#about how the roles of social hierarchy will be always be filled even if you get rid of individuals within that hierarchy

[glitterfairy-21225]

I have no idea if this was super obvious to everyone else and I’m a dum-dum, but I just realized that, “Who will pray for me when I’m gone or until another Richie comes along,” could be referring to the fact that characters can die and easily come back alive in the next show/episode. Richie is in Workin’ Boys. Yeah, NPMD Richie is gone. But. A new Richie literally came along.

[tuiyla]

i just stumbled upon your entire account and words cannot express how in awe i am of the way you write about glee. if you’re still doing headcanons, would you happen to have some about the unholy trinity outside the romance/sexual stuff?

Welcome Anon! I suppose there's a lot of Glee writings to look back on haha. Haven't written that much about the UHT so far but I do have a cheerleader stereotypes essay planned, ETA before 2026 probably? Curious to know what part of my writing inspires awe haha - I often feel it's just digging when it ain't that deep but happy to do the writers' work for them.

Always doing headcanons! I do find the non-sexual specification funny but in the best way. I have a ton of Unholy Trinity headcanons, here are some:

I like to think of Brittany as the negotiator. Not just because of "stop the violence" but more so her disappointment when she catches Quinntana slapping each other in Thanksgiving. In a story where she'd be allowed more agency I think she'd be upset by Quinntana really fighting. And I know, I know, the show gave us nothing in terms of a Quittany friendship but I headcanon that Britt, contrary to popular expectations, wasn't so quick to immediately take Santana's side. I think Britt knows exactly when Santana's in the wrong and is more willing to see Quinn's POV. Plus she's the most emotionally intelligent out of the three.

Similarly, I see headcanons about either Quinntana or Brittana being friends first but I'd like to think it was Britt and Quinn. Maybe they met slightly earlier and the Fabrays approved of Brittany being Quinn's friend even if she was odd. And then Santana joins them but feels like an outsider at first, being intimidated by Quinn but feeling drawn to both. The out-of-universe explanation for the UHT coming into existence is really just "trio of mean girls" but I think it's fascinating to think about how each got popular and how much of their friendship was genuine vs affected by the social hierarchy. Initially, anyway.

I touched on this a week or so ago but season 1 is just, ugh, in terms of how it handles Quinn's pregnancy and Brittana's lack of role in it. But they still stick together even after Quinn's fall from grace so I like headcanoning that the UHT stays somewhat intact in season 1B. Santana is (temporary) head Cheerio and Brittana are still within that top dog bubble that Quinn isn't anymore but they're all in Glee and sort of, just stay together. Out of not knowing what else there is, at first, but then because they realize they genuinely like eahc other's company. Even Quinntana.

All three kind of lose themselves around the time of 100/New Directions but after Brittana get back together they make more of an effort to keep in touch with Quinn. When Mercedes tours with Brittana as backup/dancers Quinn travels to meet them at one of the locations. Bonus Quinncedes points.

These aren't really specific headcanons, let me know if that's more of what you were looking for but yeah I just fill in a lof of the gaps in my head. Because Glee loved to capitalize on the idea of the UHT without putting in the work but I love this trio and I'll be damned if I let people tell me it "wasn't real" or whatever. It's real to me, okay? And the most gaps need filling in with Quinn and Brittany because that was the least developed duo dynamic, but I do think the trio dynamic is different (and more) than the sum of all three duo pairings.

[deux-jared]

my review (more like ramble) of The Menu

the three aspects: class, capitalism, and cuisine

very much so spoilers

the menu

Class:

I could talk forever on what each characters represented, their own personal sins and how it reflects common behavior in the world. but that’s easy to pick up. so onto bigger ideas. very much so is this movie a rich vs poor. that’s made almost too clear.

best part is when the chef asks felicity what school she went to and if she has student loans. that’s what it feels like. that’s actually literally what it feels like. the song silver platter by john grant. broken pieces of furniture that won’t be replaced. wearing through your shoes. there’s a sort of heaviness that seems to come along with the word college itself. what it means. what it takes. what it gives.

the chef seems to not make a class distinction based purely on wealth, but instead on role. givers and takers. if you find yourself asking which you are, don’t keep yourself up over it. we are all both. the chef is conceited in the idea that his art of cooking is above all. that to serve food is the greatest job. he’s right of course. Perhaps the World Ends Here by Joy Harjo. “No matter what, we must eat to live. The gifts of earth are brought and prepared, set on the table. So it has been since creation, and it will go on.” but he is foolish to cast himself into this spotlight role. he is not serving anyone dinner, hasn’t for what seems to be awhile. he is serving art. food is art. but art is not always food. there are other roles it has to fill to be both and these dishes just don’t fill that. it doesn’t make them lesser. it does make him lesser in the social hierarchy.

the movie chooses to , ever so graciously, look at women’s rights. and lately. it feels like that means something more than it should. i don’t want to count the amount of times each day i feel pain from it all. in an unshareable and indescribable way. the parts about disrespect, sex work, infidelity, work status, even money itself. they did not go unnoticed. it was pleasurable. perhaps too much so. to see the look on Kathrine’s face when she stabbed the chef and proceeded to say nothing. she exist under him, under the structure he executes. but she got that moment. and in a way, she owned her death too, which no other character can say.

however i don’t understand the man chase thing though, that had no consequences and was clearly used as a plot device to get the women to bond but then it like didn’t even matter that they did. and margot sharing her true identity was meaningless beyond some feminist idea about identity being regulated by circumstance or men or work and the other women feeling a stronger connection to her.

Capitalism:

what stands out about the chef isn’t that he hates the world he lives in. many, many people do. it’s his high status that contrasts this sentiment. he blames these rich people for ruining his art, but the transaction goes both ways. he himself failed at what he set out to do, and is now unhappy with the results. he took a wrong turn along the way.

the chef is, and bear with me now, capitalism.

we like to think of the men on top as these horrid monsters. it makes things easier to take in. the cloaked figure in a storybook or the black man on the news. but of course that’s not how it is, that’s not really how the human mind works. and i truly believe that those men who decided to make all these choices in global government, those who have altered history for the worse, meant for the best. of course they thought that free market was a good idea, it looks perfect on happy. trickle down economics, eugenics, war itself. we are quick to trick ourselves into thinking we’re making the right choice because that’s the easiest thing for our minds.

none of the guest thought they deserved any punishment. it never occurred to them they were being rude or unkind. and it never occurs to the chef when he is in the wrong. but he made this place. he set these prices. he signed the contracts. and in turn these people show up. it is in this same way capitalism fails.

there’s a moment in a car that’s sliding off the edge of a cliff , and i know this because i was once in a car sliding off the edge of a cliff. where you know that what you once could have done, you no longer can do. you could have made the turn differently, could have loaded the trailer less, could have not made the fucking trip at all. but this doesn’t occur to you until the back wheel is teetering and none of it even matters anymore. it’s not about what happens after, because the after will always come. in death and in life. it’s about knowing that you were not always as helpless as you are in the moment. it’s digging your own hole. pandora opening the box. the first sight of the gun. the last note of the song. how does it feel to know that this is what you had coming. in a way, to me at least. that is what the menu is about. you made the reservation, now dine.

i did not die that night. obviously. nor was that the night that car got totaled. and that slightly convoluted rescue story is one of humanity. doomsday comes when there is no longer another person who cares. no longer humanity.

the chef’s biggest gripe seems to be with the destruction of craft for money. the pressure to succeed (the sous chef’s suicide represented by a pressure good dish), the fear of replacement (elsa’s needless self caused death), selling out (the horrible movie the actor did), empty knowledge over skill / romanticization of a craft rendering it over-commodified to the point of reservation or god forbid obscurity (tyler). these are all very real issues , among many of they other negative undertones of the modern work force. and why do all these issues seem to arise ? capitalism. sell sell sell, and then you end up selling the craft itself. they lost a love a cooking because they were no longer cooking to cook, or ever to serve or please. they were cooking because they were expected to (this statement is debatable, the specific motives for the cooks’ depression is probably even nonexistent. this is a guess based on the ending and the expressed emotions). margo breaks the cycle of what is expected by honestly asking for what she wants. and for what she knows the chef wants to make. she brings humanity back into the transaction, and is thus freed.

but also in careers, sometimes the passion leaves. and that is normal. and healthy. what is wrong is the stagnation. you’re stuck here. now what. no way back no way out it often feels. you spent a life time earning this, and now there is nothing left. single skill workforce layout is killing us as a people god bless that’s just more of a person rant didn’t have to do much with the movie. i want a multifaceted skill set so so so bad.

Cuisine:

i guess this is what the movie is actually about. or what stands out the most. it is also my favorite part. margot seems to take the stance that the chef’s meals are bad. but that’s because she’s judging them wrong. as previously detailed, the food is more art than food. she is disappointed because she expected dinner and was given a show instead.

my favorite part is the (short lived) mentions of biome based cuisine. while it’s only shown at the beginning and never really specifically backed up, the concept of having an island where all your ingredients are naturally sourced is incredible. wonderful set up for a commune. secondly, the role that geography And environment plays in customary cuisine is fun to look at. what things do the people around you usually eat and how does that connect to the natural ingredients in the area. it’s how costal places have sea heavy diets. but on a far more detailed scale. you use a lot of mint in your food because the neighbors grow too much. you have the farmers market walnuts that the orchard in the county happens to grow. it’s even making a lot of dips because down the street the corner shop is known for their homemade tortilla chips. there’s are connections that have mostly been lost due to corporate structure and industrialization. but still thrive in the earthly nature of biome cuisine. it’s something to not only think about, but apply to your own lifestyle.

the class connection to cuisine. not something i’ve heard talked about but something i Very much so think about. especially in relation to health and quality of life. while consuming food is something all humans have in common, the type of food is wildly different. not serving bread is not only to show that the food they’re eating that night can’t be accessed by lower classes. but also giving them a taste of their own medicine. they are denied food that is out of their class, as many of us are every day.

and there’s also the history of bread being told. there’s a sharp contrast between the types of food eaten by different classes. qualities like nutrition and being filling are valued more than taste. my favorite food, my friday night go to, is the $6 wendy’s taco salad. all the food groups in one meal. and for under ten bucks. it’s ground breaking. no working class person is considering some pieces of high quality meat or delicately placed vegetable cubes a good meal for many reasons.

this is in part that margot seems to get right. the importance of food beyond aesthetic and artistic value. there’s a joy that comes from survival, the monkey core of the brain being appeased. and that’s part of what filling food provides. there’s also comfort food. which reminds us of better times, of fond memories, of the family who we have shared table and plate with. by asking for a cheeseburger, margot is not only being honest about her dislike of the menu in a way no other guest is. but she’s also giving the chef the chance to do something he hasn’t done in a long time. bring joy and comfort. help someone. literally serve instead of artistically serve. it’s the feeling of making a pot of soup for your friends or serving lasagna at the homeless shelter. you’re doing this to provide. not to show off. when the class based hierarchy of “fancy” cuisine burns to the ground, we will still have food. the food of our childhood and of our environment.

final thoughts:

if i was to die. i hope it would be this way. given or taking i don’t care. to finale become the art, just like we’re never supposed to, it’s the darkest wish fulfilled. just thinking about it makes me go wild with the pain of want.

[gemstarstarlight]

*butts into a conversation not happening with her*

First of all, I deeply hate this dynamic in friend groups and I’m so sorry your friends are being dinguses. Gossip and unhealthy power dynamics in friend groups are inauthentic and terrible. Leads to a lot of heartache and wounded trust. In high school I didn’t like people who seemed too put together and not authentic enough. I don’t think I even got to be around gossip because I could smell the fake from a mile away and chose to walk away.

At the same time…I would hesitate to call this a neurodivergent vs. neurotypical thing. Firstly, because neurodivergent people are capable of noticing and adhering to power structures. My dad is the most typical ADHD man I’ve ever met and he understands socializing and power dynamics better than I ever will. And he does care about it. He knows how to talk to “the right people” or how to talk to someone to make them feel more comfortable around him. And to him it’s not a morality/inauthentic thing. He does genuinely want the people to feel cared about and comfortable with him. He just also genuinely wants something from them, and because people feel comfortable around him they’re willing to give it to him. Meanwhile my mother, one of the most neurotypical woman I know, hates hanging out with people she doesn’t like and is a highly original thinker who will choose to do whatever is the “best” way regardless of what other people think or how popular it is. If she believes it’s right thing, she chooses to do that.

Secondly, I would hate to claim that people would choose an amoral way of living or call someone bad or good or deep or shallow because of their brain chemistry, a thing they can’t change about themselves.

So…if it’s not a neurodivergent thing, then what is it? I (obviously) have some ideas.

I think most people would agree that teenagers are starting to fend for themselves, make their own choices, figure out what is important and why. The whole point of this age is to figure out who you are, what matters to you, and how who you are matches up with the role you’ve been given. Parents are happy to give you a role, but most teenagers I know were or are interested in distancing themselves from their parents (how can I find out who I am if it’s just the role my parents have handed to me?)

So what does that leave to fill the void? One of the most powerful, especially in high schools, is social norms. I think it’s part of the reason people make cliques, or any organization that’s based on one personality trait or activity. Because people are searching for who they are and how they fit in the world, and social hierarchy is quick to put you in a category. Boom! Identity problem solved. You are good at sports, a theater kid, a fashion kid, a gay kid, a [fill in the blank]. And because you are a [fill in the blank] kid, and also because you are a high school kid, period, you like x things and want y things out of life. It’s easier to find simple quick answers to difficult problems rather than accept that those things may be difficult to get healthily or that you may not want them at all.

So maybe the problem is more that people are trying to create a friend group, interact with certain people, be friends with everyone, because that’s what culture tells them to do. If you make a friend group, you’ll be happy. If you are nice to everyone, you’ll be popular, and then you’ll be happy. If you are friends with the right people, you’ll be popular, and then you’ll be happy and have a great high school experience. Especially when they may be only handed their parent’s moral code or their culture’s social norms as a way to define what is the right way to respond to a situation, lots of people fall into this trap. Even if they know better theoretically, cultural norms are a powerful thing to unpack, especially for the first time.

One of my best friends is someone who has always “gone with the crowd”. Friendly, got along with others, did a lot of things her social circle said was acceptable, didn’t really start asserting herself and her opinion or even question her social norms until recently. She’s older than me.

My brother, who was deeply, annoyingly unemotional all of my growing up, picked fights with anyone and everyone, and who I was convinced was an absolute dick, moved out of our parent’s house and started becoming successful in his job. Now he’s quite a thoughtful person who shows that he cares about me and tries to love me the way I want to be loved (giving me hugs or telling me he cares about me or telling me my feelings are valid) in a way I am constantly surprised by. Sometimes I wonder if he just needed to get out of the house and surround himself in people who accepted him before he had the emotional bandwidth to be kind to other people who didn’t really understand him.

Something I have observed is that even though these people seem to be funky and weird and even downright amoral…they’re most likely just confused. Trying to balance the worldview of their parents with their growing own sense of self. Trying to navigate a world that often feels like survival, where everything matters immensely and your actions may feel like they have immense social consequences.

That kid who says sexism doesn’t exist? I didn’t even have someone tell me to my face that it existed until I was almost 17. He could be just regurgitating what he hears from his parents while secretly stewing in uncomfortable doubt. That kid who dates him? Maybe she’s not sure of what she believes and may not even take the relationship very seriously. Maybe she saw an opportunity to have a boyfriend and then took it, hoping to have a better high school experience. Or maybe she enjoys having attention or affection from someone. We all want people to spend time with us and make us feel cared for, even if we’re aro/acespec.

The point is, I think people are told what they are supposed to want (a large friend group, popular friends, a significant other) and what is normal (gossip, strife, competition, dating), right when they are asking the questions of what do they want and what is normal so they can figure out where they fit.

Neurodivergent people may have a leg up in seeing that these things can be unfulfilling. But I suspect it’s because we can’t really get these things because we don’t fit. So we don’t reap the reward of the social capital of getting these things, but we do spend time thinking about what we do want because we don’t fit. And because we don’t fit, we have to find out why and what we really need to fit.

Most people don’t have time for that. Most people are like us—they’re just trying to survive.

No because why do all my friends from my class who know that this guy is bullying them still sit at the same table with them and are gonna go to a party of his soon?

