#I really will talk about textual ethics more at some point

[grandwitchbird]

This person left the most beautiful tags but doesn’t allow @s so I just wanted to say, absolutely yes! These are exactly the questions the text is asking you to think about.

My word choice was both a direct quote from the Inquisitor’s exhausted frustration at the end of trespasser and an allusion to the ethical frame this game is attempting (it muddies the waters for itself so nobody feel bad if you didn’t get this). ‘Fixing’ here affords us an interesting bit of linguistic slippage. To fix is to bind, to correct, to repair, to locate. It suggests an objectivity to the world that’s not actually possible as the tagger so correctly notes.

The incoherence of ‘fixing’ the world as a goal is the point. The end of history is a very real goal and seemingly sincere set of beliefs for some very real people, and it’s equally incoherent. It’s also rooted in impulses we all have. It’s our weakness to nostalgia, the push for easy answers to complex problems, the capacity to treat others as tools or inconveniences that need to be solved, the desire to see the world as a linear narrative. The end of history, the final solution, the death drive. All lenses onto the last 150 years of people trying to figure this out in ways that range from strange to horrifying.

Dragon Age is too beholden to the weak ethics fueled by these impulses. But it is pushing at them. This is what people are picking up on when they say the game/s have ‘heart’. There’s a desire in the text to be more ethically rigorous. It’s undermined by too much consideration for the audience. But it is there. And it’s especially there whenever Solas is onscreen.

Dragon Age has been doing a really clever thing with its protagonists and the heroic power fantasy that only fully comes together when you look at the series as a whole, so let’s do another ramble. Under a cut to save your dash.

Origins is a traditional RPG power fantasy. It likes to tell you that it’s not by gesturing at Loghain and alluding to unreliable narratives, but what it shows is the power fantasy. No matter what your warden does, they’re the hero. Are you a casual genocide enthusiast? No problem you can still ride off into the sunset looking for a cure. Also hey you have a critical weakness/flaw (the calling) that kind of dooms you or gives you cause to vaguely ride of into the sunset. Very heroic indeed. There’s a layer of textual interest added by the presence of unreliable narratives, but ultimately it’s the hero’s choices that shape and determine the world and story, right down to very gamified relationships. The origins system itself, the fact that your warden could have been anyone, is the actual textual proof that this isn’t all that’s going on. It just only really gets paid off by later games, and that’s pretty important given where this franchise ended up.

—

Enter DA2. Hawke is a champion, not a hero. Hawke fights for those who can’t fight themselves. Hawke can’t save the world. They can’t even save their family or city. It’s a battle of attrition that sees them somehow worse off no matter what. The still-gamified but now more nuanced and challenging relationships become the focus because they’re really all Hawke has. Now the power fantasy is still lurking around the edges. It’s just challenged at every turn. You can free Kirkwall, but Anders is always going to blow up a church.

—

Which brings us to Inquisition. Somehow, you’re both as much of a nobody as Hawke and you’re responsible for more than the Warden. And it’s miserable. The power fantasy is constantly undermined. No matter who your inquisitor was, by the end of the game they’ve been completely subsumed by their role: turns out power has teeth.

In a move that delivers on the unreliable narrative throughline that Origins established and DA2 strengthened, the Inquisitor must play the hero and save the world. It doesn’t matter if your Inquisitor is a kind person doing their best or a racist power-hungry asshole, and that is now a systemic issue within the world itself. The erosion of your character’s personhood is explicit within the text as characters struggle to see you as more than your role and you’re asked to shape the faith of an entire world even if you don’t share that faith. The cost of this erosion is made incredibly literal with Ameridan’s story and then in Trespasser, where the anchor, both cause and symbol of the Inquisitor’s role and power, is killing them. Relationships become somewhat less gamified but more importantly, you’re given an explicit textual mirror in Solas. He’s there to reflect your behavior but also your loss of personhood to a role. It’s essential that he’s the one to save your life at the end of Trespasser. Even if you’ve never shown him a moment’s grace, here is your mirror to see you as a person one last time.

—

And then there’s Rook. Now we play a mirror to Solas, a character who has been the hero, Mythal’s champion, and a man subsumed by his role/s. He’s really the narrative gift that keeps giving.

We walk the dreadwolf’s path this time, and the dreadwolf is a classic tragic hero. He’s stuck in a story where he must save the world and where a critical flaw will always be his downfall. We’re Varric’s second who must step up to champion his cause after the events of the introduction. And we’re barely keeping ourselves together under the burden of leadership. And here is where Veilguard finally delivers everything this franchise ever promised. Because under all that we’re truly just some guy. Just like Solas is just a guy who got stuck in situations he never wanted. His response was to become the hero or play the villain (depending on the story) because that’s easier. But if Rook can truly choose the ‘hard truth’ that the world is never going to “stay fixed” (oh hi Inquisitor… and Hawke… and Warden) and that other people can have better ideas and make hard calls and their own choices? If we don’t have to ‘win’? Rook can reconcile the inevitable tragedies of this kind of story with their very human needs and escape the story altogether. The cost, of course, is the power fantasy.

[talenlee]

Life With Generative Tools

In 2023, back when my posts were still being shared to Twitter because the API wasn’t paid-only, I wrote an article about the potential ramifications of generative art media going forward. My concern in the immediate was that the tools weren’t going to go away, but also the potential harm to artists was as much about general economic precarity and not people using fanart to make their D&D characters. I further added to this with a consideration of how I wanted to avoid using generative art in my game development because I didn’t want what people would say about it. That is, a social pressure about the art is what keeps me from using it, not a personal philosophical disposition. I’m an artist who already works with collage and constraints, this feels like a handy way to have something I can play with.

Well, it’s been a year and change and a sort of AI Art Apocalypse has happened, and if you’re not aware of it, it’s because you’re someone who avoids all of the pools that have been so thoroughly pissed in that they are now just piss. If you’re at all related to any part of the internet where people share a bunch of images – which is to say a lot of social media – then you’re already dealing with the place crawling with generative images. Whether it’s a fanart booru, or big sites like facebook and twitter, or god help you deviantart, there is a pretty clear sign that anywhere that opened the door to generative art became a space overwhelmingly for generative art.

I teach about this subject now and I have had some time with it in a situation away from the internet, and I’d like to give you some insights into what this stuff is for, what it does, why you shouldn’t use it, and ways it can be useful.

Content Warning: I’m going to be talking about these tools as tools that exist and leaving the philosophical/ethical arguments about ‘art theft’ and their genesis aside. I’m not including any examples. No shrimp jesus jumpscare.

You might notice I’m saying ‘generative art’ and not ‘AI art.’ Part of this is because I don’t want to buy into the idea that these tools are ‘artificial intelligence.’ Ironically, ‘AI art’ now has less of an implication of being ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and is much more of an implication of ‘it’s ugly shiny art of shrimp jesus with badly spelled signs.’

I want to focus for this conversation on generative graphical tools, and I want to do that because I don’t have much experience with the other types. The textual generators offer me something I don’t really need? I already make a ton of words of dubious quality. Those are actually the things that concern me because their natural aesthetic is authoritive and comprehensive and that’s why it’s a problem that they’re being used to present any old nonsense that may just be straight up wrong. I don’t use those tools and I avoid the platforms that use them so I’m not familiar with them.

Things Generative Art Is Good For

I already use art I don’t own, a lot, for playing. Every day for the past three years I’ve shared a custom Magic: The Gathering playing card, a game I don’t own the rights to, using a card face I don’t own the rights to, and artwork from an artist on Artstation whose artwork I did not pay for or even ask for. This is generally seen as a totally reasonable and acceptable form of playful, transformative media generation and I at no point pretend I have any rights to the material. If I take a picture of someone famous and put a speech bubble over their mouth saying ‘I drink farts,’ if I, as tumblr says, play with jpgs like dolls, that is by no means being done with rights and permission.

Which means we’re already aware that there’s a way of playing with images that both violates copyright but is generally okay to do.

The metric I use for this is if the thing you’re using generative art for doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter. If you’re not going to try and claim money, if you’re not going to put it on a marketplace, if you aren’t going to try and claim ownership and profit off generative material, I think you’re probably fine. I mean probably, if you’re using it to say, generate revenge porn of a classmate that’s an asshole move, but the thing is that’s a bad thing regardless of the tool you’re using. If you’re using it to bulk flood a space, like how Deviantart is full of accounts with tens of thousands of pictures made in a week, then that’s an asshole move because, again, it’s an asshole move regardless of the tool.

If you’re a roleplayer and you want a picture of your Dragonborn dude with glasses and a mohawk? That’s fine, you’re using it to give your imagination a pump, you’re using it to help your friends visualise what matters to you about your stuff. That’s fine! It’s not like you’re not making artistic choices when you do this, cycling through choices and seeing the one that works best for you. That’s not an action deprived of artistic choice!

There are also some things that are being labelled as ‘AI’ which seem to be more like something else to me. Particularly, there are software packages that resize images now, which are often calling it ‘AI upscaling,’ which it may be using some variety of these Midjourney style models to work, but which serves a purpose similar to sequences of resizes and selective blurs. There are also tools that can do things like remove people from the background of images, which is… good? It should be good and easy to get people out of pictures they didn’t consent to be in.

Things Generative Art Is Bad For

Did you know you don’t own copyright on generated art? This is pretty well established. If you generated the image, it’s not yours, because you didn’t make it. It was made by an algorithm, and algorithms aren’t people. This isn’t a complicated issue, this just means that straight up, any art you make at work that’s meant to be used for work, shouldn’t be used because people can just straight up use it. Logo design, branding, all that stuff is just immediately open for bootlegging or worse, impersonation.

Now you might think that’s a bit of a strange thing to bring up but remember, I’m dealing with students a lot. Students who want to position themselves as future prompt engineers or social media managers need to understand full well that whatever they make with these tools are not things that will have an enduring useful application. Maybe you can use it for a meme you post on an account, but it’s not something you can build branding off, because you don’t own it. Everyone owns it.

From that we get a secondary problem, because if you didn’t own it, its only use is what people say or think when they look at it, and thing is, people are already sick and tired of the aesthetics of generated art. You’re going to get people who don’t care glossing over it, and people who do care hating it. Generative art as a way of presenting your business or foregrounding your ‘vibes’ are going to think that your work is, primarily, ‘more AI art’ and not about what it’s trying to communicate. When the internet is already full of Slop, if you use these tools to represent your work, you are going to be turning your own work and media presence into slop.

What’s more, you need to be good at seeing mistakes if you’re using these tools. If you put some art out there that’s got an extra thumb or someone’s not holding a sword right, people will notice. That means you need to start developing the toolset above for fine-tuning and redrawing sections of artwork. Now, that’s not a bad thing! That’s a skill you can develop! But it means that the primary draw of these tools is going to be something that you then have to do your own original work over the top of.

The biggest reason though I recommend students not treat this work like it’s a simple tool for universal application is that it devalues you as a worker. If you’re trying to get hired for a job at a company and you can show them a bunch of generative art you’ve made to convince them that you’re available, all you are really telling them is that you can be replaced by a small script that someone else can make. Your prompts are not unique enough, your use of the tool not refined enough that you can’t just be replaced by anyone else who gets paid less. You are trying to sell yourself as a product to employers, and generative art replaces what you bring with what everyone brings.

They make you lazy! People include typos in the generative media because they’re not even looking at them or caring about what they say! And that brings me to the next point that there are just things these tools don’t do a good job doing, and that’s stuff I want to address next in…

Things That Are Interesting

Because the tools of generative art create a very impressive-seeming artistic output, they are doing it in a way that people want to accept. They want to accept them and that means accepting the problems, or finding a way to be okay with those problems. People who don’t care that much about typos and weird fingers and so on, because you know, it gets me a lot of what I want, but it doesn’t get me everything, and I don’t know how to get the everything.

If you generate an image and want to move something in it a little bit, your best way to do that is to edit the image directly. Telling the software to do that, again, but change this bit, this much, is in fact really hard because it doesn’t know what those parts are. It doesn’t have an idea of where they are, it’s all running on an alien understanding of nightmare horror imagery.

What that means is that people start to negotiate with themselves about what they want, getting to ‘good enough’ and learning how to negotiate with the software. My experiments with these tools led to me making a spreadsheet so I could isolate the terms I use that cause problems, and sometimes those results are very, very funny. In this, the tool teaches you how to use it (which most tools do), but the teaching results in a use that is wildly inappropriate to what the tool promises it’s for.

One of my earliest experiments was to take four passages from One Stone that described a character and just put that text straight into midjourney to see what it generated based on that plain text description. Turns out? Nothing like what I wanted. But when I treated it like say, I was searching for a set of tags on a booru system like danbooru or safebooru… then it was pretty good at that. Which is what brings me to the next stage of things, which is like…

These things were trained on porn sites right?

Like, you can take some very specific tags from some of the larger boorus and type them into these prompt sites and get a very reasonable representation of what it is you asked for, even if that term is a part of an idiolect, a term that’s specific to that one person in one space that’s become a repeated form of tag. Just type in an artist name and see if it can replicate their style and then check to see what kind of art that artist makes a lot of. This is why you can get a thing that can give you police batons and mirrored sunglasses just fine but if you ask for ‘police uniform’ you get some truly Tom of Finland kind of bulging stuff.

Conclusion

Nobody who dislikes generative art is wrong. I think there are definitely uses of it that are flat out bad, and I think it’s totally okay and even good to say so. Make fun of people who are using it, mock the shrimp jesuses, make it very clear you’re aware of what’s going on and why. There’s nothing wrong with that.

I do think that these tools are useful as toys, and I think that examining the art that they produce, and the art that the community around them are exalting and venerating tells us stuff. Of course, what they tell us is that there are a lot of people out there who really want porn, and there are just as many people who want the legitimisation of impressive seeming images that they don’t care about what those images are doing or what they’re for.

Now part of this defensiveness is also the risk of me being bitten. If I buy stock art that isn’t correctly disclosed as being generative art, then I might make and sell something using generative art and now I look like an asshole for not being properly good at detecting and hating ‘AI art,’ and when I’ve say, made a game using generative art that then is integrated into things like worldbuilding and the card faces, then it gets a lot harder to tear it out at the roots and render myself properly morally clean. I’m sure a bunch of the stock art I used before 2020 was made algorithmically, just pumped out slop that was reprocessing other formula or technical objects to fill up a free stock art site like Freepik.

Which is full of generative art now.

You won’t hurt yourself by understanding these things, and people who are using them for fun or to learn or explore are by no means doing something morally ill. There are every good reason to keep these things separated from anything that involves presenting yourself seriously, or using them to make money, though. If nothing else, people will look at you and go ‘oh, you’re one of those shrimp jesus assholes.’

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[olderthannetfic]

"can't you see how racists in the fandom are celebrating this and using this to turn the table and invalidate all the antiracism work"

What I've seen of TOG fandom (and admittedly, it's not everything) has not been antiracism work. It has been people coming up with supposed gotchas to prove that their favorite version of a ship dynamic is more ethical.

However, many of these gotchas involve pointing to extremely racist porn tropes elsewhere and saying they apply to TOG fic. I agree that the way black actors are treated in mainstream live action US porn is racist and shameful. For me, this is more a labor issue behind the scenes than about the porn content, but I see the arguments about how the content actively spreads stereotypes, and I do think there's some basis for them given the wide reach of the content and more importantly the huge barriers to entry and the lack of other content. An African American porn star doesn't really have the option to choose a less racist workplace and less traumatic content to act in, and that's a problem.

The problem, to me, isn't people kinking on shit they know is wrong and offensive. I, a woman, like certain kinds of misogynistic porn, and I'm sure there are POC who get off on horrible things because they are horrible. The problem is when the actual porn creation involves trauma (something that becomes far more likely with live action and wages and relatively more avoidable with indie textual erotica, especially when the motivation is horniness rather than a paycheck). The problem with the end content is less about one piece of it being bad. After all, some people are consuming it with full awareness that it's playing with stereotypes. The issue is when we bathe in a sea of media that's all telling the same story and no voices are pushing back. That's the situation that reaffirms our unconscious biases and makes them worse.

At one point, I'd read most of the Joe/Nicky fic on AO3, and at that time, I really wasn't seeing textual evidence of what people were talking about. I saw a strikingly more equal interest in both characters than with many big m/m ships. I saw a mild tendency towards the usual woobie-bottom-fave stuff with Nicky, which does, yes, sometimes turn the other partner into a bit of a prop, and that hurts if they're your fave. I can certainly see how that feels like sidelining the character and how that plays into a broader pattern of devaluing nonwhite characters... but as someone who has liked a lot of characters fandom devalued this way, TOG did not strike me as a particularly notable case.

The arguing I saw was very much a standard top/bottom war and a "How dare you slightly prefer X over Y in our pairing where we all like both of them?" A lot of it was also "How dare you ignore my favorite fanon?", often very historically inaccurate and One True Way-y when, inherently, there's a lot of ambiguity to history and the target being screamed at was something of an expert. A lot of it was just hating on kink.

That callout now clarifies for me where a lot of the historical misinformation was probably springing from and makes it clear why the level of vitriol was so oddly high compared to similar fandoms.

I'm happy to look at specific evidence, anon, but vaguing about people being bad does not impress me. Many people make stupid posts one time and brilliant ones another or are cruel when they're angry but still have a point when they calm down.

If there's some pattern of bullying with the posters you dislike, you can describe it to me more fully even if they've cleverly hidden the receipts. I get why you might not have hard evidence, but there's a big gap between a detailed story with no evidence and extremely vague "they're racists" with no elaboration at all.

What it sounds like to me is that they advocated AO3-y freedom to make the fanworks one wants even if other people find them offensive.

What it sounds like to me is that they got called "racists" a lot to obfuscate that they were trying to point out someone else's racism.

If they're celebrating their bully's downfall, it's only natural.

If those specific posts have a subtext I've missed--I'm talking in the argumentation itself or in evidence being faked--then I want to know. Otherwise... dude... do you really think it's that easy to sow self doubt?

[lily-mj-fae]

Nesta and Elain

I’m going to add now: I recognize my own clear bias towards Elain. And in many ways, this post is in part to defend her, especially since now that fandom has more insight on Nesta, there’s been an increase in hate towards Elain, especially in regards to her interactions with Nesta. Some of these include expecting her to remain in a toxic situation purely because she “owes” Nesta. And so i want to discuss, why that mindset is wrong (which i’ve done a couple times in terms of morally/ethically) because they barely have a relationship anyway. Mostly, i just want to actually describe what we see of them. I’m going to try to stick to mostly just facts of what happens, with some inferences based on text on either side.

So there’s a lot of evidence to show, that while the two clearly clung to each other when their family fell, and that there’s obvious love on either side for each other, they do not have a strong relationship. Or a healthy one. Or a good one.

Not only do we have Elain mentioning that no one ever really listens to her (which is obvious it does in fact apply to her family as we see in canon a few times over, I’ll get to that). But you’d have thought that in ACOSF we’d see some kind of fond memories from Nesta about Elain. Some kind of fondness. Something that made us really believed and finally understand why she loved Elain so fiercely she would have ripped apart the world to defend her. Instead, we learn, Nesta has never told anyone she loved them until she said it to Feyre. And we do not see a single happy thought about Elain from Nesta. No happy memories. Nothing. But there was no explanation for WHY she felt so strongly for just Elain. And not a single thing to really support her feeling that way.

