#Its basically an essay

[ovegakart]

Im realizing with Link in the wrong place now, not much is stopping Ganondorf from getting the spiritual stones. The Deku Tree puts up a fight but he is, after all, a tree, and cant actually stop Ganondorf from taking the stone. And with the gorons and the zora working with him, it just takes some talking around to convince them that he needs it to get back at the hylians. BUT he would need the ocarina of time and i think the song of time is still a secret? So thats fine, nevermind. He still has the stones tho.

As for Ganondorfs deal with Demise, im still working out how it works exactly, but it would definitely work towards Demises side, dude wants to be unsealed. Crazy that Demise, the master sword, and the TRIFORCE is locked behind the same DOOR. A door with so many keys.

ANYWAYS the deal: Its was Twinrova's idea, really. Ganondorf's probably less in charge of things than he thinks he is, his mothers are 400 years old and definitely fed every idea into Ganondorf's big stupid head that he thought was his own. Suggest an idea that if he makes a deal with a powerful demon for more power and of course he would be all over that. He was young and stupid and shortsighted. He was 18 when he took on the deal. Power in exchange for the promise of freeing Demise from his imprisonment behind the door of time.

It takes him an embarrassingly long time to realize some of the hate he feels is foreign, not his own. Sometime the hate he feels is so overwhelming that its nauseating, pushing it away causes migraines. This only gets worse as he gets older.

Castle town is brought down. The ocarina of time, the final key, is missing. Hylian king is killed and the princess is missing. Ganondorf cannot complete his deal with Demise. He doesnt even remember snapping his Gerudo sister's neck in the blackout rage that overtook him but he knows that he did. He hates himself now on top of everything else. He doesnt argue when Nabooru tells him to leave (polite way of saying she cussed him out and screeched until he ran away). Twinrova arent happy he left.

[iridescentmirrorsgenshin]

the fulfilled motifs in alhaitham and kaveh's relationship are on my brain!!

- most poignantly, the two coming together to unveil the temple of silence in cyno’s story quest, which parallels their thesis on ancient architecture and runes of king deshret’s era, as the two appropriate the other’s respective signature (alhaitham recognises architectural structures whereas kaveh is struck by the beauty of an emblem) - where the two once fell out due to the disharmony of their viewpoints, they have reconciled them within this quest

- there’s the two working together in the house of daena, where they argued in the house of daena upon meeting them in the archon quest, where they were described to have a ‘terrible’ relationship by the npc geoff, which is mirrored in cyno’s story quest by the two actively working together - as well as paralleling the npc archon quest scene the player has to actively seek out in which the two argue once more, whereas in cyno’s story quest, the two willingly exchange information and are supportive in helping the other

- we have the fulfilment of kaveh losing his family and therefore his idea of ‘home’ through him actively referring to the house he and alhaitham share as ‘home’, and that he wants to return to it together with alhaitham, as a set, and by implication a family, in cyno’s story quest

- by extension, kaveh not concealing his living arrangements by openly referring to him and alhaitham’s ‘home’ in front of his friends, which refers back to when kaveh asks the traveller to keep it a secret upon meeting him officially in alhaitham’s story quest

- kaveh buying wine and coffee beans in the tavern, alhaitham and kaveh sharing wine in their house, which is something they are mentioned to do in the bulletin boards of sumeru as well as in alhaitham's story quest, going hand in hand with the two drinking coffee together in the house of daena, with kaveh mentioning he wishes he had made some for them before leaving the house, which refers back to his 2023 birthday letter where he and alhaitham taste tested coffee beans (i am, once again asking, for an alhaitham mention in 2024....),

for future sumeru quests or events i am thinking of the unfulfilled instances or things that can be addressed??

- whether kaveh accepts alhaitham's research into sachin's influence over his father as closure for his involvement in his father disappearing into the desert, as his reaction differs from whether alhaitham tells him vs when the traveller tells him. since cyno's story quest 2 indicates that alhaitham telling him is what happened in canon, this subsequently betters their relationship. the idea of kaveh's cycle of self-detriment due to his past guilt hasn't been addressed since apop and it remains uncertain as to if kaveh has made steps to forgive himself or if he even wants to. this development of kaveh's character is truly interesting and i would love to see it explored at some point, and also in turn what alhaitham's involvement is in this, as in his newly accepted support of kaveh

- kaveh writing to/visiting his mother in fontaine? or at least a mention of kaveh's mother, as his hangout has a heavy focus on faranak's past relationship with kaveh and her hopes for his future, which we see in her advice to him as a struggling artist being that to found reliable companions. if kaveh undergoes a reconciliation arc within himself, as in he aims to forgive himself for his past guilt, then it would make sense for him to have a reconnection with his mother to talk about the past in order to truly look to the future

- kaveh and alhaitham having a role to play in the exploration of the temple of silence in future events - hints of this may be seen in sethos cautioning cyno that he may only invite people he and lord kusanali deem worthy, for cyno to then tell alhaitham and kaveh upon arriving back in sumeru. To this, kaveh expresses an open interest and cyno tells him that he will have an opportunity to investigate in the future. As alhaitham and kaveh have teamed up together in order to investigate into the temple of silence, and are indirectly connected to it through their thesis of king deshret, it seems they will likely be a part of the role the temple of silence will play in the future

