#an evenhanded analysis

[collapsedsquid]

Partly this is a matter of marketing -- insider gossip makes better TV than budget arithmetic. But there has also been a political aspect: the mainstream media are fanatically determined to seem evenhanded. One of the great jokes of American politics is the insistence by conservatives that the media have a liberal bias. The truth is that reporters have failed to call Mr. Bush to account on even the most outrageous misstatements, presumably for fear that they might be accused of partisanship. If a presidential candidate were to declare that the earth is flat, you would be sure to see a news analysis under the headline ''Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.'' After all, the earth isn't perfectly spherical.

Here enjoy this op/ed from the year 2000 while I'm feeling especially reminiscent/nostalgic today, this quip about the shape of the earth was big in the Skeptic/Atheist community

[akajustmerry]

I admittedly didnt know about Neils hatred of Palstenians, and how it impacts the media he creates. How did you find out about the hatred and correlation?

Vice editor, Emanuel Maiberg explored how Druckmann's anti-Palestinian racism and Zionism are reflected in the Last of Us Part II in this incredibly thorough analysis he published. The article includes direct quotes from Druckmann on how his desire to make Palestinians "suffer" was a direct inspiration for the game. For me personally, after reading this a few times, coupling it with other criticisms I've read of the game's racism, and reading other interviews of Druckmann's - it wasn't hard to see how his zionist attitudes are present in both games and by extension the show. I'd argue it's not immediately obvious to those who don't know what to look for or don't really look into the creative background of games (which was me for many years). I didn't even know who wrote tlou until I played the second one years back and hated it so much I wanted NAMES, and that's when I found out Druckmann was Israeli. Anyways, free Palestine!!! Can't reccomend Maiberg's article enough for the low down 👇

[sukimas]

I don't tag my Touhou posts unless they're evenhanded analysis. I don't engage with other people who post things I disagree with unless they are literally reblogging my own posts. What would you like me to do, stop speaking about Touhou entirely? Because I like to take it seriously? On my own blog?

[potbellylistens]

voyagedereveauxbahamas.ca – Win $500 Gift Card – Bahamas Trip Survey

voyagedereveauxbahamas.ca - Bahama's evenhanded with the Bahamas Appraisal is to conclude the manner by which satisfied clients are with their things and organization.

They genuinely attempt to stay aware of raised assumptions, as seen by the client's protest.

Bahamas Consumer loyalty Survey, open at www.Bahamas.com/myBahamas , plans to get objective analysis and prizes clients who endeavor the Tell Bahamas Poll.

You'll be gone into the Bahamas Sweepstakes close to the completion of the survey, with an amazing chance to win shocking gifts.

you are allowed to leave your reviews of the things you bought and helps you experienced at voyagedereveauxbahamas.ca by going on the Bahamas Outing Client Input Overview.

Complete the clear review and win a Bahamas Outing and $100 for your next purchase at Bahamas Excursion Areas.

Bahamas Trip Survey

So people stick to my given direction and take this Potbelly Listens Overview and get a potential chance to win an endorsement code.

Bahamas Excursion regards your viewpoint and made a survey for your new inclusion with www.voyagedereveauxbahamas.ca .

In this manner, while completing the Bahamas Outing Visitor Fulfillment Overview, make a point to really consolidate your reactions. voyagedereveauxbahamas.ca

To participate in the totally paid outing of the paradise island, for something like 4 days and 3 nights, which consolidate offices, transport, food, traveling, and the wide range of various things.

Besides, on the paid trip, you will in like manner get a chance to get around 200 $ Canadian card credit to use while on the outing.

There are a couple of second awards comparably the magnificent award. Second awards are 100 $ computer aided design credits on the master cards.

Source - https://potbellylistenscom.us/

The great award will be a totally paid and obliged outing to the Bahamas.

Much gratitude to you for scrutinizing my segment. I need to accept that you have been gone on this Bahamas Outing Visitor Experience Study @voyagedereveauxbahamas through this post and it helped you with winning the Bahamas Excursion and $100.

[facelessoldgargoyle]

@hurgablurg the fact that your ideas are just undirected political pressure is evidence of why Quinton should have provided policy recommendations! Mail your representatives to do what? Bomb a limo for what?

Youth rights are a controversial issue. The US didn’t ratify the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child because a homeschooling coalition (the HSLDA) successfully protested against it. I’m not surprised Quinton didn’t pivot to talk about youth rights, but I wish he had! Many people look at the mire that is the state of children’s rights in America and feel despair. But there are policies we could codify that would make a difference!

I don’t expect a lay audience to be familiar with these ideas. I have ideas about children’s rights because I’ve already spent a lot of time thinking about them. But I think the average viewer would have benefited from the type of evenhanded, thorough analysis of children’s rights that Quinton could provide. It’s a topic that could benefit from his platform.

QuintonReviews posted the end of the icarly miniseries, titled “We Don’t Talk About Dan Schneider.” It delves into the abusive work environment created on his sets, and it was evenhanded and thorough without being salacious. Recommend!

I was pleasantly surprised that the video ends with an exhortation to not see Schneider as one bad guy, but emblematic of the fundamental problems with child actors. Quinton’s direct call to action was that while the media you consume is a personal decision, if you watch these old shows, occasionally think about whether the harm done to the child actors is worth your entertainment.

I think this is pretty weak sauce. He mentions issues are outgrowths of not having children’s rights, like how Jeanette McCurdy would not have had a happy childhood even if she’d been on a different show. It’s frustrating how close he gets to discussing children’s rights, because it seems like such a culmination of the topic! But I don’t know that I expected an essayist who focuses on media criticism to have policy recommendations around solidifying youth rights.

