#and mostly that's because of a characterization failure it's not large but it is there
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
Desi Parenthood, Adoption, and Stereotypes
I have a story set in the modern day with supernatural traces, with three characters: a young boy, his bio dad, and his adoptive dad. The boy and his bio dad are Indian, the adoptive dad is Chinese. The bio dad is one of the few people in the story with powers. He put his son up for adoption when he was a child because at the time he was a young single father, had little control of the strength of his powers: he feared accidentally hurting his child. The son is adopted by the other dad, who holds spite to the bio dad for giving up his son since he lost his father as a young age and couldn't get why someone would willingly abandon their child. This also results in him being overprotective and strict over his son. When the child is older, the bio dad comes to their town and the son gets closer to him, which makes the adoptive dad pissed, mostly acting hostile to the other guy, paranoid that he'll decide to take away the child he didn't help raise. Later when they get closer he does change his biases. I can see the possible stereotypes here: the absent father being the darkskinned character, the light-skinned adoptive dad being richer than the bio dad, the lightskinned character being hostile and looking down on the darkskinned character, the overprotective asian parent, the adoptive dad assuming the bio dad abandoned the son. The reason for his bias isn't inherently racist, but I get how it can be seen that way. Is there a way to make this work? Would it be better to scrap it?
Two problem areas stand out with this ask:
You seem confused with respect to how racial stereotypes are created, and what effect they have on society.
Your characterization of the Indian father suggests a lack of familiarity with many desi cultures as they pertain to family and child-rearing.
Racial Stereotypes are Specific
Your concern seems to stem from believing the absent father trope is applied to all dark-skinned individuals, when it’s really only applied to a subset of dark-skinned people for specific historical/ social/ political reasons. The reality is stereotypes are often targeted.
The ���absent father” stereotype is often applied to Black fathers, particularly in countries where chattel slavery or colonialism meant that many Black fathers were separated from their children, often by force. The "absent black father" trope today serves to enforce anti-black notions of Black men as anti-social, neglectful of their responsibilities, not nurturing, etc. Please see the WWC tag #absent black father for further reading.
Now, it’s true many desis have dark skin. There are also Black desis. I would go as far as to say despite anti-black bias and colorism in many desi cultures, if one was asked to tell many non-Black desis from places like S. India and Sri Lanka apart from Black people from places like E. Africa, the rate of failure would be quite high. However, negative stereotypes for desi fathers are not the same as negative stereotypes for non-desi Black fathers, because racially, most Black people and desis are often not perceived as being part of the same racial group by other racial groups, particularly white majorities in Western countries. Negative stereotypes for desi fathers are often things like: uncaring, socially regressive/ conservative, sexist. They are more focused around narratives that portray these men as at odds with Western culture and Western norms of parenting.
Desi Parents are Not this Way
Secondly, the setup makes little sense given how actual desi families tend to operate when one or both parents are unable to be present for whatever reason. Children are often sent to be raised by grandparents, available relatives or boarding schools (Family resources permitting). Having children be raised by an outsider is a move of last resort. You make no mention of why your protagonist’s father didn’t choose such an option. The trope of many desi family networks being incredibly large is not unfounded. Why was extended family not an option?
These two points trouble me because you have told us you are writing a story involving relationship dynamics between characters of both different races and ethnicities. I’m worried you don’t know enough about the groups you are writing about, how they are perceived by each other and society at large in order to tell the story you want to tell.
As with many instances of writing with color, your problem is not an issue of scrap versus don’t scrap. It’s being cognizant of the current limits of your knowledge. How you address this knowledge deficit and its effect on your interpretation of your characters and the story overall will determine if readers from the portrayed groups find the story compelling.
- Marika.
I have one response: what? Where are the father’s parents? Any siblings? Is he cut off? Is he American? A Desi that has stayed in India?
Estrangement is not completely out of the question if the father is Westernized; goodness knows that I have personal experience with seeing estrangement. But you haven’t established any of that. What will you add?
-Jaya
#Black#Indian#South Asian#Desi#absent black father#stereotypes#tropes#adoption#colorism#research research research#parenting#strict Asian parents#Asian families
748 notes
·
View notes
Text
on sua and speaking, ivan and class, and ivansua similarities
furthering my analysis on ivansua in a continuation of this post, where i talk about ivan's answers in their interview with andromeda media regarding their status as outstanding students
sua speaks comparatively little. ivan's long (thorough maybe...) responses are largely informed by his struggle to assimilate from the slums into unsha's life for him. he uses his interview as an opportunity to position himself as an archetypal success story. if you work hard, show deference, and practice correct behavior, you will be rewarded. by contrast, sua's responses are not tailored this way.
sua is trained to speak minimally. she is the youngest of seven (?) human pets, and nigeh's favorite daughter. she maintains this status by making herself into a perfect, empty doll—no desires, no dreams, no purpose outside of service to her mother. in her relationship with nigeh, she speaks only when she's made to (which means her self-advocacy skills are abysmal, something reflected in her relationship with her sisters, who bully her and push her around). speaking only when "necessary" is a behavior she internalizes as essential to survival, and something she replicates across her personal and professional relationships.
this particular answer highlights the difference(s) between ivansua's perspectives
ivan breaks down his studying methodology step-by-step. he clearly provides an ideal answer for the interviewer. it's almost comically perfect, the exact type of thing someone would want to hear from an outstanding student. ivan plays this role well. his analytical skills empower him to adapt to any circumstance and legitimize himself in an academic context.
however, sua answers with icy precision. the formula for success isn't complicated for her, it's a matter of observation and obedience. like her life with nigeh and her sisters, nothing was about sua's desires, or her personal aspirations, or her own goals. they were about following instructions, "memorizing" what was to be done and completing it without complaint or complication. vivinos has highlighted sua's "weak" mental state and inner darkness while qmeng has emphasized her aggression. it's important to square the two by acknowledging how sua has been subjugated by her family (as well as how it impacts her attitude and actions) AND the ways in which her agentive behaviors change her life, and mizi's.
ivansua are very similar. their survival depends on negotiating their power through participation in a system designed against their mental, physical, and emotional wellbeing. they are in stark contrast to mizi and till, who are more obviously deviant and openly rebel in some form or another, and who are not capable of or willing to perform this manipulation (which is why ivansua are drawn to them)
i wanted to highlight this part because they're discussing their respective fixations:
firstly, it's no surprise that the class ivan is the most confident in is music appreciation. the more he understands something, the more useful it becomes to him, and the more secure he feels.
more importantly, mizi's "deviance" (or academic struggles) requires that sua support her. this fosters their closeness. mizi's failures create a need for sua, which sua is eager to fill. by answering this way, she characterizes herself as kind and helpful. but she also hints at her and mizi's dependence on each other. it also highlights sua's "emptiness"—she does not have a favorite class, or one she's most confident in because she's developed a unique interest in a particular subject, or one that she herself had struggled with. her best class is the one that mizi needs help with. sua prioritizes mizi above all.
the order of these questions are also interesting to me. ivan doesn't anticipate that sua will be this open. as soon as she alludes to mizi, he takes it as license to mention till. prior to this answer, he talks mostly about his own affairs and is congenial. but here, he breaks the facade and says something surprisingly rude. there's a note of fascination in his tone. till's deviance—his rebellion, his ferocity, his disruptive habits, his indomintable spirit—separate him completely from ivan. he can't understand till, which stokes his all-consuming obsession with him. when sua says "yes, i think so," all i can imagine is her side-eyeing him like "get a grip."
55 notes
·
View notes
Text
This is full-throated historical revisionism. Why does Brian Fuller working so hard to say that Pettit was so great and wonderful? "Dgroups" were still the same-old, same-old prayer group. And Bob 3 is right, Brian. There was "too much camp." Did you even pay attention during these years? Remember this?

I will correct other things in red.
As the University prepared to welcome students for the 2021 fall semester, and with the crippling pandemic mostly in the rearview mirror, in many ways, BJU was experiencing the best of times.
In just a week of years, so little had changed, while at the same time, so much was different.
When Dr. Steve Pettit first became president, he was asked, “What are you going to change?”. To which he answered, “I did not come to change BJU but to keep us on our mission. If we make changes, it will be because it’s necessary to fulfill our mission.”
A glance back to 2013-14 reveals numerous firsts were happening at BJU, and as a result, an equal number of possibilities for failure.
In 2013, due to accreditation, the BJU Board of Trustees transitioned from being a largely ceremonial board of over 30 members to a smaller, governmental board of half that size. Larry Jackson became the first non-Jones chairman of the newly consequential board. In 2014, Dr. Steve Pettit became the fifth president of BJU and, like Chairman Jackson, the first not named “Jones.”
Larry Jackson was a godsend to BJU during this fragile time of transition. Dr. Pettit was familiar with how the previous BJU board had operated, having served on it for eight years before becoming President of BJU. They made a great duo. Dr. Pettit and Larry Jackson worked well together. The two talked weekly and found themselves on the same page on nearly every issue. For instance, the approach Dr. Pettit took regarding churches and religious associations was right of center. Both Chairman Jackson and President Pettit were unified in their thinking on associations.
An Atmosphere Change
In 2014, Dr. Pettit brought to BJU a tested and true philosophy of discipleship that had characterized his ministry for over 42 years. His approach to discipleship went back to his time as a student at BJU, as well as his first five years of ministry (1980-85) as an assistant pastor at First Baptist Church of Bridgeport, MI, and then for 29 years leading the Steve Pettit Evangelistic Campaign. (1985-2014) Dr. Pettit poured his life into 57 former team members, 42 of whom were BJU grads. (When he came to BJU, four former team members were at BJU.) He also put his understanding of discipleship to practice at Northland Camp, where he served for 29 years, nine of those as the camp director. He was the founder and president for three years of Cross Impact Ministries, a ministry that partners with churches to establish campus ministries. The primary focus of Cross Impact is on how to disciple college students. When Pettit came to BJU, there were thriving Cross Impact ministry chapters all over the country.
Dr. Pettit employed the existing structures within the University and infused them with these discipleship principles. The daily chapels were intentionally focused on discipleship and doctrinal themes during the semester. “Dgroups”(“discipleship groups”) led by juniors and seniors were launched and met three times a week, providing peer-on-peer discipleship. All students, faculty, and staff were required to commit to faithfully attend a local gospel-preaching church in the greater Greenville area. In addition, a Biblical Worldview began to be intentionally taught in all of the classes and modeled through the lives of mentoring faculty.
What did this approach to discipleship at BJU look like beginning in 2014 in everyday student life? Most BJU alumni only experienced the military-academy version of BJU student life. Interestingly, most Millennials (1981-1996) were almost all graduated by 2014, and the student body was transitioning into primarily Gen Zers. As a university, BJU was positioned to reach Millennials, but they needed to adjust to reach Gen Zers. Dr. Pettit had always approached ministry from the point of view that he needed to understand the generation to whom he was ministering. Under Dr. Pettit’s leadership, student life began to seek to move the student body into spiritual maturity less from control and additional rules and more by influence through relationships.
This philosophy began to change the discipline approach in the Student Life System. Clarity was given between rules that were intended for character development from those that were focused on moral and spiritual growth. The system of discipline began to separate the two, as well as the correction. BJU started a demerit/fine system for character issues (room jobs, dress, being on time, etc.). Anything in the realm of the moral and spiritual was handled differently. It began to change the BJU culture. A nurturing atmosphere of grace that was conducive to healthy spiritual growth emerged. The atmosphere was neither oppressive nor permissive, but rather a gospel-grace greenhouse was being constructed.
At the time, an 18-year-employed BJU staff member said, “This is the happiest I have seen our student body since I started working here 18 years ago.”
There was an unusual increase in spontaneous prayer meetings and Bible studies among the student body.
It was a different vibe at BJU. The Chancellor, Dr. Bob Jones III, observed, “Put yourself in Pettit’s shoes: 30 years helping young people and running camps. There’s a little too much camp at BJU to my liking.”
