#I feel like an authors or creators Jewishness only matters to these people when we’re completely helpless victims or evil Zios | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

criticalintellect · 4 years ago

Text

UGH alright let's try this, hopefully I'll be coherent. So I've had my twitter account for about a year now(?) and every month or so, for about a week, just outta nowhere people suddenly feel like shitting on Lovecraft. The last two times it makes sense how it came about since we had gotten news that a new Call of Cthulhu "sequel" was getting made. The premise we were given was goddamn horrendous, but it's popped up again because it's creator felt like being a cunt on Twitter for some reason: Call of Cthulhu: Death May Die. Shelving the fact that sounds like a Devil May Cry parody, I won't focus too much on the game, though I will say it's NOTHING like the Terminator ripoff we were told it was gonna be (I could be mistaking DMD with another boardgame abortion using H.P.'s work) and the wording in the game synopsis I found is completely contrary to cosmic horror; talking about fighting the Old Ones and "shoot[ing] it in the face". Eric Lang is the man of the hour; he's had quite a bit of experience in boardgames and even video games, working on Duelyst (which I really did like). So to see this man in search of a personality put on his most psychotic stare, trim his pubic hair wig, and stand in front of a cardboard cutout of H.P. Lovecraft and give it the finger, all to post it on twitter and say he hates this man and his work...while at the same time profiting from his work DIRECTLY. I'm a little...perturbed. These retard fests always come in at least 3 flavors: Lovecraft was a racist, dO yOu KnOw WhAt He NaMeD hIs CaT?!?!?!, and Lovecraft didn't contribute anything and all his fans are racist. No to all 3.

Now maybe I'm hanging on semantics, but from my reckoning I would say HPL was more xenophobic than racist. He didn't hate other people or races. Yes he did believe that certain people had "superior" genetics, but never in his notes have I seen him go on tirades about how those of "lesser" genes need to be culled or anything. He literally just wanted them to leave him and his neighborhood alone. He wanted them to live, just not near him. Again, maybe semantics, I leave the distinction to greater intellects. But of greater importance, something these Lovecraft detractors refuse to comprehend, was that we have written proof that HPL RENOUNCED his xenophobic views towards the end of his life. Thanks to the friends he made, his moving to New York, and being exposed to other people he saw the error of his ways. And he recanted. And the people shitting on his grave do not care, saying that it didn't matter. It's cancel culture at it's finest, but since they can't cancel a dead man all they can do is destroy his works. Or at least attempt to, fruitlessly. The plus side of having 100 year old works of fiction is that they've been in circulation for so long is that plenty of people know the fiction and know when someone has made a shit interpretation of it.

Now, about that cat. See it wasn't Howard that named that cat, but rather his father. The cat was adopted by and named by him. And then his father was committed to an asylum and the cat passed into his son's and wife's care. And yes, the cat was called Niggerman, shocker. It was the 1880s.

"Lovecraft had no impact on anything". Stephen King, Gullermo del Toro, Ridley Scott, Neil Gaiman, Junji Ito, Kentaro Miura, Clive Barker, John Carpenter, Mike Mignola and H.R. Giger. All of these artists were influenced by Lovecraft and his horror. But sometimes his touch was a little less obvious, as he was friends with Robert E. Howard, the creator of Conan the Barbarian and Solomon Cane. He was a man who would very openly share ideas he had for his own work, but not having a great opinion of said work would pass it onto authors he believed could better implement his ideas. He was never a man to jealously protect his property and openly allowed ANYONE to add onto the mythos he unwittingly created. And that's a major reason how his mythos has engrossed so much of our culture over the last century, even when the property wasn't directly connected to the Cthulhu mythos. As to the assertion that we're all racists: even if I agreed Howard Philips Lovecraft was racist and even if it wasn't public knowledge that he became a better person late in life, I am capable of separating a creator from his work. I can read Shadow Over Innsmouth and Call of Cthulhu and The Dunwich Horror and agree that if you look deep enough there's some skeevy themes, but if you put that aside there's some damn good suspense and horror. For as fucked up as K-Pop is I don't see any of their stans calling out the industry while admitting they still like the music, it's just blanket denial. Yet shitheads with that kinda mindset wanna come after a man's legacy like he enslaved all of Africa all on his lonesome?

At the end of it all, Lovecraft's works will endure all of this mind numbing clout chasing. Eric Lang can do cringey, performative wokeness while being a massive hypocrite all he wants, Lovecraft will endure. But it will always bother me the amount of frothing, myopic hatred HPL gets. The fans have told these people how he reformed, how he shared his works with people of all walks of life, how he MARRIED A JEWISH WOMAN (and yes he had distasteful opinions of Jews too), but it's never enough. If Daryl Davis can change the minds of 200+ KKK members, then why can't we give people from the past the benefit of the doubt. Then again these are also the type of people that called Davis a racist and other assorted idiocy so...I dunno. Lovecraft was a flawed man, plagued by nightmares, coddled by a mother who slowly lost her mind over time and ended up in the same asylum as her husband (the one he died in too). And even through all of that he found a way to be a better man. He shared his works, he found a way to intimately connect with a woman (even though it sounds like it was very difficult for both of them), and towards the end of his life he admitted his ideas of genetic superiority were downright abhorrent. If we can't give even this man the benefit of the doubt, then your only hope of being accepted by the hate mob is if you're born a literal son of God.

