#and there are scenes where both of them stray from their perceived opinions of each other | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

lizzybeth1986 · 3 years ago

Text

Power Dynamics Pt 3 - Lorelai and Xinghai

(Read the rest of the "Hana Lee: A Study in Erasure" series here!)

Previous: Power Dynamics Part 2 - Ladies of the Court

"Abuse grows from attitudes and values, not feelings. The roots are ownership, the trunk is entitlement, and the branches are control." - Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men.

So far, we have spoken about the kind of power dynamics the narrative builds for Hana in the Cordonian royal court, and in her personal equation with the MC. But any discussion on Hana and power dynamics would be incomplete without exploring the root of it all: her parents.

We do not see Hana's father Xinghai until the middle of TRR2, or her mother Lorelai until the second half of TRR3, but they are essential to her story. Hana's entire arc revolves around realizing that their control over her is harmful, getting out, and starting life afresh in Cordonia. What was truly interesting about her arc - especially in the beginning - was that it wasn't a linear process, but one that involved her unlearning the lessons of her childhood, little by little.

(Tap to Enlarge)

Book 1 views Hana's parents as a unit - we don't know their names, we have no clue about their backgrounds and they're very rarely mentioned individually (a prominent scene that mentions just one of her parents is the phone call before the Applewood Jamboree, where she is shown speaking to her mother - and a stray dialogue on Drake's birthday mentions her father's cat). Here, their opinions are never featured by Hana as being separate from each other's (later in TRR3, she speaks of their marriage as being strengthened by having the same drives, ambitions and goals).

We also aren't aware of the full extent of their treatment of Hana from the get-go. The narrative starts small, showing us the aftermath of her broken engagement rather than the actual experience, or having Hana tell us matter-of-factly that she didn't have toys to play with. It is in the Lythikos and Regatta sections that we get a clearer idea of both her upbringing and how it has shaped her personality, and it is in Applewood that she takes her first tentative steps in telling her mother how she feels - which leads to them pressuring her to return. Until Lythikos we do not fully understand the extent to which her parents controlled her activities and her future, until the Regatta we do not get how differently she views the term "failure" from everyone else...and until the Coronation we have no rubric for how truly dangerous even the smallest rebellion can be for her. The unravelling of her way of life doesn't begin until the middle of the book.

There is a reason why the midpoint of this book works so well in Hana's case. It shows us how she acquired the skills we now benefit from, as newcomers, while not forgetting the cost of acquiring them. The MC here is both a recipient of the skills Hana provides, and a catalyst for change in how Hana perceives her world. That change is not - will never - be immediate, it is gradual and painful and emerges in bits and pieces.

Over the years I've run this blog, I've heard Hana's childhood/upbringing being spoken of in a number of ways. Some have compared it to other female characters, like Annabelle and Aurora (in a "see? They also face pressure from their family, but they're sassier!" way). Some view it as simply "not being allowed to do stuff", or as simply "sheltered". But unless we unravel the layers of sheer psychological control that went into her upbringing, we will never really truly get what a person like Hana would be up against, nor understand the strength it takes to leave.

If I were to condense Hana's past, her upbringing, and how that impacts her thinking, I would divide it into these three levels of controlling parenting:

Isolation

Isolation is often viewed as a pivotal tactic in any controlling relationship, because it deprives the victim of perspective. It can be used "to weaken their victims, prevent them from hearing others’ perspectives, and to bring them into line with (their) own beliefs and requirements" (SpeakOutLoud). If the victim doesn't have adequate access to the outside world, or to material that could help them, it is harder for them to understand how this is damaging to them. Sometimes this involves absolute isolation where they are not even allowed to leave the home, but sometimes it manifests as the person in power choosing who and what the victim may have access to.

It is implied to us often in TRR, then stated upfront in TRR3/TRH, that Hana grew up with no real friends. In TRR3 she tells us her parents encouraged her to meet peer-age kids from other noble families, but only as alliances, not in any close relationship. They even encourage her to continue her friendship with the MC, merely because the latter has more access to Liam. Even her "playthings" reflect just how isolated she is - she was never allowed real toys, and often had to use regular household objects for her pretend-play. The only family member outside of her parents we hear about, is her Chinese grandmother (and we hear about her only once. A great-grandmother is referenced in a TRR3 diamond scene but we never hear about her again). This means that for most of her life, her parents were the only people she was in constant contact with, the only people she could trust, her only "friends". They had an ownership over her that went beyond just being "obedient to one's parents". Which makes the possibility that she could grow out of their beliefs and value system that much harder.

Indoctrination

Typically, indoctrination is used with reference to imparting religious beliefs in a way that doesn't allow space for other views, or when talking about cults. But I use this term here specifically because "brainwashing" doesn't quite encompass the level to which Hana's parents used her education to render her powerless on her own. Think of the "Mother Knows Best" song in Rapunzel. Gothel deprives her "daughter" access to the outside world or the tools to understand it, and then positions herself as Rapunzel's protector, all while using the girl's powers to retain her own youth. Which means that when Gothel tells her that denying Rapunzel her freedom and agency is really about protection and love, Rapunzel has little choice but to believe her even though Gothel is the one she needs protection from.

If we look closely at what Hana tells us about her childhood, it is clear that they purposely limited her learning to skills that would help her in courts in Europe, and equip her to run a noble household with a husband in the future. Her worth is evaluated both on her success in these courts, and on her ability to attract people from that environment. They choose where her future lies, how to get her there, and anything outside of that is deemed unnecessary to learn. Her purpose, clearly, is to be useful to her parents and her house - either as a musical prodigy, or a debutante at the most powerful courts, or as the wife of a noble from a respected House, whose clout would in turn benefit them and their businesses. What is missing from her education are skills that would allow her to choose her future, or in a dynamic where she is the one wielding power.

This means that their ideal for Hana's future was one where she'd be forever dependent, either on them or on a spouse of their choosing. It is almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy - they first deprive her of any learning that didn't benefit their goals, don't allow her to learn her own survival skills, make it impossible for her to even imagine a life without them...and then turn around and claim she cannot survive alone!

Control

With isolation, Hana's parents restrict her physical access to places and people. With her education, they restrict her access to only material that makes her useful on their terms. But we see other types of control at play - emotional (Lorelai uses an interplay of both love and fear in her interactions with Hana), and financial (they can strip her of funds, her home and even the clothes off her back if she isn't obedient enough). When Lorelai speaks of disowning her in TRR3, she means that Hana has no right even to things she had made (like her black cheongsam).

What kind of words from Hana could trigger such strong reactions? Let's take a look:

Hana's rebukes do not involve harsh judgement, do not assume her parents' intentions, and perhaps state the facts in a way that is rather generous to them. But even this mild criticism brings about a strong reaction - they claim Cordonia/the MC has made her "headstrong", they perceive her criticism as a sort of betrayal. The kind of betrayal that warrants her being cut off from the family.

This places Hana in a situation where she has to constantly earn their approval to survive, constantly live every moment of her life on their terms, constantly see her own needs as lesser. There is an element of fear in the simplest things, the slightest feeling that she could be out of line. Look, for instance, at the end of Hana's only solo childhood scene:

This scene, told from Hana's perspective, hints at how nervous she feels even in the simple act of showing affection ("you decide to risk a hug"). The entire scene has her tentatively negotiating with her mother over simple things, and has her view her mother - even at that young age - in a mixture of love and fear. She understands already that she doesn't have the freedom to even express how she truly feels. We also get a glimpse, from this scene and some others, how little a younger Hana has learned to expect from her parents when it comes to showing affection (eg. her constantly saving a place for Lorelai at her tea parties even when the latter never makes it. Her joy in TRR1, when describing how a broken arm made her happy because her parents gave her rare moments of affection and care).