Analytic Changes
Stopped the Enrollment Decline: Before Dr. Pettit came in 2014, there was a 1100 enrollment drop between 2008 and 2014, from 3800 [3650] to 2700 [2913]. The enrollment bleeding was halted, and enrollment leveled off at around 2500 [Average was 2626], averaging 720 freshmen each year between 2014 and 2022 [Heck no. 587]. In 2019, there were 785 [648] freshmen in the class, marking the largest freshmen class during the Pettit administration [true]. The smallest freshmen class during Dr. Pettit’s administration was 680 freshmen during COVID [No. It was 518 in 2022-23].
Where are you getting these numbers? Here are the actual numbers:
Response to the GRACE Report: Seven months into the Pettit administration, the GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) report on BJU was released to the public on December 11, 2014. The 300-page report was the culmination of an independent investigation that included over 900 surveys, 20 written statements, hundreds of documents provided by individuals, 50 of whom identified as victims of sexual abuse. The conclusion of the GRACE report was to provide 26 recommendations that “will assist BJU in continuing the journey of repentance that demonstrates Godward sorrow, invites God to transform the institution, and brings healing to the hurting.” The BJU administration reviewed the GRACE report for 90 days and adopted 20 of the 26 recommendations. As a result of the report, the University established the Center for Student Care and overhauled its Counseling program.
This statement is tone-deaf and grossly uninformed. I'm going to have to tackle this slowly.
Opened relationship and communication with BJU alumni: By 2014, BJU alumni had en masse become disengaged. Many felt disapproval, unwelcome, and frankly, forgotten. News of a culture change at BJU of gospel-centered discipleship spread quickly. In addition, many graduates had enjoyed and been stirred [Stirred? Really?] by the ministry of Evangelist Steve Pettit through evangelistic campaigns, camp ministry, and musical teams, so many knew what to expect, and they were beginning to re-engage with their alma mater.
He removed the dreaded “coding system.” Dr. Pettit hadn’t been on the job for very long when he noticed a common denominator in the far right corner of correspondence written to the President. President Pettit was the first of five BJU Presidents to prefer email communication over letters dictated to an administrative assistant. He noticed that there were letters at the top of many of the correspondence he was going to be answering. Letters like U. He asked one of the secretaries what the meaning of the letters were, and he learned that there was a coding system for all the alumni that dated back to the 1950s. For instance, the “U” meant “unfriendly.” Graduates were coded, primarily based upon their ecclesiastical position towards New Evangelicals and “all things Billy Graham.” President Steve Pettit swiftly ended it.
I hope this is true. I have records of the coding here. I have a "U" by the way.
Led BJU to regain its tax-exempt status: Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status on January 19, 1976, because of its ban on interracial dating and marriage. This decision was a result of the IRS’s stance that institutions that practice racial discrimination did not qualify for tax-exempt status. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the IRS’s decision in 1983. Following that decision, all the finances at BJU went into one “accounting bucket” (University, Press, Academy, etc.) as they were all for profit. This 40+ year loss of tax exemption had crippled the development department. In 2017, the University bifurcated by using Bob Jones Elementary School’s tax exemption into the Bob Jones University Education Group (BJU EG) as the for-profit side of BJU, and BJU Non-Profit (or BJU Inc.) as the tax-exempt portion of BJU.
Provided the leadership and follow-through for regional accreditation: On June 15, 2017, the Board of Trustees of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) granted BJU membership as an accredited institution. This was a process initiated under Dr. Stephen Jones in 2011.
Dr. Pettit oversaw the launch of new Academic Programs: Under the Pettit administration, the School of Health Professions was founded, and the School of Continuing, Online and Professional Education. (SCOPE) In addition, the Pettit administration emphasized the integration of a Biblical worldview into all academic disciplines and student life, seeking to align with BJU’s mission.
New centers to benefit the Student Body were started: The Student Care Center, Global Opportunities Center, and the Center for Biblical Worldview were all established to enhance the students and provide resources.
Bruins Athletics Continued to Advance: Eight new intercollegiate sports were added under Pettit, and the University gained provisional membership in NCAA Division III.
Partnerships with other Universities: Pettit led the University to collaborate with schools like Furman University and Clemson University so that BJU students could participate in ROTC programs.
The University’s race relations improved: BJU began observing Martin Luther King Jr. days at the University by canceling classes and closing the offices.
Fundraising and the Financial Health of the University Improved: Pettit’s tenure saw increased fundraising and alumni financial support, faculty and staff salary increases, and an improved overall financial position.
Uh ... don't forget the huge accounting snafu!
It was, in so many ways, the best of times at BJU. But, hardly anyone could have predicted that the worst of times were just around the corner.
#Bob Jones University#Make Brian Fuller Again#News & Views#Positives#Make Pettit Prez Again#New Contractors
3 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hi! As someone who has written a million words of Lucemond I was hoping you could share your opinions on the ship itself? I recently got into the pairing but I’ve noticed that a large majority of creators feminize or hyper-feminize Luke. Between him and Aemond, Luke is the one who writers will only assign the role of omega in abo fics or give him the ability of mpreg which isn’t seen in other characters. I’m just curious as to why fic writers or artists have gone down this road of characterization for Luke (and vice versa not applied the same to Aemond). I have no idea if this has been debated or not within the fandom either but it seems like you’ve been pretty active in writing since the ship was first established. I read the book so I do know there’s a LARGE difference between book Luke and show Luke. The tv producers wanted more sympathy for Luke’s death so they really upped the insecurity and softness of his character but people have taken that to sort of pigeonhole him into a more feminized character in fics/art. Why does softness and insecurity translate into him being the one to carry a child or undergo traumatic events under Aemond’s thumb? This is def not me critiquing creators or saying it’s bad to feminize characters! I’m just curious as to why the pairing has evolved in this way because in the book Luke is not insecure at all and definitely more confident. Why do you think solely feminizing Luke is SO prolific in created content for the ship?
Hmm, as someone who has read F&B and watched the show I can only answer for myself since other than this little corner I’ve created, I choose not to interact outside of it often since fandom drama and heated debates have never been my thing.
I think one of many reasons so many people here have really gravitated towards assigning Luke the more soft, feminine and nurturing role between them is mostly because of the show. A lot of people i’ve interacted with here on tumblr and in Ao3 comment sections either haven’t read F&B at all or just prefer the show writers drastic changes. It’s the reason why ships like Rhaenyra/Alicent became so popular since HOTD came out. Alicent is often characterized as a doe-eyed girl failure by Rhaenicent shippers instead of her plotting, evil stepmother book counterpart because thats the version of her we got to see on our tv screens, therefore it’s the version many of us like to lean towards when making fanart or writing fic and the same goes for Luke. Though book Lucerys is by no means a shy anxiety filled boy who feels such immense guilt for mutilating Aemond, that’s what we were able to see playout through the show. It’s the characterization most saw and instantly loved.
On top of that, Aemond is Luke’s murderer who taunted and tormented him each chance he was given until the very end. So I feel that in a fandom where dead dove is as popular as it is, it makes sense for Luke to be the one undergoing such heavy trauma while Aemond is the one who inflicts it. I don’t think most of my fellow Lucemond writers put Luke through truama in fics BECAUSE he’s the more soft/feminine one, but because it aligns with canon. Luke was the prey and Aemond was the predator. Lucy being the chosen omega is just an added coincidence from how I see it.
And while I don’t like to speak for others I feel that when it comes to fic people (including myself) usually have a habit in making the smaller and or more sweet partner the omega simply cause a/b/o is an established troupe with each secondary gender having set characteristics. And while I don’t think that omega automatically equates to weak or helpless (most omega Luke fics I’ve read showcase him being strong willed and a little manipulative if it means luring Aemond over to the blacks side) that’s simply what people do when it comes to omegaverse.
As for non a/b/o fics that only assign Luke the ability to have children, I can’t answer why those authors chose that route because I haven’t made anything of the sort myself. While I have written a fic where Luke is a mother it’s a/b/o while the other establishes all targs as being able to give birth/ “sire” so it’s not just Luke. My only answer would be they just want Lucemond babies and decided Luke should be the one to carry.
But those are just my thoughts.
17 notes
·
View notes
Text
I might just be being sensitive here, but I really dislike it when people make jokes about lobotomies, hysteria, and other such psychiatric practices considered outdated in the present day. I feel like people feel comfortable making these jokes because they believe psychiatric abuse to be a thing of the past, and that anyone who claims to have experienced it in the present is either lying or “crazy” (and therefore deserved it).
In many feminist circles in particular, people often talk about hysteria as something that “normal” (non-disabled) women were diagnosed with because men understand nothing about the women’s bodies. On here a few months ago I saw someone respond to a 19th century psychiatric illustration depicting a “hysterical fit” by joking that the patient was probably just having an orgasm but the doctor didn’t know what that was. To those who make jokes such as these, I want to ask: what if some of the women diagnosed with “hysterical fits” or “hysterical paralysis” were genuinely having medically unexplained seizures or paralysis? What if the woman Charcot describes having episodes where she seems to see and talk to a person who wasn’t there was genuinely hallucinating? Then would you think it was okay to lock them up in hospitals indefinitely? To administer treatments without their consent? Would you even characterize this as “getting them the help they need”? I feel like feminists who have never experienced forced psychiatry firsthand want to identify with the victims of 19th and early 20th century psychiatry without having to think about the ways the abusive practices of that era persist in many of the psychiatric practices of today: involuntary holds, forced medication, discrediting the voices of people with psychiatric diagnoses, etc. That would require aligning themselves with people they’ve been taught to fear. People who experience delusions, who have been diagnosed with personality disorders, who hallucinate. On the whole, there is a failure on the part of many feminists to recognize the diagnosis of hysteria (and modern hysteria-adjacent diagnoses like somatic symptom disorder and many more) as a place where the oppression of women and the oppression of psychiatric patients intersects, in a large part because they don’t even believe the latter exists.
I realize that at the top of this post I mentioned lobotomies and hysteria and then only talked about hysteria. That’s mostly because hysteria is a topic I’ve read much more about, but maybe sometime when I’m more educated I will make a post about lobotomies. Anyways. Please read literally anything by Judi Chamberlin.
#to be clear i do consider myself a feminist. i criticize current feminism because i want it to improve.#psychiatry & antipsychiatry#patriarchy
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
have really conflicting views on barbie because on one hand it certainly was a liberal feminist shitfest of capitalist apologism and glanced over feminist issues like race, class, queerness and disability, but there are also movies which have attempted to do their criticism more subtly and yes i mean spiderverse, of race & the police, and fail similarly but it's less jarring i think, because spiderverse was not attempting to be As political and thus fulfilled its vague criticism well enough, while the unmet promises in barbie are glaring by comparison. perhaps this is because feminism has so much resting on her soldiers-- rightfully so, but does this mean that feminist(-adjacent) media is crticized more harshly by onlookers, particularly by gender marginalized people? (as we know, of course the whites and cishet men will be upset about spiderverse and barbie respectively no matter what.) i think so. the criticism is justified but the tendency to see one film as open season for criticism and one largely, off limits (save for discussions of the workers' conditions & miguel's characterization-- a few [mostly black] leftists also discuss the copaganda in spiderverse but this is not as mainstream as the first point, it seems) is strange. particularly because mainstream liberalism has encorporated more understanding of racism & antiblackness into itself than it has of feminism (performatively, of course), which makes one believe spiderverse should garner more criticism? one could hypothesize, though, that the ambiguity of liberal feminist politics leaves a haze of discontent around the issues media fails to approach, as it's not tangible exactly what is antifeminist or (most prominently) /why/. what is the essence of barbie's failure to fulfill its promises of feminism?
of course, in general enough liberal circles, neither are criticized. but if you get a little leftier, you begin to see this phenomenon of barbie being criticized more often, or-- more broadly, should i say. i don't think the fate of feminism rests of the success of any franchise, or having better feelings about some media, but i do wonder if having grace for barbie is the best option. best option because, despite its flaws, barbie was a more feminist film than most and thus, pleasant to watch as a woman. it centered women, acknowledged misogyny, and sometimes that alone is just rare. it's also self aware of its capitalist failings, at least. i believe barbie came out around the same time as that "the idol" show, and god knows which type of media i'd like to see more often.
saw this review from a feminist i respect (will add review if i can find it lol) on barbie so i thought i might reevaluate my feelings.