Is this a neurodivergent thing? Because like whyyyyyyyyyyy?? Why hang out with him? Why do you care??? Why don't you feel the physical urge to move away from him immediately? Like not to victim blame but maybe... consider just not.... interacting with him???

[jar-of-omegaverse]

Omegaverse Worldbuilding Starter Kit

Welcome to my beginner’s guide to writing Omegaverse! Here are some questions you can ask yourself while worldbuilding, but they are not all necessary! This is a pretty detailed guide, so pick and choose what applies to your omegaverse!

The first step I would recommend is doing some research! Look up basic guides. I put some links in this starter kit for examples and references. Now that you know a few things and are familiar with some common terms, you can start expanding and making it your own!

The Basics

How are omegas treated?

This is probably the most important question on the list.  Omegas are usually at the center of worldbuilding for omegaverse, even if writers do it unconsciously, so how omegas are treated often shapes all of society. Of course, this is not set in stone. If you want an alpha-shaped or beta-shaped society, go for it. Keep this in mind as you worldbuild.

What are some things you want to include in your omegaverse?

What are things that are not acceptable in your omegaverse?

Here is an example post of things I will never support (as a normal part of life) in omegaverse.

Do you want your omegaverse to be more non-traditional or traditional?

What’s the difference? 

What is your favorite thing about omegaverse?

Is your omegaverse NSFW heavy?

Are you more focused on the NSFW or SFW aspects?

What time period is your omegaverse set in?

Is your omegaverse based more on romance or platonic relationships?

When worldbuilding, I tend to be more invested in platonic relationships than romantic ones, so I have a lot more headcanons revolving around pack dynamics than mate headcanons.

Does your omegaverse have any special features? True Mates? Pack Bonds (mental links that packmates can feel and express emotion through)? Animal Shifters?

Who’s on top? What does the hierarchy look like?

For example, many people set their hierarchies either as Alphas on top or everyone as equal.

How much power do the dynamics have over each other?

For example, can Alphas control Omegas at will? This also ties into hierarchy.

What is the history of your omegaverse?

What is considered r*pe and consent?

Is there a difference between sex and dynamic?

Is primary gender (male, female, other) different from alpha, beta, omega or are they one in the same?

What does submission and domination look like? How does it impact day to day life?

Relationships

Is polyamory a part of your omegaverse? How are polyamorous relationships viewed?

Non-traditional pairings? Which pairings are looked down upon, if any?

For example, Beta x Alpha or Beta x Omega relationships are sometimes looked down upon in more traditional omegaverse set ups.

How do people become mates? Is there a mating bite? A ceremony? Do they spend a mating cycle together?

Are there mating traditions such as giving your partner a collar?

What does courting/dating behavior look like? Is it strict or more relaxed?

Do the packs of the parties involved need to consent to the courting beforehand? Is it arranged? Does it reflect modern society dating? Are interactions between parties supervised?

Society

What are problems in society specific to omegaverse?

In my omegaverse, the Omegas’ Rights Movement is a very large and pressing issue.

What is socially acceptable? What is not?

Disciplining mates in public? Forcing submission? Consent before heats?

How are education and jobs impacted by dynamic?

Can everyone work? Are there limits to what jobs people can hold?

What is considered appropriate and inappropriate behavior around strangers? Friends? Mates? Pack?

What is typical fashion of each dynamic, does it differ based on dynamic?

For example, Omegas may wear collars.

How do people rebel against stereotypes? What are the consequences?

How does presenting change social life?

How do people of the same dynamic interact with each other?

For example, sometimes, Omegas are best friends and need omega socialization, other times they hate each other and view each other as competition.

How is each dynamic treated in the workplace? Hospital? Restaurants?

How do people react if they don’t present as the secondary gender they thought they would be/wanted to be?

How are mating cycles viewed?

Opportunity to breed and have pups? Disgraceful and disgusting? Excuse for sex?

Health and Biology

How is health different (mental and physical)?

What medication is available? 

Suppressants? Is there a side effect of taking suppressants or other medication? 

Are there drugs that can send people into heat (often used at date r*pe drugs)?

How do scent glands work?

Anatomy in general?

Anatomy of male omegas and female alphas?

What are the ratios of the dynamics? Which is the most common?

A lot of omegaverses set Betas as the most common dynamic. Others put all of them as equal, or omegas as extremely rare, ect.

How do disabilities and mental health play into the dynamics and your omegaverse?

For example, here are my posts about gender dysphoria and ADHD in omegaverse.

How is trangender defined in your omegaverse? Is it even a part of your omegaverse? How is it viewed? Is it socially acceptable? What medications are available?

What about asexuality and aromanticism?

Are all heats and ruts sexual?

Here are some different types of heats and ruts.

How are mating cycles handled?

Who can help with mating cycles? What are people given/what do they do to help with mating cycles? For example, nests, pack’s clothes, etc.

Can betas experience mating cycles? If so, what are the conditions?

When do people present? Do they know their secondary gender from birth or find out later?

Who can get pregnant? Are babies delivered differently based on who is birthing them?

This would be dependent on anatomy.

Do Alphas have an Alpha Voice they can use to control others and make them submit? Who does the voice work on?

Packs

What defines a pack?

Are packs strictly blood-related? Are some packs blood-related and others not?

How are packs formed?

Can anyone become a pack leader?

How large are packs?

How are pack leaders chosen?

What does pack hierarchy look like?

What are roles in a pack?

Who are the most important members of the pack? The most protected? The most valued?

Can people be packless? Are there any side effects if they are?

Secondary Gender/Dynamics

What are the defining factors of each dynamic? Instincts? Scents? Other?

How do the dynamics differ?

What are the stereotypes of the dynamics in your omegaverse? Which are true, which are not?

Some Alpha and Omega stereotypes

What determines secondary gender? Genetics? Fate? Necessity based on pack?

Why and when do omegas nest? Do they only nest when they need comfort or are going into heat? Do they always have a nest?

Can alphas and betas nest or do something similar?

Do you include sub-genders/rare dynamics?

Here’s a post by @aboheadcannonsandmore which explains some rare dynamics.

Do omegas have rights?

Are omegas treated like their own people or viewed as property? Can omegas own things such as land? Do omegas need a legal guardian?

What role do betas fill?

Is there a double standard for Male Omegas and Female Alphas?

For example, female alphas are supposed to be strong and proper alphas but are also criticized if they are not feminine enough.

How does each dynamic soothe themselves and others? How do they react to dangerous situations?

There are a lot of things I didn’t address here, but worldbuilding is supposed to be fun and creative! Make it your own and don’t be afraid to be adventurous!

Happy writing!

[spikemuthtoothfairy]

Thinking about my fan region again now.

Grubvader (Fire/Bug) are probably the most common bug type found in Coswellia, typically making their nests around fallen meteorites which gave rise to the common theory they’re extraterrestrial Pokemon. Unlike comparable species (such as Blipbug or Caterpie) however they are incredibly social and form vast colonies.

They are incredibly expansionist and aggressive to almost all other pokemon and even the enviroment itself. They will actively scorch the earth surrounding their nests and expel toxic gasses into the air to better change things for them. Fortunately given they’re so small this impact is negligible even en-masse outside of battle (given they can naturally learn attacks like smog and poison gas); a child night end up with a sore throat for a few days if they spent fifteen minutes at ground level in these areas at worst.

Grubvader are basically that meme where Godzilla is rampaging through a city and the camera pulls back and its just a kid in a costume kicking over tiny cardboard buildings. They don’t do nearly as much damage as they think they do.

That isn’t to say they don’t cause problems now and again but they’re not going to be scorching the region and terraforming it into their idea of a good home... ever.

This absolutely does not discourage them though.

In addition they’re incredibly weak and function as a prey species for many of the other pokemon surrounding them. They’re readily devoured in great numbers by bird pokemon and many others. Plus the bulk of the swarm often sticks close to the nesting sites, with the scouts being the individuals most often encountered elsewhere by trainers.

They’re also - oddly enough - very popular amongst new trainers! Despite how aggressive they are they’re also inherently hierarchical. A trainer fills the role that their ‘boss’ might and as such a captured Grubvader is incredibly loyal and will give its life for its trainer.

Grubvader is also capable of evolving! It has a branched evolution, in fact. 

The catch? 

It evolves (in game terms) close to level 60. Its evolution is one of the region’s psuedo-legendaries. In terms of the region though? This means that 99.9% of Grubvader will never evolve and will likely be eaten or live their entire lives in this first stage. Those that do, at least in the wild? They cause problems. 

Terrasect, Grubvader’s evolution (they branch into either Fire/Steel or Steel/Flying) are a lot more dangerous than Grubvader are by an order of being a psuedo legendary type of dangerous.

They’re no less warlike but are a lot more intelligent and a lot more capable of actually causing damage given their size and power. Grubvader’s internal hierarchy is usually built with them - the stronger Grubvader rule. If one evolves, it takes command and leads the entire swarm on a warpath. Suddenly its several orders of magnitude bad and there’ve been cases of homesteads and even the smaller towns coming under siege - and the only thing these places can do, usually, is run or try to wait for the Rangers to arrive.

It takes considerable effort to bring them down and push the swarm back into the wilds again. They’ve caused mass forest fires, property damage and even deaths.

Effectively, Grubvader’s evolutions are always captured when encountered in the wild and are never allowed to remain wild. Luckily though the chances of one evolving are slim and usually happen once a decade at max, if that. Its an incredibly rare event.

When tamed they’re no more dangerous than any other Pokemon, providing you earn their trust and can deal with them. But you actually need to licensed to evolve your Grubvader to begin with in the region given the danger of the trainer not being able to handle it when freshly evolved (and they’re at their most dangerous) and it going on a rampage.

[hakasims]

The Most In-depth Analysis of Luca Marinelli’s Characters You’ll Ever Need

You’d think I was done with classifications, but I’m not! There’s so much more I can say about Luca Marinelli’s oeuvre and his magnificent roster of characters. And yes, I’ve made this post before where I highlighted specific tropes that show up in a lot of his movies, but that was surface-level shit. This is an actual exploration of what makes a Luca Marinelli character besides being a kinky little whore. And don’t worry, it’s still in that user-friendly question-answer format because I love you.

Here’s the thing: Luca is a chameleon but he also has a type, and this type is:

✨ a (likely) queer repressed addict with daddy issues ✨

That’s the skeleton. Let’s see how many of his major roles possess that skeleton at all and what flavors they add to the picture.

Disclaimer: I excluded characters with little screen time and Joseph from Mary of Nazareth because he doesn’t deserve rights. Also, instead of going in the boring chronological order, I’m gonna start with the least typical character for Luca and end with the crème de la crème. The results may not surprise you.

Nicky (The Old Guard)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? No.

Does he have an addiction? No.

Does he have daddy issues? I know we’re all deeply affected by our shitty father figures but I would genuinely question Nicky’s sanity if he were still on that shit at the ripe age of 951. A little tip for daddy-hating immortals out there: just do what Angel did and kill your shitty dad. Problem solved.

Is he violent? Despite doling out tons of violence, he doesn’t have a violent nature and seems uninterested in hating his enemy or delivering retribution.

Does he need a good night sleep? I’m sure nothing helps one sleep better than a Joe-shaped big spoon.

Does he need a good cry? Doesn’t seem like it.

Flavors: A perfect immortal warrior bean in a healthy relationship.

Conclusion: Ironically but unsurprisingly, Nicky is the least Luca-like character.

Guido (Tutti i santi giorni)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so but who knows? If someone told me he’s demisexual, I’d believe it.

Is he repressed? The movie may disagree, but I say yes, obviously.

Does he have an addiction? Not unless you count his romantic relationship.

Does he have daddy issues? His family is so supportive and wholesome it’s almost parodic.

Is he violent? He’s the opposite of a toxic macho dude, but then he has a violent outburst out of nowhere because the movie is bad.

Does he need a good night sleep? He doesn’t like sleeping at night.

Does he need a good cry? Naturally.

Flavors: An adorkable awkward nerd with flowery speech.

Conclusion: I can forgive straightness and wholesomeness but I can’t forgive lack of complexity.

Martin (Martin Eden)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? Yes.

Does he have an addiction? No.

Does he have daddy issues? Not to my knowledge.

Is he violent? When he deems it necessary to be.

Does he need a good night sleep? Sure.

Does he need a good cry? Cry your little heart out, Martin!

Flavors: An arrogant, pretentious, politically confused writer.

Conclusion: A little too straight for your typical Luca, but he makes up for it with being complex and complicated.

Loris (Il mondo fino in fondo)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? So fucking repressed!

Does he have an addiction? Nothing beyond his savior complex.

Does he have daddy issues? He has a shitty dad he’s spent his whole life trying to please, and also his mommy left, so like yeah, obviously.

Is he violent? He has his straight dude moments.

Does he need a good night sleep? Definitely.

Does he need a good cry? Oh yeah, let him cry, it’s good for him.

Flavors: A casually homophobic mother hen.

Conclusion: Ruined by heterosexual agenda.

Lui (Ricordi?)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? Very.

Does he have an addiction? No.

Does he have daddy issues? A big sack of them.

Is he violent? No.

Does he need a good night sleep? Oh yes. To sleep, perchance to dream about anything other than his traumatic memories.

Does he need a good cry? So much.

Flavors: Up-his-butt and pensive.

Conclusion: Leave it to Luca to take a guy who would be an absolute nightmare in real life and turn him into someone I actually want to watch for two hours and see happy by the end.

Gabriele (Waves)

Is he queer? There’s evidence he might be gay.

Is he repressed? I’d bet on it.

Does he have an addiction? Doesn’t seem like it.

Does he have daddy issues? Nobody knows.

Is he violent? No.

Does he need a good night sleep? He probably will with how the movie ended.

Does he need a good cry? At least one.

Flavors: A sweet introverted guy who loves boats.

Conclusion: While not particularly complex, Gabriele has layers and nuances. Also give him a big muscular daddy.

Fabrizio (Fabrizio de André - Principe libero)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? He was before music became his only career.

Does he have an addiction? Alcohol, cigarettes, sex, cheating - take your pick.

Does he have daddy issues? Not as bad as some of the other guys here but he’s heard his fair share of “I’m not mad, I’m disappointed” speeches.

Is he violent? He’s soft.

Does he need a good night sleep? He’s an artist, what do you think?

Does he need a good cry? He’s an artist, what do you think?

Flavors: Fabrizio de André is the flavor.

Conclusion: Even though it’s a biopic, there are still many Luca-isms there. He’s just that kind of actor.

Milton (Una questione privata)

Is he queer? It could be argued that he is bisexual.

Is he repressed? Do you even need to ask?

Does he have an addiction? About half of the breaths he takes are filled with cigarette smoke.

Does he have daddy issues? He seems to have a good and loving relationship with both his parents.

Is he violent? Not by nature.

Does he need a good night sleep? Yep.

Does he need a good cry? He certainly does.

Flavors: A repressed bisexual feeling powerless in a horrible world.

Conclusion: This is proof that Luca can carry a whole entire movie on his sexy shoulders, alone. Also Milton needs a safe and loving triad.

Mattia (La solitudine dei numeri primi)

Is he queer? I personally read him as asexual. Though assigning asexuality to characters who are traumatized is a dangerous path so don’t quote me on this, okay?

Is he repressed? Just the most repressed.

Does he have an addiction? It’s debatable whether self-harm and eating disorders can be considered addictions, but they’re part of his character, and I thought you should know.

Does he have daddy issues? His parents played their part in messing him up which then led to the big thing that really messed him up, though other than that his dad is barely a presence.

Is he violent? Not at all.

Does he need a good night sleep? At least 17 hours.

Does he need a good cry? Oh, so much. He needs all the cry.

Flavors: A quiet genius with lots of guilt.

Conclusion: Can you believe this was his first film role? Our boy is talented af!

Fabio (Lo chiamavano Jeeg Robot)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? You could argue that he is repressed by being limited in his place in social hierarchy.

Does he have an addiction? Amazingly enough, no. He has fixations, though.

Does he have daddy issues? Thinking his father was a loser and not wanting to end up like him is textbook stuff.

Is he violent? Very.

Does he need a good night sleep? Yes please.

Does he need a good cry? He needs to purge his soul from all the bottled up stuff.

Flavors: A campy psycho.

Conclusion: Luca’s most iconic character, so of course he scored high on the list.

Paolo (Il padre d’Italia)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? I can’t even start listing all the ways in which he’s repressed.

