#I don't think I've conveyed much of the complexities

[bewitchingbloom]

Finished season one of the Apothecary Diaries! I think it's safe to say I loved it. I really love Maomao's character and how her perception of things actually colors almost the entire story. She did such a good job demonizing Lakan that when we shifted to his POV, I was genuinely stunned by the twist (and I cried a little I'll admit.) And when we shift back to her POV, her views on her parents haven't changed, something I really appreciate. It really made the series stand out for me, I like that she is allowed to exist in her story, very flawed but also extremely loveable (to me at least lol)

Anyways...I'll probably watch Season 2 sooner rather than later, which is saying something since I tend to treat TV shows like some people do books and just never continue after a certain point lol

[quatregats]

Thinking about Marie Ladon (under cut for major spoilers through Lord Hornblower)

Contemplating Marie as proxy for what couldn't be with Bush/Hornblower trying to understand his own emotions towards Bush. It's unclear to me what parts of Marie are real and what parts are not; the entire sequence at Graçay is dreamlike to begin with, and the second time Hornblower visits, in Lord Hornblower, it feels equally so. Marie is also a deeply idealized character who seems to understand Hornblower's every need and meet his every want; but we know not to trust the internal monologue at all, and when Marie does actually break through it in a few rare moments, she does seem to be a very different sort of character - the same is also true of Barbara, but Forester is a bit more obvious about it. The thing about Marie is that not only does she only appear in these out-of-the-world, in-between spaces in the narrative, often in a very overly-perfect way, but she also appears at points where Bush and Hornblower's relationship has taken significant turns and Forester only partially elaborates on it. In particular, Bush and Hornblower become very close on the way to Graçay, and appear to have grown even closer upon leaving it (and there are distinctly romantic-adjacent comments on both sides of this sojourn), while on Hornblower's second trip to France, he has lost Bush and clearly been deeply affected by the loss - in fact, it causes a rift between him and Barbara which he deepens by seeking out Marie. There are parallels there in death as well, with both characters dying in the same book - Hornblower lives out death first with Bush at a distance, then again up close with Marie. They move in odd tandem with each other, and while Marie often appears out of nowhere and takes center-stage, Bush always looms large in the background with a longer, more emotionally-wrought storyline that can never quite come to fruition.

I wonder, then, if there is something to be said for Marie as a sort of narrative device for Hornblower's relationship with Bush. She's not that relationship directly, but instead almost a way of processing it - processing the raw desire in Flying Colours, or processing death and grief and a lost illicit relationship which might be far happier than any legally-sanctioned one. She stands in for what Hornblower can't say, and she lets him process and fail to process his ghosts. I'm not quite sure where to go from there, but I think that it's interesting how she serves to act out the things which Hornblower otherwise doesn't dare to say; in Marie there are the echoes of what Hornblower and Bush are, or could be.

[robinvomit]

† underlined : jason.

⋆˙⟡ "You have given me a thing I could never have imagined, before I knew you. It's like I had the word 'book,' and you put one in my hands. I had the word 'game,' and you taught me how to play. I had the word 'life,' and then you came along and said, 'Oh! You mean this.'"

⋆˙⟡ request: no, i'm just coping. jason using literature as a love language. ↦ kalico note: i have nothing to say here.. but i did notice i had to make a jason banner.. i really have no solo jason requests??? + p.s: yes, there are several meanings to the a.s byatt quote - it was simply teasing because the quote acknowledges that passion can lead to destruction.

jason todd is a complex creature that has never been able to rely solely on words to communicate. he wasn't raised in softness, being taught how to verbally express everything he feels — even now, he struggles with the vulnerability that comes with it, all of it feeling incredibly foreign.

that's not to say he never communicates, no, but there are times when he can't find the words. feels like his own will just fuck things up. so, he uses the only thing he knows will convey his thoughts; classic literature.

"i love her, and that's the beginning and end of everything."

you weren't sure how to act when he said those words

quiet, muffled against the crown of your head

you weren't entirely sure he was looking for a response

jason, on the other hand, thought you were asleep

it was a confession, one he hadn't been fully ready to say outright

"i would rather spend one lifetime with you, than face all the ages of this world alone."

he just says it out of nowhere

sitting on the couch

almost like he's just reciting the words for fun

you, on the other hand, are staring at him

it takes a second to process

"are you.. are you flirting by quoting lord of the rings?"

he doesn't confirm or deny that

"i have waited for this opportunity for more than half a century, to repeat to you once again my vow of eternal fidelity and everlasting love."

you're in the kitchen

his arms around your waist, forehead down against your shoulder

it makes you think, going over the words for a moment

"do you think we were in love in our past lives?"

he chuckles at the question

he turns you around, careful

"i'd like to think i've been following you through each one."

you can only look away when he gives you that little grin

"if i had a flower for every time i thought of you, i could walk through my garden forever."

it's on the little card of a bouquet this time

just sitting on your counter

he's nowhere to be found

you just smile, tucking it back into the little plastic holder

you wonder if he'd like getting flowers, too

"take me with you. for the laughs, the luck, for the unknown. take me with you."

you can't help but laugh reading this one

nothing too loud, just amused

"i'm leaving for too days, dummy."

he absolutely does not care

he didn't care scribbling it on a sticky note

why would he care now?

"long enough-"

"perhaps it is our imperfections that make us so perfect for one another."

you saw this one coming

he'd seen you upset

upset over stupid things

your brain messing with you, as it does so often

he'd comforted you in the moment

but seeing the note stuck to the bathroom mirror?

it almost made you want to cry again

"i know from experience that poets are right; love is eternal."

he quotes this one after you ask him something he doesn't want to hear

that inevitable conversation

the "what if something happens to me?"

the "what if you don't come home?"

there's nothing much he can do to soothe those thoughts

the world doesn't work that way

but he kisses your forehead, whispering the words

a promise of sorts

no matter what happens, he is going to be loving you

"i would rather be happy than dignified."

it's after a fight

not even really a fight

an argument that left you both uneasy

it comes in the form of the book

highlighted for you

a way of apologizing

because words don't always work

"i love you as certain dark things are to be loved, in secret, between the shadow and the soul."

this is one you hear him mumbling under his breath

something that catches your attention

something that makes your stomach twist

"jason?"

he doesn't look up immediately

dealing with other voices that he's trying to shut out

it's a simple question that makes you understand

"you're here for it all, yeah?"

"i cannot let you burn me up, nor can i resist you. no mere human can stand in a fire and not be consumed."

it's scribbled in a card for your anniversary

you look between him and the card a few times

reread it once or twice

you click your tongue

"are you trying to tell me that our love is destructive?"

maybe he didn't think that one through

"there’s nothing in all the world i want but you and your precious love. all the material things are nothing. i’d just hate to live a sordid, colorless existence because you’d soon love me less and less and i’d do anything — anything — to keep your heart for my own. i don’t want to live—i want to love first, and live incidentally… don’t—don’t ever think of the things you can’t give me. you’ve trusted me with the dearest heart of all—and it’s so damn much more than anybody else in all the world has ever had."

this is the one is said after a mission

after nearly losing his life for the second time

after potentially leaving you to deal with the world alone

you don't respond to it

you simply let him have his time

he doesn't let you go for a while

"i’m so damn glad i love you – i wouldn’t love any other man on earth – i b’lieve if i had deliberately decided on a sweetheart, he’d have been you."

it's the first time you respond using his own little language

you say it with a smile

a little over exaggerating

even going as far to tap him on the nose

for once; he has no quotes

no words

no jokes

he's simply looking at you in a way that says he loves you

for the simple fact that you did that specifically for him

[la-gotica-fantasma]

Nineteen writing tips I've picked up / been told -

~ ( Disclaimer : I am not telling you what to do or what you can and cannot do. Writing is personal, stylized, and a vessel for self-expression. Your writing is YOURS suga, and however you do it is beautiful. This post is just some advice I've found insightful, and maybe you could too. ᓚᘏᗢ ) ~

★ If you cannot tell if your story is connecting - read it out loud

★ If you have a really good idea, and you are practically itching to write it right now - then do !! Jot down that amazing idea and then connect all those frayed wires.

★ If you want the reader to be attached to a character - let that character be imperfect. Let them be selfish, overzealous, clumsy, or naive. / Let their good traits have bad days.

( examples include, but are not limited to; )

Savior-complex: Pushing too hard to help someone and hurting them more.

Patience: Being left high and dry.

High tolerance: Other characters overestimating their ability to tolerate anything.

Selfless: 'Character X' putting themselves after others to the point that 'Character Y ' has to forget about themselves to be able to keep 'Character X' afloat.

Bonding: Building an unhealthy reliance with one another.

★ If you want a character to be [emotionally] complex - let their emotions conflict. / Let morals be mixed into their dilemma (if they have one). / Try not to let the plot overshadow the characters inner conflict.

★ If you have a work in progress that you want to finish, but can't find motivation to - that's okay !! You're allowed to wait, and you're allowed to come back later with a bajillion ideas !!!

★ If you have plot holes - don't overwork yourself trying to getting rid of them !!! There are plot holes in stories that are TRUE, it'd be impossible to fix all plot holes.

★ If you are writing first person / thought - give their thought process a voice. How do they think? How do they structure their sentences? What phrases do they often use?

★ If you are writing stuttering, people rarely ever stutter "L-l-like..... T-t-this." - Stuttering is usually the repeating of the same part in a sentence, going back on it, like they're editing their sentence. / Space in between words, breathing, preparing. / Filler words !!! "Oh- I- I just-.. uhmm.. I was- I was just giving.. an example."

★ Don't 'CAPITALIZE' dialogue to show that they are yelling / shouting / screaming - we can convey yelling with how we phrase their speech, exclamation marks, etc.

★ Don't be afraid to make a character have hate for another character - nobody can like everybody. It can add personality and makes the character all the more realistic for the reader

★ Sensory details are always great to have in your work !!! But in action scenes - having less sensory detail is almost always more immersive.

"Why?", Because if a character is in an active sword fight with another character, their focus wouldn't be on the way the moonlight spills through the mesh curtains, or how their hand feels against the handle.

Putting those details before or after is so much more realistic and lets the reader grab and hang on to what you have to say, instead of a zip line with loose handlebars.

★ Don't be afraid to use tropes - it's not cheating in the slightest, you are the one writing it. Nobody else could've used the trope like you would. / You can use tropes to your advantage; readers find security in tropes, let the reader think "I see this often, they'll _____" and then totally 180 them.

★ Kill "Show. Don't tell." - you can do both !! It will be right either way, but always choosing one or the other disengages the reader from certain aspects.

★ Kill "Said is Dead" - you can lack the word "said" just as much as you can overuse it !!!

★ It isn't just about if a character coaxed, agreed, revealed, or proposed the dialogue. - It's also about how they did it. Was it soft? Sand papery? Rich? Confident? Hesitant?

★ Chaos doesn't solve 'everything' - but it solves a boatload.

★ Your story doesn't have to have a happy ending for the main character.

★ If a scene feels random or forced - check if you have motive for the scene

★ If you think of yourself as a bad writer, or you're self-conscious of your writing, remember - that no matter what, you will always be a better writer than Colleen Hoover.

~ ( Reminder : If you live by any of the things I mentioned, this is no hate to you. I am not shunning you, nor the way you write. Your current writing and your future growth is beautiful. But, if you like Colleen Hoover you can block me. ᓚᘏᗢ ) ~

[avelera]

(Meta) Fortiche's Use of Religious Imagery in Viktor's Arc Was Intended to Convey Sinister Undertones

So I'm gonna put my Art History TA hat on for a second and say I've seen a lot of the connections made between Viktor (Arcane) with the religious imagery referenced in his arc, which is inescapably present and intentional, and I feel like its worthy time for a reminder that Fortiche, the animation studio for Arcane, is based in France

So on the one hand, it would be impossible to develop as an artist in France and not have a ton of exposure to religious art and iconography, which is very obvious in just how much Renaissance art and Catholic iconography is referenced with Viktor. (Never mind how well it works as a visual language for the mysticism they imbued into the rise of the Machine Herald in general.)

There's a great thread about all the art referenced here:

But on the other, if I can just put my history nerd hat on as well for a second I'd also like to point out that there's also subtle (and not so subtle) sinister undertones to the religious iconography for Viktor, even before he does anything overtly evil. Like, even when he heals Huck back in 2.02, I think we're meant to feel at least a subtle sense of wrongness to the "triumph" of that scene and the swelling religious chorus.

