felt to say ‘she’ and ‘her’, like when someone calls to talk to Mira and at first, I hesitated when I said ‘…she? Speaking.’ now it is a confident ‘This is her speaking.’

When I think of myself as in individual, usually when my dysphoria seems to be triggered is when I revert back to confusion and/or ‘him’. However, even that is starting to fade away as I am seeing myself anew each week.

At first, I did not really care if people called me ‘he’ or ‘she’, and this seemed to delay my subconscious feminization for a time. However, as I have began mentally calling myself a ‘she’, I find myself annoyed with the improper pronouns, but will not verbally correct anyone…I just ignore them entirely as if they don’t even exist in my reality.

4) Have you started ‘mentally seeing’ yourself only as female?

A: It varies from time to time. Most of the time I picture myself female. I have pictured myself as a female since I was only seven years old. Only when I feel that I am failing to pass as female do I start doubting myself.

Oddly, when my mental voice speaks, it is female and quite possibly is my strongest advocate for myself as it continues to remind me that I have always been Mira; just that something went wrong during my rebirth.

I still see myself as a woman, which gives me a mental picture to compare with what my eyes see. And at this time, I’d say that I am about 40 percent of the way there.

5) Has your demeanor became ‘feminine?’

A: Somewhat. Most of my verbal and body language is becoming feminine in nature, some on purpose and some subconsciously. Even my changing anatomy has my body position differently.

For example, having C-Cup breasts are very heavy when your back isn’t use to them. To release the tension and stress off of my upper back, I have had to relearn to sit and hold myself up in an ergonomic fashion.

Widening hips (due to extra fat) and widening glutes have offset my stride and I find myself swaying more often at the hips, which gives me a feminine gate.

My speech patterns have not changed, nor has my vocal tones in how I pronunciate my words.

 Feminized Aspect

1) What cup size did you ‘want’ your breasts to be?

A: I desire to have bigger breasts then average…I’ve always expected myself of having a larger bust size, and with my recent growth, I’ve been somewhat pleased as my growth will make a great platform for implants down the road.

Recently, I have experienced one of the more unpleasant side-effects of having large breasts: back pain and digging bra straps. Even now, I still don’t consider my breasts as feminine breasts because when I lay down, they seem to disappear. This is totally natural with women whose breasts are between an AA-A-Cup.

With implants (which I will be fighting to get this year); they would retain a natural look while I lay down, staying centered on the chest, not flattening out like my breasts are doing now. (Although, when I wear a bra, the breasts are held in place it seems)

2) Has your sexuality changed?

A: No, I am still sexually attracted to women. The thought of dating a guy is appalling to me. However, I have found myself sometimes ‘looking’ at guys in a daydreaming state, but I still can’t see myself in a romantic relationship with men.

During euphoric moments (which have changed on their own accord), my mind does venture on the aspects of intimacy. This has never happened before when I was a cis-male and is very confusing. I find myself mostly wanted to be held, touched and embraced. This desire has even led me to overcoming my fear of touching my girlfriend and has allowed us to share in our first hug and kiss in over 12 years of being together.

3) Do you feel sexually as a woman now?

A: This is a very personal question...but yes.

Some of the sensations I now feel are beyond anything I’ve felt as male. Without going to deep into details, when I was a male, the erogenous center was around the genitalia. But since taking hormones; within the first few months my skin literally changed. Becoming soft and silky and very sensitive.

Simply being touched is enough to stimulate my senses, and the breasts have become more sensitive then my neither region. During stimulation, the euphoria seems to last for a long time...sometimes minutes to a half-hour.

Oddly, my sexuality has changed when it comes to intimacy and orgasms. As a male, we have to stimulate ourselves physically and achieve a few seconds/minutes of sexual release. But as a female, I’ve found myself not needing any physical stimulation to onset an orgasm. And it should be noted that it isn’t an isolated orgasm...it is full body.

I am starting to understand what my girlfriend was hinting at as she comes into these moments of sexual tension. It is very powerful. During my erogenous moments, all I want to do is be touched and held (which would stimulate myself). I’ve even had a few moments when these power sensations would cause me to think of sex (as a female). But those thoughts confuse me and make me feel unclean.

I think this is my brain’s way of conditioning me to womanhood, but confused about the anatomy (as my daydreams usually have we with female genitalia instead of male). Sadly, exploring this sexual transformation is something I don’t feel comfortable sharing in detail.

4) Has your attention to beauty changed from the time you were a cis-male?

A: Greatly. Prior to my HRT, I did not think that I’d be so focused on my appearance. This has been an improvement as when I was male, I did not care what I looked like. I honestly hated myself and it showed as people said I ‘looked’ mean. Although, I am one of the most tolerant people you could confront. I don’t like fighting because it is so primitive, and I tend to seek a more peaceful resolution to my problems.

At first, it was shaving on a daily schedule. I wanted to be rid of my facial hair badly. I then began shaving my whole body (besides the scalp and brows of course!). When my face failed to appear female (to my standards), Dr. Worth advised I start applying makeup to my face to conceal my facial hair and to make my face appear feminine.

5) Do you desire fuller lips?

A: Yes; having full lips in my opinion makes one ‘appear’ female. This also emphasizes lipstick color. However, I don’t want to look ridiculous! At this time, I’d like to see the philtrum shortened, but that would require surgical intervention. On January 2nd, I talked to my plastic surgeon about my lips and he believes they are full enough, just only needing to shorten the philtrum to bring the lip up to achieve a feminine appearance.

6) Has transitioning enhanced your desire to be a parent?

A: No. I have no desire to raise children in a society that punishes adults for disciplining their kids. I have seen what this generation is becoming and to say the least, it concerns me.

Personally, I have never wanted children as my life was interrupted by my failing health and I’ve never achieved financial stability. Secondly, with my health condition, it is highly unlikely I will see age 50; and it would not be right leaving the care of a child to a single parent.

Finally, I did ask my girlfriend about her opinion of having children and she is in agreement that due to my health and her psychiatric disabilities; we are not suitable genetic parents. However, we have thought of adoption if the moment arrives.

If we did adopt, I’d want a child under 1 year old. This is because I’ve seen what happens when you adopt an older child who is angry about their life they were born into.

7) How do you navigate the concept of sex while being dysphoric?

A: As David, I did not enjoy the concept of sex and lacked in the words to express why I felt this way. For the longest time, I thought the idea came from my religious upbringing, but it persisted as we grew closer. I left her very confused and unhappy. It is very rare to find a woman willing to jump in the sack before the guy!

Although I felt the sting of sexual arousal (which made me sick), I was left ashamed, unsatisfied and confused as why I could not perform as a man. Even when I wanted to be intimate, to kiss, hold and sleep together…I could not do it.

