#and whether it would add/detract from it | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

diamondcitydarlin · 4 months ago

Note

I understand it's not even the fifth-most important point in your post, but I really think that going forward, making sure all creators (at least those of Gaiman's calibre) have as little direct access to fans as possible should be industry standard. We've all heard the horror stories about Vic whatshisface at cons and whatnot, but even the folks who aren't certified creeps detract more than they add to the fan experience (witness the five-alarm Drama that breaks out whenever creators make the tiniest ship-adjacent commentary in interviews).

Couldn't agree more. The Neil Gaiman allegations are not a new phenomenon by any means; we know from countless prior exposures that predators use fame and fortune to ensnare victims, especially those that have been predisposed from maybe even an early age to revere and idolize them. And like you say, even if someone in such a position of power/influence has no ulterior, sinister motives for reveling directly in their fan base, there are so many other things that can go awry from crossing those boundaries. (Gaiman himself warned of the legal complications that could arise from people sending him fanfic directly- you'd think that'd be reason enough for him to, yknow, not be constantly on tumblr interacting with the fanbase and tags, but ofc we know why now)

I think there's something to be said about the quick rise of the internet/social media and the consequences of that in fandom spaces, that we're kind of having to catch up and learn from difficult experience how best to set those boundaries between fandom and creators. It's easy to think we should have known better already, but Gaiman had been carefully crafting his persona for decades at that point and always seeming like one of the 'good ones' as so many others were exposed throughout the years. I think in fact that probably strengthened the parasocial bonds as people clung even harder to him as the precious exception to the rule.

And yet, still I'm somewhat left at a loss of what the hard and fast rules should be, and if they should be the same across the board or if there's any room for nuance. I know that crafting a social media presence, even a persona can be important for accruing a marketed interest (and just unavoidable in the world we live in now, for people in related careers) and I don't think creators/famous people showing appreciation and recognition of their fanbases has to be an inherently bad thing. I know that people enjoy having Q&A panels with creators and interviews asking divisive questions about pairings/plot decisions etc in a show has been a thing since TV digest- but of course, getting in a friendly debate with your IRL friend over whether the last interview from the head writer of Friends meant Ross would end up with Rachel or not is very different from online discourse with thousands of angry, opinionated strangers, and maybe that needs to be taken into consideration in future- that is, if the creators in question actually care about their fans and aren't stirring the pot on purpose, which could also be the case. Anyway.

What's also true and I think should be taken into consideration going forward is that people of Neil's wealth and level of fame don't really need to be constantly interacting with fans on social media. I feel the smarter, safer route there for everyone involved is to have an assistant or PR person to handle social media accounts and in Gaiman's case specifically I feel that this is the least his team could do in the way of restorative justice/keeping his fans safe. This time, he really shouldn't have any public social media he runs himself. I'm literally imploring his lawyers, people, whomever has the ability if you happen to be reading this, to just cut him the fuck off from now on. I don't think that's asking too much of anyone involved. (They have for the time being ofc, but I'm calling for a lifetime ban). As that relates to other famous people, I would say we need to just bear it in mind. A little healthy suspicion for someone famous that's just trying to 'hang out with the gang' on a routine, intimate basis because, like, why? To what end, exactly?

And maybe we need to also have some discussions about predator behaviors from celebrities/creators during in-person meetups, how to recognize them and what to do on an individual and fandom-wide level if it happens. Like, I don't personally think it's appropriate or advisable for a famous person to proposition a fan (regardless of age or gender identity) romantically/sexually at their first meeting with this person at a fan meetup (it's a fan meetup not speed dating), I don't think they should be giving fans their number or contact info (even if it's purely intended, it's not appropriate or safe for either party). I don't think creators/famous people should be commenting on their fans' appearances at these meetups even if it's 'positive' ('wow you're so beautiful'- though there's nuance here, like if someone's wearing a cosplay and it's only about that etc, it can be nebulous but I think yall know what I'm talking about). I think all of those things should be regarded by fans as possible red flags and I think creators should have enough of a sense of responsibility over the power dynamic to know better than to cross those boundaries. I also think fans should feel safe and supported when coming forward with stories of behavior like this and I think we have to always be prepared to learn and 'accept' things we wish weren't true about famous people we like but don't know (accept as in accept as true and then get to work on what restorative justice can be realistically achieved for the victims).

But yeah, I'm interested in knowing what others think about this. Has this revelation made you view the famous people you like differently? Do you think there are better, further methods that should be taken to put boundaries between creators and fans? What can we as fandom communities do better to keep each other safe going forward? I'd love if it we could discuss these issues further.

#neil gaiman #tw neil gaiman #tw sa #made sure to put his full name in this time in case it gets reblogged

25 notes · View notes

somewhat-very-insane · 1 year ago

Text

questions i am sick and tired of hearing as a chronically ill and disabled person (and why i hate them)

this did wind up a bit longer than i expected it to, but by all means, feel free to add on with any questions you hate to be asked (and why!)

abled people, please do refrain from overtaking this post, and, disabled people, please do refrain from making this post entirely about any one specific condition.

"do you really have to talk about being disabled all the time?"

yes. yes i do. i promise that however annoying it is for you to have to endure the absolute agony that must be me making an offhand comment, or, on occasion, maybe actually talking about something that affects me for more than a few minutes at once, it is infinitely more "annoying" for me to have to actually live with the issues i talk about for every second of every day of my whole life. when i stop talking, you don't have to think about it anymore. but i always have to think about it. you get to put your full focus on something else, or, if the conversation is that annoying for you, you can leave! nobody is forcing you to stay. but talking about my problems is the only way i can get any support for them, and even when i stop, they are still there. i cannot "step away" from the figurative "conversation" with my pain. it is always talking to me, whether it be just a small whisper in the background or screaming at the top of its lungs in my ears, that pain is always there. so, while it's unfortunate that you are getting "tired of hearing about it," please do understand that i got tired of experiencing it a long, long time ago; do not destroy my one way to speak about my experiences solely because you do not wish to be made uncomfortable by them.

