#and it's CRITICAL and MEAN and TOTALLY WRONG

[apoloadonisandnarcissus]

Ellen’s Vengeance

Both Ellen and Professor Von Franz are characters who are ostracized by Victorian society. The archetype of the “Victorian patriarch” expels them both from his house and tries to do the same at his wife and children’s funerals, symbolizing they have no place in Victorian society. Ellen is seen as a “melancholic hysteric” who should be institutionalized and Von Franz is a “laughingstock” and a “charlatan”. So, when Von Franz is talking about “redeem us” or “our salvation”; he’s talking about him and Ellen. Only her can redeem them, both, at the eyes of Victorian society. But as Ellen tells him, she needs “no salvation”, and she doesn’t need to redeem herself either, because she has done nothing wrong besides being true to her nature.

Both Ellen and Von Franz are avenged by Ellen’s breaking of the Nosferatu curse because they are proven right, when Victorian society says they are wrong. They are vindicated. Von Franz symbolically gives Ellen back her agency and validates her nature (one for which she has been medicalized her entire life and against which she has been fighting this entire film), like Robert Eggers tells us in one interview: “She's an outsider. She has this understanding about the shadow side of life that is very deep, but she doesn't have language for that. She's totally misunderstood and no one can see her [...] this demon lover, this vampire [Orlok] who is the one being who can connect with that side of her."

“Vindication” in Christian theology is connected to another word: “Providence”. “She has been vindicated” and “she has won” have the same meaning. Which is exactly what Robert Eggers tell us about his ending: “But isn’t it interesting that this female archetype who understands the dark side of humanity and is sexualized keeps being reconstituted as the savior of Victorian culture?”

Victorian culture is sexual repression. One of the themes from “Dracula” novel Eggers is exploring in his film is “the threat of female sexuality”; the figure of the "sick woman" as one of the principal ways in which female sexuality manifests as a contagious disease. In “Dracula”, literary critics (especially feminists) associate this with Lucy Westenra character and her degeneration into vampirism; she’s “sexualized” and, as such, she’s punished by the narrative with death and vampirism. This is the angle Eggers is exploring in his story. Even Friedrich Harding blames Ellen for the “contagion” of his wife, Anna. Which is why Ellen also represents the revenge of her book counterpart.

By accepting Orlok of her own free will, Ellen is accepting herself, embracing her own nature, and wearing “her shame” like a badge of honor in that final shot. She takes ownership over her own sexuality, breaking free from Victorian society (medicalization and gender roles). She’s vindicated or avenged because she has been medicalized, drugged and tied-up because of her mediumship (diagnosed as “melancholy” and “hysteria” by Victorian doctors), but it’s her empowerment through free sexuality (sex) and spirituality (death) that saves the day, and proves Victorian society wrong. She breaks the curse and free them (herself and Orlok), and everyone else, from Nosferatu plague.

There’s nothing sad about Ellen and Orlok’s ending. They both get what they want. Orlok has the rotten vessel in which his soul is trapped in destroyed, setting his spirit free. And as Ellen dies in the physical world, she’s reborn as the great Pagan priestess she was always meant to be.

Ellen dying alongside Orlok also symbolizes her sexuality getting punished according to Victorian society (because Robert Eggers wants “to stay through the lens of the 19th century”), however, she’s the one saving everyone by accepting herself, and embracing her nature, at last.

Ellen doesn’t sacrifice herself because of Thomas nor to “save everyone”, those are collaterals of the true reason, which is accepting herself and taking ownership over her own sexuality. And the last picture Robert Eggers gives us of Victory society really drives home this point:

Friedrich Harding (the Victorian patriarch) dead on top of his wife’s corpse (Anna; the Victorian woman ideal) after sexually assaulting her: the ultimate symbol of Victorian women oppression. Wives owned by their husbands, with no agency whatsoever, her bodies and sexuality fully dominated by them, who could physically and sexually assault them with no fear of repercussions because they were their property; and who infected them with “blood plagues” (especially syphilis) quite often. Sex as a marital duty for male pleasure alone.