In any case, I think it would be a good idea to severely restrict if not ban children from acting professionally. Their earning potential means that a family could potentially rely on them for income, a terrible position to put a kid in. It means that kids are incentivized to put up with awful treatment out of fear for their career. No more kids shows, only animation and 20 year olds pretending to be 15.

[decepti-thots]

This is also, btw, why I shy away from even compliments calling stuff I write in fandom "analysis", because the flipside to that is someone will start complaining that e.g. my "analysis" is bad because I exclusively talk about my OTP and not all the other bits or whatever. There's this idea that accounts on here are like, Fandom Content Delivery Platforms TM, not individual people's... well, personal blogs. And even when people are being complimentary about it, that's kind of stressful!

I don't do "analysis" or have a "platform" for "fandom content" that needs to have balanced output or whatever. I have a personal blog which I created to make 35 posts in a row about the bits of canon I personally find most fun to talk about without annoying people on my Twitter when I am sad, because it cheers me up and that's the thing I want to talk about. If you came here for evenhanded literary analysis, you came to the wrong blog! I am here to shitpost about TaraProwl every time I am depressed and not much else, folks, sorry.

[lucemferto]

stop posting your toxic c!dream analysis in the main tags

?????

I have no clue what you mean. I don't think any of my Dream-takes are particularly toxic.

I do like ... structural analysis of narrative conventions. I don't want to toot my horn, but I feel like I'm pretty evenhanded when it comes to how I talk about most characters.

Anyway, scrolling past is an option you should consider, anon.

[thanidiel]

Prompt Four: “Clinch”

CW: Hanging, execution.

An education is a foundation.

And in that, she knew that in spite of the turns’ worth of learnings that she has consumed as much as they seared back, that true knowledge had not been gifted to her yet.

Everything, so far, was thrown about to flit around her mind unanchored. It provided the distinct sense of someone high and mighty tossing about koban or butcher scraps onto the earth, curious to distill men to their natures in one apathetic swoop.

There was no end goal professed, no purpose.

She shaped foreign languages from a deliberate mouth and under a controlled hand without exercise. The sprawl of hundreds of works of calligraphy were never seen again after she had produced them. Recitations were insisted again and again without analysis of the source at all. And when suns came in which they moved from beyond the tranquility of Geigu’s small room, she was made to dance to no narrative, sing to no audience. When she was challenged to recall the exact movements of a stranger from a sennight ago, or to report a muffled conversation that leaked just barely through dozens upon dozens of fulms of hallway, she was nodded to without commentary. Ceremonies were performed with no one to partake, over and over.

All lessons; landing vacantly and without meaning. Given to her to play with or use as she felt she needed.

And then one evening she was touched.

Often, another would manipulate her body. Ceaselessly, endlessly, infinitely. To dress or undress her, pull her to one room or another position, pin gold-encrusted jewels and stone to her form or neatly remove the headache-inducing weights.

She was a doll, afterall.

But in this a clause, that she did not know existed, found itself violated.

Of course, when a law is broken by the unknowing, enlightenment wraps itself against the breast of punishment.

The man was a kitchen-hire, she overheard at some point in all of the flurry and setup.

He had tried to push her against the walls of the corridors in her passing, to touch her hip underneath layers of silk. Dimly as she warded herself, she developed cognisance of the vexations of her Elder Sisters. Their lacking disinterests in even crossing paths with another who was not their own nor patron.

Okimoto had ripped him off of her in the space between instances.

And now they were here.

In the red room.

The bloodlight radiating nothing but its hue, the expanse of the room so barren and chilling that she always expects her breathes to puff out visible in front of her. Like it did in the mountains to the breath of a girl she didn’t know anymore, in the village of yellow dust and thick snows.

It never does.

She does her best to not shiver, to control herself with the exactness demanded of her. No twinge allowed of her muscles, no itch at her lip or the way a pin in her hair pricks at the head underneath. She must be as stony as the Lady Chinatsu, this she knew without instruction. To be stoic from where she sits upon folded knees below the old matron.

Most of all, she must not look at Lady Chinatsu nor possess the urge at any point.

To look was to doubt Judgement.

Instead, she fixes on the details of her partner in crime: his fore nearly one with the black wood below.

He had to be two decades older than her measly sixteen Heavensturns, from what she saw earlier in the bulbous shape of his bones beneath worn skin starting to stretch.

And, evidently, he is possibly as poor as she was when she crossed the Ruby Sea. Like he could not afford the layered attire of even everyday persons, as what he has is of the cheapest dyes, and looks used and tugged to its limits. Like it had passed owners of multiple shapes and sizes before coming to him.

She counts stitches as Chinatsu verdicts and enforces.

Two crimes were perpetuated and both would be resolved tonight, even as the Lady of the Teahouse only shares one aloud.

This man had committed the crime of rudely treating her property, and thus insulting her.

‘Chitora’ as she had named the youth, had committed the crime of not knowing better.

One will provide reparations and the other will amend their individual failure.

“...it will be left to my Daughter to determine the best way you can make up for your rudeness.”

Here is where Xiaohu ‘Chitora’ tunes back to it all, with the new clutch of the familial referral. In its aftermath, a reminder of the force that Chinatsu enjoyed concluding all of her lawmaking with - the pale flare of the raking scar underneath her hair.

It is this particular moment, and all that it inspires, that she feels what is solid and sound underneath her.

This is her lesson.

This is her education.

The subtext, the want, the expectation, the demand, does not escape her. She has been prepared for this. This is the foundation that carries the Heavens that had been shared with her, brought to her by the materialisation of a Black Mist in a golden room. She has her answers now.