"do you really need that pain medication? won't you get addicted?"

in response to that, let me ask you this: do you really need that water you're drinking? aren't you afraid you'll get addicted to drinking water? it sounds ridiculous, i am aware. but i will break it down for you, now (as, in my mind, it is an adequate comparison). every human being needs things like safe, clean water, food, and some form of shelter to survive. however, the majority of humans can survive adequately with a reasonable amount of these items and will be able to function without major pain or other symptoms that detract from their general quality of life. some people, like myself, can have our basic needs of food, water, and shelter met, yet still experience major (or minor) pain, which cannot be blamed on a lack of rest, hunger, or thirst. therefore, in order to function the way society expects us to, and in order to not be quite as utterly miserable as we otherwise would, we may rely on other, stronger medications than the average person would, to manage that pain. these medications are medically prescribed, and we therefore have every right to utilize the resources provided to us. if i were to simply stop taking certain "non-necessary" medications, while my body would technically continue to function with the aid of my "necessary" medications, i as a person would not be able to function. imagine, if you will, the worst headache, joint pain, cramp, or other temporary ailment you have ever experienced. that probably wasn't a very enjoyable experience for you, was it? but you might've been able to use some ibuprofen or acetaminophen, maybe a heating pad, and after a little while it got better. now imagine if you tried to use those same things but the pain did not get better; imagine that pain lasting for months, even years on end, which you simply could not get rid of. a pain which you were expected to simply pretend was not bothering you, and continue to function the same way as everyone else, who was not in pain, was capable of. surely, in this hypothetical, you would want the (perfectly safe, legal, usually non-addictive) medicine that could make that pain even a little bit less excruciating? even if you knew that the pain would never fully disappear, not really, you would still want it to be less. so, i will take my medications, and leave you with the freedom to choose what you put in your body, just as i deserve the same freedom over mine.

"have you tried just exercising? eating healthier? meditation?"

the short answer is, for almost every disabled person i know, yes. though, granted that you've come this far, i'm sure you are prepared for the long answer, too. exercise can, for some conditions, help to alleviate or lessen certain symptoms. the key thing to note here, though, is that the exercise must be safe and selected specifically for the person based on how it may negatively affect them, as well. even activities that most able-bodied people regard as minor, such as going on a walk, can be draining, nausea-inducing, painful, and outright miserable for some people. i cannot, personally, go on a fifteen-minute walk on flat, paved terrain, in very pleasant weather, without triggering dozens of sensations that would surely make any healthy person worry that they were dying. when i tried to pick up an exercise regimen without professional help, i made my health several times worse. taking the advice of people who were, sometimes, genuinely trying to help, put me in serious danger. even when i did have a team of three doctors working on a plan for me, it took several rounds of trying and failing before we were able to determine what activities i could safely do, and which would be beneficial to me. now, being told to "just eat healthier" particularly irks me, because what foods i have to eat to maintain a more "healthy" balance of sugars, sodium, protein, and fat in my system varies quite a bit from that which a healthy person might be told is the ideal. i do understand that, generally, a low-sodium, lower-fat, mainly natural-sugar, high-protein diet sounds healthiest to a large percentage of people, the same cannot be said for myself. i have been told, by numerous medical specialists, that it is absolutely necessary for me to consume high amounts of sodium (think: eating salty food and snacks, on top of an electrolyte drink and salt pill every morning). i also deal with highly fluctuating blood sugar, which doctors cannot yet explain why it suddenly plummets (no, it is not diabetes, yes, i have been asked this dozens of times). as a result, i will often have to eat something "unhealthy," such as fruit snacks or a similar gummy candy, to get my blood sugar back up. is a high-sugar, high-salt intake diet generally what outsiders will see as healthy? of course not. but, as these are things i have to do to specifically manage my symptoms, it is always frustrating to be told that maybe they are symptoms i experience because of my diet. they are not. as for the types of people who insist that simply doing a guided meditation session each day can cure me of my dozens of health conditions, you are simply incorrect. while some people may experience a temporary psychosomatic alleviation of their pain in response to practicing mindfulness techniques, no one should ever urge another human being to substitute life-saving medication with guided breathing and essential oils. the two are simply not on the same level, and meditation does not, cannot, and will not help every disabled person deal with their symptoms.

"aren't you too young to be so unhealthy?"

no. and, while i do wish that people would not press further when faced with such a simple, clear-cut response, some people simply cannot grasp the idea that anyone under forty-five could possibly deal with any sort of health complications. people can be unhealthy at any age; even infants can have heart conditions, after all. while old age certainly has a higher correlation with deteriorating health, it is certainly not a reason to believe that, therefore, anyone who is not old cannot have poor health. believe me, i do wish that whenever someone older told me that i really am just overthinking things and lying to all my doctors and somehow faking things like MRI and X-ray results, those problems simply disappeared. unfortunately, things do not work that way, and by saying things like that not only do you invalidate the experiences of countless ill individuals, you (deliberately or not) paint us as bad people, when all we want to do is survive.

#actually disabled #disabled #cripple punk #angry cripple #disability #disabilities #chronic pain #actually chronically ill #chronic illness #information #chronically ill #//mortal ills #//god's words

93 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 12 days ago

Text

[Image of President Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, center-left, with his head tilted downward. Work is in the U.S. public domain, obtained here from Wikimedia Commons.]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

November 19, 2024 (Tuesday)

Heather Cox Richardson

Nov 19, 2024

For three hot days, from July 1 to July 3, 1863, more than 150,000 soldiers from the armies of the United States of America and the Confederate States of America slashed at each other in the hills and through the fields around Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

When the battered armies limped out of town after the brutal battle, they left scattered behind them more than seven thousand corpses in a town with fewer than 2,500 inhabitants. With the heat of a summer sun beating down, the townspeople had to get the dead soldiers into the ground as quickly as they possibly could, marking the hasty graves with nothing more than pencil on wooden boards.

A local lawyer, David Wills, who had huddled in his cellar with his family and their neighbors during the battle, called for the creation of a national cemetery in the town, where the bodies of the United States soldiers who had died in the battle could be interred with dignity. Officials agreed, and Wills and an organizing committee planned an elaborate dedication ceremony to be held a few weeks after workers began moving remains into the new national cemetery.