And if you dont like HPL then fuck right off out of my fandom because we do not care about your lukewarm take about him being a racist and we need to rewrite his works. Piss off

Edit: Hoo boy this has gotten around and about, further than I thought it would've. I know it's a bit strange, but thank you to everyone for showing support. Didn't think anyone would read one of my long-winded rants, let alone think it worth of sharing. At first I was just a casual fan of Lovecraft like most people; Cthulhu here, "hey I get that"; a shoggoth there, "ah neato." But after seeing him get so much hatred it started to feel wrong. Then learning what a tragic man he was and seeing Twitter attempt to eviscerate this man...I had to put my thoughts somewhere and this was the only place I had a chance to get it out there and people actually see it. So thank ye kindly strange sea of friends

#long goddamn post #H.P. Lovecraft #fuckin rant

135 notes · View notes

the-christian-walk · 4 years ago

Text

SPIRITED PRAYER

Can I pray for you in any way?

Send any prayer requests to [email protected] In Christ, Mark

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

** Follow The Christian Walk on Twitter @ThChristianWalk

** Like posts and send friend requests to the author of The Christian Walk, Mark Cummings on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/mark.cummings.733?ref=tn_tnmn

** Become a Follower of The Christian Walk at http://the-christian-walk.blogspot.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The scriptures. May God bless the reading of His holy word.

On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God.

“Sovereign Lord,” they said, “You made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of Your servant, our father David: ‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against His anointed one.’”

“Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed. They did what Your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable Your servants to speak Your word with great boldness. Stretch out Your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.”

After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

Acts 4:23-31

How do you handle adversity when it comes your way, especially when it serves to challenge your faith?

There are plenty of options but as we see in today’s passage, there is only one right one.

For fresh off of their encounter with the Sanhedrin, who had taken Peter and John captive after they healed a lame man in the temple courts and ordered them to stop speaking in the name of Jesus, the two apostles could have done many different things.

They could have allowed themselves to be intimidated and frightened by the Jewish religious leaders, giving into their orders to stop evangelizing as Jesus had commanded them to do.

They could have decided to still speak in the name of Jesus but do so secretly, discretely doing as Jesus told them to in order to avoid any further confrontation.

Or they could have done what they did do, turn to God in prayer, placing their faith and trust in Him.

For the scriptures tell us that Peter and John went back to their people after being set free by the Sanhedrin. I’m sure everyone was eager to hear what had taken place and how the apostles managed to gain their pardon. The two apostles didn’t leave them wondering for we read where they “reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them.”

How did the people respond?

The scriptures tell us that they “raised their voices together in prayer to God.”

Friends, this is always the right answer when we face difficulty and uncertainty. We need to go to the Lord who cares for our every need and places His protection upon us always, especially when we are involved in the work He calls us to do. He is the One who shows us the way when we can’t see one for ourselves and we have no more trustworthy source of wisdom and direction than Him.

And so the people joined together and lifted their voices in the following prayer:

“Sovereign Lord, You made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of Your servant, our father David: ‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against His anointed one.’”

Note the key elements of this prayer because in it we find a framework we can follow ourselves.

First, the people acknowledged God for who He was.

Sovereign Lord, You made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of Your servant, our father David.”

Here we see God elevated to His proper place of authority as the great Creator of all things. There wasn’t anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea that God hadn’t formed with His almighty hands. He made all things to include the people who were giving Him their praise and He possessed the power to help them with whatever they were going through. All they needed to do was place their hope in Him.

Second, the people acknowledged that God had designed and was executing a perfect plan.

Yes, there was a vast conspiracy that worked against Jesus, a plot that resulted in His wrongful conviction and execution, but it wasn’t as if God was just idle, standing by helplessly as the Jews and Gentiles murdered His one and only Son.

Rather, God knew well in advance how things would play out. What happened to His Son was necessary, a short term loss to achieve a longer term glorious gain. In Jeremiah 29:11, we’re reminded that God knows the plans He has for us, plans to give us hope and to help prosper our future. We see a perfect fulfillment of His promise in the life of Jesus, the Messiah God sent from heaven to earth to save all mankind. And if we maintain our faith and trust in God, no matter what life brings, we’ll see His promises come to life in our own lives as well.

Finally, we find the people asking God to keep them in His care and defend them against their adversaries. The Sanhedrin rained threats down upon Peter and John with the intent of intimidating them and shutting down any further proselytizing in Jesus’ name. But the believers knew where their strength came from. They knew God was their refuge and a very present help in times of trouble (Psalm 46:1) so there was no need to be afraid. They believed with all their heart that God could enable them to speak with the very boldness that Jesus did when He ministered. And they asked for God to work in and through them so they could heal, as well as perform other signs and wonders, in the name of His Son.

So how did God respond to the spirited prayer of His people?

We read where He first showed them a sign, indicating that He had heard them loud and clear. For after the people had finished praying, the scriptures tell us that their meeting place was shaken. Imagine a mini-earthquake right after a prayer meeting and you would have a decent idea of what happened but as we see, God had much more in mind than just shaking things up a little. For after their meeting place had been shaken, all the people were filled with the Holy Spirit which empowered them to speak God’s word boldly.