I was reminded while watching those scenes that an element of the French Revolution (also referenced in the opening credits of Arcane with Jinx waving the flag, so I think it's fair game to consider in discussions of the meta themes of the show) that is sometimes overlooked in the US when we learn about the French Revolution is how much the rage at the aristocracy was also aimed at the Catholic priesthood, since those two institutions were deeply intertwined as oppressive forces against the French people.

Basically, I think if you consider a French studio referencing Catholic religious imagery in their show (used to depict Viktor's rise to mystic power which will in turn lead to his eventual disillusionment with humanity and him dooming the world if he isn't stopped) you're missing out on some delicious shades of nuance and subtle foreshadowing if you don't know that a French studio's use of Catholic imagery could, in itself, be intended to add a subtle sense of impending evil because Catholicism in that country has also historically represented a system that is oppressive towards individual freedoms.

Now of course France's relationship with Catholicism is complex and it isn't just a simple case of Catholic Imagery = Evil Stuff is Happening Here, but I would point out that if you watched an American show and a character was crowned king in the first act to a manically cheering crowd, it would absolutely be fair to wonder if the crowning of the king had sinister undertones, because of the US's history and how the country was established in part as an escape for monarchy. On a cultural level, we see kings as bad things in the US, and likewise in France, Catholicism as an institution and Catholic imagery have some very complex and often evil associations.

TL;DR If you don't consider that a French studio might have used Catholic imagery specifically as visual hint and foreshadowing that Viktor's arc was going to be about him turning evil, then you're missing out on some very fun and tasty meta associations in the Arcane show.

[crownlixliquid]

The fandom's portrayal of Starscream's abuse (A rant from an abuse victim's perspective)

To preface this, I am NOT saying that every abuse victim thinks like me or that Starscream is the "perfect" potrayal of abuse or anything like that. Nor is this directed to anyone in particular and it's definitely not a hate message or anything towards anyone who thinks differently. This is my personal opinions on the view as a victim of abuse myself and as someone who deeply relates to Starscream (especially es!starscream) on a personal level.

Now, if you're in the Transformers fandom and especially if you're a Starscream fan, you may have seen a lot of other Starscream fans opinions on Starscream—particularly in the way of how Earthspark handled him—and have seen many people discuss his trauma.

From what I've seen, many people (especially in fics) tend to potray Starscream as this "Perfect Victim" that does no wrong. And this, obviously, is a very harmful sentiment because there is no such thing as a perfect victim. People react and are affected by trauma and abuse in different ways and as someone who people would call the exact opposite of a "perfect victim", Starscream is NOTHING like the way the fandom tends to potray him.

Starscream is more often than not potrayed as a cowardly, selfish, and egoistical individual who does terrible things for his own benefits. NOTHING about that screams "poor little meow meow" to me and honestly? I like him better this way, especially in the case of Earthspark, because in my experiences, that's how my trauma shaped me.

I (unfortunately) used to be one of the people wary of Earthspark due to the loud critiques of Starscream's character in s2 and so I stayed away from the show believing it to be a terrible exmaple of how abuse can affect someone (don't hate me lol! I was an idiot). But that was until I did a little digging myself and I realised... He's literally just me???

Now I'm not saying what he does is right or that I do EVERYTHING that he does. But I think some es!starscream fans have a little skewed perception on what a "Redemption Arc" truly is. As well as what an abuse victim should be. We cannot generalise all victims as "Sympathetic innocent souls" or "Unsympathetic corrupt individuals who deserve what happened to them" because... trauma is so much more complex than that.

In my case, abuse made me violent (not towards innocent people but towards my own abusers) and selfish and at times cowardly. It's not due to an innate desire to harm others and an inherent evil within me but because I was a scared child who didn't know how to protect myself other than mimicking the people around me.

To insinuate that es!starscream did the things he did in s2 because the writers were trying to convey that he's inherently evil due to his trauma (despite that, to my knowledge, nothing in the show implies such a thing) can be a harmful thought because.. 1. It's taking agency away from his character and tying him down to his abuser and 2. Trauma can influence people to do bad things but that doesn't mean there isn't a level of accountability and agency when they do. To villainise that fact just because you want a character you like to be redeemed can be damaging to the already ill conceived perception of abuse victims that are anything but "perfect". We shouldn't shame abuse victims for doing bad things (Unless of course it's something REALLY horrible) but we should still hold them accountable in a safe and respectful manner. Especially since most of the time (at least in children), abuse victims do these bad things in order to protect themselves.

In my personal opinion, I don't think the things that Starscream did in s2 was purely due to his trauma—though I do think it may have influenced him in some way, because trauma tends to influence our decisions in life—but I don't think it's due to some sort of inherent evil within him. People doing bad things doesn't mean that they're born with an inherent evilness. Experience shapes us into who we are, external factors influences our mindsets, and sometimes we get into situations where it seems like we have no choice but to do something bad. (The best example of this I can think of right now is Magneto from X-Men: He wasn't born evil, but due to prejudice and trauma, he felt as if he had no choice but to become the villain.)

As I said, obviously trauma may have influenced Starscream's decisions but to tie every single decision he makes down to his abuser takes agency away from his character and makes it seem like as if he's nothing more than is trauma, which is NOT true. Time and time again across multiple continuities we can see that whether or not he experiences the same thing as es!starscream, he's still the same cunning and egoistical bastard he is because that's who he is!

Just because continuities like Earthspark brings more attention to his abusive relationship with Megatron doesn't mean that's his only characteristic. His decisions are still his own decisions and even if it's somewhat influenced by his trauma in any way it doesn't take away from the fact it's still his choice and in my opinion, to blame everything he does on his trauma feels honestly disrespectful as if victims cannot do anything that is unrelated to their abuser as well as the fact that it once again enforces that whole "Perfect Victim" narrative. Victims can be (for lack of a better word) "imperfect", and it's important that victims like Starscream is represented as much as victims that are perceived to be "perfect" are. Trauma and abuse is a complex topic and when handled appropriately, ALL victims should be represented. Not just those that fit into people's ideal expectations of what a victim should be.

There's also the fact that almost EVERY character in Earthspark or other tf continuities are technically also victims of different forms of abuse or other forms of trauma. Whether it be physically violent or emotionally damaging, so many other characters have been traumatised in various ways and it's not ONLY Starscream that has been abused by Megatron or in general.

As an example, Hashtag: I think when people hear Hashtag say "When bad things happen, it isn't always our fault" towards Starscream, they think it's directed solely towards Starscream and forget that it may have been also directed towards HERSELF. If I'm remembering the orders of things right, Hashtag has also went through a traumatising experience which has influenced her relationship with Starscream. She felt a sense of kinship within their trauma and when she says it's not a victim's fault, I got the sense that she wasn't saying that only to validate Starscream but also herself.

Hashtag has also experienced trauma—not as violent as Starscream's, but trauma nonetheless—and if Earthspark is truly claiming that being abused or traumatised is the victim's fault like es!starscream fans like to claim, then why is that sentiment not extended to Hashtag? Or if you want a more violent example, the Autobots, who have also technically been violently abused by the Decepticons during the war.

Earthspark, in my opinion, isn't villainising abuse victims or anyone who has experienced any kind of trauma in general, nor are they even villainising anyone in general. They teach children again and again that someone's actions is not an excuse to treat them badly, but it doesn't mean you can just LET them continue doing it either, especially when it harms you or others.

If you want an example of actual continuities that DOES justify abuse for "laughs" or because "they deserve it" then turn your attention towards Transformers: Prime. The treatment of Starscream's abuse is highly questionable there yet hardly anyone (Especially es!starscream fans, who I find to often be tfp fans) discusses it. Sure, it could be because it's a kids show. But Earthspark is also a kids show. So why are we justifying tfp's potrayal of abuse but not Earthspark—a show that actually does encourage you to respect victims and makes an attempt to validate victims trauma? (This isn't hate towards tfp or anyone that enjoys it btw. I too love tfp but I find the quality and writing there to be very questionable at times.)

Also, people who criticise Earthspark's handling of Starscream's trauma tend to claim that it influences abuse victims (typically children) to believe that it's their fault. I've spoken to a few of these people myself and how that in my opinion as a victim, I find how the show handled trauma—although not perfect—quite respectable and that the show makes it clear that characters like Starscream, as I said, shouldn't be disrespected just because of their choices, and that although the line may be a bit unclear at times, Earthspark does a decent job at clarifying that trauma isn't excuse for making harmful choices but it doesn't make you inherently evil either nor does your actions excuse being abused. When I brought this up however, they tend to.. brush off my opinion? And repeat the same things again. Which I quite frankly don't get because if you're that concerned about how abuse victims, especially child abuse victims, will perceive Starscream's characterisation, then why won't you take into account the perspective of an actual child abuse victim?

In my opinion—and not to generalise, it's just a personal observation—I think most Starscream fans honestly don't actually care about how his abuse is handled or about what real victims will think. They usually seem like they just want their favourite character to live out their ao3 "Starscream redemption" fanfics. Again, I don't mean to generalise but this is just something I see a lot of in es!starscream fans. I don't mind when people criticise a piece of media when it potrays a group of people in a harmful manner but like... it's kinda pointless if you don't take into account the actual group's perspective in question.

Another thing I'd like to mention; it's not exactly restricted to Starscream fans nor is it exactly about abuse but an issue I see in a lot of pieces of media is that people tend to forget that a individual character's story ≠ the general story plot. Sure a character's storyline may influence the plot and vice versa but it doesn't mean that the character's story IS the plot. When people say that Earthspark's story sucks just because Starscream's (or any other characters) personal plot was unsatisfactory to them, I can't help but question them because even if it IS bad, one bad character doesn't always make the ENTIRE general plot bad. Of course there are exceptions but in this case? I think Earthspark—with what little I've seen of it—is already MILES better compared to other continuities. Which is a strange thing for me to say because when it comes to Transformers—or more specifically, the animated adaptations—they tend to be less than stellar in terms of quality of animation or in storywriting, or sometimes both! Sure it's not perfect by any means and there are definitely a lot of things that are worth criticising, but neither are any of the other continuities and I hardly see them get any criticism. So then why is Earthspark singled out? (Honestly, I think I know why but I don't want to generalise everyone who dislikes Earthspark here.)

And for my final opinion: Some people say that Starscream's potrayal in s2 was too sudden compared to his characterisation in s1. Which... I respectfully disagree.

First off, Starscream BARELY had any screentime in s1. He was pretty much a side character until s2 and had very few screentime enough to draw a conclusion to his character.

People claim that his characterisation in s1 was a "set-up" for a redemption arc or that he already has been redeemed, purely due to the fact he was sympathetic and was nice to Hashtag. And I personally don't quite get that from both a literary standpoint and as a victim: victims can be sympathetic... and still do bad things. Shocking, I know. But just because Starscream was sympathetic and nice to Hashtag doesn't mean he was ever gonna be redeemed or already was redeemed. A redemption arc needs MUCH more than just a few moments of kindness or sympathy. Plus, his moments of kindness towards the Terrans/Hashtag was like... two episodes in comparison to his multiple episodes both in s1 and s2 in which it is setting up his eventual villainous actions AND his offscreen DECADES of destruction and violence against the Autobots and humans during the war. Just like how doing bad things doesn't make someone inherently evil, doing good things doesn't make him inherently nice or redeemed. And it makes much more such for him to not be redeemed because there's virtually no set up for a redemption arc in comparison to his story in s2.

Not to mention the fact that Hashtag is a child. Starscream isn't the type of person to suddenly forget about his trauma and his goals for a child he barely knows, especially a child associated with his abuser. It makes more sense that his "kindness" towards Hashtag was fuelled by his ego getting stroked at the fact that she believed him because I and many others similar to Starscream typically don't just completely forget about our trust issues because of kindness but rather because we feel validated when someone believes in our abuse and trauma and assures us that it's not our fault.