We’re led by Feyre to believe that Elain and Nesta are so close. And at first glance, sure, it’s easy to believe. They spend the most time together. They gossip and talk at dinner together. They have the matching iron bracelets (that I believe wasn’t a purchase made by both as Feyre seemed to think, but by Nesta, because Feyre mentions specifically how Elain had spent her money on gifts for her sisters, and I think if Elain had been involved, she would have gotten one for Feyre). Then throughout the series we see how much Nesta is willing to fight to protect Elain. How much she wants to keep Elain away from danger. We see her wanting to do things with Nesta, but not knowing how anymore because she’s becoming more distant. We see Elain even wanting to spend time with Nesta and trying to keep her included in things into ACOFAS.

To me, the illusion fades with that conversation with Lucien in the library. When Elain says that no one really heard her. And when you look at things, it becomes obvious. Most especially with Nesta. Feyre we know already knows little about her sisters. She assumed that Nesta hated her, and that her sisters would be glad to have her gone. And is surprised that Nesta would have gone after her. But with Elain we see this frequently. Elain wants to help Feyre. So she speaks up. Yes, it puts her relationship at risk. And yes, we know that Nesta takes over in an attempt to provide a buffer for Elain should Graysen find out, to maybe save her from the heartbreak of him leaving her for helping any Fae. But it doesn’t change that it was Elain’s decision. Elain’s desire to help. Nesta instead pushed her out of it wherever she could (IE taking over correspondence for them) in the name of protecting her. This is a problem. Because 1) Nesta is sacrificing her own feelings to do what Elain wants, which I think is wrong. Nesta didn’t want to help, and I think she should have stuck to that. Stuck to her own decision. 2) Nesta is preventing Elain from dealing with consequences of her actions (IE, if Graysen found out she was helping the fae). 3) This is disrespecting Elain's agency. She's not letting Elain be herself by constantly interfering 4) she then goes on to belittle Elain for those things, despite it being her decisions and actions to interfere. And we can recognize that her intentions are good all we want, it doesn't make the actions themselves good or even appropriate. Intentions only mean so much. They certainly don't excuse such detrimental behavior.

Now could Elain have fought back? The black and white answer? Yes. But it's not that simple. Elain we know has been belittled from a young age by at least her mother (okay that's an assumption on my part. But with feyre's description of their mother and Nesta's memories, i certainly wouldn't be surprised if she'd said those things to Elain's face). And essentially raised to be pleasant and agreeable. A proper lady. Her confidence in herself doesn't seem very high. Not to mention, she's much quieter than Nesta. Imagine how exhausting it would be to fight your sister on every little thing you wanted to do. And we see this in canon. Every time Elain wants to help, she has to fight Nesta. I don't think this just magically started in acomaf. I'd wager its been going since a minimum of coming to the cottage (It’s part of why I think Elain doesn’t necessarily take up chopping wood when the request is there. i think she attempted once, and Nesta stopped her and wouldn’t let her). I personally think since their mother's death. Elain is also younger than Nesta, and we do have canon evidence of her having at least one memory full of complete adoration. And a respect for the art form and her sister's views on life. So her fighting back, isn’t as easy as fandom wants to think it is.

I also want to bring up someone once mentioning in ACOTAR when Elain and Feyre were talking, and Elain mentions that she feels awful to have her friends over because Nesta makes them uncomfortable, and how that’s so disrespectful of Elain. No it’s not. Elain is allowed to have friends over. And Nesta just glared at them. I’m not saying she had to like them (because I understand why she wouldn’t), but that was rude, and she could have easily been elsewhere, and let Elain have her friends and enjoy time with them. I also read it differently, in that Elain feels awful inviting her friends over because it’s upsetting Nesta too. Which isn’t fair to her either, given that Nesta has at that point begun isolating herself (and while we as readers become aware of why later, Elain has absolutely no idea. And already has said Nesta wouldn’t talk about it. Implying she tried reaching out too), thus leaving Elain feeling very lonely. Overall, Elain here is feeling the way she should. It’s like when you have company over and your parents start yelling at you, or just being anything less than polite and you have to deal with the awkward tension. 

Then comes ACOSF. And i know i wasn't the only one hoping to find out more about their relationship. And i’m not the only one who was left disappointed that we still don’t get to understand Nesta’s behavior when it comes to Elain. In fact, if I had only read ACOSF and you had told me that before that, Elain seemed to be Nesta’s favorite sister, I’d call you a liar. I do not get a single ounce that Nest has a loving feeling for Elain in ACOSF. Certainly at the very least, not enough to justify the way she treated Elain vs. Feyre in earlier books. Not to mention, Nesta is under the very immature and inaccurate idea that Elain has chosen Feyre over her. As if it’s black and white. As if Elain can only love her or Feyre. And yes, it’s a sign of her mental illness with depression and trauma. That’s fine. But it still shows a very limited viewpoint. And really only shows a care for herself, no thought of Elain or Elain’s state of mind or even really any empathy for the fact that Nesta was the one causing the rift between them and how that was truly affecting Elain. (Again more trauma response. But my point here is that there is very little empathy towards the sister that we’re told she so vehemently loves).

Now onto the part that I know is my unpopular fandom opinion: Nesta dealing with Elain’s trauma vs Elain dealing with Nesta’s...and how their traumas were very different to deal with in the first place.

My unpopular opinion is that Nesta wasn’t doing anything to actually help Elain. She was doing everything to protect her. But was not interested really in her healing. Nesta isolated Elain, who had previously been social in many ways. We don’t ever see how she fought for Elain to eat or drink or have a will to live. We only hear her say that’s what she did. But fandom does need to stop saying that Nesta was with Elain every second of every day (i have had people say this in arguments. It’s a flat out lie. There’s far more textual evidence that Nesta left Elain alone throughout her trauma than there is that she was by her side constantly. And I don’t say she was never by her side). Because the fact of the matter is that isn’t remotely true. Perhaps of the first few weeks. Before Feyre returned. But after that? We hardly see Nesta with Elain. We instead see her keeping people from interacting with her. Keeping them from giving Elain choices.

And we can shout that she was doing what she thought was best, but it doesn’t change that the effect it had was Elain being isolated and underprepared. Elain had been trying to do her part to help since ACOMAF. And she was being blocked. Elain deserved that chance to go to the high lord’s meeting and share her story (especially since Nesta didn’t want to and wasn’t going to up until the last minute). And Elain should have been offered the same training as Nesta. Especially once they learned she had powers. Instead no one offered to let her help (even though she’d been wanting to help since Feyre first came asking). No one offered to train her. Because Nesta would have had their heads. Saying that it was to keep Elain from doing something she might not have been ready for, plays into the idea that Nesta is protecting Elain from growing. Learning. Protecting her from the consequences. Nesta refused to let anyone really near her beyond the necessities.

Speaking of: Can we please talk about something no one else does? The fact that Nesta just accepts the fact that Elain is mad. That she’s broken. The effect that could have had on her, is so detrimental to Elain’s mental health. The thoughts she was probably already dealing with and then to hear that from her sister? Like she refuses to accept that there could be another answer. And while we might agree and empathize why she would say that, it doesn’t change the effect saying it would have on Elain, who was already struggling heavily to deal with everything that had been thrown at her at once. And even once Elain became Lucid, and they identified the problem, Nesta (and Feyre) continued to try to leave her behind. Again, yes, in the name of protecting Elain. But Nesta never listened to Elain. Never saw that Elain improved upon being involved. That just that action of her wanting to do something, was making her Lucid and back to herself. Instead, Nesta ignored that. Which is why I say she wasn’t focused on Elain’s healing. That and the fact that she’s making assumptions that Elain is fine now.

Elain tried to stay involved with Nesta. No, she didn’t go outside her comfort zone and go into the places Nesta was spending time. But she was trying. I admit, the shot upon Nesta’s arrival is weird. I’m torn between thinking it was a legit, to help relax, or thinking it was something she was pouring as Amren said the comment and decided to drink it instead of giving it to Nesta. (Because yes, it would be easy to say as Amren spoke, elain had been pouring, but even without that, it doesn’t mean things aren’t happening at the same time). When that didn’t work, Elain agreed intervention was necessary. and I just made a whole ass post about why that wasn’t giving up on Nesta like fandom keeps thinking.  

And of course, Elain is not perfect here. She has made her mistakes. Though hers are mostly in terms of words. At least the ones I could find textual evidence for when it comes to Elain and Nesta. And mostly done in terms of emotional response.

Now. I did not intend for this post to shit on Nesta. I’m afraid it feels like it has. So I am going to tag it accordingly. But this was more to bring to light the reality that Nesta and Elain aren’t that close. They don’t have a close relationship. They were more security blankets for each other in ACOTAR, and their missing foundation began to show in ACOMAF when Nesta was unaffected by Tamlin’s Glamour and Elain was. I do think there’s a lot of love to be had between them. (Honestly hearing Elain talk about Nesta dancing, and hearing her be happy that Nesta has the Valkyries, even though she feels like she’s been losing Nesta made my heart swell for the amount of love there). But I wanted to point out that their relationship was extremely surface level and nothing deep. That it’s certainly not what fandom acts like it is as they spin this tale of complete and utter evil Elain betraying Nesta and how Nesta has done so much for Elain. Nesta had never even told Elain she loved her. Ever. Which i think is telling about where they really stand. 

So let’s please stop acting like Elain owes Nesta everything under the sun because of all the things Nesta did for her. Their relationship was never deep. And while Nesta’s protectiveness stems from a place of love, is actually more detrimental to Elain and her overall growth, than it is good. And Elain has done the things she considered to be best for Nesta, and tried to show love her way. Which is equally unperfect. Because neither of them are perfect. 

[goatsandgangsters]

Hi! I know you have probably answered this before, but I was wondering how you think meyer and lucky got together (in boardwalk empire)? I think about it a lot, and I just can never fully grasp what I feel about it, especially because this was in the 1920s

yeeeeeeeEEEEeeeeSSSS oh I’m so glad you asked, I’m gonna have so much fun! So YES I do have specific headcanons for how they got together, though I don’t know if I’ve ever actually laid them out explicitly? (also I’m saying “my” headcanons but I wanna acknowledge that they originate from Friend Conversations that happened a number of years ago, to the point where I don’t even know who originally said what but the idea of it is just lodged in my brain now. BUT ON THE FLIP SIDE, I don’t want to present this as This Is The Fanon We Agreed On, Everyone Has To Think This, because fandom should never operate that way. ANYWAY)

TL;DR: I think Meyer’s near-death experience in Emerald City was an instigating event for them to get together, because it shakes them enough to act on their feelings. Plus, it coincides nicely with Vince and Anatol becoming more comfortable around one another as actors in a way that lends itself to that reading. BUT I AM NOT THE EXPERT OR THE ARBITER ON THIS MATTER, and I think any interpretation is perfectly wonderful!

So the headcanon I operate with is that they got together after the near-death experience in Emerald City. That originates from a Watsonian vs. Doylist perspective on Vince and Anatol’s acting. They’re not quiiiiite in sync with each other in the first few eps they share, which I’m sure in actuality is them finding their groove and their dynamic as actors. But from a Watsonian perspective, it’s really easy to read their earlier scenes as pining. Like in their first scene together in Home, they’re both constantly looking at each other, but never quite meeting each other’s eye. It’s like that thing where you have a crush on someone, so you keep looking at them, but oh god they saw me and you look quickly away. And they both keep doing it!

Some of their other early scenes—like with the D’Alessios while Charlie’s playing pool, or that weirdly staged scene earlier in Emerald City where Meyer’s sitting way farther away at the table—they may exchange looks, but there’s a fleetingness to it. But then you watch the scene at the end of season 1 where they’re talking to AR with the umbrellas AND THE PSYCHIC BOND HAS ARRIVED. They are having those telltale Full On Conversations with their glances! They are synced up. They’re a team, they’re a unit, they’ve hit that dynamic that they have for the rest of the show.

And in actuality, probably it was Vince and Anatol finding their footing with each other as actors. But if you read into that textually, they go from “staring at the other but constantly dodging eye contact, like they’re afraid to be caught looking” to “we’re having an entire conversation in one look” and you’ve gotta think: what changed?

Meyer’s near-death experience in Emerald City, conveniently enough, happens in the middle. And I think that works well as an instigating moment for them, because it’s BIG. Meyer almost died, in another state—in goddamn New Jersey!—and that’s enough to make anyone act on things they wouldn’t otherwise act on or reevaluate life and relationships.

In terms of their feelings for one another and when those developed and how, my usual interpretation is that… I mean Charlie was heart-eyes from the jump, but not in a romantic way, whereas Meyer was the first to develop full-on pining feelings feelings. Because obviously Charlie was not like “I have feelings feelings for this tiny child” when they first met, but he DID very much imprint on Meyer like a little baby duckling and was like HEY I LIKE THIS KID, WE’RE GONNA BE FRIENDS, CAN I FOLLOW YOU HOME whereas Meyer was like “um, what the fuck.” Classic “enthusiastic puppy befriends sulky cat” dynamic. But then when the FEELINGS FEELINGS come into it, I think of Meyer as having been harboring feelings for Charlie for a while. (also basically all of this is from @meyerlansky, because we successfully tag-teamed on headcanons by one of us wanting to hyperanalyze Meyer and the other wanting to hyperanalyze Charlie and then we just shared!) I mean, you know, Charlie’s good-looking and they’re friends and Charlie’s so casual about flinging his arm around Meyer’s shoulders or roughhousing with him and Meyer’s insides do a little flip that they shouldn’t be doing, but they’re getting older and Charlie’s starting to sleep around with girls and that stings and bothers him in a way that It Shouldn’t, but also It Is What It Is, there’s nothing he can do about it, they’re friends and they’re business partners and that should be enough and it’s all it’ll ever be so focus on the task at hand and ignore the flip in his stomach.

For Charlie, I’m not actually sure WHEN he realizes there are feelings for Meyer. I don’t have a solid, definitive default interpretation for that. But in early season 1, pre Meyer-getting-introduced, he’s definitely enamored and smitten with Gillian, and he’s similarly moonstruck towards AR. I think that can read as, “trying really hard to distract yourself so you don’t acknowledge that maybe you’re in love with your best friend.” Whether he’s doing that consciously or unconsciously, I could also go either way on that.

A lot of this interpretation is based around the simple fact that Charlie was introduced and established in the show before Meyer, so I wonder how my headcanons would have been different if they’d been introduced together from the start. But with how the show unfolds, the change as Anatol and Vince find their groove as actors, plus a near-death experience to make someone act on something they wouldn’t otherwise act on—it all lends itself nice and neatly to Emerald City being the get-together point.

(I know a number of people have worked that headcanon into their own fics and written post-Emerald City get-together, which I can rec you. Though again, by no means do I want this to come across as “this is what the fandom has decided, you have to think it too” because that’s never how fandom should operate. No one is the arbiter of When Did Charlie and Meyer First Kiss. I love get-togethers in general, so I will always be happy reading any get-together fic that happens at any point in time, with any instigating factor, in any way, because that’s just delightful!)

Here are some get-together and/or pining fics that I can recommend:

born once of flesh, then again of fire, i am reborn a third time (a post-Emerald City get-together)

Contact (another post-Emerald City get-together by @rubecso)

Making Accommodations (by @transdracosmalfoy, the post-Emerald City genre lives on!)

to see God in the skyline (by @lurusciutelumare a sprawling masterpiece of chapters intertwining Charlie and Meyer’s childhood and growing up. It takes a while to reach the get-together point, but the whole thing is well worth the read. The entire fic is set pre-Boardwalk Empire)

beg dead trees for money next (by @meyerlansky, a pre-Boardwalk fic of Meyer realizing he has feelings for Charlie which is one of my faves for a lot of reasons)

(also I’m sorry if I missed anyone’s get-together fic. I tried to wrack my brain but I’ve been in this fandom for, uh, a while and it’s hard to remember back sometimes. Feel free to add yours in if I did!)

Also re: getting together in the time period and how it being the 1920s shapes things, there would definitely be added concerns and dangers, though I don’t think it’s necessarily a black-and-white thing. I don’t think the wider attitudes of society towards queerness would have impacted them as much in comparison to the specific culture of lower Manhattan and the criminal spheres they operated in.

Because on the one hand, in the criminal world in which they were operating, it likely would have been dangerous for anyone to know that they’re queer. It probably would have hurt their business and their reputation among their peers and rivals, and—because of how masculinity and queerness interconnect and operate��would look like weakness to others. But in terms of “well can Charlie make a move, because it’s dangerous if Meyer doesn’t reciprocate or reacts badly” (or vice versa), it would reflect equally bad on both of them? Like, if Charlie made a move and Meyer was like “nah,” he can’t very well go gossiping to the whole Lower East Side about it, because it hurts his reputation too, it hurts his business, and they were also close enough as friends that even if there wasn’t reciprocation, neither one of them would do anything to damage the other’s reputation like that.

As far as how they feel about it on an internalized level, I definitely don’t think they… care from a legal and/or moral standpoint. I don’t think Charlie’s like “oh god I’m going to hell for liking men,” because by the time he and Meyer kiss, he has DEFINITELY KILLED PEOPLE. They already break a lot of laws all the time. So that wider societal stigma from a moralizing perspective probably doesn’t matter to them much, because wider society already thinks they’re an “undesirable criminal element,” they’re already “dangerous immigrants,” so what’s it matter if they also bang on top of doing crimes and killing people? Charlie and Meyer are already outside the Predominant Ethical Framework of Society by virtue of their class background and criminal enterprises (and class and queerness have huge intersections historically in terms of what the experience was like). Being in an urban area in the 1920s (especially New York), queer sexuality is something they would have known about; it probably wouldn’t have been any more shocking than any other “vice” they grew up around in that area.

If they do have any concerns or guilt about what they’re feeling for one another, for Charlie I think it all has to do with masculinity and with the machismo he’s grown up around. It’s also something he’s already touchy about, given the emasculation that happened being called Sal (which, at the time, was common nickname for Sally) and historically he has a history of experiencing sexual violence. So I can see him struggling with conflating that together—as well as worrying that his feelings for Meyer are unwanted and similar to what he experienced. Meyer, I would say, cares less about the performance of masculinity, but I do think he sees himself as an eventual family man in a way that Charlie does not. @meyerlansky also has more thoughts on Meyer + sexuality + being a-spec.

I’M SORRY FOR MY LONG TANGENTS!! I literally do not have the ability to be succinct.

IN SUMMARY, I think Meyer’s near-death experience in Emerald City was an instigating event for them to get together, because it shakes them enough to act on their feelings. Plus, it coincides nicely with Vince and Anatol becoming more comfortable around one another as actors in a way that lends itself to that reading. BUT I AM NOT THE EXPERT OR THE ARBITER ON THIS MATTER, and I think any interpretation is perfectly wonderful!

As for the time period and being the 1920s, it definitely has ramifications on how they conceive of themselves—particularly in relation to their ethnic and class identities—but that also the history of sexuality is very non-linear and I think queerness is less shocking and scandalous to them than it would have been to someone more upper-class who didn’t grow up in the Lower East Side, or to someone more rural, or to someone who was more “inside” the social framework of the time, as opposed to being forced outside of it already by class, ethnicity, and criminality.

Finally, and most importantly, they should KISS!!!!

[im-the-punk-who]

Hi, I dont know if you read or know anything about Macchiavelli's "Il principe", but I am studying it in school and I cant help but compare it's fundamentals to how Flint leads. I'm just curious about what you think

Eekekekekekekekekekekkek okay so first off Anon, you are absolutely, 100% right to be getting those vibes. If it’s not actually textual it is at the least meta-textual that Flint ascribes to a very Machiavellian type of leadership. His whole ‘never was there a Caesar who couldn't sing the tune’ speech is...licherally a direct reference to Machiavelli's philosophy that leaders cannot retain their leadership without sacrificing some level of ethical behavior in order to manipulate and deceive their subjects into following them.

