#a literal product of abuse imo

[shoot1ngst4r]

What’s worse is that the same people who dump all over Billy Hargrove are the same people who are drooling all over Gator (Joe Keery’s character in Fargo.) And it literally drives me insane.

Like you’ll condemn a literal teenager who never got a chance to grow but the adult character with similar qualities who has an incredible amount of privilege that he gets from who his father gets a pass?

People who mention anything about Billy that isn’t negative or explore a possible Billy redemption that doesn’t end with him dying get so much hate but a post about Gator makes it rounds like wildfire.

Sorry for ranting. It’s just something I’ve been thinking about for awhile and your post got me all fired up about it again.

OMG THIS^^

like i’m not saying people can’t be attracted to more.. morally questionable characters (for a lack of better terms) because that’d be hypocritical of me but why do people give adults who know what they’re doing a pass for shitty behaviour but draw the line at an, at most, abused 18 year old?

i saw the same type of treatment with vecna/001/henry creel when s4 came out. like i kinda get (jamie campbell bower is 😍) but if you compare everything he did to everything Billy did and still think Billy is irredeemable but vecna isn’t… idk dude maybe you don’t care for victims of abuse

[transmutationisms]

oh i would actually be curious to hear your thoughts on lolita book covers in that case. i do get the sense that some of the covers are designed to uncritically titilate and seem to misunderstand the text, but that could obviously be an assumption on my part lol.

oh i agree that the cover designs tend to run counter to nabokov's intentions, both in the text and in the literal instructions he gave about covers lol. they pretty clearly rely on putting some young girl on display, which is exactly what nabokov did not want to do visually; they also tend to suggest dolores as some kind of seductress (sultry gazes, pouty lips, &c). clearly this is precisely the opposite of what the text tells us about her.

however when evaluating these visual choices i find that many people portray them as some kind of originary and culturally polluting act: that is, a narrative emerges that the problem here is people misinterpreting 'lolita', and then publishing it with covers that will do harm to young girls &c. i think this is lazy analysis and fundamentally makes idealist assumptions overestimating the effect of cultural products (books, book covers) on problems, like the sexualisation of children, that are in fact grounded in material relations, such as in this case the status of children as legal property and the total power granted to adults over them. that is to say, these broader conditions are at root the reason that cultural products like the cover of 'lolita' look the way they do, and chalking it up to individuals not understanding the book is never going to get us very far; and also, although some of these covers are pretty egregious, they are the reflection rather than the cause of the sexualisation of children, a problem that would continue to exist even if every edition of 'lolita' ever printed just said "humbert humbert is an unreliable narrator and dolores haze is a child he is preying on" on the cover.

fundamentally i also think this sort of conversation often elides some more interesting points about whom these covers communicate to and what they say. you suggest they are meant to "titillate"; although i would agree dolores is often shown as sexual, desirable, and seductive, i'm not sure that's the same as assuming the cover is trying to arouse the potential reader. for one thing, to put it bluntly, this style of cover tends to be associated more with books marketed to women than to heterosexual men. and more broadly, and this is something the lolita podcast really fails to understand imo, the phenomenon of people reading 'lolita' and relating themselves to dolores is not mutually exclusive with this type of rhetorical construction of dolores-through-humbert's-eyes. that is, often what appeals about dolores is, i think, precisely the fact that through her, people find a way of discoursing about or simply re-enacting the kind of sexualisation that they are already subjected to or have been in the past, whether or not at a level as explicit and extreme as what nabokov depicts.

i'm not really interested in a simple moral condemnation of the people who design these covers; that critique writes itself. they are obviously bad and facile, and reflective of precisely the culture of child sexual abuse that nabokov's text condemns. but if we are interested in the reception of these objects, or interrogating the cultural meaning and implications of their existence, i just think there's a lot more going on here than what the podcast portrays as a simple sort of 'broadcast' model of mass media wherein the 'lolita' book cover and trope is beamed out to unsuspecting innocents who are then exposed to its nefarious elements. dolores appeals to people for lots of reasons, some prurient, some pitying, some openly self-projective, and these are not mutually exclusive with one another nor are they mutually exclusive with readings that reproduce elements of the very lolita character that humbert creates and uses to silence and re-write dolores. we can be uncomfortable with that and refuse to talk about it but if that's the position someone wants to take then i'm not likely to be interested enough in their opinions to, like, listen to their podcast about this book lol.

[ccieatchildren]

I’m sure we’ve all seen by now Steve Blackman’s reasoning for Five/Lila stating:

“I felt that Five had to have a love story.”

And how it shows how this man somehow has such a deep fundamental misunderstanding about his own characters. How he helped create the first three seasons of this show and doesn’t realize that

This is Five’s love story.

Umbrella Academy the show wouldn’t exist without Five’s love. The whole plot and story is it.

He is the catalyst of all the plot lines while his family is the center of all the story beats. His love is the instigator for all the events of the show simply because he chooses to do everything possible in the hope that it will save his loves.

It’s not like this was even a subtle idea because Five literally states it himself multiple times over the series!

I just don’t understand how you can get it so wrong.

He creates the Commission in hopes of regulating the timeline so his family won’t get obliterated from existence, tattooing himself with the potential solution to rewriting the universe so they can all live happily one day.

He survives the apocalypse all on his own, when there was no real reason to, just because he believed he could get back to his family, spending 50+ years developing the math to one day do so.

He joins the Commission and murders and maims and manipulates in the desperate attempt that he might have a chance to go back and see/save his family.

He spends the first time he sees his family after over six decades not with them, but rather searching for a way to stop their deaths, sending them all through time when it doesn’t work.

He runs himself ragged stopping apocalypse after apocalypse just for them.

And when he loses all hope, accepting the kugelblitz, he is content to know he is doing so with his family.

As much as this show is about the whole family, ultimately, imo, this is Five’s story about his grueling quest to save the family he loves.

Because otherwise this show wouldn’t exist without him and the rest of the characters would just be decorations in the rubble of a world long gone.

So to say bro needed a love story— he doesn't say romance, but love story— is so durna, like what??? I guess if you really wanted him to have a romance you could do that, but there were many better options than the wife of someone he deeply loves, something he would never do.

(Not to mention all the real world implications of the romance with the actors, production really was waiting for him to be legal ಠ_ಠ)

Also I don’t think it’s a coincidence that many fans view Five somewhere under the aro/ace umbrella (pun intended).