0 notes
Text
thanks for the addition, and i do mostly agree! i think the erasure of cersei’s cruelty is a bit overstated here because from what I’ve seen, broader portions of the fandom (across platforms) actually tend to be harsher toward her and fixate more on cersei as an individual moral failure than as a product of a patriarchal system. that said… i definitely should have been clearer in my original post! i used ‘fandom’ as a blanket term when i was actually jumping around from the fandom at large and focusing on smaller subfandoms. in this case, it’s some of those smaller groups that tend to strip cersei of her agency by laying her faults entirely at robert’s feet. i 100% agree that cersei needs to be viewed in her entirety, and that failing to do so is regressive no matter how well meaning a person is. imo, cersei is george’s attempt to reconstruct the ‘evil queen’ trope, and while i do have some criticisms about how her arc is handled compared to her male counterparts (especially her brothers), i also think hers is one of the best reimaginings of that archetype. the idea that robert and tywin ‘made her this way’ does a disservice not just to her characterization, but to the themes being explored as it denies her agency, flattens the structural dynamics at play, and ultimately pivots away from asoiaf’s commentary on systemic injustice. it’s the classic missing the forest for the tree problem.
that said, i do think some of this overcorrection is a response to how terribly the wider fandom has treated cersei, and it’s important to push back at that. but we’re reaching a point (or i hope we are lol) where a more nuanced understanding of her character is becoming the norm. i could be wrong tho!! i don’t track cersei discourse as closely as i do for the other characters I wrote about.
getting back on track now! my main point about cersei is this: certain subgroups have no issue extending empathy to female characters who slot nicely into the ‘villain’ category. cersei’s gender non conformity, and her acts of agency are acknowledged AND *respected* BECAUSE she’s a villain. but that same respect is not given to heroes like dany, arya, or even lyanna, whose non conformity is often policed more strictly by these subgroups because they’re meant to be heroes who’s acts of agency are complicated by an oppressive and cruel world. that dissonance is what o was trying to talk about, and I should have made that clearer, so thank you for prompting me to clarify!! tbh i probably shouldn’t make posts like this when i’m tired bc i always mess up smh smh 🤦♀️
also! i really appreciated your last paragraph. you put it beautifully: many people don’t view women as people—they view us as women. our personhood is always filtered through expectations of gendered behavior. off topic, but this is why i wish more people appreciated the value of choice feminism. while it absolutely deserves critique, o still think it’s more important to celebrate acts of agency than to moralize over whether they align with a specific feminist ideal

^tbh i feel more and more enamored by this nihilist drivel the more i interact with this fandom hdidjcjfj
few things annoy me more than some of this fandoms 1. weird pro-slavers anti-dany bias and 2. stripping a woman’s experience from female characters because they don’t ’woman right’ enough
i don’t even really want to discuss point one because it disgusts me so fucking much. not only is the logic convoluted and always hinges on interpreting dany’s actions in the absolute worst light possible. it is also very, very misogynistic due to the double standards necessary to condemn dany to such a degree while none of the male characters committing the same or worse offenses get even a smidge of criticism from these same people. i’m just going to say one last thing: if you are using pro-confederacy talking points to condemn dany then you are a vile person.
as for point two, this is much more insidious in my opinion. much of it is based on the idea that these specific (normally gender nonconforming) female characters were ‘indulged’ so therefore their experiences do not meet the necessary ‘standards’ to equate to a woman’s experience. it’s insane logic meant to demean a female character and condemn her agency and the choices she made. it’s the type of logic that always veers into the ‘arya was indulged and therefore her experiences are less valid’ or ‘dany’s power and agency makes her experiences less valid because she’s not suffering this specific way’ or ‘lyanna was indulged and is therefore selfish and her experiences are less valid.’ for some reason it is always. always. these three characters getting attacked in this specific way. all three female characters faced the same exact challenges as every. single. other. female character. the same barriers, they share similar experiences with male characters to varying degrees.
arya and sansa were both ‘indulged’ by ned. i agree that ned had an easier time connecting to arya (like how cat had an easier time connecting to sansa), but both girls were indulged (like most noble girls!) and this is framed as a good thing. please don’t turn it into something bad, especially when both instances fostered character growth. after neds death arya continues to have a variety of experiences, and through arya we actually learn what a peasant girls experience looks like! no, arya does not have a boys experience. a girl hiding as a boy in a war zone is a common occurrence in the real world, and it is not just valid to explore but key to understanding george’s views on war. so far though arya we see 1. a non-conforming little girls life whose father was kind but still held gendered expectations for her. 2. a common girls experience without family or class protections going through a war zone. 3. a servant girls experience under feudalism where servants have basically no rights. 4. arya also gives us a multitude of experiences after becoming an acolyte at the hobaw. all of these experiences (including the erasure of arya’s identity and her holding onto it) are important looks into different classes and how outsiders view westeros. people not respecting arya’s very female experience makes me fear that there’s a bit of a aesthetic/male gaze epidemic going on here. arya’s suffering isn’t pretty enough or isn’t in a romantic setting so it gets dismissed. it’s dirty and violent and crass and doesn’t conform to passive suffering. there’s also a classism angle to all of it, though that would require an essay of its own to cover everything. but please remember that at the core of arya’s storyline is a simple truth: the world is hostile to girls.
dany is oftentimes hit by two different anti views: 1. a focus on her lack of agency but no focus on her rise to power 2. a dismissal of the validity of her experience as a female character because she’s risen to power. both views are incredibly self serving and are meant to chip away at character relatability. focusing on her lack of agency is tasteless (imo), and suggests that the person sees dany’s experiences with men/women as a ruler as inherently invalid because she has power that places her above the pecking order. this makes me believe that you cannot handle a female character whose path to power stands as different from the rest. it’s odd to say the least, and tells me that you think there is a right way to gain power just like people believe there is a correct way to end slavery without upsetting the poor economy. as for point two, this is similar to most anti rhetoric levied at arya and lyanna. because the experiences explored through dany and arya and lyanna are outside the norm, and because they are incredibly active characters, they also make waves and are involved in things like… violence *gasp* death *GASP* adultery (this one just relates to dany and lyanna. arya’s three apples tall so this doesn’t apply to her) *GASPGASPGASP*. people seem genuinely unable to handle complexity in women’s lives. some people seem to have a very narrow view on what counts as a woman’s experience, but if a woman steps outside those bounds she is therefore stripped of her womanhood and is fair ground for attacking. this is something i see so clearly in every anti dany post. i’m exhausted tbh.
as for lyanna… well... some people seem to believe that lyanna making active choices (knight of the laughing tree, running away, having a bastard) therefore mean she was ‘indulged,’ which is both true and not true. all noble girls are indulged more than their common girl counterparts, but lyanna was still placed under gendered expectations like all the rest of her peers. lyanna clearly just didn’t let these expectations prevent her from playing around with sticks and riding in a tourney as a mystery knight to defend the honor of howland (who would’ve been considered a nobody to most). her actions were clearly driven by her morals, morals she placed in higher esteem than gendered expectations. trying to strip a woman’s experience from her is just wrong. these people are practically telling on themselves and show that they cannot sympathize nor understand a female character who steps away from the beaten path, and does something considered ‘morally wrong’ in her world and in our own: having an illegitimate child with a married man. oh nooo… anyways. this just proves to me that many women cannot sympathize with a woman who does something they consider ‘wrong’ and that women will take it so far as to invalidate the womanhood of those they consider ‘not right.’ i think of lyanna as a litmus test tbh. i will absolutely judge you for your views on her. if you fail then i am NOT trusting your views on dany and arya.
i want to add onto this actually. catelyn is another character who’d place high on this list, though i’m actually really happy with the direction the fandom is going with her on this issue at the moment. many people struggle with cat because she… *GASP* doesn’t mother jon. cat’s a very active character, but thanks to fandom’s standards, she has the benefit of fitting into our preconceived notions of how a mother should behave—expect in how she treats jon. and then it’s a goddamn bloodbath. i’m glad most people now seem to agree that cat’s character is not only made better, but that it’s completely valid of her to not have mothered jon or theon. still, cat is often criticized for the choices she makes as a mother to protect her children. here, i see a dismissal and even a mocking of motherhood and Love as valid motivations for risky behaviors. and that does disappoint me. however, catelyn didn’t make my top 3 because she experiences confinement—she is stripped of power and agency—and this, i fear, is why she ends up meeting the criteria for what some fans view as a ‘valid’ female character. all because she lost power to her son :/. hopefully it’s obvious that i’m not dismissing this arc, because i do think it’s important to explore. but it’s still vexing to me that a woman’s loss of agency is so often treated as peak feminism (a trend i see a lot in modern feminist literature and one i honestly cringe at).
i believe i covered everything i wanted to. i’m just struggling with this fandom and the way people treat womanhood as some narrow thing with criteria one must meet. womanhood shouldn’t be something that feels so excluding. well, to me it should be embracing and kind and supportive of girls from all walks of life. being a woman makes you a woman. that’s it. that’s all the criteria you should need to meet to be embraced, and that logic should reflect back onto the female characters we all love and care about. thanks for reading :)
31 notes
·
View notes
Photo


- alice in borderland, ch. 51.8
#alice in borderland#imawa no kuni no arisu#imawa no kuni no alice#alice in borderland manga#aib#the show stayed mostly true to the dialogue and everything but it was just missing this certain facet i can't explain it#this whole debate over the basis and worth of a life#had a lot more depth in the manga#even though they kept so much the same in the show#and mostly that's because of a characterization failure it's not large but it is there#especially after reading the manga and then anticipating these face card games#anyways reread this whole game and it was sooo good remembering reading this manga for the first time how addicting it was...#chishiya is so shrewd and kuzuryuu a tad bit more cynical#thoughts: welcome#i took more screenshots i might post them when i have more thoughts to add to them
74 notes
·
View notes
Note
Referring to your fictionalized versions of Philip of Alexandros:
How do you imagine Philip feels about Alexandros? At what age did Alexandros start clashing with him? Is there jealousy? Please explain how you see Philip's feelings about his son.
Was Philip Jealous of Alexander?
The idea of Philip as jealous of Alexander is largely a fiction of modern scholarship and really, modern fiction writing, specifically Renault who, in Fire from Heaven, implies in a few places that Philip is jealous of Alexander’s closeness to his mother as part of the Oedipal Complex she has going on (and which I find anachronistic and ahistorical).
In contrast, the idea that Alexander was jealous of his father’s success goes back, at least, to ancient sources, but you’ll look in vain, in ancient sources, for the suggestion that Philip was jealous of Alexander. (Lucian might be an exception, in his “Dialogues of the Dead,” but of course, those are fictional, and in them, Philip mostly sets himself up as better than his son because that’s Lucian’s assessment: ATG wasn’t so great.)
The idea that Philip would be jealous of Alexander is entirely hindsight; Philip would have had no way of knowing, while alive, that his son would eventually eclipse him, historically. Being jealous assumes one has a reason to be so…and he didn’t have one. One might get a hint that he was considering setting him aside…but that’s mostly implied by Plutarch and if you read carefully and can detangle Plutarch’s Greek misunderstanding of Macedonian inheritance, it’s clear that wasn’t true either.
So, I wanted to establish that before going into my own views.
In my own characterization, I see Philippos as a proud but largely distant parent for most of Alexandros’s childhood. He was away a lot, and didn’t have a particularly close relationship with his own father, Amyntas, to know how to BE a father. Much of what he knew about Alexandros came from other people’s reports: nurse, tutors, and yes, Olympias too. He wanted a healthy, smart heir, and Alexandros would’ve fit that bill. And I DO see him as very much keeping up with his kids, even if they don’t know as much. See the little short story, “For the Love of Geometry” for some insight into Philip keeping up with his son.