What is so striking about many controlling, or emotionally abusive relationships, is the sheer invisibility of the abuse, which makes it easy for some to downplay the impact. The Tumblr blog, @the-courage-to-heal , spoke of Tangled as an example of how the execution of covert abuse makes it difficult for victims to escape, saying: saying: "You can't escape if you don't even realize you're in an abusive situation. You can't leave if you think you need your abuser to survive and you can't get help if they isolate you from anyone who might see the truth". We see numerous signs of the damage done to Hana over the course of the series, of which I will only highlight a few examples:

1. Perhaps the biggest effect of her upbringing lies in how Hana hardly even knows who she is. Having being bombarded all her life with skills (without ever considering whether she wanted to do them), Hana spends most of her life not truly knowing who she is or what she likes. She finds it hard to make a distinction between things she was taught to appreciate, and things that truly make her happy (eg. In Hana's playthrough of TRR3, during the wine-tasting scene in Castelserraillian, she tells us about Old Zinfandel and how valued it is as a beverage...however, later on with her fiancée, she is able to admit now that she hates it). For a great part of her young life, Hana was never allowed the space to explore her environment on her terms, and therefore isn't sure who she is until she leaves home.

2. Hana struggles with decisiveness. She says this openly in a discussion with Olivia at the Costume Gala, and a lot of it seems to emerge from her needing to navigate what she wants, and what her own beliefs are, in the first place. A lot of this boils down to how she deals with the freedom to make choices, something she didn't have with her parents. When speaking about wedding prep in the beginning of TRR3, Hana speaks about how (even though she made 200 PinStop boards) she could never even imagine a wedding that included or respected her choices, because it was a foregone conclusion that her parents would decide on those arrangements as well.

3. Her sense of failure, even in the face of her accomplishments and skill. In the Yacht scene in TRR1, Hana speaks of how "my entire life, I've done nothing but lose", a sentiment she echoes at the start of TRR2 while pointing out that for all her skills, she was unable to win Peter or Liam. The narrative, however, claims through her TRH2 dossier that she has developed an increased level of confidence in Cordonia, but we're never really shown how.

4. Related to Pt 1, her perfectionism. She is often shown obsessing over detail, and going to great lengths to make everything "perfect". In Auvernal (TRH1 Ch 9), she speaks of this tendency as emerging from a desire to win her mother's love, and laments that it is so much a part of her now that she cannot "turn it off". "I still feel like I have to be the perfect lady in every situation".

5. Hana also tends to be the most nervous, among the group, about breaking rules and not following protocol. Even after her marriage/settling in Cordonia, we see her telling Maxwell that she "always feels guilty when [she] breaks a rule". In the early books, we see her show nervousness when it comes to messy eating and dancing freely, before realizing how good it feels, and her first fight with her mother over phone leaves her feeling equally shocked and triumphant.

6. In Hana's playthrough of TRR3, an engaged Hana is shown worrying about whether she is being too controlling, when she makes certain decisions for her wedding. In both the first and second chapters, she is shown repeatedly asking the MC if she is speaking over her or ignoring her needs. She has no clear idea what a healthy sense of control looks like. In turn, she tries to overcompensate with her partner. Any control seems bad to her, until the MC helps her differentiate. Sadly, this plot thread was left behind after Ch 2, and never brought up again.

7. Most people view Hana as a "damsel in distress", constantly in need of protection, never standing up for herself. Some even view that as the only "personality" she has. Yet in a dialogue option in TRR2, Hana describes to us how Lorelai had her perfect faux-clumsiness down to an art, so that her suitors could see her as a delicate damsel-in-distress they must rescue.

8. As a parent, Hana is hyper-aware of the impact of neglect or not giving time for her child. This shows up briefly both during the MC's pregnancy in TRH1, and in the Heir's first year. Unfortunately, this was relegated only to a handful of diamond scenes, and for the most part she was meant to echo all the other LIs. But based on what we saw her say during the pregnancy, Hana intended to be there for her child in a way Lorelai wasn't, and not project what she wants on her. Whether single or not, when Lorelai hypocritically advises the MC not to rush into a betrothal for the Heir, Hana is visibly hurt and calls her out on this, giving us an insight into the damage Lorelai's choices have wrecked on her.

When you place Hana's story in this context, and see how deep their level of control went, one cannot deny the strength it must take to survive in such an environment, forget about rebelling. And yet, this is the same environment where Hana learns to carve out little pockets of freedom for herself. Not only does she develop interests to be passionate about, she also recognizes their true value and fiercely safeguard them. One of her best scenes is the Piano scene, where she remembers - in anger - how her parents wanted to "take the first thing I ever actually enjoyed and make it theirs". She goes to the length of deliberately screwing up a performance to ensure her parents never use her skills like that again.

Another common thread one can see across the series - especially from TRR2 - is how she cultivates her interests without her parents' knowledge, just by convincing them of its usefulness in another area of interest. You see this in the library scene, as well as in several diamond scenes - where she enjoys reading material that could be scandalous but claims it is about something else (eg. Science fiction being rebranded as astronomy books). This aspect of her background is one of the few things that has survived retconning and erasure over the course of the series (and even then the narrative doesn't always handle it with care - eg. The TRH2 dossier's mention of a goth phase Hana had in her adolescence, came out of nowhere and was never truly explained).

What do these small yet significant rebellions tell us? It tells us that despite her parents' attempts to mould her in the shape of their grand vision, she still retained a fiercely creative spirit. It is this creative bent of mind that allowed her to think beyond what was merely expected of her, and it was this same creativity that kept her sane in what must have been a truly lonely childhood. That small independent streak gave her a wisdom beyond her years, and in a lot of ways (such as with her piano skills) she was able to identify, at a very young age, exactly why she had a problem with her parents' entitlement over her talents. We see this kind of emotional maturity and creative thinking even in her interactions with other courtiers, particularly when it comes to giving advice to Penelope in TRR2, or in her way of solving problems. Even before Hana is consciously aware of her parents' emotional abuse, she has already worked on ways to thrive within that restrictive framework.

Now that we have a clearer idea of the larger implications of Lorelai and Xinghai's parenting, we can now view the first two books from this lens. Because if there is any place where the books seem to even attempt charting a journey - it's in these two.

The Process of Getting Out

As I've mentioned in the beginning, Hana's parents' are referred to, throughout the first book, as a unit - with a few exceptions. We are told that they were "devastated when they didn't have any sons" and pinned all their hopes on Hana, and that the embarrassment of her broken engagement led them to send her to Cordonia in desperation. Even though we never see them or hear from them for all of TRR1, they are a strong, suffocating presence in Hana's story. We hear about their extravagant, yet out-of-depth attempts to make Hana the center of attention (her luxurious but empty yacht party, or their original idea to get Liam a bull elephant as his Coronation gift). From the MC's perspective, they start out ordinary, if a little image-conscious, and from Lythikos onwards their level of control builds and escalates until we realize, at the Coronation, just how hard on Hana they are. It's hard at first to guess this from Hana's words herself - after all, she had grown up in that environment, and most of this until now seemed normal.