Once I started hormone replacement therapy, my sexuality seemed to kick into full drive, pushing me towards sexual liberation. I wanted to be kissed, I wanted to be touched and held. When I slept, I wanted someone there with me, holding me…intimacy became a desire.

I remember how scared I felt when I asked her to kiss and she was more then willing…we’ve waited for 12 years for this moment! Yet, I still can’t visualize ‘sex’ as a man…as a woman, possibly. But we need to build chemistry.

Although I don’t like talking about sexuality (you’ll find it rare in my blog), becoming a Trans-woman seems to have awakened my dormant sensual side. I find myself daydreaming of what it could be like after GRS and just going to bed each night held and touched. My skin…my whole body, it has changed in ways that is hard to describe.

 8) Do you believe that your brain has been feminized?

A: This is an opinionated question as even neurosciences can’t determine. I want to say yes. I am starting to subconsciously think of myself as female and adjusting my lifestyles to being female. Much of what makes females, females is cultural and family.

***

CULTURAL CHALLENGES (FOR TRANS-WOMEN)

1) Have you ever been outed for being Transgender?

A: No. I have yet to experience this embarrassment, but I am certain it will happen.

2) Have you ever been misgendered?

A: Many times. Between January 2019 to August 2019, I was constantly being misgendered when going out on the town or in the hospital.

However, my misgendering has decreased from October 2019 to now. I believe it is because I have began dressing as a female, my hair is much longer and facial features are taking on a feminine appearance.

Of all my misgendering experiences, none of them have been a challenge, most who misgender me immediately say they are sorry and continue on with whatever service they were hired to dispense.

3) Have you’ve been physically harmed because you are Transgender?

A: No. Most now seem to believe I am female.

4) Have you’ve been mentally harmed because you are Transgender?

A: Yes. Sadly, many of those who mentally harmed me were my own uncles and friends. Many did not accept my decision and have ousted me from their lives. Outside of my family and friends; I have not been placed in a mentally harmful situation. I have found that many have accepted who I have become, some happily

5) Have your family fully accepted who you are?

A: Mostly. My grandmother still stumbles with my name and sometimes uses my transgender nature against me. My mother has verbally said she is supportive of my decision, but isn’t pleased about it. My sister is the only one who is supportive, but not of any surgical intervention.

6) How do you deal with being misgendered by cis-people?

A: Typically, I’ll tell them that I am not offended; but only ask they use the proper pronouns and name from this point forward. A second offense will have me just correcting them politely and a third offense, I just ignore them as if they don’t exist. Figuring if they can’t respect me, and they are well informed, they don’t need any of my time.

7) How has been your experience with public restrooms?

A: As David, I never really considered the fear of the public restroom as I feel being Mira. There have been many times I have looked at the restroom and thought ‘Just go inside, no one will bother you!’

My first experience was at a local Shari’s restaurant in Port Orchard. I had been holding it in all night while I mixed music at a dangerous place to be a Trans, a biker’s bar! I remember thinking ‘Male or female?’ Kind of hard to be dressed as a woman with large boobs and be caught in a male’s restroom or risk a woman looking at my face at scolding me, calling me a pervert!

I went into the female’s restroom and found no one inside, so I hurried to a stall and locked myself inside…safe, but listening for the proper time to exit. When I left the stall, I did the world’s fastest handwash and out the door…I was so scared!

I still have yet to enter a populated woman’s restroom, and I’m certain that will be a unique blog post in its own!

8) If you are religious; has being Transgender conflicted with your spiritual care?

A: Yes…to an extent.

I was born Catholic and raised Lutheran…when I finally began transitioning, many of my closes church friends that I knew all my life turned away from me. I tried to attend a different Lutheran church in Allyn, Washington…but when they learned I was transgender, I was quickly shunned.

I have really never settled back into a church after my transition…but hope once I look female; I’ll return to a different congregation that will accept me as I am. And, as of lately, my old church where I grew up reached out to me, the new pastor welcoming me, understanding I am transgender and accepting me as I am. Yet, I still have not gone.

9) Do you feel comfortable answering simple questions about being Transgender by:

A)   Family: Yes. This was the hardest of all my people I came out to. Coming out to my mom was difficult as I did not want to be disowned by my own family. Family is everything to me…and I did not know how to talk to mom, my sister, grandmother or even uncles, aunts and cousins. I am comfortable about talking about my female side to them, but still leery about talking about the surgeries.

B)    Friends: Yes. If anyone that I opened up to…it was friends first. First my girlfriend and then closes friends on my Facebook account (losing about 10% of my friends).

C)    Strangers: Cautious. I’ve found that most people are courteous enough to be respectful, but I don’t get into details.

D)   Online: Yes. I have answered many questions via my Tumblr site about my Transgender experience and have also had to block a few ‘creepy’ people.

 10) What is something you loved to do that you are unable to do now as a Transgender woman?

A: Swimming. I was very active at my local YMCA’s deep water aerobics and shallow water aerobics classes. I would spend two hours swimming laps and each year attend a class to improve my swimming skills. Since HRT, my attendance at the local Y was twice this year.

I just don’t know how to dress and act while swimming. Swimming is like its own culture within a culture. I wish to dress is a female swimming suit, but first, they are rarely in my size and they would reveal my male anatomy. I’d be asking for trouble. If I wear my regular male swimming attire, I risk exposing my breasts if my outfit rises in the water.

***

LIFESTYLE CHANGES QUESTIONS

1) Have you grown your hair longer and/or modified it in the last year?

A: Yes. Prior to HRT; I only considered growing my hair only shoulder length. For a few months I found that having long hair was highly annoying and high maintenance. Since a year into my HRT, I have continued growing my hair with only one ‘layering’ trimming back in August 2019. At this time, I wish to grow my hair to the point that it touches my clavicles. I have began modifying its color from brown to blonde. I am hoping to achieve an 80% blonde with silver highlights and then dye the tips of my hair aquamarine blue.

2) Have you’ve worn makeup in the past year?

A: Yes; but I started late. I was advised by my physician to begin using makeup to hide my male blemishes (stubble). At this time, I am mainly using hues of blue, pink, yellow and silver. I mainly decorate my eyes (which is sort of pointless as it can’t be seen thanks to my male-brow) with eye shadow and highlight my cheeks to make them look fuller. I use to use foundation and primer, but I have not used those in the last two months as I don’t need them.

3) Have you’ve worn high heels in the past year?

A: No; I don’t like high heels…they are unstable and the major cause of ankle injuries. Also, I doubt they make a size 14-16 in women’s that I can buy local!

4) Have you’ve worn a skirt in the past year?

A: Yes; When I converted my wardrobe, I bought a purple skirt. I wasn’t certain about it; but love it. Since then, I own four skirts. The great thing about skirts is that unlike pants, they usually will fit nicer and hide anything ‘male’ that might give you away.

