#and if you wanted to argue that the Narrative of the show is what makes a difference then i would also disagree with you

[snugglyporos]

// Christ I wish I could go back in time and erase concepts like 'unconscious bias' from the world of popular lingo because people apply it to things that they don't apply to. No, most people do not possess an unconscious bias that working class people are worth less than rich people, that's your classist ideology being applied to things that you shouldn't apply it to. We might call that a conscious bias.

What is actually happening is a mix of tropes being blended together and not changing over time. Namely, the idea that the more individuals there are, the weaker they are. We see this everywhere; fifty ninjas? Weak. Not a problem. One ninja? Super powerful. Legend. This exists in everything from James Bond movies to comics to Power Rangers.

The reality is that, narratively speaking, the random cannon fodder between the protagonist and the final boss do not matter. They don't! In real life they would, but if you tried to give ever goon a backstory and explain it you would have a shit story because the audience does not care about the backstory of unnamed good #23. After they take the punch from the protagonist, the audience has entirely forgotten they existed.

Which means that, narratively speaking, the killing of the main villain is more important and more impactful than the killing of some random goon. Now, if you're a good writer this shouldn't be the case. But this too, comes from the blending of genres and tropes.

In the late 1980s, fiction became more violent and more visceral. This means that a lot more violence was happening! And yet, writers still wanted to have their protagonist show that they were the protagonist, because people were all in on moral relativism. People would be like 'well, there's no difference between the hero and the villain if the hero kills the villain.'

The response was a lot of heroes started adopting a weird kind of no killing rule; Batman will break your fucking spine but kill the guy who just blew up a building? That's too far! 'I'm not like you, a guy who kills people, I just cripple them for life!'

And again, this is what happens when genre conventions (the hero should be morally superior than the villain, or at least attempt to be) mixing with trope developments (everything now needs to be brutal and violent to reflect real life).

Now, the circle has completed itself, where we're once again back to 1985, where people are like 'actually no, the hero should fucking kill that guy.' You'll probably be a big fan of the Death Wish movies and The Dark Knight Strikes Back; you know, things that lots of proto-fascists really love because they reinforce the notion that actually, heroes should wield violence against their enemies and impose their will through abject terror.

The reality is, people aren't sitting around going 'my work should reflect the idea that workers are less important than the boss' it's that narratively, the random goons exist to be smacked down to prepare the audience for the big bad, because rising action requires that there be rising challenges. This is mixing along with personal tastes in media.

Now, you could, for example, turn this new trope on its head and ask whether the Punisher murdering every jaywalker and low level drug dealer with extreme violence makes him a villain, because his ideal is that any lawbreaker should be murdered instantly no matter how low the crime. You might also argue that the trope should actually be that the grunts shouldn't be killed by the hero, but the guy who organized them should, because he's much worse than they are.

You could also argue that, the reason why the hero doesn't just kill the villain is that murder is wrong? Even if you think it's morally justified? I think people forget, when they fantasize about an ideal French Revolution, that the most common crime people were executed for was pickpocketing, and every day they would execute the guys who got caught working the crowds at the executions the day before. More poor people got killed in the French Revolution than rich people; you should probably keep that in mind!

Because the core reason you probably want your hero to not kill people in general is that you then have to ask who deserves it and your answer will inevitably include a lot of people you might actually like! You probably don't want heroes taking vague concepts like justice into their own hands because inevitably that makes them into the Death Wish protagonist, deciding that what really needs to happen is for a white guy with a gun to just start shooting up inner cities.

You don't want your hero to start killing people because this is corrosive and it will inevitably result in comparisons between people who got killed.

So no, it's not some kind of unconscious bias, it's because we've melted a worldwide demand for bloodshed and violence with established genre tropes and if you removed one or the other people would complain and be very unhappy.

Or, I guess you could go on and say that Freddy Kruger is anti-marxist because he only targets teenagers instead of people who really deserve it.

[what-the-actual-wizardry]

DC Creature Commandoes- Trauma vs. Justice (spoilers!)

I just got done binging the current episodes of Creature Commandos, and at risk of painting myself as some sort of high-brow snob, I think the writer, Mr. James Gunn, has done some pretty genius work. Now, I'm no media critic, and not nearly as media-literate as I should be at my age, but I am a trauma survivor; and the thing that I've noticed about this series is that the main cast- Nina, Dr. Phosphorous, The Bride, Weasel, and GI Robot- all have flashback scenes that, while providing a reason for A.R.G.U.S. to imprison them, are far less focused on that than the characters' trauma. Amidst the gore-splattered scenes of carnage, we get flashbacks to the deaths of friends and loved ones, dreams unattained, and in the unique case of The Bride, pursuit by a suitor she does not want. It's all set up in a way that makes us feel bad for the Commandoes- and of course my ever-mounting hatred for Amanda Waller helps in that cause. What it does NOT do is use that trauma to justify their actions. Dr. Phosphorous is pictured to have slaughtered a crime lord and his family, and taking his throne in order to live a life of hedonism. Frankenstein is seen to have killed multiple people he knew and had meaningful relationships with in cold blood, as soon as they became an obstacle to his all-consuming quest for The Bride. The Bride slaughters indiscriminately, and without qualms, making several allusions to the inferiority of human beings (though I'm not arguing with either of her sets of guns- insert obligatory character design nosebleed. Come on, it's tumblr.) The Weasel is capable of no more than base cunning, with his only interactions being comprised of incentivized behavior- play a game, have a treat, act in the interest of more games and treats. None of this is disputed. No attempt is made to justify it. Yes, they killed. Yes, they will again. No, it is not right or good. And in a medium where storytelling so often defaults to 'if there is a reason, it must be justified', it is a breath of fresh air. Being traumatized does not make anyone's actions excusable. The characters are monsters, and the show expertly explores how they got there- what makes a monster in the first place. No amount of past abuse towards a sexual assailant, a neglectful parent, or an unhinged killer can wish away the consequences of their actions. Neither the narrative nor the characters ever once speak up to say 'this isn't fair.' Because it may once have been unfair- but they are not the same anymore, not the victims anymore. Apologies for the essay, my friends! A good evenoonlighting to you all.

