#and refuses to be criticised. even by association to what is being criticised

[victorieschild]

Ok I just started listening to worlds beyond number the other day and I fully can’t stand Suvie.

Like,,, she keeps being such a dick and everybody keeps being like “suvie is right 😔 why do we keep making Suvie mad 😔 we should listen to Suvie 😔” NO FUCK THAT SHIT

Ame deserves better than this fr

[darael]

Regarding Imane Khelif and Angela Carini

I originally made a version of this post in response to one about how Angela Carini wasn't to blame for the massive wave of nonsense that has been directed at Imane Khelif; about how her perfectly reasonable emotions (and some actions based on those that she regrets) were being used to make her an icon of a hate movement she does not support. About how both of them were victims of misogyny in this situation.

This is gonna be a long post, folks, so buckle in.

The problem is, there's reason to believe Angela Carini fully intended what she sparked, and is not sincere in her apology. Before we get into that, though, I want to emphasise some things:

Even if I am right and Angela Carini is some combination of racist, intersexist, transphobic, and/or willing to exploit these bigotries for her own benefit, that will not justify misogyny towards her. We can criticise her actions and inferred intentions without relying purely on sexist or misogynistic tropes and slurs.

Defending one woman by tearing down another is a dynamic that's been used misogynistically many times in the past, but

Talking about "white women's tears" is not actually that when the thing described actually fits another pattern seen in racial-justice circles: white people, but especially white women, do often weaponise crying and claims of injury (whether physical or emotional) to get disproportionate harm done to people of colour and especially Black people. This results from an intersection of racism and patriarchy, in which white women are treated as fragile and inherently in need of protection from "savages" and men. The underlying premise is misogynistic but women with the requisite privilege can still weaponise it.

The attacks on Imane Khelif are transmisogynistic (because they rely on the trope of the predatory, violent trans woman), intersexist (because they rely on claims that she's intersex, and that this would make her more prone to violence), and racist (because the denial of women of colour's femininity, the making of their access to the social class of "womanhood" conditional, has been a long-standing part of white supremacy). These things are true even though Khelif is not trans and is not known to be intersex, because bigotry doesn't care if its direct victims are actually the ones intended. She is a cisgender, likely-perisex woman of colour who is experiencing misogynoir, intersexism, and transmisogyny.

Got it? Good.

Now, then. First, some background:

At the Olympics, in the 66kg women's boxing, Imane Khelif from Algeria was up against Angela Carini from Italy for her first match (in the second round; she got a bye from the first due to seeding). Khelif had formerly been disqualified from a 2023 tournament run by the International Boxing Association (IBA) under… suspicious circumstances. Despite having passed "gender testing" the year before, she was suddenly re-tested and disqualified mid-tournament after she beat a Russian boxer. It is worth noting that the head of the IBA is Russian, and under his leadership the Association's only sponsor is the Russian fossil-fuel company Gazprom, and that the IBA has been barred from participation in the Olympics due to rampant corruption (the Olympic Committee handled qualifiers directly since there wasn't an alternative association to turn to) — so you can see why this is suspect. The IBA claimed that Khelif's testosterone was not tested, but "another recognised test was used", the nature of which the organisation refuses to disclose. The head of the IBA said on Telegram that Khelif had XY chromosomes, but he is hardly a trustworthy source and the organisation has not confirmed his claim. Even if it's true, Imane Khelif was assigned female at birth, raised as a girl, and has passed all the (transphobic and intersexist) Olympic committee's medical eligibility tests; she categorically does not have a meaningful sex-derived advantage over other women.

Angela Carini was injured from her first-round fight, but chose to take part in the second round anyway. After taking two blows in her fight against Khelif, she withdrew. The match took 46 seconds, which is certainly short, but not fantastically so. She broke down in tears and said something that could be translated as "it's not fair!" or "it's not right!", but this could be construed as frustration over her Olympic dreams (and especially a promise she apparently made to her father that she'd go all the way) being broken. Similarly with the way she refused to shake the hand of the woman to whom she'd just conceded a match. She also made comments to the effect that she'd never been punched so hard. In response to this, transphobes, intersexists, and racists accused Imane Khelif of some combination of being trans, being intersex, and faking her gender (though of course they did not use these terms; their claims were that she was secretly a man). As mentioned above, there is zero reliable evidence that this is the case, but that hasn't stopped bigots from running with it.

Here are the things I wish to point out about Angela Carini's behaviour:

Before the match, she put out a (now-deleted) tweet calling Imane Khelif un uomo — "a man":

This suggests she was cozying up to those seeking to disqualify Khelif on racist grounds well before the match actually started.

Since the match but before her apology, her coach has described her as seeing herself as "a paladin" for a cause:

This suggests she actively embraced the transphobia and intersexism that was promoted in her name.

She's also boasted about how since the match she visited Italy's vehemently transphobic, and indeed outright fascist, leader, who "welcomed her like a daughter", which certainly isn't conclusive but isn't a great look. I don't have the source for this one on hand, sorry.

But Carini apologised, right? Well, kind of. She apologised for refusing to shake Imane Khelif's hand after their bout. She said she'd embrace her. She also said "if the IOC said she can fight, I respect that decision" — which might appear reasonable on the surface but also actively plays into the idea that there's some reason the IOC might not have said she could fight. She also also said "It could have been the match of a lifetime, but I had to preserve my life as well in that moment", which could be a genuine expression of an athlete's need to take care of their body, but also feeds neatly into the "this freakishly strong brute could have killed Angela Carini!" narrative that her allegedly-unwanted supporters were already using. Further, the closest she came to apologising for anything other than refusing to shake Imane Khelif's hand is "all this controversy makes me sad", which is… not actually an apology. All quotes in this paragraph were from Carini via the linked Ground News post.

I have seen allegations, but I'm not claiming this to be the case because I haven't examined the evidence, that Carini has a history of faking an ankle injury to end a fight against a stronger boxer in 2022. I mention this for completeness, but it's also worth saying that even if true, while this might suggest a propensity for exaggerating the extent of an injury, in the match against Imane Khelif she was visibly bleeding when she withdrew, and her broken nose from her previous match would also have been difficult to fake.

In my conclusion: it is my belief that Angela Carini was a willing participant, not an innocent pawn, in the racist, transphobic, intersexist, and plain misogynistic (not to mention baseless!) allegations made against Imane Khelif. I acknowledge her partial apology, but it strikes me as an attempt to evade being held responsible for what her actions caused rather than a genuine one. Even if she is sincere, it seems to me that this would represent a thought process along the lines of "this got out of hand" rather than "I did something wrong". You don't have to agree with me, of course. What evidence I have is now in your hands, and you must make up your own mind.

[eldritch-araneae]

Ugh I have a bunch of feelings and anger at people criticising "Home" from ES bc I could tell everyone is living in first-world countries and don't know what its like to be trapped bc your government decided to do shit and you are the target by association. You can't even escape as a refugee. And it's a little fraction, I can't really talk about it since it will put me in danger from all sides.

So yeah those two episodes hit close to home (hah!) and its a damn shame ppl refused to consider different experiences and marked the storyline as bad writing just because they couldn't relate.

Tbh the second batch really got a lot of weird crisisim, like Nightshade being slandered not only by assholes but fellow queer ppl too! I legit saw the going "Nightshade is badly written and bad non-binary representation" just they didn't relate. Crazy! Meanwhile I, a genderless person that fits under a non-binary umbrella, will say that they're very good representation.

Anyway I love the show, it's my favourite and ppl won't be able to force me hate it.

[thehollowwriter]

I've always found it so interesting how Vil describes himself and his actions as ugly, not his appearance. I'm tired af rn so I can't really put it into words, but it's very striking that Vil, at least to me, doesn't seem to believe in outward ugliness. In fact, he simply calls people potatoes. Not ugly. Potatoes. As some analysis' pointed out, it seems to be because he seems them as spudlings who haven't yet reached their potential. Like Quartz said, he doesn't want to change everything about you. He wants you to be the best you can be.

He is, as also Quartz said, a very selfless character and he seems to strive to be more than what he's been typecast as. That's part of why he had such an extreme breakdown from his actions and called himself "ugly." He was a villain. He was behaving just like others assumed he would. And if he's no more than the roles he's been trapped in, how could he possibly defeat Neige?

But in book 6, he had his "hero" moment. What he did was a huge sacrifice to make, especially when you consider what Vil risked. He risked literally his entire future and his reputation.

There are some fans who poke fun at him for being "shallow" crying about his appearance, but... wouldn't you?

Firstly, there's Vil's career. Remember, Vil is an actor and a model. He works in two industries that are centred around beauty. You can't have wrinkles, you can't be fat, you can't be unappealing for even a second. You must conform to beauty standards at all times. That includes not just your appearance, but what you eat and what activities you partake in, since certain eating habits and hobbies are associated with certain appearances (e.g ugly gamer).

Now that he's like this... who's going to want him as a model? Who's going to want to cast him in any role outside of an evil old hag, if they want him at all? How will his fans, the faceless masses who fixate on his appearance, react? Is there any guarantee they'll stick around?

Vil's entire future has potentially gone up in flames. He's been acting and modelling since he was a small child. What else could he possibly do?

Secondly, there's the fact that Riddle just got white hair, while Vil got all of his youth sucked out of him. He was not old just in appearance, his body was old. That's his entire future suddenly severed. He's human, and humans don't live for very long compared to fae.

From Vil's perspective, the decades of life ahead of him are gone. Now, in this frail body, who knows how much time he has left? Who knows what health problems might start ailing him and taking him early?

Well gee, no wonder he's crying! He might lose everything and he might also die much sooner than expected. I hardly find that shallow.

I find the comparison of Vil to a stereotypical mean girl overall very weird. Mean girls purposefully bully and tear down others to lift themselves up. When they insult people's fashion or appearance, it's not because they think they can improve. It's because they view those people as below them. Sometimes the outfit itself isn't even bad. It's just "poor people clothing."" Mean girls are also very manipulative and will tear others down to climb up the ladder and come out on top, even if they have to cheat and lie to do so.

Vil isn't like that at all. He doesn't insult, he criticises. And like I said, he sees people's potential and wants them to live up to it. His goal is not to tear them down and make himself feel better. As far as fashion goes, Vil knows different styles work on different people, and with how his character is, he's most certainly not going to hate or bully someone for using a "poor brand" or whatever.

Vil literally refuses to cheat!!! He does not want to win against Neige through cheating, because he knows that's not truly a win. He wants to earn that win. When he tried to poison Neige, that was a complete mental breakdown and he immediately regretted it.

So yeah. Vil is a harsh, but nurturing and actually very kind and selfless guy. Leave him.