(- i thought that an unfulfilled instance could be kaveh referring to alhaitham as his friend in game as this would be a callback to when paimon asked whether he and alhaitham were friends, to which he replied that they ‘used to be’ but weren’t anymore… but in terms of how alhaitham and kaveh's relationship is handled in-game, i think queercoding plays a big part in having labels such as ‘friends’ continue to be evaded (i have spoken about definitive labels being avoided in the writing of haikaveh here), this is backed up by sethos’ voice line as the two are paired together as “alhaitham and kaveh” and are referenced as a set with “those two”, rather than a definitive label such as ‘roommates’ or ‘friends’ being placed on them. Rather, they are conceived to be something outside of this, as sethos conveys their ‘otherness’ with “something about those two hanging out, you just can’t look away”, so i think, imo, it would fall more in line for them to continually not be assigned definitive relationship status, but if the improvement of their relationship is actually mentioned in-game since it was only shown and not told in cyno's story quest 2, it would make sense for them to say something that indicates they overcame misunderstandings or something vague like that. as there's an air of secrecy around alhaitham and kaveh's relationship, the traveller won't ever be privy to the specific details)

[extravalgant]

speaking more from my last post about shadow magic and its just. so interesting tbh. like the first mention of shadow magic comes from khrysalis when we enter the eclipse tower and it gives us interesting looks into how shadow magic as a whole is regarded in the spiral...

its so insane to hear that its a forbidden magic and that grandmother raven and BARTLEBY of all people forbade it to be taught. raven i could probably understand, but considering we are now bartlebys scion... it's hard to think about the possibility that he didn't trust us before. an outsider from the spiral learning a forbidden magic...

i think what's also interesting is the fact that the shadow magic the wizard learns is a wholly unique one. shadow magic corrupted the moon magic inside the tower, so there's a possiblity that our wizard only knows this specific subset of shadow magic—one that's been permanently altered by moon magic in the eclipse tower, and one that can only be taught by sofia darkside.

it makes me wonder if velma knows the same kind, or if hers and the wizard's shadow magic is different... is one more volatile than the other? or if there's no difference at all and im looking into it too much lolol

knowing this and knowing raven forbade anyone in the spiral from ever learning shadow magic, it would make a little bit of sense for how hostile she initially seems towards the wizard... if we take what we saw from the book of secrets, then we know that magic law states that nothing is an accident—magic is reactive and 'sentient' to a certain degree, so there was no mistake in the wizard freeing grandfather spider from his prison using magic, because that's what they wanted.

granted it was for other reasons... but it doesn't paint a pretty picture of any of us. the wizard learns shadow magic, the wizard frees spider, and then spider goes on to say that theyre his favorite.

i think what makes this particularly more tragic is the fact that the wizard didn't even have a choice. sofia says this herself!

they need to learn it. the sword of kings isn't enough. being a child of prophecy isn't enough. they failed once before, and theyre not eager to fail again. theyll try anything, and everything, and that includes... freeing grandfather spider.

which, you know, speaking of backlash... sofia mentions it too lol.

which is interesting to me... i always complained that the morganthe fight needed a bit more oomph—which, i still believe it does, to some extent—but i think how she died was a fitting end to her. crushed underneath the weight of her own powers, her own shadow—her backlash. she was the instrument of her own defeat, and, well... that could have very well been the wizard. she's our reflection, our parallel. i think it's why the wizard never mentions or claims that theyre the one that did her in—because they technically... didn't, but they also did. which is cool!

much to think about....

[yeetusthemighty]

The creechur

The silly (crazy? I was crazy onc-)

So I got inspired to finally post this guy because of this post by @z4n3jul13n (cool person you should look at their stuff)

full version with my doodles under the cut

(I have a whole au based off of this guy)

[magiefish]

Something I've kind of noticed about a lot of the academic scholarship I've read about Frankenstein / Dracula / Jekyll & Hyde is that everyone just seems to completely dismiss/ignore the characters as actual characters most of the time unless they're the Main Guys. Like, they'll go really in depth about Victor or the Creature's motivations and backstory and spend ages talking about Jekyll's relationship to Hyde and stuff, but the second it comes to characters like Enfield and Elizabeth or Lanyon and Clerval or frankly the Entire Rest of the Cast of Dracula, they just immediately seem uninterested. They'll just sort of vaguely gesture in their direction and go 'Oh yeah X and X thing happens to this character and here's a one sentence summary of their personality which doesn't really matter because this entire cast is interchangeable, anyway, onto the next theme' and half the time their One Sentence is just textually incorrect (looking at the New Woman/Traditional Woman descriptions of Lucy and Mina). And the reason I find this so baffling is because with other analysis I've read (e.g. Great Gatsby stuff) people seem to actually slow down and consider the characterisation and motivations of the cast as a whole with like. Nuance. Like they sit down and treat the characters as multifaceted and complex and having actual relationships with one another, and then you get to these books specifically and no one seems to care? Like they'll go really in depth with various interpretations and historical context for the Big Guys, and then never apply the same sort of examination to anyone else, and if they do, very rarely and probably only for one other character e.g. (Utterson or Mina).

If I had to posit an explanation, I would say its a combination of the archetypal nature of the title characters and the admittedly patchy writing of these books (which arguably lends to their archetypal status). I think academics kind of assume that the primary draw of these books are The Big Guys and the expansive themes and ideas they cover and that everyone else is just a pawn there to enable the narrative around the Big Guys, and the propensity for film adaptations to scrap or rewrite characters probably compounded this impression. And while I think this is at least partly true, the thing is, these characters were not always archetypal Big Guys. They originated in stories alongside *these* other characters *specifically* and it is worth asking what it is about the rest of the cast that makes the story interesting as well. Because, let's be real, if there was approximately no interest in the fucking *narrators* of Dracula, the best friends of Henry Jekyll, or the victims of the Creature, the original readers would have been completely bored out of their minds for most of these novels and public interest in them would not have been as great as it was. All of these novels were stories before they were myths, and academics should not be letting pop culture eclipse them unless they're specifically talking about the relationship between the two.

