#at face value its easy to interpret it that way but in context he goes on to say 'its funny... you make me feel the same' to sora

[dreamsy990]

fuck akuroku as a ship btw not only because its pedophilic because thats obviously a huge issue. but also i think we should be able to have platonic relationships with the same amount of devotion as any romance. not everyone who loves each other is in love DEREK.

[lastsonlost]

All this over the Japanese liking a game they don't like...

Ghost of Tsushima opens with a grand wide shot of samurai, adorned with impressively detailed suits of armor, sitting atop their horses. There we find Jin, the protagonist, ruminating on how he will die for his country. As he traverses Tsushima, our hero fights back the invading Mongolian army to protect his people, and wrestles with the tenets of the Bushido code. Standoffs take advantage of perspective and a wide field of view to frame both the samurai and his opponent in something that, more often than not, feels truly cinematic. The artists behind the game have an equally impeccable reference point for the visuals: the works of legendary filmmaker Akira Kurosawa

“We really wanted to pay respect to the fact that this game is so totally inspired by the work of this master,” director Nate Fox said in a recent interview with IndieWire. At Entertainment Weekly, Fox explained how his team at Sucker Punch Productions suggested that the influence ran broadly, including the playable black-and-white “Kurosawa Mode” and even in picking a title. More specifically, he noted that Seven Samurai, one of Kurosawa’s most well-known works, defined Fox’s “concept of what a samurai is.” All of this work went toward the hope that players would “experience the game in a way as close to the source material as possible.”

But in embracing “Kurosawa” as an eponymous style for samurai adventures, the creatives behind Ghost of Tsushima enter into an arena of identity and cultural understanding that they never grapple with. The conversation surrounding samurai did not begin or end with Kurosawa’s films, as Japan’s current political forces continue to reinterpret history for their own benefit.

Kurosawa earned a reputation for samurai films as he worked steadily from 1943 to 1993. Opinions of the director in Japan are largely mixed; criticism ranges from the discussion of his family background coming from generations of samurai to accusations of pandering to Western audiences. Whether intentional or not, Kurosawa became the face of Japanese film in the critical circles of the 1950s. But he wasn’t just a samurai stylist: Many of the director’s films frame themselves around a central conflict of personal ideology in the face of violence that often goes without answer — and not always through the lives of samurai. In works like Drunken Angel, The Quiet Duel, or his 1944 propaganda film The Most Beautiful, Kurosawa tackles the interpersonal struggles of characters dealing with sickness, alcoholism, and other challenges.

His films endure today, and not just through critical preservation; since breaking through to the West, his visual ideas and themes have become fodder for reinterpretation. You can see this keenly in Western cinema through films like The Magnificent Seven, whose narrative was largely inspired by Seven Samurai. Or even A Fistful of Dollars, a Western epic that cleaved so closely to Kurosawa’s Yojimbo��that director Sergio Leone ended up in a lawsuit with Toho Productions over rights issues. George Lucas turned to Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress in preparation for Star Wars; he’d eventually repay Kurosawa by helping to produce his surreal drama Dreams.

Ghost of Tsushima is part of that lineage, packing in action and drama to echo Kurosawa’s legacy. “We will face death and defend our home,” Shimura, the Lord of Tsushima, says within the first few minutes of the game. “Tradition. Courage. Honor. These are what make us.” He rallies his men with this reminder of what comprises the belief of the samurai: They will die for their country, they will die for their people, but doing so will bring them honor. And honor, tradition, and courage, above all else, are what make the samurai.

Except that wasn’t always the belief, it wasn’t what Kurosawa bought whole cloth, and none of the message can be untangled from how center- and alt-right politicians in modern Japan talk about “the code” today.

The “modern” Bushido code — or rather, the interpretation of the Bushido code coined in the 1900s by Inazō Nitobe — was utilized in, and thus deeply ingrained into, Japanese military culture. An easy example of how the code influenced Imperial Japan’s military would be the kamikaze pilots, officially known as the Tokubetsu Kōgekitai. While these extremes (loyalty and honor until death, or capture) aren’t as present in the myth of the samurai that has ingrained itself into modern ultranationalist circles, they manifest in different yet still insidious ways.

In 2019, to celebrate the ushering in of the Reiwa Era, the conservative Liberal Democratic Party commissioned Final Fantasy artist Yoshitaka Amano to depict Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as a samurai. Though described as being center-right, various members of the LDP have engaged in or have been in full support of historical revisionism, including the editing of textbooks to either soften or completely omit the language surrounding war crimes committed by Imperial Japan. Abe himself has been linked to supporting xenophobic curriculums, with his wife donating $9,000 to set up an ultranationalist school that pushed anti-Korean and anti-Chinese rhetoric. The prime minister is also a member of Japan’s ultraconservative Nippon Kaigi, which a U.S. congressional report on Japan-U.S. relations cited as one of several organizations that believe that “Japan should be applauded for liberating much of East Asia from Western colonial powers, that the 1946-1948 Tokyo War Crimes tribunals were illegitimate, and that the killings by Imperial Japanese troops during the 1937 ‘Nanjing massacre’ were exaggerated or fabricated.” The Nippon Kaigi, like Abe, have also pushed for the revision of Japan’s constitution — specifically, Article 9 — to allow Japan to reinstate its standing military.

This has been a major goal for Abe as his time as prime minister comes to a definite close in 2021. And from 2013 onward, the politician has made yearly trips to the Yasukuni shrine to honor the memory of war criminals, a status of which his own grandfather was accused, that died with the ethos of the modern Bushido code. Abe’s exoneration of these ideals has continued to spark reactionary nationalist sentiment, as illustrated with the Nippon Kaigi and their ultranationalist ideology. These traditionalist values have encouraged xenophobic sentiment in Japan, which was seen in the 2020 Tokyo elections with 178,784 votes going to Makoto Sakurai, leader of the Japan First Party, another ultranationalist group. Sakurai has participated in numerous hate speech demonstrations in Tokyo, often targeting Korean diaspora groups.

The preservation of the Bushido code that was highly popularized and utilized by Imperial Japan lives on through promotion by history revisionists, who elevate samurai to a status similar to that of the chivalric knight seen in Western media. They are portrayed as an honor-bound and noble group of people that cared deeply for the peasantry, when that was often not the case.

The samurai as a concept, versus who the samurai actually were, has become so deeply intertwined with Japanese imperialist beliefs that it has become difficult to separate the two. This is where cultural and historical understanding are important when approaching the mythology of the samurai as replicated in the West. Kurosawa’s later body of work — like the color-saturated Ran, which was a Japanese adaptation of King Lear, and Kagemusha, the story of a lower-class criminal impersonating a feudal lord — deeply criticized the samurai and the class system they enforced. While some films were inspired by Western plays, specifically Shakespeare, these works were critical of the samurai and their role in the Sengoku Period. They dismantled the notion of samurai by showing that they were a group of people capable of the same failings as the lower class, and were not bound to arbitrary notions of honor and chivalry.

Unlike Kurosawa’s blockbusters, his late-career critical message didn’t cross over with as much ease. In Western films like 2003’s The Last Samurai, the audience is presented with the picture of a venerable and noble samurai lord who cares only for his people and wants to preserve traditionalist values and ways of living. The portrait was, again, a highly romanticized and incorrect image of who these people were in feudal Japanese society. Other such works inspired by Kurosawa’s samurai in modern pop culture include Adult Swim’s animated production Samurai Jack and reinterpretations of his work like Seven Samurai 20XX developed by Dimps and Polygon Magic, which had also received the Kurosawa Estate’s blessing but resulted in a massive failure. The narratives of the lone ronin and the sharpshooter in American Westerns, for example, almost run in parallel.

Then there’s Ghost of Tsushima. Kurosawa’s work is littered with close-ups focused on capturing the emotionality of every individual actor’s performance, and panoramic shots showcasing sprawling environments or small feudal villages. Fox and his team recreate that. But after playing through the story of Jin, Ghost of Tsushima is as much of an homage to an Akira Kurosawa film as any general black-and-white film could be. The Kurosawa Mode in the game doesn’t necessarily reflect the director’s signatures, as the narrative hook and tropes found in Kurosawa’s work — and through much of the samurai film genre — are equally as important as the framing of specific shots.

“I don’t think a lot of white Western academics have the context to talk about Japanese national identity,” Tori Huynh, a Vietnamese woman and art director in Los Angeles, said about the Western discussion of Kurosawa’s aesthetic. “Their context for Japanese nationalism will be very different from Japanese and other Asian people. My experience with Orientalism in film itself is, that there is a really weird fascination with Japanese suffering and guilt, which is focused on in academic circles … I don’t think there is anything wrong with referencing his aesthetic. But that’s a very different conversation when referencing his ideology.”

Ghost of Tsushima features beautifully framed shots before duels that illustrate the tension between Jin and whomever he’s about to face off against, usually in areas populated by floating lanterns or vibrant and colorful flowers. The shots clearly draw inspiration from Kurosawa films, but these moments are usually preceded by a misunderstanding on Jin’s part — stumbling into a situation he’d otherwise have no business participating in if it weren’t for laid-out side quests to get mythical sword techniques or armor. Issues like this undermine the visual flair; the duels are repeated over and over in tedium as more of a set-piece than something that should have a component of storytelling and add tension to the narrative.

Fox and Sucker Punch’s game lacks a script that can see the samurai as Japanese society’s violent landlords. Instead of examining the samurai’s role, Ghost of Tsushima lionizes their existence as the true protectors of feudal Japan. Jin must protect and reclaim Tsushima from the foreign invaders. He must defend the peasantry from errant bandits taking advantage of the turmoil currently engulfing the island. Even if that means that the samurai in question must discard his sense of honor, or moral righteousness, to stoop to the level of the invading forces he must defeat.

Jin’s honor and the cost of the lives he must protect are in constant battle, until this struggle no longer becomes important to the story, and his tale whittles down to an inevitable and morally murky end. To what lengths will he go to preserve his own honor, as well as that of those around him? Ghost of Tsushima asks these questions without a truly introspective look at what that entails in relation to the very concept of the samurai and their Bushido code. This manifests in flashbacks to Jin’s uncle, Shimura, reprimanding him for taking the coward’s path when doing his first assassination outside of forced stealth segments. Or in story beats where the Khan of the opposing Mongol force informs Shimura that Jin has been stabbing enemies in the back. Even if you could avoid participating in these systems, the narrative is fixated on Jin’s struggle with maintaining his honor while ultimately trying to serve his people.

I do not believe Ghost of Tsushima was designed to empower a nationalist fantasy. At a glance, and through my time playing the game, however, it feels like it was made by outsiders looking into an otherwise complex culture through the flattening lens of an old black-and-white film. The gameplay is slick and the hero moments are grand, but the game lacks the nuance and understanding of what it ultimately tries to reference. As it stands, being a cool pseudo-historical drama is, indeed, what Ghost of Tsushima’s creators seemingly aimed to accomplish. In an interview with Famitsu, Chris Zimmerman of Sucker Punch said that “if Japanese players think the game is cool, or like a historical drama, then that’s a compliment.” And if there is one thing Ghost of Tsushima did succeed in, it was creating a “cool” aesthetic — encompassed by one-on-one showdowns with a lot of cinematic framing.

In an interview with The Verge, Fox said that “our game is inspired by history, but we’re not strictly historically accurate.” That’s keenly felt throughout the story and in its portrayal of the samurai. The imagery and iconography of the samurai carry a burden that Sucker Punch perhaps did not reckon with during the creation of Ghost of Tsushima. While the game doesn’t have to remain true to the events that transpired in Tsushima, the symbol of the samurai propagates a nationalist message by presenting a glossed-over retelling of that same history. Were, at any point, Ghost of Tsushima to wrestle with the internal conflict between the various class systems that existed in Japan at the time, it might have been truer to the films that it draws deep inspiration from. However, Ghost of Tsushima is what it set out to be: a “cool” period piece that doesn’t dwell on the reasonings or intricacies of the existing period pieces it references.

A game that so heavily carries itself on the laurels of one of the most prolific Japanese filmmakers should investigate and reflect on his work in the same way that the audience engages with other pieces of media like film and literature. What is the intent of the creator versus the work’s broader meaning in relation to current events, or the history of the culture that is ultimately serving as a backdrop to yet another open-world romp? And how do these things intertwine and create something that can flirt on an edge of misunderstanding? Ghost of Tsushima is a surface-level reflection of these questions and quandaries, sporting a lens through which to experience Kurosawa, but not to understand his work. It ultimately doesn’t deal with the politics of the country it uses as a backdrop. For the makers of the game, recreating Kurosawa is just black and white.

[darnianwayne]

gdi batman doesn’t kill for a Reason: a character study

first let’s get this one out of the way: in canon batman is and likely will always be presented as a wealthy, white man of privilege and he Specifically should not have unilateral license to kill due to that. because well... COME ON!! if i have to explain this one, This Post Is Not For You

now, batman’s reasons for not killing are not because “killing would make him as bad as the rogues uwu” and if that’s your interpretation then i am sorry on behalf of recent bad comics and adaptations that have so diluted batman’s character to be closer to a sick, man-child perversion than an actual superhero with all the grey morality and social responsibity that truly implies

as a character, batman is first and foremost a detective who actively works with the only non-corruptable “good cop” he cound find in a city that is so historically corrupt and disenfranchised that at one point after an earthquake decimated gotham, the national government basically threw up its hands, shrugged, and abandoned gotham’s survivors to anarchy. batman is a symbol to the people of gotham for hope and protection against all manner of evils - not only from the criminal underbelly but from the corruption that mutated gotham’s systems of power from woefully incompetent to actively harmful to its citizenry. batman is a traumatized man who was once a happy child who watched his parents murdered in front of him and decided never again. batman is a father who realized if he ever used his role as batman to take a life, he would be sanctioning his children to do the same in his name

the batman character is a lot of things. but batman is not, should not, and cannot be judge, jury, and executioner. to paint him as a brutalizer that goes mad with power when presented with low-level criminals is disingenuous at best and actively harmful to the batman symbology of heroism at worst. even to say that batman should kill only in extreme cases like joker, who is undeniably a horrible piece of non-human excrement whose death would actually be a net good for all of dc in-universe society, it would be completely against who batman is as a character to have him break his morals like that. batman, bruce wayne, is a man who tries to use every tool at his disposal to bring about justice and prevent death: using his company to hire the disenfranchised in gotham including ex-cons, single-handedly funding gotham’s charities, and ofc using batman to find evidence to bring down powerful crime bosses and corrupt politicians alongside the rogues gallery. batman is one man whose symbol and legacy is larger than he is, but who is still only One Man

batman doesn’t kill not because he’s too good for it. he doesn’t kill because he’s too SMALL for it! bruce inherently values human life to the point where he believes one man cannot decide whether another human being lives or dies. that’s his whole stance when bruce inevitably butts heads with members of his own family who don’t subscribe to his point of view!

and yeah there’s always room in the Disk Horse to talk about whether or not batman is doing enough or if his morality is too simple and he actually should, logistically speaking, “cross the line.” those conversations are welcome in the context of all batman mythology: if batman and his universe existed, would bruce wayne’s batman be the form he should take? tbh idk and i am not here for thought experiments of what form superheroism would take in “real world” scenarios. there’s plenty of other fiction and media that have tackled that question, with results ranging from absolute fascist-glorification garbage to genuinely good works that challenge consumers’ preconceived notions of what a “superhero” would truly look like (watchmen, the ultimate batman au fanfic, is a great example)

the character of batman in-universe serves as a hard moral compass example to his family and other heroes not because it’s simple and easy - but because it’s HARD to believe human life is inherently valuable in the face of all the atrocities and horrors bruce has seen humans do to one another. and the question of whether or not the human monsters batman faces are worthy of their lives is straight up not one bruce wayne contends with. bruce has made his position clear and he is steadfast. but those types of questions are valuable anyway, and though we know batman’s answer, it’s metatextually important batman is challenged for his morality. in the batman mythos, jason todd is the clearest example of a character type that confronts those life-death questions, chooses differently, and that batman and we the readers have to decide who to agree with

at this point the batman “no killing” morality is a whole arechetype in and of itself. the batman archetype of heroism and vigilantism has inspired or informed the interpretation of most if not all other vigilante-like heroes that have been created since the early 20th century. so in a lot of ways batman has the simple rule of “no killing” because we as consumers don’t want a hero who kills. we live in a reality where innocent people are murdered by the powers that be, where cops murder civilians in cold blood, and call those crimes deserved and just. so we build fiction where that “reality,” that fun-house mirror of absolute power, is cleansed and where an individual has that same power of impunity and deliberately chooses not to use it. heroism in comics is an idealized version of what we wish existed in our own society: somebody with the actual power and ability to make a difference for the greater good without moral bankruptcy. it’s easy when you put it like that. batman exists in the vacuum of fiction, so the decisions he makes as a character do not have to be as complicated as real life. and the dc mythos is rich enough that batman is actively challenged on his stances by others even within his own family and honestly he should be! as a character batman has to be given the option to change his mind, and as a literary device readers have to be reminded of the moral choice at stake. It’s Good Writing Babey!! tho admittedly it’s this aspect that is most actively (and probably rightfully) criticized BECAUSE batman never changes his mind. and for a character with mythology that is over 80 years old - that’s a long time for the cultural and moral zeitgeist of superheroes to remain unchanged, especially considering the “no killing” rule has become a hard rule for all mainstream superheroes

tbh the assumption that batman, bruce wayne, does not kill because then he would essentially be the same as his villains gallery, morally-speaking - it doesn’t hold that much water. do you have ANY idea how much canon bruce wayne suffers from self-hatred and constantly questions his own actions?? even the batmans of bad storylines where he’s a grimdark, I Work Alone caricature, batman is a master of self deprication and loathing. he’s a man of few words and hard lines, but he is as likely to think of himself as morally equal to, say, deathstroke (in the sense they are both powerful, capable men who live and die by their choices) than superman. bruce does not believe he has the moral high ground, ever. batman believes he cannot make the choice to kill, so he doesn’t. simple as that

tldr batman doesn’t kill because killing is bad. it’s not that deep

[moonlitgleek]

Isn't Rhaegar absolved from his actions due to the fact that the prophecy is true and his son with Lyanna is the savior of the human race? Isn't Jaehaerys II absolved from his since the prophecy was true and TPTWP, in fact, is born of Aerys and Rhaella's line? I know we can mull over how Rhaegar could have done things differently to get his third child, but it seems that it was destiny. With Jaehaerys II, there wasn't even another option but to force the marriage to fulfill the prophecy.