(If I got anything wrong pls forgive me I haven't read book 5 in a while. @v-anrouge you're the Vil expert pls lmk if there's anything to add or correct)

Vil yap session

[bradleymarshall]

I think I realised why Elaine hates Sri Lankans and Indians

She was raped by one

At 18

My dad also used to say to me

Don’t trust Sri Lankans cause they’re stingy and rip you off

I did a journal entry today and it was enlightening on myself and well my racism

To put harshly

Which is also directed at myself being Filipino

It’s like Tom holland in spiderman

Befriends a Filipino fat kid

He’s a loser by association

Imagine choosing a Filipino fat kid lmfao hahah

They did that intentionally in the movie to lower the perceived status of Tom holland in the movie

Clearly intentional

And regardless of him being fat

It’s a racism I need to overcome

Like how women only have attractive girls in their posse as it elevates their status

The person you associate with can either elevate your status or diminish it

But that’s only If you choose to care

That only shows your own insecurity and how easily manipulated you are by societies standards

I’m sure Xavier isn’t proud to say he befriended a gay man. But then again he may be only using me for my talent.

I’m no Achilles and you’re no Patroclus.

Like Zac Efron in the greatest showman refusing to hold Zendayas hand when at the royal ballet because of the class difference.

If it were Daniel, and him being a brown boy, I wouldn’t feel the least bit ashamed. I’d feel proud.

What’s the difference I wonder?

It’s no coincidence there’s barely any photos of us sadly.

I’ve always been a pretty horrible person.

Like that time I didn’t invite the fat white girl to my party because I wanted to look cool by association. First hand class act cunt.

I regret it to this day and yet those insidious tendrils of racism and classism and fat shaming still continue. Even for someone like me who suffered through years of eczema. It’s like, if 2020 me was standing in front of me and asked to be my friend, I wouldn’t want to be associated with even myself. What is wrong with me?

Am I that shattered in my own need to be “perfect” whatever that is, that I loose sight of all morals and decency.

And I’m not going to blame my parents and my mother for her overt racism to Asians, even to other Filipinos who aren’t from Suragao Del Sur. She criticises the northerners who speak Tagalog.

Something to think about.

I guess it’s no different when you hate being called Indian. Indians and Sri Lankans are racist to each other.

I was upset when you said everything is fine

Is it really fine?

Look how quickly I can change things. This is what I meant by careful. It’s only fine because I censor myself in my true honesty. This is a brutal post and it’s not even the worst one which I hid to myself, because I’m scathing in my words and I don’t even know why. Now I just feel horrible and so upset and guilty.

[selormohene]

day 70 (monday, september 11th 2023)

(Finishing up early Tuesday morning; this ended up being a long and involved one)

A few months ago I read an article on the 20th century black middle class of DC in the City Journal (I think it was) by, of all people, Tucker Carlson. Now it was curious the tone he struck which, although unmistakably conservative, appears now in my memory as having been quite conciliatory and nothing like I'd expect from Tucker Carlson. There was one thing though he said that stuck with me. He said that part of what made the DC black élite a valuable presence for the DC black community as a whole was that they were snobs: they made a point of refusing to associate or be associated with the gangsters and athletes and so on, and thus by this differentiation offered a different aspirational model for the black community. Now there is of course a lot to be said about this — about placing together gangsters and athletes (again this is a summary from memory) for instance, or about the élitism which is stated frankly in those terms, as opposed to under the aspect of advocating for values which in fact happen to be those of the élite. But the point about snobbery is the one that I'd like to write about today.

The reason that article comes to mind, besides the fact that I've been reading a lot of cultural critique in this center-right vein lately, is that there was a conversation on Twitter recently about this — on discriminating in one's personal association in favour of people who are married to the people they have kids with, or not dating or being friends with "deadbeats," or whatever. Of course there has been backlash from people who say that we shouldn't negatively criticise people who are in bad structural situations especially since we're all black and we shouldn't think we're better than them, and so on and so forth. I want to talk about the first-order debate to some extent, but I'm only interested in addressing it obliquely, through the higher-level question of the causation of one's actions and social existence, and what it has to do with one's responsibility for who one is.

Consider the question of being a snob, looking down one's nose for instance at people who aren't married to the people they have kids with. Now there's the idea that as a matter of fact we shouldn't disapprove of people who aren't married to the people they have kids with, or of families which don't fit the monogamous parent model; we shouldn't see that state of affairs as less preferable than the monogamous parent model. But then there's also the question of whether, given that we do see that state of affairs as less preferable, it is fair to criticise people in that state of affairs. Because what I've heard on that front is people saying, "well you shouldn't be a snob because people are in this situation through no fault of their own, maybe they didn't realise the guy wouldn't be involved in their children's lives or they weren't in the sort of social position which would have enabled them to choose differently, or maybe no woman is in that social position which gives them genuine choice, even people who do get married and have fewer kids are also just under different constraints, the constraints of the classed woman whose pathway to success involves climbing up the capitalist ladder." This sort of argument grants that not having the father of your children involved in their life is bad, but it says even if the state of affairs is bad the people in that state of affairs are not to be blamed. The underlying idea here is that it's only fair to be a snob about things that people have genuine abilities to do something about — but it's still compatible with that idea to say that you can be a snob if the situation is such that the person in question could have chosen otherwise.

But there’s also the question of stigma: can you really say that you disapprove of certain life choices in your friends or whatever (because they can make "better" choices) while genuinely saying you don’t think less of people who have far less liberty to make those choices? In theory, of course, you can, but might not the value differential in the outcomes simply come to be associated, by psychological mechanisms which we find difficult to rein in, with the people that fall under the outcomes we value less? (Again, the Loury book was great for introducing me to this idea. I'll have to read the Goffman book.) That is how strongly can you continue hold to the view that certain such choices in a given vein are “better” or "worse" but the people who can't make those choices aren't to be assessed in such terms? It's a difficult question. In some cases of course it seems like we simply don't find it plausible to give up the differential value judgment. Recall for instance the person who argued, “poor people only have access to junk food, so junk food is good actually.” The motivation behind this sort of argument is understandable; one wants to avoid stigma, and avoiding stigmatising people in the state in question is then conflated with not negatively evaluating the state. But we should be able to notice that certain distinctions hold at least in theory, even if they are difficult to maintain in practice. Noting that structural factors constrain people’s options or ability to choose well, or change what counts as rational for them to do, isn’t the same as saying that for people who don’t have much of a choice whatever outcome results is ultimately good. It's also not the same as saying that for people who aren't as constrained we must approve of their choice whatever it may be. But then part of the problem is that it may be hard to draw a principled distinction between those who "should have chosen better" and those who "didn't have much of a choice." To restate the point I keep returning to in this entry, having (negative) judgments about the value of a state is not the same as blaming people who are in that state. But then there's the more difficult question about whether we can blame people who have chosen to be in that state and who think it’s good, which returns to the initial question of whether we should disapprove of the state in question or not to begin with.

This is, incidentally, part of a tension in liberal politics (or progressive liberalism, or "woke" politics). On the one hand, the liberal impulse wants to avoid invoking substantive value judgments: it's anti-Catholic integralism, for instance. It wants to recognise a plurality of choices of values, to let people be, to respect difference. But on the other hand, the progressive element seems to want to invoke substantive values — worker solidarity, emancipation from oppression, freedom to be who you are. These aren't just what we must settle for to avoid the risk of tyranny or bad options winning out, these are good in themselves. The problem is that when you combine these sorts of impulses, what you end up wanting to do is to celebrate difference, to affirm the choiceworthiness of the different choices that people make. Now in the abstract celebrating difference isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor is affirming different people choosing different things. Life isn't one-size-fits-all and the true is the whole. Even Hegel the centrist Prussian statist knew that. But the problem comes when one finds oneself perhaps having to affirm apparently contradictory values, or to disapprove of values but approve of their affirmation by others, or to hide one's hand when it comes to disapproval of certain values.

(So there was for instance a case where a Muslim contingent in a certain town didn't want Pride flags flying on government buildings. But both the LGBTQ people and Muslims would count as groups which are to be celebrated in their diversity. What to do in this situation? It seems like one solution which is proposed is to argue that ultimately all the diverse groups are compatible, that Islam is actually progressive on issues of sexuality, which ends up pleasing nobody partly because part of what defines some of these ideologies is that they are in opposition to others; some LGBTQ people don't want their values to have to be compatible with a given religion in order to be accepted or celebrated, and some religious people don't want their values to have to be compatible with a given ideology concerning sex and sexuality in order to be celebrated and accepted.)

Anyway, back to the question of blame and agency. One doesn’t want to take the condescending attitude that poor people or structurally oppressed people are just pawns of the system without any agency, especially if one lives one's own life as though one can make better or worse decisions even under constraint. To say "oh poor you, it's not your fault, don't feel bad" and then, sotto voce, "couldn't be me though," is in itself rather patronising, and a symptom of the same classism that is levelled as an accusation at people who say “people in bad social situations should do better” (and to be clear some of those people are indeed classist). And yet one doesn't want to blame those people for having chosen what one thinks was the "worse" thing to do. The problem is that treating people as having agency is a way of respecting their personhood, and yet recognising agency and imparting blame are two uneasy sides of the same coin. Perhaps this is why the Marxist view that we must prescind from moral assessment and focus on structural change has something to recommend it. But then the question remains: can we really so prescind? In the medium term, at the interpersonal level, as opposed to in the long term and at the structural level, what is to be done?

This entire discussion brings me to another topic. Obviously I've been going over different views concerning social problems which hold that they can be addressed, although they disagree on the practical and moral value of attempting to address them in various ways. But there are of course people who subscribe to the view that various social problems can't be changed. Educational disparities can't be improved, poverty can't be alleviated, crime can't be reduced, etc. The arguments are often based on two things: (1) we've tried everything we can think of and it didn't happen, or (2) the science shows that it's not possible, some people are just going to be at the bottom of society forever. The curious thing about this scientistic attitude to questions of human behaviour is that it parallels an anti-scientific approach to the natural world, namely mysterianism about certain objects and/or fields of inquiry. It seems like saying some people who are in a bad situation can’t be helped because of science is similar to saying some things about the world can’t be known because of metaphysics. (And what passes for science in these discussions of social issues is rarely any better than dogmatic metaphysics.) And what's interesting is that, in either case, it’s not obviously impossible that such a thing might be true, yet in either case the correct response is nonetheless “not with that attitude.” We must assume that the world is knowable, and the world will reward that assumption; we must assume that society can be improved and society will (hopefully) reward that assumption.

I say hopefully because perhaps social change is harder and murkier than science; it could be argued that the success of science is proof of the underlying fact that the world is intrinsically knowable whereas the difficulty of social improvement is proof of the underlying fact that society isn’t inherently malleable. But actually it may just be that we’re doing the wrong things. I want to argue that actually we say science is successful but that's just us focusing on the success cases and papering over the hard stuff, with a little help from our belief in the intrinsic knowability of the world, which in its extreme forms can take the form of the absolute idealism of the analytic Hegelians — including, apparently, Tim Williamson! — which states that to be is to be thinkable or knowable. Then again though it seems like we're not at similar liberty to decide whether or not society can be improved by focusing on the success stories because the question we're interested in isn't "have some outcomes been improved" but "have we been able to improve the particular outcomes we want to improve." But that's also a case where we're being helped by our prior belief in the immutability of society. I'll have to think more about this.