Plus, it makes less sense—in my personal opinion—when all those "Starscream Redemption" fanfics make him immediately flip a switch and suddenly become all nice and selfless simply because he joined the Autobots or whatever. Not to shit on the writers or anyone else who enjoy fanfics like these, I like them too. It's just from a literary standpoint as well as when considering his trauma, I highly doubt he's going to immediately change his entire ideals and perception simply because he bonds with a child or because he joins the Autobots. And in the case of Earthspark, I highly doubt he'd want to join the team that is allies with his abuser, or even just be nice to them. Megatron and the others aren't entitled to Starscream bending over backwards to becoming nice and good for them and neither should the Autobots and the others completely exempt Starscream from the consequences of his actions simply because he is a victim.

That's all my thoughts for now. Again, this isn't to shit on anyone who many have different opinions or just finds es!starscream's story unsatisfactory or anything. I just needed to rant about how the fandom treats Starscream and his abuse (or any fandom with any traumatised character in general) because honestly I'm sick of seeing his trauma being brought up only to infantilise him and take away the agency in his actions or to make fun of his trauma and insinuate that he "deserves" it (which is an awful thing to say, considering the fact real people experience such things). There's nothing wrong with having a different opinion than mine or anything, I just really needed to get this off my chest because I heavily relate to Starscream, especially es!starscream, but also as someone very interested in literature I can't help but need to rant both about the treatment of abuse victims in fandom and the lack of media literacy these days. Feel free to share your thoughts on this post, just keep it respectful.

[whenmemorydies]

You love taking care of people: Fine Dining in the Time of Late Stage Capitalism

CW: this post discusses toxic and abusive workplaces and makes brief mention of institutional child abuse and intergenerational trauma. I might also talk about global systems collapse, for shits and giggles. Also this is another long one. You know the drill. Lets have a cuppa. Also this is my last minute submission to Sydcarmy Week 2024 and the theme of “you love taking care of people”. Enjoy!

I have a confession to make to The Bear fandom:

The food is my least favourite part of this show.

Its not that its not interesting. It definitely is. I'm a home cook and for the most part, I enjoy cooking (when I can do it at my leisure and not like most mothers, while balancing the mental load). I just find all the other aspects of the show much more fascinating.

In fact, I think this show about a bunch of cooks in commercial kitchens is so popular not so much because of its take up of cooking but its unflinching and loving interrogation of grief and trauma, including the kinds that get passed down through families.

The truth is, I've also never been overly excited about the world of "fine dining." I grew up in a large, Tamil family and so our meals were big, shared and not necessarily conducive to the minimalist plating preferred in exclusive, "gourmet" spaces:

Photograph is mine, delicious Jaffna Tamil spread is the handiwork of my great aunt (Kunchi Ammamma or “little maternal grandmother”), arguably the best cook in our sprawling, extended family.

As tumultous as family life could get, I often experienced meals (that, lets be real, were almost always prepared by the women in my family) with my loved ones as a happy experience. I mean we also had our share of blow ups at the kitchen table but what was always consistent was the love and care that went into the food that we were given to eat. It was woven into the rich and complex flavours that made up the curries, varais, and sambals we had on our plates (and that even now, make me salivate just thinking about). It was spread throughout the warm, coconut-y rotis and steaming rice and puttu we ate with our hands and used to mop up all that spicy, flavourful goodness.

And if there's one question I heard more than any other from older family members growing up, it was "ni sappittiya?" ("have you eaten?"). More than "how are you?" and definitely more than "I love you." As with many Global South cultures, for Tamil folks, food is used for nourishment but also as a primary means of conveying deep care. Obviously Tamil people don't have the monopoly on using food to show their affection (or even the monopoly on using food to replace actually saying the words "I love you" lmao). Food has been found to increase interpersonal closeness and can also contribute to emotional regulation. Feeding a child is one of the first means of bonding between parents and children. Food also plays a big role in the course of romantic love: as a basis for first dates and future time spent with a partner, and of course also as an aphrodisiac.

As Cesar Chavez, Mexican-American civil rights activist, labor organiser and co-founder of the National Farm Workers Association (which later became the United Farm Workers union) said,

The people who give you their food, give you their heart.

You love taking care of people

Conveying care and love through food is a theme that comes up repeatedly in The Bear. Recall 1x02 Hands and the phone conversation with Nat and Carmy:

Natalie: Chefs always say a big part of the job is taking care of people, right?

Carmen: Yeah, yeah. No I guess.

Also recall an almost identical bit of dialogue between Carmy and Sydney, under the world's most famous table that had absolutely nothing wrong with it in 2x09 Omelette:

Carmen: You love taking care of people.

Sydney: Yeah I guess.

Here's some further mirroring between Sydney and Carmy about giving people joy through food. Recall again the phone call between Carmy and Nat in 1x02 Hands:

Natalie: When did the breathing problem start?

Carmen: I think maybe sometime in New York. I was throwing up every day before work.

[...] Chef was a piece of shit.

Natalie: Then why'd you stay there?

Carmen: People loved the food. It felt good.

Also recall the conversation between Sydney and Marcus in 1x08 Braciole:

Sydney: I want to cook for people and make them happy, and give them the best bacon on Earth.

Be gentle with each other, so that you can fight stronger together: seasons 1-2 of The Bear

As rough and tumble as The Beef was, the clear throughline in season 1 (when The Beef was in operation) was the importance of the relationships and care between the show's characters. This was also the case in season 2 where the majority of the season was spent in the context of renovations and training prior to the opening of The Bear (in that season's last episode).

In season 1, we had Carmy leading the crew at The Beef by being patient, clearly explaining technique and positively reinforcing his staff's work.

Above left: Carmy walking the BOH crew through making Donna Berzatto's Lemon Chicken Piccata in 1x05 Sheridan. Above right: Carmy encouraging the crew to keep up their current pace in 1x06 Ceres.

We saw him working with Sydney, supportively encouraging the team to go further, to push themselves. We even saw Carmy at ease enough to talk about Mikey and his mother while at work. We had a Carmy showing us how integrated he can be.

Above: Carmy and Tina in 1x05 Sheridan

Heck, we even had a Carmy who wanted to get a compost installed at The Beef for processing food so that it didn't go to waste. Recall this golden bit of dialogue between him and Sweeps in 1x01 System:

Carmen: Eh yo Gary, you set up a compost for me today, Chef?

Sweeps: After I do my thing in the place.

Carmen: That's very clear. Thank you.

We had a Carmy who had time. Recall the below scene in 1x02 Hands before Sydney gives Carmy her draft business plan for The Beef (that she drafted on her own initiative and time to support his family's struggling business. If this man doesn't hurry up and fight for her in s4 istg...):

Sydney: Hey you got time?

Carmen: Always. What's up?

Similarly, we had Carmen in the first episode of season 2 making time to talk to a clearly distraught Richie:

Richie: Yo you ever think about purpose?

Carmen: I love you, but I do not have time for this, alright? *starts to walk up the stairs out of the basement*

Richie: *Nods, looks dejected, sniffs*

Carmen: I have time for this. *comes back down the stairs and sits with Richie*

Most pointedly in season 1 we had the conversation between Sydney and Carmy in 1x03 Brigade which lays the blueprint for their joint vision for the restaurant and which should have acted as a touchstone for both of them in season 3:

Sydney: You know, I think this place could be so different from all the other places we've been at. But in order for that to be true, we need to run things different.

When I said I didn't think that the brigade was a good idea, you didn't listen. And its not that you told me that I had to. [...] But you just didn't really listen and if this is going to work the way that I think we both want it to work [...] I think we should probably try to listen to each other.

Carmen: Yeah. You're right.

Sydney: The reason I'm here and not working somewhere else, or for someone else, is 'cause I think I can stand out here. I can make a difference here. We could share ideas. I could implement things that make this place better. And I don't wanna be wasting my time, working on another line or tweezing herbs on a dish that I don't care about, or running brunch, God forbid.

Carmen: *nods vigorously*

In season 2 while The Beef undergoes its facelift into The Bear, some of the show's most beautiful moments were when characters displayed their faith and trust in one another. Recall 2x01 Beef where Sydney asks Tina to be her sous chef, or 2x02 Pasta where Sydney and Carmy send Tina and Ebra to culinary school (and Tina's unwavering belief in and support for a nervous Ebra once they get there), and 2x03 Sundae and 2x04 Honeydew where we see Carmy and Sydney send Marcus to Copenhagen to stage with Chef Luca and build up his skills as a pâtissier.

So what happened at The Bear?

Season 3 of the show has been the most divisive of the series, with its preceding two seasons being almost unanimously adored by fans and critics alike. There's been a lot of debate on here and elsewhere as to why this is the case. What appears to be a dominant line of reasoning in this regard is the shift in Carmy and his approach to running The Bear as a fine dining institution.

At The Bear, we have Carmy as an Executive Chef who's berating, hostile, and blaming everyone else for his emotional state ("You guys are fucking killing me"). We have a Carmy who has taken "every second counts" to a point so minute that he has given up smoking because of the time away from the kitchen that it will cost him. We have a Carmy who has no patience for his team, almost all of whom have no experience working in fine dining before the opening night of The Bear. We see how out of sync Carmy and Sydney are ("Been off"). We have a Carmy who is reverting to patterns of behaviour that have been modelled for him by two of his abusers: his mother, Donna Berzatto and his previous boss, Chef David Fields, Executive Chef at Empire.

Perhaps second only to Donna and her stand in Claire, Chef David Fields' toxic legacy haunts season 3 of The Bear.

This is nowhere more clear than in the sheer wasting of food and money in season 3 epitomised by Carmy's insistence on changing the The Bear's menu every day (to quote Tina: "Every day, Joffrey Ballet?!") and his repeated throwing out of dishes he deemed "not perfect."

The waste did not go unnoticed by other characters on the show. Recall Natalie telling Carmy off in 3x03 Doors:

Natalie: The menu cost is out of control.

Carmen: Nat, figure it out.

Natalie: Oh. Oh. Figure it out? Wow.

Carmen: Figure it out.

Natalie: Why don't you fucking figure it out?

Carmen: I'm trying to use less shit.

Natalie: Okay, well, whatever you're doing, the R&D [research & development] of that, its fucking us.

Carmen: Well, we're using the best shit.

Natalie: Duh. Duh. Well, duh.

Carmen: Duh? Don't duh. No duh. [lmao this dialogue]

Natalie: Don't buy fucking crazy shit and then use it once, Carm. It's so wasteful. Duh! Duh, duh. Fucking duh, bro.

In episode 3x05 Children, Uncle Jimmy commissions The Computer to come in and run analytics on The Bear in an effort to get its costs under control (LOL at his assessment below, scrawled on the back of the dodgiest looking pie chart I've ever seen):

Computer: This sample is based on the month and a half we've been operating and does not take into account any funds spent previously on build, friends and family budget, other assorted fuckery.

Carmen: I mean, there hasn't been that much fuckery.

Cicero: Oh neph. You specialise in the fucking fuckery, bro.

Uncle Jimmy had plenty to say about Carmy's use of the former's funds (which Jimmy has duly invested in The Bear to support his nephew) including Carmy's decision to spend $11,268.00 on Orwellian butter (aka Dystopian Butter from the Fucking Rare Transylvanian Five-Titted Goat, lmao).

Even Carmy was under no delusions about how wasteful he was being this season. Recall his discussion with Sydney in 3x05 Children:

Sydney: You know what we should be doing?

Carmen: Produce vendor. You don't have to say it.

Sydney: Okay, I didn't say it then. I didn't say anything. Do you want me to say something?

Carmen: That I'm jamming us up 'cause we have a new menu every day and the economics aren't great?

Sydney: Well, I'm an accomplice, so...

Note: the language in this small bit of dialogue struck me as being off. Why does Sydney needs Carmy's permission to say anything? Its like she knows that he knows the constantly changing menu and exorbitant expenses are an issue but doesn't want to say anything until Carmy brings it up first. @yannaryartside has a great break down drawing the analogy between Sydney's "accomplice" confession here with Molly Ringwald's (sorry I dunno what her character's name was) confession about facilitating her partner's substance abuse, during an Al-Anon meeting in 1x03 Brigade.

We have Carmy repeating harmful patterns of behaviour at work that he has picked up from his personal life (for example, from his mother) but also from his professional experience.