Neither is absolved, no. Because the ends do not justify the means, and destiny is only what we make of it.

So many characters in this series act on the rationale that the greater good merits any number of sacrifices made in its name, which is also often used to justify and minimize blatant atrocities. Varys plays with people’s lives and maims children on the thought that King Aegon will right all the wrongs in Westeros. Mel argues that burning children alive is a necessary price for the survival of everyone else. Rhaegar treats the thousands of lives lost over the course of the rebellion as an acceptable collateral damage for a prophetic enterprise. Stannis is on the path to fall to that same viewpoint of a necessary sacrifice (”we do not choose our destinies” You do, Stannis. You do. You’re the only one who can choose). Robert’s council tries to frame Dany’s assassination attempt in the context of how ending two lives would spare thousands. Tywin tries to spin the Red Wedding as something that spares countless lives that would have fallen if the war continued. Mirri Maz Duur kills an unborn child on a crime he has not committed. Bloodraven may have honed Euron’s magical abilities on the notion that it would be worth it in the end, and he has a history of working on the basis of “the ends justify the means” during his tenure as Hand (e.g, killing Aenys Blackfyre in a breach of safe conduct, letting the Greyjoys pillage and reave as they please because he was too focused on the Blackfyres, etc). Though there is an obvious variance in the overall morality and sincerity between these character, all of them give the same rationale of a necessary evil done in the name of a greater good. If you have to sacrifice a few to save everyone else, if you have to sacrifice one person to save everyone else, it’s a no brainer, right? What is one life opposite everyone else?

The answer is “everything”

Human lives are worth so much more than being means to an end. Putting people on the chopping block for “the greater good” dehumanizes them by reducing them to sacrificial lambs in the name of a higher purpose. But ASOIAF has always advocated for the recognition of the value of life and respect for the sanctity of human life. Though the methods may vary, the text remains loud and clear in its refusal of dehumanizing ideologies, whether the source is human characters like Tywin Lannister, Robert Baratheon or Randyll Tarly, or supernatural creatures like the Others who are the literal embodiment of dehumanization. ASOIAF is about the fight for our common humanity, for recognizing that humanity regardless of things like class or race or which side of a magical wall you were born on. But you can not fight for our common humanity by devaluing people’s lives. You can not use the argument of “doing it for humanity” to disregard the humanity of those being sacrificed. That cold ruthless pragmatism is not the point of this series; the fight against it is. That’s been the point from the first prologue when Wymar Royce stared the abyss in the face and charged at it.

That’s why the support of the narrative lies with characters like Ned Stark and Davos Seaworth who refuse to give into the idea that the cruelty and dehumanization is necessary for the greater good. Through them, GRRM delivers the point that every single human life matters. That saving one person can mean everything. That it’s not naive to think that one life is worth everything. Protecting the one is not inherently inferior to protecting the many. The greater good can just as well lie in saving one person. Which it did in the case of Ned and Jon.

I think it’s pretty significant that Ned had no idea about the prophecy or what role Jon would play when he protected Jon, while Rhaegar who did know made everything exponentially harder. There’s a rather underappreciated irony in the fact that Rhaegar (and Jaehaerys) had little to do with fulfilling the prophecy; in fact, they jeopardized it. They may have orchestrated the circumstances under which Jon and Dany could be conceived, but a closer look shows that Jon and Dany were born mostly in spite of them and their actions. I mean, Jaehaerys married Rhaella off so young it impacted her health and her ability to bear living children. She almost died at Summerhall along with Rhaegar in an ill-fated attempt to hatch dragons, and while that’s mostly on Aegon V, I expect that Jaehaerys was fully on board as well considering the measures he took for the prophecy. Rhaegar impregnated a teenager and left her to give birth in less than ideal circumstances, and spurred a civil war thing that weakened the realm and put his entire family at risk and got a few of them killed. I can only describe their efforts as counterproductive.

But I find it extremely fitting that they ended up doing little and less for the War for the Dawn, because Rhaegar and Jaehaerys embraced the metaphorical cold in their quest to fight it. Jaehaerys reduced Rhaella to an incubator for a savior as if her humanity and her worth are narrowed down to her womb. Rhaegar was willing to see thousands of people die for his vision of what the prophecy required. They allowed themselves to decide people’s worth. Rhaella, Elia and Lyanna mattered only as much as the children they could bear, and those children mattered only as much as their prophetic roles. Rickard, Brandon, their entourage and the rest of the casualties of the rebellion mattered not at all. But that’s not how it works. Rhaegar and Jaehaerys don’t get to decide people’s worth. They don’t get to decide which lives matter more. They do not get to devalue other people’s lives because these lives are not theirs to decide what to do with. Individual lives matter, not because of a prophetic destiny but because of their humanity.

That’s why I don’t see the prophecy as Rhaegar and Jaehaerys’ absolution, but rather their hubris.I get the sense that they acted on the assumption that the prophecy would make everything alright in the end, especially Rhaegar, and so ended up missing the entire point. They got so entangled in their interpretations of the prophecy that they did everything wrong. Got a lot wrong too since Rhaegar wasn’t even trying to get the Prince that Was Promised from Lyanna; I doubt her was even aiming for a boy. Hatching dragons in Summerhall ended on a tragedy. And of course, no one ever accounted for Tyrion. But the prophecy, true as it may be, doesn’t make things go a certain way; people do.

Which brings me to what you say about how it was destiny that Rhaegar acted like he did instead of other alternatives available to him. This argument fundamentally misunderstands a rather significant theme of this series - that it’s our choices that define who we are. Through the political and magical plots alike, individual choice is held up as immensely important to the point where many characters’ existential victory lies in that choice, the clearest case of all is how the three heads of the dragon have to contend with some version of this dilemma.

It all goes back and back, Tyrion thought, to our mothers and fathers and theirs before them. We are puppets dancing on the strings of those who came before us, and one day our own children will take up our strings and dance on in our steads.

Does Dany have “the taint” of madness? Is Jon’s decision to fight his or is it an inevitability orchestrated by prophecy and Rhaegar Targrayen? Can Tyrion break free of the toxic legacy left behind by Tywin? Do they get to define who they are on their own terms or are they beholden to their lineage and their ancestor’s legacy? That’s for them to decide.

“Yet soon or late in every man’s life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose.”

Maester Aemon lays down the bare bones of this recurring theme in Jon’s arc. Across multiple books, Jon faces the choice of keeping to his watch or leaving several times which only frames the significance of how his destiny as one of the saviors of Westeros lies in him making that choice. Jon’s “chosen one” status has always been linked to him taking control of his future and deciding for himself. It’s him choosing to stay in Castle Black despite his appalled discovery of the reality of the Watch and to take his vows despite his frustration with the appointment to the stewards. It’s him going with Qhorin Halfhand of his own accord. It’s him picking the Wall over deserting for Robb or Ygritte. It’s him making a conscious decision to be the leader of the fight at the Wall over Stannis’ offer of Winterfell. It’s him taking responsibility of the free folk and recognizing that the commonality of being human is what matters. Jon is on the forefront of the text’s central conflict by virtue of his choices.

Dany is also fighting for our common humanity over in Slaver’s Bay. Her arc is basically a hard fought battle for autonomy, whether hers or the slaves’. Dany fights for freedom, for people’s right to choose, for them to be recognized as people not things to be gifted and sold. “Have you asked them?”, she challenges when Xaro Xohan Daxos argues that slaves have no use for freedom because they were made to be used. But Xaro Xohan Daxos doesn’t get to decide others’ fates, neither do the slavers of Astapor, Yunkai and Meereen. They don’t get to deprive them of their right to choose. People’s lives do not belong to them to decide what to do with. They don’t get to strip them of their free will or dehumanize them by treating them as things to be used to their satisfaction.

Because that’s what the Others are doing. They are supernatural slavers coming with their ice cold chains and stealing every single choice from humanity, right to the choice of dying. You can’t even die. They will resurrect you and force you to be their undead puppet.Mankind can’t even choose death because they will rip death from your grasp and drag your corpse up to join their army. The real threat in this text is a supernatural embodiment of dehumanization and taking away people’s choice. The War for the Dawn is nothing if not a fight for freedom, for the right to choose and to be human.

So the idea of “destiny” controlling how things go? It goes against the very heart of the series. Destiny is nothing but a series of choices deliberately made by individuals to shape the future. There is no fixed inescapable narrative that they can’t deviate from, or some all powerful cosmic power dictating how they should act. Even in the presence of magical visions, it remains the characters’ choices that decide their future. They get the prophecies but what they do with it is on them because the prophecies do not decide who they are. For all the magical elements and prophetic visions in this narrative, it remains that one of the things that the story emphasizes again and again is that our choices matter. They have meaning and they have consequences. Nothing is inevitable unless we make it so.

And that needs to hold true for the story to have any kind of meaning. Acting as if there is some kind of predetermined destiny that compels people to act in a particular way means that literally no one is responsible for their actions. People were just always meant to do what they did. Everyone is bound with chains of magic, lineage and a mystical force that has free reign to manipulate them. Free will is only an illusion fed to pawns that have no control. And if that’s the case, you can no longer hold anyone accountable. How can you call a person good or evil if no one has the capacity to choose their path? How can you hold anyone responsible either for their heroics or their atrocities? And if there is no good and evil, if honor and corruption get tarred by the same brush, if you have no basis to distinguish between the true knights and the false ones, then the only choice is truly “you win or you die”. Which is bullshit. These are false binaries and are far, far from being the measure of triumph.

ASOIAF has never been a story about the futility of ideals but rather about the fight to hold onto those ideals. About how“the battle between good and evil is fought largely within the individual human heart, by the decisions that we make”.  It all comes down to a choice and to the accountability for that choice. This series is rife with people trying to sidestep responsibility for their decisions, from Tywin maintaining plausible deniability to Robert willfully closing his eyes to corruption and transferring blame onto the next convenient target to Roose cultivating “a peaceful land, a quiet people” to Littlefinger keeping “clean hands” to Barristan Selmy and Arys Oakheart hiding behind their vows to justify their inaction in the face of tyranny. But they don’t get to outrun their responsibility for their own decisions. No one gets off scot-free, not because of vows of obedience, not because of corrupt systems, and not because of some notion of an inescapable destiny. The narrative won’t let them.

You must make that choice yourself, and live with it all the rest of your days.

[revlyncox]

Collective Responsibility

Unitarian Universalists can learn from the Jewish observance of Yom Kippur and its emphasis on collective responsibility. This sermon was delivered on October 6, 2019. 

We are all Jonah sometimes. (Yes, that Jonah.) There are moments when we make choices that we know are not guided by truth or love or whatever leads us to act as our best selves. The experience of having insight into moral clarity and wandering in the opposite direction anyway is very common. That’s a human thing. Maybe we have a fish-belly experience to help us turn it around, maybe we make a change on our own, maybe a trusted friend tells us the truth. For as long as we live, there are opportunities to notice we’re going in the wrong direction and to turn around. 

I don’t know about you, but sometimes I’m Jonah at the end of the book. Sometimes, in the less compassionate part of my heart, I hope to witness negative consequences for people I disagree with. Sometimes the universe offers more forgiveness than I would offer if it were up to me. I’m not talking about situations where someone in a marginalized group is pressured to show forgiveness to someone in a privileged group, that is a whole other sermon. I’m talking mostly about petty disagreements that could be reconciled if the willingness were there. When I’m not my best self, I am sometimes like Jonah, and I pout when punishment is not forthcoming. This happens fairly regularly when I see people driving on the highway in an inconsiderate manner. Luckily, the eventual reconciliation of all beings with mercy, holiness, and love is not something I am in charge of, even though I have faith that it may be so at the end of time. 

Letting go of grudges is something I struggle with, and I’m still working on it. For some people, letting go is a more complex process, and it’s not healthy or justice-oriented to rush, especially when it involves trauma or repeated and prolonged harm. Within in the realm of everyday forgiveness and reconciliation, I still struggle, I keep returning to the work, and I hope I’m going in the right direction. Meanwhile, the Book of Jonah reminds me that the universe contains more potential for growth, for change, for making amends, and for forgiveness than I am able to contain within myself at any one time. So the High Holidays gives me signs and reminders that every so often I need to turn around, to turn toward life. 

There is a way in which the Book of Jonah is about the redemption of the Ninevites, and there is a way in which it is about the redemption of Jonah, the lesson that sometimes things are not all about him. It’s not about any one of us. The world isn’t about me, even though the ways I am privileged might lead me to think otherwise. Spiritual community is about our shared mission and shared strength, which means people don’t always get what they want. The demonstration about the plant that provided shade over Jonah’s head for one day was to put compassion in a larger context; the earth is so much larger than any one person can experience. There are sources of grace, and reasons for limits, that are beyond our knowing. 

On the other hand, sometimes we are the Ninevites. Sometimes we’ve been participating in a society, going ahead with business as usual, not really conscious that the collective impact of our way of life could lead to disastrous consequences, not just for ourselves, but for our entire sphere of existence. For ancient people, large scale consequences may have been understood as Divine response. I don’t know if the story happened exactly that way, but I believe it’s true that we bear collective responsibility for some of the negative consequences have befallen our communities, our nation, and our world. 

For me, this is a key point of resonance between the High Holidays prayers and Unitarian Universalism: the interdependent web. We know that what happens on any part of the web affects the rest. We know that we are connected to each other in proximity, to neighbors around the world, to the earth we share. We know that we are made of stardust, and that the whole universe of which we are a part moves together in a dance of gravity and matter and energy. Knowing that cause and effect are a complex network of responses, we as Unitarian Universalists have many opportunities to contemplate our call to community, our call to build coalitions, and our call to face the consequences of societal structures as one body. 

This stark understanding that all of us are in this together, that the consequences of our societal choices will affect all of us, is part of the sentiment in the Aveinu Malkeinu, which we’ll hear after the sermon. Aveinu Malkeinu is a prayer of acknowledgement of collective responsibility, and most of all a prayer that disaster will be averted and we will have time to demonstrate a new way of being. It matters that people gather together in community for this prayer. High Holidays services are opportunities to acknowledge widespread harm, to anticipate shared consequences, and to pledge collective action to change. The prayer is addressed to a Higher Power, but all over the liturgy of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, it’s clear that humans have responsibilities for creating and repairing the better world that we pray for. We face consequences together, we commit to change together. Maybe that’s a flavor of what the Ninevites did when presented with Jonah’s prophecy. 

Aveinu Malkeinu isn’t the only prayer of collective responsibility in the Jewish liturgy. There are many. For instance, in the Ashmanu, the community recites a list of different transgressions, one for each letter of the alphabet. If you’re using an interpretive translation, the community might say we have Acted out of malice for the letter A, we have Backbitten for the letter B, on up to Z, we have lacked Zeal to struggle for our convictions. All of the examples are in the plural, things we have done. Even if I personally didn’t commit letter V for violence, I am part of a system that allows violence to occur, and I am here to support my neighbor who wants to turn aside from violence. No single person has committed every sin on the list, but we have all co-created a community structured such that these sins happen. 

There is a quote from Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who was a twentieth century theologian and civil rights activist, about this ethic of collective responsibility. He said, “…morally speaking, there is no limit to the concern one must feel for the suffering of human beings, that indifference to evil is worse than evil itself, that in a free society, some are guilty, but all are responsible.” (End quote)

Heschel had the Holocaust partially in mind when he said this. He was born in Poland in 1907. His mother was murdered by Nazis, and two of his sisters died in concentration camps. In Heschel’s understanding, some were guilty for the atrocities of the Second World War, but all were responsible for allowing the growth of the ideology that led to them, and for letting atrocities go on as far and as long as they did. The bystanders were also responsible. 

Heschel is well known for applying the same ethic of social responsibility to the moral crises in America that he applied to the moral crises of Europe. He marched for African American civil rights, calling it praying with his feet. In a 1963 speech to a conference on Religion and Race, Heschel said:

“Race as a normative legal or political concept is capable of expanding to formidable dimensions. A mere thought, it extends to become a way of thinking, a highway of insolence, as well as a standard of values, overriding truth, justice, beauty. As a standard of values and behavior, race operates as a comprehensive doctrine, as racism. And racism is worse than idolatry. Racism is satanism, unmitigated evil.” (End quote)

Heschel’s point that, while some are guilty, all are responsible, explicitly included collective responsibility of white people for a culture of racism. Today we might frame the discussion in terms of white supremacy culture, of the systems of inequality that are baked into our legal codes, our public policies, our expectations of etiquette, and our economy. Some are guilty of knowingly creating terror and exploitation for people who are marginalized while creating advantages for people with privilege. All of us are responsible for dismantling that system. 

This is just one example of our shared call to repair; the same goes for ecological repair, for justice for Transgender and gender non-conforming folks, for our health care system, for economic justice. Some are guilty, all are responsible. On Yom Kippur, I will be thinking not only of my personal confessions, but also about how we as communities and a society are collectively responsible for creating change, as the people of Nineveh took responsibility to create change together. 

It’s not usually that easy for a truth-teller to come along and energize an entire population toward making amends and changing behavior to bring about justice and wholeness. We change on a smaller scale, convincing one congregation at a time, one legislator at a time, one movement at a time. We are constantly called to the work of repair. We know that the consequences we face are bigger than any one of us can change alone. We know that how we bind ourselves together in ethical, spiritual, and economic ways affects other beings on a larger scale than we can grasp. So repair, reconciliation, making amends, learning from our mistakes … these are ongoing projects. We hope to be guided in that continuous repair by the spirit of love. 

Kindness, compassion, mercy are aspects of strength, and it is an ongoing project of renovation and rebuilding to infuse that strength into all our ways of being together. That’s one of the interpretations of Psalm 89, verse 3: Olam chesed yibaneh. You could translate that as, “the strength of kindness has been and shall be in the continuous process of being rebuilt.” In other words, a world shall be built from love. 

There is a song based on Psalm 89:3, composed by Menachem Creditor. You might have heard it at a Jewish spiritual gathering or at a social justice protest. The “we” is a key word in this song. We build this world from love.