[worstloki]

I’m not gonna lie. I’m writing a Loki fanfic (set in Thor 1) and I cannot unsee the perception of Frigga your posts have made. Like...wow I literally can’t unsee this. I mean I looked at Thor 2 through a “well she’s about to die so let’s give her words meaning” sense but now...*distressed noises*

You can present Frigga as nice and caring even if she’s canonically not so, but if we’re taking what we’ve actually seen of her then she just isn't the kind angel many claim she is and this is made very clear in Thor 2 in case it was too subtle in Thor 1. 

I agree that it is especially distressing to remember that Frigga was the pinnacle of love/affection Loki received from Asgard and while Loki being able to recognise her manipulation and resist the gaslighting was extremely satisfying to see it also meant he realised the only constant source of love he’d received his whole life had been conditional to his submission. 

I apologise for any distress changing your opinions on Frigga may have caused but I have to admit that now I’m rather tempted to do a line-by-line analysis of how every piece of dialogue she gets makes her treatment of Loki even worse, especially when compared to her treatment of Thor.

[evergrace2]

this was the one of the main reasons i quit twitter below is everything i know about irony culture it feels almost insane to not open your heart when you try to engage with art - and just let it affect you in whatever way it ends up doing . if youre surrounded by a community that refuses to truly open their heart , and uses irony to turn everything into some joke(?) then to be the first to take a step into vulnerability and being open with yourself is for sure incredibly difficult. 4chan, a really really insular site targeted at (incidentally) socially reclusive disenfranchised people, and is normally associated with irony culture and is often said 2 be the birthplace (similar sites like somethingawful and kiwi are also to blame) . the site is used to critique things all the time and the anonymity lends itself to cruelty - so expressing your love for something there puts you at a huge risk of being ridiculed. because the site has a huge in-culture and many unwritten rules,, using the site itself does sort of become a giant in-joke. and thus not caring about things and being an aloof general hater became a standard there. people that use the site are general huge internet dwellers and so inhabit other popular sites like twitter ! even spaces like youtube would be greatly influenced by this culture and entire youtube channels (popular ones) would be dedicated to reacting to earnest expressions of art in the most I dont give a Fuck way they could. in response to this suffocating atmosphere (irony culture permeated EVERYTHING from mid 2010s onwards) there was a counterculture rise of purposeful cringe this normally takes the form of 2000s aesthetics and culture (glittergraphx/nightcore/typing quirks etc) which was really effective as like. a visual signifier that you care and you want to care about things and the art you love is important to you - you wear it on your SLEEVE (gir hoodie moment) that initial cringe earnest energy has died down for sure and i can almost see a pendulum swing back to irony based consumption now. sites where the primary content is meme-based tend to lean into this (and tumblr is a mixed bag). often in music the uniqueness of an artist gets made into a spectacle and the meaning is ignored, and instead gets labelled like hoe scaring music or something etc. or the star image and general aesthetic is more important than their art (i think ALL the time about that mitski stream where shes singing a song about really specific trauma and all the comments are like mommy?mommy?sorry? ) its interesting because theyre still fans of the art, and dont openly criticise it or act aloof as was a lot more popular years ago - but the remaining fear of being percieved as vulnerable is still with us . and memes/jokes are a wall between you and the art and what you would feel if you opened your heart. on the sites that specialise more in fan creation and art appreciation this is 4 sure a lot less of an issue . individual sites (which have also become moar popular due to the popularity of neocities) are based around self expression and individualisation and its really hard to be individual without having specific interests and things you care about - so irony is ALSO less of an issue there . deviantart / furaffinity / fan forums act as like,,, a sort of safe haven for people enjoying art, making derivatives because of how much they love art, and trying 2 touch hearts.

i think both irony and sincerity are contagious . if you really let yourself be earnest and speak of how an artist has touched you, or your theories or analysis of an art - to take the art wholesale and respect it and care . . . then those listening will feel more comfortable dropping their guard around you and open up too . i want to be so cringe that everyone around me feels comfortable being cringe too

Let's Talk About Un-ironicizing Art!

In light of a lot of the conversations i've seen surrounding Death Grips and recent events concerning them, I want to take the time to point out that this is a good time to start thinking about how we engage with art on the whole!

For a long time, the irony poisoned method of consumption went unchecked in all facets of internet culture. As an internet musician in current day, I have noticed a sharp disconnect between artists and enthusiasts/casual listeners when it comes to attitudes surrounding music specifically, though I've witnessed it permeate all forms of art in some way.

I see people who have grown scared to engage on deeper levels, intentionally severing any resonant connections or knowledge learned from a piece of media before it has the chance to take root. In short, dare to be vulnerable! Dare to enjoy something on the basis that you yourself resonate with it, and not for any other nebulous reasoning. When masses of people relegate art to a spectacle, not only do artists become more likely to be disenchanted with the passions that fuel their work, but the consumer base ultimately suffers as well. All art at that point becomes less an extension of ourselves, less a vehicle to explore our identities, and is rendered a meaningless hulking sludge, or worse, the opponent to an already shrinking and narrow worldview.

Be not afraid to be unabashedly in love with the work that inspires you. Be not afraid to have the things you love misunderstood by by some. When you engage with work new and old, make sure to do it for yourself. Making and consuming art is inherently selfish, but being selfish is not inherently misguided. Allow yourself to learn, grow, discover, and repeat that cycle until the day you die.

To speak more candidly about my own experience, throughout the course of my life, there has been art that I've held near and dear to my identity, and own journey of self discovery that I seldom find others who hold the same sentiments to. I've always found this exciting. Exciting to hold something close to my chest as something so personal, and even more exciting when I can ease up on that grip when I find someone who I can share that with. However, I've also been through the throws of how the internet tends to chew up and spit out art that generally isn't understood by the many. I've fallen victim myself to the hive mind mentality that circles some artists and the cult of non-identity around them. This off-color ouroboros of knowing all about an artist's work and simultaneously upholding this facade of vapid complacency. I've come to the conclusion that if being openly supportive and connected to an artist's work or a particular piece of work automatically renders a person uninteresting and unambiguous at the very least, then I will live happily as an uninteresting open book. At the worst times, we see this line of thinking contribute to Death Grips being mocked and belittled en masse by people who are unwilling to engage with their art before they even get that far. It's heartbreaking, to me at least to see people put so much effort, emotion, and passion into transforming culture for the better to be rewarded with a crowd that's plugging their ears.

I realize I run the risk of sounding pretentious, self indulgent, or even patronizing to an extent; I apologize because that isn't my intention, I'm hoping to see gears shift at least on a micro level surrounding attitudes towards art appreciation. Remember to dare to be in love holistically with the art you engage with! Speak of the things you love in a way that makes that clear to others, and consider your peers to do the same! You and the people around you can only be better off for it.

[grewlikefancyflowers]

re: recent discourse about lxc, lwj, jyl, whoever else

Something we gotta clear up before any of these characters can be judged for what they did or didn't do is that WWX never took any stand against the existence of the labour camps, and he only freed Wen Ning's people. The reason WWX gave for doing this was because of the debt he owed them.

In chapter 72, we are told that those who were imprisoned in the labour camps were prisoners of war.

‘And, as for these laborers, of course there were no better candidates than the Wen Sect’s prisoners of war, who had become homeless dogs after the Sunshot Campaign.’ 

These would be those who fought for the Wens and were captured during the SSC.

The fate of the Wen Sect's remnants was different.

‘As for the remnants of the Wen Sect, they were herded into a small corner of Qishan, not even a thousandth the territory it onced owned. They were crammed into the place and struggled to live’ 

Until they were captured while nighthunting and wrongfully imprisoned by JZXun.

The fate of the prisoners of war and the Wen remnants is presented as background information, it isn't a shocking revelation for any of the characters.

This is what WWX says when he confronts JZXun at the Jin’s banquet.

‘The whereabouts of the people whom Young Master Jin took are still unclear. Just a moment of delay, and it might be too late. One of the group had once saved me before. I will definitely not sit back and watch.’

‘“Take revenge on the ones who bite you. Wen Ning’s branch doesn’t have much blood on their hands. Don’t tell me that you find them guilty by association?”’

He states that his reason for wanting to save WN’s branch was because of what he owed him. He says very clearly that their revenge on the Wens should be contained to those who had wronged them, he considers Wen Ning’s branch distinct from the others for this reason. He never criticised the existence of the labour camps themselves.

In the end due to both being unable to counter WWX’s arguments, and due to WWX’s intimidation, JZXun acquiesces, ‘Jin ZiXun finally yelled, “… Fine! Fine! It’s just a few Wen-dogs. Take them if you want to. I’m not fooling around with you any longer! Go find them at Qiongqi Path on your own!”’

Once at Qiongqi Path they of course find Granny Wen and A-yuan first. After encountering the inspectors, WQ states they’re here for WN & his group.

‘Wen Qing urged, “I’m here to find someone, I’m here to find someone!”’ 

‘Wen Qing rushed over and asked, “Where are the Wen cultivators sent here just a few days ago?”’ 

Once WN is killing the guards, an unnamed person directs WWX where to find others.

‘The prisoner’s voice quivered slightly as he pointed in a certain direction, [...] Some of the people you’re looking for might be over there…”’

Once there WWX, like WQ, asks specifically for the cultivators under WN.

‘Wei WuXian, “Nothing. Who are the cultivators under Wen Ning? Cut the nonsense and step out now!”’

Like before, WWX never takes any stance against the existence of the camp itself, he is never stated to be concerned about the prisoners there who were not a part of WN’s group.

In chapter 73 as JGS recounts the events to JC, he doesn’t say WWX had abolished the camp or freed all the prisoners, he says.

“… Four inspectors were harmed. Around fifty of the remaining Wen Sect members escaped. “’

WWX only killed the inspectors who’d killed WN, he only asked after WN’s group. None of this was about the camps themselves, this was essentially a matter between Wen Ning and the Jiang Clan, which owes its entire existence to him. 

I’m not sure why unrelated people would have an obligation to involve themselves in this, WWX does not expect others to involve themselves in this either.

With the freeing of WN’s group, and the deaths of the guards that killed him, this injustice should have more-or-less reached its conclusion. However, the Jin Clan never sees any real consequence for what JZXun did, and they refuse to let the matter go, instead manipulating the situation to their favour.