The world of fine dining that both Carmy and Sydney came to The Beef from was marked, by their own admission, with "complete and utter psychopaths" who screamed, pushed and yelled at their staff (recall Sydney's disclosure to Carmy at the end of 1x05 Sheridan) or "fucking assholes" (in the case of Chef David Fields), who made their staff "very, probably mentally ill." Sadly, this aspect of The Bear is not fiction. @moodyeucalyptus pointed out in this post that both Carmy and David Fields appear to have elements of their characters based off of real life fine dining wunderkind Chef Charlie Trotter: a Chicago-based chef known to be brilliant but who mistreated his staff so badly that he had two class actions brought against him (one by FOH staff, and another by BOH staff led by James Beard Award winner Beverly Kim).

There are other stories about the grinding nature of the fine dining industry which we'll get into below. We'll also look at a few stories of chefs who are leading a renaissance away from the "toxic, hierarchical shit show" that has historically plagued fine dining and who Joanna Calo and Chris Storer may have front of mind as they take us through Carmy and Sydney's journey together in season 4 (because as tempting as Shapiro's offer is, we know Sydney isn’t leaving Carmy). But first, we need to go further back in time to look at how the fine dining industry itself has created the conditions for a chef like season 3 Carmy to exist in the first place. Lets look at the system, baby (to quote Tina in 1x01).

The Bear's culinary ancestry: Chef David Fields and the Fine Dining Industry

I should say that I did not want to go too far into history with this post. After Carmen, Natalie, and the Berzattos, I was committed to trying to write shorter meta (/snort). But I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about the origins of fine dining, and before that, the rise of Europe as the base of "haute cuisine" (which itself is directly tied to its history of colonialism and...Empire *badumbum* @freedelusionshere has made the point that The Bear writers have given Chef David's restaurant the name Empire purposefully and they're not wrong). All of this informs the current state of fine dining today.

Though France is often credited as the place where restaurants began (in the 1700s), its been established that folks were eating in communal restaurant settings all over the world, including in China about 700-600 years earlier. The origins of western fine dining (the tradition that Carmy and Sydney have trained within) however, are synonymous with French cuisine and the efforts of Georges Escoffier (who Carmy name drops in 1x03 Brigade).

The French Brigade

Escoffier was responsible for developing the French Brigade system of organising kitchen staff which is still used today in many restaurants worldwide, including at The Bear. The French Brigade was based on Escoffier's own military experience in the Franco Prussian War and was set up to identify roles in the kitchen and increase efficiency and consistency so that restaurants could scale their work to serve larger numbers of customers.

The thing with anything based on structures found in the military is that its going to replicate hierarchy (a chain of command is central to the running of military operations). In fact, much of 1x03 Brigade is spent with Sydney resisting what she identifies as the imposition of a "toxic hierarchical shitshow".

Mariya Moore-Russell, the first Black woman in the world to get a Michelin star (who also happens to be from Chicago) talks at length here about the benefits of the French Brigade for systematising commercial kitchens but also how easily it can get corrupted if the wrong people are in the kitchen. She says in those circumstances, the Brigade can quickly perpetuate, racism, sexism, perfectionism and "all of the isms." My fav quote from the video? When Russell talks about the French standardisation of cooking adopted by most kitchens in fine dining industry (at 23:39):

They were like okay, how do we take what Grandma does, what Mama does and make it you know efficient and consistent but also just extremely stressful for everybody involved? (lmao)

Note: Moore-Russell has a series of videos on YouTube about her experiences in fine dining which are very illuminating. She's also such an engaging storyteller. For example, watch "My path through the restaurant industry".

Service à la française to service à la russe

In addition to the French Brigade, another development in the history of western fine dining was the shift in styles of food service from service à la française to service à la russe. Service à la française ('service in the French style') involved serving all the dishes for a meal at once, allowing patrons to serve themselves. Think something akin to buffet style. See below for table layout using service in the French style from 1775:

Source: Wikipedia.

To me, service in the French style looks kind of similar to how my Tamil family lays out our meals (as can be seen in the first picture of this meta, minus the pheasant, moonshine and roasted woodcocks...lol). This style of service also looks a whole lot like "family style" dining which can be described as: "when food is brought to the table on large platters or serving dishes rather than being individually plated. Guests then serve themselves from the dishes which are passed around the table." In fact, service in the French style or family style dining is how many cultures serve and eat their food, both in the home and in restaurant settings (whether they use these terms to describe that layout is another matter).

I also seem to recall a couple of soulmates Jeffreys deciding to open a family-style restaurant in 1x08 Braciole (which @bootlegramdomneess has also pointed out in her post here).

In the 19th century, service in the French style became replaced in European restaurants by service à la russe ('service in the Russian style'). This style of service is what Western fine dining and haute cuisine restaurants utilise to this day. It involves bringing courses to the dining table in sequence, one after the other. Courses are portioned and plated before being brought to the diner by service staff.

In the case of Western fine dining, Escoffier shaped haute cuisine ('high cooking') through the use of his French Brigade system and the implementation of service in the Russian style. Haute cuisine has undergone shifts and changes since the 19th century including with the nouvelle cuisine movement in the 1960s which was marked by a focus on fresh produce, paired-back menus and a focus on invention. Haute cuisine of today has been described as a fusion: employing elements of nouvelle cuisine and more elaborate techniques and processes from Escoffier's system.

To my mind, service à la russe involves a lot more people (definitely more wait staff) to have it deployed effectively. When you have more people, you have more room for error (like all those dropped dishes in season 3). Family style service or service à la française allows people to serve themselves. It encourages sharing. Personally, I prefer the latter. Also can we talk about how small the portion sizes are in haute cuisine? lmao. I get it, its art. You need a gigantic plate for a small piece of hamachi because thats the canvas. Some (read: me, lmao) might also say its big ol' waste to wash a plate that size for food that takes up maybe a 1/5 of its surface area. Can we also talk about the concept of "chargers" (which the Computer rightfully rips into Carm and Sydney for in 3x05 Children) - why do you need a table setting that no one's gonna use? I'm sure there's other aspects to haute cuisine that make no fucking sense but honestly this meta is gigantic enough as it is so I'll stop there lol.

Anyway, notably it is service à la russe and food that would be described as haute cuisine that we see at The Bear. Family style is nowhere to be seen in season 3.

Colonialism, Empire and the rise of Western food cultures

A fact that is often left out of discussions about why the French and other European countries developed such globally renowned food cultures as well as their staggering wealth and status as "first world countries" (particularly in the period between the 1600s to the 19th century) was that at around the same time, these nation states were expanding their own empires by colonising other parts of the world with the express purpose of acquiring ingredients (and other resources) that they did not have access to in Europe. A brief and non-exhaustive list of examples below:

Europe's demand for flavour was so great in the 1600s that the Dutch traded Manhattan to the British in order to secure the Indonesian island of Banda Run which, at the time, was the world's only source of nutmeg. When they first arrived in the Banda Islands, the Dutch killed and enslaved much of the Bandanese population, taking control of the island's local nutmeg plantations. This violence would come to be known locally as The Banda Massacres.

It was the hunt for a direct trade route with India for black pepper that Christopher Columbus used to pitch his voyage to the King and Queen of Spain and which ultimately led him to the Americas. Columbus' arrival precipitated the colonisation of the Americas, which resulted in enslavement, disease and outright genocide, decimating First Nations populations throughout North and South America.

The colonisation of the Americas would also lead to the exporting of various foods that have come to be staples in European cooking. For example, the tomato - the key ingredient in many Italian (and Italian American) dishes - orginated in South and Central America and was brought to Europe via Spanish colonists.

The British set up their infamously brutal East India Company (EIC) to control the Indian subcontinent and the trade of various resources including precious metals, opium, textiles (silks and cotton), spices (such as cinnamon, black pepper, nutmeg, cloves, mace) and other food items (like salt, sugar, coffee and tea). The EIC would later be supplanted by the British Raj in Britain's stranglehold on India and after almost 200 years of imperialism and economic fraud, it has been estimated that the British drained India of nearly $45 trillion. I can't even begin to fathom an amount of money that large but the British could, and that theft powered much of the empire during its height.

The influence of Indian ingredients and cuisine spread throughout the British empire, including back to Britain itself. In fact, through colonisation and empire, Indian influences appear in various global cuisines (including other European cuisines as well as in the Caribbean).

Indeed the British's impact on food globally included its colonisation of Australia and New Zealand. These two colonial outposts essentially became gigantic cattle and sheep runs for the British who facilitated the wholesale theft of land - and in the case of Australia, did so without even bothering to enter into treaties with First Nations people - in order to run livestock that was then exported to feed Britain.

In order to satisfy its sweet tooth, France operated huge sugar plantations on the backs of the labour of enslaved Africans, particularly in Haiti (known at the time as Saint-Domingue). In the late 1700s, Haiti was responsible for exporting 40% of all the sugar consumed in Europe. The human cost of this was high and brutally violent. Eventually in 1803, after many armed revolts, enslaved African-descent people kicked the French out of the country after over a hundred years of heinous exploitation (thereby creating the first Black republic in the world). The French were so economically dependent on the colony for its production of coffee and sugar that when Haiti got its independence, France decided to punish the new republic for the loss of future income on Haitian exports, demanding 150 million francs in gold as compensation. The French sent warships to enforce this cruel debt. All in all, Haiti spent approximately $21 billion paying off France for the freedom that its people had already lost their lives and shed their own blood for. The debt (which involved the fledgling republic taking out exorbitant loans and fundraising amongst its citizens) was not paid off until 1947: 122 years after it was initially enforced. The French even charged Haiti interest.

Were it not for its vicious history of slavery and its century-long extortion of its former colony, I'm pretty sure France wouldn't have had the quantities of a certain key ingredient necessary to develop its worldwide reputation for pastries and desserts. I mean, you try making a crème brûlée, an eclair, a tarte tatin, a sweet galette, a mille-feuille, a madeleine, a crepe...without sugar.

This history deeply informs fine dining today. For centuries, Europe underdeveloped much of the world (borrowing Walter Rodney's turn of phrase) through colonialism and imperialist extraction. It then used those spoils and excess wealth to, among other things, develop its own food cultures and then self-proclaim itself as the cutting edge of the culinary world. To be clear, you can only faff about in a kitchen and create fancy sugar palaces and 10-course meals if you have the means and resources to do so. Haute cuisine is a product of wealth and resources, accumulated over time. Europe's colonial history also dictates which cuisines are recognised via awards like the Michelin star system. Hell, it dictates why you have the French (Michelin is a French tire company) dictating what constitutes "good" food in the first place. If you want to read more about this topic, this essay on Medium provides a good overview of the sad, racist state of affairs over at the Michelin Guide.

Where Europeans colonised and settled, this same lens was applied. This is why you have the undervaluing of Indigenous cuisine and ingredients in Australia, a situation which has only recently begun to shift. The colonisation of Australia actively involved the lying about Aboriginal foodways in Britain's attempt to falsely claim that Aboriginal peoples were nomadic hunter gatherers who did not use their land. Its why the history of how enslaved Africans brought their food cultures with them through the Door of No Return and transformed American cuisine, is not more widely known. Its why so few chefs of colour have been recognised for Michelin stars globally.

Empire and The Bear

Season 3 of The Bear pays clear homage to the impact of European empire on the world of fine dining in a few ways. The most obvious is the fact that Chef David's restaurant is literally called "Empire" lol. Another example and one of the most visually striking to me occurs in 3x01 Tomorrow. First, recall Chef David Fields' outright theft of Carmy's dish (I think we've established that you can't get more empire than the theft of food, yes?). Can we talk about how not only did Fields steal Carmy's dish but also, turned it into the most beige meal we've seen on The Bear to date, bar that single sprig of dill fighting for its life?

Carmy's penultimate plate (the final version being The Best Meal That Sydney Ever Had™):

Chef David Fields' dick measuring exercise version:

Carm was not a fan:

Can we talk about how the original plate featured the colours of the Italian flag (green, white and red) - emblematic of Carmy's cultural heritage and what is certainly one of the single biggest influences in his culinary journey (the dish also features fish, just like the main course in La Vigilia, the Feast of the Seven Fishes) - but after Fields was done with it, that shit was practically three shades of mayonnaise?

Can we talk about how Carmy's version of the dish almost certainly had a varied and dynamic flavour profile while Fields' looks just how I imagine it tasted like: whatever flavour meh is. The dish literally has no acid from what I can see (ingredients: paupiette of hamachi, fennel soubise, potato chip and dill). And I *know* a balanced dish has salt, fat, acid and heat (cos Chef Samin Nusrat told me).