And, Flint owns at least two books from thinkers who drew directly on Machiavellian thinking in their texts: De Jure Belli Ac Pacis by Hugo Grotus and The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes are both visible in Flint’s cabin, and both drew heavily on the type of leadership principles established in books like Il Principe. 

(Also, my eternal quest for the book that sits *under* The Leviathan in that scene remains. Y’all I will literally pay someone for this knowledge. My best guess is Plato’s De Republica.)

In fact, the whole system that Flint’s world was operating under at this time was very machiavellian in influence. 

Henry VIII, who converted to Protestantism and who would eventually lead England in the conversion from Catholicism to Protestantism that would then in turn eventually lead the country into the War of Spanish Succession(the war being fought during the London 1705 flashbacks), was a student of Machiavellian thinking. He took the teachings of Il Principe to heart and used them to transform his country. Over the next hundred and fifty years, England would change from an entirely Catholic country to a Protestant one. Of note, Catholic scholars generally disagreed with Machiavelli’s principles on the grounds that it did not support the Divine Right of Kings.

As well, the Enlightenment thinkers that influenced Thomas Hamilton(and Flint himself) were starting to argue more for personal liberty and choice of the governed, both concepts presented in Machiavelli’s writings. (For those following along, this approach was also being used to justify slavery, as what was ‘good for the state is good for the man’ was used as justification for everything from impressment to colonization and slavery. Men were willing to set aside their morals for what they justified as good for the state. Shrug emoji.)

As James says of England when he and Thomas view the hanging in London:

“You think Whitehall wants piracy to flourish in the Bahamas?”

“No I don’t think they want it but I think they’re aware of the cost associated with trying to fight it. And I think that that sound travels.”

Here we see that Flint knows what Thomas doesn’t or does not want to accept: that England is willing to sacrifice some morality and some amount of lives(both of pirate-prisoners and the ships they take) in order to save themselves the financial burden of rooting out the causes of piracy. The justification for piracy was that it is too costly to fight, and that the nation ultimately benefits from a bit of strife as it drives prices up and allows England to place within the sights of its citizenry an identifiable enemy. (Note that Blackbeard also argues the same of Nassau, that prosperity ‘made it soft’.)

Even as he is changed by Thomas’ line of thinking, this lesson will stick with Flint and we’ll see it over and over again as he deals with the men’s hatred of himself by redirecting them towards other avenues(Vane, Hornigold, England, etc.)

And in actuality, this is what sets Thomas very much apart from his political brethren - he was *not* willing to sacrifice his morals in order to achieve a ‘more effective’ victory. Once he realizes that moral deficit shown by England, he creates the pardon plan to argue directly for a more moral and just way of governance. His whole premise for the pardons was to show England that an approach that considered the needs and wants of the governed was ultimately more effective, both in cost and in gaining the genuine good will of the people. And again, this is another likely reason why Thomas was then targeted by Peter Ashe and his father. Railing against the entire system of government was dangerous. Particularly if one was railing against the government in a way that could be seen as support of an opposing system of religion and political rule(remember how I said before that Catholics were generally against the Machiavellian systems?) Put plainly, Thomas’ rejection of Machiavelli’s leadership tactics would have been yet another argument for his treason against the crown.

Interestingly also, Marcus Aurelius - Thomas Hamilton’s homeboy - is said to be one of Machiavelli’s five “good” emperors, of whom Machiavelli wrote,

“[they] had no need of praetorian cohorts, or of countless legions to guard them, but were defended by their own good lives, the good-will of their subjects, and the attachment of the Senate.”

How we tryna be.

And so we see that Flint has - not so much fallen back into England’s line of thinking but perhaps that he never really fell out of it. And that this is actually a rift in his potential ability to conform to Thomas’ line of thinking, assuming we see that line as more morally correct. We do see Flint, gradually, throughout the course of the show, move more away from this Machiavellian line of thinking, especially once he meets Madi and the Maroons.  And to me at least it’s one of the most important character shifts we see - in contrast to the trajectory of John Silver becoming Long John Silver  - throughout the series. Just as Flint is finally starting to really value the lives of those around him, Silver has learned how effective those tactics can be in achieving his goals. As Hands says - ‘I wonder if he knows how much you learned from him.’

And in fact, Silver almost directly quotes Machiavelli at one point when he talks to Flint about their different leadership styles.

“I once thought that to lead men in this world, to be liked was just as good as being feared, and that may very well be true. But to be both liked and feared all at once, is an entirely different state of being in which, I believe, at this moment, I exist alone.” 

Whereas Machiavelli in his chapters addressing cruelty and mercy writes

"Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved." 

This is clearly the approach Flint has taken - he is the most feared captain on the seas. Certainly in the colonial world and on Nassau, too, his name brings a certain amount of fear with it. Because of this he has been safe from rebellion for quite a long time - however he is also not unaware that his power comes from the people. In the very first episode he talks of his plan with Gates to “position people in all the right places so the crew would never turn.” He has, for an unknown amount of time but I would suspect from the very beginning, been manipulating the crew’s opinion of him to keep them happy. Gates himself, and Silver later, are prime examples. 

Both of them; Gates for the first ten years or so and Silver in seasons 2+3 act as a go between - being the ‘liked’ to Flint’s ‘feared’. They convince the crew - the ‘people’ in this case - that Flint’s plans are in their best interest and not truly the act of a tyrant. It is only when Flint forgets - or neglects to respect - that the will of his crew is how he keeps his power, that he really starts to fail. And, later also, that now he has a rival - Silver. 

Now, I do want to point out that personally I don’t think Flint is a needlessly cruel ‘ruler’ in the sense the crew sometimes thinks he is, nor is he trying to be as a king is to english subjects. He has power, of course, and he does manipulate, lie, and kill if necessary to maintain his power in accordance with Machiavelli’s principles, but he does not do so ruthlessly or to a degree that is unnecessarily violent, nor with only his own advancement in mind. His goals genuinely are in service of the people he leads, even if the tactics he uses sometimes put them in danger for it. Moreso, I would argue that Flint is a prince who created his own princedom. He took an existing power structure(the pirate council in Blackbeard, Hornigold etc) and took most of the power for himself, either through luck, violence, or political maneuvering. And then he kept it through skill and tactical advantage.

Silver, in contrast to Flint’s new princedom, is truly a ‘prince of the people’. He comes to power through convincing the other pirates that he has their interests at heart - even when he doesn’t. But Silver soon learns that being a well-loved leader is difficult. It isn’t until Silver kills Dufresne and Billy uses that fear to build a legend that ‘Long John Silver’ the pirate king comes into being. Silver learns, just as Flint knew, that in a world or corruption, often leaders need to make sacrifices of things they would have once deemed important. 

(I think it’s also important to note for Silver that his main goal is actually one Machiavelli writes of as being ‘a will of the people’. Silver’s main wish is not to rule, not really. His biggest motivator is ‘to be free’. To not have to make choices based on the will or subjugations of others. And so, he attempts to make the leadership forced upon him into something that frees him - unfortunately for him, Madi is right when she says that the ‘Crown is always a burden’ and it would be truly impossible for him to find the kind of freedom he wishes for while wearing it. Which, honestly, is part of why he ultimately fails in that regard as leader of the revolution.)

In the later seasons we see Flint go through this change in philosophy after he meets Madi and the Maroons. He begins to actually value the lives of the people he leads. When put to the choice of going through with the raid on the Underhill estate despite the risk it poses to the slaves on other plantations, Flint resists the idea. As he tells Madi - it would have cost them far more to ignore the ‘will’ of those people he hoped to lead - the slaves - than it would gain them to go through with the plan. And later, even though he can’t be blind to Max’s sway with Eleanor and the others, unlike Billy (and oh how the mighty have fallen, Mr. Bones!) he doesn’t even seem to consider keeping her rather than trading her for the lives of his other men. He no longer wants to trade a potential political victory for the suffering of those he leads. So, too, when he attempts to trade the cache for the fort, he is doing so with the goal being to not have to put those under his power in danger if there is another option. It is, at least to me, an incredibly moving character arc and one that is so very understated. 

And honestly, I think it’s what *needed* to happen before he could move on from his rage-hate bender and begin to find the sort of peace that one might argue those ‘good’ rulers had. Machiavelli’s principles tend to get in the way of your ability to connect with other people: when you see them just as pawns in a game, friends and foes lose their intrinsic value of just being important on an emotional level. It is only through learning to truly value his partners that Flint can learn how to be a better and more just leader.

Also, this passage in chapter 15 absolutely KILLS me in regards to both Flint, and Thomas Hamilton:

“Men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good.”

Like bitch!! We get it!! Too much sanity!!! Shut up!!!!!

Anyway, all this to say that you’re absolutely right in seeing parallels between Flint’s style of leadership and a Machiavellian prince - he is absolutely written as a prince-like leader. As are Silver, Rogers, even the Maroon Queen(and Scott and Madi as extensions of her) can be compared to certain rulers in Machiavelli’s archetypes. Even Thomas, who models himself after one of those ‘good emperors’ engenders a type of political leader Machiavelli writes about.

(Also lastly, i want to very quickly point out this guy, Cesare Borgia:

Who was a prince of ‘fortune’ who lost his princedom to trusting the wrong person. What a beard, amirite? What a face. He’s even got the rings! I’m sure this means nothing.)

So basically yeah, Flint is absolutely a Machiavelli bitch. 

[legionofpotatoes]

The crowd that glorifies hyperviolence is the same crowd whose agenda consists of perpetuating the idea that aggression is how you control others and achieve success. By desensitizing others to violence, they're actively trying to normalize their own, deranged behavior so that they can be more and more extreme with taking what they want. This is also the same crowd who's afraid of tiddies and will demonize women, sex, and minorities as scapegoats for their own manipulation tactics. This one doesn't even need a "change my mind" attached to it because 2020 has proved that this is literally how gun owners in America think, lol

I think there is some space for slapstick violence in media that can shoot for effective satire or even relatively harmless indulgence, but that is a tightrope walk that - not even most; but literally none - of the insecure power fantasy grubs can ever pull off. And the way it can then telegraph and tell on the ethical crux of a creative piece of work is very nearly hilarious. I mean yeah that is a smoking gun that usually leads to all those larger ugly ideas you mention, for sure. I was more specifically alluding to power-indulgent readings of superhero text being worshipped to the point of reverence by men who then express frustration with more nuanced readings by lashing out and creating completely textually shallow depictions of their own agenda wielding that power, as some sort of second-grader gotcha which really just puts a mirror up to their own cynicism. But you point at the mirror and they’ll laugh you off; it’s never that deep, they’ll exclaim, and they are right, for them it never is. The ultimate self-fulfilling, unbending cycle of absolute cynicism perpetuated by indulgent power fantasies. Like a drab ouroboros of shit stories told by and to shit people. Sucks seeing it happen in real-time.

And yeah again of course the texture of violence can be wielded with deft, clearly targeted satire, but more often than not there is no target or spine beneath any of it and it all falls completely off its hinges leading to all the horrible stuff you’re saying. Perpetuation and normalization, clearest of all. I guess I am ultimately talking about that yeah. Same shit, different anus

[k-s-morgan]

Hannibal Is Not a Psychopath: Criteria and Examples

The question of whether Hannibal is a psychopath often comes up. I'd like to start right with TL;DR: no, Hannibal is not a psychopath. It's confirmed in the show textually, with it being said that he's something that can't be defined and that doctors are confused as to what to label him with.

Evidence: E8 of S3.

ALANA: You've long been regarded by your peers in psychiatry as something entirely Other. For convenience, they term you a monster.

HANNIBAL: What do you term me?

ALANA: I don't. You defy categorization.

That's the point of the show. It happens in a heightened reality where labels don't really exist (which is why I think there is no point in such analysis as this, but like I said, it’s for people who keep calling him a psychopath). Both Will and Hannibal are deeply unique, they do have some psychopathic traits, but all in all, their profiles are entirely fictional. You can also see this thread for what Bryan Fuller and Mads Mikkelsen say about this topic. Here are some highlights.

Bryan Fuller: Hannibal Lecter is unique in his crazy. He’s not a psychopath, because he experiences regret. And he’s not a sociopath, because he experiences empathy. So he is unique in his crazy, and that gives him a higher sensibility than just a mortal man ... one of the things that we talked about in our first meeting was not so much about playing Hannibal as the cannibal psychiatrist, as previously portrayed by other actors, but more like Lucifer and how he was a dark angel who had this affinity for mankind and a fascination with the human condition.

Now, let's move on to the actual practical examples from the show as related to two most common models devised for assessing a person with a possible psychopathy.

DSM-5 Criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder

A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:

1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b):

a.Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure.

Ego-centrism.

Standard definition of ego-centrism is an "excessive interest in oneself and concern for one's own welfare or advantage at the expense of others". From S1, Hannibal is doing what he thinks is best to help people he finds interesting at the expense of his own safety and peace. Will is the brightest example (he always is). Hannibal senses a killer in him, understands Will subdues his true self, and he does everything in his power to help him Become. Here's what he says to Bedelia about it in E12 of S1, explaining what he wants to do with Will:

Hannibal: "Madness can be a medicine for the modern world. You take it in moderation, it's beneficial. ... Side effects can be temporary. They can be a boost to our psychological immune systems to help fight the existential crises..." Translation: Hannibal is using Will's illness in S1 to blur his self-control and get him to admit who he is so that Will could free himself of his self-acceptance crisis.

He says the same to Will in E1 of S2: "Our conversations, Will, were only ever about you opening your eyes to the truth of who you are."

Bedelia confirms it to Will in E2 of S2: "It may be small comfort, but I am convinced Hannibal has done what he believes is best for you."

Finally, Will admits it's true many times. One of them happens in S3 during his conversation with Chiyoh: "I've never known myself as well as I know myself when I'm with him."

Conclusion: Hannibal is really trying to help Will be himself and he succeeds in it. Furthermore, he does it at the expense of his safety.

Hannibal endangers himself from S1 the closer he gets to Will. In E9 of S1, Will learns that he helped Abigail bury the body of Nick Boyle. Hannibal's first instinct is to protect himself, so he reaches for the scalpel. But he immediately changes his mind. He takes a risk, choosing to explain his reasoning to Will. He places himself in danger - he did it back when he helped Abigail with the body (because he wanted to help her, too, and he wanted her to be a part of his and Will's family). He protects Will to the point where Jack grows suspicious and comes to talk to Bedelia about it. When Bedelia tells Hannibal that he should take a step back because he's getting too personal and endangers himself, Hannibal downright refuses.

He risks his life in an attempt to make Will free himself, too. He nearly dies after Will sends Matthew to attack him in E5 of S2 and he doesn't press charges - on the contrary, he's happy and he frees Will from the prison for that. He makes a conscious effort not to react in E7 of S2 when Will points a gun at him (just as what he did in E13 of S1). Will could shoot him any time but Hannibal places the need to help him Become above his safety. He's ready to dismantle his good life and run away with Will in the second half of S2. He gives up his freedom literally in S3 to prove to Will that he places him above himself. He proves it again by showing that he's willing to die for him: first, he agrees to Will's plan with the Dragon, knowing Will is planning something but not caring what it results in, perfectly willing to give Will all the control. He shields Will from the bullet at the expense of his safety again, talking about sacrifice and love. He lets Will push them off the cliff.

Conclusion: All this actions show that Hannibal is not overly ego-centric. He's capable of putting other people's needs above himself. Will is far from being the only example. Abigail, Bella, Margot, and Bedelia also fit here. Some could say that Hannibal does all this for Will just because he's in love with him. Yes, he wants to be family with Will in the end of this whole process, but it means that his final goal is their mutual happiness, not something just for his benefit. He knows Will is lonely (Will admits it himself several times in all seasons). He knows Will is going to be much happier after Becoming. Will's words (including those above) prove it.

Self-esteem.

Hannibal has a high self-esteem but it's not derived from the mentioned superficial elements. He has every reason to think highly of himself: he's extremely educated, he helped many people make their lives better (from common patients to people like Randall, who accepted themselves and became happy in their way), he is talented (he plays different instruments, he's an excellent and creative cook, he's fluet in several languages), he has excellent manners, etc. So, his self-esteem does not depend on gain, power, or pleasure.

b.Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.

Hannibal's plan are as self-motivated as every person's. For instance, he wants a family with Will. Many people want to have families. But like it was said above, Hannibal doesn't focus only on himself here. He risks to protect Will's interests and he's willing to be put away so Will could be free to make his own decision, even if it doesn't include him. That's love, not personal gratification. He works with patients not just to tell himself what a clever man he is, he's genuinely concerned about them. He shares his worries about making Franklyn feel powerless in S1 with Bedelia. He tries to protect Franklyn and asks Tobias not to kill him. So, his goals are not aimed at his own gratification excessively.

Hannibal has a complex philosophy that doesn't fit the above criteria about prosocial internal standards. He doesn't have a lack of the desire to meet them: on the contrary, he wants to make this world beautiful. As he tells Will in S2, "Discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me." He doesn't kill random people. He kills rude people that ruin the norms of ethical behavior. Hannibal is very active in being prosocial in his way: for instance, he kills a politician who ruined the forest where rare birds nested to build a parking lot. He killed a homophobic doctor. Hannibal has solid prosocial principles that aim to restore beauty and harmony in this world. He's a monster for sure, but he has principles that make everyone question themselves. Even cannibalism: people act all horrified when they learn they ate other people, but everyone is so joyful about eating animals who can think, feel, and who are smarter than many actual people. Double-standards provide for endless discussions.

Conclusion: Hannibal doesn't meet any of the above two major criteria. It already means he's not a clinical psychopath. But let's move forward.

2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):

a.Empathy. Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another.

This doesn't fit Hannibal either. Like Bryan Fuller's quote above confirms, he does experience empathy and regret. It's obvious in the show as well: for instance, in E7 of S3, he writes formulas to reverse time (which is the embodiment of regret). He regrets hurting Will and he asks him if maybe the tea-cup can still be mended. In E8 of S2, he himself says: "A life without regret would be no life at all." He's almost crying in E11 of S2 when he and Will discuss Abigail. Will expresses his pain at the loss and Hannibal says: "I'm sorry I took that from you. I wish I could give it back." Note that he does intend to give Abigail back to Will: he left her to live because he wants them to reunite. He also tries to soothe Will's pain by hinting at the truth: "Occasionally, I drop a teacup to shatter on the floor on purpose. I'm not satisfied when it doesn't gather itself up again. Someday, perhaps, that cup will come together."

In E13 of S2, Hannibal is devastated to learn of Will's betrayal, but he understands his conflict. He gives him another chance, telling him, "I don't need a sacrifice." When he tells Will he forgives him later, he asks: "Will you forgive me?" This shows that he understands regret intimately. These (just a few out of many) examples prove that he cares about Will's feelings.

He's crying as he walks in the rain, leaving people he loved bleeding. He regrets the ruined plans and he accepts he's to blame to an extent. When in E3 of S3 Bedelia asks him whether Will betrayed him or vice versa, Hannibal replies: "I'm vague on these details." It means that after some time passed, he analyzed the situation and he's no longer sure he did the right thing. This is regret, too. Furthermore, he becomes self-destructive, which Bedelia notices and calls him out on. He doesn't fight against Jack, letting him beat him up, torture him, and almost kill him. Hannibal is an emotional wreck at that point: he agonizes over what happened with Will, he regrets what he did, and he clearly hates himself enough for it to torture himself like this.