What changes are three major things. One is that for the first time, her parents are not physically there, keeping track of her every move. The other is that she seems to finally make friends, rather than allies (though tbh the core-group's closeness revolves mostly around the MC). The third involves her feelings for the MC herself. The MC is clearly written in her story as a catalyst - she makes her rethink her thoughts on other women, whether she is attracted to men, even on what counts in her past as normal. If we are nice to her when we first meet, she confesses that she finds us different from every other lady she has met ("Not many girls are like you…"-"Helpful?"-"Nice"), and she witnesses us standing up for her, at a time when we're hearing about her biggest scandal. If you choose the diamond scene, even the MC telling her that break-ups are normal can be a shock to her. Moving forward, she is even more surprised by how the MC's merest touch makes her feel. As soon as the MC enters the scene, Hana's priorities shift from winning the social season to guiding the new person through this alien environment.

If you take most of her diamond scenes, the MC offers a fresh perspective on what she's been through so far (most notably in the Yacht scene where she can help Hana view the term "winning" differently). And even if you don't, she faces new experiences with the group (eg. eating messy at the beach party) and is inspired by the MC on several fronts - her independence, her carefree nature, her (if you choose the right options) effortless charm. And it is by default that the MC encourages Hana to stand up vocally for the first time, to her parents. Whether we choose to learn her childhood history or not, it is clear that by the end of the social season, Hana can clearly see how trapped she is, and she clearly wants to start making her own choices.

Yet, when her parents - threatened by their daughter's newfound "rebelliousness" - claim that Cordonia has made her headstrong and send a carriage to take her back home, she leaves without a fight. It won't be until 13 chapters later, that we actually see her finally, openly confront one of her parents.

What changes for Hana in the course of those 13 chapters, and why wasn't she able to leave the first time around? Exploring these two questions will give us an insight into the process that went behind Hana's change.

Why it's so hard for her to leave after TRR1 can be summed up in one sentence: she just isn't ready. She has spent a lifetime convinced that she is incapable of surviving on her own, and that she is beholden to her parents and their love. It is impossible to reverse that in one night, or even one social season, especially for someone who might never be hers (even in a playthrough where the MC returns Hana's feelings, the two are certain their relationship is doomed). The financial district in Shanghai is still home, and her family is still the only constant she has ever known.

For Hana to get to the point of wanting to leave, seeing the damage wrecked on her by her parents isn't enough. She has to understand that if she breaks away, she can still survive. She has to also understand that there are other ways she can live her life. And that is precisely why the engagement tour is so integral to her larger story. Unlike the social season, not only is she away from her parents, part of a friend group and in the company of a catalyst like the MC...but this time the same catalyst can (optionally) present her with real, workable alternatives.

In addition to this, the man she is paired with in this book is Neville, who is presented at the outset as undesirable (Hana refers to both him and Rashad as boring, and points out how entitled and self-absorbed he is in the Patisserie Scene). In the case of the other two men she'd been connected to (Peter and Liam), she could at least rationalize marrying/winning them as "nice men", as people she can get along with. While Peter wanted actual love from her and Liam found himself - like Hana - falling for the MC, Hana would have still, perhaps, found them acceptable choices. Not so for Neville - she can already sense what a life with him would be like from their interactions, and he is an unambiguously undesirable person. It makes it all the easier for the MC, if she chooses, to redirect Hana's attention to other possibilities.

The Patisserie Scene in TRR2 Ch 10 is largely symbolic (what with the MC linking pastries to life choices) but it is a big indication to Hana that there is a whole of universe of choices for her to pick from, and that she doesn't need to restrict herself to a path chosen for her. The "pastry personality test" the MC shows her is a fun, light activity, but it allows her to believe in a different future for once, without needing to worry about the consequences. It opens up possibilities to Hana, and gives her the hope that following a different path from what her parents envisioned, may not necessarily result in disaster. And with the presence of someone like Neville (who does represent the kind of future her parents want), it is clear that whatever was holding her back, weren't things she needed in her life in the first place. This is emphasized further in her library scene the next chapter, where she speaks of exploring new and different worlds through books. By their last day in Paris she is not only aware of how damaging her upbringing is, but also that she is no longer satisfied merely following her parents' plans. It is no wonder then, that by the time she returns home, she feels like a stranger.

Up until this point, the narrative does a rather good job of navigating Hana's trajectory. It is handled with some measure of care, and a modicum of understanding of how gradual the process (of letting go of a toxic parental relationship) is. We understand how her childhood moulded her into the person she is, and what pushes her to change. Even when theoretically, Hana is aware that her home is not a safe enough space for her, she takes time to get around to the idea of an independent life. On the surface, this is a perfect depiction of what a person emerging from an abusive parent-child relationship would look like.

But they falter massively once we actually reach Shanghai. Once Hana fights back, and leaves home, things happen pretty quickly - often in ways that center the MC and not her. And this bleeds not only into her fight with Xinghai in this book, but also in the way her story plays out from this point on.

Squandered Potential

It is important at this point to remember that the storyline with her parents is Hana's core character arc. Even if everything else in her story would inevitably be similar to the other LIs, this arc would be her own, which meant its conclusion needed to be satisfying for her. Not for the MC, and definitely not for her parents. Her. Just as Drake's duel scene was, just as Olivia's final stand-off with Anton was. If you failed with the culmination of this, you've failed with her story altogether.

And the narrative fails in every possible way from the moment Hana stands up to Xinghai. While her dialogues in this scene are powerful ("Sometimes you have to find your own way in life. No matter how hard or scary it can be. This is my life, and I need to decide what kind of future I want. Who I want to be") and perfectly sum up her overall journey, the real trigger for it is when Xinghai labels the MC a bad influence. Similarly for her next big arc culmination, which is in TRR3 Ch 15. Hana's big conflict resolution revolves not as much around calling her parents out for everything they put her through, but on proving she is useful even without a man. Which is, ultimately, for the purpose of garnering their support for the MC's wedding. Books in the TRH series tend to have some good moments, such as scenes where her parents can apologize and respect her space, or where Hana can push back when Lorelai hopes for a freer future for the Heir, or even where Hana can explain to the MC how she tries to be a better parent…but many of these are scraps flung her way, and most often only found in her LI scenes.

There are a number of factors that play into why this arc fell short. One lies in the way they structured the buildup for her conflict resolution. You will notice, in both TRR2 and 3, that the buildup is either just one dialogue squirrelled away in a larger scene, or not brought up at all. We have Hana confide in us about Neville's behaviour towards her only once before the actual confrontation scene with Xinghai, and there is zero buildup to Hana's eventual showdown with Lorelai in TRR3 at Valtoria except for a single line in her LI playthrough in TRR3, where it's vaguely implied that she sent her parents a copy of their photoshoot article through Ana de Luca. In two chapters of TRR3 there was a brief plot thread about Hana fearing that she may become as controlling as her parents, but it was dropped as soon as the Unity Tour began. To show you exactly how negligent the team was with her arc, let's take the example of Drake, whose own conflicts were even more personal in nature and even less plot-related. Drake's "Savannah reveal" was built up from Chapter 4 onwards, with new information and cryptic dialogue from Kiara and Bertrand. His duel in TRR3 was built over chapters too, starting with the Cordonian Waltz if the MC teaches him, and with him showing a marked improvement in his courtly manners over time. Even his secret wedding got buildup! Compared to this, Hana gets next to nothing.