Her Mandate is not only to serve, but to rule.

She is to serve Lady Chinatsu, serve Tsukumogami, serve the Black Mist. But she is to rule all those outside of this, and thus naturally below and lesser. To not permit these offenses, to not have needed Chinatsu to control this affair in her stead. 

She is to be cruel. Cruel as to obliterate not only the insult of someone daring to offend, but also end any, and all, future possibilities before they can even be born within the minds of a thousand others.

Something about this causes what she knows to be fear to coil and slither through her belly, as though it wishes to rupture free. Different, from the aching Destiny and desire that had allured, allures, her to Tsukumogami and all of Their machinations.

Perhaps it is because she both knows and doesn’t know at all, what is needed here.

A test, a trial; her lesson.

She is expected to punish.

And so she is silent, and thoughtful, and above all, she does not look back towards the ancient moon looming over her, casting radiance that burns into her spine and shoulders.

She does not doubt Judgement.

But she does doubt herself.

She doubts that someone so young as herself can accurately perform this affair. She doubts that she will be evenhanded enough as much as she doubts she will be harsh enough, soft enough. She doubts she can go through with the minimal result she needed to walk away with.

Her mouth is unmoving. No shift of her lips; no grind of her teeth; no drag of her tongue. Stagnant, and dryer than ever before. Dryer than she thinks it would feel like even if she orders the man thrown out to die in a desert faraway.

Fear whispers to her like a witch’s cant, inserting its imagery into her imagination/prophecy. If she refused, if she was too light, how long? How long until she is thrown away? Would they simply toss her away? Besmirched and tainted, unable to thrive anywhere else than their arms? Or would they end it more quickly than that? If she refused; if she were useless in spite of all of their wants and investment, into what they thought she could become?

In this way, it has all become a matter of survival.

That is the consequence of her failure.

Her silence is too long.

Indecision is also a weakness, unfitting of this new understanding.

So she acts now, with a grandiose sigh. A theatrical gesture that Geigu had passed to her; a way of showing casualness, filling another with the insignificance of their conversation. Lets it open and relax her ribs and her squirming insides, twist along with her tongue and give her words the power of breathlessness.

“If it is in his like to be unable to keep his hands to himself, then he should feel what it is like to be powerless to help himself with them.”

Here is where she intakes the smallest amount of air, to allow the last of her words to flick off of sharp wind - provide the feeling of dismissal, the shutting window.

“I want him hanged.”

The moon raises her hand; approval and assent all at once in the dark shadow cutting the crimson lanternlight.

“Have it be done.”

Unnervingly, everything occurs shortly, smoothly. Like she had asked for something casual and everyday. The gravity of Chinatsu’s aether stealing all ability to scream and protest, as others used abilities beyond her to leap fulms up to the rafters and swing about rope that had to be half her weight in ponze… quiet. Normalised. As though they were all preparing a bowl of noodles from the streetside for her.

She feels so weightless that she might as well be the one destined to swing, if it were not for her concentration, her grounding. The repetitive and cyclical reminder that this is the foundation they had set out for her to learn all along. This is the foundation, and she had not gambled and guessed on this success like it felt. She was chosen for a reason, afterall.

So there is no fear, no need for fear with everything said and done.

There is only the feeling that she is adrift at ocean, holding on the sanctuary of debris beneath her belly, as the minutes tick by. An intimate, intensive, awareness of the wheezing filling the room, his fingers chipping nail and fleshsmears against rope fibers until they do not.

When it all stops, she raises her chin.

The body still sways from the force of a life that had wanted to be.

A detail catches her eye: the clinch of the rope butting snug, almost nuzzling, against the round jut of bone behind a bowed neck.

It is the most well-fitted thing the man has ever worn.

[aziraphaledefensesquad]

@indigovigilance examining critically is exactly what I live for in fandoms. It’s fun! And it opens eyes and changes minds or at least gives perspective. But I wish the same grace and benefit of the doubt was offered to both characters. It’s important to find the honor and grace in crowley’s actions in comparison to other angels and other demons to demonstrate his parallel to human development. But also- point out his flaws too. Because he has human flaws. Not evil demon flaws- human. Just as aziraphale has flawed actions and kind actions. Human.

This is not what I see happening in fandom. As an example- What I see and have read PRE S2, not even getting into 2:

Crowley loves children and animals and is kind to them and loving. He’s a soft nanny. He probably saved children from drowning and hid on the ark or kept them safe. Children or women braid his hair when he’s presenting female. He wouldn’t kill Adam. Aziraphale just watched kids drown and didn’t lift a hand. He didn’t care. He tried to shoot Adam. He hates kids because they are sticky and put hands on his books. He is weird and awkward with warlock. He gives off creeper pedo vibes and is not someone I’d leave my kid with as a magician.

Here we have: ignoring Crowley in canon sinks a duck to drown it for amusement, jokes about hitting pedestrians in the street, considers flinging baby Adam off a cliff, repeatedly asks aziraphale to kill Adam, fanon on his nanny abilities, fanon on saving kids on the ark which isn’t even in the novel, fanon on how he interacts with groups of humans. Why not talk about how he in canon saves the dove aziraphale offs? That’s a huge one! Or the entire point that he as a supposedly ‘evil’ demon is the one who wants to save everything! It’s the whole plot! He’s the focal point!

For aziraphale- fanon that he stands there and watches kids drown. Canon that he says he can’t go against Gods plan, but why not fanonnize that he saves kids too? Why just Crowley? Canon that he tries to shoot Adam and is diverted by madame Tracy. ALSO canon Crowley is begging him to shoot Adam! But fans get mad at aziraphale. He disguises himself unattractive as the gardener to make a point on everyone needing kindness, like brother slug, not just attractive things like something cute. Warlock is fine with him and enjoys his company. Fanon turns this into warlock is creeped out by brother francis. Where? Why?