My Philippos is disappointed Alexandros doesn’t look more like him. I think all parents hope to see something of themselves in their children, especially important in antiquity for fathers, as it helped confirm the baby was theirs. So Philippos is always looking for evidence that Alexandros is his son, as he looks A LOT like his mother, and her family. Hephaistion points out the nose, but I think of Alexandros’s inheritances from Philip being more ephemeral: his overall health and ability to heal quickly, his physical strength, his gift for strategy. But he doesn’t look like him.
Alexandros and Philippos have different temperaments. Philippos is an extrovert. Alexandros has some introverted tendencies. Philippos likes rough-and-tumble, whereas Alexandros isn’t as keen on it. Philippos likes a good drinking song, Alexandros makes music on the lyre (imagine a dad who loves his Hank Williams, Jr. with a son who wants to be a concert pianist). Philippos likes sex; Alexandros does too but is picky (again, imagine the man who likes dirty talk in bed versus the son who’s turned off by it). Yet they share hot-headedness. And Philippos is extremely smart and shrewd, so he does appreciate Alexandros’s brains. The fact he hired Aristoteles as personal tutor certainly doesn’t suggest he wants a dumb brute for a son. But all that sets up a failure of shared interests, outside of war itself. Neither of them quite “gets” the other.
Philippos’s own uncertain/insecure childhood resulted in problems for him as an adult: he had to grow up fast and spent a lot of his younger years terrified for his life; he has a very difficult time trusting (he keeps a lot of his plans to himself until they’re ready to implement); and he was frustrated a lot so grew into “anger management issues.” As king and commanding officer, he’s also used to being obeyed without backtalk. Add to this, in antiquity (really, until quite recently) physical punishment (spankings, etc.) was typical. So Philippos occasionally lets his temper get away from him and not only spanked, but slapped, hit, or beat Alexandros. By ancient standards, he’s actually not that bad—but Alexandros is quite sensitive to it. When he’s not already stressed, Philippos does understand reasoning with Alexandros is more effective.
Making it worse, Alexandros’s native intelligence and excitable nature means he’s not especially tractable. As a little boy, like most children, he does want to please his parents. I see him as “difficult” from 3-5ish, as many young boys can be, with that first rush of testosterone. He was BUSY, didn’t sit still well, and was one of those “No!” kids at 3. (The terrible twos is really the terrible threes.) But then, around 6/7 he mellowed out and up to 10/11, I see him as a very sweet, pleasant child, doing his best to make everybody happy and rising to the strict demands of his tutors. Philippos has fond memories of Alexandros at that age, although he didn’t understand why Alexandros kept to himself so much. He worried his mother was making him haughty—and he wasn’t entirely wrong. Because Alexandros was pretty much good at everything, and his mother praised him for it, towards the end of this period, he did start to get a big head…even while a lack of praise from Philippos (who doesn’t do affirmation much) made him insecure.
Around 11/12, Alexandros started getting the tween hormones kicking in, and that, combined with the slightly big head, led to minor clashes like the Boukephalas incident. Philippos looked on it with more amusement than resentment. Assuming we can take any of the details at face value, the, ‘Are you going to put your money where your mouth is?’ (e.g., will you buy the horse if you can’t tame him?) response from Philippos when Alexandros challenges him strikes me as an attempt at a “Teaching Moment.” Alexandros did manage the horse, but Philippos also let him try; he didn’t just shut him down. To me, that says a lot about him as a father. Alexandros clearly saw it as a bit of an “I-told-you-so” victory, but Philippos let it happen. If he’d been overly concerned about his own ego, Alexandros would have been scolded and punished for arrogance, not given a chance to earn himself a horse. But Alexandros wants/needs a lot more frank praise and reassurance than Philippos is willing to give him, or got himself as a boy. Back to different temperaments.
This is more or less where they are when Becoming starts. A big chunk of that book really deals with Alexandros coming into his own, away from Mom and Dad. (“Boarding school” can be hell for some kids but works well for others. I think it mostly worked well for Alexandros.)
It’s in Rise where Alexandros really begins to “act out.” From Philippos’s point of view, taking the army north—alone—against the Getai was a stupid move that could have got him killed. Naming a hill fort after himself is just the cherry on top. But Philippos’s response shows he doesn’t know how to properly discipline Alexandros; it just humiliates him and makes him worse.
Alexandros wants to be trusted more, but Philippos, who learned distrust young, is reluctant to do that, so he can’t share confidences easily. About the only person who knows most of what Philippos is thinking, is Parmenion—and he earned it slowly.
Alexandros and Philippos’s worse clashes occur when Alexandros is 15-19/20…which is exactly when teen boys are so difficult. I had my own; I know. You just hope, some days, they don’t get themselves killed so they can grow out of it. My Philippos had that thought a lot. Alexandros was clever, talented, full of himself, and striving to become his own person against the backdrop of a stupid-successful father…so he was a little shithead sometimes. Philippos was just trying to stay alive at that age. It makes him impatient when Alexandros acts the way a teenaged boy would normally act.
The tragedy of Philippos and Alexandros is that Philippos died right around the time Alexandros finally starts to get his feet under him and show greater maturity. He’s still idealistic and arrogant (as the very last line of Rise should suggest), but he’s not constantly kicking against the goads the way he was even a few years before. He’s about to get a crash course in just how brilliant his father was. 😉
(Of the random, and somewhat ironically given his name, I could see the actor Philip Alexander as a young Philippos. He was supposed to have been very good looking as a young man. The nose is too fine but otherwise, not a bad match. Yes, the actors eyes are green, but we don’t actually know what color eyes Philip had. It’s usually assumed both eyes and hair were brown, but nothing says so.)
#asks#Philip II of Macedon#Philip of Macedon#Alexander the Great#fathers and sons#Philippos and Alexandros#Dancing with the Lion#DwtL#ancient Macedonia#historical fiction#ancient Greece#Classics#tagamemnon
22 notes
·
View notes
Text
in retrospect I'm kind of fascinated by the way michael lindsay-hogg misunderstood the beatles while making this mess. like yes, he's the most punchable person on screen at any given time; whenever he opens his mouth he says something that feels custom-designed to slam into their most specific and deeply-held insecurities, and his ego ensures that he doesn't listen to them at all. but the nature of his failure is so perfectly representative of what's always wrong with public perceptions of the beatles, and it's so interesting when you remember that he is also the director of some classic uhh... mclennon fanfiction, I guess? that's not exactly right, but I don't know how else to characterize the movie "two of us," which was made in 2000 and is frankly the only beatles biopic I've ever really liked. the fact that this smarmy kid who missed the point so hard while making "let it be" managed to nail it while directing this fix-it fic later is enthralling, honestly.
because the problem that he keeps running into is a question of scale and what it is that makes the beatles good. he's very invested in this concept of having them out in an ancient amphitheater in the desert and doing these sweeping overhead shots with a giant audience. he's so married to this idea that he ignores the band repeatedly telling him that they aren't willing to do that, because they won't travel and aren't all that comfortable with a big audience in the first place. it's not even that he keeps pushing for this because they're saying no without offering an alternative; the boys suggest perfectly good concepts, but a lot of things the they ask for are small. they want to do a show in a club, or a dance hall, or the studio. they keep telling him they want close and intimate, and he keeps saying no, we need Huge and Sweeping and Universal!
related to this, probably the moment that most makes me want to yell "fuck you" at the screen is when linda offers an opinion and says, "I'm speaking as a fan!" and MLH snottily replies that he is also a fan, and a bigger fan than she is. it's mostly an annoying comment because of how breathtakingly patronizing and self-important it is. but the underlying insinuation is that he Gets It in a way she does not - his feelings are the justified worship of the larger-than-life music gods, while hers are supposedly just piddly little personal affection for quirky, imperfect human beings who happen to be making something notable.
the adolescent hubris and misogyny of these two issues aside, you can see that his problem is that he thinks they're good because they're big, rather than big because they're good. he's bought into the marketing contrivance of the past few years that the beatles represent some kind of platonic ideal of universal love that's the same for everyone and everything, and that any portrayal of them should therefore be massive and all-encompassing. but he's mistaking the packaging for what's inside it, which is four oddballs who have spent the last decade fueled in large part by their deeply personal attachment to one another and wonky charisma that makes audiences want to connect with them. they're not prophets or wizards; they're a close-knit club band who have a taste for novelty and have been set loose on the fancy recording equipment. MLH is blinded by the glamour that's been painted over them, though, so he doesn't see that the strange, sometimes ugly little love that keeps them chugging along is more important to who they are than the perfect and global significance he imagines them having.
which is what makes me marvel at "two of us," because it operates on the absolute reverse of that mistake. so much of what makes it work is that it happens on a teeny tiny scale. most of the movie has fictional john and fictional paul as the only characters on screen, and nearly all the action is them talking to each other. if there are other speaking characters present, there's a sense of discomfort or comedic awkwardness - john and paul are initially tense in each other's presence, but at the same time are the only people either of them are comfortable with. they seem protected in their solitude, which is a hell of a contrast to how exposed and cornered the real beatles seem in the twickenham footage from let it be/get back. the whole story is a bittersweet bit of wish fulfillment about two people mending a complicated friendship, because the magic was never that they were larger than life, it was that they were human-sized all along, and that was more special than idealized caricatures of rock stars could have ever been. it took him 30 years, but this guy did eventually figure out what he did wrong and try again. I don't know, I think it's neat.
(I do think linda should have gotten a free swing at him, though.)
#I have a lot of thoughts and feelings#michael lindsay hogg#the beatles#john#paul#mclennon#get back#mine
238 notes
·
View notes
Text
Talon of Horus thoughts (spoilers)
Why did I read this: r/grimdark recommended the book with “Love the part where they find a crashed Imperial ship ... and the slow realization they've been in Warpspace a very, very long time. When they hear that the Imperium worships the Emperor … that gets a solid ten minute laugh out of all of them.” (turns out thats the 2nd book)
What I enjoyed: the first half of the book is Khayon’s slice of life (going through the motions) while living in grimdarkhell, then he meets Abbadon and he’s suddenly ride or die for this guy.
I haven’t read anything before with Khayon or Abbadon but I thought this was a good intro, so it's been interesting to see other people's opinons who have read a lot of TSons books.
Notes:
The book opens with Khayon saying every word is true yet he immediately follows it with “I had nothing left to lose. Everything I’d treasured was dust at the mercy of history’s winds”, which is proven untrue over the course of the book. Khayon sacrifices or loses a lot in service to Abbadon and the Black Legion (what remains of his sister, his ship, his Power Axe Saern, his wolf Gyre). It has me wondering how much is this Khayon lying to himself vs the author seeing it differently.
Khayon has a lot of musing on daemons and the warp, how it works which I found an interesting contrast to the few other CSM books I've read.
Abaddon gets introduced as this dude whose been living alone with hair he's stopped taking care of, just accumulating hoards of stuff and picking up homebrew as a hobby. I don't know if depressed is the right word to characterize him for all he reminds me of myself. He was described with "a smiling voice" and I was surprised by how personable he was since I only knew him through fandom flanderization.
I wasn't expecting the twist that Nefertari had been dead this whole time, but I suppose it's yet another aspect of the past that Khayon clings onto discounting how it's been transformed. I really got the sense in the first part of the book that Khayon found himself in a limbo (just like the limbo hell he's physically trapped in) where the past torments him but he can't let go and move forwards until he meets Abbadon.
I've mostly read Alpha Legion, Night Lords, and Iron Warriors books for CSM so idk why I expected loyalty but from the beginning the Ezekarion is lying to each other. Makes me wonder what lies Khayon is being told.
“This is what it is like to live within a Nine Legions warband. To see things that cannot be possible and pursue answers that may never come. To wonder over the state of your brothers’ souls, knowing they doubt your sanity in return. Loyalty is everything, yet trust is the one thing we so rarely have. ‘Nothing,’ I replied. ‘A momentary distraction. All is well.’ That was the first time I lied to Ezekyle. He knew I lied, yet I sensed no anger or threat of reprisal. What I sensed from him was a slow pulse of approval. A test passed. An offer of trust given and accepted. I was not lying to him, after all. We were both lying to the Justaerin.”