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

your “sentimonsters vs tropes” post made me realize how sentimonsters don’t work as a metaphor for marginalized people despite what other people say, because even if it was intentional, the show doesn’t acknowledge the fact that the majority of them get killed by the heroes, including Adrien and Felix (who are part of their race). Honestly, it makes me wonder if Miraculous ever did some sort of allegory right at all

(Post in question)

Before we get into it, I wanted to quickly define allegory in case that's a new or forgotten term for anyone as it's hardly common parlance:

An allegory is a narrative or visual representation in which a character, place, or event can be interpreted to represent a meaning with moral or political significance. Authors have used allegory throughout history in all forms of art to illustrate or convey complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible or striking to its viewers, readers, or listeners.

In the linked post, I chastised canon for not using the sentikids to say anything about personhood or self worth. While I stand by that, I will also give canon credit for the fact that sentimonsters as a race are not presented as a clear allegory for anything. The sentimonsters that weren't meant to be equal to humans are just worthless akuma knockoffs created to act as canon fodder. The human-equivalent sentimonsters are basically perfect humans who happen to have remote controls. You are never supposed to think about the implications of that frankly bizarre difference. There is not meant to be a deeper message and that's the right call because, when you look at the setup we just went over, you quickly realize canon didn't set itself up to make the sentimonster race an allegory for anything but eugenics.

While you can argue that canon is eugenics apologia, that is very clearly not intentional. I don't worry about kids walking away thinking eugenics are good because you only get that as a takeaway if you're actively searching for a message in canon's writing. There is no on-screen discussion of which sentimonsters are okay to kill or any other type of blatant allegory for eugenics. If eugenics = good is the intended message, then it's incredibly subtle.

While plot-level* allegory can be subtle, that tends to be rare in family-oriented media as the point of allegory is to convey a message. If no one is picking up on the message, then you've failed to make your point. That's why no one is watching Zootopia or Elemental and walking away asking, "Huh, I wonder what that film was trying to teach kids?"

Miraculous doesn't have anything that stands out as a clear allegory like I'd expect if the intent was to use allegory to teach kids something. I'd normally say that means there was no intentional allegory in the show, but we have straight up insane statements from the writers like this one about the season five final:

In the next scene, we can see Marinette taking the miraculous that have been standardized and industrialized by Gabriel and putting them back in shape. The writers specify that this is a parable about craftsmanship vs industrial production. The miraculous will now be adapted to every person, but we can’t see what they look like just yet! In this new world, the powers are all shared, among people who they trust and know will work for the common good.

Did anyone get this from the show? I certainly didn't. With the writers making statements like this, who even knows what messages they're trying to send. Between this and the reveal that Lila learned about Gabriel by reading Nathalie's lips in the season four final, I've given up trying to figure out what these loons are doing with their wacky storytelling. It's always fascinating to hear them talk about the story they think they've told versus what the average viewer came away thinking. I have never once seen a fan get the Lila thing. Everyone I've seen thought she was just evilly enjoying Nathalie's suffering, but it's pretty clear that the writers are quite proud of this and think it was a great choice! You know what would have been an even better choice? Letting Lila read lips at any point before or even after that scene to establish this is a skill she has. That's basic setup and payoff! Storytelling 101!

*As a quick clarification, when I said "plot-level allegory" that was me trying to find a term to convey the sort of high-level, in-your-face allegory writers use when actively trying to clearly convey a message to the audience. There are lots of works that have no obvious allegory, but actually contain subtle allegory for those who enjoy analysis or a select group that's in the know. Something the author had fun playing with, but doesn't expect the audience to get.

An example of more subtle allegory that comes to mind is The Little Mermaid. There are many valid queer readings of both the original story and the popular Disney film, especially since the book was written by an openly bisexual man after a man he loved got engaged to a woman and one of the movie's producers/major creative influences was an openly gay man. These fact have lead many to argue that the stories were always meant to be about queer acceptance on some level as opposed to the stories simply being ones that can be used to discuss that topic in spite of the author never intending that. (Which doesn't invalidate the value of a reading, btw. As far as I'm concerned, author intentionality only matters in very specific types of discussion. Most of the time, I'm a death-of-the-author girl.)