You will also notice that in both these major arcs, the writing is tailored to benefit and center the MC. In the confrontation with Xinghai, Hana finally cracks when he targets the MC and blames her. In the ensuing diamond scene, the MC is allowed two dialogue options, of three, that center her in that confrontation ("a good friend", "hot when you're angry"). The MC also doesn't bother to check up on her in New York, where Hana is drained, miserable, almost homeless and uncertain of her future. While the narrative does attempt to fix her problem of homelessness by having the MC offer a place in Valtoria, it is never really followed through - whenever we see Hana in Valtoria in later books, she is written primarily as a visitor, and we are never shown if she's found an alternate home. Similarly, Hana's final confrontation with Lorelai in TRR3 has her proving her worth on her parents' terms. While the MC can choose to help her retrieve her beloved outfit that she made by hand with her grandmother, the overall aim of the Lorelai-Hana confrontation revolves around getting her support for the MC's wedding. Essentially, Hana's conflict with her parents is built in such a way that it only matters when it affects the MC's prospects in court. Once the MC no longer needs their public support, Hana's writers attempted to wrap her conflict up neatly, with a happy-family ending that didn't exactly address the level of abuse involved. This, in a narrative arc that had Hana's mother disown her and strip her of everything she'd ever owned just a few minutes prior.

Another factor involves the vagueness with which Xinghai and Lorelai were written, which resulted in some serious retconning and rewriting over the course of the series. They were written as a unit in the first book, and both were equally involved in forcing Hana's hand throughout the social season, and she mentions them together when she is eventually called back to China. In both Book 2 and 3, we witness several instances where they still violently wield their power over her (eg. Threatening disownment in TRR2, and actually following through with it in TRR3). But even as we were being told this, the narrative was also beginning to soften whichever parent was featuring in a particular book.

This process begins with Xinghai, who is the first parent we see and the first of the two to get a nicer edit in the books. In TRR2 Ch 2, a dialogue option in Hana's diamond scene allows the MC to compare her parents to her one-month training with Bertrand and Maxwell, an analogy that cheapens the level of abuse Hana has faced. Additionally, Hana compares her father to Bertrand, again, before they leave Paris for Shanghai, and the panda scene has him describe a sweet emotional childhood moment with Hana. In TRR3 Ch 15, and the narrative has him support Lorelai's judgement of the Hana's new life in Cordonia, but has him in a more passive role compared to Hana's mother. They also have him come around to Hana's side faster and give Lorelai occasional reminders to stay in her lane, after the family patches up. In the TRH series, Hana's childhood scene and indeed her entire background story revolves around Lorelai's decisions and actions. Xinghai is practically a non-factor in this book.

This retcon may be perhaps easier to accept than the next one, but it does come with problems that the writing doesn't bother to address. Supposing we assume that Xinghai was always meant to be kept distanced from Hana's abuse. Fine. Even in that context, it's still clear that he not only allowed it but actually believed it to be good parenting. He was never forced into his choices with Hana - he went into them fully aware of what he was doing and fully consenting to his daughter being treated that way. Yet the narrative tentatively positions him as the "good parent" to Lorelai's "bad one", without ever addressing his willingness to put his daughter in such a position for most of her life. This already poisons the well and further dilutes Hana's childhood history.

It's bad enough when one parent in this equation is excused. But TRH continues to poison this well by doing the same to Lorelai. While TRH1 establishes the tragedy of Hana's childhood years with that glimpse of her first childhood scene (the tea party where Hana plays with makeshift "toys", leaving a place for a Lorelai who clearly didn't care), the narrative wastes no time in the next book in retconning her actions as well. Hana's second childhood scene, while giving us poignant moments that show a young Hana regard her mother both with awe and fear, also lays the foundation to soften Lorelai in the narrative. The woman who once threatened to strip Hana of everything that reminded her of home, is now "protective", and "worried about her daughter's wellbeing". The mother who was "devastated not to have sons" in TRR1, is now the mother who survived a difficult childbirth and immediately felt a rush of maternal affection in TRH1. Especially in the playthrough where she is a mother, the narrative has Hana express solidarity with Lorelai and Xinghai:

Similarly, in TRF, the narrative had Hana discover that Lorelai was part of the cult Via Imperii, and charitably allowed her to react intensely to the news (she almost gets to address a block of ice as a "cold, hard bitch"). But already the narrative seems to continue pushing forward the "softened" narrative, by having Hana describe herself as "sheltered like a baby goat" (the MC, in one of the options, uses the equally inaccurate term "coddled"), and giving the MC the option to frame Lorelai's actions as "looking out for her daughter".

I cannot emphasize enough how dangerous a retcon like this, is. It takes an already-established narrative about a brown woman with controlling, emotionally abusive parents, and downplays it, over and over, until the damage is rarely ever viewed as real damage. And what's even worse is how often the story uses Hana to completely rewrite her own core conflicts. Just as she is made to lie through her teeth about Madeleine's actions during her bachelorette, she is also made to cast the parents who harmed her in a far more charitable light than they deserve.

The results of handling the abuse she endured with such a lack of seriousness, is right in front of you. In canon itself, but especially in the way fandom responds to her and characters like her. Otherwise how is it possible for us to read a story like Hana's...and view her as "weak", or "passive", or "dependent"? How is it possible for us to read "you didn't follow what we said, so we're taking even the clothes off your back" in one book, and read some version of "my parents wanted to keep me safe" in another...and not be alarmed by the difference? This is a narrative that will take the trouble to remind us of the pains and stresses of side characters, who will in fact insist we coddle them for far, far less. Yet when it stops being convenient for the MC's goals, Hana's parents' actions no longer follow the pattern laid in the first series, and the narrative uses Hana's words themselves, yet again, to rewrite the tale of her own painful childhood. To erase what she went through.

The MC

Before we wrap up this essay, it's important to briefly touch upon where the MC fits in all this. The MC is in the unique position of both benefiting off the back of Hana's tortured past (all the skills that Hana learned, after all, came from her controlling, restrictive, cloistered environment), and being the catalyst for her change. This allows her to be the MC's guide while still placing her on a pedestal. Just as the MC is the antithesis to Madeleine in the courts, in Hana's story she is viewed as the antithesis to her parents. They trap her in their ideal of a perfect life, she encourages Hana to pursue her freedom. They view her as a failure, the MC admires her skills and talent. They try to take her home away from her, the MC (initially) gives her a home to stay in. She is essentially meant to be the wife that will care for Hana without confining her to a fixed role, or the friend who inspired her to find her own path.

But the trouble here is that the narrative expects us to believe this...but doesn't adequately work on the MC's end of this bargain. She often puts the needs and feelings of the people who have harmed Hana over Hana herself. As Queen/Duchess she continues to benefit from Hana's hard work, without actually putting in much effort from her end. Often she remembers events from Hana's life as painful only when someone else is going to through a similar situation. In some dialogue options she centers herself in Hana's parental conflicts, and rarely bothers to check on Hana when the latter is in a state of turmoil (eg. The day after Hana's first fight with Xinghai, or after Hana's diagnosis in TRH1).

And it's not like the MC is incapable of proper support to everyone. After all, this is the same MC that was given the space to comfort a devastated Drake after he acted out during an investigation, or who could repeatedly tell women like Olivia and Madeleine that "looking for help" didn't make them weaker or that they "should put themselves first". This was the same MC who could comfort Maxwell for most of TRH3, and include him in her investigation just to placate him. The only difference was...in all these cases the MC was given the chance to back her vocal support up with action. That is very often not the case with Hana.