Olam chesed yibaneh, tai dai dai, tai dai dai, tai dai dai (x4)

I will build this world from love, tai dai dai, tai dai dai, tai dai dai

And you must build this world from love, tai dai dai, tai dai dai, tai dai dai

And if we build this world from love, tai dai dai, tai dai dai, tai dai dai

Then God will build this world from love, tai dai dai, tai dai dai, tai dai dai

Maybe there is a Higher Power who suffers with us and strengthens us and urges us toward justice and compassion. Maybe all of the Divinity that is currently in the world comes from human beings being their best selves. In either case, that which is sacred waits for us as humans to collectively take responsibility, to acknowledge our interdependence, to face up to brokenness, and to commit to repairs. May we do so with love, in love, and empowered by the spirit of love. So be it, blessed be, amen. 

[kcwcommentary]

VLD6x01 – “Omega Shield”

6x01 – “Omega Shield”

Last episode ended with a significant conclusion, and this episode picks up immediately, following up on that conclusion (which makes the lack of a similar pick up at the beginning of 5x05 “Bloodlines” from the events at the Kral Zera feel more jarring since this episode shows they can write appropriate transitions at the start of an episode to connect to the previous episode).

The Castle Ship is returning to Zarkon’s old ship/base, and in front of everyone, Lotor offers a lot of praise for Allura’s actions. She thanks him in return for helping her learn of Oriande. And of course, the show has Lance jealous of Allura. Since the show eventually has Lotor revealed as a villain all along, it makes Lance’s jealousy in response to Lotor since 5x01 “The Prisoner” to be right. The show justifies his jealousy as him correctly interpreting Lotor’s spoken support of Allura as being villainous. I am not okay with the show having this message that it’s right for a person to be jealous of someone because they’re attracted to them, and that that jealousy is a valid indicator that the jealous person correctly understands a situation while the person they’re jealous about does not.

We’re introduced to Dayak, Lotor’s former governess. She’s strict, and it’s played for humor. I’ll admit I love the look on Lotor’s face and the tonal quality of his voice when he sees Dayak. I also really like that he refers to the Paladins as his “colleagues;” it sounds genuine and contributes to my inability to read him as villainous. We also get a bit of world-building: before the Galra were spacefaring, they used the title “Blood Emperor.”

Dayak is super proud of Lotor, especially with him becoming emperor, and it’s actually kind of a sweet moment. Lance reacts by taunting Lotor, “She raised you from a child? Awe, is this your nanny?” Uh, Lance, were you not paying attention: Lotor did identify Dayak as his governess. Governess isn’t some weird, alien concept. I actually kind of don’t mind Dayak whacking Lance with her crop. (I just did a tiny bit of research and learned that a crop used in the manner that Dayak is so doing is actually called a “swagger stick.” Swagger seems quite right.)

Hunk decides he’s interested in learning more about Galra society, and Dayak is only willing to teach him if Hunk subjects himself to her rigorous standard.

The show gives us an update on the civil war. Sendak is apparently being very successful in winning support. Lance asks Lotor if he’s going to start freeing planets, and Lotor counters, “It’s not that easy. My grip on the Empire is tenuous as is. I need to proffer an alternative to our current state.” He’s not wrong. Long-lasting change in government and political institutions do not happen quickly. This is why I think a lot of us read Lotor as being genuine and why the show ending his character by saying he was a villain all along is so jarring. He is demonstrating an understanding of social change that is proven accurate given our real history, so it seemed like the show was using Lotor to depict that reality (and maybe even educate viewers). No character other than Lotor has ever presented this nuanced, detailed understanding that to change Galra culture would take a lot more than just killing Zarkon.

Dayak says that “for the mind to learn, the body must be broken.” I can’t agree with that, but this is mostly played for humor so it’s not that bad of a claim in this context. She gives us a history lesson. “The Galra race started as a nation tribe on planet Daibazaal, home to many warring races at the time.” I wonder about the show is using the word “race” here. As we humans in the real world have come to understand (or at least some of us understand), race is a social construct, not something that’s biological. So, I’m wondering if the show truly means the word “race” here or if they mean the word “species.” It’s not an uncommon trope in science fiction to have some alien world result in multiple intelligent species who are in conflict with one another, often with one conquering/destroying the other(s). If she does mean the word race the same as how we use it to reference groups within the same species, then this is an indication that racism has been a fundamental part of Galra culture since apparently the beginning of the Galra.

Vrepet Sa, she tells us, means “killing thrust,” derived from an army combat tactic. She also says that if Hunk abandons her lessons, it is considered an insult to her teaching, and thus she is required to respond by fighting him to the death. This, again, is played for humor.

Lotor tells Allura that if they’re going to be able to get his ships able to enter the rift, she’ll “have to replicate [her] father’s work.” She has no idea how to do that. He tells her that it’ll have to come from “something she learned in Oriande.” Of course, we’re never shown her learning anything. We weren’t shown her learning anything (other than to accept being attacked and potentially killed) there, and I don’t think the show ever shows us that she’s learned anything as this plotline progresses. The show skips that step and just has her be successful in applying alchemy to Lotor’s ships. This is just another manifestation of the show’s lack of definition to its magic system.

Lotor gives his address to the whole of the Galra Empire. He refers to himself as a “slayer of a tyrant.” It’s again hard for me to see him as some deceptive villain with him proclaiming to the entirety of the Empire that Zarkon was a tyrant who needed to be stopped.

We are introduced to a new Galra base, one of the many shown watching the transmission of Lotor’s speech. This base is on a planet that periodically moves through what one Galra calls a “radiation belt” but is animated like it’s a solar flare. they have a shield (one that is small compared to the planet-wide one we saw used on Naxzela) to protect the base from the radiation. While they wait for the radiation belt to pass, the lieutenant complains to the commander about the speech, hoping the commander is not considering joining with Lotor. The lieutenant also has a problem with the idea of the Empire becoming peaceful. The commander is a traditionalist, calling down the lieutenant and cites that Lotor lit the flame of the Kral Zera.

This entire base is contrived. I’m willing to entertain the idea that there’s something of very notable value that would result in the Galra creating this base here, but I don’t have even a clue what that is. So, it makes no sense to me that they would choose this planet rather than some other nearby one that’s not subject to periodic exposure to this radiation belt. The entire premise of this base, narratively, is to create the need for help and Lotor to demonstrate his validity as leader. As the commander goes to send a message to Lotor, Sendak shows up with a fleet and starts blowing up buildings on the planet.

The show then again uses its jarring style of juxtaposing humor scenes in between dramatic moments. It is possible to write humor moments within dramatic scenes, but this show doesn’t do that, at least not successfully. Their humorous scenes that are interspersed within a larger, dramatic narrative only has the effect of disrupting that narrative’s attempt to build tension. Hunk’s scene is thankfully short lived before we return to the main plot.

Lotor identifies the planet that Sendak is attacking as being a “labor planet,” which to me sounds like a euphemism for a prison, but I guess it could be a location primarily made up of industrial facilities. The show never elaborates. Either way, it’s still senseless that they would build this base where this radiation belt would be a frequent, repetitive problem.

I don’t buy into this being a dilemma for Lotor, who says, “Sendak would have me respond to his attack and neglect my empire.” Is this planet not part of Lotor’s empire? Wouldn’t responding to Sendak be him attending to, not neglecting the Empire? Allura proposes Voltron handling Sendak, saying “Voltron can handle this while you continue to rule.” That doesn’t make any sense. Dealing with threats like this is part of ruling. This weird ignorance of what constitutes being the head executive of a government in this scene is baffling. There’s nothing wrong with Voltron being sent to respond, but the idea that Lotor responding to Sendak is somehow Lotor abandoning ruling the Empire is totally senseless.

On the way to the base (and I note that only the Lions are going, not the Castle Ship because wouldn’t want to have to actually show the Castle Ship being used the way it used to be used in the first two seasons of the show), Shiro undergoes some distress. He can even be heard a little over their communication. The Lions wormhole to the Galra base.

Meanwhile, Haggar has arrived at the white hole. She orders her ship to “stay on course” heading into the white hole, despite Axca saying if they go any further that the ship will lose power. Haggar’s facial markings glow, and Shiro is again shown visually and audibly in distress. Lance can hear him and asks if he’s alright, and Shiro says he is. It didn’t seem like Haggar was trying to psychically access Shiro in that moment, so why this whole moment happens, I have no idea. Haggar’s facial markings glowing, per the lore last episode, indicates she has the “mark of the chosen.” Chosen by whom, and why would Haggar be chosen? What are the qualifications a person must meet to be “chosen?” The show never answers this.

Voltron forms. Sendak decides to taunt the Paladins over their caring for others (he’s exploiting the same supposed vulnerability he identified of the Paladins way back in the first season on Arus), and he has his ship fire on the base’s shield, which he damages. “The entire planet is doomed,” the base lieutenant says. It’s supposed to be dramatic, but it just feels contrived because, again, the show has not provided any justification for why this base/labor planet facility has to exist on this particular planet. Sendak then orders his fleet to withdraw.

Shiro declares they need to fix the shield, but then he recoils in pain again and seemingly sees the pyramid on Oriande. Allura asks if Shiro is okay, and he continues to insist that they need to tend to the base. I love that Shiro identifies Hunk as being the one they need to listen to for a team plan. This moment makes me think of season one Shiro, who would often turn to other characters for their respective expertise. This is a great depiction of skillful leadership.

There are three tasks Voltron has to get done to remedy the situation. Hunk assigns working on the generator to Pidge, who needs Shiro’s help. He assigns dealing with the fractured shielding plate to Lance and Allura. And Hunk himself works to put drifting plates back into position. This latter seems more like plain manual labor style effort, which doesn’t quite make sense for Hunk to be doing. I would think, since he’s functioning as an engineer in devising a response plan, that he would be directly working with technology, not just moving it around. The show needs Lance and Allura’s respective Lions’ abilities for dealing with the crack, so without Hunk mentioning that as part of his assignments, it makes his assigning Lance and Allura to that task while he just moves things around a bit contrived. Only a very slight revision to his dialog, letting him point out the necessity of Lance and Allura’s Lions to dealing with the crack, would have fixed this.

The lieutenant on the base decides literally in the middle of the crisis while the base commander is working to try to bring the shield back online as the time to turn against him. Can this show please stop writing characters like they have such a lack of sense that it overrides their desire for survival? There is no reason the lieutenant would mutiny against the commander now while the base is in danger of soon being destroyed. Once the base is safe, maybe, but now? No.

It seems like the whole moment is contrived so that Hunk can yell at them to fulfill the supposed education he was getting from Dayak. While I do actually kind of like how this is simultaneously humorous and the resolution to a dramatic moment, and I like Hunk gaining something from his time with Dayak (so that those scenes weren’t just humor), it only happens because the show writes the lieutenant to behave so unrealistically. There is a little bit of outsider-as-savior trope applied, having Hunk demonstrating more supposed understanding of Galra culture than Galra themselves, that sort of taints the moment though.

Pidge and Shiro enter into the depths of the shield base to access the base’s systems. Hunk says that if the shield plates are “even one degree off, the shield will fail.” That’s a level of precision that does not feel realistic, and they could have easily left that particular claim out of the episode, and I wish they had. Allura proposes Lance hold pieces of the cracked plate in place while she uses Blue’s ice cannon to bind the pieces together. And then Lance adds the idea of using Red’s fire cannon to weld the plates together after they’ve been frozen in place. That makes the ice step of the process seem unnecessary, just get to welding. (Also, again, this whole plan of action with Allura and Lance should have been Hunk’s idea.)

Lance then takes Allura’s compliment and jumps into his jealousy, trying to replicate some of content of the dialog he heard from Lotor toward Allura at the beginning of the episode. I swear, this show seems to be unable to help itself when it writes Lance to behave like this while in the middle of crises. It’s so annoying.

The Yellow Lion spontaneously grows new abilities (without any use of Hunk’s bayard to activate it) and without any acknowledgement by any character, including Hunk. It makes this development have zero emotional or dramatic weight. (EDIT: Thanks to lostchasingsilver for pointing out to me that this upgrade Hunk uses here is the same one he used in 2x06 “The Ark of Taujeer,” just without claws. I didn’t remember that upgrade including a booster engine. Also, thanks to lostchasingsilver for pointing out that Lion upgrades do not use the bayard, just Voltron upgrades. It feels dissonant for one set of upgrades to use a bayard while the other doesn’t, but that’s how it happens.)

Pidge and Shiro are still working inside the base. Shiro winces, and he sees Haggar touching the floor with a glyph glowing under her in the room with the giant statues in the pyramid on Oriande. Haggar would seem to be fighting the statues. There is no explanation for how/why Shiro is able to see what Haggar is doing. There’s also no explanation for how Haggar has been allowed, not just inside Oriande, but inside the white hole. I guess the show thinks that having Haggar able to overcome the White Lion demonstrates that she’s such a huge threating villain for the story, but it makes the White Lion as a guardian last episode seem pointless. It makes Allura’s willingness to accept being attacked and potentially harmed by the White Lion lose significance and meaning.

The shield plates are restored, Pidge reboots the base’s power systems. The shield starts to function. Shiro then sees the White Lion as if it is attacking him, causing him to recoil his hand from the panel he was powering, sending the shield offline again. Energy from the cracked plate begins to spark, and Lance assumes that it’s going to jet out and hit the Blue Lion, so he pilots Red to knock Blue out of the way. Red gets hit by energy that looks like just big electricity (you’re telling me that the Lions can handle being hit by laser blasters, but electricity can mess them up?), and Lance seems to be electrocuted in the process. Allura immediately jumps out of Blue and jetpacks over to Red (how about just using Blue to pull Red to safety?). Allura’s voice conveys how distraught she is over the idea that Lance was injured.

This Allura and Lance moment feels very contrived to me, artificial to let her have this reaction. The problem for me is that this is such a big moment in the development of their relationship that it should have been given the narrative space to occupy the narrative entirely, not have to fit it in with other simultaneous developments of other plots. By not giving it due space, it feels rushed.

Hunk moves to try to restore the cracked plate.

Shiro is not able to do anything, clearly wincing in significant pain. Pidge grabs Shiro and tries to pull him back to the panel.

Allura touches Lance’s helmet, both Allura’s and Lance’s bodies glow and Red’s eyes also glow.

Pidge gets Shiro’s hand on the panel in the clichédly last second. Can writers please stop acting like literal last second success actually feels like success and not cheap writing?

Lance regains consciousness.

Later, the base commander and lieutenant thank Hunk “for reminding [them] what it means to be Galra.” Sigh.

On their return trip, Hunk is sleeping.

Shiro meanwhile looks exhausted. He winces again and sees Haggar walking out of the pyramid with sparkling dots floating around her. She pulls back her hood and regains her Honerva appearance. The music makes the moment confusing. I don’t know if the episode expects me to feel unnerved by her villainous success, or if I’m supposed to think she’s restored herself to some pre-quintessence poisoning true-self.

The most significant development to the story this episode is the Haggar plot, yet those moments are given the least amount of time and explanation. Haggar’s part in this episode totally overshadows everyone else in the episode, with he exception of Shiro since he is how we’re given this information about Haggar. The absolute lack of explanation about what’s going on with Shiro really bothers me.

It’s also really bothering that Lance and Allura both had heard Shiro wincing in pain at points in the episode, and then Pidge literally sees Shiro in pain so severe that she has to pull him into position and put his hand on the panel, yet the episode ends without any of them talking to him about what was happening to him. Friends do not ignore their supposed friend when they literally hear and see that supposed friend in pain, but apparently they do on this show.

Lotor’s claimed inability to respond to Sendak because he has to rule the Empire was senseless, Allura and Lance’s moment was rushed (at best), Shiro was subject to suffering without anyone who’se supposed to care about him following up on knowing it happened, and Haggar is, without explanation, more powerful than ancient, almost spiritual, super magical, otherworldly defenses. The basic ideas of the episode are good, but the production of those ideas into a finished product needs more work.

[allofmycrushes]

Bananafish ending pt1

Are we still treating Banana Fish ending like the only possible one with Ash being better off dead instead of a forced cliché emo sob story it was? It was most disappointing I as far as story resolutions go. It felt so disjointed from the plot like starting a new arc after neatly finishing the plot just to end it in the first act with an easy and abrupt death of the main hero. It managed to spoil and finally sour things, with a sloppy writing on top, not any close to satisfying and the characters didn't deserve to go through all of this for nothing. Ash character especially, for him it reversed his growth, it nullified everything he fought so hard for. Could we at least stop convincing ourselves it was so fitting and that misfortune would come anyway? It's disturbing enough without bringing fatalistic nihilism further into it. Life isn't that way and especially in fiction there isn't one possible solution. It didn't have to be like this and it's not great despite the pain it causes or rather as people like to say "realistic because of the pain" nor was it perfectly set up, we don't have to at least accept it as right however it feels for it showed us "harsh reality", it's not and was not realistically done either, no need endorsing we all have to abide it as such. Ultimately we have to stomach already damaged character getting senselessly tortured for nothing till we are fed this miserable end and I don't think at this point it's something to admire as representational. It's like clipping wings of a butterfly for the drama and then having it presented as just showing a slice of our unfair life. Or better yet, watching a nature documentary that shows only prey being hunted and torn apart, nothing else, none of its other side, no counterpoint and then being told that's it, that's only what Mother Nature is. This is the reality we speak of when talking about Banana Fish ending which unfortunately cements that it showed beauty specifically to crush it. There's no balance when you continue to show loss triumph and if there's no other way I'm inclined to think Banana Fish takes place in Hell rather than in real world.