However, even if the two works are meant to be an allegory for acceptance of "alternate" sexuality, you'd be hard pressed to argue that the allegory is presented in a way that the average viewer is going to get. Everyone gets that Zootopia is all about prejudice being bad. I generally hear Disney's The Little Mermaid described as a silly fairy tale about "a girl giving up everything for a man" even though that's only true for the original story.

[skywalkr-nberrie]

One of the biggest arguments I’ve seen used by the Ob*d*l*s against Anidala, is that scene in the ROTS novel where Padmé says she could trust OW with the secret of the rebellion and was hesitant to tell Anakin and I just wanna say:

Padmé wasn't an idiot. She was an extremely intelligent and competent woman, perfectly able to understand that loving Anakin and thinking that he could be trusted with a certain politic-related matter were two very different things and reducing her choice regarding who to trust with an important political matter only on the basis of her feelings of romantic love diminishes her professionalism, and this is why I say y'all could never understand her.

Padmé didn’t have to "love" OW or even like him at all to know he was the perfect Jedi to ask for help in a secret political matter.

That's the point being made in the novel, she’s hit with the realization that Anakin in this particular moment could not be told this piece of info because of his relationship with Palpatine, and Padmé specifically mentions in the Junior ROTS novel that she didn't want to make Anakin “keep a secret” if he didn’t agree with their stance because it’d be “unfair.” So this also played a part in why Padmé didn’t think it best to inform Anakin about the Rebellion. It honestly had little to do with her actually lacking trust in him, and more to do with the circumstances she was in not allowing her to be open with her husband and her not wanting to make him choose between his wife and his “father figure.”

However, Padmé knows OW’s political ideas aren't tied to ONE particular person but to a philosophy, one which is closer to her own, at that point. None of this was ever meant to be hinted as “romantic” or even remotely insinuated as romantic. It’s strictly professional and even the tone of the scene makes that so abundantly clear.

All I’m saying is that, some of these proshippers are doing the most out here to try and prove their ship, like my loves? You forgot a very important thing called ✨ context ✨ and regardless of her rational thinking, Padmé still went out of her way to try and talk out all of this Rebellion secrecy stuff with Anakin when she confronted him in the scene where she asks if he ever thought they were “fighting on the wrong side.” Padmé didn’t trust OW in the same way she trusted Anakin (with her entire self and being) she had the level of trust and love for Anakin that was only meant for him.

Mixing up her unwavering faith in Anakin as her husband with her trust in OW’s devotion to duty as her comrade/ally is purposely deluding yourself, because the two aren’t the same and therefore can’t be compared. An example of this is: Padmé constantly putting more value to Anakin’s words over OW’s in the end of ROTS when he came to tell her of Anakin’s “crimes”. She completely disregarded what OW had claimed about her husband and instead made her way to where Anakin was herself, to ask him directly. Despite what the truth was, this is proof of her trusting Anakin unconditionally, and I didn’t even think I had to spell that out because it’s as clear as day.

In conclusion, Padmé didn’t trust OW more than Anakin, she just knew the circumstances she was in didn’t exactly make it easy for her to openly talk with her husband about these matters and that’s part of what played into the issues they had in ROTS, it’s exactly what Sidious wanted. This scene in the novel doesn’t exist to imply some hidden romantic undertone that George was intending all along. No, far from that. George was always an “open, , clear and easy to understand” type of storyteller, so if the former was the case, this scene wouldn’t be any different if there was some hidden message or subtext the reader should be made aware of, George would make it obvious. Fact of the matter is, the one and only reason for this scene in the novel to exist is only to show to us as the “reader” that the narrative is tearing apart the Star-Crossed-lovers (Anakin and Padmé.) and visibly putting the two of them on different sides in the story because the consequences of this narrative choice is what will foreshadow and play into the inevitable and great fall of the couple and character in the future. Even the novel makes a very purposeful and clear distinction between “love and trust” in this chapter where all this occurs. Padmé loves Anakin, but knew she had to trust OW with the situation at hand. And if you want to talk “narratively” Padmé needed a reason to keep the Rebellion a secret from Anakin, thus leading to Palpatine to sense “betrayal” in Padmé later on, and using that to his advantage to manipulate Anakin even more into getting him to “suspect” her. It’s all spelt out for us and it’s not hard to miss. All it takes is a little media literacy and understanding context.

(Mind you, hypothetically, if this scene existed for literally any other reason, it would’ve been brought up again, but it wasn’t. It’s only mentioned once and exists for only one moment which was meant to serve a certain narrative and then it was done. There’s not much to make of it since the context of the scene is so clear.)

[bonaesperanza]

I saw a similar post that I can't find right now where one of the replies introduced the concept of narrative porosity.

Basically, it's not about how good the piece of media is, it's about how many threads it leaves for you to pick up and follow up on (or how many holes it has for you to fill, hence the word "porosity"). A sort of fandom equivalent to affordances in developmental psych.

If a piece of media has resolved all its character arcs and subplots and dealt satisfyingly with all its narrative themes it leaves you nothing to do. It's all tied in a bow and you can't add anything without ruining it. Lots of more highbrow media is like that because these are things something like, say, litfic or an Oscar bait movie cares about: it has a small number of characters but their psyches are explored to exhaustion and the themes are usually done well because that's litfic's Thing. (That's what makes it good, while Fast & Furious is beloved less for its intricate characterization and more for its excellent car chase sequences.)