God-fearing, Christian values, morality, decency and concern with social reputation all fall apart in this scene, as Victorian society hypocrisy is brought to light by Professor Von Franz, the occult scholar.

And the last image of the film is "Death and the Maiden" motif, making the "plague theme" come full circle, and also the representation of these two occult characters: Ellen and Orlok, embraced and surrounded by golden sunlight and their symbolic lilacs.

Their union blessed by nature; the great Pagan priestess and the Pagan priest-shaman follower of Zalmoxis, both demonized by Christian Victorian society, together and their sexuality on full display, no longer shameful nor demonic. Ellen is naked (no more corsets); fully embracing herself, fully liberated from Victorian society. Ellen and Orlok are the owners of the secrets of immortality; death, resurrection, rebirth and reincarnation. Their spiritual and sexual union (Sex Magick) has healed them and the world, and the plague was lifted.

This is Christianity vs. Paganism. Friedrich and Anna are in dark (ignorance); while Ellen and Orlok are in light (knowledge). Both men “can’t resist” these female characters; but while Friedrich used Anna’s corpse for his own sexual pleasure; Orlok gave Ellen pure ecstasy (orgasm), their scene is about her sexual pleasure, not his. Friedrich and Anna are riddled with plague; while Ellen and Orlok are fully healed; Ellen healed Orlok from Nosferatu curse (“his affliction”), and Orlok was the only one who could heal Ellen "sanguine temperament" by draining her blood (“her melancholy”). They healed each other, and by consequence, they ended the plague for everyone else, and also redeemed Professor Von Franz, who emerges vindicated from their union.

[utilitycaster]

I read your posts regarding c3 and what could be done differently, and I’ve always thought the way they handled Bertrand Bell was weird. He’s only in three episodes, then dies — c3 was my first campaign, and I had no idea who he was before, nor sure why I should care . Emotionally he didn’t leave an impact on the other characters (although I love Fearne’s jazz monologue) or the audience who has seen him one time before. They use his name for their party name but then don’t bother to see his grave, or remember him at all.

His death also means that we are tied to the moon plot very early on with an emotional weight so it feels like the group have to follow that story thread early on, setting up the mystery too early which then becomes exhausting to the audience. I wonder if c3 would have been better off if they didn’t bother with him, or if Matt and Travis agreed to really wait a while before killing Bertrand off, when they actually want to escalate the plot (would have had accusations of ‘scripting’ but who cares if it’s better narratively.) I think if he died around when Molly died then it would have been stronger (maybe too close a copy of c2, but at least that worked?)

I think a planned player character death can still be shocking and dramatic to the other players who weren’t expecting it, but how c3 executed it feels like a nothing burger and a waste of time. I don’t really know what would have changed if we just had Chetney at the start.

I'm going to be totally honest: I disagree strongly and I think you are assigning blame to a completely wrong place. That doesn't mean that you can't feel this moment failed to land (though I think that too is a criticism more of the overall campaign) but the concept of having a character show up, be quickly killed, and be replaced by the actual character isn't a particularly new one, doesn't require you to have a pre-existing attachment to the initial character for it to be a fun concept. It also, in my opinion, did serve a good purpose and frankly Bertrand had, in his three episodes, a stronger and clearer arc than several party members who have had over a hundred episodes.

I may put this specific piece in a separate post because I believe it's a requirement for understanding the failings of Campaign 3 but: A lot of discussion positions Campaign 3 as the story of Bells Hells, who were ill served by the Moon Plot. This is, in my opinion, incorrect. Campaign 3 is the Moon Plot Campaign, in which Bells Hells are ill-suited characters pushed through said plot because they happened to be played by the cast members. And to that end, I think that actually, introducing the moon plot immediately was a good idea. The problem was that the execution of that mystery was very poorly done. Bertrand led the party to Eshteross, and was then not long thereafter killed by a group of people working to destabilize the Chandei Quorum on behalf of Armand Treshi, so that he could bring in the Paragon's Call as a means of reinstating order in Jrusar. This presumably would also help them because then they wouldn't have to use Jiana as a middlewoman for the shipments they were receiving via her in Jrusar, and would generally increase their power. Bells Hells found out this was happening and thwarted it, but Treshi escaped.