Now, because of this misconstruction the ending of the show also suffers.

Brushing over all the mind boggling things the real ending says about abuse, its victims, and growing from it (which is actually like how did no one look at that and think hmm maybe this isn’t right for the story we’ve been telling), it also misunderstands love. It tells the audience that love isn’t worth it, in a show… about love. Not just Five’s but Hazel/Agnes, Viktor/Sissy, Allison+Claire, and more. How all your pain and suffering and tribulations for those you love are stupid and useless and cringe.

But y’know what, Mr. Blackman, I think you’re cringe for that absolute bonkers bananas ending.

And that’s why having the solution to the series being that Five should have never jumped in the first place would have been the best ending.

Making it so that the only solution to save the whole universe be that Five stay with his family, with those he loved— what he had been trying to do for the whole show— would have been the perfect conclusion to the story. It would show that all he had to do was stay, because that’s all they ever needed, that’s all he ever needed.

AND IT WOULD MAKE LOGISTICAL SENSE.

Five and Viktor are well confirmed to have been the closest ever since they were young. And Five (doesn’t matter if he’s the now Five who lived through the shows events or the young one who ran off) would most certainly be a supportive figure in Viktor’s life. He’s smart, for one, and it wouldn’t be a stretch for him to figure out what was really going on (especially with his hatred of Reginald) and help Viktor that way. But even if he doesn’t, when they grow to adults and Viktor naturally doesn’t take his pills or his power starts showing, Five’s love and care for his (closest) brother would most certainly help prevent the apocalypse. Especially since if Five and Viktor are close, as they grow older, I feel like the others would grow closer as well, maybe not the same degree, but they would be more willing and supportive of Viktor in the end (I feel like Season 1 shows us how at the end of the day the siblings do care for Viktor, but they were just too late, so this time they wouldn’t be).

Through the subway we see the timeline where he jumps still exists, so that should mean there is a way for him not to do that. His jumping (and the siblings he brings along) is what creates the paradoxes and the "need" for the Commission. So by him not jumping, problem solved.

This might come at the cost of the current versions of the characters, but I think if they can make the developmental journeys they did once, I think they can do it again, and have a happy ending.

(Also the Jennifer incident wouldn’t happen either bcs of Five or just bcs that plot line was so fluffin stupid, so yay alive Ben)

(And Diego and Luther meet Lila and Sloane respectively cuz they are also part of the marigold brood so they still do exist at the same time, so yay happy couples)

It is somewhat simple, but I think that works as well, especially for a character like Five. He spends so much time looking at all the different equations, trying to find some complex solution to everything, trying permutation after permutation (as evidenced by our and the diner Five's), when it was right in front of him. Idk, I just think it would be nice if he just decided to stay with his siblings instead of running off.

Sure it may not be completely perfect, maybe Ben still does die, or Klaus can’t meet Dave again, or characters still find themselves prey to their arrogance but I don’t think it needs to be, because real life isn’t perfect. But the bonds we make and the love we share makes it so, a major theme the Umbrella Academy isn't unfamiliar with.

And it just makes me so deeply sad that this isn’t the ending we got. That this isn’t the ending the characters got.

They deserve so much better than Blackman gave them, and it’s a disgrace that he didn’t.

[eastgaysian]

Sorry this is a dumb question but can you explain why tomshiv is not abusive? Shiv seems to hit a lot of textbook behaviours of emotional abusers

thank you for your follow up clarifying this was in good faith bc i checked my inbox yesterday right after getting high and was like man come on. don't do this to me. but yeah i can talk about it, it's obviously something i have a fair amount of thoughts on

on a fundamental level, i take issue with the assertion that there are 'textbook behaviors of emotional abusers' in the first place. distilling abuse down to a set of behaviors is, imo, effectively meaningless and totally unproductive. it's not the behavior of an individual that defines abuse, it's a specific and intentionally cultivated imbalance of power and control within a relationship. victims of abuse can and do resort to survival mechanisms that could be considered in isolation as 'abusive behavior', the point is that you can't consider them in isolation. there's a gulf of difference between the same actions when they're coming from a person in a position of significant financial or physical or social power over someone else, or when they're coming from the person at a disadvantage.

i think viewing abuse as a set of behaviors also encourages you to treat interpersonal abuse as if it's discontinuous with systemic abuse, which is inaccurate and unproductive. a key part of succession's premise is that, because the family is literally the business, the familial abuse within the roy family is inextricable from the broader systems of capitalism, patriarchy, and the sexual violence and abuse endemic to them. with regards to how the show satirizes and critiques these systems, i think it's very telling that all of the characters are to some degree complicit and/or participants in abuse, but logan is the only one i'd say is unambiguously and intentionally presented as 'an abuser' (whose abuse is not an isolated product of him as a person, but integrated into/inseparable from the capitalist system which persists after his death). still, logan isn't reduced to a one-dimensional angry, abusive dad, he's given depth and complexity. his continued insistence that he loves his children isn't treated as something that's untrue, but that doesn't make it inherently good, and it certainly isn't incompatible with him abusing them.

circling back to tom and shiv. their relationship is unhealthy, it's not good for either of them to be married, shiv does fucking awful things to tom and tom does awful things right back, i'm not questioning any of that. but at my most cynical and bitchy, what it comes down to is quite simply: shiv doesn't have enough power over tom to be abusive, systemically or personally.

the thing is sometimes you see people say 'wow, if the genders were reversed people would say tom and shiv's relationship is unambiguously abusive!' which... hrm, but really the issue is that. the genders are the way they are, that's for a reason, and yes, that does make a significant difference in how we perceive their relationship and power dynamics. tom holds very real and present power over shiv as a man and as her husband, proposing to her when she was vulnerable in a way that placed huge pressure on her to accept and then trying to get her to have his baby so he can become patriarch. shiv's the heiress with the legitimacy of her family name and generational wealth but she is continuously, unavoidably subjected to gendered discrimination and violence. she's never allowed direct access to real power - she has to rely on the men around her, her husband or her brothers, and if they don't feel like humoring her she's shit out of luck.

this doesn't cancel out like a math equation, but it definitely makes things much more complicated than shiv being an Evil Bitch Wife to her Poor Pitiful Husband. when shiv finally does push tom too far, he immediately, successfully, goes over her head to her abusive father to fuck her over. maybe shiv wants to be her father in her relationships and exert the same kind of control he does. but she doesn't and she can't! she does not have that power! she cannot stop tom from kicking back and his hits are significant. as much as she might like to pretend otherwise, tom not only has always had the power to leave in a way shiv doesn't, he had and has the power to fuck her up badly, and he's used that power. that is simply not the power dynamic between abuser and victim to me.

i also have to say that abuse is not always going to be definitive black and white. in real life there are plenty of unambiguous situations but there are also plenty of complicated situations, and applying judgments to fiction is not always straightforward. i can't exactly call someone 'wrong' for personally being uncomfortable with tom and shiv's relationship or believing shiv is abusive, but i'm very skeptical of the viewpoint and the motivations or assumptions that are often contained within. if shiv is abusive, she definitely isn't uniquely so among the cast, so you had better be applying that label and any associated moral judgments equally across the board.