The people’s spirited prayer led to the Holy Spirit being imparted, a Holy Spirit that empowers and protects, a Holy Spirit who is just as much with us today as he was well over 2,000 years ago.

Friends, when adversity and difficult circumstances come knocking at the door of our life, we need to pray and follow the blueprint of the New Testament believers in the fourth chapter of Acts.

First, we need to acknowledge God for who He is, in power and authority over all things.

Second, we need to confess that God’s plan is always at work and that plan is perfect, even if it might not seem that way on the surface. We need to need to trust His promise to prosper us and grant us hope for a future.

Finally, we need to seek the Lord’s power to help us boldly speak in His name and carry out His will. We also then need to be prepared to receive the Holy Spirit to help us do just that.

In the end translation, spirited prayer results in the power of the Holy Spirit being imparted to help us carry out God’s perfect plan. We’re going to see this on full display as we continue our study of this book and follow the development of the Christian church.

Amen.

In Christ,

Mark

PS: Feel free to leave a comment and please share this with anyone you feel might be blessed by it. Send any prayer requests to [email protected]

0 notes

traincat · 8 years ago

Note

I love the gifset you reblogged with Pete and Gwen! I was just wondering what was wrong(?) with the Homecoming review you mentioned in your tags? What are your thoughts on Homecoming? :) Anyways love your blog and your writing! Have a great day!

Thank you! So I have somewhat unsuccessfully attempted not to be Really Negative about Homecoming, except on twitter where I’ve clearly given up altogether, but heads up: I’m about to be pretty negative because I care way too much about Peter Parker. My opinions are my own, etc. Right off the bat: I actually do think Spider-Man: Homecoming is going to be a fun summer movie. It’s probably well-written and engaging! It looks like a good movie about a teenage superhero coming into his own and I’m excited about the diverse cast.

It also, in my own opinion, looks like a terrible movie about Peter Parker.

There was nothing wrong with the review (it was in USA Today) so much as that literally everything it described made me, a person who loves Peter Parker, cringe. Full disclaimer that I haven’t seen Homecoming yet and it’s plausible I might like it in the end! I won’t, but it’s plausible! So everything I’m talking about is based on interviews with the cast and creators/trailers and released scenes/etc.

But I’ve got so much beef with this movie I practically own a cattle ranch.

I’m just going to try to hit my main complaints: Ned Leeds, or, This Should Have Been a Miles Morales Movie, Peter as a New Yorker, Peter Parker vs Spider-Man: A Fake Argument, and Why We Actually Do Need To Know How Ben Died, Thanks. “Traincat, how much have you thought about this?” I don’t want to talk about it! Except I do, under the cut:

1) Ned Leeds. This has been pointed out before, but it bears repeating until all my metaphorical cows come home: Homecoming’s “Ned Leeds” is literally Ganke Lee, Miles Morales’ best friend. Look at Ganke. Now look at 616 Ned. Back to Ganke. Yeah. He looks like him, and he appears to act like him from the little we’ve seen. “Ned” knows Peter is Spider-Man, the way Ganke knows Miles is Spider-Man. Ned is enthusiastic about Peter being Spider-Man, the way Ganke is. Ned’s playing with Legos in a Homecoming trailer, Ganke loves Legos, etc. They didn’t even try to hide the fact that they stole a major Miles Morales character for the benefit of a Peter Parker movie.

It’s possible Ned Leeds will resemble Ned Leeds more closely when the movie comes out, in which case I look forward to Spider-Man 3: Still At Home, where Peter passionately makes out with Ned’s wife and then Ned dies in Germany. But I have my doubts about that.

One of my problems is that I, personally, am not particularly interested in Peter Parker in high school. (WHERE is the movie where he is 30, teaching high school, and played by Alfie Enoch? I want it. You want it. We all want it. Look at him. He’s perfect.) If we’re going to do a teenage Spider-Man, why NOT Miles Morales, who IS the Spider-Man currently in high school, and who HAS been a kid since his introduction several years ago. Peter graduated high school in Amazing Spider-Man #28. There are over 700+ issues of Amazing Spider-Man alone. It’s time to leave the idea of Peter Parker as a character perpetually in high school behind.

BUT, if we were going to make a Teen Peter Parker movie, make it actually about Peter, because the way this is marketed (the gaming laptop commercial? The Audi one where he’s taking a driver’s test? The banking quiz? I cannot think of anything that screams Spider-Man less than German automobiles) sure looks like this is a movie about Relatable Teen Hero Boy-Man, who may be a good kid but he’s not Peter Parker, and who is here to sell you, the viewer, some stuff.

(I cannot believe consumerism giveth the Spider-Mobile, and consumerism taketh it away.)

2) New York! Where I am typing this post from, actually! True story: I never would have even read this review, but my mom read it and to quote: “There’s going to be a problem. Aunt May drives him around.” NAH. N A H. Listen, I know people in New York have cars. I know people in Queens have cars. I know this so well that I have my aunt’s car, which before me sat in a parking lot in Queens 360 days out of the year. Almost any scene you could tell in a regular car, you could tell in a subway car. Also, you can see Washington DC in the trailer, which means that at some point the movie is going to take Peter out of New York, a move I cannot possibly see the point to. I’m going to be an Obnoxious New Yorker for a hot second: Other superheroes might live in New York, but Peter Parker is New York. He has to have a relationship with the city itself. This is one of the things I think The Amazing Spider-Man movies did wonderfully: looking at New York actually felt like looking at New York. The scene with the crane operators, the webbed I LOVE YOU, Gwen’s fire escape, or when he jaywalks through traffic in Union Square. The big fight in Times Square. Homecoming already didn’t FEEL like New York from the trailers and now a chunk of the movie isn’t even taking place in it? Aunt May’s going to drive her nephew around? What’s the point? Why would you strip the New Yorker (”fuck you” means “have a nice day”) from a superhero defined by it?