As long as the MC stands to benefit from this story (through her skills, through her placing the MC on a pedestal, or even through her connections with her parents), TRR takes care in the way they write Hana. We see this already in how her growth away from her parents is charted in the first two books, in how her first scenes combine imparting skills with her personal history. But as soon as she loses her home and her family, the same narrative begins to get careless, begins to "forget" vital information about the family's treatment of her, begins to prioritize literally anyone else over the one woman who stood by the MC's side all along and who for once would need her complete, unconditional support.

This also ties back to the overarching theme of the last two essays, which is power dynamics. Hana is neither isolated nor controlled by the MC, but her story is constantly made to accommodate, time and again, the MC's comfort - often in ways that should harm her. The MC's equation with Hana is still a power imbalance, just masked and softened by the illusion of friendship. Unlike Hana's parents, the MC isn't interested in moulding Hana into her idea of perfection, and in fact encourages her to embrace chaos, embrace the mess, discover who she is and what she really wants out of life. Yet the hard facts are that, like every other LI, Hana is meant to follow her wherever she goes, and live life on the MC's terms. And while one may argue this is the case with every LI, we must remember that no other LI has touched the depths of sheer powerlessness the way Hana has.

The MC is still more powerful despite being less competent, and fails on numerous occasions to truly support Hana. And it is clear by now that the narrative wants Hana to be less powerful, less valued, and less worthy of real, consistent validation. Making Hana the sweet, forgiving child of two extremely controlling parents, allows us to normalize this other equation. It allows us, the audience, to be grateful alongside Hana, for the MC's spirit, her presence and her friendship/love...without ever having to consider whether Hana benefits even half as much, from the same relationship.

Next : Protagonist Centered Sexuality

#hana lee #hana lee: a study in erasure #the royal romance #the royal heir #the royal finale #long post

89 notes · View notes

politicathought · 4 years ago

Text

XXI The concept of justice.

First of all, let's try to define the concept of justice as we know it. In my opinion, justice is not a term that distinguishes between right and wrong. Because we sometimes make decisions that are not true, that are not fair, in terms of the concept of justice. As a result, the decisions we make are not heartwarming, and the right party is silenced, considered unjust, and the unjust is considered right. Now I hear you say where justice is in this case. Now I will try to explain. To me, there is no such thing as justice in the world we live in today. It is simply a system built by the aristocrats on the population. Thus, in order to avoid conflicts between people and, most importantly, to prevent chaos in states, environmental geniuses and visionaries have created a system of law, justice and punishment. As a result, these three systems have been perceived by humans and formed over a long period of time. In short, it worked on people's DNA. In fact, we see that it is a very good system and a good tool for ruling the population. To better understand, let us consider a few examples. Two farmers are fighting over a neighboring cow. As a result, panic broke out and they both went to the police station and complained to each other. The police ask to better judge the matter: Please explain what the conflict is about. -The first farmer, who thinks he is right, jumps forward and begins to tell the story as he sees fit and says: - I had a cow. In the morning I took my cows to the pasture to graze. My cows returned home in the evening. But then I started looking for him when I saw that a cow was missing. When I returned home in frustration, I went to a neighbor's farm as a last resort and talked about it. He said he didn't see anything. The next day, when I was crossing a neighbor's farm, I saw that my cow was among the neighbor's cows, and as a result, we had a quarrel with the farmer. - The second farmer took a different approach to the issue and said: - I took the herd to the pasture in the morning, as my neighbor did. I returned home with my cows in the evening. I saw a stray cow on the side of the road. No matter how long I searched for the owner, I could not find him. As a result, I added a cow to my herd. What fault do I have now ?! If I didn't buy it, someone else would. Then a neighbor came to me and told me what had happened. Why did I have to give it back when I was feeding the cow, taking care of it? Although it is a long example, there are some differences. Here the right party is the first farmer, and if we apply the triple system as a result, the second farmer will be sued for violation and then to the prison. Let's look at the subject from another angle. What I am about to say now may sound silly. But the purpose here is to show the concept of justice. Each of us saw that the first farmer was right. So what if the second farmer is strong? The answer to this question is very simple. Then the issue would not have come to these places. Even if the first farmer was right, the second farmer could not say anything to him because he was strong. I can say for various reasons that the second farmer may have threatened the first farmer or threatened his family. Most importantly, it could threaten him with death. Another point of view is that this second farmer's family is wealthy. Let's even make him the son of the mayor. So where has the justice gone? So, as we have seen, there is no such thing as justice in this world, only the strong and weak, the rich and the poor, the familiar and the unfamiliar. As the famous philosopher Thucydides said, "The strong do what they want, the weak accept." See how beautiful and deeply meaningful the sentence is. There is currently no justice not only between people, but also between states. For example, look at an African continent, Europe or America. Everything can be seen with the naked eye. In fact, although our topic is about the concept of justice, I want to go beyond the subject and answer the question of why these African countries are so poor. Probably each of us thought about this. Covering 20% of the world's land and rich in copper, gold and many natural resources, why does the continent simply lack respect and glory? At this point, South Africa in the south, Libya, Algeria and Egypt in the north are more developed than the others. Its history actually goes back to 1823. During this period, European countries like America were also looking for colonies and colonies. Europe was more active then. Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain were different. But England was the strongest among them. Let's get to the main point: James Monroe came to power in 1817 and created the Monroe Doctrine. The main purpose here was to prevent European countries from establishing their own colonies in the American continent. Now I don't want to talk about history here, I'll talk briefly. America shows the Monroe Doctrine to European countries and says, do not interfere in our affairs and do not end colonialism on this continent, let us not interfere in your business. If you set up a colony here, we'll treat it as aggression. The United States then agreed with Britain and received assurances that British ships would protect US borders. Because the United States of America was not strong at that time, and the strongest navy of that time belonged to Britain. And if Britain intervenes, other European countries will stop colonizing. Because Britain had a great reputation and countries refused to do so in order not to create a dangerous situation. However, there were a few points here. Because the American continent was so far away, European ships had to wait a month for trade. Shipwrecks on roads, long distances, etc. Between 1880 and 1914, European countries turned to the African continent. Less distance, more natural resources. They started to plunder Africa. Africa still cannot recover that day. Incoming hits, outgoing hits. And almost every country has been a colony of a European country in the past. In fact, those who pay attention to history have always won. Currently, the United States is the leader of the world, and the country closest to competition is Russia, which can only reach the dust of the United States. As a result, the mighty United States took part in all the affairs of the world from A to Z. If you think about it, you will see that it is the United States of America where there is conflict. Whether in front of the curtain or behind the scenes ...

The end of the article "The strong do what they want, the weak accept" ...

#justice #stop rasism #history #politics #news #political

1 note · View note

raygoodwinmajournal · 4 years ago

Photo

Epochal Territories - What is it About?

Evoking feelings through different mediums can be rather tricky, and differ depending on how you’re thinking about trying to evoke them. With music, this can be done by writing songs in a particular key, whether that is in a major, minor or utilises a key change to alter the mood of the song, and maybe mixing that with a particular time signature or instrument. With painting, one could use different things to apply paint to create various paint strokes or utilise something that isn’t made for painting in the first place. Writing can create moods purely due to what is written down and what is happening within it. With photography, I have always found it tricky to evoke a certain mood because of the way I photograph.

I have always been a documentary style photographer, and rarely stray towards an experimental approach to image creation. I prefer straight vertical lines, good dynamic range and an almost clinical approach to cleanliness to photography. Whilst I can appreciate a photographer who doesn’t use those approaches, such as Daido Moriyama’s high contrast and grainy black and white photography, or Horst Faas’ action packed documentary photography. I have always felt that the clinical nature of my work played upon what my work is really about, which mainly contrasts our modern society with our bacteria free work tops and clinically clean shopping centres with distant dissonant diegetic music playing on faraway speakers.