[jaragirl]

I have so many thoughts circulating in my mind about Let Free the Curse of Taekwondo 😭 esp ep 5 & 6

I don’t know if I can adequately express any of it but I have to try

This show is so fucking beautiful and so sad it’s sadly beautiful. Every scene is touched with melancholy that’s just lingering around each frame.

Even when the characters should be happy, should be content- Do Hoe, who’s supposedly accomplished everything he set out to do, is so removed & out of touch he can’t enjoy it (pills & alcohol) and even when he tries to share it with Ju Yeong they’re not happy and most of that has to do with how closed off Do Hoe is. How absolutely terrified he is to be vulnerable to be “caught” out and how incapable Ju Yeong is of being anything but open 😭 even Hyeon Ho who out of guilt and love is helping Do Hoe cover up the fact that he did not go to that prestigious Uni (IMO), who’s spent the past 10 years next to Do Hoe and is still no closer to him despite everything he’s given him (connections, job, apartment etc.) ughhhhhhh my heart aches for everyone…everyone’s hurting

Some other things I’ve been thinking about in no particular order

- I don’t know if Do Hoe & Ju Yeong will make it. Do Hoe’s insistence on leaving the past which is really him avoiding his trauma is not gonna allow them to be truly intimate again or happy. It’ll shrink & freeze Ju Yeong if he continues to placate Do Hoe just like it has Hyeon Ho. They also have nothing in common anymore. They don’t need to save each other and they don’t need to run away. So unless they have something they want to build together like a ::taekwondo gym:: I don’t see it working 😭

- Also we have to return to taekwondo 🥋 right?! Like that’s what is actually going to free Do Hoe. He has to face the violence of the sport he loved and the person he loves and himself if he’s going to start to heal. I can see them sparing or Ju Yeong using it as a way to get Do Hoe to break down his walls

- Ju Yeong will have to lay down his cross, as in, he cannot continue to be Jesus sacrificing himself (physically & emotionally) for the people he loves and wants to protect especially when no one has ever protected him 😭 he’s so Jesus coded literally forgiving Do Hoe’s father (we could see this from how he fed him from his hand), wanting to take up the mantle of his “father’s” work, how he offers compassion to Do Hoe after he learns he called the cops

- There’s so many religious layers to this cause Do Hoe is filled w/ so much shame and guilt for at one point having loved his father, the anger that has the potential to consume him, allowing his lover to take beatings for him so he could continue pretending/surviving, the lying he’s doing about University, the lying he’s doing about saying he never thinks of the past (it’s still so clearly controlling him)

- The irony of Ju Yeong’s happiest time being when they first fell in love, even though he was being abused throughout, and it being a time that Do Hoe feels tortured thinking about 😭 they are not in the same place at all emotionally

- Also I’m not totally convinced Do Hoe & Hyeon Ho haven’t had a drunken hookup at least once. They practically live together. I feel like Hyeon Ho’s penance for abandoning there budding romantic feelings & rejecting it before it could even start/becoming a bully is tied to the apartment, the car & the job Do Hoe has. He’s just been trying to earn back the chance to touch Do Hoe again and 😭 idk in some ways he feels better suited to who Do Hoe is proclaiming to be than Ju Yeong

- Lastly, what’s with the chapstick!! It’s a symbol for queerness right?! Was the 1st time we saw Do Hoe use it supposed to be a signifier for a queer character?? The fact that Ju Yeong after being with Do Hoe begins using it too?? Will we see Hyeon Ho “come out” & use chapstick too?! (I refuse to believe it’s just product placement or insignificant)

Anyway I love this show!! It’s perfect and it’s heartbreaking and I wish I could get 15 more of them right now

[jewishbarbies]

“Butterball employees are raping dead turkeys on the assembly line!! Don’t buy turkey for thanksgiving!!” has been all over my fyp today so i looked into it and. it’s literally from peta. it’s a dude completely blacked out so you can’t confirm it’s actually a Butterball employee and not just a peta member, and all the clips they’re using are old as fuck.

are there abuses in the meat industry? yes, just like there’s abuses in every industry with enough people in it. you should be intelligent enough to know not to trust peta as a source of information but also to fact check any image or video they’re using when it’s meant to keep you from eating meat or buying an animal product.

these are the same people who think milking a cow on a personal homestead is exploiting and abusing an animal. they think sheering sheep, something necessary for their survival, is exploiting and abusing an animal. they think all chicken eggs would just become baby chickens regardless of rooster status if you just left the eggs with the mother.

PETA KIDNAPPED DOGS FROM YARDS AND KILLED THEM. EN MASS. they don’t give a FUCK about animal welfare.

edit to add: NONE of the clips seem to show what they’re claiming is happening. they have no video evidence of turkeys being “raped” after death on an assembly line. all their clips are from pre slaughter, and those are two completely different facilities. they also look like they were filmed pre 2010 imo.

[compassionatereminders]

So I had a discussion with my dad a couple days ago about how some of my behaviors reflect symptoms of complex PTSD. For context, my dad has been extremely verbally abusive to me basically until COVID when my mom was home all the time and he couldn’t yell at me without her telling him to cut that shit out. He still loses his cool sometimes, either directed at me, my brother, or my mom. My mom had an incredibly traumatic (in many ways but primarily physically) childhood. She does not do this.