Does he have an addiction? He smokes a lot.

Does he have daddy issues? His issues are more of a mommy variety.

Is he violent? Not in the slightest.

Does he need a good night sleep? He’s the poster boy for needing a good night sleep.

Does he need a good cry? A good cry, a good weep, a good sob, a good bawl, *googles more synonyms* a good wail, a good squall...

Flavors: A self-loathing gay orphan in need of some life goodness.

Conclusion: What can I say about Paolo that all of you aren’t already thinking? Decent film, great character, excellent portrayal.

Mickey (Die Pfeiler der Macht)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? It’s Victorian England, you guys.

Does he have an addiction? He smokes casually but other than that... eh. And don’t tell me he has sex addiction. He uses his body strategically.

Does he have daddy issues? If what he has isn’t daddy issues, I don’t know what is.

Is he violent? He’s got tons of bottled up aggression.

Does he need a good night sleep? It would be great if he could use the day’s darkest hours for sleeping.

Does he need a good cry? Undeniably.

Flavors: A conniving slut extraordinaire.

Conclusion: A major player in the book (says me who managed like 50 pages), Mickey Miranda was turned into such a nothing character in the miniseries that they needed a truly extraordinary actor to make him memorable. And guess what, Luca delivered.

Cesare (Non essere cattivo)

Is he queer? Not explicitly, but come on.

Is he repressed? Lethally.

Does he have an addiction? He’s an addiction textbook.

Does he have daddy issues? *Jake Peralta voice* Yeah, the guy without a daddy is the one with daddy issues. Explain that logic.

Is he violent? Oh yeah, he’s a rabid little trash goblin.

Does he need a good night sleep? So much.

Does he need a good cry? He’s had his fair share of good cries, but he could always use more.

Flavors: A aimless junkie.

Conclusion: The quintessential Luca. Beautiful.

Primo (Trust)

Is he queer? Listen, just because we don’t see him fuck a dude on screen it doesn’t mean he isn’t a motherfluffing queer icon. It’s not subtext; it’s TEXT.

Is he repressed? Where do I even fucking start?

Does he have an addiction? Oh yeah. And a coke nail to prove it.

Does he have daddy issues? I would need a whole separate post to unpack his daddy issues.

Is he violent? So very violent.

Does he need a good night sleep? Yes, please. On an actual bed in an actual bedroom.

Does he need a good cry? You can just tell.

Flavors: A ruthless criminal with a strong mafia boss potential.

Conclusion: The pièce de résistance of the Luca Marinelli filmography. Not only does he tick every box, he gets bonus points for the excellent wardrobe choices that emphasize Luca’s best features. Primo Nizzuto is everything great you want from Luca, except singing. (Though in my headcanon that whole white car in a snowstorm monologue was a musical number.)

[archonanqi]

In Genshin, who are your favourite characters: 1) Lore and story wise, 2) Gameplay wise (how fun and useful they are) 3) Visual design wise and 4) Personality wise?

(Yo so I swear that I hit post on this but I just found this in my drafts... it’s been 3 months... I’m so sorry)

...I uninronically have to say Zhongli for all of these, but I’ll also add in another character for each because y’all already see me ramble about Zhongli every day 🥺

| Lore and Story

Zhongli - Do I need to say more... I absolutely love the narrative trope of “ancient powerful immortal learns how to be gentle with humans” and that’s Zhongli to a T. Even before I knew about Guizhong I was Hooked on him and now he lives rent free in my brain at all times.

Childe - His lore is deeply interesting to me, what’s with the whole falling into the Abyss as a tiny Babey. I feel like he’s going to be the gateway into a lot of important story elements, such as more information on the Abyss, the lady who lives there and saved him, the overarching villainy of the Tsaritsa, etc. Also we just love 1 (one) feral little boy who tried to fight everyone, got sent to the military as punishment, and then fought so good that he got Promoted to fight MORE.

| Gameplay

Zhongli - Uhhhh I have him at C6 so that might might skew my opinion a bit but hands down he’s my most used unit, and that’s with me having all units except Klee. I just don’t die with his constellation heal and burst shield, pillar is always nice during exploration, the mans is a Mining Machine, and the petrification for controlling adds is just 👌👌 I’ve also always been fond of the “summoner” playstyle in most games AND I love filling the bruiser / tank role so Zhongli being both of them was absolutely perfect. That said, the Zhongli buffs are absolutely welcome for those without his constellations, only the best stats and kit for the CEO of GEO.

Albedo - Geo supremacy gang rise up.. I love Albedo for being a super solid off-field, selfless support — I don’t have any decent artifacts on him  but he still consistently adds on so much off field damage to my Phys DPS Zhongli with his super low cooldown E. It also charges up my Zhongli burst like no tomorrow, 10/10 best battery. The yellow blossoms are also just so so pretty and the tactile / visual / audio feedback on them is 👌

| Visual Design

Zhongli - The man could step on me and I would thank him. He can kick me like his spear. I bleached my hair ombré so I could begin to touch a hint of his divinity. I literally stand there in-game and just zoom in on him sometimes. Ever since I got the Kamera my hard drive has been screaming for the sweet release of death from the thousands of Zhongli pictures I’ve snapped. I'm learning Liyue music on a piano I haven’t touched in four years, so I can imagine playing his city’s music for him. My right hand is muscle memoried to repeatedly run his attack sequence and stop at the spear kick animation so I can imagine myself being the spear. Yeah I think he’s kinda cute! 👀 👉🏻👈

Xinyan - Trying to stray away from 5* characters here. Love her outfit, love her hair, love her facial design in general. Her ult animation was the highlight of the 1.1 trailer for me (besides Mr. Zhongli of course) She got swept under the rug because of the Zhongli debacle and it’s super sad because she’s a very solidly designed unit with beautiful animations. I also love that her instrument is a traditional lyre that she canonically designed to look like a rock guitar.

| Personality

Zhongli - We’ll be here all day if I really really start poppin’ about Zhongli’s personality so I’ll try and keep it short. Zhongli’s personality is an ENIGMA to me that I have and will continue to spend countless hours studying. I’ve been thinking of releasing my findings in a character analysis, tbh, because like. There’s so much. On the surface he’s a well-meaning, kind, gentle if not a little out-of-touch individual with a flair for the traditional / fancy. 

But??? He won the Archon war? We know from Roald’s Adventurer Diaries, where he slips into Osial’s memories, that Zhongli was absolutely BRUTAL during the war. What changed him? (Guizhong) How long did he take to change? What has he learned during the last 6,000 years of life -- certainly how to manipulate mortals like puppets, as we see from his Archon quest, which no one seems to address?? Is there some part of Archon-War-Victor Morax still in there, waiting for the right spark to ignite his fuse? Yo??? I’m.... just have a lot of feelings about Zhongli’s character. 

Beidou - Pirate.. lady... hnnghh,,, step me,, ; ; Beidou is a character we haven’t seen quite yet but just her voicelines and story intrigue me so much. She killed Haishan without a Vision, stopped singing completely after said kill, is doing some kind of dirty work for the most powerful people in Liyue whilst boldly proclaiming that she is their equal,,, has a huge family and a heart of gold, seems to be against the social hierarchy of Liyue yet tolerates working with the Qixing? There’s so much going on and I for one am eagerly awaiting 2.0 not for Inazuma, but for seeing her in the story 

Thank you for the ask!!! It felt great to just let loose and examine my relationship w/ each of the characters in the game. :) 

[thexfridax]

Translated interview with Adèle Haenel, heroine of “Portrait of a Lady on Fire”

Performing in order to richly live the now

Tomoko Ogawa, in: Ginza Mag, 3rd of December 2020 Translation by Rose @rosedelosvientos​ ���🏾

Set in 18th-century France, the daughter of an aristocrat who refuses marriage and a female painter who makes her portrait  - two people of different social status - meet and fall in an unforgettable love that will last for a lifetime.

In the film “Portrait of a Lady on Fire”, Héloïse, an aristocrat, is played by Adèle Haenel, who, as an actress, always thinks, acts and decides constantly for herself. Late last year, she filed a complaint against the director for sexual abuse during/after her first film debut 18 years ago. At the César Awards, she protested and walked out after Polanski won Best Director, which shook the world of French cinema and is also still fresh from memory.

This film is also the work of Céline Sciamma, the director of Water Lilies, in which Adèle Haenel also appeared. Adèle recounts her thoughts about her current film, and director Sciamma’s “Female Gaze”, who, for many years was also her partner in her private life.

Q: Last year, “Portrait of a Lady on Fire” opened and was screened in Europe, and won Best Screenplay at the 72nd Cannes Film Festival. A year and a half has passed since then. Do you feel the magnitude of this work’s influence on women empowerment?

A: If put this way, people might think that it may be too subjective, but I think that not only this film, but Céline Sciamma’s works have constantly played a role in empowering women. But, it was understood that, surely, there’s also a way - that it’s possible to show the worldview of equal love between women from a different perspective, in a history where there are a lot of films that contained an element of women being controlled unilaterally from men’s point of view.

Q: Not dominance, but the joy of collaborating and creating something with someone, and the love that continues to grow is depicted in this film. What do you think sets it apart from many other films that have depicted love until now?

A: Until now, love has been depicted in ways such as controlling the other person, and in a sensual manner, but in this film, the nature of love is kinda different, I guess. The two women who happen to be in that place - while interacting extemporaneously using language that is characteristic of themselves and figuring each other out - are building up their relationship. While it’s fictional without altering historical facts, it’s a proposal that’s entirely different from what love looks like until now. I think that it’s a film that brings with it a new perspective.

Q: It’s not a one-sided view from the painter’s perspective where the person whose portrait is being painted is the “muse”, but rather of both sides looking at each other, and the connection of being seen is depicted. I think that you’ve also been called a “muse” up to this point, but during those times, do you remember how you felt then?

A: The word “muse” is used against actresses as a stereotype, and there were people who did say that to me that but, even if I were called a “muse”, I’ve come to be aware of not taking that position that’s being asked. That’s because even if it’s the director who’s directing, ultimately it’s up to the actors how they perform something while working together with different actors. So, you’re supposed to actively consider how you build up the character relationships artistically, politically, all aspects. In the first place, it’s not acceptable that in most films it’s the men looking, and the women being looked at, so even for things that aren’t visible on the surface, I constantly think and make decisions for myself.

Q: Tell us about the charm of Céline Sciamma as a director.  

A: She has a very clear perspective, doesn’t she? She’s a person who can raise all sorts of questions and kinda make you rethink various ideas, not about how reality is, simply, but beyond those ideas that are based on the reality that there is. She’s also a visionary, and she understands the wonder of fiction, and has philosophical ideas.

Q: In this film, you were also able to apply the relationship of trust that you’ve built with your partner, at the time, through the course of many years.

A: That’s right. I’ve been friends with her for as long as 15 years, and of course she was also my partner, and that’s because I’ve been collaborating artistically for many years. This time,  in the script, too, the character of Héloïse was written with me in mind. So since we’ve already built that trust with each other, there was no need to talk about every little thing, like, “I’m thinking of doing it this way”.

Q: This film has a mostly female staff, such as director Céline Sciamma, cinematographer Claire Mathon, Hélène Delmaire, the female artist who carried out the painting on-screen, etc. What do you think about its significance?

A: From the very start, this film’s intent  - especially since the relationship between women hasn’t really been presented as something very important - is to focus the spotlight on women across history who weren’t written about. This time, an axis (focal point) has been put together by the film crew for the women who properly understand that importance, so there’s a part  where the production did really well, I think.

Q: Through this film, is there anything that you discovered about yourself?

A: I don’t think in a way like, that there was a discovery or change just because of the role that I played. Basically, I’m the type of person who keeps moving and doesn’t stand still, who constantly asks and answers my own questions, and raises issues. Whichever work it is, I perceive them in one of those processes.

Q: I see. In the midst of constant movement, what is your primary motivation as an actor?

A: Meeting with people with whom I can collaborate with is a big one. Whenever I work with new people, I’m made to realize that there’s also such a different way of depicting (t/n: lit. “drawing”) the world. That there is a way to richly live the now, that is in film and art in general. That also motivates me.

Q: With all this motivation that’s hitherto been given to you by the director, do you think that it’s because you both share a common perspective?

A: Since I take the responsibility myself when I perform, there’s no such thing as being influenced by the director. I’m a person who doesn’t really care (t/n: I’ve a feeling ‘give a shit’ is what she really wanted to say here) about hierarchy, and the people whom I can really respect are those persuasive people who have a clear perspective, and, within the silence, can properly show what they want to talk about. Directors who give hints to the actors on how they can arrive at the reality that they’re thinking they want to depict more. I’m thinking that actors don’t express form, rather, their role is to explore the expounding of their own vocabulary. So a person who has a clear vision of what they want, and what they want to draw is amazing, in my opinion.  

Q: Finally, all the handmade dresses have an impression that they’re being fastened thickly and heavily, but how do you think the costumes influence your acting?

A: When I wear the costumes, I feel like a pilot in the Star Wars series (laughs), so as we handle the costumes that we’re given, I really think about how I’m going to move while in it, you know? The one we had was a basic dress, but at first there was a feeling of nervousness, a tense kind of stiffness. But as the story went on, I try to be aware that the movements of the dress will become a bit softer along with my facial expressions. Even if it’s the same costume, I performed while feeling that change of heart.

“Portrait of a Lady on Fire” Original Title:  Portrait de la jeune fille en feu Director: Céline Sciamma Cast: Noémie Merlant, Adèle Haenel, Luana Bajrami, Valeria Golino Music: Jean-Baptiste de Laubier Distribution: GAGA 2019/France/122 mins./Colour/Vista/5.1 Digital Channel Dec. 4, 2020, TOHO Cinema Chanter, Bunkamura Le Cinéma Nationwide Screening © Lilies Films https://gaga.ne.jp/portrait/

Profile Adèle Haenel Born in January 1, 1989 in Paris, France. Attended theater classes at 13 years old. In 2002, debuted as the heroine Chloe in Les Diables. In 2007, her name became more well-known after being nominated for Most Promising Actress at the César Awards. Furthermore, she was also nominated for her role in House of Tolerance (2011), and for Suzanne (2013), achieved Best Supporting Actress, and won Best Actress for Love at First Sight (2014) – becoming one of the actresses representing the world of French cinema both in name and substance. Her major appearances also include The Unknown Girl (2016) and Bloom of Yesterday (2016), among others.

***

Translated excerpt from ’“Portrait of a Lady on Fire” - Approaching the True Face* of Adèle Haenel’

Atsuko Tatsuta, in: Madame Figaro Japan, 4th of December 2020 Translation by Rose @rosedelosvientos 💜

(*t/n: may also mean the 'true nature�� of AH. Literally it means bare face with no make-up.)

“A woman who has an adventurous spirit, while living under constraints.”

Interviewer: Marianne and Héloïse are depicted as contrasting characters, aren’t they? From the outset, when the canvas falls from the boat, Marianne jumps into the ocean in order to retrieve it. Héloïse, which you performed, has never gone into the sea despite living in the island. How did you interpret the contrast between this free and conservative way of living?

Adèle Haenel: Marianne and Héloïse were indeed depicted contrastingly. Not just marriage, but Héloïse is a person who’s lived within various restrictions. But, as the story progresses,  you’ll understand that actually she’s a character who is highly curious, and also has an adventurous spirit. People tend to think that she’s dull and lacks vigour, but it’s soon understood that up to this point, in reality, her actions are coming from a place of being shackled. Playing the transformation of such a character was very interesting.

[mc-critical]

So I honestly thought of this ask from the Dilruba ask you got that spoke about Safiye’s idolization of Hürrem and Nurbanu. It makes me think, I felt like in observing Safiye’s character, she exhibited a phenomenon in which you’ve spoke of before, in which she reached a point of her life where she completely internalized and became the toxicity in her enviornment. I feel like she put Hürrem and Nurbanu on such a pedestal (especially with Nurbanu having treated her so terribly) is because she adapted a Social darwanist mindset of sorts which caused her to firmly believe that those who were/are “strong/worthy” were those who succeeded within the system by any means necessary, even if that meant killing and harming even those closest to them. It felt to me almost as if she came to “understand” Nurbanu’s stance towards her or even sympathized with it albeit in a strange, traumatized way? Or when she wanted to pass down her ring to Kösem after she suceeded in killing Iskender, it was almost like she wanted to congratulate Kösem on being able to kill her son. It’s interesting, like her entire moral compass was completely warped having been in the harem for so long and in unlike any way I can recall seeing on other sultanas in either franchise. I don’t remember Mahi/Hürrem coming to idolize Hafsa later in their lives but this could also be because the SOW time period was still relatively fresh in their time and Hafsa may not have wielded or exhibited as much power as Nurbanu may have as a valide sultan. What do you think?

