#actually the issue as she became more overtly toxic

[ineffablehunter]

one of my friends experiencing the plot of a teen drama:

another gaining their obligatory toxic ex:

me having the most chill drama-free life:

[skania]

Do you have an opinion or analysis on why Akasaka made Kana so dependent on Aqua? even though she was initially introduced to her independent figure. But after meeting Aqua, Kana's figure became very dependent. Even in hier work and everyday life to be bad. Fans and those around her can clearly see that Kana is not well. And it was all because of Aqua. Actually I don't like the independent character of Kana to be dependent on men. I like Kana and it makes me a little disappointed with her character. I know they call it "honest" and "not hiding her feelings" but it bothers me especially when I know that Akane's character is very mature and doesn't depend on Aqua. But I was confused why they said it was Akane who depended on Aqua. Do they read other manga? i'm Kana fan but for this story i really want she can stand up for herself and live her life without Aqua and just be a good friend. For me Kana and Aqua is more toxic because Kana can depend on Aqua but Aqua cannot depend on Kana. For me they are opposites and I realized that Kana is too concerned about her own feelings than Aqua. That's the bad side that Kana has. I realized that Kana always blamed Aqua and never tried to understand Aqua. That's why I prefer them to be good friends. I feel bad for Kana and Aqua but I feel even worse for Akane. She is the only good girl, almost have no flaws here, but her character is often misunderstood. These three should be happy because they deserve it. I don't like love wars and they are tiring to deal with. I prefer Kana to be independent and aware of her potential. Back as confident as Akane had ever seen. I hope Kana and Akane can be good friends. Kana and Aqua personallity can't even match as well as a couple. I like your analysis about Kana's character and it help me to catching up with the manga well^^ thanks to you!

Thank you for your message, anon! You've listed a lot of my own feelings about this, specially when you say that it's like people are reading a different manga with the way they describe the girls' and their relationships with Aqua lol You have also mentioned a lot of the reasons why Aqua and Kana don't work as a ship for me.

As for why Aka made Kana so dependant on Aqua, my best guess is that he did it to expose the contradiction in her character. She seems independent, but that's because she forces herself to be that way. Deep down, she is desperately looking for someone to depend on. I'd even say that her biggest weakness is being overtly dependent on external approval. If you praise her, Kana melts and lets her guard down. We see this with Aqua, with Pieyon (Aqua) and we see this with the director, too.

By turning Aqua into Kana's crutch and then taking him away, Aka forces Kana to face this weakness of hers and what it turns her to. She doesn't like it one bit and makes up her mind to become a big panda no matter what. To me, this means that Kana is finally ready to grow into someone who looks inwards instead of outwards when it comes to validation. And thus, into someone who is truly emotionally independent instead of just acting the part.

But of course, this is just my personal interpretation. Don't hesitate to let me know if it makes sense to you as a Kana fan!

No worries anon, you explained yourself perfectly! You raise a very good question, here's what I replied to a fellow anon who raised a similar point. It does seem to me that unlike Kana and Ruby, who have character arcs unrelated to Aqua (Kana's aspiration to become a big panda, Ruby's ties to her mother figures/her past as Sarina/wanting to play at the dome/etc), Akane's is completely tied to Aqua's. This could be an issue in another manga where the love-interest is passive and removed from the plot, but since Akane is allowed to directly interact with the plot and to move the story forward, it luckily evens out (for me, at least). Though I'd love to have more Akane slice-of life lol

[inkmyname]

The Ember Island Players: performing toxic masculinity and narrative complicity in propagating misogyny

Initially I wasn’t going to respond to concerns about Katara’s racist/misogynistic portrayal in the Ember Island Players with anything more than snarky tags, but apparently I can’t keep my mouth shut, so I’m posting my response as a standalone meta about how the writers’ insistence on creating drama for drama’s sake leads them to--in lieu of actual character development--fall back on lazy narrative shortcuts whereby a performance of toxic masculinity against a gendered heternormative background is used to create tension in a romantic relationship, presumably with the goal of keeping the audience invested.

The Ember Island Players is problematic for a lot of reasons, not least of which is the pervasive tone-deaf misogyny, including racialized misogyny, directed at Katara. There’s a lot of meta on this, so I’d like to focus on something different: Aang’s relationship with gender and romantic attachments.

Aang seems so uncharacteristically chagrined the whole episode: “I’m not a woman!” Based on his previous characterization up to this point:

The Fortuneteller. This is the same Aang who makes a necklace for Katara when she loses her mother’s. Observe how he responds to Sokka’s jibe about jewelry-making, which can be seen as a feminine pursuit: Sokka: Great, Aang. Maybe instead of saving the world, you can go into the jewelry-making business. Aang: I don’t see why I can’t do both. Femininity isn’t presented as being mutually exclusive with narrative pursuits like saving the world which have traditionally centered male protagonists (especially if we take the entire canon of anything every written in any genre that’s not specifically, say, something like shoujo or jounen which are directed and young girls and women, the narrative focus on male personalities is overwhelming).

The Warriors of Kyoshi. Oh, and this is the same Aang that dressed up in full Kyoshi gear, kabuki makeup and all, without complaint. Why would he? After all, she was him in a past life. (There’s a whole meta here about gender-critical analysis of kabuki productions where male actors typically assumed female roles and how Avatar both takes inspiration from this real-life kernel and subverts it in Rise of Kyoshi where Kyoshi’s signature look is not only an homage to her parental heritage but also a reimagining of who can inhabit what roles. Her legacy, though imperfect, is also notably feminist, taking face paint worn typically by men IRL and expanding it into war paint for women warriors.) (There’s also great headcanon-adjacent meta here about gender non-conformity and non-binary identities in Avatar. Avatar was not overtly explicit about its feminist or gender-progressive mindset outside of episodes like The Warriors of Kyoshi or The Waterbending Master, but it was still way ahead of its time. If anyone was to be presented or headcanoned in such a way, it would be the Avatar who’s lived a thousand lives, inhabiting a thousand skins and a thousand identities, including gender identities. There’s also cool crossover meta here about the Legend of Korra depicting a female Avatar in Korra with masculine tendencies and visible muscle vs Aang as a male Avatar with a gentler pacifistic spirit and gender nonconforming tendencies.)

The Cave of Two Lovers. Aang wears a freaking flower crown and is generally wholesome and adorable, even leading up to the “let’s kiss lest we die” scene with Katara. He’s not pushy or overly concerned with appearing masculine and it is in fact Katara who suggests the kiss and Aang makes a fool of himself. From the transcript: Katara [Shyly, blushing.] Well, what if we … kissed? Aang [Very surprised.] Us … kissing‌? Katara See? It was a crazy idea. Aang [Dreamily.] Us … kissing … Katara [Fake-jokingly.] Us kissing. What was I thinking? Can you imagine that‌? Aang [Fake-jokingly.] Yeah. [Awkwardly laughs.] I definitely wouldn’t want to kiss you! [Beat.] Katara [Insulted.] Oh, well! I didn’t realize it was such a horrible option. [Angrily.] Sorry I suggested it! Aang [Realizing his mistake.] No, no, I mean … if there was a choice between kissing you and dying … Katara [Disgusted.] Ugh! Aang [Desperately.] What? I’m saying is I would rather kiss you than die - that’s a compliment. Katara [Enraged.] Well, I’m not sure which I’d rather do! [Slams the torch into his hand and storms away.] Aang [Miserably.] What is wrong with me … Aang, sweetie, this is not what you say to a girl you want to kiss, but generally, this is Wholesome™ and narratively, this is Good™. Eventually, they do kiss and that’s perfectly acceptable because there’s a whole conversation beforehand with humorous romantic framing. There’s consent and communication and initiative by the female protagonist. So solid A on the sensitive writing.

General Air Nomad culture. We don’t get a lot of Air Nomad culture in the show (and what little we do get what presented in such a misguided way, especially the whole commitment to forgiveness/pacifism which was handled in such an amateur black-and-white way from a writing perspective in season 3). But I digress. I really, really don’t think that Air Nomads who were so concerned with the spiritual side of bending and general existence had stringent notions of gender and romantic relationships–at the very least, they had very different notions of these issues compared to, say, the Northern Water Tribe. Canonically, even though AN philosophy emphasized detachment, Air Nomads practiced free love. Same-gender romance was freely accepted unlike in the homophobic Earth Kingdom (which even Kyoshi, a bisexual woman, wasn’t able to change) and the militant Fire Nation (Sozin outlawed homosexuality after declaring world war, essentially). And though the temples were gender-segregated, it seems that the burden of raising children fell to the entire community instead of just the women. Both male and female Air Nomads are revered. In the case of the former, Guru Laghima who unlocked the power of flight through achieving complete detachment from the material world. And in the case of the latter, Avatar Yangchen, who has statues everywhere because she came to be revered as a deity not just among Air Nomads but in the physical world in general. Nowhere in Air Nomad philosophy is the concept of gender, romance, love, sexuality, relationships etc. etc. tainted with jealousy and possessiveness (especially towards women) or rigid binary heternormativity.

So this was Aang for the better part of the first half of the series. Not overly concerned with gender roles. Pretty much fumbling his way through his first crush like a lovesick puppy and it’s all very wholesome. Supposedly a classic product of Air Nomad upbringing.

Meanwhile, Aang in EIP:

Checks out Katara’s butt as she’s sitting down.

Gets mad at being portrayed by a woman.

Accuses Katara of being the racialized misogynistic version of herself depicted on stage ([sarcastically]“Yeah, that’s not you at all.”).

Nods in agreement when the misogynistic stage production of Katara presents her as the “Avatar’s girl.”

Unable to differentiate between fiction and reality and puts the onus on Katara to do the emotional labor to justify something she never said (”Katara, did you really mean what you said in there? On stage, when you said I was just like a … brother to you, and you didn’t have feelings for me.”)

Assumes they would just… fall into a relationship… just because he forcibly kissed her at the invasion and again pressures Katara to do the emotional labor to justify why their relationship is not how he wants it (“But it’s true, isn’t it? We kissed at the Invasion, and I thought we were gonna be together. But we’re not.” / “Aang, I don’t know.” / “Why don’t you know?”)

Forces a non-consensual kiss on her even though “I just said I was confused!”

So, there’s so many things wrong with this, most of which are a laundry list of behaviors typical of toxic masculinity:

Ogling

Outdated misogynistic humor (what’s wrong with being a woman?)

Verbal abuse

Offloading emotional labor

Gaslighting

Pressuring a potential romantic partner

Lack of direct communication about romantic desires

Lack of sensitivity

Lack of active listening

Lack of emotional intelligence and empathy

Lack of consent and sexual assault

I could go on and on.

My question is Where and when did he learn these toxic behaviors? What happened to the wholesome boy making necklaces, wearing flower crowns, and generally being adorable in a kid with a first crush kind of way when it comes to romance?

Now, you can argue that EIP players Aang has been through a lot, including being shot by lightning and actually dying, and after the failed invasion, he’s stressed out with the weight of the world on his shoulders and maybe not expressing himself or his desires in the best way and taking out all of his frustrations on Katara.

Except… that is all just conjecture because the actual writing of the show doesn’t put in the hard work and make those connections. Instead, they fall back on misogynistic tropes and toxic heternormative romance tropes and a forced love triangle subtext and they just, to put it politely, fuck it up, two and a half seasons’ worth of work, gone, in the space of one episode. And even if it weren’t conjecture, it would still be wrong of Aang to act the way he did.

Let’s list Aang and Katara’s interaction in relation to each other in season 3:

The Headband. “Don’t worry about them. It’s just you and me right now,” Aang says as he pulls Katara into a dance. I have qualms about the writing of this episode: the creators wasted a golden opportunity to flesh out the Air Nomad genocide because they were too busy playing footloose in a cave, they wrote Katara–the same Katara would said fuck you to Pakku, freed enslaved earthbenders from a Fire Navy prison, and became a spirit goddess ecoterrorist to help a village in an enemy nation–as uncharacteristically shy just so Aang could sweep in and pull her into a dance. But like fine, whatever. It’s cute and really well-chreographed and there’s actually appropriate romantic framing here for once and at the end of the dance, look at Katara’s face–she’s happy! Positive Kataang interaction, and I don’t actually mind it. 7/10.

The Day of Black Sun Pt.1. He forces a kiss on her on the mouth, taking her completely by surprise. A chaste kiss on the cheek and a wistful pining last look and “Be safe” might have been acceptable, but given Katara’s shocked and uncomfortable body language, the kiss on the mouth was not. Worse yet, the show just… forgets… to follow up on it for several episodes and when it’s brought up again, it’s used as a sledgehammer to punish Katara for not magically being with Aang. 0/10.