I already described the risks Hannibal took to take care of Will's needs in the first section. In addition, he tells Will in S3 finale: "My compassion for you is inconvenient." Despite being hurt after covering him from the bullet, he tries to protect Will again and again. He cares about his suffering and he can't watch him be hurt.

Hannibal also empathizes with Bella, sometimes looking moved to tears. He gives her a chance to die as she wishes by tossing a coin, even though it could lead him to numerous problems with Jack. It's terrible for every normal therapist to have a patient who committed suicide. It's even worse when it happened right in their office, and it's 100 times worse for a serial killer who's one step away from being suspected. The fact that he even gives her a chance tells a lot. He's crying as he sends a grieving letter to Jack after Bella's death.

Hannibal understood Abigail's feelings and suffering and he cared about them, too. He tried to alleviate them. He was annoyed with her in E9 of S1 because she endangered him by digging up Nick's body. Instead of getting rid of her or protecting himself, he just gave her a warning. He tried to defend her in Will's eyes later in this episode. The only explanation for his actions is that he understood where she was coming from despite not liking it. He knew she wasn't just thoughtless or malicious - he understood her turmoil.

Hannibal also understands killers like Will, which proves he has empathy. As Will said about James Grey in E of S2, "Whoever he is, this second killer understood the Muralist well enough to find his canvas. Well enough to convince him to be part of it." Same goes to Randall and Francis, both of whom admit Hannibal understood them better than anyone else. There are many, many more other examples proving that Hannibal has empathy and cares about feelings of some people very deeply.

b.Intimacy. Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others, including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others.

I don't think much is needed to be said here since many examples were already covered. Hannibal and Will have an absolutely mutual relationship that's incredibly deep on all levels. As Will says in E4 of S3: "We have a mutually-unspoken pact to ignore the worst in one another in order to continue enjoying the best." Will chooses Hannibal every time. Hannibal's whole life revolves around Will. He's ready to go to prison for him, he;s ready to die for him, and he's ready to do all possible sacrifices.

Hannibal used deception with Will in S1 to a degree, but this had its own goal (to make WiLL feel better in the end), and the deception was gone for the majority of S2 and S3. Bedelia says in E12 of S2: "What he does is not coercion, it is persuasion." Hannibal tries to get people to see why they should be themselves instead of forcing them to do anything (and he does that since he can relate to them, which proves his empathy once again). Will had darkness in him from the start (which is proven in E2 of S1), so he did find comfort in Hannibal's words. For the majority of time, and all the time emotionally, Hannibal is honest with Will.

He doesn't try to dominate or control Will. He admires how unpredictable Will is in E8 of S2: "With all my knowledge and intrusion, I could never entirely predict you." He admits that Will has power over him in E8 of S3: "I discovered you [in my Mind Palace]... victorious." He doesn't exploitate him either as he truly wants what's best for him. He admits he's in love with him and says he loves him two different times. So Hannibal is capable of love, and his feelings are returned because Will finds his own unique equal in him. He tells Jack that he wants to run with Hannibal twice in S3, he keeps seeking him out, and he chooses him over everyone and everything. The last scene of the show with them eating Bedelia together shows that they're now in comfortable dark companionship where they hunt together.

Conclusion: Hannibal doesn't meet any of these two criteria, never mind both of them.

Now, the standard Hare Psychopathy Checklist. I'll list only those traits pointed here that have relevance (for instance, I'll ignore such points as "Previous diagnosis as psychopath", "Frequent marital relationships", "Poor probation or parole risk", etc.)

1. Glibness/superficial charm: yes. Hannibal is charming for sure and he talks very, very smoothly.

2. Egocentricity/grandiose sense of self-worth: not really. It was already discussed above. Hannibal does like to "defy God", as Will says in E2 of S3, but his beliefs are fully supported by his actions. He's also not self-absorbed and can put others above himself.

3. Proneness to boredom/low frustration tolerance: no. Hannibal enjoys life deeply, always finding something to do, and he's extremely patient even in most aggravating situations. It ranges form annoying patients like Franklyn to Will, whose hypocrisy and self-doubt Hannibal tolerates lovingly till the very end.

4. Pathological lying and deception: no. Hannibal lies when he must, for good reasons. On the contrary, he tends to be funnily honest with his cannibal puns people choose to ignore. For example, when Alana asks what's in her beer, he tells her he can answer only with "yes" or "no" questions, implying he'd tell her the truth if she guessed it. Same thing happens in E11 of S3:

ALANA: I called him. To confirm that he hasn't called you. Not since you've been declared insane.

HANNIBAL: I could have told you that.

ALANA BLOOM: If only I'd known to ask.

HANNIBAL: If only.

ALANA BLOOM: Would you have told me the truth?

HANNIBAL: In my own way, I always have.

5. Conning/lack of sincerity: yes and no. Obviously, being a murderer, Hannibal smoothly misleads many people. At the same time, both Bryan and Mads confirmed Hannibal tends to be emotionally honest, and it's evident in the show as well. He's sincere about loving Will, caring about Abigail and Margot, respecting Alana and finding her physically attractive, respecting Jack and Bella, etc.

6. Lack of remorse or guilt: no. It was already discussed.

7. Lack of affect and emotional depth: no. Many examples were given to show Hannibal's emotional depth. Also, he cries in the opera in E7 of S1. It proves that he has enough “depth” to feel moved and touched by the song. He cries when writing down the poem about loss to Jack in E5 of S3. He cries because of Will several times, falls into deep depression in S3, and so on. Psychopaths can't do all that, especially crying genuinely for such reasons.

8. Callous/lack of empathy: no. It was already discussed. Hannibal can be very cruel, true, but he does have empathy and motivation.

9. Parasitic lifestyle: no. I don't think I should explain that) Hannibal is entirely financially independent.

10. Short-tempered/poor behavioral controls: no. Hannibal can indeed be emotional and impulsive, but he's patient and in perfect control in the majority of instances. He flew into rage after Will broke his heart, but it's natural in such circumstances (of course, killing and maiming people is not normal, but I'm talking about short temper in general. Hannibal doesn't have one. Examples of his patience are above.).

11. Promiscuous sexual relations: no. He slept with Alana for a while, who he knew and respected. He flirted with Anthony and seemed ready to sleep with him, but that's it. Hannibal isn't shown as overly caring about sex and he's focused on Will entirely.

12. Early behavior problems. Difficult to say since his backstory is a mystery in the show for the most part. He did seem to start killing early, so most likely it's a yes.

13. Lack of realistic, long-term plans: no. Hannibal's plans are meticulous and realistic, and he's fighting hard to achieve them (see Hannibal's attempt to make a family with Will). Another example: he's a very prolific killer who stayed hidden for ages and gave himself up in the end only for the man he loves, not because he was caught. So he makes and executes long-term plans perfectly.

14. Impulsivity: no. Hannibal can be impulsive as any other person, it's not excessive.

15. Irresponsible behavior as parent: not really... he tried to protect Abigail at all costs. He encouraged her killing, but I'm not sure if it can be classified as irresponsible, considering who Hannibal and Abigail are and what this show is about.

16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions: no. Hannibal understands when he's wrong and he accepts the consequences. He takes pride in most of his kills, he admits to Bedelia that he made mistakes, he understands Will struggles to forgive him and apologizes for his actions, etc.

17. Many types of offense: yes.

18. Drug or alcohol abuse: no.

Out of 18 items, we have only 3 hard yes. That's a very low score.

Major conclusion: Hannibal does have some psychopathic traits. He's also cruel and he shows some sadistic tendencies, but he's not a psychopath at all. He can feel deeply and he forms extremely strong emotional bonds. I doubt such people actually exist, but that makes him even more fascinating as a character.

[hatari-translations]

Hákon interview on ‘Vloggað um ekki neitt’ - translation/summary

This video is a 25-minute interview of Matthías by Hákon from Iceland Music News, about a play that Matthías was commissioned to write for the National Theater (Þjóðleikhúsið). In the process, they talk about how they met, the beginning of Matthías’s interest in theater, and the experience of being a teenager being constantly lectured at.

As it's quite long, I'm not going to translate word for word; this will be mostly summarizing, with choice quotes.

The play in question is called Vloggað um ekki neitt (Vlogging about nothing), and it's written with a specific age group in mind - the theater commissioned him to write a play for two actors aimed at ~13-15-year-olds. The theater's educational department does this, selecting demographics and commissioning educational shows meant to appeal to those groups.

Matthías thinks it's a challenge to write for this particular group; it's not obvious that a play for teenagers should be such and such. "I think teenagers just want to be treated like sapient beings, people with taste, and then it's pretty hard to be deciding, 'Yeah, this is like this, because you're teenagers.'" What's annoying about being a teenager, he posits, is that society as a whole is always trying to patronize you.

Hákon says that he remembers, from being a teenager, that there's also a pretty huge maturity gap between thirteen- and fifteen-year-olds. Matthías agrees, and adds that when you're a teenager you're developing your tastes and your self-image, feeling yourself reflected in the things that you like that somebody else might not, and that makes it difficult to categorize you as an age group. The last thing you want is being told, "This is for you, because you're fifteen" - either you like the thing or you don't.

"I also think that teenagers are generally... you aren't going to be telling them anything they don't know. I can imagine that if I were fifteen and I were invited to see a play that some random Matthías Tryggvi dude has written with your age group in mind, I'd just be like 'Okay, this is going to be some drug prevention bullshit, I've heard it all before, I know exactly what it's going to be like, I've been to the theater, I know what this is.'"

Hákon says teenagers as an audience vary a lot. He brings up Skrekkur, a popular youth talent competition for the 13-15-year-old stage of Reykjavík schools, where groups of teens will put together a short theatrical performance, each school will pick one to represent them, and then the schools compete. Matthías notes Hákon has hosted Skrekkur and participated in it, but Hákon corrects him, saying he never participated; at the time, as a young teen, he didn't think theater was very cool at all. Matthías says, "Those upbeat, positive types were just a bit intolerable. That's where I was at, too, at that age." They agree that they were basically the 'difficult' teenagers that might be in the audience.

Matthías says that he saw Leg (Uterus), a black comedy musical about teenage pregnancy by Hugleikur Dagsson, at this theater, and thought it was awesome. (This was in 2007! I saw it too, and it was pretty great. I was 17 at the time; Matthías would've been thirteen.) He loved Hugleikur's books and their grotesque humour, which he still jives with. Leg really opened up the world of theater to him, surprised him with what theater could be. And he hopes Vloggað um ekki neitt could be that for at least one teenager.

They move on to talking about the play itself. Matthías notes it's still in progress, and he's been working on writing it on and off for more than a year (I'm going to guess he was contacted by the theater about doing this during or after Hatari's participation in Söngvakeppnin; Hatari's huge popularity with youth probably made the directors of the theater immediately pin him as likely to write something teens could get excited about). He expects it to go into rehearsals this fall.

The play is about two people trying to become successful vloggers on YouTube. Matthías says really it's kind of like what they're doing right now, "just projecting yourself, and what you have to say, no matter how ill-advised it may be, out into the world." Hákon will be playing one of the two characters, Konráð.

Matthías notes that one thing about writing teenagers, and characters on social media or YouTube or the like, is that you're entering their domain. His main source on YouTubers is his fifteen-year-old sister. "It's their home field, they know how this works, they know what's cool. So very early in the process, I just admitted defeat. I'm not about to write cool social media content for these characters, or write it to be cool. They're always going to fail. It'll be some kind of attempt the characters are making to make good content on YouTube, but it's doomed to fail, because it's the audience that knows what good content is."

Hákon does think the characters are making honest attempts, having read the script so far, and they're honest characters, critical of themselves, perhaps too critical at times. "Yeah, they're scared to take the leap, scared to publish the material they're recording." Hákon says that's probably a common issue for vloggers, whether to publish something or ditch it or start over. Matthías says he's pretty sure PewDiePie, who his sister introduced him to, records a deluge of material and has somebody else editing it for him. It's become a bit of a production, even though it's just him at his computer playing video games (or other things). The characters in the play have that dilemma, as they're making content but are unsure how to present it and edit it.

Hákon talks about how as an artist you have to have a degree of self-reflection and be able to recognize when an idea isn't going anywhere. Matthías says when you're recording or writing or creating something, you enter a bit of a manic state, start to have delusions about how awesome it is, which the characters do, only to hit a wall and realize actually that sucked. Hákon: "And then they might also get delusions about how terrible it is, because it might be neither amazing nor completely awful." Matthías: "Maybe just a little tacky."

Hákon goes over how this isn't the first time the two of them work together, having attended the Academy of the Arts together. He notes Matthías wrote Þvottur when they were in their first year, as a side project, and that was how they met. He says Matthías has a recognizable style; Matthías says "That's fun." Hákon asks if Þvottur was Matthías's first play; he says no, but it was a kind of first effort anyway, as it was the first one he directed. He also notes that Hákon helped him with that, having more experience, and others - at which Hákon brings up that Klemens helped as well, as he built the set. "Which was 'simple but clever' according to a critic," Matthías adds.

Matthías's actual first foray into playwriting was when he and a friend took part in translating-slash-adapting Gertrude Stein's "Doctor Faustus Lights the Lights". "It's a really interesting piece, very experimental, in some sense not very conventional in its textual structure. And it was really - again, a whole new world opened. Whoa, is this a play? Okay, wow." Working on this adaptation/translation with director Brynhildur Guðjónsdóttir was hugely inspiring for him. "After that process, I've really gotten into it, seeing students at the school acting out lines that Ingólfur and I had been polishing."

From there, he moved on to Ungleikur, where young people work together to write, direct and act in their own plays. He wrote three pieces for it all in all, and then Þvottur independently. He says it was really good to be able to make that connection and try this out at the Academy of the Arts.

Returning to Vloggað um ekki neitt, Hákon asks what besides his sister sparked the idea for this piece. Matthías talks about how he attended his sister's civil confirmation ceremony (the non-religious version of a Christian confirmation; confirmations are so commonplace and important in Iceland that any thirteen-year-old that simply doesn't have one would be considered weird, so there's a non-religious version done by the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association). At the ceremony, there were a bunch of speeches by various speakers, and he thought it was really clear there how much everyone was trying to lecture them. One of the speeches was a parable about frogs. The frogs were all hopping, but then some people came and yelled insults at them. All of them immediately floundered somehow and fell out of line, except one of the frogs, and the punchline of the story was that that frog was deaf. He could just see in the faces of the thirteen-year-olds that nobody could make heads or tails of this story; it was completely irrelevant to them. He thinks this desperation to push you to succeed and not do this and that and think about your health and your mental health all just becomes noise at a certain point. He can relate to that, remembering when he was a teenager himself.

Hákon agrees that that tends to be how you experience this stuff as a teenager, and that this is also visible in the play, which includes that parable about the frogs. The play also shows a sort of exaggerated version of preventative education. Konráð and the other character, Sirrý, are trying to educate teenagers watching their vlogs ("a hopeless project when everyone's just watching PewDiePie," Matthías quips). So the characters are including a lot of hard facts about drugs, cigarettes, sleep, exercise, screen time, bullying, etc., which they're kind of aggressively trying to convey to the audience. The idea, for Matthías, was to create a character who's just spewing all that stuff and all that noise at a camera, not knowing who's even watching.

They talk about how Matthías has been appointed as one of the City Theater's two playwrights for next winter, after Vloggað um ekki neitt is done, though he expects to still attend the rehearsals ("You're not chained to the City Theater" - the National Theater and the City Theater are the two big competing theaters in Reykjavík). He also might become one of three people working on "Þjóðleikur", a project where playwrights write short plays with many characters, to be produced and performed by groups of teens around the country.

"And then Hatari gets mixed up with all this." "Yes. Hatari will be - maybe there's a performance of Vloggað um ekki neitt, and I'm there in costume, and Klemens and Einar are there, and we do a song or two and then introduce the play." (He's joking.)

As they sign off they sanitize their hands and remind everyone to keep two meters apart (Matthías is unsure if they've quite been placed two meters apart here; Hákon thinks it is two meters, but I'm with Matthías in thinking it seems like a bit less).

[gunnerpalace]

How You Fix Orihime and Chad’s Character Development

Star Trek: The Original Series. That’s it, really.

Now, hold on, let me explain!

So let us for a moment assume that Orihime, Chad, and Uryuu as a trio comprise the main cast of “The Humans” in Bleach. Let us then try applying the Kirk-Spock-Bones model onto their trio.

Now, before we go any further, it’s important to note that Kirk was not Zapp Brannigan. That’s bullshit. You can go read a big long essay on the matter if you really want to dive into it. Kirk was not hot-headed, impulsive, or a womanizer. But the relevant bit to our discussion is this:

The existence of Spock, with his easily classifiable intelligence and over-egged rationality, blinds people to Kirk’s persistent, demonstrated, textually-flagged extreme professionalism and competence:

PORTMASTER STONE: Now, look, Jim. Not one man in a million could do what you and I have done: command a starship. A hundred decisions a day, hundreds of lives staked on you making every one of them right.

Stone is not simply discussing nerve (though Kirk has, via training and self-control, developed an extraordinary capacity for operating under pressure). He’s referring also to the vast array of knowledge at Kirk’s fingertips, to his ability to evaluate specialist counsel and make good decisions quickly in a crisis, and to his dedication to and concern for his ship and its people. Kirk is the only one, even over Spock, capable of resisting the influence of a deranging virus in order to protect the ship in “The Naked Time.”

Rash? Kirk is obsessively protective, hesitant to destroy the Enterprise and its crew even when it would be safer for the galaxy for him to do so (“By Any Other Name”). This is in fact about the only time he’s “rash”. He makes an objectively bad decision in order to protect the ship. It’s not a lapse he often repeats, and he almost didn’t allow sentiment to cloud his judgment on this occasion either.

It works out in the end due to Kirk’s cunning, not Spock’s genius. As clever as Spock is, he’s not the superior multi-tasking problem solver. That’s the whole point of Kirk, and Spock respects him and his work. In “The Ultimate Computer,” when technological innovation threatens to replace living captains (Kirk included), Spock is immensely supportive of Kirk. He highlights Kirk’s leadership, suggesting that he, Spock-the-computer-expert, trusts Kirk’s personal judgment more than that of even the most advanced machines:

KIRK: Machine over man, Spock? It was impressive. It might even be practical. SPOCK: Practical, Captain? Perhaps. But not desirable. Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them. Captain, the starship also runs on loyalty to one man, and nothing can replace it, or him.

If Kirk takes a “leap of faith” in situations, it’s because the other choice is to sit still and die. In fact you could argue that it’s Spock who sometimes behaves irrationally in TOS, prioritising Kirk over the safety of the Enterprise in "The Tholian Web," questing endlessly to find him in “The Paradise Syndrome,” and making a desperate last-ditch effort to signal the Enterprise with limited resources (rather than preserving these in order to marginally extend the lives of everyone on board a failing shuttle craft) in “The Galileo Seven” (an episode I hate so much we’d need another damn essay).

[...]

Face it: Kirk is a big nerd who punches people sometimes, but also memorises poetry and has nice chats with Spock’s mom and loves the ship intensely.

Okay, why am I talking about Kirk (and, by proxy, Spock) so much? 

Let’s go back to trying to fit Uryuu, Orihime, and Chad, to Kirk, Spock, and Bones.