What Epochal Territories is about is the culmination of feelings of our zeitgeist; the late capitalism society of which we occupy creating feelings of alienation/estrangement from society, political malaise, ennui and dissatisfaction of our modern life. These things are often felt within our society, with alienation stemming from many philosophers such as Marx, Hegel and Kierkegaard. These philosophers had differing opinions of what was alienation, which varied from feeling indifferent from production, the self and society itself. What I find most alienating about capitalism apart from the processes it creates, is the fact that it is possible that there is no escape from it at all. Mark Fisher and his book Capitalist Realism is about the realisation that since the collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism, Capitalism has been put at the forefront of social, political and economic systems with no alternative. We know that Communism doesn’t work as we saw in the earlier 1990′s, with Capitalism bleeding into the areas that were inherently Socialist. Since the collapse in the earlier 1990′s, and even before with the advent of more Neo-Liberal policies of Thatcher and Reagan, Capitalism has survived and thrived to create what we exist in today. A time which is often fast paced, blinding, alienating and harsh. Capitalism is based around a political system where the trade and industry is controlled by privately owned companies thriving out of profit rather than the state controlled the aspects of it. This can be seen with necessities such as running water being provided by a private company, heating by a private company, banks, clothes, cars, public transport and housing. These are all owned by companies who aren’t state owned and thrive on profits and exist purely on the fact that money is needed to be exchanged to provide their service. This reduction of our state controlled services and Capitalist takeover can be seen in George Monbiot’s Captive State. Monbiot explains how political leaders and their actions lead to a slew of corrupt and devastating corporate decisions such as the takeover of universities and the NHS. In addition to that, there is a handy guide called The Fat Cat Directory, which as of the May 1997 general election cited people of political and state power and their gluttony and monetary wrongdoings (Monbiot, 2001).

How one could be alienated from our system can exist in many ways, and for that we need to understand from what stand point we see alienation from and what it means from whom. Marx has four main areas of the theory of alienation which vary from section to section, but play along and amongst each other (Communication Theory, 2015).

- Product of Labour: Being alienated from what you create.

- Act of Producing: Not having control of what you create.

- As a Producer: Alienation from the self.

- From Other’s Work: Alienated from others.

If we take alienation from a Marxian standpoint, it gives us context within the feelings on alienation and estrangement from the proletarian towards the production of produce for the bourgeoisie. One can be alienated from creating, not having control of creating, from oneself or others. Taken out of it’s original context, it can be applied to our state of modernity. For example, one can be alienated from what they post on social media because it doesn’t perceive who they really are and are trying to fit in. They can also be alienated from not being able to control what they post and become alienated from who they are and the people around them. This situation applies all four of Marx’s aspects of alienation, and weirdly enough is a personal feeling because it is exactly how I feel about posting on social media and it’s use. This can also be reflected by Kierkegaard, with the individual being alienated and suppressed by a social system or not properly in tune with the social system. It would also seem that Kierkegaard argues that conformity from a social system can stifle or hinder one’s own individuality because they have conformed to a certain system, losing who they truly are (New World Encyclopaedia, n.d). Within the context of modernity, this can be see by following trends which one has seen because others are doing it and deciding to copy. Or ultimately being drawn into social expectations of getting a nice job, climbing the ladder of property and employment, a safer car, two and a half children and a house with a lovely white picket fence in a safe neighbourhood.

Despite these aspects and theories on what alienation is and how it is felt still rings true depending on how you look at it and apply it’s context. Both Marx and Kierkegaard’s theories are both applicable today even as they were hundreds of years ago, yet Marx’s continues to have more of a context within a Capitalist society and how it works today.

With this understanding of both Marx and Kierkegaard used as an example, one’s own feelings of modernity can be applied, and the question has to be asked: How does our state of Late Capitalism and Super Modernity make one feel? This would change from person to person, with assumedly the layman not really noticing how our system works, not giving much thought about it or just being completely blind to how we live and accepting how it is anyway. From a personal standpoint, it is incredibly contrived, confusing, contradicting, fast-paced, blinding, deafening, agitated with the air permeated with a feeling of fear, estrangement, malaise and ennui. At the very heart of my feelings of how we live today is wondering how technology plays a part in our lives, and what we have got ourselves in for without really knowing or letting it happen. Our current times feels like a utopia fictitiously disguised as a dystopia. This has been felt for years and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Capitalism brought itself to the forefront of leading our lives. This was especially brought to attention by Radiohead’s third studio album OK Computer. Released in 1997, it brought on the feelings of the anxious pre-millennium age, with the internet still being a fresh entity and technology being more and more apparent in people’s lives. The album came about because of the bands relentless tour schedule, being on tour for five years and recording two studio albums, with Thom Yorke saying: “Everything was about speed when I wrote those songs...I had a sense of looking out a window at things moving so fast I could barely see” (Rolling Stones, 2020). What came out of a gruelling time of recording countless hours - 17 of which landed itself on the internet in 2019 in the form of 18 MiniDiscs featuring unheard studio recordings and live sets - was a highly conceptual album which was different to what had came before it, in a time where the pastiche ridden Brit Pop scene was still somehow alive and kicking. OK Computer spoke of a modern condition, not being able to keep up with the modern world and being left behind as the modern world speeds by. Despite being almost 24 years old, OK Computer is still relevant in terms of it’s production and the feelings thrusted by it. The album doesn’t send a message, it invokes feelings and moods which can still be felt today despite it stemming from the thoughts and feelings of the mid-nineties.

In terms of dystopia, there are plenty of fictitious titles which reverberate nuggets of truth to reality. Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep or Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner speak about what it truly is to be human, and questions what really is humanity whether it is a real person, or a replicant with planted memories and personality. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World speaks of a future of a subjugated population made happy by a controlling government giving them no freedom, with the population given a drug named Soma to keep them happy and decisive (Huxley, 1932). Brave New World is comparable to modernity within a few instances. People are generally subjugated within society with freedom seemingly being smoke and mirrors, as true freedom would be the ability to do what we want all of the time, which just isn’t possible as we are held in by jobs, occupations, education and people. Our Soma is television, music, video games, social media, alcohol and drugs - which we use to keep us happy and not let the drudgery of modernity chisel it’s way to us - amongst many other ways.

How does the influence of Marx, Kiekegaard, OK Computer and Brave New World translate itself to a photographic project? How can philosophy, music and novels make its way into a photograph and be translated into something else visual? For this, some context into other photographers and their visual aesthetic is needed to understand how I create my work, and what visual styles influence how I take photographs.

Lewis Baltz - Prospector Village, Lot 81, looking Southeast - 1979

The New Topographics movement was a term coined by William Jenkins in 1975 (Tate, n.d), documenting a man-altered landscape which were mostly banal, bland and everyday landscapes often of an industrial and utilitarian nature. What the New Topographics movement really set out to do what document the unease of the natural landscape eroding as man took over, repurposing the land for industrial development, housing estates, business centres or parking lots attached to shopping malls; watching as Capitalism spread to the hills and saw them flattened. This movement reflected the era of landscape painting or landscape photography, documenting what is in-front of the artist in a very matter-of-fact way, as if you were there and almost romanticising the everyday. Both landscape painting and New Topographics and often have a feeling of starkness, and of course alienation. The natural environment is being taken over yet again my man for their own good, to expand across the land like a oil spill, spreading like red weed from The War of the Worlds. The monochromatic style of New Topographics also extenuates the starkness of the images, with the time of the photograph immediately irrelevant, and without anything else in the frame to give it context from what it was taken also harks back to landscape paintings. Without anybody knowing the title or year of the photograph, it could have been taken 100 years before when - ironically - prospectors created towns and villages as they blasted and flattened the landscape apart with TNT trying to find gold, to sell and create a massive profit.