The Painted Lady. Let’s look at the transcript: Katara [Using a disguised voice.] Well, hello Avatar. I wish I could talk, but I am very busy. Aang Yeah, me too. I hate that. [Looks at Katara’s face from behind the veil.] You know, you’re really pretty, for a spirit. I don’t meet too many spirits, but the ones I do meet, not very attractive. [Looks at Katara suspiciously. Tries to look under the hat.] Katara [Giggles nervously.] Thank you, but- Aang You seem familiar too. Katara A lot of people say that. Aang [Suspicious.] No, you really seem familiar. Katara Look, I really should get going. [Covers her face and runs, but Aang uses his airbending and blasts her hat up into the air, exposing her.] Aang Katara? Katara [Guiltily.] Hi, Aang. Aang [Shocked.] You’re the Painted Lady? [Pointing at Katara.] But how?Katara I wasn’t her at first, I was just trying to help the village. [Takes her hat off.] But since everyone thought that’s who I was anyway, I guess I just kinda became her. [Drops her hat on the ground.] Aang So you’ve been sneaking out at night? Wait, is Appa even sick?Katara He might be sick of the purple berries I’ve been feeding him, but other than that he’s fine! Aang I can’t believe you lied to everyone, so you could help these people. Katara I’m sorry, I know I shouldn’t have … Aang [Happily.] No, I think it’s great! You’re like a secret hero! Katara Well, if you wanna help, there’s one more thing I have to do. Aang gives her a curious look. Cut to the Fire Nation factory. Aang and Katara run along the river’s edge toward it. Aang looks at the polluted water. Aang You wanna destroy this factory? Katara Yes. Sokka was just kidding, but he was right. Getting rid of this factory is the only way to help these people permanently. He helps her blow up the Fire Nation smelting plant! Yes, he does call her pretty, but more importantly, this is one of the few times he acknowledges her faults (lying, deception, putting the mission at risk to help the enemy nation etc.) and still thinks she’s so fucking cool. He calls her a secret hero! There’s a lot of admiration and support here from Aang. He’s raising up Katara (instead of putting her down as in EIP) not because he sees her as a potential love interest but because he admires her and her compassion! This is great. Solid wholesome Kataang interaction. 10/10. But all good things must come to an end…

The Southern Raiders. I’m not going to spend too much time on this because there’s a million pieces of meta on this episode. He’s completely out of line asking Katara to be forgive her mother’s killer, the source of her greatest trauma as a victim of targeted ethnic cleansing. Given that he’s a victim of ethnic genocide himself, although he personally wasn’t there for it/didn’t actually witness it unlike Katara, he should have understood. He does say “You need to face this man,” which is good and supportive and he should have stopped there, because he continues on to say, “But when you do, please don’t choose revenge. Let your anger out, and then let it go. Forgive him.” Stop. Stop stop stop. No one should tell a traumatized victim of ethnic cleansing how to deal with their trauma. By the end of the episode, Katara doesn’t kill him–but she crafts a third path as the conclusion to her hero’s journey and it is not the path of forgiveness that Aang preaches. Ironically, it is Zuko, who also confronts Ozai, the source of his greatest trauma, who never tells Katara what to do but follows her lead instead: even though he redirects lightning at Ozai and could have killed him, he doesn’t go through with it. He understands Katara and he understands that she needs to this. Kataang interaction rating: 0/10.

So that’s where we are with Aang and Katara in Ember Island Players. Some positive interactions that are appropriately romantically framed and some that are just wholesome and good… but all ruined by forced kissing and moralizing about Katara’s trauma instead of offering understanding. So that still doesn’t answer when Aang would have learned all of the toxic masculine/heternormative behaviors he displayed in The Ember Islands Players.

The only answer, I’m forced to conclude, is bad fucking writing, where the creators were not only tone-deaf in portraying Katara in a racist/misogynistic way or, you know, in writing solely for the male gaze because fuck half the audience, I guess, but they just wanted to create drama for drama’s sake. They completely disrespected their female lead and I would argue they disrespected Aang’s character too in making him a stereotypical self-insert Gary Stu who displays toxic masculine behavior without consequences because that’s what’s expected of a toxic heternormative romantic plot device.

And worse yet, they never follow up on this, just like with the kiss at the Invasion. In the last five minutes of the finale, Katara looks up at him with admiration for saving the world and then kisses him. This is not only a missed opportunity for character development for Aang, but also a big fuck you to the female audience because the message is clear: the guy gets the girl as a trophy for saving the world, and fuck input from the female half of the partnership because that’s just not important and is not worthy of screentime. But I guess screentime dedicated to displaying toxic masculine/heternormative behaviors without ever condemning such behavior as a follow-up is just fine! :)))

If the EIP was supposed to make an argument for Kataang, then it failed. but more important:

By the show’s own high standards, The Ember Island Players is a failed episode, full of bad writing and worse characterization. For a show that was so ahead of its time, this episode is a narrative black mark, a failure of progressive representation and a disservice to its main characters.

There’s some wholesome Sukka and Zuko/Toph interaction, but even that doesn’t manage to save this episode, especially given there’s no resolution to the central conflict: the relationship between Aang and Katara. The entire unnecessarily OOC and forced Kataang drama drags it down.

We know Aang is capable of lifting up Katara and being supportive of her, as he was in episodes prior. We could have had honest, supportive, and open dialogue between Aang and Katara that actually followed up on the Invasion kiss, with Aang clearly expressing what he wants, Katara expressing that maybe she didn’t want that right now, and Aang completely respecting that and them hugging at the end because their friendship/connection is much more profound than pre-teen romance. This is an instance where Aang could have chosen to center Katara’s feelings, for once, instead of his own out of selfless love. If this happened, I would have been okay with a Kataang ending. But that isn’t what we got, obviously.

Part of what appealed to me about Aang as a male protagonist in media aimed at young audiences is that he–at least initially–did not start out as a toxic self-insert Gary Stu lifted from every problematic heternormative romance film ever. In fact, given his playful trickster archetype, general kindness/gentleness, and his stance against violence (a typically masculine trait), he both subverted expectations of and expanded the boundaries of what a male protagonist in children’s media can look like. Unfortunately, the creators don’t go all the way with Aang. In fact, they took a step back with his portrayal in The Ember Island Players, where the creators not only rely on misogynistic tropes to create drama but also make him complicit in propagating said misogyny. And that’s just a damn shame because we could have had a wholesome Kataang storyline and a sensitive male protagonist who cares not about your outdated gender roles and respects his partner’s autonomy!

[flying-elliska]

S5 Review pt 2 : the Bad

So in my last meta I listed a lot of reasons to like this season...but then why did it not (at least to me) all add up together ?  Looking back, I can think of so many clips that I thought were incredible. But looking back at the season in general, I just feel a big ‘meh’ and it’s sort of puzzling - why exactly ?  Here is where I thought the season could have been a lot better :

I loathe love triangles : I hate the trope in itself. Is S5 the worst example of it ever ? No, it served somewhat of a thematic purpose and the resolution was interesting. But I can’t help it, when I feel a love triangle coming on, I generally disconnect emotionally because I have been annoyed to hell and back by it before - one big offender being Skam France s4, in which the love triangle/quadrangle marked the beginning of the season going down in flames, with it overshadowing everything else and making the characters behave in completely obnoxious and puzzling ways. S5 isn’t quite as bad, it feels more respectful of the characters, but I find it weird that the writers chose a love triangle again on the heels of the reception of s4. 

The problem with this trope is not ‘oh we don’t want drama ever’ it’s just so bloody annoying, so trite and overused. It rests on centuries of sexist tropes : either a wishy washy girl in the middle who doesn’t know what’s good for her/her own heart ; or two girls competing for a man’s attentions. It often ends in the fandom villifying the women involved no matter the shape of the triangle, comparing them against each other, which definitely happened this time (Twitter was just so annoying this season), and this whole ‘team x’ thing gives me hives, as the assumption that this is what young women viewers care most about. 

Also it generally involves the characters showing that they have very little self respect, letting themselves be walked over, bad communication, implications about what the ‘better woman/man’ should be like, cheating, etc...it’s very rarely fun or interesting to watch because we’ve seen it a thousand times before in teenage soap operas. Again, the s5 ending avoided the total trainwreck but this is a show you watch in real time, and for weeks I was afraid it was going to be absolutely terrible, and it ruined a big part of my experience of the season. When they introduced Noée I started being scared, and when it became clear Arthur was developing feelings for her, I basically noped out emotionally. I started following it in a much more detached manner, I wasn’t looking forward to the clips anymore, I stopped writing meta so much. And it sucks. I wanted to love the season. But this was just not a ride I really wanted to be on. 

Alexia (and Noee) deserved better : I love Alexia and developing her character is one of the best things Skam France ever did. In OG, the character of Chris, if interesting, is just continually reduced to the ‘funny fat friend’ persona and it really sucks. So giving Alexia a real personality, making her bisexual, giving her more of a role in s3, making her a dancer and a singer was really cool. I’m bi myself and I spent most of my high school struggling with my weight and if I’d had a character like her, who radiates self-acceptance, it would have meant so much to me. I was really stoked for her to have more of a role in s5 - only to spend most of the season feeling really sad for her. It was just...not fun. I so wish she could have had her own season and her own story that didn’t revolve around a dude she was so supportive of and still ended up treating her like shit. 

Also, real talk : when is a curvy girl actually a love interest without it being shown as funny or not good enough ? Especially of the main character ? Almost never. Coline might have lost some weight, but she’s still written as a curvy girl this season and it’s an important part of the character. So for her to have this particular role this season - the girl that isn’t romanticized, that doesn’t get to have the cute and thrilling moments, that is just sort of there and patient and understanding as if she couldn’t get anything better, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sure the end of the season did her more justice but god it took so long and in the meantime, it just felt...very ill considered and careless. 

In the same way, I wanted to love Noée, I thought she was amazing, but because of her role in the plot I just felt this instinctive defiance towards her character. It would have been so cool to have her in a friend role, or even a love interest outside of the triangle or I don’t know like...have someone else fall in love with her. Also, I just did not understand why she loved Arthur ? Like she just met the dude a few times, and he’s mostly been a total asshole to her, who makes very little efforts to communicate with her...I get she could get attracted to him but love ??? The moment where she tells him ‘I love you’ felt demeaning to her, like the moment in OG where Noora falls after running after William. It’s like, Arthur has just been an enormous asshole to her, and she pushes herself to do something she’s never been comfortable with in the first place ? Why ? This show romanticizes teenage boys being assholes and girls being desperate way too much. 

The Skam dilemma, love vs politics and “Let’s all just be nice.” : There is a reoccuring problem accross all Skams, starting with the OG : they bring up very political topics, usually in the beginning of the season, and then they...don’t really do anything with them. In the OG, Noora’s feminism is really just window-dressing and we see her bend over backwards to accomodate this super toxic asshole into her life. And we see Sana’s struggles as a Muslim in Norwegian society, but then love drama takes over, and it’s waved away with an insulting ‘everyone should just communicate more’ ending. Skamfr s4 made it even worse, by making the girl squad a lot more overtly racist, never having them make a big gesture for Imane, putting her in a position to apologize, and never showing that the girl squad had an idea of where they messed up or real growth. It was insanely frustrating, especially since the beginning of the season was so good at showing all the little micro-agressions. In the end it felt like all the racism was just there to motivate Imane’s breakdown for plot reasons and not to actually say something. S5 never stoops quite that low, but there was a bit of a similar dynamic at hand here. Instead of the boys actually have a real conversation after their fight, most of the denouement of the show was consecrated to talking about the love drama. It was, again, as if the focus of the show was on the wrong things, and it robs you of the catharsis you’re expecting. As if they used the love drama for a metaphor for the actual issues, have it do all the emotional heavy lifting, and in so doing bypass having to adress the actual problem. There is this weird ideas that the audience of the show - teenagers and young women, mostly, in the end care the most about the love stuff and that everything else has to take a backseat and...this feels neither a good message to send, nor realistic to me. I like it when shows about teenagers decenter love and show the real complexity of their characters’ lives without making them paragons of virtue or wokeness - Derry Girls is a brilliant example of that. Skam, and Skam France in particular, feel a bit immature still compared to those, punching below their weight for shows that pride themselves on their social impact. 

Hit with the idiot stick : Speaking of underwhelming resolutions - yes, the boy squad messing up with Arthur, I found relevant and realistic. But...did they really even adress it ? I was really hoping for the boys to have more of a conversation, for Arthur to open up to them about what he went through, about his father, to tell them that they should have asked him/listened to him more, etc...and I know ‘teenage boys’ or whatever but ...aren’t they trying to change those stereotypes too ? Like when Arthur went to see Basile, they must have had a conversation, why the fuck did we not see it ? That’s the emotional bond I cared most about ! And we just had a hug ...underwhelming tbh. Same Arthur talking with Lucas but then it was just about their love lives ? Or when they came to the hospital, again, it was just about the love drama ? God it really sucked out the oxygen out of the season. The resolutions of those things just being hugs or speeches or handholding at the end felt hollow, and a lot less powerful than they could have been. And again, there has to be a tolerance for messiness, but I found the boys so incredibly dumb at several points in the season. Especially them being like ‘oh cheating isn’t so bad’ after they found out that Arthur’s dad was cheating on his wife ? Like why the fuck did they take Patrick’s side ? What kind of lack of empathy ? It would feel a lot more coherent for teenage boys to be furious at the destruction of a friend’s family, not talk like cynical 50 yr olds who just divorced for the fifth time. It felt so unrealistic and stupid and just meant for Arthur to finally clue in to the idea that cheating and lying is bad maybe, himself first without external clues from characters that really should have known better by now. Especially Yann and Lucas advising Arthur to keep his mouth shut after what happened in s1 like...did whoever write this read the previous seasons of the show ? There were just too many times where the boy squad felt out of character and mandated to be idiots just for plot reasons, and it felt...very crudely drawn. Disappointing, because the beginning of the season was awesome. But again, Skam France failed in delivering real growth for their friend group. At times, it even felt like character regression. Them holding hands at the end of the season made me emo but damn it could have been so much more.

