#and other controversies

[werewolfetone]

Can I also post a meme that would have done numbers on tumblr in 1720

[aq2003]

i feel like he's choosing his words carefully bc he doesn't want it to blow up in his face but personally i think he should be legally allowed to kill the tory politicians making his criticism of them the center of their campaigns

[eri-pl]

I roughly agree, but in some places it feels like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

For sake of transparency: I wouldn't call myself pro-feanorian, but I like Feanorians and have compassion for them, and while I think B&L were the good guys, I'm not particularly invested in them. So i'm kind of centris, I think.

"Narrative favoritism" can mean various things, and one of them is a problem, I think.

Protagonist does good, antagonist does bad, narrative praises the protagonict and blames the antagonist = yes, that's how writing works.

Antagonist does bad, protagonist does similarly bad, narrative praises the protagonist and blames the antagonist = that's bad writing in my opinion.

I'm not going to make a claim on which one is B&L (I'd need a reread for this), but at least some of the posts accusuing Tolkien of favoritism clearly claim the second option.

2. Character assasination.

Yes, but... Celegorm in the story of Luthien is a peculiar case. Earlier drafts of this story had him as a positive character, in the role later taken by Finrod. And when people talk about "character assasination" here, I don't think they mean "the character is not behaving like I imagine him", but "the character was drastically changed from an earlier version and I find this change bad".

So, it's more like people prefer a different sroty, also written by tolkien, where their blorbo isn't a would-be rapist.

TBH I also find the rape attempt a bit jarring. Like, trying to kill Beren? Sure. But randomly trying a thing that no elf ever does (not even Eol in this version) seems odd. I feel like this story could be polished more, if Tolkien had more time, and fit together more smoothly.

Whether it would mean removing the attempt or making Celegor creepy around women in more places of the narrative... Both could work.

3. you really don't need a bias to be against Melkor. :D

Well ok, to be honest, I think there's exactly one sentence about him which I write under "unreliable narrator, Pengolodh&Rumil are dumb": the part about Eru loving Manwë more since the start. That's just... ugh. I'm sorry, professor, but if you're making a stand-in for God and then saying he was a bad parent, I am going to call it "unreliable narrator".

I can see how this sentence could make sense. Love can be read both as "how much you care" and "how much the other person lets you to love them" (for lach of better wording) and yea, Melkor is obviously failing at it. So it's not as I can't spin this sentence into something that makes sense. But the most intuitive reading of it is something along the lnes "If you're going to be evil, you aren't lovable" and that's bs.

But yes, I've seen a lot of pro-Melkor or at least partially pro-Melkor readings that ... let's just say I disagree with them intensely.

PS: If Tolkien didn't want people to interpret and do transformative works, he wouldn't add narrative frames and talk about creating a mythology and all that. I feel he may have preferred people to do many takes, including very wrong takes, to writing one clear authorial version and imposing it on everyone.

Sub-creation and all. Even if we sometimes get Dwarves from it, or even dragons. But yes, dragons are bad and Feanorian murdering (and trying to rape) people were wrong.

people whining about how beren and luthien have favoritism from the narrative will never not be funny to me like yes. this is a fictional plot created by someone, the author. that author will have a story they want to tell and a message they want to convey. to tell that story, to convey that message, that author will have created protagonists whom the plot centers on, and whom other characters are meant to parallel, foil, complement, and contrast. the purpose of the story and of the other characters is to illustrate and serve the protagonists' journey, so of course the protagonists will have narrative favoritism. that narrative quite literally exists for their sake and for their development. if you don't like the fact that the protagonists are the ones with whom the narrative sides then just don't engage with the fucking story

[fuckmeyer]

the choice between Edward & Jacob is not a question of which relationship is healthier or which partner is best suitable for Bella. neither is correct. neither is best. neither produces a happy ending for Bella. at the end of the day this is still a vampire novel. any choice Bella could make would yield, at best, a bittersweet happily ever after.