I hypothesized that I must have inherited these C-PTSD adjacent behaviors from my mom because I haven’t experienced trauma. I said this in part to gauge whether my dad would recognize that I have been through traumatic things — not even necessarily because of him, some of it is from being severely bullied and ostracized at school because I’m autistic. He agreed with my lie that I hadn’t ever experienced anything traumatic, and then started to complain about my mom being “overprotective” of me as a child. At some point I managed to bring up that I had gone through a lot of stuff in my childhood that’s scarred me for life, and he pretty much went “well yeah but you weren’t physically abused so you haven’t experienced trauma.” Which…no. Not how that works.

I moved on from that but my dad kept saying “this is such a productive conversation why don’t I have these kinds of conversations with you more often.” He at one point said something that made me tell him, “I’m not qualified to talk about this, you need a therapist or someone with a degree in psychology.” This made him go “nooooo why are you making this conversation go sideways why are you making this difficult we were having a PRODUCTIVE conversation why would you ruin it like this :(((( I can’t talk to you about anything”, which is not an uncommon response for him to have but just very annoying.

The worst part, though, and what I primarily wanted to tell you about, was when I confronted him about him, during a fight in January, yelling at my mom that she was just like her abuser. I’d asked my mom if she was okay with him saying that and she told me “oh he says that a lot but when he does he’s always drunk so I don’t let it get to me.” My dad justified his actions by informing me that, quote, “your mom was actually being really mean to me when I said that.” I couldn’t tell if he was joking or being serious and something about that made me so sad I started to cry. He didn’t respond well to that. Previously he’d complained about my mom “freaking out whenever I raise my voice at her,” which, yeah! She was verbally abused as a child! I told my mom about this later and she was like “well he says things like that sometimes, try not to pay attention to them.” I had talked with my mom’s best friend about incidents like this previously and she’d mentioned that my mom has a really high tolerance for emotional abuse and basically any kind of abuse that isn’t physical.

And I just think that’s so sad. I wish my dad would not be…like that. He’s a walking collection of red flags and I want better for my mom. I can’t put my feelings about this shit into words other than “it’s sad.” Because it is sad and I think my dad really has to do some self reflection but I’m not helping with that shit. He has to work through his issues by himself because I am not a licensed therapist. I’m literally a teenager. I shouldn’t have to be dealing with this stuff and it’s frustrating to be around my father most of the time. I think it’s very sad for him too because he’s fucked up his relationship with me specifically so so so bad. Your kid should feel safe around you, but I can’t feel safe around my dad. And that’s just sad.

Anyway sorry I had to tell someone about the “she was actually being really mean to me before I screamed at her and compared her to her abuser” comment because what the fuck. That’s a wild ass thing to say right? Like, there’s no justifying that. The justification made it so much worse imo.

His behavior towards you and your mom is unacceptable and unfair, and I'm sorry you've had to grow up in such an environment. That being said, attempting to have a constructive conversation about abuse and trauma with a long term abuser is rarely particularly productive, and you might get further by avoiding direct confrontations with him when that's possible than by actively trying to confront him with his abuse. At least until you can get out of there ❤️

[thetoaddaddy]

I dont think i ever really explained why I like the idea of Jiraiya living a more troubled/neglected childhood. Honestly I just like the juxtaposition of the rich girl from the most influential family, the tragic orphan full of resentment, and the white trash hick from the slums.

Have I hooked you? Long sorta in this essay I will type of explanation of my reasoning post. Trimmed so you don’t have to suffer through scrolling a big long post unless you volunteer to it. And I welcome reblogs with your own thoughts added to it or comments. I like having these kinds of discussions.

It makes for a fun dynamic and puts together three very different social classes that make up the Sannin and the most common 3 classes of society. Tsunade has everything from money, social status and livin in the rich how dare the neighbours put up an extra twinkle light we’re contacting the police neighbourhood. Orochimaru lost his family but lives fairly okay being a ward of the Hokage/state plus as a genius kid with potential to end the war with his big fucken brain and lack of empathy he would most likely be treated more special. Jiraiya hiding his money in the floorboards of his room cuz he knows his parents will steal it to buy into their addictions and he’s well aware no one really expects him to be nothing more than a failure.

Plus we don’t have any characters who have a troubled relationship with their parents in this way. Yeah we got dead parents and asshole cold distant rich clan expectations parent tropes. But not too much on poor and abusive. Which is weird cuz its pretty common to be low income with some garbage parents. (Not to say that’s the case all the time of course) Nor do we see much for alcoholism or similar addictions just ruining a family. The most he ever speaks about his parents in canon is that they were civilians. Kinda cold imo. Like I get that most likely kishi figured no one cares that much from where Jiraiya came from but that throw away line had me thinking and this headcanon came out.

So it’s pretty poetic that Jiraiya grew up full Glass Castle from a nothing neglectful civilian family and made something of himself with his own determination rather than being crutched with clan powers or high blood relations. He’s a nobody who proved people wrong and grew beyond his upbringing. His life we see on screen has always been pretty born under an unlucky star/he had to claw his way for anything he’s wanted and nothing was ever given to him. So it makes sense to me anyways that his early life was just as claw his way out from falling off the face of the earth. He could have just picked the easy way and not rise above being some drunk gutter rat that is just a direct product of his upbringing. But he focused on trying to get out rather than keep the cycle going. He picked the academy and proved he was not just above the curve but the grit he already had from surviving his broken home made for a determined courageous motherfucker. With that he became rich and renowned. All on his own.

I think that gives him more interesting motivation than the canon basically being ‘on my quest for pussy brb🏃‍♂️’ Like damn can we please uncreepy him kishi i stg. And I like to ignore his railroaded prophecy ass I must find my destiny stuff. That ruins his accomplishments. Honestly as a fairly empathetic person who grew up poor and hungry why wouldn’t he take pity on three war orphans and try to do good by them where he was never given that comfort? It’s far more compelling and interesting story than some crazy old toad told me to do it and I took those words so fucking literally it led the rest of my life.

I like to imagine he’s simply more wayward and never felt satisfied staying put(especially with all the horrible memories Konoha gives him). It also makes more sense for him to have this kind of chip on his shoulder over being some average guy who had an average upbringing. He can handle himself not just in battles but in dealing with the more uncomfortable situations like traveling through poor areas with the know how.