I don't think it was a rightful ending for so many reasons coming from the way the story was written, for the issues of this ending in itself and ideas it brings forward. But I want to go further into one thing I observed, namely the prevalent narrative having people who say BF ending wasn't good labelled as naive sentimental idealists who can't take it just because they could only accept a straightforward happy end while its ~greatness and realness lays in how grim it is. We are told we may not like it (and that we only don't because it upsets us with not being fluffy) but however out feelings are we have to acknowledge it was objectively inevitable, well written, only logical and plausible one. If not our delicate sensibilities can't handle serious real life themes. Well thank you for letting me not enjoy it but also I still won't agree that despite my dislike it was like all the previous adjectives mentioned, it wasn't legitimate and the best possible while being realistic and in other posts I scratch the surface of why not but here I just want to say I feel uncomfortable with how this pointless end is validated as the sole one which could be credible while any opposition to it framed as irrational fantasy wishful thinking. I think people who read it this way take the text painfully at face value and maybe can't see it is highly disputable but it's not fair trying to impose on others the idea how common sense and true to life it was and misrepresent other's dissatisfaction as being in denial. In general I see posts on the ending enforcing the view how it happened as if by some objective laws of the universe, you might not like them but they're binding anyway, it is sad but anything else would be delusional. I'm sorry but no, this is fiction and as a whole it is composed and based on a subjective set of ideas and values and in BF's particular case they're not even always coherent as a whole both within the story and in relation to our real world. Popular interpretation is that Ash couldn't possibly escape his fate and so we can't escape such ending. He works hard to do it the whole time but this struggle is denied and nothing matters in the end anyway and I am to believe his conclusion always would have been the same as if a neutral mathematical truth brought it. Destiny. It is hard to justify such concept especially when talking about fiction where by default you have basically the author making certain choices and then trying to construct the story around them. You can only argue it was well founded, coherently coming from the story and working in context of what we see but in BF case it totally scratched out what it previously established, this construction wasn't even especially flawless, unquestionable and successful. It's like the internal contradictions in the plot and character actions are being ignored and the fatalistic motives that are pushed forward are like a voice of the omniscient god narrator forcing this way of thinking into us and forbidding to think critically about what is repeated and compare it with how it relates to what’s been actually happening. So when they're finally realized you're to be amazed how rational it is despite many of the things under the surface aren't necessarily pointing in the same direction. You could only call it unequivocal if there were no holes in the storytelling and causality so that it would have been the only justifiable conclusion but no one can tell me that despite all the forced omens purposefully scattered around there couldn't have been a somewhat different ending without it being a nonsensical, unbelievable fix it. The story and the flawed execution of the given ending easily lets you imagine other probable possibilities.

There were clumsy deliberate attempts in the plot to lay the background for it, how it was fatalistically coming but the stabbing timing itself was obviously convenient and contrived thing that didn't feel fluent and organic, more like an abrupt event in precisely calculated moment by the author for maximum shock that's why it feels so fake. Then Ash has a turn around and goes to the library, there's much talk that he Did It For Eiji but it's hard to believe it to be the case since the BF affair has ended and he for the first time in his life gets a chance to live freely plus gets the letter which is a hopeful promise for a better future. To have the random stabbing suddenly make him dismiss all this and give up promptly is a weak excuse. He finally has something to live for, is at a good place for the first time in his life. It made no sense coming from unconvincing situation and for his character, it’s such a waste to make him decide that because he felt happy for a moment, he is so strong but now suddenly submits and stops fighting for all he did before. It’s like he is chastised for even  trying to escape, for a fleeting moment believing he could have something as we are told there’s no hope for him. It was miserable and not emotional or moving in a good way, how even a tragic end is supposed to be. Truth is Ash is in the best position at the end- allies, money, biggest enemies dead, can possibly start anew. Others did. I doubt it'd have been worse for him than what he's already been put through but one of the manipulative things BF does is that we are at some point beginning to be deliberately pressured into not believing he could have it better because of all the gratuitous violence and abuse and bad luck he has thrown on him during the timeline (I think it's one of the long term purposes of some otherwise pointless scenes besides the direct one which is to shake us), also as I've claimed people tend to give him no future in any case to compensate for the ending.

[mrlnsfrt]

Utterly Destroy

In an age when global solidarity is highly valued, and so many are interested in a social gospel, there are many attacks and an outright rejection of various Old Testament passages.

There are many, including Bible believing Christians, who say that “the violence called for in Deuteronomy 7 contrasts sharply with the assertion that God is love.” (Biddle 136) A popular “solution” is to name Moses as the author of these commands, perhaps trying to protect God from seeming barbaric.

The behavior commanded on Deuteronomy 7:2 is widely considered not only unloving but also unchristian, leading many to neglect the study of the Old Testament as the inspired word of God or at least as still relevant to 21st Century Christians.

The Question

Was God angrier and meaner in the Old Testament or is the God of Deuteronomy 7 the same loving and just God that is present throughout the Scriptures?

Is the God of the Bible a God of love or a God of destruction?

A God of peace or a God of war?

The Approach

We will embark on an in depth study of God’s command to “utterly destroy” found in primarily in the context of war and extermination. Since the occurrences range primarily from Deuteronomy through 2 Chronicles, Deuteronomy 7:1–5 seemed like the perfect place to begin our study for it gives a good description of what God intended for Israel to do. If you were to look up every occurrence of this verb you would see that the other texts deal with a summary of the Israel’s military conquest of the territory west of the Jordan under Joshua, and are all connected to this command.

The most common approach when dealing with Deuteronomy 7:2, is to make a brief applications such as “compromise leads to apostasy; therefore, avoid it” (Honeycutt 127), or “the covenant-treaty of the Lord with Israel excludes other treaties.” (Gebelein) Though such comments are true and important, they only scratch the surface of what this text has to offer.

Others have treated the command as a hyperbole or exaggeration meant to illustrate a high moral calling but never meant to be literally followed. The tendency is to simply label such comments as “strange anomalies and paradoxes” (New Interpreter’s Bible) and move on without seriously attempting to harmonize it with the rest of Scripture.

Historical and Literary Context

One of the keys to gaining a clear understanding of a text is to study its context. Historically, the book of Deuteronomy describes the events that took place at the end of the Mosaic period, just before Israel enters into Canaan. This was a critical time for Israel because their future goal was dependent on their obedience and commitment to God.

Literarily Deuteronomy 7 and the command to “utterly destroy” come after a call to love the Lord God, found in Deuteronomy 6, and just before a warning to not forget the Lord, found on chapter eight.

Interpreting The Text

As we read this text we notice “a very strict caution against all friendship and fellowship with idols and idolaters.” (Henry) Because those who are taken into communion with God must have “no communication with the unfruitful works of darkness,” (Eph. 5:11) and God gave these orders to protect His people from this snare now before them. (Henry)

The Interpreter’s Bible states that Deuteronomy 7:2 describes the principle that everything belonging to foreign gods, including people and their possessions, was abhorrent to Yahweh and was therefore “devoted” to destruction. This interpretation may be okay, but the explanation that follows it is dangerous. The Interpreter’s Bible states that “if we are revolted by a command to exterminate the people of the land just because they worshiped other gods, our repugnance may be mitigated by the fact that it was never rigorously carried out.” (Buttrick 378,379)

In an attempt to mitigate our reaction to God’s command, the George A. Buttrick, highlights how the Canaanites lived side by side with the Israelites until the Exile and beyond. Such an approach to Scriptures encourages the reader to disobey God whenever she thinks He is being too harsh, in which case the reader no longer following God. The reader now becomes a judge of which parts of God’s massage are applicable to her.

You can’t highlight Israel’s high moral code while doing away with the “grosser features” (Buttrick 378–379) of God’s command to “utterly destroy” without giving any reasons for this position other then referring to it as “extreme” and “almost unbelievably harsh” (ibid) will of God.

The command is treated as a hyperbole meant to illustrate a high moral calling but never meant to be literally followed. We need to resist focusing on the New Testament and skipping to applications without putting forth a serious effort to understand the text in its historical and literary context.

It is true that to the modern reader the demands found on Deuteronomy 7:2 seem to contrast strangely with the preceding affirmations concerning the loving aspects of God and of obedience, and that the book of Deuteronomy presents the reader with a number of apparent strange anomalies and paradoxes. It is easy to call these teachings contradictory and move on, but a deeper study of the text goes a long way in doing away with many of these supposed “anomalies and paradoxes.” (New Interpreter’s Bible)

In order to properly understand verse two it is important to pay attention to its context. In Deuteronomy 7:1, seven nations are named and “they are specified, that Israel might know the bounds and limits of their commission: hitherto their severity must come, but no further.” Therefore, Israel is not here authorized to treat every nation in this way. (Matthew Henry)

“The confining of this commission to the nations here mentioned plainly intimates that after-ages were not to draw this into a precedent” therefore, to use this text to justify similar behavior in the future under different circumstances is to misuse the Scriptures. (ibid)

The text is clear, Israel was not to take in anyone who belonged to any of the seven nations named by God. The members of those nations could not be tenants, tributaries, or servants. No covenant of any kind was to be made with them, and as we mentioned earlier no mercy may be shown them. This severity was appointed by God. The iniquity of the Amorites was now full.

There are some who want to rationalize that God chose such extreme methods because God prescribed it to a dispensation under which large numbers of beasts were killed and burned in sacrifice. The argument is that now that all sacrifices of atonement “are perfected in, and superseded by, the great propitiation made by the blood of Christ, human blood has become perhaps more precious than it was, and those that have most power yet must not be prodigal of it.” (ibid)

Are we to believe that human blood became more precious to God after Jesus’ death? Such dispensationalist position raises serious questions concerning God’s love towards sinners, and about our value before God. Henry’s suggestion that God loved people less before Jesus’ death on the cross is unbiblical. Are we to accept the idea that God is evolving and becoming more loving over time? Does the plan of salvation evolve throughout history making it easier and easier for people to be saved?

God’s command to “destroy them totally, that is, men, women, and children,” (Walvoord) has often been thought of as unethical for a loving God. However we need to keep several points in mind concerning these people.

The first point is that they deserved to die for their sin (Deut. 9:4–5). According to The Bible Knowledge Commentary, studies of the religion, literature, and archeological remains of those peoples reveal that they were the “most morally depraved culture on the earth at that time.” (Bible Knowledge Commentary) These peoples would even sacrifice children to their gods (Deut. 12:30–31).

Secondly, we must keep in mind that they persisted in their hatred of God (Deut. 7:10). If they had repented, God would have spared them as He spared the Ninevites who repented at the preaching of Jonah.(Johan 4:2) Nevertheless, it appears that these nations were not interested in repenting and changing their ways.

A third point to keep in mind is that the Canaanites constituted a moral cancer (Deut. 20:17–18; Num. 33:55; Josh. 23:12–13) When reading these texts we need to remember is that one day Jesus Christ will return and there will be a final judgment, and a condemnation of unrepentant sinners. This is a factor that many Christians forget. The wrath of God and the final condemnation of unrepentant sinners is a topic many avoid.

The key idea here is that there is no dichotomy between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. The God of the Bible is the same God in both testaments, revealing Himself to us as a loving and righteous God.

“The command to engage in holy war is, of course, not applicable today since at the present time God is not working through one nation to set up His kingdom on the earth.” Nevertheless, we can learn from this text how ruthless we should be with sin in our own lives, not willing to make any treaties with it. (Bible Knowledge Commentary)

According to A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments the relentless doom of extermination which God denounced against those tribes of Canaan in Deuteronomy 7:2 “cannot be reconciled with the attributes of the divine character, except on the assumption that their gross idolatry and enormous wickedness left no reasonable hope of their repentance and amendment.” (Jamieson)

After all, God also swept away the antediluvians (Genesis 6–9) and also utterly destroyed the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16–19:29). Unrepentant sinners who filled up the measure of their iniquities have faced God’s wrath in multiple occasions.

As we see how God works throughout the Bible, we know that those living in the land at that time must have been hopelessly unrepentant idolaters and this command must have been a form of immediate divine judgment upon those who had sinned away their day of grace.

God gave the inhabitants of the land about 400 years to change their ways (Genesis 15:16; Exodus 12:40). Abraham had lived there and set up altars and was well known. (Genesis 13,14) When the Israelites finally come into the promise land, the people were aware of who they were and of the God they worshiped (Joshua 2:9–14).

Those nations were not being destroyed just because they were not Israelites, because if Israel was to behave in a similar way they would suffer a similar judgment (Leviticus 18:24–30 24). The judgment was based on the actions and wickedness of the inhabitants, not on their ethnicity or ignorance.

Those who do not understand the judgment of God do not understand the awfulness of sin. Moreover, those who do not understand the sinfulness and awfulness of sin are the ones who argue that God was wicked to destroy these nations. If we understood the sinfulness of these pagan religions and the way these nations had resisted God, we would feel differently about God’s command. We need to read these texts keeping in mind the whole Bible and what it says about God as a context. If God sent Jonah, despite Jonah’s resistance, to warn Nineveh and eventually spared them.(Jonah 1–4) If God was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of 10 righteous people living there, and sent angels to deliver Lot and his family, even though they were not that willing to be saved (Genesis 18:16–19:29). If God sent His Son to die that we might live (John 3:16). Then, in the context of who God is, as revealed throughout the Bible, these people must have indeed been terrible sinners who sinned away their day of grace.

In our modern day we get upset when we witness injustices, and many shake their fists to the heavens asking why God does not do something about all the evil in the world. Yet on the times that God judges and destroys we then shake our firsts at heaven asking how He could do such a thing. If we want to have the freedom to make our own choices, that means some people will misuse that freedom. For God to make everyone nice people would mean limiting their freedom and thus make God a tyrant. Therefore, people have the freedom to chose their path, and also enjoy the consequences that company different choices.

God calls for love and commitment from those who want to follow Him. This is nothing beyond what married couples expect form their spouse. Except God knows the consequences that follow rebelion against His rules, He wants to protect us by inviting us to set ertain things aside. Deuteronomy 2 gives us an example of “spirituality that sets aside what is incompatible with God’s lordship, even to its apparent strategic disadvantage.” (Work) But it is not the only passage in the Bible that calls for us to set aside sin. Consider the following texts:

Matthew 7:16–21–16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Ephesians 5:11 — And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

Covenanting, showing mercy, and or marrying members of those peoples, would destroy Israel quickly. Israel was a chosen people and through them the whole word would be blessed. A little bit of sin is all it takes, the enemy wants just a foothold in our lives, and from there he can work our destruction.

Application

God gave those seven nations plenty of time to repent, from the time of Abraham to the time of Joshua. Rehab, a prostitute from Jericho was saved, because she believed (Joshua 6:17). Sadly however the majority preferred to stay and fight against God and His people. The same way Rahab was saved, I am sure anyone else who wanted to join Israel could have done so. I don’t have time to cover it in this post but look into the stories of Tamar (Genesis 38:1–30), Rahab (Joshua 2:1–21), Ruth (Ruth 4:12–22; Hebrews 11:31), and Bathsheba (2Samuel 11:1–27). At least three of these women were not Isralites, and they are all mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:3–6), showing God’s willingness to use both men and women, Jews and Gentiles.

The obedience and purity of Israel were important because the whole world would be blessed through them, we, the modern day children of God, are no different. Not that we are called to wage war against non-believers, but rather in the sense that when we sin, we too deprive others form blessings.

We know things are just getting worse. We know that Jesus is coming back soon. We know God’s grace will not be extended forever. There is a parable of Jesus recorded in Matthew 25 about 10 virgins. All ten knew the bridegroom was coming.Five were wise and prepared, five were foolish and were caught unprepared. The problem with the five foolish virgins is not that they were ignorant, but rather that they failed to prepare properly. The parable tells us that at a certain point the door was shut, and even though the foolish virgins wanted to come in to the wedding banquet, they could not because the door had been shut.

And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut. Matthew 25:10

Revelation confirms the teaching of this parable. In Revelation 22 we are told that there comes a time when people will continue on the path they have chosen and no one will change from that point on. The saved will remain saved, and the lost will remain lost.

He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous[a] still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.” Revelation 22:11

The idea of judgment is present throughout the Bible. Jesus himself describes it Matthew 25 comparing he process to a shepherd separating sheep form goats. In the end there are only two groups of people.

All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. Matthew 25:32

The book of Revelation confirms this teaching with a different illustration on chapter 20 starting with verse 11 we read about a judgment, and books are opened, and once again we have two groups.

And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:15

This may seem harsh, or extreme, but it is necessary. Because there is one more scene described in Revelation that I would like to call to your attention.

And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” Revelation 21:4

The former things need to pass away. For there to be no more death nor sorrow nor crying, the cause of death and sorrow and crying must be destroyed. Those who do not love God and have no interest in living in harmony with Him are allowed to die. If you want to live forever with God, today is the day to make that decision.

Today the door of mercy is still open.

Jesus died to save you, but you have to want to be saved. Jesus will not throw you into heaven by force.

If there is something separating you from Christ today, something keeping you from committing yourself fully to Him, make a decision right now not to allow it to stand between you and Christ anymore.

I make an appeal for you to make a serious decision for Christ, for you to make a commitment. To choose Jesus whenever the option comes up.

When you have to chose between Jesus and your boss, choose Jesus.

Between Jesus and your boyfriend or girlfriend, choose Jesus.

Between Jesus and partying, drinking, sexual immorality, infidelity to your spouse, lying and cheating, being an abusive person, choose Jesus.

You cannot afford to wait, to postpone it.

Those who repeatedly reject Jesus,

Those who come to church and learn but refuse to follow

Those who come to quiet their conscience but don’t live according to the light they have received.

Those who know, but for different reasons chose not to follow and choose to rebel, will be utterly destroyed.

There is no reason for anyone to be destroyed. There is no reason for anyone to be lost. Jesus died that we might live.

I ask that you stop rejecting Jesus, and make a real commitment.

Right now I invite you to close your eyes, and pray inviting Jesus into your heart and renewing your commitment to Him.

I just ask that you stop postponing. That you stop playing games. This is the most important decision you will ever make in your life, this is life. Do not reject life. There is no reason to. Humble yourself and receive God’s salvation and allow Him to bring the changes that He wants to bring about in your heart.

Deuteronomy 7:1–5 has a message of judgment, which is not new, for we have the account of the flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah among others in the Old Testament, and we also have mention of judgment at the end of times on both the Old and New Testaments.

Exodus 34:6–7 tells us that though we have a “compassionate and gracious God,” He “does not leave the guilty unpunished.”

The God of Deuteronomy 7:1–2 is not a different God, but the same one, this text only presents us with a facet of God many wish to ignore.

Summary and Conclusion

In conclusion, even though Deuteronomy 7:2 may strike many 21st Century Christians as an extremely harsh and unloving command given by God, a closer look at the text allows us to see the same God who is described in the New Testament. Deuteronomy 7:2 is often misinterpreted.

Though it is a harsh judgment from God, it is not the only one of its kind, for we also have the account of the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as the final Judgment at the end of times. Our God is a loving God, but He is also a just God who will not allow iniquity to go on forever unpunished. Also when we look at the context and the use of “utterly destroy” we realize that Israel was not allowed to treat everyone in this manner.