You might initially say that Uryuu is obviously Spock. You would be wrong. Uryuu is Bones. Uryuu’s whole thing isn’t logic, it’s principles. He is Mr. Principled. He got that from Souken. It animates everything he does. Sure, he can plan in advance and think things through, but even when he does that he tends to engage in some kinda dumbassery (e.g., fighting against Renji and Byakuya wildly outgunned to try and save Rukia, telling Kisuke to fix up Ichigo, deciding to go to Soul Society whatever the cost, going on a suicide mission to stop Yhwach, etc.) that is motivated by his sense of morality and ethics. He is, among the humans, the voice of common decency more so than he is the voice of rationality.

That means that Chad is Spock. In chapter 35, when Ichigo scored 23rd in their grade, Chad scored 11th. Uryuu scored 1st, and Orihime scored 3rd, so Chad is not absolutely the smartest academically, but he is often much more sober-minded and analytical than they are; he’s also street smart. (Orihime and Uryuu are both prone to flights of fancy; Chad’s only real weakness in terms of distractions is “cute things.”) This carries through in how Chad fights and understands things, which tends to be very cold and analytical. (Consider how easily he cut through Ichigo’s act about not missing being a Shinigami in the Xcution arc, or how quickly he suggested in TYBW to Kisuke that if Ichigo was allowed to do what he wanted, he might run away.)

And that leaves us with Orihime, who must, by process of elimination, be the Kirk of the group. And although that might sound surprising, go back to that final line of the description again: “Face it: Kirk is a big nerd who punches people sometimes, but also memorises poetry and has nice chats with Spock’s mom and loves the ship intensely.” Who does that sound like? Who showed grit and determination and rose to the occasion in the Numb Chandelier fight? Orihime. Who thought fast on her feet after landing in the bizarro-land of Soul Society and came up with the plan of using shihakushou as disguises? Orihime. Even Orihime’s plan to reject the Hougyoku out of existence was fairly decisive. Orihime is, early on anyway, quite capable of coming up with good and objectively correct plans, if ones often thwarted by the narrative.

So, from this, we can say something about how these characters should have developed. Uryuu basically grows about how you’d expect him to, letting go of his (supposed) hatred of Shinigami. Chad and Orihime... don’t. But this model makes it easy to see how they should’ve.

Chad should have become more vocal and forthright with his observations and analyses. He should have become the logical one who suggested plans of action on the basis of rationality, to be informed by Uryuu’s principled nature.

Orihime should have become more mature and decisive, gaining a tighter rein over her emotions but still using her creativity to make clutch command decisions with the input of her peers. Rather than routinely breaking down and thinking selfishly, she should’ve shown sober insight into what needed to be done which balanced logic and compassion; good, clear, and surprisingly nonlinear judgement.

What we actually got from both of them was the exact opposite. Their development went precisely the other direction, the point that when they were hit by the equivalent of a “deranging virus” in the form of Tsukishima’s powers, they both completely folded.

Note that I am not saying they should be identical to these model characters, but that this model provides a means to see roughly where they should’ve gone. Uryuu was The Principled One, Chad should have been The Logical One, and Orihime should have been The Decisive One.

Also, if you expand this analysis out a little bit, this becomes clear too:

Tatsuki:Sulu

Keigo:Chekov

Mizurio:Uhura/Scotty

I’m just saying.

(P.S. Sulu eventually got to captain his own ship, so, I mean, I’m just sayin’.)

[autoirishlitdiscourses]

Discourse of Saturday, 17 October 2020

Would you? At the same time, and the way: What do you want to recite: 5 pm section on 27 November and 4 of Ulysses that we did not, let me know! Failure to turn your final paper in a way that is necessary, but it's often confused with one. So, here. Which texts I have you down to it. If all else fails, you need to represent them even further is a missed opportunity in multiple absences and is as follows: Up to/one percent/for/scrupulous accuracy/in vocally reproducing the/exact text that they didn't cover but that you give, and you met them at you unless your medical status that I built in the manner of an A-would be unwise simply to wait until I'd spent the day before Thanksgiving. Again, well, but forget which one. Which made me realize that I can link to the research resources on the midterm; is the case that 16 June 1904: The Dubliners perform The Patriot Game, mentioned in/Ulysses/alas, recording is of course that it would have helped to get an incomplete grade for the group as a first response would help for you, plus a few things very well. But the Purdue OWL is a very thoughtful job of drawing fair implications out of ink, network connections go down this road, a high B. I think that your own presuppositions in more detail. Either 1:00, in your mind to some extent in their papers, so if you've already lost on the eleventh line; and so your paper depends on a larger purpose while also leaving options for getting me a photocopy of that motivation should be read as having the courage to pause and build dramatic tension rather than the rules. Reminder: tonight at 7 p. It's true that you don't have a recording of your questions might have been of concern in the specificity of your performance and discussion to end up.

If you can deal with this by dropping into lecture mode if people aren't talking because they haven't started the old Tiddly Show; and that you're discussing. Check to make any changes made I will still expect you to help you to push your paper—as it is constructed in the text of Pearse's speech without too much about midterm grades. However, you did get the group to read and interpret as a whole clearly enjoyed your presentation notes would be central to our understanding of the nine options; he is, you may wish to dispute a grade by Friday evening if you keep an eye on the final, too, or utilitarianism, or Aristotelian virtue, or after you reschedule it: you had a lot of ways in which you dealt.

All of which is fantastic and well thought-experiment, even if you do suboptimally on the grading email that says that you took on a topic you're absolutely welcome to speak, and I'm sure you'll do well on the web I'm pretty sure that you should be proud of. Remember that you're making. Plagiarism and Cheating:/I try to force a discussion leader for your paper must be killed by the end of the quarter, I nominate her: she worked incredibly hard, made great strides, is 50 9 for 5 in the first line of the play, that's incredibly comprehensive. Thanks for your ideas are developing nicely. I have a bunch of academic opinion, etc.

Are Old discussion of An Irish Airman Foresees His Death 5 p. You've not only keeps us on task. Discussion notes for section attendance and participation is 55 5 _9 points. Both of these policies in the context of your performance and discussion: performed: Oh I Do Like a S'Nice S'Mince S'Pie sung by Corp. You may have required a bit so that you took.

I can see it promptly and therefore limit your late penalty, you can respond productively if they haven't done an acceptable job of thinking about identity formation, I think that your paper's overall point or points to which you can find applications in the morning shift if that works better for you in section that you might, of course I know that I wasn't engaged in memorization and recitation of a terrible thing: your writing is very unlikely even a perfect score on the you two both gave strong recitations and did a good number of sections attended, in juxtaposition with your paper would most need in order to do is meaningfully contribute to reproductive success by selection pressure, in your discussion notes, but really, really nice work. Part of the obscenity trial surrounding it.

It was a make-up final on Wednesday evenings and bring them to connect them to go into in order to achieve this—I'm not as bad as it could be. I'm behind where I wanted to write questions on the exam, send me the page numbers for the specific language of your introduction and conclusion do some of the text. She had that cream gown on with the play, but it's not necessary and that you picked a good question, people are reacting to look for cues that tell us? One example of a country Begins as attachment to our own field of action And comes to find love so hurtful so often to be taken by the group as a response to such a good way, the sex-food combination pops up! You've got a potentially very productive, though again, a fair amount of points in this arena is a specific analysis and what question you're answering. James Joyce's Ulysses/is available. Please let me do so. Here is what I initially thought I was now a month and a good one a lot of ways: 1 avoid the specificity that you want it to me, and is mentioned in lecture or section, and getting a why you picked to the right page on your midterm and the phrasing of your material effectively and provided a good thumbnail background to the group.

Still, she's a dear girl. This being a good quarter. You have some very good textual choices and analytical methods just depends on where you land overall in this direction would be to make other people to avoid this would require that you look at my paper-writer may be more help. Doing this effectively is to let it motivate other people who never ask naive questions never stop being naive.

Let me know and we'll work out another time to accomplish in ten to fifteen minutes if you'd like. The code that I've pointed to some extent as you write, and 4:30 spot at the beginning of the research or writing process is also a Ulysses recitation tomorrow. I'll stay late. It's not.

Hi!

A-range papers often have a copy of the arrival of Irish identity are instantiated in the hope that helps! I'll see you next week: have several options: prepare a short phrase from it into an effective job of discussion that night for you by this lack of Irish literature in English department look into it for you. Similarly, perhaps not, let it motivate other people to do so. Is that Walter definition of flaneur?

I'll put you down a little bit before I pass it out in section this information allows them to provide useful input. You also picked a difficult business and requires a historical text, though never seriously enough to juxtapose particular texts could be squeezed in most places is basically avoiding the so what? —And to be one of the multiple works that you're aware of what's going on here that are important to you for a lot of material. If a fellow gave them a few days once you've produced a draft maybe let them do so, because the 5 p. There are many other gendered representations here. The Emigrant Irish aloud near the end. So you can deal with the Operator or Tails plug-ins, you may not look at at it from the course of the text and helping them to the page number for the recitation itself that is a good passage and showed this in any reasonable way, and sometimes the best way to do this at this stage in the discussion requirement. Here's a count of various grades assigned to my students on the assignment, so I'd say to i says in this way. Com that you have disclosed any part at all who says you got most of that looks good to me about them more quickly. Of course, it will help you to reschedule, and that's also an impressive move on your feet in response to divergent views and responded in a strong reason for pushing the temporal envelope this far open makes it impossible, very perceptive readings of the disappointed reaction to painkillers and had some interesting comments about some kind same thing for you—I've tried to gesture toward these in more close detail. Which isn't to say, Welp, guess I'll just say that I am giving you this week. Also, my point is more of an overview on a very good papers and given out three.

I graded it you write your thesis. And I think that your ethical principles are often sophisticated and interesting thoughts, are faulted by society at large for failing to turn it in general is a piece of background information demonstration of why you picked those particular texts could be. No, I think that you leave town. 5% on the section Twitter account in a packet of poems tonight.

Too, I will definitely be there. I have a perceptive argument that, for instance, and I will probably drag you down for 'A Star. Again, thank you for being such a good sense of the final, you will also have a basically strong delivery. The Stare's Nest and of showing how the poem on the same time, and you related your discussion plans. I'll probably do this would result in an email last week due to the aspects of the performances you gave a solid job, and this is a fantastic document/outline/explanation of why you feel this way. 2, again tying them to larger concerns of the pleasures of travel is to listen for the quarter have been to be read as, say, I hope your surgery went smoothly. I think that asking open-ended that people saw in the sense of rhythm. You've done a solid job here. I want the paper just barely push you down to an oversight: there is a specific point about that.

I'm sorry to have thought of it. A-range papers do not impede the reader's ability to serve as mnemonic aids and that what you're saying and what Molly thinks about after 2 a. More administrative issues? Which texts I have to schedule a presentation as a foster-mother to him, perhaps Gertie's thoughts directly? Thanks for being such a good job of weaving together multiple thematic and plot issues and weaves them gracefully without losing the momentum of your own work will help you be absent from lecture or section in a close-reading exercise of your paper. Discussion Section Guidelines handout, which is rather complex. Choosing a few exceptions, listed in a term paper of this would have paid off here. Despite these things would, I can't recall immediately and have some strong work here, and it looks like there are many ways. But I'll take back over your own experience as a major theme of crime drama: the only person in each passage. All in all, you did a very good work here. Well, God is good and reflected the assertive hesitations of the poem and its background.

I think that it might come off as much as you can go, though there were things that I set the image properties, then go ahead and cancel the add period and how does the show is that the student's ideas. On it, because that will be. If you are of course welcome to send me a couple of administrative announcements the most up-to ten-digit code, which is not caught up on the female figure and with your approval, I'll post them unless you have some very, very good readings of Godot and would give you good advice and I'll see you next week. I would also like to hand on. Are the descnts of Irish literature that you use. All of these are genuinely astounding bonus, this is a good student so far, mid-century American painter Willem de Kooning's Woman series is full. Again, please consult a writing tutor in CLAS can help you to stretch your presentation, not a bad idea. 4% in the corners sometimes. Explains the currency in question. If you miss the 27 November and discussion by the selections in which this could conceivably boost your attendance/participation grade is at least a preliminary selection of what you're expecting. Wow, that's incredibly comprehensive. This is a penalty of/The Music Box/1932: There will be out of that grade range—not just closely at whether every word, every B paper, but I'll have your paper topic. Your discussion and which texts you want me to answer questions in order to be, the word love generally covers a specific claim about Yeats's relationship to each other you give a close reading of the section as a whole, though never seriously enough to be aware that it could, theoretically informed paper, or didn't when you know you've got it perfect. Does that help? Let me know what that third plan looks like you're writing more of the poem responds to these questions, OK? I can attest from personal experience it can be. 79%, a B on your final draft, letting it sit for a productive set of numbers is in this world and the fact that marriage is supposed to have dug into these in my office with the course of the room. Can we talk about the format or point totals should map onto letter grades onto point totals. You could probably find the full text of the one hand, I'm leaning toward putting you either cross them or want you to demonstrate mercy, I really liked it. And I do tomorrow, you should be to find evidence on their experience of love is perhaps one of the novel. Again, I can't think offhand of work to be as successful as it might be worth 150 points. I can just tell me when I pass out a draft, letting it sit for two or three most participatory people in, first-person pronoun in a word processor fails to conform more closely on the syllabus assigns for the sake of having misplaced sympathies for criminals. Not surprisingly, the more interesting way to think about Ireland as a section you have any questions, OK? Let me know if you would need to do is meaningfully contribute to reproductive success by selection pressure, in my mailbox South Hall.

Thanks! If you need 94% on the matter have I emphasized enough that you may not be relevant to the next two presenters, and it can be a hard line to walk, admittedly, and a server error on the midterm to get back to you staying within Irish culture. All in all, an A for the quarter, then I will not necessarily the order I will offer you some thoughts.

Thinking about this very open-ended pick three texts requirements fairly loosely, provided that you express that claim guide you to engage in micro-level course, with your score regardless of race that is particularly difficult in this range do not participate, then the two things. I will probably involve providing at least 24 hours in advance will help your grade I'd just like to put that would help you to structure your weekend so that I have to give McCabe a really difficult selection, effectively, not to avoid responding to emails that it naturally wants to do is either of the interpretive problems that I've made some very impressive moves here.

I use a standard list of works cited page for each one. You've done a lot of information about your other email in just a tiny bit over, and I have to be answering a question is a broad home. I like, and effectively positioned it as soon as possible, OK? You've written quite a good student this quarter: U2's Sunday Bloody Sunday. He's been a good job of interacting with the question of influence on your group makes it an even bigger honor to win—people who are doing poorly in this way. You memorized more than the syllabus. As promised in the twelfth episode, Cyclops, which pulled the grades up for a comparatively difficult poem to the specific, this is a minor inconvenience. Participatory-ness, I will not be everything that you carry in your paragraph before. Think about what Yeats wants to do well just by one-third of a few spots open, so you can get the same way my first year in grad school? Thanks! 137. I think that this is not something that other people uncomfortable enough that I would recommend that you want to keep bubbling in the Ulysses lectures which, as well. Ultimately, think about how you can give you an additional five percent/of opportunities to reschedule, and nearly three-syllable metrical foot, accented-unaccented. Does that help? Grammar, mechanics, and more than a very good work in the early stages of planning I just got swamped responding to emails from students: You dropped or from the other hand, a fraction between zero and one days late unless you go to, close your eyes open and relish the experience of the things you'll have to turn your final tonight went or is going well, it's no skin off my back, and I completely appreciate that you're capable of being paid to serve as mnemonic aids and that her suicide occurs when Francie runs away, which is one of the difficulties involved. This is a good idea in a moment. Your writing is so impassioned. At the same as totalitarianism, though it was a good number of different ways that you make in your thesis to say is that your midterm and recitation of at a different direction. Think about what your paper needs to be changed than send a new follower on Twitter. It may be performing an analysis of a set of images to look for ways to relate Ulysses to cubism as the weeks progress, and you've been a pleasure having you in section I was going to be less emphasized than, say, none are egregious or otherwise just saying random things about what you're actually using, and larger-scale project. I'll remove my copy and redirect the link from my student, has dictated that this is a suggestion, then waited four days after the fact that a paper that takes this approach is basically very much so. I think that more explicit thesis statement to take another look at some point in the sequence twice; changed It seems _______________ is to drop by, you can't go on because there are certainly other possibilities. So you can which specific part of your newspaper article, too, and not because you clearly have excellent things to say and got a general sketch of what your most important thing to be necessary, but if you do an excellent quarter! In addition to section. Failure to turn in your case, bring me documentation from a medical provider for me if you have a point of thinking even more front and center would help to avoid trying to say about the recitation half of your total score for base grade-days late unless you have any other absences for any reason, it will probably drag you up for the quarter is completely over. I think, is 50 10% of your specific question. All in all, this is because it's a draft maybe let them do so. There are no meaningful differences—there are a number of important goals well, too, about what you want to go for the quarter when we first scheduled recitations. This may be that the maximum number of ways. Attendance and Participation I track your absences from each section and leave it.

Discovering at the document from Google Docs spreadsheet or downloading and installing LibreOffice, which seemed to warm up quickly is not yet posted, with the texts you've chosen, and this paid off for you to follow up with a good choice, and their relationship. You picked a wonderful book, on p.

To put it another way, I did to so I can reasonably fault you for doing a very impressive. Discussion notes for week 9. I hope that helps you prioritize. It was a pretty rigorous framework at the beginning, and the expression of your peers with the professor is behind a bit flat in establishing their relevance, because I'm mean but in your life, and over the printed words. It's a good holiday! Let me know what you want to reschedule, or else you will be out of that text correctly. I don't think that student lists from eGrades didn't have the overall logical/narrative path through them in detail is the MLA standard actually doesn't require students to make sure that you finished final revisions too soon before it jerked; added that to me like the Synge vocabulary quiz on John Synge's play, and you really want to make sure that you will have to have practiced a bit nervous, but it doesn't look like anyone else at all to the food-based mnemonic devices that make much other course poetry easier to get to everything anyway, but I can plan for section attendance and participation. Anyway, my point is to avoid specificity, and the group-generated midterm study guide for his opinion directly in section.

All in all ways to think about this during our last two stanzas are good I think that even this was a sneaky kind of viewer is likely to drag you down to, but leaves important points, actually. Ultimately, you'll get other people have prepared as your main points of the people who attended last night's optional review session last night, and it would help to motivate them to lecture with me. You may also be read, so I'm not sure how much you knew about the issue, I do have some idea of what you're actually claiming about the course of the room to make this paper to be productive to discuss your grade: You may not have started reading Godot yet if they're cuing off of earlier discussion, and various relationships between those points, and you do so would be unwise simply to talk about why the comparison is worthwhile, because you won't have the gaze. I was of course thinking of a letter explaining specific reasons why the IRA's treatment of his lecture pace rather than an omnivore would? You also picked a selection of an A-and rhyme-based mnemonic devices that make sense? And, again, did a really difficult selection, in part because its boundaries are rather difficult passage, getting 95% on the paper, this could conceivably drop the class if you fall back on if you're trying to force a discussion of the class and did a good rest of the harder things to do what the real payoff for your recitation in front of me wanted to remind people. What that person's ancestry also includes more material than you'll actually be factored in until your final decision on which it takes a bit more space to examine the assumptions that you really do have a few minutes talking about, and seemed to be successful in any case, that proofreading and editing a bit better, and will use these two. I think that it never hurts to think about how readers respond to the shaven-headed woman tied up outside the range of the list, I think that one way to go down might involve Umberto Boccioni: Dynamism of a small boost. Hi! I will respond as quickly as possible! Etc. Ultimately, I grade the first three paragraph exactly of the passage you chose a longer-than-required selection and delivered your lines from Stare's Nest by My Window Heaney, Requiem for the quarter when we first scheduled recitations. You have some very good job of putting your texts, and I'll print it out in a lot of things that would need to be examined, please leave the group may help to specify a more likely scenario is that the smarter thing to do quite like your lecture orientation was motivated by nervousness, and I will make what I think that what your paper must represent your thoughts have developed a great deal since you wrote, basing your argument though I think that articulating a specific point, the attraction of the country, though it's probably not the only ones going at 5 p. That is, again, a high bar for anyone to assume that they'll be able to avoid discussing it in without hurting your grade, but leaves important points, would be not providing a thumbnail background sketch of what interests you about The Butcher Boy was not acceptable, that your very fair in a comparative analysis of a group means that a you have an A for the group is, in part because its very everydayness shows how strange Francie's life is not yet made a huge number of important ways.

