#Definitely no unexamined feelings or thoughts going on here

[drunkenskunk]

So, I was getting ready for bed, as I am Old™, and I have work tomorrow at Oh God Why The Fuck Am I Awake O'Clock. I looked at myself in the mirror, I realized: this is the look I was going for when I was designing Scarlet, my character in the Lancer game I'm currently in.

Hair tied back in a ponytail with loose frizzy bits along the edges, heavy bags under the eyes, the tired expression of a suicidally depressed alcoholic, faint scar across the nose from when it got broke that one time.

That is exactly the look I was trying to convey. Except my art skills are... y'know... kinda crap.

Also, I don't have red hair.

And Scarlet doesn't have disgusting, unshaven stubble.

And I'm not a mech pilot.

And... well.

Yeah.

[artbyblastweave]

hello. I am in the middle of doing My Take on vampires and would appreciate your thoughts on Them in fiction. they don't seem to pop up more than occasionally in superhero media, but also you are pretty widely read & they have noticeable Eras/Tendencies that I can see.

I'm definitely not as much of a vampire guy as I'm a Superhero guy, so all my opinions on vampires should be taken with a grain of salt, and with the knowledge that a lot of this is stuff I've picked up through Osmosis and the occasional lit-review for that one class in college. But here goes-

One of my potentially more controversial takes about Vampires is that I think Vampires (and adjacent creatures like werewolves) are great at capturing the emotional truth of being part of a marginalized group, or sometimes just for being subaltern- the world against you, people make you feel like you're wrong for existing, that you're dangerous, etc.- and this is why they go gangbusters both on this website and in general. But the narrative often faceplants for me if it tries to portray vampires as a literal marginalized group because all of that stuff is often objectively true within the fiction in a way that it isn't true of real-life marginalized groups. It's a souped-up version of the X-men problem, because most of the X-Men aren't obligate cannibals! The result of this is that there have been several times I'm consuming something vampire-related that wants me to primarily sympathize with the vampires, and meanwhile I'm going "geez, that's a rough deal, but I think you all need to be killed on purely utilitarian grounds, sorry."

(I do also get the sense as well, right, that this is inextricably tangled up in the fact that a lot of foundational vampire literature was kind of just taking a lot of the horrible lies people tell about the scapegoat group du jour to justify their oppression and then making a guy of whom these things were objectively true. I get the impression, at a distance, that Dracula demonstrates like fourteen different flavors of "Those Depraved Easterners Are Coming For Our Women," although to truly lock in that Take I'm gonna have to read the thing instead of just absorbing it through Tumblr Osmosis whenever Dracula Daily is running.) There are ways to thread this needle, the big one of which is to just sand down the negative externalities of vampirism. Have them feed on animals or voluntary donors or make the human predation thing an in-universe slanderous fiction to begin with. Have them feed on exclusively on quote-unquote "criminals," if you have the right unexamined assumptions about the validity of the death penalty. Go the Elder Scrolls route, where drinking blood isn't necessary to survive but is necessary to maintain a human appearance, thus ensuring that the most morally conscientious vampires are the ones most likely to be identified as vampires and scapegoated by the angry mob. The issue I sometimes take with this is that the act of implementing a "fix" of any kind can sort of broadcast that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too- that you're cutting away the ideatic core of what makes vampires interesting when divorced from metaphor, taken objectively- that they're living trolley problems. As others have said, if you sand them down too much, what are you getting out of a vampire story that you couldn't get from a Tolkien Elf, or from Batman?

A fictional group which I've never really had this issue with, though, is Zombies, in the Romero tradition. When a work wants to construct Zombies as a primarily sympathetic group, it's much easier for me to get on board with that without feeling like the core Vibe has been compromised. This is because there's actually a fairly recent source text for zombies in the form of Romero's Living Dead films, and a major component of the Living Dead films is how much it sucks without recourse to become a zombie.

I was working on a post once, which I never finished, about how there are like, three-to-four vectors of horror that zombies can embody, which different works play up to different extents. While obviously one of the big straightforward ones is the fear that your entire community starts trying to kill you and eat you one day for basically no reason, a major anxiety on display in the original Living Dead trilogy- Dawn in particular- is that in the face of a weird but manageable problem human society would act as its own condemnation, totally failing to rise to the challenge-the horror is that we would let something as inept as a zombie be dangerous to us! Also present in those films? The horror of the idea that your daily routine is so rote and conformist that you wouldn't need to be sentient to continue to carry it out- that the biggest difference between you and them is that you can occasionally be evil in more interesting and evolved ways. And there's this fear of physically and mental degradation with zombies, which for a host of reasons I find extremely fucking relatable. The sense that your body is falling apart piecemeal, bits of you sloughing off when you turn the wrong way or turn your head too quickly. There's this fog over your thinking. The bone-deep knowledge that you used to be more, and are now fundamentally less capable- that there's just enough of you left to understand something is missing. (Read into my personal circumstances whatever you want from this.) Being a zombie is foundationally, fundamentally gross in a way that being a vampire isn't; when people try to do "sexy zombies" half the joke is the pairing of those two words. There's this horror comic Kieth Giffen did once called Tag which is basically entirely about the horror of being a corpse that could feel it; I think about that comic a lot. Anyway, because so much of the horror of zombism is external to whether they're actually attacking and killing people or not, you can totally sell me on zombies as an unfairly-maligned demographic in a way that's much harder for me to buy with Vampires- dropping the danger they pose to other people allows you to maintain so much more of the core of the thing than it does with Vampires, where it feels much more like you're tip-toeing around the tensions between Wanting To Have Fun and the moral horror inherent to what you're trying to have fun with.

[icannotreadcursive]

Question I was thinking about: which Hazbin Hotel character would you be down to go on a three-day road trip with? Because I think that, despite likeability, each and every one of them would start driving their companion completely insane in their own unique way.

Oh damn, oh shit, I gotta think about this.

I think Vaggie.

Cuz—while I am so sure she's somewhat prone to backseat driving when it's not her turn at the wheel, which would irritate me, and is probably a bit of a leadfoot—she'd also definitely be a great copilot in the "keep an eye out for the exit", "am I clear to merge?", "can you hand me a french fry?" kinda ways, I think we could find a pretty boppin' middle ground on music tastes, and would probably end up teaching each other new swear words while being pissy about other drivers' stupidity.

You also, though, get my thoughts on the pros and cons of everybody else.

Alastor drives like a fuckin' madman, no one can convince me otherwise. Anybody else in the car during his turn at the wheel will be in fear for their life for non-serial-killer-related reasons. And then there's the serial-killer-related reasons; I don't wanna be an accessory to anything, even assuming I'm safe. He's also a judgemental shit-talking bitch, which I would enjoy when aimed at other drivers, but have very little patience for when also inevitably aimed at me. The overlap of music tastes would work out well here, too, though (hello electroswing). And I have interests in radio, music, creepy shit, true crime, and food so I think the chitchat would be pretty good.

I could do a day trip with Charlie no problem, but after three days we would be fighting because her blind peppiness wore me down, I snapped at her about some unexamined hypocrisy or something, and she got defensive, but then she got overly apologetic which pissed me off more. Genuinely think she's fine as a copilot—probably great at feeding-the-driver-snacks duty—but might be overly timid about certain things as a driver (like merging) in a way that might bug me, depending.

My tolerance for inebriated people is generally pretty limited, so that puts a massive asterisk next to both Angel and Husk for things being dependent on how their sobriety's doing.

Angel also drives like he's running from the cops, but I think that could probably be reigned in by establishing some road behavior boundaries like it's a kink negotiation. Honestly, that's probably the key to making it through a road trip with him without losing my mind. Roadtrip buddy safeword system, and taking breaks. The music, banter, and snack situation would be fire. (Though the banter may occasionally need reigning in.) He strikes me as very down to go check out random roadside points of interest, which would be fun. Having to inevitably drag him away from sexually harassing the clerk every time we stop for gas would not be. And not actually his fault, but this would bug me: having to readjust the seat every fucking time cuz he's so goddamn tall.

Husk has some of the same judginess issues as Alastor, but is overall one of the more chill options. Would be a decent and responsible co-pilot when it comes to things like navigation duties, but either cops an attitude about or outright refuses things like snack duty. If he's sober, I feel like he's generally a pretty good driver, but I also think he gets road rage, which I don't wanna deal with.

I...am not sure Niffty can drive. I don't think Niffty should drive. That right there makes her a bad candidate for only companion on a multi-day road trip. And then I don't think I could comfortably tolerate her degree of manic-obsessive behavior for that long in close quarters. Bless her heart.

That's everyone I have articulate thoughts about

[nikomedes]

i don’t want to add on to the post directly but i rly am grateful for that “when u actually commit to sitting down and unpacking ur trauma after living ur life in it, everything will get Very Bad before it gets better” bc legitimately. okay clown moment imminent. july this year i went into therapy and was like “hey bestie! im so glad we could reconnect after u got me thru a crisis five years back! i think fortunately u got me thru my latest crisis so it may be time for us to stop seeing each other again! 🥰” and she, my fucking ride or die will not take my bullshit therapist, went “oh thats so good to hear! 🥳💖 so we can definitely do that or yknow. we could start work on the trauma underlying this long-term cycle of struggle i help u out with every few years? 🤔 lmk”

and i immediately started crying lmao. bc she was right and like, im the most emotionally, physically, and financially stable ive been in my entire life. and it was time. i have been living w layers of maladaptive coping mechanisms and unexamined beliefs about my life from traumas at 4, 16, 19, 24… all the survival quite triumphant but really just layers of scabs. i needed to debride the wounds. rebreak the bones to set them right. metaphors yknow

yall it sucks so bad. p much ever since ive been in a spiral of my worst behaviors and desperately clinging to comforts with my claws out. all time lows for household management, work performance, personal hygiene, you name it. but also? i know i feel so bad in direct proportion to how much i need to work on this stuff. and between therapy, her thoughtful book recs so i can learn about psychological tools as we work with them, the most half-assed journal keeping youve seen in ur life, the support of friends and family, meds, etc etc, i can feel stuff shifting. im past the point of recommending therapy to everyone and i know esp in the US access is behind so many bullshit hurdles. but however u go about it, when ur in a place that can support becoming Goop in an effort to fully heal, its worth it. u gotta. its what we deserve, aka the full chance at living a life we rly love

anyway here’s a meme my friend and beloved podcast cohost made when i went to the gc the first time to lament Turning Into Soup after deciding to actively work on stuff

they do know now. and theyre proud of me, even while im Goop

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

The whole "culturally Xtian" debate is going around again and I've so far been staying out of it, because I feel like I've said most everything I have to say about it, BUT. I now have additional thoughts and can no longer help myself.

To recap earlier posts of mine:

I still think it would help The Disc Horse to focus on describing behavior rather than assigning immutable traits to people on the internet you almost certainly don't know.

Therefore I don't think we need a *new* term so much as some minor grammatical modifications.

Namely: Collectively, a group, a society, an idea, a behavior, etc. can certainly be culturally Xtian. Individually, a person can be engaging in a culturally Xtian behavior or arguing a culturally Xtian idea. If you really must describe the whole person's culture, making it a verb indicates better the lack of choice: i.e. - "from a christianized culture." Obviously if someone identifies themselves as culturally Xtian, that's a totally separate and fine thing.