(PS it’s because Peter is a heavily Jewish-coded character and taking the New Yorker out of him makes him less so. See also, down below, the removal of his guilt/responsibility complex.)

3) He’s Just Always Spider-Man, Guys. The USA Today review also includes a quote from Tom Holland about how “Spider-Man is not Peter Parker” and they’ve “made quite a clear divide between the two” and not to be shady but I think the biggest mistake people make when writing Peter Parker is thinking that there’s ANY difference between Peter and Spider-Man, except that sometimes he has to pretend like lifting the couch takes any effort. He’s always Spider-Man. The kind of confidence you get from being able to throw a Jeep, or crush steel pipes with your bare hands? That doesn’t go away just because you take off a mask. It’s a shallow take. Peter, as a character, isn’t a very reliable narrator of his own personality – you have to look at his actions. Don’t get distracted by his jokes. There’s no divide.

This ties into my problems with the apparently heavy presence of Iron Man – the review calls him a “reluctant father figure” to Peter – beyond my disbelief over not trusting Spider-Man of all characters to carry his own movie. I understand that the MCU is as built over RDJ’s portrayal of Tony Stark as the 616 Universe is built on the legacy of the Fantastic Four, but one of the things I keep in mind when writing Peter is that he doesn’t truly respect anyone else’s authority but his own. As soon as that spider bit him, that was it, he was his own ultimate authority. And now he’s the “Kid Avenger” and Iron Man is making all his tech? Why, when Captain America: Civil War went out of its way to highlight that he’s a tech genius? Why the effort to make Peter Parker less than he is? Oh, right, Relatable Teen Hero Boy-Man. As an advertiser’s daughter, I don’t like being so OBVIOUSLY sold “Spider-Man! He’s just like you! Buy an Audi.”

4) Ben Parker Must Die. Uncle Ben’s death won’t be shown in the movie, they said! HUZZAH, a million voices cried out, drowning out my own cries of, BUT HOW DO I KNOW WHO PETER PARKER IS IF I DON’T KNOW THE EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES OF BEN PARKER’S DEATH.

But this is fine, I said. This is okay. You don’t need to show Ben Parker’s death to feel the impact of it, of course! A skillful storyteller can get around that easily!

Yeah uh so Ben’s death isn’t going to have a large impact on Peter in the movie at all, apparently, which is AN ISSUE when this is THE defining moment.

From this article:

As for why Ben was left out, Watts says he wanted to go all out on focusing on how awesome it would be to become Spider-Man, going from a geeky teen to possessing superhuman powers. Dealing with the fact that Peter is partially guilty for a loved one’s death would have put the dampers on that.

Cool cool cool so you wanted the power and you didn’t want the responsibility. To quote tumblr user myvisagewasted: “Literally the thematic point of Spider-Man is that if you can shatter someone’s face, you GOTTA put a damper on that” and I 10000% agree. Peter, in 616, was initially selfish with his powers. He was an angry teenager who declared he’d only take care of his aunt and his uncle, and that “the rest of the world can go hang.” The Uncle Ben dies, and Peter starts to change. Putting “dampers” on the awesomeness of suddenly being as strong as forty men is called character development, and stripping the guilt complex from Peter is, whether intentional or not, further attempts to hide the character’s Jewish coding. You don’t have to dwell on how much of an impact Ben Parker’s death made on Peter, but I do strongly believe you cannot brush it off because it wouldn’t be fun.

(Ask me about murder lovebirds Spideytorch, or, What If? Uncle Ben’s Death Didn’t Change Peter.)

How Ben dies also matters with regards to who Peter is – for example, in Spider-Man Noir, Ben dies before Peter becomes Spider-Man, and he isn’t shot but rather ripped to shreds and partially eaten by the Vulture. As a result, Noir!Peter is PRETTY COOL with guns and shooting people, whereas 616 Peter has an extreme aversion. If there’s no specifics about Ben’s death, how do we know who Peter is?

Anyway I also believe Peter isn’t his fully formed self until he feels partially responsible for the deaths of three loved ones, so. There’s that. (George Stacy Or Appropriate George Stacy Stand-In Also Must Die.)

Anyway, this has been Traincat’s Unpopular Spider-Man Opinions, the Homecoming edition, thank you for reading, I’m still gonna see the movie because I love Liz Allan and I am Doing It For Her. And also to see if I was right about 10 different theories. Send in the clones.

#peter parker//#homecoming///#long post #*replies #traincat talks comics #i am who i am and who i am is a person who has read so many spider-man comics

87 notes · View notes

feathersandblue · 8 years ago

Text

hansbekhart

reblogged your post and added:

I’d rather discuss what you think of my argument.

Then I hope you don’t mind me putting this in an extra post, as the original thread is getting quite long.