These were specific measures given by God for a specific situation, this was judgment, and it was restricted to seven nations and a specific geographical location. Just because those peoples were facing judgment at that point it does not mean that they did not have opportunities to repent beforehand.   Overall, Deuteronomy 7:2 provides the reader with another facet of God’s character; the same loving, just, and unchanging God that we have in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

Sources:

Abingdon Press. The New Interpreter’s Bible : General Articles & Introduction, Commentary, & Reflections for Each Book of the Bible, Including the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.

Biddle, Mark E. Deuteronomy Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys Pub., 2003.

Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974.

Buttrick, George Arthur. The Interpreter’s Bible: The Holy Scriptures in the King James and Revised Standard Versions with General Articles and Introduction, Exegesis, Exposition for Each Book of the Bible. New York,: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1951.

Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Gaebelein, Frank Ely, J. D. Douglas, and Dick Polcyn. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary : With the New International Version of the Holy Bible. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1976.

Honeycutt, Roy Lee. Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy Layman’s Bible Book Commentary V. 3. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1979.

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, Mich.,: Zondervan pub. house, 1934.

Kelley, Page H. Biblical Hebrew : An Introductory Grammar. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992.

Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy : Based on the Revised Standard Version New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich. London: Eerdmans ; Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1981.

Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy The New American Commentary V. 4. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

Rauschenbusch, Walter. Dare We Be Christians? The William Bradford Collection from the Pilgrim Press. Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1993.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Walvoord, John F., Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. 2 vols. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1983.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the Old Testament. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1993.

Work, Telford. Deuteronomy Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2009.

Zondervan Bible, Publishers. Holy Bible : New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.

[slightlycharredwitch-blog]

I’ve seen this meme being talked about by my sister and some of her friends, and there is a lot going on here. They were saying that something felt off about it but they weren’t sure what. What’s off is that it’s very poorly argued, and relies on rhetorical tricks. Let’s walk through it panel by panel, and then discuss the meme as a whole.

Panel #1: The assertion is that Biological sex is a social construct, which they attempt to support by saying that the motive was to create a society where one class loses out for the benefit of another.

The first problem with this argument is that biological sex does not describe our social roles. That’s what gender is. So the argument remains unsupported. The second issue is the over use of jargon. The majority of audiences are going to have a difficult time understanding what the author is trying to say here.

Panel #2: This is a logical counter-argument to panel one. There is scientific evidence to back the claim. It uses complex terms, so it could stand to be simplified for broader audiences, but there isn’t anything majorly wrong here.

Panel #3: This one appears pretty simple at it’s face, but there is actually a lot to untangle here. Let’s break it down into a simple argument pattern and work from there.

Statement 1: There are XX Men and XY Women Statement 2: Intersex people are are neither male nor female Conclusion: Human sexes are nonbinary.

With Statement 1, this one lives or dies based on how you define man/woman. If Man means “Adult Human Male” than there are no XX men. If Man means “Someone who identified as a man” than man describes a social role. Social roles aren’t a manifestation of sex. So either way, Statement 1 doesn’t support the conclusion.

Statement 2 is factually wrong. A biological sex describes the type of gamete (one of the cells needed to make offspring) an organism is trying to produce. Humans only have two gamete types, and a given person can only produce one of them. Intersex people’s bodies only try to produce one or the other, they don’t produce some third gamete or both. And all this is before the fact that calling them sexless is actually intersexist and discriminatory, but I’ll let someone who’s more well versed in the subject elaborate on that.

Since both statements are unrelated at best, and false at worst, the conclusion is unsupported again.

Panel #4: Notice the sudden shift in tone? In the previous panel, this guy was depicted as overly wordy and verbose just like the bearded guy. Now he’s speaking in plain language. His first line about “why the divide” would have been addressed in the first panel, had that panel been talking about gender. The second line makes no sense for him to ask since he already stated that biological sex was reality based on science, which would be why he learned it in school. So why would he ask that?

Because he’s been set up as a strawman. He’s no longer representing an actual opposing argument. He’s instead saying something bordering on irrelevant to set up panal 5 for an easy takedown, while discrediting the side he’s meant to represent.

Panel #5: The meaning here is absolutely drowning under jargon, to the point where it needs translation. Furthermore, this is a run-on sentence, which can be difficult to parse even when they have simple phrasing. So to understand, we’re going to need to break things down again. First, let’s suss out what the words and phrases mean:

Cishetropatriarchal Hegemony: Cishetropatriarchal implies “not transgender, straight, lead by males” and hegemony means a leadership, usually of nations, and often with expansionist goals. Binary Model: Here this means male/female biological sexes. Foregrounds: Usually used in visual arts, the antonym of “background.” It’s supposed to convey putting one group over another. Status Quo: Our society as a whole, at this moment. It has a charged implication in this instance, since it’s becoming political shorthand for “everything that’s wrong.”

We’ve got a bit closer to understanding what’s being said, but we’ve still got a hell of a run-on sentence to deal with here. Unfortunately, the phrasing makes it nearly impossible to tell how the author intended the sentence to flow. Interestingly, since this opens it up to reader interpretation, that gives the author room to claim that any given critique is misrepresenting the content. To try and leave the sentence as intact as possible, we’ll split it in two:

“Because the continuation and the success of the cishetropatriarchal hegemony relies on blind adherence of members of our society to”

Simplified: To continue successfully, our non-trans, straight male leadership needs people to follow blindly

“a binary model which foregrounds the maintenance of the status quo at the expense of minorities such as trans people”

Simplified: A Male/Female model of human biology is the basis that the status quo is founded on. The status quo is maintained in a way that causes harm to minorities, such as trans people.

That took so much breakdown and reassembly, by now it gets hard to remember what this was even a response to! But now we can stick everything back together and analyze what it actually being said. To summarize, we had Hat Guy ask “Then why is society divided in two, and why is biological sex taught in schools?” and the Beard Guy essentially says “Because to continue successfully, our non-trans, straight male leadership needs people to follow blindly (which supports the status quo.) A Male/Female model of human biology is the basis that the status quo is founded on. The status quo is maintained in a way that causes harm to minorities, such as trans people.“

With the haze of jargon cleared away, the argument doesn’t work, because it is still founded on the basis that biological sex is a social construct. The simplest test to see if something is a social construct is to ask what would happen to it if humanity lost self awareness and society. Does the presumed construct survive? 

Without any labels, we’d have one type of human who could produce sperm, and one that could produce eggs and carry offspring. You can only make offspring when you match a sperm producer with an egg producer. That is what sex is, in the most simple and basic terms. Biological sex exists in absence of human understanding. So the argument would fail on that fault alone.

Interaction Between Panels #4 and #5: This is where we get into some pretty clear rhetoric, which merits close examination on it’s own. Rhetoric can be used to bolster a well made argument, but it can also shore up a bad argument, since the purpose of rhetoric is to just “feel” true.

We have Hat Guy, who is representing the opposing argument. His shift in tone and sudden use of simpler language is used to imply his arguments have failed, and he’s only resisting out of stubbornness and prejudice. We’re meant to scoff at his ugly ignorance.

Then we have Beard Guy, who is set in place to make that sick take down that the audience can revel in. The panel has an accusatory air to it. The phrasing, where it isn’t making things murky, is highly emotionally charged. Phrasing like “blind adherence” paints Hat Guy, and by extension, the opposing side, as feverishly devoted to a lie.

The undercurrent of the argument in panel five implies that by taking his position, Hat Guy is supporting a system that’s using and abusing an underclass for its own gains. Without saying as much, it evokes a similar gut reaction to being told you’re supporting slavery. It’s framed as a brutal and just take down.

So rather than dismantling the opposition with counter points backed by accurate evidence, Beard Guy has instead attacked the argument with pure rhetoric. He’s guilting the opposition, defaming their character by implying they’re stupid and/or immoral. The evidence provided, rather than being dismantled, has been dismissed and forgotten.

To get all of that information across, using relatively few words, and in a couple panels is the power of rhetoric, context, and framing situations. It’s a lot to take in, and very emotionally charged. This is why we need to look past rhetoric and into arguments, no matter which side they come from.

The Meme Overall: Alright, so we have a meme here that’s absolutely loaded with poor arguments, logical fallacies, falsifiable facts, and searing rhetoric. So what? Memes aren’t essays, they’re jokes, you aren’t supposed to think to deep about them right? Glance over it, laugh, maybe glance again as you share it and see it again as it passes through your group of friends.

But this isn’t really a joke, now is it? These claims are currently being asserted as facts in long-winded, even harder to digest essays, and trickling out into more mainstream activism. It’s more akin a snippet, a quip, or a piece of an essay that’s easier to swallow. It’s the same ideas, but repackaged in a format that’s easy to understand. We know how this meme goes, who’s right and who’s wrong, and why it should be funny. We know that we don’t need to think hard about what it says.

We have an image here, one that has a clear point of view that it wants the viewer to agree with. One that misrepresents facts, and hides that with buzzwords and jargon. One that paints it’s opponents as blind, irrational supporters of evil. And we have all of this wrapped into a pithy and familiar package for that asks us to take it at face value, don’t think to hard about it, and share it widely. It’s propaganda in meme form.

[elizabethrobertajones]

Hello! Sorry for this stupid question, but here it is... how do you notice subtext?? Like, is it something that is obvious to you or do you know what/where to look for?? Am I dumb for not seeing it by myself, or is it actually okay and you need a skill for it, that's what I would like to know... *sigh*.. but also it's not like I'll accept any explanation that someone gives, I'll take it only if I find it reasonable, but lmao do I even have a right when I can't come up with anything by myself??

Oh gosh, that’s not an easy answer… Good thing I just had a coffee and my brain is nearly back online!

Essentially, it’s just about awareness and willingness to engage with the text on the level of being aware that it’s a text, rather than losing yourself to it. In a very good movie you forget where you are and you’re 100% in there and your thoughts are just absorbing what is in front of you. In a bad movie you’re gossiping and joking about the characters, even in your mind if you are polite in the cinema, and identifying shit like “oh wow what a surprise his sketchy brother is betraying him” or whatever. Aka you are viewing it as a bad movie rather than disappearing into the good one. 

And at that point you are an objective level removed, and your awareness of tropes and storytelling and general themes of the genre means you’re now engaging with the story and its subtext on a higher level than pure indulgent viewership. (Which is a blessed state and extremely important for creators to cause that to happen in us, but if we want to be critical of a text we then need to lovingly make this step back to critique and explore and analyse and understand WHY we liked the thing we liked. Or, of course, hated the thing we hated.)

This is the answer the internet gives on What Are Subtext?

The important thing is that the subtext is an actual, solid, understandable part of the story, but it’s not one that the text will actually announce with words… Unless it’s being extremely post-modern.

(You should watch Jane the Virgin, it’s amazing)

In that example, it’s extremely obvious in context that the situation sucks, and our narrator is telling us, as a voice outside the scene, how it feels for the characters even though it’s blatant on screen, it’s humorous for us to be told this as part of the overall conceit of the show, which is extremely postmodern and constantly types out the details of the story and how the characters feel, things they don’t know, etc, on screen for us to make sure we’re all on board and understand what’s going on. Using the narration like this is making what is subtext in the acted scenes, for example jealous eyebrows and the sort of other micro-expressions we over-analyse, into stated fact about the feelings. The serious nuance comes in other, much more intelligent ways in the story.

Another direct and frequent way we interact with subtext aside from it being just literally anything happening on screen that is not directly commented on but may be evident from the work of acting, camera, and setting-related design and other choices, is dramatic irony, which is a very good use of subtext which draws us in and makes us extremely aware of what we know that the other characters don’t, and plays on that for our attention and investment in the story, but of course MUST go unstated at least to some characters, meaning that any engagement we have with the conceit around said character(s) means we’re seeing the subtext they miss. Growing up reading Lemony Snicket was a masterclass in storytelling and general life so I’ll let him explain:

“Simply put, dramatic irony is when a person makes a harmless remark, and someone else who hears it knows something that makes the remark have a different, and usually unpleasant, meaning. For instance, if you were in a restaurant and said out loud, “I can’t wait to eat the veal marsala I ordered,” and there were people around who knew that the veal marsala was poisoned and that you would die as soon as you took a bite, your situation would be one of dramatic irony.”

When we’re reading a text to identify subtext, we need to have awareness of some pretty basic foundations, such as the major story tropes and styles, and character and setting and a lot of other things… Fortunately as long as you read books, watch films and TV series and otherwise consume tons of media, you will have at least unconsciously absorbed a LOT of the toolbox needed for this. You just need to know enough to know how to expect what happens next, OR to know when a story has done something radical which is NOT what you would have expected, and breaks a mould you thought it was set in.

For example, the cold open of 2x03 features a vampire, a panicked, conventionally attractive woman in a white top running through woods, being hunted by Gordon, with the vampire as the typical tropey victim, and Gordon facelessly featured as a seeming hook-handed killer. It LOOKS like it’s going to play into an extremely typical slasher story, but once Sam and Dean realise the victim was a vampire, it turns the entire set up on its head and is immensely unsettling to the foundation of the show (which is how Dean handles the episode). I use that example a lot but it’s one of the most blatantly tropey cold opens on the show which gives away nothing to suggest it will be subverted, because it’s so early in the show their mould is extremely simple, and you could almost not trust that they wouldn’t do another extremely on the nose urban legend, before they have really established themselves beyond the season 1 style.

That whole set up relies on giving us invisible cues we read which are the subtext of the scene, and then using the fact that this set up plays us really hard to believe one thing and the other, in order to make it so complex and confusing and uncertain even for us, as we relied on the cold open to tell us what was what and who was good and who was bad, which if we followed one emotional POV of the episode, could last as long as Dean’s uncertainty that the vampires weren’t bad.

Storytelling is built enormously on this foundation of subtext and stuff, and one of the things that you can tell is bad about Buckleming episodes is that they really don’t put in much subtext: things are fairly straightforward, subterfuge is broadcast, and there’s rarely deeper meanings or connections between events in their stories. It comes across shallow and weird, especially with side characters with bizarre and unexplored motivations, or surface level motivations which are not explored and we can only take it on face value what they actually care about. One of the most hilarious Buckleming scenes to me is the one where Crowley “forces” Lucifer to tell the court of demons that Crowley is the best and he is in charge, while with his back turned to Crowley, Lucifer winks and implies with his tone of voice that he is/will be in charge and is the real king they should be bowing to. This is their idea of dramatic irony, subtlety and subtext in character interactions and it is utterly, truly dreadful to behold, in the sort of way I want to put it in a museum as an example to future children to learn what not to do. You can press a button and Lucifer’s eyes light up in the exhibit!

In any case you’re probably really mostly asking about Destiel and bi Dean subtext etc, because this is what majorly concerns the meta-interested peeps. But to me it is really really essential to know and care about the entire house of cards. Billie’s words about the structure and function and behaviour of the universe in 13x05 are a wonderful description of how writing works, and as a bonus she doesn’t say “this is a writing metaphor” and wink directly into the camera, as Buckleming would have written it, but Yockey leaves this idea in the writing itself for us to interpret and understand. There’s a LOT of commentary in this show about writing but this one in particular really resonates with me when it comes to talking about interpretation, because we really have to understand and handle the entire story in order to really line up any of the pieces in a way that makes sense.

Right now I have that lil lesson in visual subtext floating around, about Ketch and Dean in 13x18 and Dean n Cas in 13x19. I think it’s a great example because Ketch and Dean have a real history, and that’s super important to remember when on the surface it looks like just a joke. The history goes back as far as 2x03, when I’ve written before about seduction and the trap Dean falls into with men filling a space in his life. The tl;dr of this linked meta is that Gordon, the Siren and then Crowley as a main arc over season 9-10 seduced Dean in a very similar pattern. 9x11 is the best example of a Dean seduction episode, but through season 10, Crowley is so successful that he has the dubious honour of having actually managed to bed Dean in the process, while the others failed, though the Siren at least got a proxy-kiss.

Ketch comes on to Dean in 12x14 and there was even a shot or promo image (I can’t remember which this is now) where they had this bottle in the middle of the table between them.

Bottles are suggestive imagery in any case, and we have Cas flirting outrageously (for Cas) with Dean in 9x09 including this action of stroking his bottle in front of Dean:

Ketch’s approach with Dean was a lot like Crowley’s, emphasising their similiarity and trying to get his little adventure with Dean to tap into all the dark parts Dean denies. In the end Ketch went overboard beating up the vampire girl, Dean went into protective mode, and didn’t unleash an inner killer, like Gordon and Crowley in particular had wanted him to, and so this Manly Bonding Over Violence failed to occur, they went their separate ways, and Ketch shacked up with Mary instead because this is a fucked up story :D

Once this incestuous connection to Ketch occurred, he for once is off-limits to Dean now, so he’s having this oddly romantic bonding episode with Dean in a sense - the kind that without this context would be huge alarm bells because it combines the ridiculous homoeroticism of Dean x Cole (thank the fucking lord that stopped short) and the plausible good chemistry of Dean x Crowley in the sense of Jensen and DHJ being a fucking delight when they’re together. This would be EXTREEEEEEEEMELY shippable in other circumstances, but instead Dean knows Ketch slept with Mary, they mother and son killed him and destroyed that gross connection, and then he floated back up like a turd, and so they mostly just talk about when and how they get to kill him again, and not in the “this is a blatant flirtation” way Crowley pointed out it was basically a come on from Dean to threaten to kill him in the closing lines of 9x10 and the opening lines of 9x11 featured Dean threatening to kill Crowley.

So Dean chilling 5ft away from Ketch in a hot tub because he’s not gay in the woods, and telling him flat out he’s not his type, is legit and not connected to subtext telling us that Dean isn’t bi, it’s that Dean in a zillion years is not going to sleep with Ketch, that if he was younger and dumber he would have, but he knows what’s up and now Ketch slept with Mary, this is fucked up in a way that we’re now verging into bizarre John subtext instead. The phallic symbol of a gun - used a lot by Dean from between his legs in humourous or not so humorous scenes and teased as penis subtext a lot (especially in #THINMAN with the “say hello to my little pistola” moment where Dean directly compares dick and gun in coded talk while having it out with Harry) - is therefore presented as Dean with it loose and not pointed at Ketch. Surface level, he’s not gonna shoot Ketch right now. Subtext… He’s… not gonna… shoot……. ketch right now…

And then you go to the kitchen scene with Dean n Cas, the subtext of beer as dicks is also deeply established as well as alcohol as sexual bonding between men, right back to Gordon and the Siren and Crowley, in a bad way, but also positive; Dean bonds with people who share a drink with him and his primary way of picking up women is in bars. In the open of 1x19 he and Sam have full beers on their table, and Dean goes over and buys more beers to talk to the women he wants to pick up, then goes to Sam and puts those beers down - in the end Sam has 4 full, untouched beers on the table in front of him when Dean runs off to go seal the deal at the end of the scene. I find that so utterly hilarious.