Also some plot twists - the car crash in particular, just felt dumb and unnecessary, seriously. 

A too distant main : In the end, like I said before, my main issue is that I didn’t feel as connected to Arthur as I wanted to. I mean, the cheating bit was just very unrelatable to me, after how they showed how supportive Alexia was and how she supposedly made him happy like...why. But maybe that’s just me. Regardless - in the first few episodes he felt distant in an interesting way, because it made sense for his character to be so walled off. But...I felt like his self discovery was way too blurred with the ‘oh I like Noee’ part to the point where it ended up being obscured. I would have loved more clips on his own, maybe something more about him questioning his path in life, whether he truly wants to do medecine. And like apparently he liked fine arts ? Then, why didn’t we see anything about that ? Did he paint the x-men painting ??? That feels so relevant, why the fuck didn’t we see that ? Also why didn’t we see him take those LSF classes with Camille and actually make an effort this time ? Having almost all of his realization moments tied to Noee was just...the manic pixie dream girl trope. That’s what it’s called, when you use a quirky female character as a device for the emotional development of the male one. It’s...not flattering tbh. And then that farm episode - it was funny but for a week I felt like I completely lost touch with Arthur’s POV ? I’m really not sure that was the right choice. All in all, there were just not enough introspective, small, intimate clips for it to really feel like Skam, and that’s a shame tbh. I recognize a lot of myself in Arthur, and Robin acted his heart out to make him relatable, but because of the writing, there were way too many times where I was reluctant and puzzled instead of in it. I saw several people saying it was too much tell and not enough show and I think that’s very on point. I feel like a lot of Arthur’s actual character development happened behind the scenes in moments where we didn’t see it.  

Yeah...I think as a conclusion most of my issues are tied back to the preponderance of the love triangle. The season wasn’t bad but god it could have been so excellent if they hadn’t gone that route, and this swerve from greatness is just sooooooo frustrating. I don’t think it’s enough to condemn the whole season but...

Next up : some things I’m just very ??? about and a general conclusion. 

Bonus bitching round, fandom edition : oh my god, I don’t get into this often but...the fandom was so bloody annoying this season. Starting with the people sending death threats over a tv show (like...what the fuck) or thinking them being nasty assholes is somehow for the greater good (???), from people that don’t want anyone to use even 1 analysis capacity (especially on Twitter) and go beyond praising everything on the show, or the people either villifying Alexia and Noee and indulging in that ‘team’ crap, to the people that shoot down every single detail of the show without discernment or accuse the creators of being ableist sexist garbage or maltreating their actors ... And then you have the other remake stans coming to pollute the tags talking about how we were all stupid for liking the show in the first place. Like...seriously, what is up with you people. I really loved the block button this season, damn. 

[2ofswords]

🔥 Go wild, king

(Trigger warning: discussion of misogyny (first and foremost), sexualization of minors, transphobia and also some classism sprinkled in here because this list wasn’t long enough. Some really gross shit tbh, I am going full vent mode with this one! Please proceed with caution!)

Oh well, I will annoy everyone who follows me and vague about people who will probably never read this by stating that the Hunger Games participation fanfiction (or how it is called in English, I’m not sure, please tell me if you know “^^) on fanfiktion.de is really fucking misogynistic and I hate it even if I write for the fandom. (Like not you my three homies, who follow me here, I am mostly talking about other writers. Also if you are weirded out by me talking past tense: The people in the community I interacted with aren’t really active on there anymore and there is a lot of distance by now.) Like… I don’t only mean the basic stereotypes or shit mostly male writers do, not knowing that a female character can have actual agency and their own thoughts. Oh no! It’s worse! It was growing out of proportion to the point it became unbearable.

Statements like “females have by nature worse chances in the hunger games” were just like… casually thrown around and also written like that in fic. There was a writer who said that female characters – which other people could send in as part of the participation – are worse written than male ones (which as a writer I do not perceive as true and even if it would be, forming a community where creating females becomes uncomfortable it can worsen the characters and/or ward of people who actually want to engage with female characters creating a very vicious circle) and that she cannot write them (which like… is already very misogynistic. It’s not hard, I promise, just write them as FUCKING PEOPLE!) and only accepted male characters at all for a while. And like… one time she made an exception for an all boys arena where there was only one female and she just complained all the time how she wouldn’t make it because she was a girl and got infantilised horribly. That got to the point in the story, where the girl in the story one time slipped on soap because she couldn’t use a shower properly and a male character had to help her because she fell unconscious. I am not making this up! It was… utterly horrible. She also very unceremoniously got literally vaporized the first day in the arena so that was… telling.

There are other problems. There is a lot of the classical weird sexualization which yes, can reach even higher levels of… problematic… if we consider that there are mostly minors in the hunger games. I would love to be fair, a lot of changed rulesets only allowed for older characters, that were more around 20 years old... That wasn’t always the case though and I do remember a fic, where an underage girl provided sexual favours for a higher chance at survival… I think she was sixteen and the guy eighteen… It wasn’t explicit but still… fucking gross! Most of this got sorted into the edgy side of “realism” which tbh is just a very shitty argument in general. You can decide what you fucking put in your story and this shit is entirely unnecessary! It didn’t even further the plot in any way or was discussed healthily, just to make sure, I also check these boxes in my explanation. (Hate, to even feel the need to defend myself making this statement.) So that is probably the height of grossness I remember.

The weird hunt for Mary Sues was also a thing (though who would have guessed?). And since Mary Sue means “I don’t like this character” for many and we do not like the females here, it got thrown around a lot for really minor offences. There was a bad tendency to joke about other people’s characters (and since it is fandom you can guess that some of these people, who send characters in, were very young…) but there was an especially bad trend of female name calling and ridicule, to the point that sometimes you would get female characters send for your story, that were made only to be ridiculed (be it because they acted bitchy (aka were female and had attitude, god forbid!) or too manly (which yes, also has some very bad transphobic implications but let’s spare us this debate right now. This is its own entire can of worms and I could make an entire new post about how transgender and nonbinary people got treated there. Let me just say that there also was a lot of toxic masculinity and gender identity there just fucking sucked). Truth to be told this also was true to other minorities (there was a character whose social accent was the entire joke aside from him being depicted as overtly horny and degrading towards – you guessed it! – female characters, so… that was horrible!). Male characters getting allowed a higher skillset is so normalized that I got numb to it. Like... this legitimately is a hot take for this fandom! Honestly, I got numb to a lot of this shit, in retrospect it is really scary how accustomed you can get to some of this stuff. Like… the ones here are the worst and not the only offenders (and thankfully I was never that blind to notice that this shit is completely fucked up! Thank god!) and like… I could make this post about entirely different topics too, but this issue is by far the… let’s say the most blatant one, and made me realize how bad this shit can get and how awful fiction and real issues can interlock with each other. In hindsight it’s horrible to see.

If one of you finds my tumblr through my fanfiktion.de profile and reads this: Good. Fix your fucking problems! This isn’t okay!

[ywhiterain]

Here’s my NaruSasu cred. So I’m not an anti just because I’m about to critically discuss the darker parts of their relationship. In fact, Ima just say it. I don’t know why you’d ship this pairing if you’re not here for at least some dysfunction.

I often hear fans say that NaruSasu is ~different than SasuSaku because Naruto hits back at Sasuke’s most toxic behavior while Sakura just takes it (btws she doesn’t - Sakura has stood her ground with Sasuke since the forest of death). That’s really dumb because measuring a relationship on how much punishment you can take without crumbling is pretty fucked up.

(I’m also not gonna classify NaruSasu as abusive because my next post will gonna detail on how Naruto damages Sasuke himself.)

More to the point, Naruto takes Sasuke’s betrayals much worse than Sakura. This is hard to measure beverages relationships are complicated and Sakura is certainly hurting throughout part two because her team is incomplete. But, when push comes to shove, Sakura was able to put other people before Sasuke. She tried to kill him because it was dragging Naruto down so much and she didn’t want Kakashi to carry the guilt of killing the student left his only legacy to.

And Sasuke does drag Naruto down. The fact that Sasuke pushes him to greater heights doesn’t change the fact that Naruto literally had a panic attack at the threat of losing Sasuke. Or lost himself to the demon within him pre Kurama redemption more than once at the notion of losing Sasuke. Or that he let people beat him up in hopes they’ll change their mind about killing him.

Now, most of this isn’t Sasuke’s fault. Naruto ties his identity and self worth into keeping his promises and being there for his friends. Naruto’s a ball of trauma himself - it’s not until he was twelve that he ever felt genuinely loved and that impacts how he sees people and relationships. The unspoken connection he built with Sasuke before they became team seven helped keep him sane. Sasuke didn’t ask for this and wasn’t responsible for Naruto‘s mental health.

But Sasuke’s first attempt to kill Naruto was tied to Sasuke acknowledging how much Naruto meant to him more overtly than ever before. And that didn’t mix well with Naruto’s issues. Having the person who you want to acknowledge you more than anyone give it to you and then turn around and declare they’re gonna kill you is not going to do wonders for your mental health.

And it’s not like Naruto ever really deals with it. He just keeps pushing forward, declaring them bff4eva. He’d literally rather die with Sasuke than allow for any other outcome other than Sasuke coming back home with him.

And Sasuke returns that devotion by declaring he’ll kill Naruto and everything he stands for. Naruto “gets over that” by just ignoring the horrific implications there. But it does take a toll on him.

Because Naruto was a story of hope, the darker implications of their relationship aren’t touched upon as deeply as the positive parts. Naruto’s finally gets his best friend back, but there was always a dark thread running through their narrative because Kishimoto drilled home, again and again, that losing Sasuke would be the one thing Naruto couldn’t recover from while Sakura was shown as someone who could prioritize other people before Sasuke, which, lbr, is much healthier than Naruto���s devotion to Sasuke.

I don’t care what you ship, but ignoring what actually happens in canon is pretty frustrating.

[theresgloryforyou]

This is an interesting read, and there’s truth in it, but oh, so much to unpack here.   I’ll give this segment a shot, since it’s been awhile since my shot at Jacobin’s bullshit, and I see a similar self-serving strain here:

“As the [capitalist] system universalizes and becomes more and more intersectional, we need intersectional resistance,” [Charles] Derber said. “At the end of the 1960s, when I was getting my own political education, the universalizing dimensions of the left, which was growing in the ’60s, fell apart. The women began to feel their issues were not being addressed. They were treated badly by white males, student leaders. Blacks, Panthers, began to feel the whites could not speak for race issues. They developed separate organizations. The upshot was the left lost its universalizing character. It no longer dealt with the intersection of all these issues within the context of a militarized, capitalist, hegemonic American empire. It treated politics as siloed group identity problems. Women had glass ceilings. Same with blacks. Same with gays.”

*cracks knuckles* Okay, first off, “The women began to feel their issues were not being addressed” is one of those sentences that should make everyone cringe.  Accuracy would require you to write “Women realized their issues were not being addressed”, OR, better yet,  “Women’s issues were not being addressed by the left.”

Also, white people slinging around the word white is fucking obnoxious.  Stop doing that.  We see you.

So this “Intersectional Leftist” proceeds to individuate a systemic problem and then structure his paragraph so he can blame WOMEN, and black folk and gays, for making an “intersectional”, “universalizing” movement fall apart?  If it was so fucking intersectional and universal how did that happen then?  Girls are irrational?  We just got our little feels hurt?

The loss of this intersectionality was deadly. Instead of focusing on the plight of all of the oppressed, oppressed groups began to seek representation for their own members within capitalist structures.

NO ONE WAS FOCUSING ON ALL OF THE OPPRESSED THAT WAS THE PROBLEM YOU WALNUT.

“Let’s take a modern version of this,” Derber said. “Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, she did a third-wave feminism thing. She said ‘lean in.’ It captures this identity politics that has become toxic on the left. What does ‘lean in’ mean? It means women should lean in and go as far as they can in the corporation. They should become, as she has, a major, wealthy executive of a leading corporation. When feminism was turned into that kind of leaning in, it created an identity politics that legitimizes the very system that needs to be critiqued. The early feminists were overtly socialists. As was [Martin Luther] King. But all that got erased.”

Sheryl Sandberg is corporate America, not “the left”.  She’s not engaged in “identity politics”, she wrote a successful pitch to non-leftist women, who are the majority because shits like you try to speak for “the left” and none of what you say applies to any of us.  She’s no more a feminist than you are, and feminism is not what created identity politics.  LIBERALS hijacking the conversations of various groups and pandering to them is what created identity politics.  LIBERAL DUDES created identity politics. 