They invited state governors, members of Congress, and cabinet members to attend. To deliver the keynote address, they asked prominent orator Edward Everett, who wanted to do such extensive research into the battle that they had to move the ceremony to November 19, a later date than they had first contemplated.

And, almost as an afterthought, they asked President Abraham Lincoln to make a few appropriate remarks. While they probably thought he would not attend, or that if he came he would simply mouth a few platitudes and sit down, President Lincoln had something different in mind.

On November 19, 1863, about fifteen thousand people gathered in Gettysburg for the dedication ceremony. A program of music and prayers preceded Everett’s two-hour oration. Then, after another hymn, Lincoln stood up to speak. Packed in the midst of a sea of frock coats, he began. In his high-pitched voice, speaking slowly, he delivered a two-minute speech that redefined the nation.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” Lincoln began. While the southern enslavers who were making war on the United States had stood firm on the Constitution’s protection of property—including their enslaved Black neighbors—Lincoln dated the nation from the Declaration of Independence.

The men who wrote the Declaration considered the “truths” they listed to be “self-evident”: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But Lincoln had no such confidence. By his time, the idea that all men were created equal was a “proposition,” and Americans of his day were “engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”

Standing near where so many men had died four months before, Lincoln honored “those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.”

He noted that those “brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated” the ground “far above our poor power to add or detract.”

“It is for us the living,” Lincoln said, “to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.” He urged the men and women in the audience to “take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion” and to vow that “these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

[Image of President Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, center-left, with his head tilted downward. Work is in the U.S. public domain, obtained here from Wikimedia Commons.]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#heather cox richardson #letters from an american #abraham lincoln #gettysburg #Gettysburg Address #history #American history

9 notes · View notes

musicalhell · 1 year ago

Note

So this is a silly question, and you can disregard it, but I was watching your cats video, and you talked about literal visuals in musicals. I was just curious about how you tow the line and navigate with visuals like that.

For instance, if you made a song called How the Tables Have Turned and had it in a fictional space in the characters heads with turntables involved, would that be considered too literal? I’m just curious how that works

That's a good question, and the fact is a lot of it is up to interpretation, but it mainly has to do with understanding that lyrics tell a story while at the same time being, well, lyrical. There are occasions when lyrics indicate specific imagery or actions, for example in "Color and Light:"

More red... And a little more red... Blue blue blue blue Blue blue blue blue Even... even... Good Bumbum bum bumbumbum Bumbum bum... More red... More blue... More beer...

The lyrics are a direct representation to what George is doing--dotting the canvas, changing colors, evaluating the work, grabbing a drink. But more often lyrical imagery tends to be abstract, like in "Till There Was You:"

There were bells On the hill But I never heard them ringing No, I never heard them at all Till there was you

There were birds In the sky But I never saw them winging No, I never saw them at all Till there was you...

Marian is not singing about literal bells and birds, but of the wonderful world she'd been missing out on and that her eyes have been opened to through her relationship with Harold. To have birds suddenly swooping around and twittering in the middle of her song would push the moment from sentimental to absurd.

Literal interpretation can also miss important nuances in the material. Why, for example, does Eponine sing about "A Little Fall of Rain" when nothing else in the setting suggests it's been raining? Because her skin feels wet. Why does her skin feel wet? Because she's been shot and is bleeding out, and also probably because Marius is crying over her. The song works much better as her dying delirium interpreting the blood and tears as a gentle rainfall, rather than having a literal rain shower come through just for the sake of the song (looking at you Tom Hooper). Likewise, Joel Schumacher's interpretation of "Masquerade" doesn't work not because he doesn't mirror the lyrics (neither did Hal Prince) but because he misses the mood they convey, which is one of astonishing variety and hedonistic sensory overload.

All that said, theatrical staging isn't necessarily literal either and you can do fun stuff with it. "Hurricane" in Hamilton makes generous use of the turntable, tying the image of the hurricane that helped launch Alexander's career with the whirlwind of history he's caught up in. You have to decide how the action on the stage or screen complements the lyrics and the story they're telling, and whether it adds to the mood, detracts from it, or is just gilding the lily.

33 notes · View notes

esther-dot · 1 year ago

Note

I feel really bad for the originator of the Ashford theory, reading those posts you screencapped. It's not a 'crack theory' (unless they're putting it down because Jonsas took a serious hold of it), since structural foreshadowing is a basic storytelling tool. Hiding poetry in history, which seems a past-time GRRM particularly enjoys--- it's not just there to be there, but to lesson us in reading the past and make us understand the current story more deeply.

We should be confident in our analyses, regardless of whether we share a ship in common (I am do believe in Jonsa, but this goes for everyone), because storytelling can generally be trusted to be intentional. Anybody who wants to act like being incurious is more intellectually justifiable because it's less emotionally fraught is not worth spending time on. It is actually disappointing when stories are not considered and thoughtful (which is not a testament to so-called 'complexity'; The Little Prince is considered and thoughtful)--- fault in reading too much into things usually lay in perspective, less in doubt of substance.

Then again, Originator of Ashord Theory being possessive as claimant probably points more to dismissing it as crack because other people have taken ahold of it in a way they didn't like. If I am perfectly honest, were it not them having noticed it, someone else would have later (and someone else on Reddit did).

It's exactly the sort of thing I look for when I am engaging in a story because it is a tool I see used often. It was what attracted me to Jonsa, not that I was looking for evidence.

(about this ask)

The issue definitely wasn’t a lack of confidence in their own reading, they’re a tumblr BNF! I think Jonsas have written so much about it and so convincingly, it’s become widely viewed as a Jonsa theory and eclipsed the original intent which is their problem with it. Sometime ago someone shared an AltShift video here (a YouTube BNF), and he had included the Ashford Tourney as evidence for Jonsa, so I do think the goal of the blogger now labeling it “crack” is to detract from the Jonsa of it/for shipping reasons, not because they don’t believe in their own work.