On that note, LWJ stated his support for WWX, and publicly called JGS out for lying. He left the banquet along with Mianmian and refused to associate with the Jin Clan in condemnation of their actions. He later defended WN and WQ at Qiongqi Path. (Ch.72,73,30,89)

LXC briefly defended WQ, but didn’t argue for her further. (Ch.73)

NMJ’s stance was that those who had done nothing to oppose the Wens should be punished just as severely as those supported them. He did hear that one of the group saved WWX, and JC’s statement that they owed gratitude to them, though he did not hear (or want to hear) any details. (Ch.72,73)

Mianmian called them all out and left to become a rogue cultivator out of contempt for the other clans’ behaviour. (Ch.73,112)

JYL married into the Jin Clan, gave WN soup. Along with JZX, she extended courtesy to WWX by inviting him to JL’s celebration. (Ch.75) Neither JYL or JZX were present during WWX’s confrontation with JZXun or afterwards, it’s unclear how much they know about why WWX freed WN's group and defected from the Jiang Sect.

JC mentioned that he and WWX owe the Wen siblings gratitude but refused to elaborate further or defend WWX against any of JGS’s accusations. JC insisted WN’s group should be sent back to the camp, attempted to kill WN, disembowelled WWX in a staged fight, and led the outside world to believe WWX was their enemy. (Ch.73)

[disaster-j]

Hi,

As an Indian do you think we will ever get Indian BLs? and why haven't we gotten one already. I mean China did it. Yes, they[pre-2016 ban] are all bad and sad but they exist. I don't think I've seen any Indian queer story driven by love as the main plot.

And if we did get one what would you like it to be? Style or story or whatever comes to mind.

At first I wasn't hopeful even after Badhai Do[which was more a queer angst story than queer joy, which is what I associate with BL] but after Kinnporsche trended in top 10 on twitter week after week...I'm not so sure...But I want one.

Queer Indians deserve one. And yes there was Subh mangal zyada savdhan but that's just one and frankly I didn't really vibe with it. I was in theatres with friends and they were like what a good story and I was like huh??? good??? Okay, maybe but good??? Like maybe they liked it because they hadn't consumed as much queer content [at the time it was only Western] as I had. And I was so irritated by the Ayushman Khurana wears a gay flag and gives a speech. Felt like a lecture and not a movie, if you know what I mean.

Okay so, from where I'm standing, having an indian bl industry is kind of impossible. See, these industries' survival is based almost entirely on their audience's buying power. Specifically, buying novels and merch. Those sales numbers are what attracts investors and advertisors whose investments keep projects afloat. BL audiences are made up of majorly young girls and young girls in India simply don't have the kind of financial freedom to buy explicitly gay merch.

The lack of financial freedom that a majority of teenage girls and unmarried women face in our country has been a cause for concern for a long time and there just hasn't been enough progress made on that front. Same sex relation and content depicting the same is also still a pretty big tabboo across the country. Sexual content of ANY kind is a big tabboo too and most BLs are explicit to some extent. The target audience in this case will not be able to meet the kind of sales goals these producers need to justify the cost of producing BLs. This isn't even an educated guess, the creators of queer indian cinema like SMZS have said that since these same sex love stories don't sell, production houses are discouraged from making more such content in the future. Everything is about money and people will not make stuff they cannot sell.

The few queer shows and movies we do have constantly get overly criticised, with even queer audiences expecting much higher standards from queer media than they do from non queer media which causes these films to consistently flop. Yes the flag cape scene in SMZS is a bit preachy but that's the point? The character is actively preaching. He's being shunned and dehumanized and he's reacting to that by refusing to be silenced and forced away from the man he loves. He's being as obnoxious as possible so he's impossible to ignore. Sure SMZS may not be everyone's cut of tea but they did their best to tell a love story between two men with all the grand gestures typical of a bollywood romance and got no recognition for putting in the effort where no one else did even that much. That's demoralising. No one wants to make content that will get nitpicked and boycotted. No one is going to go out there and dedicate their careers to making movies and shows that y'all are just going to rip to shreds at first sight bc it's not this or that enough while straight content gets to be however bad it wants without a second thought bc "no one expects perfection from bollywood."

I want more queer content just as much as the next queer Indian. Understand that the key to getting that is actually appreciating the content that is already there for all the good that it has brought to table, alongside its faults. Watch the few mainstream queer movies like SMZS, Ek Ladki Ko Dekha, Badhaai Do. Watch the ott content like Romil and Juggal or Made in Heaven. Watch the web shows like Firsts and All About Section 377. Create a non-hostile environment where queer media is allowed a chance to thrive the same way cishet media gets without any conditions and you'll see the content you want emerge with time.

[pallastrology]

similarities between neighbouring signs

Aries shares determination and a need to be in charge with Taurus. They both like to feel in control of the situation, but this manifests differently for the two signs. With Aries, the emphasis is less on being the rule maker and more on feeling they are ahead of the game, while Taurus, who fears change, likes to feel nothing unexpected will happen. They are also both self-oriented, in slightly different ways; while Aries is focused on self-actualisation, the question of identity, and realising their goals, Taurus often connects more with self worth, personal values and self-love. A quick note: self-oriented doesn’t mean selfish, it means the concept of self is especially important.

Taurus shares the need for mental stimulation and social bonds with Gemini. Both signs can be prone to rumination without enough external stimuli to focus on; for Taurus, this often manifests through work, hobbies and home projects, while Gemini can be found taking in new information and socialising. On that note, both Taurus and Gemini have a deep need to connect with other people to feel whole. Taurus loves to love, and can have a relatively small “inner circle” of trusted people, while Gemini reaches out like a neural network, flitting between lots of people. These relationships can sometimes appear shallow, but are vital for Gemini.

Gemini shares a shrewd memory and the need for understanding with Cancer. Gemini is known for having a sharp memory, Cancer? Not so much, but those who don’t know this have never been close to a Cancer. They have an almost photographic memory, especially for emotional experiences, while Gemini is more of an information retainer, especially for things that can pique their interest. Both signs are often quite misunderstood – Gemini for being shallow and two-faced, Cancer for being a fragile child or a loving mother with no in-between. However, Gemini is really someone who is malleable and able to shift between lots of interests and types of people. And Cancer has a business acumen that can rival Capricorn, however they often aren’t quite as motivated towards this side of themselves. Gemini and Cancer both ned people who can see and accept how multifaceted they are.

Cancer shares compassion and a strong inner-child with Leo. Cancer is so often seen as the archetype of the mother, and yet they have a child-self hidden within. When we think of cancer as being moody, this is often the cause; they can try to keep their inner child pacified and suppressed for too long, and so it bursts out. Leo is a little more outwardly childlike in a sense – they have this sense of creativity, pride, a need for praise and admiration that can be endearing to some and irritating to others. Both signs are very compassionate in their own way. Cancer is known for being motherly and nurturing, but Leo can be so incredibly caring too – after all, think of lions; they aren’t loners, they live in a pride. And pride is what Leo can fill their loved ones with, if given half a chance. These are two signs who give a lot of love, but need a lot back too.

Leo shares insecurity and creativity with Virgo. While Leo tends to find themselves being their own biggest cheerleader, and even ignoring their faults to avoid the feelings of shame and doubt, Virgo may instead turn to criticising others, projecting their worries and guilt over not being “enough” onto their loved ones. The key to managing both of these issues, is awareness. Leo and Virgo are both creative signs, though it shows up very differently. Leo is classically creative, presenting themselves and their art loud and proud for the world to see. Virgo, on the other hand, uses their creativity less for dramatic display, and more for everyday life; they are natural problem solvers and often very good with their hands. The life they build is their creation.

Virgo shares attention to detail and fragmentation with Libra. Virgo is known for being attentive and detail-oriented, but Libra is too; however, for Libra, this trait shows up more through their social intelligence and eye for the arts. Both signs can be hypercritical of themselves and others, and both signs have high standards and are perfectionists at times. Another trait that they share, is the propensity for feelings of fragmentation to bubble up. Both signs can mould themselves into what they think they want to be – their idea of perfect, whatever that is for them. However, when it comes to perfectionism we all know that almost nothing is ever actually good enough, and so Virgo and Libra continue to snip pieces off and stitch new pieces on until they no longer resemble themselves. This is something that self-love can mend, as they need to learn that they are whole and perfect as they are.

Libra shares the needs for truth and intimacy with Scorpio. Both signs value the truth very highly, but while for Libra this is often underpinned by a need for things to be just, to be able to balance out all sides of the story, for Scorpio the desire for truth is underpinned with fear of being deceived. They need to rip off any potential blindfolds that may be obscuring the truth from them. Both signs also need – and can be afraid of – intimacy. Libra loves contracts and to love others, while Scorpio desires a partner in crime, someone to become one with, both physically and spiritually.

Scorpio shares depth and avoidance with Sagittarius. Scorpio is deep in almost every sense of the word – they are emotional wells, hold dark secrets, keep their more personal thoughts to themselves and like to stay a little enigmatic. Sagittarius isn’t outwardly deep, as they are more jovial, humorous, light-hearted. But their quest for knowledge and expansion leads them to reflect inwardly too, and they take in more than just information during their journey. Both signs also share a certain avoidance – Scorpio avoids betrayal by never trusting, avoids heartbreak by never letting others in. Sagittarius can find commitment too much to deal with, and runs. They are afraid of being trapped or tied down. Both signs could do with learning to embrace their fears, and accepting that they will survive if it doesn’t work out.

Sagittarius shares drive and expansive dreams with Capricorn. Both Sagittarius and Capricorn are highly driven signs, but it manifests very differently in them. Sagittarius, the lifelong student, and Capricorn, who was born to master their craft. This drive helps them to etch away at their dreams; Sagittarius is driven to consume everything they can find, travel as far as they are able, and chase the horizon for their next chapter. Capricorn is driven to polish and perfect themselves, and build themselves a life and legacy they will be proud of. As different as these two dreams are, the tenacity with which they work at them is really just the same.

Capricorn shares passion and stubbornness with Aquarius. Both signs are passionate and motivated, as we often see in Capricorn's work ethic and Aquarius’ desire to make a change. While Aquarius is usually associated with social and digital upheaval, Capricorn prefers more traditionally tangible results. Capricorn and Aquarius are both stubborn and can be short-sighted at times too, but this stubbornness is something that can be channelled into their projects. These are two signs who have the power to change things for the better, and to set themselves apart form the rest, but they must master their self doubt – which may manifest as stubborn refusal to dream.

Aquarius shares intuitiveness and humanity with Pisces. These two both see and feel the plight of humanity in their souls, though they act on it very differently; while Aquarius will be marching, Pisces will be nursing the wounds of the people they meet. Aquarius brings about change, and Pisces picks up and stitches together the pieces. Both Aquarius and Pisces also share a keen sense of intuition, and can put this to good use with some practice. This is where we see the archetype of Aquarius as the inventor, they have these flashes of ingenuity that allow them to break things down and build them back up, better than before. Pisces, on the other hand, is intuitive in a gentler way; their brilliance is more emotional and social, and needs a little more work to harness properly.