And “But all that got erased” is insulting to every leftist woman and, again, is a stellar example of why women decided to organize without y’all.  You’re writing from the position of The Imagined Leftist Default, thinking you call the shots and everyone else is supposed to go along with you, when really you and your kind were the cause of the problem, you didn’t go along with anyone else.  You wanted to rule the roost, and being challenged by females, by lesbians and gays, by Black folk and Natives and Hispanics and Asians, none of that was anything you could handle.  You kicked US out, and you’re still doing it.  Let’s continue:

“The left became a kind of grab bag of discrete, siloed identity movements,” Derber said. “This is very connected to moral purity. You’re concerned about your advancement within the existing system. You’re competing against others within the existing system. Everyone else has privilege. You’re just concerned about getting your fair share.”

“People in movements are products of the system they’re fighting,” he continued. “We’re all raised in a capitalistic, individualistic, egoistic culture, so it’s not surprising. And it has to be consciously recognized and struggled against. Everybody in movements has been brought up in systems they’re repulsed by. This has created a structural transformation of the left. The left offers no broad critique of the political economy of capitalism. It’s largely an identity-politics party. It focuses on reforms for blacks and women and so forth. But it doesn’t offer a contextual analysis within capitalism.”

I like the way you stuck “moral purity” in there but never followed up on it.  It’s like a buzz word to signal to readers that not getting on board with your program is a mere prudishness, like there’s something wrong with aiming for morality.

Liberalism, which is a fundamentally capitalist and therefore oppressive ideology, seized on the failure of Leftist males, and in many cases the specific choice to refuse to include marginalized groups and women, in leadership, in organizing around our specific issues, in any way at all.  Liberals saw an opportunity to peel off support from those groups.  If the Left was so solid and really were fighting for the oppressed, the oppressed wouldn’t have split into groups both leftist and non in an attempt to survive.

The majority of Americans were never leftist in the first place.  That non-leftist women, for example, saw themselves in the more liberal iteration of “feminism” but not at all in “Intersectional Leftism”, is not surprising, because y’all ain’t as “intersectional” as you claim to be.  After all, you’ve casually co-opted the term “intersectional” without crediting the orgin of the idea behind it, and are using it to actually mean “Solidarity”.  Which you do not feel or show towards women who don’t submit to your leadership.

All of this recapitulates Jacobin’s ignorant hit-job attempt on Radical Feminism:  “come the revolution, men will magically become enlightened and”  and there the sentence has to end because actually no, patriarchy pre-dates capitalism, capitalism is predicated upon patriarchy, and men, especially leftists, I mean, I can hear it now:  “But we did so MUCH for you, babe!  We supported birth control access and abortion, dollface!”  Mmmmmm-hm.  From the goodness of your darling hearts, I suppose, but to continue:

Derber, like North, argues that the left’s myopic, siloed politics paved the way for right-wing, nativist, protofascist movements around the globe as well as the ascendancy of Trump.

“When you bring politics down to simply about helping your group get a piece of the pie, you lose that systemic analysis,” he said. “You’re fragmented. You don’t have natural connections or solidarity with other groups. You don’t see the larger systemic context. By saying I want, as a gay person, to fight in the military, in a funny way you’re legitimating the American empire. If you were living in Nazi Germany, would you say I want the right of a gay person to fight in combat with the Nazi soldiers?”

“I don’t want to say we should eliminate all identity politics,” he said. “But any identity politics has to be done within the framework of understanding the larger political economy. That’s been stripped away and erased. Even on the left, you cannot find a deep conversation about capitalism and militarized capitalism. It’s just been erased. That’s why Trump came in. He unified a kind of very powerful right-wing identity politics built around nationalism, militarism and the exceptionalism of the American empire.”

“Identity politics is to a large degree a right-wing discourse,” Derber said.  Hold up Imma stop you there.  Identity politics is NEOLIBERAL, or more simply LIBERAL discourse.  Don’t go dragging the “right wing” into this.  Right wingers don’t give a fuck about women or gays or most certainly anyone other than the Great White Race.  So you are wrong.

But more to the point, hilariously in light of, again, Jacobin and pretty much every single leftist organization out there right now, Radical Feminism is the Feminism that focuses on the larger political economy and on systemic oppression and on class based oppression.  An actual Radical Feminist, in her siloed identy-politcs clubhouse according to this article, would never frame lesbians joining the military as a victory for women.  Yet Radical Feminism has been thrown under the bus by leftists for post modern identity politics.  So when you attack women for rightfully organizing apart from broader leftist movements, because you can’t use our free labor and our numbers and all the heavy lifting in the background that women traditionally do in leftist movements, but you don’t actually support Radical Feminists as leftists who have analytical and philosophical similarities with Marxists and socialists of all stripes, I mean, I’m getting a pretty mixed message here.  I’m getting the typical patriarchal message that women need to pitch in for the good of the whole and we’ll sort you girls and your problems out later, but right now everyone else is more important than you.  And I’m also getting the typical patriarchal message that women need to shut up and embrace whatever we tell you to, including a movement based exclusively in individualism, identity, appearance, and gender, ie non-leftist non-materialist things we cannot analyze and that actively undermine you and your scant rights, or you’re not one of us. 

“It focuses on tribalism tied in modern times to nationalism, which is always militaristic. When you break the left into these siloed identity politics, which are not contextualized, you easily get into this dogmatic fundamentalism. The identity politics of the left reproduces the worse sociopathic features of the system as a whole. It’s scary.”

“How much of the left,” he asked, “is reproducing what we are seeing in the society that we’re fighting?”

ALL OF IT, pal.  The entire left is reproducing patriarchy.  Which I, as a leftist woman who is a radical feminist, am fighting.  So how exactly do you, a leftist with a platform, propose this gets fixed?  With women, yet again, agreeing to put our needs on the back burner for you?  That’s worked so fucking well for exactly NO WOMEN, and we aren’t a little teeny siloed group.  We’re half the fucking earth’s population.  I’m not saying every woman is a Radfem, more’s the pity, I’m saying Radical Feminism is the only Leftist Feminism, because sure the fuck “Socialist Feminism” is just third wave feminism with the words “economic justice” and “praxis” thrown in for dramatic effect.

Leftists need to get their shit together.  If Mr. Intersectional Leftist Man Chris Hedges had his shit together, for example, and other Intersectional Leftist Men had their shit together, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because Intersectional Leftist Men would organize with Radical Feminists, as our backup and labor.  This would go a long way to creating functioning solidarity.

But what these guys actually want is to continue to be in charge and call the shots, and for women to obey them and quit thinking for ourselves.  What else am I to take away from this self-serving shit?

I like Chris Hedges at times, he is capable of brilliant exposition and analysis-- this article is not an example of one of those times.

[smokeybrand]

The Worst

I wasn't really planning to touch this one because I'm so goddamn tired but this sh*t with the Duggars is itching my booty so I'm going in. I got time today. Josh Duggar f*cks kids. Some of those kids were his own sisters. He was caught, convicted, and sent off to conversion therapy camp instead of jail because his pops' unwieldy power in Arkansas. In 2015. This all came out in 2015 because of rather diligent reporters and investigators. That's when we found out about the transgressions, which actually took place before then. Dude went through all of that, did all of those terrible things, BEFORE 2015! By the time all of this came out, the "issue" had already been resolved and that coward hid behind his "faith" through PR snippets and cats just okey-doked it. Sure, the Duggar lost their show, but who cares? They're still supported by the religious zealots on the Right. They still wield unheard of power in Arkansas, all because the Duggars are “Christian” in the “right” way. Because they're "good" people. Well, it's 2021 and ol' Joshy-boy is facing forty years for the same sh*t he got busted on, way back before 2015. I guess f*cking kids is “Christian” in the “right”, according to how these people interpret the bible. Why the f*ck is this even a thing? How the f*ck is this a thing. More importantly, where the f*ck are all of these bible-thumping, Conservative hypocrites, who support straight up insurrection, now that one of their own is about to be nailed to the wall for the most heinous sh*t a person can do? Today, I awoke and chose all the violence.

Duggar was convicted as a minor but was never held accountable for his bullsh*t and now, some sixteen years later since he was exposed as a predator and threat, cat is on the hook for some verifiable, factually provable, horrific sh*t. The feds found terabytes upon terabytes of graphic child porn on his personal computer. Dude had a whole ass Ashley Madison account a while back, for which has since apologized,but those thing are used strictly for adultery. So, Joshy-boy is on record for molesting kids as a minor, cheating on his wife through the interwebs, and has now got the feds on his butt, because he picture of kiddy butts on hand. You see, that's a patter of escalation. Josh Duggar is a monster and it makes me wonder how that monster was allowed to roam or, more importantly, how man other monsters are hiding in that f*cked up family. Of course, the family is denying the claims but, with that verifiable history, you can really be telling me this asshole ain't out here f*cking all of the underage partners he can get his hands on. Really? He f*cked his sisters, man! There are no limits to this dude's disgusting predilections. He's been doing the same sh*t he got nailed with from before, for decades. Why would he ever stop? Who stops their bullsh*t, especially after getting caught and let go with a slap on the wrist? If I burn down an orphanage and you make me pick up trash as a consequence, I'm just going to keep committing arson on sh*t because picking up trash ain't sh*t. The juice id definitely worth the squeeze at that point and I am thirsty, bud. So was Joshy-boy, but for kiddy-diddling, not theoretical arson.

Josh Duggar has been getting away with f*cking kids for decades. Decades of slipping the noose because of his clout and the fact his family is viewed as 'God fearing.” I'm not even going to get into that toxic mess, and how it enabled this scumbag, but ol' Joshy-boy has little girls in his own home, where, because of his "faith" his word is law. What the f*ck is he doing to those kids? He diddled his little sisters. That's fact. He was convicted of that in the court of law. That's fact. He has a record for that and was never properly disciplined for it. That's fact. If he could do that to them, and get away with it unscathed, it's not unheard of to think he could do it to his own. And that's not to slight his boys because, if he's been doing this since he was a kid and escalation is a thing, pretty sure a little boy butt is fine now, too. Of course, this is all speculation on my part but I'm comfortable throwing around these alleged accusations considering the actual evidence onhand. I'm comfortable say Josh Duggar f*cks because he f*cked his sister when she was a kid. One is more than enough, bud. Which is why I don't understand how he has gotten away with this sh*t for years after. Why wasn't Duggar put on a list like a regular person? Why wasn't he forced into proper therapy? Why wasn't he watched like a hawk for the rest of his life? Why was he allowed to escape consequence and re-offend for decades? Why were his sisters forced to interact with this dude on that show for years, when every KNEW what he did to them? Why the f*ck was he allowed back around kids and no one said a peep until the feds found straight up, hardcore, graphic child pornography on his home computer?

Sh*t like this is why i don't understand how Conservative people feel like they know the moral way. They use the bible as some sort of blanket, get-out-of-jail-free card, refusing to even acknowledge their transgressions. Even Matt Gaetz is doing that sh*t. Sure, he's leaning heavy into the "cancel culture" lie, even though there are literal Venmo receipts of him buying sex from a minor, but he claims this a witch hunt predicated on his loyalty to 45 and his strong Conservative values. Values that are intrinsically linked to that Jesus jargon. So, according to him, he can traffic women for sex, at leas one of which was underage but we'll see how many actually were, while being engaged to a woman he claims to love, but this is persecution? This is a politically motivated attack? He's the victim? Really? It doesn't even stop there. Most cats who still believe in 45, and i mean actually believe in him because they think that asshole is some sort of real life Second Coming, conveniently dismiss his long record of adultery, the fact that he uses their faith as a disingenuous prop, and, more to the point of this discussion, THE COUNTLESS ACCUSATIONS OF CHILD RAPE! Dude beat up a fourteen year old before raping her, because he wanted to take her virginity by said rape, but Epstein raped her first, so she was “defiled” when it was his turn to rape her and he was mad about it. So, I repeat, Trump beat up the fourteen year old girl before he raped her, for already being raped. Your president did that sh*t and I know he did because she sued. Put that in your pocket because we're going to circle back around to it in a bit.

There was an entire documentary about Epstein on Netflix and 45's name is riddled throughout it. There are Cosby levels of victims in his ledger and, like Cosby, where there's smoke, there is definitely fire, bud. Trump has for sure f*cked at least one child and that's more enough. He should be castrated and tossed into a hole, not uplifted as some great leader who is going to lead America into it's next golden age. If you actually think that, you're a f*cking idiot, and I mean that in the most aggressively disrespectful way possible. If you actually, in your heart, believe that Donald f*cking Trump is some sort of moral barometer, that he is the one best fit to guide this country into the future, you are the worst kind of person and don't deserve a voice in our democracy. The girl who sued him over her traumatic experience, is in that doc and recalls her story exactly the same way she's told it for decades, exactly as i heard it a decade and half ago. See? Full circle. This chick sued him and he settled. He paid her to make that sh*t go away, per usual, the December before his inauguration and no one talked about that. The difference in her case and the many, many, other settlements, is the fact that Trump doesn't pay anyone without at least three appeals or the Feds force him. He shot this chick an undisclosed amount of loot almost immediately. I don't even think her case made it to trial. I think they were still in Discovery and he whipped out the checkbook. Why was that? Maybe he didn't want her talking after he became President? Or maybe because she could substantiate the horrible f*cking claims she has never deviated from making, for two whole ass decades? I f*cking wonder.