Is Abbadon's main strategy throwing large spaceships at a planet and calling it speartip? I’m not sure if this was published before he did this at Cadia with the Blackstone fortress but he does it here as well with Khayon’s help.
Wasn’t expecting Cloned!Horus in the last 20 pages of the book. It feels like Abaddon has dad issues but in large parts from Horus’ failure at the Siege and being turned into a walking Chaos puppet. It's interesting Abaddon says this:
“I was fortunate that day. Not just because I survived a battle with a demigod that should never have been fought, but because I heard Abaddon’s last words to his father. With a slow, smooth withdrawal, he pulled the Talon clear of his father’s body, and the moment before Horus fell – the moment before the light finally went out in the primarch’s eyes – Abaddon whispered five soft words. ‘I am not your son.”
But then makes the Black Legion symbol the Eye of Horus and takes up Horus' signature weapon the Talon of Horus and leaves it unchanged. I want to read a lot of Abbadon Daddy issues meta posts
19 notes
·
View notes
Note
Love your wenclair fic! Your meta about Enid's character arc is also really good. It was great reading your thoughts, but I wish you'd go into more detail on the failed allegory of it all.
I just absolutely can not get over the sheer ridiculous failure of an idea that was "lycanthropy conversion camp". What were they thinking????? It doesn't work on any level at all. Apparently being a "late bloomer" is a common enough issue they run multiple camps for it? But if it's that common why is it so stigmatized??? The show never seems to come right out and say there are wolves who never fully shift, and Enid's claws point to her shifting eventually, so it becomes merely a matter of timing before the person "converts". That's a disgusting thing to have associated with the fucking torture of queer youth to force them to conform. And the attempt to cash in on lgbtq+ sympathy through this is just gross.
Ughhhh. I really loved Enid and Wednesday's characterization, some of the dialogue was spot on, but it really felt like whoever wrote the overarching plot had no idea what they were doing.
Thank you! I'm really happy with everything I've been doing in Risk Life, even though I still wish I was getting more done. DAMN YOU MENTAL HEALTH! *sigh* I am curious how much having three different directors for the show caused some of the issues with the arcs honestly. Tim Burton seems to push more for the idea of puberty early on, thus the term late bloomer at all and the idea of never finding a mate. A werewolf that never 'grows up' can never be a part of their society is what it feels like effectively. It also makes the claws kind of make sense because it's such a minor and small thing that it makes Enid feel like she's almost playing at being a big bad wolf when she's got her claws out. Then, when it changes directors on episode 5, that's when we start seeing more of the LGBTQ+ allegory. Unfortunately, the two just... don't mix. As much as I would love the reality to be different, this is the only story I've ever seen where coming out as gay or the like is how you are MORE accepted by your society which feels disingenuous to the experiences I mostly see from LGBTQ+ youth. A lot of people do find comfort in Enid's plotline though so if they do, I say more power to them. Also, the directors theory doesn't really explain everything since I think the writers don't change between episodes? I'm not as certain about that. Oh, and for anyone who doesn't know: Tim Burton directed the first four episodes, then the last four were split between two other directors who did two episodes each. As for the camp stuff, I'm still on the side of it just being... dumb. Especially since yeah, you're right, there's MULTIPLE camps for this? How large is the werewolf population then that you can run multiple of these? That multiple of them are possibly profitable? These are outcasts and rare divergences from 'normies', right? And yeah, as you said, it'd s SUBSET of that race that then needs to go to these camps. It's just... It's impressive how many levels of failure this is, not just on an allegorical level but a world building level. The one saving grace I'll give it is that the show doesn't take its fantasy elements seriously, for better and for worse. It's very much so there more for flavor than substance so it makes a general audience less likely to care about the actual world building. And for some stuff that's fine. For something directly correlating to real life atrocities done to the LGBTQ+... Less okay. That's why from a general writing standpoint I'll give it a sigh and a roll of my eyes but as allegory, I still growl and hiss. I also want to shout out though one theory a friend of mine had for the camps. It's that you get thrown into the wilderness with nothing to survive with so it's wolf out or die. Not literally, as the people running the camp will save you but you're meant to be put in such a do or die situation that you do transform. How does that fit into anything allegorically? It... doesn't so it still doesn't work but at least from a fantasy perspective it explains what they are. It's more of an answer than we'll likely ever get from the show at this point.
And my final note for 'they didn't seem to know their overarching plot' is going to be to Crackstone. Not even how he's a hypocrite who only has power because of his staff. No, it's how we go from a show that has fairly light fantasy elements to "SHE PUT A BLOOD CURSE ON HIM, DOOMING HIS SOUL!" Lady, I think we have skipped about at least a whole season's worth of build up to this level of fantasy, thank you very much! When the fuck was this shit on the table!? But yeah, I could rant more but this is long enough as is and getting off topic. ^^; I'm happy you're enjoying Risk Life, Not Love so much and uh, I might have some original sapphics of mine being free in a few days so keep an eye out for that!
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
I rewatched The Ritual the other night for the first time in a while and am officially Back On My Bullshit, which means lots of thoughts and opinions that I am now going to make everyone else's problem. So without further ado, here are my thoughts on The Ritual's themes, character dynamics, and how the movie (in my opinion) improved upon the book
(spoilers for both the book and the movie)
Themes
So what is The Ritual actually about? I mean, obviously it's about a freaky forest monster that kills people and grants one of those kinds of immortality where you really gotta read the fine print, but underneath all that what is it actually about?
The answer depends a bit on both whether you're talking about the book or the movie, and how detailed you're being about it. Both the book and the movie share the very broad theme of "moving on", but what the characters are "moving on" from is different in each. I'd argue that the book primarily deals with moving on from past chapters in your life- cherishing the good memories, acknowledging and accepting the failures, and moving forward without becoming stuck on either.
The movie, on the other hand, is very explicitly about trauma, pain, and grief, and the process of confronting and moving on (or NOT moving on) from those experiences. This is achieved by the introduction of Rob, a character who didn't exist in the book. His actual appearance in the movie is brief, but his death is the driving force behind the entire movie. It's sudden, violent, and senseless, and it provides a very distinct and viscerally present context for the character interactions moving forward (more on that later). Rob's death faces the characters with a complex, heartbreaking, and traumatic loss and allows the movie to explore what it means to confront and move on from something like that, as well as the consequences of NOT doing so, by making that pain and grief into a very real (and beautifully designed) monster.
And that's where the movie's second major change comes in: the portrayal of the cult. I.... admittedly didn't really care for the cult portion of the book all that much honestly. It wasn't bad and some of my favourite lines were actually from that part of the book, but it felt almost jarringly different from the first part of the book to me. I felt like the heavy metal teen cultists were very much at odds with the sense of sinister supernaturality the first part of the book had spent building.
I loved the cult in the movie though. These are people who worship the personified (monstrified?) pain and grief that stalks the forest. They were chosen to survive specifically because of their own personal pain ("why me?" "Your pain is great") and by worshipping the monster they're kept in the forest and granted an immortality that saves them from death but not decay. It's a beautiful look at the consequences of being unable/unwilling to move on from pain/loss/grief and instead being consumed by it. The cultists are defined by their pain to the point that it eventually warps them into something almost unrecognizable. By worshipping Moder they are literally unable to move on, both physically (they're stuck in the forest) and spiritually (they can't die). Whereas the cult in the book felt jarringly different in tone from the story leading up to it, the cult in the movie tied into the theme beautifully and provided Luke with a look at his future if he allows his own pain to consume him.
Which brings us to....
Characters
A stories themes are often best portrayed through it's characters, and in this case that mostly means Luke.
Luke in the book is....well, to be honest, he isn't really that sympathetic or even that likeable when we first meet him or really for a large chunk of the story, at least not in my opinion. He's a 36 year old man-child who's clearly still chasing the glory of his college days and who's life up until now has mostly been characterized by failures, flakiness, and not taking responsibility for any of it. And on top of that, he's angry. The kind of angry that's violent, easily provoked, and generally unwarranted. All of the characters are facing failures at the end of this chapter of their lives to some degree (such as Phil being separated from his wife), but Luke is very clearly the least well adjusted- and least sympathetic- of them. His character arc revolves around him learning to move on from this previous chapter in his life, accepting the good and the bad and finally being willing to move forward with determination. In the beginning of the book Luke is characterized by indifference and petulant anger that masks fear and doubt, but he ends the book with a desire to move forward and determination to survive.
The inclusion of Rob and his subsequent death COMPLETELY changes Luke's character though and, in my opinion, makes him FAR more compelling and sympathetic. We still get similar notes to where he starts out as we did in the book; whereas Rob, Dom, Hutch, and Phil have all clearly settled down and moved on from their uni days, Luke obviously hasn't. This is made clear in his suggestions for the lad's holiday, his wanting to get a bottle of liquor after they leave the bar, and his conversation with Rob when they're in the liquor store. Movie!Luke really isn't all that different from book!Luke in the first scene or two.
Rob's brutal murder profoundly changes Luke's character though. He's left dealing with the grief and loss left in the wake of Rob's death, as well as the guilt associated with not having been able to stop it. By taking a character that may not otherwise be particularly sympathetic or likeable and having the audience watch him experience a deeply horrifying and traumatic loss, the movie makes Luke into an extremely compelling character and set him for a far more emotionally engaging character arc as he struggles to cope with both his grief and his guilt.
As I mentioned above, the cult in the movie provides Luke with a glimpse of the consequences of allowing his pain and grief to consume him. Now, the cult in the book sort of does the same thing- the indifferent anger and violence of the cultists mirrors Luke's own anger covering his fear and doubt and shows what could happen if he embraced that part of him. But the cult in the movie, in my opinion, works far better in this role because they feel more thematically and tonally in line with the rest of the movie and because Luke is a more sympathetic character. His decision to accept or reject that path carries more weight because we care about him. Moreover, accepting the same path as the cultist would provide him with a community that understands his pain, something he very much did not have with his friends; we understand that accepting the cult is a bad decision, but we also understand why Luke would be tempted to do so. Simply put, we feel for him and that makes the presentation of this choice much more emotionally impactful.
Interestingly, Luke's character arc in both the book and the movie end with him developing the desire and determination to survive. It comes from two very different places though. In the book, it revolves around Luke's willingness to finally close out the previous chapter of his life- highs and lows and all- and move forward into the future despite the fear and uncertainty doing so may provoke.
In the movie, though, this decision comes within the context of Luke's survivor's guilt. He feels guilty over Rob's death because he wasn't able to intervene and this guilt is reinforced by the other characters, most notably Dom and, later, Hutch. His decision to reject Moder, to fight back and refuse to kneel, represents not only his decision to move on from his grief and trauma but also the acknowledgement that despite what happened he still has worth and his life is still worth living. It also resolves his struggle with his inability to help (which plays a large role in his guilt), something that comes into play in all of the deaths in the movie even beyond Rob's. In Hutch's death Luke tried to find him but was unable to find him until it was far too late. In Phil's death he's initially paralyzed before running away, both in fear, in much the same way he did in Rob's death. In Dom's death he was able to take the necessary steps to help Dom (dislocating his thumb to get out of the restraints) but was ultimately too late and was forced to watch Dom die anyways. By recognizing that he still has worth and that is life is worth living, Luke is able to act in spite of his fear and make the decision not to allow his grief, pain, and trauma to consume him.
No discussion of Luke as a character is completely without also discussing how he interacts with the other characters and hoooo BOY did the movie really ratchet those interactions up a notch or ten. The interactions in the book were well written but they admittedly felt a little one note at times (though this is also probably somewhat due to me viewing book!Luke as not particularly likeable or sympathetic). By including Rob's death the movie adds a layer of complexity to the character interactions that I felt really wasn't there in the book and we get to see the interpersonal effects of traumatic loss. Luke may have been the only one to witness Rob's death but they're all grieving him, and we get to see how that (and how Luke's friends' perception of his role in Rob's death) impacts and strains their relationships. As I mentioned earlier, we see very clearly that Luke doesn't have any real support or understanding from his friends; Dom does little to hide the fact that he views Luke as directly responsible for what happened and while Hutch does initially attempt to provide support, it comes off as superficial and he later admits he isn't sure whether he blames Luke. Luke is very clearly struggling with what happened but can't turn to the people he would normally rely on for support, and his interactions with his friends often alienate him and further reinforce the guilt and blame he's grappling with rather than provide any source of comfort. This, again, makes the temptation to submit to Moder and join the cult, to give into his pain and grief and loss and let it consume him, that much more compelling and his choice to reject it that much more meaningful.