Pisces shares vision and impulsivity with Aries. Neither sign is a natural planner like their sister signs; Pisces gets swept away in the big picture, while Aries has to work hard to channel their energy in the right directions. Both Pisces and Aries, however, are blessed with inspiring vision. They can conjure up grand ideas as easily as dreaming for Pisces, who steps into this potential world like stepping into the ocean. For Aries, their vision is like a supernova, growing ever larger and brighter. With time and practice, these gifts can be harnessed beautifully.

[causeiwanttoandican]

Harry, Meghan and me: my truth as a royal reporter

I've covered elections and extremism, but nothing compares to the vitriol I've received since I started writing about the Sussexes

By Camilla Tominey, Associate Editor27 March 2021 • 6:00am

It is probably worth mentioning from the outset that I never, ever, planned to become a royal reporter. I mean, who does? It’s one of those ridiculous jobs most people fall into completely by accident.

I certainly wasn’t coveting the position when I first found out how bonkers the beat could be after covering Charles and Camilla’s wedding in 2005. Desperate for ‘a line’ on what went on at the reception, journalists were reduced to flagging down passing cars in Windsor High Street and interrogating the likes of Stephen Fry about whether they’d had the salmon or the chicken.

Watergate, this wasn’t.

Yet when my former editor called me into his office shortly afterwards and offered me the royal job ‘because you’re called Camilla and you dress nicely’, who was I to refuse?

Having planned to get married myself that summer, and start a family soon afterwards, I looked to the likes of Jennie Bond and Penny Junor and figured it would be a good patch for a working mother as well as being one I could grow old with. Unlike show business, when celebrities are ‘in’ one minute and ‘out’ the next, the royals would stay the same, making it easier to build – and keep – contacts.

So if you’d told me that 16 years later, I would find myself at the centre of a media storm over a royal interview with Oprah Winfrey, I’d have probably laughed in your face. First of all, only royals like Fergie do interviews with Oprah. And since when did journalists become the story?

Yet as I have experienced since the arrival of Meghan Markle on the royal scene in 2016 – a move that roughly coincided with Twitter doubling its 140-character limitation to 280 – royal reporters like me now find themselves in the line of fire like never before.

We are used to the likes of Kate Adie coming under attack in the Middle East, but now it is the correspondents who write up events like Trooping the Colour and the Royal Windsor Horse Show having to take cover from the keyboard warriors supposedly defending the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s ‘truth’.

Accusations of racism have long been levelled against anyone who has dared to write less than undiluted praise of Harry and Meghan. But even I have been taken aback by the vitriol on social media in the wake of the couple’s televised two-hour talk-a-thon, in which they branded both the Royal family and the British press racist while complaining about their ‘almost unsurvivable’ multimillionaire lives at the hands of the evil monarchy. And all while the rest of the UK were losing their loved ones and livelihoods in a global pandemic.

Having covered Brexit, general elections and stories about Islamic extremism, I’ve grown used to being sprayed with viral vomit on a fairly regular basis, but when you’ve got complete strangers trolling your best friend’s Instagram feed by association? That’s Britney Spears levels of toxic.

Having a hind thicker than a rhino’s, it wasn’t the repeated references to my being ‘a total c—’ that particularly bothered me, nor even the suggestion that I should have my three children put up for adoption. At one point someone even said it would be a good idea for me to drink myself to death like my mother, about whose chronic alcoholism I have written extensively.

No, what really got me was the appalling spelling and grammar. I mean, if you’re going to hurl insults, at least have the decency to get my name right.

Yet in order to understand just how it has come to pass that so-called #SussexSquaders think nothing of branding all royal correspondents ‘white supremacists’ regardless of who they write for, or sending hate mail to our email addresses, offices – and in some cases, even our homes – it’s worth briefly going to back to when I first broke the story that Prince Harry was dating an American actor in the Sunday Express on 31 October 2016. Headlined: ‘Royal world exclusive: Harry’s secret romance with TV star’, the splash revealed how the popular prince was ‘secretly dating a stunning US actress, model and human rights campaigner’.

Despite my now apparently being on a par with the Ku Klux Klan for failing to acknowledge Meghan as the next messiah, it was actually not until the fifteenth paragraph of that original article that the ‘confident and intelligent’ Northwestern University graduate was described as ‘the daughter of an African-American mother and a father of Dutch and Irish descent’.

Call me superficial, but I was genuinely far more interested in the fact that Harry ‘I-come-with-baggage’ Wales was dating a former ‘briefcase girl’ from the US version of Deal or No Deal than the colour of her skin. A ginger prince punching well above his weight? This was the stuff of tabloid dreams. Little did I know then that covering the trials and tribulations of these two lovebirds would turn into such a nightmare.

The online hostility began bubbling up about eight days after that first story, when Harry’s then communications secretary Jason Knauf issued an ‘unprecedented’ statement accusing the media of ‘crossing a line’.

‘His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment’, it read, referencing a ‘smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments’. Meghan’s mother, Doria Ragland, had apparently been besieged by photographers, while bribes had been offered to Meghan’s ex-boyfriend along with ‘the bombardment of nearly every friend, coworker, and loved one in her life’.

Suffice to say, I did feel a bit guilty. Although I hadn’t written anything remotely racist or sexist, I had started the ball rolling for headlines like the MailOnline’s ‘(Almost) straight outta Compton’ (referencing a song by hip-hop group NWA about gang violence and Meghan’s upbringing in the nearby LA district of Crenshaw), along with her ‘exotic’ DNA (which I subsequently called out, including on This Morning in the wake of ‘Megxit’ in January last year).

Omid Scobie, co-author of Finding Freedom, a highly favourable account of the Sussexes’ departure from the Royal family, written with their cooperation last summer, would later insist that the couple knew the story of their relationship was coming out and were well prepared for it.

I can tell you categorically that they weren’t, since I did not even put a call into Kensington Palace before we went to press for fear of it being leaked. (I did later discuss this with Harry, when I covered his trip to the Caribbean in November 2016, and to be fair he was pretty philosophical, agreeing it would have come out sooner or later. But that was before the former Army Captain decided to well and truly shoot the messenger, latterly telling journalists covering the newly-weds’ tax-payer-funded October 2018 tour of Australia and the south Pacific: ‘Thanks for coming, even though you weren’t invited.’)

The royal press pack is the group of dedicated writers who cover all the official engagements and tours on a rota system, in exchange for not bothering the royals as they go about their private business. It was a shame this ragtag bunch, of which I am an associate member, was never personally introduced to Meghan when the couple got engaged in November 2017.

I still have fond memories of a then Kate Middleton, upon her engagement to Prince William in November 2010, showing me her huge sapphire and diamond ring following a press conference at St James’s Palace with the words, ‘It was William’s mother’s so it is very special.’

I replied that she might want to consider buying ‘one of those expanding accordion style file holders’ to organise all her wedding paperwork. (Reader, I had given birth to my second child less than four months earlier and was still lactating.)

Not meeting Meghan did not stop royal commentators like me writing reams about her being ‘a breath of fresh air’ and telling practically every TV show I appeared on that she was the ‘best thing to have happened to the Royal Family in years’.

As the world followed the joyous news of the Windsors’ resident strip billiards star having finally found ‘the one’, the couple enjoyed overwhelmingly positive press culminating in their fairy-tale wedding in May 2018, which we headlined ‘So in love’ above a picture of the bride and groom kissing. I tweeted the wedding front page, along with the original story breaking the news of their relationship with the words, ‘Job done’. Yet, as Meghan would later point out in a glossy Santa Barbara garden, that was by far the end of the story.

According to the Duchess’s testimony before a global audience of millions, the seeds for their royal departure were actually sown by an article I wrote in November 2018 suggesting she made Kate cry during a bridesmaid’s dress fitting for Princess Charlotte.

Claiming the ‘reverse happened’, the former Suits star railed, ‘A few days before the wedding she was upset about something, pertaining to, yes, the issue was correct, about flower-girl dresses, and it made me cry, and it really hurt my feelings.’

She then went on to criticise the palace for failing to correct the story – suggesting that royal aides had hung her out to dry to protect the Duchess of Cambridge.

All of which left me in a bit of a sticky situation. As I told Phillip Schofield on This Morning the following day, ‘I don’t write things I don’t believe to be true and that haven’t been really well sourced.’

Having seemingly been completely bowled over by Meghan’s version of events, Schofe then went for the jugular: ‘I have to say, though, that’s all addressed in that interview, isn’t it, because she [Meghan] couldn’t understand why nobody stood up for her?’

Yet someone had stood up for her, on that very same This Morning sofa: me.

As I told Phil and Holly on 14 January 2019, as more reports of ‘Duchess Difficult’ started to emerge, ‘I think she [Meghan] is doing really well, she looks amazing, she speaks well. She has played a blinder.’

So you’ll forgive me if I can’t quite understand why Meghan didn’t feel the need to correct this supposedly glaring error once she had her own dedicated head of communications from March 2019 – or indeed when she ‘collaborated’ with Scobie, who concluded in his bestselling hagiography that ‘no one cried’?

Moreover, how did the Duchess know a postnatal Kate wasn’t ‘left in tears’? And if she doesn’t know, what hope has the average troll observing events through the prism of their own deep-rooted insecurities?

It appears the actual truth ceases to matter once sides have been taken in the unedifying Team Meghan versus Team Kate battle that has divided the internet.

Make no mistake, there are abject morons at both extremes spewing the sort of bile that, ironically, makes most of the media coverage of Harry and Meghan look like a 1970s edition of Jackie magazine.

It perhaps didn’t help my case that the day before the interview was aired in the US, I had written a lengthy piece carefully weighing up the evidence behind allegations of ‘outrageous bullying’ that had been levelled against Meghan during what proved to be a miserable 20 months in the Royal family for all concerned.

The messages – to my Twitter feed, my email, my website and official Facebook page – ranged from the threatening, to the typical tropes about media ‘scum’ and the downright bizarre. Some accused me of being in cahoots with Carole Middleton, with whom I have never interacted, unless you count a last-minute Party Pieces purchase in a desperate moment of poor parental planning.

Another frequent barb was questioning why the press wasn’t writing about that ‘pedo’ [sic] Prince Andrew instead – seemingly oblivious to the fact that no one would know about the Duke of York’s links to Jeffrey Epstein if it wasn’t for the acres of coverage devoted to the story by us royal hacks over recent years.

It didn’t matter that I had repeatedly torn the Queen’s second, and, some say, favourite son to pieces for everything from his propensity to take his golf clubs on foreign tours to that disastrous Newsnight interview.

Contrary to the ‘invisible contract’ Harry claims the palace has with the press, royal coverage works roughly like this: good royal deeds = good publicity. Bad royal deeds = bad publicity. We effectively act as a critical friend, working on behalf of a public that rightly expects the royals to take the work – but not themselves – seriously.

So when a royal couple preaches about climate change before taking four private jets in 11 days, it is par for the course for a royal scribe to point out the inconsistency of that message. None of it is ever personal, as evidenced by the fact that practically every member of the monarchy has come in for flak over the years.