Now, I'm not, in anyway, saying the Left doesn't have their issues. Of course they do. When you get to a certain amount of wealth and power, your moral compass goes wacky and you end up in the papers for giving everyone herpes or trying to start a cult or some sh*t. Celebrities are f*cking weird, bud. What I am saying is the fact that most of these ridiculously damaging and hypocritical f*ck problems, tend to err on The Right more than the Left. I mean, Hilary Clinton has buried bodies, for sure, and i don't mean just Benghazi but, since 2000, the Right has been riddled with some of the most egregious acts you can imagine, in terms of Christian morality. There's a list you can check out on Wikipedia and that hard "R" pops up a great many times. Lots of infidelity on the Left. Lots of the OTHER stuff AND infidelity on the right. It's pathological with these people. The harder you thump that bible, the harder you're apparently thumping some strange. Be it trans trysts, adulterous liaisons, getting it the gay way, straight up sexual battery, or outright rape, the Right is just out here, throwing their sh*t around at whatever will gush. However, when caught, they hide behind their “faith” as a deterrent from actual accountability. It's f*cking disgusting, dude. I mean, Bill Clinton got head from a co-ed in the Oval office but Trump gave head to a nine year old in one of the elevators at Mar-a-Lago. These are not the same and just because one overtly pretends Jesus is his savior, doesn't mean he should get that pass or that the comparison is in anyway apt.

The cognitive dissonance between espousing the virtues of Christ and actually living them is always so stark with these Conservatives. It's a tool to them, not a calling, not a guide. But so many of their proliferate eat that sh*t up. F*cking why? These people are pandering to you. They don't respect your beliefs. They literally f*ck kids. How can they be good Christians and do sh*t like that? None of those people are genuine in their belief. How the f*ck can you just give these assholes the pass? How can you exalt them as idols worth following, protecting, and aggrandizing? None of those frauds worship the way you do. Hell, the people you look to in order to deliver the Word, don't even live the Godly life. They're multi-millionaires flying around in personal jets they bought from Tyler Perry, because God told them they shouldn't have to fly coach with all those demons. Those demons are you, you f*cking sheep. That's how they see you. From your Orange demagogue to your sycophant senators to your televangelist false idols, you are the demons. You are the fodder. You are the rubes. And they know you'll turn the other cheek as they spread them kiddy cheeks, because all they have to do is hold a bible upside down from time to time and say “God is good.”

[ramajmedia]

13 Reasons Why's Biggest Controversies (So Far) | Screen Rant

13 Reasons Why prides itself on tackling difficult issues head on, but its approach has resulted in many controversies. Based on Jay Asher's novel of the same name, 13 Reasons Why arrived on Netflix in 2017. Its first season told the story of Hannah Baker's suicide, through a series of flashbacks which detailed the "13 reasons why" she had taken her own life.

Those reasons included a culture of bullying and drugs at her school, which resulted in many students making poor decisions and then trying to deal with the regrettable consequences. They also included rape, and the revelation that Hannah and her friend, Jessica, had both been raped by the football captain, Bryce Walker. Not only were many of the scenes triggering for viewers, but Hannah's suicide was shown in graphic detail, prompting an outcry across social media.

Related: What To Expect From 13 Reasons Why Season 4

13 Reasons Why came back for a second season, and this time the controversial topics handled included sexual assault and school shootings. Still undeterred by yet more uproar, 13 Reasons Why season 3 has also seen a new character getting involved with a known rapist, and someone being framed for murder. With such a divisive show it can be difficult to keep track of what the backlash is about, so here are 13 Reasons Why's biggest controversies (so far).

Hannah's Suicide

Undoubtedly the biggest controversy 13 Reasons Why has faced was its decision to show Hannah Baker's suicide in graphic detail. The storyline had already caused outcry, with many parenting groups claiming that it would influence impressionable teenagers, and that it glamorized suicide. Showrunner Brian Yorkey and the cast all defended the show, stating that they were trying to promote conversation between adults and teens, and teaching about the power of seeking help.

However, after advice from medical experts, Netflix made the decision to remove the controversial scene in which Hannah takes her own life, two years after it first aired. The two sides of the argument both have valid points; for anyone contemplating suicide, the scene could prove to be a fatal trigger. On the other hand, the visible pain that Hannah went through could easily serve as a strong deterrent to anyone who thought suicide was an easy way out. Arguably, though, the scene that served as the biggest deterrent of all was Hannah's mother discovering her daughter's body.

Related: 13 Reasons Why Star Thinks Season 1's Suicide Scene Earned Undue Hatred

The Rape Of Hannah, Jessica, and Chloe

Another major criticism of 13 Reasons Why season 1 was its depiction of sexual violence, most specifically the rape of Jessica and Hannah by Bryce. Again, the showrunners defended the choice by saying it was highlighting an important topic that wasn't spoken about enough. While it's easy to agree that we should be discussing the matters of consent, peer pressure and rape with our teens, 13 Reasons Why focused much more on the behavior of Bryce, the perpetrator, rather than the impact his actions had on his victims. Not only did 13 Reasons Why do this in season 1, it also did the same in season 2, when Bryce went on to rape Chloe, his girlfriend at the time.

Drug Culture

Drugs are part of high school life, and that's an unavoidable fact. However, they're certainly not something that every teenager does, and certainly not in the quantities or with the reckless abandon as depicted in 13 Reasons Why. Bryce Walker is rich, and obviously has disposable income, but we're also supposed to believe that Justin, who has been abandoned by his family and is not wealthy, has the means to be a drug addict. 13 Reasons Why seems to think every teenage gathering automatically involves heavy drug use, especially from the football team, who are supposed to be the best athletes in the school. It's another instance of the show focusing on the negative aspect of school life, rather than the promise of a bright future for these kids.

Bullying and Jock Culture

Bullying, and the toxic male dominated sports culture at Liberty High, is a major factor across 13 Reasons Why. Hannah was relentlessly bullied, and it seems as though getting slammed into lockers by a footballer is just par for the course for most. Again, one could argue that 13 Reasons Why is highlighting a major issue with our schools, and that could be admirable. But it's 13 Reason's Why's failure to address it that's the issue. It's not until season 3 that we actually see a fairly supportive principal allowing Jessica to give a school assembly based on the #MeToo movement. There's no discipline strategy in place to deal with the bullying, we are not shown the consequences of the jock behavior, and so the show fails to highlight the issue in a useful way at all. If anything, it merely promotes the fact that if you're a straight white male sports player in school, you can get away with pretty much anything.

Tyler's Assault

Another victim of the continual bullying, is Tyler Down. An outcast from the very start, 13 Reasons Why has followed Tyler's journey from a quiet photography student to arriving fully armed to the Spring dance. The school has turned a blind eye to all of Tyler's troubles; surprising given how overtly he was bullied. Monty, a member of the football team, was a continual thorn in Tyler's side, making his life worse and worse until it all culminated in a horrific physical and sexual assault. The extremely graphic depiction of Tyler being sodomized with a broom handle and badly beaten was a very difficult watch. Unsurprisingly, it sparked outrage, and the warning that preceded the show didn't feel like enough.

Related: Every Song In 13 Reasons Why Season 3

Tyler's Attempted Shooting

The debate over gun control in America has been raging for some time now, and sadly, school shootings are frequent occurrences. Arguably, then, 13 Reason's Why's decision to have Tyler attempt a mass shooting was merely raising discussion and awareness of an issue that affects most American school kids - but again, it was the way the show dealt with it that cause the issue. Tyler arrived at his decision based on the assault he had suffered and the culmination of long-standing bullying. However, there was no detailed look at the state of Tyler's mental health when he made his choice, just like there wasn't with Hannah when she took her own life.

The way the attempted shooting scene played out, in the finale of season 2, was badly handled. Clay Jensen stepped in front of Tyler's gun and talked him out of going through with it, before Tony and Clay together removed Tyler from the scene of the crime and then disposed of his guns. As if that wasn't enough, in season 3 it becomes clear that rather than letting anyone find out about Tyler's attempt, Clay and his friends take turns in looking after Tyler so that he is never alone. The implication that a group of 17 year old kids can handle the ramifications of an attempted mass shooting, as well as provide adequate after care for a mentally unwell peer, is a dangerous one.

Related: Study Connects Netflix's 13 Reasons Why With Increase in Youth Suicides

Bryce's Probation

When Hannah's tapes, detailing her 13 reasons, were released, everyone got to hear Bryce's confession. Clay had secretly recorded him admitting that he raped Hannah and Jessica, and season 2 found him on trial. Of course, while he was on the stand, it was actually Jessica who had to endure the real trial, being labeled a slut and being told she was asking for it. Bryce was depicted as a star athlete, from a good home, and a student whose college chances would be ruined if convicted of rape. The result was that he received a paltry 3 month probation term for his crimes, while Jessica (and subsequently Chloe) had to live with what he did to them. It was too late for Hannah. Although his sentence caused controversy and anger among fans, sadly it's all too often reflected in court rooms for real.

Related: 13 Reasons Why: Who Killed Bryce Walker & Their Motive Explained

Ani's Relationship With Bryce

The introduction of Ani in season 3 was met with such fierce backlash from fans that Grace Saif, who plays Ani, was forced to quit social media. While hounding an actress who plays a fictional character is completely wrong, it's easy to see why the character of Ani was detested so much. First of all, she stuck herself right in the middle of the problems that Clay and his friends were dealing with, despite not knowing their shared history. Her lack of sensitivity was astounding, like asking Chloe if Bryce had been aware she was pregnant, right after they'd met. She also worked her way into Jessica's life, counselling her on her rape and recovery, all the while courting a relationship with the very man who had already raped 3 girls.

The whole purpose of the character seemed to be humanizing the despicable actions of Bryce Walker, and since Bryce never seemed to have any redeeming features, it was too little, too late, Plus, Ani seemed more concerned with making sure someone went down for Bryce's murder than his actual demise. When Clay looked to be in the frame, Ani set about trying to pin the blame on someone else - the wrong person.

Monty's Season 3 Story Arc

Monty was an inherently unlikable character from the start. He spent most of 13 Reasons Why season 1 playing suck-up to Bryce and learning his habits and behaviors, which made him become an entitled bully. It was season 2 where Monty became more of a character in his own right, and like his mentor, there was not a redeeming feature in sight. He bullied Tyler endlessly, assaulted and violated him, and, as it seemed for much of season 3, got away with it. As it turned out, Monty had a secret: he was gay, and struggling to come to terms with his own sexuality. When Tyler managed to seek help for his assault, Monty was arrested and imprisoned, and was subsequently killed in his cell. At the same time, Ani successfully (for now) pinned Bryce's murder on him, even though he had an alibi; he was sleeping with a student from another school at the time. Monty is now dead, and we won't get to see the character learning to come to terms with his sexuality, or dealing with the consequences of his actions. Like so many stoylines in 13 Reasons Why, this controversial episode is once more skipped over with no real lessons learned.

Next: 13 Reasons Why Season 3's Monty Twist Explained

source https://screenrant.com/13-reasons-why-controversy-explained/

[csprofstudy]

Goya Blog 2

Goya Blog

 Monday 12/11

Although I am fascinated by Goya’s work, I have never actually seen an original painting. Have therefore decided to see what I can find in London. So far I can only track Goya down at the National Gallery. https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/artists/francisco-de-goya

There are just 5 paintings to be seen and earlier than the Black Paintings. However, it will be interesting to see some of his contrasting pieces, such as ‘A Picnic’, as well as his formal portraiture, including ‘The Duke of Wellington’! This should give me an insight into how and when his work changed, as well as help me to clarify the reasons for these changes, tying in with my project.

Unfortunately, the Black Paintings are in the Prado, but I have sent off for the Museum ‘Gallery Guide’ which catalogues each of the paintings. Not quite the same as being there, nevertheless I hope it will give me more of an authentic feel, compared to just looking at them on the internet.

 Tuesday 13/11

Having put together a bibliography, I have decided also to explore some podcast material to help my research on Goya and give me a different perspective. These two links below look worthwhile. The Radio 3 interview could be especially interesting as it explores the work of Goya from the curator’s point of view. Will set time aside to listen on Thursday.

BBC Radio 4 - Great Lives, Series 27, Goya

Diana Athill joins Matthew to explore the life of the Spanish painter Francisco de Goya.

BBC Radio 3 - Sunday Feature, Doing Goya Justice: The Curator's Story

Feature following the work of Xavier Bray as he curates an exhibition of Goya's paintings.

Sunday 30/12

As there is hardly any Goya available to view in this country, I was looking forward to watching a DVD, which reports on the National Gallery Exhibition of 2015. Goya: Visions of Flesh and blood. 