One thing that is certain! If you are going to wear a skirt, be sure to shave those legs. Another note, all my skirts go past my knees, I don’t like short skirts as they are ‘too’ revealing.

5) Have you’ve worn a dress in the past year?

A: Yes, three times. Once during an outing to Ocean Shores, again in the casino, once around the house (in Mason County) and again for Christmas morning. I also wore a dress for New Year’s Eve.

I like dresses, but you really can’t do much in them.

6) Have you’ve worn a blouse in the past year?

A: Yes, I own many blouses and they are my primary source of shirts in my wardrobe.

7) Have you’ve worn any form of bra in the past year?

A: Yes, I started wearing a bra when my back pain was becoming intolerable. I’ve been fitted with a 44C and then a 46D. I only own two bras (plunge) as they are terribly expensive!

8) Have you’ve worn any feminine undergarments in the past year?

A: Yes. I bought my first feminine undergarments in November 2019 and socks in December 2019. I have not bought any intimacy clothing as they are impractical.

9) Have you gotten your ears pierced?

A: No! I am not against earrings. I’ve seen some nice earrings out there that I’d love to wear, but I do not want to pierce my ears. I don’t like needles!

10) Have you started wearing ‘feminine’ jewelry?

A: Yes; Before HRT, I only wore a watch; now I wear a necklace. I currently have six necklaces: Mermaid Tail Necklace, Moonstone Necklace, Opal-Crystal Necklace, Abalone Necklace, Mermaid Necklace & a Aquamarine Necklace. I also wear 24/7 a moon-ring on my right hand which signifies my transition and keeps men from thinking I’m available.

11) If you had some ‘passing tips’ to offer other Transgender individuals, what are some things you do to pass?

A: The battle to pass as the opposite gender is as unique as the individual.

I have found that there is a list of things I must do in-order to pass successfully with a 20% chance of failure:

1—Clothing: How you dress will determine what people first see. Colors and patterns always attract the eye first. If you dress masculine, you’ll be perceived masculine and if you dress feminine, you’ll certainly be perceived feminine. Half of male clothing can double as female clothing, but you are putting yourself at risk if you are MtF.

Then again, don’t overdress and don’t underdress! Wear something that makes you comfortable, if you are not comfortable in your own clothing, it will show. Also, for MtF’s, be wary of patterns that might emphasize your male form.

2—Face: Your face will be your undoing as a transgender individual. For FtM, stay well-trimmed, shorten hair and lighten up on the jewelry and makeup. For MtF, stay well-shaved, style your hair and wear makeup that emphasizes your feminine features. FFS will help with the bones to open the eyes and smooth the jaw and nose (MtF) or reduce the cheeks and angle the jaw (FtM).

3—Voice: Work on your transgender voice…but don’t overstress it. If it sounds fake, it will lead to your downfall. I’ve seen videos of lovely Trans-women passing until they speak an it gives it away.

4—Confidence: If you think you are not passing; then there really is no reason to try. Most of the time when I’ve been misgendered, my confidence as Mira (believing I am a woman and not caring what any cis-individual says) has saved me from physical and emotional harm. Also, if I look conformable in my own skin, people say I seem to glow, bloom and just look beautiful…but when I’m doubting myself, my transgender nature brightly shows.

12) Have being transgender held you back from your career choice?

A: First off, I am medically disabled; so, this question can’t be answered in the way it was written. But before I began HRT, I’d say no.

If anything, accepting my transgender nature gave me the strength to pursue my career goals as an environmental educator and EMT. Before then, I only worked in dietary services…hired for my male strength and not brains. Hell, I even had a director at St. Anthony Hospital tell me I was only good for my muscles and not my mind.

As a transgendered individual; I began a new hobby…sound technology that has gotten me some uncertainty as I began as a man and ended up as a female. To be honest, they are not certain how to perceive me…even two of the vocalists refuse to call me Mira as it goes against their ideology…but I’m okay with it.

13) How is your relationship with your doctor?

A: Excellent. During my HRT, my primary doctor remained ignorant to my transgender health…I felt uncomfortable talking to him about my nature as a female (considering he wasn’t very compliant with my diagnosis of Asperger’s). He was my doctor in over 10 years! But he was David’s doctor and would not be suited to be Mira’s doctor.

So, I took a dangerous gamble. About a year into my HRT, I began searching for a new doctor that specialized in Transgender Health. I decided if I was going to become a woman, I needed a doctor I could trust and was conformable with me.

I transferred my care to Virginia Mason on Bainbridge (an hour drive away!) to have all my general and transgeneral care done. I certainly suggest that if you are transgender, find a doctor who is knowledgeable and willing to help you from the hormones to the surgery to the after years.

I know Dr. Worth was going to be a wonderful doctor for my care when she bluntly said: ‘You should know that I will not only treat you for your transgender health, but for your overall health. I will be overviewing your whole health as both female and male.’

***

COMPLIANCE QUESTIONS

1) Right now, are you complying to a feminine attire? What is it?

A: Yes. (Under shirt) A woman’s dress shirt with gold and blue embroidery (Top) A long black and white dress with swirl design patterns. Black Nylons, ladies’ garments, 44C bra and Dr. Scholl's work shoes.

2) Right now, are you in a relationship?

A: Yes; with a bisexual woman. We’ve been dating for 13 years.

3) Right now (without using goggle), write out something positive about yourself using the letters of your first name:

A: M—Mermaid I—Intelligent R—Resilient A—Admirable

4)     Please explain in your own words, your transition process and what you have gone through to transition into a transgender individual.

A: So, many people take a different path to reach their desired persona.

I actually began (attempting) transitioning in 2017, using herbal supplements which was a terrible idea. Don’t even waste your time doing this!

By November 2017, I contacted Cedar Rivers in Tacoma to enroll in their Transgender clinic and was placed on a four month wait list as they only enroll in February. By February 2018 I called once more and was given a delayed appointment because I failed to provide a transgender name (I hesitated over the phone as I was being careful as no one knew what I was doing and I wanted to have one year of hormone therapy under my belt before coming out.)

Delayed once more to May 2018, I met with one of their doctors and was started on a light dose of hormones as I only identified as genderfluid and only wanted to appear ‘remotely’ female, out of fear of retaliation from my family. However, as the hormones took effect, I would take a few pills a week and skip a week until July 2018 when I committed to the treatment.

I began estrogen in July 2018 and changed my label from gender nonconforming to genderfluid. From July 2018 to December 2018, nothing much happened.

By January 2019, I increased my dose of hormones and began to change finally. My changes were happened faster then I could photograph and with my year one coming up, Cedar River was preparing to drop my care.

I transferred to Virginia Mason in March 2019 and by April 2019, I legally switched my name and gender four month ahead of schedule.