OTOH a CW show will have straggling plot threads and characters that appear and disappear ad hoc and themes that get dropped after two seasons and minor characters that are given certain traits for variety but that turn out to have fascinating psychological implications. Mediocre media has lots of threads to pick up on because it's shoddily made and therefore undersaturated with meaning by default.

BUT that's not the only way to have narrative porosity.

Worldbuilding that only hints at certain areas of the world or gives loads of information you can expand on also increases narrative porosity because that also gives you threads to pick up on. You wouldn't call LOTR mediocre but it has a huge fandom for exactly this reason - you get to flesh out all the random blorbos from the appendices or whatever.

This is also why media dealing with institutions and hierarchies and life within them does well - it gives you scaffolding to create your own iterations on those contexts, e.g. making your own Jedi or wizard or shinigami or waterbender OC or writing about the previous or next generation or whatever. The worldbuilding is basically a grid template where only the boxes for the main characters have been filled. OTOH if I wanted to write fic for, say, the movie Anora, I can only do that by featuring the characters of Anora, otherwise it's just a story set in New York.

Having a plot-oriented piece of media means that in-depth exploration of the characters' psyche doesn't fit the genre/format, but if your thing lasts more than like three hours your characters will behave in ways and react to things and if you've made them even the least bit humanlike that can be inferred to hint at hidden depths. Tantalizing glimpses of more complex characterizations that are never paid off in canon also create porosity, because they also leave unaddressed straggling threads. There's tension there, room for a theme or a character arc that the OG writer(s) haven't put in.

I'd argue that having characters and plots fit into easily comprehensible archetypes that are relatively detached from the setting also fits because it gives you AU potential. I recently had a talk on an ASOIAF discord server about how difficult it'd be to make a modern AU version of Theon Greyjoy, because his entire personality and mindset have been shaped by the medieval institution of sending relatives as hostages to guarantee your good behavior it'd be very hard to transplant that without losing a huge chunk of his character and motivations. OTOH more universal character beats or traits: abusive parents, star crossed love, overachieving, yearning for adventure, etc. are easier to play with by making various iterations across various settings. Luke Skywalker could be a random dude from Appalachia and he could have all the character beats from the OG movies - yearning for adventure, coming into his own, encountering his estranged father who turns out to be a dick. This can happen in Ancient Greece or in Alberta, Canada or in the Horn of Africa.

The dissatisfaction people talk about is recognizing that picking up some of the threads I described above would have made for a stronger work, or at least one more interesting to you. They're unresolved and frustratingly so, they're an annoying empty hole asking you to fill it. There's a connection that could be made but wasn't. The work isn't saturated enough with meaning, or a specific thread you care about a lot hasn't been addressed.

You can also connect the work's unresolved threads with other threads inside your head - e.g. I think I would make blorbo happy (readerfic) or I think blorbo would get along with character from fandom Y or whatever. E.g. I'm obsessed with the idea of a modern AU of The Count of Monte Cristo, because I see a novel written by a mixed race man about a man twisted by unjust imprisonment and I think about the modern prison industrial complex and what it does to minorities, and I also see the lavish wish fulfillment descriptions of fast boats and cool clothes and lavish furniture and people being judged on "taste" and I think about the cottage industry that analyzes every expensive object that's ever appeared in Succession and I think a Monte Cristo modern AU would be a crowdpleaser that I would LOVE to see. That's a thread I've connected to something entirely outside the original novel that's relevant and fun to me.

OTOH I think there's a type of work that says very little in the actual text but wields its blank spaces so masterfully that you get this feeling that trying to fill them would make everything worse. The blank spaces already have meanings.

Challengers for example - a lot of its artistry is in expertly wielding the tension, in choosing what to show you and where to cut off. It does feel saturated with meaning even though it leaves so much unsaid because the "narrative whitespace" takes on a meaning of its own, like the arrow in the FedEx logo can only possibly be an arrow. It's hands down my favourite movie of the year, but I'm lowkey kind of scared to look up fic for it in case I ruin it somehow. I feel like extending the narrative beyond the movie's ending would make things less thematically resolved, like adding things to the FedEx logo might.

A lot of my favourite book series play with unreliable narrators and characters' perceptions and what is said and what is implied, and it feels almost crass to break up the way the whitespace in them is set up. I dunno, it feels like easy pickings to write a fic explicitly describing how the Regent abused Laurent from CaPri, or Gen and Irene's first night as a couple for Queen's Thief, or Lymond breaking down emotionally for the Lymond Chronicles. Like circling the FedEx arrow with a red pen and writing "arrow underneath". It kind of kills the tension, because you can already make out the shape of the missing piece from the canon, and writing it point blank kills the delicious tension in it, and perhaps even obscures the meaning and characterisation that was built into the way certain things were not said.