But yeah. Between Dean n Cas it has a much deeper level of symbolism about their connection, and the major moments are pretty numerous, but I love in 10x18 at the Last Supper, the Kingdom Beer bottle superimposed over the whole of Cas for a moment in the fade between scenes, before Dean picks it up and drinks from it. There’s also moments like 6x03 when Dean is praying to Cas where he’s holding a bottle directly between his legs, as Cas arrives in the room. Details like this always make me laugh. You need a dirty mind for this sort of subtext :P The show itself has a dirty mind… Season 7 is full of Dick jokes, but they’re only the most overt that the show makes. 9x17 is RIDICULOUS because Misha has the foulest mind and spent roughly 50% of the time he was directing doing close ups of Dean’s face as he drinks seductively from a bottle, or with him standing with a pool cue between his legs, running his hand up and down it. I… Am not going to comment further. It was, however, the episode where Crowley thought he had sealed the deal with Dean.

In any case the subtext of the beer in 13x19 is more likely to link directly to 12x10 and “this will do nothing for me but I appreciate the gesture” and the more wholesome theme of Dean trying to be nurturing and inviting Cas into the home and family - 12x10 was basically addressing and fixing an enormous problem of miscommunication about this. In the end despite the gesture - of both not killing Cas just to spite Ishim, or giving Cas a beer when it won’t make him drunk, Cas ended up still leaving on the mission that ended up with him stealing the Colt and then going off with Jack and Kelly. And this season the theme remains of miscommuncation, this time with so much dramatic irony that WE know that the characters don’t that their cross purposes can be seen from space… Hopefully for the sake of addressing it.

But I have a dirty mind and this is an established part of Destiel subtext from other scenes where the beer was more directly in focus, such as 9x09, meaning no harm in highlighting the upwards pointing phallic symbols in the room and grabbing an awkward shot of Dean holding the beer pointed Caswards from his lower torso… :P

I think in the end spotting innuendo is important to know when it is and isn’t intended by signifiers in the story and characters that it is just random. There’s almost certainly accidental moments where characters with no chemistry or emotional subplot have done things which might look suggestive but it’s up to us to use logic and reason to guess they’re not really telling us they have a boner for each other. Since Dean n Cas have romantic subtext and a strong history of innuendo and sexual subtext as well, it’s fair game to at least laugh about unfortunate implications, wonder about the Big O Slush Machine that Cas spilled over the phone to Dean in 9x06, or look stonefaced into the camera and say “that’s a dick.”

[notlostonanadventure]

Snape is not a trans woman. 

I know, this is hypocritical given that listicle I wrote about LGBT Hogwarts. The point was that we could exist in this universe. Interpreting Snape as a trans woman is harmless, sure, but it’s just not great representation for trans women. And this article doesn’t do a great job with supporting the thoery.

The “Evidence” And Why My Quotations Were Needed 

“Professor Snape reveals her personal appreciation for the power of potion making in the first book, telling students that "there will be no foolish wand-waving" in her class. In 2011, author Racheline Maltese wrote... ‘this character is, on some level, a rejection of masculinity, especially in light of the many moments of phallic humor wands provide us throughout the series.’”

Um...really?  Look, I get it that turning “wand” into “wang” makes for a great unintentional meme but it’s not substantial for evidence in the series, especially if you were to say “Hermione gripped her wang” as evidence that she’s intersex. Jokes don’t equal Freudian representation. 

“When Snape tells the class that she doesn't "expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins," she invokes classically feminine witchcraft symbolism. Ensnapingthesenses affirmed this. 'Potion-making and poisons have a long and fascinating history of being associated with femininity,' he told me. 'But Snape's affinity to potions and her incredible talent have also been interpreted as an effort to find a magical way to transition.’“

Snape uses flowery, melodramatic terms because he’s pretentious and self-absorbed. When James and Lily die, he weeps because he lost the girl he hadn’t spoken to in a decade, as opposed to her son becoming orphaned. He’s the angry emo teen who never got therapy and grew up.

“Trans Snape scholars have also refined their understanding of Snape through her role in Harry Potter's life... In a secret arrangement with Dumbledore, and due to an allegiance with Lily, Snape essentially becomes Harry's surrogate mother.”

OMG OMG OMG NO. SNAPE IS NOT A PARENT. Sure, Snape looks out for Harry but is not a parental figure. You could make this argument for Molly, Arthur, Hagrid, Remus Lupin, Dumbledore, Sirius Black, or fuck even Crouch disguised as Mad-Eye Moody, but never Snape. 

Snape looks out for Harry out of guilt; there is no love for him. Even when Dumbledore thinks Snape has changed his colors, Snape says, “Oh fuck no,” and whips out the doe patronus. He’s still longing for Lily and gives no shits about Harry. He bullies Harry constantly, lets Umbridge torture him, and has done little but antagonize him since the kid was 11 aside from acting on Dumbledore’s orders. He is on par with the Dursleys as being a terrible fucking parent. 

.”..small things like, during a flashback in The Deathly Hallows, when the child Snape is seen wearing her mother Eileen's blouse. Compellingly, in The Half-Blood Prince, Harry and Hermione examine Snape's handwriting in an old copy of Advanced Potion Making, not knowing who the self-appointed "Half-Blood Prince" who had written in the margins of the book is. (t turns out to be Snape, and the "prince" moniker is a reference to her mother's maiden name...”

It’s never confirmed that it’s his mother’s blouse. Petunia calls it that insultingly, and Rowling only ever calls it an “odd, smock-like shirt.” It’s not impossible, but unlikely. Snape seems to come from a very poor family, so an overlarge ill-fitting shirt isn’t out of the question for him. 

Snape using his mother’s maiden name isn’t trans, it’s threefold context. One, he hates his dad (The Prince’s Tale implies he’s abusive). Two, it’s a throwback to Tom Riddle hating his father’s name and rejecting it. Three, he made it when he was a teenager and the “Prince” pun was too cool to pass up. (Also, Prince is a masculine title? Why not be the Half-Blood Princess?)

To Ensnapingthesenses, "Lupin's extremely personal mockery of the Snape-boggart (which comes out of a closet!)" is a powerful example of the way in which Snape was shamed for being feminine.

I think the imagery of Snape coming out of a closet in frilly women’s clothes is really a face value joke. Whether or not it’s transphobic is a different argument entirely. 

Trans Snape scholars believe that Snape's Patronus is yet another example of her role as mother to Harry Potter—but more importantly, the female deer is also perceived to be a literal projection of Snape's female gender identity.

James is a stag. Lily is a doe by counterpoint. It’s a metaphor. He’s literally sharing Lily’s patronus. Tonks had her Patronus turn into a werewolf, doesn’t mean she’s a man. 

If you think about it, this interpretation makes more sense than somehow staying in romantic love with your childhood crush, decades after their untimely death. "Snape's relationship with Lily, in many ways, reminds me of relationships I had with cis girls as a child and teen," a trans woman named Lilyana told me. The fact that "Snape's Patronus is the same as Lily's is something besides romantic interest… that the physical and magical embodiment or [Snape's] spirit is the same feminine representation as that of Lily's could absolutely indicate that Snape is in fact a trans woman."

But that’s Rowling’s literal take on it! He loved Lily. Lily was the only person in his childhood to show him any kindness and he fucked it up. It goes with the whole theme of the series: LOVE IS THE MOST POWERFUL MAGIC. Lily’s love kept Harry alive, and Snape became a god damn double agent because he loved Lily, and he’s such a creep that he never once got over it. 

Snape is Terrible, You Have Alternatives 

Look, I know why this theory is popular. Snape is a morally ambiguous character that fans like to get attached to. Further, most big name franchises are starving for trans representation. It’s easy to want to make that leap, but Snape is a toxic, stunted man who never once shows any kindness or decency in the series that isn’t forced upon him by an outside agency. It is essential to his character that he is a lonely, sad, angry and desperate man, and he is not the woman you’re looking for. 

Alternatively, here are some characters who could be trans women:

Minerva McGonagall: Badass, decent person with a history of disregarding Wizarding World norms. Nothing says she isn’t trans.

Nymphadora Tonks: I know, I said she wasn’t a man. But she’s a literal shapeshifter, being genderfluid is not out of the question at all.  Also a badass decent person.

Ginny Weasley: The Weasleys are pretty open and accepting people who have had a long line of male children. Who’s to say Ginny isn’t trans? As for kids with Harry, fuck it. They got magic. 

Luna Lovegood: She’s creative, eccentric and subject to ridicule by her peers. Maybe there’s a deeper reason they don’t like her radish earrings. 

Open to more suggestions! Leave comments, reblog, do what you like. Just don’t be hateful. Love is a powerful magic.

[stevenuniversallyreviews]

Episode 55*: Shirt Club

“This sounds like a very abstract problem.”

For fear of echoing Buck Dewey’s condescending assessment of Steven’s drawing, there’s just something endearing about a cartoon about making art. Animation as a medium is remarkable for how many types of artists are involved: for instance, Steven Universe exists as a collaboration between visual artists, writers, songwriters, actors, singers, composers, and instrumental musicians. It’s a crew that by necessity has a passion for art in many forms, and episodes like Shirt Club let this passion shine. (See also: James Baxter the Horse from Steven Universe’s big brother Adventure Time.)

Many of the artists behind Steven Universe have multiple roles: most famously, its storyboarders are also its scriptwriters. Some boarders even pull triple duty, like guitarist Jeff Liu and voice actor Lamar Abrams, who brings Buck to life. It’s fitting, then, that Shirt Club revolves around guitars and Buck as Steven navigates his way through the perils of publishing his art.

As sincere as this episode is, it’s also ridiculous. The final sequence of Steven as a faux assassin straight up shooting Mayor Dewey in the chest is absurd both as a situation within the show and as something that was allowed to be on the show itself, but sure enough, Steven Universe manages to give a lone gunman sniping spree an emotionally fulfilling resolution.

This scene proves a core lesson of the episode: just because something’s silly doesn’t mean it’s not art. Buck hits the nail on the head when praising Steven’s drawing for its sincerity and naïveté, even if he’s being a wad about it: the Guitar Dad shirt is awesome because it’s a pure expression of a kid looking up to a parent, even if that expression won’t win any medals for aesthetics (and because it won’t). Steven Universe doesn’t need to prove its artistic merits, and the episode is wise to avoid this path and devolving into meta defensiveness, but I appreciate how its structure demonstrates its message. 

That Buck recognizes Guitar Dad’s merits but sees its meaning in a negative light speaks volumes about his own relationship with his father, as well as the general adolescent obsession with irony. And let’s face it, Buck is mean in this episode. The other teenagers laugh at the shirt, but don’t necessarily laugh at the subject: Sour Cream is a bit of a jerk to Greg, but Jenny seems to honestly appreciate him even if she thinks he’s funny. Lars is easily swayed, having no opinion on the shirt but seeing the value in at least pretending to appreciate it (which certainly lumps him in with real-life folks who feign an appreciation for art for impress people, if you’ll allow me an overanalysis). But Buck is cruel in a way that’s uncomfortable, but not totally out of character.

In Lars and the Cool Kids, Buck is the most enigmatic of the Cool Kids, as per his mirroring of Garnet. As he repeatedly pulls the rug out from under Lars with a straight face, it’s hard to tell how much he’s intentionally messing with the guy. The same goes for his ordering salad at the Big Donut after examining its salad-free displays. He plays it so cool in both situations (and in general) that some of it has to be an act, and he’s perceptive enough that he has to notice Lars’s barefaced need to please, but he’s such a closed book that we can’t get a read on what’s in his head.

We see more of him in Shirt Club than ever before, and while he’s always been friendly to Steven, we really don’t know him all that well. His father’s an obvious sore spot, and seems to be the only thing that can make him completely crack, whether from embarrassment or being genuinely touched (or feeling remorse or feeling more embarrassed, a tear from this guy could mean anything). It makes for a fascinating “villain” when compared to our emotionally open hero, and he’s really the only kind of antagonist an episode like Shirt Club can have.

Regardless, the fact that Buck is still somewhat out of character (he’s utterly kind to Steven everywhere else in the series) is worth noting, because this is one of the last collaborations between storyboarders Lamar Abrams and Hellen Jo before the latter left Steven Universe. While this team is responsible for some terrific episodes and my all-time favorite scene of the series (the ending of Winter Forecast), they’re also behind House Guest and Fusion Cuisine, which are essentially about evil twins pretending to be Greg and Connie. 

For whatever reason, the Abrams/Jo team seems to enjoy bringing out the worst in beloved characters (or inventing negative traits out of nowhere) in ways that wildly diverge from their typical depictions. It allows for drama within a contained story, but in a way that clashes with the consistency of the series; with the exception of Island Adventure and its lesson that emotional and physical abuse is okay sometimes, these kinds of character-nuke episodes are my least favorite. Shirt Club is the best of these divergences by far, in that I can actually deduce Buck’s rationale and because he’s a mysterious character by design, but it’s still an unfortunate trend that happily gets ironed out as the show continues.

(Bear in mind that beyond letting us watch the snow fall, Abrams co-boarded The Answer and Chille Tid and When It Rains, and while it may be a coincidence that each contains a breathtaking scene of a character coming to grips with a scary new environment, I tend to think that he’s really good at framing them. He’s also the only boarder to work on every Onion episode; even if Onion Gang is a dud, Onion as a character certainly isn’t, and I get the feeling we mostly have Abrams to thank for that. I want to give no impressions that this isn’t a brilliant animator.)

Mayor Dewey and the Crystal Gems are here for comic relief, and oh boy do they deliver. Jo and Abrams are brilliant at giving the Gems incongruous background tasks: in Watermelon Steven it’s reading the paper, and here it seems to be assembling IKEA furniture. Their criticisms of Steven’s art and unwillingness to help his strange problem highlight Shirt Club’s casual tone, and they get little moments of self-parody without dipping too deep into meta humor: Garnet’s twinkling shades during a pregnant pause certainly counts, but Amethyst and Pearl’s escalating concerns about Steven’s shirt problem takes the cake.

Mayor Dewey is incredibly, but not unbelievably, lame. Between his outdated slang and his blatant desire to connect with youths (without putting in any actual effort) it’s easy to see Buck’s disdain. Bill’s speech about losing his speech is overshadowed by Steven setting up his sniping position, but is worth paying attention to for Joel Hodgson’s masterful meandering.

And despite his selfish and thoughtless intentions, actually seeing Buck and Steven making shirts is a bunch of fun. It evokes Steven and Greg’s adventures in rocket science from Space Race, but with the wrinkle of Buck demonstrating actual knowledge of the craft to contrast with Steven’s silliness. While the distribution and interpretation of art once it’s complete makes up the episode’s conflict, the creation process itself is joyful and pure, as it should be for a kid making art.

Buck comes around at the end, of course, apologizing to Steven and offering to take guitar lessons. But honestly, the nicer he is to Steven, the weirder his behavior here seems, whether or not he’s a mysterious guy. The best thing I can say about Abrams/Jo character-nuke episodes is that there’s only three of them, and finishing Shirt Club, from that lens, is a huge sigh of relief. 

Future Vision!

The Good Lars not only shows Buck wearing the Guitar Dad shirt, but showing off what he’s learned! And he’ll continue to play guitar as one of Sadie Killer’s Suspects, a band that will eventually be managed by Greg himself.

I guess you could read it that way…

On the one hand, watching this after Joy Ride makes Buck’s cruelty even stranger. But on the other, getting to know him better there, and Bill better in Political Power, makes an examination of their relationship a nice coda.

Tonally, Shirt Club simply doesn’t fit where it’s intended to go. Open Book and Story for Steven at least have their dramatic moments that fit the simmering tension of post-Marble Madness Season 1, but Shirt Club’s lightness thoroughly deflates the momentum. The Gems casually building furniture makes no sense in this time period, and Pearl and Amethyst’s list of fears don’t even hint at them worrying about Homeworld.

Still, the reordering leaves us with pre-Jailbreak Garnet, which is a little confusing without context. (I certainly prioritize this minor continuity error lower than harming dramatic tension.)

Regardless of your opinions about the order shift, I’m happy to say that Shirt Club is the last of it! No more asterisks!

We’re the one, we’re the ONE! TWO! THREE! FOUR!

Buck’s strange meanness doesn’t tank Shirt Club down to the bottom, but it does make me less inclined to rewatch what’s an otherwise wonderful episode about art. It’s a shame, but there’s still a lot to love when you get shirt!

Top Fifteen

Steven and the Stevens

Mirror Gem

Lion 3: Straight to Video

Alone Together

The Return

Jailbreak

Rose’s Scabbard

Coach Steven

Giant Woman

Winter Forecast

On the Run

Warp Tour

Maximum Capacity

The Test

Ocean Gem

Love ‘em

Laser Light Cannon

Bubble Buddies

Tiger Millionaire

Lion 2: The Movie

Rose’s Room

An Indirect Kiss

Space Race

Garnet’s Universe

Future Vision

Marble Madness

Political Power

Full Disclosure

Joy Ride

Like ‘em

Gem Glow

Frybo

Arcade Mania

So Many Birthdays

Lars and the Cool Kids

Onion Trade

Steven the Sword Fighter

Beach Party

Monster Buddies

Keep Beach City Weird

Watermelon Steven

The Message

Open Book

Story for Steven

Shirt Club

Enh

Cheeseburger Backpack

Together Breakfast

Cat Fingers

Serious Steven

Steven’s Lion

Joking Victim

Secret Team

Say Uncle

No Thanks!