Can we also talk about how Fields hates the most commonly traded of spices? The one that Columbus was looking for when he landed at what is now the Bahamas. The one that was an integral part of the East India Company's business plan rort to fuck India and South East Asia more generally?

Carmen: He hates black pepper for some reason I'll never understand. (from 3x10 Forever)

White folks in Europe were so hungry for spices to liven up their food that they invaded large swathes of the rest of the world to get the stuff. And yet, here we have Chef Fields, disliking Europe's gateway spice: the one that the Romans (Carmy's ancestors) had been trading with the East for centuries prior to Europe’s imperial frenzy, and which now makes up 20% of the world's spice trade.

Is the man so dedicated to meh that he couldn’t even bring himself to embrace pepper? Used to be one of the best chefs in the world, is right Chef Luca.

On top of dubious taste (I'm not a food critic but no one can tell me that hamachi and fennel soubise dish tasted anything other than fucked lmao. idc idc), Chef Fields is also one of the clear antagonists in The Bear. Along with Donna Berzatto, he is one of Carmy's two primary abusers. His impact on Carmy was never as clear on the show as it was in season 3. Lets take a closer look at that impact below:

Culinary ancestry and intergenerational trauma

Both Donna and David are ancestors of a kind to Carmy. Donna is clearly a biological ancestor in that she's Carmy's birth mother. I've argued here that David Fields is a culinary ancestor to Carmy. For ease of reference, I'll include my explanation of what I mean when I say "culinary ancestry", from that earlier meta, here:

Most folks understand ancestry to refer to our family or genetic lineage. When I was in university, I learned about intellectual ancestors or genealogy: where one can trace your intellectual lineage - the thinkers and creators that have shaped your understanding of the world and/or your chosen profession. I think its useful to take this concept and apply it to The Bear to help understand what the show is saying about legacy. I wouldn't limit the concept to "intellectual" ancestry though. It might be more helpful to talk about culinary ancestors in this context because the process of creating food - crafting dishes - isn't solely an intellectual exercise. It engages our intellect yes, but also each of our senses, our memories (recall that chocolate banana from 2x10 The Bear), and the need to nurture and be nurtured. Culinary Ancestors Carmy's culinary ancestors are varied given his work history. We know he's cooked under some of the best chefs in the culinary world of The Bear, including: Daniel Boulud (of Daniel), René Redzepi (of NOMA), Thomas Keller (of The French Laundry), David Field (a sociopathic Joel McHale, of Eleven Madison Park Empire), and Andrea Terry (a sublime Olivia Colman, of Ever). I'd also include here Mikey, Donna and Natalie Berzatto. I'd include cousins Richie Jeremovich and Michelle Berzatto as well. These are the home and line cooks Carm grew up with, watched in his mother's kitchen and at The Beef. He took his lessons - the good and the bad, learnt voluntarily and involuntarily - from all of these people, incorporated them into his working self and transmuted them into his food.

NOTE: In "Ancestors and The Bear" and in other meta I've written, I've incorrectly noted that Chef David Fields was the EC at Eleven Madison Park (instead of Empire). This was due to the fact that up until 3x10 Forever, we are not told the name of the restaurant that Fields and Carmy worked at together. In the draft script for the pilot, the restaurant is identified as EMP (Eleven Madison Park) by Sugar (see p 23 of that script), however this appears to have changed to "Empire" during the course of the show's development.

Through the lens of culinary ancestry, there is a clear connection between Carmy's wasteful R&D and menu choices in season 3 with the "lessons" he received under the tutelage of Chef David at Empire. For example, and as discussed above, the refusal to serve any dish that isn't viewed as "perfect" led to extreme amounts of waste at both The Bear and at Empire.

Additionally, Chef David focused on "subtraction" (recall his writing "SUBTRACT" on green tape and sticking it to the expo of Empire in 3x01 Tomorrow) and never repeating ingredients in the dishes that came out of Empire. Instinctually, these two strategies appear to me to be techniques to create needless scarcity. They're attempts at repression in and of themselves. Carmy adopts these philosophies and tries to implement them at The Bear as well. They manifest in his unilaterally overhauling the original menu at The Bear (without Syd's input) as well as his insistence that the menu change every day.

Minimalistic subtraction of elements was also a characteristic of Escoffier's approach to cooking which would be taken even further with the nouvelle cuisine movement in France. That movement focused on minimalistic dishes with fewer seasonings and sauces. Chef David Fields is clearly rooted in the French school of fine dining in this approach.

Subtraction also shows up in the show in a more dire way: in the cutting off of relationships and the whittling away of self.

I recently come across a promo still for The Bear. It features Carmy as the CDC of Empire, plating a dish. I've seen the image before but I never noticed the writing on the wall next to Carmy before. It reads:

"Its only after we've lost everything we're free to do anything"

This quote also appears in the 1999 David Fincher film, Fight Club (which itself is based on the book by the same name by Chuck Palahniuk):

Left: Carmen Berzatto, CDC at Empire in The Bear; right: Tyler Durden, general nihilistic fuckwit in Fight Club, also preaching the gospel of David [Fields].

This ethos, written on the wall and haunting the kitchen at Empire is emblematic of how Chef David operates. It reads like a fucked Psalm, giving a poetic shimmer to Field's abuse. Chef David tears down his staff, verbally degrading them to the point that he has the gall to whisper "you should be dead" to them. (OK. Can we...for a minute...imagine being a manager and that being your management style? Telling your best performing staff that they should be dead? Excuse me, mon cheri? A literal devil).

Chef David literally strips his staff of their dignity and their connections to the outside world. He makes them lose their sense of self and claims its all to make them better chefs. He tells Carmen in 3x10 Forever:

Chef David: So you got rid of all the bullshit, and you concentrated, and you got focused, and you got great. You got excellent.

The parallels between Carmy's experience at Empire - and even in the Berzatto household - and the critique of performative violent masculinity that Fight Club was trying to get across are worth pointing out. In Fight Club, white men beat each other up to try and assert control over a perceived loss of power. At Empire, Chef Fields consistently berates and degrades Carmy, clearly threatened by his CDC's talent. Similarly we have Richie complaining about having to take orders from "toddler" Carmy, saying "I was a baby too once, Syd. Nobody gave a fuck" in 1x02 (which could have been the origin story of any one of the men who joined Brad Pitt/Edward Norton to carry out "Project Mayhem" lmao. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the dudes on Reddit fawning over Richie circa seasons 1-2 also watch Fight Club as if it was some sort of aspirational manifesto and not the satire that Fincher intended it to be).

Chef Fields is meant to be representative of a toxicity found in the restaurant industry globally. There have been numerous reports of the physical and psychological violence meted out against kitchen staff by those higher up in the brigade.

Additionally the structure of the French Brigade system is such that those at the bottom - stages - are often expected to work for free. While unpaid internships are common in various lines of work, those industries start to run into trouble when large amounts of their products and services depend on unpaid labour. In fact, darling of The Bear, René Redzepi of Noma faced criticism of his restaurant's unpaid internship program. The internship program was rife with stories of ridiculous working conditions. Redzepi finally began paying interns in 2022 but then announced that Noma would shut down regular service at the end of 2024 due to being unable to afford its staff (at one point, unpaid stages made up almost half of Noma's staff).

The fact that entry into the world of fine dining means people need to work for free as a stage automatically eliminates this as an option for folks who cannot afford to volunteer in order to gain work experience. This would disproportionately impact on certain communities, particularly communities of colour whose members may not have access to sufficient wealth that would allow them to work for free. This is clearly illustrated in The Bear where we see that Carmy has the safety nets and access in place that allow him to stage at various fine dining institutions and gain much sought after experience (e.g. his family's ownership of The Beef and his ability to work there, his cousin Michelle's restaurants in NYC and his access to those spaces). Sydney, Tina, Marcus and even Richie have very different entries into the world of restaurants and fine dining.

The issue of sexual abuse and harassment in the restaurant industry is also very subtly broached in The Bear (though it is more heavily implied in the draft script for 1x01), particularly in 1x07 The Review with Richie accusing Sydney of giving a food critic head in order to get a positive review for her risotto (season 1 Richie was genuinely the worst). But the issue is huge, with more sexual harassment claims filed in the US in the restaurant industry than any other field of work.

Even scrubbing floors by hand and cleaning with a toothbrush, while ensuring sparkling kitchens, have also historically been used as a means of punishment, particularly in institutional settings. During Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, there were numerous reports of children in care homes being forced to scrub floors with toothbrushes as a means of physical punishment and control. (CW: the above link discusses accounts of institutional child sexual abuse).

Given the above, its clear to see that the industry - the system - facilitates a whole lot of shit that its workers are subjected to. So when Chef Adam Shapiro catches Sydney as she leaves the train station in 2x04 Violet and asks her how she's doing, her response is telling:

Sydney: It's been a long month [at The Bear].

Chef Adam: Ah. That bad?

Sydney: No, just-- Restaurants.

Chef Adam: Yeah. Right? Why do we do this to ourselves?

Sydney: 'Cause we're crazy.

Chef Adam: Yeah. What was this month's crazy?

Sydney: Um. The kind that's inherited.

Chef Adam: *Nods emphatically* Understood.

This Financial Times article on the dark side of restaurant culture in Copenhagen, sums things up perfectly:

“We always had this joke, an explanation for why things are so horrible: shit falls down,” [Chef Levi] Luna told [the author Imogen West-Knights], with a cold laugh. In the kitchen, the head chef gets mad at the sous-chef, who gets mad at the person below him, a chef-de-partie, who then takes it out on a stagiaire. Then one day, the sous-chef is the head chef, and he has learnt how a head chef behaves: badly. It should give a sense of the strength of feeling I encountered about how damaging this system is that several people independently described it as being like children who are abused going on to commit abuse as adults. This is the dark flipside of the restaurant-as-family metaphor.

Challenging the status quo @ The Bear

By the end of season 3, Carmy appears to recognise that subtraction in his life is not going to bring him happiness. In fact, in 1x08 Braciole, he identified subtraction - specifically, the cutting out of people from his life - as the reason his life got quiet as he grew more isolated. In 3x10 Forever, when he finally confronts Chef David, Carmy laments the psychic and physical impact of Fields' abuse as well as the isolation it engendered. Fields, psychopath that he is, remained unfazed:

Carmen: You gave me ulcers, and panic attacks, and-and nightmares. You--You know that, right? Do you-- Do you understand that?

Chef David: Yeah, I gave you confidence, and leadership, and ability. It fucking worked.

Carmen: My life stopped.

Chef David: That's the point, right?

Additionally, its worth pointing out that despite all the focus on precision, minimalism and (quite frankly) rage being put into the impeccably plated dishes of The Bear, it's the messy, juicy, multi-ingredient filled Italian beef sandwiches that remain the site's best seller. Indeed, in 3x05 Children, Nat tells Carmy that the sandwich window is the only thing at The Bear making any money. So much for subtraction.

We also see Carmy resisting a total acquiescence to Chef David's approach to running a kitchen early on in season 3. His non-negotiables read in the hindsight of the entirety of the series like his attempt at integrating the lessons he’s learned from various kitchens. It’s why the list says “no repeat ingredients” AND “vibrant collaboration”. We know that vibrant collaboration had to come from someone else’s kitchen cos Fields certainly wasn’t collaborating with anyone. That asshole was out there dictating like a fascist.

Additionally, while Carmy has realised the dangers of the fine dining industry by the end of season 3 (and not for the first time - recall in 2x01 The Beef when he called the Michelin star system "a trap"), and while Sydney grapples with her role as an "accomplice" to Carmy's season 3 bullshit, their protégés Tina and Marcus continue to keep the flame of genuine care, collaboration and inspiration alive. This is most clearly seen during the conversation Tina and Marcus have in 3x09 Apologies where they discuss Marcus' mother and his memories of her as well as brainstorm ideas for Tina's cauliflower, brussel sprouts and horseradish dish (please for the love of gad, give us more Tina, Marcus and Ebra next season).

Challenging the status quo in the real world

There are also actual chefs in the real world who appear to be doing something different with their work: embracing their own food cultures that have historically been locked out of the world of fine dining and also trying to run their kitchens in more egalitarian ways.

Above clockwise from top left: Chefs Tim Flores and Genie Kwon of Kasama, Chef Adejoké Bakare of Chishuru, Chef Asma Khan of Darjeeling Express and Chef Mariya Moore-Russell formerly of Kumiko and Kikkō.