Sorry for the wall of text this is just a really fascinating subject for me

also this might be an unpopular opinion, but i think MOST people are actually completely able to "consume" a piece of a media without anaylzing it through a shipping lense, but i just think they than aren't likely to be posting that analysis on archiveofourown. i think for the most people what's happening is that people are like. going on fandom websites and communities and getting really annoyed they're seeing too much yaoi or whatever, and it's like there's alot of fast food at mcdonalds too, i'm sure the people eating there don't have anything else going on in there lives either

[sammygender]

i’ve never been as angry on behalf of a character as i am for sam winchester

[o-wild-west-wind]

y’all out here saying Izzy’s death made no narrative sense because it’s a comedy show clearly haven’t seen the Shakespeare post…I’m sorry I really am but death immunity only applies to the romantic leads the genre has not changed babes

(I don’t mean this to be patronizing, but genuinely: critically analyzing and engaging with art is a skill, and an important one. it’s a tool that will help you in the real world, for real current events. use this as practice not to take everything at face value. sad art does not equal bad art!)

[crossbackpoke-check]

Dysprosium, Mary Soon Lee

dysprosium, AN 66, is a silvery-white rare earth metal. its name is derived from the greek dysprositos, meaning “hard to get at”, owing to the difficulty in separating and isolating this rare earth element. dysprosium is used to measure neutron flux, to fuel reactors, and to activate phosphors. terfenol-d is a magnetorestrictive alloy, meaning that it changes shape when a magnetic field is applied, and is used to manufacture underwater acoustic systems.

jason “robo” robertson, dallas stars #21 for @simmyfrobby’s nhl periodic table poems <3

[brittlebutch]

realizing that it sounds kind of mean for me to be referring to this fic as the “cringe loser” fic if you don’t have the extensive lexicon i’ve created in my head for the lengthy opinion essay i haven’t written about how most people don’t actually want “good” autist-rep, they want “cool” rep even at the expense of ‘accuracy’. just believe me i say “cringe loser” with the highest degree of absolute affection

[aizenat]

There is this girl I went to hs with and the nicest way I can say this is this girl was smart but not particularly so, and had a high sense of self despite being remarkably average. Again, that's the nicest way I can say that. She also got very triggered whenever I was better at her than something (in all fairness, she was like that with anyone better than her, but my friend caught her shit talking me once when I was the only person in my English class to get an A on my Catcher in the Rye essay--something I expected simply because I'm a writer, was then, and I never once got anything less than A on an essay my entire hs career--and that pissed me off particularly because my writing is the ONE thing in this world I can truly say I do better than most people).

Anyway, I learned a while ago that she moved to Boston, and she was associated with Harvard in some way. Without getting too into it, she works there in the weirdest and most random department (not as a professor or anything meaningful or prestigious, which will make sense in a second), doing basically admin shit it seems. I was curious because she's still listed on their site and it says she's been there for like eleven years. I was wondering if she ended up going there as a student in something, but without a linkden or something, I couldn't see. But every time I googled her name and the school, the only thing that came up was her staffing position. No information to indicate she was a student.

Which is funny. I looked up to see if you can go to Harvard for free if you work there, and the do have a reimbursement program, but you'd only get like 75% of fees back, so you'd still have to come out of pocket. And this is an IVY, so that's going to be pretty. And considering what she does, I can't imagine it paying that much where she could easily afford it. Maybe she does take classes and is slowly working her way to some kinda degree, but I doubt it. I feel like she'd at least be able to brag by now given how long she's been there (the site fucking says when she started lol).

Either way, the reason this is funny to me is because she was never even close or talented or impressive enough to anyone let alone college admissions to get into a school like Harvard (I know for a fact she didn't get in in hs lol), and transferring into schools is typically easier, she didn't get her degrees from there according to the site. So I just lowkey find it funny because the closest she'd ever get to Harvard is not as a student or even as someone brought in to teach, but by getting some admin job and sticking around long enough to get her picture on the school's site. She looks so proud in her Harvard shirt, thinking she finally "made it" but never in a way that would actually impress everyone.

It just all feels very fitting for her. In the right spaces to be around more impressive people while being overwhelmingly mediocre her own damn self lol.

[pendragonsclotpole]

it makes no sense but it honestly reminds me so much of my own trauma-induced decisions. like sure, merlin knew he could trust morgana, and yes he knew morgana needed his suppoort, but i think actually telling someone so close to arthur, was in itself too close to telling arthur? like what if he tells her and then it spirals?

what if morgana tries to convince him to tell arthur? what if telling her ruins everything and arthur rejects them both and tells uther? talk about a fatalistic thought spiral that i headcanon because it feels so realistic because it makes no sense. it isn’t healthy and i hate merlin for never telling her, but it was such a relatable and toxic choice. i’ve had things i could never tell my friends that i’ve spoken out loud to random strangers because of the very fact that i’ll never see them again.

sure they could return and bring it up later but among the people that know me best, would they believe a random stranger that i swear i never met over me? nah probably not. and if they did, well merlin’s emrys, he could figure something out. he couldn’t do that with morgana because that would mean harming his friend for his own good/the greater good/arthur’s safety (and as we know, pre-morgause, merlin wasn’t quite at the level of moral grayness he achieves over the course of five seasons).

so merlin tells this forest rando because of the lack of threat he poses and he doesn’t tell morgana because of the massive threat she poses.