Why do I see so many posts are about marvelous mr fell being an embarrassing man with pedo-vibes? Why him and not Crowley as nanny sitting on the edge of warlocks bed? Just writing that makes me feel gross. Of course, no one would think Crowley is a pedo as nanny in warlocks room! But aziraphale gives off vibes? As he’s called a homophobic word?

Do you see why I get worked up? I came into the fandom late and immediately loved Crowley and grew a soft spot for aziraphale. Then I read the novel where Aziraphale is a little more no-nonsense and Crowley is softer and nerdier and loved them both even more. Then I came back to fandom all excited to read fanfic and talk about the characters and was left with… who are these two?

Then S2 came out and instead of exactly as you mention, an evenhanded analysis of crowley’s beliefs and behaviors and aziraphale’s beliefs and behaviors, it’s been bonkers. People straight up hating aziraphale. Taking everything Crowley does with a positive perspective and everything Aziraphale does as a negative. Somehow turning all aziraphale’s interactions with Muriel into creepy and uncomfortable and crowley’s into sweet. (Why do so many people get creeper vibes from Aziraphale, by the way?)

And I guess- the biggest thing bugging me is if we took some of aziraphale’s poor actions and behaviors and beliefs in S1 and S2 and gave them to Crowley, people would find the best spin on it. They’d Excuse him. As it is, the shifty or unkind things he ACTUALLY DOEScIN CANON get brushed away. Actual kind things Aziraphale does get brushed away.

Anathema rides her bike into the side of the Bentley, aziraphale helps her, Crowley fixes his car, and somehow fans STILL find Aziraphale wrong in that situation. Aziraphale is punched in the stomach by other angels and demons come to get Crowley but we get hundreds of essays and fanfics about Crowley’s trauma and and a sort of -oh, maybe Aziraphale should t have been mean to Crowley- about his.

He can’t win with some people. So yeah, now that S2 is here, I get overly defensive. And now people are theorizing on aziraphale and religion for *checks notes* Michael Sheen clarifying himself about the Israel-Palestine situation and getting reemed out on Twitter and playing a pedo creeper in a movie about a pedo creeper. And Crowley being praised for his openness because DT wears an ace pin and is reprising his doctor role for a special everyone is excited about and is about to do Shakespeare.

Do better.

You’re upset. I get it. I’m upset too. But there’s being upset by actual canon and upset by the personal fanon you’ve developed in your head. Aziraphale can and NeEDS to be critiqued, but he should get the same depth of analysis people are willing to give Crowley.,

And there’s a bias at times for fans of Crowley to set him upon a pedestal of perfection and excuse his actions.

Both are flawed. Both make errors. Although immortal and millions of years old, both are still learning at their own pace. They’re learning from humanity.

Perhaps you’re a huge DT fan and give the character Crowley the actual actor or other character’s he’s played personality. Perhaps you dislike MS and his Twitter presence and marriage and acting choices and give those dislikes to the character aziraphale.

Perhaps, deep down, you think chubby people should be groveling for their flaws and thin people you find hot require understanding.

It’s a little odd how fandom falls over themselves to forgive Crowley for any thing he says, anything he does- but if aziraphale had done the same thing, he’d get crucified. Even Crowley doesn’t blame aziraphale as much as fans do.

So go on. Write your essay on why everything aziraphale does is wrong, cold, cruel, and abusive to Crowley while Crowley’s choices deserve deep thought and care to their foundations. Crowley will be there waiting for aziraphale, understanding, even if you’ve written aziraphale off as unforgivable.

[thesublemon]

on reviewing

Watched a documentary on Pauline Kael a couple nights ago. It clarified for me why I always find her reviewing refreshing and frustrating by turns. Refreshing because she doesn’t tend to treat genre or subject matter as something sacred. She will watch many kinds of movies with the same degree of curiosity and judgment. Her instincts about whether a movie is working, or lying, or doing something new are also often very on point.

But she falls prey to the two big things that I think make reviewing a flawed, sometimes maybe even useless endeavor. Especially if the goal is to accurately describe what a work is.

1) An inability, or disinterest, in modeling why artistic choices work or don’t. For instance, at one point in the documentary she complains about artists and critics equating repetition with lyricism, and states that repetition in movies simply annoys her because it feels like belaboring a point that she’s already gotten. But that complaint misses out on an opportunity to explore why people would think that repetition is lyrical, or why an artist would reach for it as a choice. And whether, once you’ve modeled what the goal of repetition actually is, maybe there are good and bad versions. If it were me, I would argue that when repetition is good, it doesn’t actually feel like repetition. It feels like riffing. The artistic impact comes not from reiteration, but from reframing—and if it does feel like reiteration, then it’s probably weak repetition. If I were to make a similar complaint about a movie, I might instead complain that a motif did not add or gain complexity each time it appeared. Or I might complain that an attempt to convey monotony by unchanging repetition did not feel worth it, because I didn’t find the underlying point insightful enough to justify the experience of slog. Whatever my exact argument though, the point is that there would be a curiosity and emphasis on what the artist was trying to accomplish. And a generosity about what they could accomplish. As well as a self-awareness about my own values (like “density” and “coherence”) and the fact that I judge works by those values. Without this sort of meta-level mindset, reviews seem to quickly descend into authoritative subjectivity. Kael was good at viciously panning things, but how can a pan help the artist make better work unless it’s accompanied by some sort of model or rationale? Why would an artist listen to your opinion unless you first prove that you understand what they were trying to do? Without a level that exists outside of the reviewer, a review runs the risk of simply being an exhortation to appeal to that reviewer’s taste.