     4. Horror Club      3. Fusion Cuisine      2. House Guest      1. Island Adventure

[terriblyspecificreviews-blog]

Poppy’s Am I A Girl raises more questions than it answers

6 out of 10 stars

Poppy's sophomore October 31st Halloween album release Am I a Girl has been described as "The Most Bewildering Album of Year", "Cold, technical and eerie.", "Spooky Robo-Bubblegum pop",  and "a celebration of all that is capitalist alienation, commodity fetishization, and environmental destruction". This is typical of what you would expect from the "Robot, Satanist, Illuminati Prom Queen" who become a internet meme sensation in 2015 when her disturbing David Lynch inspired Youtube videos went viral, receiving hundreds of millions of views (404,054,129 total views at the time of writing) and thousands of comments providing theories, and conspiracy theories as to what does it all mean.

Context

The first of these videos have seemingly innocuous, mundane and meaningless subject matters; eating candy floss, boredom, having her nails painted, spinning around while holding an umbrella, and a cover of Mac Demarco's My Kind of Woman. There's always an empty pastel coloured background to remove any sense of environmental context with Poppy being the centre focus in the style of Andy Warhol’s screen tests. There's a soft spoken ASMR style quality to the sound production which creates a sense of intimacy with the viewer, as if you the viewer were privy to personal intimate moment; one of the many subtle jarring unsettling aspects to the videos, together with the dissonant ambient soundtracks and Poppy's increasingly robot like delivery as the project developed over time. In this now infamous video Poppy repeats “I'm Poppy” for ten minutes. Poppy and her creative partner Titanic Sinclair (also a pseudonym) have stated there is a storyline to all of these videos, although I'm unsure as to whether this is a put on or sincere, because if there is a story its unclear and ambiguous enough to be open to interpretation, so I'll leave it to the reader to make your mind up as to what that might be. Over time there seems to have been story development however, with recurring characters appearing such as jealous robot plastic doll Charlotte, who released cover album of Poppy track takes, and Plant, who wishes you would stop killing plants; a subtle reference to the issue of climate change juxtaposed with the mundane sentiments of the video subject matters.

In a video review for the Poppy project as a whole, New York Magazines’ Jerry Saltz describes Poppy as “Very derivative art, it looks like a lot of very recent contemporary art about art about art that makes fun of art.” He goes on to link her to contemporary artist Jeff Koons, who through for example his metallic shiny balloon like sculptures reflects the viewer back at themselves. Interestingly Koons has being criticised for producing empty vacuous and meaningless art produced cynically for profit, yet this is one possible interpretation of his work; that he is reflecting the empty vacuous profit driven contemporary art world back at itself in a form of a self referential parody. You can also see this at play in Poppy's work. The video topics on her channel and on producer's Titanic Sinclairs channel are mirroring aspects of popular internet culture back at the viewers, but in a way that seems off and satirical, and yet things are kept ambiguous enough to be indistinguishable from what one might perceive as the “real” thing. It could be that this is a cynical attempt at making money, but this could be seen as a reflection of internet clickbait culture in simply producing content that reach the biggest and most general market possible, which is a pertinent point to make; how many of our present political predicaments are the result of online media outlets sensationalising news for clicks? There are also comparisons to be made with London based electronic music genre PC MUSIC in terms of the themes of Hyperreality and the visual aesthetics, and for example in this video and this video Poppy advertises fictional products, perhaps a nod too PC Music's QT and her energy drink. Poppy perhaps takes this all a step further in starting a new religion for profit with her Poppy.Church and The Gospel of Poppy. Again the lines between satire and reality have been blurred here, but this again could be a satirical commentary on the cult echo chamber like nature of online communities.

Poppy's forray into the music industry was likely always the intention given Titanic Sinclair's history with Mars Argo as a music based project. Her ambient album 3:36 (Music to Sleep to) is a reference to the cryptic video of the same name, and perhaps a reflection of Youtube's countless “ambient music for sleep” playlists. Her music is an extension of the narrative presented in the videos. Her song Adored typifies her bubblegum Electro J-pop inspired sound. 

The message of the video and the lyrics go together. For the whole duration of the video Poppy is just staring down her phone; Looking for “This life I keep hearing about... I wanna be adored I want nothing more”. Is this a cynical reference to people who look to social media for validation and live vicariously through their online personas, or is it a literal reflection of the viewer who also found and watched the video through their phone or laptop screen? Poppy's 2017 debut album Poppy.Computer also explored the hyperreality themes of the blurring lines between “online” “technology” and “real life”. The song Computer Boy is a surrealist love song written about her boyfriend, who also happens to be her laptop computer. In I'm Poppy she asks the listener to “Let me be your queen... Please electrify me, Power my Battery” building on the cult and technology themes, and on INTERWEB she has caught us in her internet.

Album Review

This is an album review, however as Poppy is an internet focused visual art project as well as musical artist the visual experience is as part of the intended delivery as the music itself, so I will include synopsis of the music videos on the necessary tracks. The first single and album opener on Am I A Girl is In A minute. A thumping electro chant similar to the Poppy.Computer opener 'I'm Poppy' presenting a smooth transition in the production aesthetic between the releases, however there is already a darker, melancholic tone to the music suggesting a departure from the happy go lucky parodic sentiment of the previous release and an evolution occurring in this offering into more overtly serious and mature subject matters. “I'll make up my face in a minute.. I'll reform this state in a minute.. Cash my check, got paid, yeah, I did it..I haven't done my nails in a minute" is the repeated mantra, on one level a nod to her previous success and rise to star-dome, on another level she is as always offering a cynical reflection of the values of 'American' or 'Western' (arguably global at this point, but for simplicities sake) Society; she has had time to cash her cheque and congratulate herself, but she relegates 'reforming the state' (please remember the cult forming, I'll be your queen, and 'fake it till you make it' sentiments expressed throughout her work) to the same importance as doing her nails or make-up. The video is a black white and red lyric video with a distorted image of Poppy singing,minimalist like Poppy's earlier videos but seemingly a move to a darker aesthetic compared to the typical bright and pastel music videos of previous years. This is also reflected in recent black and white photographs, and her collaborations and hanging out with the likes of Marilyn Manson and Korn's Jonathan Davis.  

Second album track and third single Fashion After All is another stompy pop track, less in the vain of her staple J-pop / K-pop sound but on a production note similar to the works of Lady Gaga and Jeffrey Star. Lyrically Poppy is just bragging, something very prevalent in today's top 40 pop appropriated from the braggadocio of hip hop, so this is likely a take on that, although the line “I'm revolutionary, relatable and scary, I'm making plans to save the world and I don't need your help” does make me wonder how much of it is a genuinely honest sentiment and we're seeing some hint of intention or climax to the Poppy project.

The next track Iconic is about self confidence, and how easy it is to be 'iconic'. I hear more Lady Gaga style influence here. “You don't have to be flawless, put on a little polish, run the bedroom to the office, you gotta be iconic, in school, they never taught it, don't worry, babe, I got you, and if you really, really want it, you gotta be iconic”. There's a serious point here that the only thing that makes 'celebrities' different from 'non celebrities' is a veneer of confidence and their crafted public perception. This is a genuinely important message when it has been revealed social media is deliberately engineered to fuel insecurity and anxiety, with some social media companies running non consensual psychological experiments on their customers to make them depressed in an age of record teenage suicides and mental health problems. The key words here are “if you really, really want it” there's not much to it, it's just an image; a presentation. This is also a very interesting message when you consider the Poppy starting a religion/cult aspect.This could be taken as a positive message in the sea of apparent cynicism that is the Poppy project, and likewise the song's tone has a very upbeat and positive feel in the context of a slightly darker and more mature album.

The albums second single is Time Is Up, and this certainly takes it to this darker place, musically and with it's apocalyptic subject matter. Probably the catchiest track on the album and probably the most important. Poppy sings from the point of view of an AI robot waking up in a factory, there is a link here to the theme of blurring lines between reality and the internet as Poppy is seen in her videos to become more robot like over time. There's some humour in this opening, which offsets the rest of the songs lyrics in which Poppy's AI character informs us all that while she won't need “air to breathe when you kill the bees And every river bed is dry as a bone.. when the plants have died and the atmosphere is just a big hole”, our time is up; meaning our (humans) self made extinction. She proceeds to inform us we are like cockroaches and extermination is our only hope. The humour here makes it such a hard hitting point. As Contrapoints brilliantly explains and dissects in this video far more succinctly then I have space for here, a lot of Americans have a problem accepting man made climate change despite the overwhelming evidence of it's reality and the absolute necessity of action against it at this point in time. The President is a climate change denier as is his elected head of the Environmental Protection Agency is too, and arguably this is the most pressing issue of our time, so it's perhaps unsurprising Poppy and co chose to deviate from their usual ambiguity and be so overt here. Purely from a pragmatic point of view humour can make things easier for people to accept and so I commend Poppy and her team for pulling this off so well. 

The title track Am I A Girl treads the waters of ambiguity once again however. Taken literally at face value the lyrics are about moving beyond the gender binary, “Am I a girl? Am I a boy? What does that even mean? I'm somewhere in between”. The lyrics seem overly simplistic and lacking in depth and nuance however. As this Vulture article points out, this is an artist who has used lyrics like “Boys aren't even boys anymore” and “You are never in the mood / So come on baby, tell me, are you gay?” in the past. Poppy when asked when she took interest in questioning societies gender constructs replies “When other celebrities started exploring it”, while this could be interpreted at simple sarcasm it does not translate well, and so I think the Vulture writer has good reason to take offence here, this can be interpreted as making light of a very serious issue for the sake of a joke that doesn't even clearly make sense. While I would also like to give the benefit of the doubt here, it's hard to find a practical way in which celebrities drawing attention to LGBTQ+ issues could be taken as something that should be attacked. This is disappointing as it undermines a positive and liberating message for the sake of a cheap shot at celebrity culture. That said, in Time Is Up Poppy said we all deserved to be exterminated, so maybe I'm missing something.

Play Destroy drew some significant hype for the album owing to it's featuring and co-production with electronic artist Grimes, though the process did not go smoothly. There's a significant shift in the sound aesthetic here, continuing on from the track Hard Feeling's introduction of metal guitar riffs, juxtaposed with the J-pop inspired bubblegum pop aesthetic. As catchy as the song is, I can't shake the feeling that their call to “Burn down the local Wal-Mart Monsanto, Raytheon” isn't entirely a sincere anti-corporation sentiment given the once again one dimensional approach to the lyrics and the fact Grimes's partner at the time was Elon Musk. Still musically this is an album highlight for me with it's blurring of genre's and particularly glossy vocal production.

The album finale X takes this genre blurring to an extreme with it's sugary reverb soaked calls to save the world and “empty every bullet out of every gun”, and the screaming metal sections and ridiculous chorus of “Please get me bloody”. The choice to release this as a video with equally juxtaposing imagery to match the music and the overall album theme of a darkening of imagery from the previous album/photos/imagery to this one, and the choice to end the album on this note offers a suggestion of where the Poppy project is going next. I will be keeping track of it as it unfolds, because the deeper I search for meaning here the more unsure I become as to what the intention behind it all really is, and perhaps as New York Magazines’ Jerry Saltz suggested they don't really know what it means or what the purpose is. What happens next will set the context for this one, given the attempts to construct a narrative on this album and in recent Poppy videos, we still don't know what this is and the celebrity LGBTQ+ comment sets a worrying precedent even if it was an ill informed attempt at sarcasm.

I believe that some clarity is needed at some point in the near future, you can only be so vague and tell the same cryptic joke repeatedly before it becomes meaningless nonsense. For the time being I give the album a 6 out of 10 score for it’s well written, glossy, genre bending and frankly fun pop, but I think time will tell how well the album and the project to which it belongs ages.

[latenightcinephile]

#759: ‘El Topo’, dir. Alejandro Jodorowsky, 1970.

CW: discussions of rape.

This is the film that I described as ‘EAT THE HONEYCOMB OF SADNESS’ about five years ago. I like it more and less than I did five years ago, and it’s not too difficult to explain why: I like it more because it’s funnier in an unintentional way, and I like it less because it’s stupidly incoherent. But because ‘eh, whatever’, isn’t a particularly meaningful response to a supposedly great film, I’m going to use it as a jumping-off point to talk about symbolism, and why it just doesn’t work in El Topo.

When the film first premiered, it was not considered to be particularly successful. On a narrative level, El Topo isn’t complicated. It has two halves, which can be reduced to straightforward Western tropes. In the first half, a gunslinger defeats some bad guys who terrorised a town. The gunslinger abandons his child with some priests to travel with a woman, who tells him that in order to become the best gunslinger, he must defeat four others, who provide spiritual wisdom to the protagonist. After defeating these four gunslingers, the woman betrays him, leaving with another woman she has (possibly, it’s unclear) fallen in love with. So: a journey of improvement, a betrayal. In the second half, the gunslinger is rescued by a group of disabled people who have been trapped in a cave. El Topo (the gunslinger) leaves and seeks money from the nearby town to let the trapped people escape. The town is decadent and depraved, and when El Topo succeeds in freeing the cave-dwellers, they are immediately slaughtered by the citizens of the town. El Topo kills the villagers in return, and sets himself on fire. His son, a new priest in the town, leaves wearing his father’s clothes. So: rebirth, eye-for-an-eye vigilantism, a takedown of so-called civilised values. It’s Eastwood’s High Plains Drifter on an acid trip.

What Jodorowsky adds to El Topo is symbolism, heavily, without respite, and sometimes at the expense of thematic clarity. This may be deliberate, but the question that dogs the film is whether the symbolism amounts to anything. Roger Ebert observes that when we see El Topo’s child in the first half of the film, he is naked. As a result of this, he becomes not just a child, but the symbolic Child. The kid is a symbol of himself. That said, anybody can put symbolism in their film (as someone who studied The Matrix for three years, I have a familiarity with overblown symbolism). Jodorowsky doesn’t give a clear sense that the symbolism of the film adds up to anything. It’s visually compelling, sure, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything beyond ‘Alejandro sure does know the Bible exists’. Fernando Croce, over at Slant, suggests that the film defies easy readings and encourages “audience involvement via active interpretation”, but active interpretation is only a sustainable activity if it seems like it may be rewarding, like solving puzzles - if you aren’t receiving any input that tells you you’re on the right track, it’s easy to lose interest. Jodorowsky appears to have no intention of providing this input to the viewer.

An example from El Topo might demonstrate this. The ‘honeycomb of sadness’ I referred to before shows how unrewarding interpretation can be. Following his betrayal by the two women, El Topo runs in grief to the ‘temples’ of the four gunslingers he had defeated. The graves have been colonised by honeycombs (as El Topo’s own body will be at the end of the film). El Topo rubs his face with one of the honeycombs, and screams. What does the honeycomb mean? Is it a sign of betrayal somehow? Of violence and death? Can it be linked to any of the Biblical imagery elsewhere in the film, such as the lion’s carcass colonised by a beehive? None of these readings seem to illuminate the film in any way, and most of these potential readings don’t connect to anything else in the film. Without clear guidance to the meaning of the symbol, there’s no point in interpreting it. This is made worse by the film’s active undermining of its own messages. The first gunslinger El Topo must defeat teaches him the spiritual lesson common in many 1970s kung fu films - a test of speed. “Try and grab this object from in front of me on the count of three”, the gunslinger says, and begins counting. El Topo naturally fails this challenge, but only because the gunslinger grabs the item on the count of two. If there is a lesson here, it would have to be that El Topo should cheat, firing his gun early. But even then, El Topo never takes this (terrible) lesson to heart - he learns nothing. Alternatively, is the point of the gunslinger’s lesson that the gunslinger has lost his way, cheating his disciple? Who knows? These contradictions are throughout the film. Does the Russian Roulette scene in the church suggest that organised religion is bad, or that blind faith is bad? Does it mean anything?

If these questions were purely abstract, then that would be one thing. But, perhaps unintentionally, Jodorowsky seems to mine this lack of clarity outside the context of the film. This is where is gets... awful.

Early in the film, El Topo and the woman are wandering in the desert. El Topo suddenly knocks the woman to the sand and rapes her. This scene is so abrupt and brief that its impact is lessened in the film, but what’s disquieting is what Jodorowsky said about this scene: “When I wanted to do the rape scene, I explained to [Mara Lorenzio] that I was going to hit her and rape her. There was no emotional relationship between us, because I had put a clause in all the women's contracts stating that they would not make love with the director. We had never talked to each other. I knew nothing about her. We went to the desert with two other people: the photographer and a technician. No one else. I said, 'I'm not going to rehearse. There will be only one take because it will be impossible to repeat. Roll the cameras only when I signal you to.' Then I told her, 'Pain does not hurt. Hit me.' And she hit me. I said, 'Harder.' And she started to hit me very hard, hard enough to break a rib... I ached for a week. After she had hit me long enough and hard enough to tire her, I said, 'Now it's my turn. Roll the cameras.' And I really... I really... I really raped her. And she screamed." Elsewhere, Jodorowsky has described the sex as consensual, and because the scene is so brief it’s not clear that the sex is real at all. The actress, Mara Lorenzio, doesn’t seem to have commented on the event. But the director’s comments are appalling. I want to believe that this didn’t happen, for the sake of Lorenzio’s safety. But I can’t discount that possibility. Jodorowsky added: “You see, for me the character is frigid until El Topo rapes her. And she has an orgasm. That's why I show a stone phallus in that scene . . . which spouts water. She has an orgasm. She accepts the male sex. And that's what happened to Mara in reality. She really had that problem. Fantastic scene. A very, very strong scene.”

For me. For me. The problem here is that Jodorowsky sees - or at least pretends to see - a character of his creation as frigid, and saved by the director’s dick. He then goes on to imply that in real life Lorenzio was made accepting of sex by an experience of rape. And he sees his own belief about this as valid. Because, in the end, every interpretation of a film like El Topo is valid. It’s a book where the words don’t mean anything. And that risks making real-life, terrible events open to interpretation. It might not have been an act of unsimulated rape, but even if it was, it’s okay, Jodorowski says. It has meaning. It’s a symbol.

Alejandro Jodorowski’s El Topo is visually fascinating, and unintentionally funny. It’s full of tropes and symbols that are arresting to the viewer, and some horrible content too. It’s tempting to write the entire film off as meaning...

...but there are some things in the film that can’t be written off like that.

[technicalsolutions88]

Telegram has added a feature that lets a user delete messages in one-to-one and/or group private chats, after the fact, and not only from their own inbox.