Overall, the movie's decision to add in Rob and his subsequent death and to change how the cult was portrayed was, in my opinion, a truly excellent one and helped move the movie from a story I would've enjoyed but shrugged off into legitimately one of my favourite movies of all time. It allowed for a more thematically and tonally consistent story and made both Luke and his character arc more sympathetic, compelling, and emotionally impactful. When it comes to adaptations I generally tend to enjoy the book more than the movie, but this is one of the few exceptions where I truly believe the movie significantly improved upon the book
#listen I know I'm just screaming into the void on this#but I have SO MANY thoughts and feelings about this movie#I love it so mcuh#the ritual#the ritual 2017#the ritual movie
66 notes
·
View notes
Note
Is it so hard for people to understand the reason we have a gripe with Book!Mal is bc he's toxic? "he's a teen! and confused" So?? Does he have to be such a turd about it? Slut shames her, insults her, mopes around because for once in their relationship, ppl are looking up to her and not him & resents her for that. The fact is, Aleks is the villain. We expect crap from him. But Mal is supposed to be the Love interest so its odd when the villian is more concerned for alina & her health than he is
Anon, this rehabilitation of Mal's character is 100% a new thing from my fandom experience.
Back when we read the books, pretty much everyone recognized Mal's character was toxic garbage. In fact, I'd argue that Leigh's failure with his characterization (among other things) contributed to such a large part of the fandom shipping Alina with the villain out of pure spite 😂
Now new people come to the fandom and see the amount of hate book!Mal gets and want to be all contrarian about it. We held Mal to a higher standard than the Darkling because we expected better and all we got was your garden variety fuckboi that felt emasculated that his girlfriend was stronger than him and actively spent the majority of the trilogy making her feel like shit for being Grisha and hating that her life no longer revolved around him. Gee, I wonder why so many fans preferred the fucking villain when he was the only one encouraging her to embrace her powers from the start and offering her the throne.
And to add insult to injury, Mal was toxic in a very familiar way that reminded a lot of us of abusive ex-partners and garbage people in our own lives while the Darkling's villainy was mostly cartoonish by comparison. Hence the visceral hatred for book!Mal despite him never doing anything remotely evil like destroying a town for funsies or raising a shadow army.
People don't always map their personal experiences onto fictional characters the same way, so while there are very much readers who can map their own experiences with abuse with Alina's relationship with the Darkling, that doesn't mean everyone does. Nor does it mean that if a reader maps their past abuse to Mal's behavior towards Alina, that's it's some kind of "haha hypocrite11" own if they also happen to ship Darklina, especially since the vast majority of Darklina shippers know their ship isn't for everyone and would have been fine with Alina ending up with fucking nobody as long as she got to keep her powers.
#viv answers#anti mal#cw: abuse#this is about book!m*l#archie can be excused from this narrative thank you lol
44 notes
·
View notes
Note
shepard/garrus?
oh boy, sorry for the late response! I always end up posting these things and then going to read/take a nap/play a game or something. anyway writing this up took two hours, i hope it is even slightly interesting to read. cut because this is looooooong
What made you ship it?
I think I was interested in this ship before I even played ME. I was just like “I know Shepard is a character and an alien named Garrus is a character, and people draw porn of them together.” because I think it’s reasonable to say it’s one of, if not the most, popular ship in the fandom, or at least in ME’s tumblr fandom? and the way people talked about it, I knew their tropes were #banter, #battle couple, #partnerships, and... and as we’ve learned from royai, I am a bit weak to those tropes (assuming I like both of the characters). the way people talked about them also from a “best friends” angle—which is sort of forced in-game in a way that seems strange to me now—was also a plus in its favor at the time. (if they get together, I do see their friendship/companionship, in whatever form, in some ways integral to their romance—unless you’re playing full far-right renegade who’s like a xenophobe and hate-fucking Garrus, I guess?—but Bioware also kind of shoehorned Garrus into that best-friend role and that’s a topic for another day.)
What are your favorite things about the ship?
(my friend will hit me if I say “partnerships” again) I’m gonna talk about the way I play my Shepard now, because so much is dependent on the unique Shepard. for Lydia’s journey over the series, I see a large part of her journey as basically a study of her (often self-inflicted) loneliness. and she never entirely breaks her habits of self-isolation, but the events of the series force her to be vulnerable in a way she would prefer not to be in front of a crew, or, y’know, ever. Garrus becomes an integral part of that story to help her break her out of these bad habits (all of the crew does, particularly also Ashley for my Shep), but to my eyes, the story of “Shepard and Garrus’s relationship” is also one of mutual respect, burden-sharing, and sanity and morality checks.
I don’t think of their “mentor” relationship in ME1 very often mostly because I don’t think it was done particularly well, but for all its faults, I do like how naturally the jump from “subordinate” in ME1 to “ally” in ME2 felt; once you meet Garrus on Omega you feel more on the same footing as two friends greeting each other because you’ve both recently been through trauma and the sight of a friendly face in a station full of hostiles is so unexpectedly welcome that it lets them both hope things will be okay for a minute. starting from that moment, Garrus becomes one of the few people who can see “under” her mask, I guess: partly because he’s one of the few combatants from the SR-1 who knows Shepard well and sees who she is both on the field and onboard the SR-2, with the ability to compare both to the times of “before you died”; partly because he has trauma response training and recognizes it in others even if he doesn’t in himself; partly because his loyal personality makes him sensitive to wonder how she’s dealing with being resurrected; and also partly because they’ve both gone through similar things. namely, getting your squad killed and blaming yourself for it, and it possibly being your fault (BioWare is inconsistent on what Shepard’s role was on Akuze, but in ME1 she has the chance to reply that she was responsible for getting them out safely, and failed).
necessity forces Shepard to adapt to things like being effectively forced to work for terrorists; being isolated from her support system; being resurrected and feeling like a stranger in her own body; later, getting decommissioned for making an incredibly difficult call to save the galaxy; watching your homeworld burn; being forced into a political role negotiating high stakes you don’t know how to play; being told you’re the spearhead of a galactic war; doing all of this without a full crew complement; the list goes on. those are all, on their own, incredibly isolating, traumatic experiences, and my Shepard’s not emotionally sane at the best of times. (emotionally stable, perhaps, only in the most literal of terms, at least on the surface. she’s like a rock when shit hits the fan. emotionally sane, no, for that reason and more.)
the tables have turned, and Garrus ends up becoming a large part of helping her regain agency in most if not all of those things: in ME2 he was a former crew member she trusted, and he was eager to work for her and be distracted from his failures on Omega. over in the battery, he is himself recovering from a major injury (like Shepard) and going through the aftermath of a bloodbath he feels responsible for (like Shepard), working on a crew that holds him at arm’s length, that he also... arguably... didn’t have much choice in joining (like Shepard—I’m assuming he wasn’t held hostage and joined voluntarily after waking up, but lbr this is unconfirmed). their reasons are different and varied, but they don’t realize until much later that they have found each other at the most opportune time, providing a sense of stability for each other, and also, frankly, sanity and morality checks.
in ME3, he steps into this role more fully because he’s become more disciplined, is doing work firmly in his wheelhouse, and paired up against Shepard struggling with their positions somewhat reversed from ME1: him more confident and her now completely out of her element, floundering with her place on a galactic scale. without Garrus—and Chakwas, and Joker, and Tali, and later the loyalty of the entire SR-2—the story of ME would be a tragedy, and it would end shortly in ME2; it’d be the story of how my Shepard slowly went insane being forced to fight boogeymen under a terrorist banner. Garrus isn’t, like, the keeper of her sanity, but their ability to check each other, and see themselves in the eyes of each other, provides stability and occasionally a bit of a wake-up call to both of them. when they’re both vulnerable, they both feel most seen, and most understood, by an alien that listens.
one angle of this ship that highly interests me at the moment, along with the above, is that while it’s not illegal for them to be together, it’s still... a really bad fucking idea lmao. (I could make the argument that it’s a bad idea for Shepard to be in any relationship with their crew but I think there are a few ships—Garrus, Tali, any Alliance crew at all—that realistically would be huge political clusterfucks.) so overcoming personal insecurity and fear of the unknown to acknowledge interest in each other, and the desire to become an item, getting roadblocked by a reality wake-up call with the fact that 1) she’s his boss, 2) Garrus comes from a society where station matters, like, sort of a lot and it even determines your job and how much legal power you have, 3) the potential political blowback (which would be ENORMOUS because lbr the hierarchy may not care about what turians do in off-hours but they WOULD care about the superior/subordinate thing, the human thing, the fact that they’re doing this while a war is going on. basically one of their best agents is on the Normandy to negotiate their interests and they’re basically at the whims of their relationship the whole time)... it’s a lot! all of that sort of makes it tragic, but I’m curious to see how they’d overcome it.
anyway, all of that is where I’m coming from when I think or write about this ship, but there’s a lot more I’m not mentioning here. there are a lot of juxtapositions that in my head that I’ve either added or extrapolated from canon that also interest me about this pairing. Garrus is a former cop, as is his father; Lydia is a poor kid who used to be in a gang out of necessity. Garrus is a turian with often traditionalist thinking; Shepard is a human who has much less sociopolitical power than him, even if she is his superior on the Normandy. both of them are roughly as old as the First Contact War, when their people were at each other’s throats not thirty years ago. Garrus idolizes Spectrehood while Lydia hates it, feeling it was forced on her. they can’t eat the same food. and yet despite all of that, and the fact that they need translators to communicate, they manage to understand each other when a lot of the world around them doesn’t.
god this is not even the full list of it. anyway I could go on but I’ll stop there lol.
Is there an unpopular opinion you have on your ship?
oh jesus, so much. I’m a grouchy and picky shipper, be warned.
pining can always make my ships more interesting, and imo it’s a consistent part of any ship of Shepard’s, considering it’s wildly inappropriate and unprofessional for her to be fucking any subordinate, so I think more consideration could be given to shakarian in the “we shouldn’t be having a thing and oh also you’re an alien and I’m kind of scared of both your government and your body” angle! I hope to explore that a bit with a fic I’m writing (if I ever finish it, god).
I hate the flavor of fandom!shakarian where Shepard romanced Kaidan in ME1 then felt “betrayed” when he’s confused and hurt on Horizon, so she gets with Garrus as like... revenge? idk. and then Garrus usually develops this bias against Kaidan as a sort of author mouthpiece (which is inconsistent with his characterization cause Garrus is nothing but pleased to have Kaidan back on the SR-2 in ME3!) and takes up the anti-Kaidan crusade cause K ~questioned the commander~ (since when does Garrus fall over himself defending a superior from criticism?) like, idk. I think Garrus can be sensitive to the fact that that reuniting must’ve been painful for Shepard, but also be aware that it was also really painful for Kaidan because all of Kaidan’s complicated feelings about Shepard’s resurrection were, realistically, things Garrus should’ve felt too! this trope is very popular but just feels like manufactured drama for drama’s sake, idk, I’m also not big on love triangles so. I would much rather people just rescue Ashley on Virmire and avoid the whole thing rather than have previously-romanced Kaidan around in ME3 for the sole purpose of forcing him to watch Shepard/Garrus being happy together tbh.
I think full goody-goody paragon Shepard is too preachy to make a good partner for Garrus and full shoot-anyone-in-my-way renegade Shepard encourages and emboldens his worst tendencies (and Castis Vakarian is right to disapprove of them). most people end up playing some combination of both, or if they do settle in one camp or the other, usually there is some sense of realism where Shepard doesn’t play nice/naive or play mean all the time, so it’s rare I see either of those kinds of extreme Shepards depicted, but in general if there is a Shepard that is so far in one direction it seems illogical to me that they ever stay together.