It wasn’t quite what I expected as I had hoped to get more of a feel of the Black Paintings and there was far more focus on his portraits. However, I like the way that Goya was dramatized as it brought him to life and made me feel a bit more connected to him and Gabriele Finaldi’s observation that Goya: ‘Dealt with the human soul’ captures a sense of why we are still very moved by Goya’s work today. Reference was made to both his complicated historical journey and his personal/artistic journey – which relates to my investigation for the contextual study – and to his complicated character..

There was quite a lot of interesting back ground that I was unaware of (including his relationship with Martin Zapater which was an intense and intimate friendship) and I think in my essay I might develop my section on his early work that I plan to use to show his developing style, in line with political and personal events that affected him. 

His path to royal painter was clearly laid out by a number of art historians during the film:

1775 Goya was invited to court as King Charles III wanted to show that he was in touch with the Spanish people. He was asked to create tapestries of every day scenes for royal residences, and at this point he was heavily influenced by the naturalistic style of Velázquez. His first Royal Patron was Don Luis de Bourbon; he entered the inner sanctum of the family.

By 1785 his modern approach to portraiture won him more commissions and I learned that he was praised for being unconventional. Instead of small details of a particular scene, he went for face, character, expression - strong physicality – trying to convey the emotional life of his subjects. Understood personality and body language.

This is maybe an early indication of his daring? In his letters he said: ‘There are no rules in painting’, which is something I will bear in mind when I look at his later work. I hadn’t really thought much about Goya the man until this point, but he was obviously ambitious and passionate.

 In 1788 the death of Charles III brought nervousness. Charles IV - succeeded and appointed Goya in the position of court painter and conserver. This is Goya the Royalist and respectful servant, his loyalty and talent winning him a reward.

In 1793 he became unwell and travelled to Cadiz to recover but he would be deaf – for the rest of life. Was this due to lead poisoning? (Another avenue to explore?). Whatever the cause, it must have had a dramatic effect on Goya as he loved music and conversation, so how far did it affect the way he worked and the content of his work? Dr Bray suggests this marked a turning point – that Goya had become liberated and more independent. He drew more freely. New subjects were chosen.

Rebellion from France spilled into Spain. Inquisition active. Duchess of Alba had huge influence and he had a close relationship. How far did she influence him?

1993 Spain was defeated by France and Goya became Director of the Academy of Fine Art. ‘Los Caprichos’ – examination of ‘Vices’ marked the beginning of a darker phase with Goya becoming a critical observer. Followed by ‘Disasters of War.’ Sarah Symmons claims Goya was not overtly political, but events and the development in his art seem to prove otherwise.

The beginning of the 19th Century brought further disruption. The film helpfully summarised main events, which helped to emphasise and clarify the background against which Goya was working.

Napoleon declared war on Britain and invaded Spain in 1808 to control European relationships with Britain.

Unrest. Charles IV abdicated in favour of son, Ferdinand VII.

 French troops entered Madrid and consequences were brutal.

Spain now under French rule with Napoleon’s brother Joseph declared King.

6 year bloody war. Cruelty Captured by Goya in ‘Disasters of War’. Taste of Black Paintings to follow?

Madrid liberated by British. Ferdinand VII reinstated. Goya continued royal duties.

Had access to French and Spanish – left him vulnerable – but political stance not obvious in portraits at this point.

In later life as commissions decreased, Goya turned to friends/family for portraits.

New reign, suspected French sympathisers questioned by Holy Office, including Goya.

Bought Quinta del Sordo. In 1820 self-portrait with doctor. Near death experience.

Black paintings seem like ‘an exorcism’ (Dr Xavier Bray - who curated the exhibition). Why? Was it a personal statement? Were they an anti-war statement? Were they meant to be seen? No-one seems sure and this is the focal point of my study.

Goya says in his letters: ‘I refuse to do the same thing all the time’.

Complexity and variety are key to trying tounderstand his work. 

January 18th

I listened to BBC Great Lives today where Goya was being discussed by Matthew Parris and Sarah Symmons. Although there was some information - especially about historical events – that I had heard before e.g. Napoleon’s invasion of Spain, there were also some useful discussion/quotes that made me think about Goya the man – his motivation, his suffering and people who have influenced him. I might be able to incorporate some of these things into my essay and it will definitely strengthen my ‘Personal’ chapter on Goya the man – and how the complexity of his psyche, relationships and experiences shaped his later work.

Diana Athill. Said she was struck by Goya’s ‘honesty’ – the way he is ‘Always responding to how things really are’. This is interesting in relation to the BPs and the view they convey of man.

Sarah Symmons reminded listeners of his age when creating his masterpieces. He drew ‘Disasters of War’ in his 60s and the ‘Black Paintings’ in his 70s! She points out that for him, ‘The truth was the most important thing.’ Honesty and truth appear to be the driving qualities for his art.

All agreed he was not too interested in the sacred, or heaven. Doesn’t romanticise evil. Perhaps that help to explain the grotesque quality of the BPs?

Something I didn’t know was that all his children died except one and there were many miscarriages. 6 of 7 live births died. This must have been devastating for him and his wife and he must have been touched by this tragedy.

They touched upon his deafness/illness and the theory this was caused because he was an unorthodox painter who often used his hands. As paint was so toxic, this appears to have had a terrible effect. So this will also have had some bearing on his state of mind when he was painting the walls of the Quinto del Sardo with his black paintings.

Some powerful ‘people’ influences were mentioned – the Duchess of Alba was like a Muse and it is said that he loved Martin Zabater passionately. If I have time I might look at some of his letters to Zabater.

Goya worked for Court and Joseph 1 but was inspired by the atrocities of war and Matthew Parris described him as a ‘War reporter’, which is a useful angle/quote for me.

Finally, Athill’s statement that he drew ‘For us’ is an interesting one as I am really interested in Goya’s intentions and his audience – and in why we relate so strongly to him today. Athill’s quote that he was ‘ultra modern’ highlights his ability to cross the centuries and we can relate today both to the idea of civil unrest, and also to mental health issues and the powerful effect these can have.

[thenexusofsouls]

🍑🍇🍌🍓 (Tony from murder-popsicle)

@murder-popsicle​

🍑  :    how meticulously does my muse look after their physical appearance?  do they spend a lot of time on their hair,  makeup,  grooming,  and clothing?  is there a particular reason why they do or don’t?

So... Tony has always put a decent amount of time into his appearance (especially the fingernails and whiskers, heh), but the reason for that has changed over time. Before he was imprisoned in Afghanistan, it was mostly a vanity issue and a desire to attract ladies. He wanted to look good, have a lot of sex, and not care, heh. After his imprisonment... he did so more to compromise for the fact that he no longer felt all that attractive (because of the big hole in his chest) and as a psychological reaction to not having access to great hygiene for an extended amount of time. So it became more about building himself back up into who he used to be instead of trying to attract the opposite sex necessarily. As he grew older and the New York invasion happened and everything else after that, his attention to his appearance was yet another psychological reaction to feeling like he was not in control. That’s a major fear of Tony’s, loss of control. World- and universe-scale events are happening and he can’t stop it, and that’s maddening to him. It’s a source of extreme anxiety. So grooming himself to a T, wearing nice clothes, and carrying himself a certain way is a coping mechanism for him to feel like he’s got control of something. Not that it’s that overtly conscious a thing, but yeah.

🍇  :    how would my muse describe their childhood?  how much has it impacted the person they are now,  or will become as an adult?  around what age did they or will they start to mature,  and why?  do they wish to go back to their days as a child,  or have they embraced adulthood?

Hmm... he’d describe it as a cross between a reckless whirlwind and a lonely vacuum, if that makes any sense. His personal life was always crazy with a tony of friends and him pulling one stupid stunt or another for attention. It was fun, but hollow. He never really grabbed the attention of the one person he wanted it the most from... his father. And that just made him act out even more. Being incredibly intelligent only made things worse, because his schemes were always elaborate and he was constantly outdoing himself each time. Plus, he wasn’t a kid you could have any kind of conversation around and expect him to not fully understand what you were talking about, heh. Be it subjects above his age level or eavesdropping from across the house, he always knew more than he should. Tony was a painfully perceptive child and teen, and that only made his emotionally isolation worse. Imagine a young person being so overly inflated as an extreme extrovert while at the same time feeling always so utterly alone on in the inside, and no amount of attention seemed to change that. It was a sad and unfortunate existence for him, but it wasn’t entirely done to him. He exacerbated things considerably and often knowingly. It was just that he didn’t know any other way to act and was too afraid of his own emotions to try to work on anything better.

Tony doesn’t wish he could go back to the past, he just wishes it was different. He wouldn’t trade the knowledge and wisdom he has today for anything. And that’s something very strange about him, is that in some ways he is wiser than most on an instinctual level, and yet so often he’s completely emotionally unequipped to make use of any of that wisdom. It’s like his own fear of facing things and inability to connect with what he’s feeling on a deeper level prevent him from being as mature as he could be. He has the intelligence, emotional capacity, knowledge, and in many cases experience to really be a powerhouse of a person, but he purposefully leaves too much of his emotional development unchecked and undeveloped at several key points in his life. All those missed opportunities for growth, healing, and acceptance are cumulative and compound over time.

This is why I really assert that the Pepper x Tony ship is a toxic one. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I love Morgan to death, heh, but I am not a Pepper and Tony shipper. I won’t elaborate on all the reasons unless you want me to, haha), but I’ll just say that there were at least three points where Pepper had the ability or opportunity to really understand him and help him, and she dropped the ball completely. Not only that, but she made things ten times worse and actually reinforced his negative thoughts and habits and made him feel like he was crap for them. What happens when Tony feels that way? He represses and escapes, preventing any sort of growth. “Immature” is something she calls him, and he certainly is as times, but the ways and moments in which she calls him that... I feel are her missing the point entirely, and that irks me. Tony can be helped, guided, and supported to become a better version of himself, but by the time he’s reached adulthood, it’s too late for him to have the emotional wherewithal and tools to initiate it himself. 

🍌  :    is my muse inclined to help others,  or will they only do it when it benefits them,  if at all?  what makes them this way?  has it ever gotten them into trouble,  or inconvenienced them?

He is. He really is. It’s odd because I feel like sometimes he wishes he wasn’t that way, heh. He’d like to be able to see someone in need and walk away because it’s more convenient or less dangerous for himself to do so, but he just can’t. Tony has a huge conscience, and especially with regard to people he cares about and children, he is more inclined to feel responsible for their welfare. The Avengers because they’re a team and he feels he should protect them, and children because he used to be one, heh, and they can’t always defend themselves. And they shouldn’t have to. I wrote an AU where Tony ends up responding personally to the bombing in Sokovia that killed Wanda and Pietro’s parents, and he rescues them from the rubble. I was writing the twins and a friend of mine was writing Tony, and he just did such a great job with him. The guilt he felt that his weapons hurt and traumatized these kids and orphaned them was palpable. He ends up not being able to leave them in Sokovia, especially after realizing that they’re mutants, and he and Pepper end up adopting them. But anyway, that’s the sort of things that really tugs at his conscience, not just that people need help, but that he’s responsible for them needing that help, or somehow more responsible than most for keeping them safe. He can’t ignore that calling no matter how much he might wish he could.

I think what makes him this way is the desire for a child to never feel ignored or left behind the way he did, an intense responsibility that the person wearing the Iron Man suit should be an absolute protector, and a feeling that he has a lot he needs to seek redemption for. If he could have saved someone and he wasn’t there, didn’t do enough, didn’t try hard enough, didn’t know enough, didn’t plan enough, etc., then it’s his fault if they don’t make it. It speaks to what he saw in Wanda’s vision that she gave him and how he ultimately reacted to it. The thought of being responsible for someone he cares about dying or for permitting with his inadequacy of mind, body, or preparation the destruction of the world is worse than death for him. It’s unfathomable. He can’t deal with it. So he tries to avoid situations like that at all costs. And obviously, it’s gotten him into trouble, heh. One word. Ultron. XD

🍓  :    how is my muse typically seen by others?  does it ring true to who they really are?  does their reputation matter to them?

I think this really varies from person to person, but largely Tony is seen as shallow, arrogant, narcissistic, selfish, etc. Materialistic... overly privileged... yeah. There is... some truth in that. Okay, a lot of truth, heh, but... he’s also brave, determined, sometimes selfless, funny, and considerate. Tony has a lot of wonderful qualities, but unfortunately they are often lost beneath layers of coping mechanisms, avoidance, PTSD, and fear of being perceived as vulnerable and letting anyone get too close to him. Sometimes deliberately and sometimes not, his best qualities are often obscured by much louder, much more visible vices and negative qualities. So he’s a very different person in private and with those select few around whom he can really let his guard down than he is perceived by the general public. I don’t think Tony cares as much about his reputation publicly speaking as he does about being able to sleep at night. His guilty conscience is a huge enemy of his. He also wants his close friends to know he has their back, something he is constantly afraid he’ll screw up.

[callumskeltoneco]

Week Three : Environmental Histories of design

IMPORTANT QUOTES :

“We can roughly divide the approaches of environmental historians to design into two main categories. The first sees design as a matter of ideology and construction of meaning, where a designed object is something that makes people act or think in different ways. The second sees design as a matter of materiality, as something that has material consequences upstream or downstream of the actual designed object.”