By July, I began talking about facial feminization, breast augmentation and gender reassignment surgery with Dr. Worth, but denying consultation due to my health.

By September 2019, my breast growth made ‘not wearing’ a bra hell and I switch my wardrobe from male to female and began to separate myself from the life of David and being reborn as Mira. I finally came out to my biological family about my transgender nature and began to make amends.

October 2019, I finally scheduled an appointment with plastics to talk about facial feminization in 2020.

My last transition process was at Virginia Mason’s facial plastics clinic and after review; I was considered a candidate for surgery, but waiting on insurance’s reply…

Hypothetical Transition Process

January 2020: my first annual wellness checkup as a transgender female.

January 2020: begin referral process to plastics for breast augmentation.

February 2020: hear from Facial plastics about insurance decision.

March 2020: undergoing appeal for facial plastics or scheduling appointment for surgery.

March 2020: consultation with plastics for breast augmentation.

May 2020: check-up on facial plastics and/or breast augmentation.

October 2020: Begin talking about preparing for GRS.

November 2020: Look for a second psychologist to do evaluation for GRS.

December 2020: if facial plastics is still in appeal stage, should resolve by now.

2021: Retry FFS (or if surgery was performed, should be seeing my true face by now).

January 2021: If FFS was performed, begin breast augmentation surgery and/or start sending referrals to Oregon Health for GRS consultation.

January 2022: GRS performed.

5) Which feature of your body do you like the most since HRT?

A: My breasts…they have blossomed into something rather remarkable! It is amazing to think how at one time I could touch finger-tip to finger-tip while my palms covered my tiny nipples…now, I can’t even reach a single finger, not even with long nails!

It is hard to believe that my male chest could blossom into two womanly breasts.

6) Which feature of your body do you dislike the most since HRT?

A: I’d have to say my facial features. I don’t feel comfortable in public as my face still appears masculine. I spend the most time fretting over my facial features and if I am passing as female so I do get outed as being transgender.

7) With a New Year coming soon in a few hours; what is something you’d like to change for 2020?

A: I like to get back to swimming at the YMCA and start swimming laps. I use to spend 3-5 hours a day there and I’d like to get back at doing that. My ultimate goal is to save up my money to buy a mermaid tail and begin ‘mermaiding’. I currently have two fabric tails, but like to get is silicone tail.

8) With a New Year coming soon; what is your focus for 2020 regarding your ongoing battle with gender dysphoria?

A: Facial Feminization is a top priority with Breast Augmentation a close second. I have a FFS consultation on January 2nd 2020.

(Taken October 2019 - 18 Months On HRT)

[all-things-are-nothing-to-me]

Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the Left Behind

Prologue to Post-Left Anarchy

It is now nearly a decade and a half since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is seven years since Bob Black first sent me the manuscript for his book, Anarchy after Leftism, published in 1997. It’s over four years since I asked Anarchy magazine Contributing Editors to participate in a discussion of “post-left anarchy” which ultimately appeared in the Fall/Winter 1999–2000 issue of the magazine (#48). And it’s also one year since I first wrote and published “Post-Left Anarchy: Rejecting the Reification of Revolt,” which appeared in the Fall/Winter 2002–2003 issue (#54) of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed.

Aside from creating a hot new topic for debate in anarchist and leftist periodicals, web sites and e-mail lists, one can legitimately ask what has been accomplished by introducing the term and the debate to the anarchist, and more generally radical, milieu? In response I’d say that the reaction continues to grow, and the promise of post-left anarchy primarily lies in what appears to be a continually brightening future.

One of the most troubling problems of the contemporary anarchist milieu has been the frequent fixation on attempts to recreate the struggles of the past as though nothing significant has changed since 1919, 1936, or at best 1968. Partly this is a function of the long-prevalent anti-intellectualism amongst many anarchists. Partly it’s a result of the historical eclipse of the anarchist movement following the victory of Bolshevik state communism and the (self-) defeat of the Spanish Revolution. And partly it is because the vast majority of the most important anarchist theorists — like Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatesta — come from the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. The void in the development of anarchist theory since the rebirth of the milieu in the 1960s has yet to be filled by any adequate new formulation of theory and practice powerful enough to end the impasse and catch the imaginations of the majority of contemporary anarchists in a similar manner to Bakunin’s or Kropotkin’s formulations in the nineteenth century.

Since the 1960s the originally minuscule — but since that time, ever-growing — anarchist milieu has been influenced (at least in passing) by the Civil Rights Movement, Paul Goodman, SDS, the Yippies, the anti-Vietnam War movement, Fred Woodworth, the Marxist New Left, the Situationist International, Sam Dolgoff and Murray Bookchin, the single-issue movements (anti-racist, feminist, anti-nuclear, anti-imperialist, environmental/ecological, animal rights, etc.), Noam Chomsky, Freddie Perlman, George Bradford/David Watson, Bob Black, Hakim Bey, Earth First! and Deep Ecology, neo-Paganism and New Ageism, the anti-globalization movement, and many others. Yet these various influences over the last forty years, both non-anarchist and anarchist alike, have failed to bring to the fore any inspiring new synthesis of critical and practical theory. A few anarchists, most notably Murray Bookchin and the Love & Rage project, have tried and failed miserably in attempting to meld the extremely diverse and idiosyncratic anarchist milieu into a genuinely new movement with a commonly-held theory. I would argue that in our current situation this is a project guaranteed to fail no matter who attempts it.

The alternative argued for by the post-left anarchist synthesis is still being created. It cannot be claimed by any single theorist or activist because it’s a project that was in the air long before it started becoming a concrete set of proposals, texts and interventions. Those seeking to promote the synthesis have been primarily influenced by both the classical anarchist movement up to the Spanish Revolution on the one hand, and several of the most promising critiques and modes of intervention developed since the 60s. The most important critiques involved include those of everyday life and the spectacle, of ideology and morality, of industrial technology, of work and of civilization. Modes of intervention focus on the concrete deployment of direct action in all facets of life. Rather than aiming at the construction of institutional or bureaucratic structures, these interventions aim at maximal critical effectiveness with minimal compromise in constantly changing networks of action.

Clearly these new critiques and modes of intervention are largely incompatible with both the old left of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and most of the New Left of the 60s and 70s. And just as clearly they are engaging a growing number of anarchists who gravitate to them because they seem to be much more congruent with the global situation we find ourselves in today than the old theories and tactics of leftism. If anarchism doesn’t change to address the lived realities of the twenty-first century — by leaving the outmoded politics and organizational fetishism of leftism behind — its relevance will dissipate and the opportunities for radical contestation now so apparent will slowly vanish. Post-left anarchy is most simply a rubric through which many thoughtful contemporary anarchists would like to see the most vital of the new critiques and modes of intervention coalesce in an increasingly coherent and effective movement, which genuinely promotes unity in diversity, the complete autonomy of individuals and local groups in struggle, and the organic growth of levels of organization which don’t hold back our collective energies, spontaneity and creativity.