Yes, Safiye as a character is the embodiment of these destrustive philosophies to the extreme. The toxic system leaves no one untouched and she is indeed one of the characters in the SOW and in the franchise overall that is the most affected by it.

Unlike Hürrem and Nurbanu, where we get a solid exploration of what exactly made them this way, with Safiye we have the philosophy set at the very start, her introduction sets many things clear. We know that she loves power. We know that she wants to keep that power until the end of time. Her role as an antagonist is revealed immediately in her unwillingness to give up her power. One may find her a little less multi-faceted, precisely because her motivations were more vague than the rest- we don't get anything outright with her, we don't get much insight. We're left to figure things out by ourselves. That doesn't make her a cardboard cut out however, given that we have very vague reasoning, but with enough context to see what's behind it. I find her "backstory" counterpart very interesting in that she could only be used to drive a contrast between MC E139 Safiye and MCK Safiye, be presented as the former shadow of Safiye's self, what she has previously been. With only a single scene we technically have her foundation, but what is retroactively set-up (her worship of Hürrem aside) is completely turned on its head. MC E139 Safiye is perceptive that one day you have to step out of power, but that's the primary dilemma of MCK Safiye, the very thing she refuses to do. It's hinted that she has had many, too many years of power in the harem and it's not only something she has become used to, it's much more than that: it's as if she's had this power her whole life. The prospect of her losing it has become truly unthinkable, out of reach. She has gained an self-image of greatness that would always "sustain" the castle and preserve its life force. She's accustomed to endless, limitless power. She has set her own network of people. She loves every aspect of this power: both the simple and the complex stuff, from her long morning routine to her orchestrating things from the inside. Her power as a concept alone is her whole being and I don't think she ever separated herself from her royal demeanor. She is always power and majesty and splendor everywhere, from her dresses, to her mannerisms, to her constant addressing of herself as "we", taken from European courts.

I agree that she values power as something for herself and something that is hers by right, not for the advantages or disadvantages it may bring. Safiye doesn't care about that: as long as she's there and in power, it would all be fine, it would be enough. Safiye has her own distorted understanding of applying power: she speaks constantly about the dynasty and the country (just like many sultanas), but she leaves them aside completely when she's threatened. And she doesn't view what she does as morally right, she's always ready to play dirty in order to maintain her own accomplishments and to outplay everyone else. She actually resorts to dirtier and dirtier tricks the more she loses her power. I did mention when paralleling and contrasting her with Kösem in another ask of yours that Safiye, unlike Kösem, doesn't focus her efforts on reaching out to the people, she is a lone wolf when it comes to power and she is projecting indisputable superiority on everyone she's in front of. The closest relationship she has is with Bülbül and even that is merely an addition to Safiye and the result of him being the person always next to her and fills all her whims much more than it is all genuine affection. The Darwinian philosophy is what she lives by; and the notion that she gave the ring to Kösem because of her starting to respect another person's own power except for her own, admitting that someone has outplayed her, doing it only because someone has outplayed her, is really important. Her arc was about finally accepting defeat after deluding herself for so long that no one could truly eclipse her, but then again, has she gotten completely over her toxic environment? Hardly. Because once again, by giving the ring, she symbolically continues the SOW cycle that has, in the show, many toxic aspects especially when it comes to power. Safiye could respect people only when they keep up for longer than she anticipates, have been tied up to her in a more "unconventional" way and have a (previously and contemporarily) good position on the hierarchy. She did accept Kösem as a rival at the end of the day, in part probably because she started off as someone loyal to Safiye and evolved way past that, but didn't accept Handan, because she couldn't face it that someone like her, someone she perceived as weaker, can now rule over her. I saw Safiye as someone finding disobedience from a person previously loyal to her more challanging than a permanent, irreparable change of the hierarchy she is strongly dissatisfied with. Her elitism is so strong that she doesn't go past it even when there is a change in position. She doesn't get over that biased, stereotypical thinking.

She worships this Darwinist philosophy in Hürrem, that she's the strongest survivor, that she has prevailed over her opponents, without having the chance to know the bigger picture and has heard only the banter of someone who is still biased to her after all (Mihrimah). She shares this philosophy with S02B post-E59 and S04 Hürrem in even scarier extremes and that's what she has set as an example for herself. It's true that she takes this mindset from this cult to Hürrem, too. This very disrupting cult of hers. But then again, I never saw her sympathizing with Nurbanu, per say? She's perfectly able to acknowledge Nurbanu's cruelty and correct me if I'm wrong, but the only praise I recall for her is her being the most beautiful (but the cruelest) sultana she's ever known? Which in no way indicates sympathy. But I wouldn't brush off at all Safiye viewing fer experiences with Nurbanu as the twist of fate, in which she has prevailed after all, but could acknowledge the ones before her. (but not after her, Kösem aside.) Safiye isn't that kind of person that would show in any way that she has experienced trauma, but she could've brushed said trauma even deeper within than other characters, to the point that her direction even would never ever indirectly hint at it, keeping her usual regality in check.

[Hürrem did say she set Valide as her own example in her last words to her in E61, but I get how it could be missed when she also lamented their previous, not so good experiences and told her about Nigar and Ibrahim, which put an end to Valide's life. Mahidevran, on the other hand, never mentioned Valide post-S03 outside of saying that they would bury Fatma in Ayşe Hafsa's mosque (was it?). They both mourned her death, but interestingly enough, both of them have "violated" her memory in some way by wanting her chambers. Mahidevran wanted the chambers to set her own model in the castle during her harem ruling period, while Hürrem wanted it to show she could one-up everyone, for them to respect her the way she thought she deserved. There truly wasn't this worship to such extent as in MCK, also because it presented the beginning of the SOW rather than the peak of it. There wasn't much to blindly praise there, hence the effect wouldn't be as strong.]

[border-spam]

Can I get your take on the hierarchy within the cult? Also any thoughts you might have on basic bandit culture?

Yooo world-building time. 

Bandits are to Psychos as wolves are to predators. They are part of the same overall culture on Pandora, but Psychos? Psychos don’t just come from Bandits.

Bandits are the roaming clans of wasteland survivors that prey on corporate settlements across the wilds of the dust-planes. They are abandoned workers like the raging ghosts of Dahl’s hidden past, failed settlers deserted on a vicious planet by their patrons who’ve realised you either play Pandora’s game or die trying, and natives who were born within the Bandit tribes and now pass their culture to newfound family. 

They have laws that mean life or death, and they follow their spoken rules with savage reverence. There are clan leaders and figureheads, you’re as likely to come across a Bandit trade mogul as a skull collector. They can be reasoned with as long as you speak their language and understand their ways, and most merchant ports across the docklands have stations there are unwritten whispers about -  that you don’t setup stalls there, those docks are for the ones with no names.

Psychos are something else altogether. Psychos seek out Bandit clans naturally, like they are drawn to the possibility of belonging. They don’t really belong though, they don’t belong anywhere.

Pandora has a reputation across the border planets as being where the mad congregate, like the planet itself will rot your mind over time, leave you a babbling wreck that carves crude eyes into its chest and eats through its own limbs while shrieking about the hunger and the song, but it’s not actually Pandora that’s at fault.

It wasn’t Pandora that commercialised Eridium, it wasn’t Pandora that brought tens of thousands of people to try and eke out an existence on it while hacking crystallised energy out of its rocky crust, and it wasn’t Pandora that drove its inhabitants mad 29 years before BL3. 

That was.. something else. When [Redacted] tore through the minds of the people too close to Eridium, too vulnerable to the song that vibrates through its structure that before had been so silent, it warped their minds into what was after termed the “Psychosis”, the great maddening of Pandora’s civilians. Psychos are doctors, farmers, technicians and housewives. Psychos are bandits born and warped over time, townsfolk who walked too far along abandoned trails that were warned about for reasons, corporate shills and lost children. They are everyone.

It never stopped, and rumors still abound that being too close to Eridium is the trigger, that taking a job in a Slag refinery is practically a death sentence. 

The people who lose their sanity to the incessant whispering and scratching at the back of their minds end up seeking out others who understand them, their urge to find belonging drives them instinctively to each other, and so they congregate together around Bandit camps. They may become part of the roving caravans eventually, but they never truly become part of the clan. Bandits are closer to the Psychos than any other denizens of Pandora, but even they hold them at arm’s length, even they know to keep their distance from the muttered frenzy that drives the mad ones.

When the twins began to form the COV, they were rejected straight away by the Bandits and shanty villages they approached. And I mean rejected. We’re talking laughed out of town at the best, and at the worst…

Well, Ty got her scars in that first week, and Troy? He doesn’t remember what happened really, just the tearing smash of the glass bottle slicing across Tyreen’s face, a scream, and then nothing.

Nothing, till he woke into a fever hours later, one that turned septic as he ranted and choked about how even though he closed his eyes, he could still see.

When they tried again in earnest after spending 6 months with Seifa, it didn’t escape either of their notice that while they had to really work for the loyalty of Bandits and townsfolk, the freaks that scratched symbols into the dirt outside the camps while screeching incoherent nonsense seemed to just come to them on their own.

There was no real effort involved, all the Psychos needed was a flash of Siren markings and a promise of family and they followed at the twin’s heels like packs of yelping Skags covered in body fluids and neon paint. The twins never really discussed this -  Tyreen uninterested in challenging her own opinions about her social magnetism and Troy uncomfortable with the taste his inklings on the subject left in his mouth, but Psychos are drawn to Sirens. They always have been, they flock to them like pious worshipers half terrified and half in love with the beings they chant about as ghost mothers, vault touched, the voices of the song…

They eagerly weave Sirens into their own beliefs, they worship them without prompt, and so Psychos became the backbone of the initial COV.

They were never respected, though.

As it grew, the Holy City opened its doors to all. Except them.

The twin’s distaste for them is palpable, Troy’s more than Tyreen’s who suffocates it under layers of sickly sweet reassurances that they are family. That they have belonging here, that they are loved by her. They don’t and they aren’t.  If anything, the COV views them as literal meat shields - living walls that cushion the casualties of their actual followers by taking bullets in their stead.

The Psychos live outside the city, in shacks and crudely constructed shelter towers. Far enough from the Grand Cathedral at the city’s center that the twins don’t have to deal with hearing the shrieking raucous of the sprawl that grows outside the gates daily and robs slum dwellers of decent sleep.

The city itself is filled with Bandits, traders, drug cartels run by shrewd matriarchs covered in clan symbols inked into their skin, gangs in blood feuds, but the Psychos are forgotten till a raid siren cuts across the city scape and the faithful are called to arms. The Psychos don’t matter till they can stand in front of the Twin God’s chosen and die in glory through a hail of bullets.

Tyreen laughs when they are brought up, jokingly calls them her “favourite little snacks” through a grin that doesn’t reach her eyes and shows far too many teeth.

Troy though, he shudders in confused disgust at the thought of their desperate fingers reaching to glance in worship across the warmth of his skin as he passes with a retinue. He’s strangely invested in pushing provisions budgeting to the Holy City’s slums, and rumors are that the Vanguard are instructed to turn a blind eye when food is passed through the gates into eager hands at night.

Bandits have places of importance within the COV, from Saints like Jak-Knife and Mouthpiece, to old war-hands with roles of General within the assault ranks or highly respected traders in the marketing district of the city. Bandits have a life within the cult, they have real belonging and are seen as having some form of value even by the Twin Gods, and the Calypsos barely see most other people as people.

But the Psychos are just bullet sponges, expendable assets that happily march to death in the name of a mother who lies so convincingly about her love for them.

[faelapis]

steven universe is structural

one thing that often bothers me about other media is that it’s thoroughly morally individualistic. instead of being skeptical of authority, it’s only skeptical of the Bad People having authority. nothing wrong with the system itself, only the individuals within it. we didn’t need to dismantle the fire nation, we just needed a Good fire lord. we don’t need to challenge the audience’s perception of the status quo, we just need to make sure the “right people” are on top of it.

this is a huge reason i love steven universe. it is consistent that NO ONE should be a diamond. not a single person. steven isn’t here to be the good prince - neither him nor rose were above causing harm through that role. 

none are above becoming worse through power over others. 

instead, steven universe is here - the show and the person - to find how we can dismantle those mental and material hierarchies. it looks as people as they’ve been shaped through millennia of socialization. it change people’s circumstances rather than thinking they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and just magically know what’s right. 

in short - it knows you weren’t born good.

but that’s why it also knows you can become better.

whether it’s through realizing the power you held over others was never justified, no matter how little you understood your own privilege...

or whether it’s through realizing how others hurt you, in turn, molded you in such a way where you felt justified in taking it out on others...

or whether it was through realizing that you were expressing toxicity that you had never fully unlearned, no matter how much you tried to disavow it.

every gem is shaped by their circumstances. as is every person. 

until steven could look at this as a network of circumstances, rather than individuals making choices based on some “individual morality” seemingly handed down by the stars, he couldn’t truly forgive his mother. or himself. 

but just... putting things in perspective, understanding how circumstances and power shape decisions and relations in ways that are too big for any one person to control - for anyone to try to control - helps you appreciate the immense power of simply accepting yourself. 

even if you weren’t made perfect, you can become a good person. you can bond with others to collectively reshape those societal ills. you can find it in yourself to forgive, because even if others didn’t understand what they did wrong, well, neither did you, once. and it’s okay - we’re all shaped to take the blame ourselves, even for things far outside our control.

if it’s one thing white diamond and steven have in common, it’s the flaw of thinking their responsibilities and faults are individual. that they must perform a role, because everything in the entire world seems to point towards that being their destiny. knowing better, being better, even if you don’t say it out loud.

that’s why steven could understand white like no one else could. instead of realizing the way the world around them had hurt them, they were both socialized to take individual responsibility. if something goes wrong, they’re “to blame”. they have to make the decision for everyone. they have to make the right decision, or it’s no one’s fault but their own.

they bought into individualism, again and again and again... until steven was faced with the truth - he’s just himself. being forced to take responsibility for his mom and the crystal gems was socialization he needed to unlearn to accept that. he cannot fill the shoes of his mother, she was always barefoot.

that socialization impacted him in countless ways, instilling him with guilt over everything that goes wrong... so it’s fitting that the most radical thing he can do is simply love himself. not because, but in spite of what the world told him to be.

[raonimuzho]

Lesson 1

We sat in a perfect circle on big cushions that we could not place under butts but lean under elbows as we lay on our sides. Thus we were lying like orientals, talking about the capacity of the young man who is able to learn at such rates that others are left marvelling. There we sat talking about embodiment, about the roles we play and the power in movement and sound.

The lesson begins thus. It does not need to take the conventional format by which we are ordered and constructed to understand life, learning, and value. It is all a theatre and the job of the theatre-maker is to unmask the theatre of life so that by looking at what lies beneath the mask, one can reclaim ones power from its domination.

We break power structures by which we exist if we are to recognise the words communicated in the body and the ways in which to use those words. These are the codes that maintain the perceivably indestructible hierarchy that categorises the social.

The class already begun because you explained about embodiment, movement and sound in relation to power expressed by the roles we play and those which we are expected to play, often the same, in society. Everything is a theatre so what happens if one chose to reject the role assigned and choose another? Here are two people in our midsts who choose to abandon the gender roles assigned to them in order to choose another. One puts himself in a position of open collaboration to share this privilege of choice so that it can be a tool for the benefit of those whose roles assign them suffering: The role assigned to the one who is considered an illegal migrant; an asylum seeker; a refugee. No single person is in a position of teaching in the vertical sense by which we understand learning but in the horizontal plane of the circle on the ground upon cushions misused. The circle is thus. We smoke and drink while we discuss what brought us to this space, what skills we bring and how these skills can be of use to tackle the theatre of absurd of the colonial legal regimes. The border regime, of course, is the pinnacle of the absurdity of this theatre since prison and border are two sides of the same coin. So here we bring the tools by which the codes can be learnt in order to challenge roles assigned and thus assume power, even in its single definition. There is no need to dominate but power in terms of domination has a singularly identifiable face. How to learn its expressions, when to apply them, how to problematise them, and when to reject them. These are tools of empowerment, tools for the revolution.