if she chooses Edward, she gets the terrifying Breaking Dawn ending: a girl who rejected her call to grow up has hung her love & her eternity on an emotionally stunted partner who hates himself marginally less than he loves her. she's a teen mom with a kid she never wanted who perpetuates the generational trauma passed down from her parents. by keeping this child, the Cullens have set the stage for an uprising/cold war against the Volturi who are likely to take revenge in order to maintain power. Bella is living in a tenuous "dream come true" wrapped in a nightmare & doesn't realize it.

choosing Jacob is the true coming-of-age ending that rips the stitches out of a wound that never fully healed. even if we ignore the fact that she ends up with a man who sexually assaulted her (we must bear in mind Jacob's character is influenced by smeyer's racism, but it did happen), they can't have a secure romantic relationship. based on the high imprinting rate of the pack, Jacob will likely find his imprint in his lifetime & will lose himself to the imprintee. he will no longer be her Jacob. he will inevitably abandon her (whether he wants to or not), & she must reconcile with the reality that she will always be inadequate to Jacob's imprint. & say he never manages to escape the vampires? he will presumably not age for a long time, meaning the relationship Bella always feared with Edward (her being an old grandmother while he stays forever young) remains a possibility. this is the story of a girl who slaps a Band Aid on an open wound & calls herself healed while flinching every time she sees the shadow of the knife that cut her.

if she chooses neither (team therapy), her healing requires her to lose or be at least partially disconnected from everyone she cares about. Bella must spend the rest of her life shut out from one world while never fully existing in her human world ever again. she must always keep secrets. she can never go back home. even in the unlikely event that she manages to escape the Volturi, the threat of being hunted by vampires will never leave her. in addition, she must face her worst fears (aging, losing Edward) while always keeping in mind the immortal life that could have been hers, if only.

even the "healthiest" option produces scars that will never quite heal.

Twilight is a horror. Twilight is a vampire novel. Twilight is gothic. Twilight is fiction. neither Edward nor Jacob is a "bad" choice because neither will give Bella her happily ever after. the choice between Edward & Jacob is simply a matter of which horror story you prefer to read.

[buckleydiazmp4]

no but the thing is. they KISSED. on screen. it was a real scene, not deleted, not removed from a script, it HAPPENED in front of the world's eyes. and AND the actors are normal about it and the whole cast and crew is normal about it and it's not vague and it's IMPORTANT. no matter the rest of it and what came after it, it happened!!

[scurvyboy]

the third installment

[dukeofthomas]

Here's my controversial opinion; if you're trying to write Bruce as a non-abusive, good parent, you should also write him respecting his kids' privacy, boundaries, and not stalking&surveying them.

[lilislegacy]

many people think percy and annabeth wouldn’t get married. that’s fine! but i disagree. in fact i think the exact opposite!

you know how when some people get married, they say things like “it’s been a bit rough” or “it’s definitely an adjustment.” understandably so, because it’s a big change for some people. in fact, a very large portion of divorces happen within the first 1-2 years marriage. makes sense. marriage is a big deal.

but i feel like annabeth and percy are those people that just LOVE marriage. the concept, the realities, even just the word “married”. and i don’t mean in the way that they’re so disgustingly lovey dovey and saying it’s so “rewarding” and “beautiful.” well i mean… they are very in love, but i just mean that they are two best friends who are now legally binded to each other. they are literally living their dream. so i feel like for them, it would be more “dude marriage is SO fun! we stay up late, and watch movies, and eat food, and do ✨whatever we want✨ and then we sleep till 11 and wake up and do ✨whatever we want.✨ and we’re together all the time and no one questions it. marriage is the best.” even though in my head, they are in their early 20s and have been grown adults living together for years. but they just think marriage in itself is so fun. paying for things? with their SHARED card. retirement benefits of their jobs? SHARED. taxes? SHARED. and imagine if annabeth decides she wants to share the name of percy and sally, her two favorite people on earth, and changes her last name to jackson? those two… with the same last name? they are riding SUCH a high. the two of them, especially annabeth, would take EVERY opportunity to say “the jacksons”

like imagine them just being the biggest marriage enthusiasts and going around telling all their couple friends to get married lol. they are so cute

and to anyone who’s about to say something about hera:

no chance, ZERO CHANCE, that percy jackson and annabeth chase are letting a goddess, and hera of all people, dictate their lives in ANY way. even if it’s to “boycott her”. no. she doesn’t even get to be somewhat related to their marriage in their minds. if they want to get married, they’ll get married dammit! screw hera