I still think the baseline problem here is unexamined Xtian antisemitism repackaged as "secularism" or "rationalism."

I feel like nearly every post I've seen about this has treated the term like it's clearly defined and obvious, and then proceeded to define it in an interesting and unique way. It's amorphous and ubiquitous enough that it almost seems to have taken on the "obscenity" problem: How do you define obscenity? You'll know it when you see it.

This is actually completely fine, so long as people are aware of and honest about that factor. Which does mean that there needs to be some nuance in how it does or does not apply to any given person at any given time.

It's also really important to ask "whose Xtianity?" and not treat a global religion with 2.6 billion adherents (and a truly dizzying number of denominations) as a hivemind. There are certainly general Xtian theological ideas that bleed out into the societies they exist in, but let's be honest about how truly weird American neo-Puritanism/late Calvinism is, too.

However, some stray comments/questions that I think are new and I'm interested if people have thoughts/answers:

I think the mixed message that's going out is that yeah - culturally Xtian people are always culturally Xtian and that is a theoretically neutral identity, but it's usually only relevant and therefore only being brought up when that background happens to be causing them to further the oppression of religious minorities, namely, antisemitism. So the overall perception from the people on the receiving end of it is that this is a Bad thing because they only associate it with being called out for antisemitic ideas. It's not *just* the trauma they individually may have, but also the context in which they're hearing about it. I think if it had first gained traction in the context of people identifying additional ways to deconvert by deconstructing these Xtian hegemonic ideas, we'd be having a totally different conversation here.

I saw a post about how Xtianity views itself as modular and completely distinct from culture in a way that few, if any, other religions do. I mostly agree, but I do think that's specifically because I'm Jewish. I think viewing culture and religion as inseparably intertwined is very specifically an ethnoreligious viewpoint that others the mainstream hegemonic Xtian view of "religion" as modular. And I suspect that is at least part of why it has gotten such a negative reaction.

There have been lots of comments about how Xtian secularism is still culturally Xtian (with France as one very clear-cut example); however, I would be extremely interested in seeing how this stacks up to, say, Chinese secularism that is of course not culturally Xtian. I definitely don't know anywhere close to enough to comment; just, that if we're going to make claims about Xtianity's arbitrary bifurcation of what is "religious" versus what is "cultural," we need a counter-example of intentional, large-scale non-Xtian secularism. I know literally just enough about the Cultural Revolution to know that it would be extremely interesting to learn from someone who did know what they were talking about to see how those divide lines compare to the divide lines in culturally Xtian societies. I'd also be interested in other examples as well; that's just the primary one I thought of.

And just to really make sure I beat on every hornets' nest because I apparently love headaches: Are we gonna talk about the cultural Xtianity within American Jewish communities? I bring this up specifically because if we are going to go hard on keeping out forms of cultural Xtianity from outsiders, it would behoove us to understand what we are protecting and make sure we've addressed the calls coming from inside the house. How do we talk about it respectfully when fellow Jews are exhibiting these same ideas and behaviors? Can that analysis also be applied out to others? Should it be?

I think it would also be fascinating (albeit a much larger discussion) to consider whether, if what we consider culture, religion, and/or societal ethics to be so interconnected as to be functionally different aspects of the same concept, then is a secular society even possible? Is individual secularity? Or is it simply a continuum of individuals' ritual observance, faith, and spirituality? Because the answers to those questions have some significant ramifications on this whole conversation.

[r4bbitdragon]

shin kr Collection Of Thoughts. lets go

so first off probably worth noting that i have not, myself, seen the original kr series. i know that where that’s relevant, im just going off of vibes, and what ive absorbed from reading other people’s good takes on it. how it is. orz

so my favorite part of the movie is probably hongo’s actor constantly quivering through all scenes. the sheer anxiety rolling off that man at all times. in terms of interesting ways to characterize a rebooted ichigo, i feel like that acting choice alone fulfilled more of what i wanted to see then any specific part of the script

meanwhile, ichimonji Funni. lol.

related to acting though- similarly to shin ultraman, there was an overall feel of... being very restrained? skilled technical acting, but generally within clear restraints. i feel like i liked better how that rolled with the vibe of shin ultra, with them being the govt weirdo squad+alien? but it wasn’t exactly out of place here just... huh...

fucked up that robot detective k was there

ok. gender.

the female characters did all feel noticeably more Tropey Archetypal Girl Characters... like scorp-aug being the Party Girl, wasp-aug Refined Lady+the whole subjugation thing, ruriko’s whole subdued robot lady thing...

by the way holy shit scorp-aug’s Girl Squad of fishnetted combatants. lololololololol

this is a case where i dont know how much of that would be anno leaning into Gender Stuff from the og show (like happened in shin ultraman) or if he just brought that to the table himself. whatever

could look at the themes around the male characters and protection too but im not sure. if i actually want to do a full analysis here. im just laying some things on the table and going ‘hm’ right now

unrelated note. i just realized how much shin kr feels like it downplays the cyborg thing for the bio angle. aw but the cyborg thing. well whatever

ok so. very ‘oh shit this was definitely made in a different cultural context’ thing. definitely thinking a lot about how hongo’s dad’s uh. tragic mistake? is that he was a police officer who. Didn’t respond to a hostage situation with gun violence. holy shit.

alongside at least this version of hongo’s dad being a cop (no idea if thats originally the case or not) making his allies government agents... mm. did you not get enough govt time in shin ultraman, where it was appropriate? im not fond of the kinda unexamined thing of this hongo being linked so closely to state violence...

overall. hm.

shin ultraman felt like a Wild movie, but i came out of it feeling like it had a very strong throughline in the message it was trying to tell, and how it related to the franchise it was a take on.

whereas shin kr... its message feels a little free floating? stella’s right with the focus on the cult/happiness stuff feeling like its the wrong angle...

actually. sorry this is also shows i didn’t watch so again second hand. but didn’t kamen rider black sun directly deal with like. modern fascism. but i did see a friend saying they found it odd as a take on kr black, where the antagonist was more in the Evil Cult line

did wires get crossed. so shin kr’s shocker side stepped touching on the connections to fascism to do this big Evil Cult take

huh. weird.

still. fun watch, at least didn’t regret seeing it in theaters

i enjoyed watching shin kr (in that it was interestingly crafted and made distinct choices) but i don’t think it was a super successful kamen rider movie i think

[likethecities]

the tales of symphonia party, rated by how much they need therapy:

i recently fell ass over teakettle back into symphonia hell, a game i played literally seventeen (17) years ago. every single character here needs therapy.

Lloyd: for a kid adopted after the gruesome death of a parent he's doing pretty well! good job dirk for raising a mentally stable child. 3/10 is still unpacking everything to do with kratos but he has at least 3 adults to talk to about it and a track record of actually talking about his feelings so honestly, he'll get there just fine

Colette: definitely needs a therapist for those self-worth issues. however, she is also aware she has those issues and actively wants to improve, which is half the battle. 7.5/10 with a gold star because you know she would immediately tell all of her friends how helpful therapy can be.

Genis: get this boy some grief counseling. 5/10

Raine: has probably thought “oh that's an issue I should deal with sometime” at least once a month for the last 15 years but immediately shoved it back down because she didn’t have the time or mental capacity to do so. will not realize she needs therapy until genis grows up and starts living on his own. 7/10

Sheena: at the beginning of the game sheena was a 8/10 for unexamined and PTSD, but by the end of it she's conquered her fear of Volt, let go of (some of) her guilt over Mizuho, and has her grandfather back. 5/10 still needs to unpack that "post" in post-traumatic stress of but making great progress.

Zelos: 15/10 holy fuck this boy has so many problems. oh my god. oh jesus. help him

Presea: not only does presea need to unpack 16 years of suppressed emotions and delayed grief, she's about to go through puberty. can you imagine going through puberty at age 28? i would be appalled. help her. 8/10

Regal: throwing yourself into jail due to your unwilling but justifiable involvement in the death of your lover isn't, per se, a healthy way to cope, but it did give him time to grieve. now that he's dedicated himself to improving the world in her memory, he's doing much better. king of going to therapy because he has his life together and knows that it's time to do the mental work to heal instead of assuming that everything is fine. also, once he starts getting therapy he, like colette, will probably tell the entire world to get therapy, and he has the power to put therapy on the lezareno company health policy. 5/10 make us proud

[tomatograter]

How much of jakes begging dirk not to leave in meat do you think is his own true feelings vs Dirks influence?

I don't think Dirk’s influence is enough to make anybody do anything they did not already have half a mind to do. I've seen this be debated a lot, but Dirk is... not The Word Of God. That's pretty much the biggest joke about his defensive posturing. Dirk barks very loudly, and asserts himself in audience-antagonizing overseeing orange voice - but he cannot force you to do something you really don't want to do. He’s only as powerful as your urges.

He struggles, multiple times, to make characters do the simplest things that go against their base instincts. Dave definitely had romantic feelings for Karkat, but he was so sure their relationship could stay and strive as platonic that he pushes Dirk away. He wasn't Right about this, but he was sure of his position.

June is easy. June wants an adventure. June wants to not be herself. June will take any excuse to abandon everything and get to live a cool life where the most pressing issue is “which bad guy do i have to punch” again.

Terezi's arc in homestuck proper is largely about her learning to listen to HERSELF, not the alternian laws or game rules or meddling undead sylphs or doc scratches or whoever the fuck else, and she mocks Dirk's narrator voice to his face. She recognizes the alien thought the moment she has it.

Kanaya has always feared she holds Rose back. She loves her wife deeply, and respects her even more, but her penchant to being attracted to explosive girls (Remember Vriskan? You should remember Vriskan.) Also doubles as Kanaya grappling with the fact that she cannot control them. It's part of the appeal, that they are forces of nature so large and unpredictable she cannot help but be drawn to their orbit like a moth to a flame. Kanaya letting go of Rose is an unspooling of her deepest insecurities, her habit of giving others more credit than she gives herself, and how she's relented to the years peddled position of "mom friend" - kanaya the spoilsport, kanaya the grub nun, kanaya the... Quite Dreadfully Just Regular, I’m Afraid. What could she possibly claim to offer when put up against the secrets to understand an universe? (She isn't right about this, either.)

And Jake? Here's a bit from Jake's confession that i believe has gone largely unexamined:

Take a moment to really consider the positioning of other characters towards Jake in the epilogues. Then a little bit more in the direction of HS proper this time. Jake is the subject of constant degradation at the hands of the cast at large. His plight is always unsympathetic, his role troublesome, and he acquiesces to claiming the guilt for "being a problem in his friendgroup" or "for being assaulted by a friend he ignored" or "for being too useless and stupid", yet even though he cannot let go of the pesky self-flagellating habit, there's... Dirk.