Ray Goodwin - Epochal Territories - Walnut Drive, North Colerne, 2020

What I include within my photography is heavily reliant on what is previous mentioned, with all of those aspects being involved to invoke a mood by myself composing something within the frame. Firstly, my photography is completely void of any persons, totally dehumanised with only the fallout of their activity remaining. Secondly, the main focus of the photograph is to document the man-made within the scene, whether that be roadworks, buildings, roads, cars, overpasses, trainlines or anything created by humanity. These are everyday scenes that wouldn’t get a second look whilst the rest of the world is speeding past, almost being transitory spaces where time isn’t spend in large quantities. The feeling on being isolated and estranged from society is played upon by the lack of people within the photograph, with the things that modernity has created taking centre stage, whilst understanding the relationship on how our modern society can be so alienating, dissatisfying and contrarying. How can we see beautiful rolling hills in the distance, but come to realise that it’s just turfed over landfill spilling effluence and releasing gas which goes back into the grid is an acceptable thing? It sounds like something that would come from a dystopian novel, but is in fact true (The Guardian, 2021). Not only that, there are over 1200 hazardous material sites and landfills within the U.K alone, with an interactive map created by Ends Report (Ends Report, 2021).

With the context of philosophy, music, novels and past photographic movements gives one the information to see how it is that I create my work. All of the aforementioned plays it’s part collectively. My weltanschauung is created - amongst many - of these aspects. How I think about our modern society and how I document it is related back to things that I have ingested over the years and how I was brought up as a child. If I didn’t feel alienated as an teenager in secondary school and being awoken to how our society works during the 2008 Financial Crash whilst finding solace in OK Computer or Supertramp’s Crime of the Century, how would I think and act be different? If I blindly followed trends and didn’t think about how we exist, who would I be? By ingesting novels, music and philosophy, my world view has been shaped to potentially see the truth of how we live, how our government pulls wool over our eyes and what we do can be inherently alienating. No matter what I have done in life, I have always felt this level of estrangement from society and those around me. I have experienced depression and anxiety from since the age of 11, and despite what I do within my life, there has always been the feeling of being indifferent from what others are doing. Modernity is racing past at light speed, history blinds past and nothing happens in the everyday. People use social media to pass the time, and I finally realised that I begrudgingly hate it despite using it for so long, and for that deleted it apart from my professional Instagram account which is logged out of everything. My photography invokes my own feelings of being estranged from modernity and those around me, with the hopes of other people finding solace within it and relating to it. I have no shadow of a doubt that this feeling will never leave me and will continue, as it has for nearly 15 years as of writing this. But as society becomes more digitally connected, I feel myself become more disconnected from society, and I fear that this will only get worse and technology improves and the internet becomes more omnipresent than it already is. And with the lack of escape from Capitalism, I also fear we will be subjugated from society forever more. As time goes on, one can see that Capitalist Realism is truly settling in, and the lack of escape or alternative is ringing ever true. Our society will continue as it is and the feelings attached to it will also continue. Our land will continue to be ravaged by industry and one will become more disconnected from others. What has been written or performed evoking similar feelings will still be relevant for years to come, with my work - hopefully - stemming from that and documenting how our world is and understanding the relationship between or society and its afflictions.

Bibliography

Greene, A., (no date). 500 Greatest Albums: Radiohead’s Futuristic Breakthrough ‘OK Computer’. [Online]. Available at https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/500-greatest-albums-radiohead-ok-computer-1059469/. [Accessed on 26/01/2021]

Huxley, A., (2007). Brave new world. Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Fisher, M., (2009). Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? John Hunt Publishing.

Marxist Theory of Alienation (2015). [Online]. Available at https://www.communicationtheory.org/marxist-theory-of-alienation/. [Accessed on 25/01/2021]

Monbiot, G., (2001). Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain. Pan Macmillan.

Prospector Village, Lot 81, looking Southeast (2016). [Online]. Available at https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/objects/prospector-village-lot-81-looking-southeast. [Accessed on 26/01/2021]

Alienation (no date). [Online]. Available at https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Alienation. [Accessed on 26/01/2021]

Rachel Salvidge, (2021). MAPPED: England and Wales’ toxic legacy landfills. [Online]. Available at https://www.endsreport.com/article/1704522/mapped-england-wales-toxic-legacy-landfills. [Accessed on 26/01/2021]

Salvidge, R., (15/01/2021). Toxic waste lies beneath schools in England and Wales, map shows. The Guardian [Online]. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/15/toxic-waste-lies-beneath-schools-and-homes-uk-landfill-map-shows. [Accessed on 26/01/2021]

#101

0 notes

toraonice · 8 years ago

Note

I don't think you're homophobic, a bad person, or any of that and am sorry you're getting outright hate BUT I think you're missing a lot of the point. I am not going to presume that you aren't LGBT, but I am unsure if you understand how LGBT people are irritated at how het pairings as "overt" as v*****ri are typically accepted as they are (/cont)

(cont) yet so many gay pairings portrayed in the same vein are “ambiguous” or argue that it isn’t canon. The “they’re DEEPER than romantic love” is also hurtful as people aren’t discriminated against for friendships and erases what makes them so special to LGBT fans.

(cont 3/3) Essentially, I think although you have good intentions in trying to be objective, with what I said in mind when you add separate commentary such as pointing out that soulmates can be platonic or the late night drama thing it does deeply hurt people, because it sounds like you’re trying to downplay them—intentionally or otherwise

Hello! First of all, thank you for making a concrete example and articulating your point logically!

I’m taking this occasion to write a long reply that encompasses my view of Victor and Yuuri’s relationship also with regard to heterocentricity. It’s long, but hopefully it’s exhaustive…

I think some people may be a bit wary about this topic and interpret my words in a negative way. For example, by saying that their bond is “deeper than romantic love” I am not trying to say that romantic love is a bad thing or that they cannot be or become lovers. I actually see it as something positive, not negative. There are people who know each other, start dating, have a passionate love story and then break up within a year. I believe that, since the bond between Victor and Yuuri is not limited to romantic love (which can be included) but also includes respect, friendship and other feelings, this makes their relationship deeper than two people only bound by romantic feelings.

Also, when I said that soulmates can be platonic and that the Japanese Monday dramas are not necessarily centered on love stories, I was trying to be fair to all interpretations. I don’t mean “so this proves that Victor and Yuuri cannot be in a romantic relationship”; it just isn’t something that proves either theory.