This is when the plot began to become a mess, and while there were plenty of further opportunities to right it, I think basing the entirety of the early campaign in Jrusar and Bassuras, and severely paring down what was done in Bassuras [probably a whole other post but I'd have had Treshi remain captured in Jrusar but give up the information, making Bassuras entirely a data gathering mission, thus freeing up a lot of time in Bassuras for personal errands and bonding time] would have fixed a lot of the issues.

Again, that doesn't mean the concept worked for you, but this isn't even rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic - it's complaining about the meal that was served on the titanic 4 days prior to them hitting the iceberg.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

That list.

This just sounds like a dude who's kinda feminine. I've noticed that a lot of people seem to think being gender-non-confirming is the same as being enby.

Which seems kinda sexist, actually.

Given how most of these are from non-European cultures, gotta wonder if this particular thing is related to the revived Noble Savage idea.

...Ancient Greek Mythology? Really?

This just sounds like extremist Christianity. Like conversion therapy.

Ironic that the list Tena linked to included a Christian sect.

Assigned gender at birth = bad, assigned gender at some indeterminate later point = good?

I'm sorry, isn't this what pro-trans people are supposed to be against?

If you're claiming all of those identities are valid, then you're also endorsing multiple contradicting religious beliefs. And saying mutilating people's bodies in the name of the belief their bodies are inherently wrong is inherently okay.

You're endorsing Christians so extreme they make the actual Puritans look like National Baptists.

This is not logically consistent. In fact, it's awfully close to certain stereotypes of trans supporters.

When those total strangers want society, law, and government to validate their self-identity, it becomes everyone’s business.

And those are, naturally, very important to trans people. Explicitly, for many of them. 

For obvious reasons!*

Also, I love how this is coming from someone with an entirely ideological objection to Trump’s actions, who can’t explain how this will allegedly actually affect people.

Seriously, she threw her toys out of the pram.

renardtrickster tried (archive), and he had to use someone else’s line-by-line analysis, which is clearly not the one line point Tenafly made.

And that’s putting it generously.

Tena was implying that believing in only two genders and not non-binaries is the same as being anti-trans. Which it isn't.

A detailed analysis of Trump's Executive Order is trying to motte-and-bailey the argument. And Tena's own childish tantrums.

This is not the way to make an actual argument if you want to convince people.

Irony is, it's this exact same sort of disconnect from what normal people believe - maybe even normal liberals and progressives - that helped the Dems lose.

I also like how Renard's tags imply he's "arguing with pigs", when this whole thread was started by someone who was angry and confrontational and kept engaging with blatant bait and did nothing constructive.

The meanings of words are determined by usage. And  everyone I've seen who claims gender and sex are two different things is a pro-trans progressive person. And I'm not sure it's a majority belief even among that group.

Which suggests that they formed this belief out of ideological convenience, not working from first principles.

At the very least you can't act like it's a universally accepted fact.

*This is not the first time I’ve seen people imply that LGBT stuff should just be ignored, even though there’s a great deal of effort being spent by LGBT advocates on making it part of international, everyday discourse.

Same with a lot of Diversity™ stuff. They don’t want to address the criticism, so they say you’re wrong for even caring in the first place, even though that also applies to the supporters.

Though these folks are rarely so silly as to talk about apparent anti-LGBT discrimination at the highest level of American government and then insist LGBT stuff is a private matter. 

Which makes it extra ironic when Renard’s goalpost-moving defense includes talking about lack of government support for trans people as a negative.