Like he knows how to speak crackhead and the slum folk clock him as one of their own. I wouldn’t call it street cred or anything. He just has the street smarts beyond that of an average person and it shows. Plus in some verses I like to think he travels hoping to find love as well. Can’t find one’s soulmate staying put in a village can they? ;)

Not every character has to be tragic I know. And this is just what I think. You don’t have to agree with me or accept my interpretations. He could have easily just brushed off the subject cuz he keeps people at an arms length. Which he does for the most part.

But I feel like with the Sannin era we were left with such well cooked and seasoned snippets that it became kinda frustrating that the rest was kinda undercooked or plain still in the damn deep freeze. So we get brain zoomies and try to fill in the big ass gaps. I want to know how three of the most interesting and important ninja of the shinobi world grew up. It’s fun to imagine and make these types of interpretations. Even if it is answered one day in a mini series or a book, I’ll still probably prefer what I and my moots cooked up. Cuz honestly we put more care and deep thought into these characters than kishi does at this point 😭

[murfpersonalblog]

IWTV Ep4 - Rewind the Tape

"How does Claudia joining Lestat and Louis’ family affect or change them, separately and also as a couple?"

@iwtvfanevents

IMO, Lestat saved Louis' life, but Claudia gave Louis a reason to go on living. Cuz unfortunately for Lou, he thinks his value came strictly from external sources; the value other people put on him & judged him by--his career & socio-economic status; his worth as a Black man (a product of slavery and the literal value/prices put on Black bodies; how his role/actions affected "my people"); his orientation ("identifying as a homosexual," "embracing my sexuality"); and his place/dynamic within the nuclear family unit (at the DPDL estate, and at 1132 Rue Royale).

By Ep3, Louis had lost everything--out of business when Storyville was shut down; thoroughly disrespected by white racists at every turn, from Ordinance 4118's segregation bill & Finn O'Shea "a white man who used to work for me" burning down the Azalea after stealing his money to open his own "No Coloreds Allowed" competitor, to Tom & the Alderman screwing him over ("a dumb pimp who got robbed blind years ago"); his white husband cheating on him with a white woman that used to work for him & laughing in his face about it; and Lou dumping Les during the race riots on the night Lestat wanted to make "our anniversary."

But ironically, Les had a point about making that night their "anniversary:" a night of change, evolution, transformation & rebirth for ALL of them--most obviously for Claudia, the baby phoenix vampire rising from Storyville's ashes, but for Loustat too.

IWTV focuses on how Louis was affected & changed by gaining Claudia, first as a daughter & then as a "sister." She became his central axis--everything revolved around her. Louis had discovered what unconditional love truly meant.

That was something Lou'd NEVER experienced before. Everyone's love for him came with conditions, clauses, terms of service--from Grace's conservative judgementalism, to Paul's dogmatic religiosity, to his p.o.s. mother's resentment, hate & homophobia. The affection b/t Lou & Lily was a transaction bought & paid for. And where to even start with Monsieur "Without Apology" de Lioncourt. 😒 And in turn, Louis' love was tainted--he lost touch with Grace, he was blamed for Paul's suicide (and likely blamed himself sometimes), his relationship with his mother had been ruined LONG before he became a vampire, and Lestat...jfc.

But in Claudia, Louis could finally pour all of his love & attention & affection on someone who could love him back, tabula rasa, a newborn vamp who just wanted food, home, comfort, safety & love from him, with all a child's demanding.

Sadly, Claudia did NOT love Louis unconditionally. By the end, she genuinely hated him (and ofc Lestat), for all the ways he'd "dragged his family into this mess" (especially in Paris), and hopelessly "failed" her, and chose other men over her (regardless of whether or not he really DID, that was how SHE FELT). Lou'd learn the hard way in Merrick that NOTHING he'd given her had been enough.

As horrific as it was, Merrick was the best thing for Lou; forcing himself to face Claudia's ghost, her diaries, and her true feelings about him. In the end, he had to learn that loving people (and being loved) couldn't be a crutch, or his reason to keep living or not.

Lou'd HATED himself his entire life, deeply depressed & full of "self-loathing;" and after losing Claudia he couldn't pretend to be happy anymore (even w/ Armand, despite how long they stayed together).

Same goes for Lestat. For all his vain cocksure braggadocio, Lestat hated himself too. (Despite claiming he didn't in ToTBT.)

Lestat thought his value came from what he could provide/give/do for others--the gentle son who stayed by his mother Gabrielle when the Marquis & his horrid brothers abused them; the Wolfkiller who saved the town & hunted food for his family; the gallant hero/lover who rescued the damsel in distress & whisked them away on a whirlwind adventure/romance (Gabrielle, Nicki, Louis, etc). Whatever people wanted, he'd give them, lovebomber supreme.

This ultimately culminated in his role as the vampire Maker, the god of his own Savage Garden, creating the world through his image of what he felt the world was/should be like (a la the Chateau Era).

Cuz he suffered from chronic abandonment issues--everyone he'd loved most had betrayed him & left him--first & foremost God.

So it all snowballed from Lestat's own traumatic childhood, trying to find God (freedom, food, home, comfort, safety & love) but being dragged back into Hell over & over (LITERALLY in Memnoch).

And trying to connect with his fledglings & being abandoned over & over, as vampirism had turned Lestat into a monster/the Devil.

Claudia effed up Les' God Complex, but he needed that humbling. He needed to take accountability for all the things he'd done wrong, and the ways he'd failed as her Maker/Creator/Father. Cuz we know Les loved her deeply in the books--he just didn't know HOW to love.

Together, I think Loustat was most affected/changed by having Claudia in the way they were able to come back together and rekindle their love for e/o through loving Claudia--she really was an effective bandaid gluing them together, when Lou would've left Les in Ep3.

Claudia was an outlet for Loustat: she gave Louis someone he felt he could "do right" by (after he'd failed Grace & the kids), and she gave Lestat someone he could bond with as a sadistic vampire killer.

So yeah, Loustat (mostly Louis) did the best he could by Claudia, but we see where the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Ultimately, in the books, Loustat is only able to come together to "do right" by another daughter when they take in Rose; making up for the mistakes they made with Claudia. (But even there, we see the ways Rose still suffered from loneliness/abandonment, especially when Lestat over-corrected by giving her more freedom & autonomy by being more hands-off & distant, instead of overbearing & controlling.)