We were lying like orientals on our sides in a circle drinking wine and smoking cigarettes talking about the regime that rejects the capacity of a young man while the other man exclaims in determination, “You will have what is your right! You will study!” The young man sits there already in a lesson but one that takes a horizontal ground which will place all the tools at his disposal and his narrow, small eyes light up, knowing the value of this lesson. He says, “Bro! Das is so cool maan! I will learn!”

I know the lesson has already begun yet we wait to recognise its face most familiar to us. Why?

It is interesting to speak about choice and oppression because it varies the meaning of power in oneself. All I ever speak of these days… or perhaps always… is power. I learn the power of choice and the choice of power as I learn to recognise the theatre of my encounters with others. I speak about oppression and in the gaze that defines me I meet its naked face. I redefine it from the encounter I had come to accept as normal with man and white; with the police; with the law; with religion. See me now as I stand above the choking red body of the old man who the police in plain clothes as thieves in costume have pressed to the ground, one with elbow around his throat and another with knee upon chest. I am raging, shouting words in myriad languages but not the right one as I the only sense I understand at this very moment is the sense against ruthless bullying. I cannot tolerate. I will not watch quietly. No badge, no arm-band, no matter how red or how far thrust into my face by hands of how butch a man. No, I will not cower for I will not accept dirty killing. If you want to kill, kill with honour because the target of your rage, and this is where it must come from, is the source of the suffering of a thousand others. I cannot stand quietly by because the card shoved in my face entitles one to kill, especially when the purpose for doing so is to punish the poor, the desperate, the denied. It is the theatre that one can play to learn when to move, when to replace rage with fear, when to breathe and how to utilise the breath for effect.

It is the acceptance of theatre as fact that we have come to endure so much that goes against every moral by which society is formed on the sensual level.

When the encounter is to be had with all that we recognise as the body learning why then do we relegate learning only to the realm of the mind? I know it when my skin tingles the difference between an encounter of a sense by which I will form relations with another. I know it in the brush of the hair what my time to come will mean in terms of the way I am to be shaped by one and in turn to shape them. Oikeiosis is not of the mind. It can only be described but it cannot be explained. Only in feeling can we know. How can he say I am to learn feeling-thinking without knowing how much pride I take in my knowledge to feel? It is my greatest ghorur. In fact the only place where I am to recognise ghorur. What I never had. Everyone is telling me how to find the space in which they will finally accept me knowing that I am already accepted as I accept them.

I talk about feeling and simultaneously I talk about the ways in which my oppression has been formed by the manipulation of another who knew exactly how to maintain the power structures against which, in theory, I am always fighting and, in praxis, I am overworked. I speak to Muzho realising that we simply did not know the codes by which to explain our efforts as work so that value can be given in a globalised world that only knows value by man and white. Rich. Bourgie-ass! I say I cannot force the ass to drink water, only take him to it.

I want to reverse symbolic life and symbolic death but I can only do so if I learn first to assume and utilise the tools. I will fill no shoes of man and white. Rich. But I want the space that is rightfully mine. I know this is what I do the best. The best. Not better than anyone but the best. I was made for this.

The course already began in theory as we shared words and thereby passed on the codes but we dived into the depth of the ocean of praxis by sitting there in our queered forms, which caused confused looks and eyes suddenly growing wide in horror as they see that transition is change; and change is what made Muzho an exile from the family, ostensibly the only real link to ones identity with the land, with the culture, with the self. Had they not changed? What happens when they go home? Will their family also reject them? The sense of exile no body can understand better than them.

This is what I want to tell my brothers. I want to say take this course because I believe that nobody can understand exile better than you, the exiled, so I want you to see how another who is exiled from the only real link to their identity can refuse powerlessness?

A lion does not leave the jungle by choice. What means exile but the negation of choice? Yet here is one who still enjoys the power of choice even in exile. Is this not what you said to me? Did you not say that though they took your rights, they would not take your right to be happy because this is your choice. This was all you had. Did you not say this to me?

Brothers, how do these lies make you feel? Brothers, how does it feel knowing that you can but they will not let you? Brothers, how does it feel that I can shout at you for not doing when I am as aware as you are that you can but your wings are taken from you when you are asked to fly? Brothers, I know it is hard but I refuse to pity you. Brothers, I am learning even to remove pity from my gaze unto the ones surviving on our streets. Brothers, I see you as above the ones who have it easy and I know you should have it too but really because your strength lies on the ground, humbled, enrages me. Brothers, I love you, you know, but it is the responsibility that makes me able to shout at you because I know you can. Brothers, you can but you must be more resilient. You must walk and speak because this is the only way networks can be made because here is what they call a dog-eat-dog world of contacts. You will know its face as nepotism and this is the source. Brothers, so little is given you and you are expected to fight among one another over the little but I am telling you please find a way to rise in this world. Think of yourselves as able. Do not await the paper. Fuck their paper.

by manizha khaos

[benlaksana]

Coming Home

If there is one constant emotional response that my mind and body has conjured since coming back to Indonesia, it is anger. The reasons are plentiful. Chronic social and economic injustice, growing government oppression, sheer incompetency of many government officials, religious conservatism, as the proverbial saying goes, the list goes on.

And now with the coronavirus devastatingly consuming Indonesia and my government’s response has not only been weak and slow, lacking in coordination, but also simply at many times blatantly incompetent, anti-science and anti-expertise, resulting in the deaths of many including doctors and nurses, and with no full lockdowns initiated, no mass testing, just some half-baked government encouragement to physical distancing and good hygiene. I’ve observed that this time not only am I consumed with fervent anger but at many times deep sadness and crippling fear. An unholy trinity. In the name of anger, sadness and lingering fear.

Here’s some trivia and personal info for you folks. Did you know that Tuberculosis (TB) usually leaves scars on lungs it once infected and even though it’s been decades since my bout with TB, my lungs today, as you might expect, are not in tip-top shape. So that’s my pre-existing condition that at times, at many times, throws me into a panic and into a sudden cleaning spree. Wipe here, wipe there, disinfect door knobs, drowning recently handled money in warm soapy water. Irrational fear? On the contrary my beautiful friends. Indonesia has one of the highest Covid death rates in the world and with Covid patients on the rise but not at its peak, our already sparse healthcare system is already showing its cracks. Again, just to remind you, Indonesia is not even near the peak and we’re not even doing massive tests but everything is already hanging on a thread. Adding to this misery, the lack of some kind of social safety net has this climate of dread creeping up on me, this I acknowledge and I am trying as much as I can in keeping this at bay. Dread induced paralysis is not something I can to endure at the moment.  

That’s some personal (slightly existential) rant right there.

But I understand that I’m lucky and painfully privileged to be able to work from home unlike so many others. So since at this moment my productivity rate is reaching zero and I’m basically pushing away work and other responsibilities as much as I can (which will probably come back and haunt me soon), let me just first reflect on life at the moment, updates on other things aside from this feeling of impending doom.

I’ve realized that I do not update this blog of mine as often as I would like to. Desires are kept as desires, and slowly wither away as desires. Yet as 2020 dawned on me and ages with uncertainty I spent my time re-reading old books that I have read many years ago and some of my old blog posts as well. Beginning with my first blog post which is now the ripe old age of 10 years old. One decade old. With the breakneck speed of change of today’s internet, 10 years is perhaps close to immortality in internet years. That being said, I still use Hotmail for my main email which I’ve had since 1998, the year I was introduced to the internet...and politics.

It was 13th of May 1998. I was at home with my dad as schools and offices were closed. The day before that soldiers opened fire at a student demonstration in front the University of Trisakti, Jakarta. Four students were killed, riots and demonstrations were happening everywhere the following day. So most people decided to stay home.

I remember my dad narrating the 1998 May protests as we attentively watched the event unravel through our old school CRT TV. My dad was thankfully percipient enough to refuse to go to his office during that week, but he did have friends in high places so it wasn’t much of a surprise if he received some kind of insiders info. I was about 12 years young at that time, on the cusp of teen hood. Puberty was on my mind, but that moment of watching a historical event unfold (which of course I did not understand it as something momentous) with my dad explaining with excitement of what was going on, even though I sure as hell did not understand the most of it, was illuminating. A father and son bonding session as result of reformasi. That sounded like a thesis topic: Family Relations and Social Change: Exploring Familial Relations through the 1998 Reformasi. (Hah!)

It did however shape my values and ideas that I still hold on to this day not only on politics per se but what I wanted or expected from this thing called the nation-state. I have to say that the May 1998 riots and demonstrations, the visualization of the riots on TV and my dad narrating in the background constantly interrupting the reporter, was the reason why I remember that day so clear. It made an indelible mark on me. I can’t even begin to imagine the impact to those who were physically effected by the riots, houses and stores burned down, people being raped and/or murdered..

About a week after the riots, on the 21st of May 1998 President Soeharto resigned after 32 years in power. I saw my dad cheering, again not fully grasping the reasons why, although he did try his best to explain. But it piqued my interest in politics, and being told that this this new thing (really new for me at that time) called the internet had much to offer about what was happening then, a few weeks after that, using my mom’s 36.6 kbps dial-up modem that I was awfully proud of, I registered for a shiny new Hotmail account. In hopes of joining mailing lists.

Wasantara-net, owned by Indonesia’s postal service, was my family’s choice for the internet service provider. I hated them as they were first-class in unreliability, but they were the only providers to be able to connect my house, on the edge of bogor, to the world wide web. My first few emails, if again I remember correctly, were chain mails about the May riots that I subscribed through questionable mIRC chats. Chats that start with A/S/L, age, sex, location, and either ends in hook ups, or being involved in something you’re too young or ignorant to fully understand.

Being young(er) and wanting to be part of something important is such a motivating factor in us actually doing and becoming something. With Carl Gustav Jung in mind, being young or old, we are but “modern man in search of meaning” and being part of something greater than ourselves does still give me meaning.

Fast forward a few decades, I’ve noticed that you get a raised eyebrow when you tell people that you’ve been using the same email for more than 20 years now, and you get double raised eyebrows and an instance of wincing, once they find out that said email is a Hotmail account. I am coming up with less and less excuses of why I haven’t migrated fully to other emails. But hey, you know what they say, habit brings comfort, repetition brings comfort, knowledge that arises from experience, from personal history, brings comfort. Although not always, the past brings comfort, while the future which is riddled with unpredictability is lamented and brings worry if not angst. Comfort though, I have come to understand, brings laziness and at many times dullness.

It is however always interesting looking at one’s own past and how it is intertwined with the past of others. I think I’ve written about this a number of times, and most of my writings are born from the act of retrospect. I often assume that I would not be able to talk about my future if I never look at my past, but what also happens is that I also end up talking more about my past or at the very most my present rather than talking/thinking about my future. Is that bad? Is that good? Am I shying away from discussions about my particular future? Maybe, I don’t have an answer to that now. But I know it’s there, tucked away in the back of my mind so I’ll probably talk more about that someday. And with Covid-19 destroying all of my plans in the near future that someday will probably come sooner.

Coming home to Indonesia, after a number of years abroad, I have also come to realize, sadly, that many of my social activities here in this space which I reluctantly call home, are more often than not, performative acts that I do not like performing for. I am basically faking it and I am doing this by fulfilling a cultural and social role that I necessarily do not have strong feelings for, or even just feelings for, but I have adapted myself into it. Somewhat. The reason why I do this is simply out of respect of others. Things that do not give meaning for me, has often been deeply meaningful for others and expressing it verbally does not bode well for maintaining relationships. I am happy to say that I have Rara to remind me when I have become too logical (I am happy to say that I have Rara to remind about many things in life) in understanding the meaning of culture for many. But it is, simply put, not without its personal struggles.

Being a son, being a son-in-law, being a younger and the youngest child in a family oriented, confuscianist-style, hierarchical, the-individual-is-constantly-attached-to-the-social kind of society. And then being a husband in a patriarchal society, where I am expected to fill a kind of leadership role that tires, bores and disinterests me.

(On a side note: for some reason, I have often come across this odd discussion of alpha/beta male/female amongst my peers here. Which I find interesting as it denotes a fixation to hierarchy and also the assumption of fixed temperaments/personalities of an individual across space and time. Are they basically saying that agency of one’s self perceived to be rarely possible? Is change and adapting to a situation impossible? )

Then without doubt as a citizen of a nation that I superficially identify with. How can I ever identify with a nation that happily and openly oppresses others for the sake of unity? And not only rarely admits it but even more rare tries to amend it. It is a simple rhetorical question.

In sum, I have to be honest with myself here, coming back home to Indonesia is not home for me and I don’t think it will ever be one. It is more of a burden than something that brings joy.

The food is great here and I have my family here which is also nice but life of course is much, much more than just culinary preferences or familial ties. I am losing my sense of self here, and it is destructive for me. I am losing myself.

Fully realizing this I was looking for a sense of direction when I reread some of my old already read books that once inspired and also my old blog posts these past few weeks. At the crux of it, this blog has always been for me. It is shared publicly in hopes of others sharing what they have learned through life and what I have done wrong in my life. And I have done many wrongs that have not been righted, some no longer even have the possibility of being righted.

Rereading my blog, I realize much like others, that our attempts in finding meaning, and our meanings when they are found are frail and delicate. It is constantly assailed and it is easily lost, and at times harder to find when lost. Life it seems always tries its best to rob you of meaning. Not because it is intent in doing so, but because the very nature of life is in its impermanence. Everything is impermanent including meaning itself.

Intellectually and experientially I understand this. But again like many, I’ve still tried to find meaning in others, and much like many I’ve lost these people in which I have found meaning in. This is the constant dillema as naturally social creatures.

It is perhaps in our nature to be contradictory, or to live in denial, to assume that meaning and the people or objects that give meaning is eternal.

Some of these people that I have acquired meaning from I have forever lost through death, much like so many people out there. I have also lost some rather unintentionally, such as due to spoken words that are not carefully thought out. Some by design, on purpose, with deep intent and thoroughly planned with precision execution, slowly letting go. At other times, a harsh break, a rude awakening on both ends, yet ending in a sigh of relief. As some relationships, although lush with wonderful memories, are never meant to last and can never be let to live in the future. Memories that remain as memories, stories of the past, that do not become worries of the present nor burdens of the future. Our understanding of meaning is often forced to change and to morph and at many times, to end. People and things that once provided meaning no longer do, as people and the things around us change. People including me.

I’ve changed, I know I’ve changed, I’m quieter yet more angry of the world, hopefully a bit more thoughtful of my words and actions. But one thing that hasn’t changed is how I am not done with grief, and I don’t know if I’ll ever be done with it. I’m not even sure if it’s actually grief. Because we all know that the tragedy of growing old, is the tragedy of unwillingly filling your life with regrets and maybe my grief is but a thin veil for my regrets.

One of my plants in my garden died today. A lush rosella bush that I was hoping to make some tea out of its beautiful red flowers. The days are drawing long, and hope is few and far in between.

Be well everyone.