This is how Dirk is represented and this is what he is primarily remembered by in the deepest recesses of Jake’s brain. It could have been anything else, but it’s this instead. Brain ghost dirk is not a dirk with his edges cut off, he’s not a pliant wifedirk, he’s not a little helpful tutorial phantom that tells jake everything he wants to hear - he’s quite harsh and sarcastic As A Dirk, but he believes in a Jake that’s more than the facade he presents as. Truly and fully. This is a Dirk that loves Jake, and not quite platonically.

I think it’s a bit ignorant to suggest Jake has legitimately no reason for loving Dirk back when their canon designation is “Best friends” and “Complicated lovers”. Jake loves Dirk for his brightest parts. Jake has expected a love confession from Dirk ever since the very beginning of the above conversation, during his 13yo birthday, where the big joke is “WELP, i guess instead of dirk telling me he’s gay and that we’ve been flirting all this time, he just says he’s from the future instead!”

Dirk’s influence is only to blame here insofar as him doing such a good fucking job of screwing himself over. It’s stellar. Dirk thinks the AR forced Jake’s feelings, dirk thinks he’s predatory and irredeemable, dirk convinces the audience Jake cannot possibly have a single reason to love him back, dirk fully drapes himself in the capes of being a Bad Guy, but this is HIS justification, when faced with the fact Jake pretty clearly has feelings on the matter buried deep down, and he’s a glaringly /unreliable/ narrator. The biggest tragedy of this bit is the confirmation that the heel turn and the spiel are wholly unnecessary, they clearly had things they could have invested on to make this work, but dirk is too caught up on his high horse to listen. 

Like with Kanaya, Dirk is responsible for exaggerating a heavy mass of preexisting feelings, not creating them. 

Creation, as it happens, is more of Jake’s wheelhouse.

[dreamylyfe-x]

Where do you think Mickey (and for that matter, Ian) would be today if Mickey had never come out?

Wow. I really love this ask. What a question, anon.

This is something of a thought experiment and I’m defining “coming out” as what happens in 4x11 when Mickey tells everyone he's “fucking gay”. So in this world both his father and his wife know he’s had sex with at least one man. 

The world where Mickey never comes out is a really, really hard one for him. And I think it’s a world where Ian never comes back after 3x12. Because I don’t think Ian had it in him to be with Mickey while he was closeted after watching him marry someone else. And I don’t think Mickey had it in HIM to let Ian go after getting him back. Even if he’d let Ian leave that night (4x11), he’d have gotten him back when Ian sobered up and calmed down. They’d have fought and said shitty things to each other, but they were in love and that would have trumped it, for a while. But it would have continued to be a significant problem between them and a source of exploitation for his wife. So that Mickey -- that Mickey comes out. There’s just no path forward for him. Ultimately, he’ll choose to be with Ian. 

(And I do think that would be the choice. Because Ian does have the right to decide he can’t handle watching Mickey live this life he can’t be a part of.) 

I can’t imagine he stays with Svetlana. He’s a terrible husband. he can barely stand to be with her, and as time goes on I think it just becomes more and more clear that marrying her and committing to be a husband and father (at 18!) has cost him something. When Ian comes back and Mickey CAN flee to the Gallagher House, he does. Like he’s desperate for oxygen. I think it’s troubling to consider what happens when he doesn’t have that option. 

I personally don’t feel like Ian and Mickey need each other to be happy. I think part of what’s great about them is that they want each other and they choose each other over almost anything, but they can survive without each other. So I want to make it clear that when I imagine a dark future for Mickey here it isn’t because he’d lose Ian. It’s because living in the closet would have a profound impact on his mental health. Absolutely everything would become more difficult for him. There are lots of indications that Mickey already has some significant mental health challenges. Definitely in the realm of PTSD. Definitely unexamined trauma. And personally, I think there’s some anxiety in there, too. So. Forced to live in circumstances that are oppressive - and suppressive - all those things get worse. A best case scenario for him might be just ending up in jail. Where he’s at least free of a lot of the burdens pretending to be straight has landed on him. I think in this case he’d do better inside than out. But I think he’d be very lonely. And probably pretty self-destructive. Maybe he can find some way to have some kind of relationship, but I don’t think it would work out for him. I think the threat level of that kind of intimacy would just be too high. 

For Ian, I don’t think it’s that different from what we saw on the show. He still has to attend to his mental health. Let’s say he sticks out basic training. He is still going to have a manic episode. Ian’s bipolar isn’t subtle, so he would also probably be diagnosed around the same time -- or even earlier, because he doesn’t have Mickey running interference for him on that front. So in addition to committing identity fraud, being diagnosed bipolar is going to disqualify Ian from military service. From there, anything is possible. Does Ian go home, where he will face pressure to accept his diagnosis and adopt a treatment program? Or does Ian take off with Monica, who will do no such thing? Mickey is the one who brings Ian back to Southside and then he decides to stay, Without that influence, it’s hard to know how long it takes for him to go home, because going home would indicate accepting that he needs help. And we know Monica is where he’s going to be tempted to run and it’s the worst place for him. 

I do think Ian probably figures out he needs Lip and Fiona eventually. I think he makes the decisions he makes on the show -- maybe a little later -- and gets help. And maybe he wanders into a room of hot firefighters again and discovers EMT work. Maybe he doesn’t. At some point, Monica dies, and Ian almost certainly has the same experience of losing the grip he had on managing his illness. Maybe by then he’s met someone who will be better able to help him than the people around in season 8 were. But Ian has a tendency to try to fit into people’s worlds rather than see how they fit into his, and I think it’s unlikely he’ll be with someone who really gets him. I think he’d know that his connection to Mickey was rare, so it would stay raw and painful. And he’d never talk about it. 

And this is so much of what I love about them. Apart, they are complicated men who struggle to connect to people and accept who they are... but they -- forgive the phrase -- get by. In a variety of ways. Together, they can be who they are, completely. They understand each other. They have fun. They have a lightness of spirit they struggle to find apart. They aren’t lonely. They thrive. 

That’s why they’re one of my all-time favourite love stories. 

[traumatized-motherfuckers]

CPTSD relationship patterns on repeat

Listen wherever you stream, search “complex trauma” and subscribe. Or, find episodes, blog posts, and a private support community at t-mfrs.com

.............................................................................................................................

Things I’ve gotten good at throughout this Trauma journey:

Seeing connections between where I’m from and where I am

Thinking for the first time about where I’m going

Letting myself have emotions

Letting those emotions go

Redirecting my energy and attention away from ruminating

Being accountable for my own feelings

Being accountable for times of being a shithead

Listening and validating other humans

Listening and validating myself

Recognizing what circumstances do/don’t work for me

Realizing how my codependency plays with relationships

Letting go of self-hate inner critic talk

Reframing events with reasonable views

Accepting myself, even when I first want to thrash myself

Semi-consistently caring for myself

Setting realistic boundaries and goals

Sleeping

Things I’m still shitty at:

Letting my overwhelm skew reality

Anxious self-slave-driving

Being a snarky turd when my head is overloaded

Taking on other people’s energies and emotions

Trusting myself in all areas of life

Forming healthy relationships.

Okay, it’s that last one that has me most perpetually fighting feelings of panic and doom.

This seems like an apt way to kick off the new year. I think a lot of us have questions about relationships and would like to improve our operations in 2021. I can also tell you, this one is extremely appropriate looking back at the last year of my life.

One of the biggest lessons I've learned in the past few spins around the sun has been how romance does - and definitely doesn't - fit into my life. I think 2020 was particularly packed full of important lectures and pop quizzes, many of which I failed. It felt like knowing that the correct answer was C, but finding my hand filling in the circle for A every time, anyways.

This is a terrible ideaaaa... and I'm doing it. Pause for about 2 months. Now I'm upset that it was a terrible idea.

Yeah, it's been great. But I have no one to blame but myself. Because as much as I've worked on this trauma management life of mine, I haven't done a good job of working on the relationship aspect of it. I've let my usual patterns dominate. And that's what needs to be examined today.

I mean. Can someone tell me about healthy relationships in functional terms? What IS that even?

Look, I’m not hoping that someone will pop up and share some, “mutual respect, good communication, trust, support, care, similar goals, similar beliefs…” sort of shit. I fucking KNOW about the idealistic, flowery terms that all the light-hearted couples counselors recommend establishing for a happy relationship. I get it.

I’m not ignorant when it comes to the ways humans should interact. I’ve had enough experience with friendships and relationships, alike, to understand the basics of person-to-person interactions. I know I talk about myself like I’ve been a feral child locked in a cage for 20 years, but the truth is that if you met me on the streets I’d probably seem like a normal, well-adapted, personable human being. That Leo Ascendant component of my personality tricks people into actually thinking I’m an extrovert who wants attention. (Hilarious, explains a lot of comments I’ve gotten in my past)

Nah, I’m not asking for the trite descriptions of a healthy partnership that everyone who’s ever been friends on a basic girl’s Facebook has seen before in cursive writing on top of a washed-out pink-tinted field. Those are empty sounding words that I don’t believe most couples manage to put into action, no matter how many selfies they take together or labradoodles they adopt.

For me, Fuckers, the mystery isn’t, “in a fairytale world, how do two humans interact to have a lifelong bliss factory?” Respect, trust, appreciation, mutual understanding… blah blah blah. What the fuck ever.

The real question is how.

And, shit, let me just be honest with all of you - not just the Patrons who’ve already heard my personal bitching - it’s on my mind because I did a thing I definitely should not have… recently, I got into a new romantic relationship that I definitely was not looking for. I’ll spare you all the details today, but know that I’ve entered it kicking and screaming, and it’s caused me a lot of grief already.

Let the life shittery begin! Can’t wait to be destroyed.

Today, I want to bring this personal fire burning in my gut into the podcast. Motherfuck me, if it hasn’t become difficult to ignore… plus, I know that a lot of us Traumatized folks are in a similar boat when it comes to relationship confusion, unhealth, and destruction. So let’s just count the ways that I have no idea how to do this right and I’m destined to be let down by my poor choices.

This time around, I'm bringing you a list of all the ways I tend to fuck things up with other humans. In part, due to Complex Trauma. In other part, probably due to my own personal shortcomings. Listed in no particular order. On a later date, I'm going to be revisiting a lot of these patterns as I examine how early life set a lot of us up for a lot of abuse acceptance in greater detail. Stick around for those continuations on romantic disaster, if this sounds like you, too.

I'm talking about:

Partner choice: Musicians, narcissists, and addicts

Emotional codependency

Mistrust

… That turns into willful blind belief of their words

Inadequacy

Parenting analogues

Authority figures & disappointment

Misdirected commitment

Learned helplessness

Partner choice: Musicians, narcissists and addicts

Who has bad taste in partners? Over and over and over again? It’s me! And probably a lot of you.

Maybe that’s not fair. Maybe they’ve been wonderful guys who just didn’t mesh well with my inner or outer world… but I can tell you, there have been some similarities, and they don’t bode well for a happy future together.

You know me by now. Difficulty connecting with “normal” humans, no interest in small talk, a huge fan of deep emotional honesty, a bit gritty and assholeish, tends to be repelled by anything too widely embraced by the general public, definitely comes with a difficult past, fears of the future, and ongoing challenges in the present.