[hamliet]

Saw an argument questioning why Wuthering Heights is taught in school since it's a racist book with harmful stereotypes where the villain is a dark skinned man who wrecks havoc in the lives of civilized white people. Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the exact opposite of what the book is doing? I mean not only is Heathcliff not the villain but there's no 'good' people in the book? Everyone is despicable (pretty much) and the book also shows how people's attitude towards Heathcliff changes once he gets rich and becomes a 'gentleman', and how the toxic environment of Wuthering Heights changes a seemingly sweet-natured girl like Isabella for the worse. Also, in the second generation, Hareton, the white boy is the 'savage' and Linton who is Heathcliff's son is the 'gentleman', so again and again it seems like Emily's point is that it's not people's skin color that makes them, but the environment and the way they're treated. But like that discussion had so many people agreeing that I'm questioning my own understanding 😭

(I do get why some people don't like that both Heathcliff and Linton die and the property is returned to the two white families. But also, in a literal sense, he does get his revenge against the two white guys who did him wrong but young Cathy and Hareton had no part in Heathcliff's suffering and they both did develop and became better individuals something which Heathcliff and Catherine failed to do, partly because of their circumstances and partly because they're Heathcliff and Catherine. I'm talking a lot of nonsense but what I'm trying to say is no-one defeats Heathcliff, Heathcliff defeats himself by blindly running after revenge)

Yeah lmao. That's misreading at its unfinest. It's also, frankly, simplistic and anti-intellectual, and to quote what I reblogged yesterday, fundamentally a conservative argument instead of a progressive one.

Heathcliff is human.

That's kinda the point. Heathcliff gets dehumanized by everyone around him, so he becomes Lord Byron basically, which is a human reaction. Like, not everyone reacts to abuse (including racism) in a positive way, and not every story has to be a morality tale. Wuthering Heights is dark and gothic, more tragic than fairy tale. It also never pretends to be anything it isn't.

Anyways, the attitude that because Heathcliff is not a good person means that he's a racist caricature is not actually progressive. That's delving into another racist trope--the idea that the color of a character's skin determines how they can be portrayed.

Heathcliff is a person. Well. He's a character. But he's very, very human, and that's what makes the character so controversial and resonate so deeply centuries later. Readers are intended to wrestle with the novel's themes, with their empathy for the characters and with their horror. Ironically, these kinda of stories are, imo, far more likely to provoke actual progressive personal growth in a reader than a modern YA story that uses characters as tokens.

Look, I'm not out here trying to argue that there's nothing to critique in the classics, or even that someone can't be triggered by this issue and its portrayal in this particular novel. It's still a 19th century English novel. Was it progressive for its time in a lot of ways? Kinda. Was it still a product of its time, though? Yes, absolutely. (So are we all.) Are there elements to criticize regarding its portrayal of race, among other social issues? There definitely are.

To repeat myself, there's plenty to be critiqued. However, to argue that the entire book shouldn't be taught based on this is... no. It's a bad conclusion, and it's a dangerous argument.

The critical thinking skills are so lacking that it's alarming and reflective of the ouroboros of society: the serpent consuming its tail, young people who think they're being very progressive but who are actually just wrapping around to become the exact thing they purport to preach against.

Literature is an art meant to reflect the messiness of humanity. Wuthering Heights is so well-known because it does that very well for a lot of people. Not everyone, but that's okay. If you remove the messiness, you don't have humanity. If you blunt the pain, you're not being honest. If you're not being honest, you're perpetuating the problem.

[macaronienthusiast]

Some friendly advice: like 80% of the posts about spn on here are straight up wrong 😭 like im not even convinced half the fandom have watched the show. is it sexist? I mean yeah but so is literally every other show that started in the mid 2000s (some seasons are better than others so it's 50/50 and there are some genuinely very good female characters - yes ones that don't die as well). their handling of queer characters is also not actually that bad, there are several recurring queer characters and cas is also a main character from s4. some of the queer characters even live! (which is saying something tbh because they kill off most of the cishet characters too lmao). imo the network censorship is 10x worse than the way the actual writers handle queer characters, as there are 4 queer writers that played a major role in the writing and production of the show (Steve Yockey, Bobo Berens, Robbie Thompson and Eric Charmelo)... I'm not saying it's perfect or even brilliant, since a lot of the episodes do come off as a bit outdated now, but anyone who acts like it's an abusive relationship doesn't actually like the show and is putting themselves through pain they could avoid if they just watched a different show.

Headnote, sorry this post was massive but I hope this clears my opinion up!

Very valid, my post is mostly in response to the post (will link if found) where someone mentioned that even if two men are dating they never say they are gay and they never refer to queer partnerships as "gay" which to be fair can be a bit of a nitpick but I've also heard SO MUCH about the writers writing something very explicitly queer in and then the producers & execs watered it down for the network, Granted I should have put less heat on the writers for that but regardless the show is a product of its producing team and if the producing team, including the network, butchered it, then the show was butchered. What we see is what we have. I'm not going to watch a show where every 4 seconds I have to go "hm that wasn't great but I do know that it was hypothetically better than this in a never-released, arguably nonexistent state."

Also I love lots of 2000s media but don't let it get away with sexism, transphobia, homophobia, racism, etc. just because it's a product of its time. I criticize Friends for its poor handling of fat people and Chandler's MTF mom despite still loving the show and rewatching a season or two every fall––def didn't mean for the post to be like "If u like a show that ever handles a topic badly that means ur cancelled" bc that is a piss take. Just like. The more consistent it is the less of a pass I give it. If there are 4 episodes where someone is like "Chandler's dad is a woman!!!" I'll be like ehhhhh but keep watching but when it's 15 seasons of "ooh I wanna squeeze this possessed woman's big honking mommy milkers my hands are so hairy form jerking off" I just can't stay into it (which again, haven't seen much of spn so people's criticism of it could make me think this happens more than it does).

The post this is in reference to was kind of about how many fans of supernatural are fans of what it could be and not fans of what the show is actually like. Granted I know many parts of it are good otherwise it wouldn't have such a massive fanbase! Didn't mean to drag a lot of people's fav show too hard!! I'm sure there's much to love about it.

[shoot1ngst4r]

the way that the duffer brothers refused to acknowledge billy’s abuse from his father and then in season 4 neil is just written off with no consequences. and they also introduced some random side character who is being abused and are asking us to feel sympathy for him while they extended none of that to billy. i have to laugh!