As for the broader idea, I certainly agree that pre canon characters and events are written to add depth to the canon events. We can all expect that and look for parallels and contrasts with assurance that they are conversing with each other. It seems to me that every part of the fandom attempts that in some way, we simply come to different conclusions about what those things mean. I can look at something and accept a Jonsa interpretation but also understand, there’s another factor here too. And while I agree that many things are intentional in ASOIAF, I’m also aware that things can subconsciously influence and slip into a work. I recently watched this clip of Spielberg being told, he didn’t recognize this on his own, that he had included his parents love story in a film. Anyone might think, it had to be deliberate, but it wasn’t!

So, not saying anyone should be less confident, I just think it’s good to be aware that after a parallel is recognized, our interpretation of it is where we can all take off in different directions. For example, Jonnel and Sansa is perhaps the most beloved Jonsa foreshadowing (if it isn’t the Ashford Tourney 😅), and I absolutely think it’s groundwork for canon events. The question isn’t if it is, but how. Will it be a parallel, only, the point of the marriage this go around is to right a wrong? Give the girl her home back? (If say, Robb’s Will is recognized). I’ve questioned that simply because it seems like a big task to get everyone on board with Jon being legitimate and becoming their Lord and/or their King only to have them then immediately turn around and all accept he’s actually a Targ and will marry his “sister.” I wouldn’t be mad if that’s what Martin did, but when I think about how much agency he likes to give non POV characters, I’m a little skeptical he’d pull that turnaround off.

So then I think, well, maybe the idea is that unlike Jonnel, Jon will refuse Winterfell again and insist it is Sansa’s again only to ultimately be rewarded in the end by marrying her when she has the power to choose, and she chooses him? People have been very outspoken about how dumb they think the idea of Sansa being QitN is, and maybe that’s too much of a leap for the North because Martin does like his realism, but considering all the female heirs talk going on, Martin is certainly going to say something there, and Jon will have some complicating factors that might make Sansa more favorable to people.

Basically, Jon is a good person, he’ll do right by the Starks, is that the entire point? Look at the way the older generation of men treated women, this generation will be better? Or will Martin use the extraordinary circumstances to benefit Sansa / female heirs? Create an entirely new normal for the North? The story will talk to itself, but what exactly is it saying? That we can endlessly debate!

#dot chat

32 notes · View notes

asgoodeasgold · 1 year ago

Text

Matthew Goode's reviews, Freud's Last Session

I have been following these all weekend and putting them on IG / retweeting so I thought I would add them here too.

Matthew has stunned everyone with his stellar performance and has been put on a par with the acting legend that is Anthony Hopkins. Absolutely amazing (but not surprising to us fans who know what an incredible talent he is) ! He should be very proud of what he has achieved. I AM proud! And I hope he now gets the wide recognition he deserves.

Some of the words used to describe his performance:

💥sterling

💥 incredible

💥 ace

💥 shining

💥 quality

💥 remarkable

💥 matches Anthony Hopkins pound for pound / beat for beat

Some reviewers loved the film, some were more critical, thinking the subplot detracted from the amazing chemistry happening on set between Tony and Matthew. I think critics can sometimes be, well, critical for the sake of it.

A lot of love has gone into making this movie. The quality is there (set design, cinematography, acting) and it will be a rivetting watch, giving people much food for thought, which is frankly what I want from my movies. I can't wait to see it (several times 😁).

Below are screenshots of my IG stories with the best quotes and a link to the article.

#matthew goode #matthewgoode #freud's last session #freudslastsession

23 notes · View notes

theofficersacademy · 7 months ago

Text

This year, in order to study Pasithee's mysterious illusion magic, the bishops of the church have set up a magical ballroom separate from the main party, where you can don a mask and dance with other masked strangers to your heart's content.

Welcome to the Masquerade!

The masquerade is an optional side-event within the Ethereal Ball. The Ethereal Ball has its own event conditions, so whether or not you participate in the masquerade will have no bearing on whether or not you can claim your prizes at the end.

Off in the corner of the ballroom is a mysterious illusory portal maintained by the bishops of the church. In order to enter, you must be wearing a mask, but once inside, you will witness an opulence you could only ever dream of. Inside is a beautiful, extravagant room of marble floors and chiseled columns, crystal chandeliers, and diamond chalices. A fine mist swirls about, lending an even more mysterious ambiance to the masquerade.

Inside, as long as you are wearing your mask, all other identifying features will be hidden from your partners via magic. Your partners can uncover who your muse is based on behavior or if you choose to reveal it yourself, but otherwise you must suspend your disbelief about how much the mask can actually conceal your identity.

How to Play

1. Everyone who submitted a mask last week can participate. If you did not submit a mask and would like to participate, DM Mod N directly for one. However, do be aware that making Mod N create new masks after we set up 10 days for you to submit earlier will detract from the amount of time Mod N can enjoy the event himself. We don't recommend this.

2. Follow the TOA Masquerade blog: @toa-masquerade

3. Submit a starter to the blog's submission box or pursue the starters that have been posted already. When you submit a starter, the mods will add your mask to the post and tag it with a unique thread number so that you can add it to your stats page later. For the sake of the game, try to remain as anonymous as you can, so we recommend not formatting your posts.

4. When you find a post that you want to respond to, submit your reply to the masquerade blog via the submission box. Be sure to include the LINK to the post that you're responding to so that the mod team can reblog the correct one. We will add your mask and the unique thread tag to the post.

5a. You may reveal your muse's identity at any time, after which you can continue reblogging the thread from your muse's own blog.

5b. Keeping in mind that the name of the game, prior to unmasking, is the idea of going incognito: you are still allowed to exchange brooch decorations while masked, but you will, until the end of event OR until said muse has revealed themselves if they should choose to do so, be unaware of exactly which decoration you have received.

6. To best keep the game flowing, the mod team highly encourages keeping posts short (ideally < 200 words)!

7. In the event that multiple people attempt to reply to the same starter, the first person to reply to it will be posted. All other parties will be DM'd by a moderator to let them know of what occurred and will be given the opportunity to repurpose their reply into an open starter instead if they so choose.