[marythequeen]

hello guys, i'm here to talk about leah toole's fictional book on mary i of england's. it's called the saddest princess.

at first, i want to clarify that i am highly aware that this book is fictional and not a biography. so you don't need to say "hey but it's fictional"

also, before reading her book, leah toole was someone i really liked. i used to follow her on tiktok and was really excited to read her book. however as you can understand, i am very, very disappointed.

let's start.

just after i had read the prologue i knew that many things would piss me off throughout the book because it was horrendous.

the vilification of queen mary is outdated now and seeing even the people that claim to like her doing this, made me feel awful. according to countless reports, in her death bed, she was peaceful and her conscience clean. the people that she had executed were mainly guilty of treason and many others were executed without her knowledge. i don't think that feeling guilty about this would be her main concern.

but do you know who was rather frightened and surrounded by guilt? her half sister elizabeth.

apart from this, if you ever saw a video of leah toole's, you probably know that she's a great hater of the spanish princess because of its inaccurate portrayals. mind you, the spanish princess tv show never ever claimed that it was historically accurate or something like that but leah toole was MAD (and rightfully so!! i totally agreed with her.) about it anyway. so imagine my disappointment when i started to read her book eagerly then realized that it, in many aspects, was a cheap copy of the tv show.

"there was no lone for this useless baby girl." i mean, really? that scene and almost everything about it was in the spanish princess. AND this whole scene could be proved wrong with countless reports. do i think katharine of aragon suffered from a kind of postpartum depression? i absolutely do. but do i think she HATED her own daughter for years? no because that's not what happened in reality.

again, this is a historical fiction book and it doesn't have to be historically accurate but it's called a hypocrisy when you criticize another material because of the same thing you did yourself.

(ps. katharine of aragon had blue eyes, not dark brown.)

mary's birth scene was AWFUL. henry saying mary is a useless girl was highly inaccurate. writing such things while mary's reputation is STILL unfairly blackened is very unnecessary.

"katherine had tried to love her daughter. but no matter how hard she tried, nothing the girl did held any meaning in katherine's eyes." are you kidding me??

also having mary curse constantly? this woman didn't know the meaning of whore until she was forty something. i can't even imagine her saying words such as bastard, harlot, whore etc. (in the book she called anne boleyn names when in reality she simply called her that woman. which is respectful enough.) especially when she used the word bastard when she was nine? now c'mon! throughout the book, the author is obviously influenced by the spanish princess tv show, even though she'd been very critical about the show. there's a pretty word for situations like this :) and it's called hypocrisy.

and *that* scene with duke philip? even the most passionate mary hater wouldn't write something like this. that was worse than wattpad, worse than ao3. (if you didn't read the book, take a deep breath, she had sex with him. again, did not happen in reality.)

apart from all of this, the only thing that i've liked about this book is clearly seeing that mary wasn't as forgiving as her mother was. because that's what actually happened. long story short, i was eager to read the other books of this series but i don't think that i'll be reading the rest. i am so very disappointed with this. it was such a waste of time. and i have to tell you that i am also incredibly sad because i used to enjoy her content a lot.

there are many more issues about this book but unfortunately i don't have enough time or will to live to write a detailed review but i think this'll do anyway.

lastly, at least there are very few quotes that i've liked and would want you to see.

—chapuys shrugged, "it would seem the king himself is struggling to separate the two religions," he said, "and his newest testaments have received mixed reactions from his council. i believe that in his heart he remains a catholic, but he does not wish to be told by anyone whether it be the pope or his best advisor - what he can and cannot do."

—"of all the women in my father's life, i have survived him the longest. and that alone is a great achievement."

—"i survived my father's tyranny for all my thirty-three years. this edward seymour could not scare me if he turned up at my doorstep dressed up as the devil himself."