[felixmaxwell317]

anarchy and the individual and the society

what is anarchy?

anarchy is a form of social organization which exists when everyone is equal in rank there is no hierarchy...

what is hierarchy?

hierarchy is a form of social organization where ranks are apart of the social order design...

what about sociology based on anarchy?

sociological freedom is based on anarchy. when there is no social organization then there are nothing to curb the freedoms of the individual and this exists naturally because the laws of any government or society are simulatory. this means that if you move to another country where the laws are different what does that mean about social organizations on earth? the laws which exist in any government are not actually so real, they are simulated... essentially, people are consenting to a sort of pretend world. the pretend world is called the society. everyone votes and creates some laws and then everyone agrees to pretend, to act like the laws are real and then social standards are created. another way to understand what it means that governments are simulatory is to consider the nature of any human laws in the jungle. our human laws do not extend to rule over the animal kingdom. animals kill each other all the time and eat each other and run around like criminals, the whole animal kingdom is based on murder and survival. where is the law there? it’s not being simulated there. the animals don’t have kind of capacity. at a certain level, they are not criminals for killing other animals all the time... it’s just the way things work in the jungle if the carnivores are to survive.

because the governments which exist were created by people, it means that there is a sort of inherent freedom which exists beyond the laws which have been laid upon the land.

when there is no social organization everyone is considered equal because there are no social hierarchies. no one is more powerful than anyone else because social positions and roles like employee and manager do not exist when no one has organized. so what does that mean about organizations? organizations are born from non-organization.

before there is a business, before there is every an employee or manager... the roles do not exist. it takes people who naturally equal to cooperate to create the simulation of these roles in reality.

what is simulated reality?

simulated reality is when beings get together to do things which requires various forms of agreeing to a set of conditions which do not arise naturally in the real world beyond the scope of the social situation.

so if when i go to my home where i have all the same freedoms as the employee or manager, what does that mean about the social structure of a business?

does it mean it’s artificial?

yes.

so if a business’s social organization is artificial then what does that mean about a government or military?

it means that since you have all the same rights as any police officer or politician or military officer then those social organizations are artificial and simulatory.

what does that mean about personal freedom and true social identity in the system of a civilization?

it means that everyone originally before social organizations are created and participated in have all the same rights and are all militarily the same.

this means that before a police officer trains to become a police officer they are inherently the same as any other human being.

same sort of physical body with flesh, bones and blood.

so, then if that role is acquired then that means the sort of authority which a police officer wields is relatively artificial. it’s kind of pretend.

what happens in europe for an american police officer?

they do not have the same authority around those people and in those social organizations.

so, what does that mean inherently about their authority in america?

it means it’s entirely artificial to the degree that it exists relative to any human beings natural freedoms.

it also means that it’s relatively real because certain freedoms must be protected. police fill that role and are supposed to, by design, honor the free society we live and honor the inherent free rights every human being has.

so then if the police role is acquired and then also relatively artificial then that means that beyond the stage of the socially organized simulated society, everyone has the same military rights.

who will give anyone military rights?

people.

how does anyone get the power to do that?

that requires laws which require politicians and all that is done, in our society, democratically by voting.

even the police chief does a sort of voting with their team by hiring the new police officers.

so, the military power comes from democracy and this physically manifested ideological object originates from the truth of the absence of social organization.

that is to say that where there are no other beings making up social organizations and social orders, i have certain freedoms which are inherently mine. everyone does.

so, then does that mean that truly, every individual is technically at the same military level beyond the simulated culture of any military order?

yes.

if you have the potential to become a military entity in the participational consent based society, then does that mean that you have that potential inherently?

yes.

why?

because you are already your own military entity, naturally.

if you are allowed to legally defend yourself then what does that mean about that sort of freedom?

it’s a martial freedom, and to defend yourself you would have to exercise martial power by physically attacking another being.

what’s the difference between using one’s own fists, or a stick or a gun?

one owns their own body which is a physical geometric object and strikes and guns exist outside of the body. ownership of these objects exists in a different sort of existential sphere.

one can come to acquire a stick legally.

and the same goes for a gun. it’s possible to acquire a gun legally.

what’s the difference between police and the civilian population?

police have a title which is defended with guns.

military entities hold titles which are defended with guns.

the guns are effective because they are very effective martial tools.

so, without any guns can the police really operate?

well, a bunch of people could get together and play dress up and maybe some people would listen but maybe some people wouldn’t.

maybe some people would react martially and tell those people to get a job instead of infringing on the rights of others.

would that be a crime naturally? for a select group of people to martially patrol the society?

possibly.

so then given all of this true information, what does that mean about the society naturally?

it means it’s all pretend. it’s all people playing dress up.

and for good reasons, to fulfill goals in the society...

the police have the potential to do a good job. the fulfill the role of the general protector.

anytime we want to we can call the police if there are any problems and that’s a pretty good service we can benefit from in the society but just because it can be beneficial doesn’t mean that it’s totally morally acceptable considering the anarchistic nature of what it means to inherently have individual freedoms.

this is why anarchy is important to understand.

another way to understand that anarchy is fundamentally foundational supporting social organizations like democracy is to consider a democratic event.

at a business everyone wants to order food for lunch so they take a vote.

a true democratic event.

before the choices are made the votes determine the outcome by the majority of the votes there is no definite order or rule about what is to occur because the votes have not been collected and the machine of democracy has yet to come to function and operate. (and in this situation we can consider it to a majority rules type thing because that’s natural to democracy even though it’s not exactly the cornerstone of democracy and either majority rules or minority rules is the true nature of democracy because it’s rooted in value balance determination or that is to say that the rules of the democratic situation could be oriented any way because of the nature of the object being of a participatory design)

because of this function of processional sequence what exists is inherently based on machine like function or that is to say that conditions must be met before the social construct can operate.

so, fundamentally, the conditions are relatively artificial.

anarchy is inherent because in any social situation which requires social participation and cooperation the inherent rights of the individual always exists regardless of the nature of the social organizations and conditions of the social contracts which are operating like a machine made of consensual social interactions.

so, in the situation of the voting on a food choice, if everyone has the same right to put in a vote and anyone can choose to eat or not to eat whatever the group gets, what does it mean about the social construct of collective voting?

it means it takes the freedoms of every individual beyond the reach of the group to cause democratic functions to occur.

so then... what does that mean about the authority structures in our world?

is any police officer actually more powerful than any civilian?

no. not inherently... inherently everyone is their own independent social entity and consequently because of the conditional requisitions about the freewill to preserve security, everyone is their own private military entity.

is any military entity actually more powerful than any one else?

no. not inherently... inherently everyone is their own independent social entity and consequently because of the conditional requisitions about the freewill to preserve security, everyone is their own private military entity.

so what does that mean about the artificial social constructs which exist as apart of our society?

it means they are operating at a level which actually violates the inherent rights of the free individual.

if a european police officer can shoot an american police officer because the american police officer has infringed upon the natural laws of europe what does that mean about the martial situation which exists between the two relative social roles we know as the martial entity and the citizen?

it means that the entire government which is protected by a social organization which violates natural freedoms is criminal organization.

it’s also relatively necessary because we’ve got to have a group of people to protect the rights of everyone in the society and only because we are to survive as living beings who have to maintain homeostasis.

maybe everyone would dress up like police if we didn’t need chefs to cook the food which everyone has to eat.

our society only has varying roles because we are to do things and have various social constructs within the human culture which exists to serve the population as a civil society.

so, since we have to have these various professionals... people to cook the food, telephone repair people and television cable installation specialists... we have become upon ourselves as social entities who have inherited social necessities in the form of a relatively free society full of possible social roles to serve as... and for the sake of the social machine called the society...

but the necessity of these social roles in our world do not leave room for social corruption which is essentially moral corruption when human rights are being considered and socially simulated in the society...

the socially simulated nature of the military establishments which exist are blatantly addressed in the constitution wherein we have a sort of relatively artificial legal document which recognizes the natural human right to overthrow the government...

our country was founded on anarchy... that is to say we have become upon this society by the avenue of anarchy.

the founding fathers were under british rule.

that was the hierarchy.

the founding fathers understood something natural about human rights and social organizations.

they understood that it’s all simulatory and just some people getting together to agree on stuff and then take actions in the world.

so, if the founding fathers engaged their natural military rights which included brandishing weapons and interacting martially with other military entities... what does that mean about our inherent rights in relation to what we can call the establishment.

it means we are as free as we are and have always been.

anarchistic freedom is a fundamental philosophic element of our existential condition which is that we are living beings with certain objects which we inherently own.

we own our bodies and we own our fundamental social titles.

one of our social titles when a social organization is present is that of a citizen or a sort of social entity which is not engaged martially with anyone.

another social title is that which is rooted in potentiality and thus we are private martial entities because we have the right to defend ourselves and to perpetuate our survival.

a web developer when hired by a company defines themselves as such even when they are off the clock because they are employed, or that is to say they have acquired employment, and that is to say they are holding the position of their employment even when they are not working when they are at home because that is the transcendental ethereal nature of what it means to work for a company conditionally in a free country.

so, we have to respect anarchy in our world because as intellectual individuals who are free and have our own freedoms to consider and care for it is entirely important to understand the basic nature of social organizations.

so, what does it mean to be an anarchist?

well, what does it mean to a free individual who wields the ability to participate in a democracy?

it means that one has accepted the truth of their social predicament which is relatively integrated with other social constructs...

being an anarchist just means that one is interested in honoring that which is most inherent about freedom and fairness.

is it virtuous to identify as a sort of political figure who supports the freedoms of the individual?

yes.

and if it is virtuous to identify as a sort of political figure who supports the freedoms of the individual then one can consider that sort of political entity a sort of anarchist because that is where individual freedom comes from.

what does the word individual mean?

it is a word which represents, or points to, a figure which exists separate from multiple people, and this philosophical ideological and sociological representational figure is a real sort of entity in the real world, and in society...

the society is an amalgamation of individuals.

groups of people are based on the amount of people that are involved in the assembly of the group.

three people are made of three single people.

if one person walks away the structure assumes a different form.

part of the structure has dissolved.

then we only have two people in the group.

now the whole thing is totally different, the value which is a defining aspect of the form has become altered. this is fundamental to understanding the nature of the form.

the group is made of individual values which all equally contribute to the equation.

so what does that mean about the individual in relation to a group?

it means that each individual is fundamentally integral to the nature of the form, the group, such as the form is a construct which requires many single parts to even exist at all.

if there was no people would there be any society?

no.

societies need people to exist.

so what does that mean about the existence of societies?

it means that the society depends on the people to exist.

we do not depend, exactly, on the society to exist.

relative and with respect to standards of living, we can say that dependence on society is just based on the nature of what we can call our socially conditional standards of societal participation.

the theater shows films and if we want we can participate in that part of the societies culture but is it necessary to our survival.

an artist might say so... and this is a respectable notion considering the nature of the transcendental function which art and the arts fulfill for human beings as we intellectual forms who benefit from the appreciation, consumption and production of art such that our neurochemistry responds well to art and to the degree that it is evolutionary assistance of and in the act of administration of dopamine, serotonin and endorphins.

that aside, considering the situation from a purely survivalist point of view in the materialistic, physiclist consideration of what it means to be a human being that is physical entity...

we only really depend on society for food and shelter.

we could get those things on our own, and so this form of dependence is also simulatory and artificial.

so, even if we were to consider the nature of our dependence upon society as a grounds for which to posit that our dependence on the society to survive may or may not directly require us to lend our freedoms to the artificial social construct which is the society, we can say that we do not actually need depend on the society to survive such that if it’s possible for animals to survive without legal documents like laws and artificial authority constructs like the military industrial establishment then we can understand and acknowledge a sort of inherent truth about our condition and to the degree that we are mammals.

a sort of... animal.

a very evolved animal in that we are scientifically classified as a sort of one... a sort of animal.

and we’re good at doing what we’re doing, which is the perpetuation of cultural stereotypes and that is to say that the roles and general forms in the society are so general that they are, have become, defined as stereotypical.

in any city there are all the same social roles.

and some of these social roles become upon the obligations orientated as legal within the parameters of the socially simulated society machine wherein labels, or intellectual definitions, determine the nature of the procession of civil machine processes.

that is to say that in our society there are relative legal obligations upon which social roles stand to depend upon if their social function is to be preformed in the civilization.

what is the nature of the legal circumstance of the various roles which are occupied by individuals in our society?

legal contracts are dependent upon the fulfillment of conditions to be considered either legal or null...

that is to say that fundamentally, what can be considered as legal or null is based upon the requisitions for either status and in regards to civil liberties, a decent amount of authority establishments could possibly be considered in violation of the fundamental anarchist platform for by which individual freedoms can be said to rest upon such that military organizations are to preserve the nature of the free individual.

another way to say that is, military organizations are to uphold the principles which have come to form them and these principles are the principles which are integral to the whole social organization object.

and it’s also good to consider the role of the military or any military institution.

the purpose of the military is to protect the citizens of the country, to perpetuate peace and to keep the peace and because peace is essential to the functioning of the healthy society such that when the security of the people is supported then survival occurs and when communal survival is occurring it occurs by collective participation, by cooperation.

so, what is being protected?

individuals?

if individuals are being protected then their entire rights should be being protected as well.

and what are the naturalistic rights of the individual beyond the nature of any social organization?

one of them is a right which entitles an individual to be, technically, a private military entity.

so, and then, naturally, if the social contractual obligation of the police or any military entity, is to protect the population, then their legal status is determined by the nature of their fulfillment of whatever general condition of the general social contract and in this case, the condition is directly related to the protection of civil liberties...

so, what is actually legal in any social organization based upon the fundamental philosophical platform for by which sociology can be understood and conceptually observed through intellectual consideration?

what is legal is full observation of the rights of the individual and to the degree that every individual in the social organization is exactly equally free and to the degree that all hierarchical privileges are afforded to all individuals inherently in the system as per the perpetuation of the truth of the anarchistic platform for by which individual freedoms rest upon.

something to consider now is, what is socially tolerable and morally acceptable in terms of social contractual obligation corruption?

certain forms of the society exist naturally in a sort of exploitative way such that the individual is sometimes at the participatory whim of whatever general social construct machine that which the individual is interacting with and or in...

and what does it mean to be with, considering this orientation in terms of philosophical spatial relativity, and or in, and in terms of boundary form determinations upon that which is contained?

if i have an apple, my existence and immediate situation is not altered that much... i am with the apple.

if i am inside of a bank to withdraw money, then i am a sort of customer there. a part of my identity has changed socially because i am to play a role, and in this situation the role played is a bank account owner who is to withdraw some amount of money from my bank account.

most of the time, when things are inside of other things circumstantial situations change...

so, are individuals inside of a social system or are they with a social system?

is the society, by the terms we have come to define, naturally containing the individual or is it a product of individual cooperation and naturally relative and such that the society is with the individual.

what are the relationship terms by which the entire situation is orientated about?

is the situation mutualistic?

is the situation parasitic?

is the situation symbiotic?

were the situation mutualistic, there would be total respect of natural boundaries which have exist inherently.

so, what sort of society supports the hypothetical pure virtuous list of conditions wherein fundamental individual freedoms are preserved and respected?

monarchy is certainly not the answer, unless the king or queen is entirely benevolent and the rule of the kingdom respects all the rights of the individuals.

in an anarchistic system of social organization, the power of the social organization is delegated evenly to every individual as a result of the lack of social role power imbalance in terms of violations of the inherent rights of the individual wherein there is no hierarchy and hierarchy defined as social organization where in ranks of authority exist relatively to each other and with various power status.

so, is democracy a nature emanation or product of an anarchistic social system?

yes, because anarchy is based on the respect of the social organization conditions which are established in perpetuating individual freedoms beyond the nature of social organizations and their possible variations.

anarchy is when the human being breathes the air around the community composed of many human beings and is bound by the environmental situation to observe that all human beings have the same ability to do so and when one keeps to oneself, everyone can continue to breath and live.

it is entirely possible for someone to cut off the airway of someone’s throat with their hand or some foreign object, but when one respects the truth of the anarchistic platform for by which individual freedoms rest upon... no crimes are committed because all respects are being honored by the virtuous individuals who have become about each other in an ancient sacred way... virtuous individuals who have become upon each in the form of a group, a collective of free individuals... people... human beings...

when we, as a society, behave by the principles which perpetuate personal freedom, we are observing and honoring the anarchistic platform for by which individual freedoms rest upon... the platform for by which our individual freedoms rest upon...

various forms of social organization work because they are designed to operate social constructive machinery but it doesn’t mean they are all the best.

empires, democracies, republics, monarchies and even anarchies...

what of them?

what is a social organization of any use to me?

of what importance is a social organization system to me?

how important is it?

the importance can be said to depend upon the degree to which i value anything about the relative legal status of the rights of the individual in any society...

or, when i go to the grocery store with my coupon for half-price on ten pizzas what will i feel as a customer whatever way the event door swings?

i’m supposed to get half-off on these pizzas.

i should get the whole ten pizzas for half-price. i have the coupon. it’s the companies corporate policy. they told me with the advertisement from the public newspaper that i could purchase a large amount of pizzas for half-price.

is the nature of civil liberties like that?

is like purchasing pizza for half-price with a coupon from a page next to the funnies?

sort of.

the circumstantial situation about which the civil liberties are orientated is relatively more important than how many pizzas i can from the grocery store.

civil liberties do not have an expiration date.

civil liberties are inherent rights upon which societies are to be built upon and with and not the other way around.

how can we know this philosophically?

the group is composed of individuals and the value is determined by the presence of however many individuals.