8. All posts will be tagged by the mod team with #toamasquerade2024

And that’s it! If you have any questions or concerns, please let the mods know!

- The House Leaders

#toamasquerade2024 #toa announcements

10 notes · View notes

athetos · 1 year ago

Text

I finally (after years of putting it off) watched annihilation and honestly I was pleasantly surprised because while I don’t think it was superior to the book in any way, it served as a nice complement. It took the main themes and vibes and made something enjoyable and unsettling that can stand on its own. I think the metaphor about refraction was a really nice addition, and the many (so, so many) changes from the book were mostly born from necessity as it would be impossible to translate them to a visual medium. I’m glad it didn’t try to just copy the book’s plot and characterization because it would never hold a candle to Jeff vandermeer’s writing.

However, with all that said, there are two glaring detractions. Firstly, the ending was disappointing. If I had the ability to change just one detail, it would be to make it ambiguous as to whether the shimmer truly disappeared, or if it advanced to encompass the entire planet. That alone would be much more interesting. Obviously I don’t expect them to tackle questions like “what IS the shimmer” because even the novels don’t really answer that question (I mean there’s a 4th book in the works so MAYBE but c’mon it’s Jeff vandermeer he’s not going to give a definitive answer).

The second major criticism I have is that there’s no tower or crawler! I know they kind of merged the tower with the lighthouse but it’s a pretty weird omission to me since the tower is the most significant part of the first book and whenever I think about them, I always picture the tower and the nonsensical but chilling scripture first. I do understand why it might not have been included for budget and set purposes but I’m so distraught over this…

I guess the last two, smaller criticisms I have is that they had to throw in a contrived affair (why does every other movie feel the need to do this) and that they didn’t explain what annihilation meant. I won’t spoil it for people who haven’t read it but it has a very specific meaning that gave me chills when it was explained. I’m kind of surprised they didn’t mention the psychologist using any type of hypnotism or mind tricks on them at all. It adds a lot more to Ventress’ character even without the backstory for her we get in the other two books, and it would play way more into the “are we being manipulated to turn on each other” question that arose.

Other than that I think most of the changes made sense from a filmmaking perspective. Lena is ex-military so they can show her shooting big damn guns. They let them bring electronics into the shimmer because finding a videotape left behind is way more interesting to the audience than reading a journal entry. They gave the other survey members backstories to make the audience get more attached to them. They let Kane live because they needed another ‘changed’ person for the ending. Kane (presumably the original) committed suicide because it was a great way to show the plot twist. Etc etc

I also want to address that there is whitewashing in this movie but it seems to come from a place of genuine unawareness. The main character is Asian and the psychologist is indigenous in the books however they’re both white in the movie, but their races are never touched on until the second book, which was being written and cast at the time of the script’s writing (the rights for the film adaptation were acquired before the first book was even officially released!) I truly don’t think anyone involved was aware of this information, as it just wasn’t available. I don’t know enough about the filming process to know if they could have altered it after the second book came out or if it was too late in the process, so that’s all I have to say, but I don’t think it was done with malicious intent at all.

TLDR: it was a good movie and I recommend it but I recommend the books way harder go read them right now

#southern reach #area x #annihilation 2018 #that’s the year it came out right?#I want to reread them but I just reread them in January. my woe is indescribable.#Jeff vandermeer #reviews

36 notes · View notes

abalidoth · 1 year ago

Text

Finally getting around to watching Patricia Taxxon's video about furries and I think it actually underscores pretty clearly both why I'm a robot and why I've never been super comfortable with the word "furry". It conjures a specific set of sensory associations, both visual (the aesthetic appeal of animals) and tactile (evoking the feeling of touching fur, etc).

I don't have a huge amount of interest in the former. I'm pretty furry-neutral in that sense: a given piece of furry art is kind of a cointoss for me whether I'd prefer it if everything was the same but the subject was human. Sometimes the animal aesthetic adds, sometimes it detracts. The probability goes up for reptilian anthros -- honestly almost any piece of furry art would appeal to me more if it was a dragon instead -- but as for mammals, sometimes it actually kinda detracts from the appeal.

As for the latter? I have a fair few autistic sensory issues around touch, and while I do enjoy petting my dogs and other people's cats, it's more because of that animal's reaction than because I enjoy the sensation itself. If I pet someone's cat, it's usually just expressing appreciation that the cat trusts me that much, y'know?

And as for people, I'm touch-averse. If I'm extremely familiar with someone then I can let my guard down, but in most cases touching people is just not pleasant to me. Makes my brain make a really high pitched brake-squealing noise. So the sensory appeal of that isn't there for me either.

But all that stuff is kinda the other way around for robots, because I LOVE stimming with machinery. Emma got me a stim toy that's just six different kinds of mechanical keyboard keys and it's GREAT. and of course the visual appeal -- a good robot design will set my heart racing in aesthetic appreciation like almost nothing else.

It was an interesting watch, and clarified some stuff for me. Recommend if y'all haven't already seen it.

#tesserants #beep boop

21 notes · View notes

coldgoldlazarus · 2 years ago

Text

So, for a while now, I've been kinda entertaining the idea of more-or-less wholesale porting the G2 Protectors into a G1 AU. (Or at least, a more G1-derived setting, depending on how loose I feel like I want to play with things at a given moment.)

Because one thing that struck me as genuinely interesting about G2's approach, was how the protectors simultaneously fulfilled a very similar and yet very distinct role from the Turaga.

Both are leaders of villages, with greater elemental power than the Matoran/villagers, yet considerably less than a full Toa. Yet while the general conception of the Turaga as old and decrepit is perhaps overstated in fanon, there is still a noticeable difference between their demeanor, build, and general presentation, than the way the Protectors came across in G2's smattering of story content.

Particularly notable is the attention drawn to this difference in one of the early animations, where Narmoto is initially presented as a hunchbacked, cloaked figure, only to fairly dramatically throw aside the cloak and reveal his barrel chest, shoulder-mounted minigun, and those flame whip/sword/things. Like, that felt intentional, to draw the parallel with the Turaga and then subvert it. In addition to that, there is the second Ryder Wyndham book, where the Protectors go on their own adventure in parallel to the Toa venturing through the city, which also paints them as acting in a more proactive manner. So despite the similarities, the Protectors fit a unique niche, coming across as more proactive and powerful in a direct sense, while perhaps lacking some of the same level of subtlety and wisdom as a Turaga.