Introduction

Anarchist critiques of leftism have a history nearly as long as the term “left” has had a political meaning. The early anarchist movement emerged from many of the same struggles as other socialist movements (which made up a major part of the political left), from which it eventually differentiated itself. The anarchist movement and other socialist movements were primarily a product of the social ferment which gave rise to the Age of Revolutions — introduced by the English, American and French Revolutions. This was the historical period in which early capitalism was developing through the enclosure of commons to destroy community self-sufficiency, the industrialization of production with a factory system based on scientific techniques, and the aggressive expansion of the commodity market economy throughout the world. But the anarchist idea has always had deeper, more radical and more holistic implications than mere socialist criticism of the exploitation of labor under capitalism. This is because the anarchist idea springs from both the social ferment of the Age of Revolutions and the critical imagination of individuals seeking the abolition of every form of social alienation and domination.

The anarchist idea has an indelibly individualist foundation upon which its social critiques stand, always and everywhere proclaiming that only free individuals can create a free, unalienated society. Just as importantly, this individualist foundation has included the idea that the exploitation or oppression of any individual diminishes the freedom and integrity of all. This is quite unlike the collectivist ideologies of the political left, in which the individual is persistently devalued, denigrated or denied in both theory and practice — though not always in the ideological window dressing that is meant only to fool the naive. It is also what prevents genuine anarchists from taking the path of authoritarians of the left, right and center who casually employ mass exploitation, mass oppression and frequently mass imprisonment or murder to capture, protect and expand their holds on political and economic power.

Because anarchists understand that only people freely organizing themselves can create free communities, they refuse to sacrifice individuals or communities in pursuit of the kinds of power that would inevitably prevent the emergence of a free society. But given the almost mutual origins of the anarchist movement and the socialist left, as well as their historical battles to seduce or capture the support of the international workers movement by various means, it isn’t surprising that over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries socialists have often adopted aspects of anarchist theory or practice as their own, while even more anarchists have adopted aspects of leftist theory and practice into various left-anarchist syntheses. This is despite the fact that in the worldwide struggles for individual and social freedom the political left has everywhere proven itself either a fraud or a failure in practice. Wherever the socialist left has been successful in organizing and taking power it has at best reformed (and rehabilitated) capitalism or at worst instituted new tyrannies, many with murderous policies — some of genocidal proportions.

Thus, with the stunning international disintegration of the political left following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the time is now past due for all anarchists to reevaluate every compromise that has been or continues to be made with the fading remnants of leftism. Whatever usefulness there might have been in the past for anarchists to make compromises with leftism is evaporating with the progressive disappearance of the left from even token opposition to the fundamental institutions of capitalism: wage labor, market production, and the rule of value.

Leftists in the Anarchist Milieu

The rapid slide of the political left from the stage of history has increasingly left the international anarchist milieu as the only revolutionary anti-capitalist game in town. As the anarchist milieu has mushroomed in the last decade, most of its growth has come from disaffected youth attracted to its increasingly visible, lively and iconoclastic activities and media. But a significant minority of that growth has also come from former leftists who have — sometimes slowly and sometimes suspiciously swiftly — decided that anarchists might have been right in their critiques of political authority and the state all along. Unfortunately, not all leftists just fade away — or change their spots — overnight. Most of the former leftists entering the anarchist milieu inevitably bring with them many of the conscious and unconscious leftist attitudes, prejudices, habits and assumptions that structured their old political milieus. Certainly, not all of these attitudes, habits and assumptions are necessarily authoritarian or anti-anarchist, but just as clearly many are.

Part of the problem is that many former leftists tend to misunderstand anarchism only as a form of anti-statist leftism, ignoring or downplaying its indelibly individualist foundation as irrelevant to social struggles. Many simply don’t understand the huge divide between a self-organizing movement seeking to abolish every form of social alienation and a merely political movement seeking to reorganize production in a more egalitarian form. While others do understand the divide quite well, but seek to reform the anarchist milieu into a political movement anyway, for various reasons. Some former leftists do this because they consider the abolition of social alienation unlikely or impossible; some because they remain fundamentally opposed to any individualist (or sexual, or cultural, etc.) component of social theory and practice. Some cynically realize that they will never achieve any position of power in a genuinely anarchist movement and opt for building more narrowly political organizations with more room for manipulation. Still others, unused to autonomous thinking and practice, simply feel anxious and uncomfortable with many aspects of the anarchist tradition and wish to push those aspects of leftism within the anarchist milieu that help them feel less threatened and more secure — so that they can continue to play their former roles of cadre or militant, just without an explicitly authoritarian ideology to guide them.

In order to understand current controversies within the anarchist milieu, anarchists need to remain constantly aware — and carefully critical — of all this. Ad hominem attacks within the anarchist milieu are nothing new, and most often a waste of time, because they substitute for rational criticism of people’s actual positions. (Too often rational criticism of positions is simply ignored by those unable to argue for their own positions, whose only recourse is to wild or irrelevant accusations or attempted smears.) But there remains an important place for ad hominem criticism addressed to people’s chosen identities, especially when these identities are so strong that they include sedimented, often unconscious, layers of habits, prejudices and dependencies. These habits, prejudices and dependencies — leftist or otherwise — all constitute highly appropriate targets for anarchist criticism.

Recuperation and the Left-Wing of Capital

Historically, the vast majority of leftist theory and practice has functioned as a loyal opposition to capitalism. Leftists have been (often vociferously) critical of particular aspects of capitalism, but always ready to reconcile themselves with the broader international capitalist system whenever they’ve been able to extract a bit of power, partial reforms — or sometimes, just the vague promise of partial reforms. For this reason leftists have often been quite justifiably criticized (by both ultra-leftists and by anarchists) as the left wing of capital.

It’s not just a problem that those leftists who claim to be anti-capitalist don’t really mean it, although some have consciously used such lies to gain positions of power for themselves in opposition movements. The major problem is that leftists have incomplete, self-contradictory theories about capitalism and social change. As a result their practice always tends towards the recuperation (or co-optation and reintegration) of social rebellion. Always with a focus on organization, leftists use a variety of tactics in their attempts to reify and mediate social struggles — representation and substitution, imposition of collectivist ideologies, collectivist moralism, and ultimately repressive violence in one form or another. Typically, leftists have employed all of these tactics in the most unrepentently heavy-handed and explicitly authoritarian of ways. But these tactics (except for the last) can also be — and have often been — employed in more subtle, less-overtly authoritarian ways as well, the most important examples for our purposes being the historical and present practices of many (but not all) left anarchists.