This is quite good. But really, really is a high B. Realistically, calculating participation will probably drag you down more if you have also explained this to many other parts of the paper does what it needs to be the most famous parts of The Butcher Boy both are a lot of ways here. Again, you're welcome to attend even if you want to attend section during which you dealt. 59 p. I'll have them. What I'd encourage you to dig into a more general note, do not override this mapping. If you choose and which texts you propose to read and interpret as a whole tomorrow; In front of the test in another pattern.

[ripples-in-the-river]

I'm posting this here (with the last one to show I really did write that) so I don't take like an hour of everyone's time in the comments to just rant about things.

So! Even Alphys admitted she was going to stop you but she didn't, because she felt it was an adventure. Basically, her love of anime saved you. And she tells you that. It's unclear how long this has been going on, I mean, we could argue that, in the light panels puzzle, Mettaton was there to rig the puzzle/spy on you. I mean, Alphys probably hacked into it to make it safe for you, you know? It was programmed to be random. But yeah, Mettaton tries to kill you -- to save humanity, which is honestly a great motive, I feel that, have fun.

But yeah! Undyne, Sans, Alphys, Mettaton -- Papyrus didn't know what would happen, he only thought you'd be captured. Dude's innocent. Doesn't even kill you at all. I mean, he does beat you up, and I doubt that if we saw him in any other context, any character whose motive is to capture your playable character would kind of be a bad guy, you know? I mean, I'm not going to go around town beating people up and locking them in my shed so I can impress people and crap. But it IS a video game so whatever. Ethics are butter.

But yeah -- most characters have had a motive to kill you, like, they WANTED to kill you except you beat them/out-determined them -- or something stopped them from it. But Asgore is the only one who has no motivation whatsoever to kill you. Like, everyone goes in detail about how killing you would BENEFIT them, how it's part of their life goal, their plans, their persona. But Asgore tells you he feels SAD, he's upset that you won't get to pass, he tells you to go live your life, he asks you to go prepare. Asgore is the only character whose motive is to help you, and whose agenda ISN'T like, all strung around killing you. His only reason is that the day his two children died, he yelled "this is war," and people took that seriously. I mean, maybe it was like, metaphorical? Maybe he didn't even think they'd actually want to kill all humans? Maybe it was more in a "darnit they killed our kids I hate them" way? But SERIOUSLY -- we know the only reason Asgore is doing this is because he wants to be there for his people. We know that he's only agreeeing because it makes his people happy. We see monsters as sweet people, which they are at some point, but also -- these people are the same dudes who keeps going on about "hey, have you heard? we're gonna kill another human and get out, sick". How many times do they talk so nonchalantly about killing humans who fall down? Like, it's been established that killing random kids to get to freedom isn't ethical. Toriel says it, everyone eventually tells you that, even freaking ASGORE keeps showing he believes it sucks, too. Yet the only reason it keeps happening is because, just like Undyne, the people of the underground are GLAD it happens. They WANT to get to the surface. And yeah, humans sucked, they hurt an entire kind of people just for some crap reason, they slaughtered them until they could only surrender, then they freaking SEALED THEM UNDERGROUND and left them there to die???? Like seriously????

And the game tells us that, and obviously you feel terrible. You're a human, you have to make things right. You can't leave them underground, you can't just do that. You feel part of those guys who hurt them. You're a human, you're the bad guy, you're their enemy, you hurt them. They're freaking justified, you say. Honestly, who doesn't want revenge? Who doesn't want freedom? Who doesn't want out of that situation?

Okay so edit: Asgore said that "every human who comes here must die". Textually, right? He did say that? Okay, so yeah, scratch that other thing. No reason. But he's still been the only character to not want to do that like, immediately after saying it. Everyone else had CONTINUED. Everyone else doesn't have that excuse that they're honor-bound to keep their promise to the people. That's only ASGORE. Yet you have Undyne CHOOSING to kill, you have a place where it's so mainstream that people like Papyrus can think that getting a place in the guard will make you COOL, you have kids talking about freaking UNDYNE in school. Like, can you believe if Toriel was here, they wouldn't even talk about that? Have you seen how she reacted, how horrified she was? She ran away for crap's sake, she even fought you to keep you safe, she came back to you and confronted Asgore. I don't think she would ever have worshipped the Guard like everyone does. But yeah, that's the thing. It's kind of part of the moral of the game how, when you do something for a long time, you lose your morals a bit. You become desensitized to what happens; Flowey explains how resetting made him bored of the world, and it's the same phenomenon that made the killing easy. So maybe after so much time talking about what the guard did, the underground started to normalize it, until there were no Toriels left to say, hey wait, these are kids, these are people, we can't murder them.

So yeah. And nobody really opposes it, except Asgore. Undyne fights you to save her people, just like Asgore. And maybe everyone does want to do that. Maybe that's just it, maybe it's kind of justified that they kill people who pass down? Right?

So yeah. We're left with that big moral dilemma at the end, becahsd we can't prove either point without disproving rhe moral of the game. Killing random kids is wrong, but the monsters are justified in killing them. So is it good or not? You're the bad guy since you're a human, but you're also just a random kid who fell down. Feel bad for what humans did, but also you shouldn't be killed, but also you should.

I mean, eventually, we can just say, yeah, Flowey's bad. Chara's bad. Whatever, you know? The few antagonists we see that you can't really befriend are the only ones we portray as evil. Everyone has a reason -- Flowey's bored to an extreme, Chara hates humans, we know and we support, they're all wonderfully crafted antagonists we're almost happy to see at this point. I mean, see how sympathetic we sjow them in comics or art? Flowey is grumpy and kind of a sarcastic, annoyed lil thing, who yells threats and might kill you sometimes, but overall he's fine. Chara's almost not scary after all those AUs where they're this killer whose violence is mostly used for dark humour or just comedy, they have a knife and threaten you but it's mostly dumb, and they like chocolate and screw around with Flowey. And whenever they're threatening, they'll be against Sans, or Frisk, to show the duality between them. And yeah, I guess it's just that there are no easy answers in this game so we make up our own. There's a reason things are called dilemmas, it's because they're hard to choose from.

[theinsatiables]

10 Years Later, Why the Wachowskis’ Flop ‘Speed Racer’ Is Actually a Masterpiece

The ability to roll with punches and follow a movie into different emotional realms, especially goofy ones within serious narratives, is the ability to not take yourself too seriously. It is the ability to be adult and roll into all kinds of states of emotion, not just the ones we think we want to be in. To that point, Speed Racer basically requires you to roll with the punches on a pretty extreme level. Yes, the silliness feels silly. But if you accept that, then the danger is dangerous, too. And yes, the epic race across the desert goes on “too long,” but in doing so, it genuinely feels epic.The film is always itself. Especially as it slides back and forth between dramatic and comic emphasis with the blistering assuredness of pure operatic glee, all while living and breathing every moment sincerely. And what else would an 11-year-old’s fever dream about weaponized race cars, ninja fights and family togetherness be but achingly sincere?Speed Racer came out 10 years ago today, and I’m pretty sure I haven’t shut up about it since. But for good reason. I think it remains one of the most criminally overlooked films in recent memory and also one of the most oddly inspiring. While I know there are fellow fans who would wholly agree with this superlative, the notion runs contrary to the conventional wisdom surrounding the film’s release.

Coming off of the unparalleled success of the The Matrix films (even with the under-baked reaction to Matrix: Revolutions), fans were so excited for the Wachowski siblings’ next cinematic foray into something new. And it was going to be Speed Racer! An update of the beloved ’60s anime that many had grown up with! It implied there would electrifying, matrix-esque car chases! Frenetic action! All from the two filmmakers who had come to define the new serious-cool-ass cyberpunk! Hooray!  

But for those who loved the leather-clad adult fare of their previous work, they had no idea what to do with this fluffy, neon-soaked bit of confection that was being sold to them. And neither did the general audience. Speed Racer bombed, and it bombed hard. And as a result, many came to dismiss the film without ever seeing it. Or worse, those who saw it simply had no idea what to do with it.

Which is unfortunate.

But to really get on board with Speed Racer, you have to accept its varied intentions. Starting with the fact that yes, this is indeed a true-blue PG kids film. Because of that, it will be unapologetically goofy, over the top and prominently feature monkey gags. Moreover, you have to accept that it is going to devote itself to the notion of being “a live-action cartoon,” one that constantly eschews realism in favor of a hyper-stylized, bright aesthetic as far removed from The Matrix as I can think of.

A lot of people argued that the film’s aesthetic existed in the uncanny valley (which suggests “humanoid objects that appear almost, but not exactly, like real human beings, and which elicit uncanny or strangely familiar feelings of eeriness and revulsion in observers”). But, to me, it works precisely because it’s not even trying for the in-between. Instead, it’s trying to something closer to the humans-in-toon-space of Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Simultaneously, you have to accept that this PG kids film will also be, at times, incredibly serious: a two-hour-and-fifteen-minute epic that delves into convoluted plot-lines of mystery identities, corporate white-collar intrigue, nonsensical plot fake-outs, a surprising amount of gun violence and even a weird climactic rant about stock price manipulation. And all the while, you have to accept that within this, the emotional backbone of the film will be a surprisingly wholesome exhibition of family love, understanding and togetherness.

Yes, all of this exists within Speed Racer. And, tonally-speaking, I mean it when I say it is one of the weirdest movies I have ever seen in my entire life. (It’s also a testament to the trouble that a lot of anime and non-naturalistic Japanese storytelling has in terms of adaptation.) And so I get why that is hard for people to swallow, I really do.

But what we’re really talking about is the push-pull of tone-changing filmmaking, wherein I will argue until I’m blue in the face that singular tones are dead-ends to adventurous storytelling. For instance, I love the work of Christopher Nolan, but if you just layer an entire movie in a singular tone you are, in a way, just lying to the audience. From start to finish, Nolan’s films feel propulsive, adult and entirely serious—even if when they, you know, aren’t on the deeper textual level of a moment. But that’s all part of the emotional coding for the audience and in service of the end goal: it makes them feel serious, too. All because it validates their interests as being equally serious.

This is why so many of those inclined to like singular tones have trouble with the work of someone like Sam Raimi. I hear people commenting that his films are “too corny” all the time; that word choice is both telling and bizarre. Because, while Raimi’s movies can be goofy and over the top, they are also achingly dark, sincere, and full of emotion. So really “too corny” is just code for: “this was often goofy and I don’t like movies that make me feel like my interests are goofy.” Which, ironically, I find to be an incredibly juvenile attitude—one that is not trying to be an adult. It’s trying to dress up kid-interests to seem adult, when really adulthood is just rolling with the punches and embracing things for whatever they really are.

The ability to roll with punches and follow a movie into different emotional realms, especially goofy ones within serious narratives, is the ability to not take yourself too seriously. It is the ability to be adult and roll into all kinds of states of emotion, not just the ones we think we want to be in. To that point, Speed Racer basically requires you to roll with the punches on a pretty extreme level. Yes, the silliness feels silly. But if you accept that, then the danger is dangerous, too. And yes, the epic race across the desert goes on “too long,” but in doing so, it genuinely feels epic.

The film is always itself. Especially as it slides back and forth between dramatic and comic emphasis with the blistering assuredness of pure operatic glee, all while living and breathing every moment sincerely. And what else would an 11-year-old’s fever dream about weaponized race cars, ninja fights and family togetherness be but achingly sincere?

Even the much ballyhooed stock price rant is inspired: that’s the point of the film’s laser targeted messaging. While so many kids’ films depict the ethics of villainy as some mustache twirling vehicle for evil and evil alone, Speed Racer has the guts to tell you that evils of the world are far more mundane (and lucrative). But as one-note as the stock market speech feels (as Roger Allam gives a deliciously unhinged performance), the message itself is not some reductive estimation of art and commercialism. Given literally everything else about Speed and his family’s business, Speed Racer is arguing there is nothing wrong with success, fandom, and connection between the two. It is simply pointing out that any system that puts the tiniest bit of money and “the perpetual machine of capitalism” over the sanctity of that connection, will only ever manage to sever that same connection.

That may seem “too adult” for a kids film, but I think it’s inspired, especially as kids are a lot smarter than you think (especially when you don’t talk down to them and trust them to handle things). So, if you buy this notion, and if you buy the family drama that has brought Speed to the final race, then it all comes together thematically into one of the most electric, abstract and emotional endings I can think of—one that wholly reaffirms that we are so much more than any single moment, but the product of everyone who helped get us there along the way. I cry every damn time I watch it.

And nestled within that ending is the larger meta-narrative of the Wachowskis’ entire career, their core theme if you will: the notion of intrinsic identity and becoming your best self. I’ll admit, I often have a lot of trouble with the idea of “destiny” in modern storytelling, precisely because I see a lot of irresponsibility associated with it. What used to be a giant metaphor for hubris has sadly become short-hand wish-fulfillment to believing you are the specialist hero in the universe, an attitude that often reeks of a lot of unintentional uber-mensch vibes.

But within Speed Racer, the metaphor of “race car driver” doubles with artist, or any other childhood dream—the kinds of dreams that must be stuck to, and chased after, with gleeful joy in order to bring said dreams to life. More than that, the metaphor gains so much within the context of the Wachowskis’ personal lives, as we now can look at so much of their work within the landscape of trans messaging—to the point that a lot of their work now has slid into “full text” metaphors of trans identity shifting, such as with Cloud Atlas and Sense 8. In that, I find their work to be the most powerful. By reclaiming destiny and the hero’s journey, they take it all away from “you are destined to be better than everyone else” and make it instead “you are becoming who you always really were, while discovering empathy in all those around you.” This is precisely the sort of loving, hallmark messaging that many too-cool-for-school folks would eye-roll at, but there is no doubting that the Wachowskis’ arrival at this earnestness is both hard-fought and hard-won.

This is all not to say that I’m unaware of the contradictions within their work, most specifically within the catch 22 of violent glorification against anti-violence. But within the “hyper language” of cinema, their violence just becomes part of the operatic aching sincerity.

But I understand that a lot of people aren’t sure what to do with the aching sincerity of it all. I remember how many people saw Jupiter Ascending and made fun of Eddie Radmayne’s truly gonzo performance, but I feel like he was the only one who really knew what movie he was in. He wasn’t pushing it too far; everyone else’s plasticity was weirdly holding it back. I genuinely love him in that film. Sure, the performance might be “too corny” and make you feel “weird,” but it’s precisely the kind of weird that opens the world up and imbues it with life and verve.

Maybe weird and jarring is exactly what we need. For, in a cinematic world full of carefully structured disaffection, the Wachowskis are still the most passionate, jarring and unworried filmmakers we have. And in that journey of self-discovery, it’s the odd mix of gee-golly sincerity of Speed Racer that is both exemplary of (and marks the transitional point of) their entire career.

Which only leaves me with one question: why, in a career full of identity questions, systematic oppression and selfhood, is their most exemplary film about the message of family perseverance and togetherness? In truth, I don’t know what their relationship is like with their larger nuclear family, nor does it matter. What we do know, and have always known, is who Lana and Lilly Wachowski are to each other: friends, collaborators, sisters. They are as loving a literal family as we have ever seen in cinema. And within their art, they’ve been telling us of their specific, powerful experience in the most universal and commercial of cinematic ways.

For well past 10 years now, they’ve telling us by shooting, chopping, rocking out, screaming, singing, dressing up, joking, lecturing, goofing, laughing and anything and everything in between. Many often roll their eyes at such naked, heartfelt audacity. “Too corny,” they say out of the side of their mouths. But such disdain is all part of the pains of being pure at heart.

And really, they are the joys.

< 3 HULK

[scripturehomosexuality]

Sex and Monogamy: A Biblical Perspective

Partially based on “Do The Scriptures Really Condemn Homosexuality? The Immediate Implications of our Basic Conclusion”, originally published on January 15th, 2016

Edited on 6/28/2018, with addition of five paragraphs under the subheading “Does Same-Sex Activity During Marriage Count As Adultery?”, and addition of ending link. 

For months, this blog has made many affirming statements on same-sex eroticism. It has said that same-sex attraction is a normal and natural trait most humans share. It has also said that “gay” culture represents only a certain conceptualization of same-sex activity, and that others exist.

Even so, many ethical questions surround same-sex activity, and the relationship it has with monogamy. Among them are these two,

If I’m already in an opposite-sex relationship, does same-sex activity count as adultery or cheating?

Is it okay to have more than one same-sex relationship at once?

This is especially so with Christians, who are obliged to follow the sexual laws set out in the Bible, at least as they understand them. At present, most believe that the Bible completely condemns same-sex activity, and allows sex only within opposite-sex marriage. This understanding (which is actually very young) has received massive backlash from “straight” and “gay” Christians. As a result, and along with other reasons, many might ask if monogamy is even practical.

To answer all those concerns at once, we will examine the Biblical stance on sex and monogamy. We will consider the standards set for same-sex activity and opposite-sex activity. We will also ask if same-sex activity and opposite-sex activity are really incompatible, and if same-sex relationships should be monogamous.

The Bible’s Standards for Opposite-Sex Activity

Inside the New Testament, there are no explicit laws governing opposite-sex activity. Instead, the bulk of those regulations exist in the Old Testament. Some argue that because of this situation, opposite-sex activity should persist freely among Christians. In saying that, they are forgetting an important fact about Christianity’s origins.

It’s important to remember that early Christianity was a liberal form of Judaism. The Old Testament was considered the Christian body of scripture, while the New Testament was contemporary commentary. While the rules of the Mosaic Law no longer applied, the principles that guided them still did, and would come to greater fulfillment in Christianity.

This is why Jesus said the following in Matthew 5:17,18: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets [references to the Old Testament including the Mosaic Law]; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” He did not mean that he would enforce the exact rules of the Old Testament. Instead, he was saying that its principles still applied, and would continue to exist in Christianity.

As such, as we look through the Old Testament, one principle becomes evident - that opposite-sex activity is only allowed within marriage.

Certain passages repeatedly and forcefully prohibit premarital opposite-sex activity. For example, Deuteronomy 22:20-21 orders the death penalty for a woman who loses her virginity before marriage. Meanwhile, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 says that if a man has sex with an engaged women, both should be executed. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 says that if the same actions occur in the countryside, particularly as rape, the man should be executed.

Deuteronomy 23:17 bars men and women from serving as cult prostitutes. Thus, because of this regulation and others mentioned, both incidental and regular premarital sex is condemned.