“These studies engage deeply and directly with individual artefacts and gen- erally raise the question: does design connect us to nature or to what nature means? We should note the importance of this distinction.”

“Price emphasizes that consumers encounter nature ‘commodified, transformed, already dead, and way out of ecological context.’ The resulting connec- tions to nature—for they are connections—‘are highly mediated.’5 This makes it critical to study how designers create, reveal, or obscure such connections.”

“As plastic changed its connotation, the artificial became unreal, fake, and less than natural. The pink plastic flamingo became a marker of bad taste and of being disconnected from nature. Later, however, the flamingo changed meaning yet again, as it was finally embraced as an ironic postmodern acces- sory by a generation of environmentalists—including Price.”

“In the consumerist world, our lives are filled with things. Both Price and Rollins ask what it means to be an environmentalist and live in a world of things? It is hard, if not impos- sible, for an environmentalist to fully place his or herself outside of consumer society. In both these studies, we see how consumerism is a transformative process, converting matter and energy into meaning and waste, in ways that have implications for both the physical environment and people’s cultural ideas about nature. Ideological relationships to nature mediated through consumer culture can be found anywhere, from stuffed animal toys to online pictures of cabins.8 All interactions with nature shape values and cultural understandings of nature.”

“we can no longer talk about design (and) culture without also talking about design (and) nature”

“he study of visual and material culture ‘is a barrier to perceiving and investigating design’s historical role in ecological degradation”

“A great deal of what has been brought into being by design, from coal-fired power stations to asbestos, from herbicides to jet-skis, from cigarettes to cluster bombs, all combine to take the future away. They ‘defuture.’ . . . [W]e find ourselves at the currently comfortable epicenter of the condition of unsustainability that defuturing animates. To know this is to realize that design has had much more significant historical agency than has been realized. To know this can, and should, be seen to have huge implications for how its history is constructed, understood and viewed.”

“Embedded in the intimate spaces and embodied routines of everyday life, design mediates access to and control over resources, and it shapes how people identify and comply with particular ways of living’. As a consequence, she concludes, ‘Design is thus complicit in how sustainability is formulated, by, and for whom it becomes practiced, normalised, and institutionalised”

“For, indeed, we should be too ashamed of ourselves if we allowed the making of goods, even on a large scale, to carry with it the appearance, even, of desolation and misery.”

“that design history has much to gain from engaging the natural environment, just as environmental history can be enriched by closer attention to how the designed environment matters.”

WAR + IMPACTS ON ENVIROMENT : “Photographs and stories of endless battlefields marred by charred woodlands, torn-up fields and toxic air have contributed to a broader understanding of how modern, industrialised warfare ravages nature.”

“ Tanks bulldozed fields into mud and quagmire; heavy artillery transformed rich agricultural land into barren, moon-like landscapes; machine guns mowed down trees as well as men, ingraining the soil with lead; gas projectors suffocated both people and plants with poisonous and toxic chemicals.”

“The global, industrialised war catalysed, if not created, the global, industrialised depletion of natural recourses. The insatiable need for timber caused massive deforestation the world over, and the ensuing desire for rapid regrowth resulted in new, unsustainable forestry practices. Extensive tin mining caused substantial dam- age to local ecosystems in East Asia and Europe alike, as the new mechanised extraction methods polluted rivers with sand and clay runoff.”

“Highways are among the most overt and contested fault lines between the built environment and the natural environment. In her article, Margot Lystra examines in great detail two experimental highway design projects, showing how human-nature relations were enacted in the studio and how these projects from the mid-1960s United States are indicative of a shift in how environmental designers represented ecology and nature in their projects.”

“This promising cross-pollination would prove short-lived, however, as the focus of both parties soon drifted elsewhere. On the one hand, the main thrust of the radical design scene shifted from ecotopian criticism to semiotic musings on the meanings of objects. On the other hand, from the mid-1970s the anti-nuclear battle virtually engulfed the environmentalist movement in Italy, leaving little room for more design-centred discussions. What in retrospect might look like a ‘golden moment’ in the environmental history of design thus exemplifies what such an approach can achieve in identifying alliances and discourses which easily would fall by the wayside if disciplinary boundaries are too strictly maintained.”

“As argued at the outset of this article, environmental history can be said to have emerged partly from the environmentalist movement, but has subsequently become less overtly activist in tone.”

“Rather than taking a programmatic stance on the issue of activism, we suggest that environmental histories of design will benefit from a wide variety of approaches.”

“Certain types of environmental change happen slower than the eye can see; yet the consequences make themselves known on plan- etary scales. This poses a challenge to all of us, and it is one that historians of environ- ment and design can address. Rob Nixon writes that to ‘give the Anthropocene a public resonance involves choosing objects, images, and stories that will make visceral those tumultuous geologic processes that now happen on human time scales.”

“We find inspiration in environmental historian Libby Robin, who argues that what we need is not narratives of blame but narratives of care: ‘the question is how people can take responsibility for and respond to their changed world. And the answer is not simply scientific and technological, but also social, cultural, political and ecological”.

“People have left their fingerprints on everything and the world is a poorer place for it, or so the story goes. Such narratives of decline and catastrophe have been important catalysts in the formation of the environmental movement and continue to be major challenges that we will need to deal with one way or another in the future. As argued earlier, all of these can also be defined as a wicked problem or part of a whole wicked tangle of problems that can’t be solved through simple fixes—they can not be designed away.”

“The world is constantly falling apart, but it is also constantly being repaired, reinvented, reconfigured, and reassembled. In thinking about design and environment, we should embrace such perspectives.”

“Design extends beyond individual objects, in time and space, entangling both ideology and materials into the Anthropocene. It is up to us to try to untangle this web.”

[the-wip-graveyard]

Mizuki Tsukomi

Name: MIZUKI TSUKOMI

Name Meaning: Beauty of the Moon/ child of the sea haven

First name can also be written with the characters_ mizu( congratulations) or as (water) and ki (hope). Mizuki can also be written in reference to the flowering dogwood tree, and when working In the tea house all the women were assigned floral working names, this was hers.

Last name (tsukomi) tsu means harbor/port/haven: ko for child and mi is for sea. Tsukomi is similar to the Japanese word Tsukkomi which is a part of the comedy trope known as Boke & Tsukkomi, which translates to Funny man & Straight man. 

Mizuki has been teased that she's "Just a straight man" and she should lighten up when they read her name.

Age: 27 D.O.B. 06/16 Ht. 6'1" Sign(s): Gemini/ Metal Horse Blood type: 0-

Chakra Type(s):  Water [Suiton]/ Wind [Fuiton] Blood line limit: Kekkai Genkai -Hyouton (Ice Release)

Affiliation(s): OMKIRI

Family Status: Mother: Natsumi Tsukomi unknown Father: Arata Yuki deceased Siblings: None known

Stats: 

Strength-9 Constitution-13 Agility-13 Stamina-8 Dexterity-16 

Intelligence-13 Wisdom-11 Charisma-11 Comeliness-16

Positive Personality Traits: Flexible, enthusiastic, soft spoken, versitile, lively, intellectual, witty, generous, helpful, humorous

Negative Personality Traits: Easily bored, anxious, naïve, self sacrificing, not detail oriented, lacks consistency, lack of direction.

Back story

Mizuki is originally from Kirigakure (the villiage hidden in the mist), Her parents both ninja. (her father a medic  and her mother a special jonin).  When she was very young, she and her father fled the village due to her father having a known kekkai genki during the time of the purging in the mist village and due to fear she's be taken out as well though at the time it was not known if she had inherited the kekkai genkai. He was marked as a rouge/missing nin and was perused by trackers. Very little is known about her mother by Mizuki as her father states she died soon after Mizuki was born. All she has of her is a photo.  The two traveled far, trying to escape the tracking nin. Along the way, her father taught her a vast amount of ninjutsu and techniques ranging from projectile usage ( she favors senbon), medical knowledge. It came to light that she also possessed the bloodline limit Hyoton( ice release) with her water and wind chakras, to which her father spent time teaching her to activate it, as well as use it to their advantage.

Mizuki was too young to ever receive nin training at the academy, so her father was her only teacher. Though she learned lots of techniques, she  is not well practiced at controlling her chakra for long periods of time, much like her stamina. If she looses focus or has to hold a technique for a long period, the jutsu will break midway through, which is quite troublesome.

She learned to survive off of petty theft from villages they'd pass through, or using her justus as survival tools. Unfortunately, one day, the tracking nin caught up with her father and disposed of him, leaving only his headband and a few personal articles behind at the campsite they had created outside of a town. Mizuki, was spared for two reasons. 1) she was not noted to have a kekkai genkai at the time, and 2) Her father led them to believe he was traveling alone, as she was carrying her supplies with her in the village at the time. Mizuki was filled with grief but ultimately carried on, and occasionally moved as her supplies and theft opportunities dwindled. She actually became associated with the myth of the Yuki Onna in many villages, as she would  often practice her ice release and other ninjutsu outside non ninja villages, and they feared it was a yokai woman. 

Eventually Mizuki's thievery caught up with her, as she attempted to steal from a traveler, who happened to be an Omkiri agent, Omkiri being a very organized and covert group of thieves and spies who make their living taking and selling black market goods and information. This agent saw much promise in her. Decided to take her in, clean her up and make her work for Omkiri in exchange for better accommodations as well as knowing where her next meal was coming from.  Mizuki was sent to work in an Omkiri run "tea-house"  at first as a kamuro and then as a shinzo to an orian named Reika Chouko.  Ultimately, she became a Banto Shinzo, which literally translates to Head Clerk. More or less a personal secretary/ manager/advisor to the courtesans of the tea house. Though as an omkiri operative, she still received tasks outside the tea house, to obtain objects or information.

In the agency, she hadn't made many friends, as one would expect with a band of thieves. Though she did become close with a few of the women and girls in the tea house and one operative known as Yuu Inouye. 

Personality: Mizuki is known to be a bit of an over spender, after all she's gone through. She should avoid dealing with her own money as she will often spend it on frivolous things or on excess. She can find it hard to be practical with it, and she would love to live a life of luxury and ease. She laughingly associated with the phrase " 50 yen in my pocket, and I spent 100". She becomes depressed when dealing with ugly things, such as ruined snowfall, or more important things such as seeing people being treated badly. Though she is not overtly powerful, her strength can rival a male's and she's had to throw her weight around in certain situations. This is not without risk however, though Mizuki has an above average constitution. She can take a hit or sustained hits for a while and come out doing well if not a little bruised. She's also become tolerant to several toxic plants due to ingesting them when on her own with her father.  She hates to displease others, especially loved ones, and she can often be over sensitive or over react in situations. Difficulties or other situations need to be handled delicately. She needs reassurance that she hasn't offended frequently.  She's very intelligent, and successful in business and trade, She's a very emotion filled person, though she often tries to bottle them up. She falls in and out of love quickly, though her heart's been broken rather easily.

Though not formally educated, she has a comprehensive medical and plant knowledge thanks to her father, she loves to read especially about the arts and science. She despises rushing, and would rather do things one at a time and carefully.

Her urge to be self expressive ( whether through words or the arts)  and being a responsible individual, can lead to her being impulsive, argumenitive and extravagant.  She appreciates all forms of the arts, especially  floral arrangement ( including the language of flowers),  Calligraphy, Drawing, as well as music ( she was taught to play the shakuhachi flute when she entered the tea house as well as her other loves as the arts, to make  the courtesans more than simple prostitutes, but more so entertainers).  She enjoys laughter and fun filled activities, and id often known to turn things into a game, though she can often come across as quiet or straight laced.  She has an optimistic view on life, and is usually easily able to express her thoughts and ideas. She can be quite friendly and generous and she tries to come off as likeable, even though she often would like nothing more to shut out the world and relax on her own.  She must be careful in cases where she is teaching others or knows a lot on a particular subject, as she can become quite boastful or she'll dominate a situation. She prefers eating heavier, more satisfying foods, though she doesn't eat much in a sitting, she does eat frequently. .  She is a mix of optimist and realist, however one phrase uttered around her frequently irritates her. " There is no honor among thieves" She truly believes differently

Ninja info

Mizuki has not received a traditional ninja education, though she is able to use  simple medical jutsu,  low level ninjutsu, her kekkai genkai Hyouton(ice release), and several attacks with her water and wind chakras, though if she must use her chakra long term or for something intricate, she has issues maintaining it.  It becomes worse if she is focused on more than one task, or if she is moving etc at the time. She is however very skilled with her hands, and has a high level in dexterity that aids in her shakuhachi playing, as well as performing medical tasks, using her ninja tools or even during her flower arrangements as flowers can be quite delicate. She favors senbon as her weapon of choice, due to their small and easy to hide nature, she has several concealed on her at all times, including up her arm covers, in her ankles of her shoes, on her hips and in her clothing under her chest.   Though they do not inherently cause much damage,  she can use them to immobilize  her target or to get poisons or venom under their skin, into the blood stream. Her aim is almost always on the mark.  The ice release can use much of her chakra depending on the size she creates, but she can also manipulate existing water or snow/ice to cut down on her fatigue.  