So, who do you think I get along with? Ivy leaguers with stable, supportive families, an optimistic outlook, and a 20-year plan? Or equally messy and complex humans with a set of neuroses handed down from their unexamined early traumas that make them similarly bitter and disillusioned with life? Just… probably hidden from immediate sight.

Grown men who’ve responsibly built a life for themselves with ambition, personal insight, and balance? Or man-children who’re still figuring out that they can’t drink every night of the week if they want to be functional in life and financially sound? But... with their addictions hidden behind “an appreciation for fine whiskies” or a necessity to sample the craft beer they brew.

Independent, confident humans who have no problem running their own world like a boss and trust that I’m capable of doing the same, with integrity and respect? Or distrustful turds who need me to be in their sight, half-directing their lives at all times unless I’m aiming to be accused of cheating, lying, and being unable to care for myself? Only… they hide their controlling and aggressive tendencies behind go-with-the-flow facades in the beginning.

If you guessed “B” in all three examples, you are correct!

Plus... so, so many musicians. Like, the last 6 of them have either subscribed to guitar or drum camp. And that hasn't been a purposeful decision - those are just the men I get along with until we hate each other.

It's always a rapid connection, a mutual respect for our interests in the arts, and a shared shitty attitude that starts out directed at the world and ends directed at each other. So many emotions. So many ups and downs. So many proclamations of "I can't live without you!" until the day we run in opposite directions and never look back.

Is that a coincidence? Or are all musical folk a bit wild? I hate to generalize, but I can tell you with great amusement that if you start typing "Are all musicians..." into Google, it will autocomplete with "cheaters, narcissists, and crazy." It also suggests "rich," but I can tell you for a fact that isn't true. The narcissist thing... uh.... very well might be correct. But I'll leave that for someone else to study.

So, I don't know what to make of this trend. There do seem to be some commonalities between the musicians in my past life - and they do seem to be categorized by the instrument of choice. For instance, drummers are never concerned with my time, and guitarists are emotional catastrophes. But what do I know? Can't make sweeping conclusions... I, at least, need a larger sample size. With my track record, I'm sure I'll have the numbers soon enough.

Congratulations if you predicted nothing but unstable disasters in my past. It's true, I’m an idiot. Okay, that’s not fair. No inner critic talk. Get out of here, Pam and Karen.

The fact of the matter is, I am a terrible judge of character when I start sensing a connection. I tend to connect with people who have complicated lives and inner worlds, just like I do. And from what I can tell, that is always my downfall.

Challenging connections

Let’s go ahead and chalk this one up to never having close connections or support growing up.

You know what I always wanted, hoped for, and idealized as a kid? Someone loving me. Another human actually understanding my weirdness and signing on for more. The idea of a human who wanted to know what I thought and felt. The option of spending time with someone and feeling cared for. Also, somebody finding me attractive, instead of being repulsed by my ass-length ginger hair, flat chest, dorky hand-me-downs, bleach-stained horse sweaters, and buck teeth... also would have been a dream come true.

I’m pretty sure that growing up lonely didn’t help me in any regard when it came to my later-in-life relationship problems. Starving for connection apparently puts you in a state of deprivation, where you’re likely to think anything is better than the empty feeling inside. You know, just for the rest of your life or so.

To this day, if I meet someone and we’re able to converse without abundant clarifications or apologies for the prickly things that come out of my mouth as dry humor or unbendable opinions… we’re on a roll. If we can connect over shared perspectives on humans, life, and psychology… things are getting more serious. If we can honestly talk about the ways we’re horrible to ourselves and joke about our shared challenges in figuring out what the point of this shitty slip-and-slide of life is about… uh oh, this might be a real connection.

And so, it makes sense that I connect with all the most complicated people you’d ever meet. And we connect INTENSELY. I’m complicated, myself, and I look for folks who can accept it without their heads exploding. I’m never going to be happy holding conversations with Sports Bar Joe or Pretty Boy Blaine. They’re never going to understand the internal strife that dominates my world. I’m never going to understand how they can be all *happy,* *close with their families,* and *laid back about life.*

Gross. I can’t even say the words.

But give me the angstiest, most anxious, most misunderstood dude on the block, and we’re likely to get along swimmingly. We’ll talk over beers until the birds start to chirp. We’ll joke in our native tongues, playing with words, obscure references, and dry humor as if we’ve known each other for 25 years. We’ll share secrets about our tumultuous inner worlds and the ways that we can’t seem to get our heads on straight enough to keep our ships on course.

And the next thing you know, we’ll be incestuously connected with a somewhat false sense of intimacy that erupts out of the gates. “No one has ever understood me the way you do. I can really be myself around you. I’ve never had such easy conversations about this shit before.”

… That’s about the point when I lose all perspective. There’s a tunnel running from my face to this dude’s heart. I stop seeing things for what they are. I project a kinder, gentler, more well-intended personality on the subject of my feels. I quickly turn a blind eye to all the shit they’re doing that I wholeheartedly hate or otherwise cause my red flags to be unpacked.

I feel like I know them, inside and out. I feel like I can help them - like we can help each other - to sort through this dumb world we’ve been born into and all the circumstances holding us back. A real Sid and Nancy storyline emerges. No one gets him like I do. If only they could see the things I see. We’re just two broken souls who found each other, a little rough around the edges, but we see the diamonds underneath. And we’re in this battle together from now on.

Yeah, right.

Sooooo… This is how I wind up with the unpredictable narcissists who seem like nice guys, the secret addicts who keep their substance abuse hidden from everyone, and the emotional abusers who are ready to leverage my mental health admissions against me the first time they get the chance. Dudes who have highly emotional worlds and no idea how to deal with them. Men who don’t want to explore their own shortcomings and instead choose avoidant courses in life.

And, again, the musicians. So, so many musicians. I really am coming to think that they’re the most fucked up people of all - and that's saying a lot coming from me. Generally speaking, I've seen that there’s no sense of personal responsibility, an obsession with themselves, and a hidden inferiority complex that turns them into bitchy little dogs when they feel threatened. What’s with that, anyways? Can you guys try to be more original in your plight to be the most original?

Okay, anyways. Sorry to keep dragging on musicians.

The point is, my attempts at relationships start out on the wrong foot. Choosing the wrong partner is a pretty surefire way to dash all hopes for those fluffy ideals I mentioned earlier. No one is going to respect me, listen to me, or support me when they’re too busy dealing with their own alcoholism, abandonment issues, and narcissistic flailings… or, not dealing with them, to be more specific.

We aren’t going to be able to work through things when they’re consumed with being the king of the world, hiding from all negative emotions, and trying to keep their head away from analysing their own actions. Hell, it’ll be difficult to even find the time for serious talks, since they’re so busy traveling to band practices, hustling away for barely-paying gigs, and staring at their social media while they count the ways they’re victims of the universe.

Choose imbalanced, mentally ill, self-serving partners… get unhealthy, controlling, unpredictable relationships. Pretty goddamn obvious. And yet, I still can never seem to see the full picture of the human who’s caught my attention through the fog that’s created by the connection of our shared dysfunctions.

I guess this is where that, “love yourself and get yourself healthy first,” sentiment comes into play, so the connections don’t continue to be as disasterious as your personal experience is. Hopefully I’m on the right path in my own journey, at least. Also, a lot less starved for connection. I got y’all Motherfuckers in the Discord community, for starters. And I’ve become determined to live a life where I support myself and rely on no one outside of Archie’s snuggles, for finishers.

Step one: Be careful about who you deem a good person, just because you can share self-deprecating jokes about being nutjobs and similar musical interests. Learn to choose someone who isn’t an even trashier trash human than you are. It’s a start.

Emotional codependency

Hand in hand with forming connections that include deep emotional outpourings and admissions of all the dark things we hide from the light at our office jobs… comes codependency.

I’ve said it before and let me say it again… I didn’t understand codependency until very recently.

In my mind, it was akin to those creepy couples who won’t leave the house without each other, have the same friends, interests, and opinions on everything... and possibly wear matching cat shirts. Those people who never spend time with other humans because they're too busy being shoved up their partner’s ass. The folks who call to check in on each other throughout the day when they’re at work. Gag. Particularly, I imagined those pathetic girls who cry when their boyfriend is out of sight and post 12 pictures a day of them together.

Rightfully, I scoffed and insisted that I didn't have problems with codependency. That’s not me. But it turns out, this view isn’t quite right, so much as I was being an uninformed asshole.

Codependency doesn’t mean you’re a needy, incapable human being who sucks the life power out of someone else, like I used to think. Codependency is a two-way relationship defined by poor boundaries and non-existent emotional regulation. Two humans who see their experiences as one, all the way down to how they feel and how they deal with how they feel. (i.e. turning to their significant other for comfort and emotional control in a time of need instead of working through it by themselves). Relationships where the emotions are transferred from party to party until it's unclear who’s bringing what dish to the gathering. Waking up not knowing how your day is going to be, because it depends on how someone else feels about theirs. Emotional enablement city.

Oh, yeah, when you put it like that, I definitely have issues with codependency.

For me, the codependency is largely going to be emotional. In the past, I didn’t know how to have a relationship of any sort without having a third influence in the mix. There was the person, myself, and our shared emotions... that often called more shots than either of us did.

Because I tend to be on the empath scale (although I do everything I can to fight it out of defense), I think I’m naturally tuned into other people’s emotional and energetic states, for better or for worse. When someone walks into the room with a bad vibe, I feel it to my core. I become so uncomfortable that I take it on myself to try to “fix” the problem for them, and in doing so, I avoid the negative sensation, myself. This is negative reinforcement, if anyone wanted to ABA with me.

That being said, clearly if my boo is having a hard time… it’s not okay. They’re in a shit place and therefore so am I. I must do whatever I can to make it better. To sit down and talk in circles with them, if that’s what relieves some of their tension. To commiserate about how unfair the circumstances are. To validate the negativity that they’re projecting and wallowing in.

Don’t worry though, this goes the other way, too. In the past, I have fully expected my romantic partners to alleviate any inner discomfort that I’ve felt. If I was having a low-down day, I wanted them to cheer me up. If I was full of anxiety, I wanted them to find a way to release it. If I was frustrated with a work situation or coworker, I wanted them to be as angry and indignant as I felt.

So… I guess that doesn’t even sound too off-base to me, at least not when I’m leaning on my teenage expectations of what relationships are supposed to be. In my head, it was always completely ideal that I would wind up with someone who could essentially read my thoughts and comfort me like my family never did. I just wanted someone who would be by my side, thinking about me all the time, and working double time to make sure I was keeping my depression and anxiety on the up-and-up. Is that too much to ask? Uh… yeah, it is.

Maybe in a fairytale love story like the ones I saw in teenage romance movies growing up, this is the perfect way for two broken misfits to interact. “We’re both so damaged and hurt that no one has ever really seen us - but now we have each other to lick our shared wounds.” Yeah, romantic. Also really fucked up and dangerous in the real world.

The problem is, after a few months of this, it gets pretty hard to determine what’s my experience and what’s yours. The emotions become so transitive that it can be invigorating, immersive, overwhelming, and exhausting to be in each other’s company, depending on the day and the event. Living together or essentially sharing a residence makes it much worse - there’s no physical barrier between us, so that emotional barrier is even less existent. We don't have to try to text about our woes, we can just unleash them the moment we step foot in the door. Ready or not, your night is about to be ruined by my day, and vice-versa.