If Oprah wasn’t willing to point out the discrepancies in Harry and Meghan’s testimony, surely it is beholden on royal reporters to question how the Duchess had managed to undertake four foreign holidays in the six months after her wedding, in addition to official tours to Italy, Canada, and Amsterdam, as well as embarking on a lengthy honeymoon, if she had ‘turned over’ her passport?

While no one would wish to undermine the extent of her mental health problems, could it really be true that she only left the house twice in four months when she managed to cram in 73 days’ worth of engagements, according to the Court Circular, in the 17 months between her wedding and the couple’s departure to Canada?

And what of the ‘racist’ headlines flashed up during the interview purporting to be from the British press, when more than a third were actually taken from independent blogs and the foreign media? The UK media abides by the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s Code of Conduct ‘to avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race’, as well as by rigorous defamation laws. And rightly so – the British press doesn’t always get it right. But social media is the Wild West by comparison, publishing vile slurs on a daily basis with impunity.

Some therefore find it strange that such a litigious couple would claim to have been ‘silenced’ when they have made so many complaints, including resorting to legal action, over stories they claim not to have even read. There is something similarly contradictory about a couple accusing the tabloids of lacking self-reflection while refusing to take any blame at all – for anything.

In any normal world, informed writing on such matters would be classed as fair comment, but not, seemingly, on Twitter where those completely lacking any objectivity whatsoever are only too willing to virtue signal and manoeuvre.

As the trolling reached fever pitch in the aftermath of the interview, veteran royal reporter Robert Jobson of the Evening Standard called me. ‘Don’t respond to these freaks,’ he advised. ‘It’s getting nasty out there. Watch your back!’

Yet despite my general sense of bewilderment at the menacing Megbots, I can’t say it didn’t appal me to discover a close friend had received online abuse, purely by dint of being my mate. After discussing the lengths the troll must have gone to to track her down, she asked me, ‘Do you ever worry someone might do something awful to you?’ Er, not until now, no.

Of course it’s upsetting, even for a cynical old-timer like me. Worse still are people who actually know me casting aspersions on my profession on social media. Often these are the same charlatans who would think nothing of sidling up to me for the latest gossip on the Royal family, while publicly pretending that reading any such coverage is completely beneath them.

Most pernicious of all though – not least after Piers Morgan’s departure from Good Morning Britain following a complaint to ITV and Ofcom from the Duchess – is the corrosive effect this whole hullabaloo is having on freedom of speech. When you’ve got a former actor effectively editing a British breakfast show from an £11 million Montecito mansion, what next?

I cannot help but think we are in danger of setting race relations back 30 years if people are seriously suggesting that any criticism of Meghan is racially motivated. It’s the hypocrisy that gets me. When Priti Patel was accused of bullying, the very same people who willingly hung the Home Secretary out to dry are now the ones defending Meghan against such claims, saying they have been levelled at her simply because she is ‘a strong woman of colour’.

Of course journalists should take responsibility for everything they report and be held to account for it – but Harry and Meghan do not have a monopoly on the truth simply because the close friend and neighbour who interviewed them in return for £7 million from CBS took what they said as gospel.

If she isn’t willing to probe the disparity between Meghan saying someone questioned the colour of Archie’s skin when she was pregnant, and Harry suggesting it happened before they were even married, then someone must. There’s a name for such scrutiny. It’s called journalism.

The public reserves the right to make up its own mind – with the help of the watchful eye of a free and fair press. But that press can never be free or fair if journalists do not feel they can report without fear or favour. I’m lucky that a lot of the criticism I face is more than balanced out by hugely supportive members of the public and online community who either agree – or respect the right to disagree. Along with the hate mail, I have had many thoughtful and eloquent missives, including those that good naturedly challenge what I have written in the paper or said on TV, which have genuinely given me pause for thought.

I am more than happy to enter into constructive discourse with these correspondents, who are frankly sometimes the only people who keep me on Twitter. I mean, let’s face it, I wouldn’t be anywhere near the bloody thing if this wasn’t my day job.

With the National Union of Journalists this month declaring that harassment and abuse had ‘become normalised’ within the industry, never have members of Britain’s press needed more courage. As Winston Churchill famously said, ‘You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.’

Who would have thought that the preservation of the fundamental freedoms that we hold so dear should partially rest on the shoulders of those who follow around a 94-year-old woman and her family for a living?

If I’d known then what I know now, would I still have written the bridesmaid’s dress story?

Yes – doubtlessly reflecting sisterly sobs all round. But after two decades in this business, I am clear-eyed enough to know this for certain: whatever I had written, it would still have ended in tears.

[justasimplesinner]

YEEAAAH REQUESTS OPEN do you have any hcs of ak Eddie and year one Jon with an artistic s/o? Bonus if they do graffiti 😎

Arkham Knight!Eddie with an artist hcs:

when he was younger, Edward kind of enjoyed art. but independent art. art with a hidden meaning. art that made you think when you looked at it, that entranced you and made you wonder what was the reason for making this piece, what's the message that the artist wanted to convey. he knew a lot of classical art and the greatest artists of all time but that doesn't mean he enjoyed their art. finding out about all the things the "greatest painters to ever live" did really prevented him from enjoying their works. there's not many people that know about the shit Picasso has done, but he's one of them and it always makes him research the artists he stumbles upon. only Van Gogh was legit. and he's not fond of most modern art either. even if it has no meaning, it'd be great if the art depicted at least something. he doesn't really like people painting a few dots and lines and calling it spiritual art, he thinks it's lazy and clashes with his logic

he's on the fence when it comes to graffiti. if it's for sending a message and making a difference, he's able to appreciate it, but if it's just mindless spray-painting, he isn't the biggest fan. sometimes, it doesn't look half-bad, but there are buildings ruined by bad graffiti and he hates looking at it. however, he's kind of an graffit artist himself, even if he doesn't realise it/doesn't wanna admit it. i mean, c'mon, he painted half the city with green paint and most of it was question marks or insults towards Batman. but your spray-painting skills really came in handy when it comes to that. you've offered to help him with painting his locations and at first, he was neutral towards it, just letting you do whatever you want, but soon enough, it turned out ot be the most fun he had in years. he would've never thought that running around and spraying walls with his partner would be so enjoyable. you were so creative too! it was amazing. and he loved when you climbed up onto his shoulders to spray paint higher points because you refused to use a ladder when he was right there. he genuinely hasn't laughed this hard with anyone ever, it's honestly one of his favourite memories with you

he doesn't mind going to art galleries with you if you like it, but just so you know, he's doing it just to shit on most artists. not because of their art, but because of the kind of person they were. no, he's definitely not doing this to make you happy and spend some quality time with you while showing off his knowledge. no, why would you think that

he fucking loves sculpting though. he loved it since he was a kid and laid his hands on plasticine for the first time. if you like to play around with clay, he's fucking got you. there's so many possibilities! he could do anything! shaping clay or making pots or whatever with you makes him so incredibly happy it's ricidulous. he enjoys it way too much. no one should be this happy about having their arms in clay up to the elbows, and yet here he is

he's honestly willing to try a lot of things with you. despite being very critical, he does enjoy art now and then. he enjoys spending time with you while doing something creative. it allows him to let his mind loose and just create shit. his hands are really skilled and steady, so he's not half-bad at it either! and maybe he won't admit that out loud, but he wouldn't mind you teaching him more things or new techniques. every time you two make art together, it's like he turns into a child again. he can't explain it, but it makes him so happy. he lacked such entertainment and encouragement as a child, and now you're making up for it and he couldn't've been happier

Year One!Jon with an artist hcs:

Jon's relationship with art is complicated. as a kid, the only paintings he's seen were the ones in Granny's house, and he hated them. they either depicted biblical scenes or Granny and her ancestors, and he had to learn all about them. Granny had a lot of morbid art hung in the corridor leading to his room and it always reminded him how sinners go to hell. he wasn't allowed to make art himself outside of school either. he kind of enjoyed it, but other kids often ruined his works and that's where his distaste started. when he grew up and was finally free of the horrible woman, Jon wanted to try a lot of new things and one of them was visiting an art gallery, but it all felt... pompous. the people there were vain and shallow, and he didn't quite see the art for it's meaning but for it's worth. he saw art galleries as places people went to to show off their wealth, and that art was an entertainment only for the upper class. that made his distaste grow

you made him realised that he didn't really hate art, he just had bad experiences with it. it's not about the art but the way it's showcased and the way people treat it. and that's when he started truly appreciating it. when he watched you work, he didn't see all the pompous people. when you explained your works to him, he didn't feel the same dread and disgust he felt at the paintings in his childhood home. when you encouraged him to paint, you let him go wild, didn't give him strict instructions like his school's art teacher and didn't criticise what he did like his classmates. you made him realise that he didn't need experience and skill because art isn't supposed to look nice, it's supposed to mean something, make you feel something. he still doesn't indulge too often, but you made him see why people made art and even showed him how therapeutic it can be

he enjoys listening to you talk about art, and is amazed when you specifically look for things that'd suit his own tastes and introduce him to new artists. he likes sculptures and paintings that fuck with your mind, sometimes even straight out gore and horror, and you always go out of your way to make sure he has a chance to interact with such art, be it an art show or a book about a certain artist. you acknowledge what he likes and you don't criticize him for it, instead encouraging him to pursue it

when it comes to graffiti, he always associated it with the bad kids. the ones that steal lunch money and fuck shit up. as he grew, he realised it was actually more of social rejects, the rebels, the people he always wanted to hang out with because he thought they'd understand him. he's on the fence, because on one hand, it's just kids letting loose, but on the other, it sometimes ruins the architecture and he hates how some buildings look. but he understands the need to disrespect your surroundings when you're constantly disrespected by your environment too. so he certainly won't stop you from doing it. and he maybe kinda sorta dreamed of spray painting an abandoned building as a kid. and you maybe kinda sorta can make those childish dreams come true. he won't ask though. you gotta offer that yourself

he may not be an art conessieur, but you taught him how to appreciate art, you taught him how to make art. he doesn't indulge you often, he'd prefer it if you just worked on your thing while he worked on his/read a book in the same room, but sometimes he gets the weird urge to just... paint with you. one time you made him paint with his hands and maybe he didn't enjoy it as much as his younger self would have, but he did feel his inner child come to life at that moment. he honestly got more paint on himself and you than the canvas, but he had fun. he genuinely had fun. he was allowed to have fun now. he could let loose. nobody held him back. you only encouraged him, and it made him fall in love with you more every day

[jessmalia]

tell me your favourite disney songs pleaseeee

Ok I gotta start out with the BEST one so I'll just have it out there

I'LL MAKE A MAN OUT OF YOU IS A FUCKING MASTERPIECE! IT'S THE BEST DISNEY SONG EVER AND I WILL DIE ON THIS HILL! People have criticised me for liking it before because "uwu it has SEXISM in it that means it's BAD" like yeah??? it's a movie about female empowerment of course it's gonna have sexism in it, that doesn't make it problematic you fucking idiot. It's about as cold of a take as "oh no did you hear that Brokeback Mountain has homophobia in it? not very woke of them" like dude have you no critical thinking? I don't give a shit about the sexist lines it's a fucking BOP okay. I mean the lyrics???? "We must be swift as the coursing river With all the force of a great typhoon With all the strength of a raging fire Mysterious as the dark side of the moon" like WHO COMES UP WITH THAT?! And that's not even mentioning the fucking visuals okay? Like I genuinely believe it's the best training montage of all time (I haven't seen Rocky but my mom has and she said it's not as good. usually I wouldn't really trust her on these kinds of topics but I'm gonna take a wild guess and say she's right). I mean, the fucking visual of Mulan using her intelligence to climb up the pole and get the arrow, making everyone's training take a turn for the better? BEAUTIFUL! Also bisexual legend Lee Chang is shirtless during the entire thing 100/10.