2) A love of saying things that sound good, regardless of whether they’re actually meaningful. At one point in the documentary, Renata Adler, another writer, attempts a takedown of Kael. But ends up making the exact mistake that Kael does.

RENATA ADLER: [Kael] has, in principle, four things she likes: frissons of horror; physical violence depicted in explicit detail; sex scenes, so long as they have an ingredient of cruelty and involve partners who know each other either casually or under perverse circumstances; and fantasies of invasion by, or subjugation of or by, apes, pods, teens, bodysnatchers, and extraterrestrials.

Compare to Kael’s own style of evisceration. Here’s her on The Sound of Music.

PAULINE KAEL: What is it that makes millions of people buy and like THE SOUND OF MUSIC—a tribute to "freshness" that is so mechanically engineered, so shrewdly calculated that the background music rises, the already soft focus blurs and melts, and, upon the instant, you can hear all those noses blowing in the theatre? […] And the phenomenon at the center of the monetary phenomenon? Julie Andrews, with the clean, scrubbed look and the unyieldingly high spirits; the good sport who makes the best of everything; the girl who's so unquestionably good that she carries this one dimension like a shield. […] Wasn't there perhaps one little Von Trapp who didn't want to sing his head off, or who screamed that he wouldn't act out little glockenspiel routines for Papa's party guests, or who got nervous and threw up if he had to get on a stage?

Having read both pieces, I think both writers identify something true about their subject (Adler even makes remarks similar to what I’ve already said). But are the pieces useful? Or accurate in a more total sort of way? Kael had particular kinds of movies she loved, it’s true, and tended to be bad at self-criticism about whether her preferences actually indicated any sort of objective reality. But Adler’s criticism of Kael is no more interested in modeling than Kael’s reviews are. It isn’t interested in an evenhanded consideration of what Kael gets right and wrong and why. What unites Adler’s takedown of Kael and Kael’s takedown of The Sound of Music is that they want to be takedowns. They want to be stylistically rollicking reads that create the aesthetic experience of nailing something to a wall. But the thing about wanting too badly to make an argument “aesthetic” is that it becomes tempting to gloss over anything that would ruin the aesthetic flow. Adler devotes a long paragraph to identifying all of Kael’s tics, and the wall of text is certainly rhetorically effective at making you feel like Kael is some sort of dirty-minded one trick pony. But at the end of the day, it’s rhetoric. Not really argument. Similarly, Kael is so delighted to be able to use phrases like “glockenspiel routines”, that it gets in the way of saying anything more considered. Which isn’t to imply that I think the writers don’t actually believe what they’re saying. On the contrary, I think they hold their opinions powerfully and sincerely, and are trying to identify something wrong in their culture by singling out and drilling down on the sins of one thing in particular. But nonetheless, by caring so much about being good bits of writing—and they are good bits of writing; there’s something juicy and relentless about Kael that sticks with you—they end up empty on the level of argument.

These two failure modes highlight the central problem of reviewing, I think. Which is that reviews tend to be three things at once: ekphrasis, analysis and evaluation (which implies some sort of rubric of quality, whether personal, cultural, or “objective”). This is partly understandable, given that art is an abstract, experiential thing and therefore difficult to evaluate or analyze without some degree of ekphrastic description. It if was easy to say what a work was doing, the artist wouldn’t have needed to make art of it in the first place. So it makes sense that the process of making a work legible enough to opine on would have to trade in artistry itself. It makes sense that in order to show an audience what a work feels like, a review would have to poetically reproduce that feeling. Similar to the way that the translator of a poem needs to be a good poet themselves in order to make the meaning and experience of a poem accessible to an audience in a different language.

The problem is that ekphrasis, being expressive, is also necessarily subjective, and not primarily concerned with logic. Which on its own, is perfectly fine. I’ve written a ton of ekphrasis on this blog. I’m pretty pro-ekphrasis. When it’s done right, there isn’t much like a bulls-eye poetic description of a work to make you feel like you get it on a level you didn’t before. But when that sort of writing is also trying to say whether or not a work is “good”, the expressiveness frequently gets in the way. It’s easy to state or promote an opinion expressively. It’s harder to defend an opinion that way. In good faith, anyhow. Which results in all of these reviews that succeed in observing true or true-feeling things about art, and do so in a sometimes deliciously readable way, but don’t leave me with the feeling that the writer has any consistent or defensible take on how art works. I can’t help thinking that I much prefer reading writing about art that keeps its purpose siloed. So either a piece that tries to poetically explain how a work affected them, or an academic work that tries to argue for an interpretation, or something more philosophical that puts forth a theory of what makes things good and bad and explain why a work does or doesn’t live up to that. I don’t want this to be the case. I think writing that can blend those three modes together is some of the best possible writing about art. But the average reviewer is not really up to the task, despite the fact that the review is probably the most common and widely-read type of writing about art.

(None of which is to say that I’m free of sin these regards. One of the reasons I try to keep the tone of this blog casual is because I want to be able to be able to play with these different modes of writing about art. And see where and when and how I can get away with blending them. It’s a practice space.)

[kunglaw]

Steps to Deal with Workplace Bullying

What is working environment bullying?

Working environment bullying is the point at which somebody is over and again abused by somebody they work with. It very well may be anything from actual dangers to coaxing or being forgotten about. If another person's activities are compromising your wellbeing or security at work, it's bullying.