^^

tbh it’s not a new thing for the duffers to portray nuanced subjects like abuse on the surface level and act like there isn’t anything deeper

also the fact that i don’t see neil as heavily criticised as if he’s not the biggest reason as to why billy is the way he is pisses me off so much. how are you gonna criticise an abuse victim for behaviour indicative of abuse but not the abuser for, i don’t know, abusing him?!!?!

[wh1zz3rbr0wn]

me ranting on the marvin triolgy i unironically love the marvin trilogy so much?? in trousers makes no sense. esp the end song/ begginning depends on what like version ur listening too. i heard this theory that in trousers is actually marvin being hypnotised by mendle in therapy and it would make sense!! like it'd explain the inaccuracies between it and falsettos. Like Trina having two kids, as mentioned in your lips and me, 'the oldest drink wine the baby's wailing', while in falsettos Jason is the only child known. And in you gotta die sometime when whizzer says i dont smoke but in whizzer going down marvin says 'he takes me in his arms and he lights *another* cigarette.' Then i love how they re used im breaking down from in trousers and using it in the 2016 revival of it. imo it fits better in falsettos because you go more in depth about both trina and whizzer charaters. In trousers musicals actually is so bloody good??? like every song is great, my favourite song is marvin's giddy seizures. It highlights marvin's suicidal attempts and how it doesn't get noticed unless he acts out., then the whole thing just sounds so good. i wish the lesbians got more screen time though because theyre so radicial. every scene they're in they just light the stage up. I love how all the charaters are wrote. I would like to know if in high school ladies at 5 o'clock/ the r--e of mrs goldurg. are we meant to take that literally? im assuming we are because marvin says something along the lines of for my 14th birthday i was hoping you could show me the wonders of the bed. i think we would be, and if we are what the fuck? like i know marvin is an incredibly abusive person before about time but jesus christ. i didnt expect that. now i do adore that marvin's abusive behaviours are acknowledged and reprimanded unlike another musical that attempts to do something alike to falsettos, rent, where all characters have abusive behaviours. i wont dwell on the failures of rent too much because this isn't about rent. I have saw that 2004 college production amd i find it hilarious that in the thrill of first love that marvin drops whizzer, i hope that was scripted because that seems like such a Marvin behaviour. at the same time it would also be funny if it wasnt. either way i like it. anyway in marvin at the physiatrist, in the og off brodway cast, mendle says its queer mr marvin which is so funny to me. on the topic of the og off brodway cast, i find it fun how chip zien played both marvin and mendle in in trousers and march of the falsettos/falsettoland. marvin in in trousers and mendle in MotF/falsettoland respectably. I genuinely adore everything about falsettos. the openeing number is such a good opening song, i dont think ive heard a better one. Then my father's a homo always makes me laugh and i just love how jason doesn't hate his father for being gay, its how his homosexuality tore the family apart. Then this had better come to a stop is such agood number. i love how in the og of brodway run of it the late again sounds like yapping. then the way that trina and whizzer sort of bond over marvin's abusive tendencies is heartbreaking. A tight knit family reprise is a great song again. then the chess game, marvin my guy you know you agreed to let whizzer win cmon now. i never wanted to love you is heartbreaking. and the games i play makes me violently sob. march of the falsettos made no sense to me until i realised that it was a song to remind you that acts of affection are NOT masculine at all. i honestly dont get why act one didnt end with i never wanted to love you, but father to son is heartwarming compared to the previous songs. i love the second act so much. marvin has done everything to change himself yet the love of his life is stripped away from him. it is like a reminder that due to his past actions he can never like fully be a good person. he changed. he did im not putting that down, but his actions can always haunt him.

[5eraphim]

speculating about the "plot" of my favorite album of 2023 (Married in Mount Airy, Nicole Dollanganger) 🍸🤍🌙💎💒

(Unedited)

Before going into spoilers/the album's storyline, I want to commend how STELLAR the album's production was, and how far @nicoledollanganger has come since starting out making dream pop recorded in her bathroom/bedroom on garage band (still love that music, but the progress speaks for itself imo). This album is nothing less than hauntingly beautiful, aided in no small part by the final composition and how the story is woven amid the vocals, instrumentation and lyrics. It's the kind of music so good it makes me want to SCREAM, on god.

Favorite tracks were: Married in Mount Airy, Gold Satin Dreamer, Whispering Glades, Nymphs Finding the Head of Orpheus and Moonlite

(Spoilers below, duh)

my interpretation of the story told by the album starts with the bride running away with her husband on their honeymoon (Married in Mount Airy) Their good times together, though with an underlining eeriness resting below the surface (Gold Satin Dreamer and Runnin' Free). The husband relapsing/worsening alcoholism and violent temper (Dogwood) The bride begging her husband to stop drinking and the violent behavior (My Darling True) Knowing what she has to do, but overwhelmed with fear and hesitation- she knows what she has to do if she wants to live, and she has a feeling tonight's the night, but she can't help but fear having to go through with it. (Some Time After Midnight)

The bride's ultimatum to put an end to the toxic relationship with her husband confessing to the murder of her husband. (Bad Man) The Bride shoots her husband late in the night, leaving him to rot in the forest/reflecting on how bad they were for one another. (Nymphs finding the Head of Orpheus) Reflecting on what might have been the "worst" most dangerous nights shared with her ex-husband (Moonlite) Making her peace with what she's done, laying all the love she once had for her ex-husband to rest. (Whispering Glades)

The final track I'll Wait for Your Call is extremely bittersweet because, even after everything the Bride has gone through, and all she's done, there will always be a part of her that loves her ex-husband. And even in death, she can't help loving him from afar, and dreams about reuniting with him in the afterlife.

Also of note is how the ending instrumentation of "I'll Wait for your call" perfectly mirrors the opening music for the opening track, like a tragic ouroboros. IMO, the perfect way to end an album written to sound like a surreal dream you can't awaken from. Like Mount Airy is this fucked up purgatory for these two sinners cursed to remain tethered together till the end of time. The Groom cursed to relive a hell of his own making (constant drinking, endless wrath, stuck with a woman who loves him less and less with each passing day) and the Bride cursed to remain in the abusive relationship as punishment for her murder.