so, the individual is fundamentally the foundation of the poly-form which is a multi-dimensional construct.

in one sense, the group is a single entity... all of the twelve people with the coupon at the grocery store for the half-price pizza deal are all archetypally the pizza coupon people on that day and at that time...

and all of the people in the society are the card holders of the individual freedom card which is just as good as a coupon, and better because our freedoms can never expire.

so... at what point will this legal issue be addressed by the society?

when can we look at the date and time on the historical clock and tap our watches, to say... “well, i guess it’s about to look at that legal status concerning the nature of... the structure of establishments which perpetuate cultural authority  stereotypes...”

and then, when will the laws of our free country come to be about the observation of these inherent human laws according to the anarchistic platform for by which individual freedoms rest upon?

do we as citizens of a country have any responsibility to be interested and or invested in this endeavor?

because of the nature of group sociological obligation in terms of the perpetuation of cultural stereotypes, we have an immediate obligation to preserve the free rights of individuals in our society because we have become upon the situation of being in a community of individuals wherein respects are being had...

as an anarchist, or through the lens of anarchy, or considering the anarchist platform for by which individual freedoms rest upon... are we or is anyone really obligated to do anything?

perhaps not, when one is not integrated into a social organization system...

but we are people who are intellectual political entities who make choices in our lives by the meter of virtue to the degree that we are respecting the truth of our human condition as best as we can because we are to and we are to because is our obligation to such that, and since, we are about each other relatively in a group type fashion...

in a group, the natural mechanics are to preserve, according to the anarchist platform for by which individual freedoms are resting upon, the individual rights of everyone in the group and because we are about each other to the degree of socially organization participation...

we are interacting with each other.

we don’t have to do this by the anarchist platform...

but when we do, we come to respect each other as we are respected because we have come to respect and acknowledge the anarchist platform because it most fundamentally supports the philosophical principles of individual freedom.

as an individual, one is not necessarily obligated to do anything in any situation... but when one considers the machine like nature of social organization and the importance of human life and standards of living, we can as intellectuals come to the agreement that respecting each other is a good idea, and a good practice...

to refrain from infringing upon the rights of others is to respect the rights of others, and it’s natural to say that by the principles which the anarchistic platform for by which individual freedoms are resting upon generate for oneself to the degree of social freedom, that if those rights are acknowledged as existing for everyone who is an individual then we are to naturally respect those rights because the of social obligation which others have put us in the situation of coming to respect since they have inherent free rights as well.

to infringe upon the rights of another person would be to exercise and abuse a form of power, which is a form of hierarchy.

so, to respect the anarchistic inherent free rights of others is to be in true accordance with the fundamental principles of anarchy.

or that is to say, there is nothing artificial about acting in accordance with the truth...

and that is to say that artificial in terms of sociality is defined as that which is not entirely true, or is in some way fake...

is the truth fake or is the truth real?

technically, the truth would be real in this analogy.

if i have a fake apple which is made of styrofoam, is it truly an apple?

no.

only a real apple from a real apple true can be considered and defined as a real apple if we are considering the truth.

so, when we are talking about the truth we are also talking about that which is real.

when we are talking about civil liberties and the socio-linguistic truth of our human social condition about which the group is to be fashioned as mutualistically as possible in relation to the individual, we are talking about that which is inherently legally real.

we are communicating about the real laws of the human condition.

is anarchy about any laws?

well, is anarchy about any circumstantial conditions?

yes.

the condition is that there is to be no delegation of power in ranks.

there is no imbalance of power at any level.

is that like a law?

well, technically a law is a sort social construct which is to serve a function the collective interest of the body which produces it.

and in a true anarchistic system, hierarchy would be “against the law”. it would not be allowed in an anarchistic system because that social system the power is not delegated by rank.

and also, what would it mean for an anarchist to infringe upon the rights of another person? are anarchists free to do whatever they want to? are anarchists allowed to violate the fundamental anarchistic principles according to their own principles?

this depends on the nature of the definition of what anarchy means to any individual.

anarchy could mean that there are no laws and one can do whatever they want to, including the infringement of rights upon any individual.

anarchy could mean that there is no government.

but what does anarchy actually mean?

anarchy just means there is an absence of hierarchy.

even if anarchy was definitionally orientated about the precept that there is no government, upon which principles is this concept founded on?

the “no government” version of anarchy is based upon the idea that no form of social organization can rule over the individual, or that the individual has absolute freedom.

if any individual has absolute freedom and then that means all individuals have absolute freedom.

so, can an individual infringe upon the rights of another who has the absolute freedom to do anything?

well, is that a form of government to infringe upon the rights of another?

to govern is to exercise authority, and in terms of social interaction, to impose one’s will upon another is a form of social boundary imposition which is a form of government.

so, technically, even if every anarchist has the absolute freedom then no social harm can occur because there can be no government and where there is no government there are no social impositions and no infringements of any rights... including anyone who might choose to identify as some other socio-political orientation besides an anarchist.

so... we are back to square one...

and there is a different between absolute freedom and absolute authority and absolute freedom without government and absolute authority without government.

these four socio-political ideological objects are all relatively similar and also entirely different.

the concept of absolute authority to the degree of being able to infringe upon the rights of others is authoritarian, morally corrupt, socially unacceptable in terms of what it means for a group to function mutualistically, is unfair and is a form of an abuse of power.

anarchy does not mean anything about criminal activity or authoritarian corruption and abuse of power.

anarchy means everyone is free and everyone respects each other.

anarchy means there is peace and there is to be peace.

anarchy is a social organization system which is orientated about the perpetuation of the freedom of the individual which in turn comes to produce and preserve peace because where there is no hierarchy there is no imbalance of power and all persons are defined as equal social entities.

and where all freedoms are respected and there is no infringement of any free rights, then there is no violence which is a form of a power imbalance and then there is only peace.

and peace is beneficial to the individual in terms of physical survival and the perpetuation of the evolutionary agenda which is based on health and the homeostasis of the organism.

by the anarchist platform for by which the individual freedoms rest upon, all forms appear to abide by peace and total systematic beneficially occurs where peace is perpetuated.

such is the miracle of the inherent philosophy upon which freedom appears to rest upon and support.

we must be in some good universe of virtuous order for our natural logic and reason transports us to an intellectual destination wherein we find the truth we would most benefit from.

if one were spiritually inclined one might reason that the actual metaphysical objects of which philosophy comes to ideologically form, survey, inspect, dissect, construct and consider are of such a divine nature that we are most certainly close, dimensionally, to the one holy god being which supports the existence and to the most righteous degree that fundamental freedom occurs at the arrival to the conclusions of considerations of thee...

also, naturally, considering the nature of logic and form definitions, one would arrive to conclusions of that which was contemplated by the nature of considering that which is whatever is being considered...

that is to say, if i think about an apple i will eventually reason that apples are good and healthy to eat and beneficial to me and my heart will be glad at my conclusions which are rooted in their metaphorical soil...

and i already know that apples are good to eat because i learned of the beneficial qualities of the fruit in school.

and i already know that anarchy is good because after becoming attracted to the philosophy by the nature of it’s psychologically rewarding maxims which entertain and support principles of freedom and fairness and truth and virtue, i have studied and reasoned about the principles of anarchy and have happened upon most fortunate conclusions.

fortunate conclusions which support ideological precepts plainly enough and directly so, that my adolescent spiritual inclinations concerning sociology appear to me now entirely correct and to the degree that the pursuit of virtue has brought me to the intellectual doors of personal philosophic satisfaction after having inspected the nature of the socio-ideological object which exists inherently as the supra-social machine... the anarchy.

here i have made quite the appreciable frame for the virtuous social platform...

and then, it is also important to realize the virtuous and beneficial nature of hierarchy.

anyone can become a doctor but it takes years of dedication to learn how to preform procedures correctly, and with life at stake, to preserve the health of living beings.

in a hospital, the nature of hierarchy is totally beneficial to any individual who is to or is seeking the services of the medical community.

so, if there are nurses who know a certain amount of medical information and then doctors who are hierarchically above and with more authority than the nurses, what does this mean about virtue, beneficially and peace?

if the intellectual anarchist wages everything on the intellectual platform for an appealing and compelling ideological system, such that anarchy is, then what is one in the face of true reason concerning anything to be considered?

is, in this society, an anarchist a sort of intellectual stereotype attracted to the social personality aesthetic which promotes the wildness of the rage of the socially conscious activist intellectual?

or is an anarchist a socially transcendental sort of entity who exists peacefully in the world for the sake of the integrity of their own virtue and for the sake of the community?

and for the sake of cultural identification and proper labeling of the stereotypical individual in the society as cultural archetypes are to be considered... most anarchists just want to make sure there are enough trees on the earth for everyone to breath well.

are anarchists violent window smashing, molotov cocktail throwing, intellectually violent, character judging, destroyers of the society for sake of wild violence and throwing around a bad attitude?

no.

anarchists are peaceful intellectually motivated free-thinking people who have the interests of the common person at heart... at heart the anarchist has the interests of the common person.

how natural it is that the intellectual and philosophical inheritance of the sociological form happens to be happening upon the anarchist then?

entirely and absolutely in terms of that which is ever forthright.

wherefrom are the organizations of social bodies to ever arise and after what and therefore by whence, upon sequences of what sort is the original ground upon which all that is to be formed socially?

the truest answer is that from an absence of organization does any social form become assembled.

that is to say that before the book club started in the neighborhood there was an intellectual need for one, and from the absence of that social organization arose the design and manifestation of the neighborhood book club.

and that is to say, anarchy is historically the grounds upon which civilization has become about itself to happening in the world... for out of mountains and monarchies, and deserts and the emptiness of primitive man’s initial social tendencies considerations eventuated themselves to become about occurring on the historical map wherein we find ourselves now... inheriting the world around us as a story built upon the free actions of any individual and the evolution of social theory which brings us now to the acknowledgement that anarchy is in fact the basis of hierarchy.

is anarchy fundamentally chaotic?

in a field of grass it’s all the same to them, every blade does it’s job and it all works out. they’re not voting about how green it’s got to be. they act according to the program they are designed to preform by and everything works out.

as human beings... our program, our basic program is designed to maintain homeostasis and as intelligent living beings we understand that what is good for us fundamentally as human beings, as all human beings physical bodies must maintain homeostasis, then that good is good for others. through our compassionate logic and by the avenues of considerations about objects arrived to by sympathetic and projections of empathetic human phenomena, we know what we’re supposed to do. we’re supposed to be good because it’s good to be good.

so, what is exactly chaotic or dangerous about living by a set of values which arise as a result of intellectual reflection upon and about the principles of anarchy?

there is nothing chaotic or dangerous about that social style of the conduction of one’s own self. all the avenues of anarchy, true to it’s ideological form, lead to peace and beneficial functions of the society.

why is anarchy associated why chaos?

in any highly complicated information based system chaos will eventually cause disorder which would eventually cause the destruction of the construct.

to a highly informed intelligent and educated anarchist, chaos is a possibly way to accomplish the virtuous goal of destroying the establishment.

what about our society is so immoral and or corrupt that it’s destruction appears to be so over-due and the most morally responsible event anticipatable?

the society, and any society, which temporarily operates may or may not have aspects which violate fundamental human rights and in terms of positions of authority, hierarchies possibly violate those free rights of the individual automatically.

what about in a hospital?

that appears to be different, the function of the doctor naturally constitutes the hierarchy to be necessary because only an educated doctor can preform the jobs of a medical professional. people’s lives are stake there.

what makes the most sense of all this? it’s got be one or the other? can it be both, anarchy and hierarchy, together?

whatever makes the most sense in actuality is whatever makes the most sense, not just what is easiest to digest or think about...

and anarchy and hierarchy can exist peacefully together. they do in the hospital. the doctor respects everyone rights and also has a sort of authority which can only be acquired by going to college to become a doctor and then by going to medical school.

what about the tools of oppression which operate in our society  to create simulated environments which perpetuate the violation of human freedoms like the family unit?

what inherent freedoms are gained or lost as result of the maturation of the human being in terms of progression of age?

none.

every human being is technically entirely and absolutely free for their entire existence and such that one is oneself for the entirety of their existence and their fundamental freedoms always exist for them.

so, what does this mean about the legality of certain laws in our free society concerning minors?

and what does the stereotypical hierarchical social construct of an imbalanced power model called the family unit do to a society?

what happens when the entire society is classically conditioned and psychologically programmed as children and into adolescent youth to operate about an artificial social system of authority power types?

who knows but naturally, as a psychologist one could say that a sort of repression might occur...

in the society which is composed of individuals, where are the parameters coming from?

the parameters of the social construct come from individuals and groups of individuals.

it’s all relatively artificial unless the construct is in exact consonant harmony with what is most inherent to the absolute freedom of the individual.

what has occurred is a form of anarchistic repression.

repression of the anarchistic individual with the induction of the hierarchical oppression system called the family unit.

in what ways can anyone benefit from morally corrupt imbalanced power structures as social organizations?

or another way to consider that idea is in what ways are authoritarian dictatorships beneficial to the individual as a developing human being?

most people would say that there are no forms of authoritarian dictatorships that would ever come to benefit the individual.

so, why do we have a whole society which functions around the accomplishments of the family unit?

are families good?

families can be good but by what conditions?

if the parents and children are satisfied then no one gets punished and peace is had in the home.

and some families operate democratically... everyone votes on dinner or where to go for vacation or what to watch on television.

but what about the anarchistic rights of the free individual as one is a human being?

anarchistic meaning with no hierarchy.

when there is no hierarchy there is no imbalance of power.

hierarchy exists only when there are ranks of power which fundamentally violate human rights because the delegation of authority rests on a socio-ideological system which puts second the absolute authority of the individual to the conditions of the social organization.

so, what happens when a society is classical conditioned around and about and up on anarchistically repressive social constructs?

well, if people’s fundamental rights are violated and to degrees which put their safety and rights at risk then what will happen to their sense of individual confidence and their individual confidence itself?

what sort of social tendencies will come into existence when everyone has been turned into a square? defined by stereotypes and personally offensive authority archetypes?

will the society come to ever design a most free social construct when everyone has been classically conditioned by what we can call identity repression?

what has been repressed about the individuals identity?

what has been repressed is the fundamental fact that they are actually entirely within their legal right to control every aspect of their existence and beyond the reaches of the family unit, or any social organization for that matter.

all systems of control must become questioned by the free individual who is interested in preserving their freedom and participating in the progression of the society.

including the family unit as a hierarchical social institution...

the family unit as a hierarchical social institution was only ever generated from the evolutionary world of the animal kingdom because babies cannot survive without the care of the parents and the care of the community.

all of the animals, which are even considerably less civil than the human being, raise their children with care and well.

and the family unit can do a good job... at raising an individual but what is the truth of the conditions of the socially contractual situation called the family unit?

by what conditions is inherent human freedom actually being preserved in the society with the family as a legally respected entity and to the degree that human rights are violated with the corrupt hierarchical imbalance of social authority?

what’s going on with the whole spanking thing?

what’s going on with the whole verbal lashing thing?

why is that acceptable?

is it acceptable?

i don’t think so. what other social organizations allow for the assault of human beings and especially when all the members have not even consented to participating?

none and because it’s illegal.

parents from one family cannot go to another house and perpetuate cultural illusions by enforcing their authority on anyone, parent or child...

why?

because that would violate the other families fundamental rights and freedoms.

so where does the power of the parent come from?

it comes from the idea that because the parent gave birth to the child that the parent sort of owns the child.

well, is this actually true?

technically, no. the child is absolutely free.

how can we understand that the child is absolutely free?

well, once the child becomes an adult and can exercise their true freedom which exists inherently as they are a human being it is upon the maxim actual which is that they have inherent freedoms because they are a human being. not because they are an adult. both are true but most fundamentally, one’s freedom is their own because they are a living human being.

adult or minor has nothing to do with anything at all when considering the nature of the inherent rights of human beings.

so, the society must come to respect this reality.

and it’s not that difficult.

any human being is absolutely free regardless of age.

that’s easy.

so, could families exist in ways which the law can recognize and maintain as totally mutualistic in terms of power structures and authority types?

sure. it’s just a design wherein everyone in the social organization has the same power and because they are all human beings.

if the parents have to care for, feed and clothe the child then are they also responsible for respecting and promoting their fundamental human rights?

yes.

is it the actual responsibility of the parents to raise the child and care for and feed and clothe the child?