maybe i’m reading too much into it, but is it so hard to believe that in a world that persecutes magic, magic users would turn against each other in other ways beyond directly selling you out to the persecutors? i mean look at what we canonically know about gaius’ actions. he turns a blind eye to uther’s atrocities, despite being a magic user, and at least part of it is motivated by his own safety and self-interests.

i still can't believe merlin chose to reveal he had magic to the most random person on the planet who he had only known for a day (gilli in "the sorcerer's shadow") but NOT to morgana when she needed it most... by the time morgana figured out she had magic, her and merlin's friendship was already at a point where he could trust her with something like this, and he had already seen her stance on magic through the way she risked everything for mordred (a DRUID, aka a magical being). hell, she straight up said "what if [magic] chooses you?" to his FACE. he really had nothing to lose and morgana had everything to gain by him telling her he had magic too, and being there for her when she needed it. but nOoOoo merlin just HAD to listen to the overgrown basement gecko and keep it a secret. which i wouldn't really mind had he not gone and revealed that very same secret to a perfect stranger a season later. it just makes no sense whatsoever that he'd keep his magic a secret from morgana and refrain from helping her then turn around and show GILLI of all people that he had magic.

[sandraharissa]

I think one of the many things wrong with Jinx this season is how like, half of her personality was cut off and thrown out.

Like her reaction to grief. We see her suicidal after Silco’s death and she’ll be again very suicidal after Isha’s death. Makes sense. Don’t have notes on that part. However I have so much notes on her rage. In s1 we see Powder sometimes responding to bad situation by being shy and sad, but sometimes she reacts in a more adversarial way, like complaining they should try fighting Piltover or trying to stand up to Mylo. But we also get these moments like when she’s left behind and has an absolute meltdown and starts wrecking shit but more importantly her reaction to Silco. He says they’ll show them all and she throws the audience the most rage fueled look you’ve ever seen. When really pushed beyond her limits this is Powder’s emotional reaction to tragedy/being wronged. We see that all throughout acts II and III and we see it when she blows up the council after Silco dies. And that’s the problem cos that’s the part that’s missing from s2. They cut her personality in half and only kept one half. Anger as part of her personality and reaction to grief was discarded when writing her in s2. Even tho she goes through a lot of grieving in s2.

Another example is Isha. Jinx prioritizing family and just chilling? Wanting affectionate interactions with family? Having an easier relationship with a younger family member cos there aren’t any expectations or need to prove anything or gain anyone’s attention? No fear of abandonment/betrayal? She just has this kid who hero worships her and follows her around like a puppy so no stress? No notes. However I have a lot of notes about Jinx’s paranoia and how not normal and possessive and toxic she is about relationships. And I have notes on the generational trauma. Where did all that go? That’s not how ppl work. Living in a messed up society and Silco’s parenting won’t just evaporate like that cos Isha is just so overwhelmingly cute. It’s more likely that Jinx would corrupt the kid. (which you could argue on paper she does cos the kid in the end thought that suicide was dope but why did the narrative frame it as this beautiful thing lol)

And on the topic of fighting Piltover where did “we beat the enforcers with just the four of us imagine what the whole Lanes could do” go? Jinx definitely prioritized family more but she wasn’t neutral or indifferent on the Piltover matter. The enforcers wrong her/hurt her/threaten her family yet again, they kidnapped Isha, and she just acts panicked and sad, but also jokes and quips while on the mission. Where’s the rage and hatred and desire for revenge on the ppl who wronged her? Sometimes it’s just ppl around her being mean or lying or smth, anyone could be her enemy, like Sevika, Silco or Vi, but a lot of the time it’s Piltover, they killed her parents, they were her fathers’ enemies and drove them to hate each other, they chased them as kids and tried to arrest them, they kidnapped and abused Vi in prison all her adolescence, they would have killed Vi so she blew up the whole blockade, Council tried to turn Silco against her and now he’s dead so she bombs them, all her life she can see that the quality of their life is bad bcos of Piltover, she’s in Jayce’s apartment and immediately goes for the sandwich. Jinx doesn’t come off as a very politically/ideologically motivated character but what happened to all her personal beef with Piltover?

They also inexplicably just ceased to write her fucking up all the time. what about her y’know, being a jinx? In s1 even in acts II and III when she is proficient in fighting and bomb-making they still constantly show her being more of a burden and fucking up in other ways. While never explained (which was good) to me it came off as a symptom of trauma and being neurodivergent, like how ADHD kids can’t escape the allegations that they’re lazy, but on a meta level it did make it feel like she was supernaturally cursed. Part of what felt so profound and empowering about s1 finale and her embracing being jinx it that it was her embracing that she’s different (and ‘wrong’ in some ways) and can never live a happy life in the society she lives in and so she lashes out. Now she just chills and nothing ever doesn’t go her way (ig until Isha died but that wasn’t even directly her fault, Isha just acted on her own choice and agency). Suddenly her mental issues don’t exist or get in the way of her socializing and being a part of society. This bigoted, violent and unfair society.

Don’t even get me started on her mannerisms. Remember how she would bite her lip? I’m not sure if she does that even once in s2. “Sister, thought I missed her”??? let Jinx rhyme sometimes and in general say weird shit, not one-liners.