I’m copying/posting your last reply here:

I don’t think it’s a contradiction though. I think it’s a miscommunication, stemming mostly from privilege. The disconnect in this argument is over what, exactly, is problematic.

Fandom has always imagined itself as a place of progressive values - a place where (predominately) women can explore their own sexuality and recreate community in a way that isn’t hostile to them, as a lot of the real world is. But this world we’ve created still has all of the prejudices that each member was brought up with - there’s no way that it couldn’t, firstly because many of our prejudices are invisible to us, and secondly because a lot of fandom works were created specifically to remix that already-existing culture: fan fiction is a mirror that we bend to find stories that include ourselves.

I think that the expression “fandom has always imagined itself” is a bit of a generalisation that does not hold up to close scrutiny: fandom is extremely diverse, and I don’t necessarily think that everyone who participates in it - or even the majority of people who participate in it - frame their contribution in these terms, or see it in that light.

So while such a narrative exists, especially when it comes to the defense and representation of fandom in media, I wouldn’t agree that this idea of “progressiveness” is at the center of fandom for a majority of fans - at least not for those who never engage on a meta level. People often politicize fandom, but I’d argue that fandom, as such, is personal rather than political.

I absolutely agree wtih you that fandom content reflects our perception of the world, and all of our biases. But for me, that’s pretty much a given, and I’d like to add that the same applies to every kind of art and literature: whether we try to avoid it or not, everthing that we create is a reflection of our environment (geographical, historical, political), our personality, our prejudices and biases, our personal issues.

And since it’s squeezed through what could arguably be called a feminist lens (because it positions female sexuality and self-exploration at its center), we fool ourselves into thinking that all the bad stuff - the parts of the world we were so alienated by that we were compelled to fix them - all that ugliness, we think it all gets left on the other side of the glass.

I don’t think that is the case, actually. At least I can’t confirm that from my own perspective and experiences. Very few people that I’ve spoken to - very few people who I argue with - would claim that fanworks are necessarily “better” or “less problematic” than the sources they derive from. Such a statment, I think, would be difficult to uphold when one takes a closer look at the average fanwork, the 90% between “My Immortal” and your Personal Favorite.

I think that there might be a bit of confusion - or disagreement - about the nature and purpose of fanworks. In my understanding, fanworks are a form of wish-fulfillment and self-empowerment for those who create it. Fanworks can be progressive, sure, and they can be political, but I see that as side effect rather than a primary purpose. First and foremost, fanworks are hedonistic. They are the self-expression of individuals, the purely self-indulgent outlet for personal creativity.

Of course, I have no idea what goes on in the mind of any given fan creator or writer. But speaking from my own perspective, when I write fanfiction, I write things for my own, personal enjoyment, for my own, personal amusement, or, if I wanted to be flippant: Because I can. Nothing inherently progressive about that.

I’m saying “we” not just as a fan, but as a demographically representative one. Fandom is majority straight, white, and female - I’m two of those things, and can pass for the third. The reason I called this the White Feminism of discourse is because that’s where I think it comes from: a centering of a certain sort of narrative and victimhood to the exclusion of all others. Not necessarily out of maliciousness, but because a large proportion of fans don’t see the persistently racist problems in fandom - because it doesn’t affect them. Because they’ve never experienced racism personally, and are blind to the way they (we) perpetuate the microaggressions or outright racism that literally every fan of color has experienced in fandom. It’s a language we can’t hear unless we really, really listen.

Fandom is mostly white and female, though not necessarily straight, but that’s another matter.

I think we need to make a distinction here, and that’s between fandom as a space for individuals, and the idea of fandom as it is currently presented in media by pro-fandom voices, which indeed often paints fandom as a beacon of progressiveness and female empowerment.

When it comes to the individual fan and their contribution to fandom ... I hate to say it, but there is no reason why any given fan should priotitize anything but their own, selfish enjoyment. I’m not in fandom to contribute to the joy and happiness of other people. I’m here for my own.

Creating art of fiction is always a selfish act. No writer writes something they don’t want to write (unless they’re paid for it, or course), no artist paints something that they don’t want to paint. That’s how we create: it’s our personal, self-indulgent vision that we turn into something that other people might enjoy. Or not enjoy, whatever the case may be.

The argument that I often hear is “if your personal enjoyment comes at the price of other people’s hurt feelings, it’s oppressive and immoral”, but that only applies when I actually force people to consume the product of my imagination. But as long as they have the freedom of choice, why should their feelings take precedence over mine?

Especially, and I feel that this is an important point that doesn’t get stressed often enough, when I don’t even know who these people are? We’re on the internet. I have no idea whether the person I’m dealing with is actually who they claim to be. I have no idea what their life looks like. I have no idea whether they were actually “triggered” by something (I’m using quotation marks because the way the word is used here on tumblr, it can mean anything, from mild annoyance to great anxiety) or are just striving strive for power and control.

I can totally get where the people who write this sort of positivity posts about fandom are coming from, and I can get why it seems like these are attacks out of left field. But when you (and not meaning you specifically, OP - all of us) claim essentially that all media/fandom is good, and all ways of consuming media/fan fiction are good, that ignores the way that media/fandom continues to be a really hostile and ugly place for a lot of people. You may mean, “There is no bad way to explore your sexuality,” but it can sound like you really mean “Even if it includes explicit, unqualified racism.”