The first, most obvious example of this for The Bear fans is Kasama, (shout out to @currymanganese and @thoughtfulchaos773 for introducing me to the above linked, short doco) the Filipino American restaurant founded and run by Chefs Tim Flores and Genie Kwon (who also happen to be married) in Chicago. Kasama is also where Carmy and Syd were meant to have their palate cleansing "reset" in 2x03 Sundae and where Sydney may have also been hit on by fellow Coach K fan, Kasama bae (shout out to @sydcarmyfan for verbalising what I squee-ed about on first watch of this episode lmao).

Both Flores and Kwon come from fine dining backgrounds but appear to challenge some of that industry's basic tenets, including the messianic role of the EC as top of Escoffier's brigade food chain. Flores openly states that his cooking is an ode to his Filipino mother who regularly taste tests his food. In the Nick Cavalier doco linked above, Flores states "if [his mother Lolly Flores] eats [the food] and there's no reference to her dish at all, I'm not doing the right thing." Flores and Kwon also operate Kasama using a hybrid model (that I think would send regimental Escoffier into a tailspin) where they offer fast and casual service featuring Kwon's baked goods during the day and offer a Filipino tasting menu led by Flores for dinner service only. Kasama was awarded a Michelin star in 2023, the first Filipino restaurant in the world to achieve that title. It also took home a James Beard Award that same year.

Note: if you haven't already, have a read of this interview of Tim Flores and Genie Kwon conducted by the Michelin Guide. ISTG Storer and Calo have read this and lifted whole paragraphs for The Bear's script. An excerpt that stood out to me, in particular:

The two first met at Bib Gourmand restaurant GT Fish & Oyster, also in Chicago. "He was leaving as I was starting. So we didn't overlap for very long. But I actually went to eat at the restaurant that he was working at afterwards, and I had one of the best experiences of my life at a tasting menu. And after that we started talking and hanging out, and eventually started dating," recalls Kwon about how she and Flores first met.

Sounds a lot like a couple of Jeffs we know, yes?

Also check out Chef Adejoké Bakare, who in 2024, became only the second Black woman to get a Michelin star in the world (the first being Chicagoan Mariya Moore-Russell who announced in 2020 that she was taking a break from her career for her mental and physical wellbeing and who also...is married to a chef lol). Bakare's restaurant, Chishuru in London, specialises in West African cuisine rooted in Bakare's Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa cultures. Bakare, like Genie Kwon, has a background in biological sciences. She also began her career as a home cook, then ran a fish and chip cart while studying at university in Nigeria. Once she moved to the UK, she ran a supper club and later won the opportunity to run a short term pop up restaurant. During the ceremony where she got her Michelin star, Bakare noted "[i]t did feel rather odd at last night's ceremony that 90% of the room was white middle-aged men. But the passion I see among young women in the industry is such that I'm confident things will change."

Take also Chef Asma Khan, who got her start in the industry as a home cook and then began running supper clubs out of her house in the UK. She then opened up the Darjeeling Express with a group of South Asian women she had met when they were all fairly recent arrivals in the UK, none of whom had formal culinary training. To this day, her kitchen remains fully staffed and run by women.

In this TEDx Talk about her work, Khan says:

"I wanted to cook but I actually wanted to feed people. This gave me the greatest pleasure. I felt at my most powerful when I was able to serve someone something I had cooked. In some ways it was my way of showing affection and love, and being able to give them something that took them home."

Sounds familiar yes? Like a couple of Jeffreys in season 1 of a certain show?

About the systemic sexism in the industry, Khan says:

"But at that time, in England, anywhere in the West, everywhere you looked it was male chefs you saw that was on television [...] in the media. It was always about men who were cooking kitchens. The greatest irony of it all is that [...] in every South Asian home you go to, you will invariably find a woman [cooking] but in every South Asian restaurant you go to, not just in India but in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, almost everywhere in the world, you will usually find a man cooking in the kitchen. And it was a desire for me that I wanted to cook but there was no road or route in front of me."

Khan elaborates further on the skewed and gendered manner in which elite fine dining operates, in this article:

“There is no public hanging [in her restaurant]. Male chefs have made cooking into a combat sport. I think it’s a reaction to the idea that cooking is feminine: I’m not the dinner lady! I’m not your grandmother! Sorry, but if you’re constantly screaming at staff it means you’ve trained them badly.”

Khan is describing the hyper-competitive nature of fine dining (and her suspicion that in a highly gendered industry that is populated by majority men, that there is a need to perform a hypermasculinity in order to put distance between themselves and the historically feminine-gendered roots of the act of cooking) and how Khan wanted no part of it, for herself, her staff or her patrons. In this Guardian article, Khan points her attention directly at the toxic work cultures of many fine dining institutions:

Khan sees herself as a vital heckler on the sidelines of the industry, rather than part of its elite club of star chefs. She is especially scathing of a macho restaurant culture that has allowed workplace bullying and abuse to become normalised – and of those who enable it.

“My deep concern during the pandemic is seeing very prominent people with considerable wealth remove the entire workforce without a safety net.” A surge of restaurant and pub workers were reported to be sleeping rough in central London in April, a fact Khan can’t shake. “It is so shameful, my heart bleeds for the industry, it is immoral. I don’t want restaurants to be ranked by Michelin stars for the fluff and edible herbs they put on a plate. I want to know how they treat their people, they should be ranked on that. Where there is bullying and racism, where there is sexual harassment, where staff don’t feel safe, people should boycott those restaurants. I don’t want to see them prosper.”

Honestly, after reading some of the horror stories about work place practices in the restaurant industry, I'm with Khan. I'm also with Flores, Kwon, Bakare and Moore-Russell. I reckon Storer and Calo are also with these folks too and that we're going to see a shift in season 4 of The Bear that reflects the larger industrial change in the world of fine dining that chefs like these are heralding.

The death of fine dining

Above: Carmy's phone in 3x05 Children

Like @freedelusionshere says here, I don't think its a suprise that season 3 ended with Ever's funeral. The fine dining of Empire and even Ever is dead. How can it not be given the way its been largely running to date, as discussed above? How can it not be when we are living in a time of severe food insecurity precipitated by runaway consumerism and the twin existential threats of global climate and extinction crises. How can anyone in good conscience justify charging exorbitant amounts of money on a plate that is not going to fill patron's bellies while there are communities worldwide who do not have enough food to feed their children? When some communities, even in so-called "first world" countries like America and Australia cannot access clean drinking water?

Truly, the argument for fine dining posited by Will Guidara in 3x10 Forever made me (and I'm sure many others) actually cringe.

There's nobility in this. [...] We can give them the grace, if only for a few hours, to forget about their most difficult moments. Like, we can make the world a nicer place. All of us in this room. We have this opportunity, perhaps even a responsibility, to create our own little magical worlds in a world that is increasingly in need of a little more magic.

There *is* nobility in nurturing people, in feeding them. But in a time of the multiple and rolling, global existential crises, where particular communities are being targeted not just for marginalisation but whole scale eradication, this is not a time for more "magic"; particularly when those "little magical worlds" are reserved for the select few who can afford them. We don't need more holes to bury our heads in. We need real spaces of care that are accessible, kind (read: not nice, but kind. there is a big difference) and nurturing. And those spaces need to be those things not just for the patrons who visit them but also for the staff who work there.

There is also literally no time for escapism, at least not of the kind that late stage capitalism promotes and as described by Guidara in 3x10. We are living at a time where food systems are said to make up one third of all greenhouse gas emissions, pushing the climate crisis further to the point of no return. What's the point of making magic worlds to escape an actual world on the brink? And while your magic-making contributes to the brink getting closer? Its like putting lipstick on a pig.

Indeed some have posited that it was the British Empire's remaking of the world to feed Britain (which we've looked at briefly above) that has been the single biggest contributor to the current environmental crises facing our planet. The Bear acknowledges the issue as well. Recall 2x04 Violet when Tina visits Jerry at the farmers' market and his explanation for why he has so little produce to sell:

Jerry: There's fewer and fewer moths to grow vegetables now, and 'cause of that, there's fewer and fewer farms. Used to be you could come down here, buy everything you needed for a full menu. All in one spot. Whatever grows together, goes together.

The reason there are fewer months to grow vegetables is because of climate change which has impacted on everything to season length, groundwater and rainfall levels (as the two main sources for global farming irrigation) and increased periods of drought and heatwave.

So whats next for The Bear?

Season 3 put us through the ringer with Carmy replicating toxic practices in his restaurant that are rife in the industry at large. Yes, Carmy also has mental health issues and is a survivor of multiple sources of trauma. We know this. I've talked about this at length here and here. But he's also a guy who's running his own business with folks who are dependent on their place of work for their livelihoods. As such, he, Nat and Uncle Jimmy (as co-owners of The Bear) have responsibilities to their staff.

As EC at The Bear who is directly responsible for managing BOH, Carmy has a choice to make about whether he "blows his trauma through" (shout out to Dr Resmaa Menakem and his book My Grandmother's Hands) the bodies of those closest to him, including the crew at The Bear. Just as parents have to work on themselves so that they don't replicate harmful patterns of behaviour in raising their children, so too do we all in our daily relationships, including where many of us adults spend most of our waking lives: at work.

Like Richie observed, Carmy is not integrated in season 3 but neither is the industry in which he's working. A menu that constantly changes, wasteful food practices, a food production and agricultural industry that contributes to a third of global greenhouse gas emissions leading to increased global warming. These things are absolutely not integrated. In many ways, Carmy's mental state in season 3 - anxious, agitated, exhausted, is a reflection of the times. Given all of the above, Carmy's "I'm so fucking sick of this" in 3x09 Apologies hits me harder in the chest. Yes Carmy, you should be. Now go do something about it.

Having looked at the career trajectories of a few talented, conscientious chefs in the course of writing this meta, I think its pretty clear that the old way of running restaurants a la Chef David Fields is over. As we sit at the precipice of climate disaster, watching multiple genocides unfolding at once, during a time of massive food insecurity, who the hell has time to be suffering in the way Chef David made his employees feel in the course of making food that is meant to nourish people? What fucking cognitive dissonance is required to continue on THAT kind of a path?

Come season 4, I reckon we are going to see a massive shift in the trajectory of The Bear. This will be precipitated by multiple things (like the review Carmy got at the end of 3x10 and whatever the fuck Uncle Jimmy is up to with that box and those golf clubs lol) but most significantly, by a realisation on Carmy's part that his version of Michelin mode IS NOT IT.

I reckon Carmy and Sydney are going to continue to work together but they'll go back to the original plan they made with one another in 1x08 Braciole. They're going to go back to family style. They're going to treat their staff better (after Carmy apologises lol). They're going to shift from wasteful, haute cuisine to sustainable food practices that support producers and the planet more broadly. They're going to leave Chef David Fields' scare tactic of subtraction behind and lean into using more pepper.

Above: Sydney's notebook as she workshops a recipe at home in 1x08 Braciole.

Tagging: @moodyeucalyptus @currymanganese @hwere @freedelusionshere @thoughtfulchaos773 @ambeauty @brokenwinebox @devisrina @espumado @fresaton @kdbleu @vacationship @birdiebats @bootlegramdomneess @mitocamdria @tvfantic87 @angelica4equity @anxietycroissant @turbulenthandholding @yannaryartside @afrofairysblog @ciaomarie

cos you may be interested but as always, I'd love to chat to whoever wants to about this stuff!

[fructosetolerant]

Showdown in Chinatown Review 🎥

I just finished R1999's 2.5 patch yesterday, I wrote a review of it on my privtwt but the character limit of Twitter is seriously unbearable so I'm taking my reviews to Tumblr (⁠ب⁠_⁠ب⁠)

⚠️ THIS IS ONLY THE EVENT STORY no character stories yet because I want to review them seperately also SPOILERS AHEAD!! ⚠️

Favourite Character: Liang Yue

She's the limited character of this patch so I will admit there is some bias, but it's very little since I also love Noire loads. I really loved her character in the story: how she has the heavy expectations from her parents, her love for films, and how she was able to distinguish fiction from reality.

Favourite Moment: Liang Yue's flashback to the first time she watched a C07 movie as the CG shows her child self sitting at the bench, then shows her current self sitting at the same bench as she has never forgotten Qi Xing's words from that interview.