Keeping it on the Mulan track, Reflection – the beautiful song that awakened something in EVERY queer kid (honestly tho I never really struggled with my queer identity that much so I actually relate to it more on an autistic level). Also THIS IS AN EDMUND SONG, I WILL FIGHT ANYONE WHO DISAGREES! 15/10. 

Then just, the entire Beauty and the Best soundtrack. It’s my favourite Disney movie of all time, it’s truly their magnum opus, and every song is a BOP. I relate to Belle so hard and she was also my first ever fictional crush at the age of 3. “Belle” is a great opening number that’s extremely musically effective since it serves both to establish the world and as an I want song. Belle (reprise) is just as great. Gaston is a great hilarious villain song that perfectly illustrates how the towns folk blindly love and follow Gaston AND how much of a fucking meme he is. Be Our Guest is grand and beautifully animated, and it serves to make us (and Belle) see the castle as home perfectly. Something There is just THE perfect song to illustrate growing romantic feelings. Beauty and the Beast is such a beautiful fucking love song I want to play it at my wedding! And The Mob Song has a Shakespeare reference in it, plus a lot of relevant as hell lyrics to its theme “We don't like what we don't understand, in fact it scares us And this monster is mysterious at least” what more could you want? honestly this entire song kinda reads like they’re going to kill a gay man or something, which makes sense since it was written by one, and it’s honestly terrifying through that perspective 20/10. 

I Won’t Say (I’m In Love) BASICALLY INVENTED MUSICAL THEATRE ITSELF HOLY SHIT! I fucking love to associate it with any ship that includes one of the characters being in denial (which is most of them). I’ve been listening to it a lot more lately since I put it on my meter playlist and it NEVER gets old. The muses trying to get Meg to say that she’s in love accommodated with her just refusing to admit it works soooo well. My favourite lyrics are “It's too cliche I won't say I'm in love” and “My head is screaming Get a grip girl Unless you're dying to cry your heart out” and “Face it like a grown-up When you gonna own up that you got got got it bad” and the ending part “At least out loud I won't say I'm in love” that one gets me every time. 20/10. 

Kiss the Girl is a fucking bop. I don’t have much else to say about it other than that. I hope my friends will sing it while trying to set me up with someone someday. 10/10.

I See the Light is such a wonderful love song and it always makes me think of Draco and Aria. Just the concept of finding your greater purpose through this person you never so coming, ah 😭😭😭. “You were my new Dream” “An you were mine” 10/10. 

I have a couple of songs where only the swedish version is special to me, and it’s all just cause memories with my dad from when I was little. So, idk you can listen to the swedish versions if you want even tho you won’t understand it (I mean you can just look up the English lyrics so that doesn’t really matter). Those are Thomas O’Malley, Ev'rybody Wants to Be a Cat (Alla Snubbar Vill Ju Vara Katt) and The Bear Necessities (Var Nöjd Med All Som Livet Ger). Me and my dad used to watch Aristocats all the time and his favourite character was Thomas O’Malley, so his love for the character and the song sort of seeped into me as well, and we both loved Alla Snubbar Vill Ju Vara Katt (I’m a cat person, what can I say?). We also watched The Jungle Book a lot and my dad was absolutely OBSESSED with Var Nöjd Med All Som Livet Ger. He sung it ALL THE TIME. I honestly think I’ve heard that song more than Let It Go. 15/10. 

Of course there’s a lot of other fantastic Disney songs out there (Hellfire and A Whole New World come to mind, I feel like they deserve an honourable mention) but these are just the ones that are more special to me personally. 

Also yes of course Reflection is a Henry song also but it’s just a given that if I relate anything to autism it also applies to Henry Mills

[attemptsonherlifepdf]

attempts on her life: an exploration of victimhood, theatre and self-empowerment as modern feminine survival tactics

trigger warning for discussions of suicide, self harm, sexual assault, fetishism, eating disorders, implications of paedophilia and violence

‘is she not saying, your help oppresses me? is she not saying, the only way to avoid being a victim of the patriarchal structures of late 20th century capitalism is to become her own victim?’ martin crimp’s 1997 play, attempts on her life, was first performed at the royal court theatre upstairs the year of its release. written ‘for a company of actors whose composition should reflect the world beyond theatre’, the play explores the seedier, harsher aspects of reality, including pornography, ethnic violence and suicide. crimp’s central character, anne, is characterised as unique and empowered, but most importantly she is characterised by narrators and other characters describing her. the irony of a woman described as so empowered having so little voice of her own throughout the play is crucial to the question the play poses: is liberation from patriarchal constraints even possible, or do acts of reclamation serve to eventually end up catering to the male gaze regardless?

the scene ‘untitled (100 words)’ details anne’s self-destruction, manifesting in ‘various attempts to kill herself.’ it is an effort to replace being a victim of ‘patriarchal structures’ with being a victim of her own actions and emotions. arguably though, this effort may not be entirely fruitful as anne’s behaviour produces the same result she would achieve through allowing herself to cater to traditional expectations: a helpless victim of the male gaze. anne’s actions are presented as exhibitionist; while motivated by her own suicidal ideation, her attempts to take her life work as ‘a kind of theatre for a world in which theatre itself has died.’ she leaves a ‘gallery’ of memorabilia surrounding her attempts, including ‘medicine bottles, records of hospital admissions polaroids of the several hiv positive with whom she has intentionally had unprotected intercourse, pieces of broken glass...suicide notes…’ a narrator describes this exhibition as ‘the spectacle of her own existence, the radical pronography...the religious object.’ the semantic field of language in this scene associated with anne’s suicide attempts is littered with sexualisation and ideas of performance: ‘its sexy...voeyuers...pornography...object of herself...to be consumed...self-indulgent...entertaining.’ this opens up a dialogue between the narrators that evaluates her suicidal behaviour as a piece of artwork. one asks ‘who would possibly accept this kind of undigested exhibitionism as a work of art?’ while the other offers the idea that ‘gestures of radicalism take on new meaning in a society where the radical gesture is simply one more form of entertainment - in this case artwork - to be consumed.’ as uncomfortable as it is to suggest, anne’s suicidality is both fetishised and commodified, something that is partially her own doing. the concepts of ‘pure narcissism’ and ‘self-indulgence’ are attributed to her performance, along with one of the narrators pushing for her to receive psychiatric treatment. an obvious but viable interpretation of anne’s ‘gallery’ is that it is an exaggerated cry for help, where she lays out the evidence of her mental state in the hopes of receiving validation or assistance. this idea is disputed by this narrator’s counterpart, who suggests that ‘help is the last thing she wants.’ the sexualised language used and the repeated hints at exhibitionism could indicate that her performance is for the purpose of her own sexual pleasure: ‘surely our presence [the audience] here makes us mere voyeurs in bedlam.’ in forcing those around her to witness her mental decline, anne may be participating in fetishism. she certainly is acting with the intention of performing, and of being watched.

this is where the idea of empowerment and reclamation comes in. anne forces her peers into watching, something that she gets pleasure from, and this arguably serves as a reversal of typical sexual dynamics which place men in dominant, pleasure-receiving roles roles. in self-destructive behaviours, she reclaims her body and chooses to destroy it herself rather than allowing others to do it to her. however, in the process of doing so she achieves the same result that she would if she were allowing her environment to shape her into an object of the male gaze; that is to say, a helpless object. men’s stereotypical attraction to what ibsen referred to as ‘feminine helplessness’ tends to be the driving force of the objectification of women. it can be argued that this objectification is inevitable and thus anne’s efforts to control the means by which it occurs is the closest she can get to liberating herself from it. finding a way to enjoy or bear something painful and inevitable serves as a survival mechanism; ‘not the object of others, but the object of herself.’

the aesthetic framing of anne’s violence against herself is incredibly significant to its relevance as a piece of artwork. in ‘aesthetic violence and women in film: kill bill with flying daggers’, kupfer argues that film, and by extension plays and scripts, aesthetically frame violence in three ways: symbolically, structurally, and as a narrative essential. anne’s violence can be characterised as self harm and fulfills these three framings. symbolically it is an act of free will and a reclamation of her own body, an opportunity to enjoy her ‘inevitable’ objectification. structurally, the scene ‘untitled (100 words)’ occurs five scenes after the last discussion of anne’s suicidality within the play, a scene titled ‘mum and dad.’ this sets up certain aspects of anne’s performative nature in advance. after a suicide attempt she describes ‘[feeling] like a screen’ to her parents: ‘where everything from the front looks real and alive, but round the back there’s just dust and a few wires...an absence of character.’ here she details an experience of feeling disconnected from herself beyond her performance. the act of using performance as a means of openly criticising performance is certainly subversive, and is a device seen in more modern media, such as bojack horseman (‘i felt like a xerox of a xerox of a xerox...not my character’) and in bo burnham’s ‘inside.’ crimp uses his play to propose ideas about the nature of acting, particularly its role in the lives of women. the sentiment of acting being a survival tactic for women is echoed in much earlier texts, such as ibsen’s ‘a doll’s house.’ throughout the play nora caters to her husband’s infantalised fantasies of her whenever he is present, and doing so results in him giving her an allowance and certain limited but significant moments of freedom. torvald admits, ‘i would not be a man if your feminine helplessness did not make you doubly attractive in my eyes’ and repeatedly states that he wishes some ‘terrible fate’ would befall his wife so that he could have the pleasure of rescuing her. anne’s performance of suicidality, of feeling ‘beyond help’, would likely be received by men similarly to how nora’s childish facade is received by her husband, as a fantasy that involves saving her for their own sense of pleasure and accomplishment. however, what makes anne’s behaviour ‘radical’ is her refusal to accept help. she recognises that her feelings of hopelessness are fetishised and argues that ‘your help oppresses me.’ this sentiment is also reflected in ‘a doll’s house’; nora must refuse torvald’s money and help in order to pursue her own freedom in the final act. catering to his idealised image of a wife only served to help her survive her household, not to prosper or be her individual self. she had to leave the environment which forced her to perform behind entirely in order to discover who she is beyond the act. not accepting help is anne’s version of this, but the narrators consider the idea that even in isolating her act to only include herself, anne still cannot escape objectification. her ‘radical gesture’ of destroying herself and laying out the evidence of her behaviour is ‘simply one more form of entertainment, one more product… to be consumed.’ an earlier scene, titled ‘the camera loves you’ includes the line ‘we need to go for the sexiest scenario’, a statement which accurately summarises the likely reception to anne’s ‘dialogue of objects.’ arguably another aspect of what makes anne’s predicament ‘the sexiest scenario’ is that even within the text itself she is the subject of the conversation, but rarely a participant. anne is described by narrators, art critics, her parents, her family, etc, but only ever speaks for herself when her defiant statements are being quoted by one of these narrators. descriptions of her self-inflicted violence fit kupfer’s final framing: a narrative essential.