Overall, I just feel like academics are not only shooting themselves in the foot, but also doing a disservice to these stories by not bothering to investigate the other characters because frankly. It's lazy. It's lazy to dismiss an entire cast and basically skim read any sections involving them just because it's easy to focus on The One Guy. If you people really cared about themes, you'd understand that characters are inextricable from them. Like shit dude I see more care given to characters in essays about Greek tragedies, you guys are waaaay fucking behind

[demigod-of-the-agni]

Spider-Man India, but... where from India?

A SUPER long post featuring talks of: cultural identity, characterisation, the caste system, and what makes Spider-Man Spider-Man.

I’m prefacing this by saying that I am a second-generation immigrant. I was born in Australia, but my cultural background is from South India. My experiences with what it means to be “Indian” is going to be very different from the experiences of those who are born and brought up in India.

If you, reader, want to add anything, please reblog and add your thoughts. This is meant to be a post open for discussion — the more interaction we get, the better we become aware of these nuances.

So I made this poll asking folks to pick a region of India where I would draw Pavitr Prabhakar in their cultural wear. This idea had been on my mind for a long while now, as I had been inspired by Annie Hazarika’s Northeastern Spidey artwork in the wake of ATSV’s release, but never got the time to actually do it until now. I wanted to get a little interactive and made the poll so I could have people choose which of the different regions — North, Northeast, Central, East, West, South ��� to do first.

The outcome was not what I expected. As you can see, out of 83 votes:

THE RESULTS

South India takes up almost half of all votes (44.6%), followed by Northeast and Central (both 14.5%) and then East (13.3%). In all my life growing up, support towards or even just the awareness of South India was pretty low. Despite this being a very contained poll, why would nearly half of all voters pick South India in favour of other popular choices like Central or North India?

Then I thought about the layout of the poll: Title, Options, Context.

Title: "Tell us who you want to see…"

Options: North, Northeast, Central, East, West, South

Context: I want to make art of the boy again

At first I thought: ah geez. this is my fault. I didn't make the poll clear enough. do they think I want them to figure out where Pavitr came from? That's not what I wanted, maybe I should have added the context before the options.

Then I thought: ah geez. is it my fault for people not reading the entire damn thing before clicking a button? That's pretty stupid.

But regardless, the thought did prompt a line of thinking I know many of us desi folk have been considering since Spider-Man India was first conceived — or, at least, since the announcement that he was going to appear in ATSV. Hell, even I thought of it:

Where did Spider-Man India come from?

FROM A CULTURALLY DIVERSE INDIA

As we know, India is so culturally diverse, and no doubt ATSV creators had to take that into account. Because the ORIGINAL Spider-Man India came from Mumbai — most likely because Mumbai and Manhattan both started with the same letter.

But going beyond that, it’s also because Mumbai is one of the most recognisable cities in India - it’s also known as Bombay. It’s where Bollywood films are shot. It’s where superstar Hindi actors and actresses show up. Mumbai is synonymous with India in that regard, because the easiest way Western countries can interact with Indian culture is through BOLLYWOOD, through HINDI FILMS, through MUMBAI. Suddenly, India is Mumbai, India is a Hindi-only country, India is just this isolated thing we see through an infinitely narrow lens.

We’ve gotten a little better in recent years, but boy I will tell you how uncomfortable I’ve gotten when people (yes, even desi people) come up to me and tell me, Oh, you’re Indian right? Can you speak Hindi? Why don’t you speak Hindi? You’re not Indian if you don’t speak Hindi, that’s India’s national language!

I have been — still am — so afraid of telling people that I don’t speak Hindi, that I’m Tamil, that I don’t care that Hindi is India’s “national” language (it’s an administrative language, Kavin, get your fucking facts right). It’s weird, it’s isolating, and it has made me feel like I wasn’t “Indian” enough to be accepted into the group of “Indian” people.

So I am thankful that ATSV went out of their way to integrate as much variety of Indian culture into the Mumbattan sequence. Maybe that way, the younger generation of desi folk won’t feel so isolated, and that younger Western people will be more open to learning about all these cultural differences within such a vast country.

BUT WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH SPIDER-MAN INDIA?

Everything, actually. There’s a thing called supremacy. You might have heard of it. We all engaged with it at some point, and if you are Indian, no matter where you live, it is inescapable.

It happens the moment you are born — who your family is, where you are born, the language you speak, the colour of your skin; these will be bound to you for life, and it is nigh impossible to break down the stereotypes associated with them.

Certain ethnic groups will be more favourable than others (Centrals, and thus their cultures, will always be favoured over than Souths, as an example) and the same can be said for social groups (Brahmins are more likely to secure influential roles in politics or other areas like priesthood, while the lowers castes, especially Dalits, aren’t even given the decency of respect). Don’t even get me started on colourism, where obviously those of fairer skin will win the lottery while those of darker skin aren’t given the time of day. It’s even worse when morality ties into it — “lighter skinned Indians, like Brahmins, embody good qualities like justice and wisdom”, “dark skinned Indians are cunning and poor, they are untrustworthy”. It’s fucking nuts.