Regarding Japanese dramas.. Not sure how many people are familiar with it, but in the 2nd Tiger & Bunny movie there is a scene with the 2 protagonists on the roof of a building that is commonly referred to by fans as “gekku” (the same kind of drama as the scene of Victor and Yuuri at the airport). Usually this kind of scenes, in the TV dramas, feature a man and a woman, but when “gekku” is used to describe something unrelated to dramas, like scenes from an anime, it often includes a slightly humorous nuance, very similar to when two people are fighting and someone tells them “you look like a married couple”. (The scene itself is usually serious and when fans use “gekku” they don’t mean to make fun of it, but at the same time they don’t seriously mean to imply that the characters are romantically involved)

I agree on the fact that if Victor and Yuuri had been a man and a woman everyone and their dog would think that they’re in love with each other, while part of the reason some people are skeptical about it is that they are both men. I myself don’t really it like when, especially in series where the sexuality of characters is not clear, two characters of opposite sexes are seen as more likely to fall in love with each other than characters of the same sex. This happens because some people think that unless a character is declared as homosexual they must be heterosexual because “that is the standard” (these people in many cases are not even trying to be homophobic, they just do not realize that what they are implying is heterocentric). I don’t think that there is a standard, and of course there are many more possibilities than just “heterosexual” and “homosexual”, therefore if a character’s sexuality is unconfirmed I am usually open to any possibility.

I will stray a little from YOI. I was an enthusiastic X-Files fan at the time the series was still airing and the protagonists weren’t officially lovers yet (yeah it’s a long time ago but I might not be as old as this makes you think lol). I was also a member of the official forum and identified myself as “intellishipper”, fans who shipped the protagonists but didn’t necessarily want them to become romantically involved in the series unless it was relevant to the story (normal “shippers” just wanted them to get together). This is because I liked X-Files for what it was — a sci-fi thriller drama — and I didn’t want it to suddenly become a love story or focus too much on the romantic relationship of the characters. In fact, to this day I still don’t really like how their romantic relationship was handled in the series… (even though I’m a shipper!) X-Files taught me that sometimes, even if the characters you ship officially get together, depending on how it’s portrayed it might be disappointing, and in that case maybe it’s better that everything is left vague and that you keep on fantasizing on your own… (Sorry if someone disagrees about the protagonists’ relationship in X-Files, this is just my opinion)

The reason of this digression is to explain that the way I view Victor and Yuuri’s relationship and its portrayal within the series is very similar to my experience with X-Files. I personally like them together, but since the series is fundamentally a sport anime about figure skating, to me it’s fine if they don’t confirm whether they are romantically involved or not, because either way there are enough hints to be perfectly able to perceive them as in love with each other even if it’s not stated out loud. At the same time, I respect people who want them to officially get together and people who prefer to see their relationship as platonic too, because in the end everything is open to interpretations and therefore I don’t think it’s correct to force one interpretation on others.

I understand that people who see this anime as important for the LGBT+ community would prefer that they are confirmed as lovers because we would have a “regular” (non-BL) anime featuring an official homosexual couple with a strong, healthy relationship, which would be a step forward in the portrayal of LGBT characters in Japanese anime too. However, exactly because it’s a Japanese anime, as I tried to explain in a previous post a few months ago, the local cultural background is an obstacle to that, therefore I wouldn’t be surprised if even in future works they never confirm anything. Also, what Yamamoto said about “relationships without a name” too makes me think that maybe she doesn’t find it important to give a name to their relationship but she just wants to portray a very strong bond between two characters which viewers can interpret how they prefer. Kubo too made a few tweets last August that suggest how one of the reasons they didn’t use a man and a woman is that they did not want people to automatically interpret their relationship as romantic “just because they’re a man and a woman”. If you read that negatively you might think “does she mean that if they are both guys they cannot be seen as romantically involved?”. I don’t know what she meant in detail of course, because I’m not inside her mind, but I also think it can be interpreted in a positive way: if the characters are a man and a woman people will see them as automatically in love only because of their genders, regardless of the deepness of their relationship; however, if they are guys the average viewer cannot apply their heterocentric point of view to them and they will only see them as in love because their relationship really suggests that.

By the way, I still think that YOI, even without confirming anything, is an important step forward for the portrayal of LGBT+ characters in Japanese anime because it shows two male characters having an intimate relationship (however you want to interpret it) without their surroundings going “eww gross” or making jokes about them. In the series, no one says anything or questions Yuuri’s sexuality when he decides to interpret the role of a woman in his early version of Eros, no one ever makes fun of Yuuri and Victor’s relationship, no one looks grossed out when they see them with wedding rings (Phichit even congratulates them for their “wedding”). As Kubo said, within the world of YOI no one is discriminated for what (or who) they like. Everything is just portrayed as normal. In a way, the fact that any possibility is viewed as normal might also be the reason why they don’t feel the need to declare anyone’s sexuality or whether they are romantically involved or not, also because in the end whether Yuuri and Victor are engaged or not, or are having sex or not, is not really relevant to their performance as figure skaters. The aspects of their relationship that are relevant to the story are what has already been shown to us.

To sum it up… I understand the various points of views, including the fact that a part of the fans would prefer to see Victor and Yuuri in a confirmed romantic relationship (be it because of their personal liking or because they would like more outspoken LGBT+ representation), but as long as the creators don’t confirm anything I will stay open to any possibility. I’m sorry if some of the things I said were taken the wrong way and I hope that what I wrote above was enough to explain that they weren’t meant as something offensive or negative but were just my attempt to be unbiased toward any possible interpretation. I myself am generally annoyed by the heterocentric view of the world (which in Japan is oh so popular..) and to me whether a pairing is het or homo makes no difference, therefore in my mind Victor and Yuuri in their current stage are very much like Mulder and Scully when their romantic relationship wasn’t confirmed in the series: no matter how you look at them they must be in love with each other, but it’s not confirmed, therefore fans who think their relationship is platonic have the right to think so (in the X-Files fandom too there were fans who didn’t ship them or were indifferent, but this didn’t stop the creators from making them a couple later on).

As a translator, I’m striving to be unbiased toward any interpretation and therefore to translate official material so that the original meaning/nuance is preserved and in English it doesn’t end up sounding more/less suggestive than it was in Japanese. Since they are very different languages, sometimes it’s hard to keep the exact same nuances as the original text, and of course if you ask 10 people to translate a line they will translate it in 10 different ways, but I’m trying to be careful especially with parts that might be easily misread (I mean, it’s useless that I translate something as sounding shippy when the original doesn’t… If the original does, of course I would keep that nuance).

In any case, if anyone ever thinks that one of my translations doesn’t sound right or that something I said sounds homophobic or hurtful, please let me know and I will explain more in detail what I meant. I always try to write my opinion without being offensive to anyone, but sometimes it’s impossible to write something so that all the people who read it will interpret it the exact same way, especially when talking about topics where readers have contrastive views. I respect all opinions (people who like Victuuri, people who dislike Victuuri, people who are indifferent, etc) and I just wish for everyone to live in peace without attacking each other.

Final notes:

1) Sorry for mentioning series unrelated to YOI, but since X-Files contains a het pairing I thought it would make a good comparison to show that my view of YOI isn’t influenced by the fact that Victor and Yuuri are both guys.

2) I was trying to be very neutral when I wrote my short review of the original drama at the YOI event, but to be honest some parts sounded just like a BL drama and it would take a genius to manage to “no homo” all of that… Of course the scriptwriter made it so that if you want to see their relationship as platonic you can still justify everything with “they were drunk”, but yeah…

3) Adding sources: 1) “What Yamamoto said” comes from the May Febri interview which I’m currently translating; 2) Kubo’s tweets from last August are something that wasn’t explicitly related to YOI but were definitely referring to YOI; 3) What Kubo said about no one being discriminated in YOI’s world is also a tweet from the end of last year, I made a post about it too.

#victor nikiforov #yuuri katsuki #essay #long post is long #my opinion

62 notes · View notes