Managing bullying in the working environment

If you have a feeling that you're being bullied, there is a dedicated Workers' Rights Lawyer that you can take.

1. Keep a hidden record

It very well may be difficult to recall precisely when and why you felt harassed or why you had been Fired from work Justice. In any case, those deets are super-significant if you need to report bullying. Keep an individual record to assist you with recollecting the points of interest and to show that you've been dealt with severely more than once.

2. Check your working environment Severance package

Check whether your work has a bullying or provocation strategy. You may have been given a duplicate of this when you initially began. It'll give you a thought of who to converse with, what measures you ought to follow, and what the outcomes will be for the individual who is bullying you.

3. Request the bullying conduct to stop

It's a major advance to blame a collaborator for bullying conduct, so it's justifiable to feel anxious about mentioning to somebody what's been going on. Attempt to recall that your work must ensure everybody has a sense of security and cheerful at work.

Have a go at conversing with the individual who is showing the bullying conduct, and clarifying that this is uncalled for or hostile. If you feel Bullying at work law conversing with this individual, you could ask another person to be in the gathering with you for example an associate you trust.

4. Take it to your director or HR

In case you're not happy with conversing with the individual straightforwardly, you can have a visit to your director or chief about the following stages.

If your chief is the individual who is bullying you, or you don't have a sense of security conversing with your director straightforwardly, you can take your interests to somebody more senior than them, or directly to (HR).

Analysis or observing isn't continually bullying. For instance, evenhanded and productive analysis and disciplinary activity straightforwardly identified with work environment conduct or occupation execution aren't viewed as bullying.

As per the Wrongful dismissal Law, more than 60 million working individuals in the United States are influenced by bullying.

[padawanlost]

I really appreciate your Star Wars analysis! Even if I don’t always come to the same conclusions, you come at things from a rather evenhanded viewpoint and bring a level of nuance that I think a lot of people can lack. I hope you’re doing well during both these unique times, and in life in general.

Thank you so much for taking your time to write this. I really appreciate it <3 Tbh, I love that people don’t always agree with me. I’m ashamed to admit so much of what I know and feel about star wars today was influenced by other fans. Sometimes I say something and someone questions or challenges me and it completely opens my mind to better and more interesting interpretations. I love when people ask me stuff and I don’t know the answer, I love searching for it and sharing what I found with you guys (that’s probably why my answers are super lengthy and heavy with excerpts lol… I *really* love sharing that stuff).

So, anon, if you ever disagree with me let me know. I’ll defend my take if you don’t convince me (:P) but I can promise you an interesting conversation and that I’ll never, ever hate you for it <3

PS: I’m doing fine, all things considered and i hope you are too <3

[zweis-fr]

30 Day Lore Share - D1

doing kal’s @kal-rising​ dragon share thing. hoping to get some of the huge enormous piles of lore that are rattling around in my head out into the physical / social world.

so without further ado:

D1, a dragon with heroic intentions:

Doyen Antigone, the Weaver's Hand

I'm doing this one more as; 'which dragon believes their actions to be just and above that, even heroic.’ Rather than ‘this dragon’s intentions are unequivocally heroic in my lore from a Doylist analysis’

As far as Doyen’s belief in their heroism, I don't think it's naivety, and it certainly doesn't feel like the chosen hero mythos... in that Doyen is neither plucky nor young nor going on a heroes quest of any sort; but they definitely judge themself as just and evenhanded and that how they’re serving the Weaver is for the greater good - no matter how self-sacrificial it is for them.

As an aside, I wouldn't say these lore stories I've written (in my head) have any flat heroes (villains are another matter). I’ve been trying, especially lately, to create characters that are all like.... grey and both sympathetic and fallible and fuck up a lot of things -- especially if they have good intentions.

but anyway yes Doyen considers themself heroic and in turn I think that's why they are also probe to doubt and judge their actions most harshly - they hold themself to such a high standard that it's easy for them to think they’re not doing enough / measuring up. 

Doyen believes that keeping the temple hallowed and the ceremonial runes around the Sound up-to-date protects both the residents of the Sound, and the world at large, from the ghost of the emperor within. And they're certainly right about the Sound - part of the reason it's so safe and idyllic there is because the Weaver protects the land from any large threat - she's trying to keep the ghost/emperor securely pinned down (for..... her own reasons... which Doyen doesn’t question).

Viewing themself as heroic also ties in to Doyen's parenting styles - they're first and foremost a priest and a protector, and their duty as parent is much further down on the list. Sure, they're a better parent than Charlemagne or Aachen, comparatively, but that's not hard to do, you literally just have to be around. If their child isn't also turning to work with the Lightweaver, then they only experienced Doyen at a distance. A dutiful, checks-all-the-boxes distance, but still.... it will be a reserved relationship.

[azspot]

Which, all in all, makes it pretty fucking incredible to see, in 2020, none other than former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer and senior advisor Karl Rove, two of the most brazenly dishonest and thoroughly discredited mouthpieces for that disastrous war effort, appearing on TV news to offer authoritative analysis and justification for the country’s latest doomed and ruinous misadventure in slaughtering people in the Middle East — in this case, the assassination of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps general Qasem Soleimani, reportedly carried out last week via an unmanned drone airstrike against his convoy of vehicles outside Baghdad International Airport in Iraq. To see performatively evenhanded NPR turn for sober expert commentary to the executive of a company that sells hardware to the military. To hear the addled, flamboyantly dishonest president and his hilariously discredited goons justify their act of aggression by hinting vaguely about having thwarted plans to kill Americans, and to see the New York Times pass these claims along with only the mildest of challenges. To see a discredited Iraq War cheerleader granted space in Friday morning’s Times to predict, yet again, that yet another act of American imperial violence in the Middle East will yield no adverse consequences. To hear establishment Democratic leaders, including some of those vying for the party’s presidential nomination, once more raising toothless procedural qualms about whose signatures must be sought before the United States may project its mechanized death-dealing might 6,000 miles across the surface of the Earth to single out and kill whichever faraway people it deems unworthy of life, while simultaneously signalling broad agreement with both the broader concept and the specific choice of target. To read that thousands of American troops will be deployed to the region, but to be told by the same class of Knowers as before that this is at most a limited and well-defined engagement and not the red dawn of yet another hopeless, endless, pointless mass bloodletting.