This means, of course, you have a billion people trying to make themselves heard in a system that tries to crush everyone who is not privileged. It only makes sense that people want to elevate themselves and break free from a society that refuses to acknowledge them. These frustrations manifest outwardly, like in protests, but other times — most times — it goes unheard, quietly shaping your way of life, your way of thinking. It becomes a fundamental part of you, and it can go unacknowledged for generations.

So when you have a character like Pavitr Prabhakar enter the scene, people immediately latch onto him and start asking questions many Western audiences don’t even consider. Who is he? What food does he eat? What does he do on Fridays? What’s his family like, his community? All these questions pop up, because, amidst all this turmoil going on in the background, you want a mainstream popular character to be like you, who knows your way of life so intimately, that he may as well be a part of your community.

BUT THAT'S THE THING — HE'S FICTIONAL

I am guilty of this. In fact, I’ve flaunted in numerous posts how I think he’s the perfect Tamil boy, how he dances bharatanatyam, how he does all these Tamil things that no one will understand except myself. All these niche things that only I, and maybe a few others, will understand.

I’ve seen other people do it, too. I’ve seen people geek out over his dark brown skin, his kalari dhoti, how he fights so effortlessly in the kalaripayattu martial arts style. I’ve seen people write him as Malayali, as Hindi, as every kind of Indian person imaginable.

I’ve also seen him be written where he’s subjected to typical Indian and broader Asian stereotypes. You know the ones I’m so fond of calling out. The thing is, I’ve seen so much of Pavitr being presented in so many different ways, and I worry how the rest of the desi folk will take it. 

You finally have a character who could be you, but now he’s someone else’s plaything. Your entire life is shaped by what you can and can’t do simply because you were born to an Indian family, and here’s the one person who could represent you now at the mercy of someone else’s whims. He’s off living a life that is so distant from yours, you can hardly recognise him.

It shouldn’t hurt as much as it does, yeah? But, again, you’re looking at it from that infinitely narrow lens Westerners use to look at India from Bollywood.

AND PAVITR PRABHAKAR DOESN'T LIVE IN INDIA

He lives in Mumbattan. He lives in a made-up, fictional world that doesn’t follow the way of life of our world. He lives in a city where Mumbai and Manhattan got fucking squashed together. There are so many memes about colonialism right there. Mumbattan isn’t real! Spider-Man India isn’t real!! He’s just a dude!! The logic of our world doesn’t apply to him!!!

“But his surname originates from ______” okay but does that matter?

“But he’s wearing a kalari dhoti so surely he’s ______” okay but does that matter?

“But his skin colour is darker so he must be ______” okay but does that matter?

“But he lives in Mumbai so he must be ______” okay but does that matter?

I sound insensitive and brash and annoying and it looks like I’m yapping just for the sake of riling you up, so direct that little burst of anger you got there at me, and keep reading.

Listen. I’m going to ask you a question that I’ve asked myself a million times over. I want you to answer honestly. I want you to ask this question to yourself and answer honestly:

Are you trying to convince me on who Pavitr Prabhakar should be?

... but why shouldn't i?

I’ll tell you this again — I did the same thing. You’re not at fault for this, but I want you to just...have a little think over. Just a little moment of self-reflection, to think about why you are so intent on boxing this guy.

It took me a while to reorganise my thinking and how to best approach a character like Pavitr, so I will give you all the time you need as well as a little springboard to focus your thoughts on.

SPIDER-MAN (INDIA) IS JUST A MASK

“What I like about the costume is that anybody reading Spider-Man in any part of the world can imagine that they themselves are under the costume. And that’s a good thing.”

Stan Lee said that. Remember how he was so intent on making sure that everybody got the idea that Spider-Man as an entity is fundamentally broken without Peter Parker there to put on the suit and save the day? That ultimately it was the person beneath the mask, no matter who they were, that mattered most?

Spider-Man India is no less different. You can argue with me that Peter Parker!Spidey is supposed to represent working class struggles in the face of leering corporate entities who endanger the regular folk like us, and so Pavitr Prabhakar should also function the same way. Pavitr should also be a working class guy of this specific social standing fighting people of this other social standing.

But that takes away the authenticity of Spider-Man India. Looking at him through the Peter Parker lens forces you to look at him through the Western lens, and it significantly lessens what you can do with the character — suddenly, it’s a fight to be heard, to be seen, to be recognised. It’s yelling over each other that Pavitr Prabhakar is this ethnicity, is that caste, this or that, this or that, this or that.

There’s a reason why he’s called Spider-Man India, infuriatingly vague as it is. And that’s the point — the vagueness of his identity fulfils Lee’s purpose for a character that could theoretically be embodied by anyone. If he had been called “Spider-Man Mumbai”, you cut out a majority of the population (and in capitalist terms, you cut out a good chunk of the market).

And in the case of Spider-Man India? Whew — you’ve got about a billion people imagining a billion different versions of him.

Whoever you are, whatever you see in Pavitr, that is what is personal to you, and there is nothing wrong with that, and I will not fault you for it. I will not fault you for saying Pavitr is from Central due to the origins of his last name. I also will not fault you for saying Pavitr is from South due to him practising kalaripayattu. I also will not fault you for saying he is not Hindu. I also will not fault you for saying he is a particular ethnicity without any proof.