---

So basically, my idea is to essentially slot them in as an additional, optional stage in the life cycle, an intermediary state between being a Matoran and being a Toa.

The benefit to this is having someone there who can partially fulfill both the duties associated with a Toa or Turaga as needed, but in a more flexible way, without the power investment of the former or the time investment of the latter. Again, they may not be as capable of the same kind of feats as a Toa, or have the same depth of wisdom as a Turaga, but they can still fill in the gaps as needed, and lead and defend their people in a way most Matoran would still struggle to. Depending on regional tradition and whether circumstances allow, it could also serve as a good way to gain experience on the way to becoming full Toa, rather than being thrust directly into the role and forced to sink or swim like the Toa Metru were.

---

Also, with @outofgloom 's input, I think I've finally settled on a name for them, since "Protector" obviously doesn't quite fit into the setting or language: Vaaki, as derived from Va-Aki; "Lesser Valor", befitting their intermediary status as lesser Toa.

(I was initially less inclined to go with that since it sounded too similar to Vahki, but in hindsight I like it for exactly that reason. Assuming Vaaki are like, not a common practice but at least a known-of one, then Nuparu naming his creations to sound similar, despite the different derivation, would be an intentional choice. A nod to the similarities between the role of a Vaaki and the original, perhaps overly optimistic, intention for the Vahki to serve... and extra bitter irony when the latter ultimately wound up being tools of oppression instead. So yeah, rather than detracting, the resemblance could add additional interesting context and history.)

---

The matter of how they are made, mechanically speaking, I'm a bit more uncertain of, but at least for now the idea is still continuing literally with that idea of them as essentially half-Toa. Basically, there would be some way to control the process of transformation from a Toa Stone, only partially releasing the stored power and conserving the rest, which in turn results in a partial transformation. One side-effect of this could be some odd body/limb proportions like Narmoto and Izotor in G2 had. And then later, if it is felt that a Toa is needed more, then the remainder of that power could be used to complete the transformation, and grant the full strength of form and elemental power.

In essence, this approach would be a way to utilize the Metru toa stones on Mata Nui, aside from summoning the Toa Mata; in my version of the island where there are multiple villages per Wahi, those toa stones would have been used to make some of the Matoran into Vaaki to run the additional settlements, alongside the Turaga Metru still leading the primary ones.

---

On the other hand, part of me prefers the idea of Vaaki as a full and distinct additional step, rather than just "half-baked" Toa. Particularly in a more loose take on things, such as my G3 concept from a few months back, where adding this additional stage of things is easier to smoothly incorporate, it feels like it makes more sense that way. The issue there being, if a Toa Stone is still how a Vaaki becomes a Toa, by what other means would a Matoran become a Vaaki in the first place? To that, I'm not yet sure.

#not a reblog #bionicle #bonkle #bonkles #bionicle g2 #protectors #vaaki

53 notes · View notes

thenationaltreasuregazette · 2 years ago

Text

Ben Gates & The Navy, a Rabbit Hole

For a recent article on injuries I was looking into what exactly Ben’s diving experience and qualifications are (and whether they would have equipped him to jump the ~100 ft off of the Intrepid). Which led me to looking into Ben’s relationship with the U.S. Navy. Which led me to questions.

When the FBI arrives at Ben’s apartment in the first half of National Treasure, Agent Hendrix reads off this list of Ben’s academic background:

degree in American history from Georgetown

degree in mechanical engineering from MIT

Navy ROTC

Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center

It’s the second two items that have me particularly intrigued.

Let's dig in:

Now, the out-of-universe screenwriting explanation seems pretty straightforward: this is a streamlined way to tell the audience that Ben is an experienced scuba diver. From a character perspective, it lets us know he’s been training to be a treasure hunter for a long time, and is perhaps a little bit more badass/physically capable than we've been taking him for.

And more concretely, it sets the stage for two plot points later on: Ben’s trading his diving watch as collateral to the Urban Outfitters cashier, and more significantly, setting up the plausibility the he is prepared to make the jump and torpedo-aided swim from the Intrepid later on in the film.

The Navy Diving and Salvage Training Center is a) a real thing, b) fancy and formal sounding, and c) even includes “salvage” in its name so we require no further context as to what Ben was doing there. And why was he allowed to be at this Navy diving facility? He did ROTC. So from the screenplay’s point of view: exposition dropped, moving on.

But I’m much more interested in what this implies from an in-world perspective, because it leads us to two fascinating questions:

Did Ben Gates serve in the Navy?

When and why did he choose this path?

Did Ben Gates serve in the Navy? My suspicion is that no, he didn’t, and I think that for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Agent Hendrix didn’t mention anything about military service during his background on Ben, and service records would be as easy to come by and important to mention as his education history. Second, I think this would change the way the FBI approached the hunt for Ben. Maybe not hugely, but I think they would see him more as “one of their own” than as some crackpot historian. Or perhaps even a bit more “armed and dangerous” than some overzealous idiot out of his depth.

And thirdly, I think Ben having actual military service on his resume would change the narrative in a way that would become distracting. Again, this is more from a writer/audience perspective, but “Veteran steals Declaration of Independence to prove family theory” plays differently than “Local weirdo steals Declaration of Independence to prove family theory.” It just does. There in an implication of subtext there that, at least in my opinion, would detract from the central plot and theme of the film rather than add to it.

So from in- and out-of-universe, no actual military service for Ben.

Which leads us back to question 2, and opens up a third question as well:

How did he get out of his ROTC obligations?

When did Ben choose NROTC? If you’re unfamiliar, ROTC stands for Reserve Officer Training Corps. It’s a scholarship program that provides full tuition to top U.S. universities so students can “enjoy a traditional college experience while preparing to serve as a Naval Officer.” Basically, on top of your regular university courses you attend naval science classes and other training and participate in summer training cruises. After graduation, Naval ROTC students are commissioned as officers in the Navy or Marine Corps and are required to serve for five years. (ROTC is actually the largest single source of Navy and Marine Corps officers. There are also ROTC programs for the U.S. Army and Air Force.)