So the only way for the writers to have Jinx do nothing, heal up completely and just chill with a kid in her lair (and really everything else she does (or doesn’t do) this season) is to get rid of half of her personality, the traits that would dictate she take action and feel wrath and lash out/hurt her loved ones in the process.

All of her tragic traits from s1 that made her Jinx were just erased, not changed throughout the course of an arc, absent from the get go, so that they can have her say that Jinx is dead and have it make sense in the context of s2 cos from her very first appearance is s2 this Jinx was devoid of pretty much all of her jinx-y character traits from s1.

[wowitsverycool]

people who posture that odile forgiving siffrin and thinking The Time Loop is cute is out of character are a little silly... she is such a creature of practicality that it simply would not make sense for her to hold a grudge. and the 'cute' bit is her weird old lady way of recontextualizing the loops as not only necessary (as she explains later) but also *not worth being ashamed of*.

she is adding levity to the situation *and* building a brick wall of "it doesn't bother me, so stop apologizing about it" to signal to siffrin to stop arguing about how Evil it Makes Them. it expands upon her established character by showing that she is quickly learning to meet siffrin at their level while maintaining that sense of practicality. like "oh you think your yearning makes you awful and disgusting? bro it's not even a big deal. it's cute. i am more interested in discussing literally anything else about what happened."

the alternate perspective she offers is also one that shocks siffrin out of their own perspective (and evidently the perspective of some players lol), which has been the precipice of her character for the entire goddamn game!! think about it! the sus quest, the toilet paper scene, the end of her friendquest where she corrects siffrin on why her mood has improved -- she is constantly challenging what siffrin has accepted and resigned himself to!! all of the main characters embody change in different ways, but odile is arguably the only one who *actively rejects* stagnation in all its forms. so it only makes sense that what siffrin endlessly ruminates on -- the morality of their desire for closeness -- odile flippantly dismisses.

it wouldn't make sense for her to be Angry and Unforgiving because that's what siffrin expects (and, in a way, wants). it would be contrary to both her role in the narrative and her established character. her forgiving siffrin is maybe a bit jarring (as it is supposed to be), but not unnatural. It Just Makes Sense.

also, total forgiveness is neither unrealistic nor unsatisfying. it's just something that is often deemed 'too sappy' to properly depict.

[infinitelystrangemachinex]

massages forehead So Ambessa hid Mel away because she was a weapon in the literal sense, a mage. But Ambessa came to Piltover for Hextech? And Ambessa had nothing to say to Mel about her powers having visibly awakened? Even when Mel offered to go with Ambessa, giving her the ultimate opportunity to make Mel a weapon for real? And Ambessa made no attempt to find or retrieve Mel - not just her daughter and the remnants of the family Ambessa professes to love, but also her ultimate weapon - when she disappeared? And Ambessa trusted Singed and Viktor on their home turf - neither of them hiding how insane and self-serving they are with every reason to take over Ambessa's soldiers or just blatantly turn on her as soon as it benefits them - more than she trusted Mel? While Caitlyn (and by extension Piltover) was visibly and clearly falling away from Ambessa's teachings before Ambessa's eyes? (as if getting rid of certain people allows piltover to get rid of fascism but we won't get into All That)

Not only do I struggle to be hyped for Mel's powers beyond how amazing and beautiful she looks, but I can't help but feel like Mel is somehow less powerful in season 2 than she was in season 1, and not in an interesting way. As if Mel's ability to bend all of Piltover politics and economics to her will in season 1 now means nothing in season 2? You can argue that Jinx's attack led directly to Mel losing ground in Piltover - because I expected Mel to have to claw back that power without being able to rely on people who are too easily seduced by Ambessa and authoritarianism, and she would have to get creative to go toe to toe with her mother. I expected pushback to her mage identity that she would have to navigate. But instead this went either unwritten, or was ignored or discarded. Instead Mel is removed from the main plot, cutting her off from what made her the most interesting - only for all of Mel's very real talents, her very real powers and abilities, to be not only translated but REPLACED with magical powers she doesn't know how to control, and by the finale, those magic powers are the only powers that are considered real. Mel takes a backseat to Piltover's governing and decisions, a backseat to Jayce of all people who was not only new to politics mere months ago but made poor governing, strategic, and diplomatic decisions when he had that power. In season 1 Mel stayed off the "throne" but she did pull its strings one way or the other, and she makes no attempt at this in season 2

In my least generous suspicions, Mel was gentled and quieted to capitulate to an agenda for other characters who had to be correct and heroic - or wrong and villainous - no matter what the leadup narrative said, given her powers to help sell the game and set up future shows, and was effectively ejected from the Arcane story with faceless soldiers and a role she doesn't want because she was inconvenient there

[fireflysummers]

FireflySummers’ Guide to Arguing Against the Use of AI Image Generators

(AKA I hate AI image generators so fucking much that I published a whole ass academic article on it)

Read the Paper: Art in the Machine: Value Misalignment and AI "Art"

Citation: Allred, A.M., Aragon, C. (2023). Art in the Machine: Value Misalignment and AI “Art”. In: Luo, Y. (eds) Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering. CDVE 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14166. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43815-8_4

The purpose of the original paper and now this post is the following:

Provide at least one academic article that you can cite. (Full paper + citation available below)

Make explicit community values that have previously been implicit, in order to better examine your own perceptions of the online artist community, and where you sit within it.