well, a person can take their child to a foster home and then the people who work at the foster home will take care of the child.

so, the dynamic of the family relationship can change and the authority structure can change...

but why does the child need the authority figure?

why is that when the people in power come to give their children away to the foster home that the adult is still the authority figure?

they weren’t before.

just because they are caring for them now doesn’t mean that violations of human rights can come to be acceptable.

if it would be a violation of human right for the foster care people to impose their authority on the child when they are in the good and healthy family home then what makes it right for them to impose their authority on the child when that other supposedly real power structure comes to crash down when they are given to the foster home?

and what would happen if the laws changed to include the minor in the society in the same way as the adult is?

a child might become president.

there might be entire blocks of child societies.

they would be able to do anything adults do... which includes drinking beer and smoking cigarettes and gambling and eating as much candy as they want and staying up to whatever hour of the night or even into the early morning and to be able to call anyone they want on the telephone and order as many pizzas as they want to.

it’s their right. they are a human being.

should children be allowed to drink beer?

well, should adults be allowed to drink beer?

if adults are, are they drinking beer because they are over twenty one or because they are free human beings?

could be both...

why does anyone care if the minors drink alcohol?

once anyone turns twenty one they can become as inebriated as anyone else who is twenty one or older.

why does it matter?

is it just so that children can stay in their sober mind for as long as the education institution comes to indoctrinate them around and about and up on philosophically immoral power imbalance hierarchy systems to perpetuate the machine of society?

maybe... what happens when someone drinks beer? they become more confident and full of their own self-power.

what happens when someone smokes cannabis?

they become high, and self-reflective and more self-aware and they develop and progress psychologically, emotionally and socially... cannabis users are nicer, happier, calmer and more relaxed than most other people in the society who do not consume cannabis.

cannabis users are more in touch with their own personal authority.

so, maybe even alcohol isn’t allowed to be consumed by anyone in the society until all the social programming is done. until the psychological classical conditioning is done.

so maybe the only people who care about minors drinking alcohol are the people who interested in the perpetuation of philosophically immoral social organizations which operate by imbalances of power as hierarchies...

maybe the children should be drinking so much alcohol everyday, but who is anyone to say anything about anyone’s alcoholism...

are adults allowed to become alcoholics?

sure. as long as they don’t commit any crimes against anyone else they have committed no crime by consuming alcohol every day.

and also, just because droves of children might become raging alcoholics, if they were liberated legally as they should be according to the philosophical constants of the fundamental anarchist platform which supports individual freedoms of human beings, doesn’t mean that the society can violate anyone’s freedoms based on the discrimination of age.

and maybe the minors would not all become raging alcoholics if they were liberated...

maybe they would continue to go to school and become successful...

i don’t know but their individual freedoms have to be respected since they are human beings.

does the success of the society really depend on our operating an oppressive system which violates fundamental human rights?

and does the success of the society really depend on the corrupt classical condition of the population on a mass scale so they are intellectually tuned to a belief system which perpetuates corrupt social organizations like hierarchies?

well, is the psychological health of the individual to be considered fundamental to the psychological health of the society which composed of individuals in the form of a group?

yes.

the collective psychological health of the group is determined by the psychological health of the individuals who comprise the group.

so then is it a good idea for everyone to be repressed and classically conditioned by systems which violate fundamental human rights and then for those repressed classically conditioned individuals to come to rule the society?

most likely not.

most psychologists would say that that idea is not good for society.

most psychologists would say that mass repression of the inherent authority of the individual by the institution of the family unit is relatively destructive to social progression...

and again, a family unit design would be possible to function within a set of conditions which support the inherent freedoms each individual naturally holds as an existential being...

so, in reality it is not the emotional entity which is the family unit insofar as families are just bundles of loving relationships that is the criminal here... it is the hierarchical structure which is criminal because it violates fundamental human rights and also plays a large part in the deep classical conditioning of the individual to be permissive of corruptions of authority in the society.

is it legal?

and technically legal considering the nature of the language construct environment of the american legal system?

should it be legal for the institution of the family to exist as a legally binding type of socially organized entity within the society? and considering the nature of the fundamental violation of human rights, the family should only really exist conditionally and does in our country.

if a parent or two parents are found guilty of having committed crimes against a child, then the parents either go to jail or the state takes the child to a foster home and allows the child to find new parents.

but the question of the moral legitimacy of the legal status of the social organization entity which is the family unit is based on the philosophical fundamental truth which is that a human being holds, inherently, all of their rights for all of their existence.

the illusory social simulation imbalance of power and authority hierarchy construct called the family wherein the parents hold a majority of the authority and the children are the subjects of the parents is of such a sort that the possible psychological and behavioral programming upon the free individual might be counter intuitive to the progression of the society insofar as the society is composed of intrinsically free individuals...

also, considering the legal nature of any economic object and any economic entity within the legal system of the united states, every part of the economic system is respected as much as it is and to whatever degree, all parties considered.

the minor is apart of the economic equation and comes to become transformed into an adult and because of this there is a fundamental legal status appropriate for the minor to be recognized with and as...

what is that status?

that status is equal to the adult.

what is the difference if a child purchases a large soda or if an adult purchases a large soda?

nothing. the amount of soda is the same and the price is the same both times. the tax is even the same.

so, why is there a sort of legal situation which permits all the prices of everything to be the same for everyone but the civil liberties are essentially different and such that the minor is secondary to the adult in the society in terms of privileges and influence.

or, as an adult who is fundamentally free with or without the society... what have i been given by anyone in terms of legal right or freedom?

nothing. i inherently have my own freedom because i am a human being. my rights in the society exists as my own because i am a free individual.

so, how can the society operate in such a way which violates our fundamental understanding of our own freedoms which are inherently ours?

well, it has only operated criminally up until this point...

the liberation of the minor in society in necessary for social progression because of the socio-psychological machinery which comes to operate in the society as a result of the classical conditioning of the population at a mass scale and it’s criminal nature, and such that human rights should not be violated based on discriminations of any sort, and because when all of the individuals of the society are no longer growing up repressed and oppressed by immoral hierarchical social organizations and institutions the operations of the social machinery will be such that true freedom of the individual will be expressed archetypally in the design of the social architecture and occurring phenomenally as human beings have their natural freedoms respected by the society.

[classpect-crew]

Aspects and Narrative Structure

What exactly are Aspects, anyways? Well, in the comic itself, Aspects are forces of the universe that influence and are influenced by the “Heroes” present in the story. But what does this mean on a broader scale? We all have a pretty good idea of what each Aspect represents in canon, but what if that’s not the whole story?

Before we begin, I’d like to direct you to an excellent video by @revolutionaryduelist (optimistic Duelist on YouTube) that will prime you for what I’m about to discuss. I highly recommend checking out their channel, as it’s extremely informative and fun to watch!

So, now that you’ve no doubt enjoyed the video I’ve linked, let’s get into what each Aspect represents in terms of a broader narrative. One of the big narrative themes of Homestuck is that the story is essentially a stage performance, or an “interactive play,” which we see throughout the comic, from the “Acts” and “Intermissions” to the curtains opening and closing on each Act. There are plenty of times where the “fourth wall” is completely shattered, and the layers between the cast and the audience start to blend together. With this in mind, it’s not difficult to reason that each Aspect not only represents a certain universal force in the comic’s universe, but also represents an aspect of narrative structure. I’ll begin with the definitions shown in optimistic Duelist’s video, and then expand upon them from my own perspective.

Let’s start with some easy ones: Space and Time. Space and Time represent the Setting and Pacing of a story. In our stage play metaphor, we can expand this further. Space is represented by the scenery that tells us where the characters are, but it also represents the physical space that the actors take up. Different prop placement, lighting, and scenery can make the stage feel bigger or smaller to fit the needs of the scene, and a change in these things will naturally translate to us as a scene change. Time, on the other hand, is represented by the progression of the story through actions, dialogue, the opening and closing of curtains, and even the music that accompanies each scene and plays continuously during intermissions. In a musical, this is even more obvious, as each song tells a distinct part of the story and opens up ideas about character motivations, illustrates choices, and so on—though this aspect of Time is merely the lens through which these things are viewed, since choices/motivations/etc. are truly representative of other Aspects entirely. As in real life, these two Aspects intermingle considerably, creating “spacetime” as the spatial and temporal backdrop of all the events we witness as audience members, the framework that allows both depth and progression to occur in the narrative and sets the foundation of the stage itself.

Light and Void represent Relevance and Irrelevance. The difference between the cast and crew on stage is easy to tell because the spotlight will always be on a character, not on a member of the crew, unless ironically referencing a crew member (thus breaking the illusion) is a part of the performance itself. Those who are illuminated hold the attention of the audience, and the light allows us to see their facial expressions, their clothing, their movements, etc. and understand the character better through these things. A character who is self-assured may wear a smug grin, holding themselves upright with confidence. A character who is poor might wear old, ragged clothing. Light is all about which characters are relevant, and it also allows the audience to discern information about the characters and about the larger world within the play itself. On the other hand, Void is represented by the unlit areas of the stage, the shadows behind props and characters, and even the crew itself. The ties between Void and the stage crew can be illustrated through bunraku, also known as ningyō jōruri, a traditional Japanese puppet theatre with a long and fascinating history. Puppeteers are clothed in black robes, often hooded, and blend into the black backdrop in order to direct attention onto the puppets themselves and away from their operators. Stage crews in American theatre will often wear dark clothing for the same reason, moving props and scenery as necessary without drawing attention away from the story itself. Although they’re absolutely vital to the execution of the play itself, the crew is in most cases irrelevant to the play’s narrative, thus they work in the shadows to place pieces where they need to be, going unnoticed by the audience.

Life and Doom represent Agency and Conflict. As every good storyteller knows, both of these are vital to the lifeblood of a story, as characters who have no agency are simply puppets, empty vessels with no will of their own, and a story with no conflict doesn’t go anywhere or challenge the characters in any way. In our stage metaphor, Life is the appearance of each character’s free will. Even though we recognize that a script is in place, and the actors are simply working within the framework of scripted interactions, they bring the characters to life through their performances and give the illusion that the world presented onstage is a vibrant one. A good actor can draw an audience into the story by fully embodying the character in question, stepping into the role and allowing us to relate to them, cheering on the heroes and rallying against the villains as the story progresses. We begin to forget that the world we’re presented is mere fiction, and we come out of the experience feeling much different than when we entered. This is what makes a good stage play so compelling, as we watch these characters grow and change based on what they endure and how the world reacts to their actions. In the same vein, Doom is the conflicts, obstacles, and limits placed in the way of the characters to challenge them and help them to grow. In the case of a tragedy, this can also be the end result, whether through a character failing to achieve their goals, a villain succeeding in their heinous plot, or even the death of a protagonist, which removes their agency in the story itself. No real person becomes stronger without facing hardship, and the same is true in fiction. What sort of character would Hamlet be if he wasn’t challenged to find a way to cope with the death of his father, or the knowledge that his uncle was the one who killed him? These conflicts enrich the stories we’re told and provide roadblocks on the road of success, testing the limits of each character’s willpower and strengthening their resolve, or even forcing them to reconsider their goals entirely. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and these necessary hardships fill out the story itself, ensuring that something is learned through the experience through delayed—or, in some cases, entirely absent—gratification.

Breath and Blood represent Plot Development and Character Dynamics. As the Aspect of movement and change, Breath translates into our metaphor quite nicely, ensuring that the story is as dynamic as the characters themselves. It’s the sequence of events that takes us from exposition to resolution—in essence, it’s pretty much the story itself, which is why John is able to do what he does, escaping from the narrative of Homestuck entirely in order to affect things from the outside. The plot is the engine that drives the story—the twists and turns that the narrative takes as difference pieces take their turns on the board. Character motivations are explored, actions are taken, unexpected events take place, and lessons are learned. All of this happens within the plot, and it’s a very external force, as opposed to what we’ll explore in a moment with Blood, which hones in on characters specifically, rather than the whole narrative. Breath is also represented by change, and any change in motivations, scenery, tone, and even tempo can be attributed to Breath in addition to the Aspects normally represented by those things. Blood, however, is a matter of interpersonal relations between characters in a story: their feelings about—and for—each other, the various factions within a story, and the natural associations one can make, such as “protagonists/antagonists, nobility/commoners, obedient civilians/ruthless scoundrels, and so on. Part of what makes characters so interesting is their dynamics with other characters. For example, on her own, Elphaba Thropp from Wicked is a very interesting character. Blessed with innate magical skills, but cursed with green skin, she is ostracized by many and reluctantly admired by some, and this makes her interactions with others very dynamic. Her insistence on bringing much-needed attention to the oppression of Animals in Oz, social consequences be damned, comes in direct conflict with a character like Galinda Upland, who strives to maintain her place in the social hierarchy, even if that means masking her true feelings on controversial subjects to paint herself favorably in the eyes of others. As the story progresses, the two find that they have much more in common than they could’ve guessed, and they begin fighting for the same cause, shifting from bitter enemies to best friends through the course of a few excellent musical numbers. This shift in their dynamic is vital to the story, yet this is merely one of many such dynamics.

Let’s move on to two Aspects that are a bit more abstract in our narrative format. Hope and Rage represent Coherence and Contrivance. These words may sound quite different from what we’re used to from these Aspects but hear me out, because there’s a method to my madness. A story’s coherence is how well it can be understood, and furthermore, how well it can be related to by an audience. It also represents the enthusiasm with which an invested audience will respond to the narrative taking place. In our stage play metaphor, this is part of what drives us to immerse ourselves in the story. It’s the excitement we feel when our favorite character completes their goal as set up in the exposition, or the fear we experience when an adversary comes close to unraveling it all. It’s the ability to escape from our own lives and enter the world presented onstage, and a big part of why walking out of a great performance can feel like we’re waking up from an intense lucid dream. It’s the magic of excellent storytelling. Hope is what drives us to overlook mistakes, either in the narrative itself or in the performance, and allows us to enjoy it as a whole. On the other hand, Rage’s contrivance delights in tearing open plot holes, exposing the divide between performers and the audience, and dispelling the illusion that the world on stage is in any way “real.” It’s the heckler at a comedy show, or the critics in the nosebleed seats. It’s the breaking of the fourth wall that occurs when a character in the story directly addresses the audience, or begins to critique the narrative itself. While it can certainly seem like a negative force, this Aspect is what keeps us firmly grounded in reality, pulling us out of “la la land” when the show is over and it’s time to return to our lives. It marks an end to the magic, a disbelief in the “miracles,” and the voice of reason.

Finally, our last two Aspects, Heart and Mind, represent Inner Character and Outer Character. This is fairly obvious, given what we already know from canon, and it translates fairly literally in our metaphor. Heart is represented by a character’s “true self,” or what remains the same in every performance of the play. It’s what makes each character recognizable, no matter how the script, costumes, set design, etc. have been adapted. Peter Pan, for example, is always presented as childlike and carefree, bold in his actions and protective of those he loves. He can also be incredibly naive and immature, which humanizes him and allows room for growth. Regardless of which actor might play him, or whether the story is adapted to a sci-fi setting, or tells the tale of a much older Peter, or is even presented from the perspective of an entirely different culture, these character traits and motivations will always be the same. They’re what make him the “Peter Pan” we all know and love. The “true self” involves every trait that is essential to a character. If these traits were changed in some way, they would cease to be the same character, much like adding or removing a proton from an atom would change its element entirely. On the contrary, Mind is represented by a character’s “projected self,” or how they present themselves in the company of others. For some characters, their “true self” always shines through, and they rarely act in ways that aren’t in accordance with their deeply-held values. For others, such as Billy Flynn from Chicago, the creation and maintenance of a constructed, outward “self” is vital to their survival and prosperity, and sometimes deception is the name of the game. Billy, an incredibly successful defense lawyer, comes across in his musical number as a caring, compassionate man who couldn’t care less about money and values “love” more than anything else. This is extremely ironic, however, as the audience is soon presented with a very different view of Billy: as a stern, ambitious man who’s very concerned with money, but also loves the challenge of winning cases for clients on death row. As his “true self” is revealed, his choices and motivations begin to make sense to the audience, and we gain a deeper understanding of the man behind the mask, so to speak.

Each Aspect plays a vital role in the narrative structure of any story—or performance, in this case—and perhaps we can use these interpretations to further understand what our own Aspect connections are. After all, all the world’s a stage, right?