There is also a second way you can participate in ROTC called the Navy ROTC College Program. In this program, students pay their own expenses instead of receiving the scholarship. Upon graduation they own 3 years of active duty service, rather than 5.

It is possible to do ROTC as a graduate student, which invites us to ask for which degree Ben participated. I’m assuming, by the way, that Ben accrued these degrees in the order Hendrix reads them, making them a bachelor’s degree in American history and a masters’ degree in mechanical engineering. The fandom wiki disagrees with this, btw. We’ll get there.

I think this order makes sense because I don’t see Ben putting off the history degree. It’s his real passion, and there’s always the risk that he wouldn’t get to go back for a second degree for any number of reasons. There’s also the difference between a bachelor’s and masters’ degree to consider. The higher you get in higher ed, the more specific you get. A bachelor’s in American history would give Ben the greatest breadth of study, and the freedom to explore any and all topics he was interested in. A masters’ degree in the same field would ask him to zero in on a topic, perhaps more than he’d want to. Likewise, I think that depth over breadth would benefit him in his engineering degree. That way he could focus in on the areas most relevant to him and treasure hunting.

MIT and Georgetown both have celebrated NROTC units (Georgetown is part of the George Washington University battalion), but he would have a much better chance of being accepted while pursing a masters’ degree in mechanical engineering rather than a degree in American history, especially if he was taking the scholarship option (per the Navy academic major tiers.)

However, I think it's plausible that he participated during either. (Or even both! It is possible to do ROTC in undergrad and also receive an ROTC scholarship for graduate school as long as you’re only using up 4 years of tuition total. So Ben could have joined ROTC as a junior and then continued on to MIT still in the program. That level of maturity and investment may also have helped his case for getting trained at the NDSTC.)

Let’s talk about the wiki The National Treasure fandom wiki lists Ben’s education as follows:

“a Bachelors degree in archeology and cryptology at the University of Philadelphia, a Masters degree in mechanical engineering degree from MIT and a Doctorate in American History from Georgetown University. While in Georgetown, Ben also enlisted in the US Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps for the next four years and received official certification from their Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center”

That's a whole extra degree! I don’t see a source for this though, so if you know it, please leave a comment or tag!

For the purpose of this analysis I’ll be focusing on the information presented in the first film. However, if this is Ben’s actual academic history, it follows the previous logic while also introducing new factors. At least presently, applicants must not have reached their 27th birthday upon graduation and commissioning. Ben is smart, but I’m not sure he’s “finished a B.A., M.S. and Ph.d. from different schools before age 27” smart. I think it's more interesting if he isn't! He's just a normal-ish guy with an obsession! But feel free to disagree.

The wiki article also says he did ROTC for four years. Most of the ROTC graduate scholarships appear to be for 2 year programs, not 4. And I don’t know how keen the Navy would be on an American history Ph.d, given that their priorities are on STEM.

So I’m inclined to disregard the Ph.d.

How did he get out of his ROTC obligations? No matter when Ben might have participated in ROTC, if we think Ben didn’t serve for five years in the Navy, we have to consider how he got out of his service obligation. Once they’re past what’s called the Obligation Point (the point at which you owe the Navy service in exchange for participation in the program, which is the start of sophomore year if you join as a freshman, and on joining for all other students) students who want out of the program, or who fail to meet the academic requirements, owe the Navy one of two things:

two years of enlisted service (vs commissioned service as an officer, which is what ROTC is signing up for)

full reimbursement of tuition

Again, I don’t think Ben spent any amount of time in the active duty military. That means he would have had to pay back his tuition in full to get out of his service obligations.

But before we go farther into how he got out of it, let’s talk about why he joined in the first place.

Why did Ben choose ROTC in the first place? In order for ROTC to make sense to Ben as a path forward, he has to be reasonably confident of two things:

The ROTC curriculum contains material or access to material he needs and cannot get through other means.

He’ll be able to pay back the tuition. Otherwise he’s taking a huge gamble! 2-5 years away from the hunt?? That’s Ben Gates’ worst nightmare.

I don’t think Ben ever intended to join the Navy, at least not as his primary objective. The man has had one (1) goal since he was 10 years old and that is finding the treasure. A 5-year stint in the Navy would take him much farther from the treasure than he’d be willing to be.

The obvious answer here is that Ben joined ROTC with the specific intent of training at the Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center. The NDSTC does train several types of Naval officers, although I don’t have concrete evidence that ROTC students would have access. However, if we believe he was never a commissioned officer but did train at the NDSTC, then he must have trained while in ROTC.

The Navy or local police departments can be the best places to train as a salvage diver, but there are other options that don’t risk giving up 5 years of potential treasure hunting in exchange. If order for this to be the best path to the treasure for him, Ben has to either feel that the Navy will give him unparalleled training and/or be the more affordable option. Commercial diving programs can cost up to $20,000 (nowadays anyway), meanwhile with the scholarship option, ROTC is paying for you to learn. Then after he disenrolls, he has ten years to pay back the debt.

So yeah, ROTC probably was the best option for Ben to get trained as a salvage diver (assuming that kind of specialized training was available to him before commissioning.)

But plausibility is actually not my main interest considering Ben’s time with the ROTC.

My main interest is this:

Ben and Patrick Whenever you think Ben spent time in the ROTC—as an undergraduate, grad student, or Ph.d. candidate—that marks the latest possible time for Ben to become estranged from his father. As with so many things in the National Treasure-verse, the secret lies with Charlotte.

When Ben shows up and says he found the Charlotte and Patrick responds,

“The Charlotte. You mean she was a ship?”

Patrick seems genuinely surprised by this revelation, as if he had never even considered that Charlotte might be a ship. And that means he never knew Ben was looking for one. Patrick is a smart guy, so if he knew that Ben was participating in ROTC at all, let alone studying salvage, taking diving lessons, or in any other way involving himself in the world of aquatic treasure hunting, it would have occurred to him that Ben could be looking for a ship.