[tradetobest]

spin the wheel to get one of the hockey players i could name off of the top of my head

would you fuck marry kill this player

[russell-crowe]

robin williams as john keating in dead poets society (1989)

[notmoreflippingelves]

Actually going insane over the implications of Jason asking Dick to be the Robin to his Batman in Battle for the Cowl.

Like I initially took it at the purely surface-level of Jason wanting a partner in the general sense. Which made sense, it's a huge responsibility and a lonely one so an assistant/sidekick/partner seems a no-brainer if you can get one.

But then I really thought about it, because Jason is not asking Dick to be his partner in the general sense; he's not even asking Dick to be his Nightwing. He's asking Dick to be his Robin.

And they both know exactly what Jason means: "Be the light to my darkness. Be the smile to my scowl. Be the hope to my fear. "

He's saying "Be 'Robin'; be the embodiment of Love and Justice and Goodness. Be the exceptional person that you have always been. Be the slightly-less exceptional person that I was when I wore your colors. Be the person that I was in the process of becoming and might have been (or might still be), if only Joker hadn't clipped my wings."

He's saying "I am prepared to become vengeance, become the Night. And I will go further than Bruce ever dared to, because it is what is needed. I will be the necessary evil. But you don't have to be. If Batman is Gotham's curse, Robin has always been its blessing. I will be the brutal punishment to our world, and I am asking you to be its incandescent gift."

He's saying, "Be for me, what we were for Him. Be my anchor, my comfort, my hope. Remind me what it's all for, why it's all worth it. And remind yourself as well."

He's saying "Be 'Robin' again--for both of our sakes."

[doomdoomofdoom]

If you've been boycotting Eurovision, you may have missed out on how bad it truly was, so here are a few events in no particular order:

The opening act of the semi-finals was Eric Saade, a swedish-palestinian singer who participated in Eurovision 2011. He wore a keffiyeh, a palestinian headdress, around his arm like a wristband.

Despite not making any political statements or drawing attention to his accessory, he was reprimanded by the EBU for "compromising the non-political nature of the event".

During their semi-final performance, the Irish contestant had the word "ceasefire" in old irish runes painted on their face. They were ordered to change it for the final, as it was deemed too political.

The contestant from Israel was not allowed to mingle with the other contestants, due to supposed security risks.

During an Interview, she was asked if she felt any concerns over her participation potentially endangering the event and the people present. The host told her she did not have to answer this question. Dutch contestant 'Joost' asked "why not?"

Joost, while not openly antagonizing the Israeli contestant, has made covert critical remarks about the EBUs decision to allow Israel to participate.

On Friday, the day before the Finale, Joost was investigated by the swedish police for a supposed incident where he threatened an EBU crew member. Thursday, a female camera operator had followed him off-stage to continue filming, even though there was an agreement not to film him off-stage. After she ignored his requests to stop, he threatened her with some sort of gesture.

Joost was disqualified mere hours before the finale. He was slotted to perform just before Israel and considered a favorite and potential winner.

The show itself did not address his disqualification. The dutch entry was simply skipped with no further comment.

Israeli broadcaster KAN was confirmed to have broken EBU rules during their coverage of the Irish act in the Semifinal. The commentator spoke negatively about their act, condemning the very scary goth aesthetic, and noting their willingness to criticize Israel's actions.

Despite Irish contestant Bambie Thug lodging a complaint with the EBU, there was no penalty or other repercussion.