Reification is often most generally described as “thingification.” It’s the reduction of a complex, living process to a frozen, dead or mechanical collection of objects or actions. Political mediation (a form of practical reification) is the attempt to intervene in conflicts as a third-party arbiter or representative. Ultimately these are the definitive characteristics of all leftist theory and practice. Leftism always involves the reification and mediation of social revolt, while consistent anarchists reject this reification of revolt. The formulation of post-left anarchy is an attempt to help make this rejection of the reification of revolt more consistent, widespread and self-aware than it already is.

Anarchy as a Theory & Critique of Organization

One of the most fundamental principles of anarchism is that social organization must serve free individuals and free groups, not vice versa. Anarchy cannot exist when individuals or social groups are dominated — whether that domination is facilitated and enforced by outside forces or by their own organization.

For anarchists the central strategy of would-be revolutionaries has been the non-mediating (anti-authoritarian, often informal or minimalist) self-organization of radicals (based on affinity and/or specific theoretical/practical activities) in order to encourage and participate in the self-organization of popular rebellion and insurrection against capital and state in all their forms. Even among most left anarchists there has always been at least some level of understanding that mediating organizations are at best highly unstable and unavoidably open to recuperation, requiring constant vigilance and struggle to avoid their complete recuperation.

But for all leftists (including left anarchists), on the other hand, the central strategy is always expressly focused on creating mediating organizations between capital & state on the one side and the mass of disaffected, relatively powerless people on the other. Usually these organizations have been focused on mediating between capitalists and workers or between the state and the working class. But many other mediations involving opposition to particular institutions or involving interventions among particular groups (social minorities, subgroups of the working class, etc.) have been common.

These mediating organizations have included political parties, syndicalist unions, mass political organizations, front groups, single-issue campaign groups, etc. Their goals are always to crystallize and congeal certain aspects of the more general social revolt into set forms of ideology and congruent forms of activity. The construction of formal, mediating organizations always and necessarily involves at least some levels of:

Reductionism (Only particular aspects of the social struggle are included in these organizations. Other aspects are ignored, invalidated or repressed, leading to further and further compartmentalization of the struggle. Which in turn facilitates manipulation by elites and their eventual transformation into purely reformist lobbying societies with all generalized, radical critique emptied out.)

Specialization or Professionalism (Those most involved in the day-to-day operation of the organization are selected — or self-selected — to perform increasingly specialized roles within the organization, often leading to an official division between leaders and led, with gradations of power and influence introduced in the form of intermediary roles in the evolving organizational hierarchy.)

Substitutionism (The formal organization increasingly becomes the focus of strategy and tactics rather than the people-in-revolt. In theory and practice, the organization tends to be progressively substituted for the people, the organization’s leadership — especially if it has become formal — tends to substitute itself for the organization as a whole, and eventually a maximal leader often emerges who ends up embodying and controlling the organization.)

Ideology (The organization becomes the primary subject of theory with individuals assigned roles to play, rather than people constructing their own self-theories. All but the most self-consciously anarchistic formal organizations tend to adapt some form of collectivist ideology, in which the social group at some level is acceded to have more political reality than the free individual. Wherever sovereignty lies, there lies political authority; if sovereignty is not dissolved into each and every person it always requires the subjugation of individuals to a group in some form.)

All anarchist theories of self-organization, on the contrary, call for (in various ways and with different emphases):

Individual and Group Autonomy with Free Initiative (The autonomous individual is the fundamental basis of all genuinely anarchistic theories of organization, for without the autonomous individual, any other level of autonomy is impossible. Freedom of initiative is likewise fundamental for both individuals and groups. With no higher powers comes the ability and necessity for all decisions to be made at their point of immediate impact. As a side note, post-structuralists or postmodernists who deny the existence of the autonomous anarchist individual most often mistake the valid critique of the metaphysical subject to imply that even the process of lived subjectivity is a complete fiction — a self-deluded perspective which would make social theory impossible and unnecessary.)

Free Association (Association is never free if it is forced. This means that people are free to associate with anyone in any combination they wish, and to dissociate or refuse association as well.)

Refusal of Political Authority, and thus of Ideology (The word “anarchy” literally means no rule or no ruler. No rule and no ruler both mean there is no political authority above people themselves, who can and should make all of their own decisions however they see fit. Most forms of ideology function to legitimate the authority of one or another elite or institution to make decisions for people, or else they serve to delegitimate people’s own decision-making for themselves.)

Small, Simple, Informal, Transparent and Temporary Organization (Most anarchists agree that small face-to-face groups allow the most complete participation with the least amount of unnecessary specialization. The most simply structured and least complex organizations leave the least opportunity for the development of hierarchy and bureaucracy. Informal organization is the most protean and most able to continually adapt itself to new conditions. Open and transparent organization is the most easily understood and controlled by its members. The longer organizations exist the more susceptible they usually become to the development of rigidity, specialization and eventually hierarchy. Organizations have life spans, and it is rare that any anarchist organization will be important enough that it should exist over generations.)

Decentralized, Federal Organization with Direct Decision-Making and Respect for Minorities (When they are necessary larger, more complex and formal organizations can only remain self-manageable by their participants if they are decentralized and federal. When face-to-face groups — with the possibility for full participation and convivial discussion and decision-making — become impossible due to size, the best course is to decentralize the organization with many smaller groups in a federal structure. Or when smaller groups need to organize with peer groups to better address larger-scale problems, free federation is preferred — with absolute self-determination at every level beginning with the base. As long as groups remain of manageable size, assemblies of all concerned must be able to directly make decisions according to whatever methods they find agreeable. However, minorities can never be forced into agreement with majorities on the basis of any fictitious conception of group sovereignty. Anarchy is not direct democracy, though anarchists may certainly choose to use democratic methods of decision-making when and where they wish. The only real respect for minority opinions involves accepting that minorities have the same powers as majorities, requiring negotiation and the greatest level of mutual agreement for stable, effective group decision-making)

In the end, the biggest difference is that anarchists advocate self-organization while leftists want to organize you. For leftists, the emphasis is always on recruiting to their organizations, so that you can adopt the role of a cadre serving their goals. They don’t want to see you adopt your own self-determined theory and activities because then you wouldn’t be allowing them to manipulate you. Anarchists want you to determine your own theory and activity and self-organize your activity with like-minded others. Leftists want to create ideological, strategic and tactical unity through “self-discipline” (your self-repression) when possible, or organizational discipline (threat of sanctions) when necessary. Either way, you are expected to give up your autonomy to follow their heteronomous path that has already been marked out for you.