[honestlyvan]

[Image description: tweet from tar-minyatur's court twink @caranthirs that reads:

"sometimes in the privacy of my own mind where it can't hurt anyone i become a hater for a character in a fandom i am not even in simply because their fans annoyed me too much. i find your client guilty only because you as their attorney were being a dipshit in front of me"]

Furthermore this is why tagging things you like and things you dislike with different tags (ie. having containment tags for the things you hate) used to be a common practice and that people who were deliberately searching through a fandom’s hate tags to white knight their favourite thing were generally ridiculed by both people who liked and disliked a thing.

Enjoyment is largely an amoral action. We’re not really shaped by it one way or another. A corollary to this is that dislike is equally neutral, and people can dislike a thing you like without it affecting you at all.

[jewishjon]

Look, I love Jon as much as the next person but I think some of you have gone so far along the ‘Jon is a sad little man who did nothing wrong’ route that you’ve genuinely forgotten all the times he held power in a situation or like. Made a decision that hurt people

[lo-shouldve-been-an-email]

Oh god,is RS really gonna spin it as the reason why the fertility powers hurt is because it’s not true love wtf-

[forgivenfolly]

people can have whatever personal taste they want obviously and this is NOT about whether people like certain themes or motifs personally but

i think it's funny that people latch onto "tropes" that barely exist outside of online gay spaces as being overdone and write up condescending posts like OHH WOOOW DEVOTIONAL CANNIBALISM? WHY DONT YOU THROW IN SOME DOG IMAGERY TOO when it's like name one mainstream piece of media that does this if it's so overdone in actual literature/film/etc. oh you can't name any immediately besides nbc hannibal? almost as if you're just making fun of amateur writers trying to do purple prose on their tumblr blogs? very interesting

[kisskissgotohell]

i just wanna point out that, like. it's okay to disagree with the main character. just because they're the pov of the story doesn't mean they're infallible or that their word is law? you can like that character that tried to kill the mc. you can think the mc made the wrong choice. you can forgive things that the mc would never forgive, or choose not to forgive things that the mc does, because you're not the main character. you are the reader of the story, and just because you can't change it (and it's not the author's responsibility to capitulate to fans) doesn't mean you can't form your own opinions about it. it's fictional! that's the point! have fun with it!!

[tunnels-end]

sorry. guess I'm blogging trans drama now. But I still don't know what a baeddel is and at this point I really just don't super care

[welcometogrouchland]

I broadly think the majority of content you find in "X critical" tags tends to be a bit. Uh. Garbage in terms of legit media criticism, but I cannot overstate their importance in terms of being easily filterable for people who actually like X, and idk if it's the recent migrations from other social media platforms or (more likely) if I'm just having an off week and reading into things too much but like. Can we keep it going/bring it back??? If I have to see one more post about how ppl hate a certain thing in that certain things tag (where fans congregate to find content of the thing), with no filterable critical tag. I might actually kill ppl

[atalantasfatgock]

So I read hdg

[ashterblaster]

bro i literally loathe critics of movies/shows when they don't actually have anything constructive to say besides "i hate X movie/show and here's why you should too" like no thanks, literally I'm not thanking you for not being able to genuinely review something lol

[snekdood]

that one time my brother said he wanted to fight me because I said eminem made him more aggressive towards women

unrelated detail: my brother does not recognize my transness as real

[autolenaphilia]

I don’t care about accusations of ”pedophilia.” I will not give a fuck, I won't investigate your claims, I will just ignore it.

For one thing the accusation of pedophilia is often entirely meaningless. This is because pedophile/pedo etc are words that carry the taint of child rape, of calling up the disgust such an act naturally produces, but are accusations that don’t require such an act or a victim of it. If you call someone a “child rapist” that has weight, but you also have to back it up with a victim this person supposedly raped for the accusation to actually be meaningful. But words like “pedophile” carries no such demands, it literally just means “someone who has an attraction to children.” It doesn’t require an actual victim. It’s an accusation about how someone feels in their head and can thus be liberally applied. Someone criticizes your asinine submarine idea to rescue some children in a cave? Call them a pedo. And even words that once had a more specific meaning, such as “grooming” can be stretched beyond all meaning to mean whatever it wants to. Someone talked to under-18 people about sex and gender in a way you don’t want to? Call them a groomer.