But who says that media/fandom has to be “good”? Who made that rule when I wasn’t looking? When I “joined” fandom, I never agreed to limit my own, personal enjoyment to what minorities find acceptable. And while I get that some people think they’re entitled to that - that it should be my goal as a “decent person” to make them feel included, safe, welcome, and cared for - that’s not what I’m here for.

You may find this a controversial statement, but actually, it shouldn’t be controversial at all. I get that some people would like me to sign a metaphorical contract, with the fine print written in their favor, but the truth is that such a contract does not exist within fandom.

No other person has the actual authority to tell me that my own enjoyment should not be my sole and ultimate goal. People might think they have the moral authority to tell me that, but there is no reason why I should have to accept that.

Why should I let other people dictate what my contribution to fandom should look like? Or, what’s more to the point, why should I let a bunch of strangers with funny urls do that, who willingly choose to engage with the content that I post on my blog or to my AO3 account?

ESPECIALLY because, when confronted with that exact challenge, a lot of people double down on that and admit that yeah, the racism doesn’t really bother them. Which is what’s happening here.

It’s not a contradiction, but an unwillingness to confront an ugly truth about fandom because it doesn’t personally affect you. Fandom has a huge problem with racism, and pointing that out is not an act of The Morality Police.

Well, I’m one of these people. Though I think it’s fair to say that while racism does, in fact, bother me, my understanding of racism does not conform with the US American definition, and I’m not inclined to re-frame my worldview according to US American sociological theories just because fan culture happens to be dominated by US Americans.

It’s not only racism, though, is it? It’s “abuse” and “homophobia” and “transphobia” and “ableism” and “misogyny” and so on, and I can tell you that most of what I’ve written and published would raise the hackles of one minority or another, if they came looking.

Or rather, raise the hackles of some individuals, which is another issue: very rarely, in my experience, has there been an agreement within a minority group on whether something was actually “harmful” or “offensive”. So, when I’m faced with a couple of people who come to my inbox, often in a very hostile manner, to tell me that something is offensive to people of color, or Jewish people, or trans people, or disabled people, and so on, they might be making a lot of noise, but I have no real means to say whether they are actually representative of the minority they claim to speak for.

In reality, it might look a little like this: My piece of dark fic, which was clearly labeled as such, got twohundred hits. Ten people left kudos, one left a positive but trivial comment, and now suddenly three people, one after the other, leave their comments in quick succession, neiher politely worded nor inviting a discussion, informing me that this piece of fiction is problematic and needs to disappear. Because they say so.

That’s the point where I have to ask myself: if I give in to that kind of intimidation and pressure, am I doing it because these people are in the right, or because I’m afraid? Am I willing to follow their moral code, which apparently includes dogpiling, intimidation, and name-calling, or do I trust my own?

Meanwhile, the people in my comment section are in all likelihood not willing to take my opinion into account. Any attempt on my side to justify myself just leads to statements like “check your privilege”, “you’re a nazi apologist”, “white (cis, straight, abled) people don’t get a say in this”. Disagreement is not an option. They’ve decided that my content problematic, that I am problematic, and that’s that.

I’ve seen this play out in a variety of instances, and quite honestly, I think it’s very important that people don’t give in to that kind of bullying.

Finally, let me just add, for good measure: I think you’re right in one point, and that is that we might want to stop pretending that fandom is all about progressiveness, when progressiveness is mostly accidental, and yes, we can absolutely point out that fandom content reflects the preferences of those who contribute to it. If that’s mostly white women, the content will reflect that, as we’ve basically agreed above.

On the other hand, if everyone keeps making the kind of content that they want to see, instead of bemoaning that others don’t make it for them, fandom will continue to change.

Just don’t expect fans to go to great length to make fandom a better place for others if that’s not what they signed up for.

#hansbekhart

115 notes · View notes

datblog16 · 6 years ago

Text

The Bigger Picture

Matthew 10:39 - "Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."

John 18:1-12 - "When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it. Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the pharisees. they were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (and Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. Again He asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said. Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” This happened so that the words He had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.” Then Simon peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (the servant’s name was Malchus.) Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus.

Above is an important event in the life of Jesus that we've heard about so many times. But, I'd like to focus on a particular person here, and that person is Peter. Peter is one of my favorite people in the Bible. I think the reason I like Peter so much is because I feel like, more than any other person in the Bible, I can relate to Peter the most. When it comes to his relationship with Jesus, more so than any other disciple or apostle, I connect so much more with Peter’s attitude, and that rings true for this particular episode in Peter's life.

You have these soldiers led by Judas on their way to arrest Jesus and the disciples. Jesus already knew this was going to happen, so he steps out ahead and meets the soldiers. Jesus then asks the soldiers who they’re looking for, as if Jesus was really clueless.

By this time in Peter’s life, he has already let go of his fishing net and he had been with Jesus for the past 3 years. Three years prior, Peter had let go of his plans and ambitions, and dedicates his entire life to following this random stranger, this Jesus, who is believed to be “The Messiah” Peter sees miracles being performed, experiences signs and wonders, sees the large crowds gather, and the potential that Jesus has.