Anarchy as a Theory & Critique of Ideology

The anarchist critique of ideology dates from the work of Max Stirner, though he did not use the term himself to describe his critique. Ideology is the means by which alienation, domination and exploitation are all rationalized and justified through the deformation of human thought and communication. All ideology in essence involves the substitution of alien (or incomplete) concepts or images for human subjectivity. Ideologies are systems of false consciousness in which people no longer see themselves directly as subjects in their relation to their world. Instead they conceive of themselves in some manner as subordinate to one type or another of abstract entity or entities which are mistaken as the real subjects or actors in their world.

Whenever any system of ideas and duties is structured with an abstraction at its center — assigning people roles or duties for its own sake — such a system is always an ideology. All the various forms of ideology are structured around different abstractions, yet they all always serve the interests of hierarchical and alienating social structures, since they are hierarchy and alienation in the realm of thought and communication. Even if an ideology rhetorically opposes hierarchy or alienation in its content, its form still remains consistent with what is ostensibly being opposed, and this form will always tend to undermine the apparent content of the ideology. Whether the abstraction is God, the State, the Party, the Organization, Technology, the Family, Humanity, Peace, Ecology, Nature, Work, Love, or even Freedom; if it is conceived and presented as if it is an active subject with a being of its own which makes demands of us, then it is the center of an ideology. Capitalism, Individualism, Communism, Socialism, and Pacifism are each ideological in important respects as they are usually conceived. Religion and Morality are always ideological by their very definitions. Even resistance, revolution and anarchy often take on ideological dimensions when we are not careful to maintain a critical awareness of how we are thinking and what the actual purposes of our thoughts are. Ideology is nearly ubiquitous. From advertisements and commercials, to academic treatises and scientific studies, almost every aspect of contemporary thinking and communication is ideological, and its real meaning for human subjects is lost under layers of mystification and confusion.

Leftism, as the reification and mediation of social rebellion, is always ideological because it always demands that people conceive of themselves first of all in terms of their roles within and relationships to leftist organizations and oppressed groups, which are in turn considered more real than the individuals who combine to create them. For leftists history is never made by individuals, but rather by organizations, social groups, and — above all, for Marxists — social classes. Each major leftist organization usually molds its own ideological legitimation whose major points all members are expected to learn and defend, if not proselytize. To seriously criticize or question this ideology is always to risk expulsion from the organization.

Post-left anarchists reject all ideologies in favor of the individual and communal construction of self-theory. Individual self-theory is theory in which the integral individual-in-context (in all her or his relationships, with all her or his history, desires, and projects, etc.) is always the subjective center of perception, understanding and action. Communal self-theory is similarly based on the group as subject, but always with an underlying awareness of the individuals (and their own self-theories) which make up the group or organization. Non-ideological, anarchist organizations (or informal groups) are always explicitly based upon the autonomy of the individuals who construct them, quite unlike leftist organizations which require the surrender of personal autonomy as a prerequisite for membership.

Neither God, nor Master, nor Moral Order: Anarchy as Critique of Morality and Moralism

The anarchist critique of morality also dates from Stirner’s master work, The Ego and Its Own (1844). Morality is a system of reified values — abstract values which are taken out of any context, set in stone, and converted into unquestionable beliefs to be applied regardless of a person’s actual desires, thoughts or goals, and regardless of the situation in which a person finds him- or herself. Moralism is the practice of not only reducing living values to reified morals, but of considering oneself better than others because one has subjected oneself to morality (self-righteousness), and of proselytizing for the adoption of morality as a tool of social change.

Often, when people’s eyes are opened by scandals or disillusionment and they start to dig down under the surface of the ideologies and received ideas they have taken for granted all their lives, the apparent coherence and power of the new answer they find (whether in religion, leftism or even anarchism) can lead them to believe that they have now found the Truth (with a capital ‘T’). Once this begins to happen people too often turn onto the road of moralism, with its attendant problems of elitism and ideology. Once people succumb to the illusion that they have found the one Truth that would fix everything — if only enough other people also understood, the temptation is then to view this one Truth as the solution to the implied Problem around which everything must be theorized, which leads them to build an absolute value system in defense of their magic Solution to the Problem this Truth points them to. At this point moralism takes over the place of critical thinking.

The various forms of leftism encourage different types of morality and moralism, but most generally within leftism the Problem is that people are exploited by capitalists (or dominated by them, or alienated from society or from the productive process. etc.). The Truth is that the People need to take control of the Economy (and/or Society) into their own hands. The biggest Obstacle to this is the Ownership and Control of the Means of Production by the Capitalist Class backed up by its monopoly over the use of legalized violence through its control of the political State. To overcome this people must be approached with evangelical fervor to convince them to reject all aspects, ideas and values of Capitalism and adopt the culture, ideas and values of an idealized notion of the Working Class in order to take over the Means of Production by breaking the power of the Capitalist Class and constituting the power of the Working Class (or its representative institutions, if not their Central Committees or its Supreme Leader) over all of Society.... This often leads to some form of Workerism (usually including the adoption of the dominant image of the culture of the working class, in other words, working-class lifestyles), a belief in (usually Scientific) Organizational Salvation, belief in the Science of (the inevitable victory of the Proletariat in) Class Struggle, etc. And therefore tactics consistent with building the fetishized One True Organization of the Working Class to contest for Economic and Political Power. An entire value system is built around a particular, highly oversimplified conception of the world, and moral categories of good and evil are substituted for critical evaluation in terms of individual and communal subjectivity.

The descent into moralism is never an automatic process. It is a tendency which naturally manifests itself whenever people start down the path of reified social critique. Morality always involves derailing the development of a consistent critical theory of self and society. It short-circuits the development of strategy and tactics appropriate for this critical theory, and encourages an emphasis on personal and collective salvation through living up to the ideals of this morality, by idealizing a culture or lifestyle as virtuous and sublime, while demonizing everything else as being either the temptations or perversions of evil. One inevitable emphasis then becomes the petty, continuous attempt to enforce the boundaries of virtue and evil by policing the lives of anyone who claims to be a member of the in-group sect, while self-righteously denouncing out-groups. In the workerist milieu, for example, this means attacking anyone who doesn’t sing paeans to the virtues of working class organization (and especially to the virtues of the One True form of Organization), or to the virtues of the dominant image of Working Class culture or lifestyles (whether it be beer drinking instead of drinking wine, rejecting hip subcultures, or driving a Ford or Chevy instead of BMWs or Volvos). The goal, of course, is to maintain the lines of inclusion and exclusion between the in-group and the out-group (the out-group being variously portrayed in highly industrialized countries as the Middle and Upper Classes, or the Petty Bourgeois and Bourgeois, or the Managers and Capitalists big and small).