How does this go wrong? Uh, let’s count the ways.

1. My emotional management was never up to par, in the first place. Having your feelings catapulted my way effectively pushes me off the balance beam that I was already wobbling on. If I was having a difficult day but holding it together on my own through coping techniques and reasonable thinking - fucking forget it, that’s over now. We’re both in a shitty state now. Great. In the context of trying to recover from mental health issues… yeah, it’s a fucking disaster. Being retriggered by your partner or sucked into a depressive undertow when you’re trying to make positive change is a losing battle.

2. I never learned how to cope with my own emotions. There was generally someone else for me to hurtle them at, and our subsequent hours of bitching would give me the comfort I was looking for. I didn’t need to learn to manage my feelings - I always had a glorified babysitter to keep me alive. I never had to be accountable for my inner world. I never had to look at things with logic or reason. I could let myself spiral and trust that my best friend or boyfriend would catch me before I slipped down the drain.

3. It becomes impossible to talk about issues - personal or shared. When you’re already sharing emotions there’s an explosive effect when conflict is brought up. Neither one of us knows how to handle our shit, we expect the other person to hold us up with kid gloves, annnd now that person is the source of my distress? We’re both completely beside ourselves, upset, hurt, and angry… and it’s towards each other? Now who the fuck do we call? There's a huge sense of confusion and betrayal. No one has the skills to de-escalate the argument or return to a normal emotional state.

4. How do you break up when half of your existence is in the body of another human? You can’t mentally or emotionally separate yourself from them. Physically separating yourself feels like ripping out a few of your organs and leaving them on the streets. And, who’s going to keep you afloat when you’re going through the pain of the break up? That’s the job of your partner, afterall… can’t have a vacant desk sitting here. It’s best to just suck it up and stick with it. No one would understand what you’ve both been through together, anyways.

In a word, that’s codependency.

Not what people think it is. Not what our culture describes it as. Not so easy to spot until you’re educated and honest with yourself… plus, probably viewing things through the lenses of hindsight.

Definitely a sneaky recipe for disaster when you let it take over a well-intended, emotionally transparent, highly connective relationship. And, Motherfuckers, I’ve always tended to.

 Head to t-mfrs.com for more!

[allthefilmsiveseenforfree]

Joker

It’s hard to write a movie review for a movie that everyone already has an opinion about (whether they’ve even seen the film or not). And I know that comes off as very “boo hoo, pity me, the poor movie reviewer who saw this movie for free and now has to WRITE WORDS about it for fun” but listen, there’s some real pressure here. Todd Phillips’ vision of Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) and his descent into madness at the hands of a cruel and violent world is nominated for 11 Oscars, including Best Picture, and even though as a society it feels like we’re kind of over the Oscars, they are also somehow still Very Important all at the same time. So is this film a gritty, IMPORTANT, timely warning of the dangers of a man pushed too far? Or is it a sad power trip that encourages an all too common sense of entitlement and violence amongst the men who are presumably most likely to resonate with its message? Well...

Honestly? Fucking neither. It’s shot beautifully (how could it not be when Todd Phillips is just trying to do everything Martin Scorsese would do, but a little less well) and Joaquin Phoenix’s performance is truly, singularly committed and brilliant. But Phoenix is suffering from the same problem as Rami Malek and his incredible performance as Freddie Mercury last year - the movie each man is at the center of (in spite of their incredible acting) is not nearly as clever or interesting as it wants to be or could have been. 

Some thoughts:

Arthur is certainly a man in pain in a world that doesn’t really care about him. Gotham is a tense, struggling city, and all the people Arthur encounters treat him with disdain or cruelty. To me, this is less an issue of the moral decay or lawless attitudes of the city, and more about the ways in which poverty poisons people’s lives and souls. This movie depicts class warfare in a way that feels garish and cartoonish, which would be appropriate and possibly kind of cool if it weren’t trying to take everything VeRy SeRiOuSlY. 

He’s isolated, depressed, full of rage, and everyone thinks he’s creepy - sure, random coworker, hand him a gun, that checks out.

Also, the movie places us in a weird position almost from the start, because Arthur can’t help that he has brain damage and a disability (his laughter) that makes people uncomfortable. But we’re also supposed to...feel bad for him? understand his frustration? when he gets fired for bringing a gun to a children’s hospital. I don’t think the film necessarily positions us to sympathize with Arthur by the end of the film, but it doesn’t not do that either. 

If a man you don’t know walks outside your gate with a clown nose on, you turn and run.

If a man you don’t know puts his thumbs in your mouth, you DEFINITELY turn and run.

One interesting thing that I did ruminate on for quite awhile - Arthur never harms any people of color. Zazie Beetz and Brian Tyree Henry both have interesting supporting roles and are true highlights of the film, and they manage to escape their encounters with Arthur relatively unscathed (albeit disturbed). Let it be said, Arthur only punches up, not down.

A big part of the reason why I say the movie isn’t as clever as it thinks is the lack of engagement with all of the big, nasty themes running through it. A lot of big thematic punchlines are left unexamined, and I’m sorry, just pointing out LOOK AT THIS THING THAT EXISTS is not the same as engaging with it. This is like the Ready Player One approach to social justice issues, or if that phrase is too triggering how about simple fucking human decency, and it rings hollow. For example, two police officers heavily imply that Arthur’s mother (Frances Conroy) is to blame for the violence she and Arthur suffered at the hands of an abusive boyfriend. Is Phillips’ script trying to comment on victim blaming and rape culture here? Based on Arthur’s reaction to the news, I would say no. Or how about the social worker Arthur goes to for counseling saying her department is being shut down due to budget cuts. Is Phillips trying to interrogate the lack of infrastructure in place for mental health support or any other social safety net meant to enhance the public welfare? Well, considering people who have a mental illness are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than to perpetrate one, I’d say again, no. 

When this thing gets bloody, it gets REAL BLOODY. I was prepared, kind of, but it still turned my stomach.

I’m unsure how to feel about Arthur’s appearance on the talk show - the southern belle accent, the dancing, the makeup - it all feels very camp, very queer coded villainy in a way that feels regressive rather than a loving homage to theater and film history. 

In fact, describing anything about this movie as loving feels impossible. Even the beautiful cinematography and the effective score - it all feels like it’s born out of spite and ugliness. Like someone dared Todd Phillips to make the most anti of antihero movies, and he wrote the script by fear pissing the words into a snow bank. 

Did I Cry? Um yeah, no. 

From a structural standpoint, the beats are solid and the tension is tight. It builds and builds until Arthur’s face-off against the late night talk show host (Robert De Niro) who was once his hero until he brutally mocked Arthur on his show. It’s the climax of the film, the pot that boils over, the match lighting the gasoline, and I was so tense I thought I was going to cry and then....I wasn’t. The balloon popped too early for me, the scene verged into something so over-the-top that I completely lost any sense of narrative tension for the rest of the movie. 

Which brings us to the ending, that shit-eating-grin-ain’t-i-a-stinker ending. If it undermines everything that came before it, I feel like well what was the point? And if it doesn’t, I feel like well what was the point? You can only play with ambiguity so much before the audience either gets bored or gets mad. Also, I’m gonna have a real hard fucking time if this movie that ends like an episode of Scooby Doo wins a Best Picture Oscar.

The performances are all top notch, but I found this a deeply unpleasant movie watching experience that feels like a very expensive meal at a fancy restaurant. The ingredients are all there, but throwing them all together in very small quantities and dressing them up with pretty garnishes doesn’t necessarily leave anyone feeling satisfied or full of anything but the potential for what could have been. 

If you liked this review, please consider reblogging or subscribing to my Patreon! For as low as $1, you can access bonus content and movie reviews, or even request that I review any movie of your choice.

[juniper-tree]

writing life, 2: ghosts

(long post warning)

In a previous post wherein I talked about my NaNo failure and my writing process, I mentioned there were other things I hoped to do with my writing this year (and beyond). I’m an ambitious, driven person and have always had Big Plans.

All those plans have been hugely influenced by a project I took on earlier this year, and what I learned from it.  

I became a romance ghostwriter.  And then I quit.

Way back in the winter, I alluded to a writing project I was in the middle of, with an established author. Well, this was it. I was her ghostwriter.

I’m abiding by the NDA we agreed upon, though even if we had not, naming names in this context is tacky. So no titles, no links—just my experience and what I went through.

I submitted writing samples through a site, then had a few back and forth emails with the author to see if I would be a good fit. I was, and she hired me to write a novella for her second author brand.

I didn’t know either of her pen names, or her real name. It made sense to me she wouldn’t want to divulge her professional name and possibly be outed for hiring a ghostwriter until she knew it would work out.

Her main brand/name, she said, had a very specific theme. The second brand would be more contemporary, allow her to experiment with different styles and tropes. That made sense to me, too. I imagined her established brand as a Tessa Dare-style historical with all the expectations that would carry. Perhaps she wanted to publish contemporary stories with a little more spice, under a new name?

My assumptions were very wrong. But I’ll get to that.

Problem was, the demand for her content was so high that she could not fulfill it all. She needed a ghost to give her more to publish. I would come up with the idea, she would ok it, I would write it, she would tweak it, I would be paid, her readers would be happy. Decent arrangement.

And it really was. I don’t have a moral problem with ghostwriting, clearly. Some people do, and that’s fair. It is a lie, in a way. It upends the expected contract between reader and author of authenticity (though that’s questionable much of the time, regardless). 

There is a lot of abuse in it—plagiarism, for one; absolutely terrible pay for the work, for another.

Of course, it doesn’t have to be like that. This wasn’t. I went in with my eyes open about the system. I asked for what I felt was a fair price for my level of skill and what my time was worth. It was far above the dismal average that ghostwriters typically get.

I got it, without any experience or history, on the strength of my writing. She also made it very clear she did not want to perpetuate the content factory mentality of so many self-published, ghostwritten romances. This had to be good, original work, and I would be compensated fairly.

She was generous with money and with time, and very helpful in shaping my work into what she needed for her brand. No complaints about her as a person or from a work perspective.

When the work was finished, she was happy, and so was I, despite it being pretty far outside my area of interest. It was a decent story, it had feels, it had sexy times, it had a nice HEA.

I made a fairly strong attempt to subvert some of the more odious aspects of many mainstream, contemporary, heterosexual romances—iffy consent, power imbalances, misogyny, conservative ideas about money.  

That was probably my first mistake.

A lot of my subversions were changed or edited out. 

To give a minor example, I specifically noted many times that the male hero was pale. This was for situational character reasons—as well as the fact that I grow weary of tan, toned beefcakes as default in romance.

The author changed every “pale” to “tan.” Heaven forbid the sexy man not have a tan. (I think she put more muscles on him, too, but I don’t specifically recall.)

This sounds petty. Perhaps it is. But it’s also emblematic of other, larger changes that were made to fit the romance mold, as opposed to allowing anything slightly left of center.

There are many reasons romance is so popular, and one is, obviously, the comfort: of falling into repeated patterns and conventions, of reading your favorite tropes endlessly, of not having to think too hard about how things fit together. I appreciate all of that. 