If you were hoping that the event itself would turn into some sort of protest, I have to disappoint you:

Despite rumors of other contestants dropping out over Joost's disqualification, all of them performed.

There was audible booing every time Israel was on-screen, including their performance, announcement of points, and every time they received points. There was equally audible cheering.

No contestant or spokesperson directly addressed the ""controversy"" (read: ongoing genocide being artwashed), although very few made covert remarks about peace, love, dignity, and equality.

The most explicit it got was the Austrian spokesperson, saying something along the lines of "It's hard to find only positive words in a time where heartlessness prevails. But we hope everyone can unite through music and show that everyone deserves to be treated equally"

No one stormed on stage or held up a palestinian flag or anything, if you were hoping for that. I certainly was.

Israel gave its 12 points (both Jury and public) to Luxembourg. The singer is half-israeli and born in Jerusalem.

Jury votes mostly ignored Israel, netting them a total of 52 points through jury votes, which put them somewhere in the middle of the scoreboard. Norway, Cyprus, and Germany awarded them 8 points each, making them the main contributors.

In contrast, Israel received 323 points from the public voting. They were second only to Croatia with 337. 15 public votings, including "rest of the world" awarded Israel their 12 points, more than any other country would receive. The only countries not to award any points to Israel in the public vote were Croatia and Ukraine.

Israel thereby placed 5th out of 25.

But hey, at least the winner (Switzerland) was nonbinary, diversity win amirite. Notably, they had to smuggle in their pride flag, since EBU guidelines only allow flags of participating countries and the rainbow flag. (This is also why palestinian flags were not allowed. It's not a new rule, but they certainly weren't going to start bending it now.)

If there's one thing to take away from this: Do not ever think the rest of the world is on your side, just because your social media is. The rest of the world has shown their allegiance, and it lies with Israel and Genocide.

Do not stop fighting for what is right.

[st4rking]

tfw you, as a mind reader, have to team up with a man who thinks too much

Slight spoilers in tags

[starlitvick]

Antimachus core

[starbylers]

You only really need to understand 5 things to know why Byler is happening:

Mike’s arc in season 3 was about pretending to be someone he’s not in the pursuit of “growing up”. It was about kids playing at relationships. This was the only season with focus on the state of M!leven while dating & not separated and it was treated as an immature joke.

Season 4, instead of proving to us why M!leven are right for each other, quite literally does the opposite and shows us nothing except them having awful communication & not finding emotional safety in each other. There is not a single scene between them which is an exception to this.

Meanwhile, Mike and Will are attached at the hip. We see how they resolve conflict maturely and between themselves. We see a strong emotional connection. We see how Mike feels more comfortable being vulnerable with Will than he is with anyone else, and how Will is always always there for him. We see how…

Will’s painting & monologue (aka his romantic love for Mike) soothed Mike’s insecurities and boosted his confidence. It made him ridiculously happy. And being reminded of this lie about El by Will himself ends up being necessary to encourage Mike to go ahead with his “love monologue”, which winds up indirectly causing a literal apocalypse. You cannot make this shit up lmao.

M!leven is entirely framed through Will’s experience. He’s in every scene except their fight, his pain and misery over them is never not the focus. Literally never. We are not seeing the story of M!leven’s love, we are seeing the story of Will’s heartbreak.

Nothing else matters. Like in the most clinical story writing terms, Mike’s character is not going to find out that the person who made him feel the most loved & understood is in love with him and is the one who actually feels all these things about him that just happen to align with exactly what Mike needs to hear to embody the truest and best version of himself, and instead of realising he loves that character back, goes nah I’m good I’ll end up together forever with the person who whilst dating them I became someone I was not and also had terrible self-esteem—oh and also the relationship is insanely immature. It’s that simple. Whether or not Mike currently believes he loves El or currently wants to remain in a relationship is so so so irrelevant. Storytelling doesn’t care what the character thinks he wants, it cares about what the character needs!

[laurents-secret-diary]

book 1, the face laurent sees on the daily vs the face damen sees