What I will fault you for is trying to convince me and the others around you that Pavitr Prabhakar should be this particular ethnicity/have this cultural background because of some specific reason. I literally don’t care and it is fundamentally going against his character, going against the “anyone can wear the mask” sentiment of Spider-Man. By doing this, you are strengthening the walls that first divided us. You’re feeding the stratification and segmentation of our cultures — something that is actually not present in the fictional world of Mumbattan.

Like I said before: Mumbattan isn’t real, so the divides between ethnicities and cultural backgrounds are practically nonexistent. The best thing is that it is visually there for all to see. My favourite piece of evidence is this:

It’s a marquee for a cinema in the Mumbattan sequence, in the “Quick tour: this is where the traffic is” section. It has four titles; the first two are written in Hindi. The third title is written in Bengali*, and the fourth title is written in Tamil. You go to Mumbai and you won’t see a single shred of Bengali nor Tamil there, much less any other language that's not common in Maharashtra (Western India). Seeing this for the first time, you know what went through my head?

Wow, the numerous cultures of India are so intermingled here in Mumbattan! Everyone and everything is welcome!

I was happy, not just because of Tamil representation, but because of the fact that the plethora of Indian cultures are showcased coexisting in such a short sequence. This is India embracing all the little parts that make up its grander identity. This scene literally opened my eyes seeing such beauty in all the diverse cultures thriving together. In a place where language and cultural backgrounds blend so easily, each one complementing one another.

It is so easy to believe that, from this colourful palette of a setting, Pavitr Prabhakar truly is Spider-Man India, no matter where he comes from.

It’s easy to believe that Pavitr can come from any part of India, and I won’t call you out if the origin you have for him is different from the origin I have. You don’t need to stake out territory and stand your ground — you’re entitled to that opinion, and I respect it. In fact, I encourage it!!!

Because there’s only so much you can show in a ten minute segment of a film about a country that has such a vast history and even greater number of cultures. I want to see all of it — I want him to be a Malayali boy, a Hindi boy, a Bengali boy, a Telugu boy, an Urdu boy, whatever!! I want you to write him or draw him immersed in your culture, so that I can see the beauty of your background, the wonderful little things that make your culture unique and different from mine!

And, as many friends have said, it’s so common for Indian folks to be migrating around within our own country. A person with a Maharashtrian surname might end up living in Punjab, and no one really minds that. I’m actually from Karnataka, my family speaks Kannada, but somewhere down the line my ancestors moved to Tamil Nadu and settled down and lived very fulfilling lives. So I don’t actually have the “pure Tamil” upbringing, contrary to popular belief; I’ve gotten a mix of both Kannada and Tamil lifestyles, and it’s made my life that much richer. 

So it’s common for people to “not” look like their surname, if that’s what you’re really afraid about. In fact, it just adds to that layer of nuance, that even despite these rigid identities between ethnicities we as Indian people still intermingle with one another, bringing slivers of our cultures to share with others. Pavitr could just as well have been born in one state and moved around the country, and he happens to live in Mumbattan now. It’s entirely possible and there’s nothing to disprove that.

We don’t need to clamber over one another declaring that only one ethnicity is the “right” ethnicity, because, again, you will be looking at Pavitr and the rest of India in that narrow Western lens — a country with such rich cultural variety reduced to a homogenous restrictive way of life.

THE POLL: REINTERPRETED

This whole thing started because I was wondering why my little poll was so skewed — I thought people assumed I was asking them where he came from, then paired his physical appearance with the most logical options available. I thought it was my fault, that I had somehow influenced this outcome without knowing.

Truth is, I will never really know. But I will be thankful for it, because it gave me the opportunity to finally broach this topic, something that many of us desi folk are hesitant to talk about. I hope you have learned something from this, whether you are desi or a casual Spider-Man fan or someone who just so happened to stumble upon this. 

So just…be a little more open. Recognise that India, like many many countries and nations, is made up of a plethora of smaller cultures. And remember, if you’re trying to convince Pavitr that he’s a particular ethnicity, he’s going to wave his hand at you and say, “Ha, me? No, I’m one of the people that live here in the best Indian city! I’m Spider-Man India, dost!”

(Regardless, he still considers you a friend, because to him, the people matter more to him than you trying to box him into something he’s not.)

*Note: thank you dear anon for letting me know that the third title was Bengali, twas my mistake for literally completely forgetting

[azure-clockwork]

How Does it Feel to Read Classic Sci-Fi?

Orson Scott Card: Two of the most interesting books you’ll ever read if you’re willing to look past a handful of things. And then you find the planet of Chinese people who worship having debilitating OCD. And the Mormonism. And the fact that the author is wildly homophobic and ought to read his own books.

Robert Heinlein (or at least the Wikipedia Summaries): I guess that’s a neat concept—oh, it’s a sex thing. Um. Gotcha.

Ray Bradbury: Man, I gotta read this thing for class huh. Well here’s hoping it’s good! *three hours later* oh. that’s why he’s famous. this will stick with me forever and I will never look at the phrase ‘soft rain’ the same again. christ. And then repeat 3x.

Isaac Asimov: Wow, this is such an interesting concept! I wonder how the exploration of it will influence the plot! Wait, hey, are you going to add any characters? Any of em? No like, with character traits other than ‘robot psychologist’ and ‘autistic’ and ‘woman’? None of em? No, ‘detective’ isn’t a character trait. Those are all just facts. Aaaand now I’m bored.