In a culture of pedohysteria, pedojacketing is easy. And it’s especially easy to weaponize it against queer people, the idea that queerness spreads through queers recruiting children by molesting them is one of the oldest queerphobic narrativeness out there. I’m using “queer” here because this is a narrative used both against gay and trans people. But in the present transphobic/transmisogynistic backlash it’s most often used against trans people, especially transfems, as transmasc people are more often infantilized.

But on a more deeper level “pedophilia” is the wrong framing of the real problem of child sex abuse. It’s literally a medical term, a diagnosis. It makes child sex abuse a problem of some sick individuals with a diseased attraction.

This is of course a bad and antifeminist understanding of what rape and sexual violence is. It’s an inevitable and natural expression of power. The widespread rape of women is caused by the patriarchy, of men having power over women. And the misogynist oppression of women with sexual violence naturally extends to young girls. But all children are disempowered in our society. Adults have power over them in the patriarchal family, in the capitalist school system and other institutions of our society. Sexual violence against children flows from the power adults institutionally and systemically have over them. The vast majority of sexual violence towards children comes from the family and schools, not the “stranger danger” of creepy weirdoes hiding in bushes.

This is the reality that the framing of sexual violence as the result of sick individuals with a diseased attraction obscures. And it inevitably calls for a reactionary carceral and psychiatric response, justifying the police, prisons and psychiatric institutions. That’s why “what will we then do with the pedophiles?” is such a popular clichéd response to prison and police abolitionism. This very framing of the problem calls for a carceral response. If the problem of child sex abuse is sick individuals instead of the system, if we constantly root out and punish individuals we will eventually solve the problem.

In reality carceral responses actually make the problem of sexual violence much worse. The police, prisons and involuntary psychiatric hospitals are violent expressions of power and thus create the conditions for rape.

Pedohysteria is constantly used to justify the expansion of state power. Here in European Union we have had a legislative push to ban end-to-end encryption and make all online communication accessible to law enforcement, total online surveillance. And the reasoning is because otherwise pedophiles can use e2e communication to secretly send child porn to each other without the police being able to do anything, which is of course true, that does and will happen, but doesn’t justify killing all online privacy. This “chat control” act is literally called “regulation to prevent and combat child sexual abuse.”

The pedohysteria also justifies vigilantism, which tumblr callout culture is part of and is also a deeply reactionary and even fascist phenomenon. Vigilantism rests on the idea that what the police do is right, but they are not doing it well enough, because they are too reigned in by liberal ideas such as laws and regulations and the courts. So random people should take on the role of police to punish “criminals”, like pedophiles. And this goes through tumblr callout culture. A subtext running through pedojacketing callouts of transfems is the idea that transmisogyny does not exist and does not lead to transfems being disproportionately punished, but instead transfems are using their minority status to get away with sex crimes.

This standard conservative rhetoric about how liberals often literally let minorities get away with murder justifies their reactionary vigilantism. Of course in reality, transfems are far less likely to commit sexual abuse of children than other groups of people, because we are systematically excluded from the very institutions where such abuse happens, such as parenthood/the family or schools, because of the transmisogynist stereotype that we are all perverted child rapists. And the callouts of transfems as sex predators are in themselves abusive and protect actual abusers, just like how police and prisons are.

So no, I will continue to not give a fuck if you call someone a pedophile.

[cabeswaterdrowned]

I don’t understand so many lines of thought certain people had going into this show but one of ones I understand least is people who thought they were going to watch the whole affair storyline unfold not only with no physical intimacy, but also no emphasis on them being attracted to each other, and also no one actively flirting with anyone else like????