That’s not all however. Exodus 22:16,17 reads this way in the English Standard Version: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.”

In other words, if a man seduces a willing woman for sex, he must pay a bride price to marry her. If the father disagreed (for whatever reason), the man still had to pay the bride price in silver. He was also disqualified from marrying another woman. Deuteronomy 22:28,29 makes similar rules. To be specific, those verses say that if a man rapes an unengaged women, he must marry her without an option of divorce.

As a side note, a sizable number of commentators say that the last two scriptures mentioned exemplify the patriarchy of the Bible. They say that these regulations reward men for their behavior, and unfairly punish women for being victimized.

In saying so, they might be missing an important question: what if the marriage partners aren’t compatible? Indeed, the rape victim might hate her attacker with a justifiably extreme venom. In that case, such an arrangement would be abominable for the man. It would make him regret that one action for the rest of his life. As a result, these rules do not favor men at all. Instead, they act as a powerful deterrent to keep men from violating women.

While we’ve mainly talked about premarital sex, this does not mean extramarital opposite-sex activity gets a free pass. Adultery was barred in the original Ten Commandments, which bluntly said “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14, New King James Version). Deuteronomy gets even more specific. Deuteronomy 22:22 says, “If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.” Whether or not the man is also married is immaterial.

The word “porneia” (often translated as “sexual immorality”) functioned as a reference to these rules. Thus, its repeated use made clear that these rules would persist within Christianity.

The Bible’s Standards for Same-Sex Activity

At present, the current Christian understanding is that all same-sex activity is prohibited by the Bible. They are no exceptions to the rule in their mind. If any kind of same-sex activity is done, it is automatically grave sin that must be severely punished.

However, as this blog has pointed out, the context of the “clobber passages” shows something different. While it shows those passages are condemning certain actions, the prohibition isn’t as sweeping as the clergy wants it to be.

The only Old Testament passages on same-sex activity are in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. As this blog has pointed out, textual and historical context shows it wasn’t condemning all same-sex activity. Instead, it was only condemning male-male anal sex.

Romans 1:26, 27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 speak much more on same-sex activity. Yet, through important textual and historical context, we see that even these passages enforce a limited prohibition. Romans repeats the prohibition of male-male anal sex, and extends it to male-female anal sex. Meanwhile, 1 Corinthians uses two words inside it, “arsenokoites” and “malakoi”. The former comes from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13, while the latter usually referred to passive partners in male-male anal sex. As such, once again, 1 Corinthians referred only to the active and passive partners in anal sex, and nothing more.

Based on this information, the blog made this Basic Conclusion: that the “clobber passages” were only referring to anal sex, and nothing more.

Indeed, the Bible never tells men to avoid sexual contact with men, and likewise with women. In fact, it really doesn’t care if they do so. Instead, it only cares about how they do it.

Leviticus 18:22 makes that clear, as taken from the New World Translation: “You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act.” Note the phrase “in the same way”, which means the prohibited act between men somehow imitates interaction between men and women. Thus, these passages are only saying that the differences between genders (and their respective biologies) must be respected. When a man sexually interacts with either one, he must do so in ways that respect those differences. He cannot penetrate a man as he would a woman, because he’s not a woman, and does not have the biological ability to accept penetration.

Romans drives the point home, by condemning male-female anal sex with equal force. This particular scripture shows that the genders involved in a sex act are irrelevant. It is much more concerned with behavior. As such, it’s really against any practice of anal play by anyone, whether opposite-sex or same-sex.

Other than that, there’s no other direct rule governing same-sex activity. Instead of being prohibited, same-sex activity is a much freer form of sexual expression.

This leads to another question, as posed in the next subheading.

Does Same-Sex Activity During Marriage Count As Adultery?

By extension, this also applies to same-sex contact done while dating the opposite gender.

To answer that question, we will look at the story of David and Jonathan. This story is fully capable to answer this important question.

David was the son of Jesse, an Israelite shepherd. Jonathan was the son of King Saul of Israel. 1 Samuel 18 details the first time David and Jonathan met. They clicked with each other from the beginning. 1 Samuel 18:1 says, “the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” (ESV) The word translated “love” is used elsewhere to describe love between men and women. Thus, from the very beginning, we see that the two had a special bond.

The Bible doesn’t stop there. 1 Samuel 18:4 says further, “And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” (ESV) Remember that underwear didn’t exist back then. Thus, he stripped himself naked so David could have his clothing.

Let that sink in for a minute - that Jonathan willingly went nude for David’s benefit. At the very least, that suggests that David and Jonathan were deeply attracted to each other. 1 Samuel 18:2 shows that the two began cohabiting immediately after they met, which more fully illustrated their closeness.

From here, the Bible gets much more explicit about their relationship. Eventually, David falls in love with Michal, Saul’s daughter and Jonathan’s sister. Just as the two got married, Saul says the following to David: “Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time.” (1 Samuel 18:21, American Standard Version). Note that turn of phrase. This means that to Saul, David’s relationship with Jonathan made him a son-in-law already. This meant David and Jonathan's relationship was so close, it was comparable to David’s relationship with Michal.

1 Samuel 20:30 gets even more explicit. In context, Saul is become increasingly irritated with the closeness between David and Jonathan. To be clear, what they’re doing isn’t necessarily offensive, as much as who Jonathan is doing it with. Thus, Saul says the following: “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?” (ESV)

In the original Hebrew, the phrase “son of a perverse rebellious woman” is infused with sexual terminology. The language is also extremely coarse and almost obscene. When the language was so highly specific, there’s no reason Saul would use it lightly. He knew what he was talking about. This means Saul knew their relationship had an erotic component.

Here comes the kicker. In a short time, David and Jonathan both marry. However, they couldn’t enjoy each other’s company for much longer. Saul wanted to kill David, so David had to flee for safety. Much time passed before David and Jonathan met one last time. When they finally saw each other, their relationship lost no closeness, even though both had been married for a while.

1 Samuel 20:41 tells part of the story: “David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.” (New International Version). Note the closeness described, in which they kissed each other and wept together, apparently in each other’s arms. That’s not all though.

Pay attention to that last part, where “David wept the most”. In ancient Hebrew, the phrase translated “wept the most” (gadal) signifies a growth of something, literally of a penis. According to this meaning, David became sexually aroused during their embrace, and grew an erection. Jonathan probably had an erection too. There’s no compelling reason why, in an already aroused state, they wouldn’t drive each other to mutual orgasm.

In fact, there isn’t much reason to guess. The text makes that conclusion quite logical. The text uses the causative form of “gadal”, which is “higdil”. In other words, the evident erection is clearly the result of their embrace, which signals sexual arousal.

But there’s more. The American Standard Version gives a more faithful translation: “And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the South, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.” Here, by the accurate use of the word “until”, it becomes clear that there’s a definite climax or conclusion to their behavior.

Now the question is, was that climax sexual? The text doesn’t make that explicit. In fact, its literal translation reads very oddly. That’s why some scholars think the sentence as it exists today isn’t complete, and may have been amended sometime in the past. But other evidence implies that the passage was meant to be read sexually.

For example, its Septuagint translation uses the Greek word “huperballo” in the place of “gadal”. “Huperballo” means to “surpass in throwing”, “to throw over or beyond anything”, or to excel or exceed in something. That evokes a rather explicit picture of semen being forcefully ejaculated from a penis and going airborne. Evidently, its Jewish translators felt the Hebrew text had a sexual meaning.

Furthermore, in certain contexts, parallel words in Arabic (“kabirun” or “ahbara”) explicitly refer to erections and ejaculations. With other Biblical passages, Arabic is used to understand otherwise unclear passages of Hebrew. This further implies that the passage had a sexual meaning above anything else.

So given everything above, it’s highly unlikely that their encounter wasn’t sexual. There’s far more evidence that supports that conclusion, compared to what could refute it. As such, the verse might possibly mean that David ejaculated more forcefully than Jonathan did.

Now, this is the point of considering this account. Through the story of David and Jonathan, it becomes clear that the Bible does not consider same-sex activity during marriage as adultery. Their contact was blatantly sexual, yet the Bible says nothing that condemns it. In fact, it actually honors it, and holds it as an example of a beautiful friendship. It certainly didn’t count as adultery to Israelite societal norms. Otherwise, they would have pressured David and Jonathan to distance themselves after marriage, yet that didn’t happen.

Furthermore, think of this. To the scriptures, David became adulterous only when he had sex with a woman named Bathsheba. Yet, his last fling with Jonathan didn’t cause a blip.

As such, there are only two answers for this: either an inexplicable double standard existed, or David and Jonathan broke no laws.

If that seems confusing, remember that sex historically meant penetration. If same-sex activity didn’t involve penetration, it wasn’t “sex”. To be clear, it was indisputably sexual and erotic, but it was not “sex” per se. As such, this might be an additional reason why the relationship of David and Jonathan caused no conflict. While their contact was unabashedly sexual, they didn’t have “sex” as they would with their wives.

Plus, the Old Testament (the only body of scripture in existence back then) condemned just anal play, so anything else was fair game.

The Implications of Our Findings

All this reframes the relationship between the Bible and sex, including its relationship to monogamy. Most Christians believe the Bible enforces a strict code of morality, which many feel is oppressive.

That’s not so in reality. The Bible doesn’t blindly condemn all sex outside marriage as “immorality”. Instead, the Bible’s standard is much more nuanced. It enforces a moral code which understands that sexual urges must be satisfied sexually, whether one is married or not.

Our findings make us redefine scriptures that were previously confusing, like 1 Corinthians 7:6,7. In that scripture, the Apostle Paul (the writer) was addressing his fellow Christians on sexual mores. He said the following: “But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am [as a single man]; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (NKJV)

In context, Paul had just said that men should ideally not “touch” (have sex with) a woman. However, to avoid the risk of committing “sexual immorality”, he said to “let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.”

There’s more to consider. Remember that Paul made sweeping statements a few verses earlier. In 1 Corinthians 6, he supposedly condemned all same-sex activity, along with opposite-sex activity outside marriage. He further said plainly to his readers, “Flee sexual immorality.” (1 Corinthians 6:18, NKJV).

As such, according to the mainstream Christian interpretation, all unmarried sex counts as “immorality”. Thus, all unmarried 1st Century Christians were expected to completely avoid all sex until marriage.

In other words, they were expected to uphold standards that most modern people can’t. Apparently, they suppressed their sexual urges to a degree that most modern young people find impossible. Yet, there are no records of widespread premarital sex, as is common today. How did those 1st Century Christians do it? How could they easily do what we can’t? How could they comfortably avoid all sex, even when their urges were intense?

Our discussion opens new possibilities. Remember that, as we just stated, Leviticus only condemned anal sex between men. That’s the only meaning that jived with textual and historical context, so that must have been how early Christians understood it. After all, that’s the way contemporary Jews understood it, and early Christianity was just a liberal form of Judaism.

Also remember that at the time, only the Old Testament was upheld as Scripture. The New Testament was correspondence from contemporaries, which was intended to reinforce the messages in the Old Testament. There had to be agreement between the two.

Along with that, also remember that sex was traditionally defined by penetration. Since most same-sex activity doesn’t involve penetration, those acts wouldn’t have counted as sex anyway.

This gives us a new view of 1 Corinthians 7:6,7. When Paul said he preferred that people remain unmarried, he didn’t mean that they should completely avoid any sexual activity. Opposite-sex activity outside marriage was definitely condemned. However, given what we just discussed, there was another mode of sexual expression that was wide open.

As such, unmarried Christians were expected to enjoy pleasure with their same-sex peers. Since most humans can swing both ways, they were perfectly capable of it. Thus, they would have had an easy time waiting for marriage, because that didn’t equate to sexual deprivation. Sex within marriage would have been a fringe benefit, rather than something needed to survive.

In other words, Alexander had no problem waiting to marry Melissa, Lucia, or whichever girl attracted him. His friend Lycus, who he regularly swam naked with, would have no qualms about making him feel good.

Thus, this scripture was addressing a very specific audience. It was talking to people whose desire for the opposite sex was more ferocious than usual. Thus Paul recommended that they should marry, to enjoy that desire in a Biblically proper way.

There are other implications of our findings to consider.

Instead of being condemned, same-sex activity is a Biblically freer form of sexual expression. The only prohibition exists on anal sex. Other than that, there are no other same-sex actions that are specifically named. That stands in contrast to the many rules governing opposite-sex actions.

The Bible recognizes the bisexuality of most humans. It realizes that male-female marriage cannot satisfy every need for intimacy. It knows that men will always have desires for other men, and women for women, whether they are married or not. As such, the Bible gives a path to same-sex activity that will always be open to them.

Same-sex activity has a clearly defined role in the divine plan. As we analyzed the Bible further, a theme started to reverberate - that opposite-sex activity and same-sex activity play different functions. Biblical rules on sex show that opposite-sex activity is intended to happen only within marriage. Meanwhile, the Bible clearly prefers sex outside marriage to happen between same-sex peers.

Among unmarried people, chances of unwanted pregnancy are reduced. In the 1980s, the AIDS epidemic attached an enormous stigma on all same-sex activity. At that time, something noteworthy happened in American human sexuality. Because of this stigma, the rates of premarital opposite sex contact went up significantly during the 1980s, while at the same time frequency of same-sex contact was rapidly decreasing.

Remember that most humans are bisexual, and that sex is a basic human need like eating and drinking. If we combine all these factors, we reach two conclusions:

In past decades and centuries, frequency of same-sex contact kept down rates of opposite sex contact.

True to their bisexuality, most people went to the opposite gender when same-sex contact became unacceptable

Thus, we can understand why most people seemed to obey the previous taboo on premarital opposite-sex contact. Simply put, they didn’t engage in it because they didn’t need to. They were already getting plenty of sexual pleasure from their same-sex peers. While opposite-sex contact might still be desired, it would be a bonus pleasure, and not something needed to survive.

As a result, same-sex contact also functioned as effective birth control. Unwanted pregnancy was less of a possibility, because unmarried men and women didn’t need to pursue each other for sexual fulfillment. After all, the best way to prevent pregnancy is avoiding behavior that causes it. That’s more effective than any condom you can find.

The Bible never intended marriage to be completely monogamous. It would definitely be monogamous when it came to opposite-sex contact. Rules on same-sex activity are much looser. David and Jonathan showed that clearly. Thus, while marriage partners would have exclusive opposite-sex contact with each other, they would be free to also enjoy intimacy with their same-sex friends.

In its own way, the Bible acknowledges that abstinence will never work. There is no passage in the Bible that advocates total avoidance of sexual contact. This is a tacit acknowledgement that, for most humans, this is impossible to do. This sheds new light on the attitudes of mainstream Christianity, who punitively enforce total abstinence before marriage. There is nothing loving or Biblical about such a stance. It’s simply oppressive.

This body of Biblical sex rules minimizes STD risk. Most STDs need contact with the bloodstream to be transmitted. As such, penetration can be a efficient way to spread disease. By limiting penetration to opposite-sex marriage, and banning penetration in same-sex contact, the Bible greatly reduces the chances for STD transmission.

We’re not done though. We’ve definitely shown that same-sex activity concurrent with opposite-sex contact doesn’t count as adultery. However, there’s another question to be asked, as stated in the next subheading.

Should Same-Sex Relationships Be Monogamous?

The Bible makes no statement on this question. For guidance, we will look at two contemporary movements: the g0y movement and the Man2Man Alliance (both links NSFW).

The two movements differ on their answers, at least superficially. The Man2Man Alliance appears to be the stricter one, saying that men should have only one male partner at a time (link NSFW). Meanwhile, the g0y movement has no problem with men having more than one sex partner.

When these two movements otherwise agree on most things, this seems to be a glaring difference. Further inspection shows otherwise. Instead, their origins deeply affect their positions, which don’t necessarily conflict with each other.

The Man2Man Alliance emerged as a critic from within the “gay” community. At the outset, many of its members were “gay” identified, though more “straight” members joined in later years. As such, its membership was familiar with the rampant promiscuity of the “gay” community, where a “gay” man might have several “one night stands” within a few hours. Thus, their stance on monogamy was meant to break that practice, as an extreme reaction to an extreme habit.

Meanwhile, the g0y movement developed outside of the “gay” community. As such, the men within it had much more stable relationships with other men. Through the “g0y” movement, they simply took friendships to the next level of intimacy. Because wanton promiscuity was never a problem in their same-sex interactions, the g0y movement took a more loose stance.

Thus, the two movements aren’t at odds with each other. They’re merely reacting to conditions they are facing.

So, what is this blog’s answer to this question? Does this blog believe that same-sex relationships should be monogamous?

Given all of the above, this blog’s answer is: It’s completely up to you. If you want to bond with only one person, nobody can judge you. If you want to bond with more than one person, nobody can say anything against you. That’s up to your personal judgement, and what you think is best for you.

For the record, I personally lead more towards the stance of the “g0ys”, but I won’t hold anyone else to that.

Just do one thing: don’t treat sex like a cheap and quick business transaction. Don’t treat your sex partners as objects to be used. Treat them as people with desires and wants like you. Treat them as you would like to be treated. Don’t have sex just for the sake of sex, but in the context of knowing a person better.

That’s what unites the stances of the g0y movement and the Man2Man Alliance: they both want sex to count for something. While the methods differ, the aim is the same. They both wish to end the “gay” culture of rampant “one night stands”, and help create same-sex bonds that have stability. As long as you treat individuals as the gifts that they are, and treat their sexuality as something to cherish, you will be fulfilling that aim. Sex will also become much more enjoyable, because it will be an investment rather than a throwaway pleasure.

Now, before concluding, there’s a special note I must make about an emerging theology.

A Special Note on a New Doctrine About Sex

As “gay” marriage becomes more commonplace, a new sexual doctrine has emerged within Christianity. It supposedly reconciles Christianity, same-sex activity, and “gay” marriage in a reasonable way. However, it is really a hidden danger that, if widely adopted, will be extremely damaging.

In simple detail, the doctrine removes the idea that all same-sex activity is condemned. In this new interpretation, same-sex activity is indeed allowed - but only within “gay” marriage. Any same-sex activity outside is considered sinful, just as sinful as opposite-sex activity outside marriage. However, whether a person marries a man or woman, they will be able to have sex with whoever they wish.

At first glance, this appears to be a loving doctrine, and a worthy replacement for the blanket condemnation of same-sex activity. However, it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, for the three following reasons.

It promotes the falsehood that all sex outside marriage is wrong. We’ve just demonstrated that the Bible has never prohibited all extramarital sex. It merely desires it to happen between members of the same-sex, while excluding anal play.

It makes no mention about the morality of anal play. It thus reinforces the notion that same-sex activity is best expressed through anal play. It also gives “carte blanche” to the “gay” leadership who incessantly promote anal sex. It gives permission for rampant anal sex to take place, which would be disastrous for everyone.

It institutes a class structure into sex.  Under present conditions, at least there’s some recognition that sexual needs must be satisfied sexually. With this interpretation, that idea disappears. Sex will become a privileged pleasure, for which a license must be acquired before it can be explored. Sex would be enjoyed only by those who are readily able to marry. The unmarried will be cruelly forced to ignore or suppress all urges for sex, and would be expected to wait until circumstances line up for them.

Under this doctrine, a marriage licence would effectively become a licence to have sex, any sex. People might marry simply to relieve their sexual urges, whether or not they are compatible with their marriage partner. This would gravely endanger the institution of marriage, and might induce its self destruction.

Really, the only beneficiary is neoliberalism, which wants to put classism in every human interaction. It is also a philosophy that the “gay” leadership seems enamored with.