Ursula K. Le Guin: Hah, get a load of this guy! He’s never heard of nonbinary people before. Lol, what a riot; how dumb do you have to be to comprehend that these people aren’t men *or* women actually? Oh, wait, what’s happening. Oh shit, it was about society and love and learning to understand each other? And now I’m crying? And perhaps a better human being for it??

Andy Weir: Alright, this guy’s a really good writer. Funny, creative, knows so much engineering stuff…ooh, a new book! …I guess he can’t write women. Well, he wouldn’t be the first sci-fi writer…ooh another new book! And it’s more engineering problem solving and—wow. It’s not just women he can’t write. Please stop letting your characters talk to each other.

Lois Lowry: Oh, I remember this being fun when I was a kid! Wouldn’t it be fucked up to not see color? …upon reread, it would be fucked up to have your humanity stripped away, replaced with a tepid, beige ‘happiness’ for all time. Yeah.

Tamsyn Muir (let me have this ok): Haha, “lesbian necromancers in space” sounds fun. Lemme read this. Oh wow, yeah, this is right up my alley. OH GOD WHAT. NO. FUCK. OH SHIT WHAT IS EVEN HAPPENING AND WHY IS IT REFERENCING THE BOOK OF RUTH AND HOMESTUCK BACK TO BACK!!! AHHHHHHHHH!! Now give me more please.

[yakkety-yak-art]

not to unnecessarily thinkpiece at 1 am (this might be incomprehensible) but i feel its odd when people talk about spock being half human and half vulcan like its completely literal. like somebody just put two legos together and can just separate them or turn one on or off at will. i know that in tos its explained similarly in that way a lot, but a lot of the times when it is it just seems like a more shorthand explanation for the complexities spock deals with culturally and biologically rather than it being entirely literal.

the reason i feel its weird is for two reasons: 1. spock is quite literally biracial and his personal story revolves around that a LOT. leonard nimoy even spoke before about receiving at least one letter from a biracial girl talking about how she related to spock/wanting advice because she was a "half-breed", which to me points pretty clearly to how spock functions as an analogue for multiracial people or someone of a different race and culture living somewhere where they are a minority and have to conform to the majority cultural/racial expectations. spock is treated as too human for vulcans and too vulcan for humans, but this is entirely due to cultural stigma and not because of his actual biology (and even if his biology was extremely divergent from both, that wouldn't justify bigotry anyways). spock is not actually "worse" at controlling his emotions than other vulcans, and is not more emotional than them (vulcans are very emotional, of course, and they are also quite expressive--they just express themselves differently than most humans), nor is he inherently less of a person and more like a computer, to use bones' sentiments, just because he does not emote in ways his human crewmates do. humans and vulcans both treat him as if he is fundamentally deficient, but it's not that he actually is, or that any multiracial vulcan or human COULD be, but that they are so prejudiced that they are making reasons to mistreat him or view him poorly. the only thing that actually makes him fundamentally different from other vulcans or humans is his physiology, because unlike with the current human social concept of race in regards to skin color, vulcans and humans do actually have physical differences as two different races--as in species. but, in universe, this physical difference in spock's case is nearly as minor (in a purely physical sense) as someone having more melanin than another, and is only important to those who aren't himself, his direct family, or his doctors because of the social construct of race.

this also reflects in how spock views himself; he's not cagey about being biracial, and references it relatively often (though mostly only when it's relevant), and seems to feel no shame towards his human mother herself, but he otherwise tends to exclusively racially identify as vulcan and shies away from wanting to associate his own person with humanity. he was raised on vulcan and "as a" vulcan, and aside from his human mother, he has no tangible connections to earth human culture. yet, most of the humans he meets and even his own mother judge him as being an "abnormal" or "deficient" human in the same way that spock's mixed race status is used as a reason to judge spock as being the same, but as a vulcan. spock is just as emotional as any human or vulcan, and acts in accordance with the culture he was raised in, but even as an adult has internalized racism because he considers his emotions inherently human (aka bad and wrong) even though emotions are not traits which exist only in humans, and himself not really a vulcan in some fundamental way, solely because of the racism he's faced since a child. to put it another way, if spock had been raised on earth, with the majority of his influences being in human community and family aside from his father, would he identify primarily as human, or more generally as biracial, rather than just vulcan, feeling some internal shame in regards to that aspect of his heritage and identity? i think it's entirely possible. his differences are largely based in social responses to his existence and cultural differences based on where he was raised.

(to note: i'm not saying it's bad that spock himself identities primarily as vulcan or that he should identify more as human, i'm simply saying that it highlights how much of his racial and cultural identity is directly tied to how he was raised and is treated rather than some inherent biological trait he has because he's biracial. spock is clearly visibly vulcan, which would be the racial minority on earth, so even then he would face stigma related to his race based on his appearance--on vulcan, it stems more from simply the knowledge that spock is biracial, as his family is very well-known and prestigious, rather than looking human.)

reason 2 is also because spock serves as an analogue for neurodivergent people, but in particular autistic people, people who display with a flat affect or otherwise don't react or emote in a "normal" sense, miss or ignore social cues, etc. in fact, generally, spock is a character which many socially marginalized groups and people who feel like outsiders gravitate towards because his situation as sci-fi biracial in an entirely human crew feels familiar to a lot of these people.