Heartbreaking, haunting- but undeniably beautiful. It's everything I love about Dream Pop and more, it was well worth the wait.

and like MY GODDDD, not to "spoil" the ending of the album (but also it's hard to spoil an album like this considering it's just something you gotta experience as a whole, but i digress) it's so brilliant to have the line "Where all you have to bring is your love of everything" from the MIMA's opening track work in tandem with the line "There's a spot in the grass in the grass waiting for you at Whispering Glades" Bringing the tale of a bride running away with her groom on their honeymoon; their love story ending with the bride murdering her husband and laying him to where she leaves her love of everything. Literally going from Married in Mount Airy to Buried in Mount Airy

My one nitpick here is that i'm not too crazy about the album's cover. I really love how she usually illustrates her own cover art for albums/EPs, and the image used is very uncanny valley and a bit stilted to me.

(but you know, this is completely subjective, and at least it's better than the cover for Heart Shaped Bed, again in my opinion. maybe i only feel this way bc there were so many lovely promos dropped before the album, i can't help but compare them. Idk why, but there's something so compelling about the image of her with the wired phone- I would personally vouch for that one as cover art)

[thatbitchsimone]

I agree, the idol does not deserve the shit it’s getting. Like wtf why are we sooo sensitive to art these days. Art is supposed to bring up intense feelings and address difficult subjects. That’s literally it’s purpose! Just watched ep 2 and it was amazing. I think it depicts female trauma in such a raw, brutal and beautiful way. Lily is so good. Rachel sennott is too. Rlly excited to see where it goes.

havent watched ep 2 yet but like i do get why a lot of ppl might not like it like there are plenty of fair criticism of it imo like i get why ppl think its pretentious (it is) and i get why ppl think its lowkey annoying and cringy and tryhard to jam in as much nudity as possible just for some sort of edgyness factor (it is) and i totally get that ppl are getting sick of sam levinson and his style (we all have a bit of euphoria fatigue at this point lol) so like ofc i think there are very fair reasons behind thinking its trash. like ofc it wont be everyones cup of tea. and yeah sam levinson gives off sleazy pretentious asshole vibes. hes a man. in the film industry. duh. ofc we wont like him as a person lol but he can still make interesting shows

i just think the moral outrage is bizarre. like i dont understand the controversy. i dont understand how its more controversial and offensive then most other shows on HBO. like really what is the big deal like whats the actual issue? i rly feel like ive missed something tbh bc i cant figure it out. maybe theres been some inside drama within the production? idc about that tho as long as theres no abuse going on bc i know what its like to work with a crew and be part of film productions and the dynamics (nowhere near this huge level tho lol on a waaay smaller scale ofc since i was just a film student in school making school productions) and there is always head butting and conflict and stress and some disagreements like thats natural like ive had screaming matches with dudes in my class during filming for stupid little differences in how to go about certain scenes and shots etc but thats nothing imo as long as it works out in the end and no one gets harmed. but as a viewer i just focus on the end product aka the show/movie in itself not the production side of it like that very rarely plays a role in how i form an opinion on a show or movie or my enjoyment of it

also i have a huge crush on rachel sennott and i had no idea she was in the cast so i was very pleasantly surprised when i saw her lol like even if the show turns out to suck ill still watch just to get me some rachel time sorry not sorry

[mermaidsirennikita]

listen i *really* don't like method acting but the way the media talks about jeremy strong is bizzare. they literally twist his words and the words of his co-stars to make sensationalistic headlines.

I actually have nothing against method acting, and I think a lot of the sensationalism surrounding method acting is due to the fact that it's a term that has kind of lost meaning (like gaslighting or narcissist) because it's used hyperbolically or simply incorrect. Lik, we know the method is a real technique, and there are real parameters to it, and actors can be effectively trained it. It might seem obnoxious and artsy when correctly applied, but it's not harmful... when correctly applied. What a lot of people, including actors, describe as method acting is not the correct application. And let's not forget--I don't think that you need to be a trained actor to be a great one and there's a huge issue with access to the arts and elitism, BUT many actors who say they're using the method have not taken a single acting less of any kind. Whether or not their results "work", they're not working with a trained knowledge of any techniques. It's like someone who's never been trained to sing opera saying that they're singing operatically.

To be clear, I don't expect people to generally *know* this, but actors should; and it's irritating that an actual technique has been used by abusers to excuse abuse.

Like, one actor who does apparently use the method (often, though not always) is Nicole Kidman. She doesn't talk about it much, but she does it and gets great results, and you don't hear about her bothering much of anyone.

As is Jeremy Strong, who does not claim to be method, lol. Probably because Jeremy truly studies his craft and knows that it is an actual thing. Personally, I don't think the media has a personal agenda against Jeremy; but I think they see a guy who does not do a lot of interviews, is both surprisingly open (in simply not pretending to be any less of a geek than he is, and earnestly loving his art) while also being kind of reserved. He doesn't look like a conventional star. He's a true character actor who somehow ended up on one of the biggest shows of the last decade. He doesn't come from an acting dynasty, didn't come into the industry with powerful connections (just connections with people trying to hustle into the industry at the same time as he was). He's friends with A-List actors who will jump to his defense. All of this just makes him more clickable, imo--and that's why the media spins shit about him.

I do think that Brian Cox genuinely dislikes him (and who knows if it's mutual--I don't, because Jeremy keeps his mouth shut on that, a great quality) simply because of how many times he's dogged him specifically. Like, there is the way Alan Ruck conveys things, which expresses "yeah sometimes you worry" but in a manner that suggests polite concern without anything serious, a couple times, and there is the way Brian goes on and on. I also think Brian has really gotten into the idea of being the world's grumpy grandpa and being quoted everywhere... and based off his JKR comments, I don't know that he's nearly as intelligent as he puts on.

But the comments from everyone else definitely get twisted. It seems like the show was run like a workplace; it was cohesive, you don't hear about big dramatics, they worked, they did their thing (fun fact: I think it was Mark Mylod that said that Jeremy usually required fewer takes than other actors like Kieran, which kind of flies in the face of the "holding up production with his antics" narrative lol), some of them stayed in touch, some didn't. Not all professional relationships become intense friendships, and that doesn't mean those relationships were negative (something I think fandom fails to understand, while also failing to understand that acting is both an art and a job).

I think everyone in that cast, except for Nick Braun, is super talented and did amazing work. It doesn't sound like there was anything abusive or intensely acrimonious going on there. Like, it's wild to me that people are trying to equate Jeremy and the Succession cast to Leto and the Suicide Squad cast.