We find it in fanfiction, too—we revel in it.

But there’s a reason why overturning even minor subversions bothers me. I’ll get to that, too.

Like I said, the author was happy. She wanted to continue working with me on a long-term basis, give me a co-writing credit for future works, help grow my own audience in the genre, etc. All very generous and great.

Problem was, when I saw the published work, I finally found out her pen names, so I could see her other books.

Not only were they nothing like what I had written (some of the reviews said it was “so different” for this author, which was hilarious), they made me very uncomfortable.

Again, under an NDA, so I can’t list specific details. There were just endless dominant, alpha-male, ultra-rich men who have disturbingly obsessive and coercive relationships with vulnerable young women. Money is involved in the relationship in some way. The heroines are nobody, the heroes are Somebody. Aren’t these women lucky to snag these guys?

The fact that I can say all that and have it be completely non-specific to any particular romance author is extremely telling of the problems of the genre. I could literally be talking about EL James (I’m not - her bad writing appears to be her own).

I read/skimmed a couple of them, and I could see an attempt was made to “sweeten” the heroes so they were vulnerable (or pitiable, really).  But the tropes themselves are toxic.

The author herself was great? We even had an early discussion on what were complete no-gos for romance, and judging by that I thought we were on the same page regarding what’s creepy and what’s romantic. Apparently not.

Who wants to read this? Who wants to write it? Lots of people, that’s who.

This is a chicken and egg thing, though, isn’t it? Someone wrote it first, way back when. 

Romance fans (and I count myself among them!) like to say that a lot of the worst, most “rapey” novels are way out of fashion, that the terrible misogyny is gone, that there’s a new kind of romance that people want to read today.  

And that is definitely true for a certain percentage of traditionally published romance novels. There are lots of good ones, unproblematic ones, progressive ones.

Please go read those—they are so fun and enjoyable and will make you feel good.

But what of the rest? The romance readers read and buy these toxic tropes. The authors keep putting them out, because that’s what readers want. The readers keeping buying it. The cycle continues.

(I want to go into this further with fanfiction, but that’s for another post.)

The fact that even the most minor of my attempts at subversion were squashed was really disheartening. It wasn’t that my writing was changed—I couldn’t care less about that. It was that the slightest diversion from the carved-in-stone Alpha Male Romance Idea was clearly unacceptable. Not to mention the larger diversions—I did make those, too.

I made my hero perfectly successful at what he did for a living, though not excessively so—but I also made my heroine perfectly successful and doing just fine, thanks. In the final work? He’s secretly a billionaire. He can just take care of her without all that pesky work. That depressed me.

I was cringing at the idea that I’d have to keep stuffing in worse and worse tropes, toxic relationships, misogynistic overtones, conservative philosophies, and scary power imbalances just to make some money.

This isn’t an audience I want.

The thought of reinforcing these ideas in any way threw me into a major crisis of conscience. I just couldn’t do it.

Like I said, it was a great and generous deal—for someone else. For someone who likes this kind of thing, or is a bit more mercenary than I am. I’m not willing to go there.

So that’s basically the end of ghostwriting for me. I have lots of my own ideas that are non-toxic, fun, and maybe people will even want to read them. But if they would rather read the stuff I hate, that’s their business. I won’t be a part of it.

Personally, I like lots of things in romance and fanfiction that are fantasies, that are not the ways in which I want to live my life—bad heroes and troubled women, relationships that make you go “hmmm,” problematic-ness and intense, dark passions, and all that stuff that’s over the top. I get it!

It’s just that I want subtlety and shades (not of Grey) and all the real dirt and grime and the beauty and joy that make your heart race and your mind wander. Not just the stamped, approved, here’s-what-you-get dosage of unexamined clichés. (Examined clichés are often very good.)

I learned so much from this process. Not only what my own limits are, but what I really want to do, by seeing up close what I do not. So I am grateful for the whole episode, but happy to be past it.  

On to greener pastures, and work which makes me proud.

[ettadunham]

A Buffy rewatch 6x04 Flooded

aka doubling down and not paying rent

Welcome to this dailyish text post series where I will rewatch an episode of Buffy and go on an impromptu rant about it for an hour. Is it about one hyperspecific thing or twenty observations? 10 or 3k words? You don’t know! I don’t know!!! In this house we don’t know things.

And today’s lukewarm take is that Willow and Tara should be paying rent, and Anya has a point. About everything.

(Okay, so I think that the Save draft button is actually broken on this website? Luckily I only got into a few paragraphs this time around, but I can’t believe that I’ll need to write out these posts in Word now. What’s next? Spellchecking? Proofreading? Planning and thought? Give me a break.)

Flooded among many other things is the first appearance of the Trio, our supposed Big Bad of the season, and… can I just say… I hate them so fucking much. Like, they truly and honestly make my skin crawl.

Of course, Warren is the worst of them, as we see even now, but they all joke about rape at least three times in this episode alone? And I’m calling those “jokes”, because the show is playing it for a comedic effect, as part of their ridiculous supervillain fantasy, which only makes it all worse.

On the other hand, I also kind of appreciate that these guys are our villains. Villains, who we will actually see put these words to action later on, and it’ll be sufficiently horrifying and repulsing. Which would be especially effective for an audience member who laughed at those earlier scenes before.

Now, while I feel like in today’s society, most of us don’t need that reminder, as we already know all too well what these groups of entitled young men insecure in their own masculinity are capable of, and how easy it is to radicalize them… I can see the argument that this might still come as a shocking revelation to some and a chance at self-evaluation. For me though, seeing the Trio’s plans of hypnotizing Buffy and making her their “sex bunny” played as some ridiculous gag is almost worse than their attempted rape and ensuing murder of Katrina in Dead Things.

Almost.

Speaking of Big Bads, villains and uncomfortable rape analogies… Willow is really out there, waving a red flag in Giles’ face now, huh. Giles blows off at her, sure. (And with good reason if we’re being honest.) But Willow threatens him. Giles’ face is a mix of a lot of things, but one of them is caution, and maybe even a bit of fear. He knows all too well where Willow could be headed.

(And then he just fucks right off to England without even leaving a note like “PS: Keep an eye on Willow, and don’t let her murder anyone. Unless it’s Warren. That bloke had it coming.”)

It’s not all bad though. Willow tries to support Buffy after her failed loan, and makes some terrible attempts to piss her off, just to make her feel something. Except that part of Willow’s concern for Buffy also comes from her unexamined guilt, and it only puts more pressure on Buffy to try and pretend that she’s fine in front of her friends.

Buffy is exhausted, and she tells Spike as much. She also asks why he’s always there when she’s miserable, which… girl… that’s called stalking. That’s why he’s always there when you’re alone and miserable. He’s been stalking you for a season now, and hasn’t even been subtle about it.

But for better or worse, it’s what Buffy needs right now. Not the stalking, but someone who she doesn’t feel any pressure with to pretend like she’s okay. Like she’s the old Buffy from before.

Previously with After Life, Buffy was asking for Giles and talked about missing him. Then, I commented that she might be thinking of him as someone that she could confide in. I think that that may still hold up, although it appears that once Giles is actually there, Buffy quickly assumes the same pretend position with him as the rest of the gang.

(Plus she already relieved that burden off her chest with Spike.)

It’s hard to explain Buffy’s logic here, because it’s something that I feel with her, rather than have the words to describe it. Part of it is surely that Buffy wants to protect her friends from the truth, but it’s also part of a larger narrative that she surrounded herself with. She also knows that she’s not the same, and that her friends noticed it. But if she doesn’t talk to them about it, that leaves her space to ignore it, ignore her trauma, her detachment, just as she’s trying to ignore her financial issues.

It’s classic self-sabotage and depression. At that stage where you don’t even want to admit that you have depression, because that implies that something’s wrong with you. And we are just not going to deal with that. Quick, let’s self-depreciate and make a joke about burning down the house for insurance.

Of course those financial issues would be better if someone paid rent for living there for potentially over 4 months now. Or at the very least had a discussion with Buffy about whether or not they should still live there.

Yes, we circled back to Willow again, but also Tara. This is certainly not a new hot take, but it is sort of baffling that these two don’t seem to contribute anything to Buffy’s financial situation despite living in her damn house. I get that most of Joyce’s insurance money just about covered the medical bills, but they also comment about the cost of living and… Those costs should have been covered by the adults living in the house, not by a finite and apparently very little amount of money Joyce left her daughters??

You definitely get the idea that the gang, and specifically Willow and Tara in this case, had absolutely no plans whatsoever beyond bringing Buffy back. They apparently expected Buffy to magically solve those finance issues when she was brought back, instead of… you know… thinking ahead about the teenager in the house, whose well-being they moved in for, I assume.

I initially was also just somewhat confused by the fact that they thought that pretending that Buffy was still alive was better than sending Dawn to live with her dad… But this rewatch reminded me that Hank Summers absolutely can’t be trusted to actually take in his own daughter, and Buffy even says so in an episode in season 5. They actually worry about how Dawn might be put into foster care if Buffy’s deemed unreliable as a guardian.

So, alright, I get it, they hoped that they could bring Buffy back anyway, but I can’t believe that apparently they didn’t even pay the bills out of their own pockets? They’re college students, sure, and that Tara obviously won’t get support from her family… But maybe, you know, take on a part-time job? And what about Willow’s family? Weird as a relationship she has with her parents, it’s still a relationship, so she could probably explain that she needs money to pay rent.

It’s just baffling. Even more so the fact that none of this is ever addressed, and Buffy keeps making increasingly sarcastic remarks about how everyone’s living in her house. Which points to her, Willow and Tara never having a discussion about whether or not they should move out or stay, now that she’s back.

On the other hand, there’s Dawn, and having three adults parenting her is probably better for now. Especially when she wants to do the research with them. Tara’s face is entirely too smug when Dawn opens a book despite her mom efforts, and is immediately greeted with some weird demon horn penis shit, or whatever.

(Which also reminds me of a s7 scene, where Dawn is having a slow epiphany of what Willow’s TMI involving tongue piercings imply, and Buffy’s like “Dawn needs to do a research thing!” How the turntables.)

Arguably the most reasonable person in this whole bunch is Anya though. When she proposes that Buffy should be charging for saving lives, everyone boos her. But you know what, that’s just a load of crap. And not just because that’s the entire premise of Angel the series.

Maybe there’s an idea here about how altruism can’t be done for profit, but if that’s the intention, then I’m once again calling bullshit. Apparently you either have a 9 to 5 job in order to pay the bills, and have food to eat – after which you’re happy to watch one (1) episode of television and write a nonsense text post about it, and definitely not go out to save the world if you also want to sleep. OR you can do the whole saving the world thing but also starve and lose your house to debt, I guess.

(The Spider-man comparison is also just weak, man. Peter Parker is a high school student for most of his stories. He has an aunt to take care of his finances, just like Buffy didn’t have to worry about finances in high school either.)

This also comes right back to the whole idea of how the Watcher’s Council is paying Watchers but not Slayers. Like, you know what, Giles. You could actually take care of this.

After all, you’re the one getting paid for Buffy’s work.