interestingly, the play consists of a somewhat non-linear narrative, where each of its 17 scenes has its own plot unconnected to that of the last. as a result, a narrative essential in ‘attempts on her life’ would be a device, or in this case an instance of violence, which builds our understanding of both anne and the play’s messages, rather than a traditional narrative essential which would drive the plot forwards. the play delivers multiple instances of various forms of violence, ranging from ethnic violence to self harm to forced pornography. anne’s self-injury in particular is framed just prior to and just after the midpoint of the play. before the midpoint, the audience learns of her ‘terrible detachment’ from the character she plays, how she ‘feels like a screen.’ the midpoint, a scene titled ‘the international threat of terrorism™’ opens with a brief analysis of a statement made by anne: ‘i do not recognise your authority.’ the speaker asks, ‘does she really imagine that anything can justify her acts of random senseless violence?’ ‘random’ and ‘senseless’ seem ill-fitting qualities to attribute to anne’s violence, particularly given that her parents state ‘she’s planned all this.’ however, this midpoint scene states ‘no one can find anne’s motive’, seemingly the reason that the speaker cannot see a possible justification for her behaviour. choosing not to recognise the authority of those around her is yet another aspect of our protagonist’s performance that is ‘radical.’ in neglecting to acknowledge the power of those objectifying her, anne is achieving two things; either she is allowing herself to experience her own body and emotions without it being for the sake of others, or she is allowing herself to be fetishised and is simply in denial of it. her defiance is complex and the results of it, and indeed the motivations behind it, are difficult to ascertain.

martin crimp’s use of 17 separate individual scenes rather than a traditional singular plot narrative allows the audience to gain a multifaceted understanding of many multifaceted issues. anne is placed and acts within varying contexts such as her own personal self destruction, destruction of land that comes with ethnic cleansing, the commodification of female bodies and two different familial structures. the scene ‘the camera loves you’ emphasises how anne is an ‘everywoman’ but rather than this term being used to describe an average woman in daily life, it instead refers to a woman who is, simply put, everything. anne is described in the scene ‘girl next door’ as ‘the girl next door...royalty…a pornographic movie star...a killer and a brand of car...a terrorist threat...a mother of three...femme fatale...a presidential candidate...a predator…’ by not allocating a specific speaker to each line, crimp allows the director to decide who describes anne and in what way. lines such as ‘what we see here is the work of a girl who clearly should have been admitted, not to an art school but to a psychiatric unit’ can be spoken by a parent, an art critic, a teacher, anyone, and the relation of the speaker to anne is what characterises the comment and thus characterises her. someone described as ‘self indulgent’ by a parent is very different to someone described the same way by a lover. this means that anne is not just every woman, but every woman to everyone. by placing this ‘everywoman’ in such a range of contexts, she arguably becomes a plot device used to convey meaning, and it can be argued that this negates the more empowered features of her character. it is entirely common for female characters to be reduced to plot devices, however most often when this occurs, the character is two-dimensional. anne, on the other hand, is consistently given additional layers to her character in every scene; she exists to be characterised. excessive use of character description in conjunction with limited speaking time is either evidence that crimp’s writing is atypical in style but not theme, or that it is poignant.

arguably, by giving anne countless traits and emphasising ideas of performance and media, crimp is using his 17 scenes as an extreme example of the commodification of female bodies. anne is sold to the audience as this larger-than-life persona, someone who fulfils a million roles in subversive ways that are interesting to watch, but she still ‘feels like a screen.’ again, this sentiment of the effects of performance on an actor is echoed in many modern texts and pieces of media, but ‘attempts on her life’ makes this point in specific reference to women. real life examples of anne’s treatment exist, and her ‘everywoman’ role allows audiences to relate anne to any number of women existing in media. the way that others only talk about anne when describing or evaluating her mimics the way that agencies and record labels create a solid branding for their actors, musicians, and so on. this brand becomes an intrinsic part of their genuine personality as they cannot be caught behaving in a way that is not consistent with it. acting becomes a constant, and these women are constantly selling a brand or persona, and have very little space to behave in ways that feel true to themselves instead. acting ‘out of character’ results in the loss of public support, funding from agencies, job offers, etc, and thus the character created for celebrities is vital to their survival in their respective industries. as previously discussed, traditional texts argue the importance of theatre for women’s survival just as much, namely ibsen’s ‘a doll’s house.’ the same way nora must leave the environment that forces her to act in order to be happy or individual, anne must do the same; but her attempts at suicide suggest that the environment forcing her performance is not a household or an industry, but ‘the patriarchal structures of late twentieth century capitalism.’ either she dies or ‘becomes her own victim’ in an attempt to escape constant performance, but even her death becomes somewhat performative. even dead, many female celebrities continue their branding through martyrdom. there is very little room for one to make art detailing suicide, sex, and the like without seemingly crossing the line between expression and glorification. women who suffer are not necessarily acting, but as their suffering is a part of their life experience, it becomes interwoven in their branding or public image: amy winehouse’s experiences with alcoholism and bulimia come to mind. winehouse never glorified alcoholism herself, but songs such as ‘rehab’ and documentaries covering her illness released after her death have certainly been accused of doing so. agencies and other creatives took advantage of winehouse’s struggles in order to perform their own ‘activism’ or ‘spreading of awareness.’

in light of ‘attempts on her life’ and the concepts surrounding performance that it poses, we must consider: is liberation from patriarchal constraints even possible, or do acts of reclamation serve to eventually end up catering to the male gaze regardless? it would not be accurate to the play’s style and purpose to try to make one singular conclusion to this question. crimp uses varying styles and contexts in order to showcase the various aspects there are to this issue; the necessity of performance, the constraints it leads to, the sexualisation of suffering, brand maintenance, and so on. anne’s lack of voice in this play can be read either as an example of the very thing the play criticises, or simply just poor usage of character, and the former feels most appropriate for crimp’s writing style. the play implies that victimhood can be intrinsic to womanhood, but presents anne’s defiance as ideallised, encouraging it. theatre can be used as both a survival mechanism and a method of empowerment, but the play posits that it is only empowering to a certain extent; it allows one to control the means by which they are objectified but not to actually avoid objectification. one can behave in undesirable manners, such as anne’s displays of suicidality and exhibitionism, but then we must examine their motivations. is anne behaving in this way solely based upon her low mental health? or is the fact that she is also engaging in a form of exhibitionism and forcing an audience evidence of her sexualising her own experience? if so, her sexualisation of suicidal behaviour likely stems from the ‘patriarchal structures’ she is working to avoid being a victim of, suggesting that it is not possible to liberate oneself from them. anne is evidence that women are not separate from the patriarchy, but active participants in it as it is a collection of ideals engraved into western society. it would be unfair and somewhat dejected to conclude that these ideals cannot be unlearned, but ‘attempts on her life’ certainly illustrates that unlearning them is a more active and difficult task than simply holding a feminist ideology.

i.k.b

[aphrodite-would-be-proud]

Fuck it here's some Moblit headcanons. He deserves love too!

{ Moblit x reader | Tw: mentions of Self-Sabotage | fluff | modern }

{ "Flower Market in Dordrecht" byHeinrich Hermanns 1862 - 1942 }

The biggest hypocrite when it comes to you, he'd scold you for not eating breakfast while he's still running on yesterday's left-over coffee.

Whenever you talk, he makes sure to check if you've eaten, gotten enough sleep, did your work, etc.

This man has the nerve to try and order you to get your sleep while being sleep deprived himself.

Has a tendency to baby you out of love. Acts of service are his love language. It's not that he thinks you're not capable of taking care of yourself, he just can't stop his brain from stressing about you till he's sure you're well.

Whenever he's worried, even slightly. He will talk by yelling, he doesn't mean anything by it, he's just a naturally loud person when stressed.

Which is most of the time.

Talking quietly is actually a sign that he's in a good mood.

So please reassure him that everything can be fixed and is solvable , do NOT downplay his worries. Instead guide him through the steps for the solution or ask how you can help or make it better.

Even just listening or being his shoulder to vent to will make him feel so much better.

He knows isn't taking his own advise, so be gentle and paitent with him. It's what he needs.

You want him to sleep? Get him a warm drink and help him to finish whatever he's working on faster.

You want him to eat lunch? Get your food and invite him to eat together!

This method is guaranteed to get him to take proper care of himself instead of pointing out to him how tired he is.

With time he will warm up enough to you to understand that you're not trying to criticise him when pointing out his lack of self care, you're just as worried about him as he is about you.

Being around you in general calms him down, it's like his world isn't so chaotic and messy anymore whenever you show up.

He likes the smell of Vanilla, it's also his favourite ice cream flavor.

He never forgets details about you, never. One time you mentioned a candy you used to eat while a kid when you two were on a walk together while talking about your childhood.

Next week, he shows up with a whole box of that exact candy, they don't make it anymore so he had to drive across the country to visit the original factory just to buy a box.

If you have meds you have to take daily, he brings them to you with a glass of water each day at the exact times. If he can't because he had to be somewhere far away or is really busy, then he will write you a ton of notes and hang them around the house for you to remember.

By association alone you become close with Hange, be careful because Hange will try to pull you into experiments.

Thankfully Moblit draws the line there and makes it crystal clear that you're not to be messed with. It's one of the few times Moblit refuses Hange something.

He likes the quietness, music is okay with him but he prefers the silence. He finds it peaceful and relaxing.

You can successfully stop him from overthinking by interrupting him with a kiss, any kiss! Whether it's a peck to cheek or a soft one on the lips.

He will stop for a second, gets confused then slowly smiles while asking you what was that for. Then he'll give you one of his own.

He likes vintage things, ironic since it's opposite to how Hange is obsessed with technology.

Understands memes but doesn't find them funny, tho if you send him any he'll take it as invitation to talk and just start a conversation with you.

The type to call without texting first.

He can't help it, he really loves your voice and he's working late tonight and really really wants to hear you, it calms him down.

Whenever he gets home, he gives you a kiss before telling you about his day.

He's just so...full of love and the need to take care of someone.