Obviously the treasure wouldn’t have been something they openly talked about much, since both Patrick and Ben made their opposing views on the hunt very clear from the start, but you’re telling me that Ben pursued ROTC in college and attended the Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center and Patrick never once considered that his son was searching for a ship?

Which makes me think he didn’t know about it at all.

The earlier you think Ben joined ROTC, the earlier he and Patrick would have to have essentially stopped speaking in order for Patrick to never even get wind of what Ben was up to.

Oof my heart.

But actually I think Ben’s going off to college (or grad school etc) makes a lot of sense as the boil-over point for the two of them. With each degree, Ben was officially declaring what he wanted to pursue with his life and Patrick wouldn’t have it. (Or Ben wouldn’t have his dad’s not having it. I’m not sure who boiled over first.)

So yeah, there’s your angst for the day.

The Charlotte By the way, I’m ignoring what Riley tells Jess in Edge of History. It’s my general policy that any years-later sequels or franchise additions work on an “a la cart” canonical basis. If I like something, it’s mine; if I don’t, it doesn’t count.

All evidence we have suggests that Ben used his ROTC status to get certified at the NDSTC with the specific intent of being able to find and salvage the Charlotte. No other piece of the treasure legend points to an aquatic clue, so the latest you think Ben trained at the NDSTC is the latest he could have realized Charlotte was a ship. And he would have done massive amounts of research before committing to the theory. He would be checking old port records, shipping manifests, sailors’ journals, and shipbuilding companies to see if a ship named the Charlotte even existed in the time frame necessary to be a plausible answer to the clue. Only once he’d confirmed that the Charlotte existed and had been lost at sea would he know he needed salvage diver training.

And if he could only train at the NDSTC while he was an ROTC student, that would have been way before he met Riley. When they find the Charlotte, Ben says to Ian that,

“Two years ago, if you hadn’t believed the treasure was real, I don’t know if I ever would have found Charlotte.”

Ben was not in the ROTC two years ago, because based on his driver’s license he’s 39 at the time of the first move, way past the ROTC age restrictions. Furthermore, what is Ian investing in if Ben doesn’t have a concrete theory by this point? “I think there’s this treasure out there somewhere and you should pay for me to look,” is a much less convincing investment pitch than “I’m looking for this ship and my theory is that it’s in this place.”

And yes it definitely would have taken Ben the full two years to find the ship, even with Ian’s financial support. And probably much longer than that. The Whydah Gally, the only authenticated Golden Age pirate shipwreck, was only discovered 260 years after it sank under just 14 ft of water and 5 ft of sand even though there were eyewitness accounts of where it sunk just 500 ft off shore. Shipwrecks are hard to find. That’s why I also don’t think he hooked Ian with a different theory and then pivoted to the ship-Charlotte idea later. I think those two years were all shipwreck all the time.

Also, Riley didn’t join the team until after Ian got involved. Ben says,

“Riley, you’re not missing the little windowless cubicle we found you in, are you?” (emphasis mine).

So Ian was involved in finding Riley. And while Ben is pretty buddy-buddy with Ian in that first scene in the snowcat, Riley is much more guarded. I don't think it's just that he doesn’t like being ragged on; I think he was the last one to join the expedition and isn’t quite 100% sure about these people.

So while it made for a cute callback in the show…I’m not buying it, at least not for the purpose of this analysis.

How did Ben pay back the Navy? That leaves us with our final question: How did Ben pay back his tuition and thereby excuse himself from the ROTC service obligation? The boring answer is that he paid the debt back over the 10 year installment period, probably sometimes scraping by with the minimum payments of $50.00 per month. While the Gates’s aren’t poor, the movie makes it clear that treasure hunting doesn’t pay (until it does), and nobody in the family has accumulated much wealth in the course of its pursuit.

“You know what that dollar represents? The entire Gates’ family fortune.”

The more interesting answer is: he found a treasure. Not the treasure, obviously, but a treasure. Maybe he salvaged a different shipwreck, or discovered a reasonably valuable object on land. We know that in the course of his quest he found a George Washington 1789 Inaugural campaign button. He’s almost certainly found other objects of value as well.

So, for the purposes of drama, let’s say he’s left ROTC and is pursuing his next degree and/or searching for the treasure, but this debt is eating him alive. He owes too much not not be working full time, and that's slowly whittling away at the number of hours he’s able to spend treasure hunting, until it’s virtually none at all. He can’t ask his father for money (and while he probably could ask his mother, we’re sticking to the information given in the first movie, which implies she's dead). Then, shortly before he’s really in trouble—give-up-the-hunt kind of trouble— he finds it. Treasure.

Maybe he scrapes together his last few hundred bucks to go on one last dive off the Florida coast and finds a long-sought Spanish Galleon or a Gilded Age cargo steamer that sunk in a hurricane. Maybe he’s exploring the basement of a big old house in Maryland and, in a crack between the bricks and the molding, finds a soldier’s discharge form signed by George Washington himself.

So Ben pays back his scholarship and is free to treasure hunt full time, or at least as full-time as he can manage before Ian comes along to foot the bill.

Conclusion My conclusion here is that I hadn’t spent a lot of time thinking about Ben's time in the ROTC, or what his and Patrick’s relationship was like between Ben hearing the legend as a kid and showing up on his dad’s doorstep with the Declaration of Independence thirty years later. I hadn’t imagined just how messy it might have gotten, or how little they’d been involved in each other’s lives, but based on the timeline that ROTC constructs, even Ben’s latest entry point means they haven’t been speaking for ten years. And, as I think the screenplay hoped all along, thinking through Ben’s education impressed upon me just how intensely he was willing to train to put himself in the best possible position for find the Charlotte, and how long he had to have been searching for the ship.

My other conclusion is that I have no first-hand knowledge of ROTC or any other topic here so if you do and you’ve got a different theory, I’d love to hear it!

Thank you for joining me down this rabbit hole.

#the national treasure gazette #national treasure #national treasure meta #ben gates #patrick gates #articles

26 notes · View notes