Oh, and bless Anya too for calling out Xander’s stalling and bullshit about their engagement. She’s right and she should say it.

[dimples-of-discontent]

Don’t you think Jensen always denying that dean is bi is because it hits close to him? Like Dean’s behaviour around men and Jensen’s around Misha is kinda similar so?

Hello Nonnie,

Whew, oh boy! Ok, I got this ask in a few different forms so hopefully one answer can serve for them. 

The first thing I’m going to do is remind everyone that Jensen has never commented publicly on his sexuality at all and that, therefore, it’s none of our business. It never is, actually, unless someone brings it up themselves and indicates that they wish to discuss it. That’s just a rule for life. Private is private, even if you’re an actor. The second thing I’m going to do is assume that you know what kind of blog this is and that I backstroke through the garbage fire pretty regularly including speculating about Jensen and Misha. So, yes, I am guilty of engaging in this type of posting. 

But there’s rules! The main rule being that these things we say for our entertainment (curiosity, whatever) in fandom spaces are never in a billion years to be brought into the actors lives in any way. Do not ask them about it. Do not show them posts or fic about it. Do not tag them in Twitter posts about it, even if those are adorable posts collecting all the Cockles cheek kisses or whatever. Fandom spaces are ours; they’re imagined communities and we behave differently in them than we would in the real world. 

Plus–again this should be obvious–we’re just posting shit we infer from a very limited viewpoint. Jensen and Misha give us a lot to work with (hoobooy they do!) but we’re seeing them in the public eye, at cons mostly or on livestreams. We have no freaking clue what they are like alone…and that’s how it should be.

And now that I have attached that upfront (I know I do this all the time and that if you read a bunch of my posts you may be getting sick of it…apologies, but RPS is very tricky and I feel like I need to foreground some of the boundaries for newcomers) let me put a cut below which you will find my thoughts on this.

It’s no secret that Jensen has a very high degree of character bleed with Dean–he straight-up admits that. I wrote a long post that’s been going around about how Jensen views Dean very experientially, knowing what Dean knows and doing what he thinks Dean would do, and about how that makes it tough for him to distinguish what he thinks of Dean from what DEAN thinks of Dean. Dean is a part of Jensen, as he has said.

What’s slightly less obvious, though intuitive, is that Jensen is a part of Dean. The vulnerability that Dean has had from the beginning is, to my mind, all Jensen. A lesser actor, or a lesser sweetheart, in that role would have made Dean pretty unsympathetic with his sarcasm and his machismo and his dumb, smirking face. To me, this is the same thing that happened with James Marsters on “Buffy.” He was supposed to be a straight-up villain, in just a couple episodes, but audiences went nuts for him. He got more episodes but Whedon still wanted to keep him a villain…except that James couldn’t keep that vulnerability and uncertainty and humanity out of the character. So instead we got a love story and a big, ol’ redemption arc. (I realize that it also sounds like I’m describing what happened with Misha and, in a sense, I am.)

Now, Jensen is a better actor than James Marsters (even though I think James is an amazing actor…and I love that he dropped out of Juilliard), but I’m willing to bet that what James did with humanizing Spike was more deliberate than what Jensen did with Dean. I think Jensen feels things intuitively about Dean and that he just goes for it without additional self-reflection. That’s why when he’s called out on something that he hasn’t deliberately chosen to do–like many of the bi!Dean or Destiel moments–he’s confused and slightly defensive. He makes some deliberate choices, obviously, but especially at this point he’s going on mostly instinct and doesn’t HAVE to examine those choices.

That is, unless we ask him to. I think often his encounters with questions about playing Dean a certain way (bisexual, in love with Cas) DO ask him to reflect on himself and ask himself why he made particular choices. And that’s not easy to do, especially onstage and in front of a crowd!! It’s like we’re always going, “Ok, Jensen, so clearly your instinct is to [insert non-hetero thing here]…why IS that?”; no wonder he will freeze-panic and sometimes say something thoughtless and/or rude! (Personally, I would like us to stop asking, largely for this reason.)

So, I suppose my answer to your question is “yes, exactly.” I think Jensen is an intelligent, meticulous, and thoughtful actor. I also think, subconsciously, he channels a ton of himself into Dean and that his being defensive of certain aspects of Dean (e.g. his sexuality) is indeed also his being defensive about those aspects of himself. Look at how much more easily the other cast members are able to analyze their characters, including comments about their sexuality. Just this weekend (at Jaxcon) Rich pretty much confirmed that he sees Gabriel as non-straight (pansexual?). Jared has said that he sees Sam as straight but that it’s ok by him if other people don’t. Ditto Misha about Cas (though he usually gets asked about his being Ace). And, yes, that is Jensen’s party line on the Dean question too. “You have your version and I have mine.” But his reactions to it are, to me, notably different from the rest of the cast.

I haven’t mentioned Misha yet but, well, if there’s any time we see Jensen acting non-straight it’s around Misha (in character or not). I’m not fully on the train for “Destiel is Cockles’s fault” because “Destiel” is a complex phenomenon 10 years in the making. But I’m not ever going to deny that their chemistry was a huge part of it taking root and growing. And it’s impossible–absolutely fucking impossible–not to notice the overlap between the trajectories. The first time Jensen met Misha was the first time Dean met Cas; they were both freaked out by this kind of alien being as much because he inspired “weird” feelings in them as because he was so “weird.” Jensen had Misha’s handprint applied in makeup before he met him just like Dean was branded by Cas. They had kind of an enemies-to-friends-to-lovers thing. They experienced some kind of betrayal and breakup and then a tentative reunion. They’re basically married now. 

So, yeah, when Jensen is asked about Dean’s sexuality I do think he experiences it as a question about his own sexuality. And when he’s asked about Cas I do think he experiences it as a question about Misha. And, as others have said, either he’s been subtly playing Dean’s attraction to guys (including Cas) the whole time or he’s kind of lost control of himself and enabled his own attraction to men, and particularly Misha, to creep in unintentionally. (Note that I don’t think that makes him a “bad actor”; like I said, I think he acts Dean very intuitively at this point so his decisions may be unexamined but are not “bad” choices.) 

This is already long, so I’m not going to comment here on what I think of Jensen’s sexuality. Well, actually, you’ve stayed with me so long that I feel I owe it to you. The short version… I do think that Jensen isn’t straight. I think he’s a guy who thinks of himself as straight even though he sometimes hooks up with dudes. The fact that that is inherently not straight doesn’t bother him. He doesn’t think it’s a big deal (though he used to, and that panic can still get activated). He doesn’t care about the labels and he finds the idea of seeing himself in the LGBTQA acronym ridiculous. 

He and Misha may argue about this. It is, after all, a form of enormous privilege as an incredibly attractive, cis-het, white dude to just choose not to join a marginalized group. I do think that’s one reason he and especially Danneel support a lot of LGBTQA causes. (I don’t think she and Misha are straight either and I think they probably don’t self-identify that way.)

Maybe in another post I’ll go more fully into the long version of sexuality speculation. It’s such a delicate thing to do and I want to do it as respectfully as possible and I just don’t have the energy at the moment. I have written about this before, though, if you’re looking for more; I have a tag for “jensen is not straight” and (I think) “jensen is bi” although I dropped that b/c it was too definitive. There’s also one for “sexuality speculation” and “misha is not straight” and “misha is bi” (same reason for the tag change…too definitive.) 

Remember the rules, though, and keep everything respectful and confined to our own lanes.

[yasuda-yoshiya]

Thoughts on Revolutionary Girl Utena

So, as a first step in my ongoing effort to detox from 800 episodes of card games and expand my anime horizons a little, I've spent the last month or so watching Utena. Wow, what a cool and fascinating series! It honestly felt to me like a really strikingly bold and subversive show even by today's standards, let alone for the time it was made. Having had some time to think on it, here are some tentative thoughts:

While I definitely enjoyed and felt engaged with this show the whole way through, I think the last few episodes were what really pulled it all together for me. Up to that point, I absolutely loved Utena and Anthy as characters and their relationship, and found the general surreal presentation and aesthetics of the show really consistently beautiful and intriguing in a way that made it always feel engaging to watch, but it also felt like a kind of episodic and disjointed show where the various characters' stories didn't really seem to connect with or impact each other in any meaningful way.

But the endgame of the series was where it really took me by surprise in how it went so far beyond what I would have expected! The way the show had been framed up until then, I was basically expecting the big finale to be about Utena definitively making the choice to be Anthy's "prince" and rejecting the role of the "princess" that Akio wanted to push on her - and I would still have really appreciated and admired the show even for that alone, for Utena's gender non-conforming presentation and relationship with Anthy being portrayed so positively in general and for the way her feeling pressured to be more like a "normal girl" was always so explicitly framed as the "wrong choice" by the narrative - but I felt like the show really took things a step further in not just upholding Utena's role as the prince but outright rejecting the prince/princess framework and the hierarchy of the dueling game system altogether. It felt like such a daring ending to me in the way it totally breaks down and reframes the whole premise of the series up to that point, and made me look at a lot of the characters and themes of the series in a whole new light! It honestly made me realise that I'd probably been projecting my expectations of this kind of story on Anthy in much the same way as Utena had, and it made the show end up feeling really intelligent and insightful to me in its willingness not just to overturn gender role expectations on traditional romantic narratives and flip the bird to heteronormativity (which it still absolutely does, and does very well), but also to really question and criticise the assumptions behind those narratives on a fundamental level.

And the more I think about the series since then, the more I feel like so much of the series' broader imagery and themes really clicks for me in that light? The whole system of dueling over the Rose Bride feels like a very apt metaphor for the way so much of mainstream society and media does present romantic love, as a struggle to "win" your ideal partner as proof of your self-worth and as a magic cure for all your personal unhappiness and insecurities, as a sort of contest where the “losers” who can’t “get” a partner look up at the “winners” with envy and resentment - and the way Akio ultimately pulls back the curtain on that system to reveal that the ideal castle that all those people were fighting to reach was just a false image he was projecting to them to serve his own ends, that their attempts to escape their insecurities and "revolutionise the world" through winning the duels were really just upholding and reinforcing the status quo, felt really powerful to me. While I was watching the show, a lot of the side characters and their subplots had sort of frustrated me at times with their frequent emphasis on unrequited love stories that felt really obviously shallow and unhealthy, but I felt like the last few episodes really successfully reframed a lot of that to me as a remarkably perceptive commentary on just how much those kinds of empty romantic ideals and societal conventions can constrain people and warp their individual potential on a systematic scale.

In that sense, I feel like I can really appreciate the show's portrayal of how even fundamentally decent people like Miki and Saionji can be warped by the system into people willing to objectify Anthy and fight to possess her as a way of alleviating their own insecurities, even when they wouldn't have been naturally inclined to be that kind of person, through the pressure of the people around them accepting it as the norm and the false promise of the ideal happiness waiting on the other side. How people like Wakaba and Keiko can be made to believe that happiness is impossible for them and to resent the people around them for "stealing their happiness away", because everything around them has led them to the subconscious belief that the only "happiness" out there is being noticed by a popular guy like Touga or Saionji. Even Utena, the one who most explicitly rejects the dueling system and specifically sets out to treat Anthy as a real person with her own autonomy, still ends up unconsciously projecting her own ideals on her and playing into the established system in the ways she goes about being her "prince", because the influence of those flawed ideals and norms is so deep and pervasive that it's almost impossible not to internalise some of it.