She favors many water style attacks, but she will also use her wind chakra to sharpen her senbon or even her hands to the point she can cut through tree limbs easily.   She would prefer to avoid confrontation, and will often use mist or a snow storm to escape in times of conflict, and using the senbon to immobilize the target until she can escape. If she can not do so, she tends to turn an attackers power against them instead of trying to over power them on her own.  

Her most common  ice attacks are : Higu no Jutsu ( ice tool technique)* , Hyourou no jutsu (ice prison technique) 

Hyouton: Tsubame Fubuki (ice release: snow storm swallows*) Tsumetai Ten- Icy Sky , Samuke-chill, Hiken- Ice Blade(*USED THE MOST OFTEN)

Her most common  Water attacks are:  Mizu no Waruasobi- trick of water,  Mizu kagami no jutsu- water mirror technique*, Uo Tsuba- fish spit*,  Mizu no yaiba- water sword, Mizu Bunshin no jutsu- water clone technique, Isonagi no jutsu- beach crab

Mizu tate no jutsu- water shield technique, suimenka no kisoku- breathing underwater technique, Mizu peretto- water pellet

Suiton:Hachi Shokushu (water release 8 tentacles), Suiton: kirigakure no jutsu- (water release, hidden mist technique)*

Mizuame Nabara (starch syrup capture field)* Suiton Shokushu Rendan kyouran( water release tentacle barage fury)*

(*USED THE MOST OFTEN)

Her most common Wind attacks are: Kaze Fuuchuufuyuu (wind levitation), Boufuu Kyouzuu no jutsu (Gale surge), 

Hanpatsu kaze no jutsu(Retrieving wind technique)*, Bouseki tate no kaze (spinning shield of winds), kaze bunshin (wind clone)*,  Suiyaku kaze ( propelling winds), Fuuton: Sairanto Suteppu (wind release silent step)* (*USED THE MOST OFTEN)

[csprofstudy]

Goya Blog 3

Monday 3/12

Had my proposal/statement of Intent discussion with Sam. I always find sessions like this quite difficult, especially when I don’t know someone. However, although we had some crossed wires as I was nervous and not always processing very well, it was a helpful session and Sam was very patient.

She suggested viewing some of the Goya paintings in National gallery and to strengthen this by looking at my Exhibition DVD and perhaps an Exhibition Catalogue. I do actually have an Exhibition Catalogue from the Prado, which I am hoping will give me a special insight into the paintings. We talked about source material, looking at varying contexts and the connections that can be made with the paintings. As there are 14 of these, she suggested a focus on some individual paintings in each section.

I wasn’t sure of the exact length of the essay and Sam clarified that it was 5000 -7000. As this is quite lengthy, Sam explained that writing a detailed plan, divided into chapters, is helpful and will make organising the structure much easier. We went through this:

Introduction

Historical context

Personal context

Longevity and influence.

I would like to include a personal response in the appendix, so need to think about this too.

Thankfully, the draft does not have to be complete by February 4 – the first hand in date. Sam said aim for about 2000 words – trying to complete at least one chapter in full and indicating where the gaps are that will need to be filled later.

There will be lots of opportunity for tweaking as 25/3 is the date for the final rough draft! Sam gave me her email in case I had any questions, which is great to have as back-up.

Sunday 30/12

As there is hardly any Goya available to view in this country, I was looking forward to watching my DVD, which reports on the National Gallery Exhibition of 2015. Goya: Visions of Flesh and blood. It wasn’t quite what I expected as I had hoped to get more of a feel of the Black Paintings and there was far more focus on his portraits. However, I like the way that Goya was dramatized as it brought him to life and made me feel a bit more connected to him and Gabriele Finaldi’s observation that Goya: ‘Dealt with the human soul’ captures a sense of why we are still very moved by Goya’s work today. Reference was made to both his complicated historical journey and his personal/artistic journey – which relates to my investigation for the contextual study – and to his complicated character..

There was quite a lot of interesting back ground that I was unaware of (including his relationship with Martin Zapater which was an intense and intimate friendship) and I think in my essay I might develop my section on his early work that I plan to use to show his developing style, in line with political and personal events that affected him. His path to royal painter was clearly laid out by a number of art historians during the film:

1775 Goya was invited to court as King Charles III wanted to show that he was in touch with the Spanish people. He was asked to create tapestries of every day scenes for royal residences, and at this point he was heavily influenced by the naturalistic style of Velázquez. His first Royal Patron was Don Luis de Bourbon; he entered the inner sanctum of the family.

By 1785 his modern approach to portraiture won him more commissions and I learned that he was praised for being unconventional. Instead of small details of a particular scene, he went for face, character, expression - strong physicality – trying to convey the emotional life of his subjects. Understood personality and body language.

This is maybe an early indication of his daring? In his letters he said: ‘There are no rules in painting’, which is something I will bear in mind when I look at his later work. I hadn’t really thought much about Goya the man until this point, but he was obviously ambitious and passionate.

In 1788 the death of Charles III brought nervousness. Charles IV - succeeded and appointed Goya in the position of court painter and conserver. This is Goya the Royalist and respectful servant, his loyalty and talent winning him a reward.

In 1793 he became unwell and travelled to Cadiz to recover but he would be deaf – for the rest of life. Was this due to lead poisoning? (Another avenue to explore?). Whatever the cause, it must have had a dramatic effect on Goya as he loved music and conversation, so how far did it affect the way he worked and the content of his work? Dr Bray suggests this marked a turning point – that Goya had become liberated and more independent. He drew more freely. New subjects were chosen.

Rebellion from France spilled into Spain. Inquisition active. Duchess of Alba had huge influence and he had a close relationship. How far did she influence him?

1793 Spain was defeated by France and Goya became Director of the Academy of Fine Art. ‘Los Caprichos’ – examination of ‘Vices’ marked the beginning of a darker phase with Goya becoming a critical observer. Followed by ‘Disasters of War.’ Sarah Symmons claims Goya was not overtly political, but events and the development in his art seem to prove otherwise.

Beginning of 19th Century brought further disruption. Film helpfully summarised main events

Napoleon declared war on Britain and invaded Spain in 1808 to control European relationships with Britain.

Madrid liberated by British. Ferdinand VII reinstated. Goya continued royal duties.

Had access to French and Spanish – left him vulnerable – but political stance not obvious in portraits at this point.

In later life as commissions decreased, Goya turned to friends/family for portraits.

New reign, suspected French sympathisers questioned by Holy Office, including Goya.

Bought Quinta del Sordo. In 1820 self-portrait with doctor. Near death experience.

Black paintings seem like ‘an exorcism’ (Dr Xavier Bray - who curated the exhibition). Why? Was it a personal statement? Were they an anti-war statement? Were they meant to be seen? No-one seems sure and this is the focal point of my study.

Goya says in his letters: ‘I refuse to do the same thing all the time’. Complexity and variety – key.

Friday 18/1

I listened to BBC Great Lives today where Goya was being discussed by Matthew Parris and Sarah Symmons. Although there was some information - especially about historical events – that I had heard before e.g. Napoleon’s invasion of Spain, there were also some useful discussion/quotes that made me think about Goya the man – his motivation, his suffering and people who have influenced him. I might be able to incorporate some of these things into my essay and it will definitely strengthen my ‘Personal’ chapter on Goya the man – and how the complexity of his psyche, relationships and experiences shaped his later work.

Diana Athill. Said she was struck by Goya’s ‘honesty’ – the way he is ‘Always responding to how things really are’. This is interesting in relation to the BPs and the view they convey of man.

Sarah Symmons reminded listeners of his age when creating his masterpieces. He drew ‘Disasters of War’ in his 60s and the ‘Black Paintings’ in his 70s! She points out that for him, ‘The truth was the most important thing.’ Honesty and truth appear to be the driving qualities for his art.

All agreed he was not too interested in the sacred, or heaven. Doesn’t romanticise evil. Perhaps that help to explain the grotesque quality of the BPs?

Something I didn’t know was that all his children died except one and there were many miscarriages. 6 of 7 live births died. This must have been devastating for him and his wife and he must have been touched by this tragedy.

They touched upon his deafness/illness and the theory this was caused because he was an unorthodox painter who often used his hands. As paint was so toxic, this appears to have had a terrible effect. So this will also have had some bearing on his state of mind when he was painting the walls of the Quinto del Sardo with his black paintings.

Some powerful ‘people’ influences were mentioned – the Duchess of Alba was like a Muse and it is said that he loved Martin Zabater passionately. If I have time I might look at some of his letters to Zabater.

Goya worked for Court and Joseph 1 but was inspired by the atrocities of war and Matthew Paris described him as a ‘War reporter’, which is a useful angle/quote for me.

Finally, Athill’s statement that he drew ‘For us’ is an interesting one as I am really interested in Goya’s intentions and his audience – and in why we relate so strongly to him today. Athill’s quote that he was ‘ultra modern’ highlights his ability to cross the centuries and we can relate today both to the idea of civil unrest, and also to mental health issues and the powerful effect these can have.

 Saturday 19/1

Sorting out sections for my essay now. I remind myself of my direction: I’m exploring how far the Black Paintings were inspired by war – a kind of political statement or expression made by Goya, even though they were not intended originally to be shown – and how far they were influenced by all the complicated personal experiences he had – like his deafness, illnesses, family connections with madness, dead children….There isn’t really a simple answer to this.

Listened back to my recording of the session with Sam before Christmas to remind myself of advice given. I’m going to look at things in the following order and see how it works out:

Introduction

Study of his early paintings, so I can try to analyse why the nature of his paintings changed as he got older

Political events and how these affected his work

Personal experiences and interests and how these are shown in the BPs

His legacy - how and in what way other artists have been influenced….

Conclusion

 Monday 28/1

Showed Sam my draft. She was pleased with it, but thought I could consider combining the legacy chapter with the conclusion to make an extended conclusion, so I’ll look at this. Also reminded me to keep relating things back to the paintings and to include images in the text, both of Goya’s work and others where relevant (when looking at influences). Need to include plan and working bibliography with draft.

 Saturday 2/2

Drafting going quite well. Including images of pictures I am discussing as Sam says visuals are important. Not always easy to download….Took much more time than I thought it would. Managed to get the first section tied up quite well and a skeleton sorted for the other sections.

 Monday 4/2

Handed essay in! Feel as if the first hard step has been taken and my confidence is definitely stronger and growing….

 Friday 8/2

Listened to my audio feedback. Sam was generally pleased with essay and images. I need:

To check Harvard referencing as might be incorrect for the images.

To look at paragraphing and separating points clearly so the reader doesn’t get lost!

To tidy up the references. Sam questioned the number refs and I need to erase these as they were my word count references!

To make the ‘hidden nature’ of the BPs more explicit right from the start. 

Week beginning 11/2

Have been reading Robert Hughes on Goya.

It is a brilliant book, full of really thought-provoking ideas. It is very long though, so has been a bit time-consuming. I have included some of the interesting quotes that I have selected – maybe I won’t use all of these in my actual essay, but they have got me thinking!

He emphasises Goya’s ‘Modernity’ and this echoes with other critical views e.g. Athill. It’s an area I am interested in – this brilliant ability to move across the centuries to touch us.

‘Goya was an artist wholeheartedly of this world’. (Hughes. p7)

His comments on the early tapestries brought these alive for me. ‘Goya was a mighty celebrant of pleasure. You know he loved everything that was sensuous.’ (Hughes. p8)

Although he is very much aware of the way in which Goya was influenced by political events, he is really careful to point out that his work should not just be seen in these terms, that here were other important factors in play – not just a war protest. Eg in Pilgrimage, he says of the figures:

‘They are the creatures of Goya’s own deafness’ This made me view the picture very differently, as Goya’s screams of protest, rather than the general Spanish people’s. (Hughes.p18). Hughes highlights that Goya lived  ‘under the shadow of a crippling disability’ (p.27)

He make some useful comment on Goya’s relationship with insanity: ‘The greatest of all delineators of madness….’ viewing it as a ‘natural part of man’s (and woman’s) condition’. (Hughes  .  P26).

He notes the land of Goya’s upbringing in Fuendetodos ‘so bare and bleak and sunstruck, with their isolated trees black in the implacable light’ (Hughe. P31) and the effect this has on the colours of Black Paintings in particular. (Hughes. p31)

He urges us to keep a sense of perspective. On ‘Men with Cudgels’.

‘It could be that Goya meant no specific political comment; that he only wanted to make an image of irrational of irrational, self-propagating male aggression’ (Hughes 383).

There is a hard truth which we cannot ignore in any reading of the paintings and interpretation of Goya’s motivation: ‘Here, as in other rooms the Deaf Man’s house, we do not and cannot know’. (383) We can only guess at the effect that his personal and political anxieties had on his later works.

Some interesting links were made between Goya’s work and that of other later artists e.g. Dali. I will look at Dali’s ‘Soft Construction with Boiled Beans’  - or ‘Premonitions of Civil War’ –‘the finest single work of visual art inspired by the Spanish Civil War’. (p.383) when I consider Goya’s legacy and what this says about him, and his concerns, as a painter.