Remember when literally all of this happened already?

[dendroica]

Which, all in all, makes it pretty fucking incredible to see, in 2020, none other than former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer and senior advisor Karl Rove, two of the most brazenly dishonest and thoroughly discredited mouthpieces for that disastrous war effort, appearing on TV news to offer authoritative analysis and justification for the country’s latest doomed and ruinous misadventure in slaughtering people in the Middle East — in this case, the assassination of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps general Qasem Soleimani, reportedly carried out last week via an unmanned drone airstrike against his convoy of vehicles outside Baghdad International Airport in Iraq. To see performatively evenhanded NPR turn for sober expert commentary to the executive of a company that sells hardware to the military. To hear the addled, flamboyantly dishonest president and his hilariously discredited goons justify their act of aggression by hinting vaguely about having thwarted plans to kill Americans, and to see the New York Times pass these claims along with only the mildest of challenges. To see a discredited Iraq War cheerleader granted space in Friday morning’s Times to predict, yet again, that yet another act of American imperial violence in the Middle East will yield no adverse consequences. To hear establishment Democratic leaders, including some of those vying for the party’s presidential nomination, once more raising toothless procedural qualms about whose signatures must be sought before the United States may project its mechanized death-dealing might 6,000 miles across the surface of the Earth to single out and kill whichever faraway people it deems unworthy of life, while simultaneously signalling broad agreement with both the broader concept and the specific choice of target. To read that thousands of American troops will be deployed to the region, but to be told by the same class of Knowers as before that this is at most a limited and well-defined engagement and not the red dawn of yet another hopeless, endless, pointless mass bloodletting.

Remember when literally all of this happened already? | The Outline

[maddie-grove]

Bi-Monthly Reading Round-Up: May/June

PLAYLIST

“How Do You Do” by Mouth and MacNeal (Once Ghosted, Twice Shy)

“Up the Wolves” by the Mountain Goats (Don’t You Dare Read This, Mrs. Dunphrey)

“The Daughters” by Little Big Town (Lady Rogue)

“9 to 5″ by Dolly Parton (Lady Notorious)

“Let the Little Girl Dance” by Billy Bland (What a Wallflower Wants)

“Poison Arrow” by ABC (Give Me Your Hand)

“Marie-Jeanne” by Joe Dassin (Never Mind)

“Mississippi” by the Dixie Chicks (An Unconditional Freedom)

“Semi-Charmed Life” by Third Eye Blind (Bad News)

“Honky Cat” by Elton John (Simple Jess)

“A Weekend in the Country�� from A Little Night Music (Some Hope)

“Picture Book” by the Kinks (Mother’s Milk)

“A Place in the Sun” by Stevie Wonder (At Last)

“She’s in Love with the Boy” by Trisha Yearwood (A Dance with Danger)

“Little Hollywood Girl” by the Everly Brothers (Seduction: Sex, Lies, and Stardom in Howard Hughes's Hollywood)

BEST OF THE BI-MONTH

An Unconditional Freedom by Alyssa Cole (2019): Daniel Cumberland, a free black man from New England, had his faith in justice and certainty in the world shattered when he was abducted and sold into slavery. Now rescued, he does what he can as a spy for the pro-Union Loyal League, but he has a lot of rage and trauma that nobody knows what to do with, least of all himself. Then a new spy joins the organization: Janeta Sanchez, a mixed-race Cuban-Floridian lady pulled in too many directions by her white Confederate family and now in desperate straits. Once again, Alyssa Cole has produced a book that’s not only a compelling romance but a fascinating historical novel. Daniel and Janeta are both complex, involving characters with a great dynamic, plus Cole provides a great perspective on less-discussed aspects of the Civil War. 

WORST OF THE BI-MONTH

Once Ghosted, Twice Shy by Alyssa Cole (2019): Likotsi Adele, personal assistant to the prince of Thesolo, came to New York City a year ago for work and had what was supposed to be a casual affair with Fabiola, a gorgeous fledgling fashion designer. Just when her feelings were getting involved, though, Fabiola cut things off with no explanation. Now back in NYC on vacation, Likotsi runs into Fabiola, who proposes that they go on a date for old time’s sake. Although it’s technically the worst of the month, this novella is by no means bad; on the contrary, it’s very cute and sweet, with a pretty sexy love scene near the end. It just suffers from common romance novella pitfalls, mainly a dearth of conflict and some pacing problems.

REST OF THE BI-MONTH

Never Mind (1992), Bad News (1992), Some Hope (1994), Mother’s Milk (2005), and At Last (2011) by Edward St. Aubyn: Across five novellas, Patrick Melrose, son of an aristocratic non-practicing doctor and a charity-minded heiress, struggles with the legacy of his father’s sadistic abuse and his mother’s elaborately cultivated helplessness to intervene. The series follows him from early childhood (Never Mind) to drug-addled early adulthood (Bad News, Some Hope) to slightly more functional middle age (Mother’s Milk, At Last). I’ve never read such enjoyable fiction about the boredom and exhaustion of dealing with trauma and addiction, but St. Aubyn manages it with sharp characterization, whistling-in-the-dark humor, and a great sense of setting. I didn’t like all the novellas equally--Bad News has too many scenes about doing large amounts of heroin for my personal taste, and Some Hope sometimes loses track of its many characters--but, taken together, they’re magnificent.