What he believed to be the plan of Jesus now isn’t adding up. Now, things aren’t exactly going according to that plan. What’s more interesting is that though he initially let go of his net, somewhere along the way, he picked up a sword. Peter still did not understand.

Maybe years ago we gave our plans to Jesus. We said, “Jesus, I give my life to you - I’m laying down my plans - I’m letting go of what I want - and I’m ready to do what you want.” So we lay our nets down. But somewhere along the way, we pick up another plan. When we realized that God’s plan was not exactly going the way we desired, we pick up a plan that we believe is better and right, or at least that’s what we tell ourselves. But it was never God’s plan, it was our plan - we decided to take things into our own hand.

Essentially, we are saying, “God, I don’t know if you really know what you’re doing here, so let me just help you out.”

We have to let go of the concept that what God wants to do in our life is just about us.

What is actually happening in this scene we’ve read about?

God himself has come in the flesh, not just to live, but to die on behalf of all of humanity, to redeem them from the power of sin and death so that all who receive his sacrificial death can be forgiven once and for all. He who knew no sin is about to become sin so that we could have a right relationship with our Creator God, so that we could be with him in heaven forever and forever.

Oh but Peter has no idea what is going on right at that moment! If only we could talk to Peter in that moment, we would say, “Oh Peter, what is happening right now is not about you, its about the whole world, and not just the world now, but the world for generations to come. And here you are swinging your little sword trying to “save” the God of the universe. Peter what are you doing??”

Peter says, “But I’m just trying to help Jesus, I don’t want him to die. It’s not time for him to die. We still have to overthrow the Roman government, he still has to become the king, that hasn’t happened yet.”

Peter you think this is about you - you think this is about your plans. But there is a much bigger picture here Peter.

Peter says, “No but you don’t understand, I’ve left everything, my job, my family, my friends, everything I have known, to follow Jesus, he can’t just go like that, I don’t what we’re gonna do without Jesus - this is not what was supposed to happen.”

Whats so funny is that we can say Peter was so near-sighted, that he was narrow minded. “Peter can’t you see the bigger picture here??” We can say that only because we know what the bigger picture was - it was about the cross.

Yet, when we go through those times that don’t make sense in our life, and things aren’t exactly going the way we thought it would go, aren’t we just as myopic? As believers, we have this mindset that our lives are about our story - but thats not true. There is only one story in this world that matters - there is only one story that my life should be about - and its not mine - its His. PERIOD. It’s the story of Jesus and you are living in that story right now - my life, your life, is ultimately to be about him and for him - he made you for himself.

But the moment we think that this story is about us, we get in the way of His story. The truth is that His story is always better. How many times do we get in the way of the story that should truly be written? We get so wrapped up in our circumstances and our situation that we forget that there is a bigger picture and more importantly, a bigger God in your situation.

What really needs to happen in those moments is we need recover a greater perspective. We need to zoom out and see the bigger view.

Romans 8:28 - “and we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to his purpose.”

John 18:11 - “Jesus commanded Peter, “put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the father has given me?”

Peter there is something happening here that is so much bigger than you - what is happening here is about the world and all of humanity to come - so put your sword away and let go of what you think the plan is.

We have to let go of the concept that what we see is what is happening. In truth, there is another realm on which the supernatural occurs, and God moves in that realm as well.

Peter thought the enemy was the Roman government. Peter thought the enemy were the soldiers coming to take Jesus away. Peter thought Malchus was the bad guy - which is why he swung his sword. Boy was he wrong - if Malchus was the bad guy - Jesus wouldn’t have healed him. By the way, that must’ve been real awkward for Peter when Jesus healed the guy he just hurt.

Ephesians 6:12 - “for our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

Our battle is not against any man, but it is against the real enemy, the devil. what happens in our life is not all as it seems. There are things happening in the spiritual realm. Peter did not see that. Peter has brought a physical weapon into a spiritual battle. Oh so many times, don’t we do the same? We bring our physical emotions, our worldly view, our intellect into things that have nothing to do with this world. We say, “oh if I hadn’t done that, or if I had just done this."

Peter seems to have forgotten that Jesus, if he had wanted to, could have called a legion of angels to come and annihilate every Roman soldier in the garden at that moment. Peter seems to have forgotten that Jesus is still in control - even though from the outside, He’s the one being arrested.

How do you know that this was a spiritual battle? When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, they had physical spears and swords. Yet, when Jesus simply spoke, the soldiers fell down to the ground - something was happening in the spiritual realm here. Who was taking who here?

The moment we surrender our lives to God - from that moment on we have a target on our backs. We are in a spiritual battle. So what do you do in this situation where things aren’t going as you planned? You trust. What do you do? You talk to God. What do you do? You rest. What do you do? You let it go into God’s hands. You might feel like you should take things into your own hands, but let go of your sword - and trust what God is doing, because there’s more to the story than what you see now.

What happened to Peter? Where did his life take him? Did his life turn out the way that he thought it would? Truth be told, if Peter’s life went the way he planned, we wouldn’t be talking about him today. Oh how amazing is the Author of our stories. All we have to do surrender. Drop your sword.

Never in a million years could Peter have imagined the course that his life would take following that scene in the garden. For Peter, it wasn’t enough to have dropped his net, he needed to drop his sword. We know the rest of Peter’s story, how he became an incredible instrument in the early church, proclaiming the gospel of Jesus, for many years. He saw signs and wonders being performed through his ministry, he suffered, he was tortured, and eventually gave his life for the cause of Christ.