Provide rebuttals to common pro-AI talking points, with the intention of shutting down the conversation and reclaiming the narrative. 

What this paper and post cannot do:

Act as a sole authority about the online artist community and its values. We are not a monolith, and it is up to you to think critically about what, exactly, you want to take away from this discussion.

Provide a way to convince AI Evangelists that what they’re doing is wrong and bad and needs to stop. You will never convince them. Again, focus on shutting them down and reclaiming the narrative.

Final Disclaimer: I'm a very fallible researcher who is still very much learning how to do academia. I cannot speak for the entirety of the online artist community or fanartist community. We all have different lived experiences. I have done my best to include diverse voices; however if you have concerns or critiques, I am open to hearing them.

If you show up to debate in favor of AI image generators, you will be automatically blocked.

Credits:

Editors, Meme Experts, and Annotators: @starbeans-bags, @b4kuch1n, @cecilioque.

Tutorial Examples: @sabertoothwalrus, @ash-and-starlight, @miyuliart, @hometownrockstar, @deoidesign, @cinnamonrollbakery

If you have read this far, thank you very much. I hope that you have found a constructive lens for approaching the war with AI image generators, as well as a new tool for shutting down debate and reclaiming the narrative.

[melaninfury]

Synastry Observation 🕯️

Please don't take this as astrological facts. These are more my experience and perspective. The whole chart and aspects must also be considered.

👥 As much as I love a good moon in the 11th, I do recall every person showing some sort of over interest in my longterm goals and who I am friends with. It kinds gives they feel some type of way about the friends you make or can get very personally offended by the way you go after your goals and even the community you’re in. Of course more with affliction and squares to your eighth.

👥 I always recommend if looking into synastry for families/generational curses/childhood trauma/familial bonds to look at their Lilith energy between each other. My family member who birthed me has their Lilith retrin my 12th house. I always think they are trying to have power over me subconsciously or questioning my mental health (12 house). Over all a hidden opp at times but very dedicated and nosey on what plans or how to crack your code.

👥 Saturn in the 8th house is oppressive in synastry in many ways if not balanced. I find these individuals are pocketwatchers to your debt towards them even when they give it comes with some resentment.

👥 Yes that mans venus is touching exactly on your mars, I think your attracted and may want to you know. Yes your venus is touching their mars … yes they want you or maybe they have thought about it. In context to most sexual and relationship area this aspect creates the right tension. It is not as direct as mars wanting you in the first house it is a take you out to dinner first kind of fuck you.

👥 Mars in the 1st house either wants to fuck you, compete with you or argue, fight with you or just all of the above. At some point 🤷🏾‍♀️ to some degree maybe so.

👥 Uranus in the 9th may feel estranged to your dreams/goals/ideologies. They may come from a different religion that may demonize or judge your beliefs. They feel your way of life is a revolution to their own. It either tears you down or feels welcomed by its difference.

👥 If your parent has their neptune in your 10th house of Career/Legacy/Who your parents want you to be/Your social status...I do feel for the way they project and want to control you. Very controlling of the narrative of who you want to be. They project their own failures and need to do what they never got to do. Then they hold you to a lot of standards to make sure you turn out the way they want. They want you to live the life they projected onto you at birth or really young. Weird effect of Neptune/Afflicted Neptune/Capricorn Neptune in Saturn’s House

👥 10th house synastry is superficial. If I were to say anything else. No matter the placement, they all manifest this differently but in the same energy. If someone is falling on top of your tenth house make sure your relationship isn't based on appearance or the "idea" of you and what you bring into their status (life).

👥 As much as that Moon/Mars is gonna draw you is as much as it’s gonna fuck you over....you will be annoyed by what drew you in 😬. With this synastry are you ready to be madly in love on the plight than the mars actions that disrupt or activate the hidden emotional world of the moon, make you think your not 😃. if you don’t really want to feel that feeling, tension and resistance even though this is someone you want I recommend taking that shit slow please.

👥 See my problem with 8th house energy is its attention. Your sexual partners mars or moon falling in your 8th can really make them want you in that way but it’s the house of debt and others peoples money it’s inherently shadow like and has a touch of mystery. Like stop making secret passes at that lady in the dark or giving the eyes. Stop taking someone out to eat and taking them back to your place. Stop not ignoring the urge to touch….and touch…and touch all the time. Being so goddamn intimate. Yes that shit can turn really ugly really quick. And your not gonna “die” per say from synastry like this in the house of death but when they leave or if they hurt you it’s gonna hurt just as much as it felt good in the moment. You might feel like a part if you is actually dying. But y’all stay safe out there 🙂.

👥 Jupiter in your 7th house you say…well I SAY you want that man to be your husband, that woman to be your wife, their soul to be your equal, you want that partner title with them because they fit into your world and they elevate in the way you dream. Maybe they are your dream but I think you like em a bit to much, Jupiter is an abundance is it not, for better or for worse.

©️ All rights reserved melaninfury