so, treating spock like he's literally split down the middle, fundamentally inhuman and invulcan, only halves that can be separated or a switch that can be flipped where he's "more vulcan" or "more human" feels incredibly strange because then...what does that imply about real people who are biracial, or people who are autistic? i'm sure most people don't think too hard about it, but to accept the reasoning of the people being racist to spock is conceding to the idea that something is wrong with spock. that he is two unfinished halves and not one whole, and that he either is one or the other or is in a permanent gray area where his existence is wrong. spock is different, yes, but almost all of the differences outside of his daily bodily functions are entirely because of the concepts of race that other people have. what is that meant to tell someone who's mixed race? "sorry, you'd be normal if you were just one race"? someone who's autistic, "but you're not really a person"?

again, i'm sure many people haven't thought about it that deeply and aren't meaning to imply those things, just as i'm sure plenty of people have probably written nearly identical thinkpieces in the decades since tos aired, but it's just been bugging me and i needed to get it out of my brain. by the time i'm wrapping this up, it's a little past 2 am, and i've tried to proofread this but it might still be a slog and/or entirely incomprehensible. if anyone has any thoughts--whether you agree with me or not, or felt like something in the post could be added to/reworded--i'd definitely be interested in hearing them (like i said, this is almost 100% unoriginal thoughts lmao).

anyways don't become english majors kids it gives you media analysis brainworms.

[prontaentrega]

earlier this year i joked about argentina balkanizing after Milei's fucked up neoliberal policies so it was a massive shock seeing 1968 documentary la hora de los hornos already use that exact wording to describe the country's earliest neoliberal project

[itsoverfeeling]

sometimes ppl say they suck at essays and then we talk and they know how to make an opinion and argue their point and I'm like. actually I think you could make amazing essays, take my hand let me show you

[pettyprocrastination]

seeing the shift of women's fitness culture go from weightlifting to being a "pilates princess"...burn it all

[iridescentmirrorsgenshin]

An analysis of Alhaitham's egoism in relation to Kaveh

(Update: The essay this is taken from is now uploaded! It can be accessed here and here as as a pdf <3)

Max Stirner's anarchist egoism is speculated to be the basis of Alhaitham's personal egoism, therefore I will be drawing upon Stirner's 'The Unique and Its Property' for this analysis.

Property and power are key principles within this philosophy. The egoist recognises himself as an individual, separate from the general collective of “humanity”, in which concepts such as freedom and property are governed to and over the people, for then the individual is not considered as such, rather they are a part of “humanity”, rather than a whole individual (Stirner, 170). This thinking is demonstrated within Alhaitham’s Story Quest, where he dismantles Siraj’s Hivemind by targeting individuals that compromised the Hive and reminding them of their own beliefs and preferences – the individual in themselves is a whole, and is not a “part” of a system (Stirner, 170).

In this, the egoist governs himself by what he owns and what he wants to own: “ownness is my whole essence and existence, it is myself. I am free from what I am rid of, owner of what I have in my power, what I control. I am at all times and under every circumstance my own”(Stirner, 106). This relates to the concept of freedom, which, for an egoist exists according to having the power to be free of something, for example, being freed of hunger, thirst, or societal expectations (Stirner, 105). This is reflected within Alhaitham’s description: “He lives free – free from the searching eyes of ordinary people,” but also extends to the power to own.

As power is considered something which the egoist owns, property then becomes something which the egoist exerts power over, and in this, can property be made use of by the egoist – all the while, the property remains an independent vessel (Stirner, 162). This is seen within Alhaitham’s view on his vision, in that it is “no more than a useful tool”, as it can be used to serve his own needs, and that since it in his possession, he has obtained it with his own power, it makes no difference to check on it as he continues to retain that power.

In this sense then, Alhaitham has constructed his life around this form of egoism, in that anything he wants, he has, such as his job as the Scribe, his house, the interests he pursues, the people he enjoys. In order to maintain this way of life, he will deal with, or be rid of, anything he deems as "harmful".

With this, the egoist seeks satisfaction in themselves through the satisfaction of another. Ownership, in relation to another person, can become love, which like all things the egoist has power over, is ultimately theirs – as in their love for a person (Stirner, 187), which is given willingly by the egoist, for loving a person is done for the satisfaction that love brings: “But I love them with the awareness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because love is natural to me, it pleases me,” (186).

In loving another comes sacrifice, which the egoist can give into without compromising himself, as he himself sets the “purchase price of [his love]” (187) according to the happiness attributed to the loved one, as in return, the egoist shall also receive happiness (186). To enjoy someone, in an egoist fashion, is to be able to sacrifice all possessions and ownerships without foregoing the sense of an individual, of “ownness”, as the egoist would then lose his objectivity:

“I can deny myself countless things to heighten his pleasure, and I can risk for him what would be dearest to me without him, my life, my welfare, my freedom. Indeed, it forms my pleasure and happiness to feast on his pleasure and happiness. But me, myself I do not sacrifice to him, but rather remain an egoist and—enjoy him. If I sacrifice to him everything I would keep without my love for him, that is very easy… But if I sacrifice others to one passion, I still do not…  sacrifice my particular worth, my ownness. Where this nasty incident occurs, love looks no better than any other passion that I blindly obey.” – The Unique and Its Property, 185

It is relevant to note that just as the egoist receives happiness from a loved one’s pleasure, so does an egoist suffer from a loved one’s despair. Just as the egoist would sacrifice something of their own to provide happiness for a loved one in order to exact their own happiness, so too would an egoist sacrifice something, or act, to eradicate the root problem of a loved one’s misery, as this, in turn, would then resolve their own misery:

“If I see the beloved suffering, I suffer with him, and I find no rest until I’ve tried everything to comfort and cheer him…. It doesn’t follow from this that the same thing causes suffering… his tooth gives him pain, but his pain gives me pain. But because I cannot bear the sorrowful crease on the beloved forehead, therefore, then for my sake, I kiss it away. If I didn’t love this person, he could go right on creasing his forehead, that wouldn’t trouble me; I’m only driving away my troubles. – The Unique and Its Property, 186

The phrasing of “driving away… troubles” is particular to note here, due to similar usages of language used within Alhaitham’s Character Stories, in relation to him acting in accordance with his self-governed rules and serving his own self-interest by: “[acting] on his own will and deals with anything that appears harmful in his eyes”.