I think wanting a mShep romance for Garrus is a pretty welcome idea in fandom, but adding onto that, I think Garrus should’ve been romanceable in ME3 for players who changed their minds on other romances or want to play slow-burn romances! we had it for Kaidan—and should’ve had it for Ash—so (pounds fist on desk) Garrus too imo!
I hate the canon get-together because Shepard walking into the battery and asking “do you want to fuck” feels very tailored to the players who want to romance Garrus, not to who Commander Shepard is, imo. it lacked all of the subtlety and depth of some other romances—until the scene of Garrus coming to her cabin with a wine bottle, at least, cause I do like that scene, but anyway, I dislike the actual get-together.
just in general, I’m a stick in the mud, so my favorite iteration of this ship is where Shepard is resolutely professional, and the challenge of it becomes him getting her to open up, not the other way around. like, I think on some level every iteration of Shepard is a bit of a lunatic/eccentric, because you have to be to do the things they do, but I like to see their flirting with less of her calling him “big guy” (not sure where that came from, is that in canon? I must’ve missed it, but personally I don’t like it) and more of Garrus making wisecracks in the canteen while he’s talking to Joker, but he’s looking at her out of the corner of his eyes and he really said his joke with the aim of making her laugh, and as she’s reading her datapad she hears him, and even when she wants to chuckle she stops himself and just smirks cause she doesn’t want to give him the satisfaction of a laugh, but he sees her lips twitch and feels his heart flutter. that. I want more of that.
oh lastly, I hate “Shepard takes Vakarian clan markings” in any iteration. there is no canon relation to turians being poc—in fact I’d argue they have sociopolitical privilege real-world bipoc do not—but the concept of social face markings, face tattoos, etc., is rooted in non-white cultures and with the fact that 1) turians had a literal civil war over the territories those markings represent, 2) we don’t even know if marriage is how markings are shared or if non-turians are ever invited to wear them in the first place, 3) most of the art of this trend, lbr, is of mostly white Shepards in wedding dresses and blue face paint... all that combined just makes me frown and scroll faster every time I see it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bipoc Shepard with Vakarian face markings in fic/art, and that to me is very telling (not because they should have them, but because bipoc fans who make bipoc Shepards usually recognize when a racially-coded trope is uhhhhh not so great to appropriate for someone not of that group).
32 notes
·
View notes
Text
Ducktales: Terror of the Terra-Firmians! (Lena Retrospective) (Commission by WeirdKev27): Launchpad Looses his Last Brain Cell and I Loose My Patience
Welcome back Weblena Warriors to the second part of my look at everyone’s favorite Emo Teen Shadow Lesbian Duck... and probably the only one but hey, semantics, Shadow Into Light, which was made possible by viewers like you, the ultra humanite and a commission from WeirdKev27. Picking up where we left off, we have our first episode that has a different intended order than airing order.
As most of you probably remember, but some of you who joined later might not be aware of the broadcast order for the first half of season one is, in the academic sense, pretty fucked. It’s not Darkwing Duck’s entirely fucked by a web of badger spiders and a queen snake on top to make it some sort of train situation, but by just sorta airing whatever episodes they wanted to, Disney messed with the character balance so Huey got less focus, not that he got a ton of focus this season but still, as well as leaning into the episodes focusing more on the kids with less involvement from the adults which gave the wrong impression about the series. While it IS very focused on the triplets and webby, the show isn’t entirely about them, but as Frank has mentioned a few times, Disney Channel apparently has this WEIRD thing where they assume kids won’t like stories starring the adult characters.
Yeah I’ve been wanting to talk about this for a while. Mostly how it’s so dumb I could swear Pauly Shore was an exec at Disney Channel. And he might be I don’t know what he’s doing these days and i’d like to keep it that way. For starters, the Scooge comics, while barely published in the US these days, are still popular globally and have appealed to kids and adults for generations and are mostly focused on him, with the kids in a supporting role and Ducktales, you know the thing your directly remaking here, was also mostly about him with the triplets supporting, if a bit less than the comics. Most of the Disney Afternoon was about adult characters, with any kids in side roles in the main cast. And it comes off entirely hypocritical of them to say this when the MCU is easily marvel’s biggest cash cow at the moment, and marvel properties have appealed to both kids and adults, like the duck comics, for decades. And if it’s because the marvel cartoons weren’t doing well , I’ll let you in on a little secret: Those didn’t do well because they looked bland and from what I’ve seen of them felt kind of bland, though I haven’t seen enough to fully judge. Kids LIKE adult characters as much as kid characters, and also like teen characters despite not being teens. Focusing on either is valid and while I LIKED Disney’s youth starring shows I also want another X-Men cartoon before I turn 50, and I bet kids would like that too, with the last one only failing because you bailed on it because you were throwing a hissy fit over fox having the movie rights, and do not get me started on that. Point is this argument is horse shit and should stay in the stables.
So yeah I do think this episode came too soon and it’s placement effected it at the time and as such it dosen’t have the best rep with the fandom aside from the Lena bits and that includes me. The fact it was very early in the series and the characterizations hadn’t yet sunk in really hurt this episode in places but is it really that bad? Join me under the cut to find out
We open at the movies! Which scrooge apparently hasn’t been too since the 1930′s or seen any on video despite Della existing and being really stubborn.
A rant for another episode. But the kids just got out of a Mole Monster movie, along with Lena, Beakly and Launchpad. Their reactions are as follows: Lena, Webby and Dewey really enjoyed it, Huey found it unrealistic... says the boy whose uncle fought a dragon made of gold a month or two back but we’ll get to that, and Louie was bored and felt it didn’t have enough of the ultra violence, kids these days it’s not about the gore it’s about the tension. And Beakly.. is just pissed Lena tricked them into seeing this and said it was educational. And the more I think about it the more this sounds like BEAKLYS fault than Lena’s. BEAKLY is the one who likely bought the tickets, who saw it was likely an r or pg-13 and who as we’ve seen HAS A PHONE, and ulnike scrooge probably isn’t so stingy she wouldn’t spring for a smart phone, so she could’ve just googled it, or whatever bird related pun is in this version.. gandered it.. yeah let’s go with that, gandered it, and SEEEN it wasn’t appropriate or walked htem out of the theater and ate the cost if she was that bothered by it. Sitting through a Horror Movie you didn’t research, didn’t pull the kids out of and dind’t bother to even check the poster for or use basic common sense is YOUR fault. And this could’ve worked fine, had Lena talk the kids into begging for it or had launchpad take them and have Beakly find out after, having driven to pick them up as she didn’t trust launchpad to take them home. Instead it makes the former super spy look REALLY stupid and feels really out of character for a SPY to not to do research. And it wasn’t like they decided on this later, Bentina being a spy was part of the character’s backstory from day one and its made clear as early as episode 2 in both airing orders. This is just lazy writing to justify the episode and I expect better from this crew.
But an argument errupts between Huey and Webby over the Terra-Firmians, a hidden race of rock people living in Duckburg’s discontinued sewer system, allegedlys. So Lena suggest simply going down which gets a disapproving look from Beakly, despite you know this being their bread and butter, and the fact that if she had a problem with Scrooge not being involved.. she could just call him. Exploring fabled rock people is something he’d be into. I mean there’s a low profit margin but it also costs him almost nothing to walk to the theater or have launchpad swing around and pick him up. Just gas which given how much he pays for jet fuel isn’t a big ask. But Beakly soon gets distracted by Launchpad whose convinced the film is real and is attacking the poster a grim sign of things to come as while Beakly annoyed me in this one on rewatch, especially after realizing the above... Launchpad annoyed me both times and for VERY good reason we’ll get into. This provides a distraction and allows the trio to escape. Cue titles.
After the title sequence, our heroes head deeper underground, there’s too much panic in this town... I mean props to Donald for trying something new but he really needs to rethink his cologne choices. Sex Panther is just.. not a good smell on.. anyone.
So our heroes journey through the depths of the subway system, and we find out part of why Huey’s so skeptical, as he finds anything that isn’t in the Junior Woodchuck Guidebook to not exist, though the cracks in this already show as he’s added anything that does. We’ll get back to this later but as you can tell the basic dynamic for 24 minutes is Webby being a wholehearted True Believer and Huey being a Skeptical Sally. And Lena is just sorta “Eh gives me an excuse for shenanigans” about it. We also get a peak into webby’s mind as we see her notes .. which really just come off as Terra-Firmian fanfiction involving a war of succession between two sides, the terra’s and the firmies, something based on previous media, and also some doodles of a fictional candy called webby-dings and herself as a superhero, both things I want to see.
But yeah the first third of the episode is pretty simple, just them journeying, the occasional shift in the firmament, and it’s not bad, and there are a few great bits: Huey nerds out about rocks, and finds them way more interesting than a possible rock monster.

Which leads to the best gag of the episode as when Huey tries to pick up a big sample Webby, annoyed at his hyperfixation on the JWG, asks him to ask his book for help.. which he does by reading it and actually manages to pick the large rock up. This is halted though when Lena screams.. though she really just did it to draw them to an abandoned subway car full of glomgold posters for glomgold products because of course a failed subway project has his name plastered over it. You can’t spell glomgold without failure.. the failure is silent. Glomgold is not.
The fun is interuptted though by a livid Beakly who had realized they were missing in an earlier scene, after telling the Manager that McDuck Industries would pay for the poster.. and then found out Launchpad also destroyed the toilets “They come up thorugh the sewers!”. Launchpad that’s CHUDS, Ninja Turtles and Rats who raised Ninja Turtles like their own sons, mole people dig or use old mineshafts. It’s basic mole science. Also Beakly really shouldn’t sweat it, I just assumed the city has had a runnig bill witht he company for “McDuck Family and Employee Related Accidents, Mayhem and Shenanigans”. I mean he’s had Gyro on his payroll for at least a decade and a half by the series start, Gyro has leveled whole sections of city in an afternoon more than most giant monsters. Of which several have destroyed Duckburg. It got better.
Point is she’s livid about them sneaking off with Lena pointing out their some sort of adventure family and Beakly.. saying she won’t see them again, or at least implying it hard. I’ll put a pin in this, as the train buckles and a bit of seismic, or rock men, activity means their stuck. So they divide into teams: Beakly will go try and unhook the train car from the busted cars so they can ride out, Launchpad will go try and fix it, and we get this lovely exxchange as a result
Launchpad: Cool never crashed a train before Beakly: Can’t you try driving it without crashing it? Launchpad: Wha?
His face in that scene is priceless. He takes Dewey along. More on that in a second. Webby, Huey and Louie are told to stay put with Beakly only bringing Lena along because she dosen’t trust her. So since we have three split plots for a second... let’s split up gang, starting with the most aggrivating, middling with what you all came here for and why this is part of the retrsopective, and ending with the plot that directly heads into the final part of the episode.
Launchpad and Dewey: GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Okay starting with the most infamous plot and easily the worst part of this episode, probably the worst plot in any Ducktales 2017 episode. That’s not hyperbole it’s really that bad and really pissed people off, as fans of the original launchpad felt they made him overly stupid. This is where the airing order’s a problem as putting an episode with a subplot where one of your characters is obnoxiously dumb right up front means they assume this is his charcter and not just one poorly written chapter in a very dumb but very loveable characters life, likely because the writers hadn’t figured out how to properly scale his stupidity with comptience.
So as a result we get a good 3-4 mintutes if not agonizingly more of Launchpad assuming something he saw in a fucking movie film was real. That.. that’s his actual plot. Need I remind you, he’s in his late 20′s early 30′s. He’s not much older than me. While other episodes have him as dim this one claims he CAN’T TELL FACT FROM FICTION.
There are lines you have to keep with your characters to keep the audience from hating them. They crossed it about 80 times with this plot and make Launchpad into a gibbering dunderhead who can’t do anything right versus a regular dunderhead whose good at one or two things and loveable enough for us to like him and not care about his numerous safey violations and child endagerment charges. Thankfully this is the ONLY episode that gets this bad and they clearly learned from this, but it dosen’t make it any less of a tough sit.