Living up to morality means sacrificing certain desires and temptations (regardless of the actual situation you might find yourself in) in favor of the rewards of virtue. Don’t ever eat meat. Don’t ever drive SUVs. Don’t ever work 9–5. Don’t ever scab. Don’t ever vote. Don’t ever talk to a cop. Don’t ever take money from the government. Don’t ever pay taxes. Don’t ever etc., etc. Not a very attractive way to go about living your life for anyone interested in critically thinking about the world and evaluating what to do for oneself.

Rejecting Morality involves constructing a critical theory of one’s self and society (always self-critical, provisional and never totalistic) in which a clear goal of ending one’s social alienation is never confused with reified partial goals. It involves emphasizing what people have to gain from radical critique and solidarity rather than what people must sacrifice or give up in order to live virtuous lives of politically correct morality.

Post-Left Anarchy: Neither Left, nor Right, but Autonomous

Post-left anarchy is not something new and different. It’s neither a political program nor an ideology. It’s not meant in any way to constitute some sort of faction or sect within the more general anarchist milieu. It’s in no way an opening to the political right; the right and left have always had much more in common with each other than either has in common with anarchism. And it’s certainly not intended as a new commodity in the already crowded marketplace of pseudo-radical ideas. It is simply intended as a restatement of the most fundamental and important anarchist positions within the context of a disintegrating international political left.

If we want to avoid being taken down with the wreckage of leftism as it crumbles, we need to fully, consciously and explicitly dissociate ourselves from its manifold failures — and especially from the invalid presuppositions of leftism which led to these failures. This doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for anarchists to also consider themselves leftists — there has been a long, most often honorable, history of anarchist and left syntheses. But it does mean that in our contemporary situation it is not possible for anyone — even left-anarchists — to avoid confronting the fact that the failures of leftism in practice require a complete critique of leftism and an explicit break with every aspect of leftism implicated in its failures.

Left anarchists can no longer avoid subjecting their own leftism to intensive critique. From this point on it is simply not sufficient (not that it really ever has been) to project all the failures of leftism onto the most explicitly obnoxious varieties and episodes of leftist practice, like Leninism, Trotskyism and Stalinism. The critiques of leftist statism and leftist party organization have always been only the tip of a critique that must now explicitly encompass the entire iceberg of leftism, including those aspects often long incorporated into the traditions of anarchist practice. Any refusal to broaden and deepen the criticism of leftism constitutes a refusal to engage in the self-examination necessary for genuine self-understanding. And stubborn avoidance of self-understanding can never be justified for anyone seeking radical social change.

We now have the unprecedented historical opportunity, along with a plenitude of critical means, to recreate an international anarchist movement that can stand on its own and bow to no other movements. All that remains is for all of us to take this opportunity to critically reformulate our anarchist theories and reinvent our anarchist practices in light of our most fundamental desires and goals.

Reject the reification of revolt. Leftism is dead! Long live anarchy!

[bloodline-rpg]

MIKA IWATA  // 21 // WITCH

❝ Sell your belongings, all your clever drawings, try to make a dollar from the grave. ❞

_______________________________________________________________________

BIOGRAPHY

It started as a hobby. Card tricks. A way to keep an overactive mind busy before fidget spinners were a thing. She had a knack for it, sure, but she never considered it more than tricks. As she got older she probably should have outgrown her love of illusion, but it gave her something to focus on when her parents tried to pressure her into becoming someone she wasn’t. Mika had no interest in becoming a doctor or a lawyer or any of the other “respectable” professions her parents pushed her toward. The fact that they thought she’d survive as an accountant just proved that they didn’t know her at all. The more pressure they put on her, the more she bucked their authority. She took to wearing dark makeup, dying her hair black, wearing higher heels and shorter skirts. Her clothing became as much a performance as her tricks, everything designed to draw the eye where she wanted it and keep it away from where she didn’t. Her draw toward the occult started as nothing more than teenage rebellion designed to annoy her parents. Ouija boards and tarot cards were toys, not tools. If her “predictions” often turned out to be eerily accurate it was simply because she was intuitive, not because of any sixth sense. Sure it was fun to charge her classmates a few dollars to confirm or deny whether their crush liked them back, but it wasn’t until she saw, ironically, a David Blaine special that she seriously considered the idea that this could be a real way to make money. After graduation from high school Mika went ahead and broke her parent’s hearts by refusing to go to college. She wanted to give this whole magic thing a try. It was the one consistent thing that made her happy, the way people would gasp in shock when she found their card, the way she could somehow make it appear in places they never expected. She didn’t know how David Blaine did the trick that made the card show up in an unpeeled orange, for that matter she wasn’t sure how she did it either, but thinking about that too much gave her a headache so she didn’t. It was fun and was something that was hers, free of obligations or expectations. The attention was an added bonus. Mika traveled the country, splitting her time between big cities and festivals. Anywhere where tourists could be talked into throwing money away for tricks and fortunes, Mika was there. She worked as a “psychic” for so-called ghost hunters or paranormal groups and led seances, did readings, cleansed locations with sage and crystals. If she managed to ferret out some actual information she tended to write it off as coincidence to herself even as she accepted acclaim from anyone willing to give it. She worked with other magicians when it suited her, split from them when it didn’t and generally avoided anything that resembled real responsibility. It wasn’t real, it wouldn’t last forever. Eventually, she’d have to come up with something she was good at that didn’t involve making a spectacle of herself, but not any time soon. She was young and impulsive and this worked. The exposure of real magic gave her pause. She tended to write off anything she did that worked as skill with acting and persuasion and insight, nothing more. But then there were things that not even she could explain. Maybe it was worth looking into? Especially since she happened to be in Salem for now – surely if there were witches to be found some of them were cliche enough to be in Salem. Finding a coven wasn’t that hard but Mika found most of them to be pompous blowhards more interested in making sure their jeans were organically sourced than in magic. There was only one other person who managed to catch her attention as having any real power. Nick. He and Mika eventually left the “coven” and worked together to figure out what was real and what wasn’t. When the call came for witches to gather it felt like the next adventure for Mika. Nick was far more skeptical and he decided to stay in Salem, but Mika wanted to know. She had to know.  

______________________________________________PERSONALITY/TRAITS

Mika refused to be intimidated by anyone or anything. She’s full of sass and bravado and gumption. Her whole life she’s been bucking people’s expectations and marching to the beat of her own drum, she has no intention of stopping now. Original witches, immortal witches, it doesn’t matter to her. Power is power and Mika prefers hers to be flashy and frivolous. Obviously she doesn’t want to be hunted, but part of her is still unconvinced that her magic is actually magic. Did it really just pop up in kids with ADHD and authority issues to help them spite their parents? Responsibility has always been something to avoid, and while she’s smart Mika has always had issues applying herself.

DETAILS

STATUS: TAKEN [Original Character]

Related bios: n/a

Species/Family info: Holistic Witch

Faceclaim:  Lyrica Okano