Seduction: Sex, Lies, and Stardom in Howard Hughes’s Hollywood by Karina Longworth (2018): Using the life and career of billionaire/producer/aviator/womanizer Howard Hughes, Longworth (the podcast host of You Must Remember This) looks at Hollywood from the silent era to the waning days of the studio system. I love You Must Remember This, and this book exhibits all the strengths of the podcasts: the compelling style, the evenhanded consideration of evidence from multiple sources, and the use of film analysis to examine what was happening in the culture at the time. Longworth’s portrait of Hughes is also refreshingly non-sensational; he comes across as a juvenile reactionary with a little vision, too much money, and some pitiable mental health problems, rather than a genius or a boogeyman. 

Simple Jess by Pamela Morsi (1996): Althea Winsloe, an Ozark widow in the early twentieth century, is determined to remain unmarried and look after her three-year-old son by herself, despite the disapproval of her close-knit community. Still needing help on her farm, she hires Jesse Best, regarded as “simple” because of a cognitive disability stemming from a childhood brain injury. As they work together, Althea realizes that Jesse has depths that few people bother to see. I was a little concerned when I began this romance; the hero has serious, life-altering issues with mental processing, which I thought might create a troubling power dynamic between him and the heroine. Instead, Morsi contributes something really valuable by showing how society ignores the autonomy and complexity of people with disabilities. She also does a great job of showing how a close-knit community can be both claustrophobic and supportive. Finally, I enjoyed the journey of a gay side character (the song’s for him!).

Lady Notorious by Theresa Romain (2019): When George, Lord Northbrook, discovers that his father is part of a tontine whose members have started dying at an alarmingly fast rate, he enlists the help of Cassandra Benton, an unofficial Bow Street Runner, to investigate the possible murders while pretending to be his scandalous cousin. Already friends, they grow attracted to each other during this charade, but they come from different worlds and each have a complicated family thing going on. This is a thoroughly likable romance with a fun plot; I especially enjoyed how George’s efforts to care for his emotionally distant parents mirrored Cassandra’s struggles to let go of her codependent relationship with her twin brother.

Don’t You Dare Read This, Mrs. Dunphrey by Margaret Peterson Haddix (1996): Fifteen-year-old Tish Bonner doesn’t have much time for school; with an absent father, a troubled mother, and an eight-year-old brother she feels responsible for, she’s too busy trying to hold things together at home. When her father makes an unwelcome return, though, she finds an outlet in the journal assigned by a nice young English teacher who promises not to read entries marked DO NOT READ. I first read this YA novel in middle school, and it struck me as particularly unvarnished, both then and as an adult. Teens in horrible situations are common in the genre, but Tish’s matter-of-fact presentation the day-to-day of dealing with sexual harassment at work and total parental abandonment at home really brings out the utter bleakness. I love Tish, whose ultimate acceptance of her inability to handle everything alone is as brave as her desperate efforts to keep everything together.

Give Me Your Hand by Megan Abbott (2018): Kit Owens, a talented chemist from humble beginnings, is shocked when former classmate Diane Fleming comes to work in her lab. Although Diane was the one who inspired her to reach beyond community college, she also burdened Kit with a horrible secret...and now they’re in competition to work on a prestigious new grant. I love Megan Abbott as a writer; she has a very sensory-based way of describing things that makes everything palpable. While I didn’t love this book as much as The Fever, it has a delightfully twisted plot and female characters who are “bad” in a realistic (or, at least, a humanely portrayed) way. I did probably like Diane more than I was supposed to; like Lady Audley before her, she should maybe go to jail but she’s still awesome.

A Dance with Danger by Jeannie Lin (2015): In Tang Dynasty China, Jin-mei, daughter of a magistrate, finds herself in a compromising position with Yang, her father’s old associate and sworn enemy of a local warlord. Their mutual attraction makes the ensuing wedding a more pleasant fate than either expected, but Yang disappears mysteriously before the marriage can be consummated. Heartbroken and very suspicious, Jin-mei refuses to give him up for dead. This is a fun adventure-romance with a wonderfully spooky atmosphere, although the ending is a little rushed.

Lady Rogue by Theresa Romain (2018): After her sub-par art-dealer husband apparently committed suicide, Lady Isabel Morrow grew close to and had a fling with Officer Callum Jenks, a Bow Street Runner. Now she’s discovered that her husband sold his customers forged works, and she needs to (awkwardly) enlist Callum’s help in replacing them with the real ones. This is a solid Regency romance, mostly thanks to the fun burglary plot. Isabel and Callum’s relationship, while perfectly pleasant, is rather static; they obviously like and respect each other, but just need a little time to reconcile themselves to the not-onerous-to-them social costs of a cross-class marriage. There’s also a real bummer of a development involving a minor character at the end. I’m not averse to bummers, but it felt out of place here.

What a Wallflower Wants by Maya Rodale (2014): Stranded at a strange inn after a failed elopement attempt, secretly traumatized spinster Penelope Payton finds a friend in the striking Lord Castleton...but is he who he says he is? Absolutely not, but he’s pretty cool regardless. This is a sweet, heartfelt Regency romance with endearing leads and great messages, but it’s pretty sloppily written, and that detracted from my enjoyment somewhat.