Jesus predicts Peter’s death in John 21:18-22 - “Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!” Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

In his final hour, as Peter was led to be crucified, as the soldiers came to take him away, I want to believe Peter looked back on that moment in the garden, when the soldiers came to take Jesus away, and he remembered the moment he drew his sword - and he understood now.

0 notes

rachelswirsky · 6 years ago

Text

Q&A on Being a Jewish & Disabled Author

A patron of mine asked me some questions recently about Jewish identity, and writing while Jewish and disabled.

I thought y'all might find the answers interesting. Hopefully, I'm correct!

Are secular Jews overrepresented in the media?

I am personally a secular Jew. I suppose my first question in wondering whether we're over-represented is -- what percentage of self-identified Jews in America are secular? (It also matters what the percentage of secular Jews in media work is, but that seems harder to find.)

I found this here: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/

"The changing nature of Jewish identity stands out sharply when the survey’s results are analyzed by generation. Fully 93% of Jews in the aging Greatest Generation identify as Jewish on the basis of religion (called “Jews by religion” in this report); just 7% describe themselves as having no religion (“Jews of no religion”). By contrast, among Jews in the youngest generation of U.S. adults – the Millennials – 68% identify as Jews by religion, while 32% describe themselves as having no religion and identify as Jewish on the basis of ancestry, ethnicity or culture. "

It goes on to say:

"Secularism has a long tradition in Jewish life in America, and most U.S. Jews seem to recognize this: 62% say being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry and culture, while just 15% say it is mainly a matter of religion. Even among Jews by religion, more than half (55%) say being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry and culture, and two-thirds say it is not necessary to believe in God to be Jewish. "

I'm surprised that the percentage of people who think you have to believe in God to be Jewish is that high, actually. There's a pretty lengthy historical tradition of Jews who participate in their communities without being personally religious. The article does say that Jews who identify as secular now are less likely to be tied into Jewish cultural organizations than other Jews, so I wonder whether there's an increasing idea that being a secular Jew is the same as being an uninvolved Jew. (I should note that people who convert to being Jews are also definitely Jews whether or not they have the ancestry. Judaism is a dessert topping and a floor wax.)

That said, I'm uninvolved in a lot of ways. My grandfather made a decision as a young man to sever himself from his Jewish past. I think this was his reaction to World War II. He never denied being Jewish, or changed his name, or anything like that - but he had no interest in his past as a Jew, or in any of the associated cultural traditions. Our family still exists in the shadow of that decision.

I could try to figure out more about the demographics involved -- what percentage of great sci-fi writers, editor, etc, from Christian backgrounds are also secular? Is this a function of Jewishness, or a broader secular cultural trend among people in those industries?

But I feel like the more interesting questions are tangential. What could we gain from having more religiously Jewish creators?

Probably something. My friend Barry writes a series of graphic novels about Hassidic Jews. He himself is a secular Jew, but many Hassidic people have contacted him, grateful for representation of their community that is humanizing and generous. There are clearly religiously Jewish people who are not seeing themselves reflected, or are only seeing themselves reflected in ways that are inaccurate or unkind.

There can be pressure on secular Jews to put their Jewish heritage in the background, especially when antisemitism and white supremacy are on a resurgence. I've paid the price for being a Jewish female creator, and it's a nasty one. So, there's another point where I think there's tension over secular Jewish representation in the media--in order to work in the industry, to some extent, we must blend in with Christian normativity.

I had a woman say to me, in all seriousness, in a critique group once, that she was annoyed I had included Jewish rituals in one of my stories. "If I want to read about that kind of thing," she said, "I'll just read fantasy."

I'm not sure this resolves anything (in fact, I'm sure it doesn't), but those are some of my thoughts.

What about your background and current ideas/beliefs/practices has contributed to your interest in Jewish sci fi?

Right now, I'm more interested in the theological questions of Judaism than I normally am because I have a good friend who is tipping over the border from secular to religious Jew, and his journey is very interesting to me. The way he talks and writes about his burgeoning belief (as opposed to the feeling of irresolution he'd had before) is fascinating; it helps that he's a very good writer who is fascinating on many topics.

I think my interest in Jewish science fiction stems from my interest in Jewishness itself, which is probably related to my self-identification as Jewish. I'm not sure why I have a strong identification with Judaism -- I didn't have to. As the granddaughter of a secular Jew who tried to cut all connections, I could have just put it aside; my brothers have. Our father is from WASPy blood with deep roots in American history--we're descended from one of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence--and I could have chosen to identify with that to the exclusion of my Jewish ancestry.

What are you writing about now?

I'm writing a lot about disability. As a disabled person, there's a lot of rich material to mine--and I still have a lot of unreconciled thoughts about disability, and things I'm figuring out. I think a lot of good writing is produced when the author is still on the edge of revelations, instead of settled.

Many of my previous writing obsessions have been much more externally focused. Of course there's a hideous amount of dehumanization and violence directed toward disabled people, but for some of us, there's also an intense personal struggle of identity and self-knowledge that requires a deep investigation of the psyche. That's where I am right now--fiction about selfhood and perception.

#judaism #SFF #disability #writing advice #interviews

0 notes