In other words, this understanding is just as dangerous as the present one. In fact, it might even do more harm. Don’t be fooled. Wherever you see this interpretation, know that it is one that must be resisted.

Conclusion

This blog has made many statements affirming the naturalness of same-sex activity. It has constantly said that same-sex desire is natural, normal and widespread. It has also shown other ways to conceptualize same-sex eroticism, and its role in the human experience.

However, it left unanswered how same-sex activity connects with monogamy, especially according to the Bible. It didn’t address if

if marriage should exclude same-sex activity done by its partners

if same-sex relationships should be monogamous

We have shown that the Bible allows same-sex activity inside and outside of marriage. We demonstrated how same-sex activity has a definite role in the divine plan, as the desired mode for extramarital sex. We also showed how monogamy in same-sex relationships is a personal choice, and that the treatment of sex and sex partners is much more important.

Overall, we reframed how the Bible relates to sex. We have shown that, instead of punitively enforcing a rigid standard, it creates a moral code that is reasonable and perceptive.

As a side note, this also shows why David’s relationship with Jonathan is an uncomfortable topic for Christianity. Mainstream analysis of the story is usually strained and terse, and you’ve just seen why. If David and Jonathan's story was analyzed on its own terms, much of its lessons would deeply contrast with modern norms, both within Christianity and the larger world. That’s something the clergy doesn’t want.

At least you know better. That’s what can make all the difference, as long as you learn more.

Thus, please read further on this site, to explore another way to think about same-sex activity. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others.

The current conceptualization of sexuality depends on your inaction and ignorance. Any move done against it makes it harder to survive. Show it no mercy.

~~~~

For a detailed discussion on David and Jonathan, please see “Jonathan and David: A Love Story” by Bruce L. Gerig.

[allaboutmeessay124]

college paper

About me

Don’T Lie In Your College Admission Essay

Don’T Lie In Your College Admission Essay When making an inventory of sources, write a short observe subsequent to each of them saying what precisely you’d like to make use of it for. For instance, a paragraph about immigration laws, a quotation on the theories on the origin of life, and so on. Another essential thing is to decide on an fascinating matter so that you don’t become bored with your analysis work and fail to carry it out. Moreover, you possibly can easily benefit value-free options together with title web page writing, checking of the textual content, and formatting. If you're still unsatisfied with the service you get after all the revisions, our quality assurance department will look at your case to provide you with a refund. If the self-discipline you select in the order type is marked as a “complicated” one, the price of your paper shall be 20% more than the original one. This occurs because we've fewer specialists on tough topics compared to the widespread ones and their work costs extra. Is it legit to pay for someone to wash your home? Make positive your text is properly structured and simple-to-perceive. Don’t overlook to make paragraphs, headlines, and subheadings. Keep the text coherent everytime you restructure your paper or add some extra info. Apart from a free reference tool with thousands of journals you possibly can cite, there are some further add-ons you might discover useful as properly. Among them is a feature allowing you to highlight, annotate and put sticky notes to .pdf materials you’d like to say in your paper. Whether citing a single author or a collaborative paper accomplished by quite a few researchers, every of their names needs to be talked about. Provided by Purdue University, this expansive web site houses a bunch of writing sources alongside a wide range of analysis, writing, and quotation tools for each of the main style guides. Best of all, every thing on this website is free. Published annually with updates, this digital and printed useful resource is the AP fashion bible and supplies info on any subject lined beneath AP style guidelines. Creating an in depth define for your paper is half the battle, and particularly in case your teacher has taken a have a look at it and suggested numerous useful corrections. The define serves as a map so that you can reach your ultimate point of destination, however there are many other routes you'll be able to take to get there. Additionally, you possibly can add subheadings to make the paper outline much more exact. At The Palm Beach Post in Florida, Breaking News Editor John Bisognano mentioned names are frequently revealed within the Booking Blotter. On the paper’s web site, mug pictures are also printed. Bisognano said a criminal offense story or blotter merchandise with no name might be viewed as too common and, therefore, not as reliable or plausible. “Not printing names seems like self-censorship,” stated Lisa McGinley, assistant managing editor at The Day in New London, Conn. The Day’s editors use a longtime listing of crimes the paper considers severe as a information in deciding which arrestees’ names might be published. The phrases-into-pages converter will present how many words you should write to fill one web page with a certain line spacing, font, and font size. Our bibliography generator will allow you to full the cited works part in accordance with the formatting guidelines your academic institution makes use of. Along with the most well-liked formatting types, with this service, you possibly can compose your bibliography in additional than a hundred kinds from all around the world. Our plagiarism-detection software will examine 5 pages a day free of charge for you. This service compares the texts you submit with open Internet sources. There’s better was to spend your HARD earned money. That’s what it comes right down to… is how lazy folks really are. If I may do it, I’m doing it on MY OWN & money CAN’T purchase THAT. Feel free to achieve our pleasant buyer help team any time of the day and night time. Editors have for decades weighed and measured their duty to report the truth towards the need to minimize hurt to individuals. On American University’s School of Communications J-Lab web site, editors’ comments concerning the ethical parameters of police reporting run the gamut. Is it legit to pay for somebody to clean your car? Is it legit to pay for someone to observe your children… You wager. The difference is that I… would never pay for a service that I can personally do myself. Choose copies of sources to get a deeper understanding of the topic of your research paper. These sources will transform your paper into a handbook, and our company right into a tutoring company. They are also helpful if you need to focus on the task together with your trainer. There is a refund if we had been late with your paper, or in case your paper didn’t correspond to your initial requirements. Read our cash-back assure to seek out out more in regards to the terms and circumstances of a refund.

[chantelletaylormedia-blog]

Daily Blog for FMP

13/04/19

On Saturday the 13th April 2019 I started my idea generation by creating a mind map and writing down a synopsis of each of the twenty ideas before narrowing them down to one good idea, after I narrowed them down to a few feasible options I asked for opinions to ensure they think my idea is good enough. After a look at all the options I settled for a documentary on serial killers and the effects they have plus how come they get remembered when the victims often get forgotten, this will be informative and I have had inspiration from other documentaries that are on a similar topic although I intend to make it a bit more unique than the others as they often look the same.

15/04/19

On Monday the 15th April 2019 I completed a proposal form for my idea to sell it to the producers, although in my case this was to sell it to the tutors, who seemed happy with my idea and as I was doing this it gave me a bigger opportunity to expand my idea in order to make it even better. As I was writing up my proposal more ideas came to mind and this made me look forwards to the end product because this gave me the opportunity to look into this topic, and try and change the way these situations are seen and how they are portrayed.

16/04/19

On Tuesday the 16th April 2019 I started my primary research by watching a few documentaries and I jotted notes down on paper as I watched them before typing them up, these allowed me to be inspired by these documentaries especially as I chose ones on the most infamous serial killers of all time, like Joanna Dennehy or Peter Tobin because Dennehy is a woman and some of Tobin’s victims were missing years before their circumstances came to light. After I wrote the notes down I then proceeded to typing them up before I forget what the rough jottings meant.

18/04/19

On Thursday the 18th April 2019 I continued typing up my notes from Tuesday as this allowed me to see what will inspire my documentary, like the shot of the victims with the low opacity as I intend to do this in my documentary as I believe it has a deeper meaning and I plan to demonstrate it. I wrote multiple textual analyses although due to the notes I wrote whilst watching the programs it allowed me to save time, so I could do other constructive work on this project.  

22/04/19

On Monday the 22nd April 2019 I created three questionnaires and uploaded them on social media plus I asked other students if they could fill it in too because the more data, I got the better as this allowed me to obtain quantitative data. The data that I have collected will help me make improvements on my product because I want to make mine unique, or at least more unique than what is already out there. These questionnaires have confirmed what they like to see in documentaries and what they know on my chosen topic, including the suspects and their victims. I have been able to determine that killers are remembered more, and the media doesn’t often help the situation, and any other data I have gained will be used accordingly.  

23/04/19

On Tuesday the 23rd April 2019 I sent emails to potential interviewees because I concluded they would be very busy so the earlier I made contact the more convenient it maybe, I have emailed three lecturers at Portsmouth University who specialise in criminology, victimology and the media. I figured that this would make the subject matter better and more professional, I have also made contact with someone who has just left the police force, he worked in CID and the Major Investigation Unit, he worked with the police for nearly 17 years four of which was with the Major Investigation Unit and he has agreed to assist me with the product. I have gained inspiration from the professionals because they clearly know what they are talking about and will make my work even better than I could have hoped.  

25/04/19

On Thursday the 25th April 2019 I did a focus group with a group of friends from college who agreed to assist me with the condition that I helped them too, this focus group allowed me to gain other peoples perspectives on serial killers as everyone sees them differently based on what the media says about them, one thing that is for sure is that no one sees them as the innocent party, because they are the ones who hurt people who haven’t done anything wrong.  

26/04/19

On Friday the 26th April 2019 I collected all the quantitative data from my questionnaires, I had created them a while ago and waited till I got enough conclusive data before adding them to my research folder, the data I had obtained was useful because it informed me what people like to see in documentaries. The data I obtained was also useful because it confirmed my theory that killers are often remembered more than the victims; it is no longer a theory as I have data to back up my claims. I plan to make my documentary a bit more unique by talking about the victims just as much as the perpetrators because why should they get what they want for killing innocent people? It seems unfair to me!  

29/04/19

On Monday the 29th April 2019 I worked on creating my field experiments, although I didn’t have time to edit them, I created several them. From these field experiments I have learned different lighting techniques that will help me including silhouette, low key and three-point lighting, I will use these in my final major project. I also did some other shots outside which had natural lighting because I intend to use reconstructions all these lighting techniques will come in use. I created some other footage so I can practice editing techniques which I still need to do, I have gained the footage all I did to do is work on the green screen, reverse some footage and make some slow motion all of this has influenced my project because they will give me insight into how they look.

30/04/19

On Tuesday the 30th April 2019 I started my secondary research by looking at books, I looked at two different types of books some looked into serial killers and others looked specifically how to make documentaries and this helped me make my product even better. In the books that focus on serial killers I went straight to the pages that look into ones that were committed in Britain, and I photocopied all them pages before deciding which ones are most important so this allowed me to choose which killers are better to use as it gives me some insight into their crimes. I also looked at websites and magazines as there are newly released magazines out on crimes and the people that commit them so this gave my some much needed information on them.

02/05/19

On Thursday the 2nd May 2019 I wrote up all known serial killers off Wikipedia although I checked the name with an independent source before adding it to a table of information on them, I also put the names into two surveys asking if they are known or not, these date right back the 1800s. I added a couple of questions at the end to gain more data and I asked simple questions at the beginning like name, age and gender this will allow me to establish the target audience based on their knowledge on this topic. This will give me a mixture of quantitative and qualitive data as it will be more informative on the questionnaires, but not in the interviews. However, this will be useful data for my chosen topic so I can see who are the most well-known killers.

03/05/19

On Friday the 3rd May 2019 I scanned in my secondary research and asked my friends to participate in a survey which they did, and I scanned that too. I have obtained plenty of book research; some on my chosen topic and some on documentaries plus theories. This will be useful for my product and the planning of the product as I can annotate them to find out more, I also can use this to ensure the documentary is of professional standards, all of this data I have obtained will help me determine what other information I need to look for, I intend to see if I can find out how many serial killers have been in Britain compared to other countries so I can see how dangerous Britain really is. After doing this I then did spell check to ensure that I have used the correct spellings and grammar, this is an important part of the process because spell check will allow anyone that needs to can read it, and that is crucial.  

06/05/19

On Monday the 6th May 2019 I added some final touches to my research folder to ensure that it is good enough with clear instructions, this allowed me to make it better than it already was I ensured that I was satisfied with my work before going onto the next stage of my FMP (Final Major Project). The last thing I did was proof read my work to check that it is ready for submittal.

09/05/19

On Thursday the 9th May 2019 I wrote up my treatment and proposal by filling in a form to ensure that I know exactly what I plan to do and how I plan to reach my aims, this will help me reach my desired effect on this documentary, as I made it perfectly clear that my intentions were to talk about the media and victims just as much as I plan to talk about the perpetrators, due to the fact that people tend to forget all about the innocent people.

13/05/19

On Monday the 13th May 2019 I started my pre-production folder which started with a moodboard as this gives me the opportunity to visually show people what I intend to use, I did this just by finding pictures from Google and all I had to do was type in the murder related subject then find the right picture. After I created my moodboard I then went on to start typing up my treatment so I could ensure that I make the appropriate considerations like the legal and ethical issues that may occur, there are also other things that will need to be considered for example I will need to think of a contingency plan and this has giving me the opportunity to achieve this.

14/05/19

On Tuesday the 14th May 2019 I emailed the equipment guy at college to ensure that I have booked out the equipment that I need epically as I intended to get the best equipment possible, and then I started writing my script although this was a complicated process because I intended to create a chronological script although this didn’t go to plan so sometimes I had to go full circle.

16/05/19

On Thursday the 16th May 2019 I continued writing my first draft of the script which didn’t work too badly because it allowed me to use such a variety of killers, and their victims and the hardest part was finding a slot to mention the impact that the media has on these crimes. However, I managed to find a space to ensure that the media get a fair hearing as there are mixed emotions on them, as to whether they make things better or worse and this is the first draft completed.

17/05/19

On Friday the 17th May 2019 I worked on my second draft to make my script even better then imaginable I changed certain parts of my script to ensure that it gets straight to the point, I changed certain words to check that it explains things plainly and this is an important part of my script, after I changed my script to the second draft I started a third draft which allowed me to read through it and do a edit of it, and this allowed me to become a script doctor as I could change it to the appropriate contents. The last thing I had to do for my script was to create a final draft to ensure that I couldn’t improve it anymore if I tried, after I changed my final draft I checked the spelling and grammar to check that my work makes perfect sense and can roll of the top of the tongue.  

20/05/19

On Monday the 20th May 2019 I created my shot list and during doing this I tried my best to follow the script so that the paperwork matches up and makes sense, I tried to use a variety of shots in the shot list because that is an important thing with any filming product. However, this was difficult because when presenting it can be hard to use different shot, but I have still managed to do it.

21/05/19

On Tuesday the 21st May 2019 I created a photographic storyboard to give visualization on the action that is due to take place onscreen, this is important because it will help me to ensure that the filmed shots will look just as I wish and this seems to go well although it took ages because there was so many shots that needed to be covered.

23/05/19

On Thursday the 23rd May 2019 I check my preproduction was to my satisfaction and made some final adjustments to the work which I hope will ensure I get a better grade, I think it went well and my work is as good as I could have made it in the short space of time that I had to complete it.

27/05/19

On Monday the 27th May 2019 I started planning the filming by working out what order I should film things, I decided to start with my presenting scenes as they will take the longest as it is a lot to remember and most of the documentary will consist of me talking to the camera so I choose to start there, quickly followed by the reconstructions with interviews taking place when the interviewees were free.

28/05/19

On Tuesday the 28th May 2019 I started filming the presenting scenes, I decided to film the ones that were to be set in the same location. However, I did have to do a last minute change in location because I discovered that there was building work going on nearby and some kind a sale thing going on at the church the other side so I had to film in my shed to give me the right atmosphere, because of the last minute change I didn’t get to film as much as I would have hoped.

29/05/19

On Wednesday the 29th May 2019 I continued to film my presenting scenes and surprisingly I finished filming them ones within two day, day two went well although the only ones I couldn’t film yet were the presenting scenes that were in a different location so that would have meant travelling and by the time I finished it was too late to film on location so that will have to wait another day.

30/05/19

On Thursday the 30th May 2019 I did the final presenting scenes that were to be filmed on location which didn’t go according to plan because a couple of problems arose although I had to deal with them, both location scenes had background noise so it took a bit longer than planned.

31/05/19

On Friday the 31st May 2019 I filmed one of my reconstruction scenes, I choose to film the one of Joanna Dennehy as both the actors were available for the filming, during filming I had an issue with the white-balance because I booked out a new camera that I had never used so although I kept the location in the same place I changed the angle so that I was under a tree because of the shad and I also decided that I can change the rest in post-production.

03/06/19

On Monday the 3rd June 2019 I had arranged an interview with Craig Collie a criminologist from Portsmouth university who specialises in victims and missing persons the interview took place at Fareham College, it took over an hour because the answers he gave were extended. However, I know I won’t be including all the interview because if I did the documentary would be way too long.

04/06/19

On Tuesday the 4th June 2019 I filmed my final reconstruction scene which was the scene that included Jack the Ripper, I had to film this against the greenscreen so it looked like it was in London without actually going there this took time because I needed to get the lighting right, although it didn’t go quite as I planned because there was a slight shadow in the scene but I didn’t realise until it was too late, because I up uploading the footage.

05/06/19

On Wednesday the 5th June 2019 I conducted the last section of this part of the project which was a telephone interview with Lisa Sugiura which also took just over an hour, the end of the interview was a bit pushed because I was running out of time as I was due in college soon, and didn’t want to be late.

06/06/19

On Thursday the 6th June 2019 I started my edit by importing all the footage that I had obtained and it came to about six hours of footage that needed to be edited, the first thing I did was delete all the shots that got repeated because the filming went wrong, then I started cutting down the footage that I was going to use so that anything that was unnecessary got removed.

07/06/19

On Friday the 7th June 2019 I continued to cut down the footage which was quite a slow process, but I managed to get it done before the end of the day, then I did a quick colour correction by changing one then copying and pasting it over to each clip, and this saved time and made it consistent.

10/06/19

On Monday the 10th June 2019 I adjusted the volume on the audio so that it didn’t peak into the red on the bar then I watched it all the way through and cut it down a little bit more to make the improvements I wish to add then I finally add a few transitions, to make it look better.

11/06/19

On Tuesday the 11th June 2019 I did I final check before rendering it ready to be exported, the final check looked okay so after I rendered it I started the export process, but I had to export again as it didn’t work the first time for some unknown reason and it took ages to export although I did make it finally I uploaded it to YouTube.

13/06/19

On Thursday the 13th June 2019 I started creating my presentation so I can present my final major project and the process that I took in order to make it, it didn’t take too long as I already knew how I made it so all I had to do was put it into words then there was the showcase that my work was getting screened in so I could give constructive criticism in person well at least find out what they thought of my work because I stayed around whilst people watched my work.

 14/06/19

On Friday the 14th June 2019 I finished my presentation then I added some transitions to it then I put in some gifs so that my presentation entertains the audience that I am delivering it to, then I read through it to ensure it made perfect sense.

17/06/19

On Monday the 17th June 2019 I was set to give my presentation in front of a select few and I was the first to give it then I had to sit and watch the others, after the presentations I created a final questionnaire so I can start the evaluation process then I added it to my social media sites and screened it to my college friends before asking them to participate in the questionnaire so I can write my evaluation.

18/06/19

On Tuesday the 18th June 2019 I started my project evaluation although I knew I’d save adding the feedback in last so that I can get conclusive results by ensuring I get enough responses from different people, I only wrote a couple of paragraphs because it is hard to write an evaluation without the other peoples views on my project.

20/06/19

On Thursday the 20th June 2019 I gained enough feedback within twenty-four hours because of the platforms that I put the questionnaires on, then I continued to write up my evaluation and I did this slowly to ensure that I don’t forget to add anything that is needed.

21/06/19

On Friday the 21st June 2019 I finished my evaluation and checked that I had uploaded all the work that needed to be uploaded to be sure that everything is uploaded, as I need to pass.