It feels like something I can definitely relate to as someone who absolutely did buy into a lot of that crap as a teenager and seriously hurt other people as a result - and while I did eventually manage to break out and see the toxicity of the system for what it was, it's also horribly easy for me to see how easy it must be for people to stay constrained by it and live out their whole lives without "breaking the world's shell", without even realising how the toxic assumptions they've inherited from "the world" are killing them and distorting the ways they interact with other people - how their attempts at escaping from their insecurities are hurting themselves and others, and ultimately just perpetuating the same system that's strangling them. Akio is a horrifying villain because the ways he insidiously manipulates and influences the people around him feel absolutely real - he's able to play to people's vulnerabilities and unexamined assumptions, to make them follow along with his script while keeping them always genuinely believing that they're making their own independent decisions and fighting for their own happiness and fulfilment. It's very hard to fight something that embeds itself on such a deep and unconscious level in people's basic assumptions and frameworks for viewing themselves and the world, where people don’t even see the ways it’s influencing them.

But I think Utena's ending feels very honest and hopeful in acknowledging that, while the system can't really be defeated or destroyed by individual people in any meaningful way, what people CAN do is make the decision to step outside it and not allow it to have power over them - and, hopefully, to inspire other people to be able to make that choice for themselves too. That part towards the end of the film where the other student council members came to the rescue and helped Utena and Anthy escape, wishing them well in the outside world - "We still haven't found our own way out yet, but we'll definitely get there some day" - honestly made me tear up a little! It really communicated a strong sense of hope to me in the idea that these kids might have made a lot of mistakes and still have a lot of growing up to do, but it's still possible for them to break free from Ohtori and everything it represents the same way Utena and Anthy did - that the present doesn't have to keep following the way of the past. It’s still possible for the next generation to escape it and leave it behind. The whole imagery around the film's ending - "it may be a world without roads, but we can build them" - felt really uplifting and beautiful to me as well; as ridiculously bizarre and surreal as the film was in a lot of ways, it felt like it capped off the series' themes really nicely.

All in all, I ended up feeling really fulfilled and satisfied with this show! It feels like a very deliberate series that's extremely conscious of everything it wants to do, and generally executes it well. I would say I probably didn’t really connect with a lot of the individual character arcs on a particularly deep level - Juri's resolution with that one guy who popped in completely out of nowhere felt particularly odd to me, and I wasn't a huge fan of Nanami or Touga either - but I think it really nailed the bigger picture in terms of its thematic project and the ideas it wanted to convey, and on the whole I feel like I just have a huge amount of respect for the things it had to say and the way it went about saying them. The whole imagery of the setting with the school as an isolated, self-contained world with its inhabitants unknowingly being overseen and controlled by Akio from his tower as "the highest place in this world" really feels like such a strong and vivid metaphor to me, and I honestly felt really impressed with just how perceptively and accurately the show manages to portray the subtleties of the various ways social and patriarchal pressures really do operate on people (and on young teenagers who are still figuring out how love and relationships work in particular). It's weird to say about such a surreal and often goofy series, but I honestly feel like I haven't seen a story that approaches those kinds of subjects with this kind of clarity, and I feel like this show's framework has honestly helped me to reexamine and better understand a lot of my own messy teenage experiences as well. Definitely a show whose whole feels like more than the sum of its parts for me, I think, and one that I expect is going to stick with me for quite some time!

[douxreviews]

Roswell, New Mexico - ‘Tearin' Up My Heart’ Review

“Hypothesis: Max Evans killed my sister.”

Liz is an amazing liar. She is adept at assessing people’s emotions and using partial truths as a misdirection, obscuring her true goals. By offering her scientific skills, displaying her natural curiosity, and playing on their long-standing friendship, as well as Max’s feelings for her, Liz convinces Max to do the one thing he fears most. Having a scientist experiment on him.  However, the person she is most adept at lying to is herself.

Liz could have taken her San Diego grant money and left Roswell with or without dear old Dad. The realization that her sister did not kill herself or the two other innocent girls in a drugged-out haze and the desire to find out the truth is undoubtedly a compelling reason to stay. Especially for someone with Liz’s sense of fairness and the above-mentioned curiosity. Yet, for all her bluster about being objective in her search for proof that Max killed Rosa, she spends an awful lot of time justifying his behavior and excusing the evidence.

Liz dismisses her arm injury to Kyle even as she is legitimately afraid to let Max touch her. Her inability to dismiss the damage Max inflicted on the EKG machine causes her to shift her investigation into what Rosa may have done to instigate Max’s actions. While I agree that Max would not have hurt Rosa without cause, I am a) privy to information that Liz is not, and b) not related to the victim. Liz’s willingness to blame the victim has more to do with her unexamined feelings than logic or objectivity. She consistently cannot put aside her residual anger towards and feelings of abandonment by her sister or the attraction and, dare I say it, love she feels for Max.

Which is why it isn’t until she finds Max’s letter that she is convinced of his guilt and confronts him. And you have to wonder how much of that is undergirded by jealousy.  After all, his declaration that he has always loved her and he could never kill anyone that she loved stops her cold. That is as true for her as is the knowledge that he is not being completely honest with her.

I think we can agree that she’s not being completely honest with herself either. Her opening monologue acknowledges that her feelings for Max go back to her mother’s abandonment. She tells Maria of her attraction to Max on multiple occasion then later confesses to Maria that she was engaged to the “perfect” man that she felt nothing for. And for the pièce de résistance you have Isobel reading Liz’s mind and acknowledging the depth of her feelings for Max. The word “love” may not have crossed anyone’s lips, but the implication is clear.

Speaking of Isobel, her and Noah’s relationship is just odd. She doesn’t come home for dinner and he waits until the next afternoon to find out where she was? She basically tells him that her brother is the most important person in the world to her and he doesn’t get jealous, he merely offers to be more attentive. While I think we could all wish for husband (or wife) that was so kind and thoughtful, it doesn’t seem very realistic.

And what of Isobel’s argument with Max? Regardless of her reasons, her assessment of Liz was right on the money. Liz is investigating them and it’s not for benevolent purposes. Her accusation that Max would do anything just to be close to Liz is spot on as well. Is Max’s claim that she’s using his life as a distraction from her messed up relationship with Noah as accurate? Or is he throwing the barb he knows will cause the most damage as only a family member can?

With the possible exception of Maria, whom we still know very little about, Michael is the most honest of the lot. He is unapologetic about who he is, what he does, or what he wants despite the pain it inevitably causes him. Alex seems to be the antithesis of that. He vacillates between hiding and flaunting his sexuality just as he seems to both crave and despise his father’s approval. This is a man deeply uncomfortable with who he is. This doesn’t bode well for their relationship.

The Rosa Magical Mystery tour led to the discovery that Rosa was befriended by someone using the pseudonym Ophiuchus, which doesn’t strike me as a typical high school choice. Given Rosa’s comments in Isobel’s flashes, I would suspect Isobel but she’d remember something like that. Is she picking up on someone else’s memories?

Have you noticed Isobel is the only one interested in maintaining the status quo? Liz wants answers. Max wants Liz. Michael wants, to quote Isobel “his person,” and while Alex may not be sure what he wants, the status quo is definitely not it.

What do we know:

Max has never been sick.

Whatever has been building in him since he healed Liz was strong enough to take out the power to all of Roswell.

We get confirmation that Rosa was not in favor of a relationship between Max and Liz. She previously told Liz that Max should be in her rearview and here she hid his letter to Liz. Did she know something we and Liz don’t?

Kyle, despite believing Liz’s investigation of her sister’s death could prove dangerous, refuses to betray her confidence. How much of that is because of his feelings for Liz or his distrust of Manes is anybody’s guess.

Speaking of Chief Master Sargent Manes, he and Valenti Sr. had a falling out. The question is when and over what. My suspicion is that it was over expediency. Manes strikes me as an “any means necessary“ kind of guy and Kyle continually speaks of his father’s code which included “innocent until proven guilty.” Those two philosophies seldom mix.

Roswell, New Mexico is brought to us by the several members of The Originals and The Vampire Diaries production team. Thus the casting of Nathan Parsons, Riley Voelkel, and Michael Trevino. And as with their predecessors, they have shown a willingness to burn through plot. Where other shows would have dragged out Liz and Max’s confrontation till at least the mid-season finale, here we barely make it through one episode. The end result is I have no idea where we’re headed but I am enjoying the ride.

4 out of 5 Blackouts.

Parting Thoughts:

This week’s title refers to the NSYNC song by the same name.

Max’s nerd boner over a first edition Walt Whitman brought a smile to my face. It’s not Russian literature but we are 3 for 3 on Max’s bookworm references.

While we’re meant to see Liz and her father in a sympathetic light. The Powers That Be don’t shy away from alternative views. While Sheriff Valenti, a neutral bystander in the overall narrative, won’t go out of her way to deport Arturo Ortecho, she’s not shy in her condemnation of the fact that he came to the country illegally while others, including her own family, sacrificed to do it the right way. We don’t live in a black and white world and I’m always pleased when writers and producers are willing to show it.

Minor Gaff: When Isobel announces that the fundraiser has doubled last year's donations, Noah is standing in the audience cheering. Yet when she gets home, she tells him the same info, and he acts like he never heard it.

Quotes

Liz: “You can relax. I left my scalpel at home." Max: “Oh, good. Cause I saw what you did to that frog freshman year, and it was not pretty.”

Isobel: “I have the entire Air Force here for the veteran fundraiser, and you’re out here playing what, alien autopsy?"

Kyle: “I know you want to believe Max is a golden retriever, but he’s a frigging’ X-file, Liz.”

Alex: “You’re awake.” Michael: “You stayed.”

Isobel: “I just came from Max’s. He’s letting Liz experiment on him.” Michael: “Please say ‘sexually.’”

Maria: “I didn’t want to invade her privacy, even now.” Liz: “Well, as a little sister, invading my big sister’s privacy is my born prerogative. Even now.”

Jenna: “Yeah, why not. Let’s go to the drive-in. Maybe after you can take me to the malt shop and then pin your letter on my sweater.”

Michael: “So are you going to mind-warp Liz before or after Mars Attacks?”

Maria: “If we’re stalking, I need a corn dog.”

Max: “I was really hoping for E.T. this year.” Isobel: “Xenophobia sells more tickets.”

Michael: “Guess you’re still the guy looking for any excuse to walk away, huh?" Alex: “Maybe. And you’re still so good at giving them to me.”

Manes: “We shared one goal. To protect our town and our world from the imminent alien threat.” Kyle: “Imminent? The crash was in 1947. If they pose a threat to humanity, they’re taking their sweet time.”

Manes: “Although you should know there’s one fatal flaw in our system. Innocent until proven guilty means that justice can only be served after disaster has struck.”

---

Shari loves sci-fi, fantasy, supernatural, and anything with a cape.