Favourite OST: Originally it was the EP Rock Solid but I'm currently listening to The Truth Will Come as I'm writing this.

Favourite NPC: Poitier / Constance Scott (I CAN EXPLAIN MYSELF FOR SCOTT)

Let's first clear my name. Scott was someone who parallels Liang Yue in the sense that they have expectations placed onto them, it's just that Scott's one is in the negatives. (Now that I think about it Maltida makes sense too) She was raised in an environment where her mother didn't really acknowledge her and always looked down on her so when she meets Latham/Loggerhead she looks down upon her so that she can feel superior in something. She wasn't cold or calculating, she was lashing out. Go forth inferiority complex.

Liang Yue Family expectations: You must fulfill your duty as the Zhenzi of Qiangliang. Liang Yue feels this duty yet also feels like she doesn't live up to it. (Like how she sees Qiangliang responding to her call as a coincidence)

Maltida Bouanich Family expectations: Beryl Bouanich don't care 😭😭😭😭. Yet Maltida wants to be the best (fostered positively)

Constance Scott Family Expectations: You are nothing... Scott wants to prove herself (fostered negatively) (self fulfilling prophecy)

I get where Scott is coming from and yes I do very much hate her, yet I understand her. She shouldn't have treated Loggerhead like that. That was foul.

Main Themes

The main themes, from what I could gather are:

Diaspora (shown in the earlier chapters)

Liang Yue and Noire are both characters that show this (while they haven't moved there we see cultural clashes, familial expectations, and connections with the community in Chinatown). I do wish this was further explored seeing the strong start from the beginning but I do hope and think we'll get more patches with this theme in the future.

The roles people play / peeling off to appreciate one's individuality

Double entendre with the roles in a movie, the role of the Zhenzi, etc. As someone who has experienced some form of parasociality from my YT channel (I'd like to keep it a secret but it's pretty obvious), I think that this is conveyed well as Liang Yue peels back the layers with sense. Going in blindly will create problems for both sides and I'm glad that this was tackled so well as coming to embrace someone's individuality is beautiful, like Noire says.

How fiction affects reality

The line between C07 and Qi Xing was blurred for the actress. How C07 inspired conviction in Liang Yue. I love it as it reminds me of when I watched Youzitsu and felt so inspired I put my life together for a few months.

Identity (We're Reverse: 1999 guys of course we have identity)

This is a really bad transition but this is my blog we BALL!! But I need to write an apology letter to Noire because for the whole time I thought she was based of off Wong Kar Wai (I love In the Mood for Love it's the only film I've watched from him but well I made this blog for a reason it's time to consume media) because her name was Noire like Noir films. But she makes action films oh I'm stupid (⁠-̩̩̩⁠-̩̩̩⁠-̩̩̩⁠-̩̩̩⁠-̩̩̩⁠_⁠_⁠_⁠-̩̩̩⁠-̩̩̩⁠-̩̩̩⁠-̩̩̩⁠-̩̩̩⁠)

I really love how Noire is written: how she is passionately in pursuit of the better film, how she shows that deep down creators will always want to create, and especially how reckless she was in the past. I was like Noire in the past as well, reckless and selfish, and honestly a jerk but I've learnt from those mistakes. It takes a team to create something better as we are limited to our own brains when we think alone.

⭐ AFFLATUS TALK 🌱

Liang Yue: Star

The aspiration to be a hero that brings happy endings to everyone, the desire to prove herself. The star that she saw that day was in the Detective C07 films.

Noire: Plant

The care for her set (environment). I don't really see anything else other than that. I also think maybe it's because they wouldn't want to release too many star afflatus characters (including Barcarola from last patch as well) but I think that plant is very fitting for her. Like I see the vision y'know.

I'm out of things to yap about now but if you read this all thank you so much 🙇‍♀️🙇‍♀️🙇‍♀️ I hope to remember to write the next review. I'm always open for discussion, thank you again!

[chiocchi]

If you don't mind answering, why do you ship Tom Riddle and Harry Potter? Besides the whole issue that they are enemies, and the age difference, both characters are heterosexual. It's canonical fact. If it's the dynamic you like... Have you thought about Tomione's ship? They have a lot of potential together. And in the right direction, they would be a couple that could make it in the books.

JDKLJKLFJSDLKFJA This kinda feels like people knocking on your door and trying to get you to believe in their religion. It's pretty funny.

I don't know why are you calling issues to a part of the pairing's appeal lkajdsjfs (And Hermione is Harry's age and they are on the same side too?). And not sure about that canonical fact. Harry can be read as bisexual quite easily and Voldemort|Tom... idk he seems more obsessed with power, immortality, and Harry. But even if that's the case, I don't see why it should matter. We're in fandom after all.

I don't know if I'll be able to convey why I like this ship so much. For starters, I'm really into the unique connection they share. There was a piece of Voldemort's soul inside Harry's; they had a mental link; a whole language they're the only ones to speak (for the most part); Voldemort chose him and marked him; and there's even a prophecy that linked them together. There aren't two people more connected than them. They're soulmates, and the fact that Voldemort didn't intend it and Harry hates it adds another layer of complexity.

But not only that, they're like a broken reflection of each other, which I find fascinating. In his second year, Harry was worried about the similarities between them. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles, they both considered Hogwarts their first real home. I feel like they would have really understood each other in other circumstances. They would have been friends. Because one of their key differences is that Harry found friends and adults that loved him while Tom was probably bullied and, y'know, the whole Dumbledore thing.

Not to mention that Harry would die for everyone whereas Tom would kill everyone. They're insane in their own way. I love their similarities and differences, but more than anything else, I love when they're together. The fanfics and fanarts are awesome.

And the whole thing of being enemies feels quite gay sometimes klafjdlskfja. Harry can't help but think Tom is handsome and, despite everything Voldemort did, Harry wanted to give him one last chance to show remorse. I have no doubt Harry is crazy enough to actually forgive him.

I've thought about Tomione and I've come to the conclusion that I don't like it. pinktom has a really good post about it and I agree with it. Besides, Hermione liked Ron and had something with Krum, and they're nothing like Tom. Just because she's heterosexual doesn't mean she's attracted to any man, y'know? klajdlfkdjs I don't think they would have been a couple in the books, no matter the direction. If it's the dynamic you like, have you thought about Tomarry? More believable, more intense, and a wider range of wholesomeness to fucked up in the fics. It's really interesting. Unless you don't like men being together? Hmm? Suspicious (just kidding. To each their own. So no need to go to other people's asks to try to change their minds :kek:).

Also Harry is my favorite character and he's not replaceable. I kinda don't care about any other character tbh. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

[meanbossart]

Hello! I really love your art!!! Im a big fan of horror and erotica, do you have any toughts to share about being a horror-orinted artist? Im also an artist and contantly want to draw (and share) some darker stuff but am too afraid of internet judgment i guess (a coward lmao). In your journey on the internet, do you were harassed or something because if your subject? Sorry if it is a weird ass ask - im genuinely curious.

Heya, glad you enjoy my stuff!

I've never really experienced any harassment because of my art. I've gotten unkind reactions/opinions about it but one individual expressing their dislike for what you do every once in a while isn't really noteworthy enough. I do, sometimes, get the impression that people online are very reactionary about getting negative feedback of any kind, which makes sense with how over-exposed we are to the worse-case-scenarios of true, nightmarish harassment. But, truth be told, MOST of us will A) never make it "that big" B) While it may be kind of rude, receiving occasional negative attention is just a part of the human experience and it will always be sprinkled into otherwise positive feedback. You just have to be okay with that and take it maturely.

I think one of the main reasons why me and my partner never received severe negative attention for our comics (besides for being mind-numbingly boring as people with our internet presence) is because we are explicitly clear about what they are and what they contain. I have seen a LOT of horror/shock-content artists be... Very euphemistic about their work for whatever reason? Like, trying to sell the themes of their work but somehow failing to explicitly disclose the triggering content within it, or they just leave it at "gore/horror" when a more in-depth description of what the work contains would have been necessary. Sometimes, people seem to do this because they are preemptively scared of the backlash they might receive; but other, much more infuriating times they seem to be tricking people into giving them money before being fully informed.

As an example, here's what the content warning for one of our comics looks like:

Could a "sexual content and assault, death and bigotry" warning have sufficed? Maybe, and at some point I would have argued about the necessity of this level of thoroughness. But nowadays I really think my boyfriend's insistence for detailed TWs are to thank for keeping the people who DON'T want to read about this stuff away, and the people who DO to be able to find it and """enjoy""" it responsibly.

So, be objective about what it is that you're making, not only with others but with yourself. Is there a more complex point that you're trying to convey with your work? Probably. Is being cagey about the work's content and refusing to acknowledge that it may still be triggering, pornographic, repulsive and shocking going to make people see that point more clearly? Absolutely not.

[hemi-demi]

Did you have much fic writing experience before you started your AO3? I refuse to believe you've only been at this for two years or so

Not fic writing, no! It's Too Cold was my first fic I ever wrote (that I remember, anyway). I'll have been writing for two years this October.

I've always had a tangential relationship to writing in some way, but not often prose. I've had brushes of it since I was a kid, a lot of maladaptive daydreaming stories and a bit of character RP with friends (on AOL instant messenger, God that was ages ago), but I had maybe written like two creepypasta things I never shared with anyone and have an abandoned comic idea somewhere. That was pretty much it, I was very much an art kid growing up.

But I think the bulk of my writing experience comes from two places: game dev and my day job.

For about 10-ish years, I've been a solo game developer where I just make little things for me and my friends to play. Usually game jams where I have to build things in 72 hours by myself. I had to write a surprising amount for those projects; outlining story progression, writing dialogue, adding flavor text, etc. I think that had a major influence in my work because I am very particular about my dialogue, and I often consider game design when I pace my stories.

I also do more technical writing for my day job designing very boring corporate training content. That's a very different way of writing where it has to sound conversational, but informative. That job sucks, but can be satisfying to try and convey complex information in a way that's easier to digest, so I don't hate that part so much.

And the rest of the gaps I just kinda fill in with reading and practice. Reading others work helped to fill in the gaps of what I was lacking in prose (frankly, this is still a weaker point for me, I need to read more and work this muscle harder), and I've just been writing constantly since I started.

So, while this is my first time in fic and fandom, I'm not entirely starting from scratch either. The experience just comes from wildly different sources and I'm doing my best to fill in the gaps of my knowledge whenever I write these two idiots kissing, lol.

[lost-inanotherlife]

Okay so. I've read some comments about Sun and Jin and how they "abandoned" their daughter which. fair point. However, I think that at least three things need to be taken into account for the discourse to have, like, value, imho. Otherwise we just end up spitting bitter moral judgements about characters in the Morally Grey Show and, like, I personally do NOT care about that.

Point 1: Yes, generally speaking, children and kids in LOST are more written like narrative functions rather than, you know, characters with complex interior lives.

Ji Yeon, much like Walter and Aaron, is needed to ADD something to her parents' storylines. Young!Ben is an exception because Ben, in general, carries S5 plot so the insights into his earlier years serve to add plot points for the stories of all characters on the island.

Do I like this writing choice? No. I've also said here that I wish they didn't telegraph that Ji Yeon was Jin's biological daughter. It would've given more depth to Jin's character if he declared her his daughter no matter what, if Sun allowed it, of course. But no, they went the moralistic way and literally told us that Ji Yeon was Sun and Jin's biological daughter whose existence solidified their marriage. So, from the offset, Ji Yeon was just a narrative device and not a character. Again, do I like this? No. But is it true that LOST wasn't interested in Ji Yeon from, like, even before her birth? Yes. Can this be the topic of a discourse about the general shallow portrayals of children in tv series? Absolutely yes.

Point 2: the writers failed to take into account that three years are... well, three years. Not a lot but not exactly three weeks. You can read more about it here, although the topic of that discussion is the Kate/Jack/Sawyer love triangle.

Wrt Sun and Jin three years don't actually mean MUCH. Unlike Jack and Kate, they had spent years together before the island, they were married ffs so it totally tracks that both Sun and Jin obviously still think about each other and want their spouse with them. However, Ji Yeon is also there. Three years with a baby, your baby, kinda mean something, you know? lol. But the writers failed at conveying that like they failed the love triangle: you can see these were quite cheap narrative expedients to get people back on the island and, imho, MEH. This, I think, can also be an interesting topic in a discussion about Ji Yeon and what I can ONLY presume was an incredibly difficult choice that Sun made between her daughter and her husband. I wish they telegraphed that more than they telegraphed Ji Yeon being the baby who saves the marriage.