Kaveh, however, interprets Alhaitham’s egoism as a detached, pragmatic view of humanity, in which the individual isolates themselves not only as a means of prioritisation, but by elevating oneself over others by refusal to intermingle and to cooperate for the benefit of others. Not only is this a harmful opposition to Kaveh’s view of individuals sharing their knowledge and talent in order to pursue a better society, but due to Kaveh’s experience of Alhaitham’s personal egoism, it is harmful to Kaveh personally. Kaveh refuses to prioritise himself over others because he has seen a negative consequence of egoism, in which he has been “cut to the quick” and it has ended one of the few stable relationships in his life.

By Kaveh seeing Alhaitham’s comment about his altruism as malicious, Alhaitham has elevated himself over Kaveh, since Alhaitham does not have the same struggles as him, and has trivialised Kaveh’s trauma. To Kaveh, Alhaitham’s prioritisation of the self actively harms others as it desensitises the self to the emotions of others. Therefore, Kaveh opposes the egoism which Alhaitham advocates for, since he interprets it through his own lived experience. Hence, by Alhaitham asserting egoism over Kaveh as a means of Kaveh prioritising himself, it only reinforces Kaveh to strive to consider the feelings of others, as well as to not prioritise his own way of thinking if it undermines someone else’s.

In actuality, Alhaitham’s frustrations with Kaveh lie in his belief that Kaveh’s talents are incongruous with his values, and that if Kaveh were to prioritise himself, he would save himself suffering and enable himself to discover his “true self”, unrestricted by others placing labels onto him.

This is a personal frustration which Alhaitham would not compromise himself to assert onto a person he was indifferent to, due to his belief of not getting involved with other’s fates. However, he has been observed to ‘subvert’ his own rules to accommodate Kaveh. Through egoism, it can be seen that rather than ‘subverting’ these rules, Alhaitham adheres to them as an egoist, since he sees Kaveh as his mirror, they offer each other a contrasting perspective he believes they need to have a complete, objective vision of the world.

This is necessary for Alhaitham to consider within his own life, and therefore has extended his house to Kaveh, in order to expand his scope of thinking, and to consider perspectives he otherwise would not entertain. Kaveh’s ideals, his beliefs, and his philosophies explicitly interest Alhaitham, in contradiction with Kaveh believing that Alhaitham is disdainful of his perspectives.

In this way, Alhaitham enjoys Kaveh. He willingly pays for some of Kaveh’s tabs; pays for crates of wine for the two of them; and goes out of his way to pursue interactions with Kaveh. Just as Alhaitham is to Kaveh, Kaveh is an old friend, as unchanged in his beliefs as he was in the past and thus is a constant: “the most unshakable part of one's past is a friend that will never change”’.

Alhaitham strives to act in accordance to his own egoism and therefore assesses what “appears harmful” to him, in relation to these rules, so as to be rid of them. This can be extended to Kaveh, as Kaveh falls under what ‘belongs’ to Alhaitham, in the sense that ownership equates to Alhaitham’s enjoyment.

Alhaitham wants to have Kaveh in his life due to the alternate perspective which Kaveh offers him, thus expanding his horizons and granting him knowledge he otherwise would not obtain. As well as this, Kaveh is seen to be considered part of Alhaitham’s way of life that he wants to protect. In line with Stirner’s egoism, it follows that as Alhaitham enjoys Kaveh, as in, ‘owns’ the contentment Kaveh elicits, he therefore is affected by Kaveh’s self-inflicted grievances. Therefore, Alhaitham sees Kaveh’s altruism at the expense of his own wellbeing as something “harmful” to be dealt with, as this not only causes Kaveh inward misery, but also detriments Kaveh finding his “true self” (Alhaitham Character Story 3), which the egoist pursues above all else.

[shootingsun]

AU where everything stays the same but Near comes to Wammy's House as a baby (like, 8/9 months old) and Roger hates kids so he decides the best thing to do is hand the baby off to A and B because "they're geniuses they'll know what to do with it"

Shenanigans ensue

[the-acid-pear]

Dave and Steven's relationship is so fucking mental literally THE toxicest of yaois 💥

[thekimspoblog]

Is the video game really subverting its genre? Are you sure it's not just doing clever things within its genre, because otherwise the game would be boring and unchallenging and say nothing interesting? I'm just saying, it's cool and all that the internet allows horror game fandoms to overflow into eachother, but not EVERY 2 hour video essay needs to be spent breathlessly sucking off the devs. Sometimes a game is just REGULAR difficult and REGULAR high-quality.

Besides RPGs made over a decade ago, what is the thing supposedly subverting? Clearly not other contemporary indie horror games, because there is clearly a convergent ethos forming of cosmic horror and beginners' traps; that's just what the genre looks like nowadays.

[mynqzo]

what’s the sexiest kind of monster in your opinion 🤔🤔

staring into the distance.

vampire