The new ‘nuclear option’ delete feature allows a user to selectively delete their own messages and/or messages sent by any/all others in the chat. They don’t even have to have composed the original message or begun the thread to do so. They can just decide it’s time.

Let that sink in.

All it now takes is a few taps to wipe all trace of a historical communication — from both your own inbox and the inbox(es) of whoever else you were chatting with (assuming they’re running the latest version of Telegram’s app).

Just over a year ago Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg was criticized for silently and selectively testing a similar feature by deleting messages he’d sent from his interlocutors’ inboxes — leaving absurdly one-sided conversations. The episode was dubbed yet another Facebook breach of user trust.

Facebook later rolled out a much diluted Unsend feature — giving all users the ability to recall a message they’d sent but only within the first 10 minutes.

Telegram has gone much, much further. This is a perpetual, universal unsend of anything in a private chat.

The “delete any message in both ends in any private chat, anytime” feature has been added in an update to version 5.5 of Telegram — which the messaging app bills as offering “more privacy”, among a slate of other updates including search enhancements and more granular controls.

To delete a message from both ends a user taps on the message, selects ‘delete’ and then they’re offered a choice of ‘delete for [the name of the other person in the chat or for ‘everyone’] or ‘delete for me’. Selecting the former deletes the message everywhere, while the later just removes it from your own inbox.

Explaining the rational for adding such a nuclear option via a post to his public Telegram channel yesterday, founder Pavel Durov argues the feature is necessary because of the risk of old messages being taken out of context — suggesting the problem is getting worse as the volume of private data stored by chat partners continues to grow exponentially.

“Over the last 10-20 years, each of us exchanged millions of messages with thousands of people. Most of those communication logs are stored somewhere in other people’s inboxes, outside of our reach. Relationships start and end, but messaging histories with ex-friends and ex-colleagues remain available forever,” he writes.

“An old message you already forgot about can be taken out of context and used against you decades later. A hasty text you sent to a girlfriends in school can come haunt you in 2030 when you decide to run for mayor.”

Durov goes on to claim that the new wholesale delete gives users “complete control” over messages, regardless of who sent them.

However that’s not really what it does. More accurately it removes control from everyone in any private chat, and opens the door to the most paranoid; lowest common denominator; and/or a sort of general entropy/anarchy — allowing anyone in any private thread to choose to edit or even completely nuke the chat history if they so wish at any moment in time.

The feature could allow for self-servingly and selectively silent and/or malicious edits that are intended to gaslight/screw with others, such as by making them look mad or bad. (A quick screengrab later and a ‘post-truth’ version of a chat thread is ready for sharing elsewhere, where it could be passed off a genuine conversation even though it’s manipulated and therefore fake.)

Or else the motivation for editing chat history could be a genuine concern over privacy, such as to be able to remove sensitive or intimate stuff — say after a relationship breaks down.

Or just for kicks/the lolz between friends.

Either way, whoever deletes first seizes control of the chat history — taking control away from everyone else in the process. RIP consent. This is possible because Telegram’s implementation of the super delete feature covers all messages, not just your own, and literally removes all trace of the deleted comms.

So unlike rival messaging app WhatsApp, which also lets users delete a message for everyone in a chat after the fact of sending it (though in that case the delete everywhere feature is strictly limited to messages a person sent themselves), there is no notification automatically baked into the chat history to record that a message was deleted.

There’s no record, period. The ‘record’ is purged. There’s no sign at all there was ever a message in the first place.

We tested this — and, well, wow.

It’s hard to think of a good reason not to create at very least a record that a message was deleted which would offer a check on misuse.

But Telegram has not offered anything. Anyone can secretly and silently purge the private record.

Again, wow.

There’s also no way for a user to recall a deleted message after deleting it (even the person who hit the delete button). At face value it appears to be gone for good. (A security audit would be required to determine whether a copy lingers anywhere on Telegram’s servers for standard chats; only its ‘secret chats’ feature uses end-to-end encryption which it claims “leave no trace on our servers”.)

In our tests on iOS we also found that no notifications is sent when a message is deleted from a Telegram private chat so other people in an old convo might simply never notice changes have been made, or not until long after. After all human memory is far from perfect and old chat threads are exactly the sort of fast-flowing communication medium where it’s really easy to forget exact details of what was said.

Durov makes that point himself in defence of enabling the feature, arguing in favor of it so that silly stuff you once said can’t be dredged back up to haunt you.

But it cuts both ways. (The other way being the ability for the sender of an abusive message to delete it and pretend it never existed, for example, or for a flasher to send and subsequently delete dick pics.)

The feature is so powerful there’s clearly massive potential for abuse. Whether that’s by criminals using Telegram to sell drugs or traffic other stuff illegally, and hitting the delete everywhere button to cover their tracks and purge any record of their nefarious activity; or by coercive/abusive individuals seeking to screw with a former friend or partner.

The best way to think of Telegram now is that all private communications in the app are essentially ephemeral.

Anyone you’ve ever chatted to could decide to delete everything you said (or they said) and go ahead without your knowledge let alone your consent.

The lack of any notification that a message has been deleted will certainly open Telegram to accusations it’s being irresponsible by offering such a nuclear delete option with zero guard rails. (And, indeed, there’s no shortage of angry comments on its tweet announcing the feature.)

Though the company is no stranger to controversy and has structured its business intentionally to minimize the risk of it being subject to any kind of regulatory and/or state control, with servers spread opaquely all over the world, and a nomadic development operation which sees its coders regularly switch the country they’re working out of for months at a time.

Durov himself acknowledges there is a risk of misuse of the feature in his channel post, where he writes: “We know some people may get concerned about the potential misuse of this feature or about the permanence of their chat histories. We thought carefully through those issues, but we think the benefit of having control over your own digital footprint should be paramount.”

Again, though, that’s a one-sided interpretation of what’s actually being enabled here. Because the feature inherently removes control from anyone it’s applied to. So it only offers ‘control’ to the person who first thinks to exercise it. Which is in itself a form of massive power asymmetry.

For historical chats the person who deletes first might be someone with something bad to hide. Or it might be the most paranoid person with the best threat awareness and personal privacy hygiene.

But suggesting the feature universally hands control to everyone simply isn’t true.

It’s an argument in line with a libertarian way of thinking that lauds the individual as having agency — and therefore seeks to empower the person who exercises it. (And Durov is a long time advocate for libertarianism so the design choice meshes with his personal philosophy.)

On a practical level, the presence of such a nuclear delete on Telegram’s platform arguably means the only sensible option for all users that don’t want to abandon the platform is to proactive delete all private chats on a regular and rolling basis — to minimize the risk of potential future misuse and/or manipulation of their chat history. (Albeit, what doing that will do to your friendships is a whole other question.)

Users may also wish to backup their own chats because they can no longer rely on Telegram to do that for them.

While, at the other end of the spectrum — for those really wanting to be really sure they totally nuke all message trace — there are a couple of practical pitfalls that could throw a spanner in the works.  

In our tests we found Telegram’s implementation did not delete push notifications. So with recently sent and deleted messages it was still possible to view the content of a deleted message via a persisting push notification even after the message itself had been deleted within the app.

Though of course, for historical chats — which is where this feature is being aimed; aka rewriting chat history — there’s not likely to be any push notifications still floating around months or even years later to cause a headache.

The other major issue is the feature is unlikely to function properly on earlier versions of Telegram. So if you go ahead and ‘delete everywhere’ there’s no way back to try and delete a message again if it was not successfully purged everywhere because someone in the chat was still running an older version of Telegram.

Plus of course if anyone has screengrabbed your chats already there’s nothing you can do about that.

In terms of wider impact, the nuclear delete might also have the effect of encouraging more screengrabbing (or other backups) — as users hedge against future message manipulation and/or purging. Or to make sure they have a record of abuse.

Which would just create more copies of your private messages in places you can’t at all control and where they could potentially leak if the person creating the backups doesn’t secure them properly so the whole thing risks being counterproductive to privacy and security, really.

Durov claims he’s comfortable with the contents of his own Telegram inbox, writing on his channel that “there’s not much I would want to delete for both sides” — while simultaneously claiming that “for the first time in 23 years of private messaging, I feel truly free and in control”.

The truth is the sensation of control he’s feeling is fleeting and relative.

In another test we performed we were able to delete private messages from Durov’s own inbox, including missives we’d sent to him in a private chat and one he’d sent us. (At least, in so far as we could tell — not having access to Telegram servers to confirm. But the delete option was certainly offered and content (both ours and his) disappeared from our end after we hit the relevant purge button.)

Only Durov could confirm for sure that the messages have gone from his end too. And most probably he’d have trouble doing so as it would require incredible memory for minor detail.

But the point is if the deletion functioned as Telegram claims it does, purging equally at both ends, then Durov was not in control at all because we reached right into his inbox and selectively rubbed some stuff out. He got no say at all.

That’s a funny kind of agency and a funny kind of control.

One thing certainly remains in Telegram users’ control: The ability to choose your friends — and choose who you talk to privately.

Turns out you need to exercise that power very wisely.

Otherwise, well, other encrypted messaging apps are available.

from Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2YmFo8A Original Content From: https://techcrunch.com

[sheminecrafts]

Telegram adds ‘delete everywhere’ nuclear option — killing chat history

Telegram has added a feature that lets a user delete messages in one-to-one and/or group private chats, after the fact, and not only from their own inbox.

The new ‘nuclear option’ delete feature allows a user to selectively delete their own messages and/or messages sent by any/all others in the chat. They don’t even have to have composed the original message or begun the thread to do so. They can just decide it’s time.

Let that sink in.

All it now takes is a few taps to wipe all trace of a historical communication — from both your own inbox and the inbox(es) of whoever else you were chatting with (assuming they’re running the latest version of Telegram’s app).

Just over a year ago Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg was criticized for silently and selectively testing a similar feature by deleting messages he’d sent from his interlocutors’ inboxes — leaving absurdly one-sided conversations. The episode was dubbed yet another Facebook breach of user trust.

Facebook later rolled out a much diluted Unsend feature — giving all users the ability to recall a message they’d sent but only within the first 10 minutes.

Telegram has gone much, much further. This is a perpetual, universal unsend of anything in a private chat.

The “delete any message in both ends in any private chat, anytime” feature has been added in an update to version 5.5 of Telegram — which the messaging app bills as offering “more privacy”, among a slate of other updates including search enhancements and more granular controls.

To delete a message from both ends a user taps on the message, selects ‘delete’ and then they’re offered a choice of ‘delete for [the name of the other person in the chat or for ‘everyone’] or ‘delete for me’. Selecting the former deletes the message everywhere, while the later just removes it from your own inbox.

Explaining the rational for adding such a nuclear option via a post to his public Telegram channel yesterday, founder Pavel Durov argues the feature is necessary because of the risk of old messages being taken out of context — suggesting the problem is getting worse as the volume of private data stored by chat partners continues to grow exponentially.

“Over the last 10-20 years, each of us exchanged millions of messages with thousands of people. Most of those communication logs are stored somewhere in other people’s inboxes, outside of our reach. Relationships start and end, but messaging histories with ex-friends and ex-colleagues remain available forever,” he writes.

“An old message you already forgot about can be taken out of context and used against you decades later. A hasty text you sent to a girlfriends in school can come haunt you in 2030 when you decide to run for mayor.”

Durov goes on to claim that the new wholesale delete gives users “complete control” over messages, regardless of who sent them.

However that’s not really what it does. More accurately it removes control from everyone in any private chat, and opens the door to the most paranoid; lowest common denominator; and/or a sort of general entropy/anarchy — allowing anyone in any private thread to choose to edit or even completely nuke the chat history if they so wish at any moment in time.

The feature could allow for self-servingly and selectively silent and/or malicious edits that are intended to gaslight/screw with others, such as by making them look mad or bad. (A quick screengrab later and a ‘post-truth’ version of a chat thread is ready for sharing elsewhere, where it could be passed off a genuine conversation even though it’s manipulated and therefore fake.)

Or else the motivation for editing chat history could be a genuine concern over privacy, such as to be able to remove sensitive or intimate stuff — say after a relationship breaks down.

Or just for kicks/the lolz between friends.

Either way, whoever deletes first seizes control of the chat history — taking control away from everyone else in the process. RIP consent. This is possible because Telegram’s implementation of the super delete feature covers all messages, not just your own, and literally removes all trace of the deleted comms.

So unlike rival messaging app WhatsApp, which also lets users delete a message for everyone in a chat after the fact of sending it (though in that case the delete everywhere feature is strictly limited to messages a person sent themselves), there is no notification automatically baked into the chat history to record that a message was deleted.

There’s no record, period. The ‘record’ is purged. There’s no sign at all there was ever a message in the first place.

We tested this — and, well, wow.

It’s hard to think of a good reason not to create at very least a record that a message was deleted which would offer a check on misuse.

But Telegram has not offered anything. Anyone can secretly and silently purge the private record.

Again, wow.

There’s also no way for a user to recall a deleted message after deleting it (even the person who hit the delete button). At face value it appears to be gone for good. (A security audit would be required to determine whether a copy lingers anywhere on Telegram’s servers for standard chats; only its ‘secret chats’ feature uses end-to-end encryption which it claims “leave no trace on our servers”.)

In our tests on iOS we also found that no notifications is sent when a message is deleted from a Telegram private chat so other people in an old convo might simply never notice changes have been made, or not until long after. After all human memory is far from perfect and old chat threads are exactly the sort of fast-flowing communication medium where it’s really easy to forget exact details of what was said.

Durov makes that point himself in defence of enabling the feature, arguing in favor of it so that silly stuff you once said can’t be dredged back up to haunt you.

But it cuts both ways. (The other way being the ability for the sender of an abusive message to delete it and pretend it never existed, for example, or for a flasher to send and subsequently delete dick pics.)

The feature is so powerful there’s clearly massive potential for abuse. Whether that’s by criminals using Telegram to sell drugs or traffic other stuff illegally, and hitting the delete everywhere button to cover their tracks and purge any record of their nefarious activity; or by coercive/abusive individuals seeking to screw with a former friend or partner.

The best way to think of Telegram now is that all private communications in the app are essentially ephemeral.

Anyone you’ve ever chatted to could decide to delete everything you said (or they said) and go ahead without your knowledge let alone your consent.

The lack of any notification that a message has been deleted will certainly open Telegram to accusations it’s being irresponsible by offering such a nuclear delete option with zero guard rails. (And, indeed, there’s no shortage of angry comments on its tweet announcing the feature.)

Though the company is no stranger to controversy and has structured its business intentionally to minimize the risk of it being subject to any kind of regulatory and/or state control, with servers spread opaquely all over the world, and a nomadic development operation which sees its coders regularly switch the country they’re working out of for months at a time.

Durov himself acknowledges there is a risk of misuse of the feature in his channel post, where he writes: “We know some people may get concerned about the potential misuse of this feature or about the permanence of their chat histories. We thought carefully through those issues, but we think the benefit of having control over your own digital footprint should be paramount.”

Again, though, that’s a one-sided interpretation of what’s actually being enabled here. Because the feature inherently removes control from anyone it’s applied to. So it only offers ‘control’ to the person who first thinks to exercise it. Which is in itself a form of massive power asymmetry.

For historical chats the person who deletes first might be someone with something bad to hide. Or it might be the most paranoid person with the best threat awareness and personal privacy hygiene.

But suggesting the feature universally hands control to everyone simply isn’t true.

It’s an argument in line with a libertarian way of thinking that lauds the individual as having agency — and therefore seeks to empower the person who exercises it. (And Durov is a long time advocate for libertarianism so the design choice meshes with his personal philosophy.)

On a practical level, the presence of such a nuclear delete on Telegram’s platform arguably means the only sensible option for all users that don’t want to abandon the platform is to proactive delete all private chats on a regular and rolling basis — to minimize the risk of potential future misuse and/or manipulation of their chat history. (Albeit, what doing that will do to your friendships is a whole other question.)

Users may also wish to backup their own chats because they can no longer rely on Telegram to do that for them.

While, at the other end of the spectrum — for those really wanting to be really sure they totally nuke all message trace — there are a couple of practical pitfalls that could throw a spanner in the works.  

In our tests we found Telegram’s implementation did not delete push notifications. So with recently sent and deleted messages it was still possible to view the content of a deleted message via a persisting push notification even after the message itself had been deleted within the app.

Though of course, for historical chats — which is where this feature is being aimed; aka rewriting chat history — there’s not likely to be any push notifications still floating around months or even years later to cause a headache.

The other major issue is the feature is unlikely to function properly on earlier versions of Telegram. So if you go ahead and ‘delete everywhere’ there’s no way back to try and delete a message again if it was not successfully purged everywhere because someone in the chat was still running an older version of Telegram.

Plus of course if anyone has screengrabbed your chats already there’s nothing you can do about that.

In terms of wider impact, the nuclear delete might also have the effect of encouraging more screengrabbing (or other backups) — as users hedge against future message manipulation and/or purging. Or to make sure they have a record of abuse.

Which would just create more copies of your private messages in places you can’t at all control and where they could potentially leak if the person creating the backups doesn’t secure them properly so the whole thing risks being counterproductive to privacy and security, really.

Durov claims he’s comfortable with the contents of his own Telegram inbox, writing on his channel that “there’s not much I would want to delete for both sides” — while simultaneously claiming that “for the first time in 23 years of private messaging, I feel truly free and in control”.

The truth is the sensation of control he’s feeling is fleeting and relative.

In another test we performed we were able to delete private messages from Durov’s own inbox, including missives we’d sent to him in a private chat and one he’d sent us. (At least, in so far as we could tell — not having access to Telegram servers to confirm. But the delete option was certainly offered and content (both ours and his) disappeared from our end after we hit the relevant purge button.)

Only Durov could confirm for sure that the messages have gone from his end too. And most probably he’d have trouble doing so as it would require incredible memory for minor detail.

But the point is if the deletion functioned as Telegram claims it does, purging equally at both ends, then Durov was not in control at all because we reached right into his inbox and selectively rubbed some stuff out. He got no say at all.

That’s a funny kind of agency and a funny kind of control.

One thing certainly remains in Telegram users’ control: The ability to choose your friends — and choose who you talk to privately.

Turns out you need to exercise that power very wisely.

Otherwise, well, other encrypted messaging apps are available.

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/2YmFo8A via IFTTT