Point 3: Sun had already made up her mind about her priorities when she left for the island while Jin's mind had always been occupied by Sun because he didn't get to spend three years with his daughter. Something similar happens to Kate, Sawyer and his daughter Clementine. Perhaps let's just say that daughters, like Alex, always end up bad in LOST and maybe one day I'll talk about it.

Sun's choice was a precise writing choice that had to be made for two reasons: 1. Sun and Jin stories are united and can't be separated from a storytelling pov because, as I've said here, they represent the Married Couple, the Lovers; 2. Sun is a character not defined by motherhood but by her striving towards her autonomy (and lack thereof) and her love for Jin. Unlike Jin, however, she was the one who was in a tight spot (like all other characters) before the crash. She's a character who makes Extremely, Extremely Hard Choices and I just don't think that judging her in a manichean fashion is... fair.

Since Ji Yeon was never really a person but only a narrative device, Jin letting go of Sun to go back to their daughter would've cheapened their story. It's sad to say it but it's accurate. If the writers had actually given thought to this parent-daughter relationship then, MAYBE, we could've judged Jin and Sun's choices. But there was no meat there and no sane writer would've missed the chance to write a great tragedy in order to preserve the importance of Family Values for the Good Christian Audience. I'm sorry but you need to consider this aspect when you "judge" Sun and Jin because, surprise!, they are characters in a story where we can trace the reasons behind their choices back to the way they were written. And they were written like The Lovers from the beginning (also, I've established that the 3-year gap meant nothing on an emotional level, the characters remained the same otherwise there wouldn't be a reason for them to "go back". I'd argue that Sayid was the one who tried to change and he got literally dragged back on the island in handcuffs. Much to think about that too).

Okay, I think "rant" is over. For now.

I'll admit I have a weak spot for Sun and Jin (and for deranged, unhinged, insanely in love with each other married couples) and I'll defend their story because they'd be cancelled if LOST aired today and I personally can't have that.

[thewalrusespublicist]

What do you think about the Lindsay Ellis essay on Yoko?

Hi anon,

Ah, this is a toughie as Lindsay Ellis' video was actually the video that got me interested in the Beatles! So on that front .. I must have really enjoyed it at the time and I am grateful/embittered to it for leading me down this chaotic rabbit hole!

That being said, ughhh the video. On the one hand, to actually deal with the topic at hand she needed much longer than the run time of the video to actually get into it with enough detail, so it was always going to be simplistic. I did like some of her points about the other competing factors in the break-up and how Yoko really shouldn't be blamed for the overall break-up. I also liked her comparisons with Courtney Love and how women get blamed in these scenarios unjustly. However, my problem is she was presenting herself as an informed authority on the subject when to be honest, she doesen't actually show that great depth of knowledge. The not knowing about the nitty gritty about Northern Songs is one thing but clumping May Pang with those desperate for fame or clout ... I found either ignorant or disingenuous. That wasn't the first time I've noticed that with Lindsay's work. Not going to lie, I stopped watching her for ages after I watched a video where she was talking about British media and somehow managed to call John Hurt a low-rate tv actor and said that Blackadder was pro-the class system which I'm sorry, was ignorant to the point of stupidity. So yeah, I think Lindsay is great at conveying information but maybe also perhaps conveying incomplete information as if she was an expert in the subject.

This next bit might be a tiny tiny bit controversial but I don't really care. Knowing what I know now, I found the entire video to be partaking in an outdated and reductive type of feminism which doesn't actually allow women to have any flaws or be real people. Yoko was massively over-hated for all the wrong reasons, but it seems that in reaction some fans including Lindsay refuse to look at her with any critical view and dismiss any dissent as rooted in sexism. As a born and raised from the cradle feminist, I find this approach not only exhausting but sexist in and of itself as it strips women of agency and complexity. In the case of Yoko, the two extremes has meant that we've only recently been able to have honest conversation about her. No Yoko didn't break-up the Beatles, but she was a contributing factor and was a massive factor in why they didn't reunify in the 70s. Not because she sat on the bloody amp but because of nearly everything else she did. To say that she had no impact is terrible source-work and practice as it requires dismissing most of our sources from the period and from multiple primary perspectives in order to fulfil an ideological agenda. This in May's case is also silencing the voice of a female employee in a vulnerable position power-wise to sanitise her much wealthier boss' public image. I don't like that. I also want to make it clear that I don't think a lot of Yoko's actions were borne out of malicious intent but due to her extremely complicated personality and trauma, a personality that gets completely flattened if she's just a bit of cardboard jutting out in the corner. There are no winners if you refuse to engage with women as real people and through a modernised Madonna complex lens.

So ... a well-presented video with some great ideas but at the same time quite a basic overview that showed a lack of understanding of some key elements and a refusal to actually engage with the material to push a particular agenda.

[afurtivecake]

My hot take on AFTG? At first glance, the original series appears to be amateurishly written, but actually it's like that because it's in an autistic POV.

Ok look, anyone who has read AFTG will notice the language is fairly simple, the vocabulary not particularly varied, the phrasing is repetitive, there's a lot of detail about small, seemingly pointless actions, a ton of exposition and hardly any detail on many of the characters or their emotional states. I'm not denying that. I'm saying it's intentional because all of that is how Neil thinks.

Firstly, Neil isn't particularly well-educated. The longest he's stayed in one place is that one year in Millport. I don't know what kind of an education he's gotten on the road, but it surely could not have been consistent. He also doesn't have Andrew's memory so he's not going to be spouting big words and fanciful adjectives where simpler ones will suffice. (Also, Andrew is an intellectual and considers himself as such, which is why he talks the way he does, but that's a whole other tangent) It would be a wildly different character or a different style of POV altogether if it was written in a more literary style.

As for why it feels specifically autistic, it's hard to explain because for me, it's very intuitive and largely based on personal experience and exposure. But I can say that the books read like what some of my autistic friends (and I) have going through their heads. It's the methodical thought processes, the meticulous observation, the internal exposition, the logical reasoning that gets applied to every small thing, the conscious decisions that go into every action. It's also how there's an absence of descriptions of people and their personalities and how sometimes it seems like it suddenly shifts to a complete non sequitur. It reads like we're inside Neil's head and the inside of Neil's head feels really familiar.

Now, I'm not sure how much of it is the author herself and how much of it is just Neil, or if it's a case of Neil being exactly the sort of character Nora Sakavic's natural writing style (at the time) just happened to fit precisely. But my point is that having the kind of flaws English teachers would wag their fingers at doesn't make it a less effective piece of writing. Not all characters and not all humans are going to tell their stories in a way that sounds like what we think of as 'literature' but that doesn't make their story less meaningful or significant or less well told.

EDIT: I should say, there are literary authors who also have a very sparse, simple style, who nonetheless, manage to convey so much sentiment and emotion in simple, short sentences. AFTG has, by no means, the simplest or sparsest writing I've seen. You don't need complex words or sentences to tell a good story effectively!

[1alchemistart]

The way you draw poses and expressions are really lively and so nice to look at!! ✨ :0

If you don't mind me asking, how did you learn to make good expressions and poses? + Any tips you can share?

thank you very much!!! ✨✨✨

well i've always been most excited about drawing expressions and i grew up with very expressive styles as my reference point (W.I.T.C.H. and atla are big examples in my mind for this, as well as just . animated movies. lmao LSDKL) so i never really took the time to break it down before, but i can explain some of the stuff i do!

as for posing, i think THE thing that helps the most is figure drawing, so i suggest looking into that for anyone wanting to improve their posing!

to be clear this is not a tutorial bc i don't think i'm qualified for that, it's simply how i do things SDFLKLSD i'll also include some links that might be helpful! all under the cut

here are some links you might find helpful on the topic of expressions!

"How to draw expressive faces" by Magdalena Proszowska

"How I Draw: Facial Expressions" by Emirichu

"Drawing Simple Clear Facial Expressions" by Aaron Blaise

another thing i personally have found helpful when i was still learning the basics was this specific challenge, 25 Essential Expressions by napalmnacey, and various expression memes are a great starting point as well!

as for what i personally do,

i REALLY have a fondness for assymetrical eyebrows and just generally kinda squiggly ones! they add an uncertainty to the expression of a character, and imo can really enhance a saddened expression or make a comedic one a bit funnier!

including eye wrinkles (when they make sense ofc) is an easy way to add some exhaustion to sorrowful expressions, but i also find it a good way to make happiness feel more unrestrained and joyous

i also think it's very good to look at how its done in other works or from other artists with very expressive work. dunmeshi comes to mind!

other things can be kept in mind, like nose wrinkles or smile lines or the shape of the lips, and additional details like redness and sweat drops or the size and detail of the iris can be used to emphasize an expression or add complexity :OO

also, hands and arms may be annoying to draw but they're like one of your MOST helpful tools when conveying an expression! is your character embarrassed or overwhelmed? they may wish to hide their face! or perhaps they tend to scratch their cheek when they're uncertain, or they're frustrated and holding their head! hands are a very important thing to add :D

i hope this will be helpful to you!!

[bthump]

How well do you think Mori and Gaga studio understand Miura's ideas, especially In relation to Griffith? I doubt Miura envisioned Griffith as a pure-evil monster who deserves a terrible death. However, most of the fandom tends to simplify the story into a primitive tale of 'the good hero Guts defeating the vile villain Griffith, who must die." Is it likely they will cater to this majority, downplaying Griffith's complexities, dismiss his waking feelings like "it's just the moonchild" and presenting story as a story with Guts chopping Griffith into pieces, and all his crew go celebrate this and live happily, consigning Griffith's name to oblivion? After all, that is what the fandom want. Will they give the majority what they desire? I fear that most readers simply won't accept any ending other than a brutal revenge against Griffith. It's sad that the fandom feels this way about the character, but it can't be changed, no matter what, so their attitude doesn't bother me too much. However, I am concerned that their feelings might influence the continuation. And will you accept post-Miura's Berserk as canon, no matter what it turns out to be? (I apologize for any mistakes or strange phrasing. I'm not a native eng speaker)

I don't know any more about how closely Mori is adhering to Miura's vision than anyone else, but as an optimist I do believe him when he says he knows what Miura had planned and doesn't intend to stray from that.

In terms of like, character nuance and Griffith in particular, on the one hand I never really expected the new crew to match Miura's ability to convey subtle emotions and details, and on the other hand even before Miura died I didn't have 100% confidence that he was going to maintain a lot of the nuances I loved in the earlier manga, like fear being one of Guts' main driving emotions, or like the moral ambiguity of Falconia.

I think it's easy to fall into thinking that Miura's Berserk is perfect and anything disappointing about the new chapters is because of deviation from his intentions, but we don't really know Miura's intentions, or how his perspective on the story may have shifted throughout the decades.

So basically I guess my best guess is that while Miura may have been able to convey more subtle character stuff than the current artists can, and therefore probably wouldn't have drawn Griffith looking so cartoonishly villainous eg lol, I do feel like it's a safe assumption that the plot is still Miura's, and if he hadn't died Griffith still would've kidnapped Casca and whatever is happening in Kushan would still be happening (but maybe more clearly conveyed lol), etc.

Also it's worth noting that as far as I'm aware the "majority" of fans you mention, with boring overly simplified ideas about the story, are just the majority of English language fans, and I don't think that's the fanbase Berserk is catering to. I've heard that the Japanese fanbase, the fans more likely to influence the direction of the story if it can be influenced, tends to see Griffith as much more complex and nuanced than English fandom. I could be wrong, I don't speak Japanese so I can't check it out myself, but based on what I've heard from bilingual fans I don't think that's something you have to worry about.

Finally, yeah I think the new material is still canon. I think it makes sense to treat it as, like, an interpretation of the "true" story and maybe take some details with a grain of salt (like Griffith's evil smiles lol), but I mean even if it ends with Guts casually chopping Griffith's head off and riding into the sunset with Casca, I'm not gonna declare Mori a lying fraud or anything like that yk? I would be disappointed in the story the same way I would be if Miura had written it.

Thanks for the ask!