Dewey spends most of the subplot with a look on his face that just screams that he’s as done with this bullshit as we are, as Launchpad assumes he’s a mole person and brought along a pipe to presumibly bludgeon him, because wanting to cave his best friends skull in over stupidity is a GREAT look> Thankfuly he does not. And when the lights come back on Launchpad.. assumes he’s a monster because of bright light, GAH, and locks him out before they end up outside and the plto resolves itself by Dewey pointing out by Launchpad’s utterly baffling logic that he could be a mole monster, so Launchpad.. assumes he is.
The subplot’s later buttoned up as he claims “I love being a mole monster”, again diffrent subteranian creature launchpad, she says he’s not and my suffering is thankfully at an end. This plot just sucks, it’s bad, overly stupid and dosen’t work with an adult character. Someone like say Ed from Ed, Edd N Eddy, or someone who belivies in weird conspiracy stuff like Dale Gribble or Stan Pines. with either of them this plot would’ve been fucking great. I could buy it from Dale and it just comes off as his normal paranoid weirdness. With Launchpad it comes off like he seriously needs help because the episode frames it as if he can’t tell ficton from reality, and his splotlight episode later would directly contridct this and make this episode even more aggrivating, as he’s a fan of Darkwing Duck, and KNOWS it’s acted out by an actor, so why wouldn’t he get this? It’s just....
It sucks, it sucks and I thankfully get to move on to a better subplot
Beakly and Lena: What You Are in the Dark
Beakly tells Lena she’ll never see Webby again after this.. then chastises her when she won’t help despite you know having just said she’s going to force their friendship apart, which Lena points out. She then gets mad at Lena making a sarcastic comment at her. Okay she’s lived with Louie for at least a week in airing order and a month or two in actual order. She has to be used to this by now. She’s insolent.. because you show her no respect, blame her for something that while sure she talked you into, you should’ve known better, and top it off by saying you want to keep her from the kids because they have bright futures and come from good familes and asks who rasied her and her face.. well.
Yeah wheras Launchpad and Huey, more on that in a second, were hurt by this being some of their earliest big roles, Bentina wasn’t.. until later when we found out just HOW bad Magica is to Lena and how much she dosen’t care about her other than as a tool to use. At this point we didn’t know just how much Lena was playing webby, how much she was only manipulating her, and even with her heroic act here we didn’t know if she only saw Webby as her way to break free. The next episode makes it clear she dosen’t and genuinely does care, 100%, so in hindsight it makes Bentina come off as ghoulsih for horribly asssuming about a girl she dosen’t know, and even if she did know about Magica wouldn’t know the full story, just like us, and then BERATING her after already saying she’s going to rip her away from Webby, which itself is PRETTY bad as she’s the only friend the girl has and sh’es doing so on... talking them into a horror movie, which as I outlined was more Bentina’s fault than Lena’s, and leading the kids into a dangerous place whicha gain, Lena pointed out is something she lets Scrooge do. And trust me i know that she actually knows Scrooge, and we later find out, as we’ll cover next month, that she isn’t ware HOW dangerous things are with Scrooge. It dosen’t change the fact she knows they do dangerous stuff to a point and that Lena may just be acting out. It also dosen’t change the fact she drove three children, yes including launchpad, down here with her instead of sending them home with Launchpad.. granted that option isn’t the safest but it’s safer than taking her with them thena cting like it’s ALL lena’s fault when three of the children, again including launchpad, are down there because of HER. Not Lena, HER. I’m harder on her because she’s older, wiser and was “raised properly” apparently. Though given the way she treats a random teen off the street she again knows nothing about and dind’t bother to ask... it begs the question.
IT’s a good question. I could see the classism coming from being raised in 40′s and 50′s britain, judging by the timeline.. but even then she’s seen the world, and while her nature is supscious, the classit bullshit makes no sense after presumibly working with, and later spymastering for, various agents of various backgrounds. How has she not dropped this in decades. Scrooge very clearly dropped the racisim and homophobia of his time, so it still stands on her for not dropping this. And Lena’s hurt shows under hte mask for the first time, that beneath the snark and secrecy.. is just an abused teenager with nowhere else to go and no way out being bullied by an older woman whose cutting off the only light at the end of the tunnel nto for good reason but out of classist, overprotective mallice. My issues, which to be fair probably were intentional in the episode but sitll are a bit overblown, aside we do get an absoluttley tremendous moment later as a car falls on top of Beakly.. and Magica, speaking once more urges Lena to leave her, let her die and let their plans progress. And while that iself is.. dumb, what if someone finds her or her corpse later, especially since Scrooge would likely perosnally want to retrive the body to give her a proper burial as she’s his only friend at this point, or the rest of the family questoin the story?, it fits Magica’s lack of foresight we see throughout the season. But Lena... saves her. While she later gives an explination, and a valid one at that, it’s clear from her expressoin, her actoins and how she does it... that this is her. Part of it is defiance, as she glares at Magica before doing it, her own stubborn nature mixed with her hatred of her “aunt”, meaning Magica just made it all too easy for her to do this. But the real reason is clear: It’s the right thing to do. While pissing off her aunt and getting away with it is the cherry on top.. the real reason is that unlike Magica.. Lena is not a killer, not a monster, and not a heartless vacum ofa person. Even if she doesn’t like Beakly, for good reason.. she can’t, she WON’T leave her to die and leave Webby an orphan again. She loves Webby too much to do that to her and while she may deny it.. she’s too good a person to leave someone to die for something so petty. Even if she never sees webby again and the plans ruined. It’s better than the weight of knowing she let someone who wasn’t trying to harm her and whose actions, while terrible, were out of misguided protection of her granddaughter, die like this. She saves her. And as we’ll see it pays off.. but before that.
Huey, Webby and Louie: Into the Unknown This plot’s a bit shorter, as Webby and Huey continue their argument, with Louie eventually making it clear, and not even hiding it when directly asked by Huey, that he’s playing both sides with a delighted expression on his face as the movie was boring but this, this is interesting. Which it is. But it’s interupted by dings on the roof and while Huey assumes i’ts just a regular rock, it moves while their not lookiung.. and soon red eyed, horrifying beasts look out at them and the kids flee back to the car. This dosen’t pan out as the car starts to shake and is clearly going to collapse.. and while Webby and Louie are prepared to flee, rock monsters or no, Huey, in an utterly heart shattering image.. stays in place, terrified of moving.
This is where this plot goes from mildly aggrivating, as Huey’s Skeptic shenanigans can get on the nerves.. to BRILLIANT. See at the time this was more annoying because it was assumed the skepticsim would be a part of Huey’s character and we’d get more episodes of him being annoying only to be proven wrong, as he semeingly dosen’t learn his lesson at this point, looging the terrafrimians in the guide book. But on rewatch.. this plot is amazing. For starters the plot subtly introduced the defening characteristic of Huey’s personality, one that’s become more prounounced in Season 3: His need for Order. He needs things to make sense: He solves stuff because he likes there to be order in the world and something he can understand, he can put in a box in his head. Like a lot of neurotypical people, myself included, he struggles horribly when the clearly defined boxes of his life and things he undestand have wrinkles or complexities he can’t get. I for instnace easily got it when I was introduced to the concept of trans people or being non binary.. they just make sense in hindsight: given how our brains are messya nd complicated it makes sense some people would be born in the wrong ones, and tht with all the science and medicine we have to correct that, should be allowed to transition if they so choose. It makes equal sense that some people just don’t have a gender or are gender fluid, being both or neither. Despite struggling with non binary prounouns due to force of habit.. I get the concept with no real difficulty. But when it comes to accepting I don’t have to apologize for everything and that everyone is not angry or that anger is natural and people sometimes get mad and you can’t and shouldnt’ fix it.. it’s something I STRUGGLE with even knowing it’s not right, because my brain is just wired that way.
That’s how Huey’s struggle comes off here.. he reveals he’s willing to stay and die.. because he’s SO scared of the unknown, that the idea of dying from something he at least knows what it is versus something he dosen’t.., so paralizyed by his own brain he can’t figure out the obvious.. it takes Webby reaching out to him figuratively and literally, to show him that sometimes you have to face the unknown. The unknown is fucking terrifying.. but it can be good and it’s better than sitting there, scared and unable to move. You have to try, to grow and take that risk that things may not go well to really LIVE.
So he does.. and they reunite with the rest of the group.. and soon find the terrafirmains.. who as it turns out once we get some light on them... are actually just goofy looking, brightly colored, each one matching one of the kids, kids themselves, and Huey reaches out and touches one, which by ET logic means their friends now, and the terrafirmians help them get out. And this lesson sticks. While sure Huey catalogues it and it seems it didn’t.. he’s never this skeptical again. This douchey skepticsim was only for one episode, his fear of the uknown replcaed with boundless curosity and from here on he’s CURIOUS about new stuff as long as it’s not trying to kill him. He loves taking in new experinces, maybe not to webby levels but he does actually try them and study them instead of just fearing them.
Before we wrap things up, obviously we need to talk about the JWG not having entries on a lot of stuff. This would be corrected next season as it returns to being a big book of everything, but dosen’t completely contridct this as Timephoon! shows there’s stillcgaps.. which i’m fine with. While it knowing EVERYTHING was fine for the original series here, with things being slightly more groudned, it’d just be an obvious plothole if Huey didn’t use it every single time they ran into something and that’d get boring. Instead it’s simply that it dosen’t know everything, and really in the comics at times it didn’t and the triplets found out new things. It knew almost everything mind you, but having some gaps for dramatic tnesion is fine with me and Seasons 2 and 3 decided on that instead of just having it being a scouting manual which wa sfor the best. And even by later in the season hit has guides to getting a small buisness loan, so they already course corrected.
So everything’s wrapped up and while Magica berates Lena for disobeying her.. Beakly interputps, thankfully not seeing magica and admits she was wrong and invites Lena for pancakes, even taking a crack about if their actually pancakes or english muffins with syrup, which sounds like my own living hell, in stride, having clearly grown. And Lena explains to Magica that this was the better approach: now she’s got the in theyw anted, and is above suspcison for now. Still not so much that an obvious act won’t be detected but enough that she dosen’t ahve to work actively around her anymore. Magica scoffs.. and while part of it is probably rage.. part of it is deep down both of them know she did it out of defiance.. and only Lena knows that she did it for the right reasons... she just dosen’t get why. She probably justifies it as playing the long game.. but deep down she knows something’s changing about her.. and she’s not sure if that’s a godo thing or not.
Final Thoughts: This episode is as you can tell a mixed bag. It’s 2/3 of a good episode, with the Lena plot, my issues aside, being excellent and the Terra-Firmian plot likewise fun, even if Huey can get grating the payoff is worth it, and the jokes are really high quality. It’s just bogged down by that fucking launchpad plot that just crushed my soul in it’s palms every time it came back. I went on at length why i hated that one but boy oh boy was the hate of that subplot warranted and I stand by calling it the worst plot of the series. It is: it’s not funny, it makes no goddamn sense, and it drags down what’s otherwise a pretty solid epsiode.
Next Time on Lena: Jaws the shark, lurking in the dark, in the depths of the bin one day of a lark decides to get rowdy, get real violent takes a vacay out to Duckburg er.. Island.. also Scrooge faces his greatest Nemesis.. a PR Tour to clean up his image after an unfortunate giant Beanstalk Incident. Be there and be hip to be square.
Next Time on This Blog: I Tackle a DCOM for the first time for another commissioned review as we take a look at racisim, specifically Apartheid and breaking indoctrination, with The Color of Friendship. See you next Rainbow.
#ducktales#ducktales 2017#lena sabrewing#webby vanderquack#weblena#bentina beakly#launchpad mcquack#huey duck#louie duck#dewey duck#terror of the terra-firmians!#disney channel#disney xd#disney plus#disney#disney ducks#comissions
33 notes
·
View notes